Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

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

  • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
    This post demonstrates quite clearly that you've misunderstood the principle which Iconoclast referred to, and indeed why such a principle exists: you're using a lack of information (Harris not mentioning something) as evidence of something (suppression because conspiracy theory etc.) while speculating wildly about his motivation, thoughts and intentions.
    So MH is the force behind getting Alan Gray to persuade MB to make an affidavit. That much is "blindingly obvious" but when the orchestrated affidavit appears, MH finds it useless because...why exactly? He just didn't like the idea of the Barretts or Devereaux as the forgers, apparently, and had hoped for someone else, who MB should have named, despite having never met or heard of that person.
    Just to get it straight: the argument here is that Harris used his influence with Gray (what influence?) to make MB swear an affidavit drafted and typed by Gray fingering the culprit(s), but he forgot to specify who it should finger. Is that your theory, Caz?
    You really should start getting to grips with what actually happened and when, Kattrup, and with what Melvin Harris's theory was [not mine], because you still appear to have as little knowledge of the subject matter as you claimed to have only a few weeks ago, when you also said you had no interest in expanding that knowledge.

    I don't know where to start with this one, because you really don't know what you are talking about.

    Okay, I'll be generous and give you another clue. Melvin maintained that Mike didn't write the diary because he didn't have 'the capacity', and Anne didn't write it either; they merely acted as handlers and placers. He knew he couldn't pin the handwriting on Tony Devereux or Anne's father either, who were also named in Mike's affidavit.

    That left Melvin in a pickle. Mike had now involved four people, not 'the three' Melvin had predicted in the newspaper in December, and he still didn't have the forger who held the pen. Melvin only thought he knew who that was, but Mike never mentioned this person or claimed anyone else wrote it. So Melvin couldn't identify his suspect in case he was wrong and was sued for libel.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Last edited by caz; 08-06-2020, 02:18 PM.
    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


    Comment


    • Originally posted by caz View Post

      You really should start getting to grips with what actually happened and when, Kattrup, and with what Melvin Harris's theory was [not mine], because you still appear to have as little knowledge of the subject matter as you claimed to have only a few weeks ago, when you also said you had no interest in expanding that knowledge.

      I don't know where to start with this one, because you really don't know what you are talking about.

      Okay, I'll be generous and give you another clue. Melvin maintained that Mike didn't write the diary because he didn't have 'the capacity', and neither did Anne. They merely acted as handlers and placers. He knew he couldn't pin the handwriting on Tony Devereux or Anne's father either, who were also named in Mike's affidavit.

      That left Melvin in a pickle. Mike had now involved four people, not 'the three' Melvin had predicted in the newspaper in December, and he still didn't have the forger who held the pen. Melvin only thought he knew who that was, but Mike never mentioned this person or claimed anyone else wrote it. So Melvin couldn't identify his suspect in case he was wrong and was sued for libel.

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      Is it all possible Caz that perhaps Mike may himself led Mr Harris a merry dance?

      Would that be something in tune with his character?

      Would Melvin be on the hunt to blow the nest of forgers wide open only for Mike to sell him a dud bullet?

      Is it possible this may have dawned on Melvin after Mike's pledge under oath in January 1995?
      "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
      - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by caz View Post

        No Al, not the same solicitor.

        Any ideas why a different one was chosen this time? I have one or two, or three or four.

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        Hi Caz,

        Thanks for the correction, and the time line for Barrett's confession.
        I've subsequently seen the articles, there's not a great deal of info them really.

        Thems the Vagaries.....

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

          But you/Caz said bongo as the penman was no good to him, and he had to abandon the plan. So why would he type up an afidavit fingering Bongo, then abandon it?

          And, minor point, I know, but still: where's the evidence for any of this?


          Also, I do not agree about the word's intentions; Caz has very clearly stated that Melvin Harris deliberately kept the affidavit from others until 1997 (it was of course known about earlier).
          But 'known about' by whom, and how much earlier than January 1997, Kattrup? Who knew it existed, and also knew all that it contained, before a version of it reached the internet, more than a year after it was sworn, and possibly more like two years?

          As far as is known, Mike dictated it to Alan Gray who typed it up for Mike to check through and sign. Mike had injured his hand and wasn't up to typing much on his own at the best of times, so all that at least makes sense. It was what Mike dictated to Alan that must have made little sense to Melvin, and was nothing like he was hoping for or expecting. I do think Melvin genuinely believed he knew who was in his 'nest of forgers', and that Mike would be able to deliver the goods, but what he got was a total mare's nest instead. He must have needed a little lie down after that - or a long one.

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


          Comment


          • Originally posted by erobitha View Post

            Is it all possible Caz that perhaps Mike may himself led Mr Harris a merry dance?

            Would that be something in tune with his character?

            Would Melvin be on the hunt to blow the nest of forgers wide open only for Mike to sell him a dud bullet?

            Is it possible this may have dawned on Melvin after Mike's pledge under oath in January 1995?
            You got it!

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


            Comment


            • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

              Bongo's blowing the gig was in the making since June 1994, when he claimed sole authorship of the hoax. By no coincidence, the Graham family provenance crops up at this time.
              Did Mike create the script, and Anne typed it out? Maybe, maybe not, but his affidavit wasn't a shock to anyone. They all knew what was going on. His solicitor had tried to protect him already, is it a stretch of the imagination that that's what happened in Jan '95? Melvin may well have wanted it suppressed, but it was down to Bark Jones what came out, and his sole responsibility was protecting Mike Barrett.
              'They all knew what was going on'? Who knew, Al, and what was going on? There is no evidence that Bark-Jones knew that Mike was going to make another, more detailed statement, adding to the number of forgers and contents of the scrapbook; adding a compass supposedly sold with it by the auction house as a job lot; and nearly all of it contradicting what he had claimed the first time. Bark-Jones had no involvement with the January affidavit, and I don't know if and when he was told about its existence. Solicitors don't all share information with each other, do they, without the client's specific and written permission?

              Every time Mike talked or wrote to Shirley and co after June 1994, he changed his story, often during the same conversation or correspondence, from being a silly faker all on his own, to the diary being 100% genuine, to the handwriting being Anne's, to believing Anne's 'in the family' story, and back to not knowing who the hell wrote it or where it came from, other than Tony gave it to him but didn't write it.

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              Last edited by caz; 08-06-2020, 02:55 PM.
              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                That'll be like when you creamed your Jodhpurs over Fishy1118's all in capitals posts slagging off Herlock?

                Glass houses mate.
                Hi Al,

                By 'paid henchman', the Baron is alluding to what professional researcher Keith Skinner was once called, because he had the nerve to undertake paid research for authors such as Paul Feldman, while not necessarily endorsing a single opinion expressed by said authors.

                I very much doubt Keith is now having to cross Ikeypoo's palm with silver, to get him to post what he does. But it continues to show how little the Baron must think of Orsam's awful auntie argument, that he can't just keep his nasty trap shut. Does he really still see himself as being on the 'winning' side of the argument, or is he resorting to such truly desperate measures because he rather fears he's not?

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                Comment


                • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


                  My comment is beyond you to understand.


                  The Baron
                  But not beyond me.

                  Get a life, sonny Jim.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                    You make it sound like the book is not as trustworthy as you stated earlier, if you expect it to be riddled with errors. Actually, it sounds like a gratuitous swipe at the authors, Caz

                    Anyway, this "line of questioning" isn't about mistakes in a 17-year old book - as stated, all books contain errors and I'm perfectly satisfied the authors did what they could at the time...
                    And you make it sound like you are unaware that I was one of them, Kattrup. But I was, so I'd have been taking a gratuitous swipe at myself if I was serious about our book being riddled with schoolgirl errors.

                    Mind you, I quite like the idea of taking gratuitous swipes at myself, because it would save anyone else the trouble.

                    By the way, anyone's arguments can be faulty [yes, even yours or mine], but if they are not based on a sound knowledge and grasp of the basic facts, they may be doomed to failure before they are articulated.

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post

                      Hi Trev,

                      What do you mean by 'attempting to obtain property by deception on his own admissions'?

                      What 'property' did Mike admit he had tried to obtain by deception'? And whose 'property'?

                      His story up until June 1994 had always been that he got the diary in good faith from Tony Devereux. He then made his first forgery claim, in a statement to Harold Brough.

                      In late 1994, Melvin Harris told Alan Gray to get Mike to make another statement, in the form of an affidavit [which Mike dictated to Alan Gray and signed on January 5th 1995], and said this statement would 'safeguard' Mike from getting nicked - I assumed he meant for forgery, although I'm at a loss to understand Melvin's reasoning. What do you suppose he meant by that? It confuses the hell out of me, and Mike very reasonably thought he'd get nicked if he swore such an affidavit, whether it proved to be true or false. What else would he have been nicked for?

                      And who would have made Mike aware of the risk of being re interviewed as a result of that affidavit? It would have to be someone who knew it existed, and that boils down to Mike, Alan Gray, the solicitor involved [who was not Bark-Jones], Melvin Harris and maybe one or two of his inner circle. Who else knew about it or what it contained at the time of the second affidavit?

                      Thanks.

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      I am going to deal just with Barrett not going to muddy the waters with all those you mentioned

                      In the affidavit, he admits to being concerned in hoaxing the diary.

                      It is a known fact that having hoaxed it he tried to palm it off as the genuine article and sought payment for the rights knowing it to be a hoax

                      In his police interview he stated he got it from Deveraux and in the meantime, it was established that after the rights had been sold it was a fake. No further action was taken by the police at that time because the main complainant the Sunday Times it seems after getting their money back from Smith did not wish to proceed with the complaint, so it was conveniently put to bed by the police.

                      If the police had have picked it up when the affidavit came out they could have re-interviewed him based on the admissions he made in the affidavit, and also the fact that he had made a formal police statement knowing it to be false that amounts to perverting the course of justice. as well.

                      On a secondary note, the solicitor who took the sworn affidavit from Barrett was later struck off for dishonesty !

                      So the conspiracy among those involved was even more far-reaching into later years.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 08-06-2020, 03:25 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                        Florrie’s godmother may well have been referred to as ‘aunt’ within the family and Addison may well have picked up on that from somewhere other than Hopper’s written statement.
                        My keeper is going to be sorely disappointed that I'm visiting the asylum so soon, but how does this make any legal sense, Gary?

                        Addison would presumably need to defend his statements in court. The witness deposition (by Dr. Fuller) recounts how Maybrick and his wife referred to the Countess as Florrie's godmother.

                        Are you suggesting that Addison is using wayward information that he picked up here or there, but is nowhere to be found in any witness statements? Is this how the legal system works in Great Britain?

                        I am a pragmatist, Gary. The diary is not in Maybrick's handwriting, the ink was unbonded to the paper, and it contains any number of errors that show it is a hoax.

                        Arguing that the diary could be accurate on this obscure point (with no evidence presented other than the OED) is about as meaningful as theorizing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. But I gather the Diary supporters are hardily enjoying it, so there's that.

                        As for Caz Brown's musings, here is a reminder about what Mike Barrett REALLY requested. None of our assembled scholars can explain--and will never be able to explain--- the Zen Mystery of why Mike needed to contemplate the meaning of at least 20 blank pages, unless, of course, it was to write something on them.

                        The only explanation I've seen is that Mike wanted to trade a worthless "postage stamp" for the priceless confession of Jack the Ripper. And for some reason, this worthless postage stamp needed at least 20 blank sheets, for---evidently?--- that would make it even more appealing to Fast Eddy.

                        As for "tight fits," Mike's 11 day transformation of the manuscript to the artifact is a leisurely stroll in the park compared to the whirlwind events that Keith Skinner wants us to believe transpired on March 8, 1992. You really couldn't make this stuff up.

                        Click image for larger version  Name:	Blank.JPG Views:	0 Size:	19.3 KB ID:	739349

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                          This is where it just gets painful for me. Constantly having to correct stuff that shouldn't need to be corrected.

                          Addison would presumably need to defend his statements in court.
                          How many times every day in law courts around the world do lawyers make pretty irrelevant statements which they genuinely believe to be true?

                          Addison [doing his prep]: "So Florence claims she bought the flypapers to sort out her acne - that's fine, no need to check that, sounds logical to me, might try it myself. She claims that Maybrick was a known arsenic user - again, super stuff, take it as read and what have you. Now, then, there's this really questionable use of 'aunt' when Florrie went to London. What if she didn't see her 'aunt' but some other significant female such as her 'godmother'? Yes, the case will hinge on this and I'm going to check my facts in this regard until my ******* ears bleed."

                          I am a pragmatist, Gary. The diary is not in Maybrick's handwriting, the ink was unbonded to the paper, and it contains any number of errors that show it is a hoax.
                          You may be a pragmatist, Roger, but you're in serious danger of being a rather tunnel-visioned one. We don't know what Maybrick's handwriting looked like when writing for his own eyes only. The ink being soluble was not proven - it was claimed - and the next test it wasn't soluble but so much time had passed between the two tests that - to you - the ink just dried. Took its time, but it got there in the end. And it contains no errors that show it to be a hoax - none at all. If you are a young up-and-coming Ripperologist, please do not fall for this recurring rhetoric: there are only claims of errors but none of them are proven despite the persistent claims of those who do not see the irony ("It's proven to be a hoax, but we're still here arguing about it so it can't actually be what most of us know a 'proven' thing to be").

                          Click image for larger version Name:	Blank.JPG Views:	0 Size:	19.3 KB ID:	739349

                          This is more tiresome. Barrett's request befuddles us all - and that's fine, that works to your argument. But, then, Barrett kept going and purchased the apparently useless tiny 1891 diary when he should have stopped - and that's not so fine, that works against your argument. So you present the bit that works for your argument but ignore the bit that doesn't. But carry on.

                          Florence's initials appear on Kelly's wall. "No they don't - we can see them but they aren't there".
                          Maybrick's family cryptically appear in the GSG: "No they don't" even though they clearly do.
                          Maybrick's known signature is in the watch: "No it doesn't - doesn't look anything like Maybrick's signature!"

                          The theme is clear. Both sides keep raising claims without evidence to prove those claims and so they get shot down, only to rise Lazaruslike again, often immediately.

                          The case either way regarding the Maybrick scrapbook has not been unequivocally proven and probably never will be. All we can do is look at what lies scattered around us and ask ourselves how likely the aging detritus we see would be there if James Maybrick were innocent of the Whitechapel crimes. Would what we have convict Maybrick in a court of law? I'm inclined to say that it would, and you (inter alia) would obviously say that it is not. I wonder what a university professor who is very well-schooled in Research Methods & Statistics would say about what we have? It's all brilliantly detailed in my brilliant Society's Pillar (see the eponymous thread for a link to your free copy, everyone). The chapter entitled 'An Unreasonable Serendipity' will spell it all out for you.

                          Any university professors out there with the requisite skills to comment?

                          Ike
                          Last edited by Iconoclast; 08-06-2020, 05:15 PM.
                          Iconoclast

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                            We don't know what Maybrick's handwriting looked like when writing for his own eyes only.
                            Well, you've just seriously undermined Erobitha's argument for the hidden signature on the watch, eh mate?

                            I'm familiar with the old saying "damned if you do, and damned if you don't," but in Diary belief it is "not damned if you do, and not damned if you don't." If the writing supposedly looks like Maybrick's signature it is wonderful evidence; if it doesn't look anything like Maybrick's handwriting it proves nothing! Sounds like you're once again doing the elbow bump with the non-falsifiability hypothesis, Ike. But then, maybe Maybrick had a 'private' handwriting for paper, and a 'public' handwriting for metal? "The medium is the message."

                            But really, I am just breaking my no-Maybrick quarantine to remind ourselves that Mike didn't lodge his affidavit with Bark Jones, but with D. P. Hardy & Co. of Liverpool, so, while Barrett may have taken legal advice from Mr. Bark Jones, I don't think he would have had any ultimate control over Barrett releasing the affidavit. Whatever that might mean. Cheers.

                            PS. By the way, here's one from a genuine College Professor to contemplate.

                            The Diary states that Maybrick ate (in its entirety) Polly Nichol's uterus and bladder.

                            This is revolting, of course, but I only report the news.

                            "I ate all of it, it did not taste like fresh fried bacon but I enjoyed it never the less."

                            To which Professor Fido remarks:

                            "I consulted butchers and a chef, and they all confirmed it would be physically impossible to eat a uterus by simply frying it."

                            Actually, the passage doesn't even state that Maybrick fried the uterus. Though I suppose one can argue it is implicit.

                            That said, it is my understanding that people actually eat fried pig uteri in Asia. You can buy it in stalls in Japan, and it is also consumed in China. Normally, it has to be from a youngish pig, and soaked in water for several hours, and then 'flash fried,' or it will come out with the texture and toughness of a tennis ball. I am informed that it does not taste sweet and pleasurable, as Maybrick describes it, but taste like "iron and organs." Kind of like kidney or liver rolled around in a rusty frying pan.

                            For your enjoyment, Ike, here is a recipe for Curried Pig Uterus. Bon appetit.

                            https://www.agupdate.com/theprairies...ial%20recipes.

                            Based on this new revelation, I will downgrade Fido's objection from a Red Flag to a Pink Flag. A pig's uterus is probably very similar to a human's, but it is unclear whether it would be similar to one taken from an alcoholic woman in her late 40s who had given birth to multiple children, not to mention prepared in a lodging house in Middlesex Street, probably over an open fire. You might want to consult a specialist.

                            Sorry for being graphic, but it is an unavoidable reality of the subject we discuss. RP
                            Last edited by rjpalmer; 08-07-2020, 02:10 AM.

                            Comment


                            • And here was me thinking this was a thread to discuss whether the Great Orz’s recent Great discovery was proof positive that the diary was a modern fake. Duh!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                                And here was me thinking this was a thread to discuss whether the Great Orz’s recent Great discovery was proof positive that the diary was a modern fake. Duh!
                                dont worry it is. on both counts. its just the Diary Defenders are up to their silly little tricks again.
                                or is that Dairy Defenders? milking this silly cow for all its worth.

                                milk it baby
                                Last edited by Abby Normal; 08-07-2020, 04:43 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X