One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[MrBarnett]

He doesn't seem to be either in this book, Gary - it's just a name, as best I can tell from a quick read-through.

Digitised copies here https://archive.org/details/aftermathcalled00bellgoog

Thanks for the link, Sam.

It's worth a read. The tale of the ever-evolving review of 'The Snail, It's Habitat etc... is very amusing.

Mr Mayhem is in fact a young poet.

[Sam Flynn]

It's worth a read.

Indeed, I quite liked what I saw, Gary - a very pleasing style of writing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well Herlock, can I suggest that there is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact?

It is only on here that a few digital desperados (and an aristocratic one) attempt to dismiss the Maybrick journal. Out in the real world, no-one has attempted it in print and I would suggest that that is because there actually is nothing substantive to say on the subject.

The Maybrick journal solved the problem of who Jack the Spratt McVitie was, and that's an end to it. Every rightminded publisher has evidently agreed.

Hi Ike,

I just find it rather strange given the proliferation of ripper books and given the fact that so many are convinced that the case for a forgery is proven then surely some either budding or established author is standing in front of a huge open net? Im not commenting on the diary either way but solely on the absence of ‘The Maybrick Diary: Game Over’ or some such title?

[Observer]

Hi Ike,

I just find it rather strange given the proliferation of ripper books and given the fact that so many are convinced that the case for a forgery is proven then surely some either budding or established author is standing in front of a huge open net? Im not commenting on the diary either way but solely on the absence of ‘The Maybrick Diary: Game Over’ or some such title?

So do you not find it strange that despite there being bugger all evidence linking Maybrick with the murders, there have been at least four books to my knowledge which name him as Jack The Ripper? I mean it's not even Maybrick's handwriting.

[Sam Flynn]

I just find it rather strange given the proliferation of ripper books and given the fact that so many are convinced that the case for a forgery is proven then surely some either budding or established author is standing in front of a huge open net?

The problem is that the net isn't open, Herlock. Whilst I have no doubt whatsoever that the diary is a modern forgery, not least for reasons of style and content, that's not enough for some folks. For those, I daresay that definitive proof of forgery can only come from a hoaxers' confession - ideally backed up with physical evidence - or by having the diary subjected to more rigorous tests than it has undergone so far. I don't think either will happen anytime soon.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So do you not find it strange that despite there being bugger all evidence linking Maybrick with the murders, there have been at least four books to my knowledge which name him as Jack The Ripper? I mean it's not even Maybrick's handwriting.

You appear to have misunderstood my post. Im not saying that the diary is genuine because no one has written a book to the contrary. What im saying is that im surprised that no one has written a book from the contrary position. Thats all.

[Graham]

The problem is that the net isn't open, Herlock. Whilst I have no doubt whatsoever that the diary is a modern forgery, not least for reasons of style and content, that's not enough for some folks. For those, I daresay that definitive proof of forgery can only come from a hoaxers' confession - ideally backed up with physical evidence - or by having the diary subjected to more rigorous tests than it has undergone so far. I don't think either will happen anytime soon.

1] whatever happened to Keith Skinner's 'proof' that the Diary was abstracted from Battlecrease? Or did I miss it?

2] if anyone ever did confess to the Diary Hoax, who would believe him/her after all the bullshit that's been spoken and written over the last 25 years?

3] I have the distinct impression that the Diary will not, ever, be subjected to further testing, rigorous or not.

4] Mike Barrett stated categorically (if that word can ever be applied to anything he said) that 'the Diary did not come out of Battlecrease'. So - what if the guard-book that later became the Diary was abstracted from the house at some point, the first however-many pages and the photographs they are claimed to have contained, were removed, and what we now know as the Diary written on what was left of the Victorian guard-book? In which case Barrett would have been correct in stating that the Diary didn't come out of Battlecrease. Just a thought, nothing more.

Graham

[Scott Nelson]

With regard to #1: Skinner never claimed there was "proof" the Diary was extracted from Battlecrease. He said the evidence that it did would be enough to convince a jury.

#2 - Not very many people, if any at all.

#3 - That's up to Robert Smith. My understanding is that he is open to further testing, provided that there is no additional physical destruction of the Diary.

#4- Yes, it sounds as if the guardbook was used for something else originally, then acquired secondhand.

[Graham]

With regard to #1: Skinner never claimed there was "proof" the Diary was extracted from Battlecrease. He said the evidence that it did would be enough to convince a jury.

#2 - Not very many people, if any at all.

#3 - That's up to Robert Smith. My understanding is that he is open to further testing, provided that there is no additional physical destruction of the Diary.

#4- Yes, it sounds as if the guardbook was used for something else originally, then acquired secondhand.

1] well, sorry if I misunderstood what has been written, but I'm sure I recall someone assuring us that Keith Skinner 'had proof' that the Diary came out of Battlecrease. I would also suggest that 'enough to convince a jury' could well be interpreted as 'proof'. But what the hell....

4] indeed yes, the guardbook was most definitely used for 'something else', otherwise why remove the first 60 or so pages? It is an accepted fact that the Diary book was originally used for another purpose, perhaps as a photo and/or a memento album. But what I was implying is that the book was abstracted in its entirety from Battlecrease, eventually landing in the ink-stained hands of whoever wrote the Diary, who removed however many pages, took up his or her pen, and carried on regardless.

Graham

[David Orsam]

With regard to #1: Skinner never claimed there was "proof" the Diary was extracted from Battlecrease. He said the evidence that it did would be enough to convince a jury.

Isn't that exactly the same thing?

I mean, how does the prosecution prove a case at a criminal trial if not by convincing a jury?

[GUT]

Isn't that exactly the same thing?

I mean, how does the prosecution prove a case at a criminal trial if not by convincing a jury?

Yeah but it seems everyone thinks they have enough to convince “12 good men and true”. But as it will never go before said jury.......

[David Orsam]

Yeah but it seems everyone thinks they have enough to convince “12 good men and true”.

Absolutely, and it's just another way of them saying that they think they've proved their case.

[GUT]

Absolutely, and it's just another way of them saying that they think they've proved their case.

And then use “EXPERTS”, so called to support them.

I can say with 100% certainty the only way to know what a jury will decide is to put it before them, in FULL, not just one side of a case.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike,

I just find it rather strange given the proliferation of ripper books and given the fact that so many are convinced that the case for a forgery is proven then surely some either budding or established author is standing in front of a huge open net? Im not commenting on the diary either way but solely on the absence of ‘The Maybrick Diary: Game Over’ or some such title?

Herlock, I absolutely agree with you. The absence of anti-journal books tells its own tale.

Evidetly, you can drag out an argument for 20+ years on the Casebook but you can't write it down into a single book ...

[Iconoclast]

So do you not find it strange that despite there being bugger all evidence linking Maybrick with the murders, there have been at least four books to my knowledge which name him as Jack The Ripper? I mean it's not even Maybrick's handwriting.

Hardly!

There have been thousands of books milking Jack the Spratt but none of their candidates have anything by way of evidence supporting it!

Why should Maybrick not have four books published about his crimes - we only have his confession, after all????

And Observer, if you have an example of James Maybrick's handwriting when he was writing solely for his own eyes, possibly in the aftermath of a murderous and drug-fuelled rage, please let us all see it. I wasn't aware there was one, but evidently it turns out that you had such an example all this time!