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 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:


  • 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:

Working...
X