New Ideas and New Research on the Diary

[caz]

Let me help with the confusion.

The blog at Orsam Books directly quotes Robert Smith's own account, and Smith reported that Eddie described a 'book,' not an 'old book.'

What was being disputed is Lombro and C.A.M. putting 'old' into the horse's mouth, which disagrees with what Smith wrote in 2017.

--for those interested in the minutia being strictly accurate.

Of course, calling it an 'old book' is somewhat more suggestive than calling it a 'book,' which could have been a water damaged romance paperback by Danielle Steel circa 1984, which in Wonderland at least, is more likely to be tossed into a non-existent skip than an oversize photo album with a confession of Jack the Ripper inside.

Meanwhile, I'm still puzzled why Paul Dodd never pursued the lawsuit in light of Eddie's alleged "confession," since he had sought legal advice on the matter.

But now it seems that it wasn't Eddie who called it an old book, but people who had never even seen the book, but were passing along second and third hand accounts in interviews that have not been made public.

Okay, got it.

Thanks. I guess that's progress.

Blimey, now who's desperate? Palmer doesn't believe Eddie found any book in Paul Dodd's house, despite what Eddie told Brian Rawes on Friday 17th July 1992, and went on to tell Robert Smith in June 1993. Brian had no reason to lie to anyone about this, and Eddie would have had no reason to say anything at all on either occasion, if he had found nothing at any time.

But when we know the skip didn't exist, and therefore Eddie could never have tossed the diary into it or anything else, I'm not sure how useful it is to misdirect the impressionable with the distinctly incongruous vision of Paul Dodd ever giving house room to a 'romance paperback by Danielle Steel circa 1984', which an eagle-eyed Eddie would have instantly recognised in 1992 as the odd one out, from among all those "old books" he mentioned to Brian Rawes, and taken it upon himself to spare its owner's blushes by getting rid.

What does it matter what type of book would more likely have been tossed into a skip, when we know there was no skip and nobody was claiming to have thrown Mike's diary into one? Eddie was hoping to misdirect Robert into believing that the rumours circulating about him concerned a different find, and one which did not involve theft.

I imagine any lawsuit would have failed because Dodd admitted he could not prove the diary was ever in his house, and we know Eddie went on to deny everything, so it would have come down to rumour and speculation at that time. Had the worksheet evidence been known about, in conjunction with Mike's call to Doreen on 9th March 1992, things might have been different, but the evidence would still have been circumstantial, and Dodd would have had to claim ownership - if he wanted to pursue it - on the basis of probability.

[rjpalmer]

I had the same effect on Feldy. He never posted again on the Dairy Google Group.

Victorian humor.

[Abby Normal]

even iconclast and ero are seemingly done with this nonsense lol

[Lombro2]

I had the same effect on Feldy. He never posted again on the Dairy Google Group. I guess he didn't mean I was cool when he said I was "sick"!

And you thought you were a Maybrickian's worst nightmare!

[rjpalmer]

The thought had occurred to me, yes.

[Lombro2]

Straight answer? Yes, I did. Do you think that's what did it?

[rjpalmer]

At least, I got rid of the ghost of Tom Mitchell.

Did you send an email to historyvsmaybrick@gmail.com with the subject line, "I Agree"?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Have you ever answered a straight question?

[Lombro2]

ooooo....aaarg...i am the ghost of james maybrick ohhhhh ....oooooo ..... i am ....jack the ripper

What does that nonsense mean? Where's Father Amorth when you need him?

At least, I got rid of the ghost of Tom Mitchell.

And Squatch season is starting soon so, before long, you can have this haunted house to yourselves again with only CAZper the Friendly Ghost to haunt you. You can "booooooo" her all you want.

[Herlock Sholmes]

ooooo....aaarg...i am the ghost of george damon ohhhhh ....oooooo ..... i am ....the guy who hired the american jack in the ripper to kill carrie brown …..oooooo

keep up the good work…

What does that nonsense mean? If you’re going to post stuff Lombro at least allow everyone else the chance of understanding it.

[Lombro2]

ooooo....aaarg...i am the ghost of george damon ohhhhh ....oooooo ..... i am ....the guy who hired the american jack in the ripper to kill carrie brown …..oooooo

keep up the good work…

[Herlock Sholmes]

Apart from ‘one off instance’ Abby which shows unequivocally that the diary is a forgery, there is content in the diary which whilst not being 100% proof certainly comes close. It shows how very, very unlikely it was for Maybrick to have been the ripper. The red handkerchief is one obvious example. This, along with other things, count strongly against the diary being genuine…and these are without the total proof of one off instance (on the subject of which, all that we get is “surely someone could have used”…and that kind of thing. Every suggestion against that has been put forward so far have been embarrassing and feeble to be honest)

[John Wheat]

ooooo....aaarg...i am the ghost of james maybrick ohhhhh ....oooooo ..... i am ....jack the ripper

Best not let a serious thread descend into silliness Abby LOL.

[Abby Normal]

ooooo....aaarg...i am the ghost of james maybrick ohhhhh ....oooooo ..... i am ....jack the ripper

[Lombro2]

“Standard examinations of questioned documents could be divided into non-destructive and destructive analysis. Under most circumstances, non-destructive visual microscopic examination and comparison against respective authentic samples are preferred to avoid any further damage on the disputed documents, which already stand as an exhibit in court. Undoubtedly, the destructive methods, which involve various chromatography and spectroscopy techniques, provide much detailed information but this also brings irreversible damage to the documents.”

Forensic examination of ink by high-performance thin layer chromatography—The United States Secret Service Digital Ink Library