Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

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

  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

    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.
    Much as it may hurt you to hear it, I really could not make that out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post


    Since it is in David Orsam's handwriting, it is an absolute proof!

    Actually no - we may admire somebody as much as we like, and it still wonīt make them infallible.

    He has no hidden agenda that colors his judgments...

    How qould you know? If it was hidden?

    ...and one of the best -if not the best- objective researchers in the field.

    Yes, he is the Muhammad Ali of Ripperology in many a sense.

    You should read more from him.

    The Baron
    Going by your posts, it seems more like a case of you perhaps needing to read a little less from him.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ms Diddles
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post


    Since it is in David Orsam's handwriting, it is an absolute proof!


    He has no hidden agenda that colors his judgments, and one of the best -if not the best- objective researchers in the field.

    You should read more from him.


    The Baron
    Look, if you like him, just ask him out.

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by the baron View Post


    since it is in david orsam's handwriting, it is an absolute proof!


    He has no hidden agenda that colors his judgments, and one of the best -if not the best- objective researchers in the field.

    You should read more from him.


    The baron
    [deleted]

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post


    Absolute proof? No.

    Since it is in David Orsam's handwriting, it is an absolute proof!


    He has no hidden agenda that colors his judgments, and one of the best -if not the best- objective researchers in the field.

    You should read more from him.


    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    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?
    May I just clarify here, erobitha, that I don't think it was Mike's intention to lead Melvin Harris, specifically, a merry dance, or sell Melvin Harris, specifically, a dud bullet.

    Mike had hit rock bottom emotionally, but Melvin may not have appreciated this, if it even occurred to him to try and find out. But Mike's various stories, claims and retractions from June 1994 onwards certainly had the effect of leading everyone - Harris, Feldman, Shirley - a merry dance. They had to try and sift the truth from the lies, assuming there was a grain of truth in there somewhere. But first they had to know what Mike was actually claiming at any particular time, and if he had no live bullets, he only had duds to offer.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    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! ; )

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post


    Sound of reason!


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

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    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.








    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X