One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes 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.

There are absolutely NO Mike and Anne-isms in the journal text!

But what is the point of saying it? Pretty soon, this will be another ‘fact’ in the stable of the ‘enterprising’ journalist and the journal having been proved to be a fake.

[Iconoclast]

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

After their respective performances yesterday, Graham, I suspect you’ll be getting your old 2009 and 2016 banners out again next season.

In the Chumpionship, obviously.

[Iconoclast]

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

By the way, I’d keep your hand on your ******* if I were you. Leicester City, 2016?

And the first team to be English football champions three seasons on the trot?

Huddersfield Town.

I’d wear a reinforced codpiece if I were you, young man.

[Simon Wood]

Hamilton Academicals for the Premier League.

If the Diary is genuine, what are we to do with the Macnaghten memorandum, Sir Robert Anderson's utterances and the Swanson marginalia?

[Iconoclast]

Hamilton Academicals for the Premier League.

If the Diary is genuine, what are we to do with the Macnaghten memorandum, Sir Robert Anderson's utterances and the Swanson marginalia?

At the risk of sounding overly scatalogical today, I think you know the answer to that, Simon.

[Mike J. G.]

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.

No shizen, Sherlock. Plenty of folk also totally think Trump is a legend and May is a splendid PM. Plenty of people also totally think we never landed on the Moon, and that the Earth is as flat as the noggin' which believes Maybrick was the Ripper.

[Mike J. G.]

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

Let's not forget the pesky issue of the Poste House, coincidentally written in the same manner as the pub which the diarist mistakenly thought was running by that name in 1888; an easy mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.

Either that, or there existed a few of these Poste houses, and we just have no record of them whatsoever.



Critical thinking, and stuff.

[Mike J. G.]

Hello Graham,

Just thought that I’d say, as David’s no longer around, he wasn’t making the point just about the phrase ‘one off’ which he found in use in the records of an engineering firm (I can’t recall the name but it could have been something like Garscadden) from 1903. From memory (which is often faulty) I think that he accepted that it was unlikely that it was the first use of the phrase and so it would also have pre-dated 1903. David’s point though was the use of the phrase as a metaphor for something that happened only once (ie the context used in the diary) ; a unique occurrence. He was pointing out that the phrase ‘one off’ was used in isolation as a technical/engineering/industrial term but there are no examples of it being used in conversation or letter form outside of those fields. It’s only in much more recent times that it came into use as we have all probably used it. Therefore the phrase ‘one off instance’ in the diary is an anachronism. So unless David's point can be refuted then the diary is a modern forgery. I have to say that Robert Smith made an exceedingly poor effort at doing this in his recent book. To be honest I also have to question whether he could possibly have even believed his own explaination (to be as diplomatic as I can be.)

Just thought that I’d clarify this. David’s not around to tell me off if I’ve made a bad job of it.

Merely a coincidence, aka, a flesh wound. The diary is chocked full of coincidences. In the world of logic, we ignore coincidence and cling onto vague hope and personal wishes. That's how this Maybrick/Ripper stuff works. Find something you like, and find ways to make it reality. Maybe Maybrick was also a carman and went by the name of Lechmere on weekends.

[Mike J. G.]

Tin matchbox empty should seal the deal for anyone. One off instance, and the others Sam cites, should put the final nails in the coffin, where this rotting corpse belongs.

But then how would some folks spend their free time? Knitting? Preposterous!

[Mike J. G.]

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]

None of it is in Maybrick's hand. People don't write in two totally opposing hands, it just isn't a thing, lol. There exists a science for detecting similarities in a persons written hand, and unfortunately, it was determined that Maybrick never wrote the diary. But hey, don't let me spoil the fun.

[Mike J. G.]

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.

Other than your having no other hobby besides Sir Jim the Ripper, you mean?

[Mike J. G.]

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 ...

Then why not promote your theory via a journal, a blog, or even a book? Give up your true identity and unashamedly promote this idea that James Maybrick wrote the diary and was, in fact, the Ripper.

You won't do that, 'cos you're 'avin a giraffe, mate. At least that other bloke put himself out there with his weird belief that Lech the Carman was Cross the Ripper. I mean, have some dignity in your beliefs, like Tom Cruise.

[Iconoclast]

Let's not forget the pesky issue of the Poste House, coincidentally written in the same manner as the pub which the diarist mistakenly thought was running by that name in 1888; an easy mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.

Either that, or there existed a few of these Poste houses, and we just have no record of them whatsoever.



Critical thinking, and stuff.

Seriously, everyone, please don’t be influenced by this sort of lazy stereotyping.

A post house is anywhere where historically post is collected from.

And Maybrick spelt ‘post’ with an unneeded ‘e’, as in ‘poste haste’.

There, that wasn’t too hard now was it?

[Mike J. G.]

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.

Totally. I mean, nobody can prove that the Earth isn't flat. NASA just created those images to fool us, and stuff...

Party on, Wayne.

[Iconoclast]

None of it is in Maybrick's hand. People don't write in two totally opposing hands, it just isn't a thing, lol. There exists a science for detecting similarities in a persons written hand, and unfortunately, it was determined that Maybrick never wrote the diary. But hey, don't let me spoil the fun.

But hey you’re literally just making this up as you go along!

Tell us who “determined that Maybrick never wrote the diary” and we can start to help you to understand how deeply misguided you have been.

Sample of one, granted, but I have seen letters that I wrote in the 80s (when we wrote letters) and my hand is extremely formal and slants very hard to the left. I have loads of personal notes from the same period, meant only for my eyes, where the writing slants to the right and the writing style could not be less like my formal style if I tried.

I guess you’re going to tell me that I either didn’t write the letters or else they weren’t my notes?