One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Pcdunn]

wow. chipmunks are endangered in the UK!?! now that really does suck! cute little critters -got a couple living in my wood pile. im a huge nature and wildlife guy and lucky to live in an area where theres lots of it. eventhough im only five miles northwest of DC theres big fields next to my house that stretch all the way to the mighty Potomac and i can sit on my back deck and watch the squirrels(gray and black), rabbits, woodchucks, fox, deer and even the occasional coyote(not kidding), plus a myriad of birds..including hawks, owls, those big woody wood peckers and all manner of colorful song birds, and evn reptiles..snakes, lizards and box turtles. its pretty cool.

we dont have hedgehogs or red squirrels where i live but i do love those guys too. hope they are still well and good in england?

I saw in a nature documentary that hamsters run wild in Britain's suburbs, which is news to me. Perhaps people turn the little cuties loose (as Americans do with cats), and the hamsters are moving into the chipmunks' niche in the ecosystem?

[Iconoclast]

Your budgie just told me that, and he's a smart bird.

OMG - old Toothy has been dead for a decade! You must have special powers, Caz!

[Iconoclast]

wow. chipmunks are endangered in the UK!?! now that really does suck! cute little critters -got a couple living in my wood pile. im a huge nature and wildlife guy and lucky to live in an area where theres lots of it. eventhough im only five miles northwest of DC theres big fields next to my house that stretch all the way to the mighty Potomac and i can sit on my back deck and watch the squirrels(gray and black), rabbits, woodchucks, fox, deer and even the occasional coyote(not kidding), plus a myriad of birds..including hawks, owls, those big woody wood peckers and all manner of colorful song birds, and evn reptiles..snakes, lizards and box turtles. its pretty cool.

we dont have hedgehogs or red squirrels where i live but i do love those guys too. hope they are still well and good in england?

Wow back, Abby - that's a whole lot of wild life and somewhat more in one backwater paragraph than the whole of the UK sees in a lifetime!

Now I have this vision of you wearing a red tartan checked shirt, big ol' boots two sizes too big, chewing baccy and cussing at the aphids. Anywhere near?

[Iconoclast]

I saw in a nature documentary that hamsters run wild in Britain's suburbs ...

I think you're getting mixed-up with 'teenagers', Pc. They are definitely running wild in the suburbs and one of the little feral bastards recently dropped an empty crisp (chip) packet on the pavement near my house. It's anarchy here, little short of, mate.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Now I have this vision of you wearing a red tartan checked shirt, big ol' boots two sizes too big, chewing baccy and cussing at the aphids. Anywhere near?

I imagine Abby's more Credence Clearwater Revival's 'Lookin out my back door' than Paul Bunyan...

[Abby Normal]

Wow back, Abby - that's a whole lot of wild life and somewhat more in one backwater paragraph than the whole of the UK sees in a lifetime!

Now I have this vision of you wearing a red tartan checked shirt, big ol' boots two sizes too big, chewing baccy and cussing at the aphids. Anywhere near?

nope. more like shorts and shirtless. barefoot, drinking a cold one with an occasional whiff of the whacky tobaccy and thanking my lucky stars! lol

but i do hike, explore alot and dabble in nature photography when im not chillaxing or working.

[Abby Normal]

I imagine Abby's more Credence Clearwater Revival's 'Lookin out my back door' than Paul Bunyan...

bingo on both counts. but i do like hiking in the mountains and love trees but not to cut em down!Appies only an hour drive to the west! and CCR is one of my favorite bands!
cheers Al!

[caz]

I saw in a nature documentary that hamsters run wild in Britain's suburbs, which is news to me. Perhaps people turn the little cuties loose (as Americans do with cats), and the hamsters are moving into the chipmunks' niche in the ecosystem?

News to me too, Pat.

A friend at primary school had a series of pet hamsters, which either died or escaped from their cage and got lost. She called them all Hammy, and one was found under a floorboard - I kid you not - after she had just acquired the latest replacement.

We once looked after another school friend's pet budgie while she was away on holiday. My Dad let him out of his cage one day and he flew happily round the room, then landed on Dad's head and started pulling at his hair, which made us all laugh, including my Dad!

All the wildlife where I live now is endangered thanks to my cat, Monty.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Why would Mike have worried about the paper being of the 'correct' period, if he had then taken the diary to London, knowing that no attempt had been made to imitate the 'correct' handwriting?

This is a facile argument--rock bottom, really--a way to wave away Barrett's attempt to buy blank Victorian paper ('at least twenty blank pages') but it is also a question that only someone like Thom Mitchell or Robert Smith could truly answer.

These two blokes have accepted that the non-Maybrickian handwriting is nevertheless Maybrick's--rationalizing this alarming belief by speculating about 'public vs. private' hands; forged wills; multi-personality order; the alleged vagaries of handwriting analysis; etc.

Would they have similarly turned a blind eye if Barrett had arrived in London with a Ripper diary written in a modern spiral notebook with a 65p price tag from Ryman plastered to the cover? Or a text written with a green ballpoint pen?

I somehow doubt it, but I suppose it is possible.

I would think that period paper and a mock-Victorian ink would be the lowest two hurdles in the Grand National of creating an acceptable hoax, but maybe this is just an assumption on my part.

[Iconoclast]

This is a facile argument--rock bottom, really--a way to wave away Barrett's attempt to buy blank Victorian paper ('at least twenty blank pages') but it is also a question that only someone like Thom Mitchell or Robert Smith could truly answer.

These two blokes have accepted that the non-Maybrickian handwriting is nevertheless Maybrick's--rationalizing this alarming belief by speculating about 'public vs. private' hands; forged wills; multi-personality order; the alleged vagaries of handwriting analysis; etc.

Would they have similarly turned a blind eye if Barrett had arrived in London with a Ripper diary written in a modern spiral notebook with a 65p price tag from Ryman plastered to the cover? Or a text written with a green ballpoint pen?

I somehow doubt it, but I suppose it is possible.

I would think that period paper and a mock-Victorian ink would be the lowest two hurdles in the Grand National of creating an acceptable hoax, but maybe this is just an assumption on my part.

Goodness me, and you have every right to comment RJ because you have never speculated once regarding the origins of the Maybrick scrapbook, have you?

Well done on your years of ruthless dedication to only the science and the facts of the case.

PS To be clear, I challenge the assumption that public and private hands are necessarily the same and have shown on this very thread (IIRC) that my own handwriting in private and public 'hands' was (and probably still is if I ever wrote a letter to someone again) grossly different. The issue of the will, the claims around multi-personality disorder, and alleged vagaries of handwriting analysis are those of others (which, granted, I may have repeated).

[erobitha]

I must have missed the post where RJ explains how the scrapbook was proven Edwardian. Was he basing it on a throwaway remark to simply muddy waters? Or does he have something scientific as proof that conclusively proves the scrapbook was not Victorian but, in fact, Edwardian? In the case of the Hitler diaries, they had scientific proof that the paper was from post second world war, so I can only assume he has unearthed something similar.

Anything out of Mike Barrett's mouth cannot be trusted, as we know, and I'm sure he has something based on absolute fact.

He wouldn't just be trying to muddy the waters for our dear readers, would he?

[John Wheat]

I must have missed the post where RJ explains how the scrapbook was proven Edwardian. Was he basing it on a throwaway remark to simply muddy waters? Or does he have something scientific as proof that conclusively proves the scrapbook was not Victorian but, in fact, Edwardian? In the case of the Hitler diaries, they had scientific proof that the paper was from post second world war, so I can only assume he has unearthed something similar.

Anything out of Mike Barrett's mouth cannot be trusted, as we know, and I'm sure he has something based on absolute fact.

He wouldn't just be trying to muddy the waters for our dear readers, would he?

Mike Barret is just the sort of character to write a Jack the Ripper diary.

[John Wheat]

This is a facile argument--rock bottom, really--a way to wave away Barrett's attempt to buy blank Victorian paper ('at least twenty blank pages') but it is also a question that only someone like Thom Mitchell or Robert Smith could truly answer.

These two blokes have accepted that the non-Maybrickian handwriting is nevertheless Maybrick's--rationalizing this alarming belief by speculating about 'public vs. private' hands; forged wills; multi-personality order; the alleged vagaries of handwriting analysis; etc.

Would they have similarly turned a blind eye if Barrett had arrived in London with a Ripper diary written in a modern spiral notebook with a 65p price tag from Ryman plastered to the cover? Or a text written with a green ballpoint pen?

I somehow doubt it, but I suppose it is possible.

I would think that period paper and a mock-Victorian ink would be the lowest two hurdles in the Grand National of creating an acceptable hoax, but maybe this is just an assumption on my part.

I wouldn't be surprised if those two blokes would believe a Ripper diary written in a modern spiral notebook etc Or text written with a green ballpoint pen was written by James Maybrick.

[caz]

I wouldn't be surprised if those two blokes would believe a Ripper diary written in a modern spiral notebook etc Or text written with a green ballpoint pen was written by James Maybrick.

Well, John, I can't imagine that much would surprise a bloke who thinks a liar wrote the diary because this liar said so during the lowest period of his life.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

This is a facile argument--rock bottom, really--a way to wave away Barrett's attempt to buy blank Victorian paper ('at least twenty blank pages') but it is also a question that only someone like Thom Mitchell or Robert Smith could truly answer.

These two blokes have accepted that the non-Maybrickian handwriting is nevertheless Maybrick's--rationalizing this alarming belief by speculating about 'public vs. private' hands; forged wills; multi-personality order; the alleged vagaries of handwriting analysis; etc.

And two other blokes have convinced themselves that the non-Anne Graham handwriting is nevertheless Anne Graham's, rationalising this desperate belief by speculating about her left vs right hand; rare ambidexterity; deliberate disguise; mock-Victorian efforts; multi-personality disorder; alleged similarities in the odd letter or word between photocopied documents; etc.

Palmer will no doubt relish the opportunity to learn from Anne Graham herself which, if any of these factors, saved her from the fate that awaited the faker of the Hitler Diaries.

Meanwhile, his readers might like to ask themselves why Palmer puts all his faith in the changing stories of a self-confessed liar, the late Mike Barrett, and none at all in a highly credible living witness such as Tim Martin-Wright.