|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Diary of Jack the Ripper, The (Harrison)
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Media: Specific Titles:
Non-Fiction:
Diary of Jack the Ripper, The (Harrison)
Author: Michael Rogers
Wednesday, 18 November 1998 - 11:53 pm |        | The controversial title, originally scheduled for publication and subsequently dropped by Warner Books, makes its American debut amongst great speculation and skepticism. Is it real? Maybe, and then again maybe not. The diary's alleged author is James Maybrick, a Liverpool cotton merchant who began his ghastly reign of terror as the infamous Ripper after discovering his wife was unfaithful. The volume is divided into three sections: a lengthy explanation of the case which tries desperately to convince the reader of both Maybrick's guilt and the diary's genuine pedigree; photographs of the original handwritten entries and a typed transcript of the diary's text; and a critical report on the dating of the diary by document specialist Kenneth Rendell which is rebutted by the diary's British Publisher Robert Smith. Before releasing the volume, Smith consulted several psychologists, forensic experts, and noted "Ripperologists" several of whom agree the diary could be authentic. Many of the supposed clues clinching Maybrick's guilt, however, are as flimsy and ambiguous as those of the "Paul is dead" craze of 1968 and are not overly convincing. True or false, it is a chilling read nevertheless and worth purchasing.
Michael Rogers, "Library Journal" |
Author: Koji
Wednesday, 18 November 1998 - 11:54 pm | | This book is one of the most promising books on this case ever IMHO. It takes on a new slant to the crimes. Im probably not alone in saying Im sick of reading a new book full of rehashed facts that have been printed and read thousands of times before! You wont find this to be the case here. Alot of evidence is given to support the diary and the book also includes a print of the actual written diary itself as well as a more readable transcript.
If you're bored with the usual old ripper books, look no further! It is undoubtedly controversial, but it is guaranteed to at least make you think about the theory posed here!
A must read! |
Author: Chris Laming
Wednesday, 18 November 1998 - 11:54 pm | | A pretty impressive book indeed. Not at all desperate in tone as suggested by our friend above, more clinical and forensic in it's analysis than anything else to date. I wonder how many of the so-called 'Ripperologists' have any experience at all in forensic psychology - this diary is something that fascinates everyone I've met in my forensic work, it reeks of an escalating psychopathology - not an easy thing to fake...and then there's the absence of hard, scientific rebuttals to the evidence presented in the narative.
It is curious that the updated edition is not mentioned on this website, curious because the 1994 edition includes interesting links to the diary's likely origins....someone doesn't want this mystery solved I suspect...it's far more profitable to keep it a mystery! |
Author: Scott Knudsen
Wednesday, 18 November 1998 - 11:54 pm | | I am fairly new to serious "ripperology" ( less than 6 months), and never heard of the diary before that. I think this allows me a rare claim to an unprejudiced take on the subject. Having read Ms. Harrisons book, the other posts on this page and in particular the information on Mr. Munro's web page (hypertext above), I can only conclude that the diary is a hoax. An entertaining hoax, yes, but still a hoax. The main reason I have come to think this is all on Mr. Munroes page ( any honest diary proponent should check it out ). However, weighing almost equally strongly in my mind is the character of the posts supporting the diary. Mr. Anderson and "Nightma949" are good examples. Rather than defend the diary on it's own merits, which are few, they instead pass judgement on the supposed motives of the diary's detractors. It reminds me of the non-denials counter accusations a wrong-doing politician will typically engage in when caught.
Let me stress that my conclusion is conditional, based on the information in my possession. If any diary proponent can defend the diary on it's own merits and logically refute the points made by Mr. Munro, my open mind would love to hear it. |
Author: Mike and Frank Pooley
Wednesday, 18 November 1998 - 11:55 pm | | It is my opinion that the diary was written by James Maybrick, and that there is not enough evidence at this times to decide if the author was the Whitechappel murderer.
There are are a few items that i believe need to be discuse before any final decision can be reached
. First the phrase "one off" has been shown to be used in a restricted sence by a few people in building and in the mercintile trade. But it needs to be shown that the wider population also used the phrase, but as of this present time that has not been done.
.2nd The author of the diary mentions three other murders two in manchester one stranglulation case and the other just before christmas, and another muder in London just after christmas. The only unaccounted for murder is the second one in Manchester.
.3rd Account has also have to be made of the affect of the drugs James Maybrick was consuming during the Whitechappel murders.
.4th Everything in the diary can be constructed from contemporary evidence.
.5th The author, on the subject of the double event, mentions that Inspector Abberline keps something back;but not in the Kelly murdedr case Why?
.6th There are a couple of instances where the author mentions that the murderous campaign would stop if a specific event happened :- his wife went with him to Manchester; and he buys another book which was bought to his attention by his assistant.
.7th In the diary after the poem about the double event, the author mentions that , in respaonse to the publication of the Jack the Ripper letters, that it is he that knows the truth. Perhaps indicating that this particular alias was used by another writter. |
|
|
|
|
