Could the Freemasons have the key?

[Robert]

Hi Observer

Bill and Ben actually smoked the Little Weed.That's why they talk like that.

Ah, slobalob.

[Observer]

Hi Robert, you seem to be on the ball regarding showbiz scandal....err I'll rephrase that. You didn't work for the News of the World did you? heh heh. Seriously though Caz those celebtities are falling like flies. Iv'e heard Bill and Ben are being cited by the Little Weed. And I'll bet the Little House knows something about it don't you? Enough, It's a serious matter.

Regards

Observer

[Robert]

Sub judice, Caz.

[caz]

How about that Kev out of Corrie then? I didn't see that one coming!

Love,

Caz
X

[Observer]

Old Jimmy Saville gets a fair old outing on this web-site does he not? Now then now then ayeayeaye girls and guys hahaha.

[miakaal4]

Hi Caz, your Saville analogy is very thought provoking and interesting. Of course it all hinges on who really wrote the book and why. But lets not forget that if, and going on expert analysis, a proberble if, it was written -at the time-then what stopped it from being destroyed? If it was always a semi useless forgery, that would be exposed by any reputable Victorian rag, why not dump it? Or if a genuine confession, was it potentially too valuable to destroy? Could someone blackmail the Masons with it? You see I find it hard to believe that anyone would keep an old book full of useless drivel, but if it was known through family folklore that the book was in some way valuable, instinct would be to keep it. Half told stories passed down the years, then the last person who knows the truth dies before they can pass it on. Perhaps it is then tucked away somewhere but still within the family's reach. All this is not impossible or even improbable, and it tally's with what people have said.

[caz]

"But it didn't."

That's right, because there was no racier, more daring equivalent of Punch in those days, and I did say no prizes for guessing why any publisher in 1889 would have turned down such a diary if it existed back then.

You can look for yourself in the pages of Punch to find the nearest thing to it - spoof pieces, burlesques, with grammar and spelling to poke fun at the chosen subject's class or writing skills, and clearly not meant to reflect the author's own. But I specifically said you wouldn't find the diary there, or any version of it, and for very obvious reasons.

If someone today tried to write the spoof memoirs of Sir Jimmy Savile, using bad spelling and grammar, and having him boast of even fouler behaviour than he actually went in for, do you suppose for one moment that any reputable publisher would touch it with a bargepole, even though Sir Jim is no longer with us? But what if it emerged a 100 years from now, after being hidden by its author in one of Savile's old haunts?

All I'm saying is that we don't know the context in which the Maybrick Diary was written (how long ago or for what purpose), and that has to be important because, as you yourself admit, the same diary would be 'something entirely different' depending on the answer to that question.

That's no strawman argument; it's called exploring an alternative context to Mike Barrett, master forger, flogging his own work for a quid in 1993.

That didn't happen either.

Love,

Caz
X

[RivkahChaya]

There seems to be something psychological going on, whereby some people want the diary to have been written to deceive everyone, just so they can say it failed in their case. They cannot allow the possibility that its author would have rolled on the floor laughing at how seriously they were taking his 'joke' diary.

If the thing had appeared in the immediate wake of the Maybrick Trial, serialised in the pages of a more daring and racy equivalent of Punch

But, it didn't.

how many of its readers would think they were being asked to believe this was a genuine murder confession by the late, not so lamented James Maybrick?

That would be something entirely different. When you find that old issue of Punch, or whatever, I am perfectly willing to change my mind. Right now, that is about the saddest strawman argument I have ever seen.

[caz]

There seems to be something psychological going on, whereby some people want the diary to have been written to deceive everyone, just so they can say it failed in their case. They cannot allow the possibility that its author would have rolled on the floor laughing at how seriously they were taking his 'joke' diary.

If the thing had appeared in the immediate wake of the Maybrick Trial, serialised in the pages of a more daring and racy equivalent of Punch (Private Eye, anyone?), how many of its readers would think they were being asked to believe this was a genuine murder confession by the late, not so lamented James Maybrick?

I suspect that if the alleged Mrs. Maybrick diaries did exist, and were doing the rounds at the time but not picked up by any publisher, they may have been of this nature, ie written by some wag at the Maybricks' expense for the entertainment of the reading public in a penny dreadful age - certainly not to deceive the masses a hundred years on. No prizes for guessing why a publisher in 1889 might have dropped such diaries like hot bricks.

Love,

Caz
X

[miakaal4]

Hi Riv. No I cannot accept that. Flimsy is most of what we have to go on. The book is still in limbo, at least for some here, and it would be silly to ignore it completely. There could be something missed by all the experts that makes or breaks it. For those who believe it's a forgery, then it is a priceless study in how to beguile!

[niko]

ofcoure the freemason had something to do!! this s my personal opinon

[miakaal4]

Perhaps someone could suggest which of these money making forgers created this book? They must be on record. So who did it?

[caz]

Hmm, but that implies one or more of these 'people' were involved in its creation, or knowingly making money from a recent fake, and you'd need some evidence before accusing any of them.

Back to the drawing board, I suggest.

Love,

Caz
X

[RivkahChaya]

It's possible it is someone's attempt at a "found footage"-style novel, but I really don't think so. As soon as it came to the attention of the general public, people were making money off of it.

[caz]

It's one of two things:
(i) a confession or
(ii) a fraud.

Hmm, a bit too black-and-white for my liking, Bridewell.

A 'fraud' tends to imply criminal deception, usually for financial gain, for which there is about as much evidence as there is for the diary being a serious confession to murder.

As it reads a bit like some of the contemporary ripper letters (most of which were obvious hoaxes written by jokers who deceived nobody) I would add:

(iii) a spoof, or practical joke.

Just trying to keep things real. I don't like extremes of any kind.

Love,

Caz
X