Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

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

  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

    I think you missed replying to this part of my post:



    It’s just that you’ve stated Melvin Harris suppressed the affidavit, I was wondering how you know that?
    I think I already answered this one? He 'suppressed' it by not mentioning it.

    It was clearly quite strategic on his part.

    Cheers,

    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post

    Caz,

    Can I just say, as a fellow graduate from the university of life (I left school with 4 GCSE's) that I admire how well you have handled much of this nonsense being flung your way, by who I suspect many are academic pedants or failed writers themselves. I have seen your back catalogue of work, and a number of posters it seems to me lack the respect of your achievements.

    "There's an old Chinese proverb, he adds, "which says that when a finger points at the moon the imbecile looks at the finger. I thought Ripperologists had always been looking at the finger. I wanted to look at the moon. How is it that, in 1889, Florence Maybrick is accused of murder and then, in 1992, the man she was supposed to have killed is accused, in this rediscovered document, of being Jack the Ripper? It seemed so strange. And that," he says, "was what started me off.""
    - Taken from British GQ interview with Bruce Robinson

    Often those who are ensconced in the world of academic theory and census-searching lack the ability to understand humanity and it's very nature. Life is full of nuance and not every answer is found through cross-checking endless reams of witness testimony or official records. Some of it you have to colour in the blanks yourself using a mixture of logic, life experience and good old fashion cop on. Unsolved crimes of most nature rarely get tied up in one absolute pretty bow with a cherry on top.

    I came to this the same way Bruce described as above, but then the watch sealed it for me. I think anyone with an interest in psychology will also be intrigued by much of the human nuance in all of this, even the buffoonery of Michael Barrett is intriguing.

    So we fight on in the battlefields of minutiae where pedantry tries to outwit logic, reason and psychology.

    “The trumpets of war shall sound at his footsteps, the ravens feed at his voice, and he shall wear a crown of swords.”
    ― Robert Jordan, A Crown of Swords
    Thank you erobitha. Your words just buoyed me up tremendously.

    I think I may have been rather unkind to refer to Mike Barrett as Bongo. He was clearly manipulated by Alan Gray, on Melvin Harris's watch, at possibly the most vulnerable point in his personal life since the diary took over control in 1992. The divorce he never wanted had just become an intensely painful reality, and he was being treated in hospital for a nasty injury to his hand, self-inflicted when he went round to his ex wife's new home, no doubt in a state of anger and distress. That was the scene when Gray pounced on Melvin's behalf:

    Monday 12th December 1994
    Extract from a conversation between Alan Gray and Mike Barrett, during visit by Gray to MB at Liverpool Royal Infirmary.
    AG: What he [Melvin Harris] was saying to me was as soon as Mike comes out, it's in the best interest of everyone to take a concise statement and all the newspapers will [take it] and at the end of it we go down together and swear it as an affidavit and that will be it nailed down, right. It will take a few hours.
    MB: I'll get nicked then.
    AG: No, you won't, because this statement will safeguard you is what Melvin tells me.
    MB: Yeah, yeah.
    AG: Just stay as you have been and let the others handle it. Let everyone get on with it and that's it. You know the saying, 'every dog has its day'...
    ...You know what, when we get to write this affidavit, we'll need a lot of detail you know. Then we'll sign it and swear it before a solicitor. That's what we'll do.

    We know that no newspaper printed the resulting affidavit, for a variety of reasons, some more obvious than others, so if Mike was given the impression that he would personally gain anything from this cruel trick played on him, it was a false one.

    When I learned about The Confessions of Thomas Quick, and how he was manipulated by all sorts of supposedly smart people, who didn't bother to check out the veracity of his tall tales and his motive for telling them, but cherry-picked the details of his 'confessions' which appeared to fit the crimes, while discarding or ignoring all those which either didn't fit or were later disproven - confirmation bias up to volume eleven - I couldn't help making a comparison, on a far smaller scale, with The Confessions of Mike Barrett.

    Thomas Quick was wrongly convicted of serial murder because he got better treatment for his serious mental health issues, and more attention from his therapists, by lying about the extent and nature of his violent sexual tendencies and offences. He conjured up the evidence from what he managed to ascertain about the individual crimes, and any gaps or errors were put down to blocking out memories of crimes he had supposedly committed because of painful childhood memories he had also blocked out. The worst of it is that nobody was out there looking for the real killers of the victims he had claimed for himself.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sture_Bergwall

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Kattrup
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    What are you on about now? Editorial choices? I wasn't aware of the continuity issue until recently - 17 years after our book was published. I will consider the book trustworthy until someone points out any other issues they have found after 17 years. The major issue with this one is that we missed the serious matter of Melvin Harris and co deliberately keeping Mike's January 1995 affidavit firmly under wraps, so Shirley and co had no chance to discuss it with anyone, never mind investigate it, until after a version of it had been put up on the internet, presumably by one of Melvin's foot soldiers, in 1996 or 1997. I only wish we had appreciated this when preparing a narrative in 2002/3. Would that have made the tone of your posts today any less sneering?
    I think you missed replying to this part of my post:
    Well, you’ve certainly explained something but seeing as the book Inside Story unequivocally states the phone call took place “soon after Barrett’s affidavit was made public” and that Keith Skinner, as you know, has stated the phone call took place January 16th 1995, I’m not sure who’s getting caught with his or her pants down.
    It’s of course possible that Inside Story or Keith Skinner conflated two different conversations, but that is hardly anyone else’s fault, is it?
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    You tell me. Perhaps Mighty Mel possessed the same kind of unworldly and unhealthy power over his minions as his lordship could only dream of today.
    It’s just that you’ve stated Melvin Harris suppressed the affidavit, I was wondering how you know that?

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    I think Orsam said that James Maybrick wouldn't have made that mistake, which is clearly a risible claim.
    It’s only a mistake if the lady wasn’t ever referred to as Florrie’s aunt within the family. That usage of the word has been common throughout my life and may well have been so in the 1880s.

    This isn’t mental gymnastics. You don’t need to break a sweat to see the possible flaw in Orsam’s logic.


    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    Hi "RJ" (),

    You can try all you want to turn an irrelevant mention of an aunt into a smoking gun, but it isn't going to work. I appreciate you'll be disappointed, but it's pure cack, mate.

    You can't logic this one into a fatal mistake because it isn't and never will be. Maybrick either belived Florrie was off to see her 'aunt' because she had said so, or else he just got a bit muddled when he was writing his scrapbook. I honestly doubt he'd care about what to him was surely a barely-relevant fact.

    Maybrick [Thinks]: "I must get every fact in my scrapbook right - even though I'm writing it for my own pleasure. Who knows who might get confused in 130 years time or so if I'm not very careful about what I write, even though I'm much more focused on my feelings of hatred for Florrie and on renewing my murderous campaign that has gripped the entire world. Then again, it's a lot ******* quicker to just write 'aunt', is it not?"

    "Ike"
    I was actually thinking 'Sir Jim' might have found Bunny's sick 'Godmother' a bit of a mouthful, given Bongo's not inconsiderable difficulties in the wordy field.

    Of course, 'Sir Jim' could have been carelessly 'conflating' two visits to London by the strumpet: the one to Aunt M [his favourite initial!], and the one to the one he couldn't be arsed to spell.

    If non-murdering, non-arsenic eating authors could inadvertently 'conflate' two separate enquiries, two years apart, because of a natural but erroneous assumption that Mike's January 1995 affidavit would have been known about and investigated in January 1995...

    Well it was worth a try.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Last edited by caz; 08-05-2020, 12:07 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post
    "There's an old Chinese proverb, he adds, "which says that when a finger points at the moon the imbecile looks at the finger. I thought Ripperologists had always been looking at the finger. I wanted to look at the moon. How is it that, in 1889, Florence Maybrick is accused of murder and then, in 1992, the man she was supposed to have killed is accused, in this rediscovered document, of being Jack the Ripper? It seemed so strange. And that," he says, "was what started me off.""
    - Taken from British GQ interview with Bruce Robinson
    Perhaps Robinson should have read Plato’s Theaetetus. You know, the bit about the Astrologer who was so busy staring at the moon and the stars that he stumbles into a ditch.

    When it comes to a questioned document, I’ll take the methods of Hume over Hegel any day of the week. Had Robinson and his researcher studied Michael Maybrick's movements on the dates of the murders, they may have found something very similar to a ditch.


    But then, I’m obviously under-educated. Had I spent time in the British public schools maybe I’d have been clever enough to have been fooled by a street-smart Scouser.


    Carry on!

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    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.
    I think Orsam said that James Maybrick wouldn't have made that mistake, which is clearly a risible claim.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    I don't have any problem with a non-Barrett hoaxer, working before 9th March 1992, with however many ripper or Maybrick texts they fancied using, to come up with their darkly comic portrayal of 'Sir Jim' - who fancied that Florie was lying about the purpose of her visit to London, and imagined her lying in a Brierley patch ere long.
    For the record I don't have a problem with one either. If that were the truth of the matter, I want to know it.

    But not Bongo. Not now. Not ever.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Yabs View Post
    Click image for larger version  Name:	47E32302-1CDE-469E-8EF6-07D8EFC338F5.jpeg Views:	0 Size:	221.4 KB ID:	739198
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

    Of course, Lord O is not claiming to have added another barnacle to the hull of HMS Diary. He is claiming to have attached a single limpet mine which on its own is enough to sink the vessel.
    Is he, indeed?

    The handwriting was never enough for him then?

    I'm disappointed for the Bongo Believers, who may need to revise upwards the sources he'd have needed to consult for every detail - erroneous or otherwise - in his DAiry.

    Maybe my eyes are going, but I can't find where Mike or Anne could have blindly copied Addison's awful auntie anomaly from either Bernard Ryan or Trevor Christie.

    My main interest has been in how anyone intends to prove that a Barrett related hand was in the diary's creation, and a Johnson related hand in the watch scratches.

    I don't have any problem with a non-Barrett hoaxer, working before 9th March 1992, with however many ripper or Maybrick texts they fancied using, to come up with their darkly comic portrayal of 'Sir Jim' - who fancied that Florie was lying about the purpose of her visit to London, and imagined her lying in a Brierley patch ere long.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    The major issue with this one is that we missed the serious matter of Melvin Harris and co deliberately keeping Mike's January 1995 affidavit firmly under wraps, so Shirley and co had no chance to discuss it with anyone, never mind investigate it, until after a version of it had been put up on the internet, presumably by one of Melvin's foot soldiers, in 1996 or 1997.
    Melvin Harris didn't publicise the affidavit because he knew it was full of holes.

    If he didn't publicise it, and Alan Gray and Mike Barrett lacked the will or the ability to do so also, then that is how it was 'suppressed'. Talk about damned by faint praise. This was damned by an all-too convenient silence.

    If it had amounted to more, you can rest assured it would have been trumpeted from every rooftop Melvin could find.

    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

    It’s not for others to judge when you’ve already stated the answer, is it?
    I didn't think mine was the last word on any subject, Kattrup, but the compliments are coming thick and fast today! Thank you.

    If Inside Story misled people on this point, as you admitted, it is natural to want to know if the rest of the book could mislead as well.

    That is neither below the belt nor unnecessarily provocative, and of course I expected an answer - seeing as you know about the error you made, and the editorial choices prioritizing readability over precision, do you consider the rest of the book generally trustworthy or not?
    What are you on about now? Editorial choices? I wasn't aware of the continuity issue until recently - 17 years after our book was published. I will consider the book trustworthy until someone points out any other issues they have found after 17 years. The major issue with this one is that we missed the serious matter of Melvin Harris and co deliberately keeping Mike's January 1995 affidavit firmly under wraps, so Shirley and co had no chance to discuss it with anyone, never mind investigate it, until after a version of it had been put up on the internet, presumably by one of Melvin's foot soldiers, in 1996 or 1997. I only wish we had appreciated this when preparing a narrative in 2002/3. Would that have made the tone of your posts today any less sneering?

    It really seems like it would be a lot easier if you’d just read David Orsam’s page yourself. As he is the best informed and most reliable researcher writing about the diary, his posts are sure to benefit your understanding of the “mystery”.
    Oh stop it, my sides are aching. If I didn't know how much you hang on every word his lordship spits out, I'd give you ten out of ten for sarcasm.

    How did Melvin Harris suppres the affidavit?
    You tell me. Perhaps Mighty Mel possessed the same kind of unworldly and unhealthy power over his minions as his lordship could only dream of today.

    The more pertinent question is why.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post

    Caz,

    Can I just say, as a fellow graduate from the university of life (I left school with 4 GCSE's) that I admire how well you have handled much of this nonsense being flung your way, by who I suspect many are academic pedants or failed writers themselves. I have seen your back catalogue of work, and a number of posters it seems to me lack the respect of your achievements.

    "There's an old Chinese proverb, he adds, "which says that when a finger points at the moon the imbecile looks at the finger. I thought Ripperologists had always been looking at the finger. I wanted to look at the moon. How is it that, in 1889, Florence Maybrick is accused of murder and then, in 1992, the man she was supposed to have killed is accused, in this rediscovered document, of being Jack the Ripper? It seemed so strange. And that," he says, "was what started me off.""
    - Taken from British GQ interview with Bruce Robinson

    Often those who are ensconced in the world of academic theory and census-searching lack the ability to understand humanity and it's very nature. Life is full of nuance and not every answer is found through cross-checking endless reams of witness testimony or official records. Some of it you have to colour in the blanks yourself using a mixture of logic, life experience and good old fashion cop on. Unsolved crimes of most nature rarely get tied up in one absolute pretty bow with a cherry on top.

    I came to this the same way Bruce described as above, but then the watch sealed it for me. I think anyone with an interest in psychology will also be intrigued by much of the human nuance in all of this, even the buffoonery of Michael Barrett is intriguing.

    So we fight on in the battlefields of minutiae where pedantry tries to outwit logic, reason and psychology.

    “The trumpets of war shall sound at his footsteps, the ravens feed at his voice, and he shall wear a crown of swords.”
    ― Robert Jordan, A Crown of Swords
    You are in danger of being even more brilliant than I.

    Stop it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    Thank you for the compliment, Baron, but I'm not actually a researcher, nor ever claimed to be.

    I simply examine the language, detail and nuances of anything that comes my way - verbal or oral - and respond as I see fit.

    Seven O levels, and no other qualifications. Left school at 17. What you see is what you get.

    Oh and by the way, any criticism I get from RJP I also take as a compliment.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    I think The Baron chap has a touchiness rarely seen since the halcyon days of Lord Orsam. He's probably got a double first from Oxbridge. Possibly even his.

    I got four O-levels, left school at 17. What you get (from us both) is brilliant.

    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    Thank you for the compliment, Baron, but I'm not actually a researcher, nor ever claimed to be.

    I simply examine the language, detail and nuances of anything that comes my way - verbal or oral - and respond as I see fit.

    Seven O levels, and no other qualifications. Left school at 17. What you see is what you get.

    Oh and by the way, any criticism I get from RJP I also take as a compliment.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Caz,

    Can I just say, as a fellow graduate from the university of life (I left school with 4 GCSE's) that I admire how well you have handled much of this nonsense being flung your way, by who I suspect many are academic pedants or failed writers themselves. I have seen your back catalogue of work, and a number of posters it seems to me lack the respect of your achievements.

    "There's an old Chinese proverb, he adds, "which says that when a finger points at the moon the imbecile looks at the finger. I thought Ripperologists had always been looking at the finger. I wanted to look at the moon. How is it that, in 1889, Florence Maybrick is accused of murder and then, in 1992, the man she was supposed to have killed is accused, in this rediscovered document, of being Jack the Ripper? It seemed so strange. And that," he says, "was what started me off.""
    - Taken from British GQ interview with Bruce Robinson

    Often those who are ensconced in the world of academic theory and census-searching lack the ability to understand humanity and it's very nature. Life is full of nuance and not every answer is found through cross-checking endless reams of witness testimony or official records. Some of it you have to colour in the blanks yourself using a mixture of logic, life experience and good old fashion cop on. Unsolved crimes of most nature rarely get tied up in one absolute pretty bow with a cherry on top.

    I came to this the same way Bruce described as above, but then the watch sealed it for me. I think anyone with an interest in psychology will also be intrigued by much of the human nuance in all of this, even the buffoonery of Michael Barrett is intriguing.

    So we fight on in the battlefields of minutiae where pedantry tries to outwit logic, reason and psychology.

    “The trumpets of war shall sound at his footsteps, the ravens feed at his voice, and he shall wear a crown of swords.”
    ― Robert Jordan, A Crown of Swords

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X