Vote the Diary

[Sunbury]

How is time alone going to help, without more information those who believe will always believe those think it a hoax will continue to think it a hoax.

a very convoluted sentence Gut

[caz]

As a new hoax proponent ("theorist" is too strong a word)...

I understand all the reasons why so many people are happy to conclude it's a 'new' hoax (as in later than 1987?) and to leave it at that.

What I would like to know is how they would plan to reconcile this conclusion with a Battlecrease provenance, in the event that the documentary evidence for this emerges and proves too stubborn to explain away.

A much older hoax, framing James not to make a penny profit, but to cause mischief (after the furore surrounding the Maybrick Trial of 1889), could well have been sneaked into Battlecrease rather more in hope than expectation of it being found quickly and causing that mischief in the hoaxer's lifetime.

A 'new' hoax to make money, or to cause a sensation 100 years after the ripper murders, is much harder to explain, since its 'discovery' in the house would need to have been engineered somehow by whoever created and planted it, but much more than that, establishing this bogus Battlecrease provenance would have been the whole point of the exercise. Yet, as we have seen, everyone suspected of possible involvement has ignored, played down, disbelieved, dismissed or strenuously denied the possibility that it was ever in the Maybrick house - the ideal location for such a document.

Now to anyone with a few working brain cells, that makes very little sense. So ironically, many of those who believe it's a 'new' hoax will similarly find themselves playing down, disbelieving, dismissing or strenuously denying the Battlecrease evidence. I predict that it will become as much a matter of faith that it was never in the house, as it is that ink met paper as late as the 1980s.

Love,

Caz
X

[Kaz]

If its ever proven to have come out of battlecrease house that surely makes Maybrick our man?

The handwriting doesn't hold enough water IMO, nor does the age discrepancy.

I seem to remember some luggage found with a name that sounded (or anagramed) James Maybricks, wasn't it found at a train station?

[Graham]

This diary business will never be solved unless we use one simple test its not a very earth shattering idea but it would solve the mystery .

You're not suggesting a ouija-board are you?

Go on -put us out of our misery. What is this simple test?

Graham

[Scott Nelson]

The key has to be the watch.

[MayBea]

Time Reveals All

[Graham]

Taken as separate entities, it's hard to see how the Watch and the Diary could be linked. However, I'm pretty sure that there is a link, but haven't a clue what it is. I can't quite envisage a gent like Albert Johnson getting mixed up in any kind of scam, or the infamous 'nest of forgers'. I also understand that an examination of the Watch via an electronic microscope could detect no sign of a forgery. And as far as I'm aware at no time did Mike Barrett ever make any reference to the Watch - I'm sure that Caz will confirm one way or the other.

Somewhere, someone knows the truth about this whole business.

Graham

[Livia]

If its ever proven to have come out of battlecrease house that surely makes Maybrick our man?

The handwriting doesn't hold enough water IMO, nor does the age discrepancy.

I seem to remember some luggage found with a name that sounded (or anagramed) James Maybricks, wasn't it found at a train station?

S E Mibrac Charing Cross Station (Hotel, I think).

[Jonathan H]

Conversely if the 'Diary' turns out not to have come out of Battlecrease, then that proves it was not by Maybrick and not an old hoax either--have I got that straight?

[Graham]

Even if it can be proved that it did come out of Battlecrease, that doesn't prove that Maybrick wrote it. And even if it didn't come out of Battlecrease, then at this level of precise knowledge about the bloody thing, it doesn't prove it was a new hoax either.

If Keith Skinner really can prove that it came out of Battlecrease, then for Gawd's sake let's hear from him!

Graham

[Graham]

S E Mibrac Charing Cross Station (Hotel, I think).

Charing Cross Hotel it was - see below:

S.E. MIBRAC

Yet another leap of speculation is to try and argue that the name S.E. Mibrac on a hotel register could be James Maybrick. The names have a vague similarity. But it is about the same as trying to argue, if I use the case of your name, that S. Ryder and a name like M.H. Rydall could be the same person. Coincidence does occur in the real world.

Anyway why would Maybrick have bothered to create different initials for himself. Why for that matter would Maybrick have signed a register with a slightly different surname ? Why only sign a partially similar name and give completely different initials ? If he was trying to keep his whereabouts unknown why not sign a completely different name ?

If I recall correctly, according to Paul Feldman a piece of luggage was found in the room occupied by S E Mibrac, and which was found to contain pornographic material. The hotel management reported this to the police.

Shirley Harrison says that the above was reported to the poilice on July 5th 1888 (not 100% certain of the date) and that the Diary states that James Maybrick was in London on this date.

Well, there you go.........

Acknowledgment due to Richard Scheib, Casebook Forums long ago.

Graham

[caz]

Taken as separate entities, it's hard to see how the Watch and the Diary could be linked. However, I'm pretty sure that there is a link, but haven't a clue what it is. I can't quite envisage a gent like Albert Johnson getting mixed up in any kind of scam, or the infamous 'nest of forgers'. I also understand that an examination of the Watch via an electronic microscope could detect no sign of a forgery. And as far as I'm aware at no time did Mike Barrett ever make any reference to the Watch - I'm sure that Caz will confirm one way or the other.

Somewhere, someone knows the truth about this whole business.

Graham

Hi Graham,

I'm pretty sure Mike was as surprised and puzzled as anyone else when the watch and its markings came to light in June 1993, which was before the diary content was first published.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Conversely if the 'Diary' turns out not to have come out of Battlecrease, then that proves it was not by Maybrick and not an old hoax either--have I got that straight?

No.

Bent as a nine bob note - or a hoaxed ripper confession if you prefer.

But my private information (did you see what I did there?) is that it did come out of Battlecrease. And this private information is in the safest hands in Ripperology and this time it won't be destroyed.

Love,

Caz
X

[Kaz]

No.

Bent as a nine bob note - or a hoaxed ripper confession if you prefer.

But my private information (did you see what I did there?) is that it did come out of Battlecrease. And this private information is in the safest hands in Ripperology and this time it won't be destroyed.

Love,

Caz
X

Wow, and who says the diary is dead!?

So many loose ends, anyone know of a good detective willing to work for a packet of peanuts?

[Kaz]

Charing Cross Hotel it was - see below:



If I recall correctly, according to Paul Feldman a piece of luggage was found in the room occupied by S E Mibrac, and which was found to contain pornographic material. The hotel management reported this to the police.

Shirley Harrison says that the above was reported to the poilice on July 5th 1888 (not 100% certain of the date) and that the Diary states that James Maybrick was in London on this date.

Well, there you go.........

Acknowledgment due to Richard Scheib, Casebook Forums long ago.

Graham

Thanks for the info, very interesting even for the doubters, no?

sorry for double post, I'm lazy