|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
ATTENTION: ALL PRO-DIARISTS
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: Diary of Jack the Ripper:
ATTENTION: ALL PRO-DIARISTS
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 12:29 pm |        | Divia,
AT LAST...see what I mean ??
I get dizzy on this roundabout !
Monty
 |
Author: John Hacker
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 12:30 pm | | Divia,
"Anyway, this is where I came in last year, isn't it? Same argument, same people... I think I'll step away from the Diary boards now. I've made up my mind: I think it's fake."
Yeah, we're more or less full circle now. I agree it's fake. I'd just love to know who MADE it. :-) I seem to have the hardest time passing a windmill without at least some minor tilting on the way by.
But we're not gonna get there without some more info. So it's probably time to just let the discussion die again until something new comes to light or an interesting new angle comes up.
Anyways there's too much new JtR info to spend a lot of time on the diary these days. Maybe Keith's book will shake something loose when it's published.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 01:53 pm | | Hi John,
'Are you saying that you think it was beyond their means?'
Yeah, way beyond.
'In what way?'
I'm sorry John, I'm not going to defend your suspects for you.
'...the only ones we can show with any certainty to have had access to the diary are Mike and Anne.'
So if a 12 year-old with drugs in their possession can't or won't come up with a straight story of how they got them, you would argue that they could have manufactured them?
'I'm not interested in convincing anyone. The more information that is available, the closer we'll get to the truth.'
With respect, it doesn't matter what you and I are interested in since neither of us possess the diary or the funds to get tests done merely to get 'closer' to the truth. (Glad to know you're not already there yet. Join the club. )
This test by Nick Warren is really important, if you are seeking to discredit Voller's opinion. It would help no end if Voller had been asked to see Nick's results and admitted he could have been mistaken about the diary ink not being Diamine. Let's hope more information is forthcoming.
Hi Divia,
I know what you mean. I think it's a fake too. But like John, I'd love to know who did it. Unlike John, I don't believe we'll ever know. And I don't like it when the desire to nail an inanimate and harmless object as a modern creation appears to overtake any desire to see the right people nailed for doing it.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 02:50 pm | | Caz,
"So if a 12 year-old with drugs in their possession can't or won't come up with a straight story of how they got them, you would argue that they could have manufactured them?"
Er. No. Not unless it was a particularly bright 12 year old with with access to the proper equipment and rather specialized information. However there is nothing in the diary that's beyond a reasonably competant adult in my opinion.
Having said that, Divia's right. We're going in circles again. So I'm gonna step off the merry-go-round for a bit until we get some new info or new blood on the diary boards rather than rehash old arguments.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Ally
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 02:55 pm | | Caz,
Are you saying that Mike and Anne are the emotional or intellectual equivalent of a 12 year old?
And also, John asked in what way you thought it was beyond their means, that's not defending his theory, that's providing reasons for your own thought processes...I can understand why you'd have difficulty complying with that request.
Ally |
Author: Caroline Morris
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 04:59 am | | Hi Ally,
No I'm not.
I asked John:
So if a 12 year-old with drugs in their possession can't or won't come up with a straight story of how they got them, you would argue that they could have manufactured them?
I'm not interested in your understanding thanks, unless you can shed more light on the subject than I have already seen.
I'm interested in John's evidence that Mike or Anne was actively involved in the actual forging of the diary, or were even aware it was a forgery. The handwriting doesn't appear to be theirs, unless you doubt Melvin's word on this, so others had to be involved and the money trail doesn't seem to extend to anyone else.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Morris
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 05:20 am | | Hi John,
Thanks for your response.
You see, in order to suspect the 12 year old of manufacturing the drugs, and before putting your suspicions in writing, it would be sensible to first establish just how bright he/she was, how much access he/she had to the proper equipment and the rather specialized information. It would also be advisable to look closely into the child's personality and personal circumstances at the time he/she would have been manufacturing the drugs: friends, family, finances, home-life, time on hands and what have you, to be sure your suspicions weren't totally off the wall.
'However there is nothing in the diary that's beyond a reasonably competant adult in my opinion.'
That's fine - it's your opinion based on what you have read so far about Mike and Anne, compared with your opinion of what went into the diary's creation.
My own opinion differs, that's all.
As you say, let's both step off this merry-go-round until something fresh comes along.
All the best.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 06:59 pm | | It has recently been drawn to my attention that the following references..."Jack the Ripper" and "Richard Crashaw's Steps to the Temple"
...appear seperately in Umberto Eco's novel 'Foucault's Pendulum', published Italy, 1988
Rosey :-( |
Author: Caroline Morris
Wednesday, 05 February 2003 - 01:21 pm | | Hi Rosey, old fruit.
Talking about ripper/Crashaw connections, I found one only t'other day meself.
Sphere History of Lit, vol 6 - The Victorians - tells us that Catholic poet and outside chance ripper suspect, Francis Thompson's models were the Metaphysicals, 'particularly Crashaw'.
Wonder if that's yet another reason why Dicky Crashaw was fingered for inclusion in the dastardly diarist's plans...
Love,
Caz |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 05 February 2003 - 09:55 pm | | Dear Caroline,
Every Thing Is Connected. We can expect to see more weird and wonderful coincidences now. Alles ist klare!
Rosey :-)) |
Author: Daniel J Ryan
Saturday, 08 February 2003 - 11:18 am | | Good day People,
sorry Caroline you have seen this quesion before but, if Peter Bower, a forensic paper analyst of world renown, is referenced by Patricia Cornwell as having proved the diary is a fraud, then someone on this site should know of it.
Will the knowledgeable one please come forward.
regards,
Dan Ryan |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 10 February 2003 - 10:35 am | | Hi Dan,
I guess we're still waiting.
I'm trying to imagine how a paper analyst could have proved fraud was committed in the case of the Maybrick Diary, and why he would then have kept it a closely guarded secret until Cornwell apparently mentioned it in passing in her own ripper book.
After all the blood, sweat and tears shed over the dodgy document, isn't it odd that we don't get chapter and verse from any of the people who claim proof exists of its true origins - just a few lines with the word 'fraud' thrown in for effect. Not very scientific in my view.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
