One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[erobitha]

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

Don't tell me, more defensive wounds?

[caz]

Well well, actually we don't mind the presence of those wounds on the photo at all, she claimed we want them to disappear, no we don't, their existence makes the life of her theory terribly difficult.

The Baron

Who's she? The cat's mother?

Actually, you could say I'm the cat's mother, but our Monty prefers 'maid-of-all-work'.

It was not a claim, but a prediction, and if I could predict anything, I'd much sooner it be Saturday's lotto numbers.

But I'm very happy for you to go on accepting the existence of the F shaped wounds, with no blood pouring from them to put you off your dinner.

Remind me, what is my 'theory' again?

Love,

Anne Elk
X

[caz]

It has been claimed that those wounds on Kelly's arm were not defensive wounds because they didn't bleed

Let's have a look at the photograph:







With zoom in







We see clearly the wounds lines, and beneath them the blood downward with the direction of gravity.


With Blue scale:









Oh what do you know, RJ Palmer was right after all!


Again! Again!



The Baron

So how would that work, if the wounds were self-inflicted and the blood began pouring from them as she put her arm up towards her face and throat, to protect herself from the knife?

Love,

Curious Cat's Mother
X

[The Baron]

But I'm very happy for you to go on accepting the existence of the F shaped wounds

Again you gave yourself away!

I told you Caz, you are a diary believer in disguise!

If you find it damn difficult to admit, just tell me and I will try my best to help you.

Just say it..

And don't repeat your old melodrama of the handwriting and that it doesn't match, you were able to digest everything else the hoaxer throw to you.

Believe him, you are closer to him than you think.



The Baron

[The Baron]

So how would that work, if the wounds were self-inflicted and the blood began pouring from them as she put her arm up towards her face and throat, to protect herself from the knife?

Love,

Curious Cat's Mother
X

Changing the goalpost?! They claim the wounds were not defensive because there is no bleeding, that is not true, as I demonstated earlier and as I can see in those photos.

What you want to see, or what you don't want to see is not my concern.



The Baron

[jmenges]

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

Posts that contain an abundance of links are automatically flagged as spam by the software and have to await a mod's approval.
And I just got around to approving it.

JM

[Iconoclast]

Posts that contain an abundance of links are automatically flagged as spam by the software and have to await a mod's approval.
And I just got around to approving it.

JM

You live and learn.

Many thanks, Jonathan.

[caz]

Here's Barrett's order, as transcribed by Martin Earl.



The prosecution rests, your honor.

The defense is still not acting in good faith.

You have muddled up Mike's original request - as in the advert - with the item he went ahead and ordered, and it was either deliberate on your part or you were not firing on all cylinders at the time of posting.

Martin Earl was unable to locate anything matching Mike's exact specifications, but when he described, as he did with each and every item located, what had turned up instead, to ascertain if this might be a suitable alternative, Mike snapped it up, but with an agreement in place to see before buying.

Now you can quibble all you like over how detailed that description was, but Martin Earl confirmed that before the diary was sent to Mike, he would have been told what year it was for. No ifs, buts or maybes.

But believe who you want to believe, RJ, and put your trust in the liar who was Mike Barrett, rather than Martin Earl, who ran the damned business and had nothing to gain from lying about it, or to say anything at all if his memory had faded to that extent.

The fact remains that, even if you wish to speculate that Mike may not have been told it was for 1891 before it arrived in the post, despite Martin Earl's assurances to the contrary, then he'd have been able to return it at any time because he had specifically requested one for the preceding decade. The fact that it did not occur to Mike or Anne to return it and save themselves £25 - not to mention the permanent paper trail created by a payment by cheque - ought to give you pause, but we all know it won't.

Had the Barretts simply returned it because it failed to meet the specs regarding date, Martin Earl would have returned it to his supplier, and all record of the failed transaction might well have been lost and forgotten about by 1995, leaving only the 'offending' advert as evidence of the attempt. Remember, it was not Mike who was able to dig this up, so it's hard to imagine how it would ever have come to light as a result of what he claimed in the same affidavit you put so much faith in:

'Roughly round about January, February 1990 Anne Barrett and I finally decided to go ahead and write the Diary of Jack the Ripper. In fact Anne purchased a Diary, a red leather backed Diary for L25.00p, she made the purchase through a firm in the 1986 Writters Year Book, I cannot remember their name, she paid for the Diary by cheque in the amount of L25 which was drawn on her Lloyds Bank Account, Water Street Branch, Liverpool.'

Just like Mike's auction attendance, which could not be established from the details he provided, researchers would have been sent on a wild goose chase looking for an early 1990 attempt to buy a suitable diary from some forgotten source, which never materialised.

Of course, I predict we'll hear the same old story of how hoaxers can royally screw up over such things, but the bloody red diary arrived well in time to cancel or postpone the appointment in London if they needed time to consider the implications. After all, it was this diary that supposedly sent Mike off to find the scrapbook, so it would have been beyond careless just to forget it was still in the house waiting to catch them out. I could believe it of Mike, but Anne - assuming she knew the first thing about it? And if she did, why on earth did she complete the transaction if there was no need, because they never wanted, never requested and never ordered a diary for the year 1891?

[The Baron]

Here are the wounds again on the forearm








They are random wounds with blood beneath them and no connecting vertical wound to form an 'F'


The same can be seen on the upper arm:

And like above you can clearly notice the bleeding out of the main wounds which point to defensive wounds









There are no letters on the wall, and there are no letters on the arm, and the diary is a cheap hoax.



The Baron

[erobitha]

Here are the wounds again on the forearm








They are random wounds with blood beneath them and no connecting vertical wound to form an 'F'


The same can be seen on the upper arm:

And like above you can clearly notice the bleeding out of the main wounds which point to defensive wounds









There are no letters on the wall, and there are no letters on the arm, and the diary is a cheap hoax.



The Baron

Just saying, your images are awful quality.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Baron,

This may help you out.



Regards,

Simon

[The Baron]

Thank you Simon for yet another better picture!!


We can see here easily the bleeding (pink arrows) out of the main incisions (red)









Of course they are random incisions mostly defensive, and they have nothing to do with a hidden letters or icons.


Thanks again Simon!



The Baron

[The Baron]

This is again the photo from Simon in negative:

Enhancing the bleeding







The Baron

[Scott Nelson]

What kind of bleeding...oozing, running, streaming or flowing...? If they're wounds, was the blood clotted? Is that what the photo shows?

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Whilst we're at it, would anyone care to identify any visible bodily organs.


Regards,

Simon