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 rjpalmer View Post

    Did I say that? It's a possibility, but I'm not the one who said it. I'm starting to think that David B. should be paying rent for so obviously living inside your head.
    I'm really glad to sense here that you think David B is barking to believe Anne wrote the diary.

    Distancing yourself is good.

    Do it more often, especially regarding 31st March 1992. Get as far away from his awesome auction as you can, and your credibility will rise accordingly.

    Give yourself a large pat on the back.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


    Comment


    • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
      Just several disinterested parties that have independently come to the same conclusion that nearly everyone in the mainstream has: that the diary is a modern hoax, created with Barrett's involvement.
      To be absolutely clear here (for the benefit of those who can't be arsed to do any digging): 'several disinterested parties' are hardly a source of truth in any debate (by dint of their very disinterest, I'd suggest), and 'everyone in the mainstream' is hardly a ringing endorsement for the arguments against the Dairy. Fake news anyone?

      Stick to having an opinion, Roger. Don't go looking for your pals to back you up.

      Cheers,

      Ike
      Iconoclast

      Comment


      • I've been following with bemused interest the on-going and rather ugly divorce proceedings between the author Dan Brown (of Da Vinci Code fame) and his ex-wife Blythe, who alleges that she came up with the idea of the novel and much of its plotting. She also claims she helped her soon-to-be-ex-husband develop other literary projects. Poor Brown. It's the third time he's been accused of plagiarism...for the same book!

        Accusations of plagiarism aside, this has to be very common indeed. Any author would naturally discuss his literary projects with his significant other or rely on them for helpful advice, ideas, constructive criticism, spelling help, etc....and perhaps more.

        Except in Diary World.

        On our planet, Mike is a lone wolf. A Robinson Crusoe. A Garbo who 'vants to be alone.' He wanders as lonely as a cloud, with no competent helpmate within a zillion miles.

        Indeed, I simply cannot imagine who may have helped him. It's a baffling mystery. And since Mike CoUldN't hAve DunniT aloNe, we must look elsewhere.

        The logic is impeccable. I am convinced.

        Comment


        • I've read Dan Brown, and if I was his wife I'd be denying any writing credits.
          Thems the Vagaries.....

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
            I've read Dan Brown, and if I was his wife I'd be denying any writing credits.
            I've read the Maybrick Diary, and if I was Bongo's...

            ...ah, never mind.

            Comment


            • Missing the point as usual, RJ. Anne was not, is not, a stupid woman. She did a silly, wifely, thing by not distancing herself from Bongo's determination to sign up with a London literary agency and get the diary published. She should have said from the kick-off: "Did you nick it Mike? We both know it didn't come from Tony, because he'd been dead for months before you brought the bloody thing into our home, like a cat brings in a rat. So if you won't even tell me the truth about where you got it, why should I get involved? Do what you like, but leave me out of it. You're on your own."

              What I don't believe Anne was stupid enough to do - or skilled enough to do - was to take on the entire project of creating the Maybrick diary on Mike's behalf, knowing that if left to himself, his BriAnchilD would be a complete pig's ear from page one. What creative writing or research had Anne ever done in the past? What would her subject matter of choice have been, if she had wanted to write a novel, for example, and wasn't bound by loyalty to her hopeless hubby to make it about two of the most infamous criminal cases from 1888 and 1889?

              Do you know Anne that well, RJ, or are you just stabbing around wildly in the dark, because the psychology of hoaxers, as opposed to normal working class families, is a mystery to you, which you'd rather not explore?

              Only three words you need to solve this, RJ. Handwriting, handwriting and handwriting.

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • Originally posted by caz View Post
                Only three words you need to solve this, RJ. Handwriting, handwriting and handwriting.
                I'm so looking forward to Lord Orsam's Great Reveal. Perhaps it is a proven example of Maybrick's actual handwriting and it looks nothing the the DAiry?

                I've always found the handwriting deeply mysterious. Even if only producing a hoax for a spot of jolly, wouldn't you? you would imagine that some vague attempt at checking the handwriting would be attempted? But maybe it really was just for jolly, and it was Bong de Barrett who decided to take the hoax on to a whole new level?

                Anyway, what I am leading up to is the even deeper mystery that someone scratched the name 'J. Maybrick' into the back of a watch and somehow managed to get it pretty much spot-on. If it was so easily done with a watch, how come 60+ pages couldn't have been a little more like what little we have of Maybrick's handwriting?

                It's like the least amount of work produced the greatest amount of handwriting research, and the greatest amount of work produced none whatsoever.

                Ike
                Iconoclast

                Comment


                • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                  I've read the Maybrick Diary, and if I was Bongo's...

                  ...ah, never mind.
                  At least if you were Bongo's wife, you'd KNOW he had nothing to do with creating the diary. And neither did you.

                  Do you never wonder why none of the people who believe Bongo could have been behind it, ever had any close dealings with the man, while those who did find the notion beyond ludicrous?

                  Do you not think this counts for anything? Even Melvin Harris had to admit Bongo didn't have the capacity, and I'm not sure he ever spent any time in his company.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                    I'm so looking forward to Lord Orsam's Great Reveal. Perhaps it is a proven example of Maybrick's actual handwriting and it looks nothing the the DAiry?

                    I've always found the handwriting deeply mysterious. Even if only producing a hoax for a spot of jolly, wouldn't you? you would imagine that some vague attempt at checking the handwriting would be attempted? But maybe it really was just for jolly, and it was Bong de Barrett who decided to take the hoax on to a whole new level?

                    Anyway, what I am leading up to is the even deeper mystery that someone scratched the name 'J. Maybrick' into the back of a watch and somehow managed to get it pretty much spot-on. If it was so easily done with a watch, how come 60+ pages couldn't have been a little more like what little we have of Maybrick's handwriting?

                    It's like the least amount of work produced the greatest amount of handwriting research, and the greatest amount of work produced none whatsoever.

                    Ike
                    Hi Ike,

                    RJ opined the other day that a hoax has lower standards than a forgery, hence the Barretts didn't have any pressing need to try and copy JM's authenticated handwriting. If one of their inner circle wrote it and was later identified as the penman or woman, tough titty, no biggy. Slap on the wrist and move on. Yet the watch is described as a bandwagon hoax, which presumably would have even lower standards, given the extra difficulty involved in identifying the hoaxer from his/her scratch marks.

                    RJ might have had more of a point about a hoax compared with a forgery, if he wasn't also so certain the Barretts were behind it, and took their own hoax to market. How did they imagine they'd get away with it, if the handwriting was nothing like JM's, but was actually by an associate of theirs, who presumably expected a goodly share of the profits? How DID they get away with it, if that was the case? It's not as though Melvin & The Hoaxbusters didn't bust a blood vessel trying to identify the hoaxer from the handwriting - while perversely claiming it was never necessary to do so.

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post
                      What I don't believe Anne was stupid enough to do - or skilled enough to do - was to take on the entire project of creating the Maybrick diary on Mike's behalf, knowing that if left to himself, his BriAnchilD would be a complete pig's ear from page one. What creative writing or research had Anne ever done in the past? What would her subject matter of choice have been, if she had wanted to write a novel, for example, and wasn't bound by loyalty to her hopeless hubby to make it about two of the most infamous criminal cases from 1888 and 1889?
                      Oddly, I was just doing some more work on the diary chronology, when I came across the following entry:

                      Thursday 2nd July 1992
                      Letter from Shirley Harrison to Doreen Montgomery (copied to Robert Smith):
                      'This book should be the first Trial by Referendum.'
                      SH proposes writing book which presents facts of case so far – giving public 'their chance to play Poirot and indulge in the Ripper Quest'.
                      'The experts have ALWAYS disagreed over the Maybrick affair and the Ripper so why hang around now waiting for them to disagree again?' [Very prophetic! – CAM]
                      Among SH's ideas is a special prize offered by National press for best solution.
                      Source: copy of letter (KS master file 1992)

                      Would there ever have been a crazier idea than for a relatively sane, down-to-earth woman like Anne to help Bongo get to grips with the Maybrick and Ripper affairs in one fell swoop, by way of this diary? From what I know about them both, it just never even began to ring true.

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by caz View Post
                        Among SH's ideas is a special prize offered by National press for best solution.
                        Source: copy of letter (KS master file 1992)
                        Hi Caz,

                        This DAiry chronology thing sounds fascinating. Maybe you could publish it one day? You've got one customer here ready and waiting with his 14.99 in plastic, washable, coronavirus-free notes.

                        Shirley's idea reminds me of a Thought Experiment I used to ponder on a lot which goes somewhat as follows:

                        Imagine the national press back in 1992 offered a #10m [sorry, my pound sign is misbehaving on this PC] reward for the Diary of Jack the Ripper most likely to survive, say, 30 years in the public eye without being proven to be a hoax. With a worldwide audience and a prize as large as that, I would assume that maybe around one million people would try their hands at this exercise (bearing in mind that it only has to be 'the most likely to survive', it doesn't actually have to survive, so someone was going to win the big prize, hence there'd presumably be a huge amount of interest in the competition so maybe one million entrants is too low).

                        The question that - from time to time - goes through my mind is: Whether it won the competition or not, would anyone have come up with anything even vaguely reminiscent of the Victorian scrapbook?

                        I guess the next question would be, would it have won the competition?

                        I think the resounding answer to both questions is No. No-one would have thought this would be a winner, and no-one would vote it as the winner.

                        Which all begs the question, if it isn't authentic, why on earth was it written in this format, and how on earth have we got here - 28 years later - still unable to provide one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the DAiry?

                        Of course, our long wait will soon be over - in the moment that Lord Orsam publishes his magnus opal and we can all finally stop seeking The Truth and get back to Having a Life.

                        Cheers,

                        Ike

                        PS Can I get a signed copy of 'The Chronology' by Caz Switchblade, please?
                        Last edited by Iconoclast; 07-21-2020, 04:15 PM.
                        Iconoclast

                        Comment


                        • I seem to remember a poster, obviously one of the more unbiased frequenters, possibly Mr Eyes, or Mr Palmer, mentioning an extract from the Diary which suggested it was a two man affair, that is someone dictating as the other wrote. I believe the following is another example.

                          "Maybe I will take some part away with me to see if it tastes of like fried bacon"

                          "Of like"? Yes, it looks very much to be as if the person transcribing has jumped the gun and written "of" after "tastes", only for the person dictating the text to say the word "like", the transcriber has then written "like" as well. Barrett did say in his affidavit that mistakes were made transcribing the hoax. I suggest whoever transcribed the Diary realised the mistake but kept shtum. Why incur the wrath of the Bard of Goldie Street?

                          Comment


                          • I am sure the Diary defenders will find you an example from 18xx where the phrase "tase of like" used in the same way like the Diary.


                            The Baron

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
                              I am sure the Diary defenders will find you an example from 18xx where the phrase "tase of like" used in the same way like the Diary.


                              The Baron
                              I wonder if Observer suspects you of being a two-man team, Baron? Did one of you dictate this post and the other not catch that the word is meant to be 'taste', and also not catch whether they said the phrase 'is' or 'was' used in the same way, so they just missed the word out altogether?

                              Looks like it's easily done.

                              Love,

                              Caz
                              X

                              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Observer View Post
                                I seem to remember a poster, obviously one of the more unbiased frequenters, possibly Mr Eyes, or Mr Palmer, mentioning an extract from the Diary which suggested it was a two man affair, that is someone dictating as the other wrote. I believe the following is another example.

                                "Maybe I will take some part away with me to see if it tastes of like fried bacon"

                                "Of like"? Yes, it looks very much to be as if the person transcribing has jumped the gun and written "of" after "tastes", only for the person dictating the text to say the word "like", the transcriber has then written "like" as well. Barrett did say in his affidavit that mistakes were made transcribing the hoax. I suggest whoever transcribed the Diary realised the mistake but kept shtum. Why incur the wrath of the Bard of Goldie Street?
                                Hi Observer,

                                Did you mean to write: 'Yes, it looks very much to be as if the person...' or did you hear 'be' when the person dictating your post actually said 'me'?

                                Also, it would serve you better if you could get the diary quote right before making your observation about the wording:

                                'Maybe I will take some part away with me to see if it does taste of like fresh fried bacon'.

                                I defy anyone, whether they are writing their own diary, or someone else's, or a post on a public message board, to do so without ever making similar errors. I do it frequently myself, writing one word, changing my mind and writing another, then forgetting to delete the first one, but I generally manage to catch and correct it during the time allowed for editing posts.

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X

                                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X