google ngrams

[Iconoclast]

A freshly picked vegetable lover called Ike,
Returned from his allotment by bike,
Through streets broad and narrow,
With two sprouts and a marrow,
Just what the missus would like.

Love,

Caz
X

Heyyup - I've just noticed this!

I've no idea how it escaped me the first time around, but I have to say that it is genius of the highest order!

Well done, Caz - or should I say Caz PhD (Limerickery)?

It's going up on the wall of Iconoclast Manor as we type/read!

Cheers,

Ike

[The Baron]

Hi Baron.

An update.

I found another reference to this miscarriage in Did She Kill Him? by Kate Colquhoun, a study of the Maybrick case. An endnote states that it was in a letter written by Justice Stephen to Henry Matthews at the Home Office, dated 14 August 1889.





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.

This is great! Thank you RJ!


Two points here:


1. If the "whoring mother" was a reference to the miscarriage Florrie experienced, then the hoaxer made an error thinking it happened in spring of 1888, the key points here are:

A. The fetus was 4-5 months old
B. Mr Maybrick said "it can not possibly be mine"


2. Anne Graham made the exact same error!


For me, this is another subtle indicator of Graham's guilt


Great catch there RJ!!




The Baron

[rjpalmer]

Hi RJ,


The document in question (144/1638/A50678D/6) is nothing more than Dr. Stevenson giving his address and declaring that he has nothing to withdraw from his evidence.

The source of Graham's claim is unknown.

Hi Baron.

An update.

I found another reference to this miscarriage in Did She Kill Him? by Kate Colquhoun, a study of the Maybrick case. An endnote states that it was in a letter written by Justice Stephen to Henry Matthews at the Home Office, dated 14 August 1889.





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.

[The Baron]

Harry, that should interest you

Just to say there could be explanations which make the actual wording of the diary less contentious. You see Maybrick was a high degree Free Mason. And a frequenter of the gentlemen's clubs. Therefore he would have had access to literature and conversations that would not necessarily be in common use. The word Juwes being an example. Bumbling buffoon could have been a nickname or a phrase used by a foreign Brother unused to English. I heard an Indian guy once call someone a "bloody bastard sod!" Maybrick would have enjoyed being so in vogue.

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

[Harry D]

Grow up, Baron. I'm wrong about many things, as to err is human. But I didn't miss the point Harry was making, and it had bugger all to do with what one poster called MayBea may have written 7 years ago, before retiring from the field. Harry complained about what he said pro-diarists in general 'keep' doing - present tense. A constant itch he felt the need to scratch. He called such posters dishonest. But the pro-diarists currently posting cannot possibly be responsible for what one unidentified poster chose to write 7 years ago.

This is beyond absurd, but if Harry wants to move his own goalposts and claim he was recalling MayBea's posts when he made his original remark, that's fine by me.

Love,

Caz
X

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?

[MrBarnett]

Perhaps we shouldn’t be too hasty…

[caz]

The last post you have apologised, but one minute later you couldn't resist it huh?!


You like to be shown wrong frequently (meaning often and not a one-off instance as pro-diarist claim) don't know why, but here it is

Your challenge was to find any quote from the last 13 years.

We gave you two quotes that are 7 years old!

You have been proved wrong, now enjoy the feeling!




The Baron

Grow up, Baron. I'm wrong about many things, as to err is human. But I didn't miss the point Harry was making, and it had bugger all to do with what one poster called MayBea may have written 7 years ago, before retiring from the field. Harry complained about what he said pro-diarists in general 'keep' doing - present tense. A constant itch he felt the need to scratch. He called such posters dishonest. But the pro-diarists currently posting cannot possibly be responsible for what one unidentified poster chose to write 7 years ago.

This is beyond absurd, but if Harry wants to move his own goalposts and claim he was recalling MayBea's posts when he made his original remark, that's fine by me.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Methinks you doth protest too much.

Take it on the chin, Caz.

What exactly is she to take on the chin?

I'm not aware a point was made that could be considered 'won' there?

[Harry D]

This is what you wrote:

'Of course, the pro-diarists will keep taking refuge in absence of evidence as not evidence of absence. In fact, since they believe the diary is genuine, and the diary contains those phrases, that in itself proves the diary's authenticity. That's the kind of dishonest logic critics are up against and there's no quarrelling with blind faith.'

You were having a pop at 'pro-diarists' in the here and now, and you know it, Harry. Were you honestly thinking back at least six years to the last time a pro-diarist may have done what you accused them of?

You're fooling nobody - gastropods don't count.

Love,

Caz
X

Methinks you doth protest too much.

Take it on the chin, Caz.

[The Baron]

As usual, he didn't have one, Ike.

Pointless.

Love,

Caz
X

The last post you have apologised, but one minute later you couldn't resist it huh?!


You like to be shown wrong frequently (meaning often and not a one-off instance as pro-diarist claim) don't know why, but here it is

Your challenge was to find any quote from the last 13 years.

We gave you two quotes that are 7 years old!

You have been proved wrong, now enjoy the feeling!




The Baron

[caz]

Don't move the goalposts, Caz. You asked me for an example, Baron provided two.

What difference does it make how long ago they posted?

This is what you wrote:

'Of course, the pro-diarists will keep taking refuge in absence of evidence as not evidence of absence. In fact, since they believe the diary is genuine, and the diary contains those phrases, that in itself proves the diary's authenticity. That's the kind of dishonest logic critics are up against and there's no quarrelling with blind faith.'

You were having a pop at 'pro-diarists' in the here and now, and you know it, Harry. Were you honestly thinking back at least six years to the last time a pro-diarist may have done what you accused them of?

You're fooling nobody - gastropods don't count.

Love,

Caz
X

[Harry D]

If you don't know, Harry...

...may I kindly suggest you also stay away from the scissors?

Love,

Caz
X

Concession accepted

[caz]

Don't move the goalposts, Caz. You asked me for an example, Baron provided two.

What difference does it make how long ago they posted?

If you don't know, Harry...

...may I kindly suggest you also stay away from the scissors?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

And your point, caller?

As usual, he didn't have one, Ike.

Pointless.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

!!!!!!

The Baron

Apologies, Baron. I had no idea Harry's poisoned arrow was directed at a poster who hasn't been around for six years. I assumed he would be aiming it at posters who are still active, such as Ike and erobitha, or it would be pointless - like the arrow.

Love,

Caz
X