One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Soothsayer]

And you still haven't commented on the preservatives in the ink, which if proven by further tests that the diary keepers won't allow, would definitively prove it a hoax.

Well, Christine, what possible comment could I make?

Other than the obvious, which is that - if preservatives are ever found in the ink used to write this diary which were not available in inks in 1888/89 - such an event would finally end any possible argument in favour of the authenticity of the diary. My understanding is that this argument is like all the others (for and against) - inconclusive and unproven ...

This is a great game, isn't it? Current score:

Things which support the diary 4
Things which compromise the diary 4

(Things which support the diary win on 'away goals' rule).

[Sam Flynn]

Well Soothsayer, if you really believe that the police could miss foot-high letters on the wall of a room that they searched extensively.

Actually, Christine, those "letters" would only be three or so inches high - if that - which casts further doubt on the Maybrick story. Are we honestly expected to believe that Kelly's killer would lean all the way over her corpse only to daub a tiny message on a dirty, blood-spattered partition wall?

[Christine]

Actually, Christine, those "letters" would only be three or so inches high - if that - which casts further doubt on the Maybrick story. Are we honestly expected to believe that Kelly's killer would lean all the way over her corpse only to daub a tiny message on a dirty, blood-spattered partition wall?

Really Sam? I'll take your word for it as I can't even make the letters out without the cheats but they do look bigger to me. I agree, if the killer wanted to send some sort of message to Florrie Maybrick he did a very poor job of it. How could she possibly even be convinced that there was a message to her if it was never reported in the paper? And if she ever saw the photo, she'd be as unconvinced as almost everyone here except Soothsayer.

Soothsayer, it's not just that the tests are inconclusive, it's that the tests were cut off by the diary keepers, indicating that they themselves expected the diary to fail the tests. Honestly, I see nothing indicating that the diary is genuine.

The FM is pointless, because if it's there, or the diarist thought it were there, he could easily come up with an excuse to tie that or any other message to Maybrick. Even "GOERGE CHAPMAN DID THIS" could be construed as some sort of message to Florrie.

The diary was written in a photo album with the first pages torn out--a classic forgers trick.

It does not match Maybrick's handwriting.

It has no provenance.

One of its discoverers has stated that he forged it.

It contains anomalies.

Anyhow, just about anything can be explained away if you're willing to accept the most convoluted and unlikely of scenarios to make something happen. And if someone disagrees with you, you can just declare that they are "afraid of the truth." So I think I'll just bow out of this thread, as the world will not end if you continue to believe in the diary, and the rest of the world has already moved onto Gull and Sickert anyhow.

[Soothsayer]

Actually, Christine, those "letters" would only be three or so inches high - if that - which casts further doubt on the Maybrick story. Are we honestly expected to believe that Kelly's killer would lean all the way over her corpse only to daub a tiny message on a dirty, blood-spattered partition wall?

Oh Sam - fancy you making that classic error - the old Argument from Personal Incredulity!!!!

Whether we should believe X is true or not, our disbelief - our incredulity - is no argument for or against X!!!!!!!!!!!!

Most popular gambit from anti-diarists? "Are we really expected to believe ... ?".

Are we really expected to believe that Cumbria would have an earthquake yesterday? That Fulham would avoid relegation with five games to go last season? That a Liverpool cotton merchant could ever possibly be the world's most famous serial killer?

[DVV]

My name is Brick.
May Brick.
(I knew this Belgian beer was too strong for me.)

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Most popular gambit from anti-diarists? "Are we really expected to believe ... ?".

Nothing wrong with that gambit, Sooth. Are we really expected to believe that the moon is made of cheese?

[Soothsayer]

Really Sam? I'll take your word for it as I can't even make the letters out without the cheats but they do look bigger to me. I agree, if the killer wanted to send some sort of message to Florrie Maybrick he did a very poor job of it. How could she possibly even be convinced that there was a message to her if it was never reported in the paper? And if she ever saw the photo, she'd be as unconvinced as almost everyone here except Soothsayer.

There was no mention in the diary that the initials were intended as a message to Florrie. You're just adding that bit in to help your disbelief sound like an argument.

Soothsayer, it's not just that the tests are inconclusive, it's that the tests were cut off by the diary keepers, indicating that they themselves expected the diary to fail the tests. Honestly, I see nothing indicating that the diary is genuine.

Your opinion (about stopping the tests - if you read Harrison and Feldman you'll find that these tests are prohibitively expensive and neither saw any financial sense in committing to them), and you're welcome to it, but please don't cite it as argument for or against.

The diary was written in a photo album with the first pages torn out--a classic forgers trick.

Can you name me one or two other examples?

It does not match Maybrick's handwriting.

It doesn't match Maybrick's will which we can't be certain he even wrote (you'll know that argument from Harrison and Feldman, of course). Victorian letters were, of course, very formal, even between friends, so letters aren't suitable. We need an example of Maybrick's informal style in a document intended for his eyes only. I don't believe we have such a document yet (other than the obvious one!).

It has no provenance.

It has a perfectly good provenance - anti-diarists just don't like it because of the bizarre way the diary first emerged through Tony Devareaux (not sure of my spelling here). Anne gives the diary a provenance, even if you don't like that provenance. She also explains how it came into Tony's hands and why Tony 'chose' to give the diary to Mike.

One of its discoverers has stated that he forged it.

Really, Christine, you're 24 hours behind the rest of us all and have been for a decade! Mike Barrett did a big 'I did it' story. Next day, his solicitor formally retracted his confession. The diary debunkers ignore this inconvenient bit and focus on the original confession.

Incidentally, I confess to ... anything-you-want. Won't make it true.

It contains anomalies.

Anomalies are not errors. It also contains a host of gems which the I-could-have-written-it-in-a-weekend brigade never quite explain.

Please clarify, Christine (and the rest of you): have any of you actually read either Harrison book or Feldman's excellent work?

This thread remains at the core of the debate: until we have the truly incontrovertible flaw in the diary, we do not have a debunked diary.

[Soothsayer]

Nothing wrong with that gambit, Sooth. Are we really expected to believe that the moon is made of cheese?

Eh?????

What are you talking about, Sam?

You must be on DVV's Belgian beer, mate ...

[Sam Flynn]

Please clarify, Christine (and the rest of you): have any of you actually read either Harrison book or Feldman's excellent work?

I've not read either, Sooth. However, some kind soul posted the entire text of the diary on the Web a good few years ago and, having read it and seen it for the meretricious tripe that it was, I'm glad I didn't. The diary's content was so cringe-makingly bad that, even if its author(s) had bothered to adopt a near-perfect copy at Maybrick's writing, I'd still not have believed that he'd written it.

[Magpie]

Things which support the diary 4
Things which compromise the diary 4

(Things which support the diary win on 'away goals' rule).

I assume this is a joke right?

So if, when unwrapped, the the mummy found in King Tut's tomb was found to have an AC/DC tattoo on his right bicep, it would be "just an anomaly" and wouldn't really prove anything?

In the forgery game, anything that compromises the authenticity of an object is more compelling than hundreds of things that might appear to support it.

[DVV]

Eh?????

What are you talking about, Sam?

You must be on DVV's Belgian beer, mate ...

Yes he is.
Though he will deny.
Trust me.

Amitiés,
M. Brick

[Magpie]

My initial thought was that in 1888, the police would be less inclined to react to letters on a wall as they would not have encountered the 20th Century phenomenon of the celebrity serial killer who leaves clues as he goes along.

Piffle. Not only were the police extremely excited about the Goulston street graffito, but the newspapers were full of stories about reported "ripper writings". Also the belief that the ripper was deliberately leaving clues at the crime scenes to taunt police dates back to the second murder.

The Grave Maurice made a brilliant observation just a few postings back (free feel to keep up here, Magpie) when he noted that the room itself was not well lit, but the photographer's flash would certainly have momentarily changed all that.

Piffle, piffle and thrice piffle.

1) There's no evidence that the police used any sort of flash to take the "initials" picture.

2) The room was inspected--note "inspected" not "glanced over" by the doctor, who noted exactly what he saw on the wall--no initials mentioned at all

3) The human eye is far more sensitive than any camera availabe at that time. The idea that the camera recorded something that was invisible to the human eye is post-CSI claptrap

4) Photographs lose information, and hence detail with every copy; and gain artefacts with every copy, not the reverse. Therefore earlier, high-resolution photograph (which shows no initials) should be the reference, not the beat-up low resolution that happens to appear to show what you want to be there.

The diary remains flawless.

Just for your reference, that's what this thread was all about.

Not even you have claimed that the diary is "flawless". You just refuse to acknowledge any flaw that makes your position untenable.

[Soothsayer]

Yes he is.
Though he will deny.
Trust me.

Amitiés,
M. Brick

Oh, David, you're in danger of having just posted the funniest line of the year - loved it!

[Soothsayer]

I assume this is a joke right?

Not at all.

They'd have won on penalties too if necessary ...

[Soothsayer]

Piffle.

I've just realised a shocking truth from Sam Flynn's email. Suddenly, it all makes sense!

Sam, you, Christine, all the rest of the debunkers - none of you have actually read anything relevant to the diary!

You come on here and post your trenchant views, and it's all based upon nothing whatsoever. You all read The Times back in 1993, and believed the 'Fake!' headlines.

You're the frauds!!!!!

Get your fingers out and read the material, for goodness sake!

What a joke!