One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Observer]

And your evidence for that lies where? Where can I source the back Police reports which focus on the need to be vigilant at future crime scenes for possible writing or clues?

Old Ike says you can't because no such directives were given. It was 1888, man. They didn't think like today's police would think. If they did, we'd know it from the copious evidence.

You are joking of course. Because there is no evidence of such a directive the police would not have searched for messages left by the killer ( should there have been any) at the scene of the Kelly murder. Why are you dumbing down the police investigators of 1888?

If those crimes were perpetrated back before time began, and the culprit had smeared Mammoth crap on the cave walls, at the scene of his crimes do you not think Sargent Ugg of the Prehistoric Police, would have looked for such behaviour at subsequent similar murders?

Certain police officers believed the Goulston Street graffiti to have been written by the murderer of Eddowes, why should they not have scrutinised the Kelly murder site for similar messages?

Your reasoning doesn't surprise me one iota though, anyone believing the Journal to have been written by Maybrick, well what can I say.

'Not a chance'. Fair enough, you are welcome to your opinion. PLease don't confuse it without anything more tangible or meaningful - such pronouncements confuse the weakminded as fact.

Even the "weakminded," whoever they may be, have the sense to see through the ridiculous Journal which purports to have been written by James Maybrick. You underestimate them. On the whole they do not post here in this Forum, most have the sense to see what the Journal is, a complete and utter hoax from beginning to end.

[Observer]

By the way, I've been meaning to ask you. Do you really believe that the Journal in question was written by James Maybrick ? Please tell me you're winding us up.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Observer,

A hoax?

Surely not. Tell me you're joking.

The Times, 9th September 1993—

“25 experts have examined the diary and found ‘no substantial reason for rejecting it’"

The experts were unnnamed.

Regards,

Simon

[Observer]

Hi Observer,

A hoax?

Surely not. Tell me you're joking.

The Times, 9th September 1993—

“25 experts have examined the diary and found ‘no substantial reason for rejecting it’"

The experts were unnnamed.

Regards,

Simon

Haha. Indeed Simon. I wonder why they were reluctant to give their names ?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Observer,

My imagination does not stretch that far.

Regards,

Simon

[Iconoclast]

By the way, I've been meaning to ask you. Do you really believe that the Journal in question was written by James Maybrick ? Please tell me you're winding us up.

The journal was written by James Maybrick and he was Jack the Ripper.

I see Simon Wood has posted after yours (haven't read it yet). He recently published his theory that there was in fact no Jack the Ripper at all. I await your incredulous post to that.

Though I shan't wait long, of course ...

[Iconoclast]

Haha. Indeed Simon. I wonder why they were reluctant to give their names ?

Observer (I love the irony!), you do realise that you are conversing with the very person who first noticed the letters on Kelly's wall, yes - you know, the ones which don't exist?

I'm loving your love-in together. It must be very reassuring for you all to be so self-congratulatingly right.

It's hot tonight, mind. Bet you all wish you'd been sheared this morning?

[Iconoclast]

Haha. Indeed Simon. I wonder why they were reluctant to give their names ?

They were reluctant to give their names or their names were simply not given by The Times?

Goodness, you really do want to have it all ways. Still - that's your right, wouldn't suggest you shouldn't!

[Simon Wood]

Hi Iconoclast,

You'd do well to stop running with the fox and hunting with the hounds.

Regards,

Simon

[Iconoclast]

Hi Iconoclast,

You'd do well to stop running with the fox and hunting with the hounds.

Regards,

Simon

Ho ho ho.

Or should that be tally-ho?

[Observer]

The journal was written by James Maybrick and he was Jack the Ripper.

Say that without laughing.

I see Simon Wood has posted after yours (haven't read it yet). He recently published his theory that there was in fact no Jack the Ripper at all. I await your incredulous post to that.

Though I shan't wait long, of course ...

We're not discussing Simon Woods theories here, we're discussing the numerous incontrovertible, undeniable facts which refute the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Say that without laughing.



We're not discussing Simon Woods theories here, we're discussing the numerous incontrovertible, undeniable facts which refute the Diary

Quite. Do let us all know when you find one. (Has to follow Tom Mitchell's original criteria mind - you can't just chuck in, "Erm, like the writing doesn't match the known formal handwriting of James Maybrick even though it wasn't written for an audience", etc.)

Good luck with that. You'll be a while.

Have a quick re-read of the original post, though, before launching in with stuff that isn't incontrovertible. One of the things you won't be launching in with will be "Ah, the hoaxer got it completely wrong, Maybrick's brother only wrote music". That one was offered up many a time before it was nailed by research.

Here's an idea - mention 'Poste House', or 'tin matchbox, empty', or the Crawshaw poem being found by Barrett, or Barrett's brilliantly asinine confession (and his next one and the one after that all interspersed with retractions), et cetera.

Not an incontrovertible fact amongst them.

As I say, you'll be a while ...

[Observer]

Observer (I love the irony!), you do realise that you are conversing with the very person who first noticed the letters on Kelly's wall, yes - you know, the ones which don't exist?

You'd do better to show a little love for those men in the white coats, when they finally come knocking on your door ! Best to stay on the right side of them. Yes I do realise that Simon was the man in question, I read that some time back. Most of us took that as tongue in cheek though, however,you should be eternally grateful.

I'm loving your love-in together. It must be very reassuring for you all to be so self-congratulatingly right.

Absolutely, very reassuring, there's not much going on around here of late.

It's hot tonight, mind. Bet you all wish you'd been sheared this morning?

I do realise that the above is your attempt at some form of jollity, but, as ever not very sound reasoning, it's bleedin freezing where I am at the moment, I need all the wool I can muster.

[Observer]

They were reluctant to give their names or their names were simply not given by The Times?

They were reluctant to give their names.

Goodness, you really do want to have it all ways. Still - that's your right, wouldn't suggest you shouldn't!

Then why did you suggest it ?

[Harry D]

I see Simon Wood has posted after yours (haven't read it yet). He recently published his theory that there was in fact no Jack the Ripper at all. I await your incredulous post to that.

A hypothesis I am beginning to share.