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 caz View Post
    I'm sorry, but this makes no sense. Why put an order in that doesn't specify a latest possible date, if he knew Maybrick's last words had to be written by May 1889 at the latest, before diaries for 1890 would presumably have been available?
    As far as I'm concerned Caz, it's your response that doesn't make any sense.

    On the one hand, it is music to your ears that a diary can be any form of book, i.e. it does not have to be a printed book bearing the year divided into months and days, yet you seem to be assuming that Barrett was expecting exactly such a book with (for example) the year 1891 emblazoned all over it.

    If Barrett (as the forger) had limited himself to asking for an 1888 diary he would probably have had no chance of getting one. He needed a wider range. An 1891 diary would have been perfect for his requirements if it had blank pages. He would just have cut out anything indicating it was from 1891 and, voila, he has a diary containing paper from the exact right period which no-one could prove was not from 1888.

    So I fail to see any basis to your objection.

    If we assume that the actual diary is a forgery then it is exactly what the real forger did. Purchases a Victorian or Edwardian scrapbook (not necessarily from 1888), cuts the pages out and bingo - he now has a diary that could have been from 1888 and no-one can scientifically prove otherwise.

    And perhaps you can tell me: why did Barrett want a diary from the Victorian period with blank pages?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by caz View Post
      As the Battlecrease evidence isn't compatible with anyone purchasing the photo album (or Victorian guard book) from O&L and transcribing the 'diary' into it after Mike received the tiny 1891 diary, I can't consider the above scenario workable.
      What 'Battlecrease evidence' Caz?

      Please don't tell me this is secret evidence that you can't discuss (a la Pierre).
      Last edited by David Orsam; 12-20-2016, 11:15 AM.

      Comment


      • Further to earlier posts about the Underwood book. Here is the full quote from it relating to the breasts on the table:

        'But to return to the scene of the murder: on a table by the bed there were little piles of flesh, neatly laid out: the breasts, the heart and the kidneys and, horror of horror, other parts of the body and dripping intestines hung from the picture nails like the grotesque and fiendish whims of a disordered mind.'

        Comment


        • I sometimes wonder if people actually read my posts. Here is what I recently posted in #2149 (with some added highlighting):

          'The earliest written reference to a "one off job" that I have found is from 1912 (which is about 10 or 20 years earlier than the dictionaries state). However, I have found references to making a 'one off' in a manufacturing context from as early as 1903. All the early references come from engineering trade journals and they all relate to manufacturing, producing or casting 'one off' items and similar.'

          This relates to something posted on another forum.

          Comment


          • A salutary lesson over in JTR Forums where someone thought they had found an example of 'one off' meaning unique in this case a unique person from 1882.

            Unfortunately, he or she was deceived by the Google Book snippet view which sometimes shows a volume date as the first in the series rather than the relevant volume from which the text has come. The 'one off' reference was, in fact, from a 1975 volume of the British Bee Journal.

            Encouraged by the original error, however, one poster stated that the argument that "one off instance" did not exist prior to 1888 is a "ridiculous argument". It is not.

            I have already explained why it is impossible for the phrase "one off instance" to have existed during or before 1888. Similarly, it would have been impossible for a person to have been described as 'a one off' during or before 1888. There is a linear and traceable progression of the expression 'one off' whereby it evolves through three distinct phases. Phase 1 being a mere and unremarkable quantity of an item off a stocklist for a manufacturing or engineering project, phase two being a unique manufactured or engineered product or design (a one off job) and Phase 3 being the wider and more general use to mean unique people or occasions (or instances). Phase 1 is nineteenth century, Phase 2 is early twentieth century (certainly after 1888) and Phase 3 is later twentieth century. Phase 3 cannot, and never will be found to, come before Phase 2 .

            Consequently the occurrence of this expression to mean a unique person in 1882 or to mean a unique occurrence - would be unhistorical and anachronistic and, therefore, impossible.

            I hope that is clear and any further finds from Google books will be checked properly in future. For the avoidance of doubt, all the quotes I provided earlier in this thread came from the hard copy volumes of the journals which I checked specifically to avoid the problem of misdating from snippet views.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
              Graham,

              I agree with all you say. However (and how I wish it wasn't true), Barrett did have a copy of the Sphere poetry book with Crashaw's poem in in his attic. Tragic, but true ...

              Ike
              No evidence it was ever in his attic, Ike, and the first anyone saw of it was late in 1994, after he had excitedly told Feldman he found the quotation in the library and had identified the actual volume to Shirley, and when he was desperately trying to prove he had masterminded the diary himself - so desperate that he engaged a private investigator to help him find some convincing evidence. Once he had identified a source of the poem (which was indeed in the library as he claimed) he could have obtained his own copy and simply backdated his ownership of it, undermining any claims he subsequently made to have used it to compose the diary.

              In short, if he had really wanted his first 'confession' to stick, he could have whipped out his Sphere book there and then, instead of later spending hours fannying about at the library, pretending to look for the poem there. But he could only have whipped it out in June 1994 if he had it by then, which I have to say I simply don't believe.

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              Last edited by caz; 12-21-2016, 06:38 AM.
              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                That's not quite what I'm saying.

                What I am saying is that the expression "one off instance" or similar ("one off occasion", "one off occurrence", "one off happening" etc.) did not exist in the nineteenth century so that its appearance in the diary is entirely unhistorical and anachronistic, thus proving the diary was not written in 1888.
                Hi David,

                Gradually getting up to speed, I noticed this claim of yours, which I would like to explore further if I may. When is the earliest documented example that you have found of the expression "one off instance", or something similar, before the diary emerged in 1992? What I'm after is where and when you imagine our diarist might have heard or read that exact expression in order to copy it.

                The earliest usage of the term one-off, or one off (in conversation or writing), would presumably have been accompanied by whichever something happened to be the one-off in question - whether it was an engineer's drawing, tool or finished product, for example. Why could this not, by extension, have been used at much the same time to refer to the one-off "instance", or "occasion", or "occurrence" of this particular item's creation, assuming those words were all in common usage? And thence to anyone else's one-off "happening" or event (as opposed to a double event ), such as the ripper's 'one-off job in Miller's Court' or a 'one-off black eye' given to Florie by 'Sir Jim'? By definition, a one-off is unique - not existing in the same form before, and no copies made of it. So we could have all manner of people referring on such-and-such a date to their 'one-off x, y or z' without expecting to find a single previous example of the same wording.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                Comment


                • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                  Caz, you might recall that in my post to you of 29 November (#2051) I said that it would be helpful in any response if you could take my posts #1574 and #1922 into consideration and I drew your attention to these two posts again in my post of 5 December (#2085).

                  Both these posts were made after the post from Graham that you have cited.

                  I have already read all the pages you have listed in your above post. What I am looking for is a response which takes into consideration the points I made in #1574 and #1922. As #1922 is on page 193 of this thread, I assume you haven't got that far.

                  When you do perhaps you can then put forward a solid contradiction of Mike Barrett's claims.
                  Hi David,

                  Patience my friend, patience. I have only just today finished reading all the posts, including those you asked me to look at. I wanted to read everything in context before responding. I usually tend to respond to a post as I see it for the first time and therefore before reading the subsequent posts. Not the best way to go, because points have often been addressed, shelved or ironed out long before I finally put in my two pennyworth. Worse, in this thread, was my habit of glancing at the latest posts - and responding to any that particularly grabbed my attention - before fully catching up with all the older ones. I noted down the posts you wanted me to look at the first time you asked, and have already promised you I will do so. I can do no more for now as my old man will be home from work any minute and I really do have more important things to do with him.

                  If I get time tomorrow I will finally be in a position to do what I can to put you out of your evident misery.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by caz View Post
                    Hi David,

                    Patience my friend, patience. I have only just today finished reading all the posts, including those you asked me to look at...
                    Clarification: I have finished reading all the posts up to the one I was responding to here. I now see there have been posts by the bucket-load since, most of them frantically trying to put the diary to bed as a late 1980s/early 1990s fake, which is not proven by whenever the diarist first appreciated that one-off could be lifted out of an engineering context.

                    I sincerely hope to catch up with the latest few pages tomorrow. If they can shift me from my old hoax position, so much the better.

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post
                      No evidence it was ever in his attic, Ike, and the first anyone saw of it was late in 1994, after he had excitedly told Feldman he found the quotation in the library ...
                      Well that has jolly well cheered my day no end. After a barrage of nay-saying, there's a slight glimmer of hope for we yay-sayers (when I say 'We', I primarily mean 'Me', and my occasional worthy bravehearts).

                      Even if it were never so well proven that 'one-off instance' is our long-sought-after one incontrovertible, etc., I'd still want some answers to where our erstwhile hoaxer sourced some of his more insightful entries (Gladys being regularly ill, when Edwin was and was not in the US, and the likes).

                      Nil desperandum is the order of the day fellow believers!

                      Mad Ike
                      Iconoclast
                      Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                      Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by caz View Post
                        the first anyone saw of it was late in 1994, after he had excitedly told Feldman he found the quotation in the library
                        Are you sure this is right Caz?

                        According to Ripper Diary: The Inside Story by Linder, Morris and Skinner (p.143), Barrett first told Martine Rooney, Feldman's assistant, on 30 September 1994 that he had discovered the source of the quotation.

                        There is no mention in the summary of this conversation that Barrett was speaking "excitedly". Is there a source to support your use of this word?

                        The summary also does not state that Barrett found the quotation in a library. Rooney said that Barrett told her he was sitting with the book in front of him. It was Feldman who then sent people to Liverpool Central Library to see if they could find the author of the quotation.

                        Harrison later said that Barrett told her he had spent a week in Liverpool Library looking for the quotation but the next day told he had a copy of the book in his possession.

                        That's what the book states at least. It also goes on to say that one of Barrett's friends 'corroborated his story'.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by caz View Post
                          I now see there have been posts by the bucket-load since, most of them frantically trying to put the diary to bed as a late 1980s/early 1990s fake, which is not proven by whenever the diarist first appreciated that one-off could be lifted out of an engineering context.
                          Talking of questionable adverbs, I can't work out if the above is a reference to my posts but I am certainly not doing anything "frantically" nor are my "one off" posts trying to put the diary to bed as a late 1980s/early 1990s fake. What I am saying is that "one off instance" could not possibly have been written by a diary author in 1888.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by caz View Post
                            Patience my friend, patience.
                            I'm not sure what makes you think I am trying to hurry you up or not being patient. Take as long as you need.

                            And can I put in a request for an answer to my question (first posed yesterday): why did Barrett want a diary from the Victorian period with blank pages?

                            I would really like to hear your answer to this but, again, in your own time Caz.

                            Comment


                            • Christmas Quiz

                              Here's one for you....

                              Was James Maybrick's father:

                              (a) an engineer, (b) an engraver or (c) an engine driver?











                              The correct answer is (b), he was an engraver. He was not an engineer (and I assume that the word "Engraver" has been mis-read on the 1841 census by some people, including whoever wrote James Maybrick's Wiki page, as "Engineer"). William Maybrick was, in fact, a copper plate engraver.

                              Mind you, this was only until about 1844, when James was six years old. Then he took over as the Parish Clerk and remained in this position until his death.

                              He died, incidentally, in 1870, some 18 years before the Ripper murders.

                              So the occupation of Maybrick's father is really the Christmas Red Herring of 2016.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                                Talking of questionable adverbs, I can't work out if the above is a reference to my posts but I am certainly not doing anything "frantically" nor are my "one off" posts trying to put the diary to bed as a late 1980s/early 1990s fake. What I am saying is that "one off instance" could not possibly have been written by a diary author in 1888.
                                I can not see any reason as to why the Whitechapel killer would have written a diary.

                                Pierre

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X