One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[quasar]

One overlooked test that was done was the graphology testing.This is not 'junk science'. A qualified graphologist's examination will stand up in court. As a fairly newcomer, I can only go with what I see. A leading graphologist took 15 minutes to say 'impossibly forged'. 'I could not forge one line out of 63 pages here'.She did not need even to do a detailed examination ,or put it under a microscope - she was that confident. She said that ' these are the genuine emotions of the person who wrote it'. I find it laughable to suggest an 'amatueish fake' then.

This rules out any 'amatuerish work' and leaves us with a real pro. Even so, what cockiness here. For this pro to believe that he/she could fool graphologists for 63 pages. I could concede they may have had a real go at a letter, or two.This would still be debunked by a pro graphologist, but the forger could put some attention to detail and make it a little hard for them. 63 pages is beyond cockiness - it is crap.They could not get away with it. Add to that mountain, the other testing before they new it could be published:
- ink testing
- paper testing
- electron microscope testing
They new that would have to beat this.Again this goes beyond confidence.The Hitler diaries were nuked in weeks, as most forgeries are.If you watch that show 'antiques roadshow' professionals take seconds to give the date and worth of something hundreds of years old.Why?, because they know. Am I to believe that after nearly 20 years that no decisive answer has been reached? Surely , in cricket terms, this would mean 'benefit of the doubt'. I just dont think that this diary being a hoax is a Definately Ascertained Fact- just yet. As most seem to think it is. Thanks, Q.

[John Hacker]

One overlooked test that was done was the graphology testing.This is not 'junk science'. A qualified graphologist's examination will stand up in court.

I disagree. It is the very definition of junk science. There is no scientific (measurable/testable) basis for it whatsoever. It's right up there with astrology and phrenology in wackiness department. I cannot say whether it's admissible in England at this point but it would be laughed out of court in the US.

Given the text of document their findings were hardly relevent or extraordinary.

Add to that mountain, the other testing before they new it could be published:
- ink testing
- paper testing
- electron microscope testing
They new that would have to beat this.

Using a period ink would knock off the 1st point. They used a period book so that wasn't much of a hurdle. And electon microscopes have nothing to do with dating writing

Am I to believe that after nearly 20 years that no decisive answer has been reached? Surely , in cricket terms, this would mean 'benefit of the doubt'. I just dont think that this diary being a hoax is a [I]'Definately Ascertained Fact' [I]- just yet. As most seem to think it is.

Not really. Some people believe that the Earth is flat or that the moon landing was faked. There are books about flying saucers no one can prove and about Yeti's that were never caught. Some people will simply choose to believe as they will.

Even in captial cases there is rarely a smoking gun. People need to weigh the evidence on each side and come to a conclusion based on the stronger case. The case for the diary is probably a stronger case than that for the Yeti, but given the reletive weight of the cases for or against it I am comfortable in saying that in my opinion, the chance it is authentic is microscopic.

There may not be an answer in absolute terms, but the margin for error is one I am comfortable with. On historical, scientific, psychological and factual basis the diay comes up short. But I am an eternal skeptic. The only advice I can offer is that you might want to look closer at the basis for the claims that are made on the diary's behalf instead of the claims themselves.

Looks like a wombat... Smells like a wombat... Must be a...?

[Soothsayer]

On historical, scientific, psychological and factual basis the diay comes up short. But I am an eternal skeptic. The only advice I can offer is that you might want to look closer at the basis for the claims that are made on the diary's behalf instead of the claims themselves.

Mr. Hacker,

You started off so well reasoned, and have now descended so rapidly into the pit of believing your own press.

Historical: For a 'shoddy' forgery, the journal has done well to survive 20 years without being conclusively debunked in historical terms - it fits the period of its proposed authorship in terms of paper, ink, and content; and whilst these three have been endlessly debated and 'tested' then the 'tests' endlessly debated, the journal still sits well separated on the shelf from the Hitler diaries, the Mussollini diaries, The Diary of Adrian Mole, and the Frog Prince diaries.

Scientific: As above.

Psychological: Seriously, John, you need (like the rest of us actually) to get out, find a girl, and get a life. Dr Forshaw and Dr Canter are excellent starting points for significant psychologists/psychiatrists who have been comfortably lulled into accepting the journal as perfectly believable of the psychopathology the author either wishes us to witness (if forged) or actually experienced (if genuine).

Factual: You should be wary of citing 'fact' in Ripperology circles. It is a fact that Annie Chapman had no farthings at her feet. Interestingly enough, the next Ripperologist will tell you that it is a fact that she did. The 'Dear Boss' letter was definitely written by an enterprising jounalist, that's a fact. Also, it's a fact that it wasn't. (Ironically, if it actually was written by Maybrick, there is a sense in which it was indeed written by an enterpringing journalist!). Facts in Ripperology are the bronze coins which weigh your pocket down which you're happy to throw into the charity tin, or simply not wait around long enough in a shop to collect. They are cheap, and they are plentiful, and yet those who hold them in the uniquely unscientific world of Ripperology imagine that their weight alone is symptomatic of their wealth. We are all so much like paupers thinking that we are kings.

I finished reading Caz Linder-Skinner last evening, and felt as I felt on its first reading, that there is so much more substance to Maybrick than to any other possible candidate, primarily driven by the journal of course, but also inspired eternally by its profound longevity.

By the way, Anna Koren is a highly respected graphologist whose work has been welcomed by - inter alia - the Israeli government. Those guys don't do things by half. I don't know of any reason to undervalue her pronouncement on the journal other than for reasons of personal credulity ("I can't believe the journal can be authentic, so anything which supports its case must of necessity be disparaged, subtly or otherwise").

Dr Forshaw and Dr Cantor are not Johnny Come Latelies in their fields. They are highly experienced and their voices carry real weight. This is more gold bar than pocketful of two pences.

Everyone's talents, experiences, and skills - whether formally an 'expert' or not - must be undermined and ignored if it is not what we want to hear, we serious Decadents!

I suspect too many on this Casebook and elsewhere have read Melvin Harris' criticisms of the journal and believed that what he did was to prove a forgery when - at very best - he may have proven how the greater parts of a forgery could have occurred. Even then, I suspect that he highlighted only those bits he could theoretically forge, and conveniently skipped the bits which would have taken more effort to forge. I am in no doubt that the journal could have been forged, but in huge doubt over whether it could have been forged so brilliantly. Even the provenance - the primary and then the secondary - were the plotting of a genius not a fool.

I don't think that we are in any doubt that humans are highly creative, and cunning too, and I doubt anyone doubts that more or less anything could be forged. Whether twenty years could then pass without the forgery being formally debunked is quite another argument.

You may pronouce us guilty a thousand times over, but the goddess of the eternal court of history will smile and tear to a tatters the brief of the state prosecutor and the sentence of this court, for she acquits us ...
Two Tribes
Frankie Goes to Hollywood (a Liverpool group whose talent was defintely forged)

[Jane Welland]

Mr Sayer!

A jolly good morning to you Sir! Now that the party has subsided a little, perhaps you might satisfy a curious enquirer? I am puzzled as to why one would utilise a second hand scrapbook for the purpose of recording one's murderous exploits? If, say, the thing is the real debacle, then why? That is, I know, a matter for theory, but then, I'm a theorist! But, if, as most suppose, the Diary is a load of bosh, old or otherwise, then a puzzle does emerge, no? For why bother with ink that cannot be temporally resolved and then write the thing in a book such as this? Jane x

[Soothsayer]

A jolly good morning to you Sir! Now that the party has subsided a little, perhaps you might satisfy a curious enquirer? I am puzzled as to why one would utilise a second hand scrapbook for the purpose of recording one's murderous exploits? If, say, the thing is the real debacle, then why? That is, I know, a matter for theory, but then, I'm a theorist! But, if, as most suppose, the Diary is a load of bosh, old or otherwise, then a puzzle does emerge, no? For why bother with ink that cannot be temporally resolved and then write the thing in a book such as this? Jane x

Ms Welland,

The party was fantastic - I'm still just about getting over it. Why did you leave so early? I know Sammy Flynn was chatting you up. He likes you - what's not to like?

Let's imagine for a moment that the journal is the real thing. Why write it in what he chose to write it in? Good question, Jane (I do so love saying your name). Well, if it's for real, there are some clues in the text.

The text seems to have been written outside Battlecrease House. There are references to 'returning to Battlecrease'. This suggests that he wrote some or all of it in his office in Knowsely (sp?) Buildings (?) or on his travels. His concerns about the journal being found suggest that he wrote in his office - probably after everyone had left for the evening.

If he wrote it in his office, it is likely that he started it there. And if he started it there, he may not have had to hand something to write in when the thought first came to him to do so (hardly seems likely, I know, but bear with me). He doesn't appear to have 'started with the end in mind' which may have inspired a different choice of journal - one more suited to historical record than an old scrapbook, and his latter confession does begin as an indulgent introspection for his eyes only. I'm guessing it's 7pm and - as I have suggested earlier in this thread, or someone else did - WH Smith's may either have been shut for the day or not yet opened for a decade, late night shopping yet to be thought of, and here a man who is desperate to put his thoughts on paper so that he can re-live them over and over. The solution may well have been to turn to a company scrapbook depicting memorabilia from its early days. This wouldn't be unheard of, though I've no idea whether it would have been so in the 1880s in truth. It would have to be something which had fallen into some neglect and was rarely if ever mentioned by the staff as - in this theory - James has to feel that he can take it and use it to record his thoughts.

Here's the rub. Young Thomas Lowry appears from the text (again, we are taking it as read that the text is for real here) to have challenged James over some journal-related items. The text is explicit in this. Lowry has challenged James, and this has put James on the spot. James is furious that an underling has done so, but also recognises that he has to provide some form of solution. Presumably, he thinks he must return the memorabilia to quieten Lowry. Thus, he tears out the first pages with the memorabilia, and returns these along with some bull around why the scrapbook has been thus decimated.

That's my theory - a theory by Ann Elk in truth but my theory no less.

Later on in the journal, the author makes reference to Lowry again when he states somewhat as follows, "Damn Lowry ... for making me rip". For a long time, I imagined that this was a reference to Lowry having mentioned to Maybrick that he had seen Florrie with one of her suitors, and that it was Lowry who had thus inspired the murderous rage and its dreadful consequences. These days, I see it as a reference to Lowry causing Maybrick to rip out the pages. The line ("making me rip") is melodramatic enough to fit with Maybrick's tendency towards it. In fairness, if he really was Jack, he was pretty melodramatic.

So that's why I don't have a problem with the scrapbook as journal. Ridiculous, I know, but nevertheless in itself consistent with the contents of the text it carries.

Anyway, Jane - next Friday evening, 6pm, just by the heart just outside the cathedral on the High Street. I'll be wearing a red carnation.

And a cravat.

[Jane Welland]

Not Bad, Mr Sooth...

..As theories go. It sounds almost plausible! Of course, there are many other issues, aren't there? I don't now have the time to elaborate on them - I'm sure others have and will, anyway, if not I.

I think if one accepts ( a big if!) that the Diary is 'real' then what you propose is perfectly acceptable.

I see, however, that you did not care to speculate on the hows and wherefores in the alternate scenario - such being that the Diary is a fraud and a fake and a forgery. Yes, I know, the very thought is painful to you. Forgive me, but I feel I must continue.

May I?

I think, for what little it may be worth, that such a possiblility is interesting.
Taking it to be a fake, for the time being (no reference to the watch intended) It is either lucky strike or a rather clever thing that the thing has been written in a used scrapbook. If the former - say, for argument's sake - that the scrapbook was acquired from a market, dealer, etc, in modern times, with photographs already inside - perhaps the most common survival of this type for obvious reasons? In this version, the forger(s) are fairly incompetent - which seems to fit with some other aspects of the affair - and just want an 'old' book. Inadvertantly, they pick up and use the very thing that will keep people guessing ad naueum ... sorry, infinitum.

Or really, they were quite clever and selected the scrapbook deliberately.

I don't of course, know the answers, but I do think that it being a scrapbook which has been used for a prior purpose raises a lot of questions. One could, of course, just take the view that it being a scrapbook makes it an obvious fake - for if you want to write a 'dairy' (um, diary, Jane,...) then why not get one purpose built for the job?

I don't know - I wonder if you do, Mr Sayer, when purpose-built diaries appeared on the market? Would one have rather written a journal in them days?

I think to get to the point, finally, that unless one takes the view that it's a very clumsy fake, then using a scrapbook will continue to make people wonder, because, speculation aside, there isn't an obvious reason for doing so. It's random, and so unknowable once it's out of living memory. That's how the past works.

But you shouldn't be disheartened - remember, 'The past is a foreign country - they do things differently there'.

Oh, and Friday - I must defer, Mr Sayer, I have an appointment with the owner of a very fine flea circus.

Best wishes

Jane x

[Soothsayer]

Oh, and Friday - I must defer, Mr Sayer, I have an appointment with the owner of a very fine flea circus.

Jane,

Ah, that old chestnut, eh? You're washing your hair ...



Between ringing Doreen Montgomery regarding the journal and actually taking it to her, Mike Barrett purchased an 1891 diary, so clearly these things were available then and perhaps even more popular than they are today given that our lives are recorded in so much detail in the 'normal' course of them (Facebook, etc.).

If the journal is a forgery then the reasons for choosing it are of little interest, in truth. It would be a forgery, whether a good one or a bad one, clever one or stupid one.

If it's not a forgery, then the choice of a scrapbook is simply not in debate - we may feel it was a strange choice, but we couldn't then argue that it was one which argued against it being the real thing, for its authenticity would already be known to us.

Which brings us back 'round on the carousel. We still don't know, and our surmising either way does not alter the fact that the scrapbook is what it is and in itself proves the case neither way for real or forgery.

PS Only a joke about the hair thing - it's actually one of things I first liked about you.

[Soothsayer]

Wasn't the damned thing written on fairly modern scrapbook paper??

Yes - that is a difficult one for journal believers to explain.

That and the fact that the forgers used a biro ...

[John Hacker]

I have press? Wow. I feel so honored...

I think where we differ Sooth is that your definition of what it would take for the "diary" to be debunked is somewhat different than mine. Not every disputed artifact gets a proven orgin. The Shroud of Turin and the Vinland Map for example. As I have said before, I don't believe that we're going to find a smoking gun anytime soon because the testing has stopped and we've pretty much exhausted our options in terms of analyzing the text itself. There is simply not much meat to the text for us to chew on.

But back to the 4 categories again. In brief. I am not trying to make a case here or covering every point, I am simply trying to illustrate how I weigh the evidence.


Historical:

The diary has no history. There is no provenence or independent verification of the it's existence prior to its public appearance. The writing is also not consistent with what Maybrick's should have been historically. The writing might be consistent with late victorian styles but Maybrick's education should have led to mid-victorian writing.


Psychological:

This is a huge problem for the diary. Serial killers simply do not behave in the manner that Maybrick is alleged to have done. I don't put a huge amount of faith in profiling, but SKs do have certain characteristics in common. A man of Maybrick's age, with no history of violence does not start killing and disembowling prostitutes in a distant city simply because his wife has been unfaithful. I've never seen a case that even vaguely parallels what is
supposed to have happened here and I've been looking hard for 15 years now. If you want to go into the specifics of Forshaw and Cantor we can move that to another thread, but I'd bet my first born that if they had initially been presented with the premise of the diary rather than the thing itself they would have quickly given it a thumbs down as utterly implausible.


Factual:

The placement of MJK's breasts is close to being a diary killer on it's own. Not only is it incorrect, it's incorrect in a way that is consistent with the secondary sources a forger would have relied on. There are lesser issues as well. (The apparent misunderstanding of what Michael did for a living, the Poste House, etc) And the diary has not contained a single new verifiable fact which would be incredibly suprising if the document were in fact geniune.


Scientific:

The simple fact is that science has not been kind to the book. Given the limits of of what testing can actually determine it's not suprising. There are no tests that can prove that the ink was placed on the paper in 1888, it could only demonstrate that it's a fraud. The (inconsistent) finding of chloracetamaide is a problem for the document to be considered authentic and without further testing to confirm or refute it the problem will remain.

Let's throw the handwriting in here as well. We've got conflicting opinions but no one has yet stood up to say that the writing matches Maybrick's or that of the Dear Boss letter. We do however have definative opinions that it does not.


As far as Anna Koren goes... No, I don't take her opinion seriously. Graphology has no scientific basis and there is no evidence that it works at all. A persons writing style is a function of their eduction, their hand/muscle structure and learned habits by repetition, it's not a window into the writers soul.

One other supporter of Maybrick as Jack (for 3 or 4 of the killings, I can't recall offhand) is Pamela Ball who investigated the Ripper crimes using her psychic powers. Through horoscopes and seances she fingered Maybrick as the killer. But I don't see her expert opinion being generally used as a plus side for the diary. Good and intellegent people believe in graphology, others believe in psychics. I however do not. I am sure both Pamela and Anna are sincere in their beliefs, however with the (lack of) evidence for graphology and psychics I simply cannot give their opinion any weight.


Let's be realistic about this. If the document were geniune we could expect that there would be some issues with it. But when they start stacking up
to the degree that they have here you need to start weighing the odds. Let's take the incorrect placement of the for breasts. It's extremely farfetched to believe the real killer could get that wrong, but I could accept it if everything else matched up. But of course it does not.

You have to buy into longshots on the factual errors, the implausible premise, the handwriting issues, the science, etc. All at once. It's one thing to roll a six, but when you have to roll it as many times as you'd need to overcome the various obstacles to authenticity the odds become vanishingly small.

But looking at it the other way. What did the diary get right? The physical book, potentially the ink, a reletively small number of previously documented facts. The thing is that there are not long odds on getting any of them right. You get a period book and ink, do some research, keep it vague and you're off. Much of what has been offered to support that diary is not a product of the document itself but it's people finding tenuous connections that are in my opinion are simply wishful thinking. (Diego Laurenz) If look long and hard enough you'll eventually find something you can tie to almost anyone, especially if you've got "funny little games" to bridge the gaps.

A smoking gun would be nice, but until one presents itself I consider it a more than safe bet that the diary is not geniune.

But that is just how I weigh the evidence.

[Soothsayer]

But that is just how I weigh the evidence.

Both halves of this debate throw a dice, and both keep coming up implausibly as sixes. I have just conducted a complex statistical analysis of the evidence, and I can now provide solid p values for the likelihood of certain circumstances occurring purely by chance alone.

1) The forger makes reference to his wife's initials when referring to the Kelly murder and - lo! - they duly appear in the famous photograph of the crime scene. p = 0.00000000000000000000000000231

2) A Ripper letter to a Liverpool newspaper claims to 'genuinely' be from Jack (only occasion this ever happened) and DIEGO LAURENZ is spuriously added to the end. Diego is Spanish for James. Laurenz is a passable rhyme for Florence. p = 0.000000000000000000000322

3) One of America's finest mathematical minds (Kim Russmo - forgotten his name) identifies Middlesex Street and Flower and Dean Street as most likely locations for Jack based on murder sites, excluding Goulston Street. p = 0.0000000000000761

4) Maybrick confesses all to Bunny and mentions it in the journal. At exactly the right time, Bunny tells her lover something which supports this in a letter on the record. p = 0.000000000000000000219

I have discussed these findings with a three-year old child living in our street, and he confirms that this is conclusive proof that the journal is genuine.

Nevertheless, when I have more time, I will subject other journal circumstances to a similar statistical analysis and share with you all the results of my labours ...

[Ben]

Hi Sooth,

Don't you think it's a bit disrespectful to other posters to keep repeating all your original arguments as though they were never addressed? Several posters (well, pretty much everyone) have disputed the existence of your "FM" wall scribblings on rational grounds. When I pointed out that the police were unlikely to have missed them had they been there, you assured me that the police did notice them but dismissed them on the grounds that two letters, daubed in blood, were not written by the killer (?!?).

You came up with an unconvincing excuse for dismissing a reasonable objection, but shortly thereafter repeated the FM argument as though it had never been challenged. I wish you wouldn't do that.

Then you do precisely the same thing with "Diego Laurenz".

When others point out not only the tenuous nature of the link between Maybrick and the letter, but the various other (simpler) explanations for the use of that particular name, you debate them for a while before going straight back to repeating the original argument as though you were raising it for the first time.

Same with the "confessing to bunny" issue.

It is observed that the letter's link to anything concerning Jack the Ripper is wholly absent, let alone tenuous, but undeterred, you regurgitate the original argument.

[Soothsayer]

Hi Sooth,

Don't you think it's a bit disrespectful to other posters to keep repeating all your original arguments as though they were never addressed?

Ben,

I think you confuse 'addressed' with 'posted a reply'. The former rarely comes though the latter does frequently! They are not one and same thing.

You, John Omlor, and others are happy to write "You were told that...". This is the trick of schoolteachers trying to drown out free thought in their charges.

"You were told that the letters aren't there".

"You were told Diego Laurenz was probably his actual name" (Ben, I'm still chuckling about that one!!!!).

Lots of people have been told that the journal is a forgery. Doesn't make it so.

You can tell people they are wrong a thousand times over, but it doesn't make them wrong, sir - no, nay, never! You really ought to show some respect and stop believing that you have a divine right to stop free thought simply because you have said so!

PS Your reference to the police and the letters on the wall is some laughable distance away from the argument I made.

[Ben]

I'm not telling you anything.

I've challeged your argument for Maybrick's candidacy and the authenticity of the diary.

So have many other people.

It irks me when you insist on re-posting "summaries" of your perceived case when you know full well that the key components of your case have been challenged numerous times.

"You were told Diego Laurenz was probably his actual name" (Ben, I'm still chuckling about that one!!!!).

I never said probably.

But what's funny about the suggestion?

[Soothsayer]

I'm not telling you anything.

I've challeged your argument for Maybrick's candidacy and the authenticity of the diary.

So have many other people.

It irks me when you insist on re-posting "summaries" of your perceived case when you know full well that the key components of your case have been challenged numerous times.



I never said probably.

But what's funny about the suggestion?

Err ... guy writes letter signed 'Jack the Ripper (Genuine)' then appends his own name - in capitals so that you can't miss it?

Let me simplify this for you. If the writer is Jack, he's just given the game away. If he's not Jack, what's the point of claiming that he is?

You see, either way, the Bobbies would be 'round to check. Obviously, they'd have to work their way through all the Diego Laurenzs living in England at that time but after the fag break had ended, they'd have their man.

[Ben]

If he's not Jack, what's the point of claiming that he is?

So, in other words, the very concept of false confessions to murder is completely alien to you, despite the fact that we know it occured during the Whitechapel murders?