One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[rjpalmer]

And none of it ties back to how the initials on Kelly’s wall got spotted by someone who then backward-engineered a hoax Maybrick diary from that most unlikely point unless Martin Fido was the author of the hoax (and his antipathy towards his own creation was therefore brilliant double-bluff), mentioned them to someone else, or someone else more or less independently also spotted them.

Ike

Ike, I really am hoping that this is my last post this month, and it’s only the 4th

This is why I try to resist conversing with the diary friendly folks.

You consider Martin Fido, Keith Skinner, Paul Begg, and Simon Wood suspects in the hoax?

All based on your fanciful reading of one passage?

But you refuse to consider Anne Graham and Mike Barrett?

Well, I suppose if you can convince yourself that the whore’s initial (singular) refers to ‘FM’

and

‘in front’ refers to a back wall

all the while insisting that an initial (singular) is carved on Kelly’s arm (in front)

then I reckon you can convince yourself that your suspect list is not upside down.

If mental gymnastics were a sport, why do I imagine the diary friendly would be taking home five gold medals, five silver, and five bronze?

Has it ever occurred to you that one of the reasons that the diary friendly folks have rejected Barrett’s confessions is because they go out-of-the-way to make ridiculous interpretations?

Take Barrett soaking off a stamp on the inside cover of the scrapbook, as described in his affidavit.

There is a damaged spot, isn’t there? Any reasonable person might posit that Barrett put a tablespoon of oil on the stamp to loosen it up or help dissolve it. “I soaked the cover.”

Instead, you lot suggest that he took an enormous bedpan of linseed oil, filled it with two gallons of the stuff, and soaked the entire diary in the oil until it was a sopping mess.

A more curious investigator would wonder why Dr. Eastaugh managed to find the corner of a photograph stuck in the scrapbook’s binding..which..along with the rectangle shapes, suggests the scrapbook was used as a photograph album in the early 20th Century. What are you saying, Ike, that the people putting in the photos didn’t see the confessions of Jack the Ripper?

(Paul Butler once tried to argue these were carte-de-visite patterns, but Paul is wrong. The size is not the same, and the shapes have a horizontal orientation. The album contained more modern photographs).

And, if it was indeed a photo album that Barrett bought (a clue that was not ever properly investigated, because Anne Graham had convinced them by now that the diary was seen in the 1960s) then it is entirely possible that the manufacturer’s sticker might well have dated the photo album/scrapbook to AFTER 1889, thus it had to be removed—just as Barrett described.

And once you consider this possibility, it is entirely likely that a desperate Mike Barrett—with Doreen Montgomery already on the hook—would have told Earl to go ahead and mail him the 1891 diary, (wrongly believing he could similarly remove any incriminating dates) that is, if Barrett and Earl ever had such a conversation.

Which, despite Caz's claims, is not in evidence. Instead, Caz has Earl patiently describing to Mike an entirely ‘useless’ object that Mike, nonetheless, purchases. Which makes no sense.

If you’re going to set hurdles in your own path, then you never will solve this mystery.

Open your mind.

With respect,

RP

[erobitha]

Can anyone confirm if the scrapbook claims the initials were "in front for all to see?" I am struggling to see such a reference. I do have this:

A whores 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.

I left it there for the fools but they will never find it. I was too clever. Left it in sight for all eyes to see. Shall I write and tell them? That amuses me.

Maybe I am looking at the wrong reference book?

Thanks in advance.

[Scott Nelson]

Well, I suppose if you can convince yourself that the whore’s initial (singular) refers to ‘FM’

and

‘in front’ refers to a back wall

all the while insisting that an initial (singular) is carved on Kelly’s arm (in front)

then I reckon you can convince yourself that your suspect list is not upside down.

Well, RJ, the supposed "F" carved into Kelly's left arm is certainly upside down. I wonder why the Ripper did that? Maybe the arm was originally flexed outward when he cut, but then afterwards he laid the forearm across her chest, accidently turning the initial upside down instead of leaving it prominently right side up for all to see?

[Yabs]

Can anyone confirm if the scrapbook claims the initials were "in front for all to see?" I am struggling to see such a reference. I do have this:

A whores 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.

I left it there for the fools but they will never find it. I was too clever. Left it in sight for all eyes to see. Shall I write and tell them? That amuses me.

Maybe I am looking at the wrong reference book?

Thanks in advance.

Hi Ero.
Looking at the facsimile of the diary the word is definitely front, not sight.
And the word is underlined twice.

[erobitha]

Hi Ero.
Looking at the facsimile of the diary the word is definitely front, not sight.
And the word is underlined twice.

Seems original sources are always better than internet transcripts. Thanks Yabs.

[Iconoclast]

You consider Martin Fido, Keith Skinner, Paul Begg, and Simon Wood suspects in the hoax? All based on your fanciful reading of one passage? But you refuse to consider Anne Graham and Mike Barrett?

To be absolutely clear, I personally do not suspect any of Martin Fido, Keith Skinner, Paul Begg, Simon Wood, Anne Graham or Mike Barrett as suspects in the hoax for the primary reason that I think the scrapbook is almost certainly authentic, and for the secondary reason that I have no evidence with which to accuse the first four, and only the incoherent ramblings of a desperate man with which to accuse the latter two. I'm referring to Mike Barrett, of course, there, not Lord Orsam or you.

Well, I suppose if you can convince yourself that the whore’s initial (singular) refers to ‘FM’ and ‘in front’ refers to a back wall

Whyever would I need to convince myself of anything? The scrapbook makes explicit reference to Florence Maybrick's initial or initials during the four pages he spends dwelling on the slaughter in Kelly's room, and I can see with no difficulty Florence Maybrick's initials on Kelly's wall and an 'F' as clear as day on Kelly's arm. Why would I need to do a semantic dance to think you might be right and I am somehow wrong? I'll leave you to believe that you are right, and I will happily continue to see that I am right. Now, can we see letters? Of course, we all can except some truly myopic characters who claim to see nothing whatsoever (no agenda there, then!). Are they meant to be letters? Who knows? Are they meant to be initials? Who knows? Are they meant to be Florence Maybrick's initials? Who knows? We can't know because we are neither Jack the Ripper nor the scrapbook hoaxer. All we can do is infer from what we know is implied in the scrapbook, look to see if the Kelly photo validates the scrapbook, and work out what it means when we realise that it does.

all the while insisting that an initial (singular) is carved on Kelly’s arm (in front)

You and I know perfectly well that your argument here is built on semantics. Could someone writing initials in blood on a wall behind a body possibly refer to them as being 'in front'? If I did exactly that, I would consider that I had left them in front for all to see, but you would clearly not. Interestingly, what you and I consider to be semantically plausible has no bearing here - all that matters is what James Maybrick thought made sense to him when he wrote it (if indeed he did).

Take Barrett soaking off a stamp on the inside cover of the scrapbook, as described in his affidavit. There is a damaged spot, isn’t there? Any reasonable person might posit that Barrett put a tablespoon of oil on the stamp to loosen it up or help dissolve it. “I soaked the cover.”

Well, I assume that you place some faith in his affidavit, yes? Without his affidavit, your case is even weaker than it already is. So let's not change what was in the affidavit to try to make a 'winning' argument, RJ. What Barrett claimed was:

"When I got the Album and Compass home, I examined it closely, inside the front cover I noticed a makers stamp mark, dated 1908 or 1909 to remove this without trace I soaked the whole of the front cover in Linseed Oil, once the oil was absorbed by the front cover, which took about 2 days to dry out. I even used the heat from the gas oven to assist in the drying out."

Instead, you lot suggest that he took an enormous bedpan of linseed oil, filled it with two gallons of the stuff, and soaked the entire diary in the oil until it was a sopping mess.

Well isn't that what Barrett said he did in his affidavit that you place so much store by? (Ignoring the ridiculous hyperbole you employ which inadvertently makes your own man sound so utterly foolish.)

I'll remind you of the words of my correspondent FDC:

If you soak the cover of an old book in oil, you can throw it away, believe me ! The cover comes loose from the cardboard and starts to bend. And two days to dry-out a wet book is not enough, It had to dry very slowly, and under pressure. Anyone familiar with old books will notice this immediately!
If you don’t have the skills, and you never have done such tricks before, it's next to impossible to succeed on your first try-out!
Except if you are a ‘Bongo’ Barrett fan of coarse, you go on to believe everything this guy pretend to be, did or said!

Is FDC an expert on this stuff? I've no idea. But has anyone come on here and contradicted him since I first posted his comments? No.

A more curious investigator would wonder why Dr. Eastaugh managed to find the corner of a photograph stuck in the scrapbook’s binding..which..along with the rectangle shapes, suggests the scrapbook was used as a photograph album in the early 20th Century. What are you saying, Ike, that the people putting in the photos didn’t see the confessions of Jack the Ripper? (Paul Butler once tried to argue these were carte-de-visite patterns, but Paul is wrong. The size is not the same, and the shapes have a horizontal orientation. The album contained more modern photographs).

In what sense is Paul Butler wrong? The photograph 'shape' was exactly the right size for the carte-de-visite photographs which were common in the 1880s.

From my updated (but not yet published) brilliant Society's Pillar:

Hallie Rubenhold in her outstanding The Five: The Untold Lives of the Women Killed by Jack the Ripper confirms this when she writes [50, p112]:

As having one’s image recorded in daguerreotype had become a privilege widely available by the middle of the nineteenth century, the Chapmans might have chosen to celebrate their union cheaply and simply. For 5 shillings, it was possible to order a set of three carte de visite, small 2½-by-3-inch photographs pasted on card.

And, if it was indeed a photo album that Barrett bought (a clue that was not ever properly investigated, because Anne Graham had convinced them by now that the diary was seen in the 1960s) then it is entirely possible that the manufacturer’s sticker might well have dated the photo album/scrapbook to AFTER 1889, thus it had to be removed—just as Barrett described.

Yes, this is either true or it is false. It is burden of proof time again, RJ.

And once you consider this possibility, it is entirely likely that a desperate Mike Barrett—with Doreen Montgomery already on the hook—would have told Earl to go ahead and mail him the 1891 diary, (wrongly believing he could similarly remove any incriminating dates) that is, if Barrett and Earl ever had such a conversation.

And if me aunty had bollocks, RJ ...

Which, despite Caz's claims, is not in evidence. Instead, Caz has Earl patiently describing to Mike an entirely ‘useless’ object that Mike, nonetheless, purchases. Which makes no sense.

Earl described the 1891 diary to Barrett towards the end of March 1992 when Mike must have realised that no-one was coming knocking at his door for that knocked-off diary with loads of blank pages in. There is no evidence that Mike ever planned to actually pay for it, and Earl was rather naïve to assume it, so it is perfectly likely that Mike said "Send me it" just to get Earl off the 'phone (if 'phone it was, I don't recall right now). So, you would have to show that Mike's agenda had not been to purchase a doppelganger so that he could retain ownership of the Jack the Ripper diary he had acquired suspiciously on March 9, 1992 should someone have come looking for it.

If you’re going to set hurdles in your own path, then you never will solve this mystery.

And yet those hurdles vanish once I fire up the M1 chip in my brain.

Open your mind.

I couldn't have put it better myself, old friend.



By the way, RJ, whose grave were you visiting there?

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Now how the hell was our old hoaxer able to recognise an 'F' on Kelly's arm in this photo?!

I just can't imagine ...


"Vacher l'Eventreur et les Crimes Sadiques, Lacassagne, Lyons/Paris 1899", original edition.

LOL!

(My thanks to FDC for this gem of a retort.)

[caz]

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

Hi Kattrup,

Remind me, did Bond go on to describe any of these wounds as 'defensive'? I suppose he might have done if he assumed someone else had already cleaned them up. But try as I might, I can't see how Kelly could have put her arm up to defend her face or throat, sustaining those extensive and jagged wounds, without the blood completely saturating her entire lower arm and hand.

Seven years ago I caught my shin rather badly against a rock on the beach. Mr Brown and I couldn't see the damage until we reached the minor injuries unit, because the whole area down to my foot was just a sea of dripping red, causing people to stare as I hobbled away from the offending boulder. It must have looked like a shark attack. Only when I was cleaned up did a series of distinct and very sore grazes become apparent. Luckily they were not too deep, but it put paid to my sea bathing for the next ten days until the dressings could safely come off!

Love,

Caz
X

[The Baron]

Using the better quality scan of the page above from 1899:


Do those wounds look anything like true letters?!


There is no letter 'F' here , not without intentionally dismissing and dropping the wounds at the beginning and the continuation of the wound around and to the back side of the arm.

"Left it in front for all eyes to see"

Not in this Photograph.



And what about the wounds on the upper arm?!

We see the same pattern of those defensive wounds with blood beneath them

Should we try to fit them into some sort of a letter or just ignore them?


Or is it just a case of cherry picking?








Nothing to see here except for the imaginations of a lonely man.. or maybe two



The Baron

[caz]

Hi Caz. Just passing through.

You made a similar smarmy prediction last summer--that the subject of statistics would be quickly dropped and retracted based on Ike's sterling knowledge of statistics.

How did that work out for you?

If I recall, it was you who ended up dropping the subject like a red hot penny. We never heard another peep after Jeff set you straight.

Cheers,

RP

I'm not sure how this is relevant, unless it's a funny little attempt to steer everyone away from your 'defensive' wound claim? Will you now be dropping that subject, unlike the blood that stubbornly refused to be dropped from Kelly's live forearm?

PS. I'll give Ike the same advice now that I gave him then, and which he ignored. Seek expert advice. I'm not going to mop up this time, so you three amigos believe whatever you want.

What will I do without your comic quips? But before you pack that overnight bag for the thousandth time, please be assured that as an adult I'm very used to having to believe things I don't want to believe, so if it's okay with you, I'll leave all the hardcore wishful thinking to the experts, including their endearing and enduring faith in Mike Barrett to have known all the answers, while spilling only a few rotten beans. He was uncharacteristically reticent over fine details such as how he or Anne initially came up with the 'initial' idea, just a year or three before your psychic Johnson brother initially came up with a second-hand 'initial' idea.

PPS. What does any of this have to do with Keith Skinner's desire to find out what Simon Wood told Martin Fido 30 years ago? You're actually proving my point. If you believe an F was carved into MK's forearm, and this is what our modern hoaxer is alluding to, then our modern hoaxer need not have been in on any conversation between Simon and Martin in 1989 (about initials traced in dirt on the back wall), making Keith's question and apparent concern irrelevant.

Strangely enough, my initials are CB, not KS, so why would you think CB's posts have anything to do with KS's desires? On second thoughts, it might be better not to answer that. We don't want to frighten the horses. But I do hope it's not because you see me as a 'nagging' fishwife without a single thought to call my own.

I didn't say I believed those savage wounds were designed by the killer to represent an F. I have no idea who he was or what was in his mind as he cut. But along with others, I can see the very obvious similarity with a capital F, which the diary author may or may not have pounced on with glee, hardly believing their luck. Even luckier if it was Kelly herself who inflicted those cuts, and her killer helpfully mopped up all the resulting red stuff for all to see what lay beneath.

It's also my understanding that Keith believes that the Maybrick diary is an 'old hoax' written long before 1989. So using simple logic--a rare commodity in these parts--doesn't that mean it that any knowledge of Simon and Martin's conversation was NOT a prerequisite for the hoaxer? Or is Keith starting to suspect that he's been barking up the wrong tree?

I know this must be quite impossible for you to understand, RJ, but Keith has never been wedded to his beliefs, and has no ego-driven or professional need to be proved right all the time. Instead of falling into the old confirmation bias trap and thinking that anyone who dares to question him is attempting to 'trip him up', he has continually, from day one, tried to trip himself up and to prove his beliefs to be wrong, with the help, when necessary, of people like Simon and yourself. I know. Extraordinary, isn't it? More extraordinary even than that, I know Keith to have the dignity and humility in spades to admit it and walk away, if the day dawns when he finds he has been 'barking up the wrong tree'.

If he can prove in a court of law that the diary came from underneath Dodd's floorboards, why is he so concerned about what Simon suggested to Martin?

I assume you are once again choosing to balls up what Keith has now had to clarify umpteen times over the last 14 years since he spoke at the JM Trial in Liverpool in 2007. Anyone would have to be 'terminally dense' [I think that's the phrase you once used, and imitation is the sincerest form of flattery] to get it wrong by accident.

Over to KS, who, for the avoidance of further confusion, has one thing in common right now with CB - we have two initials apiece:

'Nowhere, as Roger Palmer states, have I said that I "can prove in a court of law that the diary came from underneath Dodd's floorboards". It would be an irresponsible thing to say. Up to 2004 I believed Anne Graham's story. Then new information comes along which made me test and change that belief as to the provenance of this document. Now Simon Wood has introduced another element which is important to investigate and clarify otherwise it is left unresolved on the Message Boards.'

[caz]

You trapped yourself!

If there is an 'F' engraved into Kelly's arm, that alone blows up the old 'hoax theory' !

This photo was not available for your old forger!

You said they will shortly disappear?! Then Keep those wounds Caz, they only prove you, and you alone, WRONG!

ha ha



The Baron

How old are you, Baron?

And how old do you think the diary needs to be, to have been written at any time before Mike Barrett got his paws on it?

Did the F [ing] photo only become available when the Barretts were available for a spot of DIY fakery?

And when are you going to get your thinking cap mended?

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Three years ago or so, RJ wrote:

Icon: The Maybrick Diary failed the biggest test of all: the smell test. Impossible to define, but you know it when you smell it.

If Mr.Barnett or someone else wants to try and find an example of "one off" in the Outer Mongolian Journal of Engineering for 1877, good enough, but it won't help.

Mere suspicion...even one or two 'slaps'...is often good enough for historians/collectors to give a questioned document a wide berth. There's a draft copy of the Gettysburg Address that was rejected because the paper was folded in an odd manner, suggesting it may have been cut from a larger sheet. Other than that, the handwriting, the ink, etc., look pretty good.

That single strange little fold was enough to fail the smell test. That and the fact that the bloke bought it off a guy that died shortly afterwards and thus couldn't be questioned (sound familiar?)

Seems unfair, don't it? A little fold seems quaint compared to the many oddities we see in the Maybrick Diary.

And to Herlock: an expert was already consulted. Her name was Dr. Kate Flint, a lecturer in Victorian and modern literature at Oxford. She didn't think the language of the Diary sounded Victorian. She cited 'one off,' but I suspect it was the whole package, not this or that particular phrase.

Anyway, Icon is just winding us up. The idea of this thread is to frame the conversation so we have to come up with just one single argument. Icon can then try to gnaw a moth-hole in that argument.

No thanks. It's the whole dreaded holistic presentation, the hard-to-define 'smell test' that is what truly delivers the knock-out punch. And smelling salts won't get the boxer back on his feet.

But more recently, he wrote:

Dr. Kate Flint, a lecturer in Victorian literature, felt the diary's language was modern. I think she's right, of course, and apparently so do you, but one example she used in arguing for modernity was the phrase 'gathering momentum.'

Now, I unfortunately don't have Dr. Flint's actual commentary on 'gathering momentum' so I am having to take RJ's word that she argued it 'smelled' of a modern origin; and RJ was also sparing on whether or not he agreed with Dr. Flint regarding the term 'gathering momentum' being so modern that it pointed towards a modern origin for the diary. Whether he agrees with Dr Flint or not is probably by the way. Dr Flint is an 'expert' and we have placed such remarkable store in the voices of 'experts' and that, of course, is because they are 'experts' and therefore can be trusted to put the evidence into context for us to help us make our assessments as rationally and fairly as we possibly can. Yes?

Well - if RJ is correct - then Dr. Flint is yet another 'expert' who has misinformed us. The term 'gathering momentum' appears to have been used at least as early as 1872 and even if you argue that it was used too infrequently for James Maybrick to have picked up on it, FDC has shown that there is every reason to think he may very well have done so.

From my correspondent FDC again:

After a post by the R.J.Palmer in which the phrase 'gather momentum' was mentioned once again, I had a little fun with the 'Google Ngram Viewer'.
Now it turns out that the expression 'gather(ing) momentum' really first appeared around the beginning of the 19th century?
But the weird thing is that the expression 'gathering momentum' appears in a work about 'the victims of alcoholism in the Liverpool population'. The booklet —The Slain in Liverpool During 1872 by Drink by the author rev. John Jones; Congregational Minister, contains the quote “gathering momentum” on page 39. (-: “It has become the idea of the hour in England,.. gathering momentum with every onward stride"…)
Searching further, I found confirmation that this rev. Jones, had published more work, namely in the reference book;—THE BRITISH PROHIBITIONISTS 1853-1872 A BIOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS —BRIAN HARRISON 65. LIVERPOOL, page 432, I read rev. John Jones Congr. minister. Statistician of drunkenness. Wrote The Slain in Liverpool by Drink 1863, 1864, 1866. (£10)
Rev. John JONES also wrote other booklets, including; REV. JOHN JONES, ON SPIRITUALISM AS "THE WORK OF DEMONS. (The booklet cost Threepence.)
I also think it peculiar that the quote can be found in a book about alcohol abuse written by the Archdeacon of Liverpool, working in Liverpool at a time, when James was a young man.
Around 1871 Susannah Maybrick (54) lived with her children—James (31); Commercial clerck—Thomas (24) Cotton Salesman—Edwin (20) Cotton Merchant—Susan (13) daughter—and their household-aid Mary E. Webster (23) at 77 Mount Pleasant, Liverpool.
John Jones was for a number of years also Vicar of St Andrew’s , 4 Rodney street, Liverpool, and this until 1980. So it seems to me no wonder that, living 'round the corner, at a 2min walk from the Maybrick home at 77 Mount Pleasant, the book of the “Archdeacon of Liverpool, ”found its way to the Maybrick home librabry?
And maybe James may have read it when he was still living with in the family home, and—years later in 1888—remembered this strange exotic quote?
Living so close together and since we know that Jim's father and godfather, although already deceased, were both parish clerks of St. Peter; it seems no surprise to me, that rev. John Jones and the Maybrick family knew each other?
The fact that the author writes in the diary: ”…my campaign will gather momentum” could therefore be an example of someone who spontaneously writes things down from memory, just like “Oh costly intercourse of death”.
It is obvious that the author of the diary wants to make a statement with well-read statements, just to impress.

P.s.: Both the expression 'gathering momentum' and 'gather momentum' can apparently be found in books from the 19th century?
So in summary—if my claims are correct?—is this really an incredible coincidence? And can the expression be given a much more grounded pedigree than has hitherto been generally accepted?

— John Jones (1791–1889)^[1] was the second Archdeacon of Liverpool,^[2] serving from 1855^[3] until 1886.^[4]30 October 1855 – 1886 (res.): John Jones
Since 9 April 1880, the archdeaconry has been in Liverpool diocese.
On 17 July 1880, the Archdeaconry of Warrington was split from the Liverpool archdeaconry.^[4]
Jones was born on 5 October 1791 and^[5] educated at St John's College, Cambridge.^[6] He was ordaineddeacon on 19 February 1815, and priest on 24 December, the same year.
After a curacy at St Mary, Leicester he was Vicar of St Andrew, Liverpool until 1980 and then Christ Church, Waterloo until 1889.
He died on 5 December 1889.^[7] His son won the VC^[8] while serving as a 25 years old lieutenant in the 9th Lancers during the Indian Mutiny.^[9]
The Church of Saint Andrew is a former Presbyterian church building in 4 Rodney Street, Liverpool, Merseyside, England. It was part of the Church of Scotland.

— Horace Bushnell (April 14, 1802 – February 17, 1876) was an American Congregationalminister and theologian.
Sermons for the New Life ... Fifth edition — Horace BUSHNELL
Also in the book “Sermons for the New Life”; by theologian Horace BUSHNELL, the expression "gather momentum" occurs on page 309.



So we should perhaps call canny when 'experts' tell us what could not have been written in 1888-89, and what perhaps may have been used and in print but so obscurely that a man such as James Maybrick would have no hope of ever hearing.

I put it to you, dear readers, that once again the Victorian scrapbook earns itself yet another vindication. Will there be no end to these revelations, I wonder?

Ike

[Iconoclast]

How old are you, Baron?

And how old do you think the diary needs to be, to have been written at any time before Mike Barrett got his paws on it?

Did the F [ing] photo only become available when the Barretts were available for a spot of DIY fakery?

And when are you going to get your thinking cap mended?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I don't believe for a moment that anyone can seriously think - and argue, and post - that the 'F' on Kelly's arm can be so easily interpreted as anything else, and that the lack of blood on her actual arm ('defensive' wounds, remember, Caz, so inflicted while she so silently died) can be remedied by some tenuous reference to something not on her arm at all.

Everyone is, of course, welcome to their opinion, especially our dear readers who can conclude for themselves whether there is a paucity of sincerity in such claims.

Ike

[caz]

Nor do I think RWE had anything to do with it. He wasn't that sort of bloke....

And there we have it. RJ knows enough about this man to confidently express no confidence in his correspondent's idea that he may have had something to do with it.

I won't concern myself with RJ's reasoning, because he has never concerned himself with the reasoning of those who knew the Barretts personally, and well enough to express their confidence that they had nothing to do with it either.

In fact, RJ has often insisted that what the Barretts are/were like as people doesn't matter and doesn't interest him, and has nothing to do with whether or not they had the means, motive or opportunity to create the diary themselves. And yet here he is, confident that someone else he doesn't know personally and never met 'would have' done this, or would not have done the other.

I agree that no serious ripperologist would ever have chosen to put the Barretts in control if they wanted a smooth ride for their creation. But as a prank it might have proved jolly good fun to stand back and watch the pratfalls coming thick and fast from all directions. Wasn't Jeremy Beadle also suspected at one point, for this very reason? But how can RJ be confident that the Barretts would not have been chosen, when he admits to knowing little and caring even less about their individual personalities at that time and what was going on in their everyday lives?

The theory is a non-starter, and I never wanted to mention the suggestion offered to me, as it would wrongly lay suspicion where it doesn't belong.

Yes, it is a non-starter in my opinion too, but then so will the Barrett hoax theory remain as far as I'm concerned, until someone truly awesome - in a good way - can succeed in putting Mike in an auction sale, bidding for the scrapbook.

[Iconoclast]

I posted a longish post about an hour ago and it went green with a box at the bottom saying 'Unapproved'. Now, I'm certain there's nothing controversial in it so does anyone know what has happened? I've never seen this happen before.

Ike