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 Iconoclast View Post
    As far as coincidences are concerned, his arsenic-taking was very convenient for the hoaxer's plot.

    I think it's safe to use the term 'well-established' post-1992. I wasn't so certain that term would have applied before 1992. I have no doubt that you will put us all right, however.
    What do you think has been discovered about Maybrick's arsenic addition since 1992 that wasn't known before then?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
      A Whitechapel in both Liverpool and London
      Isn't this just a fact? I mean, are you saying that every murder in Whitechapel, London, must have been committed by someone from Liverpool?

      And frankly you might as well add to your list that both Liverpool and London begin with the letter "L".

      That's the type of level to which you have descended.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
        11) The discovery of the little-known September 17 ‘Jack the Ripper’ letter in whose hand the journal was written
        On what basis do you say that the 17 September letter is in the same hand as the writer of the journal?

        To my untrained eye they look like they were written by different people.

        Are you sure you are not fantasizing here?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
          But I mean if Maybrick had gone to the doctor during the afternoon of 30 August he could then have caught the train to London and murdered Polly at 3.30am. He could then have gone back to Liverpool on the morning train and visited the doctor again on 31 August.

          So this whole claim that the hoaxer got lucky is ridiculous.
          That is true. I guess we would need to establish exactly what the records say.

          It wasn't just GP records, Lord Orsam - there has been no evidence which places him in the wrong place (a la the Duke of Clarence, for example).

          It is a fortunate coincidence for our hoaxer that that was so, is all I was arguing.
          Iconoclast

          Comment


          • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
            On what basis do you say that the 17 September letter is in the same hand as the writer of the journal?

            To my untrained eye they look like they were written by different people.

            Are you sure you are not fantasizing here?
            You would need to go back to an old thread of Tempus Omnia Revelat's.

            Which of course you will ...
            Iconoclast

            Comment


            • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
              Isn't this just a fact? I mean, are you saying that every murder in Whitechapel, London, must have been committed by someone from Liverpool?

              And frankly you might as well add to your list that both Liverpool and London begin with the letter "L".

              That's the type of level to which you have descended.
              Not so.

              The coincidence lay in there being a Whitechapel in Liverpool which gave the 'hoaxer' the opportunity to build his motive for killing in Whitechapel, London.
              Iconoclast

              Comment


              • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                What do you think has been discovered about Maybrick's arsenic addition since 1992 that wasn't known before then?
                The coincidence does not lie in the 'well-established' element. The coincidence lies in the rather convenient fact (now) that Maybrick was addicted to arsenic and also took strychnine.

                If these facts were well-established in 1889, it does not change the coincidence which once again worked in the hoaxer's favour.

                I think you have focused on my use of 'well-established' where you may have been better employed arguing that his addiction was a not a rather convenient coincidence for our hoaxer.
                Iconoclast

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                  Florence’s comment in a letter to Brierley (‘The tale he told me …’)
                  You only get to turn this into a Jack the Ripper comment by taking a sentence wholly out of context from the letter in which it was written.

                  What Florence said was this:

                  "M. has been delirious since Sunday, and I know that now he is perfectly ignorant of everything, even of the name of the street, and also that he has not been making any inquiries whatsoever. The tale he told me was a pure fabrication, and only intended to frighten the truth out of me. In fact he believes my statement, although he will not admit it."

                  So Florence was saying two things.

                  1. Maybrick is ignorant of everything (i.e. about her affair) and has not been making any inquiries.

                  2. The tale he told her was a lie intended to frighten the truth (of her affair) out of her.

                  The plain fact is that point 2 follows point 1. In other words, Maybrick had tried to scare her by telling her that he knew more than he really did about her affair and claiming had been making inquiries about it. But she didn't fall for his bluff and she worked out that he really knew nothing.

                  And then she concludes: "In fact he believes my statement, although he will not admit it." That sentence, beginning "In fact..", follows on from the previous two sentences and shows that she is only focussed on her adultery and Maybrick's knowledge of it.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                    That is true. I guess we would need to establish exactly what the records say.

                    It wasn't just GP records, Lord Orsam - there has been no evidence which places him in the wrong place (a la the Duke of Clarence, for example).

                    It is a fortunate coincidence for our hoaxer that that was so, is all I was arguing.
                    But what records are there EVER likely to be which place someone somewhere in the middle of the night during 1888?

                    It's the same for every single suspect, whether they lived in London or not.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                      You would need to go back to an old thread of Tempus Omnia Revelat's.

                      Which of course you will ...
                      No, you are making the claim so I want you to tell me.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                        You only get to turn this into a Jack the Ripper comment by taking a sentence wholly out of context from the letter in which it was written.

                        What Florence said was this:

                        "M. has been delirious since Sunday, and I know that now he is perfectly ignorant of everything, even of the name of the street, and also that he has not been making any inquiries whatsoever. The tale he told me was a pure fabrication, and only intended to frighten the truth out of me. In fact he believes my statement, although he will not admit it."

                        So Florence was saying two things.

                        1. Maybrick is ignorant of everything (i.e. about her affair) and has not been making any inquiries.

                        2. The tale he told her was a lie intended to frighten the truth (of her affair) out of her.

                        The plain fact is that point 2 follows point 1. In other words, Maybrick had tried to scare her by telling her that he knew more than he really did about her affair and claiming had been making inquiries about it. But she didn't fall for his bluff and she worked out that he really knew nothing.

                        And then she concludes: "In fact he believes my statement, although he will not admit it." That sentence, beginning "In fact..", follows on from the previous two sentences and shows that she is only focussed on her adultery and Maybrick's knowledge of it.
                        It was a 'tale' he told which was designed to frighten her. You can argue linguistic and syntactic logic, but you can't create a frightening tale from him knowing of their affair. That would be a frightening fact. Not a tale.
                        Iconoclast

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                          No, you are making the claim so I want you to tell me.
                          Feel free to want away. It's all there on the record in a thread started by Tempus Omnia Revelat. Given your propensity for tracking down the facts, this is a really easy one for you.
                          Iconoclast

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                            The coincidence lay in there being a Whitechapel in Liverpool which gave the 'hoaxer' the opportunity to build his motive for killing in Whitechapel, London.
                            But that "coincidence" has always existed. You're just following the narrative of the author of the diary.

                            What if the author of the diary had written: "Aha, I'll go and kill women in London because it begins with the letter "L" just like Liverpool"?

                            Would that have impressed you as another coincidence?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                              Feel free to want away. It's all there on the record in a thread started by Tempus Omnia Revelat. Given your propensity for tracking down the facts, this is a really easy one for you.
                              Why don't you summarise it for me? Or copy it.

                              Otherwise I'm just going to come to the conclusion that can't support the claim.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                                It was a 'tale' he told which was designed to frighten her. You can argue linguistic and syntactic logic, but you can't create a frightening tale from him knowing of their affair. That would be a frightening fact. Not a tale.
                                Read it properly. It wasn't simply to frighten her. It was to "frighten the truth" out of her.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X