|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Archive through 25 June 2002
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: Diary of Jack the Ripper:
Ten Year Reflection:
Archive through 25 June 2002
Author: Robert Smith
Wednesday, 05 June 2002 - 12:36 pm |        | Re John Hacker’s posts of 30th and 31st May, he should have read more carefully my post of 15th May 2002, before publicly doubting my sincerity or suggesting that I have been secretive about the scientific reports on the diary and the watch.
I explained very clearly in the post, that I neither commissioned nor paid for any scientific tests. Therefore they are not mine to publish. I personally would be delighted to see every word of every report freely available.
Mr Hacker should write for permission to the people, who commissioned the reports, as follows: Shirley Harrison for the reports on the diary by Eastaugh, Baxendale and Leeds University, the report by Wild on the watch and the transcript of Voller’s examination of the diary; Melvin Harris for the report produced by Analysis for Industry and the transcript of Voller’s later remarks to Harris; to Albert Johnson for Turgoose’s report on the watch; and to Warner Books, New York, for the Rendell report on the diary.
As all these reports are the copyright of the writers of the reports, who are protected by the 1988 Copyright, Design and Patents Act, Mr Hacker will also need their permission as well. Without these permissions, neither I nor anyone else can quote the reports, in their entirety or at length.
If Mr Hacker is seriously determined to see all the reports published on these boards, then he should take the responsibility and the time to achieve it.
Robert Smith |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 05 June 2002 - 01:28 pm | | Hello Robert,
Many thanks for your reply. I did indeed miss the piece of your post of May 15th disavowing any responsibility for the tests. My bad.
Please understand that I did not intend to be discourtous, however given the lack of any response I was beginning to wonder what was up. My earlier attempts at contact were much more politely phrased, but I fear I finally let frustration get the better of me.
I GREATLY appreciate your taking the time to direct me to the proper people and I will indeed follow up with them as time allows. Hopefully soemthing can be worked out to allow those doucments to be made available. It is a worthwhile goal.
Unforunately, I (literally) just got a call that there has been a death in my wife's family so I will need to cut this short and run home now.
Again, I am sorry if I caused any offense.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: jeff
Thursday, 20 June 2002 - 09:55 am | | Hello,
I am dune , and I am very interested in your discussions. I have read a lot [sweet jesus my eyes!] of these posts and have read jtr a-z, the diary by shirley H and I am reading feldys final chapter now. I have not come to any conclusion yet, in fact I predict I will be unsatisfied to make a call either way for years unless new evidence is produced. However, for what its worth I would like your learn'd opinions on my current hypothisis... I belive the "diary" [tablet of self-concious babling more like] is genuine. That is to say, I belive Maybrick DID write it. Whether he was the ripper..I dont know. I have an overwhelming feeling that he was just a self-inflating nutball. This said , it would seem the only other handwritting from the brickman himself is the will. Is it just me? has nobody tried to seek out more examples. I know it was over a centry ago, but every man writes a great deal of crap in his life, from a letter to a xmas card to an invoice and so on...is there NOTHING of maybrick in written word besides the will?? No legal documents in his solicitors archives etc ??
The real problem I have letting the "diary" go away as a forgery..is maybrick is just such a lucky shot. I mean even with the best research the ease with which maybrick fits the bill is phenomenal. There are also so many odd coinsidences , I mean whitechapel liverpool ?? if it was forged the writer must have wet himself with that one! I just dont like some of the posts refering to the diary as a "crude" hoax. I challange anyone to reproduce such an item as the "diary". I did see a few comments on the florie trial..why did she not say anything re james as her defence. Its a good point. I dont know, and it does bother me.
Overall I just would like to say I belive that if it is a fake, then surely its a fantastic fake, and why then was it undertaken?. If it was old, why has it only surfaced in the 90's. Who would write such a thing and not utilise it. And finally ;if its new then why would they watch poor mike barrets life go down the s-bend. I am sorry but anyone who says that mike barret forged it is a muppet, because everything about mike [i'm sure hes a good guy at heart] says he just does'nt have the busfare for that kind of scam, or calibre of document. I belive his confession and annes subsequent confessions are just an exasperated attempt at making the world p*** off out of their lives.
P.S. what do you think of patricia Cornells book on jtr [i have not yet read it], and the movie "from hell" [saw it..utter , utter sh!te!. Give the Sir willy Gull theory a rest already] |
Author: jeff
Thursday, 20 June 2002 - 10:18 am | | P.P.S what the latest verdict on the diary anyway?
seesm like recently its been swinging back to the "pro genuine" camp. An I wrong? can we get a general percieved opinion poll on it? 50-50 ,40-60 etc? Ta |
Author: brad mcginnis
Thursday, 20 June 2002 - 10:53 am | | | Jeff,How about 99.9 to .1 against. Brad |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 21 June 2002 - 03:48 am | | Hi Jeff,
Those muppets you mentioned - there used to be quite a few around here. It's a far rarer sight these days. 
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 25 June 2002 - 06:15 am | | Hi again Jeff,
You are not the only one to have wondered why Florie would have kept quiet at her trial had she known her husband was JtR.
Well, think about it for a moment. I am on trial for poisoning my husband and I have two young children. Every detail of the trial is in the papers, and the intimate details of my love life are being sniggered about all over town and beyond. My adultery is going to be seen as motive enough, even though I am protesting my innocence of the murder charge.
So, am I seriously going to mention it to anyone if my husband, lying delirious on his death bed, had said to me, “Bunny, there is something I’ve got to get off my chest - I am Jack the Ripper!”?
Firstly, I wouldn’t have believed it for a second myself.
Secondly, I wouldn’t want to believe it, even if deep down I suspected it might just be true.
Thirdly, I certainly wouldn’t want anyone else thinking it, for my own and my children’s sakes. It’s not something I’d really care to advertise, if I thought I had married Jack the Ripper and had his babies.
Fourthly, I’d be in a no-win situation at my trial. They’d almost certainly think it a tale of cockandbull (bloody hell - I can't even hyphenate that expression, used in Victorian times, without being accused of profanity by this infernal 21st century machine! ) that I was telling out of sheer desperation, to gain sympathy from the gullible - and I’d be branded a terrible liar as well as a loose woman. And if by the remotest chance they believed my husband had confessed such a thing to me (whether true or not), it would just add to my motive for doing the blotchy-faced big girl’s blouse in, wouldn’t it?
(And fifthly, my husband has called me many things, but Bunny is not one of them.  )
Love,
Caz |
Author: jeff
Tuesday, 25 June 2002 - 12:45 pm | | Am I to assume Caz, that you are pro-diary? or pro-maybrick perhaps? In the posts I've read; your stance does not appear too clear. You do however have the most provocative notions , clearly you are either a lawer or a politician :D [no offence intended]. Seriously , you seem extraordinarily knowledgable and scientificaly objective; delivering intelligent and logical determinations. I suspect you desire a career in the police force? .I appriciate your points on bunny's trial..makes sence. What is your overall theory? real/fake and why?.
I recently noticed something in the diary that sits very oddly with me; one of the poems says the words tin matchbox empty. This is word for word as seen in the police inventory of Caterine Eddows. I dont like focusing in on one phrase, but it does look very much like whomever wrote the poem either saw this on the police report , or is plagerising the report to make the diary appear to reveal secrets onlt the killer would know. The police report; we are told, was not available pre-1987. The only way I can see that the diarist was the killer is if he saw the police report himself..or the police report managed to get into the public domain at the time..thru the notorious leeks the newspapers at the time paid good money for ,perhaps?.
What are your fellings on this caz/anyone?
Cheers |
|
|
|
|
