One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Pcdunn]

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

Hello, Ike, thank you for your reply. I have come across the idea that the GSG was transcribed exactly as it appeared before, but the majority opinion seems to be that this refers to the words and their spacing.

See Gut's response to your thread here:
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...James+Maybrick

I think he's right. The handwriting isn't Jack's, merely the words.

[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 who are in a position to know.

This probably has to do with the recent death of Mike Barrett.

--more guessing

[John Wheat]

Being Taken Seriously

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

Hi Iconoclast

All I said was that it was a good point about Maybrick. If Maybrick wrote the diary which I think there is a 99.99% possibility that he didn't it, it could still conceivably be a work of fiction. Anyone who thinks Maybrick wrote the diary in my opinion has foregone the right to be taken seriously on anything regarding the Whitechapel Murders.

Cheers John

[David Orsam]

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

I'm not asking about the diary. My interest here is in the process of disproving a witness statement.

[Iconoclast]

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

Yes, when set against the long list of suspects with evidence piling-up around them, I can understand your cynicism. Hmmm ...

John Smith - was seen walking past a road that looked like the murder site ten days prior to the crime five streets away. "I think it was him!".

Bob Jones - a senile old duffer from the Met Police who had singularly guffed up during his tenure happens to make demented claims in an unsubstantiated book that they had identified Jones at the time but let him off because they didn't want to spoil the fun a hundred years later. "He was known to us as definitely the criminal".

You see where I am going with this? Anyone and everyone who ever gets mentioned in this case enters the surreal world of Ripperology as a suspect ("We might as well have I'm too, we've got almost everyone else - soon we'll have the full set of east Londoners for our Jack the Ripper Panini album!").

I wouldn't swap my James Maybrick sticker for a thousand Kosminskis, et cetera. Maybrick's sticker is the only one which - on the back - has any credentials whatsoever linking him with the crimes, and to include it all he has to have a sticker slightly bigger than the actual album itself.

On the back of every other sticker is a big fat zilch - nada, nowt.

The cheese fest sits with you and your indolent fellows, Observer. Read the books, look at the actual journal (not the transcript on the internet as many here have done), ask yourself how it could be possible that certain things are as they are which should dictate the timeline of the forgery (if so it be). And keep an open mind, at very least. I appreciate that you have scores of other suspects with shed loads of evidence (ha ha) to salivate over, but please don't dismiss the only candidate who actually fits and has the evidence to back it up simply because you have not bothered to examine the case any deeper than "Don't like it" (spits out cheese).

Ike

[Iconoclast]

[QUOTE=John G;390207]I think a better title for a thread would be, "One incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact that proves the Diary is genuine."

Unfortunately, there is very little factual information in the Diary which can be checked against the historical records, which is exactly what you would expect from a forger. QUOTE]

What a truly specious argument! I would have thought that a forger would do exactly the opposite - they would actively insert endless examples of events from the public record and weave them into their forgery to back up their candidate???

It is not for us to decide what someone writes, nor how much detail they provide. To dismiss something because it doesn't meet with your preconceived assumptions is a dangerous science to engage in ...

Ike

[Observer]

I'm not asking about the diary. My interest here is in the process of disproving a witness statement.

Which witness would that be ?

And you miss my point, you are contributing to this thread, thus perpetuating the madness of taking the Journal as genuine.

[David Orsam]

Which witness would that be ?

And you miss my point, you are contributing to this thread, thus perpetuating the madness of taking the Journal as genuine.

I'm talking about Barrett's affidavit.

As for your point, I'm afraid I don't happen to think it's a very good one so will continue posting in any threads I choose.

[Observer]

I'm talking about Barrett's affidavit.

Well then it's the same thing. You're commenting on whether Barret actually bid on the photo album which he later used to "contruct" the diary. But I wouldn't expect anything else from you, if it doesn't comply to what David Orsam considers appropriate then it's not valid point. Also, If you were commenting that you wern't discussing the "content" of the Diary, then say so. We're not mind readers.

As for your point, I'm afraid I don't happen to think it's a very good one.

Well you you would wouln't you.

so will continue posting in any threads I choose.

You know, you've changed my mind, I think I'll continue contributing to this thread, if only to correct your silly posts

[Iconoclast]

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.

David,

How about you just read Linder et al rather than expecting others to do your work for you?

Trust me, the kindest thing you could say about Barrett's confession was that it was 'misguided'. In truth, it was utterly bonkers.

You need to do your research, no-one else mate.

Ike

[David Orsam]

Well then it's the same thing. You're commenting on whether Barret actually bid on the photo album which he later used to "contruct" the diary. But I wouldn't expect anything else from you, if it doesn't comply to what David Orsam considers appropriate then it's not valid.

Well you you would wouln't you.

You know, you've changed my mind, I think I'll continue contributing to this thread, if only to correct your silly posts

Crikey, you give me the impression that you just want to argue with me about anything for the sake of it. Like I said, I'm interested in the process of disproving Barrett's statement. Obviously if Barrett's statement is true then the diary is a forgery, that's blatantly obvious. But the reverse isn't true. If his statement is false then the diary could be genuine or it could be fake. But I'm only interested in his statement and how to prove that his statement is false.

[David Orsam]

David,

How about you just read Linder et al rather than expecting others to do your work for you?

Trust me, the kindest thing you could say about Barrett's confession was that it was 'misguided'. In truth, it was utterly bonkers.

You need to do your research, no-one else mate.

Like I said in my post to Graham, I believe I have read that book, or a similar book that deconstructs Barrett's statement, but I don't have it to hand. Hence I asked him to remind me of the evidence about the auction house process. I'm not asking for anyone to do any "research" for me. I'm just asking for a minor piece of information which I thought it would be easy for someone to supply. If you can't help then that's fine, I really don't care.

[Observer]

Crikey, you give me the impression that you just want to argue with me about anything for the sake of it. Like I said, I'm interested in the process of disproving Barrett's statement. Obviously if Barrett's statement is true then the diary is a forgery, that's blatantly obvious. But the reverse isn't true. If his statement is false then the diary could be genuine or it could be fake. But I'm only interested in his statement and how to prove that his statement is false.

Crikey, you're the one who started with the pithy replies. The thing is seeing as I agree with very very little of what you post here, then yes, I suppose I would argue with pretty much anything you say, but not for the sake of it.

Regarding Barrets assertion that he bought the diary at auction, one poster put his foot in the water stating that the auction house didn't operate in the way in which Barret stipulated. The same poster (when asked if that were the case) did not have a clue as to how the auction house carried out their auctions. Not very helpful to say the least. I have been informed that the answer lies in the book by Linder, Morris and Skinner, 'The Ripper Diary', but as Mr Skinner was on the "team" of Paul Feldman, which resulted in the book "Jack The Ripper, The Final Chapter" then I'd take that with a pinch of salt. The only answer of course is to do the research, and find out exactly how Outhwaite and Litherland conducted tgheir auctions in 1990.

[David Orsam]

Regarding Barrets assertion that he bought the diary at auction, one poster put his foot in the water stating that the auction house didn't operate in the way in which Barret stipulated. The same poster (when asked if that were the case) did not have a clue as to how the auction house carried out their auctions. Not very helpful to say the least. I have been informed that the answer lies in the book by Linder, Morris and Skinner, 'The Ripper Diary', but as Mr Skinner was on the "team" of Paul Feldman, which resulted in the book "Jack The Ripper, The Final Chapter" then I'd take that with a pinch of salt. The only answer of course is to do the research, and find out exactly how Outhwaite and Litherland conducted tgheir auctions in 1990.

Thank you Observer, a reasonably helpful response.

Now it only needs for someone who has the aforementioned book to hand to post the details of how Barrett's account about the auction system at O&L was supposedly disproved.

[Observer]

Thank you Observer, a reasonably helpful response.

Now it only needs for someone who has the aforementioned book to hand to post the details of how Barrett's account about the auction system at O&L was supposedly disproved.

No problem David. Ike has the book, but for some reason, despite his lengthy posts of late, has not revealed the section that interests you an I.

To be fair I don't know if he's been asked for the pertinent information. So I'm asking now. If you see this Ike, could you provide the section in Linden, Morris, and Skinner's book which deals with the procedure adopted by Outhwaite and Litherland when conducting auctions in late January 1990.