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 caz View Post
    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.
    Are these silly exchanges getting us anywhere, Caz?

    How is this my 'latest theory'? I told you this exact 'theory' over 15 years ago in a private email and you passed it on to Keith Skinner. I think I still have our exchange somewhere in my email files. In 15 or 20 years, I still can find no reason why this is not the most rational explanation for Anne's participation in the Maybrick Hoax---maybe we'll know more after September 12th? If Jones thinks he has found the final coffin-nail, it can only be one of two things: a) a confirmed alibi for Maybrick; b) a confession by the still living hoaxer or a credible account by someone close to the hoaxer.

    And it wasn't only Shirley Harrison who was deceived for years by Anne Graham. There was an old poster by the name of Caz who 'for years' used to give great credence to her transparently ridiculous tale of seeing the diary as a young woman but telling no one about it and even hiding it from her own husband behind a cabinet only to give it to him through a third party.

    Now that same person is lecturing others about when and when not to find her account credible. Hard pass.

    RP

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      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?
      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.

      The facts about Druitts father an uncle were not the issuse tho, as ive explained .Your suggesting like i was saying it wasnt.
      '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
        And it wasn't only Shirley Harrison who was deceived for years by Anne Graham. There was an old poster by the name of Caz who 'for years' used to give great credence to her transparently ridiculous tale of seeing the diary as a young woman but telling no one about it and even hiding it from her own husband behind a cabinet only to give it to him through a third party.
        RP
        RJ,

        I think we all know that Caz is more than capable of answering for herself, but I think I can pre-empt at least one of her points which will surely be that Anne's provenance (which built on Mike's provenance via Tony) was the only horse in town provenancewise so we all either had to accept it or come up with some other more fanciful theory (or simply ignore it because the scrapbook was a hoax). Her story has only become "transparently ridiculous" since Mr. Skinner dug up his allotment one morning and found that timesheets had grown there instead of cabbages. When that information was published, we were all able to look back at Anne's tale and recognise that - relative to the new provenance we had acquired - it was weaker in a number of ways.

        The key to that last statement lies in the relative (weaker not simply weak).

        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 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.

          The facts about Druitts father an uncle were not the issuse tho, as ive explained .Your suggesting like i was saying it wasnt.
          And I never said or even implied that it did exclude him from getting it. That’s why I said that it was just a minor point.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

          “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

            Not quiet you what you originally asked tho was it ? , whiched i answered for you if youd like to go back and check .
            I won’t post after this one because the thread isn’t a Druitt thread - although I can’t help pointing out the it wasn’t me that first mentioned him.

            You said:

            .
            So in summing up, its not 100% absolute proof [rarely if anything is regarding JtR] he intended to take the kidney . But this makes a damm good case for it . Thus all along as ive said, suspects like Druitt , Maybrick ,Lechmere ,Hutchinson are for me not even in the starting blocks for being JrR
            As we can see you’re clearly talking about medical/anatomical knowledge and your lumping Druitt in with Maybrick, Lechmere and Hutchinson because of a lack of known anatomical knowledge - I assume that you accept this?

            Then I stated that, whilst we have no evidence of Druitt having anatomical knowledge, it would have been far less of an issue for him to have gained such knowledge for Druitt than it would have for other suspects like those mentioned. That’s all that I said.

            You strangely said:

            . Well i dont think you can state it as a fact , but anyway you will and have so there you go
            Even though what I’d said wasn’t an opinion. It was a fact. Druitt did have easier access to that knowledge than the others.

            I don’t know why you had to debate this minor point.

            Anyway, apologies to all for the tangent.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes

            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

            Comment


            • By the way, has anyone else noted how very liberal we are on this Maybrick-related thread regarding the one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the scrapbook?

              Here, you can talk about whatever you want (assuming it's not offensive, of course) and no-one will complain to Admin that you're off message.

              That's probably why it's universally known in my house as The Greatest Thread of All.

              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 Herlock Sholmes View Post
                I won’t post after this one because the thread isn’t a Druitt thread - although I can’t help pointing out the it wasn’t me that first mentioned him.
                Irony alert: I had just posted on the subject of how open our house is here!

                Fill your boots, Herlock, we are a tolerant bunch on this thread ...
                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 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?
                  I suppose in theory Walter Sickert could have studied anatomy as part of his artistic training.

                  As an artist of some renown he would probably have had the connections to enable him to attend an autopsy or whatever f he felt so inclined.

                  Merely idle speculation.

                  Agree that of the suspects named above Druitt had the easiest access to surgical knowledge.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                    Her story has only become "transparently ridiculous" since Mr. Skinner dug up his allotment one morning and found that timesheets had grown there instead of cabbages. When that information was published, we were all able to look back at Anne's tale and recognise that - relative to the new provenance we had acquired - it was weaker in a number of ways.

                    The key to that last statement lies in the relative (weaker not simply weak).
                    Some of us didn't need to 'look back,' Ike. We always knew it was bollocks.

                    Her tale was patently ridiculous when she first told it twenty-seven years ago.

                    A young woman--a teenager--finds the Diary of Jack the Ripper in her father's trunk. Yet, she's not particularly interested and doesn't tell anyone!

                    Gee, that's credible.

                    Years later, she now has ownership of the diary, but doesn't tell her husband--even in the best of times. Instead, she hides it behind the furniture. Why? 'Because it was evil.'

                    Sure thing.

                    Yet, despite the evilness of the thing, she eventually decides to give it to her husband so he can 'write a story.'

                    Instead of just handing it to him like any normal person would do, she instead wraps it in brown paper and gives it to him through a barfly that she apparently barely knows.

                    Why? So he won't endlessly hound her father--who later demonstrates that he had little or no memory of it, and could have simply told Mike as much in 30 seconds.

                    It's ridiculous from one end to the other, Ike. Her tall tale was obviously just an attempt to take the diary out of Barrett's hands when he started to blab.

                    And anyway, didn't you describe it as one of two 'excellent' provenances, and doesn't Keith still give it a certain amount of weight?

                    Personally, I find the last two paragraphs of Anne's 'confession' quite suggestive:


                    Click image for larger version

Name:	Anne's Last Paragraphs.JPG
Views:	244
Size:	16.1 KB
ID:	786525



                    She's barely disguising her motive. She basically has a good heart. The story is complete bosh, but she's handing these folks from London a new provenance on a plate because of all the chaos her husband's daft scheme has caused. She's also hoping to save her own skin, having been dragged into it by Barrett.

                    Seems like good ol' fashion guilt to me, Ike. She's trying to clean-up after Mike.


                    Comment


                    • Anyway, Ike, why waste each other's time? We clearly have no respect for each other's opinions, so there's little point in going over it again & again.

                      Let's see what Jones has to say in September--maybe he does have some new info worth considering.

                      We can then meet back and give it a once-over. Cheers.

                      Comment


                      • If Christer Holmgren or Ed Stow suddenly felt the need to declare they have been lifelong believers in the Kosminski theory (and of course, they wouldn't), I would be suspicious as hell that something was about to come down the pike.

                        But then, I'm a very suspicious person.


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                          Some of us didn't need to 'look back,' Ike. We always knew it was bollocks.
                          I don't think anyone could reasonably say that it was bollocks, RJ.

                          Her tale was patently ridiculous when she first told it twenty-seven years ago.
                          Again, I don't think people were universally dismissive either then nor indeed now.

                          A young woman--a teenager--finds the Diary of Jack the Ripper in her father's trunk. Yet, she's not particularly interested and doesn't tell anyone!

                          Gee, that's credible.

                          Years later, she now has ownership of the diary, but doesn't tell her husband--even in the best of times. Instead, she hides it behind the furniture. Why? 'Because it was evil.'

                          Sure thing.
                          These are not mutually-exclusive propositions, RJ. She could have genuinely had no interest in the diary of Jack the Ripper and still felt that it was evil.

                          Yet, despite the evilness of the thing, she eventually decides to give it to her husband so he can 'write a story.'
                          Granted, this is the weakest aspect of her tale.

                          Instead of just handing it to him like any normal person would do, she instead wraps it in brown paper and gives it to him through a barfly that she apparently barely knows.

                          Why? So he won't endlessly hound her father
                          This does seem to be a fair reason to me. Her father was very ill and she knew Mike well enough to know he wouldn't let it be until he knew all Billy knew.

                          --who later demonstrates that he had little or no memory of it, and could have simply told Mike as much in 30 seconds.
                          And yet Billy had a lot to say - a great deal more than thirty seconds' worth, so Anne called it right when she feared that Mike would have had reason to pester her very ill dad, something which she said she didn't want to risk.

                          Her tall tale was obviously just an attempt to take the diary out of Barrett's hands when he started to blab.
                          Absolutely. You and I could not agree more on this point if we tried. That is because I accept that her story is weaker than the Battlecrease one, but it is still a possible (if not entirely plausible) enough tale. Ultimately, I believe - like you - that she made it up in "an attempt to take the diary out of Barrett's hands when he started to blab". That's because I believe that she knew Mike had received it as stolen goods and that he most certainly had no involvement in its creation.

                          And anyway, didn't you describe it as one of two 'excellent' provenances, and doesn't Keith still give it a certain amount of weight?
                          I have no doubt that I will distinguish between the relative strengths of the two provenances with more discerning language when I compile my brilliant 2025 version of the brilliant Society's Pillar, RJ (feedback is a gift, young man, and I am happy to receive it). On your other point, I think I'm right in saying that Keith accepts - as I accept - that it is a possible account (if not - in retrospect - as plausible an account as the Battlecrease one). If he disagrees (and reads this), I'm sure he'll send me a howler and sue the sorry ass off me.

                          She's barely disguising her motive. She basically has a good heart. The story is complete bosh, but she's handing these folks from London a new provenance on a plate because of all the chaos her husband's daft scheme has caused.
                          As I say, you and I could not agree more on this if we tried.

                          She's also hoping to save her own skin, having been dragged into it by Barrett.
                          Objection, Your Honour, calls for speculation.

                          Seems like good ol' fashion guilt to me, Ike.
                          I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous answer.

                          She's trying to clean-up after Mike.
                          Yes indeed, we agree again. She feels responsible for him because he was her husband and so she feels the need to clear up after the mess he made which itself stemmed from her leaving him and taking his precious Caroline with her.

                          It's ironic that your highly-dismissive post was so productive in helping our dear readers understand what actually happened, isn't it, RJ, Old Fellow?

                          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 rjpalmer View Post
                            Anyway, Ike, why waste each other's time? We clearly have no respect for each other's opinions, so there's little point in going over it again & again.

                            Let's see what Jones has to say in September--maybe he does have some new info worth considering.

                            We can then meet back and give it a once-over. Cheers.
                            Come come now, RJ, you know you'll miss the rough and tumble over the summer. I'll bet you're back before ... ooh ... I post this?

                            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


                            • You let me down ...
                              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
                                And yet Billy had a lot to say - a great deal more than thirty seconds' worth, so Anne called it right when she feared that Mike would have had reason to pester her very ill dad, something which she said she didn't want to risk.
                                I read it differently, Ike.

                                Billy had NOTHING to say about the diary. He vaguely recalled seeing a book--how did he know it was the diary?--in an old tin trunk in the 1940s. Billy admitted that he 'took no notice.' It could have been anything.


                                You seem to be conflating Feldman's genealogical fantasies with what Mike Barrett might have asked. And Barrett wouldn't have asked anything more than a question or two because Anne Graham said she thought Feldman's theories were nuts. Billy could have given Barrett the story in 15 seconds--and in, reality, he had no story to tell.

                                Instead, she hauls in complete strangers to quiz her dying father--TWICE?

                                How is that consistent with her not wanting her father to be pestered?

                                You're being fed a banquet of bull pucky. It's not the least bit credible.

                                The rest of Billy's startling information was nothing more than Feldman asking leading questions under the bizarre belief that Graham was actually a Maybrick. Of course, Feldman also believed the Johnsons were secret Maybricks--a belief that allowed him to dismiss the "fibs" they had told him. They weren't Maybricks...so why the fibs?

                                Good grief, Old Man, don't go down fighting. September is less than four months away. Lick your wounds, rest up, and wait to see what transpires. If it's damning, you can then steal away quietly in the night and come back as Soothsayer or some other nom de plume and plump for the Druitt theory.




                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X