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 Spider View Post
    Hi Iconoclast, interesting 'coincidences', many of which I agree with and have personally thought of as pointers in Maybrick's direction.
    I have quite a few more 'coincidences' as I will call them for now, totalling over one hundred and not including those listed, all of which implicate James Maybrick and some of which I believe are irrefutable. The dreaded 'diary' isn't going to go away.

    “…… what they have in store for them they would stop this instant. But do I desire that?....
    Posting this again don't know what happened to the first attempt

    How about number 10 on the list. Do you agree with that?
    Last edited by Observer; 01-28-2018, 04:03 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Observer View Post
      [QUOaboutSpider;439444]Hi Iconoclast, interesting 'coincidences', many of which I agree with and have personally thought of as pointers in Maybrick's direction.
      I have quite a few more 'coincidences' as I will call them for now, totalling over one hundred and not including those listed, all of which implicate James Maybrick and some of which I believe are irrefutable. The dreaded 'diary' isn't going to go away.

      “…… what they have in store for them they would stop this instant. But do I desire that?....

      How about number 10 on the list. Do you agree with that?
      I know you have asked this of Spider, not of me, but I would like to offer a response nevertheless.

      It is, of course, entirely debatable whether the author of the GSG intended any of the cryptic references I have highlighted. That is absolutely not in doubt. It pretty much then becomes a matter of personal opinion as to whether you place any credence in the 'James' part and any or all of the other names.

      But what is absolutely not in any doubt whatsoever, and which was core to my argument in History vs. Maybrick is that the names and initials can be interpreted from within the version of the GSG which has gone down on the record as the 'duplicate' Warren requested. I don't think there's a great deal of doubt that the word 'nothing' is written exactly as it is written in the journal but that could have been the smart hand of a hoaxer playing a game with us. I accept that 'for nothing' may not be a cryptic reference to the 'win' which is required to form 'Edwin' from the end of 'Blamed'. Accepting those two, I cannot accept that the capital 'B' in 'Blamed' is anything even remotely like a 'B'. It just isn't. It starts with a 'f' which mirrors perfectly that given below it in 'for' and its remainder is self-evidently a slanted 'M'. Whether that means it was Maybrick writing 'fM' on the jamb in Wentworth Dwellings I can't tell you. But I can tell you that it is a truly astonishing coincidence that it should be possible to divine it from it.

      But ultimately, my point about Coincidence No. 10 is that those names and initials are unequivocally discernible (whether intended or not), but at least 800 other common names of the LVP are not discernible. Ring up your local statistician. He or she will tell you that that is a coincidence too far and that our erstwhile hoaxer of the Maybrick journal has won a thousand lotteries not simply a one.

      Hope this helps.

      Ike
      Last edited by Iconoclast; 01-28-2018, 04:48 AM.
      Iconoclast

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Observer View Post
        Posting this again don't know what happened to the first attempt

        How about number 10 on the list. Do you agree with that?
        Here's to the next 25 years

        I believe that the GSG is relevant to the case and find it so unfortunate that it was removed before being photographed. It would have resolved at least the Juwes/Jewes spelling debate, something that I also believe to be important.
        I don't believe for one minute that it said "The James....", and there are many interpretations from the GSG you could come to. "The Jewes ........... the Men...".
        I believe that when arrested the evening before, Eddowes, when asked her name replied to the officer "Nothing", "...will not be blamed for nothing"? And so it goes on
        Last edited by Spider; 01-28-2018, 04:51 AM.
        ‘There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact’ Sherlock Holmes

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Spider View Post
          Here's to the next 25 years

          I believe that the GSG is relevant to the case and find it so unfortunate that it was removed before being photographed. It would have resolved at least the Juwes/Jewes spelling debate, something that I also believe to be important.
          I don't believe for one minute that it said "The James....", and there are many interpretations from the GSG you could come to. "The Jewes ........... the Men...".
          I believe that when arrested the evening before Eddowes, when asked her name replied to the officer "Nothing", "...will not be blamed for nothing"? And so it goes on
          Just on that note, Spider, two things:

          I'm not saying the names are definitely there, merely that they can be discerned, which is more than you can say for 800 other common names from the LVP (I have listed them in History vs. Maybrick if anyone wishes to try), and that is a coincidence beyond the possible and well into the realms of the never-never-never-could-it-happen-even-with-monkeys-writing-on-the-jamb-in-Wentworth-Dwellings-for-two-eternities.

          Secondly, did Eddowes give her name as "Nothing" or did she simply say nothing in reply?

          Cheers,

          Ike
          Iconoclast

          Comment


          • I have borrowed this from the acquiring a Victorian diary chat as 1) I try to avoid posting on other threads if I can and 2) it is pertinent to my argument about coincidences permeating the Maybrick story. My apologies if this is a rule breach (I don't think it is, but I have no doubt someone will quickly let me know) ...

            Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
            What about the possibility of a servant in the 19th century saying to another: "Take this up to his Lordship". Would you accept that might well have happened (a thousand times) in respect of someone who was not a Lord? Or is that something you believe that should only have been said about a genuine peer of the realm?
            I find it strange that you should note this, Lord Orsam, as it smacks of the journal-supporter's argument that Maybrick was referred to in his own home as 'Sir James' (or 'Sir Jim' or whatever) and that - given that it was very likely that this would come to his attention or even be said directly to him - he liked its ego-warming properties so much he chose to refer to it himself (about himself) in his journal.

            Those coincidences just keep piling up. I'm really looking forward to Spider's web of them.

            And Observer, three possible journal-supporters posting on the trot? We should write a rhyme about that and send it in to the Central News ...
            Iconoclast

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
              I have borrowed this from the acquiring a Victorian diary chat as 1) I try to avoid posting on other threads if I can and 2) it is pertinent to my argument about coincidences permeating the Maybrick story. My apologies if this is a rule breach (I don't think it is, but I have no doubt someone will quickly let me know) ...



              I find it strange that you should note this, Lord Orsam, as it smacks of the journal-supporter's argument that Maybrick was referred to in his own home as 'Sir James' (or 'Sir Jim' or whatever) and that - given that it was very likely that this would come to his attention or even be said directly to him - he liked its ego-warming properties so much he chose to refer to it himself (about himself) in his journal.

              Those coincidences just keep piling up. I'm really looking forward to Spider's web of them.

              And Observer, three possible journal-supporters posting on the trot? We should write a rhyme about that and send it in to the Central News ...
              I don't think you should be quoting me from another thread in this thread. I find it quite an off instance.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                I don't think you should be quoting me from another thread in this thread. I find it quite an off instance.
                I knew you had a sense of humour beneath that tough guy exterior ...

                Iconoclast

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                  I know you have asked this of Spider, not of me, but I would like to offer a response nevertheless.

                  It is, of course, entirely debatable whether the author of the GSG intended any of the cryptic references I have highlighted. That is absolutely not in doubt. It pretty much then becomes a matter of personal opinion as to whether you place any credence in the 'James' part and any or all of the other names.

                  But what is absolutely not in any doubt whatsoever, and which was core to my argument in History vs. Maybrick is that the names and initials can be interpreted from within the version of the GSG which has gone down on the record as the 'duplicate' Warren requested. I don't think there's a great deal of doubt that the word 'nothing' is written exactly as it is written in the journal but that could have been the smart hand of a hoaxer playing a game with us. I accept that 'for nothing' may not be a cryptic reference to the 'win' which is required to form 'Edwin' from the end of 'Blamed'. Accepting those two, I cannot accept that the capital 'B' in 'Blamed' is anything even remotely like a 'B'. It just isn't. It starts with a 'f' which mirrors perfectly that given below it in 'for' and its remainder is self-evidently a slanted 'M'. Whether that means it was Maybrick writing 'fM' on the jamb in Wentworth Dwellings I can't tell you. But I can tell you that it is a truly astonishing coincidence that it should be possible to divine it from it.

                  But ultimately, my point about Coincidence No. 10 is that those names and initials are unequivocally discernible (whether intended or not), but at least 800 other common names of the LVP are not discernible. Ring up your local statistician. He or she will tell you that that is a coincidence too far and that our erstwhile hoaxer of the Maybrick journal has won a thousand lotteries not simply a one.

                  Hope this helps.

                  Ike
                  But surely you must realize that it's not difficult to find coincidences when you resort to such extreme forms of reasoning. For instance, I could just as easily assert that the capital B in "blamed" was really an E, meaning the word starts not with BL or FL but EL-for Ellen Bury. There we go, case closed!

                  Anyway, the points entirely academic because, as I say, it's highly unlikely that the GSG wss written on the night of the Double Event on account of the atrocious lighting conditions.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by John G View Post
                    But surely you must realize that it's not difficult to find coincidences when you resort to such extreme forms of reasoning. For instance, I could just as easily assert that the capital B in "blamed" was really an E, meaning the word starts not with BL or FL but EL-for Ellen Bury. There we go, case closed!

                    Anyway, the points entirely academic because, as I say, it's highly unlikely that the GSG wss written on the night of the Double Event on account of the atrocious lighting conditions.
                    If you genuinely think William Bury was Jack the Ripper and you genuinely feel that you can discern an 'E' from the GSG 'B' and that what then would become 'El' then indicates a reference by William Bury to his wife Ellen, then fill your boots and enjoy the moment.

                    What I am offering our good readers is somewhat more substantial than that. I can offer four names and two sets of initials which are intimately-related to James Maybrick. We aren't in the same discussion here, I promise you. I hear your 'argument', but it is terribly weak as any kind of counter to mine.

                    With regard to the 'atrocious lighting conditions' in the entrance to Wentworth Dwellings, I must bow to your superior knowledge that they were so grave that the author of the GSG could not even see the jamb upon which he wrote (for he must not have been able to see it otherwise he would have ignored the 'atrocious lighting conditions' and written from instinct - try it, try writng something in dim light ... as long as you can see the paper and feel the pen, you'll have no problem whatsoever).

                    But could you clarify for us exactly how atrocious were those 'atrocious lighting conditions' and clarify for us how you came to quantify them so acutely that you are so certain that any sort of writing at all would have been so utterly impossible?

                    Whenever you're ready.

                    PS You have a ready-made cop-out! You actually said "it's highly unlikely that the GSG wss written ...". But highly-unlikely is hardly unequivocal. What do you mean to come on this thread and cite the uncertain as proof of something?

                    Ike
                    Last edited by Iconoclast; 01-28-2018, 05:56 AM.
                    Iconoclast

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                      If you genuinely think William Bury was Jack the Ripper and you genuinely feel that you can discern an 'E' from the GSG 'B' and that what then would become 'El' then indicates a reference by William Bury to his wife Ellen, then fill your boots and enjoy the moment.

                      What I am offering our good readers is somewhat more substantial than that. I can offer four names and two sets of initials which are intimately-related to James Maybrick. We aren't in the same discussion here, I promise you. I hear your 'argument', but it is terribly weak as any kind of counter to mine.

                      With regard to the 'atrocious lighting conditions' in the entrance to Wentworth Dwellings, I must bow to your superior knowledge that they were so grave that the author of the GSG could not even see the jamb upon which he wrote (for he must not have been able to see it otherwise he would have ignored the 'atrocious lighting conditions' and written from instinct - try it, try writng something in dim light ... as long as you can see the paper and feel the pen, you'll have no problem whatsoever).

                      But could you clarify for us exactly how atrocious were those 'atrocious lighting conditions' and clarify for us how you came to quantify them so acutely that you are so certain that any sort of writing at all would have been so utterly impossible?

                      Whenever you're ready.

                      PS You have a ready-made cop-out! You actually said "it's highly unlikely that the GSG wss written ...". But highly-unlikely is hardly unequivocal. What do you mean to come on this thread and cite the uncertain as proof of something?

                      Ike
                      I don't think you're offering anything "substantial" at all. I gave the Bury example as a means of demonstrating that almost any theory can be supported if you're determined to resort to abstract reasoning.

                      How do I know it was so dark? Well, we know what the lighting conditions were like in a Berner Street not long before the graffito was allegedly written. Thus, at around 12:40 it was so dark in Dutfield's Yard that Lave couldn't even find the door to get back into the club. And, at around 1:00pm, when Louis looked down on Stride's body he thought he was looking at a bundle of rags, despite the fact that the body was positioned near the front of the yard where you would expect it to be appreciably lighter.

                      Now, I think we can therefore reason that the Wentworth Dwellings entrance would have been even darker: because unlike Dutfield's Yard it was enclosed on three sides, and was a much narrower passage.

                      Therefore, anyone writing the graffiti that night would probably be doing so in pitch black darkness.

                      Here's an exercise for you: close your eyes and try writing out the words of the graffiti in your best schoolboy hand. Good luck!
                      Last edited by John G; 01-28-2018, 06:39 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by John G View Post
                        I don't think you're offering anything "substantial" at all. I gave the Bury example as a means of demonstrating that almost any theory can be supported if you're determined to resort to abstract reasoning.
                        You can convince yourself that you've made a point but all you've done is type on a keyboard to no discernible end.

                        You did not give Bury 'as a means of demonstrating that almost any theory can be supported if you're determined to resort to abstract reasoning'. You attempted to illustrate that finding two letters - in this case 'E'' and 'l' (though I don't think you'll find any supporters for your 'E' theory) - could be interpreted as representing someone significant in William Bury's life and that therefore anyone could do that for any suspect. And yet my argument was not that you could not. I have no doubt that you could locate two letters (even if one is clearly incorrect) and claim them for a suspect. That would be astonishingly easy (and you showed us how easy when you did it). What I did was show that 'James', 'Thomas' 'William', 'Edwin', 'FM', and 'MM' - all the six significant adults in James Maybrick's life - could be discerned in the GSG but no other names from the 800 common names of the LVP were thus to be discerned. And that's a coincidence way beyond any your 'any two letters will do' theory could ever aspire to.

                        How do I know it was so dark? Well, we know what the lighting conditions were like in a Berner Street not long before the graffito was allegedly written. Thus, at around 12:40 it was so dark in Dutfield's Yard that Lave couldn't even find the door to get back into the club. And, at around 1:00pm, when Louis looked down on Stride's body he thought he was looking at a bundle of rags, despite the fact that the body was positioned near the front of the yard where you would expect it to be appreciably lighter.

                        Now, I think we can therefore reason that the Wentworth Dwellings entrance would have been even darker: because unlike Dutfield's Yard it was enclosed on three sides, and was a much narrower passage.

                        Therefore, anyone writing the graffiti that night would probably be doing so in pitch black darkness.
                        I'm genuienly struck by the fact that you feel you know the lighting conditions were so grim in Wentworth Dwellings that the GSG could not have been written at that hour and yet it is still endlessly debated by Ripperologists the world over. It's not like this is a theory (as my GSG comments are a theory). It's a recorded fact and one which has never to my knowledge been made by any of those who have made a living from this strange art. I am impressed with your meteorological knowledge.
                        Iconoclast

                        Comment


                        • "And Observer, three possible journal-supporters posting on the trot? We should write a rhyme about that and send it in to the Central News ..."

                          One reason I post little on Casebook

                          Regards
                          ‘There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact’ Sherlock Holmes

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                            I am impressed with your meteorological knowledge.



                            This place is "ALOT" brighter now you're here

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Kaz View Post


                              This place is "ALOT" brighter now you're here
                              Three on the bounce again, Observer!

                              Quick, anyone at all please post something pro-Maybrick so we can hit a world record!!!
                              Iconoclast

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Kaz View Post


                                This place is "ALOT" brighter now you're here
                                Looks like the wait for our 4th pro-Maybrickian is going to go the whole 12 rounds, Kaz.

                                Keep the faith, young man. Our glory lies in the future, but hopefully not so far that we don't get to enjoy it.

                                Ike
                                Iconoclast

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X