Diary Forgery

[admin tim]

Although the topic of the Maybrick Diary has pretty well been beaten to death on the Casebook, there is still lots to say that hasn't been said. While others argue endlessly about Diamine, Chloroacetamide, and such, they seem to have largely ignored the mechanics of forgery. Just how would the diary have been forged, and who could have done it? Not just anyone could have executed a forgery that, while unconvincing to many, has still defied all attempts thus far since 1993 at discrediting it.

These questions were central to an old article that I wrote several years ago and which never saw publication. If there is sufficient interest, I will dig it out and break it up into bite-sized pieces here for discussion. So, my question to you is, do we start such a discussion here or do we let that sleeping dog lie?

Your voice counts, so please be heard!

[Sergeant Thick]

I think it would make for an interesting discussion to try to ascertain how, why and when the diary was written.

It is more than likely that the diary was written after 1987, so the the forger (or forgers) are probably still alive. They must have used very sophisticated forgery techniques to confuse the 'experts' for so long, and many of us would like to know exactly how they did it. Will the culprit(s) ever be named? I think it is doubtful, but after 14 years it would be nice to draw the diary saga to a close and prove beyond doubt that it is a fake.

[Chris G.]

I think it would make for an interesting discussion to try to ascertain how, why and when the diary was written.

It is more than likely that the diary was written after 1987, so the the forger (or forgers) are probably still alive. They must have used very sophisticated forgery techniques to confuse the 'experts' for so long, and many of us would like to know exactly how they did it. Will the culprit(s) ever be named? I think it is doubtful, but after 14 years it would be nice to draw the diary saga to a close and prove beyond doubt that it is a fake.

More likely to learn the name(s) of the hoaxer(s) than to find out who was Jack, I believe. . .

Chris

[Mr.Invisible]

Is there an option to 'praise' the forgers for fooling, and supposedly continuing to fool the investigators.

Just a thought

[Howard Brown]

Tim:

Drag them out,buddy....it would be good to see those old notes.

To me, someone with an expertise in the area of hoax/forgery exposing would be top on my list of possible candidates.

In addition,someone,not necessarily out or for financial gain,could have put this Diary together simply to be the one,one day,to provided a knock out blow to the Diary and become known for that deed,should it come.....Of course,that person may have died in the last few years....or sitting around enjoying him or theirselves.

A disdain for fellow Ripperologists perhaps? A practical joke that went too far ? Who knows...

Who would know how to put together a document such as this....and make it so it was not completely "perfect" or airtight....in order to generate discussion and interest in it?

[Maria Birchwood]

Drag them out !

How and Tim:

I imagine it started a bit like the other worse written book in Ripperology, the fact mixed in with the fiction and they thought they would get away with it maybe as a joke, maybe like the UFO crop circles in Wiltshire but then...reputations had to be maintained and defended at all costs...specially when the lawsuits started.... and ended badly for the bad guys. The trick is who is dumb enough to be left holding the diary.... a bit like the musical chairs...who ever is left when the music stops....and dumb enough to have been left holding the baby......

-Maria

PS. Trick question...who is the custodian of THAT baby... ?

[Maria Birchwood]

Mechanics of Diary Forgery

Well...let´s see then, The provenance. Is Very Shacky.
Before the so call meeting at the pub being the first mention of the diary, nothing in the previous century had surfaced before, so it doesn´t have a reliable sequence of known people in a chain who previously owned it, therefore, it doesn´t corroborate a credible provenance.

That´s for starters... no provenance.

-Maria

[Magpie]

Has anyone ever stopped to think that the whos, hows and whys might better be found in the other side of the Diary equation--i.e. the intent or purpose might have more to do with Maybrick than with Jack. Or perhaps some of the answers exist at the point where the two crimes brush against each other?

[Night Stalker]

Magpie, raises a very valid and unique idea. The diary/forgery could of been written more with the intent, to focus on Maybrick himself and the events leading to his death. Florence Maybrick is a legend in her own right, and it is interesting how both crimes rub shoulders.

NS -

[admin tim]

Beggin' yer pardon, but...

...have you gents seen this poll?

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=49


See if the two choices near the bottom (next to last and the one before that) fill your bill.

[Peter Wood]

The diary is genuine

Stop, look and listen. I'll try to make this as easy for you to understand as possible. There was no forgery. There was no conspiracy. The diary is genuine. Maybrick wrote it. He was Jack the Ripper. And any attempt to argue otherwise is pointless.

Well...let´s see then, The provenance. Is Very Shacky.
Before the so call meeting at the pub being the first mention of the diary, nothing in the previous century had surfaced before, so it doesn´t have a reliable sequence of known people in a chain who previously owned it, therefore, it doesn´t corroborate a credible provenance.

That´s for starters... no provenance.

Oh dear ... so the diary is a fake because it hadn't surfaced for a century? Pleeeeease! Would you be more convinced of the diary's credibility if it had been found by Paul Begg at a car boot sale? Or by Martin Fido in a bookstore? Or by How Brown in a cheeseburger? The fact is that when Maybrick hid his diary only days before he died, he had no idea how and when it would come to the public's attention. You can't say the diary is a fake just because it fell into Michael Barret's hands and not Paul Begg's.

Looks like I got here just in time How. Let's get the show on the road.

Peter

[Howard Brown]

Who put the "man" in Manchester? Thats right ! P.W. !!!!!!!

Welcome back, you sonofagun !!!!

I am taking care of that issue with the inaccessible Forum with Caz. Hopefully she can swing that today....unless Tim sees it first.

Thanks for coming back homes !

How

[Paul Butler]

Oh goodie. Diaryworld's been a bit quiet of late. So what's new?

Paul

[Howard Brown]

Dear Mr. Butler:

The tiger has been unleashed, so to speak. Hopefully he'll reappear on this thread today.

[Paul Butler]

Hi How. My breath is suitably baited.....and please don't bother with the Mr. Butler bit. It will give me delusions of grandeur.

Regards.

Paul