Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Acquiring A Victorian Diary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Evening all - just passing this along from KS.


    TO HUNTER


    Thank you for clarifying - and for your kind and encouraging words.

    On the strength of available evidence, do you think it would be reasonable to conclude that the cumulative evidence of Mike Barrett’s sworn affidavit of January 1995; the August 1991 date on the research notes and the potential 1986 date for the purchase of the word processor points firmly to a conceptual year (1986) for Mike Barrett, Anne Barrett, William Graham and Tony Devereux to have commenced discussions about creating a fake diary?

    Best wishes, Keith



    To DAVID O.

    3-0. On to the 5th Round to meet...probably Newport after Spurs replay.



    Best Wishes, Keith

    Now you're looking for the secret, but you won't find it, because of course, you're not really looking. You want to be fooled.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Keith Skinner View Post
      To DAVID O.

      3-0. On to the 5th Round to meet...probably Newport after Spurs replay.
      I'm reminded of the first line of the Diary:

      "[If they knew] what they have in store for them they would stop this instant."

      Comment


      • Originally posted by John G View Post
        Thanks for the Boycott example, Steve. As I say, it's certainly a very unusual form of address for a non knight.
        It's by no means unusual for someone to be jokingly referred to as "Sir" in the UK. I was called "Sir Bugger-Lugs" when I got up to mischief as a kid.
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
          It's by no means unusual for someone to be jokingly referred to as "Sir" in the UK. I was called "Sir Bugger-Lugs" when I got up to mischief as a kid.
          Well, of course, it appears the servant referred to Maybrick as Sir James, which would have represented a gross breach of middle class etiquette. The question is: was this a mock title she made up herself, or was she simply repeating something she'd overheard? For instance, Maybrick referring to himself in that way, or being referred to as such by a member of his family. Of course, that wouldn't mean Maybrick preferred to be referred to in this manner!
          Last edited by John G; 01-28-2018, 12:47 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by John G View Post
            Well, of course, it appears the servant referred to Maybrick as Sir James, which would have represented a gross breach of middle class etiquette.
            No, of course it wouldn't. Not in private conversation amongst servants and children.

            What WAS a breach of middle class etiquette was Mrs Briggs calling Mr Maybrick "James" to his face.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
              Ill ask again, why is it taking so long for mr skinner to get on here?
              Weird.
              Yes it is and I have a long list of questions to ask him too!

              It's just a shame that, in the meantime, James Johnston is "travelling" and is unable to get on this forum to post the answers to the questions I asked him in #384, #385, #386, #387, #388, #389 and #390.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by John G View Post
                Of course, that wouldn't mean Maybrick preferred to be referred to in this manner!
                Indeed, but it looks very likely to me that "Sir Jim" as a domestic nickname is a red herring, and that the "Sir Jim/Jack" in the diary is just another riff on the fictional Maybrick's fantasy of being knighted by the Queen.
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • Hi Keith. It's difficult not to notice that there has been little or no discussion about post #150. The image of a 10-foot pole comes to mind, but perhaps that's just me. Howard Brown reprinted the same quote on his website, but the only response I've yet seen by any "diary friendly" theorist is that, for some unfathomable reason, Paul Dodd is lying about the work done on his own house. Any comments? The quote is from Shirley Harrison (American Connection, 2003) based on her interviews with Dodd.

                  "Paul was adamant. The house was originally gaslit and converted to electricity in the 1920s. It was re-wired when his father bought it in 1946 and again in 1977 when Paul himself had gutted the place and lifted the floor boards. Had anything been hidden, he was sure that he would have found it then."

                  If the house was 'gutted' in 1977, why would anyone expect to find a biscuit tin or a large book under the floorboards in 1992? Cheers.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Keith Skinner
                    ...
                    On the strength of available evidence, do you think it would be reasonable to conclude that the cumulative evidence of Mike Barrett’s sworn affidavit of January 1995; the August 1991 date on the research notes and the potential 1986 date for the purchase of the word processor points firmly to a conceptual year (1986) for Mike Barrett, Anne Barrett, William Graham and Tony Devereux to have commenced discussions about creating a fake diary?..
                    I suppose it's possible. Of course, all four of these individuals may or may not have been involved. Devereux may have been involved early on or may have just been a convenient untraceable link. I suppose it depends on the credence of daughter Caroline's recollection here.

                    As far as the actual manuscript...of all the potential red herrings noticed over the years, the one that is the clincher to me is the 'tin matchbox, empty' entry, which would date at least the Eddowes part to post 1987 outside of archives. Nevermind the fact that there is no evidence that the killer removed this and the other items mentioned from her pockets in the first place.

                    One more speculative observation while I'm here concerning a Battlecrease provenance... Correct me if I'm wrong. Anne Graham came up with her inside the family story about this photo album after her estranged husband decided to confess perpetrating a hoax. Maybe this is being a little simplistic, but it seems to me that it would be more practical for her to admit that Mike acquired it from one of these electricians, or just someone he met at the pub, than to concoct this fantastic story that now involves her poor old Dad. It would all fall back on dear old Mike with no skin off her nose since she had been little involved (that was her excuse for holding back this new story). What she did was dig herself into a deeper hole, which only implicates that she was already in one to begin with.
                    Last edited by Hunter; 01-29-2018, 11:05 AM.
                    Best Wishes,
                    Hunter
                    ____________________________________________

                    When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Hunter View Post
                      I suppose it's possible. Of course, all four of these individuals may or may not have been involved. Devereux may have been involved early on or may have just been a convenient untraceable link. I suppose it depends on the credence of daughter Caroline's recollection here.

                      As far as the actual manuscript...of all the potential red herrings noticed over the years, the one that is the clincher to me is the 'tin matchbox, empty' entry, which would date at least the Eddowes part to post 1987 outside of archives. Nevermind the fact that there is no evidence that the killer removed this and the other items mentioned from her pockets in the first place.

                      One more speculative observation while I'm here concerning a Battlecrease provenance... Correct me if I'm wrong. Anne Graham came up with her inside the family story about this photo album after her estranged husband decided to confess perpetrating a hoax. Maybe this is being a little simplistic, but it seems to me that it would be more practical for her to admit that Mike acquired it from one of these electricians, or just someone he met at the pub, than to concoct this fantastic story that now involves her poor old Dad. It would all fall back on dear old Mike with no skin off her nose since she had been little involved (that was her excuse for holding back this new story). What she did was dig herself into a deeper hole, which only implicates that she was already in one to begin with.
                      Can anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but the only reference I can find to any objects being found on the ground at the scene concerns some buttons found in the clotted blood on the ground after she was removed. The fact that this was considered noteworthy suggests to me that her other belongings were not removed from her various pockets by the killer, let alone opened up and their contents examined. For me the 'tin box empty' segment is every bit as damning as 'one off instance'. For me that kills not only Maybrick's authorship but also the old forgery idea.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Henry Flower View Post
                        Can anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but the only reference I can find to any objects being found on the ground at the scene concerns some buttons found in the clotted blood on the ground after she was removed. The fact that this was considered noteworthy suggests to me that her other belongings were not removed from her various pockets by the killer, let alone opened up and their contents examined. For me the 'tin box empty' segment is every bit as damning as 'one off instance'. For me that kills not only Maybrick's authorship but also the old forgery idea.
                        forgot about that one. lol. but yes totally agree- a major snafu.
                        "Is all that we see or seem
                        but a dream within a dream?"

                        -Edgar Allan Poe


                        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                        -Frederick G. Abberline

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Henry Flower View Post
                          The fact that this was considered noteworthy suggests to me that her other belongings were not removed from her various pockets by the killer, let alone opened up and their contents examined.
                          Perhaps he closed the box and, finding it empty, carefully put it back in her pocket along with her other possessions
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                          Comment


                          • Evening all, just passing this along from KS


                            Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                            Hi Keith. It's difficult not to notice that there has been little or no discussion about post #150. The image of a 10-foot pole comes to mind, but perhaps that's just me. Howard Brown reprinted the same quote on his website, but the only response I've yet seen by any "diary friendly" theorist is that, for some unfathomable reason, Paul Dodd is lying about the work done on his own house. Any comments? The quote is from Shirley Harrison (American Connection, 2003) based on her interviews with Dodd.

                            "Paul was adamant. The house was originally gaslit and converted to electricity in the 1920s. It was re-wired when his father bought it in 1946 and again in 1977 when Paul himself had gutted the place and lifted the floor boards. Had anything been hidden, he was sure that he would have found it then."

                            If the house was 'gutted' in 1977, why would anyone expect to find a biscuit tin or a large book under the floorboards in 1992? Cheers.


                            TO R.J.PALMER


                            Thank you Roger. David O’s #150 was posted before I applied for membership of the Casebook Forum – but in anticipation of being permitted to post direct – I have started to trawl through from the beginning of this thread scooping up queries en route, which I hope I may be able to eventually offer clarification. I’m aware I still have some posts to address, namely Phil’s reference to Stewart’s protection of a friendship – and the alleged “biscuit tin.” Neither are forgotten.


                            So, whilst Phil very patiently waits, I wondered whether you had any observations around my post to you, (#649), but more specifically to the question I twice asked you in #635? And do you accept the reason why I posted Kevin Whay’s O&L input?

                            Apologies if I have missed your responses.

                            Best Wishes, Keith

                            Now you're looking for the secret, but you won't find it, because of course, you're not really looking. You want to be fooled.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by James_J View Post
                              Evening all, just passing this along from KS

                              TO R.J.PALMER


                              Thank you Roger. David O’s #150 was posted before I applied for membership of the Casebook Forum – but in anticipation of being permitted to post direct – I have started to trawl through from the beginning of this thread scooping up queries en route, which I hope I may be able to eventually offer clarification. I’m aware I still have some posts to address, namely Phil’s reference to Stewart’s protection of a friendship – and the alleged “biscuit tin.” Neither are forgotten.


                              So, whilst Phil very patiently waits, I wondered whether you had any observations around my post to you, (#649), but more specifically to the question I twice asked you in #635? And do you accept the reason why I posted Kevin Whay’s O&L input?

                              Apologies if I have missed your responses.

                              Best Wishes, Keith
                              Keith, word to the wise mate - this place is a Hellhole to serious players like you (I'm constantly amazed your missus frequents it as she does).

                              Save your soul now before it's too late. You'll never win an argument, nor lose one. It's completely pointless trying!

                              And I should know.

                              Ike
                              Deeply Concerned That You're Making A Terrible Mistake
                              Iconoclast
                              Materials: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                                Keith, word to the wise mate - this place is a Hellhole to serious players like you (I'm constantly amazed your missus frequents it as she does).

                                Save your soul now before it's too late. You'll never win an argument, nor lose one. It's completely pointless trying!

                                And I should know.

                                Ike
                                Deeply Concerned That You're Making A Terrible Mistake
                                It's like Whitechapel in the 1880s.

                                Maybe that's why I like it so much?

                                Ike the Sipper
                                Iconoclast
                                Materials: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X