Tweet
Originally posted by Iconoclast
View Post
-
Not many. I don't think I need to if that paragraph was anything to go on. It has fake written all over it, forget about all the other evidence! I think I will pass. Don't get me wrong though, I love your passion and enthusiasm, it is great. We just may have to diverge on opinions. Indeed it would be amazing if it was the genuine article and I mean that! But I just really cannot see it, I am afraid.Best wishes,
Tristan -
Herein is the problem in a nutshell. Some of us are accused of being ill informed, yet most people have adopted the attitude “it must be a fake” with little to no investigation themselves.Originally posted by Losmandris View Post
”I have all I need”. As does Chris Jones apparently.Comment
-
I on the other hand have read many books either entirely or partly discussing the Maybrick case (many more than once) - off the top of my head (actually, out of the back of my brilliant Society's Pillar):Originally posted by Losmandris View Post
[1] The Diary of Jack the Ripper (hardback), Shirley Harrison, 1993, Smith Gryphon
[2] Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter (hardback), Paul Feldman, 1998, Virgin
[3] Jack the Ripper: The American Connection (hardback), Shirley Harrison, 2003, Blake Publishing Limited
[4] Ripper Diary: The Inside Story (hardback), Seth Linder, Caroline Morris, & Keith Skinner, 2003, Sutton Publishing Limited
[5] The Maybrick A to Z, Christopher Jones, 2008, Countyvise Limited
[6] The Complete History of Jack the Ripper, Philip Sugden, 2006, Robinson Publishing Ltd.
[7] Mapping Murder: The Secrets of Geographical Profiling, David Canter, 2007, Virgin Books
[8] 25 Years of the Diary of Jack the Ripper: The True Facts,Robert Smith, 2017, Mango Books
[15] This Friendless Lady, Nigel Morland, 1957, Frederick Muller Ltd
[18] The Diary of Jack the Ripper (paperback), Shirley Harrison, 1998, Blake Publishing
[19] The Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick, Bernard Ryan, 1977, Penguin Books
[23] Etched in Arsenic, Trevor Christie, 1969, George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd
[25] The Last Victim: The extraordinary life of Florence Maybrick, the wife of Jack the Ripper, Anne E. Graham & Carol Emmas, 1999, Headline Book Publishing
[27] They All Love Jack: Busting the Ripper, Bruce Robinson, 2015, HarperCollns
[31] Jack the Ripper: The Definitive Casebook, Richard Whittington-Egan, 2018, Amberely Publishing
[34] Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper Case Closed, Patricia Cornwell, 2002, Time Warner Paperbacks
[39] Mrs. Maybrick’s Own Story: My Fifteen Lost Years, Florence Maybrick, 1905, Funk & Wagnalls Company [Reprinted 2017, The Echo Library]
[41] Time Reveals All: The “Funny Little Games” of Jack the Ripper, SC Davies, 2019, [Self-Published – ISBN: 9781093937336]
[44] The True History of the Diary of Jack the Ripper,Robert Smith, 2019, Mango Books
If I had simply done what you did (picked a particularly prosaic section and claimed it was overly puerile) then I too could have concluded that the scrapbook was an obvious fake. Instead, I read everything I could find on Maybrick (except - of course - Lord Orsam's response to my brilliant Society's Pillar, naturally) and formed a broader opinion based on as much information as I could find.
Buttering me up with shite about passion and enthusiasm means **** all to me in my defence of the scrapbook's right for its voice to be heard. It's a bit like when the old blokes at the walking football tell me they admire my passion and enthusiasm (I kid ye not, their very words) - doesn't stop me taking the bastards' legs out if they try to go past me. If you're too old to fall down you shouldn't be on the pitch. That's my motto. Surprisingly apposite, I feel.
PS I admired your honesty, though.
IkeComment
-
-
1] The Diary of Jack the Ripper (hardback), Shirley Harrison, 1993, Smith Gryphon
[2] Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter (hardback), Paul Feldman, 1998, Virgin
[3] Jack the Ripper: The American Connection (hardback), Shirley Harrison, 2003, Blake Publishing Limited
[4] Ripper Diary: The Inside Story (hardback), Seth Linder, Caroline Morris, & Keith Skinner, 2003, Sutton Publishing Limited
[5] The Maybrick A to Z, Christopher Jones, 2008, Countyvise Limited
[6] The Complete History of Jack the Ripper, Philip Sugden, 2006, Robinson Publishing Ltd.
[7] Mapping Murder: The Secrets of Geographical Profiling, David Canter, 2007, Virgin Books
[8] 25 Years of the Diary of Jack the Ripper: The True Facts,Robert Smith, 2017, Mango Books
[15] This Friendless Lady, Nigel Morland, 1957, Frederick Muller Ltd
[18] The Diary of Jack the Ripper (paperback), Shirley Harrison, 1998, Blake Publishing
[19] The Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick, Bernard Ryan, 1977, Penguin Books
[23] Etched in Arsenic, Trevor Christie, 1969, George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd
[25] The Last Victim: The extraordinary life of Florence Maybrick, the wife of Jack the Ripper, Anne E. Graham & Carol Emmas, 1999, Headline Book Publishing
[27] They All Love Jack: Busting the Ripper, Bruce Robinson, 2015, HarperCollns
[31] Jack the Ripper: The Definitive Casebook, Richard Whittington-Egan, 2018, Amberely Publishing
[34] Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper Case Closed, Patricia Cornwell, 2002, Time Warner Paperbacks
[39] Mrs. Maybrick’s Own Story: My Fifteen Lost Years, Florence Maybrick, 1905, Funk & Wagnalls Company [Reprinted 2017, The Echo Library]
[41] Time Reveals All: The “Funny Little Games” of Jack the Ripper, SC Davies, 2019, [Self-Published – ISBN: 9781093937336]
[44] The True History of the Diary of Jack the Ripper,Robert Smith, 2019, Mango Books
Or in his mind Losmandris just thought he would save himself the trouble and time .
I would hazzard a guess not one of these book proves beyond a doubt that Maybrick was Jack the Ripper . No more than Druitt or Lechmere, so in the end all he has is just like the rest of us . Opinion, Speculation , Conjecture, Interpretation of evidence and Guesswork when it come to ones preferred suspect .'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard FeynmanComment
-
-
Just calling it how I see it. If I was shown the same paragraph with no context I would said exactly the same thing.Originally posted by erobitha View PostBest wishes,
TristanComment
-
No buttering up intended here. Again calling it as I see it. You do appear to have a lot of passion and enthusiasm that is admirable. Alas neither can turn fantasy into reality.Originally posted by Iconoclast View PostBest wishes,
TristanComment
-
Originally posted by Losmandris View Post
'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard FeynmanComment
-
And you know this...how?Originally posted by erobitha View Post
There is no 'court of law' to decide such things and never will be, so all we have is the court of public opinion.
And your own poll suggests that your arguments have been far from persuasive.
27 of the respondents believe (correctly) that the diary is a modern fake, with the majority of them suspecting Bongo Barrett and friends.
Only 3 respondents believe it to be genuine, and since Ike admitted to being one of them, his arguments and your own have convinced exactly two people unless the other two be "Soothsayer" and "Tom Mitchell" or "Erobitha," which seems at least possible.
By contrast, the arguments set out by Melvin Harris, Nick Warren, Martin Fido, Kenneth Rendell, Maurice Chittenden, Joe Nickell, Dr. David Baxendale, David Barratt, and others seem to have been far more persuasive. A poll conducted some years ago was even more lopsided, if I recall.
You might be better off forgetting about courts of law, or 'the court of history' as Keith Skinner calls it, or the court of public opinion, and instead concentrate on being a modern-day Galileo, battling for an unpopular truth among a rabble of ignorant and prejudiced minds.Last edited by rjpalmer; 09-05-2022, 01:48 PM.Comment
-
I beg to differ, and beg most loudly. You cannot say, which you seem to be implying, that all pigs are equal here. You cannot say, "Your candidate has not been proven unequivocally, therefore he is as likely or unlikely as any other". That's not how evidence weighs on the scales. Maybrick - in terms of evidence - is so far out in front of the second-most-likely candidate for Jack the Ripper that you'd be excused for thinking they weren't actually taking part in the same race. Neither can you simply list a load of qualities and thereby imply they too have equal weight in any argument: Opinion, speculation, conjecture, and guesswork you can throw away as worthless stocking fillers on Christmas morning - we resort to these when we don't have the fifth quality you cited, evidence. Maybrick is off the scale on evidence - both hard facts and circumstantial. The rest of the 200 candidates are just news you read on a bang-average day - **** all content but the best there is that day.I would hazzard a guess not one of these book proves beyond a doubt that Maybrick was Jack the Ripper . No more than Druitt or Lechmere, so in the end all he has is just like the rest of us . Opinion, Speculation , Conjecture, Interpretation of evidence and Guesswork when it come to ones preferred suspect .
And - for the record - asking people what their views are on a candidate they've almost all read almost nothing about is never going to produce anything other than a sense of what the mood music is around here. Indeed, I think that was what ero b was seeking to achieve, perhaps not realising that people would read the results as some sort of testimony in favour or against. It's very much like those Tories who today voted personality-explant Liz Truss in as party leader and therefore as prime minister. Come 2024, she and her government will face the British electorate and they like Rishi more than they like Truss so - if they had one eye on getting re-elected - today's vote may not have been as utilitarian as it could have been for them. Big mistake, big mistake (thank you, Julia Roberts' character).
Don't make the big mistakes, dear readers. The Good News today is that I am here to keep you all honest.
Honestly.
IkeComment
-
Because that was the point of the books was it? Clearly you haven’t read them if that’s what you thought they were trying to demonstrate. As ill informed as apparently I am, I have read most of those and I don’t believe any of them categorically claimed he did it outright.Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
The closest claim is that he might possibly have written it. Now I’ve saved you both the time and trouble.Comment
-
Good to see you back RJ.Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
And you know this...how?
There is no 'court of law' to decide such things and never will be, so all we have is the court of public opinion.
And your own poll suggests that your arguments have been far from persuasive.
27 of the respondents believe (correctly) that the diary is a modern fake, with the majority of them suspecting Bongo Barrett and friends.
Only 3 respondents believe it to be genuine, and since Ike admitted to being one of them, his arguments and your own have convinced exactly two people unless the other two be "Soothsayer" and "Tom Mitchell" or "Erobitha," which seems at least possible.
By contrast, the arguments set out by Melvin Harris, Nick Warren, Martin Fido, Kenneth Rendell, Maurice Chittenden, Joe Nickell, Dr. David Baxendale, David Barratt, and others seem to have been far more persuasive. A poll conducted some years ago was even more lopsided, if I recall.
You might be better off forgetting about courts of law, or 'the court of history' as Keith Skinner calls it, or the court of public opinion, and instead concentrate on being a modern-day Galileo, battling for an unpopular truth among a rabble of ignorant and prejudiced minds.
The general consensus is wrong about a Mike Barrett hoax. You know that. I know that. Chris Jones knows it. Modern hoax possibly, but not a Barrett one.
All you do by reposting that poll is make my point for me. Most have assumed it to be a Barrett hoax. You and Orsam continue adding flames to that knowing deep down how limited Mike’s abilities as a writer was. So you adopt a hybrid of Mike/Anne hoax and the public on here at least have swallowed it. All those other experts did not conclusively prove anything, likewise it must be said on the other side. But the bloody thing exists!
I don’t know if Maybrick wrote it. He most likely didn’t, but who did and why? Surely, that must interest you too? I know you have an inquisitive mind RJ and I believe even if you are absolutely certain it is a modern hoax, a part of you wants to know the real truth.Comment
-
Genuinely laughed out loud when I read this.Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
Do us a favour Ike, post a screenshot of your Appendix II of Prick Soc or whatever it's called on one of the GSG threads so we can discuss. You keep saying how good privvy soc is, and you have provided the link, so I might just do it myself.Comment
-
Honestly, laugh away, I couldn't give a ****.Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post
But - unlike the useless VAR at St. James' Park on Saturday - at least have the honesty to give the correct angle to your referees. The correct angle is to give my argument properly which is that:
1) If James Maybrick is ever proven to be Jack the Ripper, no-one will argue about my interpretation of the GSG (though I should care - it's not as though the previous ones have been anything other than truly farcical) - indeed, they'll think themselves arses for having missed it; and
2) In the meantime, it is an astonishing coincidence that there are cryptic versions of James' six significant adults within the GSG - and only those six. No Georges, no Roberts, no Henrys, etc.. There were around 800 common male names in the LVP, and the only ones which cryptically 'take shape' in the GSG are James (capital 'J', note), Thomas (capital 'T', note), and William (capital 'W', note). Edwin, and the two sets of initials are interesting. Orsam tried to make 'Arthur' out of 'are the' but that's not only two words on separate lines and non-contiguous (unlike 'William') and also only six letters not seven. Fail!
3) I'm not hanging on this interpretation, but it's definitely intriguing.
So make sure you make those points. I trust you'll all snygger [sic - the editor clearly doesn't allow any word which contains the last six letters, however innocently) and then scurry back to discussing whether it is was 'Juwes' or 'Jewes' and whether the double-negative was important, and completely failing to ask the obvious question: 'If the GSG is so obscure to decipher, maybe it was never meant to mean anything literal in the first place?'.
Fill yer boots. As I say, I couldn't give a ****.Comment
Comment