Tweet
Originally posted by StevenOwl
View Post
-
no evidence against anyone!?!? the diary provenance begins and ends with the Barretts, he admitted writing it and he was looking for a victorian diary with blank pages. if thats not enough evidence for you, then nothing will be.
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe
"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline -
Of course that isn't sufficient evidence. You've chosen two points of note and turned them into the nub of an argument which is clearly not supported with sufficient certainty to be classed as any kind of a conclusion. You've mixed-up and confused this 'conclusion' with what everyone else would call an 'opinion'.Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
Check out the difference between the two (any good dictionary will do, or any pre-schooler living nearby if you don't have access to a dictionary). You'll be amazed by the very silly mistake you keep making!Comment
-
Hi again Scotty,Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
We know that Mike didn't mention Maybrick or Battlecrease when he called the literary agent on 9th March. He only claimed to have Jack the Ripper's diary. According to Shirley, it wasn't until 13th April, when he brought the diary to London, that he finally revealed who JtR was meant to be. There are two possibilities here: he either didn't know it was Maybrick on 9th March, which might explain why he requested a Victorian diary for 1880-90 [the only date in the scrapbook being 1889 and on the last page of writing, along with the name Jack the Ripper, but no mention anywhere of the name Maybrick]; or he was keeping the 'reveal' secret and waiting for the right moment to spring the surprise. But if he knew all along, and made that first call knowing it may have come from the house, the problems I outlined in my previous post do not go away. They get worse. Mike's biggest fear would have been that the house owner would have a legitimate claim on the diary if it got out that it had been found in his house by anyone, or at any time.
There is plenty of evidence for this, but it doesn't begin until Mike goes to Paul Dodd's house in February 1993, accompanied by Feldman, Begg and Howells, who all witness his stunned reaction on hearing from Dodd about the electrical work he has had done. Why would this shock or surprise Mike if he had known of the possibility since 9th March 1992 that his diary may have been found there? Was he acting his socks off to feign surprise, or was he now a worried man?
When Feldman gets a list, in April 1993, of the crew who were working for Colin Rhodes, it includes their names and contact details, but not the Fountains Rd address for Eddie Lyons or a phone number. There is a note to the effect that Feldman can get a phone number for Eddie from his mate Jim, and he subsequently phones the Fountains Rd number on two occasions, with Eddie answering the second time. We know that around this time Mike made two failed attempts, one via a solicitor's letter, to get the same information from Colin Rhodes that Feldman was given. Colin was having none of it, but why was Mike suddenly so anxious to get his hands on the details, if he could have asked Eddie to expand on what he had told him back in March 1992?
At some point, Mike becomes aware of Feldman's attempts to get a confession from the electricians, so he marches down to Fountains Rd to doorstep Eddie and threaten him with solicitors if he says he found the diary. Would he not have anticipated just such a situation developing if he'd called Doreen on 9th March on the strength of what Eddie was telling him that day?
Then to top it all, Mike arranges for Robert Smith to meet Eddie in the Saddle in June 1993, who tells them that he found a book in Dodd's house but threw it in a skip. No dates are forthcoming, and no doubt this story is designed to put Robert off the scent. Again, Mike ought to have seen this coming if Eddie was telling him about such a find on the day he called Doreen. Eddie denied any such meeting took place, and said he only ever met Mike once, when he was doorstepped by him.
The story Brian Rawes heard from Eddie's lips the year before, on 17th July 1992, was similar to the one Robert would hear from Eddie in June 1993. It was also about a find he had made in Dodd's house, but no skip was mentioned, which is just as well, because there was no skip, and Brian was in a position to know that or to find out. Eddie denied both conversations and both stories, but admitted he may have mentioned to Brian about all the old books in Dodd's house, which would then beg the question why he would have chosen to deprive Dodd of one particular book, only to chuck it in a skip - had one been nearby.
It's strange, but nobody has tried to argue that Eddie couldn't have been talking about the diary when speaking to Robert Smith in June 1993 [skip or no skip], because it was in Robert's possession by then. That was the mistaken assumption made about the conversation in July 1992: that Eddie couldn't have been talking about the diary to Brian because it was in London by the April.
For someone who never found anything in Dodd's house, and never said he did to anyone, Eddie must have made a lot of enemies who were prepared to lie about him time and time again without blinking.
I very much doubt, however, that Eddie was blabbing to Mike about a find back in March 1992.
Love,
Caz
X"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov
Comment
-
Hello Ike,
While I am often puzzled by your apparent self imposed requirement to include at least one snarky comment in all of your posts I do have to admit that the "pre-schooler" reference did make me laugh. Knowing Abby, I doubt he will take that lying down and will respond in kind. I look forward to a lot of trash talk and see a steel cage match in the making.
c.d.Comment
-
STURE BERGWALL MADE IT ALL UPOriginally posted by Abby Normal View Post
As reported by The Guardian, Sture Bergwall was until very recently Sweden's most famous serial killer. Claiming to have an alter ego named Thomas Quick, Bergwall confessed to dozens of murders throughout the 1990s, and was convicted of eight of them. He's lived in a psychiatric hospital for the criminally insane for most of his adult life, and is about as famous in Sweden as one can be.
In 2001, Bergwall suddenly withdrew from public life. A reporter became curious and began looking into Bergwall's life and crimes—and discovered something shocking: There was no actual evidence that Bergwall had killed anyone. All the police had were his confessions, and many of those had been offered while Bergwall was heavily medicated. When asked about these inconsistencies, Bergwall easily admitted he'd lied. He'd never killed anyone.
As it turns out, this should have been obvious. Bergwall's confessions frequently got all the details of his supposed murders wrong, and even a cursory examination of Bergwall's movements over the course of his lifetime showed that several of the murders he'd confessed to would have been impossible for him to have committed. It often took police years of painstaking work to force evidence to conform to his confessions. Bergwall was eventually cleared of all charges and released from the hospital into private treatment.
It's remarkably easy to find this stuff on the internet. This one took me about 5 minutes to decide to quote but there were others too (many others!)?
Here's the rub, though:
There was no actual evidence that Bergwall had killed anyone.
All the police had were his confessions, and many of those had been offered while Bergwall was heavily medicated.
When asked about these inconsistencies, Bergwall easily admitted he'd lied.
Bergwall's confessions frequently got all the details of his supposed murders wrong.
Does any of this sound even vaguely familiar? A man experiencing emotional challenges confesses to something but is unable to prove he did any of it, offers details which are inconsistent, got all the details wrong, and even on occasions admitted he'd lied?
But he admitted doing it! Of course he did it! He must have done it - he confessed, didn't he???Last edited by Iconoclast; 06-22-2023, 02:10 PM.Comment
-
Comment
-
Silly hoax it may have been, Abby, but you have still not said which Barrett you believe held the pen, so your opinion that 'the Barretts' wrote it is based on fresh air and therefore counts for nothing.Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
Love,
Caz
X"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov
Comment
-
Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
Well spotted, Ike.
Yes it does sound vaguely familiar.
It's Keith Skinner's early theory of the Maybrick Hoax as revealed by Paul Feldman.
In other words, the Dodgy Diary was genuinely written by Maybrick, but it was just his delusional fantasy--not unlike Bergwell--the 'confession' was merely the ranting and raving biproduct of his dope addiction, complete with the usual inaccuracies gleaned from the press, like the breasts being on the bedside table, etc .
Of course, we can readily dismiss Keith's early ideas as nonsensical because the diary is not in Maybrick's handwriting and Barrett's confession, though created during a bender, holds up to scrutiny and Keith can't explain why Barrett needed this blank diary; how the text managed to allude to 'tin match box empty'; the bizarre behavior and tall tales of Anne; how Mike, of all people, managed to identify the Crashaw quote or why Mike's own sister admitted Mike had already owned the Sphere Guide from which it came; why Mike and Anne had lied about why and when they bought a word processor, etc. etc.
It's all become very tiresome, Ike, but I hope this helps.
Cheers,
RP
Comment
-
I agree totally with what you are saying Abby. But there are a few on this thread who ignore the obvious.Originally posted by Abby Normal View PostComment
-
I'm not so sure that Mike's sister Lynn had anything to say about Mike's potential ownership of the Sphere guide nor that Anne was inaccurate about the purchase of the word prosser (Mike certainly was), but these are either small points or else gaps in my memory. I think we have to agree to vehemently disagree about your graphic interpretations of Anne's behaviour too, but overall the interesting point is whether Maybrick (in a hand we don't otherwise have on record) wrote the scrapbook text as a personal fantasy, a la Bergwell. If he did, then he slipped in a wee gem of a comment about "An initial here, an initial there, will tell of the whoring mother" which - as time eventually told - rather tallied with the evidence of the infamous photograph. Clever him if he tricked us all and was prescient about the initials of Kelly's wall!Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
Well spotted, Ike.
Yes it does sound vaguely familiar.
It's Keith Skinner's early theory of the Maybrick Hoax as revealed by Paul Feldman.
In other words, the Dodgy Diary was genuinely written by Maybrick, but it was just his delusional fantasy--not unlike Bergwell--the 'confession' was merely the ranting and raving biproduct of his dope addiction, complete with the usual inaccuracies gleaned from the press, like the breasts being on the bedside table, etc .
Of course, we can readily dismiss Keith's early ideas as nonsensical because the diary is not in Maybrick's handwriting and Barrett's confession, though created during a bender, holds up to scrutiny and Keith can't explain why Barrett needed this blank diary; how the text managed to allude to 'tin match box empty'; the bizarre behavior and tall tales of Anne; how Mike, of all people, managed to identify the Crashaw quote or why Mike's own sister admitted Mike had already owned the Sphere Guide from which it came; why Mike and Anne had lied about why and when they bought a word processor, etc. etc.
It's all become very tiresome, Ike, but I hope this helps.
Cheers,
RP
It was so clever that he probably could never have imagined how much collective myopia it would induce in his critics a hundred years later ...Comment
-
I also have no evidence that the diary was written by the Barretts.Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
If you have, perhaps you would have the courage of your convictions and post it - in full - to support your accusations. At least Ike has posted his reasons at considerable length for believing that the diary was Maybrick's handiwork. He then lets us all decide for ourselves.
Posting one-liners, repeating the same old opinions, is no substitute. In the current heat wave, seeing and responding to yet another one posing as some kind of proof, puts me in mind of batting away flies as they land on a screen. It does the flies no good, but they still keep coming and telling me that I'm the one wasting my time.
I'll be the judge of that.
And no jokes at the back there [yes, I'm looking at you, Ike] about the Lord of the Flies.
Love,
Caz
X"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov
Comment
-
I believe Abby put the evidence against the Barretts better than I could so Ive left it to him.Originally posted by caz View PostComment
-
-
Is it just me or has there been a drastic decline in the level of trash talk on this thread? Maybe fatigue has set in (not surprisingly) because I sense we are just one or two posts away from an "oh yeah?" as a response. Might be time to give it a rest.
c.d.
Comment
Comment