One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[John Wheat]

Haha... no worries.

Sorry I've been away from this board for a fair few years and still catching up. To save me going back over 720 odd pages, do some people still think the Maybrick Dairy is genuine and thus Maybrick was JtR? I thought it was 'proven' years ago the book was almost certainly a fake. Confused...

It was. Just not 100 percent though. I'd suggest those that believe the Diary is the real deal don't know what they are talking about.

[erobitha]

It was. Just not 100 percent though. I'd suggest those that believe the Diary is the real deal don't know what they are talking about.

Despite being branded a diary defender by the Dark Lord, I’m agnostic to its authenticity. We do not have the conclusive proof either way.

We still have the watch and the science still remains compelling on that item. It’s why I was sold on Maybrick as being JtR. People don’t wish to look at the watch as it’s rather inconvenient.

[John Wheat]

Despite being branded a diary defender by the Dark Lord, I’m agnostic to its authenticity. We do not have the conclusive proof either way.

We still have the watch and the science still remains compelling on that item. It’s why I was sold on Maybrick as being JtR. People don’t wish to look at the watch as it’s rather inconvenient.

At the end of the Day any idiot could have written the diary. As for the watch it's clear any reasonably competent engraver could have done the engravings.

[Lombro2]

Yes. The Watch cinches it for me.

Three: A second artifact showing up at the same time out of nowhere, with the jewellers obviously lying through their teeth like Anne and Mike. It too has never been shown to have seen the light of day in the previous 103 years.

Rule of Three = Serial Killer Stash

Out with the Family Provenance and in with the Battlecrease one.

[Lombro2]

pick a provenance any provenance! its got at least three lol

We’re eliminating the one by the guy who wrote an affidavit undermining the guy he said was fooling around with his wife.

[erobitha]

At the end of the Day any idiot could have written the diary. As for the watch it's clear any reasonably competent engraver could have done the engravings.

Yep. Two highly respected expert metallurgists were fooled by someone with a rusty compass.

Thanks John. Really given me some food for thought.

Thanks for dropping by.

[John Wheat]

Yep. Two highly respected expert metallurgists were fooled by someone with a rusty compass.

Thanks John. Really given me some food for thought.

Thanks for dropping by.

No worries Erobitha.

[The Rookie Detective]

At the end of the Day any idiot could have written the diary. As for the watch it's clear any reasonably competent engraver could have done the engravings.

Albert Bachert was an accomplished Engraver by trade and a proven Ripper fantasist and anti-socialist.

RD

[Iconoclast]

For instance:
A man in Sunderland grabs his chest and falls to the sidewalk dead.
At the exact same moment, a public statue falls over on the next street over.
What are the odds?

I refuse to read any more of that post. It really is so misleading for those who do not understand probability theory.

You see, RJ has made the same mistake which Orsam previously made (with his leaves falling off trees analogy).

The March 9, 1992, double event is either a coincidence or causally linked. Why? because there are grounds to argue a causal link. The 'phone call came from Liverpool - of all places in the world - and Eddie Lyons drank in the same pub as Mike Barrett who made the 'phone call.

To suggest that any two events which happen co-incidentally are therefore coincidences is trite in the extreme and - once again - I hope and pray that none of you are falling for any of this.

The two events which form the double event of March 9, 1992, could have occurred on any day previously - right back to May 12, 1889 (the day after James Maybrick died). This is why you can ask the simple probability question, "What are the chances - given that we now know those two events happened at all that they happened on the same day?".

We can do that because they are inextricably linked by an apparent causality which only coincidence could counter. And it can't counter it unless you are willing to accept that a 1-in-37,500+ chance of apparently causally-linked events happening by sheer chance alone actually happened.

The wind has just blown some leaves off a tree in our back garden (I just saw it happen). At the exact same moment a candle burning on my desk went out.

Causal link anyone? Coincidence anyone?

Or just two events which happened at the same time, unlinked yet co-incidental.

[Iconoclast]

Haha... no worries.

Sorry I've been away from this board for a fair few years and still catching up. To save me going back over 720 odd pages, do some people still think the Maybrick Dairy is genuine and thus Maybrick was JtR? I thought it was 'proven' years ago the book was almost certainly a fake. Confused...

Nope, it's never been proven to be a hoax.

[John Wheat]

Yep. Two highly respected expert metallurgists were fooled by someone with a rusty compass.

Thanks John. Really given me some food for thought.

Thanks for dropping by.

Why would a reasonably competent engraver use a rusty compass?

[The Rookie Detective]

Yes. The Watch cinches it for me.

Three: A second artifact showing up at the same time out of nowhere, with the jewellers obviously lying through their teeth like Anne and Mike. It too has never been shown to have seen the light of day in the previous 103 years.

Rule of Three = Serial Killer Stash

Out with the Family Provenance and in with the Battlecrease one.

I agree that the Watch is an inconvenience to many a Ripperologist.


The amount of time that is spent and arguably wasted looking at a diary, when the stronger piece of evidence is undervalued in the main.


IF the Watch was fake, then I would expect the engraver to have stated "I am the Ripper"


But he doesn't


As a killer, the author would be more likely to say "I am Jack"


It's a more personal choice of syntax


Now I am NOT suggesting I believe JM was the Ripper, but I am suggesting that the individual who engraved that watch was either the Ripper, or someone who fantasized about being the Ripper.


Now it's the sort of item that one would expect to belong to a man like Bachert.


Who ticks all the boxes.


Although he has no link to the Watch, as far as is known



RD

[rjpalmer]

Albert Bachert was an accomplished Engraver by trade and a proven Ripper fantasist and anti-socialist.

RD

Does this look like the work of an "accomplished engraver"?





The inept, shaky letters circled in red are said to represent "M K" for Mary Kelly.

Simply take a pin and a tin can lid and you can make similarly initials in under 10 seconds.

I did.


P.S. And what is the relevance of Bachert being an "anti-socialist"? Maybrick was a bourgeoise middle-class cotton broker. I'm not sure what you are attempting to imply...

The watch didn't surface until the 1990s---AFTER news of the Maybrick Hoax had already hit the newspapers.

Even the diary's supporters were terrified it was a 'bandwagon' hoax--with good reason.

[erobitha]

Even the diary's supporters were terrified it was a 'bandwagon' hoax--with good reason.

Initially, RJ's assertion is correct. Those involved with Shirley's book were initially concerned, but after meeting Albert and hearing his story, nobody believed he was being anything but honest about his story. We also have his friend called John White who verified Albert's story. Either Albert was so cunning that he deliberately looked for witnesses to corroborate his story, or John White was also in on the hoax. Or he could just be telling the truth. Albert was a deeply religious man, who also paid for the initial tests out of his own pocket.

All of this was before we even knew of the Battlecrrease timesheets. The watch was sold in July 1992 after having come back from repair earlier the same year. My money is on the watch being repaired after 9th March 1992 by Tim Dundas.

Still, an old pin and tin can are enough for the critics. Not the scientific reports of metallurgists who date the scratches of considerable age, at least decades old, long before the diary's known existence.

It's far easier for critics to sweep over the watch, but thankfully, I am here to ensure the public gets to understand the reality. Not what suits the critics narrative.

https://jayhartley.com/the-inconvenient-truth-of-the-maybrick-watch/

[John Wheat]

Initially, RJ's assertion is correct. Those involved with Shirley's book were initially concerned, but after meeting Albert and hearing his story, nobody believed he was being anything but honest about his story. We also have his friend called John White who verified Albert's story. Either Albert was so cunning that he deliberately looked for witnesses to corroborate his story, or John White was also in on the hoax. Or he could just be telling the truth. Albert was a deeply religious man, who also paid for the initial tests out of his own pocket.

All of this was before we even knew of the Battlecrrease timesheets. The watch was sold in July 1992 after having come back from repair earlier the same year. My money is on the watch being repaired after 9th March 1992 by Tim Dundas.

Still, an old pin and tin can are enough for the critics. Not the scientific reports of metallurgists who date the scratches of considerable age, at least decades old, long before the diary's known existence.

It's far easier for critics to sweep over the watch, but thankfully, I am here to ensure the public gets to understand the reality. Not what suits the critics narrative.

https://jayhartley.com/the-inconveni...aybrick-watch/

What a load of bullshit.