|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 460
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 11:12 am: |       |
Hi Matt,
Yes, the diary is a hoax. Almost no one really believes otherwise.
I suppose there must be some, like the flat-earthers and the people who believe people and dinosaurs played together, that still think James was the Ripper, but they are easily dismissed simply because every piece of real evidence we have, from the handwriting, to the ahistoricism, to the lack of provenance, to everything else all tells us exactly the same thing -- the book's a fake.
This isn't really about that. This is really about personalities and pride and paranoia and pique and predictability. It's about desire and reputations. For a while it was about lawyers and threats and other such ugliness, but now it's just about talk and more talk and more talk and more talk. It's what we all do when we're not leading our real lives.
But make no mistake.
Ignore all this talk. You already know, as we all do, that the thing's a fake.
Forget all the talk here.
Just watch and see what eventually happens. And what doesn't.
In the end, that will tell you, one way or the other, all you need to know.
"Scoring points and settling scores..." as Chris puts it. It's a good phrase, and no doubt it's what continues to drag us back into the past despite our repeated attempts to turn towards a brighter future.
But just ignore it all. It's trivial and meaningless. Honestly.
Yes, the book is a fake. We know that.
As for the rest, watch what happens and judge us all by that, not by this silliness here.
Thanks for stopping by, and all the best,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 575
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 11:13 am: | |
Hi everyone,
just remember the words of D.Ream 'things can only get better'
you know you know what song I'm talking about!
Anyway, now that everyone is happy their position has been put forward it is only fair we move forward in the spirit of optimism.
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1266
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 11:19 am: | |
Arfa,
No, IM Spartacus !
Monty, who does believe Mick...no, he wants to believe Mick !
No, you cant have one extra on the leg side...but you can have five ! |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 812
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 8:08 am: | |
Hi, John Omlor et al.
John, Paul Begg has written a further reply to me about the past effort to effect Diary testing. You may think that these points are immaterial if Diary testing might still proceed. However, I think it is important to see where the problem lay last time and where the present disagreement between yourself, Robert Smith, and Paul Begg lies.
Best regards
Chris George
***************
Dear Chris,
So, after more than a year spent telling everyone who cared to listen that the diary would never be tested again and soliciting for people to receive private emails in which he elaborated his claims, John Omlor has turned his back on the past and enthusiastically embraced the future. That’s great. But it would be naïve to imagine that John Omlor’s repetitious litany hasn’t cast a thick cloud of doubt over Robert Smith’s honesty and integrity and that it still hangs there, casting black shadows over the road to the future. The journey forward might be made brighter if I cleared away that black cloud altogether with one final stab at explaining why John has been wrong this year or more.
First of all, "could" and "would" are not synonymous, as I would have expected a professor of English Literature to know. For example, I can unhesitatingly assure John that I "could" score 180 with three darts – I’ve done it several times in the past – but I couldn’t assure him at all that I "would" score 180 with three darts. There is a world of difference between having the capability to do something and succeeding at actually doing it. A laboratory might likewise be able to give an assurance that it "could" date the diary conclusively – it having conclusively dated documents in the past – but unless it’s tests produced results as solidly predictable as litmus paper turning red when dipped in an acid, there would probably be too many unpredictable variables for the laboratory to give an assurance that it "would" date the document. Thus is the difference between "could" and "would."
John also imagines that an assurance could only be given after the laboratory had seen the diary. This isn’t the case. It isn’t necessary to see the diary to say whether or not the technology exists that "could" date it. Either the technology exists or it doesn’t.
I don’t understand what is so obtuse about this that John Omlor and Chris Phillips can’t understand it. But let’s move on to John’s claim that "the order of events is wrong". Let’s go right back to the start. John Omlor identified a laboratory, agreed to raise the funds for testing and asked Robert Smith to surrender the diary for tests. From the outset Robert Smith was concerned about the damage done to the diary during previous testing and by the fact that all previous tests had been inconclusive, caused further debate and led to demands for yet more tests. Robert wanted to avoid repeating this and therefore agreed to release the diary for further testing only if the laboratory gave assurances that the testing would lead to conclusive results, specifically a date when the diary was written. This was clearly expressed in Clause 2 of the agreement drafted by Robert Smith and John Omlor: "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".
Now then, on 7 January 2003, I wrote to John Omlor: "I have had to stress that this is the only time in the foreseeable 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."
As is clear, I hope even to John Omlor, these words echo Clause 2 and the reasons for it – the diary would only be released if an assurance was given that there was a reasonable chance of getting definitive answers. Not, you will note, a guarantee of conclusive results or anything like that, as John has so loudly claimed. Nothing is expressed in this quote that was different from anything John Omlor already knew. He knew that Robert Smith was unwilling to release the diary unless there was an assurance of a "reasonable chance" of getting conclusive results and he knew that the purpose of these very preliminary discussions with the laboratory was to establish whether or not it was "able to" give such an assurance. He knew this because he’d drafted the agreement in which this was stated.
John seems to think that the original agreement is irrelevant and that his concerns arose much later and as a consequence of emails from Robert and myself, such as the one from me on 7 January 2003. What John seems keen to avoid acknowledging, however, is that the quote from the email that he’s cited was a direct and specific referrence to the terms of that original agreement. It even used almost the same words!
And the same applies to all the quotes John has cited. Each and every one of them. Let me try to make this even clearer. Robert did not want to subject the diary to further inconclusive tests. Had he not felt that way then the diary would have been packed off to the laboratory along with a large cheque and the laboratory would have been told to get on with it. But he did feel that way, so before sending the diary off to a laboratory it was decided to seek an assurance from the laboratory that tests existed that might be able to produce worthwhile results. Robert Smith and John Omlor wrote this down in Clause 2 of the agreement they drafted. John therefore knew right from the beginning that initially no material would be submitted. John knew it because the whole point of the initial discussions with the laboratory was to establish that worthwhile tests were possible before the diary was handed over. John knew this because if formed Clause 2 of the agreement he drafted with Robert.
This is what all the quotes cited by John Omlor refer to and it is wrong for him to take them out of that context and misrepresent them as evidence that we wouldn’t release the diary until we received guarantees that the laboratory "would" conclusively date it. Those quotes do NOT mean and NEVER meant that we sought any such prior guarantees and I don’t know why John Omlor read darker meanings into a few selective quotes and accordingly attributed deviousness and deceit to Robert and, presumably, myself.
What is so important about this is that John Omlor has created an atmosphere of distrust and he continues to do so - he’s even just made to following sarcasm-laden reply to Robert: "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." Fed by their misplaced suspicions, John Omlor and no doubt others stand poised over Robert Smith and the future of further testing ready to damn him. But the atmosphere of suspicion that has been created is unfounded. The bottom line, whether John Omlor likes it or not, whether John Omlor cares to admit it or not, which somehow I doubt he will, is that no prior guarantees of conclusive results were ever sought and it was never the case that the diary would not be subjected to further testing. John was wrong.
Best regards
Paul Begg
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 668
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 8:22 am: | |
giggle..giggle..giggle
You know, sometimes when I hear calls for honesty and integrity coming from certain corners, I just chortle like a loon.
Then I get pissed. There is always calls for honesty and integrity when the aspersions are cast on one's own name or circle, but generally there isn't that same concern when discussing other parties.
Then I realize what we're dealing with --the mad, mad world of Ripperology and...chortle, chortle, chortle.
 |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 582
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 8:54 am: | |
Hi welcome to diary world,
People,
I may have said some of these things before (sorry about that). I accept that in the past a major disagreement has occurred between several people who contribute to this thread, namely, Robert Smith, John Omlor and Paul Begg. The nature of this disagreement has been presented by all sides over the last few days. Before then, regular readers of this thread were more than aware of its nature. That is why I will repeat my request to leave this in the past. That does not mean I expect you to suddenly love each other - just to be pleasant in public.
It is easy to see that clause two is the route of the trouble. However, it seems to me that in the past communication between the parties involved broke down and that misunderstandings (as Paul Begg said originally) occurred. I know people feel aggrieved (rightly or wrongly) but I think that posters on this board have decided against having a go at Robert Smith, who after all has generously said more than once that, with no strings attached, he is willing to allow further diary testing, so long as he is not expected to directly set up the tests because this may lead to further accusations which would be an unpleasant situation for us all to be in.
We should not let this dispute (which is after all between three grown men) affect the chances of further testing. There is more at stack then who said what when, we need to remember this.
In light of Robert Smith's offer to allow further testing, the continuing dragging up of the past is not helpful. I know you disagree, everyone knows, it couldn't be clearer, I know you don't get on, I know why, but the record has been set straight and all sides have said their piece (more than once), please can you leave it at that? For my sanity and piece of mind!
Personally, I look optimistically forward to a future where the diary has been tested and none of this matters anymore.
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 383
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 9:17 am: | |
Then I realize what we're dealing with --the mad, mad world of Ripperology and...chortle, chortle, chortle.
Or some mad world or other, at any rate.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 467
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 9:49 am: | |
Obviously, Jennifer, there's just no stopping them.
For whatever reason, they seem intent on living not in the future but entirely in the past.
I can't imagine why.
But there it is, still another addition to this curiously intense autopsy of the last two years.
And, incidentally, "Clause 2" was never a problem for me or for anyone at the time of its original drafting in June of '02. What became a problem, later in September and more decisively in February, was what was actually happening and not happening and why. I've said this over and over again.
No lab would ever assure Robert or Paul of their ability to produce conclusive results before seeing the material, I learned that myself. And Paul and Robert both had written to me that the old reports and materials would only be sent to the lab after they were convinced the lab "could produce conclusive results."
The result?
No tests.
Now let's go back and see if there's anything in Paul's latest novella that needs a response.
1. Gee, is there a "cloud" hanging over Robert Smith's honesty and integrity?
I wonder how that got there?
It couldn't have formed while Robert was calling for a lifetime ban on me and threatening me (and Stephen) with lawsuits because of stuff written by me in Pub Talk, could it? Or while he was here gleefully and mistakenly challenging my credentials and my professional standing without having the slightest idea what the hell he was talking about? Nah, it couldn't have come from those sorts of lovely moments from our past love affair. It had to be just because no tests have been done on the diary and I have pointed out one reason why. Right?
2. As for the "could" and "would" nonsense -- we're not talking about darts here, of course, we are talking about testing-technologies. And asking a lab if it "could definitively date the diary" would be, practically speaking, the same as asking them if they would, since one assumes that if they assure the inquirer that they could, then they would.
Besides, it was Paul himself who put it this way:
"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."
So that seems clear enough to everyone, doesn't it?
Why are we still talking about this?
I would note for the record that the director of the lab in question, as well as the directors of two other labs, all told me that they would indeed prefer to examine the material before offering any assurances about what might or might not be possible with it.
Imagine that.
Anyway, the rest of Paul's post is just him restating his version of the sequence of events. I have already written mine here too many times to count. It is quite clear, given the written record, that Robert Smith did not want to the diary or even the old reports (which were certainly in no danger of ever being "damaged") to be sent to any lab until he and Paul were "convinced" that the lab could (or would) produce "a definitive date concerning when the ink was put on the paper."
And what do you know, neither the diary nor the results were ever sent anywhere.
Instead, we now get treated to a week's worth of posts here rehashing and breaking down every word of the process, posts that seem quite clearly designed more to rehabilitate people's reputations than to further the process or produce new results.
Enough, already.
I have already said that Robert's newest offer is unambiguous and that I look forward to seeing the tests he speaks of completed and the results made available to all. I'm sure it will happen. I have faith.
Finally, Paul wraps everything up in a neat little conclusion:
"The bottom line, whether John Omlor likes it or not, whether John Omlor cares to admit it or not, which somehow I doubt he will, is that no prior guarantees of conclusive results were ever sought and it was never the case that the diary would not be subjected to further testing. John was wrong."
The "Bottom Line," Paul, has nothing to do with any of this.
The "Bottom Line," Paul, has nothing to do with whether or not you or I am right or wrong.
The "Bottom Line," Paul has nothing to do with whether the "atmosphere of suspicion" that hangs over all things diary related is appropriately placed or not.
The "Bottom Line," Paul, has nothing to do with my reputation or your reputation or Robert's reputation.
The "Bottom Line," Paul, has nothing to do even with anything that has ever been written on these boards.
The "Bottom Line," Paul, is really quite simple.
When was the last time a qualified laboratory examined the diary?
That, Paul, is now, and will remain always and forever, the "Bottom Line."
And I look forward to a future that significantly changes that "Bottom Line."
You can choose to join me.
Or not.
But the "Bottom Line" still remains to be determined.
Optimistic, even when provoked,
--John 
___________________________ <-- (the Bottom Line)
(Message edited by omlor on July 21, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 584
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 10:30 am: | |
Sometimes its not worth trying. you wonder why you bothered to open your mouth in the first place!
This is not one of those times!
John, Paul and Robert - I know where you are all coming from. I understand your viewpoints. I know you feel your credibility is being undermined. It doesn't have to be like this.
No one is currently (as far as I can tell) suggesting that Robert Smith's generous offer of further testing was anything other than heartfelt and honest. I guess it was not an easy decision for Robert to make and this is why i thank him for making such a generous offer. I look forward to seeing the fruits of this effort for diary testing, I hope soon.
This misunderstanding/dispute/disagreement is no ones fault. It is easy to misinterpret things. Things just get out of hand sometimes - its easy to get het up and say and do things we later regret when we feel we are in difficult situations (says the bitter voice of experience - trust me!)
I hope we can truly leave all this behind us now that everyone has been given/had the opportunity to say there piece (more than once). I would hate for this dispute to affect the chances of Robert's generous offer being taken up.
Personally, I look optimistically forward to a future where the diary has been tested and none of this matters anymore.
Whatever happened in the past leave it at the door. Whatever people say in private emails we don't have to worry about. We're all grown ups here (last time I checked) we have full possession of the facts. We can make up our own minds.
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 469
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 10:40 am: | |
Never give up, Jennifer.
Never give up.
DiTA Day lives in you. 
--John
 (The rest of us)
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 587
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 11:43 am: | |
John,
As I said
'This is not one of those times!'
Jen
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 669
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 8:15 am: | |
Jennifer,
You say whatever people say in private emails doesn't really matter. Here's a hypothetical for you...
Suppose you are a newcomer to the message boards and one day out of the blue you receive an email from a respected member of the Ripper community (like Stewart Evans ...though assuredly not Stewart) and this email discusses in great length the moderator of the message board you are on and calls her, among other things, a supporter of racial prejudice and comments on the board of a racially inflammatory nature.
Now you are newbie, and this is a "respected" author sending this to you. And you aren't the only person getting these emails from this "respected" author.
Do you think the content of those private emails would matter to the moderator? Think what is said in those private emails would or wouldn't effect what happens on the boards?
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 596
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 8:25 am: | |
Ally,
no that's not what I meant.
when i said
'Whatever happened in the past leave it at the door. Whatever people say in private emails we don't have to worry about. We're all grown ups here (last time I checked) we have full possession of the facts. We can make up our own minds. '
I was referring specifically to the email in question which Paul Begg was referring too in an earlier post. I was not (sorry if I implied this) speaking on a general level.
I have read the said email and that is why I made this statement.
I can assure you i don't agree with any course of action as suggested by your comment above and would not support it.
regards
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 598
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 9:39 am: | |
Furthermore,
if such a thing happened i'm sure the person in question would be banned from the boards never to return.
I am just trying to get back onto the subject of this thread which is after all entitled maybrick as the ripper. Not key misunderstandings in ripperology!
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 670
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 11:31 am: | |
Nah Jen,
People tell lies and talk smack about people all the time. Why should they be banned just because they do it about the moderator. That wouldn't be very fair.
If people are dumb enough to believe what someone sends them in an email, and act on it, oh well. Some people are sheep, nothing much you can do.
Ciao for now,
Ally
We now return you to your regularly scheduled program...
HAH!
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 600
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 11:53 am: | |
Ally,
we can only dream that we can leave this misunderstanding/dispute behind us and look forward...................
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1146
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 4:14 am: | |
Hi Jenn, All,
Before we move on into that bright rosy future, could I have just one final stab at illustrating the crucial difference – in the testing context – between ‘could’ and ‘would’? If John O and Chris P continue to see no difference, or at least claim there is no difference, I can foresee similar misunderstandings at every turn.
You have a health problem/faulty car and you have been looking in vain for a private doctor/garage who will finally diagnose your medical condition correctly and effect a cure/find the fault and repair your motor.
You ask the next doctor/garage recommended to you:
“Is there a reasonable chance that you will find out what’s wrong with me and make me better/what’s wrong with my car and make it run normally again?”
A) “Yes sir, we have an excellent success rate with difficult diagnoses and cures/good track record with specialist car repairs. Obviously we can’t guarantee a diagnosis leading to a total cure/can’t promise the car is repairable or will be back on the road by next week and stay there, but we will do out best and we can offer this, that and the other, and our charges start from £££ per hour plus parts.”
B) “Certainly, gov, just turn up on Tuesday with all your medical notes and we’ll cut you open and see if we can do anything/leave the car and previous paperwork with us and we’ll try every trick in the book. But we reserve the right to send the boys round if we don’t get prompt payment of all our invoices.”
C) No response.
John O or Chris P, however, calling Messrs. Bodgett & Hope, and asking the question:
“Would it be possible for you to find out what’s wrong with me/my car, and sort it out?”
would assume this was the equivalent of demanding a guarantee in advance that it was not only possible, but that they ‘would’ succeed. And Messrs. Bodgett & Hope would rub their oily hands together when replying:
“Certainly, gov, we could find the problem in no time at all and could have you/your motor back in one piece and in tip-top condition before you could say, ‘How much?’”
And no doubt if John O and Chris P found, six months later, when they had paid all outstanding bills, that they still had a problem, they would appreciate, as others already do, that this had been no guarantee at all, nor ever could have been.
And no doubt Messrs. Object & Protest will come up with umpteen ways in which these analogies don’t work – for them. But with their track record of objections and protestations when things don’t work for them, this will come as no surprise at all.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by Caz on July 23, 2004) |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 384
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 6:49 am: | |
Caz
The problem, of course, is that what has been quoted was a lot stronger than either Is there a reasonable chance that you will ... or Would it be possible for you to ..., so this latest imaginative excursion is rather a waste of breath.
Paul himself said:
Let me emphasise that the purpose was to establish that the testing laboratory 'was able' to date the diary
If a scientist is asked, Are you able to date the diary? and says Yes, I think that is clear enough.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 601
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 7:17 am: | |
Hello everyone,
I can't believe we are still talking about this. The difference between the word could and would is one single letter!
There is a difference but Caz surely you accept it is only a small difference and that in turn this could have lead to a misunderstanding.
Could you please leave it at that (yes you could but I doubt you will, hey there's a handy way to explain the difference).
Collins Pocket Dictionary (2002, edition)
could - v. past tense of can.
can v. past could. 1 be able to.2. be allowed to.
would - v. used as an auxiliary to express a request, describe a habitual past action, or form the past tense or subjunctive mood of will.
will - v. past would, used as an auxiliary to form the future tense or to indicate intention, ability, or expectation.
With that clarification of what the words could and would mean, perhaps we can leave it at that?
No one is currently (as far as I can tell) suggesting that Robert Smith's generous offer of further testing was anything other than heartfelt and honest. I guess it was not an easy decision for Robert to make and this is why i thank him yet again for making such a generous offer. I look forward to seeing the fruits of this effort for diary testing, I hope soon.
Anyway, it doesn't matter anymore because of the new proposed tests!
Hurrah!!!
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 472
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 7:40 am: | |
Jennifer,
You knew it had to happen, didn't you?
You knew it was too good to be true that we went a whole day without still another person dragging themselves and us back into the Diary World land of the past for no good reason except, as Chris once put it, "scoring points and settling old scores."
Because, as they are so vividly demonstrating here, on these boards, it's not about what actually does or doesn't happen, or even about what is and isn't genuine anymore. It's just about who's winning the rhetoric game apparently.
And besides, we all know (or at least I do, from experience) that if you ask a responsible and professional lab to "convince" you, before they have seen any of the material for even a moment, that they are "able to produce definitive results," they are going to tell you they can't promise any such thing.
Is anyone surprised by this?
Of course, not.
So let me be VERY clear.
Robert Smith, in his post to me on September 11, 2002, did NOT say "could" or "would."
Here is the line from that post, verbatim. The "he" refers to Paul Begg:
"If he is convinced they are able to date the document in a conclusive way, I will then send the reports to them."
Every reader here can interpret that precisely as they like.
I'm more than happy to let it end there, whether any so-called "cloud of suspicion" still hangs over me or over Robert or over Paul or over anyone. It just doesn't matter.
(And, by the way, if a cloud of suspicion hangs over all things in Diary World, it's certainly not because of any of this, but for other much more obvious reasons.)
So let's remember that bottom line, people.
"When was the last time a qualified laboratory examined the diary?"
And let's judge the outcome of this discussion not by what is said here, finally, but by what is done, by what actually happens and doesn't happen.
That will tell us all we need to know about what these words of ours here mean.
Looking forward, with sister Jen, to the day the answer to the bottom line question changes,
--John
PS: I'm nominating you for sainthood if this goes on for another week, Jen.
(Message edited by omlor on July 23, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 604
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 8:03 am: | |
Hi John,
I doubt I will be able to bear another week discussing the nature of a dispute/misunderstanding about words with one letter difference and statements about conclusive proof, between three grown men!
The bottom line is will someone be willing to take up Robert's generous offer which he so kindly made? Surely someone will take up this offer at some point, it's just a matter of time.
These kinds of decisions are clearly not made lightly by any party (as I've said before when thanking Robert Smith for his generous offer).
Personally, I look optimistically forward to a future where the diary has been tested and none of this matters anymore.
Whatever happened in the past leave it at the door. We're all grown ups here (last time I checked) we have full possession of the facts. We can make up our own minds.
Anyway, it doesn't matter anymore because of the new proposed tests!
Hurrah!!!
I am just trying to get back onto the subject of this thread which is after all entitled maybrick as the ripper. Not key misunderstandings in ripperology!
Cheers
Jennifer
ps thank the lord for cut n paste!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 672
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 8:08 am: | |
John, dear,
You can hardly chastise Caroline for bringing up the past while you continue to do so. Oh but wait, right..it's not about letting go and moving forward in the spirit of Dita, it's about who's winning the rhetoric game.
I of course have not embraced the spirit of Dita so I can bring up the past as muuuuuch as I want. That's the plus side of not calling for growth.
Ciao sweetie.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 605
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 8:14 am: | |
Ally
It seems like everyone wants to have the last word
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 473
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 8:58 am: | |
Hi Ally,
Absolutely right. Admittedly, I'm part of the problem, because I continue to respond to each provocation. But I was perfectly happy yesterday when no one came here to bring up Diary World affairs past (I wasn't counting your exchange with Jen, by the way, which as far as I know had nothing to do with diary stuff at all). And I would have contentedly kept my eye on the (future) prize for all time to come had Caroline not returned to drag us back into the dark cloud.
The spirit of DiTA, however, lives on, not just because St. Jen d'Diary reminds us in her optimistic way with each visit, but because in the end I am at least willing to admit that none of what we have been discussing here really matters.
What matters is what happens from here on in and what matters is whether the book is a fake or not.
I'm confident I know the answer to the second question. I'll be fascinated, I'm sure, by the answer to the first.
Ciao, indeed,
--John |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 431
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 9:58 am: | |
Entirely off-topic. No offense to Mr. Gray, but he wasn't a historian of the Maybrick or Ripper cases, and I really have to wonder if knew the correct questions to ask to Barrett in order to elicit some useful information. I also have to dispute Caz's claim that Barrett hired Gray to help him "prove that he forged the diary." This doesn't quite hit the bull's eye, imho. Barrett hired Gray to find his estranged wife. Their professional relationship then oddly evolved into the fringes of the Maybrick debacle. Gray was evidently attempting to find a publisher who was interested in buying Barrett's confessions. But hoax-busting generally pays little or nothing, and the world had moved on. What is painfully obvious is that Barrett didn't have his heart in it, and was not really cooperating with Gray. Study the details of Ripper Diary carefully. Mike first tells Shirley Harrison about the Crashaw quote/Sphere book. He then tells Paul Feldman about it (he would later claim he told Feldman about this months earlier). There is a note with Barrett's solicitor mentioning it, so he, too, knew. Gray---the man he is allegedly working with--was the last to know(!) Clearly, this is evidence that Barrett was all over the map, was milking the goat from both utters, whatever you wish to call it. My belief is that Barrett was torn between two conflicting motives. 1)He wished to profit off the Diary. 2) Rightly or wrongly, he felt that Smith, Harrison, and Feldman were setting themselves up to take all the profits and he wished to 'get even' by exposing the forgery. Add to this mix the fact that Barrett was wrestling with his own private demons 1991-1994, and one can readily see why he never gave a complete & coherent confession. Many of the details of the composition he simply did not remember, as the previous year had passed in a haze; the rest he was "winging it" as he went along, depending who he was talking to. The point is not to either believe or disbelieve Barrett's various ramblings, but to see what in his statements can be independently confirmed. These include the fact that he purchased a blank Victorian diary using an assumed name, and probably without his wife's knowledge; that he was pursuing a writing career; that the Crashaw quote was to be found in an obscure essay that Barrett owned; that he told Alan Gray that Bernard Ryan's book was a major souce for the Maybrick material before any of the Diary critics had identified it as such (and a careful textual examination finds this to be a highly plausible explanation. The book was available in a Liverpool Library but has since been stolen off the shelves.) To my mind, all this conclusively shows that Barrett was up to his neck in the thing, and some day I'd like to meet the bloke and ask him about it. In a way, it's a pity he didn't get his greenhouse. RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on July 23, 2004) |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 432
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:36 am: | |
1. Sept 30, 1994--Barrett tells Martine Rooney, Feldman's secretary, that he found the 'source of the quotation.'
2. Oct 3--Barrett tells Shirley Harrison of the discovery. Harrison phones Keith Skinner.
3. Oct 13--Notes of Liz Winter, secretary to Mike's solicitor Bark-Jones record 'O Sweet intercourse of death, Vol 2 P 184.'
4. Nov. 7 --Taped conversation between Alan Gray & Mike Barrett; Barrett telling Gray about the quote.
Question. So who exactly was Barrett working for/with? It doesn't appear to have been Mr. Gray.
[All dates from Ripper Diary by Linder, Morris, and Skinner (Sutton Publishing, 2003)]. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 606
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:44 am: | |
RJ,
None of the rest of us are worrying about being on topic, so you shouldn't worry either.
I found your post very interesting (I may have to dust off my copy of Caz's book for a reread).
I suppose Mike may have just been lucky after all the diary was probably a major part of his life at that point. However, one does wonder why he decided to act in such a way.
John,
That's right because of Robert's generous offer I expect that there will be further diary tests soon.
I look optimistically forward to these tests.
That's DiTa spirit!
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Stef Kukla
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 10:41 pm: | |
Dear Jennifer,
"However, one does wonder why he decided to act in such a way"
I thought Paul Feldman explained Barrett's behaviour quite well in Chapter 10 of Jack the Ripper - The Final Chapter.
Regards,
Stef |
Matt
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 4:30 am: | |
Faith is a funny thing.
What I have never understood was the continual assertion that ‘nothing in the text precludes it from having been written by the ripper’.
Even if the diary had just the one glaring error it is enough to prove it to be far from kosher. I don’t want to belabour the point but the diary states categorically that the killer placed Mary’s breasts on the table. We all know this is not true. The Diary camp says James was mistaken, in his heightened state of excitement he has forgotten. OK leaving aside the fact that the breasts placement seems highly deliberate, even ritual, and not likely to be forgotten. For years I have had a copy of an early edition of Don Rumbelows ‘Complete Jack the Ripper’ which under the picture of Mary said “Her breasts, kidneys…etc are on the table’. Funny coincidence that, the exact mistake that the diarist makes has appeared in print since the 70’s. What you have there is not only something in the text that proves the diary is a fake (Strange I am sure someone said there was none) but also the source for the misinformation.
I know that’s just one example but we all know there are others, and I don’t even want to touch the absurdities of the arguments about the handwriting and the will and the misspelling of Evelyn (funnily, enough that’s my daughters name) that’s an argument for another day.
Anyway, what am I going on about? Oh yeah, all the arguing back and fourth about testing aint worth it. At this point in science there is no really 100% infallible way you can test when ink hit a page and if the page is of the right era and the ink is of the right era what exactly is there left to test? If a test has even a 5% margin of error then either camp will cease on that as proof of the tests fallibility and we are all back at square one.
So, ignore all the contradictory test and pseudo science of graphology and al the rest of the highly contradictory confessions and retractions and so on. In fact lets pretend that that scientific testing is not an option when saying if the diary is real or not. Look to the text for your answers. Undeniably, the text is WRONG. It repeats anachronisms and errors that have crept into the case since the 30’s, it is NOT even in the handwriting of the man supposed to have written it.
Save your money, its not worth testing, (a) neither camp would accept the results if they went against them anyway and (b) all the evidence you need is right in front of you just pull your heads out of the sand and look.
Any old way back to my singing tree…
|
Robert J Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 6:28 am: | |
Chris Phillips,
I’ll say it again, one more time. This is from my post to Jennifer on 8th July.
“I offer the diary for a comprehensive and comparative testing programme by one or more independent organisations with 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”.
I would have thought it was pretty clear from that statement, that it will be handed to a lab for testing, not to “anyone who walks in from the street”.
Do you think that is attaching any kind of string?
You ask me to tell you: “what strings are being attached?” My answer is to repeat that I am not attaching any strings. Surely it is for you to say what is bothering you.
Unless you have something of substance to say, wouldn’t it be more productive if the discussion moved on to the practicalities of finding administrators for the testing, identifying a suitable lab, and starting to plan how the tests will be funded?
All best,
Robert Smith
|
shelley wiltshire
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 7:43 am: | |
No way will i ever believe that James Maybrick was the 'Ripper'...One i've read the diary and the writer of the diary slipped up, it said 'I took REFRESHMENT, at the POSTE HASTE, shirley Harrison's explaination of POSTE HASTE doesn't fit or even make sense! i've never heard of anyone taking refreshment in a post office etc in any day and age. As to the carbon dating generally speaking it is around 7-8 years either way in every hundred years, and as i understand it was dated to 1912 - 1922 give or take either way...so it should give the diary a date of 1904 - 1920 or 1916 - 1930, this is way out to be a genuine piece....so in a nutshell it's a FAKE...FAKE...FAKE, someone out there who wrote the diary is intellegent (forger), with psychotic tendencies and dilusional traits, probably a victim of narcotics and a heavy drinker. They may well suffer other mild mental illnesses incorporating personality disorders. |
shelley wiltshire
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 7:52 am: | |
Sorry correction to the above, it's not 'Psychotic tendencies' i meant to say 'psycopathic tendencies'...the two are very different. as to the writer of the 'Ripper Diary'....whoops i've got to watch my spelling! soon i'll be writing dairy instead of diary...My sincere apologies to whoever the writer of the diary was or is. |
Robert J Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 1:17 pm: | |
John Omlor,
Well, that last post is about as good as I am ever likely to get from you.
Let me just note, in reference to my post of 15th July 2002:
(a) Your perverse refusal to accept that the meaning of dating “ in a conclusive way” in my e-mail to you of 11th September 2002, was precisely as we had agreed prior to your resignation on 15th July i.e. simply either Victorian or modern. The point is that you agreed to go ahead on this basis, and so did I.
(b) Your continuing inability to understand the fundamental difference between a collaboration agreement and an agenting agreement. Neither you nor Paul were acting for me in any way. You sought, and got, my collaboration – to release the diary for testing – that’s all. As a professional agent, who regularly draws up collaboration agreements, I do know the difference.
(c) Following from (b), your somewhat desperate attempt to present Paul and me as one entity and to argue that his words and thoughts must have been the same as mine. The hard fact is, that you made no attempt after 11th September 2002 to make contact or to have any discussion with me at all, i.e. “the ten months of silence”.
Spin it anyway you like, but that is the historic record.
All that is left is to request that you lay off language like “con” and “pimping a book”, when referring to me. Similarly to Chris Phillips, who pleasantly suggested that I and my “fellow-travellers” – whoever they might be – are intent on “defrauding” those, who contribute to the testing funds. I have always treated him with complete civility, so why the gratuitous nastiness?
I am committed to seeing the diary comprehensively tested, and to that end, I am happy to let the past rest, and deal solely with the future. And John, if you are being sincere, you, too, will agree that, from this point on, whatever our differences, the “testing history” is just that – history. But maybe you will want to continue advertising the availability of your little “testing history” dossier on the boards whenever you can find an opportunity.
As to the future, what materials will be sent to a lab and when, can’t be legislated here and now, but will emerge from sensible conversations between the administrator(s) of the tests and the lab(s) and experts involved. What I can promise, is that a lab will get the diary at the point they need it, and if they need it to produce (in your own words) “a complete and thorough evaluation of precisely what’s possible”, that’s fine by me.
All I would say, is that after all the efforts which will be surely be required by the individual(s) concerned to get the tests underway, let’s make sure we do it right and do not repeat past short-comings. Shirley Harrison and I did our best with the funds available, but it clearly wasn’t enough, as more tests were desirable.
Finally, a tribute to Jennifer, for bringing sense, balance and good will to the diary debate.
All best,
Robert Smith
|
A Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 5:35 am: | |
The underlying theme in the post by Matt (above) is fairly close I feel to what most unblinkered followers of the case think. Of course the likliehood is that the diary is a forgery, but as Matt says this has yet to be scientifically proven one way or the other.
Whilst the onus of proof definitely must lie with those who claim the diary/watch to be genuine, surely it should be much easier to prove otherwise. (If indeed that is the case) How can any test prove that the items are Victorian, that they were written by Maybrick and that he was the Ripper? On the other hand, if either item was conclusively proven to be of the wrong era then the case is closed.
With regard to the text itself, Matt may feel that it is clumsy and obvious but there are others whom I presume to be more qualified who think otherwise.
I would doubt that any of us could single out a suspect from scratch who's movements are as traceable as Maybrick's and present him as JTR and still be provoking furious debate over a decade later. Of course we cant pinpoint his whereabouts at every instant, but none of his known actions/appointments place him elsewhere at the time of any of the murders claimed by the diarist. Dont forget he lived and worked 200 miles away.
And most important question of all "Who if anyone is the forger?"
Surely it is not unreasonable that some people whilst being pretty sure that the items are fake will only be 100% certain when conclusive proof is presented. If collective efforts were made in a positive direction perhaps as Arfa says we could all go home instead of engaging in a futile shadow boxing match. I am not (as I will doubtless be accused) supporting the Maybrick camp here, merely trying to point out that everyone "knew" the earth was flat, many people "knew" that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and I "knew" to my cost that Ernie Els would beat Todd Hamilton in the play off for the British Open.
Alan |
Clint Lamar Norwood
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 12:24 am: | |
I thought that you guys spoke of things Ripper! Looks like while I was away some people got snippy. The sad thing is that we are all literate people who usually see clearly in terms of what is important. What is important is that we will never know who the Ripper is and this forum, while being somewhat a place for scholarship it is moreso a place for us to entertain ourselves. Having said that, I will say that sometimes fantasy is entertaining. Do you ever wonder why wars are fought and crudity and stupidity flourish? It is because of something as silly as this sometimes. |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 5:22 am: | |
At this moment,it would appear that the diary and watch have very little commercial value,and I presume no insurance value.That is as individual items.This would change if both could and would be proved to have been the property of James Maybrick,and Maybrick proved to have been Jack The Ripper.
Perhaps the present owners of the two items can enlighten us as to whether insurance has been sought,and what has been the response.
One might expext that both being only one of its kind in this world,an attempt might be made to safeguard the monetary value in case of fire,theft or explosion.
|
Robert J Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 1:23 pm: | |
John Omlor,
Well, that last post is about as good as I am ever likely to get from you.
Let me just note, in reference to my post of 15th July 2002:
(a) Your perverse refusal to accept that the meaning of dating “ in a conclusive way” in my e-mail to you of 11th September 2002, was precisely as we had agreed prior to your resignation on 15th July i.e. simply either Victorian or modern. The point is that you agreed to go ahead on this basis, and so did I.
(b) Your continuing inability to understand the fundamental difference between a collaboration agreement and an agenting agreement. Neither you nor Paul were acting for me in any way. You sought, and got, my collaboration – to release the diary for testing – that’s all. As a professional agent, who regularly draws up collaboration agreements, I do know the difference.
(c) Following from (b), your somewhat desperate attempt to present Paul and me as one entity and to argue that his words and thoughts must have been the same as mine. The hard fact is, that you made no attempt after 11th September 2002 to make contact or to have any discussion with me at all, i.e. “the ten months of silence”.
Spin it anyway you like, but that is the historic record.
All that is left is to request that you lay off language like “con” and “pimping a book”, when referring to me. Similarly to Chris Phillips, who pleasantly suggested that I am intent on “defrauding” those, who contribute to the testing funds. I have always treated him with complete civility, so why the gratuitous nastiness?
I am committed to seeing the diary comprehensively tested, and to that end, I am happy to let the past rest, and deal solely with the future. And John, if you are being sincere, you, too, will agree that, from this point on, whatever our differences, the “testing history” is just that – history. But maybe you will want to continue advertising the availability of your little “testing history” dossier on the boards whenever you can find an opportunity.
As to the future, what materials will be sent to a lab and when, can’t be legislated here and now, but will emerge from sensible conversations between the administrator(s) of the tests and the lab(s) and experts involved. What I can promise, is that a lab will get the diary at the point they need it, and if they need it to produce (in your own words) “a complete and thorough evaluation of precisely what’s possible”, that’s fine by me.
All I would say, is that after all the efforts which will be surely be required by the individual(s) concerned to get the tests underway, let’s make sure we do it right and do not repeat past short-comings. Shirley Harrison and I did our best with the funds available, but it clearly wasn’t enough, as more tests were desirable.
Finally, a tribute to Jennifer, for bringing sense, balance and good will to the diary debate.
All best,
Robert Smith
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 475
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 2:48 pm: | |
It never ends.
And, like me, Robert even has the nerve to commend Jennifer despite acting directly counter to her excellent suggestions and her desperate pleading -- he shows up here yet again in part to go over the same silliness. And he starts by taking us right back back to 2002 (a year from which he now at least seems finally struggling to escape).
He wants to parse the word "agent" into suffocation for reasons that I still don't understand. He tries to separate his own accounts of what happened from Paul's, despite the fact that they've been telling much the same story for two years now about what happened and why. And he throws in a casual shot at Chris for "gratuitous nastiness." Somehow, I really don't think Robert wants to get into a discussion about the history of "gratuitous nastiness" around here. But hey, I might be wrong about that. We'll see.
Still, finally, in the end, he repeats the offer I have already endorsed.
And so, as I've said countless times already, I'll be waiting and watching and looking forward to the day when a reputable lab gets to examine the material in order to determine exactly what is and is not possible technologically -- and to the day when the results are announced, of course.
In the meantime, there is nothing else much to say or do.
Shelley,
Yes, the book is clearly a fake.
Matt,
We won't know until we try.
Alan,
It's easy to keep a debate raging for over ten years if you have readers willing to make excuses or overlook glaring ahistorical inconsistencies, direct conflicts with the record, simple temporal anachronisms, completely different handwriting, and a total lack of any provenance whatsoever. If you have readers willing to overlook or excuse all of that, they can keep arguing forever, no matter what. Desire, remember, is a much more powerful thing than reason in some circles.
Stef,
Paul Feldman does not "explain." He speculates. And he does so often without a single piece of hard data or real evidence to support his speculations, which are routinely motivated simply by his own wishes. You must be very careful not to mistake rhetorical questions and guesses for statements of fact when reading Feldmaniacal prose.
All,
In the end, we are here. Waiting for anything new. Waiting for anything real.
But at least we know what's coming, right?
Looking forward to the bright and promising future,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 385
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 3:07 pm: | |
Robert J. Smith wrote:
Similarly to Chris Phillips, who pleasantly suggested that I and my “fellow-travellers” – whoever they might be – are intent on “defrauding” those, who contribute to the testing funds.
As everyone can see, I said no such thing. (Unless you're confessing to having forged the diary, of course!)
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=101939#POST101939
Why is it that the pro-diarists rely so heavily on distorting what other people have said?
Chris Phillips
|
Matt
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 5:51 am: | |
Realistically what would be the commercial value in authenticating or disproving the diary?
We are too far along in this story now, for people to change their minds. As I mentioned there is not 100% proof test that will convince either camp, even if a test was shown to be up to 99% conclusive you can never remove the fact that all scientific analysis is open to some interpretation and individual bias of the scientist testing it. Whilst I believe in and generally trust science I am realistic enough to know that if you look for something you will usually find a way to find it.
What my point has been and continues to be that, I have yet to see the justification for more tests. To be quite honest I don’t know why anyone even bothered to scientifically test it in the first place. Surely, the first requirements of a historical text need to be at least one of the following. That it is in the known handwriting of the person said to have written it or it should have at least some kind of pedigree, or providence or that it be historically accurate and not repeat any inventions or errors that have crept in to the dogma over the years. THEN, should a document pass some of these requirements, it should be subjected to scientific test.
I fail to understand exactly what it was that the so-called Ripper experts actually read. The diary gets things wrong, not random things where maybe just maybe it could prove ‘history’ to be wrong. The things it gets significantly wrong are in places where post Victorian authors have got thing significantly wrong. The oh so often repeated dogma that “if it’s a forgery then whoever did it must have been an expert on so many things” is utter tripe. I see no evidence of expertise or in-depth knowledge of even the Ripper case. Whoever forged it didn’t do much in the way of research as to what are the more authoritative Ripper texts. If only they had armed themselves with Sugden, then they would have avoided much of the trite obvious references and glaring errors. Whatever Research was done seems to have been rather hasty you could more or less source it to 80% early Rumbelow and bits and bobs from a couple of the books that came out at the centenary. Its obvious, it’s clumsy and it shows no more that the most casual knowledge of the historical facts.
It reads to me like the work of someone who may have some skills in research didn’t have the time to put into it and didn’t have any more than at the most a passing prior interest in the case |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 478
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 8:29 am: | |
Hi Matt,
I agree, of course, with most of what you say. And I have no idea what the commercial value of finally proving or disproving the diary's authenticity might be. To be honest, the "commercial value" to be found in any of this doesn't really interest me.
But clearly there would be some historical value and some scholastic value. And those do interest me.
As for giving the book to a reputable lab to see what the latest technologies might make possible -- I think it would be a good idea, if only because it might very well allow us to learn some new things about the book itself.
And learning new things is good.
Learning new things is good regardless of whether or not people everywhere believe them when they are announced or whether or not it puts an end to the debate or whether or not it makes everyone everywhere admit what you and I already know, that the book's a fake.
Of course, there will always be the true believers, regardless of evidence of any sort. As I've said elsewhere, that's why there are websites out there designed to convince you that people hung out with dinosaurs or that the world really is flat.
But that certainly shouldn't stop those of us who are genuinely interested in learning new things from doing so.
And that shouldn't stop us from giving the latest technology a chance to help us.
It's the scholastically and ethically responsible thing to do, if only in the name of history and knowledge.
At least, that's how I see it.
Thanks,
--John
|
Matt
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 9:05 am: | |
You do make a good point John
I would whole heatedly back you and your quest to have the diary thoroughly tested if I thought it would finally lay this shabby hoax to rest.
But it won’t. You are obviously a gentleman of sagacity and intellect (ever notice how we judge others inelegance by how often they agree with our own opinions) I would hate to think that you were wasting too much of your time and energy on this quest.
I don’t entirely reject the value of testing the document. I certainly don’t reject the value of learning new things, it is the continual thirst for new knowledge that separates us (marginally) from the Baboons.
I was only bemoaning the futility of the tests. I honestly don’t think tests of any kind will satisfy people form either side of (or even on) the fence.
All I continue to assert is in honesty there is no need for any test if we were to be sensible. The evidence is already there. I cannot see how anyone, with even more than a passing interest in the facts, could be taken in by it. I am both bewildered and frustrated.
|
Robert J Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 2:15 pm: | |
John,
So despite your agreeing with Stephen on these boards not to raise the subject again, you return to your old beef, that I had “mistakenly” challenged your “credentials” (21st July).
So, please, follow this brief summary of events:
1. On the basis of one utterly unremarkable e-mail from me to you on 11th September 2002, followed by ten months of total silence from you, you attacked my integrity on these boards, and claimed, that I had perpetrated a “con” regarding the proposed tests.
And why? Because, apparently, in that e-mail, I expressed an aim (not a pre-condition and not a demand for a guarantee) that McCrone be “able to date the document in a conclusive way” But that was precisely what you were happy to agree in writing on 15th July 2002, as you have confirmed here many times recently.
You then made a quantum leap into a speculation on what you think I would have done, if McCrone had provided a proposal for tests, as you and I had agreed they should. But McCrone wouldn’t progress the matter with Paul, and they faded out. All your suspicions therefore derive solely from your own conjectures of how I might have reacted to the proposal, if there had been one. But there wasn’t.
It’s quite crazy.
2. Yes, I did respond to your unjustifiable campaign to trash my reputation, based only on your false conjectures, by asking for an apology and a retraction, for which I am still waiting.
3. And yes, out of curiosity, I did check the University of South Florida web-site for the academic year 2003-04. I also looked at your Casebook Profile, where you stated your “occupation” to be Professor of Philosophy (as well as of Literature). According to the web-site, you are not a Professor of Philosophy. You aren’t even employed by the Philosophy Department. It seems that you do no more in the subject than teach a few general classes in the Honors College. Do correct this information, if the web-site is out-of-date.
I was not at all “gleeful” at exposing what appears to be hypocrisy or worse, and regret that you have chosen to raise it again.
You say you will look to the future. Good, but you refuse to help any testing initiative, preferring to adopt the “I told you so” stance. In fact, that has been your position since, for no credible reason so far proposed by you, you resigned as the administrator of the tests on 15th July 2002.
I have offered in good faith the diary for comprehensive testing with no pre-conditions whatsoever, and with the objective of establishing new information on it. You and I are completely in agreement with what needs to be done. There is no point in endlessly rehashing the “testing history” or your “credentials” on these boards. I clearly am not going to change your perceptions publicly or vice-versa.
You know my e-mail address, if you want to discuss these matters with me any further. Otherwise, it really is time to move on.
Robert
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 479
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 10:00 pm: | |
Well, I see this ludicrous discussion has not been allowed to die a graceful death yet again.
It's a miracle -- it's like that little Energizer bunny that just keeps going and going.
My last post to Robert above ended with my enthusiastically endorsing his offer and wishing the best for all concerned.
So what does he do? He suddenly returns to something he read in a post from July 21st!
Why?
Seriously, WHY?!
What can he possibly get out of such behavior?
What is the point of such constantly recurring recriminations and returns, even when, days ago, a mutual agreement had already been reached here about the future plans?
What do you think he gets out of continually going back into the past (both distant and near) to rehash yet again this same old silly stuff?
What could be the source for this obsession, for this obvious insecurity?
I wish I knew.
It's sort of sad, really.
Anyway, let's see if there's anything in his most recent post worth a response -- anything new or real.
There's more bad history of course.
My so-called "conjectures" as to why needing to be convinced by a scientific lab, before the lab ever even sees any of the material, that it could produce conclusive results -- why that policy could only end in no tests being done, was a simple observation based on the email I received from both Robert and Paul and the discussions I had with the directors of several labs.
That conclusion still stands, but now that Robert has made it clear that the lab will be allowed to see the material in order to determine what they can and cannot do with it prior to anyone having to be "convinced," this entire issue is no longer relevant.
Of course, there was NO, I repeat NO "campaign" to trash Robert's reputation. Not waged by me, not waged by anyone (except perhaps by Robert himself -- after all, spending ten years promoting a document we all know to be fake might end up casting a doubt or two in the mind of some concerning one's reputation -- I don't know, but I'm just guessing that perhaps this might be one of the unfortunate consequences of such a lifestyle choice).
As for me, I simply wrote two posts on a Pub Talk board about tennis. I still have them if anyone wants to read them. And Robert did not then just "ask for an apology and a retraction." He sent a letter to me (and Stephen), and then a second email to me and then a second version of the original letter to me, all mentioning legal threats and lawyers and libel suits and all the rest. He even asked me to send him the name of my attorneys at one point! I laughed, of course, and did no such thing as the whole exchange was beyond farcical. Anyone who wants to see any of these documents and emails can, as always, send me private mail and I'll be happy to send them to you for your enjoyment. I still have them all.
And then yes, months later he went to an out of date university web site while he was spending some time searching the web for stuff about me (ask yourself why he was doing such a thing in the first place). He thought because I said I was a professor (I am) of literature and philosophy (the two subjects I teach), I must have been lying, since my position was neither in the Literature department (we don't have one here, it's called "English" at our school, as it is in most American universities, but we teach literature, just as I said in my profile), or the philosophy department (a subject which I also teach and listed). But my position was and is actually a joint one with the English Department and Honors College and has been for over ten years.
Of course, I wasn't lying about any of this, and the chairman of the English Department here even offered to send a confirming email to anyone interested stating my title clearly and precisely.
Not that any of this matters though, except you really have to wonder what sort of twisted and paranoid personality spends his time looking up little ole' me on the web, finding all sorts of lovely little fragments of my life and then coming here to "expose" me. (Write me also and ask for details, those who are now wondering exactly what I'm talking about -- the whole thing is delightful.)
Of course, those of you who remember when these silly claims first appeared here will no doubt recall that it was finally determined that the only possible reason Robert came and made and remade them and insisted on them even when I gave him my precise title and job description and even when I contacted my own department chairman and had him agree to confirm independently everything I had said -- the only reason Robert could still have for wanting to discuss them yet again here is the only reason he could have had for spending his late nights on the web searching for stuff about me in the first place.
He is obviously in love.
Now, I've tried once to let him down gently, but still he returns, just trying anything he can think of to get my attention, thinking that if I notice him it might mean that in some odd way I return his passionate feelings towards me.
Unfortunately, it is not to be.
While I do understand his emotional involvement in our relationship, his crush (and surely that's all it can be) must go unrequited.
I'm sorry about that. But it's just not in me to become involved with a fellow board poster. It'd be too much like incest, if you know what I mean.
We're all family here after all, right?
So this is how and when it must end. Again.
Or maybe not. Maybe Robert still won't take no for an answer and will try once more desperately to win my time and attention.
We'll have to see.
Just like we'll have to see when and if the diary is ever properly and thoroughly retested.
I'll be here.
Waiting. And hoping for the best.
The fool on the hill,
--John (who does appreciate that there is nothing sadder than a broken heart)
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 678
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 10:19 pm: | |
John,
Jesus that was hypocritical. In your post of July 25 you are quite the Robert basher and you are claiming HE won't let it die a graceful death? Since you can't quit harping, why should he? Do you know how ticked I am to have to side with anyone in that circle? Jumping jesus on a pogo stick I expect you both to stick your fingers in your ears and go nyah nyah nyah at any moment. This isn't about a factual debate anymore, it has no merit, its about both of you trying to prove who has the bigger set. And when *I* have to call someone too immature, you know it must be bad since usually I revel in it as previous experience with certain persons has proved. But even I have the grace to back off after a while, usally long past the tedious point but still...y'all can't even see the tedious point it's so far gone.
Robert, be the bigger man and just ignore him. Please.
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 483
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 10:46 pm: | |
Fine, Ally.
I'll happily be the "hypocrite" here, but you'll have to tell me just what it was in my post of the 25th you are citing that was such nasty "Robert bashing." And why, four full days of peace and quiet later, it should have prompted a post that arrived well after a mutual agreement was reached and that went all the way back to the 21st to talk about completely different stuff.
But you are absolutely correct.
"This isn't about a factual debate anymore, it has no merit."
And it has been tedious for a very long time.
Do you think that is going to change?
Let's watch.
--John |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 484
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 10:51 pm: | |
Matt,
Fair enough. Sorry you had to exchange thoughts with me in the midst of all this other ugliness. But it pops up now and then when this document is being discussed. I can't imagine why.
I still think we might learn something from the current science, but I do understand your frustration and your pessimism about the way such results would be received. And you're right, of course, that the answer to the question of authenticity has been before us all along. Most of us recognized that some time ago.
Thanks, and all the best,
--John
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 485
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 11:15 pm: | |
Hey Ally,
I'll tell you what I'll do.
I'll take it all back.
I'll say I'm sorry for everything.
The conditions that I once believed would have made testing impossible have been appropriately clarified and revised. The events of 2002 and 2003 are no longer relevant.
All the silly unpleasantness I recounted in my last post to Robert is also completely irrelevant and simply ancient history, and I apologize for responding to any of it.
Truly.
I'm sorry.
Forget everything I wrote in response to Robert's last little visit here and anything I have ever said about anything that has ever happened concerning this affair before this very minute.
There is no past.
And I wholeheartedly apologize for ever discussing any of it.
There is only now.
There is only the present and the future and the question of authenticity and the tests that will or will not happen.
Nothing else.
No personalities.
No egos.
No reputations.
No careers.
No unrelated arguments or irrelevant clashes.
Just the document and what it is or is not.
OK?
Now, let's watch the future, and only the future.
I love you all, and Ally is right.
Here's to tomorrow,
--John |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 69
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 10:21 am: | |
Hi All
It’s nice to just dip in here every now and again. You can skim through all the repetitive bits and pick out the odd gem. There are still one or two.
Matt. I think the point you make about the commercial value of testing is an interesting one, even if I disagree with just about everything else you say! Maybrick may not have written the diary, he may well not have been JTR. The internal evidence in the diary conflicts with some latter day thinking on the Ripper case but that’s about it.
Surely the point here is, Who wrote the damned thing, why and when?
Robert Smith is the owner of the diary, and it seems entirely reasonable to me that he has the final say in testing it. Surely the outcome, whatever that might be, would provide ample material for a worldwide best seller no matter what the result, as long as it is done impeccably and with respected and unimpeachable individuals as validators? I know I’d buy it on day one, and I’m sure others would do the same in their droves. In fact if it was tested in a totally biased and shoddy way it would probably still have the potential to earn Robert a few extra quid if that were his motivation.
I’m not suggesting that Robert would or should follow that path, but just saying that there really isn’t a strong financial inducement to prove things either way. He seems to be damned if he does, and damned if he doesn’t.
If the diary was tested again, and there was good evidence that it dated from say the 1920s, then surely the game of hunt the hoaxer would continue?
I sincerely believe that the further tests will happen as long as some sort of meaningful result can be promised. It seems that the forensics portrayed in TV drama aren’t anything like as advanced in real life!
I just hope that as and when these tests are done, they are carried out quietly and a million miles away from the casebook. The previous tests have been treated to the most appalling distortions in certain quarters by those for whom they don’t fit into a pet theory.
Just looking back over the previous page, we’ve been treated to comments like, “Yes, the diary is a hoax. Almost no one really believes otherwise”. Well the last significant poll I am aware of in the UK was conducted by UKTV, in 2002 I think, and 40% believed Maybrick was the Ripper. By default, 40% must believe the diary and watch are the real thing. Add to that the huge number of undecideds and that little bit of wishful thinking is shown up for just what it is.
There really does seem little point in trying to persuade the handful or less of people here that their pet theories may be wrong after all. There’s a big wide world out there, full of people without any axes to grind.
Have a great weekend everyone.
Paul
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 486
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 10:28 am: | |
Paul,
40% of what?
Just wondering,
--John
PS: Congratulations for writing, "I sincerely believe that the further tests will happen..."
Me, too.
And congratulations also for writing, "The previous tests have been treated to the most appalling distortions..."
Indeed. We agree on that as well.
Oh, and I actually know the particular survey you are citing and the answer to my original question above. But I'd like to see you write it here so I can congratulate you for that, too.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
