Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

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

  • 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:


  • 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:

Working...
X