One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Simon Owen]

This discussion is rather too one-sided for my liking, so I have signed up to post this: I believe that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper. I am not stupid, I am not demented. I have an MA from Oxford in Modern Languages, which suggests to me at least that I have some analytical skills. I just do not understand how people can read Paul Feldman's 'Jack the Ripper The Final Chapter' without coming away with a feeling that Maybrick MIGHT have been the Ripper, and I am impressed by all the coincidences which, whilst meaningless on their own, build up considerable weight. Maybrick's life is very well documented because of Florence's trial, yet he does not have an alibi for the nights in question. It seems to me much more likely that the writer of the diary was Jack the Ripper than that a forger could have been so lucky.

How do you explain the fact that its not in Maybrick's handwriting ?

[Ally]

Wow. A real life Maybrickian. Quick someone snap a photo before it vanishes back into the wild!

On a side note, isn't Oxford the place where you can pay a fee and get awarded an MA 5 years after you graduate with a BA?

[Observer]

Hi Billy

Again I must reiterate, I am not necessarily sugesting the diary is fact, I am merely arguing that the diarist has gone to great lengths to fake authenticity .

But thats what hoaxers do Billy if they want to get away with it. He or she has researched the Grand National for the period, and quoted lines from obscure poetry volumes, it's clear they've read every Ripper book they could get their hands on. One thing they havn't come up with though is a single revelation about the case, a revelation that only the true killer could have known.

all the best

Observer

[perrymason]

Opening of the Maybrick Coffee House

Grand Opening Soon....

Come and sample some of James Maybrick's own personal coffee, recently discovered when a previously unknown pantry containing his very own roasted beans was found while repairing some electrical wiring in Battlecrease during recent renovations. When you have a cup of Maybrick Coffee, you can almost taste the sooty air of London in 1888, you can almost smell the rich fish scents from when it came ashore at The East India Docks all those years ago. Try it with just a splash of Absynthe for flavour, and some Arsenic for Calm and tranquil thoughts, and you'll be enjoying coffee just as James loved it so many years ago....in between those nasty whore kills, of course.

Large Coffee: For Diary Non-Believers: $1.50
Large Coffee: For Diary Enthusiasts: $ 1,500.00

Cause You know Maybrick Diary lovers, they'll buy almost anything! Get some authentic Maybrick Coffee today, and dont forget to visit our replica 1888 Apothecary Shop in the back. You know James would'nt have!

**Bulk orders available upon request**

[Ben]

I just do not understand how people can read Paul Feldman's 'Jack the Ripper The Final Chapter' without coming away with a feeling that Maybrick MIGHT have been the Ripper

And I just do not understand how people can read Paul Feldman's 'Jack the Ripper The Final Chapter' without smiling thinly as they reach for the waste-paper basket.

No alibis for the nights of the ripper murders? That's because "Newsflash: Maybrick at home as normal" wasn't exactly newsworthy material at the time.

[perrymason]

And I just do not understand how people can read Paul Feldman's 'Jack the Ripper The Final Chapter' without smiling thinly as they reach for the waste-paper basket.

No alibis for the nights of the ripper murders? That's because "Newsflash: Maybrick at home as normal" wasn't exactly newsworthy material at the time.

Thats funny....and I cant understand why people who have read Pat Cornwells book dont chuckle aloud when tossing to said basket.

Odd. Potatoe, Potatoe I suppose.

Cheers.

[Soothsayer]

Missed me guys?

Been busy.

Still am.

Back soon.

Will try to cancel original account to save cyberspace and keep everyone happy.

Billy (Bulger) and others of your brave ilk, don't be afraid to speak up for what you believe. Even if you believe that the diary is a fake, you are right to question how much research was required to compile it.

It was once said that all of the key details on Maybrick's life (including his brothers' whereabouts) were in Ryan's book on Florence. We never did get the page references, but when I read it, I remember a huge amount of detail about her life, but not a lot about his or his brothers' (which is required if Ryan was the source for the diary).

It's really encouraging to see the tide turning so dramatically in favour of the diary's authenticity!

Please be clear, my tongue is firmly in cheek for one reason only - in order to say 'I don't want to hurl insults or have them hurled back at me, and I don't want to take this so seriously that I feel the need to do so'. I very much am a firm believer in the diary, and I wish to exercise my right to say so (preferably with an undertone of harmless humour, if possible). If I have not always achieved this, more fool me.

For the record, I too am reasonably well-educated. I don't think I'm a genius but, equally, I am nobody's fool (bar my own).

[Ally]

This is of course the problem with the majority of Diary "believers". Having conceded it was a fake, not 3 pages ago, when the tide turns in their favor, i.e suddenly they have a friend to back them up, all of a sudden they become genuine believers in its authenticity again. Which means that their "belief" is not based on anything rational, anything fact based or anything that can remotely be substantiated. It's their "feeling" which of course in most you can never argue them out of how they feel and with the weakest like Mitchell, his feeling changes depending on their mood. Either way they are unreliable and pointless to argue with since their arguments are never based on logic but on statements like:

"Well there's not one incontrovertible piece of evidence against it!" Incontrovertible piece of evidence meaning of course that the forger put in a postscript: PS. I forged this, love Anne Graham.

or

"I just don't know how anyone who read Feldman couldn't believe". Er yes. Right. That's incontrovertible evidence right there.

Diary believers. Interesting to study to see where and how the logistical process goes wrong in the human brain, but not much more. You'll never get a clever or good argument out of them, because so far, I haven't met a single one who has managed to sustain a logical and interesting debate. It's all hyperbole and hysteria.

[downonwhores]

Hoax

Here is my opinion:

I have not examined the diary for myself so I cannot say if it is a hoax or not BUT I do know the facts in the diary are wrong.
BUT I think whoever wrote it was under the delusion that they themselves were jack the ripper which is why the style is so fictional. It reads like someone suffering from some kind of mental illness.
I know I can't prove it but I think that some crazy person wrote it then whoever found it, knowing it was not real or even thinking it was real, just decided to take it and put it out there.
Of course, I have no evidence to prove it

But then, maybe they read other fictional and non-fictional ripper books and decided to fake it. That scenario is more likely but i have many questions.

Who exactly faked it? Who actually wrote it and can we prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that they faked it? How did they fake it?

I know many of you will disagree with me and that's ok. I know the
Diary is wrong on a factual level but i'm not satisfied with only that. I wasted money on 3 books saying that it's real so I want the names of the hoaxers so I can sue them for fraud if they are still alive. HA HA

[Soothsayer]

This is of course the problem with the majority of Diary "believers". Having conceded it was a fake, not 3 pages ago, when the tide turns in their favor, i.e suddenly they have a friend to back them up, all of a sudden they become genuine believers in its authenticity again. Which means that their "belief" is not based on anything rational, anything fact based or anything that can remotely be substantiated. It's their "feeling" which of course in most you can never argue them out of how they feel and with the weakest like Mitchell, his feeling changes depending on their mood. Either way they are unreliable and pointless to argue with since their arguments are never based on logic but on statements like:

No need for the abuse, Ally - really, it just doesn't become the Casebook to use vitriol as argument.

I think I have already stated a couple of times that I was being ironic when I suggested that my faith could turn so utterly quickly. My faith is somewhat stronger than that, I promise you.

For the record, I don't simply feel that the 'F' and the 'M' are on Kelly's wall whenever I look at different versions of it. I know it. My faith in the diary is founded on this fundamental issue.

I know the arguments. Those who don't believe in the diary, definitely can't see them. Obviously you can't because if you could, you'd have one very difficult fact to explain away. Many other people can see the letters (see other threads on this site). I know that the Emporer is walking down the road fully clothed but this time the crowd are saying he's naked!

Now, that really is ironic ...

[Omlor]

"I don't simply feel that the 'F' and the 'M' are on Kelly's wall whenever I look at different versions of it. I know it. My faith in the diary is founded on this fundamental issue."

Readers:

"Faith" is the operative word here. This is about faith. That is why there is no point in discussing things rationally with people like Tom.

When you run into "faith" -- especially faith in things like imagined letters in a photograph -- all hope for any productive analysis vanishes.

There are people on the internet who believe man never walked on the moon because of what they think they see in photographs.

There are people who believe the US government blew up the World Trade Center and these people use their own imaginative readings of photographs and videos as evidence.

Hell, there are people on the internet that believe the Earth is really flat and there are people on the internet that believe humans hung out with dinosaurs.

And you can't argue with any of them.

Because it's about faith.

All the evidence points one way, none of it points the other and that doesn't matter for any of them (just as it clearly doesn't matter for Tom here).

It's a fascinating phenomenon from a psychological standpoint; and of course, it's what makes hoaxes possible.

But Ally is right, in the end it makes serious, rational discussion impossible.

I suppose it is good every now and then, though, to have such a vivid demonstration.

Enjoy the day all,

--John

[Soothsayer]

"I don't simply feel that the 'F' and the 'M' are on Kelly's wall whenever I look at different versions of it. I know it. My faith in the diary is founded on this fundamental issue."

--John

It's just a word, John. I used it to mean that I believed the diary to (very likely) be authentic. I'm open to the debate. I just happy to believe the evidence errs on authentic.

It would be great to see some debate but we don't get any. Never. We never get debate. We just get ... well, everyone knows what we get ...

My thread started off way back when as a serious, logical argument. A few posters were brave enough to face the coming onslaught and agree at least to that.

The rest was all-too predictable, sadly.

[Victor]

Missed me guys?

Been busy.

Still am.

Back soon.

Will try to cancel original account to save cyberspace and keep everyone happy.

Billy (Bulger) and others of your brave ilk, don't be afraid to speak up for what you believe. Even if you believe that the diary is a fake, you are right to question how much research was required to compile it.

It was once said that all of the key details on Maybrick's life (including his brothers' whereabouts) were in Ryan's book on Florence. We never did get the page references, but when I read it, I remember a huge amount of detail about her life, but not a lot about his or his brothers' (which is required if Ryan was the source for the diary).

It's really encouraging to see the tide turning so dramatically in favour of the diary's authenticity!

Please be clear, my tongue is firmly in cheek for one reason only - in order to say 'I don't want to hurl insults or have them hurled back at me, and I don't want to take this so seriously that I feel the need to do so'. I very much am a firm believer in the diary, and I wish to exercise my right to say so (preferably with an undertone of harmless humour, if possible). If I have not always achieved this, more fool me.

For the record, I too am reasonably well-educated. I don't think I'm a genius but, equally, I am nobody's fool (bar my own).

OK Tom, you want debate - please explain the contradiction in the two sentences highlighted above. They are diametrically opposed.

[Omlor]

Anyone tempted to believe Tom's whining about the debate that has taken place here should go back to the first message on this thread and read the responses to it that were offered for the first ten or fifteen pages.

See exactly what happened for yourselves.

See how Tom responded to "serious debate." See how he was completely unable to account for the idea of the real James citing three times including once verbatim from an official police document in his own murder confession; how he could not explain why the diary is written in a hand that looks absolutely nothing like the real James Maybrick's writing, even his casual writing in private and personal correspondences, despite the diary author not trying for a moment to hide his supposed identity; how he made a claim that someone once called the real James "Sir Jim" just like it says in the diary, but then when pressed proved unable to cite a single instance anywhere where such a thing happened and could only cite a moment where someone called him something else; how he flippantly dismisses or excuses all the textual evidence (but would have no hope of logically explaining why a diary with pages torn out from its beginning and which pretends to start in media res, even in the middle of a sentence, nonetheless so conveniently gives the reader the entire dramatic set-up complete with all the major players, the conflict, the setting and everything right on the very first page) and all the rest.

This has been a very good example of how those few remaining people who still believe the Diary nonsense think and how they argue and what level of rational thought they employ. And it is exactly the sort of irrational silliness ("we all agree the diary is essentially flawless") and desperate excuse making and tortured logic that you get from the true believers in the other bits of internet nonsense I listed earlier.

Someday someone will have to do a detailed study of this sort of curious behavior and the impact that this technology has had on the people who want to believe in these sorts of things despite all the evidence. I think it would be fascinating.

Now it's off to a day of classes -- and, wouldn't you know it, I'm teaching Descartes this week.

Perfect.

Still smiling,

--John

[Billy Bulger]

Diary believers. Interesting to study to see where and how the logistical process goes wrong in the human brain, but not much more. You'll never get a clever or good argument out of them, because so far, I haven't met a single one who has managed to sustain a logical and interesting debate. It's all hyperbole and hysteria.

Ally and All,
I know the Diary does indeed seem far fetched but then again so does the idea of a man getting orders from a dog to kill couples. I only reference the Son of Sam to demonstrate that we should always keep an open mind not only in a Ripper context but in all walks of life. Jack the Ripper may well turn out to have been little more than a common east end Polish jew but even then I would feel that the exhaustive studies devoted to the Maybrick case (and every other suspect for that matter) were worth while excercises because all avenues need to be explored.