One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

That's very good of you, you be a good boy and do so, and then we can discuss the empty tin matchbox. However, It still doesn't alter the fact that on the score of maintaining "radio silence " you're as guilty as GUT. As far as poster's going missing, it's the way things are in Casebook, you'll have to get used to that. This is a pastime to most of us our lives don't revolve around this Forum. By the way your attempts at humour leave me cringing.

Thanks!

[Observer]

You're welcome.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Iconoclast,
As for the watch, what information from 1987 is there on the watch? Of course the name Jack and the initials of the victims were available for all newspaper readers, to engrave them on a watch.
IchabodCrane

Hi Ichabod,

It would appear that the post police are acquiring a warrant to search my brain if I don't present myself here on the Casebook to respond to your post. Not sure why the PP feel it is just I who should respond when there are so many who post, but I guess it is because you chose to address me?

Anyway, the only question you appear to post is in the quotation box above and the answer is 'None'.

I hope this gets the PP off my back!

Ike

PS I should add that the relevance of the watch lies in its aged markings not in the content of those markings. The markings have been dated to tens of years prior to 1992 which makes the modern forgery theory seem harder to defend (not impossible to defend, but certainly harder). By the way, the five canonical victim's initials are on the watch and apparently the two victims the journal claims from Manchester. That's got to strike you as odd, hasn't it? A watch with old markings of 7 initials, and a journal claiming the five canonical victims plus two?

[Observer]

If you read carefully Ichbodcrane, was also interested to hear of your musings regarding the fact that the Diarist incorrectly described the positioning of Kelly's organs. It's quite clear Ichbodcrane was looking for an answer to


"Thanks in advance, and apologies if i am asking for some obvious answers here"

"Answers" plural.

And you're still as funny as a hole in the head.

[Iconoclast]

If you read carefully Ichbodcrane, was also interested to hear of your musings regarding the fact that the Diarist incorrectly described the positioning of Kelly's organs. It's quite clear Ichbodcrane was looking for an answer to


"Thanks in advance, and apologies if i am asking for some obvious answers here"

"Answers" plural.

And you're still as funny as a hole in the head.

Not 100% sure that I'm criminally negligent in not addressing random questions which come my way? Nor particularly sure why you've taken it upon yourself to be the post police? You presumably have your reasons.

Humble apologies for not reaching your expectations on the humour front either.

I feel so worthless!

[Iconoclast]

If you read carefully Ichbodcrane, was also interested to hear of your musings regarding the fact that the Diarist incorrectly described the positioning of Kelly's organs. It's quite clear Ichbodcrane was looking for an answer to


"Thanks in advance, and apologies if i am asking for some obvious answers here"

"Answers" plural.

And you're still as funny as a hole in the head.

I should have added that I'm going to call time on my half of this exchange of wit and banter. I'm sure our bored readership will be profoundly relieved.

[Observer]

This is a public Forum, and, obviously I'm interested as to what posters opinions are regarding all aspects of the Whitechapel series of murders. That answer your question?

And worthless you should feel. There's no excuse for crap humour, none whatsoever.

[Observer]

I should have added that I'm going to call time on my half of this exchange of wit and banter. I'm sure our bored readership will be profoundly relieved.

I'm sure they will be. Banter yes, not much wit though. Don't go too far, I'm interested in your opinion regarding the empty tin match box.

Also. No opinion regarding Mary Kelly's body parts?

[Observer]

One final thing before you resume "radio silence". You've read every last word all things Diary, and so. What is your opinion of Paul Feldman's "Jack The Ripper The Final Chapter" ?

[Iconoclast]

This is a public Forum, and, obviously I'm interested as to what posters opinions are regarding all aspects of the Whitechapel series of murders. That answer your question?

And worthless you should feel. There's no excuse for crap humour, none whatsoever.

I know I said I was going to desist from engaging with you, and I promise everyone that I am (you all must be as bored by this as I am), but I feel compelled to say that you appear to be a genuinely creepy kind of guy. And I mean really creepy. I have to assume that you've been told this before though?

The good news, everyone, is that - creepy guy apart - I'm open for business on the Jack the Ripper front, especially all things Maybrick! Ichabod, what was your question again, mate?

Ike

[Observer]

I know I said I was going to desist from engaging with you, and I promise everyone that I am (you all must be as bored by this as I am), but I feel compelled to say that you appear to be a genuinely creepy kind of guy. And I mean really creepy. I have to assume that you've been told this before though?

Haha. Oh I've had my run ins, but no, as a matter of fact you're the first to accuse me of that trait, good for you. I couldn't give a toss whichever label you choose to put on me by the way. Your big trouble is you don't like a taste of your own medicine. Ok for you to sneeringly address Gut as Gutless, and to pontificate and swagger around here putting posters down, but as soon as as I react in a similar manner I'm "creepy". Kettle and pot, classic scenario.

The good news, everyone, is that - creepy guy apart - I'm open for business on the Jack the Ripper front, especially all things Maybrick! Ichabod, what was your question again, mate?

Good news??? hahahahaha. I take everything back, you have got a sense of humour. I've asked you three questions relevant to the "Maybrick" Diary, and you've side-stepped all three, so it's not all "wit, and banter". I'm also open for business, the Diary is a hoax, and needs exposing as such.

[Admin]

This thread is being re-opened. With general warnings to all. Be civil.

Thanks.

[IchabodCrane]

I
The good news, everyone, is that - creepy guy apart - I'm open for business on the Jack the Ripper front, especially all things Maybrick! Ichabod, what was your question again, mate?

Ike

Hi Ike,

the question was, how high would you judge the probability (in %) that a Ripper Maybrick would dwell on the subject of the breasts over several sentences in some sickening detail, and then get their location wrong. Also taking into consideration that he specifically mentions that he 'thought they belonged there' [on the table], and that they are the only organs which are mentioned specifically in the journal entry. And sweet rhymes with feet but not with table, so I think the strikethrough part might be explained by need for rhyme, while the author had no clue where the breasts were left but assumed they were on the table 'with the other stuff' from some newspaper reports.
Thanks
IchabodCrane.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike,

the question was, how high would you judge the probability (in %) that a Ripper Maybrick would dwell on the subject of the breasts over several sentences in some sickening detail, and then get their location wrong. Also taking into consideration that he specifically mentions that he 'thought they belonged there' [on the table], and that they are the only organs which are mentioned specifically in the journal entry. And sweet rhymes with feet but not with table, so I think the strikethrough part might be explained by need for rhyme, while the author had no clue where the breasts were left but assumed they were on the table 'with the other stuff' from some newspaper reports.
Thanks
IchabodCrane.

Hi Ichabod,

Quick answer (as I'm still ploughing through work emails!) on a simple % scale would be probably less than 50% - so less likely rather than likely.

I think it requires a more thought-out answer, but those emails have my name (literally) on them!

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

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?

Okay - it's been a while, but I am finally at that bit in Linder et alia so I feel I can probably direct you towards the bit of Barrett's detailed confession which would prove to be the most damning in terms of his claims:

What about Barrett's detailed account of buying the journal at the auctioneers? According to Shirley Harrison, Kevin Whay, a director of Outhwaite and 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 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.' Page167, incidentally.

I added the bold. Regardless of how O&L did their business, there was no record of the item being auctioned. It is hard to imagine that the item (and the compass which Barrett also claimed was part of the lot) would be sold in a way entirely different from the established practice and not be recorded.

Some might argue that Harrison was reporting what Mr Whay said and may have distorted his words, but I have to assume that Mr Whay subsequently read Harrison's book and does not appear to have asked her to retract any of what she stated that he claimed.

Barrett - an alcoholic with the pin out - had critically weakened the journal's case with his criminal lies. Not long thereafter, Anne Barrett gave an expanded account of the journal's provenance which took the journal right back to 1889 and the hands of Edith Formby, a woman who - the Graham family tradition had it - had accompanied one of the Battlecrease nurses to Florence's trial each day. Now, if it could be categorically established that Edith Formby had accompanied a Battlecrease nurse to Florence's trial each day, then the journal would have a devastatingly compelling provenance: James Maybrick, Battlecrease House, Battlecrease nurse (Alice Yapp?), Edith Formby, her daughter Elizabeth Formby who married William Graham whose son was Billy Graham whose daughter was Anne Graham who gave the journal to Tony Devereaux with the reqest that he give it to her husband Mike 'Pin Out' Barrett who brought it to the world's attention and then attempted to claim it all for himself as a forging mastermind, but who got all the details horrendously wrong, and thereby buried the journal in the eyes of most commentators.

The journal was apparently (according to Billy Graham and Anne Graham) transported down the years in a black trunk with white letters on it:

Alice Yapp's evidence as to this [finding poison powder in the possession of Florence Maybrick] was at the Coroner's Inquest: I went into the linen closet for a trunk to put the children's clothes in. The closet is close to Mrs Maybrick's bedroom, and is very dark. It is not lighted except by gas. The door was unlocked.
Q. Whose trunk was it! [Sic]
A. Mrs Maybrick's
Q. Has it got letters on it
A. Yes, F.E.M. at the sides ... [Feldman, p313, original paperwork]

Tragically, I assume that Anne Graham is no longer in possession of the black trunk with the letters on it that she and her father report seeing the journal in, but the provenance is one small link away - proving that Alice Yapp (or some other Battlecrease nurse) was accompanied (or even just knew) one Edith Formby.

As is well known, on leaving gaol in 1904, Florence Maybrick quite inexplicably adopted the surname Graham, a contraction of an old family name Ingraham, by all accounts. Not only did she adopt the name Graham but - in their later years - both Florence 'Graham' and William Graham went out of their way to look strikingly similar. [Feldman, plate section] Feldman sees this as part of the evidence that shows that William Graham was the illegitimate son of a fifteen-year-old Florence (and one Henry Flynn, for the record). Certainly, William's similarity to Florence seems significant.

To casually dismiss the journal as a fake is a travesty and - actually - a terrible laziness. We have before us the likely solution to the tale and we run the very real risk of simply missing it, probably (therefore) forever leaving a mystery where the world could have witnessed the truth.



Ike