|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1594
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 11:20 am: | 
|
Hi Chris G,
If we were to find a diary actually written by the killer, I suspect it would be devoid of what we might expect.
Caz, that is really what is so dire and damning about the Diary -- what is in it is pretty much what we would expect from a diary supposedly written by "Jack the Ripper" or, should I say, what a forger would think should be in it. . . not what the actual killer would write.
I'm not quite sure I follow your reasoning. You seem to be saying that we'd expect the real thing to be not what we would expect! And because the diary is pretty much what we would expect the real thing to look like, it must be a fake!
The real ripper would - could - have written down anything that entered his funny little brain. And it seems to me the diarist was well aware of this fact and didn't shy away from it. Playing safe would have looked exactly that; safe. I'd fully expect to see elements of everything in there: fact, fiction, fantasy, wishful thinking, self-deception, exaggeration, distortion, mistaken impressions, faulty reasoning/memory, every human failing and then some. I would certainly not expect to see a perfect, dry account consisting of purely factual information; that would look very artificial to me.
I think our diarist did a grand old job of seeing 'himself' - Sir Jim - as the starring role in the whole drama. Privately, he could imagine himself as the Dear Boss author if he wanted to, or the graffiti artist, or the sender of the kidney to Lusk. He wasn't obliged to be any of these things, just because he suggested as much in his diary. Here, he could think of himself as a different leading man/hero each day, adopting or discarding characteristics at will. He could be whoever he wanted to be, and do whatever he wanted to do, and enjoy the thrill of setting it all down. He could be knighted by Her Majesty, he could even be the Jew the press and public were looking for:
Very well, if they are to insist that I am a Jew then a Jew I shall be.
There you are, a sure sign according to your logic that the diary is a shabby fake - the real Maybrick wasn't a Jew at all, and couldn't have become one at will, so the diarist got this badly wrong. 
The point is there ought to be no restrictions - a ripper diarist should be as free to live the ripper myth, or aspects of the myth, if and when it appeals to him to do so, as he is free to reject the various public images, if he so wishes, and invent his own.
The only restrictions would be writing something that would have been impossible for anyone to think up and write in 1888/9.
But none of us would be here if we all thought alike on this subject, would we?
Love,
Caz
X |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 248
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 11:25 am: |
|
Paul:
If the diary should prove to be the work of someone, anyone, from 100 years back then IMHO it would tell us a helluva lot about what at least one person was thinking at the time, and that would be of huge importance.
But if genuine documentary evidence throwing light on the murders appeared (akin to the Littlechild letter or Swanson marginalia which no one questions) that would be of huge importance. And it's far more likely than proving the Diary real!!
I'm very pleased that many people, (and it is many), continue to beaver away behind the scenes so that hopefully one day soon we can either rule it in or rule it out.
It IS ruled out NOW!!
The Diary has no validity as evidence at this moment, and as david says: "no one I know of who's writing about the Whitechapel murders uses it as source material. "
If we don't, this nagging doubt will remain to irritate the hell out of Ripperologists for the rest of time.
It may irritate you, it irritates me no more than does the "nagging doubt" that Lewis Caroll, Dr Barnardo, or the White Rabbit might have "dunnit". That is: not at all!!
Let's be frank - the Diary is not in some sort of balance. It's so much waste paper unless proved (now, I think, beyond reasonable doubt) to be genuine. Given the passage of time, I doubt it will ever be proved genuine - there has been more than enough time to do that already.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 249
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 11:36 am: |
|
I just saw Caz's latest post.
I have always said, since I first read the "Diary" that it tells us NOTHING new about the murders. I would expect that a Diary by the culprit (or even someone who was there - ie an accomplice) would do three things:
a) provide additional corroborrable information - ie the involvement of named individuals; how the murderer escaped from Buck's Row or Mitre Square; tiny scraps of information that might illumine (say) a photograph in non-obvious ways;
b) give information that would make us gasp and say "of course, NOW I understand" because it make's connections between seemingly (to an outsider) unconnected facts;
c) set us on a new course of investigation (as the Macnaghton Memo; Swanson marginalia and Littlechild letter all did in their day, whereby we find that, even if the information is in error or contradictory, it is supported by what was written and takes us forward in our knowledge.
the "Diary" does none of this. It provides exactly what someone writing in relatively modern times would provide based on published information. Cod-psychology apart, the Diary provides no insight, no knowledge, no details and no evidence or links that advance the case one iota.
Phil |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1595
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 11:57 am: |
|
Hi Chris P,
Is there actually a single piece of evidence that is inconsistent with the diary being a modern hoax?
I know your question is directed to Paul, but I would just like to whisper the little 'watch' word in your ear at this point.
Obviously, if Drs Turgoose and Wild are correct in thinking the Maybrick scratches are 'at least several tens of years old', the diary could not be a modern hoax - and the traditional 'problems' associated with it not being modern would have to be faced and overcome somehow, no matter how much it would go against the grain for one or two posters.
The Crashaw poem has existed a lot longer than the Sphere book where Mike Barrett found the line that also appears in the diary.
And the 'tin match box [that was] empty' was there on September 30 1888, just like the 'first whore [who was] no good'.
There is nothing in the diary that couldn't have been written before the late 1980s - nothing.
And that is precisely why John is so delighted with the news that scientific testing is continuing to look for the answers that the text itself has failed to provide.
Love,
Caz
X
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 793
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 12:12 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
I know your comment was directed at Chris P., but I saw you wrote "And the 'tin match box [that was] empty' was there on September 30 1888"
It was there, but it was hidden on her person. We have an apron in Goulston Street which tells us he had no time to clean up in the square. Which to you is more likely:
1)That the Ripper rummaged through the belongings in Eddowes's clothes, took out the match box, opened it, peered inside, and then put it back? Went home, wrote about it in his diary and coincidentally just happened to mimic the same phrasing as the police inventory?
2)The line was lifted from the published inventory.
Do you really believe these are equal possibilities?
Cheers,
Dave |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1596
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 12:18 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
Given the passage of time, I doubt it will ever be proved genuine - there has been more than enough time to do that already.
Well obviously it won't be proved genuine if it isn't. 
I tend to look at it the other way round; it would be almost impossible to prove it genuine even if it were genuine. If it were a recently created hoax, however, I'd have expected it to have been proven recent to everyone's satisfaction long before now, one way or another.
The more 'not inconsistent with 1888' results we get, the more we should perhaps begin to wonder just how feasible it really is that it was hoaxed in the late 1980s by one or more of Mike Barrett's pals.
Oh and by the way, serial killer Fred West wrote his memoirs while in prison and gave us precious little by way of insight, knowledge, details and evidence of his crimes. Unfortunately, we can't dictate what information one individual will choose to record, and what information another will keep to themselves forever.
Love,
Caz
X |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1597
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 12:30 pm: |
|
Hi Dave,
As I said, if the watch scratches were there in 1992, which I consider to be a very real possibility, there has to be an alternative explanation to the one which says a modern hoaxer must have plucked those four little words straight from the list, as published in the late 1980s ripper literature.
I cannot see why the empty tin match box could not, in theory, have belonged to the killer, and ended up among his victim's possessions. Can you?
Love,
Caz
X |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 250
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 12:32 pm: |
|
Caz:
I tend to look at it the other way round; it would be almost impossible to prove it genuine even if it were genuine.
What an odd way of looking at things. I don't recall anyone saying that it was "impossible" to prove the Littlechild letter, Awanson marginalia or Macnaghten memo genuine, even though they are widely taken as such. Why two different standards?
As for Fred West (I know nothing about this) but working on what YOU wrote, the point is surely that he was writing IN PRISON, in the knowledge that whatever he penned would probably be read by the authorities... Are you implying that the alleged Maybrick "Diary" was penned by him knowing it would be read in his lifetime?
We could not dictate what Swanson, Littlechild of Sir Melville wrote - but they gave us new information that could be followed up. The "Diary" gives us nothing that is not almost certainly and at least potentially derivative except the untraceable "interal monologue" stuff which any half-way decent novelist (even Ms Cornwell bless her) might imitate.
Phil
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 251
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 12:40 pm: |
|
As Conan Doyle wrote (to paraphrase), once you reduce the possibilities to one, however implausible option, you have the truth.
All the evidence suggests to me that, however much the wool may be being pulled over our eyes, the watch must be a modern forgery. It seems clear to me that it was brought forward to try to authenticate the Diary which had failed to convince on its own. It may well have been "scratched" a little earlier than it was made public as "insurance2. But I see nothing to suggest that it is genuine and much to the contrary.
Phil |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 795
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 1:01 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
As a type of present, you mean? I think it's true that murderers sometimes do that, but who else got presents? The trouble I have with that is that the box lines up with the other odds and ends in her possession. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's in context with the rest of her items, if that makes any sense. She's got her pipes, she's got her cigarette case, why shouldn't she have had a match box? Plus, there's exact phrasing from the inventory. It's awkward. That's the line that clinches it for me. I don't think it's a rhyme.
But I'm not trying to change your mind, Caz. I just wondered where you were coming from.
Dave |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 252
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 1:02 pm: |
|
Caz,
You wrote above:
As I said, if the watch scratches were there in 1992...
Much to my amazement, I cannot put my hand (having consulted the latest editions of Begg and Rumbelow) on the exact initials scratched on the watch - all refer simply to the canonical victims. Even the last edition (3rd) I have of the A-Z lists the names of the victims NOT the initials engraved on the watch.
Can you or someone else please let me have the EXACT initials inscribed on the watch.
Sorry to trouble you, but I assume that this is not asking the earth.
Thanks in anticipation,
Phil
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 253
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 1:12 pm: |
|
I cannot see why the empty tin match box could not, in theory, have belonged to the killer, and ended up among his victim's possessions. Can you?
Oh, come ON!!! Talk about special pleading!! David gives your answer - it's odder if the matchbox wasn't her's than if it were.
Phil
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 759
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 1:40 pm: |
|
Of course, Caroline Morris knows extremely well that the question of how the killer could have known about the match box is only a small part of the difficulty.
The way in which she tries to conceal the much greater difficulty - that the diary reproduces the wording of the police inventory - speaks volumes.
But of course, this has been argued for years and years, and if after all that she's going to pretend the difficulty doesn't even exist, it only goes to prove how pointless it is to try to have any reasonable discussion with her.
But thank you, Caroline, for admitting that the best evidence you can come up with in favour of the diary being an old hoax is Turgoose's and Wild's unsupported speculations about the age of the scratches on that watch. That's absolutely priceless in itself!
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1229
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 2:37 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
Yes, every time someone points out all the textual evidence that indicates that this hoax is a modern artefact, including the identical line cited from a document unavailable to the general public until modern times and the precise unique proper name of a modern pub, complete and in upper case, and all the rest, all Caroline can do is retreat to the watch debate and hope no one notices.
I could have told you it was going to happen.
The textual evidence is clear. It's not written in Maybrick's handwriting. It contains a line from a document only available to the general public in modern times and certainly not available to the killer and it names precisely a uniquely named place right there in Liverpool which did not exist by that name until modern times... and then there's Crashaw and you know the rest.
But nothing will matter here. This debate has gone on for a long, long time and everyone says exactly the same things they've always said, over and over again.
That is in fact why I am so delighted with the news that scientific testing is continuing to look for more answers, hopefully through a complete state of the art chemical analysis of the ink and through RJ's proposed series of observational studies as well.
Meanwhile, all we'll be doing here is repeating ourselves.
--John
PS: Someone above wrote: if the watch scratches were there in 1992, which I consider to be a very real possibility, there has to be an alternative explanation to the one which says a modern hoaxer must have plucked those four little words straight from the list, as published in the late 1980s ripper literature.
But that's just wrong. There is nothing about the premise which demands the conclusion. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2049
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 5:26 am: |
|
Hi guys and gals!
two quick points,
firstly and lets be clear on this because we wouldn't want to be unclear, the watch cannot us anything about the diarys date. they are seperate items.
next please, please, please, please, please, lets not get into the whole library thing again.
Oh, i should add here before people start having a go at me - i think the diary is fake, fake, fake, and modern
Cheers
Jenni |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1600
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 9:12 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
Ok then, so if a genuine ripper diary turned up, would you immediately be able to tell it was genuine? And what would be the deciding factors for you?
Re the watch:
It seems clear to me that it was brought forward to try to authenticate the Diary which had failed to convince on its own.
But there is no evidence that Albert Johnson knew the Barretts, or had even heard of a Maybrick diary before it hit the local papers at the end of April 1993. He claims, for what it's worth, that he only found out about the diary as a result of the scratches being discovered, and the efforts made to decipher them.
If Albert is lying, and had read the news that the diary had been condemned as a hoax almost before the print announcing its existence was dry (a bit different from your 'failed to convince' argument), he could still have had no idea at that time who had written it, and certainly no reason to come to this stranger's aid, when you consider that his own artefact, and more importantly to him his reputation in the eyes of the world as a decent and truthful man, stands and falls with the diary. Had the diary been proved a modern hoax at any time following the publication of the watch story, Albert's red face would have been totally self-inflicted, according to what 'seems clear' to you.
Nothing could seem less clear to me, and to everyone who knows Albert Johnson.
And Albert's brother Robbie was certainly not trying to use the watch to authenticate the diary; quite the reverse - he was adamant that it was the diary that had been faked! Work that one out.
The initials scratched in the watch are as follows:
MN
AC
ES
CE
MK
There is also H 9/3 (or it could be TC 9/3), and 1275, both marks neatly engraved with different tools, according to Dr Turgoose, and both tools different from whatever was used to scratch the victims' initials. These two marks were engraved after the 'I am Jack', also according to Dr Turgoose's observations. If the initials were scratched between the end of April and the middle of May, 1993, these other two engravings are presumably all part of the hoax.
Hi John,
I'm sorry, but until you come up with a scenario that allows for the watch scratches to have been present in the watch in 1992 and the diary to have been created post-1988 I shall continue to assume you can't and there isn't one. It's that simple.
Love,
Caz
X |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 257
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 9:35 am: |
|
Caz: Sorry missed your post addressed to me until now.
....if a genuine ripper diary turned up, would you immediately be able to tell it was genuine? And what would be the deciding factors for you?
It would NOT be for ME to determine it's authenticity. I am no expert in old documents or the forensic scientific techniques necessary to examine it.
BUT, I would want to ask serious questions, preemminently about PROVENANCE. (The "Diary" has none, and thus in terms of the art world would have no standing until proven to be genuine for other reasons. The current Diary fails on handwriting, and bears all the hallmarks of being a relatively modern work for reasons discussed before.)
I would also be sceptical about any "diary" simply because I don't think the Ripper - certainly as I envisage him potentially to have been - would have kept such a thing. But the putative authorship would also interest me. Had the author supposedly been Jor Bloggs (never heard of before) and research was done on an ordinary bloke and connections were found that definitely linked to the events of 1888, my ears would prick up.
But Maybrick is relatively well-known and thus more akin to the Caroll's and Sickert's - relatively easily researched. Yet the Diary leads us to nothing new about him or his life that can be substantiated.
Maybrick is also a throw-back to the old "a "toff" dunnit school of thinking. I think we have moved on from that.
So my answer is, that I would have my doubts about ANY Diary, but there are somethings that might make me more susceptibel to belief. The "Diary" possesses none of those factors.
On the "Watch" we'll wait and see what time will reveal about it's origins and authenticity. From what I have read - and I am admittedly no expert - there are again questions about provenance and lacunae in our knowledge of where the watch was at various times.
Your response to me does not address the possibility that Diary and watch could have been prepared by the same team and "seeded2 separately.
I don't know Albert Johnson (do you?) and even if he was my grandfather, as an historian, I would still have many deep questions. Nice people can still be gullible and among the easiest to "take in", and I mean nothing derogatory about Mr Johnson in saying that. I am simply stating a fact all too true in my own experience.
The initials scratched in the watch are as follows:
MN
AC
ES
CE
MK
Interesting. I am sure it has been discussed before, but I have not seen the initials previously. As I am sure others have pointed out - how strange that it should ONLY be the "canonical" victims, and what strange names to have given him - very "formal" almost. But i don't want to re-open an old debate unless others do also.
Phil
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1241
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 10:00 am: |
|
Hey, the slash is back!
Interesting.
--John
PS: Love the new hope that it might be initials, too. Why do I have a feeling that the back of the watch is about to become like Mary Kelly's wall? |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1603
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 10:40 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
Yes, I do know Albert, but I still wouldn't claim to know for certain what he would or would not be capable of.
But all I see here are people who don't know him from Adam, who nevertheless happily accept that he is either a liar or a gullible fool, or both.
Hi John,
The 'slash' is neither here nor there: if it's there among Turgoose's observations, as part of the H 9/3, it wasn't engraved with the same implement that had previously scratched the J of Jack. So your point is what exactly?
I don't care whether it's H 9 3 or TC 9/3 or anything in between. You still have an engraving to explain as part of your 1993 hoax theory.
Good luck.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1244
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 10:54 am: |
|
So now the slash is "neither here nor there."
Man, that is one mysterious and ever changing little line.
I do love that about it.
--John |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 258
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 12:46 pm: |
|
Caz:
But all I see here are people who don't know him [Mr Johnson] from Adam, who nevertheless happily accept that he is either a liar or a gullible fool, or both.
If that's aimed at me, you are wrong.
I'm simply someone who expects basic and high standards in research. What an individual is like is neither here nor there, as evidence. Anyone can be "duped" in the right circumstances (look at Lord Dacre with the Hitler Diaries").
Are you honestly saying, Caz, that in evaluating evidence you take into account your own estimation of the character of the person who told you? And then expect others to take your evaluation as evidence?
A little subjective isn't it? It rather undermines any credibility you had, for me.
Phil |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 768
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 12:49 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
I don't care whether it's H 9 3 or TC 9/3 or anything in between.
Do you really not remember (or could you really not understand) my previous posts, pointing out (several times) that Turgoose's principal evidence for the so-called "repair marks" having been made after the "Maybrick marks" depended on the slash being part of the "repair mark"?
Do you really expect people to believe you're so obtuse - or so forgetful?
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2050
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 5:03 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
'And Albert's brother Robbie was certainly not trying to use the watch to authenticate the diary; quite the reverse - he was adamant that it was the diary that had been faked! Work that one out'
saying nothing!
If you are saying the slash isnt there you are contradicting the watch reports.
Jenni
ps still this thread has nothing to do with the watch, then again you knew that already! |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1619
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 5:07 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
It's only aimed at you if the cap fits.
I did say:
I still wouldn't claim to know for certain what he [Albert] would or would not be capable of.
So no, obviously I'm not trying to give Albert a glowing character reference and expecting those who don't know him to accept it.
What I am saying is that for the modern hoax believers to be right, Albert has to be the kind of man who would initiate a stunt like this; willingly get involved and stick to his guns over the years; or else the hoaxer knew Albert was gullible enough, and sufficiently unaware of things going on under his very nose, to allow him to pull a stunt like that and fool Albert completely and utterly.
I don't know for sure that Albert isn't the kind of man who could easily adopt the role of a conman, or be conned by such a frankly mad trick. But the modern hoax believers had better keep their fingers tightly crossed, and hope that he is that kind of man, otherwise they are sunk.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1275
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 5:43 am: |
|
Well, that was a long way of saying, "I don't know for sure about Albert and neither does anyone else."
I agree with the sentiment, though. And I'd add that none of us know much about Robbie either. Or about any number of other people.
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1620
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 5:54 am: |
|
Hi Chris P,
I'm truly sorry, but I don't get this at all.
You agree that 'I am Jack' is scratched in the watch?
You agree that a mark described as 'H 9/3' in Dr Turgoose's report is also engraved there?
With me so far?
Now then. Dr Turgoose reported that different tools were used to scratch the 'I am Jack' and the 'H 9/3'.
He also reported that the 'I am Jack' was scratched earlier than the 'H 9/3', and he knew that because he could see that these two 'engravings' crossed one another.
Please explain for me very clearly why you believe Turgoose was mistaken, and that what he concluded was the horizontal part of the 'J' of 'Jack' (made with one tool) was in fact the slash of 'H 9/3' (made by a different tool).
Are you saying that he observed both the J and the /; that he appreciated the former was part of the 'I am Jack' and the latter was part of the 'H 9/3' (because that's what he wrote); that one of the marks was made after the other and with a different tool; but that he still mistook the slash for part of the J?
Hi Jenni,
If you are saying the slash isn't there you are contradicting the watch reports.
Well that's ok then, because I'm not saying 'it isn't there'. I am asking Chris why the slash helps his argument, if Turgoose was able to distinguish between the slash and the J.
Chris is the one who is trying his best to contradict the watch reports, if you hadn't noticed.
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2070
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 6:35 am: |
|
i was explaining it for you!!
"All you need is positivity"
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 789
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 7:58 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
I'm truly sorry, but I don't get this at all.
OK - I'm willing to go along with the new exercise in politeness, though I suspect it's a doomed experiment.
I've read your post carefully, and I'll charitably suppose that your comment implying I believe the horizontal part of "J" was in fact the [vertical] "/" is a symptom of genuine confusion or forgetfulness on your part.
But in the spirit of politeness, I'm sure you will remember that we've discussed this in detail several times already, even if you don't recall the details.
I'm a bit short of time, so rather than getting me to post all the details again, please could you look back at what I posted before, and if you're still confused feel free to ask any questions.
If you can't find the posts, I'll hunt out precise links for you.
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 306
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 12:11 am: |
|
"It provides exactly what someone writing in relatively modern times would provide based on published information."
Written by a hoaxer - yup.
Relatively modern times - not proven.
Here's something to discuss: building a better hoax. How would you have done it?
I can think of a few things.
1) I'd have left out a canonical victim or two and included Tabram or Coles. Stir the pot a bit. Hell, claim credit for the Thames Torso while I'm at it.
2) The Maybrick case, although obscure to us, was pretty infamous in its time. I've got about 8 books on the subject, and just learned I'm missing an equal amount. Too much risk of making an error. I'd pretend to be someone no one heard of, a variant of the insane Polish Jew perhaps. Why risk a verified handwriting sample turning up? And if I was going to pretend to be Maybrick, I'd have read some of the scores of books written on the trial, and worked a few goodies in.
3) I'd have used a proper Victorian diary! Duh!
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 307
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 12:28 am: |
|
"I would want to ask serious questions, preemminently about PROVENANCE. "
Several points: if it was legitimately the Ripper's Diary, I'd think the provenance would suck, to use the academic term. I can just imagine the scenario for decent provenance: "Dear, this was your great-granddad's Diary...he was a serial killer. And then we sold it to a proper Victorian document dealer, and this is the receipt."
Read Rendell's "Forging History" and see how some skillful forgers have managed to create some pretty credible provenance for some shady documents. It's an eye opener.
And last but not least, there is provenance: Anne Barrett says she saw it in her family's possession in the 60's. I understand if people are not happy with this, but let's call a spade a spade. She's either lying, or there's provenance.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1283
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 7:28 am: |
|
OK, check this out.
The diary is in handwriting that looks nothing at all like the handwriting of the author.
The diary is in an inconsistent handwriting which shows some signs of mid-20th century and later style.
The diary is not even in a proper diary.
The diary makes mistakes about the murders and seems to slip up and name a modern place and cites a line from a document that was unavailable to the public until modern times.
The diary tells us absolutely no new verifiable information whatsoever about either the killings or its author or the history of the period.
The diary pretends to begin in the middle of things but still gives us an opening page with complete exposition.
In short, the diary seems mistake-riddled, written carelessly, cheaply narrativized, melodramatic and constructed as a complete set-piece, written in the wrong sort of book and in the wrong handwriting and offers no new information.
Two conclusions are possible.
Either the forgers just weren't very good at what they were doing, over and over again, and therefore we shouldn't be surprised at any specific moment of dumbness, since there are plenty of them.
Or the diary is real.
Now then, which is the more obvious, logical, simple, common sense conclusion to come to.
Of course, it's real.
And since no one has ever created a believable scenario for an old hoax, for an old book containing the line from the police report and the modern pub name and the handwriting styles and Crashaw line and all the other textual indicators of a modern composition, the evidence clearly still points in a single direction.
It must be old.
Right?
Still waiting for that old-hoax scenario, for someone, somewhere to actually bother to take the time and sit down and do the work and present the complete case and a believable scenario for an old hoax. No one has ever done it. It's been more than a decade. Where is it? It's been done for the modern hoax scenario, and in detail and all the textual evidence supports the case, without exception. There's not a line in the diary that poses a single problem for a modern hoax scenario. Not one. Anywhere in the text. Let's see the old hoax scenario finally deal with all of its textual problems in a clear and simple and logical and direct and believable manner, if it can.
Looking forward to that day,
--John
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 309
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 11:23 pm: |
|
"Still waiting for that old-hoax scenario, for someone, somewhere to actually bother to take the time and sit down and do the work and present the complete case and a believable scenario for an old hoax. No one has ever done it. "
By definition, if it is an old(er) hoax, we don't have the story wrapped up all nice and neat. The only "case" that is tidy is believing Mike Barrett hoaxed it. And if that's what you're using as the bedrock of your case, the defence rests.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2076
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 03, 2005 - 5:31 am: |
|
er,
Robert,
i honestly and seriously do not believe the modern hoax theory is neatly tided up by belieiving Mike hoaxed the diary.
thats all!!
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1287
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 03, 2005 - 7:37 am: |
|
This one's easy.
The modern hoax theory accounts for all the textual evidence, without exception, neatly and simply. The Poste House and the "tin matchbox line" and and the Crashaw line and the modern style of handwriting and the mistakes about the history that also appear in modern books and all the rest are easily explained if the book was written in modern times, after the Poste House was there, after the police report was available, after the Sphere Guide was available, after the writing style was used and after the modern books were published.
Now, let's see the old hoax theory do the same thing.
Looking forward to it still,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on April 03, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1624
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 04, 2005 - 4:57 am: |
|
Hi Chris P,
No that's fine thanks.
If I've forgotten any of your observations concerning the markings in the watch, that's too bad.
What matters is the one thing I haven't forgotten - the fact that you have so far failed to convince me that you have any real reason, apart from wishful thinking, to believe that Turgoose's professional observations are invalid.
You still have those pesky little authentic-looking engravings, which you haven't yet begun to demonstrate were made before 'I am Jack', contrary to what Turgoose's report tells you.
Failing that, your fall-back position is that these marks were your 1993 hoaxer's finishing touches.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1291
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 04, 2005 - 6:15 am: |
|
"If I've forgotten any of your observations concerning the markings in the watch, that's too bad."
So much for discussing the details.
Glad we've finally moved on to the "I just don't care" phase.
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 799
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 04, 2005 - 9:14 am: |
|
Caroline
What matters is the one thing I haven't forgotten - the fact that you have so far failed to convince me that you have any real reason, apart from wishful thinking, to believe that Turgoose's professional observations are invalid.
Well, as you can't be bothered to remind yourself of the facts, I will just remind you of one.
It is your opinion that Turgoose was wrong about there being a "/" between the "H9" and the "3" that presents such a problem for his conclusion that "H9/3" was written after the Maybrick markings. Because Turgoose particularly based that finding on the crossing of the "/" and the Maybrick markings. (That's the "/" you don't think is there at all.)
But you hadn't really forgotten that at all, had you?
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1628
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 6:58 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
How many more times? I initially wondered whether Turgoose actually saw a slash engraved between the 9 and the 3, or whether H 9/3 was just possibly his way of writing it down. I admit now, having read the report more carefully, that it was probably not one of the brightest things for me to wonder about. But I have acknowledged from the outset that my personal observations based on the photographs and Turgoose's words could be way out and worthless anyway.
I don't recall concluding that the slash wasn't there, or that Turgoose reported seeing one and therefore got it wrong. So you seem to have got the wrong end of the stick and I'm happy to take full blame for not expressing myself clearly enough for you to grasp what I was wondering at the time and what I wasn't.
But the opinion you attribute to me was never one I held, and I don't hold it now. I don't believe Turgoose saw things that weren't there; neither do I accept your claim that Turgoose was basing his conclusion, that 'I am Jack' and the Maybrick signature came before all the other recognisable markings, including the H 9/3 and the 1275, on just the slash of the H 9/3 crossing a ripper marking. Perhaps you can explain how you arrived at this from the report?
So what's this really about, Chris? My opinions past or present, whether you interpret them correctly or not, won't help you make your case for 'I am Jack' being made after the H 9/3.
And that's what you really need to concentrate your efforts on, surely?
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 804
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 7:44 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
As I said, I really don't have time for this but briefly:
(1) I initially wondered whether Turgoose actually saw a slash engraved between the 9 and the 3, or whether H 9/3 was just possibly his way of writing it down. I admit now, having read the report more carefully, that it was probably not one of the brightest things for me to wonder about. But I have acknowledged from the outset that my personal observations based on the photographs and Turgoose's words could be way out and worthless anyway.
I don't recall concluding that the slash wasn't there, or that Turgoose reported seeing one and therefore got it wrong.
[your emphasis]
I'll just repost this (yet again), so people can see for themselves what you really said:
Also, the lower half of the vertical downstroke of the J divides the 9 and the 3, and I cant see another downstroke that would give either 9/3 or 913, but the gaps look too big to be H 93. It looks more like H 9 3 to me, but I could of course be wrong.
[1 March 2004]
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=90132#POST90132
(2) neither do I accept your claim that Turgoose was basing his conclusion, that 'I am Jack' and the Maybrick signature came before all the other recognisable markings, including the H 9/3 and the 1275, on just the slash of the H 9/3 crossing a ripper marking. Perhaps you can explain how you arrived at this from the report?
I didn't say he based it on "just" the crossing of the slash and the "Maybrick marking". I was careful to use exactly the same word as Turgoose - he said he based it "particularly" on this.
In case you "don't recall" again, see this post:
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=121206#POST121206
(3) My opinions past or present, whether you interpret them correctly or not, won't help you make your case for 'I am Jack' being made after the H 9/3.
I have made it clear perhaps a dozen times that I am not making any such claim. I have had to correct similar misstatements in your posts several times, and still you continue to make them.
What I have done is to ask whether anyone else can see evidence for the "Maybrick marks" having been made before the so-called "repair marks". Apparently no one can, despite the impression we were given before the rest of us had access to the reports.
(4) But the opinion you attribute to me was never one I held, and I don't hold it now
So is this yet another example of having expressed an opinion in the past, and now finding it more convenient to hold no opinion?
I don't care whether it's H 9 3 or TC 9/3 or anything in between.
Unfortunately, "not caring" is still a big problem, as you'll see if you follow the second link above ...
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1630
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 12:11 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
I can see we are going to get nowhere on this one. I can't see why you have such trouble with my old statement:
I cant see another downstroke...but I could of course be wrong,
and equating it with what I've posted recently. The only difference is that I now agree that Dr Turgoose wrote 'H 9/3' because he observed an actual slash engraved between the two letters (just like when I record dates at work, I write April 2005 as '4/05', or at the turn of the 20th century one might have written September 1903 as '9/3'), and not because it was his personal style of depicting '9 3'.
"From the central region Micrograph 4 shows that the '5' [of H 9/3] is inscribed across the 'J', with other features as described above."
I took this from your post of Feb 10 for which you gave the link. Surely the '5' that Turgoose observed crossing the 'J' is part of the '1275', not the H 9/3. I assume that was a typo on your part.
What I have done is to ask whether anyone else can see evidence for the "Maybrick marks" having been made before the so-called "repair marks". Apparently no one can, despite the impression we were given before the rest of us had access to the reports.
Ok, so this all boils down to the fact that you can't see what Turgoose evidently saw pretty clearly. You may not be claiming that the Maybrick marks were made after the H 9/3 and the 1275, but you are questioning whether the photocopied photographic evidence on the Casebook supports what Turgoose reported seeing when he got up very close and very personal to the scratches.
I suppose if you really want to find out why the micrographs are not clear enough to confirm which marks Dr Turgoose saw crossing which other marks, the only way forward would be for you to contact him direct and voice your concerns.
Worrying over my opinions, or lack of them, will get you nowhere fast.
Love,
Caz
X |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1631
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 12:28 pm: |
|
Hi again Chris,
Just in case you didn't realise, any impression I gave 'before the rest of you had access to the reports' was only from Turgoose's written observations, because I didn't have copies of the micrographs at that time (only a good quality colour photo of the watch surface and the photos in the various Diary books). I only received them after I finally posted the text of the reports on the boards, and they then went straight to Stephen for scanning onto the Casebook.
I'd be crap at interpreting the micrographs anyway, so I wouldn't have tried, even if I had them in the days before you had access.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on April 06, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1312
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 12:29 pm: |
|
So then,
Not only has it not been clearly, objectively, and definitively established when the scratches were made or in what order they were made, it's not even clear exactly what they say; whether there is a slash or there isn't a slash, whether it's supposed to be an H or a T, whether certain marks are initials or are not initials.
Oh yes, we have indeed come a long way in ten years.
Smiling inside, and thinking more and more of Mary's wall,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1632
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 12:40 pm: |
|
What kept you?
Actually, I don't think you ought to be poking fun at Chris for being confused over Turgoose's extremely clear observations about the scratches. He may well be the only poster left who thinks the sun shines out of your bottom.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1313
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 1:13 pm: |
|
Charming.
Filled indeed with sunshine,
--John  |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 806
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 1:21 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris wrote:
"From the central region Micrograph 4 shows that the '5' [of H 9/3] is inscribed across the 'J', with other features as described above."
I took this from your post of Feb 10 for which you gave the link.
[Her italics]
Talk about taking things out of context!
Your post gives the impression that I said the '5' was inscribed across the 'J', but in my post, this quotation from the report was preceded by Turgoose says, and followed by another paragraph explaining why I found it difficult to make sense of it!
Ok, so this all boils down to the fact that you can't see what Turgoose evidently saw pretty clearly.
And nor can anyone else, including you, apparently.
So it's pretty far from being "obvious", as you described it before the reports were published. Though without even having seen the micrographs, as you now tell us. Astonishing.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on April 06, 2005) |
AAD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 3:11 pm: |
|
Personally I think that John Omlor is one of the best and most intelligent posters around here. Amazes me how he puts up with the rubbish that constantly appears. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1639
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 7:09 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Yes, I'm sorry, I should have made it clearer. I thought the double quotes and the straight brackets made it obvious that I was re-posting your Turgoose quote, with what I assumed was your own [H 9/3] thrown in.
Original Turgoose quote: "From the central region Micrograph 4 shows that the '5' is inscribed across the 'J', with other features as described above."
The quote as posted by you:
"From the central region Micrograph 4 shows that the '5' [of H 9/3] is inscribed across the 'J', with other features as described above."
Is that clearer now? My question remains:
Why did you relate the '5', that Turgoose is observing here, to the H 9/3, when he must surely be referring to the '5' in 1275? You added the [H 9/3] after Turgoose's '5' for some reason, and I'm still wondering why. But I'm happy to put it down as a slip of your pen.
Anyway, the main thing is that Dr. Turgoose 'obviously' believed that the 'I am Jack' and Maybrick signature were scratched before the H 9/3 and 1275.
That's what is clear to anyone reading the text of the reports. And that is what you need to address at the end of the day - your problem with what Turgoose believed he was observing.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 809
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 11:52 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
Yes, I'm sorry, it was a slip of the pen - I should have written '1275'.
And yes, Turgoose believed the "Maybrick" marks were written before the "repair marks".
And - for the umpteenth time - what I am asking is if anyone else can see any evidence for this in the micrographs.
No one can.
Why you think that becomes "my problem", I have no idea.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2085
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 2:30 pm: |
|
Chris,
no i cannot
jenni
ps is that fuve words cant be bothered to count should be now!
"All you need is positivity"
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 324
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 4:06 pm: |
|
"if anyone else can see any evidence for this in the micrographs.
No one can. "
I, for one, make no pretence at knowing what the micrographs show or don't show. Very far afield of all of our expertise, IMHO.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
