Acquiring A Victorian Diary
Collapse
X
-
HI KEITH. I couldn't help noticing that at the end of Paul Feldman's video, during the closing credits, thanks are given to Albert Johnson and Robert Johnson. (Sorry to lower the bar by mentioning Robbie again, but he seems to keep cropping up). Seeing that the Johnsons (plural) had previously brought their (plural) solicitor around to see Feldman, would it be safe to assume that Albert and Robbie's "cooperation" came with a contract attached to it? If not, why the solicitor? Should we add to the £3000 they (or he) already received from Robert Smith, another £3000 or so from Feldy? Can you offer any enlightenment on this point? You see, I am a little worried that Caroline Morris's constant claim that Albert Johnson, through his honesty, lost money on the watch has no actual source other than Johnson himself. As does her claim that the £30K deal with the Texas collector Robert Davis was cancelled by Albert, and not the other way round. But perhaps you can calm my doubts on these points? THANKS.Last edited by rjpalmer; 04-08-2018, 12:09 PM.
-
Originally posted by MrBarnett View PostPost 7,457. Remember this one, it's a cracker, and you will be quizzed on it in the future. Just because you have reached post 999,334 and the topic has diverged to the meaning of life and everything, don't think you will be excused from not knowing that Anne once had a bad back.
42
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by MrBarnett View PostDavid,
The point is that you are so deliberately verbose that you are making it impossible for anyone to follow the 'discussion'.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by MrBarnett View PostDavid,
I'm looking for quantification of your use of the word 'huge'. 'A lot' doesn't really help. Since you mention 'typing' skills as the sole requirement of a secretary, I'm assuming your experience of employing them stretches back to the days of the suffragettes.
Gary
And please do go ahead and tell us all about the actual requirements of a secretary in the early 1990s....
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostYou've lost me there Gary. Either you haven't been following the discussion, and thus don't understand the reason for my post, or you are just being deliberately obtuse.
The point is that you are so deliberately verbose that you are making it impossible for anyone to follow the 'discussion'.
Gary
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostA lot of them. It didn't need interrogation, it was there in their emails. I once recall thinking that there isn't a single secretary who uses "your" correctly. I did discover some subsequently but the minority in my experience.
I'm looking for quantification of your use of the word 'huge'. 'A lot' doesn't really help. Since you mention 'typing' skills as the sole requirement of a secretary, I'm assuming your experience of employing them stretches back to the days of the suffragettes.
Gary
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by MrBarnett View PostPost 7,457. Remember this one, it's a cracker, and you will be quizzed on it in the future. Just because you have reached post 999,334 and the topic has diverged to the meaning of life and everything, don't think you will be excused from not knowing that Anne once had a bad back.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostThe notion that Anne couldn't have spared a few hours to practice handwriting because she was in full time employment and had a few other things to do is just a joke. In any event, look what we are told about Anne by her work colleague Audrey Johnson (in Harrison's 2003 book):
"Anne had to give up work for a while with a bad back..."
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by MrBarnett View PostDavid,
Just how many secretaries have you known who didn't know the difference between 'your' and you're'? No doubt you interrogated a vast number of them rigorously to make sure they wouldn't have inadvertently misspelt the word. 'Huge' suggests, maybe, hundreds ... thousands... millions...?
You're eager public awaits clarification.
Tina from the tiping poole
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View Post"Anne worked as a secretary so unless she was considerably more literate than Mike was, bless him, I'm not sure how she'd have held down a job like that for long."
That's hilarious. For two reasons.
Firstly we've been told repeatedly that Mike wasn't literate enough to have written the Diary. Now Anne couldn't have written it because she was too literate!!
Secondly, the number of secretaries I've known who don't understand the difference between "your" and "you're" is huge.
A secretary needs to know how to type. That's it. They might prepare a first draft from, say a Dictaphone tape, with any spelling and punctuation errors being corrected by the author. It strikes me as ludicrous to say that someone who was a secretary couldn't have written the Diary.
Just how many secretaries have you known who didn't know the difference between 'your' and you're'? No doubt you interrogated a vast number of them rigorously to make sure they wouldn't have inadvertently misspelt the word. 'Huge' suggests, maybe, hundreds ... thousands... millions...?
You're eager public awaits clarification.
Tina from the tiping poole
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by caz View PostAll the superficial scratches were found to be later than all the Maybrick/ripper engravings using electron microscopy.
Besides, I wouldn't expect too many scratches to have been present on the protected inner surface of a watch anyway, at least not until the steel wool and emery cloth (or whatever) had worked their funky magic.Last edited by Sam Flynn; 04-06-2018, 11:59 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by caz View PostAs you know, I have considerable reservations about the value of this type of analysis, in that it can only really demonstrate the as yet unidentified author's minimum writing skills.
Rough as they are, however, I think my notes are still useful in highlighting just how many clunkers there are in the diary... for whatever reason. I'd still maintain that the most likely explanation is that the hoaxer(s) wasn't/weren't particularly well-educated.
Leave a comment:
-
The notion that Anne couldn't have spared a few hours to practice handwriting because she was in full time employment and had a few other things to do is just a joke. In any event, look what we are told about Anne by her work colleague Audrey Johnson (in Harrison's 2003 book):
"Anne had to give up work for a while with a bad back..."
Leave a comment:
-
Of course, not everyone can disguise their handwriting effectively, it's a rare skill, but people who can do it don't have a sign on their heads informing the world of their ability. That's why we can't possibly know if Anne could do it or not.
Leave a comment:
-
As for why the author of the diary (whoever it was) didn't use a dictionary I've already answered this one but of course that makes no difference when it comes to Maybrick matters.
If you think you have spelt a word correctly you don't bother to look it up. If there is someone who uses a dictionary to check every word they write just in case they've spelt it wrong I've yet to meet them. In any case, it didn't really matter – if you are the forger of a Maybrick Diary and word is spelt wrong you just say blame it on Maybrick!
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: