|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 331
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 5:28 pm: |       |
Ask Chris Phillips and John Omlor.
They both said, or at least implied, that if the scratches were in the watch back in 1992, before Albert bought it, Maybrick has to be The Ripper. And who am I to doubt them?
Just so no one gets hold of the wrong end of the stick. If I did say anything like that, it would have been to make the point that - because there's abundant evidence against the diary's genuineness - I'd require very strong evidence before believing that the scratches predated the diary publicity. And we've seen no good evidence for this at all.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 332
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 5:32 pm: | |
Caz
If the ripper scratches in the watch were already there by July 14 1992 (that magic date again), Chris Phillips and John Omlor would believe that Maybrick must have been Jack the Ripper.
I wish you'd just stop putting words into people's mouths!
If you have what I said in front of you, why don't you just quote it accurately? If not, please don't produce some inaccurate paraphrase from memory.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on June 12, 2004) |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 349
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 5:40 pm: | |
Hey,
Even I get a mention. Of course, I have no idea what Caroline is quoting or what the context is or anything at all like that, but for the record -- Maybrick was definitely NOT the killer. Period. No matter what she thinks about any scratches on any watch or how she reads or misreads any report. I have never said anything else.
In case anyone had any doubts.
Ah, wait.
I read Caroline's original post again.
Excellent.
Dear readers,
(If there are any still out there.)
Here's a lesson on how diary debates work.
You must pay attention to every little word.
Here's four of them for you:
"...or at least implied..."
You see, as I suspected, I never actually said any such thing. But by writing "or at least implied," Caroline can blissfully pretend that I did, or that she thinks I did, so that she can get out of her argument with Ally by invoking my sacred name (and Chris's) rather than answering for herself. And when pressed, she can always construct some interpretation of our words that she thinks implied something we never said.
It's a thing of beauty, isn't it?
Completely deceitful, of course. And without an ounce of anything but bad faith. But a rhetorically and strategically well-practiced maneuver to gain apparent advantage.
It seems some people have gotten quite good at such linguistic slight-of-hand.
It's almost a shame to reveal the trick.
Anyway, since she mentions the watch and the scratches, I should point out once again that no scientist has ever or will ever be given unlimited access to the watch for examination.
Conclude from that what you will.
And no scientist will ever again see the diary.
Conclude from that what you will.
And Caroline will be back shortly to explain how I really did "imply" what she says I did regardless of what I actually said and regardless of what I am now telling you all about my own position.
Conclude from that what you will.
And still nothing has changed and still this is a only a pretend game about power and faux self-righteousness and still there will be no tests done and no one will really care all that much, including Caroline, and still the book is a fake and still this thread lives on like a monster in a 50's science fiction series "It was the thread that WOULD NOT DIE!!!!"
Two things I know for sure. Maybrick wasn't the Ripper and Caroline isn't really concerned about Gerard Kane's reputation.
This is about something else entirely. And that is now clear for all to see.
There's more than one meaning for the word "fake."
That's the lesson, folks.
Thanks for playing.
All the best,
--John
PS: The posts from Caroline and Chris above appeared as I was writing this one. They should dramatically demonstrate to you all just how accurate my analysis of what's going on here has been. Excellent.
(Message edited by omlor on June 12, 2004)
(Message edited by omlor on June 12, 2004) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1096
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 6:59 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
…I don't think anyone is suggesting Murphy produced the Maybrick scratches himself. Why should he go to all that trouble and then sell the watch?
Posted by you on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 4:07 am.
But I don't really see how it's possible for it [the watch with its scratches] to be old and a fake anyway.
Posted by you on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 3:49 pm.
(4) And now we have the finding that "H 9/3" (or "H 9 3" or whatever) is engraved top of the "J" of "I am Jack".
I'd like to know more about (4), but the uncertainties would have to be disposed of in an extremely convincing manner before it would convince me that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper - because to all intents and purposes, that's what it would amount to!
Posted by you on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 12:30 pm.
Now, all I’m saying is that if the ripper scratches were indeed in the watch before Murphy acquired it (with the obvious implication that the diary could hardly then be a late 1980s/early 1990s hoax), you seem to have implied here that it would follow that Maybrick had to be the ripper.
And John Omlor also seemed very taken with an unnamed ripper expert’s view that if the diary wasn’t a post-1987 hoax it had to be genuine, because of the reference to the empty tin match box.
But maybe I just got the wrong end of both sticks, or views have since changed. If so, I apologise.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Brian Rice
Police Constable
Username: Saucy
Post Number: 2
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 9:43 pm: | |
John,
You indeed make a valid point regarding historical documents, and the validity for the scientific community. I guess the difference between my insight and yours hinges on these (or any) documents as scientifically and historically authentic versus legally authentic. This is not too hard to understand considering what (little) I know of your background, and my background.
While I sense you aggravation with this post, I know I need not tell you that hope is not lost. I enjoy these posts not just for arguing "who dunnit?", but also to get with like minded individuals discussing differences of opinion as it relates not only to JTR, but also different aspects of history, sociology, and criminal justice. You could only imagine my frustration in attempting to speak of these things with the people in my sleepy little community west of Atlanta.
Besides, you must agree some of the passive aggressive tendencies of some of the contributors are quite humorous.
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 350
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 10:40 pm: | |
Hi Brian,
There's no doubt at all about the humor in this silliness. Some of these posts are classics for their manipulation and for the mock-indignation and colossally false bravado and for their posing and for their rhetorical game playing.
Take, just for instance, the latest beauty from Caroline, in which, because I cited a well-known and as yet unrefuted expert's published work which argued that the tin matchbox line and at least two other items in the diary prove that it can only be, as he put it so logically, either genuine or written after this material was available to the general public, because I repeated his still unchallenged argument here, Caroline has me saying something about watch scratches and Maybrick being the killer. Never mind that I pointed out in post after post for year after year all the things in the diary that exclude that possibility or that I've always argued exclusively for the only other one that makes any logical or evidentiary sense. The record, undeniable as it is, is irrelevant. She needed a way out of her argument with Ally and so she made up one up, creating a completely bogus reading of my words along the way and having no ethical concerns at all, apparently, about deceiving every potential reader in the process.
The marks that such a maneuver gets for sheer brazenness alone make it worth studying, if only as a model of how not to read responsibly, but purely out of self-interest.
Oh yes, there's another phrase -- "obvious implication" -- not so well hidden in her latest offering that once again reveals how many leaps she has to make in order to construct this most utterly twisted and completely bastardized reading of my work.
It's no wonder she has no problem finding things in reports that she so desperately wants to find there, whether they are there or not.
See, Brian, what some people can't admit here is that they too know that the book is fake, and that nothing will ever be thoroughly tested anyway, and that there are real reasons for this, and that in the end all this conversation here amounts to is moves on a language chess board and nothing else. It is simply an electronic circle jerk, a long, completely ineffective and largely pointless thread of self-gratification.
Caroline doesn't care a whit about Gerard Kane's reputation. Nor is she troubled by the fact that no scientist will ever get unlimited access to the watch or be allowed to properly reexamine the diary. Nor does she have any problems at all with completely and deliberately mischaracterizing another's position, a position which has been made clear, as she herself puts it, ad nauseam.
Because this is really only about the arguments right here, right now, the battle for rhetorical "king-of-the-hill." And about keeping hope alive, of course.
It will change nothing.
Nothing will be done.
And when this thread finally ends, not with a bang, but with a whimper, nothing at all will have changed. The book will still be a fake. Some will still not admit it. No tests will be done on anything. And this will all start up again on another thread in a week or two, with the exact same result.
It's sad but true.
And just to prove the point, I'm sure Caroline will be along like clockwork tomorrow morning.
Enjoy the coming Sunday and all the best,
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 333
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 5:45 am: | |
Caz
Well thanks for at least quoting part of what I wrote this time:
Just to put it in a meaningful context, what I said was:
I don't believe the diary is genuine - I think there's string evidence against its genuineness. Therefore I think it's reasonable to expect very strong evidence before I'm willing to accept that the scratches are decades old.
The evidence that's been put forward in favour of the scratches being at least older than the purchase of the watch by Albert Johnson are:
[claimed evidence outlined]
I'd like to know more about (4), but the uncertainties would have to be disposed of in an extremely convincing manner before it would convince me that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper - because to all intents and purposes, that's what it would amount to!
I believe this is entirely consistent with what I said yesterday, but whether anyone would have got an accurate impression of what I'd said from either of the ways you referred to it, I doubt.
This is another perfect illustration of why people are unwilling to accept the second-hand claims about the scientific reports on the watch, until they have seen the text for themselves.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on June 13, 2004) |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 334
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 2:31 pm: | |
Caz
And while you can perhaps claim that you were technically correct about what I had implied - though I still think the way it was presented was wholly dishonest - you are apparently completely unable to back up what you claimed John Omlor had said.
I hope you will now withdraw that claim, and apologise to John for misrepresenting his position.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 351
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 4:10 pm: | |
Chris,
This is me, typing, but certainly not holding my breath.
Caroline will attempt some patently lame and tortured explanation about my earlier having cited an expert and therefore somehow suggesting myself that the two possibilities for the diary are genuine or modern and therefore, somehow, I was also talking about the watch in some way so I must have been implying... etc etc etc.
It's all shameful and completely manipulative and irresponsible, of course. And bears no real relationship to anything I believe or have ever actually written. The record is clear and my own position has been repeated endlessly all over the boards of course. But that won't stop her.
As you know, I've been here before with this crowd.
In the meantime, on a brighter note, I think we do now have a reliable way of determining precisely what the watch reports say even before they are published.
Given the way Caroline has "read" and interpreted our words above, I think we can be fairly confident in employing a new method for determining the reports' actual meaning.
We'll examine what it is that Caz thinks the reports say.
And then we'll know that they must say the opposite.
It's a pattern that, given the reading she does above of our words, now seems pretty well-established and reliable.
I'm glad that at least something good has come out of this unfortunate discussion.
All the best,
--John
PS: Now that you too have been so misrepresented and misread in the name of keeping hope alive, you get a jacket and can join the club. I'll e-mail you with the address to send your dues. 
(Message edited by omlor on June 13, 2004) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1097
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 4:48 am: | |
Hi All,
So, in conclusion, if (that little emphasised word of mine that causes so much trouble here) the ripper scratches were there in the days when Ron Murphy held the watch in his hands, as both authors of the watch reports suggest (and my imagination sadly doesn't stretch to a scenario in which Albert Johnson had H 9 3 and 1275 neatly engraved over his own hoax, all planned and executed during May 1993), then I fail to see what all this fuss and indignation is about.
Are Chris and John O seriously saying that if this turns out to have been the case, they will stand by their beliefs about the age of the diary? If so, I admire their tenacity and look forward to hearing how the whole thing fits together.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1098
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 5:39 am: | |
'We'll examine what it is that Caz thinks the [watch] reports say.
And then we'll know that they must say the opposite.'
Whatever gives you comfort.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 335
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 6:24 am: | |
Caz
Do you agree John didn't in fact say what you claimed, or anything like it?
If not, I really fail to see the point in prolonging the discussion. The rambling games and diversionary tactics are irritating enough, but if you're just going to make up whatever takes your fancy ...
Chris Phillips
|
Peter R. A. Birchwood
Sergeant
Username: Pbirchwood
Post Number: 38
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 6:52 am: | |
Everybody:
I have in the past said many things about Caroline Anne Morris. If anyone bothers to check out the Casebook disc they will be able to find them. They will also be able to find all of the details concerning the handwriting examples of Gerard Kane which I believe I scanned on to the boards years ago when I had a lot more time to attend to this nonsense.
Much to my regret, on coming out of hospital yesterday I found not only her habitual craziness but numerous attempts to bring me into this thing. Not only that, but invitations from her and others to email me. This is not appreciated: such emails will be treated in much the same way as the junk mail that I get every day. Before the meeting at Oxford with Keith Skinner, Shirley Harrison and Chris George I mad it plain that I would not go anywhere if Mrs Morris was also invited. I gave Keith copies of the documents and he certainly knows the provenance. Maybe he didn't discuss matters with Mrs. Morris?
If, as seems likely from Mrs Morris' ramblings, there have been private emails mentioning my name in a derogatory fashion, then I suggest that the persons concerned find something else to do with their time.
The best thing of course would be for everyone to ignore completely whatever Mrs. Morris says about anything concerned with Maybrick. Then we can get back to the peace and relative tranquility of some months ago when she was apparently gainfully employed. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 351
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 7:02 am: | |
Therefore I apologise to you Peter for emailing you and hope you are now well.
regards (and yes I'm getting off this thread again now)
Jennifer |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 352
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 7:19 am: | |
Hi Chris,
Who says human beings can't see the future?
Did I call it, or what?
Caroline knows full well that "all this fuss and indignation" is about her willingness, indeed her eagerness to distort and misread and misrepresent and even simply make-up other people's positions, simply for her own momentary rhetorical effect (and to get out of an argument, in this case).
That deceitful practice has now been clearly demonstrated for all to see.
Of course, I said nothing at all that in any way remotely resembles what she claimed I said. Of course, my position has always been perfectly clear concerning the diary and the possibility of the diary being original and Maybrick being the Ripper. Of course, my citations of the still unrefuted expert concerning the tin match box line had nothing at all to do with the watch or Caroline's belief about what some watch reports might or not not actually say or any other similar nonsense.
And it's interesting, since no one in the diary crowd has any even possible explanation for how the line from an unpublished until modern times police report got in the diary (What, we are now supposed to believe Maybrick saw the police report on his own crimes somehow?), what we see is simply a diversion -- a quick leap to the watch silliness because they can't answer the question about the line in the text.
And of course, no scientist has ever been given unlimited access to the watch, nor will they.
But none of this is the issue here. The issue remains Caroline's willful and deliberate and completely shameless misreading and her now clearly apparent tendency to make things up concerning what other people have written or believe, simply because it suits her momentary purpose.
I learned a long time ago that there is no way to have a rational discussion with someone (or to trust what they write) if they are not bound by at least some responsibility to what they read.
Clearly, Caroline is not.
Consequently, I'm afraid you're right about the possibility of any discussion with her ever being either useful or meaningful.
Now "fanciful" and "amusing," those are other things entirely.
Meanwhile, I'm off to Disney again for a few days of theme parking with my nieces. I may or may not be able to get to a machine at the hotel. If so, I'll happily continue reading to see if Caroline has any rational defense for her original invocation of my name in such a completely misleading context.
If I can't find my way to one, enjoy the next three days everyone. I'm sure things will be exactly like they are right now when I return on Wednesday night.
The diary will not be in the hands of any scientist or lab anywhere.
No examiner will have been given unlimited access to the watch.
No tests will be scheduled for anything.
The book will still be a fake.
And those who won't admit it in public will still be around, using desperate rhetorical gestures to keep hope alive.
As they say over at Hudsucker Industries:
The future is now.
All the best,
--John
PS: Peter, your post appeared as I was writing mine. I hope you are feeling well. You offer us sound advice indeed concerning what is being said here. My best wishes for a speedy recovery.
(Message edited by omlor on June 14, 2004)
(Message edited by omlor on June 14, 2004) |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 763
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 1:13 pm: | |
Hi, Peter
Sorry to hear you have not been well. I hope you are on the mend. My best to you and to Maria.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 63
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 2:30 pm: | |
I'm still trying my hardest to work out the weird logic of all this. Maybrick didn't write the diary so the watch scratches can't be old?
No wonder we aren't getting anywhere.
Please!
Paul |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 376
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 2:45 pm: | |
Ok Paul
(yes I know I may have said more than once I was getting off this thread)
I agree just because the diary may be fake does not mean the watch is automatically fake.
I would boldly go further and state that just because both may be fake still doesn't mean James Maybrick was not jack the ripper. Not to say i think he was.
Cheers
Jennifer |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 357
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 5:08 pm: | |
Paul,
I've read through all the messages on these boards and I can only find one contributor whose prose insists on directly linking the question of date of the scratches and the question of the diary's authenticity.
And it's not me.
And it's not Chris.
As for why we aren't getting anywhere...
No scientist will ever be given unlimited access to the watch. No scientist or lab will ever again see the diary. No tests on anyone's handwriting will be done. No one is likely to suddenly confess. The police aren't interested. And sensible scholars all already know the book's an inaccurate and ahistorical fake.
And you wonder why we aren't getting anywhere?
I don't.
--John
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 300
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 7:58 pm: | |
And of course those scientists who had a chance to examine the watch DID call for more tests...
(And the diary STILL isn't in Maybrick's writing. Odd, that.) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1102
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 12:26 pm: | |
Hi John H,
I thought the main object of recommending more extensive tests on the watch scratches was so that the 'several decades old' conclusion might be improved upon - ie defined more accurately - not turned into a 'several months old at most' conclusion.
I suspect it might take far more than a huge second mortgage to achieve the latter.
And why would anyone pay out a small fortune when they see here that wishful thinking has already achieved it for some, and for free?
Hi All,
I have been informed that Peter Birchwood wishes me to state for the record that he does not wish to be disturbed with any requests for information about the Kane samples, or the people who were involved with obtaining or holding onto them. I am happy to do that and to apologise to Peter for any inconvenience caused.
I misinterpreted a post Peter wrote earlier this year, in which he informed RJ Palmer and the Maybrick board that he could provide contact details on request for most of those involved with the diary and watch sagas. I presumed - wrongly - that this was a general offer of help, rather than restricted to RJ's question about Robbie Johnson's body, which Albert Johnson is obviously in the best position to have addressed.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by Caz on June 19, 2004) |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 338
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 2:08 pm: | |
And why would anyone pay out a small fortune when they see here that wishful thinking has already achieved it for some, and for free?
Caz accuses "some" of wishful thinking. Seen from the other side, her own viewpoint could scarcely be better described than as wishful thinking.
Unfortunately, three months on it's looking increasingly unlikely that the reports are going to see the light of day, so maybe we'll never know for sure ...
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 360
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 4:58 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
Yes.
And, of course, when the question of testing comes up, there's always generic excuse number 3: "It's too expensive."
Learn not from what is said, my friends. Learn from what is done. And what is not.
All the best,
--John |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 302
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 5:49 pm: | |
Caz,
"I thought the main object of recommending more extensive tests on the watch scratches was so that the 'several decades old' conclusion might be improved upon - ie defined more accurately - not turned into a 'several months old at most' conclusion."
Er, no. In fact Turgoose quite specifically said that they could in fact be of recent origin. He thought they might be old, but wanted to confirm that possibility by further research.
Wild's conclusions were highly speculative at best, and based largely upon factors he admittedly did not understand and didn't have quantitative data upon which a meaningfull comparison could be based.
Given the stipulations and caveats in those reports, further study is required before any claim of age can be taken seriously. Anything else is, as you put it, wishful thinking.
(Message edited by jhacker on June 19, 2004) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1103
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 3:01 am: | |
Hi John H,
What's 'confirm that possibility' mean? The possibility is already there, surely.
But no wishful thinking on my part. I don't care if the scratches were made in 1993, I just don't think the possibility is there from a practical, evidential and Johnsonian point of view. 
Chris,
If waiting three little months bothers you so much, perhaps you should learn a bit more patience. I waited eight years for my only child. And she was well worth it.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 339
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 4:05 am: | |
Caz
For the umpteenth time, I'm not being impatient (except with your eternal games-playing on these boards). I have no reason to think the reports are going to be any more conclusive than Shirley Harrison or John Hacker have thought them to be, and I certainly won't be heartbroken if they remain unpublished.
What irritates me is the inflated claims that are being made on these boards, on the basis of evidence that is probably being misinterpreted by those who do have access to it.
But to address perhaps the most interesting point about this saga - just who is it who is having to think so long and hard about the consequences, before giving permission for the reports to be published?
Chris Phillips
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 303
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 5:51 am: | |
Caz,
"But no wishful thinking on my part. I don't care if the scratches were made in 1993, I just don't think the possibility is there from a practical, evidential and Johnsonian point of view."
That is wishful thinking to my mind. Its a highly speculative position which is based not on evidence, but a subjective interpretation of events, personalities, and abilities that carries no weight as objective evidence. We've been down this road before and I don't find that approach particularly convincing.
As far as I'm concerned the jury is still out on the watch issue, and I don't think that the reports will settle much of anything when they're made available.
Regards,
John
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 363
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 8:59 am: | |
Caroline mentions "waiting three little months."
What were the dates on those reports again?
Just wondering,
--John
(who's not even going to ask when the last test on the diary was done) |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 79
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 12:15 am: | |
Good morning one and all.
A couple of months ago I registered on the boards after years of silent and intermittent observation. Since registering I have avoided the whole Diary issue although I did read most of the dissertations for and against.
Imagine my surprise this morning when i clicked an the inoccuous (is that how you spell it?) title in the left hand bar "Suspects: The Handwriting". I really thought we were going to be discussing ripper letters or some such. So I have unwittingly found myself re-reading this thread for the last little while.
First let me say I own and have read both Shirley Harrison's and Paul Feldman's books. At the time of reading them I was less informed on the case than I am now (although they were by no means my first contact with it) and I found them to make some compelling and persuasive arguements. I currently have grave doubts about the provenance of the diary and the watch but do not feel as though the case has been proven either way.
I think that John Hacker had the right idea a couple of weeks ago (I hope i am reading you right John as I certainly do not wish to offend) in stating that "it's evidence and it should be evaluated". I concurr wholeheartedly with this philosophy. It is often underestimated how much such testing would cost, I promise you if I had the funds I would attempt such a venture myself but I do not.
I promise this: "If I ever win the lottery I will do what it takes and spend what it costs to have both the watch and the diary tested by independant sources if it is within my power to do so."
Stop laughing.
I know that I will in almost complete certainty never be in this situation (although I do buy a ticket every week) but I believe it is just such an open minded approach which would be required to further any such discussion on this subject. Unless such an approach is taken in the future then I am afraid that John V. Omlor is right and all efforts are futile.
Now I slink back from this thread into obscurity.
(PS: John, huge Pinter fan here, nothing to be done!)
Scotty. |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 364
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 7:16 am: | |
Hi Scotty,
Thanks for the thoughts. Unfortunately, it's not just funding that you'd need to get everything properly retested. But that's another discussion, for private e-mail if you'd like.
I noticed you are from Australia. You might be interested to know that a year or two ago, on the old boards I believe, someone showed up here claiming that he knew Anne in Australia way back when she was younger and that she talked about such a plan back then. I don't remember the contributor's name and I never did learn what happened to him (he seems to have vanished some time ago without ever producing any real evidence or backing up his claims in any way). Perhaps others know what became of the whole thing. But I do remember that little odd Aussie moment in our history.
Enjoy the boards,
--John
|
Jim DiPalma
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 82
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 11:07 am: | |
Hi All,
John, the fellow you're thinking of was named Steve Powell. As I recall his story, he claimed to have known Anne Barrett nee Graham in Australia in the late '60s, when she was a young nursing student. He claimed she was talking about a Jack the Ripper diary way back then. The importance of this story to the diary saga is that it lent credence to the later provenance claims, the "it's been in the family for years" story.
I seem to recall from reviewing Shirley Harrison's latest book that Mrs. Harrison made some attempt to follow-up with Steve Powell. I can't recall if she stated that she was unable to re-establish contact, or that she did and he wasn't able to substantiate his story. In any event, to my knowledge nothing ever came of it.
Cheers,
Jim |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 365
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 11:24 am: | |
Hi Jim,
Yes. Steve. That was it. I was never quite sure what he was claiming about Anne. It all seemed confused to me.
Anyway, as you say it must not have amounted to anything.
I've sent Scotty private mail about the testing issue.
In the meantime, the song remains the same.
All the best,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1106
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 8:40 am: | |
Hi Chris,
You wrote:
What irritates me is the inflated claims that are being made on these boards, on the basis of evidence that is probably being misinterpreted by those who do have access to it.
I can’t help it if you choose to be irritated as a result of your own guesswork and speculation about ‘inflated’ claims being made here, and people ‘probably’ misinterpreting the evidence. What ‘inflated’ claims do you believe I have made, and where is your evidence that they were either inflated, or based on misinterpretation? Unless you have already read the full reports, and believe they – together with all the available witness testimony - favour a 1993 hoax (and even John Hacker has not said as much), you are hardly in a position to judge, so your irritation must be entirely of your own making.
You also wrote:
But to address perhaps the most interesting point about this saga - just who is it who is having to think so long and hard about the consequences, before giving permission for the reports to be published?
No one. It went beyond the permissions stage some time ago, and only the where, how and when are still being considered, as far as I have been made aware. Strange as it may seem, Caz has no control whatsoever over what eventually gets tested or published, where and how, and what doesn’t, whether we are talking about the wretched Kane samples (which no amount of long, hard thought has converted from mere gossip fodder to supporting evidence for a modern forgery), the diary or watch, or reports concerning all three. But I will be highly delighted to see more information being made available if it may help resolve anything, and I will do whatever is within my limited means to help make that happen.
And no doubt you will continue to be irritated by whatever it is you assume I am doing or not doing, that I shouldn’t or should be doing, while you sit and speculate about the evidence.
I can assure you that any games I am playing are purely in your own mind.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 370
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 9:09 am: | |
Chris,
Your mind is not alone.
Just so you know,
--John |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 305
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 10:23 am: | |
Caz,
"I can’t help it if you choose to be irritated as a result of your own guesswork and speculation about ‘inflated’ claims being made here, and people ‘probably’ misinterpreting the evidence."
I agree with Chris as well on a few points. I'm not going to point any fingers, but there are some real howlers in the watch archives. I would assume that they're simply the result of misreading what the reports say, as opposed to deliberately inflated claims. (In particular there seems to be some confusion regarding some of the more technical details such as, hydrocarbon contamination, silver enrichment, etc...) I could post some prime examples of this, along with corresponding quotes from the reports, but it's not going to get us anywhere.
All,
As it sounds like the reports are soon to be available and we can all make our own judgments on what they mean, the best we can all do is relax, sit back, have a lovely drink of your personal choice, and enjoy the weekend. We'll all be able to come to our own conclusions soon enough.
For myself, I'm going to go watch some saturday morning cartoons with my son and dread the lawn work that awaits. Danger Mouse beats mowing the lawn or watch speculating any day.
Have a good weekend boys and girls,
John |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 341
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 12:10 pm: | |
Caz
Well, I've heard of people being self-centred, but why, when "inflated claims on these boards" are mentioned, do you make an automatic assumption that it's all about you?
Mind, you, if you feel the cap fits ...
Ditto, this stuff about your having no control over the printing of the reports is a bit off the mark. Whoever suggested you did have?
I was just asking who withheld their permission (or didn't give it, or whatever logic-chopping circumlocution you prefer) and prevented - at the last minute - the stuff being printed in Ripperologist 3 or 4 months ago. If your last update on the situation didn't mean they were still thinking about whether to give their permission, I don't know what it did mean ...
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 404
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 6:18 am: | |
John H, (slightly off topic)
Danger mouse beats most things.
Cheers
Jennifer
Uncle Bulgaria,He can remember the days when he wasn't behind The Times.....
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1115
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 6:23 am: | |
Hi Chris,
I can't win with you, can I? If I'm not one of those who has made inflated claims and misinterpreted unpublished evidence, I'm self-centred for imagining you could possibly have been including me in such an accusation.
I have already provided you with all the information I have to offer regarding permissions and publication of the watch reports. Like you, I didn't (and don't) fully understand the complexities of the process, and the various concerns of the decision makers. But the important thing is that, as far as I am aware, they will all be happy to see the reports published, and they will be published.
Jenn, you're not the only one slightly off topic. That pesky watch shouldn't be showing its face on this diary handwriting thread, should it?
Carry on chaps.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 379
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 6:40 am: | |
Caroline writes,
"That pesky watch shouldn't be showing its face on this diary handwriting thread, should it?"
Yes, I wonder how that happened.
And I wonder why.
Perhaps we'll all have to scroll up and read.
--John (who just did)
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1116
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 2:27 pm: | |
Hi John,
You only had to read my latest post to Chris and Jennifer to see that I was admitting to being off topic. It was, er, exclusively about - the watch.
Just like the larch, of Monty Python fame, it will keep coming back - until someone addresses in detail just how their 1993 hoax conspiracy idea could have worked in real life, and if they cannot or will not do this, just how the diary idea could have come to life in the late 1980s while the watch, complete with H 9 3 and 1275 neatly engraved atop the Maybrick/ripper marks, was sitting innocently in the premises of an equally innocent jeweller.
Forcing myself back on topic while I wait, there is that other little matter of still having no penman for your Michael Caine-inspired composition.
But no one appears to be too troubled by the absence of this particular beast, which may be why my thoughts turned naturally again to the watch, and the beast who made his marks inside it and has us puzzling over them.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by Caz on June 29, 2004) |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 380
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 5:36 pm: | |
Caroline, here on the handwriting thread, admits to having returned to her pet watch issue, and then says:
"Just like the larch, of Monty Python fame, it will keep coming back..."
Yes, and we know why that is, don't we?
Because there's no answer for the book being in the wrong handwriting.
Because there's no answer for the presence of the tin matchbox line.
Because there's no answer for the impossible miracle of the Liverpool library.
Because there's no answer for why neither item has been properly and thoroughly retested.
Because there's no answer for the ahistorical details in the text.
Because there's no answer for the complete lack of provenance.
Because there's no answer for....
Well, you get the idea.
Whenever stuck, mention the watch and your particular interpretation of the unpublished reports offered by scientists who wanted and were not given more time with the material and qualified all their findings.
Because there're no answers for all the rest.
And because desire won't allow some people to admit that all the real evidence concerning this book points exclusively in one direction, away from authenticity and towards a fake.
It's a cheap and diversionary ploy, but it changes nothing.
Probably, this is because nothing has changed.
Still.
And some people here need something, anything, to talk about amidst all this stagnation.
Let's not forget what's happening and what's not.
Always willing to remind anyone who asks,
--John
|
H.Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 4:29 am: | |
A short and hazy interuption from my hibernation.
'While the watch,complete with H 9 3 and 1275 neatly engraved atop the Maybrick/ripper marks,was sitting innocently in the premises of an equally innocent jeweller'.
My remembrance is that Albert was the first to identify scratch marks as letters,at a date later than the watch being at the jeweller's.
Back to slumber. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1118
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 7:48 am: | |
Read that whole paragraph again, Harry. It's an either/or situation. If one can't explain how a 1993 hoax would, or even could work, with the available evidence, how can one justify an opinion that those letters weren't already there in 1992?
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 384
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 8:14 am: | |
What thread are we on again?
Oh yes, I remember.
Well, since no arguments remain to defend the authenticity of the diary, since all the evidence points clearly and exclusively to the fact it's a fake, and since neither the watch nor the diary is likely ever to be tested again, I guess the last gasp that is some people's subjective readings of some old and still unpublished watch reports will be all that is possible here.
It's good to know where things stand.
In the meantime, nothing anyone anywhere has ever written in any way precludes the likelihood of a modern forgery created around the time of the centennial.
And still nothing has changed in any way and yet the discussion continues despite it being purely and simply repetitive and now reduced to a single desperate issue, the last gasp of desire from the defenders.
And still the reports that everyone agreed shouldn't be discussed are all that's left for those who have no other hope to discuss.
Diary World is a strange and wonderfully circular place, where nothing new or real ever happens but people talk about nothing happening all the time.
All built, like that other amusement kingdom, around obvious fakes.
I'll be fascinated to see how long this particularly desperate rhetorical pattern continues,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 450
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 9:17 am: | |
Hi,
glad to see this argument has been solved. Let 's move on...how about the meaning of life or how the universe began.
In all seriousness though, may I say if you do believe (this sentence doesn't apply to you John so skip on!) then perhaps the thing to do is to treat the diary and watch seperatly...perhaps the watch is a better bet...perhaps it has been tainted by the diary. This is not the thread to talk about the watch.
John (hi start here!) in all seriousness I am sure many unpublished reports exist in the world. The ones in question do they really have anything to do with the diary. What will you say if they prove you wrong? Does that make it James' handwriting. Everything in isolation! It's too complex...one thing at a time.
Just because one or other may be proved fake (and I know it hasn't been) doesn't mean the other is fake. Just because both are fake (ditto above brackets) does this mean JTR cannot be James Maybrick?
I repeat for the sake of clarity that I do not think James Maybrick was JTR. (Though I'm sure i can be swayed!)Just a few random thoughts.
Jennifer
Ps I love this thread it's great!
Uncle Bulgaria,He can remember the days when he wasn't behind The Times.....
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 386
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 9:31 am: | |
Jennifer,
You lost me here:
"I am sure many unpublished reports exist in the world. The ones in question do they really have anything to do with the diary."
I don't know what you are asking or what specific reports you are discussing.
As for your final thoughts -- there's no real evidence anywhere that even remotely suggests that James Maybrick had anything to do with these murders. So there's no legitimate reason to seriously consider him a suspect, anymore than there is to seriously consider Oscar Wilde one.
Other than that, sure, you can say almost anyone "could have been" if they were alive and adult and in the right country. Of course, that tells us nothing.
But that's fine.
Because, in case you hadn't already noticed, nothing is what we specialize in around here.
"Nothing new, nothing real." That's what it should say on Diary World coins.
All the best,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 453
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 9:49 am: | |
John,
sorry to have lost you. Thats a real shame. Hope you are soon found. Diary world needs you.
Seriously though,
The reports i mentioned were mentioned in this thread. I think they are to do with the watch?
Yep you got my train of thought...it could be anyone.
Hey, some people think it is James. Surely they have more evidence than the diary and watch which makes there suspect more viable than say Oscar Wilde (who doesn't have six threads on the go on these boards!)
Anyway
Thats all
Jennifer
Uncle Bulgaria,He can remember the days when he wasn't behind The Times.....
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 388
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 11:03 am: | |
Jennifer,
Many thanks! You are my new hero. Seriously.
Why?
If only because you just wrote these magical words:
Hey, some people think it is James. Surely they have more evidence than the diary and watch which makes there suspect more viable than say Oscar Wilde (who doesn't have six threads on the go on these boards!)
YES! You'd really think so, wouldn't you? Common sense would tell you this, wouldn't it? It must be true!
And yet...
And yet...
They have (say it with me now) NOTHING.
Not a thing.
Anywhere.
And that's why James is no more serious a suspect than Oscar.
I love what you wrote so much I'm going to post it again.
Hey, some people think it is James. Surely they have more evidence than the diary and watch which makes there suspect more viable than say Oscar Wilde (who doesn't have six threads on the go on these boards!)
As sad as it is, the answer is no.
Oh, and stop calling me Shirley.
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 456
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 2:19 pm: | |
John O.
I don't believe it!!
Surely they do...for example wasn't he in London?
Oh hang on I said more than Oscar Wilde...AHH!!
He did die around the right time.
Its not like I haven't mentioned this before John, I'm always going on about it (I even started a thread about it once asking what evidence there is apart from the diary)
Jennifer
PS Shirley! (I didn't call you Shirley before but I can do if you want)!
Uncle Bulgaria,He can remember the days when he wasn't behind The Times.....
|
Robert J Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 12:51 pm: | |
Dear Scotty and Dee,
It was a breath of fresh air to read, that you will not be pressured from taking your own independent views on whether the diary is the work of James Maybrick or a modern forger, until you are satisfied it is proven either way.
You both raise the important question of testing. For once, I agree with John Omlor (8th June). “Test it all. Test everything. Do it now”. I also agree with him that testing organisations should have “unlimited access” to the diary (although to be fair, previous tests privately commissioned by Shirley Harrison, Melvin Harris, and Albert Johnson, have been limited only by their limited funds). When requested, I have supported all the initiatives from 1992 onwards to test and examine the diary, and here publicly once again offer access to the diary for this purpose by professional and independent testing organisations.
Should anyone doubt my resolve on this point, you may remember that on 23rd January 2004, I appealed on these boards for a bottle of pre-1992 Diamine ink. I had already been in lengthy correspondence with a UK laboratory, and had received a financial estimate for tests to compare the diary ink with Diamine ink, which Mike Barrett claimed he had bought to write the diary. Unlike Melvin Harris’s inconclusive test for chloroacetamide, a positive match of the two inks would prove, that the diary is a hoax. If I can locate a bottle of Diamine, I will announce when the tests are to take place, and when completed, promptly post the full report of them on the Casebook for all to see.
John Omlor offered to send you both by private e-mail “some information about the real problems with getting the diary tested”. I hope that he has reported the following historic facts to you and accurately and without bias. He and I agreed to proceed with his testing initiative in July 2002, but before tests could get underway, he resigned suddenly on 15th July 2002, explaining: “thinking things over, it became clear to me that perhaps someone with more experience in these matters and with a more direct professional involvement in the case should be actively involved in the process as it continues.” He proposed that, first Keith Skinner, then Paul Begg, replace him, while generously offering to write a post to the boards “ explaining that I have had to hand the process over to you and Keith and expressing my complete faith that it [the testing process] will be done fairly and carefully”. But, that particular initiative never recovered from his resignation, and Paul was unable to achieve satisfactory lines of communication with the testing organisation, McCrone Associates. Incidentally, at no time, did I, personally, have any contact whatsoever with McCrone.
It is best to draw a veil over John Omlor’s inexplicable, out-of-the-blue attack on my integrity on the boards on 30th June 2003, after ten months of total silence from him. It led to the pervasive negativity and unpleasantness on the diary and watch boards during the past year, and has brought no credit to the participants, and that, regrettably, included me for a short time.
In an attempt to move into more positive territory, I would like to encourage one or more open-minded individuals to take up the challenge of starting a major new initiative on testing. As Scotty rightly says: “It is often underestimated how much such testing will cost”. But where there’s a will, a way will be found to research and fund the tests. It doesn’t have to come from a win on the lottery. If it’s to be done at all, let it be done properly, with a comprehensive and comparative testing programme of inks, papers and bindings (including the six rectangular “stains” on the diary’s first leaf); and with professional comparative examinations of the diary handwriting with handwriting samples from its suspected authors, past and present.
The resulting reports, I suggest, should be kept confidential, until they are all completed. Then they must be published in full and simultaneously on the boards, ruling out any possibility of premature opportunism or commercial advantage being taken by anyone. The search for the truth must be seen to be the only motivation.
May I suggest that if anyone is seriously interested in giving the time and dedication to research and administer the forensic testing of the diary, and/or in raising the funds to perform the tests and examinations, they express their interest on the boards? Because of the need for impartiality, I obviously cannot be part of the testing process. My only role would be to supply the diary to the testing organisations and experts, though, for practical reasons, I would prefer, if possible, for the work to be conducted in England.
Finally, I would be grateful if hardened cynics could restrain themselves from responding to this post for the next 24 hours. Let us give other readers a chance to say what they feel about it and aim to generate a more positive approach to testing the diary, and indeed, longer term, more respect for each other’s positions.
All best,
Robert Smith
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
