One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[FISHY1118]

Tom/Ike -- I think we are about done here, but may I further draw your attention to the comments made by Adam Wood (the aforementioned author of the ‘I Beg to Report’ commentary) in the thread started by Jon Menges, Post #55?

Rippercast Audio Archives: The Maybrick Diary - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

Adam Wood notes that the arguments and accounts given by Mike (that he and Anne forged the diary) during this 9 April 1999 luncheon and early the following day, 'were lucid and structured' and that he was 'confident and assured, fielding all questions good-naturedly and giving straightforward answers'.

Does that sound like Mr. Wood is describing a raving drunk?

Further, Wood contrasts this lucid and calm behavior with Mike's rambling and incoherence during the Cloak & Dagger meeting the following night, April 10th, asking 'Why the change?’

Come on, Old Boy. Is there any doubt that Barrett downed several pints before taking the stage but had been entirely sober the day before?

The claim that Barrett only confessed while drunk is poppycock. I look forward to your retraction.

The dairy was a fake at post 1 , 9180 post later, its still a fake .

[DJA]

The dairy was a fake at post 1 , 9180 post later, its still a fake .

You're really milking that

[Scott Nelson]

Isn't that up to the milch man from the UK?

[FISHY1118]

You're really milking that

The milk run out on this one a long time ago.

[milchmanuk]

the Humphries are about

[milchmanuk]

Maybrick tie pin,

[rjpalmer]

Remember, we are calculating the probability of two things happening by chance alone (the lifting of Maybrick's floorboards in his study and someone seeking a literary agent for a Jack the Ripper scrapbook purporting to be written by James Maybrick) [B]happening on the same day for the very first time (on the record) on March 9, 1992

Don't worry, folks. No need to panic.

I'm only popping in for a second and don't plan on resurrecting Ike's long and exhausting misuse of statistics. I think it is fair to say that his logic has already been thoroughly debunked by Jeff Hamm and needs no further commentary.

I was just noticing that Tom had repeatedly referred to the floorboards (or more accurately the floorboard?) lifted in March 1992 as having been associated with "Maybrick's study."

According to Chris Jones's podcast this is entirely inaccurate--in reality, Maybrick had a private, locked study on another floor, and those boards were not lifted. Tom was again mistaken.

The room that received the heaters wasn't even Mabyrick's bedroom---it was an antechamber that was (or was later?) used as a dressing room.

It is slightly challenging to follow since it refers to diagrams that we can't see, but it is discussed here, at the 1:10 to 1:14 mark.

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Podcast - Whitechapel Society presents Chris Jones: Motive, Means & Opportunity: Did Florence Maybrick commit murder?

[Iconoclast]

Morning All,

I think we should take Abe's advice and move the hot topic of the day away from the new book launch thread as it is rather off-topic. Clearly, The Greatest Thread of All has no boundaries so I suggest we pick up the debate here.

Why might it have been that Lord O was banished from this site? Because he was such a superstar researcher that he put the rest of us to shame? Or because he was a nasty, narcissistic little shite who went apeshit when anyone questioned him?

Gary, I very nearly pissed myself when I read this - one, because it's so true, and two, because it was illuminating. The Good Lord just doesn't like being contradicted, does He? You can almost see Him spitting out his Frosties when he came across your post. He is incapable of accepting even the slimmest of possibilities that someone else might have formed a cogent view or argument, and if such a thing presented itself which contradicted something He'd previously given us carved into tablets of stone, He'd spit his dummy out, wail like a banshee, and start defending Himself in His Holy Drainpipes for about forty-nine screenfuls (and that would just be to say "No, I'm right, you're wrong, I'm right, you're wrong, I'm right, you're wrong, et cetera).

What I have noticed is that Orsam and the Acolytes are pretty much one-hit wonders (and, no, that term was not around in 1888). They play the same tune over and over again. It's called Orsamsplaining, there's no B-side, and it goes somewhat as follows:

• Twist circumstantial evidence to fit the specific version of events they want to project
• Contradict absolutely every possible 'negative' comment which is put to them regarding their specific version of events
• Confuse the reader with loads of regurgitated twisted-circumstantial-evidence in order to hide the fact that no actual retort is being offered
• Throw in some patronising insults, call people disparaging names, imply their mental health is unsound
• Type it up in long-winded, ideally ever-so-narrow screens designed to wear the reader down

Sound about right?

What we saw with your brilliant spot of the 1864 use of 'one-off' (with the hyphen no less!) showed us that - as early as 1864 - it was acceptable terminology to use 'one-off' not simply as an engineering (manufacturing) term but as a generalised term meaning anything of a unique nature - in your case, a promising filly. Now, the subject of your example was a promising filly, but that didn't matter, it wasn't the key take-home message. Obviously, the key take-home message was that people in the UK as early as 1864 were attaching the manufacturing term 'one-off' to non-manufacturing unique items. Every one of your readers would have seen that, regardless of their stance towards the Victorian scrapbook.

But then we get the Orsamsplaining, and it's so predictable. The most embarrassing bit of it was the attempt to shift your 1864 find back to your equine argument of last year (or whenever it was). This is Orsamsplaining at its worst, playing on 78rpm just to make it all the more painful for us all. You were not making that link. It was, presumably, just coincidence that your example this morning was also equine-related (or maybe the bookies down your way just love you?) but it had to be twisted that way in order to trash your argument. Personally, I've tired of it and I have resolved to stop engaging in debates which use Orsamsplaining tactics because I think they are disingenuous. Deeply disingenuous.

Gary, I know you've got balls of steel and you don't need my advice but please keep up the great work - your 1864 'promising filly' spot is going straight into Society's Pillar 2025. I can pay you no greater compliment than that.

Cheers,

Ike

[erobitha]

Are these references out of context too RJ?

[Yabs]

Hi ero.

I’m wondering if google have dated the British Bee journal Volume 103 wrong.



Journal 102 is 1974

[Yabs]

And in the Volume you posted, which contains the “one-off” reference, on page 102 they talk about March 1975 in the past tense

[rjpalmer]

Are these references out of context too RJ?

The British Bee Journal entry already made the rounds back in 2016 on JTR Forums and was quickly dismissed, when it was realized it was not from the 1880s. As Yab states, it comes from 1975. You're repeating information that was already debunked.

1843 is just the year The Economist was founded. It has nothing to do with the date of the issue.

The issue with the phrase "one-off" dates to August 11, 2012---124 years too late:



You could save yourself a lot of time and effort and frustration and confusion if you would simply believe what Dr. David Baxendale was trying to tell you.

[erobitha]

The British Bee Journal entry already made the rounds back in 2016 on JTR Forums and was quickly dismissed, when it was realized it was not from the 1880s. As Yab states, it comes from 1975. You're repeating information that was already debunked.

1843 is just the year The Economist was founded. It has nothing to do with the date of the issue.

The issue with the phrase "one-off" dates to August 11, 2012---124 years too late:



You could save yourself a lot of time and effort and frustration and confusion if you would simply believe what Dr. David Baxendale was trying to tell you.

I’m not confused RJ. I am man enough to admit these examples were not right. It’s a shame others don’t have the same ability to self-critique.

This was hardly a deep dive search on Google Books, just posted out of intrigue. Now I know.

Let’s see what breakthrough evidence Chris Jones has.

[milchmanuk]

i feel i know now Christopher Jones book will be same as his podcast on rippercast. here on casebook, with photoshop coloured pictures perhaps.
title will mislead to .it be Florence life again and trial , a phew pics of inside Battlecrease house dispelling as he does of the work done there by contractors. i dont believe there is any more.
lets wait and see !

[Iconoclast]

i feel i know now Christopher Jones book will be same as his podcast on rippercast. here on casebook, with photoshop coloured pictures perhaps.
title will mislead to .it be Florence life again and trial , a phew pics of inside Battlecrease house dispelling as he does of the work done there by contractors. i dont believe there is any more.
lets wait and see !

Well I think we are all waiting with bated breath, Milky, given that the pre-launch marketing is pushing us to believe that the Victorian scrapbook will be incontrovertibly, unequivocally, undeniably debunked and that we can all finally go home and throw away our books on James Maybrick (ironically, this will mean throwing away Chris Jones' book too as the only really interesting element is the scrapbook bit - the more significant part, as we understand it, will be on Florence's trial and there isn't a person on the planet who could argue that it was a fair one so that's an easy one to pick off, "Chapter One. She didn't do it" will do it for most of us).

If Jones is able to categorically prove that the scrapbook did not get liberated (I don't think 'stolen' is the correct term for something the homeowner doesn't actually know they have) from 7 Riversdale Road on Monday, March 9, 1992, I will be impressed as proving that something didn't happen is nigh on impossible; but even if he does manage to convince us all that it didn't then - once we've all recovered from the staggering coincidence that that would entail (I exclude Jeff Hamm here because he thinks it's perfectly likely that two such profoundly linked events (including one such utterly unlikely event) will inevitably happen purely by chance alone because floorboards get old, apparently, despite our being told how super-heavy they were, and, of course, Scousers ring literary agents all the time, most days in fact,claiming to have the ramblings of long-dead cotton merchants who think they were Jack the Ripper thereby making the probability of their random coinciding essentially the mythical 1 which we basically never see in practice rather than the 0.000028123 which statisticians commentating without a pre-set agenda and foolish assumption of agreeing with the multitude and assuming the sheep are more knowledgeable than the shepherd would have given) - we would simply turn to the previous provenance and see in that the answer to why Michael Barrett turned-up with James Maybrick's record of his dastardly deeds back in 1888 in 1991 which he consistently claimed - when he wasn't consistently drunk (I obviously exclude his appearance at Camille Wolff's lunch in 1999) - he received from Tony Devereux who was, of course, central to Anne Graham's addendum to Barrett's original tale: if he is to achieve all of that, I will be the first to congratulate him and I shall eat my trilby hat in his front room whilst we are glued to the latest episode of Neighbours.

I hope Barrat enjoyed that, by the way, knowing as we do how much he loves a convoluted sentence or two in the morning. "Oh, that’s given me a great deal of pleasure, that has really given me a great deal of pleasure!"

And what have you.

Cheers,

Ike