|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 719
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 2:42 pm: |       |
Hey Peter,
nice to hear from you.
I have trouble believing that the post house could mean the post office in effect. Who drinks at the post office?
Am I misinterpreting something?
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Simon Owen
Police Constable
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 2
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 3:17 pm: | |
If the diarist meant ' The Old Post Office ' pub , surely they would have written “I took refreshment at the Post Office/Old P. Office/O.P.O/the pub it was there I finally decided London it shall be.” ?
We are being asked to accept too many unrealistic assumptions here :
1) The diarist wrote ' Poste ' but meant POST
2) The diarist wrote ' House ' but meant OFFICE
And whereas if one asked a Liverpudlian landlord ' Where is the post house ? ' they might well think of the ( old )POST ( office public ) HOUSE by association and direct you to that pub , the diarist is making a specific statement here that the pub Maybrick drank in was called the ' Poste House '. That pub simply wasn't around in 1888. |
Simon Owen
Police Constable
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 3
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 3:24 pm: | |
And if the diarist meant the Angel Hotel , they would have written “I took refreshment at the Angel it was there I finally decided London it shall be.”
-----------------
If the pro-diarists want sceptics like me to believe the book is genuine , why don't they find a contemporary ( lets be generous , say 1850 - 1940 ) reference to any pub in Liverpool except the Muck Midden being called the ' post house ' or ' poste house ' or whatever ? Then we might accept that they have a case !
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 721
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 3:43 pm: | |
Simon,
indeed why wouldn't they/didn't they write that?
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 431
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 3:54 pm: | |
Yes, it would certainly be nice if the Maybrickites could offer a single example of a pub known as "the post house" in Liverpool.
While we're waiting for them to come up with that, we can get some sort of idea of the likelihood that there was one.
We're told "the post house" used to be a common name for an inn. So how many pubs are there now in the UK called The Post House?
Strictly speaking, none. But of course, there's one called The _Poste_ House (just like in the diary) in Liverpool.
Oh - and there's one hotel called The Old Post House, in Clitheroe, Lancashire.
That's all folks!
(Data from the Yellow Pages website.)
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 561
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 5:05 pm: | |
Thank you, Peter, for the info concerning Robert Smith's claim and when the mail coach actually ran.
I doubt that there was a great deal of serious scholarly research done before the claim arrived here, so I am not surprised that it was most likely almost a quarter of a century off, time-wise.
You see, it's a question of motive.
The diarist clearly writes "The Poste House." Spelled that way, capitalized that way.
And what do you know, there actually is a pub in the right city by that very name, spelled just that way and capitalized just that way.
So naturally readers assume that when the writer wrote "The Poste House" he meant "The Poste House."
It's then that the desperation and the silliness begins.
Sure, we are told, he wrote "The Poste House" in exactly the same way the current pub's name just happens to be written, but he didn't mean that pub, he really meant the Angel. The existence of the current pub, with the exact same name and the exact same spelling, the only one in all England, is just a really amazing coincidence.
Oh, and he just added the fancy "e" on the end of Post to look French.
Ya gotta love that last touch, don't ya? Just the right amount of pure imagination and brass bravado.
Anyway, it's all for a single motive.
To keep hope alive.
Because if the diarist meant "The Poste House" when he wrote "The Poste House..." (you see how silly even saying that sounds?)
Anyway, if the diarist meant "The Poste House" when he wrote "The Poste House," then the real James did not write the diary.
Of course, he didn't. And we all know that.
But for some, hope must be kept alive at all costs, for some inexplicable or disturbing reason.
So logic and common sense and simple reading are cast aside in favor of desperate fancy and prayers.
But here we have a book supposedly taking place in Liverpool mentioning a pub in Liverpool, using the pub name's unique spelling and capitalization exactly and still we're asked to believe that the writer really meant a pub called something completely different.
This is shameful, it's desperate, and it's a completely embarrassing example of pimping an obvious forgery by any means necessary, no matter how strained and incredible.
Listen:
The diary just happens to use a different name than the author secretly meant and spells it incorrectly and capitalizes it incorrectly and thereby just happens, purely by accident, to produce the real name of an actual pub that just happens to exist right now in the same city where the diary takes place?!
This is what we are asked to believe!?
Can this be a serious request?
Surely, we are deep up the river in Egypt, deep in the lunacy of Diary World, where, as we've already noted, "logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead."
Sing for us all, Grace.
We truly need you,
--John
|
Simon Owen
Police Constable
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 7
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 7:19 pm: | |
Jennifer , the Diarist wrote ' Poste House ' because they meant the Poste House pub in Cumberland Street , Liverpool !
Oops it wasn't called that in Maybrick's time ! |
Simon Owen
Police Constable
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 8
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 7:26 pm: | |
John , your last post was a classic !
The gauntlet is thrown down pro-Diarists , answer if you can ! |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 567
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 7:36 pm: | |
Simon,
Thanks. I can't help being reminded here of the scene in Monty Python where a man approaches a desk. Sitting at the desk is another fellow and on the desk is a name plate that says "Mr. Luxury Yacht."
The approaching man says, "Hello. Mr. Luxury Yacht?"
And the man at the desk says, "No, it's spelled Luxury Yacht, but it's pronounced Throat Warbler Mangrove."
Yes, that's a logic I recognize all too well around here.
Take care,
--John
PS: What are the odds that an 18th century writer naming a pub would just happen to create the exact spelling and capitalization errors necessary to produce the precise, identical name of an actual pub that currently exists in the very same city he was in but that didn't at that time? Anyone want to figure those?
I mean, really people. Can we be at least a little serious here?
(Message edited by omlor on August 10, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 727
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 5:10 am: | |
Simon,
I guess they did, as I've said before its certainly the most obvious answer!
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 433
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 5:48 am: | |
We're told "the post house" used to be a common name for an inn. So how many pubs are there now in the UK called The Post House?
Strictly speaking, none. But of course, there's one called The _Poste_ House (just like in the diary) in Liverpool.
Oh - and there's one hotel called The Old Post House, in Clitheroe, Lancashire.
A little more research, courtesy of Google, shows that the Old Post House Hotel in Clitheroe is so called "was used as a post office up to 1928".
We know the Poste House is in Liverpool is named for a similar reason.
So actually there isn't a single pub or hotel in the UK that takes its name from "post house" in the sense of "a house where post horses are kept".
Chris Phillips
|
Simon Owen
Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 11
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 7:44 am: | |
Chris , I've never heard of a pub called ' the post house ' because it used to house post horses either. I think the term ' coaching inn ' would be more common.
I think we can safely dismiss this option , unless the pro-Diarists can come up with some evidence to the contrary.
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 570
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 8:34 am: | |
Hi Chris and Simon,
It's funny, here people have tried so hard to find a pub that has a name remotely like the one in the diary in all of England in all of history (and I guess we should, just to be thorough), and here we do derivations of the name and look into history of similar names and listen to all the ways people talk about their pubs and all the rest.
But of course, we always return to the same simple and beautiful thing. There actually IS a pub by that very name, spelled that very way, in that very city.
So there are only two possibilities.
1.) The diarist wrote "The Poste House" because he meant "The Poste House."
2.) The diarist wrote "The Poste House" but somehow meant some completely different name and JUST HAPPENED, in changing the name and changing the spelling and the capitalization in precisely the way he did, to produce BY ACCIDENT the exact name of a different pub that actually does exist a hundred years later in the very same city as the diarist and is the only one in all of England!
Man, that is some "amazing!" accident.
Does anyone here doubt which of these two possibilities makes sense and which one is an expression of simple and pure desperation on the part of those who can't stand the thought of the diary being a fake and so will apparently say anything, no matter how far-fetched, to excuse its mistakes?
Seriously. Anyone?
If anyone reading this truly thinks the second alternative is the one that actually happened, or is even a serious possibility compared to the first, please come here and let us know.
I'm betting that this is being seen by our readership as the impossibly desperate and coincidental fantasy story that it so obviously is.
But I could be wrong, so let's see.
Still chuckling at this whole "amazing!" discussion,
--John
|
Simon Owen
Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 12
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 8:57 am: | |
One of the Pro-Diarist theories is that the forger wouldn't be dumb enough to write about the real Poste House when it would be evident to anyone who had visited the pub that the history of it could be seen on the wall.
However , my 1994 copy of the Diary states quite clearly ( under a photo of the pub's interior ) " The Poste House in Liverpool where , according to his diary , Maybrick decided to murder prostitutes in Whitechapel London " !!!
So if Shirley Harrison and her friends didn't know , maybe the forger didn't know either ! |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 571
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 9:26 am: | |
Hi Simon,
The theory you mention is, of course, an absurd one -- not only because it depends on the assumed intelligence of people who have not been identified and therefore depends on something the theorist can't possibly know, but also because a careful reading of the diary reveals any number of similarly silly mistakes. Whoever they were, they wrote the book in a handwriting that looks nothing at all like their supposed author's and got the details of the most famous murders in history wrong and copied a line from a police document that their supposed author could not possibly have seen and made up people and murders that never existed and confused what made their own author's brother such a success and forgot or failed to come up with a remotely verifiable or believable provenance for the document.
So we should be surprised that they had their man drinking in a pub that exists in Liverpool now but didn't in 1888?
Seems like par for their particular course to me.
What makes them apparent geniuses however, is knowing that there would be readers out there so desperate to believe, so "interested," shall we say, in this thing being real, that they would excuse all of these mistakes with desperate and fanciful hypotheses and completely amazing tales of impossible coincidences.
Our forgers could be as dumb as they wanted, apparently. Their loyal readers would forgive them anything just to keep hope alive.
OK, maybe the forgers weren't geniuses. Maybe they just got really lucky once -- when they stumbled into the right readership.
Yes, I have the same edition of the Diary.
Even Shirley once thought "The Poste House" meant "The Poste House." I can't imagine why.
Loving this,
--John
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1184
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 12:48 pm: | |
From Jenn:
‘I have trouble believing that the post house could mean the post office in effect. Who drinks at the post office?
Am I misinterpreting something?’
From Chris P:
‘Yes, it would certainly be nice if the Maybrickites could offer a single example of a pub known as "the post house" in Liverpool.’
Is this a case of not reading properly, or only reading what you want to read?
How much clearer can I make it for everyone? The Old Post Office pub was known by a Liverpool pub landlord, as late as 1997, as “the post house”. In fact, this was the pub that sprang to his mind when asked, “Where is the post house?” - not The Poste House in Cumberland Street.
According to Robert Smith’s post, the young Maybrick would have been able to see the mail coaches here before the train took the strain. Robert said nothing about Maybrick seeing the mail coaches at The Angel.
But The Angel could well have been known by its regulars, in Maybrick’s time, and for decades after its days as a real post house (as Chris George suggests), as “the post house”.
And in one’s diary, I can think of nothing more natural than to use the same name for a much-frequented pub as one would in conversation, as in, ‘I popped down the Red House/Post House last night for a swift half and was still there when last orders were called’, rather than writing, 'I popped down The Rose & Crown/The Old Post Office…’
The capitalisation distinguishes the place from other houses that happen to be red/any old post house, and indicates that the writer has a specific drinking establishment in mind.
But, of course, if the diary author was writing before the Muck Midden got its new name, he couldn't have had the Cumberland Street 'Poste House' in mind. And we'd be stuck with the alternatives.
Your argument is circular: you start with an assumption that the diary is modern, and then use the 'Poste House' to confirm it. You need to show that the 'Poste House' proves the diary modern: it doesn't.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by Caz on August 11, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 736
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 12:56 pm: | |
OK, Caz,
I take your point! i knew i was missing something,
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 437
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 1:26 pm: | |
Caz
How much clearer can I make it for everyone? The Old Post Office pub was known by a Liverpool pub landlord, as late as 1997, as “the post house”. In fact, this was the pub that sprang to his mind when asked, “Where is the post house?” - not The Poste House in Cumberland Street.
So someone marched into this pub, and asked "Where is the post(e) house?", and despite the fact that "The Poste House" is only a few blocks away, the landlord didn't say where it was, but described a different pub called "The Old Post Office" in School Lane.
And you seriously expect us to accept this as evidence of something other than:
(1) The enquirer was mumbling
(2) The landlord was hard of hearing
or (3) The landlord was confused?
You seem rather careful to phrase this so as not to imply that the landlord named "The Old Post Office", still less that he said anything like "The Old Post Office is known as The Post(e) House". (Still less "Well, The Poste House is close to here, but there's also The Old Post Office, which is known as The Post(e) House")
In any case, if - as you seem to be implying - The Old Post Office is currently known as The Post House, surely this is the easiest thing in the world to verify by asking a few other people. Did you ask anyone else (I bet you did!). Did anyone else say yes (I bet we'd have heard if they had done!).
Indeed, you say you visited "The Old Post Office" and asked the licensee about its history. Did the licensee say it was known as "The Post(e) House", or that it had ever been known as "The Post(e) House"? (I bet we'd have heard if he had done!)
Incidentally, I found some of the information posted by you and Robert Smith about "The Old Post Office" a bit confusing. Have you actually checked whether it was a pub in 1888, and if so whether it was called "The Old Post Office" then?
Chris Phillips
|
Simon Owen
Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 17
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 1:28 pm: | |
Caz writes : " How much clearer can I make it for everyone? The Old Post Office pub was known by a Liverpool pub landlord, as late as 1997, as “the post house”. In fact, this was the pub that sprang to his mind when asked, “Where is the post house?” - not The Poste House in Cumberland Street. " (italics mine)
-----------------------------------------
This is not strictly true. I don't dispute that the landlord identified the Old Post Office when asked , but this is not enough to make the assertion that the Old Post Office pub was ever known as the ' post house '.
When asked for the ' post house ' , the landlord may have made the association with the Old Post Office in his mind because of the word ' Post '.
In the Diary , the writer clearly states that the pub Maybrick is sitting in is the ' Poste House ' however. Not the ' Old Post Office ' or any abbreviated form of that name.
And since the name of the pub would have been over the door or on a sign on the wall , theres no excuse for spelling the name wrong ( ie French style ).
The name ' Poste House ' has a sort of oldey-worldey air about it , especially given the fact it was named so in the 1960s and not the 1860s. Its a deliberate appeal to nostalgia , to an age gone by : maybe thats what convinced the diarist it would be neat to have James Maybrick plan his crimes in there. |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 575
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 4:52 pm: | |
Caroline writes, amidst still more desperate dancing around the truly amazing and unbelievable coincidence that a 19th century diarist should name, exactly, with the same spelling and capitalization, a pub that exists in the very same city a hundred years after the 19th century ends:
"Your argument is circular: you start with an assumption that the diary is modern, and then use the 'Poste House' to confirm it. You need to show that the 'Poste House' proves the diary modern: it doesn't."
This, of course, is pure bullshit.
You begin simply by reading the text.
The diarist names a pub clearly in the text. He capitalizes the name (making it proper) and he includes the distinctive spelling of the name.
He writes: "The Poste House."
You check the records.
There was no pub by this name in Liverpool during Maybrick's time.
BUT...
There is a pub by EXACTLY this name right there in Liverpool in the 20th century. Same unique spelling, same capitalization.
That means, WITHOUT ASSUMING ANYTHING BEFOREHAND, that only two things are possible.
1.) The diarist wrote "The Poste House" because he meant "The Poste House."
2.) The diarist wrote "The Poste House" but somehow meant some completely different name of a 19th century pub and JUST HAPPENED, in changing the name and changing the spelling and the capitalization in precisely the way he did, to produce JUST BY ACCIDENT the exact name of a different pub that actually does exist a hundred years later in the very same city as the diarist and is the only one in all of England!
Now then, in which of these two accounts of what happened do you smell the horrid stench of panic and desperation, the odor of a completely unbelievable coincidence and an amazing accident?
In which of these two accounts do you find a clear and simple and straightforward explanation for the meaning of the words?
In which of these two accounts do you see a frustrated reaching and a willingness to twist the words and the history completely out of all recognizable shape in order to try and make them fit one's own desire?
In which of these two accounts are the words allowed to mean what they say?
Remember the words on the page.
Even Shirley Harrison knew how to read them, until they NEEDED to be read differently, to produce a different result, and then all of a sudden their clear and obvious meaning is allowed to fly right out the window in favor of this fabulist history, this dream disguised as an excuse.
This isn't research or scholarship or even reading, this is pure and simple desire.
And it has no place in history and it has no place in any careful investigation and it certainly has no place in determining the authenticity of this document.
Note well what is happening here.
It should tell you volumes about what the book actually says, what that allows us to conclude, and who is living so deeply in denial that they must pretend that words, even proper nouns, do not mean what they mean, do not name what they name.
This, right here, is a lesson.
I'm glad it's available on this site.
Enjoying the demonstration,
--John
|
Simon Owen
Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 20
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 6:01 pm: | |
John O. says " The diarist names a pub clearly in the text. He capitalizes the name (making it proper) and he includes the distinctive spelling of the name."
--------------------
By George , I think you may have something here !
Of course - ' Poste House ' is a proper name ! This indicates the writer is referring to a building with the title of ' Poste House ' , not the ' post house ' or ' Post house ' or any other possible pub. Lets see the Maybrickites explain this one !
Mind you , this is Diary World ... |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 580
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 6:29 pm: | |
Don't worry, Simon.
You'll see more of the silliness soon enough.
Still, one thing they can't even try to explain is how, when misnaming the pub in 1888, the diarist just happened also to create, by some truly amazing accident, the very same name, properly capitalized and with the very same unique spelling, as a pub that actually does exist in the very same city a hundred years after James dies. The only one with that exact name in all of England!
That's the impossible coincidence that they would rather not face.
But that won't stop them.
They'll dance anyway.
It's all they have left.
It's what this has now come to.
Watch and see.
And while you do, remember the two alternatives as they appear in my post above. They are the only two possibilities.
One is simple and clear and straightforward and obvious.
The other....
Well, you be the judge, but I can smell the desperation all the way over here.
Lovin' this place,
--John
|
Simon Owen
Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 22
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 7:27 pm: | |
" I Lurve the smell of desperation in the mornin'...smells like VICTORY ! "  |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 581
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 9:47 pm: | |
Simon,
Funny you should say that. I'm just getting ready to hunker down for a small hurricane, coming roughly my way on Friday, named Charley.
All I could think of today was...
"Charlie don't surf!"
Hoping to avoid the Apocalypse Now,
--John (who checked his own copy of the Diary book today and did indeed see the photo of The Poste House with the caption telling me that James planned his murders there -- strange how words mean just what they say sometimes) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1187
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 7:46 am: | |
Hi Chris P,
‘So someone marched into this pub, and asked "Where is the post(e) house?", and despite the fact that "The Poste House" is only a few blocks away, the landlord didn't say where it was, but described a different pub called "The Old Post Office" in School Lane.’
Hooray – you finally got it.
And now of course you try your best to shake it off like a bad smell.
Are you actually arguing that Rigby’s landlord in 1997 is the only person in the whole world who would have known, or referred to another pub in Liverpool as “the post house” – in this case The Old Post Office pub in School Lane? And that, purely by chance (now where have I heard that recently?), he also happened to be the very person to whom the question was put?
Or are you seriously suggesting the same question was put to thousands of Liverpudlians, until one of them finally gave the desired response – directing the enquirer to a nearby pub that, purely by chance just happened to be called The Old Post Office, and of the right age and character to have been referred to for donkeys’ years as “the post house”, by its regulars?
If you doubt that The Old Post Office pub in School Lane was either a pub in 1888 or called The Old Post Office then, you could always do some of your own research and then you’d know for certain.
Hi Simon,
I should imagine any pub landlord worth his salt would know about post houses, or coaching inns, and understand immediately what he was being asked. The fact that Rigby’s landlord directed his enquirer to an old pub – called The Old Post Office after Liverpool’s first post office that began life next door – says it all really.
But if you have finished with the old royal conspiracy theory, you may be in a better position than most of us here to pop to Liverpool and test your latest theory about what the landlord thought he was being asked, and see if he could have been trying to direct his enquirer to an existing post office in School Lane, and not to the old pub and former post house there.
And I’ve been trying – and failing – to point out that familiar names for pubs – like ‘the red house’, ‘the glue pot’ and so on, would almost certainly not be ‘over the door or on a sign on the wall’, as they are confined almost exclusively to conversation. Conversely, the printed sign ‘Poste [sic] Restante’ would have been a very familiar one to businessmen in Maybrick’s day, which, seen on a daily basis would provide spelling fodder for anyone wanting to put a colloquialism such as ‘post house’ in writing.
Anyway, none of this matters in the slightest if you and John believe that ‘the Poste House’ proved the diary to be a modern fake years ago.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 584
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 8:16 am: | |
See, I knew "The Poste House" must not have meant "The Poste House," even though a pub with exactly that name spelled and written exactly that way actually exists, right there in exactly that town (and in the pages of Shirley's diary book).
But for all of the writing that has just appeared above, please notice that you find not a single word, not one, explaining how it is that when the real James in 1888 does casually refer to his local pub, he JUST HAPPENS, COMPLETELY BY AMAZING ACCIDENT, through a very specific misspelling and capitalization, to come up with the EXACT name of a pub that DOES exist in the very same town, complete with unique spelling and everything.
Is this just supposed to be one fantastic coincidence (like his JUST BY AMAZING ACCIDENT coming up with the exact same oddly syntaxed phrase from the police list he could not possibly have seen)?
Caroline mentions "familiar names for pubs – like ‘the red house’, ‘the glue pot’ and so on" -- and not even she capitalizes them.
But the diarist capitalizes "The Poste House." Just like the name of the pub in Liverpool, where the diarist supposedly lives.
Then she offers some utter nonsense about "spelling fodder."
But the diarist writes "Poste" in exactly the same way as the name of that same pub in Liverpool.
So this is all just an AMAZING coincidence, and James created BY ACCIDENT the precise, oddly spelled and unique to all of England proper name of a pub he could not possibly have ever visited?!
This is the logic we are being fed here? This is the "serious argument" we are being offered?
Please remember the only two possibilities. They are listed above.
More and more, one of them is looking like a "say anything and hope they don't notice" sort of desperate dance of avoidance.
Read the words in the diary.
Go to the pub's website and see the name.
Then come here and read the nonsense that tries to explain this apparently AMAZING coincidence. An 1888 author JUST BY ACCIDENT coming up with the exact proper name, with the exact unique spelling and the proper capitalization, of a 20th century pub in his own town!
Of course, you won't find any actual explanations for this. They won't offer any. They can't. So instead they'll tell stories about other pubs and other names and hope you don't notice what has to be true for their argument to be sound -- this all has to be some incredible and unlikely ACCIDENT.
Of course, it's not.
And what's being peddled as a way of avoiding that, as a way of covering over the inconvenient fact that the diarist actually names, with the correct spelling and in the correct form, a pub in Liverpool that wasn't there in 1888, what's being sold as a way of not talking about that simple and clear and direct piece of information is a shameful bit of sophistry and rhetorical nonsense created to replace history with dreams, simple scholarship with desire, and clear and direct and honest reading with rhetorical desperation and dancing, and all it truly reveals is the willingness to sell one's intellectual soul just to keep hope alive.
It's absurd.
And it's more on display here and now that it has been around these parts for some time.
I hope everyone is taking notes.
Bye for now,
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 441
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 8:17 am: | |
Caz
Hooray – you finally got it.
Well, I'm afraid I haven't really got it, because I'm still left guessing about nearly every aspect of what happened.
But to put it simply, on the basis of what we've been told - if you ask for directions to A, and someone directs you to B (despite the fact that A is close by) then I think it's fair to draw the conclusion that you've been misdirected, rather than that B is really known to the locals by the nickname A.
If you doubt that The Old Post Office pub in School Lane was either a pub in 1888 or called The Old Post Office then, you could always do some of your own research and then you’d know for certain.
You've raised this "Old Post Office" possibility a number of times now. All I'm asking is this:
(1) Have you checked how long it has been a pub?
(2) If it was a pub in 1888, have you checked whether it was called the "Old Post Office" then?
If you aren't willing to say whether you've checked these things, I'm afraid I'm not willing to check them for you.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 585
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 8:36 am: | |
Hi Chris,
For the record, Caroline told us a while back that:
"The licencee of The Old Post Office pub was able to provide a bit of history about the place, and said the pub dated back to around 1840."
She doesn't say whether that's what it was called back then.
But let's say it was.
And let's say the real James was writing in his murderer's secret confession-diary that he was there having a drink and planning some killings.
He doesn't write "The Old Post Office."
No, he changes it (because people call their local pub all sorts of different things, after all).
HOW does he change it?
Let's watch.
He drops the "Old"
Adds an "e" to the word "Post"
and changes the word "Office" to the word "House."
There are four words in the name of the pub and he's now changed three of them. Which one stays the same?
"The"
Oh, and he keeps the capitalization -- making the name the proper name -- despite using the causal reference.
OK. So he dropped the "Old" added the "e" to "Post" changed the word "Office" to the word "House" and kept the upper case.
So what does he get, referring remember to The Old Post Office?
"The Poste House."
AND WHADDYA' KNOW!?
That JUST HAPPENS to be the exact name of a real pub in the very same city one hundred years later -- the only one in all of England no less!
He didn't just change the name -- he changed it, just by some truly amazing accident, via three separate steps, to exactly the same name as a completely unique one that can be found in his very same town but wasn't there when he was alive!
This is one for the ages.
This, friends, is what Caroline is asking us all to believe.
Her entire argument rests on the possibility that the reason the words "The Poste House" appear in the diary is not because they are referring to the pub by exactly that name in exactly that place, but rather because an author in 1888 just happened to change the name of his own local pub in exactly the way necessary to reproduce the name of the other pub which he could not possibly have ever seen or known about.
That's the argument here.
That's what we are being told.
What does the word "reading" mean again?
--John (marvelling at all the once-in-a-lifetime coincidences necessary for this thing to be real)
|
Simon Owen
Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 23
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 12:08 pm: | |
I've been to Liverpool quite a few times , but not recently. Heres some information I got from the Internet on Church Street in Liverpool and the Liverpool Post Office :
Liverpool Church Street takes its name from St Peter's Church , the first church built after the Reformation , which was demolished in 1922.
In 1800 the Liverpool Post Office was moved from Lord Street to Church Street , to 6 Post Office Place. In 1839 , because of an increase in business , the Post Office moved again to the Revenue Buildings ,( better known as the Custom House ) Canning Place. The now derelict Post Office building in Whitechapel was built in 1894 , it is being renovated to turn it into a shopping mall.
The Liverpool Census of 1851 shows that Post Office Place had changed its name to Old Post Office Place. The Old Post Office Pub is at 17 Old Post Office Place ( it wasn't built on the site of the old Post Office ). |
Simon Owen
Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 24
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 12:31 pm: | |
NB : The Old Post Office pub can also be said to be situated in School Lane.
Caz , aren't you happy to see me back ?  |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 442
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 2:53 pm: | |
John
For the record, Caroline told us a while back that:
"The licencee of The Old Post Office pub was able to provide a bit of history about the place, and said the pub dated back to around 1840."
Yes, I did read that. On the other hand, Robert Smith told us:
It was built about 1800 and was so-named, because it was next to Liverpool’s first post office, in School Lane.
And then he went on to tell us it had been a coaching inn "in Maybrick's lifetime".
And earlier on Caz had told us:
the address used to be 17/19 Old Post Office Place, the pub being part of The Old Post Office Buildings, which date back to at least around 1800. The stables opened out on to Hanover Street, which leads straight down to the main Post Office. It appears there was another post office at the back of the pub on Church Street, and that post office would have given the name to Old Post Office Place.
I think these discussions of alternative interpretations of "The Poste House" would benefit a lot from more clarity about names and dates. That's why I wanted to clarify when it became a pub, and if it was a pub by 1888 whether it was called "The Old Post Office" then.
Why anyone should want to be obstructive, if they were genuinely interested in knowing the truth about the diary, is beyond me.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 589
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 3:20 pm: | |
Chris,
Well, you must remember that they are trying to argue that when the writer wrote down "The Poste House" he didn't mean "The Poste House," even though that just happens to be the exact name of a pub right there in the city in question.
That's a pretty hard sell, even to the most gullible of readers.
So it's not a wonder that they have to be a bit oblique and elaborate and obstructionist if they don't want people to recognize and remember that their entire argument goes against a simple and common sense proposition, that the words "The Poste House" mean "The Poste House."
And then, to make matters worse, they are also stuck arguing that not only does "The Poste House" not mean "The Poste House" (despite The Poste House being right there) but that when the author changed the name of his local pub in his journal in 1888, he changed it in EXACTLY the precise way necessary to reproduce JUST BY PURE CHANCE AND VIA AN AMAZING ACCIDENT, the exact name, quirky spelling and proper capitalization and all, of a real pub that just happens to be in the same city but which the author could not possibly have known anything about. Their whole argument rests on the notion that not only does he change name of the pub (by dropping the word "Old" adding the letter "e" to "Post" and changing the word "Office" to "House"), BUT that he JUST HAPPENS to do all of this in exactly the right way to produce the exact name of an already existing pub he could not have ever seen or visited.
By this time in the discussion of course, all logic and simple reading and clear understanding of the words on the page have flown completely out of the window in favor simply of the desired result at any cost.
So you can imagine why they have to be a little vague about the details.
Now if they were to come here and say, "The writer in the diary mentions "The Poste House," by which he means "The Poste House," they might not have to resort to such rhetorical twists and turns.
But we all know where that would lead them -- and they are so unwilling to go there that they readily sacrifice common sense and simple reading and the intellectual integrity of their own arguments rather than travel down that obvious and clear path.
So yes, I understand why they might prove a bit difficult to pin down about certain details.
When you're selling snake oil, it's best not to let people get too good a whiff.
Practicing patience,
--John
|
Simon Owen
Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 27
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 3:30 pm: | |
I can see where some of these dates might come from Chris :
1800 - The Post Office moves to 6 Post Office Buildings ( between Church Street and School Lane ) , but there is no information that the pub was built then.
1840 - The Post Office moves to Canning Place , therefore this is the earliest date the pub could be known as the Old Post Office , although it doesn't mean it was.
I think theres confusion over whether the pub is in ' Post Office Buildings ' or ' School Lane ' , I've seen it as being described as belonging to both on the Internet ! As I said the Post Office ( 1800 - 1839 ) was at 6 Post Office Buildings , and even this seems to get ascribed to both Church Street and School Lane on the WWW. I think there was only 1 Post Office , not two , but there was some confusion about its location.
(Message edited by simonowen on August 12, 2004) |
Simon Owen
Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 28
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 3:48 pm: | |
Surely this thing about the Old Post Office is something Maybrickites should be researching anyway ? After all , aren't there serious investigations going on in London and Liverpool ? Or maybe not , we don't know , because Caz always seems to be cryptic about these things.
You'd think , if your reputation was on the line and the Diary that you've been supporting as authentic was looking very much like a fake because of this ' Poste House ' controversy , you'd do everything you could to try and back up your opinions with research and try to defeat your critics , wouldn't you ? Obviously not in Diary world though , sceptics like Chris are told to do their own research with the assumption that the Diary is authentic until disproved ! I doubt that , even if sceptics proved the pub wasn't called the Old Post Ofice in 1888 that it would matter though , the Diary's authenticity seems to be a matter of faith these days rather than logic !!! |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 443
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 4:04 pm: | |
To be honest, I don't really think it should be left to us to sort this out - in fairness I think the people proposing this alternative could be expected to do the basic checking of facts.
I don't mean anything very onerous, just looking in a trade directory of roughly the right date, and checking whether there's a pub listed at that address, and if so what it's called.
If they're expecting others to do that for them - as Caroline Morris seems to be suggesting in her message - at least they might be prepared to confirm that they haven't already done it themselves.
A couple of other observations about the general question of the "Poste House":
(1) Paul Begg used to argue the "post house" alternative on the old boards - sometimes quite vehemently. Perhaps his argument has been subsequently distorted by others, but it now seems to have taken the form that people would have referred quite naturally to certain Liverpool pubs as post houses in 1888.
But of course, by that time even the stagecoach system was a thing of the past, as Peter Birchwood has pointed out. The system of post houses and post horses was even more remote. If this were really the explanation of the phrase in the diary, it would have to be a question of a nickname preserved over a number of decades (and perhaps several generations). This places the hypothesis firmly in the realm of undocumented speculation.
(2) On top of that, there is still the spelling to explain. The big difference between Paul Begg on the one hand, and Robert Smith and Caroline Morris on the other, is that Begg is arguing only that the diary could be an old fake, whereas Smith and Morris are still arguing that it could be genuine. So it's at least logical for Begg to point to the fact that the diarist misspells "post" as "poste" elsewhere.
But when Smith and Morris rely on this point, of course it becomes illogical and circular. The point they need to prove is not that the anonymous forger of the diary is likely to have misspelled the word "post", but that James Maybrick the Liverpool cotton merchant is likely to have done so.
A priori it seems very unlikely that a Victorian businessman would have misspelled the word "post". And I've seen no suggestion based on his surviving correspondence that he would be likely to. (If anyone can produce evidence of poor spelling or grammar from Maybrick's correspondence, I'd be most interested to see it.)
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on August 12, 2004) |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 590
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 5:03 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
You write:
"The point they need to prove is not that the anonymous forger of the diary is likely to have misspelled the word 'post', but that James Maybrick the Liverpool cotton merchant is likely to have done so."
Yes, and not only that he misspelled it, but also that he was likely to have misspelled it and changed the words and capitalized it as a proper name, all in just exactly the way he would have to in order to produce, by pure unbelievable chance, the exact name of a pub that already does exist in Liverpool and nowhere else in England.
Because even if they could come up with a vague or hypothetical reason why he would have written one proper name and meant another, they would also have to account for the sheer unadulterated one-in-a-million shot that, when he did, he changed the name into exactly the unique name of an existing pub he could not have known anything about.
The impossible coincidences, one after the other after the other, from Maybrick having to just by accident write the same oddly syntaxed line from the police report without ever seeing it, to Maybrick just by accident writing the same uniquely spelled name of an existing pub in Liverpool without his ever seeing it, to Maybrick having to inexplicably disguise his own handwriting in a completely unrecognizable manner in a journal where he nonetheless reveals his own identity on the very first page, to Maybrick having to just by accident forget the details of his murders in precisely the same way as they are misdescribed in modern sources, to all the other truly remarkable and against all odds coincidences, make this either the most stunningly odds-beating document ever composed or clearly just a fake by someone who had heard of The Poste House, had seen the police reports, had seen the misdescribed accounts of the murders in books and did simply write in a handwriting that was completely different than the real James Maybrick's.
Now then, what do all of you wonderful people out there in the dark think is the more likely alternative?
Still killing time waiting for Charley and foolishly staying in an Area 1 Evacuation Zone,
--John
PS: When someone writes "The Poste House," they probably mean "The Poste House" -- especially if The Poste House, written just that way, happens to exist right there in the right place.
(In case anyone had forgotten this simple and straightforward truth.)
PPS: You mention "reputations" above. I think, my friends, that this is the key to the matter. And that's just sad.
|
Simon Owen
Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 37
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 10:25 am: | |
Shirley Harrison writes : " That evening I sat in the snug bar of the Poste House , where the idea of murder first took root in Maybrick's mind "
Page 20 of the 1994 version of ' The Diary of JtR '. This happened in 1992.
So how come she missed seeing the history of the pub ? If it was placed so prominently on the wall , then thats just sloppy. |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 450
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 6:14 pm: | |
At the risk of boring people, I will ask this of Caroline Morris again:
(1) Have you checked how long "The Old Post Office" has been a pub?
(2) If it was a pub in 1888, have you checked whether it was called the "Old Post Office" then?
We have just seen how another pro-diary claim posted on these boards turned out to be something originally proposed as a "mere possibility", which had unfortunately ended up being posted here more or less as fact.
Perhaps Mrs Morris could play a constructive role in determining the truth of this other assertion, by telling us whether she has done any basic research on this in primary sources, or only accepted the statements of the landlord she spoke to?
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 754
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 5:24 am: | |
Hi,
it is interesting to note the location of the Old Post Office Hotel near Whitechapel St!
Cheers
Jennifer
ps is this it
pps the wrote Poste so that just goes to show!
http://www.antiquarianprintgallery.com.au/liverp.htm ?
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 616
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 7:47 am: | |
Jennifer,
Remember, for the diarist to have written "The Poste House" but meant "The Old Post Office," not only would he have had to change three out of the four words of the name for some reason (excluding only the "the") but ALSO change them and capitalize them (making them proper) in EXACTLY the same way necessary to create, JUST BY PURE CHANCE AND AMAZING ACCIDENT, the very same precise name of a pub that exists right now in the very same city with a spelling that is unique in all of England. And of course, it would have been a name he could not possibly have known.
That would truly be one of the most amazing and unlikely of coincidences, about on the same scale as, say, his also having to write, just by accident and amazing chance, the exact same, uniquely syntaxed line from a police report he could not possibly have seen. And his, just by accident and pure chance, just happening to make the exact same mistakes about his own murders that a number of modern sources made. And his, just by accident and pure chance, having created a scene that never happened of the exact same sort and placed it in the exact same place in this narrative....
Well, you get the idea.
He wrote "The Poste House."
There is "The Poste House."
Why that elementary bit of clear and obvious and direct common-sense reading troubles anyone remains a mystery.
Why anyone would want to excuse this obvious and simple anachronism with desperate excuses that rely on utterly unbelievable coincidences of the astronomical sort remains a mystery.
Well, not really.
The Poste House... O costly matchbox of death...
Reading, remember, is FUNdamental.
All the best,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1192
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 10:00 am: | |
Hi Simon,
Thanks for confirming and adding to the information provided by Robert Smith about the history of the Old Post Office and the pub named after it. Can I presume you are at least happy to concede that Rigby’s landlord in 1997 was consciously directing his enquirer to the pub he knew as “the post house”, in School Lane, (implying this was, to pinch Chris P’s words, a ‘nickname preserved over a number of decades’), and not to a long-gone post office?
I won’t dwell on Chris P’s theory, that the Dale Street pub landlord misdirected his enquirer, miraculously and simultaneously managing to provide a perfectly viable alternative to the much-hyped Cumberland Street establishment. I suppose it’s possible, but is it likely?
And what does it tell us, when this pub landlord’s local knowledge, his understanding and usage of the term ‘post house’, his hearing ability and his sense of direction have all to be called into question? If it makes no difference whether or not a genuine old coaching inn could be known, or referred to in conversation, as “the post house”, why must this landlord be discredited and bundled off the scene with such indecent haste? If Cumberland Street wins hands down, then what possible damage could his example do?
I don’t believe I have a reputation to lose, neither am I ‘supporting’ the diary as ‘authentic’. If I had ‘opinions’ about the age of the diary to express, and chose to express them here and now, I would naturally be expected to back them up with research. But I don’t feel the need to try and ‘defeat’ my ‘critics’, when their criticism is based on opinions and beliefs they insist on attributing to me, and assumptions they insist on making about where I stand. One minute they insist I am trying to support a belief that the diary is genuine, and insist that I answer all questions related to such a belief, and that I provide the necessary supporting evidence; the next, that I actually believe no such thing, that in fact I know it’s a modern fake, and that I am here solely to keep some elaborate charade going, even when I’ve apparently been rumbled by Florida’s finest!
If I did have a reputation worth protecting (for example, if I were still an active civil servant), maybe I would find it slightly less amusing to read the constant accusation that I am knowingly helping a bunch of forgers to ‘pimp’ their wares.
Finally, everyone is free to decide for themselves whether they can safely accept the Cumberland Street conclusion and reject any other “post house” suggestion without further research.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 617
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 11:04 am: | |
Still no explanation for the miraculous coincidence, in all of that above.
Still no explanation for dropping the "Old," adding the "e" and changing "Office" to "House" and capitalizing the proper name and thereby JUST BY ACCIDENT producing EXACTLY and MIRACULOUSLY the name of a known pub currently right there in Liverpool and nowhere else in all of England.
Still not even a hint of a possible explanation of how this might have "just happened."
Dear Readers,
The Poste House
and
The Poste House
Those two look pretty similar, don't they?
Smiling at the denial of the obvious in favor of the miraculous,
--John
PS: Caroline Morris actually writes:
"...but is it likely?"
That, my friends, should be our newest and soon to be best-selling t-shirt.
Available in all sizes, with bright purple letters and with the appropriate credit for the citation. Our available shirts now include:
Front: "Tin matchbox empty..." Back: "Now where have I seen that before?"
Front: "O costly matchbox of death!" Back: The Diary World motto, "Still nothing new. Still nothing real."
And our newest:
Front: "...but it is likely?' -- You Know Who" Back: A picture of our mascot, Figment, of course.
(Message edited by omlor on August 17, 2004) |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 723
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 11:19 am: | |
Caroline,
If you dislike your critics claiming that one minute you are arguing for the diary and the next against, then you can put an end to it quite quickly. Simply state your opinion one way or the other with no prevarication, coyness or wishy-washiness in any way--Do you believe it is genuine or not?
And saying that you would be required to provide research to back up any opinion you give is a crock. People state opinions all the time and they are accepted as being that person's opinion. That's what an opinion is and doesn't require research to validate it. Of course opinions that are based on facts carry more validity than those that aren't, but you don't even have to provide facts for it. Just state it once and for all and quit batting your eyes and fluttering around it.
 |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 451
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 12:18 pm: | |
I find it rather sad - but not particularly surprising - that Caroline Morris has again refused to say whether she has checked whether the "Old Post Office" was a pub in 1888, and if so whether it bore that name then. This while continuing to push it as a viable interpretation of the "Poste House".
Previously, she and Robert Smith have mentioned the dates 1800 and 1840 in connection with the "Old Post Office", but it's not clear whether these are supposed to relate to the age of the building, the date it became a pub, or the date when it was given its current name. Of course, I have asked for clarification, but none has been given.
If anyone is taking this suggestion at all seriously (which possibly no one is), the first thing that needs to be done is to check the dates.
Rather against my better judgment, I did look in some Liverpool trade directories at the Public Record Office today. Unfortunately their holdings are not very numerous, but at any rate the Old Post Office is listed under that name in Gore's 1910 directory, but it does not appear in Gore's 1859 directory, and in fact there is no listing in the street directory at the address.
On this evidence, it seems that the pub dates from some time in the 50 years following 1859 - not from 1800 or from 1840, as might have been inferred from the posts by Robert Smith and Caroline Morris. Obviously some further research is needed before this suggestion can be viewed as viable.
Chris Phillips
|
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 62
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 12:25 pm: | |
Caz , I think you are assuming too much !
The pub landlord did not necessarily know the ' Old Post Office ' as the ' poste house ' ( note - no capitals ).
It may simply have been that he heard someone ask about the ' post house ' and simply assumed ( ie made an assumption ) they wanted the ' Old Post Office ' pub. Because the word ' post ' was in the question.
BUT !
This is entirely different to the Diarist writing about ' the Poste House ' ( a proper name with capital letters and everything ) ie naming a pub.
Have the Maybrickites researched the possibility that there may have been a pub in Liverpool in 1888 actually called ' The Poste House ' ? ie another one , not the one in Cumberland road because that was called the Muck Midden ?
Because if James Maybrick had written the Diary and meant ' The Old Post Office ' he would have written something like ' The Old GPO ' or ' The Post Office ' or ' The O.P.O. ' or whatever.
Its obvious the Diarist meant a pub called ' The Poste House '.
And there is one in modern day Liverpool , which would seem to render the Diary a modern forgery. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 759
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 3:06 pm: | |
Hi,
its not obvious what the diarist meant. IF the diary is genuine then the diarist did not mean the Poste House because the Poste House wasn't there. Supposing there was a pub that fitted that description (we could still assume that the diarist mistakenly thought the Poste House on Cumberland street was always there but we could not use this point to prove the diary fake, it would remain a plausible hypothesis!)
Did that make sense?
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 64
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 5:11 pm: | |
Jennifer , you are starting from the presumption ' IF the Diary is genuine ' , when nobody will actually come on these Boards and state their opinion that it IS genuine !
I am starting from the presumption that ' The Poste House reference proves the Diary to be a modern fake '. Because the name of the Poste House pub dates from the 1960s.
How to disprove this assertion ?
i) A pub is found that was called the Poste House in the 1880s , obviously not the modern day pub because that was called something else.
ii) It can be proved that the Old Post Office pub was known as the Poste House in the 1880s.
iii) It can be proved that the Angel pub , or some other pub , was known as the Poste House in the 1880s.
If none of the three points above can be proved , then the Diary must be considered a modern forgery. |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 621
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 7:21 pm: | |
Boys and girls,
You needn't start from the assumption that the diary is genuine or from the assumption that the diary is not genuine.
All you have to do is read, without either of these assumptions.
Let's try it.
The diarist writes the name of a pub very clearly and with precise spelling and capitalization.
He writes, "The Poste House."
Now then...
Question: Is there a pub called "The Poste House" in Liverpool?
Answer: Yes. Exactly that. Spelled exactly that way, in the very same city. Yes. There certainly is.
Question: Was it there in 1888?
Answer: NO! It was there only after the 1960s.
Why doesn't this tell you what you need to know?
The rest is pure and desperate desire rather than reading or reason.
--John (amazed at people's willingness to try anything rather than read)
PS: For a diarist to write exactly this name spelled and capitalized in exactly this way and thereby reproduce exactly the unique name of a pub that would not exist for another hundred years in the very same city and nowhere else in all of England would be a truly fantastic and unbelievable coincidence, wouldn't it?
PPS: At least Shirley had the decency to read the text honestly.
(Message edited by omlor on August 17, 2004) |
A Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 7:18 am: | |
On a website www.historichotelsofeurope.com it refers to its"800 chateaux, manors, convents, palaces, monastries, farms, town houses, villas, post houses, and family owned residences. Indicating I would have thought that post house could indeed have been a common enough term in various localities for establishments not officially known as such. If the name is indeed a coloquialism, then it is highly unlikely that documentary evidence could be produced to prove its existence.
Also I am quite sure that a few years ago I stayed in a hotel called the Post House or Poste House in Coventry. I am sure this was part of a chain of that very name.
None of this proves anything of course but it would indicate that the term/name could have been more popular in unofficial language than otherwise.
Alan |
A Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 5:19 am: | |
It seems incredible that people who use language like "lurve", "gotta" "dont ya" put so much stock in spelling and capitalisation. What I wonder will the historians of tomorrow make of this.
There are two possibile scenarios here.
1. The verb to lurve must be a lost part of the English language.
2. "ya" must be someones name. (To be met by a stream of objections because it doesnt begin with a capital)
To try and make a definitive point based on the grammar of a disturbed mind 116 years ago (In the unlikely event that the diary is genuine)is ludicrous. It is quite natural to use capitals even if the name used is not the official name of the establishment. (A possible scenario even if it is not the most likely one).
Incidentally John, referring to an earlier post. Simon is obviously the "Smithers" to your "Burns" I forecast would exist.
"John, your last post was a classic"
God help us,
How do you spell psychophant?
Alan |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
