One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[John G]

But he doesn't say anything in his affidavit about the Poste House pub. And how does the diary reveal any knowledge about the history of that pub?

He stated, in a confession dated January 25th 1995, that was how he knew the Poste House had been called the Muck Midden in the 1800s. Therefore, he claimed that his reason for referring to the pub as the Poste House in the diary was deliberate: so that he could, in the future, prove the diary to be a forgery.

[John G]

Do we need to know "exactly" what is contribution was?

If it was zero then, logically he didn't forge the diary, or even assist in that endeavour.

[Iconoclast]

There is a difference from noting something in your mind and actually mentioning it. I believe I was the first person to mention it in this thread.

Then let me be as pedantic as you - if that's what you mean, say it.

What you said was that you were the first to 'note' it. I noted it also, but didn't 'mention it in this thread'.

[Iconoclast]

So you take a claim that has not been disproved and then compare it to a claim that has (apparently) been disproved and somehow that is a legitimate comparison?

I have never said anything about Maybrick only composing music - I have no idea - so what does that have to do with the price of fish?

Oh I think you do understand my point.

David, your posts are often overly egocentric (yeah, I know, pot, kettle, black) - you take everything as a personal attack. I didn't suggest that you had said he wrote music. You must surely have noted (as you didn't mention it in this thread) that a belief which appeared to prove the hoax had subsequently succumbed to what appears ne'er to be shaken. Maybrick did write lyrics and Livia Trivia demonstrated this incontrovertibly. Your incontrovertible fact remains open to similar disproof.

Nothing to do with you, really. And definitely nothing to do with the price of fish. But could you stay on point and follow what people are saying, please???

[David Orsam]

David,

I don't think I did. You just quoted the same line twice?

Iconoclast, 28 August 2016:

"The journal does have a truly extraordinary ability to never quite be shaken."

Iconoclast, 29 December 2016:

"And yet, it will not be shaken - of that there is no doubt."

We might even go back to your post of 30 August 2008 (under a different name):

"This journal does not appear to want to be ‘shaken’, regardless of the criticism and derision it receives. It just keeps standing up to everything that gets thrown at it."

As I've already mentioned, saying this kind of thing repeatedly does not make it so.

[Iconoclast]

David,

I don't think I did. You just quoted the same line twice?

Ike

Any time you want to apologise for this error, please don't hesitate on my part ...

[Iconoclast]

Iconoclast, 28 August 2016:

"The journal does have a truly extraordinary ability to never quite be shaken."

Iconoclast, 29 December 2016:

"And yet, it will not be shaken - of that there is no doubt."

We might even go back to your post of 30 August 2008 (under a different name):

"This journal does not appear to want to be ‘shaken’, regardless of the criticism and derision it receives. It just keeps standing up to everything that gets thrown at it."

As I've already mentioned, saying this kind of thing repeatedly does not make it so.

Oh, you mean repeat myself over the course of eight long years!!!!!!

Incidentally, I am not the author of the 'shaken' quotation so you have me mistaken. Any time the word 'shaken' is used in the context of the journal, it is a clear reference to Keith Skinner's comment in the Maybrick video.

Surely you knew that???

[David Orsam]

If it was zero then, logically he didn't forge the diary, or even assist in that endeavour.

Well this thread is only about refuting the Diary, not proving who forged it.

All I can do is note that Barrett says in his affidavit:

"I worked on the story and then I dictated it to Anne who wrote it down in the Photograph Album and thus we produced the Diary of Jack the Ripper."

Why did that not happen?

[David Orsam]

He stated, in a confession dated January 25th 1995, that was how he knew the Poste House had been called the Muck Midden in the 1800s. Therefore, he claimed that his reason for referring to the pub as the Poste House in the diary was deliberate: so that he could, in the future, prove the diary to be a forgery.

Okay so yes in the second affidavit he claims to have worked in the Poste House as a barman and discovered that it had been called the Muck Midden in the 1800s.

What is the point that you want to make about this?

[John G]

Okay so yes in the second affidavit he claims to have worked in the Poste House as a barman and discovered that it had been called the Muck Midden in the 1800s.

What is the point that you want to make about this?

If he actually forged the diary, as he claimed, why would he lie about this? Assuming, of course, that it was a lie.

[David Orsam]

-you take everything as a personal attack.

You are wrong.

In this case, you were in fact addressing your post to me because you said:

"Your incontrovertible fact is as solid as the old gem that Michael Maybrick only composed music."

What I was saying was that it's not legitimate to take one claim which refutes the diary and then say "oh well someone else said something which refuted the diary and it turned out to be wrong".

It's nothing to do with me personally, it's the way you are framing your response to the "one off" point which has nothing to do with "one off".

[John G]

Well this thread is only about refuting the Diary, not proving who forged it.

All I can do is note that Barrett says in his affidavit:

"I worked on the story and then I dictated it to Anne who wrote it down in the Photograph Album and thus we produced the Diary of Jack the Ripper."

Why did that not happen?

It may have, but people aren't always honest. He might simply have been an attention seeker.

[David Orsam]

If he actually forged the diary, as he claimed, why would he lie about this? Assuming, of course, that it was a lie.

How do we know it was lie?

[David Orsam]

It may have, but people aren't always honest. He might simply have been an attention seeker.

Or he might have forged the diary.

[David Orsam]

Oh, you mean repeat myself over the course of eight long years!!!!!!

No I meant repeating yourself over the course of four months (August to December).