|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Flush your 'diary'
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Flush your 'diary'
Author: David Anderson
Saturday, 24 June 2000 - 10:59 am |        | We are told, by Dr Joe Nickell, a noted document consultant ('Who was Jack the Ripper'-Grey House Books 1995 pp95)that when the 'diary' was examined under laboratory conditions,in Chicago, that the handwriting failed to match that of any of the JTR letters which the 'diarist' claimed to have written. Neither does the handwriting match any of the known samples of James Maybrick, including that of his will or his marriage certificate. These tests, so we are told, confirmed earlier tests made, in London,by forensic document expert David Baxendale, who conducted ink-solubility tests and concluded that the 'diary was a modern (post 1990)fake.
Furthermore, a test made by Analysis For Industry, a body headed by Diana Simpson, tested ink-samples from the 'diary' and her report 19.10.1994. concluded that the ink samples contained chloroacetamide a modern ink preservative not used, in ink, until the 1960's.
The overwhelming conclusions must therefore suggest that the 'diary' was written post 1959, and, in all probability, post 1990.
If this is the case then one must ask - Is it really worth any further speculation as to Who? Why? and Where? it was written. It could not have been written by JTR. I have never been convinced by the 'diary' and it saddens me to see so many highly respected and knowledgeable researchers wasting so much time, and energy, on this red-herring.
Any chain is only as strong as its' weakest link. This is not a chain I would attach to my lavatory. |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 24 June 2000 - 12:27 pm | | Hiya David. Don't join in any discussion about who forged the diary if it doesn't interest you! Cheers.
Paul |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 24 June 2000 - 01:06 pm | | Hi Paul,
Were you standing between me and the computer just then?
You took the words right out of my mouth.
Most enjoyable. ;-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: NickDanger
Saturday, 24 June 2000 - 10:04 pm | | Hi all,
Even though I've held the view that the Diary is pure bunk ever since I first heard of it on a '60 Minutes' broadcast, I have followed this discussion with interest. Since it appears that the discussion is winding down (or at least in a lull) and feelings of frustration and exhaustion may be present, I just want to say a few words about the debate from an outsider's point of view.
As one who always thought that lapsus callami was an Italian seafood dish, I have enjoyed the debate as an intellectual and rhetorical funfest. After all, look at the lineup we have. Paul Begg, Melvin Harris, Martin Fido, Peter Birchwood, R.J. Palmer, Caroline Ann, Karoline Leach, etc. (apologies to those I've not mentioned). I have learned more about the thinking processes involved in doing historical research, developing theories and writing about them, the pitfalls of same and the value of scholarly integrity. For me, at least, this has been a valuable tutorial.
Many message board and chatroom contributors have stopped following this discussion, saying that it has become too convoluted and esoteric and, to be sure, I have had difficulty in following much of it. But I felt challenged to stay with it even when some of the postings made my head spin. I believe I have gained a keener appreciation of how to approach problems like the Diary, and for that I thank you all.
I would also like to express my appreciation to all those who have been involved in the discussion for maintaining civility and propriety (with an occasional human slip here and there). Not always an easy thing to do in the heat of the action, but I think it reflects well on this forum and those who participate in it.
I hope this doesn't sound too much like a feelgood puff piece and no, I'm not overmedicated either. I just thought that the time was right to say something positive about the discussion regardless of where it goes from here.
Best regards,
Nick |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 25 June 2000 - 05:24 am | | Thank you so much Nick.
I am quite sure there are many many people who find any Diary discussion totally pointless, and therefore will not be reading any of it.
I am of the opinion that, even if only a handful of people are interested enough, not so much in the Diary itself, but in the people and the nature of the debate, then our time is not being entirely wasted.
I was dragged up to question everything, and I also happen to believe that no information, whatever its source, is useless. If the Diary has taught us anything about human nature (and I believe it is still doing so to an enormous degree), then it has earned itself the right not to be flushed away, burned or sent into a black hole.
Love it or hate it, if it teaches just one person a lesson about life, even at the murky end, I say let's hold on to it.
Thanks again Nick.
Love,
Caz |
Author: David Anderson
Sunday, 25 June 2000 - 03:56 pm | | Paul - The 'diary' did interest me, even though my 'gut' feeling kept telling me that it was not the genuine article. It just saddens me that so much talent appears to be wasting away on a subject that brings us no closer to the true identity of JTR. I have read, with great interest,and printed off, all of the postings on the subject,and shall continue to do so. But, at the end of the day, and since we seem to be in agreement that the wretched thing is a forgery, why then should we care who forged it?
It seems to me that with so much allegation and counter-allegation that we are never going to get to the bottom of the matter.
PLEASE forgive me if I have caused any offence to anyone. You know me and you know that I am the most inoffensive person you could meet. |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 26 June 2000 - 04:16 am | | | David:- You haven't caused any offence at all! And horror that you should have thought otherwise. As you know only too well, the subject of the Ripper is littered with stories from Lees through Matters to Sickert and the Masonic Conspiracy on which there has been - and frequently still is - much speculation. Though the resolution of these little mysteries may not bring us no nearer to identifying the Ripper, there are people, among them myself, who would nevertheless like them solved. As R.J. Palmer has said elsewhere, it would be a pity if the 'diary' was still the source of speculation and argument 102-years from now, thus it is important to try and settle the mystery once and for all, especially while those involved are alive, can be questioned and can have their stories examined and tested. |
Author: Mark Harvey
Monday, 10 July 2000 - 03:34 am | | Mr. Begg-Just tonight I watched a special on JTR on American television on the History Channel. I found your comments insightful, to the point and very interesting. It is refreshing to see someone like yourself who looks at the facts before him (The few SOLID ones we have in this case) and does not offer his expert opinion as gospel as we're so often exposed to here in the USA, but as just that, an informed opinion. I've read comments by others here who try to nail you to the proverbial cross over your thoughts (at the time) that the Maybrick Diary should be investigated and not dismissed out of hand, which good detective work is about I thought. I somewhat know how you feel as I am a ghosthunter/chaser and know reactionary shortsighted ridicule when I see it.
I look forward with great anticipation to reading your book. I also look forward to talking more with many here about the Ripper Case, a case I've been reading on for several years and still find fascinating... |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 10 July 2000 - 05:51 am | | | Mr Harvey:- Thank you for your generous comments. I hope that we will soon be able to resolve the 'diary' question. Much now depends on Melvin Harris and Peter Birchwood revealing what they know (or otherwise putting researchers in touch with the London journalists who may be able to unseal their lips) so that it can be examined. In the meantime, let's hope that more people will be able to recognise 'shortsigned ridicule' when they see it too! |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 11 July 2000 - 02:49 am | | Hi Paul:
'shortsigned ridicule' is rather an interesting concept.... I think you mean as Mr. Harvey wrote, 'shortsighted ridicule' ..... maybe you weren't wearing your glasses when you wrote it? ha ha
Chris |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 11 July 2000 - 03:37 am | | Probably, Chris. I am having a lot of trouble with my eyesight lately.
:-) |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 11 July 2000 - 03:39 am | | | Initialed ridicule, Chris. Not ridicule offered under a full signature. |
Author: Richard Buchko
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 03:39 pm | | I have read both THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER and JACK THE RIPPER - THE FINAL CHAPTER. I find these, particularly THE FINAL CHAPTER very compelling. I am inclined to think the diary is genuine. Can anyone offer hard and fast proof that it is not - or at least something as compelling as Mr. Feldman's book. I agree with those who say it is not the best-written book, but I find the facts and conclusions very strong. I have just come to the board, and it will take me a while to read all the posts, but in the meantime I would like to see what people offer as proof of forgery. Thanks,
Rich
richnjulie@netzero.net |
Author: Jade Bakys
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 06:01 pm | | | I'm reading the Feldman book, but I'm not going to make up my mind until I have read the sequel, 'The Diary of Jack the Ripper the Cappuciano Years'. |
Author: Frost demot
Saturday, 29 September 2001 - 05:34 pm | | personaly i dont think that JtR would write a diary because in my mind he planed on killing his whole life...like he said in his letters he LOVED his work and found it funny. as you see some of JtR's letters that were written to the police from him were usually smothered in bloody fingerprints...i could guess he wrote the letters with blood RIGHT AFTER he killed the person making him all jittery and excited. this excitement could have changed his handwriting...rather then when he was calm and sitting comfortable in bed writing his diary. this could be the reason the letters and diary writing do not match up. just my thaught..
Your Pal
Frost |
Author: DMR
Sunday, 30 September 2001 - 01:12 pm | | I am not sure whether I think the diary is authentic or not. Scientists can't agree on a certain shroud either can they? That being said I must mention that I would be fall on the floor shocked if all we JTR buffs agreed on one suspect 100%.
I will say that the diary was a great piece of writing as far as enthralling me. And it also led me to a new unsolved mystery, Florence Maybrick. Her's was as questionable a trial as ever I have seen. So, even if it is a forgery, the diary has brought a new interest into my life and was very interesting all the while.
M |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 01 October 2001 - 03:23 pm | | Hi All,
Well, I'm not sure we will be able to flush the diary quite as easily as many people might have hoped.
There seems to be strong evidence that the ink's appearance has not changed at all over the last decade, contrary to what some people had been leading us to believe.
The supposed bronzing of the ink as it aged over the years from 1992, when Mike Barrett first produced the diary in London, up until yesterday, when the document was on show for all those attending the Bournemouth conference, appears to be the stuff of myth and wishful thinking.
As far as I know, no one can actually swear that the ink's appearance has changed one iota since it was first seen in 1992 by the various experts on Victorian manuscripts. If this means that the ageing process was complete by then, and we go by Dr. Eastaugh's words, the diary would have to have been written at least 3-5 years before the spring of 1992, which takes us back to the first half of 1989 at the very latest.
Another revelation is that a sample of writing by Melvin Harris, from 1996, using an iron gall ink on Victorian paper, has indeed visibly bronzed, and bore no resemblance whatsoever to the diary ink when I compared the two yesterday.
It would be very helpful if someone could ascertain from Melvin exactly what ink he used so we may eliminate it as the one used by the penman.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Johnson
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 11:41 pm | | | For those who think that the diary is a hoax written by one or more hoaxers. I'd like someone to explain to me how after all these years the person or group has not come forward to take credit for this amazing piece of scholarship? Further, if more than one person was involved, how likely would it be that all of these people could keep their secret thru the years. The logic eludes me. |
Author: Paul Carpenter
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 04:21 am | | Hi John!
I'd like to know why you think that the diary is "an amazing piece of scholarship"? Most students of the case would argue that there is nothing in the diary that can't be sourced from several popular Ripper books a poetry anthology (that happened to be owned by the man who made the Diary public!) and a single work on the life of James Maybrick.
As to why no-one has come forward, sometimes the reward of watching people scurrying about arguing about the reality of your hoax seems to be enough of a motivation! Some time ago, I posted the true story of the Clearwater Penguin hoax here. If nothing else, it should help to show that the motivation of forgers isn't always as obvious as we would like to think!
Cheers,
Carps |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 04:59 am | | John Johnson,
"...if more than one person was involved, how likely would it be that all of these people has not come forward ?...",
is exactly the vicious and specious argument that has been used to "prove" that Jack could not have been more than one.
In fact it has been, as far as I know, often presented as the best of all the arguments in favour of the "Jack was one" theory.
I can only second Paul Carpenter, adding that the rule does not only apply to forgers.
Graziano. |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 08:46 am | | John,
Diary = £$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$£$
Mmmmm,I wonder why??
Monty
 |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 12:27 pm | | Hi Monty,
For whom?
--John |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 02:30 pm | | Hi John,
Mrs Harrison and Mr Feldman just to name two.
Philip
PS I don't mean that they wrote it, just that they turned it into money. |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 04:09 pm | | Hi Phillip,
Well, in Shirley's case, the money issue is now somewhat problematic. The legal expenses and other problems she has faced have turned the diary into anything but a lucrative proposition. I'm not sure about Paul F., but I suspect the same thing is somewhat true -- especially after film plans fell through.
In any case, the suggestion here was that those who forged the thing have all kept quiet about it because of the money to be made. Thus, my question, who has been making money off of it that could be it's silent penman?
Still wondering,
--John |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 08:19 am | | Jon,
The whole diary reeks of cash. My thinking (and I do stress my thinking) is that money was poured into it from the very beginning.
Its a subject that I try to steer clear of. So I'm gonna keep trying.
Monty
|
|
|
|
|
