Tweet
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes
View Post
Ok, I'll paint the target on my back and post again. I apologise in advance for the length of this post by the way. I'd like to start by, again, stating 4 points:
1. I am not pro-diary (although it shouldnt matter if I was.) I am simply someone who is not 100% convinced that it is a forgery at this point in time.
2. I am definately not an expert on the diary (or the whole ripper case for that matter.)
3. I'm also pretty certain that I'm not stupid or gullible and I certainly don't have any vested interest in the diary.
4. If an absolutely killer fact emerged that categorically disproved the diary my response would be 'oh, ok fair enough.' I wouldn't burst into tears or feel personally wounded.
And so, the 4 points:
'Poste House.' - I totally accept your points Mike. I suppose, from a personal viewpoint, part of my thinking is: would a forger who had taken the trouble to age documents and do the necessary research be so suicidally stupid as to invent an easily disprovable pub? I just think that it can't be impossible (improbable you may say) that the pub could have been known to a few as The Poste House especially as Post Office and Post House were apparently interchangeable terms. As Maybricks family lived near to it maybe it was what his dad called it and so in Maybrick's head that was what he called it. I've even heard it suggested that it didn't necessarily have to mean a Poste House in Liverpool? I'm not saying anything as a fact. I'm just saying that, to me, this could be a possible answer.
Tin matchbox empty - This one always bothered me the most. Smith's argument is that 2 lines down is the line 'decided Sir Jim to strike.' He believes that this type of inversion is because it's in the form of a poem and the writer used this method to help the 'flow' of the poem. I'll leave that for everyone else. Who knows? It's not impossible. Yes it's a 'coincidence' compared to the police list but it can't be impossible that 4 words could be employed in the same order. It should go without saying that I have no issue with anyone who doesn't buy the explaination.
Handwriting - This is a personal opinion but I've always felt a) has there ever been in the history of forgery an example of someone forging a document without even attempting to forge the handwriting of the alleged subject?
b) that it can't be impossible that Maybrick who saw himself one one hand as a 'gentleman born,' saw the ripper as his dark side (his Mr Hyde if you will.) Yes Mike, it's a pity that it's never been tested to see if there are any detectable traits of Maybrick's known hand (or even Mike Barrett's) but, as you will accept, there's nothing I can do about that.
'One-off instance - This phrase gives me nightmares! It was pointed out by David that 'one off' used as a metaphor for something that happened only once was not in use at the time as there was no written evidence. It was used in industry, evidenced in either1903 or 5, as a one off job or pattern. A part or job only done once. I expressed doubts that it wasn't impossible that it could have been used earlier although I accepted that David was overwhelmingly likely to be correct. Now, and I'm only repeating Robert Smith here, he says that he has found the phrase 'one-off duty' used in 19th century prisons (in Jonathon Green's Dictionary of Jargon.) And so, if this is correct (and I'm not saying it is) then one off appears to have been used as a metaphor for something that occurred once and so phrases like 'one-off event' 'one-off occasion' 'one of instance' could have been used. Yes, it will be said, why hadn't an example survived in writing? Who knows? Has every phrase that's ever been used survived in writing? We surely can't have written records of every single phrase ever employed in the English language?
So there it is. I'm not saying case closed. Or 'how can you not believe it!' I'm just stating a mixture of what's been said by others plus a bit of my own opinion for what it's worth (not much I hear you say.)
There are many doubts about the the diary and so many lies have been told about it that there is a cloud. For myself I completely accept that the likelihood is that it's a forgery but, as yet, at this point in time, I'm not totally convinced. I certainly could be, even probably am, wrong. Soon I'm certain everyone will have a very thorough rebuttal by David Orsam. I can only give my opinion as it stands. There is no conclusive evidence that it's genuine but there is, in my own opinion, no killer fact that disproves. There are, obviously, a host of questions, doubts, lies, claimed coincidences etc but with my own brain being all that I have I remain, slightly unevenly and uncomfortably, on the fence��
If posters here still believe that I'm either 'gullible,' 'foolish' or 'biased' then there's not much that I can do about that.
1. I am not pro-diary (although it shouldnt matter if I was.) I am simply someone who is not 100% convinced that it is a forgery at this point in time.
2. I am definately not an expert on the diary (or the whole ripper case for that matter.)
3. I'm also pretty certain that I'm not stupid or gullible and I certainly don't have any vested interest in the diary.
4. If an absolutely killer fact emerged that categorically disproved the diary my response would be 'oh, ok fair enough.' I wouldn't burst into tears or feel personally wounded.
And so, the 4 points:
'Poste House.' - I totally accept your points Mike. I suppose, from a personal viewpoint, part of my thinking is: would a forger who had taken the trouble to age documents and do the necessary research be so suicidally stupid as to invent an easily disprovable pub? I just think that it can't be impossible (improbable you may say) that the pub could have been known to a few as The Poste House especially as Post Office and Post House were apparently interchangeable terms. As Maybricks family lived near to it maybe it was what his dad called it and so in Maybrick's head that was what he called it. I've even heard it suggested that it didn't necessarily have to mean a Poste House in Liverpool? I'm not saying anything as a fact. I'm just saying that, to me, this could be a possible answer.
Tin matchbox empty - This one always bothered me the most. Smith's argument is that 2 lines down is the line 'decided Sir Jim to strike.' He believes that this type of inversion is because it's in the form of a poem and the writer used this method to help the 'flow' of the poem. I'll leave that for everyone else. Who knows? It's not impossible. Yes it's a 'coincidence' compared to the police list but it can't be impossible that 4 words could be employed in the same order. It should go without saying that I have no issue with anyone who doesn't buy the explaination.
Handwriting - This is a personal opinion but I've always felt a) has there ever been in the history of forgery an example of someone forging a document without even attempting to forge the handwriting of the alleged subject?
b) that it can't be impossible that Maybrick who saw himself one one hand as a 'gentleman born,' saw the ripper as his dark side (his Mr Hyde if you will.) Yes Mike, it's a pity that it's never been tested to see if there are any detectable traits of Maybrick's known hand (or even Mike Barrett's) but, as you will accept, there's nothing I can do about that.
'One-off instance - This phrase gives me nightmares! It was pointed out by David that 'one off' used as a metaphor for something that happened only once was not in use at the time as there was no written evidence. It was used in industry, evidenced in either1903 or 5, as a one off job or pattern. A part or job only done once. I expressed doubts that it wasn't impossible that it could have been used earlier although I accepted that David was overwhelmingly likely to be correct. Now, and I'm only repeating Robert Smith here, he says that he has found the phrase 'one-off duty' used in 19th century prisons (in Jonathon Green's Dictionary of Jargon.) And so, if this is correct (and I'm not saying it is) then one off appears to have been used as a metaphor for something that occurred once and so phrases like 'one-off event' 'one-off occasion' 'one of instance' could have been used. Yes, it will be said, why hadn't an example survived in writing? Who knows? Has every phrase that's ever been used survived in writing? We surely can't have written records of every single phrase ever employed in the English language?
So there it is. I'm not saying case closed. Or 'how can you not believe it!' I'm just stating a mixture of what's been said by others plus a bit of my own opinion for what it's worth (not much I hear you say.)
There are many doubts about the the diary and so many lies have been told about it that there is a cloud. For myself I completely accept that the likelihood is that it's a forgery but, as yet, at this point in time, I'm not totally convinced. I certainly could be, even probably am, wrong. Soon I'm certain everyone will have a very thorough rebuttal by David Orsam. I can only give my opinion as it stands. There is no conclusive evidence that it's genuine but there is, in my own opinion, no killer fact that disproves. There are, obviously, a host of questions, doubts, lies, claimed coincidences etc but with my own brain being all that I have I remain, slightly unevenly and uncomfortably, on the fence��
If posters here still believe that I'm either 'gullible,' 'foolish' or 'biased' then there's not much that I can do about that.
Put your hard hat on, Herlock..
Comment