Could the Freemasons have the key?

[RivkahChaya]

I know I said I was done with this thread, but I'd like to make a general point about evidence.

You can't use evidence within evidence to prove anything. That's what is known as "begging the question," or arguing from premise. You have to use outside evidence to prove something.

Based on that general principle, you can't use evidence from within a document to date it, when the entire provenance of the document is in question. If the general provenance of a document is "the mid-1800s," then using an internal date of April, 1852 isn't wrong, but if there is no known provenance, and no other way of dating the document, an internal date is suspect. The diary is not the only example. The Book of Daniel is an excellent example, although I leave it to people to look up, rather than make a very long post.

The diary has no known provenance before 1992. It is therefore up to people who believe it was written before that to demonstrate an earlier provenance. The prima facie evidence is that it was written shortly before 1992.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

Im off of my traditional ground here, commenting on the diary, but I believe its fair to say that it is a document that claimed to solve the Ripper cases and has not done that. But, as to its relevance in any discussions here or elsewhere, its, as Caz said, as relevant for study as any other piece of the puzzle we have been presented with, much of which has no externally authenticated source.

That being said, the diary presents us with someone who claims to have killed the Canonical Group, to this day, just a theoretical list of murders that presumes a single killer. That in and of itself makes the diary very suspect for me personally. Add to that the fact we cannot prove it was written in London in 1888-89, and you have something which should be learned about by anyone serious about this study,....and then assessed by the individual for its overall value within their own belief system.

I dont see any compelling evidence that one man killed the 5 women, so for me, its not relevant in my search for answers.

Best regards

[caz]

Hi Mike,

Well I tend to include victims that Maybrick could not have killed, but I still find the diary an interesting and intriguing document.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I know I said I was done with this thread, but I'd like to make a general point about evidence.

You can't use evidence within evidence to prove anything. That's what is known as "begging the question," or arguing from premise. You have to use outside evidence to prove something.

Based on that general principle, you can't use evidence from within a document to date it, when the entire provenance of the document is in question. If the general provenance of a document is "the mid-1800s," then using an internal date of April, 1852 isn't wrong, but if there is no known provenance, and no other way of dating the document, an internal date is suspect. The diary is not the only example. The Book of Daniel is an excellent example, although I leave it to people to look up, rather than make a very long post.

The diary has no known provenance before 1992. It is therefore up to people who believe it was written before that to demonstrate an earlier provenance. The prima facie evidence is that it was written shortly before 1992.

I don't think anyone has suggested that because the diarist signs off on May 3rd 1889 that's evidence of when it was written.

We all know what is meant by provenance, but even if the evidence were entirely lacking for the diary existing prior to 1992 (it's not - the scientists put its creation to before 1970 for starters, and ink specialist Alec Voller said in 1995 that ink met paper 90+ years previously), the evidence is certainly entirely lacking for any individual faking it 'shortly before' 1992.

Therefore anyone claiming the latter will need to produce a tad more 'evidence' than simply repeating the date it emerged into daylight. Clearly, the supposed nature of the beast is that it was hidden away somewhere to await its discovery at any point from the (as yet unknown) date of its creation.

Love,

Caz
X

[RivkahChaya]

I've read the reports. I'm not impressed with the credentials of the original "scientists" who examined it, and I find the fact that no one of significance was interested in it after a cursory look to be significant in itself. The second wave of experts to look at it were generally top of their field-- debunking frauds and hoaxes. People like Joe Nickell, for example.

You just can't escape that. The first examiners were self-styled and promoted handwriting analysts, and ink experts who worked in the industry, not rare document curators from the JP Morgan library, or the Eli Lilly library at Indiana University, or experts in Victorian language. Anthe later one were all debunkers.

Usually, when a find is possible, but unknown, you get real experts examining it without bias, who make a pronouncement one way or another, and then thereafter, barring some startling new revelation, the scientific community continues to agree.

[caz]

Facts is Facts

I've read the reports. I'm not impressed with the credentials of the original "scientists" who examined it, and I find the fact that no one of significance was interested in it after a cursory look to be significant in itself. The second wave of experts to look at it were generally top of their field-- debunking frauds and hoaxes. People like Joe Nickell, for example.

You just can't escape that. The first examiners were self-styled and promoted handwriting analysts, and ink experts who worked in the industry, not rare document curators from the JP Morgan library, or the Eli Lilly library at Indiana University, or experts in Victorian language. Anthe later one were all debunkers.

Usually, when a find is possible, but unknown, you get real experts examining it without bias, who make a pronouncement one way or another, and then thereafter, barring some startling new revelation, the scientific community continues to agree.

Hi Riv,

Actually (and I thought I'd mentioned this to you before), Joe Nickell was part of the Rendell team who jointly concluded that the diary had been penned prior to 1970.

And the very first two examiners were Robert A.H. Smith, the British Museum's curator of 19th century manuscripts, and Brian Lake, specialist in 19th century literature and owner of Jarndyce, the antiquarian bookshop opposite the museum. They were both impressed with the authentic look of the thing and found nothing inconsistent with the period, while advising that forensic science would be needed to date it more precisely. (They couldn't have known how difficult that would turn out to be for the steady stream of scientists who followed.)

So you just can't escape that...

...nor indeed the fact that the scientific community continues to agree on one rather crucial aspect: nothing to date the writing as late as 1970, let alone to 'shortly before' 1992.

Sorry, but those are the facts.

And in case of any misunderstanding, those facts do not make the diary one jot more likely to be real, or historically significant, or even more 'interesting'. There is a story there whenever it was written.

So it really doesn't matter if we simply say it like it is, instead of wishing it to be more modern than any of the evidence actually indicates. Gut feelings are fine if clearly labelled as such.

Love,

Caz
X

[RivkahChaya]

Finding it "not incompatible with" an earlier date is still not claiming that it was written at the earliest date possible.

I'm waiting for someone to turn up a mention of something like Maybrick keeping a diary, or someone possessing what appears to be the diary of Jack the Ripper, or even just the diary of a murdered who was an arsenic abuser, in a letter, fanzine, newsgroup, or old film or videotape.

[Bridewell]

I Know I Said I Wouldn't But...

Clearly, the supposed nature of the beast is that it was hidden away somewhere to await its discovery at any point from the (as yet unknown) date of its creation.

Hi Caz,

I note the use of the word 'supposed', so I'm guessing you are setting out the arguments of the Diary protagonists rather than nailing your own colours too firmly to that particular mast.

Having said that, is the above not an argument from self?
Argument (1) The diary was unknown before 1992; therefore it must have been hidden away somewhere.
Argument (2) The diary was unknown before 1992; therefore it had not been in existence for any great length of time.

All we can say with certainty is that the Maybrick Diary has no provenance before 1992.

For me personally a 103 year gap in the chain of evidence has to be bridged by something more substantial than speculation about its previous whereabouts. There needs to be evidence, not just that it could have existed in 1889, but that it did. Others have pointed out that the scientific evidence is contradictory (ain't it always?!), but for me the biggest stumbling block is a common sense one:

Why did the writer use an old scrapbook with the first few pages torn out?
Was it (a) because that was his preference?
or (b) because he couldn't get hold of an unused 1888 or 1889 diary?
If (a) is thought more likely, then a credible reason has to be given for such an improbable choice by an outwardly prosperous 19th century businessman.
If (b) is thought more likely then a credible reason has to be given why James Maybrick was unable to get his hands on the relevant diary for the year(s) in which he was writing.

My conclusion is that the most likely explanation for not using a proper diary from the relevant year(s) is that the writer couldn't get hold of one, and that the most likely reason for that is that the diary was written sometime in the 20th century - and therefore not by James Maybrick.

Regards, Bridewell.

[caz]

Finding it "not incompatible with" an earlier date is still not claiming that it was written at the earliest date possible.

Who said otherwise?

I'm waiting for someone to turn up a mention of something like Maybrick keeping a diary, or someone possessing what appears to be the diary of Jack the Ripper, or even just the diary of a murdered who was an arsenic abuser, in a letter, fanzine, newsgroup, or old film or videotape.

Why would you be waiting for any such things?

I have merely been challenging the basis on which others claim the diary was written at the latest date possible - ie shortly before 1992 (which should have been a doddle for the scientists examining it that year to spot).

It seems the only basis they have for that claim is that nobody mentioned its existence prior to the first person who was willing and able to do so.

Which is precisely what we'd expect if its creator (whoever that was) left it in the best place possible for a provenance (Battlecrease) but was then unable to engineer how or when it would be discovered and by whom.

We'd have the same result whether a hoaxer hid it in 1889 or 1991.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

I note the use of the word 'supposed', so I'm guessing you are setting out the arguments of the Diary protagonists rather than nailing your own colours too firmly to that particular mast.

All I'm saying is that any hoaxer worth his salt (and expecting the diary to keep people guessing for more than five minutes after its discovery) was going to be aware of his own words on the last page about placing Sir Jim's confession somewhere it would be found after his death by 'whoever': ie leaving it to chance. Placing it in Mike Barrett's hands when the ink was barely dry, with a story about getting it from a conveniently dead mate (and a strenuous denial that it came from the very house where Maybrick himself died) would not therefore appear to have been part of the original contract - the hoaxer's masterplan if you will.

Having said that, is the above not an argument from self?
Argument (1) The diary was unknown before 1992; therefore it must have been hidden away somewhere.
Argument (2) The diary was unknown before 1992; therefore it had not been in existence for any great length of time.

There's only one logical argument as far as I am concerned: (1) The diary was unknown before 1992, therefore it is unknown how long its unknown author either had to wait, or chose to wait, for it to become known (although science puts its creation before 1970, which would suggest a wait of 20+ years).

A giant tortoise isn't any more likely to have been born recently if its existence was unknown until recently. And if the scientists can't show it to be a youngster of less than twenty, there is no reason to believe it is.

All we can say with certainty is that the Maybrick Diary has no provenance before 1992.

And there's the rub, because no handwritten confession by the ripper - genuine or faked at any time between 1889 and 1992 - could ever expect to have come with a provenance, could it? The internal claim is that it would be placed where it would one day be found - that day being unspecified, but the place implied by where the real Maybrick would have been a few days before his untimely but not unexpected death.

The same arguments would have been made had the damned thing emerged in 1970 (oh well it was written no earlier than 1969 then); 1930 (obviously faked in the late 20s); or 1900 (clearly an 1898 production to mark a decade since the murders).

For me personally a 103 year gap in the chain of evidence has to be bridged by something more substantial than speculation about its previous whereabouts. There needs to be evidence, not just that it could have existed in 1889, but that it did.

I hear you, but to go to the other extreme and claim that it didn't exist until shortly before its emergence comes with the implication that its creator not only engineered its 'discovery' but did so when the ink was barely dry, then somehow forgot to give it a remotely convincing back story, when Battlecrease was sitting there grinning and saying "Use me - please - you know it makes sense".

The old scrapbook arguments always leave me perplexed, because this 'outwardly prosperous 19th century businessman' is supposed to have been committing his murderous thoughts to paper while living a secret double life, not buying an 1888 diary in W.H.Smiths in which to record his business or social appointments, or his children's birthdays. Would the undated entries have appeared any more genuine if our hoaxer had used an actual diary with the correct year on the front?

My conclusion is that the most likely explanation for not using a proper diary from the relevant year(s) is that the writer couldn't get hold of one, and that the most likely reason for that is that the diary was written sometime in the 20th century - and therefore not by James Maybrick.

I have no problem with your reasoning here, but it doesn't make the diary any more likely to be a product of 1990 than 1970, 1950 or 1930 - still 40 years on from the events concerned.

Love,

Caz
X

[miakaal4]

The diary didn't just turn up.

From what I've read, the diary was seen by quite a few people well before 1992 but many who believe it to be a fake, have decided those people are lying. The history of the diary is discussed in the books written about it, again this is "made up" or lies to make loads of money, or whatever.
I see nothing odd about a book being shut away somewhere for decades. I myself was given three big old text books that had been shut away "somewhere" since the end of WW1, only two other people knew about them in a house of seven.

[RivkahChaya]

From what I've read, the diary was seen by quite a few people well before 1992 but many who believe it to be a fake, have decided those people are lying. The history of the diary is discussed in the books written about it, again this is "made up" or lies to make loads of money, or whatever.

OK. I'll try. Maybe you have different books, but the only things I have ever read where people say they saw it before 1992, were statements made after 1992. Do you see how that's questionable? And several of those people saw "something." Some saw a diary that could have been the diary in question, but might not have been, and at any rate, no one took picture, made photocopies, or even hand-copied a page from it, so someone saying, for the first time after 1992, "Yeah, I saw that 10 years ago," doesn't mean much.

[miakaal4]

Hi Riv. Well it may not mean much, but then many of the theories around JtR are based on stuff at least as flimsy, surely then, this "evidence" would warrant equal respect?

[Bridewell]

Evidence

Hi Riv. Well it may not mean much, but then many of the theories around JtR are based on stuff at least as flimsy, surely then, this "evidence" would warrant equal respect?

Cart before horse. Before we can describe the diary as "evidence"and "warranting respect" we need to know what it is. It's one of two things:
(i) a confession or
(ii) a fraud.
The jury is out on which of these it is, as the matter has yet to be proven one way or the other. If, but only if, it's proved genuine should it be treated as evidence. If it's a fake, it's firelighters.

[Nic1950]

The authenticity of the diary will never be proven, yes, it drew us all to it but with hindsight it would have been disappointing if it were the real thing. Before this diary turned up was there ever a suspect named James Maybrick??
The problem I have is that this diary had been around for 103 years, surely it must have passed through a few hands and if so why was it not made public?? If it had been buried somewhere or in a place where no-one would find it then I would accept the length of time it took to reach the publics attention but we are talking about one of the most notorious serial killers ever so why would anyone keep this to themselves?