Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

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

  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    Being a West Ham fan, I was happy that someone lost.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    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.
    And happy to say that he is a remarkable researcher (and - it sounds like - a good writer also). He has a sense of humour, and he is able to poke a small amount of fun at himself. All this to his credit.

    But he's not as Clever as me, and he's wrong about the scrapbook. It's a shame, but - honestly - he can't have everything.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    watch talk is off topic. take it to the other thread please

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    I have a gut feeling that words are going to be eaten... if they have not been already.

    Bon appetit!

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    you wish. which is pretty much par for the course

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Observer View Post
    Ps. I think it was Mick Mahoney useless goalie, in a Derby game back in 69
    I think, rather disappointingly, we used to sing "Mick Mahoney, super goalie, na-na-na-na-na-na". Not our greatest song ever, granted. It wasn't 1969 though. Mahoney was our super goalie between about 1976 and 1979.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Yabs View Post
    Hello all.

    A quick question about the watch.
    Who first noticed the scratches on the watch and the signature and made the connection to two infamous murder cases?

    I only ask because they would be meaningless to most people looking at them unless you were someone who had an interest in one or other of the cases, it could have easily have changed hands without anybody realising any significance unless they were looking for it.
    Hi Yabs,

    It was a joint effort. Albert Johnson took the watch in to work to show his workmates, around ten months after he had bought it, and around five months before the first diary book was published. The newspapers had already announced the fact that JtR was going to be named in this forthcoming book as James Maybrick, but little else was in the public domain yet, for example what the diary handwriting looked like or which victims the diary would claim and how many. When Albert opened his watch and held it up to the daylight, one of his mates saw the faint scratch marks and they set about trying to decipher them. With the aid of a microscope, and a ripper book to identify the pairs of initials as the five main victims, it was then determined what 'I am Jack' was all about. One of the workmates got this mixed up with the details of the Deeming case before it was finally connected with the recent news reports of JM as a brand new suspect.

    The chronically suspicious will tell you the whole episode at Albert's workplace was engineered to give the impression of a genuine discovery made in the presence of innocent witnesses, but if Albert had made the same discovery, all on his own at home, it would have made no difference at all to the suspicions of a 1993 Johnson hoax. If Albert had made that discovery shortly after buying the watch in July 1992, and reported it to anyone, claiming not to know what the marks signified [because the diary's existence had not yet been made public] you can bet your bottom dollar he'd now be in the frame with Bongo as joint Maybrick hoaxers.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Last edited by caz; 08-03-2020, 11:58 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Observer View Post
    But really, how on earth can you render a discernible impression of your signature in tiny handwriting inscribed with a makeshift engraving tool into the back of a gold watch? Give ower.
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    Honestly, such an anti-climax.

    My daughter - Izzy Iconcoclast - has a godmother in Scotland and also a friend of Mrs Iconoclast who, coincidentally, is called Margaret (this is all true). All her life, Izzy has called her 'Aunt Margaret'. Maybe, as Gary says, it's a Brit thing.

    So imagine Izzy is going to Scotland to be with her godmother during an operation and she happens to say that she'll also be visiting her Aunt Margaret.

    In my head for a few days or weeks, because I'm a bloke thinking about blokey things, are the words "Izzy Scotland godmother aunt". I'm not a violent man so let's imagine I'm thinking of going on strike even though we're all in lockdown.

    I'm writing in my brilliant DAiry about Izzy's impending trip to Scotland and I write:

    Now, all you have to imagine is that James Maybrick had it in his head when he wrote the entry in question "Florrie London godmother aunt". Maybe it was so irrelevant to him that it was only ever "Florrie London aunt".

    So it is claimed by Dr Hopper that Florrie was off to visit her godmother, but maybe Maybrick had realised by then (April 1 1889), or maybe he still thought it was her godmother right up to the moment when Florrie told Dr Hopper she'd been to see her godmother (Maybrick [Thinks]: "Could have sworn it was her aunt").

    "Florrie London godmother bills aunt murder tea Edwin races horses arsenic"
    "Florrie London godmother aunt murder races horses arsenic"
    "Florrie London aunt murder Edwin races horses arsenic tea"
    "Florrie London bills aunt murder tea Edwin races horses arsenic"

    As I say, such an anti-climax. It proves once again that Lord Orsam is an excellent researcher - the dark matter equivalent which perhaps is required in order to have a material Keith Skinner - but it most certainly does not prove the scrapbook was not written by James Maybrick.

    Shame really - I was looking forward to a long break from all of this.

    Ike
    Still Here by the Looks of It
    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
    Last edited by caz; 08-03-2020, 10:49 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    amazing none of the so called experts on the diary ever caught this fatal error.

    another tour de force in the truth by Lord Orsam.

    and in the blackmail piece.." you and me wrote the diary." in a private note to his wife threatening her. cmon.

    we are all fortunate that Lord Orsam still has an interest in ripperology.
    I have a gut feeling that words are going to be eaten... if they have not been already.

    Bon appetit!

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Being a West Ham fan, I was happy that someone lost.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    I was "Auntie Caroline" to my Goddaughter Caroline, who is the daughter of our friends. Do I win 5?

    Has this anything to do with LOBSTER Day, Gary? I haven't caught up with all the posts yet. I'm still in shock about Chelsea's defeat.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Yes it does. The prosecution council at Florrie’s trial referred to the lady as her ‘aunt’, which was an error and that error made its way into the diary.

    That’s the mighty crustacean that nips the nadgers off diary belief.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    Has anyone else every referred to an older female relative, family friend or close neighbour who wasn’t the sister of one of their parents as ‘aunt’ or ‘auntie’? Perhaps it’s just a Brit thing?

    Please firm an orderly queue.
    I was "Auntie Caroline" to my Goddaughter Caroline, who is the daughter of our friends. Do I win 5?

    Has this anything to do with LOBSTER Day, Gary? I haven't caught up with all the posts yet. I'm still in shock about Chelsea's defeat.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    And lest we forget, this thread is not about the diary per se, it’s about the Great Orz’s claim to have found incontrovertible ‘proof’ of its being a forgery.

    He hasn’t. And it really doesn’t require any mental gymnastics to see that he hasn’t.

    I’m no diary defender. I don’t really know enough about it to have an informed opinion, but if I had to bet on whether the diary had been written by a 19th century cotton broker or a 20th century scouse scally, I’d put my money on the scouser.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post

    Which is concerning, because any fair-minded person would weigh the evidence (numerous errors, inconsistencies, provenance etc.) and conclude the diary doesn't pass the sniff test.
    There are no restrictions on what you or any other fair-minded person choose to conclude. It's like smoking in your own home - there's unlikely to ever be a law against it but it doesn't mean that everyone will be comfortable in your home whilst you're doing it.

    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.

    Ike

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X