Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

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

  • jmenges
    replied
    I edited your post and provided a link but edit it yourself as you wish.

    Thanks

    JM

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Does your aunty matter? It's the great debate down the ages.

    He's the Cat in the Hat, but he may well have been at lest second to this particular party. Way back when in the annals of time when the Big Bang was creating matter and anti-matter, the material Keith Skinner formed from the deaths of a trillion stars and one of his first acts as a simian (for thus he was) was to identify the inconsistencies between the accounts of Florrie's visit to London in March 1889:

    1992-93

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_6933.JPG
Views:	159
Size:	144.8 KB
ID:	738916

    1996 (in discussion with Anne Graham)

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_6932c.JPG
Views:	158
Size:	80.1 KB
ID:	738917

    Hmmm. Matter, anti-matter. It's that old "which is better" debate, isn't it? The anti-matter Orsam says Addison's opening remarks prove that the author of the scrapbook got it wrong. The material Keith Skinner seems to show that the 'error' wasn't such a big deal, and certainly no Big Reveal?

    If anything it can be argued it strengthens the case for the diary, as the author (let us say it is JM - oh please let it be he!) reflects on what he has been told by Florence as the reason for her going to London. Addison confirms that was the story Florence gave to her husband. One could interpret from the material that JM didn’t believe a word about Florence’s reason for going to London but played along with it. Hence the reason he put a tail on her (like a cat?).

    Poor old Lord O - he thought no-one ese had ever spotted this in the last 28 years! I do detect he is becoming rather desperate. Rather than have his court jesters trumpet a “special announcement” he should convene a “special court” in Chigwell and make it clear to his devoted minions that what is required is proof positive that Bongo created the text. He should accept that Bongo has outsmarted him in the narrative and covered all interpretations. Many people do not believe JM wrote the diary because of the handwriting. I would have thought that would have been enough for the Great Lord, His Master's Voice himself - he could and should have rested on the laurels he had already awarded himself. By the same token, the likes of Skinner, Morris, Iconoclast, and other Clever People do not appear to believe that Bongo wrote the diary but why that should seemingly irk Lord O and RJ so greatly, I simply do not know.

    Incidentally, if His Lordship has similarly trawled the boxes of Home Office documents on the Maybrick Case as His Keith Skinnership evidently has, I hope he will have found of great assistance the catalogue prepared by Anne Graham in 1995, a copy of which she generously donated to The National Archives for the benefit of future researchers. And The Baron can take that one to His Lordship on The Bridge! Two-nil, back of the net!

    Whichever way you cut this, and whichever universe you happen to be in right now, it seems to me that the Cat in the Hat may just have Shat in the Hat.

    Done a whoopsie.

    In the beret.

    Mole skin or no.

    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post
    We would like to know from the Moderator if we can quote David Orsam as Iconoclast does.

    Because we have been told that quoting him is forbidden.


    Thanks

    The Baron
    Oops - quite right.

    I have corrected this with a re-post minus the quotation.

    Thanks Baron - Lord Orsam, I'm sure, will feel the same way as you.

    Ike
    Last edited by Iconoclast; 08-01-2020, 05:11 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yabs
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    We would like to know from the Moderator if we can quote David Orsam as Iconoclast does.

    Because we have been told that quoting him is forbidden.


    Thanks

    The Baron
    Last edited by The Baron; 08-01-2020, 04:58 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Observer View Post

    Missed this first time around. Precisely, which is why it's pointless trying to compare Maybrick's signature i.e.his will etc, with the signature inscribed into the watch
    Strange logic.

    Because you cannot create a 100% match on a signature on a watch, which also slightly varies in ink versions, because it was made with an etching tool, we can never accept it as being true?

    The K alone won it for me but of course I expect others to make up their own minds.

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post

    But you want an exact perfect copy with an etching tool?
    Missed this first time around. Precisely, which is why it's pointless trying to compare Maybrick's signature i.e.his will etc, with the signature inscribed into the watch

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Does your aunty matter? It's the great debate down the ages.

    He's the Cat in the Hat, but he may well have been at lest second to this particular party. Way back when in the annals of time when the Big Bang was creating matter and anti-matter, the material Keith Skinner formed from the deaths of a trillion stars and one of his first acts as a simian (for thus he was) was to identify the inconsistencies between the accounts of Florrie's visit to London in March 1889:

    1992-93

    Click image for larger version  Name:	IMG_6933.JPG Views:	11 Size:	144.8 KB ID:	738907
    1996 (in discussion with Anne Graham)

    Click image for larger version  Name:	IMG_6932c.JPG Views:	11 Size:	80.1 KB ID:	738906

    Hmmm. Matter, anti-matter. It's that old "which is better" debate, isn't it? The anti-matter Orsam says Addison's opening remarks prove that the author of the scrapbook got it wrong. The material Keith Skinner seems to show that the 'error' wasn't such a big deal, and certainly no Big Reveal?

    If anything it can be argued it strengthens the case for the diary, as the author (let us say it is JM - oh please let it be he!) reflects on what he has been told by Florence as the reason for her going to London. Addison confirms that was the story Florence gave to her husband. One could interpret from the material that JM didn’t believe a word about Florence’s reason for going to London but played along with it. Hence the reason he put a tail on her (like a cat?).

    https://www.orsam.co.uk/specialannouncement.htm

    Poor old Lord O. I do detect he is becoming rather desperate. Rather than have his court jesters trumpet a “special announcement” he should convene a “special court” in Chigwell and make it clear to his devoted minions that what is required is proof positive that Bongo created the text. He should accept that Bongo has outsmarted him in the narrative and covered all interpretations. Many people do not believe JM wrote the diary because of the handwriting. I would have thought that would have been enough for the Great Lord, His Master's Voice himself - he could and should have rested on the laurels he had already awarded himself. By the same token, the likes of Skinner, Morris, Iconoclast, and other Clever People do not appear to believe that Bongo wrote the diary but why that should seemingly irk Lord O and RJ so greatly, I simply do not know.

    Incidentally, if His Lordship has similarly trawled the boxes of Home Office documents on the Maybrick Case as His Keith Skinnership evidently has, I hope he will have found of great assistance the catalogue prepared by Anne Graham in 1995, a copy of which she generously donated to The National Archives for the benefit of future researchers. And The Baron can take that one to His Lordship on The Bridge! Two-nil, back of the net!

    Whichever way you cut this, and whichever universe you happen to be in right now, it seems to me that the Cat in the Hat may just have Shat in the Hat.

    Done a whoopsie.

    In the beret.

    Mole skin or no.

    Ike
    Last edited by jmenges; 08-01-2020, 05:09 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied


    There is another significant difference between Addison’s opening statement and Hopper’s supplementary statement. Addison stated that the Countess came to London to be operated on by Sir James Paget, Hopper says she came just to ‘see’ him.

    Which was it? Did Addison just embroider the information he had received, or did he have additional information that didn’t appear in Hopper’s written statement?

    DB is silent on the matter. As was the diary writer, who missed the opportunity to refer to ‘the sick bitch’ having gone under Paget’s knife.

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    I wonder if you will agree with me, erobitha, that it is remarkable that the 'M' in Florrie's initials which apparently are not on Kelly's wall has the same rising second-half as that used throughout the scrapbook?
    How can it when it's not on Kelly's wall?

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    By the way. "Up the Arsenal"

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post

    There's a shock.

    There are differences even in his own hand on official documents written in ink. But you want an exact perfect copy with an etching tool?

    The M on the watch has the same ornate starting loop on ALL examples except the cricket club.

    The A is a diffuclt match but the docuemnts are joined up writing which is practically impossible to do cleanly with the tool used - it is a basic A.

    The long loop drop of the Y is on ALL examples.

    The R and I is too obscured by the watch detail to get a clear read. The C is much like the A in respect it's purpose is to be clear.

    The kick in the lower part of the K is on all three examples and the watch. The loop in the upper K is on the watch, the will and mariage certificate.

    This is more for those willing to take off their tinted glasses and look properly.
    Tinted glasses? You can spot the differences at a hundred paces looking through a Hazlenut Swirl sweetie wrapper. The M is an M is an M. 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    Izzy Iconoclast is just about to make me a lovely cup of tea and she has just said (entirely unprompted) that the 'K' in the watch looks exactly like the 'K' in Maybrick's signature, and she has no skin whatsoever in this game, so what do you say to that little 'corker'?
    Had on, I'll get me Twilight Zone specs on. Now then, which K are you referring to out of those three signatures supplied? Out of the three, two of them, the K comes back up with an upward curve. The other one (original will) looks nothing like the K as inscribed into the watch

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    I wonder if you will agree with me, erobitha, that it is remarkable that the 'M' in Florrie's initials which apparently are not on Kelly's wall has the same rising second-half as that used throughout the scrapbook?

    As Barry Davies was fond of saying: "Remarkable".
    I certianly wouldn't be confident enough to say it wasn't so.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post

    There's a shock.

    There are differences even in his own hand on official documents written in ink. But you want an exact perfect copy with an etching tool?

    The M on the watch has the same ornate starting loop on ALL examples except the cricket club.

    The A is a diffuclt match but the docuemnts are joined up writing which is practically impossible to do cleanly with the tool used - it is a basic A.

    The long loop drop of the Y is on ALL examples.

    The R and I is too obscured by the watch detail to get a clear read. The C is much like the A in respect it's purpose is to be clear.

    The kick in the lower part of the K is on all three examples and the watch. The loop in the upper K is on the watch, the will and mariage certificate.

    This is more for those willing to take off their tinted glasses and look properly.
    I wonder if you will agree with me, erobitha, that it is remarkable that the 'M' in Florrie's initials which apparently are not on Kelly's wall has the same rising second-half as that used throughout the scrapbook?

    As Barry Davies was fond of saying: "Remarkable".

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X