One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

For those of you who are just plain bored out of their tinies by the senseless exchanges on the 'Who were they? (And who gives a ****?)' thread, can I just remind everyone that The Greatest Thread of All is open for the very serious business of promoting the rather obvious argument that James Maybrick was that arch-fiend Jacques de Slicio.

Entry is free but please stop by at the gift shop where we will fleece you of most of your hard-earned in exchange for a pencil-end trog with wild grey hair and a black doctor's bag, and a tea mug in any girl's or boy's name as long as it's Jack (thank you Henry Ford) ...

[Mike J. G.]

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

Handbags at dawn, eh, Caz? Don't worry, I know y'all are constantly at one another's throats so I can forgive you if you felt insulted, but I wasn't referring to anyone here as "dumb" or "dumber", it was merely a funny quote from the movie that I felt summed up the amazement some of you seem to be feeling over one letter out of hundreds on a watch that obviously doesn't match the hand of Maybrick.

As for the watch, I honestly don't make much of it, it's a scrambled mess of scratches. The story behind the watch isn't exactly clearer than the one behind the scrapbook, either.

I'm totally okay with the idea that we don't know who wrote the diary, so I've got no horse in that race and thus don't need to jam Mike and Anne in everywhere to fit in with my theories. I simply believe that it's a modern hoax, and probably has something to do with Mike and Anne, and I've got my reasons, as you have yours.

You feel it's an older hoax, which is fine, I've no issues with that, although you're not always clear on your views as you seem to be placing some big significance on a single letter matching Maybrick's, as though that means something, when virtually none of the other hundreds of letters, or writing style in general, found in the scrapbook or on the watch, matches Jim's at all.

Jim plainly didn't write on either the watch or the scrapbook, and unless I'm mistaken, you and I both agree on that, correct me if I'm wrong. The question is, who did? Unknown author, or the people what done brought it to light?

I go with the latter, but I'm totally open to the idea of an older hoax... There's just not a lot of meat on that bone with which I can sink my teeth.

All my love and hugs...

Mike ☠️

[rjpalmer]

you seem to be placing some big significance on a single letter matching Maybrick's

Does it, though? Does it match?

Two rare signatures of Maybrick's from 1888.

Don't trust my eyesight--I can't even see the obvious 'FM' in Farson's grainy photograph--but I'm told they are not looped.

[Mike J. G.]

Does it, though? Does it match?

Two rare signatures of Maybrick's from 1888.

Don't trust my eyesight--I can't even see the obvious 'FM' in Farson's grainy photograph--but I'm told they are not looped.

To play devil's advocate, I can see why some are clinging onto it, there's enough there that looks similar... But again, it's one letter. I truly don't see what the fuss is about, considering how virtually nothing in the scrapbook matches Jim's writing, and equally, nothing in the scrapbook matches the Dear Boss letter, which again, doesn't match Jim's writing. It's a lot of nothing. But I do generally agree with you that I don't think Jim ever put pen to paper in the scrapbook, or knife to watch.

[erobitha]

Does it, though? Does it match?

Two rare signatures of Maybrick's from 1888.

Don't trust my eyesight--I can't even see the obvious 'FM' in Farson's grainy photograph--but I'm told they are not looped.

You say potato, I say...

Your two examples vs my five.

[Iconoclast]

You say potato, I say...

Your two examples vs my five.

In fairness to RJ, ero b, we are dealing with the man who openly states he can't see Florrie's initials in Farson's 1973 paperback:

[Yabs]

You say potato, I say...

Your two examples vs my five.

Where does that altered version of the picture of the watch and loop on the K come from? It doesn’t quite look like that on the other versions I can find.

[erobitha]

Where does that altered version of the picture of the watch and loop on the K come from? It doesn’t quite look like that on the other versions I can find.

In answer to your question Yabs, which I think is fair, was provided to me by Keith Skinner when I asked him if he had any photos of the watch himself. I have made no "enhancements" to the one in my example.

I will ask Keith how he originally came by it.

[erobitha]

In answer to your question Yabs, which I think is fair, was provided to me by Keith Skinner when I asked him if he had any photos of the watch himself. I have made no "enhancements" to the one in my example.

I will ask Keith how he originally came by it.

In the interests of transparency, it is important to try and get as much clarity as possible. Hate to be accused of "misinformation".

Keith thinks this image could be from the glossy promotional literature for Paul Feldman's 1993 video.

I think the same image was also used in the TV show trial hosted by Michael Grade.

Beyond that, I have no more information. I have no idea how Feldman produced it.

As you can see, I have not doctored the image in any way.

[erobitha]

Where does that altered version of the picture of the watch and loop on the K come from? It doesn’t quite look like that on the other versions I can find.

That was an old version I believed I ran through AI, so ironically, that one has actually been edited and doctored.

[Yabs]

In the interests of transparency, it is important to try and get as much clarity as possible. Hate to be accused of "misinformation".

Keith thinks this image could be from the glossy promotional literature for Paul Feldman's 1993 video.

I think the same image was also used in the TV show trial hosted by Michael Grade.

Beyond that, I have no more information. I have no idea how Feldman produced it.

As you can see, I have not doctored the image in any way.

Cheers Ero.

It’s certainly good to see the whole picture as it were.
It’s a shame we have to go by just one or two pictures and can’t see more taken in different lighting and so on

[erobitha]

Cheers Ero.

It’s certainly good to see the whole picture as it were.
It’s a shame we have to go by just one or two pictures and can’t see more taken in different lighting and so on

I think we can agree on that.

[rjpalmer]

To play devil's advocate, I can see why some are clinging onto it, there's enough there that looks similar... But again, it's one letter.

Hi Mike. I hear what you're saying, but I'd argue that the similarity is superficial. When we write, the brain remembers the muscular movements we use to form individual letters, and neural patterns are then formed in the brain which are repeated the next time we write.

If you study the examples of Maybrick's "k" on Hartley's website, and work from left to right, it is easy enough to see how Maybrick formed his "K" and the movement bears no similarity to how the "k" was formed on the watch. Maybrick starts in the lower left to form the loop, for instance, while our Liverpool hoaxer began in the upper right and moved in the other direction. The vertical line of the k is also created differently.

The ironic thing is that Hartley is relying on an "enhanced" image of the 'k' which he now informs us was created by Feldman and his photographer, with no further details. Yet, it is far from clear, without resorting to the watch itself, which lines are the lower-most etchings of the signature and which lines are the more superficial scratches over the etchings. To me, a close comparison reveals that Feldman and his photographer used considerable artistic license to create this image. There seems to be a second loop that is being ignored, along with a few other lines, so it is very possible that what is being called the signature relies on some of the superficial scratches. It is impossible to be conclusive unless one had full access to the watch under magnification. Turgoose and Wild cannot help us because they do not identify which is which.

Further, the exemplars supplied by Keith Skinner date to the 1870s, and people's handwriting can change over time, as new neural patterns are formed.

By contrast, some time ago David Barrat supplied me with two examples of Maybrick's handwriting from 1888. They show there is no similarity between Maybrick's contemporary handwriting and the faint etchings on the watch. The lowest images below is a direct comparison between Hartley's Special K and Maybrick's K from 1888.

In conclusion, what we are looking at is a comparison between Feldman's "enhanced" interpretation of what the signature supposedly looks like and samples of Maybrick's non-contemporaneous signature. Yet, even then, this single, solitary letter that is supposedly so exciting is not formed the same way.

And of course as you quite rightly point out, the Diary crowd is forced to laser focus on a single letter when there are other letters on the watch that bear even less similarity as well as thousands of letters in the diary that bear no resemblance to Maybrick's writing, either. Even in the crazy field of Ripperology, we seldom see such a blatant example of cherry-picking, fueled by a desire to believe.

[erobitha]

Hi Mike. I hear what you're saying, but I'd argue that the similarity is superficial. When we write, the brain remembers the muscular movements we use to form individual letters, and neural patterns are then formed in the brain which are repeated the next time we write.

If you study the examples of Maybrick's "k" on Hartley's website, and work from left to right, it is easy enough to see how Maybrick formed his "K" and the movement bears no similarity to how the "k" was formed on the watch. Maybrick starts in the lower left to form the loop, for instance, while our Liverpool hoaxer began in the upper right and moved in the other direction. The vertical line of the k is also created differently.

The ironic thing is that Hartley is relying on an "enhanced" image of the 'k' which he now informs us was created by Feldman and his photographer, with no further details. Yet, it is far from clear, without resorting to the watch itself, which lines are the lower-most etchings of the signature and which lines are the more superficial scratches over the etchings. To me, a close comparison reveals that Feldman and his photographer used considerable artistic license to create this image. There seems to be a second loop that is being ignored, along with a few other lines, so it is very possible that what is being called the signature relies on some of the superficial scratches. It is impossible to be conclusive unless one had full access to the watch under magnification. Turgoose and Wild cannot help us because they do not identify which is which.

Further, the exemplars supplied by Keith Skinner date to the 1870s, and people's handwriting can change over time, as new neural patterns are formed.

By contrast, some time ago David Barrat supplied me with two examples of Maybrick's handwriting from 1888. They show there is no similarity between Maybrick's contemporary handwriting and the faint etchings on the watch. The lowest images below is a direct comparison between Hartley's Special K and Maybrick's K from 1888.

In conclusion, what we are looking at is a comparison between Feldman's "enhanced" interpretation of what the signature supposedly looks like and samples of Maybrick's non-contemporaneous signature. Yet, even then, this single, solitary letter that is supposedly so exciting is not formed the same way.

And of course as you quite rightly point out, the Diary crowd is forced to laser focus on a single letter when there are other letters on the watch that bear even less similarity as well as thousands of letters in the diary that bear no resemblance to Maybrick's writing, either. Even in the crazy field of Ripperology, we seldom see such a blatant example of cherry-picking, fueled by a desire to believe.

..all written by RJ without even the hint of a mention of different pen and ink types.

You do realise the paper and pen nibs play a big part in how easy or difficult it is to form one letter to another? Clearly the pen used in your examples had a thicker nib. Look at the thickness of the letters and how the ink is applied to the page. That is what makes your 1888 examples different, not muscle memory old chap.

On the subject of the original image that Feldman had, why would he doctor or edit it? I assume that is what you are insinuating? Feldman never mentioned loops in the K. If he had, I’d say we would have all heard about it long before my blog post.

Yet the attendance sheets K match the watch and that means Maybrick might have scratched it. That is the bit you really struggle with.

Special K indeed.

[caz]

Fountains Road IS a coincidence--even in reference to Caz Brown's theories and even if we believe Eddie stole the diary (which I don't). It's weird that Caz keeps bringing up the name of the street. Would it make one iota of difference if Devereux lived two blocks over? No.

What is relevant (supposedly) is that they were both patrons at the Saddle, and it wouldn't change anything if Devereux lived on a different street as long as it was within walking distance. What is also relevant (probably) is that Devereux was Barrett's friend and had recently died, so he was a good fall guy for the b.s. provenance tale that Mike and Anne told. I almost never agree with Caz about anything Maybrick related, but I agree with that.

Think about it. Do you think Barrett bought the diary from a man that lived on Fountains Road and then had to go and seek out another man who lived on Fountains Road for the sake of his bogus provenance, and that if Devereux had lived on Tulip Terrace instead, Barrett wouldn't have chosen him for this role? The street Devereux lived on does not enter the equation.

For someone with the imagination to see Mike and Anne creating the diary between 1st and 13th April 1992, RJ seems to have no imagination at all when it comes to the way Mike's mind worked. Of course he didn't think he had to replace one Fountains Road resident with another when he needed an explanation for where he got the diary. What a daft way to try and muddy the waters. It would turn out to be a happy coincidence that Mike had struck up a friendship with an old boy who had lived on Fountains Road and had a cracking excuse for not answering any questions, on account of having snuffed it back in August 1991. It would have struck Mike as the perfect solution, when the last thing he needed was for the live wire who had the old book on 9th March 1992 to be identified, tracked down and quizzed. We know that Shirley was soon in touch with the dead man's daughters, and Mike was afraid they might have a claim on the diary - the perils of telling a lie to kick the can back down the road, in this case Fountains Road. I suspect Mike learned where Eddie was living and that's when the idea to use Devereux came to him in a flash. He found it easier to lie with conviction when it was based on a truth.

We don't know that Mike 'bought' the diary from Eddie or conned him out of it, by offering to show it to potential buyers, but someone who used to post here described how he met Mike in Southport in later years and quizzed him about the diary, believing it to be a hoax. Instead of Mike coming out with the old guff about how he and Anne had fooled the world by faking it, or returning to his original Devereux story, this poster said that Mike told him he had stolen it from an electrician. That might make more sense, considering that Mike didn't seem to have a pot to piss in when Anne had to pay for the 1891 diary he had rashly ordered and then discarded.

It is a coincidence. Whether it is also a coincidence that they were both patrons at The Saddle remains to be seen, but that's a different point. The Fountain Road/Fountains Road gimmick is a way to verbally link Barrett to Lyons, which is not in evidence other than that Lyons lived near the pub and admitted to going there on occasion.

That's coincidence enough without bringing in the irrelevant fact that he lived on the same long street as Devereux.

Yeah, and if RJ keeps telling himself this, at least he may sleep a little bit more soundly.

But no 'gimmick' is needed to verbally link Barrett to Lyons. In June 1993, Mike's story - and he was sticking to it with his April 1993 affidavit - was that Devereux gave him the diary in 1991 and that's all he knew. If there was nothing to link him to Lyons, there was no need for either of them to provide a solid one by arranging for Robert Smith to meet the Fountains Road electrician in - drum roll - The Saddle, where Lyons admitted to working in Dodd's house [which we later learned he only did in March and July 1992] and finding a book, which he said he threw in a skip. That had to be an act of solidarity between two Scousers with something to hide. It was akin to admitting, with chocolate-coated crumbs all round his mouth, that he had found the head master's packet of chocolate digestives and taken it unopened to a food bank.