Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

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

  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    Yeah, I know that. But try to tell the others...!

    Itīs much the same as being a real Lechmereian and making any sort of point. Regardless if the point made bolsters or goes against the suggestion that Lechmere was the killer, the reaction is always the same: "You only say that to support your theory!" Then, if I say that the point in question is actually in conflict with the Lechmere theory, the answer becomes: "You only say THAT to support your theory!"

    Anyway, I will try to help out: HEY!! MR BARNETT IS NOT AND NEVER WAS A DIARY DEFENDER. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE IS DISALLOWED TO MAKE THE POINT THAT YOU CAN CALL WOMEN WHO ARE NOT YOUR AUNTS "AUNTS" ANYWAY!!

    Now, how do you think this will turn out? Will people say "Ooops, we got that wrong, so sorry!"? Or will they go "So Fisherman is also a Diary Defender? Get him!!"

    Letīs see.
    They’ll probably say, ‘You’re bound to say that because not only is he a diary defender, he’s also a closet Lechmerian.’

    Gareth Williams once made the point that although there may be no single error or anachronism that proves the diary to be a modern fake, the cumulative effect of the modern-sounding language convinces him that it is. (I hope I’m not misrepresenting him.)

    And that’s how I feel. I’ve read countless genuine Victorian works, including a few diaries, over the years and they have a Victorian feel that the Diary doesn’t have. Not very scientific, I know, but that’s where I stand on it.





    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post


    You could call me a ‘closet Lechmerian’ with more accuracy than a ‘Diary Defender’. ;-)
    Yeah, I know that. But try to tell the others...!

    Itīs much the same as being a real Lechmereian and making any sort of point. Regardless if the point made bolsters or goes against the suggestion that Lechmere was the killer, the reaction is always the same: "You only say that to support your theory!" Then, if I say that the point in question is actually in conflict with the Lechmere theory, the answer becomes: "You only say THAT to support your theory!"

    Anyway, I will try to help out: HEY!! MR BARNETT IS NOT AND NEVER WAS A DIARY DEFENDER. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE IS DISALLOWED TO MAKE THE POINT THAT YOU CAN CALL WOMEN WHO ARE NOT YOUR AUNTS "AUNTS" ANYWAY!!

    Now, how do you think this will turn out? Will people say "Ooops, we got that wrong, so sorry!"? Or will they go "So Fisherman is also a Diary Defender? Get him!!"

    Letīs see.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    You are simply getting what you deserve, you diary defender you! Wasnīt it George W Bush who said "Youīre either with us, or you're against us"?

    I never had him down as a ripperologist, but Iīm prepared to stand corrected.

    You could call me a ‘closet Lechmerian’ with more accuracy than a ‘Diary Defender’. ;-)

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    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
    I'd really like it if you could please put names to the Diary Defenders?

    Are you quite certain they are just people who come to these boards in order to play 'silly little tricks'? Or is this just opinion?

    What do you mean by 'milking the diary for all its worth'? Do you mean, perpetuating a proven modern hoax for financial gain? If so, do the rules of the Casebook permit such accusations to be made, or implied? And what financial gain have I ever made out of it?

    I doubt I will get direct answers from you to any of these questions but perhaps you could join forces with Lord O, RJ, Observer, The Baron, Kattrup, Trevor Marriott, etc., who share your certainty and put together a collective response which - if slanderous - can be formally reviewed by Admin.

    You are all entitled to your beliefs of course but I just do not like this occasional undercurrent of seedy innuendo that people who do not agree with you are basically crooks and morally bankrupt. Fortunately, I actually - deep down - don't give a ****, but other people will, I'm sure. Caroline Morris (as was) and Keith Skinner regularly receive sideways slaps in this way and it's frankly disgraceful. As usual, it is not evidenced either.

    I'm sure I speak on behalf of every poster on the Casebook who has the misfortune to post something which does not chime with your tunnel-vision and your dreadfully superficial arguments which apparently - in your world - 'prove' the scrapbook to be a hoax.

    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    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."
    Again, selective interpretation of the facts attempts to befuddle the case. As James Maybrick's signature in the watch is a genuinely close analogue to that on his marriage certificate, I would say that there is nothing about the watch which would damage in any way the suggestion that we do not have examples of Maybrick's handwriting when writing for his own eyes in the scrapbook. They are two entirely different artefacts for writing on or in.

    By the same token, you cannot call the writing in the watch 'writing' as such. If any of us attempted to 'write' in the back of a watch the way Maybrick did, we would face the same metal-related challenges. I think Maybrick did a very good job with his signature under the circumstances. I think if he'd attempted a few lines of the scrapbook, he'd have faced a mountain of issues (not least the lack of space).

    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    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!
    You are simply getting what you deserve, you diary defender you! Wasnīt it George W Bush who said "Youīre either with us, or you're against us"?

    I never had him down as a ripperologist, but Iīm prepared to stand corrected.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    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
    And of course, if the killer did not remove and take away the organs from the victims it scuppers it yet again, but not forgetting no organs were found missing from Nichols in any event.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 08-07-2020, 06:27 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    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
    1) Regards to your Uterus comments, high levels of Arsenic exposure leads to an altered mental state. Neurologically this can effect perception and even senses such as taste and smell. He wasn't trying to impart a tasty recipe for Gino to share with Phil & Fern on This Morning (UK reference). He was in a regular state of psychosis. If he had neuro syphillis (as I speculated previously) then this combination would be playing complete havoc with his neurological pathways. He was no Fanny Craddock. He was a very naughty boy.
    https://link.springer.com/article/10...012-1/tables/1

    2) Ike is more than able to defend his own corner, but I know he has expressed his belief that the ledger handwriting remains a challenge for us "defenders" and I would concede that in reality is the biggest hurdle to overcome, more so than provenance and definitely more than historical accuracy. His theory it could be his private hand, as opposed to his formal hand is one angle and that might well be the case. Anna Koren previously believed it could be the result of a multiple personality disorder. This could a result again of his addiction and altered mental state - it's another angle. The watch signature reamins unmistakable to me.
    Last edited by erobitha; 08-07-2020, 06:12 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X