One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[DVV]

Hi Billy,
all avenues have to be explored?
Not sure.
That would mean also: we are free to open all kinds of new avenues. In fact, there are people for so doing. And we have to deal now with ridiculous suspects like Maybrick, Sickert, Macnaghten.
Personally, I don't want to spend too much time with that stuff...and that doesn't mean, I hope, that I'm a bad or narrow-minded researcher.
We can't level everything.
If next year I write a book about Mr Bean-the-Ripper, would you waste your time on it?

Amitiés,
David

[Billy Bulger]

What about the testing?

Hi Billy,
all avenues have to be explored?
Not sure.
That would mean also: we are free to open all kinds of new avenues. In fact, there are people for so doing. And we have to deal now with ridiculous suspects like Maybrick, Sickert, Macnaghten.
Personally, I don't want to spend too much time with that stuff...and that doesn't mean, I hope, that I'm a bad or narrow-minded researcher.
We can't level everything.
If next year I write a book about Mr Bean-the-Ripper, would you waste your time on it?

Amitiés,
David

Hi Dave and all,
Youre absolutely right, the use of the phrase 'all avenues explored' can be abused and, according to several students of the Ripper, has indeed been abused by the likes of Frank Spiering and Melvin Fairclough. But where works done pointing accusatory fingers at Walter Sickert, the Prince of Wales, Dr. Gull and the like differ from those condemning the Liverpudlian toff James Maybrick, is that there is appears to be a more substantial basis.
I freely admit Maybrick seems a fanciful Jack the Ripper but the very fact that serious, detailed, independent testing and analysis has been (and continues to be) conducted concerning the veracity of his supposed Ripper Diary and said tests have not yielded a universal and factual conclusion for or against its authenticity suggests to me that 'exploring the avenue of James Maybrick' is very much a valid pursuit.

[Graham]

"I freely admit Maybrick seems a fanciful Jack the Ripper but the very fact that serious, detailed, independent testing and analysis has been (and continues to be) conducted concerning the veracity of his supposed Ripper Diary and said tests have not yielded a universal and factual conclusion for or against its authenticity suggests to me that 'exploring the avenue of James Maybrick' is very much a valid pursuit".

As John Omlor will tell you, there are no current tests being carried out on the 'Diary'.

Apart from the 'Diary', there is absolutely no credible, concrete evidence to suggest that James Maybrick and the Whitechapel Murderer were one and the same. If any such evidence exsist, I am one of only a few million who would be interested in seeing it.

Cheers,

Graham

[Simon Owen]

Absolutely , if there were any solid evidence beyond the watch and the diary then people would be interested in it.

As far as we know , there just isn't anything. There is no credible evidence to suggest that Maybrick was Jack the Ripper !

[DVV]

Maybrick would even be more credible without his diary and watch...

[Sam Flynn]

Maybrick would even be more credible without his diary and watch...

...how would he know what day it was?

Come to think of it, his diary wouldn't really have helped, being as it was somewhat lacking in the day and date department

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

What a bit of luck Maybrick completed his diary just a few days before he turned up his toes.

Fortuitous timing. JtR's signature.

What's Welsh for bollocks?

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

What's Welsh for bollocks?

"Ceillion"

[DVV]

"couioun" in Provençal, which gave "couiounado" (= nonsense, stipid remark or act).

"Un pèd sus lou Faroun, un pèd sus lou Coudoun,
Mei couioun an boucha la rado de Touloun".

G'night!

[Sam Flynn]

Ceillion... couioun... cojones

(A load of ________ )

[Soothsayer]

...how would he know what day it was?

Come to think of it, his diary wouldn't really have helped, being as it was somewhat lacking in the day and date department

Just as well he never once referred to it as such, then!

[Soothsayer]

Absolutely , if there were any solid evidence beyond the watch and the diary then people would be interested in it.

As far as we know , there just isn't anything. There is no credible evidence to suggest that Maybrick was Jack the Ripper !

Yep, it's diary or bust!

PS I loved DVV's comment that Sir Jim would be more credible without the diary and the watch!

[Omlor]

Tom,

You might have loved it. But, historically speaking, it was silly.

In terms of actual evidence, there is absolutely no more reason to think the real James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper than there is to think that Oscar Wilde was.

Now, of you want to put forward a serious Wilde candidacy....

Nah, I didn't think so.

--John

[Soothsayer]

The wonderful thing about the Maybrick diary is its remarkable longevity despite the overwhelming volume of naysayers.

If it turns out to be a forgery, then it's an excellent one and I applaud our forger for his or her fine efforts.

If it could ever be proven beyond doubt to be authentic, then hats off to Maybrick - he fooled the world then, and he did it again now.

For the many people who can see the initials 'FM' on MJK's wall, keep the faith. For those who can't, fine.

For those of us who think the diary's reference to 'an initial here, an initial there will tell of the whoring mother' might just be a reference to those very letters, keep the faith. For those who don't, fine.

For those of us who are going to respond by saying 'Faith is all it is', etc., we already know. Inherently, everything is faith and belief until it is proven beyond doubt. Seeing really is believing ...

[Stewart P Evans]

Fakes

The wonderful thing about the Maybrick diary is its remarkable longevity despite the overwhelming volume of naysayers.
If it turns out to be a forgery, then it's an excellent one and I applaud our forger for his or her fine efforts.
If it could ever be proven beyond doubt to be authentic, then hats off to Maybrick - he fooled the world then, and he did it again now.
For the many people who can see the initials 'FM' on MJK's wall, keep the faith. For those who can't, fine.
For those of us who think the diary's reference to 'an initial here, an initial there will tell of the whoring mother' might just be a reference to those very letters, keep the faith. For those who don't, fine.
For those of us who are going to respond by saying 'Faith is all it is', etc., we already know. Inherently, everything is faith and belief until it is proven beyond doubt. Seeing really is believing ...

One of the remarkable things about some fakes is the fact that there are always some who will continue to propagate them as long as there is some profit or perceived recognition to be gained. And there will always be a following of ill-informed believers who have been conned by the published works on the subject.

The 'diary' is not an 'excellent forgery' nor is it particularly clever in any way. Indeed the only way it became launched in the first place was the fact that there were those who were making (and hoped to make) money out of it and its sensational nature appealed to a gullible audience and a sensationalist media. It is a notable fact that no recognised Ripper authority has ever believed that it was actually written by Maybrick. This includes the originally hired Ripper consultants Paul Begg, Martin Fido and Keith Skinner. Martin vehemently rejects it, Paul believes it to be a modern forgery, and Keith believes it to be an old forgery thus worthy of further research. Certainly I rejected it in 1992 when it first came to my notice.

So this shows that in no way has any serious Ripper historian ever accepted the duff 'diary' nor do they now. It is dismissed in serious Ripper circles as an impudent fake and lives on only in the specious and circular arguments on Internet sites. Hardly a convincing fake. What also amazes me is that newcomers to the subject presume to know more than those who were actually there at the time. I was there in 1992 with the proponents of the 'diary', I spent hours in Feldman's office in 1993/4, I saw all the nonsense and inventions as they appeared, and I have amassed what are amongst the largest files on the 'diary' that exist.

I had all the relevant books and publications on the Maybrick case in the 1980s, before the 'diary' was ever heard of and I also knew the leading crime historians of the time. But still 'newbies' come along and tell me how I've got it wrong and try to impress with their silly takes on the 'diary' saga. Well, fine if that's their bag, then let them get on with it. And if they want to think that it is clever or possibly genuine that is their prerogative, if they are enjoying themselves good luck to them.