One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

If we knew that Victorian prostitues in a certain area of London used a phrase that was 'based' on a phrase in general usage but had an added word. And then we searched and found no written example of it would we be justified in saying that the phrase was never in use?
If 'one off' can be added to other words and we can find them in writing just a few years later why is it impossible that 'one off instance'
could have been used at the time and possibly only by a few people who were aware of the origin but there's just no extant written examples. I can't see how it's impossible.

Regards
Herlock

Deep down, I absolutely agree with you, Herlock. Actually, it's not even that deep down. But I feel that we should at least strive to determine what is true and deal with that (if we can) or admit defeat. My suspcion is that your view is actually what happened (because I believe the journal to be authentic so by implication Maybrick - in my worldview - wrote "one-off instance" in it) but we can't ignore the 'fact' - at least the proposition - that this would be hugely inconsistent with common speech at that time so that Maybrick's use of the expression - even just for his own eyes - would not have made any real sense.

As I say, I'm on your side of the fence, I really am - but being on it doesn't mean you can't look over it and see what's possible elsewhere ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Ike
I feel that's what I'm doing. Let me be clear here. I'm not saying that the diary definately is real or that Maybrick definately was the Ripper. For the last 30 years I've consciously avoided coming down in favour of one suspect. In fact if I had to put my last speculative pound on a suspect it would probably be Druitt. But no suspect is proven and, to my mind, only Prince Eddy, Cream and, I hesitate to even mention him, Van Gogh can be definitively discounted because it can be categorically proven that they where elsewhere. All others are possible to varying degrees of probability.
David said that, in the case of law, definitive proof isn't required where an accumulation of lesser proofs are available. And that arguments have the same requirements. I'm sorry but I disagree. In law if they only sentenced on definitive proof (cctv footage of a murder for eg) then conviction rates for the guilty would plummet. But even an accumulation of lesser proofs can lead to a false conclusion (Timothy Evans is one of the more famous examples) Here we aren't trying to decide on someone's future or attempting to get a dangerous murderer off the streets. We are trying to decide if the diary is genuine or not. Not probably or likely to be or appears to be but definately. The only reason I debate points isn't because I can't see both sides it's because I try to do just that. I respect David (although I don't know him) but what he appears to be saying is ' look, I've disproved it. End of') I ask myself again ' is it impossible that that phrase could not have been in use, in some circles, and that no letters containing it still exist?' I don't think it does. Doubts...possibly.
When I've looked at the diary debates over the years (and I fully admit not in the last few years) I've always found that its been those who are adamant that it's a forgery who are more keen on lowering the bar of proof. The subject appears to inspire great passion. Some almost seem to take offence when someone says that there's even a remote possibility that it might, just might, be genuine. I only ever try and speak for myself. And so I'll repeat the unpopular view that for me to say "yes, that does it for me, the diary is a forgery," I need absolute, emphatic, categorical proof and I haven't heard or seen it up to yet, no matter how good the research.

All the best
Herlock

[Simon Wood]

I'm still waiting for One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Supports the Diary.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I've just seen a posting on the forum from 2016 where someone has found and pasted a cutting from the British Bee Journal of 1882 where someone says something like " yes I remember Paddy. He was a one-off."
I suppose the cutting was a forgery.

Herlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm still waiting for One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Supports the Diary.

The difference is that I've never tried to say that's it's categorically genuine. Only that it could be. Those who think it's a forgery are the ones with the certainty.
A certainty based on possibles, probables and doubts.

Herlock

[GUT]

I'm still waiting for One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Supports the Diary.

So am I Simon, so am I.

It also seems some are unaware just how difficult it is to prove a negative.

[GUT]

Handwriting, not Maybricks

Ink, too new

One off Instance.

Breasts in the wrong spot.

Some will say "Not one fact" but add them all up and what do we get?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The one Incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact that possibly, only possibly shows that the diary could be genuine is the fact that it hasn't been disproven yet.
I can't prove that the diary is genuine but I admit the possibility. No one can disprove the diary but those that don't believe it don't appear to be as open minded on the subject.
I still can't understand why.
That's what scientists do when they propose a theory. They throw it out to other scientists to test and possibly disprove. If they can't disprove it after a concerted effort over a reasonable amount of time then they conclude that, as things stand, that theory is likely to be true. Therefore the diary has been thrown out there, for 26 years, for researchers to disprove. And for me, all that has been discovered are further questions that, at this point in time, we can't conclusively answer. But we can give hypothetical suggestions as to an answer. At a distance of 119 years we may never answer them.
Why does this position cause such exasperation, irritation and even anger. Surely we should adopt this position in regard to any suspect or theory?

Regards
Herlock

[GUT]

The one Incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact that possibly, only possibly shows that the diary could be genuine is the fact that it hasn't been disproven yet.
I can't prove that the diary is genuine but I admit the possibility. No one can disprove the diary but those that don't believe it don't appear to be as open minded on the subject.
I still can't understand why.
That's what scientists do when they propose a theory. They throw it out to other scientists to test and possibly disprove. If they can't disprove it after a concerted effort over a reasonable amount of time then they conclude that, as things stand, that theory is likely to be true. Therefore the diary has been thrown out there, for 26 years, for researchers to disprove. And for me, all that has been discovered are further questions that, at this point in time, we can't conclusively answer. But we can give hypothetical suggestions as to an answer. At a distance of 119 years we may never answer them.
Why does this position cause such exasperation, irritation and even anger. Surely we should adopt this position in regard to any suspect or theory?

Regards
Herlock

Actually no, scientists are required to show that a hypothesis has at least some prospects of being true before it is even elevated to a theory, nothing has come close to that with the diary.

What every suspect should be accepted till conclusively proven not to be Jack, sorry the onus is the other way around or you have to accept some pretty far out suspects.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Add them up and what do you get.....nothing.

Where is the categorical, scientific proof that the ink is wrong. It may exist but I haven't heard it.

Handwriting...why couldn't Maybrick have used another hand if he saw the ripper as his alter ego or dark side or Mr. Hyde. And what kind of forger makes no attempt to copy the handwriting the first thing that every forger in history has attempted.

Breasts....is it so unbelievable that someone who has just destroyed a woman in a frenzy of bloodlust, scattering body parts and gore around the room, forgets where he put the breasts when writing a diary at the very least hours after the event?

'One off instance' is still not a proof. One off was used. Is it so unbelievable that someone added instance and that no one has found a letter with it in. I don't think so.

The disproving proof may be out there but I haven't seen it yet.

Regards

Herlock

[GUT]

Add them up and what do you get.....nothing.

Where is the categorical, scientific proof that the ink is wrong. It may exist but I haven't heard it.

Handwriting...why couldn't Maybrick have used another hand if he saw the ripper as his alter ego or dark side or Mr. Hyde. And what kind of forger makes no attempt to copy the handwriting the first thing that every forger in history has attempted.

Breasts....is it so unbelievable that someone who has just destroyed a woman in a frenzy of bloodlust, scattering body parts and gore around the room, forgets where he put the breasts when writing a diary at the very least hours after the event?

'One off instance' is still not a proof. One off was used. Is it so unbelievable that someone added instance and that no one has found a letter with it in. I don't think so.

The disproving proof may be out there but I haven't seen it yet.

Regards

Herlock

There in lies the issue, those who reject the diary are accused of being closed minded, but something like getting the breasts in the wrong place was because he was agitated, the handwriting was because he had dual personalities, of course no proof of either of those things.

No wonder I try to stay out of diary threads.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But I will admit that these could be partial proofs of forgery. Why won't you admit that it could, however unlikely, be genuine?

Herlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm sorry that people feel this strongly. The only thing that makes me ever feel like abandoning a debate is when people say virtually: look it's a forgery. Stop trying to look at both sides.

Herlock

[Iconoclast]

Handwriting, not Maybricks

Ink, too new

One off Instance.

Breasts in the wrong spot.

Some will say "Not one fact" but add them all up and what do we get?

This kind of dismissive posturing - when here taken seriously (rather than occasionally with tongue firmly in cheek) - without a shadow of doubt delays the authentication or otherwise of the journal. People generally speaking on this site steer clear of this debate precisely because of the inexplicably strong reactions it brings out in those who post to it.

And this leads rapidly to the Chinese Whispers Effect where issues are cited then re-cited then re-gurgitated then re-invented until people just chuck out a few cliches as evidence of forgery and all is well again in their Ripperworld. "The diary written by James Maybrick was a forgery" (or words to that effect) stated a Channel 5 documentary on Charles Cross in 2015 as though that had never been so well proven; and that's what you're up against. In absolutely no other walk of life would such lazy posturing be permitted to stand unchallenged, nor taken so seriously so readily by those who wish-it-were-so.

So we get GUT citing those old gems:

Handwriting, not Maybricks [Only true of Maybrick's 'public' and formal hand]
Ink, too new [This clearly cannot be true because - if it was - no-one could possibly be arguing for the journal's authenticity ... this is lazy wishful thinking of the worst kind]
One off Instance. [An apparent anachronism, but still some distance from being a categorical proof of a hoax]
Breasts in the wrong spot. [Proof that the author recalled one detail incorrectly - interestingly, this one is never qualified by journal-detractors with the reference to "I thought of putting them by the whore's feet"]

The journal's hand-writing may not be in Maybrick's formal, public hand, but it is certainly in the same hand that wrote the Goulston Street graffito (see History vs Maybrick) assuming it was "duplicated" (after Warren's orders) not simply transcribed, and it is also in the hand that wrote the September 17 letter found sealed in the Public Record Office in 1988 which predated "Dear Boss", "Saucy Jack", and the Lusk letter and which was the first letter on record to contain the name 'Jack the Ripper'.

The Diego Laurenz postcard ties to Maybrick very compellingly. The 'FM' on Kelly's wall has been published by many journal-detractors (as I say, the very best examples are Sugden, and Marriott). The level of detail in the journal is way beyond trivial despite the "Written one wet weekend" brigade.

There is no proof of authenticity, and that burden does sit with those who wish to demonstrate it (clearly); but equally there is no proof of forgery or hoax and - whilst there is no technical reason why journal-detractors should need to show it - its absence should speak to the hearts and minds of us all as to the inherent power of the journal and relevance of the journal. Why are people so very quick to denounce it? My own suspicion is that it is because the journal represents the only bit of hard evidence in this case and that most people do not want the chase to end, preferring instead the inane banter of unprovable theories, names, intentions, conspiracies.

The interesting thing about Chinese Whispers is that they only ever work one way - towards increasing levels of misunderstanding and error. I've always assumed that that was because they become what they become because what they become is what their creators deeply want to hear and believe. Personally, I like to form my own judgement based upon the evidence, even if sometimes it can become a little tongue in cheek ...

[GUT]

Now if we actually had the GSG to compare to......