One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[c.d.]

There are other threads?????????????

There have been many days when I asked that same question myself, Ike. Probably from a different perspective than you though.

c.d.

[Observer]

There are other threads?????????????

Of course there are. Unlike the Maybrick ones of course,yes, totally free of men patrolling the place in white coats.

[Iconoclast]

Of course there are. Unlike the Maybrick ones of course,yes, totally free of men patrolling the place in white coats.

Wow - I'm blown away - so, like, other threads on Jack the Ripper discussing the hard evidence which points clearly to who he was? I had no idea!

So, what, are there other confessions in the form of 60+ page documents?

And maybe artefacts like - say - Victorian watches with the accused's known signature in?

And clear means, motive, and opportunity, with the historical record never contrary to their case, never once, no no no, and all that and what have you?

And can you find these other accused hidden in the Goulston Street graffito, and in the strange letters which the police were baffled by?

And, presumably this one's a given, clues in the documents such as the equivalent of "You will find my wife's initials at Kelly's death scene" and - lo - they are there in the infamous photograph for all to see right back to the 1899 first published version?

And letters protesting innocence signed off - apparently so obscurely and yet so very not - with the equivalent of "Diego Laurenz" pointing directly at these other accused?

Wow, wow, wow, and once again wow - I had no idea that the Casebook had so much categorical evidence against other candidates for Jack! I guess there must be countless other examples of my brilliant Society's Pillar also explicitly making the unequivocal case against these other guilty men? Please post the links so that we can all have our eyes opened at last.

And, presumably, they must all have been Jack! Wow - multiple Jack the Rippers all with concrete case files against them! Who'd have thought it???

It makes you wonder why on earth we ever considered James Maybrick in the first place, doesn't it?

PS I'm not misunderstanding your comment here, am I? You did mean all of these things, yes? You weren't just trolling because that's about the best you've ever been able to muster during your wasted history on this site?

Cheers,

A Thoroughly Bemused Ike Thinking "Where Shall I Start?"

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Well guys, you did kind of invite that.

[Iconoclast]

There have been many days when I asked that same question myself, Ike. Probably from a different perspective than you though.

c.d.

There are no other threads on the Casebook. This is The Greatest Thread of All - the Emperor - and every other is little more than a pale imitation of its brilliant shining light, its erudite insight, its exquisite literacy, and its general clevernosity.

None other deserve the title. We should refer to all others as strands.

Ike
He Stands upon His Own Shoulders to Reach That Little Bit Higher Than the Rest of You, the Common Folk

[Iconoclast]

Mere strands, ravelling, unravelling, never forming a theme, never nearing a thread.

I rest my case …

[Iconoclast]

Well guys, you did kind of invite that.

None shall pass ...

[caz]

There's a certain irony is all, if one doesn't take it too seriously, in RJ needing something long discarded to prove a point. A bit of Barrett rubbing off on us ripper ologists.

Oh RJ does this all the time. He regularly rakes through the ashes for some nugget or other from the record, which he thinks will prove a point, as if there is nothing else in that vast and growing record - often from the same source - that neutralises, challenges or wipes out his point entirely.

Here's a tip for free. If you find yourself in the dark, for goodness sake don't let RJ sell you an expensive light bulb before checking if there's a power cut across the whole county.

Love,

Your friendly Wichita Linewoman
X

[caz]

Incidentally, I'd greatly appreciate those tapes being released in full. Not to prove or disprove anything because let's face it, we're unlikely to change each others minds, but I would like to hear Barrett in his own words without the pressure of an audience. I doubt if there would be any great revelation to be had, but all the same. Maybe one day though, before they're lost forever.

Personally, I'd be happy for the tapes to be released, Al, and I suspect they will be eventually, if Keith ever stops being busy with other things - like earning a living for instance. I haven't discussed this with him recently so I don't know his current feelings on the matter. But really, apart from the dubious amusement value of hearing a sad clown and his straight man trying to make sense out the nonsensical, Barrett & Gray In Conversation won't provide much in the way of edification. You'd be better off with Eddie-electrification.

But be assured, if Keith has anything to do with it, the tapes will be going nowhere. Paul Dodd doesn't have a skip big enough to chuck in everything that has been preserved for the record.

One thing I learned from my strict maths teacher Mum was that you're more likely to get something if you ask nicely. So you're already in my good books.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Wow - I'm blown away - so, like, other threads on Jack the Ripper discussing the hard evidence which points clearly to who he was? I had no idea!

So, what, are there other confessions in the form of 60+ page documents?

And maybe artefacts like - say - Victorian watches with the accused's known signature in?

And clear means, motive, and opportunity, with the historical record never contrary to their case, never once, no no no, and all that and what have you?

And can you find these other accused hidden in the Goulston Street graffito, and in the strange letters which the police were baffled by?

And, presumably this one's a given, clues in the documents such as the equivalent of "You will find my wife's initials at Kelly's death scene" and - lo - they are there in the infamous photograph for all to see right back to the 1899 first published version?

And letters protesting innocence signed off - apparently so obscurely and yet so very not - with the equivalent of "Diego Laurenz" pointing directly at these other accused?

Wow, wow, wow, and once again wow - I had no idea that the Casebook had so much categorical evidence against other candidates for Jack! I guess there must be countless other examples of my brilliant Society's Pillar also explicitly making the unequivocal case against these other guilty men? Please post the links so that we can all have our eyes opened at last.

And, presumably, they must all have been Jack! Wow - multiple Jack the Rippers all with concrete case files against them! Who'd have thought it???

It makes you wonder why on earth we ever considered James Maybrick in the first place, doesn't it?

PS I'm not misunderstanding your comment here, am I? You did mean all of these things, yes? You weren't just trolling because that's about the best you've ever been able to muster during your wasted history on this site?

Cheers,

A Thoroughly Bemused Ike Thinking "Where Shall I Start?"

Did you notice, Ike? You got 2 'likes' for this one, and it's only 11.25!

Are these people quite mad?

There, that's enough criticism from me. Seems to be the rule these days, to accuse the inmates here of being mentally unwell.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz. I think I am correct in stating that a transcript of Barrett’s 5 January 1995 confession has been available on this website since approximately 2000 or 2001. That’s about the time I first started reading these message boards and also when I read Feldman’s book, Harrison’s book, Melvin’s dissertations, Kenneth Rendell’s book, etc. Stephen Ryder might be able to give you an exact date, but Barrett’s two affidavits have been publicly available for a very long time, and I knew about them before I listened to Barrett’s confessional tapes.

I don’t know why you care, for there is no secret meaning to be gleaned from my actions, but until a couple of months ago I was under the impression that I still owned these tapes. I hadn’t even thought about them for a decade. But having recently consulted some old notes, I now realize that I gave them away back in 2007—you’d get a good chuckle if I told you to whom. Why did I do such a dastardly thing? Because having poured over this dreary debate for years, I felt the diary was a colossal waste of time and energy, and had no doubt whatsoever that it was a modern hoax, so I destroyed nearly all my notes, papers, documents, etc. and put it behind me. Having taken a decade off, I only came back “into the fray” about 2 1/2 years ago, about the time the ‘Battlecrease’ craziness resurfaced and you and David B. started to ‘go at it.’

No, I don’t think the Diary Defenders would deliberately or dishonestly keep back evidence, and I am certainly not accusing Keith S. of doing so. What I do suspect, however---since you asked--is that the Diary ‘camp’ has so convinced themselves that the diary is an old, complex, and meaningful document, that they might very well ignore, misconstrue, or trivialize relevant data. A group of fundamentalist Christians from the Bible Belt wouldn’t be my first choice for conducting an objective analysis of Darwin’s Origins of the Species. Sorry, but that’s how I see it. Anyway, the spirit of Keith’s statement about the podcasts wasn’t about what I think, or what you think. It is about making any relevant documentation available to the interested public. Do what thou wilt. I see no point in discussing it further.

Fair enough, RJ.

I just cannot understand why you keep returning for more punishment, like the knight from Monty Python's Holy Grail. In the sense of throwing good money after bad, if it was a colossal waste of your time and energy before, and you still have no doubt whatsoever that the diary is a modern hoax dreamed up by the Barretts of Goldie Street, you are doing a very good impression of someone who feels obliged to waste even more of his time and energy, trying and failing to prove one point after another, in a fight you fondly imagine you are having with a handful of flat-earthers who will stick to their guns until hell freezes over.

I don't get it. If I happened upon a site discussing whether the moon could be made of cream cheese, I'd run a mile and keep on running.

Why do you put yourself through it? This is not a religious crusade, RJ, and from where I'm sitting, you don't have too many more limbs to spare for the fray.

Stay safe, RJ, and have a relaxing weekend.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Did you notice, Ike? You got 2 'likes' for this one, and it's only 11.25!

Are these people quite mad?

There, that's enough criticism from me. Seems to be the rule these days, to accuse the inmates here of being mentally unwell.

Love,

Caz
X

Good Morning Caz [quick check that the switchblade is still in her pocket],

I hadn't noticed!

I need a means of memorialising this momentous moment …

But how? I'll need to give it some thought ...

Best wishes,

Two-Like Ike

[jmenges]

Personally, I'd be happy for the tapes to be released, Al, and I suspect they will be eventually, if Keith ever stops being busy with other things - like earning a living for instance. I haven't discussed this with him recently so I don't know his current feelings on the matter.

I’ve not discussed the release of the tapes recently either. I asked Keith if I could release them last September. Rather than slamming the door on the idea, I was told they are of very poor quality and an effort then was being taken to clean them up.
So I’m hopeful, like Caz, that they will be released eventually.

JM

[caz]

I’ve not discussed the release of the tapes recently either. I asked Keith if I could release them last September. Rather than slamming the door on the idea, I was told they are of very poor quality and an effort then was being taken to clean them up.
So I’m hopeful, like Caz, that they will be released eventually.

JM

Cheers Jonathan.

I think we need the old adage here that patience is a virtue.

Or the one about time revealing all.

Take your pick.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

I just cannot understand why you keep returning for more punishment, like the knight from Monty Python's Holy Grail.

It amuses me to no end that you would say that, Caz, for that is exactly how I've long envisioned 'Ike' and similar proponents of the Maybrick Diary. In fact, I nearly posted the image below a month or so ago, but then relented, thinking it would be too unkind--even if entirely appropriate.

All arguments for believing in the Diary's authenticity lay scattered around him--the rotting remnants of Paul Feldman's feeble theorizing and misguided research--yet Sir Laurenz Hamersmith Maybricknick soldiers on...and even proclaims victory!

I'm not sure whether one should be impressed... or appalled. The latter, I think.

As for my stamina for pointing out the obvious--that the Diary is a modern fake by Barrett & friends---I suppose it depends on how one approaches 'Ripperology.'

There has always been a smallish clique of hardliners who wished to rid the 'field' of fraud--Sugden, Evans, and Warren would be three examples. Whittington-Egan somewhat, though he usually just sat back and laughed at it, being a wiser man than I.

And then there has been a much larger clique--examples to be left unnamed--who roll out the welcome mat for the fraudsters and motley fools, thinking of it as merely another 'aspect' of the Ripperological Science, just another ring in the circus to be celebrated and applauded and explored--the Sickert myth, the 'mystery'(?) of the Maybrick Diary, the Eddowes Shawl, the Royal Conspiracy, etc.

But what you are struggling to say is correct. A truly wise person would simply ignore the children playing at their feet and concentrate on reality.

I mean...come on...Diego Laurenz? How rock bottom desperate would a person have to be? Yet, even here, a Phd in History evidently found it a convincing argument?!!? I suppose if you pronounce it badly enough, it really DOES rhyme with 'Florence.'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwEpkzfwFBE

Enjoy the good fight, oh mighty Knights of Feldman. I'll see you in Camelot. I think my favorite argument will always be that Mike and Anne couldn't have written the diary because they were bad spellers, even though their 'fair copy' contains 'gorged out' eyes, and imaginary ladies named Hamersmith. But as you say, victory is nearly yours!

Love X back at ya.