Special Announcement

[Iconoclast]

yeah that must be it. of course its not the bleedin obvious that a modern hoaxer was just repeating a mistake made on the record, the history of all to see now as clearly outlined by Lord Orsam.

Yes, Abnormal, I think that must be it. Before Florrie went to London to see her godmother, Maybrick appears to have believed - for whatever reason (and there are plenty) - that she was off to see her 'aunt'.

Wait for it.

Wait for it.

Wait for it.

Wait for it.

A couple of weeks go by (possibly a few weeks). Florrie goes to London, comes back, they both meet Dr Hopper and Dr Hopper says they both say Florrie had been to see her godmother. We don't know if James said it or if he simply concurred when Florrie said it (thinking "That's funny, I could have sworn she'd said 'aunt' - that's buggered my scrapbook up completely and irrevocably").

I am comfortable that this is a perfectly plausible view of how things went down.

Ike

[caz]

After how many years? 20.. 30? years of researching, you recieve such a criticism!

Are you satisfied now Caz?! Proud of yourself?

Happy Lobster for you!


The Baron

Thank you for the compliment, Baron, but I'm not actually a researcher, nor ever claimed to be.

I simply examine the language, detail and nuances of anything that comes my way - verbal or oral - and respond as I see fit.

Seven O levels, and no other qualifications. Left school at 17. What you see is what you get.

Oh and by the way, any criticism I get from RJP I also take as a compliment.

Love,

Caz
X

[Yabs]

Help me out here. Is this reference to Florrie’s aunt an ‘error’ based on the ‘error’ made by Addison, a reference to a genuine aunt other than Florrie’s godmother or a reflection of the godmother being called an aunt within the family?

Hi Mr B
The whole aunt thing is a bit odd.
Here’s a few more bits, including a more complete quote of the letter from “John”
Another article referencing it, and a comment from Florries mother about it.....

[Yabs]

[Yabs]

[Yabs]

[erobitha]

Thank you for the compliment, Baron, but I'm not actually a researcher, nor ever claimed to be.

I simply examine the language, detail and nuances of anything that comes my way - verbal or oral - and respond as I see fit.

Seven O levels, and no other qualifications. Left school at 17. What you see is what you get.

Oh and by the way, any criticism I get from RJP I also take as a compliment.

Love,

Caz
X

Caz,

Can I just say, as a fellow graduate from the university of life (I left school with 4 GCSE's) that I admire how well you have handled much of this nonsense being flung your way, by who I suspect many are academic pedants or failed writers themselves. I have seen your back catalogue of work, and a number of posters it seems to me lack the respect of your achievements.

"There's an old Chinese proverb, he adds, "which says that when a finger points at the moon the imbecile looks at the finger. I thought Ripperologists had always been looking at the finger. I wanted to look at the moon. How is it that, in 1889, Florence Maybrick is accused of murder and then, in 1992, the man she was supposed to have killed is accused, in this rediscovered document, of being Jack the Ripper? It seemed so strange. And that," he says, "was what started me off.""
- Taken from British GQ interview with Bruce Robinson

Often those who are ensconced in the world of academic theory and census-searching lack the ability to understand humanity and it's very nature. Life is full of nuance and not every answer is found through cross-checking endless reams of witness testimony or official records. Some of it you have to colour in the blanks yourself using a mixture of logic, life experience and good old fashion cop on. Unsolved crimes of most nature rarely get tied up in one absolute pretty bow with a cherry on top.

I came to this the same way Bruce described as above, but then the watch sealed it for me. I think anyone with an interest in psychology will also be intrigued by much of the human nuance in all of this, even the buffoonery of Michael Barrett is intriguing.

So we fight on in the battlefields of minutiae where pedantry tries to outwit logic, reason and psychology.

“The trumpets of war shall sound at his footsteps, the ravens feed at his voice, and he shall wear a crown of swords.”
― Robert Jordan, A Crown of Swords

[Iconoclast]

Thank you for the compliment, Baron, but I'm not actually a researcher, nor ever claimed to be.

I simply examine the language, detail and nuances of anything that comes my way - verbal or oral - and respond as I see fit.

Seven O levels, and no other qualifications. Left school at 17. What you see is what you get.

Oh and by the way, any criticism I get from RJP I also take as a compliment.

Love,

Caz
X

I think The Baron chap has a touchiness rarely seen since the halcyon days of Lord Orsam. He's probably got a double first from Oxbridge. Possibly even his.

I got four O-levels, left school at 17. What you get (from us both) is brilliant.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Caz,

Can I just say, as a fellow graduate from the university of life (I left school with 4 GCSE's) that I admire how well you have handled much of this nonsense being flung your way, by who I suspect many are academic pedants or failed writers themselves. I have seen your back catalogue of work, and a number of posters it seems to me lack the respect of your achievements.

"There's an old Chinese proverb, he adds, "which says that when a finger points at the moon the imbecile looks at the finger. I thought Ripperologists had always been looking at the finger. I wanted to look at the moon. How is it that, in 1889, Florence Maybrick is accused of murder and then, in 1992, the man she was supposed to have killed is accused, in this rediscovered document, of being Jack the Ripper? It seemed so strange. And that," he says, "was what started me off.""
- Taken from British GQ interview with Bruce Robinson

Often those who are ensconced in the world of academic theory and census-searching lack the ability to understand humanity and it's very nature. Life is full of nuance and not every answer is found through cross-checking endless reams of witness testimony or official records. Some of it you have to colour in the blanks yourself using a mixture of logic, life experience and good old fashion cop on. Unsolved crimes of most nature rarely get tied up in one absolute pretty bow with a cherry on top.

I came to this the same way Bruce described as above, but then the watch sealed it for me. I think anyone with an interest in psychology will also be intrigued by much of the human nuance in all of this, even the buffoonery of Michael Barrett is intriguing.

So we fight on in the battlefields of minutiae where pedantry tries to outwit logic, reason and psychology.

“The trumpets of war shall sound at his footsteps, the ravens feed at his voice, and he shall wear a crown of swords.”
― Robert Jordan, A Crown of Swords

You are in danger of being even more brilliant than I.

Stop it.

[caz]

It’s not for others to judge when you’ve already stated the answer, is it?

I didn't think mine was the last word on any subject, Kattrup, but the compliments are coming thick and fast today! Thank you.

If Inside Story misled people on this point, as you admitted, it is natural to want to know if the rest of the book could mislead as well.

That is neither below the belt nor unnecessarily provocative, and of course I expected an answer - seeing as you know about the error you made, and the editorial choices prioritizing readability over precision, do you consider the rest of the book generally trustworthy or not?

What are you on about now? Editorial choices? I wasn't aware of the continuity issue until recently - 17 years after our book was published. I will consider the book trustworthy until someone points out any other issues they have found after 17 years. The major issue with this one is that we missed the serious matter of Melvin Harris and co deliberately keeping Mike's January 1995 affidavit firmly under wraps, so Shirley and co had no chance to discuss it with anyone, never mind investigate it, until after a version of it had been put up on the internet, presumably by one of Melvin's foot soldiers, in 1996 or 1997. I only wish we had appreciated this when preparing a narrative in 2002/3. Would that have made the tone of your posts today any less sneering?

It really seems like it would be a lot easier if you’d just read David Orsam’s page yourself. As he is the best informed and most reliable researcher writing about the diary, his posts are sure to benefit your understanding of the “mystery”.

Oh stop it, my sides are aching. If I didn't know how much you hang on every word his lordship spits out, I'd give you ten out of ten for sarcasm.

How did Melvin Harris suppres the affidavit?

You tell me. Perhaps Mighty Mel possessed the same kind of unworldly and unhealthy power over his minions as his lordship could only dream of today.

The more pertinent question is why.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

The major issue with this one is that we missed the serious matter of Melvin Harris and co deliberately keeping Mike's January 1995 affidavit firmly under wraps, so Shirley and co had no chance to discuss it with anyone, never mind investigate it, until after a version of it had been put up on the internet, presumably by one of Melvin's foot soldiers, in 1996 or 1997.

Melvin Harris didn't publicise the affidavit because he knew it was full of holes.

If he didn't publicise it, and Alan Gray and Mike Barrett lacked the will or the ability to do so also, then that is how it was 'suppressed'. Talk about damned by faint praise. This was damned by an all-too convenient silence.

If it had amounted to more, you can rest assured it would have been trumpeted from every rooftop Melvin could find.

Ike

[caz]

Of course, Lord O is not claiming to have added another barnacle to the hull of HMS Diary. He is claiming to have attached a single limpet mine which on its own is enough to sink the vessel.

Is he, indeed?

The handwriting was never enough for him then?

I'm disappointed for the Bongo Believers, who may need to revise upwards the sources he'd have needed to consult for every detail - erroneous or otherwise - in his DAiry.

Maybe my eyes are going, but I can't find where Mike or Anne could have blindly copied Addison's awful auntie anomaly from either Bernard Ryan or Trevor Christie.

My main interest has been in how anyone intends to prove that a Barrett related hand was in the diary's creation, and a Johnson related hand in the watch scratches.

I don't have any problem with a non-Barrett hoaxer, working before 9th March 1992, with however many ripper or Maybrick texts they fancied using, to come up with their darkly comic portrayal of 'Sir Jim' - who fancied that Florie was lying about the purpose of her visit to London, and imagined her lying in a Brierley patch ere long.

Love,

Caz
X

[MrBarnett]

Thanks, Yabs. :-)

Talk about Aunties in the wainscot!

What all this nonsense revolves around is whether it is remotely conceivable that Florrie’s godmother, her mother’s friend, could have been referred to as her aunt.

My Collins Dictionary gives this as one definition of aunt:

’A term of address used by children for any woman, esp for a friend of their parents.’

Orsam implicitly claims that it isn’t remotely conceivable.

[Iconoclast]

I don't have any problem with a non-Barrett hoaxer, working before 9th March 1992, with however many ripper or Maybrick texts they fancied using, to come up with their darkly comic portrayal of 'Sir Jim' - who fancied that Florie was lying about the purpose of her visit to London, and imagined her lying in a Brierley patch ere long.

For the record I don't have a problem with one either. If that were the truth of the matter, I want to know it.

But not Bongo. Not now. Not ever.

[Iconoclast]

Thanks, Yabs. :-)

Talk about Aunties in the wainscot!

What all this nonsense revolves around is whether it is remotely conceivable that Florrie’s godmother, her mother’s friend, could have been referred to as her aunt.

My Collins Dictionary gives this as one definition of aunt:

’A term of address used by children for any woman, esp for a friend of their parents.’

Orsam implicitly claims that it isn’t remotely conceivable.

I think Orsam said that James Maybrick wouldn't have made that mistake, which is clearly a risible claim.