Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

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

  • This ought to be a safe space to explore ideas, even if to some they may seem crazy, implausible, contrived, and provocative.
    It ought to be, Ike, but a line gets crossed and it can get beyond ugly when some are accused of knowing the diary to be a modern fraud and paying lip service to that fraud.

    You've admitted there is no proof that JM was JtR, and may not have been. That's good enough for me. You express opinions, which few of us can agree with, while others express their opinions and we are free to agree or disagree. This is how it should be - a respect for the fact that opinions can be sincerely held, even if they seem incomprehensible to someone with a very different viewpoint.

    There is equally no proof that the Barretts had anything to do with creating the diary. Nothing wrong with believing they did, or may well have done, and arguing from that point of view, without slagging off anyone who can't share it. But it's very far from being a proven fact, so it would be refreshing if more people could acknowledge this.

    RJ Palmer thinks he knows me. He thinks he can judge my character. He is wrong.

    Even after all the years RJ and I have been exchanging views here on the diary, his posts demonstrate that he still doesn't know me at all. He can think what he likes about me, and frequently makes those thoughts plain. But I have first-hand knowledge of just how wide of the mark he can be.

    So RJ may think he knows the Barretts, and what was making them tick back in early 1992, but his track record of knowing me [knowing you, ahaaa] tells me my cat would have as much grasp of the goings on in Goldie Street.

    Love,

    Caz
    X




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


    Comment


    • Hi Caz.

      If it makes you feel better, my reference to people knowing damn well that the diary is a modern fake was not a reference to you, though it is alarming how quickly you assumed that it was.

      No; I have no difficulty believing that you have convinced yourself that the diary is a very old relic found under Jim Maybrick's floorboards.

      I was actually referring to people who make arguments that can only be interpreted as an attempt to suggest that this bogus diary is consistent with it having been created by a Victorian cotton broker, while strangely avoiding any mention that it isn't even in Maybrick's handwriting, or that it alludes to a City Police inventory list not available for public inspection until the 1980s, or that it gives a 'modern' version of Abblerline as a One Man Band, or the inconvenient reality of Baxendale's solubility test, etc. etc. So yes, I have concluded that they are being deliberately myopic. They like to argue, even in defense of things they don't believe in.

      As for my views of Anne Graham, you are clearly a master of projection. You are the one who has argued that she couldn't possibly have helped Barrett create this hoax.Despite the fact that, by your own admission, she hoodwinked Feldman and your co-author for years, signed along with Mike on the dotted line, created a new provenance when Feldman's film deal was floundering, made extraordinary statements that aren't the least bit credible, and used the hoax as a spring-board for her own biography of Florence Maybrick (despite earlier claiming that she had no interest in such matters!) Even if you think the woman is a saint--and obviously you don't--the courts are filled with women (and some men) who have been finagled into helping their spouses do all sorts of nefarious things.

      So I don't need to know her personally to conclude that your beliefs about what she would and would not do are nothing short of incredible.

      I hope that clears the air. Feel free to leave me out of the Diary discussions in the future. If you want a 'safe space,' then have a 'safe space.'

      It seems more like you're still itching for a fight, even though I said many times that I have no stomach for it. Is it possible that, without an enemy, the Diary really doesn't have much of a leg to stand on?

      RP

      P.S. You keep referring to a crime. What crime was committed? Show me a statute that forbids the creation of a hoax under criminal penalty. Smith tried to sell the diary to the Sunday Times for a large sum of cash, so they had him investigated for fraud. By contrast, the Barretts did not seek to sell the diary--only to publish it. Are you similarly going to imprison Donald McCormick for inventing the Dutton Diaries? Yes, the Barretts eventually transferred the diary to Smith for an entirely technical one pound note. What crime was committed? Who would seek prosecution? Smith? Are you suggesting Smith was going to have them charged for petty larceny when he was the one that got all the proceeds from selling the film rights to Feldman, as well as a nice profit off the publication? If anyone played his cards correctly in this whole fiasco, it was Smith. He quite neatly avoided any possibility that the Barrett's would be rung-through-the-ringer by the police, and published the diary as a 'you decide' sort of event.
      Last edited by rjpalmer; 10-22-2021, 12:22 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
        Hi Caz.

        I was actually referring to people who make arguments that can only be interpreted as an attempt to suggest that this bogus diary is consistent with it having been created by a Victorian cotton broker, while strangely avoiding any mention that it isn't even in Maybrick's handwriting, or that it alludes to a City Police inventory list not available for public inspection until the 1980s, or that it gives a 'modern' version of Abblerline as a One Man Band, or the inconvenient reality of Baxendale's solubility test, etc. etc. So yes, I have concluded that they are being deliberately myopic. They like to argue, even in defense of things they don't believe in.

        RP
        RJ,

        I don't know what to make of this. Am I mistaken? Are you saying that erobitha and I (the only two Maybrickians who actually post here) know the Victorian scrapbook is a modern construction? If you are, you owe it to us (or at least to our readership) to explain how you came to that conclusion. I couldn't give a toss about the slander aspect (the day has a Y in it, and all that), I just want to understand how a man can drape himself in black and white stipes and an old tea towel for countless years and yet be accused of being a Wimbledon AFC fan. (Old club, new club allusion.)

        Surely your reasons do not include such non sequiturs as 'it alludes to a City Police inventory list not available for public inspection until the 1980s' (as if Maybrick - who we believe to be Jack the Ripper - had to wait until 1987 and the publication of Martin Fido's book to know what he had found Eddowes to be in possession of in September 1888!).

        Ike
        Not Affronted, but Definitely Very Confused
        Iconoclast
        Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
        Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

          P.S. You keep referring to a crime. What crime was committed? Show me a statute that forbids the creation of a hoax under criminal penalty. Smith tried to sell the diary to the Sunday Times for a large sum of cash, so they had him investigated for fraud. By contrast, the Barretts did not seek to sell the diary--only to publish it. Are you similarly going to imprison Donald McCormick for inventing the Dutton Diaries? They eventually transferred the diary to Smith for an entirely technical one pound note. What crime was committed? Who would seek prosecution? Smith? Are you suggesting Smith was going to have them charged for petty larceny when he was the one that got all the proceeds from selling the film rights to Feldman, as well as a nice profit off the publication? If anyone played his cards correctly in this whole fiasco, it was Smith.
          Missed this (as it didn't exist the first time).

          I think your claims that a fraud has been committed (I think they were your words or certainly your inference) implies that Robert Smith and others knowingly sold that fraud to a gullible public. I'm no lawyer, but I'm guessing there's a crime in there somewhere.
          Iconoclast
          Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
          Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

            Missed this (as it didn't exist the first time).

            I think your claims that a fraud has been committed (I think they were your words or certainly your inference) implies that Robert Smith and others knowingly sold that fraud to a gullible public. I'm no lawyer, but I'm guessing there's a crime in there somewhere.
            No, old boy you have it wrong again. What I am suggesting is that it didn't matter one iota whether Smith secretly believed the diary was fake, or whether he believed with all his heart that it was genuine.

            The Fraud unit concluded that he didn't create the thing, and since they can't look into his heart and prove that he knew that he was knowingly selling the Sunday Times the equivalent of a condemned mansion with termite damage and lead paint built on a flood zone, the CPS did not seek prosecution for his attempt.

            The law is very tricky on this point. Is anyone ever prosecuted for publishing books that are complete claptrap? It might be 'fraud' in a man-in-the-street sense, but it also runs up against intellectual freedom, and the right to publish whatever moonshine one cares to publish.

            Police and prosecutors shy away from such cases. No one was going to go after the Barretts unless Smith filed a complaint. He didn't. Indeed, it is my belief he stamped out this possibility by buying the diary for a mere one pound note. Ask yourself this: how does one 'protect' the diary by finagling it out of the Barretts for the price of a cup of coffee? Answer: by preventing Barrett from selling it to a dupe, and thus placing himself in legal jeopardy. That's how. You are confusing the selling of a hoax (a forged painting, for instance) and the publishing of a hoax. That latter is more or less protected.

            But all this garbage has been gone over a hundred times.

            The rest is silence. As long as you leave me out of your 'safe space,' I will not invade it. Space away, Major Tom!
            Last edited by rjpalmer; 10-22-2021, 12:47 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

              RJ,

              I don't know what to make of this. Am I mistaken? Are you saying that erobitha and I (the only two Maybrickians who actually post here) know the Victorian scrapbook is a modern construction? If you are, you owe it to us (or at least to our readership) to explain how you came to that conclusion. I couldn't give a toss about the slander aspect (the day has a Y in it, and all that), I just want to understand how a man can drape himself in black and white stipes and an old tea towel for countless years and yet be accused of being a Wimbledon AFC fan. (Old club, new club allusion.)

              Surely your reasons do not include such non sequiturs as 'it alludes to a City Police inventory list not available for public inspection until the 1980s' (as if Maybrick - who we believe to be Jack the Ripper - had to wait until 1987 and the publication of Martin Fido's book to know what he had found Eddowes to be in possession of in September 1888!).

              Ike
              Not Affronted, but Definitely Very Confused
              I think what RJ (or A5 as I now like to think of him) is saying is that anyone who has challenged any of the many failed attempts to meet the criteria set out in the title of this thread is thereby attempting ‘to suggest that this bogus diary is consistent with it having been created by a Victorian cotton broker…’

              So if I say I believe it be perfectly plausible that the Maybrick family might have used the term aunt to refer to a non-related female family friend, that’s shorthand for ‘Maybrick wrote the diary.’ And since I’m on record as saying I very much doubt that he did, I’m a deceptive little toe rag.
              Last edited by MrBarnett; 10-22-2021, 12:58 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                I think what RJ (or A5 as I now like to think of him) is saying is that anyone who has challenged any of the many failed attempts to meet the criteria set out in the title of this thread is thereby attempting ‘to suggest that this bogus diary is consistent with it having been created by a Victorian cotton broker…’

                So if I say I believe it be perfectly plausible that the Maybrick family might have used the term aunt to refer to a non-related female family friend, that’s shorthand for ‘Maybrick wrote the diary.’ And since I’m on record as saying I very much doubt that he did, I’m a deceptive, little toe rag.
                Hi Gary,

                that you or someone you know once called a non-relative 'aunt' or 'auntie' is anecdotal evidence of the worst sort. It tells us nothing about James Maybrick.

                'Aunt' or 'Auntie' suggests familiarity (does one call a countess an aunt?) and you have provided no evidence that Maybrick ever met the woman. In fact, I think you've badly misconstrued the entire situation.

                Florence made up the fact that the Countess de Gabriac (who lived in Paris) was having an operation in London. It was a ruse. Using someone that was familiar enough to Maybrick that she was known as 'aunt' would have defeated her purpose. She had to pick someone that Maybrick did not socialize with.

                Otherwise, can you imagine what would have happened?

                "Hello, aunt! I do hope Florence was a comfort to you during your recent operation."

                "What rot you talk, Mr. Maybrick! What operation? And I haven't seen Florrie in over ten years!"

                You're also dismissing the only first-hand account of what Maybrick actually said (from Dr. Hopper's surviving deposition), where he referred to her as Florrie's godmother, in preference to the hearsay evidence of Addison's opening speech, where he quite clearly is muddling the Countess de Gabriac with James Baillie Knight's aunt.

                Is this a sound historical method? You don't feel any obligation to show that Maybrick was even familiar with the woman?

                You can, of course, give any justification you want, but it sure seems that you are implying that a diary that is not even in Maybrick's handwriting, and contains modern elements, might be historically accurate, and that the Maybrick household really did call a countess their 'aunt.'

                But perhaps it's a matter of perspective, so I'll leave it at that.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                  I think what RJ (or A5 as I now like to think of him) is saying is that anyone who has challenged any of the many failed attempts to meet the criteria set out in the title of this thread is thereby attempting ‘to suggest that this bogus diary is consistent with it having been created by a Victorian cotton broker…’

                  So if I say I believe it be perfectly plausible that the Maybrick family might have used the term aunt to refer to a non-related female family friend, that’s shorthand for ‘Maybrick wrote the diary.’ And since I’m on record as saying I very much doubt that he did, I’m a deceptive little toe rag.
                  So RJ was accusing you, Gary, of being among 'those who know damned well' that the diary is a fraud [also defined as a criminal deception], but defend the fraudster(s), just because you know a completely spurious argument when you read one?

                  If so, it's the kind of rigid black and white, polarised, football-scarf-wearing mentality that would drive similarly fair-minded, but fainter-hearted posters away from the subject, or stop them contributing in the first place. And I'd quite like to know who else RJ was including when he used the plural 'those'.

                  Love,

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


                  Comment


                  • They could have at least acknowledged, that the controversal 'Aunt' reference in the 'diary' was a great discovery of David Orsam, and that it doesn't help at all the case of the 'diary' being authentic, but no, better to stay faithful to our personal attitudes towards the author of this masterpiece of research.

                    You can try to explain an oddity, but at least show some dignity and sincerity in your defence.




                    The Baron
                    Last edited by The Baron; 10-22-2021, 01:35 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post

                      So RJ was accusing you, Gary, of being among 'those who know damned well' that the diary is a fraud [also defined as a criminal deception], but defend the fraudster(s), just because you know a completely spurious argument when you read one?

                      If so, it's the kind of rigid black and white, polarised, football-scarf-wearing mentality that would drive similarly fair-minded, but fainter-hearted posters away from the subject, or stop them contributing in the first place. And I'd quite like to know who else RJ was including when he used the plural 'those'.

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X

                      Even Fisherman was one of 'those' if you are really interested.



                      The Baron
                      Last edited by The Baron; 10-22-2021, 01:36 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                        Hi Gary,

                        that you or someone you know once called a non-relative 'aunt' or 'auntie' is anecdotal evidence of the worst sort. It tells us nothing about James Maybrick.

                        'Aunt' or 'Auntie' suggests familiarity (does one call a countess an aunt?) and you have provided no evidence that Maybrick ever met the woman. In fact, I think you've badly misconstrued the entire situation.

                        Florence made up the fact that the Countess de Gabriac (who lived in Paris) was having an operation in London. It was a ruse. Using someone that was familiar enough to Maybrick that she was known as 'aunt' would have defeated her purpose. She had to pick someone that Maybrick did not socialize with.

                        Otherwise, can you imagine what would have happened?

                        "Hello, aunt! I do hope Florence was a comfort to you during your recent operation."

                        "What rot you talk, Mr. Maybrick! What operation? And I haven't seen Florrie in over ten years!"

                        You're also dismissing the only first-hand account of what Maybrick actually said (from Dr. Hopper's surviving deposition), where he referred to her as Florrie's godmother, in preference to the hearsay evidence of Addison's opening speech, where he quite clearly is muddling the Countess de Gabriac with James Baillie Knight's aunt.

                        Is this a sound historical method? You don't feel any obligation to show that Maybrick was even familiar with the woman?

                        You can, of course, give any justification you want, but it sure seems that you are implying that a diary that is not even in Maybrick's handwriting, and contains modern elements, might be historically accurate, and that the Maybrick household really did call a countess their 'aunt.'

                        But perhaps it's a matter of perspective, so I'll leave it at that.
                        It’s not just that Caz and I and others of our vintage and nationality are personally familiar with the informal use of aunt, you can go back and Google the usage in the 19th/early 20th century. I thought of starting a thread, ‘It Aunt Necessarily So’, to provide examples, but had second thoughts. This kind of thing from 1906:

                        “You know that she was not really my aunt ?” she said doubtfully. “ I have thought it might be so,” returned Zoe. “She was my mother’s —companion,” said Eirene, hesitating…”

                        Why would Maybrick have had to have known the woman to have picked up on what his wife called her?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by caz View Post

                          So RJ was accusing you, Gary, of being among 'those who know damned well' that the diary is a fraud [also defined as a criminal deception], but defend the fraudster(s), just because you know a completely spurious argument when you read one?

                          If so, it's the kind of rigid black and white, polarised, football-scarf-wearing mentality that would drive similarly fair-minded, but fainter-hearted posters away from the subject, or stop them contributing in the first place. And I'd quite like to know who else RJ was including when he used the plural 'those'.

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X

                          And don’t forget that through my interest in Thomas Ashe I entered the shark infested waters of the Sea of Crashaw.

                          Yes, who else who is avowedly not a Maybrickian has had the temerity to discuss the forbidden topics of the Aunt and Crashaw?

                          Now, if we can’t find another obvious aunt-denier, the thought that RJ was indeed referring to you but bottled it when confronted will cross my mind.



                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                            Missed this (as it didn't exist the first time).

                            I think your claims that a fraud has been committed (I think they were your words or certainly your inference) implies that Robert Smith and others knowingly sold that fraud to a gullible public. I'm no lawyer, but I'm guessing there's a crime in there somewhere.
                            RJ consistently uses the loaded word 'fraud', to describe the diary Mike Barrett took to London in April 1992. Fraud is typically defined as an act of deliberate, criminal deceit or trickery, very often for financial gain. This cannot be proven against anyone with regard to the diary, without first knowing who created it and that it was done with the intent to deceive the public. Robert Smith would have had to know who wrote it and why, and he'd have been the only person on the planet who did - apart from its creator, who might have left the planet by then, leaving no clue as to their identity.

                            So 'fraud' is a dishonest word to be using in 2021, for an old book which Mike Barrett obtained from a source which RJ has utterly failed to establish.

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X
                            Last edited by caz; 10-22-2021, 02:02 PM.
                            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
                              They could have at least acknowledged, that the controversal 'Aunt' reference in the 'diary' was a great discovery of David Orsam, and that it doesn't help at all the case of the 'diary' being authentic, but no, better to stay faithful to our personal attitudes towards the author of this masterpiece of research.

                              You can try to explain an oddity, but at least show some dignity and sincerity in your defence.




                              The Baron
                              This’ll be the man whose dignified description of a contrary opinion is to call it ‘word vomit’?

                              David went to a lot of trouble to produce a plausible theory of the development of the modern usage of ‘one-off’, but he did not and could not prove that the usage was not in existence orally in the 1880s. And neither, curiously, did he discover or choose to mention the equine usage of x-off. So, sadly, an element of doubt remains.

                              My ‘defence’ is sincere. I’m not really a diary nerd but discovering a 19th century usage of ‘topping’ was an eye opener and it triggered an interest in checking out the so-called linguistic anachronisms.

                              In the round, the language of the diary strikes me as being that of a late 20th century Brit. I’d be very surprised if it isn’t. But so far no one has discovered a single phrase or combination of words that couldn’t reasonably have been coined in the 1880s.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                                It’s not just that Caz and I and others of our vintage and nationality are personally familiar with the informal use of aunt, you can go back and Google the usage in the 19th/early 20th century. I thought of starting a thread, ‘It Aunt Necessarily So’, to provide examples, but had second thoughts. This kind of thing from 1906:

                                “You know that she was not really my aunt ?” she said doubtfully. “ I have thought it might be so,” returned Zoe. “She was my mother’s —companion,” said Eirene, hesitating…”

                                Why would Maybrick have had to have known the woman to have picked up on what his wife called her?
                                Lord, how many times have men - a gender not well-recognised for its ability to concentrate on more than one thing at once and often not even on one thing at once - been accused of paying lip service to their better half's best-intended diatribes? If I wasn't a man, I wouldn't be able to sleep for the fear that I have had creeping dementia since the age of about 21. Fortunately, being a man explains a great deal to me ...

                                I wonder what went through Maybrick's mind that April day when Florrie first mentioned she was going to London to see her godmother and the aunt of John Baillie Knight? (Spoiler alert: Remember, he's the world's most feared killer who has literally ripped a woman apart - he may not have been 'in the room' much.)

                                Plagiarising from myself:

                                Day Zero: "Florrie London arsenic godmother aunt bills debt murder tea Edwin office cotton arsenic races horses arsenic cricket toilet paper ink money arsenic"
                                Day 1: "Florrie London arsenic godmother aunt bills debt murder tea office cotton arsenic races horses arsenic"
                                Day 3: "Florrie London arsenic Michael arsehole aunt murder Edwin races horses arsenic tea"
                                Day 4: "Florrie London arsenic debt bills murder races money horses arsenic tea"

                                And so on. How memorable Florrie's description of her intended visit to London was in the slightly-tormented mind of a man who had literally stripped the flesh and organs from Mary Kelly is open to debate but not open to being evidence against his writing the Victorian scrapbook.
                                Last edited by Iconoclast; 10-22-2021, 02:19 PM.
                                Iconoclast
                                Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                                Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X