One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

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."

Yes, those 60+ page hoaxed documents are all over the place, aren't they, just waiting for their eventual unravelling?

[Mike J. G.]

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

We can only go on what we know from the evidence, the evidence we have says that he never wrote in a manner similar to what we see in the diary.

Can I ask you a question now? Do you think that a person suddenly stops writing in his natural manner while intoxicated, as in things like, drawing his vertical lines from top to bottom, or vice versa? There are many ways for people to detect forgeries, and they tend to use the clues contained within the details themselves.

A person doesn't stop writing in a certain way when drunk, he may write with less conviction, less attention, and in a scruffy manner, but they'll still dot their I's and cross their T's in the exact same way because this is the manner in which they were taught to write and had been writing for most of their lives.

The better question is: do you think Maybrick was the exception to this rule that governs all of our writing, an anomaly to the type of scientists who use handwriting to detect forgeries?

James, it seems, was a man of many talents!

[Mike J. G.]

Yes, those 60+ page hoaxed documents are all over the place, aren't they, just waiting for their eventual unravelling?

No idea what you mean by this, Ike. Could you elaborate?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Mike

As a Doyle/Holmes fan i can add 'The Cottingley Fairies,' to that list.

Regards
Herlock

[Mike J. G.]

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 ...

Why the diversion?

It's this simple, you're making the assumption that James wrote in an entirely different hand, and that's the reason that the handwriting in the diary does not match the known examples we have of James, this is based on you merely hoping he did write the diary, isn't it?

In the absence of any examples of Maybrick's "other hand," we're left to study what we do have, and what we do have is two very different styles of handwriting, which doesn't lend support to the "James wrote it" case.

Do you, Ike, think that a person completely abandons their style of writing, details and all, when they're intoxicated? This is completely not true, which is how the police are even able to trace forgers...The details are all there, the slants, the crosses, the pressure on the flick of the pen, etc. I'm no handwriting expert, but I don't have to be to understand that a person will give away many details within their writing without ever realizing they're doing it.

Anyone in the required field could evaluate the diary's writing and compare it with the known examples of Maybrick and discover whether or not the small details match. My guess is that they don't match at all.

[Mike J. G.]

Mike

As a Doyle/Holmes fan i can add 'The Cottingley Fairies,' to that list.

Regards
Herlock

Very true, and he certainly fell for that one, hook, line and sinker, Herlock! That's the problem, when you really want to believe, you probably will, despite what logic states otherwise.

To accept that James was "Jack," we have to do an awful lot of reaching and ignoring.

[Iconoclast]

Can I ask you a question now? Do you think that a person suddenly stops writing in his natural manner while intoxicated ...

Copperplate writing is no-one's natural writing and it wouldn't therefore have been Maybrick's either!

You know those guys who painstakingly painted 'The Golden Fleece' in copperplate on the side of your yacht? They don't normally write like that, you know. Whether I've seen any other wriitng by them or not, I know this to be true, and so do you!

[Iconoclast]

No idea what you mean by this, Ike. Could you elaborate?

Come on, Mike - keep up!

A hoaxed photo is somewhat less detailed than a 60+ page document, therefore I would expect the former to take longer to debunk than the latter. The latter wouldn't stand 25 minutes in the limelight, never mind 25 years!

[Iconoclast]

Mike

As a Doyle/Holmes fan i can add 'The Cottingley Fairies,' to that list.

Regards
Herlock

Was it a tale written in 60+ pages of a document?

Of course not ...

[Iconoclast]

Why the diversion?

It's this simple, you're making the assumption that James wrote in an entirely different hand, and that's the reason that the handwriting in the diary does not match the known examples we have of James, this is based on you merely hoping he did write the diary, isn't it?

In the absence of any examples of Maybrick's "other hand," we're left to study what we do have, and what we do have is two very different styles of handwriting, which doesn't lend support to the "James wrote it" case.

Do you, Ike, think that a person completely abandons their style of writing, details and all, when they're intoxicated? This is completely not true, which is how the police are even able to trace forgers...The details are all there, the slants, the crosses, the pressure on the flick of the pen, etc. I'm no handwriting expert, but I don't have to be to understand that a person will give away many details within their writing without ever realizing they're doing it.

Anyone in the required field could evaluate the diary's writing and compare it with the known examples of Maybrick and discover whether or not the small details match. My guess is that they don't match at all.

Goodness me - I think you genuinely believe that James Maybrick only ever wrote in copperplate!!!!

[Sam Flynn]

Copperplate writing is no-one's natural writing

It was my great-grandfather's (b. 1870s), my great-uncle Haydn's (b. 1910s), and the dad of my best mate at school (b. 1940s). It took a lot of practice, as does any writing I guess, but copperplate was indeed their usual way of writing.

[Mike J. G.]

Copperplate writing is no-one's natural writing and it wouldn't therefore have been Maybrick's either!

You know those guys who painstakingly painted 'The Golden Fleece' in copperplate on the side of your yacht? They don't normally write like that, you know. Whether I've seen any other wriitng by them or not, I know this to be true, and so do you!

Were you actively attempting to not answer the question that I asked?

I asked whether you thought a person changed his handwriting while intoxicated, meaning, did they dot their I's differently? Cross their T's differently? Apply pressure in different places when writing?

These are all things which are used to determine the fake from the factual.

We're being asked to believe that James Maybrick was a creative writer, a notorious serial killer, an anomaly in his written-hand, a prankster, a cryptic puzzler, on top of being a successful cotton-merchant and a man being slowly poisoned by his missus!

What a life this man led. Or maybe the diary was just an obvious hoax written by a person who'd read a few too many RWE books!

[Mike J. G.]

Goodness me - I think you genuinely believe that James Maybrick only ever wrote in copperplate!!!!

You seem unwilling to tackle the problem of the small details which make our writings unique, regardless of the state we're in when we write them.

[Iconoclast]

It was my great-grandfather's (b. 1870s), my great-uncle Haydn's (b. 1910s), and the dad of my best mate at school (b. 1940s). It took a lot of practice, as does any writing I guess, but copperplate was indeed their usual way of writing.

Okay, maybe I was too categorical there (I hadn't checked).

Nevertheless, I don't think everyone who wrote copperplate only wrote copperplate.

[Mike J. G.]

Was it a tale written in 60+ pages of a document?

Of course not ...

Does it matter? The question being asked was why wouldn't someone have come forward by now if it were a hoax, to which the answer explained that many many hoaxes which are far more well-known and far older than the diary have gone for decades without such an admission, for which the reasons are plentiful.