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

[Fantomas]

Hoax. More holes in it than the Royal Conspiracy.

[rjpalmer]

There once was a writer named Barrett...

‘It aint ‘im, I’d bloody well swear it!'

He bought this snoozer

Down the ol’ boozer

While tipsy on whiskey and claret.

[rjpalmer]

Regarding the missing key---

I've been reminded that the American journalist Arthur Warren (1860-1924), who was stationed in London as a special correspondent for the Boston Herald, wrote a long piece on the Whitechapel Murders and, among other things, he spoke to Joseph Barnett.

"Barnett tells me what the police do not seem to know, that while he lived with the Kelly woman the door key had been lost, and so, as the door closed with a spring lock, it was their habit to go to the window, reach through the broken glass and push back the spring bolt on the door." (Boston Herald, 20 January 1889)

Warren is obviously wrong about the police not knowing this because Abberline relayed the same information to the coroner.

Seeing that there was a spigot directly underneath Kelly's window, and she was in the habit of bringing women back to her room (as reported by Barnett), quite a number of people must have known about the broken window and their habit of reaching inside to get at the spring lock, so they would have been able to corroborate Barnett's account.

While Herlock is correct in stating that the account of the key being later found is uncorroborated, I'm not sure where we would expect to find corroboration since the police were extremely tight-lipped following the Kelly murder and the MEPO files on the Kelly case are very sparse. The same account, dating to the night of the inquest, is correct in stating that an important witness has come forward with a 'minute description of the murder'---obviously George Hutchinson. Thus, I personally don't see any particular good reason for discounting the recovery of the key.

If the key was recovered, the murderer couldn't have taken it away.

If it was lost and never recovered, the murderer couldn't have taken it away.

[Lombro2]

You know serial killers love poetry. Keep it coming.

Like attracts like.
Psych attracts psych.
Fric and frac,
Two balls in a nutsack.

They’re poets.
Deep down,
You know it.
But you don’t want to show it.

You’re all Socratic
But you should remain Stoic.

[Lombro2]

“If the key was recovered, the murderer couldn't have taken it away.“

Away out the door?

“If it was lost and never recovered [and who’s to say], the murderer couldn't have taken it away.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

Diary “ With the key I did flee. I had the key. And with it I did flee.”

Abberline “Barnett informs me that it has been missing some time, and since it has been lost they have put their hand through the broken window, and moved back the catch.”

It looks like our careless forger just read the preceding line though “An impression has gone abroad that the murderer took away the key of the room.”


Therefore we have another Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary.

[Lombro2]

But your friend said he thinks the key was most likely reliably reported to have been found in the room. That would mean it wasn’t lost on that night.

I don’t necessarily believe that. Neither does he, it would seem.

But you both arrive at the same conclusion for opposite reasons (one believing it was lost and one probably found) that don’t include leaving with the key and tossing it back in the window, or the key having been found in the preceding 10 days and then reliably taken away by someone fleeing the scene. Make sense?

[Lombro2]

This key argument reminds me of the one about how the diary is fake because it says, of Mary, “I left nothing of her” when of course “there was plenty of her left”.

Wow!

[Herlock Sholmes]

But your friend said he think the key was most likely reliably reported to have been found in the room. That would mean it wasn’t lost on that night.

I don’t necessarily believe that. Neither does he, it would seem.

But you both arrive at the same conclusion for opposite reasons (one believing it was lost and one probably found) that don’t include leaving with the key and tossing it back in the window, or the key having been found in the preceding 10 days and then reliably taken away by someone fleeing the scene. Make sense?

No one would take the key then toss it back in the window. That’s a non-starter and I can’t think why you would even suggest it.

Who is ‘my friend’ by the way?


For God’s sake Lombro this is so simple but, as ever, a defender is trying obfuscation tactics and waffle.

Our ‘Pretend Maybrick’ said that he took the key AWAY.

The people who were actually there knew and stated in black and white that the key had been MISSING for some time

Therefore ‘Pretend Maybrick’ COULDN’T have taken the key away.

Therefore the diary COULDN’T have been written by someone who was there at the time.

Therefore the diary is clearly a FORGERY.


But hey….guess what….we already knew that, for several other equally obvious reasons. Mainly of course because ‘Pretend Maybrick’ used a phrase which couldn’t possibly have been used in 1888/9

A PROVEN FORGERY which should be accepted as such by everyone. The only remaining question is…who forged it and we have two glaringly obvious candidates.

[Lombro2]

I think the key was found or replaced in the previous 10 days. Barnett didn’t know and it was taken away. Simple. Just like Mary Kelly’s baby.

I don’t know why you’d even suggest Barnett knows everything when you know I don’t believe that. But you don’t even pay attention or keep up with your own amigos’ posts or opinions.

Then again Barnett could be right and “the”key to the room was lost. And instead, the killer fled with “a” key.

PS Funny how there’s always wriggle room when you’re working from the correct premise.

Genuine

[Lombro2]

What do you think of the key in the Carrie Brown case? I bet your theory is convoluted.

[Darryl Kenyon]

No one would take the key then toss it back in the window. That’s a non-starter and I can’t think why you would even suggest it.

Who is ‘my friend’ by the way?


For God’s sake Lombro this is so simple but, as ever, a defender is trying obfuscation tactics and waffle.

Our ‘Pretend Maybrick’ said that he took the key AWAY.

The people who were actually there knew and stated in black and white that the key had been MISSING for some time

Therefore ‘Pretend Maybrick’ COULDN’T have taken the key away.

Therefore the diary COULDN’T have been written by someone who was there at the time.

Therefore the diary is clearly a FORGERY.


But hey….guess what….we already knew that, for several other equally obvious reasons. Mainly of course because ‘Pretend Maybrick’ used a phrase which couldn’t possibly have been used in 1888/9

A PROVEN FORGERY which should be accepted as such by everyone. The only remaining question is…who forged it and we have two glaringly obvious candidates.

This is the whole crux for me Herlock. Certain diary defenders will never admit defeat. Even if Maybrick was found to have been in Scotland on say, the night of Mary's murder, I am convinced they will say - Ah but what a clever fellow James is, using a body double to divert any suspicion away from him, now prove otherwise.

The diary brings nothing to the table, when you take everything together it is quite obvious a forgery. I commend people like yourself RJ etc for persevering, but i feel the diary defenders have the default position of see no evil , hear no evil etc. All it does is waste peoples time, we have people being named recently who deserve investigating more , like say Edward Buckley or more research done into say William Bury, or why the police suspected who they did . Even all the Lech threads brought something to the table IE A man who needed to be looked at more closely, and even if you don't believe Lech to be the ripper it gave us a better understanding on say, working hours of the time.
The diary brings nothing like that, zilch, nowt. It mentions a man who was alive in 1888 [ as of course millions of other men where ], and that's all there is to suspecting him.

Regards Darryl

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is the whole crux for me Herlock. Certain diary defenders will never admit defeat. Even if Maybrick was found to have been in Scotland on say, the night of Mary's murder, I am convinced they will say - Ah but what a clever fellow James is, using a body double to divert any suspicion away from him, now prove otherwise.

The diary brings nothing to the table, when you take everything together it is quite obvious a forgery. I commend people like yourself RJ etc for persevering, but i feel the diary defenders have the default position of see no evil , hear no evil etc. All it does is waste peoples time, we have people being named recently who deserve investigating more , like say Edward Buckley or more research done into say William Bury, or why the police suspected who they did . Even all the Lech threads brought something to the table IE A man who needed to be looked at more closely, and even if you don't believe Lech to be the ripper it gave us a better understanding on say, working hours of the time.
The diary brings nothing like that, zilch, nowt. It mentions a man who was alive in 1888 [ as of course millions of other men where ], and that's all there is to suspecting him.

Regards Darryl

Couldn’t agree more Darryl.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What do you think of the key in the Carrie Brown case? I bet your theory is convoluted.

I’m unsure what the explanation is but it may have been that the room wasn’t locked (a suggestion from Howard) and that Fitzgerald could have misremembered. Or the lock was a type that could lock without the need of a key. Nothing convoluted.

The diary is simple. Pretend Maybrick said that he’d taken away the key. The key however was found….so unless Mrs McCarthy went undercover and got a job as a servant at Battlecrease and searched and found the key, then he wasn’t the ripper.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think the key was found or replaced in the previous 10 days. Barnett didn’t know and it was taken away. Simple. Just like Mary Kelly’s baby.

And McCarthy just took an axe to his door when there was a key available?

I don’t know why you’d even suggest Barnett knows everything when you know I don’t believe that. But you don’t even pay attention or keep up with your own amigos’ posts or opinions.

I haven’t a clue what this means and I’d make a bet that no one else does either. Why am I suggesting Barnett knows ‘everything.’ ‘Everything’ about what? And again….who is my ‘friend.’ Who is my ‘amigo”?

Then again Barnett could be right and “the”key to the room was lost. And instead, the killer fled with “a” key.

But Pretend Maybrick said “THE key,” clearly claiming that it was the key that he’d taken away after locking the room. We can even see how Pretend Maybrick made this mistake - Abberline: “An impression has gone abroad that the murderer took away the key of the room.”

But no, you invent another key.

PS Funny how there’s always wriggle room when you’re working from the correct premise.

There’s only ‘wriggle room’ if you are constrained by the need to make sense.

Genuine

Constant recourse to desperate ‘wriggle room’ tactics demonstrates clearly the weakness of your arguments Lombro. You remind me of those fundamentalists who say things like “God put fossils there as a test of faith.” Every time you do it you show that you are employing a kind of ‘bunker mentality.’ A ‘defend-at-all-costs’ outlook to the case when it should be that we just look for what is either certainly true or likeliest to have been true. There are a few who have circled the wagons and are trapped in the cause of defending an obvious forgery.