|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 216
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 8:46 am: |       |
Hi,
I don't Feldmans book is rubbish. I think I cannot understand some of it but am sure if I could it would make a lot more sense to me and the debate.
Jennifer D. Pegg
|
Peter R. A. Birchwood
Sergeant
Username: Pbirchwood
Post Number: 36
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 9:22 am: | |
Jennifer:
There is no repeat no entry in the civil records for the birth of James Maybrick. Trust me, I'm a genealogist.
Your parents get an original birth certificate when you are born but apart from that, the only other "original" is in the books at the Registry Office. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 671
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 1:46 pm: | |
Hi All,
Why the mystery? I imagine that Feldy simply offered Peter good money if he could find what others had been unable to find.
Picking my way through some great and not so great posts, I think Martin Anderson gets my booby prize of the week for showing – and admitting - the least grasp of the subject, while repeating some of the oldest subjective interpretations that have done the rounds a hundred times before, and originated from other people’s poorly thought out logic and reasoning, slavishly agreed with and adhered to, like there are no possible alternative ways of looking at things, and we could all have gone off and done something else many years ago. 
Carry on chaps – you know you want to, you just can’t keep away.
Love,
Caz
|
Martin Anderson
Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 21
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 4:07 pm: | |
Alright Caz,
Couldnt resist coming back at you here. hehe
1. Just give me a quote where I admitted to having the least grasp of the subject, I don't believe I did.
2. I don't think I was being subjective, because I approached the subject with an open-mind until my opinion was inextricably swayed by the facts.
3. Do you have the booby prize?
I wouldn't bother to read Feldman's book. Isn't he the man who tried to blackmail Barrett into NOT making the confession that the diary was a fake.
Martin Anderson
Analyst |
Anthony Dee
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 10:22 am: | |
Hello Again, Everyone
The most interesting part of the Feldman book, to me, is the comparison of a letter written by Maybrick written from the SS Baltic in 1881. Feldman compares it with the Galashiels, Dear Boss letter and the handwriting is very close. Has anyone ever commented on this ?
Regards,
Anthony |
Robert Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 1:06 pm: | |
Alan Sharp makes a fair point. As he suggests, someone only has to hint at “keeping an open mind” on the diary, to provoke a pained response.
Such a response is usually along the lines, that there is an obvious proof of forgery which the open-minded person has stupidly overlooked, but it then proceeds to be “economical with the truth”.
Predictably, therefore, Chris Philips comes up with a “glaring textual error” in the diary. It is indeed true that the diarist wrote of Mary Kelly’s breasts: “Left them on the table, with the other stuff”. To prove his point Mr Phillips quotes Dr Bond’s autopsy, which reports that the breasts were “under the head” and “by the right foot”. Any person, who, is familiar with the (to use Mr Phillips’s words) “details, as rehearsed on the old boards” well knows, the diarist also writes further on the subject of the breasts a few lines later: “I thought of leaving them by the whore’s feet”. So the author of the diary certainly does make a connection between Mary Kelly’s breasts and a placement by her feet.
By all means, belittle the significance of the additional line, if you must, but don’t pretend it isn’t there. Presumably the writer hopes, that readers of the boards are not sufficiently attentive or knowledgeable to notice the selective quoting.
Christopher Anderson gives us more of the same: apparent proofs of forgery, which are no are no such thing. Michael Barrett may be a scouser and prankster, but I was amazed to read that he “is actually a writer of fiction for crying out loud”. Where is the evidence of a novel or a short story or even a couple of lines of standard English prose penned by an unaided Mr Barrett?
And as far as the Poste House is concerned, how does Mr Anderson know the diarist is referring to a Liverpool pub currently called the Poste House? One thing for sure, the pub in Cumberland Street, with that name, could never could have been an actual post house, given its tiny size in the middle of a very narrow street. But there were many genuine post houses in Liverpool during the nineteenth century, to which the diarist could be referring.
Of course, the diary could be a forgery, but that is where the “open mind” comes into play. We all know the forgery mantras, endlessly rehearsed on these boards. So give Alan Sharp, and others who want it, space to explore their own lines of thought and research.
One other often repeated mantra needs to be strongly refuted. Posters have again suggested on these boards, that I would not make the diary available for testing. The opposite is true. One of the key reasons why I continue to own the diary, is so that it remains available for testing and analysis by professional testing organisations, who can demonstrate to me and Paul Begg (who has the job of investigating the feasibility of proposals for testing), that they can make a well-reasoned proposal, and possess the expertise, experience and resources necessary to prove whether the diary is a genuine Victorian document or a modern fake. So far, the only contender has been McCrone Associates in the USA, who were not interested enough to make any informative response to Paul Begg’s e-mails and phonecalls, and who have no access to a bank of historic and modern inks, essential for comparative analysis.
Incidentally, we also would want to find an authenticated and unopened bottle of pre-1992 Diamine ink, which some people believe could have been used by Mike Barrett to write the diary. Does anyone know where one could be located?
Robert Smith
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 165
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 11:20 am: | |
Robert Smith is absolutely correct that it important to keep an open mind on the subject.
He is also 100% correct that the author of the document in question does mention the feet as a possible placement for the breasts. However it is not a few lines further along, it is on the 8th page after the initial description of MJKs murder where the author placed the breasts on the table.
The feet bit was in a crossed out bit of "poetry" that reads in full:
I kissed them
I kissed them
They tasted so sweet
I thought of leaving them by the whores feet
but the table it was bear
so I went and left them there
Which could be interpreted as Robert suggests, or the author could have been simply grasping for a rhyme for "sweet". In any case, the continuation of the rhyme clearly places the breasts in a place that we know they were not. On the table.
It's up to the individual reader to read what significance they want into it. I think it's a bit of a stretch. Personally I find the "glaring textual errors" easier to get around that the handwriting.
But as Dennis Miller likes to say "That's just my opinion. I could be wrong."
Robert,
I truly wish I could provide you with a bottle of pre-1992 Diamine. I've looked for one myself on occasion with no luck.
I certainly urge ANYONE who might have any, or have any idea where one might be found to contact Robert.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Chris Phillips
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 147
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 12:51 pm: | |
Robert Smith
I can't really see how I've been "economical with the truth". The diary - like the newspapers - says that the breasts were left on the table. The question remains, whatever else is said - why on earth should the real murderer have copied this incorrect detail from the newspapers?
Unless you can incorporate the mention of the feet into some sort of explanation for the glaring error, it's clearly irrelevant.
I have no difficulty at all explaining why a forger would have mentioned the feet, if he was combining two secondary sources, as the forger must have done.
But what is your explanation for the error? If you are keeping an open mind, you must have some sort of tentative explanation.
Paul Stephen
Thanks for being the only one to put forward an explanation, since I posted the question a couple of days ago.
Perhaps this explanation is the best that can be done - the murderer just forgot the details, and copied them out of the papers.
Nevertheless, I find it extremely improbable. And I think your argument that the murderer must have read the accounts in the newspapers is rather circular, because it starts by assuming it was the murderer who wrote the diary!
The problem for the pro-diarists is that there are probably something like a dozen such glaring errors and anachronisms. Perhaps an extremely improbable way can be found out of each individual difficulty. But combine them all, and you compound the unlikelihood. Keeping an open mind in the face of the evidence is surely a mighty act of faith!
Chris Phillips
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 11:22 am: | |
Dear Anthony,
Good for you mate. Nice to see another join the ranks of the unconverted. I’m looking closely at the handwriting “problem” myself at the moment, and the letter written aboard the Baltic and one other found in Virginia make for very interesting study.
Have you tried comparing them to the handwriting in the diary itself? This, and comparison with the disputed handwriting of the will is a very worthwhile exercise.
Regards
Paul
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 170
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 5:49 pm: | |
Anthony and Paul,
If you send me private e-mail I'll send you some comparison JPEGS of the Galashiels letter and you'll instantly notice it looks nothing at all like anything anywhere in the diary (or especially like the Baltic letter, for that matter). It's a shell game being played: "don't look at this writing (the diary), look at this writing, (the G. letter) because it's closer." But the hand that wrote the diary clearly wrote neither of the other documents (unless you are willing to believe in Feldman's unfounded historical fairytales of MPD, etc.).
As for much of the rest of the discussion prompted by Robert's appearance -- it will all deserve comment only after the diary has finally been retested in a thorough manner. Until then, it's all talk but there is nothing to say.
All the best,
--John
PS: Chris -- You're right about the logic of the "he forgot" argument being circular. Look closer and you'll see that's something of a habit in this case. The argument begins by assuming, as one of its premises, the conclusion it is trying to prove. In logic class, we fail students for doing that. The word we use is "invalid." |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 167
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 7:09 pm: | |
Anthony and Paul,
In regards to the handwriting, don't forget that not only does the handwriting in the diary have to be reconciled with that of the historical James Maybrick, but it also needs to be reconciled with the Dear Boss letter which the diary takes credit for. Rendell, Maureen Owens, as well as Sue Iremonger agree that they were not written by the same person.
Additionally, the handwriting was found by the Rendell team to be not compatible with that of late victorian letter formation. In response, Shirely Harrison quotes from Robert A.H. Smith, curator of the Department of Manuscripts at the British Library, who says "saw nothing in the diary inconsistent with it being of late nineteenth-century date."
However, while an argument can be made that the diary is compatible with late victorian writing, James Maybrick's education would have occurred quite some decades earlier and would be more representative of mid-nineteenth century writing.
And in regards to keeping an open mind. If you are in doubt regarding the authenticity of Maybrick's will, I can only suggest you read Melvin Harris's comments on the subject as well as those of Feldman, etc to get both sides of the story. His comments can be found here:
http://casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/mharris.html
Good luck with your research.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Chris Phillips
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 149
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 3:41 am: | |
Robert Smith
To raise a second point while you're around, there is the diarist's use of the strange phrase "tin match box empty", which turns out to be used in a police inventory of Eddowes's possessions, which wasn't published in 1987.
In October, during the discussion following Chris George's list of objections, including the "match box" one, you wrote of this and the "Poste House" point, "These two examples cannot be proof of a forgery". I queried how the "match box" point could be explained, but the subsequent discussion dealt only with the "Poste House".
This is another point that, to my mind, is conclusive that the diary is not only a forgery, but dates from 1987 or later. But I'd be interested to hear how those with an "open mind" explain it.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 217
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 6:16 am: | |
Hi
First let me reiterate what I meant on the above I meant I don't think Feldmans book is rubbish. Phew, I missed out a vital word there!
Peter,
I do trust you. I did not realise you had looked. I too am a genealogist!
This is why the book confuses me so very much!!!!!
However, there certainly seems to be a baptism, for the correct period.
re the ink
How does one suggest that they made the ink in the first place?
Jennifer D. Pegg
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 6:49 pm: | |
Dear All
Invalid eh?….Hmphhh.
It’s great to see the debate on the diary is going from strength to strength. I’m just amazed at how so many people who discounted it as an irrelevance years ago are still here, and still trying to convince some of us simpler souls how we’re wasting our precious spare time in even bothering with it. Just look at how many postings there are compared to most of the others!
Could it be that you’re still as fascinated as I am?
Chris.
Thanks for your reply to my posting, but please don’t mis-quote me in order to make a point. I’m not suggesting the Ripper forgot anything. I was very careful not to. I am suggesting that after his frenzied mornings work in Millers Court he would have had little or no recollection of the finer details of what he had done with the various bits of Kelly. I’m not putting it forward as some vague possibility either. I am suggesting that this is far more plausible than to assume, as you do, that he would recall any details at all a day or so later.
As for my argument being circular, I take your point, but I’m afraid your suggestion also requires us to make a big assumption. That the Ripper did in fact recall where everything went. I only asked that you assumed the diary genuine for a moment so as to show how it all fitted together. I realise that may be a painful position for some to endure for even a short while, so I promise not to ask again… .
Anyhow, I can see from reading between the lines that you do understand my argument here no matter how round it is so I expect that’s where we will agree to differ.
John.
Thanks for your offer of copies of some of the other handwriting. Please don’t think that I believe in the Gallashiels letter. I don’t. Or that I subscribe to Feldman’s MPD argument. I doubly don’t…! I am more than happy to disregard some of Mr Feldman’s more fantastical theorising, but I don’t write off all his research just because of it, like some have apparently done.
I’ll take the bad student comment in the good humour with which I’m sure it was meant. I didn’t take A level logic, but I did get a few others and think I may just be able to make a rational decision on my own concerning the diary one day.
The handwriting is something I’m looking at for myself at the moment and its not very satisfactory looking at the very small examples in books with a glass. I will send you my e mail gladly and look forward to maybe having some better material to work with.
There. I managed a whole posting without using the word Maybrick……….
Paul
|
Anthony Dee
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 7:14 pm: | |
John,
Thank You. That Info you have would be very interesting. I Love comparing handwriting. I'll get back to you soon on your private e-mail. Thanks Again.
Regards,
Anthony |
Chris Phillips
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 150
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 11:37 am: | |
Paul Stephen
Thanks for your reply.
I'm puzzled why both those who've responded to my question have been so prickly and defensive. In the course of a couple of messages, I've been accused of being economical with the truth, selective quoting, misquoting in order to make a point, and I can only guess at what's implied by "I can see from reading between the lines that you do understand my argument"!
Maybe this is par for the course in diary-related discussions, but it seems a bit unnecessary.
Going back to the explanation, I don't really see that I misrepresented you (I could hardly misquote you, as I didn't quote you in the first place). The distinction between "he forgot the details" and "he would have had little or no recollection of the finer details" is a rather subtle one!
And I'm not assuming that "he would recall any details at all a day or so later". I'm asserting that it's very unlikely that he would have copied these incorrect details from the newspapers into his diary. That's rather different.
But I'm happy to agree to differ on how likely or unlikely this would be. I'm not particularly trying to "make a point" here, just to understand how those with "open minds" find their way around textual difficulties like this.
In this connection, I'd be equally interested to hear what you think about the "tin match box empty" difficulty.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on January 25, 2004) |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 534
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 6:41 am: | |
Just to say that I personally find it hard to keep an open mind on his subject, that isn't to say that others aren't entitled to do so.
I find the fact Michael Barrett confessed it was a fake pretty hard to get over. Why would he confess it was a fake if it wasn't? He would be ruining his own reputation for no reason. Also, the reference to him putting Mary's breasts on the table when they were not seems to speak for itself. The only argument for this is that he maybe not have known what was what after a while, but I don't buy that.
Just my opinion.
Sarah |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 384
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 7:54 am: | |
Chris
First things first, regarding the question, I chose not to put forward an answer or a possible answer as I felt I didn't need to as I am not trying to prove the diary to be genuine. The point of the location of the breasts is one of the many important factors to be taken into consideration during any investigation into the diary and I thank you for bringing it up.
Regarding the tin match box however, I fail to see your logic in saying it proves the diary to be a fake. If anything I would say it throws up three possibilities
1. The diary is a fake created since 1987
2. The diary is a old fake created by someone with access to the police file
3. The diary was written by Jack the Ripper, who would have known that there was a tin match box and that it was empty and so would have had no need to read it in any file anywhere.
Anyway, regardless of this, to explain where I am coming from, I am trying to write as comprehensively as possible on the subject and as such I believe it would be remiss of me to simply say "the diary is fake and you don't need to worry about it." I happen to think it is fake (my gut feeling at the moment is that it is an old one, but that may change) but if I do say so in print then I believe I have to provide my reason for reaching that conclusion in as much detail as possible.
Therefore if any of you who have studied this subject have information such as the jpegs mentioned above, that they would be willing to share with me, I would be more than grateful if you would email me privately with such information. I'm not trying to be awkward and I'm not trying to argue one side or the other, I just want to get to whole thing straight in my own head. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 539
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 9:51 am: | |
Alan,
If it is an old fake I think that it would be quite interesting to find out where it came from. Maybe a policeman as I don't know who else would have got access to the files. I must admit, the empty tin box is interesting, but if it was a modern fake then they would have had access to the information anyway, that's why I find the idea that it was an old fake interesting. If it was proven to be an old fake, I wonder if there was anyway of finding out where it came from.
Sarah |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 218
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 10:05 am: | |
Hi
I agree with Sarah. this goes back to the poiint I always like to make that if you know something the information is there, even if you did not have access to it.
Jennifer D. Pegg
|
Jim DiPalma
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 62
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 1:13 pm: | |
Hi All,
Alan, fair enough, let's take the three possibilities you raise one at a time:
>1. The diary is a fake created since 1987
This is by far the most likely explanation. It's simple, fits all the known facts, and does not require acceptance of some highly improbable event.
>2. The diary is a old fake created by someone with access to the police file.
Even in the unlikely event someone had access to the police files years before they were made public, and that someone then composed a fake diary, it still means the diary is a fake. It would still be the case that the diary is not what it purports to be, a journal written by James Maybrick recounting his exploits as Jack the Ripper.
>3. The diary was written by Jack the Ripper, who would have known that there was a tin match box and that it was empty and so would have had no need to read it in any file anywhere.
This is the least likely possibility of all, IMO. Here, we are expected to believe that, working in the darkness under the extraordinary pressure of imminent discovery, the diarist/killer took the time to rifle through Eddowe's pockets, made a careful mental note of the contents, then replaced the items to be found later by the investigating PCs. As if that were not already incredible, we are then expected to believe that the diarist recorded this precious little moment using the exact same, rare, military inventory-style phraseology that was used in the police file. The diarist did not write "I found an empty tin match box", but rather "tin match box, empty". The odds that the diarist was not copying from the police report (in whatever year), but independently came up with the exact same, rare, stilted wording are practically nil.
The only one of the above three possibilities that makes any sense whatsoever is 1). Accepting 2) requires the acknowledgment that the diary is a fake. Accepting 3) requires that you purchase some slightly damp real estate I own in southern Florida.
Chris Phillips made an excellent point, one I think has been overlooked:
"The problem for the pro-diarists is that there are probably something like a dozen such glaring errors and anachronisms. Perhaps an extremely improbable way can be found out of each individual difficulty. But combine them all, and you compound the unlikelihood. Keeping an open mind in the face of the evidence is surely a mighty act of faith! "
Exactly. When calculating statistical probabilities, the probability of each dependent event must be multiplied together. For purposes of illustration, let's say 3) above has a 1 in 100 chance of being the truth (the actual odds are much, much higher). Let's also say there is a 1 in 100 chance that the reason the diarist's handwriting does not match Maybrick's is that Maybrick had MPD and wrote in multiple styles (the actual odds are much higher there, too). Mathematically, (1/100) * (1/100) = 0.0001, and we are already at the point where the odds of the diary being authentic are 1 in 10,000, and remember, that's a conservative estimate. Start factoring in some of the other wild explanations that have been put forth to explain the diary's various difficulties, (the Poste House, the textual errors, the suggestion that Maybrick's will must have been faked, etc etc etc) and the odds very quickly become tens of millions to one against. With each convoluted, improbable explanation that must be swallowed to keep the diary's chances of authenticity alive, the odds of it being authentic decrease by orders of magnitude.
All the best,
Jim |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 151
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 1:30 pm: | |
Alan Sharp
The first difficulty with the tin match box is that the diary doesn't just mention it, but it uses precisely the same unusual phrase that the inventory does - "tin match box empty".
As Melvin Harris pointed out, this phrase is wholly characteristic of an official inventory, but very unlikely to have been used by a Victorian diarist.
To keep an open mind about the diary, presumably we have to swallow this as just a coincidence.
On top of that, your possibility 3 - that the diarist knew about the items named in the diary because he was the Ripper - involves another fairly mind-boggling unlikelihood.
We have to imagine that the killer, after killing and mutilating Eddowes, proceeded to take his own inventory of her possessions. Quite a detailed inventory too, if he went as far as inspecting the contents of match boxes, identifying tea and sugar (perhaps by smell? - this was the darkest corner of Mitre Square). And then, presumably he neatly replaced them where he found them, before making his getaway.
How unlikely is that? And how much more likely is it that the inventory, including the damning phrase "tin match box empty", was simply copied by a modern hoaxer after its publication in the 1980s!
Chris Phillips
|
Alan Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 6:00 am: | |
Sorry can someone explain why the tin match box suggests the diary to be a fake. If I remember rightly Paul Feldman made this a key point in his pro diary case. i.e. it proved the diary to be either genuine from a date point of view or a very modern forgery.
Alan |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 7:57 pm: | |
Hi Chris
Was it me being “prickly and defensive”? If it was I will apologise here and now. It just annoys me a little that those who choose to argue from the pro diary standpoint seem to get accused of slanting their arguments accordingly, yet those who hold very clear opposing views and slant their arguments their way, think it’s OK for them.
I’m here to find the answers to as many of my questions as I can, and I value them all both for and against. I wouldn’t even set foot into this lion’s den if I didn’t.
I would just like to work this thing through in my own mind and in my own way. When I’ve evaluated all of the evidence both for and against the diary, I can then decide in my own mind which way the scales will tip.
I hope you now see that I was more than a little put out at your suggestion I was making out the diarist “forgot” where Kelly’s remains were. A ludicrous suggestion I agree. My assertion that he had no recollection, a subtle difference as you say, makes all the difference to my argument as I find that to be a highly plausible answer to your original question. The most plausible in fact.
I also said I felt the diarist would have learned of Kelly’s name from the papers, so why could he not pick up on a few more details too?
I rest my case.
I agree with you that the “Tin matchbox empty”, is a big problem for the diary. Much bigger than the previous issue with Kelly. There are several other big issues that I find it hard to accept from a pro diary standpoint as well, and I shall hopefully pose them all in due course if I may.
Clearly we are all, both those undecided and those against the diary, still equally fascinated and equally keen for that one more bit of evidence to come out that proves whodunnit once and for all. It may never happen of course. As time goes by it seems less likely. One thing is certain though, there are plenty more like me, unconvinced by the debate so far, and looking for that elusive snippet that provides all the answers.
Regards
Paul
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 9:20 am: | |
Sarah
Michael Barrett has also sworn to the fact that he didn't fake the diary. Why do you choose to accept his claim that he did?
Paul
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
