One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

all of the above is totally irrelevant because there are no initials, crucifixes or caricatures, just what the gullible fool mind wants to see.

Crucifixes and caricatures, I 100% agree with, but you will lose your audience if you keep persisting with the initials not being there (or 'initials' as you prefer them).

Obviously, we all understand why you have to say the initials aren't there. We aren't stupid. But maybe you don't realise quite how transparently weak your argument is. How can we demonstrate this? Well, by reminding you that even scrapbook detractors accept that those two initials are on Kelly's wall. Why on earth would they do that if they can't see them or if they are not there to be seen? What sort of parallel universe do you populate that you cannot see what people who share your more general views on Maybrick can see? Are they suffering from some sort of ironic pareidolia ? Just a few posts ago, c.d. accepted that those letters appear to be there.

Why are you so different that you can't see what everyone else sees?

You don't have to say that you accept that they are letters but it would enhance your credibility massively if you simply accepted that they appear to be there.

I'm guessing you won't though which is probably all we need to know about the position you take on Maybrick.

Ike

[Ms Diddles]

Yes, you are quite right, Ms. Diddles. I was merely pointing out that Maybrick himself was the cause of her infidelity.

As an aside, I highly recommend "The Four Winds" by Kristin Hannah. Fictional account of what a woman went through during the Dust Bowl and The Great Depression in 1930s America. Fantastic book.

c.d.

Thanks, c.d.

I'll have a look!

[Iconoclast]

Well I hope I don't have a "gullible fool mind" but there is a huge difference between "what appears to be" and what actually is there on the wall.
For instance, I can see the image of Jesus on a grilled cheese sandwich. Does that mean I believe that it is his actual image? Of course not.
I think confirmation bias comes into it much more than being gullible.

c.d.

There is gullibility in the world and there is confirmation bias in the world, of course, but equally would you claim that all such claims - every single one of them - must by definition be gullibility or confirmation bias? If - as you must - you answered 'No' to this question, then how can you assume that any one example is gullibility or confirmation bias? Is it not a confirmation bias of your own which determines your position here? You can't have it both ways.

Of course, we aren't talking Jesus on a piece of toast though, are we, c.d.? We aren't talking about caricatures of Sickert. We aren't looking at clouds and forming passing images in our minds. We are looking at shapes drawn apparently in blood looking for all the world like an 'F' and an 'M' - the very two letters (in their correct order, mark me) that the Victorian scrapbook predicted would be found in Kelly's room.

Just in case you are unclear about that, this is not confirmation bias nor is it gullibility. It's just seeing what appears for all the world to be there without seeking psychological Get Out of Jail cards to avoid having to confront what this actually means. Let me remind you, you say yourself that you can see those shapes: should we therefore assume that this is some perverted form of confirmation bias on your part - seeing what you say is not there?

[c.d.]

Let me clarify -- I am not saying that the letters F and M appear to be on the wall. What I am saying is that what appears to be the letters F and M are on the wall. Big difference.

[rjpalmer]

If I'm wrong about any of this, Boris Johnson will still be PM next week.

That didn't age well.

It's Monday and BoJo is still Prime Minister.

[c.d.]

We are looking at shapes drawn apparently in blood looking for all the world like an 'F' and an 'M' - the very two letters (in their correct order, mark me) that the Victorian scrapbook predicted would be found in Kelly's room.

Drawn in blood is a conclusion with no evidence to support it.

But I also see a caricature on the wall which you simply want to dismiss. Could this be bias on your part? You can't have it both ways either dismissing any marks on the wall which don't support your narrative.

Did the scrapbook predict that the initials would actually be found in Kelly's room or does it simply discuss initials? And if they are initials, why do we not see them at other murder scenes?

c.d.

[Iconoclast]

Let me clarify -- I am not saying that the letters F and M appear to be on the wall. What I am saying is that what appears to be the letters F and M are on the wall. Big difference.

I will accept either version. We all know what we can see.

[Iconoclast]

We are looking at shapes drawn apparently in blood looking for all the world like an 'F' and an 'M' - the very two letters (in their correct order, mark me) that the Victorian scrapbook predicted would be found in Kelly's room.

Drawn in blood is a conclusion with no evidence to support it.

The very quotation you cite makes it clear that I said "apparently drawn in blood". 'Apparently' is like 'appear': both imply something without confirming it. It doesn't matter whether Florence's initials are drawn in blood - I just stated what seems a rather obvious conclusion but it doesn't form any plank of the argument whatsoever. It was just a little detail.

But I also see a caricature on the wall which you simply want to dismiss.

I'm not sure I have formally dismissed it? I have accepted the principle even though I personally am not sure to what you allude. I imagine I'm not the only reader to accept that you are referring to something you can see without necessarily being able to see it themselves.

Could this be bias on your part? You can't have it both ways either dismissing any marks on the wall which don't support your narrative.

There are lots and lots of marks on the walls (and on other walls) but only one prediction.

Did the scrapbook predict that the initials would actually be found in Kelly's room or does it simply discuss initials?

Well, you can work this one out for yourself. Within four consecutive pages in the scrapbook where the sole topic is the carnage he inflicted on Kelly's cadaver, he states (more than once) "An initial here, an initial there, Will tell of the whoring mother". Do you not know this already? Let me help you here: what you now need to do is to reply along the lines of "So the scrapbook doesn't actually say the initials are on the wall?" And then you say "Also, this implies that the initials are not actually together". I look forward to you saying it. Just to get ahead of you, though: the piece of doggerel is really very obviously meant to refer to initials Maybrick left in Kelly's room. It's really not as ambiguous as detractors desperately wish the English language could be flexed sufficiently to argue. Somewhere in Kelly's room, Maybrick left his wife's initials. We have one photograph. Just one. And yet we see shapes which appear to be her initials on the wall. What a ******* miracle! Also, we see a huge 'F' carved into Kelly's arm. And we see her legs forced up like a crude and highly inarticulate 'M'. And that's just in the one photograph in which anything can be made out! (The second photgraph is crap, obviously, from that perspective, as it's just the gore on the table.)

And if they are initials, why do we not see them at other murder scenes?

See, I find arguing so-called points like this embarrassing. It's childish. You can't wish away Maybrick's decision to leave his wife's initials in Kelly's room by suggesting that there is no evidence he did so anywhere else, outside, where time was short. This is where you turn Jack into the cardboard cut-out at Madame Tussauds. You treat him like a one-dimensional monster with single-minded, linear drives. James Maybrick was a man. Impassioned. Self-centred. Evil. Despite this, he did things humanly - as we all do - with all the irrationality and spontaneity we all display from time to time. He left us what he left us - oh, and by the way - how do you know he didn't leave any initials at any other murder scenes?

Seriously, people, get a ******* grip.

[rjpalmer]

It has been suggested many times over the years that the hoaxer (female, by the way, if you are RJ Palmer) had simply been ahead of the game

Ike's delusions about 'FM' have grown stale and need not detain us further, but I would like to very briefly address the above misrepresentation.

I do not believe the 'hoaxer' is Anne Graham. Tom knows this. He likes to misrepresent people; it is part of his schtick.

As I have pointed out several times, Anne told Harrison, Montgomery, and Feldman that she never wanted the diary (the hoax) to be published.

Those aren't the words of a hoaxer.

They could, however, be the words of an unwitting co-author.

Indeed, Graham even claimed that she physical fought with Barrett and tried to destroy the diary. I believe her. There is corroboration for this physical altercation in a statement Caroline Barrett spontaneously made to Paul Begg. There is also indirect corroboration for Anne being upset with Barrett's scam in an account given by her friend and co-worker, Audrey. I also find Anne’s behavior after Barrett’s initial confession to be highly suggestive.

That doesn't make Anne the hoaxer. It makes her an unwitting accomplice in one of Barrett's scams, just like those who unwittingly sent Barrett their artwork in the Loot Magazine scam.

Thus, despite Ike’s misrepresentations, I am not accusing Graham of any crime. There is nothing illegal about creating a fictional diary. Selling it is another matter--but that was on Barrett.

I'm no lawyer, but I have often wondered if Barrett sidestepped this crime, too, by transferred the ownership of the hoax to Smith for a one-pound note. Who was going to press charges, Smith?

[c.d.]

Seriously, people, get a ******* grip.

I agree completely but probably not for the same reasons as you.

And with that, I will bow out of this discussion. You have to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. I just can't be arsed anymore.

c.d.

[rjpalmer]

I'm no lawyer, but I have often wondered if Barrett sidestepped this crime, too, by transferred the ownership of the hoax to Smith for a one-pound note. Who was going to press charges, Smith?

We are told by the authors of Ripper Diary, among others, that Graham was angry that Barrett had sold the diary to Smith for a pittance.

Some might construe this to mean that Graham was a greedy opportunist and wanted more money, but is this the only explanation?

I think it could mean that she believed--rightly or wrongly--that Barrett had crossed a line. He was no longer seeking to publish a literary hoax--or a theory dressed up like a diary--but had crossed the line into actually selling a hoax, albeit for such a measly amount, and that that might expose them legally.

However, I think I am right in saying that she never fully explained her anger about this.

[rjpalmer]

Hi RJ,

Come, come, young man. Are we not also awaiting your explanation of how Robbie Johnson managed to obtain Maybrick's signature? I think your followers deserve to know how Robbie contrived so remarkable a conjuring trick, don't you?

So, you think Robbie is the only possible hoaxer, if hoax it be? Interesting.

My explanation is simplicity itself, Ike. As with "FM," I think you are seeing things. I don't think the hoaxer of the watch was imitating Maybrick's handwriting.

The similarities are entirely superficial; the signature is written just as hundreds of thousands of people would randomly write the word Maybrick.

The M is formed differently; the A is formed differently; the rest of the letters are entirely inconclusive and unconvincing; the C is entirely wrong; the loop flourish you think you see on the final K is possibly not there. I think it is actually an inept X shape, and the loop is part of the superficial scratches on top of the etching. One can see another, fainter mark below it, but an examination of the watch under magnification would clarify matters.

Thanks for the info, by the way. You aren't suggesting that Anne Graham is actually credited as Jones's co-author, are you? That would indeed be a startling development. It is odd that there is no information about this publication. I checked Amazon.uk, and Mango Books. It's not even stated who the publisher is in the announcement of the conference. All rather mysterious.

[Iconoclast]

Seriously, people, get a ******* grip.

I agree completely but probably not for the same reasons as you.

And with that, I will bow out of this discussion. You have to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. I just can't be arsed anymore.

c.d.

No sweat, c.d.. I totally get it - it's **** when people actually counter your argument or show the limitations of your knowledge on the subject for what they are.

Don't worry, dear readers. Ol' Ike won't be giving up as easily ...

[c.d.]

No sweat, c.d.. I totally get it - it's **** when people actually counter your argument or show the limitations of your knowledge on the subject for what they are.

Again, I agree completely, but as before, probably not for the same reasons as you. A word of warning -- patting yourself on the back like you do can be tough on the old rotator cuff.

c.d.

[Iconoclast]

I'm sure I'm not the only one of our dear readers, RJ, who has spotted the obvious flaw in your argument here. This signature of James Maybrick which is scratched into the watch looks fundamentally like the one on his marriage certificate. It may not be a perfect representation of it , but do bear in mind that he was writing into the back of a small watch with God knows what implement. What are the chances he'd do so good a job of it if he wasn't actually James maybrick and he'd simply taken a lucky punt?

Think of it this way. Imagine my neighbour Mr C. Palmer (honestly, you couldn't make it up) gave me a copy of his signature and I then asked every one of our dear readers to post an image of what they imagine his signature would look like (including you, RJ). How many do you think would get it so close that it would fundamentally appear (that word again!) to be his actual signature.

I put it to you that if we had 1,000 entries, we'd have zero successful fakes.

And yet we got One-Shot Robbie on the case back in '93 and he got it fundamentally spot-on, first time. Wow.

Time for me to exercise the old rotator cuff, I think, Old Boy ...

Ike