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:
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - by Wickerman 5 hours ago.
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - by Robert 7 hours ago.
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - by MrBarnett 7 hours ago.
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - by Debra A 8 hours ago.
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - by MrBarnett 10 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Mary Kelly meet the Bethnal Green Botherer? - by Abby Normal 11 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - (16 posts)
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - (4 posts)
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - (1 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Mary Kelly meet the Bethnal Green Botherer? - (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

View Poll Results: The Dairy of Jack the Ripper was written by
James Maybrick 8 11.43%
A modern forger 44 62.86%
An old forger 18 25.71%
Voters: 70. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-27-2014, 08:37 AM
Roy Corduroy Roy Corduroy is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,597
Default Vote the Diary

You may now cast your vote please, - Roy
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-27-2014, 01:05 PM
MayBea MayBea is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 695
Default

The Diary supporters are a little short-handed with one suspended and others non-active.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-27-2014, 01:26 PM
Stephen Thomas Stephen Thomas is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,728
Default

The old forgery theory doesn't have much support as yet .
__________________
allisvanityandvexationofspirit
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-27-2014, 03:28 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,370
Default

G'day all

I voted old forgery.

Mainly because I really believe n gong where the evidence leads me, if I like it or not, and the nk analysis says, 1920 + 12 years [ or was it 8]. I think the only reasons to support modern are the "confession" [which talking to people that know say couldn't be true] and and some feeling that ther5e is information that wasn't known in the past and that is just intellectual snobbery, we only have a minute fraction of the material that was known in 88 and say 30 years later.

A forger in 1918 could have as a 20 year old followed the murders closely and have scrapbooks chock a block of information and a head full of even more information that those of us here, almost 100 years later, may never know of.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-27-2014, 03:48 PM
pinkmoon pinkmoon is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: north west of england
Posts: 1,813
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
G'day all

I voted old forgery.

Mainly because I really believe n gong where the evidence leads me, if I like it or not, and the nk analysis says, 1920 + 12 years [ or was it 8]. I think the only reasons to support modern are the "confession" [which talking to people that know say couldn't be true] and and some feeling that ther5e is information that wasn't known in the past and that is just intellectual snobbery, we only have a minute fraction of the material that was known in 88 and say 30 years later.

A forger in 1918 could have as a 20 year old followed the murders closely and have scrapbooks chock a block of information and a head full of even more information that those of us here, almost 100 years later, may never know of.
Hi gut,snap I've gone for old forgery purely because if I go for modern forgery it would mean Mr Barrett would have to have a hand in creating it which in my personal opinion is impossible.
__________________
Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-27-2014, 04:02 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,370
Default

G'day Pink

Quote:
for modern forgery it would mean Mr Barrett would have to have a hand in creating it which in my personal opinion is impossible.
If I didn't have the opinions of people who had met MrB I may be more likely to accept him having something to do with it, but as I said the evidence leads me the other way. If anyone can provide an analysis of the Ink that shows a date in the 1890's I will reconsider my position, but even then it would still only point to an old creation, and not enough IMHO to prove Maybrick, without more.



__________________
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-27-2014, 04:15 PM
pinkmoon pinkmoon is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: north west of england
Posts: 1,813
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
G'day Pink



If I didn't have the opinions of people who had met MrB I may be more likely to accept him having something to do with it, but as I said the evidence leads me the other way. If anyone can provide an analysis of the Ink that shows a date in the 1890's I will reconsider my position, but even then it would still only point to an old creation, and not enough IMHO to prove Maybrick, without more.



__________________
Hi gut,if the people who discoverd the diary had told the truth about its history and if the author of the diary had not claimed authorship of the ripper letters I would give it a chance.
__________________
Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-27-2014, 04:19 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,370
Default

Only if the ink didn't date to 1908 at the earliest, on the testing that has been done.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-28-2014, 12:33 PM
MayBea MayBea is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 695
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
Only if the ink didn't date to 1908 at the earliest, on the testing that has been done.
The results of the ion migration test are considered to be of limited reliability even by the hoax theorists.

This quote from the dissertation of Melvin Harris:

Quote:
...This attempt to date the Diary ink was made by Roderick McNeil of Polson, Monatana. Using a technique known as 'scaning auger microscopy', McNeil asserts that he can measure the migration of tiny particles in the ink and from those measurements, calculate the time the ink has been on paper. Now, ion-migration tests have been used for over sixty years by document examiners, but no one except McNeil has ever claimed that such tests could be refined to provide accurate dating. Such tests have simply been used to determine the difference in age between two writings supposed to have been created at the same time and under the same conditions.

McNeil was given a chance to date the Diary ink by the Rendell examining body, since he made great claims for his 'perfected tests'. He calculated its date as 1921, plus or minus twelve years, a date that was in clear conflict with earlier tests and with the textual evidence which showed it to be a recent concoction.
http://www.casebook.org/dissertation.../factfile.html
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-28-2014, 12:40 PM
pinkmoon pinkmoon is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: north west of england
Posts: 1,813
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MayBea View Post
The results of the ion migration test are considered to be of limited reliability even by the hoax theorists.

This quote from the dissertation of Melvin Harris:



http://www.casebook.org/dissertation.../factfile.html
Hi maybe ,I'm pretty sure that the diary came out of battlecrease shortly before it was launched on us in what form I'm undecided.
__________________
Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth
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 09:47 PM.


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