|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 694
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 3:14 pm: |       |
Hi, Ally
You might be onto something there with the "8" you have given Maybrick. We can certainly is a assume that he received and sent a lot of mail in the year of the Ripper murders with a lot of 8's in the dates.
Chris  |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 257
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 3:34 pm: | |
People, people...
We already know that a person has countless completely different handwriting styles and that just because one document might look absolutely unlike another does not in any way mean that two different people wrote them. In fact, if the writing looks in any way similar, that's probably evidence that the same person did not write both.
For instance, let's compare some documents we all have seen. Let's look at the words "Jack the Ripper" on the bottom of the last page of the diary and then "Jack the Ripper" as it appears on the letters the diarist says he wrote. Oh, and while we're at it, let's also look at the handwriting we know for sure comes from the real James Maybrick and then the handwriting in his diary, where he was not trying to hide his identity.
See?
They all look absolutely nothing like each other.
And so the only conclusion possible is that they were all written by the same person.
We've been told that plenty of times, now. Surely, we believe it. In fact, we've been told that it's precisely because the writing in the diary and the writing of the real James look completely different that we can say they're probably by the same guy ("if they were by different people, they'd look the same," goes the argument here in Wonderland).
So surely the Kane samples must be treated with the same logic, right? Only trouble is, I can't figure out how the hell that logic works. So I'm confused.
If the Kane samples are different than the diary writing, does that mean Kane wrote the diary? If they look the same, does that mean Kane couldn't have written the diary, since if he did he would have made them look different? I mean, what the hell?
Personally, I don't know enough to say whether these samples look anything like what I see in the diary. I just can't say. But even if I could, I'm still not sure what that would mean, since we all know that Maybrick's handwriting looks nothing like the diary and we also know that he wrote it anyway.
Perhaps all this means is that the real Maybrick wrote the Kane samples, since they don't look like the diary. Or maybe that, because there are similarities, Kane wrote Maybrick's will but not the diary, where he would have disguised his writing and made it look different.
I just don't know anymore. But I know that Maybrick wrote all those Ripper letters, 'cause he says he did in his diary. And I know that he wrote his personal letters and will on the one hand and his diary on the other in two utterly different handwritings, even though he was not trying to hide his identity in either document. Yes, I know that. That part makes perfect sense.
Right?
For the truth, as always,
--John
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 461
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 6:21 am: | |
Chris,
Me give Maybrick an 8? Hardly! A .0008 maybe.
John,
I appreciate what you are trying to do, but do it often on a thread I am trying to have a serious discussion on and I will no doubt become quite nasty with you.
Head's up,
Ally
 |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 258
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 7:00 am: | |
Hi Ally,
If you really think there's something wrong with the arguments and questions I list above, feel free to take your best shot at them.
Personally, I think they represent the problem here. If the rules of logic can be made to serve any purpose, then how the Kane handwriting (or anyone's) can tell us anything remains beyond me.
But I did like the "fair warning" tone of your threat. It struck just the right chord of melodrama.
Enjoying the discussion,
--John |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 464
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 7:10 am: | |
John,
It's not so much the arguments as the "sheep of the flock" thing that is getting tiresome. Just make your points, we get it already.
Ally
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 260
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 7:24 am: | |
Hi Ally,
Thanks for the suggestion. I know converts can be tiresome.
But I'm glad "it's not the arguments."
Stay cool,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 949
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 12:33 pm: | |
Hi RJ,
You are absolutely right to demand a professional opinion. But I wonder if any expert will ever be allowed the kind of unlimited access to Kane’s handwriting samples, that would allow them to give an informed and professional opinion on whether he could have written the diary or not.
But that’s not my problem – because I would never try to keep hope alive by claiming, or voicing suspicions, that Kane had anything to do with the creation of the diary.
Hi Ally,
Gerard Kane was under no obligation to provide anything at all for Alan Gray. If you were asked to provide a handwriting sample for someone you didn’t know, by someone else you didn’t know, and were not told why, or were told it was because you were suspected of committing a crime, would you happily go ahead, or would you tell them to make you or go and get knotted?
The only surprise for me is that Kane produced not one but two samples for Gray, both in February 1999, and both so different, when he didn’t need to give him the time of day. If he wrote the diary, it’s even more incomprehensible to me that Kane would have written anything at all for a stranger knocking on his door.
Anyway, readers can make their own minds up how uncannily similar all the strokes of the k in Kane’s ‘sick’, for instance, or the K in Kane of course, are to the equivalent strokes of the k in ‘taken a small room in Middlesex Street’ and so on. But it won’t mean much if no one has the least intention of ever commissioning even a single solitary professional handwriting comparison, will it?
Love,
Caz
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 467
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 2:17 pm: | |
Let's see...someone tells me I am suspected of committing a forgery of a Jack the Ripper Diary. They ask me to provide a sample. I can decline or I can give one. You left out a choice...I can provide an obviously fake sample of writing which is what Kane did. I notice you skipped right on over that part.
Kane did have a perfect right to tell them to go get stuffed if he was so morally indignant at being accused of a forgery. If he was totally innocent, I can see him telling them to get lost or providing a clear sample of his writing for analysis. What I can't fathom is why he would provide such a mocked up version of writing.
You ask why if he wrote the diary would he have provided a sample at all? I ask why if he didn't write the Diary did he so obviously disguise it.
So much for your claim to be interested if it could be shown that he did indeed provide a faked sample.
Am I really surprised?
Ally
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 264
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 6:08 pm: | |
Whoa, logical black hole....
Caz tells us, "I would never try to keep hope alive by claiming, or voicing suspicions, that Kane had anything to do with the creation of the diary."
But of course, the way to keep hope alive, as even Jesse would know, is to suggest that Kane had nothing to do with the whole thing and to suggest further that the fact that he provided samples tells us he didn't.
And whattayaknow... That's just what Caz says.
Keep on keepin' on, you know?
Me? I would say test it all. Test everything that doesn't move -- and even those who still do.
Get these things done. Don't let bogus arguments about whether or not the findings will be accepted stop the pursuit of truth. Ever.
But I know better. I know where I am. I know what will happen and what won't.
July 14, 2004 is now approaching. Only three and a half months away.
Someone else, besides your humble poster here, knows what that means, I hope.
The countdown has begun.
--John (who has always done well on tests)
(Message edited by omlor on March 30, 2004) |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 469
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 6:15 pm: | |
Good point John,
I don't quite understand what "hope would be kept alive" by considering the possibility that Kane did it. Unless Caz is finally admitting that she is firmly in the "real" category and thinks that anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional and full of false hope.
Not really sure what she meant by that.
Ally
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 355
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 4:30 pm: | |
Ally--thanks for posting those samples
John--Do you think there would be any legal complications in seeking a professional opinion on the Kane samples? I don't know one way or the other, but --potentially-- it might implicate him in a crime, no? I'm uncertain how this would play out, but I'd like to see it done. I kind of remember Martin Fido mentioning something on the old boards about putting in a word with Sue Iremonger about comparing the samples with the Diary if they ever came to light. RP
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 267
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 4:41 pm: | |
Hi RJ,
I don't really know. I suppose it depends in part on who owns them, technically. I don't think, if he volunteered them, that the owner would need a separate permission to do whatever they might want with them, including having them tested. But I'm not sure. I'll ask a couple lawyer friends during golf tomorrow.
It's a good question,
--John (happy anytime he can seek free legal advice on the course)
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 356
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 5:55 pm: | |
John--Thanks for that. It would be interesting to know their opinion. Happy golfing. RJP
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 962
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 7:50 am: | |
Hi Ally, All,
Perhaps Kane was not feeling very well on that first occasion (assuming it was the first. I can’t recall if both samples were dated). Or perhaps he is just a quiet man, in frail health, whose heart leapt to find a stranger on his doorstep demanding a handwriting sample, and Barnett-like nervously did what he was told in the hope that this man would go away and not come back.
You seem to have skipped over the part where Kane did nevertheless volunteer a sample, which you and a few others believe uncannily resembles the diary writing. So maybe when Gray called round again he caught Kane in better health, or a less unfamiliar face and a more reassuring tone might have made for a less nervy effort. Anyway, this sample was the one we chose to find space for in the book, for obvious reasons. Had the other been considered of any worth at all to the person(s) who asked Gray to obtain it, it would have been analysed professionally before deciding if another sample was desirable or even necessary.
Either way, it seems the sample in our book was considered the vital one. Yet it appears that no one had enough faith in either sample to wheel in the big guns and pay for a forensic examination report to wave under the sceptics’ noses. And I still find it extremely hard to imagine how Alan Gray could have got anything useful at all out of Kane, let alone a sample that others find uncannily similar to the diary, if this was our penman. It makes no sense to me whatsoever.
The thing about hope being kept alive is that not one of you has yet even confirmed Mike’s (and later Anne’s) story, that Tony Devereux had even laid eyes on the diary before he died, let alone that he gave it to Mike to do something with. If you exclude Tony’s involvement, on the basis that it is unconfirmed and therefore unreliable evidence, you can say it’s still possible that Kane penned the diary but you have no link back to him from Mike.
I’ve been trying to find that link, along with lots of other information we could use, but can report no success as yet. Have you tried? By all means keep considering the possibility that Kane wrote the diary, but when does the considering end and the effort to do something about it begin? Naturally, if you are beavering away behind the scenes and cannot report your progress, just say so and I’ll be happy to keep my own hopes alive that Kane dunnit after all. Ditto if you or anyone else decides to arrange for the samples to be analysed. I do appreciate this work takes bags of time, effort and hard cash, so I won’t pester you until you come up with something you are free to tell the boards about.
Can’t say fairer than that. Good luck!
And tell John July 14 might be setting his sights too far ahead.
I do have a French great-great-grandmother, but had she been born much earlier she would probably have lost her head and saved me from the possibility of losing mine.
Hi RJ,
I suspect there would only be potential legal consequences if a completed forensic report was later used to imply guilt. Home and dry for all if the results are either inconclusive or point to Kane's innocence. The analysis could go ahead if you could simply provide proof that it was done. Remember, Kane is innocent until proven guilty, and your efforts would be in the spirit of trying to eliminate him as a possible penman.
Keeping the rope round Kane's neck for any longer than absolutely necessary doesn't make anyone voicing their suspicions about him look good unless things are happening, or are going to happen, behind the scenes. If the results prove, or even suggest, Kane's guilt, it's possible that they could be shown privately to one or two respected researchers and independent witnesses without any repercussions.
If you don't try, you'll never know.
Thanks for your sensible suggestion anyway. Missed you dreadfully on the Maywatch board though. The tumbleweed will be blowing around there very soon. 
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on April 01, 2004) |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 269
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 8:10 am: | |
Caz writes, as if I weren't here,
"And tell John July 14 might be setting his sights too far ahead."
But the sights were set there some time ago, as she knows. And not in France, but right here in Cyberville.
In the spirit of UNlimited access,
--John (who still says test it all and publish all the findings) |
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 6:01 am: | |
Bottom line: the writing styles are irrelevant at the end of the day and prove nothing one way or the other. John V. Ormlor writes: Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit (ad infinitum).
Caz, I got your e-mail at work but could not reply to it for some reason. If not too much trouble can be reached on: spiderworld@glowinternet.net where I am usually once a week. Cheers, Tiddley
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 270
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 8:21 am: | |
Dude,
At least spell it right.
O-M-L-O-R
As in,
--John
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 504
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 5:45 pm: | |
So some observations. After being the topic that would not die, the diary threads have all gone quiet. Their girded supporters have all slunk off to other threads, quiet. After raising a stink and fuss for years, now that ALL of the Kane material is presented, there is no debate, no discussion, no …nothing.
Interesting it is.
So let’s recap. Diary is presented. Melvin Harris decides he knows who wrote the thing because of a signature on T.D’s will. Alan Gray goes to Kane, the aforementioned signer of the will and requests a handwriting sample. Kane produces an illegible, scrawled paragraph. Gray takes it, and is unsatisfied. He writes Kane asking for another sample since the first was clearly not an actual representation of his writing. Kane sends back a handwritten letter of complaint that does bear some similarities to the Diary.
Questions yet to be answered:
Why was the full story not revealed before now considering there was a book supposedly covering the entire saga released?
Why did Kane give a fake sample?
For the last eight years, Kane has been pleading poor health as an excuse to avoid answering questions. I was under the impression that he was on death’s door, but considering it has been eight years...what exactly is his illness that causes overwhelming fragility and an inability to answer any questions for eight years?
|
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 53
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 9:57 am: | |
Ally
What is there to debate? Neither example of Kane’s writing looks anything like the diary. It looks less like the diary than Maybrick’s. Clutching at straws comes to mind.
I had a great Easter thanks.
Paul
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 282
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 12:26 pm: | |
Thanks for that expert analysis, Paul.
Now we don't need tests.
You've saved someone a bunch of time and money. Why turn to professionals when we can solve such questions so easily right here?
It's a wonder the question of authenticity is still in doubt for some people.
Loving your rhetoric of finality,
--John
|
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 59
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 9:57 am: | |
Glad you like it John. I aim to please.
Didn’t even Melvin Harris give up on the loony Kane idea shortly before he left us? Shirley Harrison seems to have heard that was the case, from a “reliable source”.
Paul.
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 321
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 10:39 am: | |
Hi Paul,
Still no real evidence of anything, I see.
Time marches on,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1075
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 11:38 am: | |
Hi John,
I know I said I wasn't going to pester anyone about ongoing efforts to get the sacred Kane relics tested. But from your latest post and your recent email correspondence with me, can I take it that your own advice to analyse Mr Kane's handwriting samples has not yet been heeded by those who have the means to do so? Or is the process more time-consuming, expensive and difficult than you imagined, and as time-comsuming, expensive and difficult as I know from experience these things can often be?
Thanks. As always, feel free to email your response if you prefer us not to clog up the boards with stuff that wouldn't even interest my cat.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 323
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 4:58 pm: | |
Caz,
I have no idea how any arrangements for testing the Kane samples might be progressing, if they are. I certainly don't have the samples. I don't even know who does.
But I do know one thing. Nothing is new, anywhere. And there's still not a single valid reason to think this diary is or has ever been in any way linked to the real James Maybrick, nor is there a single piece of real evidence that supports any claim of authenticity for it. In fact, all of the real evidence continues to point exactly and exclusively in the opposite direction.
Nothing has changed. And that day in July is fast approaching
And the diary is still a fake.
Without surprise,
--John
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1077
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 6:02 am: | |
Hi John,
So if you are not being kept informed about progress on the Kane relic front (after your recent plea to get the samples tested), I very much doubt that anyone else will be told what's going on - this July or next.
And unless Kane can one day be pinned down as the forger who unaccountably handed over written proof of his forgery to a stranger on the doorstep, you will have to be content with a modern fake penned by The Invisible Man - or Woman.
Others may not be quite so easily contented, but there we are.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 324
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 7:52 am: | |
Caz,
Do you really want to get into a discussion about thoroughly testing things?
And why would I be being informed about whether the Kane samples are being tested? As I say, I don't even know who has them. Yes, I've long called for everything to be tested and retested. And we know exactly what's happened, don't we?
Meanwhile, the middle of July (which has nothing to do with Kane or his handwriting of course) just won't stop approaching.
Finally, as for whether I am "content" or not... Yes. A modern fake. Thanks.
Glad that's settled,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on June 03, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 317
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 9:20 am: | |
Hi
what may I dare ask is the Kane thing?
Jennifer |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 408
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 10:55 am: | |
...."unaccountably handed over written proof of his forgery to a stranger on the doorstep...."
Caz--LOL. Yes strangers on doorsteps are troubling. Some here would even have us believe that Anne Graham unaccountably handed over Jack the Ripper's Diary to an entirely different stranger on his doorstep...
Touche. (It's all about fencing these days)
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1079
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 6:08 am: | |
Hi RJ,
What? Who exactly would have you believe Anne Graham's story - apart from Anne herself, of course, who has never to my knowledge posted here?
I think you have been imagining things.
Hello Jenn,
Well, some people here reckon that a certain Mr. Gerard Kane penned the diary in the late 1980s or early 1990s for some as yet completely unknown reason and then gave it to Mike Barrett to flog in that London.
Some would even have us believe that Citizen Kane, the master forger, voluntarily handed over a sample of his handwriting (which according to these same sleuths is uncannily similar to the writing in the diary) to a stranger who appeared on his doorstep asking for such a sample.
Far fetched? On a par, I'd say, with telling said stranger to "Bugger off and leave me alone - oh, and take this blood-stained piece of lead piping with you. It came in useful for an encounter I had a few years back with Colonel Mustard in the conservatory."
So you see, this forgery suspect comes direct to your screen from the realms of Blackadder or a fictional character drawn by a small child.
John,
LOL.
If you wanted to, I am sure you could find out, by asking RJ or Peter Birchwood to name but two, who has the original Kane relics and what steps, if any, have been taken to have them professionally compared with the diary. Just think what a contribution you will be making when your simple enquiry results in a telephone call from the current owner of the sample(s) to the owner of the diary and a forensic handwriting examiner, setting up the direct comparison in the very near future. You could even go down in history as the one person who set the wheels in motion for the smoking gun - probably the quickest, simplest, cheapest way to go now with the diary, and possibly the only way we will ever get that smoking gun.
Question is, why not have a go? You've nothing to lose and everything to gain - unless of course you don't really believe the lead piping scenario either. I can't say I'd blame you if you decide to do nothing and continue to watch the grass grow and pass comment from the sidelines.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by Caz on June 04, 2004) |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 325
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 8:35 am: | |
Ah, Caroline,
Your sudden desire to promote with passion the testing of the Kane samples is charming. But, given history, it can only be either deliberately disingenuous or simply a rhetorical gesture.
Besides, for reasons that you can well imagine and that I certainly won't go into here, I am understandably loathe to participate in any process that would involve "setting up" anything with "the owner of the diary."
I've had my momentary flirtation with history in this sad and ridiculous little matter, and I have seen what is and is not possible, what will always be and not be possible. And I have an aversion to making the same mistake twice (and to wasting time and to talking to lawyers and to more than a few other pastimes that would no doubt accompany your suggested course of action).
Now then, as to "doing nothing" and "letting the grass grow..."
Well, we're only a month away from July 14th. We can talk about it in some detail then.
But please be assured, I do appreciate the irony of you being the one now calling for new tests (appreciate it, hell, I revel in it). Still, I suspect you won't be picking up your phone to make that call anytime soon, either. So I'll take your suggestion for what it must be, a playful joke.
And still, after all the game playing and self-righteousness and wordplay, nothing is new. And still there is no evidence. And still this diary is clearly and obviously a fake.
And that's what matters.
--John |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 632
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 8:53 am: | |
Caz,
You are attempling to oversimplify matters to divert attention from what actually occured. A private investigator asked Kane for a handwriting sample. He did not hand over a sample of his writing like you claim and he did not tell him to bugger off. He gave the investigator a FAKE handwriting sample that was obviously and deliberately disguised. When called upon it, he wrote a letter of complaint to the investigator. Now why would he do this, some who try to obfuscate will ask? Why do people do a lot of the stupid things they do? Maybe because it wasn't taken as an official sample, he didn't think it could be used against him...maybe he just got pissed and wrote a letter back without taking time to think about it. Who knows? But don't claim that he never would have done that. People do stupid things all the time that catch them out, things that reasonable people look at and say ...now why in the world would he have done that? But it doesn't mean they weren't guilty just the same.
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 633
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 9:19 am: | |
P.Sing to add:
I am not saying I am one hundred percent convinced that Kane is "guilty" (if that is even the right word). I just find it extremely interesting that he faked a handwriting sample and would like to know his motives for doing so.
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 409
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 9:56 am: | |
John--I'm not sure why Caz thinks I know ought about the Kane 'relics'--perhaps because I wondered out loud about potential legal ramifications a document examiner might be faced with in making a report public. With the possibility of a fraud accusation dangling over everything, I think it's likely that any forensic report would be biased towards being non-committal. But, as far as I know, nothing is being done, and so we'll never know one way or the other.
I do know that a certain gentleman in the UK recently managed to get a detective interested in investigating the Diary at the tax-payer's expense, but the matter was dropped because no one could be found willing to be the 'victim' of the alleged fraud. Without a victim there can be no investigation.
By the way, the Swanson Marginalia was said to be 'authenticated' without recourse to the originals (photocopies were sent to the document examiner) so I don't see why this is suddenly an unsurmountable obstacle to those who already have copies in their possession. They could at least get a hint of whether it is worth looking into. RP |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 326
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 10:18 am: | |
Hi RJ,
Thanks for the info. I don't know why she named you, either. To me, all of this seems to be more a case of strategic rhetorical posturing than anything else.
It's all just the usual thrust and parrying you described earlier. That's all that's left on these threads, since there is no new information, no new evidence, and of course no new (or old) reason to consider these artifacts as anything other than what they obviously are -- fakes.
So now it's all just idly chatting over the corpse and sadly wondering how it all got so out of hand.
But the summer is lovely and warm and the sky is a brilliant blue and the golf course awaits.
Have a fine afternoon,
--John |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 634
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 10:59 am: | |
R.J.
oooh sign me up to be a victim of the Diary...all the illogic in it's name has shattered my ..uh..faith that..uh..man is a rational creature who will not willingly swallow pat tripe and staunchly defend it in the face of numerous inconsistencies. Since this is what my whole world view was based on, the repercussions are absolutely devastating.
Can I get a hug?
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 250
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 12:08 pm: | |
John,
Excuse my ignorance, but why is Bastille Day of such great importance to the Diary controversy?
Don. |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 327
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 4:39 pm: | |
Hi Don,
Ah, a good question. Actually, it has nothing to do with the Bastille. But, like everyone else, you'll have to wait until then to find out why it keeps being mentioned (unless you're good at research).
Thanks for asking, though. And all the best,
--John |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 762
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 5:07 pm: | |
Because Jim's best wish was "Off with their heads"? 
(Message edited by chrisg on June 04, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 251
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 8:39 pm: | |
John,
Okay, I'll wait. I didn't really think that, aside from the date, it had anything to do with the Bastille, but I thought perhaps the date might have a generally understood meaning for the Diary cognoscenti.
I profess only a little knowledge of this aspect of Ripperology. I have read the diary twice; once when it first appeared and again after I became active on the boards and twice rejected it for -- admittedly -- very subjective reasons. My academic training was as a historian and along the way I closely studied nine separate journals or diaries from the 18th and 19th centuries. The purported Maybrick work simply does not ring true to my "ear." Just my opinion, nothing more.
Anyway, never having been enamored of the French Revolution (as an event and as an area for study), I shall now have a better reason to look forward to Bastille Day.
Don. |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 328
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 10:23 am: | |
Hi Don,
It's interesting, putting aside all the solid details that clearly indicate that this thing is a fake -- the handwriting, the line from the unpublished police report, the Crashaw quote, the ahistorical details, the complete lack of provenance and all the rest, you and I still had much the same initial reaction even though we came to the text from two different professional perspectives. My doctorate is in literature and I too have read and studied a number of journals from the period, and to me, almost instantly, the diary read not at all like a real journal but rather like a pulp novel or bad screenplay treatment. It was clearly what we call "well-made fiction," with an artificial, Aristotelean structure that included rising action, climax, and falling action, a faux in media res opening that also just happened to coincide with the the beginning of the Ripper story, the reduction of events to a simple, mano-a-mano struggle between two primary characters, a stunning lack of personal detail in favor of vagaries and melodrama and all the signs of being written over a much shorter period of time than was actually covered. If you spend your professional life around fiction, you learn to recognize it. There's no doubt, this is fiction.
And a fake.
The only sad thing is that some poor souls encounter it first, before any serious Ripper related material and, for a time anyway, are taken in by the hoax. We can only hope that eventually all those involved will admit that the book has been thoroughly discredited, that it never had anything to do with the real James Maybrick, and do the responsible thing and clear the historical record. I wouldn't count on that, though.
The traces of these things tend to live on forever even after rational people know the truth.
There are still people who think Lewis Carroll was the Ripper, after all.
Enjoy the weekend,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1081
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 7:09 am: | |
Hi All,
I believe the original Kane relics were obtained back in early 1999. That’s right - over five years ago. At the time I had only just read the Feldy and Harrison diary books and made my way onto the boards to find out what else had been written on the subject.
As far as I know the Kane relics were kept well away from everyone including the police, the diary owner, forensic handwriting examiners, other investigators closely involved – you name ‘em, this potentially unique and crucial piece of hard evidence against a suspected penman was not shared with ‘em. You may blame Caz for lots of things, but I won’t be blamed for this extraordinary oversight!
Eventually, copies were produced and handed over to the ‘other side’ (bloody ridiculous terminology, but there we are) at the so-called ‘Oxford Summit’, some two and a half years later, in 2001. Someone at that meeting must know exactly who has the originals, who was given the copies, and who would be likely to get access to the originals again if they asked nicely in the future.
If there is any real chance that Kane was the penman, I should have thought you would all have hurled your criticism at the lack of appropriate action taken by the relevant investigators back in 1999, and over the years since the relics were first collected. What was the point of obtaining this evidence in the first place, only for it to sit there gathering dust? I have asked the owner of the diary about this and he says he would be more than happy for a direct and formal comparison to take place, but he has never even been approached with such a request. Why on earth not?
It’s simply indefensible for people here to go on suspecting Kane and criticising others for a supposed lack of action, when he could have been put in the frame legitimately back in 1999 by those who suspected him at the time, and either kept in the frame by a positive forensic handwriting comparison and reported to the police so they could look into charging him with deception at the very least, or eliminated and declared an innocent man. This isn’t a sudden observation on my part, I’ve been saying much the same thing since I first heard about the existence of the Kane relics, yet few if any of you joined me in the call to make this allegedly important evidence available for a professional examination once and for all.
There may be a pattern here, because another piece of hard physical evidence touted by the modern fake theorists, Mike’s Sphere book, has also avoided any formal independent examination to this day. No doubt I’ll end up getting the blame for that too.
Love,
Caz
X
PS John, I have no idea why July 14 is so important to you, but I guess it must now be roughly two years since you bowed out of active diary research on the friendliest of terms, when you suddenly realised that participation was far more of a challenge than the equivalent spectator sport. But don't worry, you're not alone.
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 637
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 7:19 am: | |
Is deception against the law in England? In which case, how is it possible that the entire population isn't behind bars?
Johnny, did you break my lamp?
No.
Off to jail with you then!
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 329
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 8:56 am: | |
Caroline,
More irony, I see. When I last discussed testing with you, all I heard were reasons why tests couldn't and shouldn't be done, ranging from "we don't know exactly what they'll manage to show us" to "some people won't believe them." Of course, none of these were legitimate or rational reasons for not actually testing, but that didn't seem to matter to you.
Now you arrive here doing your best Claude-Rains-in-Casablanca impersonation, announcing that you are shocked, SHOCKED! to find that there are items that haven't been tested. As I said, it's simply charming.
As for me, I have already told you that I am certainly not going to be involved with anything that would also involve "the owner of the diary," regardless of what he says he'd be "more than happy" to see. I've been down that road before and I know where it ends.
So it's not blame you're hearing here (your paranoia is either simply causing you to misread us or is being deliberately offered for some sort of strategic rhetorical effect, a way of casting yourself as the victim somehow). No, it's not blame. Just delighted surprise at the role reversal.
In any case, I see six paragraphs above suggesting what you think is indefensible and what you think should be done and nowhere in any of those six paragraphs do I see you volunteering to do it (or even offering to participate in any way in this "allegedly important" process). So I guess you're just one of us after all.
You're right, though. There is a pattern here. The pattern? NO new tests are being done. Anywhere. By anyone. On anything. And that is indeed "indefensible."
But I, for one, am not the least bit surprised.
--John
PS: No, you're mistaken about the significance of the date and, of course, about what happened back when I had my own personal flirtation with the silly and impossible. Challenges are fine. I enjoy them. But I'm smart enough also to know when I'm wasting my time. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 325
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 9:24 am: | |
Hi everyone,
May i venture to ask if Mr Kane is still alive?
Jennifer |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 317
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 9:44 am: | |
Perhaps Mr. Kane is exercising copyright over his sample?
Dave |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 326
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 10:12 am: | |
If his sample has been lost surely he can just provide another one. Unleess as David hints he couild have changed his mind.
Jennifer |
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 12:06 pm: | |
The 'diary' will never be shown to conclusively be a hoax. It can't be as it is 100% genuine!
From one who knows best, but can't say why yet!
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 331
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 7:19 pm: | |
Finally,
Just the sort of well reasoned argument and sound scholarship this case deserves!
--John (waiting for the alien-made crop circles to spell out the proof once and for all) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1083
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 5:28 am: | |
Hi All,
Let me repeat my previous question as it seems to have got lost in another smokescreen.
What does everyone posting here think was the point of obtaining the Kane sample in the first place?
It hasn't been professionally compared with the diary, I don't even know if any attempt was made to do so. It could never have been published anywhere with a claim that Kane penned the diary, for obvious reasons.
Yet, if a forensic examiner had been commissioned back in 1999 and had produced an incriminating report, it could at least have been sent to the appropriate authorities for steps to be taken to confront Kane and Barrett with the evidence of their joint scam.
If Kane's writing is in the diary, I hardly think he could have remained unaware all this time of what Mike did with it, in which case I imagine his silence on the matter would incriminate him regardless of whether he started off as an innocent dupe or was expecting to make a tidy sum with his scallywag chum.
You can all dance around the 1999 Kane evidence question, but you can hardly claim it's less relevant somehow, and less in need of addressing than the abstract concept of some as yet unspecified and undiscovered new test that may or may not help date the diary - if someone can be found to offer such a test and another to finance it.
Address the former (evidence that was gathered over five years ago and not used, but allowed to drift around as unworthy and ultimately worthless innuendo) and the repeated ad nauseam concerns about the latter might begin to ring a more genuine note.
Love,
Caz
X
PS Me volunteer to do what exactly, John? If you can use your considerable influence with your fellow modern fake theorists to get me the original Kane samples, plus enough money to commission the forensic examination, I will gladly do the rest - even though I am not among those who believe Kane could be our penman. If you stick a broom up my arse I'll sweep your floor for you while I'm doing everyone else's dirty work for them. |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 332
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 8:05 am: | |
Speaking of "smokecreens"...
Caroline,
I see. So you think it's indefensible that no testing on anything has been done (or is your mock-shock at the indefensibility of inaction limited to just the Kane samples?), but you want others to do what you feel so strongly should be done (arrange to acquire access and funding, etc.). Well, that's an interesting approach. I won't be surprised if, once again, nothing gets tested and nothing gets done. Nor will I be surprised if no one involved with the diary and with keeping hope alive minds that very much.
You already know why I won't be involved.
But let me put it another way. Since it's already been said once here in such a perfect manner:
You can dance around the "thoroughly examining the diary scientifically" question, but you can hardly claim it's less relevant somehow, and less in need of addressing than the abstract concept of some new test that may or may not help identify a single forger - if someone can be found to offer such a test and another to finance it.
Address the former and your recently repeated ad nauseam concerns about the latter might begin to ring a more genuine note.
As of now, here, the note your concerns are ringing seems simply rhetorical.
The voice cries out:
"Don't thoroughly retest the diary. We don't know what we might or might not learn and besides, some people won't believe the results. It's better just not to learn anything."
"But why on earth hasn't anyone tested those darn Kane samples?! Surely that's irresponsible and indefensible."
Yes, I understand perfectly. And why, I wonder, would someone prefer not to have the book thoroughly retested but come here outraged that someone's handwriting hasn't been? Perhaps because the former is, in many people's minds, far more likely to establish the truth for the world (that the book's a fake) than is the latter.
Perhaps.
I'll say it again, to add to Caroline's nausea.
Test it all. Test everything. Do it now.
Of course.
But I won't be holding my breath until it's done.
Never surprised around here,
--John |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
