|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1311
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 6:46 pm: | 
|
Hi Don,
You have my sympathies.
I was raised in a town there called Southampton and went to a high school in the county called William Tennent; but I spent a good bit of time on the river in New Hope, where I'd compete in poetry slams and eat too much and buy weird music and just generally misbehave.
Nothing's really off topic here, since the topic is a hoax anyway.
Take care,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1634
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 2:35 pm: |
|
Hi John,
You missed my point about Mike's claims. He did claim to have written the diary all by himself in June 1994. It was only after no one was buying it that he introduced the idea that he had help. In fact, Feldy once almost got Mike to write a sample to show how he'd written the diary. I say 'almost', because when it was pointed out that Mike's current claim was that Anne penned it, the experiment sort of fell apart - can't think why. You couldn't make it up, could you?
Anyway, my point was simply that, having claimed in June that he wrote the diary himself (and presumably remembered including the Crashaw line and where he found it), his claim 3 months later, that he had just found the line for the first time in the library, was not exactly designed to support his original claim.
Is that clear enough now?
Perhaps Quoteman was Quotewoman. Maybe your ex-wife read the diary back in 1994 without you knowing. Knowing her Crashaw better than you, she recognised the poem and tipped Mike off.
Simple - like falling off a Maybrick log.
Yes, I made that up. No one from the elite world of literature could have read the diary and recognised the line, could they?
And anyway, I don't think Mike mentioned Crashaw when announcing his find. He couldn't even get the volume number right when telling Shirley and she sent him back to the library to get the correct details. She may only have realised it was by Crashaw when she phoned the library and they faxed her the page.
So you don't believe Mike's claim that the diary is a modern forgery then? Nor his claim to have acquired a copy of volume 2 in 1989?
So how do you think he was suddenly able to reveal where 'o costly...' came from in September 1994?
I'm not with you regarding Nancy Steele. You don't believe Mike's Devereux tales, so when would Nancy have first heard about the diary, if Devereux died without seeing it? And how could her testimony possibly shed any light at all on the diary's origins, unless Mike was telling the truth, and her father was involved in some capacity or other?
Love,
Caz
X |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1635
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 2:40 pm: |
|
Hi Don,
I wonder how the hoaxer made sure that the scrapbook he found was from the right period? Perhaps he/she wasn't bothered by the possibility that all the experts could have immediately declared it to be Edwardian or later.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 807
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 2:53 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
I wonder how the hoaxer made sure that the scrapbook he found was from the right period? Perhaps he/she wasn't bothered by the possibility that all the experts could have immediately declared it to be Edwardian or later.
As a matter of interest, is there any definite evidence that the diary is of the right period, and not from the 1890s or later?
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1315
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 3:21 pm: |
|
All right,
Now I am genuinely confused. Is Caroline actually suggesting that the Quoteman! theory of Sir Robert's might have some validity when she asks sarcastically, "No one from the elite world of literature could have read the diary and recognised the line, could they?" Is she actually suggesting that poor Shirley might indeed have known the identity of the quote before she sent Mike to the library, thanks to some anonymous literary super-hero (or heroine), as Sir Robert fantasized? It seems unclear, since she then writes, "[Shirley] may only have realised it was by Crashaw when she phoned the library and they faxed her the page."
But if Caroline IS actually suggesting this tale of a literary super hero who recognized the line and phoned it in might have even some possible validity, then I want everyone to note that she is also suggesting it's possible that Shirley has kept this information secret for years and years and that she has consistently lied about it in her writing concerning these events.
Who would have thought it would come to this? Caroline Morris apparently suggesting a scenario is possible in which Shirley Harrison has deceived us all for years about what really went down.
That's pretty ugly, if you ask me.
Meanwhile, she asks me in classic Caroline fashion, "So you don't believe Mike's claim that the diary is a modern forgery then? Nor his claim to have acquired a copy of volume 2 in 1989?"
She's playing a cute little word game here, based on my saying that I don't believe any of Mike's stories and claims.
But this is easily answered.
Yes, I believe the diary is a modern forgery. I believe that NOT because Mike said it was (now he says it wasn't in any case), but because that's what all the textual evidence indicates and because the old hoax theory remains completely unable to account for a good number of textual problems that are (and have been) easily and simply accounted for by a modern hoax scenario.
Anyone want to see the list again?
And yes, I believe Mike Barrett knew the source of the "O Costly.." line before he ever went to the Liverpool Library. I believe he lied about the miracle there. I don't believe that Mike already knew the line because he says he did (at one point he said he didn't, after all). I believe it because that is the simplest and most logical and common sense way of explaining how he was able to identify the line and because it corresponds to all of the library research experience I have ever had or ever heard of.
And I believe it especially because I see no real evidence whatsoever to support the notion that he did not and that the miracle took place. I have hard time believing in miracles. I have an even harder time believing in miracles people say happened when there's no evidence at all that they happened. I have a harder time still believing in miracles when the person who says they happened without any evidence at all to support his claims also happens to be known as a compulsive and habitual liar.
Call me crazy, that just makes sense to me.
Finally, Caroline is indeed "not with me" concerning Nancy Steele. All I have recommended is people read what she has said. RJ mentioned it here and I checked it out. It was very interesting indeed. And it had nothing to do with the diary, per se.
Now then, back to Quoteman! and Shirley's secret life...
Please Caroline, do reassure me that you think this ridiculous nonsense is possible and that Sir Robert might just have something here.
Hoping against hope for more,
--John
PS: And we're right back in August, in case anyone hasn't noticed. Some things are easy to predict.
(Message edited by omlor on April 06, 2005) |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 498
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 3:27 pm: |
|
Caz,
I wonder how the hoaxer made sure that the scrapbook he found was from the right period?
Hmmmm . . . one possibility that suggests itself is that the first 40 odd pages were composed of a real journal that pre-dated fall 1888. I'm not necessarily endorsing that idea, but it would probably resolve the problem for a hoaxer. Further, it might even have provided a hoaxer with an example of the permanship of at least one person from the LVP era.
Indeed, if you really want to run with that idea, I suppose that original diarist may have known a "Mrs. Hammersmith," frequented a "Poste House" somewhere and even been something of a Crashaw enthusiast.
Remember all, you read it here first -- and I hope last.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1316
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 3:33 pm: |
|
Thanks for the chuckle, Don.
If only it was just funny and not, you know, funny.
I guess there's "ha ha" funny (like the diary) and just sad funny (like Diary World).
Still, it's good to smile,
--John 
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 499
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 3:48 pm: |
|
John,
Well, with Jenni busy with thesis work somebody has to consider all the possibilities.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1317
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 4:49 pm: |
|
Indeed, Don.
Although I suspect you'll find that Jenni is busy with many things; not just her thesis. Heck, some of them might even be diary related.
All the best,
--John |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 319
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 9:11 pm: |
|
" a scenario is possible in which Shirley Harrison has deceived us all for years about what really went down. "
You're putting a negative spin on things, which is hardly a surprise.
Two choices, here:
1) Barrett was the hoaxer, or knew the hoaxer.
2) He neither hoaxed it, nor knows who did.
Barrett has at various times claimed all these scenarios to be the case. When trying to prove scenario 1, he fell flat on his face. In July of 1994 he knows squat about Crashaw; three months later he's an expert. (Well, a little confused about where and when, and which Volume, but close enough for handgrenades.)
(I'd add that in a Cloak and Dagger meeting in 1999 where he was supposed to deliver definitive proof of having hoaxed the Diary, he neglected to even mention Crashaw until Skinner raised the question in the Q&A. Actually, when Skinner repeated the question for the second time. You could look it up....)
If door #2 is the case, somebody somewhere somehow recognized the quote and mentioned either Crashaw in general or the poem in specific to folks connected to the Diary.
Now, just out of curiosity - what type of person might recognize an obscure line of poetry? Or more accurately, that it sounded like a line of poetry? And have access to researchers and research tools?
(Stuff existed long before the Net, you know.)
Gee, someone working for a publishing house. Or a magazine. Or a newspaper. Wait - it doesn't even have to be that complex, eh? The Diary was published worldwide. You're saying no one (except yourself, of course) would have recognized it? And questioned the publisher, Shirley or Mike's agents etc etc etc. ?
I feel a heck of a lot more confident in a scenario along those lines than old Mike finding the quote all by his lonesome.
In the library. Ooops, sorry. In his attic. No, no, wrong again. In his friend's attic. Yes, yes, that's right.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 10:12 am: |
|
The other person was doing some sort of "mind reading based on handwriting" thing, suggesting that you can tell a lot about a person's personality just by how they write their letters.
One of these involves simple objective descriptions of lines on the page with reference to a historical record.
The other is performed in a booth at the State Fair for five dollars.
Ooooooh...this is just great. If I remember rightly, this woman had a list of credentials that seemed OK to me (assuming they werent fictitously reported by someone). And somehow, the Israelis just do not seem like the type of people who spend their time doing fairground tricks.
But attacking other peoples professional reputations/descriptions/credentials etc. has never been outside the Rules of Engagement in these forums so its only to be expected.
Mr Poster |
AAD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 2:08 pm: |
|
'This Baxendale man'!!! - Dr. Baxendale a highly qualified document examiner. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1318
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 10:54 pm: |
|
Putting aside the silliness about the "you're a crazy murderer and I can tell 'cause of your penmanship" nonsense, let me turn to Sir Robert and the delightful Quoteman! stuff.
He cites me amazed that Caroline Morris might actually allow that:
"a scenario is possible in which Shirley Harrison has deceived us all for years about what really went down. "
And then he complains:
"You're putting a negative spin on things, which is hardly a surprise."
But, good Sir Robert, it's you that leads me to this inevitable conclusion. Or rather, your completely made up, unevidenced, desperate, and insulting theory.
If, as you say, "somebody somewhere somehow recognized the quote and mentioned either Crashaw in general or the poem in specific to folks connected to the Diary," then Shirley must have been lying to us all along. There's no two ways about it. If she or the publishers knew the source of the quote, thanks to this imaginary literary super-hero Quoteman!, before Shirley sent Mike to the library to find the source, all on his own, then Shirley has kept this secret for years and she has lied repeatedly in print about how this all went down.
It's that simple. If you're theory is right, she's kept the secret for no apparent reason and is a liar.
Of course, since you just made all this up and have no evidence to support such imaginary nonsense, I'm not sure she has to worry. But those who feel that even suggesting such a deliberate deception is the wrong thing to do might speak up here and disassociate themselves from such an ugly theory. I know I do.
Caroline?
Meanwhile, Sir Robert writes this perfect sentence, for which I could kiss him with tongue:
"I feel a heck of a lot more confident in a scenario along those lines than old Mike finding the quote all by his lonesome."
You know what? ME TOO!
Especially if you mean Mike finding it all by his lonesome after he gave it to Shirley to begin with, via some library miracle.
Remember, Mike gave Shirley the quote first, before he was sent to look for its source. Then he identified it for her.
It's all just getting clearer and clearer, isn't it?
Well maybe not for those who'd rather it not be.
Just loving this now,
--John |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 321
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 11:04 pm: |
|
"for which I could kiss him with tongue"
Now I'm truly terrified. A Guinness would have sufficed.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 808
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 3:00 am: |
|
Sir Robert
Or more accurately, that it sounded like a line of poetry? And have access to researchers and research tools?
(Stuff existed long before the Net, you know.)
You keep saying this, but how exactly could these researchers have identified 5 words of poetry by an obscure 17th-century poet, unless by the brute force method of looking through tens (or more likely hundreds) of thousands of books?
It amuses me when people talk about "research" as though it works by magic, or "researchers" as if they're magicians ...
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1638
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 6:31 am: |
|
Hi John,
You may have missed it, but my little joke (remember that - joke) about your ex-wife - Quotewoman - contained the only reference I have made to anyone tipping anyone off and it wasn't meant to be serious. Here is the clue:
...she recognised the poem and tipped Mike off.
So no-one is going to ask you if what I wrote was 'pretty ugly'; they can read for themselves that your suggestion was 'completely made up, unevidenced, desperate, and insulting'. I never uttered a word about Shirley being tipped off.
Hi Chris,
Oh you'd be amazed by the stuff amateur researchers can dig up that shows how little the self-proclaimed experts really know about the accessibility of Crashaw to your average middle-class Victorian.
For the last time, books specialising in pre-20th century English literature and poetry on the shelves of Liverpool Library did not run to anything like as many as 'tens of thousands', when Shirley suggested Mike look there for 'o costly...'. You are doing your argument no favours at all by continuing to ignore the plain facts.
Hi AAD,
Yes, I can see why you prefer to remain anonymous. Your grasp of the facts is pretty poor too. Regardless of Dr. Baxendale's qualifications, he claimed the ink contained nigrosine and that this told him it was post-1930s. He was wrong - nigrosine was in general use in writing inks by the 1870s.
Once someone is confident they have positively identified a post-1930s document from an ingredient in the ink, it must be difficult for them to claim 100% objectivity when making further observations. So Baxendale had better be much hotter on Victorian and post-Victorian writing styles than he was on the history of ink manufacture.
But is there any reason to conclude that what Baxendale lacked in one area of expertise he had in abundance in another?
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on April 07, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1319
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 8:02 am: |
|
Caroline quickly reassures us all:
"I never uttered a word about Shirley being tipped off."
Of course, she doesn't mention her sarcastic question I cited above, which echoed Sir Robert's suggestion about a literary super-hero discovering the quote. And that premise was a key part of his theory about this mysterious Quoteman! sending the source to Shirley and the diary people before Shirley ever sent Mike to the library and Shirley then telling Mike this source.
I wonder why she asked that little sarcastic question, when it's now clear that she wants nothing at all to do with Sir Robert's fantasy and its rather nasty implications for Shirley, given what Shirley has said and written since then about these events?
And of course, another thing I wonder...
What does it mean when your theory about something to do with the diary is so out there, so bizarre, so unevidenced and produces such ugly consequences, that Caroline Morris won't even mention it?
Then she reverts back to her August form in her response to Chris, and starts the numbers game again. The appropriate response can be found already posted, just by using the link I gave you all earlier, the one that takes you to last August's identical discussion.
And finally, before she goes, she stops to indict Dr. Baxendale and accuse him of deliberately distorting his description of the diary handwriting.
Yes, I know what you are all thinking, it's obvious to me, too.
But fortunately, we don't have to argue about motives (Caroline's or anyone else's), because I have already posted his exact words and you can just open your copies of the diary and see if YOU think he is accurately describing the letter formations. Anyone who wants a copy of these paragraphs again, let me know and I'll repost them here or send them to you privately. They are quite clear and simple.
"Tin matchbox empty," The Poste House, the handwriting style, the same single line being excerpted in both the diary and the Sphere Guide, the complete lack of any verifiable provenance, and all the rest of the textual evidence... A modern hoax scenario explains them all simply and logically and in a common sense sort of way. No old hoax theory has ever been able to offer a believable explanation for them and ends up praying for one amazing coincidence after another. In fact, the old hoax theory ends up praying for a number of simultaneous amazing coincidences as their only hope for the diary to be anything other than a modern hoax. And meanwhile, when in doubt, they just make stuff up (like Quoteman!) or run from the textual evidence over to something else.
Nothing has changed in the past ten years, except the fight to keep hope alive at all costs has perhaps gotten more desperate and far-fetched lately (with masks and capes and all), almost as if it was time for something Maybrick related to be created or released....
But I'm sure that's just my imagination.
Nothing new under the sun,
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 810
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 12:00 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
For the last time, books specialising in pre-20th century English literature and poetry on the shelves of Liverpool Library did not run to anything like as many as 'tens of thousands', when Shirley suggested Mike look there for 'o costly...'. You are doing your argument no favours at all by continuing to ignore the plain facts.
You really never tire of distorting my posts, do you? I suppose some people would be glad of the attention, but personally I find this rather obsessive behaviour slightly creepy.
Anyhow, if you scroll back up and look at the post I was actually replying to, you'll see that no one was talking about Liverpool Library, but about Sir Robert's "somebody somewhere somehow" (a.k.a. John's "Quoteman!").
Still, why let facts stand in the way of a good bit of bulletin-board point scoring?
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 322
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 1:21 pm: |
|
""Tin matchbox empty," The Poste House, the handwriting style, the same single line being excerpted in both the diary and the Sphere Guide, the complete lack of any verifiable provenance, and all the rest of the textual evidence... A modern hoax scenario explains them all simply and logically and in a common sense sort of way. "
Simple and logical is of course not necessarily correct, unfortunately. Not to mention that all the objections you raise, such as the Poste House, do have alternate explanations that are unfortunately unrefuted. (I say unfortunately because I'd love for the case against the Diary to be airtight. I have no vested interest in the infernal thing.)
There is a more important point vis a vis the Sphere imbroglio. The argument here is not whether or not the Diary is a modern hoax; it's whether or not Barrett hoaxed the Diary himself, or knew the hoaxer. If one carefully constructs a time line for Mike's actions and 'confessions' over the years, starting in mid-1994, it becomes clear that the case for him being the hoaxer or being privy to its creation is on very shakey ground.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2084
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 2:28 pm: |
|
Actually,
you are right simple and logical explanations are not always correct.
simple and logical isnt always simple and isnt always logical.
however in some circumstances they are the explanation and that is why they are both simple and logical.
also we must note in some situation (tin cough matchbox empty!) they remain the only explanation. yes i mean it.
did mike fake it?
i'm not answering that - i dont want sueing (WHAT!)
"All you need is positivity"
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 323
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 4:01 pm: |
|
"also we must note in some situation (tin cough matchbox empty!) they remain the only explanation. yes i mean it."
I don't doubt you mean it, but I am confused. Didn't you just author a Ripperologist article laying out the counter arguments against the most popular reasons for the modern hoax theory? I'm not saying you asserted these were correct arguments, just that you yourself laid them out.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1321
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 4:49 pm: |
|
Well, I for one am quite happy being the person arguing in favor of the simple, logical, common sense explanations -- especially when in each and every case they account for the evidence under the same scenario.
Call me crazy, but I have always believed in the efficacy of inductive logic.
Proud to be here,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 813
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 5:49 pm: |
|
Anyway, trying to get back to the diary, the reason I asked Caroline Morris whether there was any evidence that the book was of the right date (i.e. pre 1888/1889) was this exchange from 5/6 February last year:
R.J. Palmer: It would also be interesting to get the opinion of someone who is an expert on bookbinding. There are those who have been so bold as to hazard a guess that the scrapbook is not Victorian at all, but Edwardian.
Robert Smith: Re the distinction between a late Victorian and an Edwardian date for manufacturing the diary, I would be interested to hear of any technical explanation of how one could distinguish between book bindings of the two periods. Apart from decorative details, (such as the style of gold tooling on the spine), not a lot happened in the world of book printing and binding between the 1880s and 1910.
I assume that if there was any evidence ruling out an Edwardian date for the book, Robert Smith would have mentioned it then. On the contrary, he seems to be suggesting that from the evidence of the binding, it is not possible to distinguish between the "right" date and an Edwardian one.
Chris Phillips
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 503
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 5:56 pm: |
|
Anderson,
Not to mention that all the objections you raise, such as the Poste House, do have alternate explanations that are unfortunately unrefuted.
You are right that all those many niggling text problems have not been refuted, but they do not exist in isolation. That is, if just one of them is positively demolished the document becomes a demonstrable hoax. And, however satisfactory each individual explanation may seem, each has a probability of less than unity and the likelihood the diary is genuine is the product of all those probabilities. No matter what probability you wish to assign to each separate element of contention, the resulting odds that the diary is genuine are not those that someone like our resident turf consultant, Richard Nunweek, would look upon at all favorably. In fact, it would be something of a sucker bet.
But then lottery tickets are sucker bets and they sell well. "Live the dream, bet on the Diary."
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 326
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 10:29 pm: |
|
"That is, if just one of them is positively demolished the document becomes a demonstrable hoax."
Souden, (what's with the last name stuff?)
The document is CLEARLY a hoax. I'm just far from convinced that the crew that brought it forward are the hoaxers. In fact, in the case of Mike, I'm downright convinced he didn't create it.
I've said it numerous times, but it can get lost in the signal to noise ratio of Diary World; there are three people that didn't write the Diary, IMHO :
1) The Ripper
2) James Maybrick
3) Mike Barrett .
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 504
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 11:04 pm: |
|
SRA,
I don't know, I guess I'm just too much of a small R republican (or small D democrat) not to feel uncomfortable calling anyone "Sir Robert." I suppose if you really had been knighted and I were visiting in the UK I would do it. I certainly intended no insult -- for now can you accept SRA?
And yes, I didn't suppose you believed in the diary, but I thought it a good point that although each of the "red flags" in the diary can be explained away they must be considered in toto.
An analogy I've drawn before is to the epicycles that were continually proposed to explain away pertubations in the movement of the planets in order to preserve Ptolemaic astronomy. The interesting thing is that the epicycles did work and they could have kept adding them forever. However, Copernicus came along with a much simpler explanation (they all revolve around the sun) that also happened to be quite correct.
I have no opinions on who wrote it, but I do like your aphorism about the three who didn't write the diary.
Souden.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 328
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 11:26 pm: |
|
"not to feel uncomfortable calling anyone "Sir Robert."
I'm a Noo Yawker. I take no truck with nobility. It just happens to be my real name, and there were more than a few Roberts on the message board before me. SRA is fine.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2087
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 5:32 am: |
|
Robert,
hence proving the point life is not always simple and logical?
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1322
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 7:14 am: |
|
Actually, if the simple, common sense, logical explanation of just one of the items on that list is the correct one, the diary can only be a modern fake.
If the Poste House means the Poste House, just like it says, right there in Liverpool, exactly as written, without the need to come up with any involved and dancing explanations about pubs NOT named the Poste House (no one has ever found another one -- we know this one exists in the right place with exactly the right name) -- if the text means just what it says, then the diary MUST be a modern hoax.
If "tin matchbox empty" means "tin matchbox empty" (and no one has ever been able to create a believable explanation for how anyone in the public -- including the killer -- could have seen that line in the police report before it was made available) -- if the text means just what it says, then the diary MUST be a modern hoax.
If Dr. Baxendale has accurately described the letter formation in the diary handwriting (and it's easy enough for each of you to check, just read his descriptions of the letters and then go open your copy of the diary and look at the pages and see if you see what he is talking about), then the diary MUST be a modern hoax.
If there is no verifiable provenance for the document for the simple and logical reason that it didn't exist until recent times (and for ten years people have been trying to find or establish one and no one has ever been remotely successful at it), then obviously the diary must be a MODERN hoax.
If the same single line from the entire history of writing in English (literally millions of books) is excerpted and cited amidst prose in only two books in all recorded time simply and logically because one of them was the source for the other (and no one has ever offered any other believable scenario for how it got into the second book), then the diary MUST be a modern hoax.
If the mistakes in the diary about the murders and the history and the family are precisely the same mistakes found in already identified modern sources on these questions (and no one else can offer up any remotely believable scenario for how these sets of mistakes could be identical), then the diary MUST be a modern hoax.
But here's the kicker.
Here's the thing you all must remember.
Not one, not two, not three, but EVERYONE of these obvious and simple and logical explanations for the diary's text MUST be wrong ALL AT THE SAME TIME, without exception, by some truly amazing overwhelming and unbelievable and, literally, completely inexplicable coincidence, or the diary MUST be a modern hoax.
If just ONE is right.
If only one of the simple explanations is the correct one... If the Poste House means the Poste House or "tin matchbox empty" means "tin matchbox empty" or the letters look like they look or there's no provenance because there is no provenance or the identical single line from all of writing language is excerpted and cited in the second book simply because it was excerpted and cited in the first (and nowhere else, ever) or the mistakes the diary makes about the history come are identical to the mistakes found in modern sources because the diary was written using the modern sources -- if just one of any of these explanations turns out to be true...
Then the diary MUST be a modern creation.
Any one of them dooms the old hoax theory (which doesn't even exist and can't logically account for any of them) to death.
Inductive logic.
Try it sometime.
It's a powerful thing.
As always, still happy to be arguing in favor of the simple and most logical explanations for the evidence,
--John
PS: And there are others, including the distinct and ahistorically exclusive "Abberline vs. the Ripper" dramatic structure in a book which appeared shortly on the heels of a TV miniseries with an identical distinct and ahistorically exclusive structure and the same odd and exact phrases appearing the diary's text and in Ryan's text (remember our "frequented" discussion?) and on and on and on... All of them have to be just coincidences. If just ONE is not, then the book MUST be modern.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2088
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 7:16 am: |
|
tin match box empty,
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 329
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 9:45 am: |
|
"If the Poste House means the Poste House, just like it says, right there in Liverpool, exactly as written, "
Let's put the modern versus old argument aside for a moment, and let me ask you a very straight forward question? Why do you assume that he's talking about a pub in Liverpool? The exact line is "I took refreshment at the Poste House it was there I finally decided London it shall be."
(I understand that it's not any easier finding a pub in London with that name at that time.)
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1323
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 10:06 am: |
|
Sir Robert,
We've had this discussion here before as well. If you read the rest of the page and the entries that follow it as well, you'll see that the context of the surrounding events places the character in Liverpool, thinking about London.
Besides, if the Poste House he meant was in London, and he was there when thinking and writing this, then why would he say "in London it shall be"?
--John
PS: How do I know that the Poste House meaning simply the Poste House that is right there where it's supposed to be is the simple and common sense and obvious reading? Well, one thing that tipped me off was that it is exactly the reading that Shirley Harrison herself produced in her book on the diary. In fact, right there in my edition of that book there's even a photograph of the inside of the Poste House with a caption telling me that James Maybrick planned his murders there or some such nonsense. Why would Shirley read the book carefully and naturally think that the Poste House simply meant the Poste House, just like it says? Because that makes sense, of course.
It was only after someone mentioned that this indicated that the diary was a modern composition that later editions were changed.
Don't you love that?
Remember, every single one of those items on the list has a similar simple, logical, common sense explanation and in each and every case that explanation tells us this book was written in modern times. And if only ONE of those simple and logical explanations is correct, the diary MUST be a modern hoax. There is no other possibility.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2090
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 10:15 am: |
|
i think the Poste House was in liverpool.
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1324
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 10:22 am: |
|
Jenni,
The Poste House is in Liverpool.
--John |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 330
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 10:36 am: |
|
"We've had this discussion here before as well. "
Yeah, well, almost everything about the Ripper case has been rehashed here on the Casebook. We turn over old evidence countless times in order to try to find a fresh angle or a new insight. You're not the moderator, much as you try to disrupt discussion here.
"the diary MUST be a modern hoax. There is no other possibility."
Repeating your mantra doesn't make it true. And I specifically said with respect to the Poste House to put aside modern vs. 'older'.
"I took refreshment at the Poste House it was there I finally decided London it shall be."
I can certainly see why one would assume he's talking about Liverpool, but it ain't necessarily so.
"Besides, if the Poste House he meant was in London, and he was there when thinking and writing this, then why would he say "in London it shall be"? "
I wouldn't assume from the context that he was writing it in London. All I assume from this quote is that he is went to a place he called the Poste House and there he decided London was where he would "get his freak on". Actually, you'll love this, but while he wrote "Poste" he may have meant "post" because he uses "poste" for "post" in other parts of the Diary.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1325
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 11:02 am: |
|
Sigh,
Nothing ever changes.
Sir Robert cites me saying,
"the diary MUST be a modern hoax. There is no other possibility."
and then adds
Repeating your mantra doesn't make it true.
But of course, if you go back and read my post, you'll see that the part of the sentence he cited was actually the end of a conditional argument.
Here's the whole paragraph:
"Remember, every single one of those items on the list has a similar simple, logical, common sense explanation and in each and every case that explanation tells us this book was written in modern times. And if only ONE of those simple and logical explanations is correct, the diary MUST be a modern hoax. There is no other possibility."
And, within that paragraph, the final two sentences are completely and undeniably true, without question. If any one of these simple explanations is correct, the diary MUST be a modern hoax, because that's what the explanations tell us. If the Poste House means the Poste House right there where its supposed to be with a name identical to the words on the page, then the diary MUST be a modern hoax. If the "tin matchbox empty" line comes from the "tin matchbox empty" line, then the diary MUST be a modern hoax. If the handwriting formations are accurately described in the report, then the diary MUST be a modern hoax. If the one book in the whole history of the world that we know has that single line of poetry excerpted and cited amidst prose was the source for the only other book in the whole history of the world that has that single line excerpted and cited amidst prose, then the diary MUST be a modern hoax. If there is still no verifiable provenance whatsoever after ten years simply because there is no provenance, then the diary MUST be a modern hoax. If the historical mistakes in the diary are exactly the same as the historical mistakes to be found in modern sources on the subject simply because those sources were used in its creation, then the diary MUST be a modern hoax. If the identical phrases turn up in both the diary and a modern book on Maybrick simply because the book was used when the diary was written, then the diary MUST be a modern hoax.
If any ONE of these simple, logical, common sense explanations is the right one, then the diary MUST be a modern text.
The ONLY way it could not be is if every single one of these simple, straightforward, logical common sense explanations are ALL simultaneously and inexplicably wrong at the same time.
ALL of them.
That's how inductive arguments work, remember?
Amazed we're going over this again,
--John
PS: Only once in the entire diary does the writer write "Poste," with an upper case P as part of proper name properly capitalized and IT JUST SO HAPPENS that it exactly and precisely produces the identical unique proper name of a pub right there in the very city where the diary first turned up and where it is supposed to take place. That's probably why Shirley put a picture of it in her diary book. It's just simple, straightforward common sense reading. And the only reason I can imagine for wanting to come up with some desperate alternative dancing excuse or an explanation about other pubs with other names or other locations, etc. is if for some reason there is a strong desire on the part of the reader to dismiss the obvious, simple, clear and straightforward, common sense reading just because they want a different result.
Now why would anyone want that, I wonder? |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 331
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 11:13 am: |
|
"Only once in the entire diary does the writer write "Poste," with an upper case P as part of proper name properly capitalized... "
Yup. The Diarist capitalizes proper nouns. Pretty damning if you ask me.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1326
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 11:23 am: |
|
Sir Robert once again practices the deceptive art of incomplete citation in order, I suppose, to get a cheap laugh.
If he were to read the rest of that paragraph, he would see precisely why that specific act of capitalization is particularly distinctive and important and the utterly astounding and amazing coincidence it produces -- unless of course it was done simply and logically because that in fact was the real proper name of the pub in question. And wouldn't you know it, there just happens to be one, right there in the right place, with exactly that unique proper name just like in the book. And it was there with exactly that name in exactly the right place when the book first appeared. But...
And you know the rest.
Now that the arguments against this long and consistent string of textual indications of a modern composition have been reduced to citing half sentences for jokes and hoping no one notices the silliness of it all, it seems to me we are right where we should be.
Happy to have had this chance to spell out the situation for everyone clearly once again.
--John |
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 55
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 8:20 am: |
|
Hi I'm back from deepest Hammersmith (which is west side London) and while I've missed the frenzy of Diary Land cut and thrust I did find that pounding the beat revealed more than the computer, as usual.
In a dark electrical substation where the Stripper stored the bodies of at least four of his victims I managed to catch up with Paul Begg blowing the dust off the substation cleaning diary (presumably not a hoax) which dated back to the 1950's. Begg was looking for tell tale splashes of paint but it seemed like a good a time as any to tackle him on Mike Barrett.
Let me firstly say that Paul is one of the most respected writers on the Ripper in the world. But more than this he is one of those rare human beings that, not only would you trust your life to but also with your wallet (which I certainly wouldn’t do with my own partner). Sometimes in life you have to trust someone with a greater knowledge of events than yourself and listen to what they have to say.
So when Paul say's he believes Mike Barrett probably didn't write the Maybrick Diary, it's probably a good idea to listen to what he has to say. For a start, Paul new Mike Barrett, his wife and Feldman. He's spent as much time as any studying the Diary. And, more importantly, he has know financial interest or any particular theory who did write the Diary, when it was created or for what purpose.
Paul outlined the story of the Sphere quote and later, kindly sent me an email with those thoughts. Having given this some thought myself I have decided to paste that explanation in full and hope he will forgive my impertinence. The reason for doing this is that I do not wish to pass on the story getting details wrong but also because I believe this is the most critical part of the Diary affair. If Barrett new the Quote, as John Omlar has pointed out, then everything we know about Mike Barrett is irrelevant, as he almost certainly is the ‘Hoaxer’. If however Mike Barrett was looking for a quote given to him by Shirley Harrison then it is possible, however unlikely, that given enough time in the Liverpool library reference section he could have found the quote:
Turning to the question of why Mike Barrett didn’t produce the Sphere book and the quote in June 1994 to support his claim that he’d forged the diary, the answer is likely to be that at that time Mike didn’t know the quote was extremely obscure. If the quote was in fact a common one, such as ‘a rose by any other name…’, then producing the quote and the source would have proved nothing. It’s the extreme obscurity of the quote and the fact that it appears in very few publications that makes it significant and Mike apparently didn’t know that until Shirley Harrison asked him to find the quote in September 1994. Once asked to find the quote and realising that others had looked and failed to find it, Mike decided to show how clever and capable he was by finding it himself. The question is, did he really stumble across the quote in Liverpool library like he’s claimed or did he know where the quote was and make up the story of finding it at the library?
The thing is, as ever with Mike, there were warring emotions. In June 1994 he hired a private detective named Alan Gray to help him prove he’d forged the diary, but about this time Shirley Harrison’s paperback edition was published in which Mike was unfavourably portrayed as pretty much a worthless drunk, which Mike not unreasonably resented and tried to prove wrong by acting on Shirley’s suggestion that he do something constructive and look for the quote. So, if he knew where the quote came from, maybe he just pretended to have found it at the library just so he could show off his research skills? Of course, that would mean he gave some thought to it all and actually popped along to the library to make sure they had a copy of the Sphere book. Which seems a bit of effort for someone who then blew the subterfuge almost immediately by admitting to having a copy of the Sphere book. But Mike was a drunk and maybe Mike was gripped again by those warring desires - to prove he was the forger but at the same time to be recognised as a good researcher - which led him to make conflicting claims. Who knows? But his behaviour certainly doesn’t otherwise make a lot of sense, unless one assumes that after the euphoria of finding the quote had worn off, Mike realised that his discovery could be used to support his claim to have forged the diary and therefore claimed to have possessed a copy of the Sphere book. It has not be shown that he owned a copy or that the story he told about how he came to possess it is true (he said it was donated by Sphere for a fund raising event connected to the Hillsborough disaster, but nobody has identified that event or shown that Mike was involved in it) and his wife has denied all knowledge of the event, Mike being involved or the book. Add this to the fact that Mike appears never to have given a coherent account of the conception and execution of the forgery and whose story insofar as it has been given hasn’t been supported by the auction house, and one has to seriously ask whether or not, despite all the odds, Mike did find the quote at Liverpool library. And IF Mike did have a personal copy of the Sphere book, whether he was perhaps attracted to the book at the library because of some conscious or subconscious recognition.
The upshot is that IF Mike possessed a copy of the Sphere book, the forger could be anyone who had access to the book (such as Mike’s wife). Mere possession of the book doesn’t prove Mike was the forger.
End:
I am coming to the conclusion that Mike Barrett didn’t create the Maybrick Diary and hope that Paul Begg will not be annoyed by my reproducing his explanation in full. I noted on my return journey from Hammersmith that Paul had made some notes about Kenneth Archibald a tennis club manager who had given a full confession to the murder of Irene Lockwood (Stripper victim 4), later he recanted his statement, blaming depression. People will do the strangest things in certain circumstance.
Despite what Donald Souden has said I believe that the Hoaxer had some sophistication. Though obviously it depends on your interpretation of the word ‘sophistication’. The Hoaxer made an attempt to disguise the writing as Victorian. Would he have done this if he didn’t know that there were different writing styles in Victorian times? The characterization shows that he Hoaxer had some understanding how to create a psychologically disturbed personality. OK a professional writer like Don could do this but could Mike Barrett?
The only way we will know for sure is further testing on the Diary and I’m hoping something can be done to finally get an accurate scientific date for the Diary. Only this will put the debate to bed.
Yours Jeff
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 822
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 8:49 am: |
|
The only way we will know for sure is further testing on the Diary and I’m hoping something can be done to finally get an accurate scientific date for the Diary. Only this will put the debate to bed.
The trouble is, it won't.
Just dating the diary to the late 1980s won't in itself prove who wrote it.
Barrett's identification of the Crashaw quotation is as strong a piece of evidence that he wrote it as we are likely to get. If people are still willing to believe that happened by chance, I find it difficult to imagine what would convince them.
I've read what Paul Begg wrote quite carefully, and can't see any support at all there for his conclusion that "one has to seriously ask whether or not, despite all the odds, Mike did find the quote at Liverpool library".
Logically, the fact that several of his stories appear to be lies is no reason at all to give credence to his story of finding the quotation at the library. Quite the opposite, one would normally think. But of course, we are in Diary World, where logic rarely applies.
Chris Phillips
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 56
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 9:18 am: |
|
I disagree Chris if we can date the diary to a specific date in the 1980's it narrows down the suspects considerably. A date would give us a window to explore the likely Hoaxer. Who knows if it was created in the 80's we can even confront the real Hoaxer. I just dont buy on what information that I've gleamed that Barrett was the Hoaxer. A man incidently who currently claims he didn't write it.
Jeff |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 823
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 9:43 am: |
|
Jeff
The point is that the date has already been narrowed to the late 1980s, to many people's satisfaction, and lengthy and strenuous attempts have been made to "confront" various candidates for the role.
Whatever evidence there is against anyone, and whatever may be found in the future, some people are going to insist on making more of a mystery out of this than need be.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1332
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 10:06 am: |
|
People, people,
Let's review.
Mike swears he wrote the diary.
Mike swears he did not write the diary.
Mike says Tony gave him the diary.
Mike says Tony did not give him the diary.
Mike says he discovered the quote miraculously excerpted and cited just like it is in the diary in the middle of prose essay on a different author in a book he just found in the library carrying only five words he knew nothing about.
Mike says he did not discover it there at all but had his own copy of that book all along.
Mike says Anne helped him write it.
Mike says he has no idea who wrote it or where it came from.
Mike says he is going to die soon.
Mike is still alive.
What can we conclude from all this (and so much more)?
Simple --
Not To Believe Mike!
Surely, even in the most twisted and bizarre world one could possibly create, that would be the only logical and only available rational conclusion.
Nothing Paul Begg has written above or ever written or ever said gives anyone any sound logical or rational reason to believe Mike Barrett about anything, nor is there any evidence to support his library miracle story.
Anyone who believes Mike about anything, like anyone who ever thought this diary might be real, deserves getting taken for the ride that is the consequence of either of these choices.
But Paul is right about one thing. There is not enough evidence to indict Mike for this hoax. The Sphere Guide could indeed have been seen and used by anyone with access to it in the house or among his associates, etc. So Anne and others are not beyond consideration, of course -- including people we might not even know about or have in our minds.
But the text repeatedly indicates a modern date of composition, and the line from the Sphere Guide links it in some way to the people who brought it forward.
The rest is just speculation at this point. But if it's speculation based on anything Mike has said or any stories Mike has told, then it is foolish from the very beginning.
I'll respond to more of Paul's message a bit later.
--John
PS: Knowing that handwriting in the old days used to be different than it is now does certainly not require any degree of sophistication at all. Heck, a quick look at the letters found in Ripper books (at least one of which you'd have nearby if you were hoaxing a Ripper diary) would show you that.
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 57
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 10:07 am: |
|
Sorry Chris but who are various candidates?
Mike Barrett, his wife and Feldman. Are you suggesting Barretts daughter might have been involved?
I'd say the mystery already exists and dating the diary is the only way to solve that mystery.
Jeff |
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 58
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 10:50 am: |
|
John
The degree of sophistication is not only knowing that victorians used differant hand writing styles, in means the hoaxer new this, went out did research and attempted to include some of this stylization in the forgery.
Now that for me imply's some degree of sophistication. Which this hoax clearly has. Which I'm lead to beleive Mike Barrett is unlikely to have had.
At no point do I beleive Paul ever stated Mike told the truth infact the exact opersite. There is and was no mirracle implied or refered to by anybody but yourself.
Paul made it quite clear that finding the quote although very difficult was not Impossible. Which it clearly is not and hence not a mirracle.
Paul has stated nothing more than the fact that he feels it unlikely that Mike Barrett was the Diary Hoaxer. As he new the people involved his veiws on Mike are compeling.
As noone I have spoken to beleives that the diary is real the mystery is who was the hoaxer and when it was hoaxed. And dating that by anything other than scientific means opens up another can of worms.
However you are correct that the fact that Mike lies (I think we all agree) has nothing to do with whether he did or did not hoax the diary.
I also beleive that Paul thinks it unlikely Mike was capable of producing the Maybrick Diary given his knowledge and understanding of the processes involved. There is no dirrect statement saying he did not, however.
Are you saying the fact that Mike new the sphere quote is proof that he DID write the diary even though Mike now states he did not?
Even so I think given the weight of arguement that: Mike lies and that Mike lied when he made a statement claiming he wrote the diary.
The question is then who did write the diary, when and why?
Jeff
Its interesting that while I've been researching the Stripper murders how many people are willing to confess to things they simply could not have done. Strange world. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1333
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 10:56 am: |
|
One other small thought in response to what I've read here by Paul via Jeff,
Basing conclusions concerning what Mike Barrett did or did not know at any given time on Mike's behavior implies that there is a logical and causal connection between Mike's knowledge and his behavior. However, clearly, as Paul himself indicates, Mike's behavior has been repeatedly and directly contradictory and irrational and unreasonable. Consequently, this causal connection cannot be established. Therefore, any conclusions concerning Mike's knowledge or lack of knowledge which use Mike's behavior as evidence in support of them are, by definition, logically suspect.
Also, they unfortunately cause one to write sentences that contain clauses such as, "But his behaviour certainly doesn’t otherwise make a lot of sense, -- which is always true about Mike, no matter what he has said or done, and therefore indicates nothing which could be said to be more less likely whatsoever.
I hope that is clear to everyone.
Thanks,
--John
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 59
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 11:02 am: |
|
Sorry John I just dont get what your saying.
Do you beleive Mike Barrett created the Maybrick Diary?
Can I have a simple yes or no?
At least Paul gave me probably NO.
Jeff |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2094
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 11:03 am: |
|
Hi everyone,
no i do not beleive a single thing Mike said about it. However, that said, it is possible (yes possible) that the events in the library happened as he said. Its equally possible of course that that is not how it happened. Its still possible the Sphere book in Liverpool library is the source,
now then, that's that out the way so,
i do not belive for one minute paul Feldman faked the diary, he is a lot of things that man - buit i dont think idiot is one!
Good good, carry on
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1334
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 11:03 am: |
|
Jeff,
You write that the hoaxers:
went out did research and attempted to include some of this stylization in the forgery.
Yes, and according to Dr. Baxendale, they failed. And they got the details of the murders wrong, and they got details of Maybrick's own life wrong, and they used phrases and names available only in modern times and they came up with a completely artificial construction that even has complete exposition on page one despite pretending to begin in the middle, and they couldn't come up with any verifiable provenance whatsoever and they...
Yes, very sophisticated indeed.
You ask me,
Are you saying the fact that Mike new the sphere quote is proof that he DID write the diary even though Mike now states he did not?
Please go back and read my post carefully again, especially the part about the what the evidence allows us to claim, and I think you'll find I've already answered this question directly.
If you can't find it, write back and ask me again.
In favor of careful reading, always,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2095
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 11:08 am: |
|
A sophisticated forger would not have made so many terrible errors!
"All you need is positivity"
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
