Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

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

  • Harry D
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
    As I have said many times, the answer to this question lies in the statistics and - in particular - the utterly implausible nature of many events and circumstances were James Maybrick innocent of the Whitechapel crimes.
    What does that even mean?

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Caz,

    I hope you’ve stocked up on midge spray.

    Gary

    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    Just LOL.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    Grow up, or get yourself better informed.

    No offence.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    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. : )

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
    Has someone taken a gratuitous swipe at the authors of Inside Story?
    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:

    Is your recommendation to researchers that “Inside Story” is generally untrustworthy or is it just the details surrounding the affidavit?
    You then went on to inform us that:

    ...David Barret mentions a phone call between Whay and Harrison January 16th, by which date the affidavit was known (page 167).
    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. 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.

    I haven't yet seen anyone faulting the authors for making a mistake. No book is without error. How an author reacts to one is, of course, telling.
    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.

    Just a friendly reminder, in case anyone can use it:

    Thursday 5th January 1995
    Affidavit sworn by Mike Barrett:
    MB states he has been trying to expose the diary fraud since December 1993... [and what have you and that's the God's honest truth]
    Sources: copy of sworn affidavit dated 5th January 1995 (CAM/KS/1995 – not seen by Shirley Harrison until 22nd January 1997, when MB sends her a copy. Not seen by Keith Skinner until 23rd January 1997, when SH gives him a copy. KS faxes a copy to Paul Feldman on 31st January 1997.)
    https://www.casebook.org/suspects/ja...con.bjan5.html

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Grow up, or get yourself better informed.

    No offence.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    Does it rattle you then, Abby? It can't be 'off topic' on any Maybrick thread, given the signature inside it.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Why don't you say it Caz?!

    Say you believe Maybrick was Jack the Ripper and free yourself.

    What are you afraid of?

    Say it, come on, you can do it, just trust yourself! It isn't that difficult as it seems, you are almost there


    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

    There’s only one of me. I leave the multiple personalities to others. ;-)

    Good for you!


    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    One of the great misunderstandings of science.

    The burden of proof lies with anyone making any claim, ever.

    Exactly

    And the one who wrote the diary claiming he was Jack the Ripper has to prove this.

    You don't seem so clever as you pretend.


    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post



    That's because you are honest.

    It is really sad that every one of you went in a different direction.



    The Baron
    There’s only one of me. I leave the multiple personalities to others. ;-)

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    I have no proof of that claim.

    Nor does anyone have proof of the counter-claim.

    This is why the Incontrovertible thread remains The Greatest Thread of All.

    That does not mean that proof (either way) is not out there somewhere.

    Until there is, we deal with probabilities and - unfortunately - that tends to come down to opinion about the relative weight of probabilities (with those who do not understand statistics profoundly underestimating the statistical case in favour of Maybrick being Jack and I not).
    I need to come back to my earlier post because I have realised I replied in haste.

    Originally posted by Harry D View Post
    You CLAIM the diary was (highly likely) written by James Maybrick.
    Let's see some proof of that.
    I realise now that it was my claim that the scrapbook was (highly likely) to have been written by James Maybrick that was in question. This is a claim I stand by, and the evidence for it is presented in my brilliant Society's Pillar.

    I had thought - in my haste - that the claim I was 'accused' of was that James Maybrick definitely wrote the scrapbook.

    As I have said many times, the answer to this question lies in the statistics and - in particular - the utterly implausible nature of many events and circumstances were James Maybrick innocent of the Whitechapel crimes.

    I wrote my brilliant Society's Pillar so that I didn't have to keep presenting that case every time someone asked for it on here.

    The link to it is to be found in the first post of the eponymous thread.

    It's much better than anything Lord Orsam's come up with, by the way.

    Cheers,

    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    And before anyone comes out with ‘Ah, but you’ve got a personal grudge against DB, so your opinion is biased’, read this:

    https://jtrforums.com/showthread.php...ight=Islington

    I still haven’t got round to finishing the book, but I will, and if the rest of it lives up the promise of the early chapters (as I suspect it may), I will praise his Lordship to the rafters.


    That's because you are honest.

    It is really sad that every one of you went in a different direction.



    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • Yabs
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • Yabs
    replied
    Click image for larger version

Name:	AEEA5DAA-C355-465C-B45B-7341BEBE438B.jpeg
Views:	123
Size:	62.6 KB
ID:	739085 A bit of conjecture, but forward to the trial summing up...

    Maybe the letter from “John K” regarding Flories visit to London is what caused Addison to make the mistake, and why He had Aunts on the brain.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yabs
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    The delicious irony is that it was Anne Graham who helped Keith after he had identified this 'fatal' error in Mike's DAiry, regarding Flo's 'aunt' [according to Addison] v her 'Godmother' [according to Hopper] v her 'mother' [according to Yapp] v her 'friend' [according to Margaret Baillie-Knight].

    I'm sure there's a simple enough explanation.
    X
    Click image for larger version

Name:	3C72A116-8B31-436F-8AA8-C8078E44CCFF.jpeg
Views:	130
Size:	72.0 KB
ID:	739080



    Hi Caz

    I’ve found the trial quote regarding the aunt, and if you read on, it seems to suggest that the Aunt reference came from Addison, via Yapp.

    Did Yapp claim that Florie went to see her mother in London when giving evidence?
    If so, then perhaps Addison simply got it wrong in his opening speech.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X