Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

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

  • Observer
    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).
    Suppressed from the inquest? Why? And by whom? Both Philips and Chandler inspected the scene after Chapman's body was removed, neither reported seeing any farthings.

    Leave a comment:


  • peg&pie
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post

    This is so petty.
    You're right Diddsy - another cat-named name, by the way!

    But let's cut him some slack - he's having a very bad day indeed.

    Cheers,

    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • Ms Diddles
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post


    Does that mean one can quote him then come any say Oops?!

    Or something like: can I edit the post after they read it?!


    The Baron
    This is so petty.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yabs
    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.
    I have just noticed, this question has already been answered, apologies

    Leave a comment:


  • jmenges
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post


    Does that mean one can quote him then come any say Oops?!

    Or something like: can I edit the post after they read it?!


    The Baron
    Ike's post was reported. I dealt with it as soon as I was aware and located the appropriate link.
    Reminder- we expect all members to obey the rules.
    A banned member's writings from their own blog are not allowed to be copied and pasted on Casebook.
    Provide a link to the appropriate place instead.

    Thanks

    JM

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by jmenges View Post
    I edited your post and provided a link but edit it yourself as you wish.

    Thanks

    JM
    I hadn't spotted the edit, Jonathan, but many thanks anyway. I was in too much of a hurry to copy it in case it was removed but clearly you recognised that a lot of work went into it and made an exception in this case.

    Hopefully there won't be a third time in 2020.

    Cheers,

    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post


    Does that mean one can quote him then come any say Oops?!

    Or something like: can I edit the post after they read it?!


    The Baron
    I think you're being a little bit pedantic, Baron.

    Having a bad day or something?

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    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

    Does that mean one can quote him then come any say Oops?!

    Or something like: can I edit the post after they read it?!


    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • 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:	174
Size:	144.8 KB
ID:	738916

    1996 (in discussion with Anne Graham)

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_6932c.JPG
Views:	173
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:

Working...
X