One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

Will you then honor me with your hand for a dance?

When my back is better, I'd be charmed.

[The Baron]

You wonder why this thread has X million views - it is because people like to look at it and weigh some of the more serious questions in life, like: is it possible to wet oneself by simply laughing to hard?

Or could my theory possibly be worse than this?!

Or new Hoaxer wannabe to learn from those mistakes




The Baron

[caz]

But you are side-stepping a fairly major issue. You and the diary club are saying the letters are clear on a grainy B&W photograph. So how would they have looked on that morning in November 1888 - crystal clear to the naked eye no doubt. So why does no one mention them? As I said earlier, Phillips mentions the wall area and blood patterns - no mention of letters. They would have been seen as a major clue. No mention. At all. Ever. You wonder why people slate this thread - your Juwes-James interpretation is so daft it is hilarious, yet the frightening thing is that you appear to be deadly serious.

You wonder why this thread has X million views - it is because people like to look at it and weigh some of the more serious questions in life, like: is it possible to wet oneself by simply laughing to hard?

Diary club?

Can one or two people be called a club?

Lots of posters seem to be queuing up to frequent this club as non-members, so I'm impressed.

[caz]

I did in posts #6941 and #6051.

I think Mike Barrett did everything possible to make Devereux's scrapbook his own. That included rewriting it in other Diaries (Red Diary - abandoned idea) and in the acquisition of other Diaries we're not aware of, before giving up and handing over Devereux's version to the publisher.

If you were to change Devereux to Lyons, Scotty, you might just have yourself a new theory!

I suspect Mike coveted that old book like crazy when he first set eyes on it - until he got hold of it and soon learned the old adage about being careful what you wish for.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

But you are side-stepping a fairly major issue. You and the diary club are saying the letters are clear on a grainy B&W photograph. So how would they have looked on that morning in November 1888

November, I think I read it was raining but I could be wrong, up a tight close, in a poorly-lit room (where was the light coming from?), I imagine they would not have looked like anything but blood splatters if they looked like anything at all. I also imagine that those who witnessed the carnage may possibly have been paying attention to the body and its discarded contents. Maybe that's just me. Any police force which makes such a hash of so blatant a potential clue as the GSG cannot be given the benefit of the doubt in terms of its ability to spot a possible clue in any murder scene never mind one so bloody as this one.

- crystal clear to the naked eye no doubt.

Well 'no doubt' if they were pretty much the only thing in a brilliantly-lit room, but it all just becomes assumptions again when one considers the context: it was 1888! There was no 'brilliant light' until the fleeting moment the photographer set off his flash. "Why did no-one shout "Stop - I just fleetingly saw some initials in blood on the wall there!""? Well I don't know but I think the words 'bloody' and 'fleetingly' certainly spring to mind.

So why does no one mention them?

Because no-one was looking for them. There was a veritable sea of blood and gore. Lots to pay attention to.

As I said earlier, Phillips mentions the wall area and blood patterns - no mention of letters.

So he saw blood patterns on the wall in light that may not have been bright. I wonder how much of his time he dedicated to an analysis of them given the blood and gore all around him?

They would have been seen as a major clue.

Like the GSG was?

No mention. At all. Ever.

You make it sound as though he spent a week in that room dissecting every speck. If he missed it - thought it was blood splatters - the first time, I doubt very much there was an 'At all' at all nor an 'Ever' ever.

You wonder why people slate this thread

I don't wonder why sanctimony dresses itself as insight, no. I promise you, I don't actually think about what other people claim at all. I'm only interested in what we can demonstrate and prove. A million people sharing the same opinion will never cause me to question my own. A million people sharing the same proofs would do, however.

- your Juwes-James interpretation is so daft it is hilarious,

I don't think I can claim it as 'mine', but you can certainly claim it as your opinion and you are more than welcome to it. Honestly, I'm like a waxed-up car in the rain.

yet the frightening thing is that you appear to be deadly serious.

This certainly helps me to understand your recent bout of unease at a photograph you simply must have seen a thousand times before. Are you really so easily frightened?

You wonder why this thread has X million views

No, I don't wonder at all. I simply know that it has more views above the 1.2million views I cited than most threads ever get at all (ever). But let's see why it does ...

- it is because people like to look at it and weigh some of the more serious questions in life, like: is it possible to wet oneself by simply laughing to hard?

It is a real shame that they consider those to be 'some of the more serious questions in life'. You might imagine that investing their time on a website such as this they might be vaguely interested in solving the crime?

By the way, I have a friend who has often wondered about how many buttons were missing on PC Thain's uniform five months after the last canonical murder. I imagine you'll know of a thread discussing this. Could you direct me to it, please?

Now that's wet-oneselfable!

[caz]

There is one more thing

The hoaxer says:

I had a key,
And with it I did flee


There is a very subtle error in the above, Jack was not locked in the room, he was not imprisoned there, he didn't need a key to flee.



The Baron

Hi Baron,

Your hoaxer is claiming to be Maybrick, writing for his own amusement in his private diary. Am I correct?

Immediately following the Kelly murder, your hoaxer has Maybrick reading all about his latest in the papers, before going into details. Am I correct?

Your hoaxer is overly fond of making up funny little rhymes for Maybrick and letting him play with words. Correct again?

Your hoaxer frequently has Maybrick mocking the fools for missing clues, or seeing clues that are not there, and generally publishing errors about him. Correct again?

Earlier in the diary, your hoaxer has Maybrick writing: 'I have read all of my deeds they have done me proud, I had to laugh, they have me down as left handed, a Doctor, a slaughterman and a Jew. Very well, if they are to insist that I am a Jew then a Jew I shall be.'

After the Kelly murder, your hoaxer has Maybrick writing: 'They wanted a slaughterman so I stripped what I could, laughed while I was doing so.'

There is a recurring theme of this mockery throughout the diary, so it's entirely in keeping for your hoaxer's character to have used initial newspaper reports, with all their theories, errors and misconceptions, as fodder for more funny little rhymes.

So your hoaxer could have spelled it out for you and written:

They say I had a key
And with it I did flee

but maybe it wasn't considered necessary or important.

Would you say your hoaxer makes two more fatal errors because Maybrick wasn't a slaughterman or Jewish?

Or am I correct in thinking this is all just part and parcel of the way your hoaxer has Maybrick express his contempt for the 'fools' trying to catch him?

Incidentally, I have long thought that the door to room 13 was probably off the latch and locked itself when Jack left, and it closed behind him, making it necessary for the door to be broken down. After the key was lost and Joe Barnett had moved out, would Mary Kelly have risked cutting her arms to ribbons reaching through the broken window to open the door from the inside? With nothing much worth stealing, I think she'd have left the door on the latch whenever she went out, so it would be unlocked when she returned. Once inside she could have released the latch to lock herself in and everyone else out.

Mrs Cox said nothing about a key being used, or the window trick, when she saw Mary and Blotchy at close quarters entering the room together.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

By the way, the more you zoom in on a photo - any photo - the more blurring you are going to get. Photos are pixilated so the more you zoom the more you get down to the pixels. If you want to see what is there, you have to stand back. I think of it as the 'Mona Lisa from a Distance' effect - you'll know what I mean, I'm sure, those pictures which break down to mere dots on paper when you get close or zoom in but - when you stand back - you can clearly see an image of Mona Lisa.

Now, is the image you see of Mona Lisa mere pareidolia? Or is it what was always intended to be 'there' - the whole being greater than the sum of its parts?



If the 'FM' breaks down once zoomed in, does that mean that it was never intended to be 'FM' at all (ever)?

Ike

[rjpalmer]

It is taken from a police forensics file in Philadelphia and the murder was not made public of who.

Then you'll have no problem supplying your link.

[caz]

It is astonishing! It doesn't matter how many error one makes in a forgery, one can always find some people who will believe it!

In this case, those readily and unconditionally believers not only believe it, they use those exact errors to confirm its authenticity!

People can believe ANYTHING, there is NO LIMITS for imagination, this case proved it.

The Baron

It is astonishing! It doesn't matter how many errors and contradictions can be found among Mike's various forgery claims, one can always find some people who will believe they reflect reality!

In this case, those ready to swallow his guff unconditionally, have shamelessly adapted those same errors and contradictions to make their theories work.

[caz]

I had a key tra la la
and with it I did flee tra la la

but without it I couldn't be able to flee
tra la la



tin match box empty

proved the diary is a modern hoax more than 25 years ago



The Baron

Then why ARE you still here, dear Baron?

You may as well be arguing the toss with people who believe the moon landings were faked because the moon is made of cheese.

I can hardly believe that you find me so damned attractive that you can't bear to be without my wit, wisdom and damned attractiveness for a single day, so it MUST be the diary you are besotted with.

What has the watch ever done to you, to be so cruelly ignored?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The tragedy of this is that not only did Mary Kelly suffer the most appalling crime, intimate photos of her are now paraded about to support your stupid, bone idle, lazy, ridiculous, massive pile of steaming BS theory.

There are clearly no letters on that wall. If you are saying those are F M then you can make any number of letters out marks on that wall. What the marks you have highlight on the body are supposed to indicate, I have no idea and I do not wish to know. It is clearly some other stupid idea of yours.

Some study was made of the partition wall area, to record the blood spray on the wall and pool on the ground. Are you seriously saying police and surgeons who were actually at the crime scene and saw something other than a grainy photo did not notice these letters? Or are you also resorting to some pointless conspiracy theory?

I think your post is disgusting.

Anyone would think you had wandered into this place by accident, Aethelwulf.

This is Casebook: Jack the Ripper.

Perhaps there should be a warning about graphic crime scene images that visitors might find distressing, and a helpline number for those affected by theorists who have been debating to death what clues might or might not be gleaned from those images from day one.

Would you like me to pass you the smelling salts?

Or is it just differences of opinion you can't stomach and find disgusting - in which case I'd advise you not to take up politics as your next little waste of time.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I can only think you've suffered a serious blow to head at some point and it has affected your ability to think rationally. There is a reason people refer this as the 'loser diary thread'.

Why does anyone need to be so disgustingly ill-mannered and personally abusive over what is a difference of opinion?

I don't agree with Ike's views on the diary, nor he with mine, but he's one of the least disagreeable posters on this 'loser diary thread'.

Nobody is obliged to join the losers queueing up to have their say, if they are this easily offended by Ike's posts.

[The Baron]

Then why ARE you still here, dear Baron?

You may as well be arguing the toss with people who believe the moon landings were faked because the moon is made of cheese.

I can hardly believe that you find me so damned attractive that you can't bear to be without my wit, wisdom and damned attractiveness for a single day, so it MUST be the diary you are besotted with.

What has the watch ever done to you, to be so cruelly ignored?

Love,

Caz
X

"You see that rough surrounding stone? You can polish it all you want, but it'll still be worthless. But there might be something much more valuable inside that you can't yet see."

It must NOT be the diary I am besotted with.




The Baron

[caz]

The errors, the handwriting, the provenance, the confession, none of these taken individually or collectively are enough to budge you, so nothing will. That's the point. That's the game you're playing.

It's the intellectual dishonesty we regularly see from suspect-based theorists.

It's the double standard I don't like, Harry. What about the errors and contradictions in Mike's confessions; the handwriting that isn't attributable to him or to any other modern suspect; and the Battlecrease provenance that has been hiding in plain sight, ticking away like a time bomb? If none of these taken individually or collectively are enough to budge the 11 Day Creationists from their smug complacency of a Barrett based hoax, I don't know what would.

It's the same intellectual dishonesty, which I regularly see from the suspect-based modern hoax theorists.

It's a game they are playing without the winning cards they should have had years ago.

[caz]

"You see that rough surrounding stone? You can polish it all you want, but it'll still be worthless. But there might be something much more valuable inside that you can't yet see."

It must NOT be the diary I am besotted with.




The Baron

Ooh you are awful, Baron, but I like you.