The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[rjpalmer]

As Palmer's speciality is to live in the past and dredge up posts from the dawn of diary time, to highlight inconsistences between then and now [due to new information sticking its oar in - down with that sort of thing], or to argue in the here and now against speculation that the poster has long since modified or abandoned, I'm not going to encroach on his familiar turf.

I prefer living in the present and addressing what I know to be a poster's current thinking.

Well, I'm finally done with you, Caz, and will now join the ranks of others who debated with you at length but finally put you on mute. The above utterly misrepresents what I was actually saying. Very much par for the course.

I don't care one iota if someone has changed their mind. Changing one's mind can be a good thing. I've changed my mind on many points, as the archive can attest. No shame in that.

What I was actually objecting to was being lectured about Anne Graham (and the supposed idiocy of those of us who think she could have conspired with Barrett) by people who fell (either entirely or partially) for her nonsense 25 years ago. If they were wrong about her then, they can be wrong about her now--that's all I was suggesting--not that you are willing to acknowledge that.

It has sod-all to do with people changing their minds--it's about a people with a history of misjudgment now implying that they have their thumb firmly on Anne's pulse and portraying the opposing view as moronic or misguided.

And how can someone not be "living in the past" when it comes to Anne? Have you spoken to her anytime in the past 22 years? Has she said anything at all about the diary since 2002 or 2003? If not, then all you can do is judge her by her previous bizarre behavior like everyone else--not that you are willing to lift that veil, since doing so would so obviously challenge your current beliefs.

Goodbye. There's no use in communicating further as you'll never change my mind, nor I yours.

[Iconoclast]

Goodbye. There's no use in communicating further as you'll never change my mind, nor I yours.

I think it is probably more or less a nailed-on truism that the identity of Jack the Ripper will never be known so conclusively that debate will stop raging.

In truth, all we have is the debate because the possibility of unequivocally conclusive evidence coming to light is now very very unlikely indeed.

Whether it is DNA or potentially-Victorian scrapbooks or pocket watches with candidates' idiosyncratic signatures inside, there will always be someone who says:

"The hoaxer could have been the first to see the initials on Kelly's wall so they tell us nothing" or equivalent versions depending upon the area of the case being discussed.

We are doomed to discuss it forever so we may as well get that clear in our heads and keep it up say I!

Ike