One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

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.

Let me spin this one 'round on its head, Henry.

Are you arguing that James Maybrick only ever wrote in formal copperplate (or semi-copperplate at times)?

If so, are you saying so because you are unaware of any other hand in which he wrote or because you believe your position to be beyond the possibility of contradiction?

If so, good luck with that, Hen.

[Iconoclast]

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.

I think we can take it as read that you've not actually read any of the texts on the Maybrick journal? Your comment is littered with the cliches of the more or less unread, Mike.

I bring you back to the question I have posed a couple of times tonight: Do you actually think that James Maybrick wrote in formal copperplate every time he wrote anything, including for his own eyes, possibly in a hurry to get it all out, possibly high on arsenic, possibly high on blood-lust?

If you think the answer to that question is Yes, then that's a road you can't explore any further. Personally, I'm much further down the road than you are because I long ago recognised the blindingly obvious - namely that no-one has ever only written in copperplate. Not even 13th century monks, mate.

[Iconoclast]

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

Or our ability to decide something cannot be true and stick rigidly to our position for a quarter of a century ...

[Henry Flower]

Let me spin this one 'round on its head, Henry.

Are you arguing that James Maybrick only ever wrote in formal copperplate (or semi-copperplate at times)?

If so, are you saying so because you are unaware of any other hand in which he wrote or because you believe your position to be beyond the possibility of contradiction.

If so, good luck with that, Hen.

So let me ask you, in a light-hearted and friendly way: hand on heart, Ike, do you earnestly pray that they do find an example of JMs "informal" hand - or that they don't?

[Iconoclast]

So let me ask you, in a light-hearted and friendly way: hand on heart, Ike, do you earnestly pray that they do find an example of JMs "informal" hand - or that they don't?

I earnestly pray that someone does. And if it's nothing like the journal, I will accept that that is that. I just want to know one way or the other.

[Henry Flower]

Just reminding myself, because I need reminders at my age: you're undaunted by the fact that the diary doesn't match Maybrick's known handwriting, because you guess he also had a different handwriting that we've never found; and that handwriting, if it existed and if we could find some of it, would probably match the diary.

Very good. Carry on

[Henry Flower]

I earnestly pray that someone does. And if it's nothing like the journal, I will accept that that is that. I just want to know one way or the other.

Very reasonable. I'm almost disappointed!

[Iconoclast]

Just reminding myself, because I need reminders at my age: you're undaunted by the fact that the diary doesn't match Maybrick's known handwriting, because you guess he also had a different handwriting that we've never found; and that handwriting, if it existed and if we could find some of it, would probably match the diary.

Very good. Carry on

Once again, you are correct.

I'm actually not entirely sure why you find that notion so utterly implausible. So you genuinely assume that Maybrick only ever wrote in the copperplate we have on record???

Is this a commonly held view amongst those who read these posts, I wonder?

[Iconoclast]

Very reasonable. I'm almost disappointed!

I'm a particularly reasonable man as many on this site will testify ...

[Mike J. G.]

I think we can take it as read that you've not actually read any of the texts on the Maybrick journal? Your comment is littered with the cliches of the more or less unread, Mike.

I bring you back to the question I have posed a couple of times tonight: Do you actually think that James Maybrick wrote in formal copperplate every time he wrote anything, including for his own eyes, possibly in a hurry to get it all out, possibly high on arsenic, possibly high on blood-lust?

If you think the answer to that question is Yes, then that's a road you can't explore any further. Personally, I'm much further down the road than you are because I long ago recognised the blindingly obvious - namely that no-one has ever only written in copperplate. Not even 13th century monks, mate.

I've read enough of the diary to know that what I typed is true, if you disagree, then can you point out my errors and explain their issues?

The diary really doesn't read like anything but try-hard dramatic fiction.

My answer to that question is that we've no idea how James wrote, other tha the examples that we have, and of those examples, none match the handwriting contained within the diary. We can speculate that he wrote in an entirely different fashion until the cows come home, but the problem is that nobody can prove it.

If we're to speculate on things for which we cannot know, then why not just speculate that May could've been fond of dressing up in a funny outfit and leaping over walls with a pair of fashioned shoe-springs and actually divided his time between being a successful cotton-merchant and a folkloric entity known as Spring-Heeled Jack?

We have to deal in facts, and the fact remains that James Maybrick didn't write in a manner as is seen in the diary. To argue otherwise requires evidence for which you, nor anyone else, seems to have.

[Mike J. G.]

Once again, you are correct.

I'm actually not entirely sure why you find that notion so utterly implausible. So you genuinely assume that Maybrick only ever wrote in the copperplate we have on record???

Is this a commonly held view amongst those who read these posts, I wonder?

Because it is implausible. Nothing about the diary is genuine, it reeks of manure, and we're being asked to consider the idea that the handwriting which doesn't match May's own hand, is possibly written in an informal hand while under the influence of arsenic, when logic, common sense and occam's razor dictate that in all probability, when factored with the other errors, it's more likely to indicate the obvious hoax that it is.

Regardless of what state we're in, we don't totally abandon all of the traits in our handwriting and turn it into something entirely different, which is why we have experts out there who can correctly determine whether a piece of writing was or was not written by a certain person.

We'd see some similarities in the way loops and curves were created, what position they began from, whether the weight on the pen was distributed correctly when compared with other pieces. There are so many little details contained within a person's handwriting that most of us wouldn't know about, but there are people who do. Has the handwriting ever been studied by anyone who actually has a clue?

Just because you're high as a kite, it doesn't mean you're going to start the vertical line in a T any different to how you'd do it when sober, and other such details, because we're doing it naturally without thought, based on years and years of writing in the same manner. This is how we can tell forged signatures from the real deal.

Again, to assume Maybrick wrote in a completely different hand is rather odd and is basically reaching beyond the natural realms of what is normal.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello Ike and Henry

Just to clarify my thoughts for what they're worth.

I've done no research on the diary.
I'm not pro or anti.

But...

If it was a forgery I can't see it as 'amateurish.'
I can't see really Mike Barrett as a forger.
Why hasn't the forger been discovered after 26/7 years?
I genuinely can't understand a forger who doesn't bother to forge.
Is the watch genuine and the diary a forgery? Or both fakes?
Could the diary have been an older forgery?
Could it have been written by Maybrick but he wasn't Jack (just a drug addled looney who both hated and loved his wife?)

These are just questions that I have.

Regards
Herlock

[Iconoclast]

I've read enough of the diary to know that what I typed is true, if you disagree, then can you point out my errors and explain their issues?

The diary really doesn't read like anything but try-hard dramatic fiction.

My answer to that question is that we've no idea how James wrote, other tha the examples that we have, and of those examples, none match the handwriting contained within the diary. We can speculate that he wrote in an entirely different fashion until the cows come home, but the problem is that nobody can prove it.

If we're to speculate on things for which we cannot know, then why not just speculate that May could've been fond of dressing up in a funny outfit and leaping over walls with a pair of fashioned shoe-springs and actually divided his time between being a successful cotton-merchant and a folkloric entity known as Spring-Heeled Jack?

We have to deal in facts, and the fact remains that James Maybrick didn't write in a manner as is seen in the diary. To argue otherwise requires evidence for which you, nor anyone else, seems to have.

Well let's try your argument again but without the plain 'silliness':

I speculate that James Maybrick read newspapers (I don't know if he did, mind)
I speculate he ate breakfast most days (I don't know if he did, mind)
I speculate that he looked out of his bedroom window from time to time (I don't know if he did, mind)
I speculate that he carried his money in a wallet (I don't know if he did, mind)
I speculate that he wrote for his own eyes much faster than he wrote for the eyes of others and that what he wrote was not in formal copperplate (I don't know if he did, mind)

If you are honestly saying that he only wrote in copperplate, then we can't progress any further down this road.

I speculate that he didn't, though ...

[Iconoclast]

Because it is implausible. Nothing about the diary is genuine, it reeks of manure, and we're being asked to consider the idea that the handwriting which doesn't match May's own hand, is possibly written in an informal hand while under the influence of arsenic, when logic, common sense and occam's razor dictate that in all probability, when factored with the other errors, it's more likely to indicate the obvious hoax that it is.

Regardless of what state we're in, we don't totally abandon all of the traits in our handwriting and turn it into something entirely different, which is why we have experts out there who can correctly determine whether a piece of writing was or was not written by a certain person.

We'd see some similarities in the way loops and curves were created, what position they began from, whether the weight on the pen was distributed correctly when compared with other pieces. There are so many little details contained within a person's handwriting that most of us wouldn't know about, but there are people who do. Has the handwriting ever been studied by anyone who actually has a clue?

Just because you're high as a kite, it doesn't mean you're going to start the vertical line in a T any different to how you'd do it when sober, and other such details, because we're doing it naturally without thought, based on years and years of writing in the same manner. This is how we can tell forged signatures from the real deal.

Again, to assume Maybrick wrote in a completely different hand is rather odd and is basically reaching beyond the natural realms of what is normal.

So he only ever wrote in copperplate, then, Mike?

[Mike J. G.]

Hello Ike and Henry

Just to clarify my thoughts for what they're worth.

I've done no research on the diary.
I'm not pro or anti.

But...

If it was a forgery I can't see it as 'amateurish.'
I can't see really Mike Barrett as a forger.
Why hasn't the forger been discovered after 26/7 years?
I genuinely can't understand a forger who doesn't bother to forge.
Is the watch genuine and the diary a forgery? Or both fakes?
Could the diary have been an older forgery?
Could it have been written by Maybrick but he wasn't Jack (just a drug addled looney who both hated and loved his wife?)

These are just questions that I have.

Regards
Herlock

So many hoaxes out there still beg the question, why don't we now who did it? There's still hoaxes from the 1960s that we have no actual closure on in terms of "who dunnit."

The reasons for not having a definite conclusion are many, naturally. Sometimes we do find out the answers many years later, think of the "Surgeons Photograph" of Nessie from the 1930's, we only truly found out how that was done and by whom just a few years ago. The Patterson-Gimlin Film of 1967 is still debated, mainly by irrational Bigfoot-believers who ask "well who was in the suit?" And one man did come forward once he felt sure that there would be no legal ramifications for doing so, that was in 2006.

This hoaxed diary, as far as we know, is a relatively recent thing when compared to other hoaxes which have spanned decades. The reasons for not knowing could be plentiful: the person or people involved are no longer with us, the people involved were worried about some kind of legal issue with coming clean, they're still having a good laugh about it when reading forums such as this, or they simply don't care and want it to continue.

The idea that we'd see some kind of revelation isn't supported by what we know from other hoaxes throughout our history.