One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Aethelwulf]

That'll be the ones on the nice flat piece of paper, yes?

So the k is the same because it supposedly 'matches' signatures on paper, but because it's scratched into metal it's ok for it not to match. How convenient.

[Iconoclast]

So the k is the same because it supposedly 'matches' signatures on paper, but because it's scratched into metal it's ok for it not to match. How convenient.

I don't think 'it's okay for it not to match' is a fair representation of what we have in the back of the watch (and I can only assume that you know it and are just being provocative). Any slight difference is most certainly not 'convenient' - rather, it just logically follows from what he is doing.

It's not like it's an obvious 'K' on paper and apparently a 'Q' in the watch. It's almost exactly the 'K' which Maybrick signed so many times when he popped along to his local freemason club over so many years. The only difference is that it isn't as smooth a 'K' - and we know exactly why that is (but if you want to continue to be provocative, let me clarify - it's because he's attempting to scratch it into the back of a small watch ... you try it, Mr My-Signature-Would-Be-Exactly-The-Same-Even-If-I-Carved-It-Into-Dried-up-Cow-Doody).

Ike

[Aethelwulf]

I don't think 'it's okay for it not to match' is a fair representation of what we have in the back of the watch (and I can only assume that you know it and are just being provocative). Any slight difference is most certainly not 'convenient' - rather, it just logically follows from what he is doing.

It's not like it's an obvious 'K' on paper and apparently a 'Q' in the watch. It's almost exactly the 'K' which Maybrick signed so many times when he popped along to his local freemason club over so many years. The only difference is that it isn't as smooth a 'K' - and we know exactly why that is (but if you want to continue to be provocative, let me clarify - it's because he's attempting to scratch it into the back of a small watch ... you try it, Mr My-Signature-Would-Be-Exactly-The-Same-Even-If-I-Carved-It-Into-Dried-up-Cow-Doody).

Ike

As long as you're convincing yourself, you go for it.

[Iconoclast]

As long as you're convincing yourself, you go for it.

On what grounds could you possibly question the validity of my argument there? I don't need to convince myself of anything - I just look at 20+ Maybrick signatures and note the regularity (with some irregularity, note) of that highly-idiosyncratic 'K', and then I note it too in the back of his watch. As someone said just recently, it's not rocket science, is it?

Having said that, maybe - for you and Wheato and Fish and J.G. - it is rocket science?

Do you need someone to draw you some pictures instead?

Oh - hold on - ero b just did that! (And still you 'don't see it' - yeah, right!)

[Aethelwulf]

On what grounds could you possibly question the validity of my argument there? I don't need to convince myself of anything - I just look at 20+ Maybrick signatures and note the regularity (with some irregularity, note) of that highly-idiosyncratic 'K', and then I note it too in the back of his watch. As someone said just recently, it's not rocket science, is it?

Having said that, maybe - for you and Wheato and Fish and J.G. - it is rocket science?

Do you need someone to draw you some pictures instead?

Oh - hold on - ero b just did that! (And still you 'don't see it' - yeah, right!)

I wonder why I question your analysis of letters on any surface? You have form for highly questionable (or just plain old wrong) interpretations.

[John Wheat]

I wonder why I question your analysis of letters on any surface? You have form for highly questionable (or just plain old wrong) interpretations.

[Iconoclast]

I wonder why I question your analysis of letters on any surface? You have form for highly questionable (or just plain old wrong) interpretations.

If that helps you sleep, pally, you keep telling yourself that.

You know, just saying something is true doesn't make it true. Ignoring the evidence right there in front of your eyes (you don't have to read a book or do any research effort whatsoever, ero b did it all for you, as usual) obviously makes it easier for you to be so categorically blind to what is in front of anyone who actually opened their eyes and looked, but being blind is not evidence that nothing is there.

But you lot keep telling yourself there's nothing in any of this Maybrick stuff. We understand it's the easiest path to take ...

[Iconoclast]

We understand it's the easiest path to take ...

That was a euphemism, by the way ...

[rjpalmer]

I don't think 'it's okay for it not to match' is a fair representation of what we have in the back of the watch (and I can only assume that you know it and are just being provocative). Any slight difference is most certainly not 'convenient' - rather, it just logically follows from what he is doing.

It's not like it's an obvious 'K' on paper and apparently a 'Q' in the watch. It's almost exactly the 'K' which Maybrick signed so many times when he popped along to his local freemason club over so many years. The only difference is that it isn't as smooth a 'K' - and we know exactly why that is (but if you want to continue to be provocative, let me clarify - it's because he's attempting to scratch it into the back of a small watch ... you try it, Mr My-Signature-Would-Be-Exactly-The-Same-Even-If-I-Carved-It-Into-Dried-up-Cow-Doody).

Ike

Hi Ike.

I had a pint or four last night and I see I stupidly misspelled Mitty when I was describing you, so I apologize. I tend to go phonetic when tipsy.

I think it must be obvious to everyone that you and Hartley rely on shaky, almost invisible scratches on the back of the watch when expounding your theories about handwriting because it is so embarrassingly obvious that the pages and pages of handwriting we see in the diary look nothing like Maybrick's writing--not to just us 'Ripperologists' but to the best handwriting experts in the UK and the USA back in the day.

Kind of like a darkened microscopic speck on the back of the watch has been elevated to the Great Rock of Gilbralter, your foundation, your convenient 'truth,' which allows you to ignore the overwhelming Everest of evidence that you've been scammed by Mike Barrett.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike.

I had a pint or four last night and I see I stupidly misspelled Mitty when I was describing you, so I apologize. I tend to go phonetic when tipsy.

I think it must be obvious to everyone that you and Hartley rely on shaky, almost invisible scratches on the back of the watch when expounding your theories about handwriting because it is so embarrassingly obvious that the pages and pages of handwriting we see in the diary look nothing like Maybrick's writing--not to just us 'Ripperologists' but to the best handwriting experts in the UK and the USA back in the day.

Kind of like a darkened microscopic speck on the back of the watch has been elevated to the Great Rock of Gilbralter, your foundation, your convenient 'truth,' which allows you to ignore the overwhelming Everest of evidence that you've been scammed by Mike Barrett.

Oh, so close, RJ. I was just about to politely agree with you (you're hungover, it would be cruel to start an argument) until those last six words.

Ah well, there's always the next time ...

[FISHY1118]

Fishy,

I have an old gold watch from the Victorian period and I want you to scratch Robert Louis Stephenson's father's signature into the back of it. You aren't permitted to use the internet, obviously.

Obviously, it won't be easy because you'd be scratching awkwardly into metal but we'll make some allowances for that (which is considerably more than you are doing). What we really want to see is if you can mirror - by sheer random chance - any idiosyncratic letter formations old Thomas made in his signature.

If you do, I think we'll all grant you your theory that these things just happen all the time. Just another coincidence along the long road to Maybrick, and what have you.

Obviously, we won't get on that road because obviously the signature you guess will look nothing whatsoever like that of Thomas Stephenson.

Looks very much to me like it's back to it looking good for the Maybrick supporter as JTR now, isn't it?

Great I'll have 100 practice goes on a metal surface before the watch. ⌚
That should get it close don't you think ?

It's back to not looking good im afraid.

[Iconoclast]

Great I'll have 100 practice goes on a metal surface before the watch. ⌚
That should get it close don't you think ?

It's back to not looking good im afraid.

Why would you practice a signature you don't have an example of? Why on earth would you try 100 times to replicate a signature you've never seen?

I think it's actually looking pretty bad for the Maybrick detractor, isn't it?

PS Just in case you aren't keeping up (well, I know you aren't), the accusation commonly made is that Robbie Johnson found Albert's watch and scratched Maybrick's signature into the back of it. If he did, how - in 1992 - did he know what Maybrick's signature looked like?

[FISHY1118]

Why would you practice a signature you don't have an example of? Why on earth would you try 100 times to replicate a signature you've never seen?

I think it's actually looking pretty bad for the Maybrick detractor, isn't it?

PS Just in case you aren't keeping up (well, I know you aren't), the accusation commonly made is that Robbie Johnson found Albert's watch and scratched Maybrick's signature into the back of it. If he did, how - in 1992 - did he know what Maybrick's signature looked like?

Yer I guess way way back in the stone age of 1992 people couldn't find those things out ,

Back to looking like a fake Maybrick watch and diary.

[Aethelwulf]

Why would you practice a signature you don't have an example of? Why on earth would you try 100 times to replicate a signature you've never seen?

I think it's actually looking pretty bad for the Maybrick detractor, isn't it?

PS Just in case you aren't keeping up (well, I know you aren't), the accusation commonly made is that Robbie Johnson found Albert's watch and scratched Maybrick's signature into the back of it. If he did, how - in 1992 - did he know what Maybrick's signature looked like?

Must be a bit gutting though - all those thousands of words and tens of thousands of letters in the diary and you're reduced to a single miserable scratch. Don't worry, you can trot out your own 'best' and 'eyes only' handwriting that usually pops up at this stage. Totally meaningless of course as it has nothing whatsoever to do with Maybrick.

[Iconoclast]

Yer I guess way way back in the stone age of 1992 people couldn't find those things out ,

Back to looking like a fake Maybrick watch and diary.

Maybe just bought a Lucky Bag and an example of Maybrick's signature happened to be in there?

It suddenly all makes such sense ...