google ngrams

[The Baron]

It's Liverpudlian for "saw".

But you are forgiven, dear Baron, because you make no secret of the fact that English is not your strongest suit, so I wouldn't expect you to recognise Scouse dialect.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes Caz, I know that, I just wanted to highlight this, since I don't believe every liverpudlian makes the same 'mistake'

This point is not from me by the way, it was pointed out before in the forum, I want to add it to 'my list' against Anne Graham.



The Baron

[caz]

It's Liverpudlian for "saw".

But you are forgiven, dear Baron, because you make no secret of the fact that English is not your strongest suit, so I wouldn't expect you to recognise Scouse dialect.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Baron]

whoring mother


With this phrase we have scored a Hat trick:


1- First, it is a modern phrase, with zero record of it being used in the 19th century!

2 - Second, it refers to Florrie's pregnancy in the diary before it was known to her husband James Maybrick, since she suffered her miscarriage in Spring 1889!

3 - Third, the suspected co-hoaxer, Anne Graham, made the exact error in her book pulling this miscarriage back to arround the double event -September 1888!



Wow wow, two words only, blew up the whole scrapbook, and gave away its hoaxer !!!!

4 - From Anne Graham's voicemail message of 31.07.94:


"I think it was in 1968/69 I seen the Diary for the first time."

"I never seen Tony again."

"I seen Paul the other day"



The hoaxer in the 'diary' says:


"The whore seen her master today"






The Baron

[caz]

It's hardly possible that Florrie could have suffered two miscarriages of several month-old babies in the spring of 1889, so Stephen, whose mind was slipping, may have been confused, or else Humphreys is dating this miscarriage to after the trial's conclusion. I haven't seen the letter yet, but it was Hopper, not Humpheys, who had examined Florrie right after Mudbrick's death in May and thought she may have suffered a miscarriage. If she had her last period on 7 March 1889, this would date the pregnancy to her flings with Brierley, so either way I still think Anne Graham is gilding the lily in her attempt to shove this back to September 1888 in an attempt to explain "whoring mother."

Still, it would be interesting to see the original source.

Hi RJ,

If Dr Hopper examined Florie after JM died, and only 'thought' she 'may' have suffered a miscarriage, doesn't this imply there was no actual fetus to examine, and no clear indication - beyond anything Florie was prepared to claim or admit - of how far the pregnancy had progressed by that time, assuming Hopper was right about her being pregnant in the first place?

How do you go from such a vague diagnosis to any calculation involving dates?

In any case, if Anne was the one playing fast and loose with dates to make them fit a subjective interpretation of the diary text, would this indicate that she or Mike had put 'the whoring mother' in the diary prior to March 1992? Or was she doing what you, Feldy and many others have done over the years, with the danger of reading too much into certain words and phrases and coming unstuck if the facts don't play ball?

By all means find fault with anyone's interpretation of what's in the diary, especially if you find evidence that it was not arrived at fairly, but that doesn't prove whether or not the text itself is faulty at that point, or that the interpreter helped create that text. If the diary doesn't explicitly say what is being argued for or against, it's not proof of anything or against anyone.

[Scott Nelson]

This isn't hard evidence against authenticity, but the so-called Diary "modernization of Abberline" likely occurred after the 1988 Michael Caine television series.

[caz]

Another point to make is that this is all backwards. If Anne is meant to have researched the diary's text before handwriting it into a photo album, not obtained until the very end of March 1992, and then immediately letting Mike loose with it, would she not have been painfully aware in the wake of the Hitler Diaries, that every little detail was bound to be looked up and checked if it survived day one?

Seems like such an elaborate charade to embark on, pretending to be researching the Maybrick content for the first time, and going into more depth with it than her accusers think she did first time around when it would really have mattered, and at a time when she could have sat back and continued to enjoy her share of the royalties from other researchers' efforts.

It was lucky nobody recognised this woman, if she was returning to the same collection of files she had consulted prior to 1992. Perhaps she wore a false moustache and beard and used a different name. Or maybe she had only bothered with one or two second hand books on the Maybrick case when helping Mike to create the diary.

No problem for a woman involved in criminal deception, who could disguise her handwriting effectively enough.

But was she? Could she?

It's funny, but in general, the [Eleven Day] Creationist is merely viewed as misguided, as opposed to a little bit round the twist, while anyone not buying into the Creation theory and thinking the Barrett bible's existence dates back a good bit further than that - along with the watch scratches it has to be said - must be an Evil Illusionist. See what I did there?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

And all disallowed by VAR.



Freshly-picked carrots.
Florrie was a mother long before the Spring of 1889.
Third point is irrelevant.

Is this what those who dismiss the Maybrick scrapbook are reduced to - clinging to the limitations of Google Ngrams and misrepresenting what Maybrick may have been referring to?

I would love it, love it, if The Baron's next post explained to us all how the Maybrick scrapbook contains just over four pages of uninterrupted discussion about the Kelly death scene, including the reference to her initials, and how Florrie's initials actually were on Kelly's wall, unexpectedly photographed for posterity, and fortunately highlighted for us by the cameraman's flash?

If we can get over that little challenge - ideally without simply Orsaming them out of existence by saying they aren't there - then we can start to think about how accurate Google Ngrams is and what relevance the term 'whoring mother' has in the text's chronology.

What I'm not grasping is how anyone - including Anne Graham - is able to read a miscarriage suffered by Florie, at any time, into the expression 'the whoring mother', as used by the diary's as yet unidentified author. Isn't it merely a subjective opinion on anyone's part, which may or may not find support in the surviving records? Are there any other clues in the diary to back up an argument that this could only be a reference to Florie losing a baby - never mind that it was Anne who put it there?

Isn't this precisely what Harry's criticism was about - dishonest and circular logic being employed to make the diary say whatever it needs to say, in order to put a desired creator in the frame - this time Anne Graham?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I must be going crackers here, Caz, but I don't even believe that The Boring's resurrected posts actually demonstrated anything other than posters suggesting that the contents of the diary could potentially be understood in the context of its time (therefore suggesting that it is either authentic or an old hoax)?

I don't see how they were attempting to use the contents of the diary to prove the authenticity of the diary.

Cheers,

Ike

Yeah, Ike, I'm losing track of what exactly The Baron thought Harry meant by his original criticism, or how any of the dredged-up posts can be considered fair examples.

If Harry was genuinely thinking of these specific posts, then his comment would seem to have been way off the mark. Alternatively, if his criticism was fair and honest, he will have had other posts or posters in mind, but has yet to produce a single relevant example of his own.

My advice to Harry would be to do his own digging in future, and not let The Baron dig them both into an ever deeper hole.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

whoring mother

With this phrase we have scored a Hat trick:

And all disallowed by VAR.

1- First, it is a modern phrase, with zero record of it being used in the 19th century!

2 - Second, it refers to Florrie's pregnancy in the diary before it was known to her husband James Maybrick, since she suffered her miscarriage in Spring 1889!

3 - Third, the suspected co-hoaxer, Anne Graham, made the exact error in her book pulling this miscarriage back to arround the double event -September 1888!

Wow wow, two words only, blew up the whole scrapbook, and gave away its hoaxer !!!!

The Baron

Freshly-picked carrots.
Florrie was a mother long before the Spring of 1889.
Third point is irrelevant.

Is this what those who dismiss the Maybrick scrapbook are reduced to - clinging to the limitations of Google Ngrams and misrepresenting what Maybrick may have been referring to?

I would love it, love it, if The Baron's next post explained to us all how the Maybrick scrapbook contains just over four pages of uninterrupted discussion about the Kelly death scene, including the reference to her initials, and how Florrie's initials actually were on Kelly's wall, unexpectedly photographed for posterity, and fortunately highlighted for us by the cameraman's flash?

If we can get over that little challenge - ideally without simply Orsaming them out of existence by saying they aren't there - then we can start to think about how accurate Google Ngrams is and what relevance the term 'whoring mother' has in the text's chronology.

[The Baron]

whoring mother


With this phrase we have scored a Hat trick:


1- First, it is a modern phrase, with zero record of it being used in the 19th century!

2 - Second, it refers to Florrie's pregnancy in the diary before it was known to her husband James Maybrick, since she suffered her miscarriage in Spring 1889!

3 - Third, the suspected co-hoaxer, Anne Graham, made the exact error in her book pulling this miscarriage back to arround the double event -September 1888!



Wow wow, two words only, blew up the whole scrapbook, and gave away its hoaxer !!!!



The Baron

[The Baron]

One of the earliest criticisms of the diary was that the references to Florrie's 1888 affair is an anachronism, so it's odd that Feldman wouldn't have commented on this important document.

RJ,

The Home Office File HO144/1639/A50678D/99, which Feldman uses to show that James Maybrick was away over the festive period of 1888. The file contains a letter sent from Baroness Von Roques to Henry Matthews, the Home Office Secretary. The letter in the file reads:


"…. The December of 1888 was the first time during her married life she had been able to dance or had been put in society; and her health was then stronger. She was unattended by her husband."



The miscarriage happened in Spring 1889 of a 4-5 months old fetus, that corresponds with Florrie back to society in December 1888!

Ahh and it looks like Maybrick was with his wife during Autumn 1888!!




The Baron

[The Baron]

Harry, you may read this:

I would politely refer you to Society's Pillar where I demonstrate conclusively that the placing of the breasts actually acts towards a confirmation of authenticity rather than against it.

The diary's errors act towards its authenticity !!! and more twisted logic than that, one will never find.



This post is one year old, too old, too old, one can hardly recognise the letters




The Baron

[Iconoclast]

Well if you want to take things to literal extremes, Harry, I'm happy to join you.

I asked you to show me where you had found evidence of this circular logic when you made your recent accusation.

So Baron actually pissed on your cornflakes as well as his own, by thinking he was coming to your rescue by digging up those ancient posts after the event, proving that when you made the remark you had nothing to support it with.

I must be going crackers here, Caz, but I don't even believe that The Boring's resurrected posts actually demonstrated anything other than posters suggesting that the contents of the diary could potentially be understood in the context of its time (therefore suggesting that it is either authentic or an old hoax)?

I don't see how they were attempting to use the contents of the diary to prove the authenticity of the diary.

Cheers,

Ike

[caz]

Caz, you said: "The dishonesty will be all yours, Harry, if you can't quote any pro-diarist using this circular logic."

Baron went to the liberty of providing you with an example. Personally, I didn't care either way.

However, now you're playing with semantics.

What's the cutoff point for any pro-diarist, Caz? Six years? Six months? Six weeks?

Well if you want to take things to literal extremes, Harry, I'm happy to join you.

I asked you to show me where you had found evidence of this circular logic when you made your recent accusation.

So Baron actually pissed on your cornflakes as well as his own, by thinking he was coming to your rescue by digging up those ancient posts after the event, proving that when you made the remark you had nothing to support it with.

[Iconoclast]

Harry, that should interest you

The quote above is one year old only, I don't know if it is 'fresh' enough though

You realy don't need to prove your point any further!

The Baron

I really think HarryD does.

His claim was that pro-diary posters had used the contents of the diary as proof somehow of the diary, had he not?

As I read the rather oblique posts of MayBea and the really rather straightforward post of miakaal4, I do not infer any attempt to use the diary to prove anything but - rather - to understand the contents of the diary in the context of the times.

I have no doubt that this will be corrected (whether I'm right or wrong) but I feel it needs to be said before an illusion apparently gains sinew here.

Ike