The Diary

[stevey]

Um, not really, nope. I'm pretty clueless to be honest. Ha ha (underlined)

I agree that it's possible the diary was referring to a Poste House in London and not one in Liverpool though. But after reading all that about the knife, the cigarette case and the tin matchbox appearing one after the other (the same as in that book which was mentioned) only strengthened my belief even more that the diary has to be a modern hoax.

[Soothsayer]

Hi,

I must say I have always wondered about the FM on the wall. I can also see the word MAY on Mary's right leg. Spooky!

The handwriting has pretty much nailed it for me though.

I could be wrong, but wasn't there a preservative found in the ink which wasn't produced until the 1970's proving it was a modern forgery?

Will read up on the Poste House when I get round to it. Ta.

Hi Stevey,

Did you get anywhere with that whole Poste House anachronism?

[stevey]

Hi,

I must say I have always wondered about the FM on the wall. I can also see the word MAY on Mary's right leg. Spooky!

The handwriting has pretty much nailed it for me though.

I could be wrong, but wasn't there a preservative found in the ink which wasn't produced until the 1970's proving it was a modern forgery?

Will read up on the Poste House when I get round to it. Ta.

[Soothsayer]

Hi there,

Mike Barrett admitted he hoaxed it
The ink has been scientifically proven to be modern.
The handwriting in the diary doesn't match Maybricks handwriting in the will or marriage certificate.
The Poste House didn't exist
There's no record of the 'FM' on Mary Kelly's wall etc, etc.

These are just some of the things i can remember off the top of my head what i've read. Yet people making money from it are still able to prevent it being exposed as an hoax?

How do they manage to refute all that? Especially the scientific evidence.

Hi Steve,

Well:

Michael Barrett immediately retracted his confession, which appears to have been motivated by strong emotional circumstances.

If the ink has been proven to be modern, then it's game, set, and match - so you need to check your facts re that one, I suspect.

The handwriting issue has been long disputed, and remains a major inconsistency in the forger's work, without yet finally nailing it.

The 'Poste House' anachronism for many people is a major flaw. For others, it is not the certain flaw we need to be convinced of the diary's fraud (see the 'Incontrovertible ...' thread.

The 'FM' on the wall is the source of huge debate with people seeing them, seeing them but saying it's all blood, and plain not seeing them at all.

Overall, although the diary has a series of weaknesses, it also has strengths, and ultimately no one single incontrovertible flaw which has yet compelled it to the wastebin (though, of course, it was in there 16 years ago for many people on this site).

[stevey]

Hi there,

Mike Barrett admitted he hoaxed it
The ink has been scientifically proven to be modern.
The handwriting in the diary doesn't match Maybricks handwriting in the will or marriage certificate.
The Poste House didn't exist
There's no record of the 'FM' on Mary Kelly's wall etc, etc.

These are just some of the things i can remember off the top of my head what i've read. Yet people making money from it are still able to prevent it being exposed as an hoax?

How do they manage to refute all that? Especially the scientific evidence.

[Graham]

Hi John,

There's a wonderful Hogarth[?] cartoon depicting two farmers disputing ownership of a cow. One is pulling it by the head, the other by the tail.

In the middle is a lawyer milking the cow.

I feel a certain resonance concerning the "Diary" situation.

Regards,

Simon

You got it dead right, Simon!

Graham

[Simon Wood]

Hi John,

There's a wonderful Hogarth[?] cartoon depicting two farmers disputing ownership of a cow. One is pulling it by the head, the other by the tail.

In the middle is a lawyer milking the cow.

I feel a certain resonance concerning the "Diary" situation.

Regards,

Simon

[Omlor]

Simon,

"Ka-ching!"

--J.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stevey,

Because there's still money to be made in preventing the "Diary" from being exposed as a hoax.

Regards,

Simon

[stevey]

If there are so many errors in the diary, can someone explain why it still hasn't been proven to be hoax, please?

[Simon Owen]

Hi Mike,

No, the diary has never been proven to be a hoax.

Cheers

How much more proof do you need , given all the errors in the work ?

[Graham]

"So what were you doing every evening between 1987 and 1992, Mr Hunch?"

Honing the fine art of piss-taking, actually....

Cheers,

Ida Gesstit

[Soothsayer]

Was there a Diary supposed to be written by Maybrick, then? Blimey, this is a turn-up for the book and no mistake. Mmmm, sounds interesting. Can anyone tell me more?

Regards,

Ivor Hunch

It's hard to know for sure Mr Hunch - probably not if the majority on this Casebook are to be believed .. pretty well anyone other than Maybrick, in fact.

Criminal profilers will tell you that felons can't resist coming back to the scenes of their crimes, or worming their way into the investigation. Maybe our forger is actually one of us!

So what were you doing every evening between 1987 and 1992, Mr Hunch?

[Graham]

Was there a Diary supposed to be written by Maybrick, then? Blimey, this is a turn-up for the book and no mistake. Mmmm, sounds interesting. Can anyone tell me more?

Regards,

Ivor Hunch

[Victor]

Hi Mike,

No, the diary has never been proven to be a hoax.

Cheers

It depends upon your definition of "Proof"