One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

It's true that Anne initially attempted to stop Feldman and his researchers from prying into the private lives of Mike Barrett's relatives (and she got angry phone calls from her sister-in-law about it) but this in itself brings up an interesting point. Why was Mike's sister so convinced that Anne could put an end to it? Why on earth did she assume that Anne would know anything about the diary that Bongo Barrett had brought off an electrician in a pub, or would have any influence over the mad capped Feldman?

I'm surprised RJ was unable to answer his own question, unless he hasn't picked up very much about Feldman's tactics and strength of character. He was pestering anyone he had a phone number for, but most of all he wanted to speak to Anne and he didn't have any contact details for her. He would have bent the ears of those he phoned, leaving them in no doubt that he believed Anne had the answers he sought, so it was pretty much guaranteed that her sister-in-law would have come off the phone from him, believing Anne must have known something.

The duped are always the most hesitant to admit they've been duped. The psychology is not hard.

Well that certainly explains why people still cling like limpets to Mike's lying claims to inside knowledge of the diary's creation.

I actually have more sympathy for the conman in this instance, than those who lined up to be conned. Mike was in a desperate state when his marriage broke down and he never really moved on from the loss of his wife and daughter. No doubt his misery was largely self inflicted, but all his false confessions from June 1994 were symptoms of genuine grief.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

I'm surprised RJ was unable to answer his own question, unless he hasn't picked up very much about Feldman's tactics and strength of character. He was pestering anyone he had a phone number for, but most of all he wanted to speak to Anne and he didn't have any contact details for her.

Obviously, I don't agree with your all-too-convenient assessment.

From his own book, it is clear that Feldman had a crank theory that Barrett was a secret Maybrick and that diary had come down through the Barrett family lineage. He and other researchers harassed the Barretts with unwanted calls, and in exasperation Mike's sister called Anne in the hopes that she would call off the dogs. Why would she assume Anne had that ability?

Are you suggesting Mike's sister needed Anne's input to prove that she herself and her brother weren't secret Maybricks?

As always, you'll accuse me of 'reading too much into it,' but I recently noticed an old and interesting post by Paul Begg who also found it highly suggestive that Mike's sister would turn to Anne Graham at this juncture--with the obvious implication that Mike's sister knew that the hitherto lady in the shadows had more knowledge than she pretended.

When I get the time, I'll see if I can track it down.

[rjpalmer]

Hello again, Caz.

I'd like to transfer your recent comments (about Anne Graham) made over on JTR Forums to this thread to keep our discussion in one place, and especially because you were responding to comments that I made over here to begin with. Your full comments can be found at the link below, Posts #66 and #67:

The Inconvenient Truth of The Maybrick Watch - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century (jtrforums.com)

My argument was that there is no way in hell that Anne Graham would have come forward from her relative obscurity (having already left Mike Barrett some months earlier) to make herself the center of attention by telling her 'in the family' provenance' had she known or even only vaguely suspected that her estranged husband had received the diary as stolen goods, because it would have left her vulnerable to instant exposure or even blackmail had the parties that sold the diary to Barrett resurfaced or had been traced. Indeed, I think it would have been an utterly crazy and reckless thing for her to have done.

In response, you argued:

"Remember that she was willing to make this claim on the Bob Azurdia radio show, in interviews, on television, and in her book. Later, Feldman and Harrison also broadcast this story far and wide, and yet she was still willing to stick with it....

"Anne Graham felt safe enough to tell these tales, and the only way she could have been safe is if she and Mike had nothing to do with the diary's creation. Feldman had dismissed the electricians as liars and swindlers, but if she still suspected the diary was stolen property, so what? She wasn't the thief, and could not be held responsible for what Mike did or didn't know when he brought the old book into their home. If anyone was ever unwise enough to claim that they stole it and passed it on to her ex husband, that would be for the self-confessed thief and his suspected receiver to worry about. As I say, Anne was already free and clear of the latter."

Try as I may, I can't make heads or tails of this strange line of reasoning. I can appreciate that you might believe that Anne had nothing to fear from a man that you believe was lying, but how on earth could she have had nothing to fear from the REAL culprits? The inconsistency in your argument is as clear as day.

Your suggestion is that a woman lying through her teeth would have had nothing to fear even though three different investigative bodies--Harrison's, Harris's, and Feldman's--were all actively investigating the diary's provenance and at any moment could have traced Barrett's alleged purchase of the diary to Eddie Lyons, which would have immediately destroyed Anne's budding friendships with Feldman, Skinner, etc, as well as reveal her to be a liar on the national stage. Ditto had they resurfaced of their own volition.

And if you don’t like hearing this from me, perhaps you would prefer to hearing it from yourself:





Cleary, the Caz of 2000 was arguing that Anne would have been petrified–'shaking like a leaf’--had she not been telling the truth on Radio Merseyside, etc.

But now that you acknowledge that Anne was indeed telling audacious porkies, your argument changes to Anne having nothing to fear from anyone---be it electricians, Barrett, or the three investigative teams of ‘experts.’

This is obvious nonsense. Anne knew she was ‘free and clear’ to spin her tales because no one was ever going to prove the diary came from Battlecrease or from Eddie Lyons...because it didn't. And no electricians were going to resurface, either, because they had nothing to do with the diary other than a minor attempt to make a few bob off of Feldman.

Anne also knew that it would be a very easy matter to convince Feldman, Smith, and Harrison that Barrett was too illiterate to have written the diary by himself because they already believed in its authenticity and sophistication.

The only time Anne was ‘free and clear’ was the moment that she told Harold Brough that her husband got the diary down the boozer and that she knew nothing else. That should have been the end of the matter.

Instead, the supposedly ‘free and clear’ Anne made the bizarre decision to come forward and weave what you now acknowledge to be an audacious banquet of pork pies—even on the radio---and even though this should have left her “petrified.” Nowhere, to my knowledge, do you explain this bizarre behavior and I can only conclude that you must think Anne is a shameless opportunist---an opinion I do not share.

I think she was running scared because Barrett had dropped her in it, and the 'in the family' provenance was her only way to defuse Barrett’s genuine confessions.

I'm still intrigued by the bizarre suggestion that Anne Graham would have been 'entirely exposed to both blackmail and instant exposure' if one of the Battlecrease electricians had decided to resurface after she told her story in July 1994.

They have resurfaced with their various accounts, over subsequent years, and one might say they never went away.

They haven't resurfaced and they did go away.

Instead, they were actively chased down by Skinner, Linder, and Johnston, and denied any involvement in a theft.

Anne had nothing to fear from them--either blackmail or instant exposure—because she knew they couldn’t touch her. And why might that be? Blackmail and exposure only work if the party in question has dirt, and there was no dirt to be had--on their end.

Anne must have known that.

That's my belief, and I've seen no rational reason to believe otherwise.

[caz]

In my opinion, the Battlecrease provenance is just a tale suitable to be told around a campfire on a spooky autumn night...

This is the problem with forming opinions based on an incomplete grasp of all the documented circumstances and witness accounts. Not RJ's fault that he doesn't have easy access to every single scrap of relevant information, in context and ordered chronologically. But since he knows this to be the case, he might be wiser to wait for his knowledge of the subject matter to catch up before airing any further opinions on it.

Mind you, it's hardly surprising that RJ has to believe the Battlecrease provenance has no legs, because the alternative would be an admission that he has been duped by Mike Barrett. And that would never do.

...but for the record, how did the early diary researchers know that Barrett was still a daily fixture at The Saddle in March 1992? His drinking buddy Tony Devereux had now been dead for months and it is not unheard of for people to slow down their visits to a pub when that happens. The experience is no longer the same.

The reason Mike walked all the way to the Saddle on weekday lunchtimes in term time was to have a pint or two before collecting Caroline from school. That was most probably how he first met Tony: school run first; Tony second.

Further, Jones tells us that at least one of the electricians didn't even own a car and had to use public transport. What did Lyons own?

One was a young trainee, who didn't have his own transport, while Eddie used his own car and was able to offer lifts on occasion.

He denied knowing Barrett, and since Barrett was part of the lunchtime crowd and Lyons was employed, this is not hard to believe. They would have kept different pub hours.

This is seriously old news, as RJ knows. I have posted on several occasions that Eddie had been working full time hours over at Skem, Monday to Saturday, from December 1991 right up to and including Saturday 7th March 1992. The job was then put on hold and resumed - in Eddie's unexplained absence - on Friday 13th March 1992, leaving four days free for the first stage of the storage heater work in Battlecrease. This work was carried out on 9th and 10th March and Eddie remembers being sent there to help out.

Was Lyons supposed to have dropped everything in mid-shift to race off to a pub in hopes that Barrett would have been there on that particular day? All of this is wild speculation based on the not very jaw-dropping fact that Dodd was having some work done on his house on a day when Mike Barrett called a literary agent.

If RJ had been paying attention he'd know that nobody is suggesting that Eddie 'dropped everything in mid-shift to race off to a pub' where he hoped to see Mike. It was Arthur Rigby's 'shift', while Eddie was only lending a hand because he was at a loose end. His local was the Saddle and he lived on Fountains Road [as had Tony], so it's completely plausible that he was able to leave Riversdale Road after a couple of hours [the trainee only did two hours on the Monday, so he may have cadged a lift] and took the rare opportunity for an afternoon pint, where Mike was having his usual. It was the first time Eddie had set foot in Maybrick's old house before returning to Fountains Road, and the first time on record that the diary was spoken about. Mike's story was that he first saw the diary in Fountains Road. As with most liars, there are many instances where Mike combined his lies with truths and half-truths - not only to try and make the story more convincing, but also to help him remember it and keep it straight.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

From his own book, it is clear that Feldman had a crank theory that Barrett was a secret Maybrick and that diary had come down through the Barrett family lineage. He and other researchers harassed the Barretts with unwanted calls, and in exasperation Mike's sister called Anne in the hopes that she would call off the dogs. Why would she assume Anne had that ability?
Are you suggesting Mike's sister needed Anne's input to prove that she herself and her brother weren't secret Maybricks?

I can see that numerous posts follow but I can't let this one pass without comment because it is a brilliant example of how RJ Palmer thinks he's oh-so clever by taking the facts in a direction which suits his argument (which is fine), but then commits the cardinal sin (time and time and time again) of then challenging his opponent to explain how they can possibly rationalise his conclusions.

Honestly, dear readers, please bear this in mind every time he makes an argument. He builds it with his premises, then makes his conclusions, then assumes that his conclusions have such credibility that all before him ought to explain them for him.

To be clear, Caz's position made no claims that involved Mike or Lynne Barrett (or indeed any other Barrett) being a 'secret' Maybrick. Her position was quite different to this (and yet perfectly plausible). Palmer then presented his position as if it were fact and thus asks Caz to explain it for him which, of course, she has little hope of doing as it's not her argument to provide evidence or explanation for. When Caz then fails to answer the question, she is left looking evasive when - in reality - she's just confused about why the hell she's being asked in the first place.

It's a trick I have mentioned before. You'd all be wise to note it if you want to understand why his posts frequently frustrate with their twists and turns and his chucking in examples which often seem quite unrelated or even relevant and failure to adhere to logic whilst appearing (on the very surface at least) to follow some of the principles of reasoning. I think philosophers (perhaps one could confirm) would call it inductive reasoning - where you take the specific and from it you conclude the general even though the general may not necessarily follow from the specific and - in Palmer's case - seem rarely to do.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

My man in the Netherlands, young FDC, knowing of my general dilettantism regarding the watch, has sent me a montage of James Maybrick's Greatest Signatures. Take your pick which one is your favourite (mine is probably the one he etched into his watch, I think - call me crazy!). Although some might be awfully pedantic around the use of 'exact', I think we all can see that each of these is as 'exact' a match to one another as most peoples' signatures ever are, especially as the years pass and circumstances slightly alter.



As you can see, the resolution isn't very good so that's potentially left me rather short of making my point, but hopefully my dear readers will be able to see the point I am making (it's easier if you Zoom in, but I hate to suggest it as I'm sure I was advised by The Dark Lord Himself to Zoom in on his drainpipes and I'd hate to sound like I was endorsing any IT-related strategy of a man who wears tartan slippers).

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Was Lyons supposed to have dropped everything in mid-shift to race off to a pub in hopes that Barrett would have been there on that particular day? All of this is wild speculation based on the not very jaw-dropping fact that Dodd was having some work done on his house on a day when Mike Barrett called a literary agent.

Another brilliant example of Palmer twisting and shouting!

No-one said Lyons did what you describe. You describe it thus in order to mock your own suggestion (hoping that its inanity will rub off on Caz by implication).

And then you try it again with your statistics-defying "the not very jaw-dropping fact that Dodd was having some work done on his house on a day when Mike Barrett called a literary agent". It all sounds so convincing when you phrase it like that! But then we add in the dots and join them and we get, "the unbelievably jaw-dropping fact that Dodd (who owned the house James Maybrick died in) was having some work done under the floorboards of his house for the first time on record since Maybrick died and on a day when Mike Barrett - from Liverpool of all places in the entire world, a man who drank in the same pub as one of the electrician team - called a literary agent claiming to have a document which ultimately labelled James Maybrick as that quintessentially London criminal, Jack the Ripper.

It wasn't jaw-dropping at all. It was jaw-removing but you understate it so well in order to try to gain support for your ill-advised claim ...

[rjpalmer]

(it's easier if you Zoom in, but I hate to suggest it as I'm sure I was advised by The Dark Lord Himself to Zoom in on his drainpipes and I'd hate to sound like I was endorsing any IT-related strategy of a man who wears tartan slippers)

Hi Thomas.

The trouble is, when one zooms in on Lord Orsam's articles (not that I've ever needed to, though I tried it once just for jolly) the zooming actually works.

When one zooms in on the microscopic file you uploaded, it looks like this:





Still, I think FDC's offering admirably shows that the chicken scratched signature 'J. Maybrick' on the watch stands in suspicious contrast to how Maybrick really wrote his name, which in all of FDC's examples was either 'Jas. Maybrick' or the full 'James Maybrick.' So much for our unknown artiste working from a known exemplar.

The ineptness of the scratching also hamstrings J. Hartley's rather embarrassing admission that Maybrick's father was an engraver, don't you think? Or are we back to the arsenic explanation for the ineptness?

Neither is there a single example of Maybrick's letter 'a' looking like the idiosyncratic and delicately etched 'a' on the watch:






By the way, I was informed by email that the Skinner/Hartley photograph was identified by Robert Smith as having been taken by Albert Johnson, the watch's part-owner.

I wonder if it is possible that Albert, perhaps being an amateur photographer as opposed to a professional one, enhanced the signature with graphite shavings or something similar to make the signature stand-out since it looks so much darker than the high resolution one where the loop or double loop (as Hartley once mysteriously described it) is significantly different and far fainter, leaving me and others to wonder if it is actually part of the superficial scratches described by Turgoose, as opposed to the lower, 'rounded' etchings.

The following comment will no doubt upset you and send you into another tirade, but one could conceivably argue that, depending on how the theoretical graphite was applied, the photographer would have a certain amount of artistic leeway in how he presented the signature. Albert once made reference to Maybrick's will, so he must have been aware of it, or had been made aware of it, though he denied knowing about it prior to his fortuitous discovery of the etchings in front of eyewitnesses that had immediate access to a microscope.

We don't really know the entire story regarding the loop. It would take a re-examination of the watch under magnification to determine if the loop was 'sharp edged' or 'rounded and worn.'

And even that wouldn't resolve the other glaring differences in letter formation.

I'm surprised to see that you're screwing around on the message boards rather than watching England v. France.

Cheers.

[Aethelwulf]

My man in the Netherlands, young FDC, knowing of my general dilettantism regarding the watch, has sent me a montage of James Maybrick's Greatest Signatures. Take your pick which one is your favourite (mine is probably the one he etched into his watch, I think - call me crazy!). Although some might be awfully pedantic around the use of 'exact', I think we all can see that each of these is as 'exact' a match to one another as most peoples' signatures ever are, especially as the years pass and circumstances slightly alter.



As you can see, the resolution isn't very good so that's potentially left me rather short of making my point, but hopefully my dear readers will be able to see the point I am making (it's easier if you Zoom in, but I hate to suggest it as I'm sure I was advised by The Dark Lord Himself to Zoom in on his drainpipes and I'd hate to sound like I was endorsing any IT-related strategy of a man who wears tartan slippers).

Ike

Get over your pompous self. There is zero likeness. There are no letters on Kelly's wall. You've wasted how much of your adult life being sucked into this rubbish?

[FISHY1118]

Dare i say it, but this topic and the Never Ending defending of its legitimacy is bordering on nothing more than pure fantasy. Worthy of any Hollywood script writers imagination, who by todays standards could make this saga fit right in the with the Marvel comic book chain of rubbish movies were accustomed to seeing lately.

Diary + Watch = Big fat Hoax.

[Iconoclast]

Dare i say it, but this topic and the Never Ending defending of its legitimacy is bordering on nothing more than pure fantasy. Worthy of any Hollywood script writers imagination, who by todays standards could make this saga fit right in the with the Marvel comic book chain of rubbish movies were accustomed to seeing lately.

Diary + Watch = Big fat Hoax.

Dear Ethel and Fishy,

The trick when making such claims is to make them, stand back, maybe take a damp cloth to them, polish them up, make sure they're rock solid.

Oh - hold on, small thing (unlike the gap between the crossbar and Kane's pigeon-endangering second penalty last evening) - last thing is to just pop down on record the incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact or facts which actually drew you to make your claim or claims in the first place.

I think the two of you may - just may - have missed that last bit off?

Ike
Pompous for a ******* Good Reason

[Iconoclast]

Dare i say it, but this topic and the Never Ending defending of its legitimacy is bordering on nothing more than pure fantasy. Worthy of any Hollywood script writers imagination, who by todays standards could make this saga fit right in the with the Marvel comic book chain of rubbish movies were accustomed to seeing lately.

Diary + Watch = Big fat Hoax.

And - whilst it crosses my mind - are you able to clarify for us the difference between the Never-Ending Maybrick defending relative to, say, the Never-Ending Kosminski proposals, or the Never-Ending Druitt theories (need I go on, Never-Endingly?).

We get that you don't know anything at all about the Maybrick case but that this obviously makes you an expert on it, but maybe if you don't like the discussion you should just remove yourself from it?

There is a reason why I almost never post on any other subject (and - if I can help it - on any other thread), and it's not simply that this one is universally acknowledged to be The Greatest Thread of All in the history of Ripperonomy ..

Ike
More Genius than Mere Pomp Machine

[Iconoclast]

Hi Thomas.
Still, I think FDC's offering admirably shows that the chicken scratched signature 'J. Maybrick' on the watch stands in suspicious contrast to how Maybrick really wrote his name, which in all of FDC's examples was either 'Jas. Maybrick' or the full 'James Maybrick.' So much for our unknown artiste working from a known exemplar.

Just for more of that jolly that's going around (except in England's quiet and deflated homes), can I suggest that you actually try this for yourself? I'll remind everyone right now that the watch is erobitha's baby, and I am far too irresponsible to ever be left holding it, but - humour me, though I will be hard to humour for about another two years until the next brutal disappointment - could you get hold of something like the watch, and get hold of something like whatever Maybrick engraved his signature into his watch with, and see quite how felicitously your perfectly-consistent 'Prof. R.J. Palmer Esq.' over the long years of your life ends up on metal instead of parchment (Orsam's got all the slate, obviously). If you can keep your head whilst mere dabblers of the genre are losing theirs, blah, blah, long since out of copyright blah, And—which is more—you’ll be a [Hoaxer], my son! If you can actually produce a perfect rendition of the Palmer signature, then - and only then! - can you lecture us on the evidence of a hoax which lies in the nominal differences of scratches on parchment and metal.

The ineptness of the scratching also hamstrings J. Hartley's rather embarrassing admission that Maybrick's father was an engraver, don't you think?

Dear readers - he's doing it again, in plain sight! My own father was an electrician but I promise you, you would think twice before switching-on any light I put a plug on. It just doesn't follow, professor!

Or are we back to the arsenic explanation for the ineptness?

It doesn't matter, the nominal differences between parchment and metal do not require a categorical explanation unless you are determined to argue that the one is as easy to scribe on as t'other.

Neither is there a single example of Maybrick's letter 'a' looking like the idiosyncratic and delicately etched 'a' on the watch

And if this was all there was for us to argue about, whoopi-do, you've made your case, slap the handcuffs on Valerie Johnson (who dove the getaway car, I assume), and let's put the files away (or distribute them across the families of all the thieving senior policeman looking into the case). But soft! It isn't all we have to argue about. We also have the slightly bigger issue of a highly-felicitous signature, crammed into the limited canvas of a small gentleman’s watch (just in case anyone’s confused, Maybrick didn’t carry Big Ben [yes, I know it’s a bell really] around in his waistcoat pocket – his watch was really-rather-small-all-things-considered). This means that we can look at the big picture here and say, wowzer, look at that highly-felicitous signature of James Maybrick in that most implausible of places, brought to our attention by that most implausible of hoaxers who happened to have a brother wired on wacky-baccy and conclude that it would be a miracle of nigh-on unequalled scale if what we now see as a remarkable facsimile of James Maybrick’s signature were the mere hopeless articulation of an amateur with a big engraving thingy.

The following comment will no doubt upset you

[How would I tell the difference?]

and send you into another tirade, but one could conceivably argue that, depending on how the theoretical graphite was applied, the photographer would have a certain amount of artistic leeway in how he presented the signature. Albert once made reference to Maybrick's will, so he must have been aware of it, or had been made aware of it, though he denied knowing about it prior to his fortuitous discovery of the etchings in front of eyewitnesses that had immediate access to a microscope.

Honestly, Professor Plum, you need to get out of the conservatory a bit more often. Only you could make an issue of innocent old Albert Johnson showing someone a watch which turned-out to potentially be James Maybrick’s, without offering the immediate caveat to his startled workmates, “I am aware of his will, lads, or at least have been made aware of it – just putting that one out there in case anyone ever thinks I’ve deliberately kept schtum on that little corker”.

We don't really know the entire story regarding the loop. It would take a re-examination of the watch under magnification to determine if the loop was 'sharp edged' or 'rounded and worn.'

Personally, I don’t care. The loop on the ‘K’ is no different to any other part of the ‘K’ – it’s just Maybrick’s highly-idiosyncratic way of signing his name, and it answers for us the question of who Jack the Spratt McVitie, late of this parish, actually was. Get over it, man, the search was over a long time ago.

And even that wouldn't resolve the other glaring differences in letter formation.

Hell’s teeth, are you still at it?

I'm surprised to see that you're screwing around on the message boards rather than watching England v. France.

I wasn’t, but -in retrospect – I wish I had been …

Ike
Smarter Than a Professor - Who'da Thought it?

[FISHY1118]

Dear Ethel and Fishy,

The trick when making such claims is to make them, stand back, maybe take a damp cloth to them, polish them up, make sure they're rock solid.

Oh - hold on, small thing (unlike the gap between the crossbar and Kane's pigeon-endangering second penalty last evening) - last thing is to just pop down on record the incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact or facts which actually drew you to make your claim or claims in the first place.

I think the two of you may - just may - have missed that last bit off?

Ike
Pompous for a ******* Good Reason

Dear Ike

9298 post Ike !!!!! , what does that tell you ???? .You know what it tells me ? That all the arguments ''for'' in those 9298 post that have been countered argued over time that show much discrepancy, uncertainty and circumstancial evidence , that your theory [like Trevors organ harvesting theory] Can never prove James Maybrick 'was' for a fact Jack the Ripper . Please dont response with ''Prove he wasnt''...., were way past that game .

As i suggested to Trevor , i think its time you also start your post sentences with . ''In my opinion James Maybrick was , wasnt'' etc,etc ,

Any true Ripperoligist knows and excepts the fact there is no proof that any suspect mentioned on these boards was the famous Whitechapel Murderer .

No proof, just speculations and personnal theorys that all .

If we stick to them simple guildlines, debateing this case it will be a hell of a lot more pleasent experience.

[FISHY1118]

And - whilst it crosses my mind - are you able to clarify for us the difference between the Never-Ending Maybrick defending relative to, say, the Never-Ending Kosminski proposals, or the Never-Ending Druitt theories (need I go on, Never-Endingly?).

We get that you don't know anything at all about the Maybrick case but that this obviously makes you an expert on it, but maybe if you don't like the discussion you should just remove yourself from it?

There is a reason why I almost never post on any other subject (and - if I can help it - on any other thread), and it's not simply that this one is universally acknowledged to be The Greatest Thread of All in the history of Ripperonomy ..

Ike
More Genius than Mere Pomp Machine

Show me a Druitt , Kosminski thread that has over 9000 post that has a poster claiming they ''Were'' Jack the Ripper' the and ill go over there and post the same thing .