One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[The Good Michael]

Could somebody please explain what it is about this most obvious of faked documents that makes some people believe it to be genuine?

Simon,

You know very well the answer to this. It is connected to desire and need having a greater sum than the combination of logic and reason. It is the same with all things supernatural and all things mysterious, and something of which I have been guilty of as well...until I became a thing of pure reason

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Yes I do know very well, and I completely agree with you.

However, I eagerly await an answer from a believer.

Regards,

Simon

[Stephen Thomas]

Could somebody please explain what it is about this most obvious of faked documents that makes some people believe it to be genuine?

Well what is obvious to one person is not to another, Simon.

Personally I reckon the whole thing, watch and all, was cobbled together by a not too bright group of Scouse chancers trying to make few bob, a 'fact' which is obvious to me but still remains to be proved.

Why do you say it's a 'most obvious' fake?

[Soothsayer]

Well what is obvious to one person is not to another, Simon.

Why do you say it's a 'most obvious' fake?

I'd say that the answer to this has just been stated, albeit inadvertantly: You know very well the answer to this. It is connected to desire and need having a greater sum than the combination of logic and reason. It is the same with all things supernatural and all things mysterious ...

Cuts both ways, guys ...

[Soothsayer]

Hi All,

Could somebody please explain what it is about this most obvious of faked documents that makes some people believe it to be genuine?

Regards,

Simon

I don't honestly think you want a re-hash of the re-hashed, do you? It's all been stated and counter-stated a thousand times on this site.

Those who 'believe' may well simply be those who look at the complexity of a 63-page document and not dismiss it without due consideration.

They may well simply be those who accept the possibility that the journal is the real deal, and to a large degree simply appear to be believers whilst actually simply not being non-believers.

Or they may simply disagree with your painfully unsophisticated dismissal and actually may feel that the journal is anything but an obviously-faked document.

I believe that the Maybrick journal (if Maybrick it were) is anything but an obviously-faked document and it genuinely bothers me deeply that you - a so-called authority on the subject - should make such sweeping statements in this way.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Soothsayer,

I'm sorry my opinion bothers you. It is, after all, only an opinion of, as you put it, a "so-called authority on the subject", which I am not.

However, my "painfully unsophisticated dismissal" of the diary is based on personal first-hand experience of the exploitative potential of JtR, and based on this I mistrust the machinations of its dubious provenance, its arch narrative which adds nothing to our understanding of the mystery, its opportunistic birth shortly after the Ripper centenary, the fact that it appears to have had too many midwives and, most of all, its sheer bloody unlikeliness.

Let's face it, if the diary were true we wouldn't be here today.

Regards,

Simon

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi All,

Could somebody please explain what it is about this most obvious of faked documents that makes some people believe it to be genuine?

Regards,

Simon

I don't honestly think you want a re-hash of the re-hashed, do you? It's all been stated and counter-stated a thousand times on this site.

Those who 'believe' may well simply be those who look at the complexity of a 63-page document and not dismiss it without due consideration.

They may well simply be those who accept the possibility that the journal is the real deal, and to a large degree simply appear to be believers whilst actually simply not being non-believers.

Or they may simply disagree with your painfully unsophisticated dismissal and actually may feel that the journal is anything but an obviously-faked document.

I believe that the Maybrick journal (if Maybrick it were) is anything but an obviously-faked document and it genuinely bothers me deeply that you - a so-called authority on the subject - should make such sweeping statements in this way.

Hi Soothsayer

I am afraid my reaction to the document is the same as when I first heard about it twenty years ago. Too good to be true. Too good to be true that two such famous Victorian murder cases could be so linked. And why would a Liverpool man travel the 200 miles down to London to commit the murders, for the supposed reason, as unlikely as it sounds, that he wanted to take revenge on his unfaithful wife? Yes I know Maybrick had business connections with London and his common law wife Sarah Robertson lived for a time in the East End. But I would suggest to you that the Diary has the plot that it does because whomever was responsible for it knew that they had to get Maybrick to London to commit the murders because they knew that's where the Whitechapel murders took place. It's an after-the-fact contrivance, not a journal that was being written as the crimes were taking place.

All the best

Chris George

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

"It's an after-the-fact contrivance, not a journal that was being written as the crimes were taking place."

Well put.

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

seeing eye dog

Hello Chris. On the other hand, whoever contrived the Maybrick diary forgot to interpolate a seeing eye dog to ameliorate the night blindness associated with long term arsenic poisoning.

Should have consulted Dr. Piglet or Dr. Winston. At least they had basic medical training.

Cheers.
LC

[Soothsayer]

Hi Chris,

"It's an after-the-fact contrivance, not a journal that was being written as the crimes were taking place."

Well put.

Regards,

Simon

It may well be 'well put' but fortunately well put is not the same as correct.

Of course, the journal may very well be a bit of sport for someone restless for the chase to begin again after a hundred years. Of course it may be.

But then again ... strange things do happen. Who mentioned Chelsea 0, Newcastle 2?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Soothsayer,

Strange indeed.

JtR 5, Maybrick 0.

Regards,

Simon

[ChrisGeorge]

It may well be 'well put' but fortunately well put is not the same as correct.

Of course, the journal may very well be a bit of sport for someone restless for the chase to begin again after a hundred years. Of course it may be.

But then again ... strange things do happen. Who mentioned Chelsea 0, Newcastle 2?

Unfortunately for your argument, Soothsayer, you will not find a single leading Ripperologist who believes the Diary is the real thing.

[Soothsayer]

Unfortunately for your argument, Soothsayer, you will not find a single leading Ripperologist who believes the Diary is the real thing.

Fortunately for my argument, Chris, my experience of how much time and attention leading Ripperologists have ever paid to the journal immediately relieves the fear that that may be a telling issue here.

And, of course, they are to a man and a woman entirely void of any possibility of bias in this regard!

Not ...

(Just for clarity, nor do I really expect it.)

[Simon Wood]

Hi Soothsayer,

Now you're getting into really murky waters.

Regards,

Simon

[Soothsayer]

Hi Soothsayer,

Now you're getting into really murky waters.

Regards,

Simon

It won't be the first time, young man, and it certainly won't be the last ...

S. Sayer
Journeyman Genius