|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 538
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 4:47 pm: |       |
When discussing the killing of Eddowes, the diarist indicates he could not remove the head, and then concludes it may be impossible. This seems to suggest that "an attempt" was made to remove Eddowes head. However, unlike Chapman and Nichols, the throat wound on Eddowes does not appear to encircle the entire neck, nor does it appear to expose the spine. In other words, it does not appear that the wounds indicate any attempt at decapitation was actually made in the case of Eddowes, while the Diarist suggests that an attempt was made, and one that was sufficiently tried to lead to the conclusion it could not be done.
- Jeff |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1296
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 12:44 pm: | |
Good observation, Jeff.
If the killer did indeed make any serious attempts to decapitate one or more victims, he seems to have gone off the boil entirely by the time he found himself alone with Mary Kelly.
If this was due to a realisation (mistaken or otherwise) that he just couldn't do it, we don't know when exactly this realisation hit him, or how quickly.
If a certain resignation had kicked in by the night of the double event, that he was not going to be able 'to get the bitches head off', due to the failure of his previous best efforts, I suppose any renewed attempt on Eddowes could have been a pretty half-hearted affair.
It all depends on when he (Jack, not the diarist!  ) mentally all but gave up the idea, before or after that night; losing heart would have affected how much he put into it physically.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on November 05, 2004) |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 548
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 3:04 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
I believe the medical reports suggest there might have been an attempt made to decapitate Annie Chapman. Possibly an attempt was made with Nichols as well (she also had a wound that encircled the neck). Stride (if a Ripper victim) and Eddowes do not have this complete "encircling". Kelly? Well, I'm sure if he wanted to remove the head in this case, he could have.
So, at most one could suggest that decapitation was attempted by the Ripper in the case of Nichols and Chapman.
Stride (if a Ripper victim), no attempt was made, but he's interupted in the "Stride is victim views".
Eddowes, no attempt was made to remove the head, so it would appear that the Ripper had given up on heads before killing Eddowes. If he was still interested in trying, the attempt would have been made (and evident in the wounds). Even the evidence for an attempt on Annie might not really have been an attempt to decapitate, but rather just the Ripper cutting all the way round the neck. Meaning, wasn't going to remove the head, just making sure she can't yell out.
Anyway, the Diarist seems to indicate that an attempt was made with Eddowes. A phrase like "I couldn't get the head" implies an active attempt was made which failed; the "failure" then is what leads to the conclusion of it being "impossible". So, the diarist doesn't appear to have given up until after failing again with Eddowes.
But, if no attempt was made to remove Eddowes head, doesn't the diarist have it wrong here? It was Annie's head where there were signs of decapitation attempts, not Eddowes. With Eddowes, there doesn't even seem to be a "half hearted attempt" made, rather no attempt at all appears to have been made to remove the head.
- Jeff |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1302
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 6:11 am: | |
Hi Jeff,
You could very well be right. I suppose it's a case of how literally we decide to take someone's - anyone's - use of language. Recently we've had David Radka falling foul of this problem, when he tried to explain how he believes a psychopath's anger differs from a normal person's, and he found himself in a sea of misunderstandings, groping for adequate ways to clarify what he really meant, and all because he chose to use the word 'real'.
With the diary, if we assume it's a fake, it's easy, because everything in it is effectively a lie: the author wasn't there; he never attacked and killed those women; he certainly never thought about decapitating one of them, let alone made an attempt - end of story.
But just suppose we had a genuine confession by Jack on our hands. What percentage of it should we take literally? What percentage would we expect to show imprecise use of language?
If the real killer wrote that he 'could not get the bitches head off. I believe now it is impossible to do so', would we take this literally and conclude that he must have made an attempt, regardless of the physical evidence?
If we look at the Maybrick diarist's 'thoughts' about the Chapman murder, he writes:
'I wish to God I could have taken the head'.
And a bit further on:
'The eyes will come out of the next. I will stuff them in the whores mouth. That will certainly give me pleasure, it does so as I write.'
And yet, neither 'Sir Jim' nor the real killer did any such thing. And there is a mess of contradictions here anyway, once you try taking any of this stuff literally, because if he had any real intention of bagging the next one's head, the idea of loitering at the scene to take her eyes out first makes little sense.
So you could equally well argue that the construction of the whole sentence is dodgy:
'Her nose annoyed me so I cut it off, had a go at her eyes, left my mark, could not get the bitches head off.'
If we assume that the diarist's use of 'could not' implies the attempt (which is not backed up by the case evidence), he also seems to be implying this attempt came after the deliberate and pains-taking damage to her nose and eyes (which we know happened) - which would make for a very impractical and reckless Jack, if he was hoping to take the head away with him.
Whether this choice of words alone proves the diary to be a shoddy fake is for others to decide.
Forgers, liars, killers or ripper theorists - none of 'em has a monopoly on getting their real meaning across first time, every time, to every reader.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 559
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 4:17 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
I don't think we would ever conclude "an attempt must have been made", despite the physical evidence that is more consistent with "no attempt was made". Physical evidence is objective, words can be lies. Even if we had the real Jack in an interview room, if he claimed he tried to do something that the physical evidence shows he did not try, then we would conclude Jack is lieing.
To compare the diary's contents to the other evidence, I think we take the diary literally to start with. Compare that with what we know about the case. And, try and figure out how well the two "mesh". With a bit of research by a forger, the overall gist should be good, and it's in the details we would expect the errors to show up.
Unfortunately, it's in the details where a real confession would be error prone as well.
In the end, however, all one can do is list the errors. And, if in the end, it appears many of them are more easily explained as "errors through lack of knowledge", then these errors are more consistent with forgery. If, however, the errors can be more easily explained by "errors through poor use of language", then we are left with either forgery or genuine.
If, however, we find indications of something unknown which turns out to be verified, we would be more inclined to suggest it's genuine. In fact, the genuine confession theory predicts this kind of information should be rampant. Since Jack was not identified, we would expect all sorts of cool new information about the case. And with this new information, our research efforts would be focused in ways we wouldn't have imagined before. And because of that, some of these "new bits" would get verified.
So far, however, the "new bits" (the additional murder(s)?) have not been verified. And, non-verifiable "new bits" is what a forgery predicts.
No one piece of evidence is likely to answer the "big question". Evaluation of a theory requires looking at all the bits, big and small, and determining which theory most easily explains the data we have.
That's what makes it fun. If we could answer the question with one test, what would there be left to talk about?
- Jeff |
kashesan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 10:24 am: | |
I sense that the real Ripper wanted to leave the heads on-he had plenty of time to decapitate Kelly-but leaving the heads on, even after disfiguring (Eddowes and Kelly), seemed to have been an M.O, to maintain even more shock value. Just a hunch. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1307
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 7:06 am: | |
Hi Jeff,
You wrote:
Even if we had the real Jack in an interview room, if he claimed he tried to do something that the physical evidence shows he did not try, then we would conclude Jack is lieing.
Yes - or exaggerating, or misleading, or fantasising, or misremembering, or mistaken, or confused, or deluding himself, or merely careless with the details.
It's a given that serial killers are going to be capable of telling lies. But I find some people (and that doesn’t include you, I hasten to add) very reluctant to concede that some, if not all, of these secondary traits would also feature in the nature of such criminals.
You put it very eloquently yourself:
Unfortunately, it's in the details where a real confession would be error prone as well.
This is exactly what I was thinking.
…the genuine confession theory predicts this kind of information should be rampant.
Since Jack was not identified, we would expect all sorts of cool new information about the case.
You might predict and expect this; I wouldn’t.
It all depends what you mean by new information. If it was truly new, in the sense that only the killer had access to it, how could it ever be verified? On the other hand, if anything which initially appeared to be new information could be confirmed later from the historical record, it wouldn’t be new at all, and the potential would be there for a forger to have obtained the information previously. And how likely is it that some as yet undiscovered document would suddenly turn up out of the blue to verify some tiny snippet recorded by an alleged murderer?
The real killer is the only person who can know what he knows (or at least what he thinks he knows ) and - in an unsolved case - knows who he is. He can write down whatever he fancies, or nothing at all, and is not obliged to record a single true or factual detail about his murders if he doesn’t wish to do so, let alone describe all sorts of details that never made it into the newspapers or police files.
Fred West, for example, disappointingly wrote very little about the facts of his crimes, when he was in prison awaiting trial. We may have learned something about the man, but I doubt we learned too much about the murders that we didn’t know before, and maybe nothing at all that was later capable of independent verification.
So call me lacking in imagination, but I can’t agree with you that:
…with this new information, our research efforts would be focused in ways we wouldn't have imagined before. And because of that, some of these "new bits" would get verified.
We’ve been through the diary’s additional murder(s) before. If it’s a modern fake they are either pure invention, or based on information as yet known only to the faker. If the diary were the real deal, I would expect to get the killer’s personal understanding, or chosen interpretation, of events in which he was involved, plus thoughts about what the immediate future may hold.
I assume (although perhaps I shouldn’t) that the diarist - whoever he is - knew that the eyes didn’t ‘come out of the next’ victim, despite the stated intention. There is no need for him to come back after the event and confirm or deny that he had carried out something he’d had in mind. With the first alleged attack in Manchester, how is ‘Sir Jim’ supposed to have known the victim was dead when he left the scene? Was he supposed to have cut her throat, or ripped her up, or checked her pulse after merely throttling her? If the diary were real, he could have assumed wrongly that she had met her maker; she could have come to when he was long gone, and then failed to report the attack for any number of reasons.
Similarly, with the final attack described in the diary, there is no actual confirmation of where it is supposed to have taken place. His question: ‘My first was in Manchester so why not my next?’ is left unanswered. And from what the diarist writes after the alleged event, there is nothing that conclusively rules out that what he is interpreting is how Rose Mylett met her death in London.
One last thought before I go:
If I had written the diary myself, I would probably have chosen a very common name like Smith, rather than the extremely uncommon Ham(m)ersmith, for Sir Jim’s nosy neighbour from hell. But I suppose that would have been taken as an obvious sign of a forger trying to play it safe.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 560
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 2:40 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
I agree with all the alternatives to "lieing". Basically, I was being lazy, but there are all sorts of reasons why one's words may not match the facts. But for completeness I probably should have listed a few, and put an etc in there for good measure!
Anyway, I do think it's fair to "predict" that a genuine diary should contain "new information". However, not finding such information doesn't "prove a forgery". So, we sort of agree on the general idea - it doesn't have to contain such information, only I think it's the kind of thing one would a priori expect to find.
And by "new bits", I do not mean things like "the killer's emotional explanations for his actions", or "I was thinking ..." type things. There's no way these kinds of statements can be verified or disproved, they can't be investigated. No matter how "good" they sound, they either reflect a forger with some writing skills, or they reflect the real thing. But, there's no way for us to tell the difference based upon these kind of statements.
By the "new bits", I mean things that could be possibly proved or possibly disproved. At least things that can be investigated.
The "additional murders" are just the sort of thing I was talking about. But they have to be verified as real events, and so far they have not been. It's hard to prove the murders did not occur, of course, but if a murder did occur, it should be recorded somewhere. And, as you rightly point out, if we were to verify it (say, in some obscure press report), how can we be sure a forger hadn't already found that same report and decided to include it as one of Jack's? Don't know, but we've not even reached that point yet.
Regardless, this is the kind of thing we never would have "looked for" or "imagined" without the diary. Why look for an unsolved stangulation murder of a prostitute in Manchester before the JtR mutilation murders in London? I can't think of anyone who would imagine doing such research prior to the diary. Nor can I imagin people looking for a pub called the Poste House, etc. These are the kinds of "new bit" information that sends us in direction we wouldn't imagin doing otherwise.
- Jeff |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1094
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 11:19 am: | |
Hi Jeff & Caz
I wonder if we could take the lack of "new information" as one indicator that the person who concocted the Diary didn't know a great deal about the Ripper case, other than a cursory knowledge of the facts of the case, and the idea that they wanted to fit up James Maybrick as the murderer? The reason that I say this is that someone who knew more about the case might logically claim, for example, the Emma Smith and Martha Tabram murders and/or the torso murders as part of their toll of victims, which might have been accepted as a revelation of new information. Instead they plumped to claim a Manchester murder or two which might be logical for a northern killer. I think we come back here to the earlier idea that the forger only had a limited number of books on the Maybrick and Ripper cases and, as I would submit, no great knowledge of the Whitechapel murders beyond what many of the general public would know.
Best regards
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1309
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 6:34 am: | |
Hi Chris,
But all this is just in your opinion. If we asked a hundred fakers what they would 'logically' claim and what they wouldn't, they would each have different ideas of what would look 'right' or 'wrong'.
And who knows how much detail a real killer would go into, if writing down his thought for the day? A hundred killers would write a hundred different versions of events, if they chose to write anything at all. Some might fondly imagine a higher body count than they were entitled to claim; others might be in denial about certain murders they really did commit.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1099
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 9:32 am: | |
Hi Caz
Yes of course you are correct that I am giving my opinion of why certain things are in the Diary and certain things are not. Don't you think it is reasonable to look at the existing text of the Diary and make assumptions about why the Diary is written as it is? I would contend that continued study of the text of the Diary might possibly lead us to the forger just as study of what some may view as being arcane or trivial facts about the Whitechapel murders might ultimately lead to identification of the killer or killers.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 486
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 10:30 am: | |
I think everyone can agree with the logic that the diary can't be used as evidence of it's own genuineness. Let's for the moment except the reasonableness of Caz's arguments above. What some are calling "mistakes" in the Diary's text are really just abnormalities that one might well expect from the mind of a depraved murderer. This bit about not getting Eddowes head-off, the breasts being on the table, etc. etc., are not really errors in a forgery, but are symptomatic of actual-killer's disorganized mind.
Splendid.
But it seems to me that if this argument is going to be convincing, then those arguing it would now need to support their contention with independent, verifiable evidence that the actual historic James Maybrick was in fact a murderer, had multiple-personality disorder, etc. etc. If not, then the obvious alternative that the Diary is forgery will stand as a more reasonable explanation.
In short, the diary-friendly theorists need to take their arguments into the realm of the actual historical record. Paul Feldman tried this and didn't do well. Most would conclude that this was because the real James Maybrick wasn't Jack the Ripper---or, as my grandmother used to say, "you can't get blood from a turnip." |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 565
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 2:49 pm: | |
Hi RJ,
Indeed, that's an important point in any evaluation of the diary. The Diary clearly implicates James Maybrick as the alledged author. So, it remains vital to the internal validity of the theory "James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper, and wrote this diary, etc", that if explanations based upon the Ripper having some mental disorder are put forth to explain any factual errors in the diary, then we must remember those "explanations" are just theories waiting to be tested. But, since the diary allows us to name the Ripper, we can then test those theories by examining James Maybrick.
The idea of Multiple Personality Disorder can be tossed out. MPD is not even a disorder that is widely accepted to exist (some believe it is created by the theapy sessions). So, if MPD doesn't really exist, James and/or Jack can't have it. If it does exist, well, you don't become a highly successful cotton merchant if you've been suffering from MPD all your life (see those who "believe in MPD" believe MPD doesn't just start, it is suppose to develope in early childhood, usually in response to sustained and prolonged abuse; so you always have it up until you take "the cure").
So, we can present theories about "why Jack may have mis-remembered things", but if we start using mental disorders, then James Maybrick had better show some signs of those disorders. Otherwise, we're on the wrong track.
Of course, some errors could simply be due to the fact that memories are not perfect. Not all serial killers remember every tiny detail of their crimes (some seem to, some seem not to: Gary Ridgeway seems to remember very little about some - for what self report is worth from these people of course). It's when the errors start to correspond with errors in the historical record (Ripper books, etc) that even this explanation starts to get weaker.
Anyway, every explanation that is given to turn the evidence away from the simpler conclusion of forgery requires another theoretical statement. These theoretical statements require testing, and since we have James Maybrick as the suspect, anything said about "Jack of the Diary" must also apply to "James of Liverpool".
It is often very difficult to completely dismiss any theory, or prove it to be 0% possible. So those looking for a complete refutation of the diary as genuine (from a strictly scientific point of view) will probably be dissappointed. However, there comes a point when the probabilities are so against something, that it is effectively considered "disproven".
The balance of those probabilities, being a wonderfully subjective thing, I will leave to each reader to decide for themselves with respect to the diary. My personal interpretation is that the diary has all the evidence stacked against it, making the probability that it is "real" very close to zero.
- Jeff |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 870
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 3:53 pm: | |
You guys never learn, do you?
--John (just popping in to shake his head, because he knows what's coming)
 |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1276
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 3:57 pm: | |
Caz, Jeff, RJ, Chris, John!!! guys!!!!!
I agree with you RJ if we are going to say the diarist/killer was delluded why are we even bothering reading what it says?
Wouldn't it be easier to prove James did/didn't have a multi personality disorder that caused all these delusions making him imagine pubs that werent there and events that never happened?
Bye now!!
Jenni |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1312
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 7:07 am: | |
Hi All,
I don't believe the real James Maybrick had MPD, if it exists. Neither am I convinced that the ripper could have suffered from any obvious mental disorder and still managed to get away so cleanly from the scene of each of his crimes.
I have not been arguing for the diary's authenticity, but am simply exploring what people would expect to find in the genuine article, if they were actually faced with it. This follows on from Jeff's initial post about one of the diary's lines.
I'm not sure I share Chris G's optimism about 'continued study of the text of the Diary' possibly leading us to the forger.
Nor can I share Jenni's pessimism, when she asks why we are bothering to read it at all if the diarist/killer was deluded.
I've got news for Jenni: many people don't want to read it because they want it to be a fake created by, or with the help of, Mike Barrett, and people can't help what they want.
I don't mind who authored it, I just can't help wishing we knew conclusively who it was.
The second piece of news for Jenni is that no one can say whether the diary author was deluded or not. But there's an excellent chance that the killer would have been deluded, if only to the extent of not blaming himself, and only himself, for the deaths of his victims.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
X
PS What pub that wasn't where? The School Lane post house, perhaps?  |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1279
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 7:29 am: | |
Caz,
don't act dense we all know you are not!!
I've got news for you Caz, we agree. No one can tell if the diary author was a blagger or just deluded but what we can be sure of it what they are saying in no way resembles the truth.
no one can say whether the diary author was deluded or not. But there's an excellent chance that the killer would have been deluded, if only to the extent of not blaming himself, and only himself, for the deaths of his victims.
glad to see you making the distinction between the diary author and Jack.
oh and i am not saying that it is my view we shouldn't read it at all, just that if every time fault is found pro diarist argue it is because Maybrick was deluded, is there any point in anything,
Cheers
Jenni
ps that will have something to do with those ongoing investigations in Liverpool I take it. good good, the closer we get to the truth the further we are from the bullsh**!!
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 566
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 6:47 pm: | |
Hi Jenni,
The thing is, suggesting the author of the diary was deluded, or at least mentally unstable, is a perfectly valid explanation for why the diary might contain factual errors (if written by the real Jack). It's a one parameter explanation for all the factual errors, just like "the diary is a forgery" is a one parameter explanation for all the factual errors. Both models (theories) are equally simple.
But, the "mentally disturbed and real" theory means that James Maybrick (who is implicated as one in the same as the diary author) would have to likewise be shown to suffer from the same mental condition. So, the first thing would be to try and figure out what mental condition might produce the kinds of errors contained in the diary. Then, see if there is any evidence to support the idea that James Maybrick suffered from the same condition.
Given the problems with matching the handwriting, the "genuine article" theory starts to get complicated, because the forgery model also accounts for that problem with the same single parameter (forgery, therefore not written by James Maybrick, etc).
I'm not sure who first suggested MPD, it's just one explanation I know that has been suggested before to overcome the handwriting differences. I think this idea is safe to dismiss on the grounds that James Maybricks general success in life indicates he did not have such a condition (if it even exits!).
Anyway, if one is interested in examining the diary, one has to be familear with what is in the diary.
- Jeff |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1281
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 7:32 am: | |
Jeff,
yes i think i agree with what you write. I certainly agree with your last sentence.
Jenni |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1102
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 12:31 pm: | |
Hi Jeff
I think it is clear that MPD was trotted out by Harrison and Feldman as an explanation for why the writing in the Diary does not match James Maybrick's normal handwriting.
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1314
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 6:53 am: | |
Hi Jenni,
You tell me not to act dense because you 'all know' I'm not arguing for authenticity. But then you go and spoil it all by writing:
'...glad to see you making the distinction between the diary author and Jack',
as if this is a distinction I haven't always made, from day one.
And by writing:
'...if every time fault is found pro diarist argue it is because Maybrick was deluded...',
clearly implying I am your 'pro diarist', arguing that a deluded Maybrick wrote the diary.
I'm sorry, but all the while you keep writing stuff like this, I'm going to keep setting the record straight again. I'd rather appear dense than let you get away with the luxury of misrepresenting my position.
No, my own little Liverpool investigations are entirely separate from 'the' ongoing investigation in London and Liverpool - much more pleasure than business. 
But I've just been on the dog and bone to a lovely 70 year-old (or should I say young) scouser called Tony, who whisked me onto the dance floor three weeks ago in the 'American' bar in Lime Street. So much for his claimed bad back!
Anyway, after dancing to Tom Jones's 'Sex Bomb', we got chatting, and his mate Tommy told me that I could ask Tony anything at all about local history and he would know the answers. Tony had no idea at this point what my interests were, but when I shouted above the music: "What do you know about post houses in Liverpool?", he replied:
"Well, I know of two post houses, one was in School Lane and the other would have been in, or close to Dale Street."
When I asked Tony again just now to clarify exactly what he understood these post houses to be, he said they were pubs, as opposed to post offices, and remarked that the term post house was a common one. Only then did he ask why I was so interested.
Tony is now going to try and find out more.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1284
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 8:05 am: | |
Caz,
you know I do not think that at all. I think you are confusing me with someone else. It is clear that you are not dense that we all know not anything else. your position on the diary's authenticity is not important to me frankly, it is what you say that is the issue not your reason for so doing, I am quite able to make up my own mind on decisions without needing to be certain of the position of others. I hope we are clear that i was neither saying you were dense (in fact I was saying the opposite)or that you were not arguing for authenticity. Quite honestly I do not know what your position is, and you know i don't actually think that matters at all!!
Yes I didn't say you hadn't made the distinction since day one, it was the fact you had made the distinction once again despite what you were saying that i was commenting on.
And just because you repeated the idea that James Maybrick was deluded does not make you my primary source. Feldy I am sure made similar such comments in his delightful book on the subject. my point was simply what is the point in worrying about it all pro diarists can just claim Maybrick was deluded (as you point out above). that doesn't mean I think you are a pro diarist.
glad to clear that up with you Caz, especially been as how I had a bit of free time on my hands
Jenni |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1285
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 3:44 pm: | |
To be clear now i am back at home in a confy environment, my comment you add words to had nothing to do with if we (i dont know who this we is by the way!!) knew that you were nnot arguing for authenticity. How could we know that when you have never said? A little touchy there Caz, I wasn't trying to insult you. i was simply saying we know that you are not dense. |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 872
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 4:40 pm: | |
Loving this.
As always,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1328
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 5:57 am: | |
No worries, Jenni.
Thanks for clarifying that you are quite able to make up your own mind without needing to be certain of the position of others.
If only everyone else would follow your lead and be that sensible. I have always found it really odd that my 'position' - or indeed anyone else's - could be considered in any way relevant to when the diary and watch scratches were actually created.
Sorry to pick you up again, but I don't believe I 'repeated the idea' that the real James Maybrick was deluded. You are jumping ahead of me - I thought we were discussing the as yet anonymous diarist and the equally anonymous ripper for now.
Saying that, I have no idea whether an arsenic addict could suffer delusions, along with the various other documented symptoms, such as speckling of the skin and itching of the hands and feet.
If the expert opinion is yes, then we could be looking for a diary author who knew this and tried to reflect it in their work.
Is there an arsenic expert in the house?
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1310
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 6:21 am: | |
Caz,
ok good glad to have cleared that up.
Jenni |
Lee McLoughlin
Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 27
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 6:50 am: | |
Intresting thread..
How much are being asked to allow the diarist to "forget" or "mis-remember"? An attempt to decapitate is an error that the diary makes that I am personally willing to forgive.
But what about the missing key and the body parts in the wrong place? It is quite possible to forgive, but after the diarist remembers so clearly leaving clues and that face reminded him of Florence? No way. If he can remember the clues and faces he should be able to remember the key. He gets that wrong.
What about Chapman's rings? He clearly remembers the rings reminding him of his wife, but mentions leaving farthings that we know he didn't leave.
Is is just sheer conicidence that the mistakes the diary makes are mistakes that have been made by a succession of Ripper books? Are we being asked to forgive these lapses of memory?
There are just too many mistakes to write off as the diarist mis-remembering. Added to the small problem of "Eight Little whores" "Tin Box empty" and other well documented problems, we are being asked to take more than a massive leap of faith but a step against logic.
Best Wishes,
Lee |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1312
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 6:57 am: | |
Indeed welcome to diary world Lee!
Jenni
ps my armchair says hi!! |
Lee McLoughlin
Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 28
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 7:29 am: | |
Hello Jenni,
Diary world is a mad place!! I know that the diary created a lot of problems, but has it always been this crazy?
Best Wishes,
Lee |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 881
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 8:25 am: | |
This thread is still my favorite.
It's just so...
illustrative! 
--John (delighted)
PS: Lee. Yes. When you are fighting a hoax, madness of all sorts is often the result. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1315
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 8:48 am: | |
Lee,
as long as i can remember! that's why i like it!!
John,
illustrative! Shouldn't you be resting!!
Jenni |
Lee McLoughlin
Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 29
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 8:58 am: | |
As I have said before, on another thread, I am a member of a Yahoo group that Paul Feldman posts on. I hardly post on there now because it's a group where if you drop any hints that you suspect that the diary is fake, they think YOUR a mad-man!!
It is crazy!!
Best Wishes,
Lee |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1317
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 9:03 am: | |
Lee,
i didn't think Paul Feldman surfaced in ripper circles anymore!?
Jenni |
Lee McLoughlin
Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 30
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 9:34 am: | |
Well, to be honest I didn't think it was him at first because he made some mistakes about the case that an author shouldn't have. He was also quoted in Caroline's book as saying "I am bored with Jack the Ripper".
Also if you read his book he says that he didn't have a great intrest prior to working on the diary.
However, the poster insists that he is Paul Feldman and the group administrator seems to think he is. So I guess it probally is him.
Best Wishes,
Lee |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 192
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 8:48 pm: | |
I think there were farthings left at the scene of the Chapman murder , just my opinion though. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1334
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 6:03 am: | |
Hi Lee,
You say 'we are being asked to take more than a massive leap of faith but a step against logic.'
Who is asking you to do this? Let me at 'em.
On the contrary, the massive leap of faith has already been taken, quite voluntarily, by all those who need the watch scratches to have been made in 1993.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1336
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 9:50 am: | |
Caz,
lets leave the watch marks to the watch thread.
lets talk about the head here on this thread of that title. i do hate for things to get untidy.
And on the watch just in case you were wondering, no one needs the watch marks to have been made in 1993, but some people need them to have been made in 1888/9
Go figure!
Jenni |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1338
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 6:56 am: | |
Hi Jenni,
No one around here that I know of 'needs' the watch marks to have been made in 1888/9. They are what they are and can't be made any older or younger.
My point is that everyone who claims the diary is a modern - ie late 1980s - fake do need the 1993 date for the watch marks; you go figure!
Unfortunately, the two artefacts are bound together, in that the diary can't very well be modern if the watch marks were made at any time before mid-1993; and the watch marks can't very well be old if the diary was created from scratch in the late 1980s.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 892
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 7:02 am: | |
I STILL love this thread.
Every newcomer should be made to read it to see just how arguments go in Diary World.
It's a perfect introduction to the "logic" used so often around here.
Thanks,
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 536
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 7:07 am: | |
Caroline Anne Morris wrote:
Unfortunately, the two artefacts are bound together, in that the diary can't very well be modern if the watch marks were made at any time before mid-1993
As I've said elsewhere, I agree with this. But as there's no scientific evidence that the watch marks are older than mid-1993, I don't see the point of repeating the statement on every caseboard message board you can think of.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1350
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 12:33 pm: | |
Hi Campers!!!
Caz,
No one around here that I know of 'needs' the watch marks to have been made in 1888/9. They are what they are and can't be made any older or younger.
Two things, number one on this delightful list of things is that on fact some people do need the watch marks to have been made in 188/9 in fact I am not going to spell out who these people are (Paul Feldman for eg!)
number two i agree with the second sentence of the above. science and logic I've said it before, i'll say it again.
No we don't if we are wrong and the watch was faked in 1973 and not 1993 what are we loosing exactly Caz. only face. You go figure!!
I don't accept that the two things are definatley bound together. the diary is quite clearly textually inaccurate in many places.
John,
i'm glad you like this thread. i too love it. we are now so far off topic it's not real.
Lets get back to talking about this textual inaccuracy shall we?
Jenni
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1340
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 6:50 am: | |
Hi Jenni,
Some people have more 'face' to lose than others, depending on how much of their intellectual credibilty they have chosen to invest, while airing fixed-in-stone beliefs about the age of the diary and watch scratches.
Some people think I have two faces, but at least I won't lose either of them over an old scrapbook and gold watch.
Hi Chris P,
I do love your selective approach:
whatever the outcome there's no scientific evidence that the watch marks are older than mid-1993.
Have you forgotten already the conclusions of the scientific reports, or are you saying that, in your non-specialist opinion, these count for nothing at all?
Whether or not you choose to discount the reports, you still have no scientific evidence that the scratches were made in May 1993 by a bandwagon hoaxer, taking advantage of the breaking news about the diary.
And it would have given your credibility a shot in the arm if you'd been objective enough to admit at least this much.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 543
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 7:06 am: | |
Caroline Anne Morris wrote:
Have you forgotten already the conclusions of the scientific reports, or are you saying that, in your non-specialist opinion, these count for nothing at all?
What I am saying is that anyone with a reasonable general understanding of science can see that the reports do not present any scientific evidence that the scratches are older than mid-1993.
By scientific evidence, I mean some sort of chain of logical reasoning that allows a quantitative estimate of the age of the scratches to be made, without relying on other assumptions that cannot be scientifically proved or disproved.
If you consider that the reports contain any such reasoning to support the opinions given about the age of the scratches, please point it out to us.
If you can't do this, you obviously aren't in a position to argue with my statement quoted above.
Whether or not you choose to discount the reports, you still have no scientific evidence that the scratches were made in May 1993 by a bandwagon hoaxer, taking advantage of the breaking news about the diary.
Of course I've never claimed to have any scientific evidence of that, though most people think it's blindingly obvious.
However, I would say this. Though the reports don't present any scientific argument that the scratches are old, some of the observations described - if properly interpreted - may well indicate the scratches were made in the 1990s.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 895
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 7:11 am: | |
Chris tells us,
"...there's no scientific evidence that the watch marks are older than mid-1993."
Caroline tells us,
"...you still have no scientific evidence that the scratches were made in May 1993..."
And there we are.
So a "full investigation" seems in order.
I guess the scientist was right after all.
Ten years ago.
--John (from the land of nothing new, nothing real) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1353
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 7:19 am: | |
Hi
just dropping in to note that the title of this thread...
oh s*d it no one else gives a monkeys so i don't either!!
Caz,
maybe but at the end of the day i'd rather lose face than lose sleep!
Jenni |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1343
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 7:33 am: | |
Hi Chris P,
Where is you evidence that most people think it's blindingly obvious that the scratches were made in May 1993, despite the conclusions of the two independent scientists?
Naturally, I can see why John O wants the watch investigated - as fully, and as long as it takes to get 'scientific evidence that the scratches were made in May 1993'.
If the scientisis had concluded that the scratches were, in their opinion, a few weeks or months old at most, I would naturally expect Paul Feldman to have whinged about more work being needed in order to get to the 'truth', while John O would have been the one to sit and sneer.
Think about it.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 545
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 7:46 am: | |
Caroline Anne Morris
Jenni is right. This is off-topic here. If you are able to point to any hard evidence for your position, please do so on one of the half-dozen other threads where this "discussion" is taking place.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 897
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 7:48 am: | |
Why John O. wants the watch fully investigated:
To learn the truth.
Regardless of the conclusions.
Because the scientists themselves told us ten years ago that due to the limited access they were granted to the material a full investigation was impossible and any results they might be able to offer would be only preliminary.
And let me just say here that the fact that I actually have to argue in favor of a full investigation, as recommended by the professionals, as being the right and decent and proper thing to do, demonstrates the complete intellectual bankruptcy and shallow self-interest of some of the players in this game.
As I have said before, this is the only intellectual enterprise in which I have ever been involved where some people argue against learning things (or at least make excuses to avoid doing so).
No wonder hoaxes survive well here.
Test these things. Test them thoroughly. Give the scientists and the latest technology full access to the material to be tested. Do the right thing.
Regardless of the conclusions, given the words of the reports themselves about their own incompleteness, does anyone here really doubt "why John O wants the watch investigated"?
It is most certainly NOT for the bullshit reason Caroline Morris just offered. And she knows that. So the fact that she even wrote such a stupid sentence reveals quite clearly what this debate here is really about for some.
And it is certainly not about learning the truth.
In disbelief at the nonsense,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1354
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 8:06 am: | |
Ok guys calm down!! We're all friends here.
personally i think whoever it was who started this thread (sorry I think it was Jeff H. but can't be sure) anyway - i think they may have been onto something.
Jenni
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1346
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 6:04 am: | |
Hi Chris,
Since 'my position' is that you have produced no evidence that most people think it's blindingly obvious that the scratches were made in May 1993, and - more importantly - no evidence that they were made in May 1993 - I don't need to point to the hard evidence for my position.
It's conspicuous by the total absence of your own evidence.
If you could produce it, none of us, including John, would require a single further test to be done on the watch, would we?
So it appears that John, for once, agrees with my position - ie that you lack scientific evidence of a 1993 hoax, despite the beliefs you express here.
And don't forget that, in John's vocabulary, expressing a belief is synonymous with making a claim. And all claims made, without learning if they can be backed up with hard evidence, are a sure sign of intellectual bankruptcy and shallow self-interest.
You see, I'm learning fast from the master player in this game.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on December 03, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1360
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 6:09 am: | |
Yo!
lets talk about this textaul inaccuracy in the diary.
Jenni |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 551
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 7:14 am: | |
Caroline Anne Morris wrote:
So it appears that John, for once, agrees with my position - ie that you lack scientific evidence of a 1993 hoax, despite the beliefs you express here.
Please could you stop saying this? It's not true that I've made any such claim.
As I have already pointed out to you elsewhere, what I actually said is this:
Though the reports don't present any scientific argument that the scratches are old, some of the observations described - if properly interpreted - may well indicate the scratches were made in the 1990s.
Surely you can see the difference.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 900
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 8:14 am: | |
Give it up Chris.
This is clearly not about actual content or reading any longer for Caroline.
This is about personal desire and some strange sort of pointless game playing.
She knows full well that my post indicated only that there was disagreement about how to read the reports because Wild was right, the technological findings are only preliminary and a full investigation has yet to take place.
Until it does, there will be nothing but this sort of time wasting silliness and acrimony around here.
And if such an investigation never takes place, if such tests are never conducted on either the diary or the watch, that'll tell us all we need to know about the owners of these artefacts and their own sense of responsibility towards history and towards the truth.
The rest is just typical Dairy World schoolyard nonsense of the sort we see from Caroline above, as she deliberately and creatively misreads (by leaving out more than half of) my earlier post.
It's normal for her.
And what some of us have come to expect.
Anyway, I do hope all newcomers here see quickly what a waste of time the diary and the watch have become. They are hoaxes which have served only to poison the field.
There is nothing new or real here.
And what is here is just sad.
--John
(Message edited by omlor on December 03, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1361
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 9:11 am: | |
so anyway on this point the dairy seems to be wrong......... |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 901
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 9:27 am: | |
Hi Jenni,
That's two of us now who have turned this into a debate about cows.
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1364
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 12:04 pm: | |
John,
damn the cows!!!
Jenni |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
