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 David Orsam View Post
    You only get to turn this into a Jack the Ripper comment by ...
    The issue is not whether or not this is actually a Jack the Ripper comment. The issue is that this line in Florence's letter provided our lucky hoaxer with a very convenient link for his or her journal. It allows 'Maybrick' to say that 'my dear Bunny knows all' and the letter is there to rather conveniently suggest that he actually had told dear Bunny that he was Jack, and that he was therefore Jack.
    Iconoclast

    Comment


    • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
      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?
      On our reliable coincidence scale, it would warrant a 0 out of 10. It's very like John G absurdly arguing that the probability of finding all six significant adults in Maybrick's life cryptically hidden in the GSG was exactly the same as the probability that you would find the constituent letters somewhere in it.

      Not the same odds at all!
      Iconoclast

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
        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.
        But it's not a "coincidence" at all. If the diary is a forgery then all it means is that the author has read a book in which it is said that Maybrick was addicted to arsenic and incorporated it into the bogus journal.

        How is that a "coincidence" as opposed to a forger knowing something about Maybrick that they had read in a book?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
          No, you are making the claim so I want you to tell me.
          17th September to Diary handwriting comparisons
          Iconoclast

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
            On our reliable coincidence scale, it would warrant a 0 out of 10. It's very like John G absurdly arguing that the probability of finding all six significant adults in Maybrick's life cryptically hidden in the GSG was exactly the same as the probability that you would find the constituent letters somewhere in it.

            Not the same odds at all!
            But there's no "odds" involved here at all. The information about there being a Whitechapel in both London and Liverpool was available to any hoaxer.

            So, if the diary is a forgery, it would mean no more than the forger has taken an already existing "coincidence" and woven it into the story.

            If you want to give the forger marks out of ten for spotting this fact and creatively incorporating it into the journal then fine but it's not something that goes one jot towards showing that Maybrick wrote the diary or was Jack the Ripper.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
              17th September to Diary handwriting comparisons
              Yeah, I've compared them and they look different to me.

              You have an expert opinion that they are the same do you?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                But it's not a "coincidence" at all. If the diary is a forgery then all it means is that the author has read a book in which it is said that Maybrick was addicted to arsenic and incorporated it into the bogus journal.

                How is that a "coincidence" as opposed to a forger knowing something about Maybrick that they had read in a book?
                If every man who lived in 1888 was addicted to arsenic/strychnine, I'd agree with you. I have a suspicion they weren't.

                The hoaxer had the good fortune to find a candidate who was addicted to arsenic/strychnine which provided the psychopathology of the murders.

                It is a coincidence unless you argue that it was discovering this fact which caused our hoaxer to focus in on Maybrick as his or her fake Jack.
                Iconoclast

                Comment


                • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                  Yeah, I've compared them and they look different to me.

                  You have an expert opinion that they are the same do you?
                  I have an opinion that they are the same.
                  Iconoclast

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                    But there's no "odds" involved here at all. The information about there being a Whitechapel in both London and Liverpool was available to any hoaxer.

                    So, if the diary is a forgery, it would mean no more than the forger has taken an already existing "coincidence" and woven it into the story.

                    If you want to give the forger marks out of ten for spotting this fact and creatively incorporating it into the journal then fine but it's not something that goes one jot towards showing that Maybrick wrote the diary or was Jack the Ripper.
                    It demonstrates our hoaxer's amazing good fortune. It is not designed to show "that Maybrick wrote the diary or was Jack the Ripper".

                    You can argue that any of these coincidences are not a coincidence because they were the reason why the hoaxer chose Maybrick as his guilty party, but you can't wish them all away in that way.
                    Last edited by Iconoclast; 02-04-2018, 12:22 PM.
                    Iconoclast

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                      Read it properly. It wasn't simply to frighten her. It was to "frighten the truth" out of her.
                      In what sense have I not read it properly?

                      In attempting to frighten the truth out of her about her affair, he attempted to terrify her by telling her that her affair had directly led to his murderous acts in Whitechapel.

                      That fits.
                      Iconoclast

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                        If every man who lived in 1888 was addicted to arsenic/strychnine, I'd agree with you. I have a suspicion they weren't.

                        The hoaxer had the good fortune to find a candidate who was addicted to arsenic/strychnine which provided the psychopathology of the murders.

                        It is a coincidence unless you argue that it was discovering this fact which caused our hoaxer to focus in on Maybrick as his or her fake Jack.
                        But this is bizarre. If Maybrick hadn't been addicted to arsenic, a hoaxer would simply have come up with another form of psychopathology.

                        Maybrick's wife having an affair for example (which, of course, also features in the story).

                        All that's happened (one could argue) is that the hoaxer has incorporated a well known fact about Maybrick into a fictional story. That's how any author of fiction based loosely on fact would work.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                          Yeah, I've compared them and they look different to me.

                          You have an expert opinion that they are the same do you?
                          Do you have an expert opinion that they are not, by the way?
                          Iconoclast

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                            In what sense have I not read it properly?

                            In attempting to frighten the truth out of her about her affair, he attempted to terrify her by telling her that her affair had directly led to his murderous acts in Whitechapel.

                            That fits.
                            It doesn't really fit at all. I have no idea why such a statement would cause her to admit to an affair rather than run out of the house and tell a police officer what he had said.

                            On the other hand, Maybrick telling her that he already knew information about the affair and had been making inquiries is the oldest trick in the book to make someone confess to something. It's such an obvious fit that we simply don't need to invent something about Jack the Ripper which is not mentioned in the letter.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                              But this is bizarre. If Maybrick hadn't been addicted to arsenic, a hoaxer would simply have come up with another form of psychopathology.

                              Maybrick's wife having an affair for example (which, of course, also features in the story).

                              All that's happened (one could argue) is that the hoaxer has incorporated a well known fact about Maybrick into a fictional story. That's how any author of fiction based loosely on fact would work.
                              You well describe what our hoaxer did. That's well-established.

                              The point is that the addiction to arsenic was a most convenient fact - perhaps in that sense not a pure coincidence (I don't know, I'd have to think more on it) but nevertheless a most benign fact for our hoaxer when commissioning his crime.
                              Iconoclast

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                                Do you have an expert opinion that they are not, by the way?
                                I think you will find that it was you making a categorical and unqualified statement that the handwriting is the same.

                                It's for you to support that statement. If you can't do it - and it seems like you can't - then there's no point in giving it any further consideration.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X