One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[John Hacker]

Well Sooth, you're confident. I'll give you that much.

The problem is that you've got nowhere to go in terms of rehabilitating the diary.

Science won't help. All further testing could do is to once again suggest that it might be old. There's no way to test for when the ink hit the paper. It could however demonstrate (again) that the diary contains non-period materials.

A new provenance story wouldn't help at this point. Those waters are too muddy and it would take an extremely strong piece of independent evidence to prove that it existed for any significant period of time prior to its public appearance. And all that would demonstrate is that it's not a modern forgery.

The handwriting is (and will remain) a problem. The arguments that can be made to try and discredit the will have been made, they're not getting any stronger with time.

The factual errors in the text aren't going away. I can't imagine a convincing argument being made for the killer getting details blatently wrong in his own diary. If you start with the belief that it's geniune and work backwards from there you can come up with a thin explination that might satisfy a believer, but the "he must have read it in the paper and became confused" tale isn't going to win any converts.

And no amount of argument will make the basic tale the diary tells believable in any way, shape or form. The overall premise is absurd and inconsistent with how serial killers behave.

The non-believers however DO have hope. Science might not save the diary, but new tests can surely wound or kill it. The notion that it would be impossibly difficult to make the thing or that you would have to be 5 kinds of "expert" has been losing traction for years.

By all means Sooth, enjoy the discussion. But if you think that there will one day be a glorious victory when all will acknowledge the truth of the diary I fear you'll be sorely disappointed. For that to happen would take not one, but several game changing events. A period photo with a demonstratable provenence of James Maybrick holding MJK's heart in one hand and the diary in the other might work, but words, no matter how convincing they are to you personally, will not. The scales have tipped too far for that.

[Soothsayer]

Lack of provenance. If it was the real deal, it would smack you in the face. Too dodgy.

Mr. To See,

Are you even aware of the provenance of the journal?

Anne Graham received it in 1989 from her father Billy Graham who formally received it in 1950 (though he reported he had first seen it in 1943) from his stepgrandmother Edith Formby who had - it would seem - received it from a 'skivvy' in the Maybrick household whom she was friendly with.

If this provenance is not good enough for you, then little else will be.

If you simply discount it because of the fact that Michael Barrett brought the journal to the world's attention without knowing its true provenance, then you do that provenance a profound disservice.

In truth, I suspect you write quite unaware of this provenance and think - as so many ill-informed tend to think - that the provenance is still an issue. It's not. It's solid. It goes right back to the Maybrick household. It goes right back to James Maybrick.

Reading your post reminded me of those many ill-informed postings which - to paraphrase the lot of them - consist fundamentally of 'It must be a forgery - didn't the bloke confess?'.

The journal is so much more complex than the simplicity with which most Casebookers consider it - but, then, when so many are so quick and so keen to confirm the chronic misunderstandings around the journal, it is little surprise that the casual reader feels well-placed to pass that comment ...

[Soothsayer]

By all means Sooth, enjoy the discussion. But if you think that there will one day be a glorious victory when all will acknowledge the truth of the diary I fear you'll be sorely disappointed. For that to happen would take not one, but several game changing events. A period photo with a demonstratable provenence of James Maybrick holding MJK's heart in one hand and the diary in the other might work, but words, no matter how convincing they are to you personally, will not. The scales have tipped too far for that.

Well, again, Mr Hacker, you make a good case, though on this occasion you have started to dip into a slightly indulgent bag, and built a few assumptions into your thinking which have no underlying substance.

Time can certainly support the journal. To date, time already has. The best support of all is the very provenance you choose to underestimate. Anne Graham's provenance goes right back to James Maybrick. That's what good provenance does.

'Factual errors' in the journal are a well-hackneyed objection, and yet none have nailed the journal in sixteen long years. If they had, we wouldn't be having this debate. Science will eventually 'out' the journal, but cannot confirm it. Interesting logic - possibly true, but not inevitably so. If we can exclude the modern forgery through science, we have the huge problem of explaining information in the journal which was only public knowledge in 1984 (and only first published in 1987). If you ever claim it is an old forgery, I will know that I was right all along!

Circumstance conveniently supports Maybrick's case, time and time again. The 'FM' on Kelly's wall which no journal-distractor can see (conveniently) though many others can, including the guy who first saw them when they didn't matter and then miraculously couldn't see them again when they did. The Diego Laurenz letter to the Liverpool Echo. Florrie's letter to Brierley. These are just three of the many circumstantial pieces of evidence which challenge us not to be too swift in our declaration of forgery. There are many many others, if people bothered to read the whole case and formed judgements on all the evidence.

In truth, the only really strong case against the journal is the handwriting. And that too has not nailed the journal. If we ever see Maybrick's casual writing where the text was intended only for his eyes, and it didn't match the journal's in any reasonable way, I'd be more inclined to accept that something very very strange was going on - that is, that an excellent forger has put together a journal which still has not been outed, and yet did not bother to mirror the known example of Maybrick's writing (his so-called will).

If more people who so freely comment on the journal actually read all of the various works now available on it, we might find that they are less inclined to say Nay. Of course, intellectually, it is much easier to argue that one doesn't need to because the case is well-established as a forgery. You will hear this argument time and time again - but such words are written by people who are fundamentally lazy scholars. It is actually they, the indolent, who are prolonging the war.

[Sam Flynn]

If more people who so freely comment on the journal actually read all of the various works now available on it, we might find that they are less inclined to say Nay.... It is actually they, the indolent, who are prolonging the war.

Since when was pragmatism "indolent", Sooth? Since when has it ever been necessary to read all the books on a given subject before being able to come to a reasoned opinion?

[Soothsayer]

Since when was pragmatism "indolent", Sooth? Since when has it ever been necessary to read all the books on a given subject before being able to come to a reasoned opinion?

Okay, Sam, you're right - my expectation is too high.

How about any books on the subject?

[Jane Welland]

A Scandalous Contention...

You mean to say you don't read all the books on a subject before forming a view? Shocking. But, I do wonder, Mr Soothsayer, if one should have to read the whole and entire diary before concluding it to be a somewhat irksome piece of fraudulent tomfoolery? Mayhap (no pun intended) it isn't so fiendishly complex as you seem to suggest? Many do after all, consider it pernicious nonsense. Indeed, they could all be wrong, although I would rather doubt it. Phonetically yours, Juliet Whiskey.

[Soothsayer]

y you don't read all the books on a subject before forming a view? Shocking. But, I do wonder, Mr Soothsayer, if one should have to read the whole and entire diary before concluding it to be a somewhat irksome piece of fraudulent tomfoolery? Mayhap (no pun intended) it isn't so fiendishly complex as you seem to suggest? Many do after all, consider it pernicious nonsense. Indeed, they could all be wrong, although I would rather doubt it. Phonetically yours, Juliet Whiskey.

Jane Welland - phonetically or not - you are jolly wise, and justly welcome to this joyous window for your views.

No need to doubt it, Ms. Welland - they are all wrong and I am all right (all the girls think that, incidentally)!

How utterly lovely to make your acquaintance. Stick around, why don't you - this could become a party if we're not careful.

What a thought - I can see it now! Sam Flynn would be eating nachos in the kitchen, hugging his Speckled Hen (it's a drink, before anyone reports me again). Ben would be on his second can of Irn Bru, no longer steady on his feet. Mr Omlor would be 'mysterious' in the living-room, impressing Psychology students, wearing a cape. And tassles. Graham would be goofing off, trying to impress the same (students, not Mr. O.). Babybird67, Mrs Fiddemont, Caz, and yourself would be inebriated by my mere presence. Ally would be enviously watching us all - ready to scratch out your eyes if I show too much attention to any one of you.

What music would we play? Well, this is Mr Omlor's house, so we'd have to tolerate a lot of Abba, but - hey - 'Dancing Queen', a classic, yes?

"Having the time of our lives ... whoo ooo, see that girl, watch that scene, digging the Dancing Queen". They don't write them like that anymore ... not even if your name is Roy Corduroy ...

PS Minstrel - isn't it time for the weekly limeric?

[Ben]

that is, that an excellent forger has put together a journal which still has not been outed, and yet did not bother to mirror the known example of Maybrick's writing (his so-called will).

Or as a far more logical deduction:

The clumsy forger wasn't familiar with any examples of Maybrick's real handwriting, or it s/he was, couldn't be bothered to emulate them.

Incidentally, I'm not sure who gave you the idea that a person's "casual" handwriting will bear no resemblance whatsoever to his "neat" handwriting, but I feel certain it's an erroneous perception.

[Sam Flynn]

How about any books on the subject?

Any text should stand or fall on its own merits, Sooth. Having seen the text, I see no major benefits in reading the commentary.

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

I don't usually get involved in diary threads, but I'm feeling reckless today. And no disrespect intended to Soothsayer - we are all entitled to our opinions.

I read Shirley Harrison's book when it first came out, and I was actually close to convinced at the time that Maybrick could well have been Jack. I'd already been into the case for a few decades, but I thought at that time that there was enough in the diary to give it a measure of credibility and I quite liked the idea of Maybrick being Jack. It was a damn good story.

Since then of course a great deal has come to light that has made me think otherwise, but the one thing that really made me, rather glumly, admit that it was a fake, was the question of Mary's breasts supposedly being left on the table.

I've heard to usual arguments that in the frenzy, he misremembered and said he had put them on the table and not by her head and feet, but with the best will in the world, isn't it a remarkable coincedence that nigh on every newspaper at the time ran the report that her breasts were on the table? Not only that, but almost every text book, up until Bond's report was discovered give her breasts as being on the table?

What exactly are we saying here?

That Maybrick, having forgotten where he left Mary's breasts, read the newspapers the next day and said to himself, 'Well blow me down, I left them on the table, fancy that, good job the newspapers mentioned it, so I can put it in the diary,'

Surely if Maybrick couldn't remember where he had left poor Mary's breasts, he would have just omitted their placement from the diary altogether? Unless of course a would be forger thought it added just the right touch of the macabre?

Hugs

Jane

xxxxx

[John Hacker]

Sorry Sooth, but the diary has no provenence. A series of chaning claims from Anne Graham with the late entry of her father does not constitute a provenence. It's simply not verifiable and considering the earlier tales it's not credible either.

You might be able to casually dismiss the factual errors in the text itself, but most people find it rather difficult to buy into the excuses that have been made to try and explain them away. The diary flat out got things wrong that it should have gotten right.

Personally I believe the thing is of modern orgin, but the argument that if it pre-dates public awareness of some of the apparent source material it MUST be geniune is seriously flawed. The source documents and/or knowedge of events did not disappear and cease to exist until they were publically revealed. What it would indicate is that the forger put more effort into research than appears to be the case at the moment.

As far as the "circumstantial evidence", it's a testimony to the vagueness of the work and devotedness of it's followers that these are offered as support of the work. But it's really no different than what happens with any Ripper suspect. If you look hard enough you can find something in virtually anyones (who was alive and in London) life that can be used as circumstancial "evidence" that they were the killer. (See Trow's excellent "The Way to Hell" for a great example of this.)

IMO, the "casual" writing argument is tenous at best. People tend to write more neatly when it's out there for public consumption but I have never known anyone to completely change their writing style when it's private. Although if Hollywood is to be believed young women routinely dot the i's with hearts and make smiley faces in the o's these sorts of creative additions don't seem to apply here.

I think you'll find most of the active people on this board are more than familiar with the Ripper case in general, the works published on the diary, the interviews, dissertations, arguments and speculations. I've been following the diary and related subjects for 15 years or so now and it hasn't gotten better with time. None of the fundamental objections to it's authenticity have been resolved and nothing significant has been uncovered that adds anything to support it. Maybe it will change someday, but for the moment we're just rehashing the same points over and over. It's fun sometimes, but not particularly productive.

[Soothsayer]

Hugs

Jane

xxxxx

Good Lord, the woodwork's becoming an increasingly lonely place tonight - everyone's at Mr Omlor's Abba party!

Obviously, Janey, you'll struggle to get anywhere near me with all the Ripperettes crowding 'round as they do, but get yourself into the kitchen and have a word with Sammy Flynn until I can disperse the crowd a bit.

Please be patient, everyone - there's enough of me to go 'round!

'Super Trooper' anyone?

[Chris]

Perhaps I speak with the zeal of a convert, because I've wasted as much time as anyone "discussing" it, but there really are any number of more interesting aspects of the Whitechapel Murders than the "Diary".

Even if your interest is purely in picking arguments with people, you'll find it far more productive to post an opinion - I suspect any opinion will do - about George Hutchinson, and then defend it when it's challenged.

Congratulations on your success so far in getting people to respond to your provocative assertions, but you must know that in the long run you're just flogging a dead horse.

[Soothsayer]

Congratulations on your success so far in getting people to respond to your provocative assertions, but you must know that in the long run you're just flogging a dead horse.

I absolutely love this!

In 120 years, we have enjoyed but one piece of evidence against any candidate for Jackdom, and in supporting its case, I am accused by The Cult of Ripperology of 'provocative assertions'! Provocative because you don't want to hear it? Provocative because you think a lone man should stay silent even when he hears injustice spoken daily - whispered endlessly on the wind?

A thousand dead horses say Nay, so no-one is allowed to say May!

The Maysayers will prevail over the Naysayers. It's all a question of time.

[Chris]

... I am accused by The Cult of Ripperology of 'provocative assertions'! ...

Oh dear.

As I said, congratulations on your success in keeping the argument going so far - but now I'm afraid you're in danger of spoiling it by an excess of silliness.