One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[rjpalmer]

I was wrong. You are happy now?

It was not from a forensics police file from PA.......but by a murder scene cleanup operations team based in NM.

Yup, I know. There's such a thing as a 'reverse image' search, and I knew full well were you got it.

And it's bogus. It's not a crime scene photo from Philadelphia, nor anywhere else. They just cut-and-pasted it off the internet.

[erobitha]

Yup, I know. There's such a thing as a 'reverse image' search, and I knew full well were you got it.

And it's bogus. It's not a crime scene photo from Philadelphia, nor anywhere else. They just cut-and-pasted it off the internet.

Did you call them?

[The Baron]

Yup, I know. There's such a thing as a 'reverse image' search, and I knew full well were you got it.

And it's bogus. It's not a crime scene photo from Philadelphia, nor anywhere else. They just cut-and-pasted it off the internet.

It is great that we have researcher here such as your good self RJ!

Stay well dear old Boss



The Baron

[Harry D]

Which eagle-eyed armchair detective spotted the "I LOVE YOU NANCY" graffiti?

[The Baron]

Which eagle-eyed armchair detective spotted the "I LOVE YOU NANCY" graffiti?

That's hilarious Harry!






The Baron

[caz]

Melvin Harris wrote:


"As for the Maybrick content, my examination shows that ALL the specific Diary material can be found easily in modern accounts. In fact all the material can be located in just one popular paperback, "THE POISONED LIFE OF MRS MAYBRICK" by Bernard Ryan, (Penguin paperback 1989). There you will find the family and business details and information about arsenic users. Yes, this one book proves that no expensive, time-consuming, research by the hoaxers was needed. All the Diary believers' claims were moonshine. The facts were there, to be had over the counter, for a mere £4.49 new, even less second-hand. Any extra, non-specific bits, were easily deduced from the realities of every-day living, both then and now"...

We've been through this one a hundred times, Baron, and it still proves nothing except that even Mighty Mel Harris wasn't right all the time.

Any hoaxer using Bernard Ryan's narrative could not have determined how Maybrick's doctor had expressed himself when giving his professional opinion. And yet the doctor's actual words to Maybrick, as he testified at Florie's trial in 1889, are reproduced in the diary as if by magic.

The only way that could have happened, aside from the diary's author being in the room when the doctor used those words, is if your hoaxer referred back to an earlier written source than Ryan - one which quoted the doctor speaking at the trial.

Your best bet would be to go with that explanation for what's in the diary. It can't possibly hurt the modern hoax theory, and would be the more intellectually honest route to take, not to mention the more plausible one from source to scam. All it does is to add an extra Maybrick source to whatever it took to create the diary's text. Where's the harm in that? Melvin is no longer around to crack the whip, and it would show you are not tied to his apron strings, unable to think such things through for yourself.

Bad arguments won't change when the diary was written, but they don't help either, when you use them to support the modern hoax theory. People might think you have nothing better in your arsenal.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Bad arguments won't change when the diary was written, but they don't help either, when you use them to support the modern hoax theory. People might think you have nothing better in your arsenal.

Love,

Caz
X

That's hilarious Caz!





Ike

[caz]

I'm not interested, Caz.

Yes you are, RJ, or you wouldn't keep returning to give us the benefit of your wit and wisdom...

This is just your latest charade in a long series of pointless charades.

...and your habit of judging my character and getting me wrong every time. I couldn't be more serious about this.

I have never hid the many reasons why I believe the diary is a modern fake--there are many of them and they can be readily found in the archives--and those reasons have nothing to do with the Barrett tapes, which are mainly useful for context.

Nor have I ever said there is 'secret' evidence is theses tapes. This is just another one of your strange inventions which you've now turned into your latest battle cry.

I could have sworn you were the one who called for the tapes to be made public, because you thought they would add support to what was in Mike's affidavit of January 5 1995. You made an awful fuss about it, and then admitted to letting go of the tapes you were sent, which had the effect of diminishing any importance you were seeking to attach to the content or the context.

Mainly useful for context? Don't make me laugh. You either have a selective memory or had selective hearing - unless someone was selective with which tapes to let you hear. What I heard were all the gloriously silly lies Mike was telling Gray, in the context of desperately needing his help to shaft Feldman and punish his estranged wife for leaving him and taking young Caroline with her.

How sad. And how embarrassing.

You're right there. Those tapes are sad and embarrassing, for Mike and all those he fooled with his faulty forgery fantasies.

But we're not done yet.

You claimed in post #7131 that there are 'those' [plural] who 'know damned well' that the Diary is a modern fake, but are 'giving lip service to a fraud'.

Nowhere near good enough, RJ. No wonder you put up a smokescreen and accused me of writing 'increasingly unhinged' posts, instead of doing the decent thing and clarifying what you meant by that statement, if you didn't wish to reword or retract it. If you didn't mean to imply that some people [plural] know [have proof] that the diary was created by a modern fraudster, but are keeping this knowledge [proof] to themselves to protect the guilty, then you will have no difficulty in explaining what precisely you did mean, and identifying those people you had in mind.

Call this my latest 'battle cry' if you wish. You'll hear it whenever your words leave a lingering bad smell about the place.

[Iconoclast]

Call this my latest 'battle cry' if you wish. You'll hear it whenever your words leave a lingering bad smell about the place.

Well he can't say I didn't warn him about your Facebook photo, Caz!



Sliced and diced, I'd say!

[The Baron]

We've been through this one a hundred times, Baron, and it still proves nothing except that even Mighty Mel Harris wasn't right all the time.

Any hoaxer using Bernard Ryan's narrative could not have determined how Maybrick's doctor had expressed himself when giving his professional opinion. And yet the doctor's actual words to Maybrick, as he testified at Florie's trial in 1889, are reproduced in the diary as if by magic.

The only way that could have happened, aside from the diary's author being in the room when the doctor used those words, is if your hoaxer referred back to an earlier written source than Ryan - one which quoted the doctor speaking at the trial.

Your best bet would be to go with that explanation for what's in the diary. It can't possibly hurt the modern hoax theory, and would be the more intellectually honest route to take, not to mention the more plausible one from source to scam. All it does is to add an extra Maybrick source to whatever it took to create the diary's text. Where's the harm in that? Melvin is no longer around to crack the whip, and it would show you are not tied to his apron strings, unable to think such things through for yourself.

Bad arguments won't change when the diary was written, but they don't help either, when you use them to support the modern hoax theory. People might think you have nothing better in your arsenal.

Love,

Caz
X

The modern hoax is not a theory anymore if you didn't notice this already, one off instance and bumbling buffoon written in the same paragraph within10 lines from each other is an absolute and definitive proof of its modern origin, and you even didn't bother to address the point I was making.


I think I know where RJ is coming from, you realy need a break if you cannot read the posts clearly.


And the fact that a hoaxer may still need another source to create this cheap forgery doesn't make the 99% of the context you can find in only ONE source go away!

It shows how easy it was for Mike and Anne or whoever they were to forge this diary.

I show you an example of the lyric supposedly written after the Kelly tragedy, the climax of the murders, and what does it talk about? A key... a red handkerchief.. burnt clothes?! repeating these same shallow points again and again? How can anyone possibly be more superficial than this?


Why do you think we are now asked to look at some pictures instead, and try to find ghostly letters on the walls?! its because the text itself is too poor a source to convince anyone.



And since we are in the mode for some comics let's quote our one and only Caroline:

you're forgetting something. It's a hoax, painting Maybrick as a thick as pig s***, funny little rhyme merchant, who - when he's not congratulating himself in his diary - delights in going to that London and finding another whore to slaughter, imagining she is the airhead back in Liverpool who is making a fool of him by having it away with all and sundry.

It is quite a comical piece if you read it that way. Why its author - whoever they are - is meant to display perfect, or even reasonably good grammar and spelling, I have absolutely no idea. I take some of the bloomers to be deliberate, to send up the jumped-up "Sir Jim", while others are just the kind that can be seen everywhere, including the writings of those who would claim to be far better educated than the real James was likely to have been.

there is nothing to suggest 'the Maybrick thing' wasn't written by someone actually aiming for a total cheese-fest.

In fact, it should have been found in the cheese shop. The one which had run out of the real thing.

It's Hilarious Caz!





Cheers, (or should I say Cheese )




The Baron

[caz]

Wow, you really are a bit in love with me, Baron.

Another billet-doux like that one, and the readers will know we are betrothed!

You'd better not let me down, or they'll accuse you of breach of promise and clap the darbies on you.

Fondest love and what have you,

The Baroness To Be
XXX

[The Baron]

It was a lone voice in the middle of the ocean, but it was heard at great depth and great distance.

[MrBarnett]

It was a lone voice in the middle of the ocean, but it was heard at great depth and great distance.

Get a room you two!

[Iconoclast]

Interestingly, the excellent self-published the Funny Little Games of Jack the Ripper by SC Davies highlighted a Ripper letter (postcard, I think) which read "I am 35 and Still Alive". Davies pointed out that "I am 35" could read as 'James'. And why not? If Jack was a James, why not have a little bit if fun at the police's expense, safe in the knowledge that it would never be spotted in your lifetime?

There's a lot more in Davies' book and I would strongly recommend that everyone gets a copy. It won't change your minds, of course, because those are made up already, but it might just illustrate a little more that Jack the Ripper was an actual living, breathing man, not a monster of Victorian legend.

Ike

Just to give a little more context to my mention the other day of SC Davies' really intriguing analysis of the Ripper letters. One of their most outstanding qualities is that a large number of them are pretty much meaningless on the surface - just as the GSG is fundamentally meaningless. If this were not so then 130 years later we would not still be contemplating their meaning. I assume that you - as I - have simply assumed that these incomprehensible letters to the police and others were part of the wider copycat litany of hoaxed Jack the Ripper communications so rife after Dear Boss and Saucy Jacky were first published.

What I find fascinating about James Maybrick is that he provides evidential (however circumstantial) solutions to a lot of the Ripper's communications (including, of course, the GSG itself). I mentioned the 'I am 35 and Still Alive' sidebar in what Davies' describes as a letter (I had remembered it as a postcard, but whatever). Davies (Time Reveals All: The "Funny Little Games" of Jack the Ripper, p129) points out that 'I am 35' has the shape (and is therefore a cipher for) 'James'. He also notes that 'Still Alive' reads 'It's all evil' in a staccato reverse reading (Sti, ll A, live) though I don't think that adds anything to Maybrick's candidature as it's rather obvious that it's all evil.



Davies points out that the 'I' is actually presented as a 'J' which is nominally fine and would not have caused anyone any confusion as the letter 'I' was archaically represented by the letter 'J'.

So what's my point? Well, my point is that Jack the Ripper - despite how easy it is in the modern age to forget - was a living, breathing human being with his own unique drivers. So we should not box the monster into too tight a definition based on decades of assumptions because, if we do, we run the very real risk of submerging the man so far into the monster that we can't see him at all. Nothing here proves that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper, but we are bombarded with so-called evidence that Mike and Anne Barrett hoaxed the Maybrick scrapbook, and yet we are also surrounded by signposts which direct us straight to James Maybrick being Jack. It's definitely not a one-way street here.

Let me at this point forewarn you of the sort of dismissive retorts which posts such as this tend to garner: you will have it implied that such notions as this (that Jack was just a human being with various and complex human drives) are stupid and that if you permit your mind to embrace the possibilities opened-up by thinking in this way then you too are stupid. It's like a sort of warning. Like a sign which says 'Landmines Ahead' when maybe the beach is actually just sand and sea.

"Why on earth would Jack the Ripper want to pretend to put their name out in this way?". "Why would he not simply have written 'James'?". Et cetera. You know the form. The dismissive, dare-you-to-think sort of confrontational affront to our innate intelligence and curiosity. "Anyone believing this must be a fool".

Free your minds, folks. Feel free to just stop and think and wonder. I strongly recommend that you read Davies' book. I don't agree with all of his Maybrick-related analysis, but he had a book to sell so it's fine if he stretched a few links a little: the reality is that Davies opens up a clear line of sight between these meaningless communications and James Maybrick, primarily via a simple matrix cipher. Davies shows us how James Maybrick may very well have played the funny little games he mentions in both his scrapbook and his Dear Boss letter. It's genuinely fascinating, whether you believe it to be correct or not.

Caveat: Of course, James Maybrick may not have been Jack the Ripper, nothing is proven incontrovertibly (only Florrie's initials on Kelly's wall bring us to the threshold of that moment).

Please free your minds, folks. Just consider what may be possible. This ought to be a safe space to explore ideas, even if to some they may seem crazy, implausible, contrived, and provocative. It may seem crazy and implausible and contrived and provocative because writers have presented the case as never-so-well understood over the last half century or so, each desperately trying to convert what little we know into that which must be considered known. If Jack the Ripper had been a living, breathing human being (which he surely was), then it is not for us to casually discard the 'pride' he showed in all his self-obsessed evil which appeared before us in the Autumn of 1888.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

By the way, I think I'm right in saying that today is Caroline Barrett's Life Begins moment ...