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

[Lombro2]

For the sake of the people who delegate their thinking process when it comes to certain aspects of the case such as this, it behooves us to clearly explain to them what they are believing in.

Caveat emptor.

Also this is what happens when you force people to be on your side. Do you still want my support?

[Iconoclast]

On the other hand we can prove that the diary wasn't written by James Maybrick.
We can also prove that Michael Barrett secretly attempted to acquire a genuine Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992.
That's good enough for me and anyone else that looks at it without bias.

Then I pray you are not a policeman, a detective, a lawyer, a judge, or a member of any jury because you are far too easily persuaded on far too little 'evidence' which is often horribly ambiguous and you believe implicitly in a 'truth' which can almost certainly never be confirmed.

To say you look without bias when you are clearly only looking one way is utterly risible, mate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Then I pray you are not a policeman, a detective, a lawyer, a judge, or a member of any jury because you are far too easily persuaded on far too little 'evidence' which is often horribly ambiguous and you believe implicitly in a 'truth' which can almost certainly never be confirmed.

To say you look without bias when you are clearly only looking one way is utterly risible, mate.

There's nothing "horribly ambiguous" about "a one off instance", mate. Just the worst of multiple giveaway mistakes by the forger.

Nor is there any ambiguity about the fact that Barrett did secretly attempt to acquire a genuine Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992. The only thing that’s ‘risible’ Ike are the embarrassing excuses that have been made for this clearly guilty action. It’s like the police looking at the computer of the man denying that he’s killed his wife only to find multiple searches for ‘how to dispose of a recently killed woman.’

Not suspicious at all according to you.

[rjpalmer]

Then I pray you are not a policeman, a detective, a lawyer, a judge, or a member of any jury because you are far too easily persuaded on far too little 'evidence'...

If Maybrick could speak from the grave, Old Bean, I wonder if he would say the same about you?

On a lighter note, I heard that a short film about the Maybrick case is in post-production. Starring, among others, Chris Clarkson as Sir Charles Russell.

[Lombro2]

Maybe they can explain why Florence Maybrick was railroaded by James’ Freemason brother(s). I can’t for the life of me think of why.

Until then, Ike and I will just have to be satisfied with The Limehouse Golem as the closest think to a James as Jack movie.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Maybe they can explain why Florence Maybrick was railroaded by James’ Freemason brother(s). I can’t for the life of me think of why.

Until then, Ike and I will just have to be satisfied with The Limehouse Golem as the closest think to a James as Jack movie.

Spoiler alert, but in the Limehouse Golem doesn't the diary turn out to have been written by a woman? The poisoned man being innocent of the serial killings?

Golly, it must suck when you just can't catch a break.

[Iconoclast]

There's nothing "horribly ambiguous" about "a one off instance", mate. Just the worst of multiple giveaway mistakes by the forger.

You've linked the wrong comment. For 'a one 'off' instance' I said, "and you believe implicitly in a 'truth' which can almost certainly never be confirmed". And I meant it. Amongst any 'horribly ambiguous' examples, the attempt to purchase a diary for the year AFTER James Maybrick died was a very good one. You want it to be one way so you look at it one way. That's your trick: one-way vision. Funnily enough, it's EXACTLY like Orsam's one-way vision. And I mean, EXACTLY like it.

Nor is there any ambiguity about the fact that Barrett did secretly attempt to acquire a genuine Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992.

Oh, dear God, make it make sense, man! Are you referring to the same 'secret' Victorian diary regarding which Anne gave Shirley and Keith EVERY ASSISTANCE in locating the source of (Martin Earl) and which inevitably led Keith to tracing the advertisement in December 2004 when she had no good reason to had it formed an unused element of the grand hoax that you and your sort say she and her hubby had just pulled off? Someone said not that long ago that she would have feared the truth coming out via her bank. Well, that would be the end of that particular institution if it revealed the private financial information of a customer without their permission, but - go ahead - fall back on that mad gem of reasoning if you are struggling (which you really ought to be at this point). Oh, I know - here's one for you - Anne just wanted to implant herself in the scene of her crime! Yes, she helped 'break' the 'secret' so that she could stand at the yellow 'crime scene' tape and gawp at her genius. "If I do this, they'll never think it was me", et cetera.

Not suspicious at all according to you.

Given that there was absolutely NOTHING secret about the provocatively-termed 'secret' diary, I am tempted to say that one could only see it as even vaguely suspicious if one's head is fixed in one direction - like a statue.

Please, please, please, make it make sense. Here's a hint: consider ALL of the facts in the case before you rush to judgement.

But can a statue change its view of its own volition, I wonder, or does it require others to do the work for it before it can do so?

I look forward to your latest Orsamesque-response.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You've linked the wrong comment. For 'a one 'off' instance' I said, "and you believe implicitly in a 'truth' which can almost certainly never be confirmed". And I meant it. Amongst any 'horribly ambiguous' examples, the attempt to purchase a diary for the year AFTER James Maybrick died was a very good one. You want it to be one way so you look at it one way. That's your trick: one-way vision. Funnily enough, it's EXACTLY like Orsam's one-way vision. And I mean, EXACTLY like it.



Oh, dear God, make it make sense, man! Are you referring to the same 'secret' Victorian diary regarding which Anne gave Shirley and Keith EVERY ASSISTANCE in locating the source of (Martin Earl) and which inevitably led Keith to tracing the advertisement in December 2004 when she had no good reason to had it formed an unused element of the grand hoax that you and your sort say she and her hubby had just pulled off? Someone said not that long ago that she would have feared the truth coming out via her bank. Well, that would be the end of that particular institution if it revealed the private financial information of a customer without their permission, but - go ahead - fall back on that mad gem of reasoning if you are struggling (which you really ought to be at this point). Oh, I know - here's one for you - Anne just wanted to implant herself in the scene of her crime! Yes, she helped 'break' the 'secret' so that she could stand at the yellow 'crime scene' tape and gawp at her genius. "If I do this, they'll never think it was me", et cetera.



Given that there was absolutely NOTHING secret about the provocatively-termed 'secret' diary, I am tempted to say that one could only see it as even vaguely suspicious if one's head is fixed in one direction - like a statue.

Please, please, please, make it make sense. Here's a hint: consider ALL of the facts in the case before you rush to judgement.

But can a statue change its view of its own volition, I wonder, or does it require others to do the work for it before it can do so?

I look forward to your latest Orsamesque-response.

What do you mean I've "linked to the wrong comment"?

In your #932, you quoted me saying:

"On the other hand we can prove that the diary wasn't written by James Maybrick.
We can also prove that Michael Barrett secretly attempted to acquire a genuine Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992.
That's good enough for me and anyone else that looks at it without bias."

Your response was that I am too easily persuaded by "often horribly ambiguous" evidence.

My response to your #932 in my #933 was that there is nothing "horribly ambiguous" about "one off instance" which proves that the diary wasn't written by James Maybrick.

There's also nothing "horribly ambiguous" about the fact that Barrett secretly attempted to acquire a genuine Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992.

I was just stating facts. And linking to the right comment.

Do you seriously challenge the fact that Michael Barrett secretly attempted to acquire a genuine Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992? That Keith Skinner managed to find out about it TWELVE years later, after Barrett and Harrison published a book which was supposed to tell the whole story about the diary, and, indeed, after Keith Skinner himself had published a book about the diary, certainly does not mean that the attempt to acquire a Victorian diary with blank pages wasn't secret in March 1992.

Did Doreen Montgomery know about that attempt at any time in 1992. Did Shirley Harrison? Of course, they didn't because it was a secret. Did Anne voluntarily tell anyone about it at that time? Of course not! We probably wouldn't even know about it today had not Michael Barrett himself confessed to doing it in his 1995 affidavit.

Perhaps you should abandon your Orsam obsession and focus more on the subject at hand?

[rjpalmer]

Are you referring to the same 'secret' Victorian diary regarding which Anne gave Shirley and Keith EVERY ASSISTANCE in locating the source of (Martin Earl) and which inevitably led Keith to tracing the advertisement in December 2004 when she had no good reason to…

I don’t think you’ve thought this through, Ike, which is why your statement is imprecise and misleading.

While Anne did admit to Keith that Barrett had bought the maroon diary from Earl (what choice did she have?) and give him the cheque stub showing the ‘book’ was purchased in MAY (misleading in itself) it is not proven and wildly unlikely that Anne could have known that Earl had placed an advertisement back in March 1992 documenting exactly what Barrett had requested and when. So it is crass to imply that Anne had helped Keith trace the advertisement. That was his initiative, not hers. It is most unlikely that Anne had any knowledge of Martin Earl’s methods.

Indeed, the wording of Earl’s advertisement makes mincemeat of the idea that Barrett “wanted to see what a Victorian diary looked like”—-the claimed rationale of why the purchase was made and a rationale that satisfied the diary friendly folks for many a year. I know. I remember some of them repeating it and accepting it as plausible.

It would have been interesting to know what Anne’s reaction would have been if she was confronted by the advertisement itself. To this day, has that ever happened?

Further, your wide-eyed acceptance of Anne’s candid and accommodating cooperation is a little hard to take seriously since your own theory of the Battlecrease Caper has her lying repeatedly to Keith over a period of many years. Thus, Anne becomes whatever you need her to be depending on what argument you’re making in the moment.

You have an Anne problem.

Regards.

[Lombro2]

I think I still have to sit on a fence on this issue.