One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Omlor]

Tom,

Here's where I have a problem.

"The reference to 'Sir Jim' (actually, 'Sir James')...

You come here and make a claim like someone used to refer to the real James as "Sir Jim" just like it says in the diary.

I say no, no one has ever found any record of anyone ever calling the real James "Sir Jim."

You say yes they have and I must be stupid for not knowing that.

I say no they haven't. You are wrong.

You then come back with a line like the one I quoted above.

Obviously you checked the source, saw that I was right and that you were wrong and then changed the goalposts.

There are only two possible explanations for this. Either you are being deliberately intellectually dishonest or you are being simply lazy.

Either way, there's no way I can have a productive discussion with someone who is willing to behave is such a misleading manner simply out of their own desire.

You have already admitted here that you believe the diary is a fake, after I pointed out to you that whoever wrote it was obviously looking at the official police list -- something the real James was certainly not doing.

The rest, therefore, seems to be simply trolling.

And that's why I have no time for it.

Thanks anyway,

--John

[Tom Mitchell]

Tom,

Here's where I have a problem.

"The reference to 'Sir Jim' (actually, 'Sir James')...

You come here and make a claim like someone used to refer to the real James as "Sir Jim" just like it says in the diary.

I say no, no one has ever found any record of anyone ever calling the real James "Sir Jim."

You say yes they have and I must be stupid for not knowing that.

I say no they haven't. You are wrong.

You then come back with a line like the one I quoted above.

Obviously you checked the source, saw that I was right and that you were wrong and then changed the goalposts.

There are only two possible explanations for this. Either you are being deliberately intellectually dishonest or you are being simply lazy.

Either way, there's no way I can have a productive discussion with someone who is willing to behave is such a misleading manner simply out of their own desire.

You have already admitted here that you believe the diary is a fake, after I pointed out to you that whoever wrote it was obviously looking at the official police list -- something the real James was certainly not doing.

The rest, therefore, seems to be simply trolling.

And that's why I have no time for it.

Thanks anyway,

--John

John,

The reference to Sir Jim was most definitely about James Maybrick.

I definitely backed up my claim with a real page in a real book.

I do feel you ought to back up your claims about the Ryan book before you cease this thread. To not do so is open to unfortunate misinterpretation.

Cheers,

Tom

[Omlor]

Tom,

Please re-read my post above. There is no reference to "Sir Jim" by anyone anywhere. You have yet to offer one. Unless and until you do, this discussion proves only that your scholarship habits (or your intellectual honesty) are in serious need of reform.

And until you understand this, we're done.

--John

[Tom Mitchell]

Tom,

Please re-read my post above. There is no reference to "Sir Jim" by anyone anywhere. You have yet to offer one. Unless and until you do, this discussion proves only that your scholarship habits (or your intellectual honesty) are in serious need of reform.

And until you understand this, we're done.

--John

Hi John,

Two things:

1) The reference to 'Sir Jim' (actually, 'Sir James') which doesn't exist can be found on Page 107 of Feldman (paperback), where a quotation is given from the Aunspaugh correspondnce: "She [Nurse Alice Yapp] did not see why Sir James (Mr Maybrick) ever brought me there any way". Maybrick wasn't a Knight of the Realm, so why on earth would she refer to him as that unless it was common use within the household?

This was posted by me earlier today (clock says 4.57pm, but it wasn't).

2) I'm a little surprised you earlier said that I called you stupid. I honestly don't think I used that word or any other word of that ilk. I don't think that has been my style at all, has it? A bit tongue-in-cheek perhaps, but I hope no worse than that.

Just a list of page numbers in the Ryan paperback, please, and I'm happy to do the rest.

Cheers,

Tom

[Omlor]

Tom,

Are you now deliberately missing the point?

I'll make one last attempt.

I said no one has ever found anything that refers to the real James as "Sir Jim."

You said they had.

I again said they hadn't.

You offered a citation where someone refers to him as "Sir James."

Do you not really understand why I object to this sort of intellectual sloppiness?

Or were you just hoping I wouldn't notice that you could not admit that I was right all along and that you were wrong?

No, clearly you are being deliberately dense.

This is a waste of time.

--John

PS: And just as an example, I don't even have to go dig out my Ryan to remember the passage where Gladys wakes up screaming in the middle of the night and Florrie is upset with her hired help and rushes to care for the child. Now I am going off to do other more productive things. You have already acknowledged the book is a fake and that the citations from the police list have proven that. So I'm not sure why you are still trolling here. But I have humored your inconsistencies and bad habits as long as I could. I suspect I am now being played. I don't like that. The thread is yours.

[Tom Mitchell]

Erm ... moving on rapidly ... who, like I, thinks the 'F' and the 'M' on Mary Kelly's wall are indisputable proof of the diary's authenticity?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

Not me.

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

who, like I, thinks the 'F' and the 'M' on Mary Kelly's wall are indisputable proof of the diary's authenticity?

It's not even proof of an "F" and an "M" on the wall, Tom.

[DVV]

Can such things be?
(Ambrose Bierce)

[auspirograph]

...have already acknowledged the book is a fake and that the citations from the police list have proven that.

Quite right John, and when 'diary' believers can cite one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which authenticates the Diary as either Maybrick's memoirs, the diary of Jack the Ripper or of significance as a source document on the historic Whitechapel murders, then the cows may go home.

Why not test it using the latest modern scientific techniques in search of a solitary fact, if it's that important, to prove its authenticty and significance rather than this Victorian melodrama to pass the time...

It cannot by now be accepted by most that the 'diary is anything but a hoax. Get over it, "put me out of my misery", Tom speaks for diary diehard believers and all purveyors of questioned documents and their commentaries.

Thank you

[Tom Mitchell]

Quite right John, and when 'diary' believers can cite one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which authenticates the Diary as either Maybrick's memoirs, the diary of Jack the Ripper or of significance as a source document on the historic Whitechapel murders, then the cows may go home.

Why not test it using the latest modern scientific techniques in search of a solitary fact, if it's that important, to prove its authenticty and significance rather than this Victorian melodrama to pass the time...

It cannot by now be accepted by most that the 'diary is anything but a hoax. Get over it, "put me out of my misery", Tom speaks for diary diehard believers and all purveyors of questioned documents and their commentaries.

Thank you

Do I take it that's a 'No', then, Auspirograph?

[Tom Mitchell]

Hi Tom,

Not me.

Regards,

Simon

Simon,

You didn't answer my question from ages ago (yesterday?): are you the guy who first commented on the letters on the wall back in 1988?

If you were, which letters?

Cheers,

Tom

[auspirograph]

No Tom, it's an unequivocal no!

[Tom Mitchell]

No Tom, it's an unequivocal no!

Love the name, though.

I'm going to re-register tomorrow with a Great Name.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

Yes, I am the person who in 1988 first commented on the letters on the wall.

I discussed my 'find' with a number of Ripper luminaries at the time, but as I recall none of us could decipher the letters, let alone fit them to a suspect.

And that, as far as I was concerned, was that.

Who'da guessed it would lead to all these shenanigans?

Regards,

Simon