25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith

[Harry D]

It's religion vs. science, faith vs. reason all over again. The burden of proof lies with the diarists to prove it's authentic. The hoaxers/atheists can point to all manner of contradictions, errors and inconsistencies within the text but the theists/diarists won't budge because they have blindly submitted to the unfounded belief that it's the real deal.

[Mike J. G.]

HERE HERE!!


Many of these naysayers don't even have full evidence at their disposal ... and are using so called 'proof' which is flimsy to say the least (handwriting of James for example).

Anyway, its all fun and games.. I'll carry on being open minded about it all!

MUCH more detective work is needed. Theres real EVIDENCE out there thats yet to be discovered, I'm damn sure!

Then every suspect you do not consider to be valid, you should refrain from posting about? Have I got that right?

So the only person posting about Lech should be Fish and his mate?

Yeah, that's how reasoned debate and analysis works! Erm, no it's not.

The whole point in anything Ripper-related is surely about reasoned debate.

You believers seem decidedly threatened and hurt by the fact that someone would have the gall to ask you for evidence, something you're sorely lacking.

I'm amazed at how totally illogical some posters here actually are, and wonder if they have any interest in scepticism or critical thinking whatsoever.

[Henry Flower]

So, what you're saying is that this thread should be a circle-jerk for believers to pat each each other on the back and talk about how dastardly Sir Jim was? lol. Yeah, awesome idea, mate.

This is a thread regarding the diary, and thus Maybrick, and it's not exlusive to people who believe it to be real, and nor should it be. You might as well ask every single thread on here be left to the people who believe in it, which means you cast aside actual debate, something every aspect of the case warrants.

Bit of a silly suggestion, tbh.

Yeah, he introduced the idea as 'a bit radical'. Other adjectives might also apply.

[Mike J. G.]

Lol...I'll overlook the continued abuse of the word "proof" to point out that there is far more evidence that it's a forgery than there is evidence that it's authentic. There is literally zero evidence that points to it being real and several pieces of evidence that points to it being a fake.

There is not a single compelling piece of evidence that points to it being genuine. Period. This is not a case where both sides have a compelling argument and evidence.

I'm afraid your very sensible post will only fall on blind eyes and deaf ears. You're apparently not dealing with people who're interested in actual logical debate. This is supposed to be a circle-jerk of Maybrick fans, holding each others hand and clicking their ruby slippers together...

There's no place like home, there's no place like home...

[Kaz]

This is a thread regarding the diary, and thus Maybrick, and it's not exlusive to people who believe it to be real, and nor should it be. You might as well ask every single thread on here be left to the people who believe in it, which means you cast aside actual debate, something every aspect of the case warrants.

One of your fellow anti-diarists claims we shouldn't be besmirching a dead mans name....


Lets all just stop posting on the forum...full stop..

[Ally]

One of your fellow anti-diarists claims we shouldn't be besmirching a dead mans name....


Lets all just stop posting on the forum...full stop..

But not until you tell me who the linguistic experts are who say there's no linguistic anachronisms. I can't wait to hear their credentials and how they've expertly concluded there's no anachronisms.

[Kaz]

Then every suspect you do not consider to be valid, you should refrain from posting about? Have I got that right?

So the only person posting about Lech should be Fish and his mate?

Yeah, that's how reasoned debate and analysis works! Erm, no it's not.

The whole point in anything Ripper-related is surely about reasoned debate.

You believers seem decidedly threatened and hurt by the fact that someone would have the gall to ask you for evidence, something you're sorely lacking.

I'm amazed at how totally illogical some posters here actually are, and wonder if they have any interest in scepticism or critical thinking whatsoever.

I was suggesting if you have to 'debate' at least have the relevant new information at your disposal...


By your own admission you've PROVEN its not in James Maybricks handwriting AND YET you don't know if the sample we have is really his?

[Mike J. G.]

Which are?

Are you serious?

1) No match for Maybrick's handwriting, something you can't avoid.

2) He mentions a pub name that didn't exist for several years. There is no other pub by that specific name.

3) The writer includes exact wording for a listed item as it appeared in a book a century later.

4) The writer uses phrases that were not in use in that period.

Now, can you, Kaz, name me 4 examples of it being genuine?

I'll wait... Take your time, Kemosabe.

[Mike J. G.]

Yes. Everybody should just stick to their beliefs and not expose themselves to facts that counter their entrenched ideas. That's how the world should work. God forbid anyone challenge their concept of the universe. And gasp...possibly have to admit they were wrong. The very idea.

Don't ya know, that's literally how science works!

Bloke 1 - The earth is flat.

Bloke 2 - Well, it's not for me to step on your toes. Carry on, discuss with your like-minded mates.

This, ladies and gents, is how we grow and learn as a species.

[Kaz]

But not until you tell me who the linguistic experts are who say there's no linguistic anachronisms. I can't wait to hear their credentials and how they've expertly concluded there's no anachronisms.

What, so you can trash their opinions?

Robert Smith for starters.

[Mike J. G.]

You already know them and they've already been pointed out repeatedly.

The most compelling, for me, is the linguistic anachronisms. The diarist might as well have written "Dude, I like totally killed those women." Like..utterly bogus, man.

Well, it's not entirely impossible that James said that. There's a chance that he was using the word "dude" for the first time, we can't rule it out. I'm on the fence.

[Kaz]

Are you serious?

1) No match for Maybrick's handwriting, something you can't avoid.

2) He mentions a pub name that didn't exist for several years. There is no other pub by that specific name.

3) The writer includes exact wording for a listed item as it appeared in a book a century later.

4) The writer uses phrases that were not in use in that period.

Now, can you, Kaz, name me 4 examples of it being genuine?

I'll wait... Take your time, Kemosabe.

ALL of these four have been addressed, time after time after time...

The fact they don't sink in isn't my problem.

I have a book infront of me that also address's them just fine, thanks.


Shall I lend you £25 ??

[Mike J. G.]

Great, so you accept we need more info to prove categorically its fake.


Shifts your probability scale up a few notches then?

Are you actually typing those words with a straight face?

Do you know how anything works in reality?

It is a likely fake, as evidenced by the many glaring errors.

What you need to do, as a believer, is prove that it is real, that's literally how it works.

Stop embarrassing yourself, you're surely not that dim.

[Mike J. G.]

REally?

My sister lived in Wales for 10 months and came back sounding WELSH!

being cornish it wasn't best received...

Some people are easily wrapped up in dialect, but to assume James Maybrick was the same, to the point where he'd be using Americanisms in writing, is a reach, but hey, what's one more reach in an entire saga of reaching?

[Mike J. G.]

Theres many experts in the field who totally disagree with your assumption.

Who are they? What is their expertise?

Some people tend to see the puppet, and not the strings, Kaz.