One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[johnsonandrew]

The question really is prove it that the diary is genuine instead of asking to prove that it is a fake. People have it reversed. Amazing. Otherwise it's useless.

Hi varqm.
many years have gone by now, to find it fake with all the technology we should be looking at a huge sway in it being fake, thats why queastions are being asked, we should never stop asking questions for or against.

[Ben]

But I feel sure that if the Diary is a modern forgery, it would have been completely debunked as one by now

It has, though, Nick.

It wasn't written in Maybrick's handwriting, and all the other anachronisms and ahistoricisms only serve to put the icing on a thoroughly dodgy-tasting cake. That's "completely debunked" enough for me, I'm afraid.

Best regards,
Ben

[Nick Scovell]

It has, though, Nick.

It wasn't written in Maybrick's handwriting, and all the other anachronisms and ahistoricisms only serve to put the icing on a thoroughly dodgy-tasting cake. That's "completely debunked" enough for me, I'm afraid.

Best regards,
Ben

Yes, I take your point. However, I have to say I could only change my opinion if purely scientific proof emerged that the document itself could not have been written in 1888/9. Anachronisms and ahistoricisms are difficult to class as 'proof' in my book - purely because they often change when detailed research is done, plus they tend to come under peoples interpretations of history/events/opinions of the past.

I must also say that the handwriting not matching does not bother me. My 'neat' handwriting is very different to what I write myself when alone. Plus, I would imagine, any forger worth his salt would have taken great pain to copy Maybrick's handwriting wouldn't he? I would have done.

Nick

[Ben]

Plus, I would imagine, any forger worth his salt would have taken great pain to copy Maybrick's handwriting wouldn't he?

Exactly, Nick, so the fact that he didn't bother to emulate any example of the real Maybrick's handwriting means that the forger wasn't "worth his salt"!

Document examiner Sue Iremonger stated that "It doesn't matter is a person is young or old, or switches from their right to left hand after an accident. The style may appear to change but, in fact, the components of every individual's handwriting remain consistent", and I'm hard pushed to trump her experiences or challenge her conclusion in any way.

Anachronisms and ahistoricisms do not a forgery "prove" necessarily, but when they point, collectively and unambigiously, in the direction of a forgery, it's becomes harder and harder to chalk them up to a succession of bizarre, freak coincidences.

Ben

[Brenda]

However, I have to say I could only change my opinion if purely scientific proof emerged that the document itself could not have been written in 1888/9.
Nick

Nothing scientific will ever emerge. The person who owns the diary will not let it be tested. There were recent plans in the past few years to have it tested, but....well, things got a little messy.

The thing that convinces me the diary is a fake is the complete lack of day to day boringness that is only occasionally spiced with the actual JTR story. There's no "woke up, took the horse to the blacksmith to be shod, told the cook I'd fire her if she ever bakes raisins in my crumpets again," etc. etc

Instead, we get a JTR novel, laid out from start to finish.

[Nick Scovell]

OK. All very interesting and good solid points.

Am I correct in thinking that the opinion is still that the diary can only be one of two things:

1: A modern forgery - post 1987
2: Genuine

Now, from what I have read about it, and putting aside any personal feelings, those seem to be the only logical explanations.

Can I bring the watch up at this point? Wasn't it proved that the scratches in the watch had to be 'decades' old due to the corrosion of the bits of metal left in them from whatever made them?

If so, the scratches in the watch MUST be earlier than 1987, therefore they help the case for the diary being genuine?

Or have I just opened another large tin of worms..?

Nick

[Ben]

Hi Nick,

Can I bring the watch up at this point? Wasn't it proved that the scratches in the watch had to be 'decades' old due to the corrosion of the bits of metal left in them from whatever made them?

I'm not as clued in on matters relating to the watch, but I believe the "old" embedded particles could simply have been deposited there by an "old" engraving instrument. The fact that the "finding" of the scratches coincided so neatly with the "finding" of the diary is sufficient to raise very grave doubts as to the authenticity of the former.

Ben

[Nick Scovell]

Hi Nick,



I'm not as clued in on matters relating to the watch, but I believe the "old" embedded particles could simply have been deposited there by an "old" engraving instrument. The fact that the "finding" of the scratches coincided so neatly with the "finding" of the diary is sufficient to raise very grave doubts as to the authenticity of the former.

Ben

Not quite. I've done some further checking up on this and the tests stated that the scratches themselves dated back significant 'tens of years' and not just the particles left behind.

Yes, you are right - the discovery of the watch swings both ways, doesn't it? One could say it confirms either the diary's authenticity or its fraudulence! All a matter of a opinion that though. It seems that all tests done on the watch confirm that the scratches are 'old.'

For me, they only aid the cause of the Diary being genuine.

[Omlor]

Nick,

You should do even further "checking up." Both reports done on the watch said that further, more detailed analysis would be necessary before any conclusive findings could be offered concerning the date of the scratches. Originally, the watch was made available to the scientists for only a limited amount of time.

That was over a decade ago, and the watch has never been allowed to see the inside of a lab since.

You can feel free to speculate for yourself why that might be.

Enjoying the show,

--John

[Steve Powell]

Scratch & Polish

The truth about the watch initials are that
Steven Park scratched them in himself, beginning around 1970.
He 'aged' the watch by purposely treating it roughly
and once even had someone take it to work on a building site
where it was worn inside a work boot for the day.
Of course, after treating the watch like a Whitechapel whore,
he would lovingly polish up the scratches once again.
This went on for years, it became his crystal ball,
where he could see the future of himself
as the greatest hoaxer of all time
reflected in it's tortured shell.

[Scott Nelson]

How do you "age" a watch by treating it roughly? The post above is one of the most unbelievable ramblings I've ever read on these threads.

[Victoria]

How do you "age" a watch by treating it roughly?

Extra friction to promote the look of the natural progression of age
through time. Like some people do when they try to pass off modern
copies as antiques.
In the case of the watch in question, as it was already old, I would
think it would only be to try and make the scratchings look older.
So in that case repeated polishings would make sense.

[Turkey]

The question really is prove it that the diary is genuine instead of asking to prove that it is a fake. People have it reversed. Amazing. Otherwise it's useless.

with science its upto peers to disprove a theory, with crime its upon peers to prove guilt so to prove its genuine would be very hard without a written confession turning up from James himself (in his correct handwriting to please all here).

I have tried to read all this thready but its hard going getting the facts as there is alot of rambling inbetween, I have a few intial thoughts but before that I suppose I better stick my head up and say the diary or rather the subject of the "diary" is the only suspect that has really rung true with me, however I can see some aspects to it that may or may not be true, also even if the diary itself is a fraud should that remove a man who the diary has highlightes could easily have done it be automatically removed from suspicion, is it not a little presumptios to believe that what we know now is all gospel and that it will find Jack?

so on to my questions / jumbled thoughts

1: has anyone ever thought / discussed as to the possibility that the "diary" may not have been written by James in the form we see it, but actually edited highlights of his actual diary? ie his real diary found some time after and collated into what we see now ready to sell (or whatever) and then for reasons unkown never make it to the public untill very recently.

2: if we wish to assume the diary is a fake then we should try to rationalise how it came to be and perhaps we can expand on its flaws (probably the wrong phrase). Before this diary I believe James was not a suspect at all, so how/why was he selected, are there others know who would match the critera but have no shred of evidence that could be uses as "jack"?, and given the background information thats correct about him how would an forger attain this (can this be tracked), and how hard would it be to find an outsider (from London) who also travelled to the city at the correct time.

2.1 handwriting, given the research undertaken how would they fail to get his handwriting? (re 1 perhaps they never ment it to be his but we dont know its (the books) intended purpose) or might they have thought that they could not fake it so why try and fail as that would be worse proof than just totally different handwriting?

2.2 when was all the detail in the diary released to the public, some may have been in older newspaper reports, but is there a specific part that only very recently come out, one that would help date when the forgery (if it indeed is) was done, to help identify the forger. As to me catching the forger would be the best way to finaly lay this one to rest as otherwise it still appears very convincing as a whole senario.

2.3 the physical diary and ink, if we where to make our own fake now where whould we go to buy ink and a book from that time as there cant be to many sellers, could these places have records or sales and match the two or at least the book? would the seller of the original book recognise it now (as we would assume the original contents where removed)

[Soothsayer]

Ah ha!

As I predicted in my usual brilliant though unfortunately undocumented way, this truly is The Greatest Posting of All Time!

10,000 views and counting. The volume of support for the authenticity of the Diary is becoming overwhelming and the critics have to keep falling further and further back into the dark cellar of their limited criticisms. There's only one small corner left in there to crawl to, guys - and it's already occupied by a thousand Naysayers and Doommongers (I accept I may have utterly misspelled that one) so you won't get much further.

Come into the light! It's quite nice out here.

[The Good Michael]

Soothslayer,

I think many of us who view these diary threads, do it with the same morbid curiosity as those who watch Jerry Springer and other "reality" shows. We can't help but keep an eye on the dullards who believe in the diary's authenticity, and by doing so, give thanks that they are not us. Secretly, we lurk and watch, revelling in our superiority that can often only be discerned through the device of contrast.

Cheers,

Mike