One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Sam Flynn]

I do hope nobody is suggesting Harry Dam penned the Maybrick Diary. Dam died in Cuba, 1906.

I'm not, Simon, don't worry. As far as I'm concerned, the diary couldn't have been written until many (many, many...) decades after 1906.

[Iconoclast]

This I think is the first time I've seen in writing the suggestion that the faked Diary did not originate in Liverpool. Can you tell us more, please, Simon?

I have to ask: if the Diary was a non-Scouse production, how did Barrett get his hands on it?

Graham

Seriously, Peeps. I can't comment on "the faked Diary" as I wasn't aware that one had been identified, but I do know that Simon Wood may have someone in mind but he has no grounds for claiming it.

"The faked Diary" - whichever one that is - could have been wrtten by anyone, it doesn't matter, and I don't know which one that is. The real journal of James Maybrick, on the other hand, solves the case.

Which is why so many so-called luminaries seek to dismiss it. Martin Fido was dismissing it before he even saw it, as did many others.

Who then published books with their own favoured candidate.

Straight after.

Go figure. Unbiased? I think not.

[Iconoclast]

I'm not, Simon, don't worry. As far as I'm concerned, the diary couldn't have been written until many (many, many...) decades after 1906.

Just as well the ink migration test supports that theory then Sam.

Not.

[Iconoclast]

I had a salutary experience recently when reviewing the comments against a new Ripper book on Amazon UK. These particular comments were from someone who posted under what was presumably their real name (I shan't quote it) whch is not a name that I'm familiar with on the Casebook. He (if he he was) said that he was a Maybrickite. Very casual. No drama. No screaming fits. Just a simple statement that he believed James Maybrick to be Jack the Ripper.

And it stopped me in my tracks because I thought there was maybe only the published authors (including - recently - original publisher Robert Smith) and I who found the journal compelling and relevant enough to constitute a strong case in favour.

The reality - as I touched on quite recently in this thread - is that the Casebook is not representative of the common view. Indeed, quite the opposite, it is representative of the polarised, binary views of those who are now unable to consider any other position (myself included) so their arguments are reduced to "How can you be so stupid as to ever believe that diary", etc., or the opposite (if you are me).

This - you won't be too surprised to hear - gave me quite a cheeky wee fillip to my campaign. I felt unexpectedly re-energised. Suddenly it was so obvious, the Casebook is just me against a load of folk who generally haven't read much on the case and who have settled for the prima facie 'facts' and folklore.

I thought I'd share this with you. I'm nice like that.

[Iconoclast]

By the way, Lord Orsam is now reduced to an asterisk in history (not even a footnote) which suggests he's been turfed-off for a while or for good.

Something tells me he'll be back, though, probably sporting some cool pseudonym such as 'Bookseller', or 'Archivist' or 'Know It All'.

I quite liked him, mind.

[Admin]

Dave Orsam will not be returning to Casebook. If anyone believes he has returned under an assumed name, please immediately inform the Admin.

People who threaten to sue us don't get posting privileges on our boards.

[Graham]

This I think is the first time I've seen in writing the suggestion that the faked Diary did not originate in Liverpool. Can you tell us more, please, Simon?

I have to ask: if the Diary was a non-Scouse production, how did Barrett get his hands on it?

Graham

Come on, Simon - tell us more!

Graham

[Sam Flynn]

Just as well the ink migration test supports that theory then Sam.

Not.

The ion migration technique was in its infancy at the time, and I have grave reservations about whether the samples used by McNeil in "calibrating" his method were representative enough to permit the dating of the type of paper used in the diary to any level of accuracy. Furthermore, I've not seen much evidence of the technique being used since, nor of its current sensitivity, never mind how sensitive it was back in the day.

As a "one-off" test, it tells us little or nothing. Luckily for us, the diary has its own inbuilt "one-off" test which places its authorship well into the 20th century.

[Iconoclast]

The ion migration technique was in its infancy at the time, and I have grave reservations about whether the samples used by McNeil in "calibrating" his method were representative enough to permit the dating of the type of paper used in the diary to any level of accuracy. Furthermore, I've not seen much evidence of the technique being used since, nor of its current sensitivity, never mind how sensitive it was back in the day.

Be honest here Sam, would you have written that if McNeill's test had predicted 1992 "plus or minus 12 years"? (I obviously know that he couldn't have predicted 2004 in 1992, but I'm sure you get my drift)?

As a "one-off" test, it tells us little or nothing. Luckily for us, the diary has its own inbuilt "one-off" test which places its authorship well into the 20th century.

I think Lord Orsam's challenge against the use of the expression "one off instance" is a stronger threat to the journal than your "one off", though I labour still under my deeply-polarised assumption that eventually someone will dissuade all of us of these concerns. Where is Livia Trivia when you need her?

[Sam Flynn]

Be honest here Sam, would you have written that if McNeill's test had predicted 1992 "plus or minus 12 years"?

Such a finding would have been consistent with the diary's use of language, at least. Under such a scenario, I suspect the "old hoax" lobby might have been the ones to point out that McNeil's test was still in its infancy (etc) and not me. And they'd have had a point. Sadly, they'd also have to explain how a cluster of anachronistic words (or "modern" usages thereof) could have turned up in a comparatively short 19th century text.

[Simon Wood]

Use of the expression "one off" was first argued in 1994 by Kenneth W. Rendell in his book 'Forging History'.

[Graham]

I think that Orsam (and others) tended to ignore the fact that expressions can be in verbal use for long before they are first written down. For example, my grandfather used the expression 'top myself' when I was but a wee mite, and I can guarantee he'd never seen it in writing. Same with 'one off' - I am absolutely certain that this was in verbal use long before the 1930's.

What I am uncomfortable about, when it comes to the Diary's claimed authenticity, is the infamous 'tin matchbox empty'. This, as far as I can recall, came from a list of the possessions of Eddowes' possessions compiled by the police, the original of which was not re-discovered until about 1984. I also recall that 'tin matchbox empty' was deliberately excised by the police from the published list of Eddowes possessions. However, whoever wrote the Diary was aware that there was an empty tin box found on Eddowes, and for my money that strongly suggests, at least to me, that the Diary was written some time after the mid-1980's. Unless, of course, its author really was the Ripper, which I just can't accept....honestly.

No doubt I'll be shot down in flames, but what the hell.....

Graham

[Sam Flynn]

Use of the expression "one off" was first argued in 1994 by Kenneth W. Rendell in his book 'Forging History'.

I wasn't claiming precedence in that regard, but I think I might have been the first to have flagged up "spread mayhem" as a likely anachronism. That aside, it's not just the use of a single dodgy phrase/word that's at issue - although that's important enough in itself - but the coexistence of more than one such words/phrases in such a short text. Oddities might (albeit unconvincingly) be explained in isolation, but harder to dismiss in combination.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

Sorry, I wasn't implying that you were claiming precedence.

I was merely stating a fact.

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks, Simon. I appreciate the clarification.