One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

The FM on the wall and the accompanying discussion is the perfect illustration of the difference between good theorists and people interested in the truth versus bad theorists and people who aren’t interested in the truth.

Bogus theorists see noise. Good ones seek and see patterns. The Good cuts through the noise and finds the right notes or letters. The Bad adds more noise. (Ike calls it mud. I call it noise.)

Asking for more data and couching your theory in a lot of “facts”, not to mention dropping names, is a sure sign of a humbug premise for the holidays.

Excellent post, Lombro2 (and not just because it is supportive of my position).

[Iconoclast]

The original version?
I recommend that you chase down Stewart Evans' dissertation on the provenance and history of the Kelly crime scene photographs.

I accept that 'original' was the wrong term - I meant the 'original' version as in the 'previous' version to which I frequently refer - you know, the one published in 1973 (twenty years before you think Barrett referred to the 'FM' on Kelly's wall which miraculously turned-out to be there, and really very very clear at that). I note that you refer to Farson as a 'pulp paperback' - nice trick, RJ: as ever, you use derogatory language to minimise the relevance of something really very crucial. Didn't work. I saw through it. Yet again. On behalf of my dear readers. I'm always here. Always watching.

There are two photographs.

There could be two thousand photographs. There could be two million. All we need is the Farson plate from 1973, twenty years before you think Barrett had a cunning plan to hoax a scrapbook of Jack the Ripper and target it at the one logical candidate we'd all been missing all these years - yes, a fairly prosperous middle class, middle-aged, celebrity murder victim, and stand-up Liverpudlian: what could possibly go wrong, eh?

We don't even need two photographs, RJ. What we need is for you and your ilk to explain how Florence Maybrick's initials are so very obvious on a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy with a lightbulb and a coffee stain and some dropped coleslaw and a bit burned off by an errant cigarette in 1963, etc., but nevertheless published in 1973!

It doesn't matter how many mud-laden deflections you attempt, you can't hide or blur those initials. Either Mike Barrett saw them and backward-engineered a hoax from them to James Maybrick and thence to Jack the Ripper (a minor miracle even with the assistance of his brilliant researcher-wife Anne) or else Jack the Ripper wrote James Maybrick's scrapbook for him (and we all know exactly what that would mean, don't we?).

That you prefer to hang your hat on an inferior copy is perhaps none too surprising.

I hang my hat on the any copy which shows us Florence Maybrick's initials, as clearly predicted in James Maybrick's scrapbook which was first mentioned on the day Eddie Lyons was under the floorboards at James Maybrick's last abode before the cold one six feet under.

I've known some ufologists who prefer the photograph of the saucer without the fishing-line running upwards towards the telephone line.

I'm sure you do, and I'm sure you 'put them right' too ...

But Caz is right. It's all just a tiresome gameshow...

What we do with the information we have has become a gameshow, RJ. Stop playing silly mind-games and twisting what information we have into some convoluted ball, and we could maybe play a different game altogether, well away from Jack the Ripper whose identity we have solved.

Eventually someone in Liverpool will set the record straight, and we'll see who gets to scrub the egg from their face.

I can tell you now, with absolute certainty, that it will be you and your ilk, RJ, not I.

[Lombro2]

Mike gets the written photo album from Devereux and decides it needs to be in a 'diary' format to be more believable. When he can't get a suitable diary, he crosses his fingers and hopes what he turns over will pass the muster.

Tony may have written the text in between photos and clippings to hide from prying eyes.

This is somewhat the same as your scenario above Caroline, except for Devereux.

Hi Scott,

I always wonder why you pick Devereaux out of all of Barrett’s lies? How would you explain Barrett switching to the Auction Provenance and leaving Devereaux out?

How does either of them know that the book was a guard book which could be used in a cotton merchant office. And that it could be written in by Jack the Ripper and then given back to the in-house clerk to put back on a shelf, as erobitha suggested. Either that or he just ripped out the office-used pages and gave them back to Lowry like that. (I now prefer ero’s idea. The author thought James would take a chance for that moment and let it go back on the shelf in his office.)

But I have to say this Devereaux theory, at least, takes into account of the science that says the document is old, older than 1992. So it’s light years ahead of the no-accounting-for Barrett Hoax theory.

[Lombro2]

The FM on the wall and the accompanying discussion is the perfect illustration of the difference between good theorists and people interested in the truth versus bad theorists and people who aren’t interested in the truth.

Bogus theorists see noise. Good ones seek and see patterns. The Good cuts through the noise and finds the right notes or letters. The Bad adds more noise. (Ike calls it mud. I call it noise.)

Asking for more data and couching your theory in a lot of “facts”, not to mention dropping names, is a sure sign of a humbug premise for the holidays.

[Scott Nelson]

Probably not. Never mind.