| Author |
Message |
    
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1911
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 9:57 am: | 
|
Hi Eddie,
I think it's very interesting how James's penmanship has so clearly carried over into carving flesh and writing with blood. It's pretty amazing really.
Still, I'd like to see larger and more detailed scans when possible.
It certainly is provocative evidence, Eddie. When all the other real evidence points the other way, it's good to know someone can find at least one thing that they think actually points towards the book not being a cheap modern hoax.
And I'm glad you're up for arguing with the naysayers. They deserve a good fight (usually all they get is paranoid hinting and hiding and the flighty dance of keeping hope alive simply by refusing to state one's beliefs clearly, honestly, and openly). You are a refreshing change.
Keep it going,
--John |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 109
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 11:45 am: |
|
Thanks, John
Locked and loaded here.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 110
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 12:08 pm: |
|
John
And I understand what you are saying here. There are people here who would like to know who the Ripper was. You....Sir Robert....Richard etc etc. I'm going to try the best I can to show you what we have. I think this is the best way because if you can see the evidence from your own books, it's proof that these photos weren't altered in any way.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 111
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 2:26 pm: |
|
John
Yes, it is interesting when you can compare the handwriting. As if he was writing normally with a pen.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 256
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 3:40 pm: |
|
Wow,
I think it's really cool how a room full of investigators on the scene who were able to see everything vividly and in color, were unable to detect this tremendous amount of writing that James did, while a couple of junior detectives with aged copies of black and white photos could pull the info out so easily. And we were worried about the youth of America?
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti č sempre incinta"
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3223
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 4:02 pm: |
|
Cant see it myself either...
but..
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 258
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 4:29 pm: |
|
Jenni,
was that the 6 word rule?
Mike
"La madre degli idioti č sempre incinta"
|
Phil Hill
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1031
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 4:30 pm: |
|
It's all completely delusional.
Phil |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 260
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 4:38 pm: |
|
Phil,
It isn't a good thing to upset the delusional.
I think it is sad, really.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti č sempre incinta"
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 9:44 am: |
|
Howdy Eddie
Ive got to hand it to you. You truly have steel ones.
MR P. |
I'm Sold
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 2:34 pm: |
|
Damn! He's right, I've checked again with a magnifier and I located a full confession to the murders signed by James Maybrick with his address underneath. In another part of the photo is a short biography of his family. |
Joanne Simons
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 1:06 pm: |
|
Lets forget all this hoo ha about the book it is a forgery Barrett even said it was forged and set out how he went about it. Why does know one on here seem to accept hard facts. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 9:50 am: |
|
Howdy Eddie
Ive got to hand it to you. You truly have steel ones.
MR P. |
Phil Hill
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1033
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 8:32 am: |
|
Did you know that maybrick himself was in Kelly's room throughout the police investigation, writing extra material on the walls, and they didn't notice. Mind you, it was a big room, and Joe Barnett was having a party with Prince Albert Victor at the other end of the room - while Sir William Gull ran a coach and horses over Abberline's theories. But you can see it all, if you look VERY carefully at the photographs.
In fact once you get into this you can claim to see anything you want!!
Phil |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 112
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Mr. P
Thanks !! This is gonna be a lot of fun !
Yours Truly
Eddie |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 113
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 1:00 pm: |
|
Here we go. This is my deluuuuusion .
The one scan is how it looks when you are looking at the wall. The other scan is how it looks when you turn it to thr right. It says M27JULY.
Yours Truly
Eddie
  |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 114
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 1:54 pm: |
|
Here's something a little interesting. It doesn't tell you who Jack the Ripper is, but he wrote JTR at the top of Mary's leg. It's right above the delusional piggy mark.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1582
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 3:02 pm: |
|
Eddie,
I await the verdict of other people on this site to give their opinions ,
The scans and there contents are simply in the eye of the beholder, i personally even with my most focused glasses on can see absolutely nothing
The only thing that fascinates me and always has done is the marking across her right calf, it is not a cut but a form of garter and your scan if nothing else convinces me more.
Sorry mate, however if more accurate eyesight then myself concludes your observations then who am i to argue.
Regards Richard. |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 115
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 3:45 pm: |
|
Richard
Thanks for the post. I'm happy that the photo did help you in some way. I agree with you. I think it's some kind of garter too. We are working on other scans. But I still think it's going to take another book about the Diary to really help people with their opinions. Have a good day .
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 218
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 4:21 am: |
|
Eddie,
You have cracked the case.If you rotate the leg slightly anti-clockwise,you can see the letters G H.I have wiped the smudged bloodstains off to give a clearer picture. |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 116
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 1:55 pm: |
|
Here's a bombshell that went right through my helmet. My daughter was showing this stuff to a friend who grew up in London. His parents are also very interested in the history of JTR. But they told her something I didn't realize. They knew all about this stuff way before we found it.
I apologize for screwing up any kind of Code of Silence here. I respected the British people all my life. I raced and hillclimbed Triumphs for many years, and still have a nice collection. They are the best, as well as the Spitfire Fighter that beat the Germans during the Battle of Britain.
I'm sure many of you know what I'm talking about now. So, my daughter is going back to her art work. She is making me a canvas painting of 13 Miller's Court. (Gothic Style?) Who knows. But, anyway, I'm staying on the threads here in a much humbler manner.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1587
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 2:37 pm: |
|
Hi Eddie,
Now I am totally confused, you are saying that your daughters friend who grew up in the Uk, knew all about ' This Stuff' from her parents who i imagine still reside in the Uk, or did at one time.
What Stuff Eddie?.
I am surely assuming that you are not in poccession of a actual spitfire as well?.
I gather from your profile on the boards that you are fascinated by Triumphs[ good on you] and also the Spitfire plane which won us the Battle of Britain[ not denied]
Now you intend to enter the world of painting via your daughter, mayby a gothic style type Millers court, and lead a more humble approach.
So I expect a painting of the cure[ english group] playing a gig outside Room 13.
Sorry for being so blunt my friend but your posts are not explicit, and make as much sense as a certain Mr Radka does to my head after a few beers.
Regards Richard. |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3228
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 2:44 pm: |
|
shall we er, change the subject?
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 648
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 5:38 pm: |
|
"I apologize for screwing up any kind of Code of Silence here."
You've lost me on this one, Eddie. There is a secret handshake, as well as an unspeakable initiation ritual, but no Code of Silence.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 117
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 10:17 pm: |
|
Anyone interested in Triumph Motorcycles ? I got some beauties in my garage. Hillclimbers, flattrackers, scramblers. I LOVE English Motorcycles !!!
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 119
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 10:28 pm: |
|
Richard,
Sorry. I'm not sure what she means either. She paints a lot of things with Vampires and Werewolves. I'll have to wait and see when she's done with it.
Yours Truly,
Eddie
p.s. I'm too uneducated to understand anything Mr. Radka posts. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2349
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 6:04 am: |
|
Hi Joanne,
Barrett even said it was forged and set out how he went about it. Why does know one on here seem to accept hard facts.
Which hard facts would those be?
None of the forgery tales Mike told have ever been verified, and most have been demolished by, er, hard facts.
The only physical evidence - Mike's Sphere book - ever to be put forward to support his claim to inside knowledge wasn't, er, put forward; it was held back and jealously guarded for ten years - for reasons that were predictable. If this was supposed to be a hard fact, it has turned out to be soft as air.
Yes - others claimed they could 'reveal all', but didn't, long before the latest phase of the investigation began. And apparently that was perfectly acceptable, despite the hard fact that there was nothing worth revealing, or nothing they dared reveal.
Hi Richard,
So I expect a painting of the cure[ english group] playing a gig outside Room 13.
You mean The Cure, with front man Robert Smith?
That's rather apposite. 
Hi All,
See the Ink thread shortly for my response to RJ on, er, the ink (assuming Stephen hasn't closed it).
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on November 22, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1912
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 7:07 am: |
|
Caroline, writing about herself again, offers us this:
"others claimed they could 'reveal all', but didn't [...]And apparently that was perfectly acceptable, despite the hard fact that there was nothing worth revealing, or nothing they dared reveal."
Putting aside the question of why she still hasn't "revealed all" about the fabled new twist of '03 even though she claimed she could, one must wonder also why she refers to herself as an "other."
Surely that's a bad sign.
Holding my breath in anticipation of more talk elsewhere concerning something she has already admitted having "no way of knowing" anything about,
--John
PS: Jenni, at least the rest of us are trying to stay here. |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 120
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 8:15 am: |
|
Richard
The Cure. I remember them.
No, that's not what she has in mind. What she wants to paint is something taken from one of Sickert's paintings. The painting where he has a man with his wife sitting at a table, and in the background, there is a picture on the wall. When you look close at the picture, there is a man(it looks like he has a skull face) with a top hat coming up from behind a woman.
She wants to paint the "Infamous Window Photo" of 13 Miler's Court. She said she will have some lighting in the room because it will be at night. Peeking out from the broken part of the window by the shade will be a man with a skull face and top hat. Sounds pretty cool to me. When she's done, I'll take a picture of it and post it for you.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1914
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 10:32 am: |
|
Hey all,
On another thread, Caroline Morris has just written:
"I am always suggesting that a test comparing the diary ink directly to ‘the known formula for Diamine’ is the obvious answer."
Just thought that deserved to be repeated.
Happy as a clam,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2351
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 12:24 pm: |
|
Hi All,
He's cracking up.
One minute he makes out I'm against further testing and that I would make any excuse under the sun for not supporting new tests, and the next he is using direct quotes that prove the exact opposite is true.
I will say it again just to hammer home the point: I think the obvious answer was, is, and hopefully will be, to compare the diary ink directly to pre-1992 Diamine.
Had Melvin asked AFI, back in 1994, to check the diary ink dots for the presence and percentage of just two or three of the ingredients as per Voller's pre-1992 formula for the dry ink residue, and had they all matched, I think Shirley would have had her work cut out with Leeds and frankly been up a gum tree. Of course, had they not matched, Melvin would have been up the same gum tree - which might explain why he didn't ask AFI to do that.
Robert Smith had no way of knowing that Dr Platt wouldn't find any fatal signs of modernity, yet he agreed with Jenni beforehand that the results would be made public.
So Robert has actually been more willing than Melvin was to risk discovering if Mike really could have known what the diary was written with.
Putting aside the question of why she still hasn't "revealed all" about the fabled new twist of '03 even though she claimed she could, one must wonder also why she refers to herself as an "other."
I'm cracking up now - with laughter.
Apart from the fact that I didn't refer to myself as an "other", I never claimed I could reveal a sausage about what sparked the more recent investigation in London and Liverpool, or any of our findings. In fact I distinctly said I was not at liberty to do so. No details will be revealed or discussed here prematurely.
And since I don't know enough yet to hold, let alone express, a definite opinion about the diary's true age (that's why I think the comparison test is still a good way forward), I can't see why it worries him so much that he follows me round practically begging to be thrown the tiniest morsel.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on November 22, 2005) |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3230
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 12:38 pm: |
|
Im delighted
one thread is more than enough
Jenni
ps im not even gonna read the others lol!
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 125
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 1:01 pm: |
|
There are a few old inks on e Bay, but I'm not sure how old. Maybe they could try some of that stuff and compareit. There is also 3 Saturday Evening Post Magazine's from 1904 with articles written by Florence Maybrick.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Puzzled
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 12:11 pm: |
|
Is this Eddie for real? It's just muck on the wall - could have been there for years |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 11:31 am: |
|
Hi ho
On another thread, Caroline Morris has just written:
"I am always suggesting that a test comparing the diary ink directly to ‘the known formula for Diamine’ is the obvious answer."
Just thought that deserved to be repeated.
Happy as a clam,
--John
Now to be fair Caroline (and not being nasty).....but you walked into that one with your eyes wide open.
Mr P |
belkindafromhenmans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 7:16 pm: |
|
I think the lettering is interesting, but there's no suggestion that it denotes Maybrick. For all we know Mary used to write reminders about her shopping on the wall? There do seem to be scrawls but for walls in an east End room frankly that's of no great significance. People see what they want to see. |
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 7:07 pm: |
|
Hi Eddie,
'tis indeed a wonderous sight.
I will do the Diana thing and ask where is your control?
Surely to help win over sceptics like Phil we need a control to be able to show the scientific accuracy of your results.
What I would suggest is using a few of those rubbery Marigold (tm) kitchen gloves filled with tomato sauce placed strategically on a bed near a wall. You attack them with a big knife and photograph the results and ask your son to interpret the writing on the wall that results.
For the best effect you should try and arrange the furniture in the same way as in Mary's room and do it by candle light; for even better and more scientific relevance, dress as JtR would - I'd suggest a large cape and a shiny top hat, oh and a medical bag placed by the bed.
Feel free to post the results here.
Cheerio,
ian
Keeping one eye open and shaking his head in disbelief. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1915
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 1:09 pm: |
|
More dancing to the lovely music of denial from Miss Caroline. And it makes me even happier. But first this...
She's calling for further testing on the diary.
That always makes me happy.
So I have not a cross word to say about that.
Of course, then there's that other problem.
She still can't explain why it is not blindingly hypocritical of her to come here and claim in public that there was a dramatic new twist in the diary investigation in late '03, so serious as to make her change the way she wrote about authenticity, and then tell us all that unfortunately this claim she has just offered us is based on stuff she is not at liberty to reveal.
Where's the hypocrisy, you might ask?
That's easy.
It was only a week ago when she wrote:
"it would be quite wrong of me to express views, put forward arguments or make claims, directly related to information I am not yet at liberty to reveal."
But of course, that's exactly what she's done. And she remains unable or unwilling to explain what she was talking about or offer any evidence to support her claim or even give us any real reason to believe it. Instead, she runs and hides behind the claim of "I'm not yet at liberty to reveal," despite saying specifically that it would be wrong of her to make such a claim here based on such information.
The twisting and turning is almost incomprehensible.
But a closer look reveals it to be simple, self-interested and perverse hypocrisy of the most obvious sort.
She won't ever admit that. But the words remain and that's all we need.
--John |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 126
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 1:47 pm: |
|
Hi hemustadoneit
I'm finished with that stuff. Next, I am going to bid for a Metropolitan Police Whistle to try and train my untrained Hound.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2353
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 1:56 pm: |
|
I don't recall using the word 'new' (I suppose I may have), but I certainly didn't use the word 'dramatic'.
I've even clarified that I'm still left not knowing the true age of the diary. So I know even less than John!
I was repeatedly asked, some time ago now, what my current 'position' was, and what opinions I currently held. When I had no answers to give, ancient posts of mine were dredged up and I was told that these would be used to 'assume' a current position for me, in the absence of any more recent views expressed.
That was ridiculous enough. But it was known while this was happening that investigations were ongoing in which I was involved. So it didn't take a genius to work out that this might have some kind of relevance regarding my silence.
But still that wasn't nearly good enough. So prod prod prod prod - squeak.
I was damned whatever I did or didn't do; said or didn't say - in one person's eyes.
So oh dear, what a shame, never mind.
And Jenni, the Ink thread continues. And so will others, unless Stephen closes them.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on November 22, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1916
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 2:14 pm: |
|
Take that, Jenni. So there. 
Caroline tries using the next available and inevitable option of those without a material defense -- playing the victim card.
But it won't work this time, because she wrote the rules herself even as she was violating them.
All I'm doing now is repeating them back to her.
She told us all:
"it would be quite wrong of me to express views, put forward arguments or make claims, directly related to information I am not yet at liberty to reveal."
And at the same time she also made the claim here that a "new twist" had taken place in the diary investigation back in 2003 that was serious enough to make her change her own attitudes about authenticity.
Of course, people wanted to know just what that important "new twist" was.
And she said, amazingly, that it was based on information she was not yet at liberty to reveal!
And just like that, she had violated her very own rules of appropriate behavior.
She had come here and hypocritically made a claim which she knew she was not at liberty to support, despite allegedly believing that doing such a thing would be "quite wrong."
Now she is trying to wriggle out of her own net without admitting her own obvious hypocrisy.
But the record is still here. And her claim is still here. And her description of what would be "quite wrong" is still here. And none of it is going away.
So unless she's prepared to tell us all, in the name of a full and honest and open explanation, just what this alleged "new twist" was she claims took place in '03, she remains the sort of person who comes here, makes a claim about the diary based on information she can't talk about, and then runs away from it when pressed.
And there's plenty in the old archives about what she thinks of people who do that.
I remember what she wrote about Melvin and what he'd written here about stuff he said he knew but was not at liberty to reveal. She didn't like that at all. She can't be liking herself very much right now.
Revelling in the irony of history,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on November 22, 2005) |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3232
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 2:25 pm: |
|
well i tried
Jenni
ps five word rule
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1917
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 2:42 pm: |
|
Hey Jenni,
Most of us, I think, are still with you about this idea. It really makes things much easier and is much more fun.
I, for one, am happy to try and keep it going.
All the best,
--John |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3234
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 4:16 pm: |
|
It was only a suggestion, i'm not bothered, caroline can post wherever she wants. I wasnt intending to be a dictatorship here.
I was only saying!
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 128
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 4:55 pm: |
|
Hi Puzzled
I'm real...But I'm Puzzled too. I still think Sickert wrote a few of those letters.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2359
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 12:10 pm: |
|
And at the same time she also made the claim here that a "new twist" had taken place in the diary investigation back in 2003 that was serious enough to make her change her own attitudes about authenticity.
A bit of embellishment there by John, which means his argument is not based on what was actually posted by me, but on his embellished interpretation of my 'attitudes'. Why would he do that, if he could nail me by my own words and purely by my own words?
John paraphrased something I said to him in a private email in 2003, in yet another attempt to imply that everything I said or thought back then still applies today, and that I am just being plain awkward for not admitting it.
I posted the whole email and explained that not long after I wrote it I became involved in another phase of the investigation (which has now become, thanks to John, a dramatic and important new twist), which meant I would have access to any possible findings in the future.
I made a personal decision then, before knowing what, if anything, was going to come to light, that I would try to forget past opinions held or expressed and go with the flow. I knew I would not be at liberty to discuss our progress, but I did think my reluctance to be drawn into the rather surreal and obsessive "What does Caz really believe?" debate would be understood, if not appreciated, in the light of Keith's suggestion that I post the basic information that an investigation was ongoing in London and Liverpool.
I think my decision was probably understood, or should be now, by everybody here but one. I can't make it much clearer, and I suspect there is nothing I could have done differently that would not have been condemned in equal measure by that one person.
But I didn't do it to win anyone's approval - or to get their backs up. It ain't nobody's business but my own if - or why - I choose to suspend judgement and forget opinions I've played with in the past, while I'm in a privileged position with the potential to learn more.
Of course, people wanted to know just what that important "new twist" was.
I think only one person has been desperate for more crumbs, and the only answers I need give are contained in this post, along with the reason why that is the case.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on November 24, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1919
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 2:11 pm: |
|
First of all, if Caroline would bother to go back to the record, she'd see that even Lars chimed in with a post saying he'd like to know what this alleged "new twist" was.
And "new twist" is in fact Caroline's precise phrase.
There's more nifty dancing in the post above, but no information, of course, and no recognition of the simple contradiction between, on the hand, saying it would be "quite wrong" to make any claims based on information she's not at liberty to reveal and, on the other hand, claiming here that the diary investigation took a new twist in 2003 and then saying that this claim was based on information she is not at liberty to reveal.
Even the most basic, the simplest, the most elementary reading here screams self-contradiction.
See, here's the thing. Either Caroline is "not at liberty to reveal" stuff about the now legendary secret squirrel investigation (in which case she should never have made the claim that it saw a "new twist" occur in 2003) or she is allowed to talk about what's going on (in which case she should give us a complete and honest explanation of just what the hell she was talking about when she told us all about this new twist that was so significant that it made her rethink her earlier written statements about authenticity).
But she can't have it both ways. If she "is not at liberty" to talk about the investigation, then she shouldn't be talking about it at all, not even as a way of showing everyone that she knows secret stuff (the psychology is just sad). If she has permission to talk about it, then she should be open and honest and tell us just what she meant specifically.
Otherwise, this is just a cheap game of hint and hide. It's cowardly, it's ridiculous, it's paranoid, and it casts an early shadow over whatever actual "investigation" might really be taking place.
Why simply telling the full and honest truth and explaining to everyone just what happened in 2003 is a problem remains a mystery. But people who aren't willing to honestly explain their public remarks in full shouldn't be surprised when others begin to suspect that there's a lot more air than substance behind all these whispers, hints and rumors.
Caroline impersonating Melvin deserves the same treatment she gave Melvin.
In fact, this very attitude has been what's wrong with the whole diary affair from the beginning. And it hasn't changed a bit in over ten years. And it's poisoned the case fatally. This secrecy and hinting and paranoia and all this back room, legalistic Nixonian melodrama, all over a cheap fake book, is what has made the diary case a laughing stock and what has turned Diary World into the dark and dank basement of Ripper Studies.
And dancing around one's own language rather than just admitting the self-contradiction here is yet another symptom of a decade old disease.
And on it goes,
--John |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 312
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 5:42 pm: |
|
Give it a rest John,
I'd personally be far more suspicious of someone who was investigating something that didnt change their minds from time to time, than someone who never did. (not that I'm saying caz has, just that what does it matter if she has)
The fact is you dont know that the diary is a fake..its just a rashional and sussed conclusion given what is currently known.
I hope your not saying that you will never change your mind know matter what is put on the table...that would be a little close to finaticism.
What matters is what you think today and what possibility you give tomorrow....the past in anybodies book is just another story.
Fill the world with possibility
Big Hugs all..Jeff x |
Ken Proctor
Detective Sergeant
Username: Gizmo
Post Number: 121
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 6:07 pm: |
|
Hey Eddie, I have got to hand it to you. You do indeed must have BALLS OF STEEL and a thick skin to cover them. It is too bad, unregistered posters, hiding behind the veil of anonymity don't have any balls at all to put a face on their sarcasm. How do they manage to get past the moderators on this site anyway ? With regards to the M27 JULY, I can see where you are coming from. Does that make me delusional also? If so, I dont give a rats a-se anyway. Hang in there Eddie, may you march to the music you hear,however measured or far away.  "Gizmo"
" Don't be reckless with other people's hearts. Don't put up with people who are reckless wih yours." Baz Luhrman
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1920
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 6:36 pm: |
|
Jeff,
No one is objecting to anyone changing their mind. That would be absurd.
This is about hinting and hiding and whispering about secrets and "new twists" without supporting one's claims.
Sorry, you've misunderstood the point.
--John |
