One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Now then, I was not attacking David. Far from it. I admire his work and his thoroughness. This is a debating forum and he does it credit with his engagement and indefatigability. Watching him reducing Pee-air to furious tears is one of the great pleasures of Casebook these days.

And neither was I attacking you! I know nothing more about the Diary than what I have read of this thread after reading the original book many moons ago. Sorry for being late! Now, where are the ladies!?

Henry,

Honestly, I didn't think you were on either count - enjoy the party, mate, unless you're in Auckland and it's already all over!

I was kind of agreeing with you that it is largely folly to ever attempt to win a point with David as - it seems to me - that by my recollections of his posts he's never been wrong, ever, and that seems impossible even by my meticulous and brilliant standards.

I too have noted his thoroughness, though somethimes it does rather come across as holier-than-thou (quick, call the irony police!!!) and therefore engaging whilst never being particularly embracing. He should be a poster to look out for, but more often than not he reads like he's just plain shouting, furiously striving to show he's the cleverest person in the room. Doesn't make for much of a party in my book. I often wonder if he's never heard of capital letters or emojis, and only I have spotted it! But doubtless he will reply and simply tell me that I am wrong ...

If you're not in Auckland, Henry Flower, Happy 2017 when it arrives!

[Iconoclast]

Sorry folks, I'm fairly uninformed on the diary. Can anyone confirm that these are some of the basic facts that are beyond doubt? -

The diary was introduced to the world by a chap called Mike Barrett - Yes, a well-established fact
Mike Barrett confessed to having forged the diary - Yes, a well-established fact
Mike Barrett had tried to purchase an unused Victorian diary - Yes, a well-established fact
The diary contains at least one but perhaps three or more phrases that were almost certainly not in use till long after 1888 - Yes, a possible fact

Is that all true?

Then what is there to debate, beyond the exact date and sources used in the forgery? Probably just the 'possible' bit at the end

I'm spending too much time in the kitchen at this party, Henry Flower. You've cited three well-established facts and a possible fact. The first three well-established facts are utterly circumstantial. The last one - the possible one - makes the journal a forgery if categorically true. Once that is established, we might undress the forgery and ask ourselves how exactly it was actually constructed, which source materials were actually used (for example, to make the passing reference to the 1889 Grand National being the fastest Maybrick may have seen, that Edwin was in America and then back in England when he was, that Maybrick's parents were buried in the same grave).

Barrett's claims about the forgery were painfully incorrect - as painfully incorrect as 'his' misplacing of Kelly's breasts. Quite apart from the fact that his version of the forgery process changed every time he subsequently told it (oh how he loved to change the details in order to cling on to the fading limelight!), in his original account (the one we have been debating here of late) he got simple details wrong (for example - and I don't recall the exact words - but claiming he had put an ink blot over a word such as 'specific' when the word was actually 'regret').

If he forged the journal, how did he get those basic facts wrong too? Or was it only in the details of his confession that his alcohol-induced stupour took its effect and not in the act of confessing itself?

If we establish categorically that 'one-off', 'spreading mayhem', and 'top myself' were never used in 1888, the journal is fundamentally dead in the water as an authentic document and Maybrick is off the hook, but this for me would simply stimulate t'other question of how on earth he (and/or others) created the thing (and the watch with the non-modern scratchings) in the first place.

Ike

[David Orsam]

I too have noted his thoroughness, though somethimes it does rather come across as holier-than-thou (quick, call the irony police!!!) and therefore engaging whilst never being particularly embracing. He should be a poster to look out for, but more often than not he reads like he's just plain shouting, furiously striving to show he's the cleverest person in the room. Doesn't make for much of a party in my book. I often wonder if he's never heard of capital letters or emojis, and only I have spotted it! But doubtless he will reply and simply tell me that I am wrong ...

The title of this thread my dear Ike is, as you well know, "One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary". That's a high bar. It doesn't scream out "There's a party in this thread". It's hard to rise to the challenge of the thread without making posts which you won't like very much.

The person that you imagine me to be is a fictional construct. I try to write posts which are as clear and as concise as possible as well as being (hopefully) accurate.

But this is not a thread entitled "One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact which proves that David Orsam is a fun guy and does not have a pathological desire to be right". It's not even a thread about me, believe it or not.

I appreciate that now the incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable fact has been provided there isn't much left to talk about in here but I'm sure I can't be a more interesting a subject than the Diary.

[David Orsam]

in his original account (the one we have been debating here of late) he got simple details wrong (for example - and I don't recall the exact words - but claiming he had put an ink blot over a word such as 'specific' when the word was actually 'regret').

It's not that hard to look things up before posting is it?

What Barrett said in his affidavit of 5 Jan 1995 (the one we have been debating here of late) was this:

"During the writing of the diary of Jack the Ripper, when I was dictating to Anne, mistakes occurred from time to time for example, Page 6 of the diary, 2nd paragraph, line 9 starts with an ink blot, this blot covers a mistake when I told Anne to write down James instead of thomas. The mistake was covered by the Ink Blot."

The only other mention of ink blot is this:

"Page 228 of the book, page 22 Diary, centre top verse large ink blot which covers the letter 's' which Anne Barrett wrote down by mistake."

Mind you, if Mike Barrett ever experiences a failure of recollection it shows he's a liar whereas if you or Caz, or someone else defending the Diary, experiences a failure of recollection it's an understandable error.

[Iconoclast]

The title of this thread my dear Ike is, as you well know, "One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary". That's a high bar. It doesn't scream out "There's a party in this thread". It's hard to rise to the challenge of the thread without making posts which you won't like very much.

The person that you imagine me to be is a fictional construct. I try to write posts which are as clear and as concise as possible as well as being (hopefully) accurate.

But this is not a thread entitled "One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact which proves that David Orsam is a fun guy and does not have a pathological desire to be right". It's not even a thread about me, believe it or not.

I appreciate that now the incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable fact has been provided there isn't much left to talk about in here but I'm sure I can't be a more interesting a subject than the Diary.

You know what, David? I think you're right ...

PS Other than the bit where you rather prematurely state that 'the incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable fact has been provided'. Obviously!

[Henry Flower]

The title of this thread my dear Ike is, as you well know, "One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary". That's a high bar. It doesn't scream out "There's a party in this thread". It's hard to rise to the challenge of the thread without making posts which you won't like very much.

The person that you imagine me to be is a fictional construct. I try to write posts which are as clear and as concise as possible as well as being (hopefully) accurate.

But this is not a thread entitled "One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact which proves that David Orsam is a fun guy and does not have a pathological desire to be right". It's not even a thread about me, believe it or not.

I appreciate that now the incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable fact has been provided there isn't much left to talk about in here but I'm sure I can't be a more interesting a subject than the Diary.

David, Ike, and others, as a confirmed nurderer (murder-nerd) I must say there's often a party in my mental pants when I read David's posts. We all have our preferences and styles and there's room in the nuthouse of ripperology for all of us. I'll bet that David is a suave and excellent chap in real life, I always read his posts as though written with a rye twinkle in his eye.

David, Ike, and all here, I wish you all a happy, prosperous, and peaceful 2017.

[Iconoclast]

It's not that hard to look things up before posting is it?

Again, so pointlessly holier-than-thou. How do you know I'm not somewhere where I am unable to look it up? Or listening to Radio Five Live's Final Score program and not really bothered to find the correct detail when it is the principle I am attempting to illustrate?

I honestly didn't think getting it right in that moment was the point. Clearly, I was wrong ...

[David Orsam]

(for example, to make the passing reference to the 1889 Grand National being the fastest Maybrick may have seen

Was it a state secret that the 1889 Grand National was a fast one?

How difficult do you think it would be for someone in Liverpool in 1992 to have discovered that the 1889 Grand National held at Aintree Racecourse in Liverpool was quite a fast one?

I appreciate that with your Newcastle roots you might not think much of the citizens of Liverpool but I'm fairly sure they had books in that city; some of those books might have been about that obscure sport of horseracing and some of them might even (shock, horror) have been concerned with the history of the Grand National.

[David Orsam]

How do you know I'm not somewhere where I am unable to look it up?

Because you are obviously "somewhere" with internet access which is all you needed.

The truth, as you admit, is that you were "not really bothered to find the correct detail" and you ended up posting inaccurate information which hardly helps move the discussion forward does it?

What was "the principle" that you were attempting to illustrate?

[David Orsam]

I must say there's often a party in my mental pants when I read David's posts.

Hmmmm.....let's get you back to warming up the ladies at the party, quickly I think.

Happy new year to you too Henry!

[Iconoclast]

I appreciate that with your Newcastle roots you might not think much of the citizens of Liverpool

Not since May 4, 1974, no. Though I did warm to them briefly on May 9, 1992 - the very year in question!

It's a bit like the guy who said all the forger would have to do is go to Anfield Cemetry to discover that Maybrick's parents were buried together. These details are not discoverable in the texts cited by Harris (at least, I don't believe they are). I would be looking for ...

Oh - life gets in the way. Got to open wedding anniversry present from dutiful daughter ...

[David Orsam]

It's a bit like the guy who said all the forger would have to do is go to Anfield Cemetry to discover that Maybrick's parents were buried together.

So you've provided the answer to your own question!

[Iconoclast]

So you've provided the answer to your own question!

I think I finally have you, David - I think you may actually be wrong at long last!

I provided an answer - not necessarily the answer!

"I'm so happy, oh so happy, I'm happy, and happy and ... whatever ...".

Unless you are the forger, David, and you know this for a fact, you have over-reached yourself at long last!

Oh, how little I expected 2016 to end so well ...

[Iconoclast]

Because you are obviously "somewhere" with internet access which is all you needed.

The truth, as you admit, is that you were "not really bothered to find the correct detail" and you ended up posting inaccurate information which hardly helps move the discussion forward does it?

What was "the principle" that you were attempting to illustrate?

Goodness, was it that obscure?

I was implying that we might wish to call canny on Barrett's elaborate confession given the teensy-weensy inconvenience of his truly outstandingly inept recall of the details.

Still, if it's okay to confess to something without really knowing any of the facts, I wish to confess right now to forging the Maybrick journal. I wrote it in charcoal, in the dark, standing on my head, one wet weekend in 1992.

Ike "The World's Greatest Forger'

[Iconoclast]

I will need to double check dates, but if memory serves he swore two affidavits confessing and then retracted, but I will need to double check the dates.

You got off lightly, son. Just as well you got back in there within 10 minutes else you'd have been accused of posting without full knowledge of the facts.

Close shave!