Special Announcement

[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.

[Scott Nelson]

Harry Dam creation, cira 1895.

[peg&pie]

Yeah, fair enough if Maybrick was narcissistic enough to court that glory, but it's a speculation built on a speculation. But "Tin match box" and Kelly's particulars draw that into question. I'd agree, if we were looking at authentic Maybrick, we'd have to factor in his reactions to the press, but accepting that as fact allows us to construct anything really. It's a good point, but not the starting point for explaining the discrepancies.

Exactly the dilemma. As I said before, we are just retreading old ground into the diary quagmire.
LO should be applauded for his continued research. But after nearly 30 years the anomalies are still just that, and any proof attempted to drawn from them is just as you put it, speculation built on speculation.

Diary dilemmas,

Handwriting, unproven.

Reference to breasts on the table, (but also at the feet remember), unprovable.

Reference to farthings several days after the event as part of funny little rhymes. Unprovable.

Anyone remotely associated with the diary prior to March '94. Unbelievable.

Without the incontrovertible fact, just the one, we will be at the same place in another 30 years.
That's what makes this story so intriguing though isn't it. There is that chance, however slim, this could be the real thing.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

And he did!


The Baron

Jesus, at least pull your head out for long enough to take a breath....

[The Baron]

Now I realised I may know what kind of Error David Orsam has found, It must be a mistake done by the forger while blindly copying from a false source.

Whatever it is, I am sure Orsam will crack again the earth under all the Diary defenders and leave them in a total void.


The Baron

And he did!


The Baron

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

IF the diary was authentic, (note if), how can we know for sure how much fiction Maybrick was happy to weave into his journal?

If he compiled his adventures a day or so afterwards, could he not absorb some of the more fanciful newspaper reports he no doubt read, into his fantasy rhymes?

Yeah, fair enough if Maybrick was narcissistic enough to court that glory, but it's a speculation built on a speculation. But "Tin match box" and Kelly's particulars draw that into question. I'd agree, if we were looking at authentic Maybrick, we'd have to factor in his reactions to the press, but accepting that as fact allows us to construct anything really. It's a good point, but not the starting point for explaining the discrepancies.

[peg&pie]

IF the diary was authentic, (note if), how can we know for sure how much fiction Maybrick was happy to weave into his journal?

If he compiled his adventures a day or so afterwards, could he not absorb some of the more fanciful newspaper reports he no doubt read, into his fantasy rhymes?

[Iconoclast]

And a lesson to every new author:


Don't rely on a second source, let alone a third one, as the forger in the diary stupidly and blindly did.


The Baron

You know what, Baron, I’ll grant you that your Lord and Master identified a good example of what could have been a mistake by a forger, no arguments there.

Not incontrovertible, mind, but a good example of why we need excellent researchers, both of the matter and anti-matter variety.

Ike

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

If I want to choose only one incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable mistake in the diary, where there are many, I will choose this one.

It is way above any thing I've ever read concerning this modern forgery.


Orsam gave Ripperology today another masterpiece of evidence!



The Baron

Well, I can certainly understand the confusion over where Lord O ends and The Baron begins....

I admire the enthusiasm, but it's the other side of the same coin.

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. It's yet more evidence if you want a modern hoax. That's the diary through and through though. I'd urge all, remove DB's name from it, and think about it objectively. Like Ike pointed out, this has been mused over before, if not so publicly, so it's another dynamic of an intriguing case, so let's take it for what it is, and not see it as an "us Vs them", which it's not.

And Old Man Menges has been kept busy today. You know he gets grouchy if he misses his nap. And such.

[The Baron]

And a lesson to every new author:


Don't rely on a second source, let alone a third one, as the forger in the diary stupidly and blindly did.


The Baron

[Iconoclast]

If I want to choose only one incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable mistake in the diary, where there are many, I will choose this one.

It is way above any thing I've ever read concerning this modern forgery.


Orsam gave Ripperology today another masterpiece of evidence!



The Baron

Aye, right ...

[peg&pie]

Suppressed from the inquest? Why? And by whom? Both Philips and Chandler inspected the scene after Chapman's body was removed, neither reported seeing any farthings.

I agree. I don't see any good reason for their absence at the inquest if they existed.

I gather there are precedents for information being withheld at the inquests, I'm not able to recall the specifics at the moment or even if they would have any bearing in this instance.

Should we dismiss Reid and Smith's recollections because we don't like them? This is very old ground to be going over again.

It's not a smoking gun and it's not incontrovertible.

[The Baron]

If I want to choose only one incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable mistake in the diary, where there are many, I will choose this one.

It is way above any thing I've ever read concerning this modern forgery.


Orsam gave Ripperology today another masterpiece of evidence!



The Baron

[Observer]

Strange logic.

Because you cannot create a 100% match on a signature on a watch, which also slightly varies in ink versions, because it was made with an etching tool, we can never accept it as being true?

The K alone won it for me but of course I expect others to make up their own minds.

Even stranger reasoning on your part. You're saying we can't accept the engraving of Maybricks signature on the watch as true, then in the next breath saying it's a match with one of his signatures using pen and ink

[peg&pie]

As a matter of interest, you seem to be a well-balanced individual: Do you feel that Florrie's initials are discernible on Kelly's wall? (Now, I said 'discernible' not 'there', note.)

Cheers,

Ike

Sorry missed your post earlier, lots of posting going on. Been out to the cinema for 40th anniversary of some film or other about wars in the stars.

Yes, I see the FM. And I would go further to suggest that anyone claiming they can't is just being awkward.

Pareidolia in blood spatter would be more likely. But then I'd be giving an opinion, I could go either way with it.