Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

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

  • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
    Completely agree. It’s modern and not very good.; the repetition and constant “the bitch” outbursts etc.
    But would you stake your lives on this conclusion, gentlemen, or is this just idle musing?
    Iconoclast

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
      Completely agree. It’s modern and not very good.; the repetition and constant “the bitch” outbursts etc.
      Should have chucked in a couple of "foresooth"'s and a "verily".....
      Thems the Vagaries.....

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

        But would you stake your lives on this conclusion, gentlemen, or is this just idle musing?
        Idle musing.

        I look upon the Diary as a black hole that might swallow me up if I get too close. So I don’t.


        Comment


        • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

          Should have chucked in a couple of "foresooth"'s and a "verily".....
          American language of the time was less stilted, more natural and ‘modern’. Perhaps some of that rubbed off on Maybrick?

          But even though we can find possible contemporary explanations for ‘one-off’ ‘top myself’ ‘mayhem’ etc, in combination it all feels like the language of a man brought up in the TV age to me. Just a feeling - which would make Pierre/Kris’s blood boil if he/she heard me say so.


          Comment


          • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
            in combination it all feels like the language of a man brought up in the TV age to me.
            The diarist's obsession with Fred Abberline feels like the attitude of a man brought up on the Michael Caine miniseries.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

              Fish - Here's my take on the aunt. No one has provided any historical evidence that Maybrick ever referred to his wife's European godmother as her auntie--or even that Florrie Maybrick was particularly close to this woman. Dr. Hopper's statement recounts Maybrick referring to her as Florrie's godmother. We are stuck in the shadowy world of he could have called the woman her aunt. Just as Maybrick could have hallucinated that a fried tennis ball tastes sweet and pleasurable. By contrast, there is good circumstantial evidence that Addison was thinking of James Baillie Knight’s aunt in his opening statement, and this "aunt" error was repeated in subsequent secondary sources--including the book Mike Barrett named as one of his primary sources. It's not a howitzer, perhaps, but it's another indication, among many, that there is no reason for me to take this hoax seriously.
              I donīt differ materially from that take. It IS seemingly an indication, but that is as far as it (perhaps) goes.
              After that, we can in absurdum discuss "small indication", whopper indication", hefty indication" and "the slightest of indications", the way ripperologists love to do.
              However, I will not be around when that circus comes to town.

              Indication? May well be. Although if the term aunt WAS used, this was never so.

              Absolute proof? No.

              And that was the whole point I, and I believe Gary Barnett too, were making.
              Last edited by Fisherman; 08-07-2020, 12:42 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post


                But even though we can find possible contemporary explanations for one-off, top myself, mayhem, etc, in combination it all feels like the language of a man brought up in the TV age to me.


                Sound of reason!


                The Baron

                Comment


                • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                  The diarist's obsession with Fred Abberline feels like the attitude of a man brought up on the Michael Caine miniseries.
                  It does indeed.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                    I donīt differ materially from that take. It IS seemingly an indication, but that is as far as it (perhaps) goes.
                    After that, we can in absurdum discuss "small indication", whopper indication", hefty indication" and "the slightest of indications", the way ripperologists love to do.
                    However, I will not be around when that circus comes to town.

                    Indication? May well be. Although if the term aunt WAS used, this was never so.

                    Absolute proof? No.

                    And that was the whole point I, and I believe Gary Barnett too, were making.
                    It was indeed.

                    It’s death by a thousand cuts rather than by a single catastrophic injury.

                    People should ask themselves, if there were no other anomalies, would this alone completely destroy the diary’s credibility? We have been told it would and that’s what I’m challenging.

                    But there are far more interesting subjects than the bleedin’ diary, so I’ll withdraw from the field.








                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


                      Sound of reason!


                      The Baron
                      Sound of Z Cars more like. ;-)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Yabs View Post
                        We all knows liars give different stories when telling a fib, Florrie probably gave different accounts of her London visit to different people to suit herself.
                        What I would say though, is that she’s almost certain to have given the same excuse for visiting London to both her husband, and her Live-in Nanny.
                        So i’m suggesting that whatever Florrie told Yapp, is an indicator to what should appear diary.
                        Hi Yabs,

                        The problem is that Alice Yapp does not seem to have been a terribly trustworthy or impartial witness, and I thought she claimed that Florie had told her she was going to London to visit her mother, who was actually in Paris at the time? Yapp may have been lying to imply that Florie had lied to her, and Florie was in no position to defend herself from this woman. It was hearsay at best.

                        Florie, it seems, told umpteen people umpteen different stories about a) her main purpose for the visit [she lied if it was to stay at Flatmans Hotel with Alfred B]; b) who else she was planning to meet up with; and c) who she actually did meet up with during her stay. Even the family friend, John B-K, ticked her off for telling so many lies. She was an airhead, who seemed oblivious to the trouble she was storing up for herself. It's almost like she was courting discovery, to show Jim what it felt like to be cheated on. But this was 1889, when a husband could have mistresses and a discreet veil would be drawn, while a straying wife was a slut who deserved the strongest public condemnation. [No, I'm not turning into Hallie R.] Florie was naive, whether she hoped her lies would be believed, or didn't care, because they were worth telling if Jim cottoned on and got a taste of his own medicine. I'm also not sure she had the sense to keep her story straight within the walls of Battlecrease, never mind without. She was too thick to realise that her letters to Alf might be intercepted and opened by unfriendly hands, and I doubt she quite grasped the hostility certain members of the household felt towards her. Liars - as our old friend Mike Barrett amply demonstrated - can lie to themselves as much as to others, and may also tell one person two or more completely different stories, and not even be aware they are giving themselves away.

                        Love,

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


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                          It was indeed.

                          It’s death by a thousand cuts rather than by a single catastrophic injury.

                          People should ask themselves, if there were no other anomalies, would this alone completely destroy the diary’s credibility? We have been told it would and that’s what I’m challenging.

                          But there are far more interesting subjects than the bleedin’ diary, so I’ll withdraw from the field.







                          diary apologists! ; )

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                            diary apologists! ; )
                            You are incorrigible, Abby!

                            I should come clean: I think Charles Lechmere was the Ripper* and he forged the diary to throw suspicion onto Maybrick.

                            *He didn’t kill Tabram, of course. The ID of her murderer is blindingly obvious.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                              You are incorrigible, Abby!

                              I should come clean: I think Charles Lechmere was the Ripper* and he forged the diary to throw suspicion onto Maybrick.

                              *He didn’t kill Tabram, of course. The ID of her murderer is blindingly obvious.
                              Tabram would have been Lechmere too. He was probably Cross with her.

                              Come to think of it, it seems he was Cross with everyone he killed.

                              So more Crosseyed than blind, Gary.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                                Tabram would have been Lechmere too. He was probably Cross with her.

                                Come to think of it, it seems he was Cross with everyone he killed.

                                So more Crosseyed than blind, Gary.
                                I’ve watched the House of Lechmere video about Tabram and I swear there was a ‘tap, tap, tap...’ on the soundtrack. I thought maybe Ed was sending out a subliminal message.
                                Last edited by MrBarnett; 08-07-2020, 02:41 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X