One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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 .

[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.

[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?

[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.

[John Wheat]

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

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

[caz]

lol. i guess one can forgive his confusion when all youve ever done is argue on the side with the handful of gullible maybrickians. you would think that someone who thinks the diary is a hoax would argue against the diary believers and to help set them straight but you never do that do you caz? why is that...

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

[FISHY1118]

'Proof' is a very elusive unit in the world of Ripperology. There is nothing whatsoever against any other candidate for Jack, but at least two strong, physical pieces of evidence in favour of Maybrick, and a host of circumstantial evidence (which juries frequently convict on the back of).



This shows that you haven't read his treatise (as we all knew you hadn't, of course). Not everything Harris argued is lie vs truth. Much resides in the land of opinion which tends not to be flavoured by either lies or truths but - rather - by that which one favours.



You've gone a wee bit Psycho Killer on me there, Fishy, but the truth is that I say a hell of a lot and most of it is simply brilliant. That's one of the reasons why we're up at 10,000+ posts and 1.4million+ views. Or do you think absolutely everyone who posts to and reads this, The Greatest Thread of All, is some mindless twat with nothing better to do? Why do they keep coming back, I wonder, if the case against Maybrick is so well shut and resolved?



Contrary to your nonesensical claim, above, which you have taken to repeating rather parrotlike (ironically), both the scrapbook and the watch are actual physical evidence against James Maybrick, and that means that neither of them is a theory. They both exist. Honestly.

Sorry ike ,but your just posting the same extended long drawn out storyline about very little im afraid.

What a cheeky way of wording this last paragraph of your ""physical evidence against him "" that means nothing and you and everyone else no its . Where the evidence James Maybrick killed th c5 ?

Give me solid proof man . !

[Abby Normal]

Where have I ever attempted to prove James Maybrick was the ripper? Are you sure you know who you are responsing to, FISHY?

Love,

Caz
X

lol. i guess one can forgive his confusion when all youve ever done is argue on the side with the handful of gullible maybrickians. you would think that someone who thinks the diary is a hoax would argue against the diary believers and to help set them straight but you never do that do you caz? why is that...

[caz]

Let me clarify this, so there is no misunderstanding.

We have been told that there were two independent witnesses to Barrett's ownership of these volumes. Jenny Morrison and one of Mike's sisters.

But what the point I'm posing is whether these witnesses verified that they were 'new and unused' copies.

My question to Palmer would be how he has ascertained that anyone connected with Mike Barrett ever verified that there was a complete set of twelve volumes, used or unused, including the only one that matters: volume 2.

It is even less easy to see how or why Mike would have ended up in possession of a complete set if one or more of the books had been used, or if all of them were used.

Melvin Harris's argument was that Mike had a copy of volume 2 and knew very well what its significance was in June 1994 but 'did not mention it to the Liverpool Post because he held it in reserve as a possible money spinner'.

Let that sink in.

Melvin appeared to be arguing that Mike lodged this volume with his solicitor and lent the other books to Jenny: 'Mike Barrett never claimed that Volume 2 had been lent to Jenny or was even seen by her. He simply stated that Jenny and other people could testify that he owned a NUMBER of the Sphere volumes.'

Obviously Mike wouldn't have lent his 'possible money spinner' to Jenny, so that at least makes some sense.

What doesn't make any sense, however, is that if Mike had this possible money spinner safely lodged with his solicitor, knowing its significance, he would then need Alan Gray's professional help to assemble the evidence to prove he faked the diary. According to Harris, Mike already had that evidence in the form of his volume 2, which he handed over to Gray for nothing in December 1994, leaving himself with no money spinner and a bill for Gray's services which he couldn't pay.

If we agree to disallow anything based on Mike's word alone, what is the evidence that he ever did have a copy of volume 2 to call his own - used or unused - before December 1994?

I have argued tirelessly that Mike's word can't be trusted on anything related to the diary's origins. The Battlecrease provenance can only benefit from allowing Mike to have lied about everything because he denied the diary came from Dodd's house. None of the evidence relating to the electricians depends on a single word that ever came out of Mike's mouth. That in itself is a powerful reason not to reject it in favour of a Barrett hoax.

If we allow for his affidavits of 26th April 1993 and 5th January 1995 to have been a pack of lies, what do we have left?

Gone is his stated reason for ordering a tiny 1891 diary with 365 printed dates in it. Gone is his claim that Anne's handwriting was in the diary. Gone is his awesome auction purchase.

I'm happy if Palmer is.

And now - I'm off on my holidays!

It seems that the only way forward for Palmer now is to get Anne to clarify when Mike was telling porkies about the diary and when he wasn't.

[FISHY1118]

Where have I ever attempted to prove James Maybrick was the ripper? Are you sure you know who you are responsing to, FISHY?

Love,

Caz
X

Well someone sure as hell should given given the fact a dozen years and 10000 post have transpired . What a complete and utter waste of discussion. Let's have some facts please that prove beyond doubt the diary and watch and James Maybrick wrote it and he was jack the ripper.

But give the amount of discussion we've seen, that in itself is proving impossible , so were left with , yup you guessed it just another theory