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

    Jesus.

    It was Anne herself who said she wanted Mike to write 'a story' about Maybrick as the Ripper.

    Anne herself!
    But this was after the diary came into their home, via Mike, so it would have been Anne's advice to him not to try and publish the physical book, but to write a story based on what was in it. How can you not grasp this was what I meant? I've explained it umpteen times! Jesus back at you.

    By the way, Shirley's discussion of Anne's 'horror' at her divorce can be found on page 280 of the "American Connection."

    It's unclear to me why you think Harrison was lying about it.
    This is so fatuous. You wouldn't believe a word Anne said, would you? Even Shirley wrote that she had not 'enjoyed' questioning Anne's honesty, but she was recording what Anne told her. Why would Shirley have been lying, when writing that Anne told her the concept of divorce was "horrific" to her as a Catholic?

    I'm not sure what any of this has to do with your theory that by 13th April 1992 Anne had found herself up to her neck in deceit, fakery and fraud, but just stayed in the background saying nothing for the next two years. By July 1994, Anne had not only embraced the "horrific" concept of divorce, but added another sinful string to her bow, by lying through her teeth about the diary's true origins.

    I have no concept of how a Catholic would rate their deadly sins on a scale of one to ten. I'd ask Jacob Rees-Mogg if he had more than two brain cells. But if divorce as a concept, prior to 1994, was "horrific" to Anne, I wonder what adjective one would use to describe what you have accused her of doing from March 1992, to cover up her husband's fraud and her own participation.

    If you recall, you accused Anne of lying about her knowledge and involvement in Mike's effort to obtain a Victorian diary in which to transfer her 'novella'. Do you now think she may not have known about this after all, until she handed a cheque to Mike in May 1992, who was being chased by Martin Earl? I'm still struggling with the concept of Anne helping to create what she knew to be a fake, which Mike planned to pass off as genuine. If she was hoping Doreen would take one look and send him packing, was it beyond her to make sure of it, and salve her Catholic conscience, by including in the text, for example, a few deliberate, but 'incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable' anachronisms?
    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


    Comment


    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

      Hi Ike,

      Are you claiming, then, that Hutchinson and Lechmere would not have had access to anatomical museums?

      And if it could be demonstrated to you that they had, would you acknowledge that they too ‘may have inadvertantly gained an understanding of the locations and appearance of the various human viscera’?

      Gazza
      Hey Gazza,

      I think - in the interests of maintaining the high value you all place on my integrity, wit, handsomeness, and genius - I would have to agree with you that they could and that I therefore would (assuming that you were in truth asserting it rather than actually asking it).

      Interesting sidebar, Keith Skinner has pointed-out to me that, and I quote, "Montague John Druitt's father, William Druitt, had been Wimborne's leading surgeon until his death in 1876. Plus his uncle, Robert Druitt was a doctor with his practice in London - Strathmore Gardens if I remember correctly. There is also his cousin, Lionel Druitt..." which I took to mean he thinks young Monty may have played with knives as it were, a thought firmly cemented by Keith's reminder to me that he is a Druittist at heart (weird outfits and Ride a White Swan on repeat and what have you?) and therefore a Barrett disbeliever, but not - as I agree with him he is frequently assumed to be - a Maybrickian (so he won't be jumping up with me in Liverpool on September 11 except to pull me back down to spare my blushes at my indecent rush to judgement - if only Keith had been sitting next to Harris all those years ago, eh?).

      Ike
      Iconoclast
      Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
      Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox
      Author of the even more brillianter Society's Pillar 2025 (available in all good browsers soon-ish)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

        But on what basis do you think Hutchinson more likely to have done so than Lechmere?
        Not much is known of the ''life'' of Hutchinson, his movements, where abouts before the murders , so again possibly, but not much between them. Only the unknown for me with Hutch.

        Having said that , all 4 remain Still very poor suspects for JtR . In fact, and dare i say it but i think Trevors phase about ''Old Excepted Theories'' could do with some tweeking. It should read ''Old Excepted Suspects'' starting with these 4 that should be removed from the casebook list of suspects. They been done to death [pardon the pun] with nothing to show for it except piles and miles of circumstancial evidence and bogus diaries and silly watch carving.
        'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          How could it be the same as Druitt? Maybrick had absolutely no connection to medicine or the medical profession. All that I’m saying is that if you wrote a tick box list, noting all the attributes that you ‘might’ apply to the ripper and one of them was ‘medical/anatomical knowledge’ then Druitt, Lechmere, Hutchinson, Sickert, Bury etc would all score zero because we have no evidence of any of them having such knowledge. Obviously the Doctors like Gull would get a tick.

          But if we asked, who of the non-Medical men (who didn’t get a tick) would have been likeliest to have gained at least some medical/anatomical knowledge then Druitt just has to be placed above those others on the basis that his Father was a surgeon/Doctor, that his Uncle wrote a highly regarded Surgery textbook and that his family home would have been chock full of books on medicine. I’m not claiming that this strengthens Druitt as a suspect Fishy. And I’m certainly not saying that he did have anatomical knowledge, I’m just saying that he was likelier to have gained anatomical knowledge that Lechmere, Hutchinson, Sickert, Bury etc. Surely you can concede this minor and very obvious point?
          Sure, but just because Maybrick didnt have the ascess to medical knowledge as easily as druitt, that doesnt exclude him from obtaining it tho does it ?

          But if you wish to elevate druitt above hutchinson based on your points , then ok ill concur.
          Last edited by FISHY1118; 05-26-2022, 11:33 AM.
          'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

            Of course, Caz, I fully realize that you never said that Harrison was lying--instead, you cast doubt on why I (or anyone else?) should believe Harrison's highly believable account.

            Can you see how annoying it is when someone changes the meaning of words?
            Shirley's 'highly believable' account was fed to her by Anne Graham. That's why doubt ought to be cast on it. RJ is in no position to trust Anne's word when it suits, considering his latest theory still relies on her having been eminently capable of deceiving Shirley for years over her own part in the diary's creation.

            This is such basic stuff, I think RJ must have finally lost the plot.

            Love,

            Caz
            X

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


            Comment


            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

              Not much is known of the ''life'' of Hutchinson, his movements, where abouts before the murders , so again possibly, but not much between them. Only the unknown for me with Hutch.

              Having said that , all 4 remain Still very poor suspects for JtR . In fact, and dare i say it but i think Trevors phase about ''Old Excepted Theories'' could do with some tweeking. It should read ''Old Excepted Suspects'' starting with these 4 that should be removed from the casebook list of suspects. They been done to death [pardon the pun] with nothing to show for it except piles and miles of circumstancial evidence and bogus diaries and silly watch carving.
              Ah, I see now.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                They been done to death [pardon the pun] with nothing to show for it except piles and miles of circumstancial evidence and bogus diaries and silly watch carving.
                Crikey, I hadn't realised that the Maybrick candidature actually had evidence to back it up! Now I'm 100% certain he was our man.

                Where I'm struggling is why anyone would favour a name (you just can't call them a 'candidate') who has zero evidential case against them over a candidate with so much of it!
                Iconoclast
                Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox
                Author of the even more brillianter Society's Pillar 2025 (available in all good browsers soon-ish)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                  Crikey, I hadn't realised that the Maybrick candidature actually had evidence to back it up! Now I'm 100% certain he was our man.

                  Where I'm struggling is why anyone would favour a name (you just can't call them a 'candidate') who has zero evidential case against them over a candidate with so much of it!
                  You misinterpret ole boy ,thats ok it happens .
                  'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                    Sure, but just because Maybrick didnt have the ascess to medical knowledge as easily as druitt, that doesnt exclude him from obtaining it tho does it ?

                    But if you wish to elevate druitt above hutchinson based on your points , then ok ill concur.
                    Im not ‘trying’ to elevate Druitt above anyone Fishy (it doesn’t really strengthen or weaken any case), I’m simply stating a fact. Of the non-medical men suspects it’s would have been easier and more likely for Druitt to have acquired anatomical knowledge than the others.

                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                      Not much is known of the ''life'' of Hutchinson, his movements, where abouts before the murders , so again possibly, but not much between them. Only the unknown for me with Hutch.

                      Having said that , all 4 remain Still very poor suspects for JtR . In fact, and dare i say it but i think Trevors phase about ''Old Excepted Theories'' could do with some tweeking. It should read ''Old Excepted Suspects'' starting with these 4 that should be removed from the casebook list of suspects. They been done to death [pardon the pun] with nothing to show for it except piles and miles of circumstancial evidence and bogus diaries and silly watch carving.
                      Or being mentioned as a suspect, in writing, by the Chief Constable of the Metropolitan Police plus other senior Police officers. Why do we have to keep reiterating this point? Yes we can ask questions of MacNaghten, yes we can express doubts, but it’s nothing short of bizarre that an attempt can be made simply to redact Druitt from any list of suspects. Why do you feel so threatened by Druitt as a suspect Fishy? You try to dismiss him whilst supporting a theory that’s dismissed by everyone and their dogs. A bit of balance is needed and less personal bias.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        Im not ‘trying’ to elevate Druitt above anyone Fishy (it doesn’t really strengthen or weaken any case), I’m simply stating a fact. Of the non-medical men suspects it’s would have been easier and more likely for Druitt to have acquired anatomical knowledge than the others.
                        Well i dont think you can state it as a fact , but anyway you will and have so there you go .
                        'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Or being mentioned as a suspect, in writing, by the Chief Constable of the Metropolitan Police plus other senior Police officers. Why do we have to keep reiterating this point? Yes we can ask questions of MacNaghten, yes we can express doubts, but it’s nothing short of bizarre that an attempt can be made simply to redact Druitt from any list of suspects. Why do you feel so threatened by Druitt as a suspect Fishy? You try to dismiss him whilst supporting a theory that’s dismissed by everyone and their dogs. A bit of balance is needed and less personal bias.
                          Oh dear ,your at it again , you keep mentioning a theory that has nothing to do with what i posted just to get a bite from me , but it wont work . so lets just stick to this topic which you insist on not letting me express my opinion on , which if i like ill have it as many times as i wish ,.

                          So are we going to go round and around and around again for weeks like befor ? because it seems like you want to do it all again
                          'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                            Well i dont think you can state it as a fact , but anyway you will and have so there you go .
                            But it is a fact that Druitt’s father was a surgeon/Doctor. And it’s a fact that he would have grown up surrounded by medical books. So it is a fact that it would have been very easy for Druitt (unlike others) to have gained anatomical/medical knowledge.

                            Im not stating that he did gain anatomical knowledge, as a fact because we have no evidence for this.

                            But I am stating that it would have been easier for Druitt to have gained that knowledge than for the other non-medical suspects and that it wouldn’t have been any stretch of the imagination that, in his younger days, his father might have encouraged him to follow his footsteps into medicine and so tried to get him interested.

                            Surely this can’t be taken as in any way controversial or an attempt to add weight to Druitt’s candidacy?
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                              Oh dear ,your at it again , you keep mentioning a theory that has nothing to do with what i posted just to get a bite from me , but it wont work . so lets just stick to this topic which you insist on not letting me express my opinion on , which if i like ill have it as many times as i wish ,.

                              So are we going to go round and around and around again for weeks like befor ? because it seems like you want to do it all again
                              I made the simplest of points about anatomical/medical knowledge. A point that shouldn’t have been controversial in any way. It was a point so very obvious that I assumed that no one would even bother questioning it. But you are so determined to dismiss Druitt you couldn’t even bring yourself to accept something that’s beyond argument. If I said “Druitt was a man,” I’m almost convinced that you’d question this.

                              It was a simple, inoffensive and very minor point. The correct response would have been “fair enough, that’s true,” because it is true. But you couldn’t manage even that.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                I made the simplest of points about anatomical/medical knowledge. A point that shouldn’t have been controversial in any way. It was a point so very obvious that I assumed that no one would even bother questioning it. But you are so determined to dismiss Druitt you couldn’t even bring yourself to accept something that’s beyond argument. If I said “Druitt was a man,” I’m almost convinced that you’d question this.

                                It was a simple, inoffensive and very minor point. The correct response would have been “fair enough, that’s true,” because it is true. But you couldn’t manage even that.
                                Not quiet you what you originally asked tho was it ? , whiched i answered for you if youd like to go back and check .
                                'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X