One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

If you could name one I'd be interested. Genuinely. I just haven't heard one yet.

Herlock

That's because you haven't.

Simon, you're being naughty, and you know it.

[Iconoclast]

Isn't it about time someone wrote a new book? An update/overview of the diary and Maybrick. Perhaps you can persuade Caz? Maybe even collaborate?

Herlock, you old genius you - I can see it now:

'Maybrick: It's All Over Bar the Shouting' by Morris [I'll give her the lead credit], O'Noclast, & Orsam (2017), Bonkers Books

I'm off to Amazon to see if I can pre-order it ...

Ike 'Moneybags Any Day Now' O'Noclast

[Iconoclast]

Ahem, watch this space...

Time will reveal much.

Love,

Caz
X

Do you need my number, Caz?

[Iconoclast]

I hope that you do write that book Caz.

So do I!

As I say, Caz, just drop me a note if you need my number.

I have my own typewriter -it's a good one - and paper and everything.

[David Orsam]

If you could name one I'd be interested. Genuinely. I just haven't heard one yet.

I see you have been seduced by the title of this thread which is premised on the notion that one needs to find a single incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable fact to refute the Diary before it can be regarded as a fake.

But that's not how arguments work. Just look at criminal trials conducted to the highest possible standard of proof. There is very rarely one single fact which leads to a conviction. It will be an accumulation of evidence, a building up of a case against a suspect, which can prove that someone is guilty of a crime.

As it happens though, there is one incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable fact which proves that the Diary is a fake, namely the author's use of the expression "one off instance" which expression was not in existence in the English language in 1888-9 and did not come into existence until about 50 years later.

I've set this out in great detail earlier in this thread and don't wish to repeat it again. Suffice to say that proponents of the Diary have had over 20 years to find an example of someone in the Victorian period, amongst millions of pages of books, magazines, newspapers, official records, personal diaries etc., using the expression "one off instance" or similar and their failure to do so surely speaks for itself.

[Iconoclast]

I know that the handwriting doesn't match so my question has always been: what kind of forger doesn't even bother to copy the handwriting?

I can conceive of a version of history where someone wrote the journal without referencing Maybrick's private hand (assuming, of course, that this isn't Maybrick's private hand - we don't have any examples of it so how can we know?). In that world, the author's purpose would have been served by the mere story alone and publication could not have been their ambition. If you read the thread 'Imagine' by Ann Truth, you get a flavour of how that world could come about (and it's still got that enigmatic reference to 'Damn Michael Barrett' in the journal so I'm still not convinced there isn't a grain of truth in the tale).

In that world, there was no money to be made in writing the journal because it would fall at the first hurdle before publication so - if it's not authentic - it's a very obscure back story that explains it. Maybe indeed the truth was closer to Ann Truth's than Anne Graham's?

Ultimately, however, the contents of the journal contain too much information which either wasn't commonly known, or whose source was obscured from view that I find it hard to buy the notion that it is a fantasy/hoax. If it was, it was written by someone who knew the Maybricks very well and indeed the crimes too (see 'The Diary's Fingerprints' thread on the JtR Forum). That may not have included Maybrick, but it is hard to see right now why not.

[Iconoclast]

I've set this out in great detail earlier in this thread and don't wish to repeat it again. Suffice to say that proponents of the Diary have had over 20 years to find an example of someone in the Victorian period, amongst millions of pages of books, magazines, newspapers, official records, personal diaries etc., using the expression "one off instance" or similar and their failure to do so surely speaks for itself.

I've missed you, mate. Have you missed me?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Iconoclast,

Me, naughty?

“I had a key
“And with it I did flee.”

Regards,

Simon

[Iconoclast]

Hi Iconoclast,

Me, naughty?

“I had a key
“And with it I did flee.”

Regards,

Simon

I see where you're going with that, Simon ...

[David Orsam]

I've missed you, mate. Have you missed me?

I've always found you fair and reasonable to debate with but I can't say I've missed this thread at all.

[Iconoclast]

I've always found you fair and reasonable to debate with but I can't say I've missed this thread at all.

I'll take that as a Yes!

You'll notice that I gave you third author credit on our new book. There's an awful lot of people I missed off to get you in there ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ike,

I'm sitting here with back pain that's getting me down a little but your comment just made me smile. Cheers.

Herlock

PS out of curiosity has Ann Graham commented recently? I wondered what her position is now? Also has the daughter ever commented. Mike Barrett said that she saw them forge the diary?
I just reread the confession and I couldnt help noticing that he didn't mention how they intended to 'get around' the fact that Ann was making no attempt at emulating Maybricks handwriting. He discusses the care that he took getting the diary, the nibs and the correct ink.They both, according to him, appeared to be confident that they could carry it off though.

[Iconoclast]

Ike,

I'm sitting here with back pain that's getting me down a little but your comment just made me smile. Cheers.

Herlock

PS out of curiosity has Ann Graham commented recently? I wondered what her position is now? Also has the daughter ever commented. Mike Barrett said that she saw them forge the diary?
I just reread the confession and I couldnt help noticing that he didn't mention how they intended to 'get around' the fact that Ann was making no attempt at emulating Maybricks handwriting. He discusses the care that he took getting the diary, the nibs and the correct ink.They both, according to him, appeared to be confident that they could carry it off though.

Hi Herlock,

It's an interesting omission, granted, and one that I have not noticed before, so good thinking, young man. Keep those sparks going.

I think (and it pains me to say so) that we probably need a counter to Mr Orsam's disappointingly-erudite submission that "one-off instance" in 1888/89 wasn't even a one-off instance yet at the time Maybrick was inking his quill before we go looking for gaps in Mike's confession. There is, in truth, no possibility that the Barretts compiled the journal. Perhaps one day Caroline (Barrett) will confirm it for us, though I don't think anyone seriously takes it seriously (not even Mr O. himself). But - oh - how I wish he hadn't come up with that whole "one-off instance" thing. And he remembered it! I was hoping he'd have forgotten it by now ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

I see you have been seduced by the title of this thread which is premised on the notion that one needs to find a single incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable fact to refute the Diary before it can be regarded as a fake.

But that's not how arguments work. Just look at criminal trials conducted to the highest possible standard of proof. There is very rarely one single fact which leads to a conviction. It will be an accumulation of evidence, a building up of a case against a suspect, which can prove that someone is guilty of a crime.

As it happens though, there is one incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable fact which proves that the Diary is a fake, namely the author's use of the expression "one off instance" which expression was not in existence in the English language in 1888-9 and did not come into existence until about 50 years later.


I've set this out in great detail earlier in this thread and don't wish to repeat it again. Suffice to say that proponents of the Diary have had over 20 years to find an example of someone in the Victorian period, amongst millions of pages of books, magazines, newspapers, official records, personal diaries etc., using the expression "one off instance" or similar and their failure to do so surely speaks for itself.

I wasn't seduced by a thread David. I'm quite capable of forming an opinion without following trends or leaping on bandwagons. Of course you're absolutely correct when you say that it's not necessary in law to have absolute proof. That an accumulation of 'lesser proofs' if you like, are deemed sufficient. But as far as I have seen ( and I've been the first to admit that I'm not up-to-date with ripper research and current thought) the usual points raised can be subjected to a reasonable, though hypothetical, explaination. I'm quite open to opinion and evidence for or against the provenance of the diary.

I don't have the diary or the books by Harrison or Feldman with me at the moment so I was a little surprised at the 'one off instance,' point that you made. If memory serves, and it often doesn't, didn't Shirley Harrison find the phrase 'one off,' used in builders records in the 1850s? I'm only conjecturing here but if she did, you would know that. So are you highlighting the fact that it was used in conjunction with the word 'instance?" I don't know and I don't have time to scroll back through the thread. If someone else could explain if David isn't still here. Thanks.

Regards
Herlock

[Iconoclast]

So are you highlighting the fact that it was used in conjunction with the word 'instance?" I don't know and I don't have time to scroll back through the thread. If someone else could explain if David isn't still here. Thanks.

I'm finding this moment somewhat ironic, I can tell you ...

Yes, Herlock, David's point is that the whole 'phrase' had never once been used in American, possibly European, literature before about 1982, and that makes for a valid point, however irritating it is when you've devoted so many years of your life to defending the journal's authenticity.