One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

lol. ya think?

funny to see you here WWH. welcome to the nut house. its a nice place to visit but you dont want to live here.
my stay is just about over.

How many d's are there in good riddance?

[caz]

seems ive picked up a stalker : 0

Let me reassure you, Abby, I have absolutely no desire to follow you out of the nut house when your stay is over.

Hope you have even more fun in your next haunt.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

How many d's are there in good riddance?

same amount as in Diary Defender. haha!!

[Abby Normal]

Let me reassure you, Abby, I have absolutely no desire to follow you out of the nut house when your stay is over.

Hope you have even more fun in your next haunt.

Love,

Caz
X

thanks Caz! I always have fun. its practically my middle name.

[caz]

Welcome to The Greatest Thread of All, WWH. We haven't met, I don't think. Let me offer you some homely advice, if I may.

It would be easy to be fooled by the hostility towards the Maybrick scrapbook and the Maybrick watch into thinking that we don't take these two artefacts seriously.

Obviously, they don't compare with the plethora of hard evidence which exists against the other candidates for Jack but - if you are willing to look beyond the paucity of evidence - you might find an intriguing case against our erstwhile cotton broker from ever-so likely Liverpool.

Obviously - and I'm at pains to iterate this - you can't compare the scrapbook and the watch against the real evidence (such as the frustrated egotistical musings of ex-senior police in their dotage, or the scribbled marginalia of vain men in a similar state of old age) and that's where the case against Maybrick really falls down.

Who do you favour for Jack (if anyone)? And - if you have such a candidate - what were the key pieces of hard evidence which you feel would convince a jury of their guilt?

My apologies if you are a senile old ex-police officer with an ego the size of a capital city, by the way. Hopefully you're not.

Cheers,

Ike

Afternoon Ike,

WWH has a very enquiring mind and is extremely knowledgeable about the murder of Julia Wallace in the early 1930s. He is also one of the best posters on the boards for adapting his position according to the evidence he is gathering, and has no difficulty admitting openly when his views change.

His username is testimony to this, as he coined it when he believed Wallace did in fact whack his wife, but is now certain he couldn't have done it in the time allowed by the evidence.

I have high hopes that WWH has a mind of his own on other topics too. If it's obvious to him that the diary is a modern - post 1987 - hoax, it will be because of the evidence he has seen for it, and not because he has some deep psychological need to be seen on the 'popular' side. In Lord Orsam's shoes, I'd be thoroughly hacked off by all the puerile, sloppily written one-liners, so often posted around here by his most ardent cheerleaders.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

same amount as in Diary Defender. haha!!

Ah, now my favourite Abby is back. That was good!

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Afternoon Ike,

WWH has a very enquiring mind and is extremely knowledgeable about the murder of Julia Wallace in the early 1930s. He is also one of the best posters on the boards for adapting his position according to the evidence he is gathering, and has no difficulty admitting openly when his views change.

His username is testimony to this, as he coined it when he believed Wallace did in fact whack his wife, but is now certain he couldn't have done it in the time allowed by the evidence.

I have high hopes that WWH has a mind of his own on other topics too. If it's obvious to him that the diary is a modern - post 1987 - hoax, it will be because of the evidence he has seen for it, and not because he has some deep psychological need to be seen on the 'popular' side. In Lord Orsam's shoes, I'd be thoroughly hacked off by all the puerile, sloppily written one-liners, so often posted around here by his most ardent cheerleaders.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Cazzykins,

Old Ikeypoos is in a good mood so he's willing to let WWH away with his indiscretion, but - Lord - what an introduction to this, The Greatest Thread of All, coming on here waving his "Seems obvious to me the diary is a modern hoax lol" around like he owned the place!

Got my goat up, I can tell you, and me such a pussycat where this thread is concerned.



Of course, if he comes back on here and spills my ******* pint again, the claws will definitely be coming out.

A leopard only changes its spots when they're in the wash, that's my philosophy ...

Cheers,

The Mighty I

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi Cazzykins,

Old Ikeypoos is in a good mood so he's willing to let WWH away with his indiscretion, but - Lord - what an introduction to this, The Greatest Thread of All, coming on here waving his "Seems obvious to me the diary is a modern hoax lol" around like he owned the place!

Got my goat up, I can tell you, and me such a pussycat where this thread is concerned.



Of course, if he comes back on here and spills my ******* pint again, the claws will definitely be coming out.

A leopard only changes its spots when they're in the wash, that's my philosophy ...

Cheers,

The Mighty I

Ike,

Our Wallace is often flirting with the case. He doesn't like to admit it, but, well, you know, it pulls you in.

Come over to the dark side Wallace..... we're waiting....

(Of note, young Wallace's contribution to the Wallace case can't be overstated. A genuine maverick, but he got results, dammit!)

[Iconoclast]

Ike,

Our Wallace is often flirting with the case. He doesn't like to admit it, but, well, you know, it pulls you in.

Come over to the dark side Wallace..... we're waiting....

(Of note, young Wallace's contribution to the Wallace case can't be overstated. A genuine maverick, but he got results, dammit!)

Abe,

You organised the scrap yet, mate?

cheers,

Ike

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Abe,

You organised the scrap yet, mate?

cheers,

Ike

No, I prefer a more organic experience, "you spilled my Diamine"? "You calling my diary a hoax"? "You questioning my provenance"? That kind of thing. Let nature take its course. Let's see who's standing at the end. "Lol'ing at my diary mate? Cos if you are, your Lol'ing at my missus. Calling her a hoax too, eh?"

Is the East End Conference still on? I reckon we can lower the tone there. I'm midlands, but I guess that's still soft southern shite to you. You wannabe Jock.

[Iconoclast]

No, I prefer a more organic experience, "you spilled my Diamine"? "You calling my diary a hoax"? "You questioning my provenance"? That kind of thing. Let nature take its course. Let's see who's standing at the end. "Lol'ing at my diary mate? Cos if you are, your Lol'ing at my missus. Calling her a hoax too, eh?"

Is the East End Conference still on? I reckon we can lower the tone there. I'm midlands, but I guess that's still soft southern shite to you. You wannabe Jock.

The Iconoclast clan have been in Derbyshire for a decade now, raising the general tone of the place, and arguing the toss with anyone who mentions the words 'Jack', 'diary', 'Lord', and 'McVitie' amongst others. The day we prove the scrapbook to be authentic, I'm painting (a bit of) the A50 gold.

We should definitely mix it at the East End conference. Caz's mob will doubtless be there arguing about whose turf we're on and nicking the ashtrays. Bruisers like Skinner and Orsam will probably be squaring-up in the foyer (it'll be that quick). Observer will be at home with a 'cold' (typical Maccum).

I reckon it could be carnage. Result!

Mad Axe Ike

[Scott Nelson]

Why haven't you been run out of town yet?

[Kattrup]

It would probably be best to leave this thread alone, but it's Friday and here goes:

And there we have it: the simplistic black-and-white conclusion that he went shopping for a blank Victorian diary in which he could transfer Sir Jim's thoughts from the Spring of 1888 to May 1889.

Never mind the fact that he ordered one for the year 1891, with 3 or 4 printed dates to a page [not just at the top], which did not have enough blank Victorian paper to wipe his late 20th century bottom on.

If your conclusion, as a historian, depends on ignoring inconvenient evidence like this and hoping it will go away, it's just not good enough.

I've yet to see any of this so-called "inconvenient evidence", so I'm not ignoring anything.

If I caught my better half doing this, I'd have his guts for garters. He has a first class history degree from the Open University.

Hmm, it appears you don't want people with a degree in history to ignore inconvenient evidence. Personally, I think that should apply to everyone.
But you could perhaps seek advice from your husband and ask whether something imagined by someone not present about events 25 years earlier counts as evidence?

By the way, you sum up the careless execution and cynical marketing of the diary as if Orsam and RJ Palmer have been idiotically wasting years on an exercise in futility, poring over the content of the diary to look for additional signs of fakery, when there was never any need. A tad disrespectful of you, surely?

Why would it be disrespectful? Surely, David Orsam and RJ aren't the ones who've wasted years on an exercise in futility.

The handwriting always did it for me, but it didn't identify itself as a Barrett-related hand either.

But isn't that only because you haven't bothered to check? When it doesn't seem to match MB's handwriting, you're enough of an expert to conclude he didn't write it. When it seems to match his wife's, suddenly an actual handwriting expert is required and you can't be bothered to have an opinion.

[Kattrup]

How does a book without pre-printed dates resemble a diary but differ from a notebook?

It does not necessarily, but it could, for instance, by having the word "Diary" written on it or embossed, or by having a certain aesthetic, likely flowery and feminine.

A diary certainly chronicles events, but it is generally and widely understood to be a record of the events of the day, or often just appointments, arranged in day-by-day order. A chronicle similarly records events as they happen, but over time (meaning the entries are not necessarily day-by-day), but I'm not going to get into an argument over definitions. The point is that the "diary" is a sort of confessional; something into which the author could express things he could not admit to anyone else. It should never have been called a "diary" and I did all I could to discourage that description, which I thought (and think) detracts from what I considered to be the book's purpose. However, "diary" stuck and eventually I succumbed to calling the book a "diary" too. The question remains fairly asked, the book isn't a diary as the word is conventionally understood, so why did Mike ask for a diary when a conventional diary is likely to have been what he'd be offered?

Well, I think you are getting into an argument over definitions. If everyone else who read it called it a diary, it seems likely that the writer may have thought of it as a diary, too. And thus asked for "a diary" in which to write it, not meaning a diary strictly in your conventional sense, but thinking of the broader definition, the end product: a book or journal containing the private thoughts of an individual on a daily or semidaily basis.

I personally do not see any problem with the idea that someone wanting to hoax a diary would ask for a blank diary.

Of course some people won't appreciate the daunting difficulties of producing a successful fake, but what if you do appreciate them, even on the very basic level of not knowing what somone might look for that could catch you out? The fact that the book would be presented to a load of inept experts wasn't something the faker could have known, and any evidence that the faker tried to produce something that was passably Victorian suggests an awareness of the difficulties. If Mike was one of those who didn't appreciate the difficulties, and given that he hadn't written a day-by-day account, I wonder why he asvertised to buy a diary?

I don't think I understand this argument, perhaps you could explain a bit more? MB appreciated that crafting a fake had to be done as convincingly as possible and that in order to pass at least superficial tests, the paper had to be original to the period, his own handwriting could not be used and probably that the ink should be manuscript ink.

I don't know which experts you're considering inept, but in actual fact, the faker did not take the diary to the experts, did he?

He instead went directly to people who had a financial interest in being convinced and NO professional obligation to question authenticity, and also no professional qualifications to do so. That does not mean that I believe they were dishonest. Just that he went the path of least resistance.

Once they were on board, the diary became much harder to dismiss as an outright hoax, and it could be shopped around to various experts, whose statements could be read selectively, trumpeted in triumph, ignored or challenged, as needed.

So I do think the faker could have known that at first, the book would be examined by "inept experts" - because the people he chose would not be experts at all - and that they would have no financial motivation and no professional obligation to reject the book.

Therefore, I think MB did appreciate the difficulties, and given that he HAD written something that resembles a day-by-day account, he went and advertised for a blank victorian diary.

[Kattrup]

How does a book without pre-printed dates resemble a diary but differ from a notebook?

It does not necessarily, but it could, for instance, by having the word "Diary" written on it or embossed, or by having a certain aesthetic, likely flowery and feminine.

A diary certainly chronicles events, but it is generally and widely understood to be a record of the events of the day, or often just appointments, arranged in day-by-day order. A chronicle similarly records events as they happen, but over time (meaning the entries are not necessarily day-by-day), but I'm not going to get into an argument over definitions. The point is that the "diary" is a sort of confessional; something into which the author could express things he could not admit to anyone else. It should never have been called a "diary" and I did all I could to discourage that description, which I thought (and think) detracts from what I considered to be the book's purpose. However, "diary" stuck and eventually I succumbed to calling the book a "diary" too. The question remains fairly asked, the book isn't a diary as the word is conventionally understood, so why did Mike ask for a diary when a conventional diary is likely to have been what he'd be offered?

Well, I think you are getting into an argument over definitions. If everyone else who read it called it a diary, it seems likely that the writer may have thought of it as a diary, too. And thus asked for "a diary" in which to write it, not meaning a diary strictly in your conventional sense, but thinking of the broader definition, the end product: a book or journal containing the private thoughts of an individual on a daily or semidaily basis.

I personally do not see any problem with the idea that someone wanting to hoax a diary would ask for a blank diary.

Of course some people won't appreciate the daunting difficulties of producing a successful fake, but what if you do appreciate them, even on the very basic level of not knowing what somone might look for that could catch you out? The fact that the book would be presented to a load of inept experts wasn't something the faker could have known, and any evidence that the faker tried to produce something that was passably Victorian suggests an awareness of the difficulties. If Mike was one of those who didn't appreciate the difficulties, and given that he hadn't written a day-by-day account, I wonder why he asvertised to buy a diary?

I don't think I understand this argument, perhaps you could explain a bit more? MB appreciated that crafting a fake had to be done as convincingly as possible and that in order to pass at least superficial tests, the paper had to be original to the period, his own handwriting could not be used and probably that the ink should be manuscript ink.

I don't know which experts you're considering inept, but in actual fact, the faker did not take the diary to the experts, did he?

He instead went directly to people who had a financial interest in being convinced and NO professional obligation to question authenticity, and also no professional qualifications to do so. That does not mean that I believe they were dishonest. Just that he went the path of least resistance.

Once they were on board, the diary became much harder to dismiss as an outright hoax, and it could be shopped around to various experts, whose statements could be read selectively, trumpeted in triumph, ignored or challenged, as needed.

So I do think the faker could have known that at first, the book would be examined by "inept experts" - because the people he chose would not be experts at all - and that they would have no financial motivation and no professional obligation to reject the book.

Therefore, I think MB did appreciate the difficulties, and given that he HAD written something that resembles a day-by-day account, he went and advertised for a blank victorian diary.