One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Abby Normal]

Because I don't believe that the Barretts were involved with the diary's creation, Abby, and that's what the majority of posters to this thread do believe.

I'm not bothered about one poster who believes Maybrick did it, when he is outnumbered by Barrett believers.

Think about it. How many one-liner trolls regularly turn up here to mindlessly champion the Maybrick theory? That ought to tell you something.

Love,

Caz
X

i didnt even mention the barretts or trolls caz.lol.but you cant help it. your stance is a joke and an embarrassment to ripperolgy. sugden said it best ...you and your ilk are stranded in amber forever for all the world to see. id have more respect for you if you just admitted you have too much time money and effort invested over half your life to admit youve been fooled by a two bit con man.

[erobitha]

i didnt even mention the barretts or trolls caz.lol.but you cant help it. your stance is a joke and an embarrassment to ripperolgy. sugden said it best ...you and your ilk are stranded in amber forever for all the world to see. id have more respect for you if you just admitted you have too much time money and effort invested over half your life to admit youve been fooled by a two bit con man.

Who was the con man behind the watch Abby since you seem to have all the answers? Who benefitted from that?

[erobitha]

The trolls are those who believe the Maybrick diary. Very few support the diary because it is not the real deal.

So in your mind, we have this strange situation that "trolls" are now people who seek truth based on evidence? The only person I see "supporting the diary" is Ike, and that is his right. The rest of us are simply trying to establish facts of the provenance of both the diary and the watch. What Mike Barrett said was never facts.

In my mind, you, Fishy and others are the trolls. You spout one-liners about how everything is a hoax and is fake but offer no evidence to show the Barretts hoaxed the scrapbook. You think they did. Without any evidence, it remains a theory.

Us who do not believe it was a Barrett hoax are still searching for the truth. Trolls, right? The best independent evidence so far suggests strongly Eddie Lyons found the scrapbook and gave it to Mike, a man who drank in the same pub as him. If you had real critical thinking, that should intrigue you.

[FISHY1118]

So in your mind, we have this strange situation that "trolls" are now people who seek truth based on evidence? The only person I see "supporting the diary" is Ike, and that is his right. The rest of us are simply trying to establish facts of the provenance of both the diary and the watch. What Mike Barrett said was never facts.

In my mind, you, Fishy and others are the trolls. You spout one-liners about how everything is a hoax and is fake but offer no evidence to show the Barretts hoaxed the scrapbook. You think they did. Without any evidence, it remains a theory.

Us who do not believe it was a Barrett hoax are still searching for the truth. Trolls, right? The best independent evidence so far suggests strongly Eddie Lyons found the scrapbook and gave it to Mike, a man who drank in the same pub as him. If you had real critical thinking, that should intrigue you.

Theres just one problem with that '' people who seek the truth based on evidence ' the Maybrick evidence doesent lead to or prove the truth !!! , it never has .So by definition all we have is just another theory .

I dont begrudge anyone who wants to support a certain suspect ,go right ahead just dont ''Bullshite'' us that based on the evidence thats mostly circumstancial as it in in all the suspects cases, that its the ''Truth'' and in this case James Maybrick can no more be proven he was jtr than Mother Teresa .

[John Wheat]

Theres just one problem with that '' people who seek the truth based on evidence ' the Maybrick evidence doesent lead to or prove the truth !!! , it never has .So by definition all we have is just another theory .

I dont begrudge anyone who wants to support a certain suspect ,go right ahead just dont ''Bullshite'' us that based on the evidence thats mostly circumstancial as it in in all the suspects cases, that its the ''Truth'' and in this case James Maybrick can no more be proven he was jtr than Mother Teresa .

I'm with Fishy. Maybrick can no more be proven the Ripper than Mother Theresea. Of course if someone has actual proof Maybrick was the Ripper then show it. I've said this before and I'll probably say it again but considering the provenance of the diary it's upto those that believe it the real deal to prove it not the other way around.

[Iconoclast]

The trolls are those who believe the Maybrick diary. Very few support the diary because it is not the real deal.

One can have one's own opinions, but one cannot have one's own facts (thank you, Ricky Gervais, again).

[John Wheat]

One can have one's own opinions, but one cannot have one's own facts (thank you, Ricky Gervais, again).

Not totally sure what you're going on about but the Maybrick diary is not the real deal and neither is the watch despite the amount of bullshit the diary believers post.

[Iconoclast]

Not totally sure what you're going on about but the Maybrick diary is not the real deal and neither is the watch despite the amount of bullshit the diary believers post.

Maybe I was a wee bit too vague there. I was just reminding you and everyone who reads this stuff that what you posted was an opinion not a fact, but that you refer to it as if it were fact.

[John Wheat]

Maybe I was a wee bit too vague there. I was just reminding you and everyone who reads this stuff that what you posted was an opinion not a fact, but that you refer to it as if it were fact.

Yes but you go on about the diary as if its authenticity is a fact. Its not at all in fact I would say anyone who believes the diary was written by Maybrick is living in cloud cuckoo land.

[Ven]

Hi Iconclast,
Love this thread. I go both ways , so many exciting options, but I do do take affront to your comments re slavery and the Bible... sorry its been playing on my mind for a while and this thread has been silent for a few days. When did you last read the Bible to state that the bible says nothing against slavery? You stated as fact that the Bible says nothing against slavery, yet it does... if you can't find it, what other "facts " have you got wrong?

[Iconoclast]

Hi Iconclast,
Love this thread. I go both ways , so many exciting options, but I do do take affront to your comments re slavery and the Bible... sorry its been playing on my mind for a while and this thread has been silent for a few days. When did you last read the Bible to state that the bible says nothing against slavery? You stated as fact that the Bible says nothing against slavery, yet it does... if you can't find it, what other "facts " have you got wrong?

Woah there, Tiger!

Sadly, you had me at 'Love this thread' but then you let me go again ...

This is a thread focused on solving the Jack the Ripper murders - you know, the ones committed by Liverpool cotton merchant James Maybrick. I don't think anyone wants to see it derailed by other Big Ticket Items in this world.

That said, please be clear regarding what you think I have said. You are welcome to correct me but I would be surprised if you could find a quotation of mine where I focus on the lack of denouncements of slavery in the Bible although - if I hadn't and I knew I'd have been correct to have done so - it would be utterly remiss of me not to have done so. If, on the other hand, the Bible righteously and persistently denounces this vile crime then I am still not impressed - too little too late as far as I am concerned. Once a liar, always a liar (Mike Barrett). Once a slavery promoter, always a slavery promoter (the Holy Bible). Whoever edits this document has never removed the detailed explanation of how to treat your slaves so that is all I need to know about the Christian view on a person's right to own their own lives. Whatever else may have been said which could be shifted by apologists to sound like a denouncement is of no interest to me and I'd be very surprised if I'd ever commented thus. I'm not saying I haven't, merely that I'd be surprised if I did as that was not my recollection of my comments.

I am 99.99% certain that if you check back (after all, you have allowed it to play on your mind for a while so you might have also allowed it to morph into an entirely different argument altogether), you will find that I have simply pointed-out that the very principles which underpin the evils of slavery are minutely detailed in the Bible. It is true that I have no idea where in the Bible the Word of God explicitly denounces this disgusting human tendency but - as I say - I don't believe that that was ever my argument.

Anyway, if I have ever been ambiguous on this subject, please be clear now - I condemn all apologists on slavery and obviously all instigators of it whether that was an ancient religious text or some vile gang in the modern age. I am considerably less strident regarding those who do not denounce it as that is their right so not to do.

[FISHY1118]

Woah there, Tiger!

Sadly, you had me at 'Love this thread' but then you let me go again ...

This is a thread focused on solving the Jack the Ripper murders - you know, the ones committed by Liverpool cotton merchant James Maybrick. I don't think anyone wants to see it derailed by other Big Ticket Items in this world.

That said, please be clear regarding what you think I have said. You are welcome to correct me but I would be surprised if you could find a quotation of mine where I focus on the lack of denouncements of slavery in the Bible although - if I hadn't and I knew I'd have been correct to have done so - it would be utterly remiss of me not to have done so. If, on the other hand, the Bible righteously and persistently denounces this vile crime then I am still not impressed - too little too late as far as I am concerned. Once a liar, always a liar (Mike Barrett). Once a slavery promoter, always a slavery promoter (the Holy Bible). Whoever edits this document has never removed the detailed explanation of how to treat your slaves so that is all I need to know about the Christian view on a person's right to own their own lives. Whatever else may have been said which could be shifted by apologists to sound like a denouncement is of no interest to me and I'd be very surprised if I'd ever commented thus. I'm not saying I haven't, merely that I'd be surprised if I did as that was not my recollection of my comments.

I am 99.99% certain that if you check back (after all, you have allowed it to play on your mind for a while so you might have also allowed it to morph into an entirely different argument altogether), you will find that I have simply pointed-out that the very principles which underpin the evils of slavery are minutely detailed in the Bible. It is true that I have no idea where in the Bible the Word of God explicitly denounces this disgusting human tendency but - as I say - I don't believe that that was ever my argument.

Anyway, if I have ever been ambiguous on this subject, please be clear now - I condemn all apologists on slavery and obviously all instigators of it whether that was an ancient religious text or some vile gang in the modern age. I am considerably less strident regarding those who do not denounce it as that is their right so not to do.

Whoa huh there indeed, you mean the ones in "your opinion" and as yet "unproven" that were committed by the cotton merchant James Maybrick.

Who just happen to know how to remove vital human organs in under 8 minutes or so . As a cotton merchant he makes a good medical man

[rjpalmer]

Hi Iconclast,

I go both ways , so many exciting options, but I do do take affront to your comments re slavery and the Bible... sorry its been playing on my mind for a while and this thread has been silent for a few days. When did you last read the Bible to state that the bible says nothing against slavery? You stated as fact that the Bible says nothing against slavery, yet it does... if you can't find it, what other "facts " have you got wrong?

Out of curiosity, I did a key word search to find Ike's offending post. It was nearly two years ago, October 2021.

"Many religious organisations use a similar methodology to help their confused brethren to 'deal with' the difficult questions of their faith. It's called Apologetics, of course, and it consists of applying a consistent, unthinking solution to any given problem within their theology. For example, the Wholly Risible quite clearly supports and regulates for slavery - not indentured servitude but the actual owning of human beings as property. This creates a terrible moral dilemma. How do we argue that this book is the Word of God if it quite clearly contains an abhorrent stock of sentiments? Well, Apologetics is there to provide the answer: in this case, just repeat after me, "That was in the Old Testament. Jesus and the New Testament provided God's real teaching", et cetera (despite Jesus never once condemning slavery nor any other NT author). Sleep easy brother and sister for you have defended the faith.

This is what happens with the pareidolia go-to. Florence's initials are really very obviously on Mary Kelly's wall and this is absolutely catastrophic for the argument against the authenticity of the Victorian scrapbook. Hence, we have the fixed-rate Apologetic - it never wavers despite the changing times - it's just diary-defenders creating a false narrative via pareidolia because they're frauds and idiots and trolls and wind-up merchants."

---

This is a weird and strained analogy to be sure.

Just look at the title of this thread. It is the misnamed 'Iconoclast' who is actually assuming the role of the theologian on this thread. He is asking the unbelievers to find errors or faults with the Holy Writ and then he is using exegesis and 'Apologetics' to defend it against their objections.

I'm trying to be objective, but as much as he wants to turn the tables, he's not really an iconoclast so much as an evangelist, isn't he? An evangelist for the photo album?

[Iconoclast]

Whoa huh there indeed, you mean the ones in "your opinion" and as yet "unproven" that were committed by the cotton merchant James Maybrick.
Who just happen to know how to remove vital human organs in under 8 minutes or so . As a cotton merchant he makes a good medical man

We have been there before, young Fishy.

Are we to understand that you believe that Jack the Spratt McVitie was a skilled surgeon?

If that is your argument, I wonder how many of Jack's 200 alter egos that would leave us to debate about?

(I wrote the above about 9 hours ago or so - no idea why it didn't post but fortunately for me the editor had remembered my eloquent response and saved it for me and all of you lucky readers.)

[Iconoclast]

How refreshing it must be for all of my dear readers to find that age doth not blunt the blade.

Iconoclast I am and iconoclast I am proud to be. No craven image is safe before me.

(Except Fulham’s idyllic ground on the banks of the Thames, of course.)