One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

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.

Sam, if the murderer's confession isn't accepted, why should the 'hoaxer's confession' be treated any differently?

It is an open goal. It's a wide-open can't-miss sort of goal. Unless the reality is that the guy with the ball can't actually play football.

The anti-journalists are Diana Ross way back when when it more or less all started. They think they know what they are doing, but they can't kick for toffee (pardon the highly-appropriate Evertonian pun) and any attempt to do so in print would badly miss the mark.

Mark me, every publisher and editor knows it.

[Iconoclast]

I would also suggest that 'enough to convince a jury' could well be interpreted as 'proof'. But what the hell....
Graham

I think a few innocents languishing in gaol would disagree with that principle, Graham.

Good luck in the play-offs, by the way.

Still haven't forgiven you for the banners, of course.

[Iconoclast]

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.......

My brilliant History vs Maybrick has already done all that.

Guilty. Bang to rights.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, if the murderer's confession isn't accepted, why should the 'hoaxer's confession' be treated any differently?

Because a hoaxer's confession at least stands a chance of being credible, which is more than can be said for that risible diary.

[Iconoclast]

Because a hoaxer's confession at least stands a chance of being credible, which is more than can be said for that risible diary.

Do you think your casual use of 'risible' for journal-which-has-fooled-the-world-for-quarter-of-a-century-and-more may slightly undermine your point, Sam?

[Sam Flynn]

Shirley Harrison et al are scarcely "the world", Ike. Be that as it may, the diary certainly never fooled me, and I'm not alone in that regard.

[Iconoclast]

Shirley Harrison et al are scarcely "the world", Ike. Be that as it may, the diary certainly never fooled me, and I'm not alone in that regard.

And yet you are but one man, Sam Flynn, and thereby unable to quantify exactly how many people believe the journal to be authentic and how many hoax. The tone of this Casebook is overwhelmingly against authenticity, but we may be seeing a statistical bias on the site towards those who either favour some other candidate or indeed do not wish to see a candidate succeed at all. Outside these hallowed digital walls, we may find that the air is fresher, and significantly less cynical - indeed, a world more accepting of what they have in front of them than of what they do not.

[Sam Flynn]

we may be seeing a statistical bias on the site towards those who either favour some other candidate or indeed do not wish to see a candidate succeed at all.

I've nothing against plausible candidates backed up by an objective reading of the evidence. If I have a bias, it is against fanciful suspects whose candidacy is built on an edifice of supposition and a distortion of the facts. A patently bogus document like the "Maybrick" diary is about as great a distortion of the facts as I can possibly imagine.

[Iconoclast]

A patently bogus document like the "Maybrick" diary is about as great a distortion of the facts as I can possibly imagine.

Seriously, Sam, you should be more circumspect in making such a claim. To describe the Maybrick journal as 'patently bogus' flies head-first into the face of the evidence you say is so important. Twenty-six years it has been in the public domain and still it is not categorically 'unmasked' nor the hoaxers identified.

Extraordinary, and definitely not patently bogus.

[Sam Flynn]

It's utter garbage, Ike. How anyone was taken in by it is beyond comprehension.

[Iconoclast]

It's utter garbage, Ike. How anyone was taken in by it is beyond comprehension.

Twenty-six years and that's the best you've got, Sam?

The journal is as authentic to some as it is 'utter garbage' to you.

Seriously, it's not as cut-and-dried as a casual dismissal would imply.

[Sam Flynn]

Twenty-six years and that's the best you've got, Sam?

It sums up the diary perfectly, Ike. I saw no reason to add anything further.

[Iconoclast]

It sums up the diary perfectly, Ike. I saw no reason to add anything further.

Well let's hope the 'hoaxers' aren't easily offended, eh?

[Sam Flynn]

Well let's hope the 'hoaxers' aren't easily offended, eh?

After two-and-a-half decades of laughing up their sleeves, I somehow doubt it.

[Pcdunn]

Thanks, Gary and David. Useful finds. We're still looking at the mid 20th century in British terms, and at 1930s America, so there is nothing that yet indicates that the "mayhem" of the diary could have been written by someone from Late Victorian, or even Edwardian, Britain.

I am sure that I have come across a passage using "mayhem" in the older sense of causing physical harm, written by Mark Twain, in his newspaper days of the mid-nineteenth century.
Circa late 1860s to 1870s, to be precise.

Why is everyone so convinced that "spreading mayhem" can only mean the so-called modern meaning of "confusion"? I think that the Ripper certainly did spread mayhem with his exploits with his knife, and don't quite understand why everyone discards this interpretation.