Who were they?

[FISHY1118]

There is no medical evidence that Jack the Ripper had surgical knowledge. Organ knowledge and understanding of their placement can be obtained from numerous sources with the right level of motivation. Clearly, the killer was not a surgeon because the cuts to remove any of the organs were not precise.

The only precise cutting was the method of throat-cutting, again a skill that is taught or shown with the right level of motivation to obtain the knowledge or observe it, hence why the police were interested in Jewish butchers. Although, the technique the Jews used to cut throats was reserved for cattle. So it was either a Jewish Cattle butcher or someone who had been taught or learned this technique.

Show me evidence that contradicts with any of the above.

Your first point is silly, re read Dr Frederick Brown expert medical opinion under oath and his post mortem report .

Your speculating again that Maybrick somehow educated himself in the art of organ removal and where to find and remove organs from the human body .

Can you show me some evidence of the above

Can you also show evidence that a physician or surgeon who removed Eddowes kidney in 7/ 8 minutes did so under very little light available , knowing the possibility of been seen, would in fact take his time and remove an organ the same way as he would in our under controlled conditions ?

[erobitha]

I have never commented on this subject before.

I was aware of the argument here about the authenticity of the diary, but have only now had a quick look through the nineteen pages of comments to see whether there has been any analysis of the diary's content.

It seems there has been hardly any, if any at all, which surprises me.

I have previously made the point that there is in Swanson's Marginalia no inside information to suggest that he was personally involved in or acquainted with any of the events he describes.

The answer I have repeatedly received is that Swanson should not be expected to provide inside information because he was not writing a report nor expecting anyone to read his comments, but wrote them for his own private satisfaction.

That is, I suggest, not credible because there is no point in gloating in writing over one's part ('we sent with difficulty...') in the alleged identification of the most infamous criminal in British legal history, in the expectation that no-one will ever read it.

I hope I am not going to receive replies that Maybrick could not be expected to divulge inside information and that he was writing the diary merely for private use, in the expectation that no-one else would ever read it.

The diary is one long gloat over the author's supposed participation in the Whitechapel murders.

Not only does he not provide any inside information, but he makes a mistake which the real murderer would not have made.

He relates, as have many others, that the murderer placed Mary Kelly's breasts on the table.

The murderer in actuality placed them under her body.

The writer uses language which was used in the 'Dear Boss' letter: 'haha' and 'red stuff'.

Unless you think that the real murderer wrote the diary and decided to impersonate the style of the writer of the 'Dear Boss' letter, then if you believe the diary to be authentic, you must also believe the Dear Boss letter to be authentic.

Is that believable?

The diary contains the kind of coincidence that has featured in other hoaxes: 'Whitechapel Liverpool, Whitechapel London'.

Gorman had the royal marriage taking place in a St Saviour's Chapel; McCormick had the victims all attending St Saviour's Infirmary; Knight has Walter Sickert playing a role in the murders and is surprised by the 'coincidence' that Osbert Sitwell mentioned Sickert and the Whitechapel Murderer.

Gorman claims Walter Sickert told him his paintings contained clues about the murders and Overton Fuller claims Sickert told Florence Pash the same.

Gorman claimed that Sickert knew Kelly - and so did Overton Fuller.

Those stories are actually re-hashes of older stories - and none of them is true.

The warning signs are all there that the diary, like Hitler's, is a fake.

I won’t unpack every point you make as there is a lot to wade through, but feel free to visit the biggest thread on this website to get a sense of how long this has been going on for.

I just particularly want to address the point of “for own use”.

Denis Rader kept a coded journal of his crimes for his own use.

Leonard Lake did the same with his diary that he called ‘The Miranda Project’.

In fact the man who killed Fanny Adams kept a short and succinct note of the murder in his diary.

Serial killers love to revisit their crimes using reminders and momentos. It’s like a cocaine addict trying to get the last dregs of powder stuck in their sinus cavity to give them that extra buzz. An extra bang for the buck so it were.

It is completely feasible the journal was written for the writer’s own posterity.

The Dear Boas letter does present a challenge for my own beliefs on the letters that Jack wrote, but I am open minded to being wrong.

You also skip over the watch. I’d advise you think carefully how about how the two could be and are linked. The science of the watch is compelling.

You might regret stepping foot into this world.

[Iconoclast]

Our posts crossed, so I'll respond.
He asked for a blank diary. A blank diary to most people is a blank diary. No lettering, no dates---it's a cover with blank pages. Omlor, Phillips, and Orsam, among many others, have thrown up photo after photo showing blank diaries with no individual dates stamped on them.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, RJ. That will simply not do. I haven't even read any further in your post because I just have to stop you right there in your tracks. No-one on this planet would refer to a blank notebook as a blank diary. No-one. Not one. Don't even go there with the Special Pleading to End All Special Pleading!

A blank diary to most people - no, to all people (and don't pretend you disagree) is a book with dates in but not yet any entries written. What you are describing is a blank notebook and you know it.

You can throw up a thousand photographs of blank notebooks and call them diaries if you want. Lord, perhaps you can find them with the word 'Diary' on the front, but we all know that that is not what anyone on the planet would call one. They'd call it a blank notebook because that is what it would be.

And - as if that isn't sufficient - if you were meaning a notebook with no dates which you deep down meant a diary with no dates, WHY WOULD YOU SPECIFY A YEAR??????????????

WHAT WOULD THAT EVEN MEAN??????

[c.d.]

Hello P.I.,

Am I to understand that you came into this thread voluntarily? Wow. A shout out to you as that took major league cojones. But some friendly advice, you might simply want to say "oops, wrong room. Sorry about that" and then move as quickly as possible towards the nearest exit.

A word to the wise....

c.d.

[FISHY1118]

Well of course it is

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I have never commented on this subject before.

I was aware of the argument here about the authenticity of the diary, but have only now had a quick look through the nineteen pages of comments to see whether there has been any analysis of the diary's content.

It seems there has been hardly any, if any at all, which surprises me.

I have previously made the point that there is in Swanson's Marginalia no inside information to suggest that he was personally involved in or acquainted with any of the events he describes.

The answer I have repeatedly received is that Swanson should not be expected to provide inside information because he was not writing a report nor expecting anyone to read his comments, but wrote them for his own private satisfaction.

That is, I suggest, not credible because there is no point in gloating in writing over one's part ('we sent with difficulty...') in the alleged identification of the most infamous criminal in British legal history, in the expectation that no-one will ever read it.

I hope I am not going to receive replies that Maybrick could not be expected to divulge inside information and that he was writing the diary merely for private use, in the expectation that no-one else would ever read it.

The diary is one long gloat over the author's supposed participation in the Whitechapel murders.

Not only does he not provide any inside information, but he makes a mistake which the real murderer would not have made.

He relates, as have many others, that the murderer placed Mary Kelly's breasts on the table.

The murderer in actuality placed them under her body.

The writer uses language which was used in the 'Dear Boss' letter: 'haha' and 'red stuff'.

Unless you think that the real murderer wrote the diary and decided to impersonate the style of the writer of the 'Dear Boss' letter, then if you believe the diary to be authentic, you must also believe the Dear Boss letter to be authentic.

Is that believable?

The diary contains the kind of coincidence that has featured in other hoaxes: 'Whitechapel Liverpool, Whitechapel London'.

Gorman had the royal marriage taking place in a St Saviour's Chapel; McCormick had the victims all attending St Saviour's Infirmary; Knight has Walter Sickert playing a role in the murders and is surprised by the 'coincidence' that Osbert Sitwell mentioned Sickert and the Whitechapel Murderer.

Gorman claims Walter Sickert told him his paintings contained clues about the murders and Overton Fuller claims Sickert told Florence Pash the same.

Gorman claimed that Sickert knew Kelly - and so did Overton Fuller.

Those stories are actually re-hashes of older stories - and none of them is true.

The warning signs are all there that the diary, like Hitler's, is a fake.

[rjpalmer]

I'll leave you with this, Ike: My favorite line from Mike Barrett.

"I need to go to York."

"No, really, I need to go to York, Doreen. I know I promised to deliver the diary this week, but something's come up, and I can't find...er...I'm having trouble...I... er...I really need to go to York."

Classic Barrett.

[rjpalmer]

Our posts crossed, so I'll respond.

It is simply impossible to rationalise why a man seeking to hoax a 'diary' of Jack the Ripper would specify a year during which his foil was six feet under.

I put it to you - to iterate - that that is impossible to rationalise, and therefore your hoax theory (and it is your hoax theory) falls flat on its face due to the one thing you cling to the most, that little maroon diary.

It's not even remotely difficult to 'rationalize.' And I do think the British should get over the secret inferiority complex they have with the French and learn to spell rationalize correctly.

He asked for a blank diary. A blank diary to most people is a blank diary. No lettering, no dates---it's a cover with blank pages. Omlor, Phillips, and Orsam, among many others, have thrown up photo after photo showing blank diaries with no individual dates stamped on them.

You're confusing a diary with a memo book. If Mike had ordered a memo book with stamped pages and a calendar you'd be in business. You're not in business.

Mike wanted a blank diary from 1880-1890 for one reason only: so the paper would pass any forensic scrutiny.

If Mike wanted a substitute diary for a doppelganger, it wouldn't matter if it was blank of not. Your theory falls at the first hurdle. Then it falls again at the second and third hurdle.

It had been widely reported in the news that the Hitler Diary fiasco failed, in part, because the Bundesarchiv had quickly determined that the diaries were written on modern paper. The next hoaxer that came down the pike wasn't willing to trip up over that same inanity.

What you and Hartley have failed to appreciate, despite the fact that your good friend Lord Orsam has explained it to you patiently, is that the red diary isn't what damns Barrett.

What damns him is Martin Earl's advertisement. It shows what Mike wanted. It is impossible to misread it except willfully. He wanted a blank diary from the 1880s.

What he received instead -- or was desperate enough to receive so he could see it up close and personal (and since he had no crying plan to pay for it, anyway)--is immaterial.

The advertisement in Bookfinder is what screws you, and it isn't going away. Ever.

It is a painful thing for you to accept--I get that--but life isn't fair, and all our fairy tales can't come true.

[Iconoclast]

As for cussing, if someone attacks me with childish jeering and insults about 'mud,' my answer will always be the same. They can feel free to **** right off.

As I say, it does you no credit to use cussing words, y'all. etc.. Just saying, dude. Wash your mouth out with carbolic.

You like to dish, but you do not like to receive ...

Pherswerk! You are welcome to cuss at me as much as you want - I'm just pointing out that it doesn't suit you. It's a bit like when Algernon Orsam started cussing on his drainpipes. It just wasn't him and it just didn't work. Neither of you are edgy enough.

I'm curious. Do you get the sense that you're on the cusp of a major breakthrough ...

Sadly, nope.

...and that any day now historians will be beating down your doors, ready to admit that the Battlecrease provenance has won the day ...

Sadly, nope.

... and that the Fidos and Orsams of the world were wrong, and the diary really is an important and mysterious document worthy of our serious attention?

Absolutely certain of it. One day.

Or is this really about championing a cause that was already lost twenty-five years ago, and people simply refuse to admit that they were bamboozled by Mike and Anne Barrett?

Such a loaded question! How many more asses can you make of u and me in one sentence!

I'll take the answer in silence.

You should be so lucky ...

[erobitha]

I'll leave it to you, Jay, Caz, and Owl moving forward. You have all the answers.

I'm curious. Do you get the sense that you're on the cusp of a major breakthrough and that any day now historians will be beating down your doors, ready to admit that the Battlecrease provenance has won the day, and that the Fidos and Orsams of the world were wrong, and the diary really is an important and mysterious document worthy of our serious attention? Or is this really about championing a cause that was already lost twenty-five years ago, and people simply refuse to admit that they were bamboozled by Mike and Anne Barrett?

I'll take the answer in silence.

I can only speak for my own research. Not everything I have found has been publicly shared. Not because I have questions about the veracity of the research, but because it inevitably leads to more strands of investigation, and more questions that need more understanding. That does take time.

I will reveal publicly whatever I have when I feel the time is right.

[rjpalmer]

If your theory requires that your prime suspect is a reckless moron that behaves in a way that no human being would behave, it's just possible that your theory is[I] wrong.

For the record, Ike, I was speaking rhetorically and generally, which I thought would have been obvious. Don't take it personally if I used the words 'your theory.' I could have been more explicit and said 'Caz's theory,' but speaking more generally was less accusatory.

As for cussing, if someone attacks me with childish jeering and insults about 'mud,' my answer will always be the same. They can feel free to **** right off.

Let's recall that it was you, not me, who nearly got the Mabyrick discussion permanently banned from JTR Forums due to your vulgar, uncensored tirade. You like to dish, but you do not like to receive, but I admit it has grown quite immature and it does none of us any favors.

I'll leave it to you, Jay, Caz, and Owl moving forward. You have all the answers.

I'm curious. Do you get the sense that you're on the cusp of a major breakthrough and that any day now historians will be beating down your doors, ready to admit that the Battlecrease provenance has won the day, and that the Fidos and Orsams of the world were wrong, and the diary really is an important and mysterious document worthy of our serious attention? Or is this really about championing a cause that was already lost twenty-five years ago, and people simply refuse to admit that they were bamboozled by Mike and Anne Barrett?

I'll take the answer in silence.

[Iconoclast]

Ike, I don't mistrust Robert Smith. I think he did meet with Lyons and Barratt in the pub. Eddie probably wanted a piece of the pie and that's why he went with Mike to meet with Smith, thinking he would get something for recounting a story told to him (Eddie) about finding a book. Since he didn't steal anything from Dodd's house, there was nothing for him to fear. When later (?) confronting Eddie at his house, Mike probably made it clear that Eddie was getting no monetary compensation for his story.

I actually think the first paragraph of your post is what was said, even though you use it as an example. I don't know how the tale of a book being throw into a skip came about.

But Robert Smith did not report the conversation as going that way and he was there and you don't mistrust him so your theory is interesting but unsustainable given the lack of evidence to support it?

[Iconoclast]

Let's hear it. I'm all ears. If Eddie came clean, or if the police or Paul Dodd accused Barrett of receiving stolen goods, how in the bloody hell was waving this red diary going to do anything?

Well, RJ, one would have to be properly absorbed into the mind of the man who did it all back in March 1992 to properly understand his motivations and none of us were and none of us can be, but I feel the most rational reason why a man would order an 1880-1890 diary and even eventually agree to purchase (I use the term lightly) an 1891 diary would be to say, "Here's that Victorian diary I got off Eddie Lyons" to whomsoever may have come knocking at his door for it.

If his motivation was to create a hoaxed James Maybrick journal detailing the crimes of Jack the Ripper, then one would have to assume that he would not have run the risk of receiving a diary for a year in which James Maybrick was most noticeable for being long dead.

But why didn't he just seek an undated Victorian notebook, I hear you ask? Well, I don't know why, especially given that that was more or less what he had received from Lyons; but I have to say that the critical bit - for me - is not the type of document he asked for but rather the time period he specified for the type of document he asked for. It is simply impossible to rationalise why a man seeking to hoax a 'diary' of Jack the Ripper would specify a year during which his foil was six feet under.

I put it to you - to iterate - that that is impossible to rationalise, and therefore your hoax theory (and it is your hoax theory) falls flat on its face due to the one thing you cling to the most, that little maroon diary.

[Scott Nelson]

Seems like a lot of effort on Eddie's part to sustain a story which implicates him in theft even though he - by your own admission - made no money out of the tale. When he met Robert Smith in The Saddle in late June 1993, if he was innocent of all charges, he could and should have simply said, "I was told a story, Robert, about a Jack the Ripper diary having been found many years ago. I never saw it, and therefore I have no way of knowing if it was true".

Instead, he whittered on about throwing an old book (which he hadn't seen, it seems) into a skip (which didn't exist).

For the record, a year or so ago, I emailed Robert Smith with a photograph of Eddie Lyons and he identified him unequivocally as the man he had met in the pub all those long years ago. Now, you might not trust Robert Smith so this may make no difference to your equivocation over whether this meeting occurred or not (after all, Eddie Lyons denied it), but I have no reason to mistrust Robert and I would politely ask why you would (if you do).

Ike, I don't mistrust Robert Smith. I think he did meet with Lyons and Barratt in the pub. Eddie probably wanted a piece of the pie and that's why he went with Mike to meet with Smith, thinking he would get something for recounting a story told to him (Eddie) about finding a book. Since he didn't steal anything from Dodd's house, there was nothing for him to fear. When later (?) confronting Eddie at his house, Mike probably made it clear that Eddie was getting no monetary compensation for his story.

I actually think the first paragraph of your post is what was said, even though you use it as an example. I don't know how the tale of a book being throw into a skip came about.

[rjpalmer]

Get your facts right, chummy. It's not my theory. You are quoting someone who has suggested that the 1891 diary was purchased in order to secure a valid receipt for a Victorian diary either as proof of ownership or as an indicator of how much such an artefact should be sold for. As I say, not my theory.

I know it's not your theory, Muddikins. I was responding to Caz's questions and you felt the need to jump in like Mr. Chivalry and claim (falsely) that I wasn't answering them, so I continued to expound on how her theory didn't make any sense--which you seem to be now acknowledging by your eagerness to distance yourself from it.

If you would like to discuss your "maroon doppelganger" theory for the red diary instead, we could do that as well, but I think I've already touched on it, haven't I?

Let's hear it. I'm all ears. If Eddie came clean, or if the police or Paul Dodd accused Barrett of receiving stolen goods, how in the bloody hell was waving this red diary going to do anything?