Author: l anseaume
Sunday, 25 April 1999 - 06:13 pm |        |
After reading the message board: ripper diary is no hoax. I see that many of you have obtained a copy of the book and read it as I have.
maybe it's time to take a poll and see how many now support the diary nad how many disagree with its conclusions. |
Author: l anseaume
Sunday, 25 April 1999 - 06:16 pm | |
please excuse me, I forgot to add that responses to the poll should be short as possible and to the point. waitng to see the results.
thanks;
leonard |
Author: Christopher T. George
Sunday, 25 April 1999 - 07:00 pm | |
Greetings, Leonard:
As you might assume, my opinion is that it is a fake, and not a particularly clever fake either.
Chris George |
Author: Jon Smyth
Sunday, 25 April 1999 - 07:14 pm | |
Ok, you want opinions.....
The 'diary' is not original.
The 'diary' was not written by Jack.
The 'diary' was not written by Maybrick.
The 'diary' is a story until proven otherwise.
I could go on, but whats the point ......
Regards, Jon |
Author: Alex Chisholm
Sunday, 25 April 1999 - 07:49 pm | |
Good evening Leonard
In my never so humble but considered opinion, the so-called diary of JtR is a late twentieth century joke.
Regards
alex |
Author: aaa
Sunday, 25 April 1999 - 08:24 pm | |
| It's a fake. |
Author: Calogridis
Sunday, 25 April 1999 - 08:38 pm | |
Howdy All!
The Diary is a transparent hoax.
Cheers.....Mike |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Monday, 26 April 1999 - 11:31 am | |
Greetings:
The diary is not a hoax: that implies something done for fun, for the hell of it. The diary's a forgery and the motive commercial.
Peter |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Monday, 26 April 1999 - 11:38 am | |
Leonard:
Would you be Canadian, from New Foundland and interested in the Viking voyages?
Peter. |
Author: Edana
Monday, 26 April 1999 - 12:08 pm | |
Indeed, sad to say, I must concur. The diary is a fake (IMHO) And all one can add to that is: ha ha!
Edana |
Author: Caz
Monday, 26 April 1999 - 12:36 pm | |
Yep, I agree with Edana (chortle chortle, guffaw, guffaw).
My bath water's getting cold so see ya all!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Leather Apron
Monday, 26 April 1999 - 09:22 pm | |
| I have done a lot of studying on the diary and see little convincing evidence against it and much for it...my mind's still open, but I say "not a hoax" |
Author: D. Radka
Monday, 26 April 1999 - 10:29 pm | |
Let's see--
Sir P***** would have been put in charge of historical accuracy...
Sir S****** the purchase of the photo album from one of his bookstore mates...
Sir P*** the mind of the murderer...
Sir D***** penmanship, perhaps --?
HA HA Just kidding!
David |
Author: Calogridis
Monday, 26 April 1999 - 10:35 pm | |
Howdy All!
Thanks for correcting me, Peter, but you get the idea right, mate. My opinion is the same as yours, which is- it is a fake. And I do agree with you about the reasons for commercial gain. Doesn't seem to be too much in favor of the Diary on this board.
By the way, not all hoaxes are for free. Some come with a price tag. The joke is still on us if you know what I mean.
Cheers.....Mike |
Author: Julian
Monday, 26 April 1999 - 10:51 pm | |
G'day Caz, Everyone,
IMHO (Hmmm, never done that before, feels good IMHO, wriggle, wriggle) anyway, Maybrick was a drug addicted, cradle snatching adulterer who probably had a penchant for sheep, judging by his occupation.
Now, Ladies and Gentlemen of the brewery, I ask you, "Is this the sort of man who would go around the streets of Whitechapel in the small hours of the morning, searching for a woman's inner beauty?"
Fair dinkum though, this bloke would have been so brain shagged from arsenic ond other assorted goodies by the time of the murders, he wouldn't have been able to find his way to Whitechaple with the aid of an Aboriginal tracker. About his only use in life at this stage would have been standing next to a set of pedrestrian traffic lights, going beep, beep, beep.
IMHO (god that's good!)
Baa.
Jules |
Author: Wolf
Monday, 26 April 1999 - 11:55 pm | |
A rather poor fake written sometime after 1987 but before 1988 when Dr. Bond's notes were published. The hoaxer must have used either Rumbelow's complete casebook or Fido's Crimes Detection and Death.
Peter, it's spelled Newfoundland, all one word and is pronounced new fun land.
Wolf. |
Author: Leanne
Tuesday, 27 April 1999 - 06:10 am | |
G'day All,
Has anyone ever considered the possibility that it is a genuine scrapbook of Ripper poetry, disguised by a modern forger to save the family name, by incriminating the Maybricks?
This would explain why scientific tests made on the ink, can't 'agree' on a date of its composition i.e some pages old, some modern.
I may be 'sticking my head out' a bit with this idea, but I just want to know what 'the natives' have to say about that one!
LEANNE |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Tuesday, 27 April 1999 - 08:49 am | |
Several people have stated that they believe the diary was forged for commercial gain. If so then who is the forger? Presumably if the forger created it for commercial gain then that forger is involved in the diay's commercial exploitation. Now let's see, that means that either Shirley Harrison, Paul Feldman and his research team, Melvyn Harris, Anne Graham (and the publishers for each of these authors) are our prime suspects. They are the people who have gained a commercial value from the diary. The other is Mike Barrett, who from all accounts has squandered every last cent on the amber stuff.
Now if anyone is serious in proving the diary to be a forgery made for commercial value let's start seeing the proof that one of the above forged it.
Dela |
Author: Christopher T. George
Tuesday, 27 April 1999 - 11:28 am | |
Dela:
No, not Melvin Harris surely. I do not believe you mean that Melvin Harris has made any profit out of the diary. On the contrary, Mr. Harris has been and remains a very vocal opponent of the diary. Possibly you mean Robert Smith of Smith Gryphon Publishers, the original British publishers of the diary?
Chris George |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Tuesday, 27 April 1999 - 12:25 pm | |
I have from the beginning always considered it a forgery. I'll go further and say that IMHO the only reason we are still talking about the thing is that people have a vested interest in keeping debate going. Whether this means they've nailed their colours too firmly to the mast to back down or whether there are tacit "understandings," I cannot say. I have always said - and will again - that this field was a bit more collegial before we all took up arms in the Diary war.
Christopher-Michael |
