One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[The Good Michael]

Carol,

Powell's story was interesting, but he lost credibility when he became stark-raving mad before our eyes.... a similar path to Michael Barrett's it seems.

Mike

[Carol]

Carol,

Powell's story was interesting, but he lost credibility when he became stark-raving mad before our eyes.... a similar path to Michael Barrett's it seems.

Mike

Hi Mike,
Thanks for replying. I really appreciate it.
Carol

[caz]

I do love it when armchair observers, who wouldn't know an old scratch in a genuinely old watch, or old writing in a genuinely old scrapbook, from recent scratches and recent writing (and have most likely not even seen either item in question, never mind under a microscope) think they can, by prejudice and willpower alone, overturn all the reputable scientific opinion (ie proper admissible evidence) and declare that a modern hoaxer must have been responsible for both, when in fact there is nothing - nothing - that shows they could not have been created much nearer the 'right' time. There is no 'must' about it.

They never stop to consider their own claims to be the 'extraordinary' ones, considering they are not remotely supported by the available scientific evidence. If Anne was lying through her teeth about seeing the diary back in the 60s it would not make the diary modern unless she knew it to be so, or it could be proved so via other, rather more concrete means. In fact, she could well have lied about her own connection with it, while still believing it to be decades old. She'd have come unstuck had a single scientist worth his salt been able to date it categorically to the 70s or beyond. In that regard her claim is less extraordinary than the one stuck in the modern groove without visible support.

As for Powell, he has earned himself no credibility at all and can only muddy the waters now. And while Mike Barrett did his best to lose any credibility he may have started with, at least we know he had a genuine connection with the diary, as Albert Johnson did with the watch. There is no evidence that Powell ever knew about either before they became public knowledge.

Love,

Caz
X

[Carol]

Hi Caz!

I was very interested to read your last post.

Is the consensus now that the Diary is old? You certainly seem to think so - unless I misread you. Have you come across any new pointer as to who could have written the Diary? Do you think it possible that the Diary is genuine?

Carol

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

The Maybrick Diary was nothing but snake oil, a slippery exercise in exploiting our gullibility in the matter of Jack the Ripper.

Other than being a prime example [up there with Stephen Knight's royal fantasy] of how easy it is to manipulate gullibility in this peculiarly faith-based subject, it is unworthy of attention.

Regards,

Simon

[Stewart P Evans]

Realise

Hi All,
The Maybrick Diary was nothing but snake oil, a slippery exercise in exploiting our gullibility in the matter of Jack the Ripper.
Other than being a prime example [up there with Stephen Knight's royal fantasy] of how easy it is to manipulate gullibility in this peculiarly faith-based subject, it is unworthy of attention.
Regards,
Simon

I think that most people realise this Simon, it's just that some can't bring themselves to admit it.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

I'm heartened that at least two of us can.

Regards,

Simon

[Soothsayer]

Hi Stewart,

I'm heartened that at least two of us can.

Regards,

Simon

Gentlemen (Simon and Stewart),

You are in grave danger of making an Argument from Personal Incredulity!

Just because neither of you believes that the journal was written by James Maybrick doesn't make it so without the categorical evidence which we all know does not yet exist. If it did, we wouldn't - nay couldn't - be having this cosy chat.

I don't hear of anyone defending the Hitler Diaries. Of course they don't (not even I could be that stupid, could I? [NB Rhetorical question, thank you]). With the scientific evidence nailing it, no-one would defend the right of the Maybrick journal to have a fair hearing either. But where is that evidence which would finally extinguish Soothsayer's spirit with a swishy, swooshy sword through the soul?

Although I seem to be the only person alive who feels the journal should be taken seriously until it is finally taken to the cleaners, I nevertheless sense there are many others out there who just haven't taken what is - ironically - a categorical Leap of Faith into believing that the journal must of necessity be fraudulent, and that deep down they believe it is possible that the journal is the real deal.

It is for all of the morally righteous who sit in wonder and await the answers that we will not yield to your naysaying and doom-mongering.

I like you two, but you're being ever so naughty.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Soothsayer,

You make the argument sound almost religious.

And we all know where that sort of nonsense leads.

Regards,

Simon

[Scott Nelson]

Is the consensus now that the Diary is old? You certainly seem to think so - unless I misread you. Have you come across any new pointer as to who could have written the Diary?

Yes it is. The theory entitled to the most respect, because it is based on the best available circumstantial evidence, is that it was written by George Grossmith in 1889 just after a visit to Battlecrease while on his honeymoon. George, who was extremely jealous of Maybrick's brother, Michael, then had it planted in James' house where it was found years later.

[spyglass]

Stewart !
I think I am correct that I heard you say on the Ripper Podcast, that you had documents or imfo regarding the hoax of the diary. Why not release it to us all so as to put us out of our misery? And even if it is a fake, do you and other ripperoligists not want to get to the bottom of the mystery?
I have said before that if JTR is ever named beyond reasonable doubt, then at least we got something else to spend our evenings debating.

[spyglass]

P.S. Is'nt it good to see Simon and Stewart making up and cuddling again.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Spyglass,

Make no mistake, Stewart and I have our differences. Enormous differences.

Seeing us "cuddling again" on the subject of the Maybrick Diary is merely to witness two well-informed people agreeing to dismiss a pile of worthless crap.

Regards,

Simon

[spyglass]

Hi Simon,
Worthless crap it maybe, But I for one still want to know who, if, when and how, espeically if it is worthless crap from that period.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Spyglass,

Crap is crap, irrespective of when it was written, which in this case, I would suggest, was in the late 1980s.

Read it again [if you can bear to do so] and ponder all the things it so studiously avoids.

Regards,

Simon