Special Announcement

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Completely agree. It’s modern and not very good.; the repetition and constant “the bitch” outbursts etc.

Should have chucked in a couple of "foresooth"'s and a "verily".....

[Iconoclast]

Completely agree. It’s modern and not very good.; the repetition and constant “the bitch” outbursts etc.

But would you stake your lives on this conclusion, gentlemen, or is this just idle musing?

[Kattrup]

And that’s how I feel. I’ve read countless genuine Victorian works, including a few diaries, over the years and they have a Victorian feel that the Diary doesn’t have.

Completely agree. It’s modern and not very good.; the repetition and constant “the bitch” outbursts etc.

[Iconoclast]

I love this, Ike. Well done. "Challenged" by being forced to write microscopically on metal with a rusty pin, Maybrick is nonetheless able to make a fair representation of his 'public' hand, but while writing with an ordinary pen on paper in a ledger his handwriting for some inexplicable reason no longer resembles any known exemplar of his 'public' hand. The logic is obscure but unassailable, and you've got me convinced. However, it does make me wonder why we ever bother to employ document examiners...

Oh God, does everything need to be disagreed with, Roger??????

The hand I write with privately to myself is completely different to the formal hand I wrote with when I wrote things (those days are for most of us long gone but they did once exist).

Had I attempted to write my signature into both a public and a private document (twenty years ago when public was commonplace), even though the writing all around it would be very very different (so different you would undoubtedly conclude that they were not from the same author), my signature would be exactly the same in both documents. I would not write my signature sloppily just because it was in a private document because my signature is a unique thing which is not open to interpretation depending upon my audience.

So Maybrick writes differently in the scrapbook than in his letters, but his signature in the watch and on his marriage certificate remain the same. Of course they do. Yours would too.

Fish - Here's my take on the aunt. No one has provided any historical evidence that Maybrick ever referred to his wife's European godmother as her auntie--or even that Florrie Maybrick was particularly close to this woman. Dr. Hopper's statement recounts Maybrick referring to her as Florrie's godmother. We are stuck in the shadowy world of he could have called the woman her aunt. Just as Maybrick could have hallucinated that a fried tennis ball tastes sweet and pleasurable. By contrast, there is good circumstantial evidence that Addison was thinking of James Baillie Knight’s aunt in his opening statement, and this "aunt" error was repeated in subsequent secondary sources--including the book Mike Barrett named as one of his primary sources. It's not a howitzer, perhaps, but it's another indication, among many, that there is no reason for me to take this hoax seriously.

So assimilate the conclusions, Roger. You are forming an opinion based upon certain assumptions about what is likely and what may to you appear obvious. Your not taking the hoax seriously is a concern because you are basically saying, "I will not let this possibility in".

You're in company, of course, here on the Casebook, so I understand that that tends to breed false confidence. Even cockiness with some posters.

Ike

[Kattrup]

But 'known about' by whom, and how much earlier than January 1997, Kattrup? Who knew it existed, and also knew all that it contained, before a version of it reached the internet, more than a year after it was sworn, and possibly more like two years?

As far as is known, Mike dictated it to Alan Gray who typed it up for Mike to check through and sign. Mike had injured his hand and wasn't up to typing much on his own at the best of times, so all that at least makes sense. It was what Mike dictated to Alan that must have made little sense to Melvin, and was nothing like he was hoping for or expecting. I do think Melvin genuinely believed he knew who was in his 'nest of forgers', and that Mike would be able to deliver the goods, but what he got was a total mare's nest instead. He must have needed a little lie down after that - or a long one.

Who knew about it? Well, thousands of people? I don’t know how many listeners Radio Merseyside had in September 1995, but it must have been more than a handful.

Who knew what it contained? The radio host mentioned copies of it about, so that alone makes it sound like quite a few more than just MB, Alan Gray and Melvin Harris.
Keith Skinner suspects MB would have told various people about it, do you agree with that?


I still don’t understand how Melvin Harris could suppress the affidavit, as you’ve stated he did.

[Fisherman]

They’ll probably say, ‘You’re bound to say that because not only is he a diary defender, he’s also a closet Lechmerian.’

Gareth Williams once made the point that although there may be no single error or anachronism that proves the diary to be a modern fake, the cumulative effect of the modern-sounding language convinces him that it is. (I hope I’m not misrepresenting him.)

And that’s how I feel. I’ve read countless genuine Victorian works, including a few diaries, over the years and they have a Victorian feel that the Diary doesn’t have. Not very scientific, I know, but that’s where I stand on it.

That reflects my sentiments too. I have not wasted much time over it, and I will not do so forthwith either. But Iīm genuinely amazed that others do.

[Fisherman]

Weren't you the one who found the Press report concerning Charles Cross running over a little boy, that shows Lechmere using the name Cross before?!

After that report, we hadn't heared the argument of Lechmere giving another name again, after 10 years of claiming that no other instance at all had Lechmere used the name Cross officially.


A true and brilliant find that shut those big mouths up.


The Baron

Yes, that was a blow, I can tell you that!

-Another case of violent death where seemingly Charles Lechmere calls himself Cross, as opposed to the other 100 + occasions when he uses Lechmere in his authority contacts, adding to the red warning flags.

-Another case where he did not give his address to the inquest, whereas all the other witnesses did (except one man with no fixed address who gave his brothers address), adding to the suggestion that he aimed to keep incognito.

-And a case where there was suspicion that the carman had acted recklessly, adding to the possibility that he was perhaps not the good and benevolent man that some will have it.

Yes, Mr Baron, that really, really shut those big mouths up!

[rjpalmer]

By the same token, you cannot call the writing in the watch 'writing' as such. If any of us attempted to 'write' in the back of a watch the way Maybrick did, we would face the same metal-related challenges. I think Maybrick did a very good job with his signature under the circumstances. I think if he'd attempted a few lines of the scrapbook, he'd have faced a mountain of issues (not least the lack of space).

I love this, Ike. Well done. "Challenged" by being forced to write microscopically on metal with a rusty pin, Maybrick is nonetheless able to make a fair representation of his 'public' hand, but while writing with an ordinary pen on paper in a ledger his handwriting for some inexplicable reason no longer resembles any known exemplar of his 'public' hand. The logic is obscure but unassailable, and you've got me convinced. However, it does make me wonder why we ever bother to employ document examiners...

As I said earlier, with Diary belief, "it's not damned if you do, and not damned if you don't." Anything goes! We simply have no tools at our disposal that allow us to conclude this is a hoax. "For there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so."

Fish - Here's my take on the aunt. No one has provided any historical evidence that Maybrick ever referred to his wife's European godmother as her auntie--or even that Florrie Maybrick was particularly close to this woman. Dr. Hopper's statement recounts Maybrick referring to her as Florrie's godmother. We are stuck in the shadowy world of he could have called the woman her aunt. Just as Maybrick could have hallucinated that a fried tennis ball tastes sweet and pleasurable. By contrast, there is good circumstantial evidence that Addison was thinking of James Baillie Knight’s aunt in his opening statement, and this "aunt" error was repeated in subsequent secondary sources--including the book Mike Barrett named as one of his primary sources. It's not a howitzer, perhaps, but it's another indication, among many, that there is no reason for me to take this hoax seriously.

[The Baron]

And that's how I feel. I've read countless genuine Victorian works, including a few diaries, over the years and they have a Victorian feel that the Diary doesn,t have. Not very scientific, I know, but that's where I stand on it.

Weren't you the one who found the Press report concerning Charles Cross running over a little boy, that shows Lechmere using the name Cross before?!

After that report, we hadn't heared the argument of Lechmere giving another name again, after 10 years of claiming that no other instance at all had Lechmere used the name Cross officially.


A true and brilliant find that shut those big mouths up.


That with your comment above is the real MrBarnett researcher.

We all know the Diary is a hoax.


The Baron

[MrBarnett]

Yeah, I know that. But try to tell the others...!

Itīs much the same as being a real Lechmereian and making any sort of point. Regardless if the point made bolsters or goes against the suggestion that Lechmere was the killer, the reaction is always the same: "You only say that to support your theory!" Then, if I say that the point in question is actually in conflict with the Lechmere theory, the answer becomes: "You only say THAT to support your theory!"

Anyway, I will try to help out: HEY!! MR BARNETT IS NOT AND NEVER WAS A DIARY DEFENDER. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE IS DISALLOWED TO MAKE THE POINT THAT YOU CAN CALL WOMEN WHO ARE NOT YOUR AUNTS "AUNTS" ANYWAY!!

Now, how do you think this will turn out? Will people say "Ooops, we got that wrong, so sorry!"? Or will they go "So Fisherman is also a Diary Defender? Get him!!"

Letīs see.

They’ll probably say, ‘You’re bound to say that because not only is he a diary defender, he’s also a closet Lechmerian.’

Gareth Williams once made the point that although there may be no single error or anachronism that proves the diary to be a modern fake, the cumulative effect of the modern-sounding language convinces him that it is. (I hope I’m not misrepresenting him.)

And that’s how I feel. I’ve read countless genuine Victorian works, including a few diaries, over the years and they have a Victorian feel that the Diary doesn’t have. Not very scientific, I know, but that’s where I stand on it.

[Fisherman]

You could call me a ‘closet Lechmerian’ with more accuracy than a ‘Diary Defender’. ;-)

Yeah, I know that. But try to tell the others...!

Itīs much the same as being a real Lechmereian and making any sort of point. Regardless if the point made bolsters or goes against the suggestion that Lechmere was the killer, the reaction is always the same: "You only say that to support your theory!" Then, if I say that the point in question is actually in conflict with the Lechmere theory, the answer becomes: "You only say THAT to support your theory!"

Anyway, I will try to help out: HEY!! MR BARNETT IS NOT AND NEVER WAS A DIARY DEFENDER. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE IS DISALLOWED TO MAKE THE POINT THAT YOU CAN CALL WOMEN WHO ARE NOT YOUR AUNTS "AUNTS" ANYWAY!!

Now, how do you think this will turn out? Will people say "Ooops, we got that wrong, so sorry!"? Or will they go "So Fisherman is also a Diary Defender? Get him!!"

Letīs see.

[MrBarnett]

You are simply getting what you deserve, you diary defender you! Wasnīt it George W Bush who said "Youīre either with us, or you're against us"?

I never had him down as a ripperologist, but Iīm prepared to stand corrected.

You could call me a ‘closet Lechmerian’ with more accuracy than a ‘Diary Defender’. ;-)

[Iconoclast]

dont worry it is. on both counts. its just the Diary Defenders are up to their silly little tricks again.
or is that Dairy Defenders? milking this silly cow for all its worth.

milk it baby

I'd really like it if you could please put names to the Diary Defenders?

Are you quite certain they are just people who come to these boards in order to play 'silly little tricks'? Or is this just opinion?

What do you mean by 'milking the diary for all its worth'? Do you mean, perpetuating a proven modern hoax for financial gain? If so, do the rules of the Casebook permit such accusations to be made, or implied? And what financial gain have I ever made out of it?

I doubt I will get direct answers from you to any of these questions but perhaps you could join forces with Lord O, RJ, Observer, The Baron, Kattrup, Trevor Marriott, etc., who share your certainty and put together a collective response which - if slanderous - can be formally reviewed by Admin.

You are all entitled to your beliefs of course but I just do not like this occasional undercurrent of seedy innuendo that people who do not agree with you are basically crooks and morally bankrupt. Fortunately, I actually - deep down - don't give a ****, but other people will, I'm sure. Caroline Morris (as was) and Keith Skinner regularly receive sideways slaps in this way and it's frankly disgraceful. As usual, it is not evidenced either.

I'm sure I speak on behalf of every poster on the Casebook who has the misfortune to post something which does not chime with your tunnel-vision and your dreadfully superficial arguments which apparently - in your world - 'prove' the scrapbook to be a hoax.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Well, you've just seriously undermined Erobitha's argument for the hidden signature on the watch, eh mate?

I'm familiar with the old saying "damned if you do, and damned if you don't," but in Diary belief it is "not damned if you do, and not damned if you don't." If the writing supposedly looks like Maybrick's signature it is wonderful evidence; if it doesn't look anything like Maybrick's handwriting it proves nothing! Sounds like you're once again doing the elbow bump with the non-falsifiability hypothesis, Ike. But then, maybe Maybrick had a 'private' handwriting for paper, and a 'public' handwriting for metal? "The medium is the message."

Again, selective interpretation of the facts attempts to befuddle the case. As James Maybrick's signature in the watch is a genuinely close analogue to that on his marriage certificate, I would say that there is nothing about the watch which would damage in any way the suggestion that we do not have examples of Maybrick's handwriting when writing for his own eyes in the scrapbook. They are two entirely different artefacts for writing on or in.

By the same token, you cannot call the writing in the watch 'writing' as such. If any of us attempted to 'write' in the back of a watch the way Maybrick did, we would face the same metal-related challenges. I think Maybrick did a very good job with his signature under the circumstances. I think if he'd attempted a few lines of the scrapbook, he'd have faced a mountain of issues (not least the lack of space).

Ike

[Fisherman]

And here was me thinking this was a thread to discuss whether the Great Orz’s recent Great discovery was proof positive that the diary was a modern fake. Duh!

You are simply getting what you deserve, you diary defender you! Wasnīt it George W Bush who said "Youīre either with us, or you're against us"?

I never had him down as a ripperologist, but Iīm prepared to stand corrected.