Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

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

  • Harry D
    replied
    Originally posted by Observer View Post
    but I think he's left too much wiggle room for the, old hoax/Maybrick as the Ripper brigade.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post



    An interesting "Orsam Day", not quite the bombshell I was hoping for, but a valid conversation point regardless. I wouldn't rely it solely to prove a hoax, it adds to an overall cumulative weight of evidence, but I also think it's disputable, the "Aunty" reference to some close but non related person was pretty striking, could Flo have referred to her Godmother as "Aunty?" Possibly, it's not unreasonable. It's never going to change the opinion of those who believe it's not a modern hoax. .
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Pps. Quiz of the week substitute "useless" for what we actually sang, I was being polite.

    Second prize a holiday for two in war torn Syria, first prize a Newcastle United season ticket

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Ps. I think it was Mick Mahoney useless goalie, in a Derby game back in 69

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post

    In my view if it is a hoax, it certainly would require the creative brain and cunning of someone like Harry Dam to pull it off.

    Michael Barrett was no Harry Dam.
    Absolutely not. The Diary is about as complex as a Newcastle United attacking move. This consists of their goalie retreating half way up the aisle into the Gallowgate end in order to take s goal kick, running down said aisle lowping ower the perimeter fence and attempting to boot the ball into the top right corner of the oppositions goal. I've seen it done

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    >>The "Aunty" reference to some close but non related person was pretty striking, could Flo have referred to her Godmother as "Aunty?" <<

    In which case the two would have referred to her as "Aunty" to Doctor Hopper, wouldn't they? Florence was hysterical at the time and therefore very unlikely to speak formally about her Godmother. It's not a killer blow, but it's enough, along with all the other question marks, to relegate the diary to be reasobaly considered a fake until evidential proof can be shown that it's not.

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
    Harry Dam creation, cira 1895.
    In my view if it is a hoax, it certainly would require the creative brain and cunning of someone like Harry Dam to pull it off.

    Michael Barrett was no Harry Dam.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    Harry Dam creation, cira 1895.

    Leave a comment:


  • peg&pie
    replied
    Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

    Yeah, fair enough if Maybrick was narcissistic enough to court that glory, but it's a speculation built on a speculation. But "Tin match box" and Kelly's particulars draw that into question. I'd agree, if we were looking at authentic Maybrick, we'd have to factor in his reactions to the press, but accepting that as fact allows us to construct anything really. It's a good point, but not the starting point for explaining the discrepancies.
    Exactly the dilemma. As I said before, we are just retreading old ground into the diary quagmire.
    LO should be applauded for his continued research. But after nearly 30 years the anomalies are still just that, and any proof attempted to drawn from them is just as you put it, speculation built on speculation.

    Diary dilemmas,

    Handwriting, unproven.

    Reference to breasts on the table, (but also at the feet remember), unprovable.

    Reference to farthings several days after the event as part of funny little rhymes. Unprovable.

    Anyone remotely associated with the diary prior to March '94. Unbelievable.

    Without the incontrovertible fact, just the one, we will be at the same place in another 30 years.
    That's what makes this story so intriguing though isn't it. There is that chance, however slim, this could be the real thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post



    And he did!


    The Baron
    Jesus, at least pull your head out for long enough to take a breath....

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    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?
    Yeah, fair enough if Maybrick was narcissistic enough to court that glory, but it's a speculation built on a speculation. But "Tin match box" and Kelly's particulars draw that into question. I'd agree, if we were looking at authentic Maybrick, we'd have to factor in his reactions to the press, but accepting that as fact allows us to construct anything really. It's a good point, but not the starting point for explaining the discrepancies.

    Leave a comment:


  • peg&pie
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    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
    You know what, Baron, I’ll grant you that your Lord and Master identified a good example of what could have been a mistake by a forger, no arguments there.

    Not incontrovertible, mind, but a good example of why we need excellent researchers, both of the matter and anti-matter variety.

    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post
    If I want to choose only one incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable mistake in the diary, where there are many, I will choose this one.

    It is way above any thing I've ever read concerning this modern forgery.


    Orsam gave Ripperology today another masterpiece of evidence!



    The Baron
    Well, I can certainly understand the confusion over where Lord O ends and The Baron begins....

    I admire the enthusiasm, but it's the other side of the same coin.

    An interesting "Orsam Day", not quite the bombshell I was hoping for, but a valid conversation point regardless. I wouldn't rely it solely to prove a hoax, it adds to an overall cumulative weight of evidence, but I also think it's disputable, the "Aunty" reference to some close but non related person was pretty striking, could Flo have referred to her Godmother as "Aunty?" Possibly, it's not unreasonable. It's never going to change the opinion of those who believe it's not a modern hoax. It's yet more evidence if you want a modern hoax. That's the diary through and through though. I'd urge all, remove DB's name from it, and think about it objectively. Like Ike pointed out, this has been mused over before, if not so publicly, so it's another dynamic of an intriguing case, so let's take it for what it is, and not see it as an "us Vs them", which it's not.

    And Old Man Menges has been kept busy today. You know he gets grouchy if he misses his nap. And such.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X