One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[The Baron]

The photograph doesn't tell you how deep those wounds are, and if they didn't hit a main blood vessel you will not expect a massive bleeding, adding to that the panic adrenaline shot while defending herself, their will be a vasoconstriction which in turn reduces the bleeding.



The Baron

[Simon Wood]

Hi Baron,

You are the last one I suspected of missing the point.

Regards,

Simon

[The Baron]

Hi Simon,

My last post was addressed to Scott Nelson asking what kind of bleeding.

Thanks


The Baron

[Simon Wood]

Not a bruise, not a lesion, not a cut or scratch, not a slash, and not a spot of blood on the pillow.



Clever chap, that Jack.

[Iconoclast]

Not a bruise, not a lesion, not a cut or scratch, not a slash, and not a spot of blood on the pillow.

Clever chap, that Jack.

It's not obvious what point you're making, Simon. On first reading, you appear to be making the rather bizarre claim that Mary Kelly wasn't actually attacked at all?

Ike

[Iconoclast]

I would be fascinated to know what my dear readers feel about some of the arguments currently being 'debated' on this, The Greatest Thread of All (do come in, you're all very welcome).

In particular, how convincing do you find the argument that Mary Kelly - clearly in terrible fear of her life and almost certainly full in the knowledge that she was in the presence of the fearful spectre Jack the Ripper - stayed utterly silent whilst she fended him off and suffered three cuts to her left arm which surreally formed a letter 'F' (perfect for a future hoaxer to play on). Why did she not scream Whitechapel awake in her abject terror?

Do you agree that the 'F' on Kelly's arm must have been defensive wounds? If so, why do you feel that the arm was not saturated in blood? Why would her frantically beating heart cause her veins and arteries to vasoconstrict (less blood flow) rather than the more obvious vasodilate (more blood flow)?

And if you agree that the 'F' shape on her arm was caused by defensive wounds and that - in death - her arm was entirely devoid of blood (there would have been buckets of it from wounds as deep as these - have you ever nicked your finger and been amazed at how much blood is shed before it congeals and heals?), do you feel comfortable with what appears to be on the surface one of the most facile arguments ever made on this brilliant thread - namely, that the lifeless body of Mary Kelly oozed a thin line of blood in a simple pattern down to her torso but that that would not have happened anyway had her killer simply carved the letter 'F' into her arm in death?

For the record, I don't think for a moment that what has been highlighted is blood flowing inevitably out of so marked and vicious a wound but - even if it were - why is her arm so otherwise clean (it must have been raised and shaken about in the act of defending herself) and why would blood not have flowed out in exactly the same way if the wounds were inflicted post mortem?

I would genuinely be intrigued to hear what my dear readers are thinking about all this. You can either post here or else email me on historyvsmaybrick@gmail.com (they will remain private - I only post emails where I have been given permission to do so).

Ike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Iconoclast,

Stick with it. You'll get there in the end.

Simon

[rjpalmer]

Hi Baron-- I see that Caz is asking you how old you are, and is showing clear irritation at your attempts to find various initials in the crime scene muck.

But there's an old post of hers that says exactly the same thing--that she could readily imagine people looking for all sorts of initials--and finding them--in the crime scene muck.

Meanwhile, this is another beauty:

The comparison between the words used in the diary and the mythical FM in that photo is both faulty and illogical. As you point out yourself, it's easy enough to see all kinds of marks that could be interpreted as letters, if you've a mind to do so, and it was inevitable that the diary's references to 'the whoring mother' and initials 'here' and 'there' would send its readers off in search of any such clues. So the nearest marks to anything resembling the letters F and M were bound to be seized upon regardless.

And because the diary's references cannot be compared neatly or directly with these specific marks...

How about d) the references don't compare with those specific marks because maybe they were never meant to?

And yet, in a feat of amazing disconnect, she sits idly by while Ike and Ero (and apparently Keith?) argue that any modern hoaxer would necessarily have to have been in on the conversation between Simon and Martin...

...even while elsewhere admitting that such need not have been the case, since Simon and Martin were only referring to alleged traces made in dirt on the back wall.

Clearly it is not true that the hoaxer needed to have been in cahoots with Simon or Martin, or RWE, nor does even Caz believe this herself. Yet, for some reason, the impression is being made that there is a greater need to explore a comment made by Martin Fido 25+ years ago, than there ever was to competently investigate Barrett's confession back in 1995 when the trail was still warm.

RP

[rjpalmer]

And yet you just can't stay away, RJ.

Fair enough. When I see such errant nonsense being posted week after week, year after year, I feel the need to post, even though I know it's a waste of time.

The most galling of your claims is the on-going and repetitive taunt that there is no evidence that Barrett ever attended the O & L auction.

Of course there isn't. This lead was never competently investigated by Feldman's team until many years later...after the receipts were pulped!

And yet you use their own failure as evidence that the auction was a fantasy.

Even now you cling to the the 1990 date given by Barrett in his affidavit---what I prefer to call Mike's 'Korsakov' date--rather than the date that was actually documented---1992.

It was a documented FACT that the Barrett's had gone shopping for the red diary in March 1992, not 1990. Barrett explicitly states that it was ''too small' and thus he went looking for a better diary at an auction house.

Yet, instead of checking the records for 1992, the only person who actually bothered to check with O & L used the 'Korsakov' date of 1990, even though it should have been obvious from the existing documentation--Anne's receipt-- that this was wrong.

Yes, this is particularly galling. The exposure of this obvious hoax could have been wrapped up in 1995, but Anne Graham successfully misdirected Feldman's team, convincing them that she had ownership of the diary since the 1960s. And because of this, they wrongly believed Mike's confessions were a non-starter and didn't even bother to make a comprehensive investigation until the records were pulped.

And I'm also supposed to believe that since you have personally met Anne Graham that you know all about her, even though you wrote an entire book defending her account of having seen the diary since the 1960s--even producing a photo of where she supposedly had hid the diary in Goldie Street---all of which you now admit was a string of lies that you believed for years. So tell me again, why should I believe that your opinions about Anne Graham are now accurate?

[The Baron]

Don't go away Roger

Your posts and contributions here are much appreciated



The Baron

[Scott Nelson]

The photograph doesn't tell you how deep those wounds are, and if they didn't hit a main blood vessel you will not expect a massive bleeding, adding to that the panic adrenaline shot while defending herself, their will be a vasoconstriction which in turn reduces the bleeding.

Well, I'm not a doctor, so I don't know. But it occurred to me that if her heart was removed first, the blood flow from the subsequent mutilations may have been partially arrested.

[Simon Wood]

There's no F-in MJK1



Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Herewith three examples of MJK1.

The first, in sepia, is the original. I have done nothing at all to it.
The 2nd, is in B&W, with a sharper contrast etc
The third, in Grey, again with sharper contrast etc

On all three examples.. You can very clearly see there is NO "M" or "F" on the wall.
This, remember, is the original. I've made no erasure nor have I edited the photographic content in any way, just the colour and contrast.

Now, Iconoclast. Argue on. If there is no F, or M on the wall... It tells you that the photograph used for the Diary was one which was NOT the original, and therefore doctored.

You can't make sandcastles out of paper. You need the original material.

Phil

[Phil Carter]

And here, those same three photos, just zoomed in.
No "M" or "F" or both on the wall in the original photograph of MJK1

Phil

[Iconoclast]

And here, those same three photos, just zoomed in.
No "M" or "F" or both on the wall in the original photograph of MJK1

Phil

Well - as is always the case when we get these "Here's some examples of MJK1/MJK2 which clearly show there is no 'F' and 'M' on her wall" (by the way, your agenda was given away by the fact that you twice referred to the iitals as 'M' and 'F' (as if that makes them even less likely) - the initials 'F' and 'M' are very easy to see.

The trick is to just look at the 'M' - it's really easy (everyone else bar naysayers seems to be able to do it, and even naysayers admit they can see at least the 'M', Martin Fido for example had no problem whatsoever), it's very obvious where it is (it never moves!) and from the distinct 'M' it is simple to see the outline of the much-weaker 'F'.

Honestly, Phil, I could have saved you a lot of work. People have been trying what you tried for years. Don't worry, you'll get your congratulations posts from RJ, Simon Wood, et cetera, but the rest of us will just sit bemused and wonder if you're just being wilfully myopic.

PS Many thanks for posting such good examples of the 'M' and 'F' (which appear in reverse order on Kelly's wall, obviously) - the only time you can't see it is when you post an almost blackened-out photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy!

Best wishes,

Ike