One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Spider]

And so it goes on.................
I am Pro Diarist, and don't have a problem with it at all as it's the real deal. It's a shame about the circumstances of its appearance, if only Ann Graham would be decent and honest about it a lot of the provenance issues would be resolved. Perhaps if people actually read the damn thing they might get it! No-one seems to get it at all, missing those little pointers, not seeing the wood for the trees as usual.
There will always be arguments and counter arguments on this subject but I find none of the anti-diarist ones hold any water.
The handwriting..............omg. Maybe we have the largest example of Maybricks handwriting albeit written in a particular 'mood' when he put pen to paper (and which varies in itself thru' the 'diary') and such a pity it doesn't appear to match the few 'snippets' of known Maybrick handwriting examples which in themselves vary.
Tin Match Box empty, this will be the one also referred to in the 'diary' text where it also states "I showed no fright, and indeed no light. Damn it the TIN BOX was empty".
I agree with a lot of the points (but not all) made originally by Tom and those by Iconoclast. But there is much more to this document for those who read it in detail.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello Ike and Spider,

I have no issue with anyone believing or disbelieving in the genuineness of the diary. We read - form an opinion. We don’t all arrive at the same conclusions.

At the risk of being boring there’s one point that I don’t understand.

If I was on the pro-diary side, especially someone like Robert Smith, my main tactic would be to select the most convincing point against the diary and try to rebut it. To knock away a central pillar. I’d suggest that at this point in time the most convincing point against the diary is David’s ‘one-off instance.’ I can’t understand why Robert Smith didn’t commission an expert in the evolution of language to try and refute the point. ( I realise that those against the diary will mention Kate Flint but wasn’t her opinion given at a time when the phrase ‘one off’ was being considered in isolation? I could be wrong on this point though.)

How much stronger would the pro-case be if it could be said that Professor So and So, with 30 years of experience and knowledge and a couple of books published, had said “there’s no reason at all why James Maybrick couldn’t have used the phrase ‘one-off instance’ in 1888/9?” Most people would then have been likely to have accepted an acknowledged expert in the field’s opinion over David’s. The fact that Robert Smith chose to select a usage in prisons of the isolated term ‘one off’ which has absolutely no relevance to the debate as it applies to the moving of prisoners from one area of the prison to another does tend to hint at desperation on Mr Smith’s part. In fact, as I’ve said before, it’s difficult for me to believe that he couldn’t have known that this point wasn’t valid.

To sum up, it gives the appearance that David’s point has been pretty much conceded?

[Iconoclast]

To sum up, it gives the appearance that David’s point has been pretty much conceded?

Hi Herlock,

I would certainly concede that David's point has not yet been disproven.

But would I be prepared to throw away the baby with the bathwater until I was certain it was a baby? I don't think so. There is so much in the journal and about the case whch lends itself to Maybrick as Jack (as Spider alluded to) that I am unwilling to discard the much for the sake of the very very very few.

Fair enough, if - to turn around your own suggestion regarding Robert Smith - a linguist could be found who would categorically state that the expression "one off instance" could not have been used in the LVP, then I'd probably have to concede, but in utter disbelief in the conceding.

I have no vested interest in Maybrick being Jack. I have no published works on the subject to defend the income of. If it wasn't Maybrick, it wasn't Maybrick and I will move on. I was convinced about Tumblety until I saw the diary video (and I do slightly regret some of my posts to Stewart Evans on the subject of Tumblety's incarceration - maybe not my finst hours), so doubtless there will eventually be another persuasive argument that will hook me. But - Lord - the Maybrick journal is very very compelling when you are deeply buried in the detail, so I am not conceiving of that day being any day soon.

And even if a linguist said that "one-off instance" is not a term that could possibly be used in the LVP, I'd still wonder whether the author had meant to write "an off instance" but ended up writing "a one off instance". As long as the case against Maybrick remains so strong - albeit hugely circumstantial - I would be looking for the one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the diary to be very very incontrovertible, unequivocal, and undeniable indeed.

[Iconoclast]

I agree with a lot of the points (but not all) made originally by Tom and those by Iconoclast. But there is much more to this document for those who read it in detail.

You know what, peeps, as much as I can take the hard lonely yards, the wind, the rain, the cold, the spite and the hatred of the masses, I can't deny that it is nice occasionally to meet someone along the way who isn't hoying pebbles at you.

Thank you Sir Spider of the clan McSpy.

Ike

[Graham]

Ike, one of my current fave TV progs is 'Fake Or Fortune', with the delicately lovely Fiona Bruce, and Philip Mould of 'Antiques Road Show' fame. My wife and I love it, because every so often some wealthy, pompous arse is brought crashing to earth when one or more experts declare that the Van Gogh, so-called, that he paid £ zillions for, is probably a forgery by a Viz magazine cartoonist. But what really strikes me about this prog, which is essentially about forgery or the possibility of same, is how many art experts rely very, very much on what is basically a 'hunch', or 'feeling'. As in, "Hmm, it looks like a Van Gogh, painted very much on the type of canvas and with paints he would have used, but...well, I don't think it isby Van Gogh. It doesn't look/feel/strike me as being/ smell genuine". And I'll tell you what, Ike, most of the time the good old hunch is on the button - various powerful scientific tests then reveal that the Van Gogh really is a forgery knocked out by someone who knew what he was doing, but hadn't got it quite right. And that's how the Diary strikes me. It isn't 'quite right'.

I'll put my **** on the block, and say here and now that Aston Villa have more chance of winning the Premier League and the FA Cup three seasons in a row, than the chances of the Diary being genuinely written by old Jim. And I bet that in the fullness of time, I'm proved right. If I am, then a ouija board will reach me with the good news.

Graham

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I would certainly concede that David's point has not yet been disproven.

But would I be prepared to throw away the baby with the bathwater until I was certain it was a baby? I don't think so. There is so much in the journal and about the case whch lends itself to Maybrick as Jack (as Spider alluded to) that I am unwilling to discard the much for the sake of the very very very few.

Fair enough, if - to turn around your own suggestion regarding Robert Smith - a linguist could be found who would categorically state that the expression "one off instance" could not have been used in the LVP, then I'd probably have to concede, but in utter disbelief in the conceding.

I have no vested interest in Maybrick being Jack. I have no published works on the subject to defend the income of. If it wasn't Maybrick, it wasn't Maybrick and I will move on. I was convinced about Tumblety until I saw the diary video (and I do slightly regret some of my posts to Stewart Evans on the subject of Tumblety's incarceration - maybe not my finst hours), so doubtless there will eventually be another persuasive argument that will hook me. But - Lord - the Maybrick journal is very very compelling when you are deeply buried in the detail, so I am not conceiving of that day being any day soon.

And even if a linguist said that "one-off instance" is not a term that could possibly be used in the LVP, I'd still wonder whether the author had meant to write "an off instance" but ended up writing "a one off instance". As long as the case against Maybrick remains so strong - albeit hugely circumstantial - I would be looking for the one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the diary to be very very incontrovertible, unequivocal, and undeniable indeed.

Ike, I’ve never hinted or suggested that you are dishonest in your belief in the diary. As you may recall I’ve received a fair few ‘missiles’ on here myself for trying to play Devil’s Advcate (not as many as you of course.) I can also recall being heavily criticised for saying that I didn’t see the handwriting as a major issue. But that’s life. The point that I was trying to make was simply that if I was Robert Smith and I wanted to strengthen the case for the diary I would have taken the strongest point against and made a concerted and serious effort to try and shoot it down. Unfortunately he came up with a pretty poor effort on that aspect of the diary.

[Sam Flynn]

And even if a linguist said that "one-off instance" is not a term that could possibly be used in the LVP, I'd still wonder whether the author had meant to write "an off instance"

...a linguist would tell you that there's no such thing as an "off instance" for starters.

[DJA]

Maybe,if you can find one that is cunning .....

[Iconoclast]

Ike, I’ve never hinted or suggested that you are dishonest in your belief in the diary.

Hi Herlock,

We're at cross-purposes. I don't think I said or even implied that you had (I think!).

All good. Sign on the dotted line and you're in the gang ...

[Iconoclast]

...a linguist would tell you that there's no such thing as an "off instance" for starters.

There doesn't have to be, Sam. All that is required is that someone wrote it. Time will, I have no doubt, eventually demonstrate that all of your linguistic anomalies were in common enough use verbally in the LVP that Maybrick could have used them.

[Iconoclast]

Maybe,if you can find one that is cunning .....

I think you mean 'Maybe,if you can find one that is dishonest', Dave. We don't want any of those, thank you.

Time will show that there is no problem with this - or indeed any other - phrase in the journal.

Ike

[GUT]

I think you mean 'Maybe,if you can find one that is dishonest', Dave. We don't want any of those, thank you.

Time will show that there is no problem with this - or indeed any other - phrase in the journal.

Ike

I think he means a cunning linguist, might just be an Aussie saying I guess, but say it fast a couple of times and you might catch on.

[Kaz]

Ike, I’ve never hinted or suggested that you are dishonest in your belief in the diary. As you may recall I’ve received a fair few ‘missiles’ on here myself for trying to play Devil’s Advcate (not as many as you of course.) I can also recall being heavily criticised for saying that I didn’t see the handwriting as a major issue. But that’s life. The point that I was trying to make was simply that if I was Robert Smith and I wanted to strengthen the case for the diary I would have taken the strongest point against and made a concerted and serious effort to try and shoot it down. Unfortunately he came up with a pretty poor effort on that aspect of the diary.

Hi Herlock

I'd like to see how anyone can successfully defend the contents of this thread :-

https://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=10817

Slightly disappointing that the only person to attempt it so far is Ike.

[StevenOwl]

Hi Herlock

I'd like to see how anyone can successfully defend the contents of this thread :-

https://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=10817

Slightly disappointing that the only person to attempt it so far is Ike.

In that thread Ike only tried to explain away the reasons why Mike may have written those letters to Anne. He doesn't address all the Mike and Anne-isms in the Diary text that Sam Flynn points out in that thread (and others that David brought up elsewhere). Would genuinely like to hear a Diary defender's thoughts on why so many of Mike and Anne's vocabulary traits are in the Diary.

[Iconoclast]

In that thread Ike only tried to explain away the reasons why Mike may have written those letters to Anne. He doesn't address all the Mike and Anne-isms in the Diary text that Sam Flynn points out in that thread (and others that David brought up elsewhere). Would genuinely like to hear a Diary defender's thoughts on why so many of Mike and Anne's vocabulary traits are in the Diary.

Well, what a thoroughly disappointing exercise that was! Here’s me expecting to see:

Mike: Yer me best flippin friend [Hic], we ferged ther driary nows ther time fer yous and mes to get jiggy widit.

Anne: Never in a million years, forger boy, but yes we forged the thing and fooled the world and please don’t ever show anyone this.

I must have missed that post ...