Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    Speaking strictly for myself, if I was Jack the Ripper descending into my own private hell, and my friend John Piggot nearly cut his own head off with a carving knife, I might have mentioned this in passing in my journal.
    1) How do you know that James Maybrick was a 'friend' of the unfortunate Mr Pigott? The report indicates that many attending the service were 'merchants'. Have you never attended a funeral out of politeness for a work-related individual (or, indeed, anyone else) with whom you may never have even spoken?

    2) How do you know that James Maybrick failed to mention Pigott's tragic death in his journal? Once again, Muddy the Mud Boy makes strategic use of the assumptions we all carry into the case. A more rigorous commentator - one paying more attention to what is possible rather than simply parroting what is convenient - would have written, "Speaking strictly for myself, if I was Jack the Ripper descending into my own private hell, and my 'friend' John Piggot nearly cut his own head off with a carving knife, I might have mentioned this in passing in my Jack the Ripper journal."

    Suddenly, it doesn't read quite as convincingly, does it? Once you qualify your claim that you know Pigott and Maybrick were friends, and once you qualify what you meant by 'journal', your argument appears rather more facile and contrived, does it not, Muddy? And that wouldn't be like you, would it?

    Dear readers, if you are struggling with this, please note that there is no evidence that John Pigott meant anything whatsoever to James Maybrick and - whether he did or he did not - James Maybrick was just as likely to have recorded this event in his private diary which he kept at home in Battlecrease House rather than in his office where he kept his Jack the Ripper scrapbook in which he recorded almost solely his feelings about his errant wife Florrie and the murderous acts he felt she had prompted him to commit.

    "But James Maybrick didn't have a private diary at home", I hear you say. Well, my dear dear innocent readers, how do you know he didn't?

    Ike
    Last edited by Iconoclast; 08-16-2023, 07:47 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    Speaking strictly for myself, if I was Jack the Ripper descending into my own private hell, and my friend John Piggot nearly cut his own head off with a carving knife, I might have mentioned this in passing in my journal.

    Click image for larger version Name:	Widnes Weekly News A.jpg Views:	0 Size:	171.8 KB ID:	815949
    Click image for larger version Name:	Widnes Weekly News B.jpg Views:	0 Size:	139.3 KB ID:	815950

    Once again, we are left wondering why the diarist doesn't seem to know anything about Maybrick's private life, 1888-1889, outside the events mentioned in Bernard Ryan's The Poisoned Life of Mrs. Maybrick--the one 'Maybrick' book that Barrett admitted to reading.

    One would think a hoaxer could have used this grisly event to good effect...had she or he known about it--particularly as there is a decided lull in the text between Mary Kelly's murder and the final dénouement in May. And even Dr. Humphreys makes a curtain call in Piggot's case.

    Curious.


    He is 20th on that list of mourners RJ. Do you have any other evidence they were actually that well acquainted?

    Maybe you can ask your question to Anne Graham when you challenge her about her faking the diary.

    Let me know how you get on.
    Last edited by erobitha; 08-16-2023, 06:41 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Speaking strictly for myself, if I was Jack the Ripper descending into my own private hell, and my friend John Piggot nearly cut his own head off with a carving knife, I might have mentioned this in passing in my journal.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	Widnes Weekly News A.jpg Views:	0 Size:	171.8 KB ID:	815949
    Click image for larger version  Name:	Widnes Weekly News B.jpg Views:	0 Size:	139.3 KB ID:	815950

    Once again, we are left wondering why the diarist doesn't seem to know anything about Maybrick's private life, 1888-1889, outside the events mentioned in Bernard Ryan's The Poisoned Life of Mrs. Maybrick--the one 'Maybrick' book that Barrett admitted to reading.

    One would think a hoaxer could have used this grisly event to good effect...had she or he known about it--particularly as there is a decided lull in the text between Mary Kelly's murder and the final dénouement in May. And even Dr. Humphreys makes a curtain call in Piggot's case.

    Curious.



    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post
    If one fail at an attempt, he opens his eyes to alternate approaches. If one defends his failure, he loses sight of new approaches.

    Those are the Diary Defenders.


    The Baron
    The Art of War (Sun Tzu)?
    The Prince (Niccollo Machiavelli)?
    Or Dastardly Drainpipes (Algernon Orsam)?

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    If one fail at an attempt, he opens his eyes to alternate approaches. If one defends his failure, he loses sight of new approaches.

    Those are the Diary Defenders.


    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    Thank you all --Ike, Jay and Roger. Your answers are as clear and consistent as any of Mike Barrett's assertions.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
    Call me thick, but I still don't know what a diary defender is.
    Hello, Mr. Thicke, or should that be Scotty Upright?

    Diary Defender is a necessary umbrella term that has developed to encompass the surprising and (in some instances) the cringeworthy coalition that has developed between those who fervently believe the diary is the authentic creation of James Maybrick and those who just as fervently believe that isn't but is instead a hoax of indeterminate age and origin. Normally, one would expect these two factions to be bitter enemies, going at it endlessly, but they are united in their disdain for the common opinion: that the diary is an obvious modern fake with Mike and Anne up to their armpits in it.

    It's as if you stumbled into a pub in Rivington and lo and behold here was one big, happy group of Man U and Manchester City fans laughing and joking and buying each other rounds and engaging in the most surprising examples of flattery and admiration, until you realized their love was only based on an extreme distaste for Liverpool FC fans.

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
    Call me thick, but I still don't know what a diary defender is.
    Anyone who does not believe the book was a Barrett / Graham concoction.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
    Call me thick, but I still don't know what a diary defender is.
    Come on, Scotty.

    Warburton's Farmhouse Loaf.

    Deuchars IPA.

    Ironing board.

    Car door handle.

    The clue is rather in the name. It's someone who defends the Maybrick scrapbook against criticism (usually implied to mean 'any and all criticism').

    Amazingly enough for the Casebook, I don't even think it's necessarily meant as an insult ...

    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    Call me thick, but I still don't know what a diary defender is.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Wheat
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    lets cut through it-forget calling it a new hoax-lets call it for what it is. Barretts hoax.

    labeling it new hoax will only open the door for the desperate diary defenders to open the possibility that its a new hoax but not by barret. LOL.
    anything to keep the diary nonsense alive.
    Years later and a lot of bluster from the diary defenders and this is still the rub of it.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by John Wheat View Post

    I'm not sure.
    Well there's a surprise. I didn't expect an admission of uncertainty.

    But if you even think there is a ghost of a chance that Mike held the pen, you'd have more credibility voting for the parrot.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • StevenOwl
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
    Who held the pen John, Anne or Mike?
    Don't ask him, he doesn't know. He doesn't have a single original thought pertaining to the Diary, he's just here to parrot whatever the likes of RJ and Baron Orsam post. And, of course, deliver his witty one-line insults to anyone who doesn't believe that a Barrett wrote the Diary.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Wheat
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
    Who held the pen John, Anne or Mike?
    I'm not sure.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
    Who held the pen John, Anne or Mike?
    It was Barrett's parrot, who went by the name of Harriet Barrett.

    That should suit John fine because any old parrot can mimic Maybrick.

    And it will suit RJ fine too, because it was a female parrot, and they can always be made to dance.

    They are also quite partial to a cockatoo.

    Love,

    Bertie Blunt [Harriet Barrett's ex parrot]
    X

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X