One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

I've read the books, saw the evidence posted here in this forum, and until something new comes along I have no doubt in my mind that Barrett was responsible for the hoaxing of the Maybrick Diary. I can't speak for other people, but I'll say this. There is ample information here in the Maybrick threads for individuals to make up their minds as to who they think was responsible for the authorship of the Maybrick Diary. The overwhelming majority voted for a Barrett ownership. If the Maybrick saga is, (as our old friend Iconopest reckons it is) of Worldwide interest, I'd ask those millions of dear readers to join Casebook, and let's see what they believe in a new poll. I won't hold my breath. It's more likely, they visit in their substantial numbers, to have a bit of a laugh, a bit of levity, in these days of uncertainty.

Good for you, Observer. Nobody can accuse you of not knowing your own mind.

Now it's just a matter of knowing what was going on in the minds of the Barretts back in March 1992!

Love,

Caz
X

[Observer]

Good for you, Observer. Nobody can accuse you of not knowing your own mind.

Now it's just a matter of knowing what was going on in the minds of the Barretts back in March 1992!

Love,

Caz
X

Indeed. Of course there are others who know the truth of the matter, but I can't see them coming forward any time soon

[Iconoclast]

Embarrassing? Ally hit the nail on the head with regard to the popularity of this thread when she said

"The reason there have been more views than posts is that people consider this topic too idiotic to bother with, except to watch the never ending progression of morons arguing it get smacked down."

Everyone loves to view the train crash, to go to the circus.

Let's see how this thread now develops now that Mr Palmer has left the room.

It's a Barrett thread, pure and simple

OMG and all that!

Generally speaking - Logic 101 here - every thread will have more views than posts (it's unlikely to be equal, and you certainly wouldn't imagine there being more posts than views - or would you?). Doh again, I think!

Quick reminder here: More posts ('responses') than any other thread currently available on all of Casebook's forums. It seems that not only does everyone love a train crash but - in this case - everyone is desperate to be on the train too!

It's whatever thread you want it to be. I want it to be an authenticity vs. hoax debate with no mention of Mike Barrett's bleedin' name, but I doubt I'll get it. Doesn't make it a Mike Barrett thread.

One point three million views. Over 8,000 posts. Yeah, it's mindless crap and no-one's interested in it, you're right. Unless people just love gawping at the same train crash for thirteen years!

As I said - doh!

[Observer]

OMG and all that!

Generally speaking - Logic 101 here - every thread will have more views than posts (it's unlikely to be equal, and you certainly wouldn't imagine there being more posts than views - or would you?). Doh again, I think!

Quick reminder here: More posts ('responses') than any other thread currently available on all of Casebook's forums. It seems that not only does everyone love a train crash but - in this case - everyone is desperate to be on the train too!

It's whatever thread you want it to be. I want it to be an authenticity vs. hoax debate with no mention of Mike Barrett's bleedin' name, but I doubt I'll get it. Doesn't make it a Mike Barrett thread.

One point three million views. Over 8,000 posts. Yeah, it's mindless crap and no-one's interested in it, you're right. Unless people just love gawping at the same train crash for thirteen years!

As I said - doh!

Good grief. Smell the coffee man, or should that be cwofee (ugghh).

I know that every thread will have more views than posts. I didn't dispute that. It's the reason why this thread has so many more views than every other thread. The simple reason being, as I said, it's a circus, and everyone likes a good circus. It's the clash of egos, rather than an authenticity vs hoax debate, which draws the viewers in. When was the last time a genuine authenticity vs hoax debate take place in this thread? Why have you been imploring your dear reader not to mention Mike Barrett for a whole year?

As for the threads longevity. Why do you think the BBC is still showing Dad's Army after 50 plus years? Because it's a well loved comedy, just like this thread, minus the well loved of course.

Anyhow, as I said, watch this space, let's see how this thread develops from today. You never know, your dear reader, might want to chip in just to put the spoilers on my little theory.

[Scott Nelson]

We only have the post-scrapbook version, see? Somewhere in the world, there's the mythical pre-scrapbook version which would certainly reveal all (if it was time-stamped, or even if it existed!).

Somewhat analogous to my long-held theory that there were at least two diaries, one near contemporaneous (not mythical) and another version written post-1988.

[Pcdunn]

I honestly don’t know whether the ‘off’ usage would come naturally to an American. It certainly would to a Brit. I don’t think we have to look any further to explain MB’s employing it.

As an American who grew up in the Far West, saying something is "off" a particular street is very strange. I am more familiar with an address being "on" a street, or "at the corner of" or "between Aaa Street" and "Bbb Street."

It's possible that "off" might be used in New England or other regional areas of the United States, but it isn't used in the country as a whole.

[MrBarnett]

As an American who grew up in the Far West, saying something is "off" a particular street is very strange. I am more familiar with an address being "on" a street, or "at the corner of" or "between Aaa Street" and "Bbb Street."

It's possible that "off" might be used in New England or other regional areas of the United States, but it isn't used in the country as a whole.

Thanks, Pcdunn!

[caz]

As for the threads longevity. Why do you think the BBC is still showing Dad's Army after 50 plus years?

Wait for it.....

Don't tell him, Ike!

I thank you.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It's whatever thread you want it to be. I want it to be an authenticity vs. hoax debate with no mention of Mike Barrett's bleedin' name, but I doubt I'll get it.

Oh yes you will, Ike! Right where it hurts.

The diary is not by Maybrick, in my ever so 'umble opinion, but it's NOT your average hoax either. I believe there were reasons for its creation that had nothing to do with fooling Joe Public to make a quick buck [as they say across the pond]. I doubt its creator had any intention of being identified, and I do feel the watch has to be intrinsically linked. I suspect the timepiece came first, and the engravings were discovered and deciphered by someone who strongly suspected they could be genuine, but had no evidence, so they experimented with writing a substantial and imaginative, but misguided confessional diary to accompany the watch. If and when the artefacts emerged from Maybrick's old house, it would be left to others to test the watch finder's suspicions and see if there was anything tangible to connect Maybrick with the ripper murders and support what was in the watch. Their mistake was in not anticipating that the diary would have the opposite effect, and be used as the proof that Maybrick could not possibly have been Jack.

Because the author wasn't Jack, and made the whole thing up, they effectively exonerated Maybrick. The ripper case went cold because it involved a lone serial killer who left no evidence for the police to find against him. To turn that round now would require CCTV in Miller's Court, showing someone recognisable exiting from No.13 and secreting the bloody knife about his person.

Anyway, that's the Switchblade getting her latest two cents in.

Tune in next week and see if she has had yet another brainwave.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz

Excuse the rough rendering of the text converted to digital from the original…

“While visiting my patients in the Royal Southern Hospital early in the afternoon of that day I received a telephonic message from an unknown speaker, Medico asking me if I could go at once to No. 6, Riversdale Road, Aigburth, to see a * gentleman in consultation with Dr. Humphreys. I replied that I could not go as I should be engaged for some hours”


From the Maybrick trial as quoted from MacDougall

Hi Yabs,

Do you happen to know whose evidence this is from the trial and which page in MacDougall it appears?

Thanks in advance!

Love,

Caz
X

[Yabs]

Hi Caz

Sorry I should have written, from the Maybrick Case by MacDougall not Trial.

I’m not sure of the page.
I’ve converted McDougall to kindle from the archive so I can search by keyword, I quickly did it yesterday because I knew it mentioned the address as number 6 and it has come out with rather more glitches than when I converted it a year or so ago.

I’ll try to do a clean conversion over the weekend.

But here’s a screenshot of the pages if it helps for now . O

[Observer]

Wait for it.....

Don't tell him, Ike!

I thank you.

Love,

Caz
X

Hahahaha nice one. Iconopike, has a nice ring

Of course you know what's coming.

If he thinks Maybrick was responsible for penning the Diary then.....He's a stupid boy

Sorry, spoken in jest

[Iconoclast]

Wait for it.....

Don't tell him, Ike!

I thank you.

Love,

Caz
X

Now that was your best ever, Caz!

[MrBarnett]

Now that was your best ever, Caz!

To stretch the joke even further we could say that those with fuzzy wuzzy ideas of what constitutes a death blow to the diary’s authenticity ‘don’t like it up ‘em’. One in particular.

[erobitha]

Oh yes you will, Ike! Right where it hurts.

The diary is not by Maybrick, in my ever so 'umble opinion, but it's NOT your average hoax either. I believe there were reasons for its creation that had nothing to do with fooling Joe Public to make a quick buck [as they say across the pond]. I doubt its creator had any intention of being identified, and I do feel the watch has to be intrinsically linked. I suspect the timepiece came first, and the engravings were discovered and deciphered by someone who strongly suspected they could be genuine, but had no evidence, so they experimented with writing a substantial and imaginative, but misguided confessional diary to accompany the watch. If and when the artefacts emerged from Maybrick's old house, it would be left to others to test the watch finder's suspicions and see if there was anything tangible to connect Maybrick with the ripper murders and support what was in the watch. Their mistake was in not anticipating that the diary would have the opposite effect, and be used as the proof that Maybrick could not possibly have been Jack.

Because the author wasn't Jack, and made the whole thing up, they effectively exonerated Maybrick. The ripper case went cold because it involved a lone serial killer who left no evidence for the police to find against him. To turn that round now would require CCTV in Miller's Court, showing someone recognisable exiting from No.13 and secreting the bloody knife about his person.

Anyway, that's the Switchblade getting her latest two cents in.

Tune in next week and see if she has had yet another brainwave.

Love,

Caz
X

This has always been my favoured theory too Caz.

The curious circumstances of Maybrick as a candidate as Jack is like no other candidate I have seen so far. The trouble is no-one would just believe scratches in a watch.

I think who did pen thought it could be enough to point the finger in the right direction perhaps?

I want to know who did pen it and why. It certainly wasn’t Bongo.