Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Diary—Old Hoax or New?
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
What has Brexit got to do with the diary? If you think the diary is not a modern hoax your deluding yourself.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sam Flynn View PostI'm paranoid, but I have low self-esteem. I can't see how anyone could be bothered to have it in for me.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by caz View Post
I'm afraid logic tends to go out of the window for someone suffering from paranoia. Mike really did believe everyone had it in for him.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Eliza View PostIf Barrett were perceiving himself as "fleeced" and victimized, why would he open himself to even more victimization by an admission of fraud/forgery? He would also be killing the goose that might keep laying his golden eggs.
I'm afraid logic tends to go out of the window for someone suffering from paranoia. Mike really did believe everyone had it in for him. "Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me". The alcohol didn't help. If he thought his personal goose was already cooked, and couldn't see how there'd be any more golden eggs coming his way no matter what, then a confession - or claim [I prefer either word to 'admission', which implies you have already delivered a guilty verdict] that the diary was a recent fake, would at least help to strangle the goose he imagined was still busy laying golden eggs for everyone else - including his wife. You really have to know the whole story, but even then it's not easy for anyone not inside Mike's head at the time to imagine what he was going through - much of it self-inflicted, but no less painfully real for him.
If Barrett were truly a "pathological attention seeker," who wanted attention by way of false confession of forgery--why did he wait so long to confess? The short answer is: he tried for as long as he could to keep the truth hidden, but ultimately broke down and confessed-like so many amateurish miscreants.
Finally, I don't think one "takes back" an allegedly monumental and historic find by claiming it was all a hoax.
Love,
Caz
X
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Hello Graham,
I definitely won’t call anyone a liar unless there is very good evidence for it so I’m not going to call Shirley Harrison one. That’s said, as John pointed out, I find it really strange that a researcher would neglect to get documented evidence of such an important issue
as Trayner’s use of the term one off, but just to rely on everyone accepting her word. As we know David Orsam is a researcher that doesn’t scrimp on detail or depth. He looked through all the trade directories that he could find and he found no mention of a company called Trayner’s. I’m no researcher but over a year ago I joined a Kent History forum and asked members for any information on Trayner’s. This was a forum full of people fascinated by local businesses and industry. I got quite a few replies but not one of them found any evidence of a company called Trayner’s or Traynor’s or anything like it. At the very least, this is strange. Can anyone actually prove that this company existed? It might have done but, as it stands, one person’s word on the basis of a phone call is just not good enough.
I'm somewhat reminded of the eminent World War 2 historian, Hugh Trevor Roper, who must be about a thousand times better known, and respected, than SH, who most people outside of the rarefied world of Riperology have probably never heard of. However, it didn't stop him validating the Hitler Diaries...Last edited by John G; 08-01-2019, 05:07 PM.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Well, excuse me for accepting in good faith something said by a respected writer on the Ripper Case....as of now I'll just take everything about the bloody Diary with a great big pinch of salt......
Graham
Leave a comment:
-
I have to say that one of the points against the diary that only came to my attention via David’s article is the use of the word regards (as pointed out by Sam) This is such a jarring use of the word in place of -with regard to or regarding? It just doesn’t ring true and to find that it’s a word that Mike Barrett used too.... That said, if it could be shown that this usage was and is common to Liverpool?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Graham View Post
Mmm, yes, and Shirley Harrison said she found the term 'one-off' used in technical paperwork (belonging to a Kent engineering company) in about 1865.
Graham
I definitely won’t call anyone a liar unless there is very good evidence for it so I’m not going to call Shirley Harrison one. That’s said, as John pointed out, I find it really strange that a researcher would neglect to get documented evidence of such an important issue
as Trayner’s use of the term one off, but just to rely on everyone accepting her word. As we know David Orsam is a researcher that doesn’t scrimp on detail or depth. He looked through all the trade directories that he could find and he found no mention of a company called Trayner’s. I’m no researcher but over a year ago I joined a Kent History forum and asked members for any information on Trayner’s. This was a forum full of people fascinated by local businesses and industry. I got quite a few replies but not one of them found any evidence of a company called Trayner’s or Traynor’s or anything like it. At the very least, this is strange. Can anyone actually prove that this company existed? It might have done but, as it stands, one person’s word on the basis of a phone call is just not good enough.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by caz View Post
Well that was edifying.
Brexit is clearly a modern miracle.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sam Flynn View PostOrdinary people have long been able to "call" someone by shouting their name, or to "call on" someone in the sense of visiting them... but we don't talk about "giving" someone a visit, do we, and I doubt that many people ever have.
As you well know, because you have read the same posts as I have on this subject, which must be becoming more tiresome by the day for anyone still awake, in the late 19th century people were routinely "giving someone a call" or "paying someone a call" or "paying someone a visit" or "making house-calls" [if you were a doctor for example] and they all meant the same thing - they were calling on someone in person.
However, ordinary people have been able to speak of "giving someone a call" since that phrase passed into everyday parlance after telephones had become widely used.
This is getting a bit surreal, isn't it? You may as well argue that when 'Sir Jim' writes: 'The next time I travel to London I shall begin', the Barretts most probably had a flight from Liverpool in mind, because flying had really taken off [ha ha] by the time they were creating their hoax, so the phrase 'travel to London' would have been much more widely used across the globe to imply 'travel to London by air', with train travel taking more of a back seat [ha ha].
Talking of which, don't you just hate it when you get a nice, forward-facing seat on the train to London, with a table for drinks and snacks, and you're just enjoying the gorgeous view out of the window and your first gin and tonic of the day when a woman ten years younger than you gets on at Crewkerne and asks you to move, because she feels sick in a seat facing backwards? She then proceeds to look down at her phone without once looking out of the window or looking the least bit queasy. Don't you just hate it when the same thing happens, not once but twice, on the return journey to Devon? Two more women, both ten years younger than me, who would have to stand all the way [because they told me when I asked] if there were no forward-facing seats left [and no mugs like me to take pity on them and move to another seat]. O tempora! O mores!
Rant over. The next time I travel to London I shall begin... the journey in a seat facing backwards and be done with it. Because I know when I'm beaten.
Love,
Caz
XLast edited by caz; 08-01-2019, 03:26 PM.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
My grandfather (born about 1880) used the term 'top myself' quite regularly when I was a boy. As in: if he repaired something, he'd mutter "If this doesn't work now, I'll top myself".
I'd just like to point out that I don't accept that James Maybrick wrote the Diary, nor that he was Jack The Ripper. I do, however, believe the Diary to be a lot older than the 1980's, not necessarily from the time of the Ripper Murders, but how it came into the possession of Mike Barrett, I'm sorry I haven't a clue.
Graham
Last edited by Graham; 08-01-2019, 02:42 PM.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Let's consider the statistical chances of the Diary being genuine. Well, based upon the "one-off" problem we would have to accept that, out of all of the billions of individuals that could have originated the phrase "one-off", in a non-technical sense, it was actually originated by James Maybrick in a Diary of dubious provenance. In fact, the provenance is non existent.
Not only that, but the phrase, which no one at the time would have understood, so would have been completely meaningless, doesn't re-enter commom parlance for about a century.
On that basis, the statistical probability of the Diary being genuine must be several thousand million to one against.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
I would just point out that in nearly thirty years no one has been able to find a single legitimate example of the phrase "one-off" being used prior to the Second World War, except in a strictly technical sense, and I'm sure it's not for want of trying. In fact, are there any documented examples prior to the early 1980s?
Of course, we could always adopt a Wilkins Micawber approach and hope that "something will turn up"!Last edited by John G; 08-01-2019, 02:14 PM.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: