One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Mike J. G.]

Turgoose, in his report of 10 August 1993, thought that the wear on many of the engravings indicated a substantial age (more than tens of years) although the actual age 'must remain speculation'. At the same time, he stated that, 'there are no features observed which conclusively prove the age of the engravings.' So those who like incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable facts will no doubt feel a bit deflated by that. He also opined that, while a creation (i.e. forgery) of the engravings would involve a complex process and a variety of different tools, showing considerable skill and scientific awareness: 'They could have been produced recently and deliberately aged by polishing.'

There is also a report by Wild dated 31 January 1994 but he said that the amount of time available for his examination was 'limited to only a few hours' so that 'a thorough investigation was not possible and any conclusions are therefore preliminary at this stage', hence it might be more misleading than helpful to quote from his report.

I've never read anyone with scientific expertise counter the points made by Melvin Harris about the dating of the particles.

I have to agree. I think that there's enough uncertainty in the results as to render the "tens of years" claim as questionable at best.

One thing with hoaxes is that there's always a claim that a hoaxer must require a certain amount of skill and knowledge in order to pull off x or y in said scam, but this in itself isn't a good enough defense against such feats being managed.

I think if you intend to fool people and make a bit of money along the way, you're going to do what you have to do to make it as successful as possible.

To change the topic but stay relevant with regards to the probability of a hoaxer going to such lengths to fool people, look at the famous "Yeti" hoaxes of the 50s and 60s in the Himalayas and other such places; one commonly cited defense is that nobody would be out there to leave fake prints in the snow, which is automatically rendered silly due to the fact that someone was out there to have seen such prints in the first place.

We shouldn't underestimate the eagerness of such hoaxers to want to get things at least as right as possible. All of that being said, I don't feel that the diary/watch hoaxer(s) was/were very thorough at all, but that's just my personal view.

[David Orsam]

Just to get the chronology of the watch clear. Its existence was first revealed to Robert Smith (the Diary's publisher) on 3 June 1993. The existence of the Maybrick Diary had been revealed to the world via the Liverpool Daily Post some six weeks earlier, on 22 April 1993. There were a number of reports about the Diary in the national papers over the next few days, in April, which mentioned the murder of five prostitutes in 1888. I think it's fair to say that in the early 1990s the generally held view was that Jack the Ripper had murdered the C5 only.

[Mike J. G.]

I agree, Mike, but I see that Caz is playing her cheeky game again: if this was supposed to be Maybrick's watch why would the hoaxer have procured a watch bearing the ornate J.O initials? So once again, easily avoided errors or anomalies get recast as evidence against fakery.

Caz, maybe it WAS Maybrick's watch, and maybe J.O stood for "Jack's Orrible!" - or - "Juwes Out!"

Exactly, that's the problem with such inadequate details such as the "J.O" on the watch.

On the one hand, one could claim that the J O makes it less likely to be Maybrick's watch, yet on the other, one could claim that this makes it more likely to be genuine, since a hoaxer wouldn't be as daft as to bother using a watch with such an odd and seemingly irrelevant detail attached.

To me, this could be one of a few things: the watch was already to hand, and was deemed old/good enough to use, the "J O" being a happy and accepted addition to add some further mystery/speculation, or that it was known that these engravings were old enough to chime with the relevant dates needed for it to pass as Maybrick's watch.

[David Orsam]

I think if you intend to fool people and make a bit of money along the way, you're going to do what you have to do to make it as successful as possible.

I agree entirely - and arguments that I read such as "oh, he wasn't clever enough to do it" or "oh, he was too nice to do it" have no effect on me whatsoever.

[Mike J. G.]

Just to get the chronology of the watch clear. Its existence was first revealed to Robert Smith (the Diary's publisher) on 3 June 1993. The existence of the Maybrick Diary had been revealed to the world via the Liverpool Daily Post some six weeks earlier, on 22 April 1993. There were a number of reports about the Diary in the national papers over the next few days, in April, which mentioned the murder of five prostitutes in 1888. I think it's fair to say that in the early 1990s the generally held view was that Jack the Ripper had murdered the C5 only.

This is what makes me think that the available information was enough for the hoaxer(s) to work with.

If this whole saga were to have been realized today, in this day and age, I wonder what initials might be included on the watch. If you were to make a hoax of this sort, you'd maybe include FC and MT, or another possible/debated early Ripper victim, as this would surely set the ball rolling and get the debate going.

[Mike J. G.]

I agree entirely - and arguments that I read such as "oh, he wasn't clever enough to do it" or "oh, he was too nice to do it" have no effect on me whatsoever.

While I realize I keep mentioning other unrelated hoaxes, I feel that there's so much similarity in how the debate rages that it's entirely relevant to the discussion.

In the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin Film hoax, the main gripe against it being a hoax designed by Roger Patterson was that he was just a simple man, incapable of such amazing skills as would be needed to pull it off, yet in reality, Patterson was an artist and a known con-man. The "simple cowboy" routine was a great way of deflecting the sceptical banter.

People are very much capable of pulling off even the greatest hoaxes known to man, and simple people at that!

Crop circles are produced by average Joe's, not to say they aren't impressive, but they're not at all difficult to produce and can be done with little more than measuring-tape and planks of wood.

[Henry Flower]

This is what makes me think that the available information was enough for the hoaxer(s) to work with.

If this whole saga were to have been realized today, in this day and age, I wonder what initials might be included on the watch. If you were to make a hoax of this sort, you'd maybe include FC and MT, or another possible/debated early Ripper victim, as this would surely set the ball rolling and get the debate going.

Indeed. And if I were faking such an item I would include an entirely fictitious set of initials also - maybe R.J - because something tells me that would give people plenty to play with. "If this were a fake, why include a pair of initials that can't be linked to any previously suspected Ripper murder? Is there a Ripper murder that nobody discovered? Who could know of such a murder? Only the killer! My god it's genuine! Only the killer could've known about his unknown victim!"

John Humble did the same with Joan Harrison, Preston, for example.

[Henry Flower]

While I realize I keep mentioning other unrelated hoaxes, I feel that there's so much similarity in how the debate rages that it's entirely relevant to the discussion.

In the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin Film hoax, the main gripe against it being a hoax designed by Roger Patterson was that he was just a simple man, incapable of such amazing skills as would be needed to pull it off, yet in reality, Patterson was an artist and a known con-man. The "simple cowboy" routine was a great way of deflecting the sceptical banter.

People are very much capable of pulling off even the greatest hoaxes known to man, and simple people at that!

Crop circles are produced by average Joe's, not to say they aren't impressive, but they're not at all difficult to produce and can be done with little more than measuring-tape and planks of wood.

Mike, you mean you're not convinced that Patterson-Gimlin set out to make a film about Sasquatch and happened to film Sasquatch?! You see it as more than a coincidence that Patterson had already sketched a female sasquatch?! Oh you cynic!

It's scary isn't it, and fascinating, how badly some people want to believe in something that takes their fancy. I suppose it's because we've denuded the world of so much that is strange or unknown or joyful.

[Mike J. G.]

Indeed. And if I were faking such an item I would include an entirely fictitious set of initials also - maybe R.J - because something tells me that would give people plenty to play with. "If this were a fake, why include a pair of initials that can't be linked to any previously suspected Ripper murder? Is there a Ripper murder that nobody discovered? Who could know of such a murder? Only the killer! My god it's genuine! Only the killer could've known about his unknown victim!"

John Humble did the same with Joan Harrison, Preston, for example.

Most definitely, as you say, it gets people's minds working overtime thinking about the possibilities of such an odd set of seemingly unrelated initials.

I don't know whether the J O was added for this effect, or whether they were already on the watch, but either way I feel that the hoaxers were all too aware of their added benefit in passing the watch off as genuine, especially if the JO had been on the watch for a good number of years. Scraping/tracing the original initials would also be beneficial when scratching the other initials in, as it would possibly transfer aged particles into the fresh carvings.

[Henry Flower]

While I realize I keep mentioning other unrelated hoaxes, I feel that there's so much similarity in how the debate rages that it's entirely relevant to the discussion.

In the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin Film hoax, the main gripe against it being a hoax designed by Roger Patterson was that he was just a simple man, incapable of such amazing skills as would be needed to pull it off, yet in reality, Patterson was an artist and a known con-man. The "simple cowboy" routine was a great way of deflecting the sceptical banter.

People are very much capable of pulling off even the greatest hoaxes known to man, and simple people at that!

Crop circles are produced by average Joe's, not to say they aren't impressive, but they're not at all difficult to produce and can be done with little more than measuring-tape and planks of wood.

And it always goes further, spills into hyperbole: "No Hollywood costumer or effects artist of the era could've produced a costume nearly as convincing as Patty!" - followed by an image of a really tatty looking halloween monkey suit with plastic face, $4.99.

[Mike J. G.]

Mike, you mean you're not convinced that Patterson-Gimlin set out to make a film about Sasquatch and happened to film Sasquatch?! You see it as more than a coincidence that Patterson had already sketched a female sasquatch?! Oh you cynic!

It's scary isn't it, and fascinating, how badly some people want to believe in something that takes their fancy. I suppose it's because we've denuded the world of so much that is strange or unknown or joyful.

Not to mention the fact that he'd copied the female Bigfoot (complete with breasts) entirely from an existing William Roe account of an encounter. The PGF was an almost identical video-version of the Roe encounter, which Patterson was obsessed with.

The idea Patterson had was that he'd use up his film by recording their trip, and then when they had a few reels left, then they'd get the "money-shot," which effectively means that they could safely only film the "Bigfoot" for a few seconds and not have to explain why they didn't get more footage.

That film is Hoaxing 101 in the Scammers Playbook. Patterson was a known prankster who pulled off some great hoaxes over the years.

[Henry Flower]

Not to mention the fact that he'd copied the female Bigfoot (complete with breasts) entirely from an existing William Roe account of an encounter. The PGF was an almost identical video-version of the Roe encounter, which Patterson was obsessed with.

The idea Patterson had was that he'd use up his film by recording their trip, and then when they had a few reels left, then they'd get the "money-shot," which effectively means that they could safely only film the "Bigfoot" for a few seconds and not have to explain why they didn't get more footage.

That film is Hoaxing 101 in the Scammers Playbook. Patterson was a known prankster who pulled off some great hoaxes over the years.

Absolutely right. And I admire it, in a way. It's a success. And it puts a touch of the eerie back into our sanitized lives.

Which is also why I enjoyed reading the Diary when it first appeared, despite having the conviction that it was baloney. If it seems too good to be true, and yet doesn't look right, and there are lies told about its provenance, then all bets are off as far as I'm concerned. Caesar's wife must be above suspicion, and artifacts like this are Caesar's wife.

[Mike J. G.]

And it always goes further, spills into hyperbole: "No Hollywood costumer or effects artist of the era could've produced a costume nearly as convincing as Patty!" - followed by an image of a really tatty looking halloween monkey suit with plastic face, $4.99.

That was always the funniest part of the believers act for me, that no suit could ever be produced in those days, when we know that better suits had been in use since at least the 30's with Charles Gemora, not to mention John Chambers and his work with Planet of the Apes and the opening scenes from "2001."

The brilliance of Patty is that it's shot from a fair distance away, for a few short seconds, on a grainy Kodachrome camera, if you shot the Chewey suit from Star Wars in exactly the same manner, you'd have the same results.

The problem with hoaxes is that the hoaxers know what works and what doesn't, because if it doesn't work, it won't make money.

[Mike J. G.]

Absolutely right. And I admire it, in a way. It's a success. And it puts a touch of the eerie back into our sanitized lives.

Which is also why I enjoyed reading the Diary when it first appeared, despite having the conviction that it was baloney. If it seems too good to be true, and yet doesn't look right, and there are lies told about its provenance, then all bets are off as far as I'm concerned. Caesar's wife must be above suspicion, and artifacts like this are Caesar's wife.

I personally love the diary and the saga that goes with it, because it's part of my upbringing. I grew up hearing about Maybrick and Florence and the poisoning, and I spent hours staring at Battlecrease with my hands in my pockets just imagining what went on inside; now, being that I was also interested in the Ripper, well, you can imagine how giddy I was when the two joined forces in the wake of the diary.

Now, if a Bigfoot suit could only be found beneath the floorboards at Battlecrease, I'd be set for life!

[Henry Flower]

I personally love the diary and the saga that goes with it, because it's part of my upbringing. I grew up hearing about Maybrick and Florence and the poisoning, and I spent hours staring at Battlecrease with my hands in my pockets just imagining what went on inside; now, being that I was also interested in the Ripper, well, you can imagine how giddy I was when the two joined forces in the wake of the diary.

Now, if a Bigfoot suit could only be found beneath the floorboards at Battlecrease, I'd be set for life!

I'm going straight to Ebay now, Mike. It'll be done by the weekend. I'll even leave some Ray Wallace bigfoot prints around the grounds for you to enjoy