One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Yes, you got me there, Ike.

Martin gave 'FM' a ringing endorsement. If pushed, he could persuade himself, that the 'smudge' was an F.

Delighted to hear I got you there, RJ. No-one was expecting Martin and Paul to be unequivocal given that they did not have the advantage of the scrapbook to help them see what is on the wall so Martin's equivocation - as you appear to have recognised - is understandable. He thought it was 'FM' when there was no external evidence to indicate it was 'FM'. That's very telling, I think.

We should probably address ourselves to the issue at hand, though, in fairness, RJ: what is currently hot-topic is Simon Wood's 1989 claim in the City Darts (that he had seen the initials on the wall) which has now led on to him stating that he believes he knows the identity of the person who created the diary.

This is not a trivial claim, is it? Interestingly, it doesn't seem to be Mike Barrett he has in mind (why would he be so evasive if it was?). Thus, if that person can be named and Simon's claim investigated and he is proved correct, then the whole debate is ended.

I wonder if it would be helpful if we focus on resolving this one point before we address any of the multitude of others which cause contention on the diary threads?

[rjpalmer]

No-one was expecting Martin and Paul to be unequivocal given that they did not have the advantage of the scrapbook to help them see what is on the wall so Martin's equivocation - as you appear to have recognised - is understandable. He thought it was 'FM' when there was no external evidence to indicate it was 'FM'. That's very telling, I think.

Come on, Ike. Isn't this somewhat deceptive? Go back and reread Simon's Post #7161.

My discovery was pounced upon with enthusiasm, but try as we may none of us could decipher the initials, let alone fit them to a suspect. And there, as far as I am concerned, the matter was dropped.

None of them could see what the scribbles were meant to be.

It was only later, after Fido had the "advantage of the scrapbook" that he suggested that these initials could be interpreted as 'FM.' But of course, the diary referred to Florrie, the whoring mother, so the stage had been set.

The only question I would ask, from an investigative point of view, is whether Fido's comment in the report was entirely his own observation, or whether a discussion about the possibility of 'FM' had already taken place privately among the consultants.

Anyway, I don't take the 'Mr. Big' theory seriously. Never have. And I've heard the names of three different Ripperologist accused of complicity, not counting Feldman. Simon himself apparently fell under suspicion, due to his earlier observations!

[Iconoclast]

Come on, Ike. Isn't this somewhat deceptive? Go back and reread Simon's Post #7161.

I don't think you meant #7161, RJ. Could you clarify?

Ike

[rjpalmer]

I don't think you meant #7161, RJ. Could you clarify?

There's a software glitch, so contact the administration if you want; I work around it. I noticed this on the 'Lechmere' thread sometime ago. The post numbers sometimes change back & forth when one logs in & out, and I've never figured out why. The post is now listed as #7248 on 10-25-2021, 05:47 PM. Ripper's Believe It or Not.

But I already gave you the relevant quote from that post. Your point was deceptive, because you made it sound as if the initials 'FM' were discovered by Fido, Skinner, & Co before they had been prompted by the Maybrick hoax.

This is not true. Simon tells us they could NOT decipher the initials. It was only later, after Fido was studying the Maybrick Diary, that he suggested they could be interpreted as FM, based on the diary's passage.

It is very tiring to always point out these misinterpretations and errors in logic, Ike. And yet, like clockwork, six months later we'll have to go over it again.

[Iconoclast]

There's a software glitch, so contact the administration if you want; I work around it. I noticed this on the 'Lechmere' thread sometime ago. The post numbers sometimes change back & forth when one logs in & out, and I've never figured out why. The post is now listed as #7248 on 10-25-2021, 05:47 PM. Ripper's Believe It or Not.

That's fair enough, RJ. I was unaware of any such glitch so was simply confused is all. I was busy (Halloween and all that) so didn't have time to play Hunt the Post.

But I already gave you the relevant quote from that post.

I evidently missed this fact or had not read it as the relevant quote, I don't know (I'm a human being and make no apologies for that).

Your point was deceptive, because you made it sound as if the initials 'FM' were discovered by Fido, Skinner, & Co before they had been prompted by the Maybrick hoax.

That is true, but most certainly not intentionally so. It was a logic-fail which I realised myself about an hour later (too late to edit) and was unavailable anyway to correct it until now.

This is not true. Simon tells us they could NOT decipher the initials.

I think we'll pick up this point again very soon, but just to remind everyone that Simon's claims that Martin Fido and he could NOT decipher the initials then led to Simon claiming that he realised they actually were NOT THERE AT ALL. Honestly, that's also a logic fail. Just because you can't agree what something represents does not seem to be good reason to simply deny the very thing you've been discussing and which you yourself brought up in the first place.

It was only later, after Fido was studying the Maybrick Diary, that he suggested they could be interpreted as FM, based on the diary's passage.

Yes, this appears to be correct. On seeing the reference to initials during four pages of reflection of the carnage in Kelly's room in the scrapbook, Martin has evidently remembered the conversation with Simon in the City Darts and put two-and-two together. As I say, more on this soon.

It is very tiring to always point out these misinterpretations and errors in logic, Ike. And yet, like clockwork, six months later we'll have to go over it again.

On my part they would never be intentional so I for one welcome your generous forbearance and for the evident wisdom of your years, RJ.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Anyway, I don't take the 'Mr. Big' theory seriously. Never have. And I've heard the names of three different Ripperologist accused of complicity, not counting Feldman. Simon himself apparently fell under suspicion, due to his earlier observations!

At the risk of creating multiple themes when I have just argued we should be sticking to one for now, it is nevertheless important to address this point before it drifts. Simon is not referring to a 'Mr Big'. He is referring to the person he believes was responsible for creating the diary but he seems loathe to name names, but it's evidently not Mike Barrett otherwise one assumes he would just say so (he'd be on very safe ground on the Casebook, that's for sure).

RJ, you have stated that Mike Barrett wrote the diary (so it might be this is why you have dismissed the names of three different Ripperologists, Paul Feldman and Simon himself) without doing a proper investigation or at least one commensurate with the attention you have paid to Mike Barrett's surreal and vacillating account of how he did or did not create a hoax? So could you expand on the background to the reasons why these people fell under suspicion? Who raised the suspicion and when?

Was it Melvin Harris who raised the suspicion back in December 1993 when he is quoted in the Evening Standard predicting that the identities of the forgers would soon be revealed? Did Melvin Harris have in mind the three Ripperologists, Paul Feldman and Simon Wood? (IIRC, Harris may have had in mind Barrett, Devereux, and Kane, but I'd be interested in whether he actually meant someone somewhat better known in Ripperology circles.)

It does seem to be altogether unsatisfactory that so much mud has been slung at named or unnamed hoaxers without any proper evidence to support these claims.

[Kattrup]

It does seem to be altogether unsatisfactory that so much mud has been slung at named or unnamed hoaxers without any proper evidence to support these claims.

Do you mean unsatisfactory like the mud that is continually slung at Eddie Lyons and other members of the working crew who is accused of theft and complicity to theft and of continual lying and maintaining falsehoods - without proper evidence to support those allegations?

[rjpalmer]

I've heard of sword fighting with ghosts, but how does one sling mud at an unnamed hoaxer? I'm fairly confident that it won't stick.

[caz]

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.

Well, Mike, it seems that I read Ike's posts more carefully than you do, because he has admitted he has no proof that JM was JtR, and that he 'may not' have been. Not much point in me jumping up and down about expressions of opinion which you have misinterpreted as assertions to knowledge.

What we actually know about "Jack" can be written on the small section of tile beneath the imaginary "FM" in poor Mary Jane's room at Millers Court. The point is, though, why are we continually asked by some here to provide some sort of nail in the coffin for a suspect that barely 7 people on planet earth feel was actually Jack when the vast majority of experts have binned him like the fantastical villain he's been forced into being?

You're asking the wrong person. Did you mean to address this to me? I see it more as a case of people queueing up to provide an ever growing number of nails for the diary's coffin, while insisting the lid was already nailed down. I can't help it if they keep using defective nails, can I?

Ah, okay... Well, there's more circumstantial evidence to suggest that the Barretts were involved than there is to suggest that the diary is genuine. You cannot truthfully deny this.

They provided the book, Mike sought one out in an auction, they admitted to the hoax, they had ties to others who claimed they'd found it. All of that versus... what, exactly? Zilch.

Occam's Razor and all that.

What evidence is there that Mike sought out any book in any auction? That's right, none at all.

What evidence is there that anyone but Mike claimed the diary was a hoax? That's right, none at all. Your use of the word 'they' suggests you haven't yet read enough about this subject to inform your opinions.

Who had 'ties' to others who claimed they'd found it? It was Eddie Lyons who claimed he'd found it, when talking to a work colleague outside Battlecrease. What 'ties' do you know of, between the Barretts and Eddie? That would be quite something, wouldn't it? Hardly 'zilch'.

This willingness to pretend that Mike was some goober who had no chance of forging a diary isn't one based in logic or common sense.

No, I'm happy to leave you to grapple with logic and common sense, while I use the evidence of my eyes and ears to assess the likelihood of Mike creating the diary.

Here on the message boards there is plenty of evidence to assess which posters, if any, could have written the diary content, and despite it being far from a glowing example of how to write prose or poetry, its unidentified author still managed literacy skills not evidenced in much of what is posted by the some of the most vociferous Barrett believers. They can think themselves lucky that while they get to accuse Barrett of having what it takes, the same accusation could never be levelled at themselves. Take that any way you like.

The evidence for Mike and Anne having been involved is quite literally more pronounced than any evidence that it's a genuine diary written by James, or a hoax invented by someone else before the 80's. There's absolutely nothing to back up the idea that Jim wrote it. There's absolutely nothing to suggest anyone else wrote it.

You're forgetting the possibility that it was hoaxed by someone in modern times, who wanted to remain anonymous but never intended it to get into Mike Barrett's hands. There's absolutely nothing to suggest the diary was not written by someone who has yet to be associated with it and identified from their handwriting.

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.

Again, you're addressing the wrong person. But forcing yourself to see the Barretts' handiwork in that scrapbook is no better, when all you have is the ever changing word of a liar, who had personal motives for making false confessions, that only came in the wake of losing his wife and daughter.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

RJ, you have stated that Mike Barrett wrote the diary (so it might be this is why you have dismissed the names of three different Ripperologists, Paul Feldman and Simon himself) without doing a proper investigation or at least one commensurate with the attention you have paid to Mike Barrett's surreal and vacillating account of how he did or did not create a hoax? So could you expand on the background to the reasons why these people fell under suspicion? Who raised the suspicion and when?

No, Ike. Sorry. As I've said several times recently, I'm not interested in having this discussion. If you want to read over it again, go to the archives. And by the way, you're actually wrong. I don't think Mike Barrett was the primary author of the Maybrick Hoax. I do, however, believe that he contributed and has demonstrated inside knowledge.

And anyway, Caz has nearly convinced me that it is pointless and bizarre to argue with 'flat earthers.' Why should I care what you believe? She has a point, doesn't she?

Here is a good example of why I have lost interest, and why any further discussion would be a waste of space:

"Mind you, some people have convinced themselves that a diary for the year 1891 was considered near enough as to make no difference for a man who died in 1889..."

Such comments are not made in good faith.

Barrett didn't think a diary for the year 1891 was near enough. He didn't use it! He rejected it, later complaining that it was 'useless' and 'too small.' The little red 1891 memo book is just as blank now as it was in 1992 when Mike was out seeking the raw materials. He didn't use it to create a hoax, he didn't use it to compare it to the diary, and did not use it to barter with "Fat Eddy." It was "useless" for ALL of those purposes.

The way I look at it, Caz has convinced herself--based on a generic comment made by Martin Earl many years after-the-fact--that it was patiently explained to Mike that the year '1891' was printed on every page. I don't believe it. If it had been, Mike wouldn't have blown 25 pounds on it and then never used it for anything, and kept its existence a secret, even when Shirley Harrison was studying the nature and appearance of Victorian diaries. While the "Fat Eddy" explanation makes no sense whatsoever.

As your friend Lord Orsam has pointed out, it isn't the red diary that ultimately damns the Barretts, it's the advertisement that Martin Earl placed on their behalf. You know--the one where they were willing to buy a completely blank diary in the weeks running up to London?

Tell me Ike, if someone is uncertain whether they own a real Rembrandt, do they go out and purchase a blank canvas for a comparison?

Or twenty blank canvases of at least 20 square yards?

No, son, they do not. And along with the fact that Mr. B was holding in his mitts what was very obviously a modern concoction, that's game, set, and match.

[caz]

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

You addressed this to Ike, but that wasn't your claim. Your claim mentioned an auction, which nobody has established Mike ever attended.

What Mike took to London was indeed a Victorian scrapbook with missing pages, but that's not what the ad was for.

Mike requested an unused or partially used diary for 1880-90, which couldn't be located, so instead he ordered a fully printed one for the year 1891, two years too late for anyone to claim it was Maybrick's.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

What looks like an inverted F carved on Kelly's forearm, is, in reality, a defensive wound, or a series of defensive wounds, but it looked like the initial F to Mike.

To be fair, RJ, it looks like the initial F to me too, but that doesn't mean I wrote the diary. I probably wouldn't have made such a subtle job with the words in the diary which you believe refer to what you believe was a defensive wound, or even a series of such wounds.

I'm not being defensive myself here, but why do you suppose Kelly didn't scream the place down as she inflicted such massive damage to herself in a futile attempt to fend off the knife coming at her? Or did her killer manage to slash away with one hand, while clamping the other hand over her mouth to silence her, and using the weight of his body to pin her in place? You'd think with the thin walls, and his recent experiences, he'd have made sure to silence her quickly before she had the chance to react at all. Were similar 'defensive' wounds found on the previous victims, or were they given no chance to scream or try warding off the weapon?

[erobitha]

To be fair, RJ, it looks like the initial F to me too, but that doesn't mean I wrote the diary. I probably wouldn't have made such a subtle job with the words in the diary which you believe refer to what you believe was a defensive wound, or even a series of such wounds.

I'm not being defensive myself here, but why do you suppose Kelly didn't scream the place down as she inflicted such massive damage to herself in a futile attempt to fend off the knife coming at her? Or did her killer manage to slash away with one hand, while clamping the other hand over her mouth to silence her, and using the weight of his body to pin her in place? You'd think with the thin walls, and his recent experiences, he'd have made sure to silence her quickly before she had the chance to react at all. Were similar 'defensive' wounds found on the previous victims, or were they given no chance to scream or try warding off the weapon?

The F is carved. It is not a series of slashes to defend yourself. No screams. No ‘defensive’ wounds on other victims.

An initial here and an initial there is plural.

It leaves the only two viable options remaining as someone who knew of the suspected initials from the likes of Simon Wood et al - or it is real.

[Iconoclast]

The F is carved. It is not a series of slashes to defend yourself. No screams. No ‘defensive’ wounds on other victims.

An initial here and an initial there is plural.

It leaves the only two viable options remaining as someone who knew of the suspected initials from the likes of Simon Wood et al - or it is real.

Hi ero b,

As you say, the critical points are no screams and highly-specific 'defensive wounds'. These are not signs that she was alive when that 'F' was carved into her arm (it's really very unlikely in fact).

You may recall that the argument was previously made on Casebook that it wasn't even an 'F' carved into her arm as the wound continued around to the unseen part of her arm. Given that there is no evidence for that, I really struggle to understand why someone's agenda is so tunnel-visioned as to willingly simply make up unknowns in order to attempt to 'explain away' the really very obvious.

Ike

[Aethelwulf]

Hi ero b,

As you say, the critical points are no screams and highly-specific 'defensive wounds'. These are not signs that she was alive when that 'F' was carved into her arm (it's really very unlikely in fact).

You may recall that the argument was previously made on Casebook that it wasn't even an 'F' carved into her arm as the wound continued around to the unseen part of her arm. Given that there is no evidence for that, I really struggle to understand why someone's agenda is so tunnel-visioned as to willingly simply make up unknowns in order to attempt to 'explain away' the really very obvious.

Ike

I keep thinking I won't post on here, especially as my last contribution exposed my lack of knowledge of the diary (although that is perhaps a good thing!), yet I keep coming back to the same question promoted by the 'letters' on the wall, 'Juwes/James' 'carved' F on the arm - surely but surely no one believes this nonsense!