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

[rjpalmer]

You have me at a disadvantage as I’m in a hotel 250 miles away from the book in question

On the road, eh? If you're visiting Liverpool again, why not drop by Anne's and run your theory past her and see what she thinks?

Good night.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good Lord, Roger, go back to my original post and you will see that I was illustrating how turning ‘Juwes’ to ‘James’ is mocked but Harris himself tolerated Stephenson’s flight of fancy without a comment or a blink of the eye. Do keep up!



You have me at a disadvantage as I’m in a hotel 250 miles away from the book in question but I’m feeling confident that I was working from a book in my collection written by someone called Tom Westcott who actually posted on the Casebook in that name too.

Just checked. Was ‘Ripper Confidential’ not published in this name? Maybe it wasn’t his actual name but I’m not sure why that would be worthy of note if it isn’t.

But, Ike, those are two completely different things. Even if we leave aside the fact that Stephenson was Harris's suspect, so that Stephenson would, in Harris' mind, have known exactly what was on the wall, and was either revealing the truth or deliberately lying, a mis-transcription by the constable of Juives for Juwes, which is what Stephenson was suggesting, bears no relation whatsoever to a theory that the correct word was "Juwes" but was a code which should be read as "James" leaving "the James are the men" as the meaningless message. There's just no comparison. The former is plausible, if very unlikely, the latter is bizarre. Even if there was a comparison, how can it possibly be a topic worthy of comment in this thread? What does it have to do with anything about whether the diary is an old hoax, new or not a hoax?

[Iconoclast]

But, Ike, those are two completely different things. Even if we leave aside the fact that Stephenson was Harris's suspect, so that Stephenson would, in Harris' mind, have known exactly what was on the wall, and was either revealing the truth or deliberately lying, a mis-transcription by the constable of Juives for Juwes, which is what Stephenson was suggesting, bears no relation whatsoever to a theory that the correct word was "Juwes" but was a code which should be read as "James" leaving "the James are the men" as the meaningless message. There's just no comparison. The former is plausible, if very unlikely, the latter is bizarre. Even if there was a comparison, how can it possibly be a topic worthy of comment in this thread? What does it have to do with anything about whether the diary is an old hoax, new or not a hoax?

Herlock,

Honestly, I could say that two and two equalled four and five minutes later you'd be telling me it doesn't.

If you don't get the points I am making (none of them, Herlock - you never get a single point I make so answering you is genuinely pointless from my perspective) then that is clearly my endless, repetitive failure to explain myself sufficiently cogently and I am a pragmatist at heart so if it doesn't work after many attempts, it's best to invest your limited time trying something else.

Can we just all agree that I will post points of note and - by default, even if you don't reply - everyone will assume that you either disagree or you don't get my point?

It will save both of us a great deal of wasted typing time. No?

Cheers,

Ike

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock,

Honestly, I could say that two and two equalled four and five minutes later you'd be telling me it doesn't.

If you don't get the points I am making (none of them, Herlock - you never get a single point I make so answering you is genuinely pointless from my perspective) then that is clearly my endless, repetitive failure to explain myself sufficiently cogently and I am a pragmatist at heart so if it doesn't work after many attempts, it's best to invest your limited time trying something else.

Can we just all agree that I will post points of note and - by default, even if you don't reply - everyone will assume that you either disagree or you don't get my point?

It will save both of us a great deal of wasted typing time. No?

Cheers,

Ike

Ike,

I don"t think your response is fair, reasonable or appropriate. You're not saying that two and two equals four. Far from it. I explained to you why there is a fundamental problem with your argument. I see you have no response to that. I asked you what it has to do with this thread. You haven't answered. Feel free to post whatever you want but if it doesn't make sense I'll probably continue to say so, and explain why. As far as I'm aware, that's the purpose of this forum and the whole point of a public debate.

[Lombro2]

The purpose of the forum is to cover all theories and possibilities and present them without having to face a gauntlet of debunkers. Bad theories should die their own natural death. If they're good theories, they should live on without people propping them up like Bernie Lomax.

Good theories don't need help. They help you by continually giving researchers gifts that make them look good. Barrett theory hasn't provided any "library miracle" since 1992.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The purpose of the forum is to cover all theories and possibilities and present them without having to face a gauntlet of debunkers. Bad theories should die their own natural death. If they're good theories, they should live on without people propping them up like Bernie Lomax.

Good theories don't need help. They help you by continually giving researchers gifts that make them look good. Barrett theory hasn't provided any "library miracle" since 1992.

Hi Lombro,

When you say "The purpose of the forum is to cover all theories and possibilities and present them without having to face a gauntlet of debunkers", do you mean to say that theories and possibilities which are presented on this forum should not be challenged or questioned?

"Debunk" means to expose the falseness or hollowness of an idea. How can something which is correct or true be debunked? I don't think it's possible.

If I ever present a theory, I welcome any challenges to test that theory and would happily answer any questions about it.

I've asked a string of questions in this thread recently, none of which have been answered. It's really quite strange that some people want to make posts about the diary without defending those posts from challenge or answering questions about their contents.

But, I suppose, if there is no defence and no answers, it may not be so strange after all.

[rjpalmer]

To compete with Caz's Patsy Theory which is very seamless, so seamless that the only arguments, thrown at her, work for a fence as much as a forger, if not more so.

It's so seamless than one can barely drive a Mack truck through it without scraping sides. Anne Graham's own behavior disproves it, and the key witness was recently revealed to be wholly unreliable.

I think it's useful to remember that for Eddie Lyons to have taken an active role in the diary's discovery, there is only the one working hypothesis to consider, and this demands that the physical diary has to have been found by Eddie between 8am and 3pm on 9th March 1992.

Anyone with any reason to doubt this very specific scenario or would allow for the diary to have been created after 9th March 1992, when Mike made his first known contact with the publishing world over the phone, may as well forget Eddie Lyons as the man who found the diary, and look elsewhere.

[Lombro2]

The Diary came out of the floorboards in Battlecrease. Eddy found it and gave it to Michael who took it to London. Michael and Anne were fencing a stolen item and so acted suspiciously.
Similarly, the watch came out of Battlecrease the same time and was fenced at that end. Simple.

No phantom auctions and golden sock drawers where jewellers keep their broken golden Dali watches.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Everyone knows what a debunk is and they don't usually require a long blog explanation. Debunking, as a default, shows the shallowness of the research.

What one person thinks is as debunk, to me, actually supports authenticity, as it's more likely James coined and/or heard the creative terms than Michael, but either one could have coined it which you deny. But I don't go on an on about "one off" or "trip over" as a fatal flaw for Maybrick defenders.

If you think the case is unsolved, why wouldn't you go solve it? Why would you spend valuable time debunking Santa Claus as the Ripper?

As I've informed you many times, it's literally impossible for Michael Barrett to have coinedthe expression "one off instance" because it's on record as having been used many times before that, going back to the 1970s. Expressions involving "one off" to mean a unique or not-to-be-repeated event go back to the 1950s.

On the other hand, there's no way for James Maybrick to have coined or used the expression "one off instance" in the 1880s because "one off" didn't mean anything unique or unrepeatable at that time.

So the very simple answer to the question posed in the thread title is that the diary is a new hoax, created after the Second World War.

Glad we've finally got that sorted.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Diary came out of the floorboards in Battlecrease. Eddy found it and gave it to Michael who took it to London. Michael and Anne were fencing a stolen item and so acted suspiciously.
Similarly, the watch came out of Battlecrease the same time and was fenced at that end. Simple.

No phantom auctions and golden sock drawers where jewellers keep their broken golden Dali watches.

How did a diary created at some point between 1945 and 1992 inclusive end up beneath the nailed down floorboards of Battlecrease? Who put it there and why did they do so?

What evidence is there that a bloke called Eddy found it? Why did he give it to Michael?

When you say that Michael and Anne "acted suspiciously", does that involve keeping secret from everyone the fact that Michael was a former journalist? And does it involve secretly attempting to buy a diary from the period of the Ripper murders with blank pages?

[Herlock Sholmes]

How did a diary created at some point between 1945 and 1992 inclusive end up beneath the nailed down floorboards of Battlecrease? Who put it there and why did they do so?

What evidence is there that a bloke called Eddy found it? Why did he give it to Michael?

When you say that Michael and Anne "acted suspiciously", does that involve keeping secret from everyone the fact that Michael was a former journalist? And does it involve secretly attempting to buy a diary from the period of the Ripper murders with blank pages?

That should have read “…to buy a diary from the decade of the ripper murders…” btw.

[Lombro2]

A linear approach to language lumps everyone and everything together in one lump all following the leader whoever he is. If a linear approach to everything was real, Jack the Ripper would have arrived in the 1990s.

[Lombro2]

With a seamless narrative that explains everything if you only just think about it, throwing out the same questions over and over that have already been explained doesn't help.

The diary was kept in a cookie tin for freshness. It obviously didn't come out fresh enough to help Barrett accusers. So I wouldn't use that as an argument. Neither would I use the red diary from 1891. That one was past the expiry date.

[rjpalmer]

So I wouldn't use that as an argument. Neither would I use the red diary from 1891.

The Barrett accusers do not consider the 1891 maroon diary to be evidence. What--or who-- has left you have that false impression?

Someone has misdirected your attention with that little red diary, has decoyed you down the garden path.

Don't let them do that.