New Ideas and New Research on the Diary

[Lombro2]

As they said before, Nothing New, Nothing Real.

[Herlock Sholmes]

My one and only contribution to this thread is this….’one off instance’ is 100%, categorically an anachronism which proves, conclusively proves, that the diary is a modern forgery. Robert Smith isn’t short of a few quid is he? So why doesn’t he try and knock down the main argument against the diary being a fake? He could invest a few quid, hire an Etymologist to research the subject, and then he could crow until his heart was content that ‘one off instance’ could have been used by Maybrick after all. Simples. Job done. But in all these years neither he nor anyone else has taken that step. Why? Because they know what the answer would be. FAKE.

[Lombro2]

Here's a thread for new ideas and new research on the Diary for those who are getting tired of the same old, million-off arguments.


1. Michael Barrett "invented" the Battlecrease Provenance and put it in the Diary.

The last entry is dated May 3rd, 8 days before James died. This was his last day going to work so he could have left the diary in his office. Otherwise he was in his deathbed. I think the Diary indicates he kept it with him wherever he went which was the safest thing to do.

In his narrative, he put his forgery in Battlecrease or possibly his office. That means he meant for it to have come out of Battlecrease (or the Knowsley Buildings).

Then this Battlecrease Provenance appears independently. Instead of being elated, he's horrified. I think he even threatens the alleged "finder". Makes perfect sense, eh?

If anyone else has any other one-off trip-overs, please post them here!