|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 87
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 2:37 pm: | 
|
Well,
That one person who you think is trying to keep hope alive is, in fact, just asking questions- questions that need to be asked because there are as of yet no satisfactory answers to those questions. In fact, it would not surprise me at all if she actually thought the diary is a modern forgery. |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 722
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 3:10 pm: |
|
Scott,
No, that wouldn't surprise me one little bit either.
In fact, I've said exactly that many times.
Of course, the two are obviously not mutually exclusive positions.
As for her "just asking questions"....
I could point you to post after post where she does a good bit more than that, including offering explanations and scenarios for ahistorical things in the diary that rely not on actual textual evidence but rather on a number of purely staggering, odds-defying simultaneous coincidences.
And for many of those questions, "satisfactory answers," simple, straightforward, common-sense answers do indeed exist. We know where the Poste House is. We know what the police list says and when it was available. We know what the real James's handwriting looked like, etc.
But there's no real need for such a discussion; the record exists right here. Everyone is free to read it and interpret it in whatever way they wish.
And of course, we could always just ask her what she believes. But I'm willing to bet she will deliberately evade the question and refuse to tell us.
Not that coyness is a crime, but Marvell is right in reminding us of its risks.
All the best,
--John (in the middle of Frances now) |
Howard Brown
Detective Sergeant
Username: Howard
Post Number: 55
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 8:10 pm: |
|
From John above...
"I would just like to point out, since it has come up on another thread, that when the old boards were running I seem to recall that we learned a few interesting biographical facts. We learned that one among us has professional experience in creative writing, even creative writing of a historical nature, has a great deal of expertise in both the Ripper crimes and the Maybrick case, has first hand knowledge of Liverpool and London and has what feels like a much too-convenient alibi."
John: Just out of curiosity, do you mean "has" as in present tense or "had" as in deceased ?
Hoping you and yours are spared from this damn storm.... |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 723
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 8:46 pm: |
|
Hi Howard,
I meant "has." But I do hope you know that was part of a running joke at the time.
He knows who he is. 
I'm actually not at home today or tomorrow, but at a larger and safer house. It's been a big blow, with lots of rain and harsh wind and passing right over us the past couple of hours, But there's not been much damage in this area and all is well -- even if boredom has set deeply in and we're facing one more day watching out our windows.
All the best,
--John (thankful for cable modems and cable movie channels) |
Matt
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 4:21 am: |
|
I think the most telling thing Mike has ever said was when he was approached by Paul Dodds lawyers about the possibility of the diary coming from under the floorboards of Mr Dodd’s house. Mike responded angrily that the dairy “did not come from that house.” How could he possibly know? If he did indeed get it from Tony and Tony refused to say where he got it, how could Mike know that Tony didn’t somehow get it from Battlecrease?
To me this proves that Mike knew exactly where the diary came from and in the very least, the story of Tony giving it to him was false. If that is the case, it also makes Anne’s story false.
So the question is how could Mike be 100% sure that the diary didnt come from Maybricks house?? |
Lovejoy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 6:25 pm: |
|
Mr. Omlor,
I have been reading the Maybrick boards for some time now, and from the beginning, it was obvious, to me at least, that you are obsessed with reprimanding Caroline Morris, because she refuses to unconditionally accept your rationale.
Having read Harrison’s book, I admit that I share many of your conclusions. Your
complaint with Morris, however, does not seem to be grounded in the same good sense you used to identify the subtle contradictions within the diary.
On Sunday, August 5, at 2:37 pm, Scott Nelson made an astute observation of his own, namely: That Morris may indeed agree in principle with your summary of the diary’s problems, but would rather wait until those problems are solved with hard evidence, before she takes a stance. Her ethics in this matter are not unreasonable, and her approach to answering the questions she has been asked, is in keeping with the basic tenets of critical thinking. She is intent, despite your insistence that she take a firm position, on keeping an open mind, until someone produces the evidence to inform her opinion.
I cannot understand what you find so unreasonable with that way of thinking.
Your response to Mr. Nelson’s observations appears to be saying that everyone, except Caroline Morris, is free to read and interpret the diary in whatever way they please. Taking the measure of all your statements thus far, you seem to have a double standard when it comes to tolerating different points of view; there is one for Caroline Morris, and another for the rest of humanity.
Unless I am mistaken, there is something very personal about your criticism of Morris’ refusal to accept your ideas. If that is so, and you do not wish to elaborate the details, then I humbly beg your pardon for this intrusion. I was simply curious to understand what would drive a man to follow a woman from board to board and rebuke her opinions, and belief system with such intensity.
In any event, I hope you find a way to deal with Caroline Morris’ point of view, because I do not believe she will change her mind without good reason.
Good luck to you Mr. Omlor.
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 730
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 9:01 pm: |
|
Lovejoy,
Thanks for the thoughts.
But your history is a bit wrong. In the "beginning," I was happy to ally myself with Caroline concerning whether or not there was a clear case established against particular forgers. There is not, and she and I both argued that together.
My "reprimanding," as you incorrectly call my close reading of her recent contributions to our reading of the diary's text, only began when she started offering one excuse after another, one far-fetched coincidence after another, to try and explain the texts many ahistoricisms and inconsistencies.
As I wrote on another board this morning, clearly "there is sufficient evidence to conclude, with all the valid logic of any sound induction, that the real James Maybrick did not write this book (and she knows that). So I cannot agree with nor respect her repeated attempts here to excuse that evidence with irrational fairy-tales and impossibly odds-defying simultaneous coincidences which represent the triumph of desire over reason."
(And I'm not even mentioning the handwriting.) 
This sort of fanciful approach is certainly not "in keeping with the basic tenets of critical thinking."
Like everyone else, Caroline is certainly "free to read and interpret the diary in whatever way they please."
But, like everyone else, if they do so here in public, those readings and interpretations will be subject to careful and logical critical responses. That's what I have repeatedly offered here, in laborious detail.
At the end of your post, you write, concerning Caroline:
"because I do not believe she will change her mind without good reason."
Nor do I. Nor do I. I just wonder exactly what sort of reason that is going to have to be.
And I also can't help but wonder, when you say, "change her mind," -- from what?
She has refused to say even that she does not know whether this book is authentic or not. She has coyly refused even to say whether she has a belief or not.
That's fine. But it leaves the rest of us free to read her posts on the diary's text and her excuses and her offering of impossible and irrational coincidences in place of common sense logic and to conclude what we like from them.
Right?
Glad to have you on board. 
--John
PS: Why all the empty space at the end?
(Message edited by omlor on September 07, 2004) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1230
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 7:34 am: |
|
Hello Lovejoy,
I have to take you up on one thing. You wrote:
‘I was simply curious to understand what would drive a man to follow a woman from board to board and rebuke her opinions, and belief system with such intensity.’
John O is actually following me from board to board and rebukes with the intensity of a grade 5 hurricane my refusal to express opinions he claims to know I hold, and my right not to be doing with ‘belief’ systems, when it comes to ongoing mysteries of any kind.
If he had the slightest powers of imagination, he would have realised by now that I am in no position to talk about what’s on my mind, or whether I am even beginning to make up my mind, concerning the diary’s origins, while the serious diary investigation in London and Liverpool, with which I am involved, is ongoing; the results of which – as John has already been told – will not be discussed in a public forum until they have been published, complete with full documentary evidence.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 967
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 7:50 am: |
|
Caz,
now your just taunting us!!!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 741
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 9:09 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
More coyness, yes. Isn't it charming?
For the record, I am following Caroline (and everyone else) from board to board and reading closely and responding critically in the name of logic and common sense. Most of what I write here has nothing to do with Caroline's cutesy personal games about refusing to say this and promising later to tell us that. I've seen this "need for attention via mystery" thing before and don't find it all that interesting (although I do think there are consequences -- including the inevitable speculation of readers concerning the honesty of the beliefs being expressed at any given time). No, most of my comments here are directed at the bad reading, and the offering of elaborate odds-defying excuses based on the possibility of numerous, purely desperate, simultaneous, staggering and unbelievable coincidences all in the place reason, rational thought, and simple logic.
I appreciate Caroline's penchant for reducing what takes place here to her own personal cartoon story (it reminds me of the diarist's penchant for reducing the entire Ripper history to some silly melodramatic duel between two famous guys). But it's not accurate and it just represents another moment of less than careful reading.
As for the so-called "ongoing investigation" -- well, the 14th is only five days away. We'll see when and if any real results from this latest whispered "investigation" ever manage to make it to the DiTA thread. My guess is that, as with the arrival of new Diary testing results, we probably shouldn't be holding our breath.
When in doubt, dangle a new story in front of them and hope no one notices that nothing ever really happens (except, of course, the arrival of new editions).
Meanwhile there is STILL nothing new, nothing real.
Amused by the rerun,
--John
|
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 5:24 am: |
|
The handwriting issue is heavily leaned upon by critics of the ‘Journal’
However in reality there are very few examples of bona fide ‘Maybrick’ handwriting all of which, incidentally, bear no resemblance to one another. Perchance that the ‘Journal’ should in fact actually be the best example of his handwriting that exists?
Although chronologically accurate, the writings being referred to as a ‘Diary’ are misleading, as it is obviously just a ‘journal’ of thoughts.
“The mind is more subtle than a hard fact” 
|
nathan merry
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 9:55 am: |
|
Hi all,
I would just like to say that if the diary is a forgery like some of u guys seem to think, it must be one of the best forgerys of all time judgeing from the reactions of some people & the fact it still seems 2 b the most talked about subject to do with the ripper, Also if the people some of u say did actually forge it, I dont know how they have so quiet over the last deacade, if it was me i would'nt be able to shut up from telling people i did it.
-Nathan
-ps why does the name Mrs Hammersmith point towards the diary being a forgery? is it becouse no trace of her can be found? maybe she was a friend of one of the neighbours & lived out of town.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1030
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 10:16 am: |
|
Nathan,
the name Mrs Hammersmith is discussed in more detail on the thread of that name under problem phrases within the diary. but basically the answer to your question is it is because no one in the entire country had that name.
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 785
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 10:45 am: |
|
TB,
That's not true. We do have examples of the real James's handwriting that are in fact quite similar to each other. In fact, they match each other.
Completely unlike the writing in the diary.
It looks nothing at all like anything we have by the real James.
Perchance that's because he didn't write it (as all the evidence tells us).
Obvious. Simple. Almost silly it's so clear. And yet, still some live in denial.
--John
PS: Hi Nathan. You said the key words -- "from the reactions of some people." Actually the diary is not even a very good fake. It's not in anything like the real James's hand, it has no established provenance whatsoever, it has any number of mistakes and historically impossible lines, even mistakes about the murders themselves. But by "the reactions of some people," you'd think it was completely convincing. Of course, that might be because they are trying very hard to be convinced, so they create elaborate and fanciful excuses based largely on impossible coincidences to get around the many textual and historical problems. Even the worst product can be sold if you have willing buyers.
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 460
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 4:19 pm: |
|
Working from a hypothesis of a modern forgery, I wonder if the Diarist has unconsciously slipped into military vernacular?
I refer to two possible instances.
At one point the Diarist wonders if he can "down a whore".
An odd phrase. I think I'm right in stating that Alex Chisholm first noticed this one years ago, but noted that the verb "down" was used in Elizabethan times in regards to hunting, ie., "downing a deer." One wonders, though, how common this usage would have been in the 19th & 20th Centuries until the advent of airplanes brought it back into more common usage?
An equally interesting & odd usage is the point in the diary where the diarist talks about leaving a whore "damaged, severely damaged." This sounds like a throw-away phrase, but it's interesting to note that the terms had specific military meanings in WWII.
A ship struck by enemy fire was listed as either "damaged", "severely damaged", or "sunk." An example can be found at the link below, where it states that ""Severely-damaged" was defined as meaning that a ship was last seen heavily listing , in sinking position, or in flames."
http://www.usaaf.net/ww/vol6/vol6pg26.htm
One of the handwriting examiners suggested that the Diarist was "someone schooled in the 1930s" (or something to that effect). If this is correct, I'm wondering if we're looking for someone in active service in the 1940s or 50s?
(Message edited by rjpalmer on September 18, 2004) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1248
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 6:22 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
Interesting speculation here, but of course, hunting and downing stags and so on, was a popular sport among Englishmen right the way through the ages, including and beyond Victorian times. Making a comparison between the killing of a human animal, the ripping and taking of body parts as trophies, and bagging a deer seems to me obvious and very natural, in a diary claiming to be written by a Victorian serial killer. If our diarist was instead seeing, as he wrote, a comparison with downing a large lump of metal from the sky long after Maybrick met his maker, I'd be rather surprised.
In an anecdote I found among a Victorian gentleman's memoirs, concerning: "Damaged Tarts, half price" [the author's own italics and quote marks], and how, as a schoolboy in the late 1860s, he and his pal would secretly give the goods in the local tuck shop a sharp tap with their knuckles and get the proprietor to mark them down in price, the phrase 'TWO penny tarts' [sic] is used, followed by references to: 'damaged tarts' [sic]; 'damaged tarts' [sic]; '"damaged" pastry' [sic]; '"damaged tarts"' [sic]; '"no damaged pastry at all, all sold"' [sic]; and 'nice new undamaged tarts' [sic] - no fewer than seven instances of 'damaged' and five of 'tarts' over the course of two pages relating the story.
If you can wonder if the diarist was in active service in the 1940s or 50s, involved with downing planes and damaging ships, I might equally be forgiven for wondering if he spent his childhood downing damaged tarts (as in eating them) and wondering what it would be like to down and damage - and eat - the human variety. 
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 808
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 7:46 am: |
|
Lots of wondering going on here.
Lots of imagination, too.
But no evidence of any sort that even suggests this book is real or existed in the proper century.
Still.
Nothing new, nothing real,
--John (contributing to Jenni's college fund) |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 933
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 8:50 am: |
|
Hi RJ
Isn't a good explanation of the diarist's use of the phrase "down a whore" and one that has been mentioned before, I believe, that it might derive from the phrase in the 25 September 1888 Dear Boss letter "I am down on whores"?
Even so, of course, your point that the diarist's use of "down a whore" and "severely damaged" is similar to military vernacular is an interesting and useful observation. Thanks, RJ.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Timothy_L
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 8:29 pm: |
|
I've been looking over the diary section of the boards here lately and just thought I'd chime in my opinion.
I happen to think along the lines of John O. Any rational mind can conclude that the handwriting doesn't match and there is just too much nonsense surrounding this MB "ordeal" with the "I forged it and then I didn't forge it". If it was real there is ABSOLUTELY no reason why it wouldn't be clear cut and obvious to hardcore researcher of JTR and the scientists who did the initial testing.
The handwriting alone kills the diary. Anybody defending the diary is clearly grasping at straws and living in a fantasy world belieiving what they want to believe to keep something alive rather than seeing the totally obvious truth.
My opinion is that MB forged the diary and that the letters he has written (confessions)where he constantly spells things wrong is an act. Pro-diarists are in denial at being duped by some average guy who pulled off a decent act. I don't feel that this is an offense against the law because he himself has admitted this before.
My solution is to forget about the scientific testing and hire a professional military interrogator to take MB into a room and use whatever methods necessary to reveal exactly what he knows. If he knows nothing, then you can look into the diary. If he pees himself and tells a story that can be verified about the forging then you can end this diary nonsense forever. Sitting around here debating this nonsense is silly. Get off your duff and force MB to confess, forgery of this nature is a high crime in the US, and investigators already would have roughed MB up here. I can't believe the diary is still a hot issue.
Just my thoughts
Tim |
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 94
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 5:16 pm: |
|
My opinion is that MB forged the diary and that the letters he has written (confessions)where he constantly spells things wrong is an act.
That's fine Tim, as long as you state it as your opinion. Never mind that there's absolutely no evidence that MB did forge the diary.
My solution is to forget about the scientific testing and hire a professional military interrogator to take MB into a room and use whatever methods necessary to reveal exactly what he knows. If he knows nothing, then you can look into the diary.
Here, you've really got to be mindful of what you're writing. You're treading into dangerous waters. |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 415
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 2:40 am: |
|
Hi Tim,
You wrote: "Get off your duff and force MB to confess, forgery of this nature is a high crime in the US, and investigators already would have roughed MB up here."
I believe you've watched too many movies.
The idea that US authorities would rough someone up over alleged involvement in a nonviolent crime is pretty farfetched, barring the occasional rogue cop who is no better than a street thug. Even when they do it for violent crimes it's highly illegal.
Of course if you could convince someone that he might pose some sort of possible terrorist or military threat, no matter how implausible, all bets are off.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1350
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 12:38 pm: |
|
Hi Tim,
As Scott says, it's fine to have opinions - even suspicions. But I thought that suspicions based on nothing more than gut feeling and wishful thinking, and desire to be rid of 'the beast' at all costs, that relied on extracting some sort of confession out of your suspect with brute force if necessary, went out of fashion when the last witch hunter retired.
When did Mike begin this 'act', of appearing incapable of sticking to upper or lower case letters within words, never mind sentences or paragraphs, so he could pretend that 63 pages of transcribing his own, or someone else's composition, would be beyond him? If it began in early childhood, when he first picked up a pen, he must have started planning the diary in the 1950s!
If he pees himself and tells a story that can be verified about the forging...
Well, I'm happy to tell you that I happen to think that witch hunters should make a come-back. As we speak, Keith Skinner and I have Mike tied up in the attic, and we plan to have him peeing and singing like a canary by the time we've finished roughing him up. I don't care if the US authorities have gone soft, as Dan suggests, on suspects that couldn't forge a sick note - I'm all for dragging a confession kicking and screaming out of the bastards. Who cares if they actually did it or not?
And if Mike pees himself and tells a story that can be verified that's not about forging, but something else entirely, I suppose you'd recommend that we hush up the verification, get out the thumbscrews and go for a retraction, hmmmm?
Whoops, I've said too much about the ongoing 'investigation' and our preferred methods - damn it. I'll have to rough up everyone who reads this now.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on December 08, 2004) |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 906
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 1:12 pm: |
|
Don't you guys know a troll when you see one?
--John |
T
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 12:27 pm: |
|
Hi Dan,
I am not talking about movies here. And my point is not to talk about US foreign/domestic policy. It's not even to talk about what US or British (or any other) authorities do with forgery cases.
The point is, this liberal mamby pamby crap about asking Barnett what he did or didn't do and taking all these confessions and retractions as part of the case is silly. You might as well pretend the guy doesn't exist if you're just going to sit around and speculate.
I am not talking about movies here. If you want to know what involvment MB had in the case the only you are going to find it out is:
1) Physical interrogation by professional.
2) Psychological interrogation by professional.
3) Combination of one and two.
If you are not going to engage in these activities you are too soft to bother with any kind of conjecture about MB at all. That is how things happen in the real world. And you might watch too much liberal news, but in the real world, real cops force people to give information by either baiting and switching or threat of physical interrogation.
I am not justifying these means. But if you think MB is going to do anything other than lead all these researchers and writers around like a couple of donkeys following a carrot you have got to be kidding.
My cousin is a Chicago Police Detective and worked in military intelligence. I asked him specifically about this case at Thanksgiving. Regradless of what you think, in the real world human intelliegence is the best intelligence, and normally you have to bust heads to shake it out. One of my good friends is also a Chicago police officer and on the street you don't get information by sitting around and speculating. Furthermore, in my own personal experience, action always speaks louder than words.
You'll catch more bees with honey, but you can take the whole damn hive if you kill all the bees in a systematic and calculated way and just take the hive.
It's just like life my friend, you can sit around and think about it or grab it by the horns.
All I'm saying my friend, is specifically:
"If you want to know anything from MB that is worthwhile, the above is what you are going to have to do. If you are unwilling to do the above, leave MB alone and pretend he doesn't exist, he's been completely unreliable because everybody that has interviewed him so far has just been there to write down whatever he says." |
Timothy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 9:09 pm: |
|
MB admitted forging the diary on numerous occasions. I can't remember the last time that somebody had to prove somebody did something after they confessed it in a court of law (in the USA that is). There is a HUGE OVERWHELMING AMOUNT of circumstantial evidence to show that MB forged the diary beyond the fact that he admitted it. Mainly that he is the one that "found" the diary.
Furthermore, I am not treading in any dangerous waters. Get out of your armchair and go talk to a real cop. You get answers by busting heads and forcing the truth out either physically or pschologically. Obviously you must not want to know the truth. The reason MB has been allowed to carry on so long is because his interrogators have been writers and researchers instead of people that read criminals for a living. That guy would crack like a rotten egg if somebody that knew what they were doing interviewed him. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1388
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 8:43 am: |
|
leave me alone i am hugging my armchair!!!!!!! |
Carps
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 5:59 am: |
|
Did I really just read that? We must force the "truth" out of Mike Barrett by force?
Its got nothing to do with "watching the liberal media" and everything to do with simple common decency. In a life or death situation, I can accept - barely - the need for physical coercion. Getting a cop to "bust some heads" in the case of a forged diary is a little extreme, don't you think?
And common sense dictates to me that you're equally likely to be getting a false confession anyway. That's why courts - in both the US and Europe - have spent much of the last 20 years reversing any number of "confessions" obtained under duress.
And if you think your "real cop" friend is acting in either the interests of democracy or the law, head over to: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/09.html
Of course, if you think that your own government and legal system is too "liberal" then you can always move to Iran or South Korea. |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1024
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 12:17 pm: |
|
A couple of thoughts have occurred to me over the course of the last few years of reading all the Maybrick material...the pro's and con's.
Although skirmishes reign and people are at odds over its veracity..has any one thing ever been so passionately discussed?
One thing I'd like to see discussed ,and it may just be me "reading" into the whole Maybrick Diary saga...by the more astute people involved in the Maybrick threads, is the heavy use of the word "whore".
I don't know if anyone ever counted [ 88 ] how many times this word was used in the Diary. I did start up a thread before,but like the Lewis Carroll as JTR idea,it died a swift death.
In counting them,and also including the 20 some variations of the word found in the text, I feel that Maybrick, had he written the text...would have been so enraged...so bitter...so "out of control" of his wife [another issue altogether I know...], so consumed with initiating violence against her, that he would have been well aware of his declining health and struck out against her instead of "being Jack The Ripper". Few men have gone to the length that Maybrick did...writing a diary of his thoughts,while the woman of his personal nightmare was in the other room, and probably thinking about other men at the very same time. Wouldn't his health status make him have gone berserk on her before his health issues turned to death?
I know thats not a professional way of phrasing this idea....and I'm certainly not a psychiatrist, but has anyone ever thought of this in that way ? All in all,its rather unique that a man would,and a controlling man at that,allow these imaginary or real indiscretions go without serious physical violence....but rather write than fight.
Just a thought...
How Brown
Prop.
WWW.JTRForums.com
|
PAUL TULLY
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 9:04 am: |
|
hi all,
would like to ask a few questions, might be a bit stupid to some,first is with todays tech there are many fake items out there , but we know that they are fakes because no matter how they try theres always somethink that they get wrong in them or cant copy , but there aint in the diary, in its making, and info , but i have to ask maybrick would have been covered in blood and not on one occassion , and so would his clothing, knife,etc and we know he took body parts,if he is jack,
and ive read a lot of things on here about the diary and watch, and we all know wot they did to prove diary fake,or real,but what i cant uderstand, if it is real, and maybe it was found under the floor boards at his home,[BATTLECREASE]why have'nt forensics been all over it,to see if any traces of blood off items,[DNA] that he had to keep away from his wife, or even knife , bag ,etc there would be some sort of stain that could be detected with todays tech , or maybe there still there just waiting to be found its the only thing i can see that every one has missed to checkout ,and as i only live 5 min away from it ,and i pass it often, it does make me wonder , if it was to happin today and someone left a diary police would go through their house checking every inch, it just might hold some secrets! |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page