|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 365
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 5:19 am: |       |
Caz
I find it remarkable that only a few days ago you claimed to know enough about "the diary’s availability" to make a public accusation that John was lying about it.
Now, apparently, you are "only going by Robert Smith’s latest words", and can only suggest I ask him directly.
I know nothing that's said on these boards should surprise me any more, but even so ...
Chris Phillips
|
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 66
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 7:43 am: | |
Dear Dee
Bravo. What an excellent “last post” if I might say so.
You are only echoing what a majority of us are all either thinking or have previously said.
You’d think that this might be a good place to discuss the diary, (it ought to be), but alas due to the antics of just one or two it’s nothing of the sort.
Any posting that doesn’t agree with those who have long ago, and without a scrap of evidence, decided they are right and everyone else wrong gets treated the same way.
As for light hearted discussion….don’t even try. All you’ll get back is the same old ponderous, boring and repetitious padding that seems to be the bane of the Maybrick boards.
Anyway, its great to see your little bit of sanity here amongst what could hardly be described as a discussion.
All the best, and please keep posting,
Paul
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 424
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 7:59 am: | |
Sorry, Paul.
Not today.
Today is for other things. I love you, man.
--John |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 796
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 12:21 pm: | |
Hi, all
I felt confused by some of what John Omlor said about why the effort to test the Diary fell through in trying to set up testing of the Diary with Robert Smith and Paul Begg. I asked Paul for clarification of exactly what had happened that stymied the effort to test the Diary. Paul has sent me the following long reply which I think clarifies the situation.
If anyone is interested we might be intested in running a column in Ripperologist to further debate the subject of Diary testing.
Best regards
Chris George
****************
Dear Chris,
I can't speak for Robert Smith, but I certainly wouldn't have been daft enough to have wanted a laboratory to guarantee results before they undertook the tests and I don't think Robert would either, although I see absolutely nothing wrong in setting down some clearly defined questions and seeking an assurance from a laboratory that the technology exists to answer them. As I think we reported in the Rip some time ago, although the results of professionally and substantially funded tests on the Casement diaries seemed pretty conclusive, they were almost immediately disputed by apparently authoritative sources. Commenting specifically on scientific testing, one commentator, Jeffrey Dudgeon (author of Roger Casement: The Black Diaries, with a Study of his Background, Sexuality and Irish Political Life, Belfast 2002) wrote: 'The notion of further forensic examination turning up convincing evidence to prove forgery, or genuineness, was always implausible and has proved the case. Nonetheless a number of commentators maintain a naive belief in the ultimate proof of authenticity only being provided by amazingly complex, untried, scientific tests. But the diaries are like the Turin Shroud, an article of faith.' See
http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/irhismys/casement.htm and
http://home.wmin.ac.uk/marketingresearch/2179casement.htm
http://home.wmin.ac.uk/marketingresearch/2179casement.htm for further information if you are interested. I have absolutely no idea whether Dudgeon's comments are justified or not, but an awareness of them governed (and would still govern) my dealings with any testing laboratory and I certainly don't think it is unjustified to seek from a laboratory some idea of the tests that would be done and an explanation of what they might achieve and what their limitations are. Indeed, the criticisms of Audrey Giles' tests on the Casement diaries would encourage me to seek from another laboratory a critical review of what the first laboratory proposed so that we could cover any loopholes that could give rise to later disputatious argument. But the fact is that testing is not a simple matter of handing the diary over to a laboratory and letting them get on with it. The probable result of doing that would be yet more disputes and demands for yet more tests. That's why we looked for some sort of assurance that the tests would be indisputable (by all but the most diehard believer or non-believer). John Omlor doesn't seem to understand any of this, hence he misinterprets our statements as an unreasonable demand for prior guarantees.
As you may recall, some time ago, Mr. Omlor set himself up to raise the financing for tests on the diary and to enter into negotiation with a laboratory he had identified. Robert Smith was reluctant to allow further tests because the diary had been damaged in previous testing, but he agreed to John Omlor's offer if it could be guaranteed that there was a likelihood of the tests materially advancing our knowledge. Specifically, Robert Smith hoped that the tests would date when the ink went on the paper to within a reasonable date range. I believe that John Omlor understood and agreed to this stipulation. John Omlor subsequently and for unclear reasons decided that he would not enter into discussions with the laboratory and I was asked to take his place. At this point no discussion with the laboratory had taken place and nobody, including John Omlor, knew what tests were available or what they might achieve, so any stipulations were little more than reasonable ideal wishes and were open to modification or to being abandoned altogether as more was learned about what was and was not possible. As it happens, my experience with the laboratory was that discussion proved almost impossible to establish because the laboratory did not respond to emails and seemed uninterested in the whole project.
Reviewing the experiences with previous diary testing and the testing of other documents, notably Roger Casement's so-called 'black diaries', it was clear that arbitrary, ill-defined testing was a wholly unprofessional approach and that we needed to know what tests were proposed, what results they might produce, what the limitations of the tests were, and so on, so that we could as far as possible produce the most conclusive possible results - results that would not be questioned and endlessly debated and result in demands for yet further tests, as we have seen happen on the message boards over the tests done on the watch for example. This is what Robert Smith and I were referring to in the messages that John Omlor has cited and quoted. It was what Robert Smith meant when he wrote on 11 September 2002 that things depended on me being 'convinced they [the laboratory] are able to date the document in a conclusive way.' The meaning is even clearer in the email I sent to John Omlor on 7 January 2003 in which I said that we wanted an assurance that further tests would have 'a reasonable chance of getting - definitive answers.' The important words are 'are able to' and 'a reasonable chance.' We were clearly seeking an assurance that the laboratory had the capability to date the document, not seeking any prior guarantees that the laboratory would date it.
Let me make this extremely clear as it seems to be what John Omlor has completely misunderstood. All other tests on the diary (and watch) had been inconclusive and the results fiercely disputed by both pro- and anti-diarists. Taking the view that arbitrary testing was unprofessional and that it would be counter productive if further tests produced equally inconclusive results and led to more confusion and further disputes and arguments and demands for more testing, we wanted an assurance from the laboratory that they had the technology, the equipment, the reference materials, the expertise, and an understanding of the questions in need of answers and the problems surrounding previous tests, to produce results sufficiently conclusive to end the debate.
I have no idea why John Omlor imagined that we were seeking guarantees 'in advance that they'll provide a conclusive date.' I don't recall either Robert or I expressing that. It isn't expressed in any of the quotes John Omlor has cited 'could provide "conclusive results"', 'date the document in a conclusive way' and 'a reasonable chance of getting - definitive answers' - all meant nothing more than that we did not want arbitrary testing that produced results that got us nowhere. Wanting an assurance that we could get some meaningful results is not the same as wanting an assurance that we would get them.
What surprises me is that John Omlor neither told Robert or I that what he thought we wanted was unreasonable nor checked with us to find out if we really did mean what he thought we meant. After all, as John Omlor has said, no self-respecting scientist would give an assurance 'in advance that they'll provide a conclusive date.', so surely it must have occurred to John Omlor that we wouldn't have made such a daft stipulation to a laboratory? This should have tipped him off that he'd misunderstood us or that we weren't expressing ourselves very clearly. If there was any uncertainty about what we meant then he should have checked with us. Indeed, it strikes me as thoroughly irresponsible not to have made every effort to establish the facts before making public declarations that impinged upon the honesty and integrity of others, such as publicly accusing Robert Smith of being a conman! I don't recall that John Omlor sought any clarification from me and am sure that I would have corrected him had he done so. It might be useful, therefore, if he cited the emails, letters, or other communications in which he clearly and unambiguously stated what he imagined we were saying and requested clarification.
But the whole point is that we wanted nothing more than, as Robert Smith said, an assurance that the laboratory was 'able to date the document in a conclusive way'. This wish was dictated by Robert's understandable desire that the Maybrick diary not be damaged further, but everything was very fluid at the time and ideal wishes were open to modification or to abandonment as more about what the laboratory could and could not do was learned. Unfortunately no headway was made because the laboratory in question did not take any interest in the project. The last message from me to them was a request for advice about how best to proceed with the testing. The laboratory did not reply.
Best regards
Paul Begg
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 514
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 2:17 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
I see you have chosen today to make an appearance in diary world!
Anyway never mind that - the point I'm getting to it. Truly is what you are saying that this argument has been going on for two years with various people saying to get the diary tested solely because of a small misunderstanding in relation to whether or not Robert Smith and John Omlor were on the same wavelength?
I mean thats amazing, isn't it. Please lets stop worrying about it and just get the diary tested (which Robert has generously offered to do with no strings attached). Which is i think you'll agree means its all cleared up!
I look forward to your article
Cheers
Jennifer
ps there are some things i just don't understand diary world must be one!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 427
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 3:54 pm: | |
Man, everyone turns out on DiTA day.
Hurrah.
Robert Smith, on Sepetmber 11th, 2003:
"If he [Paul Begg] is convinced they are able to date the document in a conclusive way, I will then send the reports to them."
That's as clear as can be, folks. But I do love this distinction:
"We were clearly seeking an assurance that the laboratory had the capability to date the document, not seeking any prior guarantees that the laboratory would date it."
So they weren't asking if they would, only if they could. Fascinating. Practically speaking, if they could, surely they would, right? So seeking assurance that they could amounts precisely to seeking assurance that they would. It's a nifty little wordgame, but it's a distinction without a difference in the real world (although clearly not in Diary World).
And Paul wonders,
"What surprises me is that John Omlor neither told Robert or I that what he thought we wanted was unreasonable nor checked with us to find out if we really did mean what he thought we meant."
But of course, he and I had conversations about this very topic, even "argued" about it, in emails on Thursday, February 13th and Friday, Febrary 14th. You can tell we are discussing it when you read from the first of those emails, where Paul says to me:
"And we all know what Joseph Barabe meant by his cautious and realistic statement, and equally I know what Robert Smith means by his - he wants an answer that will give us a meaningful date."
So the idea that I didn't mention this concern to them is simply and clearly belied by the written record.
Finally, at the end of his note, Paul once again makes my point for me.
He writes: "But the whole point is that we wanted nothing more than, as Robert Smith said, an assurance that the laboratory was 'able to date the document in a conclusive way'."
And of course, they wanted this assurance, as Robert says on the 11th of September, before even the old lab reports would be sent to the new lab.
And I talked to McCrone and to other labs as well, and I learned very quickly that such "assurance" was not going to be given before seeing the material.
And that's the record as it still stands.
But Jennifer is correct.
And so, with the arrival of DiTA day, 2004, I will no longer dwell here on the testing events (and non-events) of the past. Let us speak only of the glorious promises of the future.
Besides, I remain completely content with the written record as it currently stands here.
Of course, if anyone wants to see any of the documents and history of past events, including the fun stuff, as always they can feel free to send me email, as so many others have, and read about that following summer of '03 for themselves.
Me? I am simply happy now to wait for the future results of all the future tests.
I am simply happy to see what will in fact be done from here on in by those with the material.
And I am enjoying my DiTA day very much and wish everybody the very best, including my good friend Paul Begg, who, though he might not "understand" me, loves me just the same, I'm sure.
Cheers, everyone, and enjoy the celebrations.
--John
PS: It's almost Guinness time here in Florida!
(Message edited by omlor on July 14, 2004) |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 430
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 5:13 pm: | |
One small correction. That first date in my post above should be September 11th, 2002.
Sorry.
By the way, after reading Paul Begg's email to Chris closely, I wonder how all of you feel about the likelihood that the diary will ever actually be sent to any lab anywhere ever again?
BUT NO! We mustn't think like that. After all, it's a brand new DiTA year. And surely anything is possible, right?
Man, I hope so.
We'll see.
With the motto of Diary World still ringing in my ears,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 370
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 5:37 pm: | |
All I can say after the last flurry of email messages, is that:
(1) It sounds as though Caz would have a pretty hard job of justifying her public accusation that John had lied about this. (Obviously that's a hypothetical point, as she doesn't normally feel any obligation to justify anything she says on these boards - or to withdraw anything that can't be justified.)
(2) It sounds as though the conditions for testing the diary are anything but "no strings attached", as has been asserted recently here. (No comment on whether or not that's appropriate/justifiable, but as so often in Diary matters, why say it if it isn't true?)
(3) On a wider point, I do worry a bit about the impression general readers may get from the way that Ripper "authorities" are sometimes deployed here to attack those who disbelieve the authenticity of the diary. It would be very bad if the general reader got the impression that any of these authorities actually believe in the diary. As far as I know, there aren't any Ripper authorities who believe the authenticity of the diary is credible. No doubt I'll swiftly be corrected if any do (Colin Wilson?).
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on July 14, 2004) |
Robert J Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 9:03 am: | |
Dee,
I believe many people on these boards will respond positively and sympathetically to your post. I am sure everyone, apart from a couple of people, would agree with you on the reasons to be here, i.e. to debate and to learn.
You naturally expect John Omlor to respond to you on a human and an interactive level to your thoughtful and (as always) courteous post.
He just can’t do it. All you get back is a heartless diatribe of vintage clap-trap, which has no relevance at all to the points you made.
His agenda is to stifle any proper debate about the diary on these boards. There is a long history of people, who, in the end, were so appalled by his penchant for humiliation and intimidation, that they leave the diary debate for a while. Your clear and sincere post is dismissed as “a vague discussion of manners”. You try to be reasonable, but with John, you are either 100% for his views, or you are the enemy. Unlike the rest of us, he has no doubt that he is always right.
Understandably, you are puzzled and frustrated by his dislocated responses. But you know, it’s not you, who can’t relate properly.
I hope you will find ways around the problem to continue contributing to the debate, because, as you have discovered, there is plenty of scope for it. John’s attempt to brainwash readers with a torrent of repetitive assertion is increasingly ineffectual and only serves to emphasise the following quiet truths: there is no single piece of incontrovertible evidence to prove the diary to be a forgery; there is no direct evidence to identify the forger(s); and we know of no specific details of how the forgery was created.
All best,
Robert
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 434
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 7:49 am: | |
Wow, do I love these last two posts!
First, TB shows up with one of the really great "maybe somedays" in all of Diary World -- the mysterious invocation of crucial missing information. You can almost hear the melodramatic film noir music building menacingly in the background as you read the words "a very strong reason."
But of course, we're not told what the "very strong reason" might be. It's a secret apparently.
Just makes you more convinced than ever that James was the Ripper, doesn't it? 
OK, maybe not.
And then my good friend Robert arrives to say a few lovely things about me. Now, I notice that the date and time on his post (delayed because of he is not a registered member of our little community) indicate that he wrote and sent it before we all entered into the joyous spirit of the new DiTA year. So I guess I'll have to allow him his little self-pleasure.
But I would remind readers that my responses to Dee had only and always to do with Dee's complete failure, repeatedly, to offer any real data or evidence of any kind to support the simply uttered-on-its-own claim found in the posts above that Maybrick was the Ripper. We still have not a single piece of real evidence offered in any post from Dee or offered anywhere on this thread to support that claim. I might also point out that Robert didn't rush in and offer any either. Instead, it seems, they'd rather talk about what a mean guy I am for pointing this out.
Such is life here in Diary World, where when you don't have any real evidence, the best thing to do is complain that you're being mistreated.
I do understand. Really. And in the community spirit of the arrival of the new DiTA year, I'll accept all this chastisement happily and look forward to the bright future and the moment when someone, anyone actually shows up here and offers real data, historical documentation or any other serious evidence that links the real James in any way, shape, or form to these crimes.
If none appears, I'll be quite content to know that I might have been seen as heartless by those who cannot support their claims, but at least I have been telling the truth.
OK, that last paragraph sounds too heartless and is not in the spirit of the new year. So I take that back.
Robert, I love you, man. When and if you ever have any real evidence that the real James was in any way linked to these crimes, please do feel free to show up and offer it. Dee, you too.
My friend TB -- keep scaring the willies out of people with that mysterious rhetoric of secret stuff. It makes things much more dramatic around here, even if it doesn't change the motto of Diary World one little bit.
Because you can start at the beginning of this thread and read right through to the end and you know what you'll find?
(All together now...)
Nothing new, nothing real.
Rock on,
--John
PS: As for evidence that the diary is a forgery -- I'm not going to recite the list yet again, but I will send Robert one of our "tin match box empty..." t-shirts if he'd like.
(Message edited by omlor on July 15, 2004)
(Message edited by omlor on July 15, 2004) |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 435
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 8:11 am: | |
HEY!
What happened to Tiddley Boar's post?
It was right there between Chris's and Robert's.
And now... it's GONE!
Uh oh. I smell conspiracy. TB mentioned the sacred secret evidence and now he's history himself.
(Cue the menacing music)
One minute he's here telling us that he knows stuff the rest of us don't know but he won't say what it is, and the next minute, he and his post hinting at secrets have vanished from the scene! 
Obviously he went too far, spilled the beans, and was taken out by those who control the secret evidence that really proves that James was the Ripper (but that no one is allowed to see).
OK, I'm scared now.
Maybe I should try this...
Uh, you know, I think I've been wrong about all this. Heh heh. Yes, I see it now. Obviously James was the Ripper, all the evidence points that way, just like all the evidence about the diary, the ahistoricism, the lack of provenance, the handwriting, everything, all point to it being genuine. Of course. I'm sorry I read it all the wrong way.
I'll be good from now on. Honest.
--John (not wanting to vanish into the cyber-ether like my old friend TB)
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 526
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 2:54 pm: | |
Hi John,
I wouldn't read so much into it if I was you (esp. if it's going to do that awful thing to your head!). You better watch what you say, we may start to believe it
regards
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1133
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 5:08 am: | |
Many thanks to Chris George for posting Paul Begg's words on the subject of testing.
It must by now be abundantly clear to any reasonable person that Robert Smith can only prove his willingness, as stated again recently, to hand the diary over for more testing (or John Omlor prove his repeated claim that it will never again be handed over, in any circumstances) as and when he is given another opportunity to do so.
No one has ever suggested that Robert Smith or Albert Johnson should be solely responsible for finding their own experts, or for selling home-made scones to raise the necessary funds to get the diary and watch tested again. On the contrary, they cannot do so, because if new tests failed to expose either artefact as a 20th century fake, it would only take one whispered suggestion that the experts were in league with the devils who own the artefacts and we would be right back to square one.
The sad fact is that the combined might of John Omlor and Paul Begg has failed (for whatever reasons) to produce a single expert sufficiently interested in new testing projects to take the diary off Robert Smith’s hands, and to provide a no-nonsense guarantee that adequate funds would be available. Until that happens, and unless Robert at that stage goes back on his promise to make the diary available, no one is in a position to judge him, least of all the person who fell at the first hurdle and admitted that someone else was needed to take his place!
So basically John Omlor has dedicated the last two years of his life working himself up into a right old lather over a non-issue of misunderstandings, suspicious minds and ultimate irrelevance – ie who really deserves to take all the blame for the non-appearance of new test results, two years after John dropped his own baton.
And the final irony is that neither Robert Smith nor Albert Johnson can do a thing about it unless or until someone else takes up John’s dropped baton and not only runs with it this time, but wins the ‘find-the-expert’ and ‘fund-the-test’ obstacle race.
Please digest Paul's final words:
The last message from me to them [the laboratory recommended by John Omlor] was a request for advice about how best to proceed with the testing. The laboratory did not reply.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by Caz on July 16, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 530
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 5:38 am: | |
Hi Caz,
Thats all very well and good.
Perhaps I wasn't clear as to what I meant in my response to Chris earlier on this thread somewhere.
It is clear to me Robert Smith wants the diary re-testing, he stated as much to me publicly on these boards just this week. I doubt he would lie in public about a matter such as this.
Certainly I am not suggesting that Robert Smith or Albert Johnson or anyone else should have to re mortgage their house to test the artefacts (and I doubt John O. would either as this isn't within the spirit of his new baby 'DiTA day' as far as I can tell). I'm sure I have said here before that I fully appreciate and sympathise with the position Robert finds himself in, in relation to organising tests himself. I can see funding is an issue - personally I don't have any money - but will happily bake scones all day if you think this will help!
Now John O. don't be offended when I say this but I'm sure everyone will agree that diary testing does not need to revolve around John. John isn't the only one around here who has publicly stated that he wants the diary testing.
Caz are you seriously saying that diary testing has not taken place for two years because of a small misunderstanding about words?
Just a thought
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 438
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 7:06 am: | |
Caroline writes,
"So basically John Omlor has dedicated the last two years of his life working himself up into a right old lather over a non-issue of misunderstandings, suspicious minds and ultimate irrelevance..."
Fortunately, the last two years of my life have been dedicated to other, more useful pursuits, many of which you fine people don't really need to know about.
But I am pleased to see that we have gone from "John has been lying" to "It's all been a non-issue of misunderstandings."
My guess is that's as close as we'll ever come on these boards to seeing this particular writer take back a hasty and bogus claim.
[An Aside: See, Chris, if you look carefully, sometimes you can find a "withdrawal" even when it's not all there -- which is, of course, what you have to do in certain cases to keep the joyous spirit of the new DiTA year alive.  ]
And, once again, I would urge people to read what Robert has written above and what Paul has written to Chris above and what Paul and Robert wrote to me and then ask themselves, given those posts here, now on this thread and those citations, how likely they think it is that the diary will ever actually see the inside of a lab again?
As for what eventually happened with the first lab, all I can say, because it's all I know, is that every time I spoke with the director there personally, he expressed a keen interest in seeing the diary and the old reports.
But maybe that's just what he said to me. I have no idea what eventually occurred in the exchanges between Paul and the same person.
In any case, Jennifer is right, of course. We know who has the material. If they want to have the material properly and thoroughly tested, they will, one way or another.
The money can always be raised. The research can always be done. The contacts can always be made.
Of course, someone else will be doing it, not me, for reasons most of you now know about. (As always, those who don't can send for the reasons today.)
Now let's see if it happens.
Looking forward to the coming year and the bright and shining promises of the future and the new results, I remain here happy to watch and wait and learn,
--John
PS: Jennifer, is also right about my not wanting anyone to mortgage anything. So put my name on both lists. I'll happily contribute my dollars to new tests on the diary and on the watch when and if they are arranged. After all, it's the DiTA thing to do.
(Message edited by omlor on July 16, 2004)
(Message edited by omlor on July 16, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 532
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 7:23 am: | |
Hi John,
Sorry did you say I was right? I'm not sure I heard you!
Anyway seriously, apparently its all a big misunderstanding. This is good news and as I have had reassurances from all involved that they would love the diary to be tested, I think it only right that we follow this route in light of the misunderstanding having been resolved.
I'm sure there are labs in this country (England) run by eminent professors in the field which may be willing to help out.
If I can help with costs (which I very much doubt i will be able to to any great degree http://www.educationet.org/z0330.html) I will be only to happy to help. As Tescos say 'every little helps'!I will even stand out in the rain selling John's by now famous T Shirts and mugs!
Now all this misunderstanding is resolved its only fair we put it behind us and continue in the spirit of things to get the diary (and watch?) tested. After all it's what we all want including Robert Smith.
It's simple really!
Cheers
Jennifer
(Message edited by jdpegg on July 16, 2004)
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 440
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 7:46 am: | |
Hi Jennifer,
I'm glad to hear that you've been reassured by all involved.
Now let's see what happens.
Looking forward to sending my money,
--John  |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 534
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 7:58 am: | |
John,
Yes, I'm pretty sure everyone concerned with the diary has now said they wanted it tested (sorry if I'm wrong). that doesn't count the Watch. WaTA day that's for another year!
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1139
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 5:42 pm: | |
Hi Jenn,
‘Caz are you seriously saying that diary testing has not taken place for two years because of a small misunderstanding about words?’
No, I don’t think I said that. I certainly didn’t mean that.
I assumed that if no testing has taken place over the last two years it must be because no one has found a willing expert and then done the necessary fund-raising (or is that the wrong way round? I assume funds would have to be in place before asking said expert to test a sausage).
That’s all.
I don’t think any individual is to blame for whatever excuses they may have for not volunteering to give it a go, or trying and failing. I know these things take time and commitment.
And I’m afraid John O did claim again recently that a rigid condition (that never applied and would not, according to Paul Begg, have been imposed on the lab) was still in place regarding future testing, and he also claimed that the diary would never be tested again – even after Robert Smith’s statement about giving unconditional access. Previous misunderstandings are one thing, whether they could have been sorted out at the time with better communication or not. But wilfully ignoring the current situation, and ploughing on with the same old claim regardless, is hardly in the same league as a simple misunderstanding.
Anyway, at least I hope we are all now agreed that Robert Smith could not have been expected to get the diary tested without the help and support of people viewed as sufficiently impartial and objective for the job.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by Caz on July 16, 2004) |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 372
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 5:59 pm: | |
Caz
As you're persisting in this - can you back up your accusation that John was [resorting] to repeated and blatant fairy tales in what he said?
I realise you treat these bulletin board postings as an elaborate and (apparently) never-ending game, but most people in the real world consider it's quite a serious thing to accuse someone of lying.
Please could you consider following your own advice in the following extract?
If you have any documented evidence ... please do the decent thing right here, right now and put up - or shut up.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 442
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 7:32 pm: | |
Chris,
Don't worry about it. I'm more than used to Caroline's habitual revisionism. And I knew once I actually posted the written record of the exchanges, wherein I was clearly told by both Paul and Robert that the lab reports wouldn't be sent unless the lab could "convince Paul" first that they'd produce a "conclusive result" --a "meaningful date," concerning "when the ink went on the paper" -- she would not admit that I was neither lying nor telling fairy tales.
Even Paul's post about the past, of course, has actually repeated these same old terms in slightly more finely tuned but realistically identical ways. (We weren't asking them if they would conclusively date the document, only if they could...)
But really, it doesn't matter. It's all in the past and there's no point in rehashing it. We should probably even allow Caroline to try and save some face, knowing her original rhetorical accusations about lies and fairy tales were rash and ill-founded, if only because we're trying to establish a new spirit of looking toward the promises of the future and the tests and results that are sure to come.
And who knows, perhaps it was my claiming that the original conditions as described by Paul were "still in place" that actually prompted Robert to come around and reassure us all that he has allegedly revised them and that he will no longer need such an assurance from the lab before any material is sent or any testing is done (although it's not at all clear from Paul's letter to Chris whether Paul has gotten that message).
I hope this turns out to be true. I hope that a lab will in fact be sent the material, including the diary and the reports, prior to offering and in order to offer a complete and thorough and responsible evaluation of what might or might not be possible with the stuff.
We'll have to see, won't we?
As for the claim that the diary will never see the inside of a lab again -- well, the truth of that claim remains to be determined.
But I live in hope, because of the new DiTA year, and I'll be happily waiting for those new tests and those new results when they occur.
Looking only forward now, never back,
-John 
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 542
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 7:25 am: | |
Hi Caz,
sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm glad that was not what you were saying after all because it didn't seem to make sense anyway.
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1143
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 6:46 am: | |
Hi Chris,
John O wrote:
‘And who knows, perhaps it was my claiming that the original conditions as described by Paul were "still in place" that actually prompted Robert to come around and reassure us all that he has allegedly revised them and that he will no longer need such an assurance from the lab before any material is sent or any testing is done…’
The chronology is totally arse about face here, and John remains in blissful denial about the actual testing situation, past and present, as can be seen from the following extracts.
Robert Smith wrote, in a post dated July 1:
‘For once, I agree with John Omlor (8th June). “Test it all. Test everything. Do it now”. I also agree with him that testing organisations should have “unlimited access” to the diary (although to be fair, previous tests privately commissioned by Shirley Harrison, Melvin Harris, and Albert Johnson, have been limited only by their limited funds).
When requested, I have supported all the initiatives from 1992 onwards to test and examine the diary, and here publicly once again offer access to the diary for this purpose by professional and independent testing organisations.
Should anyone doubt my resolve on this point, you may remember that on 23rd January 2004, I appealed on these boards for a bottle of pre-1992 Diamine ink. I had already been in lengthy correspondence with a UK laboratory, and had received a financial estimate for tests to compare the diary ink with Diamine ink, which Mike Barrett claimed he had bought to write the diary.
If I can locate a bottle of Diamine, I will announce when the tests are to take place, and when completed, promptly post the full report of them on the Casebook for all to see.
In an attempt to move into more positive territory, I would like to encourage one or more open-minded individuals to take up the challenge of starting a major new initiative on testing.
If it’s to be done at all, let it be done properly, with a comprehensive and comparative testing programme…
May I suggest that if anyone is seriously interested in giving the time and dedication to research and administer the forensic testing of the diary, and/or in raising the funds to perform the tests and examinations, they express their interest on the boards? Because of the need for impartiality, I obviously cannot be part of the testing process. My only role would be to supply the diary to the testing organisations and experts, though, for practical reasons, I would prefer, if possible, for the work to be conducted in England.’
Then, in a post dated July 8, at 2.59 pm, Robert wrote:
‘I believe I had explained in clear English in my post of 1st July…that I was agreeing with John Omlor when he wrote : “Test it all. Test everything. Do it now.” I also agreed with him that testing organisations should have “unlimited access” to the diary.
What do I get back from John? “Things don’t change.” And in his post of 6th July on ‘The Maybrick Watch’ thread, up comes his dark reference to my so-called “conclusive results” requirement, with the comment that it “has not been significantly altered”.
I suppose that, for people in total denial, nobody does or can change. But I will try to say it again, but even more plainly:
I offer the diary for a comprehensive and comparative testing programme by one or more independent organisations with the relevant experience and resources to perform the tests. I do not require any assurance whatsoever of conclusive results on the dating of the ink, prior to testing.
Can I say it any clearer than that?
Jennifer, I explained the historical sequence of events in my 1st August 2003 post on a thread called “Proposal for New Diary Tests”. (Yes, I was calling for new tests right there, almost a year ago).’
Then John O wrote, in a post dated July 8, at 9.01 pm:
‘Of course, if the scientists aren't given access to the material unless they assure everyone in advance that they'll provide a conclusive date for when the book was written, the technology will never be available to us, since no self-respecting scientist is going to assure anyone of any such thing without having first seen the material.’
I think that just about covers it.
But if you or John O have any further problems interpreting Robert's words, I suggest you take it up with him. I've tried my best.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 551
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 7:05 am: | |
Caz,
thanks for clearing that up. Personally I find it best not to dwell in the past too much - especially in light of Robert's recent and encouraging proposal/promise to let the diary be tested by anyone who wants to arrange it.
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 449
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 7:11 am: | |
And it was a good try, too Caroline.
But as usual, you've read only what you've wanted to read.
Of course, I recall that Robert returned on the first of July this past DiTA year to "agree" with me and even offered "unlimited access" in the post that you cite.
What he didn't say in the first post you cite, however, and what I pointed out that he didn't say, was whether that "unlimited access" to the material should or would be given to the lab prior to any assurances concerning their ability to produce a conclusive or definitive result (the old request as restated recently here by Paul).
What Robert did not say upon originally reappearing here was whether he was now willing to send a lab the material, including the diary and the reports, prior to offering and in order that they might offer a complete and thorough and responsible evaluation of what might or might not be possible to accomplish with the stuff.
Then, after my comments about things not changing and my comments on another thread about the old "conclusive results" requirements, he returned, and citing these comments of mine directly, ADDED this to his original statement:
"I do not require any assurance whatsoever of conclusive results on the dating of the ink, prior to testing."
Funny, how you choose to read that sequence above, isn't it?
Also funny how there doesn't seem to be much sign in Paul's note to Chris that he has understood this change in requirements.
Also funny how, in the spirit of the new DiTA year, I keep trying to get away from rehashing this old stuff and you keep preferring to re-spin it (as I'm sure you will again in your next post).
Also funny how the book's still a fake and no scientists are looking at it.
But we can wait.
And we will, always learning, of course, from whatever happens (or doesn't happen).
Looking forward to a future of unconditional results,
--John
PS: Of course, you're right, Jen. The spirit of the new DiTA year should prevail. But I wouldn't look forward to Caroline leaving "the past" anytime soon if I were you.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 553
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 8:14 am: | |
John and Caroline,
(Let me know when I begin to sound like a parrot but)
Robert Smith said
I offer the diary for a comprehensive and comparative testing programme by one or more independent organisations with the relevant experience and resources to perform the tests. I do not require any assurance whatsoever of conclusive results on the dating of the ink, prior to testing
Now whatever happen in the past is over, whatever conditions thought (perhaps a misunderstanding?) to have been in place in regards to whether or not the diary could be proved in a conclusive nature are irrelevant in light of this new and generous offer made on these boards by Robert this month. Now really it is only fair (in light of the fact no one has yet to take Robert up on his new offer) that we give Robert Smith the benefit of the doubt however, we may feel about previous diary testing attempts and their implications.
John Omlor (8th June). “Test it all. Test everything. Do it now”.
couldn't agree more
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 451
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 9:44 am: | |
I agree, Jennifer.
Absolutely.
I believe Robert.
I look forward to hearing that assistance has been found and that arrangements have been made, and then to hearing that the diary has been sent to a lab to learn what is possible and, eventually, to hearing that the latest results are available for everyone to see.
Thanks for the wise words.
Here's to the future,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 554
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 10:02 am: | |
John,
No problem. I agree heres to the future,
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 808
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 10:28 am: | |
Hi, all
Paul Begg has sent me the following additional clarification of the situation about the negotiations that went on between himself, John Omlor, and Robert Smith about the possibility of Diary testing.
Dear Chris,
Many thanks for sending across John Omlor's reply, the content of which was disappointing but not altogether unexpected. I'm afraid it's clear that John's beliefs are so fixed that no amount of argument and evidence to the contrary will ever shift them. The bottom line is that John Omlor has claimed that Robert Smith and I wanted a prior guarantee that a testing laboratory would definitively date the diary. This belief in turn was the foundation of John Omlor's often repeated assertion that the diary would never be subjected to further tests and that Robert Smith (and presumably by implication myself) was a conman. Neither of these claims has the slightest foundation in fact and John Omlor has not presented any evidence in support of them.
The quotes he has cited refer only to our wish for an assurance from the testing laboratory that they could date the diary. John Omlor knows this.
When John Omlor elected to undertake discussions with a laboratory about testing the diary, a written agreement between him and Robert Smith had a clause, Clause 2, that stated the aims and purposes of those discussions:-
"The purpose of such investigation is to establish whether a testing organisation is able to determine conclusively when the ink was placed on the paper in the Diary within a reasonable margin of error".
Let me emphasise that the purpose was to establish that the testing laboratory "was able" to date the diary. No mention of guaranteeing that they would be able to date it.
Significantly, a further assurance was given in writing by Robert Smith that this clause did NOT mean "that the tests will only go ahead if the purpose is fully met. If it falls short, I would have to exercise judgement on how effective their proposed tests could be in solving the mystery of when the diary was written".
I am given to understand that John Omlor accepted and agreed with this and on 15th July 2002 emailed his intention of faxing the signed agreement later that day. In fact he withdrew, claiming that he felt someone "with more experience in these matters" should undertake the discussions, and I eventually took up the reins John had dropped.
So, from the outset the stated purpose of entering discussions with a testing laboratory was to "establish whether a testing organisation is able to determine conclusively when the ink was placed on the paper in the Diary within a reasonable margin of error" - or to express it differently, to see if the laboratory could date the diary. And within that context all the quotes John Omlor has cited make perfect sense, as when I wrote, "I have had to stress that this is the only time in the forseeable future that the diary will be made available for scientific examination and that we therefore need - and indeed the diary will only be released if there is a reasonable
chance of getting - definitive answers, specifically a date when the ink was put on the paper." John cites this quote as if it was extraordinary instead of little more than a paraphrase of Clause 2, and he completely ignores the words "a reasonable chance of getting.", which in John's mind somehow gets twisted into wanting a prior guarantee that the laboratory will get definitive answers.
When someone writes "So they weren't asking if they would, only if they could. Fascinating. Practically speaking, if they could, surely they would, right?" it's obvious that reasonable and rational discussion has taken wings and flown through the window. We're talking about the difference between (a) assuring us that the technology existed to do something, which is what we wanted, and (b) being able to give a prior guarantee that they would succeed at doing it, which is what John Omlor thinks we wanted. Having the ability to do something - could do it - does not mean that they would succeed at doing it - would do it. But like the rest of John Omlor's reply, this is really no more than weasel-wording around the facts.
As I said, the bottom line is that Clause 2 of the agreement that John Omlor would have signed had he not felt he would be out of his depth discussing the tests with the laboratory stated that the purpose of the discussions was to establish whether they were capable of dating the diary. All the quotes John has cited from Robert and I are clearly explicable within the context
of Clause 2. They are not requests that the testing laboratory guarantee results and they do not support John Omlor's contention that the diary will never be tested again. John Omlor IS WRONG.
The facts are as stated and it's up to readers whether they accept them or not, but I have far better things to do than play John Omlor's games.
Paul Begg
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 378
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 10:38 am: | |
I think this whole argument would be better laid to rest as a difference of opinion over the required quality of the results - as Caz now seems to accept.
But I do worry a bit when I see sentences like this:
Having the ability to do something - could do it - does not mean that they would succeed at doing it - would do it.
Surely having the ability to do something means the same as being able to do it, and that means no more and no less than that you will succeed in doing it if you try!
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 556
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 10:55 am: | |
Hello again everyone,
(Let me know when I begin to sound like a parrot but)
Robert Smith said
I offer the diary for a comprehensive and comparative testing programme by one or more independent organisations with the relevant experience and resources to perform the tests. I do not require any assurance whatsoever of conclusive results on the dating of the ink, prior to testing
Just this month Robert made this generous offer - he said no strings would be attached to this offer. Whatever the conditions of tests in the past (and our views on how this might affect future tests) they are just that - history. We should not let them cloud our judgement about the conditions (which it has been stated there will be none) of any future tests that anyone will undertake with Robert's blessing.
I accept that in the past there has been some slight disagreements/misunderstandings about what people thought was being asked of them. The past is just that - it is not for here to discuss these issues which are after all a personal dispute between two grown men.
Clearly you aren't both right (in the sense that there either was or was not this condition), but it doesn't matter, because this is the nature of a misunderstanding - it is not malicious it is just a misunderstanding probably heightened by the nature of this debate. It was simply a disagreement/misunderstanding - everyone understands we are all only human after all.
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 452
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 11:27 am: | |
Hi Jennifer,
Well, at least we tried. 
Paul Begg:
"The bottom line is that John Omlor has claimed that Robert Smith and I wanted a prior guarantee that a testing laboratory would definitively date the diary."
and Paul Begg:
"The quotes he has cited refer only to our wish for an assurance from the testing laboratory that they could date the diary."
And if that wasn't enough, two sentences, right next to each other:
"Let me emphasise that the purpose was to establish that the testing laboratory 'was able' to date the diary. No mention of guaranteeing that they would be able to date it."
Well, that certainly clears that up once and for all.
Before seeing any of the material, the lab had to establish that it "was able to date the diary," not that it "would be able to date it."
And I am accused of "weasle-wording" and "games"?
This is too delightful.
Dear readers,
Take the quotes I have just cited in this post. Keep them always in your mind as you wait for a lab anywhere to ever see the diary again.
Remember them.
And watch what happens.
Pointing still towards a now more uncertain future,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 557
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 11:35 am: | |
Hi John,
i see where you are coming from. indeed it is a interesting difference but as i said above - I don't think it matters now in light of robert's generous offer.
Jennifer
ps we're all grown ups here!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 454
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 11:49 am: | |
Hi Jennifer,
It certainly does not matter. It's all in the past. Driven by your infectious and inspiring optimism, I say we try again to see if we can keep it there.
And Robert's "generous offer" does indeed speak to a bright and shining future of tests without prior conditions and results for all to see, doesn't it?
Well, perhaps Paul just didn't get the new memo yet.
Anyway, here's to a lab actually getting to see the stuff before its having to say what is or is not possible.
Cheers,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on July 19, 2004) |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 809
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 12:17 pm: | |
Hi, John
According to the message from Paul Begg that I posted this morning, you yourself had agreed to and signed off on the clause, "The purpose of such investigation is to establish whether a testing organisation is able to determine conclusively when the ink was placed on the paper in the Diary within a reasonable margin of error". So why are you claiming that what was being asked for in this preliminary approach to the laboratory was unreasonable and nonsensical? It would seem to me that such wording is reasonable in order to proceed and let the lab do the testing. Again, the point is that Robert Smith, and apparently you also, John, just wanted to know if the lab could come up with some sort of date not that they would be able to do it, which is obviously something no one could know until the tests were done.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 455
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 12:37 pm: | |
Chris,
First of all, the order of events here is wrong. My objections to the idea of requiring assurance from the lab that they could produce a "definitive date" or "conclusive results" before they were sent any of the material did not arise until much later in the process, after I spoke personally with several lab directors and received further, later emails from both Robert and Paul, from which I have cited, well after the original "clause" they keep mentioning was drafted. It became clear, as I spoke to the scientists and read the words from Robert and Paul that I have posted repeatedly here, that seeking such an "assurance" that the lab could provide a "definitive date" prior to sending them even the old reports, let alone the actual material to be tested, would inevitably make testing impossible (since no responsible lab anywhere is likely to offer such an assurance without seeing the material).
And I have to say that I still don't see the practical difference between a lab that could produce a definitive date and one that would. Surely, if they could, they would. So asking if they could amounts to asking if they would, doesn't it?
Finally, in the spirit of the new year, I remain completely committed to Jennifer's position that this should all be left behind. The written record is fine here precisely as it stands. I'm satisfied with it. I think it says what needs to be said. Now we should be looking towards the future and the hope that Robert's new offer will eventually allow some lab somewhere to see the material, including the diary and the reports, prior to offering and in order that they might offer a complete and thorough and responsible evaluation of what might or might not be possible to accomplish with the stuff.
That's the future I am counting on now.
That's the future sparked by Robert's recent reappearance.
The past is but a memory.
The dream now is that we will all be reading results before too many more 14ths have passed us by.
I'll certainly be watching and waiting to see what the future teaches us about all of this.
Looking forward,
--John
PS: I'm trying, Jennifer. Honest.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 558
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 2:16 pm: | |
Hi everyone,
John,
I'm glad your trying - do keep it up, it suits you! Lets hope the future teaches us a lot.
Chris,
whatever happened in the past let us try to keep it there where it belongs. We are all friends here (I think). i think the position of everyone is quite clear.
best wishes
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 666
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 7:31 am: | |
All,
Here I sit madly giggling when I ought to be getting my behind to class. But I am far away from home and entertainment is scarce and this board is better than a soap opera any day. You may have had to have been here for 3 years or so to get my full appreciation of the vagaries of human nature, but honestly, let me tell you, this board has it all. We have backstabbing and betrayal, alliances formed only to fall in bitter acrimony, we even have murder (close to a dozen decades old but still..) all we need is for someone to sleep with his sister while having amnesia and we'll be all set.
Anyway, there seems to be a huge dispute going on over whether Robert Smith meant coulda woulda shoulda. Perhaps what we have here is one of those lovely little semantical disputes that arises on occasion, usually started by the grammar nazis ( I am a lowly private, we have some four star generals).
Did Robert Smith mean that he wanted a laboratory that could conclusively "date" the diary, or one that could conclusively "test" the diary. People often use one word, meaning another. I know that seems like, a piddling difference but it is really not. If I am looking for a lab, I might say I want a lab that can conclusively date the diary, because indeed that's what I am looking for but in reality, I am looking for a lab that has the equipment and capability to test it whether I will get a result or not.
Anyhoo, just something that is going through my little sleep deprived brain. Not that it matters because all issues are resolved in the spirit of DITA day, whatever the whacked hell that might mean.
And someone ask Robert...do the testing grounds have to be in england or is he willing to ship the diary overseas?
ciao,
me
 |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 456
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 8:02 am: | |
Hi Ally,
To learn more about the true spirit of DiTA day, see the recently created thread called "Check This Space" under the Maybrick threads.
We are going only forward now.
And soon, I'm sure, the scientists will finally get their chance to examine all the material in order to determine precisely what is and is not possible as far as new and thorough testing goes.
The sun is shining here in Diary World,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 562
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 8:33 am: | |
Hi Ally,
Don't tell me you missed out on DiTA day it was so much fun. I recommend you check out the thread in question.
I don't know what was said. I don't care its all in the past. Some people on these boards clearly do not get on, but in light of Robert Smiths generous offer for further tests I think it can be got over it!
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Robert J Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 3:26 pm: | |
John Omlor,
The explanation for your obsession with the idea that I had obstructed tests of the diary, finally emerged in your interesting post of 11th July. Let me take you through the stages of how your conspiracy theory developed.
Stage 1
First, go back again to a harmonious day, 2nd July 2002. That was the day, when I agreed with you to redefine conclusive tests much more flexibly: “If McCrone can say definitely that the ink is Victorian or if it is modern, that might well provide the justification [for testing] under Clause 2”. You replied the same day by replaying my words back to me, ending: “…then Clause 2 would be fine”.
The simple point is that I agreed with your request to amend the Clause.
Stage 2
15th July 2002, precisely two years ago, to the day. On this day, still in a harmonious mood, you wrote confirming, that you had signed the agreement between us. But on the same day, eight hours later, you e-mailed saying you had decided to resign. Frankly I was baffled.
The reason you gave for the sudden resignation was that, “perhaps someone with more experience in these matters and with a more direct, professional involvement in the case should be actively involved in the process as it continues”.
This was hogwash, as it is actually better for the administrator of the scientific testing process, like the lab itself, to be completely objective, and not to be professionally involved in the case of Jack the Ripper.
But, in your recent post of 11th July 2004, you have provided a different reason, with a vague reference to me knowing “the events that occurred in my family”. You want to suggest, that something serious had happened to you, but, in fact, it was minor. As you explained at the time: “A small accident occurred involving one of my nieces”. How could this have stopped you performing your role, apart from very temporarily?
Isn’t the truth, that, with the reality of having to work on the tests starkly before you, you panicked, because you couldn’t face the responsibility of seeing them through.
Stage 3
Now, on to 11th September 2002, the date of the final communication between us prior to the “ten months of silence”. As you noted, with an air of triumph in your 11th July post, I indicated that I would release the previous scientific reports to McCrone “if [Paul] is convinced they are able to date the document in a conclusive way”.
Yes, in accord with the e-mails on 2nd July 2002, when the definition of dating conclusively had been drastically watered down to include - and these are your very words – “the possibility of the lab being able to tell us whether the ink is definitely Victorian or definitely modern”. So much for the fantasy of my requiring guarantees of dating prior to testing. All the e-mails between us so far had been friendly and harmonious.
Stage 4
This stage is the “ten months of silence”, when I did not receive one e-mail or phone call from you to ask me about my intentions or thoughts on testing. You preferred to interpret hearsay and rely on your own imagination to create an elaborate conspiracy theory.
Enter Paul Begg, whom you introduce as my “agent”. John, when you have to fabricate identities to fit your theories, I know you are in deep trouble.
Paul, who was proposed by you, after Keith Skinner declined your invitation to succeed you, had precisely the same role as you. Were you my “agent”? Not at all. Your role, as was Paul’s, was to give me independent advice on the feasibility of testing the diary. It is profoundly dishonest of you to quote any of Paul’s words and statements, as though they were mine. He accounts for his words, I for mine. It is an act of your extreme desperation, to depend on what you hope Paul might have meant by his words, just to make your theory about me fit.
Only once, did he refer back to me. This was on 23rd January 2003, when Joseph Barabe of McCrone wrote to Paul saying: “We cannot promise success in determining either the item’s authenticity or its lack thereof; but we would do our best”.
Paul’s objective and very wise advice to me was: “I think it would be sensible to ascertain what their best would be. We therefore need a report stating what the tests would be, what they would hopefully show, what their limitations are.” And that is what Paul Begg tried to achieve. The difficulties he encountered in getting McCrone to respond to his e-mails were fully aired on these boards some time ago.
***
Your problem is your failure to distinguish between my personal wish to see the diary “conclusively” dated, and the altogether less rigorous basis, on which I agreed at that time to release the diary for tests, as a public responsibility.
My position was openly stated on these boards on 1st August 2003, but you are in such denial that you cannot take them in. Here they are again, almost one year later: “If it were to become evident from a consensus of expert scientific opinion, that this [dating] is impossible, then I would naturally ask the question: Then, what is the best we can expect science to achieve?”
My record on the matter is evident. I agreed with you in 2002 to open up the definition of dating conclusiveness to simply, either “Victorian” or “modern”. And I agreed with you, earlier this year, when you called for “unlimited tests”, and to: “Test it all. Test everything”. When you still didn’t get the point, I explicitly confirmed twice: “I do not require any assurance whatsoever of conclusive results on the dating of the ink, prior to testing”. Is there any ambiguity in that statement? There is no shifting you away from your conspiracy theories, which you hang on to, like some security blanket.
The origin of your fantasies appears to stem from your sudden and panicky departure from the testing arena, precisely two years ago, on 15th July 2002. Neither of the two reasons (Stage 2), which you gave for your exit, stacks up.
For one year now, you have obsessively tried to prove, mainly to yourself, that your running off didn’t change anything, and that the tests would never have happened anyway, even if you had seen through the job you had agreed to do. The irony is, that if you had stayed, you might well have persuaded McCrone to produce a testing proposal, on the basis of the rapport you had established with them.
You continue to cast your negativity over the prospect of future tests, so that you can continue to justify your baseless assumptions and accusations, and say: “You see, I was right all along”. You will not lift a finger to help or encourage others to bring tests about.
I see from your new thread that, true to form, you will sit smugly at your desk, marking test papers on 14th July each year (and in every succeeding month). On the day after this promised annual display of gross egotism and self-justification, may every 15th July be a source of deep shame for you – that day in 2002, when you copped out of the testing process, and decided to take your passive pleasures (“fun”) from the crude denigration of other people’s efforts.
Well done.
All best,
Robert Smith
|
A Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 9:11 am: | |
John, in Britain you would be known as the pub bore.
That is the bloke who laughs at his own jokes and takes great pleasure in announcing his opinions to everyone within a quarter mile radius whether they happen to be interested or not. This character usually has one inadequate who looks up to him, you know a Waylon Smithers type.
Am I getting warm?
Alan
|
arfa kidney
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 5:36 pm: | |
I wrote the diary.
We can all go home now. |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 5:30 am: | |
Caz,
That line in your post of Friday 16th,'If new tests failed to expose either artifacts as a 20th century fake'.I thought the object of tests was to prove the contents(scratches and writing) as 19th century originals.
The onus of proof seems to have shifted 190 degrees. |
Robert J Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 2:34 pm: | |
Chris Phillips,
Please explain, re “the conditions for testing the diary”, what “strings” have been “attached” by me in the following (I would have thought) unambiguous statement:
“I do not require any assurance whatsoever of conclusive results prior to testing”?
Thank you.
Robert Smith
|
Matt
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 6:11 am: | |
I am just kind of writing off the cuff here and don’t have and note or material with me so this will probably be fairly incoherent.
Opinion on the authenticity of the diary appears to be highly polarised, like Marmite, you either love it or you hate it. It is a foolhardy or brave man or woman who dares to put in his two pence worth of opinion. Chances are he or she will be savaged from one side or another.
Still I have never been one to keep quiet in a discussion so here is my opinion. I am of the near unshakeable belief that the diary was written within only a few years of its discovery and is therefore a hoax.
I am sure I read somewhere the opinion that “If it’s a hoax why has modern science been unable to prove it so?” Good question, but sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I say “If its genuine why has science been unable to prove it so?” As sophisticated western people we place an extraordinarily high degree of trust in our scientists ability to provide answers. Unfortunately, no science is infallible so we must look elsewhere for our proof.
From the very beginning, the providence of the diary was highly suspicious. OK hardly damning but tricky. Given to Mike by a conveniently dead friend, who’s family it must be noted had never known a thing about it. Not good enough lets find another story, given to Mikes conveniently dead friend who got it from Mikes wife who got it from her father, now also dead. Generally, if my wife wants to leave me something, and I’m not in, she will leave it on the table for me. Far from providing a more sound providence Anne Grahams convoluted story has weakened it, as if her story were true then, it means she has already shown she was willing to not tell the whole truth when asked. Still hardly damning but certainly grounds for some serious doubts.
The constant argument that the text of the diary contains too much information for any hoaxer to have expected to know is utter rubbish. There is nothing solidly historical in the text that even I didn’t know. There are a few lucky guesses and places where if you twist little known historical facts enough they may just fit.
To me the very text itself is clumsy and obvious, the inclusion of little snippets of information seems convoluted and deliberate. Everyone who has studied the case has seen the “..Catch who you may!” Punch cartoon because it has been included in many Ripper texts. However, Punch has never had universal readership and the inclusion of a reference to it in the diary seems a little contrived.
One ‘tin matchbox empty’, word for word identical to the police report on Catherine Eddowes possessions. To argue that James may have see the police report is sheer lunacy, and does not even warrant a rebuttal as does any theory that has James rummaging around in a dead woman’s pockets to see what he can find. It is just a clumsy attempt to place another little grain of evidence into the text.
If the diary had not surfaced yet and I were to say I had a document said to be written by Jack but it included reference to having written the famous ‘Dear Boss letter' and the “Juwes” message and had claimed that farthings were left at the scene of Annie Chapmans murder and that certain parts of Mary Kelly’s anatomy were on the table next to her bed and given a historically wrong name for a pub in Liverpool and that the diarist claims responsibility for only the canonical five victims in Whitechapel and that the diary was NOT in the handwriting of the man said to have written it, and that the diary had a significant number of pages torn out and that the man who claims to have found it had not only changed his story but had in a period of 24 hours had first stated he had forged it then retracted his confession. Moreover, had then proved to be the only person in the world so far to be able to source an obscure line of poetry.
Given all of that would ANY of you even give me £10 for my discovery?
Because if you would I want to tell you about a singing tree I have discovered and would like some donations towards its upkeep….
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 569
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 10:13 am: | |
Hi Robert,
I see you have set out your position and reaffirmed your generous offer that you will allow diary testing with no strings attached. Thank you for confirming this generous offer.
I hope we can truly leave all this behind us now that everyone has been given/had the opportunity to say there piece. I would hate for this dispute to affect the chances of Robert's generous offer being taken up
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 380
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 10:25 am: | |
Robert J. Smith wrote:
Please explain, re “the conditions for testing the diary”, what “strings” have been “attached” by me in the following (I would have thought) unambiguous statement:
“I do not require any assurance whatsoever of conclusive results prior to testing”?
To be frank I think this discussion is becoming increasingly nonsensical.
Presumably you aren't going to hand the diary to anyone who walks in from the street and says he wants to take it away and test it?
In that context, why keep insisting it is being offered for testing with "no strings attached"? Wouldn't it be better to give us a sensible idea of what strings are being attached?
Unless, of course, this whole discussion is just a continuation of the normal business of scoring points and settling scores ...
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 458
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 10:53 am: | |
Once again, my dear friend Robert reveals his obsession with our shared past.
Fair enough, I'll try one last time to help him and to agree with him wherever possible.
Again, as I have said from the beginning and countless times now, I had (and have) no problems with the early part of Robert's chronology of events. Indeed, my objections to the "conclusive results" and "meaningful date" requirements prior to showing the lab any material at all did not arise until well after July of '02. My concerns began first with the post sent to me by Robert on September 11th that clearly stated that not even the old reports were going to any lab until they convinced Paul they could produce "conclusive results," and they were further developed in February during a set of email exchanges with Paul, where this problem became clearer (especially in light of my discussions with the directors of several labs).
I will say nothing at all about the situation with my family during July of '02. It is personal. But I certainly carry no shame whatsoever for what I did on July 15 of that year. Nor will I ever. I would do it again tomorrow without a moment's doubt and be proud to do so.
Robert then, for some reason, objects to me calling Paul his "agent" in arranging tests with the lab.
I don't know why. I was his agent for a while, then Paul became his agent.
His little fit of pique at my using this term suggests to me only a certain degree of personal paranoia, and knowing him and loving him as much as I do, I have to say that this doesn't surprise me at all. He is one of my very favorite paranoids.
Also, I have never once formed or offered any actual "conspiracy theory." If anyone has any doubts about what I did say here on the boards when I returned, in a PS to a post on tennis and a subsequent post on the same Pub Talk board, please write to me and I'll send you the posts themselves, since they no longer appear here and haven't for a long time.
Everything else Robert writes in the first half of his post is fine with me and supports my own belief about what happened. Finally, the lab would not promise conclusive results and no tests were done.
Now, one of the problems in our communications here is that Robert is not a member of our little community. Consequently, his posts arrive somewhat delayed.
He says to me, for instance,
"I explicitly confirmed twice: “I do not require any assurance whatsoever of conclusive results on the dating of the ink, prior to testing”. Is there any ambiguity in that statement?"
But if he's been reading the boards the past few days, he knows that I have enthusiastically endorsed this statement and have happily encouraged others to do the same and have made it perfectly clear that I am looking forward in a new bright and shining way to the results that will come when a lab is sent the materials, all of the materials, prior to their offering and in order for them to offer a complete and thorough evaluation of precisely what's possible.
I've repeatedly expressed my delight with Robert's totally unambiguous statement and am waiting joyfully for the results it will no doubt produce.
As for my someday saying, "You see, I was right all along." -- I hope I never have to. Really. I do.
We'll see, won't we?
We even have our own thread now for just such a view of the future.
And the future is what this is all about. And I am now completely in love with the latest offer Robert has made and with the promises that it sends to us about a future of thorough tests and fascinating results.
Still looking forward, despite all attempts to drag us back to the past,
--John
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 459
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 10:57 am: | |
Alan,
Thanks for the thoughtful and information-filled post.
It is greatly appreciated.
All the best,
--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.
|
|
|
|
