One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Simon Wood]

Hi MrBarnett,

They are legion, and it's difficult to be accurate.

Regards,

Simon

[Iconoclast]

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?

No, of course it doesn't have to stand for Florence Maybrick.

If the initials were there, though, and the scrapbook makes reference to her initials during just over four consecutive pages of ceaseless consideration of what he did to Mary Kelly, then one would need to clarify how that could be the case AND her initials were in that photograph AND there was no link between the two things.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

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.

But if you intend to be so insulting, Simon, you should at least be justified in your insults.

Instead, you boast with a ridiculous non sequitur (there appears to be a run on them at the moment): Why would your first identifying the initials in the late 1980s necessarily lead to the conclusion that the scrapbook is a modern-day crap book? I don't follow the logic?

Did Howard Carter's 1922 discovery of the tomb of Tut Ankh Amun therefore lead him to conclude that he had just uncovered more modern-day Egyptian crap?

I don't believe logic works that way.

Ike

[Scott Nelson]

Because if Simon hadn't suggested the idea that initials could be on the wall, nobody else would have found them.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Iconoclast,

Who am I insulting? Do I discern you are a believer?

Regards,

Simon

[Simon Wood]

Hi Scott,

Exactly.

Regards,

Simon

[Iconoclast]

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

But if you intend to be so insulting, Simon, you should at least be justified in your insults.

Hi Iconoclast,

Who am I insulting? Do I discern you are a believer?

Regards,

Simon

Honestly, Simon. I didn't see you as a member of the we'll-win-the-argument-by-calling-them-fools brigade, but you clearly are. What is worse is that you do not appear to have recalled you did so just a few posts earlier. And - yes - you know perfectly well that I believe the scrapbook to be authentic so ipso facto you intended to call me a fool. I did not have you in this bracket, but you evidently are and that's really disappointing.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Because if Simon hadn't suggested the idea that initials could be on the wall, nobody else would have found them.

Hi Scott,

I assume that you were helping Simon out here, not that you were proposing that you supported his non sequitur?

They truly are rife at the moment. RJ clearly believes that erobitha and I (and - I note - a poster by the title Maaikala14 or something like that) trawl these Maybrick threads to plant seeds of frustration amongst the naysayers when - in reality - we know only too well what we are doing and that the scrapbook is a fraud.

He's welcome to his deeply patronising opinions - and I note they conveniently support his own scrapbook views so no great surprise there, then - but in truth part of what I now find myself doing is patrolling the Maybrick section of Casebook precisely in order to shine a lantern on the prejudicial non sequiturs which are presented as established and undebatable facts when they are in fact generally profoundly ill-thought-out and without any logical basis whatsoever.

And so to your own, Simon, via Scott's clarification:

Because if Simon hadn't suggested the idea that initials could be on the wall, nobody else would have found them.

Now, you agreed with this, Simon. Indeed, you reported rather all-too smugly "Exactly" (as if such a confirmation made your argument any less flawed). So let us consider how logical your claim is. If you hadn't suggested the idea that initials could be on the wall, nobody else would have found them. If anyone isn't functioning at the top of their game right now, Simon is claiming that the letters he (although Lord Orsam questions even this much, by the way) first saw when they didn't mean anything (and miraculously was unable to see again when they suddenly did, a change of heart which appears to have changed again by the looks of it) were the sole reason that they were identified at all. Well, they were first formally isolated by Paul Feldman back in 1992 or 1993 (then first published in Harrison's original text in October 1993). What did Feldman tell us was his process of identification when he himself first published in 1997? Presumably it was all about Simon Wood's barely-known discovery of letters on Kelly's wall inspiring him to look for them in the infamous photograph? Well, this is what Feldman tells us and also what he did about it:

"The diarist described Kelly as 'young' (she was twenty-five, although some authorities say twenty-four) and says that she 'reminded' him of 'the whore'. It is clear throughout this section [just over four consecutive, single-subject pages of the scrapbook, remember, dear readers] that the author is referring to James Maybrick's adulterous wife, Florence (aged twenty-six). He further wrote:

A whores [sic] whim
caused Sir Jim,
to cut deeper, deeper and deeper
All did go,
As I did so,
back to the whoring mother.
An initial here and an initial there
will tell of the whoring mother.

A visit to the Black Museum, courtesy of Bill Waddell, then the curator, had resulted in the temporary loan to me of the remaining original photographs taken by the police at the time of the Whitechapel murders.
With the diarist's reference to 'an initial here and ... there' [not sure why Feldman felt the need to use an ellipsis for just the two words 'an initial', but there you go] in mind, I paid a visit to Direct Communications Design in Chiswick. Their computer technology allowed me to examine the photographs in great detail ... [honestly, dear readers, no need to check, nothing being hidden by the ellipsis] After breaking down the photograph into two-inch squares [I don't know why he went to expense, mind, as my old Psion Revo would have done the job for nothing], we would systematically blow each of the squares up. Three-quarters of the way down, to the right of the centre, were marks that stunned us. There was no doubt, the initials 'F M' were clear and precise. The initials of Florence Maybrick, the adulterous wife of James.
Now hang on a minute. This photograph was not a forgery! [Come on Feldy, everything's a forgery if it suits someone's argument!] It had come from Scotland Yard and had been taken at the time of the murders. If this diary was a modern fake, our mysterious hoaxer had not just been extyremely lucky but remarkably observant. Since 1975 [when first published, actually 1899] ... nobody had ever [said they had] noticed these two initials. I was later to learn that Simon Wood had, in 1988, noticed the presence of letters but not the two letters 'FM' together ... [and - as a sop from me to the naysayers] This, of course, assumes that they were put there at the time of the crime, but that would seem a reasonable assumption given the fact that the jury at the inquest on Mary Kelly were taken to the scene of the crime and asked 'to take special note of the bloodstains on the wall' ["Could someone turn the dimmer switch up a bit, please? I can hardly see a thing in this light"]."

So it would appear that your premise fails miserably, Simon. Paul Feldman did not need the prompting of Simon Wood Ace Detective to uncover what had been hiding in plain sight for a hundred years. He just needed some fancy computer kit. Once we knew where to look, of course, we no longer needed the fancy computer (just before anyone says the letters must have been ‘enhanced’ into existence to suit the client). Simon Wood did not place Florence Maybrick’s initials on Kelly’s wall, nor did Paul Feldman, nor indeed did Michael Barrett or any other hoaxer excitedly prompted by Simon's little-known discovery. Jack the Ripper did, and the author of the Victorian scrapbook knew it. How?

Constable Iconoclast of the Yard
Badge No. 666
“Morning All”

[Harry D]

The day that Pro-Diarists realize that absolutely nobody needs to "bring the diary to the sword" will be the day that they can rest easily knowing that they legitimately grasp how the burden of proof works.

Ike's search for one glaring red flag is akin to Cheryl Cole's search for a stable relationship.

My search for one solid piece of evidence to suggest that the diary was:

a) written by Jim

b) evidence that Jim was Jack

c) produced before the 1980s

is going about as well as Cheryl's love life.

It's a dishonest way of debating and it's no coincidence that the two most active topics are on here have both adopted it.

There's another thread that wants people to prove that Lechmere is innocent of being Jack the Ripper. Since no one can actually prove it, and the poster knows this, they will see this as some kind of victory.

The diary has been discredited numerous times, with its provenances, handwriting, anachronistic language, (retracted) confession, etc. but because there is nothing that categorically proves it was a hoax, the pro-diarists will cling to that and not let go.

It's a silly game to get dragged into. I'm not sure if Ike is daffy enough to believe most of what he comes out with on here. I think it's become something of a pastime for him to wind up people with his quasi-religious defence of the diary.

Then again, there are millions of fair-minded folk who actually believe in adult fairytales.

[Iconoclast]

It's a dishonest way of debating and it's no coincidence that the two most active topics are on here have both adopted it.

There's another thread that wants people to prove that Lechmere is innocent of being Jack the Ripper. Since no one can actually prove it, and the poster knows this, they will see this as some kind of victory.

The diary has been discredited numerous times, with its provenances, handwriting, anachronistic language, (retracted) confession, etc. but because there is nothing that categorically proves it was a hoax, the pro-diarists will cling to that and not let go.

It's a silly game to get dragged into. I'm not sure if Ike is daffy enough to believe most of what he comes out with on here. I think it's become something of a pastime for him to wind up people with his quasi-religious defence of the diary.

Then again, there are millions of fair-minded folk who actually believe in adult fairytales.

Well I think you have answered your own, not very well-constructed argument there.

Please don't tell a fellow poster they are a fool, or a liar, or a wind-up merchant, or insincere, or any of a thousand insults. It's the voice of the majority trying to drown out the voice of the minority. It's abusive, though you probably don't see it that way?

Just make your case and our dear readers will draw their own conclusions.

I'm delighted to note that you have noted that there is nothing that categorically proves it was a hoax. That should give you some grounds for caution when then arguing as though this had never been so well proven.

[Simon Wood]

There's a foolproof way of knowing if a believer feels offended. Their posts become longer and more byzantine.

[Iconoclast]

There's a foolproof way of knowing if a believer feels offended. Their posts become longer and more byzantine.

Honestly, everyone, has it become de rigueur to post on here in non sequiturs?

And let's just deconstruct that one shall we? You believe that a poster has been offended and all you can think to do is make facile and illogical commentary, deflecting from the issue, and addressing only your rather vindictive urge to imply some shallow triumph has been earned.

No triumph has been earned here, Simon, and Victory has not crowned any perceived fall of mine with applause, I promise you. You appear to now sit wretched on Albion's plains whilst your memories remain on the mountaintop in all your imagined glories and I for one regret the passing of any you may once have enjoyed.

Is that Byzantine enough for you?

[Simon Wood]

I rest my case.

[Iconoclast]

I rest my case.

Yes, quite a while ago, Simon, to be honest.

[The Baron]

It's a dishonest way of debating and it's no coincidence that the two most active topics are on here have both adopted it.

There's another thread that wants people to prove that Lechmere is innocent of being Jack the Ripper. Since no one can actually prove it, and the poster knows this, they will see this as some kind of victory.

The diary has been discredited numerous times, with its provenances, handwriting, anachronistic language, (retracted) confession, etc. but because there is nothing that categorically proves it was a hoax, the pro-diarists will cling to that and not let go.

It's a silly game to get dragged into. I'm not sure if Ike is daffy enough to believe most of what he comes out with on here. I think it's become something of a pastime for him to wind up people with his quasi-religious defence of the diary.

Then again, there are millions of fair-minded folk who actually believe in adult fairytales.

Well said Harry, you can start a thread about Bury, or about Druitt for example, and no one will be literally able to prove none of them was the ripper!

This method is becoming more and more popular recently among suspect-based theory defenders, maybe it gives them something to live for, to fight for, that their theories hadn't been completely destroyed yet, or as you described it, a false feeling of victory or so

No one can prove Macnaghten was not the ripper, I challenge anyone to prove 100% that he was innocent, or to bring me one Incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes this.

One can deny any thing, letirally anything, just say one word, no!


Doesn't mean you are right.



The Baron