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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Or Prosector, quoted by George in the kidney thread.

“In 1888 no-one took out kidneys from living patients. It was only done in the dissecting room or the mortuary."

[Herlock Sholmes]

Or Paul Butler in the Sarah Robertson thread.

"As far as I am aware, no-one besides the diary author had made the connection between "wife" number one, Sarah Anne Robertson and George Smith until very recently. Him and Sarah being first cousins, and who lived at the same house in the East end when James was there.“

[Lombro2]

The most telling thing is what the amigos are pointing out—that it was said that Davies saw a copy of the diary of Jack the Ripper.

That can only be for one reason—he was unwilling to say he saw the real thing, because he suspected they were stealing a valuable original artifact and he was an accessory to the crime.

Plausible deniability again. Everything else is cherry-picking.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Or in the New Ideas thread someone called Scott Nelson.

“Did I say no-one else could possibly do it?”

[Herlock Sholmes]

Or Wickerman in an Alice Mackenzie thread.

“You avoided my 2nd point - the Ripper is supposed to have waited 8 months, then murdered McKenzie, but no-one else?”

[Herlock Sholmes]

Or Michael Richards in a Hutchinson thread

“He said no-one knew who the Ripper was, that only certain high ranking officials knew the truth, and a serial poisoner without any evidence linking him to any murders other than the 2 he poisoned and was being executed for, seemed to him to be the Ripper 15 years after the fact.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

Or TAB in the Election thread.

“No-one is disagreeing with this, not a single person.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

And how about……..ME. In the JFK thread in March of 2023

“and I mean no-one could have been that colossally, humongously, earth-shatteringly STUPID.“

And before you make another false accusation…in the quote above I was talking about an imagined group of people plotting to murder JFK and not a poster.

[Scott Nelson]

Don't worry, I'm probably safe. See the influence that Barrat has?

[Lombro2]

You mean the guy who calls Caz the “Chief Diary Defender” when she’s not defending the diary?

And of course, he and the two amigos “proved the diarist a fake!” and so it was faked by Barrett although you don’t think it matters who did it as long as you don’t say so-and-so didn’t because,
you know, it doesn’t matter.

And nobody knows who Jack the Ripper was so you can’t say who he is. You can only say who he isn’t.

No-one knows nothing.

[Lombro2]

I believe I can fly. I believe I can touch the sky. Theoretically.

The dragon is in the details. That’s why I like to drag it on and on.

[Scott Nelson]

You mean the guy who calls Caz the “Chief Diary Defender” when she’s not defending the diary?

Yes, San Fran. I never understand what was meant by a "diary defender" because I couldn't get a coherent answer from anybody.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The most telling thing is what the amigos are pointing out—that it was said that Davies saw a copy of the diary of Jack the Ripper.

That can only be for one reason—he was unwilling to say he saw the real thing, because he suspected they were stealing a valuable original artifact and he was an accessory to the crime.

Plausible deniability again. Everything else is cherry-picking.

Lombro, you are, as ever, hopelessly confused.

Davies never said anything about seeing a copy of the diary of Jack the Ripper. At least not in any evidence which has been revealed to us. That's the whole point.

It was supposedly Dodgson (TMW's employee) who told TMW about having himself personally seen a copy of the diary of Jack the Ripper in a pub.

And if the incident occurred in December 1992, as you claim, there is zero possibility of it having been the original for obvious reasons.

So it's back to the drawing board for you with that one.

Mind you, it's not entirely your fault. Most of the evidence relating to the Davies/Dodgson conversation is being withheld. I'm kind of surprised that you don't mind being kept in the dark. If I was in your position, I would surely want all the evidence relating to this incident made publicly available because it's supposed to be strong evidence that the diary was found in Battlecrease. For some strange reason the direct opposite is true and most of the evidence is hidden. Don't ask me to explain it because I can't.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Don't worry, I'm probably safe. See the influence that Barrat has?

Are you attempting a world record of mentioning Barrat/Orsam in every single post you make even though he hasn't been a member of this forum for about the last five years?

He really must have got to you.

[Scott Nelson]

No, it's that he works through you.