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

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think - if you bothered to properly analyse comments - it is far more common that I (for one) tend to react to comments made against Maybrick which do not logically follow from the evidence. I don't need evidence in favour of Maybrick - I have shitloads of that for SocPill - what I need is for posters to not make claims against him unless they are substantive. I don't give a fig whether the poster is challenged - what I care about is that my dear readers are not misled into thinking an argument against Maybrick has been successfully made.

You don’t get to make the rules Ike as much as you appear to feel it your right. I’ve misled no one. I was perfectly clear when I stated that this is a point against Maybrick. You disagree. Your wrong. I couldn’t care less.

Which could be an argument against Maybrick or else an argument against a hoaxer. Why would a hoaxer claim that Maybrick was the man with the red handkerchief if he or she knew as well as you appear to do that Maybrick did not fit the brief?

What kind of drivel is this? It’s in the diary. He did make the claim and Maybrick didn’t fit the description.

The points against Maybrick are:

1. The possibility that 'one off instance' meant 'one-off instance' and literally could not have been thought in 1888
   
   Your little trick of inserting an imaginary hyphen counts for nothing. One off instance is the unequivocal proof that this worthless piece of junk is a forgery. You and your associates have had 10 years to come up with just one example….JUST ONE…and you have failed miserably. How long do you want Ike? 10 years….20 years…30? No, it doesn’t work like that.
2. The handwriting which fails to match the public writings of Maybrick

To my recollection, every other point I have ever heard made against Maybrick's candidature is a non sequitur dressed-up as reasoned argument. Like I say, I don't care if the poster themselves can't see this - what I intend when I reply is to prevent my dear readers being mugged of a very strong candidate on the basis of Rendell-like, soft-minded, horrendously presumptive, lazy and vaingloriously gloating logic fails.

You are utterly biased in your silly obsession with this forgery. It’s been proven. Given your recent ‘have I been wasting my time’ period of navel gazing I’m no of the opinion that you realise that the game is up. You are simply too invested in this utter farce Ike.

The way the you have reacted to the points that I’ve made, neither of which I claimed as conclusive has been hysterical and embarrassing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here we go again.

How does Maybrick meeting Eddowes at or around 1.10am prevent him from talking to her at 1.20am or 1.30am. As long as she isn't yet dead, there's nothing stopping the conversation from flowing freely. Please make it make sense, man!

If you re-read your post, you'll see your logic fails at "and kills her". You missed out the "talks to her and then".

So this guy desperately unsatisfied after Stride, finds his victim at around 1.10 and then stands around chatting for 25 minutes. If you think that’s realistic then it speaks volumes. You have no logic.

This point doesn’t eliminate Maybrick, it makes him less likely. (But this is all academic of course because we know that the only reason that this joke suspect is mentioned because of a diary which has been proven a forgery.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Or it wasn't contrived!

Our opinions mean absolutely **** ALL!!!!!

Then stop giving yours.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Like the Charles Cross Movement this fake diary appears to attract almost religious deference. What a sad state of affairs.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Every single suspect gets judged and assessed. We do it all the time. We find things that might favour the suspect in question and we find things that might work against the suspect in question. This is all that I’ve done here and this is the over the top reaction that I got. I simply pointed to a witness description of a man that the diarist claimed to have been James Maybrick and that description doesn’t fit Maybrick. How can that be other than a possible point against him? I then pointed to his claim about the Stride/Eddowes murder. According to the diarist, when we apply the know evidence, we have to ask why this man who is desperate to kill, would have stood around talking for 20 minutes or so before getting around to killing her?

These are points that do not favour Maybrick.

[Lombro2]

As you seem to be unaware of it, Professor William Rubenstein is also among the 'late great.' Sadly, he died last summer.

He was a well-known figure among those interested in the Shakespeare authorship debate.

Well now he knows he was right about the Ripper. And he knows if he was right about Sir Henry Neville. RIP

Who are you going to believe about these questions? Who can we say is not biased against or in favor of a businessman not named you-know-what?... Someone who's all against businessmen and picks on Maybrick or someone who's all for businessmen and defends Maybrick or someone who's all for businessmen and yet still picks Maybrick? If you find actually find someone who is against businessmen and still defends Maybrick, I might believe him.

[rjpalmer]

You'll probably be disappointed to learn, Lombro, that Professor Rubinstein realized that he was entering Cloud Cuckoo Land when writing Shadow Pasts, so he used the introduction to distance himself from Bigfoot and UFOs.

Can't win them all.

[Lombro2]

Why do you think Feldman called me "sick"? I don't think it was just because I said the Maybrick Bible inscription doesn't provide enough of a handwriting sample to be useful.

PS Your example reminds me of Robert Pyle's Crossing the Dark Divide book. In his intro, he says he will not be discussing the supernatural theories. Then his book ends with someone or something throwing a stick at him in the middle of nowhere on the Continental Divide.

[rjpalmer]

These are points that do not favour Maybrick.

No, they do not. You're quite right, Mr. Sholmes.

But Ike seems to operate on the optimistic principle that only lethal blows can kill the questioned document (the handwriting/'one off instance'). It's like believing that a boxing match can only be decided by a TKO. As long as the boxer isn't dead at the end of the final round, he can congratulate himself that he is still breathing, even though he was relentlessly pummeled by countless body blows.

Along with the points you raise, we can asked dozens more. Why is the bloody thing written in an old photo album with obvious damage where something has been peeled off the inside cover? Why did one of the handwriting experts claim the handwriting was not only not Maybrick's, but isn't even Victorian? Why was Barrett hunting for a diary with a minimum of twenty blank pages? Why does Maybrick wrongly claim he cut off all of Mary Kelly's nose? Why does he call his wife's godmother her aunt? Why does he claim he left breasts on the bedside table when the killer left them on the bed? Why can't anyone locate Mrs. Hammersmith? Why can't anyone identify a strangulation murder in Manchester, when the Victorians held countless inquests and reported them in the newspapers? Whey did Dr. Simpson detect chloroacetamide in the diary's ink? Why did Baxendale find the ink suspiciously fluid? Why did Anne Graham frequently contradict herself? How did the diarist stumble on the exact contorted grammar of a police inventory list when writing about the tin match box? Why isn't there a single obscure fact about Maybrick's life that couldn't have been lifted from the very book that Barrett named at the 1999 Cloak and Dagger meeting? Are we supposed to believe that the Dear Boss author and the writer of the Lusk Letter were one in the same? And on and on and on, body blow after body blow.

Ike can often come up with various implausible explanations or counter explanations for these objections, of course, but no amount of perfumed discourse can really hope to mask the stench of grave suspicion that rolls off each and every page or rolls off the behavior of Mike and Anne. Which raises the obvious question: given all this, why would anyone still think the diary is authentic?

I think it must be the same impulse that made Dr. Rubinstein argue that the plays of Shakespeare were written by an obscure Elizabethan diplomat. The pleasure of being a controversialist, of swimming against the academic grain, of shouting 'I believe!' when no one or nearly no one else is willing to do so.

It's a strange hill to die on, but if it makes them happy and wiles away the hours, I suppose there is relatively little harm in it. I personally find the Lechmere theory more annoying because it trains people to think uncritically about what constitutes guilt and what constitutes evidence.

That said, I confess that I'd like to see the Maybrick Hoax taken 'off the books,' but there's no way to do it without Anne Graham's cooperation, but she's not talking and some still believe that she was telling the truth.

RP

[Lombro2]

One negative paternity—I mean Chloroacetamide—test trumps all your subjective witness statements, language interpretation and handwriting analysis.

Out for the count a long time ago.

That’s blood folks, under all the cherries.

[Lombro2]

We all know an illiterate actor named Guglielmo didn’t write it.