Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hi Ike,
    With regards to the Battlecrease floorboards discovery, Mike approaches Doreen that same day, so the guys working on the house find an old book, establish that it's possibly valuable and their first thought is "I know just the guy, Bongo from down the pub. That's right, the out of work scrap dealer/ general untrustworthy prat" They all acted very fast. Remarkable efficiency really.
    I think that's always going to be an issue. If the ledger was bought in April, it could have been 11 days to transcribe an already well prepared document, not an unrealistic task. If it really came from Battlecrease, how did it manage to luck it's way through a series of shifty hands and into those of the right person so quickly?
    I'm not by any standard saying that's proof, and having read the brilliant Societies Pillar, I find the real interest of the matter being these peculiarities. How different would it be if the diary was found by a respectable dentist with proof of purchase and not by builders followed by Barretts?
    As to Mike's mental health, I've come across the Korsakoff's argument. Having worked closely with this condition, there's no chance Mike had it. Alcohol induced dementia or general impairment, yes, but the full gamut of Wernicke's into Korsakoff's? That would have made a very different C+D club meeting.
    I used to think that a combination of the diary advert, the Poste House and the frankly neither here nor there forensics were the smoking guns. Although I'm by no means a believer in the diary, it's not to say there's not ground for arguing that the Barretts may not have been it's masterminds.

    PS - In the interest of balance and transparency, I feel I should point out that the brilliant Societies Pillar can be countered by the equally brilliant Pillar of Sand by Lord Orsam. I leave it up to the reader to decide.
    Thems the Vagaries.....

    Comment


    • And of course Mike swore black and blue that the Diary 'never came out of Battlecrease'. If, of course, that claim can be believed when weighed against other claims he made which were plainly and simply bullshit. Actually, I think there is a grain of truth in it.

      Graham
      We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

      Comment


      • Hi Abe,

        Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
        Hi Ike,
        With regards to the Battlecrease floorboards discovery, Mike approaches Doreen that same day, so the guys working on the house find an old book, establish that it's possibly valuable and their first thought is "I know just the guy, Bongo from down the pub. That's right, the out of work scrap dealer/ general untrustworthy prat" They all acted very fast. Remarkable efficiency really.
        I think that's always going to be an issue. If the ledger was bought in April, it could have been 11 days to transcribe an already well prepared document, not an unrealistic task. If it really came from Battlecrease, how did it manage to luck it's way through a series of shifty hands and into those of the right person so quickly?
        I'm not by any standard saying that's proof, and having read the brilliant Societies Pillar, I find the real interest of the matter being these peculiarities. How different would it be if the diary was found by a respectable dentist with proof of purchase and not by builders followed by Barretts?
        Absolutely, Bongo as recipient of scrapbook equates to World's Worst of Outcomes - certainly relative to the certainties we would feel had it been brought to our attention by Bongo's GP instead of Bongo himself.

        Nevertheless, the unlikelihood of the scrapbook coming out of Battlecrease and into the hands of Bongo is absolutely nothing compared with the profound unlikelihood of the two events being evidenced as occurring on the very same day. You wait 35,000+ days for a bus - if it's Bongo driving it when it finally arrives, them's the breaks. [Not perhaps the best of analogies - a better one may be "and in the same moment it's Bongo with the loudhailer announcing it's arrived".]

        As to Mike's mental health, I've come across the Korsakoff's argument. Having worked closely with this condition, there's no chance Mike had it. Alcohol induced dementia or general impairment, yes, but the full gamut of Wernicke's into Korsakoff's? That would have made a very different C+D club meeting.
        Can you possibly imagine a worse one?

        I used to think that a combination of the diary advert, the Poste House and the frankly neither here nor there forensics were the smoking guns. Although I'm by no means a believer in the diary, it's not to say there's not ground for arguing that the Barretts may not have been it's masterminds.
        The most smoky of smoking guns are the advert in Bookfinder for the Victorian diary plus the apparently-anachronistic use of the expression 'one-off instance'. Other than these two, other smoking guns are barely whiffs on the distant wind.

        PS - In the interest of balance and transparency, I feel I should point out that the brilliant Societies Pillar can be countered by the equally brilliant Pillar of Sand by Lord Orsam. I leave it up to the reader to decide.
        Well Lord Orsam's epic was obviously somewhat derivative. I think I get extra points for going first.

        Ike
        Iconoclast

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Graham View Post
          And of course Mike swore black and blue that the Diary 'never came out of Battlecrease'. If, of course, that claim can be believed when weighed against other claims he made which were plainly and simply bullshit. Actually, I think there is a grain of truth in it.

          Graham
          Hi Graham,

          I think you could possibly make the argument that Bongo didn't always get his facts right so his claim that it definitely didn't come out of Battlecrease quite possibly meant that it definitely did. Or possibly definitely did not or maybe did? Or possibly not did definitely did not?

          I'm pretty sure he claimed all of the above at some point. Possibly the same day. Possibly the same sentence.



          Cheers,

          Ike
          Iconoclast

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
            Although I'm by no means a believer in the diary, it's not to say there's not ground for arguing that the Barretts may not have been it's masterminds.
            Congratulations, by the way, on the use of the rarely-witnessed triple-negative, Abe - I loved it! One for my scrapbook, I think ...
            Iconoclast

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

              Congratulations, by the way, on the use of the rarely-witnessed triple-negative, Abe - I loved it! One for my scrapbook, I think ...
              Got the idea from graffito I read somewhere...
              Thems the Vagaries.....

              Comment


              • Here's a thought for you hoax-theory supporters.

                If the scrapbook was a hoax, presumably the hoaxer would have sought to comply with the basic facts of the case? Obviously, there are facets of the scrapbook which do not straightforwardly comply with what history does tell us about Jack's wicked ways, but one point in particular has always troubled me: Everyone knows that Goulston Street is west of Mitre Square, and that Jack almost certainly travelled that way before depositing Eddowes' torn apron at the entrance to Wentworth Dwellings - so why did he or she (the hoaxer, that is) choose Middlesex Street for Jack's lair when they could have chosen any one of scores of streets west still again of Goulston Street?

                Obviously, I offer a brilliant explanation for the Middlesex Street conundrum in my brilliant Society's Pillar, but just wondering what the angle is from the hoaxing camp.

                Ike
                Last edited by Iconoclast; 04-25-2020, 05:59 PM.
                Iconoclast

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                  Everyone knows that Goulston Street is west of Mitre Square
                  I don't think many are aware of that, Ike.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                    I don't think many are aware of that, Ike.
                    Oops - east of Mitre Square!
                    Last edited by Iconoclast; 04-26-2020, 09:31 AM.
                    Iconoclast

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                      Oops - east of Mitre Square!
                      Admit it. You don't know your ass from your elbow. BTW what's all this about a Chinese consortium being interested in purchasing Sid Jame's Park, and all who sail in her?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                        Obviously, I offer a brilliant explanation for the Middlesex Street conundrum in my brilliant Society's Pillar, but just wondering what the angle is from the hoaxing camp.
                        Morning Ike, I only have time for a quickie.

                        I went back and checked out 'Society's Pillar' to review your analysis of Middlesex Street, and I am afraid I do not follow your explanation as to the whys and wherefores of the location of the graffito. You might need to take my hand and guide me. In looking at Goad maps of the neighborhood, I am not readily seeing how Maybrick's room in Middlesex Street, whether on the east or the west side, would give him a view of the proceedings at the Wentworth Buildings. Do you have a particular lair in mind?

                        The image below is taken from Robert Clack's message on the following thread:

                        https://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4920/17247.html

                        The map dates to 1912 or so, but it doesn't appear from this that the message in Goulston Street would have been visible from any location in Middlesex Street, as none of the buildings are large enough or seem to 'go through' to the next street over.

                        This will make your shoulders sink in disappointment and sorrow, I suppose, but it appears to me that the diarist merely hadn't thought through the logic of the location very well, and the choice of a Middlesex Street 'bolt hole' later comes back to bite his backside, as he has Maybrick blowing past his own lodgings on the night of the two murders, unnecessarily traveling deeper into the East End before backtracking. I thought the bit about Hutchinson seeing his gaudy suspect in Middlesex Street was a more compelling line of argument on your part.

                        Click image for larger version  Name:	Goulston Street.JPG Views:	0 Size:	116.6 KB ID:	734839





                        Last edited by rjpalmer; 04-26-2020, 05:55 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                          Morning Ike, I only have time for a quickie.
                          I think you'll find that Society's Pillar is clear that a clear line of sight existed in December 2018 (when I visited it to check). There were still buildings on the east side of Middlesex Street but the buildings on the west were either higher or not-impeded or both. Can you clarify if this was not also the case in 1888 or would you rather just assume that it wasn't?

                          Ike
                          Iconoclast

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                            I think you'll find that Society's Pillar is clear that a clear line of sight existed in December 2018 (when I visited it to check). There were still buildings on the east side of Middlesex Street but the buildings on the west were either higher or not-impeded or both. Can you clarify if this was not also the case in 1888 or would you rather just assume that it wasn't?
                            In 1888 the block opposite the site of the graffito, between Goulston St and Middlesex St, was occupied on the south side by a rather enormous old sugar refinery 7 stories high, and on the north and east by some artizanal dwellings 5 stories high
                            These were taller than any of the buildings in nearby Middlesex St.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                              In 1888 the block opposite the site of the graffito, between Goulston St and Middlesex St, was occupied on the south side by a rather enormous old sugar refinery 7 stories high, and on the north and east by some artizanal dwellings 5 stories high
                              These were taller than any of the buildings in nearby Middlesex St.
                              The line of sight to the west as you stand looking out from the site of the GSG was clear in 2018, and your comment above does not appear to preclude that from being true in 1888.
                              Iconoclast

                              Comment


                              • It is interesting to re-read the evidence to remind ourselves of things forgotten (or perhaps never really remembered).

                                Ripper Diary: Inside Story [p273]:
                                He [Harold Brough] would later check with Outhwaite & Litherland and was told there was no record of the job lot Barrett described (this was borne out by our own visit to the auctioneers where we discovered that all prospective bidders have to complete a registration form in the office, and that this has always been the case – a fact omitted from Barrett’s detailed confession in his affidavit of 5 January 1995). That following Wednesday Barrett was admitted to the Windsor Unit of the Fazakerley Hospital for treatment for alcoholism and Richard Bark-Jones [his solicitor] issued his statement retracting the confession.

                                Of this time [ibid]:
                                Barrett tells us that in his sober moments he intentionally led Alan Gray a 'merry dance'. It was Gray, he says, who was constantly pushing himto provide evidence of his forgery and produce a proper account of it, hence the 5 January 1995 affidavit. But his accounts were lies, he claims, and nor were they good ones because 'I kept on slipping up'. To the people who believe his forgery claim, he would say, 'More fools them. They believe this drunken story. Just pain, misery ... and I can say anything'.

                                It has never seemed plausible that Alan Gray would be driving the eventual affidavit which did so much damage to the scrapbook's credibility so one has to wonder to what extent the grandly-named Committee for Integrity (that is, Melvin Harris) was pulling Gray's strings towards this - or a very similar - end.

                                Harold Brough, one assumes, asked O&L to check back all the way to 1990 or 1991 (as Barrett's confession had cited one or t'other - I forget which, and it doesn't really matter). It seems inconceivable that the search would not have included the March 31, 1992 auction which Lord Orsam sets as Day One for the 11-Day Miracle. Given that, you would have two issues: O&L have no record on any date of the sale of the Victorian scrapbook, and Mike Barrett in his elaborate confession which was fundamentally all wrong failed to mention O&L's long-held purchase process (in particular, the registration form which the authors of Inside Story themselves had to complete).

                                So it's not just one-way traffic down to 12 Goldie Street in April 1992 if you want to understand the intricacies of the Victorian scrapbook.
                                Either way, if you are a fully-paid-up member of the 'The guy who found it confessed' mob, you might take a momentary pause to ask yourself "What drives me to believe this in the face of all of the evidence to the contrary?".

                                For Bongo Barrett acolytes, I strongly caution you to remember his own words: " ... and I can say anything". And boy did he just!

                                PS For those who are interested in these things, today is the 28th anniversary of Newcastle United avoiding the drop into the old Third Division with a 2-1 win at Leicester. Happy memories for us all, I'm sure (unless you're a Leicester fan as that defeat stopped you getting promoted, though you can ease the pain with the rather richer memory of four years ago today when you won a piddling little trophy we used to call the Premier League before we abandoned all interest in sport).

                                PPS Is it just me or is the editor on the Casebook rather idiosyncratic in its willingness to do what the writer actually intends?
                                Iconoclast

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X