One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

I shall take that as full agreement with my post.

Ho ho. You remind me of Billy Connelly and the great line about two positives never making a negative.

Aye, right ...

[Iconoclast]

Caz is right. You don't give up, do you?

Actually, it was I who first pointed this out.

In truth, as irritating as he is (and you are, David), I nevertheless admire his tenacity and his backs-to-the-wall, they-don't-like-it-up-em approach which I have to say is somewhat reminiscent of our erstwhile future-predicting sleuth ...

[Iconoclast]

Well he could have thought that he might transfer the Diary text into the purchased Victorian diary because it would look more authentic or reassuring than if it were written, as it is now, in a Victorian photographs album or commonplace book, which looks odd and unnatural, for a "diary."

Best regards

Chris

PS Since when did you become an apparent and probably unintended apologist for the journal-believer? I'm loving it, but Lord I'm confused by it all ...

[Iconoclast]

Can I suggest that Graham didn't make this post during my lengthy arguments with Caz but waited like a hunter until I commenced a brief argument with a new person (Chris George) and then he pounced rapidly with his silly link?

The obvious reason being that if he does it with me and Caz it seems like as much an insult to Caz as me but with me and Chris it's fine, funny and ha ha!

However, the fact is that I'm not here to 'entertain' Graham - if he wants to be entertained then dig out the Monty Python box set - but to discuss the issues relating to the Diary which are unfortunately pretty dull but then why would you be even reading this thread if you find it a boring subject?

As usual (this is tedious), you are right David - but there are certain unwritten rules (one of which I'm about to write) about this brilliant thread which is that no-one is unpleasant to someone unless they're clearly asking for it.

And I should know ...

[David Orsam]

In truth, as irritating as he is (and you are, David)

That's very kind of you to say so - although I feel bound to suggest that your opinion on this issue cannot be regarded as definitive - but to the extent this follows on from Chris George's comment, I repeat that I only made one post in response to his revised theory about the red diary, asking him some perfectly reasonable questions about it, so how that can genuinely be regarded as "irritating", or showing that I don't give up, I have no idea.

Anyway, I don't think it's appropriate to be making personal comments about other users. This thread is not, and should not be, about whether I am "irritating" or not. I don't happen to think I am but if some people are irritated by their opinions being challenged there really isn't anything I can do about it.

[Iconoclast]

That's very kind of you to say so - although I feel bound to suggest that your opinion on this issue cannot be regarded as definitive - but to the extent this follows on from Chris George's comment, I repeat that I only made one post in response to his revised theory about the red diary, asking him some perfectly reasonable questions about it, so how that can genuinely be regarded as "irritating", or showing that I don't give up, I have no idea.

Anyway, I don't think it's appropriate to be making personal comments about other users. This thread is not, and should not be, about whether I am "irritating" or not. I don't happen to think I am but if some people are irritated by their opinions being challenged there really isn't anything I can do about it.

Bizarrely, that was a compliment from me, David!

[David Orsam]

As usual (this is tedious), you are right David - but there are certain unwritten rules (one of which I'm about to write) about this brilliant thread which is that no-one is unpleasant to someone unless they're clearly asking for it.

It is tedious but I do have to respond to this because the implication is that I was being 'unpleasant' to Graham. I was not. It's perfectly clear what Graham was up to and I said so. He didn't deny it.

Perhaps we can all stick to on-topic posts about the diary rather than links to Monty Python videos on You Tube or comments about other forum users.

[David Orsam]

Bizarrely, that was a compliment from me, David!

"as irritating as he is (and you are, David)" is a compliment?

Yes I noticed the rest about you admiring my tenacity blah blah blah, but I'm really not after compliments, genuine or otherwise, about my (online) personality. If you want to compliment or agree with my arguments that's great but I don't want to be checking into this thread to be reading about me! I know all about me thank you!!

[Iconoclast]

"as irritating as he is (and you are, David)" is a compliment?

Yes I noticed the rest about you admiring my tenacity blah blah blah, but I'm really not after compliments, genuine or otherwise, about my (online) personality. If you want to compliment or agree with my arguments that's great but I don't want to be checking into this thread to be reading about me! I know all about me thank you!!

Duly noted, sir. My lips are sealed on the subject of you and your argued peccadillos by those who know you not.

Do you know, I think I might be open for business again!

[caz]

But, as I've said, if the meeting had been arranged for 13th April and Mike couldn't get the diary finished in time, he just comes up with an excuse about some sort of domestic emergency and postpones the meeting to the following month.

But you are quite right to ask "How long would he have waited before letting Doreen down gently and saying the dog had eaten the diary?" That's why I have said that Mike was under time pressure after having contacted her and the clock was ticking.

But what if that guard book had not conveniently come up at auction when it did? What were his chances of finding a suitable alternative in time for a meeting postponed to the following year, let alone month? He'd already told Doreen, during their first conversation, that he had Jack the Ripper's diary. She knew his home address, if not his real name, by March 10th. How long could he afford to keep her waiting before she began to suspect something was not right about all this? How would he explain away an indefinite delay?

Another thing that struck me over the weekend is that Mike also had a convenient get-out clause with the guard book, that he arguably wouldn't have had with the red diary, had that been exactly what he was looking for: no paper trail for the guard book he showed Doreen on April 13th as promised; a perfect paper trail for the red diary which just happened to be useless for forgery purposes.

Had that red diary been used for 'the' diary, and shown to Doreen on April 13th, would Mike still have been down as a 'late payer' and would Anne still have signed a cheque for it in the May? Is there any other way they could have dealt with the purchase to make sure nobody could ever trace it back and reveal that it was in fact sent to Mike - at the same home address he had given Doreen - on March 26th 1992, and certainly hadn't contained any sort of confession by Jack the Ripper?

By contrast, the guard book was supposedly paid for using cash donated by Anne's father, and by the time Mike came up with the auction details O&L failed, for whatever reasons, to recognise the procedure he described or to confirm the purchase, and Anne's father had passed away just a few months previously.

If all this sounds just a bit too convenient for comfort, it may be because it is.

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

But what if that guard book had not conveniently come up at auction when it did? What were his chances of finding a suitable alternative in time for a meeting postponed to the following year, let alone month? He'd already told Doreen, during their first conversation, that he had Jack the Ripper's diary. She knew his home address, if not his real name, by March 10th. How long could he afford to keep her waiting before she began to suspect something was not right about all this? How would he explain away an indefinite delay?

Okay, if he can't find a suitable diary or book to write into, then that's the end of the plan. He can't do it. It's failed. Full stop. Nothing is inevitable.

Another thing that struck me over the weekend is that Mike also had a convenient get-out clause with the guard book, that he arguably wouldn't have had with the red diary, had that been exactly what he was looking for: no paper trail for the guard book he showed Doreen on April 13th as promised; a perfect paper trail for the red diary which just happened to be useless for forgery purposes.

Okay, well that explains why the auction was a good idea after his first plan failed. Of course, with an auction he has to appear in person so it's swings and roundabouts. But it's only with hindsight that we can know that going to an auction ended up with a better result than contacting a professional bookfinder. Either way, it would never have been easy for anyone to follow the paper trail.

Had that red diary been used for 'the' diary, and shown to Doreen on April 13th, would Mike still have been down as a 'late payer' and would Anne still have signed a cheque for it in the May? Is there any other way they could have dealt with the purchase to make sure nobody could ever trace it back and reveal that it was in fact sent to Mike - at the same home address he had given Doreen - on March 26th 1992, and certainly hadn't contained any sort of confession by Jack the Ripper?

Had Mike never said anything in his affidavit about it we would not know about the red diary (nor the advertisement) today.

By contrast, the guard book was supposedly paid for using cash donated by Anne's father, and by the time Mike came up with the auction details O&L failed, for whatever reasons, to recognise the procedure he described or to confirm the purchase, and Anne's father had passed away just a few months previously.

Well it would have helped if O&L had searched their records for March and April 1992 and if Kevin Whay had explained how their auctions were conducted.

[caz]

My point was that the diary wasn't clobbered over the head years ago, when details first emerged, because no-one had given serious consideration as to whether the diary could have been forged in an 11 day period between 26 March and 13 April 1992.

Right, so despite the full details of Mike's advert, in combination with his 11 day claim in his affidavit, having been in the public domain for years, the diary was not clobbered over the head long before David's arrival here because he believes nobody else had ever given serious consideration to this 'crucial' evidence and the possibility that the diary really was created between the above dates.

Well you could knock me down with a feather.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Nor can I understand why she seems to think I needed someone ("a little bird") to tell me why the 1992 advertisement wasn't mentioned in 'Inside Story'. It was obvious to me that it wasn't mentioned because the authors didn't then know about it.

Well the honourable thing to have done, when you initially made the observation that the 'crucial' details of the advert do not appear in Inside Story (which, you argued, was why nobody had previously given the purchase of the 1891 diary due consideration), would have been to say why those 'crucial' details do not appear - because the authors did not yet have that information. It might have been obvious to you, but how would the casual reader have known that? You could simply have observed that nobody had any reason to consider the purchase in depth until that advert emerged circa 2007, but that would only have been stating the bleedin' obvious. And of course if you knew the 'crucial' details were not obtained until after our book was published, but had been in the public domain for years, how did it even make sense to argue that nobody could have considered their significance before? Of course they could! They've had at least nine years to do so.

I do hope that deals with that.

So do I.

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

Right, so despite the full details of Mike's advert, in combination with his 11 day claim in his affidavit, having been in the public domain for years, the diary was not clobbered over the head long before David's arrival here because he believes nobody else had ever given serious consideration to this 'crucial' evidence and the possibility that the diary really was created between the above dates.

Nice try Caz but no cigar. This is what you said originally (#2949)

"Clearly we would not still be here enjoying ourselves if everyone shared your opinion that Mike's 1891 diary was enough to clobber 'the' diary over the head years ago, when details of it first emerged."

You have now changed the criteria in two crucial respects. Firstly, you have changed the timescale from the period "when details of it first emerged" to "for years". My previous answers, if you read them carefully, have been directed to the period when details first emerged (i.e. 1995-2003), i.e. before the advertisement was known. Secondly, and even more importantly, you have changed "everyone" to a single person.

Obviously I can't say, and never have said, that "nobody else" has ever, at any time, given the matter serious consideration, especially after details of the advertisement emerged. But if they have, they haven't shared their thinking with everyone so that everyone clobbered the idea. That's the critical part of the equation. If they've kept their thoughts private then so what? I want to know where this serious consideration has expressed itself in writing and in public in order to influence "everyone".

I've already set out the reasons why most people would not have given serious consideration during the last 12 years to the scenario I have offered in this thread but I'd be happy to repeat them if you are confused.

[David Orsam]

Well the honourable thing to have done, when you initially made the observation that the 'crucial' details of the advert do not appear in Inside Story (which, you argued, was why nobody had previously given the purchase of the 1891 diary due consideration), would have been to say why those 'crucial' details do not appear - because the authors did not yet have that information. It might have been obvious to you, but how would the casual reader have known that? You could simply have observed that nobody had any reason to consider the purchase in depth until that advert emerged circa 2007, but that would only have been stating the bleedin' obvious.

Nothing in my post would or could have suggested to a reasonable reader that I was saying anything more than that the advertisement was not mentioned in Inside Story. That was a correct and 100% accurate fact.

And it was obvious that I was doing so, not to make any kind of positive point, but to counter your ridiculous assertion that my whole scenario about the Diary should have been clear to "everyone" in 2003, despite no-one knowing about the advertisement at that time.

I cannot possibly be expected to anticipate every possible paranoid and delusional misinterpretation of my posts.

To the extent that it was not understood, by you or anyone else, what my post meant, I would have been happy to clarify it. I did, in fact, clarify it for you after you showed you misunderstood it by, in effect, accusing me of saying that the authors were deliberately withholding information. But this wasn't enough for you and you continued, without apology, to make the further dishonourable suggestion that I was lying when I said that I was not making any such accusation. You still have not made clear that you accept that what I was saying was true. So please don't talk to me about honour thank you Caz.