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 FISHY1118 View Post
    No proof, just speculations and personnal theorys that all .
    Fishy,

    What's with the bold, mate - tell your fonts to 'Calm down, calm down'.

    They say you could stand all the philosophers in the world side by side and still not reach Accolusion (wherever that is); well, I'd like to paraphrase that rather surreal claim in saying that you could stand all the ripperonomists in the world side by side and you'd never reach a conclusion (so much better that way, don't you think?).

    So, "No proof, just speculations and personal theories, that's all?" is it? Right, everyone, let's all go back to Post #1 and start this whole thing again!

    PS If it is 'proof' you require, what - out of interest - do you aspire to for it? What would it look like? What is Ripperonomy hoping for one day? Would it be some sort of confession backed-up perhaps by a recognisable signature? Just spitballing here but maybe - just maybe - it's already out there (na-noo-na-noo) ...

    Ike
    Whose Ancestors Were Also Fish Once But My Lot Evolved Somewhat​

    Comment


    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

      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 .
      Show me a thread for any candidate with over 9,000 posts and I'll post on it too.

      There's a reason why most threads fade and die rather quickly ...

      PS It's because they're crap.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

        Fishy,

        What's with the bold, mate - tell your fonts to 'Calm down, calm down'.

        They say you could stand all the philosophers in the world side by side and still not reach Accolusion (wherever that is); well, I'd like to paraphrase that rather surreal claim in saying that you could stand all the ripperonomists in the world side by side and you'd never reach a conclusion (so much better that way, don't you think?).

        So, "No proof, just speculations and personal theories, that's all?" is it? Right, everyone, let's all go back to Post #1 and start this whole thing again!

        PS If it is 'proof' you require, what - out of interest - do you aspire to for it? What would it look like? What is Ripperonomy hoping for one day? Would it be some sort of confession backed-up perhaps by a recognisable signature? Just spitballing here but maybe - just maybe - it's already out there (na-noo-na-noo) ...

        Ike
        Whose Ancestors Were Also Fish Once But My Lot Evolved Somewhat​
        Ok Ike ill calm down on the font, you got me there , but im not sure anything else you wrote is worth commenting on . Ill stand by my previous post .
        'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

          Show me a thread for any candidate with over 9,000 posts and I'll post on it too.

          There's a reason why most threads fade and die rather quickly ...

          PS It's because they're crap.



          Or there is another theory that pretty obvious.
          'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
            brought to our attention by that most implausible of hoaxers who happened to have a brother wired on wacky-baccy
            It's interesting to see how quickly you latch on to every misdirection tossed in your direction by Caroline Brown without applying the tiniest morsel of critical thinking to any of it. It shows that you're not serious, Thomas.

            Robbie Johnson's arrest, conviction, and prison sentence had nothing to do with him smoking 'wacky-baccy,' despite the insinuations.

            Caz is weaving a bedtime story for your ears---and, as always, you listen and then quickly nod off to sleep. I doubt whether she knows whether Robbie smoked weed or not, and at any rate, that particular habit is irrelevant to our inquiries. Less irrelevant is the identity of the person to whom Robbie owed a large chunk of cash, as well as the identities of his secret and 'menacing' investors.

            But this isn't a real investigation and never has been. It's just make-believe.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
              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!
              More silliness, Thomas. I never suggested that an engraver's son would have the competency of an engraver, or that this ‘follows.’ As is so frequently the case, you blame me for the sins of your comrades.

              It was J. Hartley that felt the urge to toss in this fun-fact about Sir Jim’s father’s occupation (along with the phrase ‘just sayin')--even though, as you now acknowledge, its presence in our discussion is more embarrassing than interesting.

              I would ask J. Hartley himself what he meant by introducing this fun-fact, but he doesn't speak to me anymore. I suspect it was simply the equivalent of the weird comments that always precede a series of dot dot dots in Feldman's opus magnus---a vague insinuation that doesn't mean much of anything, really, but is thrown-in like a kitchen sink when the author realizes that his other arguments have failed to hit their mark.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                I notice that Christer Holmgren has posted a very interesting anecdote on JTR Forums. I hope he doesn't mind me reposting it here, and I'll supply a link at the bottom of this post.

                It's relevance to this thread will be readily apparent to many.

                "As the Missing Evidence was being shot, Edward Stow sat on information that family lore had it that Charles Lechmere was a very violent man. If I recall correctly, the source was a man called Dennis Lechmere.

                "However, before Dennis Lechmere offered this information, Edward had asked him and the rest of the Lechmeres at a gathering if anybody of them could provide any stories about the carman, what he was like and how he treated people. The answer was a unanimous "no".

                "Then Edward informed them that he was presuming that Charles Lechmere was actually Jack the Ripper, and having been given this information, Dennis (?) Lechmere changed his story and said that he now remembered that there had been stories about the bad and violent nature of the carman."


                My only question is: was Dennis an electrician?

                For those interested, the story has an interesting and relevant counterpart in Paul Feldman's The Final Chapter, p. 141-145.

                Thanks again to Mr. Holmgren for this enlightening anecdote about human nature.

                I should also add that, under the circumstances, Christer tells us that Dennis's claims were not passed on to the viewing audience.

                Post #36

                Inside Bucks Row 3rd Edition - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century (jtrforums.com)
                With his pants round his ankles, this was seriously the only question running round RJ's mind?

                Mine would be: was Dennis Lechmere a former scrap metal dealer?

                Under the circumstances that played out on 5th January 1995, Melvin Harris was similarly well advised not to pass on the claims made that day by Mike Barrett straight to the newspaper reading public.

                In the December, Alan Gray had made it clear to Mike that Melvin was putting on the pressure to make that infamous affidavit, and had implied there was money to be made on the back of it because all the papers would take it. Mike's motivation to do it may well have been strictly personal, but Melvin's was tied up with his professional reputation and Alan's was all about getting paid from any proceeds Mike's 'confession' might be expected to generate. All three were guaranteed to be disappointed by the total dog's dinner that was served up as a result.

                I am willing to bet that Mike could not have made and lodged that affidavit, or anything like it, on 12th April 1992. The potential for contamination, by all the knowledge and information he could be expected to accumulate after that date, right up until 5th January 1995, is just too great. He could not even have included Anne's 'purchase' of the little red 1891 herring - sorry - diary, back in April 1992, because the thing was still sitting there not paid for, and could have been returned unwanted if Anne had refused to sign that cheque the following month. Right from Baxendale's 'photograph' evidence and Harris's missing pages prediction, through to Shirley's 1994 paperback, with hints that Mike could use, to try and flesh out his forgery claims, including his supposed auction experience, he was spoon fed everything he could have needed to make a detailed, but completely false confession, with the addition of a good dollop of creative licence, which is what makes it totally useless as evidence, because there is no proof that he had the raw materials, in any sense, to have written any such thing when it mattered, before the diary made its debut. His various confessions could all have been cobbled together from other people's observations and opinions on the diary since April 1992. It's bleedin' obvious that this was the case with the watch, when he went too far and expected Alan Gray to believe he had forged that too. So why do people fall so heavily for Mike's claims regarding the diary's origins? He never did produce anything that could only have come from inside knowledge, and not derived from what he picked up later.

                I suppose it was predictable that RJ would make his comparison between Dennis Lechmere and Eddie Lyons in 1993, and forget all about Mike Barrett in 1995, but it's still a bloody odd oversight.

                Eddie could have told Feldman bugger all in April/May 1993, to convince him he had a confession worth paying for, if it came out of thin air. The diary wasn't yet published and hardly any information about it had appeared in the papers. How would Eddie have been able to describe the scrapbook, its size, physical condition or contents? What if its existence had been known about prior to March 1992, before Eddie had even set foot in Battlecrease? What if it had been seen and talked about before then? If he had made a false confession to finding it in Dodd's house, not knowing the answers to any of these crucial questions, how the hell could he have hoped to reel Feldman in for more than ten minutes? It was the fact that Feldman assumed it was already in Mike's possession by 1991, that led him to conclude the confession would have to be false and therefore worthless, when he obtained the P&R timesheets and could see no opportunity for Eddie or any of the crew to have found Mike's diary in the house. If everyone at the time had the same impression, that it had been seen by 1991, how would Eddie have known any different if he knew nothing at all?

                I wonder what a true confession by Mike would have contained, had it been written and lodged with his solicitor on 12th April 1992:

                Where and when he first saw the scrapbook.

                When and how it passed into his hands.

                Why he said he got it from a man who died in 1991.

                Why he used a false name for his initial call to Doreen, and why she referred to the diary as a find: 'finds like these don't grow on trees'.

                What his original intention was, when his eyes fell on a firm called Bookfinders, [which IIRC was advertised in the Yellow Pages], and why he was happy to give his real name this time.

                What Martin Earl said when Mike asked how many times he had been asked to find 'Fly Fishing', by J.R. Hartley.

                And very little else.

                Love,

                Caz
                X

                Last edited by caz; 12-12-2022, 04:00 PM.
                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                Comment


                • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                  In the normal scheme of things, when a man walks into a police station to confess to a crime and all he is able to do is to regurgitate the same false facts that were reported in the newspapers, the police soon realize they are dealing with a crank and not a murderer. And when the handwriting is not his...

                  Is there a bottom? Can we establish that, at least? Is there a rock bottom?
                  This one made me smile. I seem to recall Robert Smith being mocked for implying that facts could be false.

                  In the normal scheme of things, if a man walks into a police station to confess to a forgery he and his wife supposedly created together in April 1992, and all he is able to do is to regurgitate whatever he has since picked up about the questioned document from other sources, the police would realise they are dealing with a liar and not a real forger. And when the handwriting is not his or his wife's...

                  What did RJ say about rock bottom?

                  Love,

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


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post


                    Ah, I see. When "Maybrick" records a false fact it is because he has suffered memory loss from his mania and/or his ingestion of pharmaceuticals (and thus he has to rely on outside sources to "fill in the gaps") but when he gets it right it is because he is genuinely recalling a personal experience.

                    Kind of like Mike Barrett and Korsakoff's Syndrome!

                    Maybe we are getting somewhere after all.

                    But, as Mr. Hartley notes, we don't actually have any source for Maybrick suffering from mania or memory loss, while in contrast Shirley Harrison tells us that Barrett was diagnosed with "alcohol psychosis" and its resulting memory loss, and we further know from Mr. Birchwood that Mike also went through the debilitating process of kidney dialysis. And whereas the confessions of Maybrick cannot be shown to have been recorded by him, we do know that Barrett was responsible for his many statements, affidavits, taped conversations, etc.

                    I didn't realize until now that you and Mr. Hartley were so amendable to a more sophisticated explanation for the complications and contradictions we see in Mike Barrett's many confessions and retractions.

                    I think our work here is done.

                    RP
                    If RJ can't see the irony in his own words, I think his work is only just beginning.

                    Whether or not Mike got anything right in his affidavit of 5th January 1995, RJ believes he was genuinely recalling his personal experiences of creating the diary with the wife whose gift to him for Christmas 1994 was a divorce.

                    Is there anything about the physical diary that demonstrates that a Barrett, or a Graham, or a Devereux, or a Kane must have had some prior knowledge or involvement in its creation?

                    If there was never any intention to make it resemble Maybrick's handwriting, and RJ's theory is that it was never intended to be anything other than a fictional story, then there would have been no pressing need on the author's part to try and stick rigidly to the established facts about Jack's activities or Jim's.

                    RJ doesn't even know if one person was responsible for the handwriting as well as the composition, or if more than one person had a hand in it. But he is stuck in Anne Graham's groove and can't extract himself to look at his own picture without seeing her right there in the middle of it.

                    Love,

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


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post
                      With his pants round his ankles
                      A rather embarrassing metaphor for you to bring up, Caz, considering how thoroughly you were exposed in Post #9288.

                      When it comes to psychological insight, you've shown yourself to have no aptitude whatsoever.

                      Back in the 2000s, when you were one of the last people on earth to still believe Anne Graham's tall tales, you wrote (and I quote):

                      Click image for larger version  Name:	Dr. Fraud.jpg Views:	0 Size:	33.8 KB ID:	801568


                      Now that it has finally donned on you that Anne was indeed lying on the radio---and to the 'experts' as well as in print---your psychoanalytic musings have suddenly changed to:

                      Originally posted by Caroline Brown
                      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.


                      It is clear that your psychoanalytic musings flip-flop 180 degrees depending on which nonsensical theory you currently believe.

                      Anne lies would have either left her 'petrified' or with 'nothing to worry about' depending--not on Anne--but on what you believe.

                      The good news is that you can save a lot of time by not posting any further psychological musings. I, for one, won't be reading them because they clearly deserve a very wide berth.


                      RP

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                        I've never understood why you and Caroline Brown (and evidently Keith?) think this is a meaningful observation that should make us stop in our tracks. Yet this observation has been made hundreds of times over the past 25+ years.

                        The same woman who supposedly helped Mike 'tidy up' his articles in the 1980s was still living with Mike in March and April 1992.

                        Yet from what y'all write, one would think that Anne was living on the far side of Mars instead of the other side of the bed and sitting room. And she literally went on to create the finder's aide for the Maybrick material at the National Archives, as well as write the lion's share of a biography of Florence Maybrick.

                        The mental leap you refuse to make is most curious.

                        Most curious, indeed.

                        If a supposedly incompetent artist came forward with an obviously forged painting of John Everett Millais's Ophelia, I think it would be relevant that he was living with Dante Gabriel Rossetti, or even his sister Christine.

                        But apparently not.
                        Since my name has come up yet again, in a post addressed to Ike, I just wanted to say that while I get RJ's point, because I know what his theory is, he forgets it whenever it suits him, to refer to Mike loftily as a 'freelance journalist', and to take a swipe at anyone who describes him as the more humble ex scrap metal dealer. It's obvious why he does this, but it cuts no ice because Mike could only dream, merely posing as a journalist while Anne took on the requirements of the role. If Mike had been handy with a pen, but crap at the scrap metal game, with Anne doing the dealing for him, and the artefact had been a hotly disputed Henry Moore bronze, would RJ now be certain that she had been unwittingly duped into using Mike's recently purchased sculpting tools to have a bash at it, not dreaming he wanted to pass off her work as a newly discovered masterpiece?

                        RJ uses the tools he is given to create his theories, and he can't be blamed for that. But Mike and Anne, like Robbie and Albert, are/were real people, each with their own skill sets and weaknesses, motivations and opportunities, and RJ has almost no clue if any of them were made of the right stuff, to do what he is so certain they did between them, back in 1992 and 1993 respectively.

                        None of it is evidence of whodunnit, but RJ will carry on regardless, picking and choosing from any piece of information he can get hold of about these individuals, and they will inevitably be sculpted to match his own preconceived image of them as fakers.

                        In short, he is effectively faking his images of these people, using his own substandard raw materials in place of flesh and bone, but I doubt he will ever see it.

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        Last edited by caz; 12-13-2022, 01:15 PM.
                        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                          If an ex-scrap metal dealer who could have been living literally anywhere in the entire world, or at least anywhere in the United Kingdom, came forward with James Maybrick's scrapbook on the same day a guy was helping to lift up the floorboards at Maybrick's old home for the first dated occasion since his death 37,557 days earlier, I think it would be relevant that that guy turned out to take a drink or two in the same public house as our ex-scrap metal dealer, their living just twenty minutes walk apart and yet eight (EIGHT) miles away from Maybrick's old home.

                          But apparently not.
                          I don't think it hurts to see this one again, Ike.

                          We could add the fact that Mike's story named a guy who had lived on Fountains Rd before his death in 1991 - the same road where the floorboards guy was living on 9th March 1992.

                          Your post was very colourful, but not in the sense of making colourful, but entirely unsupported claims regarding Anne Graham's supposed knowledge on 9th March 1992, and alleged activities up to 13th April 1992.

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          Last edited by caz; 12-13-2022, 01:29 PM.
                          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                            Personally, having a more cynical view of human nature than you and Thomas, I wouldn't necessarily underestimate the sound of the Sugar Plum Fairies and Cash Registers were dancing in Smith's head. He thought he had the Diary of Jack the Ripper and all the fame and fortune that would go with it, but here was his forensic expert telling him the inconvenient and deflating news that the ink was too freely soluble and flowing for the diary to be genuine, so, in the words of Mr. Chittenden, Smith put Dr. B's report in his desk drawer and "forgot about it."
                            Oh dear, why was RJ still using the words of Chittenden here, to add his own spin to what he knows actually happened? Why does he need to do this? He knew very well that Robert Smith's hands were tied by Baxendale himself, who waived his fee in return for Robert's written agreement not to remember the damned report at a later date and take it back out of his desk drawer, to alert Chittenden or anyone else to what it did and did not contain, so that if Baxendale wanted to give Chittenden a very different story in 1993, he would be free to do so without the ghost of his recent past coming back to haunt him with the glaring and still unexplained change of opinion from 1945, as the earliest date he thought pen could have met paper, to a Sunday Times-friendly 1990.

                            As Ike already explained, Nick Eastaugh was asked for a second opinion, and had it mirrored Baxendale's, Robert told Keith recently that he would not have gone ahead. He got past the caveat emptor moment and it was long gone when he went up to Liverpool the following March, determined to take the scrapbook examined by Baxendale out of the market place, and into his own safe custody. It was in his own hands now, literally, and he was a big boy. RJ's speculation elsewhere, that Anne's reluctance to sign it over with Mike was because she would finally and knowingly be committing an act of fraud, for the princely sum of fifty pence, is frankly rather absurd. Robert knew exactly what he was doing by then, to prevent Mike being lured by Feldman or anyone else into selling the physical diary for oodles of hard cash. If Robert had secretly suspected it was a modern fake, as RJ likes his readers to infer, the Barretts would have been in the frame as suspected fraudsters from July 1992. Robert would hardly have been Anne's victim in that case, whether or not she had any actual knowledge of the diary's origins. Her reluctance that day was surely on account of her natural concern that Robert, a complete stranger and a shrewd businessman, was seeking to protect his own investment, which might not have been in Mike's best interests, as the diary's owner. She was still heavily invested in her own marriage at that point, and the book Mike was helping Shirley to write had yet to be published, with the likely proceeds an unknown. IIRC, Mike's solicitor was away from his office that day, so Anne could not even rely on him to advise them whether or not to sign. In the end, she was outnumbered by two strong characters who were equally determined for the three of them to go ahead, so she gave in. How was she to dissuade a man who didn't want to be dissuaded?

                            No doubt RJ's cynical view of human nature tells him that Robert knew the game was up with Baxendale, but gambled on seeing a return on his investment, regardless of what other evidence might turn up to spoil the party prior to publication. If RJ prefers to hear the Sugar Plum Fairies and Cash Registers rather than to take Robert's word for anything at all, it would merely exemplify the pointlessness of filling in any more gaps in RJ's understanding, with the hope that he will let the information sink in and stay put. That privilege was afforded to Mike Barrett, when he was making damaging allegations against the wife who had divorced him.

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X
                            Last edited by caz; 12-13-2022, 04:24 PM.
                            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                              Caz - Does the writing on the watch diagram look like Albert Johnson's to you?
                              Why do you ask?
                              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post
                                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.
                                There would be no 'argument' required on either side of the watch divide, if those arguing that anyone scratching their own signature in gold, using a brass implement, will naturally produce a similar result to one written on paper with ink, could actually be arsed to do the experiment and prove it.

                                How hard can it be?

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X

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


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X