New Ideas and New Research on the Diary

[Lombro2]

Caz came up with a new idea about the "alleged" Saddle pub transaction:

Mike conned Eddie out of the diary with no cash changing hands, on the pretext of having 'contacts' who would know how best to handle and place it. In short, he nicked it off the nicker. Mike promised to get back to Eddie when he knew more... [Then] Eddie learned that Mike had only gone and hooked a book publisher, and not just some private collector who would pay in cash and ask no questions.

So Eddy had the Diary and immediately went to a pub at a time when Mike Barrett was known to regularly stop in. Why? Was it just because he was a published author? Mike was already a dealer in scrap metal and we know he was a thief. So dealer and thief equals fence or, at least, it strongly suggests the possibility. Mike claimed it and ran with it, apparently knowing that Eddy couldn't call the cops on him.

So now it looks to me like there's a good possibility that Mike was a regular fence and dealer in stolen property, and he and Eddy already had some sort of association. Otherwise why would Eddy give him the book? Eddy must have trusted him because of previous dealings and got "conned".

[Lombro2]

I think I peaked with Von Schwanz. Lombroso Secondo is all downhill and bumpy like my forehead and skull.

[Scott Nelson]

Thanks Mark. The stuff you posted under the name San Fran was good. But I liked the stuff by the Trapperologist the best.

[Lombro2]

Hi Scott,

I've heard of your theories, assuming they were yours.

Have you heard the one about serial killers being artists?

Artists As Actual & Theorized Murderers - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century

[Scott Nelson]

Hey Markus,

Have you heard of the Harry Dam Committee -- Dam, George Grossmith and Michael Maybrick? They may have created a spoof that led to the creation of the modern Maybrick diary.

[Lombro2]

This thread exists for new ideas on old subjects.

And no new excuses and asking why the excuses should not be excused. Direct those to the regular threads for Caz to take care of.


Something New Something Real

[Lombro2]

“I am amazed this still causes such a gigantic fuss. From what I have read and from a purely balance of probability perspective there is no way” that Michael Barrett wrote the Diary. Michael Barrett was not a forger—or THE forger (just to be nice, mostly to Caz.)

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm thinking of writing a Diary of the Murderer of Carrie Brown. I'm going to sign it George Damon.

I can get samples of his handwriting, and getting a vintage blank Diary is no problem these days. I believe he's guilty so there should be no problem in using him as the subject of the Diary.

So I'm thinking of forging the Diary of George Damon, Murderer, and then taking it to New York, as a real artifact. Is that a good idea?

You could certainly try, Lombro. There's always suckers out there who will believe anything.

[erobitha]

Why does this thread even exist?

Will I risk another infraction? Best not.

[John Wheat]

Why does this thread even exist?

[Lombro2]

I'm thinking of writing a Diary of the Murderer of Carrie Brown. I'm going to sign it George Damon.

I can get samples of his handwriting, and getting a vintage blank Diary is no problem these days. I believe he's guilty so there should be no problem in using him as the subject of the Diary.

So I'm thinking of forging the Diary of George Damon, Murderer, and then taking it to New York, as a real artifact. Is that a good idea?

[Lombro2]

It really doesn't matter who exactly Jack the Ripper was. The important thing is the profile of Jack so that we can prevent or curtail future violence against sex workers and women in general. Maybe the Diary got the profile right.

Didn't they catch a major prostitute killer recently?

[Losmandris]

I am amazed this still causes such a gigantic fuss. From what I have read and from a purely balance of probability perspective there is no way the diary could be real. Chances are none of the names suspects were JtR. Most likely no one knows his name and no will ever know his name. James Maybrick was not Jack the Ripper.

[Lombro2]

As they said before, Nothing New, Nothing Real.

[Herlock Sholmes]

My one and only contribution to this thread is this….’one off instance’ is 100%, categorically an anachronism which proves, conclusively proves, that the diary is a modern forgery. Robert Smith isn’t short of a few quid is he? So why doesn’t he try and knock down the main argument against the diary being a fake? He could invest a few quid, hire an Etymologist to research the subject, and then he could crow until his heart was content that ‘one off instance’ could have been used by Maybrick after all. Simples. Job done. But in all these years neither he nor anyone else has taken that step. Why? Because they know what the answer would be. FAKE.