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

[Iconoclast]

… throwing out the same questions over and over that have already been explained doesn't help.

This is my point. You attempt to present an argument but we can’t get past the derivative issues which have been addressed a million times because someone will then post (having almost no knowledge of the case and no knowledge that the issues have been addressed over and over again - maybe not satisfactorily in their opinion but addressed nevertheless) and we go around again making no progress.

You know you’re onto a loser when the responses you get assure you that you’ve got literally every detail of every idea you’ve ever presented stonewall wrong. So you’re either stupid and can’t make a cogent argument without erring or else it’s not worth responding because you know there will be no real discussion or concessions of any form.

You really know it’s a forlorn journey you’re on when you present an argument which gets roundly mocked by various quarters whilst the doyens of the argument you are countering get away with exactly the same process without a word of criticism.

All anyone can ask for is that arguments are heard and given fair airtime not crushed with frequently really dreadful logic.

Finally, if you have to ask for answers to the old canards, you should know you’re in serious danger of being a Johnny-Come-Lately to this (or any other) particular debate.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.