|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 764
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 6:13 am: |       |
Simon,
surely you understand that was a big if. I was just stating an opinion and note I said we could still assume the diarist meant the Poste House on Cumberland Street.
John,
as I've said before that the diarist meant the Poste House on Cumberland Street remains to me the most obvious/likely explanation!
Cheers
Jen
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 633
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 9:19 am: | |
Alan,
In the diary -- "The Poste House"
In Liverpool -- "The Poste House"
Think these two phrases could mean the same thing?
After all, they are IDENTICAL!
Or is this just one more remarkably AMAZING COINCIDENCE?
It seems all the arguments in favor of the diary rely on AMAZING COINCIDENCES and all the arguments in favor of a forgery rely on what the words actually say.
I wonder what that tells us? 
Thanks for stopping by, Alan. We'll send you a Figment plush toy to celebrate your penchant for pure imagination.
--John
PS: Unless I am misremembering (and he can correct me if I am) I believe Chris Phillips did some research into how many pubs there are, not just in Liverpool but in the whole country, actually called The Poste House. Guess what he learned?
PPS: I also love the "it might have been there but there would be no documentary evidence of it ever existing" argument. Let's count the times the diary crowd needs this one -- the Manchester murders, Mrs. Hammersmith, the close call with Abberline, and now The Poste House. I can think of those four right off the top of my head. It's obvious. If history and the record suggests the diary is a fake, then history and the record must just not have the right stuff.
This isn't logic.
This is truly imagination. |
A Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 9:51 am: | |
John
I think the diary is a fake, but I dont know for certain. I have said that I stayed in an establishment called the Post(e) House and it was I think part of a chain of that name.
So believe me the assertion that there is only one in England at present, whether or not this is true is of no consequence as far as proof is concerned.
As far as likliehood is concerned of course it matters, but most of us already know that the likliehood is that the diary is a fake. It has yet to be proven as such.
As far as no documentary proof being available, the point is that if Poste House was a colloquial term (as is the case with many British pubs) then it is unlikely that any would exist.
No John I dont think that this is the most likely scenario but it is a possibility.
Alan |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 639
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 5:26 pm: | |
Alan,
Yes, and it's also "possible" that space aliens built the pyramids and that humans hung around with dinosaurs and that the Earth is flat. Just check the web.
However, all the evidence we have points only and exclusively away from each of those possibilities. Therefore, we are completely entitled to make a fair and valid induction that none of those things are true.
Similarly, all the evidence we have points only and exclusively away from the idea of the diary being authentic.
Therefore, just as we can logically conclude, from the preponderance of the evidence, that the Earth is not flat and that humans did not hang around with dinosaurs and that space aliens did not build the pyramids, we can also conclude that the diary is not authentic.
Remember -- The diarist writes "The Poste House" and there is a pub called "The Poste House" right there in Liverpool. The diarist writes "Tin matchbox empty" and there is a police document reprinted in many modern books that says "Thin matchbox empty." The real James, however, could not have known either of these things. Of course, since the diary is not in his handwriting either, that shouldn't surprise us.
No, Alan, I can't "prove" that space aliens did not build the pyramids or that human beings did not hang around with dinosaurs, and I know there are websites where crazy people argue that both of these things are "possible." But that doesn't mean I don't know what I know, nor does it mean that the overwhelming evidence in both these cases (as in the case of the diary) leads me to a set of common sense and perfectly valid inductive conclusions - space aliens did NOT build the pyramids, humans did NOT hang around with dinosaurs, the Earth is NOT flat, and the real James Maybrick did not write the diary.
Each of these conclusions are valid in precisely the same way.
Despite the fact that you can always find some people who will say none of them can be "proven."
They are not, needless to say, the people I would take seriously in any scholarly matter.
Just making sure we all know who is who around here,
--John
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 640
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 5:45 pm: | |
Yes, I know.
"Thin."
Heh heh, I love that.
Drifting away on allergy medication,
--John |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 78
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 8:17 pm: | |
Alan , I think the term ' post house ' in European terms refers to an old coaching inn in the countryside or small village , rather than in a big city.
The overwhelming evidence - and the most likely probability - is that Maybrick did not write the Diary. And without the Diary the case against Sir Jim is non-existant.
If anyone actually has any firm evidence that Maybrick was the Ripper , lets see it !
Psycho-fanatically yours , etc  |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 782
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 6:07 am: | |
There is a chain of establishments (Forte I believe) called Post House,
This is Poste House with an e which is of course entirely different!!!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1201
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 6:28 am: | |
Hi Ally,
You wrote:
‘Of course opinions that are based on facts carry more validity than those that aren't, but you don't even have to provide facts for it. Just state it once and for all and quit batting your eyes and fluttering around it.’
Now, why would anyone need my current opinion on the diary’s origins, but not require the facts on which it would be based? I won’t be expressing any such opinions under those ‘conditions’ (ie while keeping the facts to myself) because, as you clearly indicate with your own words, they would be dismissed, just as they should be, for carrying insufficient validity.
Nice to know my opinion is fast becoming the most sought after commodity around here (sorry, John, yours must be a dime a million by now), but that just encourages me not to even think about giving it away for nothing. 
Hi Simon,
You wrote:
‘Because if James Maybrick had written the Diary and meant ' The Old Post Office ' he would have written something like ' The Old GPO ' or ' The Post Office ' or ' The O.P.O. ' or whatever.’
Doesn’t your rather confident assertion depend on knowing what ‘The Old Post Office’ pub regulars actually ‘called’ their local when Maybrick was around?
You also wrote:
‘Its obvious the Diarist meant a pub called ' The Poste House '.’
Agreed - the operative word here of course being ‘called’, as opposed to ‘named’.
In 1997 (before I’d even read about the diary), the landlord of former coaching inn Rigby’s, on Dale Street, heard the words “post house” (or “Poste House”) and unhesitatingly directed his enquirer to School Lane, and The Old Post Office Pub there.
You can take it or leave it, but I don’t see why you need to argue against this being a genuine example of local knowledge that this pub was ‘called’ the “post house”, since you have made your own position crystal clear:
‘I am starting from the presumption that ' The Poste House reference proves the Diary to be a modern fake '.’
Why can’t The Old Post Office Pub have been ‘called’ the “post house” by its regulars in Maybrick’s time, and your modern faker still be referring to The Poste House (actually, the ‘the’ is not capitalised in the diary) in Cumberland Street?
If it’s that important to you to trash the evidence for an alternative pub ‘called’ the “post house”, then you will do the necessary research to support your theory that this Liverpool pub landlord was making a false assumption. I’m happy to leave his testimony dangling if no one feels the need to try and disprove it.
And, once and for all, the dictionary definition of post house is an inn, orig. where horses were kept for posting: a post-office.
Are you seriously trying to imply that any ‘big city’ would have been without such an establishment?
Hi Alan,
I understand that there was indeed a chain of hotels in the UK, which were all named ‘The Post House’ for a period of time only a decade or two ago. I believe they were part of the Trust House Forte group. [Sorry, Jenn, just seen your post above - hi there!]
Of course, this proves nothing, apart from the fact that the name was presumably thought to have bags of traditional appeal at the time, and was not designed to make the weary traveller wonder why on earth he was being invited to make himself at home and take refreshment in a post office.
(This all reminds me of Fawlty Towers, and Bernard Cribbins the spoon salesman, accusing Basil’s map of Torquay of showing him where ‘The Bost Office’ is – pronounced ‘Boast’. Mind you, pronounced boasts seem to be quite the thing around here. )
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by Caz on August 21, 2004)
(Message edited by Caz on August 21, 2004) |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 731
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 6:41 am: | |
Hello Caroline,
Do you mind if from here out I call you Duck Dodger? Because really I have never seen someone work so hard to evade a simple question.
Here's the point. You have been providing facts and discourse on this subject for more than 6 years now. You don't actually need to provide those facts again, because once you've stated your opinion, there is ample testimonial left to determine why exactly you think that way. Unless of course, you can't do that because everything you have written thus far contradicts what you actually believe and you don't want to come off looking two-faced or troll-like.
Now here's the funny. Two years ago you were sitting pretty. Absolutely everyone, including the esteemed Msr. Omlor was firmly on your side and I was a mean ol' nasty for pointing out that I disliked your tricks and evasions and other less than forthright dealings when discussing on the boards. Now it seems, a great majority of the people who post here are tired of it. Why is that do you think? Because it gets old. Now I admit I have a lower threshold than most people do, so my patience ran out early on, but now it seems there are calls on all sides for you for just once be forthright. In case you are unfamiliar with that term, it means shoot straight, be honest, quit dancing around all kinds of subjects.
It's no fun for me either at this point. It's no fun to take a swipe at someone everyone's taking a swipe at. I've actually felt a stir of pity on occasion. Then I slap myself firmly on the head and snap back to reality.
Regards,
Ally
BS Theory Student (Advanced)
 |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1202
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 7:23 am: | |
Hi Ally,
I've spent a lot of time enjoying and exploring other people's theories and opinions about the origins of both diary and watch.
If any of these people feel the need or desire to take virtual swipes at me for having no theory or opinion of my own to offer them in return, who am I to deprive them? And I certainly wouldn't want to think of you beating yourself up over my lack of anything to tell them.
Don't forget, taking a swipe at someone is not the same as delivering a blow.
Taking a swipe at oneself, however, and succeeding in connecting with one's own head (which, according to John, makes one famous for it) is just silly.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 643
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 7:46 am: | |
Caroline dances around the one simple and important question she refuses to answer.
Again.
I'll just call attention to that for a moment, so that everyone can see what's happening -- so that everyone can see who comes here and clearly and directly and honestly offers their opinions and beliefs on the question of authenticity and who comes here to dance, to play games, to avoid answering simple honest, questions, and thereby poisons the discussion with vagueness, misdirection, desperation, and rhetorical obfuscation. No wonder the discussion here goes only in circles.
Readers can ask themselves why some people willingly and honestly and openly admit their own positions on the issues and others adamantly refuse to at all costs.
Intellectual honesty is as valuable a "commodity" and intellectual rigor.
Finally, concerning the nonsense about the Poste House. Remember we are talking here about the written word, not someone speaking a question to someone else.
And the written words are very clear.
The diarist writes the "Poste House."
There really is the "Poste House" right there in the same city.
Now, what Caroline can't explain (and never addresses) amidst her dreams and desires is one seriously AMAZING COINCIDENCE. What she can't explain concerning what's actually written in the diary is how the diarist manages to make exactly the changes from one of her names to the one in the book and thereby JUST HAPPENS to produce EXACTLY the unique name of a pub right there in the very same city as the book.
So let me explain exactly what Caroline is now saying.
Caroline Morris is now telling us that the authenticity of this book, even the entire possibility of it being an old forgery, rests solely on the chance that the diarist wrote the name of a pub that just by a truly AMAZING COINCIDENCE also just happens to be the exact, uniquely spelled name of a pub right there in Liverpool, but that he didn't mean that pub.
In other words, either this one-in-a-million coincidence MUST be true, or the diary is neither authentic nor an old forgery.
Excellent.
That clears that up.
Anyone have any questions?
--John (who feels like we're getting to the heart of the matter, now)
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 460
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 8:32 am: | |
Caroline Morris
Now, why would anyone need my current opinion on the diary’s origins, but not require the facts on which it would be based?
I've asked you several times for the facts on which your continued touting of "The Old Post Office" is based.
I'll ask again.
Have you checked whether it was a pub in 1888, and if so what it was called?
I might add another question:
When you posted previously that the licensee was able to provide a bit of history about the place, and said the pub dated back to around 1840, did you then know that it was not listed in Liverpool directories from the late 1850s?
Chris Phillips
|
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 79
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 3:19 pm: | |
Caz writes " And, once and for all, the dictionary definition of post house is an inn, orig. where horses were kept for posting: a post-office.
Are you seriously trying to imply that any ‘big city’ would have been without such an establishment? "
Nope , what I meant was any such establishment in a big city would probably be called a ' coaching inn ' or a ' post office '.
Caz writes " Doesn’t your rather confident assertion depend on knowing what ‘The Old Post Office’ pub regulars actually ‘called’ their local when Maybrick was around? "
Well , surely its more likely that they would have called their pub ' The Old Post Office ' since that was what it was actually called ? Rather than a name that would be applied to another establishment over 70 years later...
Surely , if you are building a case for a document being genuine then you need some facts to create a case upon.
The Maybrickites need to simply show that ANY pub in Liverpool was known as the ' Poste House ' in 1888 , whether it was the Muck Midden , the Angel , or the Old Post Office itself. Thats all we ask. Its not enough to say ' Well , it might have been called the Poste House and you can't prove otherwise ' because that doesn't explain away the amazing coincidence of the 1960s Poste House pub does it ?
Using Occam's Razor to slice through this knotty problem , the Diarist referred to the Poste House pub because they meant the pub in Cumberland Street : the most probable explaination.
All the circumstantial evidence adds up to show the Diary is almost certainly a forgery.
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 646
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 4:16 pm: | |
Hi Simon,
We now have a simple rule we can remember whenever things here get vague and distorted and deliberately danced around.
It is this:
 If "the Poste House" means "the Poste House," then the diary is a modern fake.
It's that simple.
The only way the diary is anything other than a modern forgery is if the diarist just happened to have significantly changed the name of the pub he was referring to and did so in exactly the right way such that, by some amazing and purely coincidental accident, he happened to produce the exact same name as a real pub that exists right there in Liverpool.
That's the only hope the argument for authenticity has.
That's the only hope the argument for an old forgery has.
For this book to be either authentic or an old forgery that amazing and purely coincidental accident has to have taken place.
Oh.
Here's another one.
If "tin matchbox empty" means "tin matchbox empty," then the diary is a modern fake.
The only way this book could either be authentic or an old forgery is if the diarist just happened, purely by accident and through some amazing coincidence, to have written down the same oddly syntaxed line that also appears in a police document the real James or an old forger could not have seen.
So, unless that truly amazing coincidence took place, AND the truly amazing coincidence of the Poste House's appearance BOTH just happened to take place, the diary must be a modern forgery.
That's where we are now.
That's what this discussion now rests on.
The existence of those two simultaneous, purely accidental, amazing coincidences is the only way the diary could possibly be anything other than a modern fake.
Even Caroline has to admit that (though she probably won't).
That's where we have come, logically.
There is no other possibility left.
Just noting our present location,
--John
And I'm not even mentioning the coincidence of the one line of Crashaw's poetry that appears in the diary also amazingly enough happening to be very same line of Crashaw's poetry (from the whole body of his work) that also appears excerpted and cited in the Sphere Guide, or the amazing set of coincidences that would be necessary for Mike to be the only person able to source the origin of those five words and, at the same time, the person who brought the diary with those words in it forward.
And I'm not even mentioning the handwriting.
And I'm not even mentioning the mistakes made about the crimes that are also coincidentally made in modern sources.
And I'm not even mentioning the complete lack of verifiable provenance.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 787
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 5:56 am: | |
John,
while I agree 100 percent with you that if the diary means the Poste House in Cumberland Street, the diary is a modern forgery, I think your going to have trouble proving it does mean that because we do not at present have any logical explanation on the following
what the Muck Maiden was called in 1888 (was it known as the Poste House is it an old name that the pub reverted to)
What the Angel as known as (was it known colloquially as the Poste House)
If there was a Poste House which was elsewhere now does not exist.
What the Old Post Office was known as.
And while its clear your going to tell me I'm heading into the Land Of Imagination with Figment, this is what needs to happen so that the word if can be removed satisfactorily from the statement above.
Whilst saying that I repeat my earlier point that even if one of the above is true the diarist could still have not known this and meant the pub in Cumberland Street pointing to the conclusion of forgery!
Phew!
Jennifer
Incidentally I think Tin Match Box empty and its accompanying page is the single biggest problem for pro diarists!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 647
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 8:17 am: | |
Jennifer,
If you go by the records (and of course some of us around here don't, since history can be so inconvenient) there was no pub called "the Poste House" in Liverpool at the time.
As for what things might or might not have been called -- you can indeed imagine anything. What we do know for certain is the name of the pub currently right there in Liverpool -- and that's it exactly!
Remember, the truly staggering coincidence -- that the name of a different pub would just by purely amazing chance have been changed, written, and spelled and capitalized in exactly the same way as the current pub's unique name -- would HAVE to be true for the diary to be anything other than a modern forgery.
There is no escaping that simple fact.
The whole case for the diary being anything other than a modern forgery is based entirely on the chance that this truly amazing coincidence must have taken place (and the other truly amazing coincidence of the same odd line being in both documents, and a bunch of other amazing coincidences I'm not mentioning here as well).
So remember the two basic rules.
If "the Poste House" means "the Poste House," then the diary is a modern fake.
and
If "tin matchbox empty" means "tin matchbox empty," then the diary is a modern fake.
Unless those two completely amazing coincidences BOTH just happen to have simultaneously taken place to produce these two exact lines, the diary can only be a modern forgery.
That much we know for sure.
Take care,
--John (feeling better about where we are)
PS: Amidst all this clarifying of the amazing coincidences that must have happened for the diary to be either authentic or an old forgery, someone should probably point out here that there is NO real evidence anywhere of any sort that in any way suggests that it is either of these things.
No one EVER comes around here and says, "here's some evidence that actually points to the diary being real" or "hey, here's some evidence that suggests the diary is an old forgery."
They try and excuse or dance around all the evidence that tells us it can't be, but they never offer any evidence in support of either of the other two possibilities.
Anyone here ever wonder why that is?
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 789
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 8:44 am: | |
Hi,
a correction,
it appears that the Forte Hotels are in fact called Posthouse all one word without an e!
cybaea.com/pictures/ pcd2742/JVF2-10.5.html
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 790
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 8:47 am: | |
I agree its just I'd like to be able to drop the 'if' because without being able to do so its just not right some how.
i don't really know what that means myself but hope you catch my drift!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 649
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 10:00 am: | |
I think I do.
Just remember this, even for those who would still hope, who would still dream, who would still excuse all the mistakes and ahistoricisms and anachronisms and the wrong handwriting and the complete lack of provenance and all the rest, even for them, the only hope that remains is that these two amazing and incredibly exact coincidences took place at the same time.
They have to pray that not only does "the Poste House" for some reason NOT mean "the Poste House," despite the names and the city of location both being identical, and not only does the phrase "tin matchbox empty" for some reason NOT mean "tin matchbox empty," despite the unique syntax also being identical, but that both of these changes just by pure chance reproduced themselves exactly in a modern-only form of existence within a pair of purely amazing coincidences.
That's all they have left at the end of the day.
For those of us with common sense, those of us willing to examine ALL the evidence and see what it all tells us, including the handwriting and the Crashaw line and the mistakes about the murders and the rest, these two coincidences are not problems at all, they are not amazing at all.
They are perfectly and easily explainable. The Poste House is really there and the diarist knew it and the police report says the words "tin matchbox empty" in that order and the diarist knew it.
Our explanation is perfectly logical, perfectly sound, consistent with all the other evidence that exists and requires no amazing and unlikely coincidences whatsoever.
Their explanation is purely desire-based, relies solely on imagination over history, also relies purely on two simultaneous amazing coincidences, and contradicts all the other evidence available concerning the question of authenticity.
And we're back to the question of who built the pyramids or what shape the Earth is. In those questions, as in this one, the evidence clearly allows for a perfectly valid inductive conclusion and all that remains now, for the desperate few, is the lonely, desire-filled cry of the impossible "yes, but what if..." -- the imaginary invocation of the most incredible set of amazing coincidences.
It is the last desperate gasp of dying hope in the face of the obvious and in the face of the evidence.
And at this point, it's actually sort of sad.
Anyway, at least we can see exactly where we are at in this whole discussion.
Thanks, incidentally, for the correction about the hotel chain.
Take care,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 795
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 9:48 am: | |
John,
Tin Match Box, Empty - we are in agreement to me the this is an amazing coincidence at the very least. Further adding to the tin match box empty problem is the context it is written in in the document.
Poste House - I just don't know it looks like a slip up on the diarists part but if it is or not i can't tell you.
The hotel chain incidentally really isn't that important in all this is it?
Have a good day,
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 657
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 12:17 pm: | |
Hi Jennifer,
No, it's not really that important.
The exact appearance of the exact same name of the current pub, with the exact same unique spelling, in the exact same city where the diarist is supposed to be, IS pretty important, though. And it's yet another truly amazing and unbelievable coincidence.
Unless, of course, the book was written after the pub was there.
Gee, ya' think?!
Amazed at how the obvious, the common sense conclusion, escapes some people simply because of their own desire,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1209
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 7:51 am: | |
Hi Simon,
You wrote:
‘Well , surely its more likely that they would have called their pub ' The Old Post Office ' since that was what it was actually called ? Rather than a name that would be applied to another establishment over 70 years later...
Surely , if you are building a case for a document being genuine then you need some facts to create a case upon.’
How many more times? I am not building a case for anything.
I have simply given you the example of a Liverpudlian pub landlord who, as late as 1997, was in fact ‘calling’ The Old Post Office pub ‘the post house’.
Do with it what you will – check it out for yourself, dismiss it if you think it’s irrelevant. But why argue that it’s more likely that this pub was always called ‘The Old Post Office’, and then demand more facts, when you were given one that makes your ‘more likely’ wrong before you claimed it!
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 661
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 8:14 am: | |
Caroline tells us, because she's drifted back into her coy mood now,
"How many more times? I am not building a case for anything."
Heh, heh. What I love about this is how dramatically it demonstrates that not only does she have trouble reading the actual words on the actual pages of the diary (it says "the Poste House," remember), but she also apparently has trouble understanding the effects of her own words as well.
If she thinks anyone can read everything she's posted here on one thread after another -- pleading excuse after excuse and desperately created alternative reading after desperately created alternative reading, despite and in the face of what the words actually say and what history actually tells us -- and then believe that she's not trying to keep hope alive at all costs, not "making a case" for the possibility that the diary might not be a forgery, then she either has no idea what she's been writing or she's simply delusional.
In any case, the diary names exactly the unique name of a pub right there in Liverpool.
And remember:
If "the Poste House" means "the Poste House," then the diary MUST be a modern forgery.
The only possible way on earth the diary can be anything but a modern forgery is if a truly amazing and unbelievable coincidence occurred -- if the diarist wrote a different name of a different pub and just by pure accidental chance happened to thereby produce, exactly, the uniquely named pub right there in the same city which he could know nothing about.
That, my friends, is what the entire case for this this book being anything other than a modern forgery comes down to. That single desperate possibility.
That, here, now, is all they have left.
So, what do YOU think is "most likely" now?
--John (who is very glad Caroline is not building a case, since there seems to be no real case to build)
PS: Oh, and there's a bunch of other similarly impossible coincidences that have to have also taken place, including the diarist just coincidentally reproducing the same oddly syntaxed line that appears in a police document he could not possibly have seen, the diarist just coincidentally quoting the same line from the same poet that is also excerpted and quoted in a modern book the guy who brought the diary forward also happened to own, the diary just coincidentally making the very same mistakes about murders as made in modern sources, and the diary just coincidentally having no provenance whatsoever, there being no evidence anywhere that suggests it existed before modern times. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 800
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 8:35 am: | |
John,
you missed out the handwriting!!!!!!!!!!!
Cheers
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 664
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 8:51 am: | |
Hi Jen,
That's not a coincidence.
That's just proof the real James didn't write this book.
But thanks,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 802
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 9:12 am: | |
John,
oh I see - sorry I'll just take off my 'div' hat!
Jenni
and back to the original point it is highly likely that the Poste House means the Poste House but it is not impossible it doesn't!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 89
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 10:20 am: | |
Caz writes ' I have simply given you the example of a Liverpudlian pub landlord who, as late as 1997, was in fact ‘calling’ The Old Post Office pub ‘the post house’. '
Besides the fact that he wasn't calling the pub the ' post house ' , note the spelling of the word as Caz gives it. Not whats written in the Diary is it ?
Maybrick calls the pub the ' Poste House '. And he means Poste , in fact thats why I think he uses ' poste haste ' later on as a pun on the name of the pub.
What reason would the Diarist have for spelling the name of the pub wrong ? There isn't one. Surely a man such as Maybrick could spell the word ' post ' right ? If you accept ' poste haste ' as a pun on ' Poste House ' then he doesn't spell the word incorrectly without a reason at all ! |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 665
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 11:02 am: | |
Jen,
Some say that it's "not impossible" that space aliens built the pyramids or that human beings hung around with dinosaurs, either, but what does the evidence tell you?
And please remember the purely amazing coincidence that would had to have happened, despite all the evidence, for the diary to be either real or old.
The diarist would have had to mean a pub with another name but just by pure luck and chance he would had to have written exactly the unique name of a pub that really exists right there in the very same city about which he could know nothing.
That's the only hope.
The only even "possible" way the diary is anything other than a modern forgery is for that absurdly amazing coincidence to have taken place -- along with, simultaneously, about a half dozen other similar ones.
Remember, there's a big difference between what is technically "possible," in the most extreme and therefore largely meaningless version of the term, and what the evidence allows us to conclude.
Despite what you might read on certain websites, space aliens did not build the pyramids, humans did not hang around with dinosaurs, and the real James Maybrick did not write this book.
The evidence is clear and completely unanimous in each of these cases and therefore each of these are perfectly valid inductive conclusions.
There is no real evidence anywhere that suggests that space aliens built the pyramids.
There is no real evidence anywhere that suggests that humans hung with dinosaurs.
And there is no real evidence anywhere that suggests that this book was written by the real James Maybrick or is anything other than a modern forgery.
That's just the state of the evidence, given in coldly factual terms, as it exists.
And it seems pretty clear.
Thanks,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 808
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 11:29 am: | |
John,
thats right and its not impossible that The Poste House means the Angel or the Old Post Office - its extremely unlikely and would probably be very lucky.
I repeat an earlier point that even if the Angel and the Old Post Office were both known as the Poste House then the diary may still be fake so long as the potential forger meant the pub on cumberland street.
Yes it would be an amazing coincidence and this amazing coincidence would also have had to happen in conjunction with other similar coincidences, but that does not mean it is not at least in theory possible. Until I see some evidence that the Angel was known as the Pose House it is less possible and less tangible as evidence but does that make it impossible (i think not in the most strict sense!)
it is pretty clear,
However, I repeat the biggest single problem for pro diarists (or those who think the diary is an old forgery) remains in my opinion that surrounding the phrase tin match box empty the biggest coincidence by far topped off with other minor related coincidences and phrases that make no actual sense.
as usual I'm not disputing the idea that the diary is a modern forgery i'm only saying they could have got lucky!
Jen
ps does figment have any friends to live with him in the land of imagination as I would quite like to join him!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 858
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 11:58 am: | |
Hi, Simon
I may be wrong about this, but I think when the diarist uses the term "poste haste" later in the Diary he is using it independently of his earlier use of the name "Poste House" which occurs very early on among the entries in the Diary. He is not punning on the designation of the pub "Poste House" where he earlier claims to have taken refreshment.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 667
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 12:08 pm: | |
Jennifer,
I think I understand what you are saying. You are using the phrase "at least in theory possible" in the most distant and extreme way imaginable.
But, as you do, please remember that the recorded accumulation of evidence which points in one direction combined with the complete absence of any evidence whatsoever which points in the other direction allows for the formation of a perfectly valid inductive conclusion.
That's why we can say, with equal validity and equal confidence in each case, despite what might be "at least in theory possible," that space aliens did not build the pyramids, that humans did not hang around with dinosaurs and that the real James Maybrick did not write this diary.
Just being clear on what our terms mean and what the evidence actually tell us,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 467
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 1:49 pm: | |
Caroline Morris
I have simply given you the example of a Liverpudlian pub landlord who, as late as 1997, was in fact ‘calling’ The Old Post Office pub ‘the post house’.
Do with it what you will – check it out for yourself, dismiss it if you think it’s irrelevant.
So - one more try - will you tell us whether you have checked whether or not it was a pub in 1888?
Say "no" by all means if you haven't (it sounds from your last message as though the answer would be "no"), but please give us some sort of answer if you are going to keep touting this as a possibility.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 811
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 2:37 pm: | |
Caz,
in actual fact it doesn't matter what they were calling pubs in liverpool in 1997 it matters what they were called in 1888/9
Jen
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 668
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 4:36 pm: | |
Jen,
I get your point to Caroline.
But, in one respect, it sort of does matter what pubs were named in Liverpool in 1997. At least to the degree that one particular pub in Liverpool had the exact same name with the exact same unique spelling that just happens to appear written in the diary!
That does indeed matter very much.
Because there are only two possible explanations for that name appearing written that way in the diary.
1. The diarist was writing when that pub existed and knew that name just as they wrote it down.
2. The diarist was talking about some completely different pub than the one that bore that exact unique name and just happened by pure chance and complete accident to change, in writing, the name of the pub he was actually talking about to the precise, identical, uniquely spelled name of the pub that actually exists right there in Liverpool and did when the diary first appeared in public.
Now then, which of these two scenarios seems like a more convincing one to you?
Which of these two makes the most common sense?
NOTE: On one of these rests the ENTIRE case for the diary being anything other than a modern forgery. Guess which one.
That's right -- it's the "there must have been an amazing and unbelievable coincidence" one.
Because if the Poste House simply means the Poste House, then the diary MUST be a modern forgery.
This latter simple and obvious explanation is just one in a long chain of simple and obvious explanations that all account quite easily and in a clear and straightforward manner for how these words got on this page.
In 1997 there WAS a pub called the Poste House. Right there. In Liverpool. Spelled exactly the way the diarist spelled it (remember, we're talking about writing here, not speaking, not calling out).
It's still there.
It was there and named exactly that when the diary first appeared.
It was not when the real James Maybrick was alive.
Enjoy the dancing, enjoy the desperation, enjoy the pleas for the impossible to be true and for the most amazing coincidences to replace common sense over and over and over again.
But don't lose sight of the obvious.
Just trying to keep things in focus,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 817
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 4:51 pm: | |
John,
the fact there was not a pub by that name in Maybricks time id the key point.
I think you'll find we agree!
Jen
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 669
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 5:17 pm: | |
We do indeed.
--John (celebrating the obvious and those with common sense) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 818
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 8:29 am: | |
John,
thank goodness for that!
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 821
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 11:22 am: | |
Hi everybody,
just had a quick look on yell.com and it has some excellent features (they can pay me later!)
anyway, I'll get to the point hey? Poste House Cumberland St is within a mile of Whitechapel Liverpool, which, may well lead me to an assumption, so i'll stop there!
Incidentally the distance is 0.2 miles!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 860
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 1:47 pm: | |
Hi, Jen
Yes the Poste House, Cumberland Street is within a half mile from Whitechapel, Liverpool. The pub is off Victoria Street, which runs parallel to Whitechapel. You can reach the Poste House within about five minutes from Whitechapel. At the time of the last Jack the Ripper conference in Liverpool, Andy Aliffe and I walked from the studios of Radio Merseyside on Paradise Street, on the other side of Lord Street/Church Street, along Whitechapel past Brian Epstein's old shop, Nem's -- later known as Rumbelow's  -- now a store selling slinky women's underwear  , and we reached the Poste House within about ten minutes brisk walk, well earning our half pints of ale.
Best regards
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 673
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 1:53 pm: | |
Chris,
Geez, how long would you have had to walk then to earn a full pint of stout?
--John (now feeling guilty about his nightly pint or two of Guinness [official sponsor of DiTA day]) |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 861
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 2:09 pm: | |
Hi, John
How about from Battlecrease to Liverpool Exchange instead? 
No actually as I recall there is an iron mile marker in Aigburth Vale west of Battlecrease giving the mileage to Liverpool Exchange: seven miles, I believe it says. No wonder Jim needed the arsenic.  
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 674
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 4:25 pm: | |
If he had only known about the wonderful medicinal properties of our sponsor's product, he'd have been able to save himself the extra expense.
Remember, Guinness is good for you!
Even if you are drinking it at the Poste House while you decide to kill some women to get back at your wife -- despite the inconvenient fact that the pub you're in wouldn't actually be the Poste House for more than another half-century... still, you write the name down just the same.
--John (who wonders if there isn't a time machine involved in all of this somehow -- the Poste House, the police list in modern books, the mistakes from modern sources, the same quote in the Sphere Guide and the diary, the lack of provenance, the wrong handwriting -- HEY! -- maybe Wells wrote the diary!) |
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 8:45 am: | |
Hi John,
I don't want to get embroiled in this (so why am I writing I ask myself and the answer is curiosity).
I _do_ believe the "tin matchbox empty" points to its _lack_ of authenticity and a possible age range of the diary.
If it had only that _one_ "error" I could possibly forgive it, but I don't (just to make it perfectly clear).
The question is, in the UK a term such as that I would see as belonging typically to the civil service (government) or police written records.
Is (or more correctly was) that just in the UK where certain professions would occassionally write lists such as "tin matchbox, empty", "pair of shoes, scuffed", "apron, bloodied", "herring, red" simply because that's the way they wrote.
If Maybrick was a policeman or a civil servant of long standing then I could forgive and accept it as coincidence (possibly even normal), but we know he wasn't and we know it's not the only problem with the diary.
In a personal diary it is anachronistic to enumerate lists like that and I have to say I don't know what else he/she listed.
Is or was such written language ever used in the US (since you are there and I am here) or was it just a Briticism of the time in government circles?
Also since I've plunged into diary world did the entire list match in their contents or is it just the "tin matchbox empty" which indicates the obvious crib.
No ulterior motives, only wondering whether it was a UK-only trait or a more general writing style of the times.
Jennifer: glad to see you've now come out of that darkened room you retreat to now and again (normally after your visits to A?R world)
My reading is that no-one is going to really spend too much time researching the Muck Midden/Post Office/Ye Olde Poste House conundrum.
It's not in pro-diarists interests (otherwise we'd have the evidence) and it's not in the debunkers interest as they've better things to do with their time.
As an aside, on the name...
Interesting that the Poste House chain was owned by Trust House Forte group perhaps they wanted to sound more exotic and French than a simple Trust House Fort group by adding the extra e (or perhaps it's just because of the family name who started and own it.)
Cheerio,
ian -- keeping one eye open and the other one closed.
|
AAD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 8:32 am: | |
Just a few questions.
Is it correct that Caroline Morris appeared on these boards a few years ago with no Ripperological claim to fame?
Is it true that she then hit the boards with an overkill of posts until she simply could not be ignored?
Did she then establish a 'claim to fame' by associating herself with the 'diarists' and becoming a means of 'keeping the debate going' for the 'diarists'?
Having established a fine ability for keeping a circular argument going for years was she not then rewarded for her pains by being made a co-author of a diary-related book?
Is it really surprising that she continues to keep this malodorous old debate going long after its sell by date?
|
Guest Poster Richard
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 3:29 pm: | |
The Poste House - situated off Dale Street, Liverpool - was not called the Poste House in it's day (see A Pub On Every Corner by Freddy Connor, Bluecoat Press). So bang goes yet another claim from the so-called Diary. |
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 8:45 am: | |
Hi John,
I don't want to get embroiled in this (so why am I writing I ask myself and the answer is curiosity).
I _do_ believe the "tin matchbox empty" points to its _lack_ of authenticity and a possible age range of the diary.
If it had only that _one_ "error" I could possibly forgive it, but I don't (just to make it perfectly clear).
The question is, in the UK a term such as that I would see as belonging typically to the civil service (government) or police written records.
Is (or more correctly was) that just in the UK where certain professions would occassionally write lists such as "tin matchbox, empty", "pair of shoes, scuffed", "apron, bloodied", "herring, red" simply because that's the way they wrote.
If Maybrick was a policeman or a civil servant of long standing then I could forgive and accept it as coincidence (possibly even normal), but we know he wasn't and we know it's not the only problem with the diary.
In a personal diary it is anachronistic to enumerate lists like that and I have to say I don't know what else he/she listed.
Is or was such written language ever used in the US (since you are there and I am here) or was it just a Briticism of the time in government circles?
Also since I've plunged into diary world did the entire list match in their contents or is it just the "tin matchbox empty" which indicates the obvious crib.
No ulterior motives, only wondering whether it was a UK-only trait or a more general writing style of the times.
Jennifer: glad to see you've now come out of that darkened room you retreat to now and again (normally after your visits to A?R world)
My reading is that no-one is going to really spend too much time researching the Muck Midden/Post Office/Ye Olde Poste House conundrum.
It's not in pro-diarists interests (otherwise we'd have the evidence) and it's not in the debunkers interest as they've better things to do with their time.
As an aside, on the name...
Interesting that the Poste House chain was owned by Trust House Forte group perhaps they wanted to sound more exotic and French than a simple Trust House Fort group by adding the extra e (or perhaps it's just because of the family name who started and own it.)
Cheerio,
ian -- keeping one eye open and the other one closed.
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 678
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 10:55 pm: | |
Hi Ian,
I'm not too sure about the "Britishism" of the police list syntax. I think American cops often list things in that sort of way as well, as they check thing off. In fact, I think the military also reads out possessions in that way -- I'm thinking for instance of the arrangement of articles in a foot locker or items being distributed among new recruits.
Anyway, the most obvious version of this is scenes in films when prisoners are being released from jail and the guard behind the cage is giving them back their possessions and reads off a list to make sure they are getting everything they came in with.
You know the scenes. And they say things like "one bracelet, gold. one comb, black." etc. I think there's a take-off of a scene like this in the Blues Brothers movie, for instance.
"Tin matchbox empty."
Of course, the key here is that there are ONLY two possible explanations.
Either the diarist saw the list reprinted in a modern source and used the line.
Or
The diarist just by pure chance and completely incredible accident reproduced the very same oddly syntaxed line in precisely the word order it appears on the list without ever knowing the same words on the list existed.
Unless the latter desperate and far-fetched explanation is true, the diary MUST be a modern forgery.
David has already demonstrated that there is no way either the real James or an old forger could have seen the list.
So either this is one in a long string of truly amazing coincidences, like the Poste House being the exact same name of a pub that exists in Liverpool now but didn't when the real James was alive, and the Crashaw line being cited in the diary and being the exact same line of Crashaw's poetry that just happens, purely by an unbelievable coincidence, to also be the one cited in the middle of the Sphere Guide (and Mike having both of those two books, perhaps the only two books in the whole history of publishing ever to have that line separated out and cited in the middle of them), and the amazing coincidence of the mistakes about the murders being precisely the same mistakes as found in modern sources, and a number of others similarly unlikely "coincidences."
ALL of these would have had to happen just by pure chance and completely simultaneously for the diary to be anything other than a modern forgery.
(Of course, none of these are unlikely or even coincidences if the diary is a modern forgery. Then they are easily explainable.)
"Tin matchbox empty"
In the diary.
In the police list.
"The Poste House."
In the diary.
In modern Liverpool.
The Crashaw line.
Separated and cited in the diary.
Separated and cited in the Sphere Guide.
Man!
What ARE the odds?!
Still amazed at what we are being asked to believe by those who would pimp the possibility of authenticity,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 826
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 5:39 am: | |
Chris,
no no the distance being walkable wasn't the assumption, though i'm glad to note ten minutes walk which seems reasonable - the assumption was about the location of the Poste House!
Thanks though! sounds like an interesting day out was had!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Inspector
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 257
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 5:44 am: | |
Whatho AAD,
What twaddle! But I've met Caz and you, obviously, haven't.
Cheers, Mark (who's still taking the cold baths to get over the experience) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1214
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 7:44 am: | |
Whatho Mark,
Don't worry about AAD. I can see why someone would prefer to remain anonymous, while they suggest that Keith Skinner asked me to co-author Ripper Diary, with himself and Seth Linder, because he was so grateful to me for keeping a circular argument about the diary's origins going for years.
What twaddle indeed - whether AAD has met Keith in the flesh or not.
Hi Simon,
You wrote:
‘Besides the fact that he [Rigby’s landlord] wasn't calling the pub the ' post house ' …’
You can twist it all you like, but if this pub landlord is asked: “Where is the post house?”, and he gives directions to The Old Post Office pub, because this is the establishment he believes his enquirer means and wants to locate, chances are that “the post house” is also what he ‘calls’ The Old Post Office pub. Maybe he is the only person in Liverpool who would ever have done so, but that’s a chance you seem happy to take.
In any event, he certainly didn’t direct his enquirer to The Poste House in Cumberland Street.
How do you know that Maybrick (don’t you mean your modern forger?) ‘means Poste’, and not post? Perhaps you would also argue that the graffito writer meant Juwes, and not Jews. But couldn’t both writers have simply been prone to the odd spelling idiosyncrasy, as are most of us? The diarist’s incorrect 'poste [sic] haste' points to one such idiosyncrasy, but if you prefer to see it as a deliberate pun on the ‘Poste House’, and not an indication of a tendency to add an e where it doesn’t belong, that’s your choice.
You wrote:
‘What reason would the Diarist have for spelling the name of the pub wrong ? There isn't one. Surely a man such as Maybrick could spell the word ' post ' right ?’
Well, what reason would regular casebook poster, Jon Smyth, have for spelling the word post (as in message to the boards) ‘poste’? Surely a man such as Jon Smyth could spell the word ‘post’ right? Yet he still spells it ‘poste’.
Love,
Caz
X
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
