Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes
Look, I'm tired now and losing the will to live (my own fault for posting on a diary thread.) Everyone could be absolutely correct and the diary could be a modern forgery. The odds are in favour of it even. But.....we are all different. What utterly convinces one person might not convince the next. Our brains work differently. So finally I hope...yes it is possible/likely that the diary is a forgery....but can we be 100% certain? Some may be and that's fine. Some may be 90% certain and that's equally fine. I just have a slight doubt that it's a forgery. I don't think it makes me gullible or an idiot. Stubborn maybe. For me to say 'forgery' I want ABSOLUTE PROOF. Undeniable, inarguable, no-one-can-possibly-disagree-with proof. That's me I'm afraid. What we have are a collection of doubts and unanswered questions so far.
Anyway, good night
Come back Fisherman so I can get back to arguing about Cross/Lechmere!
The thing is, is there any
good evidence to suggest that the diary was written by Maybrick? No, there's not.
Is there any good evidence to suggest Maybrick was the Ripper? No, besides the very dubious and error-filled diary.
Is there any good evidence to suggest the diary was written after Maybrick had died? There are many clues to suggest a more modern writer, which would eliminate Maybrick instantly.
These clues include the odd modern phrases, the use of a pub's name that didn't exist, the wording of listed items that matches books published a century later, the different handwriting, etc.
Any clues to suggest Maybrick did write it? Well, it's clear that the writer certainly wanted us to believe it was Maybrick, and they use references to the Maybrick's, but is there anything in there that couldn't possibly be gleaned from another source? Anything at all? No, there's not, not to my knowledge.
The only thing tying May to the Ripper is the diary, and the diary is about as questionable a source as a shawl, or a supposedly "dodgy-looking" picture of an old bloke called Lech.
The diary mentions the C5, and one other murder, which eliminates other possible Ripper victims, including the torsos. This is problematic for Maybrick/Ripper advocates, in that they're now tied to the C5 and have to eliminate the other murders as being by a different hand.
So, you've got the C5 as being by James Maybrick. Is there any evidence to suggest he was in London on those dates? I was under the impression that James spent a lot of time going between the USA and the UK, between his company's offices.
So, can we place him in London on any of the C5 dates?
He was a keen cricketer, IIRC, and I'm guessing that there may be some old records at the Liverpool Cricket Club of games held in the year 1888, and whether May was playing or not. If there's any record of him having been on a team during any of those dates, then he's not the Ripper. Has anyone looked into that?