Originally posted by erobitha
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by Yabs View PostHi Caz
Sorry I should have written, from the Maybrick Case by MacDougall not Trial.
I’m not sure of the page.
I’ve converted McDougall to kindle from the archive so I can search by keyword, I quickly did it yesterday because I knew it mentioned the address as number 6 and it has come out with rather more glitches than when I converted it a year or so ago.
I’ll try to do a clean conversion over the weekend.
But here’s a screenshot of the pages if it helps for now . O
Hi Caz.
Considering Barrett’s error stating number 6 as the address of Battlecrease do you think we could say with some confidence that Barrett at some point very early on read MacDougall?
I’ll be honest, like Barrett, up until I read your post I thought Battlecrease was number 6 too.
Because I read MacDougall.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Yabs View Post
Hi Caz.
Considering Barrett’s error stating number 6 as the address of Battlecrease do you think we could say with some confidence that Barrett at some point very early on read MacDougall?
I’ll be honest, like Barrett, up until I read your post I thought Battlecrease was number 6 too.
Because I read MacDougall.
Barrett did not read MacDougall, I assure you. You are giving him far too much credit.
I think he walked past No. 5 on his way down Riversdale Road, saw No.s 6 & 7, thought they were one property, assumed they were Battlecrease House, and therefore logically concluded that the property was No. 6 Riversdale Road.
No more complicated than that.
Cheers,
Ike
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
Yabs,
Barrett did not read MacDougall, I assure you. You are giving him far too much credit.
I think he walked past No. 5 on his way down Riversdale Road, saw No.s 6 & 7, thought they were one property, assumed they were Battlecrease House, and therefore logically concluded that the property was No. 6 Riversdale Road.
No more complicated than that.
Cheers,
Ike
Hello Ike
Yes I guess he could have done, as with all things diary related there will always be some ambiguity to throw in from either side.
But in the context of us discussing Barrett’s research conducted by way of available text, then I would say MacDougall would be the source of this particular error.Last edited by Yabs; 02-04-2022, 06:47 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Yabs View Post
Hello Ike
Yes I guess he could have done, as with all things diary related there will always be some ambiguity to throw in from either side.
But in the context of us discussing Barrett’s research conducted by way of available text, then I would say MacDougall would be the source of this particular error.
- Likes 3
Comment
-
The lord aside, think of it from my perspective…
It’s just a strange coincidence that Caz should post regarding the house number of Battlecrease because I searched for Battlecrease on Google a few days before Caz posted.
And from my search history that’s the number I was looking for.
Because I read MacDougall.
Last edited by Yabs; 02-04-2022, 07:43 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
It’s exactly the type of ‘strong’ evidence that Lord Orsam uses to argue that MB got all his Maybrick info from Ryan - warts and all. (Isn’t it?)
I don't want to be involved in this circus at the moment, but as I just informed Yabs in a PM, the same house number is given in...wait for it...Bernard Ryan's The Poisoned Life of Mrs. Maybrick, Chapt. 4
Bernard Ryan...the gift that keeps giving!
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
I don't want to be involved in this circus at the moment, but as I just informed Yabs in a PM, the same house number is given in...wait for it...Bernard Ryan's The Poisoned Life of Mrs. Maybrick, Chapt. 4
Bernard Ryan...the gift that keeps giving!
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
I don't want to be involved in this circus at the moment, but as I just informed Yabs in a PM, the same house number is given in...wait for it...Bernard Ryan's The Poisoned Life of Mrs. Maybrick, Chapt. 4
Bernard Ryan...the gift that keeps giving!
Thanks RJ.
So Barrett had at least two sources for Battlecrease being number 6.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
I don't want to be involved in this circus at the moment, but as I just informed Yabs in a PM, the same house number is given in...wait for it...Bernard Ryan's The Poisoned Life of Mrs. Maybrick, Chapt. 4
Bernard Ryan...the gift that keeps giving!
Ike
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Yabs View PostHi Caz
Sorry I should have written, from the Maybrick Case by MacDougall not Trial.
I’m not sure of the page.
I’ve converted McDougall to kindle from the archive so I can search by keyword, I quickly did it yesterday because I knew it mentioned the address as number 6 and it has come out with rather more glitches than when I converted it a year or so ago.
I’ll try to do a clean conversion over the weekend.
But here’s a screenshot of the pages if it helps for now . O
Love,
Caz
X"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov
Comment
-
Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
Well, if it ever turns out that it was Bongo we're aal [sic] doomed - doomed!
Do ye want to hear the storrry of the auld empty drrrainpipe?
Well, there was nothing in it.
Love,
Caz
X"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov
Comment
-
Originally posted by Yabs View PostHello Ike
Yes I guess he could have done, as with all things diary related there will always be some ambiguity to throw in from either side.
But in the context of us discussing Barrett’s research conducted by way of available text, then I would say MacDougall would be the source of this particular error.
The only 'error' on Mike's part, in this case, may have been to walk away, not realising there were in fact two houses and he had identified the wrong one, until he went back there in early 1993 with Feldman and co and they saw Paul Dodd, who owned both houses.
If the original house had indeed been No.6 in 1889, which was the address Edwin Maybrick apparently gave Dr. Carter over the telephone [according to MacDougall], then there was no error, and Ryan presumably took the address from the same source?
As usual, it all tends to make sense when we look further into it, without the need to accuse Mike of creating the diary text using Ryan, and then getting the wrong address for Battlecrease in his research notes, because he stupidly used the same source.
The irony is that if Mike really had faked the diary, and had put No.6 as Maybrick's address in the diary, he might have got it right by accident!
Love,
Caz
X
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov
Comment
-
Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
I don't want to be involved in this circus at the moment, but as I just informed Yabs in a PM, the same house number is given in...wait for it...Bernard Ryan's The Poisoned Life of Mrs. Maybrick, Chapt. 4
Bernard Ryan...the gift that keeps giving!
If Ryan had the right address for the undivided Battlecrease of 1889 [assuming No.7 did not yet exist as a separate address], while Mike got the wrong address in 1992 for where Maybrick had died [assuming he died in the part that had become No.7], and therefore inadvertently got the right address for Battlecrease as was [still with me at the back?], then I wonder how many more times he will manage to wriggle away from RJ and Orsam's clutches before they start to realise he was never in them?
Love,
Caz
XLast edited by caz; 02-07-2022, 05:27 PM."Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov
- Likes 1
Comment
Comment