Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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:	181
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:	136
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:	145
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:


  • 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:

Working...
X