|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 330
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 9:45 am: |       |
Hi (again)
So (and play nice) what exactly are the problems of getting the thing tested apart form apparently not knowing where it is?
Jennifer |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 334
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 11:08 am: | |
Hi Jennifer.
I don't know. The only difficulties I've seen listed around here are the apparently insurmountable difficulties that prevent the diary from being thoroughly retested scientifically and the mysterious difficulties that prevented the scientists from being given unlimited access to the watch.
I haven't seen anyone yet list any problems with getting the Kane samples tested. Of course, as I've said, I don't even know who has them.
At this point, aside from, for sound historical reasons, my not being willing to play any more with those one would have to play with to get any of this done, my own thoughts are that it no longer matters all that much. By this time, most of the world seems to know the diary's a fake. It seems to be slowly taking its proper place in the history of dead ends and hoaxes in Ripper World among serious scholars and even among the general public. Sure, there are still the usual suspects, just as there always are for every idea no matter how bizarre (check out some of the names listed on these boards as suspects). But even a quick glance at all the available real evidence shows us that every piece of it points away from authenticity and directly towards an unfortunate hoax. The entire episode has been a sad and ugly affair, from beginning to end, and has brought only nastiness and ignominy to the field. I'm glad it now seems to be all but over, intellectually speaking (except for those of us here who are hopelessly suffering from summer boredom and need to kill an hour or two each morning).
We may never know who faked these pages. Or, in the end, we may learn the truth someday. I have my own ideas about which is more likely given the history of all involved. But it's a game at this point. Just a diversionary amusement played out in words and challenges and positionings and repositionings in rhetoric, full of sound and fury, but, indeed, signifying nothing.
Every now and then a reality check, perhaps, is necessary.
There'll be more written here. No doubt another response about the need to test the samples will arrive tomorrow and, if I'm bored, or someone else is bored, a response to that response will quickly follow. But I wouldn't wait around for the diary to be tested or the watch to be tested or for anything to be tested again if I were you. I'd go out and enjoy the days and nights of your life.
That's where I'm headed now -- to enjoy the days and nights of mine.
See you tomorrow,
--John
PS: My home town hockey team won the Stanley Cup last night. So this week will see a few more parties than usual!
(Message edited by omlor on June 08, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 331
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 4:01 pm: | |
John
Thanks for that. I see you don't appear to think science is useful or necessary to sort things out for you.
I prefer to sit firmly on the fence in the manner of one glued to it. I need science to unstick my hands!!!!
Actually I saw a very good documentary late last night on the BBC about this guy in America who forged documents in USA in the 1980s it was very good. They had very hard trouble proving it. One of the things was that he had aged the documents using a bleach which could be spotted I think under UV light. He was doing it to get at the Salt Lake City church - Jevovahs witnesses (spelt wrong probably but I do not intend to be offensive) and actually financial gain was not a motive which I found interesting.
Cheers
Jennifer |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 335
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 5:16 pm: | |
Hi Jennifer,
As for my faith in science, actually it's quite the contrary. I think science is very useful and necessary and that thorough examination and testing and retesting of everything involved would be the right thing to do. Heck, it would even be the responsible and, dare I say it, defensible thing to do.
I just know that it's not going to happen.
Don't ask me why.
Please.
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 335
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2004 - 5:24 am: | |
HI John
Fair enough I won't ak you why!
cheers
Jennifer |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1086
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2004 - 12:26 pm: | |
Hi Jenn,
In a nutshell –
Since the diary and watch emerged in the early 1990s, both have been, and continue to be, subjected to a range of forensic tests and other types of scrutiny, research and investigation.
Over the last decade the various modern fake theorists have had at least three perfect opportunities to support and even prove their own case: in 1994, the Sphere book (suspected by the theorists to have been used for the diary composition) could have been handed over to an independent examiner or witness and efforts made to show the book had been in Mike’s possession at some point before he took the diary to London in 1992; a bottle of pre-1992 Diamine ink (suspected by the theorists to have been used to write the diary) could have been located in 1994 and compared, at any time since, directly with the diary ink; and in 1999, samples of handwriting were finally obtained from Mr Kane (suspected for a long time by the theorists of having penned the diary) and again could have been compared, at any time over the last five years, directly with the handwriting in the diary.
Not one of the above three golden opportunities to kill off the diary for good was seized upon by those with the means to do so, and yet we are meant to believe that the will has always been there, and that it continues to be there among today’s crop of modern hoax theorists, to stop the rot once and for all.
But all we hear today are endless calls for unidentified and theoretical further scientific tests on the materials that have already been examined (presumably in the hope that eventually, if enough tests are done, one of them will give the desired result), while not a jot of interest is shown in getting the material evidence for a modern fake - the Sphere book, pre-1992 Diamine or the Kane samples - to the appropriate professional examiners.
If you can understand the priorities here perhaps you could explain them to me. And meanwhile perhaps John could kill a minute or two by emailing Peter Birchwood, who brought copies of the Kane samples to the Oxford Summit in 2001, and who will, I am sure, be happy to tell John all he knows about the originals and how they might be obtained. Where there is a genuine will there is a way.
And John, if you get no joy from Peter let me know and I will happily give it a go myself, and let everyone know how I get on. If an original handwriting sample from the person suspected of having penned the diary is not considered a vital piece of kit by the modern hoax theorists, I really don’t know what else would be - including yet another report on the diary or watch.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 338
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2004 - 3:36 pm: | |
Caroline,
I've already told you (three times now, I believe) that I'm not going to be involved in this in any way. And you know why. The same match will not burn me twice.
Jen,
Caroline writes,
"Since the diary and watch emerged in the early 1990s, both have been, and continue to be, subjected to a range of forensic tests and other types of scrutiny, research and investigation."
...continue to be...?
Ask her (or anyone) when the last time either the diary or the watch was given to anyone for a thorough scientific test of any sort? I can you tell you, but it'd be more fun to hear it from someone who actually makes this delightfully revisionist claim.
In fact, what we've gotten are excuses about why one item shouldn't be retested and why another couldn't be handed over with unlimited access to the scientists. But they'd rather not talk about that.
Anyway, here's a little literary gift for you to sum things up.
The Thread
by Harold Pinter
an interminable drama in six lines
Caroline: The Kane samples should be tested.
John: So should everything else.
Caroline: The Kane samples should be tested.
John: So should everything else.
Caroline: The Kane samples and the Sphere book and the ink should be tested.
John: So should everything else.
(Pause.)
(Nothing is tested.)
(Pause.)
Curtain.
******************************
As the poet wrote:
"Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day
You fritter and waste the hours in an offhand way..."
See you on the dark side of the moon,
--John |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 413
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2004 - 10:39 pm: | |
..."reported to the police so they could look into charging him with deception at the very least...''
Caz-- I can kind of understand your frustration, but I sense that you're a little out of touch with the reality of what went on. For one thing, this is not how the British legal system works. As I noted a few days ago, without a victim there can be no investigation or 'charges.' The police investigation took place in 1994; Dangar (who was just an interested bloke with some money) commissioned the Kane samples in 1999. Neither Dangar nor Harris-- nor anyone else for that matter, except for one-- had any power whatsoever to bring into being another police investigation of the Maybrick Diary. This was made abundantly clear as recently as one month ago. A private citizen can't come forward and demand an investigation for fraud. Whatever evidence he might think he has. Unless the owner of the diary files a formal complaint against Barrett or Graham (ie., those who sold him the diary) there can and will be no investigation of the Maybrick Diary by police. Full stop.
The matter is now in the hands of the historians.
So I'm uncertain as to who you are criticizing. Why exactly should Dangar or Harris have included the "Diary investigators" in their own private inquiries? The rumor has it that they were at one time contemplating writing their own book, no? And why should I believe that the matter really would have been settled if either man came forward privately with the report of a forensic document examiner? Did any "Diary investigators" fold up their tents when the professional opinions of other forensic document examiners became known---Rendell, Owens, Nickell, etc.--and stated that there was no doubt that Maybrick didn't write the diary? What leads you to believe it would have been different in this case?
So I'm not entirely sure what the point of this discussion is. The possibility of a police-like investigation is now and for all future times a no-go. It is now one for the books. For bad or good, future historians of the matter (if there are any) will either argue for the Maybrick Diary or against it; they will cite whatever information is available to them. And sadly, history generally pays poor wages, and hoax-busting pays least of all. Most likely it'll be up to any interested blighter out there to grub up his or her own research funds (like Dangar did) and either use it or sit on it (like Dangar did). There are very few conspiracies in this world, just a lot of inertia and one heck of a lot of mucking around. Finger pointing at this late date is really neither here nor there. You have every right to heckle the Kane theory or the Barrett theoy if you so choose; but if you want to come up with a better one, it'll be on your own shoulders to present your own reasoning and documentation. RP |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1087
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 7:40 am: | |
Hi All,
I don’t mind making my own attempts to test other people’s theories and claims. I don’t even mind being criticised for the efforts people presume I have or have not made to do so.
But I would just remind everyone here that I am not pushing any theories and I am not making any claims, and if I did so I would certainly not be sitting back expecting others to test them for me, or asking the doubters to come up with alternative theories of their own.
It is not my theory, neither is it my claim, that the Sphere book, Diamine ink and the hand of Kane were used in the diary creation process. All three suggestions come directly or indirectly from a common source – the word of Mike Barrett. (Just as the Joe Barnett theorists depend very much on the testimony of their suspected murderer - who would also need to be an accomplished liar - so the modern hoax theorists depend on parts of Barrett’s testimony being true.)
When the very people who believe in the merit of such claims can’t even lift a finger to begin testing the simplest one for themselves, how limp and feeble does that finger look when it is pointed at others, demanding all sorts of unidentified and theoretical tests for this, that and everything but the kitchen sink?
If Mike Barrett were to claim that his cat had caused the ink blots in the diary with his paws, and anyone were daft enough to believe it, would they seriously expect me to arrange for the moggy DNA test and exhumation of Tiddles, while they sat back and idly criticised my failure to leap into action?
At one time, Mike Barrett did try to claim that a kidney-shaped stain in the diary was caused by his wife Anne dropping a kidney on it. If anyone had taken this claim seriously, and asked others to test it for them, I assume they’d have been advised to take a long walk off a short pier.
Similarly, if I started theorising that this alleged stain was caused by Eddowes’ kidney, and had the means and opportunity to test it for DNA but made no effort to do so, I can just imagine the outraged reaction to any suggestion that those who doubted my theory should be volunteering to get the test done or else come up with an alternative explanation for the stain. Yet this is what is happening right here, right now, with regard to the Kane handwriting samples.
No one can force people to test their own theories and beliefs using the existing evidence, and that goes for the current round of theorists on both ‘sides’ of the fence. But if some continue to push their own fake theories here on these boards, buoyed up by one or more completely untested claims or beliefs, they will have to put up with doubts expressed and questions asked by others. It goes with the territory.
John, I can’t imagine why a quick email to Peter Birchwood, and simply passing on to me any information he can supply about the Kane samples, should cause you so much fear and trepidation. But if this small step is beyond you, it might explain why you assume no further examinations of the diary are being planned. Obviously you can’t know one way or another if you don’t dare ask the people who would know.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 339
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 7:57 am: | |
Caroline, (who just wrote eight more paragraphs saying guess what... "The Kane samples should be tested." You gotta' love it.) again suggests I send someone e-mail to get things started.
OK. Let's try five times -- since it just doesn't seem to be sinking in. (I have to start conversing with people who read.)
Caroline, I'm not going to be involved in any way in any such process, either at the beginning, the middle, or the end, for reasons with which you (and most everyone else on the boards who has any sort of memory) are thoroughly familiar. I learn from the past.
I'm pretty sure you have your own e-mail account. If you really think your points are valid, if you really think this is that important, use it.
Or just come here and tell us again that the Kane samples should be tested.
Oh, by the way, so should everything else.
(You knew I just had to say that, didn't you?)
As to why I "assume no further examinations of the diary are being planned..."
Heh, heh. You're kidding me by asking this, right?
I assume nothing.
I'm waiting. I'll always be waiting. I'll die waiting.
I'd be delighted to be wrong about this.
But I'm not.
Talk, as they say, is cheap, especially around here.
But as everyone can see, the end of our little Pinter play remains the status quo.
All the best,
--John (who, as a pretend professor, is enjoying his pretend summer vacation)
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 295
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 8:00 am: | |
Personally, I can't understand what all the excitement about the Kane samples is. Of course they should be tested. John O is absolutely right on that count.
However, as far as I can tell, the samples (such as they are) from Mike and Anne have never been tested either. Unlike Kane, we KNOW they had the book in their possession.
If a professional examination of the handwriting is to be done with an eye to identify a possible forger, all those who either had the diary in their possession, or might possibly had it (based on their claim or others) should be checked. This would at the least include Mike, Anne, Billy, Tony, and Mr. Kane.
Wherever possible, actual exemplars should be taken in the presence of the document examiner in accordance with standard practice. (This wouldn't be possible in the cases of Billy, Tony, or apparently Mr. Kane.) Additional writing samples from the various peoples past would certainly be useful.
The lack of serious testing of the handwriting samples is indeed lamentable. Particularly in the case of Anne and Mike.
I also don't understand the vehemence regarding who's claiming what. It's evidence and it should be evaluated. I don't think John O. is making any particular claims regarding who penned the book. (Although I haven't read the entire thread. My Casebook time is severly limited at the moment.) But we have samples from numerous potential suspects taken by various parties. Surely those samples were taken for a reason? Regardless of whether any "claim" is being made, an honest investigation into the origin of the book requires that these possibilities be looked into, if only to eliminate dead ends.
John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1088
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 5:04 am: | |
Hi All,
No one I know of actually believes the writing in the diary could belong to Anne or Mike. If anyone does suspect this, or has ever done so, they don't appear to have taken any steps to test their own suspicions, so nothing, I assume, will get done.
At least Kane only came into the frame because of the alleged 'uncanny' similarity between his natural handwriting and the diary handwriting, plus the tenuous link with Barrett via Devereux, who is only part of the story because of one of Barrett's claims, supported only at a much later date by the word of his wife, Anne.
Now then, had Kane's handwriting sample been handed over for a professional comparison with the diary at any time over the last five years, and a positive result obtained; had pre-1992 Diamine been obtained back in 1994 and compared directly with the diary ink, and a positive result obtained; and had access to the Sphere book been given to Shirley back in 1995 or Robert Smith much more recently, and no obstacle found to Mike having this book prior to April 1992; had any of the above happened, then the owner of the diary might by now have been persuaded that he had, after all, been the victim of a crime when he handed over £1 to take possession of the diary from a scheming pair of money-grabbing Barretts, happy to sign the thing over (and one of them, Mike, still as happy with the transaction as he was back in 1993).
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 296
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 6:01 am: | |
"No one I know of actually believes the writing in the diary could belong to Anne or Mike."
Wow... That's quite a statement.
First off, I know quite a few people who think the diary handwriting could belong to Mike or Anne. I certainly do. There is no evidence that currently eliminates them, and handwriting comparison is simply not something where a layman's opinion holds any weight.
If "it doesn't look like their writing" had any validity I doubt so much effort would have been expended attempting to show that the handwriting in the diary was that of Maybrick when on it's face it bears zero resemblence to the known examples of his writing, or to the letters the diarist claims to have written.
"If anyone does suspect this, or has ever done so, they don't appear to have taken any steps to test their own suspicions, so nothing, I assume, will get done."
This statement here (in my personal opinion) demonstrates very clearly the root problem in how the diary question has been pursued. We shouldn't be testing things with an eye to prove a particular suspicion. We should be looking for actual answers, and all legitimate possibilities should be explored.
That means looking at all those who could have written the thing. We know Mike and Anne had the opportunity to do so and there is nothing objective that eliminates them as possibilities. Their handwriting should be examined by professionals, just as Kane's should be. To obtain evidence that would eliminate them as possibilities, or answer the question of who penned the thing once and for all.
Regards,
John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 337
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 6:23 am: | |
Hello (again),
Ok so i think I understand that the Kane thing is missing. Therefore it cannot be tested??????? If it is not missing why isn't it being tested as you all seem to want it to be tested???
as for the sphere book I don't really understand that one but I am right in thinking now is too late?
The Diame ink - what's up with the ink where is the obstacle I can't see it (but its early in the day!!)
cheers (please be nice to me I don't really know a lot about it!!)
Jennifer |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1089
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 7:39 am: | |
Hi again all,
Most uncannily of all, it appears that the Kane sample(s), the Diamine issue and the Sphere book are now receding in importance to the point where none of them is regarded as crucial to proving the diary's true origins.
It has taken a long time, but the penny finally seems to be dropping. I never was convinced that any of the above could provide the key to the affair. And since no one is offering to do a single constructive and practical thing towards finding out once and for all whether any of this evidence is key or not, I am happy to conclude that the modern hoax theorists must be about as convinced as I am about the real worth of what used to be touted as not one but three smoking guns.
Not a puff of smoke left these days.
Hi RJ,
You wrote:
'A private citizen can't come forward and demand an investigation for fraud.'
I may not be as familiar as you are with the British legal system, but I would have thought that any private citizen believing themselves to be a victim of fraud could ask the police to look into it, especially if physical evidence existed that could be obtained and examined.
The diary owner, on the other hand, has consistently stated his firm belief that the document in his possession is not a modern fake. As far as I am aware, he has not changed his mind on that score. Therefore if he were to suddenly claim to the police that he had been the victim of fraud, he could presumably be accused of lying to the police and wasting their time. Unless you think he knows the diary is a modern fake and has therefore been lying to everyone else instead – in which case he would not be a victim at all.
However, if you believe the diary owner could demand another police investigation simply by claiming that Mike and Anne sold him a fake diary in the days when he was a publisher, why would it not be possible for any private citizen who bought the original diary book (for several times the amount Robert Smith paid the Barretts for the diary itself) to make a similar complaint to the police, if they believed Mike Barrett knowingly flogged them a book publishing a fake diary?
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 341
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 7:42 am: | |
Caroline gives us three MORE paragraphs (a few posts up) saying things should be tested. And then returns, oddly, to claim that since no one on the list is dealing with her latest requests for action, she must have been right all along. More cheap talk, of course, but nothing new.
Of course, there's no new information anywhere.
Still.
So I'll repeat myself too, since it seems to be the cool thing to do.
Everything should be tested and retested, including the diary itself and the watch. But none of that is going to happen. And not because anything is missing or because such tests are impossible either.
I'll leave it to the few readers still so bored with their own lives as to actually be here to speculate for themselves why.
And then I'll Jennifer a story.
Hi Jennifer. I have a story for you. It's a wonderful story, full of magic and extraordinary events and the power of faith.
Mike Barrett, a somewhat unstable character with a penchant for telling fibs, brings forward a mysterious book that he says he got from a friend in a pub.
In that book there are five words that seem to be from somewhere else. No one knows where.
But, as if by magic, someone comes forward to tell us all that he knows where those five words are from! In the whole history of writing in English, he can tell you the source of those five words.
Who, you might wonder, can this man be, that can locate the origin of five unidentified words, a fragment really, not even a whole line or sentence, from the entire history of literature?
Who is this extraordinary scholar, this legendary man of letters?
You'll never guess.
Why it's that very same Mike Barrett, who gave us the book in the first place! Hard to believe?
Wait.
It gets better.
Of course, people want to know where Mike found the source for those five words, which turn out to be a line from an obscure and unanthologized poem by a 17th Century British poet.
Did Mike find them in a collection of this guy's poetry? Did Mike find them in a collection of 17th Century poetry? Did Mike find them, at least, in a collection of English poetry? Did he even find them in a book on this poet?
No!
No, Mike found them, exclusively extracted and conveniently excerpted for use, in the middle of a prose essay on a completely different poet in the middle of a book which was a collection not of poetry at all but of critical essays! My God, think of the odds against that one!
Wait.
It gets better.
It turns out that our man Mike, he who owned the diary, he who brought forth the diary, he who remains the only person we know of (other than his wife) to ever have come into contact with the diary before it went public, Mike also happens to own a copy of THAT VERY SAME BOOK! With THAT VERY SAME FIVE WORD QUOTE right there inside it.
Some coincidence, huh?
Wait.
It gets better.
Does Mike tell us he originally found the quote in his copy of that book?
NO!
He tells us, because he knows there are some people that will believe absolutely anything, just because they want to, or because they have a vested interest in believing it, that he walked into a library and just happened to pull that very same book off the shelves, among all the books on all the shelves, having no idea the quote was in there and no idea it was a book not about the author and not of poetry, etc., and opened it up and there were the very five words he was trying to identify!
Of course, this is either one of the most sacred research miracles of all time of the man's a certified genius of library science.
Or it's a lie.
So the facts that remain are simple. The same guy owned the diary with five unidentified words from an obscure 17th century poem placed in the middle of it AND owned a book with those same five unidentified words excerpted in the middle of it AND was the only person on the planet who could identify for everyone the source of those words when they turned up in the diary that he brought forward.
What are the odds, huh?
So now, those desperate to keep hope alive (perhaps only because they have nothing better to do) have come up with a new dream, a new excuse, a new desperate leap into the speculative. Maybe Mike didn't really have a copy of that book until AFTER the miracle occurred in the library and then he secretly went out and found one and bought it.
Of course, this would necessitate that we all believe in the miracle, that we believe our man Mike's story about his impossible act of research, and that we believe that Mike was the only person able to locate the source of the five words not because he knew where they came from all along, but because lightning struck and God came down from heaven and wandered into the Liverpool public library and placed that very same book in his hands just by chance.
Because, you see, that's the simpler, more rational account of what probably happened.
Now, although it's still not clear to me what giving Mike's copy of this book to the people who have the diary would actually do, I don't see any problem at all in doing so. But it'd be nice if those same people were having the actual artifacts in question themselves thoroughly examined by the latest science as well. Unfortunately, I know better.
You see, Caroline's attempt to criticize the group she calls "modern hoax theorists" (is there a club, are there dues, can I join, do we get t-shirts or jackets?), really has nothing to do with who has gotten a look at the Sphere Guide or what's become of Kane's handwriting samples or why someone hasn't found a bottle of old ink. It's not about any of that.
It's just about who's better, my side or your side. Who's really got the moral high ground these days, from post to post or argument to argument. (There is no moral high ground in any of this, of course, we're all in the same mud.) It's a rhetorical gesture, part of the game we play here because we're all bored and we all know, in our heart of hearts that nothing's going to happen anyway, so why not play a little verbal one-upsmanship and kill some time.
It's all just her way of saying, "Well, you keep saying my side's not testing, but neither is yours. So there! Nyah, nyah."
Of course, it changes nothing.
The diary won't be retested, unlimited access to the watch will never be given to scientists, all these other tests will never take place, and nothing new will happen. And that'll suit many people just fine. Well, perhaps not many, but some anyway.
This all stopped being a search for the truth a long time ago, and became a battle of attrition and rhetoric. And that's all it's ever going to be really. Just a fun little skirmish in the morning. A way of keeping in language practice -- like an early morning exercise routine for one side of the brain.
So Caroline will now send another post tomorrow or Monday, telling you what's wrong with my version of the library story and how Mike might not have really had the Sphere Book when he said he did and might really have just found the quote for the first time when he was given the task, that we can't be sure, and how we're being irresponsible by not letting "the other side" see the book (I don't even know where the book is either, by the way). And then she'll repeat herself about the Kane samples and the ink, just for good measure. And the circle of life here in Maybrick world will continue.
But it's all just a dance.
If we were whooping cranes, at least we'd end up mating when we're finished.
But we're not.
So we'll just go on until someone goes away or gets bored or offended or busy or has a loved one get sick or die or has something else important happen in their lives, and then things will be quiet again (like they were last month), until boredom returns and someone decides they have a new angle of attack to make themselves look better than their opponent ("hey, they haven't tested the Kane samples, I should bring that up!"), and it will all begin again.
That's what we do here.
That's what we've always done.
And we know only this. The book's a fake. James Maybrick was certainly not the Ripper. And we are all very silly people.
All the best,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on June 11, 2004)
(Message edited by omlor on June 11, 2004) |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 297
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 8:35 am: | |
"Most uncannily of all, it appears that the Kane sample(s), the Diamine issue and the Sphere book are now receding in importance to the point where none of them is regarded as crucial to proving the diary's true origins."
As the Kane samples haven't been tested I don't see how they can easily be dismissed. (The same of course applies to Mike, Anne, Tony, and Billy's handwriting.)
The jury is still out on the ink, but I would agree that it's unlikely to be proved to be Diamine at this point.
IMO, the Sphere guide however is still smoking. |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 329
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 8:50 am: | |
Can I ask an obvious question?
Would the owner of the diary allow it to be examined for the purpose of comparison with the Kane samples?
The reason I ask is that I thought I'd read here that the owner had a policy of not allowing further tests unless there was an assurance they would settle the matter one way or the other. I could easily be wrong, but that's the impression I've got from past discussions here.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 340
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 9:44 am: | |
Hi everyone
John O. your story was very entertaining.
Really can I asked again what exactly is it that is stopping us test anyones handwriting. (I mean I have a copy of the diary writing in shirleys book, I know this is not the best way to do things but copies do exist if access to the original is denied).
I still don't understand what you would be testing the sphere book for exactly - I don't think it could prove much.
Best wishes
Jennifer |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 342
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 10:32 am: | |
Hi Chris,
If I had to guess, I'd guess that allowing experts to see the diary strictly for purposes of comparison with the Kane handwriting samples is one thing the owner of the diary would be glad to do. No problem.
Let's see if that's the word that is brought forth.
-John
PS: Nobody's going to admit to having the policy you mention regarding thoroughly retesting the diary, by the way. But watch what actually happens, not what people say. Watch and see if it ever occurs. That will tell you all you need to know.
(Message edited by omlor on June 11, 2004) |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 343
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 10:39 am: | |
Jennifer,
Your question assumes that Caroline (or John or I or anyone else here) is really interested enough in getting everyone's handwriting thoroughly examined to personally go through all the stuff (nice word) that would accompany such a task.
No one is.
I know why. (But you promised not to ask me.)
So nothing will happen except for this little verbal schoolyard game of king-of-the-hill, this silly "my gang is more righteous than your gang" posing nonsense.
That's the fact here.
That's the inescapable truth.
The rest is just for show.
Watch, and see if I'm not right, in the end.
Thanks, and all the best,
--John |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 298
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 10:42 am: | |
Jennifer,
Copies of the quality available can't really by professional examiners. They need the originals or very high resolution photographs. The various samples of the potential authors seem to be in different hands and getting them all together would be quite a trick I expect.
Additionally, when exemplars are taken for forensic document examination they are usually taken under controlled circumstances and are a bit more... substantial... than the sentence or two that seems to exist for the various "suspects".
Regards,
John |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 414
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 10:50 am: | |
I still find it ironic that the Swanson Marginalia --one might say an infinitely more important historic document than the Maybrick Diary(and granted one with a better provenance)--was 'authenticated' by photocopy alone and no one seems to mind. (Just a smart-mouthed bit of marginalia of my own). RP |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 415
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 11:09 am: | |
Caz--The press is allowed a great deal of wiggling room, and can generally publish what they wish to publish. In short, there was certainly nothing illegal in the publishing of Shirley Harrison's book. It was merely an investigation of a questioned document. (I believe it even had a sticker to that effect stuck on the dust cover.) The readers of her book could hardly cry 'fraud', in any legal sense. They paid their 20 bucks and were rewarded with an interesting story. There are gray areas though, I suppose, and when the Sunday Times sued to get out of their confidentially agreement , there was some vague suspicion that the publishing firm might have been directly involved in the creation of the Diary, so they were investigated. But, as you know, there was no evidence that Mr. Smith knowingly took part in the creation of the Maybrick Diary. I don't recall if this was merely part of the Times action. Whatever the case, they were cleared of any suspicion of fraud & the matter was dropped for good.
But I'm not speaking in the abstract. As I understand it, a real live UK detective was approached and he stated that he was still willing to investigatate a charge of fraud against Barrett (who signed a sworn affidavit that he forged the Diary) as long as the person who bought the Diary from Barrett would file a complaint. Money changed hands, albeit it was only one pound. (But hey, if my memory serves me correctly, wasn't part of Barrett's signing contract contingent on him not committing forgery? You'd have to ask Mr. Smith, but I believe Barrett would possibily be at risk of repaying some 70,000 pounds or more. So the one pound purchase value is but one drop in a larger bucket.) But, as I say, I see no chance of another police investigation.
I can understand John Omlor's refusal to step into the Dark Ages by not letting Science give it another go, but I tend to be a pragmatist these days. What practical value would come from further forensic examinations? I recall two men who wrote textbooks on Forgery stating the handwriting wasn't Maybrick's. Two other hightly-respected document examiners agreed. The result? Two men argued that the Will was a fake and two ladies argued that Maybrick had personality disorders that made him write in another hand. What is it you wish to accomplish that you already haven't accomplished? What is the way forward? Quis hic locus? Quae regio? Quae mundis plaga? |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 344
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 11:21 am: | |
Hi RJ,
As I think you know, there will be no forward. There is no forward. There are only our little games here, our own little acts of onanism via keyboard.
So it's not really worth discussing what the latest scientific developments might make possible, is it?
We move like the crab, shuffling only from side to side on this filthy ocean floor, and eating only that which is already dead.
"I should have been a pair of ragged claws," indeed.
All the best,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 342
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 11:44 am: | |
Hi
If your not bothered why are you here?!
If you are bothered in getting it tested why are you here?
Lets just get the thing tested?!
Jennifer |
Kelly Robinson
Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 46
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 12:24 pm: | |
John O.: It's pretty far up the thread now, but I gotta give you love for the Pinter homage!
Pinter fan,
Kelly
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner |
An anti-diarist
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 10:34 am: | |
It is amazing how the 'dead duck' that is the diary still attracts discussion here. No reasonable, unbiassed, and informed person even begins to believe that it's genuine.
For many of the diary camp it is their sole claim to fame so they have to keep the debate (if that's what you call it) alive somewhere.
For recycled drivel this thread cannot be beaten. |
INTRIGUED BYSTANDER
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 12:51 pm: | |
I would like to apologize for the interruption of this thread. I have recently become interested in the Jack the Ripper case and have spent many hours perusing this site... I might add that it was quite enjoyable due to the many well-spoken and knowledgeable people here.
Anyway, in my wanderings I came across this fascinating thread and could not resist going back and reading previous postings. Being the person that I am, I quickly noticed Prof. Omlar's continued reference to a certain date (now in the very near future) and became somewhat intrigued. After a bit of research, I could find no reference of this date in regards to The Ripper. So, why would this clearly educated & informed man be so obsessed with this date (ruling out the "Bastille Day" conclusion)?
Well John, you set out a mission that I could not resist. In order to get my bills paid every month, I must constantly do research on the internet finding out what something is… who made it… when was it made… it is of value? I am not bragging by any means, but if it is there to be found, I will find it.
So in conclusion..... (as everyone waits with bated breath... drum roll please...) I believe that in regards to July 14, you are anticipating the Green River serial killer trial to begin on said date, which was almost as gruesome as The Ripper murders and similar in many ways (the killer did in those he believed to be prostitutes). The mystery is solved. CASE CLOSED.
Since I am posting this, I would be grateful for any other sites, books, documents, etc. that anyone could recommend for a novice to this subject. I have recently become intrigued with the Gothic works of the Romantic period and this just seems to logically follow (at least in my head).
Thank you all for your time and as I am now hooked, I will be returning to this site for updates and more reading.
"AN INTRIGUED BYSTANDER"
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 345
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 4:51 pm: | |
Hey there, Intrigued,
Nice find. But wrong. The significance, such as it is, of the date in question can be found much closer to home.
Happy hunting.
Jennifer,
Indeed, it sounds simple, doesn't it? If you write me private e-mail, I'll show you exactly why it's not.
Kelly,
Thanks, I was hoping there might be a Pinter fan or two out there. He would love all this rhetorical struggling for power.
Enjoying things now,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 343
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 6:22 am: | |
Hi all,
John O.
my last post was not directed at you but rater in general at everyone and looking back on it - it was probably a bit off for which I apologise. I will email you if you like.
Everyone - am I right in thinking that the dates from previous tests contradict each other ??
cheers
Jennifer |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 346
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 7:36 am: | |
Hi Jennifer,
No problem. I completely understand your frustration. I have sent you the relevant material.
Also, if you want to see exactly what the early tests on the diary offered us, you can check out the dissertations section of the Casebook, where they are thoroughly discussed. You'll see still more reasons why the responsible thing to do is quite clear.
But, after all of this, after the sunsets and the dooryards and the sprinkled streets, after the novels, after the teacups, after the skirts that trail along the floor...,
We'll still just be talking.
And nothing will be done.
Thanks for asking,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1090
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 10:01 am: | |
So I take it no one here is willing to get in touch with Peter Birchwood to ascertain who actually gave him the Kane sample copies for handing over at the Oxford Summit in 2001, and who might be able to provide the originals?
Thought not. Too much like hard work. Probably much quicker to wait until the diary owner puts in a formal complaint, then let the boys in blue spend taxpayer's money banging on the door of Peter's contact to ask why this important evidence has been allowed to fester for so long. I must say, I'm looking forward to the reaction to that particular doorstep encounter no end.
And I can just imagine the bottom line of the report if some kind soul in the meantime were to arrange and finance a professional comparison between the diary and copies of Kane’s handwriting sample(s).
‘The same person may/is unlikely to (delete whichever floats your boat) have written both documents, however, in the absence of the original handwriting samples it is impossible to reach a more definite conclusion.’
And where would that get anyone, regardless of whether or not they have strong opinions about the age of the diary?
Carry on chaps.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 639
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 10:35 am: | |
So why don't you do it then? Or is it easier to berate others for inaction than to take action yourself?
 |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1091
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 11:37 am: | |
Hi Ally,
I have already volunteered to do everything except make the initial contact (for reasons best known to Peter Birchwood, so you'd have to ask him) and finance the comparison - despite the fact that I don't believe for a single second that Gerard Kane has ever set eyes on the diary.
If no one else is going to volunteer any time or effort, does this mean we have now heard the last of the suspicions about Kane's writing and behaviour?
I won't raise the subject again if everyone else is happy to do nothing and drop all previous suspicion against this man.
Love,
Caz
X |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 640
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 12:44 pm: | |
Isn't it convenient that everyone who is calling for tests and berating others for not taking action is completely happy to provide excuses for why they themselves fail to act.
No wonder the Diary mess hasn't been solved. How about you bypass Birchwood altogether. Contact Kane, tell him you believe in him implicitly and would like to prove it, then get another sample of his handwriting (one that isn't faked) and then since you are in tight with the Diary crowd, surely they would let you have access to the original diary so that a handwriting anlalyst could take a peek at both.
Of course, the handwriting analyst would have to be picked by someone other than you for anyone to believe the results, but it seems to me that since you are a person who firmly believes in the Diary's authenticity, you are the best person to convince the people to let you have access to it.
|
Brian Rice
Police Constable
Username: Saucy
Post Number: 1
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 2:08 pm: | |
Greetings everyone. Weighing in on this topic, I have to make a point here as it pertains to handwriting and document analysis, examination, etc. In America's adversarial system, our courts have deemed a defendant innocent until proven guilty. I ass-u-me this is the case in the UK where much of our common law practices originated. In this practice, one is deemed innocent unless there is proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt" or "reasonable doubt," or by a "preponderance of the evidence." As such, the burden of proof in this situation (much to my chagrin) would be on those saying the works are forgeries. One has to look at the works as authentic (innocent) until proven forgeries (guilty). Therefore, it is not up to Caz to prove the items authentic, it is up to us nay-sayers to prove them forgeries. When you think about it, how do we prove them fake? By finding evidence contrary to rationale and contrary to the prototypes of their day. That is no different than a law enforcement entitiy proving someone committed a crime (sorry Ally, John, myself). John, you are right, nothing will be done, because the pro-diary camp does not want to erroneously uncover fakes while trying to prove authenticity. There is no opponent to the pro-diary camp, because there is no "real" victim that wants justice. Thus, the diary is a moot point. We know it is not genuine, so lets find the answer somewhere else, and leave those who believe the diary to be the "end-all" to stop the quest for truth.
John, First the Buc's, then the Lightning; does this mean in two years the D-Rays win the series???? I can only dream.
P.S. Does anyone think Shapiro, Cochran, or F. Lee will have trouble sleeping tonight? |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 345
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 2:30 pm: | |
Caroline,
I would love to get into contact with whoever it is. Would however be heard to do as i have no idea of their email address or contact details!
Regards
Jennifer |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 347
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 2:56 pm: | |
Well,
As I suspected, Caroline is unwilling to do what she so strongly encourages others to do. So her voice here is rendered no more relevant or meaningful than the voices of all the other wise-guy bystanders around here, myself included.
And as I suspected, no one really wants to get anything tested.
And as I suspected, no one wants to become embroiled in the ugly mess that such a process will inevitably become.
And, as I suspected, the diary will not be properly, thoroughly retested and no scientist will ever be given unlimited access to the watch (both the only responsible actions to take, of course), and no one's handwriting will be tested against the diary, and nothing at all will change, which is no doubt just fine with a number of those involved.
It's no wonder Caroline says she "won't raise the subject again." (A promise I absolutely refuse to believe. In fact, I'm guessing I'll see the subject again attached to words in her name before the week is halfway gone. Just watch.)
And so my original assessment has once again proven correct. The entire discussion, the entire thread, the entire week, has amounted entirely to this:
************************************
Caroline thinks the Kane samples should be tested.
I think everything else should be tested too.
Nothing is going to happen.
Thanks for coming.
***********************************
If you feel like you've been wasting your time, congratulations. You're now a citizen of Diary world. Sorry that the book's a fake, but please, come back tomorrow for more fun.
Brian,
Actually, you're not quite right about the burden of proof in document cases. When a document with an uncertain provenance appears, the burden falls on those claiming that it is authentic to establish its bona fides. It is quite properly treated with suspicion by historians and professionals until its authenticity has been historically verified and established.
So, technically, the burden remains on those still pimping this silly book to prove it ever even came anywhere near the real James Maybrick.
Guess what?
They are not even close.
In fact, every single piece of verifiable evidence we have points directly in the other direction, from the handwriting to the text itself and its ahistoricity to the complete lack of provenance and all the rest.
A criminal case is another matter entirely, of course. There a case would have to be made against someone in particular. There the burden would indeed be to prove guilt rather than innocence. I know of no one who is willing to undertake such a prosecution at this point.
But as I've said, this all stopped being a quest for the truth a long time ago. It is simply a public relations battle at this point (and a pleasant diversion during boring summers for some of us mentally meandering masochists). It's a schoolyard game of shouting and verbal play-fighting and in the end Caroline no more cares about testing the Kane samples or protecting Mr. Kane's reputation than she does about seeing the diary is properly retested or seeing scientists are given unlimited access to the watch. It's all just rhetoric and posing for effect. The only difference is some of us admit it and some of us don't.
The result, though, is the same. Nothing will be done and the book will still be a fake.
On a brighter note, thanks for the kind words about the Bucs and Bolts. But I wouldn't hold your breath for the Rays. Unless getting out of last place in the division can be considered a "win" of some sort. Then there's a chance. Maybe.
All the best to everyone, from one who accurately saw the future when this whole discussion restarted,
--John
PS: No, I don't think they'll have any trouble sleeping. They did what they were hired to do and did it well. It's not their fault that they came up against some of the worst lawyering in the history of big time jurisprudence.
(Message edited by omlor on June 12, 2004) |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 330
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 3:08 pm: | |
If anyone does want to draw Peter Birchwood's attention to Caz's messages, he can be contacted through this page:
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/board-profile.cgi?action=view_profile&profile=pbirchwood-users
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 347
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 3:11 pm: | |
I give up.
Good luck to you all!!!
If nothing is tested - we have nothing to discuss do we?
ps thanks for your emails john i got them
Jennifer |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 349
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 3:28 pm: | |
Ps sure i may have emailed peter now the ball is out of my court and I give up with this thread.
pps I hope I have not caused any offence
Jennifer |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1092
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 4:17 pm: | |
Hi All,
John O,
I wrote that I won't raise the subject again if everyone else is happy to do nothing and drop all previous suspicion against Kane. That doesn’t seem to be the case yet – or does it?
You wrote:
‘Caroline thinks the Kane samples should be tested.’
I certainly think it would be productive if those who continue to suspect Kane could help me get things organised. Since Peter Birchwood could only finally be persuaded to bring copies of the samples to Oxford in 2001 if he could be sure that ‘Mrs Morris’ was not going to turn up (am I really that scary?), I can safely say that any attempts by me to ask Peter for the originals are highly unlikely to get a positive response.
Ally,
I am not ‘a person who firmly believes in the Diary's authenticity’. I don’t believe in anything until the proof is there. Judging me by your own, or other people’s standards and beliefs, instead of by my own words on the subject, doesn’t help you or anyone else date the diary.
But thanks for your continued efforts. We’ll get there in the end.
Hi Jenn,
Of course you have not caused any offence – not to me anyway. I learned long ago that one chooses whether to take offence or not. Life is easier and far more pleasant if one does the latter.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 641
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 4:37 pm: | |
Hello Caroline,
While I can't speak for Peter, I doubt the emotion that he was feeling regarding your presence was fear.
And I am sorry, but was it not you that said your top suspects were:
1. Maybrick
2. Maybrick
3. Maybrick
Now I know that you added some caveat about the watch but lets face it, the only reason Maybrick is included is because of the Diary. So you can dance around it all you want, but no one really believes your claims of neutrality on the issue anymore.
And again, considering that you are the person best positioned to make the inquiries, being pals with those who are involved in the Diary, are you or are you not going to do something towards seeing that the Kane's handwriting gets matched against the Diary?
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1093
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 4:39 pm: | |
By the way, Ally,
Do you mean you don't think either sample by Kane was in his natural hand?
Do you know if Kane knows what he is suspected of doing?
Melvin Harris told us all to back off Kane because of his poor health. If Kane had nothing to do with the diary it's a great pity the samples taken back in 1999 weren't compared with it immediately in order to eliminate him as the suspected penman. Harris also said it was the duty of every investigator to try to eliminate his or her suspect.
I take it you don't agree, and that you think it's ok to leave any old Tom, Dick or Harry in the frame regardless of their guilt or innocence, while others who don't share your suspicions are expected to investigate them for you?
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 348
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 4:41 pm: | |
Yes!
I knew she'd back! And even faster than I expected.
It's good to know there are some things you can count on.
Still, there is nothing new. Still, nothing is happening. Still, no tests for the diary or the watch or anything else are going to be conducted. Still no one has actually said anything new about Kane being guilty or not. But there she is. Just because.
Oh, and she thinks the Kane samples should be tested.
Watch, and see if they are. See if the diary ever is again. See if the watch is.
They won't be, and I know why and, as Jennifer will confirm, I'll be happy to demonstrate why for anyone who wants to write to me privately and who cares enough to do so.
Of course, Caroline couldn't go away without dredging up something irrelevant concerning someone who isn't here, because this is a game remember, and you have to leave on top of the pile. Or at least you must feel like you're there, even if you're really right down here in the mud and muck like the rest of us.
But no matter. The promise has gone unfulfilled yet again. No one posted that they thought Kane was guilty of anything, or even that they suspected him of anything, since her last post, but still she came back just the same and brought it up again.
I love this place.
With great joy,
--John
PS: Nothing will be tested. Not the watch. Not the diary. Not the handwriting. Nothing. And that won't bother some people one little bit.
PPS: And I don't blame anyone for not rising to the bait and getting involved in this. I know what waits at the end of that dark alley. |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 642
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 4:55 pm: | |
Caroline,
Are you actually incapable of answering a direct question directly?
Just wondering,
Ally
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1094
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 4:57 pm: | |
Hi Ally,
Our posts crossed.
Ask Chris Phillips and John Omlor.
They both said, or at least implied, that if the scratches were in the watch back in 1992, before Albert bought it, Maybrick has to be The Ripper. And who am I to doubt them?
I have already written at least three times what I can do and what I can't do regarding getting the Kane samples compared with the diary. I can do everything apart from get a straight answer out of Peter Birchwood and pay for the comparison myself.
If the samples don't get compared, Kane doesn't get to be official history-book quality penman, and the suspicions against him remain the stuff of fiction. Oh dear, what a shame, never mind.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 643
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 5:06 pm: | |
Ah I see Caroline,
It's okay for you to doubt John, who has some degree of expertise in literature, when he says there is no way Barrett found that quote like he did, but when he implies the scratches would authenticate the watch, you believe him then despite his total lack of skill in this area.
It's convenient what you choose to believe. As long as it comes out on the side of the Diary being authentic.
And if the suspicions against Kane do remain the stuff of fiction, he is in good company...right up there with James Maybrick. Oh dear, what a shame, never mind.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1095
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 5:22 pm: | |
Hi Ally,
Ok, just to show I am willing to accept I was wrong, and to change my mind, I'll change my statement to:
If the ripper scratches in the watch were already there by July 14 1992 (that magic date again), Chris Phillips and John Omlor would believe that Maybrick must have been Jack the Ripper.
And I would simply be happy to accept the ripper scratches were not hoaxed on the back of the diary.
I agree with your final paragraph - if no further information emerges to put Maybrick in the frame, or Kane back in the frame.
Cheers!
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by Caz on June 12, 2004) |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
