|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 208
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 7:00 am: |       |
Paul writes:
"A 'merry tune' is the last thing your latter day hoaxer would pick, based on what is generally known today."
"[Michael] was the policy-maker on family affairs, probably because of his immense financial and public success, under the name of Stephen Adams, as the composer and author of many popular songs."
Gee, that quote tells us he wrote "many popular songs." Not just two "stodgy, semi-religious offerings."
And strange thing, that quote also makes it sound like Michael wrote both the words and the lyrics ("composer and author"), even though we know he didn't. It might even mislead someone who read it into thinking the wrong thing.
I wonder where that odd little quote is from, with its information about Michael being such a success at "authoring" many pop songs?
I'll bet Caz knows.
All the best,
--John
Works Cited: The Poisoned Life of Mrs. Maybrick, Bernard Ryan, with Sir Michael Havers, Oxfordshire: Purnell Book Services Limited, 1977
PS: I also wonder, has anyone ever before suggested the forger might have read Ryan? Oh wait, I think there might be something in the dissertations section of this very Casebook about that.... And on the archive CD...
'Round and round we go... |
Paul Butler
Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 38
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 7:28 am: | |
Hi John
Many popular songs eh? And just what was a popular song in the 1880s in England? Stodgy sentimental ballads. Millions of them.
Regards
Paul
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 209
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 8:22 am: | |
Paul,
Have you "frequented your club" lately?
You should search the archive CD and dissertations for the name "Ryan."
All the best,
--John
PS: Ever seen the program from a period music hall? |
Paul Butler
Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 40
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 10:42 am: | |
Yeah John, quite a few.
You ever gone through a pile of Victorian sheet music? Theres a two foot thick heap here if your'e ever over this way. 
regards
Paul
P.S. Ever seen a programme for an Opera House or Concert Hall? Adams didn't write for the halls, and Maybrick certainly didn't sing in them. |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 210
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 12:09 pm: | |
Paul,
You've missed the point. Of course, there were lots of sad popular songs (and plenty of goofy, upbeat ones as well) in the 1880's. But that's not relevant. The point is that it's perfectly possible for the forger to have read the lines in Ryan, think Michael was successful at writing lyrics as well as music ("composed and authored") and in 1970 or 80-something seen the phrase "popular songs" and think "a merry tune." Especially given what the phrase meant when Ryan came out and when the forger would have been reading it.
How interesting that the diary at least implies the very same ahistorical assumption that the Ryan book does.
That's why I asked you about "frequenting your club" --to which you did not respond. If you don't recognize the significance of the phrase, I'm afraid you need to do some more reading around here.
All the best,
--John |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 220
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 8:00 pm: | |
Sorry, Paul.
This is my mistake. Foolishly, I thought that the fact that both the diary and the Ryan book offer the same misleading characterization of Michael as someone who was a success at writing words as well as music could suggest to someone that the forger might have been using Ryan and been mislead.
But now I see that it is in fact just the opposite. It's all just proof that Maybrick knew something else none of the rest of us knew (because there was no way to know it), that Michael really did manage to be a successful author as well as composer even though there's no historical record of it anywhere. That's just another measure of the diary's cleverness. We must, as you say, add it to the list (which is now clearly overwhelming and which has this remarkable book setting history aright all across the board).
What could I have been thinking? This can only be even more evidence that the diary is filled with little, clever insights that no forger could possibly know because there's no record of them anywhere, and therefore they must be true.
Surely, we must make everyone understand this.
If the diary says something that seems without historical reference, that's a sign of its brilliance and perhaps even its likely authenticity, since it's telling us facts that no forger could know.
And if the diary tells us things that do correspond to the historical record, that too is evidence against a hoax, since it reveals to us that the writer was really there.
And if the diary proves to have phrases that also turn up with the same wording about exactly the same things as a modern book, well, then, I guess that's proof that the guy who wrote the book had an advance copy of the diary, maybe. I'm not too sure about this one.
I mean, imagine this... The diarist tells us that Michael wrote "a merry tune!"
What more proof do you people need, since that phrase could only mean one thing -- the exact sort of songs Michael wrote when he was starting out? All the other songs during that period were just the opposite of this, after all! And no modern forger could have possibly used that phrase if he knew that Michael wrote completely different sorts of songs later. No. Clearly, it would be impossible.
Our logic here is impeccable.
And of course, it's possible that the real James might not have fully appreciated why exactly his own brother was so famous, what with his being a crazed, drug eating murderer and all (James, that is, not Michael, unless it was really Michael who wrote the book and deliberately focused on his unknown verse writing rather than his famous composing to throw us all off the track -- hey, you think... nah....).
No, it's perfectly logical. The diary has a James who obsesses over his brother's success as a versifier. His brother, though, is a famous composer. Only one book I know of suggests he might have been a "author" too and that book isn't out until the second half of the 20th century. So the only logical conclusion is that the diary is right, that history has failed to record this other success of Michael's and that the modern book just happened to stumble on the unknown truth just before the diary becomes public.
Why didn't I see that obvious explanation earlier?
I must be blind.
That makes much more sense than the idea that someone else (who wasn't the real James) wrote the book and came across misleading information and used it in an ahistorical way in a forgery. That could never have happened. It's far too complicated and unlikely a scenario, after all.
That puts my mind to rest. I know now that the diary has it right and, as usual, we can correct our history.
This is one hell of a book.
--John (learning new things and still frequenting his club)
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 907
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 7:22 am: | |
Hi John,
I take it you understand the reasonably clear distinction between being a success at something - like, for instance, being famous for writing merry tunes - and succeeding in doing something - like tying your own shoelaces?
Michael, according to the diarist, succeeded in rhyming verse, and wrote a merry tune.
So please point out for your readers how this can reasonably be interpreted as a claim, or a mistaken assumption, that Michael was a success at authoring songs.
Mary S. Hartman, in Victorian Murderesses, published in 1977, about the same time as Ryan was writing Poisoned Life, but not using him as one of her Maybrick sources, made this curiously ungrammatical observation:
Maybrick belonged to several clubs, which he often frequented after his day’s work at the Exchange…
So which is it? Did Hartman, Ryan and the diarist independently plump for the verb ‘to frequent’, with two out of the three (Hartman and the diarist) making a pig’s ear of it? The diarist shouldn’t have used the word ‘frequented’ when referring to a one-off outing by Sir Jim to one of his clubs, but then neither should Hartman, as Associate Professor of History at Douglass College of Rutgers University in the US, have used the word ‘often’, since this is already implied by ‘frequented’.
Or did both Hartman and Ryan find the word being used in a common earlier source, and decide to stick with it?
Or would you still expect your readers to believe that the only possible way the diarist could have got hold of such a word and then misused it was by pinching it straight out of Ryan’s book?
Love,
Caz (retaining a certain level of decorum)
(Message edited by Caz on March 23, 2004) |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 226
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 7:51 am: | |
Absolutely, Caz.
I don't know why I didn't see this clear distinction in the first place, but you're right to point it our for all our readers.
"Being a success at something" quite obviously means something completely different that "succeeding at doing something." And since the diary says that Michael "succeeded" that clearly implies that Michael..... Uh, was a success at something. No, wait, that's not right. It implies that Michael... the second one! Yeah, The second one, not the first. The diary never gives the implication that James is jealous of his brother's "success" at writing verse and therefore is competing against him. Never. It only implies that Michael "succeeds" in writing verse, which makes James jealous. And that's completely different.
And the first one might be historically wrong, but the second one is probably right because even though we have no record anywhere of Michael succeeding at writing verse (or should that be "being a success" at writing verse? I've forgotten), surely he was, since the diary says so.
No wait, that's not what I mean.
Anyway, the fact that James fixates on Michael's success... No, wait, I've done it wrong again.
The fact that James fixates on Michael's succeeding... There. That's it. Right? ...doesn't suggest that the forger got what it was that Michael was a success at wrong, it simply indicates that Michael succeeded at something we know nothing about it (once again showing us the diary knowing things only the real James could know). Of course.
How could I have missed this one? Thanks.
And you're absolutely right about the phrase "frequented my club," too, since there's no other reason at all to think any forger could have read Ryan's book since there's nothing else in James's book that resembles anything in Ryan's. And besides, those words also appear in OTHER books! And it's not like the Ryan also suggests that Michael was a success at verse. Oh, wait. Ignore that last sentence. Because at least the Ryan doesn't suggest that Michael succeeded at writing verse. That would have been damning. (Whew. Close call, huh?)
Or would that have been historical proof that the diary was right all along about Michael succeeding at verse? I've gotten a bit confused.
In any case, you ask just the right question:
Or did both Hartman and Ryan find the word being used in a common earlier source, and decide to stick with it?
My guess is that this is the most likely possibility. They both found the words being used in one specific earlier source -- the confessions of James Maybrick. What other conclusion can one reach, after all?
Once again, you've convinced me with your logic Caz. There's no way a modern forger could have just read this stuff in a book and put it in a fake diary. That's much too complicated an explanation. What we've arrived at above is much simpler. Much clearer. Much more likely to be true.
We're on the march towards truth now.
--John (secure in the flock)
(Message edited by omlor on March 23, 2004)
(Message edited by omlor on March 23, 2004) |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 674
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 11:26 am: | |
Hi, Caz and John:
The point about "frequenting" is that someone might say James Maybrick frequented his club, frequented a whorehouse, etc., or frequented 13 Miller's Court, . . . though the latter I doubt! However, he himself would not say "I frequented a whorehouse." So that's the rabbithole that the forger stepped in. Not definitive as a fatal error, true, but another duff note rung by the Diary that leads us to conclude the doc is not the true bill, me lad.
All the best
Chris |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 227
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 12:00 pm: | |
How do you know, Chris?
He might have said it. Really. He might have. It's possible.
I say "frequented" frequently. In fact I say frequented so frequently my friends think I'm a freque.
Besides, he was a drug-crazed serial killer, so he probably didn't talk like the rest of us. And just because there's a laundry list of things in Ryan that also turn up in the diary, including this frequently discussed "frequented" and the suggestion that Michael was a success at verse, or succeeded at verse, or something like that, despite there being no historical evidence to support this latter claim anywhere except in two books -- the diary and Ryan -- doesn't mean that there's any possibility that there was a forger who saw this book. In fact, it suggests just the opposite, that Maybrick knew stuff no one else knew and that's why it can't be verified and that he talked differently and said things like "Frequented my club," thereby proving that he was a deranged drug addict and serial killer (or at least something of an oddball). This is yet another psychological detail that reveals how the construction of Maybrick's character is far too complex and multi-layered to have been created by a forger a hundred years after the fact. Because we all know that only a real deranged drug eating serial killer would say something like that.
Now that I'm on Caz's frequency I frequently find myself using the word "frequented" to refer to myself in any case.
Hey, it's possible.
You never know.
--John
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 676
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 12:58 pm: | |
Hi, John
James Maybrick used to frequent Florie's bedroom, but then when Florie turned to whoring he started frequenting Whitechapel whores, but now begorrah he's frequenting here. Is there any way we get him out of here?
Chris |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 107
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 2:55 pm: | |
He Frequents here, he Frequents there, now that dastardly Maybrick is Frequenting everywhere!!! |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1011
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 7:43 am: | |
This will be the thread where we should be discussing the fact that there is no evidence anywhere in the world that Michael Maybrick wrote verse
Cheers
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1013
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 8:09 am: | |
Here is where we write,
That's ok John,
There is no evidnec anywhere in the world Michael Maybrick wrote poetry.
Even if Florence had remembered correctly, that is still not evidence!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1033
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 10:37 am: | |
HERE, HERE, HERE,
TB,
here,
is where we write about the fact that there is no evidence anywhere in the world that Maybrick jnr wrote verse!
Cheers
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1237
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 12:58 pm: | |
Hi Jenni,
Unfortunately, any claim that someone like Michael Maybrick never wrote any poetry in his life would be somewhat hard for even the most hardened anti-diarist to pursue - much less to get away with.
And no one, not even the diarist, is claiming that Michael succeeded in getting any verses published, let alone that he succeeded in becoming famous for writing lyrics - I repeat, no one.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is imagining things because they want to imagine things, and they want you to imagine them too.
Do your own thinking - because you're worth it. 
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 790
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 1:09 pm: | |
Well,
At least we're not hearing about Florence Aunspaugh anymore.
We do know the source of Michael's success.
There is no evidence anywhere that it was from writing poetry.
The James character in the diary jealously obsesses not over what we know made his famous brother such a success but over something he might or might not have even been able to do.
Why?
Let's go ahead and imagine, shall we?
Could it be because it made the forgers job all that much easier, or because the forger also had the rhymes in the letters to work with, or because it would let them fill page after page with bad rhymes rather than historical details about the murders which could be checked against the record?
If so, it didn't work.
They still got the details wrong anyway.
Oh, well.
--John
PS: Remember, too, the misleading line in Ryan.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1240
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 5:31 am: | |
'The James character in the diary jealously obsesses not over what we know made his famous brother such a success but over something he might or might not have even been able to do.'
Quite.
And if John is trying to convince his readers that Michael Maybrick 'might not have been able to' outdo 'Sir Jim's' efforts at rhyming verse in the diary, God help him. 
Love,
Caz
X
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 167
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 6:42 am: | |
I don't think thats the point though Caz.
If you wanted to prove the Diary genuine , you would have to show that Michael Maybrick was successful at writing poetry. Now , as far as we know , Michael didn't write any verse at all. Now when the Diary includes a line such as ' Michael would be proud of my funny little rhyme for he knows only too well the art of verse. Have I not proven I can write better than he ? ' ( line 255 ) this is a serious question against its authenticity , and evidence is needed to support this claim. |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 794
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 8:38 am: | |
Hi Simon,
Relax. She has to say something to keep the discussion (and the hope) going. Apparently, at this point, here in this one, that's all she had.
Perhaps we should just start writing "KHA" instead of longer responses around here. It would save time and remind everyone just what is going on.
The book's a fake and forgers screwed up time and time again. But we can't let it die, so each and every day we find a way to...
KHA.
--John (a poet, too)
PS: In case anyone has forgotten, there is no evidence of any sort anywhere that even suggests that this book is anything other than a cheap fake. None. Not a single piece. That's why no one ever offers any. Including Caroline. Simon's post above, with its, "you would have to show," reminded me of that. The handwriting is clearly and definitively someone else's. The book is littered with mistakes and ahsitoricisms. It has no real provenance whatsoever. And there's not even the slightest evidence available in favor of it. Not one thing. Anywhere. That, we should sometimes remember, is what we have here. And no one will say otherwise. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1047
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 12:26 pm: | |
Hello,
If Michael Maybrick was such a verse writing show off why didn't he write the verse to his songs?
Jenni
ps there is no evidence any where in the world that even hints Michael could even slightly write verse, is there?
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 931
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 12:48 pm: | |
Hi, Jenn
Excellent point that if Michael Maybrick had been a versifier, we should expect him to have written lyrics to at least some of the songs he published, but that appears not to be the case.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1244
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 5:43 am: | |
Oh, well that's it then - all the proof we need.
I see now that Michael couldn't possibly have known 'only too well' the art of verse, for two very obvious reasons:
a) he was a famous composer, and therefore anything else he may have been able to do as well as, or better than his brother (like managing his accounts, speaking French or making love to a beautiful woman - or man - was bound to make its mark on the historical record.
Yeah, that's convincing, isn't it?
b) (and this is the clincher) because in the next breath the diarist claims his rhymes prove he writes better than Michael.
QED
Or should that be KFC (not Kentucky Fried Chicken, but keep fingers crossed) that the diarist was a modern faker inspired by Ryan?
Love,
Caz
X |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 168
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 8:02 am: | |
Caz writes "...he was a famous composer, and therefore anything else he may have been able to do as well as, or better than his brother...was bound to make its mark on the historical record."
Well , I'm not quite saying that , but unless there is some evidence that Michael ever wrote any poems or lyrics , the statements in the Diary that Michael was a writer are unsupportable. Something has to be on the historical record to prove this statement. And there is no evidence that Michael ever wrote or published a poem , or wrote any lyrics , or set lyrics to a song. No physical evidence , no memoirs , no anecdotal evidence - apart from Florence's muddled statement - about Michael being a writer , in fact no mention at all anywhere.
Without the hard evidence to back it up , the theory that Michael Maybrick was a successful writer who knew a great deal about verse is just a figment.
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 798
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 8:27 am: | |
Simon,
You have a lot of nerve asking for evidence from Caroline, or from anyone here in Diary World.
Especially when you know that all the evidence concerning this book points only and exclusively in a single direction -- and that there is no evidence that Mike was "successful" at writing verse and that there is no evidence that the diary is real and that there is no evidence that the book ever even existed before the 20th century.
And there'll be no evidence offered in Caroline's response to your post, either.
We know what the diary says. We know what history says. We know the difference.
And we know what ALL the evidence says. The book's a bad fake.
All of it. Without a single exception.
But that won't stop the Diary Machine. There's too much at stake by now.
So lack of supporting evidence be damned, it's full speed ahead.
Hope, like this discussion, will be kept alive.
Just watch,
--John (here where there is STILL nothing new, nothing real)
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1053
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 9:58 am: | |
Hello everyone,
I was just wondering, there isn't any evidence anywhere in the world that Michael Maybrick ever wanted to write verse, is there?
Jenni
ps John, if i had a pound for each time you wrote nothing new/real, i'd be a rich girl by now!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 801
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 10:27 am: | |
Jenni,
Yes, you would. Because that's how long it's been that I've been able to say that.
Twelve years, and no one has ever found a single piece of evidence of any kind to support the idea that the diary is real.
Nothing.
I wonder what that means?
--John (reminding everyone that it's not a matter of personal taste at all -- it's a matter of what is the simplest and most logical explanation for the evidence we do have -- for the wrong handwriting, the naming of the Poste House, the lack of provenance, the appearance of the police list line, the mistakes about the murders, the Sphere Guide and Mike's diary being the only two books in all of history to cite the same five word line, and all the rest.) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1250
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 4:31 am: | |
Hi Simon,
You talk about ‘the theory that Michael Maybrick was a successful writer who knew a great deal about verse…’ as if someone is pushing such a theory here.
For the last time (KFC), no one is trying to argue that Michael was a successful writer or even knew a great deal about verse. All the diarist does, as a very childlike Sir Jim, is to struggle in his diary to outdo his brother Michael at rhyming verse.
Since you are never going to succeed in proving that Michael didn’t at some point in his life write some poetry, that could have been considered superior to any written by his brother James (by their parents or teachers, for example, when the boys were growing up and any sibling rivalry would undoubtably have had its roots), the diarist has succeeded in staying well within safe bounds on this particular subject.
If your theory is that the diarist made a balls-up over Michael's abilities, don't you have to produce the evidence to prove it was a balls-up?
Love,
Caz
X
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 170
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 7:12 am: | |
Caz , its not me , its our Diarist himself/herself who is pushing the theory !
259 : ' Michael would be proud of my funny little rhyme for he knows only too well the art of verse. Have I not proven I can write better than he. '
283 : ' ... I will go on damn Michael for being so clever the art of verse is far from simple '
257 : ' It shall come , if Michael can succeed in rhyming verse then I can do better he shall not outdo me. Think you fool think. Curse Michael for being so clever , I shall outdo him. ' Here the Diarist is obviously talking about the ability to write and rhyme ; note also that Michael ' can succeed ' rather than ' succeeded ' indicating he is still doing it and that we are not talking about a past instance here.
The Diarist is saying here that Michael is writing verse currently á la 1888 , and I'll be happy to accept this to be true should anyone produce any of it.
My theory is that Michael Maybrick didn't write any verse or lyrics at all , and my evidence is the sheer lack of evidence that he did. Nothing has been turned up to show that Michael wrote poems or lyrics , he was a musical composer and that was it.
What I'm saying is the pro-Diary camp must produce some evidence to show Michael did write lyrics or verse , because the Diary itself makes this claim !
(Message edited by simonowen on September 21, 2004) |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 818
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 8:01 am: | |
Simon,
As you no doubt know by now, the claim from anyone pimping the possibility of authenticity or desperately trying to KHA, is always "you have to provide the evidence, we don't."
This, of course, is nonsense.
But the reason we hear it over and over again is because they have no evidence. None at all. Not a single thing to support even the possibility that this book is anything other than a cheap fake.
They HAVE to say "you show us the evidence" because they have none of their own.
We, on the other hand, have a list of things. Starting with the handwriting, including all the textual anachronisms and historical mistakes, and ending with the book's utter lack of any real provenance. With plenty of other stuff in between
All the evidence we have ever had about this book has said the same thing -- fake. Every answer to the question "What's the simplest and most logical explanation" for one fact after another, turns out to be "because the book's a fake."
All the material necessary for a solid, valid, logical, inductive conclusion points only to "fake."
On the other side there is nothing, so they are reduced always and only to saying, "you have to show us the evidence against this book and its claims," because they have none at all in favor of it.
There is no evidence that the real Mike "succeeded" at verse. There is however a perfectly plausible explanation why a forger would have him be a success at writing verse and have James obsess not over what we know and history tells us made his brother so successful and famous but rather over something else that there is no evidence he even ever did.
And the rationale for that decision can be found in the pages of the diary, and in the Ripper letters the forger had to work with, and in the idea of filling page after page with doggerel and revisions rather than reviewable historical detail (which they got wrong nonetheless).
In any case, you can't go around here asking for evidence from the KHA crowd.
They haven't got any, and so all they can do is ask once again for yours.
It's a well-established pattern and it should tell us all we need to know about the state of this case and about what this book really is.
All the best,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on September 21, 2004) |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 498
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 2:39 pm: | |
John
As you no doubt know by now, the claim from anyone pimping the possibility of authenticity or desperately trying to KHA, is always "you have to provide the evidence, we don't."
Funnily enough, I've noticed this tendency myself.
The most bizarre propositions are put forward, and when they are questioned, the response is, "Find out for yourself whether it's true."
It's certainly a very original attitude to historical research, but not a very productive or healthy one.
For example, documents quoted in the diary, formally closed to public access until the 1980s have been asserted to have been open to access in the 1930s. No evidence was put forward to support the assertion, and it was left to David O'Flaherty to take the trouble to check with the relevant repositories that this was not in fact the case.
Then there was the pub in Liverpool, asserted to have been a coaching inn (and therefore suggested as a candidate for the diary's "Poste House"). No evidence for the statement was produced despite several requests. Finally, after it was pointed out that the pub was not listed in directories from the 1850s, the poster blandly acknowledged that she would have to check whether it had really been a "post house".
Sadly, blunders like these don't seem to cause the diary apologists even to break their step, or temporarily interrupt their flow (which in itself would be a mercy).
It would be nice if there could occasionally be a post on the diary unaccompanied by a reflexive Maybrickite posting, attempting to put the most favourable case for the diary's authenticity. Sadly, it appears that no amount of rational argument can discourage these people.
Chris Phillips
|
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 3:26 am: | |
The Ripper community in the UK accepted the diary as a modern fake years ago. It's only those with a vested interest still pushing it. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1255
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 5:33 am: | |
Hi Chris,
You wrote:
It's certainly a very original attitude to historical research, but not a very productive or healthy one.
IMHO it’s got to be more productive and healthy than sitting back pontificating, making assumption after assumption and not bothering to do any research at all.
The history books would be in more of a two and eight than they are already if all historians took that attitude.
One more time, my arguments are not claims, like yours and others are. The claim here is that because there is no evidence that Michael ever wrote any poetry (and obviously no evidence that his brother James had a secret desire to write better poetry than his brother), the diary is surely a modern fake, forged by someone who got his facts about Michael’s fame wrong.
My argument is that there is similarly no evidence that Michael never wrote any poetry, good, bad or indifferent. And any reasonable person would admit that it’s a near certainty that he would have done at some point in his life. All his brother needed to do was to have seen one or more of Michael’s efforts at rhyming verse and be judging them, in 1888 and in his own opinion, to be, or to have been, successful, ie ‘to work’. I’m not claiming this ever happened; neither am I claiming that no evidence either way tells us anything about the diary’s true origins. What I am saying is that no evidence either way concerning Michael’s writing ability cannot, by itself, tell us a damned thing about the diary’s age.
Any such claim is therefore not based on the objective research, done by others, on the real lives of the two brothers, but on a subjective reading and interpretation of the diarist’s words, based, in turn, on the assumption that the diarist was working from Ryan in the late 1980s – the simpler, more logical explanation.
As I’ve said before, most of the time, history could probably be written like this – take the simpler, more logical explanation each time, and KFC, leaving the research to those who advise caution. Some of the time, history written on this basis is going to be wrong. So how will the simpler, more logical souls, who rely on assumption and gut instinct, recognise the signs of being wrong, on the inevitable occasions when they are wrong? In short, they won’t.
KFC
Love,
Caz
X
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 172
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 6:07 am: | |
Well Caz , it seems that your argument then is ( simply put ) ' Michael Maybrick might have written some verse and you can't prove he didn't '. Exactly , because you can't prove a negative like that - even if a person searched for years through any remaining papers of Michaels and found no poetry or mention of it , you could still trot out that argument.
Thats why the burden of proof is on those who believe the Diary is genuine to produce some poetry by Michael Maybrick - lyrics , verse , limericks anything. It must be shown Michael was a writer of verse QED. |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 832
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 7:10 am: | |
Caroline writes, concerning the tendency of the KHA crowd not to offer any real evidence of their own (because, of course, they have none):
"IMHO it’s got to be more productive and healthy than sitting back pontificating, making assumption after assumption and not bothering to do any research at all."
Oh yes, and it's worked out so well, hasn't it? What with it allowing them to simply ignore or fancifully excuse all the evidence that does exist, from the handwriting to the textual anomalies to the lack of provenance and all the rest, all of which point exclusively, in each and every case, to a single logical conclusion. This book was not written by the real James Maybrick.
Since they don't have even a single piece of evidence that says otherwise, they can't very well offer any here, can they? So it's not like they have a choice about this method.
You play with the cards you are dealt, and the KHA crowd has done a wonderful job of keeping the debate going despite having and offering no evidence of their own, not one single piece, simply by countering the evidence that does exist with staggeringly odds-defying coincidences and desire driven dreams and wishes and then hoping no one notices.
Which is why we're here.
All the best,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1083
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 7:18 am: | |
Sorry when did we suddenly starting using this shorthand KHA etc?
Anyway,
the fact remains if Michael Maybrick was such a verse writing show off why didn't he write the verses to his songs himself?
"Oh James, I write such excellent verse listen to my verse i am amazing, i write better verse than you"
"shut Michael I hate you - you verse writing show off"
"I have written an excellent verse here again!"
"If Michael can succeed in writing verse then why can't I?"
Jenni
ps that was fun!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 835
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 7:57 am: | |
Hi Jenni,
I just got tired of writing "Keeping Hope Alive," so I shortened it to make it easier on my fingers.
Then Caroline tried installing an alternative, for what she obviously sees as the other side. And since she is much more clever than I am, hers were also the initials of a fast food place.
You see, that's what we do here, since all the evidence points only in a single direction -- the book is a cheap fake -- and since there is no real evidence of any sort anywhere that suggests anything else. They can't offer any, so it's hard to maintain a serious discussion. Instead they keep hope alive with odds-defying coincidences and fanciful and purely imaginative excuses and the text continues to say what is says and to be directly contradicted by history, by the handwriting we have, by the location and name of a pub, by what documents we know the real James could and could not have seen, and all the rest.
It's sad and it's silly and it's pointless and it's immature, but it will never end. The discussion will never die and the book will never be simply and publicly acknowledged by some here as an obvious forgery. And there's plenty of reasons why, none of which have to do with any real evidence, and all of which have to do with personal desires.
Life in Diary World -- it's got its ups and downs,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on September 23, 2004) |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 499
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 11:09 am: | |
Caroline Anne Morris
IMHO it’s got to be more productive and healthy than sitting back pontificating, making assumption after assumption and not bothering to do any research at all.
...
One more time, my arguments are not claims, like yours and others are.
Did you actually read my message?
Do you actually remember the claims you made about the Old Post Office, or the research I then did which cast doubt on them, or the difficulty I had in getting any sort of response at all out of you when I asked what evidence you had for your claims?
Thanks for the insight into your peculiar world-view, if nothing else ...
Chris Phillips
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 179
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 11:51 am: | |
Jenni ,
KFC = Keeping Fingers Crossed ( that the Diary is a modern fake , thats the anti-Diary brigade eg John , myself , Chris Phillips , the late Melvyn Harris and you ! )
KHA = Keeping Hope Alive ( that the Diary is genuine , thats the pro-Diary brigade eg Robert , Feldy , Shirley , TB and probably Caz as well although she won't admit it ! )
Hope this clarifies things for you !
Simon
(Message edited by simonowen on September 23, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1087
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 12:10 pm: | |
Thanks Simon,
what thread am i on here, hang on, verse, right yes verse.
Michael Maybrick probably didnt write verse.
There is no evidence of his verse writing ability. However, is there evidence of everything that is true, no. Furthermore, the diary is still a forgery.
How about PFCAA!
Tommorow when you ask I'll have forgoten what that means!!
Jenni
my fingers aren't crossed, tin match box empty and associated parargraphs, table (to be polite), handwriting, provenance, farthings, in no order!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 838
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 6:31 pm: | |
HI Jenni,
Yes, very good. And we can make it even simpler.
Fake -- all the evidence.
Genuine -- no evidence.
Done,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1093
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 3:55 am: | |
John,
maybe, maybe!!
Jenni
PFCAA!! (no idea!!)
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 841
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 8:17 am: | |
Hi Jenni,
Unless and until someone shows up with a single piece of real evidence that actually supports the dairy's claim to authenticity, there are no maybes about it.
But I know you knew that.
Have a fine Friday,
--John 
PS: In case you missed it over on the Crashaw thread, according to one of our colleagues I am now using you "as bait." Don't you just love that? |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1262
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 4:30 am: | |
Summing up then, the simple and logical argument here on this specific thread, for the diary being a cheap modern fake (and this time let's see if it's successful without having to drag in all the arguments from the other 'problem phrase' threads for moral support), to use Jenni's words, is that:
Michael Maybrick probably didnt write verse.
And people are seriously expecting me to accept this as proof, unless I produce evidence that he did write verse, that his brother knew it, and was jealous?
I apologise, because I simply had no idea that this is how scholarly debate worked.
I was under the impression that I could quite legitimately conclude from the arguments here that we are all still in an entirely proofless state on this matter.
And that is all I am concluding.
One more time (and if you didn't keep coming back to bang on about arguments and claims I have not made, I wouldn't keep having to come back to explain this), I am not trying to claim anything at all about the identity of the diary author: because I still don't know it.
You can put any interpretation you like on the diarist's words, and make all sorts of assumptions as a result. And if I prefer to exercise caution and not make any assumptions either way, you'll just have to live with it.
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1099
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 7:34 am: | |
Oh Man,
Caz,
Are we talking about verse here. Ok I admit it, don't think it was me who was arguing otherwise but there you go, I can't prove that Michael Maybrick did not write verse. How could i prove it? What I own a time machine now or something. NO I don't think so, i can conclude based on the evidence (do i need to go over it again for you?) that the probability (i know you are keen on this) is that Michael Maybrick did not write verse. In fact all the evidence points in the opposite direction (that's an opinion).
I did not say, nor have i ever, that the ownous was on you to prove he did. Though naturally i can't prove he didn't!
Personally, unless some of us dig into it we aren't going to know. This is a PFCA that is for sure!
Lets get things straight here,
the tone of your post which implicates me in this 'problem' of saying you need to find evidence.
I don't - so lets be clear on that.
I don't think you are going to be able to prove Michael Maybrick wrote verse if you wanted to but that is another matter. Incidentally you are not one to talk about what thread stuff should be posted on I seem to remember having to get you lot to stop talking about this subject on the Hammersmith thread
That's all;
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 843
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 7:53 am: | |
Once again,
No evidence of any sort to support the diary's claim.
And still nothing real and still nothing new.
--John
PS: Of course, there are valid reasons why a forger would have their James obsess not over what we know and history and all the evidence does tell us Michael was successful at but rather over something else. There is the misleading line in the modern source (and haven't we seen the diarist make the same sort of mistakes about the historical record as modern sources before), and there are the rhymes in the Ripper letters, and there is the opportunity to fill pages with doggerel and revisions and therefore not be forced to include as much reviewable historical detail (detail that the forger manages to get wrong nonetheless). That would fit in perfectly with the pattern of evidence, with the mistaken details of the murders and with the the appearance of the "tin matchbox line" and with all the other known evidence including the wrong handwriting and the lack of provenance. And yes, I am "dragging in" all this other evidence for a reason (and not just because Caroline said we shouldn't -- although that makes it fun).
But perhaps that sort of simple and obvious explanation for why the diarist would have Mike's success at verse writing be the thing that makes his crazy brother jealous when Mike's real success was at musical composing is just not palatable for some.
Fair enough. I'm sure it's just a matter of "taste," after all. I'm sure the question of what actual evidence does and does not exist and what that all tells us is irrelevant in some way.
You see, some call reviewing all the related evidence "moral support." I prefer to call it simple logic.
But that's just me, right?
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1266
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 5:02 am: | |
Hi Jenni,
All I'm saying is that this specific argument is in no way proof of John's opinion, presented as though it were a God-given fact of life, that the diary is a cheap modern fake.
I apologise for the 'tone' you perceived in my previous post. But I wasn't accusing you personally of putting the onus on me to prove Michael wrote some verse in his life. You are the only one here who appreciates that I am free to question or sum up the various arguments, opinions or claims, without having to provide evidence to disprove them.
I am also free to observe when proof is lacking. The fact that one can't prove a negative - in this case that Michael never wrote any verse - is not my fault, and not my problem. The onus remains firmly on the cheap modern fake theorist to prove their case that the diarist got it wrong when he gave Sir Jim a verse-writing brother.
So I was merely using your words to illustrate precisely how far the evidence can take this theorist in this specific argument:
Michael Maybrick probably didnt write verse.
And there we have it, and there it must be left, because there is no more to add, unless we count some highly subjective interpretations of what was probably going on in a cheap modern faker's head when he was composing the words - and transcribing them, without a single dab of tippex, into the diary.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1105
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 6:42 am: | |
Cool well I'm sorry for over-reacting. I think this whole thing is concentrated on entirely the wrong threads, there are threads which we could be asking a lot more serious questions, I'm sure you know the ones i mean!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 852
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 8:33 am: | |
Caroline Morris, let me repeat that, Caroline Morris warns us against "some highly subjective interpretations."
I'm sorry.
I can't stop.
This is just too funny.
One thread after another, the miracle of the library, the Poste House, the tin matchbox empty line, the mistakes about the murders, the handwriting being wrong, the lack of provenance....
In each and every case we've seen not only "highly subjective" but purely fanciful interpretations offered to counter the simple and logical and obvious meaning of what the words actually say in the text and what the writing actually looks like.
Even here, it was that same Caroline Morris who tried selling her own highly subjective interpretation of Florence Aunspaugh's highly subjective interpretation about a completely different matter and time as evidence to support her claim concerning the diarist's so-called, purely fictional "accomplishment."
And now she writes this?
Are you kidding me?
Diary World is littered with nothing but highly subjective interpretations on the part of the KHA crowd, because that's all they have to counter the evidence, all of which points directly and exclusively to the book being a cheap fake.
They have no real evidence of their own to support any other conclusion, that's why there is none offered on this thread or anywhere else in Diary World, ever. So all they can do is make up "highly subjective interpretations" and hope those are elaborate enough that someone will get confused and not remember that the simple and direct interpretations, the obvious and logical and consistent and rational ones concerning the tin matchbox line and the handwriting and the lack of provenance and the historical mistakes and all the rest, all indicate exactly the same thing, that the book is a fake.
And yet, without a trace of irony or self-awareness, Caroline Morris warns us all about "highly subjective interpretations."
My day has just been made.
And, I suspect, a new t-shirt has just been born.
Loving the DW life,
-- John |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 953
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 10:48 am: | |
Hi all
The diarist is trying to whip up a fictional world in which a historical real-life character interacts in various fictionalized scenarios, the main one being the cuckolded husband who commits murder down in London to gain revenge on his unfaithful wife. Subplots are Maybrick wrestling with his drug habit and his murderous urges, and his rivalries with the "whoremaster" who has cuckolded him, presumably Alfred Brierley, with his brother Michael Maybrick (thus the concocted rivalry about who can write the better rhymes), with Chief Inspector Abberline (the "little man"), and even with minor characters in the drama such as Lowry, Queen Victoria, and Mrs. Hammersmith. The diarist began with no information on most of these supposed rivalries but developed them, for better or worse, as they continued to pen the document.
Best regards
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1273
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 12:49 pm: | |
Hi John,
The major difference is that you sell your own highly subjective interpretation of the evidence as if it is absolute fact - the only possible explanation.
If I ever did this, I should expect to be criticised.
But I don't.
I don't claim that Michael wrote poetry; I simply put it to the readers that he may well have done so.
I don't claim that this would make it any more likely that James wrote the diary; I simply put it to the readers that nothing can be known about the diarist from what is written about Michael in the diary - not even that the diarist was wrong about the life of the real Michael Maybrick.
I certainly don't put forward any of my own interpretations and then claim to be right about them. In fact, I usually just ask everyone to consider if they are at least possible - and usually get back the response: 'possible but not probable', which is how things generally have to be left.
But I suppose when Chris George sets down his own highly subjective interpretations as though he knew the diarist personally and has the facts at his fingertips:
The diarist is trying to whip up a fictional world... The diarist began with no information on most of these supposed rivalries but developed them, for better or worse, as they continued to pen the document,
you will turn a blind eye to the practice because in this case you agree with the conclusion drawn by those interpretations.
Why bother putting any further subjective interpretations to the readers, if all the critical thinking required to prove the diary a cheap modern fake was done by others back in 1993, in about five minutes?
Love,
Caz
X
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page