Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Ok, I'll paint the target on my back and post again. I apologise in advance for the length of this post by the way. I'd like to start by, again, stating 4 points:
    1. I am not pro-diary (although it shouldnt matter if I was.) I am simply someone who is not 100% convinced that it is a forgery at this point in time.
    2. I am definately not an expert on the diary (or the whole ripper case for that matter.)
    3. I'm also pretty certain that I'm not stupid or gullible and I certainly don't have any vested interest in the diary.
    4. If an absolutely killer fact emerged that categorically disproved the diary my response would be 'oh, ok fair enough.' I wouldn't burst into tears or feel personally wounded.

    And so, the 4 points:

    'Poste House.' - I totally accept your points Mike. I suppose, from a personal viewpoint, part of my thinking is: would a forger who had taken the trouble to age documents and do the necessary research be so suicidally stupid as to invent an easily disprovable pub? I just think that it can't be impossible (improbable you may say) that the pub could have been known to a few as The Poste House especially as Post Office and Post House were apparently interchangeable terms. As Maybricks family lived near to it maybe it was what his dad called it and so in Maybrick's head that was what he called it. I've even heard it suggested that it didn't necessarily have to mean a Poste House in Liverpool? I'm not saying anything as a fact. I'm just saying that, to me, this could be a possible answer.
    Tin matchbox empty - This one always bothered me the most. Smith's argument is that 2 lines down is the line 'decided Sir Jim to strike.' He believes that this type of inversion is because it's in the form of a poem and the writer used this method to help the 'flow' of the poem. I'll leave that for everyone else. Who knows? It's not impossible. Yes it's a 'coincidence' compared to the police list but it can't be impossible that 4 words could be employed in the same order. It should go without saying that I have no issue with anyone who doesn't buy the explaination.
    Handwriting - This is a personal opinion but I've always felt a) has there ever been in the history of forgery an example of someone forging a document without even attempting to forge the handwriting of the alleged subject?
    b) that it can't be impossible that Maybrick who saw himself one one hand as a 'gentleman born,' saw the ripper as his dark side (his Mr Hyde if you will.) Yes Mike, it's a pity that it's never been tested to see if there are any detectable traits of Maybrick's known hand (or even Mike Barrett's) but, as you will accept, there's nothing I can do about that.
    'One-off instance - This phrase gives me nightmares! It was pointed out by David that 'one off' used as a metaphor for something that happened only once was not in use at the time as there was no written evidence. It was used in industry, evidenced in either1903 or 5, as a one off job or pattern. A part or job only done once. I expressed doubts that it wasn't impossible that it could have been used earlier although I accepted that David was overwhelmingly likely to be correct. Now, and I'm only repeating Robert Smith here, he says that he has found the phrase 'one-off duty' used in 19th century prisons (in Jonathon Green's Dictionary of Jargon.) And so, if this is correct (and I'm not saying it is) then one off appears to have been used as a metaphor for something that occurred once and so phrases like 'one-off event' 'one-off occasion' 'one of instance' could have been used. Yes, it will be said, why hadn't an example survived in writing? Who knows? Has every phrase that's ever been used survived in writing? We surely can't have written records of every single phrase ever employed in the English language?

    So there it is. I'm not saying case closed. Or 'how can you not believe it!' I'm just stating a mixture of what's been said by others plus a bit of my own opinion for what it's worth (not much I hear you say.)

    There are many doubts about the the diary and so many lies have been told about it that there is a cloud. For myself I completely accept that the likelihood is that it's a forgery but, as yet, at this point in time, I'm not totally convinced. I certainly could be, even probably am, wrong. Soon I'm certain everyone will have a very thorough rebuttal by David Orsam. I can only give my opinion as it stands. There is no conclusive evidence that it's genuine but there is, in my own opinion, no killer fact that disproves. There are, obviously, a host of questions, doubts, lies, claimed coincidences etc but with my own brain being all that I have I remain, slightly unevenly and uncomfortably, on the fence��

    If posters here still believe that I'm either 'gullible,' 'foolish' or 'biased' then there's not much that I can do about that.


    Put your hard hat on, Herlock..

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
      If posters here still believe that I'm either 'gullible,' 'foolish' or 'biased' then there's not much that I can do about that.
      You got off lightly, I've been called ALOT (purposely left out a space there for more ridicule...) worse..

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
        O


        'One-off instance - This phrase gives me nightmares! It was pointed out by David that 'one off' used as a metaphor for something that happened only once was not in use at the time as there was no written evidence. It was used in industry, evidenced in either1903 or 5, as a one off job or pattern. A part or job only done once. I expressed doubts that it wasn't impossible that it could have been used earlier although I accepted that David was overwhelmingly likely to be correct. Now, and I'm only repeating Robert Smith here, he says that he has found the phrase 'one-off duty' used in 19th century prisons (in Jonathon Green's Dictionary of Jargon.) And so, if this is correct (and I'm not saying it is) then one off appears to have been used as a metaphor for something that occurred once and so phrases like 'one-off event' 'one-off occasion' 'one of instance' could have been used. Yes, it will be said, why hadn't an example survived in writing? Who knows? Has every phrase that's ever been used survived in writing? We surely can't have written records of every single phrase ever employed in the English language?

        So there it is. I'm not saying case closed. Or 'how can you not believe it!' I'm just stating a mixture of what's been said by others plus a bit of my own opinion for what it's worth (not much I hear you say.)

        Themed coincidences etc but with d:
        So does he say which edition of Greens? Because I am currently looking at the entry for one-off in Greens and not only is it not used in the manner described, but instead refers to handing over one prisoner from one guard to another, but it has no date of first usage.

        Let all Oz be agreed;
        I'm Wicked through and through.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Kaz View Post
          When did I ever mention 'hordes'?

          Experts in the field have been questioned, their opinions are in books which you're so keenly willing to boo-hoo.... (they're all in on it...)


          If you think you've got one over on me ...good for you
          Oh of course. You said several. I'll take ..One. Still waiting. For you to put up or admit your error.

          Let all Oz be agreed;
          I'm Wicked through and through.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
            'Poste House.' - I totally accept your points Mike. I suppose, from a personal viewpoint, part of my thinking is: would a forger who had taken the trouble to age documents and do the necessary research be so suicidally stupid as to invent an easily disprovable pub?
            Doesn't this amount to an argument from incredulity? In other words, "I can't believe a hoaxer would make such a basic error, therefore it's not a hoax". It's specious logic, because if he hadn't made such an oversight, that would support the case for its authenticity.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Ally View Post
              Oh of course. You said several. I'll take ..One. Still waiting. For you to put up or admit your error.

              No, there isn't any. No experts, they're all frauds, just random people dreamt up by pro-diarists out to make a quick buck...

              There, hows your ego now? any better?

              Comment


              • Please don't feel insulted, btw.

                Comment


                • You do realize that simply saying don't feel insulted doesn't mitigate the fact that you were insulting? If you are looking for a fool proof way to wiggle out of answering any further questions or being accountable to proving your statements...genius.

                  Never fear. I'll still be waiting 2 months from now.

                  Let all Oz be agreed;
                  I'm Wicked through and through.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                    Doesn't this amount to an argument from incredulity? In other words, "I can't believe a hoaxer would make such a basic error, therefore it's not a hoax". It's specious logic, because if he hadn't made such an oversight, that would support the case for its authenticity.
                    Yes rather. I thought the same but am more interested in finding out the Greens info. "No one could be that stupid" isn't really an argument. Crooks are caught by their own rampaging stupidity all the time.

                    Let all Oz be agreed;
                    I'm Wicked through and through.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Ally View Post
                      So does he say which edition of Greens? Because I am currently looking at the entry for one-off in Greens and not only is it not used in the manner described, but instead refers to handing over one prisoner from one guard to another, but it has no date of first usage.
                      No he doesn't.
                      Regards

                      Herlock






                      "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                        Doesn't this amount to an argument from incredulity? In other words, "I can't believe a hoaxer would make such a basic error, therefore it's not a hoax". It's specious logic, because if he hadn't made such an oversight, that would support the case for its authenticity.
                        Not on my part it's not Harry because all I'm saying is, if I can just put it into one sentence: 'it's a little strange that a forger, who aged documents and did at least a decent amount of research, would make such an obvious howler!?) I'm not saying that he couldn't have or didn't have Harry. It could be just a huge ****-up which would leave our hoaxer deserving of being unceremoniously booted out of the 'Forgers Hall Of Fame.'

                        It proves nothing, as you say Harry. I just think it's a bit strange. That's all.

                        By the way admin, this is the second time I've had the censors in. I'd just like to stress that the word blanked out did not have the letter f in it. Male chicken, ok.
                        Regards

                        Herlock






                        "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                        Comment


                        • HS wrote:

                          Yes Mike, it's a pity that it's never been tested to see if there are any detectable traits of Maybrick's known hand (or even Mike Barrett's) but, as you will accept, there's nothing I can do about that.
                          I stand to be corrected, but didn't handwriting expert Reed Hayes of the US investigation team compare the Diary with both the Will and Maybrick's signature on his wedding-certificate? And concluded that neither the Will nor the Diary were written by the same hand as the signature? Whether Hayes had an opportunity to examine the SS Baltic letter I don't know. I know sweet f.a. about handwriting analysis, but do wonder if it's possible to establish a person's handwriting style and traits from his signature.

                          Graham
                          We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                            No he doesn't.
                            Ah. Well then I am afraid so far we can't consider this a match. The Greens description clearly states that it was used as a counting measure. One prisoner off, one on. Not as an indicator of a one time occurrence of something. Literally I am handing one off to you and off my responsibility, not a one time happening.

                            Thank you for answering this!

                            Let all Oz be agreed;
                            I'm Wicked through and through.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                              if I can just put it into one sentence: 'it's a little strange that a forger, who aged documents and did at least a decent amount of research, would make such an obvious howler!?
                              People have long known that artificially ageing forged documents might be a useful technique in disguising a hoax, and some of the techniques for doing so. However, people are generally less aware of the subtle changes in language, or when a given word or phrase starts being used in a specific way. Of course, it's easy to avoid obvious howlers, but much more difficult to avoid being tripped up by a shift in meaning.

                              PS: I'm not saying that the Maybrick diary was artificially aged, by the way. It might have been, but right now we don't know that it was.
                              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Ally View Post
                                Ah. Well then I am afraid so far we can't consider this a match. The Greens description clearly states that it was used as a counting measure. One prisoner off, one on. Not as an indicator of a one time occurrence of something. Literally I am handing one off to you and off my responsibility, not a one time happening.

                                Thank you for answering this!
                                No problem Ally. There's no excuse if Smith has wilfully misinterpreted what it says in Green's. I'm sure that David will be on that one like a ton of bricks
                                Regards

                                Herlock






                                "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X