One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Producing a fake "diary" is easy, but writing out the text in convincingly forged handwriting is a major undertaking, beyond the capability of anyone but a specialist. Even adopting a pseudo-script not intended to resemble anyone in particular's handwriting, just something other than your usual hand, and to do so consistently over a large amount of text, is quite a feat.

Or you could just write it in your own informal hand and not worry a jot about authenticity.

Oh, and be Jack the Ripper while you're at it.

And James Maybrick.

[Sam Flynn]

Accepted Sam. My only question would be: why would anyone believe that they could possibly get away with a forged diary when they would have known that the very first thing that potential debunkers would look at would be the handwriting?

What's more amazing, perhaps, is that the "diary" wasn't dismissed from the outset, on the basis of the handwriting alone.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What's more amazing, perhaps, is that the "diary" wasn't dismissed from the outset, on the basis of the handwriting alone.

Maybe Sam.

It's just something that's always 'bothered' me. I don't lose sleep over it though. I guess that the strongest thing that I'd say about the diary is that, from day one, I've never agreed with the 'amateurish' forgery bit. Forgery possibly. Probably even. Definately, many would say. But 'amateurish' doesn't square with the facts that the debate continues 25+ years later.

Regards

Herlock

[c.d.]

I'm sure I will regret venturing into Diary Land but what exactly is the difference between an informal hand and a formal hand? Isn't the latter pretty much the same as the former but just a bit neater?

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm sure I will regret venturing into Diary Land but what exactly is the difference between an informal hand and a formal hand? Isn't the latter pretty much the same as the former but just a bit neater?

c.d.

I would have thought so c.d.

Regards
Herlock

[Henry Flower]

I'll repeat a question I've asked on Ike's "History vs Maybrick" thread:

Ike, so your position is that Maybrick might have had an entirely different, informal handwriting, different from the known exemplars of his writing. You have no evidence that he had a formal hand and an informal hand, you just assume?

And further, you build your case on the notion that although the hand in the diary does not match the known hand of James Maybrick, you think it might match a different hand that you imagine he might have written in, a hand of which not a single specimen has been found?

Or to put it even more briefly:

The diary doesn't match his known handwriting, but if he also had a completely different handwriting we haven't discovered yet, maybe the diary matches that.

Good luck, Ike.

[Mike J. G.]

I'll repeat a question I've asked on Ike's "History vs Maybrick" thread:

Ike, so your position is that Maybrick might have had an entirely different, informal handwriting, different from the known exemplars of his writing. You have no evidence that he had a formal hand and an informal hand, you just assume?

And further, you build your case on the notion that although the hand in the diary does not match the known hand of James Maybrick, you think it might match a different hand that you imagine he might have written in, a hand of which not a single specimen has been found?

Or to put it even more briefly:

The diary doesn't match his known handwriting, but if he also had a completely different handwriting we haven't discovered yet, maybe the diary matches that.

Good luck, Ike.

The thing about the handwriting, as you say, and as we all know, is that it simply doesn't match Maybrick's. Now, we can speculate about whether or not Maybrick wrote in an entirely different hand at times, but it seems likely that this is simply untrue. If there's an argument being made that Maybrick could have written in a different style, then we need to see some evidence of it, rather than just accepting it to be the case.

The real issues are that when you couple the lack of similarity in handwriting between the diary and the known examples of May's hand with the other errors and suspicious bits of the text, it's pretty much a red flag, maybe not a smoking gun, but enough of a red flag to cause anyone to reconsider their position.

We could sit here all day and say things like well he probably meant the Old Post Office and was just giving it a nickname that coincidentally matches the name of another pub which is very old. Well the handwriting doesn't match, but what if he wrote in an entirely different hand that we've no evidence for? Well the items listed in the diary match those of the police report, and the details contained within the diary were available in a couple of popular books, but that doesn't mean that it was a hoax... You end up spinning around in circles, on and on.

It's true, that these things could be mere coincidences, but in all probability, it's just one coincidence too many. There's nothing connecting Maybrick to the Ripper murders, the man was already well-known for his own little criminal case, the diary itself reads like a piece of dramatic fiction, splicing up little tidbits of fact like a Dan Brown novel, there's errors contained within it that can't be refuted entirely...and so on.

The weight of negatives by far outweigh any positives in this case, there's just simply too many inconsistencies to ignore, and nothing supporting the idea that Maybrick was ever a murderer. We can move the goalposts and make excuses for anything, but at the end of the day, it's all a pointless exercise in poor reasoning, the very apt definition of hammering a square peg into a round hole just to try and make it fit.

[Sam Flynn]

But 'amateurish' doesn't square with the facts that the debate continues 25+ years later.

Never underestimate the ability of us ripperologists to prolong an argument beyond its natural shelf-life, nor our propensity to clutch at straws.

[Henry Flower]

Never underestimate the ability of us ripperologists to prolong an argument beyond its natural shelf-life, nor our propensity to clutch at straws.

Quite so! It's what we love about us. Long may it continue.

And of course, it will.

[c.d.]

Yep, Ripperologists are notorious for leaving many a dead horse in their wake.

c.d.

[Iconoclast]

Producing a fake "diary" is easy ...

Ah, the man who first gave us 'one wet weekend' - a quotation which managed to find its way into many a post and even into print (Robinson's They All Love Jack).

Producing a fake diary is indeed easy, even for a 13 year old one wet weekend, but one which is still undone 25 years later? That's a challenge I'd like to see even our brilliant but now 38 year old repeat!!!

[Iconoclast]

What's more amazing, perhaps, is that the "diary" wasn't dismissed from the outset, on the basis of the handwriting alone.

And maybe that's because the handwriting isn't proof of anything more than that James Maybrick definitely didn't write his journal in his formal copperplate hand.

Honestly, Peeps, are we still trying to peddle the line that Maybrick only ever wrote in formal copperplate? How many Victorians did that, I wonder?

[Iconoclast]

But 'amateurish' doesn't square with the facts that the debate continues 25+ years later.

Regards

Herlock

Thank you Herlock Scmerlock. Sanity prevails at last.

[Iconoclast]

I'm sure I will regret venturing into Diary Land but what exactly is the difference between an informal hand and a formal hand? Isn't the latter pretty much the same as the former but just a bit neater?

c.d.

Hardly. Certainly not in 1888/89.

[Iconoclast]

I would have thought so c.d.

Regards
Herlock

Oh Herlock, just when you and I were cosying up!