One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[The Baron]

The irony!

I wonder then why anyone takes seriously so remarkable a claim simply on the strength of the words of the hoaxer himself?!






The Baron

[Simon Wood]

You start. Publish irrefutable evidence the FM on Kelly's wall was there.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Everyone,

If anyone has any evidence that the 'FM' on Kelly's wall that are so easily seen in countless incarnations of the photograph are not there, can I strongly recommend that they publish the actual evidence of it (not simply talk about having such evidence) so that we can all see that how they aren't there after all?

I don't believe anyone takes seriously so remarkable a claim simply on the strength of the words of the claimant himself?

Ike

[The Baron]

Orsam has examined one of the best -if not the best- photos in existence, and there was no letters on the wall, all what we have here on these low quality copies are just artifacts and they don't form the alleged FM either.



The Baron

[Yabs]

That’s a great help Simon, thanks for that.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Yabs,

It happened at a City Darts 'Jack the Ripper Seminar' in 1989. I was probably talking to just Martin Fido and Keith Skinner (Paul Begg, living in Leeds at the time, made only occasional visits to London) about turning a black and white photograph into colour. I had seen this demonstrated on TV and thought it might be an idea to experiment with the Kelly photograph. During this, or a subsequent conversation, I pointed out the initials on the wall, reasoning in true Grand Guignol style that Kelly had finger-painted the murderer's initials on the partition wall beside her bed.

"Depending on which printed copy (Rumbelow, Farson, Begg, Knight etc.) of the Kelly photograph is examined, the initials appear more or less indistinct, and I thought the best exposure was in the Sphere paperback edition of Dan Farson's book.

My discovery was pounced upon with enthusiasm, but try as we may none of us could decipher the initials, let alone fit them to a suspect. And there, as far as I am concerned, the matter was dropped.

Four years later, in Shirley Harrison's book, this became—

"In 1976 Stephen Knight's "Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution" reproduced the picture with enough clarity to show that there appeared to be some initials on the wall partition behind Mary Kelly's bed, although they were not pointed out until 1988. The crime researcher Simon Wood mentioned them to Paul Begg."

Now you know the story of the initials on the wall.

Hope it helps.

Regards,

Simon

[The Baron]

Without Simon Wood, we wouldn't be discussing this thread now.



The Baron

[Yabs]

I know the diary is modern-day crap, because I was the person who, in 1987/88, first posited the idea of initials on the wall.

Hi Simon.

I was aware that you had suggested there may have been letters in the MK photo years ago, I just don’t know the context.
Was your suggestion publicised anywhere around that time so that the forger may have seen it?
Also, did you suggest what the letters may have been where they were etc?

Apologies if you’ve answered these questions many times before

[The Baron]

It's a dishonest way of debating and it's no coincidence that the two most active topics are on here have both adopted it.

There's another thread that wants people to prove that Lechmere is innocent of being Jack the Ripper. Since no one can actually prove it, and the poster knows this, they will see this as some kind of victory.

The diary has been discredited numerous times, with its provenances, handwriting, anachronistic language, (retracted) confession, etc. but because there is nothing that categorically proves it was a hoax, the pro-diarists will cling to that and not let go.

It's a silly game to get dragged into. I'm not sure if Ike is daffy enough to believe most of what he comes out with on here. I think it's become something of a pastime for him to wind up people with his quasi-religious defence of the diary.

Then again, there are millions of fair-minded folk who actually believe in adult fairytales.

Well said Harry, you can start a thread about Bury, or about Druitt for example, and no one will be literally able to prove none of them was the ripper!

This method is becoming more and more popular recently among suspect-based theory defenders, maybe it gives them something to live for, to fight for, that their theories hadn't been completely destroyed yet, or as you described it, a false feeling of victory or so

No one can prove Macnaghten was not the ripper, I challenge anyone to prove 100% that he was innocent, or to bring me one Incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes this.

One can deny any thing, letirally anything, just say one word, no!


Doesn't mean you are right.



The Baron

[Iconoclast]

I rest my case.

Yes, quite a while ago, Simon, to be honest.

[Simon Wood]

I rest my case.

[Iconoclast]

There's a foolproof way of knowing if a believer feels offended. Their posts become longer and more byzantine.

Honestly, everyone, has it become de rigueur to post on here in non sequiturs?

And let's just deconstruct that one shall we? You believe that a poster has been offended and all you can think to do is make facile and illogical commentary, deflecting from the issue, and addressing only your rather vindictive urge to imply some shallow triumph has been earned.

No triumph has been earned here, Simon, and Victory has not crowned any perceived fall of mine with applause, I promise you. You appear to now sit wretched on Albion's plains whilst your memories remain on the mountaintop in all your imagined glories and I for one regret the passing of any you may once have enjoyed.

Is that Byzantine enough for you?

[Simon Wood]

There's a foolproof way of knowing if a believer feels offended. Their posts become longer and more byzantine.

[Iconoclast]

It's a dishonest way of debating and it's no coincidence that the two most active topics are on here have both adopted it.

There's another thread that wants people to prove that Lechmere is innocent of being Jack the Ripper. Since no one can actually prove it, and the poster knows this, they will see this as some kind of victory.

The diary has been discredited numerous times, with its provenances, handwriting, anachronistic language, (retracted) confession, etc. but because there is nothing that categorically proves it was a hoax, the pro-diarists will cling to that and not let go.

It's a silly game to get dragged into. I'm not sure if Ike is daffy enough to believe most of what he comes out with on here. I think it's become something of a pastime for him to wind up people with his quasi-religious defence of the diary.

Then again, there are millions of fair-minded folk who actually believe in adult fairytales.

Well I think you have answered your own, not very well-constructed argument there.

Please don't tell a fellow poster they are a fool, or a liar, or a wind-up merchant, or insincere, or any of a thousand insults. It's the voice of the majority trying to drown out the voice of the minority. It's abusive, though you probably don't see it that way?

Just make your case and our dear readers will draw their own conclusions.

I'm delighted to note that you have noted that there is nothing that categorically proves it was a hoax. That should give you some grounds for caution when then arguing as though this had never been so well proven.

[Harry D]

The day that Pro-Diarists realize that absolutely nobody needs to "bring the diary to the sword" will be the day that they can rest easily knowing that they legitimately grasp how the burden of proof works.

Ike's search for one glaring red flag is akin to Cheryl Cole's search for a stable relationship.

My search for one solid piece of evidence to suggest that the diary was:

a) written by Jim

b) evidence that Jim was Jack

c) produced before the 1980s

is going about as well as Cheryl's love life.

It's a dishonest way of debating and it's no coincidence that the two most active topics are on here have both adopted it.

There's another thread that wants people to prove that Lechmere is innocent of being Jack the Ripper. Since no one can actually prove it, and the poster knows this, they will see this as some kind of victory.

The diary has been discredited numerous times, with its provenances, handwriting, anachronistic language, (retracted) confession, etc. but because there is nothing that categorically proves it was a hoax, the pro-diarists will cling to that and not let go.

It's a silly game to get dragged into. I'm not sure if Ike is daffy enough to believe most of what he comes out with on here. I think it's become something of a pastime for him to wind up people with his quasi-religious defence of the diary.

Then again, there are millions of fair-minded folk who actually believe in adult fairytales.