One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Mike sought one out in an auction

Willfully ignoring reality because you don't like how it appears is up there with forcing yourself to see initials on bloody walls, Bigfoots behind trees in Google Earth photos and orbs in haunted houses.

Brilliant - I hope you can see the irony in your claim! "Wilfully ignoring reality" whilst you simultaneous make it up - priceless!

If you can be this blinkered, it is impossible to take any of your arguments seriously - surely you'd agree?

[Mike J. G.]

Brilliant - I hope you can see the irony in your claim! "Wilfully ignoring reality" whilst you simultaneous make it up - priceless!

If you can be this blinkered, it is impossible to take any of your arguments seriously - surely you'd agree?

Are you saying that Mike didn't put an ad out for a Victorian scrapbook complete with missing pages?

[Mike J. G.]

And there it is - the self-serving prejudices I mentioned on the other thread. I continue to 'blather' on about Florence's initials on Kelly's wall for a fairly obvious reason - they have been published consistently for at least half a century and they can be clearly seen. So, I wonder, should we just stop referring to them on the 100th occasion they have been dismissed as 'not there' by posters with an agenda to fulfil?

Detective: There's absolutely nothing here to point to Bob Smith being our man.
Trainee Constable: Erm, other than the gun which was licenced in his name, had his initials on the barrel, which fired the bullet which we know killed her, and which bore both his fingerprints and DNA, and of course was still smoking when we found him standing over her holding the gun in this room not two minutes ago before you let him go.
Detective: What would you know about detective work, constable?
Trainee Constable: That's very true, Detective Smith.



Which, funnily enough, is the exact same argument as 'They're only not there if you need them to not be there. It's absolutely laughable. Talk about clutching at straws.'

Absolutely no initials reported while the police were on site, despite the room having been gone over with a fine-tooth comb for anything of the sort.

Sincerely, the fact that you claim to see initials on the wall in grainy black and white pictures that nobody else at the time or since has claimed to have seen is not something I have to highlight any more than I have done here. It's ludicrous, Ike, absolute desperation.

[Mike J. G.]

And here's you lecturing others on 'science' on that other thread!

As the rest of us all know, the burden of proof sits fair and square with whoever is making any claim which has not yet been proven.

If you say that the scrapbook is a hoax, the fact that you are pronouncing what sounds like a 'negative' does not absolve you of the intellectual need to back up your claim.

If, on the other hand, you say, "I'm not convinced by your argument" then the burden of proof very much remains with me.

But that's science for you, Mike. I really hope this has helped you to understand it a little bit better than you evidently did.

I have a purple dragon in my garden, Ike, you can't prove that I don't.

See how silly this is?

You're claiming that the diary is genuine, therefore it is you who must prove it. It's not a difficult concept to understand, this.

Nobody needs to claim that the diary is a hoax, it basically is a hoax until you prove otherwise. There's no reason to believe that it's genuine, what with the hilarious backstory, non-existent provenance and its dismissal by all and sundry.

The status quo is that Maybrick in all likelihood, was not the Ripper, and also that the diary, in all likelihood, was not a genuine artifact. You are arguing that Maybrick was, and that the diary is. You are the one who is required to prove your reasoning.

[Iconoclast]

Are you saying that Mike didn't put an ad out for a Victorian scrapbook complete with missing pages?

No I'm not saying that at all, Mike. And it's not about what I was saying, it was about what you said. You said "Mike sought one out in an auction" which implied that you saw Lord Orsam's March 31, 1992 Miracle Auction (in which Mike is reported to have miraculously found a Victorian/Edwardian scrapbook for sale on the only day he had available to him to do so) as being on the record and known.

For people reading your post who knew no better, had I let this pass I would not be doing the job of correcting unproven and extremely preferential claims.

[Iconoclast]

Absolutely no initials reported while the police were on site, despite the room having been gone over with a fine-tooth comb for anything of the sort.

Sincerely, the fact that you claim to see initials on the wall in grainy black and white pictures that nobody else at the time or since has claimed to have seen is not something I have to highlight any more than I have done here. It's ludicrous, Ike, absolute desperation.

Claim: "despite the room having been gone over with a fine-tooth comb for anything of the sort".

Is this true - that that room was 'gone over' in intimate detail seeking clues both direct and tangential?

To be clear, this is what you've just claimed. You now have a burden of proof.

[Iconoclast]

I have a purple dragon in my garden, Ike, you can't prove that I don't.

See how silly this is?

Well, your analogy is that the initials aren't there so how can you prove that they aren't there? I honestly can't help you with your claim there, I can only support my own. I claim the letters are there and the evidence I cite is that they are obviously there, they're there regardless of how far back in time you go, and because lots of people who do not appear to have an axe to grind agree that they are there. Now, I'm feeling pretty good in my assertion that the letters are there (whether they ultimately refer to Florence Maybrick or not).

But what have you got to support your claim that they are not there? Just a handy go-to reference to pareidolia, and then you're beat and immediately having to resort to insults.

My claim is backed-up with the evidence. Your claim fails to meet its burden of proof.

You're claiming that the diary is genuine, therefore it is you who must prove it. It's not a difficult concept to understand, this.

Why are you saying it's not a difficult concept to understand? Everyone from the age of five understands this simple principle. Where you are struggling is in thinking that claiming that a claim is false requires no burden of proof.

Nobody needs to claim that the diary is a hoax, it basically is a hoax until you prove otherwise.

And this is why you are not a safe poster to reference in this regard because you persist in non sequiturs such as "If the scrapbook has not been proven to be authentic, then it must by necessity be proven to be a hoax".

There's no reason to believe that it's genuine, what with the hilarious backstory, non-existent provenance and its dismissal by all and sundry.

So you are making a claim again ("there's no reason to believe that it's genuine") but you back it up with inadequate evidence. Detective Smith, honestly, your brother pulled that trigger and he was guilty.

The status quo is that Maybrick in all likelihood, was not the Ripper

The status quo is that James Maybrick has not been proven to the satisfaction of all commentators to have been Jack the Ripper.

and also that the diary, in all likelihood, was not a genuine artifact.

This may well prove to be the case, but this last point is your opinion (not a claim) therefore you have no burden of proof to meet and you are therefore welcome to it.

You are arguing that Maybrick was, and that the diary is. You are the one who is required to prove your reasoning.

Well, we've been here before Mike, and when we were you challenged me as to why I hadn't written a book to support my claims so I wrote my brilliant Society's Pillar (yes, the Casebook and all of posterity have you to thank for it).

What has your contribution been other than to dismiss the possible because you don't like where it might lead to?

PS I can come around to your garden and search every inch of it to prove you don't have a purple dragon in your garden, mate.

[Iconoclast]

You seem pretty fine with Ike's assertions that he knows it to be true, all the while maintaining that you're not a pro-diarist.

I missed this the first time around. I don't think I have ever claimed that I know the scrapbook is authentically that of James Maybrick/Jack the Ripper and - unless I have - I would be extremely grateful if you would not put words into my mouth which are designed to poison the well of my argument.

To be clear, regardless of what I may or may not have previously said, I believe the Victorian scrapbook to be authentic based upon the strength of the evidence (if not perhaps necessarily the balance of it), a claim whose burden of proof I long ago provided in my brilliant Society's Pillar.

Mike, if I said I knew, I was clearly very wrong and I retract it. If I didn't say I knew, you should be ashamed of yourself for claiming something for which there is no evidence.

[Scott Nelson]

Say the "FM" was on the wall for argument's sake. Does it have to stand for "Florence Maybrick"? Why not something like "For Mother" as one poster suggested long ago. Or some other name not associated with Maybrick?

[Simon Wood]

I know the diary is modern-day crap, because I was the person who, in 1987/88, first posited the idea of initials on the wall.

[DJA]

[The Baron]

I know the diary is modern-day crap, because I was the person who, in 1987/88, first posited the idea of initials on the wall.

You carry a historical responsibility of its creation Simon.



The Baron

[Simon Wood]

Dear Baron,

When I count the fools who actually want to believe the Diary is the real deal, the historical responsibility weighs heavily upon my shoulders.

Regards,

Simon

[The Baron]

Dear Baron,

When I count the fools who actually want to believe the Diary is the real deal, the historical responsibility weighs heavily upon my shoulders.

Regards,

Simon

You can consider yourself almost a free man Simon



The Baron

[MrBarnett]

Dear Baron,

When I count the fools who actually want to believe the Diary is the real deal, the historical responsibility weighs heavily upon my shoulders.

Regards,

Simon

How many do you make it, Simon? Do you need more than the fingers on one hand to count them?