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

[Herlock Sholmes]

As I have said very recently (and stole from Ricky Gervais), you can have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts (and 'facts' can't be established simply by reference to other people's opinions - even if you assume their research is infallible or, God forbid, you do a poll on it and imagine the results will actually mean anything).

Again, I say this for the benefit of my dear readers, not you.

PS 5,700 people can't be wrong! (Oh yes they can.)

I’m doing a poll because someone suggested it.

That one off instance couldn’t have been used by Maybrick is a fact. If it wasn’t someone would have found a rebuttal after 10 years and counting. But they haven’t. It’s simply a crooked approach to keep the point open ended for ever. Your attitude appears to be “one day we will find a rebuttal but until then we should make the assumption that it will be rebutted.”

But even if we put aside ‘one off instance’ for the moment and talk about how we assess the validity of suspects. No one can prove 100% that Walter Sickert wasn’t the ripper. No one can prove 100% that Charles Cross wasn’t the ripper. And this applies to virtually every suspect. So all that we can do is assess on a points for and points against basis and yet you feel that Maybrick stands alone in that he should be exempt from this process and that no points should be raised unless they are absolute proof. You meet criticism with anger and insult. A sure sign that this subject means too much to you.

There is a very long list of points against Maybrick and all that we get is an equally long list of excuses. Look how many have been fooled into thinking Cross was the ripper. Look how many have been fooled into thinking that the DNA on the shawl is case closed. Likewise some have been fooled by this clear forgery. That Barrett tried to buy a Victorian diary shoots the likelihood up to 95% just on its own. Add the rest and it’s game over. To believe in an innocent explanation for this is the equivalent of the toddler with a face covered in chocolate denying that she’s eaten the chocolate cake from the fridge.

[rjpalmer]

You developing a tic there, RJ?

Not sure what you mean there, Old Boy. My double post? I have an issue with my browser, I think.

Do you know which hospital or clinic Anne Graham worked at in Sydney?

[Lombro2]

I think Briggs is Hammersmith because of RLS literary reasons already discussed, although Briggs may also be derived from Bridge.

MJ is Mary Jane.

[Iconoclast]

MJ Wilson?

I guess if Hammersmith can be Bridge, Druitt can be Wilson.

Strange times.

RP

You developing a tic there, RJ?

[Iconoclast]

Bias, obsession, bluster, ego and agenda. Nothing more from #870 and #871. The diary is a proven modern forgery.

As I have said very recently (and stole from Ricky Gervais), you can have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts (and 'facts' can't be established simply by reference to other people's opinions - even if you assume their research is infallible or, God forbid, you do a poll on it and imagine the results will actually mean anything).

Again, I say this for the benefit of my dear readers, not you.

PS 5,700 people can't be wrong! (Oh yes they can.)