One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[miakaal4]

Well I personally do not believe a Nut would bother arranging bits of guts and making neat little piles of things. Of course the Freemasons would admit they were involved if asked! After all, they are nice blokes. Who are still assisting and hiding "brothers" no doubt. I have never heard of Osram and I do not believe every theory I read. But when I read an account of anything to do with JtR, sooner or later it's, "if, possibly, could of, maybe, etc.that.is not history that is story telling. Robinson told his story, bits are very good, but the truth is still out there and despite what this board say s, I am investigating a connection between the murders, the masons/golden dawn and any other weird brotherhood. Because one thing I am convinced of is that the murders were ritualistic.

[miakaal4]

Tom your title request still has not been fulfilled could I add, give a reasonable motivation the the diary (and the watch) being forgeries.? Why were they forged.

[Abby Normal]

Tom your title request still has not been fulfilled could I add, give a reasonable motivation the the diary (and the watch) being forgeries.? Why were they forged.

title request was filled a long time ago. its not in maybricks hand. end of. anyone who dosnt acknowledge is either delusional or has alterior motives.

i see the responses coming now... he disguised his handwriting. lol yeah right in a personal diary.

why were they forged? seriously. ummm monetary gain?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well I personally do not believe a Nut would bother arranging bits of guts and making neat little piles of things. Of course the Freemasons would admit they were involved if asked! After all, they are nice blokes. Who are still assisting and hiding "brothers" no doubt. I have never heard of Osram and I do not believe every theory I read. But when I read an account of anything to do with JtR, sooner or later it's, "if, possibly, could of, maybe, etc.that.is not history that is story telling. Robinson told his story, bits are very good, but the truth is still out there and despite what this board say s, I am investigating a connection between the murders, the masons/golden dawn and any other weird brotherhood. Because one thing I am convinced of is that the murders were ritualistic.

Serial killers don’t exactly act like normal people because they aren’t normal people. How do you know what a killer would or wouldn’t do?

Your “after all they are nice blokes..” is certainly suggestive of an assumption that they aren’t which is a generalisation which has no basis in fact. Due to the level of secrecy involved in Freemasonry they are meat and drink to conspiracy theorists.

Obviously you’re free to follow any line of research that you choose. We’ve had this kind of theorising before. The Knight story was shown to be nonsense. Edwards book on Black Magic Ritual was drivel. I read an ebook this year on the subject which was awful. The problem is that when no one takes these fantasies seriously the proposer starts talking about “closed minds.” Yes, I’ll freely confess, my mind is closed to baseless, evidence-free fairy stories.

[miakaal4]

Sure it could be all rubbish. Like I said most of the stuff out there is personal opinion or subjective. And I'm sure we all know about the tests which have shown, Ive seen it done, where 4 witnesses to the same event tell 4 different stories. We have coppers who say they wandered around dark alleys alone looking for evidence knowing the shadows could hide a maniac with a razor sharp knife, did they really search? We can only look at what is fact. What else is there?

[miakaal4]

My main problem with the Diary and the watch is why bother? Why would Maybrick write the diary and scratch the watch? Why would he risk it? And what was his reasoning? I still think it genuine but some sort of decoy to hide the real motives behind the killings. But my theories padded room fare.

[Abby Normal]

My main problem with the Diary and the watch is why bother? Why would Maybrick write the diary and scratch the watch? Why would he risk it? And what was his reasoning? I still think it genuine but some sort of decoy to hide the real motives behind the killings. But my theories padded room fare.

because he didnt write it. barret and his wife did

[John Wheat]

because he didnt write it. barret and his wife did

And there was me thinking Maybrick had written the diary.

[Harry D]

The fact the diary and the watch emerged within a year should set alarming bells ringing. Pro-diarists simply handwave it as one of many little coincidences. However, to the more discerning among us, it stinks to high heaven. I'm not convinced the diary and watch were coordinated. It might have been one hoaxer trying to piggyback on another.

And even *IF* you could do the impossible and prove beyond doubt that both the diary/watch were genuine, it still wouldn't prove Maybrick was the killer.

[erobitha]

The fact the diary and the watch emerged within a year should set alarming bells ringing. Pro-diarists simply handwave it as one of many little coincidences. However, to the more discerning among us, it stinks to high heaven. I'm not convinced the diary and watch were coordinated. It might have been one hoaxer trying to piggyback on another.

And even *IF* you could do the impossible and prove beyond doubt that both the diary/watch were genuine, it still wouldn't prove Maybrick was the killer.

Therein is the paradox. I believe the watch 100%. I am willing to accept the scrapbook has challenges, main one for me being clear line of provenance. The whole 'alarms bells' thing is natural response. "Now there's two artefacts within a year!". I get the suspicion, but it does not invalidate the possibility remains that one or both are genuine. Or both are not. I believe the watch, and that is enough for me personally. The science is good and the signature is a sgtrong match to his marriage certiifcate (and other documents). However, as you say even if we could prove the watch was 100% genuine, that doesn't prove he was Jack. It can be easily argued that is not conclusive proof, it just perhaps gives him more legitimacy as a candidate with the 'experts'. Even then it would be marginal in some eyes. I believe that is the best we can hope for at this stage.

“Recognizing isn't at all like seeing; the two often don't even agree.”

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Tom your title request still has not been fulfilled could I add, give a reasonable motivation the the diary (and the watch) being forgeries.? Why were they forged.

Literary aspirations and a desire for a new greenhouse?

[Simon Wood]

A forgery is an illegal copy of an original which exists in real-life, whereas a fake is an invented object that has no real-life counterpart.

The diary is a fake.

[Observer]

Therein is the paradox. I believe the watch 100%. I am willing to accept the scrapbook has challenges, main one for me being clear line of provenance. The whole 'alarms bells' thing is natural response. "Now there's two artefacts within a year!". I get the suspicion, but it does not invalidate the possibility remains that one or both are genuine. Or both are not. I believe the watch, and that is enough for me personally. The science is good and the signature is a sgtrong match to his marriage certiifcate (and other documents). However, as you say even if we could prove the watch was 100% genuine, that doesn't prove he was Jack. It can be easily argued that is not conclusive proof, it just perhaps gives him more legitimacy as a candidate with the 'experts'. Even then it would be marginal in some eyes. I believe that is the best we can hope for at this stage.

“Recognizing isn't at all like seeing; the two often don't even agree.”

How can the watch be genuine, and the Diary not? So Maybrick inscribes the watch, whether he be JTR or not, and then someone else without the knowledge that Maybrick has inscribed the watch comes up with the idea of hoaxing a Diary which pretends to be the word of James Maybrick in the guise of JTR. Do you realise how silly that notion is?

[erobitha]

How can the watch be genuine, and the Diary not? So Maybrick inscribes the watch, whether he be JTR or not, and then someone else without the knowledge that Maybrick has inscribed the watch comes up with the idea of hoaxing a Diary which pretends to be the word of James Maybrick in the guise of JTR. Do you realise how silly that notion is?

Your attempt at an explanation is quite silly I agree. Who said the person who wrote the scrapbook had no knowledge of the watch? Whether that be Maybrick or not?

I believe they both came from the same place and that is from under the floorboards of Battlecrease House on Monday 9th March 1992. Who put them there I do not know. A bag was also found with an old key inside. The watch and the bag found it's way into the lcoal antiques trade and the scrabook found it's way in to Mike Barrett's hands. The artefacts were seperated by the finder who probably didn't think there was much value in an old watch (that had most likely stopped) or an old bag, but the old book could be worth something - esecially if it was signed by Jack The Ripper. Did James Maybrick put them there or did someone else? I have no idea. If it was a hoax why place them there in the first place?

Maybe some of those questions will get answered over time, but maybe not. Even if the watch is real and the scrabook is a hoax, I accept it does not provide a smoking gun from a historian's perspective. It certainly makes it an interesting one from mine.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

I couldn't rightly state why David hasn't called in an expert, I don't think it's that important personally. Experts have been used elsewhere, and what did that resolve? So adding another to the list isn't going to change anything. Unless if course, an expert disagrees that it matches Anne. But does the modern hoax theory hinge on matching Anne's writing? It'd clear up a few questions but would still leave Mike squarely in the frame, and that'll never be accepted regardless of what any expert has to offer. I mean, no expert was required to match a scratched signature inside a watch. That's taken as gospel.

I was really just responding to Ike, who relies on James having private and personal handwriting, and that's kind of the argument that was being made regards Anne's samples as he posted.

Ciao.

Hi Al,

You previously mentioned that we can't rely on the examples of Anne's handwriting which we present in Inside Story, which pre date the 'disclosure' of the private correspondence in Orsam's possession. Could you clarify what you meant by this? What has the timing of Orsam's disclosure to do with it? If you meant that the correspondence from Anne is dated after the examples were provided to Keith and co, what was the date and again, why do you consider this relevant? Has Orsam disclosed this correspondence in all its glory, do you know? Or just one word, which in his view resembles the same word in the diary?

I would imagine, if Anne had written the diary, she'd have been every bit as careful when writing to Mike, after she'd left him and he was in full-on 'confession' mode, gathering the evidence for their joint enterprise, as she'd have been when providing Keith with examples of her handwriting. Why would she not have typed all such private and deeply personal letters, so Mike couldn't use them as evidence of her own handiwork in the diary?

I meant to add that, to be fair, it's far more often 'taken as gospel' round here that the scratched signature inside the watch, despite evidence to the contrary, was put there by a Johnson brother in 1993, without reference to any genuine examples of James Maybrick's signature, apparently on a whim and a prayer that it wouldn't immediately be exposed as an obvious forgery, without the need for expert eyes to confirm it.

Love,

Caz
X