One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[MrBarnett]

We have a young Izzy (although I call her Twizz) who will be 107 in 2101. The oldest comestible I could bequeath her is some seafood circa 150 million years old.

[milchmanuk]

i made toad in the hole,
i chopped one small onion and dropped it in the pan mix.
it has not passed a full weekend in my fridge.
"yummy"

[Iconoclast]

My great grandmother lived through three centuries and saw six monarchs. God knows what was in her fridge though.

Nice one, Abe!

If Young Izzy Iconoclast makes it to January 1, 2101 (requiring her to reach the ripe old age of 101), she will also see three centuries and even two millennia and who knows how many monarchs (maybe five).

Although I've willed the Dairylea to her, I've added a codicil to advise her not to eat it. I'm having the sausages and flagon of ale tha neet (so she might be getting the cheese earlier than I'd expected).

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

That reminds me, MrB., I still have a pack of sausages in mine which were purchased during the Crimean War (the 1850s one), and a flagon of ale from the Reformation. Old Mrs Iconoclast claims she has a pack of Dairylea from the last Viking invasion but I think she's way out - it was definitely brought in by the Romans.

I'll bet no-one can beat that.

My great grandmother lived through three centuries and saw six monarchs. God knows what was in her fridge though.

[Iconoclast]

Lightweights! I once had milk in my fridge that had seen two millennia. :-)

That reminds me, MrB., I still have a pack of sausages in mine which were purchased during the Crimean War (the 1850s one), and a flagon of ale from the Reformation. Old Mrs Iconoclast claims she has a pack of Dairylea from the last Viking invasion but I think she's way out - it was definitely brought in by the Romans.

I'll bet no-one can beat that.

[MrBarnett]

At a time of such national sadness, the following comment on The Mag (an unofficial Newcastle United website) made me smile. Perhaps it will do the same for you:

From cockneytrev (presumably, given his username, a little lost) …

On a foot note
I’ve got milk in the fridge that’s seen,
Two monarchs
Two prime ministers
And two Chelsea managers

i think I’ve got that same milk in my fridge.

Ike

Lightweights! I once had milk in my fridge that had seen two millennia. :-)

[Iconoclast]

i was asked for help from Rj palmer- of requiring film footage of the Maybrick watch.
this has a very short film of such a item.
may or may not be of interest .

I had thought that by now someone would have beaten me to it, but it seems not. As usual, I'm having to do all the thinking for you lot.

For those of you who believe the removal of Eddowes' kidney was the work of a master surgeon, Angela Rippon (at aprox. 12min 30sec), gives a demonstration of how easy it is to remove human kidneys. In seconds the body is cut open, the intestines are removed and both the kidneys and female organs can be pulled out. The whining from the doc about the possible body fat is of no importance here - especially when you look at the emaciated body of Eddowes. She certainly doesn't seem to me to be obese at the time of her death and her leanness would presumably also reflect a lack of visceral fat (which itself may be a product of the modern crap high-fat diet). The organs are contained in a membrane that can easily be pulled out of a body. Adding Jack's frenzy to this, we're talking seconds not minutes before the guts are removed. Discussion about the alleged medical knowledge of the killer is therefore pointless and only intended to highlight certain stories and suspects.

[milchmanuk]

i was asked for help from Rj palmer- of requiring film footage of the Maybrick watch.
this has a very short film of such a item.
may or may not be of interest .

[Iconoclast]

At a time of such national sadness, the following comment on The Mag (an unofficial Newcastle United website) made me smile. Perhaps it will do the same for you:

From cockneytrev (presumably, given his username, a little lost) …

On a foot note
I’ve got milk in the fridge that’s seen,
Two monarchs
Two prime ministers
And two Chelsea managers

i think I’ve got that same milk in my fridge.

Ike

[Yabs]

Bye Mrs, I Am Jack.

Is a perfect anagram of James Maybrick.

Do I win a prize?

[rjpalmer]

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

Oh no doubt you will, Ike, but by turn, I suspect you mean return.

The thing is, after having so unceremoniously kicked Anne to the curb to engage in a five-year fling with Fat Eddie, will she have you back?

And would any sensible member of the public look at this remarkable reunion with anything other than hilarity and amazement?

What would be the new explanation be for why Anne Graham typed a set of bogus research notes for Mike's benefit? Come to think of it, what is the explanation now?

Presumably, she must have known that Barrett was a receiver of stolen goods, thus she had to backdate Mike's non-existent research to a time that she knew was false in case Eddie Lyons ever dropped her and Mike in it?" Isn't that how it supposedly goes?

'Transfering all my notes since August 1991'...

No, Ike, those bogus notes alone show that that ship has sailed.

Maybe one or two of you could go limping back to Anne, with profound apologies for having so publicly strayed, but most of you have jumped ship and there is no going back, or at least not with your dignity intact.

[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

[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 !

[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.

[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.