One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Ike having reread your notes a number of times I think it is unclear from them exactly what Keith has and hasn't said and what exactly is your opinion. However I acknowledge that you weren't knowingly accusing Stewart of anything.

Cheers John

Duly noted and actioned.

[Iconoclast]

For clarity, I have blocked both The Baron and John Wheat from my feed so if I fail to respond to their posts, everyone will know why.

I've reported them both to Admin for making false accusations against me (of accusing Stewart Evans of lying).

[The Baron]

For clarity, I have blocked both The Baron and John Wheat from my feed so if I fail to respond to their posts, everyone will know why.

I've reported them both to Admin for making false accusations against me (of accusing Stewart Evans of lying).

For Clarity I reported Iconclast to the Admin, he is accusing me again of accusing him of accusing Stewart of lying.


The Baron

[Admin]

For Clarity, This is your Headmistress Ally. The Admin. Our lovely Jonathan is spending the day with his family, so you guys get to get your knuckles rapped by me, instead. Which is not going to be to your liking.

For clarity, only adults are supposed to be posting on Casebook. From the behavior I am reading on this thread, it appears some children have snuck in. Let me educate you on how we expect grown-ups to behave on the boards. First, if someone accuses you of something you think you didn't do and you choose to respond by acting like a clown instead of addressing their post like an adult, don't put your petulant pants on at a later date and then throw a tantrum and ask for Teacher to come be your knuckle-rapper. As it clearly states in the rules, should you proceed in a lengthy argument, and then ask for our assistance after you've been as a big a problem as the people you are reporting, you will likewise feel our wrath. If you lack the articulation to craft a post that is clear, or if you write in a manner that is obtuse and allows conclusions to be drawn that you don't like or don't agree with, write your posts better, and make your words more blunt and clear. Like so: We don't appreciate being called in to school unruly children who think it's all fun and games until they start to lose. Especially on as ridiculous a subject as the Diary, which if Ripperology were a sane subject, would be treated as the joke that it is. See, no obfuscation, no confusion. Let's try some more.

What you are doing is wasting my time on a subject that is a waste of my time, for petty and ridiculous reasons. If you can't discourse like civilized people, there are other Ripper boards, that will welcome such nonsense and kiss your ass just for the traffic.

You are wasting my time. I strongly encourage you not to do that in the future. Some of you will have a PM coming to you shortly. I strongly encourage you to abide by it.

[erobitha]

We don't appreciate being called in to school unruly children who think it's all fun and games until they start to lose. Especially on as ridiculous a subject as the Diary, which if Ripperology were a sane subject, would be treated as the joke that it is. See, no obfuscation, no confusion. Let's try some more.

What you are doing is wasting my time on a subject that is a waste of my time, for petty and ridiculous reasons. If you can't discourse like civilized people, there are other Ripper boards, that will welcome such nonsense and kiss your ass just for the traffic.

Hi Ally,

I'm a little concerned with the language you yourself are using, although to your credit it is clear and unambiguous. It shows a bias which for an admin is questionable by my standards.

You may personally find the subject of the scrapbook as "nonsense" and a "waste of time" but I for one do not, and I am not alone. It is bias like this that is actually counter-productive to the very essence of your own post. Discussions concerning the ripper are ALL valid and are equally deserving oxygen. As an admin, alerted to referee a situation, your personal bias to the very subject they are being asked to adjudicate should not only be irrelevant, but should also not be expressed.

You get to decide as an admin who is deserving of such punishment as in line with the code of conduct policies you employ. You do not get to decide which subjects are worth discussion and which subjects are not - regardless of how "ridiculous" you yourself may find the subject matter. Perhaps admin themselves should handle such issues with a little more delicacy. Your thoughts on the subject were not required, simply to unwrangle and police some of the more slanderous elements against individuals within the thread. Instead you added more flame to the fire by condemning the scrapbook yourself. Nice work.

Regards,

Ero

[rjpalmer]

So some of our British contributors have received a PM they don't like. Business as usual, eh? Boris, Theresa, John, Tony, Maggie...

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

So some of our British contributors have received a PM they don't like. Business as usual, eh? Boris, Theresa, John, Tony, Maggie...

Gordon. He wasn't even elected.

[rjpalmer]

[*]If Feldman conclusively knew the diary was a fake he would not be so indiscreet as to blurt this out over the telephone with Stewart (a retired police officer) standing there.

Keith seems like a pleasant bloke, and no doubt he is, but I'm fairly certain that I will never fully understand his thought processes. I guess our brains must be wired differently.

Isn't this the EXACT point made by Lord Orsam when he dissected Keith's interview with Barrett at the Cloak and Dagger meeting?

Keith expected Barrett to produce a ticket from the O & L auction, thus proving his hoax....directly after announcing to Mike that there was a retired police officer in the audience (!)

Judging from Keith's statement above, I gather he must now realize why this may have been problematic?

Here's another head scratcher:

[*]Neither would Feldman have been pouring money into research trying to prove JM was JtR.

Feldman owned the visual rights to the Maybrick Diary. He was hardly a disinterested party.

Keith is apparently willing to believe that his own friend's 'bitterness' over the Maybrick Diary is traceable to not securing a film deal for the Tumblety book, but he gives Feldman--the owner of the film rights to the Maybrick Diary--a pass?

'Pouring money' for a businessman --and Feldman was a businessman-- is merely a euphemism for an 'investment.'

Feldman may or may not have believed the Diary was genuine, but spending money to 'prove' its authenticity would have been a way to woo investors for any potential film deal, or to ease the doubts of those who were already planning one---either of which would have potentially netted Feldman hundreds of thousands of dollars. My copy of Harrison's book has an optimistic blurb on the cover: "Soon to be a major motion picture featuring Anthony Hopkins."

During my time on this globe, I have noticed that the fervent beliefs of businessmen almost always neatly coincide with their own financial interests. I'd say the correlation is very nearly 100%. Historians interested in the Whitechapel Murders? Not so much. They are more interested in truths and ideas.

It's not worth arguing about--if a person claims they believe something, we are more or less forced to accept them at face value--but it always struck me that Feldman's arguments and attitudes were more akin to those of a salesman peddling a product, rather than those of a historian attempting to ascertain the truth of the matter.

But then, I never met Feldman. Maybe he really believed 'Diego Laurenz' was a suitable counter-argument for a scrapbook whose handwriting looks nothing like James Maybrick's.

[Observer]

Hi Ally,

I'm a little concerned with the language you yourself are using, although to your credit it is clear and unambiguous. It shows a bias which for an admin is questionable by my standards.

You may personally find the subject of the scrapbook as "nonsense" and a "waste of time" but I for one do not, and I am not alone. It is bias like this that is actually counter-productive to the very essence of your own post. Discussions concerning the ripper are ALL valid and are equally deserving oxygen. As an admin, alerted to referee a situation, your personal bias to the very subject they are being asked to adjudicate should not only be irrelevant, but should also not be expressed.

You get to decide as an admin who is deserving of such punishment as in line with the code of conduct policies you employ. You do not get to decide which subjects are worth discussion and which subjects are not - regardless of how "ridiculous" you yourself may find the subject matter. Perhaps admin themselves should handle such issues with a little more delicacy. Your thoughts on the subject were not required, simply to unwrangle and police some of the more slanderous elements against individuals within the thread. Instead you added more flame to the fire by condemning the scrapbook yourself. Nice work.

Regards,

Ero

Oh dear, shades of Watery Fowls. Don't smile O Reilly, don't smile

[Admin]

Hi Ally,

I'm a little concerned with the language you yourself are using, although to your credit it is clear and unambiguous. It shows a bias which for an admin is questionable by my standards.

You may personally find the subject of the scrapbook as "nonsense" and a "waste of time" but I for one do not, and I am not alone. It is bias like this that is actually counter-productive to the very essence of your own post. Discussions concerning the ripper are ALL valid and are equally deserving oxygen. As an admin, alerted to referee a situation, your personal bias to the very subject they are being asked to adjudicate should not only be irrelevant, but should also not be expressed.

You get to decide as an admin who is deserving of such punishment as in line with the code of conduct policies you employ. You do not get to decide which subjects are worth discussion and which subjects are not - regardless of how "ridiculous" you yourself may find the subject matter. Perhaps admin themselves should handle such issues with a little more delicacy. Your thoughts on the subject were not required, simply to unwrangle and police some of the more slanderous elements against individuals within the thread. Instead you added more flame to the fire by condemning the scrapbook yourself. Nice work.

Regards,

Ero

Ero, let me make something exquisitely clear. Freedom of speech only counts in your home. This is MY home. I make the rules, and yes, darling if I decide a subject is too stupid to be discussed further on the boards, that I pay for, maintain and operate, then yes, I will decide to boot the entire subject. You are a guest here. You should appreciate that status, and recognize that as a guest your choice is to leave whenever you don't like the conditions and mine as a host is to kick out anyone or anything that I don't feel suits MY place.

Clear? You aren't required by law or duty to post here. It's a privilege. Abuse it again, and it's one you'll lose. Freedom of speech doesn't apply on someone else's tab. As I said, there are multiple other boards you can post on. Feel free to go there.

[erobitha]

Ero, let me make something exquisitely clear. Freedom of speech only counts in your home. This is MY home. I make the rules, and yes, darling if I decide a subject is too stupid to be discussed further on the boards, that I pay for, maintain and operate, then yes, I will decide to boot the entire subject. You are a guest here. You should appreciate that status, and recognize that as a guest your choice is to leave whenever you don't like the conditions and mine as a host is to kick out anyone or anything that I don't feel suits MY place.

Clear? You aren't required by law or duty to post here. It's a privilege. Abuse it again, and it's one you'll lose. Freedom of speech doesn't apply on someone else's tab. As I said, there are multiple other boards you can post on. Feel free to go there.

Well Sherrif, that sure did escalate real quick.

Your town, your rules.

Seems I fought the law, but the law won.

[Bridewell]

Problem about dropping-in when you don't really know the case is you will probably make as arse of yourself and I was just trying to bale you out, mate.

Ike

As I said, I just look in at this thread to see if the quality of debate has improved since my last visit.......

[caz]

But then, I never met Feldman. Maybe he really believed 'Diego Laurenz' was a suitable counter-argument for a scrapbook whose handwriting looks nothing like James Maybrick's.

One quick point for now, and I'll aim to catch up with all the posts on this thread tomorrow.

Wasn't there an American history professor in North Wales who was impressed by the Diego Laurenz argument, despite the diary handwriting looking nothing like JM's?

Yes, I remember now. It was Bill Rubinstein, from Aberystwyth University. I met him in Liverpool in 2003, and he seemed quite disappointed that I didn't share his beliefs.

I may be wrong, but I doubt he has ever invested financially in trying to prove the diary was real, and his beliefs appeared sincere enough to me.

I met Feldman too, and his beliefs also struck me as painfully sincere - so sincere in fact that they cost him his marriage, his wealth and ultimately his health.

I will never believe he'd have let things go so far, if he suspected for one single, solitary moment that the diary could have been a Barrett hoax.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

When it doesn't seem to match MB's handwriting, you're enough of an expert to conclude he didn't write it. When it seems to match his wife's, suddenly an actual handwriting expert is required and you can't be bothered to have an opinion.

Er, where did this come from, Kattrup? Do you think the diary handwriting 'seems to match' Mike's wife's? I don't. Have you actually ever seen a copy of Inside Story, which, on page 177, would have shown you just how little resemblance there is between the two?

If handwriting experts had not been brought in to check if the diary could have been written by James Maybrick, everyone would have been rightly demanding to know why not. So how do you justify not even being bothered to check if your suspicions about Anne Graham, who is still alive, have any basis in reality? Donning Orsam's rose tinted spectacles, to claim that the diary 'seems to match' Anne's handwriting, is really not what you want to be doing if you care about your eyesight and the credibility of your opinions.

If you are claiming a possible match, the onus is on you to support your suspicions with expert evidence.

I have never claimed to be an expert, but then my opinions on JM and the Barretts, regarding their handwriting, are consistent with the presumption of innocence in all three cases.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

As usual, Bongo's level of expertise can be scaled up or down as it suits you: in this case, you imagine he'd foresee all kinds of difficulties and since he did not correct for them, it follows he cannot be the hoaxer. I.e. because the hoaxer made mistakes, MB cannot have been the hoaxer.

In other cases, Bongo is an bungling fool who could not write a text to save his life or who'd never read a book in his possession.

Producing the diary was taking a chance - it could be succesful and bring reward but it could also be a risk. You're suggesting that since it was risky and could carry negative consequences, MB would not have done it.

Any criminal or quasi-criminal enterprise carries some risk and yet, there are some who try. Even married couples with kids. Usually, people focus more on the potential rewards than the inherent risk. As it happened, it was a pretty succesful gamble. No criminal charges (that I know of) and quite a lot of money.

Straight out of the gospel according to Lord Orsam. You've studied it well, Kattrup.

How do you know, you said you didn't read it?

I wasn't talking about Orsam's blog, Kattrup.

Much of your post above appeared to be made up of the same arguments he used to use right here on the casebook. That's why I supposed you had read them here too and were sufficiently impressed to repeat them in your own words. I certainly wasn't suggesting you were transporting arguments back here from Orsam's blog. How would I know? But if he has been repeating arguments I read here the first time, I don't think I'll be rushing to read them all over again.

Love,

Caz
X