Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

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

  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post


    Hi Caz, it would help a great deal if you would actually read what is being discussed. And for the record, I only said Feldman suppressed it; you are the one that has included Graham and Keith into the mix. Graham (to some degree) corrected this error in her book.

    With all good wishes.
    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"

    Leave a comment:


  • Kattrup
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

    Hi Kattrup,

    To ‘draw a line under’ something is to bring it to a close.

    To ‘underline’ something is to highlight it.

    I think Caz probably meant what she said.

    okay, thanks - I was unaware of that expression

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post


    Hi Caz, it would help a great deal if you would actually read what is being discussed. And for the record, I only said Feldman suppressed it; you are the one that has included Graham and Keith into the mix. Graham (to some degree) corrected this error in her book.

    What you don’t seem to comprehend, Caz, is that there is not a jot of evidence that Florence Maybrick or anyone else ever referred to Florence Phelan [The Countess de Gabriac---not The Countess de Gabrielle, as Smith, Feldman, and Anne Graham wrongly call her] as Flo’s aunt during Maybrick’s lifetime. Dr. Hopper, in his unpublished statement, reveals that JAMES MAYBRICK HIMSELF referred to the Countess as Florrie’s godmother during the argument over Florrie’s proposed trip to London. She wasn’t Florrie’s aunt; she wasn’t even her blood relative; she was a friend of her mother’s. Yet ‘Maybrick’ of the Diary, in a passage supposedly written after this same argument, refers to her as his wife’s aunt. If you can't see a problem in that, than there's little I can do for you.

    The FIRST TIME (and what should have been the last time) that anyone made this mistake came AFTER James Maybrick’s death, when John Addison, in his statement to the court, got into a muddle and called her Florrie’s aunt instead of her godmother. (Orsam speculates, very plausibly, that Addison was thinking of ‘Aunt M’ from a previous visit Florrie had made to London). Addison’s error was then repeated in secondary sources up until the time of Anne Graham’s book--which Orsam references and acknowledges.

    You really should bite the bullet and read the article before commenting further, Caz. The Diary repeats an error made in court after Maybrick’s death (just as ‘Maybrick’of the Diary quotes other trial testimony made after his own demise), so, yes, it is clearly an error in the text traceable to Addison, and, in my estimation, traceable to modern secondary sources.

    Why? Because the Diary simply does not have the wealth of detail one would expect from a hoax created from obscure, primary sources. It just repeats the same basic details found in Ryan, Christie, etc., and offers nothing new whatsoever and even repeats their same errors, as the above demonstrates. It is simply inconceivable that two independent authors would access the same vast trove of archival documentation and come up with exactly the same overlap of data, with no exceptions, and with the same errors. That is where the ‘old hoax’ theory flounders and fails: not a smoking textual gun; just cold, hard, boring, but deadly plausibility.

    By the way, had you actually read the article, you would see that Lord O nowhere claims that Feldman suppressed evidence. He simply states that no one (evidently including Graham and Skinner) had noticed that this error directly contradicts what the hoaxer had written in the black ledger. I’m somewhat more skeptical. Considering Feldman’s obsession with Florence Maybrick’s genealogy, and the fact that Graham correctly identifies de Gabrielle [sic: Gabriac] as Flo’s godmother, I am at a loss to comprehend why Feldy would still be referring to her as Flo’s aunt, unless he was hellbent on avoiding exposing a textual anomaly. But then, maybe I’m being too much of a hard-arse.

    Really—just how many ‘barnacles’ needs to cling to the hull of a ship before everyone admits that it is no longer seaworthy? Are five errors not enough? How many does one need? Can anyone give me a ballpark figure of how many textual ‘anomalies’ need to be present before we can all openly admit that a document is bogus? I hate to repeat myself, but one of Mark Hoffman’s forgeries was dismissed by Lincoln scholars because it was simply folded incorrectly! But maybe they have higher standards.

    As for Harris, I know nothing about it. My understanding is that on at least one occasion Melvin offered to work with Harrison, but she declined. I think this had to do with the ink testing. Afterwards there was little or no cooperation.

    Presumably the affidavit would have fallen under attorney/client privilege, and Barrett’s solicitor had advised Mike in early 1995 (I quote from memory) “to stop killing the goose that is laying the golden egg (!)”, so I can’t imagine that Bark Jones would have gone all warm and fuzzy inside at the prospect of Mike turning over his confession to those still promoting The Diary as an authentic document. But perhaps you know differently? I don’t know—or remember--the precise details of its eventual release.

    Why was Keith quizzing Anne about the red diary if he didn’t know about Barrett’s 5 January 1995 affidavit? When, how, and from whom did he learn of its existence? I’m curious.

    With all good wishes.
    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.



    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

    It’s not for others to judge when you’ve already stated the answer, is it?


    My question was a natural follow-up to your statement:

    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?

    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?

    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”.

    How did Melvin Harris suppres the affidavit?
    You’ll underline which question, mine? Why underline it, do you mean strike a line through it? I already know how David B has reacted and I don’t think he’s made a mistake.
    Your reaction, as evidenced by your posts, is well-known and in my opinion reflects poorly on you.
    Hi Kattrup,

    To ‘draw a line under’ something is to bring it to a close.

    To ‘underline’ something is to highlight it.

    I think Caz probably meant what she said.




    Gary

    Last edited by MrBarnett; 08-04-2020, 07:46 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    Do you really think there was only one possible interpretation of the aunt/Godmother reference, and therefore Keith and co 'suppressed' it deliberately, knowing it would instantly kill off the diary, with or without a credible forgery claim from Mike Barrett?

    Come on now, RJ, I don't believe you are that naive.

    Hi Caz, it would help a great deal if you would actually read what is being discussed. And for the record, I only said Feldman suppressed it; you are the one that has included Graham and Keith into the mix. Graham (to some degree) corrected this error in her book.

    What you don’t seem to comprehend, Caz, is that there is not a jot of evidence that Florence Maybrick or anyone else ever referred to Florence Phelan [The Countess de Gabriac---not The Countess de Gabrielle, as Smith, Feldman, and Anne Graham wrongly call her] as Flo’s aunt during Maybrick’s lifetime. Dr. Hopper, in his unpublished statement, reveals that JAMES MAYBRICK HIMSELF referred to the Countess as Florrie’s godmother during the argument over Florrie’s proposed trip to London. She wasn’t Florrie’s aunt; she wasn’t even her blood relative; she was a friend of her mother’s. Yet ‘Maybrick’ of the Diary, in a passage supposedly written after this same argument, refers to her as his wife’s aunt. If you can't see a problem in that, than there's little I can do for you.

    The FIRST TIME (and what should have been the last time) that anyone made this mistake came AFTER James Maybrick’s death, when John Addison, in his statement to the court, got into a muddle and called her Florrie’s aunt instead of her godmother. (Orsam speculates, very plausibly, that Addison was thinking of ‘Aunt M’ from a previous visit Florrie had made to London). Addison’s error was then repeated in secondary sources up until the time of Anne Graham’s book--which Orsam references and acknowledges.

    You really should bite the bullet and read the article before commenting further, Caz. The Diary repeats an error made in court after Maybrick’s death (just as ‘Maybrick’of the Diary quotes other trial testimony made after his own demise), so, yes, it is clearly an error in the text traceable to Addison, and, in my estimation, traceable to modern secondary sources.

    Why? Because the Diary simply does not have the wealth of detail one would expect from a hoax created from obscure, primary sources. It just repeats the same basic details found in Ryan, Christie, etc., and offers nothing new whatsoever and even repeats their same errors, as the above demonstrates. It is simply inconceivable that two independent authors would access the same vast trove of archival documentation and come up with exactly the same overlap of data, with no exceptions, and with the same errors. That is where the ‘old hoax’ theory flounders and fails: not a smoking textual gun; just cold, hard, boring, but deadly plausibility.

    By the way, had you actually read the article, you would see that Lord O nowhere claims that Feldman suppressed evidence. He simply states that no one (evidently including Graham and Skinner) had noticed that this error directly contradicts what the hoaxer had written in the black ledger. I’m somewhat more skeptical. Considering Feldman’s obsession with Florence Maybrick’s genealogy, and the fact that Graham correctly identifies de Gabrielle [sic: Gabriac] as Flo’s godmother, I am at a loss to comprehend why Feldy would still be referring to her as Flo’s aunt, unless he was hellbent on avoiding exposing a textual anomaly. But then, maybe I’m being too much of a hard-arse.

    Really—just how many ‘barnacles’ needs to cling to the hull of a ship before everyone admits that it is no longer seaworthy? Are five errors not enough? How many does one need? Can anyone give me a ballpark figure of how many textual ‘anomalies’ need to be present before we can all openly admit that a document is bogus? I hate to repeat myself, but one of Mark Hoffman’s forgeries was dismissed by Lincoln scholars because it was simply folded incorrectly! But maybe they have higher standards.

    As for Harris, I know nothing about it. My understanding is that on at least one occasion Melvin offered to work with Harrison, but she declined. I think this had to do with the ink testing. Afterwards there was little or no cooperation.

    Presumably the affidavit would have fallen under attorney/client privilege, and Barrett’s solicitor had advised Mike in early 1995 (I quote from memory) “to stop killing the goose that is laying the golden egg (!)”, so I can’t imagine that Bark Jones would have gone all warm and fuzzy inside at the prospect of Mike turning over his confession to those still promoting The Diary as an authentic document. But perhaps you know differently? I don’t know—or remember--the precise details of its eventual release.

    Why was Keith quizzing Anne about the red diary if he didn’t know about Barrett’s 5 January 1995 affidavit? When, how, and from whom did he learn of its existence? I’m curious.

    With all good wishes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kattrup
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    I suppose that's for others to judge, Kattrup. Your question did strike me as below the belt, unnecessarily provocative, and not one you genuinely expected me to answer
    It’s not for others to judge when you’ve already stated the answer, is it?


    My question was a natural follow-up to your statement:
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    Apologies if Inside Story misled anyone by sticking to the chronology of what we know happened on what date, without always going the extra mile to explain who knew about it and when.
    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?
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    As I then explained to you, David Barrat still had his Whay and Harrison communications mixed up when you read this. We don't refer to the conversation on January 16th 1995. This one related back to what Mike Barrett told Harold Brough in June 1994 about obtaining what Shirley described as an 'unremarkable empty album'. It would be another two years before she had sight of Mike's January 1995 affidavit, and was able to share it with Kevin Whay and ask him to do a new search based on Mike's complete change of story to an album with 125 pages of WWI photos plus a compass. All the information needed for David B to correct his own misleading claims about the purpose of the above-mentioned phone call was posted around 4 months ago for RJ Palmer's benefit, and it has now been posted again for yours.

    Maybe you could do the honours and make sure David B knows about it this time, so he won't be caught again with his pants down concerning who knew about Mike's affidavit and when.
    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?

    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”.
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    Then you and David B and RJP and Observer and Abby Normal and The Baron and Uncle Tom Cobley & All might wish to consider why Melvin Harris didn't want Shirley and co seeing that affidavit and investigating its new claims when Mike first swore it, and why a version of it eventually found its way onto the internet before Shirley even got a sniff.
    How did Melvin Harris suppres the affidavit?
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    That's great, Kattrup. I'm happy to draw a line under that unfortunate question, and you can find out for your own satisfaction how David B has reacted to his own mistake over what Shirley was enquiring about and when.
    You’ll underline which question, mine? Why underline it, do you mean strike a line through it? I already know how David B has reacted and I don’t think he’s made a mistake.
    Your reaction, as evidenced by your posts, is well-known and in my opinion reflects poorly on you.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    I'm glad that you hold would-be historians to such high standards, Caz.

    Splendid.


    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi All,

    As I don't have a dog in this race, my mind turned to the meaning of Lobster.

    I found Caz's original — Lord O's Big Sexy Truest Ever Reveal — and then came up with —

    Lashings Of BS To Exasperate Ripperologists.

    Stay safe everybody.

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    replied
    Has anyone got a link to the actual article, or a transcription thereof, of Mike's initial confession in June 1994 in the Liverpool Echo?

    Cheers.
    Last edited by Al Bundy's Eyes; 08-04-2020, 05:11 PM. Reason: Liverpool Echo

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    Unfrickin' believable.

    There you have it, future Ripperologists. If debilitating data exists somewhere (even in a publisher's desk drawer?) you have no moral obligation to report it, and you need not be accused of suppressing it, either, because someone else will eventually find it...maybe...someday...

    I'm glad that you hold would-be historians to such high standards, Caz.

    Splendid.
    So not a sodding word about Melvin Harris suppressing Mike's affidavit, making it impossible for Shirley and co to have investigated it while the iron was hot?

    When are you going to apologise for criticising Shirley and co for not being frickin' psychic, when all your criticism should have been directed at Melvin and co for their underhand tactics?

    Sometime never?

    Do you really think there was only one possible interpretation of the aunt/Godmother reference, and therefore Keith and co 'suppressed' it deliberately, knowing it would instantly kill off the diary, with or without a credible forgery claim from Mike Barrett?

    Come on now, RJ, I don't believe you are that naive.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    and it was hardly 'suppressed' if the information was there in the files to be found by anyone with a will to look.
    Unfrickin' believable.

    There you have it, future Ripperologists. If debilitating data exists somewhere (even in a publisher's desk drawer?) you have no moral obligation to report it, and you need not be accused of suppressing it, either, because someone else will eventually find it...maybe...someday...

    I'm glad that you hold would-be historians to such high standards, Caz.

    Splendid.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    This has to be one of the more bizarre 'spins' I've seen in a good while.
    So you're back then, are you?

    Not sure about a 'spin'. I just read the recent posts regarding Keith's research on Florie's aunt, with Anne Graham's assistance. First I knew about the aunt/Godmother thing and all the possible permutations and interpretations concerning the few words in the diary on the subject.

    And I don't read anything these days coming from the misleading source that is David Barrat. He was permanently banned from the casebook two years ago, so I don't see any reason to go in search of what he has to say today on any subject, least of all the diary he falsely claims the Barretts created in early April 1992!

    '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...
    Don't know, don't care. Feldy was hardly likely to abandon his own beliefs on the strength of learning this earth-shattering, but completely bogus revelation, that JM must have known Florie's Godmother was not her real aunt, so would never have referred to her as such in his diary, even when Florie clearly couldn't make up her mind from one minute to the next who she was going to use as her excuse for going to London and who she was going to tell.

    None of this points to a modern hoax anyway, does it?

    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? What would you have expected of Feldy? 'Mea culpa, readers, it was Bongo after all, blindly copying from Addison'?

    So what 'credit' is due? Credit for suppressing data damaging to the Diary's supposed accuracy?
    No, just the credit due to Keith and Anne, for finding the information in the first place. Keith couldn't force Feldy to use it, and it was hardly 'suppressed' if the information was there in the files to be found by anyone with a will to look. Unlike Mike's affidavit, which was suppressed by your old pal Melvin Harris. Or don't you believe the content of that was potentially far more 'damaging' to the diary than what its author wrote about Florie lying to Sir Jim?

    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.
    Since when did Feldman ever 'look very good'?

    Nice try, RJ, but it won't wash in 2020. Keith didn't 'suppress' the fact that he had looked into Florie's elusive aunt back in 1992/3, did he? Who else would have known - apart from Anne Graham, who ain't talking - if Keith hadn't given Ike permission to report it?

    Much ado about nothing. Come back when you've found some new 'data' that explains how Bongo was hoping to make use of the 1891 diary he ordered from Martin Earl, in the context of a Barrett hoax designed to impress Doreen on 13th April 1992.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    Caz,

    I hope you’ve stocked up on midge spray.

    Gary


    You think I might need it then, Gary?

    Buzz buzz buzz

    Love,

    Cazz cazz cazz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    congrats caz youre one of the worlds leading experts on an inconsequential half assed hoax and for all your being "better informed" youve still been fooled by(according to you) a drunken idiot


    no offence. : )
    Read my post again, Abby.

    I suggested The Baron get better informed about my position re the diary. I would jolly well hope to be better informed than most about what I think.

    If anyone has been fooled by Bongo, it ain't me. I'm immune to everything the liar ever said about the diary's origins.

    But many people believe the word of Mike Barrett because - er - actually, I don't really have a clue why they would believe him. They just do.

    Nowt so queer as folk, as they say.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    But it isn't new research, is it, Observer? Not by any stretch. The 'anomaly' was found back in the 90s.

    Credit where credit is due please.

    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


    Leave a comment:

Working...
X