One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Harry D]

Didn't get the diary get basic facts about Mary Kelly's murder wrong? For example, he said the breasts were laid on the table, when one was placed underneath her head and one by her foot? That's not a detail I'd expect the murderer to get mixed up, given the ritualistic nature of the mutilations.

[Iconoclast]

But haven't we recently been hearing the same about Cross.... One coincidence too many?

I imagine that many coincidences have aligned with many candidates over the years and that coincidence is frequently a reason for their inclusion in the huge pantheon of candidates for the murderer; but, with Maybrick, coincidence has been raised to an art form - his candidacy is absolutely drenched in the weight of it. See the last part of my 'History vs Maybrick' for even just a taste of it. If Cross - or anyone else - can match this intense level of chance, I'd be inclined to place them also near or at the top of the list of the likely.

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Didn't get the diary get basic facts about Mary Kelly's murder wrong? For example, he said the breasts were laid on the table, when one was placed underneath her head and one by her foot? That's not a detail I'd expect the murderer to get mixed up, given the ritualistic nature of the mutilations.

In itself, it's not enough to ignore everything else, though. The reference to 'Poste House', the use of 'tin match box empty', Barrett discovering the obscure poem, the placing of Kelly's breasts are all things you would not have expected to happen if the diary were genuine, but they are not in themselves catastrophic evidence of a forgery.

Set against the very long litany of remarkable coincidence, the rationale mind asks itself whether the assumption of coincidence is reasonable or whether we should be seeing in the apparent coincidence the actual criminal.

Cheers,

Ike

[pinkmoon]

What about mike barretts amstrad word processor?

[Iconoclast]

What about mike barretts amstrad word processor?

I don't think Mike Barrett's Amstrad word processor was Jack the Ripper, Pinky.

Hope this helps.

Ike

[pinkmoon]

No what I mean my dear is that when someone asked to check his word processors floppy discs he remembered that he had only just formatted the discs

[Pcdunn]

Suspicious?

No what I mean my dear is that when someone asked to check his word processors floppy discs he remembered that he had only just formatted the discs

Formatting prepared blank discs for use, if I remember correctly-- and could "erase" discs that had been used previously. Hmmm....?

[Iconoclast]

Formatting prepared blank discs for use, if I remember correctly-- and could "erase" discs that had been used previously. Hmmm....?

Well, you're welcome to your suspicions, of course, but this is covered in Harrison. I don't recall the specifics right now, but it was something along the lines that he was concerned to have a copy should he lose the original (or something reasonably believable like that). I don't think he made any attempt to hide the fact that he had attempted to type it up (or that, therefore, he had typed it up first if you are that way inclined).

Pinky, you knew the man - he had the guile of a puppy. You need to look elsewhere if you are seeking a forger or a nest thereof.

Personally, I am more than comfortable that the evidence is strong enough to convict Maybrick in a court of law. Unlike Barrett's, Maybrick's confession stands the test of time and ties in with what we know about the case, and what we didn't know about the case. Check out my 'History vs. Maybrick' - it's genuinely brilliant and I'm crazy not to be charging for it. Better still, email me and I'll send you the version with images. The email is at the head of the thread.

My explanation of the Goulston Street Graffito is - at very least - thought-provoking to say the least!

[pinkmoon]

I dont think mike barrett actually wrote the diary but im pretty sure he was in the same room when it was written

[Iconoclast]

I dont think mike barrett actually wrote the diary but im pretty sure he was in the same room when it was written

Well, Pinky, you must have some fairly incontrovertible evidence to be making such a claim.

What is it, exactly?

[Observer]

Well, Pinky, you must have some fairly incontrovertible evidence to be making such a claim.

What is it, exactly?

Take a look at this Ike

http://www.casebook.org/suspects/james_maybrick/mb-con.bjan5.html

[Graham]

Take a look at this Ike

http://www.casebook.org/suspects/jam...con.bjan5.html

Well, if you believe that you'll believe anything. Read 'The Ripper Diary' by Linder, Morris and Skinner for in-depth comments on Barrett's 'confession'. For a start, Anne's handwriting was nothing like the Diary's (and her spelling questionable); and Barrett's description of how he obtained the small red diary at auction is patently fictitious. I'm sure that Caz herself will make a contribution to this thread very soon.

I do, though, believe the Diary to be a forgery, but an old one. Quite gratifying to see the Diary back on the boards again, though.

Graham

[Pcdunn]

Speaking of the diary's handwriting-- was there ever an analysis of Maybrick's known handwriting to the Diary?

[GUT]

Speaking of the diary's handwriting-- was there ever an analysis of Maybrick's known handwriting to the Diary?

I believe there was to his will and I think one other document I can't think of at the moment, but if memory serves that was by a graphologist not a forensic document examiner.

[Graham]

There certainly was an analysis of his handwriting - first, the writing on his will, and secondly his writing of a telegram when he was en route from the USA to England (on the SS Baltic, if I recall correctly). As far as I'm aware, it's generally reckoned that these samples of Maybrick's known handwriting do not correspond to that of the Diary. Or to the known handwriting of either Barratt, or to any other known person.

Graham