One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[DJA]

Well you should locate a moronic theory.

He already has one

[John Wheat]

Immaturity.

(Honestly, I could do this all night.)

I rest my case.

[John Wheat]

He already has one

No you have a moronic theory DJA

[erobitha]

As is the case with every moronic theory, the people that shout loudest are the ones that get heard, despite spewing forth torrents of verbal diarrhoea. Just trying to keep erobike in check.

Oh dear.

The clue here readers is when someone resorts to phrases like verbal diarrhoea and claims of keeping others in check, you know that person has no real argument or counter points.

You can debate the existence of the initials fine, but you cannot debate the fact there must have obviously been a lack of natural light in the room.

Well Aethelwulf certainly can’t.

[Aethelwulf]

Oh dear.

The clue here readers is when someone resorts to phrases like verbal diarrhoea and claims of keeping others in check, you know that person has no real argument or counter points.

You can debate the existence of the initials fine, but you cannot debate the fact there must have obviously been a lack of natural light in the room.

Well Aethelwulf certainly can’t.

well you were incabale of answering first time. You have no sensible answer-

There is of course no way the police had means of lighting the room to a brighter extent than kelly's fire. We know abberline made an inventory of the room, so how did he do that in the dark? We know Phillips described the exact corner, floor and partition wall, where the 'initials' were located - he must have been fumbling in the dark I suppose? We know a camerman set up his equipement at the far end of the room looking out - he must have just guessed in the dark.

[Iconoclast]

well you were incabale of answering first time. You have no sensible answer-

There is of course no way the police had means of lighting the room to a brighter extent than kelly's fire. We know abberline made an inventory of the room, so how did he do that in the dark? We know Phillips described the exact corner, floor and partition wall, where the 'initials' were located - he must have been fumbling in the dark I suppose? We know a camerman set up his equipement at the far end of the room looking out - he must have just guessed in the dark.

You missed out the last bit:

"Can't belive anyone actually believes this BS."

Why exactly did you re-post this extract from your earlier post?

[caz]

As is the case with every moronic theory, the people that shout loudest are the ones that get heard, despite spewing forth torrents of verbal diarrhoea. Just trying to keep erobike in check.

Yeah, just like the most moronic theory ever, that Mike Barrett spawned the diary. They hurl insults at anyone who didn't fall for Mike's utter BS and accuse them of being mentally ill or in deliberate denial, then play the victim when they get a taste of their own medicine.

If they can't stand the heat...

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Kelly's room had once been the parlor or games room of the large house.

Natural light could have been augmented by kerosene lamps of up to 251 watts.

Before you post, Dave, have a wee think about the consequences of your claim.

What relevance is what Kelly's room possibly used to be used for?

In November 1888, it was a tiny bedroom with extremely limited access to natural light. I don't imagine for a moment that much time was spent keeping the window clean, do you?

If you are trying to imply that the police could have brought in 251 watts of light to inspect every inch of the room then we would expect there to be a record of this somewhere. I'm unaware that they brought in artificial light, but if you know for a fact that they did, please inform us all of your source.

The reality is that there was no CSI: Whitechapel in those days. A forensic sweep of Kelly's room would have had to wait for well over a hundred years when microscopic hairs and other sources of DNA might hopefully be found. The police turned up, chucked-up, swept-up, then wrote up. The last thing in a copper's mind in 1888 was the possibility that the killer had actually left any taunting clues.

[Iconoclast]

I rest my case.

I rest my case.

[Iconoclast]

No you have a moronic theory DJA

I think you've just had a go at 'one of your type' there, Wheato. Always worth checking the context before firing-off your one-line artillery.

[Iconoclast]

Yeah, just like the most moronic theory ever, that Mike Barrett spawned the diary. They hurl insults at anyone who didn't fall for Mike's utter BS and accuse them of being mentally ill or in deliberate denial, then play the victim when they get a taste of their own medicine.

If they can't stand the heat...

Love,

Caz
X

Morning Caz,

It's interesting that 'diary detractors' go out of their way to 'demolish' every single argument made in favour of the scrapbook or against Mike Barrett as Master Hoaxer. Lord Orsam is probably the biggest offender: he literally would argue that black was white if black meant any point whatsoever in favour of authenticity.

As single-minded and tunnel-visioned as I am, I hope that I can at least acknowledge a problem in my argument when I come across it. I think it's a very revealing psychological weakness in 'Detractors' that they absolutely cannot.

Cheers,

Ike

[caz]

Simple translation of AethelMerman's posts above: in a dimly-lit room where the focus was the destruction of a woman's body on the bed, everyone would have spotted dried blood on a wooden door even though no-one had any reason to look for any.

Obviously the scene second-hand 130+ years later through a photograph would trump being there because the cameraman's flash would make it permanently light in the photograph and only infinitessimally briefly light in the room when he set the flash off.

But, honestly, everyone else gets that. This obsession with saying 'It Ain't So' is exactly what I enjoy doing to Wheato - pure childishness.

No amount of bluff and bluster from you (or anyone else) will make Kelly's room a Stadium of Light.

It's like saying that Timothy Dundas was there, looking at the watch in 1992, so he was in a better position to know that there were no scratches or engravings there at all, than the two scientists who later used their microscopes to examine every mark. It doesn't even seem to matter that Dundas was categorically not looking at the right watch, or that the Murphys used jeweller's rouge on the right one, to try and minimise the visible scratch marks.

As usual, with the Barrett hoax conspiracy theory, white can be black if it needs to be, and only artificial respiration can keep it ticking over.

Love,

Caz
X

[John Wheat]

I think you've just had a go at 'one of your type' there, Wheato. Always worth checking the context before firing-off your one-line artillery.

No you are wrong. There's a good chance Bury was the Ripper.

[caz]

Morning Caz,

It's interesting that 'diary detractors' go out of their way to 'demolish' every single argument made in favour of the scrapbook or against Mike Barrett as Master Hoaxer. Lord Orsam is probably the biggest offender: he literally would argue that black was white if black meant any point whatsoever in favour of authenticity.

As single-minded and tunnel-visioned as I am, I hope that I can at least acknowledge a problem in my argument when I come across it. I think it's a very revealing psychological weakness in 'Detractors' that they absolutely cannot.

Cheers,

Ike

Great minds think alike?

Or fools never differ?

I didn't see your 'black was white' when I wrote my 'white can be black'.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

No you are wrong. There's a good chance Bury was the Ripper.

Take it to the Bury thread, John, where you can at least post from your acquired knowledge about your suspect. If you are so confident about Bury, why are you even here, arguing the toss about Maybrick?

Love,

Caz
X