|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 721
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 5:26 am: | 
|
Alan
It may be worth looking back to the thread where this was discussed in detail previously.
When I checked the Yellow Pages website last year, I found there was only one pub called the "Poste House" (the one in Liverpool) and one hotel called the "Post House", in Clitheroe.
I suppose there may be one or two more that aren't in the Yellow Pages, so I wouldn't want to push the point too far by saying that the Post(e) House is unique as a name for a pub.
Most, if not all, of your examples seem actually to be hotels in the modern Forte Posthouse chain.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1921
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 5:30 am: |
|
John,
thats right it says at least several tens of years which..
ah nevermind!
Chris,
please do not let us get started on the library thing.
It is possible.
now the line being in the book and the diary, that's strange. but the book was in liverpool library and the diary found in liverpool so that narrows it down to anyone who had access to the library ie everyone!
though of course it is possible that...
...blah blah!
anyway
Cheers
Jenni |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 722
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 5:42 am: |
|
Robert
"Mrs Hammersmith" is a problem. This name doesn't appear in any books that I know of. Wouldn't it be easier to take a look at the 1881 or possibly 1891(depending on when a modern hoax was done) census, and choosing a genuine name?
Again, I think this shows the faker was not very bright, but I don't see that it's any more of a problem with a modern fake than with an old one.
A faker in, say, the 1930s could have used a trade directory to find a real surname, just as easily as a modern faker could look at a census index (in fact I'd have to check whether the 1881 census index was available by the late 1980s).
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 723
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 5:51 am: |
|
Jenni
now the line being in the book and the diary, that's strange. but the book was in liverpool library and the diary found in liverpool so that narrows it down to anyone who had access to the library ie everyone!
But it's a strong pointer to the fake being a modern one, concocted after the Sphere Book was published.
Chris Phillips
|
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 504
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 5:57 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
To be fair all the examples of Post Houses from the nineteenth century that I found, didn't have 'e' on the end of post. The added 'e' does maybe point towards a modern spelling to make a place sound old.
This is from 1968. I wasn't going to mention it because I am not sure how long this place was called 'Old Poste House'. it may have been over a hundred years old or it may have been named that in the sixties, I just don't know
Rob |
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 505
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 6:01 am: |
|
Hi Chris
If I remember correctly it's a 101 years, census records were mentioned elsewhere on the boards. So 1881 would be 1982 and 1891 would be 1992. That's if I remembered right.
Rob |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 726
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 6:41 am: |
|
Robert
Yes, I'm not denying there would be places around known as the "Post(e) House", just that it's an extremely rare name for a pub.
It's interesting that both the pub in Liverpool and the hotel in Clitheroe are named after post offices, not because they were inns where post horses were kept. In this usage, "Old Post Houses" are presumably as likely to be antique shops or any number of other things as pubs.
As for when the "Olde Tea Shoppe" usage became popular, I'm not sure.
Basically, I think this is an example of a choice between a straightforward obvious explanation consistent with a modern hoax on the one hand, and a remarkable coincidence that would have to have taken place for the diary to be an old hoax.
Chris Phillips
PS Yes, that's correct about the release date of the censuses. What I meant was that the indexes weren't compiled until some years later. (The 1901 census was the first one to be indexed before its release, and even then technical difficulties meant that it was unusable for months after the release date.)
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1928
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 7:45 am: |
|
BTW
yes Chris,
a very strong pointer
agreed
Jenni |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1189
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 8:09 am: |
|
Nice try, Alan.
But you need a Poste House in Liverpool. And there's only one, isn't there, with precisely that name exactly as it appears in the diary and there is no record of any other ever having been there.
Truly amazing historical coincidence or simple naming of a pub right there?
Gee, I wonder what the most logical explanation is?
Robert,
I have always said that the evidence that would be necessary to indict Mike, to accuse him in a responsible manner of this hoax, has not yet been presented. Of course, the line in the diary that also existed similarly excerpted from the whole history of literature in a modern book he owned is one piece of disturbing evidence. And of course, it also suggests (like every other piece of textual evidence we have without exception) a modern date of composition. But it's not enough to name Mike as the writer.
That being said, I again refer everyone to "The Maybrick Hoax: A Guide Through the Labyrinth" (Melvin Harris, 10/97) and "The Maybrick Hoax: A Fact-File for the Perplexed" (Melvin Harris, 4/97) as a place to see all the problems that a modern hoax scenario neatly explains using simple logic and common sense reading.
You can find those works right here on the Casebook, as part of a list on this page: http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/index.html
Ignore the personal rancor between everyone and the rhetorical inflammation there, and read the details and the evidence and you'll see that one theory explains all these problems, and the other (which has never even been written and doesn't exist in the record as a whole) remains just a small collection of vague possibilities to account for extraordinary coincidences all happening inexplicably in a simultaneous moment.
Happy reading,
--John
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 748
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 11:30 am: |
|
Hi Robert Clack,
I have no idea whether the City Police would have held onto a copy of the Eddowes inventory. Even if they did, it seems a stretch to me to think someone sought it out. Also, it seems to me that the police's only interest in Eddowes's possessions was to establish her identity (the pawntickets). The inventory just seems to be a routine procedure at the morturary and actually isn't part of any police testimony but instead is an independent document that Langham has included with the depositions. But that's an opinion, so take it for what it's worth.
Also to be fair to you, and also to cover all the bases I can, coroners would provide copies of inquests:
1) To the family, in this case Annie Phillips. It's a courtesy rather than a requirement. I've read of one coroner who wasn't following that practice, but he seems to be an exception.
2) In cases of manslaughter or murder, the coroner was obliged by the 1887 Coroner's Act to provide a copy of proceedings to an officer of the relevant court where a trial was to be held--the court would want to refer to testimony. I think this would apply when someone was in custody and when a trial was actually to be held. In the Ripper inquests, as you know, verdicts of murder were returned, but of course against person or persons unknown. I think without a trial, there would have been no reason for Samuel Langham to send over a copy to the court.
Cheers,
Dave |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1192
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 11:41 am: |
|
Once again, thanks Dave.
That seems like a clear and sensible account of the situation.
All the best,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1936
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 12:21 pm: |
|
Hi Dave,
v. interesting
Cheers
Jenni |
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 507
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 2:25 pm: |
|
Hi Dave,
I'm not suggesting anyone would seek out the document. I'm suggesting that there may have been more than one copy of the inventory. The City Police made the one which is in the coroners files. Logically they would have had there own copy, in case they needed to refer back to it, as it was an ongoing investigation.
All the best
Rob |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1194
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 2:46 pm: |
|
Once again, though, the question of evidence returns.
We do have clear evidence concerning when the document would have been available to the general public.
In fact, in at least one modern book I know of published not long before the diary appeared, it is set apart from the text and highlighted even.
We still have no evidence that anyone in the general public could have or would have been able to see the document before the 1970s.
And there is also no evidence to support the rather fanciful notion of a police or coroner written diary.
So the evidence leads to a single conclusion and no one has ever come up with a believable scenario that would account specifically for any other conclusion.
There's no scenario ever offered that explains how the real murderer would have seen the document. There's no believable scenario that explains how an unnamed old forger would have seen the document. And there's no evidence or reason to suspect the police or the coroner.
So we end up with speculation and imagination being opposed to clear and simple readily available sources.
Once again we're forced to ask, gee, what's the most logical and common sense explanation that fits in with all the other textual evidence without exception?
And once again the answer is the same.
It's odd how that keeps happening.
Sensing a pattern,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1944
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 5:06 am: |
|
John,
now you are just assuming the most logical and common sense explanation must be the correct one!!!!
Jenni |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1492
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 7:46 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Yes, and if every test and everyone's testimony - expert or otherwise - had supported or confirmed this 'most logical and common sense explanation', I wager that John would have had a lot more time to play golf over the last 4 years, and wouldn't still be forced back here to defend his beliefs day after day. 
Hi Chris P,
In this usage, "Old Post Houses" are presumably as likely to be antique shops or any number of other things as pubs.
I'm not so sure. It seems to me that the receiving/sending of post has traditionally and frequently been combined with the taking of refreshment, be it coffee or alcohol - I've never heard of the post being associated with browsing in an antique shop, for example. When did antique collecting, as a middle-class hobby, start to become popular enough for specialist shops to open? I thought it was later than the old coffee house and coaching inn eras, but I might be wrong about that.
It is indeed interesting, however, to find pubs or hotels being named after post offices. The Poste House pub in Cumberland St was at one time officially named The New Post Office after the new post office that was being built nearby in the early 1890s. Similarly, in School Lane, the pub named after the original post office that had occupied, until 1839 I believe, an adjacent site, was officially named The Old Post Office, and retains that name to this day.
And this is the one that three local people have now referred to, independently and unprompted, as the 'post house'.
Do we detect the germ of a pattern here, where pubs named after post offices, at any time - as well as every old coaching inn - are sometimes described as post houses, or even Poste Houses?
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1195
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 7:58 am: |
|
Of course, when ALL the common sense and logical explanations for the text point to the very same conclusion....
Well, then, even I am inclined to admit the obvious.
Meanwhile, the dancing continues because it's apparently too difficult for some to admit that when someone writes the Poste House, with the "e" and in the upper case as a proper name and means a pub in Liverpool, there's probably a pretty good chance that they mean the Poste House, with the "e" and in upper case as a proper name that's a pub in Liverpool.
Ya think?
Desperation is one thing. But at some point it would be nice to believe that simple, obvious identical words would be clear to even the most desire driven readers.
Especially when no one has ever found any other pub anywhere in the city that has ever been on record as being named the Poste House, written that way. Not even a mention of one.
Dream on, but stop sometimes and actually read the words,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 728
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 8:46 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
Do we detect the germ of a pattern here, where pubs named after post offices, at any time - as well as every old coaching inn - are sometimes described as post houses, or even Poste Houses?
The point is that post offices were known as post houses. So anything named after a post office - be it pub, restaurant, hotel or antique shop - could be called "The Old Post House".
As I've said before, "The Old Post Office" in School Lane could certainly not be a viable explanation for the "Poste House" unless it was in existence by 1888.
As you know, I checked a trade directory from (if I remember correctly) the late 1850s, and found that the pub wasn't listed there.
Last September you mentioned that you were going to go to Liverpool, and would be checking out the history of "The Old Post Office". In fact, it may not be necessary to go so far. I recently discovered that the Guildhall Library in London has a good collection of Liverpool directories. It's a really nice library to work in, not too crowded, helpful staff, historic surroundings, open on Saturdays. Why not pay it a visit?
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1948
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 12:19 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
no not poste Houses don't push your luck. Luckily whoever forged the diary cant spell poste so you (or in fact one more accuratly) can get away with that one.
Jenni
"We're so incredibly, utterly devious, Making the most of everything."
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1956
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 11:51 am: |
|
Hey John,
opps sorry seem to have started something with my joke!!
Buzz
Jenni
"We're so incredibly, utterly devious, Making the most of everything."
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1495
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 12:48 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
The point is that post offices were known as post houses. So anything named after a post office - be it pub, restaurant, hotel or antique shop - could be called "The Old Post House".
Ok, but what is your point? Pubs, restaurants and hotels (and coffee shops) all offer refreshment. Many hotels still offer postal facilities, and many coffee shops and inns used to do so. I can't say I've ever heard of an antique shop being named after a post office, or being referred to in conversation as the 'post house', but if you have, that's fine. I don't see how it affects the issue.
As I've said before, "The Old Post Office" in School Lane could certainly not be a viable explanation for the "Poste House" unless it was in existence by 1888.
Thanks for the helpful advice regarding London-based research possibilities. While I was in Liverpool Library in October last year, I looked through the Gore's Directories for 1887/8 and 1888/9 and found in both, at 27 School Lane, Emanuel Donnelly running the Post Office Tavern. I have the printouts in front of me now.
In Kelly's Directory for 1894, George Barratt was running the New Post Office pub at 23 Cumberland Street, while Thomas Hatton Watson was now in the Old Post Office hotel, 17 Old Post Office Place (on the corner of School Lane).
The pub today is called the Old Post Office, and is described on the pub's own menu as being at 2 Old Post Office Place. (It seems from all the directories I looked in that the numbering of the various premises here has changed a lot over the years. Buildings were being demolished while I was there too, so the numbering may have altered again by now.)
I met an amateur local historian called Tony, in the American Bar on Lime Street. He later sent me photocopied pages of a book on Liverpool pubs, which gives the following info:
The only pub left on School Lane is the Old Post Office, although a postal address is 17-19 Old Post Office Place. The premises were so named in approximately 1800, when a Post Office opened here then moved to Canning Place in 1839.
Tony immediately said 'School Lane' when I first asked him if he knew of any post houses in Liverpool. He then said there was another one "off Dale Street somewhere", but I had to prompt him about it being the Poste House in Cumberland Street.
In the Old Post Office pub itself, on the corner of School Lane and Old Post Office Place, I took refreshment and asked a couple of lads at the bar if they had any idea what the regulars might have called the pub in Victorian times. One had no idea, but the other piped up:
"The post house - Jack the Ripper!" and laughed.
I learned from another young lad, who had been a regular there for five years or so, that the pub's nickname these days is the 'HQ'.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1958
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 12:58 pm: |
|
BUT
and it's a small but,
were any of them known as the Post (e) House
Jenni
"We're so incredibly, utterly devious, Making the most of everything."
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 729
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 1:08 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
I can't say I've ever heard of an antique shop being named after a post office, or being referred to in conversation as the 'post house', but if you have, that's fine.
I'm sorry. I didn't realise you hadn't looked at the post I was replying to. Here it is:
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=121913#POST121913
While I was in Liverpool Library in October last year, I looked through the Gore's Directories for 1887/8 and 1888/9 and found in both, at 27 School Lane, Emanuel Donnelly running the Post Office Tavern.
Thank you for posting this information.
So at least we know that the "Post Office" in School Lane existed by 1888 and bore that name.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1197
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 4:45 pm: |
|
I've just read and re-read Caroline Morris's last post. After the third time, I stopped.
I'm pretty sure that nowhere in it did she mention or find a single pub anywhere in Liverpool at any time called by the proper name "Poste House."
None with the "e" and none even with "House" as part of its proper name.
The diary clearly says "Poste House" in upper case, as a proper name, and with the "e."
Damn, if only there was a pub somewhere in Liverpool that actually had the proper name "Poste House" in the upper case and with the "e" just exactly like it says in the diary.
Just one would be fine.
Just a single instance. So that, you know, the words could mean what they actually say.
Hey.
Wait a minute.
What's this?
Oh my god!
Can it be?!
YES! It is!
There is one!
Right there. In Liverpool just like it says in the diary.
And it has the "e" just like it says in the diary.
And it's the proper name written in upper case just like it says in the diary.
And it's the only one anyone has ever found or seen any record of in Liverpool, written just like it is in the diary!
Hurrah! We've found it. The diary say "Poste House" in Liverpool and we've actually found the Poste House in Liverpool.
Is it possible that a text which mentions the Poste House in Liverpool actually means the Poste House in Liverpool.
Well, of course in the normal world, sure. In the normal world if a book mentioned the Poste House in Liverpool and there was a pub with that exact uniquely spelled proper name in the right place, we'd say, "You know what, the Poste House probably means the Poste House."
And people would laugh because what we were saying would seem so obvious that they might think we were joking.
So why doesn't that answer work?
Why doesn't common sense allow everyone to conclude that x means x?
Why don't people see a reference to the Poste House in Liverpool and say, "oh they mean the Poste House in Liverpool," as any normal reader would?
Because they don't want to, of course.
And that should tell you all you need to know about the desperate search for another possible explanation in the face of patently obvious and about this entire discussion and about the way things work here in what is obviously not in any way a normal world.
But it is fun to watch.
Feeling good,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1964
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 5:05 pm: |
|
Hi John,
are we going over the Poste house again. oh good.
I prefer it best when we go over the library stuff though!!
Jenni
"We're so incredibly, utterly devious, Making the most of everything."
|
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 508
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 5:30 am: |
|
Hi John
You know what they say, say it often enough and you might end up believing it yourself.
I don't know why you are so afraid of people doing research and trying to find answers for themselves, or are we supposed to take your word for it?
Personally not all directories and avenues of research have been done, and they should be, before we can be 100% certain. I know you are, perhaps I am just harder to please.
I'd still like to know why the Poste House in Liverpool was named that in the 1960s. Since a lot of pubs are named after historical events and local history, it would be interesting to know why that name was chosen.
Hi Chris,
Your perfectly right in that Post House, was a rare name for a pub. Post Houses seem to be more of an additional service offered by an establishment, but there are some examples of both below:
Burn and Robinson victs. and post-house (Northumberland 1855)
Weston Wm, saddler & post house, (Leicestershire 1899)
Crown Inn, commercial and post house (Rotherham 1833)
Post House (Hotels, Inn & Taverns, Westmorland 1851)
Post House (Inns & Taverns, Kirkham 1828/29) This is the closest I have found to Liverpool.
I would like to know more about this one
Post Office Coffee House, 12 School Lane, Liverpool. 1828/29. Saying 'Post Office Coffee House' is a bit long winded so a regular might say 'Post House' or 'Coffee House'. I don't think it was there 60 years later which is why I may take up your suggestion to Caz and go to the Guildhall and have a browse at some of the directories there.
Rob |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1968
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 5:59 am: |
|
Hi Rob,
i don't think anyone round here is afraid of research.
I feel pretty certain that there are places in 1888 which could theoretically have been known as a post house.
Jenni
"We're so incredibly, utterly devious, Making the most of everything."
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 731
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 5:59 am: |
|
Robert
I'd still like to know why the Poste House in Liverpool was named that in the 1960s. Since a lot of pubs are named after historical events and local history, it would be interesting to know why that name was chosen.
As I mentioned previously, it was named after a nearby post office that was built soon after Maybrick's time.
Caroline Morris posted:
The Poste House pub in Cumberland St was at one time officially named The New Post Office after the new post office that was being built nearby in the early 1890s.
Chris Phillips
|
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 509
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 8:17 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Thanks for that. I must have missed it.
Hi Jenni,
I was specifically referring to John. Caz actually got off her backside went to Liverpool and done some research herself which she posted above, and all we got from John was a load of sarcasm about his silly argument that Poste House must mean Poste House. I noticed a tinge of sarcasm in his posts to me, but it's water of a ducks back, but Caz is a friend of mine and it got my back up, so that's why I posted what I did.
Anyway I don't want to get into any unnecessary bickering as it doesn't get us anywhere so I will leave it there.
All the best
Rob |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1496
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 8:20 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
were any of them known as the Post (e) House
What do you mean - any of them?
I only mentioned two pubs - the Old Post Office, which was simply the Post Office Tavern in Maybrick’s day (or at least between 1887 and 1889 according to Gore’s), and apparently added the ‘Old’ (Kelly’s 1894) around the same time as the Cumberland Street pub changed its name from ‘Wrexham House’ (in an 1885 directory) to the New Post Office (Kelly’s of 1894), in honour of the new post office being built close by. I believe the foundation stone for this post office was laid in 1894 and it finally opened for business in July 1899.
Hi Chris P,
Is it completely off the wall to suggest that the regulars in 1888 (just like the three local men in modern times we have heard about on these boards) may have referred in conversation to School Lane’s Post Office Tavern as the ‘post house’? This one was named after a nearby post office, and history repeated itself when the new post office was built and a nearby pub named itself the New Post Office, while the Post Office Tavern duly became the Old Post Office.
So could history not have repeated itself once more in the 1960s, and could the Cumberland Street pub not have pinched the Victorian regulars’ familiar name for the Post Office Tavern, when it was renamed the Poste House?
You even made the point yourself:
The point is that post offices were known as post houses. So anything named after a post office - be it pub, restaurant, hotel or antique shop - could be called "The Old Post House".
So I trust you won’t be backing away from it now.
I’m still not sure what your point is about antique shops. The ad Rob kindly posted (thanks for all your hard work Rob! I owe you more teabags already ) is for a property considered, in 1968, to be suitable for antiques, cafe or similar business, and called The Old Poste House at the time. I don’t know what the property had been used for up until 1968, nor do I know what the eventual vendor used it for, and whether or not the original name was retained. I don’t even know when it was first called The Old Poste [sic] House. It simply demonstrates that use of the name Post [or Poste] House is not quite as unique to Cumberland Street as John would have us believe.
Hi John,
Since you argue elsewhere that anything we can learn has to be a good and positive thing, do you not agree that it’s a good and positive thing for us to continue to research areas like this, if it enhances our knowledge of when, why and under what circumstances the term ‘post house’ (poste house/Post House/Poste House) has been used? Or do you think in this instance that research is a total waste of time?
I’m only asking this out of curiosity, because of your argument elsewhere about learning whatever we can. Doubts can unite us while convictions tend only to divide. Since you are already totally convinced that the diarist was referring, in the late 1980s, to a pub by its 1960s name, it will of course make not the slightest difference to you whether it could be demonstrated that the Post Office Tavern in 1888 (situated right where Maybrick grew up, and on a direct and convenient route between his office and Central Station, on the line to Aigburth) was called the post house (in conversation or in writing) or not.
For you, the actual debate surrounding this issue is dead. We already know (because you come here every day to tell us) your views on why Poste House appears in the diary. So I just wonder what else you feel you are contributing here, apart from negative vibes among enthusiastic researchers who are looking into possibilities and trying to discuss them rationally.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 732
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 8:47 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
I can't say it's impossible that a pub named after a post office might have been known as the "post house". (To be honest I think this suggestion does have more merit than the coaching inn suggestion.)
But it's still the case that there's absolutely no evidence that it was known by this name.
It's also a matter of fact that "The Post(e) House" is an extremely rare name for a pub, so that it would still be a remarkable coincidence if there was this wholly undocumented usage, in the very same city where the only pub we know of with this name was later located.
So I still think that the simple, straightforward explanation is far more likely to be the correct one than the other suggestion.
One more point. We know that the person who wrote the diary had poor spelling and grammar. That means the particular "Poste" spelling isn't as strong an objection to the old hoax theory as it might be.
But it is a stronger objection to the idea that the diary could be genuine, because even if another pub was known by an unofficial, undocumented nickname of the "post house", by its nature it's likely to have been used only verbally. So there would be no reason for Maybrick to spell it "Poste", in the absence of any evidence that Maybrick's spelling was appalling.
(But of course, we know Maybrick didn't write the diary, because it's not in his handwriting, and moreover no one is suggesting he did write it.)
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1198
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 8:52 am: |
|
Hi Robert,
You write to me:
"I don't know why you are so afraid of people doing research and trying to find answers for themselves, or are we supposed to take your word for it?"
I encourage people to do all the research they'd like. But that should never stop us from using some simple common sense.
Seriously, when I write that the Poste House in Liverpool probably means the Poste House in Liverpool, I would hardly call that asking you to "take my word for it." I would call it ridiculously obvious.
If you feel you need to "take my word for it" that x means x because the two names are simply identical, then we are indeed in a strange land where I no longer recognize the basic principles of reading.
Jenni,
Clearly, as Caroline has rather unclearly demonstrated, the answer to the question you asked her is, "no."
Caroline then discusses research and asks, "under what circumstances the term ‘post house’ (poste house/Post House/Poste House) has been used?"
I would call to everyone's attention that no one has ever found anywhere in Liverpool at any time any circumstances where the final name in her parenthetical trilogy was used.
Ever.
Except one.
When it was (and still is) used exactly as written.
That's the only case.
And it's right there and it is complete in its form and it is identical to the words on the page.
I know why some people do not want to admit that that a reference in a text to the Poste House in Liverpool is probably referring to the Poste House in Liverpool, but desire cannot trump simple reading.
This is an amusing diversionary trail, but at some point it becomes sort of desperate.
And in case anyone has forgotten, the "post house" is not the "Poste House." The "Poste House" is the "Poste House."
And I am quite happy returning here each day and arguing in favor of basic common sense, something even the most ardent and "enthusiastic" of researchers here seem occasionally inclined to suspend.
But thanks for asking, Caroline,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on February 20, 2005)
(Message edited by omlor on February 20, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1970
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 12:12 pm: |
|
AHEM!!
Hey up everyone!!
Hi Rob,
yes Caz's research is to be praised in no uncertain terms. as i may have said already, research= very good. her book is very good also. She's certainly not been hugging any armchairs.
sorry for any misunderstanding on that point.
Hi Caz,
yes two a plural.
What do I mean any of them i mean
any - one or more
them - refers to people or things other than the speaker or those addressed.
got it?
i am asking a simple question of your research requiring a simple answer, do you know if any of those post places were called or known as post house in 1888/9?
of course i'm betting if you had you'd have simply answered yes, rather than messing me around into explaining what i meant when it was clear, but hey.
not that it matters.
John,
of course the fact that it's not even in his handwriting is the clearest indication james Maybrick didn't write the diary.
Jenni
"We're so incredibly, utterly devious, Making the most of everything."
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1201
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 12:23 pm: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Yes. I agree.
And I have nothing against research either. But at some point this all becomes a bit like OJ searching for the real killers.
Still smiling,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1498
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 3:28 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
But would it 'still be a remarkable coincidence if there was this wholly undocumented usage, in the very same city where the only pub we know of with this name was later located'?
That's my point. If regulars could have referred to the Post Office Tavern in 1888 (later to be renamed the Old Post Office, when the Cumberland St pub was renamed the New Post Office), in conversation, as the "post house", couldn't this have inspired the Cumberland St pub's change of name, in the 1960s, to the 'Poste House'? If so, this is the very opposite of a coincidence - it would have been planned that way.
The nicknames used for British locals are not always documented. How many times has the 'HQ' been seen in print, for example, referring to the modern day Old Post Office pub in School Lane, before I mentioned it earlier today? How many times will it be seen in print again?
Hi John,
You seem very sure that the Post Office Tavern in Maybrick's day was not known, or could not have been known, as the 'Post (e) House', as Jenni put it. I wonder where you keep your time machine. How would you know what the pub's nickname was then, and how each individual would have spelled the name if they had occasion to do so? You didn't know, until I posted it, that these days it's known as the 'HQ' (or 'The H.Q.', or even the 'h.q.'). So how could you possibly know what it was, or wasn't called, back in 1888?
...this all becomes a bit like OJ searching for the real killers.
Yes, I admit it, I wrote the poxy diary and I'm just trying to throw you off the scent by travelling up to Liverpool to research something I already knew to be a red herring.
Like you said to Sir Robert recently: are you out of your mind?
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on February 20, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1499
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 3:40 pm: |
|
So John, I'm still not clear.
Do you think my research was a waste of time? Have you learnt nothing from it?
And if so, why are you still involving yourself in a discussion about establishments called post houses, when your views on why the Poste House appeared in the diary are set in stone and already well known to all who dare to enter this place?
Love,
Caz
X
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 734
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 4:17 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
That's my point. If regulars could have referred to the Post Office Tavern in 1888 (later to be renamed the Old Post Office, when the Cumberland St pub was renamed the New Post Office), in conversation, as the "post house", couldn't this have inspired the Cumberland St pub's change of name, in the 1960s, to the 'Poste House'? If so, this is the very opposite of a coincidence - it would have been planned that way.
I'm sorry, but it appears to be speculation piled on top of speculation.
If you can find any evidence for any of it, then fair enough. As it is, we still have only the one "Poste House", plus an elaborate superstructure of wishful thinking.
By the way, do you know of a single piece of evidence that the diary was written before 1988?
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1202
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 4:17 pm: |
|
Once again, despite all the almosts, the simple facts remain.
No one has ever found any record of or any indication that any pub in Liverpool was in fact known by the proper name the Poste House, spelled and written in that unique way.
Caroline can go on claiming "maybe" all she wants, but we don't need a maybe to know a startling fact for sure.
There IS a pub in Liverpool actually called the Poste House spelled in that unique way and written just like that as a proper name.
Watch:
We have a text that refers explicitly to the Poste House in Liverpool.
We have a pub in Liverpool called the Poste House.
Both names are spelled and written identically.
We have no record of any other such pub with this precise proper name written this way.
Why is it not obvious that when a text says the Poste House in Liverpool it means the Poste House in Liverpool?
OJ can talk all he wants about searching for the real killers, but we know the obvious solution is staring him in the face when he looks in the mirror.
The obvious solution is staring us in the face as well.
It says the Poste House. There is the Poste House. It's the only one anyone as ever found.
Desperation is sometimes a powerful force because it allows people to simply pretend the obvious doesn't exist and to go looking far and wide for answers they'd like better.
But the words on the page and the name of the pub are actually identical. Surely a simple act of reading tells us that the Poste House in Liverpool is probably the Poste House in Liverpool.
That people do not see this as the simple, obvious common sense conclusion reveals a great deal more about the people reading than it does about the text.
I "involve myself in a discussion" about this merely to speak up for a basic premise of simple reading, that the Poste House in Liverpool mentioned by the text is probably the Poste House in Liverpool that we know actually exists.
And so I repeat this simple argument:
In the normal world if a book mentioned the Poste House in Liverpool and there was a pub with that exact uniquely spelled proper name in the right place, we'd say, "You know what, the Poste House probably means the Poste House."
And people would laugh because what we were saying would seem so obvious that they might think we were joking.
So why doesn't that answer work?
Anyone want to answer that question?
--John |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1343
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Hi John,
A trifle off thread but can i ask a question, ie.
A man that has contributed over 1200 posts, that obviously has a keen intrest in the case of 'Who was Jack' sticks religiously to the Diary thread.
You know along with the rest of us that the authenticity of the Diary is poppycock.
So prey inform me , out of my curiosity why you do not swing to the more sensible threads[ that is debatable] you obviously reject the diarys authenticity so lets have your opinion on what could be more productive in this case.
No offence intended.
Regards Richard. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1203
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 4:56 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
No offence taken.
I'm interested in reading as an act or an event and I'm interested in the maintenance of this hoax and I'm interested in the apparently interminable deferment of any proper and thorough testing of either of these objects and I'm interested in questions of intellectual ethics.
We have two suspect artefacts both of which are owned by people who have claimed that they are authentic. Neither of them have been properly thoroughly tested in a very long time or in a situation where expert scientists are given unlimited access to the material to learn as much as possible about them.
The text of the book itself says some problematic things and is obviously not in the handwriting of its alleged author, but this is not nearly as fascinating as the way in which some people try so hard to read it against the basic, simple common sense rules of reading (for instance, the conviction that a reference to the Poste House in Liverpool for some reason must not be a reference to the Poste House in Liverpool). This is a fascinating phenomenon for someone who teaches literature and the philosophy of language for a living.
A solid, precise, comprehensive and clear case has been made on the Casebook website detailing the simple and clear way that the modern hoax scenario accounts neatly for all the textual problems raised by this text.
No one ever comes here and says the diary was really written by James Maybrick.
And no one has ever been able or willing to compose a similarly solid, precise, comprehensive and clear case detailing how all these specific problems would be accounted for within any specific old hoax scenario.
And yet in some circles hope is being desperately kept alive at all costs.
To me, that's fascinating behavior.
I think of it the same way I think of the people I saw on TV last night arguing that the moon landings were staged by NASA and claiming that a NASA photograph shows the letter C written on one of the rocks, indicating that it's papier-mâché.
The psychology of these threads is intriguing even if the hoax itself in this case is shoddy, melodramatic, and obvious.
So this is my interest. The rest of the Ripper case is for me a historical subject that I use in my classes. I have no real interest in treating it as a murder mystery or in identifying the killer(s).
I read the other threads whenever they have interesting historical information and I find nothing objectionable about them.
Diary World, however, is another matter entirely. It's like hanging out at a creationist site sometimes. And I enjoy watching the performances even as I add my own. It's fun.
I hope that's something like an answer to your question.
I'm off to make fondue.
Take care,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1978
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 3:04 am: |
|
Shall i take that as a no do you think?
"Pick up the pieces and make them into something new, Is what we do!"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1981
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 3:33 am: |
|
Is this what it comes down to at the end of the day
The Poste House if we're talking about logic and sense (I know we aren't) there is the Poste House called that in Liverpool at the time when the diary was written - thats John's point, Caz, what's yours?
Is there anywhere that could have been called the post house - i think your saying its possible. But is it the case? thats all i'm asking since you are the one among us who has researched the area.
not that i think post house is really the main issue here.
Jenni
ps John you used the word probably!!
"Pick up the pieces and make them into something new, Is what we do!"
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1345
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 3:50 am: |
|
Hi John,
Thanks for the reply, I fully understand the logic.
Regards Richard. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1505
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 7:22 am: |
|
Right you 'orrible lot.
Chris P started my post house ball rolling again by writing:
As I've said before, "The Old Post Office" in School Lane could certainly not be a viable explanation for the "Poste House" unless it was in existence by 1888.
He even advised me to pay a visit to the Guildhall Library, to do some London-based research to see if the Old Post Office in School Lane could be a viable explanation for the diarist's Poste House.
I then volunteered the information I gathered during my Liverpool-based research and let everyone make up their own minds whether the Post Office Tavern, as it was officially named in 1888, could, or could not, have been referred to by any of its patrons at the time as the post house.
I am not claiming that the diary was written before 1988. Everyone else is claiming that it was written later.
I am simply wondering how someone in Maybrick's day might have referred to the Post Office Tavern in their diary. Today, it would be more reasonable to suggest someone would put:
"Went to the HQ for a swift half",
rather than:
"Went to the Old Post Office for a swift half".
So what might the equivalent have been in 1888?
Because I did take the trouble to pay Liverpool a visit, and to report my findings here, John, who claims he is 'interested in questions of intellectual ethics', compares my behaviour with that of OJ Simpson, searching for the killers.
He also writes:
...(for instance, the conviction that a reference to the Poste House in Liverpool for some reason must not be a reference to the Poste House in Liverpool). This is a fascinating phenomenon for someone who teaches literature and the philosophy of language for a living.
No doubt it would be even more fascinating if only this were my conviction, instead of something John just made up for effect. He is the self-professed master, after all, in the art of changing one language into another. He sometimes forgets that others can read too, and can see this sleight of hand (or 'slight' of hand, when it's him accusing me).
Hi Jenni,
The Poste House if we're talking about logic and sense (I know we aren't) there is the Poste House called that in Liverpool at the time when the diary was written - thats John's point, Caz, what's yours?
I think I've already made it above, but I will just add the point that if you, or John, or I knew 'when the diary was written', more tests wouldn't be needed, now would they?
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1209
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 7:38 am: |
|
Jenni,
You once asked, "thats John's point, Caz, what's yours?"
Well, there was another attempt, and I still couldn't find it.
And so I'll ask my simple question a third time, hoping three is a lucky number.
In the normal world if a book mentioned the Poste House in Liverpool and there was a pub with that exact uniquely spelled proper name precisely in the right place, we'd say, "You know what, the Poste House probably means the Poste House."
And people would laugh because what we were saying would seem so obvious that they might think we were joking.
So why doesn't that answer work?
The Poste House in Liverpool, my dear friends, is a reference to the Poste House in Liverpool. And the fact that there is so much desperate work going on just to try and make it at least somehow possibly perhaps in some way be somehow something else should tell you all you need to know about this discussion and the state of things in Diary World.
And the record spins right 'round baby right 'round.
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1985
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 8:13 am: |
|
Number one I don't like being referred to as an orrible lot.
a swarm of mad wasps.
a sheep being herded off a cliff by a mad sheep dog.
an armchair hugger.
or anything based on any other farm yard animals eg ducks.
lets set this up clearly.
got it?
right then seriously,
I don't see how the poste house being there in 1888 benefits the old hoax theory.
naturally John ascribes to the modern hoax theory which is the context in which my point was made.
my point being that trying to prove the post house exists seems to be an indication that the possibility the diary is real is one which remains.
that's all.
Hi John,
maybe maybe not. i really fail to see the importance!
Jenni
"Pick up the pieces and make them into something new, Is what we do!"
|
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 120
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 2:42 pm: |
|
Hello All,
Have been watching the post's on this the diary thread and the watch thread. I think most know of my conclusions. The diary is not a forgery it is hoax. A forgery is a copy of a genuine artifact with the intent to deceive for personal and monetry gain.(Oxford Dictionary). And as there is no substantial proof that Maybrick ever wrote a diary then it is a hoax.
I ask this. Mike Barrett was prepared to swear on oath the provenance of the hoax. Irrespective whether you believe him or not is a moot point. Will Anne Graham go to a commissioner of oaths and swear on oath her version of the events which led up to the whole debate?
Regarding the watch. For years unscrupulous scams have been perpertrated on old artifacts especially jewellery. I asked a jeweller re making false marks in gold etc. His reply was: As long as the hallmark is sound I'll put in Donald Duck was JTR and with the correct amount of abrasives and careful buffing you wouldn't how long the marks had been there. And as for the particles embedded in the body of the watch this is caused by minute fragments splintering of the tool that opened the watch every time it is cleaned and serviced. Gold being the softer of the two metals, the fragments would iodonise and eat into the gold thro' a chemical reaction similiar to an acid reaction.
A watch of that age would have been serviced and cleaned several times over the years and by different jewellers.
A. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1515
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 9:33 am: |
|
Hi Andy,
Good to see you here.
Your jeweller friend actually reflects what the late Melvin Harris used to say about the possibility - or rather impossibility - of dating scratches made in gold with any degree of certainty.
I'm not sure what you mean about 'the particles embedded in the body of the watch' coming from the tool used to open it each time.
How does all this relate to what we know about Albert's watch, including the observations in the reports?
As far as I am aware, the only particles found were in the base of a couple of the ripper related scratches, and were thought to have come from whatever was used to make them.
I have a Victorian 18 carat gold watch (half the size of Albert's and very pretty) that belonged to my great-grandmother. It has a couple of repair marks and a few superficial scratches on the inside surfaces. But it has almost certainly not been serviced or cleaned professionally for many decades.
We have no idea how many hands Albert's watch had been through; where it had been and what conditions it was kept in; how much time it spent in good working order, telling its owner the time; or how long it may have been left idle somewhere, from the date of its manufacture (circa 1846) right up until the late 20th century.
I'm not sure you can argue that a typical watch of that age would have been handled several times over the years by different jewellers. Some will have been, others not. And of course Albert's watch may not have had a typical history at all.
At the moment I am struggling with the idea that a hoaxer succeeded in removing every last trace of repair marks Dundas later recalled having seen in 1992, then started from scratch (sorry!) using an already heavily corroded pin, nib or similar implement to make his new marks, bothered to give them an authentic 'decades old' appearance for their first professional examinations, before adding the two authentic looking repair marks, presumably in case Murphy or anyone else queried where the original marks had gone.
It seems an awful lot of trouble to go to for a prank that depended on the diary not being exposed as the hoax the papers were already screaming it was, at the time the second hoaxer would have been making his own cunning plans.
Love,
Caz
X
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 541
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 11:46 am: |
|
Stephen Ryder--Sorry to trouble you with something so trivial. For several years now, two transcripts of Mike Barrett's sworn affidavits have been on this site. Were you given a whole set of these affidavits? Do you happen to have access to the others? The reason I ask is because the opening line of Mike's affidavit of Thursday 26th January 1995 reads:
"Further to my statement of the 23rd January 1995, I have since contacted the Police and I am told that the Crime No is 6391.J.95.CR.001..."
And yet, the other affidavit is dated 5 January, 1995; which certainly suggests that Barrett made at least one other sworn statement on the 23rd of January. Thanks for any info., RP |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3218
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 11:54 am: |
|
Hi RJ -
These two items are the only ones in my possession, regarding Michael Barrett's affidavits. Caz, Keith or some of the other Diary researchers might have access to the others.
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 542
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 12:54 pm: |
|
Stephen--Thanks for the speedy reply. I'll make inquiries. Cheers. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1530
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 4:17 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
If it's any help, we refer to the Jan 23 affidavit, and quote from it, on pages 179 and 180 of Ripper Diary.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 91
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 6:16 pm: |
|
Hello everyone.
Can I ask two probably daft questions?
Sir Jim says simply that he took refreshment at the Poste House. Where does he he say or even imply that:
1) it was a pub
2) it was in Liverpool
There seem to be a few rather rash assumptions being made here!
Regards to all,
Paul |
Eddie Derrico
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 12, 2005 - 1:50 pm: |
|
I believe the Diary is real because after 13 years of searching James Maybrick's records, noone could come up with any kind of proof that this man, who traveled back and forth from Liverpool to America, and many places in the U.K. because of his business , was not in London at the times of the murders.
I don't think the Watch turning up around the same time as the Diary is a coincidence. Albert Johnson made the phone call about it after he read the article in the News connecting James Maybrick with the Ripper Diary. I also believe the markings on the Watch are very old.
The Diary has been tested and read by experts. I believe it is much easier to prove a hoax before proving it to be 100 years old. I think the most compelling thing to me, to prove this Diary is authentic, was when Anna Koren,(after moving her hands back and forth over the letters), said that the impressions from the pen are gone because "this is a very old document".
I kind of wish the Diary was a hoax, because I have been a Jack the Ripper nut for many years. But now that I believe James Maybrick to be the Ripper, I am going to re-read my Ripper books and see if I can figure out any clues that people might have missed. Sir Jim loved playing games, and I'm sure there is plenty more to investigate about this man.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
|
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