'Some more interesting posts!'
Hi All,
Firstly can I say thank you to Jericho for his response to my request for further info on just why he feels/felt able to dismiss the diary so quickly. Like Chris however I do find it strange to hear you say that you still believe Maybrick could be a strong candidate in light of the reasons you have given for dismissing the diary. As far as I can see, if you accept that Michael Barrett (or anyone else for that matter) forged the diary then there really cannot be any other reason to suspect that James had anything to do with the murders whatsoever. He was not connected to the enquiry at the time, and had not even been thought of as a suspect until the diary came to light so, in fairness to him, If we believe the diary to be a fake I think we should all acknowledge his innocence. Once again Jericho please do not take these comments of mine the wrong way, I do not intend to 'have a go' at you or decry your opinion but am simply responding to what you've said in an honest way.
You (and Chris) both mentioned the Poste House discrepancy in the diary. I accept that this is indeed a genuine bone of contention and, should the diary be a forgery, an obvious mistake. However there are I feel two possibilities that could explain this away. 1) That the place now called The Poste House is NOT the same venue meant by the writer of the diary at all and that we have all just assumed that this must have been where James meant, or 2) That The Muck Midden may well have been 'nicknamed' The Poste House for some reason at the time by the regulars at the flags which James frequented. If this is so, it might explain why when The Muck Midden was re-named it was then called The Poste House by the new owners. In saying this Chris and all I am assuming that The Poste House was the subsequent name for the building so please excuse me if this in incorrect.
As far as the point about James being a hypercondriac and therefore would be incapable of committing such acts goes, I think all of you are again falling into the trap of thinking too logically. By this I mean that when you are suffering with a mental or emotional illness (as I feel it is obvious that the diary writer was) you simply do not act in the way that you would do normally. Now I do not mean this statement to be taken as me apparently 'telling you all off because I know better' because obviously I don't. I HAVE however suffered a lot of my life with depression and had both councilling, medication and group therapy for it and for this reason I feel I can say that I believe that a man such as Maybrick in the kind of situation that he found himself in COULD have been capable of committing extremely violent acts fuelled by temporary bouts of extreme depression or insanity. I myself have blown all of the glass from my bedroom window in onto myself by slamming a bowed window that wouldn't shut shut. Thankfully, on that occasion I suffered only minor cuts to my face but it was a crazy thing to do and one that I undoubtedly would not have done had I been thinking straight. On that occasion all my pent up resentment, frustration and hatred was taken out on a simple window frame but I can easily believe that a man like Maybrick whose wife was having an affair could very much be tempted to meat out his 'revenge' on other '*****s' as he reffered to his wife.
Oh, God now I've got you all thinking what a psycho I am haven't I? Well I can assure you that I am not, what I am is simply a very open and honest man that is thoroughly enjoying this facinating debate!
Over to you!
All the best,
Tony.
