The Diary — Old Hoax or New or Not a Hoax at All?​

[rjpalmer]

I think it would be very difficult to credibly argue that 'Maybrick' could accurately recall that he hadn't cut off all of Kate Eddowes' nose in the brief, dark encounter in Mitre Square but somehow got confused and later wrongly boasted of cutting all of Mary Kelly's nose during a longer encounter in a room in which there was a fire.

[rjpalmer]

Interpreting exactly what was meant by 'partly removed' over a century later, and treating that as an absolute, surgical measurement is a shaky foundation for a disqualifying claim.

If you find the term 'partly removed' difficult to interpret 'exactly,' perhaps you should find another hobby?

What can 'partly removed' mean, other than partly removed? Are you implying it was fully removed, and Bond was inaccurate?

Dr. Bond was specifically brought in by Dr. Robert Anderson due to his expertise in examining extremely horrific crime scenes, including the Battersea Mystery of 1873-74, the Rainham case (1887), and the Whitehall Mystery the previous month. That Bond is using "restrained language" in describing the injuries to Mary Kelly's face is precisely why we should accept his report without reservation.

He is detailed, clinical, and unsensational. The victim's face, unlike her viscera, was not dissected, nor where her ears, eyes, nose, or eyebrows amputated. It was 'gashed' indiscriminately and no parts were removed. There is no room for reasonable doubt, no matter how the special pleaders wish to muddy the Thames.

Indeed, I would suggest it is a disservice to the victims to play semantic games in defense of an undeniable hoax.

What you left out of your analysis is equally telling. The hoaxer is comparing his mutilations in the Kelly case to the previous murder, that of Kate Eddowes. This is significant.

"like the other whore I cut off the bitches nose, all of it this time."

Not only is he inaccurately boasting of having completely cut off Kelly's nose, and stressing "all of it" (which we know is not true) he states that he did it "this time" with the obvious implication that he had failed the previous time. Which is historically true.


In the previous murder Kate Eddowes' nose was also severed (the only other victim so mutilated) but most of it was still attached and only tip was removed and he is demonstrating knowledge of this.

"The tip of the nose was quite detached from the nose by an oblique cut from the bottom of the nasal bone to where the winds of the noise join to the face."

To paraphrase: "This time I am cutting the nose all the way off."

So, there is no wriggling room; he is insisting that he cut the nose completely off--he is stressing it---and this flies in the face of Bond's medical report.

This is no "stylistic mismatch.' No rational person can, with any credibility, describe this as anything other than an error.

certainly not on its own.

Who said it stands on its own?

In describing the Kelly murder, the hoaxer is also wrong about leaving the breasts on the bedside table and fleeing with 'the key' that Abberline proved was non-existent because Barnett had lost it some days or weeks earlier.

Or do you also wish to defend those errors in a document that is not even in Maybrick's handwriting?

[Scott Nelson]

Would you like to explain to everyone why “Herlock” is in quotation marks Scott? Another underhand dig.

No. You don't use your real name when you post.

[The Baron]

The nose comparison doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny as disproof.

First, the phrasing is too vague to form a meaningful contradiction. Bond’s report says the nose was 'partly removed' .. not how much, or in what way. The diary says ‘cut off the bitch’s nose, all of it this time.’ The difference between ‘partly’ and ‘all’ might seem stark at first glance, but we’re talking about a highly mutilated corpse described by a doctor in restrained language versus a dramatized confession. It’s entirely possible for both to be referring to the same injury from different perspectives, especially given the ambiguity of ‘partly removed’ in a report where the entire face was described as 'gashed in all directions'.

Second, this assumes a level of precision in Bond’s note that it may not have. We're dealing with a mutilation scene so extreme that even the mortuary photographs show significant facial destruction. Interpreting exactly what was meant by 'partly removed' over a century later, and treating that as an absolute, surgical measurement is a shaky foundation for a disqualifying claim.

At best, this is a stylistic mismatch. It’s not strong enough to disprove anything, certainly not on its own.

More importantly, if the diary is genuine, its description reflects the killer’s personal recollection, which wouldn’t match the clinical tone of Bond’s official report. The diary’s 'all of it this time' expresses the murderer’s own memory or emphasis, not a forensic assessment.

So this discrepancy doesn’t disprove the diary, it could either point to a hoaxer working with partial info or to an authentic source recalling events differently from a medical professional.

Tragic, really.. all that butchery, and the case unravels over a disagreement about nasal surface area. At this point, the anti-diary crowd’s specialty isn’t solving mysteries.. it’s spectacularly losing arguments over and over like it’s an extreme sport.



The Baron

[rjpalmer]

Hi Tom,

From Dr. Thomas Bonds' report to Sir Robert Anderson, 16 November 1888, describing the murder of Mary Kelly. This report was thought lost until 1987, and it took several more years until it was widely known.

"The face was gashed in all directions the nose, cheeks, eyebrows & ears being partly removed."

Partly removed.

From 'Maybrick's' confessional photo album, describing his murder of Mary Kelly.




"like the other whore I cut off the bitches nose, all of it this time."

Discuss.

[rjpalmer]

Here’s the thing, I still believe the diary is a hoax. But credit where it’s due, the diary defenders have absolutely outclassed the anti crowd in this debate. And that’s the real embarrassment, isn’t it? I mean, when the people defending a forgery are making more sense, better arguments, and showing more composure than those supposedly standing for ‘truth’.. it kind of makes you wonder who’s really off the rails.

At this point, some of the anti-diary responses feel less like rational skepticism and more like a group therapy session for people who can’t handle being out-argued. It’s like watching someone lose a chess match, then accuse the board of being haunted.

Being right doesn't count for much when you present it like a drunk uncle at a wedding.. loud, repetitive, and somehow still losing the room.


The Baron

Don't keep it vague with your proclamations, Baron. Be specific. Give examples.

What arguments by the diary supporters do you find persuasive? Could you spare some time away from your Lechmere fiction to explain Tom Mitchell's "doppelganger" theory so it makes sense?

Give us some examples of how their arguments are rational.

Thanks!

[The Baron]

Here’s the thing, I still believe the diary is a hoax. But credit where it’s due, the diary defenders have absolutely outclassed the anti crowd in this debate. And that’s the real embarrassment, isn’t it? I mean, when the people defending a forgery are making more sense, better arguments, and showing more composure than those supposedly standing for ‘truth’.. it kind of makes you wonder who’s really off the rails.

At this point, some of the anti-diary responses feel less like rational skepticism and more like a group therapy session for people who can’t handle being out-argued. It’s like watching someone lose a chess match, then accuse the board of being haunted.

Being right doesn't count for much when you present it like a drunk uncle at a wedding.. loud, repetitive, and somehow still losing the room.


The Baron

[rjpalmer]

An objection will be made that, according to his own account, Barrett eventually did buy a blank 'diary' locally, which would put him at risk.

But the inherent risk of buying a photograph album anonymously at an auction with cash and then pawning off the album as a 'diary' (which might not ring any bells) is far less than leaving one's true name and number with booksellers around town--especially for such an unusual request. And, at any rate, once he failed to get what he wanted in Oxford, he may have become more reckless.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Herlock,

Just a bit of idle conversation since we are all wasting our time anyway....

I only have a dim idea of your age, but if you don't mind me asking, do you remember how UK phone bills 'worked' in the early 1990s?

From what I understand, a call from Goldie Street to Oxford in 1992 would have been long distance and there would have been a separate charge. The way it worked in the U.S. is that these separate long-distance calls were itemized, call by call, on one's monthly phone bill. I have distinct memories of my parents scrutinizing their phone bills back in the day, with my father saying something along the lines of 'who the hell called Los Angeles and talked for ten minutes? Who do we know in Hollywood?"

In Ripper Diary we learn that Anne Graham held the purse strings on Goldie Street. She had the checking account, and she paid the bills. Anne also complained about how tight money was. Is it at all plausible that Barrett could have made a long distance call to Oxford in March 1992, long enough to make an intimate description of what he wanted, and Anne Graham wouldn't have been aware of it when April's bill showed up?

And not long after this Barrett needs to bum 25 pounds so he can pay for a useless 1891 diary?

I'm more than a little skeptical that Anne could only remember that the book cost 20 pounds.

And why Oxford? The 1991 UK census lists Liverpool's population at over 450,000 and the greater 'urban area' at over 800,000. Surely there were several local bookstores that would have been more than happy to search for rare books and without the necessity of a long-distance call on Barrett's part if he wanted to keep his inquiries secret from his wife.

My idea is that Barrett feared that when it became known in the local news media that a Liverpool bloke had "Jack the Ripper's Diary" --and news coverage would obviously have been bound to be more extensive in Liverpool than anywhere else--the local booksellers would remember his inquiries. Hence, he decided to look for the raw materials out-of-town. Maybe not even in London, since he was dealing with a London literary agent. So, he chose Oxford--a bookish city, but more out of the way.

Hunting for a blank diary in such an out-of-place way wouldn't have made any difference in Caz or Tom's theories of the red diary and indeed would have been rather pointless in the former theory since Mike was supposedly trying to determine if Eddie, stationed in Liverpool, could have easily obtained a blank diary. Nor has Caz ever explained why Barrett needed to buy the damn thing once he learned that a blank diary COULD be obtained. Everything points in the same direction.

[Observer]

Before the pedants move in, I am of course referring to Winston's father

[Observer]

But Bury may well have been the Ripper. I'd suggest there is less interest in Bury than there could be because he was an ordinary loser type rather than a top hated toff.

Who believes the Ripper is a "top hated toff"? Would that be Randolph Churchill? Top politicians are often hated, I've hated a few in my time.

Seriously though, the only people nowadays who believe he was a toff who wore a top hat, are those who have no in depth knowledge of the case.

[John Wheat]

That must be why the Bermuda Triangle has fewer tourists than Disneyland. And sure, Bury's threads are so quiet you can hear a Victorian ghost sigh, but that’s probably just him waiting for someone to notice he wasn’t Jack the Ripper either. Don’t worry though, I’m sure this theory will gain traction any decade now.



The Baron

But Bury may well have been the Ripper. I'd suggest there is less interest in Bury than there could be because he was an ordinary loser type rather than a top hated toff.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thank you for these profound insights. So is "Herlock" wasting his time as well?

Would you like to explain to everyone why “Herlock” is in quotation marks Scott? Another underhand dig.

[The Baron]

I think it's highly likely that the majority of posters don't post on the Maybrick threads because its a proven forgery. And frankly they regard posting on the Maybrick threads as a waste of time.

Cheers John

That must be why the Bermuda Triangle has fewer tourists than Disneyland. And sure, Bury's threads are so quiet you can hear a Victorian ghost sigh, but that’s probably just him waiting for someone to notice he wasn’t Jack the Ripper either. Don’t worry though, I’m sure this theory will gain traction any decade now.



The Baron

[John Wheat]

Thank you for these profound insights. So is "Herlock" wasting his time as well?

Quite possibly. Although is stating the truth ever a waste of time?