|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 393
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 10:53 am: | 
|
Jenni -- yes yes.
From the Marmite Argument editorial in Ripperologist: "there was a nationwide hotel chain run by Forte called Post House (launched by Lord Charles Forte in 1969; the name of the chain was changed in 1991 to Posthouse)."
I understand that 1969 is not 1888, but it was two words, and the Diarist adds "e" to Post in several spots. Even if the hoax dates from the 1960s or 1970s, it makes insisting that Barrett is the hoaxer more problematic.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 930
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 1:45 pm: |
|
Sir Robert
I really don't think the Forte chain comes into the argument, because I don't think anyone is claiming that the pub in Liverpool changed its name to "The Poste House" after 1969.
Melvin Harris says it has certainly been known by that name since the early 1960s.
http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/mhguide.html
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on May 02, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 931
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 1:58 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
The only person who claimed to be able to supply the rest of the letter from McCrone (which you and Chris are so keen to read) is the one person no one thought to ask before he went sick with his wrist.
This is getting ridiculous.
I don't remember John saying he was able to supply the rest of the letter.
If he could, why on earth would he have asked you for it?
Please could you either back up your assertion with an explicit quotation from one of John's posts, or else withdraw it?
Chris Phillips
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 206
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 2:43 pm: |
|
Aww , not the Poste House again !
Its a case of Occam's Razor here , lets make as few assumptions as possible.
Its technically possible the phrase ' Poste House ' meant some coaching inn in the 1880s in Liverpool. However , its surely unlikely. Its technically possible that six different copycat killers were roaming Whitechapel in 1888 , but thats unlikely too.
My argument is that , because the words appear with capital letters - ' Poste House ' rather than ' poste house ' - the diarist is referring to a pub called the ' Poste House '.
If we accept that the diary is a modern hoax , then theres a simple answer - the diarist was erroneously referring to the ' Poste House ' pub in Liverpool today.
If you believe that the diary is an old hoax or genuine , then this is difficult to explain away.
It is the accumulation of evidence that suggests the Diary is a modern hoax : no-one piece of evidence is conclusive on its own , but all the major problems with the text taken as a whole form a compelling case for a forgery.
Hopefully adopting this holistic approach will cause a paradigm shift here lol ! |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 394
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 3:21 pm: |
|
"If we accept that the diary is a modern hoax , then theres a simple answer -"
OK.....but we don't all accept that premise. And the Diarist 'mispells' Post/post as Poste/poste in several spots.
Of all the textual 'errors', the Poste House is the weakest link to build a theory around.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1707
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 7:50 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
I don't remember John saying he was able to supply the rest of the letter.
Your problem - go look. He made it quite obvious he had the whole letter; he even accused me of deliberately misleading everyone with the quote taken from it, which, even by his standards would be out of order if he knew he had no evidence. The onus was always firmly on him to prove that accusation, not for me to disprove it.
If he could, why on earth would he have asked you for it?
I don't know, I couldn't figure that out either but got bored trying. Why don't you ask him?
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 932
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 8:36 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
[I wrote]
I don't remember John saying he was able to supply the rest of the letter.
Your problem - go look. He made it quite obvious he had the whole letter
No. It doesn't work like that.
You made the claim. Back it up or withdraw it.
Chris Phillips
|
Heath Black
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 4:49 pm: |
|
If you concede that the diary author wrote poste haste because he assumed it was spelt that way, it’s only logical to knock off the e in Poste House too.
I'm not sure why anyone would concede that the author used an assumed spelling of Poste House when the more likely explanation is that they were writing down the pub name as they had seen it. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1709
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 1:04 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
Your bullying tactics impress me about as much as your reasoning skills on this one. I bet John knows what's coming next, even if you can't work it out.
John's original claim was that I had taken a quote out of context to deliberately mislead everyone.
Naturally he was only in a position to make such an accusation if:
a) he knew the quote had a context to begin with
b) he knew what the context was because he had access to it
c) he judged from the context that the quote on its own was misleading
d) he believed that I used it to mislead
The only way he could have backed up his claim, made publicly, would have been by posting the whole letter, so that everyone could have judged for themselves if the quote was misleading. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, assuming that he wouldn't have made the claim if he couldn't produce the letter.
He hasn't done it yet, so I'm happy to follow your orders and withdraw my own claim in the meantime. I fully accept that John has not claimed to be able to supply the rest of the letter - ie the evidence which forms the basis of his accusation against me.
Congratulations - you've just helped invalidate his claim, by arguing that if he could have supplied the evidence for it he would have had no possible reason to ask me. I see you fail to give him the same benefit of the doubt I did. I trust he's proud of your efforts on his behalf to get to the murky bottom of things.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on May 04, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2327
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 3:07 pm: |
|
This post may be a bit random, but here goes.
I know the guys are not around tonight.
As I understand it, and I use these words carefully because we all know about my levels of understanding but anyway,
As I understand it John does not have a copy of the MCCrone letter about the place at this moment in time.
I don't recall John saying you were misleading people. Maybe you thought he implied it (maybe he said it and I forgot?). He was asking for the rest of the letter, I assume because he wanted to know the context.
I am sure John would have not hesitated one bit to produce the letter in full on the boards here if he had it and thought it proved you wrong.
I believe John was merely pointing out that you were quoting selectively.
But anyway as you have withdrawn your claim in relation to the McCrone letter I doubt it really matters anymore.
One minute you're saying it is quite obvious he had a copy of the whole the letter the next you knew all along he hadn't got a copy.
Was there a claim? What claim? How is it invalidated?
What's going on?
Do you know i wonder should any of us care one tiny bit about the McCrone letter? Does it matter in the big scheme of things. If it matters sure it would help to know more about it.
Jenni |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2331
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 3:36 pm: |
|
NB
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=126022#POST1260
I think this part of this thread makes it pretty clear what John O. thinks.
Jenni
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 936
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 4:54 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
Well, the simple fact is that John did not, as you claimed, say that he was able to supply the rest of the letter.
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1713
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 5:37 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Thanks for the link - it took me straight to these words by John:
Caroline is deliberately misleading you all when she writes:
"...the chap from McCrone admitted in writing that, to his knowledge, there was no reliable method of determining when a document such as the diary was written."
I've read that letter and that's not exactly what it says.
Now John either knew at that point in time 'exactly' what the whole of that letter did say, and therefore 'exactly' how he believed I was deliberately misleading everyone, or he was making it all up.
The fact that he asked me for the rest of the letter led you to 'assume' that 'he wanted to know the context', which would be a nonsense if he already knew it.
You even wrote:
I am sure John would have not hesitated one bit to produce the letter in full on the boards here if he had it and thought it proved you wrong.
As you say, it probably doesn't matter any more. If John has no way of supporting his 'deliberately misleading' accusation, there's an end to it as far as I'm concerned.
One minute you're saying it is quite obvious he had a copy of the whole the letter the next you knew all along he hadn't got a copy.
No, actually that wasn't what I said at all. I said I had given John the benefit of the doubt because I didn't think even he would make an accusation like that without the letter to hand to know whereof he spoke. I still don't know if he has the letter or not, or has ever set eyes on it. It's you and Chris who are both arguing that if he had, he wouldn't have needed to ask me for it, and he would not have hesitated to demonstrate 'exactly' how I had misled everyone.
Do you know i wonder should any of us care one tiny bit about the McCrone letter? Does it matter in the big scheme of things. If it matters sure it would help to know more about it.
Precisely, Jenni, at last you get to the heart of the matter.
The direct McCrone quote, which I originally posted elsewhere was, in any case, recently endorsed by Chris himself, when he said that science can't provide absolute proof of anything. It's a simple but perfect paraphrase of what McCrone himself wrote - and I quoted - about the shortcomings of document dating.
So Chris should really be taking this one up with John, not me, if he wants to know why John thinks McCrone doesn't agree with Chris's pessimistic view.
As usual, I'm getting shot as the messenger, but this time Chris has shot himself in the foot and needs to adjust his aim a bit.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on May 05, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2335
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 7:51 am: |
|
Caroline,
John does have a copy of the letter at this moment in time. As you say he appears to have seen it.
I do hope the information here stated is correct.
As for who is/isn't right and what McCrone did/didn't say. And what Chris should be taking up with John, well i wouldn't like to get into that.
Jenni |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2337
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 10:13 am: |
|
ARGGGGGGG!!!!!!!
ARGGG!!!!!!
GRRR!!!!!!!!!
(notes for Jennifer. How to prove you are not stupid!Lesson one do not do or say or act in a stupid way!)
Man I may have spell checked that but thats about all.
Please note with reference to the above post (2335)it should read DOES NOT - not does. Clearly this simple human error altered the meaning of the said post EVER SO SLIGHTLY!
Let me repeat the post so that it says what i mean!!
John does NOT have a copy of the letter at this moment in time.
Else as i said before I'm sure he would have posted it, in order to prove you wrong or whatever it was he was proving or whatever.
Jenni
ps, I MEANT HE DOES NOT, NOT, NOT, HAVE A COPY
pps I think that covered that.
ppps Man I gotta start worrying about what if my posts say and not about if i've spelt McCrone correctly!
pppps to be clear I missed the word not from my last post because I'm an idiot!
ppppps sorry about that and sorry for the huge delay in noticing!
(Message edited by jdpegg on May 05, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 938
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 7:07 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
Are you really incapable of understanding that John having seen the letter in the past, and having remembered its general tenor, is not the same as being able to produce its text today?
Heaven knows you were sarcastic enough about my surprise a few days ago that you hadn't remembered even the existence of a highly pertinent statement by Voller, let alone the exact wording of his letter.
You made some sarcastic comments along the lines of "pardon me for not having a photographic memory", as I remember!
And are we really going to have to listen to "Chris says you can't prove anything" in every single one of your posts from now on?
Are you really incapable of understanding the simple concept of proof beyond reasonable doubt, as opposed to proof beyond any ludicrous convoluted hypothesis that can be cooked up? In our legal system, it is obviously assumed to be within the ken of the average citizen. Is your intelligence really so much beneath the norm?
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1721
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 7:04 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
What I am capable of understanding is that John has so far failed to support his accusation that I misled everyone by deliberately taking a quote from a context that significantly altered the meaning of McCrone's quoted words.
In our legal system, we are presumed innocent if the accuser relies on his memory of the content of a document, and can't or won't produce the document itself. This is called reasonable doubt, made more so by a known history of the accuser making other claims which later proved false.
I posted that McCrone quote in good faith, and I stand by my understanding that the only reliable method of determining chemically that the diary was not written in 1888 (assuming it wasn't) would involve the precise (and repeatable) detection and identification of a substance in the ink at the time of writing, which could be proven to have been unavailable in 1888 to ink chemists for experimentation purposes.
And even this method would depend on such a substance being in the ink to start with.
Your final question suggests you only have pathetic insults left in your bag of tricks.
Use them sparingly, you might be relying on them for some time to come - that is, if Stephen Ryder doesn't mind you using these boards for personal abuse.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on May 06, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 942
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 9:33 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
Can I take it, then, that you drop the statement that John "claimed to be able to supply the rest of the letter from McCrone""?
If so, you might have the courtesy to acknowledge that you were mistaken.
As for whether John is correct that you deliberately misled us, that's obviously a different matter. The only way the rest of us can judge the truth of it is from our experience of John's trustworthiness and yours.
Your final question suggests you only have pathetic insults left in your bag of tricks.
Use them sparingly, you might be relying on them for some time to come - that is, if Stephen Ryder doesn't mind you using these boards for personal abuse.
That really is the funniest thing you've posted for some time.
For heaven's sake, if anyone knows what a rhetorical question is, you should! You know perfectly well that in my opinion stupidity is one failing you don't possess.
But the reason for my question is your systematic misrepresentation of what I (and others) post on these boards. In this sense I would welcome Stephen's involvement, if it would put an end to the problem.
In the past I've resisted complaining to Stephen about your behaviour because I didn't want to trouble him. But if you want to involve him, please don't hold yourself back on my account!
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2351
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 11:04 am: |
|
guys,
come on now.
lets play nicely together!
Jenni |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2354
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 3:44 pm: |
|
Ps,
Caz,
do you except that though you posted it in good faith, the quote was out of context? |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1723
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 11:26 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Can I take it, then, that you drop the statement that John "claimed to be able to supply the rest of the letter from McCrone""?
If so, you might have the courtesy to acknowledge that you were mistaken.
Now read this very carefully; I will write this only once more:
(Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 1:04 pm)
'The only way he could have backed up his claim, made publicly, would have been by posting the whole letter, so that everyone could have judged for themselves if the quote was misleading. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, assuming that he wouldn't have made the claim if he couldn't produce the letter.
He hasn't done it yet, so I'm happy to follow your orders and withdraw my own claim in the meantime. I fully accept that John has not claimed to be able to supply the rest of the letter - ie the evidence which forms the basis of his accusation against me.'
You might do me the courtesy of reading my posts the first time in future, before you start wagging an accusing finger at me and talking about misrepresentation!
Hi Jenni,
A quote is a quote is a quote. It will always be literally out of context if it is taken from a longer document, even if the only other words are: 'Dear Sir' and 'Yours faithfully etc...'
The actual words of Joseph Barabe, of McCrone, from the letter which was dated January 7 2003 (incidentally, some six months after John resigned from the testing process) were first quoted by me back in January this year. And there was never any intention to mislead anyone.
If I have misrepresented Barabe's position, and if there is after all a reliable and precise method that he could have recommended, of detecting and identifying a provably modern substance in a document such as the diary (if any is present, of course), via chemical analysis of the ink, we would all be very pleased to hear about it.
Perhaps when John is better, he could get back in touch with Barabe and ask him if his position differs fundamentally from my own understanding, and if so how.
I think we could all do with the clarification, since John has failed to produce anything in writing from McCrone to back up his insistence that 'resolving the question of authenticity' would not be a tall order.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on May 07, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 946
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 12:24 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
You might do me the courtesy of reading my posts the first time in future, before you start wagging an accusing finger at me and talking about misrepresentation!
I always read them very carefully, if only because so often they are constructed in such a way as to leave a false impression in the mind of the reader while actually saying something subtly different.
The simple fact is that you clearly did misrepresent what John said. I'm pleased to see that you have withdrawn your untrue statement. It's just a shame that you have done it with such bad grace, and apparently feel you have to try to disguise the fact with all the other posturing and nonsense.
For what it's worth I think in this instance the misrepresentation was inadvertent rather than deliberate. Unfortunately the fact that the correction has had to be dragged out of you with such difficulty tends to give the opposite impression.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 947
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 12:50 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
A quote is a quote is a quote. It will always be literally out of context if it is taken from a longer document, even if the only other words are: 'Dear Sir' and 'Yours faithfully etc...'
The actual words of Joseph Barabe, of McCrone, from the letter which was dated January 7 2003 (incidentally, some six months after John resigned from the testing process) were first quoted by me back in January this year. And there was never any intention to mislead anyone.
Thank you. What you actually quoted - and prefaced by "to the best of his knowledge" - was this:
...there is no reliable method for determining when ink was placed onto a document.
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=118308#POST118308
This is only half a sentence, and it's obviously quite important to know whether it was preceded by any kind of qualifications.
Have you see the beginning of the sentence, or were you yourself only shown these 14 words?
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2358
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 1:46 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
thanks. just after some clarity here, maybe we can all move on now....
Jenni |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1730
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 7:13 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
You just can't resist a final dig, can you?
What was it about the following words of mine that you still fail to grasp?
I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, assuming that he wouldn't have made the claim if he couldn't produce the letter.
So you don't have to 'think in this instance the misrepresentation was inadvertent rather than deliberate'. You only have to read precisely why I believed John was (and still believe he should have been) in a position to post the whole letter.
Unfortunately the fact that the correction has had to be dragged out of you with such difficulty tends to give the opposite impression.
Again, you misrepresent what actually happened. I didn't believe John would accuse me of deliberately misleading people unless he thought he could prove it; you and Jenni were insisting, on the other hand, that he would have posted the proof if he had any. I conceded the point, while observing that it implied John's accusation could not be substantiated, and therefore should not have been made in the first place.
Yes, I have seen the beginning of the sentence.
It is:
To the best of my knowledge, there is no...
Since John claims to have read this private communication, I presume he could request a copy from his previous source and ask for permission to post it himself.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 953
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 7:51 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
I'll ignore the continued "special pleading", none of which alters the simple fact that John hadn't claimed what you stated.
Since John claims to have read this private communication, I presume he could request a copy from his previous source and ask for permission to post it himself.
Just as you could, presumably?
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1736
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 7:45 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Yes, but John is the one who did the accusing. He is the one who has to provide the evidence. That's the way it works.
I know I am innocent; I certainly don't have to prove it to you. Go ahead and think the worst - you could hardly think any worse of me than you do already. I'm tired of jumping through your flaming hoops, only to have you set fire to a new one. Providing you with new information has become the ultimate in thankless tasks.
So if you've got anything new to contribute, or anything fresh to say about the available evidence, fine.
But if your next post is just one more excuse to have a whine about my numerous shortcomings, then think again, because you are already on very shaky ground.
If my failure to agree with you is not down to an exceptionally low IQ (and you evidently think we were all born yesterday, to claim that your 'rhetorical question' was never meant to appear insulting or offensive), then you were presumably implying that I have ulterior motives for questioning your views.
If you really can't accept that I can legitimately disagree with you, you'll just have to keep it to yourself. We have all been warned, in no uncertain terms, that any suggestion that a fellow poster is one of the three no-nos: bad, mad or intellectually challenged, because they happen to see things differently, is just not acceptable as part of a civilised discussion here.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 961
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 8:48 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
[I'll ignore the clumsy attempts at provocation in your message. But if you think in the future I'm going to sit back and accept you misrepresenting my words - or anyone else's for that matter - you're very much mistaken.]
I'm still curious about something. Is that one sentence, To the best of my knowledge, there is no reliable method for determining when ink was placed onto a document, all you've seen of that letter?
If so, and if John has seen the whole letter, isn't he in a better position than you to say how accurately it reflects Barabe's opinion?
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1739
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 5:03 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
I've seen the whole letter, and I know that I quoted Barabe's words in good faith. If Barabe had qualified his words in a way that suggested he thought there was a reliable and precise method of dating the diary, in 2003, via further chemical analysis of the ink, I would have said so.
The ball is still in John's court, if he decides not to withdraw his accusation.
And it would be nice to see something in writing from at least one of the scientists John claims to have consulted, which backs up his claim that the question of authenticity at least could be resolved by further chemical analysis.
Aren't you curious to know more about this yourself? Or do you think that science is unlikely to provide the kind of definitive answer that we can all rely on?
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 966
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 5:23 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
I've seen the whole letter, and I know that I quoted Barabe's words in good faith.
Ok. So - just to make sure I understand correctly - you aren't now in a position to quote verbatim more than that single sentence of the latter, but you have seen the whole thing and remember its general tenor?
So you're really in exactly the same situation as John.
Aren't you curious to know more about this yourself? Or do you think that science is unlikely to provide the kind of definitive answer that we can all rely on?
Of course I'm curious - that's why I'm going through this painful process of interrogation.
As for whether science can provide "the kind of definitive answer that we can all rely on", I think I've already made it clear that science may be capable of establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the diary is a modern fake (just as I believe the textual evidence has already demonstrated this beyond reasonable doubt).
But it can't demonstrate this absolutely and to everyone's satisfaction, because people will always find a way around it if they don't want to believe it.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2370
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 7:33 am: |
|
Well anyway, no one has a copy of the letter. Well no that can't be true, who does have a copy?
Jenni |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1503
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 12:43 pm: |
|
Hello everyone,
Well, there is some good news and some bad news. The bad news is that it looks like I am going to have to have surgery on my wrist. I have a final consultation next week, but the signs are not good. So I will probably be out of action for most of the summer, both on the golf course and here on the boards (OK, that last part may be the good news for some of you).
The other good news is that it’s OK for me to type again, at least for a week or so. (OK, that part may be the bad news for the same people).
Anyway, I won’t be here much this summer it seems, but before I go I want to clear up a few minor matters.
First, let me address the recent developments here concerning one poster’s invocation of an unpublished document from McCrone labs concerning further tests.
Someone came here and offered a conclusion they said could be found in a letter from McCrone labs. Here is what they wrote:
“As I've said before, the chap from McCrone admitted in writing that, to his knowledge, there was no reliable method of determining when a document such as the diary was written.”
I had read at least two such letters and the conclusion offered on these boards was far more absolute in its language than what I saw in those letters. Consequently, I did a simple and logical thing. I asked the person to cite the full text of the letter they were citing so that readers here could judge for themselves if the characterization was accurate.
Now this next part is important. The person who offered the original citation of the McCrone letter did NOT respond by saying they did not have the letter and so could not post it. That would have taken two sentences and a few seconds to type. But it did not happen. No, the person instead wrote a response that said a bunch of other stuff but never once mentioned the simple fact that they did not have the letter in question and so could not post it.
So I tried again. I asked again if they would post the document they were citing.
Again, the response was NOT “I don’t have the letter, so I can’t post it.” No, those simple words were never typed. Instead there was another long post that said everything but that.
So I tried a third time.
Nothing.
Eventually, to their credit, the person finally did get around to doing the simple and responsible thing and admitting that they did not have the letter and could not post it.
How long did this take?
You’ll never guess.
Four weeks and over 60 posts from that person to the boards later, they finally wrote those simple words.
And when precisely did they finally admit that they didn’t have the letter and therefore couldn’t post it? Not immediately. Not shortly after they were first asked. Not even a week or two or three later. No. They finally admitted it on the day after I left the boards. This timing was purely coincidental, I am sure.
Anyway, for some reason, they could not bring themselves to write “I don’t have the letter, so I can’t post it” for all that time.
And when they did, they then began to chastise me for writing about a letter I did not have.
The irony was delicious.
Why?
Because, of course, writing about a letter one doesn’t have is exactly what started this whole mess to begin with, when our original poster did just that!
So when she went on to say that if you write about a letter that you don’t have and can’t use to support your claims, then your claims are “invalidated,” I believe she was absolutely right. And, consequently, any claims she has ever made about the letter are by her own definition invalid, since she does not have the letter and can’t use it to support her original claim.
Therefore, since we are both currently unable to produce the text and cite it here, it is clear, according to the logic offered by the original poster, that we should both be prohibited from making any subsequent claims about what it might or might not say. I agree completely with this logic.
As an aside, I still fail to understand how a person who began a discussion by posting something about a letter they did not have could possibly think they could end the discussion by criticizing me for writing about a letter I did not have. I can’t get my head around the apparent lack of self-consciousness. But perhaps some mysteries will always remain mysteries.
Now then, our original poster later finally cited the letter in question as being written in January of 2003.
Well, I find that very interesting.
Here are three out of context quotes (since that’s what we do here apparently), from a letter from McCrone and Associates (the same lab) to Shirley Harrison, in April of 2003 (months after the letter cited by the original poster).
“If McCrone Associates were to perform this analysis, we would want to look at the document as a whole.”
“The examination of the document as a whole often provides better insight into the overall consistency of a document with its reputed history.”
“Please keep in mind that a definitive answer about the age of the document may not be possible.”
So it seems that the original poster’s claim that McCrone’s position is that:
“there was no reliable method of determining when a document such as the diary was written.”
might be just a tad overstated.
Clearly, McCrone, as late as April, were still willing to conduct tests and still thought that dating the document was at least a possibility (they even used the oddly appropriate word “MAY”).
But they’d need to see the book first.
Gee, didn’t someone say that was McCrone’s position a very long time ago on these boards?
Now, “the chap from McCrone” might have admitted in writing that there was no reliable method for determining specifically when the ink went on the paper.
But that’s a very different claim from the one our poster put forward here on the boards: that there was no reliable method for determining when the book was written. Obviously, McCrone believed there were potential ways of determining the age of the document apart from simply trying to determine when the ink went on the paper. Otherwise, why speak of such possibilities in this letter to Shirley?
Anyway, after all the nonsense and all the irrational arguments and positioning and attempts to dodge and deflect, the story is a simple one.
A document was initially cited by someone who had no access to it and could not use it to support their claim. That person has already argued here that such a strategy renders such claims invalidated, so there is no reason to take their original claim seriously. And further documented evidence demonstrates that the claim itself has been seriously overstated.
Now, the last thing you might ask is will I post the full text of the letter I have just cited.
Fortunately, I don’t have to.
Why?
Because as I’m sure every reader already knows, the letter from McCrone to Shirley in April is already widely available -- published on pages 349 and 350 of the latest edition of Shirley Harrison’s book on the diary. You can read the whole thing for yourselves.
Meanwhile, apparently the original poster still does not have the letter she tried so concisely to characterize in her original post and so, by her own definition, cannot use it to support any claim she might make.
I hope that settles this matter once and for all. I’m sure it won’t. But at least I think it’s clear exactly what happened.
Thanks. I'll try and write on a topic or two more before I must leave.
All the best,
--John
PS: In the interest of fairness and full disclosure, I suppose the original poster should have an opportunity to explain simply and directly why she waited so long to admit the truth -- why she did not admit, immediately upon being asked, or at least the next day, that she did not have the letter and could not cite it -- why it took over four weeks to type these very simple sentences.
Meanwhile, readers can go here to see what our original poster did write in place of “I don’t have the letter so I can’t post it.” -- http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=126093#POST126093
PPS: I don’t feel the need to travel all the way to the Crashaw thread to entertain the desperate notion that because the two words “’tis love” appear in a piece of doggerel by the diarist and also appear in lots of old writers, this therefore can be considered evidence of anything at all (other than the diarist knew the word “’tis” was an old-sounding one). But I’ll probably go there anyway, for other purposes.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2378
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 1:02 pm: |
|
John!!!!!!!
its good to see you back. Its a shame about your hand, but i hope the surgery fixes it.
Thank god you have cleared up the McCrone thing!!
Jenni |
Lars Nordman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 5:26 am: |
|
Hello
Does anyone know who the Bower man is in Patricia Cornw..lls book who so conclusively proved the diary a fake and went on to assist her in proving Sickerts guilt?
Lars |
AAD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 4:25 pm: |
|
Mr. Omlor, I believe that one of the reasons for delayed responses from the person you are citing is the fact that she has several 'advisers' and she cannot always contact them readily for advice. |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1450
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 11:45 am: |
|
Hi John
Sorry to hear that you are likely going to need surgery on your wrist which will put you out of action for golf and Diary-bashing.  Seriously, John, I wish you the best of luck with the procedure should you indeed need to have it.
Chris
(Message edited by ChrisG on May 12, 2005)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 134
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 11:51 am: |
|
John
Sorry to here about your wrist....and may you find a speedy recovery.....perhaps you should try one of the voice recognision devices sited on the 'proper English thread.' Anyway I'm sure you wont be away for long.
Re;Bower. I went to a lecture at the Tait last year. He was on a team of experts along with Paul Begg talking about Patricia Cornwalls book.
As I understood what he was saying was: that one of the Ripper letters (cant remember which one) was almost certainly from a ream of paper owned by Walter Sicket...his conclusion was that Sicket wrote one of the Ripper letters. That is not he same conclusion as; Walter Sickett was Jack the Ripper just that he hoaxed letters.
Bower is a very respected scientist but I dont think he could help with the Maybrick Diary as the Momento Album itself is almost certainly genuine. I'd love to get his veiws on the Voynich Manuscript however.
Re; Situation on further tests.
As I understand most experts beleive the diary can be dated. It is however a question of doing the right tests to answer specific questions.
I understand that the diary will be made available if a serious propersition can be made to date the diary.
That finance must be raised for such an undertaking.
That sceintists would need to make preliminary inspection and possible tests of the diary to determine what tests would come up with the best results.
Anyway thats as I understand the current situation.
Hope your soon back and well John.
Jeff
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1510
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 11:57 am: |
|
Thanks Chris and Jeff,
I'll be tapering off my posts here as the week gets closer to ending.
Jeff, I do hope you are successful in getting this book thoroughly and properly examined by scientists "to determine what tests would come up with the best results." Here's hoping that you can make the "preliminary examination" happen soon.
Keep up the good work and best of luck,
--John |
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 136
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 12:16 pm: |
|
Cheers John
Working on it. Getting these things past the right people takes time and know guarantee's. As you know I've more than the Maybrick to research.
And commissioners dont wont talking head worthy history anymore. They want explossions and exciting reinactments. Its all Tony Robinsons fault.
I start on the Ledgend of Robinhood for Discovery next week so i may be out the office chasing me merry men around the forests of Nottingham and Yorkshire. Letting off vollies of arrows etc.
I will keep you posted if I hear anything.
Jeff
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1748
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 2:04 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
Of c | | | |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page