New Ideas and New Research on the Diary

[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

[Yabs]

Just a thought..
Do any letters written by Maybrick between 1888-89 exist?
If so, it would be interesting for a professional to take a look at the ink and compare it with that in the diary.
The diary contains events that take place over a 13-15 month period, is the diary written with the same ink from first to last page?
My guess is that it probably is, so it’s possibly safe to assume that if the Diary was written by Maybrick then any letters written by him during that time period should also have the same ink.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Look it up.

But thanks for helping me prove once again the Battlecrease Provenance Theory.

I've checked in Robert Smith's book and I think I can see why you're refusing to answer my question. He didn't witness a single thing. Smith tells a story of Alan Davies at some unknown date after November 1992 informing someone that Eddie Lyons had found "a leather-bound diary" under the floorboards of Battlecrease. It seems to me that this probably occurred in 1993 after Feldman and started this rumour among the electricians. Also, if "a Battlecrease witness" had spoken of "a leather-bound diary", I can't understand why Caz didn't mention this? Surely that's way more significant than an "old book" (which expression Smith doesn't attribute to Davies at all). Presumably it's because Alan Davies isn't "a Battlecrease witness". Someone must have told him about the Maybrick diary in 1993, after Feldman started pestering the electricians, and he passed this rumour on. That hardly "proves the Battlecrease Provenance". In fact, it doesn't prove anything.

[Lombro2]

Look it up.

But thanks for helping me prove once again the Battlecrease Provenance Theory.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It was Alan Davies, the other witness, who told his wife about an "old book" and told Alan Dodgson about a diary.

The advantage of Google Search.

I should have known it wasn't Eddie who said it was an old book. Why would a thief say anything about what he stole that would make it seem valuable? He wouldn't say it was old and valuable and he definitely wouldn't say it was a diary much less the Diary of Jack the Ripper.

It also explains why nobody really knows what he was claiming to have found.

What did Alan Davies witness?

[Lombro2]

It was Alan Davies, the other witness, who told his wife about an "old book" and told Alan Dodgson about a diary.

The advantage of Google Search.

I should have known it wasn't Eddie who said it was an old book. Why would a thief say anything about what he stole that would make it seem valuable? He wouldn't say it was old and valuable and he definitely wouldn't say it was a diary much less the Diary of Jack the Ripper.

It also explains why nobody really knows what he was claiming to have found.