| Author |
Message |
    
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 206
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 4:18 pm: | 
|
"Which sort of brings me back to the shroud of Turin....we are at the mercy of experts who also get things wrong until the next expert comes along. "
Personally, I think everyone in Diary World should spend an afternoon in Shroud World. Makes the Diary look like a walk in the park....Virtually unlimited resources, reasonable access, the full spectrum of scientific minds on the case....and they just don't know.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1101
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 5:08 pm: |
|
The Shroud of Turin is not a handwritten book. It does not claim to be only one hundred years old. It does not contain ink that is a hundred years old or less and can still be properly and chemically analyzed. It does not contain handwriting that can be professionally analyzed and compared against numerous verified samples of the alleged author's. It is a much different case altogether concerning a much different sort of artefact and a much different set of forensic problems.
But most people, I suspect, already knew that.
And, of course, under no circumstances can or should it be offered as a relevant or logical excuse to avoid the "thorough investigation" and complete testing shamefully still undone on the diary and the watch a full ten years after their appearance.
Now then, back to the fascinating issue at hand.
What's all this about Paul testing the watch?
Waiting for the full scoop,
--John |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 207
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 6:30 pm: |
|
The Shroud, like the Diary, claims nothing.
It's what the mortals assert about these objects that is the problem.
All I am suggesting is that "we" may run tests on the Diary until "we" are blue in the face, and still not even be able to agree that the "correct" tests were in fact done. Or what they mean...
Not an outrageous suggestion, nor one saying "we" shouldn't proceed with testing.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1102
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 7:08 pm: |
|
I'm sorry, Robert, but the scientific situations are completely different. The two artefacts are of completely different types.
No one is claiming the diary is ancient. There is no ink to analyze in the shroud. The forensics involved need only go back one hundred and twenty years or so. There is a person's handwriting involved and known verified samples. And there is modern chemistry in question, not ancient chemistry.
The two situations are far more different in specifics than similar and so the comparison is not a very useful or accurate one.
You have no idea what tests are possible on the diary and the watch or what they might finally show us, consequently any speculation you have concerning what they will or will not be able to prove remains completely unfounded in this particular case.
Of course, if the owners ever decide finally to do the right thing and send the watch and the diary to qualified experts in order to determine precisely what is and is not possible with them, this discussion would have some meaning. Until then, though, this is just time-killing and largely uninformed chatter.
On the other hand, if Paul is really now testing the watch, as Jeff mentions...
Dreaming,
--John
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 208
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 11:35 pm: |
|
"this is just time-killing and largely uninformed chatter. "
In your opinion. I don't see earth shattering revelations on most threads on a given day. I see hobbyists talking about a mutual area of interest.
"You have no idea what tests are possible on the diary"
I'm more than happy to learn. What do you think is feasible and what is a guesstimate for cost?
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1103
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 6:26 am: |
|
Once again, I would politely remind readers that, unlike "most threads" here, in this case the material evidence is still available and the people who own it are still around, so the question of testing and results should in fact be more immediately relevant.
The case of the Shroud, of course, is not immediately relevant, since the situations, the artefacts, and the scientific work involved are all distinctly different.
Also, as I've already mentioned a few times, every scientist I have talked to has told me the same thing regarding the extent of possible tests, the range of costs (which might very well vary depending on which tests turn out to be necessary), and the scope of possible results. And what they have all said is that before these questions can be answered specifically, they would need to get a look both at the old reports already produced and, eventually, at the artefacts themselves. They are of course just being responsible about their claims. Unfortunately, I suspect they are also dooming us to never knowing the precise answers to these questions, since history and experience both suggest that none of them will be getting either of these things into a lab again.
Sadly, until they do, the discussion here will necessarily remain largely uninformed, on everyone's part. Myself included, by the way.
Of course, the owners of the diary and watch could change all that.
Or perhaps Paul already is...
Hoping we find out today,
--John |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 210
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 8:38 am: |
|
"And what they have all said is that before these questions can be answered specifically, "
Hmmm....most scientists can hypothesize what sorts of tests they would most likely want to run, and what types of results they might look for. That's not exactly crawling out on a limb. And "experts" would have some idea of a range of potential costs.
I understand that until getting their mitts on the infernal objects it remains a hypothetical discussion, but that's precisely what I'm looking for.
Hypotheticals - like most of the discussions on the other threads in the Casebook. I can't start to chant for the owners of the Diary and Watch to "do the right thing" until I have some clue as to what the "right thing" POSSIBLY could be and what the POSSIBLE price tag would be.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1104
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 8:50 am: |
|
Robert,
In my experience, they are uniformly very hesitant about speculating concerning specific tests and certainly about costs until they at least see the material they are dealing with, both the documents and the objects. Of course, in the case of the diary, the question of ink analysis and comparisons often arises, but even the cost and number of tests in that case remains uncertain until the document is at least initially examined. That's what I was told repeatedly.
If you find a fully qualified professional laboratory who is willing to give you estimates of specific tests and costs before seeing either the old reports or the artefacts, please do let us all know what they say.
In the meantime, unlike you, I have no problem at all calling on the owners of these artefacts to step up finally, after a full decade, and get these things to professionals in order to get solid answers to precisely the questions you are now asking. They haven't even done that. And that's simply irresponsible, if you ask me.
But now we're just repeating ourselves, as usual. And this might all be moot in the case of the watch, if Paul is really testing it as Jeff mentions.
Is he? Anyone know?
--John
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1457
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 9:32 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
Please! I'd much rather be Peggy Mitchell than Pauline. And the thought of Dirty Den, knocking up poor Zoe, makes me feel physically ill. 
Hi John,
And what they have all said is that before these questions can be answered specifically, they would need to get a look both at the old reports already produced and, eventually, at the artefacts themselves.
Is this another departure I see before me, from the usual 'the scientists naturally and obviously need to have the artefacts in front of them [and carte blanche to try anything they might fancy trying regardless of the final bill?] before they can even begin to say what type of tests they are able to perform and to what end'?
And could you tell us exactly how many scientists you are including when you write:
Every scientist I have talked to... about possible tests.
Many thanks.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1105
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 9:54 am: |
|
Caroline,
The answer to your first question is no. Of course, I don't recognize the clause in brackets.
The answer to your second is three separate scientists at three different labs back in 2002 and four or five colleagues in science departments at US universities including my own over the past couple of years.
Now then, do you know anything about Paul getting the watch tested?
Breath still baited,
--John |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 821
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 10:07 am: |
|
Peeve alert! One's breath is bated, not baited. Little dangling tongue worms...eww.
Although I am waiting with bated breath as well to learn of the new tests being undertaken!
(and I am fully aware that my numerous spelling/grammar mistakes are fair game, like the other day when I wrote ingenuine, I blame lack of coffee...sigh, I hate it when a semantic peeve gets the best of me.)
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1458
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 10:20 am: |
|
Hi John,
It's a pity you haven't shared all this valuable research with us and supplied some details we could really get our teeth into. Your information could even have proved useful to the serious side of the investigation.
No, I know nothing about Paul getting the watch tested. Surprisingly, I don't know everything that goes on behind the scenes, despite being Mrs. Busybody. 
Sounds to me like "Send reinforcements, we're going to advance" may have got changed into "Send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance".
Or someone's succeeded in winding you up instead of the watch...
Love,
Caz
X
PS Oh and I think you meant your breath was still 'bated' - I always think of worms dangling on a fisherman's hook when I see someone writing about their breath being 'baited'.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1459
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 10:22 am: |
|
Ally! I wrote my post before I saw yours.
At last - a peeve in common.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1106
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 10:51 am: |
|
No, I meant "baited."
So can anyone explain Jeff's remarks about Paul getting the watch tested?
Curious, still,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1734
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 12:18 pm: |
|
No John,
why not email Paul and ask him!?
cheers
Jenni
ps or Jeff!
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1110
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 12:25 pm: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Feel free.
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1735
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 12:35 pm: |
|
Hi John,
i do
Jenni
ps nice weather!
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1467
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 6:28 am: |
|
No, I meant "baited."
Nice try John, you old fraud. No wonder you admit to feeling most at home on the golf course. 
How are your students of English meant to fill in future job application forms, when they won't know whether their breath is supposed to be baited or bated while waiting for their Dear John letters?
It was a schoolboy howler, John. Everyone makes 'em, even at your lofty level apparently. Most would have the guts to admit it.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1113
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 8:23 am: |
|
Boy, is it a drag when you have to explain jokes to people.
Jeff came here and said that Paul might be testing the watch and then left without saying another word about it or explaining.
As his final line, he wrote,
"I await Pauls watch report, if true that he is testing, with baited breath."
I thought it was a delightful phrase, given the circumstances, because he did indeed leave me with baited breath.
So I wrote,
What? Paul is testing the watch? I must have missed that.
Please, do fill me in on the details.
Waiting with baited breath to hear about Paul's "testing",
And signed it.
Get it?
OK, I didn't highlight the pun so that everyone could see it immediately and smile without being prompted, and therefore I guess I understand Ally and Caroline jumping here to point out the "howler." But then I went so far as to point out explicitly that I meant "baited" and Caroline STILL didn't get it.
No wonder some people can't quite see the diary for the joke it is.
I have learned another valuable lesson,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1748
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 8:57 am: |
|
i don't think it's a joke. i think it's quite quite serious to frame an innocent man for murder, even if he is long dead.
maybe it's just me!
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1116
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 9:07 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
It's both.
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1751
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 9:12 am: |
|
it's both..? both a joke and serious?
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1752
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 9:13 am: |
|
any way Mike Barrett Questions!
predictable is I!
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Kelly Robinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 125
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 10:14 am: |
|
John,
I get it now, but I didn't at first. I think the fact that Ally pointed out your supposed error is testament to the fact that you normally have grammatically correct posts and can spell (so does Ally, and I'm grateful to you both). It's always more fun when a smart person trips up -it's like finding a typo in the OED. So don't take it too hard, even though it was a mistake.
-Kelly
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1124
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 10:49 am: |
|
Hi Kelly,
No problem. I figured everyone would get the joke, seeing as how Jeff lured us in with his hints about Paul and left us all properly baited.
I figured wrong, obviously.
Go figure,
--John |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 428
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 12:05 pm: |
|
John,
If it makes you feel any better I got it, but only because I knew you wouldn't make that error. In the future you might render such efforts with quotation marks ("baited")to make it easier.
Meanwhile, I wonder that since Figment is the mascot of Diary World if perhaps Watch World could adopt Salvador Dali's famous painting with the drooping watch as its symbol. Just an idea.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1132
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 12:19 pm: |
|
Don,
Especially given the title of that piece. It would be a wonderfully ironic moment.
The persistence of memory, indeed.
From the home of the Dali Museum,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1775
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 12:29 pm: |
|
fantastic.
how is figment anyway.
and now i am hopelessly off topic.
back to what is likley!
not a lot really!
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 673
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 12:30 pm: |
|
So that was how the watch was artificially aged!
No wonder it looks so wrecked now ...
Chris Phillips
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1294
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 1:07 pm: |
|
Hi John, Chris, Caz et al.
To disabuse you, John, of your fantasies, admittedly baited by Jeff's teasing remark that such might be the case, that our Editor-in-Chief Paul Begg is testing the watch, the January issue of Ripperologist contains an article by Paul in which he assesses what is said in the watch reports by Drs. Turgoose and Wild and also says something about the debate here on the Casebook over said reports. I hope this clarifies the matter. Better powder your faces everyone and put on your Sunday best; I trust you are ready for your close-up. 
All the best
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1135
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 1:24 pm: |
|
Thanks, Chris.
Ah, it figures. Still no tests, other than the preliminary and speculative ones we've already seen.
Why do I think I could write at least parts of the upcoming article almost word for word before reading it?
As always, hoping to be surprised,
--John
PS: I do hope this one has a better logical premise than his last, which sought to reduce evidentiary judgments to matters of taste. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 215
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 9:08 pm: |
|
" the January issue of Ripperologist contains an article by Paul in which he assesses what is said in the watch reports by Drs. Turgoose and Wild"
As one of my skills is in finding work for others to do, I'd point out that a Ripperologist interview with either of these folks might cast light, in laymen's terms, on what they meant.
Some of us read these reports as saying "most likely the scratches are old, unless they're not."
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 216
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 9:14 pm: |
|
"i don't think it's a joke. i think it's quite quite serious to frame an innocent man for murder, even if he is long dead.
maybe it's just me!"
No, it's not just you. It's not necessarily as serious as the tsunami, or terrorism, or global warming, but it's worth discussing. None of us think Sir Jim was the Ripper, but someone has done quite a number on his legacy.
Too bad there aren't more descendents to take umbrage at this; answers might be more forthcoming. If one of my relatives was accused of this, I'd write a check for whatever it took to clear his name.
Or $500, whichever came first.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 11:08 am: |
|
Hi all.
I really don't know why this diary is even given the time of day anymore.... Talk of tests on this, tests on that.
Philip Sugden has already exposed this fake for us all to see. He has pointed out so many gross inaccuracies by the writer, proving that the information contained therein was obviously cribbed from the many inaccurate accounts of authors in the past.
As long as Ripper students continue to dwell on such fraud, the truth is unlikely to ever come to light. Poor old Maybrick. I thought that it was only his wife who was grossly misjudged and condemned.
best wishes all.
DAVID CARTWRIGHT}
|
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 12:27 pm: |
|
Ok I admit it I got the wrong end of the Stick.
Apparently Paul is not doing any new tests but compiling the origanal tests and summarising the main points. hopefully making them clear and understandable to someone like me.
I deeply appologies for any misunderstanding this has caused and in particular to Paul himself.
Better stick to car crash telly instead in future.
Jeff |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1791
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 1:46 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
please try not to worry about it. any excuse with us, we probably just got out the wrong side of bed.
I hope to read Pauls article very soon, it does sound most interesting.
David,
first of all i've been wondering for some time are you the David cartwright who went to my school!! i take it not!
Anyway on a serious note,
i know the diary is fake, you know the diary is fake unfortunatly some people think he did it. and don't let us get into what is possible again. at least we know what is not possible or perhaos what is not likely.
what do you think is the best way to get the truth to come to light?
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1470
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 6:35 am: |
|
Hi John,
If, in the future, you are tempted to feast on another poster's howler and regurgitate it as one of your own rare witticisms, might I suggest that the elementary addition of quotation marks, or [sic], will spare your blushes, if not those of your victim, and prevent anyone from thinking the Mighty God of verbal Diarya would be capable of making a blunder of this nature.
So what's the story then behind your use elsewhere of the phrase: 'slight [sic] of hand', and 'it's' where the sentence clearly required 'its'? You never did explain these jokes for me, so you will presumably excuse me feasting on them now.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on February 07, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1139
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 6:40 am: |
|
Great post, Caroline.
Hope you feel better,
--John
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1471
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 6:47 am: |
|
You're very welcome. And I'm in rude health thanks.
Now, shall we start feasting again on the diary and Mike Barrett questions, to take the heat from your cheeks?
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1140
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 7:09 am: |
|
Sure.
I'm not sure about the "heat" reference, though. I haven't done that sort of thing in years.
By the way, you forget to mention the times when I wrote "1980's" instead of "1980s." And I think I improperly put a question mark outside the quotation marks a short while back and there was a word missing from a post a day or two ago.
Also, in case you didn't notice, the quotation marks suggestion you offered was already made, only a dozen posts earlier, from Don. Perhaps you missed it. I didn't. Of course, reading for content isn't as much fun as reading for this stuff, I guess.
Glad you started the day with such a gentle and elegant gesture,
--John
PS: The real reason I wrote "baited," was because I was tricked into it. Caroline was just sitting there, waiting for me to make this blunder, knowing that if I wrote "bated" she could quite properly jump on me for missing the chance at a clever pun and if I wrote "baited" she could chastise me in public for a howler. It was a clever trick on her part, so it really wasn't all my fault. There was no way I could win.
Oh, sorry, that whole last bit should have been in quotation marks, I guess.  |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1805
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 8:47 am: |
|
Just another productive day in diary world i guess.
so Mike Barrett Questions?
Jenni
ps yes i know predictable! |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2005 - 12:14 pm: |
|
Hi Jenni,
I must admit that I find the slim possibility that we may have attended the same school, far more interesting than the Maybrick diary.
As far as getting the truth to come to light is concerned, well that is "THE" question, and I wish I had the right answer. But I do know that }we'll get no truthful answers by wasting time & resources on phony diaries, and ludicrous "suspects" such as Lewis Carroll, Dr. Barnardo etc.
I think that many of the Ripper students on these message-boards, yourself included, are far more knowledgeable and realistic than many of the authors & so-called experts.
I myself am convinced that the Ripper has already been found. Many items & documents that were thought lost forever, have mysteriously reappeared again in recent years. I'm optimistic that documentary proof against the real culprit, WILL be found.
Well, unless you went to school in the "Chester" area, I'm afraid we've got no excuse for a reunion.
Best wishes Jenni.
DAVID CARTWRIGHT |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1820
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 12:25 pm: |
|
Hi David,
sadly it seems you are not the same David Cartwright. it would have been quite freaky had you been however!
still James etc.
Thanks for the answer.
I must add I am certainly far far less knowledgable than the experts.
Jenni
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 1:20 pm: |
|
Hi Jenni.
I must admit to being disappointed at not being the person you knew. When I said Chester area, I meant that was the nearest town. I actually attended school just across the North-Wales border, which is three miles away from the City.
Not that it would make any difference, sadly.
Still, while it would be nice to chat with an old school associate, I'm more than happy to discuss anything & everything about the Ripper case with you. I think you're being too modest in playing down your knowledge of the case, and as you seem to consider the Maybrick diary a fake, I'm curious as to whether you have a particular suspect, about whom you hold strong views.
Well, I'm sorry to have proved a disappointment, and hope to speak with you again soon.
Very best wishes Jenni.
DAVID CARTWRIGHT
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1834
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 12:13 pm: |
|
Hi David,
i have no idea who JTR was!
Jenni |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1476
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 12:22 pm: |
|
Hi John,
Get over yourself. Jeff hasn't wept buckets because you chose to ridicule him for his howler, so dry your own eyes now and get back on track. Tasting your own medicine wasn't likely to be pleasant, was it?
Anyway, the new Rip is out now. So you can see for yourself what Paul Begg has to say about the watch, and then you can pop over to one of the watch threads to whinge about that.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1836
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 12:31 pm: |
|
i don't think there is anything to objectionable about what Paul says.
He might be slightly hard on John and chris, but there grown ups I'm sure they can take it.
And i would think John's over the other thing too.
and as this threads called Mike barret questions and started very bizarely i'm surprised we're still on it! |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1143
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 12:33 pm: |
|
Caroline,
You're still talking about that? Amazing. I can't even remember the last thing I said about it, but I don't remember crying or tasting any medicine at all, either my own or other people's. So your latest offering is simply a mystery to me.
And I don't remember ridiculing Jeff, either. In fact, I thought the howler was a delightful accident and that's why I used it.
Hard to believe this is all you have to say. But it's fun to see what's important to some people.
--John (chuckling to himself at this point)
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1839
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 12:45 pm: |
|
I wonder if that's Mike barrett Questions....
could be a tv detective series. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1145
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 12:49 pm: |
|
Hi Jenni,
I admire your persistence. 
Best of luck,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1841
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 12:57 pm: |
|
but what's that got to do with Mike barrett Questions...?
personally i doubt that it has very much to with it.
Jenni |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page