|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 435
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 1:53 pm: |       |
I've been asked about my post of Friday, July 23rd: I claimed that Mike Barrett "purchased a blank Victorian diary using an assumed name, and probably without his wife's knowledge.' After rechecking my notes, I began to wonder if I was really correct in stating this with certainty. I then received an email asking the same question. Barrett evidently ordered the book by phone sometime in early 1992; the book was paid for by check (signed by Anne Barrett) on May 18th, aprox. 7 weeks after the book had been sent. The book dealer in question did have "a Mr. Barrett's" name in his records, so clearly he did obtain Barrett's name at some point. Mike's use of the name "Williams" was connected to his initial contact with Doreen Montgomery of Rupert Crew Ltd.
In fairness, it might be noted that my suggestion that Barrett ordered this book "without his wife's knowledge" is my interpretation, and is open to dispute. RP
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 386
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 5:18 pm: | |
Paul Butler wrote:
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.
I know it goes against the grain, but try to be a bit fair-minded.
The scientific reports that have been discussed most here recently have been the ones on the watch, which have not been made public. They were to have been published in March, but at the last minute it was announced that the permission required to publish them had not been released. (Whose permission was withheld has not been revealed.)
Four months on, the parties concerned are still, apparently, pondering the possible consequences of releasing the reports.
Instead, we've been given various paraphrases of these reports by you and Caz. I gave up trying to make sense of these paraphrases some time ago - frequently contradictory as they have been, and admittedly the interpretation of people who don't really understand the science.
The only persons who have been in a position to impose "appalling distortions" on these reports are you and Caz, because you are the only people who have been posting their interpretations of them (though John Hacker has occasionally intervened to correct some of the grosser errors).
In short, though I suspect you are right that the substance of these reports has been appallingly distorted as a result of devotion to "pet theories", it certainly hasn't been done by the diary sceptics. Most of us aren't in a position to judge the degree of distortion, and I doubt we shall be any time soon.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 613
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 12:36 pm: | |
Hi everyone,
everyone came out for a visit to diary world and where was I - thats right I was chilling out somewhere else!!!
Anyway,
Stef
I don't know if I agree or not as I can't really remember much about Paul's book perhaps I need to dust that one off too.
Robert you said
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.
Thank you for once again repeating this offer. I hope that in the near future someone somewhere will be able to take up this offer and in doing so prove that (whatever may have happened in the past) your offer for testing (no strings attached) was nothing but generous, fair and honest. I realise this was probably not an easy decision for you to make. I repeat my thanks to you for your offer. I hope a lab somewhere in the world can get a look soon.
John,
as you've taken everything you wrote while I was away back I'll just say hi!
Ally,
I guess tension is running high in Diary world, I think it would be a fair assessment to say that it's no one persons fault though.
John and Robert,
I recognise that you do not get on. I realise that in the past there has been a communications breakdown between you resulting in deeply held feelings but I ask once again that you (at least on the boards) leave that behind you. You agree in the main on the sequence of events although you clearly prove the point that there are two sides to every story!
Whatever happened in the past - we cannot change it now - and in light of Robert's most generous offer it no longer matters.
The fact is everyone involved has (on more than one heated occasion) laid down their point of view in relation to this matter.
Please leave it at the door.
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1152
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 2:04 pm: | |
Hi Jenn,
You wrote in an earlier post:
‘...we have full possession of the facts.’
But do we - really? And how could we know this ‘fact’ for sure? And, perhaps most crucially, are the ‘facts’, as we think we know them, always transported here accurately and then used in an objective fashion to support one’s stated opinions?
RJ wrote:
‘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 why would Gray even be trying to sell Barrett’s confessions unless he believed there was something in it for him – at the very least an expectation of being paid for the efforts he was making on Barrett’s behalf, and for which he was relying on Barrett’s full co-operation?
It might be ‘painfully obvious’ to RJ, with hindsight (and with his own beliefs about the diary’s origins), that Barrett ‘didn't have his heart in it, and was not really cooperating with Gray’.
But Barrett presumably gave Gray a rather different impression, otherwise it’s hard to see why Gray would have bothered with this side of things at all. My own impression is that Barrett promised much in those early days, giving Gray the right old run-around with vague hints of knowing more than he really did know (a lot more, judging by the rubbish Barrett finally delivered in the January of the following year, 1995).
But as the days turned to weeks, months and finally years, it evidently dawned on the private investigator that Barrett was not going to deliver, for whatever reason. And if there had been anything worth investigating, from Gray’s point of view, he had still not, by the late 1990s, had a decent sniff of it.
So was it that Barrett ‘didn’t have his heart in’ co-operating with Gray (or with anyone else then or since), to provide a coherent and verifiable forgery story? Or did he not do so simply because he couldn’t?
Barrett first tells Feldy’s secretary, on September 30, 1994, that he found the quote in the library and suggests he will be able to use this find to ‘prove’ he must have put the quote in the diary himself. Within days, he gives Shirley details of the source. Within a few more days, his solicitor’s secretary is given details of the ‘find’.
Gray, however, doesn’t apparently get a sausage until November 7, when Barrett gives him a very unclear account of why finding the quote is somehow significant (including the odd revelation that he had already told Feldy about it ‘months’ earlier – a typical Mike exaggeration or timing mix-up, if he was talking about the end of September and considered November to be two months further on), and how lodging a copy of the Sphere book with his solicitor (for which no record or independent recollection exists) would be the bees’ knees in terms of a dramatic and profitable forgery story.
Yes indeedy, as RJ wrote: ‘Gray---the man he is allegedly working with--was the last to know(!)’
(Well, not quite the last, since Barrett gloated later to Melvin Harris over the phone that he had “found” what all “you scholars” had failed to find. And Harris totally missed another characteristic Mike faux pas – he wasn’t supposed to have “found” anything at a time, post-1992, when all “you scholars” had been looking for it, was he? He was supposed to have known the source of the quotation all along, because he was supposed to have picked it himself for the diary pre-1992. D’oh!)
So I couldn’t agree more with RJ when he wrote: ‘Clearly, this is evidence that Barrett was all over the map...’ And I can go along with RJ’s belief up to a point, that Barrett was ‘torn between two conflicting motives’, wishing to profit from the diary, but also wanting to ‘get even’ with various people by exposing it – or trying to expose it - as a forgery.
It would be easier for me to go all the way with this belief, however, if Barrett had still not seen a penny of diary money by the time of his first ‘confession’, in June 1994, leading him to think he was being right royally shafted. But the big money he had been hoping for and expecting since at least as far back as early 1992 had started rolling in by then, so to ‘confess’ at that point could only be a self-shafting exercise: breaking all legally binding agreements he had with his paymasters and damaging future book sales - sheer lunacy in other words (yeah, I know, this is Mike we are talking about).
While I can understand the “If I can’t have the money, no one will” mentality, Barrett was by all accounts seeing more money than he had ever seen in his life when he suddenly chose to flip over from lucky beneficiary of a possibly genuine ripper confession to world’s greatest forger of same. This doesn’t quite hit the bull’s eye, imho. Something - or someone - else was motivating him at this point, imho.
The reason why Barrett never gave a complete, coherent - or consistent – confession is, imho, partly because he ‘simply did not remember’, from June 1994 onwards, as the time ‘passed in a haze’, what new revelations he was coming out with at any particular time which ended up on record. And people with poor memories make pretty hopeless liars.
I totally agree with RJ that nothing Barrett says should be accepted without independent confirmation. (Yet people still swallowed the dodgy Devereux stories, without which Kane would never have become a suspect.)
RJ stated as fact that Barrett ‘purchased a blank Victorian diary using an assumed name’. As he now acknowledges, this wasn't the case. Barrett ordered a diary using his own name and address (and ended up with a tiny one for the year 1891), and his wife finally signed a cheque for it when he had been put down as a late payer. Imagine if Barrett had used this order for his little forgery, as some people have suggested was the intention. Within days of publication the diary could have been recognised and identified as the one sent to the Barretts!
It may be a ‘fact’ that Barrett was ‘pursuing’ a writing career, but it’s also a ‘fact’ that thousands of hopefuls who queue up to audition for Pop Idol couldn’t hold a tune in a bucket; pretty meaningless without an example or two of Barrett’s own authenticated writing skills that would hold a candle to what we find in the diary itself.
It may even be a ‘fact’ that Barrett told Gray that Ryan ‘was a major source for the Maybrick material’, although I would like to know how RJ established that Barrett could not have got this idea from someone else before feeding it to Gray. And when, precisely, was Ryan’s book, ‘available in a Liverpool Library’, found to have ‘been stolen off the shelves’ there? Who established this and how? All very interesting, maybe, but what does it actually prove?
Finally, if anyone seriously thinks Barrett’s handwriting - or Anne’s - could be sitting there in the diary, I’d appreciate their thoughts on how it could have been so well disguised as to appear utterly unrecognisable (I won’t bother for now with why the heck they didn’t go the whole hog and disguise it to look even vaguely like Maybrick’s, or I’ll have the tired old “...it must be genuine then” argument tagged on to my words by someone), if they believe a similar feat of disguise would have been beyond the real James Maybrick – or indeed anyone - if and when the need or desire ever arose.
Anyone who believes Barrett capable of using a handwriting that bears no apparent resemblance to anything else he is known to have produced, in order to create a one-off rip-off ripper confession for a bit of fame and fortune, can hardly claim that someone else – in this case the real James Maybrick, a man who was clearly leading a double life of drugs and debauchery – could not, or even would not, have done at least as good a job, either consciously and with good reason: the wrong person gaining access to his thoughts at the wrong time and instantly identifying the author could have got him into all sorts of trouble; unconsciously, due to unusual stresses and strains on his physical and mental state at certain times, the powerful mixes of drugs and potions he was taking, quite possibly resulting in fantasies or delusions; or an unhealthy combination of all these factors.
Whether anyone’s handwriting could change to a professional-fooling degree under any circumstances is another question that may or may not have a definitive answer. But let’s at least be consistent and admit that if Maybrick could never have written the diary and fooled experts into believing otherwise, it would be very surprising if Mike or Anne could have penned it without leaving (or worrying about leaving) enough tell-tale signs to ring alarm bells with someone, somewhere by now, whether it be a curious, yet-to-be commissioned handwriting expert, or someone from the couple’s past, like a former friend, teacher or work colleague. I doubt everyone in Mike’s life, for instance, would be loyal to the point of staying silent, if they thought they recognised Mike’s handiwork in the diary.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 488
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 5:17 pm: | |
Hi Jen,
You write, to me and my new friend Robert:
"I ask once again that you (at least on the boards) leave that behind you."
Done and done.
Now here are some delightful nuggets from Caroline's post above:
"Barrett first tells Feldy’s secretary, on September 30, 1994, that he found the quote in the library..."
Yup. Of course, that was a lie. Right?
Caroline then writes:
"I totally agree with RJ that nothing Barrett says should be accepted without independent confirmation."
Yup, especially stories about miraculous discoveries in libraries of five completely unidentified words from the whole history of literature.
He brought the diary forward.
He identified the quote.
He told an impossible story about how he was able to do it.
That's the facts, Jack.
And, much to my joy, Caroline finally writes:
"Finally, if anyone seriously thinks the real James Maybrick's handwriting could be sitting there in the diary, I’d appreciate their thoughts on how it could have been so well disguised as to appear utterly unrecognisable."
Well, OK, that's not exactly what she wrote.
But it's pretty close.
And she's exactly right.
So let's see where we are.
No provenance whatsoever.
Clearly the wrong handwriting.
A line from a police list the real James could not possibly have seen.
Any number of ahistorical details.
A completely artificial structure.
And an obscure citation miraculously identified only by the same person who brought the book forward.
Can you say "Fake?"
Remember the title of this thread?
It is clearly a fantasy, a Figment of someone's imagination.
Can anyone here seriously argue otherwise?
Looking forward to seeing any real evidence at all that even remotely suggests the title of this thread is anything more than a creative fiction,
--John
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 438
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 7:13 pm: | |
"My own impression is that Barrett promised much in those early days, giving Gray the right old run-around with vague hints of knowing more than he really did know (a lot more, judging by the rubbish Barrett finally delivered in the January of the following year, 1995). "
Caz-- The trouble is that you have no objective means of testing your "impressions," since we have no objective way of knowing what's inside Barrett's head. For instance, you can't hope to prove that Barrett wasn't being deliberately dense or evasive.
I, on the otherhand, am attempting to work from the opposite angle. In my post of Friday, July 23, 10:26 a.m. I concentrate on what we can objectively demonstrate Barrett did know: namely the citation for the Crashaw quote. The evidence clearly shows that Barrett knew of this at least as far back as Sept 30th, but didn't tell Gray until Nov. 7th. It leaves nothing to speculation. Barrett was withholding information from Gray --his alleged confidant--for nearly six weeks, at a time that many have suggested he was "desperate to prove the Diary was a forgery". Odd behavior, to say the least. So did he ever really give us his best? To my mind, it's still an open question.
RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on July 31, 2004) |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 257
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 9:49 pm: | |
Caz,
It is with more than a little trepidation that I venture into Diary World, but I was taken by one thing you wrote recently. Talking about Mr. Barrett, you suggested that despite his being an aspiring writer we ought to have some examples of his work to see if he could ". . . hold a candle to what we find in the diary itself."
Well, yes, it would be helpful to know if he can string together a few declarative sentences, but to "hold a candle" to the prose in the diary one really doesn't need more than a few kitchen matches. There are many literary aspirants and not a few who have trouble with anything more challenging than a two-word sentence (and even then "Jesus wept" might be rendered "He cried"), but most often those who fail at fiction do so because their efforts lack drama, color, and any spark of that human poetry that makes their characters seem real.
And those were just the deficiencies I found when I read the diary . . . it was like no journal or diary I had read before or since. Indeed, in its pedestrian banality it seemed like nothing but a bad bit of fiction.
As I have written before, that is a totally subjective opinion. Still, I would say that if it is not a fake, then Mr. Maybrick -- with all the incredible material he had at hand -- was not only criminally insane but a criminally negligent writer as well.
My opinion anyway.
Don. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 614
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 5:51 am: | |
Hi Caz,
I don't know why you of all people should take a
exception to the idea that we are in full possession of the facts in relation to the thing I don't want to discuss and want to leave in the past, when it has endlessly been drummed out in front of us for the past two months.
John,
good.
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1157
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 10:44 am: | |
Hi Jenn,
I thought it was obvious from the rest of my post that I was simply advising caution, using some examples unrelated to the previous discussion, whenever anyone assumes we are 'in full possession of the facts' about anything - anything at all.
Rarely, if ever, can we be certain that all the known facts have been put before us, fairly, accurately or completely. Rarely, if ever, can we be certain about what those facts can or can't tell us about the bigger picture.
That's all I meant by quoting your words, and apologise if I caused any further misunderstandings by doing so (you see how easy that can be?  )
John, on the other hand, is in no danger of creating any further misunderstandings by joyously and blatantly misquoting mine, and claiming that I wrote:
'Finally, if anyone seriously thinks the real James Maybrick's handwriting could be sitting there in the diary, I’d appreciate their thoughts on how it could have been so well disguised as to appear utterly unrecognisable',
then admitting he was lying and that it wasn't what I wrote but he thought it was 'pretty close'.
I understand this perfectly. John would describe it as 'slight-of-hand [sic]', and I would describe it as 'sleight-of-hand' that sadly backfires - because it is so damned 'close' that it neatly enforces my original point for me.
It makes no difference whose name you use here - they are interchangeable. Either Mike or Anne could have disguised their writing well enough to pen such a document (and also bring the thing to London and get it published) and still not have their handiwork exposed, or they couldn't.
The same applies to Maybrick. Either the long-dead cotton merchant could have disguised his writing well enough to pen such a document and still not have his handiwork exposed, or he couldn't.
Hi RJ,
I agree - 'The evidence clearly shows that Barrett knew of this [where the Crashaw lines could be found] at least as far back as Sept 30th, but didn't tell Gray until Nov. 7th.'
It leaves nothing to speculation, you say, but then you immediately go on to speculate that during the six-week gap:
'Barrett was withholding information from Gray --his alleged confidant...'
This implies a deliberate reluctance to give Gray the same information that he gave the others before him. But Gray wasn't supposed to be fed the same story, was he? The information about the library find was supposed to be for Feldy and Shirley's and the solicitor's ears, not for Gray's. The story had to be modified somewhat if he wanted Gray to use it to help flog a meaty forgery article.
So either: Barrett checked the book's availability in the library before feeding a lie to Feldy's secretary about finding it for the first time there (yet immediately voicing to her his thoughts on how this would surely make his forgery claim stick); fed the same lie to Shirley and then to his own solicitor; then decided to leave it another six weeks before giving Gray the true version and nothing but the true version, but still not producing the Sphere book -
Or: Barrett spent six weeks, from his first realisation that the Sphere book could be his guiding light, deciding what and when to feed Gray and how.
It's odd behavior period.
In the November, instead of simply showing Gray the Sphere book (either the one he allegedly owned by then or a library copy) and a copy of the diary, and pointing to the same quotation in both, Barrett very oddly showed Gray a piece of paper from which Gray read aloud: "'I found it in the lodge - [amends to] in the library'?"
I mean, this was surely a slip-up whichever way you look at it. Mike letting slip anything about his library find, whether it was an old lie made up for others, or the truth, was not his smartest move at this point, was it? Those six weeks could have been better spent in preparing for the one major revelation that actually made people believe Mike must have had a hand in the diary.
But then, we both appreciate the pitfalls of using Mike's behaviour or intellect to support our speculation about what he really knows.
Finally, Hi Don,
You wrote:
'Still, I would say that if it is not a fake, then Mr. Maybrick -- with all the incredible material he had at hand -- was not only criminally insane but a criminally negligent writer as well.'
Well, I guess there must be endless examples of real people throughout history, who could be described as both those things.
I wonder how one would describe the faker of such a diary, if he or she is still with us, watching and waiting to see if they are ever exposed?
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 620
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 1:58 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
I had prepared a nice response when I became disconnected from the internet. Therefore excuse me if this one is a little rushed!
I agree with you it would be totally odd to say I was in possession of all the facts about everything.
This is diary world if we thought we were in possession of the facts we wouldn't be here!
Rest assured in relation to what I was talking about I was in full possession of facts. Anymore facts and my head would have exploded with facts!!!!
In relation to handwriting. I agree everyone can fake handwriting (saying that i can think of an example form my life when I couldn't but I can't have been older than 10! Hey thats about the right period so it sure rules me out!)Surely if the hypothesis that Mike/Anne faked the diary is true they had more reason than Maybrick to disguise their handwriting. writing the diary in the first place is hardly the act of a man expecting to be caught.
Finally in relation to your last point...
they would be described as smart - but not smart enough to fool John Omlor 
Cheers!
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 498
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 3:00 pm: | |
Caroline, not seriously I hope, suggests that was "lying" when I replaced Mike Barrett and Anne Graham's names with James Maybrick's in her line about handwriting.
I trust that she is a sophisticated enough reader to know that I was not lying, nor doing it deceitfully, nor hoping no one would notice.
Indeed, I called attention to exactly what I had done in the very next line.
The fact that she chooses then to use the word "lying" to describe all of this tells us oodles about why the discussions here so often take place as they do.
But I'll move on to her claims about the handwriting.
Of course, the fictional "James" in the diary makes it perfectly clear throughout the text who he is, so there would be no need for him to disguise his handwriting.
Forgers, on the other hand...
And in the end there's always the simple fact that the diary is not clearly written in the real James Maybrick's handwriting. It's not even close.
The reason for that, in case anyone has forgotten, is because the real James did not write it.
Or does that make too much sense?
Just stopping by for a reality check on a rainy afternoon,
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 394
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 6:13 am: | |
Caz
The same applies to Maybrick. Either the long-dead cotton merchant could have disguised his writing well enough to pen such a document and still not have his handiwork exposed, or he couldn't.
The question of the handwriting is central, of course, and the Maybrickites have nothing approaching a plausible explanation for it. (In the circumstances, one might expect those claiming the diary could be genuine to be just a little less overbearing, until they can at least offer something believable on this point.)
Perhaps Caz could explain, if Maybrick wrote the diary, what conceivable reason he would have had to "disguise" his handwriting, while filling the text with all sorts of undisguised details of his personal life. (Of course, he could have had no reason to, as Jennifer and John have pointed out.)
Chris Phillips
|
Robert J Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 10:42 am: | |
Dear Ally,
Your post of 29th July has the unmistakable tone of “sweet reasonableness”. I am very happy to respond precisely as you have asked of me, and to “just ignore him”.
All best,
Robert
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 513
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 8:19 am: | |
Hurrah. 
Ally, just for that, here's a kiss.
And now back to our regular program.
Still truly optimistic about the arrival of tests and their results,
--John  |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 659
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 8:57 am: | |
John,
don't get too excited. Our regular programme what's that circular crazy-ness?
Tests will come, I sure look forward to it. once again, i extend my thanks to Robert for his offer.
Hurrah we've managed to put that other thing behind us!
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 515
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 9:04 am: | |
Hi Jen,
Our regular program?
Well, let's see.
When we last left, Chris Phillips was asking a question. Perhaps we should just repost it, as a way of returning to our discussion.
--John
*************************************
The question of the handwriting is central, of course, and the Maybrickites have nothing approaching a plausible explanation for it. (In the circumstances, one might expect those claiming the diary could be genuine to be just a little less overbearing, until they can at least offer something believable on this point.)
Perhaps Caz could explain, if Maybrick wrote the diary, what conceivable reason he would have had to "disguise" his handwriting, while filling the text with all sorts of undisguised details of his personal life. (Of course, he could have had no reason to, as Jennifer and John have pointed out.)
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 661
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 9:38 am: | |
John,
thanks yes that is what we were talking about. I was thinking, how difficult is it to disguise your handwriting I would say relatively difficult because writing comes automatically to many people.
The older you are i would say the more difficult it is likely to be.
Just thinking,
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1165
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 11:48 am: | |
Hi Jenn,
Well, presumably John would think it was as easy as falling off a log for Mike Barrett to disguise his writing, but as difficult as all hell for a serial killer on arsenic.
Just a thought.
I have no idea, and will have to leave that side of things to the professionals.
Hi Chris,
Not that I am claiming anything about the diary’s origins, of course, because I'm not, but I have already suggested why the real Maybrick (whether or not he ever killed more than his neighbours’ damned dogs – if the suspicions of people at the time were well-founded) might have had reason not to want certain people coming across his private diary (if he kept one) and instantly recognising his writing there, prompting them to become curious enough to read all.
After all, he was an arsenic eater and was financing at least one mistress, for God’s sake. So use your imagination.
If a person yearns to be someone else, and somewhere else, doing all sorts of fantastic things far away from the boring bounds of business and dull demands of domesticity, who knows who that person could become in his/her diary, and how that fantasy person might write, consciously or otherwise? The possibilities for someone as mad as a hatter - ie the Whitechapel Murderer himself - are a complete unknown, surely? I certainly would not care to admit to knowing what they were, or what their limits were, even if I thought I knew.
It would be interesting to know how you decided what kind of boundaries a serial killer like Jack would put himself within, and why you judged them to be so narrow.
It almost seems perverse that people can gaily accept a real live Mike and Anne Barrett, with so few boundaries that they would compose and pen such a diary, and boldly offer up their handiwork for examination and publication; the same people are delighted to accept a real couple of 1993 watch hoaxers with as few boundaries as the Barretts before them, and precisely the same kind of have-a-go-and-be-damned mentality, and a similar airy-fairy attitude towards the money-making side of their eccentric activities; yet your idea of a real diary-writing ripper is some poor dull creature in a strait-jacket of normality and convention. Who says?
If you believe the Barretts and the Johnsons can all do such odd things because, well, people are always doing odd things, especially forgers, why don't you also believe Maybrick could have done even odder things because people have always done odd things, and none so odd as the real Jack the Ripper?
It's no good saying that Maybrick hasn't been proven to be Jack the Ripper (I think we all know that); none of the above suspects has proven to be a forger either.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 402
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 1:29 pm: | |
Caz
If you believe the Barretts and the Johnsons can all do such odd things ...
I've made no such statement, and I'm pretty sure you know it. But past experience shows it's pointless to ask you to stop putting words into my mouth.
You seem to be hinting at two different reasons why the writing in the diary bears no resemblance to Maybrick's (apart from the obvious one that Maybrick didn't write it, of course).
If a person yearns to be someone else, and somewhere else, doing all sorts of fantastic things far away from the boring bounds of business and dull demands of domesticity, who knows who that person could become in his/her diary, and how that fantasy person might write, consciously or otherwise? The possibilities for someone as mad as a hatter - ie the Whitechapel Murderer himself - are a complete unknown, surely?
If he unconsciously wrote in a different hand, this has nothing to do with disguising his handwriting, which is what I was asking about.
This seems to be veering pretty close to the "multiple personality" argument. If you really want to go there, don't let me stop you, but this stuff about the behaviour of mad people being "a complete unknown" is obviously nonsense.
I have already suggested why the real Maybrick ... might have had reason not to want certain people coming across his private diary (if he kept one) and instantly recognising his writing there, prompting them to become curious enough to read all.
This is pretty feeble, isn't it? You think he would have written all this incriminating stuff, leaving no doubt who was the author, but would have gone to the incredible labour of disguising his handwriting to prevent someone who recognised the writing being curious enough to read it? Why on earth shouldn't someone who didn't recognise the writing be curious enough to read it?
On the whole, I'll take it that you can't suggest any plausible reason why Maybrick should have disguised his handwriting.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 516
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 1:33 pm: | |
John has actually never said anything at all about Mike Barrett disguising his handwriting.
He has, however, wondered why the real James would want to disguise his in a diary where he readily admits his own identity throughout.
And Caroline's fictional scenario above doesn't even approach answering that question, since even if someone did come across the diary while he was still alive, they would only have to read a single page, even the first page, to know the author and therefore James's so-called disguise would have been pointless.
But then the truly last desperate gasp of all diary problems returns in all its splendid glory.
Every time the diary reveals itself to be a fake, those who wish to argue other vague and fanciful possibilities eventually return to the only escape left them. When it gets details of the crimes wrong, when it gets the handwriting wrong, when it mentions places that didn't exist in the 1880s, when it copies misconceptions from modern sources, even when it includes lines from police documents the real James could not have possibly seen, it's always the same response in the end:
"After all, he was an arsenic eater and was financing at least one mistress, for God’s sake. So use your imagination.
That's it. You never know what he might have done, so he might have done and said anything at all -- even stuff he couldn't possibly have said.
My, my.
These were very lucky forgers indeed.
Why?
Because rather than check the document against history, rather than check the document against the real Maybrick's handwriting, rather than check the document against the letters the writer claims to have written, rather than check the document against all the historical records, rather than check the document against what did nor did not actually exist at the time, rather than check the document against any of these valid and verifiable pieces of data and evidence, there are some here who would prefer simply that we "use our imaginations."
No wonder Figment is our mascot around here.
No wonder why Diary World is such a joke.
Because the investigation into the authenticity of this book has completely shifted, for some people, from checking the text against the available records, to simply "using their imaginations."
The forgers weren't that lucky in what they wrote.
They were just lucky in who read it.
Thank goodness some people around here have at least some respect for analysis, for history, for evidence, and for common sense. Otherwise, the possibility that this text might be authentic (which does not exist) might be created purely out of utter desire and out of a few readers' desperate imaginations.
--John
PS: I'm certainly not saying "Maybrick hasn't been proven to be Jack the Ripper." I'm saying "Every single piece of evidence we have, including our own common sense concerning the handwriting in the book not being his, not being even close to his, proves to us that Maybrick was not the author of this diary."
He wasn't Jack either, but that's beside the point.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 667
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 3:08 pm: | |
Caz,
what mistress? (I'm lost yet again!!)
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 521
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 4:02 pm: | |
Hi Jennifer,
You should head to your local library and read The Poisoned Life of Mrs. Maybrick by Bernard Ryan, Oxfordshire: Purnell Book Services Ltd., 1977.
Not only because you'll learn what you need to know about the Maybrick family scandals, but also because you'll see a bunch of fascinating similarities between the specific language there and the specific language in the diary and even the mistakes there and the mistakes in the diary.
Someone once compiled a rather long list of phrases and sentences. There's a stunning similarity.
I wonder how that could have happened?
Enjoy,
--John
PS: That was 1977, in case you missed it.
(Message edited by omlor on August 04, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 670
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 5:52 am: | |
Hi John,
You have a lot more faith in my local library than I do.
1977 (ahh!). well John I will look on the library cat. and see if i can locate a copy (else perhaps uni has one)
Though, a book pro-Florence (so to speak)bound to be a little biased in that direction, no? (no offence).
Sarah Robertson?
Help I'm lost again!!!
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1173
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 7:45 am: | |
Hi Chris,
Well, I was not really expecting you to take anything I wrote on board, so no shocks there.
You may, or may not, like to take on board the fact that a serious investigation is ongoing in London and Liverpool. The results will not be discussed in a public forum until they have been published with full supporting documentary evidence.
Until then, you are stuck with my feeble speculation, which of course you can’t possibly need anyway if you have enough evidence of your own to know the truth.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 523
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 7:45 am: | |
Hi Jen,
I'm not suggesting the Ryan book is the whole truth. I'm suggesting you might see some interesting words in it if you read it and then re-read the diary.
Yup. 1977.
--John |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 407
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 7:58 am: | |
Caz
You may, or may not, like to take on board the fact that a serious investigation is ongoing in London and Liverpool.
Do you mean that there's some professional diary-related handwriting analysis/comparison in progress?
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 525
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 8:13 am: | |
Oh, good.
More promises. And more stuff to wait for.
Excellent.
Now optimistic once again,
--John
PS: I wonder when those old watch reports are coming out. Has anyone heard the latest projected time of arrival? |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 672
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 9:26 am: | |
Caz,
Its funny you should imply that something is going on. I asked Robert Smith if there was any news on diary testing earlier in the week he informed me the opposite was true. Whats going on?
Still I am now pretty confident that in the near future diary testing is a distinctly probable.
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 533
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 7:52 am: | |
Hi Jennifer,
Please do let us know if these mixed messages you received are clarified for you by either party, would you?
I'm not really worried by the apparent contradiction. I'm sure the signals just got crossed somewhere.
Staying optimistic,
--John |
Simon Owen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 11:03 am: | |
Gosh , I haven't been around much for 18 months , but I can't believe people are still talking about the Diary !
If being in the wrong handwriting and being historically inaccurate isn't enough , what do sceptics actually have to do to prove the thing is a fake ? |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 540
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 11:38 pm: | |
Hi Simon,
I know it's hard to believe. But sometimes pure desire outweighs logic and common sense and reason and history and all the evidence. So the wrong handwriting and ahistorical details and anachronisms in the text and simple mistakes and no provenance and all the rest are simply not enough to stop the discussion. There are still those who would ignore the fact that every single piece of real evidence we have tells us the book is a fake and no real evidence anywhere even suggests it might be real.
And so here we are in the Wonderland that is Diary World.
Welcome back,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 694
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 11:02 am: | |
Hi Simon,
yes we can talk about the same thing for months at a time here in diary world. It's so much fun!
Hi John,
my only conclusion is that Caz was hinting at another kind of investigation. I honestly look forward to hearing about this in due course as she seems/appears to hint will happen.
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 545
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 11:28 am: | |
Hi Jennifer,
Well, it will be interesting to see if the conflicting messages are ever clarified for you.
Keep us informed.
From the land of promises and "someday maybes,"
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 699
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 5:15 am: | |
John,
just remember time reveals all!
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 548
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 7:58 am: | |
Hi Jen,
Yes. 
Unfortunately, my time on the planet is finite.
--John
"And it's time, time, time
And it's time, time, time
And it's time, time, time
that you love.
And it's time, time, time."
(from a beautiful song you all should know)
Or perhaps, in this case, by the same artist:
"And it's closing time,
the music's fading out.
Last call for drinks,
I'll have another stout."
Or even more appropriately, by a poet who was both American and British:
"Hurry up please, it's time." |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 702
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 11:09 am: | |
Hi,
I have a question about Diamine ink, what is the year range of the diamine ink we are trying to locate for comparing?
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 418
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 2:59 pm: | |
Caz
Maybe you missed my question.
Do you mean that there's some professional diary-related handwriting analysis/comparison in progress?
Chris Phillips
|
Phil Hooper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 4:15 pm: | |
I have followed your site before and after your change. I am impressed, it's great, however, it does make me wonder why James Maybrick is still #1 suspect considering the controversy over the diary. Barret confessed to fraud etc.,the diary is not in Maybrick's handwriting etc, so why is he still on top? He does not seem to fit the witness descriptions etc.,I must have missed something. I luv the message boards and of course this site in general.
regards Phil |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 554
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 5:47 pm: | |
Phil.
The "#1" rating you are citing is not a scientific sample by any means, nor is it even completely representative of those who read this site (I know I've never voted, for instance). You might want to look closely at how many people have voted, exactly how they vote and how those totals are compiled. You'll see quickly that they tell us nothing of any real, evidentiary value.
Yes, the diary is clearly a fake and every serious scholar and historian of the case has recognized it as such.
Fido, Begg, Skinner, Evans, Rumbelow, Sugden and all the rest know that the real James did not write this book or kill these women. And there is no real evidence anywhere on the planet that even suggests that he might have done either of these things. None.
You'll not see any ever offered here on these threads, either.
Meanwhile, the diary is full of simple mistakes, from having James drink in a pub that didn't exist in Liverpool in his own day but does now to the entire book being written in someone else's handwriting, a writing which looks nothing at all like any of the samples from the real James that we have, to having the author cite a police report he could not possibly have seen, to getting the details of the murders wrong and the author getting details about his own family wrong to not having even a remotely established provenance of any kind. There are more. But that should give you some idea of what we are dealing with.
It's all silly, and the only reason we're still talking about it is because there are still the inevitable die-hards (like the last flat-earthers on their websites or the people who still believe that humans and dinosaurs lived together) who come here and offer irrational and desperate excuses for all the mistakes purely in order to keep hope alive.
But the text is there. It says what it says. It gets all these things wrong. It's in the wrong handwriting. It has no provenance. And the real James clearly did not write it.
So rest assured, as you go on your way, that you are not missing anything here and that there is nothing new, nothing real and nothing actually related to the Whitechapel crimes on any of these diary threads.
Take care,
--John
PS: And, just to add to the fun, there now seems to be some direct contradiction concerning what is happening with the book at the moment, with Caroline Morris saying that there is a new "serious investigation" underway in London and Liverpool and Robert Smith, the diary's owner, saying no tests are taking place.
Hmmmmmmm. 
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1183
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 11:30 am: | |
If you hadn't made certain assumptions about this serious investigation going on in London and Liverpool, you would not now be making further assumptions about a contradiction: a) apparent, b) direct, or c) fondly imagined.
I'll give you three guesses which kind of contradiction this one is.
And a clue, that applies to all diary and watch discussions:
If you start with a false assumption, the only direction you are likely to be going in after that is backwards.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Simon Owen
Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 16
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 11:51 am: | |
Is that a false assumption like this one : ' James Maybrick wrote the Diary ' ?
or this one : ' The Diary is in James Maybrick's handwriting ' ?
or this one : ' James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper ' ?
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 436
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 11:58 am: | |
Caz
Well, we did ask politely. Now, having refused to answer, you're going to criticise us for making assumptions! What a funny lady you are.
Is there any particular reason that having mentioned this yourself in the first place, you shouldn't be willing to explain what you meant?
Or, to continue the "Go ask Alice" theme, do you "only do it to annoy, because you know it teases"?
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 734
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 12:50 pm: | |
Caroline,
Are you investigating who forged the diary.
That is my first guess, or maybe we could play twenty question,
is it alive?
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 574
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 4:35 pm: | |
Don't you love the refusal to answer, the refusal just to give a simple and straightforward explanation, the refusal to simply and clearly tell the truth?
Don't you love the game playing and the "if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you" childishness and the deliberate evasiveness and the panic and the fear of answering a simple question with a simple answer?
Don't you love the fact that some people come here and say simple and direct things, like "When the diarist wrote 'The Post House' he probably meant "The Poste House,'" and others come here and say "I'm going to tease you with an assertion but not tell you what it means and then refuse to explain when asked but instead give 'clues' as if I were an Oracle and you were the people who must bow before me"? Don't you just love the cheap theatrics and amateurish chicanery?
Look, this is quite simple.
Caroline says, within a discussion of the diary and the handwriting and tests:
"You may, or may not, like to take on board the fact that a serious investigation is ongoing in London and Liverpool. The results will not be discussed in a public forum until they have been published with full supporting documentary evidence."
Jen says Robert has reported to her that no tests are taking place.
Chris and I point out that this seems to be a contradiction but perhaps it can be explained by either Caroline or Robert.
Caroline returns after six days of silence on this thread only to refuse to explain, to write some silliness about assumptions and secret clues and then expects that to clear up the matter.
Something is rotten somewhere people.
And once again, there are people on this board who are simply not being forthcoming, who are saying one thing and then dancing away from explaining it.
We should note who they are for future reference regarding reliability and straightforward explanations.
Yes, this has all suddenly become quite illustrative indeed.
Excellent.
--John (pleased as punch)
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1186
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 5:44 am: | |
Hi Simon,
And who has been making the assumptions you quote?
Hi Chris,
If you think the way you react to any of my posts can seriously be described as politely, then we have very different ideas about what the word means.
Hi Jenn,
You asked:
‘Are you investigating who forged the diary.’
No, I am not.
But I will continue to look at the available information from previous investigations and see what else may be worth investigating to get at the truth.
If John thinks ‘panic and fear’ are in any way related to ‘game playing’, I’m very glad he is glued to his computer chair at all hours on the other side of the world. 
I don’t believe I had been discussing tests at all when I mentioned the fact that a serious investigation is taking place as we type in London and Liverpool. What’s the big deal anyway?
Is John in panic and fear that it will cause confusion in the ranks, to learn that there are actually people out there still seriously digging away, when they should have accepted long ago what John preaches here on an hourly basis – that the diary is a 1988 Michael Caine-inspired hoax, created with the help and co-operation of another Michael - Michael Barrett?
You are right, Jenn, about time revealing all.
Let’s hope for John’s sake it won’t reveal during his lifetime on the boards that he has been taking the Michael once – no, twice – too often. 
Love,
Caz
X
PS Six days of silence? And me a female? What could I have been thinking of?
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 740
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 5:56 am: | |
Caz,
Ok I look forward to hearing about whatever it is you are looking into. I am very intrigued!
I think it is only a matter of time before we are all talking off the same sheet!
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 440
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 6:26 am: | |
Caz
Sorry, I'm more puzzled than ever now.
Previously you cut short my attempts to discuss the problem with the handwriting with this:
You may, or may not, like to take on board the fact that a serious investigation is ongoing in London and Liverpool. The results will not be discussed in a public forum until they have been published with full supporting documentary evidence.
Now that seems to be reduced to:
No, I am not [investigating who forged the diary]. But I will continue to look at the available information from previous investigations and see what else may be worth investigating to get at the truth.
So was that previous claim just a "dodge", to avoid answering an awkward question?
Chris Phillips
PS Sorry if you feel I've wrecked the haven of sweetness and light that famously prevailed on the diary boards before I started posting. However, if you make the sort of statements you do, in the style you do, you can hardly be surprised if you receive a rather robust response.
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 582
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 7:31 am: | |
So it's all been just another bit of rhetorical puffery and false bravado amounting to nothing new yet again.
Well, I guess we should have known.
More vagaries, more rumors, more hints dropped only for dramatic effect, but still no simple and direct explanation of exactly what she meant when she came here and told Chris Phillips that a "serious investigation is ongoing in London and Liverpool."
Caroline arrives here, makes a claim to Chris in the middle of a discussion about handwriting and testing (in which, yes, she was participating, check the posts above, just prior to her revelation), telling him that an investigation is currently ongoing.
We all ask her about this, about the fact that Robert says there are no tests underway, about what exactly she means, about just what she's talking about, and first she dances away, refuses to answer, cops a childish "if you don't know, I'm not gonna' tell you" attitude, and then creates a fit of faux-pique, insults a couple of people and downplays the whole thing with a final "what's the big deal, anyway?"
Truly, the late Melvin Harris should be here to see this.
I wonder why I'm suddenly remembering him this morning?
As for the relationship between "panic and fear" on the one hand and "game playing" on the other --well, it's on exhibition all over these diary threads lately. When those who are desperate to keep hope alive fall into a panic and out pops their fear of the obvious conclusion, that the diary wasn't written by the real James, they then rely exclusively on rhetorical games, on denying what the words mean and making elaborate excuses and relying on impossible coincidences. It's a well-established pattern now.
Also, just so no one missed the latest mischaracterization of what can be found here, I have never once claimed that Mike Barrett actually wrote this book. So I probably haven't done it hourly, either.
If Caroline can cite me a single passage of mine that says that Mike Barrett wrote or helped write this book, I'll be happy to admit to it -- but I do not believe I have ever written such a thing either here or on the old boards.
I have pointed out a number of things about modern sources and about the Crashaw quote and the Miracle of the Liverpool Library and about Mike lying and all of that, but never once have I offered a claim or even a theory that has said Mike was one of the diary's authors.
So either Caroline can't read or she's just making things up again.
Of course, in a world where when one writes "The Poste House" others read "The Angel," I suppose I can't be too surprised that they are finding things I've never written either.
Meanwhile, readers should notice what is still missing from Caroline's post -- any simple, straightforward, clear and direct explanation of what she meant by her claim to Chris about a "serious investigation" currently "ongoing."
Oh, and, of course, any actual evidence that even remotely suggests to anyone that this book is anything other than a fake.
The latter, needless to say, we will never see.
Same old nonsense. Same old hints and partial information and vagaries and dancing around, but no simple truths, no clear statements, no direct answers, no honest and complete explanations.
Same old diary world, same old people who want only and by any means necessary to keep hope alive.
But still nothing new and still nothing real.
No surprises this morning,
--John
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 583
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 7:46 am: | |
Oh, one other thing, just so the record is clear and accurate.
Caroline writes to Chris, after her first non-response to his simple and polite question:
"If you think the way you react to any of my posts can seriously be described as politely, then we have very different ideas about what the word means."
So let's look back.
Caroline originally wrote to Chris in a response to his post about Maybrick disguising his handwriting:
"You may, or may not, like to take on board the fact that a serious investigation is ongoing in London and Liverpool. The results will not be discussed in a public forum until they have been published with full supporting documentary evidence."
Chris then responded. This is his ENTIRE post. You tell me whether it was impolite.
****************************************
Caz
"You may, or may not, like to take on board the fact that a serious investigation is ongoing in London and Liverpool."
Do you mean that there's some professional diary-related handwriting analysis/comparison in progress?
Chris Phillips
***********************************
That's it. That's all he wrote. You can see it above. It's his complete post from Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 7:58 am. Check it out.
Then go on to read Caroline's eventual response to him and tell me, tell us all, whether it is just what Chris's question deserved.
Just for the record,
--John
PS: Charley's coming. 
(Message edited by omlor on August 12, 2004)
(Message edited by omlor on August 12, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 741
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 7:54 am: | |
Come on guys lets be reasonable now!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
