25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith

[Blue Coat Boy]

Right. I'd like to hear more from Robinson about all this before drawing any conclusions. I really enjoyed "They All Loved Jack" and if he has a theory about the diary and the two brothers, I am all ears.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yeah, I'll be interested to see what they come up with.

[Iconoclast]

Hi barnflatwyngarde,

That is one of the best questions ever posted on Casebook.

Regards,

Simon

Where have you been for the last 25 years, Simon? Would you go to the expense of a huge print run - however confident you were of your facts - given the juggernaut of naysayers out there (yourself firmly included, of course) who are already revving the engine to go and print-run it over? I suggest that Mr Smith has learned his lesson from the first time and is pacing his outlay knowing that his case is up against truly surreal opposition regardless of the quality of his new information.

Ike

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Ike,

I've a feeling that the Maybrick thread might be springing back to life pretty soon. You'll be busy!
I'm looking forward to the new book.

[Elamarna]

Having been at the East End Conference on Sunday when Robert Smith gave a talk on his new book I would like to make a few observations.

1. Although interesting there was nothing in my opinion that was earth shattering.

2. The issue of the chemical anaylise of the ink just tells us it was not a the ink claimed to be used. It does not establish the age or type of ink.

3. The revelation of the proposed finding of the diary by 2 electricians is not new. Now names are supplied and a date suggested. However it should be noted that the named men have denied involvement in the event. In addition no evidence was presented to support the proposed date other than this was also the day MB made first contact about the diary.

Maybe there is far more in the book itself . However I was far from convinced by the talk that anything new was of such importance has to change my view on the diary.


Steve

[GUT]

Having been at the East End Conference on Sunday when Robert Smith gave a talk on his new book I would like to make a few observations.

1. Although interesting there was nothing in my opinion that was earth shattering.

2. The issue of the chemical anaylise of the ink just tells us it was not a the ink claimed to be used. It does not establish the age or type of ink.

3. The revelation of the proposed finding of the diary by 2 electricians is not new. Now names are supplied and a date suggested. However it should be noted that the named men have denied involvement in the event. In addition no evidence was presented to support the proposed date other than this was also the day MB made first contact about the diary.

Maybe there is far more in the book itself . However I was far from convinced by the talk that anything new was of such importance has to change my view on the diary.


Steve

Thanks for the report Steve, I'm only hearing things second hand, but for the life of me don't understand the point about the time sheets and how it is meant to prove anything.

[Elamarna]

Thanks for the report Steve, I'm only hearing things second hand, but for the life of me don't understand the point about the time sheets and how it is meant to prove anything.

I agree.

Why Robert Smith assumes the guys working there in the morning find it that day escapes me. More likely in my book to have happened at least 24hrs before. The idea of finding it, reading it then going to MB who phones same day just does not work for me.


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=AdamNeilWood;423737]

If it was a hoax, why hasn’t the proof of who forged it, and how and when, been forthcoming over the course of a quarter of a century?

Because dead people don´t come forth.

It is time to make public why the diary team is confident it is a genuine Victorian document.

Not surprising.

We can finally answer the following questions: When was it written?

1889 is a good guess.

Where was it found?

Somewhere where it had no value in society anymore.

Why did it come to light on 9th March 1992?

For the same reason the non-existent so called "diary of Florence Maybrick" "came to light" in 1889 just after her conviction. Someone wanted to earn money.

Where has it been for over 125 years?

Forgotten. There was no use for it anymore.

And we must ask one further and crucially linked question. Is Albert Johnson’s watch a genuine artefact from 1888?

Probably. It is certainly full of hate also.

Lurking behind all of these questions are two more: Was the diary written by a serial killer? If it was, was he Jack the Ripper?

No. It was written by someone who wanted society to believe that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper.

The diary is either a genuine document written circa 1888/89 or it is a modern fake.

So if it is genuine it is genuine. Then it tells us about the hate against James Maybrick.

And who hated James Maybrick in 1889 and why?

Pierre

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ike,

I was thinking more along the lines of once bitten, twice shy.

Regards,

Simon

[Inspector Abberline]

A sceptic

Hi

I have collected over 30 books on the murders. Of them all I value Philip Sugdens book the most an excellent read and a very convincing arguments against the diary . Also in John J Eddlestons book "Jack the Ripper An Encyclopedia" There are some very convincing facts on page 225-230 that this alleged diary is a fake.
So I wait and see but do not expect much.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Having been at the East End Conference on Sunday when Robert Smith gave a talk on his new book I would like to make a few observations.

1. Although interesting there was nothing in my opinion that was earth shattering.

2. The issue of the chemical anaylise of the ink just tells us it was not a the ink claimed to be used. It does not establish the age or type of ink.

3. The revelation of the proposed finding of the diary by 2 electricians is not new. Now names are supplied and a date suggested. However it should be noted that the named men have denied involvement in the event. In addition no evidence was presented to support the proposed date other than this was also the day MB made first contact about the diary.

Maybe there is far more in the book itself . However I was far from convinced by the talk that anything new was of such importance has to change my view on the diary.


Steve

Hi Steve,

Hope you had a good conference.

You're not filling me with confidence that my £25 has been well spent though. We will have to see

[YomRippur]

I love "true facts" (sad that you have qualify facts with "true" these days), but I also love to read Ripper fiction if it is clever and well-written. If the Maybrick diary is indeed a hoax, it is still a clever concoction. The hoaxer would have had to find the a TOTALLY NEW guy in the right era with all the right attributes -- young wife he hated, F.M. initial, "Time Reveals All" on his coat of arms, died shortly after Kelly murder, etc. etc. -- and tie them all up in one sexy package that was the diary. All that was a stroke of genius, just like the invention of the name JTR itself. It's just too bad the hoaxer made those slips about Kelly's breasts being on the table, Kelly's key being taken by the killer, and some other ones. But it was still a tremendous "research" effort that not even the best Ripperologist could produce.

If anyone could come up with any other NEW suspects that could really fool a lot of people the way Maybrick has, please do! I love reading false theories if they were cleverly concocted to appear true! I'm writing this with a straight face and not a hint of sarcasm!

Regarding the new book, what is the total page count? I hope it is not just 64 pages of the dairy's reproduction with another one or two pages of essays.

[Kaz]

Ordered my copy yesterday.

Was also hoping the proof of the Electricians had more....substance.

[Abby Normal]

Ordered my copy yesterday.

Was also hoping the proof of the Electricians had more....substance.

Substance? Lol! Haven't they denied finding it?

[caz]

I've seen the exact same question asked on these boards to suggest that because no-one has been able to prove who forged it (and when and how) that this strongly suggests the diary is genuine.

I presume you are referring to our old friend Ike here, David. I can't think of any other casebook posters who have argued that anything 'strongly suggests the diary is genuine'.

Love,

Caz
X