One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Bingo RJ

Its not in Maybricks handwriting
No provenance before Barret
he admitted forging it
he tried to acquire a Victorian Diary with blank pages
its got some of Annes writing quirks
The anomolies tin matchbox empty and one off instance


its a dead duck and people still pushing it obviously have some vested interest in keeping it going and or just want to beleive it for some crazy reason.

Its not in Maybricks [formal copperplate] handwriting
No provenance before Barret [Honestly, have you read anything about the journal?????? It goes right back to the Maybrick household via a family sharing their surname with that which Florrie adopted when she was released from prison - but other than that, you're right, zero provenance]
he admitted forging it [He was sweating whisky and desperate for attention - he was lying through his drunken teeth]
he tried to acquire a Victorian Diary with blank pages [Yes, that 1890 or 1891 diary would definitely have helped him]
its got some of Annes writing quirks [News to me - could you name some?]
The anomolies tin matchbox empty and one off instance [Neither prove anything other than your slipshod analysis]

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike,
And I think you are wrong to accept the handwriting as Maybrick's; it is simply nothing like the genuine examples of his handwriting that have come down to us, no matter what Anna Koren might have thought.

Graham, this lack of understanding is beneath you. Anna Koren was a graphologist who commented solely on the state of mind of the writer from the handwriting. She made no comment on James Maybrick as she was not given a name to base her analysis on.

As to the watch, has it ever been proved that there is a definite connection between this and the Diary? Kind of like chicken and egg.....

It's not chicken and egg. Either of these two artifacts could have come first. Unlike the chicken and the egg, it doesn't matter which did. They can stand alone. They make no reference to one another.

That's because Maybrick created them both and - tragically for those determined to undermine his case - he forgot to write "Hey, and there's an inscribed watch too if this journal isn't enough to satisfy your doubts" or "I wrote a confession in an old 'scrapbook' too, you know". Maybe the watch was too small, who knows.

[Graham]

Come on, Ike, you know very well what I was on about - Anna Koren's example of different handwriting styles by a person suffering from multiple personality syndrome. I don't think even Feldman was taken in by that somewhat dramatic claim. I never even suggested that she was aware that the Diary was supposedly by Maybrick; read my post again!

So has it been proven that there is a connection between the Watch and the Diary? You can't simply say that 'Maybrick created them both' - that's merely your opinion, old chap, not proven fact.

Graham

[Abby Normal]

Its not in Maybricks [formal copperplate] handwriting
No provenance before Barret [Honestly, have you read anything about the journal?????? It goes right back to the Maybrick household via a family sharing their surname with that which Florrie adopted when she was released from prison - but other than that, you're right, zero provenance]
he admitted forging it [He was sweating whisky and desperate for attention - he was lying through his drunken teeth]
he tried to acquire a Victorian Diary with blank pages [Yes, that 1890 or 1891 diary would definitely have helped him]
its got some of Annes writing quirks [News to me - could you name some?]
The anomolies tin matchbox empty and one off instance [Neither prove anything other than your slipshod analysis]

oh yeah I forgot your the only one who thinks its real sorry!
others think your just trolling too, so go figure.

[Iconoclast]

oh yeah I forgot your the only one who thinks its real sorry!
others think your just trolling too, so go figure.

Is that the best you've got? "What I don't like, I call 'troll' and I win the argument"?

Honestly, I'll live with that - it's water off this duck's back, believe me. The journal is simply too complex for dilettantes to invest time in. I think we all get that. Those who have little or no knowledge about the journal routinely dismiss it. We get that. It's the easy, lazy approach to analysis, and the one occasional visitors here fall back on. You might even think that some of them are trolling to see what response they get.

And I have no vested interest in the Maybrick journal being the real deal so I don't have to worry when people knock it, knock my views, attempt to isolate me, marginalise me. I may very well be the only Maybrickite on this site. I may also be the only one who is proven right.

[Iconoclast]

Come on, Ike, you know very well what I was on about - Anna Koren's example of different handwriting styles by a person suffering from multiple personality syndrome. I don't think even Feldman was taken in by that somewhat dramatic claim. I never even suggested that she was aware that the Diary was supposedly by Maybrick; read my post again!

So has it been proven that there is a connection between the Watch and the Diary? You can't simply say that 'Maybrick created them both' - that's merely your opinion, old chap, not proven fact.

Graham

No, there is no established connection between the journal and the watch.

[Graham]

Hi Ike (again),

It goes right back to the Maybrick household via a family sharing their surname with that which Florrie adopted when she was released from prison - but other than that, you're right, zero provenance

Well, at least you don't appear to support the dubious claim that it came out of Battlecrease and fell off the back of a skip. But then again, you seem to support another equally dubious claim that it was in Anne's family for however many years. I suppose out of the two, if forced at gunpoint to choose, I'd go with Anne's story. But I'm not being held at gunpoint.

Purely out of interest, Ike, were you on these boards when an Australian bloke called Steve Powell was posting, and was discussed at length?

Graham

[Abby Normal]

Is that the best you've got? "What I don't like, I call 'troll' and I win the argument"?

Honestly, I'll live with that - it's water off this duck's back, believe me. The journal is simply too complex for dilettantes to invest time in. I think we all get that. Those who have little or no knowledge about the journal routinely dismiss it. We get that. It's the easy, lazy approach to analysis, and the one occasional visitors here fall back on. You might even think that some of them are trolling to see what response they get.

And I have no vested interest in the Maybrick journal being the real deal so I don't have to worry when people knock it, knock my views, attempt to isolate me, marginalise me. I may very well be the only Maybrickite on this site. I may also be the only one who is proven right.

you have a short memory.
when others accused you of being a troll recently , I said- I don't think he is a troll and genuinely believe its real- and you thanked me for that.


and now you respond to something that wasnt even in response to you and attacking it "slipshod". Even though all i listed were facts. lol.


I DONT think your a troll, and apparently dont have a vested interest in it-but why you beleive its real is beyond me.


good luck Icon

[Iconoclast]

you have a short memory.
when others accused you of being a troll recently , I said- I don't think he is a troll and genuinely believe its real- and you thanked me for that.
and now you respond to something that wasnt even in response to you and attacking it "slipshod". Even though all i listed were facts. lol.
I DONT think your a troll, and apparently dont have a vested interest in it-but why you beleive its real is beyond me.
good luck Icon

That is very true, Abby - you did say that and I was grateful at the time, despite it being the same water and the same duck's back.

But your post said "others think your just trolling too" which was ambiguous if you have a failing memory.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike (again),
Well, at least you don't appear to support the dubious claim that it came out of Battlecrease and fell off the back of a skip. But then again, you seem to support another equally dubious claim that it was in Anne's family for however many years. I suppose out of the two, if forced at gunpoint to choose, I'd go with Anne's story. But I'm not being held at gunpoint.

One of these two provenances is - by definition - an incredible coincidence because they have demonstrable truths attached to them but they are fundamentally mutually exclusive (so they can't both be relevant - one or both sets must be a coincidence): Anne's family have a route back to Battlecrease and the trial and her surname is the very one Florrie adopted on being released from gaol, whilst the electricians were in Battlecrease on the very day that Barrett rang Doreen Montgomery, the only day in 100 years that we have work being done in Battlecrease on the record.

I favour Anne's provenance because it contains two coincidences (the link to Battlecrease, and the choice of 'Graham' as surname by Florrie) whereas the electrician provenance contains just the one coincidence (the date of the work and Barrett's call to Montgomery).

Purely out of interest, Ike, were you on these boards when an Australian bloke called Steve Powell was posting, and was discussed at length?
Graham

Yes, I've been reading these posts for 11 years now (so I know you're a Villan) and yes I followed the Steve Powell story. He was - I think - a-crying wolf just once too often and we all tired of his postulating without spilling the beans on what he knew if indeed he knew anything of interest at all. Interestingly, the core of one of his arguments was that Anne claimed to have the diary of Jack the Ripper back in the late 1960s when she was a nurse in Australia, but she herself has never supported that statement (in his defence or otherwise) and I rather mistrust his motives for claiming it.

[Iconoclast]

... why you beleive its real is beyond me.

I believe the journal to be the true account of James Maybrick, aka Jack the Ripper, based upon:

• The same 'smell test' that an earlier poster claimed was the reason they felt it was a hoax - I can 'smell' the authenticity of this document, rightly or wrongly.

• The fact that it is either an authentic document or a modern hoax (or written by someone with a profound insight into the Maybrick household and the Whitechapel crimes which I consider to be an extremely implausible option so I generally discard it) coupled with the fact that science has dated the ink to no later than around 1933 and the watch scratches to many tens of years old even in 1992.

• The 20+ points (which I'm thinking about pulling together into a new post) which simply should not have happened if James Maybrick were not Jack the Ripper.

• The other (numerous) points which lend themselves effortlessly to Maybrick as Jack.

• Ultimately, therefore, I believe the journal to be authentic because James Maybrick simply fits the crimes, despite being the most obscure of choices if the victim of a hoax.

More on all that to come ...

[Harry D]

I DONT think your a troll, and apparently dont have a vested interest in it-but why you beleive its real is beyond me.

I don’t think he’s a wind-up merchant either.

I know so.

[Iconoclast]

I don’t think he’s a wind-up merchant either.

I know so.

Drop us a quick post when you've read even one book on this subject and we can maybe start to have a discussion.

I don't think Ladybird have a book on the Maybrick journal so you may need to get your dad to explain some of the words.

[Harry D]

Drop us a quick post when you've read even one book on this subject and we can maybe start to have a discussion.

I don't think Ladybird have a book on the Maybrick journal so you may need to get your dad to explain some of the words.

Hit a nerve, have we?

I don't sense you have a vested interest in the diary, and you don't strike me as gullible enough to be taken in by an obvious hoax, therefore it only leads me to one conclusion: you're on a wind up.

[Iconoclast]

Hit a nerve, have we?

I don't sense you have a vested interest in the diary, and you don't strike me as gullible enough to be taken in by an obvious hoax, therefore it only leads me to one conclusion: you're on a wind up.

Really Harry, if you weren't so new to this Casebook you wouldn't even go there. I've happily taken everything everyone has thrown at me on this site and not allowed myself to be beaten by the schoolyard bullies in the way most others have. You can kid yourself that your little pebbles thrown from 100 yards have left their mark - nothing I say could change your view so I shan't try. It adds nothing to the Maybrick case, so I'll have to leave you to it, I'm afraid.

What you sense about my interest in the journal and what strikes you as my being gullible or not, has no bearing on my position. It's a shame that you are so young and so lacking in insight into the case that the sum of what you've got is petty, lazy stereotyping, but that is clearly who and what you are, I guess. It's sad, but in a few years you'll start drinking and shaving and dating and you might stop for a moment and think back on these emotionally-confused days and regret your cheap and unsupported comments.