One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Tom Mitchell]

Thanks for the clarification, Tom.

The question begged though; would the diarist have homed in on the whole May reference if there was no letter from Florrie? I'd say yes; the punch cartoon provides more than enough "ammunition" in that regard, thus rendering the letter wholly incidental to the "May" references that appear in the diary.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

Regards,
Ben

No, my mileage doesn't vary, Ben. I imagine that the forger must have been beside himself with glee when he spotted the Punch cartoon - it was just so perfect for him (or her)!

I think Florie's use of 'May' in a letter was intriguing, but far from a dramatic confirmation of diary authenticity. Intriguing, tantalising, but like so much about this diary, too close to coincidence to mean too much.

If I had a Strong, Medium, and Weak pile for evidence in favour of the diary, the letter from Florie would be firmly on the Weak pile, as I assume it would be for you too (if it was on a pile at all).

Cheers,

Tom

[Sam Flynn]

I think Florie's use of 'May' in a letter was intriguing, but far from a dramatic confirmation of diary authenticity. Intriguing, tantalising, but like so much about this diary, too close to coincidence to mean too much.

I've offered an explanation for that already, Tom. See above.

[Graham]

I just read Ron Beckett's post - I thought I was putting my **** on the block when I tentatively, carefully, shyly, hesitatingly suggested that the Diary might, just might, against all the odds, the remotest of possibilities, be an old forgery.

My faith in human nature is (partially) restored!

Cheers,

Graham.

[Ally]

Tom,

As you have already conceded the diary is a fraud, what are you still here arguing for? If your sole point was your ludicrous statement that there was a "cacophony of agreement" that you were right regarding the "one incontrovertible piece of proof" I have some more for you if such childish antics are your game. Create a thread saying "the Sky is blue", one, "the earth is a sphere" and other such idiotic pronouncements that will surely result in a "cacophony" of agreement.

The reason there have been more views than posts is that people consider this topic too idiotic to bother with, except to watch the never ending progression of morons arguing it get smacked down.

[Tom Mitchell]

Tom,

As you have already conceded the diary is a fraud, what are you still here arguing for? If your sole point was your ludicrous statement that there was a "cacophony of agreement" that you were right regarding the "one incontrovertible piece of proof" I have some more for you if such childish antics are your game. Create a thread saying "the Sky is blue", one, "the earth is a sphere" and other such idiotic pronouncements that will surely result in a "cacophony" of agreement.

The reason there have been more views than posts is that people consider this topic too idiotic to bother with, except to watch the never ending progression of morons arguing it get smacked down.

Ally, come on, stop sitting on the fence - say what you mean, man ...

[Tom Mitchell]

I just read Ron Beckett's post - I thought I was putting my **** on the block when I tentatively, carefully, shyly, hesitatingly suggested that the Diary might, just might, against all the odds, the remotest of possibilities, be an old forgery.

My faith in human nature is (partially) restored!

Cheers,

Graham.

Don't worry, Graham, I've got you both covered ...

[Tom Mitchell]

I've offered an explanation for that already, Tom. See above.

Sorry Sam, remember, you are dealing with the 'feeble-minded' here. Could you remind me what you said 'above', please?

Was it complimentary?

[Tom Mitchell]

Tom,

As you have already conceded the diary is a fraud, what are you still here arguing for?

Ally,

I have conceded that that diary is a fraud in exactly the same way as you have agreed with me that I am right about there being no incontrovertible fact proving the diary a fraud.

Cheers,

Tom

[Graham]

Don't worry, Graham, I've got you both covered ...

Stop it, Tom. I scare easily...

Graham

[Sam Flynn]

Sorry Sam, remember, you are dealing with the 'feeble-minded' here. Could you remind me what you said 'above', please?

Reproduced below, Tom - with relevant nested quote from Dan Norder for context.

"Elvis is still alive and playing a poker game with Bigfoot and Jimmy Hoffa at this very moment") is "flawless".

...or, "Elv is still alive and playing pkr with Bgft and Hof at this very moment" - to adopt the rather common practice of abbreviating wrds and personal Ns in corres. If "Flo" wrt to "Alfd" about "May" we shouldn't be particularly surprised, and it doesn't definitively prove that the latter was familiarly known as "May".

In short, the fact that Florence used "May" to refer to her husband in a letter need hardly be as significant as one might think.

[Ally]

So you admit the diary is a fraud. Why are you still here arguing when you know it's a fake? Or do you concede defeat until you get a friend then suddenly change your mind again? Are you that lacking in conviction that you can't hold a position for more than 2 hours?

[Tom Mitchell]

Are you that lacking in conviction that you can't hold a position for more than 2 hours?

Ally,

Have you been talking to my wife?

Cheers,

Tom

[Tom Mitchell]

In short, the fact that Florence used "May" to refer to her husband in a letter need hardly be as significant as one might think.

I actually agree, Sam - and I think I more or less say so in a reply to Ben.

It's not totally void of significance, but I wouldn't be building a case for Maybrick on this alone.

Cheers,

Tom

[Tom Mitchell]

So you admit the diary is a fraud. Why are you still here arguing when you know it's a fake? Or do you concede defeat until you get a friend then suddenly change your mind again? Are you that lacking in conviction that you can't hold a position for more than 2 hours?

Yes, I'm truly that shallow and fickle.

Cheers,

Tom

[Ally]

Would she have anything to say about your apparent inability to go right from the start and instead take two tries at every reply? Most men do manage to get the job done the first time without having to come back and try again later.
Is the problem just being quick on the draw and after the first premature response, you come back hopefully with more conviction?