Who wrote the "Diary"

[caz]

The Diary is faeries in Ireland, Nisse in Norway, and Nessie in Scotland. It is their God.

Hi GM,

Er, not really. The diary exists. I've seen it on a number of occasions and I'm not ga-ga yet.

Sorry to disappoint you.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Nice article by William Beadle... 2 parts:http://www.jamesmaybrick.org/pdf%20f...article%29.pdf

This is the two-parter I responded to at some length in the WS1888 journal.

You need to read that too if you want some balance. I don't make a case for the diary being real or anything, I merely address all the misapprehensions and so on.

On second thoughts, forget it. Balance? Silly me. What was I thinking?

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

Hi GM,

Er, not really. The diary exists. I've seen it on a number of occasions and I'm not ga-ga yet.

Sorry to disappoint you.

A journal of sorts exists. A genuine JTR diary? I don't think so... but I am just a potstirrer anyway.

Mike

[Jonathan H]

To the Good Michael

My god, that's a devastating demolition piece by Bill Beadle!

Far from being a clever fake it's a bloody lousy one, except that it deftly side-stepped some forensic mistakes made by the Hitler Diaries.

It makes sense too that if one person in the 'Diary' party claims they faked it, then another would have to up the ante by claiming it was really 'in the family' the whole time -- to keep the balloon aloft.

[caz]

To the Good Michael

My god, that's a devastating demolition piece by Bill Beadle!

Indeed, Jonathan - 'devastating' in the sense that Bill totally failed if his aim was a demolition job. Or have you not noticed the diary is still here and being discussed by some reasonably intelligent commentators? That's what some appear to find 'devastating'.

I for one would have been delighted to see Bill prove something - anything - about the diary's true age or origins, but sadly he didn't have the means. A good argument is just that; and my response examined in detail the quality of his arguments and challenged how soundly they were based.

Far from being a clever fake it's a bloody lousy one, except that it deftly side-stepped some forensic mistakes made by the Hitler Diaries.

There have been no proven 'forensic mistakes' in the twenty years since the diary emerged, or we wouldn't be having this conversation! The Hitler Diaries were exposed in double-quick time and the forger jailed. Would you have taken a chance so soon after that, with a 'bloody lousy' fake? And how long do you think you'd have been free to tell the tale or tell lie after lie about it? Don't tell me, Scotland Yard's Organised Crime Squad were in on it when the Sunday Times urged them to investigate back in 1993, and that's why nobody was ever arrested.

It makes sense too that if one person in the 'Diary' party claims they faked it, then another would have to up the ante by claiming it was really 'in the family' the whole time -- to keep the balloon aloft.

It would also make sense if the second person (Mike's estranged wife Anne - let's not be coy here about who is being accused) knew Mike had done no such thing and didn't particularly want their only daughter to be saddled with a forger for a father as well as a drunk.

These are real people, living real lives in the real world, not pawns to move about on your fantasy chessboard.

Love,

Caz
X

[Jonathan H]

To Caz

Why are you so nasty and defensive about the 'Diary'? It does you and your side no favours. That line about none so blind as those who want to believe cuts both ways.

Bill Beadle put forward a textual and historical argument as to why it's a recent fake.

You have every right to counter-argue, but instead you just say he's wrong because there are still people who believe the hoax is authentic.

Not a single example is given where he is arguably wrong.

The Turin Shroud was proved a forgery in 1988, because forensic testing confirmed the earliest primary source on the artifact which asserted that it was just a clever painting.

Yet there are still people who want to believe it is a miraculous relic, and who come up with ingenious though unconvincing arguments to support their belief.

The same can be said for the Nessie and Bigfoot hoaxes, Flying Saucers, the everybody-did-it-but-Oswald leftist wetdreaming, and so on. It does not matter about facts and evidence, or lack of, if people want to believe.

To say that real people must not be questioned, as to their integrity, plays into the hands of the con man, or con people, who use indignation as an intimidating shield to silence dissent.

Just check out the people in Roswell who now claim that their deceased relatives told them that they had handled extra-terrestrial material.

eg. Are you calling me a liar? Are you calling my saintly father a liar?? How dare you -- and without proof!

[Bridewell]

I'm not going to vote in the poll because I don't think the authorship of the diary is going to be resolved that way to anybody's satisfaction.

Leaving aside the provenance of the thing itself and the credibility of the content, I do have a problem reconciling the twin concepts of a 'disorganised' serial killer and a man who recorded his activities in a journal. They don't sit well together to my perception.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Soothsayer]

I'm not going to vote in the poll because I don't think the authorship of the diary is going to be resolved that way to anybody's satisfaction.

Leaving aside the provenance of the thing itself and the credibility of the content, I do have a problem reconciling the twin concepts of a 'disorganised' serial killer and a man who recorded his activities in a journal. They don't sit well together to my perception.

Regards, Bridewell.

Bridey,

Leaving aside the fact that there's nothing wrong with the provenance of the thing itself and there's nothing wrong with the credibility of the content, the rest of your post was fatally imbibed with essence of Argument from Personal Incredulity, which immediately weakens any case either for or against anything!

What you find personally 'unexpected' has no bearing whatsoever on the truth or otherwise of a case ...

Cheers,

Soothy

[caz]

To Caz

Why are you so nasty and defensive about the 'Diary'? It does you and your side no favours. That line about none so blind as those who want to believe cuts both ways.

Maybe because all I see here are the same years-old non-arguments, misapprehensions and sheer inventions that continue to fail in their mission to kick the diary to death. What do you think my 'side' is, Jonathan? What do you think I 'want' to believe? I don't do belief; I wait for the evidence to prove something, and if it doesn't I don't fret about it. All the evidence to date leads me to conclude - as I've said a dozen times - that the diary was written before 1970. But I will be happy to revise that conclusion if any startling new evidence to the contrary were to emerge. I don't 'side' with mere opinion.

Bill Beadle put forward a textual and historical argument as to why it's a recent fake.

You have every right to counter-argue, but instead you just say he's wrong because there are still people who believe the hoax is authentic.

Now I could be 'nasty' here but I'll just ask where the hell you got this from? Do you not read any of my posts properly? For the third or fourth time, I wrote a whole sodding article to 'counter-argue' Bill's (which he originally wrote years ago, when his information was incomplete and not as accurate as it could have been) and if you had read my complete response you would have seen for yourself that I didn't say his conclusion was 'wrong' or that he was wrong 'because there are still people who believe the hoax is authentic'. That's totally disingenuous and it insults your own intelligence as much as mine. If Bill were to write the same article today (despite congratulating me on a well-argued and informed response), I would only repeat that the evidence I have seen does not support a post-1970 money-making hoax. In short, it's got bugger all to do with what other people may 'still' believe.

Believe whatever makes you happy, Jonathan.

Love,

Caz
X

[Jonathan H]

Wow what hostility and nothing addressed.

You have enough hostility about this hoax to blow the roof.

There must be some complicated backstory to trigger such bile which I have luckily missed.

[Bridewell]

Leaving Aside

Bridey,

Leaving aside the fact that there's nothing wrong with the provenance of the thing itself and there's nothing wrong with the credibility of the content, the rest of your post was fatally imbibed with essence of Argument from Personal Incredulity, which immediately weakens any case either for or against anything!

What you find personally 'unexpected' has no bearing whatsoever on the truth or otherwise of a case ...

Cheers,

Soothy

What I said was:

"Leaving aside the provenance of the thing itself and the credibility of the content..."

As you can see, Soothsayer, I made no comment on the provenance of the diary or the credibility of the content. I carefully avoided doing so because of the criticism which inevitably ensues from one side or the other.

Note to self: Don't bother posting on diary threads. They're not worth the hassle and aggravation which inevitably results.

Regards, Bridewell

[Phil Carter]

Hello Caroline,

Since this thread was started, a few years ago, my position has not changed. I dont know who wrote it and leave it for others more versed than I to make comment as to the above. However, I would say, after having read every book available on the subject, including your own brilliant offering (the best of the lot imho), that I can see much reason for your conclusion re date of conception. (pre 1970) Some against too perhaps, but far from being an expert in this area, I would be on shaky ground discussing it here. Instead I turn to your expertise.

I would like to ask you two questions if I may?

Given a pre 1970 conception, how do you think this ties in with pre-1970 Ripperology, literarily and knowledge wise?

We are aware of the falsies made up or introduced in the field before and or around this time. We know that previously, McCormick was a contributor to laying down made up 'facts' (as did Knight/Sickert a little later). Do you personally see any feasable involvement from McCormick himself in connection with a pre-1970 conception?

A conclusion I have come to is an historically based intelligence and knowledgable mind is involved behind this conception. I can only say that is the gut feeling I get. Without expert knowledge I again add.
I also feel there are people alive today who know when, where and why this was done. I doubt that the truth will ever come out either, unless someone decides that honesty, whatever the fall-out, is of more historical worth than dishonesty. We can but hope.

Thank you for your eventual considerations to this very innocent intentioned post.

Best wishes

Phil

[ChrisGeorge]

We are aware of the falsies made up or introduced in the field before and or around this time. We know that previously, McCormick was a contributor to laying down made up 'facts' (as did Knight/Sickert a little later). Do you personally see any feasable involvement from McCormick himself in connection with a pre-1970 conception?

Hi Phil

If I might answer this question, I feel it's extremely unlikely that McCormick had anything to do with the production of the Maybrick Diary. There is nothing in McCormick's writings that even hints at James Maybrick. Indeed, as far as Ripperology previous to 1992 is concerned, Maybrick was completely off the radar screen. Donald McCormick, if you will, was barking down other avenues.

Another point to be mentioned is that the late Melvin Harris, who was completely down on McCormick as a fabricator of Ripper "facts" apparently did not think that McCormick was behind the Diary, just that the Diary was one of a piece with the types of lies that McCormick manufactured. See Harris's "The Maybrick Hoax: Donald McCormick's Legacy."

Best regards

Chris

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

Thanks for the reply, these are my uneducated conclusions re McCormick too- am in agreement. I suspect Caroline may answer in the same fashion too.

the other question I asked is a little different, perhaps. Pre 1970 knowledge Ripperwise was pretty specialist. Maybrick even more so?

Best wishes

Phil

[caz]

Hi Phil

Thank you for the kind words once more about Ripper Diary. I like to trade kind words for kind words (never mind individual opinions), so you and I are never likely to fall out for long.

Anyone who detects 'bile' in my responses needs to check their own attitude. I only reflect like for like. That's why Bill Beadle was so thoroughly nice about my response to his article. No 'bile' from either of us at any stage.

Given a pre 1970 conception, how do you think this ties in with pre-1970 Ripperology, literarily and knowledge wise?

I'm afraid this is not my personal area of 'expertise' (or should I say interest?). I bow to specialists like Evans, Skinner, Begg and Fido - but of course even their conclusions differ to a great extent! I do struggle with which post-1970 books Barrett and chums (for I fear we are stuck with them in any thoroughly modern setting) are meant to have used for the finished product and why. But I agree with Chris that it seems very unlikely that McCormick had a finger in this particular pie. Melvin Harris would have had his guts for garters had that really been the case. He would have sniffed out the connection between him and Barrett if there had been one to sniff, instead of getting stuck in the groove of his 'nest of forgers', whose identities he was too scared to reveal because he must have known the proof was entirely lacking.

I also feel there are people alive today who know when, where and why this was done. I doubt that the truth will ever come out either, unless someone decides that honesty, whatever the fall-out, is of more historical worth than dishonesty. We can but hope.

I only wish that were the case, Phil. Mike Barrett absolutely knows how he came by the diary and when. Others alive today may know more about where it was before March 1992. But there is no evidence that anyone alive, including Mike, knows when, where or why it was written, or by whom. I believe that is why nobody has been able to lay it to rest and that continues to intrigue me.

Love,

Caz
X