Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

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

  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    It is blindingly obvious from the evidence presented that Melvin Harris - Hoaxbuster Supreme - was the force behind getting Alan Gray to persuade Mike Barrett to swear that affidavit in January 1995, so he could make good his reported prediction in the December that the three people responsible for the Maybrick diary 'forgery' would soon be identified, and bag all the brownie points.

    I rather doubt Melvin thought it was 'irrelevant' when Mike came up with the goods [why would he?], and therefore 'didn't think to mention it'.

    However, if he found it to be relevant but counterproductive to his aims to bust this hoax wide open himself, that would go a loooong way to explain why he decided not to mention it, or get the newspapers involved, as Mike was led to believe would happen. It might also explain why Melvin later claimed he was misquoted, when giving that prediction to the newspaper in December 1994. He must have known from that dog's breakfast of a sworn statement that he didn't have a penman for a start. He didn't have the Barretts or poor dead Devereux down for that starring role, so without a 'forger' he was wiser to distance himself from it and hope that others - his trusted band of foot soldiers for instance - would do the job of actually naming and shaming, so he wouldn't risk soiling his own hands.

    If only Mike had named someone he had never met and never heard of as the actual forger - someone whose surname began with K, who could have been schooled in the 1930s - Melvin might have been home and dry.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    What I cant understand with regards to the making of the affidavit and putting his name to it, was the fact that Barrett and others had already been interviewed by the police and given their accounts. By making this alleged confession which clearly I assume was in direct conflict with what he told the police it would have left Barrett open to be re interviewed for an offence of attempting to obtain property by deception on his own admissions which he mentions in the second affidavit/

    But it seems someone probably made him aware of that, and that is why we see the second affidavit where he claims duress to get him out of the proverbial should the police come knocking on his door.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    It is blindingly obvious from the evidence presented that Melvin Harris - Hoaxbuster Supreme - was the force behind getting Alan Gray to persuade Mike Barrett to swear that affidavit in January 1995, so he could make good his reported prediction in the December that the three people responsible for the Maybrick diary 'forgery' would soon be identified, and bag all the brownie points.

    I rather doubt Melvin thought it was 'irrelevant' when Mike came up with the goods [why would he?], and therefore 'didn't think to mention it'.

    However, if he found it to be relevant but counterproductive to his aims to bust this hoax wide open himself, that would go a loooong way to explain why he decided not to mention it, or get the newspapers involved, as Mike was led to believe would happen. It might also explain why Melvin later claimed he was misquoted, when giving that prediction to the newspaper in December 1994. He must have known from that dog's breakfast of a sworn statement that he didn't have a penman for a start. He didn't have the Barretts or poor dead Devereux down for that starring role, so without a 'forger' he was wiser to distance himself from it and hope that others - his trusted band of foot soldiers for instance - would do the job of actually naming and shaming, so he wouldn't risk soiling his own hands.

    If only Mike had named someone he had never met and never heard of as the actual forger - someone whose surname began with K, who could have been schooled in the 1930s - Melvin might have been home and dry.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Last edited by caz; 08-05-2020, 04:23 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    This is too funny.

    Mike Barrett told RJ what he wanted to know, so I don't know what more he could possibly want to know. I thought that was more than enough for him.

    And still RJ comes and goes - and will return for more punishment. It's what he does.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    Even if I was to accept the 'general usage' argument (I don't), Florence Chandler Maybrick was an American. Wouldn't American usage be more relevant than the OED? But even if this was standard practice in the American South, it still wouldn't tell me what I want to know.
    This is too funny.

    Mike Barrett told RJ what he wanted to know, so I don't know what more he could possibly want to know. I thought that was more than enough for him.

    And still RJ comes and goes - and will return for more punishment. It's what he does.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Kattrup
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    I think I already answered this one? He 'suppressed' it by not mentioning it.

    It was clearly quite strategic on his part.
    Interesting, I recall a chap once what said
    Mostly, when you think something is irrelevant, you don't ever think to mention it (why would you?). Mostly, when you think something is relevant and counterproductive, you don't ever think to mention it. How are we to determine which of these two possibilities is the correct one here? If we can't, we shouldn't cite the schtumness as evidence of anything

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    Gary
    there is no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that she was ever referred to as an aunt in the family. There is on the other hand alot of evidence that she was mistakenly referred to as in aunt in the trial, which was repeated by the hoaxer. Im not assuming anything, and there is no theory. these are cold hard facts.
    now if you have evidence that she was ever referred to as an aunt then provide. if not its the usual it could have been this it could have been that-pure speculation, diary defending and flying pigs. and in my experience when Lord Orsam makes a mistake, which is rare, he simply acknowledges it and moves on. I think your hate of Lord Orsam is clouding your judgement Gary.
    Was this not covered off by Yabs with the clear reference to "The Aunts"?
    https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...199#post739199

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Gary
    there is no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that she was ever referred to as an aunt in the family. There is on the other hand alot of evidence that she was mistakenly referred to as in aunt in the trial, which was repeated by the hoaxer. Im not assuming anything, and there is no theory. these are cold hard facts.
    now if you have evidence that she was ever referred to as an aunt then provide. if not its the usual it could have been this it could have been that-pure speculation, diary defending and flying pigs. and in my experience when Lord Orsam makes a mistake, which is rare, he simply acknowledges it and moves on. I think your hate of Lord Orsam is clouding your judgement Gary.
    Last edited by Abby Normal; 08-05-2020, 03:22 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    "it could have been" has always been the last refuge of the Diary believer. Maybrick "could have been" suffering from multi-personality disorder, thus had different styles of handwriting.
    Oh I love this one.

    "It could have been" has always been the last refuge of the Barrett believer. Anne Barrett "could have been" suffering from multi-personality disorder, or "could have been" ambidextrous, thus had the ability to disguise her handwriting over the 63 pages of the diary.

    Mike Barrett "could have been" misled by Martin Earl into thinking that a tiny diary for 1891 could still prove suitable for the draft of the Maybrick diary sitting impatiently on his word prosser, all dressed up with nowhere to go.

    Mike Barrett "could have been" sceptical about Martin Earl's descriptive powers, thinking he meant to say it was a diary for 1888-9, of roughly A4 size, with at least 20 blank sides of paper, with no printed dates on any of them.

    Perpetual suspended disbelief by the power of "it could have been". And the greatest part is that no one needs to have any actual evidence for any of this.

    I think the last thing the Barrett believers need is anyone giving them a hard time with any more actual evidence that conflicts with their faith in the great Goldie Street Hoax Conspiracy, brought to them by the one and only Michael 'Thomas Quick' Barrett, whose relationship with reality was a troubled one indeed.

    Funny RJ should mention smelling salts. I was thinking of donating mine - unused since my last hangover some years ago - given the histrionics witnessed over the last day or two here on this thread by posters old and new, who are frustrated to find themselves further away today, from pinning the diary on the Barrett donkey, than Melvin Harris and co were back in January 1995.

    They'll be walking backwards for Christmas at this rate.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Last edited by caz; 08-05-2020, 03:19 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Gary - you do realize that this line of argument is anecdotal evidence of the worst kind? Knowing a childhood chum who called the kindly lady up the street "Aunt Lucy" tells us absolutely zero about what Florence Maybrick called her godmother. The only historical evidence that anyone has presented is Dr. Fuller recalling Florrie referring to the Countess as her godmother.

    It reminds me of 'Mr Poster' recalling how he once found a dead cat under the floorboards of an old house in Europe, as if this was somehow suitable evidence of an electrician finding a black ledger under the floorboards at Battlecrease.

    "Well, it could have happened, it's not impossible..."

    Even if I was to accept the 'general usage' argument (I don't), Florence Chandler Maybrick was an American. Wouldn't American usage be more relevant than the OED? But even if this was standard practice in the American South, it still wouldn't tell me what I want to know.

    By contrast, there is every appearance that Addison confused Fuller's statement about a godmother with an earlier visit to London that involved another woman who was actually someone's aunt.

    It is an error...much like 'with the key I did flee'...and I find it interesting that these errors are repeated in the books Mike mentions in his confessional statements.

    Yours truly,

    A Bongo Believer

    P.S. A friend kindly reminded me last night (much like Abby--thanks!) to stop wasting so much time on the Maybrick hoax, particularly when there are far more pressing--and interesting--'Ripperological' matters at hand. So I'll be blocking this website for the foreseeable future, but I'll check back in three or four weeks. Ciao.
    Last edited by rjpalmer; 08-05-2020, 03:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    and after they wake up, a hammer to knock some sense into them. although concerning the diary defenders, the hammer would probably be the one to break. its pointless RJ, as you say theres always some ridiculous response-it could have been this, it could have been that, it could have been a flying pig because its not physically or semantically impossible for a pig to fly-it could be on an airplane, it could have lept very high and very far, it could be strapped to a hanglider. its really as silly as that.

    Lord Orsam's Bull Shit Terminator Enrages Ripperologists
    Abby,

    Do you or Lord Orsam know for a fact that the godmother was never referred to as Florrie’s aunt? And do you know who Addison may have discussed the case with in preparation for the trial?

    If not, then you are guilty of something far worse than ‘it coulda been’. You are assuming something for which you have no evidence is an established fact because it suits your theory.

    Do you really believe that calling a female family friend ‘aunt’ is as unlikely as a flying pig? It really isn’t. Look in your dictionary. Look at the anecdotal evidence provided by your boardmates.

    I would be wary of going out too far on this particular limb, if I were you. Lord O has a habit of lopping off his errors of judgement by claiming they were tongue in cheek or some other excuse.

    Gary

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

    I think you missed replying to this part of my post:
    And I think you missed my subtle hint about drawing a line under your unfortunate question.

    I'm now drawing a line under this line of questioning, coming from someone who only recently claimed they had no interest in the subject matter or learning more about it. I'm happy to leave others to judge how trustworthy that claim was, in light of your continued terrier-like persistence over this one issue.

    I expect you'll find Inside Story positively riddled with schoolgirl errors if you spend the next 17 years going over it page by page with a fine-toothed comb, instead of concentrating on whether Mike's affidavit was reliable or riddled with rotten lies from start to finish.

    I guess it's all a question of personal priorities: trying to find where the truth lies, or finding fault with those of us who doubt Mike Barrett's ability to lie straight in bed.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    And I have first-hand experience of having been Godmother to my friends' daughter Caroline, who was named after me and knew me as Auntie Caroline. She and my own daughter were friends as they are of similar age.

    From the old nag's mouth no less.

    Love,

    Godmama Caz
    X
    I had a few ‘faux’ aunties myself. Family friends, neighbours, women who ran local shops ...

    To call someone who was not one of your parents’ siblings an aunt was not an error, it was common usage in the past.

    Nowadays, kids generally call adults by their forenames. But 50/60 years ago that was thought of as somewhat disrespectful. You generally applied a prefix of some kind, Mr/Mrs/Aunt/Uncle.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    And do you have any evidence that she was? Or is it just another case of "she could have been"--the same default logic used by Ike and other Diary believers?

    The only evidence I have seen presented is Dr. Hopper's supplemental witness statement, and it says nothing about her being referred to as Florrie's aunt. It states that James and Florrie were arguing about Florrie's godmother...and lo and behold, The Countess was that very thing. Since Hopper heard it, and correctly identified the Countess's actual relationship to Florrie, I think we can safely assume that that is what she was called.

    "it could have been" has always been the last refuge of the Diary believer. Maybrick "could have been" suffering from multi-personality disorder, thus had different styles of handwriting. Mary Kelly "could have" found her missing key the night she was murdered, and so the diary isn't REALLY repeating an error that has crept into the literature. Maybrick "could have" been in such throws of mania that he forgot what body parts he left on the bedside table. There "could have been" a Mrs. Hamersmith living up the road from the Maybricks, but she somehow stayed off the radar. The ledger "could have" been miraculously preserved in a biscuit tin, thus making the ink stay damp for 100 years. Mike Barrett "could have been" curious about what 20 blank sheets of paper looked like, not realizing that one blank sheet of paper looks pretty much like the next blank sheet of paper.

    Perpetual suspended disbelief by the power of "it could have been." And the greatest part is that no one needs to have any actual evidence for any of this.

    I think the last thing the Diary believers need is someone giving them false hope by breaking a butterfly on a wheel.

    They are more in need of smelling salts.
    and after they wake up, a hammer to knock some sense into them. although concerning the diary defenders, the hammer would probably be the one to break. its pointless RJ, as you say theres always some ridiculous response-it could have been this, it could have been that, it could have been a flying pig because its not physically or semantically impossible for a pig to fly-it could be on an airplane, it could have lept very high and very far, it could be strapped to a hanglider. its really as silly as that.

    Lord Orsam's Bull Shit Terminator Enrages Ripperologists

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    And do you have any evidence that she was? Or is it just another case of "she could have been"--the same default logic used by Ike and other Diary believers?

    The only evidence I have seen presented is Dr. Hopper's supplemental witness statement, and it says nothing about her being referred to as Florrie's aunt. It states that James and Florrie were arguing about Florrie's godmother...and lo and behold, The Countess was that very thing. Since Hopper heard it, and correctly identified the Countess's actual relationship to Florrie, I think we can safely assume that that is what she was called.

    "it could have been" has always been the last refuge of the Diary believer. Maybrick "could have been" suffering from multi-personality disorder, thus had different styles of handwriting. Mary Kelly "could have" found her missing key the night she was murdered, and so the diary isn't REALLY repeating an error that has crept into the literature. Maybrick "could have" been in such throws of mania that he forgot what body parts he left on the bedside table. There "could have been" a Mrs. Hamersmith living up the road from the Maybricks, but she somehow stayed off the radar. The ledger "could have" been miraculously preserved in a biscuit tin, thus making the ink stay damp for 100 years. Mike Barrett "could have been" curious about what 20 blank sheets of paper looked like, not realizing that one blank sheet of paper looks pretty much like the next blank sheet of paper.

    Perpetual suspended disbelief by the power of "it could have been." And the greatest part is that no one needs to have any actual evidence for any of this.

    I think the last thing the Diary believers need is someone giving them false hope by breaking a butterfly on a wheel.

    They are more in need of smelling salts.
    I am not challenging the authenticity of the diary, I’m challenging Lord O’s logic that the use of the term ‘aunt’ in the diary was unquestionably an error based on an error made by Addison.

    Florrie’s godmother may well have been referred to as ‘aunt’ within the family and Addison may well have picked up on that from somewhere other than Hopper’s written statement. Equally, the lady may never have been thus called and Addison may well have plucked the term ‘aunt’ from his bum. Equally, in my opinion. Both seem entirely plausible. I’m not the one insisting on the truth of something that I cannot know.

    If anyone believes it’s impossible, or so unlikely as to be unworthy of consideration, for the term aunt to have been in use in the Maybrick household, perhaps they can explain why.





    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

    Thanks, Yabs. :-)

    Talk about Aunties in the wainscot!

    What all this nonsense revolves around is whether it is remotely conceivable that Florrie’s godmother, her mother’s friend, could have been referred to as her aunt.

    My Collins Dictionary gives this as one definition of aunt:

    ’A term of address used by children for any woman, esp for a friend of their parents.’

    Orsam implicitly claims that it isn’t remotely conceivable.
    And I have first-hand experience of having been Godmother to my friends' daughter Caroline, who was named after me and knew me as Auntie Caroline. She and my own daughter were friends as they are of similar age.

    From the old nag's mouth no less.

    Love,

    Godmama Caz
    X
    Last edited by caz; 08-05-2020, 01:55 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X