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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ah, Johnny-Come-Lately is back, I see.

It was I who first introduced the idea about a year or so ago.

How do you then explain that the first time you used the expression "plausible deniability" on this forum was four days ago?

[John Wheat]

Ah, Johnny-Come-Lately is back, I see.

It was I who first introduced the idea about a year or so ago.

What is all this Johnny-Come-Lately about? Is it about penalising posters who look at threads that aren't Maybrick threads and might not have extensively posted on Maybrick threads for over a decade or something?

[Herlock Sholmes]

What is all this Johnny-Come-Lately about? Is it about penalising posters who look at threads that aren't Maybrick threads and might not have extensively posted on Maybrick threads for over a decade or something?

Yes, that’s just what it is John. As if the subject is some kind of closed shop. When the Wallace thread was running quite often posters who had little or no previous knowledge of the case would jump in and make points, ask questions, suggest ideas. At no point did I or anyone else talk about Johnnie-come-lately’s. If I’d have entered into this subject saying “I think that the diary might have been genuine,” or “I can’t see the Barrett’s being involved in the forgery,” I’d have been welcomed with open arms. But I didn’t. I agree with Roger and the greatest sin of all..I agree with David Orsam.

[John Wheat]

Yes, that’s just what it is John. As if the subject is some kind of closed shop. When the Wallace thread was running quite often posters who had little or no previous knowledge of the case would jump in and make points, ask questions, suggest ideas. At no point did I or anyone else talk about Johnnie-come-lately’s. If I’d have entered into this subject saying “I think that the diary might have been genuine,” or “I can’t see the Barrett’s being involved in the forgery,” I’d have been welcomed with open arms. But I didn’t. I agree with Roger and the greatest sin of all..I agree with David Orsam.

Hi Herlock

Thanks I thought it might be.

Cheers John

[Iconoclast]

How do you then explain that the first time you used the expression "plausible deniability" on this forum was four days ago?

What do you mean, how do I explain it? Why are you so desperate to evidence insincerity at every turn? I don't believe I have ever used the term 'plausible deniability' except in support of L2's listing of an idea of mine from a year or so ago. I didn't use the term but I did introduce the idea that he appears to have given a name to.

[Iconoclast]

Yes, that’s just what it is John. As if the subject is some kind of closed shop. When the Wallace thread was running quite often posters who had little or no previous knowledge of the case would jump in and make points, ask questions, suggest ideas. At no point did I or anyone else talk about Johnnie-come-lately’s. If I’d have entered into this subject saying “I think that the diary might have been genuine,” or “I can’t see the Barrett’s being involved in the forgery,” I’d have been welcomed with open arms. But I didn’t. I agree with Roger and the greatest sin of all..I agree with David Orsam.

Nope, the term 'Johnny-Come-Lately' (as I use it here) refers to anyone launching themselves into a debate of many decades standing positing inherent 'truths' they have borrowed from others and demanding answers to questions which have been rinsed and repeated a thousand times. It is a commonly enough used expression, and perhaps others take a different meaning from it than I.

I love it when a new poster comes onto these threads (it has to be these threads as I almost never venture on to any non-Maybrick ones) and you will find that I and others have frequently humoured what might otherwise be rather worn-out canards. Indeed, I have frequently asked new posters to post because I fear that they fear they will be ridiculed. I still regret the loss of Tempus Omnia Revelat to The Greatest Thread of All because he had some brilliant ideas but whose tolerance for the sadly-inevitable antipathy was too low to battle on. No-one could blame him but he was a massive loss to our little community. I've said many times before that I regret Lord Orsam's sensational 'resignation' (he was booted off) from the Casebook because he was - as I have said before - anti-matter to Keith Skinner's matter where researching this case is concerned. He also had a sense of humour which counts very highly in my book because this is not a court of law and no crimes have been committed bar the ones we seek to solve.

When the answers to your questions are all well-documented and the counter-arguments to your well-worn arguments are all there in the record, it is as frustrating as hell to find that they are coming from someone who is about as active on this site as it is possible to get which makes me wonder how on earth they can hold such trenchant views when they have almost never posted on this theme and never shown any interest in its subject despite the frequent repeating of the arguments they apparently now hold so dearly.

[rjpalmer]

Nope, the term 'Johnny-Come-Lately' (as I use it here) refers to anyone launching themselves into a debate of many decades standing positing inherent 'truths' they have borrowed from others and demanding answers to questions which have been rinsed and repeated a thousand times. It is a commonly enough used expression, and perhaps others take a different meaning from it than I.

It's all relative, Ike.

I consider you a 'Johnny-Come-Lately.'

When did 'Iconoclast' arrive on this forum? Around 2012?

Nearly two decades after the diary first reared its ugly head and most of your arguments are simply recycled from Feldman and Rubenstein.

You, Sir, are a noob.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What do you mean, how do I explain it? Why are you so desperate to evidence insincerity at every turn? I don't believe I have ever used the term 'plausible deniability' except in support of L2's listing of an idea of mine from a year or so ago. I didn't use the term but I did introduce the idea that he appears to have given a name to.

I can't think how it's possible to introduce the idea of plausible deniability onto this forum without mentioning the words plausible deniability.

I certainly remember you telling us that Mike wanted to buy a genuine Victorian diary so that, if the owner knocked at his door demanding his stolen diary back, he could give him the genuine diary, as if it was the stolen one. That daft suggestion, however, is the very opposite of deniability because, in that scenario Mike, would have been admitting that he was in possession of a stolen diary.

But rather than endlessly arguing about this, why don't you either tell me where I can find the post you're alluding to from last year or, if that's too difficult for you (and I'm guessing it will be), just explain what you mean when you say that a Victorian diary with blank pages would have given Mike "plausible deniability"?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nope, the term 'Johnny-Come-Lately' (as I use it here) refers to anyone launching themselves into a debate of many decades standing positing inherent 'truths' they have borrowed from others and demanding answers to questions which have been rinsed and repeated a thousand times. It is a commonly enough used expression, and perhaps others take a different meaning from it than I.

I love it when a new poster comes onto these threads (it has to be these threads as I almost never venture on to any non-Maybrick ones) and you will find that I and others have frequently humoured what might otherwise be rather worn-out canards. Indeed, I have frequently asked new posters to post because I fear that they fear they will be ridiculed. I still regret the loss of Tempus Omnia Revelat to The Greatest Thread of All because he had some brilliant ideas but whose tolerance for the sadly-inevitable antipathy was too low to battle on. No-one could blame him but he was a massive loss to our little community. I've said many times before that I regret Lord Orsam's sensational 'resignation' (he was booted off) from the Casebook because he was - as I have said before - anti-matter to Keith Skinner's matter where researching this case is concerned. He also had a sense of humour which counts very highly in my book because this is not a court of law and no crimes have been committed bar the ones we seek to solve.

When the answers to your questions are all well-documented and the counter-arguments to your well-worn arguments are all there in the record, it is as frustrating as hell to find that they are coming from someone who is about as active on this site as it is possible to get which makes me wonder how on earth they can hold such trenchant views when they have almost never posted on this theme and never shown any interest in its subject despite the frequent repeating of the arguments they apparently now hold so dearly.

You are spouting your usual nonsense I’m afraid , Ike.

I've been posting on the subject of the Maybrick diary since June 2017. A search of my name in the Maybrick board brings up 7 pages of results, equating to around 100 posts, from 2017 alone. I've posted on Maybrick threads every single year through 2017 to 2025.

So I'm far from someone who has "almost never posted on this theme and never shown any interest in its subject".

[Lombro2]

Johnny-Come-Lately?

I honestly thought you wrote Johnny-Cochrane is back.

[Lombro2]

The Murphies were in possession of a stolen watch IMO.

I’m sure it wouldn’t be the only thing they had in stock with a questionable provenance.

But when did an antiques dealer get arrested for one stolen antique that they acquired without asking questions to find out where it came from?

An antiques dealer described as “the biggest fence on the East Coast” was arrest ed by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation yesterday after the police said they found more than $500,000 in stolen silver, antiques and art objects in his home and shop on Long Island.

https://www.nytimes.com/1970/11/01/a...len-goods.html

[Herlock Sholmes]

Johnny-Come-Lately?

I honestly thought you wrote Johnny-Cochrane is back.

So you can’t read either?

[Observer]

Johnny-Come-Lately?

I honestly thought you wrote Johnny-Cochrane is back.

Had a bit of a c**k up on the Cochrane front

[Iconoclast]

It's all relative, Ike.
I consider you a 'Johnny-Come-Lately.'
When did 'Iconoclast' arrive on this forum? Around 2012?
Nearly two decades after the diary first reared its ugly head and most of your arguments are simply recycled from Feldman and Rubenstein.
You, Sir, are a noob.

But I do it with such grace!

[Iconoclast]

They're ain't no cure for the Summer time clues

You are on fire!