One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Soothsayer]

Why are you calling yourself Tom?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Same reason you do, mate.



[I thought my reply to Stewart deserved a little more gravitas than my brilliant Super Detective - 'No Crime Too Small' - alter ego]

[Tom_Wescott]

Sooth,

That's some twisted logic.

Salome,

Library? I read about those on the internet once.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Salome]

I should say, I'm loving the smilies by the way but being new to this I haven't worked out how to add them yet - somebody please enlighten me!

[Soothsayer]

Sooth,

That's some twisted logic.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

All part of the highly irrational service, sir ...

Soothy

[Soothsayer]

I should say, I'm loving the smilies by the way but being new to this I haven't worked out how to add them yet - somebody please enlighten me!

When I click on Quote or whatever, I get a menu of them on the right, with a very appealing [More] button!

[Salome]

When I click on Quote or whatever, I get a menu of them on the right, with a very appealing [More] button!

So you do!

[Soothsayer]

Tom, I'd thoroughly recommend Melvin Harris' excellent: The Maybrick Hoax; A Guide Through the Labyrinth for answers to many of your questions:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...y/mhguide.html

I had read this (Harris' dissertation) a while ago, but I've just gone back to it again.

The vast bulk of Harris' comments seem valid - that our forger could have used Underwood (wasn't otherwise familiar with this one) for the Jack details and Morley for the Maybrick ones.

I felt as I was reading through that not every one of his arguments nailed every point they were striving to nail, but nevertheless, there's a huge amount of food for thought (as any good anti-diarist would tell you).

I haven't entirely given up, mind - there are many fruitful and thought-provoking postings left in me yet. I haven't mentioned the 'FM' on the wall for a couple of days, for example. And I'm still mulling over that Diego Laurenz letter to the Liverpool Echo; and the geoprofiling data identifying Middlesex Street so clearly as a potential home for Jack. So many things to consider (the game's not up just yet!).

I haven't posted for a while, incidentally, as I thought it would be a bit of a waste of time if that Big-Bang-in-a-Burger gig had gone wrong ...

Hold on - shouldn't I have known that it wouldn't???

[Omlor]

"geoprofiling data"

I love that phrase.

Looking forward to those "fruitful and thought-provoking postings" promised above...

--John

[Dan Norder]

and the geoprofiling data identifying Middlesex Street so clearly as a potential home for Jack.

We've discussed that at length before also, and, unfortunately, that's more hype then reality.

Dr. Canter's original geographic profiling did not concentrate on Middlesex Street clearly, but when the alleged Ripper Diary was produced he was quick to focus on that area and claim that his profile proved it all along. In other words, it appears he was hanging his professional reputation on having predicted something he hadn't really predicted, and naturally since then he's been trying to claim the diary is real despite the evidence. He already put his money on a horse, and now he wants that horse to win in the eyes of public opinion.

Dr. Rossmo also did a geographic profile, and it has a few different areas he considers worthy of special attention.

In either case, neither results point to Middlesex Street exclusively (except in Canter's altered claims), and geographic profiling is supposed to just give areas to concentrate focus on, not to claim that the killer must have lived in a specific area. We certainly don't have any evidence that Maybrick was present on Middlesex Street at the time of the murders, and hundreds or even thousands (depending upon which version of the geographical profile you look at) of people lived in the highlighted areas, most of whom would make better Ripper suspects than Maybrick does (which doesn't take much).

[Soothsayer]

... geographic profiling is supposed to just give areas to concentrate focus on, not to claim that the killer must have lived in a specific area. We certainly don't have any evidence that Maybrick was present on Middlesex Street at the time of the murders, and hundreds or even thousands (depending upon which version of the geographical profile you look at) of people lived in the highlighted areas, most of whom would make better Ripper suspects than Maybrick does (which doesn't take much).

Hi Dan,

Yes, in my search for fruitful and thought-provoking material, I probably wouldn't be relying on the geoprofiling data alone necessarily - it was just interesting that it managed to throw up Middlesex Street as a strong candidate.

From a pro-diarist viewpoint, there remains the issue of the hotly-debated letters on the wall (in reality, even in perceptual error, they shouldn't be 'there', and yet the debate goes on). The letter from Florence to Brierley is ridiculously convenient for our erstwhile forger. The letter to the Liverpool Echo with the Diego Laurenz 'clue' tantalises the overworked brain. And the geoprofiling data adds a small degree of extra spice to an otherwise weak case.

And then, therefore, there are the patent weaknesses - the handwriting, the Poste House anachronism, the three items from Eddowes (including the literal 'tim match box empty'), the breasts in the wrong place (did Underwood really state they were on the table? - I must get hold of a copy if it is still available).

In fairness to our 13-year old who wrote the thing one inspired weekend in Solihull (if you exist, you're on this site, aren't you?), he or she has composed something which at very least remains ultimately unnailed down.

Anyone got a hammer?

[Ben]

Hi Sooth,

Allow me to offer my tuppence-worth on the diarist's selection of Middlesex Street for Maybrick's bolt-hole, which I don't believe to be purely random.

The diarist assumed the identity of the suspect allegedly observed by George Hutchinson shortly before Kelly's death. We learn as much from the line "A handkerchief red led to the bed". In subsequent press statements Hutchinson claimed that he "fancied" he saw the suspect again in Petticoat Lane, otherwise known as Middlesex Street. A hoaxer need only have read that press statement to amalgamate Maybrick with that alleged suspect sighting, and hey presto, you've got the killer's bolt-hole.

I'm failing to see the significance of "Diego Laurenz". Doesn't that translate simply to "James Lawrence"? In which case, what's the interest factor? Once again, the handwriting is wrong for the real Maybrick, the diarist, AND the "Dear Boss" author. Lots of people were called James, and Lawrence? It takes an awful lot of wishful thinking and filling in the blanks to assume that he secretly meant Florence if you add the "f".

I'm not sure which letter to Brierley you're referring to, but I dearly hope it's not the "May" reference you're still concerning yourself with.

Finally, I'd dispute that the "letters" on the wall are "hotly-debated". I don't get that impression at all. I see a great many people expressing the opinion that the "letters" don't exist, with the vast majority simply nodding in acquiescence...for good reason.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Billy,

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.

It seems far-fetched because it is.

It didn't happen.

At least, not to David Berkowitz.

Regards,
Ben

[Dan Norder]

In fairness to our 13-year old who wrote the thing one inspired weekend in Solihull (if you exist, you're on this site, aren't you?), he or she has composed something which at very least remains ultimately unnailed down.

It's only "unnailed down" to the extent that some people are pathologically opposed to admitting that nails even exist. Most people find it to be more than sufficiently skewered.

[Soothsayer]

Hi Sooth,

Allow me to offer my tuppence-worth on the diarist's selection of Middlesex Street for Maybrick's bolt-hole, which I don't believe to be purely random.

The diarist assumed the identity of the suspect allegedly observed by George Hutchinson shortly before Kelly's death. We learn as much from the line "A handkerchief red led to the bed". In subsequent press statements Hutchinson claimed that he "fancied" he saw the suspect again in Petticoat Lane, otherwise known as Middlesex Street. A hoaxer need only have read that press statement to amalgamate Maybrick with that alleged suspect sighting, and hey presto, you've got the killer's bolt-hole.

Seems fair enough (if that were to prove to be the case).

I'm failing to see the significance of "Diego Laurenz". Doesn't that translate simply to "James Lawrence"?

It has been argued (elsewhere) that Diego equals James (which it does) and that Laurenz passably rhymes with Florence (which I guess it does), and that it was all in uppercase with no obvious reason for being there other than - apparently - as some sort of marker of 'genuineness'.

I'm not sure which letter to Brierley you're referring to, but I dearly hope it's not the "May" reference you're still concerning yourself with.

The 'The tale he told me ...' one.

Thanks for reminding me about the 'May' telegram (not letter, it turns out). It is true that Florie's use of 'May' to refer to her husband Jim/James does give some small degree of support to the diarist's use of it in the same context (prompted by the fortuitous mention in Punch).

Finally, I'd dispute that the "letters" on the wall are "hotly-debated". I don't get that impression at all. I see a great many people expressing the opinion that the "letters" don't exist, with the vast majority simply nodding in acquiescence...for good reason.

The letters on the wall are definitely hotly-debated - in other threads on this Casebook, indeed. Many people have no problem seeing the letters, and many people have no problem seeing letterlike-blood splatters. Strangely, the latter often assume that the former only see the letters because they have a strong psychological drive to do so (a charge that can be equally levied against the latter in claiming to not see the letters - an irony consistently missed by them in their frequently deeply dismissive replies).

[Sam Flynn]

Strangely, the latter often assume that the former only see the letters because they have a strong psychological drive to do so...

...actually, Tom, "strong psychological drive" doesn't enter into it - our minds simply work that way, trying to make sense of ambiguous stimuli, whether we have strong feelings about something or not (although the interpretation of such things can certainly be affected by motivation or belief). It's one thing to see something similar to an "FM" shape on the wall - which I can - but it's quite another to say that it's a deliberately written pair of initials.