New Ideas and New Research on the Diary

[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.

[Lombro2]

Here's a thread for new ideas and new research on the Diary for those who are getting tired of the same old, million-off arguments.


1. Michael Barrett "invented" the Battlecrease Provenance and put it in the Diary.

The last entry is dated May 3rd, 8 days before James died. This was his last day going to work so he could have left the diary in his office. Otherwise he was in his deathbed. I think the Diary indicates he kept it with him wherever he went which was the safest thing to do.

In his narrative, he put his forgery in Battlecrease or possibly his office. That means he meant for it to have come out of Battlecrease (or the Knowsley Buildings).

Then this Battlecrease Provenance appears independently. Instead of being elated, he's horrified. I think he even threatens the alleged "finder". Makes perfect sense, eh?

If anyone else has any other one-off trip-overs, please post them here!