25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith

[David Orsam]

"...I rather thought that this was the most important point I made in the article but no-one in JTR Forums seemed to want to discuss it..."

Perhaps, since you appear to be interested in what is posted about your article in JTR Forums you could join and respond directly instead of choosing a circular route of response?

Well you quote me saying that no-one in JTR Forums wants to discuss a particular (important) point and then comment by way of what seems to be a non sequitur by suggesting I respond in JTR Forums!!

But there's nothing to respond to on that point in JTR Forums because no-one has said anything about it! That was what I was saying in my article.

Perhaps you might want to select a different quote from my article to illustrate your post and perhaps I'll respond, otherwise I won't bother.

[jmenges]

Members of JtR Forums are just as capable of responding over here unless they have managed to get themselves banned for bad behavior. I don't believe anyone contributing to this discussion falls into that category.

JM

[Abby Normal]

Members of JtR Forums are just as capable of responding over here unless they have managed to get themselves banned for bad behavior. I don't believe anyone contributing to this discussion falls into that category.

JM

exactly.

But I doubt they'll leave the comfort of there warm cozy self back patting echo chamber. I would be surprised if they did. But would be interesting, though probably short lived.

lets see if Gary steps up to the challenge since hes already here.

[Abby Normal]

Some of the muppets on JTR forums recently commented on my article about Robert Smith's book. I'm not a member of JTR forums, and it's unseemly to respond to posts on JTR Forums on Casebook, so my response to the muppets can be found here:

https://www.orsam.co.uk/responsetothemuppets.htm

There was also, for some reason, a response on JTR Forums to my post earlier in this thread about Rod McNeil's ion migration test and I have responded to this in a separate article here:

www.orsam.co.uk/responsetoatwit.htm

Hi David
I read your first article listed above. well done as usual!

[Tecs]

The issue with the diary's use of the phrase "one off instance", in the specific way in which it uses it, has been known for quite some time. I myself raised the issue eight or nine years ago, and I know I wasn't the first to do so. In 2008/9, I used Google Books searches to count how frequently certain diary phrases turned up, and when those phrases first appeared in print. From that, I was able to produce graphs like the one below, which should speak volumes about when the diary was most likely to have been written:

[ATTACH]18282[/ATTACH]

The details will have changed slightly since I did my original survey, but I would expect the overall findings to be broadly the same. Namely, that if we see the three phrases "one off", "top myself" AND "spreads mayhem" occurring in the same document, the likelihood is that it was written in the latter third of the 20th Century.

Dear all,

Looking at the above graph it appears there is no mention found of the phrase "top myself." before the 1980's. This is interesting and links in with the main point I was going to make which was referring to the Wearside Jack hoaxer John Humble, as he used the phrase in his infamous tape that he sent to George Oldfield in 1979. Maybe that was too late to be included in the 70's but it was obviously in common use for him to know about it and use it.

The main point was that the hoaxer was referred to for years as a "super-hoaxer" and was assumed to have been hugely clever to have committed the hoax and got away with it. When found he was, of course, a hopeless drunk who could hardly tie his own laces! So basically, anyone who thinks that a hoax of the diary's level couldn't have been perpetrated by someone like Mike Barrett should take that into account.

regards

tecs

[MrBarnett]

Well, Gary, I didn't mention you by name but it was, of course, you who said of my article about Robert Smith's book:

"The primary purpose of the piece seems to be to show how clever the author is."

What an outrageous, unpleasant and absurd comment that was. As if I need to show anyone how clever I am! It's almost as absurd a comment as when Tom Wescott called you "petty and jealous" for questioning the hospital record he produced in his book. Feel free to challenge my arguments and conclusions by all means but it's quite wrong and unacceptable of you to impugn my motives in such a manner.

Let me get this straight, calling people 'muppets' isn't unpleasant and absurd? It often happens in life that when you dish out insults you get them in return.

Grow up.

[MrBarnett]

Hi David
I read your first article listed above. well done as usual!

Yes, a pat on the back, David.

[Abby Normal]

Yes, a pat on the back, David.

that's it? no debate or response on the content and arguments and subject matter of the article?

[Observer]

that's it? no debate or response on the content and arguments and subject matter of the article?

There's nothing to debate AN, nothing to refute, Mr Orsam as ever, has done his homework. "One off instance" scuppers the Diary good and proper, both as being written by Maybrick, and being an old hoax.

For me, the revelation that MIke Barrett was no duck egg, and had articles published in a national magazine was particularly revealing. If you remember we were told by a member of this forum that he was incapable of filling out a sick note! We'll probably be told now that the articles in question were ghost written for Barrett.

[Abby Normal]

There's nothing to debate AN, nothing to refute, Mr Orsam as ever, has done his homework. "One off instance" scuppers the Diary good and proper, both as being written by Maybrick, and being an old hoax.

For me, the revelation that MIke Barrett was no duck egg, and had articles published in a national magazine was particularly revealing. If you remember we were told by a member of this forum that he was incapable of filling out a sick note! We'll probably be told now that the articles in question were ghost written for Barrett.

LOL! totally agree on all points.

[David Orsam]

Hi David
I read your first article listed above. well done as usual!

Thank you Abby.

[David Orsam]

There's nothing to debate AN, nothing to refute, Mr Orsam as ever, has done his homework.

Thank you Observer.

[David Orsam]

Yes, a pat on the back, David.

Is this your way of giving us a demonstration of how to be "a charmer"?

[David Orsam]

Let me get this straight, calling people 'muppets' isn't unpleasant and absurd? It often happens in life that when you dish out insults you get them in return.

Grow up.

I explain at length in the sub-article to which the main article links why I referred to that group of posters as muppets. I would say it was a perfectly apt description in the circumstances given the comical display of muppetry seen in the response on JTR Forums to my "one-off" post in this forum. I don't believe it can be fairly described as unpleasant and is certainly not absurd.

Your comment about my motives, on the other hand, Gary, was, indeed, unpleasant and absurd, as well as outrageous, and I note that you make no attempt to deny that or defend it.

The irony is that when Tom questioned your own motive in challenging his use of a hospital record, and suggested you were doing so because you were "jealous", I was one of the few people, if not the only person, to step forward and call him out on it. Because it's ridiculous to twist motivation in that way. It would have been equally ridiculous if Tom had accused you of trying to show how clever you were.

What I was doing was challenging Robert Smith's book and, in particular, his claim that he has conclusively established the provenance of the Diary. Perhaps you might want to start discussing that book, which is the subject of this thread, rather than amusing yourself with daft comments about me.

[MrBarnett]

Members of JtR Forums are just as capable of responding over here unless they have managed to get themselves banned for bad behavior. I don't believe anyone contributing to this discussion falls into that category.

JM

But the rules of your site prevent people from responding to non-relevant attacks.