One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Graham]

While I'm here, Graham, can you remind me what the evidence is about Outwaite & Litherland's actual procedure?

Haven't got the faintest, but according to what they, O & L, told someone connected with the 'Ripper Diary', not what Barrett said it was. Not a case of 'reminding you', because I never said in the first place what it might be.

Graham

[David Orsam]

Haven't got the faintest, but according to what they, O & L, told someone connected with the 'Ripper Diary', not what Barrett said it was. Not a case of 'reminding you', because I never said in the first place what it might be.

It's "reminding" me because I've read something, probably the Feldman book which deals with it, but I don't have it to hand.

Given that this is the key to undermining Barrett's statement it's pretty crucial to establish without doubt that Barrett has, in fact, got it wrong.

[Graham]

Reach for your copy of "Ripper Diary - The Inside Story" by Linder, Morris and Skinner, and it's all in there.

Graham

[David Orsam]

Reach for your copy of "Ripper Diary - The Inside Story" by Linder, Morris and Skinner, and it's all in there.

So when you said "Haven't got the faintest" you meant - oh, never mind.

[Graham]

I wouldn't worry about it - have a nice mug of cocoa and go to bed.

Grahan

[David Orsam]

I wouldn't worry about it

That's what "oh, never mind" means.

I was hoping for a sensible and helpful answer from you but I see I asked the wrong person.

But, no, I won't worry about it Graham.

[Iconoclast]

"The Goulston Street graffito containing the names of James, Thomas, William, a cryptic reference to Edwin, the initials of Florence and Michael, and written in the same hand which wrote the Maybrick journal (see my 'History vs Maybrick')."

Hello Iconoclast,

Can you explain what you mean here? Are you using a Masonic reference? How do you know the handwriting was in the same hand as the the diary?

c.d.

Hi c.d.,

It would be quicker if you just turned to my 'History vs. Maybrick' thread as you will find a graphic there (albeit posted by someone who had received my PDF, which you could also request if you follow the instruction at the head of the thread).

For the record, the word' Juwes' has been claimed by the pro-journalists to be James inserting his name cryptically into the GSG (in the journal, the author writes "I wonder if they enjoyed my funny Jewish joke?"). My argument is that he did that for his own name, plus all of his brothers, his wife, and ultimately revealed his true handwriting (as the hand is clearly that used in the journal).

It's just one more massive clue to nail Maybrick as Jack.

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Hi John

I agree a better title for the thread would be "One incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact that proves the Diary is genuine." I also agree the Diary is a forgery. I'm not so sure it was an old forgery but a forgery nonetheless. Good point about even if it was written by Maybrick. At the end of the day the diary is a work of fiction and it should be up to those that say it's genuine to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

Cheers John

Come on, gentlemen - if you want to be taken seriously, you shouldn't suggest that Maybrick could have written the journal as a fantasy. If he wrote the journal and he wasn't Jack, he could not possibly have known about Kelly's missing heart, and the 'tin match box empty'.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Yes, this interpretation is plain from the context in which it was written:

"M. has been delirious since Sunday, and I know that now he is perfectly ignorant of everything, even of the name of the street, and also that he has not been making any inquiries whatsoever. The tale he told me was a pure fabrication, and only intended to frighten the truth out of me. In fact he believes my statement, although he will not admit it."

I disagree with this leap of logic. He could easily have been arguing with her about her affair without knowing the actual details of it (which Bunny refers to), but also have told her that he was Jack, which she could most plausibly have taken to be a cheap attempt to shock the truth out of her. Putting the two together in her letter would make perfect sense in this context. She is telling someone who already knows the tale that was told not to panic and flee the country (Brierley was suddenly departing for the continent - something I definitely would have done if my beloved slipped into conversation that her husband had mentioned that he was Jack the Ripper).

Ike

[Pcdunn]

Ike, we don't have a photograph of the GSG. What has come down to us is a copy of the words on the wall (or door lintel) taken down by a policeman. It seems to me it would be in the officer's handwriting -- not in JTR or Maybrick's, either one.

[Iconoclast]

That's what "oh, never mind" means.

I was hoping for a sensible and helpful answer from you but I see I asked the wrong person.

But, no, I won't worry about it Graham.

Chill out, man, David. Graham has recently had a very traumatic experience and isn't himself (our friends from Rotherham rolling over have probably improved his outlook a tad, mind), but his response was more than adequate because in reality the number of surreal inaccuracies Barrett reeled off in his drunken stupor were so great that the odd one misremembered here or there is no great shakes. He got it all wrong - spectacularly wrong. He couldn't have got it more wrong if he had tried. On Graham's point, it was something like when he won the auction for the journal he was handed a ticket to retrieve and pay for the item, but the auctioneers denied ever operating such a system. He recalled a ticket he couldn't have received. Should have done his research, I suspect. And that wasn't even the worst of his misremembered fantasy! Well worth a quick read of Linder et alia. I might do so myself (for the 3rd or 4th time) on my return from holidays where me and Mrs Iconoclast are currently to be found ...

[Iconoclast]

Ike, we don't have a photograph of the GSG. What has come down to us is a copy of the words on the wall (or door lintel) taken down by a policeman. It seems to me it would be in the officer's handwriting -- not in JTR or Maybrick's, either one.

Pcdunn,

Charlie Warren asked that the GSG should be transcribed exactly as it was prior to being extinguished by his hand and it is this transcription which is held as the 'authorised' version. He was an idiot, but a sincere idiot, and thankfully he had the graffito 'preserved' in this way for us to refer to.

Did you not know that?

So we can see in the official version of the GSG the unequivocal evidence of Maybrick's teasing ways - no small chance in that, let me tell you.

Ike

[David Orsam]

Chill out, man, David. Graham has recently had a very traumatic experience and isn't himself (our friends from Rotherham rolling over have probably improved his outlook a tad, mind), but his response was more than adequate because in reality the number of surreal inaccuracies Barrett reeled off in his drunken stupor were so great that the odd one misremembered here or there is no great shakes. He got it all wrong - spectacularly wrong. He couldn't have got it more wrong if he had tried. On Graham's point, it was something like when he won the auction for the journal he was handed a ticket to retrieve and pay for the item, but the auctioneers denied ever operating such a system. He recalled a ticket he couldn't have received. Should have done his research, I suspect. And that wasn't even the worst of his misremembered fantasy! Well worth a quick read of Linder et alia. I might do so myself (for the 3rd or 4th time) on my return from holidays where me and Mrs Iconoclast are currently to be found ...

I think I've read the book - I've certainly read something dealing with it - but I don't have it to hand and what I was after was the evidence that Barrett got the auction system wrong. When you say that "the auctioneers denied ever operating such a ticket system", was that in writing? What system did they actually operate in 1990 and what is the evidence for it?

If there are other points which disprove Barrett's statement feel free to set them out but I'm particularly interested in the auction point because obviously no investigation could have been made before 1995 and it can't have been easy to establish what system was in place at an auction house five years earlier so I'm interested to know how it was done.

[Observer]

Hi David

Don't fuel the madness my freind. The diary is a cheese fest. Mills and Boon at best, and the tacky end of Mills and Boon at that

[Scott Nelson]

Hasn't it occurred to anybody that the one person on these boards who's in the best position to "know" what's going on hasn't posted anything recently? Surely that should suggest that there may be some sort of gag order regarding further discussion of the Diary from those wo are in a position to know.

--just guessing