|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 86
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 9:49 am: | 
|
I'd argue that the Diarist didn't intend that Caz !
-----------------
' I showed no fright and indeed no light Damn it, the tin matchbox was empty '
It seems Maybrick wanted to light a candle or a lamp when he was cutting up Eddowes , but he had to do it in the dark because there were no matches in his matchbox.
' Sweet sugar and tea could have paid my small fee '
If the Diarist had known Eddowes had tea on her , he could have stolen it , it would have ' paid his fee ' for cutting her up.
' Oh Mr Abberline he is a clever little man He keeps back all that he can. For do I not know better. Indeed I do , did I not leave him a very good clue Nothing is mentioned of this I know sure ask clever Abberline could tell you more. '
Maybrick is SPECIFICALLY saying he left the matchbox at the scene of the crime as a clue , and Abberline has not released details of it to the Press. The clue ? The matchbox almost certainly would have come from the great match producers Bryant and MAY. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 803
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 9:54 am: |
|
Hi everyone,
Here is the section of the diary I am on about which contains the phrase about the tin match box and here is why I think it makes no sense (that's without the actual tin match box empty problem itself)
the following from Harrison 1998 ed pp456
Sir Jim,
tin match box empty
(x out)cigarette case
(x out) make haste
(x out) my shiny knife
(x out) the whores knife
first whore no good
One whore no good,
decided Sir Jim strike another.
I showed no fright and indeed no light,
damn it, the tin box was empty
tea and sugar
(x out) away, pay, did say
me,plea, be
(X out) tea and sugar paid my fee
Sweet sugar and tea, could have paid my small
fee ha ha
(x out) then I did flee
Showed my glee
A kidney for supper
Sweet sugar and tea,
could have paid my small fee.
But instead I did flee
and by the way showed my glee
By eating cold kidney for supper.
I can't agree with your hypothesis Caz
because there was no light 'damn it the tin box was empty'.
I again reiterate the point what fee?
In fact the more I look at it the more I think the diarist must be reffering to himself (as he would eat kidney for supper).
So what fee and why would sugar have paid it and does that line make any sense at all??? whatever the fee was he fleed before he could pay it - again it doesn't make sense.
anyone who can make sense of it you have my utmost respect!
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 87
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 9:59 am: |
|
Further :
' He believes I will trip over but I have no fear For I could not possibly redeem it here Of this certain fact I could send them poste haste If he requested that be the case '
Maybrick thinks Abberline is trying to trap him , the lack of a mention of the matchbox will make the killer think that its still somewhere at the scene of crime. And Abberline hopes the killer will return to pick up what he left behind , in which case the police will grab him. But Maybrick is smarter than that , hes back in Liverpool reading the paper so he can't go and look for it anyway. He jokes about sending a Ripper letter from Liverpool to prove hes not bothered about the clue. |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 88
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 10:06 am: |
|
Jenni , if Maybrick had had a light he could have searched Eddowes's corpse and found the tea and sugar in her pocket. He could have taken the tea and sugar as a trophy , as a fee for his butchery.
Actually , it does make you wonder why details of the tin matchbox really weren't released to the Press. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 805
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 10:16 am: |
|
OK,
Simon I find your explanation possible - but am still not satisfied on this point. In my opinion the passage cited above is the biggest problem of all for pro diarists.
Perhaps the tin match box was just missed.
i wonder where it was located - are the items in any kind of order
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 91
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 10:30 am: |
|
Well , theres a sketch of Catharine that was prepared for the inquest and it doesn't show any objects around her , so I presume the tin box was in her pocket.
However when police keep back a bit of information , its called a control which can be used to trap the real killer if they show knowledge of this thing. Or to determine if letters or other communications are genuine etc
I think in this case that it was probably just an error that the matchbox was missed.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 807
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 11:12 am: |
|
Simon,
I see and I agree with your post above.
really all i need convincing about is the tin match box empty and then i'm a lot happier about the possibility of the diary being genuine!! I reiterate my point that this and the context its written in remains to me the most difficult point of contention to explain away as it were!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 666
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 11:17 am: |
|
For whatever reason, it was held back.
Which tells us one thing.
Either the real killer mentions it here in his diary using exactly the same oddly worded phrase as appears in the police list OR the diary was written by someone else who knew of the matchbox's existence.
And therefore, it now seems to me that we are left with only two possibilities.
1. The real killer, just by pure chance, reproduced the very same oddly worded phrase from a police list he could not possibly have seen even while he was getting the details of his own murders wrong in someone else's handwriting.
OR
2. A modern forger saw the mention of the matchbox in a book.
Those are the only two possibilities that remain, aren't they?
David has already detailed for us why no one could have seen the list or the mention of the matchbox prior to modern times.
Can anyone suggest another scenario that is even remotely possible?
If not, then either # 1 or #2 MUST be true.
So let's all play...
Which do you think is the correct choice. 
Well?
--John
PS: Oh wait, I just thought of one other possibility. Perhaps the coroner forged the diary. Anyone want to argue in favor of that one? If so, I wouldn't be surprised. Desperation makes people do some pretty silly things, doesn't it?
(Message edited by omlor on August 24, 2004) |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 857
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 11:42 am: |
|
Hi, Simon
You make a good point when you say--
"Maybrick is SPECIFICALLY saying he left the matchbox at the scene of the crime as a clue , and Abberline has not released details of it to the Press. The clue ? The matchbox almost certainly would have come from the great match producers Bryant and MAY."
I had not previously made the connection with Bryant and May. Thus despite there not being much happening in Diaryland there are some revelations to be made. And do you know that Bryant and May had a factory in Speke, Liverpool, by the old Speke Airport (the original terminal is now a Marriott and superseded by the new John Lennon Airport) as well as in London's East End? Billy Graham would have seen Bryant and May's factory every day on his way to work at Dunlop's tyre factory.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 810
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 11:54 am: |
|
John,
It is possible that the coroner forged the diary.
But it is only possible if he meant the Angel or Old Post Office and if his handwriting matches the diary and if the ink is pre modern and if he knew of the work of Richard Crawshaw!
Its probably not the answer but its possible!
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 85
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 3:05 pm: |
|
Well Jennifer, you'd better be careful. If you write too many posts like that above, John will be soon chiding you like he does poor Caroline. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 814
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 3:33 pm: |
|
John knows what I am getting at Scott, don't worry, he knows my position on the diary. But he's hit the old forgery argument right on the head there!
Jen
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1221
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 6:04 am: |
|
Hi All,
I too was interested to see Simon write:
‘Maybrick is SPECIFICALLY saying he left the matchbox at the scene of the crime as a clue , and Abberline has not released details of it to the Press. The clue ? The matchbox almost certainly would have come from the great match producers Bryant and MAY.’
And:
‘Actually , it does make you wonder why details of the tin matchbox really weren't released to the Press.’
Well, firstly, it was a tin matchbox, and I don’t know if such items were generally engraved with the match producers’ names or mark. But I suppose they could have been engraved – or scratched - with anything – including the initials of the owner.
Secondly, I did wonder if there may (ha ha) have been something about the tin box that suggested to the police that it may have belonged to the killer – hence this detail not being released to the papers.
Thirdly, the emptiness of a tin matchbox is presumably a temporary state, albeit this example’s final state. Whether it belonged to Eddowes or the killer, we don’t know if it was empty when the killer first encountered his latest victim, and there is no way of knowing when it last contained matches. The killer may have used the last remaining match, or matches, while at the crime scene, and cursed when he realised that the box was now empty. I am not saying this scenario is reflected in the diarist’s own words; just that the diarist writes nothing that would seem to be inconsistent with it.
And shame on you, Chris George, for gratuitously bringing Billy Graham’s name into the proceedings. At least, I hope it was gratuitously, and not meant to imply he saw Bryant & May as a matchless Liverpool/London connection to hint at in the diary! 
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 895
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 6:15 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
Agreed - there is no way of knowing when the box last contained matches, but in the contexts of the diary the killer certainly did not use any matches at the scene, did he? Think. The diarsit does write things inconsistent with your hypothesis. Your hypothesis does not make sense to me at all, I'm sorry, it just doesn't!
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 899
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 6:40 am: |
|
the following from Harrison 1998 ed pp456
Sir Jim,
tin match box empty
(x out)cigarette case
(x out) make haste
(x out) my shiny knife
(x out) the whores knife
first whore no good
One whore no good,
decided Sir Jim strike another.
I showed no fright and indeed no light,
damn it, the tin box was empty
tea and sugar
(x out) away, pay, did say
me,plea, be
(X out) tea and sugar paid my fee
Sweet sugar and tea, could have paid my small
fee ha ha
(x out) then I did flee
Showed my glee
A kidney for supper
Sweet sugar and tea,
could have paid my small fee.
But instead I did flee
and by the way showed my glee
By eating cold kidney for supper.
There was no light - no light not the light went out
tin box was empty - was empty not i emptied the tin box
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 705
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 9:09 am: |
|
Caroline Morris actually writes:
"And shame on you, Chris George..."
Yes. That's right. Caroline Morris is chiding someone else for not having enough shame around here. 
Anyway, this is all interesting, but beside the point.
Logically, there are only two possibilities.
1. Either the same oddly syntaxed single line from a police document that neither the real James nor any old forger could possibly have seen is also written as an oddly syntaxed single line into the diary PURELY BY AN AMAZINGLY COINCIDENTAL ACCIDENT defying all the odds of grammar.
OR
2. The writer of the diary saw the line that already existed in the report and therefore this book MUST be a modern forgery.
Now, remember, those are THE ONLY TWO POSSIBILITIES.
And, we have already seen that there have to be at least five or more other simultaneous and staggering COINCIDENTAL ACCIDENTS in order to make this book anything other than a modern forgery.
So why on earth would anyone seriously consider #1 as an explanation when faced with all the evidence in favor of the more logical, the more obvious, the more common sense explanation found in #2?
There is only one question here that is relevant.
How does the same oddly syntaxed phrase that appears as a single line in a police list find its way also as a single line into the diary? We know the real James could not possibly have seen the phrase. We know an old forger could not possibly have seen the phrase.
So what option(s) does that leave us, people?
Never above stating the obvious,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on August 31, 2004) |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 883
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 5:31 pm: |
|
Hi all
Have a look at "Bryant & May Victorian Large Match Box Holder" for a tin match box made by the match manufacturers.
Of course I am not necessarily saying the one Kate Eddowes' (or the murderer) owned was stamped with the Bryant and May name or was as ornate as this example. But it might have been. We just don't know. The diarist might have thought match = Bryant and MAY was a sufficient clue for a cunning rhyming gamester-murderer like "James Maybrick" supposedly was, as depicted in the Diary narrative.
And, Caz, I can remember in my youth in Liverpool being on the no. 80 bus coughing my lungs out sitting next to Billy Graham, going past Bryant and May's factory, the two of us together, me on my way to Speke Hall for a bit of historical research and Billy to pour the rubber for the tyres at Dunlop's works.  
All my best
Chris
(Message edited by chrisg on August 31, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1228
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 5:24 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
I took 'decided Sir Jim strike another' as an obvious play on words, to suggest he decided to strike another whore that night and another match.
He showed no fright when striking the second whore, but no light when he went to strike another match because he found the tin box was empty - damn it.
Anyway, it matters not. I have other fish to fry...
Yes, Chris, double shame on you now, you naughty forger, you. (But many thanks for the pic of the match box holder bearing the match-maker's mark, which you had in mind while doing your historical research.  )
You've ruined my latest theory that Queen member Bryan May did it and had his initials BM engraved on the box (you have to have a royal connection somewhere).
I think we could all go to Tin-Box-Too and back and still no one will have matched the mischief-maker with the mischievous manuscript.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 964
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 5:39 am: |
|
Caz,
i'd liked to say i agreed with you but.........
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 966
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 7:41 am: |
|
Sorry that was little short (to say the least!)
this is the bits that do/do not make sense to me!!
One whore no good, (Eliz. Stride not finished)
decided Sir Jim strike another. (so Maybrick went to look for another -this makes sense!)
I showed no fright and indeed no light, (?)
damn it, the tin box was empty (?)
Sweet sugar and tea,
could have paid my small fee. (?)
But instead I did flee (?)
and by the way showed my glee
By eating cold kidney for supper. (Maybrick ate Eddowes kidney for supper)
Caz,
what you say makes sense but its not what the diary says, and its not the only part that doesn't make sense.
he showed no fright fair enough,
there was no light on its own fair enough,
damn it, the tin box was empty. This makes no sense at all.
I can't really explain what I mean!!It just doesn't make sense however you look at it. If he gave her the box - he knew it was empty, if it was dark how did he know and he still did the mutilations so where's the problem and.........
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 743
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 9:41 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Lest we get too far off track as we have fun reading, there is at least one line in the mess that makes some sort of historical sense.
"tin matchbox empty"
How do we know this makes a certain sort of historical sense?
Why, of course, because the exact same oddly-syntaxed phrase appears right there in a publicly available historical document about the murder that the real James could not possibly ever have seen and that an old forger could not possibly ever have seen but that a modern writer could easily have seen.
So unless this is just yet another truly staggering, grammatically inexplicable, odds-defying coincidence of an incredible nature, we have a modern forgery on our hands.
Just thought a little reminder concerning the facts might be in order at this point.
Carry on,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 970
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 11:00 am: |
|
John,
I wasn't forgetting that I assure you. Its just that in context the oddly syntaxed phrase makes even less sense (making it more extrodinary in my mind)
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
LonelyGuy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 12:31 pm: |
|
Is "one tin match box empty" such an odd phrase????
If I were writing a description of objects I might well say "one tin match box", then realising that it had no matches in it, add the word "empty". Not so big a deal.
Also, 'official speak' does have some strange ways of clarifying lists of objects as in the army way of saying something like "one tin helmet, protection of the head for the use of". Consider even modern police official list taking... when collating a prisoner's possesions after a search for instance... viz
one ring white metal, one wallet containg 5, five pound notes, one tin match box empty.....
etc etc
robert W Nelson |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2167
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 6:14 am: |
|
i think tin Matchbox empty proves that James maybrick could not have written this diary.
here is for why
as John O. said on the 17th
The diary reproduces an oddly syntaxed line exactly from a police possessions list that we now see was unavailable to the public before modern times
And as John O. said on the 24th of Aug
Oh wait, I just thought of one other possibility. Perhaps the coroner forged the diary. Anyone want to argue in favor of that one? If so, I wouldn't be surprised. Desperation makes people do some pretty silly things, doesn't it?
I said this one
It is possible that the coroner forged the diary.
But it is only possible if he meant the Angel or Old Post Office and if his handwriting matches the diary and if the ink is pre modern and if he knew of the work of Richard Crawshaw!
Its probably not the answer but its possible!
As John said on the 9th September
Why, of course, because the exact same oddly-syntaxed phrase appears right there in a publicly available historical document about the murder that the real James could not possibly ever have seen and that an old forger could not possibly ever have seen but that a modern writer could easily have seen.
and here is why it isnt old
David O’Flaherty 15 Aug 04 at 1.09 pm
Stated quite clearly that
Val Traylen at the National Archives went on to clarify for me that while coroners could allow "priveliged access" at their discretion, they generally followed the Home Office policy of 100 year closure. In 1970 the Chancellor made the 100 year closure period official for coroners' records, but in 1984 the period was reduced to 75 years. It was at this point that Langham's report became public for the first time, four years before the 1988 centenary.
So, the assumption that Langham's report and the "tin match box empty" line were kept locked up until 1988 seems to indeed be incorrect. According to Ms. Bankes and Val Traylen, they were available in 1984, a whole four years before the centenary, along with all other coroner records that were 75 years and older. I believe the 1984 ruling came from the Chancellor as well, and I've got a follow up in with the National Archives to confirm that. But I think that's right.
Unless a forger in the 1930s received permission directly from the district coroner, no viewing of Langham's report could have been possible.
And on the 17th of aug
I haven't seen any argument on the boards or elsewhere that privileged access is a possibility. I think if you want to debate that the Langham report was accessed prior to 1984, you'd have to go the route of privileged access. For what it's worth, privileged access is unlikely. Not impossible--unlikely.
And also on that date
As I understand it, Langham's report was deposited with the Corp. of London Records Office sometime before 1951. So for sure, between 1951-present, they're physically with the CLRO. I think they probably were there a long time before that, but I can't say because no record of transferral seems to have been kept. [...]Before the report came to the CLRO, they were in the possession of Coroner Langham or whoever followed in his position. It sounds like a lot of files were transferred at once, and on an annual basis. Possibly the records were transferred when Langham left office or died, or the next coroner could have held on to them for awhile. I don't know when Langham died--not too long after 1901? I'm only guessing about the when and don't know the answer.[…] But here's the main thing: before 1984, anybody who wanted to look at the report, wherever it was, would've had to go through the coroner. That's been widely known, I've learned. The coroner followed Home Office policy of 100 years closure to the public, unless someone could give a good reason why they should be allowed access, like "that's my mother" or "I'm the inspector who handled the case" or "I'm with the Home Office".
so that is that
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1403
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 6:37 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Isn't it amazing how many questions have already been answered around here? David did excellent work.
Thanks for the recap,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2171
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 6:48 am: |
|
Indeed, i may go as far as to boldly assert that tin match box empty PROVES the diary is a post 1984 fake
Jenni
ps call me mad...
"All you need is positivity"
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 828
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 4:52 pm: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Thanks for the mention and the interest. Since I wrote that, John Savage, Robert Linford, and I have been knocking our heads together for an upcoming article. I've been lucky to get them aboard since they've come up with material I probably wouldn't have otherwise found. One source John turned me onto is "Jervis on the Duties and Office of Coroners", which is kind of a coronial textbook on law and administrative matters and is edited by coroners (notably, the current City of London coroner Paul Matthews). Sir John Jervis put out the first edition in 1829.
While just what is a "properly interested person" is up to the individual coroner, there are guidelines. The 1986 edition of Jervis defines a "properly interested person" as "a person who is entitled to be represented at the inquest." (p. 255) I suspect, but don't know (I'd like to check previous editions of Jervis), that that view has been around a lot longer than 1986. Jervis also says that providing persons of interest with records is a coroner's power, not a duty.
More from the same page: "Moreover, although inquests are normally held in public, and the media are entitled to be present, they should not be treated as 'properly interested persons' and hence entitled to copies of reports and documents."
Lord Wilberforce is cited from case law (1981): "There is a wide difference between what is interesting to the public, and what is in the public interest to make known." I'm thinking that's a principle earlier coroners would have embraced as well.
For what it's worth, anyway!  I'd like to get hold of an older edition of Jervis and really pin that down.
Dave
(Message edited by oberlin on April 22, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2193
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 4:46 am: |
|
thanks Dave,
everyone else is ignoring this thread, (apart from John O.)
funny that
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 556
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 5:19 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
It's been pointed out to me that 'tin match box empty' could have been written by someone who was used to writing out inventory's.
These days a written transcription of the Inquest could be given to members of the family at a cost, but that might not help us as the 'tin match box line' may not have been read out at the inquest.
Rob |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2194
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 5:54 am: |
|
Rob,
yeah i have to admit i had not considered the possibilty that Catherine eddowes family faked the diary!
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 557
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 6:21 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
I was thinking along the lines that a City Policeman was shadowing Catherine Eddowes, bungled it (for obvious reasons), got depressed and several months later wrote the diary. If I can find a connection with the City Police and the Barrister's at Lincoln's Inn I can solve the Crashaw mystery as well.
Rob (with his tongue in his cheek) |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 104
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 10:50 am: |
|
Dear David et al.
Thanks for an interesting read. Can I ask a question or two?
I think your detailed researches have shown us all exactly what should have happened to this coroners report, but what do we know, if anything, of the physical storage conditions and whereabouts of this document between 1888 and 1984?
I ask this because I have personal experience of supposed closed and highly sensitive Government documents being available to read by all and sundry merely by the signing of the Official Secrets Act. Once signed, any number of highly confidential and personal records, (in my case much more juicy than dusty old coroners reports), can be accessed by individuals with little or no vetting. At least this was the case 30 years ago to my certain and personal knowledge!
My other question relates to what may or may not have happened to other copies of this report? Triplicate was a minimum standard in the British civil service for many years. There were more than likely one or two other copies of this report in circulation. There could have been copies in the ransacked Ripper files at Scotland Yard. There probably were. We shall possibly never know.
Dear Jen.
What exactly is so oddly syntaxed about the line “Tin matchbox empty”? Particularly when trying to fit it into a dreadfully contrived verse? Three or four words depending on your point of view. How many ways can you arrange those three words and still make sense? The only other possibility is “Empty tin matchbox”. So that’s a fifty fifty chance that the diarist used something a bit similar to the diary isn’t it?
That’s not awfully conclusive in my book I’m afraid!
All the best
Paul
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1696
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 12:17 pm: |
|
Paul,
The diary text leaves no doubt the writer was looking at the list. But since you last left, we have vowed not to repeat old information, so please go here to see why:
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=128132#POST128132
It's not one, it's not two, it's three consecutive items.
--John |
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1021
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 1:09 pm: |
|
Hi Paul,
If only I was a good enough researcher to provide you with the conclusive history of a single document! Sadly, I'm just an amateur. As it stands, all I can do is attempt to learn about general procedure, and try to educate myself about the careers of our Ripper coroners and the system they worked in. It's a lot to learn; even proper writers with medico-legal backgrounds have trouble with it. So, we (or at least I) can only determine what was likely. If you are looking for something iron-clad, I'm afraid the coronial system with its healthy dose of discretion or Ripperology in general aren't places you'll find it.
However, John, Robert, and I are in the middle of writing our coroners article which gives some background on the 19th century coronial system, Langham, Roderick Macdonald, and Thomas Diplock. Finally, after nearly a year! I have to say we don't deal with who had access to the Eddowes depositions, but by the time we're done, hopefully we'll have provided some context for those three coroners. I must get back to writing, as Dr. Diplock is waiting for me to get him down to London. He was a great walker, Dr. Diplock. I hope he doesn't insist on walking the whole way.
Paul, I'm seriously sorry I can't give you a better answer. Perhaps something will turn up yet.
Cheers,
Dave |
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1022
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 6:58 pm: |
|
"So, we (or at least I) can only determine what was likely." God, I just read my post back and realized how big-headed I sound. I meant a medico-legal person would know more about procedure than me but since discretion was a factor, they would probably not be able to get specific. Unless someone writes. . er, finds. . .Samuel Langham's diary. Until then, we can only document he was required to send a copy to court and that's the only time he was required to do anything with his depositions (except when someone was charged with murder-there the coroner had to provide a copy if the prisoner asked and paid for one). No obligation whatsoever to provide them to anyone else, not police, not family. That's not to say Langham didn't; they're his private papers after all. The available documentation so far says he just didn't have to share them. However, I don't see the point of closing files to the public if you're just going to make copies for everybody who will then make copies. This is a point Jervis makes and Jervis is the coroner's guidebook.
Dave
(Message edited by oberlin on September 06, 2005) |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 923
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 7:57 pm: |
|
Dear Mr. Butler:
Just an opinion here,but....
"What exactly is so oddly syntaxed about the line “Tin matchbox empty”? Particularly when trying to fit it into a dreadfully contrived verse? Three or four words depending on your point of view. How many ways can you arrange those three words and still make sense? The only other possibility is “Empty tin matchbox”. So that’s a fifty fifty chance that the diarist used something a bit similar to the diary isn’t it?
I don't really care one way or the other,my friend,but this, along with the Poste House gaffe [ in my amateur opinion ] and the excessive usage of the word "whore" [ I counted 'em..88 and not including the derivations...] stink.
"Tin matchbox empty" could have been written in a far more natural,sensible way..." empty box of matches "...for example...or "empty matchbox"..
Why describe the metallic construction?
It ain't etched in stone,Mr. Butler...but it still stinks.
David O'Flaherty !!! Will you do everyone a favor and stop with this "amateur" crap? You're one of the best in the field...Oh, you nice guys !!! |
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1023
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 8:19 pm: |
|
Ha, the only field I've been in is the cow field near my house. Ain't got no law degree, no medical degree, no history degree, haven't published a lot. . .so I'm just an amateur. Makes it easier to make mistakes, anyway. I don't have to worry about damaging my rep!
Dave |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4939
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 4:07 am: |
|
Dave is indeed one of the best in the JTR field. And when it comes to a cow field, he wins hands down. When did those cows ever turn up anything?
Of course, it would be nice to have three degrees - "When Will I See You Again?" was their biggest hit, I suppose.
Robert |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2120
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 5:14 am: |
|
Hi Paul,
Great to see you back!
Hi Howie,
Well our Jacky Boy was nothing if not Excessive with a capital E, so I don't think that makes our diarist stink; if anything it makes him observant of Jack's obsession with 'whores', and the fact that addiction goes hand in hand with repitition - of actions and often certain words and phrases. Quite normal, I would say, for someone trying to create an arsenic eating serial killer.
And I may be wrong here, but it is my understanding that in 1888 a tin match box was a fairly commonplace item, and would therefore have been referred to as such. Other examples might be ink pen, or (today at least) paper napkin, if you get my drift.
If I am right, the diarist comes up smelling ok again here, as far as 1888 language goes.
Have you read about my alternative Post House - one that was called The Post Office Tavern in 1888, named after Liverpool's main post office, which was adjacent to the pub from 1800 to 1839, both being situated in the heart of Maybrick's boyhood home ground? It was also en route from James's office to Central Station, where he used to catch his train home to Aigburth.
The diarist misspells 'post haste' by putting an e after post, so it's on the cards that he would spell the Post House the same way: 'Poste House'.
We know his spelling of post stinks, but we don't know that he was writing at a time when he could have reproduced the name of the modern pub correctly.
Love,
Caz
X |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 925
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 5:35 am: |
|
Dave...I disagree with you and agree with Robert. Thats two against one..We win.
Dear Caz...I sure have read it. And those examples are pretty good [ ink pen,paper napkin..].
Not to belabor the point,but I was looking at it more or less like someone saying, " metal automobile.." "plastic Frisbee"..and..
...why say "tin matchbox empty"...without the "was"? The tin matchbox was empty.
You seize my point there,sweets ? |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1699
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 8:24 am: |
|
Once again, people, this is all old stuff and, sadly, out of date.
A close reading reveals that the diarist cites not one, not two, but three consecutive items from the list and, like the list, places the exact same three specific items together. There is no logical explanation for this except, of course, that the diarist was looking at the list.
Please see the post I linked for Paul above for the full reading.
The line was clearly copied from the list. The rest of the page tells us that.
Smelling the endless circles of repetition starting despite what the text itself says,
--John
PS: There is no alternative "Poste House." No one has ever found one with that name (other than the one we all know is there in both the book and Liverpool). Anyone need the link for this discussion, which has also already taken place to a ridiculous degree? |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 11:35 am: |
|
hello
The real killer, just by pure chance, reproduced the very same oddly worded phrase from a police list he could not possibly have seen even while he was getting the details of his own murders wrong in someone else's handwriting.
Surely that should say "he would probably not have seen" as there is no evidence that it was not:
1. reproduced somewhere/sometime else that we are not aware of,
2. a person who was in a position to see the fabled but unproven "only" copy was actually the writer of the diary.
Hello Paul Butler
You are a brave man to suggest more than one copy (you've gone so far in your heresy to even hint at the remote possibility of three!). But no doubt your pyre is already being constucted as I type and soon you will be roasting on the fires of long posts and much repetition.
Mr P
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1700
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 12:17 pm: |
|
Lars, after offering the "maybe there's something no one's ever heard of or maybe the coroner did it" prayer for the millionth time, writes about "the fires of long posts and much repetition."
Sorry, but we don't do that here anymore. This discussion has already taken place at great length. Anyone interested in seeing it can go to the links I posted earlier or, if they'd like more on the historical availability of the document, I can send them the links to David's posts and those discussions.
It's all been said already. The search engine will reveal that very quickly.
--John |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 4:02 pm: |
|
Hello John V. Omlor
And as I have said before...assuming I am somewhat representative of the average browser, the usefulness of the diary threads for the average browser are somewhat reduced by the incessant posting of long winded, repetitive and sometimes rude posts from certain quarters. The valid points of the previous discussion are hard to find amongst the bluster. At least bad points succinctly made are easy to quickly roll over. Bad or good points decked out in reams of some kind of deconstructionist waffle are going to be probably overlooked much to everyones detriment.
So lets have the discussion again leaving out the "he said/she said, then I said..." and we may then at least have a nice summary of the state of knowledge regarding the phrase that will let people peruse it without getting RSI from scrolling over all the dross.
Mr P.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1702
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 3:44 pm: |
|
Lars,
The full record of what the regulars around here think and have said is already there for all to see and is easily searchable thanks to the fine way this site is set up.
If you do have something new and original to say here, I look forward to reading it.
--John
PS: I have never seen anything the least bit "deconstructionist" ever written about the diary here or anywhere else. And that's the specific area in which I wrote my Doctoral Dissertation, so I suspect I'd recognize it if I saw it.
|
Ally
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Ally
Post Number: 1044
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 8:53 pm: |
|
John,
You haven't said anything new or original in any of the posts you've made in the last two days.
Cheers,
|
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 105
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 6:15 am: |
|
Dear Dave,
Don’t put yourself down. I’ve found your recent posts here highly informative, and its great to see some original research and comments worth reading, amongst a lot of the chaff.
Dear Mr Poster,
Couldn’t agree with you more, but I think I’m pretty roastproof by now!
Hi Caroline,
Haven’t really been away. Just quiet!
I suppose what I’m getting at here is that the tin matchbox bits in the diary have been claimed in the past by people of both diary persuasions, (and those few in between), to be proof positive of their cause. If the coroners report really hadn’t been seen by another living soul since its creation and until the 1980s, then either the diary’s a fake of the recent 20 years or so, or it’s a diary written by the real Sir Jim.
The problem with either of these claims is that it seems quite unlikely that this was the case. We have no idea, it seems, whether the report was copied and circulated at the time, and if it was, how many copies might originally have existed. (One suggestion seems to be that Abberline had a copy and deliberatly witheld the matchbox bit.) Neither do we know how secure the original was kept in the last century and through two world wars.
I’d be delighted to be enlightened further on this point by the increasing number of Maybrick posters with minds of their own.
As for the tin matchbox phrase itself…..
Dear Howard,
Thanks for your reply to me. Its been said before, and I make no apology for repeating it, but the tin matchbox empty references in the diary must be looked at in the context of the diarist trying to concoct a clever rhyme. The crossed out line being either a try out or a reminder of a phrase he thinks will fit into his wonderful piece of poetry. In this context our diarist doesn’t seem to be looking for natural or sensible, but clever and arty farty!
Whatever it ain’t, the Maybrick diary certainly is clever.
Regards to all.
Paul
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1704
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 6:55 am: |
|
Ally,
I've tried to link people to the relevant discussions from the past. And point out the beginnings of purely repetitious arguments.
Paul,
In other words, "maybe there's something out there we've never heard of."
Thanks for that,
--John |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 5:53 am: |
|
Hello
Ah so sorry....I used "deconstructionist" as I reckon it has come to represent (in the less refined world outside of English/philosophy depts) pointless discourse leading nowhere couched in nonsensical language intended to impart an (usually fleeting) impression of deeper insight.
Anyhoo....heres something original:
In the interests of usability and convenience, all posts containing repetition intended to bully or designed to hijack a thread by making it impossible to read by virtue of length and pointlessness should be removed and a marker placed linking to a different thread where all such posts may be found. Then people can just read the concise ones and not have to wade through the others which only contribute to a sense of bad feeling and exhaustion.
As to your doctoral document, given that deconstructionism seems to impart many meanings to the same piece of text, there is a good chance you wouldnt recognise it. I hope you wrote your name on the cover. Somehow, I know you did.
Mr P. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1707
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 11:13 pm: |
|
Lars,
Thanks for the apology. I suppose we all use terms inaccurately and with little or no idea what they mean sometimes. Thanks for admitting that you did so here.
All the best,
--John
PS: Although your last paragraph makes no sense as far as I can tell, it still provokes me to send you to this site, generously created years ago by someone at the University of Minnesota, just for fun:
http://www.hydra.umn.edu/derrida/omlor.html |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
