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
    By the way, Ike--today is the 10th.

    Only two months to the book launch where the public is promised definitive answers.

    How are you feeling? Hopeful? Suspicious? Nervous?
    This was posted back on 10th July this year.

    How are you feeling today, RJ? Did the public get what they were promised? Definitive answers?

    Or same old, same old?
    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


    Comment


    • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

      That didn't age well.

      It's Monday and BoJo is still Prime Minister.
      The above was posted on 11th July, four days after Bojo resigned.​

      For RJ's information, leadership contests don't happen overnight here, so Bojo was left in a caretaking role only, until Liz 'Lettuce' Truss could finally be elected PM, and she had no clue how to take care of anything or anyone, including her new job.
      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tab View Post

        I created the below for my own benefit but just wanted to confirm this is the signature you are referring to.

        Click image for larger version  Name:	maybrick sig com.jpg Views:	160 Size:	69.1 KB ID:	789515
        I'm still trying to catch up with all the posts I missed when they first appeared...

        Would it not have been more difficult to scratch all the curves on metal, whoever was trying to sign Maybrick's name?

        It's just one of the reasons why I find it hard to understand why a hoaxer working in May 1993, who had no idea what the diary author had written, or how it was written, because it hadn't yet been published, would have gone the 'curvy' route, instead of simply scratching the initials JM, or the capital letters of MAYBRICK, which could have been achieved far more easily due to the mostly straight lines involved. [See the word WATCH above, which makes my point for me. Only the one curve in C, which would be just as legible using three straight lines.]

        Those who see an X instead of a k, and argue that the faintly observable curve is not really there at all, might want to rethink this one due to the difficulty of making such a curve in the first place and the coincidence of there being even the slightest appearance of one in the right place.

        Clearly nobody set out to scratch an X where Maybrick's k should have been, so why could the result not simply have been the best that could be achieved by whoever was trying to scratch curves on metal with a metal implement?

        Browsing through some very old posts, I came across one by RJ, from September 2000, in which he wrote:

        'As a reformed vandal, I know it's difficult to scratch curves on metal'.

        He was referring to the initials CE, representing Eddowes, but the point has even more relevance to a signature, where curves can hardly be avoided.

        RJ will no doubt say that his 'vandal' comment shows he was launching into a joke, except that I'm missing the punch line regarding curves on metal and my sides are not splitting with mirth.

        If he was serious about the difficulty, what has changed? Why would he now seek to dismiss the faintly visible curve, just where the curve on Maybrick's k should be, as some sort of trick of the light, when it would inevitably have been tricky to execute cleanly and clearly, no matter who was attempting it?

        There is also the problem that we are all attempting to compare letters written and letters etched using only photographic evidence. Under the microscope it could become crystal clear whether or not there is a deliberate curve attached to the K, so speculating against it without that evidence might be a bit of a waste of time.

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        Last edited by caz; 12-07-2022, 05:13 PM.
        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


        Comment


        • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
          There's probably a reason the diary supporters don't want Eddie Lyons questioned by those who don't believe these accusations are valid. If I'm wrong about this, Tom Mitch, Caroline Brown, or Jay Hartley can feel free to send me his current whereabouts in a private message.
          I'm still catching up...

          Would RJ count Chris Jones among the disbelievers who some of us apparently 'don't want Eddie Lyons questioned by'?

          Chris was present with Keith and James Johnston in 2018 when Eddie agreed to meet them in the drive of Battlecrease to answer their questions. I don't recall anyone objecting to him being there. He did leave before the others, but that was up to him.

          RJ could always email Chris for Eddie's current whereabouts, if he is keen to hear yet another entirely predicable denial from the man's own lips.

          Love,

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


          Comment


          • Originally posted by caz View Post

            I'm still trying to catch up with all the posts I missed when they first appeared...

            Would it not have been more difficult to scratch all the curves on metal, whoever was trying to sign Maybrick's name?

            It's just one of the reasons why I find it hard to understand why a hoaxer working in May 1993, who had no idea what the diary author had written, or how it was written, because it hadn't yet been published, would have gone the 'curvy' route, instead of simply scratching the initials JM, or the capital letters of MAYBRICK, which could have been achieved far more easily due to the mostly straight lines involved. [See the word WATCH above, which makes my point for me. Only the one curve in C, which would be just as legible using three straight lines.]

            Those who see an X instead of a k, and argue that the faintly observable curve is not really there at all, might want to rethink this one due to the difficulty of making such a curve in the first place and the coincidence of there being even the slightest appearance of one in the right place.

            Clearly nobody set out to scratch an X where Maybrick's k should have been, so why could the result not simply have been the best that could be achieved by whoever was trying to scratch curves on metal with a metal implement?

            Browsing through some very old posts, I came across one by RJ, from September 2000, in which he wrote:

            'As a reformed vandal, I know it's difficult to scratch curves on metal'.

            He was referring to the initials CE, representing Eddowes, but the point has even more relevance to a signature, where curves can hardly be avoided.

            RJ will no doubt say that his 'vandal' comment shows he was launching into a joke, except that I'm missing the punch line regarding curves on metal and my sides are not splitting with mirth.

            If he was serious about the difficulty, what has changed? Why would he now seek to dismiss the faintly visible curve, just where the curve on Maybrick's k should be, as some sort of trick of the light, when it would inevitably have been tricky to execute cleanly and clearly, no matter who was attempting it?

            There is also the problem that we are all attempting to compare letters written and letters etched using only photographic evidence. Under the microscope it could become crystal clear whether or not there is a deliberate curve attached to the K, so speculating against it without that evidence might be a bit of a waste of time.

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            Ok, so looking at Tab's post you cite it seems I need to revise my thinking. I was thinking that a hoaxer must have practiced the signature to get a good copy. Now I can see that the signature on the watch does not bear the slightest resemblance to JM's. My revised view is that a hoaxer wouldn't have needed access to a document/signature of JM's at all.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
              It has been subsequently proven by David Barrat that Mike's bogus research notes, given to his literary agent in 1992 (which he claimed had been compiled in part from newspapers at the Central Liverpool Library) contains a substantial error that has only been traced to one source: Bernard Ryan's book--which Mike failed to name in the notes and who later claimed to have not even known about when quizzed by his collaborator, Shirley Harrison. Draw your own conclusions; I've drawn mine.
              I must have missed where it was proven that when Shirley asked Mike about Ryan's book, and he said he'd never heard of it, he had already copied this 'substantial error' straight from its pages into the notes, which he failed to hand over until the July or August of 1992.

              Mike was a liar, so while he could have pretended not to have heard of Ryan while handing over notes containing evidence to the contrary, RJ would need the hard dates to prove he has the correct order of events. Otherwise, Mike may simply have lied about when he made the first note, to fit in with his dodgy provenance story, and was still making notes right up until the summer of 1992, using Shirley's advice to consult Ryan's book.

              So there are three issues here:

              1) RJ gives no hard dates to prove which came first: a note taken from Ryan's book, or Shirley's question about it.

              2) As we know, Mike told many obvious lies that did him no favours, but were any of them fatally incriminating? If he did find Ryan's book, took notes from it and then stupidly told Shirley he'd never heard of it, so what? Does it prove anything beyond his unfailing ability to tell easily disproved lies, often for no discernible reason?

              3) It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Mike transferred an error from Ryan into his research notes, being none the wiser. And if the same error had found its way into the diary itself, even RJ would have packed his bags and left this place.

              Next.

              Love,

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


              Comment


              • Regarding Ike's display, I would suggest that it is quite misleading, particularly in reference to how Maybrick signed his first name.

                Here is how Ike presents the comparison:


                Click image for larger version  Name:	Ike's Demonstration.jpg Views:	0 Size:	12.1 KB ID:	801378



                The top image, taken from Maybrick's real signature, shows he that signed his name with a very stylized and unique "Jas" (James).

                But Ike's image should not include the horizontal and vertical line to the right (that sort of looks like an 'n') because that is actually part of the next letter: the vertical stroke of "M" for Maybrick. Including it makes the two images more similar than they actually are.

                The bottom image, taken from the watch, is even more misleading because the majority of those scratches are actually the initials of the victim Mary Ann Nichols: "M.N." which crowd Maybrick's signature.

                Here is the actual comparison:


                Click image for larger version  Name:	Actual.jpg Views:	0 Size:	8.5 KB ID:	801379


                There is no similarity.

                Shirley Harrison (who saw the etchings firsthand using the microscope that Robbie Johnson so conveniently owned) rendered the signature on the watch as "J. Maybrick," which is not how Maybrick signed his name. It is also "J. Maybrick" in the diagram that Albert Johnson presented to Paul Feldman.


                Clearly, the hoaxer got it wrong.


                Last edited by rjpalmer; 12-08-2022, 12:21 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

                  Ok, so looking at Tab's post you cite it seems I need to revise my thinking. I was thinking that a hoaxer must have practiced the signature to get a good copy. Now I can see that the signature on the watch does not bear the slightest resemblance to JM's. My revised view is that a hoaxer wouldn't have needed access to a document/signature of JM's at all.
                  Absolutely your call, wulfy. We can only use our own eyes.

                  All you need to do now is to try it for yourself and see if you can etch your usual signature in gold with an old tool and make it recognisable to others as your own work. Then invite them to see your etchings and actually prove something useful.

                  I do find it amusing that the watch is still being wrongly described as too small for a gent's watch, but the surface on which the signature is etched becomes the size of Streatham Ice Rink when arguing that the real James Maybrick would have had no trouble reproducing an undeniable example of his own signature there.

                  The argument that there are only so many ways to form the individual letters, and that a hoaxer didn't need an example of the signature, nor even guesswork, to etch each letter in the correct order and produce something legible as Maybrick, misses the point I have made a couple of times now, that signatures are very often illegible, which is why we see the name routinely printed beneath an indecipherable squiggle on letters and forms, to identify the person signing. Any hoaxer thinking of etching my husband's signature in gold, for example, merely by knowing his surname is Brown, would instantly fail with anything remotely recognisable as Brown. They'd do better trying to etch Alibaba, but they wouldn't know that without an example to guide them. That's just another reason why a hoaxer working in 1993 would have been infinitely safer just etching a JM or MAYBRICK.

                  Love,

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


                  Comment


                  • Sorry, Caz.

                    What destroys any argument that the hoaxer was attempting to imitate Maybrick's signature is the letter "a"

                    It is not sloppily made, nor is it attributable to the difficulty of etching on metal.

                    It is very neatly and carefully crafted yet looks nothing like the "a" in Maybrick's signatures.

                    And if the hoaxer had simply signed the watch JM, a certain fellow would be desperately looking for a murdered Jane Marple in Manchester, and there would be no way to convince Bob Davis that he had James Maybrick's watch.


                    Click image for larger version

Name:	maybrick a.jpg
Views:	113
Size:	5.9 KB
ID:	801384



                    Comment


                    • Caz - Does the writing on the watch diagram look like Albert Johnson's to you?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by caz View Post

                        All you need to do now is to try it for yourself and see if you can etch your usual signature in gold with an old tool and make it recognisable to others as your own work. Then invite them to see your etchings and actually prove something useful.
                        Seems like the argument from Maybrick camp is that the signature on the watch is JM's because it looks like his, and because it also doesn't look like his signature, scratching a signature on metal is difficult, so it is still his signature.

                        Comment


                        • Simply put, it is ALWAYS his signature, whether it looks like his or not.

                          Belief makes wonders.


                          TB

                          Comment


                          • The sig on the watch looks about as much as maybricks sig as there is an FM on Kellys wall. that is-none lol.
                            "Is all that we see or seem
                            but a dream within a dream?"

                            -Edgar Allan Poe


                            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                            -Frederick G. Abberline

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                              Adam Wood notes that the arguments and accounts given by Mike (that he and Anne forged the diary) during this 9 April 1999 luncheon and early the following day, 'were lucid and structured' and that he was 'confident and assured, fielding all questions good-naturedly and giving straightforward answers'.

                              Does that sound like Mr. Wood is describing a raving drunk?

                              Further, Wood contrasts this lucid and calm behavior with Mike's rambling and incoherence during the Cloak & Dagger meeting the following night, April 10th, asking 'Why the change?’
                              Two things here:

                              1) One of those straightforward answers was presumably the one where Mike says he forged the diary for James Maybrick, as he believes him to have been JtR.

                              Back on 5th January 1995, Mike swore to something quite different in his affidavit: 'I felt Maybrick was an ideal candidate for Jack the Ripper. Most important of all, he could not defend himself. He was not 'Jack the Ripper' of that I am certain...'

                              I wonder - which of those statements was made while sober, and which while drunk? And did either of them contain even a scintilla of truth?

                              2) It's a great pity, from RJ's point of view, that Mike's actions on 9th April 1999 didn't live up to his words. If only he had shown someone present - anyone - his auction ticket, as proof of purchase of the scrapbook, he'd have saved himself the humiliation of the following night's rambling incoherence, recorded for posterity, and achieved precisely what he had set out to achieve back in January 1995: revenge against the love of his life who had abandoned him.

                              What a wasted opportunity for Mike, and for all those he left at sea, still slavishly adhering to his script - or the parts they prefer - without the life raft of that little golden ticket, that would have rescued them from twenty-three more years of unrewarded faith in the word according to the most brazen liar outside of the Government.

                              Love,

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


                              Comment


                              • While we are taking trips down memory lane, I recently revisited this intriguing post by Melvin Harris.

                                Evidently there are TWO versions of the report by R. K. Wild about the watch, and they have significant differences. The version available on Casebook is what Melvin refers to as the more favorable "B" version, whereas in the "A" version, Wild was far more circumspect about the age of the etchings.
                                Author: Melvin Harris
                                Sunday, 04 February 2001 - 06:44 pm
                                FRESH FACTS ON THAT WATCH

                                The hoax watch has spawned its own batch of outlandish fallacies. From Mrs Harrison we have had constant assurances that Albert Johnson is a "decent and sincere man". In other words he could not possibly be party to a fraud. Yet she now admits that she kept silent about the character and criminal record of his brother, who was the prime mover behind pushing the watch. He also lied, about the scratches on the inside back of the watch. (see Feldman pages 33-4). Then, in her hardback, we have a statement from Robert Smith, and endorsed by her, which reads: "There were only two rational explanations. The watch was part of a recent conspiracy that produced both the diary and the watch; or I was looking at a second confession by James Maybrick that he was Jack the Ripper." But this stance was quite illogical since it excluded the rational position that the watch was an independent fake made by an opportunist who picked up the Maybrick/Ripper yarn from the Liverpool press.

                                From Caz we have the astonishing lines: "Apparently it would cost a 'modern' faker around 100,000 to get the same effect..." Where this quaint idea came from is a mystery. It is so out of touch with the facts that it reads like a leg-pull! The truth is that, given a suitable watch, the scratches could be created in under three minutes. The polishing out of the burrs could take as little as five minutes. The polishing grits could be bought for less than two pounds. Even different grades of emery paper could be used. But it does look as if some wire wool has been resorted to, as well!

                                (Rather than repeat the technical data that I have already put on screen I refer readers to my earlier postings which show why the watch scratches have never been shown to have been created prior to 1993.)

                                Since my earlier words were written I have secured copies of the FULL text of R.K. Wild's 1994 Forensic Reports on the watch. His work was said to have been completed and written up by 31st January 1994, but I now draw your attention to the odd fact that there were TWO versions of his findings. Version A is the product of either a manual or electric typewriter. Version B looks like the output from a daisy-wheel printer. Neither version carries a date, but a covering letter with version B is dated 9th March 1994, while version A carries a Fax date 8/11/94. Both versions contain paragraphs never disclosed by either Smith, Harrison or Feldman. These 'missing' words are wholly detrimental to their claims that the 'Maybrick' scratches are from the 19th century. You can now read the alarming bits never shown before.

                                Version B has a paragraph (fifth from the end) which reads:- "I understand that the watch surface was polished some six to ten years ago in an attempt to remove some of the scratches on the inside surface of the watch casing. This would have the effect of removing some of the surface layers from the original surface but not from the base of the scratch. This could explain why the silver enrichment at the base of the engraving is greater than on the original watch surface and would indicate that the engraving was made before the watch surface was polished. This would indicate that the engraving was certainly older than ten years."

                                The same paragraph in version A reads:- "I understand that the watch surface was polished some six to ten years ago in an attempt to remove some of the scratches on the inside surface of the watch casing. This would have the effect of removing some of the surface layers from the original surface but not from the base of the scratch. This would suggest that the silver profile does form in a short period of time and that little can be said about the age of the scratches from this."

                                Now consider the last sentence in both versions. Version A concludes by stating:- "...LITTLE CAN BE SAID ABOUT THE AGE OF THE SCRATCHES FROM THIS." But version B concludes:- "THIS WOULD INDICATE THAT THE ENGRAVING WAS CERTAINLY OLDER THAN TEN YEARS."

                                The conclusion in version A is valid and in line with the details of the rest of the report. It states that the scratches themselves offer no means of dating. But version B is invalid and represents a lapse from the clinical detachment that such testing demands. No scientist or analyst should ever take heed of any anecdotal material when reaching conclusions. In this case Dr Wild has not just been given an anecdote but a false date, since the admitted polishing by Mr Murphy took place in mid 1992, some eighteen months before Dr Wild ran his tests. So who gave him this false information? Mrs Harrison's paperback of 1994 gives the date of the polishing by Murphy correctly as 1992. Furthermore, how does Dr Wild know that the scratches mentioned by Murphy were ANYTHING to do with the Maybrick scratches? When originally interviewed, Mr Murphy said that he did not notice any initials or words whatsoever. And in a statement dated 20th Oct 1993 he said: "I am almost certain that the markings were present when the watch was sold but they were not markings that I would have taken notice of." Yes, there were markings on that watch when owned by Murphy, but these were marks made by clumsy handling and watch repairers. Add to this the fact that Murphy was stating beyond doubt that he never took notice of ANY markings.
                                Last edited by rjpalmer; 12-09-2022, 12:30 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X