|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Where do you stand?
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Where do you stand?
Author: C. Junkie
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 06:28 pm |        | 1. Do you think the diary is a modern or old forgery?
2. Why do you think that?
3. Who is your best guess about the forger?
I would just like to know what some peoples opnions are. I hope you will answer my questions.
Thank you,
CJ |
Author: richard nunweek
Saturday, 08 February 2003 - 04:51 pm | | Hi C. Junkie.
I think with out a single doubt that the diary is a forgery, whoever wrote such a piece of junk is clearly trying to write like a deranged madman[which anybody of imagination could do] and fitting all the clues which are availiable to most people with a knowledge of these crimes into diary form.
To answer the question Who was responsible for its completion, the simple answer is I have not the faintest idea, but full marks to the author he caused a lot of controversy and I dare say made a nice few quid out of this scam.
Regards Richard. |
Author: Mark Andrew Pardoe
Saturday, 08 February 2003 - 06:22 pm | | Whatho CJ,
Yes, I think it's a forery but when written? I don't know. I don't trust that nurse Jupp; I think she may have something to do with it. But then again it could be modern.
I am interested in that pub name: the "Poste House" but, I must confess, I am interested in all pub names and especially the entrance doors which appear below them.
Above all, I do keep an open mind; our friend Peter Wood may be the only bloke who is correct on the whole of this site.
Cheers, Mark who's off to Nottingham tomorrow looking forward to a pint of Kimberley Bitter |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 10 February 2003 - 11:06 am | | Hi Richard,
You say you haven't the faintest idea who was responsible for the diary's completion, yet you 'dare say' they 'made a nice few quid out of this scam'.
Do you believe there is a Mr Big behind the scenes, taking a nice few quid off those who made money from the diary?
I can see the potential for making a great comedy drama out of a modern forgery conspiracy involving a mystery man creaming off the spoils, but as a serious theory it lacks a certain something - evidence.
Love,
Caz |
Author: richard nunweek
Monday, 10 February 2003 - 11:53 am | | Hi Caz.
I am Bewildered by your post, I was purely stating my views in the belief that the diary, was a hoax.
Obviously the writer or writers of this believe it or not piece of work, were intending to shock the media , and in return make a huge sum of money in doing so.I am not suggesting in any shape or form that it involved a Mr Big behind the scenes, nor would I see it as a comedy drama,and it certainly is not a theory.
To sum up, The diary was intended to cause a shock,fool the media , and get as many offers of financial rewards as possible, unless Caz you believe it was written by jack himself?. surely not.
Regards Richard. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 10 February 2003 - 01:34 pm | | Hi Richard,
Join the club - I was bewildered by yours! 
Okay, you now say your 'view' is that the diary was a hoax and that 'obviously' the writer(s) 'were intending to shock the media' and 'make a huge sum of money'.
But you have admitted to having not the faintest idea who was responsible.
How does this work without a mystery forger behind the scenes, at least in the early days, passing his work on to Mike Barrett to do something with, then sitting back to wait for the financial rewards to start flowing his way?
Just curious as to how you arrived at your beliefs, and what evidence you have for them, beyond gut feeling and assumption, that the person(s) who created the diary had an active role in publicising it for profit. I still understand very little and believe even less when it comes to the who, how, when and why of it all. That's why I have to ask questions of those who claim to know the how, when or why, when they admit to having little or no clue about the who.
I need answers I can work with, but never seem to get any.
Love,
Caz |
Author: richard nunweek
Tuesday, 11 February 2003 - 06:40 am | | Hi Caz.
The last few posts have been about the authenticity of the Diary.
It would appear Caz that you are pro diary, and i would swing in favour of Anti, but not fully in favour, its just that the evidence overall points to the latter.
Regarding my claim to know how,when,or why, as I said in my first post, I have not the slightest idea , obviously i have read the diary, and the fors and againsts, and I am afraid I can only offer you my [ as you say] gut feeling.
I wish I could offer some evidence one way or the other,I would even accept Maybrick as the Ripper if the evidence was conclusive.
So I am afraid Caz when I remarked that the diary was proberly a hoax, and that the writer or writers were out for sensation and profit,I was only pointing out the most logical explanation for its completion.Lets hope one day proof one way or the other will emerge , then we can all agree.
Regards Richard. |
Author: ALAN SMITH
Tuesday, 11 February 2003 - 11:11 am | | Caz,
I seem to remember you and I having been down this road before. According to most patrons of these boards you are either pro or anti diary, there is no middle ground. As stated before I definitely consider myself to be an agnostic. I agree that Jack the Ripper recording his deeds in a diary and scratching his victims initials on a watch seems unlikely, but what part of this case does that term not apply to. As for Richard's assertion that it is junk and the insinuation that anyone of imagination could have done it, well I despair. More has been discussed and written about this item than any other regarding this case. Junk which anyone could have written? I think not.
Too many people have dismissed the Maybrick candidacy and appear to sneer at those who are not of like mind. Yet there is not one definite piece of evidence that the diary is a fake.
There are questions which have been asked repeatedly by various pro-diarists which no one will answer, this in itself indicates that the case is not yet closed.
Before anyone attaches any pro diary, or Maybrickite labels, let me say that I am not convinced that JtR killed Kelly or left the Goulston Street graffiti, so if you twisted my arm then I would say the likliehood is that the diary is a fake...... Maybe
Regards
Alan |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 11 February 2003 - 12:05 pm | | Hi Richard,
The questions posed by CJ, and the subsequent posts, have surely not been about authenticity at all. CJ wanted to know if we think the diary is a modern or old forgery, the reason for our opinion, and who we think may have forged it. Who has been talking about it being genuine? And why do you think I am pro-diary, just because I don't know the answers any more than you do?
Hi Alan,
Don't you know it's worse than heresy to come out of the closet and declare yourself a diary agnostic on these boards? If we aren't convinced by the modern forgery theory, and feel the need to question the evidence, or ask to be shown some, we must be Maybrickites, no ifs, buts or maybes.
No matter if the history books risk getting it wrong, as long as otherwise smart individuals don't feel foolish for admitting the diary probably wasn't put together over a rainy Liverpool fortnight in 1989 by The Barretts of Goldie Street, with Mr Big spurring them on.
Love,
Caz |
Author: richard nunweek
Tuesday, 11 February 2003 - 12:30 pm | | Hi Caz,and Alan,
The word Junk is obviously the wrong word, I will retract that . I am not saying that anybody could have wrote such a diary , the author would have to have a vast knowledge of the crimes , and a good imagination.
So when do i believe the diary was compiled, I would make an educational guess that being somewhen in the late 1980s.
The reason I can not show any passion for the diary is the subject itself being Maybrick, the facts in my opinion just do not fit , if the diary was found under the floorboards in the house of a east london carpenter or similar working man , then I might open my eyes more.
So to sum up , its not junk , but a well researched hoax proberly written in the later part of the 1980S ,This ends my thoughts on this subject.
Regards Richard. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 11 February 2003 - 10:15 pm | | No vast amount of research was needed; this is a claim that has been disproven many times. A couple years ago I went through the diary line by line. Every single fact about Maybrick & his family can be found in Bernard Ryan's "The Poisoned Life of Mrs. Maybrick." [To me, this is the smoking gun] I do, grant, however, that the forger had a certain amount of cunning.
As for the often repeated observation that a modern forger hasn't been named...
So? What does this suppose to mean? Certainly, if a modern forger is out there, he has realized long ago that the coast is clear; that Scotland Yard has long since lost interest, and that the critics don't have the power to force the issue, insist on interviews, etc.
What's fairly clear is that Barrett wasn't honest about the diary from the get-go. He used an assumed name, lied about the purchase date of the word processor, etc.
No one knows who hoaxed the Piltdown Skull...but that doesn't make it any less the jawbone of an ape. |
|
|
|
|
