One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

Has anyone ever put that forward for testing by an expert against Maybrick's actual handwriting, or is it just a case of "well the K looks similar so the fact that literally every other letter in every other word out of hundreds of examples doesn't remotely match the writing in the diary or the Ripper letters isn't an issue"?

That's pretty baffling logic.

Reminds me of a quote from Dumb & Dumber…

Lloyd: I want to ask you a question, straight out flat, and I want you to give me an honest answer... What are the chances of a guy like you and a girl like me ending up together?

Mary: Not good.

Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?

Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million.

Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance?!

To be fair to Mike J. G. here, he probably wasn't to know that the exact same argument was once made about the K in one-time suspected hoaxer Gerard Kane's signature, which was said to look similar to the K in Kelly in the diary.

More recently, this theory appears to have been discarded in favour of the lower case f in examples of suspected hoaxer Anne Graham's handwriting, which is said to look similar to the lower case f in the diary.

So the question for Mike J. G. would be who he regards as 'Dumb' and who he regards as 'Dumber', bearing in mind that the diary is full of letters of the alphabet, yet only one out of the twenty-six has been singled out as suspiciously similar in the case of citizen Kane, and only one out of the twenty-six in the case of Anne Graham.

How do we know that handwriting samples, taken from a hundred different people at random, and compared with the 63 pages of the diary, would not result in at least one letter of the alphabet in each case, possibly more, looking similar in both sample and diary?

The watch is different, because the comparison is directly between authenticated Maybrick signatures and the questioned signature engraved crudely in gold. If the latter was supposed to have been done by a Liverpudlian hoaxer between late April and late May 1993, by rights it should have looked nothing like a genuine signature unless this hoaxer managed to access the real thing, ascertain that it was the real thing, and not a copy made by a clerk, and then make a pretty good one-off stab at copying it using a suitable engraving tool. The point is that the hoaxer in this case would appear to have made a definite attempt to forge Maybrick's known signature, while the person who penned the diary seems not to have given a damn that their handiwork would bear no similar comparison with Maybrick's known handwriting, or with Dear Boss or Saucy Jacky.

There is a reason for everything, but it's no easy trick to establish what that reason is, until you absolutely know you have the right person or persons involved.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

I seem to recall that it was Keith Skinner, speaking in Liverpool back in 2007 [16 years ago], who suggested - in response to a question from Jeremy Beadle - that if all the documentation in his possession [as at 2007, 16 years ago] were to be put before the jury [meaning the attendees of the event, who would be asked to give their verdict for or against Maybrick when all the talking was done] he believed the verdict would be that the diary came out of Battlecrease House. Keith had to go on and clarify, for those in idiots' corner, that he was talking about a court of history and not a court of law, and that it wouldn't follow that the diary had been written by the real James Maybrick or that he was Jack the Ripper.

Let's see if this comment is believable, or whether it is revisionist, or whether Caz's memory is just bad:

On May 23 and 24th, 2007, Caroline Morris posted what Keith had told her in an email dated 22 May 2007 timed at 6:15pm.

Keith wrote:

'The essence of what I said was that if I went into a court of law with the documents in my possession, I am confident the jury would conclude the diary came out of Battlecrease House.'


These are Keith's own words. It says Jack-all about the 'assembled jury' at a Ripper event, nor that he meant the 'court of history.'

The full exchange (which was re-posted by John Omlor in 2008), including the full text of Keith's email, is reprinted here:


8 MAY 2008 JOHN OMLOR

Thanks Victoria,

Of course, over on that other site, where they know I am unable to respond, they are now talking about me and what I've posted here. What an odd way to do things.

In any case, lest people have forgotten what was originally reported concerning the great Battlecrease evidence that Caroline herself has promised will let all modern forgers "off the hook," here are some of the original messages from that Casebook discussion, sent to me by a friend who saw what being said over at the other site and wanted me to have the record:

****************************************


Keith has confirmed with me that the essence of what he said was: ‘if I went into a court of law with the documents in my possession, I am confident the jury would conclude the diary came out of Battlecrease House’. He also said that there are no legal proceedings pending.

Regarding Bruce Robinson (hi Cally ), Keith said that he is not writing a book with Bruce but working on it, as a paid researcher, when Bruce has need of his services. He said that this book has nothing to do with the diary, which Bruce considers to be a fake. He also said that the investigation is ongoing but has nothing to do with Bruce.

caz 23rd May 2007, 10:25 AM


__________________________________________________ ______


However, speaking to people after the Trial, one of the key things that persuaded some of them to vote guilty was the assertion during Keith Skinner’s talk that he was 100% certain that the Diary was linked to Battlecrease. This seemed to imply that the Diary was actually written by James Maybrick, though of course Keith did not actually say that. Indeed, rather confusingly, Keith also said that his colleague, Bruce Robinson, believes 100% that the diary is a fraud.


23rd May 2007, 12:12 PM
Chris Jones
__________________________________________________ ______


Caz - just to make it clear, Keith actually made this statement twice, once when he originally said it and later to clarify what he said for the sake of Jeremy Beadle who obviously misinterpreted it. [Beadle evidently thought he meant there was an actual legal case pending--RP] I copied it down the second time (because obviously the first time I didn't know he was going to say it). What I have quoted has, at most, one or two words incorrect from what he said on that second occasion, because I was writing down each word as he said it.

23rd May 2007, 05:26 PM
ash

__________________________________________________ ______


I don’t recall if the two statements Keith made at the event were identical, word for word, but I do remember quite clearly that he used the word ‘jury’.

However, because I didn’t want to risk getting this wrong myself, I didn’t post until I received an email from Keith himself, from which I was able to post the above version, using his own words written two days after the event (hence the quote marks).

I’m sorry that was the best I could do in the circumstances. But I’m hoping that one of the people actually recording the talks will be able to confirm word for word what Keith said on Sunday.

Here again is the information Keith emailed to me, this time using only direct quotes (which can be compared for accuracy with my previous post):

----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Skinner
To: Caroline Morris
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 6:15 PM

I am not writing a book with Bruce but working on it, as a paid researcher, when Bruce has need of my services.

Bruce's book has nothing to do with the Diary which he considers to be a fake.

The investigation is ongoing but has nothing to do with Bruce.

There are no legal proceedings pending. The essence of what I said was that if I went into a court of law with the documents in my possession, I am confident the jury would conclude the diary came out of Battlecrease House.

Keith

24th May 2007, 12:25 PM
caz

---

[Iconoclast]

I'm sure someone supplied a close up of the supposed F and showed it was just lots of little unconnected specks and clearly not a smear of blood. Someone also showed a close up of the non m and the it appears to be two unconnected loops. Don't cry Ike but they're just irrelevant shapes (ike spits dummy out and stamps foot).

You have to do a great deal better than that.

Look, let's stop fannying about over this. You don't think there are any initials and you believe you've cited all the evidence anyone could possibly require in order to fix that conviction very firmly in your mind. That's your prerogative.

And I very strongly disagree. They are rather patently there however large you blow them up to try to find some other interpretation. Imagine, just for a moment, if they genuinely were not there (I suspect you'll find that bit easy to do); what sort of staggering chance threw up something else which happened to look like the letters 'F' and 'M' in the right order, scaled equally. Those posters who see the shapes without any problem have to rationalise that little gem. You don't, of course, as you tell us that you can't see what so many others can see so clearly.

People who don't believe that those shapes are an 'F' and an 'M' and yet freely admit that they can see the shapes and understand why the argument is made. I wonder how they deal with your claims that what they are seeing perfectly clearly actually isn't there at all?

[rjpalmer]

In reference to my previous post, let me state without reservation that I don't think there is anything wrong with someone later changing their mind or modifying their beliefs. It's even commendable.

Perhaps Keith overstated his position at the Liverpool Conference in 2007 and then merely tried to modify his statement later. Totally acceptable.

But that's not my point. What I don't get is this: a statement made by Keith fully 11 years later on this forum, that seems to totally undermine his previous statement:


“It is true that I do presently favour the line of investigation which suggests the diary may have come out of Battlecrease House on March 9th 1992. There is direct evidence to show that, on that day, some sort of floorboard activity was presumably going on in Paul Dodd’s living room, as part of the work involved in the preparation to have storage heaters installed later in the summer. Comparison with the 1889 plan of Battlecrease House and the room where this work was being undertaken, shows it to be the same room where James Maybrick died in May 1889. ( I don’t know if this fact was known by Paul Dodd or any of the electricians who worked at the house). There is direct evidence to show that Mike Barrett, using the surname of “Williams”, telephoned Doreen Montgomery on March 9th 1992 to inform her he had the diary of Jack the Ripper. There is circumstantial evidence showing an association, via the Saddle Pub, between two of the electricians employed by Colin Rhodes and Mike Barrett – plus Tony Devereux. As I’ve previously maintained, this could all reduce down to a strange coincidence and I’d accept that – but not without testing to destruction my own belief that these events are all related. If this line of enquiry does eventually turn out to be a non starter – as it may yet do – then I would revert back to the position I held in 2004 of favouring Anne Graham’s provenance, (however admittedly unsatisfactory and strange to contemplate) – accepting the dynamics of her marriage to Mike made her act in, (to an outsider), an irrational manner – but which, to Anne, seemed rational given the circumstances of her relationship with Mike. I haven’t abandoned Anne’s story – and I am always prepared to give consideration to the modern hoax theories.”

He now merely 'favors' the theory that Eddie Lyons pinched the diary from Dodd and sold it to Barrett. This is a long way away from 'proof' either in a court of law or in the 'court of history.' It is merely a 'line of investigation' and he hasn't even 'abandoned' Anne's story.

Again...totally acceptable. A person can modify and tone-down one's beliefs.

But what is strange (to me at least) is that this modification seems to signal that the evidence for the alleged Lyons/Barrett event, rather than having grown stronger, had actually grown weaker over those 11 years. Why else would someone undercut their own bold claims?

Yet Caroline Brown (not Keith, of course) loses no opportunity to assure us there is secret evidence behind the scenes that makes it an all but airtight reality that her accusation against Eddie Lyons and Mike Barrett are true. She tells us she is 100% certain.

And we've now been hearing about this secret evidence for upwards of 15 years. John Omlor was even questioning the reality of it and he hasn't posted since 2008

It's a strange business, and I fully admit that I am highly skeptical about all of it.

But I suppose that it is entirely possible that Caroline has merely gone rogue and is not assessing the evidence that she claims she has at her disposal with the same judiciousness and moderation of those who are presumably gathering it.

[Iconoclast]

Just in case anyone is struggling, here are the 'connected dots' forming an indistinct 'F', and the 'two unconnected loops' which form an unmistakeable 'M' (unless you can't see it, of course). Blown up like this, obviously the 'F' loses definition (because it was less defined anyway).



And then you make the picture smaller and the 'F' becomes much clearer to see (unless you can't see it, of course).



Imagine how unlikely it would be to see 'FM' so clearly if it was never there! Billions and billions to one!

And we haven't even wished-away the rather obvious 'F' carved into Kelly's arm ("Her initial there").

Staggering, isn't it, that none of this is there at all despite being predicted by the Victorian scrapbook?

[Scott Nelson]

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.

Well, initially Ike -- yes. But after a day or two they probably poured over the entire room -- floor, walls, ceiling. The problem I guess, is that the writer didn't fingerpaint the initials on the wall very clearly, something he would have seen almost immediately and perhaps tried to sharpen them up, or try another location, like above the headboard of the bed?

And if there were letters on wall that looked like "FM", why couldn't they stand for "For Mother" -- possibly written by M.J. Druitt?

[Iconoclast]

Well, initially Ike -- yes. But after a day or two they probably poured over the entire room -- floor, walls, ceiling. The problem I guess, is that the writer didn't fingerpaint the initials on the wall very clearly, something he would have seen almost immediately and perhaps tried to sharpen them up, or try another location, like above the headboard of the bed?

Well Scotty he did say that he left it all over the room so perhaps he did exactly that but the only photograph we have that provides any meaningful details sadly leaves the walll above Kelly's head as black as soot so I guess we'll never know.

And if there were letters on wall that looked like "FM", why couldn't they stand for "For Mother" -- possibly written by M.J. Druitt?

Well the letters 'FM' could stand for a multitude of things and - if it wasn't for the Victorian scrapbook - none of them would matter because we'd still not have spotted them to even start to have the discussion.

But the Victorian scrapbook is very very special in this regard because it actually makes a firm prediction: it tells us to look in Kelly's room for Florence Maybrick's initials. That's the staggeringly unlikely bit. No other candidate has such a prediction that we can test. Only Maybrick. Without the prediction, we would definitely not be discussing the initials on Kelly's wall because no-one would have noticed them. That's the bit you need to make sense of. If the prediction was a random line made up by a 13 year hoaxer one wet weekend in probably Liverpool then we should absolutely not be having this discussion. We should all be like Ethel, strikingly unable to see what so many people see without any difficulty whatsoever. The fact that we can see the 'FM' tells us that the prediction made in the Victorian scrapbook is potentially validated and - if it is - then we need to understand how on earth that could possibly be the case.

Much simpler to just say there's nothing there to see, you see?

[rjpalmer]

I'm sure someone supplied a close up of the supposed F and showed it was just lots of little unconnected specks and clearly not a smear of blood. Someone also showed a close up of the non m and the it appears to be two unconnected loops. Don't cry Ike but they're just irrelevant shapes (ike spits dummy out and stamps foot).

Here's a link to a high-resolution photo of the crime scene that you can enlarge at will. Be warned that it is deeply graphic.

Miller’s Court (jtr3d.com)

There are some cracks in the plaster-covered wood and some arterial spray and some mildew botches and some photographic artifacts.

The rest is 'Maybrickology.'

[Yabs]

The M is too vague, and the F has F’d off.

[Yabs]

There’s not a neuroscientist in the world that won’t tell you that our brains like to spot familiar shapes and patterns where there aren’t any, it’s just what we do.
I remember reading the ripper diary in the mid 90s and thinking, wow that FM looks really clear in the photo they’ve reproduced.








Picked up a true crime magazine shortly after that had the full sepia photo to double check, and it wasn’t nearly as impressive

[Scott Nelson]

But Mike Barrett was not a 'typically' truthful person. He lied pretty much whenever there was a d in the day of the week. Closest to the truth is still not the truth. If Mike never did reveal when or how he really, really, really got the diary, then nothing he ever said about it can be said to be close to the truth.

Devereux should finally be allowed to rest, diary free.

Hi Caroline,

Mike must have told a truth somewhere in all this mess. Even a partial truth. Call me an optimist. If he didn't get it from Devereux and Eddie Lyons denies selling him the diary, where could he have gotten it, if he didn't (help?) create it*?

*To me "it" means the rewrite.

[Iconoclast]

Here's a link to a high-resolution photo of the crime scene that you can enlarge at will. Be warned that it is deeply graphic.

Miller’s Court (jtr3d.com)

There are some cracks in the plaster-covered wood and some arterial spray and some mildew botches and some photographic artifacts.

The rest is 'Maybrickology.'

This version is 1972 not 1992. No agenda with Dan Farson. His editors simply published the photograph as it existed. No enhancements. No strange 'high resolution' alterations. Just printed the picture. Look how clear the 'FM' is. Just look. Just look. It's there. Just look. 1972.

[Iconoclast]

There’s not a neuroscientist in the world that won’t tell you that our brains like to spot familiar shapes and patterns where there aren’t any, it’s just what we do.
I remember reading the ripper diary in the mid 90s and thinking, wow that FM looks really clear in the photo they’ve reproduced.


Picked up a true crime magazine shortly after that had the full sepia photo to double check, and it wasn’t nearly as impressive

This version is 1972 not 1992. No agenda with Dan Farson. His editors simply published the photograph as it existed. No enhancements. No strange 'high resolution' alterations. Just printed the picture. Look how clear the 'FM' is. Just look. Just look. It's there. Just look. 1972.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Caroline,

Mike must have told a truth somewhere in all this mess. Even a partial truth. Call me an optimist. If he didn't get it from Devereux and Eddie Lyons denies selling him the diary, where could he have gotten it, if he didn't (help?) create it*?

*To me "it" means the rewrite.

Mike Barrett is not the only candidate for liar in all of this, Scotty.

[Iconoclast]

No-one in 1972 knew to enhance a version of Kelly's death scene so that 'F' and 'M' could be so clearly seen on her wall. 1972.

1972, people!