One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Chris]

Chris, please don't post a huge blow-up - post a picture of the original, which (using the web link you provided) shows the letters no problem.

What I posted was simply the relevant section of Stephen Ryder's high-resolution scan of the photograph, located at the URL I provided. No change was made to the scale of the image.

The fact that the initials can be "seen" in smaller, poor-quality versions of the photo but not in the high-resolution scan should be clear enough evidence that they're not there.

[Graham]

In years to come, folks might say of an evening, "Hmm, that Soothsayer - he was a hell of a guy".

Me, I think I'll just have another beer and go to bed.

Ciao,

Graham

[Soothsayer]

Christine, why waste your electronic breath?

He'll get tired of all this soon, and move on to another thread.

There are no letters. Never were, never will be.

Cheers,

Graham

For the benefit of those who see the 'FM' on Kelly's wall, rejoice in the knowledge that they provide a concrete link with the Maybrick diary and that the identity of Jack is now known, if not yet popularly believed.

For those who don't, for you too there are plenty of other threads. What keeps drawing you to this one?

Personally, I suspect it's because you fear the letters. Head in sand, the danger can't be there. Closing your eyes, there are no ghosts and ghouls. Saying No lots and lots of time, any sound like Yes gets crushed and undermined.

You are scared of what admitting the letters are there would mean, aren't you?

[Christine]

For the benefit of those who see the 'FM' on Kelly's wall, rejoice in the knowledge that they provide a concrete link with the Maybrick diary and that the identity of Jack is now known, if not yet popularly believed.

For those who don't, for you too there are plenty of other threads. What keeps drawing you to this one?

Personally, I suspect it's because you fear the letters. Head in sand, the danger can't be there. Closing your eyes, there are no ghosts and ghouls. Saying No lots and lots of time, any sound like Yes gets crushed and undermined.

You are scared of what admitting the letters are there would mean, aren't you?

I just told you that the letters were meaningless. If they were there, then the forger would find a use for them in his diary. If they aren't there, then the forger simply used the letters that he thought he could see and found a way to fit them to Maybrick. I have no fear of FM because any ripper candidate could be given a reason to have written an FM on the wall. There are millions of things it could stand for, and at least one will fit every candidate.

What do you think of claims that there are preservatives in the ink?

[Graham]

When, after Simon Wood's initial 'observation' in/around 1988, did the so-called Letters On The Wall become common knowledge?

Serious, now.

Cheers,

Graham

[Graham]

What do you think of claims that there are preservatives in the ink?

With a respectful genuflection to the memory of Melvin Harris. this subject used to take up about half of this entire website.

If you really want to get into the ink, Chris, then get reading, but I warn you, it ain't for the faint-hearted.

My personal belief is that the ink is genuine Victorian, but that does not necessarily mean to imply that the Diary is, too.

Cheers,

Graham

[Christine]

With a respectful genuflection to the memory of Melvin Harris. this subject used to take up about half of this entire website.

If you really want to get into the ink, Chris, then get reading, but I warn you, it ain't for the faint-hearted.

My personal belief is that the ink is genuine Victorian, but that does not necessarily mean to imply that the Diary is, too.

Cheers,

Graham

Hello Graham

The only info I found on the preservatives was on the dissertations, which I have read through. The impression I got was that the tests for Chloracetamide were inconclusive, and that the diary supporters cut off further tests. Plus Barrett said he adulterated the ink to make it looked aged. But as you say, it would be very easy to create an ink which is indistinguishable from authentic ink, and only slightly more difficult to get actual antique ink, so the whole point is kind of moot.

[Soothsayer]

When, after Simon Wood's initial 'observation' in/around 1988, did the so-called Letters On The Wall become common knowledge?

Serious, now.

Cheers,

Graham

Well that's my point, actually, Graham!

The comment by Mr Woods was essentially ignored (as far as I am aware) and the purported letters were not 'entered into the evidence' until the publication of the diary in 1993.

Thus, it was our cunning forger who effectively first saw the letters and certainly he who made most use of the letters (whether they are there or not - was Simon Woods, a diary debunker, wrong when he saw them?).

Along with the reference to 'FM' (albeit obliquely in a 'rhyme'), our forger also first brought attention to the 'V's cut into Eddowes' cheeks. These are now part of the Ripper folklore because our forger drew our attention to them.

I haven't time right now to go into this further, but suffice it to say that our forger was no Johnny Come Lately, and the diary was absolutely not a casual effort ...

[Magpie]

was Simon Woods, a diary debunker, wrong when he saw them.

My understanding is that yes, Simon has since said he was mistaken.

[Magpie]

So Sooth, you have yet to address the fact that the dozens of police officers, doctors and jurors who visited Miller's Ct make no mention of any initials on the wall. Nor do the official reports of the crime scene. Nor is there any contemporary mention of initials in the photographs--not until the beat up, poor resolution copy reappeared.

[Magpie]

Also, the "poem" in which the initials appear also claims that the Ripper took the key with him when he left Miller's Court--something that we now also know is not true, and also the red hankerchief, which comes from the highly suspect testimony of Hutchinson.

Not a very good track record if the author really was the killer.

[Soothsayer]

was Simon Woods, a diary debunker, wrong when he saw them.

My understanding is that yes, Simon has since said he was mistaken.

That's right, Magpie. That's what diary debunkers do. Even the ones who mentioned the letters before the diary was published.

[Soothsayer]

Also, the "poem" in which the initials appear also claims that the Ripper took the key with him when he left Miller's Court--something that we now also know is not true, and also the red hankerchief, which comes from the highly suspect testimony of Hutchinson.

Not a very good track record if the author really was the killer.

The issue of the key, Magpie, is far from established. If it wasn't, then clearly the debunkers would have (quite rightly) a field day with it.

If you tell me that Mary Kelly definitely didn't have a red handkerchief, I'd need to know how you knew that. Hutchinson's 'highly suspect testimony' is a matter of opinion - hardly grounds to debunk the diary!

[Soothsayer]

So Sooth, you have yet to address the fact that the dozens of police officers, doctors and jurors who visited Miller's Ct make no mention of any initials on the wall. Nor do the official reports of the crime scene. Nor is there any contemporary mention of initials in the photographs--not until the beat up, poor resolution copy reappeared.

I think you'll find that I have, numerous times, on this thread, Magpie. Do you only read random bits?

My initial thought was that in 1888, the police would be less inclined to react to letters on a wall as they would not have encountered the 20th Century phenomenon of the celebrity serial killer who leaves clues as he goes along.

The Grave Maurice made a brilliant observation just a few postings back (free feel to keep up here, Magpie) when he noted that the room itself was not well lit, but the photographer's flash would certainly have momentarily changed all that.

For every single debunk you put forward, Magpie, there is a tried and tested anti-debunk.

The diary remains flawless.

Just for your reference, that's what this thread was all about.

[Christine]

I think you'll find that I have, numerous times, on this thread, Magpie. Do you only read random bits?

My initial thought was that in 1888, the police would be less inclined to react to letters on a wall as they would not have encountered the 20th Century phenomenon of the celebrity serial killer who leaves clues as he goes along.

The Grave Maurice made a brilliant observation just a few postings back (free feel to keep up here, Magpie) when he noted that the room itself was not well lit, but the photographer's flash would certainly have momentarily changed all that.

For every single debunk you put forward, Magpie, there is a tried and tested anti-debunk.

The diary remains flawless.

Just for your reference, that's what this thread was all about.

Well Soothsayer, if you really believe that the police could miss foot-high letters on the wall of a room that they searched extensively and produced prodigious reports on, or that they wouldn't have brought in lamps if the room really were that dark, or that if they saw the letters that they wouldn't bother to note them, despite their obvious importance to the crime and despite all the attention they lavished on the Goulsten Street Graffito (which may have had nothing at all to do with the Ripper)--then I can see why you think the diary is flawless. But I'm sorry to say that I don't find your point of view objective, or even plausible.

And you still haven't commented on the preservatives in the ink, which if proven by further tests that the diary keepers won't allow, would definitively prove it a hoax.