Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

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

  • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    I hope you're quite young, erobitha - I need a protégé to pass on the Iconoclast mantle to. I started my brilliant Society's Pillar with the watch, and it was not without good reason. It seems that we are eerily in tune on this point. I am changing my Last Will and Testament this morning. Expect to hear from my solicitors as soon as The Switchblade gets me.



    Ah - I rest my case. Why don't you try it on for size? "Iconobitha". It's got a certain esoteric ring to it.

    Ike
    Sitting brilliantly cleverising like Siddhartha under the Bodhi Tree only not as fat
    Not at as young as I used to be. My wick is a mere stub now. That is a candle reference only.
    "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
    - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
      The Zerohour is approaching ladies and gentelmen, the point of no return in the whole history of the Scrapbook called "The Diary"

      On Saturday, first of August at 2pm UK time the fatal error will be revealed once and for all!

      Better for the diary defenders to start writing their own diaries by now!



      The Baron
      Nice unbiased appraisal there.
      Thems the Vagaries.....

      Comment


      • If you want to believe the diary is real, you're taking a leap of faith. Just like a religious believer, it doesn't matter how many historical inaccuracies, contradictions or errors are revealed in their sacred text, they will find some way to rationalize them to justify their belief. It doesn't matter that the author got details wrong, the provenance is a mess, the handwriting doesn't match, the owner admitted to a hoax and was looking to purchase a Victorian diary before the Maybrick diary surfaced.
        On the preponderance of evidence, the diary is a work of fiction, but there's no point arguing with anyone who disagrees with that. You can't argue with them, because if they were open to reason they wouldn't have swallowed the diary in the first place. Some people are so gullible they can't help but be hoodwinked by it. With the exception of Iconoclast, who is on an obvious pisstake and just uses the diary debate for shits and giggles.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
          If you want to believe the diary is real, you're taking a leap of faith. Just like a religious believer, it doesn't matter how many historical inaccuracies, contradictions or errors are revealed in their sacred text, they will find some way to rationalize them to justify their belief. It doesn't matter that the author got details wrong, the provenance is a mess, the handwriting doesn't match, the owner admitted to a hoax and was looking to purchase a Victorian diary before the Maybrick diary surfaced.
          On the preponderance of evidence, the diary is a work of fiction, but there's no point arguing with anyone who disagrees with that. You can't argue with them, because if they were open to reason they wouldn't have swallowed the diary in the first place. Some people are so gullible they can't help but be hoodwinked by it. With the exception of Iconoclast, who is on an obvious pisstake and just uses the diary debate for shits and giggles.
          ""An inch of time is an inch of gold but you can't buy that inch of time with an inch of gold."
          - Chinese Proverb

          Another dismisser sharing his opinions without even the vaguest mention of the watch. If the scrapbook proves to be a fake so be it, but it hasn't yet after 28 years. But like all dismissers of Maybrick as a suspect you conveniently forget the watch. The watch for me has been the best evidence, but people are more inetrested in the scrapbook. If the scrapbook is a fake then I believe it may have been created to support the existence of the watch. Yet, no-one has adequeately proved how it is a hoax.

          The watch on it's own was never enough. Look at Maybrick's marriage certifate and then look at the watch. Read the experts report and tell me how it was faked. No-one has given even the remotest reasonable answer yet. Using an old etching tool is nonsense, what else does anyone have? I invite anyone on this forum to give at least ONE reasonable, scientific scenario on how the watch was faked.

          ----snip----
          The watch was examined with an electron microscope by Dr. Stephen Turgoose from the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. He concluded that the scratchings, wear and tear, and other markings on the watch indicated a “substantial age”. He noted that faking the scratchings would have been near impossible since many would not be visible even with optical microscopy.

          The watch was examined a year later by Dr. Robert Wild using an electron microscope and Auger electron spectroscopy. Wild also concluded that the engravings were “several tens of years age”. He too noted that it was “unlikely that anyone would have sufficient expertise to implant aged, brass particles into the base of the engravings.
          ----snip-----

          I continue to wait with bated breath.
          Last edited by erobitha; 07-25-2020, 10:29 PM.
          "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
          - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
            Some people are so gullible they can't help but be hoodwinked by it. With the exception of Iconoclast, who is on an obvious pisstake and just uses the diary debate for shits and giggles.
            Anyone know what ever happened to Peter Wood?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by erobitha View Post
              I continue to wait with bated breath.
              Hi erobitha,

              I think Lord Orsam would post in response twenty pages from each report and contrive to do down the snippets that you've posted. He is an exceptional researcher - he and Keith Skinner would be amazing in an All-In Wrestling & Researching Fight, there is no doubt, and that is certainly something I hope to see before my days are over - but there remains (unless Lord O or anyone else is able to put it out) a rather obvious burning platform here:

              If it was as easy to fake the scratchings in the watch as is routinely - and very haughtily put forward - by those for whom it is a thorn in their side, why did neither Dr Turgoose nor Dr Wild simply state that in their reports?

              ----snip----

              The watch was examined with an electron microscope by Dr. Stephen Turgoose from the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. He concluded that the scratchings, wear and tear, and other markings on the watch indicated a “substantial age”. He noted that faking the scratchings would have been near impossible since many would not be visible even with optical microscopy. That said, he cautioned that someone could have used a really old implement to deliberately embed particles they couldn't possibly see creating messages they could barely read and they could also have used an old tea towel to polish out the scratches to make them look really old.

              The watch was examined a year later by Dr. Robert Wild using an electron microscope and Auger electron spectroscopy. Wild also concluded that the engravings were “several tens of years age”. He too noted that it was “unlikely that anyone would have sufficient expertise to implant aged, brass particles into the base of the engravings. That said, he also added a strong note of academic caution to the effect that his old mate Stevie T was right when he concluded that creating this transparently faked watch was the act of someone taking the piss and that it was as easy to do as taking a piss.

              ----snip-----


              Those two conclusions were possibly missed-out of the two extensive reports, but - if they were - the truly diligent researcher might wonder why these experts left it to a bunch of dilettantes and delinquents to do the job for them afterwards.

              Cheers,

              Ike
              Iconoclast

              Comment


              • Originally posted by caz View Post

                You are most welcome, John.

                I'm not sure I grasp your argument in that last paragraph, though. But I can tell you there is much more 'anecdotal evidence' out there than can easily or concisely be gathered all together here in the one place, so I can't even say watch this space!

                Do you not think it would have been rather damaging to an electricians' future job prospects to acknowledge the fact that he, or a workmate, had taken something of potential value from a house where they had been working, while the owner was absent? What would be a good reason for coming clean about something like that - until perhaps enough time had passed for it not to matter much any more? For instance, if those in the know had either long since retired or were no longer with us? Nobody had to say anything, of course, but if two or more of the electricians knew about it, you can bet they'd have talked among themselves - which they did - and the word would inevitably have spread abroad - which it did. Hard to keep a lid on something like that forever.

                And there's a large juicy can of worms out there for someone with the right can opener.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                Well, I definitely agree about the can of worms, Caz!

                I'm not suprised about there being a great deal of anecdotal evidence out there. Shirley Harrison relates a story of an alarm systems shop assistant, who remembers being told in late 1991 by Alan Davies, an electrician, a story he'd heard about an electrician who'd found a leather bound- diary and a gold ring in a biscuit tin under some floorboards. Talk about Chinese whispers!

                Then the shop remembers it was sold "in a pub in Anfield." Very convenient!

                Meanwhile, Brian Rawes, "at the end of one day", recalls picking up two other employees from Battelecrease, one of whom says, "Ive found sonething under the floorboards. I think it could be important." (Harrison, 2010.) Note: no mention as to what was found.

                But here's the problem. Assuming for one moment that the Diary was found at Battelecrease on the 9th March, why would the electricians think that MB would be interested? I mean, did he stick something on the notice board at the Saddle?:

                "Wanted. One Jack the Ripper Dairy. Must be in good condition. Will pay a few quid, plus a pint of best and a packet of pork scratchings. PS: must be the real mccoy. No forgeries!"

                And how did they get in contact with him so quickly? Consider: assuming the Diary was found on the 9th March-and according to Brian Rawes, whatever was found was discovered at the end if the day- MB has to be contacted before the end of normal business hours, say, 5:00pm (it might already have been too late for this) in order for him yo have time to contact the literary agent, who presumably he had on speed dial, no doubt anticipating a quick response to his advert! And I'm sure you remember as well as I do that, in the Halcyon mobile phone-less/ social media-less times, it just wasn't that easy to contact someone at short notice. And the workman who supposedly discovered the Diary don't even seem to have had any transport; Brian Rawes was the driver. And he certainly doesn't recall driving frantically around half the pubs in Anfield, with a couple of sparkies in the back of the van, in a manic search for a scrap metal dealer and Jack the Ripper enthusiast.

                Okay, say, they managed to phone him from a call box. You can just imagine how that might have gone:

                " 'Ere Mike, you never guess what. We've only gone and found Jack the Ripper's diary! Genuine article, guaranteed. It's yours for a tenner. Oh, and for an extra five quid we'll throw in Queen Victoria's secret memoirs. Some really racy stuff in there, I can tell you."

                Is Mike going to respond by saying, "Wow! That's incredible. I'd better phone a literary agent immediately, who I just happen to have on speed dial, just on the off chance that such an incredibly unlikely eventually should occur!"

                No, of course he isn't, even he's not going to be that insane, regardless of how impulsive he may have been. He might think it's a wind up. Or that the workman are drunk or just mentally ill. At the very least he's going to want to see the document, have time to read and evaluate it, perhaps get it authenticated. And how did they managed to get it round to him by 5:00pm? They're supposed to be working. Plus they only found it at the end of the day, and they have no transport.

                It's all deeply unsatisfactory. Not to mention that it can in no way be reconciled with Ann's somewhat bizarre account, leaving her seriously undermined. Not that she wasn't anyway. Actually, didn't she expand on her story in a car crash radio interview in October, 1995 , in which she claimed to have found the diary in a trunk when she was 17 or 18, and that she thought it had probably been stolen and just sort of ended up in there house?

                What it does suggest is some form of collusion, from which we might infer a conspiracy, which is deeply damning for the Diary's credibility.

                By the way, I didn't realize this but someone called Anne Graham wrote a book about Florence Maybrick, forwarded by Keith Skinner. Now there's someone with an interest in the Maybricks, who presumably has reasonable literacy and research skills. At least more so than an ex journalist who's only known to have written one short article for, what was it, Look In? Sorry, couldn't resist!









                Comment


                • Originally posted by John G View Post

                  Well, I definitely agree about the can of worms, Caz!

                  I'm not suprised about there being a great deal of anecdotal evidence out there. Shirley Harrison relates a story of an alarm systems shop assistant, who remembers being told in late 1991 by Alan Davies, an electrician, a story he'd heard about an electrician who'd found a leather bound- diary and a gold ring in a biscuit tin under some floorboards. Talk about Chinese whispers!

                  Then the shop remembers it was sold "in a pub in Anfield." Very convenient!

                  Meanwhile, Brian Rawes, "at the end of one day", recalls picking up two other employees from Battelecrease, one of whom says, "Ive found sonething under the floorboards. I think it could be important." (Harrison, 2010.) Note: no mention as to what was found.

                  But here's the problem. Assuming for one moment that the Diary was found at Battelecrease on the 9th March, why would the electricians think that MB would be interested? I mean, did he stick something on the notice board at the Saddle?:

                  "Wanted. One Jack the Ripper Dairy. Must be in good condition. Will pay a few quid, plus a pint of best and a packet of pork scratchings. PS: must be the real mccoy. No forgeries!"

                  And how did they get in contact with him so quickly? Consider: assuming the Diary was found on the 9th March-and according to Brian Rawes, whatever was found was discovered at the end if the day- MB has to be contacted before the end of normal business hours, say, 5:00pm (it might already have been too late for this) in order for him yo have time to contact the literary agent, who presumably he had on speed dial, no doubt anticipating a quick response to his advert! And I'm sure you remember as well as I do that, in the Halcyon mobile phone-less/ social media-less times, it just wasn't that easy to contact someone at short notice. And the workman who supposedly discovered the Diary don't even seem to have had any transport; Brian Rawes was the driver. And he certainly doesn't recall driving frantically around half the pubs in Anfield, with a couple of sparkies in the back of the van, in a manic search for a scrap metal dealer and Jack the Ripper enthusiast.

                  Okay, say, they managed to phone him from a call box. You can just imagine how that might have gone:

                  " 'Ere Mike, you never guess what. We've only gone and found Jack the Ripper's diary! Genuine article, guaranteed. It's yours for a tenner. Oh, and for an extra five quid we'll throw in Queen Victoria's secret memoirs. Some really racy stuff in there, I can tell you."

                  Is Mike going to respond by saying, "Wow! That's incredible. I'd better phone a literary agent immediately, who I just happen to have on speed dial, just on the off chance that such an incredibly unlikely eventually should occur!"

                  No, of course he isn't, even he's not going to be that insane, regardless of how impulsive he may have been. He might think it's a wind up. Or that the workman are drunk or just mentally ill. At the very least he's going to want to see the document, have time to read and evaluate it, perhaps get it authenticated. And how did they managed to get it round to him by 5:00pm? They're supposed to be working. Plus they only found it at the end of the day, and they have no transport.

                  It's all deeply unsatisfactory. Not to mention that it can in no way be reconciled with Ann's somewhat bizarre account, leaving her seriously undermined. Not that she wasn't anyway. Actually, didn't she expand on her story in a car crash radio interview in October, 1995 , in which she claimed to have found the diary in a trunk when she was 17 or 18, and that she thought it had probably been stolen and just sort of ended up in there house?

                  What it does suggest is some form of collusion, from which we might infer a conspiracy, which is deeply damning for the Diary's credibility.

                  By the way, I didn't realize this but someone called Anne Graham wrote a book about Florence Maybrick, forwarded by Keith Skinner. Now there's someone with an interest in the Maybricks, who presumably has reasonable literacy and research skills. At least more so than an ex journalist who's only known to have written one short article for, what was it, Look In? Sorry, couldn't resist!
                  Wow. This is like the World Record for Inaccurate Reporting Blatantly Intended to Influence the Feeble-Minded! I honestly don't know where to begin to pick through the twisted nature of the story you have just unfolded for us.

                  If ever there was a case of "playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order", this is definitely it.

                  Please, if the whole drama wasn't about to finally end at 2pm next Saturday, I'd advise you to read a book on the subject or ask someone who knows what they're talking about before you post.

                  I think you have maybe 30 bits of Maybrick-related information in your collection and you've just randomly picked-up 10-15 of them and thrown them equally-randomly into a post.

                  In that regard, it is a masterpiece of obfuscation.

                  Ike
                  Iconoclast

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by erobitha View Post

                    ""An inch of time is an inch of gold but you can't buy that inch of time with an inch of gold."
                    - Chinese Proverb

                    Another dismisser sharing his opinions without even the vaguest mention of the watch. If the scrapbook proves to be a fake so be it, but it hasn't yet after 28 years. But like all dismissers of Maybrick as a suspect you conveniently forget the watch. The watch for me has been the best evidence, but people are more inetrested in the scrapbook. If the scrapbook is a fake then I believe it may have been created to support the existence of the watch. Yet, no-one has adequeately proved how it is a hoax.

                    The watch on it's own was never enough. Look at Maybrick's marriage certifate and then look at the watch. Read the experts report and tell me how it was faked. No-one has given even the remotest reasonable answer yet. Using an old etching tool is nonsense, what else does anyone have? I invite anyone on this forum to give at least ONE reasonable, scientific scenario on how the watch was faked.

                    ----snip----
                    The watch was examined with an electron microscope by Dr. Stephen Turgoose from the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. He concluded that the scratchings, wear and tear, and other markings on the watch indicated a “substantial age”. He noted that faking the scratchings would have been near impossible since many would not be visible even with optical microscopy.

                    The watch was examined a year later by Dr. Robert Wild using an electron microscope and Auger electron spectroscopy. Wild also concluded that the engravings were “several tens of years age”. He too noted that it was “unlikely that anyone would have sufficient expertise to implant aged, brass particles into the base of the engravings.
                    ----snip-----

                    I continue to wait with bated breath.
                    One of the most enduring murder mysteries for over a hundred years. How fortuitous that within 1992-93 two artifacts emerge with confessions from the same killer.

                    The watch even has the initials of the five canonical victims! All wrapped up in a neat little bow. What are the odds!?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                      One of the most enduring murder mysteries for over a hundred years. How fortuitous that within 1992-93 two artifacts emerge with confessions from the same killer.

                      The watch even has the initials of the five canonical victims! All wrapped up in a neat little bow. What are the odds!?
                      Here's an interesting little statistic (as it's final game of the season, and whilst we await the end of the DAiry saga next Saturday - more greatly anticipated than the FA Cup Final two hours later!), Newcastle United have been in the Championship for three seasons during the Premiership era and been champions of it each time. First was in 1992-93, which is what made me think of it.

                      Anyone else got any enduring and indeed endearing DAiry memories as the clock ticks down to the end of that most strange affair?

                      Ike
                      Iconoclast

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                        Here's an interesting little statistic (as it's final game of the season, and whilst we await the end of the DAiry saga next Saturday - more greatly anticipated than the FA Cup Final two hours later!), Newcastle United have been in the Championship for three seasons during the Premiership era and been champions of it each time. First was in 1992-93, which is what made me think of it.

                        Anyone else got any enduring and indeed endearing DAiry memories as the clock ticks down to the end of that most strange affair?

                        Ike
                        Remember when Swindon Town were IN the Premier League? I've yet to see a plausible explanation for that strange affair.
                        Thems the Vagaries.....

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                          I am sure Barrett was not as naive, or as innocent as he has been portrayed nor was his wife. I dont think for one minute he went to London with his head buried in the sand. He clearly knew what he was in possession of, and how it came to be in the format he took with him, and knew that it was of some monetary value, otherwise why would he have taken the trouble to go to those lengths.
                          Er, what 'lengths', Trev?

                          Sees "old book" signed JtR, May 1889, with about 30 pages [60 sides] of handwriting in it, followed by about 20 more blank sides, in the Saddle while supping a pint. Decides it might be worth a call to a publisher to gauge their interest, gets passed on to a literary agent, who wants to see it. Buys "old book" off Eddie for £25, saying it's worthless with no evidence it's genuine, takes it down to "that London" and the rest is a dastardly distortion of history by Bongo & The Believers.

                          Can you not see the irony in your question, if you believe he actually took 'the trouble to go to the lengths' that would have been required to plan and execute his own hoax, which would have been consigned straight to the dustbin of history without so much as a "by your leave"?

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            But the electricians could have made up any account they wouldn't have needed to tell the truth. Surely if they had found it they would have realised that it was an old book and when they read the content realised that it related to Jack the Ripper, and most people are familiar with the crimes of Jack the Ripper and kept it and sold it as is being alleged.

                            Or alternatively handed to their boss, or directly to the house owner.
                            Yes, Trev, the electricians could have said anything or nothing, and all those who have said something could have lied or told the truth. Whoever found it would have guessed it was an old book, yes. A few have referred to the diary as "the old book", while Shirley's book has been referred to as "the diary". The handwriting has been described as hard to read, so the finder didn't necessarily read enough of the content to know what it was all about, and the name Maybrick isn't mentioned at all, so the finder wouldn't automatically have connected 'Yours truly, Jack the Ripper' on the last page of writing, with the former occupant of the big house on Riversdale Road, even if he knew it was once called Battlecrease. Could have been a fictional account written at any time by anyone. Without taking the time and trouble to read more than the first page or two, it wouldn't be an obvious 'confession' to the murders in London, by someone from Aigburth signing themselves Jack the Ripper.

                            Obviously the diary wasn't 'kept' or handed to their boss or the house owner, was it? And your other suggestion, that it was 'sold', is supported by all the evidence we have managed to obtain.

                            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                            By keeping it and saying where they acquired it and how, and then selling it they were committing a criminal offence of theft by finding, which the police would have been aware of when they were interviewed. So when interviewed they either had to say they didn't find it or admit to theft.
                            No shi* Sherlock.

                            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                            My understanding is they stated they didn't find it, that of course casts doubt about the pub transactions

                            I have that can opener in my drawer

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            Why does it cast doubt, Trev? Would you have got the finder to 'admit to theft' if you'd interviewed the electricians? Wouldn't they have been much more likely to deny all knowledge, whether that was the truth or not?

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X

                            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                            Comment


                            • Hi again Trevor,

                              You say your 'understanding' is that the electricians [plural] 'stated they didn't find it'.

                              But of course, the finder would have been the first person to see the "old book", so his workmates would have been telling the truth to state they didn't find it. They may or may not have witnessed the finding, or the retrieving, or the taking away, or what the finder did with it next and what have you, but my own understanding [admittedly from tv police dramas] would be that the police were unlikely to have asked just the one question of everyone: "Did you find it?", and when the answer was a one-word "No" each time, they simply called it a day and went down the nearest pub for a pie and a pint.

                              So is your understanding also that the police interviewed all those concerned, including Paul Dodd and everyone at Portus & Rhodes, and they all denied any knowledge of a possible find, or witnessing any odd behaviour, or hearing any suggestion that one or more of the electricians knew something?

                              We know that one of the electricians, who was on the Battlecrease job on 9th March 1992, told his brother that he had witnessed some odd behaviour on the part of two of the electricians working with him at the house. In 2015, before the names were made public, the electrician's brother posted this on the Pro-Liverpool message boards:

                              'He remembers the names Allan Davies and Brian Rawes, they were not the other two who were working at the house. I don't think it is my place to give any names as I don't know what is already in the public domain, all I can say is the initials were E.L. and J.K. whether that ties in with anything you may already know.'

                              Love,

                              Caz
                              X

                              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                                Of course they said they didn't find it, because most of them didn't find it. It was Eddie Lyons who found it, and he kept schtum because he knew (or believed) it was theft.

                                One of Eddie's fellow crew members later went on the record as saying that Eddie had admitted to him that he had found something valuable under the floorboards. I'm not sure why someone would make such a strong claim if there wasn't a kernel of truth about it. There was nothing apparently in it for him to say it, unless someone wishes to suggest that Paul Feldman reached out from the grave with a was in a brown paper bag as an inducement?

                                Cheers,

                                Ike
                                In fact, Ike, I don't think that fellow crew member, Brian Rawes, was ever on Feldy's radar. His name is not on any of the relevant work sheets and he says he never actually worked at the house, so his account seems not to have reached Feldy's ears while he [Feldy] was still with us, let alone after we had put him 'six feet under' with Ripper Diary. He was not best pleased with how we told the story of the first ten years!

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                Last edited by caz; 07-27-2020, 10:38 AM.
                                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X