|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Kyle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 1:06 am: | 
|
Hi,
I am new to the message boards. I am very confused about this diary. I was not sure which thread to make a post, so I started this one.I cant seem to get off the starting line with this subject so I would be extremely greatful if someone out there could get me started by helping me with a few basic points.
a. what is the current scientific oppinion about the age and authenticity of the diary.Where does it stand right now.
b. what are the KEY points for it being real.
c. what are the KEY points for it being a hoax.
d. where does the majority oppinion stand
If someone can get me started, so I can start to research, I would appreciate it.
Thanks |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 615
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 12:29 pm: |
|
I've asked this here a couple times before, without luck. Let me pose it one more time.
When examining the veracity of a statement, it's always important to trace the earliest possible source for that claim. It's always important to track it down.
Johnson said he first learned of Maybrick's significance after a co-worker mentioned an article about Maybrick that appeared in the Liverpool Post. (There were actually two articles). These appeared on 22 and 24 April, 1993.
After learning of this, he contacted the newspaper and was interviewed. He then contacted Robert Smith.
According to Shirley Harrison, Johnson sent Smith a letter that arrived on June 4, 1993.
This narrows it down. The interview of Albert Johnson must have appeared in mid-May, 1993.
We know an article appeared because Shirley Harrison mentions it on pg. 241 (Blake)
"The Liverpool Post sensing a scandal, ran a cynical article."
What did it say? What were Johnson's initial statements? Certainly someone thought this important enough to chase it down and keep a copy?
I like to do my own research, but in this case I can't. The U.S. is very weak on Liverpool papers. If anyone can track this down and post it, I think it would be swell. Thanks, RP
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1745
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 7:21 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
I know that articles about the diary appeared in the Liverpool Daily Post on April 21, 22, 23, 24, 26 and 27, and May 13, 1993.
Articles also appeared on April 23 in Today, the Guardian and the Daily Mail, and by Sunday April 25, the Observer was talking about 'bogus diaries'. Certainly, the later of the above-mentioned Post articles were reporting strong 'hoax' suspicions.
There was also an article in the Liverpool Daily Post on September 29 1993, which featured the watch, and Albert could well have been interviewed for this one.
But I have no information about Albert being interviewed by any newspaper, for any article about the watch, as early as May 1993.
Again, you may like to contact Keith, because if anyone knows whether this happened, he should.
Love,
Caz
X |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1746
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 7:34 am: |
|
Hi again RJ,
I find it very interesting that the watch is alleged to have been scratched between the end of April and the end of May 1993, by someone who allowed his handiwork to be examined by experts not of his choosing, just a few weeks later.
And that the diary is now supposed to have been handwritten into the scrapbook between the end of March and the second week of April 1992, by a completely independent hoaxer, who similarly allowed his handiwork to be examined by all kinds of experts not of his choosing, just a few weeks later.
And still, in 2005, modern hoax theorists are trying to find a way of exposing both hoaxes, or both hoaxers.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1513
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 7:40 am: |
|
And still, in 2005 the scientific tests done on both items remain either contradictory in their results or self-admittedly incomplete.
Yes, I agree with Caroline, there are lots of things to find "interesting" in this case.
Meanwhile, the textual evidence remains completely unexplained in any rational, common sense, or material manner by any theory other than a modern hoax one.
And so we remain exactly where we have been for years.
Perhaps that's not so interesting. But it's true.
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2393
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 7:42 am: |
|
Who's handwriting, past and present has ever been compared to the diary ASIDE from James Maybrick's who we all know didnt match?
Has Mike's, Anne's etc? |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 618
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 1:04 pm: |
|
Caz--Thanks for those references. Much appreciated.
Problems, though? As I understand it, once Albert heard about Maybrick from Mr. White (who had read about Maybrick in the papers) he got on the blower and rang the Liverpool Post. The Post is where Albert got Smith's number (who he contacted by the first of June) and, at the same time (as I understand it) the Post ran out a "skeptical lady reporter" to interview him. So it sure seems that this interview took pace before the end of September? At least that's my reading of Harrison. Or is it possible that Albert didn't really have a very good recollection of the chronology of what happened when? When, for instance, he was interviewed. Or when, for instance, Robbie first saw the watch?
Cheers, RP
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 881
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 1:36 pm: |
|
R.J.
You have probably thought of this, but the Liverpool Records Office might be of assistance.
Dave |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 620
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 1:58 pm: |
|
Dave--Thanks for that. I'm going to check it out. RP
|
Lasr Nordman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 8:14 am: |
|
Hilsen Kyle
Still no evidence of old hoax/genuine.
Still no evidence of modern hoax. Just repeated expressions of "evidence" which are really not in the hope that people think its evidence.
The best propaganda is that which is repeated most often.
Lars |
Kyle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 9:14 pm: |
|
Thank you Lars - you are the only one who has helped me out here. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
