One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

1972!!!

[FISHY1118]

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.

Where ?

[Iconoclast]

Where ?

You aren't keeping-up, are you, Fishy?

[erobitha]

If we could access the original plate, todays technology could give us a much clearer view of the picture.

I understand there were two original photos which were in circulation. Combine that with all the various “enhancements” down the years of both and we have lots of variations.

I would agree with Ike that Farson’s print in 1972 absolutely supports the FM theory. It is also less likely to be exposed to “enhancements” that subsequent versions have.

Last point of note, when you enlarge any image (unless the resolution of the original is extremely high to start with) you will always see pixelations. The appearance of dots which give the impression of disconnect. Doesn’t mean it is accurately showing us what is there.

[FISHY1118]

You aren't keeping-up, are you, Fishy?

Oh I didn't realize ,is there something I'm missing .

What am I looking at again? i can quite make it out?

[caz]

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.

But Eddie would deny it, wouldn't he, Scotty, assuming he passed on the "old book" to Mike? He would have been protecting himself and his workmates, who were with him on floorboards day.

[In case anyone else doesn't get it, I reserve the right to test and reassess my personal conviction of what happened that day, against all the evidence as it continues to come into my possession, if and whenever I see fit, without having my reasoning or my reason questioned by those who do not possess all the facts. I suspect Keith Skinner is of the same mind, but he will soon let me know if not. Currently - as in today, 4th May 2023 - my conviction remains at 100%. Tomorrow, as The Beatles famously told us, never knows.]

The partial truth Mike told was that he got the diary from a Fountains Road resident. The fact that there were two of them, one living and one not, would have given him an incentive to choose the latter for his provenance. Dead men rarely split on a mate in my experience.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Florence's Initials on Mary Kelly's Wall

Okay, I think it's time we put this debate completely to bed.

One of the doyens of the anti-diary 'movement' was - I'm sure everyone would agree - Martin Fido. His hostility towards the Victorian scrapbook can be seen in the Paul Feldman video which can be found on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwN6VMjgw2Q&t=2296s). So not the sort of commentator you would expect to 'be able to see' the 'FM' on Kelly's wall.

And yet, he's the very first person (other than our diarist, of course) to do so! It was Martin Fido himself in his report of late 1992 to Shirley Harrison (and repeated in his report of February 1993 to Paul Feldman) who first announced to the world that there was a letter 'M' on Kelly's wall and also a vaguer letter 'F' (he initially thought it was an 'E' but the diary encouraged him to acknowledge that it could be an 'F' and I think we'd all agree with him there).

Here's what he wrote to Paul Feldman (Feb 18, 1993):



If you think you are more knowledgable on this subject than I then I beg to understand if you think you are more knowledgable on this subject than Martin Fido?

If you are not then I suggest you (Fishy) and the rest of you who keep poisoning the well with your claims of being unable to see the initials everyone else can see no without problem just go to SpecSavers.

Ike.

[caz]

I noticed this comment by Caroline Brown over at “the other place.”

“I think the onus of proof should work both ways, whether it's James Maybrick being accused of serial murder, or the Barretts and the Johnsons being accused of faking the diary and watch.”

This is a very telling comment, if not by design.

Both ways? This implies that the “onus of proof” only applies to two positions—those who think the diary is real and those who think it is a modern fake by the Barretts.

Caz's own position, conveniently enough, doesn’t require any proof.

What about the onus of proof for those who argue in favor of the Battlecrease provenance?

What about Eddie Lyons being accused of theft, or the Murphys being accused of lying about where and how they obtained the watch? Or the Barretts being accused of profiting off of stolen goods? Or Anne Graham being accused of lying about her 'in the family' provenance--which Caz is just as guilty of as the most skeptical of the diary skeptics?

Clearly, the ‘onus of proof’ applies to everyone but Caz.

Rather convenient, I should think.

Oh, not this again. I'm fairly sure I addressed this at 'the other place', but RJ won't let it rest.

The usual 'onus of proof' is on anyone who accuses Maybrick of being Jack the Ripper or writing the diary. He can't defend himself.

My point was that the onus of proof must also be on anyone who accuses Anne Graham, her late father or the late Tony Devereux of involvement in a hoax, based on the unsubstantiated claims of the malicious liar who was Mike Barrett. Only one could still defend herself - if she thought there was any point.

This is first and foremost about who created the diary and the watch. If no direct accusations are made in this respect, and people make it clear that they are speculating and forming their opinions based on their own particular grasp of the subject matter, that should not be an issue.

As for Eddie Lyons, he is very much alive and able to defend himself against every single allegation made, not by me - or Jay or Ike or Keith - but by those people who knew him or worked with him back in the early 1990s. I can't help the fact that his name crops up in connection with the "old book", and I can't change or ignore what has been said by others.

RJ brings up accusations of lying, but we are all as guilty as one another in that respect. Every permutation with the diary involves lies told by the Barretts and at least one of the electricians, so again we can only speculate and form our opinions based on the known evidence and probability. RJ is effectively accusing a whole bunch of people connected with the work done in Battlecrease of lying, in his burning desire to defend Eddie Lyons against their allegations. That's RJ's choice, but he can't have it both ways.

Incidentally, I don't need the Murphys to have lied about anything connected with the watch. They sold it to Albert Johnson in July 1992, just when Mike had secured a publisher for his diary. It would be nice to confirm how long the Murphys had the watch before putting it on sale, and how they acquired it, but no game changer.

RJ accuses the Murphys of lying, when they recalled using jeweller's rouge on visible scratch marks in Albert's watch in the Spring of 1992. It's not something they could both have been confused or mistaken about, so if RJ wants to carry on accusing a Johnson brother of hoaxing the watch, he will automatically be accusing Mr and Mrs Murphy of lying about the jeweller's rouge. But that's between RJ and his conscience.

All I'd end with is a line from an Eric Clapton track: Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself.

[FISHY1118]

Florence's Initials on Mary Kelly's Wall

Okay, I think it's time we put this debate completely to bed.

One of the doyens of the anti-diary 'movement' was - I'm sure everyone would agree - Martin Fido. His hostility towards the Victorian scrapbook can be seen in the Paul Feldman video which can be found on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwN6VMjgw2Q&t=2296s). So not the sort of commentator you would expect to 'be able to see' the 'FM' on Kelly's wall.

And yet, he's the very first person (other than our diarist, of course) to do so! It was Martin Fido himself in his report of late 1992 to Shirley Harrison (and repeated in his report of February 1993 to Paul Feldman) who first announced to the world that there was a letter 'M' on Kelly's wall and also a vaguer letter 'F' (he initially thought it was an 'E' but the diary encouraged him to acknowledge that it could be an 'F' and I think we'd all agree with him there).

Here's what he wrote to Paul Feldman (Feb 18, 1993):



If you think you are more knowledgable on this subject than I then I beg to understand if you think you are more knowledgable on this subject than Martin Fido?

If you are not then I suggest you (Fishy) and the rest of you who keep poisoning the well with your claims of being unable to see the initials everyone else can see no without problem just go to SpecSavers.

Ike.

For a second time


There is no dilemma at all Ike, there are no shapes that mean anything, no figures that point to the killer, no letters, that spell out someone's wife name. its your own perception which you want them to be to suit your theory.

A theory that lacks any proof that any markings in Kelly's room or on kellys body were clues left by the killer.

You arent keeping up are you Ike ?


Best move on too another suspect , James Maybrick isnt JTR, there nothing to to suggest otherwise , delete the fake diary and fake watch and theres nothing left but a simple cotton merchant

[Iconoclast]

For a second time
There is no dilemma at all Ike, there are no shapes that mean anything, no figures that point to the killer, no letters, that spell out someone's wife name. its your own perception which you want them to be to suit your theory.
A theory that lacks any proof that any markings in Kelly's room or on kellys body were clues left by the killer.
You arent keeping up are you Ike ?
Best move on too another suspect , James Maybrick isnt JTR, there nothing to to suggest otherwise , delete the fake diary and fake watch and theres nothing left but a simple cotton merchant

I think that we can all see your empty claims for what they are, Fishy. Here you have one of the foremost critics of the scrapbook acknowledging that Florence Maybrick's initials are on the wall of Kelly's room (indeed, he was the first to identify them, using just his own eyes - long before Feldman had the photograph professionally analysed which I always thought was a bit excessive given how obvious they are) but it would appear that you know better! You say you can't see any initials (plus you say unsupported stuff like "There is no dilemma at all Ike, there are no shapes that mean anything, no figures that point to the killer, no letters, that spell out someone's wife name. its your own perception which you want them to be to suit your theory" and "A theory that lacks any proof that any markings in Kelly's room or on kellys body were clues left by the killer") and yet I have illustrated my claims over and over again with the clear and undeniable evidence, some of which was first identified by Martin Fido himself. Up against those odds, you still spout forth that there is nothing in any of this so I am overwhelmingly concerned that I've been wasting my time on the clickbait of a wind-up merchant.

[Aethelwulf]

I think that we can all see your empty claims

Classic bit of 'Ikexplaining' here: appears to be speaking from the majority viewpoint about a fringe theory in a condecdensing manner. Pretty much every single post you do this. Grow up.

Doesn't matter who said there were letters there, or whatever repuatation they have. They weren't in that room and they are looking at a poor qaulity photo 130+ years later. The important point is that no one who went in that room reported any initials. Not even Phillips who mentions blood on the floor and partition in that corner. Of course it was too dark and Kelly's blood isn't visible to the naked eye.

[Iconoclast]

Classic bit of 'Ikexplaining' here: appears to be speaking from the majority viewpoint about a fringe theory in a condecdensing manner. Pretty much every single post you do this. Grow up.

Doesn't matter who said there were letters there, or whatever repuatation they have. They weren't in that room and they are looking at a poor qaulity photo 130+ years later. The important point is that no one who went in that room reported any initials. Not even Phillips who mentions blood on the floor and partition in that corner. Of course it was too dark and Kelly's blood isn't visible to the naked eye.

By implication, you weren't in that room to say they weren't there. You are relying on whether or not Baxter Phillips happened to note them. To you, it is impossible that he failed to (if they were there) therefore they weren't there. I beg to differ.

On the other hand, we have a flash-based photograph lighting that room up momentarily and - lo! - her initials are very obvious on Kelly's wall, as first noted by one of the scrapbook's arch-critics, a man who generously admitted to what he saw even though it ran entirely counter to what he believed about the scrapbook.

I'm done with making my case. There is literally nothing else for me to say on this particular subject (so please don't confuse my silence - if there is one - with an ability to counter your vapid claims on this matter).

[Aethelwulf]

By implication, you weren't in that room to say they weren't there. You are relying on whether or not Baxter Phillips happened to note them. To you, it is impossible that he failed to (if they were there) therefore they weren't there. I beg to differ.

The police were looking for 'clues' as you put it. The clue of the screams around 4, the clue of someone leaving around 5, the clay pipe, the contents of the fire, the location and pattern of blood (inconviniently where the shapes are). Your argument that 'they weren't looking' is baseless.

I'm done with making my case.

There is no case. Apart from the unproven diary and is there any indpendent evidence that places Maybrick in Whitechapel in the autumn of 1888 and that he was missing from his lodgings for those nights? Was he a known murderer?

[caz]

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

---

Fair enough. Put my faulty recollection of the finer details of the essence of what Keith said and when down to, er, faulty recollection. It was a long time ago and I should have had all the relevant documentation to hand before posting. Mea culpa.

The fact remains that Keith said what he said in 2007, and it's now 2023, and the investigation and discussions here are ongoing, despite the book Chris Jones recently had published, which was meant to have ended it all.

[rjpalmer]

RJ accuses the Murphys of lying, when they recalled using jeweller's rouge on visible scratch marks in Albert's watch in the Spring of 1992.

This is why everyone eventually stops debating with you Caz--that is, everyone with a lick of sense.

Correcting your daily misinformation and illogical ranting and disingenuousness becomes a full-time job.

Just yesterday's posts alone would require a good two or three hours to correct.

As you know, I never once accused Murphy of lying.

But you have. And you've accused Eddie Lyons of far worse. It's only because of your hypocrisy that I needed to point this out.

All I ever said about Murphy is an objective fact and it wasn't an accusation of disonesty. His original statement was that he saw no scratches. That if he had, he wouldn't have sold the watch. Later, after half-baked researchers quizzed him repeatedly, he issued a statement along the lines that he 'almost' remembered seeing them, which is not a lie, but is uncertain and rather worthless when compared with Dundas's signed affidavit.

The funny thing is that you admitted this yourself back in the early 2000s when you conceded that no 'reasonable' conclusion could be drawn whether Murphy had seen the etchings or not.

I reposted your own statement. You said this yourself. Yet lo and behold, you now accuse me of calling him a liar for repeating an observation that you, yourself made.

It's childish and its galling, which is no doubt your intention.

The only difference between you and I where Murphy is involved is that over those twenty intervening years you have abandoned "reasonableness" and instead traded it in for half-baked partisan theorizing to bolster your weird belief that the diary was stolen from Dodd's house by Eddie Lyons and thus you haven't been bamboozled by Barrett and Graham.

No; I have never accused Murphy of lying, but you and your cohorts have implied, suggested, and even openly accused him and his wife of buying stolen goods and then lying about it, giving the watch a false provenance.

It's the hypocrisy that is so galling.

Your silly theories wouldn't be so bad if you didn't also feel the need to rant about Mike's "vile" affidavit and the terrible accusations against the "still living."

Get over it. You are making far worse accusations and all we hear is that there is "secret" evidence to prove it if we only wait a while longer.