|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 4:57 am: | 
|
hello
last paragraph: It probably makes no sense because its not couched in the laboured verbal spasms that characterise the typical deconstructionist babble.
Alan Sokal for President!
I would love to visit to you website related to your thesis and post-structuralist high priest Derrier, but....here in Europe its considered bad form to even mention you have a PhD so in the interests of good taste I will not visit and add to the hit count. So sorry.
Now Im off to forums where trolling is also considered bad form. catch ya later
Mr P. |
Eddie Derrico
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 7:52 am: |
|
If there was any way to prove the match company was Bryant/May, it would be a big plus for the diary. "did I not leave a very good clue". |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 527
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 3:20 pm: |
|
"If there was any way to prove the match company was Bryant/May, it would be a big plus for the diary. "did I not leave a very good clue"."
I know that Bryant/May has been mentioned on this thread before, but I've had trouble understanding why this would, or would not, be helpful to the pro-Diary camp. Could someone lay out the case ?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1710
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 3:26 pm: |
|
Lars,
Sorry you can't be bothered, especially since it was you who used the term in that careless and ignorant way and started all of this.
Still, I suppose I could offer you a page on what the term does mean and how it has specifically developed, if you send me private e-mail. In fact, I'll happily send it to you. But I’m not going to correct your sad and irresponsible misconceptions either here or in private. I get paid to do that. And when I’m not working, I prefer to do other things.
If you’re really interested in doing more than offering sloppy caricatures and sounding stupid, then it’s up to you. Take the time. Do the research. Read the primary texts. Learn something.
Or not. Settle for gossip.
But at the moment, it’s quite clear that you do not know what you’re talking about regarding this issue at least. You’re not even close.
Bye for now, in bad form as always,
--John
PS: Everyone – I’m sorry to say that’s probably it for me here for a time (probably a few weeks or so). I hate to leave in the face of such humorous ignorance and unwillingness to read on my friend Lars' part, but other, more professional, responsibilities call. Still, eventually I’ll be back to see how little has changed and to make sure that nothing new or real has appeared while I was gone. I’m not that worried.
PPS: Eddie you might ask Chris George -- I believe he had some info along those lines.
|
Martin Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 84
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 3:44 pm: |
|
John,
Who is this "Lars" to which you keep referring? I have looked at the whole thread and I am unable to find anyone by that name.
I'm just worried in case you are working too hard, mate - we all have done that. Is Lars an alter ego - or perhaps he is a creation you can cast all your pent up frustrations at? I just do that with Man Utd and anything to do with them.
Ta-ta for now
Martin Anderson
Analyst
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 744
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 4:30 pm: |
|
Martin,
No, as a college professor John could hardly be overworked (sorry John, couldn't resist). As it is, "Mr. Poster" is a doppelganger it would seem of "Lars Nordman."
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1711
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 5:15 pm: |
|
Thanks, Don.
Lars is indeed our still unregistered friend, Mr. P.
Off to work,
--John |
Baron von Zipper
Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 32
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 5:37 pm: |
|
All,
I think 'Lars' is short for 'Larceny' because the poster absconded with some of our time.
Cheers
Mike the Mauler
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1397
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 5:44 pm: |
|
Mike
In that case, I'm sure "Poster" is short for "Preposterous"!
Chris Phillips
|
Baron von Zipper
Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 34
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 6:03 pm: |
|
Chris,
That was nice!
Cheers,
Mike the Mauler
|
Eddie Derrico
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 7:02 pm: |
|
Sir Robert
The matchbox having the word "MAY" on it would be the very good clue Sir Jim wrote into the Diary. Remember how the Diarist wrote about the article in Punch Magazine. Turn 'Round and Catch Whom You MAY. If the Matches were made by that company(Bryant/May), it fits in very well.
Yours truly
Eddie |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 2:56 am: |
|
Hello
it was you who used the term in that careless and ignorant way and started all of this
Not at all. I considered it very carefully (its in general use in many scientific depts. to denote things that are, how should I say, not concise, not realistic, over analysed) .
Started what? My posts are short and are good natured as always. And yours.....arent?
Read the primary texts. Learn something
The primary texts on JTR (done that) or the primary texts on deconstructionism (good one, John, good one).But maybe I will head on over to your thesis. BUt I predict it will be full of convoluted sentences and made up words and words with parentheses in the middle and extensive footnotes and all the usual stuff (and as its you, its probably got quotes from song lyrics in there).
Seems I have hit a nerve however.
you do not know what you’re talking about regarding this issue at least.
Which issue...clarity please.
Interesting that the twitch response to hitting that particular nerve is the usual "you dont know what you're talking about", "read something", "you couldnt possibly undrestand", "ignorant". The much used defensive cries of the post-modernist, post-structuralist (insert as necessary) philosophers (Aquinas must be spinning).
Sad that John has to go. Note to self: dont mention deconstructionism again.
Any way.....if Poster stands for prepostorous and Lars for Larceny then John V. OMlor must stand for "Nonsensical and Daylight Robbery" surely.
But back to the topic at hand. Does anybody know what were the Victorian police's procedures regarding document control, copying etc. In one of my "primary texts" it says the police "wired" information around so I assume they had some policy or system for sharing information. Just trying to see what were the possibilities of copies having been made of that police list.
In good mood as always
Mr P. (Lars if you prefer)
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1630
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 3:22 pm: |
|
Hi all
We have no indication that the matchbox had any writing on it, and my presumption would be that it was a plain metal matchbox not one that said "Byrant and May" on it.
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
http://christophertgeorge.blogspot.com/
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1712
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 6:15 pm: |
|
Thank goodness nothing Lars wrote revealed any knowledge of the history of or the function of the term "deconstructions" in any remotely accurate way --there is no need then to do anything other than point that out.
It's nice, though, that he realizes that JD and Aquinas are sympathetic colleagues in many ways and that neither of them are simply "post-" anything. (I can offer the relevant citations via mail to the interested).
But this is not the time or place to educate the unread (and yes there ARE primary texts in both cases).
Lars is apparently happy with crude caricatures over real reading, that's all we need to know.
Now if he'd just read David's already offered answers to his repeated question, we could save even more time.
Still backing out the door,
--John
|
Baron von Zipper
Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 42
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 8:15 pm: |
|
John,
I thought Mr. Poster used deconstruction correctly when he defined it (sort of) as the concept of pulling many voices from one text. I don't know if I'm defending him, but there is a bit of a battle going on between the two of you that, at least I don't understand. Perhaps there's a history that I'm unaware of, or his opposition to deconstruction is distasteful, I don't know.
He does ask some question that, indeed may be hard to pull from the morass of messages. The search engine, while functional, creates a wading process.
As a person with little experience in Ripper history, I would hope that everyone here would be glad to help folks get answers. I have found everyone helpful.
This should be a place of comeraderie, not animosity.
You seem to have a wealth of knowledge about this stuff, and as a college professor, I should think you'd want to share.
As I said, I'm not sure if there's a history between you, but I'm pretty sure you're both gentlemen. How about a hardy handshake?
Cheers
Mike the Mauler
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1713
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 10:24 pm: |
|
Hi Mike,
If you can find that specific, generous, and enthusiastic reading of the term in Lars's text, I'll be happy to endorse it provisionally --though I'm still not sure it helps us here.
You're right--this should be a place of comeraderie, not animosity.
Have a quick glance at the archives --you can start with Mr. Poster's contributions, or pretty much anyone else's, on the diary.
Go back as long as you'd like-- even before either Lars or I arrived here.
Try not to get too depressed.
As a college professor, I once came here and offered "a wealth of information" about some things literary.
Let's just say I quickly learned my lesson in that regard.
When the info is not what some with a vested interest want to hear, all sorts of ugliness suddenly appears.
But that's just history. I hope things will indeed someday be different. Of course, first everyone has to be willing to read the relevant texts carefully. In this case, concerning my old friend Lars and decon, I suspect that's already a lost cause.
Perhaps he'll prove me wrong in private e-mail (this is not the place for such a complicated, detailed, and serious discussion).
Waiting by my mailbox,
--John
PS: Wading can be very useful, even as it promotes improvisation and happy accidents via re-readings.
(Message edited by omlor on September 14, 2005) |
Baron von Zipper
Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 43
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 10:58 pm: |
|
Hi John,
He did say this:
As to your doctoral document, given that deconstructionism seems to impart many meanings to the same piece of text
Okay, I was being generous, and of course deconstructionism is the nihilistic view of deconstruction, so I was really, really generous.
You understand my point, of course, and I do enjoy the clarity in your posts, so please hang out here.
As to Mr. Poster's disposition. I will reserve judgement until I see more of him. There has been some seeming sincerity in some of his posts.
Anyway, nice to know you have some connections with the U of M (one of my alma maters).
Take care,
Mike the Mauler
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1714
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 7:57 am: |
|
Hi Mike,
I admire your generosity. 
And, of course, I do understand your point.
I'm only leaving for a short time (a project MUST be finished in the next two weeks).
I'll be hanging out here again before you can say, like Hamlet's dad, "Remember me!"
Enjoy your weekend,
--John (in a land where meaning exceeds intention and that's the fun of it all)
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2934
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 5:11 pm: |
|
Please no!!!!!!!
Damn it, there was not anything within the empty tin box ;)
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my momma taught me better than that."
|
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 460
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 17, 2005 - 2:23 pm: |
|
Of course not Jenn! And I highly doubt that there was any writing on it either. (But maybe I missed your point..)
People, why on Earth is anyone still debating the bloody diary?! Heck, we all know it's a fake, a forgery and a bloody waste of our time! Oh, yes.. forgive me, I forgot. There are still people out there who believe it's genuine... and I guess no amount of bonking their heads against a brick wall will do any good. Forgive me as I attempt to bonk their heads one more time.. Know it won't do any good, but I'll feel much better, thank you.
Sigh.. Lyn is retiring with a nice cup of tea. Courtesy of Denny's currently, as Lyn no longer has a kettle, running water or tea bags. Or milk.
When I arrive in Georgia I don't want to see y'all still debating something that is so obviously fake - got that.
Lyn
"When a man grows tired of London, he grows tired of life" (or summat like that)
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1466
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 17, 2005 - 4:50 pm: |
|
Hi lyn,
I Could not agree more , the Diary is a complete fake, it was written by someone or plural that had a good knowledge of the case of both Maybreck and 'Jack' who was writing it with imagination of a man that was poccessed by madness.
throwing in new material when it suited to make it plausible.
If i am wrong then i would be extremely bewildered , however if it was signed JB, and found in a east london attic, i might be more enthusiastic.
Richard. |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 748
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 17, 2005 - 5:25 pm: |
|
Lyn,
. . .as Lyn no longer has a kettle
I do hope you didn't overheat the kettle and have the spout fall off because the solder melted. 
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 3:23 am: |
|
I thought you were leaving JOhn V.?
Oh well. Here we go again. BUt lets see...(if you will indulge me in a long post)
Im not nasty, do not partake in ugliness, try to be civil.
On these forums we have:
Non police men talking about policing
Non authors talking about writing
Non historians talking about history
And (my favourite) non-chemists talking about chemistry (ink).
And we have genuine practitioners of all these professions. Yet the only one who is nasty, rude, belligerent and bullying when someone else mentions anything remotely connected, right or wrong, to his "field" is, (come on down), JOhn V. Omlor. Strange.
But he's right. Mentioning Aquinas and decon....m in the same sentence was bad of me. Seeing as the latter isnt even taught in the majority of philosophy depts. here or across the pond (tapping chin with forefinger and looking into space).
The biggest issue I have with decons...m or anything post-(insert), is that they contribute nothing. They construct nothing. They validate their existence by criticism and have no positive value. Every other field of endeavour tries to do something positive and disseminate it to as many people as possible in as clear a manner as possible except the aforementioned. Its negative, self-indulgent, destructive, contradictory and pointless.
One of the most obvious signs that deco.....sm is a joke is that it is typically expressed in the most complicated possible language, not the clearest, a sure sign that the author is trying to sound clever rather than convey information.
The reason i got such a vociferous response is because careers have been built on this nonsense and such careers must be defended strictly in case the underlying sham comes to light.
Walter Kaufmann defined three possible reactions to such "philosophical" text. The first being to simply dismiss it as so much nonsense, the second is to assume because it is so complex to understand, it must be profound. The third, found only among professional philosophers, is to persist to try to understand the material, only to realise it is devoid of content or says only superficial things. But by that time the philosopher has invested so much of his career that he can't afford to reveal what he has learned. I subscribe to the first set. Such "learned academics" as belong to the third group often view theselves as the arbiters of culture and use this
self-conferred "status" to bully and brow beat in order to prove to themselves that, yes, they are intellectuals. Which is what we have been seeing here in the past three years.
Anyway, I am sure John V. OMlor considers himslef a man of impeccable taste so I feel it is my duty to enlighten (wrong word to use to someone who likes Derriere) him that repetition of academic credentials is crass in the extreme, viewed as unprofessional over here and makes one wonder what is the PhD compensating for.
But my question remains: What does anyone know about document control in Victorian police stations?
This hasnt been answered (at least to my mind) despite John V.'s assurances. At least I cant find it in what Baron Von Z, describes as "morass of messages" (nice description by the way), most of the morass originating from the keyboard of JVO himself.
Otherwise, I am off to apply the dec.....t concept that words have no meaning to the signature on my paycheck.
NOw enjoying myself to the n+1th degree
Mr P |
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 57
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 17, 2005 - 11:05 pm: |
|
Mr. Poster,
I went to school for German literature. We had a saying, which I'm sure was stolen from some old German professor: Die Text steht allein. That means, the text stands alone. There was really no place for deconstruction in my department. Then the old dept. chair stepped down and a self-acknowledged feminist lesbian took over. Enter deconstruction. I think it has a place in literature, but when all else fails, and the author can't tell you his intent because he's dead, or he can't remember, or his memory changes, I always adhered to 'Die Text steht allein'
That being said, one has to make some conjectures about the ripper text and evidence, else it becomes stagnant. The evidence evolves as we analyse it and give it different voices so to speak, and that means there is a place for deconstruction.
I also think you and John are quite intelligent (not that I would know intelligence if it bit my arse) and very useful to this site. By all means discuss and challenge each other, but please, for everyone's sake, let us get along, or I shan't quit ripping till I do get buckled.
Cheers,
Mike the Mauler
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1715
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 4:30 pm: |
|
Lars,
Always have time to write a short post in the face of ignorance.
Since nothing you have said above about Derrida or deconstruction indicates that you have actually read any of it carefully or know any more about it than the common, ill-informed and most simplistic sort of academic gossip, I needn't respond in any detail, except to say write me if you ever want to discuss specific texts privately.
Being neither nasty, rude, belligerent or bullying (but admiring your ability to string invectives),
--John
PS: Again, deconstruction is not post- anything -- there's a whole essay specifically on this point by JD in David Carroll's The States of Theory. You are woefully ill-informed. And your quaint call for some sort of good old-fashioned Aufklärung clues me in as to why you're content and even happy not knowing what you're talking about except in the most superficial sort of way.
And you are not insulting me by calling me crass -- I have always been so. And I am proud of my degrees and the work that went into them and see no reason for any hypocritical faux-humility about my education just to make me feel somehow noble .
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1716
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 4:50 pm: |
|
Almost forgot,
Everyone is invited to read David O's excellent posts on these sorts of documents and who controls them, in case they think any of this is new.
Unfortunately, anyone who thinks either JD or "deconstruction" has ever argued anything remotely like "words have no meaning" either refuses to read or is unable to, so this recommendation will probably do no good in at least one case.
Sad about that,
--John
|
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1032
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 5:12 pm: |
|
Hi John,
This won't help with theoretical copies but I thought I would add this from the fifth edition of Jervis, 1888, which was a commentary on the Coroner's Act 1887. First the legislation is given in italics, followed by commentary on practice. Footnoted legal precedents are given in italics within the body of the commentary (in case some junkie for English law is lurking out there).
Referenced in another section not given here is a bit that says coroners had to provide prisoners accused of murder/manslaughter copies of depositions from their relevant inquest, provided that the prisoners pay for them (that assumes that if they did not pay, they would not receive copies). Copies were supplied in duplicate in cases of executed prisoners, a copy going to the sheriff in those instances. Otherwise, copies went to court clerks and directors of public prosecutions, where they were treated as secondary evidence.
This is from the fifth edition of Jervis, 1888, which was a commentary on the 1887 Coroner's Act. Here's the relevant section dealing with copies of depositions, p 50-2. First is the clause from the 1887 Act in italics, followed by commentary on practice. Footnoted precedents are also given in italics, in case there is some lurker with an interest in that sort of thing.
5 (3). The coroner shall deliver the inquisition, depositions and recognizances, with a certificate under his hand that the same have been taken before him, to the proper officer of the Court in which the trial is to be, before or at the opening of the Court.
Failure to comply with these provisions renders the coroner liable to be fined under section 9. At the assizes the proper officer would be the clerk of assize, and at the Central Criminal Court the clerk of arraigus. In practice, there is also in most cases a bill preferred before the grand jury, and, if they find a true bill, the indictment and inquisition are usually given in charge to the jury at the same time; if the bill is thrown out, it is not usual to offer any evidence upon the inquisition. See also under sect. 18, sub-s. (1.) The depositions ought regularly to be returned to the clerk of assize at the opening of the commission; or if possible before, so as to enable the learned judge who presides to examine the facts of each case, that he may explain to the grand jury, in his charge, any difficulty that may exist, and state to them the law as applicable to the facts. Coroners have frequently been censured for remissness in this respect.
The Court into which the inquisition is returned may, upon affidavit of circumstances showing it to have been irregularly taken, refuse to receive and file it. 1 Str. 22: 2 Hawk, P.C. c. 9, s. 24. This sub-section does not apply to the coroner of the Queen’s Household, who, under section 29, sub-s. (5), must deliver the inquisition to the Lord Steward.
Formerly inquisitions taken before an Admiralty coroner were returned to the Admiralty, but now by section 30, sub-s. (4), this sub-section will be applicable to them also, and they must accordingly be delivered to the Court in which the trial is to be.
The depositions are rendered admissible as secondary evidence by virtue of the above section. See Silth v. Brown, 9 C. & P. 601. It seems that they ought to be proved either by calling the coroner who subscribed them, or by proving his signature, and showing by his clerk or some one who was present at the inquiry, that all the forms of law have been duly complied with. See R. v. Wilshaw, C. & Marsh, 145. Although formerly much doubted, the better opinion now appears to be, that it is essential to their admissibility that they should have been taken in the presence of the party accused. R. v. Bigg, 4. F. & F. 1083; and see R. V. Well, 2 Russ. C. & M. 893, n. (c).
It is also the duty of the coroner to be himself present in Court when any case is tried upon an inquisition taken before him; if he be not present the Court may fine him. In re [Uricia] at the Old Bailey, 1827, Carrington’s Supplement to the Modern Treatises on the Criminal Law, 34d Ed. P. 17. By the precept for summoning sessions of oyer and terminer, it was commanded to the sheriff “quod scire faciat omnibus coronatoribus quod sint tune ibi”—and the names of the county coroners used formerly to be called form the roll when the commission was opened. The sheriff now sends a printed notices of the assizes to all coroners within the jurisdiction.
In cases other than murder or manslaughter the inquisition remains in the custody of the coroner, unless required by the clerk of the peace as a voucher. And if the director of public prosecutions gives notice to the coroner that he has undertaken criminal proceedings, he must transmit the inquisition to him. 42 & 43 Vict. C. 22, s. 5. By a circular from the Home Office in September 1884, coroners were requested, in all cases in which a verdict of manslaughter or murder should be returned, to send a copy of the depositions to the director of public prosecutions with or without any remarks which the coroner might think fit to offer. Where an inquest has been held upon the body of any offender upon whom judgment of death has been executed, the inquisition must be in duplicate, one of the originals being delivered to the sheriff. 31 & 32 Vict. C. 24, s. 5.
Cheers,
Dave |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1717
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 6:08 pm: |
|
Thanks Dave.
Excellent work, as always.
Hope everyone reads it.
Of course, I know what you mean about those "theoretical" copies.
All the best,
--John
PS: We all know where one could easily find a copy of this list that was a lot more than just theoretical, don't we? |
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1033
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 6:55 pm: |
|
Thanks, John. I think access is a non-issue but it did spark my interest in coroners, which I have found pretty rewarding. So at least for me, the Vietnam that is diaryworld had a positive aspect in that I'm learning a lot and I have had some rewarding correspondence over the past year.
Hi all,
Sorry for the duplicate paragraph in my post above, it slipped by me. This is just me, but I'll believe hoaxers accessed a duplicate copy of the police inventory when someone establishes some evidence for it. Putting aside questions of access, I think it will be interesting if someone did do some work on police procedure because it would have its own merits independent of diaryland. Best of luck to whoever takes it up.
In the meantime, cheers
Dave |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2129
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 9:18 am: |
|
Hi Howie,
You asked me:
'...why say "tin matchbox empty"...without the "was"? The tin matchbox was empty.
You seize my point there,sweets ?'
I do and there is an oh-so-simple answer. The diarist wrote that try-out line for his dodgy doggerel for the same reason he wrote this related one:
'first whore no good'.
She isn't on that police list, but she too is without a 'was' - The first whore was no good.
The 'modern hoaxer must have copied the four words straight from the list' hypothesis may seem like the obvious - nay only - answer, but it doesn't truly satisfy me.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1720
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 9:51 am: |
|
Caroline,
Then please explain why, on that same page, the diarist groups together the exact same three specific items also grouped together on the list, out of all the items there, and places them side by side in the diary when they are also side by side on the list.
Someday, even you'll have to admit the obvious when it's on the page.
--John
(Message edited by omlor on September 20, 2005) |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 112
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 10:11 am: |
|
Hi Caroline.
At risk of starting a mutual appreciation society you’ve really hit the nail bang on the head there. Excellent point.
Hi Dave and all.
Can I just get back to the original point of this topic, (I think!), for a minute.
Though I’m in complete agreement that the whole tin matchbox issue doesn’t really do any damage to the diary any more than it reinforces it, I’m still trying to get to grips with this idea that the inventory somehow existed out of time for almost a century, and couldn’t have been seen by a hoaxer in the earlier part of the last century.
The inventory in which this ubiquitous tin box is listed is described in any book you care to reference as a “Police list”. This list was compiled by the Police at the mortuary. Sugden is quite specific on this point, and I tend to trust his version of things above most others. I have no problem with the idea that this list was appended to the Coroner’s report and that it was used at Kate’s inquest, but it doesn’t make it part of the “inquisition, depositions and recognizances” surely. Or does it?
If such a list is taken by the Police and then used as part of the Coroner’s records, then surely either a copy is left with the Coroner, or the original is handed over and a copy retained by the Police?
This list was taken down by the Police, and some are suggesting that Abberline deliberately withheld the details of the matchbox from the public as he thought it might have been JTRs and not Kate’s. If he did this then it’s highly likely he would have taken a note of its existence for later when he returned to the station. If he, or any other member of the Police did make a conscious decision to withold this item, then it beggars belief that the fact would not have been noted in Police records somewhere.
And we all know what happened to the Police records don’t we?
There doesn’t even need to have been more than one copy of the list made for this irritating little tin matchbox to have been mentioned in long lost or destroyed records that formed no part of the Coroners papers whatsoever.
The possibilities are endless.
My questions are purely rhetorical ones I suppose, and I’m not expecting any answers. There is absolutely no way that anyone can say with any certainty that an early hoaxer couldn’t have seen this “Police list” , part of this “Police list”, or other references to the tin matchbox.
I’m not claiming in any way that this convinces me that the diary is an old hoax either. It’s just that it shoots so many holes in claims that it proves the diary to be a modern creation, that that particular theory really should be put out of its misery for good.
Regards to all
Paul.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1725
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 10:51 am: |
|
"I'll believe hoaxers accessed a duplicate copy of the police inventory when someone establishes some evidence for it."
Thanks, Dave.
--John |
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1034
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 2:24 pm: |
|
Cheers Paul,
"Though I’m in complete agreement that the whole tin matchbox issue doesn’t really do any damage to the diary any more than it reinforces it"
I'm not in agreement with that. For me, this one line is plenty good enough reason to believe that the hoax was created after 1984, which is when the record became publicly accessible.
"I’m still trying to get to grips with this idea that the inventory somehow existed out of time for almost a century, and couldn’t have been seen by a hoaxer in the earlier part of the last century."
It could have been seen, there is privileged access after all. But any hoaxer would have required the coroner's express permission to see it. He would have to have been someone who met with the coroner's approval as a "properly interested person." It doesn't matter where the depositions were; permission would have been required.
"I have no problem with the idea that this list was appended to the Coroner’s report and that it was used at Kate’s inquest, but it doesn’t make it part of the 'inquisition, depositions and recognizances' surely. Or does it?"
Yes, it does and the inventory being part of the depositions isn't an "idea" but a physical fact. Where does our only known copy come from? The coroner's depositions. The inventory was referred to during testimony, just like a suicide note is an exhibit that is sometimes not read aloud in court. Yet it's still part of the record. Record-keeping was the primary reason the office was brought back in the 12th century, when it took the Eyre years to make its circuit. You can imagine what it was like when justices finally rolled into town on the back of their mules: "This woman was murdered four years ago, but it's been so long that we've just about forgotten everything about it." So they came up with coroners, who would come in and document everything so that when the justices eventually turned up to hold the Eyre, the evidence had been preserved--not just for the sake of justice but also for the sake of potential revenue for the King (in the forms of fines). So record keeping like inventories aren't just incidental to inquests. Records like inventories were part of the coroner's purpose, part of the investigation.
Off the topic for a moment, I would just like to say that I know it sounds crazy even bringing up a 12th century coroner when talking about Samuel Langham in 1888, but in fact until the 1887 Coroner's Act came along and consolidated the law, coroners and other lawmakers often had to refer to old medieval statutes and references. For entertaining reading, you should read about the Queen's Bench scrambling to find a precedent for quashing the first Bravo inquest (Balham Mystery) in 1876; they're turning up stuff from Richard III. So medieval law and custom was still relevant even in the late 19th century.
"The possibilities are endless."
Well, sure they are, when we're free to invent whatever scenario we like. Let's face it, we can make up stuff all day. Look:
The depositions were kept in a strong box on the bottom of the Thames. Langham had the only key and when he wanted to make a copy he had to put on a very cumbersome diving suit (which he learned about after reading Jules Verne). But the suit was such a tiresome thing to put on and take off that it's likely he just never bothered to deal with it. Instead he just told people to go read about it in The Times.
It's just a story I've made up to trump you. It's fun to do, but in debate, it's bad form. It's unfair, like cheating during a poker game is dishonorable. You might win a hand, but then everyone thinks less of you.
If you really want to persuade others of your ideas, you need some evidence, some kind of documentation. Unless, that is, you think the person you're debating is stupid; then maybe you think you can get away with it. However, I don't think you or anyone else on the "other side" is stupid. This is why some of us over here get upset with arguments against a modern hoax--because the people making them appear to assume their audience is retarded and that any old story will do, as long as it's against a modern hoax.
Best,
Dave |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1434
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 2:38 pm: |
|
Dave
The depositions were kept in a strong box on the bottom of the Thames. Langham had the only key and when he wanted to make a copy he had to put on a very cumbersome diving suit (which he learned about after reading Jules Verne). But the suit was such a tiresome thing to put on and take off that it's likely he just never bothered to deal with it. Instead he just told people to go read about it in The Times.
Are you sure you made that up?
It would certainly explain what Macnaghten was going on about when he said the truth lay at the bottom of the Thames. He meant there was a signed confession by Druitt in that strongbox! Could it still be there, I wonder ...?
Chris Phillips
|
Eddie Derrico
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 7:33 pm: |
|
Caz, John, Sir Robert
I'm sorry I didn't explain clearly enough what I was getting at with the Bryant/May Match Company and the Tin Matchbox Clue. Here goes.
In the Diary, Maybrick writes how the word "MAY" in Punch Magazine Amuses him so and he can't stop laughing. Then he says "should I write them a clue". It tells me Maybrick has it set in his mind to use "MAY" as a clue in his next murder. Then , after the murder, he writes about Abberline holding back all that he can and "didn't I leave him a very good clue". That's why I think he put the box there with Bryant/May.
Yours Truely,
Eddie |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 4:29 am: |
|
Hi ho
Question: People, why on Earth is anyone still debating the bloody diary?!
Answer: For the same reasons we are still debating who was JTR.
Its there, its annoying and some of us want to know who did it.
Still having a modicum of fun
Mr P |
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2005 - 4:28 pm: |
|
When the info is not what some with a vested interest want to hear, all sorts of ugliness suddenly appears.
The first complete and utter rubbish I've read on these forums.
I've done no tests whatsoever on the diary.
I dont have a PHD either
BUT I have read it
Just goes to show, even folks with PHD's can be fooled by reading what they want to believe.
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1436
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 3:50 pm: |
|
The first complete and utter rubbish I've read on these forums.
Spot the newcomer!
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1728
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 4:25 pm: |
|
Chris,
At least he mentioned tests. I wonder how they're coming?
From one who experienced the "ugliness,"
--John
PS: Well said, David. A fine and useful post. |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 114
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 10:01 am: |
|
Afternoon Dave.
Looks like I might have to stop asking questions, even rhetorical ones, as all they seem to do is to provoke lots of very grumpy responses! Yours excluded of course!
Anyhow Dave. Thanks a million for your excellent reply. Can I make one thing patently clear. I’m not really trying to persuade anyone of anything. You can’t do that here as nobody ever changes their mind regardless of what is said. I’m trying to get to grips with the notion that this line in the diary makes it clear that this is a modern hoax, and I’m afraid it still doesn’t. The Police made a list, gave it to the coroner and that’s that? The Police kept no record of Kate’s belongings them selves? From their own list?
I’ve changed my mind both ways about a lot of things concerning the diary when faced with good evidence, but this just ain’t one of them I’m afraid.
As for your bad form. Keep it up. It’s good fun and good natured too!
Regards to all as ever.
Paul
|
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1035
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 11:23 am: |
|
Hi Paul,
Thanks for that. People do change their minds; over the past several years I've changed my own several times when someone presents some kind of alternative that makes sense to me or points out something in the documentation I've missed. That's one of the ways I learn. But I'm afraid your argument is better aimed at the old hoax theorists, some of who are more prepared to accept that the diary is genuine rather than accept that someone has duped them. Sure, maybe the police had their own copy, but nobody has determined that to be true or presented any reason to suppose police records were any more accessible than the coroner's. Yet even without any kind of documentation or any knowledge of procedure, somehow it has become an acceptable alternative.
Paul, my friend, that's desire at work. Desire is the strongest force in the world. Stronger than Melvin Harris or John Omlor put together, stronger than Jervis and certainly stronger than me. Maybe people need to believe they haven't been tricked, I don't know. I suspect our hoaxer[s] gets a big kick out of our discussions here. You see, they don't care about distorting history. They don't care about how their hoax has damaged our little international community. They think it's funny, I'm sure, particularly since the game was really up a long time ago. Certainly they don't care for the people here advocating old hoax theories or for the increasingly Twister-ish shapes you all have to contort yourselves into so you can explain away plain logic and common sense; hoaxers are very happy to invite you over the cliff with them. The Edgar Frog Rule from The Lost Boys is in effect:
"I think I should warn you all, when a vampire bites it, it's never a pretty sight. No two bloodsuckers go the same way. Some yell and scream, some go quietly, some explode, some implode, but all will try to take you with them."
Dracula is sexy. It's entertaining to believe in Dracula. Garlic, not so much. But don't let them take you, Paul! We are always here to help.
Cheers,
Dave
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2937
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Please!!
Okay, okay, maybe james Maybrick was really an undercover police officer, no no dont laugh ive solved the whole thing!
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my momma taught me better than that."
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 315
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 10:09 pm: |
|
So... I guess hoping that you guys worked it out while I was AWOL isn't going to work out...
(Pretending for a moment that everyone has agreed to play nice.)
How is everyone doing? Good I hope. Has anyone shifted their position one itoa?
All the best,
John
P.S. Howdy to anyone new.
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 4:54 am: |
|
Howdy (dont want to offend wnyone with Hi Ho)
Back to my question which I still cant see as has been answered. But I did like DOF's interesting piece on document control as pertains to the coroner.
However, does anyone know anything about document control/procedures with the Victorian police?
Such as did they record things in official notebooks?
Were such documents passed to superiors (Im thinking about when the JTR letters were coming in after 1890 they seemed to have been passed to different officers for various opinions)
Were the contents of these transcribed into a report or just torn out of th ebook and included in a file?
Did the police man keep a copy or was the only copy included in "the file" (Im thinking of the usual scene of a copper reading from his notebook at the trial/inquest)
What were policies on dissemination of information between police stations (they were "wiring" things like suspect descriptions between stations).
Were civilians involved in secretarial/administrative tasks in police stations?
And finally, how was a facsimile or whatever made in Victorian times)?
I dont think anyone is retarded. BUt I think its reasonable to establish in my own head what the probabilities of more than one copy of that list existing are.
And my pet "theory" of it having being hoaxed by a policeman/someone associated with the police some time in the past isnt really disturbed by the tin box empty thing .
Im not going to start tilting with JVO about this - its no worse to hold that "theory" in the face of evidence against it than it is to hold any "theory" about anything to do with JTR as there is always evidence against anything associated with the case.
Mr P |
Eddie Derrico
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 8:12 am: |
|
Good Morning
I watched a few crime shows where the police had evidence stored away for 15 to 20 years. After getting leads on these cold cases, the evidence was gone over again and the crime was solved. It's too bad the articles from the Ripper crime scenes are not available anymore. I think alot of questions could be answered.
Yours Truly
Eddie |
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 9:25 am: |
|
I've read a grand total of two books on the subject of 'naming' Jack the Ripper.One was Stephen Knights fairytale & the other was the Diary,both books we're given to me so I'm happy to say I've contributed £0 to the coffers of out & out fantasists & liars.
A newcomer to these boards I may well be, an idiot however,I certainly am not, and I was able to read the Ripper diary and spot the plain and simple fact that the forger lifted everything in it straight from reports of the time.
Even to the point of ha ha I mean come on, did you REALLY fall for that? That is the only thing you need to see in the whole book to realise its a fake.
Some people have written books that contain plausible explanations about aliens building the pyramids and some folks believe that because they WANT to - not because it is true.
You can argue about this matchbox until the cows come home but you cant explain away the simple fact that the diary even READS like a fake to anyone that has read all the documentation from 1888 - not to mention the small fact that the forger has actually admitted it. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1731
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Steve,
No question about the fact that the book reads like a fake -- right down to its artificially neat dramatic structure and its pretending to begin in media res while nonetheless at the same time conveniently providing the reader with all they need for setting, plot and character on the very first page. The book is a set piece full of bad scribbling, cliched melodrama, bits from the letters and pieces of well-known historical info, details repeated from modern sources, simple mistakes about the crimes themselves, three items copied from a document the killer never saw but one which was reproduced and easily available in modern times, a line from the whole history of poetry that also just happens to appear excerpted in a modern source only the liar who gave us the diary could tell everyone else about, the precise proper name of a place that wasn't named that until modern times, no provenance whatsoever before modern times, and in the completely wrong handwriting that at least one expert has described as a poor modern imitation of Victorian, and all the rest.
David is right, of course, about the twisting and turning and acrobatic reaching necessary to avoid coming to the obvious and common sense conclusion in the face of the complete cumulative evidence. Every single textual problem is easily explained and accounted for if the book is a modern fake. Every single textual problem, without exception, needs the desperate prayer of "something we just don't know yet" for any other explanation to be possible.
But, as you say, that won't stop the believers -- even if they have to come up with "old coppers done it" fantasies to try and dance around only one of many problems.
Just thought, as a new reader, you might be interested in some of the stuff that's involved here.
Glad you didn't pay for such junk,
--John
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1734
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 12:59 pm: |
|
Hi John H.!
Great to see you back.
Same old same old, only slightly less so.
Still no comprehensive test results on either thing, though.
I know you're shocked.
Have a fine weekend,
--John |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 157
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 4:18 pm: |
|
Steve Swift
You seem to take a great deal of pride in announcing that you spent nothing on the two books that you did read, which leads me to the question why? Why are you even contributing to these boards if you are not a believer? There are many fine books out there that whether or not you agree with the author's choice of suspect, there is a great deal of research over many years that have gone into the the body of these books.
I did originally consider the diary a possible truth, however since Michael Barrett admitted to forgery I immediately put it on the back burner.
You are obviously not a very dedicated Jack the Ripper follower or believer which makes me wonder as to how you can ridecule any author, or researcher.Stephen Knight may have been incorrect in your eyes, however his book was a big seller and the Royal conspiracy is still being debated.
You have failed to recognize that this board is visited by many people who have been following the Jack the Ripper case for many, many years. There are very talented writers, authors, researchers and historians who grace this board.
I don't consider any of them idiots, in fact I respect their talents and contributions that bring us closer to the identity of Jack the Ripper.
We posters disagree often, we have our own suspects, for our own reasons,however we never forget to thank those who contribute so much in our quest for Jack.
Maybe you need to read some good Jack Books, put out some bucks, put your money where your mouth is, then and only then would be in a position to refer to any Jack fans as idiots.
If not, maybe you might want to find a subject that is more your forte.
regards
Julie
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
