One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[rjpalmer]

Maybe one day you will actually put a full timeline on here to show us imbeciles (who dare believe no Barrett or Graham wrote it) exactly how Anne Barrett actually pulled it off - from start to finish.

First off, I don't accept your premise. Graham and Barrett didn't "pull it off." The diary was quickly dismissed as a fake, and the original publisher pulled out of the contract. It was dismissed a second time by a second group of document examiners.

It's a picky point, but let's not pretend that the mere fact that it was eventually published (albeit as an "investigation") amounts to evidence of a competent hoax outside the skills of Barrett and Graham.

As for timelines, read my above post. Study the chronology of Barrett's sworn affidavit of 5 January 1995 (he's obviously in a muddle about specific, dates---just stick to the chronology).

Finally, read David Barrett's article on the '11 day' span, but bear in mind that this refers to the creation of the physical diary.

There is no 'timeline' being kept from you--people have discussed it many times.

[Iconoclast]

Morning Dear Readers,

Last evening, watched the 1988 documentary The Secret Identity of Jack the Ripper introduced by Peter Ustinov and featuring old friends Martin Fido, Don Rumblelow, Bill Waddell, and even Melvin Harris as well as Jan Leeming in a London reporter role.

The Mary Kelly crime scene is described by Martin, and we see the familiar photograph. The ‘FM’ on her wall could hardly be clearer! I honestly think this could be the best yet - even clearer still on my 22" monitor (so presumably better still on larger monitors?). Here's a screen grab (really doesn't do it justice):



Check it out yourselves if you want – it’s at 40:30, and can be found at this link:

(86) The Secret Identity of Jack the Ripper | 1988 - YouTube

Now you can laugh at me as much as you want over my views on the scrapbook (as you all know, I totally don't give a f**k what anyone says about me), but you can't deny that Florence Maybrick's initials are on Mary Kelly's wall, so don't even think about starting to esle you'll be the WUM not I. These initials are the definitive link between the scrapbook and the crimes, along with Maybrick's actual (and rather idiosyncratic) signature in the gold watch; and it is these two aspects of the Maybrick case which categorically prove that he was Jack the Ripper.

Everything else we ever discuss is mere window dressing compared with what Maybrick keeps inside the shop ...

Ike

[Iconoclast]

As for timelines, read my above post. Study the chronology of Barrett's sworn affidavit of 5 January 1995 (he's obviously in a muddle about specific, dates---just stick to the chronology).

I honestly don't think you can get in a muddle about specific dates and yet still laud a load of mince such as Melvin Harris' January 5, 1995, affidavit which Mike Barrett duly signed 'cos he was pissed (UK version) as a 'chronology'. Chronologies are fundamentally determined by dates, and getting them 'wrong' by a factor of two years just three to four years later smacks of 'reinterpretation after the event' by the likes of Lord Orsam and his merry band The Acolytes of which you are lead guitar, RJ.

Ike

[FISHY1118]

Morning Dear Readers,

Last evening, watched the 1988 documentary The Secret Identity of Jack the Ripper introduced by Peter Ustinov and featuring old friends Martin Fido, Don Rumblelow, Bill Waddell, and even Melvin Harris as well as Jan Leeming in a London reporter role.

The Mary Kelly crime scene is described by Martin, and we see the familiar photograph. The ‘FM’ on her wall could hardly be clearer! I honestly think this could be the best yet - even clearer still on my 22" monitor (so presumably better still on larger monitors?). Here's a screen grab (really doesn't do it justice):



Check it out yourselves if you want – it’s at 40:30, and can be found at this link:

(86) The Secret Identity of Jack the Ripper | 1988 - YouTube

Now you can laugh at me as much as you want over my views on the scrapbook (as you all know, I totally don't give a f**k what anyone says about me), but you can't deny that Florence Maybrick's initials are on Mary Kelly's wall, so don't even think about starting to esle you'll be the WUM not I. These initials are the definitive link between the scrapbook and the crimes, along with Maybrick's actual (and rather idiosyncratic) signature in the gold watch; and it is these two aspects of the Maybrick case which categorically prove that he was Jack the Ripper.

Everything else we ever discuss is mere window dressing compared with what Maybrick keeps inside the shop ...

Ike

Yep I see it now , Blood Spatter images over
the top of a dirty scruffy shitty wall, in a little hovel of a place that Mary Kelly lived in .. Solved.

[Iconoclast]

Yep I see it now , Blood Spatter images over
the top of a dirty scruffy shitty wall, in a little hovel of a place that Mary Kelly lived in .. Solved.

Just to correct you, Fishy ...

Yep I see it now , remarkably articulate Blood Spatter images over
the top of a dirty scruffy shitty wall and yet perfectly visible, in a little hovel of a place that Mary Kelly lived in and called her home (don't be so pompous) .. Solved (obviously).

[FISHY1118]

Just to correct you, Fishy ...

Yep I see it now , remarkably articulate Blood Spatter images over
the top of a dirty scruffy shitty wall and yet perfectly visible, in a little hovel of a place that Mary Kelly lived in and called her home (don't be so pompous) .. Solved (obviously).

I think I had it right the first time ,copycat.

[rjpalmer]

Chronologies are fundamentally determined by dates, and getting them 'wrong' by a factor of two years just three to four years later smacks of 'reinterpretation after the event' by the likes of Lord Orsam and his merry band The Acolytes of which you are lead guitar, RJ.

This is the same superficial, garbled thinking that led Shirley Harrison to check the wrong dates with the auction house, Ike.

I'm beginning to think that there is something about the Maybrick Diary that specifically attracts people that love mysteries--but are completely hopeless at solving them.

By all means, we must rely on dates--but dates that can be independently confirmed.

If you would prefer to stick religiously to the date supplied by a man in a prolonged alcoholic bender (as interpreted by a second party--Alan Gray--) instead of what can be independently confirmed by documentation, than it might go a long way to explain why you spend your time sniffing for anagrams hidden inside the Goulston Street Graffiti or looking for modern hoax suspects among those present at a City Darts meeting back in the 1980s.

A key point is Barrett's attempt to purchase the raw material for his hoax.

As much as you and Caz and Hartley are in a constant state of frenzy to say the affidavit is all a load of bollocks, we know for a FACT that Barrett was describing a real event because the advertisement published on this behalf by Martin Earl in Bookfinder was traced by David Barrat.

Since the appeal duly appeared in print in Bookfinder, that is known as a "hard date." It can be confirmed.

Only a complete moron would instead to use Barrett's date --a man going through alcohol treatment and dialysis--to the one that is independently documented.

But of course, your comment wasn't really made in good faith, Ike. Nor is Hartley really interested in finding the truth, because the truth will lead him where he does not wish to go.

What is inadvertently humorous about your desire to stick to known chronologies is that you didn't have sod all to say about what Caz Brown posted yesterday--a transparent attempt to pawn-off a sample of Mike Barrett's writing skills from August 1994 -- fresh from when he was in and out of the drunk tank and in a context when he's trying to prove to Shirley Harrison that he can't write-- as evidence of his skills and abilities back pre-March 1992!

And really, what difference does it make? Is Caz really trying to post a sample of Mike's writing to disprove that Anne Graham couldn't have written the diary, or helped Mike to write it?

This tomfoolery can't be real. It's got to be a wind-up.

[caz]

I haven't checked (yet) in Christie and Morland, Caz, but I am reasonably confident that they too will have failed to record the painting on the occasion of Jim's 50th, and the walking tour in the early part of 1889.

Now, had those two events involved Florence Maybrick - the actual subject of all three of those books - I might have been slightly more surprised on discovering their absence. Even then, it would hardly have corked me, but expecting books on Florence Maybrick to lay a detailed trail of her husband's final seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, years of his life may have been an expectation too great even for those who appear to be pathologically desperate to find fault with the Victorian scrapbook.

Now, you might say that you (perhaps not you, but someone else) might argue that that is all by the way, that James Maybrick confessions ought to have mentioned his 50th birthday painting as well as his sojourn up the Brecon Beacons or wherever he went even if his wife's three biographers neglected to, but I would retort to you (perhaps not you, but someone else) that I would therefore (if these are the rules we are playing by) have expected him to have gone into at least some detail regarding his own birthday and those of his wife and children, that - indeed - he would have let us know what he got for Christmas off brother Thomas when he saw him in Manchester, and a whole host of other occasional memoranda (Easter, New Year, the cost of hansom cabs, the ready availability of freshly picked carrots even if no-one had ever up to that point used that expression, et cetera). The fact that he pretty much only ever records something if it relates in some way to his 'campaign' rather tells me that what went on at other times stayed at other times, like Ibiza when we were all a little younger.

Trust you're well, by the way.

Ike

Afternoon Ike,

Very well and fighting fit, thanks Ikeypoo.

However, I do think you are missing a trick. I mean, compared with 'Sir Jim' waxing lyrical about the gentleman born becoming the Whitechapel fiend when he suspects his wife of playing away, the notion that he would not think to mention in his own diary what he got for his 50th birthday besides indigestion, or all those wellies he ruined in Wales, working his way through the prettiest sheep, is surely a huge red flag, pointing directly at Anne Barrett as the main researcher and writer, when it dawned on her that expecting her husband to tackle the story, as a healthy diversion from the Saddle and the gee gees, was like expecting Boris Johnson to change overnight into the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Love,

Caz
X

[Yabs]

Morning Dear Readers,

Last evening, watched the 1988 documentary The Secret Identity of Jack the Ripper introduced by Peter Ustinov and featuring old friends Martin Fido, Don Rumblelow, Bill Waddell, and even Melvin Harris as well as Jan Leeming in a London reporter role.

The Mary Kelly crime scene is described by Martin, and we see the familiar photograph. The ‘FM’ on her wall could hardly be clearer! I honestly think this could be the best yet - even clearer still on my 22" monitor (so presumably better still on larger monitors?). Here's a screen grab (really doesn't do it justice):



Check it out yourselves if you want – it’s at 40:30, and can be found at this link:

(86) The Secret Identity of Jack the Ripper | 1988 - YouTube

Now you can laugh at me as much as you want over my views on the scrapbook (as you all know, I totally don't give a f**k what anyone says about me), but you can't deny that Florence Maybrick's initials are on Mary Kelly's wall, so don't even think about starting to esle you'll be the WUM not I. These initials are the definitive link between the scrapbook and the crimes, along with Maybrick's actual (and rather idiosyncratic) signature in the gold watch; and it is these two aspects of the Maybrick case which categorically prove that he was Jack the Ripper.

Everything else we ever discuss is mere window dressing compared with what Maybrick keeps inside the shop ...

Ike

Hi Ike.
To be fair, the same initials are on the Eddowes mortuary photo if you look hard enough, and once you see em you can’t unsee em.

Obviously they aren’t initials and couldn’t have been written by Maybrick, but there they are.
If I wanted to, I could probably up the contrast and add a different colour tone filter to make them stand out more.

[FISHY1118]

Hi Ike.
To be fair, the same initials are on the enhanced Eddowes mortuary photo if you look hard enough, and once you see em you can’t unsee em.

Obviously they aren’t initials and couldn’t be written by Maybrick, but there they are.
If I wanted to, I could probably up the contrast and add a different colour tone filter to make them stand out more.

[Iconoclast]

This is the same superficial, garbled thinking that led Shirley Harrison to check the wrong dates with the auction house, Ike.

I think Shirley Harrison was 'misled' by a date which can also be very much independently confirmed, but more of that in a moment, RJ.

I'm beginning to think that there is something about the Maybrick Diary that specifically attracts people that love mysteries--but are completely hopeless at solving them.

I'm beginning to think that you're just lazily and slavishly following the pronouncements of Your Master's Voice, Nipper. What we can prove conclusively (more of that in a moment) is that Barrett absolutely could not under your own rules of chronology have created the scrapbook in 11 days in April 1992. More of that in a moment, RJ.

By all means, we must rely on dates--but dates that can be independently confirmed.

I'm willing to accept this and - if it were not for your own theory of chronology - I would give you that Mike meant March or April 1992 when he put in his affidavit 'January 1990'.

If you would prefer to stick religiously to the date supplied by a man in a prolonged alcoholic bender (as interpreted by a second party--Alan Gray--) instead of what can be independently confirmed by documentation, than it might go a long way to explain why you spend your time sniffing for anagrams hidden inside the Goulston Street Graffiti or looking for modern hoax suspects among those present at a City Darts meeting back in the 1980s.

1) I'm happy to stick religiously to the chronology of the affidavit as determined by your own rules, RJ. But more on that in a moment.
2) Independently confirmed by documentation, yes. I like that idea, yes. Very much so, thank you. More on that in a moment.
3) My interpretation of the GSG is entirely Maybrick-centric. If he was not Jack, then obviously it's just another wee coincidence amongst the many which litter Maybrick's digital and hard copy pages. If he was indeed Jack, everyone would turn around and say, "Oh, okay, Ike's idea is almost certainly the correct interpretation". I wouldn't want anyone to think that I am committed to the veracity of the 'anagrams' (they aren't anagrams), but I am certainly committed to the remarkable coincidence they provide should it ever transpire that I am wrong about James Maybrick being Jack the Spratt McVitie.
4) Careful, RJ. You need to come up with some other interpretation of what you typed there because it is not even borderline slander: you are clearer accusing Keith Skinner, Simon Wood, and/or Martin Fido of fraud. Just saying, mate. You might want to quickly retract this (Admin could maybe help you there).

A key point is Barrett's attempt to purchase the raw material for his hoax.

I think you mean Barrett's attempt to acquire a doppleganger should the rightful owner of his newly-acquired scrapbook come knocking at his door with the polis in tow.

As much as you and Caz and Hartley are in a constant state of frenzy to say the affidavit is all a load of bollocks, we know for a FACT that Barrett was describing a real event because the advertisement published on this behalf by Martin Earl in Bookfinder was traced by David Barrat.

Yes, yes, yes. You are so right!

Since the appeal duly appeared in print in Bookfinder, that is known as a "hard date." It can be confirmed.

Yes, yes, yes. You are so right!

Only a complete moron would instead to use Barrett's date --a man going through alcohol treatment and dialysis--to the one that is independently documented.

We don't agree, but remember the point you're making here, RJ. More of that in a moment.

Or now ...



Now, we can skip the whole 'getting the date right or wrong' thing because under your rules, the dates don't matter if they are simply remembered. You like hard dates. The harder the better, probably, I'm guessing. So hard they might constitute a Code Red. You follow hard dates or else men die, etc.. So we can ignore the fact that Tony Devereux sadly died on August 8, 1991, because Mike's allowed to get dates as wrong as he likes under your rules. He was pissed-up so the dates don't matter. Only the hard dates become facts.

Anyone else spotted the problem here for Lord Orsam and The Acolytes, RJ Palmer on lead guitar? Mike provides us with a hard date. The diary was completed no later than August 8, 1991. Remember what Mike means by 'completed the Diary', dear readers:


See how Mike is making it clear that the actual physical writing of the scrapbook was done before Tony died? He doesn't say that Tony died in May early June 1990 and then he and Anne waited another two years (or even one year if he'd got the date of Tony's death right). The actual physical writing of the scrapbook, mistakes and all, occurred before Tony died.

Orsam (therefore his lapdog, Nipper) have to reinvent Mike's story so that 'writing the diary' means typing the diary into Mike's PC ready for transferring into an appropriate vehicle when such a vehicle was found and when they decided to go for it. But that is self-evidently not what Mike (the supposed author of the affidavit) means. By 'writing the diary' he means - surprise, surprise - writing the scrapbook, mistakes and all. And then Tony dies in August 1991, thereby buggering-up Orsam's hard-date theory of a hoax.

Shame. Come on, RJ, you must feel like a complete arse, do you not?

What is inadvertently humorous about your desire to stick to known chronologies is that you didn't have sod all to say about what Caz Brown posted yesterday--a transparent attempt to pawn-off a sample of Mike Barrett's writing skills from August 1994 -- fresh from when he was in and out of the drunk tank and in a context when he's trying to prove to Shirley Harrison that he can't write-- as evidence of his skills and abilities back pre-March 1992!

I haven't commented because I don't have anything to add to the debate. Apologies if that's a f**king crime now.

Ike

[rjpalmer]

I'm willing to accept this and - if it were not for your own theory of chronology - I would give you that Mike meant March or April 1992 when he put in his affidavit 'January 1990'.

Had you approached this with honesty, Ike, instead of an increasingly desperate attempt to prove that you are far too clever to have been fooled by the likes of Bongo Barrett and Anne Graham (newsflash: you have been!) you'd point out that Barrett's affidavit also gives a provably wrong date for the purchase of the red diary.

He also very obviously states that the purchase of the red diary preceded the trip to the auction house.

Of course, like a member of the Harrison/Feldman coalition, you ignore all that and rely instead on the dates supplied by a man in a near alcoholic coma.

Not wise, my friend, not wise, but I'm wasting my time here.

It is at this point that it becomes evident that the problem you face is not an intellectual one, but a psychological one. You can't bring yourself to look dispassionately and fairly at the evidence pointing toward Barrett and Graham. The reason is not hard to discern and involves the ego. Not being a psychiatrist, I'm afraid I can't help you overcome this hurdle, but I do look forward to your eventual recovery.

[rjpalmer]

4) Careful, RJ. You need to come up with some other interpretation of what you typed there because it is not even borderline slander: you are clearer accusing Keith Skinner, Simon Wood, and/or Martin Fido of fraud. Just saying, mate. You might want to quickly retract this (Admin could maybe help you there).

Thanks for the chuckle, Ike. I do enjoy a good laugh over my morning tea. Simon knows how to reach me.

I'm committing slander by pointing out that you and Hartley very foolishly tried to glean some obscure meaning from a conversation that Simon Wood had at City Darts back in the 80s?

The diary didn't even exist then, Old Boy. It didn't exist until well after Bongo Barrett hung up the phone with Doreen Montgomery. Nor does the diary even refer to any initials on a backwall.

The clue you tried to follow is as thin as the anagrams you are finding in Goulston Street.

Here's some more anagrams that can be worked out using that message:

Bongo Barrett
Robbie Johnson
Bill Graham

Have a great week, Ike. This has grown tedious.

[Iconoclast]

Had you approached this with honesty, Ike, instead of an increasingly desperate attempt to prove that you are far too clever to have been fooled by the likes of Bongo Barrett and Anne Graham (newsflash: you have been!) you'd point out that Barrett's affidavit also gives a provably wrong date for the purchase of the red diary.

Well I'm definitely far too clever full stop, RJ, but that's not the point.

Of course, like a member of the Harrison/Feldman coalition, you ignore all that and rely instead on the dates supplied by a man in a near alcoholic coma.

I think the average reader and above will have recognised that I was NOT relying on Barrett's dates but - as per the Palmer Strategy - purely focusing on hard dates.

In hard dates terms, he clearly articulates that the text in the scrapbook was placed there before Tony Devereux passed away (August 8, 1991) which means that Orsam's Magical Auction at O&L on March 31, 1992, did not see Brother Barrett in the pews.

How sad for all concerned. Except me.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike.
To be fair, the same initials are on the Eddowes mortuary photo if you look hard enough, and once you see em you can’t unsee em.

In principle, Yabs, this is very clever but I can't find any copy of this photograph where that level of detail can be discerned. Can you tell us where you sourced your photograph and - ideally - post the whole photograph, please?

Cheers,

Ike