The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[rjpalmer]

As Palmer's speciality is to live in the past and dredge up posts from the dawn of diary time, to highlight inconsistences between then and now [due to new information sticking its oar in - down with that sort of thing], or to argue in the here and now against speculation that the poster has long since modified or abandoned, I'm not going to encroach on his familiar turf.

I prefer living in the present and addressing what I know to be a poster's current thinking.

Well, I'm finally done with you, Caz, and will now join the ranks of others who debated with you at length but finally put you on mute. The above utterly misrepresents what I was actually saying. Very much par for the course.

I don't care one iota if someone has changed their mind. Changing one's mind can be a good thing. I've changed my mind on many points, as the archive can attest. No shame in that.

What I was actually objecting to was being lectured about Anne Graham (and the supposed idiocy of those of us who think she could have conspired with Barrett) by people who fell (either entirely or partially) for her nonsense 25 years ago. If they were wrong about her then, they can be wrong about her now--that's all I was suggesting--not that you are willing to acknowledge that.

It has sod-all to do with people changing their minds--it's about a people with a history of misjudgment now implying that they have their thumb firmly on Anne's pulse and portraying the opposing view as moronic or misguided.

And how can someone not be "living in the past" when it comes to Anne? Have you spoken to her anytime in the past 22 years? Has she said anything at all about the diary since 2002 or 2003? If not, then all you can do is judge her by her previous bizarre behavior like everyone else--not that you are willing to lift that veil, since doing so would so obviously challenge your current beliefs.

Goodbye. There's no use in communicating further as you'll never change my mind, nor I yours.

[Iconoclast]

Goodbye. There's no use in communicating further as you'll never change my mind, nor I yours.

I think it is probably more or less a nailed-on truism that the identity of Jack the Ripper will never be known so conclusively that debate will stop raging.

In truth, all we have is the debate because the possibility of unequivocally conclusive evidence coming to light is now very very unlikely indeed.

Whether it is DNA or potentially-Victorian scrapbooks or pocket watches with candidates' idiosyncratic signatures inside, there will always be someone who says:

"The hoaxer could have been the first to see the initials on Kelly's wall so they tell us nothing" or equivalent versions depending upon the area of the case being discussed.

We are doomed to discuss it forever so we may as well get that clear in our heads and keep it up say I!

Ike

[C. F. Leon]

This is sort of off-topic directly, but has tangetcial connection: Hoax or not, old or new, PRIOR to the discovery of the diary (?1992), was James Maybrick EVER mentioned as a serious Ripper suspect by ANYONE?

My apologies if this has been answered before.

[Lombro2]

No, he was not a publicized, serious suspect and maybe not even a suspect at all just like with today's cases being solved with familial DNA where it's someone who was never on the radar.

Of course, some Maybrickians believe he was taken seriously enough as a Ripper suspect to be taken out on the side by his brothers and fellow lodge brothers in the Masonic Order. Bruce Robinson said he was poisoned with laudanum by Michael and Edwin and cited a witness who overheard them.

Florence Maybrick appears to have been framed for some reason by Michael with the help of the servants.

[caz]

I think it is probably more or less a nailed-on truism that the identity of Jack the Ripper will never be known so conclusively that debate will stop raging.

In truth, all we have is the debate because the possibility of unequivocally conclusive evidence coming to light is now very very unlikely indeed.

Whether it is DNA or potentially-Victorian scrapbooks or pocket watches with candidates' idiosyncratic signatures inside, there will always be someone who says:

"The hoaxer could have been the first to see the initials on Kelly's wall so they tell us nothing" or equivalent versions depending upon the area of the case being discussed.

We are doomed to discuss it forever so we may as well get that clear in our heads and keep it up say I!

Ike

I'm just catching up with the last few posts to this thread, which explains my late arrival.

I do wonder what would have happened if the old book had been presented by Mike Barrett in April 1992 with no pages removed; handwriting that resembled Maybrick's [not someone schooled in the 1930s as Melvin Harris opined, which would have knocked out the Barretts on day one if people had considered him to be the ultimate authority]; no controversial expressions to pick over for the next thirty years; no provable errors of fact that not even a deranged serial killer could possibly have made; ink that was not found to be 'freely soluble'; perfect spelling, grammar and punctuation throughout, giving a simplified narrative with no hidden or unexplained clues, or room for interpretation; and anything else I haven't thought of.

I suspect it would still have been viewed as a deeply suspect document - a 'more sophisticated forgery' than the Hitler Diaries, being the natural inclination, or at best 'inconclusive'. And it wouldn't prove Maybrick was the ripper in any case.

Is there anything that the real JtR could have written in his own private diary, that would have amounted to proof of his guilt, whether it emerged shortly after his last murder or was only discovered in 1992?

What I'm trying to say, but not doing a very good job of it, is that the diary itself isn't evidence for Maybrick either being Jack or not being Jack. Makes no difference if it's put on a shelf labelled 'shabby wet weekend hoaxes', or 'could do better', or 'really rather good', or 'we just can't shake it'.

I wonder which shelf Albert's watch would have been put on if it had been the only Maybrick 'confession' to emerge, in the form of a few letters crudely scratched onto the gold surface? Someone decided that James Maybrick was going to be Jack, and his 'confession' - true or false, real or fake - didn't need to be in the form of a diary at all.

Or did it?

If a Maybrick confession, in any form, could prove nothing about the real James, then Barrett's confessions, in any form, prove nothing about the real Mike.

No auction ticket, you see.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Well, I'm finally done with you, Caz, and will now join the ranks of others who debated with you at length but finally put you on mute. The above utterly misrepresents what I was actually saying. Very much par for the course.

I don't care one iota if someone has changed their mind. Changing one's mind can be a good thing. I've changed my mind on many points, as the archive can attest. No shame in that.

What I was actually objecting to was being lectured about Anne Graham (and the supposed idiocy of those of us who think she could have conspired with Barrett) by people who fell (either entirely or partially) for her nonsense 25 years ago. If they were wrong about her then, they can be wrong about her now--that's all I was suggesting--not that you are willing to acknowledge that.

I'm not sure anyone but Feldman could accurately be described as having fallen for Anne's 'nonsense'. Up until 2004, there was only either Anne's unprovable 'nonsense' or Mike's unbelievable 'NoNsENsE' for people to consider, which is why the mystery trundled on and no firm conclusions could be reached. Was there any truth to be had from either of the Barretts? It was left open - because it had to be. Keith Skinner tried hard, bless him, to find independent evidential support, outside of the Barretts and Grahams, for their stories. My own experience tells me he is inherently incapable of 'falling' for any story with only the storyteller's word for it being true. So it's a bit rich to see this kind of nonsense coming from someone who fell hook, line and sinker for the unsupported word of the serial liar who was Mike Barrett.

It has sod-all to do with people changing their minds--it's about a people with a history of misjudgment now implying that they have their thumb firmly on Anne's pulse and portraying the opposing view as moronic or misguided.

Okay, so Feldman and Melvin Harris misjudged people. Feldman misjudged Anne, which means he can't be trusted not to have misjudged the electricians too. He assumed that because money talked to him in a dozen different languages, it did the same for everyone. Harris misjudged the Barretts, Devereux and Citizen Kane, regarding the respective roles he believed they played, whichever way we look at it.

Goodbye. There's no use in communicating further as you'll never change my mind, nor I yours.

That's probably quite true.

But more to the point is whether or not we can change our own minds when we learn new information that is a potential game changer.

Arguments, which change nothing about the evidence, have a tendency not to change minds.

[Lombro2]

We have to frame that one, Caz.

Arguments, which change nothing about the evidence, have a tendency not to change minds.

Arguments are just rhetorical exercises as in a debate club.

You’re not even supposed to care which side you take or are given.

But when you get fundamentalist and you have no evidence, you have to resort to argument and give it a lot of weight it doesn’t have. That way you can score propaganda points when you can’t win on the battlefield because you have no bullets and your opponent can deflect your pop gun arguments.

[caz]

And yet, the few of us putting evidence, which has continued to increase over time, above argument based on beliefs that were fixed from the start, are the ones recently described as 'gaslighting ghouls'.

It's what makes RJ Palmer's posts so unintentionally valuable to these discussions. He said it all when he said:

There's no use in communicating further as you'll never change my mind, nor I yours.

I presume he once thought that by communicating to me what was in his mind, it might make me forget the evidence of my own eyes and ears, and see things his way.

A bit like a hypnotist saying: "You are getting sleepy, very, very sleepy. When you awake, you will see Mike Barrett emerging from the auction sale with the ledger that would become the Maybrick Diary in the blink of an eye."

Love,

Caz
X

[Scott Nelson]

Arguments, which change nothing about the evidence, have a tendency not to change minds.

No doubt this is true in the general sense of arguments. But how the evidence is being interpreted and is it really evidence define the types of arguments put forth.

In the case of the sad Maybrick diary affair, what constitutes 'evidence' or not of anything is open season to anyone who wants to join in the game of speculation for their personal twists and turns. This, I think, is because the early investigations were incomplete and personalities got in the way of more comprehensive follow-up investigations.

So someone like me can come along and propose what I believe may have happened and I wouldn't necessarily be wrong, it would just have to remain unproven. But I'd still be accused of gaslighting or some equally nefarious activity.

If one has to stick to the 'facts' as they see them, just make sure they are facts.

If anyone knows any differently, I'd say the current state of the diary affair isn't advancing any further

[Scott Nelson]

The above was stated more concisely by Mark (Lombro2) in post #727

Thanks Mark.

[rjpalmer]

No doubt this is true in the general sense of arguments. But how the evidence is being interpreted and is it really evidence define the types of arguments put forth.

In the case of the sad Maybrick diary affair, what constitutes 'evidence' or not of anything is open season to anyone who wants to join in the game of speculation for their personal twists and turns. This, I think, is because the early investigations were incomplete and personalities got in the way of more comprehensive follow-up investigations.

So someone like me can come along and propose what I believe may have happened and I wouldn't necessarily be wrong, it would just have to remain unproven. But I'd still be accused of gaslighting or some equally nefarious activity.

If one has to stick to the 'facts' as they see them, just make sure they are facts.

If anyone knows any differently, I'd say the current state of the diary affair isn't advancing any further

Hi Scott.

Do you notice anything about your theory that Billy Graham and Tony Devereux wrote the diary?

Caroline Brown never attacks it.

Why?

Because she's not intimidated by it. It's not worth her time of day.

By contrast, every second post she raves about "Palmer" and "Palmer's" theories.

Why is that?

She constantly asks why anyone would challenge the Hitler Diaries since they are an obvious fake.

She smirks at the idea of someone bothering to challenge the Lewis Carroll theory. Another obvious dud, so why bother with it?

So why is she nearly hysterical when I suggest that Anne Graham wrote the Maybrick Diary and exerts so much effort trying to dismiss the idea as ridiculous?

Inquiring minds want to know.

RP