Tweet
Wanted to start a few threads over the coming days on other interesting things to note about the Diary of Jack the Ripper.
Firstly, there is the interesting anomaly that occurs on page 249 of the diary (I have mentioned this before on a previous thread). I’m not sure whether or not anyone has spotted this before, but I suspect not as, otherwise, the anti-diarist brigade would have been using it as proof that Michael Barrett forged the diary. The text runs as follows...
‘so help me God my next will be far the worst, my head aches, but I will go on damn Michael for being so cluever [sic] the art of verse is far from simple. I curse him so.’
And here is an enlargment of the offending word form the diary.
As you can see the word 'clever' has what looks like and added letter ‘U’ conveniently placed between the ‘L’ and ‘E’, thus spelling the word ‘clue’. I am fully aware, after studying the diary for some time, that the writer of the diary frequently misspells, or adds what looks like extra letters to, certain words, but I do not believe this is what has happened in this case. To add an extra letter that just so happens to spell the word clue is far too much of a coincidence, I’m afraid. No, the diarist is trying to tell us something. But what?
As I say, to the anti diarist it could be yet one more clue that the diary is forged: ‘Michael (Barrett) is very cluever’ should’ve set the alarm bells ringing for them long ago.
It could also be argued that this proves that it is an older forgery, made around James by his brother Michael. Or perhaps it is not a forgery and Michael is simply telling you that he is the ripper.
Or maybe, just maybe, there is the possibility that Michael was also responsible for sending letters and, more importantly, verse to the police (etc.) and James is simply making you aware of that fact.
Maybrick talks about outdoing his brother through writing verse on a number of occasions in the diary. As such, people have claimed that the diary is a forgery based on the fact that Michael was only responsible for the music (not true), not the verse. However, what if James is not talking about his brother’s work but is referring to the verses that he knows his brother is sending. Maybe they are both trying to outdo one another in some sort of brotherly competition or bet. After all, there are several letters that refer to the fact that JtR has an ‘accomplice’ or ‘brother in trade’ as one interesting letter - that has been linked to Maybrick before - puts it.
Whatever the reason, I still believe, in this instance, that the letter ‘U’ in ‘cluever’ is no mistake. The diarist is trying to tell us something, and we would be foolish to dismiss it.
Kind regards,
Tempus
Firstly, there is the interesting anomaly that occurs on page 249 of the diary (I have mentioned this before on a previous thread). I’m not sure whether or not anyone has spotted this before, but I suspect not as, otherwise, the anti-diarist brigade would have been using it as proof that Michael Barrett forged the diary. The text runs as follows...
‘so help me God my next will be far the worst, my head aches, but I will go on damn Michael for being so cluever [sic] the art of verse is far from simple. I curse him so.’
And here is an enlargment of the offending word form the diary.
As you can see the word 'clever' has what looks like and added letter ‘U’ conveniently placed between the ‘L’ and ‘E’, thus spelling the word ‘clue’. I am fully aware, after studying the diary for some time, that the writer of the diary frequently misspells, or adds what looks like extra letters to, certain words, but I do not believe this is what has happened in this case. To add an extra letter that just so happens to spell the word clue is far too much of a coincidence, I’m afraid. No, the diarist is trying to tell us something. But what?
As I say, to the anti diarist it could be yet one more clue that the diary is forged: ‘Michael (Barrett) is very cluever’ should’ve set the alarm bells ringing for them long ago.
It could also be argued that this proves that it is an older forgery, made around James by his brother Michael. Or perhaps it is not a forgery and Michael is simply telling you that he is the ripper.
Or maybe, just maybe, there is the possibility that Michael was also responsible for sending letters and, more importantly, verse to the police (etc.) and James is simply making you aware of that fact.
Maybrick talks about outdoing his brother through writing verse on a number of occasions in the diary. As such, people have claimed that the diary is a forgery based on the fact that Michael was only responsible for the music (not true), not the verse. However, what if James is not talking about his brother’s work but is referring to the verses that he knows his brother is sending. Maybe they are both trying to outdo one another in some sort of brotherly competition or bet. After all, there are several letters that refer to the fact that JtR has an ‘accomplice’ or ‘brother in trade’ as one interesting letter - that has been linked to Maybrick before - puts it.
Whatever the reason, I still believe, in this instance, that the letter ‘U’ in ‘cluever’ is no mistake. The diarist is trying to tell us something, and we would be foolish to dismiss it.
Kind regards,
Tempus
Comment