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

[Observer]

You know it'a hard to determine who is the most stupid boy around here

[Iconoclast]

You know it'a hard to determine who is the most stupid boy around here

Very good!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Don't tell him, Pike!

He's made clear he doesn't care what you think, Ike.

It's safe to say that "plausible deniability" is a dead duck; a meaningless phrase which cannot be explained and is thus gibberish.

There is only one plausible explanation for Mike's actions in seeking a diary from 1880-1890 with blank pages during March 1992.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'll bet Caz is kicking herself that she didn't get in quicker with, "Don't tell him, Ike!".

[Thank you, Captain Manwairing!]

Is this a comedy thread, then?

For some reason, I thought it was a thread (you started) in order to ask whether the Maybrick diary is an old hoax, a new hoax of not a hoax at all.

Unless you have anything sensible to say, the answer is undoubtedly that the diary is a forgery created after 1945 and almost certainly after 1988.

In the absence of any alternative plausible explanation for Mike's attempt to seek a Victorian diary with blank pages during March 1992, the conclusion must be that he did so in order to create a fake Victorian diary, meaning that likely authors are him and his wife.

[Pcdunn]

In the absence of any alternative plausible explanation for Mike's attempt to seek a Victorian diary with blank pages during March 1992, the conclusion must be that he did so in order to create a fake Victorian diary, meaning that likely authors are him and his wife.

Yes, probably. I have read long ago among all these Maybrickian speculation threads that Mike wanted proof he had bought a Victorian diary -- in the form of the *receipt* for the red diary. Because, as we have seen from some of his own dissemblings on the subject, he *didn't* have a receipt for the auction-house photo album.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, probably. I have read long ago among all these Maybrickian speculation threads that Mike wanted proof he had bought a Victorian diary -- in the form of the *receipt* for the red diary. Because, as we have seen from some of his own dissemblings on the subject, he *didn't* have a receipt for the auction-house photo album.

Yes, I've read that too Pat, but it never made any sense because if that was what Mike wanted he wouldn't have needed to request a diary with blank pages.

[Abby Normal]

Is this a comedy thread, then?

For some reason, I thought it was a thread (you started) in order to ask whether the Maybrick diary is an old hoax, a new hoax of not a hoax at all.

Unless you have anything sensible to say, the answer is undoubtedly that the diary is a forgery created after 1945 and almost certainly after 1988.

In the absence of any alternative plausible explanation for Mike's attempt to seek a Victorian diary with blank pages during March 1992, the conclusion must be that he did so in order to create a fake Victorian diary, meaning that likely authors are him and his wife.

Indeed Herlock
All anyone needs to know is what you just mentioned, the "provenance" begins and ends with the Barretts and he admitted he and his wife hoaxed this silly thing. So yes the diary circus is a comedy, and has been for a long time.

You, Roger and Orsam have proved its a clown show many times over. Hopefully its about time this circus packs up and leaves town for good.

[Abby Normal]

Indeed Herlock
All anyone needs to know is what you just mentioned, the "provenance" begins and ends with the Barretts and he admitted he and his wife hoaxed this silly thing. So yes the diary circus is a comedy, and has been for a long time.

You, Roger and Orsam have proved its a clown show many times over. Hopefully its about time this circus packs up and leaves town for good.

and just so nobody tries to take my post out of context, when i say Herlock, Roger and Orsam have proved the diary is a clown show, it obviously means theyve proved its a hoax, and a bad one at that.

[Iconoclast]

You, Roger and Orsam have proved its a clown show many times over. Hopefully its about time this circus packs up and leaves town for good.

And thus you show us why the James Maybrick section of the Casebook must continue to thrive and why I must be ever vigilant in defence of the Maybrick scrapbook (and watch). No-one has ever proven the scrapbook to be a hoax despite the desperate wishful thinking of many well-known authors and commentators. The best we have got is Orsam's claims that 'one off instance' could not be written in a record from 1888 - and yet this in itself is not 'proven', I'm not even sure if it's ever 'provable', but even if it was provable, you would still be left with having to account for the fact that it is an ambiguous statement, and there is no way whatsoever that could be proven untrue (someone's biased views would obviously not count).

So you've just got a great deal of superficially-it-looks-like-a-hoax (I concur with this entirely) and on the strength of that, it is instinctively dismissed.

I don't instinctively dismiss it. I see beneath its superficial surface appearance. I see a document and a watch which brings to us a man with means, motive, and opportunity - a man who we can find in the circumstantial evidence also. I see the strongest candidate for the Whitechapel fiend we have ever had.

And I won't be run out of town by anyone (except the sheriff).

[Herlock Sholmes]

And thus you show us why the James Maybrick section of the Casebook must continue to thrive and why I must be ever vigilant in defence of the Maybrick scrapbook (and watch). No-one has ever proven the scrapbook to be a hoax despite the desperate wishful thinking of many well-known authors and commentators. The best we have got is Orsam's claims that 'one off instance' could not be written in a record from 1888 - and yet this in itself is not 'proven', I'm not even sure if it's ever 'provable', but even if it was provable, you would still be left with having to account for the fact that it is an ambiguous statement, and there is no way whatsoever that could be proven untrue (someone's biased views would obviously not count).

So you've just got a great deal of superficially-it-looks-like-a-hoax (I concur with this entirely) and on the strength of that, it is instinctively dismissed.

I don't instinctively dismiss it. I see beneath its superficial surface appearance. I see a document and a watch which brings to us a man with means, motive, and opportunity - a man who we can find in the circumstantial evidence also. I see the strongest candidate for the Whitechapel fiend we have ever had.

And I won't be run out of town by anyone (except the sheriff).

And yet....you can't explain why Mike wanted a Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992.

Lombro mumbled some gibberish about a diary fence needing plausible deniability but when I ask him for clarification as to what this means, there is only silence. You even instruct him not to answer!

If you think no one has ever proven the scrapbook to be a hoax it can only be because you're not listening.

You’ve had 10 years to rebut one off instance. 6 months would have been way too long. You are just using delay tactics to try and keep the point open ended for ever. It won’t work. One off instance is the incontrovertible proof that this diary is a forgery. Just because you have your head in the sand Ike you shouldn’t expect everyone else to.

Proven fake.

[Iconoclast]

Proven fake.

In many respects, I wish you were somehow right. I would love this issue to be resolved one way or the other. But I won't walk away on the basis of biased claims or because I am willing to ignore a one-off ambiguous statement in the scrapbook. If Orsam was a true researcher, he would admit that his 'one off instance' is both unprovable and ambiguous, and certainly no incontrovertible proof of anything. But he has not (to my knowledge) and so we have adherents like you doing his bidding by making false claims of 'proven fake' as if you were the love child of Maurice Chittenden.

At our advancing ages, Mrs I and I are plotting our route out of Dodge. We're heading off into the sunset, only my saddle bag remains weighed-down by books about a very very ordinary serial killer from 137 years ago so we are making rather slow progress.

Just as well, say I, if the indolent are to be left in charge on our eventual departure, which may never come if we continue to await one incontrovertible, undeniable, unequivocal fact which finally refutes the Maybrick scrapbook.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In many respects, I wish you were somehow right. I would love this issue to be resolved one way or the other. But I won't walk away on the basis of biased claims or because I am willing to ignore a one-off ambiguous statement in the scrapbook. If Orsam was a true researcher, he would admit that his 'one off instance' is both unprovable and ambiguous, and certainly no incontrovertible proof of anything. But he has not (to my knowledge) and so we have adherents like you doing his bidding by making false claims of 'proven fake' as if you were the love child of Maurice Chittenden.

At our advancing ages, Mrs I and I are plotting our route out of Dodge. We're heading off into the sunset, only my saddle bag remains weighed-down by books about a very very ordinary serial killer from 137 years ago so we are making rather slow progress.

Just as well, say I, if the indolent are to be left in charge on our eventual departure, which may never come if we continue to await one incontrovertible, undeniable, unequivocal fact which finally refutes the Maybrick scrapbook.

So now it’s not just that you can’t refute it you are trying to seal the deal by claiming that it’s not refutable or provable. Nice try.

Its a proven forgery.

[Iconoclast]

So now it’s not just that you can’t refute it you are trying to seal the deal by claiming that it’s not refutable or provable. Nice try.

Its a proven forgery.

Other than your almost-certainly unprovable 'one off instance' (never mind the obvious ambiguity of the statement in the scrapbook), could you list a few other proven facts which prove the scrapbook to be a hoax? My money is on you just listing some or all of the old canards, but do surprise me.

And could you list those which prove the watch to also be a hoax?

Oh, the bated breath!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Other than your almost-certainly unprovable 'one off instance' (never mind the obvious ambiguity of the statement in the scrapbook), could you list a few other proven facts which prove the scrapbook to be a hoax? My money is on you just listing some or all of the old canards, but do surprise me.

And could you list those which prove the watch to also be a hoax?

Oh, the bated breath!

You're fully aware, Ike, of all the mistakes the diarist made. They've been pointed out to you many times but all you care about is dreaming up ever more ludicrous hypothetical reasons as to why Maybrick could have made those mistakes. "one off instance" is just the biggest mistake made by the diarist for which you have no response at all. This can be seen by your silly and desperate reference to "the obvious ambiguity of the statement in the scrapbook". Everyone knows what "one off instance" means in the diary, including you. There is no ambiguity.

Orsam tried to help you stop wasting your time but you closed your eyes and covered your ears so that you would see and hear no evil. I'm trying to help you too but it's the same response. All you want to do is play a silly endless game. But, as Abby has said, the silly game has become a clown show. It really is time for you to stop flogging this dead comedy horse.

[Iconoclast]

You're fully aware, Ike, of all the mistakes the diarist made. They've been pointed out to you many times but all you care about is dreaming up ever more ludicrous hypothetical reasons as to why Maybrick could have made those mistakes. "one off instance" is just the biggest mistake made by the diarist for which you have no response at all. This can be seen by your silly and desperate reference to "the obvious ambiguity of the statement in the scrapbook". Everyone knows what "one off instance" means in the diary, including you. There is no ambiguity.

Orsam tried to help you stop wasting your time but you closed your eyes and covered your ears so that you would see and hear no evil. I'm trying to help you too but it's the same response. All you want to do is play a silly endless game. But, as Abby has said, the silly game has become a clown show. It really is time for you to stop flogging this dead comedy horse.

Here's a thought. What would it cost you to leave Maybrick threads entirely alone? They clearly bother you sufficiently that you feel the need to argue against Maybrick's candidacy which tells us all that you aren't even vaguely convinced of the truth of your claims. Your desperate defence of the hoax theory shows us how little you really are convinced that it was a hoax. It's like you keep asking questions because you need reassurance that you haven't made a terrible mistake.

Someone who was so certain that they were right surely wouldn't bother arguing with what is a very small number of posters? Something else is clearly going on with you, I think. You are looking for answers not simply here to dismiss Maybrick at all.