The Diary — Old Hoax or New or Not a Hoax at All?​

[Iconoclast]

In fact Ike, much as it annoys you, it’s a categorically, unequivocally proven modern fake.

This is where I can't engage with you because it hasn't been proven to be a fake. You've just 100% bought into Orsam's argument, but that's all it is - an argument.

PS No-one - absolutely no-one - has been searching for 10 years to discount Orsam's theory so please stop saying it. I give it almost no thought whatsoever as - although it hasn't yet been contradicted by a word-specific example - it simply isn't categorical (it's also ambiguous). You can't take Orsam's opining and make of it an unquestionable truth. This is where you absolutely get on my tits, mate.

PPS Let this be the last of it - feel free to state it again and again but I won't be engaging in it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is only inference that James Maybrick actively disguised his handwriting. I have shown here on the Casebook - in a brilliant randomised, placebo-controlled study of one - that my own formal handwriting way back in 1989 or so (when people actually wrote to one another with all vowels preserved, no numbers substituting for letters, and no emojis) looked absolutely nothing whatsoever (to me) like my informal handwriting for my own eyes. Maybe Audrey Giles or Sue Iremonger or Anna Koren or whoever could tell me the similarities but I can't see any.

As Lao Tzu so famously nearly said, every journey starts with a single study of one ...

PS Wasn't Anna Koren that speccy lass from 'On the Buses'?

I’d prefer the explanation that everyone else in the world (apart from those in the Maybrick Club) would accept as by a huge distance the most likely. That the diary is clearly a fake. In fact Ike, much as it annoys you, it’s a categorically, unequivocally proven modern fake.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It wasn't MJD (sorry Keith).


PS It was Maybrick.

Is it good logic to outright dismiss one suspect because of your confidence in another?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Carrie Brown was a New York prostitute known as Old Shakespeare, murdered in a room of the East River Hotel in 1891.

[Iconoclast]

You have a problem with Carrie Brown’s murderer being a 51 year old businessman.

Talk about weird explanations.

Okay Lombro2, who the **** was Carrie Brown?

I could Google it but I feel I deserve a footnote instead.

[Iconoclast]

Why would a diarist, who gives his first name, the name of his house, his wife’s name, her lover’s name and his brother’s and his children’s names then bother to disguise his handwriting? Again, we have to come up with some weird explanation but why ignore the obvious one…that it wasn’t written by James Maybrick?

It is only inference that James Maybrick actively disguised his handwriting. I have shown here on the Casebook - in a brilliant randomised, placebo-controlled study of one - that my own formal handwriting way back in 1989 or so (when people actually wrote to one another with all vowels preserved, no numbers substituting for letters, and no emojis) looked absolutely nothing whatsoever (to me) like my informal handwriting for my own eyes. Maybe Audrey Giles or Sue Iremonger or Anna Koren or whoever could tell me the similarities but I can't see any.

As Lao Tzu so famously nearly said, every journey starts with a single study of one ...

PS Wasn't Anna Koren that speccy lass from 'On the Buses'?

[Iconoclast]

Absolutely Roger. Whilst I tend favour MJD of the named suspects I certainly wouldn’t put any significant amount of money on it.

It wasn't MJD (sorry Keith).

If someone found something that exonerated him tomorrow I wouldn’t lose a minute of sleep over it. I want the truth…whatever it is.

[Thank you, me.] I have made the claim many times myself over the years. In truth, it should be a mantra that all 'Ripperologists' sign up to.

I wouldn’t dispute that the killer could have been a 50 year old business man who lived in Liverpool. Likewise I wouldn’t dispute that he could have been a 28 year old butcher from Stepney or 35 year old hospital Porter from Whitechapel.

And, obviously, the onus is on the claimant to make their case for one or t'other.

PS It was Maybrick.

[Iconoclast]

I think Professor Rubinstein was exaggerating, though, when he claimed in his book that the Maybrick debate has come to physical blows. Perhaps I'm wrong. Did Feldman physically attack Harris?

Can't disagree with your initial comments, RJ. On the subject of physical blows, I'm unaware of anything actually landing, though Feldman and Harris teased their audience at Camille (sp?) Wolff's (sp?) home and Mike Barrett made an embarrassing 'lunge' at some poor sod at the end of the Cloak & Dagger Club fiasco.

As for Brodie's, I'm unfamiliar with that brand, but I do hope for your sake that the UK has improved its coffee making skills.

I can't comment as I'm no coffee aficionado, Mrs I and I generally have filter coffee in the late morning before walking our three-legged whippet in the local graveyard, and Drink Me Chai Spiced Chai Latte in the middle of the afternoon but I'm honestly not sure if that's coffee, tea, or something else. Mrs I has quite a temper and a range of rolling pins so I'm too scared to ask her. In between, it's tea, tea, and more tea. How very British. I recently counted the number of different teas in our house and I gave up when I got to 30 (I kid ye not). It's not me, it's the missus. I'm a simple guy. I drink Tesco's own brand Rooibos de-caff tea and love it. I stopped drinking 'real' tea some years ago when - bizarrely - I developed a twitch above my right eye. Naturally, being a bloke, I ignored it for a week, and then - when it hadn't gone away - panicked and assumed it was a brain tumour, so I looked it up on Google and it transpires that too much caffein can cause the muscles above your eyes to twitch! I immediately switched to de-caff and those muscles (and most of my other muscles) stopped twitching. I wasn't aware of the El Salvadore issue so I will check our packs from now on and alert Mrs I who can focus her rolling pins on a South American dictator for a change.

Finally, it's often difficult to know who Lombro is addressing, if anyone, but if he was addressing me, he's quite wrong. I see profiling as largely a pseudo-science, and I have no issues with 'the Ripper' being a businessman or a toff. I doubt that Herlock does either; as long as I can remember, he's leaned towards a certain Oxford graduate and barrister, and that qualifies as a 'toff.'

Lombro2, I suspect, is wasted on us. He's so clever it's hard to keep up with him. It would be great if he would put a layman's footnote in his posts so that those of us who are clever-not-clever can just about cling on to the discussion. It's evident to me that he's making sense to many because his posts get replies, but I'm a simple working class lad from North Shields whose brain has suffered badly over the years at the hand of the rolling pin lady. I need help.

In truth, I'm singularly unimpressed by those who attempt to pin the crimes on the poor local proletariat, be he Barnett, Hutchinson, or Lechmere; I view these theorists as small-town coppers who, having no idea who the real murderer is, try to fit up some local yokel who is entirely innocent. My dismissal of the diary has sod-all to do with any 'profile.'

If it wasn't Maybrick, I don't have any issue with whoever gets fitted-up - after all, I doubt they have any capacity to care - but I take great exception at candidates who get proposed apparently because the proposer just wants to have their own. I'm just waiting for someone to name Mrs Puddleduck of Tipperary Street and I'm out of here and switching the lights off.

PS It was Maybrick.

[Lombro2]

You have a problem with Carrie Brown’s murderer being a 51 year old businessman.

Talk about weird explanations.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why would a diarist, who gives his first name, the name of his house, his wife’s name, her lover’s name and his brother’s and his children’s names then bother to disguise his handwriting? Again, we have to come up with some weird explanation but why ignore the obvious one…that it wasn’t written by James Maybrick?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Finally, it's often difficult to know who Lombro is addressing, if anyone, but if he was addressing me, he's quite wrong. I see profiling as largely a pseudo-science, and I have no issues with 'the Ripper' being a businessman or a toff. I doubt that Herlock does either; as long as I can remember, he's leaned towards a certain Oxford graduate and barrister, and that qualifies as a 'toff.'

RP

Absolutely Roger. Whilst I tend favour MJD of the named suspects I certainly wouldn’t put any significant amount of money on it. If someone found something that exonerated him tomorrow I wouldn’t lose a minute of sleep over it. I want the truth…whatever it is. I wouldn’t dispute that the killer could have been a 50 year old business man who lived in Liverpool. Likewise I wouldn’t dispute that he could have been a 28 year old butcher from Stepney or 35 year old hospital Porter from Whitechapel.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Ike,

personally, I don't mind a bit of hostility or even the occasional open contempt. To me, it's more honest. Let's face it, Old Man; we can, at best, enjoy an uneasy peace.

Nearly everyone interested in the Whitechapel Murders fancies himself or herself a great detective, and when we challenge another theorist's beliefs, we are not only challenging their judgment, we are also committing the unforgivable insult of challenging their detective skills. We are Holmes scoffing at the paltry talents of Lestrade. We can mask our contempt in civility, of course. We can try, but always the cracks appear and the blinding beams of contempt sneak through, however weakly. In truth, most of the 'Ripperologists' that I have found interesting over the years have been demonstrative, insistent, and confrontational. I think Professor Rubinstein was exaggerating, though, when he claimed in his book that the Maybrick debate has come to physical blows. Perhaps I'm wrong. Did Feldman physically attack Harris?

As for Brodie's, I'm unfamiliar with that brand, but I do hope for your sake that the UK has improved its coffee making skills. My chief complaint when I last visited (and this was over 20 years ago) was that one couldn't find a decent cup of coffee. From John O'Groats to Land's End, from Cornwall to the Cliffs of Dover, each and every cup was an abomination. I think it was a plot to force me to drink tea, and I like tea, so I forgave you. Due me one small favor, though, and boycott any beans from El Salvadore. Their people are now under a dictatorship and he's in the prison-for-profits scheme. Not one penny should be spent there. Today, on this side of the pond, we celebrate the concept of 'No Kings.'

Finally, it's often difficult to know who Lombro is addressing, if anyone, but if he was addressing me, he's quite wrong. I see profiling as largely a pseudo-science, and I have no issues with 'the Ripper' being a businessman or a toff. I doubt that Herlock does either; as long as I can remember, he's leaned towards a certain Oxford graduate and barrister, and that qualifies as a 'toff.'

In truth, I'm singularly unimpressed by those who attempt to pin the crimes on the poor local proletariat, be he Barnett, Hutchinson, or Lechmere; I view these theorists as small-town coppers who, having no idea who the real murderer is, try to fit up some local yokel who is entirely innocent. My dismissal of the diary has sod-all to do with any 'profile.'

RP

[Iconoclast]

Thanks, Ike. Although it was inevitable, perhaps, that my post would be seen as 'patronizing,' I can only assure you that it was not written in a spirit of hostility or ridicule.

Well, here's the strange rub of the typical human mind - because there is a huge amount of 'time served' in our relationship, we see the peaks and troughs and recognise when a comment is in one or other without ever thinking the fabric of that relationship is about to significantly change. It's just pure psychology (one of my favouritist subjects) but it works - 'time served' allows us to make use of context so that the highs and lows look more like occasional blips in a more regimented, averaged-out lifespan and they often go largely unnoticed as a result.

Conversely, when someone suddenly engages with you and it's apparently friendly and then apparently hostile, and the peaks and troughs exceed the 'time served' boundaries of the relationship, even the most innocent comment can appear as obtuse as the most threatening. It's hard to work out what to expect next because the relationship has so little meaningful history to reflect back upon.

I thought your post about my 'dark night of the soul' was very entertaining and I gave it a thumbs-up. I've given many of your posts thumbs-up, and I've laughed at many of the insults and psychological dismantling that have come my way. Does that mean that I agree with your position on the Maybrick scrapbook? Of course it doesn't - we could hardly be further apart on this particular point, but when you do that disparaging trick you do (and that, of course, I do), it isn't quite as sharp as from someone whose motives you are less familiar with.

The Casebook gives us a place to discuss Jack the Ripper. Personally, with almost no exceptions, I stick to the Maybrick threads, and indeed largely stuck to the one Maybrick thread until it was closed down. No poster 'owns' any part of the Casebook, and the more the merrier and more interesting the discussions can be.

But that doesn't mean there won't be conflict when someone decides to appear out of left field and presents their tired arguments as fact. That's what's happened here.

Mrs I has just announced the arrival of a lovely pot of filter coffee (Brodie's) so I must go ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

So now you finally give in to Toff Theory? Hidden in plain sight, eh?


Show me where anyone saw anyone remotely like Schwartz.

.

What does this sentence mean?

[Lombro2]

So now you finally give in to Toff Theory? Hidden in plain sight, eh?

Hutch is, of course, a corroborated witness.

Show me anywhere where Sarah Lewis specifically says she saw Hutchinson.

Show me where anyone saw anyone remotely like Schwartz.

I don't really trust any witness, even if he or she helps my theory right down to the horseshoe tie pin.

Looks like Cesare Lombroso, actually. I never saw that until now.