One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Harry D]

Still waiting for an incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact that proves the diary, but hey ho.

[Iconoclast]

If you'd actually bothered to follow what was going on, you'd see that you claimed I was 9 years late to the thread, to which I responded that I was well acquainted with both the thread and the case for many years because I live right next to the road. If you can quote any part of my post which says I have an advantage for living close, then go ahead and post it, or merely continue to just make nonsensical assumptions, Iconoclast. It's no skin off my nose, I'm well aware of the severe lack of maturity around here, despite the age of most posters!

I was more poking fun at the fact that you semed determined that we should know you happen to live vaguely close to where Maybrick lived. Just 130 years apart is all - wow!

Your post was always going to be self-mocking anyway without you even realising it (and without the desperate need to tell us how close you live to Battlecrease House - just 4 minutes, I'm guessing?). We are very very used to people coming onto the Casebook and citing these Big Ticket failings as though somehow they were the first to spot them and the rest of us simply hadn't noticed them. And they flourish these big tickets around like they were for the Royal Enclosure at Ascot, but can't sell them because we've had so many waved before us before.

And then they get quickly self-absorbed and affronted along these lines: "I posed a question and no-one answered it - they must be runing scared of the brilliant insight I've just added to the case". I think you probably by now see where I'm going with this. You read a few posts at the start, maybe in the middle, then some at the end and thought you'd cracked the case and that we should know about it.

For us, it's just the Groundhog Day of the new poster.

Welcome, but pipe down a wee bit. Most of us have been here a very long time, are very old, and are trying to have a kip ...

Mr O'Noclast to You, Sonny Jim

[Iconoclast]

Still waiting for an incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact that proves the diary, but hey ho.

You'd be on the wrong thread for that, Harry?

Just saying is all.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Next time you're in the city, take a look at the mural in Aigburth Vale, and notice the distinct lack of any mention of JtR. Nobody here is daft enough to believe in such a silly thing as a Diary of Jack the Ripper.

Honestly, we hear you. Living close to the place Maybrick lived 130 years ago gives you an edge. We get it, honestly.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Well I'll be attending the Marriot hotel Ripper conferences in September in Liverpool if you'd like to come and verify my tracksuit and perm. I'll have a natter with you over a pint, plenty of nice pubs here.

I'm always astounded at how the most outgoing characters on forums such as this seem to be the most quiet in person.

Crikey, calm down, calm down! How to confirm a national stereotype in one sentence!

[Mike J. G.]

I was more poking fun at the fact that you semed determined that we should know you happen to live vaguely close to where Maybrick lived. Just 130 years apart is all - wow!

You seem to have forgotten the fact that you claimed I was late to the thread, to which I responded that I was well-acquainted with both the thread and the case due to the fact that I live right next to the street and have heard the stories since I was young. You, and only you, are making that simple comment into something that it was not designed to be, and that's very interesting, because you obviously knew what I meant, yet you're still making the same fraudulent claim. It's just funny to me to see such odd behaviour from people of an age where they really ought to know better.

Your post was always going to be self-mocking anyway without you even realising it (and without the desperate need to tell us how close you live to Battlecrease House - just 4 minutes, I'm guessing?. We are very very used to people coming onto the Casebook and citing these Big Ticket failings as though somehow they were the first to spot them and the rest of us simply hadn't noticed them. And they flourish these big tickets around like they were for the Royal Enclosure at Ascot, but can't sell them because we've had so many waved before us before.

And then they get quickly self-absorbed and affronted along these lines: "I posed a question and no-one answered it - they must be runing scared of the brilliant insight I've just added to the case". I think you probably by now see where I'm going with this. You read a few posts at the start, maybe in the middle, then some at the end and thought you'd cracked the case and that we should know about it.

For us, it's just the Groundhog Day of the new poster.

Welcome, but pipe down a wee bit. Most of us have been here a very long time, are very old, and are trying to have a kip ...

Mr O'Noclast to You, Sonny Jim

You basically just posted several paragraphs which continue the same odd lies about me having posted my whereabouts, lol. Guy claims other guy is late to thread, other guy says he's well aware of the thread and the tale due to him living in the same area, guy makes a lie up about other guy claiming an advantage due to his address, other guy is puzzled by this and explains 3 times what he means, guy continues with the same baseless lie.

You've not only told me that you weren't going to read my posts, only to then continue to read and reply, but you've also posted the same weird accusation several times, all the while ignoring every bit of Maybrick-related information I've posted.

Hey, if you have a book to sell, I don't want to rain on your parade, old chap!

[Mike J. G.]

Crikey, calm down, calm down! How to confirm a national stereotype in one sentence!

Calm down? For inviting you for a drink at a Ripper conference? lol.

I put less stock into national stereotypes than I do in the Maybrick/Ripper case!

[Iconoclast]

Hey, if you have a book to sell, I don't want to rain on your parade, old chap!

I do have a book to sell and I'm thinking of calling it "How to Solve Crimes by Moving Nearer to Them". My editor tells me that it's the worst idea ever, but I'm not convinced. The way you cracked the Maybrick forgery by living next door tells me all I need to know about my potential market.

Looks like I'll not be going short of cocoa during my long retirement and utter dotage.

Ike

[Mike J. G.]

Still waiting for an incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact that proves the diary, but hey ho.

You'd have more chance of spotting Bigfoot on the Spire of SFX church doing a Spring-Heeled Jack routine, Harry!

[Mike J. G.]

I do have a book to sell and I'm thinking of calling it "How to Solve Crimes by Moving Nearer to Them". My editor tells me that it's the worst idea ever, but I'm not convinced. The way you cracked the Maybrick forgery by living next door tells me all I need to know about my potential market.

Looks like I'll not be going short of cocoa during my long retirement and utter dotage.

Ike

Hey, when in doubt, just keep repeating the same tired lies. It certainly seems a good way for a fella like you to spend his Saturday afternoon!

If you'd actually like to address any of the stuff I posted re: Maybrick, then you give me a shout.

[Iconoclast]

Hey, when in doubt, just keep repeating the same tired lies. It certainly seems a good way for a fella like you to spend his Saturday afternoon!

If you'd actually like to address any of the stuff I posted re: Maybrick, then you give me a shout.

Oi (is that loud enough?).

Could you please provide us with one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the diary, please? (And not one that can't actually be proven - Mr Orsam, before you start.)

PS Be quick - I'm off down the derby and joan for some stoat (plus I've got all my own teeth, you know).

Your drinking pal, Ike

[Mike J. G.]

Excerpts from The Fabulous National, pg.81 Liverpool Soundings, by Richard Whittington-Egan:

The year 1841 is noteworthy in that the race was won for the first time by a mare, the valiant "Charity." Since then, only a dozen other "remarkable ladies"
have finished first in this most arduous of races...

"Frigate" (1889)

It is interesting to recall in passing that it was in the year of "Frigate's" win that Mrs. Maybrick and her husband had a quarrel upon the Aintree course which was among the first causes of the murder for which she later stood trial and which became Liverpool's criminal cause celebre of 1889.


There is much mention in this chapter about the various record-times for many of the winning horses.

This chapter is interesting because in the OP, much is made of these "rare details" mentioned in the diary, of which, the national winner for 1889 was included.

Odd that those details can be found in a book authored by a well-respected Liverpool writer who also wrote about Maybrick's murder, and also more notably, Jack the Ripper.

[Mike J. G.]

Oi (is that loud enough?).

Could you please provide us with one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the diary, please? (And not one that can't actually be proven - Mr Orsam, before you start.)

PS Be quick - I'm off down the derby and joan for some stoat (plus I've got all my own teeth, you know).

Your drinking pal, Ike

As most level-headed people should be aware, one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact is a mere fallacy. This isn't how things are done in the real world.

I can present many undeniable reasons for why the diary is an obvious fake, but when you move the goal-posts around a bit, it gets difficult to keep scoring points in favour a hoax.

This is the same with God, aliens, Bigfoot, the Chupacabra, Jim Davidson, and many other debatable figures.

[Iconoclast]

Excerpts from The Fabulous National, pg.81 Liverpool Soundings, by Richard Whittington-Egan:

The year 1841 is noteworthy in that the race was won for the first time by a mare, the valiant "Charity." Since then, only a dozen other "remarkable ladies"
have finished first in this most arduous of races...

"Frigate" (1889)

It is interesting to recall in passing that it was in the year of "Frigate's" win that Mrs. Maybrick and her husband had a quarrel upon the Aintree course which was among the first causes of the murder for which she later stood trial and which became Liverpool's criminal cause celebre of 1889.


There is much mention in this chapter about the various record-times for many of the winning horses.

This chapter is interesting because in the OP, much is made of these "rare details" mentioned in the diary, of which, the national winner for 1889 was included.

Odd that those details can be found in a book authored by a well-respected Liverpool writer who also wrote about Maybrick's murder, and also more notably, Jack the Ripper.

We know all this, Mike. The OP was nine long years ago so all that Frigate was a fast 'un malarky was long-since noted.

The OP is less ill-observed as the book (Harrison I) upon which the comment rested. The fact that some of the Frigate-related chat was out there in a few books is no longer one to shake the tree here, I'm afraid.

But tell me, just so that I'm reassured, what exactly W-E said about the record-times. He gets mentioned 'round these parts a few times, but he's been playing a fairly minor role in all this drama. I haven't even got a copy of "Murder, Mystery, and Moving Next Door to Them" so I can't check this for myself, I'm afraid.

Plus, I'm rather forgetful these days ...

[Iconoclast]

Oi (is that loud enough?).

Could you please provide us with one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the diary, please? (And not one that can't actually be proven - Mr Orsam, before you start.)

PS Be quick - I'm off down the derby and joan for some stoat (plus I've got all my own teeth, you know).

Your drinking pal, Ike

Erm ... I think stoat is an animal?

I may have meant stout ...