Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

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

  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    Hi Trevor,

    There is a wonderful built-in irony to emails such as your latest as it is exactly these which keep me (and others) here, fighting the good fight, because they are so befuddled.



    I'm sure you have said these things many times before, Trevor, but proving them would be quite a cool trick too, detective.



    This is the perennial claim against the scrapbook which is presented every time without the counterclaim. We hear that the 'Poste House' is a clear anachronism. We are informed that Maybrick got the placing of Kelly's breasts wrong. We are solemnly informed that the farthings were not there, that he couldn't have taken Kelly's key away with him, that he didn't write the 'Dear Boss' letter (that - of course - was the work of our 'enterprising' journalist), and now we hear that Maybrick could not possibly have written 'aunt' when Florrie later announced she'd been to see her 'godmother'. None of these are categoricals, but you present them - by implication - as such, and this fools the ill-informed and easily-swayed on this Casebook, thereby increasing the likelihood that people like me will stay vigilant and stay here.



    This is my favourite bit - you know, the bit where you just make something up in order to 'win' (ha ha) your argument. You have now made the claim so the burden of proof now falls on you to back up your claim: please inform us which experts have said this and what evidence they provided to show that the scrapbook could not have been penned in the LVP. You do realise - surely - that if your claim were true, we'd all be out of here, enjoying the summer rays?



    Your post answers its own question, Trevor. There are only poorly-constructed arguments against the authenticity of the scrapbook - hence plenty of room for believing it to be authentic, and a whole host of ill-informed opinion about the scrapbook which gives motivation daily to defend its right to a fair hearing.

    The biggest issue here (of many) is your outrageously-indefensible claim that "Then there are the expert examinations of the diary in which it is shown that the diary could not have been penned in the LVP." When you type that, a thousand young Ripperologists turn away from Maybrick because they think that what gets stated here is necessarily true (and by a published Ripper author, it must be true!).

    This bit in bold needs to be backed-up with indisputable evidence or else you need to withdraw it. If you do neither, you comment on the substance of your place in the annals of Ripperology.

    All the best, Trevor. It's always good to keep in touch.

    PS By the way, I typed 'emails' in my first sentence instead of 'posts' and - once I'd spotted it - decided to leave it in as an example of the very easy way it is for the flowing thought as it is transcribed onto paper or onto a keyboard to be inadvertently corrupted: 'posts' become 'emails', 'godmothers' become 'aunts'.

    Ike
    I notice you avoid the inconsistencies issue which surrounds the diary, inconsistencies that as I said you would not expect to be found if the killer (Maybrick had written the diary, and I am not referring to Aunty.

    As to the experts as you probably know they can only give their expert opinions based on their expertise and as a result of examining the document in question or copies, and one such expert was Kenneth Rendell who says it is a fake. I nor you are experts in this field and we have to accept or reject these opinions. and sometimes these opinions are not what we want to hear as I think the case is with you.

    If you have an expert who can say the diary was penned in the LVP then fine, then you have to then switch to the balance of probabilities based on the evidence for and against, and the evidence for it being a hoax far outweighs the evidence to show that it is genuine and was written by Maybrick.

    Go get out in the summer rays !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 08-06-2020, 09:16 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post


    Why don't you say it Caz?!

    Say you believe Maybrick was Jack the Ripper and free yourself.

    What are you afraid of?

    Say it, come on, you can do it, just trust yourself! It isn't that difficult as it seems, you are almost there


    The Baron
    Yes, I too get the feeling Caz is hiding in the closet where the diary is concerned... or should that be under the floorboards?

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

    What I meant was that first Caz now you claim that Harris was the force behind the affidavit. The power behind the barstool. He orchestrates an affidavit by MB.

    But when he has it, he abandons the plan. My question is, how does this theory make sense? You stated he typed up or drafted the affidavit, which I'm guessing is dramatic hyperbole, yet "when he read the affy David he must have utterly shat himself at the realisation that Bongo Barrett could not substantiate a single word that he was willing to swear to"

    If MH is the force behind the affidavit, why isn't the affidavit suitable for his purpose?
    Katnip,

    Melvin Harris was working with Alan Gray to get Bongo to sign an affy David that he hoaxed the scrapbook. Bongo had made the claim in the summer of 1994 and - by the December - Harris was desperate for his claim to be formalised in a detailed affy. We know about Harris's involvement with Gray because there is a tape recording of Gray talking to Bongo in Liverpool Royal (Caz has quoted from it in a recent post) and it is clear that Gray wants Bongo to sign an affy David (presumably so that Gray can get paid something at long last) in order to placate Harris.

    Bongo was easily-led, and he duly provided the affy David. The details would have come from Bongo, the typing from Gray or Harris or someone who could type (Bongo couldn't). He'd been given a month's warning so he had plenty of time to come up with juicy little slice-of-life details that would convince at the superficial reading stage of his bill.

    Excited to Hell, Harris may have asked Bongo for some evidence to back up his affy to which Bongo - as we know - would have come up cold. So Harris may have done some initial research to ensure that the details in the affy were vaguely believable.

    And then that's it, the story goes cold. Harris keeps schtum about his Great Reveal. Harris's LOBSTER Day dies as quickly as Lord Orsam's.

    Why? Well, if it had been a clear and evidenced affy, Harris is unlikely to have kept quiet about it so the reasonable inference to be drawn here is that it is possible that he read it, typed it up, and researched it, before shelving it with a huge sigh and a "**** me pink".

    Hope this helps.

    Ike
    Last edited by Iconoclast; 08-06-2020, 08:30 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    I have said before that there was a clear conspiracy to hoax the diary, and what would appear to be a secondary conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

    The diary has too many inconsistencies which have been highlighted many times. Inconsistencies that you would not expect to see if Maybrick had penned the diary and had been the killer.

    Then there are the expert examinations of the diary in which it is shown that the diary could not have been penned in the LVP. I don't know why those who keep suggesting the diary was penned by Maybrick keep believing it was, what drives them on and on, give it up move on enjoy the summmer and stay safe!

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Hi Trevor,

    There is a wonderful built-in irony to emails such as your latest as it is exactly these which keep me (and others) here, fighting the good fight, because they are so befuddled.

    I have said before that there was a clear conspiracy to hoax the diary, and what would appear to be a secondary conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
    I'm sure you have said these things many times before, Trevor, but proving them would be quite a cool trick too, detective.

    The diary has too many inconsistencies which have been highlighted many times. Inconsistencies that you would not expect to see if Maybrick had penned the diary and had been the killer.
    This is the perennial claim against the scrapbook which is presented every time without the counterclaim. We hear that the 'Poste House' is a clear anachronism. We are informed that Maybrick got the placing of Kelly's breasts wrong. We are solemnly informed that the farthings were not there, that he couldn't have taken Kelly's key away with him, that he didn't write the 'Dear Boss' letter (that - of course - was the work of our 'enterprising' journalist), and now we hear that Maybrick could not possibly have written 'aunt' when Florrie later announced she'd been to see her 'godmother'. None of these are categoricals, but you present them - by implication - as such, and this fools the ill-informed and easily-swayed on this Casebook, thereby increasing the likelihood that people like me will stay vigilant and stay here.

    Then there are the expert examinations of the diary in which it is shown that the diary could not have been penned in the LVP.
    This is my favourite bit - you know, the bit where you just make something up in order to 'win' (ha ha) your argument. You have now made the claim so the burden of proof now falls on you to back up your claim: please inform us which experts have said this and what evidence they provided to show that the scrapbook could not have been penned in the LVP. You do realise - surely - that if your claim were true, we'd all be out of here, enjoying the summer rays?

    I don't know why those who keep suggesting the diary was penned by Maybrick keep believing it was, what drives them on and on, give it up move on enjoy the summmer and stay safe!
    Your post answers its own question, Trevor. There are only poorly-constructed arguments against the authenticity of the scrapbook - hence plenty of room for believing it to be authentic, and a whole host of ill-informed opinion about the scrapbook which gives motivation daily to defend its right to a fair hearing.

    The biggest issue here (of many) is your outrageously-indefensible claim that "Then there are the expert examinations of the diary in which it is shown that the diary could not have been penned in the LVP." When you type that, a thousand young Ripperologists turn away from Maybrick because they think that what gets stated here is necessarily true (and by a published Ripper author, it must be true!).

    This bit in bold needs to be backed-up with indisputable evidence or else you need to withdraw it. If you do neither, you comment on the substance of your place in the annals of Ripperology.

    All the best, Trevor. It's always good to keep in touch.

    PS By the way, I typed 'emails' in my first sentence instead of 'posts' and - once I'd spotted it - decided to leave it in as an example of the very easy way it is for the flowing thought as it is transcribed onto paper or onto a keyboard to be inadvertently corrupted: 'posts' become 'emails', 'godmothers' become 'aunts'.

    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

    What I meant was that first Caz now you claim that Harris was the force behind the affidavit. The power behind the barstool. He orchestrates an affidavit by MB.

    But when he has it, he abandons the plan. My question is, how does this theory make sense? You stated he typed up or drafted the affidavit, which I'm guessing is dramatic hyperbole, yet "when he read the affy David he must have utterly shat himself at the realisation that Bongo Barrett could not substantiate a single word that he was willing to swear to"

    If MH is the force behind the affidavit, why isn't the affidavit suitable for his purpose?
    I have said before that there was a clear conspiracy to hoax the diary, and what would appear to be a secondary conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

    The diary has too many inconsistencies which have been highlighted many times. Inconsistencies that you would not expect to see if Maybrick had penned the diary and had been the killer.

    Then there are the expert examinations of the diary in which it is shown that the diary could not have been penned in the LVP. I don't know why those who keep suggesting the diary was penned by Maybrick keep believing it was, what drives them on and on, give it up move on enjoy the summmer and stay safe!

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Well, I'm breathless!

    That last page and a half of new entries was a triumph of pure, vitriolic invective. I loved it!

    I hate it when it's boring on the Casebook. This last hour or so was clearly not boring. Only disappointment is that I missed it all!

    Encore!

    Leave a comment:


  • Yabs
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kattrup
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post


    And I suggest you try to find your own writing style instead of using Fisherman's expressions.
    I thought that was popularized by Obama? he used it whenever he visited a small country.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kattrup
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    I'm now drawing a line under this line of questioning, coming from someone who only recently claimed they had no interest in the subject matter or learning more about it. I'm happy to leave others to judge how trustworthy that claim was, in light of your continued terrier-like persistence over this one issue.
    I cannot actually recall having said I had no interest in it or in learning more about it, I looked through some of my old posts to find it, perhaps you could direct me to it?
    I think I said that it was not very interesting, and that I followed it mostly for the amusement value.

    Originally posted by caz View Post
    I expect you'll find Inside Story positively riddled with schoolgirl errors if you spend the next 17 years going over it page by page with a fine-toothed comb, instead of concentrating on whether Mike's affidavit was reliable or riddled with rotten lies from start to finish.
    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 - but about your posts here repeating mistaken information (and having a disdainful or perhaps "sneering" tone while doing it, too).

    Originally posted by caz View Post
    I guess it's all a question of personal priorities: trying to find where the truth lies, or finding fault with those of us who doubt Mike Barrett's ability to lie straight in bed.
    Those two options are not mutually exclusive, but I must add that I don't try to find fault with you or others, just that your arguments are faulty.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

    Thanks for that Baron. I was genuinely concerned I was punching above my weight.

    And I suggest you try to find your own writing style instead of using Fisherman's expressions.


    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

    Because it's a good book? I've never read it, but is a book by default shite because the author is a twat?

    If it is, I'll chuck out most of my shelves now.
    As I say, I started the book and got drawn into the story immediately. What I read was excellent. Other things then claimed my attention and I didn’t get to finish it. But I will, and I’ll be very surprised if it disappoints.

    And if I had felt that the great ‘announcement’ really had proved some aspect of the diary’s origin beyond a reasonable doubt, I’d have given the Great Orz a generous thumbs up.

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post


    My comment is beyond you to understand.


    The Baron
    Thanks for that Baron. I was genuinely concerned I was punching above my weight. Its a relief really. I'll leave you intellectuals to it. In fact, I do apologise to the community at large, I'm out of my depth here. Please accept my deepest and most sincere apologies for offering an insight into what is clearly beyond me to understand.

    The shame of it all. What was I thinking. Thanks Baron. Thanks. I now see what I must do. Ma!? Ma!? Where's that hosepipe Ma!? I'm off for a drive. Well, not a drive as such, I'll be in a layby. Ma?

    (Now that's sarcasm!)
    Last edited by Al Bundy's Eyes; 08-05-2020, 08:48 PM. Reason: Of

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    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.

    My comment is beyond you to understand.


    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    replied
    [QUOTE=MrBarnett;n739

    Why would someone who ‘hates’ Lord O so vehemently praise his Islington book so generously?

    Gary

    [/QUOTE]

    Because it's a good book? I've never read it, but is a book by default shite because the author is a twat?

    If it is, I'll chuck out most of my shelves now.

    Last edited by Al Bundy's Eyes; 08-05-2020, 08:38 PM. Reason: Quotes gone haywire. Quoted post #592

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

    I reckon that's a fair point Gary. He'll pull you up for the most minor indiscretion, or such.
    So you’ve noticed it too ABE?

    That’s a relief.


    Leave a comment:

Working...
X