Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    I was interested to see this comment on another thread:



    Gee, that rings a bell. Where have I heard that before?

    Oh, I know. Anne Graham said the exact same thing in her long statement to Paul Feldman.



    Anne is telling you what happened, Caz--and it even aligns with your own instincts--but will you listen?

    Graham is saying that the diary began as a story...a novella.

    But it was never meant for publication as a physical hoax--just as a story.

    Indeed, when she found out what Mike was planning to do with her typescript, she fought him physically on the kitchen floor.

    It's all right there in her statement. And Little Caroline had already described the same incident to Paul Begg.
    So remind me, RJ, about your order of events. If Anne fought Mike physically over his plans for 'her typescript', how and when did he manage to 'bully' her into transferring this by hand into 63 pages of the photo album? Did he poke her with the soft cushions, or make her stay in the comfy chair until lunch time, with only a cup of coffee at eleven? What a rotten swine! No wonder she capitulated. Any woman would. I can see now why you would have considerably more respect for her than many others do.

    Seriously though, isn't your blossoming theory just a bit hard for anyone to swallow - unless you are only trying to convince FISHY, who will seemingly swallow anything without tasting or chewing it first?
    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      Would you care to show that organ harvesting was not rife around mortuaries in 1888 along with the body dealers who were directly involved with mortuary staff in this lillicit trade in organs.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      I dont have too , I have Mary Kelly, who along with Chapman and Eddowes who had their organs removed at the murder scene by Jack the Ripper .
      'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

      Comment


      • Originally posted by caz View Post

        So remind me, RJ, about your order of events. If Anne fought Mike physically over his plans for 'her typescript', how and when did he manage to 'bully' her into transferring this by hand into 63 pages of the photo album? Did he poke her with the soft cushions, or make her stay in the comfy chair until lunch time, with only a cup of coffee at eleven? What a rotten swine! No wonder she capitulated. Any woman would. I can see now why you would have considerably more respect for her than many others do.

        Seriously though, isn't your blossoming theory just a bit hard for anyone to swallow - unless you are only trying to convince FISHY, who will seemingly swallow anything without tasting or chewing it first?
        You know what i wont swallow Caz ? ...... Stupid Theories and Smart Assses . So Behave and play nice.
        'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          Would you care to show that organ harvesting was not rife around mortuaries in 1888 along with the body dealers who were directly involved with mortuary staff in this lillicit trade in organs.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          Hi Trev,

          While I've got you, is there any chance of you and FISHY getting down and dirty for a mud wrestling match over the organ removals? Preferably on a more suitable thread?

          I'd buy tickets, and it would be a nice change from the unsettling image of Anne wrestling with Mike on their kitchen floor.

          Cheers!

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


          Comment


          • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

            You know what i wont swallow Caz ? ...... Stupid Theories and Smart Assses . So Behave and play nice.
            I'm not particularly partial to stupid theories myself, FISHY, or the smart arses who peddle them. As you may be able to work out from today's posts.

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


            Comment


            • Originally posted by caz View Post

              I'm not particularly partial to stupid theories myself, FISHY, or the smart arses who peddle them. As you may be able to work out from today's posts.

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              Good lets both remember that.
              'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

              Comment


              • I will if you will so will I.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                Comment


                • Originally posted by caz View Post
                  Did he poke her with the soft cushions, or make her stay in the comfy chair until lunch time, with only a cup of coffee at eleven?
                  Sorry, Caz, but I find your attempt at humor rather appalling.

                  Barrett was a drunk who, by Anne's own account, was emotionally and physically abusive. You've repeated her claims many times.

                  Suddenly you feel the need to make jokes about it? Was it a soft cushion that bruised her body?

                  Sorry to be blunt, but you never walked so much as an inch in Anne's shoes, and you have no idea what she may or may not have been subjected to, and what she may or may not have decided to do to humor Barrett and just make it from one day to the next without another knock 'em down, drag 'em out argument in front of her daughter.

                  Make light of it if you want, but when quizzed by Harold Brough, Anne's described the whole diary episode as a "nightmare."

                  I believe her.

                  Shirley Harrison, who was there at the time and I dare say knew Anne better than most, said that in the months that Anne finally had had enough and left Barrett she became "suicidal."

                  I don't think jokes about suicide involving tea and soft pillows would be appropriate, do you?

                  She was living in a nightmare and she was just reacting to the crazy events around her.

                  Her friend Audrey recalled a time when Anne showed up for work deeply upset, but couldn't talk about. It had something to do with her husband 'writing a book' (ie., creating a fraud).

                  There is no reason on earth why Audrey would have lied about it. This is what was actually going on behind the scenes, Anne was terrified, and it had bugger all to do with Eddie Lyons.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by caz View Post
                    So remind me, RJ, about your order of events. If Anne fought Mike physically over his plans for 'her typescript', how and when did he manage to 'bully' her into transferring this by hand into 63 pages of the photo album?
                    Fascinating.

                    You've been insisting for years that the diary is not in Anne's handwriting--you now suddenly insist that it must be if it is a modern fake (which, of course, it is)?

                    I didn't realize that David Barrat's analysis of the samples of Anne's handwriting had so thoroughly convinced you.

                    Moving on, let me put it this way.

                    If the diary is in Anne's handwriting--and it could be--I don't think this poses a problem. Not in the least.

                    Why would an abused woman, who was tired of fighting with her husband over his crazy and possibly criminal enterprise, finally cave-in?

                    Don't take my word for it--simply listen to Anne herself.

                    Maybe to humor Mike, knowing that he wasn't going to back down anyway, once he had an idea in his head?

                    Further, and more importantly, at this point Anne started to hope and believe (reasonably enough) that Mike's crazy scheme would not amount to anything, anyway. So why not humor him and avoid a fight?

                    In other words, helping Mike was easier than another shouting match in front of their daughter and Mike would find out soon enough that London publishers wouldn't be stupid enough to take 'The Diary of Jack the Ripper' seriously.

                    After all, isn't that exactly what Anne herself told Feldman?

                    Did you not listen?

                    Click image for larger version  Name:	Regret.JPG Views:	0 Size:	18.0 KB ID:	785783

                    Again, what she is saying is basically true.

                    Why wouldn't she have helped Mike? She thought the literary agents in London would have told Barrett to take a flying leap.

                    And again:

                    Click image for larger version  Name:	Regret 2.JPG Views:	0 Size:	14.7 KB ID:	785784

                    Translation: she eventually cooperated, to some extent, thinking Mike's scam would 'die on its own merits.'

                    Boy was she wrong.

                    No one could have been more shocked when it didn't.

                    So why did she sign the contract?

                    Anne's own words:


                    Click image for larger version  Name:	signed.JPG Views:	0 Size:	9.9 KB ID:	785785

                    "I just signed what Mike told me."

                    Sounds like a long suffering woman who has her head down and is just hoping against hope that people will come to their senses and it will all implode.


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post

                      Hi Trev,

                      While I've got you, is there any chance of you and FISHY getting down and dirty for a mud wrestling match over the organ removals? Preferably on a more suitable thread?

                      I'd buy tickets, and it would be a nice change from the unsettling image of Anne wrestling with Mike on their kitchen floor.

                      Cheers!

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      Believe me I would like nothing more, along with several others, or even a mixed match with you

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                        Your forgetting one very important thing .... He was a Cotton Merchant , who by your belief remove one of the most difficult organs in the abdomial cavity in 7 mins, when he could have choosen any other organ with relative ease. Its your Achillies heal im afaide, just as Mary Kelly is Trevors with his organ harvesting theory .
                        I don't think I am forgetting, Fishy.

                        You started those typing classes yet, mate?

                        James Maybrick was a cotton merchant, it is true, and I have addressed this point elsewhere. If you are going to exclude Maybrick because his surgical training was limited then you need to exclude every other candidate for Jack unless they were experienced urologists (which, I think I'm right in saying, none were).

                        Or you could just reintroduce all candidates whose hands could feel around for organs and who had a shiny knife to remove what they found. We've been over this, Fishy. Your point isn't strong enough.

                        Sorry i dont do long drawn out post, they bore me because they dont say anything.
                        Or because you don't have enough to say?
                        Iconoclast
                        Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                        Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                          Sorry, Caz, but I find your attempt at humor rather appalling.

                          Barrett was a drunk who, by Anne's own account, was emotionally and physically abusive. You've repeated her claims many times.

                          Suddenly you feel the need to make jokes about it? Was it a soft cushion that bruised her body?
                          Oh spare me the phoney sympathy card, RJ. Who is the one who thinks Anne was in up to her neck in fraud with Mike, then pretended she found the whole Jack the Ripper thing tasteless and had only contempt for the ripperologists, who would inevitably be crawling all over the 'novella' she had produced - with barely any help from her husband?

                          Sorry to be blunt, but you never walked so much as an inch in Anne's shoes, and you have no idea what she may or may not have been subjected to, and what she may or may not have decided to do to humor Barrett and just make it from one day to the next without another knock 'em down, drag 'em out argument in front of her daughter.
                          Were you not calling for evidence, only the other day, for the real James Maybrick thumping Florie into submission, not just once, but on 'numerous' occasions?

                          What evidence do you have for Anne being subjected to what you need her to have been for your theory to work - beyond the word of someone you are accusing of lying her head off from day one, and continuing to lie her head off long after she had rid herself of her turbulent tyrant of a husband? How many fights did Caroline say she witnessed? Why would she have cause to remember that one, but no others?

                          Again, spare me the crocodile tears. They won't wash away your murky suspicions about what was happening in Goldie Street before 13th April 1992.

                          Make light of it if you want, but when quizzed by Harold Brough, Anne's described the whole diary episode as a "nightmare."

                          I believe her.
                          So do I. With great hairy knobs on. The diary finally destroyed a marriage that Anne had been trying to keep going for her young daughter's sake. But she left Mike months before he claimed to have written it himself. That was just one more reason for her to curse the day he ever brought the bloody thing into their home. You must think she was as thick as pig manure not to foresee a nightmare if her part in their downfall was being the brains behind the creation of 'Sir Jim'.

                          Shirley Harrison, who was there at the time and I dare say knew Anne better than most, said that in the months that Anne finally had had enough and left Barrett she became "suicidal."

                          I don't think jokes about suicide involving tea and soft pillows would be appropriate, do you?

                          She was living in a nightmare and she was just reacting to the crazy events around her.
                          But that only makes it less likely that she would have done what you accuse her of two years earlier, and not anticipated that it would come back to bite them both - in a way that was fatal to family life. Did she not know her husband at all??

                          Her friend Audrey recalled a time when Anne showed up for work deeply upset, but couldn't talk about. It had something to do with her husband 'writing a book' (ie., creating a fraud).
                          Or co-authoring a book about the diary with Shirley, which he was finding quite beyond him, causing more and more tension at home? Or is this a catch-all term, meaning that anyone 'writing a book' can be said to be creating a fraud?

                          There is no reason on earth why Audrey would have lied about it. This is what was actually going on behind the scenes, Anne was terrified, and it had bugger all to do with Eddie Lyons.
                          How do you get from 'deeply upset' [no doubt with her husband's increased drinking and erratic behaviour] to 'terrified'? Terrified of what? That the Barretts would inevitably be exposed as hoaxers before long? If Mike had wanted to do that, and had that bleedin' auction ticket, she might have had cause. But this is 2022, if you hadn't noticed, and despite all Mike's efforts between 1994 and 1999, and the efforts of all his little helpers ever since, it hasn't happened, has it? How long did she stay terrified for? Would she be terrified again to read your latest theory on here? Or would she sigh and shake her head, thinking again what massive bellends those ripperologists are?



                          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                            Fascinating.

                            You've been insisting for years that the diary is not in Anne's handwriting--you now suddenly insist that it must be if it is a modern fake (which, of course, it is)?

                            I didn't realize that David Barrat's analysis of the samples of Anne's handwriting had so thoroughly convinced you.

                            Moving on, let me put it this way.

                            If the diary is in Anne's handwriting--and it could be--I don't think this poses a problem. Not in the least.

                            Why would an abused woman, who was tired of fighting with her husband over his crazy and possibly criminal enterprise, finally cave-in?

                            Don't take my word for it--simply listen to Anne herself.

                            Maybe to humor Mike, knowing that he wasn't going to back down anyway, once he had an idea in his head?

                            Further, and more importantly, at this point Anne started to hope and believe (reasonably enough) that Mike's crazy scheme would not amount to anything, anyway. So why not humor him and avoid a fight?

                            In other words, helping Mike was easier than another shouting match in front of their daughter and Mike would find out soon enough that London publishers wouldn't be stupid enough to take 'The Diary of Jack the Ripper' seriously.

                            After all, isn't that exactly what Anne herself told Feldman?

                            Did you not listen?

                            Click image for larger version Name:	Regret.JPG Views:	0 Size:	18.0 KB ID:	785783

                            Again, what she is saying is basically true.

                            Why wouldn't she have helped Mike? She thought the literary agents in London would have told Barrett to take a flying leap.

                            And again:

                            Click image for larger version Name:	Regret 2.JPG Views:	0 Size:	14.7 KB ID:	785784

                            Translation: she eventually cooperated, to some extent, thinking Mike's scam would 'die on its own merits.'

                            Boy was she wrong.

                            No one could have been more shocked when it didn't.

                            So why did she sign the contract?

                            Anne's own words:


                            Click image for larger version Name:	signed.JPG Views:	0 Size:	9.9 KB ID:	785785

                            "I just signed what Mike told me."

                            Sounds like a long suffering woman who has her head down and is just hoping against hope that people will come to their senses and it will all implode.

                            What a load of cobblers.

                            What is your experience of wives in Anne's situation, if you are right about her being the brains behind 'Sir Jim'?

                            I only think of her as the one holding the pen in your scenario, because it would make even less sense - if that's possible - if there was a third party.

                            Who would your third man/woman be, handwriting this thing between 31st March and 13th April 1992? If you don't have one in mind, just say so.

                            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                            Comment


                            • I expect Anne thought exactly what Mike did, when he first saw the diary - that it was someone's idea of a joke.

                              She was an intelligent woman, and would not automatically think it could be real. Someone's attempt at a novella, perhaps?

                              Let Doreen sort it out.

                              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                                I don't think I am forgetting, Fishy.

                                You started those typing classes yet, mate?

                                James Maybrick was a cotton merchant, it is true, and I have addressed this point elsewhere. If you are going to exclude Maybrick because his surgical training was limited then you need to exclude every other candidate for Jack unless they were experienced urologists (which, I think I'm right in saying, none were).

                                Or you could just reintroduce all candidates whose hands could feel around for organs and who had a shiny knife to remove what they found. We've been over this, Fishy. Your point isn't strong enough.



                                Or because you don't have enough to say?
                                Your not getting off the hook that easy Ike , you havent address that point at all , you avoided it . Im not talking about other suspects am i? ,just Maybrick the cotton merchant with no medical background or knowledge thats been produced .Yet was able to remove one of the most difficult organs in the abdominal cavity in around 7 mins when he could easily have taken any number of other organs

                                Ill say this much, youve put all your eggs into one basket with the Watch and Diary and totally ignored this mystery .
                                'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X