Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Scene of the Crimes: Mitre square - sets, what happened to them when it was renovated last year? - by MrBarnett 36 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Varqm 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Varqm 4 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Varqm 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Torso Killings: torso maps - (22 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (8 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Mitre square - sets, what happened to them when it was renovated last year? - (3 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (2 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: A film Pitch - Who was Jack the Ripper? - (2 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Was the ripper and also the torsomans crimes totally non sexual in nature? - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Maybrick, James

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 05-17-2018, 11:36 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Im glad to hear that your not sharpening up the knives and ironing the blindfold then.

For the record David id say that my opinion on the diary is that it’s overwhelmingly likely to be a forgery but i accept the slight possibility that it may not be. Of the arguments against i believe that your ‘one off instance’ is by far the likeliest refuting point. That said i have made no real study of the subject but i do like to play a bit of ‘devil’s advocate’ occaisionally.
Thank you for clarifying Herlock.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-17-2018, 11:36 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pcdunn View Post
.Now, at last, there is a chance to see if there is a partial resemblance! Very good, and I will check your observations against my copy of the Diary. Thank you.
Excellent, thank you Pcdunn.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-17-2018, 11:48 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

I love the way that the person who has been telling us for years that Anne Barrett wouldn't have forged the Diary in a million years (I'm paraphrasing!!!) is now able to tell us exactly how Anne WOULD have forged the Diary had she chosen to do so!

For us mere mortals it's impossible to know where such sudden insight comes from.

I repeat and stress that it's not possible to draw any conclusions about authorship from the inconsistences in the handwriting (at least not for non-experts in handwriting).

If Maybrick wrote the Diary then he did so using handwriting which was internally inconsistent.

If a forger or hoaxer wrote the Diary then he or she did so using handwriting which was internally inconsistent.

That's literally as much as we can say. Pretending to be able to understand WHY the handwriting is internally inconsistent or to identify any individuals who would not have written the Diary in such a way is obviously quite foolish. If some people think that the internal inconsistences actually eliminate Anne Barrett from being the author then they can live on in their dream world but this thread is for those who wish to remain in reality.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-17-2018, 11:49 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

If possible, can we keep this thread focussed on the Diary handwriting rather than turning it into another general Diary thread?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-17-2018, 08:38 PM
Scott Nelson Scott Nelson is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,182
Default

Yes, now back to Spandau Ballet, or whatever.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-18-2018, 04:16 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,273
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
Caz. None of my business, really, but I'd be curious to know why Keith Skinner and Anne Graham appear to have had a 'falling out.' From several posts by Die Hard Diary supporters on these message boards, I think they are wondering the same thing. The impression we used to get back around 2000-2002 (and perhaps we were all misinterpreting the situation) is that they were really quite chummy and Keith was even helping Anne research a book on 'baby farming.' He certainly wrote the forward to her book on Florence Maybrick. Fast forward 14 or 16 years and they haven't spoken in years and--by implication--Keith is now entirely willing to entertain the idea that Anne was lying through her teeth (elaborately and repeatedly) about having seen the Diary in the 1960s. It's a curious state of affairs. You can't blame people for wondering.

And with Anne not talking, and having not talked for a decade, I think we have come to the end of the line. There will be no video of the culprits in action, and no deathbed confession, and so what we now see is pretty much all we will ever get. And thus the Diary will forever remain a questioned document under a cloud of suspicion, and no self-respecting historian will touch it with a ten foot pole as 'source material.'
Hi rj,

I have a lot of sympathy with your view on this. I have very little doubt that Anne could tell us more if she so wished, but she did say, when we last interviewed her for Ripper Diary, that this was the last time she would speak about it. That was rather unfortunate because it did - and does - raise suspicions that she had something to hide. As you know, since the book was published, we had reason to look again at the old electrician rumours, which, if true, make a liar out of Anne every bit as much as if she really had authored or penned the diary. Either way, I guess she would need to have a crisis of conscience to come clean now, although it's certainly possible that she will be approached again, if she hasn't been already, and invited to respond to the suspicions voiced about her involvement with the diary.

Apologies to David for joining you off topic!

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-18-2018, 04:38 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,273
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I love the way that the person who has been telling us for years that Anne Barrett wouldn't have forged the Diary in a million years (I'm paraphrasing!!!) is now able to tell us exactly how Anne WOULD have forged the Diary had she chosen to do so!

For us mere mortals it's impossible to know where such sudden insight comes from.

I repeat and stress that it's not possible to draw any conclusions about authorship from the inconsistences in the handwriting (at least not for non-experts in handwriting).

If Maybrick wrote the Diary then he did so using handwriting which was internally inconsistent.

If a forger or hoaxer wrote the Diary then he or she did so using handwriting which was internally inconsistent.

That's literally as much as we can say. Pretending to be able to understand WHY the handwriting is internally inconsistent or to identify any individuals who would not have written the Diary in such a way is obviously quite foolish. If some people think that the internal inconsistences actually eliminate Anne Barrett from being the author then they can live on in their dream world but this thread is for those who wish to remain in reality.
Hi David,

Thank you for your constructive comments.

When I wrote the following, I was merely running with your opening post, which named Anne as a potential forger. As you can see, I said nothing whatsoever about being able to eliminate her or anyone else on the basis of the internal inconsistences. I was offering a perfectly reasonable opinion, on the basis that a modern forger, with fraud in mind, presumably wanted to get away with it:

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
We shall see in due course, but I'd have thought someone like Anne, who'd have seriously needed the skill to disguise her own hand very well, while trying to maintain the overall consistency and fluidity of someone writing naturally, would also have taken care over such details, or made it far easier on herself by not producing a whacking 63 pages of writing with so much completely avoidable repetition. That would have been asking for trouble.
For those who didn't get my drift the first time, let me clarify:

I'd have thought any forger who seriously needed the skill to disguise their own hand very well, while trying to maintain the overall consistency and fluidity of someone writing naturally, would also have taken care over such details, or made it far easier on themselves by not producing a whacking 63 pages of writing with so much completely avoidable repetition. That would have been asking for trouble.

I really don't see why you have to come across as such a nasty piece of work. But if you think it helps please do carry on. The nastier the better.

Love and kisses,

Persona Non Grata
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-18-2018, 09:51 AM
peg&pie peg&pie is offline
Cadet
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Northants
Posts: 14
Default

I think I would agree with Robert Smith in saying that the handwriting is unlikely to ever help deciding between forgery or genuine.

My own handwriting is a mix of cursive and print, as I'm sure many others is.
The variation in the capital A's is interesting, and repeats throughout the diary.
Could that be a defining writing style able to be pinned to a particular time?, or person?

As usual I expect an abundance of opinion and distinct lack of professional insight to follow.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-18-2018, 11:11 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Nelson View Post
Yes, now back to Spandau Ballet, or whatever.
No Scott, not in this thread. You are, I think, gratuitously referring to another thread about a Tumblety book in which the author of that book has, for some unknown reason, been eager to talk about me and my books, rather than his own, hence providing me with a welcome opportunity to promote my most recent book about Spandau Ballet (now available on amazon.co.uk and other good online retailers!). There are plenty of other threads to discuss the Diary in general or start an argument with me (which seem to be your intention). I particularly want to keep THIS thread on topic because I'm right in the middle of discussing the diary handwriting and haven't finished yet. As for your question, I'll re-post it on the Incontrovertible thread and answer in there.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-18-2018, 11:23 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

The Chief Diary Defender is clearly unnerved and afraid of the possibilities revealed by an examination of Anne's handwriting and now is reduced to throwing out strange accusations.

What's interesting is to compare what was written by the Chief Diary Defender in #18 with what was written in #27, which was supposed to be a clarification of #18

This was from #18:

"We shall see in due course, but I'd have thought someone like Anne, who'd have seriously needed the skill to disguise her own hand very well, while trying to maintain the overall consistency and fluidity of someone writing naturally, would also have taken care over such details, or made it far easier on herself by not producing a whacking 63 pages of writing with so much completely avoidable repetition. That would have been asking for trouble."

And this is from #27:

"I'd have thought any forger who seriously needed the skill to disguise their own hand very well, while trying to maintain the overall consistency and fluidity of someone writing naturally, would also have taken care over such details, or made it far easier on themselves by not producing a whacking 63 pages of writing with so much completely avoidable repetition. That would have been asking for trouble."

Spot the difference? It's not difficult is it? I don't know whether to call it a classic Diary Defender sleight of hand, because the previous version was quoted, but it's not a clarification, it's a complete change of meaning, as the phrase "someone like Anne" has been airbrushed out of history. Yet, it was the very notion that we can possibly speak of, and eliminate, "someone like Anne" that I was complaining of!!!

If we simply focus on the latest so-called clarification, in respect of "any forger", it seems that the Chief Diary Defender has managed to rule out the Diary as being a forgery (old OR modern) on the basis of the inconsistent handwriting!!! Something that no handwriting expert or document examiner has so far been able to do!

And the same person has also ruled it out as having been written by Maybrick.

So let us leave that person to her dream world and continue in the real one...
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.