|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1249
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 6:46 am: | 
|
Yes, Chris, any idea how the real Jim wrote the word 'post', as in post house, post haste, post office or deaf-as-a-post?
No, nor me.
Back to square one then.
Perhaps John will ask Jenni to find out how Mike would spell post, if he wrote: 'I am now going out to post this letter in my nearest post box'.
Any idea if Mike would have seen, or been familiar with the sign 'poste restante' in a post office?
Any idea if the real Jim Maybrick would have seen, or been familiar with the sign 'poste restante' in a post office?
Answers on a saucy poste card. 
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1063
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 7:09 am: |
|
Lets no confuse ourselves,
maybe the person who forged the diary isn't the person you seem to be implying. I don't care how Barrett spells the word post, i do care how Maybrick spelt it, naturally,
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 496
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 7:36 am: |
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Yes, Chris, any idea how the real Jim wrote the word 'post', as in post house, post haste, post office or deaf-as-a-post?
Actually, yes.
Judging by his will, his spelling and grammar were good, so - unless someone can supply evidence to the contrary - I think it's a reasonable assumption that he spelled it P-O-S-T.
Please do feel free to supply evidence that Maybrick's spelling and grammar were poor if you know of any.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 809
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 7:59 am: |
|
"Evidence to the contrary."
That's a good one Chris.
Like anyone is ever going to come around here and actually offer real evidence that supports the claim for authenticity. Like anyone has any.
It won't happen.
Not even once.
The real evidence we do have leads in one single direction -- forgery.
Handwriting, textual details, history, lack of provenance, everything we have.
As for the Poste House, once again there are only two possibilities.
Either the Poste House means the Poste House, right there in Liverpool where it's supposed to be, or there was some truly amazing historical coincidence of writing which has someone changing the spelling and the writing of a place's name in just the exact way to reproduce the uniquely spelled and written name of a place they could not have known anything about because it would not be there for another hundred years.
Now then, need I ask?
What's the simplest and most obvious explanation?
Nice to see the desperate rhetorical circles are still turning in the name of hope though,
--John (still happy to be the one arguing that A means A) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1065
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 9:31 am: |
|
Oh Man!
Not the bloody post house still!!
Can we prove there wasn't somewhere called post(e) house in liverpool in 1888? Can we prove that there was somewhere?
Why are we having this conversation when we don't know what's actually the case?
Anyway,
Cheers
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 936
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 10:48 am: |
|
Hi all
To add another spoke to an already very complicated wheel, the late researcher Viper, real name Adrian M. Phypers, also, as I recall, spelled "post" as "poste." Not that I actually believe that the diarist meant anything other than the modern Poste House now standing in Liverpool, but that is just my opinion.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 812
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 10:56 am: |
|
Jenni,
You ask why we are still having this conversation.
You know why, don't you?
And no, there is no evidence that there was a pub with that uniquely spelled and written name anywhere in Liverpool in 1888.
Believe me, they've looked. If there was one, we would have heard all about it long ago.
And then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
--John
Thanks, Chris. An interesting biographical note. Of course, the name of the pub and the name in the diary are written in an identical and unique way, so it's not hard to see what the most obvious explanation is, A means A. Even Shirley Harrison initially followed that simple truth about reading, until it proved to be a problem for the "desired" result. Then, all of a sudden, the hunt was on for an excuse.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1067
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 11:22 am: |
|
John,
yeah i think the poste house means the poste house,
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Inspector
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 258
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 6:22 pm: |
|
Whatho Chris,
Can we be sure Maybrick actually put pen to paper with this copy of his will?
Cheers, Mark |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 497
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 2:39 am: |
|
Mark
I know elaborate attempts have been made in the past to claim that the existing will was not written by Maybrick, but I don't think anyone is still maintaining that - at least not on these boards.
For a detailed discussion see Melvin Harris's dissertation:
http://casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/mharris.html
Some of Maybrick's letters are also extant. Whether these contain errors of spelling and grammar I don't know.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 817
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 7:40 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
There are indeed at least twelve other examples, verified, of the real James's handwriting, spelling and grammar.
And the ones that I have seen look nothing at all like anything in the diary. The handwriting is in no way similar, the spelling and grammar are in no way similar.
Of course, we'll no doubt be told that this is because he was a drug crazed serial killer and so had no control when he was writing the diary.
There's a desperate excuse for every problem and a problem with every desperate excuse around here.
The writing in the diary looks nothing like the real James's writing, the spelling and grammar look nothing at all like the real James's spelling and grammar.
What's the simplest and most logical explanation for this?
The real James didn't write it.
Dealing in the obvious here every day,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on September 21, 2004) |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 940
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 9:28 am: |
|
Hi Mark
The handwriting in the will appears to match other known examples of Maybrick's handwriting. So I should say, yes, it is written by him, despite attempts by the proponents of the Maybrick diary to deny that he wrote it.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Inspector
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 260
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 2:54 pm: |
|
Whatho Gentlemen,
Thanks for your replies. I only ask because many wills I have seen were written by solicitors' clerks or the like. As James' will is supposed to be written when he was ill, I wondered if anyone else may have held the pen.
I agree with so many examples of James' handwriting existing, he certainly didn't touch that diary.
BOGGER! West Ham have just scored against Notts County  .
Cheers, Mark |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 946
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 3:01 pm: |
|
Hi Mark
I have a copy of Tumblety's will, and the handwriting in the will is different to the signature, so you are definitely right that in many instances the lawyer or the lawyer's clerk wrote the will in their script handwriting, for the person to sign. There is though, as I say, a similarity between James Maybrick's handwriting as known from letters written and signed by him and the handwriting in the body of the will.
Best regards
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 462
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 4:47 pm: |
|
Mark--Maybrick's will is a "holograph" which means the document is entirely in his hand. We know the circumstances underwhich it was written; it was a temporary knock-up job by Maybrick written in his office at the end of April, 1889 to replace the legal will he tore up New Year's Eve. Both the witnesses who signed the will (Maybrick's friend and an employee) were present at probate hearings the following July, so there could have been no monkey business without a vast conspiracy. As the historian Trevor Christie pointed out, the will is "highly informal and somewhat garbled." The papers Maybrick allegedly signed on his deathbed (a few days later) were actaully an attempt to formalize the will, since Mabyrick didn't name an executor. RP |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Inspector
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 262
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 6:24 pm: |
|
Whatho RP and Chris,
Thanks. Now I read RP's post I remember there was something about this in Mr Feldman's book.
I wonder if the historian Trevor Christie is the same Trevor Christie who used to play up front for Notts County. If so, I hope he's a better historian than he was striker  .
Cheers, Mark |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1257
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 7:36 am: |
|
Hi Chris P,
You are perfectly entitled to assume that Maybrick knew how to spell ‘post’, and therefore would not have spelled it ‘poste’.
But it is still an assumption, however reasonable it appears to be.
And I am perfectly entitled to point out, without making a single assumption of my own, that you don’t actually know how Maybrick would have spelled ‘post’.
Now, if I were to start claiming that Maybrick did put an e after post (as we now know at least four people have done: whoever named The Poste House in Cumberland Street; whoever penned the diary; Jon Smyth; and the late great Viper), I would naturally be obliged to provide evidence.
But you appear to be suggesting that I must provide evidence to prove your assumption wrong, or just accept that it must be the correct assumption.
Much as I’d love to oblige, I’m afraid it doesn’t work like that. You make the assumption; you do the research to support it.
Love,
Caz
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 834
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 7:45 am: |
|
Well, Chris,
At least you can't say you didn't know that was coming.
The circle dance continues, despite all the real evidence we do have leading in a perfectly straight line,
--John
PS: A means A. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1085
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 8:18 am: |
|
Now come on Caz has a point,
none of us know how James spelt post none of us know if there was a pub called Post House in Liverpool in 1888, none of us know , no hang on just those two things i think.
Jenni
Ps its not in the guys handwriting though to be fair!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 173
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 10:22 am: |
|
Well Jenni , its up to the people who believe the Diary is genuine to research these things - both Melvyn Fairclough and Keith Skinner were researching for the Diary at one point if I remember correctly.
You can bet if Maybrick spelled his words with an extra ' e ' , we would know about it from Robert or Caz !
As for the Post(e) House , I don't know if there was one or not in the 1880s but I suspect there wasn't. Certainly , the pub in Cumberland Street was called something else.
For Caz or Robert to be correct about a Victorian posthouse , we must make several assumptions :
(i) The Diarist spelt the name of the pub wrong. If James Maybrick was the Diarist then he spelt his word ' post ' in such a way (ii) There was a pub called ( or nicknamed ) the ' Post House ' - most probably in Victorian Liverpool. (iii) that James Maybrick was at least likely to frequent this pub , since he was a wealthy Victorian gentleman.
What Robert says is at least possible , as he provides an example of a coaching house in London which had the words ' Post House ' outside. Indeed , the Diarist may be talking about a ' Poste House ' in London - maybe an inn , with ' poste restante ' facilities where Maybrick might have recieved his mail.
Thats a lot of assumptions however ! |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 836
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 10:26 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
If someone could have found a Poste House anywhere in Liverpool in 1888, you don't think they would have told us by now?
However, we did find one in Liverpool in 1988.
It's still there.
With exactly that identical name.
Just like it says in the diary.
So the evidence there is pretty clear.
As for James Maybrick's writing and grammar and spelling, in the dozen or so documents we now have in his hand there is no sign in them, certainly not in the ones I have seen (and some have been kindly forwarded to me by friends) that James had anything like the diarist's odd spelling or grammatical style or tendencies.
So the evidence is pretty clear on that.
In fact, the evidence is pretty clear on everything diary-related.
And it always points to the same conclusion.
That should tell people with common sense something.
Of course, it won't tell those who just want the discussion never to end (for whatever personal desire they might have to keep the dance going) anything at all.
They'll just remind us, you can bet, that the James who wrote the diary was a drug crazed serial killer and so of course his grammar and spelling don't look anything like all the stuff we have that we know was written by the real James.
As I said somewhere recently, there's an excuse for every problem around here, and a problem with every excuse.
From the land of the sad and desperate, where nonetheless, A means A,
--John
PS: Simon, you might want to look again at what Robert tells us that sign in the photo actually read. To paraphrase from The Princess Bride, I don't think it says what you think it says. In fact, I'm sure it doesn't.
(Message edited by omlor on September 23, 2004) |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 174
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 10:37 am: |
|
Lets see if the Diary supports the possibility that Maybrick might have been writing about a post house in London :
"Foolish bitch , I know for certain she has arranged a rondaveau ( sic ) with him in Whitechapel. So be it , my mind is firmly made. I took refreshment at the Poste House it was there I finally decided London it shall be. And why not , is it not an ideal location ? Indeed do I not frequently visit the Capital and indeed do I not have legitimate reason for doing so. All who sell their dirty wares shall pay , of that I have no doubt. But shall I pay ? I think not I am too clever for that. "
Yes , its possible the Diarist is in London when they are writing this. From the tone of some of the phrases , it sounds more like its Liverpool being talked about , but not necessarily. |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 837
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 11:01 am: |
|
Simon,
I'm confused.
If he was sitting in a pub in London as he wrote, why would he be writing in past tense about doing so?
And why would he refer to "the Capital" and "London" in that way, instead of, say, "I've decided that here it shall be"?
I suspect there's a reason why Shirley read this line in the most obvious, most logical, and most natural way.
And I also suspect there's a reason why, when that proved to be a problem for the diary's claims to authenticity, other more elaborate and desperate readings suddenly started popping up.
But I do understand what you are trying to do and think it's worthwhile.
Thanks,
--John
PS: Besides, we know for sure where there is a pub called the Poste House, don't we? Right there where James lived. |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 178
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 11:46 am: |
|
Good point John , the Diarist writes ' I took refreshment ' but the rest of the piece is in the present tense. I didn't spot that.
However , this doesn't negate the possibility that the Post(e) House was in London , the change in tense could indeed suggest a change of location in fact.
The sentence ' Indeed do I not frequently visit the Capital and indeed do I not have legitimate reason for doing so. ' does sound as if it was written outside London , as I hinted above. But the phrase about the Post House is clearly written in the past tense , the Diarist has decided what to do and is recalling the past , as the phrase ' My mind is firmly made ' precedes the Post House phrase and is in the present tense also.
The obvious objection is why didn't the Diarist say ' I took refreshment at the Poste House in London... ' ? That seems to indicate the Poste House in Liverpool as far as I can see.
We have to explore all the possibilities , to judge the Diary with as open a mind as we possibly can to see if there is anything in it , and whether our sceptical theories do stand up !
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 500
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 12:01 pm: |
|
Simon
What Robert says is at least possible , as he provides an example of a coaching house in London which had the words ' Post House ' outside.
He'd obviously like people to think that, but actually, he didn't - he provided an example of a pub in Ilford which had the phrase "Commercial Hotel and Posting House" painted outside.
But perhaps Mrs Morris will point out that I have no evidence that the painter didn't spell "post" like this:
P-O-S-T-I-N-G
If so, I must plead guilty to another sweeping assumption!
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1088
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 12:20 pm: |
|
Simon,
we are making assumptions against those things (myself included!)
The poste house was in Liverpool - I think there is proof for this in the diary, in the context and how it is written.
John,
only if they had looked.
what you say about London I am in total agreement that is what i refer to above to Simon.
Now things are clear post house could refer to any coaching inn used by the royal mail so long as that was still a term in use and such places still existed in 1888. The diarist could not spell post, therefore the diary may have been written before 1960 when the post house existed if all that other stuff is true.
John, if you have evidence James suffered from a MPD i'd love to hear it!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 501
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 3:54 pm: |
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Now, if I were to start claiming that Maybrick did put an e after post ... I would naturally be obliged to provide evidence.
Hmmm. I'd be interested to know how to enforce that "obligation", based on recent efforts to get the evidence for claims on these boards.
But putting aside whether anyone is "obliged" to look at Maybrick's spelling and grammar in those letters, wouldn't it actually be interesting and informative to do so? Especially if anyone here is still interested in finding out the truth about the diary?
For example, does anyone here know (Mrs Morris included) whether the word "post" is actually included in any of Maybrick's surviving writings (as in "inne Hast to cacthe the Poste", perhaps?).
Chris Phillips
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 183
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 5:43 pm: |
|
" Did return to Battlecrease and found my posteman there with a letter for me damn him his insolence for a mere deliverer of maile his arrogance confounds me. Oh if I had my knife I would slit him like a WHORE and cook his gizzard for my supper I am sure I should not be caught Sir Jim is too clever for that. Took the lettere I shall let him live for now. All shall pay.
Letter was from Michael curse him for being so clever at rhymes I would like to write as well as he ! " There was a young harlot called Florrie/whose husband was well off his trolley/he cut up a whore/and read some Crashaw/For his crimes he did not even say ' Sorry ' ! " Curse Michael for taunting me with his brilliant verse !
" There once was a geezer named Maybrick/Who knew an incredible trick/ His writing entirely / He changed in his Diary / But he died when he took too much arsenic ! " I must destroy
Michael's taunting verse his insolence is too much the fool all whores must die ! '
The above is rumoured to be a genuine extract that was cut from the Diary at the last minute , it proved that Maybrick spelled the word poste with an 'e' but it was still edited - sadly with it went all evidence of Michael Maybrick's poetic genius. |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 839
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 6:49 pm: |
|
Well, at least we're laughing now.
That's a very good sign.
Of course, this whole debate is an attempt to get around a simple and logical fact. The Poste House is actually there. Right there, in fact, in the very same town as James, in the same town where the diary is composed, spelled and written exactly like it is uniquely spelled and written in the diary.
A means A.
And thanks to Chris for pointing out what Robert actually saw, which is what I was reminding Simon of in my initial PS to him -- the one with the Princess Bride quote.
Finally for Jenni, regarding evidence concerning James having MPD.
Guess what?
There isn't any.
Are you at all surprised?
I know I sure am.
It's just a Feldmaniacal fantasy to get around the fact that we have a dozen samples of the real James Maybrick's writing and they look nothing at all like anything in the diary either in terms of handwriting or spelling or grammar.
It's like this Poste House thing.
In each case, there's an obvious and natural and logical reading (the Poste House means the Poste House and the book not being in Maybrick's handwriting means Maybrick didn't write it), and then there are the numerous desperate excuses that suddenly pop up in a panic when it becomes clear that the logical and obvious and natural conclusion is, once again, that the diary must be a fake.
It's the pattern that defines the entire diary debate.
It's the pattern you see repeated here every day.
It's all they have left -- these desperate gasps of simple desire -- because they have no real evidence.
Because the book was not written by the real James Maybrick, and all the evidence tells us that and none of the evidence suggests otherwise.
Watch tomorrow for a rerun,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1264
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 8:09 am: |
|
Hi Simon,
You wrote:
…its up to the people who believe the Diary is genuine to research these things…
Yes, if anyone on this thread wants to claim the diary is genuine, on the basis that Maybrick spelled post with an e, I agree it would be up to them to do the research and prove it.
But the claim being made around here, or at least the assumption, is that Maybrick probably knew how to spell post. I am not trying to claim otherwise, but am simply pointing out that while none of us knows how the real James Maybrick spelled the word, the assumption remains just that:
Maybrick probably knew how to spell post.
Well, fine – if everyone is happy to leave it there.
Then you wrote:
You can bet if Maybrick spelled his words with an extra ' e ' , we would know about it from Robert or Caz !
Well, to be fair, I did suggest – even if tongue was too firmly in cheek at the time to get the words out clearly - that Mike may have seen the will, and got so carried away with Jim adding an extra e to his own daughter’s middle name (Eveleyn, instead of the correct Evelyn) that he clean forgot to have a stab at copying the handwriting. 
Then you wrote:
As for the Post(e) House , I don't know if there was one or not in the 1880s but I suspect there wasn't.
Again you see, I am being asked to accept a mere suspicion, unless I can prove the suspicion wrong. The argument boils down to:
I suspect there wasn’t a former post house still standing and serving alcoholic refreshment in the 1880s that was called, or known as, the Post(e) House by its regulars.
I don’t get the following at all:
For Caz or Robert to be correct about a Victorian posthouse , we must make several assumptions - and you include here stuff about the diarist spelling the pub name wrong; Maybrick spelling post with an e; and Maybrick frequenting a pub he called the Post(e) House.
I can’t speak for Robert, but I am not asking you to make any such assumptions, nor am I making them. I am not even claiming to be ‘correct’ about some post houses still being called post houses/posting houses/Post or Poste Houses throughout and beyond the Victorian era to much more recent times, while their official names might be something quite different. I am simply pointing out that your suspicion is merely that, and does not appear to be based on any thorough research.
At least you are open to the possibility that the diarist got his extra e from the term poste restante. This is a simple and logical explanation, regardless of when the diary was actually written. The action is meant to be set in 1888, after all, and the diary’s anti-hero is meant to be a man leading a double life of drugs and debauchery, who would almost certainly have taken advantage of the poste restante facilities – a far more familiar sight in the late 19th century than in more recent times.
And before I get jumped on again, I am not claiming this is the explanation, just that it’s a possible one, that still proves nothing about the diary’s age.
I took refreshment at the Poste House it was there I finally decided London it shall be.
You and John both seem to have missed the fact that ‘Jim’ is saying that his final decision to make London his hunting ground was taken, not while writing the entry in the diary, but while in the Poste House, downing a pint. So it does make some kind of logical sense if he is meant to be in a former post house in London when he makes up his mind that London it shall be.
But of course, plumping for one meaning over another is down to personal preference: some say tomayto and some say tomarto; some say Liverpool and some say London. I say the diarist could have meant either, and I have no personal preference here.
Hi Chris P,
You wrote:
I'd be interested to know how to enforce that "obligation" [to provide evidence for my claims] , based on recent efforts to get the evidence for claims on these boards.
Well, if you’d like to quote back at me each specific claim I have made, I will do my best.
As I have explained at least twice now, I am planning a trip to Liverpool to test claims made by others, some of which I have mentioned here, concerning The Old Post Office pub and so on. I am doing this primarily for myself, because I’m interested. I’m not such a fool as to imagine that anything I could bring back and add to the table would not be pounced on and criticised, before being tossed aside, with a return to the mantra:
The diarist still meant The Poste House in Cumberland Street.
If, by ‘claims’, you mean my personal interpretation, that since Rigby’s landlord in 1997 allegedly directed his enquirer straight to The Old Post Office pub on being asked the whereabouts of ‘the post house’ (and not to ‘The Poste House’ in Cumberland Street), he probably knew this particular pub as the ‘post house’ and referred to it as such, I apologise for making such an outrageous assumption. He probably didn’t know it as the ‘post house’ at all, and therefore would never have referred to it as such. He probably misheard or misunderstood, but coincidentally still succeeded in directing his enquirer to a pub (allegedly established circa 1800) with the word ‘Post’ in its name, rather than to the nearest post office. Maybe the whole incident was just a figment of the enquirer’s imagination - I don’t know. But then neither do you.
I will at least be trying to test my one probably, for my own benefit.
If you are happy to leave all your probablys sitting around untested, cluttering up the place, that’s fine by me. Just don’t demand that I test them for you. I’ll test what I like.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 503
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 8:27 am: |
|
I wrote:
I'd be interested to know how to enforce that "obligation" [to provide evidence for my claims] , based on recent efforts to get the evidence for claims on these boards.
Caroline Anne Morris replied:
Well, if you’d like to quote back at me each specific claim I have made, I will do my best.
Oh well, I know I shouldn't, but taking this at face value it's too good an opportunity to pass up.
Here goes:
What was the evidence for your statement that the Old Post Office used to be a coaching inn?
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 845
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 8:38 am: |
|
Caroline offers us this fine suggestion:
"Maybrick probably knew how to spell post.
Well, fine – if everyone is happy to leave it there."
And this thread "probably" should be finished.
Especially since it is dedicated to the ridiculous pursuit of ignoring the obvious -- that A means A, the Poste House means the Poste House. That the diary mentions a pub with a uniquely spelled and written name and a pub with that very same uniquely spelled and written name actually exists right there in the town where the diary takes place.
In any rational universe, in any normal world driven by common sense and even the most elementary reading skills, the conclusion would be simple and obvious.
That's why Shirley Harrison made it herself.
That's why this whole thread is just a sad and desperate attempt to excuse away that simple and logical and obvious common-sense reading ONLY because it does not fulfill certain reader's personal desires, ONLY because it indicates that the book was written in modern times, and that conclusion, DESPITE it being the obvious and simple and logical and common sense one, is unacceptable to some because of their own dreams and wishes.
A means A.
And when you enter into a universe where people spend years of their lives trying to argue otherwise solely for their own personal interests and despite the fact that we all know how to read, you are entering a sad and sorry place.
Please don't let the smoke screens and fairy-tales and desperate reaches after similar names and vaguely phrased anecdotes distract you all from the obvious and from the words actually written on the page (and the actual name of the actual pub that exists).
There was no staggering and amazing historical accident of writing by which an author changed the name of some pub in precisely the exact way necessary just by pure chance to reproduce the uniquely spelled and written name of a pub right there in the same city that the author could not have known anything about for another hundred years.
That's ridiculous.
Especially when the alternative explanation is...
A means A -- the Poste House means the Poste House.
Arguing that one of these explanations is more logical, is more obvious, is clearer, fits much more consistently with all the other evidence, and simply follows the laws of reading and writing more clearly than the other is certainly NOT a matter of taste.
It's called logic.
Amazed at the capacity for excuses, always,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on September 25, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1101
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 10:36 am: |
|
Oh man,
I don't know where to start.
Let's start here,
Whoever the diarist was they couldn't spell post, I think we all agree on this point because unlike everything else in this PFCA it is a FACT, FACT, FACT!!!
right are we agreed?
Next thing to point out is that it doesn't matter how James Maybrick spelt post (and this is probably a good thing as not one single one of us knows how he spelt it, maybe he spelt it poste!!)Oh yeah, it doesn't matter unless we are sure that in the approx years, 1855-1889 there was a coaching inn in Liverpool called/refered to as post house. Now as far as I am aware none of us have looked in order to disprove that there was, am I right?
Jenni
PS i think the post house means the poste House but i readily admit i have absolutely no evidence whatsoever!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 846
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 10:47 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Regarding your PS:
Sure you do.
You have the words on the page and the name of the pub and spelling of both and the way both are written and the town they both come from. And you have your own common sense and your ability to read and you have the simple fact that A means A.
The rest is smoke and mirrors designed to make this look much more complicated than it really is (for personal reasons, of course).
As for James's spelling, the letters I have seen indicate that it is nothing at all like the diarist's. Nor, of course, is his handwriting.
But once again, even that simple evidence won't allow some to form the obvious conclusion.
Because they don't want to, no matter what the evidence tells us.
And that's neither scholarly nor logical. That's just blind desire.
All the best,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1267
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 6:20 am: |
|
Hi Chris P,
As I have already explained, I will be going to Liverpool to check the previous research done by others, that I mentioned here, including whether or not The Old Post Office pub was ever a coaching inn. I have already given myself a severe flogging, and locked myself in the broom cupboard (to deprive myself of the joy of spending my entire weekend responding to every post here), as punishment for repeating a snippet of information that I hadn’t already succeeded in confirming to my own satisfaction.
I realised just what an unforgivable sin I had committed when Chris George expressed his doubts about this particular drinking establishment being a coaching inn. I will be checking, but I am already happy to assume, for the purposes of the current discussion, that the previous researcher was given incorrect information on this point.
Assuming The Old Post Office pub was not a coaching inn/post house, but still assuming it would have inherited this official name on account of the old post office which once occupied an adjacent site, it is still a reasonable proposition that it was referred to as the ‘post house’ by its 1888 regulars – even more reasonable considering Rigby’s landlord assumed this pub was what his enquirer meant by the ‘post house’. The Poste House in Cumberland Street was never a coaching inn either, but it inherited its official name because of a nearby post office.
Anyway, the proposition is one I mean to explore. If I find no evidence, or if a local historian insists that this pub was known by a different name, or nickname, in the late Victorian era, that’s fine; I can cross it off my mental list as you have already. There are hundreds of actual former post houses in our green and pleasant land which our diarist could have shoved the well-travelled Jim inside for a quick one before you can say – or spell - the ‘Poste House’.
Meanwhile, we can leave this thread dangling on its own threads:
The diarist probably meant The Poste House in Cumberland Street.
And now, John is supporting this argument with the fact that Shirley Harrison thought so too.
And that’s good enough for John. Suddenly, Shirley has become his new role model.
If anyone wanted to argue the handwriting, they could have ignored this ‘hanging-by-a- thread’ thread and headed off to the handwriting thread instead – where all those mad Maybrickians are no doubt claiming that Sir Jim probably suffered from MPD, because Paul Feldman thought so. And that’s good enough for them.
I’m still looking for something that’s good enough for me – which is hard when I have to go back in the broom cupboard now to finish off my senten…
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1106
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 6:46 am: |
|
Oh man,
I give..no I don't. I don't!! It's ok.
I can't prove anything about the post house, just thought I would remind you of that. I wish I could prove something (ahh!!)!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 850
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 8:15 am: |
|
Caroline thinks she has a point when she cites me:
"And now, John is supporting this argument with the fact that Shirley Harrison thought so too.
And that’s good enough for John. Suddenly, Shirley has become his new role model."
But, of course, my point in citing Shirley was simply that she read the line naturally, the way normal readers would read it, the way anyone not completely clouded by a perverse desire to keep hope alive at all costs would read it, the rational way -- by looking at what the words say.
It says the "Poste House."
There is a "Poste House." Right there. In Liverpool.
Written and spelled precisely and uniquely like that.
All anyone, including Shirley, has to do is conclude that A means A.
And since that's how words actually work, it's an easy and reliable and logical thing to do.
The rest is just sad and desperate desire producing fanciful and elaborate excuses to get around the obvious and readily apparent fact -- the diary names exactly the uniquely named pub that still sits right there where the diary takes place.
There are two options.
When faced with the facts, admit them and move on.
When faced with the facts, tell a story.
We know which method is preferred by those who are desperate around here to keep the hope and the discussion alive. We can watch them do it with the tin matchbox line, we can watch them do it with the handwriting, we can watch them do it with the mistakes about the murders, we can watch them do it with the lack of provenance, and right here we can watch them do it with the naming of the Poste House.
Every time, it's the same thing. Every time it's another desperate story to get around the obvious and logical conclusion.
Every time A doesn't mean A but somehow must mean something else that is not-A.
Because if A means A, then the book is a fake.
Well, guess what?
The book is a fake.
And everyone here on this board knows it.
Constantly amazed at the energy that goes into denying this,
--John
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 952
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 8:28 am: |
|
Hi John and Caz
I believe I am right in saying that when Shirley Harrison identified the Poste House in Cumberland Street as the one meant by the diarist when he write that he took refreshment there, she believed the establishment was known by that name in 1888. The shocking revelation that the drinking hole was not known by that name at the time of the Whitechapel murders has prompted a search, a somewhat tortured one we have to admit, to try to find other places that went by the name "Post House" at the time even if the name was not the official name of the establishments but only the name given in conversation.
Best regards
Chris George
(Message edited by chrisg on September 28, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 853
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 8:36 am: |
|
Precisely, Chris.
The words say A.
But A means the book is a fake.
So A cannot mean A.
Now there's a classic example of desire trumping logic.
It's a fascinating and frightening thing sometimes.
Thanks,
--John |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 5:10 am: |
|
A book I have in my possession,about inns and alehouses of the eighteenth century,describes these premises,as among other things,to be 'Posting Offices'.There are several references to 'Post',and aside from the more common conveyances,there is 'Post Chariot'.I find no reference to poste,
However going back to the Fifteenth century,it seems that the 'e' at the end of a word was common,i.e.'wesshe'(wash),'tubbe'(tub),'crosse'(cross,'signe'(sign) etc.
So for common usage,it appears the'e'was dropped before the Eighteenth century,on many words. |
robertjsmith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 5:40 pm: |
|
The central contention of Messrs Omlor and Phillips is that they have been unable to identify on the internet a pub in England called the Poste House, apart from the one in Cumberland Street. They refuse to understand the fairly commonsensical point, that the diarist, if he were writing “the Poste House” in 1888/9, could have been referring to a particular establishment in Liverpool, known as the Post(e) House, even though it may also have had an official name like the Angel.
So I have had a look at a couple of relevant
books on my shelves, and found with ease the following examples of coaching inns, where the dominant name was “post house” or “posting house” (they mean precisely the same).
1. As noted previously, an 1890 photograph of the Angel in Ilford, Essex with the words “Commercial Hotel and Posting House”, emblazoned across the frontage.
2. A Victorian advertisement placed by the proprietor of a famous coaching inn in Guildford High Street, Surrey, headed with the words: “White Hart Inn and Posting House”.
3. A 1930s photograph of another old coaching inn in Guildford, the Angel. As in the photograph of the Angel, Ilford, the inn sign in Guildford says “The Angel”, but in massive capital lettering across the building’s frontage is: “POSTING HOUSE. LIVERY STABLES”. This inn was later acquired by Trusthouse Forte Ltd, the firm who by 1986 had established 125 or more Post Houses throughout the UK.
4. Best of all is a nineteenth century colour print of a coaching inn, drawn by the renowned illustrator Thomas Rowlandson and published by Ackermann. The title of the original illustration, is as follows: “The Post House, coach leaving”.
The inn sign reads in capital letters: “POST HOUSE”. Underneath the title is: “Chaises Saddles Horses”. There is no other sign or name visible.
Please note that in every case, the P in Post and the H in House is a capital letter, so destroying another favourite argument used to imply that the diarist had made some kind of fatal error.
It is undeniable that, if the diary was written by a Victorian, he was referring to a former coaching inn in Liverpool, such as the Angel opposite the Cotton Exchange, as “the Poste House”. To be fair, it is also undeniable that a modern forger could have wrongly assumed that a pub in Cumberland Street recently renamed The Poste House, actually had been a post house.
Neither proposition is capable of being described as a fact. Yet John Omlor asserts dogmatically that it is: “a fact, the Poste House didn’t exist at the time, although it does now, and is therefore a textual anachronism”. Such certainty, and so clearly wrong.
The above random examples no doubt could be replicated in towns and cities throughout the land. It is therefore a matter of historical fact that post or posting houses could be called “the Post House” or “the Posting House” in 1888/9.
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 504
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 9:52 am: |
|
robertjsmith
So I have had a look at a couple of relevant
books on my shelves, and found with ease the following examples of coaching inns, where the dominant name was “post house” or “posting house” (they mean precisely the same).
They may mean the same, but surely wording, not meaning, is what we're examining.
All but one of the examples are of "posting" houses, not "post" houses. And as for the remaining one, Thomas Rowlandson was born in the mid-18th century and died a decade before James Maybrick was born.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1116
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 10:16 am: |
|
Is it me or... it probably is!
Anyway,
Hi Robert,
Yes I accept as a given that post houses (sorry Post Houses) were places that did exist and were refered to by that name. They were probably refered to this in the yrs 1850 -1889 (in my opinion the right time for Maybrick to call it that)
here's where we are less clear or worried even, that there was such a place in Liverpool (now it seems likely that there was since Liverpool had post!). How Maybrick spelt the word 'post(e)'
I've said it once today but I'll say it again, I think there are other issues that are far more important, I activated those threads this morning (ie Handwriting) because I am starting to wonder if we can all ever agree about the post house!!
Anyway
Cheers for now
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 854
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 11:16 am: |
|
More fanciful smoke to cover over the simple fact that the diary names, exactly, the uniquely spelled proper name of a pub right there in Liverpool where the diary takes place.
Denial of the obvious is a powerful thing.
Now then, my best friend Robert writes:
"The central contention of Messrs Omlor and Phillips is that they have been unable to identify on the internet a pub in England called the Poste House, apart from the one in Cumberland Street."
NONSENSE. This is not MY central contention in any case.
MY central contention is much simpler, much more obvious, much more direct, much more rational.
MY central contention is that A means A.
MY central contention is that the Poste House means the Poste House.
MY central contention is that the diarist names a pub right there in his own town and that it wasn't until someone pointed out that this makes the diary a fake that Robert and the others pimping this fake book starting scrambling around looking for another more fanciful and elaborate reading in order to save their collective asses.
MY central contention is that reading a comparatively simple act in this case since the book names a place, using the exact same uniquely spelled and written name, that actually exists.
MY central contention is that ignoring this simple fact is silly an act of willful desire rather than reading.
Robert writes:
"It is therefore a matter of historical fact that post or posting houses could be called 'the Post House' or 'the Posting House' in 1888/9."
Uh, it is "a matter of historical fact" that the diarist did not write either of these names, whether or not this has even been established as any sort of "fact" at all.
It is "a matter of historical fact" that the diarist actually wrote the uniquely spelled and written name of a pub that was actually there and that unless an indescribable miracle occurred and a 19th century writer changed the spelling and the name of a pub in exactly the way necessary to reproduce the uniquely spelled and written name of the pub he could not have known anything about for another hundred years, Robert's book is a fake.
On the other hand, all that is necessary for the case for forgery to be made is that A means A. All that is necessary is a simple logical, common sense act of reading that sees the name, sees the exact same uniquely spelled and written name of the pub and is able to read and to recognize that thee two are identical and that A means A.
It's actually embarrassing how much time and energy is being put into selling the hope that this book is anything other than the obviously cheap fake it is.
And I do wish some people would stop for a moment and ask themselves whether it isn't time to agree with all the experts and admit that we have a fake on our hands and that it should be relegated to the trash heap of Riper history where it belongs.
But I know that's not going to happen any time soon.
And I know why.
With just a touch of a bad taste in my mouth over this whole sad affair and those who keep making excuses for it,
--John
PS: Jenni, don’t let them deliberately sell you the snake oil. It’s not that complicated. Read the words, look at the name of the pub, look at the location, and use your common sense. That’s all any of us needs to do.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1119
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 11:25 am: |
|
John,
it doesn't matter where the post house was, the diary is still not written in James Maybrick's handwriting.
Jenni
ps actually I do have a bad taste in my mouth, the most bizarre thing happened I put ice cream in a glass and it melted the paint off the side - that left a bad taste, nothing to do with the diary but an illustration of my mad/crazy life!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 506
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 4:09 pm: |
|
Caroline Anne Morris
As I have already explained, I will be going to Liverpool to check the previous research done by others, that I mentioned here, including whether or not The Old Post Office pub was ever a coaching inn. I have already given myself a severe flogging, and locked myself in the broom cupboard (to deprive myself of the joy of spending my entire weekend responding to every post here), as punishment for repeating a snippet of information that I hadn’t already succeeded in confirming to my own satisfaction.
Well, I'm pleased to hear that.
I sort of concluded from your previous post that you didn't have any first-hand evidence for your statement, but I was still hoping to glean a hint of what second-hand evidence you had relied on.
If I had to guess, I'd guess it was because Robert Smith had said it was a coaching inn. But of course that may be an outrageous assumption on my part.
In a sane world, I still think you or Robert would have reacted in some way to the information that the Old Post Office does not appear - under that or any other name - in trade directories from the late 1850s. But of course we're not in a sane world here.
Assuming The Old Post Office pub was not a coaching inn/post house, but still assuming it would have inherited this official name on account of the old post office which once occupied an adjacent site, it is still a reasonable proposition that it was referred to as the ‘post house’ by its 1888 regulars – even more reasonable considering Rigby’s landlord assumed this pub was what his enquirer meant by the ‘post house’.
Rather than flagellation, perhaps a suitable penance for past errors would be to refrain from further speculation along these lines, until you have at least confirmed from contemporary records that the Old Post Office was at least a pub in 1888.
Once we know the place existed, then will be the time to give rein to the stallions of speculation.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 860
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 5:33 pm: |
|
Chris,
If you can get Caroline or Robert to "refrain from further speculation along these lines" about all things diary related, including but not limited to the Poste House line, the tin matchbox line, the Crashaw line, the mistakes about the murders, the handwriting and the lack of provenance (all of which, without such desperate speculation, point directly to a forgery), you will have accomplished the ultimate in Diary World tasks.
And yours will the be the world and all that is in it.
In admiration, but not optimism,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 509
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 5:51 pm: |
|
John
My aim was far more modest than that.
I just hoped that people could refrain from speculating that the diarist might have meant the "Old Post Office" until they had taken the elementary - and very easy - step of checking whether the "Old Post Office" was a pub in 1888.
That seems reasonable to me, but admittedly perhaps I'm still being too optimistic.
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1274
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 1:28 pm: |
|
Hi Chris P,
I will try to do that small - and very easy - thing.
And meanwhile, you can KFC that the pub which, I am informed, was established circa 1800 and situated on a site adjacent to Liverpool's first post office, and was a pub in 1997, and, I am also informed, was understood by a former coaching inn's landlord to be the 'post house' his enquirer was asking about, was not a pub in 1888, and could not have been referred to as the 'post house' by anyone at that date.
John must want you to stop us speculating and accumulating very badly, to promise you the world and all that is in it if you succeed.
And there was I, thinking it didn't matter whether we speculated or accumulated more info, or a bit of both, because it could never alter John's truth - that the diarist meant the 'Poste House' in Cumberland Street.
Love,
Caz
X
|
MF
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 4:13 pm: |
|
East Of Eden (1952)
Ch. 51[2]
Events described take place in or around 1917:
...Lee came back into the room.
"He's going to the post office. We never get mail in mid-afternoon. Nobody does. But every man in Salinas goes to the post office in the afternoon."
"Some get a drink on the way," said Cal.
"I guess it's kind of a habit..."
Amazing what you can find at the library, eh? |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
