Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lord Orsam's Blog

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Caroline Brown
    replied
    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
    I think you’ve misunderstood; you seem to be responding to something other than what I’ve written.

    I’ve no particular desire to keep discussing the diary, as doing so mainly permits people with economic interests in it to pretend it’s interesting. Thus propagating the scam for their own benefit.
    That's very funny, considering that in the immediately preceding post, Gareth had described the diary as 'certainly an interesting object'.

    Are you implying that Gareth is only pretending because he has economic interests in it, and is thus propagating the scam for his own benefit?

    If, on the other hand, you can allow that Gareth genuinely sees the diary as an interesting object, despite believing it to be a modern scam, and without any economic interests in it, it might be wiser not to throw such accusations around, when you have no evidence for them and not much more idea of who you are accusing.

    I was just methodologically puzzled by Paul Butler’s comment and sought an explanation - which I have got, so thanks for that
    Does Paul only 'pretend' to be interested in the diary's origins?

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Caroline Brown
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    Hello Caz
    Because the old book talked of cutting up whores and was signed by Jack the Ripper. Whether it was actually yer man or not, it was/is certainly an interesting object.

    (I initially wrote "interesting find", but of course I don't think it was found at all )
    I agree, Gareth, but there are many, many people outside of our tiny community, believe it or not, who do not and would not have had much if any interest, either in the book itself, or in reading its contents. Back in the Spring of 1992, it would have just been an "old book, with old writing in it that was hard to read", as others have described it.

    If one such Battlecrease electrician had even bothered to look beyond the first page at that time, and tried to read a few passages, what do you think he'd have made of it, as someone who believes the writing and the language appear strikingly modern for something supposedly Victorian?

    Even turning to the last page of writing and seeing the name Jack the Ripper, might not someone's first thought have been that a resident of Liverpool had sat down in the age of the fountain pen and written a piece of fiction about the infamous London murderer? Why should anyone have quickly jumped to the conclusion that this was meant to be a genuine account of the murders as they happened, and that Jack was therefore a Scouser who had once lived in the big house on Riversdale Road?

    More to the point, if by chance everyone working in Battlecrease knew the house by that name, along with its Maybrick history, and would have recognised the "old book" for what it was meant to be, what did you expect anyone finding it there to do with it, once they had decided to 'liberate' it from Paul Dodd's house? How could they have hoped to profit from it, no matter how valuable it may have turned out to be? The bigger the price tag, the more information a potential buyer would have needed before parting with a bean. "Who am I buying this from, and where did they get it? An electrician, you say, who only last week helped with a wiring job in the old Maybrick house? Hmmm? And he claims he got it in good faith, but won't say how or when? He's having a laugh!"

    But our Mike could ask and ask until he was blue in the face, because for £25 what more could he seriously expect to be told?

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Caroline Brown
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    My position is quite clear, from what I have looked at and that is that Barrett forged the diary just as he said in his affidavit.
    Well I can't help you then, Trev. As I thought, you didn't use reason to reach that position, so you will never be reasoned out of it.

    You may as well believe my cat Monty forged it. He whinges whenever I come to this place to read the latest round of 'Mike dunnit' posts. He's miaowing for attention right now, as if to say "I wrote it with my left paw". At least his spelling is better than Mike's.

    Love,

    Caz & Needy Puss
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Kattrup
    replied
    Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post
    Oh it is the case, Kattrup.

    [...]
    I'm not clear how you have managed to calculate and compare the number of steps involved in either explanation: Barrett forgery or Battlecrease theft.
    I think you’ve misunderstood; you seem to be responding to something other than what I’ve written.

    I’ve no particular desire to keep discussing the diary, as doing so mainly permits people with economic interests in it to pretend it’s interesting. Thus propagating the scam for their own benefit.

    I was just methodologically puzzled by Paul Butler’s comment and sought an explanation - which I have got, so thanks for that

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Hello Caz
    Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post
    Hi Gareth,

    Where did you get the idea that the electrician would have believed the "old book" was actually written by the killer known as Jack the Ripper
    Because the old book talked of cutting up whores and was signed by Jack the Ripper. Whether it was actually yer man or not, it was/is certainly an interesting object.

    (I initially wrote "interesting find", but of course I don't think it was found at all )

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X