One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[GUT]

Hi, David.

If we replace 'ticket' with 'receipt' then it would be generally consistent, yes.

However, I firstly find it odd that he wasn't required to register before bidding. This is required so as to ensure payment can be obtained on 'won' items. Without such a requirement a person could wander in from the street, bid on a few items and then never be seen again. It wouldn't be until the end of the day that the auctioneers would realise they had several items listed as sold but not paid for. Clearly, this would be an experience they should wish to avoid.
I further find issue with his statement that "I was then told to return my ticket to the Office, but I did not do this and left with the Photograph Album and Compass.".
If he meant that he was told to return the ticket permanently, then you can see that if one had been successful on bids for 20 different items, a system such as this would seem to require the generation and carrying of 20 separate tickets and a great deal more paperwork and legwork than efficiency might ordinarily dictate.
However, we could generously speculate that on this occasion the ticket was a receipt and that the porter engaged in distributing the purchased items had no ink left in his pen to indicate the goods on the receipt as being received and so asked Mike to return to the office so that they might mark the receipt instead.
Also, in the account of his statement that I have access to, the full address of where the auction was taking place was XXX'd out. Potentially it was a farm or estate clearance auction and although I would expect these would be handled in the same manner, limited space or special circumstances may alter the procedures.

Yours, Caligo

The first auctions I attended would have been late 70s or early 80s no pre registration required then.

[pinkmoon]

Thank you Caligo, that is interesting.

Perhaps you can tell me this. If we replace the word "ticket" in Barrett's statement with the word "receipt", is it then in accord with the system you are describing? Hence:

"At this stage I was given a receipt on which was marked the item number and the price I had bid. I then had to hand this receipt over to the Office and I paid £50. The receipt was stamped.....I then returned to the Auction Room with my stamped receipt and handed it over to an assistant, a young man, who gave me the Lot I had purchased."

I've deleted from this the bit about him giving a false name when he paid his money (which I assume is inconsistent with what you are saying due to the registration system) but would the above section be roughly correct?

As you know I met mike barret quite a few times and got to know him quite well and I find it impossible to believe that someone with a chronic drink problem like him would sacrifice a sum of money that could have bought him five bottles of cheap whisky or dozens of bottles of sherry which was his favorite tipple when I met him.

[pinkmoon]

auction

David there is another explanation about the auction I will send you a private message

[Iconoclast]

As you know I met mike barret quite a few times and got to know him quite well and I find it impossible to believe that someone with a chronic drink problem like him would sacrifice a sum of money that could have bought him five bottles of cheap whisky or dozens of bottles of sherry which was his favorite tipple when I met him.

If, however, we are genuinely openly considering all available evidence then David appears to have a point about the error of describing his receipt as a 'ticket'.

I'm on holiday so can't check my facts, but - as I recall it - there was a long litany of errors; but then that's what people say about the journal without really knowing any better so I shall check my facts before I make any further claims.

What I like about David's posts is that he has actually opened our minds to another way of thinking about Barrett's confession. Still a long way from believing it, myself, of course, but we should recognise a point well made.

Ike

[David Orsam]

Someone has very kindly sent me by email the relevant extract from "The Ripper Diary: Inside Story" by Keith Skinner, Seth Linder and Caroline Morris. It is as follows:

"What about Barrett’s detailed account of buying the journal at the auctioneers? According to Shirley Harrison, Kevin Whay, a director of Outhwaite & Litherland, gave it little credence. Having searched through the company’s files and archives on both sides of the alleged sale date, Whay confirmed that ‘no such description or lot number corresponding
with Barrett’s statement exists. Furthermore we do not and have never conducted our sales in the manner in which he [Barrett] describes’. In a telephone conversation with Harrison soon after Barrett’s affidavit was made public, Whay went further. ‘Anyone who tells you they have got a lot number or details for such an album from us is talking through their hat.’"

After a little digging I found, rather to my surprise, that I am in possession of a book by Shirley Harrison entitled "Jack the Ripper: The American Connection" which contains the following:

"On January 30th 1997 Doreen Montgomery received the following statement from Kevin Whay, director of Outhwaite and Litherland: 'Having searched through our files and archives on either side of the alleged sale dates I can confirm that no such description or lot number corresponding with his statement exists. Furthermore we do not and have never conducted our sales in the manner which he describes...'."

This may well have been what I remembered reading.

Both extracts, I think, reveal that Whay was a little bit vague as to how and why the sales were not conducted in the manner described by Barrett and he could, perhaps, have provided a bit more detail in this respect.

Harrison's book contains some other persuasive evidence that Barrett must have been lying about forging the diary but, like I said, I was just interested in the auction process element of the story.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Iconoclast;390386]

What is unbelievable is how easily you (and others) are so easily persuaded to belief the myths around the journal.

For example, the 'Poste House' issue has been addressed by Shirley Harrison (you will have read her two books, I'm sure), as well as Caroline Morris here on the Casebook. Whilst no assurance can be proferred that it is not an anachronism, nor is it certain that it is an anachronism. You would know this if you read everything on the case.

And the handwriting - we have almost none of Maybrick's, and absolutely none known to be written whilst on his own, for himself, and in a probably highly aroused state. We need a known example of that to compare the journal with.

Here's a beaut - the ink has been shown to be modern. It hasn't. If it had, we wouldn't be having this debate. The Maybrick site would have been shut down from this Casebook.

The first 20 pages are torn out. Get over it. So the first 20 pages are torn out. It is very likely that the first 20 pages had content which had to be returned to the company (the journal makes it clear that Maybrick has been asked by his clerk Lowry to account for something). You will know this because you have read the text in detail, surely?

But also the myths around the case!

For example, the journal refers to the rings and to coins - but not at Chapman's feet. The implication is that Maybrick took the rings away with him, and that the coins were found in her pocket. The latter is evidenced by ... oh God, we've gone over and over this over the years, I just can't bring myself to repeat it!

You should know this! You really shouldn't post if you don't know the case! And you really shouldn't discount something you haven't read but simply relied on the rehashed 'unbelievable' myths of the ill-informed.

I get that many people don't have time for the journal, and that they rubbish it without any effort to read it or any of the books on the subject of it. Such indolence is not evidence, nor is it credible. You might turn out to be right, but you're no better than a punter guessing on a winning horse because you happen to like its name. But I for one will defend it for as long as nothing is produced to categorically reveal it as fraudulent. I consider that to be the honourable thing to do.

For the record, Eddowes' body was the only one tested at postmortem for drugs, because (of course) the police found strychnine or arsenic in 'her' red leather cigarette case. It was Maybrick's drug they found, and history will still show it if the case could be located and tested. I am able to make a prediction - I've made it before: Find the red cigarette case and test it for strychnine or arsenic, and when it comes out positive, that will be an end to it. Maybrick will be nailed.

Ike

Firstly, regarding the ink. As far as I'm aware the only conclusive test was an independent visual examination carried out by Dr Joe Nickell et al, which concluded that the ink showed no signs of ageing (all other tests were inconclusive, i.e. unable to determine the age of the ink to any extent, and are therefore of no help.)

Turning to the "Poste House" problem. The diary states:

" I took refreshments at the Poste House..."

Now, it would seem obvious that this reference is to the The Poste House in Cumberland Street near to the Liverpool docks. However, as Shirley Harrison discovered it was not known as the "Poste House" in 1888; the pub only acquired this name in the 1960s.

So, faced with this conundrum, Harrison desperately argues that the term "Post House", could have applied to any pub where mail was delivered-despite offering no supporting evidence for this- even though the reference was clearly to The Poste House.

And here's another discrepancy. The Diary makes it abundantly clear that the killer did not take away Kelly's heart: "No heart, No heart" (the author also states, "Regret I didn't take anything away with me.") Of course, after the Diary was published it was disclosed that the killer had, indeed, taken away the heart.

And here's yet another discrepancy. The Diary states that Kelly's breasts were left on the table, which was what was thought to be the case prior to its publication. Of course, the subsequent publication of Dr Bond's report demonstrated this was not the case.

Then there's an initial murder in Manchester, referred to in the Diary, which no one has been able to find any trace of.

And what of the fact that Maybrick was 50 years old in 1888? Not a single serial killer in recorded criminological history has commenced killing at that sort of age. And, of course, not a single witness describes a suspect as being anything like as old as that.

And then there's the fact that all the murders took place within a remarkably small geographical area, i.e. Whitechapel and the surrounding district. This strongly implies that the killer was a local man with local knowledge, particularly when you consider what a labyrinth Whitechapel was at the time. However, there's not a shred of evidence that Maybrick ever set foot in the East End of London.

In fact, the Diary makes it clear that he was Hutchinson's toff suspect: "A Handkerchief of red took me to bed." Now, not only is Hutchinson about the most unreliable witness throughout the inquiry, if Maybrick really was traipsing the streets of Whitechapel-an area where he would invariably have got hopelessly lost-dressed as affluent Astrachan Man, I would submit that he would have been far more likely have become the victim of murder than to have committed murder himself!

[Iconoclast]

I won't (for now, as I'm on holiday) address the established journal problems (some of which you actually missed out such as the Crawshaw poem appearing in Barrett's attic, et cetera. On my return, I may come back to it, though that has all been done to death over and over that it probably isn't worth rehashing? It definitely won't change anyone's mind, either way.

However, there's not a shred of evidence that Maybrick ever set foot in the East End of London.

It's true that we have no selfies of Maybrick in Brick Lane hoisting his sharp knife with an evil grin (when he realised he had a full signal and could post immediately to Facelessbook). He was a Liverpool cotton merchant, and therefore an incredibly bizarre choice for a forger to target as a plausible Jack R - and yet, by incredibly bizarre chance, it transpires that he 1) Had a brother living in London, 2) Had a business partner working about 10 minutes walk away from the east end, and 3) Had had a mistress for many years who in 1888 was living in the Whitechapel area. "Not a shred of evidence", it is true, other than those three rather teasing possibilities of course.

if Maybrick really was traipsing the streets of Whitechapel-an area where he would invariably have got hopelessly lost.

I love it when we introduce casual non sequiturs and present them as some kind of unquestionable fact. Maybe he knew the streets of Whitechapel and would therefore not get hopelessly lost? Just a thought. Just a possibility to consider before we decide what was true.

Astrakanman was there, incidentally (unless you think GH made him up - not sure where your evidence is for that) and - to my knowledge - he wasn't murdered that night. These things may not necessarily follow from our base assumptions of what is (or was) true.

Also, how do you know (John G) that Maybrick had not killed before his 50th birthday?

The "no heart no heart" comment may have referred to the simple fact that Jack had left MJK with no heart in her body. He may have burned her heart in the raging grate he built.He may have taken her heart away and still wrote "I took none of it away with me". Then again he may not, but none of these points is a bullet - at best they are a gun.

It seems inevitable that one of the following scenarios is true:

1) Maybrick was Jack the Lad and he therefore knew about the heart, the tin match box being empty, et cetera;
2) Maybrick was the victim of an elaborate forgery soon after the crimes ended - created by someone who knew that no further crimes could be committed and that Kelly's heart was missing, et cetera (implying a close association with the crimes either through a professional link or through actual involvement in them);
3) Maybrick was the victim of an elaborate forgery soon after the originally-unpublished details of the crimes were revealed to the public (1988?).

I haven't included the 'Maybrick as fantasist' idea as it stretches credulity too far for me, but others will disagree.

I favour Option 1 - Maybrick as Jack the Ripper - for a number of reasons. The absolute Holy Grail of reasons for me is the inexplicable appearance of the letters 'F' and 'M' on Mary Kelly's wall (visible in every iteration of the infamous photograph whether published by journal critic or supporter) right there "in front for all to see", exactly as predicted in the journal. That initial here and initial there are so damning in terms of identifying Maybrick as the murderer that journal critics have to resort to Frosty the Snowman, Elvis in the Toast arguments to say they don't exist. If you want to really understand how important these initials are, just note the reaction of their discoverer - Simon Wood - who initially (pardon the pun) had no problem bringing them to our attention until he realised the genie he had let out of the bottle at which point he miraculously couldn't see them again (even joining the ranks of the sneering doubters to defend his extraordinary volte face!).

On examination of the Goulston Street Graffito in the context of the Maybrick journal, we can find references to James, Thomas, William, Edwin, Michael, and Florrie and see in the handwriting preserved by the Met Police the very hand which wrote the journal. This is only possible if the policeman himself wrote down the GSG and then created the journal (think this through, though, before you leap to the conclusion that he was the forger), or else the forger based his journal on the GSG not on the few known examples of Maybrick's formal handwriting.

We have the implausibly incriminating postcard to the Liverpool Echo signed 'Diego Laurenz'.

We have a provenance for the journal which goes right back to the Maybrick household of 1889. We have Florence herself leaving prison and adopting the surname 'Graham' - implausibly the surname of the family line which bore the journal down the years (if you believe Anne Graham's version, which I for one do).

We have a journal which has stood the tests of 24 years and has not yet been remotely broken by the passing of time.

So you may wish to be a little more circumspect when you discard the journal's relevance (I accept, of course, that you probably won't simply on the back of this post!) - it provides us with an otherwise forgotten candidate, never linked before the journal with the Whitechapel crimes, and yet doggedly ensuring that what we know of him and what we know of the crimes and what we know of the journal just keep working in his 'favour' (if such a thing can be said) time after time.

The search for the one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the diary goes on and on. The same is not true of the one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which proves the diary, for that lies in the 'FM' on Kelly's wall (not to mention the 'F' carved into her arm). Those initials should not be there but they are and that 'proves' (for proof is rarely entitled to no apostrophes when viewed down so long a timeline) that Maybrick was our man. The alternative is that a forger based the whole charade on having seen those initials. But that would be quite another story ...

Ike

[John G]

I won't (for now, as I'm on holiday) address the established journal problems (some of which you actually missed out such as the Crawshaw poem appearing in Barrett's attic, et cetera. On my return, I may come back to it, though that has all been done to death over and over that it probably isn't worth rehashing? It definitely won't change anyone's mind, either way.



It's true that we have no selfies of Maybrick in Brick Lane hoisting his sharp knife with an evil grin (when he realised he had a full signal and could post immediately to Facelessbook). He was a Liverpool cotton merchant, and therefore an incredibly bizarre choice for a forger to target as a plausible Jack R - and yet, by incredibly bizarre chance, it transpires that he 1) Had a brother living in London, 2) Had a business partner working about 10 minutes walk away from the east end, and 3) Had had a mistress for many years who in 1888 was living in the Whitechapel area. "Not a shred of evidence", it is true, other than those three rather teasing possibilities of course.



I love it when we introduce casual non sequiturs and present them as some kind of unquestionable fact. Maybe he knew the streets of Whitechapel and would therefore not get hopelessly lost? Just a thought. Just a possibility to consider before we decide what was true.

Astrakanman was there, incidentally (unless you think GH made him up - not sure where your evidence is for that) and - to my knowledge - he wasn't murdered that night. These things may not necessarily follow from our base assumptions of what is (or was) true.

Also, how do you know (John G) that Maybrick had not killed before his 50th birthday?

The "no heart no heart" comment may have referred to the simple fact that Jack had left MJK with no heart in her body. He may have burned her heart in the raging grate he built.He may have taken her heart away and still wrote "I took none of it away with me". Then again he may not, but none of these points is a bullet - at best they are a gun.

It seems inevitable that one of the following scenarios is true:

1) Maybrick was Jack the Lad and he therefore knew about the heart, the tin match box being empty, et cetera;
2) Maybrick was the victim of an elaborate forgery soon after the crimes ended - created by someone who knew that no further crimes could be committed and that Kelly's heart was missing, et cetera (implying a close association with the crimes either through a professional link or through actual involvement in them);
3) Maybrick was the victim of an elaborate forgery soon after the originally-unpublished details of the crimes were revealed to the public (1988?).

I haven't included the 'Maybrick as fantasist' idea as it stretches credulity too far for me, but others will disagree.

I favour Option 1 - Maybrick as Jack the Ripper - for a number of reasons. The absolute Holy Grail of reasons for me is the inexplicable appearance of the letters 'F' and 'M' on Mary Kelly's wall (visible in every iteration of the infamous photograph whether published by journal critic or supporter) right there "in front for all to see", exactly as predicted in the journal. That initial here and initial there are so damning in terms of identifying Maybrick as the murderer that journal critics have to resort to Frosty the Snowman, Elvis in the Toast arguments to say they don't exist. If you want to really understand how important these initials are, just note the reaction of their discoverer - Simon Wood - who initially (pardon the pun) had no problem bringing them to our attention until he realised the genie he had let out of the bottle at which point he miraculously couldn't see them again (even joining the ranks of the sneering doubters to defend his extraordinary volte face!).

On examination of the Goulston Street Graffito in the context of the Maybrick journal, we can find references to James, Thomas, William, Edwin, Michael, and Florrie and see in the handwriting preserved by the Met Police the very hand which wrote the journal. This is only possible if the policeman himself wrote down the GSG and then created the journal (think this through, though, before you leap to the conclusion that he was the forger), or else the forger based his journal on the GSG not on the few known examples of Maybrick's formal handwriting.

We have the implausibly incriminating postcard to the Liverpool Echo signed 'Diego Laurenz'.

We have a provenance for the journal which goes right back to the Maybrick household of 1889. We have Florence herself leaving prison and adopting the surname 'Graham' - implausibly the surname of the family line which bore the journal down the years (if you believe Anne Graham's version, which I for one do).

We have a journal which has stood the tests of 24 years and has not yet been remotely broken by the passing of time.

So you may wish to be a little more circumspect when you discard the journal's relevance (I accept, of course, that you probably won't simply on the back of this post!) - it provides us with an otherwise forgotten candidate, never linked before the journal with the Whitechapel crimes, and yet doggedly ensuring that what we know of him and what we know of the crimes and what we know of the journal just keep working in his 'favour' (if such a thing can be said) time after time.

The search for the one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the diary goes on and on. The same is not true of the one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which proves the diary, for that lies in the 'FM' on Kelly's wall (not to mention the 'F' carved into her arm). Those initials should not be there but they are and that 'proves' (for proof is rarely entitled to no apostrophes when viewed down so long a timeline) that Maybrick was our man. The alternative is that a forger based the whole charade on having seen those initials. But that would be quite another story ...

Ike

Well, as regards "one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the Diary", as it was written in a cryptic style, the ramblings of the author clan be interpreted to mean pretty much what you want them to mean, much like Nostradamus' prophesies, which I have no doubt is exactly what the author intended.

As regards George Hutchinson , I suggest you read some of the Hutchinson threads particularly the excellent posts by Ben. Frankly, he's a completely discredited witness, as evidenced by newspaper reports throughout November, such as the Echo which tells us on the 13th that his account had "a very reduced importance", and on the 14th that, following enquiries at Commercial Street Police Station, his statement had been "considerably discounted."

There is not a shred of evidence that Maybrick had ever visited the East End, let alone the Whitechapel labyrinth. Although his former mistress was living there in 1888, their affair was twenty years earlier and I believe was restricted to Liverpool and Durham.

I don't accept that the letters F M were on Mary Kelly's wall: that's just fanciful.

And as for the Goulston Street Graffiti referencing the names you cited, that's an even bigger fantasy. In fact, it's the same kind of nonsense about secret, cryptic messages from the killer that Pierre keeps coming up with. And where's the evidence that the graffiti was written in the same hand as the Diary? I mean, considering the graffiti was never photographed that is frankly an outlandish claim!

[pinkmoon]

If, however, we are genuinely openly considering all available evidence then David appears to have a point about the error of describing his receipt as a 'ticket'.

I'm on holiday so can't check my facts, but - as I recall it - there was a long litany of errors; but then that's what people say about the journal without really knowing any better so I shall check my facts before I make any further claims.

What I like about David's posts is that he has actually opened our minds to another way of thinking about Barrett's confession. Still a long way from believing it, myself, of course, but we should recognise a point well made.

Ike

What we need to remember is that mr barrett had a chronic drink problem and mental health issuses when he was making all these claims.

[Caligo Umbrator]

What we need to remember is that mr barrett had a chronic drink problem and mental health issuses when he was making all these claims.

Hi, Pinkmoon.

I understand you were acquainted with the gentleman. Is it your assessment, from your knowledge of his character and the health conditions you mention, that his 'confession' can be discounted in its entirety?
I had considered it feasible that when he gave his account of the events at the auction house, he might in actuality have been recounting the experience of purchasing the 'diary' as told to him by an unknown (to us) third party.
What would you consider the likelihood of such an episode?

Yours, Caligo

[pinkmoon]

Hi, Pinkmoon.

I understand you were acquainted with the gentleman. Is it your assessment, from your knowledge of his character and the health conditions you mention, that his 'confession' can be discounted in its entirety?
I had considered it feasible that when he gave his account of the events at the auction house, he might in actuality have been recounting the experience of purchasing the 'diary' as told to him by an unknown (to us) third party.
What would you consider the likelihood of such an episode?

Yours, Caligo

Ive never been to an auction from what ive seen on tv you go in are given a number which you then give in to the counter assistant when you pay up.

[GUT]

Ive never been to an auction from what ive seen on tv you go in are given a number which you then give in to the counter assistant when you pay up.

First auctions I went to, when you won an item they gave you a ticket with the lot number and price, you then went and laud and either were given the item or another ticket to present when you picked it up.

It was only high end items like cars and art that required registration, it gradually trickled down to lower end goods.

[Iconoclast]

The truth about most postings on sites such as ours is that few - if any - really change the way in which the reader thinks. Generally speaking, we have our views and we shape our interpretations of things to ensure that our views remain congruous internally. I think psychologists call this something like 'fundamental attribution error' (in those situations, of course, where 'error' it be). I know there is no influencing your view here, but dogged defence of the journal over many a long year lead me to offer responses once more.

Well, as regards "one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the Diary", as it was written in a cryptic style, the ramblings of the author clan be interpreted to mean pretty much what you want them to mean, much like Nostradamus' prophesies, which I have no doubt is exactly what the author intended.

You may have no doubt but you certainly can have no certainty. Your views are clouded by 'attribution' (as everyone's are) so you may wish to show a little caution in taking such a dogmatic stance. To dismiss the journal with the ill-justified comment "it was written in a cryptic style" is weak and lazy. The journal is not cryptic at all, and I don't see why you would say it unless you were rather unfamiliar with it.

As regards George Hutchinson , I suggest you read some of the Hutchinson threads particularly the excellent posts by Ben. Frankly, he's a completely discredited witness, as evidenced by newspaper reports throughout November, such as the Echo which tells us on the 13th that his account had "a very reduced importance", and on the 14th that, following enquiries at Commercial Street Police Station, his statement had been "considerably discounted."

Well if this can be proven to be true then the journal is a forgery as the latter refers to the same red handkerchief which the former mentions in his account of his encounter with Kelly and her companion. If you could provide us with the cast iron case that shows Hutchinson's evidence was simply made up, then you have unequivocally proven the journal to be the forgery you otherwise can only view it to be. We wait with breath long since baited.

There is not a shred of evidence that Maybrick had ever visited the East End, let alone the Whitechapel labyrinth. Although his former mistress was living there in 1888, their affair was twenty years earlier and I believe was restricted to Liverpool and Durham.

There is no absolute evidence that Maybrick was ever in Whitechapel in 1888 (that I can recall). Just for the record, I wasn't aware that Sarah Ann Robertson was ever in Liverpool. Could you clarify where you sourced that from, please? Durham, incidentally, was more Hartlepool and Sunderland as I recall, but that's a moot point.

I don't accept that the letters F M were on Mary Kelly's wall: that's just fanciful.

And that's fine with me, but please let's not confuse our views of a thing with the possible truth of that thing. Your finding the letters on the wall fanciful is perfectly consistent with your general views of the journal, and many fellow anti-journalists have adopted the same casual route out of what would otherwise be a dangerous cul-de-sac to wander down. Your views are not shared by the evidence. Arch critics of the journal were happy to publish solid examples of the initials in their published works. The two best examples can be found in the photographic plates in Marriott and again in Sugden. Like Simon Wood (wo first alerted us to the letters), you still won't be able to see them so I suggest that your eyes follow the line predicted by the 'F' which has been carved into Kelly's arm, assuming of course that you can see that one.

And as for the Goulston Street Graffiti referencing the names you cited, that's an even bigger fantasy. In fact, it's the same kind of nonsense about secret, cryptic messages from the killer that Pierre keeps coming up with. And where's the evidence that the graffiti was written in the same hand as the Diary? I mean, considering the graffiti was never photographed that is frankly an outlandish claim!

Again, you dismiss on the basis of mere opinion, and resort to none of the facts. The GSG was not photographed (tragically) but in his letter to the Home Office of that day (06/11/1888) Warren states that he had the GSG 'duplicated' and he attached that copy to his letter. This copy can be seen by Googling the GSG and selecting Images, or can be accessed more directly using the following link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goulston_Street_graffito#/media/File:Juives.jpg

You may argue that Warren did not mean 'felicitously' when he used the word 'duplicate', but we have to work with the known facts and we know from the record that he used the word 'duplicate' and that that word has a very specific meaning. Even if the GSG had not been transcribed felicitously, it seems quite inconceivable that a poor copy any more than a good copy should allow for James, Thomas, William, Edwin, FM, and MM to be discerned cryptically embedded in its image, nor that a forger would choose to imitate the writing of a copy of the GSG rather than any of the few examples of Maybrick's formal hand. For the handwriting comparison, I highlighted only the word 'nothing' in the GSG and in the journal in my History vs Maybrick thread as the likeness was simply unequivocal (surely we can agree on that?). The image, incidentally, can be seen at my History vs Maybrick thread, post number 75 (http://forum.casebook.org/attachment...&d=1439466263).

To see in the GSG evidence of Maybrick playing games with the police is nowhere near fanciful. Compared with our desperate attempts over 128 years to fathom the message, to see in it no meaning at all seems to me to be as reasonable as any other interpretation. It was Maybrick's 'funny Jewish joke', and I would say that it was a rather good one as it has taken 127 years to finally be deciphered.

[John Wheat]

Well, as regards "one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the Diary", as it was written in a cryptic style, the ramblings of the author clan be interpreted to mean pretty much what you want them to mean, much like Nostradamus' prophesies, which I have no doubt is exactly what the author intended.

As regards George Hutchinson , I suggest you read some of the Hutchinson threads particularly the excellent posts by Ben. Frankly, he's a completely discredited witness, as evidenced by newspaper reports throughout November, such as the Echo which tells us on the 13th that his account had "a very reduced importance", and on the 14th that, following enquiries at Commercial Street Police Station, his statement had been "considerably discounted."

There is not a shred of evidence that Maybrick had ever visited the East End, let alone the Whitechapel labyrinth. Although his former mistress was living there in 1888, their affair was twenty years earlier and I believe was restricted to Liverpool and Durham.

I don't accept that the letters F M were on Mary Kelly's wall: that's just fanciful.

And as for the Goulston Street Graffiti referencing the names you cited, that's an even bigger fantasy. In fact, it's the same kind of nonsense about secret, cryptic messages from the killer that Pierre keeps coming up with. And where's the evidence that the graffiti was written in the same hand as the Diary? I mean, considering the graffiti was never photographed that is frankly an outlandish claim!

Hi John

I agree with what you're saying although I wouldn't totally dismiss the FM on Mary Kelly's wall I personally think it could have meant 'fake mother'. Having said that it could be just the blood spatter looking like FM. I certainly don't think it stands for Florence Maybrick and view the diary as a hoax.

Cheers John

[Iconoclast]

Hi John

I agree with what you're saying although I wouldn't totally dismiss the FM on Mary Kelly's wall I personally think it could have meant 'fake mother'. Having said that it could be just the blood spatter looking like FM. I certainly don't think it stands for Florence Maybrick and view the diary as a hoax.

Cheers John

Hi John,

Not sure which side of the argument you're on here, but keen to address any obfuscation which so frequently creeps into these discussions.

If you feel that the 'FM' on Kelly's wall could represent 'fake mother', why would you be so categorical that they don't stand for 'Florence Maybrick'? There is an overwhelmingly strong reason why they would represent 'Florence Maybrick' (their existence for this purpose is predicted in the Maybrick journal) but not - to my knowledge - any logical reason whatsoever why they would represent 'fake mother' nor indeed any other combination of two words starting with an 'F' and an 'M'. If you are suggesting that Maybrick meant 'fake mother' rather than 'Florence Maybrick', then it's all irrelevant anyway as the issue is not what the letters mean but that they link Maybrick (or at least the journal in his name) directly to the crime. If you feel that someone else wrote the initials 'FM' and meant - perhaps - 'fake mother', that is an event beyond the bounds of statistical probability (it cannot be reasonably asserted given that someone else has clearly linked them to Maybrick and his wife).

If, as you also contend, they could be blood splatters then they are also way beyond the bounds of statistical probability as they would have fallen in such a way that they unequivocally spell two letters of the alphabet. I don't know how often that happens at murder scenes but I suspect it's astonishingly rare (and by that, of course, I mean 'never'). Nevertheless, if this were possible, then the only explanation for the Maybrick journal is that our writer saw the initials 'FM' created by the random blood splatters (or by someone writing 'FM' on Kelly's wall for some other reason now long lost in time) and then concocted this elaborate back story of 'FM' representing 'Florence Maybrick', and then thought to write a hoax journal in the name of James Maybrick - a relatively affluent cotton merchant from Liverpool (of all places!).

If this is what happened with the journal then bravo to our hoaxer - that is a piece of genius, to think of such an audacious trick, to write in a style which convinces modern psychiatrists of its veracity, to choose someone about as implausible as it was possible to get, and then to find that history and the known movements of James Maybrick never once ruled him out as a candidate for Jack. Astonishing is undoubtedly the word.

Of course, it is far simpler to argue that the letters don't exist. That way, you don't have the problem of what the consequences imply. It's how the human mnd works - seeing things it wants to see and not seeing things it doesn't want to see in absolutely equal measure. A fundamental attribution error on a fairly grand scale.

The letters aren't random blood splatters, though. Blood just doesn't articulate itself in that way. They are real letters highlighted in a dimly-lit room by the phospherous of the camera's momentary flash which gave us a fleeting moment of insight into a crime scene which fundamentally reveals to the world that the author of the Ripper's crimes was James Maybrick, Liverpool cotton merchant and egotistical monster.

Cheers,

Ike