Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

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

  • 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:


  • Yabs
    replied
    Click image for larger version

Name:	1CEB3FA7-20B7-46F6-930F-EB1ECDE16A47.jpeg
Views:	92
Size:	115.2 KB
ID:	739202

    Leave a comment:


  • Yabs
    replied
    Click image for larger version

Name:	AAC9BC27-2E5C-4493-8571-F54E23122735.jpeg
Views:	94
Size:	215.0 KB
ID:	739200

    Leave a comment:


  • Yabs
    replied
    Click image for larger version

Name:	47E32302-1CDE-469E-8EF6-07D8EFC338F5.jpeg
Views:	96
Size:	221.4 KB
ID:	739198

    Leave a comment:


  • Yabs
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

    Help me out here. Is this reference to Florrie’s aunt an ‘error’ based on the ‘error’ made by Addison, a reference to a genuine aunt other than Florrie’s godmother or a reflection of the godmother being called an aunt within the family?
    Hi Mr B
    The whole aunt thing is a bit odd.
    Here’s a few more bits, including a more complete quote of the letter from “John”
    Another article referencing it, and a comment from Florries mother about it.....

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post


    After how many years? 20.. 30? years of researching, you recieve such a criticism!

    Are you satisfied now Caz?! Proud of yourself?

    Happy Lobster for you!


    The Baron
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    yeah that must be it. of course its not the bleedin obvious that a modern hoaxer was just repeating a mistake made on the record, the history of all to see now as clearly outlined by Lord Orsam.
    Yes, Abnormal, I think that must be it. Before Florrie went to London to see her godmother, Maybrick appears to have believed - for whatever reason (and there are plenty) - that she was off to see her 'aunt'.

    Wait for it.

    Wait for it.

    Wait for it.

    Wait for it.

    A couple of weeks go by (possibly a few weeks). Florrie goes to London, comes back, they both meet Dr Hopper and Dr Hopper says they both say Florrie had been to see her godmother. We don't know if James said it or if he simply concurred when Florrie said it (thinking "That's funny, I could have sworn she'd said 'aunt' - that's buggered my scrapbook up completely and irrevocably").

    I am comfortable that this is a perfectly plausible view of how things went down.

    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Yabs View Post
    Click image for larger version

Name:	914ACB54-49DE-49B3-8AF9-6129FEB27247.jpeg
Views:	167
Size:	205.0 KB
ID:	739088 And from the Ipswich journal August 16th 1889.
    Just to add to the confusion...
    Help me out here. Is this reference to Florrie’s aunt an ‘error’ based on the ‘error’ made by Addison, a reference to a genuine aunt other than Florrie’s godmother or a reflection of the godmother being called an aunt within the family?

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    "proposed, purposed, purple prose." I am worst than the Barretts.

    Look Out! Barrett's Scam Tricks Eager Ripperologists.

    Good-night and good-bye.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    I should correct one error I made in Post #529. For some unknown reason, I called Florrie's trip to London her "purposed trip," when it had already taken place.

    And here I thought I was too young for senior moments.

    Either way, Dr. Hopper was there in person. His witness statement has Maybrick referring to the Countess as Florrie's godmother, so Maybrick knew the woman's correct relationship to his wife. The error the diarist makes is the exact same error that was made at trial, and has been repeated in 20th Century texts ever since, including the one named by Barrett as one of his major sources.

    Draw your own conclusions.

    Whether this is 'fatal' or not, depends on one's personal judgment. It is indisputably an error. Personally, I think it is pretty damn fatal. But then, what killed Rasputin? Was it the cyanide, the two gun shot wounds, the beatings, the ice cold river, or all of the above?

    It's not like one can't take their pick when it comes to errors in the Diary.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post




    I am sure Caz and MrBarnett and the other guy (what was his name ..?) will find your post reasonable and rational, at the end of the day it doesn't matter how many errors one can find in this small scrapbook, its all about feelings, about emotions!


    The rest of world though will keep laughing, which is a good thing!




    The Baron
    No, this thread is all about whether the aunt error is in itself is a knockout blow.

    It isn’t.
    Last edited by MrBarnett; 08-05-2020, 01:10 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    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 am sure Caz and MrBarnett and the other guy (what was his name ..?) will find your post reasonable and rational, at the end of the day it doesn't matter how many errors one can find in this small scrapbook, its all about feelings, about emotions!


    The rest of world though will keep laughing, which is a good thing!




    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    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"
    yeah that must be it. of course its not the bleedin obvious that a modern hoaxer was just repeating a mistake made on the record, the history of all to see now as clearly outlined by Lord Orsam.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post


    This has to be one of the more bizarre 'spins' I've seen in a good while.

    'Orsam' acknowledges that Feldman and his research team must have seen this documentation. Indeed, it was one of the more disturbing aspects of his article...

    The point, as I see it, is that Feldman didn't bother to inform his readers that the aunt was actually a godmother. He must have seen this 'anomaly,' as you call it (would a better word be 'error' or 'discrepancy'?) but never mentioned it.

    So what 'credit' is due? Credit for suppressing data damaging to the Diary's supposed accuracy?

    I suppose it is time once again to quote Howells and Skinner.

    "Supporting evidence was only being investigated insofar as it was of value to the plot, and debilitating research was being omitted altogether."

    It makes me appreciate Stephen Senise's honesty for quickly informing the community that he had the wrong George Hutchinson. Unfortunately, that attitude is rather rare in what some call "Ripperology."

    And no matter what spin anyone puts to this, it certainly doesn't make Feldman look very good, and it make me wonder what else may have been churned up by his research, but was never reported.

    RP

    well said RJ

    and yes wish there were more forthright people like Stephen.
    Last edited by Abby Normal; 08-04-2020, 09:30 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X