The Diary — Old Hoax or New or Not a Hoax at All?​

[rjpalmer]

I trust he too will be enlightened as to what a VPN is. That's of course if he doesn't already know. I await his reply

Ah, okay. I live among the technically illiterate and thought it was an innocent question, but I think I now catch your drift. My apologies.

I trust if Lombro2 doesn't know, there's a bloke named San Fran and another named Markus Aurelius Francois that might be able to offer enlightenment.

[Iconoclast]

Sorry to be OT. 1955 was approx when my dad played for them as a semi pro. I would have loved for him to see them win something again in his life time but unfortunately time caught up with him a couple of weeks ago and he passed away without that last one cup. No doubt he will be watching down on them.

Sorry to hear that, Geddy2112. Your dad played for the Toon? Wow, that's immense. He will certainly be watching the match, as - I trust - will mine (died 2014) though my mum (died Nov last year) will doubtless be telling him to keep the noise down ...

My first game was April 12, 1971 when I was 9 - a very dull 0-0 draw at home to Manchester City in which Alan Foggon had a goal disallowed for offside (I can still see it so clearly in my mind's eye) and Tommy Booth for City blasted the ball out of play in the last seconds and sent me flying off my perch on the old stone wall that used to surround the pitch. Fortunately a bloke behind me caught me otherwise who knows what long term damage I could have suffered brain wise.

[Lombro2]

I used to support Allen 100%. That was back when I was still relying on books and film. Zodiac Killer even denied me a membership. Now I can see why. Live and learn with the internet. VPN or no VPN.

[Observer]

Hi, I used to use a VPN. That was back when I had some crazy ideas. I don't have those anymore so I can use a regular public server.

Let me guess! Was the VPN Zodiac Viper attacking the Polish suspect? Someone trying to bring back Arthur Leigh Allen?

Arthur Leigh Allen of course

[Geddy2112]

It was magnificent!

So, it's now 7 finals in my football-following lifetime (5 Newcastle, 2 England) and I've yet to taste victory. Will this 6th for Newcastle finally bring home a trophy? My dad was 25 when he attended the last domestic trophy win (1955). It's got to be a little overdue?

Sorry to be OT. 1955 was approx when my dad played for them as a semi pro. I would have loved for him to see them win something again in his life time but unfortunately time caught up with him a couple of weeks ago and he passed away without that last one cup. No doubt he will be watching down on them.

[Lombro2]

Rubbish, stupid points. Obviously pareidolia. Why don't you wake up? It's an obvious fraud and there's obviously no initials on the wall even though loads of people can see them without any problem whatsoever. You're just biased and spinning things to suit your own argument. It's like a religion to people like you - you'd say anything to keep this fraud going. You're probably making money out of it!



Of course we can rule out the photographer's flash! How come no-one in that room said in the trillionth of a second that the room lit up, "Hey, I see Florence Maybrick's initials on the wall there, James Maybrick must be Jack the Ripper"? Come on - surely no-one's taking this seriously?



Well, you would, wouldn't you?



Bollocks.



Der! Only the brilliant Metropolitan Police detective squad of 1888 - arguably the finest minds the criminal world has ever had to face.



And you would know! Were you there?

Oh - and the diary was obviously written by Mike and Anne Barrett (should have said that first).

Yadda Yadda YADDA Nada

[Lombro2]

Hi, I used to use a VPN. That was back when I had some crazy ideas. I don't have those anymore so I can use a regular public server.

Let me guess! Was the VPN Zodiac Viper attacking the Polish suspect? Someone trying to bring back Arthur Leigh Allen?

[Observer]

It seems rather straight forward. VPN Viper, like the Zodiac, is communicating in such a way that he or she can't be traced.

When someone posts on-line, unbeknownst to them, their computer leaves a sort of fingerprint of their server; if the person sets up a VPN, however, that fingerprint is hidden, so the website owner or the email recipient can't trace the sender's location or identity.

In theory, the website owner should be able to determine whether 'Soothsayer' and 'Peter Wood' and 'Tom Mitchell' and 'Gladiator' and 'Shirley Harrison' and other Maybrick theorists did or did not all post from the same small village in the Outer Hebrides, unless they set up a VPN (A Virtual Private Network) to hide this fact.

I'm not implying all those people were one & the same, however. Only some of them were the same brainwashed acolyte of Paul Feldman.

Thanks for that Mr Palmer, I hope you are well by the way. I am truly enlightened. Fancy that. So using a VPN a poster can assume two identity's and not be detected. Well i'll be blowed. Of course, thanks for stepping in and enlightening me as my question was aimed at Lombro 2. I trust he too will be enlightened as to what a VPN is. That's of course if he doesn't already know. I await his reply

[Iconoclast]

I would take the opposite view here, and say that it's sometimes not worth the bother of us responding to contributions or questions which take little or no account of the information already freely available. Contribute away, Herlock, but you may not always get a response. Before suggesting it's because nobody can answer your questions or challenge your arguments, ask yourself if they may already have been addressed, explored or dealt with, by posters on all sides of the debate - which I can tell you for nothing they almost certainly will have been, a hundred times over and in forensic detail.

I mean, we know that one is not to use the amount of knowledge of something one has as a guide to whether they should comment or not and therefore absolutely all comments are equally valid regardless of what they are based upon, but I ask you ...

Does someone really need to prove it was a coincidence that there were workmen in an old house on a day someone else made a telephone call? Goodness, surely that kind of thing happens every day of the week. What is there to prove?

Yes, indeed, we do know that there were workmen in an old house on a day someone else made a telephone call so it really does make you wonder why literally thousands of posts have been placed commenting on the significance (or otherwise) of this, whole websites bearing articles on this subject, and books published discussing what this could all have possibly meant when we should have realised that it was just some workmen in an old house on a day someone else made a telephone call. What on earth was anyone thinking here? When you look at it like this, it's obviously completely irrelevant, isn't it?

And why has anyone made any kind of a fuss of an old scrapbook some ex-scrap metal dealer turned up in London with one day in April 1992. People take books to cities they don't live in all the time. What's the big drama?

And that watch thing that seems to generate tons of comments back and forth? It was just a watch with some scratches in. Hardly unusual!

I swear to someone else's God, sitting on this side of the fence for once is soooooo much easier than being on the other side for thirty years ...

[caz]

Hi Ike,

In #199 you asked for an answer to the question as to why Michael Barrett's affidavit included the wrong date for when Barrett started to expose the fraud. Could that question not reasonably be described as an old canard?

I have to ask though, in regard to your last question, surely you aren’t suggesting that those of us who don’t have years of experience of all things diary should bother contributing?

I would take the opposite view here, and say that it's sometimes not worth the bother of us responding to contributions or questions which take little or no account of the information already freely available.

Contribute away, Herlock, but you may not always get a response. Before suggesting it's because nobody can answer your questions or challenge your arguments, ask yourself if they may already have been addressed, explored or dealt with, by posters on all sides of the debate - which I can tell you for nothing they almost certainly will have been, a hundred times over and in forensic detail.

Love,

Caz
X

[erobitha]

But that's not what he actually asked for, or went on to order and receive, was it?

Love,

Caz
X

Bingo! Not for Bongo, obviously.

[caz]

Hi Ike,

Have you considered the possibility that what Mike was attempting to get hold of was authentic paper which would be scientifically indistinguishable from paper from the time of the Ripper murders?

But that's not what he actually asked for, or went on to order and receive, was it?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

If it does not concern you that Barrett’s request included 1890, you really should ask yourself why you might be ignoring it.

Indeed, Ike.

I suppose the answer might be that Anne did all the donkey work, including the rudimentary Maybrick and ripper research, and the fun bit of composing the diary prose and piss-poor poetry on the family word processor - until it came to the trivial last-minute tasks, like finding something to put it in, which she left entirely to Mike's discretion, without bothering to tell him when Maybrick shuffled off, or that a diary with actual dates in, or the size of a half-empty matchbox, would be no good to man nor beastly woman.

There - simple. Like adding sugar to stir up the ink molecules and one's audience.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm waiting for someone to knock down the walls of the Battlecrease double event of 9th March 1992, with proof that it was all a coincidence.

Aside from it being a hellishly awkward one for anyone to swallow, it is not made any easier to digest when both Mike's affidavits, each telling a completely different story, are considered together in the context of documented events. The little 1891 diary gets spewed out, but it's the only visible means of support for the eleven-day Creation Theory, and doesn't amount to the hill of beans a truly contrite hoaxer would have been able to spill in a heartbeat.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Does someone really need to prove it was a coincidence that there were workmen in an old house on a day someone else made a telephone call?

Goodness, surely that kind of thing happens every day of the week. What is there to prove?

I also think, as RJ Palmer has mentioned, that no one is spewing out the little 1891 diary, as you put it. What is relied upon is the wording of the advertisement which clearly reveals what Barrett was actually seeking.

[caz]

It's so seamless than one can barely drive a Mack truck through it without scraping sides. Anne Graham's own behavior disproves it, and the key witness was recently revealed to be wholly unreliable.

I think it's useful to remember that for Eddie Lyons to have taken an active role in the diary's discovery, there is only the one working hypothesis to consider, and this demands that the physical diary has to have been found by Eddie between 8am and 3pm on 9th March 1992.

Anyone with any reason to doubt this very specific scenario or would allow for the diary to have been created after 9th March 1992, when Mike made his first known contact with the publishing world over the phone, may as well forget Eddie Lyons as the man who found the diary, and look elsewhere.

Anne's own behaviour disproves - what, exactly?

I'm missing something here, but then I'm an idiot, so it's probably for the best if Palmer has finally put me on 'ignore'. For years I was bringing him down to my level and beating him with my experience.

If the 'key' witness is Eddie, and it involves him 'twocking' an old book from Battlecrease - which he pretty much admitted to another key witness back in July 1992, and again in June 1993 when he lied about putting it in a skip, but has understandably denied everything since - maybe it's just me being an idiot again, but we knew he wasn't exactly Mr Reliable in the first place. What's he done now, to reveal himself as 'wholly' unreliable?

If Palmer is thinking of one of the other 'key' witnesses - and there are several who can be described as such - let's hope they all reveal themselves to be as wholly unreliable as each other, so Palmer can then wholly rely on nobody knowing anything while everyone pretended to know something.

There is no comparison here with Auction Theory, if that is where Palmer was hoping to lead his dwindling troops. The only witness to what he desperately needs to have happened on 31st March 1992, and the days leading up to 13th April, was someone who is no longer with us and would have needed a dictionary to look up the meaning of the word 'reliability' and even then would have spelled it 'ReLIARbilly'.