Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
    No, you've conclusively proven it Ike. Good work.
    Multiple gratias, young man.
    Iconoclast

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
      Now that we have shown conclusively that the Maybrick scrapbook is authentic after all, do we need to retire this, The Greatest Thread of All?

      And - in truth therefore - all threads throughout the Casebook?

      Can anyone think of a good reason why we wouldn't?

      Cheers,

      Ike
      The diary is an obvious forgery. Only an idiot would suggest otherwise.
      Last edited by John Wheat; 08-21-2020, 11:53 PM.

      Comment


      • All Diary related threads should be moved to the Pub Talk section of the forum, as you all know it has nothing to do with the case



        The Baron

        Comment


        • Originally posted by John Wheat View Post

          The diary is an obvious forgery. Only an idiot would suggest otherwise.
          Hello from an idiot.
          "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
          - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by erobitha View Post

            Hello from an idiot.
            Ah, I miss the Village Idiot modules during our degree erobitha. Happy days. One of the few times I was ever top of the class!

            Ike Iconoclast BSc (Hons) Stupidity & Folly
            Iconoclast

            Comment


            • Originally posted by erobitha View Post

              Hello from an idiot.
              Hello

              Comment


              • For all the young and upcoming Ripperologists out there who are learning their trade, I would like to remind them of some very compelling truths regarding the Maybrick scrapbook and the Maybrick watch:

                1) They are both individually and collectively hard evidence in a 130-year murder mystery and - as such - far exceed the sum of all hard evidence which existed prior to their emergence from the Liverpool shadows in 1992 and 1993.
                2) They were brought to light by Michael Barrett and Albert Johnson, two people with no known prior history of criminality or - specifically - forgery (I exclude from this Barrett's unfortunate crime of theft of a handbag when he was about 22).
                3) The scrapbook and the watch are almost certainly quite authentic articles from the Victorian period (the scrapbook could be Edwardian, the watch is definitely early Victorian).
                4) The tests done on the ink suggest that it was laid down no later than 1970. Rod McNeill's ion migration test - now conveniently much-maligned - gave a mean of around 1921 and standard deviations of 12 years either side.
                5) The handwriting has never been identified.
                6) Examples of James Maybrick's handwriting when writing solely for his eyes and his pleasure have never been identified.
                7) Michael Barrett was not a bright individual. Shirley Harrison and others suggested that he was "out of his depth" with the scrapbook.
                8) Under terrible duress, in 1994 Barrett claimed that he had written the scrapbook.
                9) Under the influence of Alan Gray and Melvin Harris, Barrett was easily persuaded to sign an affidavit on January 5, 1995, iterating his claim.
                10) Between his claim in 1994 and his affidavit in January 1995, Barrett changed his story back to the scrapbook being authentic (as far as he was aware) - listen to the Radio Merseyside interviews.
                11) Over the next two decades until his early death in 2016, Barrett changed his story constantly - and apparently whenever the mood took him. He went on the record as saying that he could say whatever he wanted, and he indicated that he enjoyed the attention this gave him.
                12) Crucially, Barrett did not in two decades produce a single shred of evidence that he had created the text in the Maybrick scrapbook.
                13) The only 'evidence' pointing at Barrett being a hoaxer were the fact that he apparently had a copy of Richard Whittington-Egan's Tales of Liverpool: Murder, Mayhem & Mystery, that he (Barrett) had discovered a source for the Richard Crashaw poem quoted incorrectly in the scrapbook, that he apparently had a copy at home of the Sphere book of poetry from which he had located the quotation, and that - in March 1992 - he sought a blank Victorian diary from the period 1880-1890 which had to have at least twenty blank pages. That is the entire sum of the case against Barrett.
                14) Barrett's affidavit gave an account of how he created the hoax. It can't be counted as evidence because not a word of it is supported by any.
                15) David Barett - hiding his identity under the name David Orsam - on this Casebook developed a version of Barrett's affidavit in which every single detail was moved in time or transformed in nature until the revised details fitted a version of events in which Barrett acquired the scrapbook from an auction on March 31, 1992, and then had the text of the scrapbook transcribed from his word processor by his wife Anne before it was taken to London.

                Now, the above are the core facts of the case. There is nothing other than twisted speculation to support the notion that Michael Barrett created the Maybrick scrapbook, and countless circumstantial evidence to link James Maybrick directly to the actual creation. For those who are unfamiliar with the case, I recommend a brilliant free book called Society's Pillar which totally nails the case against Maybrick and which - bar those whose minds cannot be shifted - removes any real doubt as to who the Whitechapel murderer was.
                Last edited by Iconoclast; 08-22-2020, 09:32 AM.
                Iconoclast

                Comment


                • Originally posted by John Wheat View Post

                  The diary is an obvious forgery. Only an idiot would suggest otherwise.
                  I stand by this.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                    For all the young and upcoming Ripperologists out there who are learning their trade, I would like to remind them of some very compelling truths regarding the Maybrick scrapbook and the Maybrick watch:

                    1) They are both individually and collectively hard evidence in a 130-year murder mystery and - as such - far exceed the sum of all hard evidence which existed prior to their emergence from the Liverpool shadows in 1992 and 1993.
                    2) They were brought to light by Michael Barrett and Albert Johnson, two people with no known prior history of criminality or - specifically - forgery (I exclude from this Barrett's unfortunate crime of theft of a handbag when he was about 22).
                    3) The scrapbook and the watch are almost certainly quite authentic articles from the Victorian period (the scrapbook could be Edwardian, the watch is definitely early Victorian).
                    4) The tests done on the ink suggest that it was laid down no later than 1970. Rod McNeill's ion migration test - now conveniently much-maligned - gave a mean of around 1921 and standard deviations of 12 years either side.
                    5) The handwriting has never been identified.
                    6) Examples of James Maybrick's handwriting when writing solely for his eyes and his pleasure have never been identified.
                    7) Michael Barrett was not a bright individual. Shirley Harrison and others suggested that he was "out of his depth" with the scrapbook.
                    8) Under terrible duress, in 1994 Barrett claimed that he had written the scrapbook.
                    9) Under the influence of Alan Gray and Melvin Harris, Barrett was easily persuaded to sign an affidavit on January 5, 1995, iterating his claim.
                    10) Between his claim in 1994 and his affidavit in January 1995, Barrett changed his story back to the scrapbook being authentic (as far as he was aware) - listen to the Radio Merseyside interviews.
                    11) Over the next two decades until his early death in 2016, Barrett changed his story constantly - and apparently whenever the mood took him. He went on the record as saying that he could say whatever he wanted, and he indicated that he enjoyed the attention this gave him.
                    12) Crucially, Barrett did not in two decades produce a single shred of evidence that he had created the text in the Maybrick scrapbook.
                    13) The only 'evidence' pointing at Barrett being a hoaxer were the fact that he apparently had a copy of Richard Whittington-Egan's Tales of Liverpool: Murder, Mayhem & Mystery, that he (Barrett) had discovered a source for the Richard Crashaw poem quoted incorrectly in the scrapbook, that he apparently had a copy at home of the Sphere book of poetry from which he had located the quotation, and that - in March 1992 - he sought a blank Victorian diary from the period 1880-1890 which had to have at least twenty blank pages. That is the entire sum of the case against Barrett.
                    14) Barrett's affidavit gave an account of how he created the hoax. It can't be counted as evidence because not a word of it is supported by any.
                    15) David Barett - hiding his identity under the name David Orsam - on this Casebook developed a version of Barrett's affidavit in which every single detail was moved in time or transformed in nature until the revised details fitted a version of events in which Barrett acquired the scrapbook from an auction on March 31, 1992, and then had the text of the scrapbook transcribed from his word processor by his wife Anne before it was taken to London.

                    Now, the above are the core facts of the case. There is nothing other than twisted speculation to support the notion that Michael Barrett created the Maybrick scrapbook, and countless circumstantial evidence to link James Maybrick directly to the actual creation. For those who are unfamiliar with the case, I recommend a brilliant free book called Society's Pillar which totally nails the case against Maybrick and which - bar those whose minds cannot be shifted - removes any real doubt as to who the Whitechapel murderer was.


                    Reading your post and the so called core facts of the case make me believe the Diary is an obvious forgery!

                    Thanks for taking the time and effort to prove this!



                    The Baron

                    Comment


                    • The report by Dr Bond on November 16, 1888, states:

                      "The breasts were cut off, the arms mutilated by several jagged wounds ...".

                      "The bed clothing at the right corner was saturated with blood, & on the floor beneath was a pool of blood covering about 2 feet square. The wall by the right side of the bed & in a line with the neck was marked by blood which had struck it in a number of separate splashes."

                      "Both arms & forearms had extensive & jagged wounds."

                      There is no mention of signs of a struggle so we are unable to say whether Kelly fought back and thereby suffered defensive wounds. The wounds she did suffer could have been inflicted post-mortem.

                      The blood splatters on the wall were - of course - an inference that Dr Bond made. Some may have been put there by a human hand writing 'F' and 'M' which - in his ignorance of the psychology of serial killers which were not even known of at that time - he assumed were just more blood splatters.

                      If anyone feels Bond's report is categorical, I'm sure they will put this forward as an argument.
                      Iconoclast

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                        The report by Dr Bond on November 16, 1888, states:

                        "The breasts were cut off, the arms mutilated by several jagged wounds ...".

                        "The bed clothing at the right corner was saturated with blood, & on the floor beneath was a pool of blood covering about 2 feet square. The wall by the right side of the bed & in a line with the neck was marked by blood which had struck it in a number of separate splashes."

                        "Both arms & forearms had extensive & jagged wounds."

                        There is no mention of signs of a struggle so we are unable to say whether Kelly fought back and thereby suffered defensive wounds. The wounds she did suffer could have been inflicted post-mortem.

                        The blood splatters on the wall were - of course - an inference that Dr Bond made. Some may have been put there by a human hand writing 'F' and 'M' which - in his ignorance of the psychology of serial killers which were not even known of at that time - he assumed were just more blood splatters.

                        If anyone feels Bond's report is categorical, I'm sure they will put this forward as an argument.


                        Remind me again Mr. Diary defender, where were Kelly's breasts? and what did your Hoax say about their location?!




                        The Baron

                        Comment


                        • And speaking about your imaginary letters,

                          the F and M that YOU are seeing satand for:

                          Folgema and Mary

                          You didn't know this, did you?

                          Folgema was a sailor who loved Mary, but he killed her because she cheated on him.


                          Its a better story than your Hoax comic story about a man whom his wife cheated on him, but instead of facing her, challenging her, he decided to kill other women, and then his wife killed him .



                          The Baron

                          Comment


                          • If I were you, and oh thanks God I am not, I wouldn't mention the word Breast again.

                            Better even to delete it from your words book and even your memory.

                            Use boobs instead!


                            The Baron

                            Comment


                            • The list you wrote does not constitute compelling truths or facts about the case, as you claim.
                              I presently only have time for this one, which I thought rather odd that you’d bring up again:
                              Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                              2) They were brought to light by Michael Barrett and Albert Johnson, two people with no known prior history of criminality or - specifically - forgery (I exclude from this Barrett's unfortunate crime of theft of a handbag when he was about 22).
                              Last year, you were reminded of MB’s scam of selling kids’ drawings as art. To which you replied:
                              Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post


                              I have to say I'd forgotten that particular scam of Mike's. I don't think anyone would doubt that Mike Barrett could be capable of such a simple scheme. It clearly rules him very much in as a potential con artist, though I'm not sure that he would rank highly on a sophistication score with that particular one.
                              I guess you’ve forgotten about it again. MB was described, I believe, as not unknown to the Liverpool Police.

                              Why you’d exclude his “unfortunate” theft of a handbag is mysterious. Together with his art scam, it paints him as someone not averse to breaking the law if he thinks he can get away with it.

                              As you say, it clearly rules him very much in as a potential con artist.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

                                As you say, it clearly rules him very much in as a potential con artist.

                                Actually he is already in Kattrup, the man had confessed to his forgery!



                                The Baron

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X