One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

I've got a brief update from Keith Skinner regarding the 'research paper' Anne failed to get published in a peer-reviewed journal. He notes:

I know the report Martin is referring to because it was me who sent it to him - but I don't remember it being specifically commissioned by Feldman? Martin phoned me up to discuss the report and was staggered when I told him it had been prepared by Anne. But not having met Anne or knowing anything about her, why should he be staggered? That I think is the more pertinent point I regret not asking Martin at the time.

I asked him if I could quote him and - in giving his ascent - he also noted:

It's also worth adding that Martin Fido concluded that Anne could not have written the diary because she would be incapable of solecisms and making spelling mistakes. Martin also acknowledged the handwriting in the diary was not the same as Anne's.

I don't think that Anne Graham was a fool - unlike the man she married whose foolishness ruined his life. I can deal with her being well-educated (a Catholic convent, as I recall) and articulate (presumably a quality she had evolved as part of her usual employment) but not a hoaxer in any capacity whatsoever. I have not seen any evidence that she was so inclined.

All I've ever seen is inference, desperate leaning to one side of an argument, and the inconsistent ramblings of her alcoholic, bitter, and very twisted husband. To quote Mr Fido himself, "It's just not good enough".

By the way, I'll be steering well clear of Hadrian's Wall whilst ancient oaks are falling all around there. A metaphor for Barret-believers, methinks?

[Iconoclast]

He's claiming that we all see the 'FM' equally. I see it; you see it; Kenneth Rendell sees it. Some just won't admit it, because in Ike's words, they "can't-afford-to-have-those-initials-present-in-Kelly's-room."

I am certainly claiming that if you claim you can't see Florence Maybrick's initials in this photograph you should have a season ticket to Carstairs Station on the Glasgow or Edinburgh line:



Like Caz in 2003, you are welcome to think they are an illusion, but they are not an affliction of the single mind (that kind of worrying illusion), let's be clear. If you can't see that to which I am referring, you need a trip to Specsavers pronto.

And Caz's post bothers me not a jot. She has never said that she thinks the scrapbook is genuine and her comments in 2003 are the views of someone who believed that what was written in the scrapbook was only tangentially relevant to what we can see on Kelly's wall. As a non-believer, that's clearly what she would have said then and presumably what she would say now. I've borne a great deal more opprobrium (which is what you were implying it was) than that I have a fertile imagination. In relative terms, it was more of a compliment, and yet you have presented it as a criticism of sorts.

Nothing will stop me, RJ. I will not be deflected from this path whilst a single non-Maybrickian walks the earth. I owe it to mankind to ensure they are not wasting their time on the colour of Mrs Fiddymont's shoelaces on the day of Eddowes' autopsy, etc..

[caz]

Mike gets the written photo album from Devereux and decides it needs to be in a 'diary' format to be more believable. When he can't get a suitable diary, he crosses his fingers and hopes what he turns over will pass the muster.

Tony may have written the text in between photos and clippings to hide from prying eyes.

This is somewhat the same as your scenario above Caroline, except for Devereux.

Hi Scotty,

You do realise this is heresy, don't you? Where is the awesome auction in your reasoning? What were you thinking, to suggest it is mythical, and that Mike's diary dates back at least to a time before August 1991, while Tony was still with us?

We don't know that the diary was knocking about anywhere while Tony was alive, or that he ever knew about it. There is not a single mention before 9th March 1992 that such a diary might be about to raise its ugly head.

You rely solely on the changing stories of the Barretts for your scenario involving Tony. But you do have something in common with the auction faithful. They rely on a Barrett and a Barrat for their scenario.

Personally, I don't think Tony belongs in this tale of Liverpool, any more than the auction. The evidence for either is not just weak; it's non-existent. Both were raised from the dead to stand in as convenient alternatives to awkward truths.

Time to let them rest?

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Florence Maybrick's initials, as clearly predicted in James Maybrick's scrapbook

Hello Ike.

It's perhaps a good thing that you don't celebrate our American holiday up by Hadrian's Wall or wherever it is that you hang your hat; it only leads to overindulgence, heartburn, and the inevitable insomnia.

Anyway, I recently stumbled across a wise old post by a friend of yours, and saved it for this very occasion, for it speaks to this alleged 'prediction' in Maybrick's scrapbook.

I've heard that it is better to hear unpleasant news from a friend than from an enemy, and the smiley face was a nice touch. I bid you good night.

[rjpalmer]

Bogus theorists see noise. Good ones seek and see patterns. The Good cuts through the noise and finds the right notes or letters. The Bad adds more noise. (Ike calls it mud. I call it noise.)

Hello Lombro.

But that's not it at all.

You have completely misunderstood Ike's meaning.

He's not claiming to have superior pattern recognition; far from it. That's the last thing he wants to argue because people who start seeing things that others don't see end up picking oakum with Aaron Kozminski in Colney Hatch.

He's claiming that we all see the 'FM' equally. I see it; you see it; Kenneth Rendell sees it. Some just won't admit it, because in Ike's words, they "can't-afford-to-have-those-initials-present-in-Kelly's-room."

You see, it's not matter of eyesight; it's a matter of the 'status quo' refusing to acknowledge the undeniable: that Maybrick's bloody finger traced his wife's initials on Mary Kelly's wall.

One occasionally encounters a similar mash-up of bravado and paranoia in the comment section of Ed Stow's YouTube Channel.

The truth is overwhelmingly apparent, they boldly insist, but some must deny that truth to protect their hobby, their academic reputation, their own theory, their pride, or in a worst-case scenario, a lucrative side hustle of giving Jack the Ripper tours in East London once the sun sinks.

But I have to say this Devereaux theory, at least, takes into account of the science that says the document is old, older than 1992. So, it’s light years ahead of the no-accounting-for Barrett Hoax theory.

Surely if Devereux wrote the diary, it's only light month's ahead of the Barrett 'theory'?

If science is telling you that Tony Devereux wrote the diary in 1921 +/- 12 years, then I humble suggest that science is an ass. Tony was, as the saying goes, not yet a twinkle in his father's eye.

[Iconoclast]

The FM on the wall and the accompanying discussion is the perfect illustration of the difference between good theorists and people interested in the truth versus bad theorists and people who aren’t interested in the truth.

Bogus theorists see noise. Good ones seek and see patterns. The Good cuts through the noise and finds the right notes or letters. The Bad adds more noise. (Ike calls it mud. I call it noise.)

Asking for more data and couching your theory in a lot of “facts”, not to mention dropping names, is a sure sign of a humbug premise for the holidays.

Excellent post, Lombro2 (and not just because it is supportive of my position).

[Iconoclast]

The original version?
I recommend that you chase down Stewart Evans' dissertation on the provenance and history of the Kelly crime scene photographs.

I accept that 'original' was the wrong term - I meant the 'original' version as in the 'previous' version to which I frequently refer - you know, the one published in 1973 (twenty years before you think Barrett referred to the 'FM' on Kelly's wall which miraculously turned-out to be there, and really very very clear at that). I note that you refer to Farson as a 'pulp paperback' - nice trick, RJ: as ever, you use derogatory language to minimise the relevance of something really very crucial. Didn't work. I saw through it. Yet again. On behalf of my dear readers. I'm always here. Always watching.

There are two photographs.

There could be two thousand photographs. There could be two million. All we need is the Farson plate from 1973, twenty years before you think Barrett had a cunning plan to hoax a scrapbook of Jack the Ripper and target it at the one logical candidate we'd all been missing all these years - yes, a fairly prosperous middle class, middle-aged, celebrity murder victim, and stand-up Liverpudlian: what could possibly go wrong, eh?

We don't even need two photographs, RJ. What we need is for you and your ilk to explain how Florence Maybrick's initials are so very obvious on a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy with a lightbulb and a coffee stain and some dropped coleslaw and a bit burned off by an errant cigarette in 1963, etc., but nevertheless published in 1973!

It doesn't matter how many mud-laden deflections you attempt, you can't hide or blur those initials. Either Mike Barrett saw them and backward-engineered a hoax from them to James Maybrick and thence to Jack the Ripper (a minor miracle even with the assistance of his brilliant researcher-wife Anne) or else Jack the Ripper wrote James Maybrick's scrapbook for him (and we all know exactly what that would mean, don't we?).

That you prefer to hang your hat on an inferior copy is perhaps none too surprising.

I hang my hat on the any copy which shows us Florence Maybrick's initials, as clearly predicted in James Maybrick's scrapbook which was first mentioned on the day Eddie Lyons was under the floorboards at James Maybrick's last abode before the cold one six feet under.

I've known some ufologists who prefer the photograph of the saucer without the fishing-line running upwards towards the telephone line.

I'm sure you do, and I'm sure you 'put them right' too ...

But Caz is right. It's all just a tiresome gameshow...

What we do with the information we have has become a gameshow, RJ. Stop playing silly mind-games and twisting what information we have into some convoluted ball, and we could maybe play a different game altogether, well away from Jack the Ripper whose identity we have solved.

Eventually someone in Liverpool will set the record straight, and we'll see who gets to scrub the egg from their face.

I can tell you now, with absolute certainty, that it will be you and your ilk, RJ, not I.

[Lombro2]

Mike gets the written photo album from Devereux and decides it needs to be in a 'diary' format to be more believable. When he can't get a suitable diary, he crosses his fingers and hopes what he turns over will pass the muster.

Tony may have written the text in between photos and clippings to hide from prying eyes.

This is somewhat the same as your scenario above Caroline, except for Devereux.

Hi Scott,

I always wonder why you pick Devereaux out of all of Barrett’s lies? How would you explain Barrett switching to the Auction Provenance and leaving Devereaux out?

How does either of them know that the book was a guard book which could be used in a cotton merchant office. And that it could be written in by Jack the Ripper and then given back to the in-house clerk to put back on a shelf, as erobitha suggested. Either that or he just ripped out the office-used pages and gave them back to Lowry like that. (I now prefer ero’s idea. The author thought James would take a chance for that moment and let it go back on the shelf in his office.)

But I have to say this Devereaux theory, at least, takes into account of the science that says the document is old, older than 1992. So it’s light years ahead of the no-accounting-for Barrett Hoax theory.

[Lombro2]

The FM on the wall and the accompanying discussion is the perfect illustration of the difference between good theorists and people interested in the truth versus bad theorists and people who aren’t interested in the truth.

Bogus theorists see noise. Good ones seek and see patterns. The Good cuts through the noise and finds the right notes or letters. The Bad adds more noise. (Ike calls it mud. I call it noise.)

Asking for more data and couching your theory in a lot of “facts”, not to mention dropping names, is a sure sign of a humbug premise for the holidays.

[Scott Nelson]

Probably not. Never mind.

[Scott Nelson]

I don't have an old hoaxer, mythical or otherwise. I have some yet to be identified author who had the guard book first and the idea to use it for a secret diary second. I have not speculated on dates, beyond disputing that it could have been penned after 9th March 1992, with Mike playing catch-up: he has the diary content all ready to go on his word "prosser"; he contacts Doreen; and only then does he set about trying to obtain the right kind of book for the words, but with no thought of what he actually needs, to physically reflect what is ready to be written between its covers. Maybe it's just me, but this seems completely arse about face, and to my own deeply sceptical mind, the idea that Mike asked for a "diary", thinking he had to have something recognisable as a diary, in order to fake a serial killer's most secret and intimate thoughts, and then hit on a guard book completely by accident, which provided an almost perfect cover for 'Sir Jim', is absurd. It's far more likely when taking all the evidence into consideration that Mike did hit on the old book by accident, but without having previously wished for anything of the kind, nor any expectation of what he was about to receive, and what the hell was in store for him over the next couple of decades.

Mike gets the written photo album from Devereux and decides it needs to be in a 'diary' format to be more believable. When he can't get a suitable diary, he crosses his fingers and hopes what he turns over will pass the muster.

Tony may have written the text in between photos and clippings to hide from prying eyes.

This is somewhat the same as your scenario above Caroline, except for Devereux.

[rjpalmer]

The more I look at Farson 1973, below, the original version, not the let's-see-how-we-can-corrupt-this-to-the-advantage-of-our-argument-which-everyone-knows-is-because-we-can't-afford-to-have-those-initials-present-in-Kelly's-room

The original version?

I recommend that you chase down Stewart Evans' dissertation on the provenance and history of the Kelly crime scene photographs.

There are two photographs. The damaged one with the light blotch found by Donald Rumbelow in the City of London archives (referred to as MK1) and an original 'sepia' one returned to Scotland Yard in 1988 (MK2)

It's not merely a matter of comparing the same photograph. It's a matter of comparing the damaged photograph with the big white light blotch that Farson used to create the grainy second-generation version we see in his pulp paperback with a high-definition reproduction of the superior MK2 version. It's the light blotch that hides much of the definition we see in MK2. I think Mr. Clack tried to explain this to you, didn't he?

That you prefer to hang your hat on an inferior copy is perhaps none too surprising. I've known some ufologists who prefer the photograph of the saucer without the fishing-line running upwards towards the telephone line.

But Caz is right. It's all just a tiresome gameshow...without the prizes...between people who don't agree and will never agree. Eventually someone in Liverpool will set the record straight, and we'll see who gets to scrub the egg from their face.

[caz]

By golly, I think you've cracked the case, Lombro2!

Even though I have no idea what herb snips are, I reckon that's it, 'Mrs Snips, Case Closed'.

Now, where have we heard something like that before?

I had never heard of 'herb snips' either, Ike, but I do snip herbs using our regular kitchen scissors.

Lombro2 is close enough!

Now for the boring bit. Mr Brown is the chef in our house, while I do all the 'tidying up' - but that's where any similarity with Mike and Anne's skill sets begins and ends.

Preparing a meal helps my better half to wind down after work, while cooking just winds me up. I'm also not nearly as good at it as he is - apart from roast potatoes, scrambled eggs and toad-in-the-hole. But he does let me help by 'snipping' certain specific food items with the scissors. When he wants bacon rashers cut into small pieces for a coq au vin or similar, he now calls for "Mrs Snips". If he is using fresh herbs like tarragon or parsley, only "Mrs Snips" and her trusty scissors will do.

I'm deliriously happy with this arrangement so I have no desire to teach him how to work the dishwasher.

Love,

Mrs Snips
X

[Iconoclast]

Weird, isn't it?

You know, you might have a point, there, RJ, the more I peer at this massively overblown and badly-pixelated version of the below, the more I realise how weird it is that what isn't there appears to be there until such time as you make it so big there's nothing left to see. The more I look at Farson 1973, below, the original version, not the let's-see-how-we-can-corrupt-this-to-the-advantage-of-our-argument-which-everyone-knows-is-because-we-can't-afford-to-have-those-initials-present-in-Kelly's-room, the more I foolishly see what isn't there to be seen - or "nothing to see here, folks", as RJ loves to say! Where'd those pesky initials go, eh?

I see no ships!



'Enhanced', my arse!

[caz]

Yes, we should thank RJ and O for explaining to us the reason why the thieves fenced the document to Mike or more likely gave it to him to fence, thinking he’d know what to do.

If he wasn’t a writer, why give it to him? Why that and not the gold watch? Oh right! Now I get it, Roger. Should I also thank Orsam? Thank you Professor.

You guys are better Barrett Hoax theory debunkers than Caz is a Maybrickian!

I have often found myself rethinking stuff more critically, on account of one of Palmer's leap of faith assumptions, and have lost count of the number of times I have looked again at what actual evidence there is and seen things so much more clearly - and not in the way Palmer intended. It doesn't matter how strong an argument may sound on the surface, if it is based on a false or groundless assumption it's like a tedious daily game show - pointless.

Love,

Caz
X