|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 393
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 10:53 am: | 
|
Jenni -- yes yes.
From the Marmite Argument editorial in Ripperologist: "there was a nationwide hotel chain run by Forte called Post House (launched by Lord Charles Forte in 1969; the name of the chain was changed in 1991 to Posthouse)."
I understand that 1969 is not 1888, but it was two words, and the Diarist adds "e" to Post in several spots. Even if the hoax dates from the 1960s or 1970s, it makes insisting that Barrett is the hoaxer more problematic.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 930
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 1:45 pm: |
|
Sir Robert
I really don't think the Forte chain comes into the argument, because I don't think anyone is claiming that the pub in Liverpool changed its name to "The Poste House" after 1969.
Melvin Harris says it has certainly been known by that name since the early 1960s.
http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/mhguide.html
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on May 02, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 931
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 1:58 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
The only person who claimed to be able to supply the rest of the letter from McCrone (which you and Chris are so keen to read) is the one person no one thought to ask before he went sick with his wrist.
This is getting ridiculous.
I don't remember John saying he was able to supply the rest of the letter.
If he could, why on earth would he have asked you for it?
Please could you either back up your assertion with an explicit quotation from one of John's posts, or else withdraw it?
Chris Phillips
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 206
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 2:43 pm: |
|
Aww , not the Poste House again !
Its a case of Occam's Razor here , lets make as few assumptions as possible.
Its technically possible the phrase ' Poste House ' meant some coaching inn in the 1880s in Liverpool. However , its surely unlikely. Its technically possible that six different copycat killers were roaming Whitechapel in 1888 , but thats unlikely too.
My argument is that , because the words appear with capital letters - ' Poste House ' rather than ' poste house ' - the diarist is referring to a pub called the ' Poste House '.
If we accept that the diary is a modern hoax , then theres a simple answer - the diarist was erroneously referring to the ' Poste House ' pub in Liverpool today.
If you believe that the diary is an old hoax or genuine , then this is difficult to explain away.
It is the accumulation of evidence that suggests the Diary is a modern hoax : no-one piece of evidence is conclusive on its own , but all the major problems with the text taken as a whole form a compelling case for a forgery.
Hopefully adopting this holistic approach will cause a paradigm shift here lol ! |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 394
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 3:21 pm: |
|
"If we accept that the diary is a modern hoax , then theres a simple answer -"
OK.....but we don't all accept that premise. And the Diarist 'mispells' Post/post as Poste/poste in several spots.
Of all the textual 'errors', the Poste House is the weakest link to build a theory around.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1707
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 7:50 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
I don't remember John saying he was able to supply the rest of the letter.
Your problem - go look. He made it quite obvious he had the whole letter; he even accused me of deliberately misleading everyone with the quote taken from it, which, even by his standards would be out of order if he knew he had no evidence. The onus was always firmly on him to prove that accusation, not for me to disprove it.
If he could, why on earth would he have asked you for it?
I don't know, I couldn't figure that out either but got bored trying. Why don't you ask him?
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 932
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 8:36 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
[I wrote]
I don't remember John saying he was able to supply the rest of the letter.
Your problem - go look. He made it quite obvious he had the whole letter
No. It doesn't work like that.
You made the claim. Back it up or withdraw it.
Chris Phillips
|
Heath Black
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 4:49 pm: |
|
If you concede that the diary author wrote poste haste because he assumed it was spelt that way, it’s only logical to knock off the e in Poste House too.
I'm not sure why anyone would concede that the author used an assumed spelling of Poste House when the more likely explanation is that they were writing down the pub name as they had seen it. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1709
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 1:04 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
Your bullying tactics impress me about as much as your reasoning skills on this one. I bet John knows what's coming next, even if you can't work it out.
John's original claim was that I had taken a quote out of context to deliberately mislead everyone.
Naturally he was only in a position to make such an accusation if:
a) he knew the quote had a context to begin with
b) he knew what the context was because he had access to it
c) he judged from the context that the quote on its own was misleading
d) he believed that I used it to mislead
The only way he could have backed up his claim, made publicly, would have been by posting the whole letter, so that everyone could have judged for themselves if the quote was misleading. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, assuming that he wouldn't have made the claim if he couldn't produce the letter.
He hasn't done it yet, so I'm happy to follow your orders and withdraw my own claim in the meantime. I fully accept that John has not claimed to be able to supply the rest of the letter - ie the evidence which forms the basis of his accusation against me.
Congratulations - you've just helped invalidate his claim, by arguing that if he could have supplied the evidence for it he would have had no possible reason to ask me. I see you fail to give him the same benefit of the doubt I did. I trust he's proud of your efforts on his behalf to get to the murky bottom of things.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on May 04, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2327
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 3:07 pm: |
|
This post may be a bit random, but here goes.
I know the guys are not around tonight.
As I understand it, and I use these words carefully because we all know about my levels of understanding but anyway,
As I understand it John does not have a copy of the MCCrone letter about the place at this moment in time.
I don't recall John saying you were misleading people. Maybe you thought he implied it (maybe he said it and I forgot?). He was asking for the rest of the letter, I assume because he wanted to know the context.
I am sure John would have not hesitated one bit to produce the letter in full on the boards here if he had it and thought it proved you wrong.
I believe John was merely pointing out that you were quoting selectively.
But anyway as you have withdrawn your claim in relation to the McCrone letter I doubt it really matters anymore.
One minute you're saying it is quite obvious he had a copy of the whole the letter the next you knew all along he hadn't got a copy.
Was there a claim? What claim? How is it invalidated?
What's going on?
Do you know i wonder should any of us care one tiny bit about the McCrone letter? Does it matter in the big scheme of things. If it matters sure it would help to know more about it.
Jenni |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2331
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 3:36 pm: |
|
NB
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=126022#POST1260
I think this part of this thread makes it pretty clear what John O. thinks.
Jenni
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 936
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 4:54 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
Well, the simple fact is that John did not, as you claimed, say that he was able to supply the rest of the letter.
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1713
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 5:37 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Thanks for the link - it took me straight to these words by John:
Caroline is deliberately misleading you all when she writes:
"...the chap from McCrone admitted in writing that, to his knowledge, there was no reliable method of determining when a document such as the diary was written."
I've read that letter and that's not exactly what it says.
Now John either knew at that point in time 'exactly' what the whole of that letter did say, and therefore 'exactly' how he believed I was deliberately misleading everyone, or he was making it all up.
The fact that he asked me for the rest of the letter led you to 'assume' that 'he wanted to know the context', which would be a nonsense if he already knew it.
You even wrote:
I am sure John would have not hesitated one bit to produce the letter in full on the boards here if he had it and thought it proved you wrong.
As you say, it probably doesn't matter any more. If John has no way of supporting his 'deliberately misleading' accusation, there's an end to it as far as I'm concerned.
One minute you're saying it is quite obvious he had a copy of the whole the letter the next you knew all along he hadn't got a copy.
No, actually that wasn't what I said at all. I said I had given John the benefit of the doubt because I didn't think even he would make an accusation like that without the letter to hand to know whereof he spoke. I still don't know if he has the letter or not, or has ever set eyes on it. It's you and Chris who are both arguing that if he had, he wouldn't have needed to ask me for it, and he would not have hesitated to demonstrate 'exactly' how I had misled everyone.
Do you know i wonder should any of us care one tiny bit about the McCrone letter? Does it matter in the big scheme of things. If it matters sure it would help to know more about it.
Precisely, Jenni, at last you get to the heart of the matter.
The direct McCrone quote, which I originally posted elsewhere was, in any case, recently endorsed by Chris himself, when he said that science can't provide absolute proof of anything. It's a simple but perfect paraphrase of what McCrone himself wrote - and I quoted - about the shortcomings of document dating.
So Chris should really be taking this one up with John, not me, if he wants to know why John thinks McCrone doesn't agree with Chris's pessimistic view.
As usual, I'm getting shot as the messenger, but this time Chris has shot himself in the foot and needs to adjust his aim a bit.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on May 05, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2335
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 7:51 am: |
|
Caroline,
John does have a copy of the letter at this moment in time. As you say he appears to have seen it.
I do hope the information here stated is correct.
As for who is/isn't right and what McCrone did/didn't say. And what Chris should be taking up with John, well i wouldn't like to get into that.
Jenni |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2337
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 10:13 am: |
|
ARGGGGGGG!!!!!!!
ARGGG!!!!!!
GRRR!!!!!!!!!
(notes for Jennifer. How to prove you are not stupid!Lesson one do not do or say or act in a stupid way!)
Man I may have spell checked that but thats about all.
Please note with reference to the above post (2335)it should read DOES NOT - not does. Clearly this simple human error altered the meaning of the said post EVER SO SLIGHTLY!
Let me repeat the post so that it says what i mean!!
John does NOT have a copy of the letter at this moment in time.
Else as i said before I'm sure he would have posted it, in order to prove you wrong or whatever it was he was proving or whatever.
Jenni
ps, I MEANT HE DOES NOT, NOT, NOT, HAVE A COPY
pps I think that covered that.
ppps Man I gotta start worrying about what if my posts say and not about if i've spelt McCrone correctly!
pppps to be clear I missed the word not from my last post because I'm an idiot!
ppppps sorry about that and sorry for the huge delay in noticing!
(Message edited by jdpegg on May 05, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 938
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 7:07 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
Are you really incapable of understanding that John having seen the letter in the past, and having remembered its general tenor, is not the same as being able to produce its text today?
Heaven knows you were sarcastic enough about my surprise a few days ago that you hadn't remembered even the existence of a highly pertinent statement by Voller, let alone the exact wording of his letter.
You made some sarcastic comments along the lines of "pardon me for not having a photographic memory", as I remember!
And are we really going to have to listen to "Chris says you can't prove anything" in every single one of your posts from now on?
Are you really incapable of understanding the simple concept of proof beyond reasonable doubt, as opposed to proof beyond any ludicrous convoluted hypothesis that can be cooked up? In our legal system, it is obviously assumed to be within the ken of the average citizen. Is your intelligence really so much beneath the norm?
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1721
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 7:04 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
What I am capable of understanding is that John has so far failed to support his accusation that I misled everyone by deliberately taking a quote from a context that significantly altered the meaning of McCrone's quoted words.
In our legal system, we are presumed innocent if the accuser relies on his memory of the content of a document, and can't or won't produce the document itself. This is called reasonable doubt, made more so by a known history of the accuser making other claims which later proved false.
I posted that McCrone quote in good faith, and I stand by my understanding that the only reliable method of determining chemically that the diary was not written in 1888 (assuming it wasn't) would involve the precise (and repeatable) detection and identification of a substance in the ink at the time of writing, which could be proven to have been unavailable in 1888 to ink chemists for experimentation purposes.
And even this method would depend on such a substance being in the ink to start with.
Your final question suggests you only have pathetic insults left in your bag of tricks.
Use them sparingly, you might be relying on them for some time to come - that is, if Stephen Ryder doesn't mind you using these boards for personal abuse.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on May 06, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 942
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 9:33 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
Can I take it, then, that you drop the statement that John "claimed to be able to supply the rest of the letter from McCrone""?
If so, you might have the courtesy to acknowledge that you were mistaken.
As for whether John is correct that you deliberately misled us, that's obviously a different matter. The only way the rest of us can judge the truth of it is from our experience of John's trustworthiness and yours.
Your final question suggests you only have pathetic insults left in your bag of tricks.
Use them sparingly, you might be relying on them for some time to come - that is, if Stephen Ryder doesn't mind you using these boards for personal abuse.
That really is the funniest thing you've posted for some time.
For heaven's sake, if anyone knows what a rhetorical question is, you should! You know perfectly well that in my opinion stupidity is one failing you don't possess.
But the reason for my question is your systematic misrepresentation of what I (and others) post on these boards. In this sense I would welcome Stephen's involvement, if it would put an end to the problem.
In the past I've resisted complaining to Stephen about your behaviour because I didn't want to trouble him. But if you want to involve him, please don't hold yourself back on my account!
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2351
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 11:04 am: |
|
guys,
come on now.
lets play nicely together!
Jenni |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2354
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 3:44 pm: |
|
Ps,
Caz,
do you except that though you posted it in good faith, the quote was out of context? |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1723
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 11:26 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Can I take it, then, that you drop the statement that John "claimed to be able to supply the rest of the letter from McCrone""?
If so, you might have the courtesy to acknowledge that you were mistaken.
Now read this very carefully; I will write this only once more:
(Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 1:04 pm)
'The only way he could have backed up his claim, made publicly, would have been by posting the whole letter, so that everyone could have judged for themselves if the quote was misleading. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, assuming that he wouldn't have made the claim if he couldn't produce the letter.
He hasn't done it yet, so I'm happy to follow your orders and withdraw my own claim in the meantime. I fully accept that John has not claimed to be able to supply the rest of the letter - ie the evidence which forms the basis of his accusation against me.'
You might do me the courtesy of reading my posts the first time in future, before you start wagging an accusing finger at me and talking about misrepresentation!
Hi Jenni,
A quote is a quote is a quote. It will always be literally out of context if it is taken from a longer document, even if the only other words are: 'Dear Sir' and 'Yours faithfully etc...'
The actual words of Joseph Barabe, of McCrone, from the letter which was dated January 7 2003 (incidentally, some six months after John resigned from the testing process) were first quoted by me back in January this year. And there was never any intention to mislead anyone.
If I have misrepresented Barabe's position, and if there is after all a reliable and precise method that he could have recommended, of detecting and identifying a provably modern substance in a document such as the diary (if any is present, of course), via chemical analysis of the ink, we would all be very pleased to hear about it.
Perhaps when John is better, he could get back in touch with Barabe and ask him if his position differs fundamentally from my own understanding, and if so how.
I think we could all do with the clarification, since John has failed to produce anything in writing from McCrone to back up his insistence that 'resolving the question of authenticity' would not be a tall order.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on May 07, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 946
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 12:24 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
You might do me the courtesy of reading my posts the first time in future, before you start wagging an accusing finger at me and talking about misrepresentation!
I always read them very carefully, if only because so often they are constructed in such a way as to leave a false impression in the mind of the reader while actually saying something subtly different.
The simple fact is that you clearly did misrepresent what John said. I'm pleased to see that you have withdrawn your untrue statement. It's just a shame that you have done it with such bad grace, and apparently feel you have to try to disguise the fact with all the other posturing and nonsense.
For what it's worth I think in this instance the misrepresentation was inadvertent rather than deliberate. Unfortunately the fact that the correction has had to be dragged out of you with such difficulty tends to give the opposite impression.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 947
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 12:50 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
A quote is a quote is a quote. It will always be literally out of context if it is taken from a longer document, even if the only other words are: 'Dear Sir' and 'Yours faithfully etc...'
The actual words of Joseph Barabe, of McCrone, from the letter which was dated January 7 2003 (incidentally, some six months after John resigned from the testing process) were first quoted by me back in January this year. And there was never any intention to mislead anyone.
Thank you. What you actually quoted - and prefaced by "to the best of his knowledge" - was this:
...there is no reliable method for determining when ink was placed onto a document.
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=118308#POST118308
This is only half a sentence, and it's obviously quite important to know whether it was preceded by any kind of qualifications.
Have you see the beginning of the sentence, or were you yourself only shown these 14 words?
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2358
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 1:46 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
thanks. just after some clarity here, maybe we can all move on now....
Jenni |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1730
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 7:13 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
You just can't resist a final dig, can you?
What was it about the following words of mine that you still fail to grasp?
I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, assuming that he wouldn't have made the claim if he couldn't produce the letter.
So you don't have to 'think in this instance the misrepresentation was inadvertent rather than deliberate'. You only have to read precisely why I believed John was (and still believe he should have been) in a position to post the whole letter.
Unfortunately the fact that the correction has had to be dragged out of you with such difficulty tends to give the opposite impression.
Again, you misrepresent what actually happened. I didn't believe John would accuse me of deliberately misleading people unless he thought he could prove it; you and Jenni were insisting, on the other hand, that he would have posted the proof if he had any. I conceded the point, while observing that it implied John's accusation could not be substantiated, and therefore should not have been made in the first place.
Yes, I have seen the beginning of the sentence.
It is:
To the best of my knowledge, there is no...
Since John claims to have read this private communication, I presume he could request a copy from his previous source and ask for permission to post it himself.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 953
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 7:51 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
I'll ignore the continued "special pleading", none of which alters the simple fact that John hadn't claimed what you stated.
Since John claims to have read this private communication, I presume he could request a copy from his previous source and ask for permission to post it himself.
Just as you could, presumably?
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1736
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 7:45 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Yes, but John is the one who did the accusing. He is the one who has to provide the evidence. That's the way it works.
I know I am innocent; I certainly don't have to prove it to you. Go ahead and think the worst - you could hardly think any worse of me than you do already. I'm tired of jumping through your flaming hoops, only to have you set fire to a new one. Providing you with new information has become the ultimate in thankless tasks.
So if you've got anything new to contribute, or anything fresh to say about the available evidence, fine.
But if your next post is just one more excuse to have a whine about my numerous shortcomings, then think again, because you are already on very shaky ground.
If my failure to agree with you is not down to an exceptionally low IQ (and you evidently think we were all born yesterday, to claim that your 'rhetorical question' was never meant to appear insulting or offensive), then you were presumably implying that I have ulterior motives for questioning your views.
If you really can't accept that I can legitimately disagree with you, you'll just have to keep it to yourself. We have all been warned, in no uncertain terms, that any suggestion that a fellow poster is one of the three no-nos: bad, mad or intellectually challenged, because they happen to see things differently, is just not acceptable as part of a civilised discussion here.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 961
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 8:48 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
[I'll ignore the clumsy attempts at provocation in your message. But if you think in the future I'm going to sit back and accept you misrepresenting my words - or anyone else's for that matter - you're very much mistaken.]
I'm still curious about something. Is that one sentence, To the best of my knowledge, there is no reliable method for determining when ink was placed onto a document, all you've seen of that letter?
If so, and if John has seen the whole letter, isn't he in a better position than you to say how accurately it reflects Barabe's opinion?
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1739
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 5:03 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
I've seen the whole letter, and I know that I quoted Barabe's words in good faith. If Barabe had qualified his words in a way that suggested he thought there was a reliable and precise method of dating the diary, in 2003, via further chemical analysis of the ink, I would have said so.
The ball is still in John's court, if he decides not to withdraw his accusation.
And it would be nice to see something in writing from at least one of the scientists John claims to have consulted, which backs up his claim that the question of authenticity at least could be resolved by further chemical analysis.
Aren't you curious to know more about this yourself? Or do you think that science is unlikely to provide the kind of definitive answer that we can all rely on?
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 966
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 5:23 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
I've seen the whole letter, and I know that I quoted Barabe's words in good faith.
Ok. So - just to make sure I understand correctly - you aren't now in a position to quote verbatim more than that single sentence of the latter, but you have seen the whole thing and remember its general tenor?
So you're really in exactly the same situation as John.
Aren't you curious to know more about this yourself? Or do you think that science is unlikely to provide the kind of definitive answer that we can all rely on?
Of course I'm curious - that's why I'm going through this painful process of interrogation.
As for whether science can provide "the kind of definitive answer that we can all rely on", I think I've already made it clear that science may be capable of establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the diary is a modern fake (just as I believe the textual evidence has already demonstrated this beyond reasonable doubt).
But it can't demonstrate this absolutely and to everyone's satisfaction, because people will always find a way around it if they don't want to believe it.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2370
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 7:33 am: |
|
Well anyway, no one has a copy of the letter. Well no that can't be true, who does have a copy?
Jenni |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1503
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 12:43 pm: |
|
Hello everyone,
Well, there is some good news and some bad news. The bad news is that it looks like I am going to have to have surgery on my wrist. I have a final consultation next week, but the signs are not good. So I will probably be out of action for most of the summer, both on the golf course and here on the boards (OK, that last part may be the good news for some of you).
The other good news is that it’s OK for me to type again, at least for a week or so. (OK, that part may be the bad news for the same people).
Anyway, I won’t be here much this summer it seems, but before I go I want to clear up a few minor matters.
First, let me address the recent developments here concerning one poster’s invocation of an unpublished document from McCrone labs concerning further tests.
Someone came here and offered a conclusion they said could be found in a letter from McCrone labs. Here is what they wrote:
“As I've said before, the chap from McCrone admitted in writing that, to his knowledge, there was no reliable method of determining when a document such as the diary was written.”
I had read at least two such letters and the conclusion offered on these boards was far more absolute in its language than what I saw in those letters. Consequently, I did a simple and logical thing. I asked the person to cite the full text of the letter they were citing so that readers here could judge for themselves if the characterization was accurate.
Now this next part is important. The person who offered the original citation of the McCrone letter did NOT respond by saying they did not have the letter and so could not post it. That would have taken two sentences and a few seconds to type. But it did not happen. No, the person instead wrote a response that said a bunch of other stuff but never once mentioned the simple fact that they did not have the letter in question and so could not post it.
So I tried again. I asked again if they would post the document they were citing.
Again, the response was NOT “I don’t have the letter, so I can’t post it.” No, those simple words were never typed. Instead there was another long post that said everything but that.
So I tried a third time.
Nothing.
Eventually, to their credit, the person finally did get around to doing the simple and responsible thing and admitting that they did not have the letter and could not post it.
How long did this take?
You’ll never guess.
Four weeks and over 60 posts from that person to the boards later, they finally wrote those simple words.
And when precisely did they finally admit that they didn’t have the letter and therefore couldn’t post it? Not immediately. Not shortly after they were first asked. Not even a week or two or three later. No. They finally admitted it on the day after I left the boards. This timing was purely coincidental, I am sure.
Anyway, for some reason, they could not bring themselves to write “I don’t have the letter, so I can’t post it” for all that time.
And when they did, they then began to chastise me for writing about a letter I did not have.
The irony was delicious.
Why?
Because, of course, writing about a letter one doesn’t have is exactly what started this whole mess to begin with, when our original poster did just that!
So when she went on to say that if you write about a letter that you don’t have and can’t use to support your claims, then your claims are “invalidated,” I believe she was absolutely right. And, consequently, any claims she has ever made about the letter are by her own definition invalid, since she does not have the letter and can’t use it to support her original claim.
Therefore, since we are both currently unable to produce the text and cite it here, it is clear, according to the logic offered by the original poster, that we should both be prohibited from making any subsequent claims about what it might or might not say. I agree completely with this logic.
As an aside, I still fail to understand how a person who began a discussion by posting something about a letter they did not have could possibly think they could end the discussion by criticizing me for writing about a letter I did not have. I can’t get my head around the apparent lack of self-consciousness. But perhaps some mysteries will always remain mysteries.
Now then, our original poster later finally cited the letter in question as being written in January of 2003.
Well, I find that very interesting.
Here are three out of context quotes (since that’s what we do here apparently), from a letter from McCrone and Associates (the same lab) to Shirley Harrison, in April of 2003 (months after the letter cited by the original poster).
“If McCrone Associates were to perform this analysis, we would want to look at the document as a whole.”
“The examination of the document as a whole often provides better insight into the overall consistency of a document with its reputed history.”
“Please keep in mind that a definitive answer about the age of the document may not be possible.”
So it seems that the original poster’s claim that McCrone’s position is that:
“there was no reliable method of determining when a document such as the diary was written.”
might be just a tad overstated.
Clearly, McCrone, as late as April, were still willing to conduct tests and still thought that dating the document was at least a possibility (they even used the oddly appropriate word “MAY”).
But they’d need to see the book first.
Gee, didn’t someone say that was McCrone’s position a very long time ago on these boards?
Now, “the chap from McCrone” might have admitted in writing that there was no reliable method for determining specifically when the ink went on the paper.
But that’s a very different claim from the one our poster put forward here on the boards: that there was no reliable method for determining when the book was written. Obviously, McCrone believed there were potential ways of determining the age of the document apart from simply trying to determine when the ink went on the paper. Otherwise, why speak of such possibilities in this letter to Shirley?
Anyway, after all the nonsense and all the irrational arguments and positioning and attempts to dodge and deflect, the story is a simple one.
A document was initially cited by someone who had no access to it and could not use it to support their claim. That person has already argued here that such a strategy renders such claims invalidated, so there is no reason to take their original claim seriously. And further documented evidence demonstrates that the claim itself has been seriously overstated.
Now, the last thing you might ask is will I post the full text of the letter I have just cited.
Fortunately, I don’t have to.
Why?
Because as I’m sure every reader already knows, the letter from McCrone to Shirley in April is already widely available -- published on pages 349 and 350 of the latest edition of Shirley Harrison’s book on the diary. You can read the whole thing for yourselves.
Meanwhile, apparently the original poster still does not have the letter she tried so concisely to characterize in her original post and so, by her own definition, cannot use it to support any claim she might make.
I hope that settles this matter once and for all. I’m sure it won’t. But at least I think it’s clear exactly what happened.
Thanks. I'll try and write on a topic or two more before I must leave.
All the best,
--John
PS: In the interest of fairness and full disclosure, I suppose the original poster should have an opportunity to explain simply and directly why she waited so long to admit the truth -- why she did not admit, immediately upon being asked, or at least the next day, that she did not have the letter and could not cite it -- why it took over four weeks to type these very simple sentences.
Meanwhile, readers can go here to see what our original poster did write in place of “I don’t have the letter so I can’t post it.” -- http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=126093#POST126093
PPS: I don’t feel the need to travel all the way to the Crashaw thread to entertain the desperate notion that because the two words “’tis love” appear in a piece of doggerel by the diarist and also appear in lots of old writers, this therefore can be considered evidence of anything at all (other than the diarist knew the word “’tis” was an old-sounding one). But I’ll probably go there anyway, for other purposes.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2378
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 1:02 pm: |
|
John!!!!!!!
its good to see you back. Its a shame about your hand, but i hope the surgery fixes it.
Thank god you have cleared up the McCrone thing!!
Jenni |
Lars Nordman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 5:26 am: |
|
Hello
Does anyone know who the Bower man is in Patricia Cornw..lls book who so conclusively proved the diary a fake and went on to assist her in proving Sickerts guilt?
Lars |
AAD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 4:25 pm: |
|
Mr. Omlor, I believe that one of the reasons for delayed responses from the person you are citing is the fact that she has several 'advisers' and she cannot always contact them readily for advice. |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1450
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 11:45 am: |
|
Hi John
Sorry to hear that you are likely going to need surgery on your wrist which will put you out of action for golf and Diary-bashing.  Seriously, John, I wish you the best of luck with the procedure should you indeed need to have it.
Chris
(Message edited by ChrisG on May 12, 2005)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 134
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 11:51 am: |
|
John
Sorry to here about your wrist....and may you find a speedy recovery.....perhaps you should try one of the voice recognision devices sited on the 'proper English thread.' Anyway I'm sure you wont be away for long.
Re;Bower. I went to a lecture at the Tait last year. He was on a team of experts along with Paul Begg talking about Patricia Cornwalls book.
As I understood what he was saying was: that one of the Ripper letters (cant remember which one) was almost certainly from a ream of paper owned by Walter Sicket...his conclusion was that Sicket wrote one of the Ripper letters. That is not he same conclusion as; Walter Sickett was Jack the Ripper just that he hoaxed letters.
Bower is a very respected scientist but I dont think he could help with the Maybrick Diary as the Momento Album itself is almost certainly genuine. I'd love to get his veiws on the Voynich Manuscript however.
Re; Situation on further tests.
As I understand most experts beleive the diary can be dated. It is however a question of doing the right tests to answer specific questions.
I understand that the diary will be made available if a serious propersition can be made to date the diary.
That finance must be raised for such an undertaking.
That sceintists would need to make preliminary inspection and possible tests of the diary to determine what tests would come up with the best results.
Anyway thats as I understand the current situation.
Hope your soon back and well John.
Jeff
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1510
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 11:57 am: |
|
Thanks Chris and Jeff,
I'll be tapering off my posts here as the week gets closer to ending.
Jeff, I do hope you are successful in getting this book thoroughly and properly examined by scientists "to determine what tests would come up with the best results." Here's hoping that you can make the "preliminary examination" happen soon.
Keep up the good work and best of luck,
--John |
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 136
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 12:16 pm: |
|
Cheers John
Working on it. Getting these things past the right people takes time and know guarantee's. As you know I've more than the Maybrick to research.
And commissioners dont wont talking head worthy history anymore. They want explossions and exciting reinactments. Its all Tony Robinsons fault.
I start on the Ledgend of Robinhood for Discovery next week so i may be out the office chasing me merry men around the forests of Nottingham and Yorkshire. Letting off vollies of arrows etc.
I will keep you posted if I hear anything.
Jeff
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1748
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 2:04 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
Of course I'm curious - that's why I'm going through this painful process of interrogation.
I've already made it clear that science may be capable of establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the diary is a modern fake…
How have you made it clear? How may science be capable of establishing this?
I thought this whole argument stemmed from the oft-repeated claim that no reputable lab could say whether it may be possible to resolve the question of authenticity without first having a look at the diary itself.
John’s accusation, that I deliberately misled everyone, by quoting Barabe’s words out of context, remains wholly unsupported. And I’m not setting that kind of precedent, whereby I am expected to defend myself against any old accusation someone cares to make against me.
John claimed that he had read the very communication my quote was taken from. Yet now it appears that he ‘had read at least two such letters’ and judged that what Barabe wrote in his communication of January 7 2003 ‘was far more absolute in its language’ than what he saw in those letters. Well tough titty. I don’t care whether he read the communication in question or got it muddled with a couple of others; either way, he is in no position to deny that Barabe wrote those words.
It’s up to him to interpret/reconcile those words alongside every other statement he has seen or heard about testing possibilities. I still don’t know if, or how, further chemical analysis could be expected to help resolve the question of authenticity. I imagine it would depend on a lab knowing precisely which substances would put the ink beyond 1888, and being able to test for each of those substances until one is found - assuming the ink contains any. I’m not quite sure why any lab in this happy position would need to see the diary before saying whether or not they at least have the kind of expertise that would enable them to detect rogue substances in the ink.
I understand that Dr Platt was able to outline in writing the sort of non-invasive tests that he could perform on the diary, to try and determine its age, before he clapped eyes on it. So we know that no unrealistic conditions were attached to the release of the document for testing, and that scientists can indeed suggest what tests they can try without having to see it first.
However, I don’t recall seeing anything positive in writing from Barabe, or anyone else, to the effect that they could finally resolve the question of authenticity using this or that, tried and tested, highly recommended, state-of-the-art chemical analysis.
If you have seen anything along these lines, perhaps you could point us in the right direction.
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2413
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 2:11 pm: |
|
hi Caroline,
I know for a fact (yes a fact note that down its very rare to get such a thing in diary world)
No conditions were attached to the diary's release.
Jenni
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1528
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 3:48 pm: |
|
To coin a phrase, Caroline's assertions about what Barabe wrote remain "wholly unsupported."
Unless and until she can cite the appropriate letter in its complete context here, nothing she says about it should be taken as anything other than just someone writing about a document they do not have. And as she carefully and painstakingly and repeatedly explained to Chris earlier on this thread, that renders all of her conclusions "invalidated."
That's right, her own argument renders her assertions meaningless.
She is writing about a document she does not have and cannot use to support her claim and she has already explained that this leaves her "in no position" to say anything about it.
It doesn't stop her, though. Because apparently her own rules apply only to other people, not to herself. I think that's one of the definitions of hypocrisy, but I'm not sure.
Meanwhile, I HAVE quoted directly from a letter from McCrone to Shirley and given the date (later than Caroline's letter) and told everyone where they could find the complete text to judge for themselves whether McCrone was still saying that dating the diary was at least possible if they had a look at the whole book. And they were saying this as late as April of that year.
I've cited the actual words. I've pointed everyone to their very own copy of the complete document. She's offered nothing. And she's broken her own rules concerning the irresponsibility of citing documents one doesn't have and can't use to support their claims.
Seems a bit one sided at this point, doesn't it?
And the letter from McCrone that I have cited explicitly says they wanted to see the whole book.
But now to the important part.
What's missing from all of this?
What has Caroline tellingly failed to address, either out of sheer embarrassment or deliberate avoidance?
That's right -- why, exactly, it took her over four weeks and over 60 posts to these boards before finally admitting that she did not have the letter she mentioned and could not cite it.
She was asked about this letter fifteen minutes after she first mentioned it. She was asked to let people judge for themselves what it said, in its entirety, only fifteen minutes after she posted her take on it. What did she do?
Notice: She did NOT just type the simple words "I don't have the letter. I can't post it here." And she did NOT do it later that day when she was asked again. And she did NOT do it the next day when she was asked again. She had opportunity after opportunity to simply sit down and type two simple and honest sentences: "I can't post the letter. I don't have it." That's all it took. A few seconds. But she posted over 60 posts to the boards and still those words never appeared.
Why?
And finally, after all that time, she eventually managed to bring herself to admit to everyone the honest truth, that she didn't have the letter and couldn't post it. When? The morning after I last left the boards.
Where was this simple fact for all that time? Why, immediately upon being asked a simple question, or at least upon being asked it a second and third time, could she not manage to type two simple honest sentences and admit she didn't have the letter and could not cite it?
What was she afraid of?
What was she embarrassed about?
Why did she write post after post after post in response to a simple and straightforward request and never once just say "I don't have the letter. I can't cite it"?
Even now, after all this time, she won't address that issue. Even now she won't admit what happened, how she delayed and refused to say the simple truth for such a long time. Even now she has no explanation for this behavior.
I have chronicled exactly what happened since her infamous post about a letter she did not have and could not cite first appeared. I find it very interesting to see that she is still dodging her own actions in this regard.
Classic Diary World behavior indeed,
--John
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1751
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 7:52 am: |
|
Hi All,
Back in January, I posted a direct quote from a communication by Joseph Barabe, dated January 7 2003.
Much later, John claimed to have read that same communication (which, if true, means he knows Barabe wrote the words I quoted) in the same breath as accusing me of being deliberately misleading about it.
So when Jenni asked me, in John's absence, to post the whole thing, I explained that a) I didn't have immediate access to it at that point in time, and b) it was up to John to prove his accusation, by posting his evidence for it, assuming he had some.
If anyone thinks I have to defend myself against this kind of wholly unsupported accusation, they should think again; I don't. John can contact Barabe, if he wants to pursue his accusation.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1531
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 8:51 am: |
|
Can everyone still see what's missing?
Did you notice the dodge?
Still not a single word on exactly why she waited over four weeks and 60 posts after being asked before finally admitting here on the boards to everyone that she did not have this unpublished document and could not cite it. And she was asked to post it not by Jenni originally, but by me, only eight minutes after she posted her message. And she was asked repeatedly over the following two days. It would have taken her only five seconds, immediately upon being asked about it, to tell the truth. But no, she couldn't bring herself to do it for weeks and weeks, despite writing post after post on the subject.
This is very telling sequence of events. It serves as a clear and visible indication of just what sort of discussion is taking place here.
Readers are urged to go back and to start reading on the thread where she was first asked to post the text of the letter and read her initial responses. The link can be found here: http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=126021#POST126021.
In the meantime, here are the simple facts:
The post in which she recently cited the letter she did not have was post number 1625 from her to the boards. I immediately asked her to post the text of the letter so we could all see for ourselves whether we agreed with her characterization of its conclusions. My post appeared 8 minutes after her post 1625 did.
The post in which she finally admitted the plain truth – that she did not have the letter and could not post it – number 1688.
That’s over sixty separate posts from her to the boards before she finally admitted the truth, the day after I left, four weeks later. April 4th was when she cited the letter she did not have on the "Report on New Diary Tests" thread. That very same day she was asked to post the text. May 1st was when she finally admitted she did not have it.
What took her so long to type two sentences?
What was she frightened of?
What does that month of not admitting the truth indicate?
Yes, a very telling sequence of events to be sure.
And she'll continue to dodge, to deny, to try and erase what happened. She won't admit that she wrote message after message, despite being asked to post the text several times, without once just saying she didn't have it and couldn't post it.
This refusal to face her own mysterious behavior, the history of a refusal for such a long time to simply tell the truth, a sequence which still stands right here on the record, in numbered posts, is also very telling indeed.
I wonder what she'd have to say if Melvin Harris had posted on a text he did not have, and when she asked him to cite the full text so she could judge for herself if his characterization was accurate, he too deliberately refused to admit the truth, that he did not have the text, for four full weeks and still sent over 60 posts to the boards during that time? What would she accuse of him if he had written message after message without admitting he didn't have the text and only owned up to it a full month later, when he finally saw people weren't forgetting about it?
I'd hate to think of the accusations we'd see.
But here's Caroline, now doing the dance, dodging her own delay, and still unable to explain why the simple and honest truth took so very long to arrive through her computer.
Watch and see what happens next.
I'm leaving now, But I'm sure this sad and pathetic attempt to rewrite the history of this entire affair, from the moment she characterized the text she did not have and I asked her to post it for us all right up to now, this desperate struggle to save face after hiding the truth for such a long time before admitting it, this delicate dance of denial on Caroline's part, will unfortunately continue.
Enjoy the show. And learn something from it.
As for me, my good-byes will follow shortly.
--John
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 147
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 9:29 am: |
|
John And Caz
What are you going on about?
I'm not certain if this is relavant but I spoke to Joseph Barbe after Xmas of this year.
He is one of the people who beleived dating of the diary could be possible. But like many others the previzo always seems to be that a period of examination will be necessary inorder to determin what might or might not be possible.
To be honest my general impression was that he was not particularly interested in the Maybrick Diary and only seemed to be keen to discuss the Vineland Map. which he was apparently involved with on earlier tests and the controversey reguarding Anatise.
There could be problems trying to arrange tests cross atlantic. Although I dont think it should be ruled out if its decided thats going to get the best results. If various documents can be tested in their native countries I beleive it will be easier to document.
I am however interested in anything you perceive about Mr Barbe. I tried pushing him on costs which he seemed reluctant (understandably) to commit himself.
Are you saying that one or other of you have information about tests and costs Joseph Barbe might carry out and are you willing to share this information?
Yours confussed Jeff |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1534
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 9:40 am: |
|
Jeff,
Thanks for the information. You've said all that needed to be said.
Good luck with your project,
--John |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1535
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 9:41 am: |
|
Hello everyone,
The time has come for me to leave this machine and to face the music concerning my right wrist. Although I would probably be able to type with just my left hand (I’ve gotten fairly good at it recently), it seems it is important in this case to avoid what are called compensation injuries. So the best bet is for me to take most of this summer off from typing unless absolutely necessary.
I want to offer just a few words of departure.
I think it is clear by now, for all logical, rational, careful thinkers and patient readers, that the overwhelming evidence to be found in the diary and in the behavior of those who brought it forward indicates that this book is most likely a modern hoax. It is a cheap and silly piece of melodrama riddled with historical error, clearly not written by the killer, clearly written after the real James was dead and his wife’s trial took place, and clearly written after the police inventory became available to the general public. It contains the precise proper name of a modern location, there is no provenance for it ever being owned by anyone other than Mike and Anne, there is only one other book in all of history that excerpts and cites the same obscure line of poetry that the diary does and Mike, the same guy who gave us the diary with the quote in it in the first place, identified that one other book for us all and showed us his own copy and could offer no rational or believable explanation for how he knew where the singular citation could be found. The diary contains modern letter formations in the handwriting and the people who brought it forward have done nothing but lie about where it came from since the very beginning.
There was never any real reason to think this book was likely to be anything but a cheap modern hoax.
The science remains self-admittedly incomplete and even contradictory with regard to both the diary and the watch. Until both of these artefacts are finally sent to professional labs for complete and thorough and proper testing, that will necessarily remain the case.
But the most disturbing legacy of the diary has nothing to do with the Whitechapel Murders or even the real James Maybrick. No, the truly disturbing legacy of this cheap hoax is what it has done to many of the people in this field. Not only have people actually made money off this ridiculous fake and thereby done consequent harm to their professional reputations, but long term friendships and professional relationships have been destroyed because of it and it has caused otherwise sensible writers to write very silly things, such as suggesting that arguments over evidence and the evaluation of logical conclusions amount merely to a question of taste. It has been a disreputable affair from start to finish and the only ones that have not been covered in muck and mire because of it are the ones who stayed out of the entire thing in the first place. I congratulate those people for their wisdom and foresight.
And it still goes on.
Some years ago the eminent Ripper historian Philip Sugden said something about this whole affair. It’s a quote I think bears repeating in its entirety, because it’s a quote that I think goes a long way towards explaining why you see what you see here in Diary World and in the journals whenever this subject comes up.
He wrote this:
"A reading of the diary still leaves me baffled as to how any intelligent and reasonably informed student of the Ripper case could possibly have taken it seriously. There were those well versed in the subject, men like Nick Warren, Tom Cullen and Melvin Harris, who saw through the hoax from the beginning. Yet it is astonishing how many experts were fooled and allowed their names to be used in the promotional literature. They remain there, preserved like flies in amber, warnings to the complacent and the credulous."
Well, the fact is those names are still there. And those warnings still stand. And often, like trapped animals, struggling to get oneself free of what traps you only serves to get you in deeper. And I think we have seen and are still seeing plenty of examples of this phenomenon as we watch the diary ugliness continue even today.
In the end, I believe the diary will still be merely a cheap modern hoax.
In the end, the record will still stand. And in the end, we’ll all see who used this book as a means to their own ends and who fought against it as a crass and shoddy fake that should have been denounced from the earliest days with all the energy that serious and responsible scholars could muster.
Now I am going away. I suspect it is possible that in my absence, upon my departure, some will almost immediately return to my earlier posts or suddenly decide to discuss things I have written that they chose not to address while I was here. Such behavior would of course be the very height of cowardice. But it would not surprise me. I expect full well to see my name invoked here by those who couldn’t bring themselves to address me directly while I was available and my earlier posts responded to in my absence, even though many of the most recent ones produced no response and their questions were never answered while I was here.
Take note if it when it happens. It will tell you something about the people who choose the moment of my absence to offer criticism.
And note that when I return, a few months from now, perhaps a little sooner, nothing will have changed. Everyone will still be discussing exactly the same things, the textual evidence will remain unchallenged in any supportable way and Diary World will be just like it was when I left. Perhaps not, though. Perhaps some people will find another way to make a buck or two off the hoax. That would sadden me. But I suppose it’s possible.
In any case, I will read here now and then. And I will come back.
Thanks everyone for reading and for listening to my rants and my arguments and my silliness and my evidence and my logic and my insanity.
It’s been great fun, and I’ve loved every minute of it.
Seriously, all the best,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1756
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 5:49 am: |
|
Hi Jeff, All,
When I posted the direct quote, I did have access to the whole thing. We all do it; we all quote from documents all the time, without posting the whole document. If I had been asked politely, back in January, things might have been different. Instead, I am accused of deliberately misleading everyone, by someone who, it turns out, appears not to have ever seen the communication in question.
By the time Jenni asked me to post the whole thing, I didn't have immediate access to it, but I wouldn't have posted it anyway by then, as I have already explained several times.
As I said, if anyone thinks I have to defend myself against wholly unsupported accusations, they should think again. The accuser always has to back up an accusation or withdraw it, just like Chris Phillips insisted recently.
As I said, John can contact Barabe again, if he wants to pursue this.
If anyone wants to know the other reasons why I haven't been responding to John directly since before he apparently begged me to post the rest of Barabe's words (I was away from the boards myself at that point), they can email Stephen Ryder. I explained it all to him back in April, and he acknowledged my reasons. John and I have been warned enough times to stop baiting each other. So I finally made it a one-way street.
Jeff, you asked:
Are you saying that one or other of you have information about tests and costs Joseph Barbe might carry out and are you willing to share this information?
I have no information whatsoever about any specific tests Barabe might be able to carry out and no idea at all about the costs. It was John who claimed to have spoken to Barabe and other scientists, and been told by them about tests which could well resolve the question of authenticity at least. John also claimed that funding would not be a problem, as several people had expressed a willingness to invest (although I haven't heard of any cheques arriving yet at Robert Smith's office).
John has steadfastly ignored all my requests for specific details beyond these vague, unsupported promises. And now it looks like he ignored your question completely too.
Now there's a surprise. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
And Chris Phillips appears to have ignored my questions too.
He wrote:
I've already made it clear that science may be capable of establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the diary is a modern fake…
And I will ask again:
How have you made it clear? How may science be capable of establishing this?
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on May 17, 2005) |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 942
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 6:08 am: |
|
Oh for God's sake. You know this is the most ridiculous thread in possibly the history of the message boards. Or possibly not.
First of all, Caz isn't going to answer, she has evaded and harumphed through over a hundred posts. It isn't likely that the 105th is what's going to make her come clean. It is time to move on.
Second, Caz, get over yourself. I seem to remember you harassing Karoline and Mel back in the day over something she/he had mentioned reading in a document. And when she wasn't forthcoming, you called her deceitful, blah blah and harassed her quite un-nicely and un-politely to provide the evidence *you* wanted. So the whole injured dignity thing doesn't work given your past actions when *you* wanted to know something.
So can we please just move on to a different and hopefully more interesting topic!
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1536
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 7:38 am: |
|
Ally,
I can't leave (and I see the doctor in less than two hours and will have no choice), without making one final comment to you.
I do appreciate that you realize how futile this all is. You are correct. But it's also important, and here's why.
Caroline lies.
She has just now told another simple, outright lie.
It's easy to prove.
She just wrote this: "...I haven't been responding to John directly since before he apparently begged me to post the rest of Barabe's words (I was away from the boards myself at that point)..."
But a quick look back shows that I first begged her to post the text on Monday, April 04, 2005 - 6:43 am -- she responded directly to that post and to me on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 5:43 am. I begged her again on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 7:38 am and she responded directly to me again on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 1:41 pm. So she was clearly NOT away from the boards at all when I first begged her to cite the text, and she clearly WAS responding directly to me at that time. This is just a simple, outright lie.
And it's precisely how she works. Again and again, she just says stuff that is not true and hopes no one checks.
Jeff has just come here and told us that Joe Barabe at McCrone, "is one of the people who beleived dating of the diary could be possible. But like many others the previzo always seems to be that a period of examination will be necessary inorder to determin what might or might not be possible."
This is exactly what I have been saying Barabe's position was since I first spoke to him several years ago. Now here's someone else who has talked to the man and he's reporting the same thing and saying it is still true this year.
But that's no longer even the point for me. The point is that Caroline is engaged in deceit here for her own sad and self-interested purposes. And people should know that, so that when they read her posts they can understand what they are getting and that it is quite possible that they are being deliberately mislead.
I can't imagine responsible people signing their own names to public claims they know are false. Yet here, this morning, in a single sentence, Caroline has demonstrated for us all exactly what she is doing here and what her arguments are worth.
The fact that she waited until I had signed off the boards to come here and lie just adds to the level of cowardice on display.
Well, I wasn't going to go away without calling her one last time on this despicable behavior.
Now I am gone. And I am glad. In addition to being forced away by my own situation, I have no more stomach for this sort of deliberate and shameful and ridiculous lying.
If this book and these arguments are so important to her that they have caused her to sacrifice whatever intellectual ethics she might have once had, I can only feel sorry for her. She has already lost.
But the record stands, people can check the dates and read the posts -- the link is in my post about her above -- and they can see for themselves that she has just simply and demonstrably lied. Again.
I am tired of no one coming out and just saying it so that everyone knows.
I'm sorry to leave this way. It's not what I would have preferred.
Have a fine summer, Ally. And feel free to laugh at my earnestness here, it deserves it I think. But remember, the truth is important too, in its own way.
Take care,
--John Omlor
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2436
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 8:01 am: |
|
bye John,
good luck.
Jenni
"Stay away from that trap door,
Cos' there's somethin' down there"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1763
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 2:02 pm: |
|
Hi Ally,
Yes, I'm quite the demon aren't I? 
Poor old Karoline went off with nervous stress in the end, as I recall. John and I never could get her to provide evidence for her claim that the Barretts were associates of Citizen Kane.
I’ve now gone back and reminded myself of the sequence of events that I am accused of telling lies about. (Well, I suppose demonising Caz beats trying to prove the diary and watch scratches modern, even if it hurts the typist more to type the words than it hurts me to read them.  )
Anyway, John originally asked me (no begging yet) to post the whole text of Barabe’s communication, in the same breath as accusing me of deliberately misleading everyone - what a sweety-pie he is - and claiming that he’d read the text himself.
I responded:
‘So without reprinting the full text, you are expecting your readers to accept your own interpretation that Joseph Barabe didn't actually mean there was 'no reliable method' - it just came out that way and the rest of the letter tells you that he wrote one thing but meant another.’
Then John asked again, but still not in a begging tone.
And I responded:
‘You also claim to have read the letter in which Barabe didn't write that, or didn't mean that. So you are in a terrific position to prove exactly what he did mean and help your case - whatever it is.’
And yes, I admit that John’s next request took on a whiny, begging note. But not once did he disabuse me of the assumption that he was in a position to post the text himself. (How long did it take him to admit, first that he couldn’t post it, and eventually that he couldn’t even be sure he had seen the same letter I quoted from?!)
I responded:
‘So John, I assume you have nothing in writing from a qualified scientist that explains why a further chemical analysis of the ink would be 'useful' enough to tempt potential investors of time and money.
I still don't see how another test is even going to iron out previous contradictions. It could only support the results of one or more previous tests, or provide further contradictions. And in either case, how would you judge it to be any more reliable than all the tests that have gone before, which you considered unsatisfactory?
And nothing you have posted provides evidence that the question of authenticity could be settled by new ink tests. Has any scientist actually written as much to you, or was this something you were hoping might be the case?
I will probably be away from the boards now until the week after next, so I'll leave that one with you.
Looking forward to seeing details on my return of something new and original that the scientists can try.’
And yes, after I’d left the boards temporarily, John begged for all he was worth. I can see that now. But it was a bit late. By the time I came back I saw no point in responding at all, since he failed to respond to any of my questions either; Stephen had warned us not to get into any more lengthy and futile arguments or face a permanent ban; and John told Mr Poster that he had a personal agenda, and exactly who and what could be blamed for his continued presence and posting behaviour, rendering any further discourse between us totally pointless, if it wasn’t before.
I now look forward to discussions about the diary itself, with people who genuinely want to discover what can realistically be done to ascertain its age and origins - not with people who wear their personal grudges on their sleeves.
I trust you do too.
Love,
Caz
X |
AAD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 1:15 am: |
|
This thread reaches an all time low when it is reduced to looking back over ancient posts and arguing the toss about who said what and how. It simply has nothing at all to do with furthering sensible research at all.
No one needs demonising here as their own words condemn them. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1765
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 7:13 am: |
|
Hi All,
The strongest piece of evidence put forward for a modern hoax appears to be the 'tin match box empty'.
While I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that those four words in that order suggest that the writer had seen the police list, I also, certainly, cannot claim that because those words also appear in the diary, the diary can simply not possibly have been written in 1888. Because I cannot simply or casually dismiss the possibility that those four words were put on paper by someone who had not seen that list.
In any case, the appearance of those four words is definitely not a historical howler to the extent that it proves the diary could not, under any circumstances, have been written in 1888.
If I had posted this a week ago, I would have been taken to the cleaners for making excuses for a post-1987 hoaxer who took the four words straight out of Fido's book.
But the second and third paragraphs were not written by me, although I admire the way the author refuses to go beyond what the evidence allows. I am still refusing to do so, and have been since 1998, when I first entered Diary World.
Mr Poster posted these wise words over on the Ink thread recently. But he wasn't their author either.
It was John Omlor, writing back in October 2001.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1537
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 12:41 pm: |
|
Hello,
For the sake of full and complete disclosure, we should say that this message is not being typed by John Omlor. My name is David Thomas and I am a friend and ex-student of Dr. Omlor’s and he asked me while I am visiting him this afternoon to send the following words, as he is unable to type.
Caroline Morris,
This is a very useful quote you have just cited, because it allows me to explain again exactly why the tin match box line was definitely taken from the police list and put in the diary (and why I can claim for certain far more than I was willing to back in 2001 concerning this fact).
A closer look at the diary’s text reveals that the book puts together not one, not two, but three separate items from that very long list all within the same single passage (a list of its own). And not just any three items, but three items which not only all appear on the official police list, but which are immediately adjacent to each other on that list. They are listed together in the diary and they are listed together in the original list (the cigarette case, the match box, and Catherine’s knife).
That’s right. In a single little passage, the diarist mentions three specific and separate items which turn out to be the same three specific and separate items that are also listed right next to each other on the police list (and happen also to be part of the smaller grouping from the list that appears by itself in bold print at the top of a separate page [70] in Martin’s book, by the way – along with the sugar and tea that the diarist also mentions later).
So unless you truly believe that it is purely chance that the diarist just happens to pick the exact same three individual items from that long list and just happens to group them together when we know that the police list also just happens to place these same three individual items side by side, you are left with a single conclusion – that whoever wrote the list in the diary and put these three particular items together must have seen the original list which also puts these three particular items together.
Now, add to that the fact that the diarist ALSO writes the phrase about the match box in exactly the same word order, using exactly the same unnatural syntax that the official list does, and a close reader can have no doubt.
The diarist lists the match box, the cigarette case and the knife together, the official list lists the match box, the cigarette case and the knife all next to each other, the diarist places the words in the line as “tin match box empty” and so does the official list.
Combined, the appearance of all three items appearing adjacent to one another in both documents and the repetition of the distinctive syntax clearly indicate to any attentive reader that one text was used while creating the other.
Unless, of course, you believe in not one, not two, not three, but four miracles (counting the syntax of the line itself). And that would just be stupid (or desperate).
So I’m glad someone dug up this old quote, because it has given me a chance to explain this important subsequent point, one which is often forgotten when the excusers show up to do battle.
Finally, I just want to say that I can’t help noticing how people feel the need to argue with me even in my absence. I’ve never been the subject of obsession before (even such a cowardly one), and it’s kind of flattering.
I want to thank David for his help. If it makes any difference, he’s laughing as he types this.
By the way, he just found me this when I was showing him the diary – on that same page in Shirley’s typewritten version as the police list citation:
bastard
Abberline
bonnett
hides all
Clue
clever
will tell you more.
And he pointed out to me that if you say the first part of the first line, the second part of the second line, the third part of the third line, all together and then say the fourth line, what you get sounds like “Barret hides all” right before “clue, clever, will tell you more.”
You just can’t make this stuff up, can you?
We’re off to lunch,
--John (via David)
PS: Remember, on a more serious note, it’s the accumulation of textual evidence that has only one plausible explanation (modern letter formations, a specific modern place name, Mike knowing the only modern book with the same line excerpted in it as the diary, even the exact same phrases being in the diary and a modern Maybrick book, etc.) which ultimately allows for a perfectly valid inductive conclusion here and now -- despite any so-called “ongoing investigation,” which we do hope doesn’t end up with another silly theory about some goofy Maybrick connection or yet another commercial venture designed to make money off this hoax. Surely, at some point, shame must set in.
|
John Holden
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 4:28 pm: |
|
If this case was 116 days old and I had to allocate police resources, I’d ignore the difference between scientific confidence, and the level of confidence attained via linguistic analysis. They both fall short of certainty, but not equally short.
I’d say there is no evidence for, and sufficient evidence against the diary to put it in the box marked “open when other lines of enquiry have been hammered to death”.
A hundred and sixteen years of hammering later…..
Suppose we don’t think of the diary as real or fake, but see it as the type of catalyst a lateral thinker would welcome after others had spent a century staring at conventional evidence. There is no sense hiding from the linguistics, nor saying incessantly that the diary was found in a tin box outside the Poste House in Litter Alley. The reason I say the latter is that a comical address does not disqualify the diary as a catalyst, but could reduce its ability to shed light on Maybrick and make scientific testing less likely.
I only found these pages a few months ago (when I scratched my watch and searched for a repair) so you are all better positioned to say whether the diary has had an effect unrelated to its authenticity.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1770
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 7:18 am: |
|
Hi John,
You wrote:
Suppose we don’t think of the diary as real or fake, but see it as the type of catalyst a lateral thinker would welcome after others had spent a century staring at conventional evidence.
That's an interesting suggestion. I have always thought of the diary, and the stories surrounding it, as a kind of giant cryptic crossword, where no one has yet figured out the right way to go about solving it, although some think they have.
I've also often likened it to a jigsaw puzzle with no picture on the box, where many of the pieces included don't actually belong, and with many pieces missing.
Those who think they have the whole picture (and those who loathed the diary from the start) appear to be happy shoving the wrong pieces into the gaps, just to get the thing finished and done with; while those of us who thrive on puzzles like these prefer to wait for the missing pieces that will fit perfectly, if only they can be found, so that the ill-fitting ones can finally be discarded for good.
The shortage of facts about Jack the Ripper is mirrored by the shortage of facts about the diary author and origins. Not a single established fact has yet been published about the completed diary's whereabouts before Doreen was first told about it in March 1992.
Some read a couple of books on Jack and think they know who dunnit, and everyone rightly groans and tells them to come back when they've read some more.
Others read about the diary and immediately 'know' that Maybrick wrote it and was the ripper, and again everyone rightly groans and tells them to read some more.
Yet others don't even have to see the scrapbook 'in the flesh' to immediately predict, or 'know', that it contains a modern hoax, who was behind it, and even who wrote it. (And anyone who groans and suggests it isn't that simple knows exactly what reaction to expect every time - a negative one.)
But the bull-in-a-china-shop approach to the diary didn't work, and people like Melvin Harris and Paul Feldman may spend the rest of their lives unable to prove that their first instincts about this puzzle were correct.
Love,
Caz
X |
Lars Nordman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 1:57 am: |
|
Hei
He couldnt keep away! He just couldnt! Bust up hand so he drafts someone in to do the typing! A hero to the cause.
Excellent!
Lars |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page