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

[Iconoclast]

Is it probably not the time to come to a conclusion on this long running saga? Why not have a poll? The diary is real or the diary is fake. Mr Sholmes leading the prosecution and Mr Ike for the defence. Only members registered as of whenever the poll is launched (to avoid any shenanigans!) can vote.

I doubt anybody is going to be persuaded to change their mind as a result of the same arguments being rehashed over and over. The losing side commits to not raising the issue again. It's done.

Welcome to the heart of true Ripper discussion, ohrocky.

For Jack, we've had loads of polls on the Casebook, and they are never positive for Maybrick. Makes you wonder if anyone (other than I) in the real world actually believes Maybrick was the Ripper, doesn't it?

But soft! - here's an example of when it was done in the real world:

London Weekend Television, ‘Trial of Jack the Spratt McVitie’, 2001, shown on Discovery Channel: 40% of studio audience and 38% of about 15,000 members of the public voted for Maybrick as the ripper.

• Maybrick: Studio 40%, viewers 38%
• Tumblety: 32%, 29%
• Gull: 16%, 20%
• Kosminski: 12%, 13%

Quick calculation, 38% of about 15,000 voters is ...

Quite a lot of people!!!

And, still, ad populum arguments are absolutely meaningless ...

[Lombro2]

When does jury selection start? I think Ike approves me and Jay and Scott.

What does Maybrick's Legal Dream Team say?

[ohrocky]

Is it probably not the time to come to a conclusion on this long running saga? Why not have a poll? The diary is real or the diary is fake. Mr Sholmes leading the prosecution and Mr Ike for the defence. Only members registered as of whenever the poll is launched (to avoid any shenanigans!) can vote.

I doubt anybody is going to be persuaded to change their mind as a result of the same arguments being rehashed over and over. The losing side commits to not raising the issue again. It's done.

[John Wheat]

Ive said this before, there is no chance the diary was written by Maybrick. And in all likelihood it was written by the Barretts.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So yet again Ike resorts to anger and personal insults merely because his precious diary has been challenged by someone that hasn’t wasted thirty years of his life desperately trying to prop it up and defend it beyond the realms of reason, sense and fairness. All in the name of personal ego. In my posts I’ve used no personal insults. As a matter of fact I’ve always communicated with Ike in a friendly manner which, until recently had been reciprocated but, as soon as I posted anything critical of this fake diar the mask began to slip. Now Ike has thrown the mask away completely and this is the language that I get in response to points that I made :


“Mendacities.”

“someone trying to make an educated argument but not knowing how to.

(repeated twice - perhaps in his rage Ike forgot that he was repeating himself)


“Johnny-Come-Lately’s with a pompous view of their limited knowledge of the case.”


“Johnny-Come-Lately dilettantes plagiarising the opinions of others.”

Quite an accusation. Does this mean that we are not allowed to read and agree with the opinions of others? Or does this apply only to the o-unions of one person?


“the same asinine, ill-thought-out remarks.”


We see true colours being revealed here I’m afraid. Ike questions my knowledge of ‘the case.’ I’d suggest that Ike himself has absolutely no interest in ‘the case’ as a whole as he has merely read the diary, become convinced that it’s real, and has focused a large part of his life on it. I see no evidence of any great knowledge of the case in general. Many people on here have favoured suspects but how many can we name who never, ever post on anything but their own suspect? This is hardly evidence of an open mind is it? Someone only willing to consider one option and that every point raised against it must be wrong. Hardly a fair minded approach? Only with this type of approach can someone look on a man producing a supposedly genuine Victorian diary only to find that before he had produced it the man in question had attempted to purchase a blank Victorian diary. How many people in real life would seek to brush aside this example aside? How many would believe the concoction of embarrassingly feeble excuses? How many would say “yeah right”?

Ike has provided his responses in his post, many of them desperate of course, but for any point made opposing ones can be suggested; it doesn’t mean that they are correct though. Ike is like a theologian; a religious ‘excuse maker’. No matter how silly or unbelievable the point Ike will take the time and effort to come up with a worthy piece of fiction to ‘rebut’ the point. Explanations or just excuses? Ike assumes his points are correct though and he does this because he has no choice…he must defend.

It’s sad that Ike should resort to this attitude. He appears to feel that discussion of the diary is a closed shop open only to those who have served a thirty year apprenticeship in the murky world of diary lies, lies and more lies. There is a mountain of evidence that the diary is a modern forgery and the fact that the author of the diary simply couldn’t have used the expression ‘one off instance’ is the absolute game over proof despite ten years of effort to disprove the point and a list of embarrassing, desperate efforts to do so.

Perhaps Ike should have another look in that mirror and ask himself why this fake is so important to him? So important that he resorts to anger and personal insult to anyone who questions it?