One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[erobitha]

Hi Erobitha.
A definite red flag, I’m a 95% believer in the diary being a modern hoax, but it wouldn’t be fair if when I found something that seems to incriminate Maybrick I didn’t post it.

On the flip-side I guess you could say that if he was the multiple dog killer and their barking did cause him vexation throughout 1988, it would be odd for that not to appear in his journal.

We can agree to disagree and that is fine. My mindset is open to all three possibilities (modern hoax, historical hoax or real). None have yet been fully proved, but I would rate modern hoax as my least likely choice. Presently real is edging historical hoax for me but would not be surprised someday if evidence is unearthed to endorse that.

I believe the watch is the crucial element in all of this, and I have never swayed from that. The aged brass particles in the base of engravings and the similarity of the signature to Maybrick's marriage licence is compelling. The scrapbook might have been created to add weight to the watch, as the watch alone would not be enough to prove Maybrick as JtR.



One thing that should be accepted beyond any doubt is Maybrick presents every bit as a psychopath, but that alone is not enough to call him JtR. Many psychopaths exist today without a desire to murder.

[Iconoclast]

We can agree to disagree and that is fine. My mindset is open to all three possibilities (modern hoax, historical hoax or real). None have yet been fully proved, but I would rate modern hoax as my least likely choice. Presently real is edging historical hoax for me but would not be surprised someday if evidence is unearthed to endorse that.

I believe the watch is the crucial element in all of this, and I have never swayed from that. The aged brass particles in the base of engravings and the similarity of the signature to Maybrick's marriage licence is compelling. The scrapbook might have been created to add weight to the watch, as the watch alone would not be enough to prove Maybrick as JtR.



One thing that should be accepted beyond any doubt is Maybrick presents every bit as a psychopath, but that alone is not enough to call him JtR. Many psychopaths exist today without a desire to murder.

I think the signature in the watch is incredible if someone managed to fake it as are the aged particles. I also know that the 'double event' of March 9, 1992 is simply beyond explainable by chance alone. I think it's simply beyond staggering that the scrapbook should talk about "an initial here, an initial there will tell of the whoring mother" in the context of the death of Kelly and then EVERYONE who publishes Kelly's death scene photograph publishes the one with the 'F.M.' on Kelly's wall.

Personally, I think the timing of both artefacts would favour modern hoax over old hoax (there's too much in there that would be really hard to know before 1987) despite the forensic evidence strongly favouring old over new; though this is obviously moot as I am 99.99999% certain that the scrapbook is the real deal anyway.

Hey, just putting it out there in case anyone's in any doubts ...

Ike

[erobitha]

Personally, I think the timing of both artefacts would favour modern hoax over old hoax (there's too much in there that would be really hard to know before 1987) despite the forensic evidence strongly favouring old over new; though this is obviously moot as I am 99.99999% certain that the scrapbook is the real deal anyway.

Well at least we both agree there is nuance to opinions as there is to the whole provenance discussion. You and I would agree on most things but we don’t align 100% and that’s okay. I recently had a debate with Caz regarding Israel Schwartz - that is okay too. We can’t all think the same and nor should we.

There are more mysteries to unravel with the Maybrick case and constantly seems to throw up more questions or coincidences than answers. Despite the best effort of the likes of RJ and LO, it still keeps on living when by all rights as a hoax, it should have been long debunked by now.

But yet almost thirty years on and it still divides.

[Iconoclast]

But yet almost thirty years on and it still divides.

Interesting, isn't it, erobitha?

Why does it still live on after almost thirty years?
Why does it still divide?
In whose interest is it to keep the controversy going?
What is gained by so doing?

What do we all think, dear readers?

Cheers,

Ike

[rjpalmer]

In some quarters the Flat Earth debate rages on. All you are observing is that denial is a powerful emotion.

The Maybrick Hoax was ruled a fraud in a court of law nearly 3 decades ago, when the Sunday Times was released from its non-disclosure agreement on the principle that the public was about to be scammed. Reputable historians of the case have since ignored it.

I can’t speak for Lord Orsam, but the only reason I keep debating is because I feel fraud should be resisted, and people who run interference for frauds deserve pushback.

Maybe a better strategy is to merely deprive the debate of oxygen.

[Iconoclast]

In some quarters the Flat Earth debate rages on. All you are observing is that denial is a powerful emotion.

The Maybrick Hoax was ruled a fraud in a court of law nearly 3 decades ago, when the Sunday Times was released from its non-disclosure agreement on the principle that the public was about to be scammed. Reputable historians of the case have since ignored it.

I can’t speak for Lord Orsam, but the only reason I keep debating is because I feel fraud should be resisted, and people who run interference for frauds deserve pushback.

Maybe a better strategy is to merely deprive the debate of oxygen.

Funnily enough, that's exactly what I think of The Sunday Times' position and the arguments of the interfering Melvin Harris and his subsequent acolytes of which you and Lord Orsam are probably the most enduring (not 'endearing', note) which is why I - and people like me - will not give you free range to perpetuate deceptions. What 'deceptions', I hear you ask? Well, how about the one above, which I quote below?

The Maybrick Hoax was ruled a fraud in a court of law nearly 3 decades ago, when the Sunday Times was released from its non-disclosure agreement on the principle that the public was about to be scammed.

Really? Really, RJ? The Sunday Times NDA was squashed on the grounds that there was a desperate need to save the gullible public from having $21.95 stolen from their bank accounts? And the courts agreed? And yet the courts did nothing to prevent this heinous crime going ahead when the book was published?

Or, RJ. Maybe it was this way. The Sunday Times were the laughing stock of the publishing world because of the fiasco over their purchase of the Hitler diaries so Maurice Chittenden took on board the whisperings of Our Man of Integrity, Melvin Harris, and believed him when he said they'd be on safe ground if they said the diary was a fake. And the paper was desperate to be the first to do so so sought a court order to get out of its NDA, presumably citing 'public interest', that piss-poor excuse for any unpleasant act we can't justify on any other grounds. The courts - knowing that the NDA ran out in a matter of days - must have pissed themselves at this request, but granted it anyway (probably relieved to avoid a pointless appeal in the few days that remained).

Now, back to Our Man of Integrity, Melvin Harris. The one thing that would have got in the way of anyone on the planet believing him when he said he was standing-up for 'integrity' (via his Committee of Integrity which consisted of him and two worms in his garden) would have been if he had had a vested interest to defend by challenging this frightening new candidate for Jack.

Obviously he didn't have one, but he nevertheless still managed to stick his garage full of copies of his pointless tome naming Donston Stephenson as Jack a year after the diary was published. That must have just been another one of those strange 'coincidences' which seem to plague the Maybrick scrapbook? Committee of integrity, my arse.

'Reputable historians'? They would have slit their granny's throats for a go at publishing the James Maybrick scrapbook. 'Reputable' as in, 'Agree with me' historians, I think you mean, RJ?

Ike

[rjpalmer]

so Maurice Chittenden took on board the whisperings of Our Man of Integrity, Melvin Harris

As they say on Wikipedia, “citation needed.”

[rjpalmer]

Really? Really, RJ? The Sunday Times NDA was squashed on the grounds that there was a desperate need to save the gullible public from having $21.95 stolen from their bank accounts? And the courts agreed? And yet the courts did nothing to prevent this heinous crime going ahead when the book was published?

Bizarre commentary, Ike.

Are you under the impression that the UK bans books just because they are nonsensical?

You may wish to review why people are released from non-disclosure agreements. It often involves criminal activity that would be otherwise suppressed.

[Iconoclast]

Bizarre commentary, Ike.

Are you under the impression that the UK bans books just because they are nonsensical?

You may wish to review why people are released from non-disclosure agreements. It often involves criminal activity that would be otherwise suppressed.

I'll take it as read, RJ, that 'often' is not the same as 'only'.

My commentary probably was a bit bizarre (we are 3 hours and 40 minutes away from kick-off so it's only going to get more hazy), but I'm pretty confident that the courts did not release the Sunday Times from their NDA because they (the courts) had ruled the 'Maybrick Hoax' a fraud.

[Scott Nelson]

I should have followed my own advise a few pages back.

[Iconoclast]

As they say on Wikipedia, “citation needed.”

I’ve just arrived in Scotland (had to find somewhere where England’s defeat last evening wouldn’t be a popular topic) so I can’t post any details but my reference was Feldman, one of the earlier pages (maybe somewhere like pp1-30).

It wasn’t a cast-iron association. It was Feldman’s understanding from Chittenden that he had been contacted by Harris (or the other way around). Feldman reported that he had asked Chittenden to seek the views of those less hostile to the diary as well as Harris but that his assumption had been that Harris’ opinion had been all he needed in his rush to publish and be first to get it so very wrong again.

Obviously, this is all based on Feldman’s self-report, but I’m sure Chittenden must have read Feldman’s book when it was published and therefore had every opportunity to deny this conversation with Feldman if it hadn’t happened the way Feldy implied.

Ike

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Interesting, isn't it, erobitha?

Why does it still live on after almost thirty years?
Why does it still divide?
In whose interest is it to keep the controversy going?
What is gained by so doing?

What do we all think, dear readers?

Cheers,

Ike

Well dear Ike, you asked dear readers, so I've duly replied.

Why does it live on?
It doesn't really. Not outside of a niche area of interest.

Why does it still divide?
I'll skip that one, thanks.

In whose interest is it to keep the controversy going?
No one's, apart from those who think the diary is genuine. Short of rebutting pro diary claims, the subject would be forgotten, so actually I'd say pro diarists.

What is gained?
Not profit, that's for sure. We can't accuse Mango books of cashing in on their limited 25th anniversary run of Smith's book, it's not like it was a Tesco two for £7 paperback. No one's getting rich off it now.

Pride? For all four.

[Simon Wood]

The Diary keeps the wheels of the Ripper industry greased, whilst helping to keep the subject of JtR free from cobwebs and weeds.

[caz]

Alas, no.

If you think you "understand" Ike, then you're making the same fatal error of logic that he is. You've followed him Through The Looking Glass.

The simple mental error that Ike is making is that he isn't basing his calculations on what is actually known. He's throwing in irrelevant and unconfirmed and theoretical factors.

What is actually known?

It is known that Barrett called Crew on 9 March 1992.

It is also known that Dodd had work done on Maybrick's old house on 9 March 1992.

Now take a deep breath and clear your head.

It is NOT known that the Diary is the work of James Maybrick (and, in fact, it isn't, but that's another question) so throwing in the date 11 March 1889 as one of the factors immediately make's Ike's equation invalid.

To use Lord Byron's phrase, Ike's calculations are "mental masturbation" based on the Diary actually being the work of James Maybrick, thus shoving the 'possibilities' back to 11 March 1889.

Find a grade-school math teacher to explain it to you guys, I'm done!

The question that Lord O asks, as bizarre as it seems to you two, is the relevant one. How often does Dodd have work done on his house? And really, how often does anyone connected to James Maybrick have work done on their house, because you two would be grasping at those straws, too, had they happened to have coincided with Barrett calling Crew on the telephone, despite you not knowing whether the diary is old or not, or whether it actually came from any of those places or not.

Extend my warm wishes to Ike, I can waste no further time on him.

R P

Right, where to start?

What is actually known?

It is known that Barrett called Crew on 9 March 1992.

It is also known that Dodd had work done on Maybrick's old house on 9 March 1992.

Now take a deep breath and clear your head.

Deep breath taken and head cleared of garbage, spin and all other irrelevant stuff.

Let's start again, shall we?

It is known that Paul Dodd had electrical work done on the first floor of Maybrick's old house on Monday 9 March 1992, by a firm whose employees included one whose local pub was the Saddle.

It is also known that another Saddle regular, Mike Barrett, called Doreen Montgomery on the same day, about a diary, whose purported author would be identifiable as James Maybrick, allegedly writing over the last two years of his life, up until 3rd May 1889, when he had moved into Battlecrease House and would died there, 8 days later.

The question for me would be whether these two events were likely to have happened on the same day and been entirely unconnected - aside from the undeniable Maybrick connection between house and old book.

I don't need to know the age of the diary Mike was talking about, nor whose handwriting is in it, nor even if it had yet to be written on that day. It's merely a question of calculating the probability of a) the work and b) the phone call colliding on the same day by pure chance. It is an entirely valid question to ask and to answer, unless one has already made up one's mind that there could not possibly have been any connection between the two, unless it somehow involved a Barrett fake in the making.

I recently received from my brother a large box of old documents of our late father's plus a variety of memorabilia, including a pile of old theatre programmes, which my brother had been storing at his home since 1995, when Dad went into private residential care and our childhood home near Wimbledon was sold to help pay for it. My brother arranged the sale, and still has the same contact details he had when the new owners moved in. The house has not changed hands since, so if they had found anything of my dad's, when boarding out the loft for instance, at any time from 1995, they had the means of contacting my brother for him to collect it. I didn't expect anything like that to happen, and as time goes on it becomes an ever decreasing possibility. But if my brother were to call me with news like that today, as I am typing this, it would be a genuine, but mind-bogglingly unlikely coincidence, which is why it's just not going to happen - even though it's still possible in theory.

Gotta go, the phone's ringing...

[Iconoclast]

Hi Cazzykins,

Right, where to start?
Deep breath taken and head cleared of garbage, spin and all other irrelevant stuff.
Let's start again, shall we?

Wow, so eloquently put - I’m sure our dear readers are wishing I’d just asked you to explain it from the start !

But if my brother were to get news like that today, as I am typing this, it would be a genuine, mind-bogglingly unlikely coincidence, which is why it's just not going to happen - even though it's still possible in theory.

Great point - “it’s just not going to happen” because associated events which occur simultaneously (say on the same day) without prompting after thousands of days when they could have occurred defy the natural order of probability theory!

Imagine, then, how much less likely the Maybrick ‘double event’ was on March 9, 1992 when 20 times the time had passed since the first possible day!

And if the new owners did contact your brother today, there would almost certainly be a link which explains it and removes the need for recourse to chance and coincidence. For example, it might be “We are keen crime buffs and follow that splendid forum Casebook: Jack the Spratt McVitie and your sister Caz’s heartfelt post reminded us that we had found something of your dad’s which we meant to ring you about”.

Without a link, deeply improbable coincidences tend not to occur terribly often …

Post much appreciated, Caz - sharp with the knife and sharp with the pen, eh?

The Ikester