| Author |
Message |
    
Penelope Brewster.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 10:07 pm: | 
|
Something has always rubbed me the wrong way about this motive of Mr Maybrick. It reeks of hypocracy and does not make sence at all.
He refers to Flo as the whore, and her lover as the whore master. It was this affair that triggered him to go and murder some prostitutes in Whitechapel.These are my problems.
A. He has been getting his piece of crumpet on the side for 20 years, and a few offspring as well. Flo found out one day and all was sweet.She opts for a bit of retaliation and James finds out. Given what he has done, I think it would be hypocritical for him to accuse her of being a whore - AS THIS WAS EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS.
B. For 3 days I have been reading of jealousy related murders.Thousands of them. In all cases where violence resulted, the violence was directed toward the lover, or the lovers partener, such as the OJ Simpson affair, when he found out.I could not find an instance where the killer found out of a partners affair and istead of attacking them, they opted to attack completely inocent people in retaliation. This is like O.J. saying - well I found out about my wifes affair - I think I shall go to L.A. and kill some innocent hookers. IT DONT MAKE SENCE.
This was of thousands of examples of domestic violence - I COULD NOT FIND ONE LIKE JAMES MAYBRICKS.If Maybrick decided to take to violence, it would naturally have been directed towards the whore or the whore master.
C. I am not from England, but have looked at a map of the country. If Maybrick needed to vent his frustrations, why did he not do it in Liverpool, or a nearby area.Why did he go to East London - whats with his choice there?
Most people seem to think the ripper was a local who new the area well. Why didnt Maybrick attack Liverpool hookers?
I dont know of the validity of the diary, but the motive for James Maybrick is rubbish. It makes no sense in relation to other domestic violence.It has led me to conclude the he was NOT JACK THE RIPPER. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1792
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 11:33 am: |
|
Hi Penelope,
Leaving Maybrick to one side for a moment...
Jack the Ripper was a serial killer, and serial killers nearly always target strangers who have done them no personal harm.
This in itself makes no sense, except to the killers themselves, who justify their actions by blaming individuals who have upset them in some way, certain groups of people, or perhaps just society in general.
I actually think Maybrick was an inspired choice in some ways, if that of a Liverpool hoaxer. He often travelled to London (he also had a brother based near Regent's Park) and his childhood home was very close to Liverpool's own 'Whitechapel'.
Maybrick's own infidelities, which may have sparked Florie's, together with his arsenic habit, and his untimely death in 1889, the circumstances of which were shrouded in mystery and intrigue, gave a hoaxer the perfect recipe for a serial killer - a hypocritical hypochondriac with wander lust, up to his eyes in dodgy substances, mad as all hell with his unfaithful, extravagant missus, and ready to blame anyone but himself for his circumstances.
A secret double life was not just possible to invent for Maybrick; he almost certainly lived one in many ways, and I bet he often told Florie, colleagues and relatives that he was in one place doing one thing, when he was actually in another doing something else entirely.
If you leave no trails behind, you leave no alibis either. A hoaxer may have taken advantage of this by choosing Maybrick. Pity they didn't take advantage of the will and make a stab at the handwriting. Then we'd know a hoaxer was trying to pass it off real. 
Love,
Caz
X |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 102
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 9:22 am: |
|
Hello Caroline, (and Hello Penelope if you’re still here.)
I’m still catching up on posts I missed during the summer and this interested me.
Context is everything, and Penelope finds that Maybrick’s motives as put forward by the diary “ reeks of hypocracy and does not make sence at all.”
Victorian Britain was practically built on hypocrisy. Women were still the possession of their husbands and had virtually no rights at all. The class system was at its height and there’s no better example of hypocrisy than the British class system at the end of the nineteenth century. It was a crime for a woman to be unfaithful to her husband, but if it was the other way around it hardly got a mention.
Whether Maybrick is your man for JTR or not, the author of the diary seems to have at least got his context absolutely right.
Paul
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1698
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 12:31 pm: |
|
Paul,
You write:
"Victorian Britain was practically built on hypocrisy."
As opposed to what other time? The 20th century?
Just wondering,
--John |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 106
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 6:37 am: |
|
John
Victorian Britain only existed a year into the 20th century.
Paul |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1703
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 6:48 am: |
|
Paul,
You misunderstood the question.
I was asking you what time period you thought was NOT "built on hypocrisy?" The 20th century, for instance?
--John
|
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 107
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 6:55 am: |
|
John
No I didn't. I was just wondering what the heck it had to do with anything at all.
Paul |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1705
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 6:59 am: |
|
Paul,
Simple logic. If you can't name the negative instances, then your argument about the correct context becomes meaningless, since it would always be correct, whenever the text was written.
--John |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 108
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 7:01 am: |
|
Ok John. Go and have a lie down!
P |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1706
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 7:04 am: |
|
Paul,
Thanks, and enjoy the day,
--John |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 8:41 am: |
|
hello
Simple logic. If you can't name the negative instances, then your argument about the correct context becomes meaningless, since it would always be correct, whenever the text was written.
And so it continues. "Modern cars run on petrol". The statement is no less valid becuase I didnt mention a negative instance. "Victorian Britain was practically built on hypocrisy" is a valid statement too, whether I agree with it or not. But this isnt the first time (nor the last) where a fairly normal statement couched in normal language and in a perfectly understandable way has been jumped upon to propagate a fairly pointless "you said, he said" type of thread. It doesnt matter if the entire course of humanity has been built on hypocrisy. We all know what PB was trying to get across. Using the sort of inane arguments that keep most English/philosophy academics/depts. in bread and butter to attack a sentence whose meaning is obvious is only making these threads hard to read.
And I wholeheartedly reccomend "How Mumbo-jumbo Conquered the World: A Short History of Modern Delusions" by Francis Wheen as a useful insight into how this sort of (and I use the word loosely) "analysis" serves no useful purpose at all.
Thanks, and enjoy the day,
Which day would that be? What do mean by day? Or enjoy?
Mr P. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1708
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 11:27 pm: |
|
Lars,
Do I really have to do the logic for you?
My objection was not to the statement that Victorian England was built on hypocrisy. My objection was to the claim that therefore the diarist got his context "absolutely right." This claim is meaningless if the claimant cannot name a case where the situation would be different, where the society at the time of writing was not built on hypocrisy. For instance, if 20th century England was also a time and place built on hypocrisy, then the same claim could be made if the diary was written then, regardless of it being set in another place or time that was similar in this regard. Consequently, without a proper negative instance, the conclusion of the ARGUMENT (not the "statement" you cite, which was one of its premises) is rendered invalid, or, more properly, simply meaningless. It tells us nothing at all about when the book was written or even likely to have been written.
Sorry you find this simple point confusing and that you find my short little post above "difficult to read," but that's the nature of debates -- arguments and then analysis of arguments.
You participate in the same thing yourself around here, so I don't feel alone in any case.
All the best,
--John
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 5:09 am: |
|
Hello John
By your own admission, you have gone on dates, have friends and drink Guinness (strangley enough, the drink of quiet contemplation and polite conversation). This would imply to me that you are capable of a normal conversation which by necessity accepts a certain laxity in grammar, expression and so on so the meaning is clear whether or not it is expressed according to the rigours of critical thinking or philosophical logic or whatever.
So why do you consider it necessary to apply such rules to posts on these threads that I assume you do not apply to your own day to day conversations? These threads are after all just conversations. The forum is not a lecture hall and the posters are not students to be brow beaten.
Og course maybe you do apply these rules to your conversations in which case, God help you. Oh no wait a minute, God help whoever you are talking to.
We know what was meant. Your critique added nothing, made us think no less of the post, made us think no more of you and ultimately can only contribute to the sort of row that you had with Caroline Morris on another thread recently after a similar critique of one sentence.
Enjoying myself to the nth degree
mr P.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1709
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 3:10 pm: |
|
Lars,
The conclusion Paul offered about the diarist and context was demonstrably irrelevant and meaningless. I simply used basic logic to show everyone this.
I do not see that as in any way impolite.
Thanks for your opinion, though,
-- John
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1628
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 8:41 am: |
|
Hi all
Coming late to this thread and am not sure exactly what is being discussed. However if the idea is that the Diary has to be the real McCoy because the Diarist "got it right" about the hypocrisy in Victorian England, I should think it is more likely that the penman got it right because they gave us a text narrative featuring a stereotypical Victorian gentleman after reading a few books about the Ripper and Maybrick cases.
All my best
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
http://christophertgeorge.blogspot.com/
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 228
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 9:22 am: |
|
Surely what your all really arguing about is how clever who ever wrote the diary actually was.
Was Maybrick a good chioce? Which I beleive he was for a number of reasons stated by Caz.
John's real objection to anybody sujesting the author of the diary was clever is because he likes to portray the diary is a misserable fake rag that any
Tom Dick or Harry could have produced.
My guess would be that this fits the likely 'MO' of Mike Barrett as the author but only a guess.
So this arguement is actually about the sophistication of the Diary and who could have been that sophisticated or not to write it.
Does that make sence Chris?
Not that much ever does in Maybrick land.
I thought you lot had a truce going?
Hi Postie hope your well. John hope the hands better.
better get back to the Gun powder plot, dark deeds afoot...
Jeff |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 9:40 am: |
|
Howdy John V.
here was the statement which I found odd:
Paul,
You misunderstood the question.
I was asking you what time period you thought was NOT "built on hypocrisy?" The 20th century, for instance?
--John
Then heres Pauls reply:
John
No I didn't. I was just wondering what the heck it had to do with anything at all.
Paul
And then your reply :
Paul,
Simple logic. If you can't name the negative instances, then your argument about the correct context becomes meaningless, since it would always be correct, whenever the text was written.
--John
And thats where I came in. Then you said:
My objection was not to the statement that Victorian England was built on hypocrisy.
Well it sure read like that to me. But I am very sure there is an alternative meaning to the text. Isnt there always?
Celebrating my mortality,
Mr P.
Theres your wuestion |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2128
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 6:17 am: |
|
Hi Paul,
Just catching up - great to see you back on board.
You wrote:
It was a crime for a woman to be unfaithful to her husband, but if it was the other way around it hardly got a mention.
And yes, the diarist appears to have picked up this typically Victorian mindset, as it applied to the Maybricks' situation, and run with it to the finishing post (or poste  ).
Such double standards were no longer tolerated by the late 20th century, for example, and would be less likely to form the basis of a modern drama, based on (unlikely) fact or fiction.
So I think you hit the nail on the head with:
The class system was at its height and there’s no better example of hypocrisy than the British class system at the end of the nineteenth century.
No further explanation required.
Love,
Caz
X |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 111
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 9:05 am: |
|
Howdy Caroline.
It never ceases to amaze me. I know it should but it doesn't!
I'm glad my very basic point was understood by all except one to whom it wouldn't have made a jot of difference anyway.
Chris. If you read my last sentence you will know that I was certainly not inferring anything other than that the diarist, to me at least, got his context for Maybrick's behaviour absolutely right, as opposed to Penelope who felt it was strong evidence of a fake!
warmest regards to all.
Paul |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1719
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 9:47 am: |
|
Caroline writes about the double standard concerning men and women cheating,
"Such double standards were no longer tolerated by the late 20th century, for example, and would be less likely to form the basis of a modern drama, based on (unlikely) fact or fiction. "
Anyone want a list of titles? Novels, movies, plays... Even nonfiction...
No, it's too obvious even for this place.
She's just wrong.
And besides, if someone faking a Victorian diary in the late 20th century did NOT know this was the case back then as well, they should be ashamed of themselves. It would be like not knowing what the handwriting of your alleged author looked like.
Oh...
wait a minute....
Never mind.
--John
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1885
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 9:51 am: |
|
Guys,
Ive been off this thread for such a while now but its comforting to know that somethings just dont change.
Thanks for being such old familiar friends !
Monty
x
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 266
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 9:57 am: |
|
Didn't Keith Skinner find some letters written by Sir Jim in the USA , wonder what happened to those ?
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1721
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 10:45 am: |
|
You know what, Monty?
You’re right.
I apologize to everyone for my last two days’ worth of posts. Especially the two this morning.
I got suckered in by my own stupidity and by the willingness of others to say just anything around here for the sake of pointless argument. Sometimes, both still amaze me.
And I wrote stupid and obvious posts, neither of which were necessary since one (on this thread) was trivial and self-evident and the other (on another thread) repeated a simple fact that I had already demonstrated in detail before (concerning the multiple adjacent items on the police list being also adjacent in the diary).
But I just went back and re-read them and the discussion on the watch thread as well and I regret posting on any of those threads these past two days.
The discussions there, including my contributions, are sad and meaningless.
And they add nothing new -- my posts especially.
I think sometimes I just can’t believe that people are so willing and even eager to be suckered by these cheap and obvious modern hoaxes, and I stop behaving rationally.
To Paul and Caroline and Lars and company -- I’m sorry. I should not have responded to any of what you wrote. If you really want to believe in some old hoax notion, believe.
To other readers -- these items are fakes, they were created in the second half of the 20th century using modern sources which have already been documented; they were brought forward by liars; and they’ve been sold to the public despite being obviously phoney. It’s all been an unethical business from start to finish and it demonstrates only how quickly some people put aside the truth and their own self-respect when opportunities arise.
I should not have responded to anything the past two days. Perhaps I was just using this nonsense to escape the work I should be doing but don’t want to face.
I’m sorry.
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1430
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 11:52 am: |
|
John
If you really want to believe in some old hoax notion, believe.
I must admit, that's just about the point I've got to now.
And though I used to worry a bit about newcomers being taken in by what was posted here, now I tend to think there's so much information available in the dissertation section that people deserve what they get if they can't be bothered to read it.
Chris Phillips
|
Julie
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 148
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 4:57 pm: |
|
John V. Omlor
The standards that Caz referred to with respect to women cheating as opposed to men, still exists today.
There are countries eg: East India, Pakastan just to name a couple where if the male beats the living daylights out of his wife it is accepted!!
In some far eastern countries he can kill his wife for infidality and it is an accepted defense,for the male only not the female. Caz is not wrong, not just with respect to Victorian times but today in what is supposed to be a civilized world. It isn't. Women are still treated as inferior, as slaves, walk behind the man etc, have kids (male only please).Even in the workplace of these modern times we get screwed paywise, regardless of our education or superior skills.
You must be living a sheltered life if you are not aware of these circumstances.
regards
Julie
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1722
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 5:12 pm: |
|
Julie,
You have it backwards. I was saying that the hypocrisy and double standard DOES still exist today -- and that there are plenty of examples both in modern life and modern lit. Caz was claiming these things are significantly different nowadays than they were back in the old days and that "Such double standards were no longer tolerated by the late 20th century."
The quote is from her. I was disagreeing with it. You are agreeing with my position, not hers.
I agree with everything you've said and that's why I disagreed with Caroline.
If you go back and read the exchange, you'll see where you got mixed up.
Sorry for the confusion,
--John
PS: Chris, I agree. The discussions here about the hoaxes have become like those one is doomed to have with the crop circle and alien abduction crowds. At some point it's best (or necessary for one's sanity) just to let them believe. |
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 65
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 8:45 pm: |
|
John,
It's like raising pre-teens. You can give them advice, explain your life experiences, give them other places to go for information, and many of them will just ignore what you've said and make their mistakes, and if they have a good foundation (or not), they will come out of it knowing a decent version of the truth (no absolutes). Yet, everyone believes something for a while, sometimes vehemently, then learns something new that changes their minds (leaving out the Christian Right and other extremists, of course). I think folks can write dissertations for people to read or not at their discretion, but to engage in back and forth banter that seems endless may be not worth it.
My thoughts.
Cheers,
Mike the Mauler
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1723
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 9:24 pm: |
|
Mike,
Yup. I suspect you're right.
Thanks,
--John |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1886
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 4:00 am: |
|
John,
I didnt intend to upset. Im sorry.
Monty
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1724
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 6:17 am: |
|
Hi Monty,
It wasn't you. I just re-read my posts and the conversations taking place and realized how dumb they all were.
You said just the right thing,
--John |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1887
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 8:10 am: |
|
John,
I did?
How unlike me !
Sometimes its good to sit back and watch. Ive learnt alot doing that,
Monty
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2936
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 12:35 pm: |
|
Yes well sometimes when you sit back and watch the tin match box thread stars up again!!
John,
everything in diary world is dumb, esp me!!
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my momma taught me better than that."
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 12:22 pm: |
|
If you really want to believe in some old hoax notion, believe.
Thanks for the permission John V.
Mr P |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 11:55 am: |
|
Hi Ho
The discussions there, including my contributions, are sad and meaningless.
And they add nothing new -- my posts especially.
Well this is the most exciting to happen on these threads in a long time.
Well said JVO! BUt I thought you were going away for some weeks?
Mr P. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1727
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 4:18 pm: |
|
Thanks for the demonstration, Lars.
Demonstrations are always useful.
--John |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 151
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 3:49 pm: |
|
John V Omlor
Sorry John for misunderstanding your post.
regards
Julie
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1730
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 5:46 pm: |
|
No problem, Julie.
All the best,
--John |
P. Brewster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 12:34 am: |
|
Hi again,
I was reading Patricia Cornwell's book and she claimed she had proof that this motive is not possible. She said she had evidence that Maybrick did not even know of the affairs of Flo until after the murders started. If this is the case than I would say it just about wraps it up.
Secondly - "what love can do to a gentile man born - signed Jack the Ripper". People who are in real love( real love enough to cut innocents to pieces) do not seek affairs elsewhere, as James Maybrick did. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2145
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 6:23 am: |
|
Hi Penelope,
I was reading Patricia Cornwell's book...
Mistake number one.
...and she claimed she had proof that this motive is not possible.
Mistake number two.
She said she had evidence that Maybrick did not even know...
Mistake number three.
You simply can't have evidence of a negative like that. It's basic stuff and Cornwell should be ashamed. Even if Maybrick himself suddenly wrote, after the murders started, 'Blimey, I've just found out Bunny is two-timing me!' it wouldn't be proof of anything, because he may have had reasons for not admitting he knew previously.
So nothing here 'wraps it up'. Just like with Sickert.
..."what love can do to a gentile man born - signed Jack the Ripper".
That rules out Kosminski then.
So real love, in your view, can make a man cut innocents to pieces, but he'd draw the line at an affair? You don't know men very well, do you?
Do you think Maybrick never really loved Florie at all then, even when they were betrothed? He had at least one mistress on the go at the time, producing love children, and he continued with the affair after he married Florie.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on September 29, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1746
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 6:59 am: |
|
Hi all,
Of course, since there's no real evidence anywhere that in any way suggests that James Maybrick ever actually cut anyone into pieces, Cornwell's nonsense isn't even necessary.
--John
|
MishtRF
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 9:14 pm: |
|
The Maybrick Motive
http://www.walnet.org/csis/news/toronto_99/natpost-990429.html
Better late than never.... |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2452
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 9:18 am: |
|
Hi MishtRF,
Just catching up and saw this.
If these events had happened and been described in the early 1980s, they might well have been blamed for inspiring the 'writings' of a certain modern hoaxer. It would neatly explain why someone with Maybrick's known history was chosen as the author.
Mike Barrett gets more talented by the minute. 
No wonder a post like yours is studiously ignored - it has to be. There is no easy answer for it, is there?
Never amazed.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1955
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 9:36 am: |
|
Not ignored.
Read.
Seen as irrelevant.
And, of course, evidence of nothing having to do either with the real James or Mike Barrett.
Consequently, it required no comment.
But it is good to know that Figment is still alive around here.
Still waiting, and in the meantime hoping the appropriate silence lasts.
--John |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3487
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 10:58 am: |
|
hey up,
i've missed you both!!
Jenni
ps what happened to my thread, lol!
"I bid him look into the lives of men as though into a mirror"
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 342
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 12:50 pm: |
|
Still alive and approaching the VAT man,
Happy new year to you all,
Love jeff. |
