One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[ChrisGeorge]

Hold on, David, where did I suggest that Mike may have 'thought all Victorian diaries were identical'? What on earth would have been the point of ordering one to see if 'the' diary was typical if he already believed they all looked the same and that his was no exception?

Whether he was hoping for a diary in which to write out the prepared draft of the forgery, or was just curious to know how closely 'the' diary might compare with someone's actual personal diary from the 1880s, the little red diary was not physically like anything he would have been hoping to see. . .

My guess is Mike sensed that the existing Diary that had come into his hands looked "wrong" because it wasn't like modern diaries. So he wanted to know what typical Victorian diaries were like.

Best regards

Chris

[David Orsam]

My guess is Mike sensed that the existing Diary that had come into his hands looked "wrong" because it wasn't like modern diaries. So he wanted to know what typical Victorian diaries were like.

Leaving aside that this meant that by acquiring a single diary he must have thought he would know what "typical" Victorian diaries were like, why did the advertisement specify a requirement of a minimum of 20 blank pages (up to a maximum of 100% blank pages)?

[ChrisGeorge]

Leaving aside that this meant that by acquiring a single diary he must have thought he would know what "typical" Victorian diaries were like, why did the advertisement specify a requirement of a minimum of 20 blank pages (up to a maximum of 100% blank pages)?

Well he could have thought that he might transfer the Diary text into the purchased Victorian diary because it would look more authentic or reassuring than if it were written, as it is now, in a Victorian photographs album or commonplace book, which looks odd and unnatural, for a "diary."

Best regards

Chris

[David Orsam]

Well he could have thought that he might transfer the Diary text into the purchased Victorian diary because it would look more authentic or reassuring than if it were written, as it is now, in a Victorian photographs album or commonplace book, which looks odd and unnatural, for a "diary."

But you've now added a new and different reason as to why he wanted the diary which you didn't mention before!

As for that new reason, I'm afraid I don't understand it. How would the text look "more authentic and reassuring" if HE wrote it out, unless you are saying he was proposing to copy the Victorian style handwriting in the Diary (i.e. create a forgery)?

How would it look "more authentic and reassuring" in a partly used diary containing some other random person's handwritten diary entries? (or was he intending to cut out those pages do you think?)

And who was he intending to show this "more authentic and reassuring" diary to?

What was he intending to do with it? Pass it off as the genuine Diary?

[ChrisGeorge]

Caz is right. You don't give up, do you?

What I am saying is that Mike sensed he had something important in his hands that tied James Maybrick to the famous Ripper murders. But the book that the Diary text was written in didn't look right. So he thought he might have to re-present it to the world in a different format to make that mint of money that he sensed he might be able to make if he sold it to the right person in London. Got it now?

[Graham]

This thread is now almost as entertaining as this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

Graham

[David Orsam]

Caz is right. You don't give up, do you?

I must admit Chris, I don't recall her saying that. But in fairness to me, it has to be said that you gave one reason for Mike acquiring the diary then, when I asked you about that, you gave me a second, wholly different reason - so I'm not sure how you categorise me as 'not giving up' when all I've done is ask you some questions about that new reason in a single post.

What I am saying is that Mike sensed he had something important in his hands that tied James Maybrick to the famous Ripper murders. But the book that the Diary text was written in didn't look right. So he thought he might have to re-present it to the world in a different format to make that mint of money that he sensed he might be able to make if he sold it to the right person in London. Got it now?

No, I'm afraid I haven't 'got it' Chris because you didn't answer any of my questions.

Critically, was he intending to write it out in his own handwriting or attempt to copy the style of handwriting of in the Diary?

And if you are saying that he was proposing to sell a forgery to the world, why doesn't the notion that he simply forged the one that he did give to Doreen appeal to you?

[Pcdunn]

This thread is now almost as entertaining as this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

Graham

I'm tempted to say "No, it tisn't!" but am afraid some lunatic would bop me on the head with a wooden mallet!

[Sam Flynn]

I'm tempted to say "No, it isn't!"

Yes, it is!

[David Orsam]

This thread is now almost as entertaining as this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

Graham

Can I suggest that Graham didn't make this post during my lengthy arguments with Caz but waited like a hunter until I commenced a brief argument with a new person (Chris George) and then he pounced rapidly with his silly link?

The obvious reason being that if he does it with me and Caz it seems like as much an insult to Caz as me but with me and Chris it's fine, funny and ha ha!

However, the fact is that I'm not here to 'entertain' Graham - if he wants to be entertained then dig out the Monty Python box set - but to discuss the issues relating to the Diary which are unfortunately pretty dull but then why would you be even reading this thread if you find it a boring subject?

[Graham]

Three thousand two hundred and twenty posts and this thread is no nearer any kind of resolution than it was after Post No 1 on 30 August 2008.
Even the always-polite Iconoclast seems to have chucked in the towel.

I would (very politely, because I do know how touchy you are) also gently remind you that Caz has been around far longer than you have with regard to the Ripper Case, and also has had first-hand experience of the persons involved in the Diary story. You have not. I would also very politely point out that it seems to me that Caz has been trying to end this apparently un-ending debate with you, as she sees that it is getting nowhere and will get nowhere.

Finally, you do NOT try to tell me or anyone else what to post on this or any other thread so long as what is posted is not generally offensive. You seem now to view this thread as your own personal property - it is not.

You could do with a sense of humour, David. I am sure that Caz will see the light side of my little attempt at levity.

Graham

[David Orsam]

I would also very politely point out that it seems to me that Caz has been trying to end this apparently un-ending debate with you, as she sees that it is getting nowhere and will get nowhere.

And I will politely point out to you in return that you are wrong. Go back almost 100 posts, to #3125, and you will see that I wrote this to Caz:

"Let me [ask] you this Caz. And perhaps your answer can conclude our discussion, with honour on both sides. For those mere mortals like myself who have no knowledge of any secret evidence showing that the Diary emerged from Battlecrease, are you prepared to accept, based on the evidence of Mike's used or partly used diary hunt in March 1992, that it is both reasonable and credible to believe or suspect that Mike was involved in forging the diary?

I'm not asking you to accept that he was involved only that to a reasonable and intelligent mortal observer the idea is not an absurd one."

Well here we are, nearly 100 posts later, and she hasn't responded to my offer, thus, apparently, not being the slightest bit interested in ending this debate and has continued me to pepper me with questions, most of which show that she hasn't understood what I've been saying. She's even brought back to life one element of the discussion that was dead and buried last December! Frankly, it doesn't matter how long she has been 'around' - but I guess I was right and that you just wanted to insult me, which is why you posted your silly link after one of my posts rather than one of hers.

Finally, you do NOT try to tell me or anyone else what to post on this or any other thread so long as what is posted is not generally offensive. You seem now to view this thread as your own personal property - it is not.

Had you read my post properly Graham (which, in your fury, you obviously didn't) you will have seen that I did NOT tell you what to post on this thread. I simply suggested that you only posted the link after my exchange with Chris because you didn't want to insult Caz, just me. Looks like I was right.

You could do with a sense of humour, David. I am sure that Caz will see the light side of my little attempt at levity.

My sense of humour's fine Graham. But tell you what, why not log on at about 4pm tomorrow, after what will probably be the next massive tranche of Caz's misguided posts, and make some joke about her not being able to stop and then you can allow her to see the light side of your "little attempt at levity". That's just a polite suggestion by the way, wouldn't dream of telling you what to post on this thread.

[Graham]

Yeah, yeah.

G

[David Orsam]

Yeah, yeah.

G

I shall take that as full agreement with my post.

[Iconoclast]

Three thousand two hundred and twenty posts and this thread is no nearer any kind of resolution than it was after Post No 1 on 30 August 2008.
Even the always-polite Iconoclast seems to have chucked in the towel.
Graham

Just a little unsteady on my feet with these exchanges, young man.

I'm guessing the 'always-polite' is slightly tongue-in-cheek. Hee hee. I can take a joke. Nice just to know you're still remembered around these here parts whilst you're keeping your head down and hoping you're not about to get bombed by your own artillary. I'll be back, head above the parapet, but even I have the sense to watch out for shrapnel so I'm taking a punt at the long game.

David has set his stall out with his 'one-off instance' commentary, and made fair points regarding 'fastest race I'd ever seen' and both points do have me slightly unnerved. I feel - once the noise dies down - we might get back to the real debate. And I don't mean which is The Greatest Thread of All (it's clearly this one)!

PS Personally I wouldn't criticise the lovely Caz merely by dint of the fact she's lovely and the Queen of the Casebook. She always signs her posts to me with a kiss which I think is really nice of her, and quite unnecessary but most welcome when you haven't got any friends.

Ike
Playing the Waiting Game