One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[David Orsam]

That's intriguing, David. I have no interest in the 'whether' because I have no doubt at all that Maybrick's handwriting does not appear in that diary. Thus, he should not even be a ripper suspect.

I don't know why it is "intriguing". I was talking to Iconoclast who thinks the diary was written by Maybrick. That's the whole point of this thread.

Various explanations have been offered about the handwriting difference, including that a psychopath uses different handwriting at different times. I have no idea if that is the case – it seems unlikely – but that's what one has to deal with.

[David Orsam]

But there is no need to be 'faced' with it, considering Mike's status as the quintessential unreliable witness.

But we are faced with it, it exists, and while I appreciate that you would like to dismiss it out of hand, without giving it any consideration as to whether it is providing some real information, I don't take that approach.

[David Orsam]

'Plausible' is subjective in a case like this, which is why everyone sees different degrees of 'plausible' in Mike's account. Your 'plausible' may be the next person's 'risible'.

That's why we are having the debate, to determine what is plausible and what is risible.

[David Orsam]

I just don't get why anyone would consider Mike's word more reliable than that of everyone who has ever said anything to undermine it.

I find this an odd statement because I can't see who you mean by "everyone". The only living person who can speak to the story relating to the writing of the Diary as set out in Mike's affidavit is Anne. Who else is there who can possibly give "reliable" testimony on how the Diary was created?

Clearly you don't think that Dr Baxendale's conclusions about the Diary are reliable nor those of the other experts that I have cited who said the Diary looked new in 1993.

So who can be said to reliably tell us what happened?

[David Orsam]

The diary was declared a fake (and likely a recent one) a year before Mike's first confession. It still would have been declared a likely recent fake, for the same reasons, had Mike not come with the territory and provided the comfort of his sworn affidavit. So while it's handy to wheel Mike out and give him a prod every five minutes, he isn't needed to prove anything even if he could.

But I'm not using Mike or his affidavit to "prove" anything. I'm relying on his proven advertisement and purchase of the 1891 diary in March 1992 and saying that once the chronology in his affidavit is adjusted to incorporate this, a lot of things suddenly make sense.

[David Orsam]

Imagine if someone living in Battlecrease at any point had claimed to have discovered the diary and gone public with it, donating it freely to any group of historians or forensic scientists who cared to examine it. What difference would that have made to the shrill verdict of the Sunday Times, which was based supposedly on the document itself, and not dependent on a lousy provenance?

I'm willing to bet its 'finder' would still be viewed by the cynical as the diary's creator. Different motivation and no confession? No problem really. We can do perfectly well without Mike, can't we?

But that didn't happen so why discuss this hypothetical scenario?

[Iconoclast]

It's not a brilliant thread because the Diary is clearly a Hoax.

It is The Greatest Thread of All. No debate about that.

[Graham]

Who else is there who can possibly give "reliable" testimony on how the Diary was created?

Er....Pinkmoon??

Graham

[John Wheat]

It is The Greatest Thread of All. No debate about that.

No it's one of the worst.

[Iconoclast]

No it's one of the worst.

408,000 (and growing) views says otherwise ...

[GUT]

No it's one of the worst.

Not THE worst, that probably belongs to Van Gogh but....

[John Wheat]

408,000 (and growing) views says otherwise ...

That means nothing. If popularity is an indication of quality then why for example is Justin Bieber popular.

[John Wheat]

Not THE worst, that probably belongs to Van Gogh but....

I wouldn't say the Van Gogh thread was the worst it was so absurd it was amusing however I was concerned that if the main poster did actually believe that Van Gogh was Jack the Ripper was he getting the help he needed.

Cheers John

[Observer]

408,000 (and growing) views says otherwise ...

Doesn't mean a jot. "The Red Handkerchief" Hutchinson thread, 1,386 replies, and 370,553 views. Proportionally far superior.

[GUT]

I wouldn't say the Van Gogh thread was the worst it was so absurd it was amusing however I was concerned that if the main poster did actually believe that Van Gogh was Jack the Ripper was he getting the help he needed.

Cheers John

Probably had as many views as this one too