Who was the author of the 'Maybrick' diary? Some options.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I sense frustration that the watch can’t be dismissed easily.

[Kattrup]

Most of us accept that the "Maybrick" watch and diary aren't genuine, John. It's now a question of whodunnit and when.

I think the problem with that is you’re debating with posters who aren’t prepared to accept normal arguments, who use supposition as fact and who have personal interests in prolonging the discussion.
The bottom line is that some people are not prepared to accept that it’s possible to draw conclusions about the diary, the watch etc. indeed, it’s hard to imagine the kind of proof that would not be discounted - a video recording of Barrett writing the diary would be dismissed instantly!

It’s classic conspiracy theorist-techniques: question every little discrepancy in the sources, assume the most far fetched scenarios on the basis that they can’t be ruled out, discount sources not to your liking and cast doubt over every little detail. That way, there’s always more to discuss, and if one is hoping to sell books or be invited as guest speaker to a conference, then more discussion is good, right?

So Steve Elamarna is right: there’s little point in continuing. You and David Orsam are doing stellar work trying to keep arguments empirically based, but I just think you’re up against people whose only objective, for whatever reason, is to continue the discussion far beyond reason.

[John Wheat]

Most of us accept that the "Maybrick" watch and diary aren't genuine, John. It's now a question of whodunnit and when.

I know that Sam it's just the recent threads are becoming tedious and we aren't getting any closer to definitely knowing whodunit and when.

[Graham]

The reports of both the electron microscope specialists are not what I would call wholly supportive of the claimed late 19th century age of the scratchings, and this alone would I think worry me if I'd got any £££'s invested in the Watch being genuine Ripper.

There is also the fact that there are only five initials when for a long time after the East End murders it was thought that [I]seven/I] women had been killed. I don't think anyone on this Forum has so far responded to this point. (Unless Maybrick was claiming he bumped off only five, and the other two were someone else's victims......)



Graham

[Darryl Kenyon]

https://medium.com/boston-university/the-maybrick-hoax-da49e1287d5e

Thought this article might be of interest. Apologies if it has been posted before.

[Abby Normal]

I think the problem with that is you’re debating with posters who aren’t prepared to accept normal arguments, who use supposition as fact and who have personal interests in prolonging the discussion.
The bottom line is that some people are not prepared to accept that it’s possible to draw conclusions about the diary, the watch etc. indeed, it’s hard to imagine the kind of proof that would not be discounted - a video recording of Barrett writing the diary would be dismissed instantly!

It’s classic conspiracy theorist-techniques: question every little discrepancy in the sources, assume the most far fetched scenarios on the basis that they can’t be ruled out, discount sources not to your liking and cast doubt over every little detail. That way, there’s always more to discuss, and if one is hoping to sell books or be invited as guest speaker to a conference, then more discussion is good, right?

So Steve Elamarna is right: there’s little point in continuing. You and David Orsam are doing stellar work trying to keep arguments empirically based, but I just think you’re up against people whose only objective, for whatever reason, is to continue the discussion far beyond reason.

well said. very well said.

[Graham]

https://medium.com/boston-university...x-da49e1287d5e
Thought this article might be of interest. Apologies if it has been posted before.

Darryl,

I believe that report has been posted on this Forum, but a long time ago. I've seen it before. One small point: the report states that chloroacetamide is a relatively modern development as a preservative; however, it's listed in the Merck Catalogue of 1857. I think its main early use was as an insecticide, and I don't know if it was used in inks or paper around the late 1880's. I would guess not.

Graham

[John G]

I think the problem with that is you’re debating with posters who aren’t prepared to accept normal arguments, who use supposition as fact and who have personal interests in prolonging the discussion.
The bottom line is that some people are not prepared to accept that it’s possible to draw conclusions about the diary, the watch etc. indeed, it’s hard to imagine the kind of proof that would not be discounted - a video recording of Barrett writing the diary would be dismissed instantly!

It’s classic conspiracy theorist-techniques: question every little discrepancy in the sources, assume the most far fetched scenarios on the basis that they can’t be ruled out, discount sources not to your liking and cast doubt over every little detail. That way, there’s always more to discuss, and if one is hoping to sell books or be invited as guest speaker to a conference, then more discussion is good, right?

So Steve Elamarna is right: there’s little point in continuing. You and David Orsam are doing stellar work trying to keep arguments empirically based, but I just think you’re up against people whose only objective, for whatever reason, is to continue the discussion far beyond reason.

I would just point put that Mike, in his original affidavit, didn't claim to have written the Diary: he said his wife wrote it (somewhat oddly, he states this was because his own writing was too distinctive ), whilst he dictated.

[John Wheat]

I think the problem with that is you’re debating with posters who aren’t prepared to accept normal arguments, who use supposition as fact and who have personal interests in prolonging the discussion.
The bottom line is that some people are not prepared to accept that it’s possible to draw conclusions about the diary, the watch etc. indeed, it’s hard to imagine the kind of proof that would not be discounted - a video recording of Barrett writing the diary would be dismissed instantly!

It’s classic conspiracy theorist-techniques: question every little discrepancy in the sources, assume the most far fetched scenarios on the basis that they can’t be ruled out, discount sources not to your liking and cast doubt over every little detail. That way, there’s always more to discuss, and if one is hoping to sell books or be invited as guest speaker to a conference, then more discussion is good, right?

So Steve Elamarna is right: there’s little point in continuing. You and David Orsam are doing stellar work trying to keep arguments empirically based, but I just think you’re up against people whose only objective, for whatever reason, is to continue the discussion far beyond reason.

Your absolutely right Kattrup.

[Observer]

Again, I can't help feeling the point is still being missed.

Weren't the experts saying that a modern hoax would have needed all this 'bizarre' polishing in order to mimic all the natural signs of wear and ageing they'd expect to see with scratches made in soft metal many decades ago?

Love,

Caz
X

You're missing the point, purposely or not. There would be no wearing, or ageing to the inside back cover over the years, none. How could there be? The forger of the watch didn't have his thinking cap on when he set out to forge the marks on the watch, he would have best been served to have left the marks as they were immediately after he scratched them into the watch.

[Observer]

I think the problem with that is you’re debating with posters who aren’t prepared to accept normal arguments, who use supposition as fact and who have personal interests in prolonging the discussion.
The bottom line is that some people are not prepared to accept that it’s possible to draw conclusions about the diary, the watch etc. indeed, it’s hard to imagine the kind of proof that would not be discounted - a video recording of Barrett writing the diary would be dismissed instantly!

It’s classic conspiracy theorist-techniques: question every little discrepancy in the sources, assume the most far fetched scenarios on the basis that they can’t be ruled out, discount sources not to your liking and cast doubt over every little detail. That way, there’s always more to discuss, and if one is hoping to sell books or be invited as guest speaker to a conference, then more discussion is good, right?

So Steve Elamarna is right: there’s little point in continuing. You and David Orsam are doing stellar work trying to keep arguments empirically based, but I just think you’re up against people whose only objective, for whatever reason, is to continue the discussion far beyond reason.

Great post Katrup. Post #353 illustrates the points you make to a tee. Your point about the selling of books might well apply here. I brought this up some months ago. Is there another rip off book on the horizon?

[Observer]

I sense frustration that the watch can’t be dismissed easily.

Your senses are letting you down I'm afraid.

[Graham]

In Post 356 Caz says that Mr Dundas described another watch which wasn't the 'Maybrick Watch'. I don't recall reading anything about this elsewhere, so wonder if Caz would kindly explain further?

And still nowt about the 'seven victims' versus the 'five initials'.

Graham

[Observer]

In Post 356 Caz says that Mr Dundas descMurphy other watch whihe 'Maybrick Watch'. I don't recall reading anything about this elsewhere, so wonder if Caz would kindly explain further?

And still nowt about the 'seven victims' versus the 'five initials'.

Graham

Paul Feldman mentioned two watches in his book. I mentioned this some time ago and was told to stop "listening to Feldy". It seems the person who advised me to "stop listening to Feldy" is now suggesting there is a possibilty that there were two watches.

Regardless of how many watches there were Mr Dundas repaired Murphy's watches, and when asked couldn't recall the marks scratched into the "Maybrick watch". There's no doubting the fact that he would have examined the marks of all the watches he repaired, they are put there as an aid to inform whoever is servicing the watch. I contend that if the name Maybrick had been in evidence then he would have remembered it. He didn't remember it.

I brought this point up some time ago, and was told would you believe that perhaps Dundas didn't have a microscope!

As I've said, jewellers have ample optical tools to examine the tiniest details whilst repairing watches. They don't need microscopes.

[Graham]

Paul Feldman mentioned two watches in his book. I mentioned this some time ago and was told to stop "listening to Feldy". It seems the person who advised me to "stop listening to Feldy" is now suggesting there is a possibilty that there were two watches.

Regardless of how many watches there were Mr Dundas repaired Murphy's watches, and when asked couldn't recall the marks scratched into the "Maybrick watch". There's no doubting the fact that he would have examined the marks of all the watches he repaired, they are put there as an aid to inform whoever is servicing the watch. I contend that if the name Maybrick had been in evidence then he would have remembered it. He didn't remember it.

I brought this point up some time ago, and was told would you believe that perhaps Dundas didn't have a microscope!

As I've said, jewellers have ample optical tools to examine the tiniest details whilst repairing watches. They don't need microscopes.

I think I'm with you on this, Observer. It's ages since I read Feldman's book - am currently re-reading Ripper Diary. I'm wondering if in fact we're all just wasting our time....

I'm going to sit down and have a nice cup of tea.

Graham