|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1119
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 10:31 am: |       |
Hi Richard,
So in your opinion, the modern hoaxer's main objective 'was to make a considerable amount of money, through sales and tv documentaries and press articles'?
So who was this hoaxer, if not Mike Barrett, the man who brought the diary to London from Liverpool, then later, just as he was finally beginning to sniff 'a considerable amount of money', he thought "Sod this money-making lark, I'll say I wrote it meself and sit back and watch the book sales and diary income dry up."
Also, if Mike knew the thing was a recent fake, he also knew that the best he could hope for was that it couldn't be proved a fake. He also knew that it could never be proved genuine, and therefore he would forever remain under suspicion.
And what, in your view, was the main objective of whoever faked the watch, if not making loadsamoney?
The lack of any obvious or logical motive for the behaviour of the various suspected hoaxers is usually explained away with a lofty 'people are always doing strange things for inexplicable reasons, and a forger would be no exception' type of excuse.
Similarly, Gerard Kane was still in the frame until recently as a possible diary penman, because his behaviour was regarded by some as 'suspicious'. When I pointed out that his behaviour was actually totally illogical and inexplicable for someone who was supposed to have handwritten the infamous diary (in that he first gave a sample of writing to a private investigator in a heavily disguised hand, yet went on to volunteer a second sample in the hand that allegedly showed damning similarities to the diary - why on earth would he have done that, if guilty?), the same excuse was given - 'people often do the strangest things for no apparent reason'.
But when it comes to a serial killer leading his secret double life, it's a very different story. Oh yes indeed, he would be the exception - we are meant to believe that this type would never do strange things for even stranger reasons. Oh no, this type would never have become an arsenic addict in Victorian times; would never consider attacking women in a familiar, oft-frequented location as far as possible from his own doorstep; and certainly would never dream of recording his thoughts using a different writing style to represent the secret side of an outwardly reasonably normal, if rather unwholesome character.
I don't know who did what, how or when, and I'm happy to wait until someone comes up with an answer that makes reasonable sense of all the available information and one that can be verified independently. So, as usual, I am making no claims about the creator(s) of diary or watch and my own mind is yet to be made up.
I just find it interesting to explore the basis of other people's strong opinions in the meantime, without expecting anyone to change their mind.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 391
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 10:48 am: | |
Oh yes, here's another much more worthwhile pursuit.
Let's try and rationally explain the behavior of Mike Barrett.
That'll keep us busy for a lifetime. And, of course, it'll also keep us from admitting the things we do know about what the real James would or wouldn't do.
For instance, he wouldn't have seen the police inventory list concerning his own alleged victims. Because he couldn't. No how, no way.
And he wouldn't write a diary and a whole host of Ripper letters in many other people's handwriting despite his admitting his own identity within the book. Because he couldn't. No how, no way.
Don't let the clouds of rhetoric distract you, Richard.
There's plenty of real evidence and it all points in one single direction.
And nothing new is happening here. Nor will it.
--John
PS: Welcome, everyone, to July. The 14th is fast approaching.
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 308
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 11:20 am: | |
Dear All,
"And what, in your view, was the main objective of whoever faked the watch, if not making loadsamoney?"
For your holiday weekend, here's my top ten list of reasons why a hoaxer would fake the watch.
10) Enjoys graffiti of all kinds.
9) Wanted to see himself played by Jeremy Brett in BBC's "Finding Jack the Rippers Watch" mini-series, but foiled by the actors untimely death.
8) He had a bar bet with friend from work that he could, and would have to mow friends lawn in wife's dress if he lost.
7) "Jack the Ripper's House" was simply too much work.
6) Had an afternoon to kill and there was nothing good on the telly.
5) Wanted to make a boatload of cash on "How I Forged Jack the Ripper's Watch" confessional, but no one will believe him.
4) Irrational hatred of metallurgists and enjoys making fools of them at every opportunity.
3) Crop circles already done.
2) "John Wayne Gacy's Timex" wasn't impressing people any more.
1) Why not?
Have a happy weekend all!
John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 462
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 3:43 pm: | |
Hi everyone!
Diary world is such fun!
Seriously though,
I still don't get something (and I know none of you are going to like this so I say this with a considerable feeling of impending dread!)why couldn't the diary if it was a forgery have been forged at some other time by some other person who could have used it to their benefit...who could have had access to information? Why couldn't this have happened but something (ie death or a change of circumstances)caused a change of heart or events. Say this diary appeared fifty and not 11 years ago would you think differently of it?
There are 116 years to go at so far I'm not satisfied in my mind that any one of those years can be eliminated for a possible date.But one of them is the correct answer it's just a case of finding it!
In anticipation
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 392
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 5:07 pm: | |
Jennifer,
Just remember the miracle of the Liverpool library (and the date of the Sphere book).
And the date of the Michael Caine mini-series (and the parallel ahistorical scene in the diary).
And the date of the Ripper centennial (and all the accompanying press).
And the date the diary first appeared.
But don't wait for the science to solve the dating game, because the science ain't never gettin' a look at the book again.
Blowing you a kiss in the manner of Jim Lange,
--John (a Chuck Barris Production) |
Dee
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 2:42 pm: | |
John,
First, let me thank you for your reply.
Second, I am entitled to speculate how I choose.
I have no problem with you believing the diary to be fake. I never said I believe it is 100% genuine. I said I believe if it is a forgery then it is not a modern one, but something that must have been done a long time ago.
My belief that James Maybrick was JtR is of my own choosing and is not because of the diary. If you choose to believe I am lying for some reason, be my guest. However, I have nothing to gain by lying.
I am entitled to be 'democratic' as you put it. I am open to other peoples opinions. And I am, like them, entitled to make up my own mind.
You go on about evidence. Do you really think I have not considered the evidence as it is?
You say it's not a question of 'entitlement'. I'm sorry...I thought we lived in a 'democratic' society where all individuals were 'entitled' to make their own choices. Am I wrong?
Have I missed something? I thought living in this country entitled me and others to 'freedom of speech'. I must have been misled as a child, brought up to believe that everyone is equal, everyone is entitled to have their own thoughts and opinions, and to not only form my own but also to respect others opinions too, whether they agree with my own or not. How wrong of me!
If there is so much evidence as to who Jack the Ripper really was, why do we not know yet?
Why are we on here debating what we think?
WOW!! That mean it's known who he was!! Case solved!!
I must have missed that too, as it's so obvious can you tell me who he was? Then I can tell others that all the documented historical evidence clearly states without a doubt who Jack the Ripper really was! I'm so excited!!
And yes...I am one of these sad people who consider sarcasm an art form. (Incidentally that was a joke, thought I'd better explain that as you are having such a problem deciphering my point of view).
I think to be honest, there is no real point my trying to explain my point to you as it seems you are closed to any opinion that does not coincide with your own.
I did not ask for you to agree with me. I personally have a very high regard for history.I love it, I always have. I also love mysteries and puzzles and anything that cannot be explained easily. I like to make my brain work.
What bothers me is the fact you cannot seem to get your head round the possibility that I can believe that Maybrick was JtR without relying on the diary.
My choice.
What difference does it make what I believe? Is my choice going to change anything? No. Will my beliefs change history? No. Will my beliefs change other peoples opinions? No.
So what does it matter?
I am not out to solve this mystery, nor get my name in the papers and go down in history as someone who solved the unsolvable.
I am on here, like many others persuing a hobby, an interest. My opinion does not make a damn bit of difference anyway.
So who cares what I think?
I do not take this half as seriously as you seem to. I am not doing this for a living...maybe you are. But maybe you should remember that there are those of us that do this as an interest. Maybe we should not then.
I would never, ever, be so arrogant as to presume I know everything about this subject. But I do take time to read the info available. However, it seems you have implied that I came to my conclusion that Maybrick was JtR by reading one book (must have been the diary then) and gathered my info and formed an opinion by watching a film that although entertaining was inaccurate and have completely disregarded 'historical fact'.
It's a shame you have concluded all this about me by reading a few postings I have left on this most excellent website. Although I have to point out that in accordance to your replies, there are several things you have misread and taken out of context. It's a shame because if you knew me, you would find I am a very level headed, open minded, 'democratic', intelligent individual who is always willing to learn. But I can only learn from those who are willing to embrace and respect other peoples opinions whether they be right or wrong.
I will not say what I could conclude about you if I chose to do so. I make it a point never to judge people.
I have made a valid point. How?
You have come to the conclusion that I am someone completely different to who I am, by reading words I have written. You have read, judged, formed an opinion and set it down. Yet you do not know me. How can you be sure?
Words can be misleading. Information chanelled in the wrong manner can be misleading. Four people can read the same piece of evidence and all come to a different conclusion. Depends on the individual. Nothing is certain. All we can do is make up our own minds. So what difference does it make what I think?
Will it bring back the poor women he murdered? No.
Will it stop him from doing it again? No.
Will it bring him to justice, to be tried and convicted for his crimes? No.
Maybe you think that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. But how can you be sure you are right?
You don't. None of us do.
We are all stumbling in the dark trying to find our way. If you are so right...solve the mystery. Tell me us who he really was and why.
I am not saying you are wrong John. I'm just saying we are all 'entitled' to form opinions of our own. Just like you have formed yours. And I respect that.
I thank you for your insight. You have a problem with the diary. It obviously bothers you. I do not care about it. Genuine or fake, it does not matter. You can disbelieve me if you want. It does not matter.
My interest is beyond the diary.
I cannot accurately say who, what, why or when. I can only speculate on that which I know. As there are certain pieces of info missing from the case files that have never been found, coupled with the fact that I was not actually there at the time these crimes were committed, leaves me no choice but to speculate and decide for myself. Like most of us do. Unless you have seen every single piece of evidence, including the missing files then neither can you.
This will always be a puzzle with pieces missing. So no one can truly be 100% sure. All we can do is give it our best guess, formed on that which we know.
I thank you for your time in replying. However I do not think I am going to be able to learn from you. That is the reason why I come on here posting queries, questions and speculating...to learn. But if you are open to possibilty, I am willing to listen and learn. But believing someone is stupid because they have formed an opinion that does not match your own is not very 'open minded'. And I cannot learn from people whose minds are closed.
I am sure you did not mean it that way. However, that is how it has been interpreted, likewise if anything I have said has come across as offensive, please accept my apologies.
Best wishes John, and thank you for your time.
Regards,
Dee. x
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 397
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 04, 2004 - 12:13 am: | |
OK, I think those last two posts from Dee were the same, so I'll respond to the second one.
If there was something in the first one that I missed because it wasn't in the second one, someone please let me know.
Dee,
Very little in anything you have just written me says anything at all about the actual evidence in the case or about the relevant questions regarding the logic of or the likelihood of James Maybrick's candidacy as the Whitechapel murderer.
But I'll answer you anyway, since you seem to be pointing all of this in an oddly personal direction and none of this is at all personal for me.
Let's start at the beginning:
You say,
I am entitled to speculate as I choose.
Sure. So what? I don't know what this entitlement amounts to. You are "entitled" to speculate that penguins can fly (to borrow an example from elsewhere). That doesn't mean that you might be right or that you have any real evidence to support your speculation or that it's worth anything.
I'm not objecting to your speculations. I'm objecting to what does, or, in this case, does not come after them -- any real evidence in support of them.
You say:
I have no problem with you believing the diary to be fake. I never said I believe it is 100% genuine. I said I believe if it is a forgery then it is not a modern one, but must have been forged a long time ago.
My belief that James Maybrick was JtR is of my own choosing and is not because of the diary.
Right, you keep saying this, but you have yet to offer us one single solitary piece of real evidence unrelated to the watch or the diary that supports this belief. Not one. You can "choose" to believe in soaring penguins. But if you can't support that belief with evidence and relevant facts, then it remains only a fantasy. So far, your belief about James being in any way actually linked to these crimes remains a fantasy.
Oddly, you say:
If you choose to believe I am lying for some reason, be my guest. However, I have nothing to gain by lying.
Lying about what? I don't think you're lying about what you believe. I just think you have no evidence and can't support it. Therefore, it's not worth very much as a theory.
You again invoke some sort of "entitlement."
I am entitled to be 'democratic' as you put it. I am open to other peoples opinions. And I am, like them, entitled to make up my own mind.
Sure. Again, so what?
Then you turn inexplicably patriotic:
You say it's not a question of entitlement. I'm sorry...I thought we lived in a 'democratic' society where all individuals were 'entitled' to make their own choices. Am I wrong? Have I missed something? I thought living in this country entitled me and others to 'freedom of speech'. I must have been mislead as a child, brought up to believe everybody is equal, everyone is entitled to have their own thoughts and opinions and to not only form my own but also to respect others opinions too, whether they agree with my own or not.
And I hear the music playing and see my country's flag waving.
What hyperbolic nonsense. No one is trying in any way to stifle your freedom of speech or to tell you not to speak or anything of the sort. All I'm trying to do is to show which way the evidence clearly points and demonstrate the complete lack of evidence and support behind your own position as you've stated it here. That's called analysis. That's called critical thinking. That's how historical investigation and the pursuit of knowledge works.
Then you ask, strangely,
If there is so much evidence as to who Jack the Ripper really was....why do we not know yet?
Why are we on here, debating what we think?
WOW! That means that it's known who he was!! Case solved!!
But since I have never once suggested either that I had any idea who Jack was or that anyone else knew, I suspect that these comments cannot be directed at me and that suddenly, in the middle of our conversation, you have begun talking to someone else.
However, saying that we don't know who killed these women most certainly does not then logically allow us to claim that James did, especially when there is no "documented historical evidence" anywhere on the planet that even suggests that this assertion is true.
Once again, you invoke the old "closed mindedness" critique:
I think, to be honest, there is no real point my trying to make my point to you as you are obviously closed to any other point of view that clashes with your own.
You have offered me not a single solitary piece of real data or evidence of any sort which even suggests to me that I should consider your position as rational or supportable and so it's not a question of my mind being open or closed. You haven't yet even offered it a serious reason to think you might be right.
You say you have a "high regard for history." And yet you offer me no valid, verifiable historical reason to consider James as any more a real suspect in these crimes than Oscar Wilde or GB Shaw.
Then you write:
What bothers me is the fact you cannot get your head round the possibility that I can believe that Maybrick was JtR without relying on the diary.
Oh, no. I certainly believe it's possible. I just don't see you offering any support for such a belief. And without real, careful, thorough, well-founded and documented support, that belief is merely a whim, a desire, a fantasy, and therefore has nothing to do with that idea of "history" you hold in such high regard.
Then you turn existential on me:
What difference does it make what I believe?
Is my choice going to change anything? NO!
Are my beliefs going to go down in history? NO!
Is my opinion going to influence others? NO!
So what does it matter?
I cannot answer this last question. I am not that wise.
And then, delightfully, you write:
I am on here, like many others to persue an interest, a hobby. My opinion does not make a damn bit of differance anyway.
I truly hope that penultimate word is not a misspelling, but is a philosophical joke. If so, it's the first thing you've written that has made me smile rather than scratch my head.
You reassure me:
I do not take this half as seriously as you obviously do. I have other things that are of a higher priority that are more important to me. I'm not doing this for a living...maybe you are. But you need to remember that many of us on here peruse the info available as a hobby not a job. Maybe we should not then.
So I'll reassure you. This is just my hobby, too. And I'm having fun. Right here. Right now.
Then you lie about me:
...so far you have implied that I have come to the conclusion that Maybrick was JtR by reading just one book (obviously must have been the diary then) have gathered my information and formed my opinion by watching a film that although entertaining was inaccurate and have completely disgarded 'historical fact'.
This is nonsense, I have never once speculated as to how you personally arrived at your beliefs about anything. I don't really care how you arrived at them. I am only responding to what you say they are how and how well (or how poorly)you defend them.
And here comes the strange part:
It's a shame you have concluded all this about me by reading a few postings I have placed on this excellent website.
But I have NOT concluded anything about you at all. I have only concluded things about your writing here and about the idea of James being the Ripper.
I frankly don't know or care about you personally at all. I have no reason to. I'm sure you are, "a level headed, open minded, 'democratic', intelligent individual who is always willing to learn."
But that's irrelevant to me. I am only here to discuss the evidence and the theories and which theories are and are not supported by the evidence.
I have made no judgment about you whatsoever, nor am I interested in doing so.
You then make this claim:
My point is made. How you may ask?
I wasn't asking. Honest.
But you tell me anyway:
You have come to the conclusion that I am someone entirely different to who I really am, by reading words I have written.
No, I really haven't. I don't know "who you really are." I don't care "who you really are." Nothing I have written here has anything at all to do with "who you really are." This is all irrelevant to me. I am interested only in what words appear here and how well-formed the conclusions are and what responses to them I can offer using the evidence. The rest is beside the point.
You say:
And I am very different to how you imagine.
But I am not "imagining" you at all. I am simply responding to your arguments about the real James Maybrick (which you've stopped making, by the way, in favor of this weird digression about "who you really are" -- don't think I haven't noticed) and I am only interested in analyzing how thorough and careful and well-founded and documented and reasonable those Maybrick related arguments are or are not.
Then you say something that is true.
Words can be misleading.
This is true.
Then you offer a list of questions:
What differance does it make what I think?
Will it bring back those poor victims?
Will the real Jack be tried and convicted for his crimes?
Will it stop him before he does it again?
The answer, obviously is no.
This is true. So what?
Then you say to me:
Tell us who he really was and why.
But since all I have been doing is discussing why your own observations about the real James so far have not amounted to a single solitary piece of evidence in support of his being the real killer, this suggestion is irrelevant and purely a rhetorical gesture.
Then there's more talk of entitlement:
I'm not saying you are wrong John. I'm just saying that we are all 'entitled' to form opinions of our own.
Of course, this means nothing if those opinions are unsupported by any evidence, any facts, any data, any records, any logic, any real substantive material at all. Because then the "opinions" are simply fantasies.
Then you offer three paragraphs of vagaries, such as:
This will always be a puzzle with pieces missing. So no one can be 100% sure. All we can do is give it our best guess formed on that which we know.
Of course, this has nothing to do with the specific material we were talking about and it's all really just clichés that don't tell us anything new or interesting.
And with that, you sign off. Line after line, paragraph after paragraph and not a single real argument, not a single piece of solid evidence, not a single piece of data of any kind in support of your "belief." Plenty of talk about what I allegedly think of you (I don't think of you, really), but nothing having to do with the real issue of this thread.
So what am I to conclude? Only this: there is still no reason at all to even consider Maybrick as a serious candidate for these murders. You have not offered me even one compelling piece of history that even suggests he was the killer.
You have come and now apparently gone, without making even the beginning of a case for the suspect you feel so "entitled" to believe killed these women.
You have, finally, arrived here only to offer a mention, to deliver a fantasy without support, and then when challenged, you have faded softly back into the ether.
Remember this, the diary is clearly a hoax. There is no evidence anywhere to support the idea of the real James having anything at all to do with these killings. And all the evidence that does exist points away from him ever having anything to do with the book that started all this nonsense.
Thanks for the visit,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 465
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 04, 2004 - 5:13 am: | |
John O.
What you say is very true. Can I ask a question i am not sure of the answer to?
When was sphere book written, who is it by (for that matter what is its proper title?)
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 398
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 04, 2004 - 7:04 am: | |
Jennifer,
The Sphere History of Literature (think I've written that correctly from memory -- if not, someone can correct it), is a collection of volumes, each of which is a collection of critical essays on literature, edited by Christopher Ricks (he of the "new book on Bob Dylan" fame). The copy that Mike had, the one that had in it, conveniently excerpted in the middle of a prose essay on a different author, the very same five word Crashaw quotation that also just happens to appear in the diary, was Volume 2.
And you know what? I think I'll let Caroline tell us all the date that book first came out.
It's too delightful.
Lovin' life,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 467
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 04, 2004 - 1:37 pm: | |
John O.
Thanks very much that was the info i wanted to know.
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 468
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 04, 2004 - 1:48 pm: | |
ps
I've found the answer its 1970!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1121
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 6:31 am: | |
Hi Jennifer,
I never thought to see an American celebrating 4th July sitting at his computer, posting yet another message informing his readers that he doesn't believe the diary is genuine. Perhaps he was worried we might get the wrong idea if he gave himself a day off. 
Anyway, it gives me the greatest pleasure to inform you that, in the five years since I first read about the diary, the one person who made me stop and think, with his constant repetition, on workdays, highdays and holidays, and shouting of the odds against this or that happening, including the 'impossibility' of the real James Maybrick ever coming across a poem by Crashaw during his lifetime in Victorian Catholic Liverpool, and so on and so forth - the one person whose delivery and treatment of the evidence finally made me stop and really think:
"Wait a minute, where is the evidence that Mike Barrett knew about the Sphere book in 1992, when he brought the diary to London? Where is the evidence that he had it in October 1993, when the police questioned him? Where is the evidence that he had it in June 1994, when he wanted everyone to believe he was a master forger? Where is the evidence that he had it at the end of September 1994, when it dawned on him that owning a copy of this book, and showing it to the private investigator he had hired to prove his own forgery claim, would provide the one and only bit of evidence in support of that claim?"
The one person who made me realise there is no evidence, not one shred, that Mike had a copy he could have shown Alan Gray in September 1994, is John Omlor.
So thanks John. You gave me the first nugget and the incentive to delve back into the documentation to find out exactly what is known and what remains unknown.
You may not appreciate as fully as I do the unique contribution you have made to my own blossoming understanding of what really happened between 1991 and 1994, and what didn't happen.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 401
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 6:57 am: | |
"What remains known":
The diary contained five completely unidentified words.
Only one man could tell everyone where they came from.
That man was the same man who brought forward the diary.
He had no rational explanation for how he knew this, except to invoke a miracle.
He just happened to have a copy of the book that contained them, separated out as a quote on the middle of a page.
"What also remains known":
Every other piece of evidence points directly and exclusively to the diary being a fake, from the handwriting to the ahistorical textual details to the lines the purported diarist could not have seen to the lack of provenance to everything else.
We know of only one person who ever actually owned the diary before it's current owner.
We know that person also happened to be the only person who could source those five mysterious words.
We know that person also had a copy of a book that contained those five words separated out and quoted.
And we know from the evidence that the diary is a fake.
Geez, we know a lot, don't we?
We'd almost be entitled to invoke common sense.
Except for one thing.
Except for where we are.
Except that common sense won't be enough to trump the blinding desire to keep hope alive here in....
(dramatic musical sting)
Diary World!
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 473
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 8:08 am: | |
Hi to you both once again,
Nice to hear from you again Caz. whether mike wrote the diary or not if the info came out the sphere book then it wasn't written by JTR or have I missed something?
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 403
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 9:00 am: | |
Hi Jennifer,
Caz would tell you that it's not that simple -- because the five word line quoted in both the Sphere Book and the diary originally appears in an old poem by a guy named Richard Crashaw, written in the 17th century.
Of course, no one knew that when the diary first came forward. No one knew where those five words were from.
And then one guy told the world.
How did he know, you might ask?
Well, he just happened to be the SAME guy who brought the diary forward and he also just happened to own a book that had the SAME words conveniently quoted, separately, right there in the middle of it.
The completely unidentified part of the obscure line, from an obscure and unanthologized work from a 17th century Catholic metaphysical poet, was sourced by the one guy who we KNOW owned both the diary and the book that also contained that line culled and quoted.
Don't ya' just love it?
--John
Oh, here's the great part. When asked how he discovered this source, he once told people that he walked into the Liverpool Public Library and pulled down a book (the same book he would later turn out to own himself incidentally) not of poetry but of prose, and found an essay not on Crashaw but on Herbert, and wonder of wonders, miracle of miracles, THERE WERE THE MAGIC FIVE WORDS quoted right there for him.
And you know what? People believed that this incredible story, this miraculous explanation, offered by a pathological liar, was actually possible. Some still do. It's called "hope."
(Message edited by omlor on July 05, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 474
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 9:13 am: | |
John,
i wonder to myself what other books this may have appeared in and how the sphere author knew about it?
thats a good coincidence. I read a very good book about coincidence earlier this month called beyond coincidence? by Plimmer and King. It was factually very good.
I won't spoil it for you!
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 404
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 10:38 am: | |
Jennifer,
On the old boards, I posted a thorough and detailed discussion of the limited number of different volumes (published in fairly limited editions, incidentally) of Crashaw's complete works that were around in the 1880s. I also explained the history of Crashaw's specific standing in the literary canon and among the reading public and the difference between that standing in the 19th and 20th centuries. Contrary to what you may have heard, I am a fully qualified expert in this subject who teaches this stuff at the university level for a living. The real James Maybrick wasn't quoting Crashaw, believe me.
But that's not even necessary.
Because there is simply no rational way to explain how Mike Barrett could be the only person able to source the five completely unidentified words in the diary that he brought forward.
Not unless you believe in miracles (or, to be precise, unless you believe in Mike Barrett's tale of a miracle -- which is even less likely to be true than a real miracle).
Mike lied.
And Mike knew the source of the lines.
And Mike had the Sphere Guide.
And Mike brought forward the diary and is the only person we know of who has ever owned it.
And there the words are, in both books.
As the logicians say, "Well, duh."
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 475
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 10:44 am: | |
John,
No doubt I had not heard otherwise.
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 943
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 4:38 pm: | |
Hi,
I cannot understand why the topic of the diary, goes on and on, two words sum it up 'A fake'
In my opinion more research and opinion should be concentrated on more logical suspects, and I am not suggesting Barnett[ although must be considered] it just is in my humble opinion pure waste of time discussing Maybrick as the perpretrator of the whitechapel murders, it is simply a non starter.
Regards Richard. |
Matt
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 6:07 am: | |
Like any serious student of the case, I am stunned by the continued interest in the diary. There can be no doubt that the thing is a shoddy fake. The AA have a practice when thy produce an atlas they will purposely add a non-existent feature. Why? It is a ploy to trip up a would be plagiarist. If another atlas turns up with the same fake feature the AA can source the map back to their own research. Through the decades, the Ripper case has had one or two books written about it. And through a mixture of genuine mistake and research that does not include primary sources a few errors have crept in. These errors act exactly like the fake Hill Fort or Bog on the AA map. If they turn up in say a document said to be written independently the inclusion of these errors show where the information really came from. For years books sited that certain parts of Mary Jane’s body were placed on the table by the bed. It became part of ripper folk law. But there are two historical sources which PROVE this not to be the case, one is the official medical report, which remained classified for many years. The second is the killer himself; he knew where he deliberately placed those bits of Mary’s flesh. So, if the Diary is genuine, why does it repeat THE SAME error that all those book for all those years did? This is just one of many examples where the diary repeats anachronisms and errors which have crept into the secondary source material. If this were a plagiarism case and was in a court of law, this one indicator alone would be sufficient to PROVE that the diarist was not siting their own research (or in this case actions) but merely repeating old flawed research. |
Dee
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 04, 2004 - 6:13 pm: | |
John,
I have to say your posting made me smile. It is always nice when you read something that makes you smile, even when you do not mean to! :-)
I am afraid I am not the sort of person who fades away...in fact I am quite the opposite. And if I do disappear, it'll be either a) I have gone away to read something to check my facts or b) my computer has crashed!!
Things have evidently been taken out of context. It seems as though you have misread previous postings I have placed on here. It may also seem that I could have, in turn, misread what you also have written in reply. That's the problem with the written word. Things can be misinterpreted and misunderstood. I guess thats why we have punctuation etc, to help give tone and mannerism to our written words. This is the reason why I prefer to argue a point face to face or via the phone as it's easier to make a point (and quicker!!)
You pointed out you have a doctorate. I pointed out what I'm good at. I was only responding due to the impression that you had given, that you seemed to think I had only read one book and that my info had been aquired through bias and inaccurate means. I disagree. My personal belief is through my own deduction, by reading various points of view and going with that which seemed to make the most sense to me.
Another person, however, would conclude a different point of view. It really depends on the individual.
My reason for saying you seem to have a closed mind on this is valid. It seems that you cannot believe that anyone can seriously consider Maybrick as a reasonable suspect. Your conclusion is valid....to you. But not to me, I am not you and we are very different people. If we all believed the same, it would be boring!
I do not think people are silly because their belief is that it was William Gull or someone else. They have their reasons for believing that. It's up to them. I don't believe it, but I do not scorn them because they do. I'm sure they think I am daft for thinking it could be Maybrick. And thats cool and fine with me.
I realise you have a problem with the diary. The diary is not my concern. I 60% believe it is genuine. I 40% believe it is fake. If it is fake, then I cannot personally see that it was a modern forgery as I feel confident it would have been shown to be fake with relative ease. In this day and age, with all the modern technology we have available to us (not us personally, but those in those particular areas of expertise) I would have thought it would be easy to prove a modern forgery. But I think it would be harder to prove if it was something forged at the turn of the 20th century. And with this comment, I am only referring to the scientific testing on the paper and ink, not the subject matter and handwriting analysis. The conclusion that chloracetamide (I apologise if I misspelled that!) was present is inconclusive. There is (sorry to use this word again) speculation that the minute amount of chloracetamide found could have been due to contamination in the equipment used to test the ink, from a previous document tested.
The report I read stated something ludicrous like 00000000000000.145g or something (anyone reading this don't quote that exactly as I could have got the noughts wrong!). This apparently minute amount was not enough to conclude the ink is present day.
Also, I read that there are reports that chloracetamide was manufactured as early as 1864 or something, although I agree that I am unsure as to whether it was used in ink at that time, or at least at the time the diary claims to have been written.
I agree the subject matter in the diary is certainly at times debatable. The issue of Mary Kelly's breasts for example. The diarist says he 'left them on the table, thought they belonged there'. The offical report says one was under her head, the other by her right foot.
I have 2 points here.
1) Victorian pathology and medicine was, obviously not as advanced as our present day knowledge. Could they seriously tissue type? Would they, without doubt, have been able to say for sure that what was on the table was not her breasts? Back then I would have thought the only way they could have really honestly and accurately identified Mary Kelly's breasts was if the had found a piece of flesh with the nipple still attached. Then there could be no doubt. When flesh is cut, it shrinks and puckers...could not the same be said for all flesh? How could they have told the difference? In all the reports I read, there was no mention of them seeing a nipple or testing to confrm what flesh came from where.
(If someone knows the answer to this, I'd be very interested).
2) How do we 100% know that all reports are accurate? Please believe me John, I am not questioning historical 'fact', I am questioning everything. It is in my nature to do so. If I had witnessed first hand these events, then I would not question. Somethimes things do get documented wrongly, I am not saying this is so in this case, but I am saying that due to my inquisitive mind, I do question the facts. How do we know for sure they documented everything the way it should be?
Once again John, let me point out I am not saying the 'facts' are wrong, I am just saying it is in my nature to question everything. I never have been one to accept things at 'face value'. It might not be the right way, but it's the way I do things. I am not an historian nor a ripperologist, I'm just someone who peruses this subject as a hobby.
The subject of the handwriting. If I was going to forge something, I'd want to make sure it at least resembled the person's handwriting. Yet this forger has made no attempt to make it resemble Maybricks known handwriting. Why?
This forger thought of everything else. (I state here once again this is only my opinion).
Lets look at what this forger did.
1)They thought to get paper that would pass as Victorian.
2)They thought to obtain ink that could pass as Victorian. (I did not say it had, just that it could pass as it. This being the obvious conclusion as no test has of yet proven the ink modern).
3)They thought to learn enough of the Jack the Ripper case files. (This being easy enough to do...it's a well documented case).
4)They thought to learn enough of James Maybricks life..family, lifestyle, work, interests, drug addictions, extra marital activities, financies etc. (I agree that would not be hard to do in present day, as the Florence Maybrick case is part of history).
5)They thought to understand arsenic and strychnine usage. (Again I agree that this would be easy to do in this day and age, info from libraries, internet etc available).
6)They thought to have a brief understanding of Victorian lifestyles. (Easily accessible info).
7)They thought to look up that the horse race that both Florence and James attended in 1888 was the fastest race run up to that time. (I'll have to look up the exact name of the race and horse that won to list exact detail, it's in one of my several books).
(You quote Mr Harris in one of your postings. I have read that Mr Harris stated a person could have forged this by using 2 books only).
But...after all that they did not even bother to try to make the handwriting resemble James Maybricks known handwriting in accordance to documentation known to have been written by him.
Why go to all that trouble and then then not bother with that? It does not make sense to me.
Once again...I state I am still indecisive on this issue. But you can see my point surely?
This is why I cannot dismiss this diary. After all that careful planning and work, they forget to bother to write like him!! Seems a silly thing to do.
I just think if this is a forgery, it is not a modern one. But even if it was forged a long time ago, I have several questions as to how and why.
These are the reasons I have come to the decision I have about this diary. 60% genuine...40% not.
I just do not know.
I have seen many strange things in my life that could not easily be explained. I have seen the effects that different drugs have on different people, whether they be using for medicinal or recreational purposes. I have seen a person who when calm, writes in one manner, yet when drunk writes in another, and yet another style when angry.
Whether we are aware or not, we all have different personalities inside of us. I have been fortunate enough to understand just how complex one person can be. Outwardly one way, inwardly something else. And in accordance to your mood and personality, your handwriting can adapt. I have done it myself at different points in my life, whilst undergoing different life experiences. So therefore I know this is possible. Because I have done it, and I have seen others do it too.
These are my issues with the diary.
John, I think you have an incredible knowledge and very good brain. I do not disregard what you are saying, in fact I very much appreciate your point of view. I would foolish to ignore other people, for their knowledge could well be more vast than my own and I can learn from them.
Can you not say the same? Can we all not say the same?
The reason I posted what I did was because you seemed to imply that I was rather daft for thinking Maybrick could be JtR. But he makes more sense to me personally as a suspect than any other. We deduct from our own learning and apply that which we know in order to reach a conclusion.
My reasons for believing Maybrick to be Jack are of my own deduction. He is the only one that makes sense to me. I'm sure other people will disagree, as they are well within their rights to do. And if I should come across someone else who makes more sense to me then Maybrick, then I will change my opinion. As of yet, no one has.
Why is Maybrick not a credible suspect? Who was a credible suspect? Maybe if the police had been sure of who was credible and who was not, they'd have had a better chance of catching him. Truth is, they were clutching at straws. They did not really have any idea. And in those days the police did not have the facilities available to use now, if they had had then maybe they would have known who he was and caught him. Maybe so many of them would not have died.
My belief that Maybrick was JtR is because he is the only one that seems to fit in my opinion. But that is only my opinion of course, and I am not an expert. I have stated of personal experience how sometimes records are inaccurate by stating in a previous posting about my late fathers birth certificate. Once again, I do not say that the records are wrong, it is just in my nature to question.
I did not come on here first of all to debate the diary. Its a shame that I have had to. I only came on here to debate info as many do. I just think that everyone has to come to their own conclusion and that I personally think we will never really know who he was anyway. But its interesting to bounce ideas around.
Maybe this posting will make more sense to you and clear obvious misunderstandings up.
Hope you are well and had a good weekend,
Best wishes and regards John,
Dee. x |
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 10:47 am: | |
John, do you have any positive comments on anything? Do you have a theory about JTR? Do you have time to have a theory? Your obsession with the diary is second to none and certainly keeps the issue from dying a death. If you have such a problem with it I suggest you ignore the posts on it. Your negative attitude could be quite damaging to these boards in stopping people posting their thoughts, theories and ideas in case they end up with an onslaught from yourself.
There are many suspects, if not all, that can be discounted for varying degrees of reason, why not decry them for a bit of a break.
Remember also that being paid for a particular job, does not make a person either good at it or an authority on it.
As I’ve stated before, for reasons other than the diary, I favour Maybrick and in this respect I am pro-diary as much as you are anti –diary. The diary has yet to have its day believe it or not.
Regards.
|
John Carey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 4:15 am: | |
John, Dee and other contribtors to this thread:
"The Diary" is a misnomer. In fact there are two diaries of JTR. The other one is genuine beyond doubt. It is an old lunatic asylum case book from 1891 I found in Surrey Local History collection and it names one of the inmates as the Ripper. I offered this information to the "Maybrick" people. Shirely Harrison wrote back to say "this is absolutely fascinating" but from the others there has been --- silence. You may draw your own conclusions, |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 408
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 9:04 am: | |
Ok, Here we go again.
The first few paragraphs of Dee's post say nothing that require comment, since they have nothing to do with the thread topic or the alleged candidacy of the real James Maybrick.
Finally, Dee gets to the topic and writes:
It seems that you cannot believe that anyone can seriously consider Maybrick as a reasonable suspect.
Wrong. I do believe people can seriously consider it, just as they can seriously consider that the earth is flat and that the pyramids were made by travelers from outer-space and that humans and dinosaurs lived together.
Of course none of these beliefs have any actual evidence whatsoever to support them and all the other evidence points away from them, so the beliefs remain simply fantasies -- just like the flying penguins we hear so much about nowadays.
That's also true about the claim that Maybrick was the Ripper.
Then Dee, ignoring all the specific evidence once again, at this point still ignoring the handwriting problems and the provenance problems and the ahistorical problems and the police list problems and the Crashaw quote and Sphere Guide problems and all the rest, says that the diary might be authentic because science hasn't yet proven it's not.
Dee puts it this way:
In this day and age, with all the modern technology we have available to us...
But wait, I must interrupt this quotation. Because the "modern technology" is only available to us if the diary is regularly made available to it.
Of course, "just wait, there's stuff going on, you'll see."
I forgot.
But then the handwriting is raised, and another piece of devastating logic reappears.
Basically Dee claims that because the forger didn't manage to copy the real Maybrick's handwriting, that's evidence that it might really BE Maybrick's handwriting despite the fact that it looks nothing at all like Maybrick's handwriting.
This is one of my very favorite arguments of all time in this debate (I've seen it before) because it so clearly demonstrates how utterly perverse one's claims have to become in order to support the idea of the diary being real.
Fact -- the writing in the diary looks nothing at all like the real James Maybrick's handwriting.
One possible conclusion -- the fact that it looks nothing like his handwriting means he didn't write it.
Other possible conclusion -- the fact that it looks nothing like his handwriting means he must have written it.
OK, fans -- which one of these two possible conclusions makes sense to you? Which one would YOU like to have your name associated with?
Why do I think that if the handwriting looked just like the real James's handwriting I would now be being told that this means he wrote it?
So let's examine our options --
If the handwriting looks just like James's -- it must be James's, because it matches.
If the handwriting looks nothing like James's -- it must be James's because it doesn't match.
Well, there's certainly no arguing with logic like that.
Because it's absurd.
Then, if that's not enough, we return to the fanciful and Feldmaniacal "many personalities, many handwritings" theory that again has absolutely no basis in any historical fact, since the handwriting we do have from the real guy all looks alike and is quite clear and since the handwriting in the diary looks nothing at all like any of it or like any of the many Ripper letters the diarist claims to have penned.
Man, he must have had an awful lot of different personalities, this guy.
People, whatever happened to simple common sense and logic? It doesn't look like anything like his writing because he didn't write it. And that is supported by the ahistorical moments in the text, by the lack of provenance, by the fictional and artificial structure of the thing, by Mike's sourcing the Crashaw quote, and by every other piece of real evidence that exists.
It's not really that hard a call, is it?
Finally, near the end there, I thought we were actually going to be given some hard evidence, some real data to support the fanciful idea of Maybrick being the Ripper.
I saw a sentence that began:
"My reasons for believing Maybrick to be Jack are..."
Imagine my disappointment when it ended:
"...of my own deduction."
Not only do I have no idea what this sentence actually means, it tells me nothing at all about why anyone should seriously consider Maybrick to be the Ripper.
Maybe further down...
No reasons or evidence or data offered in the next two paragraphs...
Wait, maybe here it comes...
"My belief that Maybrick was JtR is because he is the only one that seems to fit in my opinion.
And then... Nothing. Not single piece of evidence or data or argument to support this vague and unsubstantiated claim. No explanation. Nothing. We get the assertion once again of a simple fantasy with nothing at all concrete behind it to support it.
Don't tell me we're going to go all the way through still another post by Dee without the offering of even a single piece of real evidence outside the watch and diary nonsense to support the claim that Maybrick was the Ripper. Is it possible that after all this, we're still not going to see one single solitary piece of evidence that links the real Maybrick to this case in any way whatsoever?
Nothing? After all that?
Where is the evidence, the data, the history? Where are the actual compelling reasons why anyone should consider Maybrick any more likely of a candidate than Wilde?
Dee says:
I only came on here to debate info as many do.
But there's no info offered. So where's the real, historical, documented info that would reasonably suggest to anyone that Maybrick was the Ripper?
Perhaps it will be in the next post.
I hope so.
--John (who can dream, can't he?)
PS: Tiddley, thanks for the concern, but I'm having a fine time here and enjoying myself thoroughly. As for my writing here stopping people from showing up and making their cases, that's not my problem. But I do love how, like so many people who claim to believe in the diary, your own writing can only conclude with the sad rhetoric of "someday..." It's always an unfulfilled promise rather than a real piece of data or real history in the end. It's always, "just wait, you'll see..." rather than serious analysis. It's always, as you finally put it, "The diary has yet to have its day believe it or not," but never any real evidence.
That should tell us all we need to know.
(Message edited by omlor on July 07, 2004) |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1241
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 12:02 pm: | |
In this day and age, with all the modern technology we have available to us...
But wait, I must interrupt this quotation. Because the "modern technology" is only available to us if the diary is regularly made available to it.
Amen to that.
And this is where the diary saga still stands. A fly in amber.....wait, I've read that somewhere before....mmmmmmm.
Monty.....who is waiting for a leap of faith from somebody.
Prince Charming, Prince Charming,
Ridicule is nothing to be scared of |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1124
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 5:12 pm: | |
Monty,
The diary is available to modern technology, as its owner, Robert Smith, confirmed, only the other day, right here, on the Maybrick boards.
You may have missed it, while you were emailing me for a favour from Keith Skinner....
Hmmmmmmm?
Just waiting for a few others to help organise and fund all this wonderful new technology - are you volunteering? Perhaps you could return the favour.
And by the way, your new catchphrase, courtesy of Adam Ant, was the favourite saying I used to display on my profile - ridicule is nothing to be scared of. Hope that applies across the board old chap. 
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by Caz on July 08, 2004) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1125
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 5:35 pm: | |
Classic quote of the month:
"So many people [who] claim to believe in the diary..."
Oh dear oh dear, a self-confessed hardened cynic's work is obviously never done, is it? He'll be beating them all off with a stick next. 
Love,
Caz
x
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 410
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 9:01 pm: | |
Monty,
Of course, if the scientists aren't given access to the material unless they assure everyone in advance that they'll provide a conclusive date for when the book was written, the technology will never be available to us, since no self-respecting scientist is going to assure anyone of any such thing without having first seen the material.
Funny how that works.
Caroline, you should check around at some of the other web sites on the topic. You'll recognize Tiddley's sad rhetoric of deferral among the "believers" there, as well. You might recognize it from somewhere else too, from someone else's writing...
Nah, probably not.
--John
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1243
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 5:04 am: | |
Caz,
Im sorry, you seem to have misconstrued my post. It wasn’t an attack on you or the beloved diary.
The gist of my post was to support John’s statement that the diary should be regularly made available to the technology………regularly. Get that ?
What has my request for a favour from you (which I did thank you for, but just incase you missed it..thankyouthankyouthankyou) to do with the validation of the diary ? Its not the old ‘you’re either with me or against me’ routine is it Caz ? Its becoming a trait sweetie.
But anyway, whilst I was grovelling on my knees to you for a favour I did indeed note Roberts gracious offer, and respect to him for doing so. No respect for his “It is best to draw a veil over John Olmor’s inexplicable, out of the blue attack on my integrity….” speech though.
Thats some veiling over that is.
“Just waiting for a few others to help organise and fund all this wonderful new technology”. You too?, same here. Have been for a while. I would return the favour but due to the fact that Im a mere underpaid, unsure of his future civil servant, funding is limited to living (eating, roof over my head etc). Maybe I should write a book but I hear that never pays.
….and ridicule is nothing to be scared of. But it didn’t stop you trying it on did it old Girl ?
Now you have a great weekend and debate nicely.
Love, as always
Monty…who now remembers why he doesn’t visit the Maybrick thread.
....all good pals and jolly good company !! |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1127
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 5:40 am: | |
Hi John,
...unless they assure everyone in advance that they'll provide a conclusive date for when the book was written...
If the truth were enough to make your case for you, you wouldn't need to resort to repeated and blatant fairy tales to prop up your position.
You know very well what the initial testing conditions were, and you expressed your complete satisfaction with the wording at that time. You also know that, since then, those conditions (which were never as rigid as the fictional one above, which you keep reciting) gave way to a more flexible approach.
And in the last few days, Robert Smith informed everyone in plain English that the diary is available with no strings attached regarding which tests would ideally be investigated, agreed upon and finally commissioned, as and when adequate funding is in place.
If you have any documented evidence that what you say above has ever been, is, or ever will be, a condition of testing, before access to the diary is given, please do the decent thing right here, right now and put up - or shut up.
This desperate "Florida calling, Florida calling" style you've adopted for yourself is deeply unattractive and does you very little credit.
But when you have to resort to blatant propaganda like this, that you are well aware has no basis in truth, then your claim to be doing it all for fun, or to relieve the crushing boredom of your days and nights, sounds a particularly hollow note.
I'm off for the weekend, but I look forward to coming back next week and finding some evidence for your 'unless' claim (by email, if you consider it too shaky for the boards) - unless you decide not to repeat it any more for those occasional visitors like Monty, who wander over here, ready and willing to roll over and let you tickle their tummies and feed them tripe.
Love,
Caz
X |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 620
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 5:45 am: | |
Hating to get drawn into this again but:
So let's examine our options --
If the handwriting looks just like James's -- it must be James's, because it matches.
If the handwriting looks nothing like James's -- it must be James's because it doesn't match.
Well, there's certainly no arguing with logic like that.
John, that's a straw man argument. It is ignoring the third possibility which is:
Just because the handwriting doesn't look like James's doesn't actually prove anything one way or the other.
As I have stated here before, people's handwriting changes, depending on the mood they are in, the audience they are writing for, and many other factors. So the fact that James's handwriting on a will, a legal document intended to be read in detail by persons of the legal profession and written presumably while in a logical frame of mind, is different from the handwriting on a diary, written for nobody but the writer himself and written presumably while in a deranged frame of mind, is not in any way proof that the two documents were written by different people. It's not proof they were written by the same person either. This is what "having an open mind" is all about.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1244
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 6:29 am: | |
Caz,
Grrrrrrrrr !! 
Just cos I dont bark doesnt mean Im not around. Ive been here since the days of Woody and never left. Unlike progress, which is a stranger around these 'ere parts.
Dont be fooled by my silence. I talk when I have something to say instead of jibing when I dont.
But you just keep on assuming my stand on this topic. It amuses me. And no one tickles my tum.......unless theres a biscuit in it pour moi.
Monty
....all good pals and jolly good company !! |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1128
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 6:56 am: | |
Monty, old chap,
Leaving your paid employment voluntarily and spending at least the next three years helping to research and write a ripper-related book would, I suspect, leave you infinitely poorer than you are now. But I could be wrong. You can try telling John O why you haven't the time or the spare cash to invest in ongoing testing initiatives. He's the one in charge of deciding what a reasonable excuse would be.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 412
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 8:04 am: | |
I am posting this here only because my honesty about this has now been questioned in public by Caroline Morris and it therefore seems necessary to respond in public. Normally, I would prefer that this sort of exchange take place in private email. That's why I have not cited from my own material here previously.
Caroline,
As I suspect you know, I have at least five separate emails, from both Robert Smith and Paul Begg, stating long ago that the materials would only be sent to a lab if it was determined first that the lab could provide "conclusive results."
On September 11th of 2002, I was told by Robert that he would not even send the reports on earlier tests to a lab unless Paul was "convinced they are able to date the document in a conclusive way."
Four months later, on January 7th of 2003, I was told by Paul, describing his talk with one lab that he stressed to them that:
"I have had to stress that this is the only time in the forseeable future that the diary will be made available for scientific examination and that we therefore need - and indeed the diary will only be released if there is a reasonable chance of getting - definitive answers, specifically a date when the ink was put on the paper."
And I have three other examples of precisely the same conditions being stated.
Also, you yourself came here a number of times and argued that this should be a requirement for further testing.
And I have yet to see anyone involved say anywhere, clearly and in public, that this is no longer necessary, that a lab will indeed be sent the diary even if they do not demonstrate in advance of seeing the material that they can provide a conclusive final date for when the ink was put on paper.
I have the "unless" evidence, Caroline.
If you think things have changed, if you think this specific "unless" has changed, I would like to see your evidence for this belief.
It would make me very happy if you are right about the current situation.
--John
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 413
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 8:16 am: | |
Alan,
No qualified handwriting expert in the world has ever said that the diary could possibly be in the real James Maybrick's handwriting.
Look at the letters we have from the real James and then look at the diary.
We're not just talking about a guy in different moods, here. And of course, Feldman's multiple personalities nonsense is a historical fantasy with absolutely no hard data or real evidence anywhere to support it.
And not only that, but the diarist claims to have written a number of the different Ripper letters we have. AND ALL OF THEM are in yet other completely different hands.
So unless this guy's writing changed utterly every time he sat down and put pen to paper, you're offering us only wild speculation and fantasy here.
Also, just so you have your facts right -- it's not just the will we have to compare to the real James's handwriting. We have his own personal correspondence as well.
And the diary was not written "just for himself." The text speaks a number of times quite clearly about it being written for readers, for others to read, just like the letters. Indeed, it even directly addresses these future readers at its end.
But all this aside, we do have experts, they know what they are doing, and this is not the real James Maybick's handwriting. It's not even close.
Now to suggest, as others around here have suggested, that the fact that the diary is not in the real James's handwriting is evidence that it was written by the real James because a forger would have tried to copy the handwriting is indeed to create a perfectly circular argument in which either contradictory case (in his handwriting and not in his handwriting) is somehow going to be used for advancing the same identical conclusion -- authentic.
And that's what's I'm calling absurd.
But thanks for the thoughts,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 486
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 8:21 am: | |
Hi everyone,
Listen its simple - everyone wants the diary testing (speak up if not). Everyone feels there are difficulties with getting the diary tested. Everyone wants the watch tested - everyone feels there are difficulties getting the watch tested. therefore - neither is getting tested.
Now, we can sit around on the internet all day claiming we think either the diary is fake or genuine and does need to be tested to prove this, or we can get our act together and get it tested.
Either way this is getting a very circular discussion which is making my head spin!
I understand John's position because he has told me what it is and realise the difficulties he finds himself in.If we can try to overcome these...?
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 414
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 8:48 am: | |
Hi Jennifer,
Circular discussions, spinning heads...
Diary World goes 'round and 'round, just like those teacups you can ride in at the Diary World theme park (where you can indeed get the Diary World souvenir coins that have the DW motto: "Nothing real, Nothing new" and the t-shirts that say "just wait, there's stuff going on, you'll see" and "tin match box empty -- now where have I heard that before?") and where even people who know the thing's a fake will hang around just to argue that it might not be, for no real reason than it's fun.
The discussion here has been spinning on its axis in a wonderfully circular way for years and years.
Some people like it that way.
Don't go back and read the archive CD if this little conversation here is making your head spin.
But here we are, on the 9th of July.
Cool.
All the best,
--John
PS: The real Walt used to urge people at Disney World to remember that "it all started with a mouse."
Here, I suspect we might want to remember, with loving thoughts of the founder of Diary World in our mind, that "it all started with a drink."
(Message edited by omlor on July 09, 2004) |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1245
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 9:18 am: | |
Caz,
Leaving your paid employment and spending 3 years researching a book may leave you poorer but also questions your wisdom. I cannot pay to pursue such actions without being funded.....by spouse or system.
Surely some wounldnt have done it unless they can afford it ?
Im sure John has heard such excuses before. After all, it'll the age old pro diarist arguement Id be bellowing out.
Research money so wisely spent.
Monty
....all good pals and jolly good company !! |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 487
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 11:30 am: | |
Monty, John, everyone,
Hiya!!
Diary world - I will be sure to visit frequently. I see it is open all times of the day and night (and on holidays and xmas!!)
I can't wait to pick up my t shirt that says 'just wait,there's stuff going on, you'll see'. Perhaps a good time to visit will be July 14 (ie wednesday) when wonderous things are apparently happening !!Perhaps these T shirts can fund some tests?
Jennifer
ps Monty - you've changed it again!!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 361
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 5:43 pm: | |
Caz
And in the last few days, Robert Smith informed everyone in plain English that the diary is available with no strings attached regarding which tests would ideally be investigated, agreed upon and finally commissioned, as and when adequate funding is in place.
I don't quite understand what that means.
Can I just try to clarify it? Supposing - for example - an academic in a British University were willing to carry out some tests on the diary gratis, does that mean it would be made available "with no strings attached"?
This isn't entirely a hypothetical question. I do still have a reasonable number of academic contacts. I can think of several reasons why, in the current climate, an academic might be willing to carry out tests on an artefact such as the "Ripper Diary" without charging fees.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 362
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 5:52 pm: | |
Actually, while I think of it, what about the availability of the Watch?
If someone offered to do some more tests on it, free of charge (though, of course, with equal freedom to publish the results of the tests), would it be made available?
Chris Phillips
|
Dee
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 2:30 pm: | |
Hi people,
I have a question. A woman named Elizabeth Darrell gave a description to the police about a man she said she had seen with Annie Chapman outside 29 Hanbury Street the night Annie was murdered.
According to police records and newspaper reports she described him as 'dark complexioned and over 40 years of age' and also said he seemed 'foreign'. But she never actually saw his face, so how could she be sure that he was 'dark complexioned'? And if thats the case, why did she say he seemed 'foreign'?
I've read through all my books and cannot find the answer. If anyone has any info on this I'd be grateful.
Hope you are all well.
Cheers,
Dee. x |
Darkest Sin
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 7:17 pm: | |
for the record id like to set straight its not James Maybrick but actually James Maverick .Has anyone seen The Diary Of Jack the Ripper on television?. If so can u email me ur views and any extra infomation on Jack the Ripper u have as im interested to found out what everyone knows before i share my knowlegde. Ok thanks everyone see ya Later |
brad kelley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 1:11 pm: | |
i read the diary (well most of it) at the bookstore recently and it is well written but did not convince me...and the end where he reveals his name for all to remember...common get serious. |
Dee
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 1:04 pm: | |
Hi people,
I have a question. I've already posted it on here in another posting but it went unanswered and I'd like a fresh perspective.
In the official documents it states that Mary Jane Kelly's breasts were under her head and foot. Does anyone actually know how the police ascertained this fact? I am not overly clued up about Victorian pathology, though it would be obvious their knowledge of anatomy etc would be lesser than today. How did they confirm what flesh was where? I do not mean the organs etc as they would be easier to determine. Does anyone know if they could accurate confirm the breasts from the flesh taken from her stomach and thigh? And if so, how did they do it?
Just curious, if anyone knows the answer I'd be really interested.
Thanks,
Dee. x |
Dee
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 1:17 pm: | |
John Carey,
Your posting was interesting. Who was the inmate they named as the Ripper and what lunatic asylum was it? Does it give a diagnosis as to why the person the named as the Ripper was in there? Who wrote it?
Regards,
Dee. x |
Dee
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 12:44 pm: | |
John,
Actually, the first few lines of my previous post were meant to be lighthearted. Like I had already pointed out and as your reply has proven that you take this 'diary' business more seriously than I do!
It seems that no matter what I reply, you will not hear my view without twisting or turning it to your advantage. I did not wish for you to agree with me, I am not an expert, I only wished to discuss views, info and fact to try to build a better picture. So, as you have requested, I will not bother to try. And for the record, it's not because I cannot make a valid point, it is because I cannot make a valid point to you as you refuse to even listen and discuss in an appropriate manner the different points of view rather than try to make people look stupid. Is that not why we come on here? To discuss different points of view and learn from those who have a better knowledge than ourselves?
I did not wish to get into this whole diary debate. I came on here to discuss James Maybrick himself and the JtR case files. You have taken everything I have posted and tried to make me look foolish. That's fine with me.
If your reply post had been a tad more constructive rather than an attack on people who do not agree with your opinion, then I would have been more than willing to explain my reasons as to why I think Maybrick was JtR without relying on anything to do with the diary. That is obviously not going to happen, as anything I write you will turn about to make it about the diary.
So why should I waste my time? I'd rather correspond with people who are willing to discuss in a reasonable manner the possibilties and also the unlikehood of Maybrick being the Ripper. You see, I unlike you, am willing to be open to all opinion, whether it coincides with my own or not. And the reason why? Because I may be wrong. I do not know, I was not there at the time these murders happened, so therefore I cannot state with 100% certainty who was Jack.
I thought I would be able to learn and discuss this reasonably with you. But that is obviously not going to happen as you only seem to want to attack anyone who disagrees with your opinion, and more importantly drag everyone into this whole diary issue.
I have been pleasant and polite and also at the end of posts apologised if any comment I have made has been offensive in any way. All I will do this time is apologise for not being perfect and knowing everything about this case. Thats why I post on here. To try to learn more.
So there you are. I will not bother posting any reply to you again as according to you everything I say is irrelevant. So as I'm such an irrelevant person, then you do not need to hear my opinion.
Thank you for your correspondance John.
Once again, if anything I have said is considered offensive, may I apologise and point out that I am only defending myself. (And John...I'd like to point out that I'm not apologising for being wrong, I am apologising because my good manners dictate that I do so). And just for the record...in one well versed book that is very popular and thought to be accurate the author states that in regards to the physical description, where the Ripper lived and worked etc,and as to who he really was, our 'knowledge is based on speculation and incomplete information'.
Regards,
Dee. |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 418
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 3:50 pm: | |
Nine paragraphs and still not a single piece of real evidence.
Nine paragraphs and a number of previous posts before this and still not a single detailed argument supported either by historical documentation or hard data offered in support of the chosen suspect's candidacy.
Nine paragraphs and number of previous posts and all we finally get, amidst all the umbrage and vague discussion of manners, is:
If your reply post had been a tad more constructive rather than an attack on people who do not agree with your opinion, then I would have been more than willing to explain my reasons as to why I think Maybrick was JtR without relying on anything to do with the diary.
Nine paragraphs and a number of previous posts, and still no real reason(s) at all.
I think the point has been made. There is no legitimate historical reason whatsoever to consider the real James Maybrick as a suspect in the murder of these women. There is no verifiable evidence anywhere on the planet that links him in any way to these crimes.
But we already knew that.
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1130
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 4:17 am: | |
Hi Chris,
I’m only going by Robert Smith’s latest words on the subject of testing, which I assume you have also read. If you need any further clarification regarding the diary’s availability, I suggest you ask him.
And naturally I can’t speak for the owner of the watch. It is entirely his decision when he makes it available for others to examine.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 1:03 pm: | |
John V Omlor wrote: "...There is no legitimate historical reason whatsoever to consider the real James Maybrick as a suspect in the murder of these women. There is no verifiable evidence anywhere on the planet that links him in any way to these crimes."
From your angle, you are not wrong. You only know what is commonly available information at the time of writing.
However, there is every reason to consider Maybrick as JTR, without consideration to the diary, a very strong reason. People on this site are forever having these circular arguments, arguments that are pointless and prove nothing either way at the end of the day instead of looking properly at the available material. People can't see the wood for the trees.
"The mind is more subtle than a hard fact" |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
