Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

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

  • Originally posted by Observer View Post
    The same poster (when asked if that were the case) did not have a clue as to how the auction house carried out their auctions. Not very helpful to say the least.
    I assume you aren't referring to me there?

    I said it was from memory and I happen to be on holiday so couldn't follow up just yet with a definite answer (if indeed I could be bothered to).

    I didn't say I didn't know.

    If you want help, help yourself. The rest of us have.

    Ike
    Iconoclast

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Observer View Post
      No problem David. Ike has the book, but for some reason, despite his lengthy posts of late, has not revealed the section that interests you an I.

      To be fair I don't know if he's been asked for the pertinent information. So I'm asking now. If you see this Ike, could you provide the section in Linden, Morris, and Skinner's book which deals with the procedure adopted by Outhwaite and Litherland when conducting auctions in late January 1990.
      I will post it when I get home (may need reminding), but take it from me that the ticket was the least of Barrett's errors. No-one on this site (pro- or anti-journal) seriously believes in his account. He was an alcoholic and bitter about his lot and would have said anything to stay in the limelight.

      But he was no forger.
      Iconoclast

      Comment


      • I've had enough of the bad-tempered and rather puerile bickering on this thread. In the Ripper Diary it is stated that O&L do not issue tickets to attendees at their auctions, as Barrett claimed. At the City Darts Pub in Whitechapel at a meeting of the Cloak & Dagger Club Barrett was 'guest of honour' and there were several prominent Ripperologists in the audience. During a 'debate' about how Barrett obtained the diary book, Keith Skinner asked Barrett if he had the lot receipt (the 'ticket') with him and he said he had. Would he produce it? Skinner asked. Barrett said "No".

        Further, when the authors of the Ripper Diary visited O&L they were told that there was no record of the job lot that Barrett had described. Barrett also made no reference in his affidavit of the registration form that all prospective bidders at O&L have to fill in.

        That's it - I'm out of here. If you need to know any more, go buy the book.

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

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
          I assume you aren't referring to me there?

          I said it was from memory and I happen to be on holiday so couldn't follow up just yet with a definite answer (if indeed I could be bothered to).

          I didn't say I didn't know.

          If you want help, help yourself. The rest of us have.

          Ike
          No it wasn't you. Do the research, and find out who, it's here in this thread, help yourself the rest of us have.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Graham View Post
            I've had enough of the bad-tempered and rather puerile bickering on this thread.
            Incredible. You told someone to drink their cocoa, and go to bed the other day. You're not beyond puerile bickering by a long chalk.


            Originally posted by Graham View Post
            In the Ripper Diary it is stated that O&L do not issue tickets to attendees at their auctions, as Barrett claimed.
            What they will have issued, and I beleive this is what Barret was really refering to were auction numbers held up when making a bid, to identify the bidder. Barret was speaking some years after the event, and fond of a tipple at the time, it's understandable he could not remember exactly what occured at the auction.



            Originally posted by Graham View Post
            At the City Darts Pub in Whitechapel at a meeting of the Cloak & Dagger Club Barrett was 'guest of honour' and there were several prominent Ripperologists in the audience. During a 'debate' about how Barrett obtained the diary book, Keith Skinner asked Barrett if he had the lot receipt (the 'ticket') with him and he said he had. Would he produce it? Skinner asked. Barrett said "No".
            I doubt whether Barret kept the receipt for the lot. Five years had elapsed.

            Originally posted by Graham View Post
            Further, when the authors of the Ripper Diary visited O&L they were told that there was no record of the job lot that Barrett had described. Barrett also made no reference in his affidavit of the registration form that all prospective bidders at O&L have to fill in.
            Are you seriously suggesting O&L keep a record of everything they auction off ?

            And the question still has not been answered as to the method adopted by O&L when conducting auctions in late 1990.

            Originally posted by Graham View Post
            That's it - I'm out of here. If you need to know any more, go buy the book.
            Hold on, isn't that a bad tempered statement?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Observer View Post
              No it wasn't you. Do the research, and find out who, it's here in this thread, help yourself the rest of us have.
              Then mea culpa, I guess.

              But did you not then name me in a subsequent post???
              Iconoclast

              Comment


              • [QUOTE=Iconoclast;390356]
                Originally posted by John G View Post
                I think a better title for a thread would be, "One incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact that proves the Diary is genuine."

                Unfortunately, there is very little factual information in the Diary which can be checked against the historical records, which is exactly what you would expect from a forger. QUOTE]

                What a truly specious argument! I would have thought that a forger would do exactly the opposite - they would actively insert endless examples of events from the public record and weave them into their forgery to back up their candidate???

                It is not for us to decide what someone writes, nor how much detail they provide. To dismiss something because it doesn't meet with your preconceived assumptions is a dangerous science to engage in ...

                Ike
                No it's not a specious argument! It depends on how much research the forger was prepared to do. And I would also point out that at the time the Diary was brought into the public domain public records, such as press reports, were not as accessible as they are today, i.e. via the internet.

                In fact, whoever was responsible for the Diary was obviously a fairly lazy/incompetent researcher anyway, because when they did write about matters that could be checked against historical records they invariably made glaring errors, such as the reference to the non existent Poste House pub, and repeating the myth about leaving rings and farthings at the feet of Chapman.

                What amazes me is how many people are so easily taken in by this kind of nonsense. For instance, we have the "Hitler Diaries" authenticated by the eminent historian Lord Dacre. Then there's the 1957 Mussolini Diaries, also authenticated by experts-in fact, even the dictator's own son believed them to be genuine!

                And what about the Wearside Jack tapes and letters? The West Yorkshire police were convinced they were actually sent by the Yorkshire Ripper, when in actual fact they were a hoax perpetuated by an alcoholic.

                And frankly the Maybrick Diaries are not even a very good forgery. The handwriting, for instance, didn't bear the slightest resemblance to Maybrick's, the ink was determined by experts to be modern, and the first twenty pages were torn out.

                Unbelievable!
                Last edited by John G; 08-15-2016, 10:54 AM.

                Comment


                • [QUOTE=John G;390382]
                  Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                  In fact, whoever was responsible for the Diary was obviously a fairly lazy/incompetent researcher anyway, because when they did write about matters that could be checked against historical records they invariably made glaring errors, such as the reference to the non existent Poste House pub, and repeating the myth about leaving rings and farthings at the feet of Chapman.

                  And frankly the Maybrick Diaries are not even a very good forgery. The handwriting, for instance, didn't bear the slightest resemblance to Maybrick's, the ink was determined by experts to be modern, and the first twenty pages were torn out.

                  Unbelievable!
                  What is unbelievable is how easily you (and others) are so easily persuaded to belief the myths around the journal.

                  For example, the 'Poste House' issue has been addressed by Shirley Harrison (you will have read her two books, I'm sure), as well as Caroline Morris here on the Casebook. Whilst no assurance can be proferred that it is not an anachronism, nor is it certain that it is an anachronism. You would know this if you read everything on the case.

                  And the handwriting - we have almost none of Maybrick's, and absolutely none known to be written whilst on his own, for himself, and in a probably highly aroused state. We need a known example of that to compare the journal with.

                  Here's a beaut - the ink has been shown to be modern. It hasn't. If it had, we wouldn't be having this debate. The Maybrick site would have been shut down from this Casebook.

                  The first 20 pages are torn out. Get over it. So the first 20 pages are torn out. It is very likely that the first 20 pages had content which had to be returned to the company (the journal makes it clear that Maybrick has been asked by his clerk Lowry to account for something). You will know this because you have read the text in detail, surely?

                  But also the myths around the case!

                  For example, the journal refers to the rings and to coins - but not at Chapman's feet. The implication is that Maybrick took the rings away with him, and that the coins were found in her pocket. The latter is evidenced by ... oh God, we've gone over and over this over the years, I just can't bring myself to repeat it!

                  You should know this! You really shouldn't post if you don't know the case! And you really shouldn't discount something you haven't read but simply relied on the rehashed 'unbelievable' myths of the ill-informed.

                  I get that many people don't have time for the journal, and that they rubbish it without any effort to read it or any of the books on the subject of it. Such indolence is not evidence, nor is it credible. You might turn out to be right, but you're no better than a punter guessing on a winning horse because you happen to like its name. But I for one will defend it for as long as nothing is produced to categorically reveal it as fraudulent. I consider that to be the honourable thing to do.

                  For the record, Eddowes' body was the only one tested at postmortem for drugs, because (of course) the police found strychnine or arsenic in 'her' red leather cigarette case. It was Maybrick's drug they found, and history will still show it if the case could be located and tested. I am able to make a prediction - I've made it before: Find the red cigarette case and test it for strychnine or arsenic, and when it comes out positive, that will be an end to it. Maybrick will be nailed.

                  Ike
                  Iconoclast

                  Comment


                  • [QUOTE=John G;390382]
                    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                    No it's not a specious argument! It depends on how much research the forger was prepared to do.
                    Just a single example for you: The journal refers to the fact that Maybrick's parents shared a grave. Short of a) Reading the entire (very lengthy) transcript of Florrie's trial or b) Going personally to Anfield cemetry to check their grave, how would out forger have uncovered such a fact?

                    This is just one example. Of course, you will know this because you've read and re-read everything on the case!

                    PS If the forger took Path B and went to Anfield cemetery, you'd have to ask Why??? Why would he or she do so? On the off chance that they would find something to put into their forged journal of James Maybrick? I think not.
                    Iconoclast

                    Comment


                    • [QUOTE=Iconoclast;390390]
                      Originally posted by John G View Post

                      Just a single example for you: The journal refers to the fact that Maybrick's parents shared a grave. Short of a) Reading the entire (very lengthy) transcript of Florrie's trial or b) Going personally to Anfield cemetry to check their grave, how would out forger have uncovered such a fact?

                      This is just one example. Of course, you will know this because you've read and re-read everything on the case!

                      PS If the forger took Path B and went to Anfield cemetery, you'd have to ask Why??? Why would he or she do so? On the off chance that they would find something to put into their forged journal of James Maybrick? I think not.
                      Evening everyone I dont want to be a party pooper but the grave sharing thing is very similar to the empty tin box both no research required really most husband and wives are buried together.
                      Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

                      Comment


                      • [QUOTE=pinkmoon;390397]
                        Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                        Evening everyone I dont want to be a party pooper but the grave sharing thing is very similar to the empty tin box both no research required really most husband and wives are buried together.
                        Pinky, please.

                        Most husbands and wives are not buried together - neither then nor now! Where on earth did you acquire this little factoid?????????? Just go to the nearest cemetery and you'll rapidly see how little truth there is in this ridiculous statement!

                        When you say these thoroughly untrue things, the easily-led leap on it as an established truth and won't let go of it for a thousand posts!!!!

                        Please be more careful about the information you provide in criticism or defence of the journal. This is exactly how uncorroborated myths develop about the journal and become truths if they are not shot quickly down by the vigilant!

                        It seems that I am never to sleep in my careful watch over the arms which are brought to bear on this piece of actual evidence in this infamous case.

                        Ike
                        Iconoclast

                        Comment


                        • To everyone in this thread. Thanks to those who are trying to be helpful. Just to say that I'm only interested in the ticketing system employed at Outhwaite and Litherland in about 1990. If the winning bidder did not get a ticket on which was marked the item number and the bid price what actually did happen?

                          If no-one can answer this question then seriously don't worry about it, I was only asking out of curiosity.

                          Comment


                          • Auction house practises.

                            Hi, all.

                            During the '90's I was an antique dealer based in the North of England and attended and made bids at a great number of auction houses.
                            The method employed by all of those I attended was nearly identical.
                            Usually, one was obliged to register by completing a paper form which required the prospective bidder's name, details of either your business or private address and, in some cases, an indication of which financial institution was to be used for issuing cheques, should a bid be successful. On the day of the auction, a bid card (about 4 inches square in size) would then be assigned to you with a unique 2 or 3 digit number printed upon it.
                            Only in open street or market-place auctions would it not be required to furnish such details before bidding, as these were smaller, more informal affairs.
                            When making a bid on any item, the practise was to attract the attention of the auctioneer and indicate the amount of your bid. Some did this vocally, calling out the amount. I generally did this silently, using my fingers as a display of the increment my bid offer was to rise in relation to the already established amount on that item. Very often only two or three persons would be interested in a particular lot and they would drop out of the bidding once the price reached to high an amount for their needs.
                            Should you be successful in your bid, you held up the numbered card and that number was recorded against the lot number. Then it was a simple matter of attending to the amount owed on your account. A receipt was drawn up, listing all items and the incurred buyers charge or commission(usually 10 or 15 %). Upon full payment, the receipt was stamped and signed to indicate payment was made and this document then entitled the holder to collect the item listed upon it.
                            While I do not believe I ever made a bid at Outhwaite & Litherland, I should think it most probable that the above system of operation would be one they followed.
                            I have not encountered the 'ticket' system that is described in the confession, as the receipt performs that function. As the item(s) upon the receipt are collected they are marked as such upon the receipt and within the auctioneer's ledger.
                            I was personally acquainted with some auctioneers and they observed the custom of keeping records for many years, so should there later arise a dispute regarding the provenance of an item or as to whether it was illegally obtained by the initial seller, the auction house was able to both supply those records and acquit itself of any implication of dishonesty or bad practise.

                            Yours, Caligo
                            Last edited by Caligo Umbrator; 08-15-2016, 05:26 PM.
                            "I know why the sun never sets on the British Empire: God wouldn't trust an Englishman in the dark."

                            Comment


                            • Thank you Caligo, that is interesting.

                              Perhaps you can tell me this. If we replace the word "ticket" in Barrett's statement with the word "receipt", is it then in accord with the system you are describing? Hence:

                              "At this stage I was given a receipt on which was marked the item number and the price I had bid. I then had to hand this receipt over to the Office and I paid 50. The receipt was stamped.....I then returned to the Auction Room with my stamped receipt and handed it over to an assistant, a young man, who gave me the Lot I had purchased."

                              I've deleted from this the bit about him giving a false name when he paid his money (which I assume is inconsistent with what you are saying due to the registration system) but would the above section be roughly correct?

                              Comment


                              • Hi, David.

                                If we replace 'ticket' with 'receipt' then it would be generally consistent, yes.

                                However, I firstly find it odd that he wasn't required to register before bidding. This is required so as to ensure payment can be obtained on 'won' items. Without such a requirement a person could wander in from the street, bid on a few items and then never be seen again. It wouldn't be until the end of the day that the auctioneers would realise they had several items listed as sold but not paid for. Clearly, this would be an experience they should wish to avoid.
                                I further find issue with his statement that "I was then told to return my ticket to the Office, but I did not do this and left with the Photograph Album and Compass.".
                                If he meant that he was told to return the ticket permanently, then you can see that if one had been successful on bids for 20 different items, a system such as this would seem to require the generation and carrying of 20 separate tickets and a great deal more paperwork and legwork than efficiency might ordinarily dictate.
                                However, we could generously speculate that on this occasion the ticket was a receipt and that the porter engaged in distributing the purchased items had no ink left in his pen to indicate the goods on the receipt as being received and so asked Mike to return to the office so that they might mark the receipt instead.
                                Also, in the account of his statement that I have access to, the full address of where the auction was taking place was XXX'd out. Potentially it could have been a farm or estate clearance and, although I would expect these would be handled in the same manner, limited space or special circumstances may have altered the procedures for that one sale.

                                Yours, Caligo
                                Last edited by Caligo Umbrator; 08-16-2016, 02:55 AM. Reason: spelling correction
                                "I know why the sun never sets on the British Empire: God wouldn't trust an Englishman in the dark."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X