|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 487
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 3:42 pm: |       |
Uh, Paul,
We have several what?
Where?
We have none confirmed to be even in the right country, let alone the right city or the right street.
I think Chris Phillips has demonstrated what's wrong with the numbers as they originally appeared here.
And once again an anachronism in the diary remains completely unexplained except by pure desire and the power of Figment and his Imagination.
No surprise, though. That's how it always is with such readers.
Still nothing new. Still nothing real.
Thanks for coming,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1150
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 12:44 pm: | |
I think all Paul was really saying is that another argument bites the dust: this time, the argument that the name Hammersmith proved to be a fictional one, and therefore a figment of a forger's fevered and overactive imagination.
Unfortunately, the fictional speculation wasn't a definitely ascertained fact, because the fact is that many Mrs Hammersmiths were around in the 1880s, leaving the possibility that one of 'em encountered the real JM in the right place at the right time - unless anyone has documentary evidence to the contrary.
Whether the diarist knew this possibility existed - or knew his Mrs Hammersmith existed - when he wrote about bumping into her, is another matter.
This 'impossible' argument is no more: it has popped its clogs and ceases to exist.
But if there are plenty more impossible fish in the sea, no one will regret this one getting away - will they?
Love,
Caz
X
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 388
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 3:11 pm: | |
Caz
I think all Paul was really saying is that another argument bites the dust.
Did anyone ever argue that no one existed in the world called Hammersmith? Not much of a "triumph" for Maybrickites, if not.
The argument, I think, was that no Hammersmith at all had been found in Liverpool at the right time, that the surname was almost unique in England at the time (only 2 Hamersmiths in 1881), and that it was extremely rare elsewhere (1 in 250,000 on the other side of the Atlantic).
It's essentially a probabilistic argument, based on the frequency of the surname. But of course you don't believe in probability theory. No wonder ...
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 490
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 5:37 pm: | |
Thanks, Chris.
If the diary crowd is reduced to claiming as a victory the (unchallenged and unclaimed) fact that someone actually named "Mrs. Hammersmith" might have existed somewhere on the entire planet in 1888, then things must not be so good for the case for authenticity (he wrote, as if such a thing really existed).
Of course, the claim has always been that no one by that name lived in the right place at the right time and all the research and all the records indicate that this too was a fictional person created by a forger.
And guess what? That's exactly the state of the evidence today.
Amazing, huh? Still nothing new. Still nothing real.
By the way, as I understand it, being a foreigner and all, the name "Hammersmith" might very well have been known to someone in Liverpool writing a fake diary in the 1980s (rather than a real one in the 1880s). Right? I mean, especially if they had a newspaper with an Entertainment section or watched the television and saw reviews of pop concerts and other such events. No?
Well, maybe not. 
In any case, nothing's changed, of course. And there is still not a single piece of evidence anywhere that even remotely suggests that this diary is anything other than a fake.
All in all, your findings about the absence of the name in the right place at the right time is, as the poet once wrote, "just another brick in the wall."
Shine on, you crazy diamond,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1155
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 6:18 am: | |
'Of course, the claim has always been that no one by that name lived in the right place at the right time and all the research and all the records indicate that this too was a fictional person created by a forger.'
Well, that was my point - in other words, the very language of any such claim demonstrates quite clearly to anyone able to read plain English and use a bit of common sense that the claim itself is as illogical as it is invalid.
One can't prove a negative like this, and an absence of records showing the individual movements of everyone called Mrs Hammersmith during a ten-year period between, say, 1882 and 1890, could not possibly indicate that the Mrs H in the diary was a fictional person.
You are free to conclude that this absence is damning evidence of a forger at work, if you so desire. But at present I can only conclude it is quite meaningless.
For instance, have all the 1880s passenger arrivals in Liverpool from America and elsewhere been checked for any sightings of a Mrs Hammersmith disembarking for a visit to this green and pleasant land? If so, perhaps you could confirm for me that no one of that name could have done so, and I'll be happy to take this absence on board.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 615
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 6:42 am: | |
Hi everyone,
In my humble opinion it is the context in which the phrase 'Mrs Ham(m)ersmith' is used that is the most important thing for determing who Mrs Hamersmith was. If Mrs Hamersmith got off a boat as you suggest Caz, then this begs the question(s) how did she know the Maybricks quite so well (as indicated in my opinion by the diary entry), and where was she staying and for that matter and now I think about it who was Mr Hamersmith as Hamersmith is apparently her married name. And for that matter if Hamersmith was her married name what was her maiden name?
It is not the name in itself that is the problem the context in which it is used is
'Strolled by the drive, encountered Mrs Hamersmith, she enquired of Bobo and Gladys and much to my astonishment about my health. What has that wh**e said? Mrs Hamersmith is a bi**h.'
Mrs Hamersmith is a neighbour is she not? She is at least well known to the Maybrick household? She was the kind of person one would come across by accident and who would make busy body enquires. She was not the kind of person who was invited to tea from America, in that case?
Just a thought
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 494
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 7:12 am: | |
Hi all,
Just to recap, in words I have just written elsewhere but which fit quite nicely on this thread too:
1. No argument that was ever actually offered by anyone about the Mrs. Hammersmith problem has either "bitten the dust" or even been directly addressed here by anyone.
The argument that was offered -- all the research and records we have indicate that there was no such person at that place and at that time -- remains completely valid and unchallenged.
And there is still no reason, no matter how much desire one might allow to accompany one's reading, to dismiss that inconvenient bit of history as meaningless in such an investigation.
In fact, like so many -- indeed all -- the real bits of evidence produced by any careful reading of the diary, it points in an exclusively singular direction. Away from authenticity and directly towards a fake.
Hmmmm....
Perhaps that's because the thing really is a fake.
Nah. Ya think?
Still waiting for anything new, anything real,
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 391
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 7:47 am: | |
The argument, I think, was that no Hammersmith at all had been found in Liverpool at the right time, that the surname was almost unique in England at the time (only 2 Hamersmiths in 1881), and that it was extremely rare elsewhere (1 in 250,000 on the other side of the Atlantic).
Just to correct myself.
There are no known Hammersmiths or Hamersmiths in the 1881 census of England and Wales.
The Hamersmiths that appear in the 1881 census index at St Helens turn out really to be Hamiltons - Shirley Harrison having traced their marriage certificate and the birth certificate of the husband.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 619
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 1:22 pm: | |
Hang on,
and not to argue with Chris but Hamilton is not that uncommon a name, how satisfied are we that these are the right people?
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 621
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 2:06 pm: | |
Caution this information comes only from the 1901 census online searchable index - I have not checked it against the original (and as Douglas Lees is down as Donglas I wouldn't put anything as gospel)
Hamersmith 0 results
Hammersmith
Alfred Hammersmith 6 Lincs Caistor Lincolnshire Caistor
Edith Hammersmith 4 Lincs Caistor Lincolnshire Caistor
Now these kids don't seem to have parents but as I mentioned above...
Free BMD (not complete)
Surname First name(s) Age District Vol Page
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deaths Mar 1841
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAMMERSMITH Ann Kensington 3 217
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deaths Dec 1866
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hammersmith Henrietta 0 Mile End 1c 399
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Births Mar 1868
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hammersmith Augustus Johanna Mile End 1c 549
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deaths Mar 1868
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAMMERSMITH Augusta J 0 Mile End 1c 369
HAMMERSMITH Hermenn 34 Mile End 1c 359
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marriages Sep 1883
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAMMERSMITH Minnie Hackney 1b 809
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Births Mar 1897
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hammersmith Harry Mile End 1c 497
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marriages Mar 1908
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAMMERSMITH Charles Pancras 1b 114
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Births Jun 1909
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAMMERSMITH Charles Joseph Pancras 1b 28
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 500
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 3:17 pm: | |
Jennifer,
Excellent. And what does this tell you about the woman named in the diary?
--John |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 392
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 3:18 pm: | |
Jennifer
I think the details of the marriage certificate did match up to the rest of the census entry (the bride's surname and so on).
It's not a vitally important point - as your other extracts show, there was the odd Hammersmith about; also some in Scotland, some on the other side of the Atlantic. But an extremely rare name, and no trace at all of a Mrs Hammersmith when needed in Liverpool, despite the no-doubt strenuous efforts of researchers to trace her.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 626
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 8:56 am: | |
John,
if the woman named in the diary existed at all (which I wonder about) then it tells me that Hammersmith was her married name and that she died before the 1901 census or left the country before that time (or that the 1901 census online is rubbish).
It also tells me that unsurprisingly Hammersmith is a London/southern name. Also not a very common one at that.
I maintain my belief that the Mrs Hammersmith mentioned in the diary was a local to the liverpool area and therefore was not one of the Hammersmiths above.
Though who really knows!
Chris,
as you say the fact Mrs H. cannot be found in Liverpool is a big doubt for the diary's authenticity.
Thanks for the Hamilton info.
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 684
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 10:28 am: | |
Hi
I've been thinking you know and something occurred to me (shock horror!!)
Anyway,(assuming for one second the diary was not written by James Maybrick) having picked a person with one of the most obscure names in the country - why then would a forger choose a name (Ham(m)ersmith) which is even more rare. Which in fact I didn't even know was a name? Surely a more safe bet would be to go with Mrs Jones or Mrs Richards or something?
Thats all
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 538
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 10:49 am: | |
Jennifer,
Here's just one little thought.
Think entertainment. Think newspapers and television and pop music and the media world of the late 20th century.
Or maybe just think simple geography.
Just a guess, just for fun,
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 412
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 11:00 am: | |
Jennifer
Funnily enough, Caz has made the very same point a number of times.
As I've said before, this type of argument does depend on an assumption that the forger was pretty intelligent. Does the spelling, the grammar, or any other aspect of the diary give you the impression that the forger was particularly intelligent?
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 687
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 11:40 am: | |
John,
think - I don't know what you are talking about and i had a think (please remember I was only 10 in 1994!!)
Chris,
no assuming there is a forger I do not believe them to be intelligent. I just wonder where they plucked that from that is all!
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 413
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 12:33 pm: | |
Jennifer
I'm sure it would have come from the district of West London. If I remember correctly, that's where Barrett said he'd got it from.
Just as Dickens chose the name "Stephen Blackpool" for the hero of one of his novels, despite the fact that Blackpool is almost as uncommon a surname in England as Hammersmith. (Not that Dickens would have minded this too much - Chuzzlewit, Fezziwig etc spring to mind.)
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 691
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 6:20 am: | |
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the info.
Perhaps you are right. How do people come up with names anyhow?(I mean for fiction in a forgery hypothesis)
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 544
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 7:45 am: | |
Hi Jennifer,
Often from the world around them. Often from memory. Often from other things they've read.
In any case, this particular fiction, like say Alan Rudolph's The Moderns, mixes "real people" from the historical past with fictional people. Unfortunately, what it says about the "real people" does not correspond to what we know, and what it says about the fictional people, of course, has no history to support it.
But it was a fun story.
All the best,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 693
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 10:38 am: | |
Hi John,
Still Mrs Hammersmith is probably one of the least worst problems with the diary, I don't really have a big problem with this one.
Did that make sense?
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 546
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 11:38 am: | |
Hi Jennifer,
It's a question of cumulative data. It's a question of one thing after another after another after another. It's a question of what eventually constitutes a valid induction.
And in this case we have a long list of things that scream "fake!" (despite the desperate and self-evident attempts at creative excuse making to be found here) and not a single real thing that even whispers "authentic."
That's what makes sense.
The data, the history, the records, the handwriting we have, everything points in a single direction.
That's what allows us to say this book was not written by the real James Maybrick.
And apparently no one participating in this discussion thinks it was, or you'd see some real evidence offered somewhere.
Unless, of course, there isn't any...
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 698
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 5:11 am: | |
John,
umm.....
Yes I agree with what you said in relation to cumulative data.
However, assuming there was a forger they didn't have to get everything wrong just because they got one thing wrong.
And anyway, all it takes really is the one slip up,
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 549
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 8:03 am: | |
Hi Jen,
You'd think so, wouldn't you?
But not when the excuse patrol in on duty....
(After all, he might have been a francophile who couldn't spell with multiple personalities who saw the confidential police reports but couldn't remember his crimes and met people who never existed...)
Chuckling, as always,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 414
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 8:17 am: | |
Jennifer
all it takes really is the one slip up,
All it should take is the one slip up.
The only reason we're still discussing the diary is that there's a small bunch of people who are determined to keep alive a belief that it could be genuine, so they come forward with these desperately convoluted "explanations" of the apparent errors.
As we've seen with Caz over the key, in any other context they would simply accept the evidence at face value. But where the diary is concerned, common sense takes a holiday and the laws of probability are suspended.
That's why we end up having a dozen or more parallel discussions about the problems with the diary, with the Maybrickites saying on every one, but it's possible that ...
Barnett was lying about the key ...
Maybrick paid for sex with a matchbox ...
He reproduced the wording of the Eddowes inventory by chance ...
Barrett found the Crashaw quotation by chance ...
The Ripper couldn't remember the details of his murders and copied them out of the newspapers ...
The witnesses at Chapman's inquest lied on oath about the farthings ...
Maybrick's handwriting became unrecognisable when he was writing his diary ...
The Poste House doesn't mean the Poste House ...
Mrs Hammersmith was visiting from Chicago ...
and so on and so forth.
We're presented with all these explanations, and it's claimed that each of them individually is possible, no matter how improbable. That's why it has to be pointed out the improbability of 10 unlikely events happening isn't just 10 times as big - the improbability has to be raised to the power of 10!
After all this discussion, you must yourself be starting to draw some conclusions about the likelihood of the diary being genuine?
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 701
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 11:00 am: | |
Hi John,
Yes I would!!
Hi Chris,
All it takes is one slip up. I think we agree.
Cheers
Jennifer
ps do I think James Maybrick was Jack The Ripper, nope, just thought I should clarify that one!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 415
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 12:35 pm: | |
Jennifer
All it takes is one slip up. I think we agree.
That's a relief. For a moment I thought you meant you hadn't spotted a slip up yet!
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 704
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 3:41 am: | |
Chris,
no I didn't mean that at all.
Phew! i think you understand where I am coming from!!
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1179
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 7:31 am: | |
‘It's a question of cumulative data’.
This is a potentially fatally flawed argument, which Jennifer came tantalisingly close to seeing for herself when she pointed out that the modern hoax theories only need one fatal ‘slip-up’ – not a whole long list of ‘probable’ slip-ups, repeated daily in order to get the message through.
All we have here is someone’s opinion of the most probable ‘slip-up’ taking on the role of Mother Duck, with all the probable and likely slip-ups – her little ducklings - following obediently behind.
For example, if Mike’s Sphere book really did give birth to the idea of quoting from Crashaw in the diary, and someone had proved it, then their precious mother duck would already be a femme fatale called ‘Fatal Slip-Up’, making all the noise you could want to hear. And waddling behind her, faithfully and silently dependent, would come her tiny fluffy Cumberland duckling, two tender young breasts of duckling from the table, and one little yellow fellow from a now empty tin box, to mention but three of her probable brood.
But ‘Fatal Slip-Up’ is a canard: the only mother duck we have here answers, in hushed and shame-faced tones, to the name of ‘Most Probable Slip-Up’. She is certainly followed by a long line of incredibly noisy and repetitive lesser ducks – but they are all chips off the old ‘Slip-Up’ block, belonging to her, and related to this particular branch of the Cumulative Data family.
If this mother duck is but a quack, and an illegitimate ‘Fatal’, then her noisy brood is also illegitimate. It would certainly explain their constant complaining, their struggle to make their quacking heard, and their desire to get a good place in the pecking order recognised.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 52
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 7:38 am: | |
Caz,
Mother Duck is just funny funny funny. The next person that annoys me is getting called a mother ducker.
STAN |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 421
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 8:10 am: | |
Caz
Why not try to educate yourself a little about probability and statistics rather than spending your time posting this nonsensical stuff?
Actually, forget that last suggestion. If you're really as statistically illiterate as your post suggests - and blissful in your ignorance - I think I know of a few online casinos that may be really interested in your custom!
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on August 09, 2004) |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 552
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 8:41 am: | |
Someone, it seems, has either never learned or forgotten the meaning of "induction."
Once again, the data, the history, the records, the handwriting, every piece of evidence we have points in a single direction.
There is not a single piece of evidence that points in the other direction.
And, attentive readers will notice, in her last post, Caroline does not offer any.
And, it should be made clear that the individual pieces of evidence we do have, the handwriting, the police list line, the ahistorical details, the mistakes about the murders and the author's family, the anachronisms, the artificial structure, and the complete lack of provenance, do not in fact follow from one another but stand quite alone and remain separately in place regardless of what happens to the others.
Each one of them demonstrates that the real James did not write this book.
Together, they produce a perfectly valid inductive conclusion -- the diary is a fake.
The only reason any single one of them is not enough to stop discussion here, the only reason even their cumulative appearance does not stop discussion here, is because there are still one or two readers so desperate to fight that conclusion by whatever means necessary that the logic of the induction is simply and casually denied, against reason, against reading, against common sense, in favor purely of desire, of dreams, of wishes.
But dreams do not make logic disappear.
Nor do they make simple inductive conclusions any less valid.
Nor will they make this book authentic.
The real James did not write this book. Everyone writing on this thread knows that, including the writer(s) who sometimes try to dodge the evidence and deny the conclusion.
One can only wonder why they do so.
I know they won't admit that they know the book is a fake, as so many of the real scholars and historians of the subject already have. From Begg to Skinner to Fido to Evans to Rumbelow to Sugden and on down the line -- the historians know. So do we, of course. All of us.
Some, however, just won't admit it publicly.
And I suspect they won't tell us why.
And so the conversation, silly as it is, meaningless as it is, the lark that is, continues not because there are no fatal slip-ups in the book, not because the evidence does not allow us to make a valid inductive conclusion concerning its authenticity, but only because there are some who are willing to place their own desires and dreams above the logic, above the evidence, above even what the text itself says.
That, and that alone, is the foundation of our goofy little Diary World and the wellspring of our continued nonsense here.
We are playing at conversing in the face of a question that was decided by serious and responsible scholars long ago.
The only sad part is that new arrivals might accidentally be sucked in by this book or by these people and their rhetoric of desperation into believing this nonsense is possible.
And that's irresponsible, that's crass and unfortunate, that reflects badly on the entire field, and that's also just bad for history.
So the discussion inevitably continues, in order that, as new people arrive or read this little fake book, they can come and see where logic sits, see where reason is, and see what the evidence exclusively allows us to conclude via a valid inductive argument.
That's why we're still here, where there's still nothing real and still nothing new,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 706
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 12:24 pm: | |
Hi everyone,
Who cares about cumulative data anyway. The fact remains all it takes is one slip up and as even Caz has pointed out, there is potentially more than one slip up. Therefore even if what this duck stuff was getting at were the case then the mother duck would still be a slip up.
I can't believe I am even using this terminology I hope you get my point.
There are two strong choices for the 'mother duck' tin match box empty, and O costly intercourse/of death - these I find to be most problematic.
As for the baby ducks as I've mentioned before I think Mrs Ham(m)ersmith is probably the least problematic of the bunch (or whatever a group of small ducks is called)
Anyhow,
its only appropriate to say tara me duck!
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 553
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 5:26 pm: | |
Hi Jen,
Of course, you are right in saying there is more than one fatal slip-up.
But no good historian, scholar, investigator, researcher, reader, analyst, or critical thinker should ever say "who cares about cumulative data anyway."
It's bad logic, bad research methodology, and bad thinking.
Needless to say, using either the single slip-up method or the cumulative data method (or any other method of analyzing the evidence anyone would care to name) the only conclusion towards which ALL the evidence points, without exception, if that the real James did not write this diary.
That's why you NEVER see anyone around here offer any real evidence that says he did.
They try and make excuses for the many slip-ups and for all the evidence that says he didn't, for the handwriting and the police list line and the texts' ahistoricism and the mistakes concerning the murders and the author's family and the appearance of a place that didn't exist in the proper century and the fake structure and the complete lack of provenance and all the rest -- they try to come up with fairytales and wishes that might excuse all these silly mistakes, but they never offer ANY evidence of any sort that even suggests that the real James actually wrote this book or killed these women.
Do you know why that is?
There are two reason.
1. There is no real, material evidence of any sort that suggests that this book was written by the real James or that he was Jack the Ripper. None. Anywhere.
2. They know the book's a fake.
So, you might, ask, what are we doing here? What is the source of their continuing rhetoric of desperation when even they know that they have no evidence of any kind to actually SUPPORT the idea of authenticity, when even they know that the book wasn't written by the real James and that every piece of evidence that does exist tells us this?
What is the source of this desperation, so strong that it allows them, even apparently compels them, to create post after post in which, as the poet says, "logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead?"
Well, that's a very good question.
Everyone here knows the truth
Begg, Fido, Skinner, Evans, Rumbelow, Sugden, all the experts understand the truth.
Why do some just refuse to admit it?
What is at stake? What is gained or lost by publicly admitting that the real James could not have written this book?
Have they just committed themselves so deeply that they now feel they must defend themselves and their intellectual reputations at any cost, even at the cost of rational critical thought, basic common sense and simple reading?
Or is it more than that?
These questions make up the truly fascinating mystery of the bogus diary.
These are among the most intriguing questions that remain in Diary World.
Who forged it? Sure, that's a fascinating mystery and probably will be for some time.
But why are there some who know the truth, who realize that the real James did not write this book, and who sill still not admit it here in public?
That is, in its own way, an even more interesting (and perhaps disturbing) psychological question.
Perhaps we should have a thread for that one. 
Nah, I already know what would be there.
Take care,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1180
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 4:56 am: | |
John writes:
'Of course, you are right in saying there is more than one fatal slip-up.'
So why can't John's two little ducks, Mr and Mrs Fatal Slip-Up, get all their littluns to shut the - ahem - duck up then? 
Lord luv a duck, there's not nearly enough parental control these days.
And poor Chris is still running around like a chicken with its head cut off, not appreciating just how dead all the little probable ducks would be without a mother to feed them a worm or two.
The empty tin match box was there at a murder scene and officially listed at the time - the killer could have known about it (it could even have belonged to him!), as - apparently - could a forger working many years before 1987. In either case, your Cumberland duckling would be burnt to a frazzle, and your costly Sphere specimen would never have been conceived in the first place.
The duck breasts could point to a drug-abused brain relying on contemporary news reports and later having a flicker of recollection involving breasts and feet; or a forger working at any time before 1989, relying on accepted truth and then coincidentally inventing the breasts/feet link in order to succeed in finding a rhyme for 'sweet'. [Note for John: this kind of success does not imply that the diarist was/is a famous poet.]
Of course, if a forger was working after 1989, egged on by the Sphere book and a gander at the recently published Eddowes list, the silly goose missed three golden eggs: one by transferring the apparently rare-as-hens'-teeth info about a 'tin match box empty' straight to diary; and two more when he failed to use the recently published Bond report (a) to place his breasts to perfection and (b) to ensure we got the picture about Kelly's heart being in the right place - as in 'missing', presumed lost (just like her door key in fact).
The handwriting tells us nothing about when the diary was written.
Neither does Mrs Hammersmith.
So you see, the little ducks really would be all over the place (and time) without a firm modern beak to enforce Victorian values and keep 'em all in line.
And when I once explained all this probability and cumulative data stuff to a former poster (who threw a tantrum and went off in a huff), using red, blue and green bricks instead of our feathered friends, John understood it perfectly. In fact, he agreed with me about the pitfalls of using one probable as a foundation on which to build a whole series of other probables (some of which aren't even possibles unless the first probable is sound), and then to declare you have an indestructible house of truth and knowledge.
I suppose I could have stuck to bricks instead of budging to ducks, to warn against over-reliance on probabilities regarding John's 1988-inspired hoax theory. But maybe the recurring images of egg all over face had something to do with it.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 711
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 5:24 am: | |
Caz,
I'm not really sure about this duck analogy.
I don't think that anyone is particularly using one probable to build on another. No one is saying Mrs Hammersmith is wrong because tin match box empty is wrong, they are both problematic, independently of each other, if you like.
Jennifer
ps quack, quack , quack!!!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 423
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 5:44 am: | |
Jennifer
You've hit the nail on the head. The odds accumulate (by multiplying together) if they relate to independent events. Like horses running in different races, or successive tosses of a coin or throws of a die.
The errors and anachronisms in the diary are independent events. The fact that the diary isn't in Maybrick's handwriting has nothing to do with the non-existence of Mrs Hammersmith. The fact that the diary refers to non-existent farthings has nothing to do with the problem of the misplaced breasts.
On the other hand, some of these difficulties do involve more than one unlikely event. We're asked to believe both that the killer somehow knew Eddowes had an empty tin match box on her person and that in mentioning it he miraculously duplicated the wording of the inventory. And the Crashaw difficulty involves not only the unlikelihood of Maybrick quoting Crashaw in the first place, but also the improbability of Barrett finding the obscure quotation in the library by chance.
Inasmuch as I can make any sense at all out of Caz's latest post, she seems to be assuming that if the "tin match box" could be explained, that would remove the difficulties about the Poste House and "oh costly intercourse". Sheer nonsense.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 555
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 7:20 am: | |
Well, that was so easy to answer I didn't even have to be here.
Of course, the whole point of gathering all this evidence is that each of these pieces are independent and stand alone -- they do not follow from one another and are not dependent upon one another in any way.
And, in this case, it so happens that none of them can be explained without the desperate dodging and dancing of desire and the gasping and clutching at any improbable coincidence.
Sure, there just happens to be a pub by that very name in the very city where the diary takes place -- but that's just a coincidence -- sure, the diarist wrote "The Poste House" but meant something else. We hope. Desperately.
That's almost as bad as the Miracle of the Liverpool Library.
Now, in the meantime, let's see if Caroline has offered any real evidence to support the idea that the real James either wrote this book or killed these women.
I'm reading.
I'm still reading.
Uh, I'm still reading.
I'm done.
Guess what? Nothing. Not a piece. Not a single piece of real evidence that even remotely suggests the real James wrote this book.
I wonder why.
Instead, what does she write?
I'll try and translate.
She asks why, if there are indeed such fatal slip-ups, we're still here debating the diary.
That's easy.
Because there are still people here (at least one or two), like our friends over at the flat-earth sites and the humans with dinosaurs sites, that are willing to deny all the compelling evidence in favor of impossible excuses and dreams offered via a rhetoric of desperation. And these people, while they pimp such nonsense, threaten to mislead newcomers to the field about the facts, the logic, the available reading, and the sense. So, as long as they stay here spouting that the diary might be real because the real James Maybrick could have really been a multiple personalitied Crashaw quoting Francophile who forgot the details of his crimes and his family and lied throughout his diary, but telepathically reproduced a line from a police document while talking to people that didn't exist and drinking in pubs that didn't exist, we'll be around to return this discussion now and then to common sense and to what IS actually written on the pages -- like the words "Poste House."
I visited their website yesterday. It looks like a fun place.
Hey, too bad James didn't write that. But, of course, we would then be told that he might have written "website," but he really meant a fancy made-up word for "advertisement" and he was just trying to impress us all with his ability to formulate new words for common things.
Meanwhile, back in Caroline's post, she offers no explanation whatsoever for how the real James could have reproduced exactly a line from a police report he could not possibly have seen.
That's because she has none.
The only explanation she can possibly offer for the killer getting the details of his own crimes wrong is the old "he was a drug crazed serial killer" plea, which can be used, of course, to excuse all the diary's ahistoricisms if you have no shame, if you have no sense of scholarly responsibility or logic and if you do not wish to carefully check the document against the data and the known record. Once again, history is trumped by pure desire.
But, of course, if you actually read the words on the page, the diary gets it wrong -- again.
Then she hints at how silly each of these mistakes would have been for a forger to make.
YES!
And yet they made them all, so why are we surprised that they made any single one? Why would anyone be surprised? Making such silly mistakes is exactly what the text demonstrates to us that it's creators were routinely doing.
And we haven't even mentioned the silliest, the most obvious, the most fatal one of all.
I've been saving that one.
Because Caroline offers us the single most incomplete sentence in the history of the Casebook in her post above.
So let's take a minute and re-read it carefully.
It's the only sentence from her post I will bother to cite, since Chris points out exactly why her argument regarding the other pieces of evidence is nonsense.
It's my favorite sentence and deserves to stand alone, as it does in her post.
Here we go:
The handwriting tells us nothing about when the diary was written.
Once again:
The handwriting tells us nothing about when the diary was written.
End of sentence. End of paragraph.
OK people, all together now, WHAT'S MISSING?
Why is this sentence, as it stands, a remarkably incomplete thought within this discussion?
Help me here.
OF COURSE!
The handwriting tells us nothing about when the diary was written -- but it tells us the diary is a fake.
The handwriting tells us nothing about when the diary was written -- but it tells us the diary was not written by the real James Maybrick.
The handwriting tells us nothing about when the diary was written -- but it tells us this thing is a forgery, written by someone else, and clearly not authentic.
How many ways are there to say it?
Why doesn't Caroline?
Why doesn't she finish the thought?
Why can't she bring herself to write the words?
Instead, she changes to subject to the whole "when was it forged" question. But my posts above argue over and over again only that the logical conclusion we are allowed to induce from the evidence is that the real James did not write this book.
And Caroline knows that.
And Caroline also knows that this conclusion is true.
And yet she just can't type the words on her screen.
Why?
"The handwriting tells us nothing about when the diary was written."
But I have not been arguing anywhere above about concluding when it was written.
I have been arguing that we have all the evidence we need to determine that it's a fake.
And it is.
So why does she feel compelled to change the subject so quickly?
Could it be because she knows we are right, that there is no way the real James wrote this book or killed these women, and so she'd rather talk about something else?
"The handwriting tells us nothing about when the diary was written."
What DOES it tell us, Caroline?
Can you bring yourself to write the answer to that question here, honestly?
Or will we have more excuses, a la multiple personalities or many moods/many hands or other such desperation even now?
"The handwriting tells us nothing about when the diary was written."
But it tells us quite a bit about who did not write it, doesn't it?
"The handwriting tells us nothing about when the diary was written."
She says.
Now, let's see if she'll tell us what it is "the handwriting tells us" about.
This should be good.
Filled with ketchup-like anticipation,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 712
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 7:33 am: | |
John,
she's right the diary handwriting doesn't really tell us anything about when the diary was written, but what has all this got to do with ducks (quack!!) and cumulative data - which is what we were arguing about the last time I looked!!
Just because 1+1= 2 in the diary (and is correct about something)
doesn't mean elsewhere (1+2+3=5) is also correct.
Did that make sense?
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 557
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 7:43 am: | |
Hi Jen,
Sure, there are many things that tell us that this book is a fake. They each do so and they do so all together as well.
But for the moment, forget all the rest of this nonsense, and remember only this.
The handwriting tells us that the book was not written by the real James Maybrick.
I know that.
You know that.
And guess what?
Caroline knows that.
So why would she write only:
"The handwriting tells us nothing about when the diary was written."
and not say what it does tell us?
Perhaps she'll explain.
--John
PS: The data in this case is both singularly and cumulatively fatal and clearly allows for the valid inductive conclusion that the real James did not write this diary. In case you were wondering.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 716
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 12:29 pm: | |
John,
no I wasn't wondering!
Yes you are right the handwriting doesn't seem to match James. However, Caz is also right it doesn't tell us anything about when the diary was written, but then i don't think anyone was arguing it did. Maybe I am wrong?
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 428
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 12:42 pm: | |
Jennifer
I'm afraid one of Caz's diversionary tactics is to blur together the arguments about whether the diary is genuine, and whether it's an old fake or a new one. That's why the references to 1989 have crept into her message.
So she can say "the handwriting doesn't give us a date" but evade the fact that it tells us the diary is a fake (as John has pointed out).
Of course, there's more abundant evidence that it is a fake than that it is an old fake (logically that has to be true). But two of the most striking pieces of evidence - "Oh costly intercourse" and "tin match box empty" - point to Barrett's involvement and the late 1980s respectively.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on August 10, 2004) |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 834
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 2:14 pm: | |
Hi all
If there's no evidence James Maybrick ever owned the Diary.
If there's no evidence he wrote it (i.e., it isn't in his handwriting).
If there's no evidence that he was in Whitechapel at the right time, or was ever questioned by the police.
If there's no evidence that the farthings ever existed.
If there's no evidence that Maybrick left initials anywhere, on walls or envelopes.
If there's no evidence Maybrick could have known about the police report.
If there's no evidence he knew any poetry by Crashaw.
If there's no evidence that Mrs. Hammersmith existed.
If he wrote that he drank in a pub that did not go by that name in 1888.
If he doesn't know his own brother's profession.
If he puts the pieces of Mary Jane Kelly's body in the wrong places at 13 Miller's Court.
Hmmmm... Well, if it seems like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it must be a duck.
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 718
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 2:34 pm: | |
Hi Chris and Chris,
I didn't know he didn't know his own brother's profession, that one must have passed me by.
Which brother?
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 835
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 3:17 pm: | |
Hi, Jennifer
The Diarist believes that James Maybrick's brother wrote rhymes. Michael Maybrick wrote music not the lyrics for the songs he wrote with lyricist Frederick E. Weatherly. Weatherly, a well-known London barrister who is sometimes credited with writing the lyrics to the song "Danny Boy," wrote the words lyrics for such songs as "The Holy City" written to the music of "Stephen Adams"--the stage name of Michael Maybrick.
All the best
Chris
(Message edited by chrisg on August 10, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 430
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 3:31 pm: | |
Jennifer
For this slip up, follow the link to this thread:
../4922/9439.html"#DEDDCE"> |
Simon Owen
Police Constable
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 4
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 3:47 pm: | |
Incidentally , does anyone know what the anachronistic words are in the Diary ? I think it was mentioned that there was a list of around 20 or so , does anyone here have an idea what they are ?
Oh , that just one word could be conclusively proven to have originated after 1892 or whatever , we could consign the rotten Diary to history forevermore ! |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 722
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 3:48 pm: | |
Thanks to you both.
I see - I didn't realise that it was the case that Michael Maybrick was part of a double act (I guess now i think about it its how things are done like Lord Weber/Tim Rice)
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 563
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 5:18 pm: | |
Now you've done it, guys.
We're in for another silly exposition on the obvious difference between being successful at something and being a success at something.
It's desperation time hereabouts, so that beauty is sure to follow.
Because, after all, we shouldn't just read the words in the diary, we must rehabilitate them as we read them in order to keep hope alive each and every time they get stuff wrong or conflict with history or reproduce mistakes from modern sources or mention places that weren't there or people who didn't exist.
Anyway, here it comes...
Wait for it...
--John  |
Simon Owen
Police Constable
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 6
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 6:56 pm: | |
Get ready John ! 
The fact is that Michael Maybrick was demonstratively successful at musical composition and not at writing verse.
Since the diarist has said that they are writing for a public eye , the only thing the Victorian public might know about Michael is that he wrote music : any allusion to his verse-writing ability would be lost on a contemporary audience. So this is something the real James Maybrick would never have written ! |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
