One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Must be a bit gutting though - all those thousands of words and tens of thousands of letters in the diary and you're reduced to a single miserable scratch. Don't worry, you can trot out your own 'best' and 'eyes only' handwriting that usually pops up at this stage. Totally meaningless of course as it has nothing whatsoever to do with Maybrick.

Not gutting in the slightest. 'Gutting' is having to reply to you lot with your ill-thought-through misinformation in case anyone makes the mistake of thinking my failure to reply represents an inability to reply ...

[Iconoclast]

Yer I guess way way back in the stone age of 1992 people couldn't find those things out ,

Back to looking like a fake Maybrick watch and diary.

Rather put me in mind another easily-achieved conundrum (once you think really hard about it like you must have done there, Fishy) ...

"But, first, here's Fishy to tell you how to rid the world of all known diseases".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_ryjjeNc5k

[John Wheat]

Not gutting in the slightest. 'Gutting' is having to reply to you lot with your ill-thought-through misinformation in case anyone makes the mistake of thinking my failure to reply represents an inability to reply ...

[Iconoclast]

Immaturity.

Well, you started it ...

[Iconoclast]

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/maybrick-james/8644-my-journey-from-skeptic-to-believer#post8644

What a shame real posters like this character appear to no longer be with us.

Well worth a read, but the idiotic responses from Boris Badenough are priceless!

[rjpalmer]

I noticed this comment by Caroline Brown over at “the other place.”

“I think the onus of proof should work both ways, whether it's James Maybrick being accused of serial murder, or the Barretts and the Johnsons being accused of faking the diary and watch.”

This is a very telling comment, if not by design.

Both ways? This implies that the “onus of proof” only applies to two positions—those who think the diary is real and those who think it is a modern fake by the Barretts.

Caz's own position, conveniently enough, doesn’t require any proof.

What about the onus of proof for those who argue in favor of the Battlecrease provenance?

What about Eddie Lyons being accused of theft, or the Murphys being accused of lying about where and how they obtained the watch? Or the Barretts being accused of profiting off of stolen goods? Or Anne Graham being accused of lying about her 'in the family' provenance--which Caz is just as guilty of as the most skeptical of the diary skeptics?

Clearly, the ‘onus of proof’ applies to everyone but Caz.

Rather convenient, I should think.

[John Wheat]

Well, you started it ...

I rest my case.

[FISHY1118]

Maybe just bought a Lucky Bag and an example of Maybrick's signature happened to be in there?

It suddenly all makes such sense ...

Or from a man at the pub.

[FISHY1118]

Rather put me in mind another easily-achieved conundrum (once you think really hard about it like you must have done there, Fishy) ...

"But, first, here's Fishy to tell you how to rid the world of all known diseases".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_ryjjeNc5k

Ahh going done the totally irrelevant off topic road are we Ike.? Pity

[Iconoclast]

Ahh going done the totally irrelevant off topic road are we Ike.? Pity

Dear God, please tell me you got it?

[FISHY1118]

Dear God, please tell me you got it?

After 9460 who cares?

The topic has become like a reality t.v saga . Both fake .

[rjpalmer]

Here's something I don't recall ever seeing in any book about the Maybrick Diary.

Even Robert Smith's chief scientific advisor, Dr. Nicholas Eastaugh, thought the diary was a hoax. I wonder if 'Iconoclast' will now throw Dr. E under the same bus as he has already thrown Baxendale, Rendell, Chittenden, Warren, Fido, Nickell, Giles, Casey Owens, or his favorite, Melvin Harris.

[erobitha]

Here's something I don't recall ever seeing in any book about the Maybrick Diary.

Even Robert Smith's chief scientific advisor, Dr. Nicholas Eastaugh, thought the diary was a hoax. I wonder if 'Iconoclast' will now throw Dr. E under the same bus as he has already thrown Baxendale, Rendell, Chittenden, Warren, Fido, Nickell, Giles, Casey Owens, or his favorite, Melvin Harris.

Why did you not show the whole article Roger out of interest? I quite like the bit above it that shows me that Albert claims he wanted to give some of the money, if sold, to charity. Wouldn't be nice to make money out of it he said.

First time I saw that. I'm not surprised. It would be something Albert probably would do. Thanks for the heads up.

[Iconoclast]

Why did you not show the whole article Roger out of interest? I quite like the bit above it that shows me that Albert claims he wanted to give some of the money, if sold, to charity. Wouldn't be nice to make money out of it he said.

First time I saw that. I'm not surprised. It would be something Albert probably would do. Thanks for the heads up.

Personally, I enjoyed the bit where Dr. Forshaw states that "If it is a hoax, it is extremely cleverly done". Not "sort of cleverly" but extremely cleverly, note.

Where's your 13-year old on a wet weekend now, RJ?

[rjpalmer]

13-year-old? Wet weekend? Is that someone's suggestion, Ike?

I'm not surprised that you embrace Dr. Forshaw's quote, though.

It must be a great consolation to believe that if you've been bamboozled, you've been bamboozled by someone extremely clever.