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 Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

    Hi Ike,

    In the interest of fairness, the samples provided by Anne on request, as posted above are noteably different to the samples Orsam acquired, which are private and personal letters to Mike. Given that Jim's diary relies on the difference between private and public writing, it might be wise to tread lightly here.

    Like Kattrup posted, it seems that disproving Mike's handwriting doesn't require an expert, but disproving Anne's does, which hasn't been done. Well, not her private correspondence anyhow.

    How that relates to everything else? I guess we'll debate that. But don't rely on those samples in "inside story", which pre date the disclosure of the private correspondence.
    I'm just wondering why Orsam hasn't had a handwriting examiner in, to compare the diary with the samples he acquired of Anne's private correspondence. Or has he? How long has he had these samples hanging around for? What is opinion worth, when it comes from amateurs, as we all are? If nobody thinks the diary could be in Mike's handwriting, I can see why there would be little interest in getting that opinion checked out professionally. But if there are some who, like Kattrup, genuinely think it seems like a match to Anne's, why do they leave this suspicion hanging, when expert confirmation would put an end to their troublesome diary defenders?

    I mean, we're repeatedly told that it's all the fault of the so-called diary defenders that the thing is still being discussed in 2020, right? And yet there can be no real interest on the part of the Barrett believers to put a stop to it, and not much faith in their own suspicions either, or someone would have had the handwriting expertly identified as Anne's by now and got all the plaudits due to them. No more poring over the diary itself for clues to its modernity, when we know exactly how old Anne is.

    Love,

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


    Comment


    • Well I've read some of the posts on this thread and some on others. I must say I cannot believe the ridiculous lengths some have gone to, "proving" the diary a fake.
      At this time there is no evidence to prove it is fake. There is no evidence to prove the watch is fake. But some would have us believe that a nest (presumably) of forgers which includes experts on many subjects, from Victorian inks, to Americanisms to Psychology, for some strange reason, got together to frame a murdered Liverpool cotton merchant with the ripper crimes! Are you having a laugh?? I don't know if Maybrick was the ripper. I do think he wrote the diary at the time, and he could have been hanging around the scenes of death picking up bits of info, but why he would want to frame himself is anyone's guess. Added to all this of course is the stark fact that No-one has come forward and said "I forged the Diary, and the Watch, like this!" Which means no-one has benefited in any way whatsoever from forging it. Just a little hobby thing no doubt. Come on guys! The diary is real, once that is accepted the suspect list gets reduced very quickly. And no. I do not know if it was Michael Maybrick either,
      Probably be more interesting studying why the detractors are so sneery and adamant!

      Comment


      • Doesn’t the presence of a phrase that couldn’t possibly have been employed in 1888/9 dampen your enthusiasm?
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes



        "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

        ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
          Doesn’t the presence of a phrase that couldn’t possibly have been employed in 1888/9 dampen your enthusiasm?
          Which phrase would that be, H?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by miakaal4 View Post

            Added to all this of course is the stark fact that No-one has come forward and said "I forged the Diary


            No one ?!


            The Baron

            Comment


            • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

              Which phrase would that be, H?
              Hi Gary,

              ‘One off instance.’ I’m not up on diary stuff but I did just read Bunny’s Aunt which seems a killer too.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes



              "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

              ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by caz View Post

                I'm just wondering why Orsam hasn't had a handwriting examiner in, to compare the diary with the samples he acquired of Anne's private correspondence. Or has he? How long has he had these samples hanging around for? What is opinion worth, when it comes from amateurs, as we all are? If nobody thinks the diary could be in Mike's handwriting, I can see why there would be little interest in getting that opinion checked out professionally. But if there are some who, like Kattrup, genuinely think it seems like a match to Anne's, why do they leave this suspicion hanging, when expert confirmation would put an end to their troublesome diary defenders?

                I mean, we're repeatedly told that it's all the fault of the so-called diary defenders that the thing is still being discussed in 2020, right? And yet there can be no real interest on the part of the Barrett believers to put a stop to it, and not much faith in their own suspicions either, or someone would have had the handwriting expertly identified as Anne's by now and got all the plaudits due to them. No more poring over the diary itself for clues to its modernity, when we know exactly how old Anne is.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                Hi Caz,

                I couldn't rightly state why David hasn't called in an expert, I don't think it's that important personally. Experts have been used elsewhere, and what did that resolve? So adding another to the list isn't going to change anything. Unless if course, an expert disagrees that it matches Anne. But does the modern hoax theory hinge on matching Anne's writing? It'd clear up a few questions but would still leave Mike squarely in the frame, and that'll never be accepted regardless of what any expert has to offer. I mean, no expert was required to match a scratched signature inside a watch. That's taken as gospel.

                I was really just responding to Ike, who relies on James having private and personal handwriting, and that's kind of the argument that was being made regards Anne's samples as he posted.

                Ciao.
                Thems the Vagaries.....

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  Hi Gary,

                  ‘One off instance.’ I’m not up on diary stuff but I did just read Bunny’s Aunt which seems a killer too.
                  But why ‘impossible’, H?

                  There are two versions of one-off, one with a manufacturing origin and one with an equestrian origin. The equestrian version was in use in the mid-19th century, and the manufacturing version can be traced back in print to the early 20th century. At some point the manufacturing phrase was applied to unique people and events, echoing the centuries old idea of the ‘mould’ being broken after notable individuals came into being.

                  I’m with Gareth on all this, the frequency of phraseology that was in vogue in the late 20th century strongly suggests a modern hoax, but no single example has yet been found that complies with the conditions posed in the thread question.





                  Last edited by MrBarnett; 08-28-2020, 06:04 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                    But why ‘impossible’, H?

                    There are two versions of one-off, one with a manufacturing origin and one with an equestrian origin. The equestrian version was in use in the mid-19th century, and the manufacturing version can be traced back in print to the early 20th century. At some point the manufacturing phrase was applied to unique people and events, echoing the centuries old idea of the ‘mould’ being broken after notable individuals came into being.

                    I’m with Gareth on all this, the frequency of phraseology that was in vogue in the late 20th century strongly suggests a modern hoax, but no single example has been found that complies with the conditions posed in the thread question.





                    I haven’t seen the actual quote regarding the horse Gary (I’ve been looking for it)

                    The ‘Bunny’s Aunt’ point, which I’ve just read seems convincing though? Florence surely couldn’t have confused godmother for aunt which points to the author getting their info from the first wave of books on the subject where the error originated.
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes



                    "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                    ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      I haven’t seen the actual quote regarding the horse Gary (I’ve been looking for it)

                      The ‘Bunny’s Aunt’ point, which I’ve just read seems convincing though? Florence surely couldn’t have confused godmother for aunt which points to the author getting their info from the first wave of books on the subject where the error originated.
                      But there is a long tradition of female family friends/acquaintances/neighbours being called ‘aunts’.

                      Here’s the horsey thread.

                      https://jtrforums.com/showthread.php...wo-off&page=11



                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                        But there is a long tradition of female family friends/acquaintances/neighbours being called ‘aunts’.

                        Here’s the horsey thread.

                        https://jtrforums.com/showthread.php...wo-off&page=11


                        Thanks Gary. I think we’re going to have agree to disagree on this one as I can’t see any connection between the two. The diaries contextual usage is of James hitting Florence once and once only (ie it was a unique occasion) The horse one appears to be a phrase to do with a way of setting a horses age by looking at the teeth. I’m certainly no language expert (or expert in anything) I can’t but think that ‘one off instance’ is ‘incontrovertible...’
                        What I’ve never understood Gary is this. If someone like Robert Smith wants to prove that the diary is genuine why doesn’t he engage an expert in the evolution of language to research the strongest point against the genuineness of the diary? An expert on the subjects opinion would carry most weight after all. RS previous ‘explanation ‘ - the prison usage was a bit of a shocker to be honest. In fact I’d go so far as to say that I found it difficult to believe that he believed it himself.

                        On the ‘aunt’ point, I know what you mean Gary but those given the title aunt as a term of endearment in my experience are always not related. I know the godmother isn’t ‘related’ but it’s a kind of familial title. And would they have used this term in writing?

                        Ive always tried to avoid the minefield that is diary land so I’ll slip away.

                        Hope you’re well by the way Gary
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes



                        "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                        ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by miakaal4 View Post
                          At this time there is no evidence to prove it is fake.
                          Anachronistic phrases.
                          Inconsistent provenance.
                          Inaccuracies about the case.
                          A (retracted) hoax confession.

                          ...all of which have been "debunked" by engaging in mental gymnastics that leave you with a brain like a gordian knot.

                          Originally posted by miakaal4 View Post
                          for some strange reason, got together to frame a murdered Liverpool cotton merchant with the ripper crimes!
                          ...which plenty of gullible folk have fallen for, hook, line and sinker.

                          Comment


                          • There are no unequivocally anachronistic phrases that I’m aware of.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              Thanks Gary. I think we’re going to have agree to disagree on this one as I can’t see any connection between the two. The diaries contextual usage is of James hitting Florence once and once only (ie it was a unique occasion) The horse one appears to be a phrase to do with a way of setting a horses age by looking at the teeth. I’m certainly no language expert (or expert in anything) I can’t but think that ‘one off instance’ is ‘incontrovertible...’
                              What I’ve never understood Gary is this. If someone like Robert Smith wants to prove that the diary is genuine why doesn’t he engage an expert in the evolution of language to research the strongest point against the genuineness of the diary? An expert on the subjects opinion would carry most weight after all. RS previous ‘explanation ‘ - the prison usage was a bit of a shocker to be honest. In fact I’d go so far as to say that I found it difficult to believe that he believed it himself.

                              On the ‘aunt’ point, I know what you mean Gary but those given the title aunt as a term of endearment in my experience are always not related. I know the godmother isn’t ‘related’ but it’s a kind of familial title. And would they have used this term in writing?

                              Ive always tried to avoid the minefield that is diary land so I’ll slip away.

                              Hope you’re well by the way Gary
                              I am well, thanks Michael. I hope you are too.

                              Comment




                              • So, we have the term one-off being used in 19thC equestrian circles to describe an immature horse - a term that horsey James Maybrick was very likely familiar with.

                                In addition, we have the industrial term one-off apparently understood in engineering circles at least as early as the beginning of the 20th century, and the concept of a notable person being the unique product of a mould going back centuries.

                                I’m open minded about all of this. My instincts tell me the diary is a late 20th century fake, but I’ve yet to see a single Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable anachronism Which Refutes the Diary.












                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X