Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

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

  • Iconoclast
    replied
    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 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).

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

    In M’Lord’s book of ethics (and no doubt thuffolk and thurrey) that’s a transgression of positively Hensonian magnitude.
    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.

    Was it a cunning double bluff on Anne's part, in the hope that nobody would believe she'd piss on her own jam butties like this, if she or Mike had copied 'blindly' from Addison?

    Did Anne predict that if she failed to go along with this fatal flaw in their own Maybrick research, and cover her arse in the process, it was bound to come out eventually, thanks to someone of Lord O's limited understanding of how aunts and Godmothers can be pretty much interchangeable, especially when a lady is hellbent on using one or the other as an alibi for adultery? If Jim didn't want Dr Hopper to know that Flo was making a monkey out of him, might he not have gone along with her story about going to see her Godmother? What would he care, whether she referred to her normally as "Auntie" or "Godmother"?

    This reminds me of that old joke about the passengers in the train carriage with their newspapers.

    A lady says to her friend: "What do you think the answer is, Doris? One down, four letters, the clue is 'essentially feminine'? It ends with u n t."

    "Easy", says Doris. "The answer is 'aunt'."

    "Ahem, could either of you two ladies lend me an eraser?" asks the vicar, with pencil poised.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Last edited by caz; 08-03-2020, 04:07 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    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.
    You CLAIM the diary was (highly likely) written by James Maybrick.

    Let's see some proof of that.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    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.

    And you will get all the credit if you can tell us which Maybrick book gave Bongo his source for Florie lying to Jim in private about her plans to visit an aunt, when she was planning to visit an Alf.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    In M’Lord’s book of ethics (and no doubt thuffolk and thurrey) that’s a transgression of positively Hensonian magnitude.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    watch talk is off topic. take it to the other thread please
    Does it rattle you then, Abby? It can't be 'off topic' on any Maybrick thread, given the signature inside it.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Observer View Post

    Yes indeed Mr Eyes, an interesting day. Brilliant research by Mr Orsam, as ever, but I think he's left too much wiggle room for the, old hoax/Maybrick as the Ripper brigade. There was no real need to be truthful to introduce this new snippet, there's plenty in the tank to nail the Bard of Goldie Street in my opinion.
    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.

    And you will get all the credit if you can tell us which Maybrick book gave Bongo his source for Florie lying to Jim in private about her plans to visit an aunt, when she was planning to visit an Alf.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post

    Originally posted by The Baron View Post
    Now I realised I may know what kind of Error David Orsam has found, It must be a mistake done by the forger while blindly copying from a false source.

    Whatever it is, I am sure Orsam will crack again the earth under all the Diary defenders and leave them in a total void.


    The Baron
    And he did!


    The Baron
    Hi Barren,

    You mean the void under the floorboard, which defended the diary from daylight until 9th March 1992?

    The 'false source' was Florie, who lied to her hubby about the purpose of her visit to London. She wasn't really going to see her aunt, or her Godmother, or her mother, was she? Unless you think she was off for some kind of incestuous menage a trois with Alfie as the filling in the buttie.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    All in all a fairly damp squib was lobster day - or should that be squid?

    Whilst David O’Baron’s persistence to check all sources and give them the necessary stress testing that others missed is impressive, it isn’t the smoking gun that takes us any further in reality.

    As already adequately explained there are many permutations outside of just Lord O’s conclusion but his research and subsequent conclusion must be considered as one possible permutation. It is not the dagger to the heart I hoped it would be and am a little deflated that this sorry saga continues to rumble on.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by peg&pie View Post
    IF the diary was authentic, (note if), how can we know for sure how much fiction Maybrick was happy to weave into his journal?

    If he compiled his adventures a day or so afterwards, could he not absorb some of the more fanciful newspaper reports he no doubt read, into his fantasy rhymes?
    Bingo!

    I don't see why not, peg&pie, because a hoaxer could have done exactly the same thing, to avoid the banana skin of a fatal error of fact. Just have 'Sir Jim' embroider his personal recollections with some of the bollux he has been reading about himself in the papers - just for jolly - and he's untouchable.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post
    And a lesson to every new author:


    Don't rely on a second source, let alone a third one, as the forger in the diary stupidly and blindly did.


    The Baron
    So you don't agree with RJ Palmer's assessment that there was no forger involved, because the diary is not a forgery, but a hoax?

    Bongo didn't do too badly, considering his 'Sir Jim' didn't believe for a second that Flo was off to London to see any persons of the female persuasion, be it the Queen, a Godmother, a cousin, or a non-existent aunt, and therefore - along with every other disenchanted husband on the planet - was only interested in who Flo was shagging, and not who she was using as her alibi. The real Florie couldn't even keep her story straight if she told Alice Yapp she was going to see her mother. Did she tell Dr Hopper - in Jim's presence - that it was her Godmother, because Jim couldn't stand his mother-in-law, the old bat? How did Addison come to believe she had told Jim it was her aunt? "You don't mind if I spend some time in London with my sick aunt, do you M?" "No, of course not, Bunny. It won't even cross my mind that you'll be doing nothing of the sort, because you never mentioned an aunt before and I wasn't born yesterday." "Oh dear, did I say 'aunt'? I meant of course my Godmother." "Of course you did, Bunny. I believe you, thousands wouldn't." [Jim stops listening.] "Well, dear, she has - er - always been like an aunt to me, and she really is under the doctor and what have you." "Yeah, yeah, whatever."

    'Dearest,
    Phew, that was a close one. I don't think the twit cottoned on that I was lying through my pearly whites. All set for our dirty weekend? Don't forget the lube. In haste - yours ever,
    Florie'

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post

    Burden of proof lies with those who support the diarist's claims.

    Let's see some "incontrovertible" evidence from your side.

    Handwriting? Nope.

    Ink testing? Inconclusive.

    Provenance? Laughable.
    One of the great misunderstandings of science.

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

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
    So you are welcome to conclude what you wish, but - if you want the discussion to ultimately conclude - we need to see incontrovertible evidence which proves the case.
    Burden of proof lies with those who support the diarist's claims.

    Let's see some "incontrovertible" evidence from your side.

    Handwriting? Nope.

    Ink testing? Inconclusive.

    Provenance? Laughable.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by peg&pie View Post
    I doubt there will be consensus with the farthings. Either they existed and were suppressed from the inquest, or they are a fabricated amalgamation of two pills/combs and shiny rings.

    Without the missing official documents there will be no answere. You can't really use them pro or con.

    (Such is my current understanding, happy to be corrected. With facts of course not opinion).
    There is also the possibility that 'Sir Jim' was sarcastically parroting from various press reports in some of his rotten rhymes, in which case it wouldn't actually matter whether the finer details were erroneous or not. In one's personal diary one wouldn't need to spell out where the reports were accurate and where they got it wrong. The diarist would know - and in keeping with the character portrayed, 'Sir Jim' would be laughing at the fools, running round like headless chickens getting everything arse about face. I reckon the diary author would still be laughing today if he could see us all now.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    I don't know the answer, Observer, but someone did render a discernible impression of a signature in tiny handwriting inscribed with a makeshift engraving tool into the back of a gold watch. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Oh - touché!

    And without resorting to the switchblade - nicely done ...

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    So, Ike, do we know where Bongo is meant to have read that when Florie was off to 'that London' to bed Alfie, she lied about it to hubby [shocking!], saying she was off to see her aunt? So Bongo had suspicious old Sir Jim pretending to go along with it, while believing she was actually off to see "Auntie" Whoremaster? Is that what it's all about - Alfie?

    My lovely late ma-in-law always said she was going to see her aunt when she needed a wee. I don't think she had a real aunt permanently stationed in the smallest room:

    http://skittishlibrary.co.uk/victori...-week-my-aunt/

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    No, Caz, I don't know where Bongo would have known that Florrie off to Landarn to 'sort out her aunt' (thanks for the clip!) was potentially a fib on Florrie's part. If it was Bongo, though, it was a forgery, and if it was a forgery, I honestly wouldn't care because I'd be driving to Beachy Head.

    If it was a forgery and the forger had Jim going along with the ruse, it would rather beg the question of why he continued the lie unto himself (i.e., why say 'aunt' in the scrapbook not 'godmother'). If it was a forgery, I assume the forger just plain copied from Ryan or whoever.

    The great thing about these debates is that I don't need to have answers to forgery questions, though! Tee hee.

    Is it possible, I wonder, that your 'Victorian Slang of the Week' website has ever commented on a possible euphemism lurking within the mole bonnet? Now, that would be very interesting, to say the least!

    Cheers,

    ike

    PS Sorry about Chelski Chelski on Saturday. It wouldn't be an FA Cup Final these days without one or both of Arsenal and Chelsea in it, but - honestly - any chance of sharing it around a bit more? (And - before anyone starts - that was not a euphemism too!).

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X