One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

So confident, in fact, that he wrote: "I left it there for the fools, but they will never find it. I was too clever. Left it in front for all eyes to see. Shall I write and tell them?". Now, how did he KNOW that the police would never find the initials, despite leaving the clue "in front for all eyes to see"? How did he know, unless he was writing years, decades after the fact?

You do understand the concept of a literary device, Gareth?

The diary hoaxer did, and I'm pretty sure they also understood the difference between 'in front' and 'behind', and 'here' and 'there'. They didn't need to see a photo for that but I wouldn't be surprised if they were given sight of one by an associate on the force.

Love,

Caz
X

[Kaz]

I believe it is a game, of the hoaxer's making. Pulling our strings and watching us all play our parts would have made up for it not emerging until 1992. It would have given him pleasure - a great deal of pleasure.

Love,

Caz
X

'IF' this is all a hoax its the greatest of all time.

Its all fun and games... and ALWAYS an interesting read!

roll on September

[caz]

You're sexy when you're angry, Caz.

How would you know, Henry? I'm never angry when I'm posting on the Maybrick boards. And it makes me all warm and fuzzy inside to watch the dance.

Love,

Caz
X

[Henry Flower]

How would you know, Henry? I'm never angry when I'm posting on the Maybrick boards. And it makes me all warm and fuzzy inside to watch the dance.

Love,

Caz
X

I don't know.

I imagine.

Which is even better

[caz]

So confident, in fact, that he wrote: "I left it there for the fools, but they will never find it. I was too clever. Left it in front for all eyes to see. Shall I write and tell them?". Now, how did he KNOW that the police would never find the initials, despite leaving the clue "in front for all eyes to see"? How did he know, unless he was writing years, decades after the fact?

How do some people around here KNOW the diary was written no earlier than circa 1991/2, unless they have come back from the future with proof?

Because they have a "Sir Jim" size ego perhaps?

It's the same psychology isn't it? People KNOW all sorts of things they cannot possibly know in the present. I feel our hoaxer probably did know that much.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I'm sure the killer was quite sanguine around bloody corpses. And I'm not saying he was concerned about ruining his loafers, but bloody shoes means bloody footprints that even the police wouldn't have needed bloodhounds to follow.

Love it, Joshua.

If he was wearing loafers, could he have been a master baker? Or would that finger Kosminski?

Sorry about the silly mood I'm in. The poor August weather is keeping me out of the garden.

Love,

Caz
X

[Henry Flower]

Caz accuses others of claiming knowledge of things of which they cannot be certain.

But... j'accuse!

I think Caz does the opposite.

I think Caz knows.

Come on Caz.

Who wrote it?

[Sam Flynn]

How do some people around here KNOW the diary was written no earlier than circa 1991/2, unless they have come back from the future with proof?

I'd say no earlier than 1972, because it was only then and afterwards that the MJK1 photograph became readily available to the general public. The constellation of certain "modern" word-usages and phrases in the diary (and there are several examples) converge on a date no earlier than the 1970s. During that decade, we also had a flurry of interest in the Ripper case spawned by Farson, Rumbelow and (especially) Knight, without whose efforts I probably wouldn't have got interested in the case at all, and neither, perhaps, would the diary's author(s).

Personally, I'd incline towards a later date, Martin Fido's book, the centenary and Michael Caine mini-series in 1987/88 possibly being joint catalysts, but I'd settle for 1972 as a pragmatic terminus post quem for the diary. I really can't see its having been written any earlier.

[Kaz]

I'd say no earlier than 1972, because it was only then and afterwards that the MJK1 photograph became readily available to the general public. The constellation of certain "modern" word-usages and phrases in the diary (and there are several examples) converge on a date no earlier than the 1970s. During that decade, we also had a flurry of interest in the Ripper case spawned by Farson, Rumbelow and (especially) Knight, without whose efforts I probably wouldn't have got interested in the case at all, and neither - I'd suggest - would the diary's author(s).

Personally, I'd incline towards a later date, Martin Fido's book, the centenary and Michael Caine mini-series in 1987/88 possibly being joint catalysts, but I'd settle for 1972 as a pragmatic terminus post quem for the diary. I really can't see its having been written any earlier.

Why did mike barret get his hands on it some 20 years later?

makes no sense.

[Sam Flynn]

Why did mike barret get his hands on it some 20 years later?

There's no reason why a hoax cooked up in 1972 couldn't have surfaced 20 years later. As I say, I'd incline to a later date, but 1972 is the absolute earliest I believe it was written; it was only in 1972 and afterwards that all the necessary "ingredients" could have been feasibly assembled.

[caz]

I don't have any emotion invested in this. If indisputable evidence that was strongly supportive of the diary came along, that would have to be taken into account and things would have to be reexamined. I believe that's how normal, rational people act: if their assumptions or their reasoning are shown by new evidence to be wrong they welcome the advances in knowledge and change their position accordingly. There's no shame in that.

Well said indeed, Henry. But how many 'normal, rational people' post on diary message boards? Many posters who clearly detest this inanimate object and the whole saga surrounding it and are unlikely to change their mind - ever - nevertheless can't seem to get enough of it. To me that's not the definition of normal or rational.

Love,

Caz
X

[Kaz]

There's no reason why a hoax cooked up in 1972 couldn't have surfaced 20 years later. As I say, I'd incline to a later date, but 1972 is the absolute earliest I believe it was written; it was only in 1972 and afterwards that all the necessary "ingredients" could have been feasibly assembled.

Not to mention the luck of the gods to make James Maybrick fit.

I'm more inclined to believe Anne's story.

The new book may put pay to that though...

[caz]

If we have to rotate the upside-down "F" to read it, we must also rotate the right-way-up "M" on the leg. You can't have it both ways. In which case who is "W______________F" supposed to be? Incidentally, I put the "_______________" in there to reflect the enormous gap between the upside-down "W" on the leg and the upside-down "F" on the arm.

And, again, there really isn't an "M" (or a "W") on the leg, for reasons I've already given. It's a couple of unconnected fingerprints and a stab wound.

Hi Gareth,

It's funny how some of those who quite rightly don't see letters on the wall that were not really there can nevertheless see words in the diary that are not really there.

I just can't figure it out. Another case of not seeing what one doesn't want to see, while seeing what one does want to see - to fit in neatly with one's preconceptions?

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Not to mention the luck of the gods to make James Maybrick fit.

By the luck of the gods, the centenary of Maybrick's murder was in 1989. I've no doubt there was a fair bit of coverage about the case in the press at that time, particulary in Liverpool. Another reason why I'd favour a later date. I'll stick with "no earlier than 1972", though; I think I'm on safe ground there.

By the way, James Maybrick doesn't fit, either. There's no way that a man writing in 1888/89 could have used some of the phrases in the diary, at least not in the way in which they're used. I think I'm on safe ground there, too.

[caz]

Might be WTF.

Might as well be, GUT, for all the sense we are likely to get out of the current discussion.

I'm retired and the washing is done, so I've got all the time in the world to watch the car crash. Don't know where others get the time or the patience.

Love,

Caz
X