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

[John Wheat]

Despite the efforts of a small number of casebook members the Diary was still not written by James Maybrick and all the evidence points to the diary being penned by Anne and Mike Barrett.

[Iconoclast]

Despite the efforts of a small number of casebook members the Diary was still not written by James Maybrick and all the evidence points to the diary being penned by Anne and Mike Barrett.

Ridiculous post.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Yet again, all you do is make it painfully obvious that you can't explain Lombro's gibberish "plausible deniability" statement.

It's not surprising because even he can't seem to explain it, which is also not surprising because it's meaningless gibberish.

[Scott Nelson]

Despite the efforts of a small number of casebook members the Diary was still not written by James Maybrick and all the evidence points to the diary being penned by Anne and Mike Barrett.

What's the evidence and why do you believe it?

[John Wheat]

What's the evidence and why do you believe it?

If you don't know by now you never will.

[Scott Nelson]

I don't think you know.

[Lombro2]

Why do these guys think a fence needs a perfect facsimile of the stolen item?

He doesn’t have to prove the item wasn’t stolen. He has to have proof that he legitimately buys similar items.

All he needs is a diary he bought fairly. If he thinks he has to transfer some text onto blank pages to make it look more like the stolen item, that’s his own idea.

If you don’t understand what a fence is by now and how they work, maybe you never will.

[Lombro2]

Meaningless gibberish to those who can’t understand the criminal classes. Or like to play Socratically Dumb to get dates.

Let me guess you never studied criminals in the wild. But only study the work of those who study criminals in a zoo.

[Iconoclast]

Why do these guys think a fence needs a perfect facsimile of the stolen item?
He doesn’t have to prove the item wasn’t stolen. He has to have proof that he legitimately buys similar items.
All he needs is a diary he bought fairly. If he thinks he has to transfer some text onto blank pages to make it look more like the stolen item, that’s his own idea.
If you don’t understand what a fence is by now and how they work, maybe you never will.

It's pointless explaining anything to them, L2, because - even when they know and we all know they know - they pretend not to know in order to protect their chosen, biased interpretation of the reason for events occurring.

As you will have noted before, I lie heavily towards the 'plausible deniability' view: it explains the 1890 and 1891 problems in an instant, which is why the Naysayers have to say they cannot see the FM on Kelly's wall - oops, I mean they cannot see the logic in the facsimile explanation. So many things they cannot see, they cannot understand, they have to twist and turn to fit square pegs in round holes, and they have to denigrate and undermine.

But Michael Barrett's uncorroborated accounts (plural) of how he was the 'greatest forger' history has ever known is more than enough for them. Such one-way, tunnel-vision as we've never seen before!

I wonder if they would be honest enough to admit that their only source of evidence to back up their theory is a man who was incorrigibly flawed, and that they would never dream of placing anything of value to them in his careless hands?

The Maybrick scrapbook may indeed one day turn out to be a hoax but its won't be at the hands of Mike and Anne Barrett.

[John Wheat]

It's pointless explaining anything to them, L2, because - even when they know and we all know they know - they pretend not to know in order to protect their chosen, biased interpretation of the reason for events occurring.

As you will have noted before, I lie heavily towards the 'plausible deniability' view: it explains the 1890 and 1891 problems in an instant, which is why the Naysayers have to say they cannot see the FM on Kelly's wall - oops, I mean they cannot see the logic in the facsimile explanation. So many things they cannot see, they cannot understand, they have to twist and turn to fit square pegs in round holes, and they have to denigrate and undermine.

But Michael Barrett's uncorroborated accounts (plural) of how he was the 'greatest forger' history has ever known is more than enough for them. Such one-way, tunnel-vision as we've never seen before!

I wonder if they would be honest enough to admit that their only source of evidence to back up their theory is a man who was incorrigibly flawed, and that they would never dream of placing anything of value to them in his careless hands?

The Maybrick scrapbook may indeed one day turn out to be a hoax but its won't be at the hands of Mike and Anne Barrett.

The Maybrick Diary is a hoax and in all likelihood was written by Mike and Anne Barrett. A professional writer and conman and his wife are the last people who would write a hoax Diary.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why do these guys think a fence needs a perfect facsimile of the stolen item?

He doesn’t have to prove the item wasn’t stolen. He has to have proof that he legitimately buys similar items.

All he needs is a diary he bought fairly. If he thinks he has to transfer some text onto blank pages to make it look more like the stolen item, that’s his own idea.

If you don’t understand what a fence is by now and how they work, maybe you never will.

Could you please identify a single person who thinks think "a fence needs a perfect facsimile of the stolen item"?

A fence buys a stolen item from a thief then sells it for a profit. They don't waste their time or money buying a similar item from someone else for no reason.

But that's beside the point. What you haven't explained in your post is what you mean by "plausible deniability". You haven't even mentioned the expression at all.

I'm going to have to assume that you know full well that the words "he wanted a similar one for plausible deniability" were gibberish which you hadn't given any thought to before you posted them.

Its the simplest of requests Lombro….why the ducking and diving?

[Iconoclast]

Could you please identify a single person who thinks think "a fence needs a perfect facsimile of the stolen item"?
A fence buys a stolen item from a thief then sells it for a profit. They don't waste their time or money buying a similar item from someone else for no reason.
But that's beside the point. What you haven't explained in your post is what you mean by "plausible deniability". You haven't even mentioned the expression at all.
I'm going to have to assume that you know full well that the words "he wanted a similar one for plausible deniability" were gibberish which you hadn't given any thought to before you posted them.
Its the simplest of requests Lombro….why the ducking and diving?

I think because neither L2 nor I nor anyone else (including RJ Palmer who has tried his best to slip it in on the QT for you) feels we should answer to your demands.

"You've got to ask me nicely" [thank you, Col. N. Jessop].

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's pointless explaining anything to them, L2, because - even when they know and we all know they know - they pretend not to know in order to protect their chosen, biased interpretation of the reason for events occurring.

As you will have noted before, I lie heavily towards the 'plausible deniability' view: it explains the 1890 and 1891 problems in an instant, which is why the Naysayers have to say they cannot see the FM on Kelly's wall - oops, I mean they cannot see the logic in the facsimile explanation. So many things they cannot see, they cannot understand, they have to twist and turn to fit square pegs in round holes, and they have to denigrate and undermine.

But Michael Barrett's uncorroborated accounts (plural) of how he was the 'greatest forger' history has ever known is more than enough for them. Such one-way, tunnel-vision as we've never seen before!

I wonder if they would be honest enough to admit that their only source of evidence to back up their theory is a man who was incorrigibly flawed, and that they would never dream of placing anything of value to them in his careless hands?

The Maybrick scrapbook may indeed one day turn out to be a hoax but its won't be at the hands of Mike and Anne Barrett.

If you're now adopting the concept of "plausible deniability", Ike, could you kindly explain what it was that being in possession of a diary from 1880 to 1890 with a minimum of 20 blank pages was going to allow Mike to deny, and to whom?

I mean, it wasn't going to allow him to deny being in possession of a Victorian diary, was it?

Lombro tells us that Mike was going to copy some of the original text from the Maybrick diary into that Victorian diary, so it wasn't even going to allow him to deny being in possession of a Jack the Ripper diary, was it?

So what was it going to enable him to plausibly deny?

I just don't understand it. I'm fearing that the reason I don't understand it is because it's gibberish.

But if it isn't, you should be able to explain it in a thrice.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think because neither L2 nor I nor anyone else (including RJ Palmer who has tried his best to slip it in on the QT for you) feels we should answer to your demands.

"You've got to ask me nicely" [thank you, Col. N. Jessop].

Could you please tell me what is demanding and not nice about my request, which was addressed to Lombro, not you, which said: "Could you please identify a single person who thinks think "a fence needs a perfect facsimile of the stolen item"?"

I note that you've decided not to have a go at answering it. So I'll have to wait for Lombro.

If, going forward, the response to the most damning evidence in favour of Mike having been involved in the creation of the diary is to be summed up as "plausible deniability", surely we all need to know what that means. I have literally no idea. It strikes me as pure gibberish. In over 24 hours, no-one has yet been able to disabuse me of this notion.

Are we to wait endlessly and patiently with no explanation just as we have waited 10+ years for the non-existent rebuttal of ‘one off instance’?

[Iconoclast]

Could you please tell me what is demanding and not nice about my request, which was addressed to Lombro, not you, which said: "Could you please identify a single person who thinks think "a fence needs a perfect facsimile of the stolen item"?"
I note that you've decided not to have a go at answering it. So I'll have to wait for Lombro.
If, going forward, the response to the most damning evidence in favour of Mike having been involved in the creation of the diary is to be summed up as "plausible deniability", surely we all need to know what that means. I have literally no idea. It strikes me as pure gibberish. In over 24 hours, no-one has yet been able to disabuse me of this notion.
Are we to wait endlessly and patiently with no explanation just as we have waited 10+ years for the non-existent rebuttal of ‘one off instance’?

Could you run a poll for us to see whether anyone thinks someone should tell you?