One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Jonathan H]

I agree with Simon, Stewart and Tom, et al.

I would add that the arrogance of some of the people here is a give-away that they have nothing, nothing except a pseudo-religio faith in a 'holy' relic, hence the invective against any and all unbelievers.

I would also add that I am disappointed to discover that people who acted as super-sceptics about what I have theorised about Macnaghten-Druitt -- and being sceptical of any theory is entirely appropriate -- yet do not apply the same rigororous standards to the 'Diary', the dodgiest of source(s) since Joseph Sickert and the 'Royal Watergate' nonsense?

[The Good Michael]

Yes it is. The theory entitled to the most respect, because it is based on the best available circumstantial evidence, is that it was written by George Grossmith in 1889 just after a visit to Battlecrease while on his honeymoon. George, who was extremely jealous of Maybrick's brother, Michael, then had it planted in James' house where it was found years later.

If I remember correctly, it was George's brother Weedon who confessed on his deathbed to having written it knowing that George would be blamed when it was discovered that the Maybricks weren't responsible. The reason for this subterfuge was that Weedon felt he was more talented than George and was angry that George didn't share in the G and S character royalties.

Mike

[Stewart P Evans]

Ah, but...

Gentlemen (Simon and Stewart),
You are in grave danger of making an Argument from Personal Incredulity!
...
It is for all of the morally righteous who sit in wonder and await the answers that we will not yield to your naysaying and doom-mongering.
...

Ah, but it's informed 'incredulity'.

In 1992, when this nonsense first emerged, one of it's early investigators (Keith Skinner) was working closely with me (and staying with me at times). Before the 'diary' book by Shirley Harrison was ever published I was regularly visiting Paul Feldman at his office and working alongside the 'diary' team.

Where were you at this time? I don't know who you are, but were you involved? My files on this aspect of Ripper lore are immense. Most of it unpublished.

[Stewart P Evans]

Really...?

...
Make no mistake, Stewart and I have our differences. Enormous differences.
...
Simon

Really Simon, what are they? As you well know I think that you are a dear old boy. Indeed a legend of Ripperology.

[caz]

Hi Caz!

I was very interested to read your last post.

Is the consensus now that the Diary is old? You certainly seem to think so - unless I misread you. Have you come across any new pointer as to who could have written the Diary? Do you think it possible that the Diary is genuine?

Carol

Hi Carol,

There is no such consensus and I did not offer a personal opinion. I merely sought to remind people that neither the writing in the diary nor the scratches inside the watch have been shown scientifically to be of modern origin. I believe that "prior to 1970" was the only stab taken at actually dating when ink met paper (by a team hired to prove it was post-1987 ), and the watch scratches appeared to two independent examiners to be tens of decades old. But what do professional scientists know, eh?

I doubt anyone will ever know who was responsible, short of an identifiable document turning up which is shown to be in the same hand. The diary cannot be 'genuine' if Maybrick's hand could not have held the pen, simple as that.

I don't know why anybody should be so afraid of these things turning out to be old hoaxes, but it seems only to frighten a smallish group of ripperologists for some reason. Very few others seem to care how old it is, they'd just quite like to know who dunnit and what was the point.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Yes it is. The theory entitled to the most respect, because it is based on the best available circumstantial evidence, is that it was written by George Grossmith in 1889 just after a visit to Battlecrease while on his honeymoon. George, who was extremely jealous of Maybrick's brother, Michael, then had it planted in James' house where it was found years later.

I don't mind you taking the p, Scotty, but there are people out there who take everything literally and will imagine that you are faithfully reproducing an actual theory, when in fact you are just trying to be funny.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Ah, but it's informed 'incredulity'.

In 1992, when this nonsense first emerged, one of it's early investigators (Keith Skinner) was working closely with me (and staying with me at times). Before the 'diary' book by Shirley Harrison was ever published I was regularly visiting Paul Feldman at his office and working alongside the 'diary' team.

Where were you at this time? I don't know who you are, but were you involved? My files on this aspect of Ripper lore are immense. Most of it unpublished.

Hi Stewart,

Ah, but where were you when the diary was being created?

You are not implying that Feldman was there, or at least knew that he was promoting a recent hoax as the real thing - are you?

You are not implying that Keith was deceived by Feldy but you were not - are you?

Trouble is, I'm never quite sure what you are implying when you claim to know more about the diary's early days than either Shirley or Keith.

Love,

Caz
X

[Stewart P Evans]

Not Implying

...
Ah, but where were you when the diary was being created?
You are not implying that Feldman was there, or at least knew that he was promoting a recent hoax as the real thing - are you?
You are not implying that Keith was deceived by Feldy but you were not - are you?
Trouble is, I'm never quite sure what you are implying when you claim to know more about the diary's early days than either Shirley or Keith.
...

I'm not implying anything, merely stating facts.

[Carol]

Hello Caz,

Many thanks for replying to my post.

Do you think it possible that the Diary itself AND the watch will ever be available again for testing? (Although having written that I realise the cost of it all would probably be prohibitive).

Carol

[Soothsayer]

Ah, but it's informed 'incredulity'.

...

Where were you at this time? I don't know who you are, but were you involved? My files on this aspect of Ripper lore are immense. Most of it unpublished.

Hi Stewart,

As Caz has already intimated, your post was loaded with innuendo around how much was known about the journal before it found its way into print.

Could you put us all out of our misery and just explain to us the truth of what you know about its creation? You sound as though you know a lot (about the journal's creation, I mean, not about JtR generally - you obviously have a considerable pedigree in the latter, but I'm wholly unaware of your pedigree in the former).

If there is a known source of the journal, and you are in on that knowledge, please please please tell us what you know or at least suggest why you are unable or unwilling to do so.

On the other hand, if you simply have a lot of knowledge - perhaps about Jack, perhaps about the journal, perhaps about anything else you care to mention - but none of that ultimately explains the source of the journal, then it's an empty kind of knowledge for The Greatest Thread of All. A bit like my old friend Friedrich Nietzsche's argument that knowledge of the metaphysical world is as useful as knowledge of the composition of water to a drowning man. As is well known on the Casebook, the present thread demands only the very highest standards of personal integrity and scientific rigour where mere opinion alone constitutes a moral crime if not backed-up with firm evidence for that opinion. Is your 1992 knowledge relevant here, or just cited to support your Argument from Personal Incredulity?

Incidentally, just for the record, I have a huge bunch of brilliant poems which I wrote when I was a tortured youth. Most (if not all) of it unpublished.

[Scott Nelson]

I don't mind you taking the p, Scotty, but there are people out there who take everything literally and will imagine that you are faithfully reproducing an actual theory, when in fact you are just trying to be funny.

I am?...I mean, I am.

[Scott Nelson]

Could you put us all out of our misery and just explain to us the truth of what you know about its creation?

Scotland Yard already investigated the provenance of the so-called "Maybrick Diary" shortly after its emergence. Names which have never been made public (and never will be) were involved. The Yard concluded its investigation and the case was closed.

[Soothsayer]

Scotland Yard already investigated the provenance of the so-called "Maybrick Diary" shortly after its emergence. Names which have never been made public (and never will be) were involved. The Yard concluded its investigation and the case was closed.

Hi Scott,

Thank you for supporting our defence of the diary - much appreciated!

It is a timely point you make - Scotland Yard did investigate the journal and found no case to answer for regarding anyone at all.

I had forgotten about this key piece of evidence which hugely vindicates everyone connected with the journal.

Thank you, Comrade!

[Graham]

I don't know why on earth I'm posting this, as my interest in the Diary faded away ages ago, but if you're interested in just who the police interviewed during their investigation, just check "The Ripper Diary - The Inside Story", pages 67 - 68, and apart from their interest in Robert Smith, according to the authors of this book the fuzz also spoke to:

Mike and Anne Barratt;
Tony Devereux's daughters;
Harold Brough (of the Liverpool Daily Post;
The landlord of The Saddle pub;
Paul Dodd, the owner of Battlecrease House;
Electricians who had carried out the re-wiring of Battlecrease;
Gerard Kane.

Quite a few names there that were made public, don't you think? If anyone knows any more names, I'd be interested.

The police, via the CPS, brought no charges against anyone after their investigations; this doesn't mean that they had no suspicions against person or persons un-named, but does suggest that there was nothing they could prove. I'm not saying that the police were a collection of Holmes, Poirots and Maigrets, but as their investigation was primarily concerned with forgery intended for profit, which is what naughty people get up to, I do suggest that their failure to make any direct accusation against anyone would tend to support claims that the Diary is not a modern fake. I now wait to be shot down in flames.

Graham

Graham

[spyglass]

Hi all,
To those who claim to know and have evidence that the diary is a hoax, yet get a bit cross when asked to reveal all, I am sure that if I was to announce to the world that I had One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which proves the diary genuine, then every member on the casebook would be demanding me to tell all.