|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Thomas Burns
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 8:53 am: |       |
12 Initial Points of Contention with the Diary
After reading the diary numerous times I am left with a feeling that this diary is too contrived to be genuine and gives the sensation of being a fantasy rather then a reality. I have compiled her 12 points that immediately stand out in my mind as being suspect within the contents of the diary. These points have been derived through the pure application of logic
1. The ‘empty tin box’ rhyme. This reference to the empty tin box has been used by the pro diary group as proof that the diary must be either genuine or a modern forgery, but to me it actually proves the diary must be fake. The fact is how would the real killer know this detail? To know this Jack would have had to had killed Catherine Eddowes, mutilated her to the extreme, searched her pockets, found the tin box, opened it and seen it was empty in the time slot of 15 minutes between PC Watkins beat of the square (or if Joseph Lawende’s eyewitness account is to be believed even less) and in the most darkest corner of the square. This to me is close to impossible and are not the actions of a criminal that is running such a high risk of being caught who’s first priority is to kill and mutilate. This detail reads more like something the dairy’s author picked up from a police contact then first hand experience
2. The ‘FM’ initials on the wall. After looking very carefully at the photograph of Mary Kelly’s corpse these vague scratches/smears on the wall could be a F and M but there are also other scratches/smears before the F (obscured further by slight degradation of the photo). The actual initials/word that is on the wall is impossible to determine but is certainly not F.M.
3. The killer in the diary does not reference the action of removing Kelly’s heart when describing the crime itself (there is only a minor reference at the end of the diary as almost an afterthought). Surely the killer would have considered this act of considerable importance and at least would have indicated what he had done with it? The fact is the afterthought reference reads like a detail picked up from the possibly a conversation with a police friend especially since for the first time he refers to a victim by name at this point.
4. In this murder the diary’s author says that he put the breasts on the table but this is wrong as he put one under the head and the other by the right foot. You could argue that he might have been mistaken but surely, due to the seemingly purposeful arrangement of these parts, this had some significance to the killer and would never have got such an important detail wrong
5. In the dairy the author refers to himself throughout as either Sir Jim or Sir Jack but never Jack the Ripper until the very end. He never indicates why he chose this name for the public while in private he clearly favours Sir Jim. He even says towards the end of the diary he wishes he had chosen Sir Jim. This for me is too contrived since the killer was in control of his sobriquet (especially since the author of the diary claimed authorship of the letter) and if at any point he decided he wanted to use a different name he could (and he did always appear to prefer Sir Jim throughout the diary.) The reason he never stated the name he had given to the public until the end was, to me, because up until the completion of the diary the killer was still being referred to as Leather Apron, The Whitechapel Murderer as well as Jack the Ripper. It was only until he finished the diary that Jack the Ripper was clearly the most popular and he opted for that. That is the only explanation for the apparent contrived nature of the sobriquet issue in the diary, whereby the author clearly would have opted for Sir Jim
6. The author of the diary indicates throughout that he greatly desired to decapitate the victims but eventually ascertained this to be impossible. Firstly it certainly is not impossible to decapitate a victim with a knife (or otherwise) and secondly all the neck injuries did not reflect this statement. If there was any real attempt at decapitation surely there would be a more hacking/sawing action in the neck wounds rather then smooth, deep cuts, and surely the author of the diary would had realise this and at least tried one of these techniques on a victim. This, however, is simply not the case so either James, as the killer, despite is obvious desire really did not try very hard at all to remove the head or the diary is fabrication. To be the latter is the only logical conclusion
7. In the diary the author wishes he had taken away something from Mary Jane Kelly’s murder. This again is contrived since in this murder he had more time than in any other to extract any organs he wanted to take with him but does not explain why he did not (unless he did the take the heart but as I have said there is no mention of this and he does say he wishes he took something with him suggesting he did not take the heart, so what did happen to her heart?)
8. He also mentions the key and the fire as a source of light in this rhyme. Firstly according to Joe Barnett this key went missing weeks before the murder (that’s why they had to reach through the window to open the door) and the fire was not use for light for according to Aberline there was a fully burnt candle in the room that would have provided the killer with sufficient light. The fire was probably a source or heat or a method of destroying evidence
9. There is only one date in the diary and very few specifics in general. This makes the final statement about using this dairy as evidence of how love can ruin a gentle man born a bit redundant since the author has giving no specifics/dates that can help clarify his so called evidence. Surely if this was the intention of the author he would have ensure the content was verifiable rather than vague and contrived
10. The author seems to construct his poems/puzzles in the diary (or at least refers to them directly after the invent). All he says regarding the Graffito is ‘My funny Jewish joke’. Firstly there is no proof that this message directly referred to the Jews, it does not explain why he used the word Juews (or any other variation), and he shows no direct reference to the message content and how he constructed it. I believe this is due to the actual uncertainty of the contents amongst the police because by being specific here the author would have been confirming one rendition of this text (but sadly there are many). He also never refers to the Jews as Juews once in the diary so why would he use that term in the graffito.
11. It is quite clear that the author of the diary is reading papers as in one paragraph he refers to waiting for the news of his crime to appear and it pleased him when it did. So why does he show no anger or disappointment for how no one even mentions or picks up on his clue. Surely the action of washing the graffito off before it had its impact would have infuriated the killer (if he even wrote it). He also mentions nothing of the apron that he left by this clue and that being the only direct clue the police ever had
12. He mentions the farthings in a rhyme about Annie Chapman but the only evidence that support they even existed were in the unreliable newspaper reports and not inspector Chandlers report. It is as if the author is simple repeating the rumours at the time that his police source obviously believed in. It is interesting that he does not mention the comb or coarse muslin in this rhyme?
I believe the answer to these problems (and this is excluding all the faults with Maybrick as a candidate himself and the questionable providence of the dairy) is that this dairy is either a fantasy of Maybrick written through use of some connections he had with police officers working on the case or that someone forged the document through transcribing the contents of the original diary (the missing pages?) and interspersing them with Jack the Ripper details. Both these explain why the details of James himself are pretty specified and detailed but the ripper info is sparse and built mainly on ripper lore and not much else
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 271
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 2:18 pm: | |
Gosh, I haven't seen any evidence that Maybrick had a dairy fantasy, but I suppose it's yet another area of research that could be milked. 
Love,
Caz, full of creamy goodness
|
Thomas Burns
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 10:18 am: | |
Thank you Caroline for pointing out my moostake 
But please tell me what you think of the content and the points I have made regarding the diary. I seem to remember overhearing someone at the conference saying there is not one word in the diary to disprove it, but I feel after numberous readers there are many and all point to it more likely to be a fantasy of James' rather than him actually being the killer
Take care
Tom |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 288
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 9:38 am: | |
Hi Thomas,
Well, I'm afraid the various arguments and opinions on the diary's internal content have been done to death so forgive me if I don't join you this time round.
As I've said too many times, I just don't know what to make of it, and still have no clue why the thing was written in the first place. Everyone who has ever talked about it will have their own views regarding what can and cannot be proved about its true origins, and I have no idea who you may have overheard in Liverpool expressing theirs.
Sorry I can't be more helpful.
Love,
Caz |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 300
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 12:23 pm: | |
Hi, Tom and Caz:
I have thought before that Maybrick might have been Jack the Ripper in his own mind but then you add that possibility to the fact that the writing in the Diary does not match Maybrick's, which Colin Wilson acknowleged at the convention, and even the idea of Maybrick as Ripper in his mind starts to seem contrived.
Tom, you make a number of excellent points which are all very good points that should make us question whether the Diary is the real thing. As I stated at the convention, the Diary is too good to be true, and I find it a stretch that two such famous murder cases, the Maybrick case and the Whitechapel murders, could be linked in such a way.
I wanted to make one statement about your point 8, where if I was playing devil's advocate I could say that Maybrick might have been a previous customer of Mary Jane Kelly's and that he could have stolen the key weeks earlier for use on the night of the murder, which would fit in with what Barnett said about the key having disappeared some weeks before the murder.
All the best
Chris |
Scott Nelson
Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 27
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 11:49 pm: | |
What if Maybrick believed himself to be the Ripper, wrote an abbreviated false diary, hid it, then it was found several decades later and re-written? Just my opinion, naturally. After all, who could have coloured up Maybrick, of all people, as JtR, unless it had come from a "knowledgeable" source? [ie, an opportunist who had chanced upon an old, deluded confession written by the man himself]
Go ahead Caroline, let me have it.......:-) |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 304
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 1:36 pm: | |
Hi, Scott:
You wrote:
"What if Maybrick believed himself to be the Ripper, wrote an abbreviated false diary, hid it, then it was found several decades later and re-written?"
If Maybrick has any validity as a suspect of some long-standing, in someone's thoughts, his own or people around him, then I think it could have happened as you hypothetically describe it. Again though I am left thinking that the Diary rings so many dud notes, despite its supporters' faith in it, that even this idea seems a stretch.
All the best
Chris |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 291
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 10:03 am: | |
Hi Chris,
Who do you see as the diary's 'supporters', who have so much 'faith in it' that they are not questioning whether it's the real thing?
Hi Scotty,
Let you have what, exactly? 
Love,
Caz |
Tommy Simpson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 8:37 am: | |
The writer of the Maybrick diary seems to adhere to facts given in books written after 1988.
You would think that if JTR had written a diary, then there would be some little titbits in it that were unknown to anyone other than Jack himself.
This does not seem to be the case in the Maybrick diary.
Indeed the author seems to take great care in describing incidents like Eddowes tin box , the attempted beheading of Chapman, etc, incidents like these, that were only made available to the public after 1988.
|
Thomas Burns
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 7:30 am: | |
Hi,
I have read the feedback so far from my initial posting and have a few comments to add
Firstly it is my belief that the dairy is a fantasy of James Maybrick constructed from his own thoughts and information he gained from inside sources (i.e. eliminating the problem with the information only being made public in 1988). I stated this belief in the initial posting
Secondly I have never heard some of the arguments I have made regarding the contents of the diary before, but if they have already been made please point me in the direction of where I can find them/who has made them? As far as I can tell the main argument has also been regarding its provenance and not its contents.
In answer to your question Caroline surely an acceptable explanation of the diary is that it is pure fantasy by James written as a result of an obsession with the crimes and drug abuse. I have never said this is what did happen but to ever take the diary seriously this HAS TO BE DISPROVED FIRST and for me no one has done that. For this reason I see no reason to take James Maybrick ripper candidacy seriously
Tom
|
ensouled
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 6:38 am: | |
The main thing that bothered me about it was the ending.It had such a novelistic
feel to it.
Everything wrapped up at the end of the story arc.
Life generaly doesnt end with a period but in mid sentence. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 303
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 5:47 am: | |
Hi Thomas,
It's quite simple really. Someone only has to prove the diary a modern creation by exposing the hoaxers and no one would be able to take the Maybrick as ripper theory seriously, nor would anyone need to look for alternative scenarios to explain the diary's existence.
I see little point exploring any other scenarios while there are people around who claim to know that a modern hoax conspiracy was responsible.
Firstly it is my belief that the dairy is a fantasy of James Maybrick....
I'm sorry, Thomas, but I'm going to have to alert the Milk Marketing Board. They may not be aware of the power their pintas have over men's fantasies.
Love,
Caz the Dairy Maid |
Thomas Burns
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 6:59 am: | |
Hi Carolinne,
Not sure what my obsession with a dairy is? Must be something sub-conscious
Anyway your point is valid and I accept that if the book proves a modern hoax then yippee we can bury this nuisance once and for all. Though there is a problem with this and that is simply no amount of tests are likely to ever prove this (for far as I am aware pretty much all tests have already been performed and proved nothing CONCLUSIVE and never will) and there will always be a substantial group of people who will doubt confessions. I personally believe this avenue of investigation has been exhausted and will only continue to prolong the Maybrick dispute.
I find it odd and slightly aversive that people cannot spot the obvious and undisputable pointers in the Diary’s content that prove it is a fantasy/forgery (the above being a small selection of this clear indicators). I do not think we have to prove its provenance since its contents is so contrived and fantastical. I simply cannot understand why, based on its contents, it has ever even been considered genuine. For example, the all issue with cutting the victims’ heads off is just beyond comprehension (the killer would have cut their heads off if they so wished) and it demonstrates clearly that what the author fantasised about and what Jack actually did were irreconcilably.
I think further investigation into James Maybrick/Diary is a waste of resources and we should be focusing our efforts on the more realistic candidates if we ever want to uncover who Jack was. One thing though that I can think off that would definitely drown this red herring for good is to find conclusive proof that James was not in London at the time of any murder ascribed to Jack (especially the canonical murders)
Tom
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 309
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 05, 2003 - 12:16 pm: | |
Hi Tom,
Trouble is, everyone has their own opinions about what could be done about the diary and what should be done; what has or hasn't been proved, and what needs to be.
Some would argue that the question hasn't been one of 'genuine versus fake' for a very long time, but one of when the ink was - or could not have been - put to paper.
As for your opinion that other people's resources and efforts are better spent on investigating legitimate ripper suspects, I'm not sure it's an either/or situation, and in any case I don't share your optimism that this is likely to result in uncovering Jack's true identity.
At least trying to discover as much as we can about the diary may ultimately teach us a thing or two we didn't previously know about questioned documents, the best and worst ways of tackling all the problems associated with attempted authentication and so on.
What is likely to be more productive in the long run? Studying the Ripper case in the hope of identifying the murderer, or learning how to recognise the next modern forgery/old fake/authentic document to be thrust into the public domain, perhaps with potentially far more serious consequences than the diary has had on people's lives?
Love,
Caz |
Thomas Burns
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 7:17 am: | |
Hi Caroline,
Firstly can I just say I never meant to suggest that investigation into other suspects will lead to finding out who Jack was for definite, just that it would be more productive in terms of the case to invest our efforts into ascertaining more information regarding candidates other than Maybrick. This is the only way I believe, if at all, Jack’s identity will ever be uncovered.
I do think you have a point in relation to the diary being a good exercise in document examination, but in terms of the case based on it’s contents in can be eliminated. This does not mean that all investigations of this diary should be discontinued, but it should not form part of the ripper investigations. The diary should be examined purely as a process to validate/improve our documentation investigation techniques.
Basically what I am trying to say that there are clear pointers in the diary’s contents to it being a fantasy/forgery. The problem here with regard the provenance of diary is that it very well maybe Victorian but due to its contents it is still a fantasy/forgery. The only way the provenance of the diary can help eliminate the diary is IF IT PROVES TO BE A MODERN document otherwise we will have to rely on the contents, but this ALREADY PROVES A FANTASY/FORGERY so the provenance investigation in relation to the ripper case is futile. I believe the diary will prove to Victorian, as it was very likely written by James but as a pure fantasy and nothing more.
As I suggestion I simply think we need to concentrate our efforts elsewhere and establish where James was on each canonical murder date at least.
Take care
Tom
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 321
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 8:22 am: | |
Hi Tom,
Well, I'm afraid we can't dictate to others what they should or should not bother to investigate, or that they should or shouldn't connect the diary investigation with the whole ripper yarn.
Each to his own, I say, and any information that can be added to the pot will be applied by others as they see fit, and that application will be judged accordingly.
The problem is that anything you see as a 'clear pointer' to the diary's true origins will be seen in a very different light by others. And your 'very likely written by James' will give many a poor reader the vapours!
Which just goes to show how much the diary and its contents will always be tossed about in a storm of subjective opinion and individual interpretation until 100 people could describe the 'clear pointers' they see within its covers and the readers could be forgiven for thinking a 100 different documents were being described.
Yes, if you really think there's a need to find an alibi for James so he can be banished from ripperland for good and put a stop to the diary being taken seriously by anyone (despite your assertion that the content ALREADY PROVES A FANTASY/FORGERY - see what I mean about individual interpretation?) then by all means concentrate your own efforts in that direction. But it won't tell us anything about the real person who wrote the diary, when they wrote it and why, and how they have managed to keep the secrets of its creation intact.
Love,
Caz |
Stephen Lorenzon
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 11:58 am: | |
The only way to fully discount Maybrick is to verify where the man was on the night of the designated 5 Ripper murders.
Another scenario is that Maybrick may have well written the diary and it could be a MIXTURE of fantasy and reality intertwined by a perverse mind. The posters above, and no disrespect to them, have not provided any documented nor valid reason WHY Maybrick would write such a diary.
Also, I have provided no documented reason for my postulation either which brings us back to familar research rules where Maybrick simply has to be discounted by evidence which categorically denies him access to the murder site at the appropriate time.
Regards to all. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 329
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 7:27 am: | |
Hi Stephen,
Are you including me in 'the posters above'? Why should I provide any documented or valid reason why Maybrick would write such a diary? I don't claim he did write it. I don't know who wrote it or when.
I agree that if anyone does want to theorise that Maybrick could have been the ripper, they ought to be doing all they can to make sure there is nothing in the historical record that makes it impossible.
Love,
Caz
|
John R. Fogarty
Sergeant
Username: Goryboy
Post Number: 42
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 9:25 am: | |
CAZ, All:
I echo the sentiments of our two Doubting Thomases, i.e., that the diary's author was obviously using materials published after 1988-89 in composing his roman a clef.
CAZ, I was about to make a point-by-point dissection of the contents, as in Tom Burns's first post, but found he'd done my work for me. And, like you, I think enough has been written about the diary's internal evidence of forgery. (I would especially refer to points #1, 4 & 12, by Mr. Burns above.)
B.T.W., congratulations on the book!
Cheers,
John e-Rotten
(a.k.a., Goryboy) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 335
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 12:18 pm: | |
Hi Goryboy,
Thanks very much.
But I do admire your confidence in stating that the diary's author was obviously using materials published after 1988-89. Another one who obviously doesn't need anyone to find an alibi for Maybrick then.
Love,
Doubting Caz |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 5:18 pm: | |
Dear Goryboy,
The MATERIALS are not in doubt. The IDEAS are debatable. The hypothesis that this artefact was created after 1988...is SUBJECTIVE.
Rosey :-) |
Stephen Lorenzon
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 11:55 am: | |
Hi people,
With respect to Thomas's points 1,4 and 12, they are easily explained away, in my opinion and of course I could be totally wrong as we all could be.
Point 1, the tin box may have fallen out in the struggle or may have been found instantly. Even in the dark, one can open up a tin box and feel that it is empty without a light source.
Point 4, with all the blood and gore, and in the state of mind, the killer would have been in, I would say that it would be amazing if the killer knew where he put every piece of flesh that he had cut of from Kelly's body. Hence, in my view a trivial point.
Point 12, is more interesting as it has a higher probability of suspicion but then we are at the mercy of the police report and whether it can be classified as absolutely accurate. Some people are more particular than others.
Caz, sorry but I didn't include you in the previous post. I was trying to make the point that Maybrick must be excluded from the suspects by checking his availability to the crime scene.
Regards to all
Stephen. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 405
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 12:21 pm: | |
Hi Stephen,
That's ok. I'm actually quite surprised an alibi hasn't been found, despite the fact that we are only talking about a couple of hours on just four separate dates in August, September and November. We know from Bernard Ryan's book on the Maybrick case that James Maybrick's visits to Dr. Hopper in Liverpool 'occurred weekly in the summer and autumn of 1888', and that three times in the November he was seen by another Liverpool doctor, Dr. Drysdale, as he had 'complained of ceaseless headaches over a period of three months, of a numbness of the left leg and hand after smoking heavily or taking too much wine, and of various skin eruptions...'
'In the same year, a practising apothecary' named Heaton noticed a change in a prescription he had been refilling 'almost daily for a year and a half', increasing Maybrick's prescribed dose from four to seven drops of 'liquor arsenicalis'. Heaton 'observed that his customer stopped in at least twice a day and sometimes as often as five times a day. In addition, when Maybrick was going out of town, he often had as many as eight to sixteen doses made up in advance'. Maybrick told Heaton that he was taking the arsenic 'for its aphrodisiacal qualities' (which one imagines can only have added to his frustration during nights spent at home with his attractive wife, if she was refusing to have anything to do with him in the bedroom department. So one wonders who was at the regular receiving end of Maybrick's self-induced artificial stimulation?).
Anyway, the main point is that while all this info could be an absolute gift to a forger thinking of turning Maybrick into the ripper (the ceaseless headaches during the exact three months of the murders, even the skin eruptions making him a good candidate for Mr. Blotchy Face, the frustration and anger of a man whose wife won't sleep with him but makes eyes at other men and so on), it could also turn out to be a forger's biggest mistake, choosing someone whose medical history could be unearthed at any time and could reasonably be expected to clash with the timing of at least one claimed return trip to the East End to murder a ripper victim.
What would be a forger's chances of Heaton's records, for example, coming to light one day and revealing that advance doses for Maybrick's out of town days were made up a day or two before each murder date?
Love,
Caz
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 171
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 8:28 am: | |
Caz ---Very very slim, in my opionion. Why would anyone assume that something as obscure as Heaton's business records exist after 115 years? It wasn't long ago that I got a notice in the mail that my doctor from twenty years ago was going to pulp his files.
But should we assume the writer even worried about such things? She seemed joyfully unconcerned that Maybrick's will was extant. She didn't seem to care that the bit player Mrs. Hammersmith's very existance couldn't even be corroborated---nor the murder(s) in Manchester. And as for things 'coming to light' they haven't been particularly good for the diary, have they? The Bond report showing the true nature of the Kelly crime scene. The return of the 'Dear Boss' letter. The research of Shirley Harrison which has carefully unearthed some truly obscure facts about Maybrick's activities during time covered by the diary--which never seem to be alluded to in the diary's text---thus showing (it seems to me) that the author of the diary was unaware of the real details of Maybrick's private life. Just because the diarist demonstrates a great deal of audacity doesn't make me believe she had any reason for being confident that her details were historically accurate. 'Don't worry, be happy.' RP |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 412
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 5:54 am: | |
Hi RJ,
I agree about the forger being joyfully unconcerned about the original will being available to copy from, and it's a puzzle.
It's also a puzzle that the forger (whenever he was a-forging) seemed unconcerned whether Maybrick's various medics' records might have been preserved at the time of his death and his wife's subsequent trial, and the details retained somewhere, perhaps among the trial documentation or even in memorabilia of this famous case handed down through one of the medic's families.
What does it all mean, RJ? Why was the forger so unconcerned whether his work would fly over the course, suffer a refusal or fall at the first fence? I was about to say that he gambled on such things not mattering and it paid off - except that it didn't need to pay off. Whoever actually wrote the diary has apparently been paid nothing for his or someone else's funny little game.
And turning the forger into a 'she', because you're fresh out of male donkeys to pin the tail on, won't make you any less of an ass in 'her' eyes. The only 'she' in your scenario didn't want the diary to pay off at a time when any extra money would have helped her and her daughter. So what on earth would 'she' have done it all for? A joke, designed to make those closest to her, including her unpaid penman, hate her guts?
'Don't worry, be happy'?
Don't make me laugh.
Love,
Caz |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
