Who were they?

[Iconoclast]

In other words you haven't read the Diary, you haven't read any books about the Diary, you haven't done any research of your own into the Diary, and you're happy to just parrot the ill-informed, badly researched views of the posters on here who inhabit your anti-Diary echo chamber. Righto...

Anti-Diary echo chamber! Now how I wish I'd thought of that one, Owly!

(Don't worry, I have no doubt - a la Oscar Wilde - that one day soon I will.)

I think your analysis is right on the button, by the way ...

[Iconoclast]

I knew that was coming.

Looks like I injected some wit back into the discussion.

c.d.

Don't be such a soft lad, c.d.. What on earth's wrong with a bit of trash talk? Wit's for the middle classes, mate.

[Iconoclast]

I do hope that everyone can see that it's primarily the Diary naysayers who are dragging this (and all other Diary threads) into the gutter with their ill-informed, abusive ****-posts.

I think there is an especially antagonistic bunch of naysayers whose sole contribution is to throw out one-liners and then rinse and repeat. It's hard to understand what they get out of it, but they must get something out of it or else presumably they'd not do it.

The intelligent ones (and Rhog Palmer) at least make an effort at making an argument stick.

Either way, I'm here to repel every single one of them, however long this bloody war lasts ...

[Iconoclast]

Everything that gets in the way of your irrational belief is a "small point" of no consequence, Ike, even if it strikes to the heart of the matter. That's why this sorry saga is so tiresome and pointless.

Did you contradict my point, though?

No offense, Ike, but you inhabit a world of self-delusion and self-deception, and that is why you are ultimately incurable.

Did you contradict my point, though?

I suspect this is why Lord Orsam has announced his retirement from the Diary Fiasco. He knows y'all have no answers and will just talk yourself in circles until the final gong sends you off to the Great Broadmoor in the Sky.

Did you contradict my point, though, Muddy?

It always amuses me that even now Team Diary tends to defend Anne Graham--it was MIke, not Anne!--from having told lies early on, about the research notes, the word processor, etc.

Point, though, Muddy. Did you contradict my point, though?

How do we skeptics know this? How do we know what Anne had said to Shirley or Keith or whomever? Where are the tapes? Where are the transcripts? All we hear about is Barrett, but both Keith and Shirley have alluded to joint interviews with Mike and Anne, so she must have been sitting right beside him when he was weaving his bullsh*t.

Point, post, point, Muddy. Does my post look bovvered?

If, as you seem to admit, you don't believe her "in the family" provenance--and thus you admit that she was telling lies to Keith and Shirley and Feldman and Montgomery for YEARS, why are you so eager to imply that she wasn't telling lies right out of the gate?

Did you contradict my point, though, Mudddddddddddddy?

I'm curious why this might be.

Because my post ain't bovvered.

(Did you contradict my point, though?)

[Iconoclast]

I can't speak for others but no, I don't see that. From my perspective (no dog in the fight) there is more than enough guilt to go around.

c.d.

I think the key part of Owly's post was his use of 'ill-informed' and there's none of that around my posts, thank you very much.

[Iconoclast]

Well, I already wrote it, so I might as well post it. Yes I do know, but who cares?

Feeling a tad sorry for yourself there, Rhog?

Owly’s paraphrase was humorous because it was unintentionally ironic. The original was some gibberish about the diary being the 'summit of my literary efforts' had "Brucey" written the hoax. Brucey, like Ickipoo, clearly likes to wind us up with outlandish statements.

They really don't even need to be particularly outlandish, Rhog.

But let me pose a rude question.

As if it were but your first ...

Why should anyone give a rat's ass what "Brucey" thinks about the Maybrick Hoax?

Well, I think I can answer that. You see, Bruce Robinson is an extremely well-known and respected screenwriter (Oscar-nominated, ye ken) so when he says a piece of writing is notable, I feel his credentials earn him an attentive audience. You clearly didn't get that memo?

Robinson gives us an interesting example of his unusual investigative techniques.

[Tedious example cited]

With that, I think we can safely dismiss Robinson from our inquiries. He can be of no help.

His 'unusual investigative techniques', Muddy, have no bearing on his ability to recognise an interesting and intriguing piece of writing. This is why you are universally known as Muddy the Mud Boy, you know.

Rhetorical question. Why does every half-baked Ripperologist start looking for anagrams?

Why does the occasional burnt-out Ripperologist decry it?

Much of the research into the dodgy diary was conducted with a glass of Scotch in one hand.

You make that sound like a bad thing.

(Thank you Gene Hunt.)

No doubt about it: Robinson is a man of infinite jest and creativity, not unlike AP Wolf, but I don't think the combined efforts of Mitchell, Wolf, and Robinson could solve a simple case of jaywalking, nor do I think they care. That's what I believe. They don’t care about the right answer. They just want to thumb their nose at the establishment. This might well explain Diarythink as a whole. Y’all don't want the right answer…y’all just want a different answer, even if it is a nonsensical one.

You may be getting somewhere with this, Rhog.

That's why we are treated to barking mad theories like 'bumbling buffoon' being a reference to Mr. Bumble from Oliver Twist, or the maroon diary being a "doppelganger" for Mike to give to Dodd if he came asking for the mythical stolen goods. They're not even remotely believable answers, but they are answers, and that's all that matters anymore. There is no genuine, sincere effort to obtain the truth. Mainly, it's just self-delusion.

Honestly, Rhog, you're sounding like a man worn down and defeated.

It's good to know it hasn't all been a complete waste of my time, then ...

[Iconoclast]

Are you still keen to lean on what Mike 'admitted' for your preferred version of the truth?

The 'admitted' bit is just a crutch for an argument which has no leg to stand on, Cazzykins ...

[rjpalmer]

His 'unusual investigative techniques', Muddy, have no bearing on his ability to recognise an interesting and intriguing piece of writing.

"Intriguing"?

Are those your words or Bruce's words, Muddikins?

He said if it was a modern hoax, it would be the summit of his "literary efforts"

And he didn't deny that it was a hoax (he thinks it IS a hoax) and he certainly didn't describe it as plausible confession by a serial-killer.

But hey, if you want to think dropping the literary effort bomb is an endorsement of the Diary being real, feel free to indulge yourself with more self-deception.

And I think Bruce's story of anagrams certainly does have bearing on his ability as a literary critic.

If he can read a letter in the Pall Mall Gazette and think it is a Masonic anagram, then I humbly suggest he's loopy when it comes to judging the meaning of writing.

As Caz has recently reminded us, Martin Fido, Oxford don, teacher of writing at Boston College, well-known radio broadcaster, etc etc, was so impressed by the diary's literary competency that he wondered if it was even too sloppy to be Anne Graham's work.

So there appears to be a difference of opinion. I'll stick with Martin, though I do think it IS Anne's literary work, or largely so.

As for the rest of your childishness, feel free to **** right off.

Do you think your antics are casting the Diary in a good light?

[Iconoclast]

As for the rest of your childishness, feel free to **** right off.

Oh dear. Touched a nerve, did we? Taking ourself a wee bit seriously these days, are we?

Do you think your antics are casting the Diary in a good light?

I don't think the 'antics' of a poster on an internet site can possibly have any bearing on the light which shines upon an artefact for which that internet site was originally started. It doesn't matter how big a twat I am - it changes not the light that shines on the Victorian scrapbook.

Amen to that, your graces.

(Thank you, David Cornwell.)

[John Wheat]

Oh dear. Touched a nerve, did we? Taking ourself a wee bit seriously these days, are we?



I don't think the 'antics' of a poster on an internet site can possibly have any bearing on the light which shines upon an artefact for which that internet site was originally started. It doesn't matter how big a twat I am - it changes not the light that shines on the Victorian scrapbook.

Amen to that, your graces.

(Thank you, David Cornwell.)

Another idiotic post.

[Abby Normal]

this entire thread, and any other diary post, belongs in pub talk. The diary has as much to do with ripperology as Bigfoot does with zoology lol

[Abby Normal]

Of course that isn't sufficient evidence. You've chosen two points of note and turned them into the nub of an argument which is clearly not supported with sufficient certainty to be classed as any kind of a conclusion. You've mixed-up and confused this 'conclusion' with what everyone else would call an 'opinion'.

Check out the difference between the two (any good dictionary will do, or any pre-schooler living nearby if you don't have access to a dictionary). You'll be amazed by the very silly mistake you keep making!

hi ikeykins
I dont want to disappoint cd so ill respond. Even a pre-schooler wouldnt be gullible enough to believe Maybrick wrote the diary.

[Abby Normal]

Silly hoax it may have been, Abby, but you have still not said which Barrett you believe held the pen, so your opinion that 'the Barretts' wrote it is based on fresh air and therefore counts for nothing.

Love,

Caz
X

like what effing difference does it make? ok, ill indulge Anne wrote it dictated by Mike who came up with the idea and the text.

[Abby Normal]

In other words you haven't read the Diary, you haven't read any books about the Diary, you haven't done any research of your own into the Diary, and you're happy to just parrot the ill-informed, badly researched views of the posters on here who inhabit your anti-Diary echo chamber. Righto...

oh the irony and hypocrisy. And yet when i responded directly to your post giving the evidence that the barretts hoaxed it you let caz respond for you. John merely had the grace and humbleness to admit someone else said it better, while still at least giving you the courtesy of a response.

and you respond to him with a viscious personal attack on him and everyone on the anti diary side, meanwhile whining about how were the ones dragging the debate down into the gutter!?! unbelievable.

I thought owls were supposed to be wise.

[Scott Nelson]

Hi Scott. It still does not explain why Eddie was attempting to sell it himself or that he told another electrician that he found something important. Why would Mike go and visit Eddie threatening him with legal action? Why did Eddie go with Mike to meet with Robert Smith?

I’m struggling to make the above fit with your theory.

Hey Jay, Eddie wasn't attempting to sell it himself. He didn't have it and it wasn't his to sell. If he told a potential buyer the Diary of Jack the Ripper was for sale, he was likely trying to make a small marketing commission, which Mike duly nixed.

When Eddie supposedly met with Robert Smith with Mike, it may have been to provide a backup for the story of a floorboards provenance. As it stood, Eddie only heard from other electricians about a book being found some time before that March date. If Eddie told Smith he found the Diary under floorboards, it was likely a cover story to boost an acceptable provenance.