Vote the Diary

[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

[MayBea]

Time Reveals All

[Scott Nelson]

The key has to be the watch.

[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

[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?

[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

[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

[Sunbury]

No a lot more simple than that bit more time consuming though.

I will bite, what exact test Pinkmoon? I'm genuinely curious.
For the record I consider it a hoax.

[GUT]

G'day MayBea

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.

[MayBea]

For me, the one and only test is, and has been, Time.

As the Maybrick motto says, Tempus Omnia Revelat.

[pinkmoon]

What is it, pinkmoon? A lie-detector test?

No a lot more simple than that bit more time consuming though.

[MayBea]

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 .

What is it, pinkmoon? A lie-detector test?

[pinkmoon]

Yes, I'm speaking of old hoax theorists. The waiters seem to be in their group.

Caz doesn't see provenance evidice related to authenticity and I don't either? Even if a Battlecrease origin, by way of the workmen, could be proven, there's probably no way to prove how long it was in the woodwork, or even if it was really there.

This is turning, a bit, into a D B Cooper's Found Money Debate.

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 .

[MayBea]

Yes, I'm speaking of old hoax theorists. The waiters seem to be in their group.

Caz doesn't see provenance evidice related to authenticity and I don't either? Even if a Battlecrease origin, by way of the workmen, could be proven, there's probably no way to prove how long it was in the woodwork, or even if it was really there.

This is turning, a bit, into a D B Cooper's Found Money Debate.

[RivkahChaya]

Are you talking about the "old hoax" theorists? As a new hoax proponent ("theorist" is too strong a word), I can tell you I'm not waiting for anything.