One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Abby Normal]

Hi Scotty,

Just saw this as I have been trying to catch up with this lengthy thread. If you meant me, I have taken off my gag for a moment to set the record straight.

The incredible truth is, I don't spend every waking moment thinking, reading or writing about the diary, and my life is always full to bursting with equally wonderful and amazing things to do (that bit was partially true), so I actually forgot to check the Maybrick boards until this week and I believe my last visit must have been back in April.

I know, it's almost as hard to believe as the truth about the diary, isn't it?

My take is that it has to be an old hoax, planted where it would eventually come to light to plague the living hell out of the kind of sensitive souls who are all too easily wound up by such things. It has been rather successful in that regard.

I do advise that cup of cocoa for anyone thus afflicted.

Good to see you, Scotty. I still have some 45 pages to read here so please bear with, everyone.

Lots of love,

Caz
X

Caz
I think an old hoax is probably the most reasonable explanation.

In a nutshell-Could you just briefly list the reasons why?

[StevenOwl]

My take is that it has to be an old hoax, planted where it would eventually come to light to plague the living hell out of the kind of sensitive souls who are all too easily wound up by such things. It has been rather successful in that regard.

I was under the impression that the diary contained info that wasn't in the public domain prior to the Ripper files going public in 1988, hence some believing that a modern forgery was more likely. Is that so, and if it is, who would have known those details pre-1988?

[Phil Carter]

God alone knows the truth.

Graham

Hello Graham

I believe that a few people alive today know the truth.
I believe that they will not, or cannot say a word.
I believe however that within a relatively short space of time, the truth will come out.
There is a lot at stake still. Not least reputations.
Just my humble opinion.

hope you are well


Phil

[spyglass]

Hi Scotty,

Just saw this as I have been trying to catch up with this lengthy thread. If you meant me, I have taken off my gag for a moment to set the record straight.

The incredible truth is, I don't spend every waking moment thinking, reading or writing about the diary, and my life is always full to bursting with equally wonderful and amazing things to do (that bit was partially true), so I actually forgot to check the Maybrick boards until this week and I believe my last visit must have been back in April.

I know, it's almost as hard to believe as the truth about the diary, isn't it?

My take is that it has to be an old hoax, planted where it would eventually come to light to plague the living hell out of the kind of sensitive souls who are all too easily wound up by such things. It has been rather successful in that regard.

I do advise that cup of cocoa for anyone thus afflicted.

Good to see you, Scotty. I still have some 45 pages to read here so please bear with, everyone.

Lots of love,

Caz
X

Of course, you may be referring to the great Soothsayer who started this thread a long while back......oh how we miss him.

regards

[caz]

Caz
I think an old hoax is probably the most reasonable explanation.

In a nutshell-Could you just briefly list the reasons why?

Hi Abby,

Very briefly - and of course I am still waiting to be proved wrong - it's more to do with the dismal state of the evidence for a modern forger (or 'nest' of forgers). Nobody in their right mind would have had Mike Barrett as their front man, and if they had I have very little doubt that the whole thing would have unravelled before I even heard about the diary.

After nearly a quarter of a century, the diary and watch have yet to give up their secrets, regarding when and why each was conceived, and who was responsible.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Very briefly - and of course I am still waiting to be proved wrong - it's more to do with the dismal state of the evidence for a modern forger (or 'nest' of forgers). Nobody in their right mind would have had Mike Barrett as their front man, and if they had I have very little doubt that the whole thing would have unravelled before I even heard about the diary.

After nearly a quarter of a century, the diary and watch have yet to give up their secrets, regarding when and why each was conceived, and who was responsible.

Love,

Caz
X

thanks. sounds reasonable to me.

[caz]

I believe that a few people alive today know the truth.
I believe that they will not, or cannot say a word.
I believe however that within a relatively short space of time, the truth will come out.

Hi Phil,

It depends what you mean by 'the truth', but I think I can guess. How do you think that truth will come out if the only people who know it refuse to say a word?

For what it's worth, I don't believe for a moment that the truth you are talking about will come out - ever.

Or put another way, all the while you and I remain Chelsea fans.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I was under the impression that the diary contained info that wasn't in the public domain prior to the Ripper files going public in 1988, hence some believing that a modern forgery was more likely. Is that so, and if it is, who would have known those details pre-1988?

Your guess is as good as mine, Steven.

But it's not so much a case of 'who' would have known, but how many? Information not in the public domain is still information that was gathered and recorded at one time or another by someone, and shared with - and possibly leaked to - others.

I suppose my reasoning is no longer what is more likely - modern forgery or older hoax - but which it must be if I can't reconcile it as the other.

Love,

Caz
X

[Scott Nelson]

Hi Scotty,

Just saw this as I have been trying to catch up with this lengthy thread. If you meant me, I have taken off my gag for a moment to set the record straight.

Hi Caroline,

By 'gag', I meant (or was guessing) that there could have been attempts (by whom I don't know) to hush up talk of the diary origins due to the recent death of Mike Barrett.

[David Orsam]

Nobody in their right mind would have had Mike Barrett as their front man, and if they had I have very little doubt that the whole thing would have unravelled before I even heard about the diary.

Can I ask you this Caz. Why do you say that someone needed to have Barrett as a "front man"? Couldn't he have forged it himself with his wife as he said he did? And, if he did, can't the whole thing already be said to have "unravelled"?

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

It depends what you mean by 'the truth', but I think I can guess. How do you think that truth will come out if the only people who know it refuse to say a word?

For what it's worth, I don't believe for a moment that the truth you are talking about will come out - ever.

Or put another way, all the while you and I remain Chelsea fans.

Love,

Caz
X

Hello Caz,

Trust you and yours are well ☺

A lot of loaded questions there. I'm just happy to say that the truth will come out in the relatively near future. 😉

The way Chelsea are playing without JT.. there is more chance of the truth coming out than our beloved Chelsea winning the league in the relatively near future. 💖


Phil

[ChrisGeorge]

I was under the impression that the diary contained info that wasn't in the public domain prior to the Ripper files going public in 1988, hence some believing that a modern forgery was more likely. Is that so, and if it is, who would have known those details pre-1988?

The Diary contains the words "one tin matchbox empty" which matches the police list of Eddowes' possessions that was published in Martin Fido's 1988 book. A highly suspicious and unnatural phrase.

Here I paste in a post of mine from 2003 (http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/7839.html) --

Hi, all--

Here's a list of deficits that the Diary possesses. Feel free to suggest others I have not included.

1. Not in James Maybrick's handwriting.

2. Contains wording identical to a police list only made public in 1988 ("One tin matchbox empty").

3. Gets placement of body parts in 13 Miller's Court wrong.

4. Says that Diarist took refreshment in the Poste House, a Liverpool pub not called by that name in 1888, and not known as "The Poste House" until recent decades, it having been previously known as "The Muck Midden."

5. Gets the claim to fame of Michael Maybrick, the Diarist's brother, wrong--he's a composer not a lyricist.

6. Not written in a diary but in an old photograph album or scrapbook.

7. Sixty three pages crudely cut out of the front of the book.

8. Has no provenance and cannot be proven to ever have been in the possession of James Maybrick.

9. Emulates the bantering style of the Jack the Ripper letters in terms of taunting the police but does not use the name "Jack the Ripper" until the final page when the writer signs the document "Yours truly Jack the Ripper" the same way the Dear Boss letter of 25 September 1888 is signed.

10. Despite there being evidently missing pages in the beginning of the book, the story appears whole, beginning with Maybrick planning his murder spree and ending with his death.

11. Contains no new information about the Ripper case or about the Maybrick family, with the possible exception of details about two possible Manchester murders and a Liverpool neighbor named Mrs. Hammersmith.

Given this list of dud notes rung by the Diary, and there may be more, but particularly points 2 and 4 above,

2. Contains wording identical to a police list only made public in 1988 ("One tin matchbox empty").

4. Says that Diarist took refreshment in the Poste House, a Liverpool pub not called by that name in 1888, and not known as "The Poste House" until recent decades, it having been previously known as "The Muck Midden.",

Is it any wonder that most of us are skeptical of the story told by Anne Graham that the artifact has been in her family since the 1950's when the indications appear to be that it is likely more recent?

All the best

Chris

*****************

PS Caz and others believe that the Poste House in Cumberland Street was not meant as Shirley Harrison thought "Maybrick" meant when she wrote The Diary of Jack the Ripper (1993). Rather Caz says The Old Post Office pub in School Lane was meant close to James Maybrick's Liverpool birthplace (see http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=4661). The point about the Poste House in Cumberland Street though is that it was considerably closer to Maybrick's office near the Exchange behind Liverpool Town Hall, and so within easy walking distance, which the Old Post Office pub was not. A modern forger could have made the mistake of thinking the Cumberland Street establishment was named "Poste Office" pub in 1888, because it sounds old. That is exactly what I think happened.

Poste House pub, Cumberland Street, Liverpool - on the right in the black and white photo above the lady on the left in the black coat.

[Harry D]

I was under the impression that the diary contained info that wasn't in the public domain prior to the Ripper files going public in 1988, hence some believing that a modern forgery was more likely. Is that so, and if it is, who would have known those details pre-1988?

From the excerpts I've read of the diary, it seems that the diarist goes out of his way to intentionally disclose information that was perhaps not common knowledge. If the diary was not meant for a broader audience (as diaries typically aren't), why would they do that?

[Iconoclast]

Of course, you may be referring to the great Soothsayer who started this thread a long while back......oh how we miss him.

regards

Some of us have been trying vainly to fill his most worthy boots, Spysie. I know, impossible task - but one worthy of the effort, say I!

Nice to have Caz back in the debate, say I too!

[Iconoclast]

Hello Graham
I believe however that within a relatively short space of time, the truth will come out.
Phil

'Relatively short space of time' in JournalWorld needs to be multiplied by a factor of about 25, Phil. I wouldn't desist from the cocoa in the hope it's still warm when the truth comes out.

Ike