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

[Iconoclast]

The evidence clearly suggests that Anne and Mike Barrett are the authors of the Diary.

Ridiculous post.

[rjpalmer]

2. Do you realise that the words "he wanted a similar one for plausible deniability" are gibberish?

All I can figure is that he thinks that if the police accused Mike of having bought the diary down the boozer, Mike could 'plausibly deny' this by proving he hoaxed it!

The mind boggles.

[Iconoclast]

All I can figure is that he thinks that if the police accused Mike of having bought the diary down the boozer, Mike could 'plausibly deny' this by proving he hoaxed it!

The mind boggles.

Ridiculous post.

The mind boggles that people posting regularly on the James Maybrick part of the Casebook need to be spoon-fed such a simple concept.

Use your whole brain, not just the bit dedicated to prejudices and biases.

[rjpalmer]

Ridiculous post.

The mind boggles that people posting regularly on the James Maybrick part of the Casebook need to be spoon-fed such a simple concept.

Use your whole brain, not just the bit dedicated to prejudices and biases.

Then either you--or Lombo--explain what he meant by 'plausible deniability.' Be precise.

Why post gibberish and then go on the attack when no reasonable person can make either heads or tails of it?

[John Wheat]

Ridiculous post.

The mind boggles that people posting regularly on the James Maybrick part of the Casebook need to be spoon-fed such a simple concept.

Use your whole brain, not just the bit dedicated to prejudices and biases.

Ridiculous post.

[Iconoclast]

Ridiculous post.

Ah - another member of that gang, eh?

[Lombro2]

More like a “group” that drinks from the same punch bowl.

[Lombro2]

If it doesn’t make sense, you need to stop giving your tuppence!

[rjpalmer]

If it doesn’t make sense, you need to stop giving your tuppence!

That's your first sensible comment. Well done.

And you're right--I certainly don't expend any energy correcting the ravings of 'Crazy Jane' down at the local mall.

As for using the 'whole brain,' I learned rather early in life that doppelgangers need to look like one another.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If it doesn’t make sense, you need to stop giving your tuppence!

A more logical response, Lombro, would be to say that if doesn't make sense you shouldn't have posted it.

[Iconoclast]

A more logical response, Lombro, would be to say that if doesn't make sense you shouldn't have posted it.

Well, that would require it to have not made sense - something which RJ (as we all knew) has just shown did not truthfully apply to him. He loves to jump in and stoke what little fire there may be before it goes out.

He didn't say that he agreed with it - but he absolutely showed that he knew exactly what was being referred to despite his poor attempts to pretend he didn't.

Which means that you're out on your own again. Becoming a trend that one, I think ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, that would require it to have not made sense - something which RJ (as we all knew) has just shown did not truthfully apply to him. He loves to jump in and stoke what little fire there may be before it goes out.

He didn't say that he agreed with it - but he absolutely showed that he knew exactly what was being referred to despite his poor attempts to pretend he didn't.

Which means that you're out on your own again. Becoming a trend that one, I think ...

It's funny, Ike, that the one thing which hasn't happened since I posted this morning, many hours ago, is an explanation from either you or Lombro (or anyone else) as to how the acquisition by Mike of diary from the period 1880 to 1890 with a minimum of 20 blank pages was going to provide him with "plausible deniability". Deniability of what? Plausible, how? I assume it's not being answered because it's complete gibberish.

And, of course, my other question to Lombro has been ignored which, by way of reminder, was: "In your mind, is 20, and any number greater than 20, the same as 17?"

I do wonder if he realizes the advertisement placed on Mike's behalf expressly excluded an 1888 or 1889 diary with 17 blank pages. So, if a supplier had been in possession of such a diary, he or she would have seen that it didn't meet the criteria being asked for. Bit odd that isn't it, if, as Lombro tells us, Mike "had a diary in front of him already, with 17 blank pages" and the one thing he doesn't want is another diary with 17 blank pages?! It only adds to the gibberishness of whatever it is Lombro's trying to say. That's why an explanation is necessary if anyone is going to even begin to understand it.

[Iconoclast]

It's funny, Ike, that the one thing which hasn't happened since I posted this morning, many hours ago, is an explanation from either you or Lombro (or anyone else) as to how the acquisition by Mike of diary from the period 1880 to 1890 with a minimum of 20 blank pages was going to provide him with "plausible deniability". Deniability of what? Plausible, how? I assume it's not being answered because it's complete gibberish.

You should just ask your mate RJ - he kens the craic.

I do wonder if he realizes the advertisement placed on Mike's behalf expressly excluded an 1888 or 1889 diary with 17 blank pages. So, if a supplier had been in possession of such a diary, he or she would have seen that it didn't meet the criteria being asked for. Bit odd that isn't it, if, as Lombro tells us, Mike "had a diary in front of him already, with 17 blank pages" and the one thing he doesn't want is another diary with 17 blank pages?! It only adds to the gibberishness of whatever it is Lombro's trying to say. That's why an explanation is necessary if anyone is going to even begin to understand it.

Am I allowed to do what you and RJ and Orsam do all of the time and just come up with an answer that fits my argument and then refer to it as though it is a God-given truth and what have you?

If I am, can I suggest that it was 'simple'? Mike simply didn't count the number of blank pages at the back of the Maybrick scrapbook.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander and if Mike Barrett accepted an 1891 diary without seeking absolute clarity over its suitability for a hoaxed record of Jack the Ripper's thoughts, then he most certainly did not count the number of blank pages at the back of the one he already had.

And that's factual.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You should just ask your mate RJ - he kens the craic.



Am I allowed to do what you and RJ and Orsam do all of the time and just come up with an answer that fits my argument and then refer to it as though it is a God-given truth and what have you?

If I am, can I suggest that it was 'simple'? Mike simply didn't count the number of blank pages at the back of the Maybrick scrapbook.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander and if Mike Barrett accepted an 1891 diary without seeking absolute clarity over its suitability for a hoaxed record of Jack the Ripper's thoughts, then he most certainly did not count the number of blank pages at the back of the one he already had.

And that's factual.

Ike, did you miss Roger's #1172 where he posted: "All I can figure is that he thinks that if the police accused Mike of having bought the diary down the boozer, Mike could 'plausibly deny' this by proving he hoaxed it! The mind boggles". Oh no, you didn't because you replied to it! Now you try to tell me that Roger understands what "plausible deniability" means. Where do I find this?

All I see is Roger assuming that Lombro, unable to express himself properly, is talking about your daft doppleganger theory. That may be so. I assumed that too. But, in which case, what is the plausible deniability?

Once again, it's obvious you can't explain

[Iconoclast]

Once again, it's obvious you can't explain

I feel so humble in your presence. I wish I could explain what I mean in the way you can explain anything at all in the way you mean it to read even if there's no credible evidence for it.

And that's factual.