MacDougall on Maybrick FREE Download

[How Brown]

http://www.archive.org/details/maybrickcaseatr01macdgoog

The Maybrick Case: A Treatise on the Facts of the Case, and of the Proceedings in Connection ... (1891)

Author: Alexander William Macdougall (http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Alexander%20William% 20Macdougall%22)
Publisher: Baillière, Tindall and Cox (http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=publisher%3A%22Bailli%C3%A8re%2C% 20Tindall%20and%20Cox%22)
Year: 1891 (http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=year%3A%221891%22)
Possible copyright status: NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT

[SirRobertAnderson]

This is MacDougalls' 1891 book "The Maybrick Case" which is a pro-Florence tome.

Scroll down a few pages to the list of subscribers for the "Subscribers' Edition" .

Tell me what Ripper related name leaps out at you.

Could this person possibly have been the Diarist ?

I have been told that Andy Aliffe once saw this guy as a possible diary author; I don't know if he still does.

An obsession with the Ripper case, and a contributor to Florence's legal expenses......

I can work with that.

[Sam Flynn]

Scroll down a few pages to the list of subscribers for the "Subscribers' Edition" .

Tell me what Ripper related name leaps out at you.
Forbes Winslow?

[SirRobertAnderson]

Forbes Winslow?

Bingo !

He's not a bad Diarist suspect in my opinion.

[How Brown]

Bob:

How about someone from modern times using Winslow's intense interest in the Case and putting together a Diary based on that?

Although I doubt it.:playball:.....or do I ?

[Caroline Morris]

You'd have to prove the diary modern first, Howie. :kiss:

But think of the lovely warm glow you'd get from succeeding where so many great minds have failed before you. More better than winning three caption contests in a row...

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

You'd have to prove the diary modern first, Howie. But think of the lovely warm glow you'd get from succeeding where so many great minds have failed before you.
... and of the disappointment when you realise that some distinctly lesser minds might have succeeded already, based on something no more complicated than textual analysis and probability.

Dig, counter-dig, but never infra-dig :)

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Sam,

But of course, Melvin Harris learned the very long and winding way how little it really means when one's 'proof' is disappointingly only "good enough for me".

The bane of the distinctly lesser mind? :)

It's good enough for millions that God exists too - based on something no more complicated than textual analysis and what's infinitely more probable in their eyes.

("Prior to 1970"
"Battlecrease documentation"
Repeat above as necessary in cases of severe denial :lol:)

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

It's good enough for millions that God exists too - based on something no more complicated than textual analysis and what's infinitely more probable in their eyes. I've yet to meet a believer who has undertaken an objective textual analysis of the Bible, Caz. I did, many moons ago (verily, my Pentateuch is festooned with annotations *), which is one of the reasons why I don't believe it any more. You must be thinking of people who can't see that the Bible is so full of myths and anachronisms that it lacks any credibility as an authentic historical document.


* "My Pentateuch is festooned with annotations" - see also "My hovercraft is full of eels".

[SirRobertAnderson]

I've yet to meet a believer who has undertaken an objective textual analysis of the Bible, Caz. I did, many moons ago (verily, my Pentateuch is festooned with annotations *), which is one of the reasons why I don't believe it any more.

I hope you'll consider participating in a separate thread on this. Although I didn't agree with much of your Diary analysis, I appreciated the effort, and I'm certain you'd have some Biblical food for thought.

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Sam,

But just as an objective textual analysis of the Bible would involve looking at the bigger picture, scientifically, historically and geographically, no textual analysis of the diary (with a view to putting the earliest possible date on its composition) can be 'objective' if it reaches a conclusion that wilfully ignores certain facts - eg that a team of specialists commissioned in 1993 to expose it as a modern forgery concluded that pen met paper "prior to 1970"; experienced ink chemist Alec Voller concluded in 1995 that pen had met paper more than 90 years previously; and Keith Skinner, one of the most highly respected historical researchers around, who does not accept that the diary is modern, has obtained evidence for it coming from Battlecrease House.

Of course, nobody here is suggesting that the diary is an 'authentic' historical document, in the sense that its author put the correct date on the final page. The only one who believes the text alone can tell them how much later than May 1889 it was written is you. So your comparison between Bible and diary 'believers' isn't strictly valid. It might be more to the point to compare those who believe they 'see' God's hand in the Bible with those who believe they 'see' the hand of Mike Barrett and/or associates in the diary.

Jesus may want me for a sunbeam, and may have been a fisher of men, but don't let Mike and his doubtful hoaxing abilities reel you in and do you up like a kipper. :)

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Jesus may want me for a sunbeamHe'll have to queue like everybody else :)but don't let Mike and his doubtful hoaxing abilities reel you in and do you up like a kipper. Oh, I never said it was Mike, Caz - but if it wasn't, I reckon it was someone very much like him, and a near-contemporary, if not precisely so.

[Caroline Morris]

I reckon...

Ooh Sam, you sound like one of those people who email tv or radio shows to tell everyone what they 'reckon' - or write letters in green ink with lots of underlining. :)

Trouble is, in common with many of them, you 'reckon' without taking (or being able to take) some rather crucial evidence into account.

It's bad enough when people are quite clearly unaware of factors that directly conflict with what they reckon. But you know there is scientific, documentary and circumstantial evidence that directly conflicts with what you reckon, even if you are not yet au fait with all the little devils in the details, and have the temporary luxury of being oblivious to them.

The fact that you can even say 'if' it wasn't Mike shows you still have an awful lot to learn about the man.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Trouble is, in common with many of them, you 'reckon' without taking (or being able to take) some rather crucial evidence into account. I actually think that's rather an unfair comment you've made about me there, Caz. Whilst I'd be the first to acknowledge my failings, not being able to take (what you perceive as) crucial evidence into account isn't one of them.

NB: I didn't take that personally, by the way. Just setting the record straight.

[Caroline Morris]

I think you misunderstood me there, Sam.

One crucial bit of evidence you know you are not taking into account is the fact that a whole army of scientists and other professionals has failed to shove the diary's creation any further forward in time than 'prior to 1970'.

The fact that you are unable to take into account other evidence, such as Keith's unpublished Battlecrease documentation, is hardly one of your failings. :kiss: That's not what I meant at all.

But it's a failing to treat this and other evidence (about the Barretts and their associates for instance) as if it doesn't really exist, or can have no affect on what you reckon.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

But it's a failing to treat this and other evidence (about the Barretts and their associates for instance) as if it doesn't really exist, or can have no affect on what you reckon.
I don't treat these sources as if they don't exist, Caz... it's just that I don't find them sufficiently convincing.

[Caroline Morris]

I don't treat these sources as if they don't exist, Caz... it's just that I don't find them sufficiently convincing.

Aaaargh!! Sam, you are exasperating. :banghead:

How can you claim to find evidence convincing or otherwise, when you know that you don't have access to all of it yet (through no fault of your own)???

Are you related to Derren Brown or something? :nono:

Love,

Caz
X

[Paul Butler]

I don't treat these sources as if they don't exist, Caz... it's just that I don't find them sufficiently convincing.


This is priceless Sam. Which bits fail to convince you the most/least then?

Cheers.

Paul

[Sam Flynn]

This is priceless Sam.
I'm glad you think that personal opinions are priceless, Paul. How can you claim to find evidence convincing or otherwise, when you know that you don't have access to all of it yetI'll judge the as-yet unrevealed evidence on its own merits, Caz. To clarify, I meant that I'm not convinced by any evidence thus far advanced in respect of the (near-)contemporary hoax idea.

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Sam,

I think we all knew you weren't convinced by the available evidence that the diary was created prior to 1970.

Slight correction - I think we all knew you were totally convinced, on the strength of your own textual analysis of a shabby modern internet transcript of the original document, that the diary is a shabby modern hoax created some twenty years after 1970. :nono:

Personal opinions are "priceless" when they are knowingly based on an incomplete evidential picture. Obviously you are not in a position yet to judge the merits of what you lack, but you don't even know how much you lack, let alone its nature. It just seems a wee bit premature to commit oneself on that basis.

My evidential picture is not complete either, by any means, but I have a couple of predictions for you, based on mine, which you are free to take on board or ignore: nobody in Mike or Anne's 'loop' will ever be exposed as the diary's author; and nobody will ever prove that it was not sitting in Battlecrease House long before either of the Barretts knew it existed. There is no reasonable doubt in my mind that it was.

That's why it's still here and being discussed - seventeen years and counting since it began making waves. And it'll see both of us out. :)

Love,

Caz
X