Special Announcement

[Scott Nelson]

Harry Dam creation, cira 1895.

[erobitha]

Harry Dam creation, cira 1895.

In my view if it is a hoax, it certainly would require the creative brain and cunning of someone like Harry Dam to pull it off.

Michael Barrett was no Harry Dam.

[drstrange169]

>>The "Aunty" reference to some close but non related person was pretty striking, could Flo have referred to her Godmother as "Aunty?" <<

In which case the two would have referred to her as "Aunty" to Doctor Hopper, wouldn't they? Florence was hysterical at the time and therefore very unlikely to speak formally about her Godmother. It's not a killer blow, but it's enough, along with all the other question marks, to relegate the diary to be reasobaly considered a fake until evidential proof can be shown that it's not.

[Observer]

In my view if it is a hoax, it certainly would require the creative brain and cunning of someone like Harry Dam to pull it off.

Michael Barrett was no Harry Dam.

Absolutely not. The Diary is about as complex as a Newcastle United attacking move. This consists of their goalie retreating half way up the aisle into the Gallowgate end in order to take s goal kick, running down said aisle lowping ower the perimeter fence and attempting to boot the ball into the top right corner of the oppositions goal. I've seen it done

[Observer]

Ps. I think it was Mick Mahoney useless goalie, in a Derby game back in 69

[Observer]

Pps. Quiz of the week substitute "useless" for what we actually sang, I was being polite.

Second prize a holiday for two in war torn Syria, first prize a Newcastle United season ticket

[Observer]

An interesting "Orsam Day", not quite the bombshell I was hoping for, but a valid conversation point regardless. I wouldn't rely it solely to prove a hoax, it adds to an overall cumulative weight of evidence, but I also think it's disputable, the "Aunty" reference to some close but non related person was pretty striking, could Flo have referred to her Godmother as "Aunty?" Possibly, it's not unreasonable. It's never going to change the opinion of those who believe it's not a modern hoax. .

Yes indeed Mr Eyes, an interesting day. Brilliant research by Mr Orsam, as ever, but I think he's left too much wiggle room for the, old hoax/Maybrick as the Ripper brigade. There was no real need to be truthful to introduce this new snippet, there's plenty in the tank to nail the Bard of Goldie Street in my opinion.

[Harry D]

but I think he's left too much wiggle room for the, old hoax/Maybrick as the Ripper brigade.

Which is concerning, because any fair-minded person would weigh the evidence (numerous errors, inconsistencies, provenance etc.) and conclude the diary doesn't pass the sniff test.

[Iconoclast]

Which is concerning, because any fair-minded person would weigh the evidence (numerous errors, inconsistencies, provenance etc.) and conclude the diary doesn't pass the sniff test.

There are no restrictions on what you or any other fair-minded person choose to conclude. It's like smoking in your own home - there's unlikely to ever be a law against it but it doesn't mean that everyone will be comfortable in your home whilst you're doing it.

So you are welcome to conclude what you wish, but - if you want the discussion to ultimately conclude - we need to see incontrovertible evidence which proves the case.

Ike

[MrBarnett]

And lest we forget, this thread is not about the diary per se, it’s about the Great Orz’s claim to have found incontrovertible ‘proof’ of its being a forgery.

He hasn’t. And it really doesn’t require any mental gymnastics to see that he hasn’t.

I’m no diary defender. I don’t really know enough about it to have an informed opinion, but if I had to bet on whether the diary had been written by a 19th century cotton broker or a 20th century scouse scally, I’d put my money on the scouser.

[MrBarnett]

And before anyone comes out with ‘Ah, but you’ve got a personal grudge against DB, so your opinion is biased’, read this:

https://jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=33527&highlight=Islington

I still haven’t got round to finishing the book, but I will, and if the rest of it lives up the promise of the early chapters (as I suspect it may), I will praise his Lordship to the rafters.

[caz]

Has anyone else every referred to an older female relative, family friend or close neighbour who wasn’t the sister of one of their parents as ‘aunt’ or ‘auntie’? Perhaps it’s just a Brit thing?

Please firm an orderly queue.

I was "Auntie Caroline" to my Goddaughter Caroline, who is the daughter of our friends. Do I win £5?

Has this anything to do with LOBSTER Day, Gary? I haven't caught up with all the posts yet. I'm still in shock about Chelsea's defeat.

Love,

Caz
X

[MrBarnett]

I was "Auntie Caroline" to my Goddaughter Caroline, who is the daughter of our friends. Do I win £5?

Has this anything to do with LOBSTER Day, Gary? I haven't caught up with all the posts yet. I'm still in shock about Chelsea's defeat.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes it does. The prosecution council at Florrie’s trial referred to the lady as her ‘aunt’, which was an error and that error made its way into the diary.

That’s the mighty crustacean that nips the nadgers off diary belief.

[MrBarnett]

Being a West Ham fan, I was happy that someone lost.

[caz]

amazing none of the so called experts on the diary ever caught this fatal error.

another tour de force in the truth by Lord Orsam.

and in the blackmail piece.." you and me wrote the diary." in a private note to his wife threatening her. cmon.

we are all fortunate that Lord Orsam still has an interest in ripperology.

I have a gut feeling that words are going to be eaten... if they have not been already.

Bon appetit!

Love,

Caz
X