|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 217
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 5:47 pm: |       |
This one's easy.
Maybrick, the real killer, wrote the police report.
So of course he used the exact same phrase, of course the words repeated themselves exactly. After all, they were written by the same guy.
And what's even more important in all of this is that the fact that James Maybrick was writing police reports about these murders is even more powerful evidence that he really was the killer and that the diary is therefore genuine.
QED
Or wait. Maybe the police at the time had an advance peek at Maybrick's diary and theycopied the phrase from him.
No, that wouldn't work. They probably would have arrested him I guess.
And they didn't! You see, that's proof that the phrase must have been written into the police report first and then the diary, which means Maybrick must have written both documents. Of course.
I mean we already know that he wrote lot and lots of Ripper letters, each in a different hand, right? The diary itself assures us of this. So why couldn't he be writing the police reports, too? It's possible.
And that would explain perfectly how the very same phrase that was unavailable to the general public until recently but was readily available in a number of modern ripper books quoted exactly also turned up in the real James Maybrick's diary.
This one was too simple.
--John (wondering which of his many handwritings he used for the report)
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 264
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 6:04 pm: | |
John
I'm half afraid that the Maybrickites will take this as proof of your conversion to their cause.
But I do still wonder what those advocating an "old fake" hypothesis make of the "tin match box empty".
Those who want to believe that Maybrick could have been the Ripper can argue - wholly implausibly, in my opinion - that the killer really did have time to search through Eddowes's possessions in the dark, and to verify that the match box was empty, and on top of all that, to arrive by coincidence at the precise unnatural phrase "tin match box empty", not made public until 1988 - because the diarist was writing doggerel or whatever.
But how on earth to explain the tin match box if the diary was an old fake?
As far as I know, the tin match box wasn't public knowledge before 1988. So how can the mention of the tin match box be explained if the diary was a fake from before that date?
I have asked those who keep open the idea of an old fake, but haven't seen any attempt at an answer. I don't suppose I ever shall.
Chris Phillips
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 395
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 7:23 pm: | |
Someone's having fun today.
Ally
 |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 904
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 4:46 am: | |
Hi Ally,
You took the words right out of my mouth. 
Love,
Caz |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 247
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 4:30 pm: | |
hi
but the person who wrote the police report (and diary in this hypothesis) do not have to be james maybrick/|JTR!
Jennifer D. Pegg
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 231
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 7:48 pm: | |
True, Jennifer.
Very true.
--John |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 373
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 1:09 pm: | |
It's been suggested that Coroner Langham's inquest (containing the "tin match box empty" line) was available to the public between 1938 and 1958. This theory seems to be based on the idea that the 1958 Public Records Act imposed a hundred year closure on the document, and that before 1958 a fifty year moratorium was imposed. Apparently this suggestion is from Keith Skinner working in 1993; I haven't read Keith's idea, so I hope I'm not misrepresenting it. Basically the suggestion goes that you've got the documents opened in 1938 and then closed again in 1958, the idea being that a forger in the 1930s could have picked up that match box line. In his editorial in a recent issue of Ripperologist, "Assumptions", Paul Begg made reference to this idea and noted that it had never been followed up and that it was only assumed that the records were sealed from 1888-1988. When it came up on the boards, I decided to try and find out if the Langham report was openly available in the 1930s.
The first thing I learned was that the 1958 Act provided for a fifty year closure, not one hundred years. In fact, it was designed to provide freer access to public documents, not restrict access. It provided for a fifty year closure period, which was amended in 1967 to thirty years. As I understand it, the initial 100 year closure period was a guideline set out by the Home Office (I'm open to correction here). So, we're going from 100 years to 50 years in 1958, not 50 to 100. There was never any twenty year period when the Langham report was publicly available. The text of the 1958 Act is online at the Public Record Office's website.
Of course, everybody knows that the Whitechapel files weren't released in 1958. How come? When I wrote Val Traylen, the Client Manager in the National Archives' Record Management Department, I was told that the Chancellor maintained the initial 100 year closure for records relating to crime. However, there's a question here--the National Archives' holdings consist of the Home Office and Metropolitan Police files, not Coroner Langham's inquest--that's held by the Public Record Office. And before Langham's report was transferred to the PRO (I couldn't find out when that was), it was in the possession of Langham and possibly his successor as coroner. As a matter of fact, the inquest record was the personal property of Coroner Langham, a fact I certainly wasn't aware of (thanks to Paul Begg). So what was the PRO's policy in relation to closure? And what was Coroner Langham's?
I wrote to the PRO, but they weren't able to give me specific information regarding Langham's papers. It was unclear to the person I corresponded with, Juliet Bankes (the City Archives Manager), just when Langham's papers came into the possession of the PRO (I suspect shortly after Langham's death, but I don't know--there's no record of their transferal, but they appear in a 1951 book detailing PRO holdings). Ms. Bankes did tell me that it was PRO policy to allow NO access to closed inquest records (not even to family members). Access to closed inquest records could only be granted by the district coroner, in our case Langham or his successors.
Val Traylen at the National Archives went on to clarify for me that while coroners could allow "priveliged access" at their discretion, they generally followed the Home Office policy of 100 year closure. In 1970 the Chancellor made the 100 year closure period official for coroners' records, but in 1984 the period was reduced to 75 years. It was at this point that Langham's report became public for the first time, four years before the 1988 centenary.
So, the assumption that Langham's report and the "tin match box empty" line were kept locked up until 1988 seems to indeed be incorrect. According to Ms. Bankes and Val Traylen, they were available in 1984, a whole four years before the centenary, along with all other coroner records that were 75 years and older. I believe the 1984 ruling came from the Chancellor as well, and I've got a follow up in with the National Archives to confirm that. But I think that's right.
Unless a forger in the 1930s received permission directly from the district coroner, no viewing of Langham's report could have been possible.
Thanks to Val Traylen, Juliet Bankes, Paul Begg and Chris Phillips for their willingness to correspond with me. Since I live in the United States, the British system is hard for me to grasp. If I'm made any mistake, or if someone can provide further information, I someone will post.
Of course, I don't think anybody really believes our forger ever checked Langham's report, but instead got the information from a post-centenary book. And there are lots of other reasons to deduce a modern forgery. But the idea about the 1930s and Langham's report has been raised before, and I wanted to address it. I'm sure it will make no difference to anyone whatsoever. I think it's interesting that the report was available in 1984 and I wonder if that's general knowledge among researchers.
Hope that's of interest to somebody,
Dave
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 449
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 1:28 pm: | |
David
Many thanks for following this up, and for confirming that these records were formally closed until the 1980s.
I do agree that the idea of the forger getting the quotation from the original document rather than from the centenary books lies in the realms of fantasy, in any case.
Just one point - has some confusion crept in between the PRO and the Corporation of London Records Office? The document is at the CLRO, isn't it? Admittedly things are pretty confusing at the moment, with the PRO recently having been absorbed into the new "National Archives".
Chris Phillips
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 374
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 1:33 pm: | |
Hi, Chris
Thanks for asking--when I'm referring to the PRO, I mean the CLRO. Juliet Bankes is with the CLRO. My brain jammed 
Cheers,
Dave |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 611
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 2:19 pm: | |
Thanks, David, very much for the detailed report.
I'm sure it won't change things very much around here (where historical details like that tend to be elaborately excused or overlooked in favor of impossible coincidences or simple fantasy), but it's good to know nonetheless.
Well done,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 746
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 2:59 pm: | |
Hi David,
that seems to be pretty damning. You seem to have done a lot of research.
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 60
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 3:23 pm: | |
" Tin Match Box Empty "
" Evidence Available 1984 "
" Diary Still Modern Fake "
- from ' The Diary of James Mayditupp '  |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 375
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 3:58 pm: | |
Hi, Jennifer
Thanks, but all I did was ask questions. Since I'm in the United States, I pretty much have to rely on the kindness of strangers. So I appreciate the professionalism and courtesy of the British
Cheers,
Dave
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 722
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 6:59 pm: | |
Excellent work there, Dave!
Ally
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 376
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 8:11 pm: | |
In the interest of fairness, I should also say--and nobody has asked me to say this--that Keith Skinner is a fine researcher. Keith has emailed me to let me know that the idea of access from 1938-1958 was never a theory he actively advocated. He only proposed the idea as a mere possibility. He has also shown me that he was aware in 1993 that access depended upon the coroner.
I hope Keith realizes that I'm not having a go at him personally or his reputation. My interest is in learning about the accessibility of the records, not tearing down people.
Dave |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 263
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 9:11 pm: | |
All,
At the risk of sounding like those who feel numerology is the key to unlock the JtR mysteries, I felt compelled to post this otherwise pointless message that will be number 2004 on the Maybrick thread in 2004.
Don (who clearly has too little to do at the moment) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 748
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 6:28 am: | |
Hi David,
no problem, good work.
Don,
you sure do not have much to do at the moment!
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2837
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 3:30 pm: | |
Hi Dave
If the coroners' records were the personal property of the coroners, does that mean that Diplock's records on Druitt could be gathering dust somewhere?
Robert |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 380
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 4:56 pm: | |
Hey, Robert
Val Traylen with the National Archives wrote: "Coroners are independent judicial officers who are individually responsible
for their records. . ."
And also this, in the case of Langham: "Langham's records would have been regarded as his own and he alone would have determined who had access to them. They would have been passed to the local record office when his successors no longer wished to keep them to hand"
I'm an optimist, so I say "Sure, Diplock's records could still be around," but I'm not really familiar with the search for the Druitt inquest papers. Since coroners are independent agents, Diplock or his successors could have chosen to hold onto his papers rather than turn them over to the local archive at all. If Diplock was a lawyer (I don't know), maybe they went to his law offices, or they're in the attic of a house where he lived, or he donated them to a university law school. Maybe these places were searched a long time ago.
Maybe Diplock's records really didn't survive the years, but I don't think researchers looking for these documents have any business thinking such things!
Cheers,
Dave |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2838
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 3:44 am: | |
Thanks Dave.
Yes, nil desperandum. Besides, there are so many things that have a small chance of having survived, the odds seem to favour at least one of them still being around.
Robert |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1194
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 12:28 pm: | |
Good work, Dave!
Love,
Caz
X
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 381
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 12:46 pm: | |
People might be interested in the relationship between the National Archives and local record offices. The following is from Miss Val Traylen, Client Manager in the Records Department:
Briefly - because I am going on holiday in two minutes! - the reason TNA knows what goes on in local record offices is that, as well as holding local authority records and private records which are nothing to do with us, they hold certain classes of public record on our behalf, including coroners' records. To try to clarify -
The Metropolitan Police had the Home Secretary as their police authority so their records were included within the scope of the Public Records Act and their records came to the Public Record Office/National Archives. Variations on the standard access period had to be approved by the Lord Chancellor.
All other constabularies, including the City of London Police, had local committees as their police authority and their records consequently are not covered by the Public Records Act but by legislation applying to local government records. Their records go to the local record office, or stay in the constabulary's own museum. The Lord Chancellor has no say in access but for convenience local record offices tend to follow the same kind of closure as central government and if in doubt about a particular type of record the archivist will often ask us how we are handling similar material.
Coroners records are public records which are held in local record offices on behalf of TNA. The record offices have to be approved by TNA as a place of deposit for public records and have to have the Lord Chancellor's approval for variations to the thirty year rule.
You would therefore expect the City of London Police to deposit their crime files with the local authority archive, applying whatever closure they wished but strongly encouraged by the local record office to follow central
government/TNA practice. The coroner would deposit his records with the same local authority archive but, because they are public records, would be obliged to follow central government guidance; until 1958 this would have
been whatever the Home Office advised; from 1959 it would have been whatever the Lord Chancellor approved.
At least to my satisfaction, the question of public access has been answered. What about privileged access? In my amateur opinion, that's unlikely. I posed the question to the knowledgeable Miss Traylen, and here's what her informed opinion is:
No, there is no way to tell. There probably never was, other than asking Langham and his successors personally. But I think you can assume that they would have been very grudging about allowing access, simply because until
relatively recently the standard response of any official or lawyer asked for information would have been "that's confidential" !
If you applied now for access to inquest papers under 75 years old, you would probably still be refused unless you were a "person who has a proper interest" (which means family member, personal representative, insurance company, police, government official etc involved in the case) or an academic doing research into particular causes of death. This is not so much
a continuation of the old attitude as a newer awareness of the need to protect the family of the deceased from intrusive and insensitive attention from the media. But it would still be for the individual coroner to make the final decision, and some are more liberal, or more trusting, than others.
I haven't seen any argument on the boards or elsewhere that privileged access is a possibility. I think if you want to debate that the Langham report was accessed prior to 1984, you'd have to go the route of privileged access. For what it's worth, privileged access is unlikely. Not impossible--unlikely.
Cheers,
Dave
PS. Robert, maybe that helps with what happened with the Druitt inquest? Local record office, perhaps (I'm sure that's been checked)? |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2842
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 2:07 pm: | |
Hi Dave
I imagine that they aren't at any normal repository or they'd have been found by now. The following item from the LMA doesn't look too hopeful :
FILE - Register of inquests held by coroner for Central District, Middlesex and London - ref. COR/A/7 - date: 1885-1896, 11 Apr - 31 Mar
[Access Conditions] UNFIT FOR CONSULTATION
[from Scope and Content] From April 1889 inquests in counties of Middlesex and London kept separately within volume
[from Scope and Content] Annotation against inquests held on new born and young infants
I suppose Chiswick local library etc has been checked. Never mind. I'll leave the Diarists to their discussion while I toddle off into the Thames in search of Monty.
PS Will try to find Langham's death when I get the chance. He was 77 in 1901, so hopefully he'll be fairly easy to find.
Robert
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 757
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 2:42 pm: | |
Hi,
this may come across in the wrong way but were the records at an undisclosed location (rather than a actual archive) prior to the date you gave which i think was 1984 ??
Jennifer
thanks just point me to the post where this was probably already explained once and in which case sorry!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 382
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 3:50 pm: | |
Hi, Jennifer
Not at all. As I understand it, Langham's report was deposited with the Corp. of London Records Office sometime before 1951. So for sure, between 1951-present, they're physically with the CLRO. I think they probably were there a long time before that, but I can't say because no record of transferral seems to have been kept.
Juliet Bankes, the City Archives Manager, wrote to me:
The City of London and Southwark Coroner's records are listed in A Guide to the Records at Guildhall London, P.E. Jones and R. Smith, (London, 1951), so they must have been received by this Records Office prior to that date. However as no Accessions Registers were kept at this time, I have been unable to identify exactly when they came into our possession. So far as I am aware the inquest records for Catherine Eddowes were received at the same time as the other inquest records for that year.
I'd like to take a look at that book. Before the report came to the CLRO, they were in the possession of Coroner Langham or whoever followed in his position. It sounds like a lot of files were transferred at once, and on an annual basis. Possibly the records were transferred when Langham left office or died, or the next coroner could have held on to them for awhile. I don't know when Langham died--not too long after 1901? I'm only guessing about the when and don't know the answer. Judging from what Juliet Bankes said, no record was kept of the transferral.
Copies of the original report can be ordered, and I wonder if they bear some sort of date-stamp. I keep meaning to order copies for myself (although the information has already been transcribed in JtR Sourcebook), and just haven't ever get around to it, since my credit card is perpetually maxed out.
So listening to what archivists have to say, either the record was with the coroner or it was with the CLRO. I don't know if you can say the location was undisclosed--it seems like anyone who cared to look into the subject would have known they were with the coroner and later with the CLRO, and we know the CLRO's holdings were even published in 1951.
But here's the main thing: before 1984, anybody who wanted to look at the report, wherever it was, would've had to go through the coroner. That's been widely known, I've learned. The coroner followed Home Office policy of 100 years closure to the public, unless someone could give a good reason why they should be allowed access, like "that's my mother" or "I'm the inspector who handled the case" or "I'm with the Home Office".
I hope that helps. But listen--you've got to remember I'm an American and the British system is alien to me. I'm the guy who doesn't know anything, so I ask questions of people who do know. I think I've got the way of things right, but if someone spots something I've said that's incorrect, I won't be hurt by correction.
Cheers,
Dave
(Message edited by oberlin on August 17, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 761
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 4:16 pm: | |
Hi David,
thanks you cleared up what I was thinking/wondering.
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 762
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 4:23 pm: | |
Hi,
is it me (and it usually is!) or is the way this phrase (tin match box empty) appears in the diary odd?
What I mean is all this stuff about sweet sugar and tea would have paid my small fee. Am I missing something here or what? What small fee, James wasn't charging Catherine Eddowes a fee or is the diarist suggesting these are the words of Catherine which is equally odd because JTR hardly killed his victims instead of paying them did he?
Not only that but the whole paragraph seems to indicate someone has looked at the inquest report (Catherine also had a tin match box containing sugar and one containing tea).
I mean I know one cannot account for crazed serial killers but still it has been bugging me all afternoon and I still can't seem to make it make sense!
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 453
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 4:52 pm: | |
Jennifer
Yes. As you say, the inventory also refers, like the diary, to sugar and tea. The commonsense interpretation is that the forger copied these items, and the phrase "tin match box empty" from the inventory.
If I remember correctly, the sugar and tea were reported at the inquest and mentioned by the newspapers at the time. Of course, the tin match box empty was not (doesn't that phrasing sound unnatural!).
Caroline Morris has suggested that Maybrick might have paid Eddowes for sex by giving her a tin match box empty. Perhaps he also threw in some tea and sugar (metaphorically speaking).
Or perhaps he paid her for sex with the tin match box empty, but read about the tea and sugar in the newspapers, and copied those references into the diary.
Or perhaps, as was suggested before, when he was conducting a hurried but extremely neat and tidy search of her belongings in the darkest corner of Mitre Square, as well as taking out the tin match box and opening it to determine that it was a tin match box empty, he opened the tea and sugar containers and sniffed and/or tasted their contents to identify them.
Or perhaps we are in the realm of fantasy.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 623
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 8:02 pm: | |
Chris speaks of a "commomsense interpretation."
The diary reproduces an oddly syntaxed line exactly from a police possessions list that we now see was unavailable to the public before modern times.
At the same place in the diary, it also specifically mentions several other items from that very same list.
So, a commonsense reading suggests immediately that whoever wrote the words in the diary saw the list.
Hmmmmmm....
What does a "commonsense" reading of the words "The Poste House" tell you when there is a pub by that very same name spelled just that unique way right there in Liverpool? Maybe that "The Poste House" means "The Poste House."
What does a "commonsense" reading of the handwriting in the diary, which is nothing at all like the real James Maybrick's, tell you? Maybe that the real James didn't write it?
What does a "commonsense" reading of the mistakes about the murders in the diary tell you? Maybe that the writer was not the murderer?
What does a "commonsense" reading of the diary tell you? Maybe that it's a fake?
(I'm not even mentioning Crashaw and Mike's story about the Miracle of the Liverpool Library and "commonsense" or the complete lack of any verifiable provenance for the book and "commonsense." )
Common sense, people.
It's a precious commodity here in Diary World, where imagination is sometimes allowed to conquer it in the name of desperate desire.
But common sense, each and every time it comes up, each and every time it appears, always, without exception, points to exactly the same thing -- the diary being a fake.
Every time.
Surely our common sense must be trying to tell us something.
We should probably listen to it.
--John (in a world where the line from the police list means the writer saw the police list, where "The Poste House" means "The Poste House," where someone else's handwriting is someone else's handwriting, and where mistakes and ahistoricisms and anachronisms mean the diary could not have been written by its supposed author -- call me crazy) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 763
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 6:06 am: | |
Hi guys,
yes I agree with the majority of that but I still don't think it makes sense.
Perhaps Maybrick paid Eddowes for sex with the tin match box empty - granted but then why the reference to sugar paying the fee - in this hypothesis the empty box paid the fee.
Also the word my - is it in the first person (making absolutely no sense at all) or third person (barely making sense).
I know i am reading too much into this but to me whatever way you look at it the line about sugar and tea just doesn't seem to make any sense at all!
Thanks
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 66
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 10:30 am: | |
I think you have to suppose reading those lines that , if Maybrick had wanted sex with Eddowes he could have paid her in sugar and tea : because she was carrying these things , the Diarist assumes that she was willing to accept them in return for intercourse.
I think the Diarist is supposed to have read the list of Eddowes' possessions in the paper and is remarking on them - but the thing is that the information about the ' tin matchbox empty ' was never released to the Press ! |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 624
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 10:52 am: | |
So, then, where are we?
Is anyone even suggesting anymore that whoever wrote "Tin matchbox empty" in the diary had NOT seen the official list?
If so, I'd like to hear then how the same oddly phrased line appeared in both documents.
If not, then we know the real James could not have written this book.
Things seem pretty clear at this point,
--John (keeping things simple, for the sake of common sense)
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 765
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 2:34 pm: | |
Yes John,
there's not really a very likely chance that Maybrick saw the 'tin match box empty'line.
What is a tin match box anyway?
Hi Simon,
If thats what we are supposed to assume I don't know whether it makes sense!
If it is in the third person (ie the voice of Catherine Eddowes)it barely makes sense as she had the sugar and tea and empty match boxes (this seems weird).
I am just not happy about it at all, it's been a couple of days I've been wondering now and I still can't make it make any sense in my mind.
I guess that's just me!
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1198
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 7:28 am: | |
Hi Chris,
You wrote:
‘Caroline Morris has suggested that Maybrick might have paid Eddowes for sex by giving her a tin match box empty.’
No I haven’t. I merely pointed out that Eddowes’s killer – whoever he was - could have given her his own tin match box.
Why are you, of all people, confusing Maybrick with Eddowes’s killer?
Hi Simon,
I think your observation that the diarist ‘is supposed to have read the list of Eddowes' possessions in the paper and is remarking on them’ has merit. And since no one has found the empty tin match box detail in any of the contemporary press reports, we have to assume the killer couldn’t have read about it either. But Eddowes’s killer didn’t have to see this detail in print to know about its existence – unless you believe this rot about it being impossible for the match box to have belonged to him.
Let’s look again at the relevant list from the diary (which is claimed by modern hoax theorists to have been inspired by the published police list of Eddowes’s possessions):
Sir Jim,
tin match box empty
cigarette case
make haste
my shiny knife
the whores knife
first whore no good
The diarist strikes out all but three lines, which are retained for the finished verse:
One whore no good,
decided Sir Jim strike another.
I showed no fright and indeed no light,
damn it, the tin box was empty
Strike a light! This play on words has ‘Sir Jim’ deciding to strike another whore and another match. He shows no fear and, finding the match box empty, he shows no light either. So, is the diarist referring to Sir Jim's matches, kept in a tin box? Or is Sir Jim supposed to have been relying on the whore having some, in a tin box of her own?
Presumably the diarist was too busy working on a verse to show Sir Jim’s frustration (damn it) at having used all the matches (his or hers?) to worry about having taken the box from the police list – the one item chosen for the diary that couldn’t be found in the newspapers – and having used exactly the same four word description of just this one item when compiling the list in the diary.
But look again at the context: what is the purpose of the diarist’s list? It is clearly intended to be a list of rough ideas; abbreviated phrases that the diarist will play around with:
Sir Jim,
[the] tin match box [was] empty
cigarette case
make haste
my shiny knife
the whores knife
[the] first whore [was] no good
You can see how the diarist makes use of these phrases, keeping one abbreviated, fleshing out a couple more, and omitting others, to produce the funny little rhyme:
One whore no good,
decided Sir Jim strike another.
I showed no fright and indeed no light,
damn it, the tin box was empty
The context shows the diarist’s use of language here just doesn’t compare with the purely descriptive nature of the police list:
1 Tin Match Box, empty.
1 Red Leather Cigarette Case, white metal fittings.
1 White Handle Table Knife & 1 metal Tea Spoon.
The diarist’s list does not read:
one Sir Jim, making haste
one tin match box containing nothing
one red leather cigarette case with white metal fittings
one knife of mine, shiny
one white handle table knife of the whores
one whore who was no good
Neither does the police list read:
Sir Jim
The Tin Match Box was empty
Cigarette Case
The Ripper’s Haste
The Ripper’s Shiny Knife
The First Whore was no good
Of course, if people have to strip this ‘problem’ phrase right out of the context in which it has been used, and then persuade us to see the four words only in total isolation, in order to claim that the diarist must have copied straight from one list into the other, that tells me something about the way they are choosing to read the diary, and would prefer us to read it: with blinkers on. Perhaps they are counting on the fact that some will be so persuaded by the noisy arguments surrounding the ‘problem’ phrase - like wasps round honey - that they won’t even bother to read and make sense of the passages which actually surround the phrase in the diary.
Other ‘problem’ phrases are taken off into solitary confinement too, where they can be seen as more of a problem than they might be in their natural surroundings: lift Kelly’s breasts out of the diary but keep them firmly on the table, keeping your fingers crossed that people won’t see, or make anything of the diary reference linking them with her feet; isolate the Crashaw quotation to lessen the chances of anyone looking for and seeing Crashaw-like imagery in the preceding diary passages; insist that the diarist doesn’t know Michael Maybrick was a famous composer, using the line about outdoing his brother at rhyming verse successfully, while ignoring the one about Michael writing a merry tune and praying it will be forgotten.
It’s a neat trick, but I prefer to put each phrase back in context where it belongs, and let my own sense of language guide me, rather than be led by those who long-since lost the ability – or desire - to see certain phrases in any other context than that of a modern hoax.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 774
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 7:46 am: | |
Caz, everyone
Do you not think that the context in which this set of phrases (which relate to the inquest possession list) is in does not make any sense at all.
Lets look at an example form above
'damn it the tin match box was empty'
excuse me for asking 'damn it' but wasn't the argument that the tin match box was given to Eddowes by JTR who knew it was empty if he was JM because he wrote 'tin match box empty' and in which case why damn it and anyway he's supposed to have given it to her already in this hypothesis.
Sure there's no accounting for crazy drugged up serial killers but in all the other contexts the phrase doesn't make any sense either (in my opinion).
I'm still not satisfied about the sugar and tea line i mentioned yesterday.
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 630
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 8:03 am: | |
Stunning!
This is one for the Hall of Fame, my friends.
It wasn't bad enough that "The Poste House" didn't mean "The Poste House" because after all you could just add the world "Old", drop the "e," and change "House" to "Office" and you'd get the name of a completely different pub name -- despite the fact that the diary actually SAYS "The Poste House."
No, that was too easy.
Here's an even better one...
Now, "Tin match box empty" doesn't mean "Tin match box empty".
(Whatever happened to reading the actual words as they appear, I wonder?)
No, of course "Tin matchbox empty" doesn't mean "Tim matchbox empty"...
It means, "[the] tin match box [was] empty."
Of course the "the" and the "was" aren't actually there in the line -- BUT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE. The diarist was thinking them, even if he didn't write them.
So all you need to do is look down the page a bit, see what he did later with the line, and then add those wonderfully convenient brackets to the original and it doesn't look like the words on the police list at all!
It's magic.
[the] [was]
That's all you have to do.
After all, that might not be what it says, but it's what he was thinking.
Caroline's not just an ordinary reader now, she's a mind-reader as well.
The diarist writes the line in a strangely ordered way -- "tin matchbox empty" -- but Caroline doesn't want it to say that.
Why not? Of course, because that's exactly the same oddly ordered way that it appears on a document the real James (and any old forger) could not possibly have seen. (Thanks, David -- you have fathered this latest baby of desperate desire, whether you realize it or not.)
So now she needs another excuse to account for the truly AMAZING coincidence that the same oddly syntaxed line appears in both documents.
So what does she do?
She ignores the way the words are actually written on the page and pretends she can read the Diarist's mind when he wrote them and she adds two more words that don't exist there and then says this is what he meant.
The sheer, shameless nerve.
The complete, absolute unwillingness to admit what the book says, simply and clearly, in favor of desperately trying to make it say something else.
I'm beginning to think Chris is right, she's just trolling now, saying things no one could possibly take for anything other than panicked scenarios of excuse-making at all costs as a way of stirring up silly debates. At least I hope that's what she's doing. Because even that would be significantly less intellectually and ethically questionable than devising elaborate excuses in order simply to keep hope alive and to keep pimping the possibility of a forgery being real.
Anyway, everyone read her post above again, please.
I can think of no better, no more dramatic illustration of how desperate the argument is becoming for some.
"The Poste House?" Surely, it must not mean "The Poste House?"
"Tim matchbox empty?" Surely it must not mean "Tin matchbox empty."
After all, it's not like that's what the diary actually says...
Oh, wait.
Yes, in fact, IT IS!
But we all know that the fact that the words appear the very same way in both the diary and the police list is just an AMAZING COINCIDENCE (That's what Caroline is telling us above.)
And we all know that the fact that the name of the pub appears written in the very same way in both the diary and in the name of a pub in the same town which did not exist 1888 is just an AMAZING COINCIDENCE. (That's what Caroline is telling us above.)
And we all know that the fact that the one specific line from the whole of literature appears in the very same way in both the diary and The Sphere Guide is just an AMAZING COINCIDENCE. (That's what Caroline is telling us above.)
And we all know that the fact that the very same mistakes concerning the details of the murders appear in both the diary and in modern books is just an AMAZING COINCIDENCE. (That's what Caroline is telling us above.)
And we all know that the diary being written in someone else's handwriting despite the fact that the author identifies himself on the very first page is just an AMAZING COINCIDENCE.
Well, maybe that last one isn't a coincidence at all, so we won't discuss it if it's all right with everyone.
The Diary -- it may be the book filled with the most AMAZING COINCIDENCES in the whole history of publishing.
Or it may just be fake. In which case, none of these things are coincidental at all.
"Tin matchbox empty."
Now where have I seen that before?
Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt.
Amazed at the lengths the desperate will go to for a breath of hope,
--John 
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 387
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 10:15 am: | |
John,
No thank you, my friend. That's not my baby. Doesn't look anything like me.
Cheers,
Dave
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 636
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 10:21 am: | |
Denying paternity, eh?
Well, we're going to have to call for tests.
Of course, around here, that means you're safe, Dave. 
Loving life in the DW,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 788
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 6:08 am: | |
Excuse me for asking this BUT,
I read in Harrison the 1998 book that a book by Mr. Fido of 1987 mentioned the tin match box. I would like to know if it mentioned the exact phrase.
Having read my copy of Rumbelow I see he does not mention this exact phrase .
If its not in Martin's book them I'm just that little bit more curious about where it was copied from.
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 80
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 8:13 am: | |
Its in Martin's book , 'The Crimes , Detections and Death of Jack the Ripper' , page 70 :
1 Tin Matchbox , empty |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 648
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 8:31 am: | |
Hi Jennifer,
You might also like to know that Martin's book has the entire Eddowes police list (complete with the lines about sugar, tea, and the "tin matchbox empty" one of course) separated out and printed in boldface. It also has the Dear Boss letter (with the underlined Ha ha's and all the phrases that also appear in the diary) also separated and printed in boldface in the very first chapter. And it has the "Eight little whores poem" also separated and in bold face only two pages later (both of these are in the book's first ten pages).
That doesn't mean anything in particular, but it might be worth noting that, due to the book's layout, these things appear quickly and obviously to the reader.
Now go ahead and ask about the date that Martin's book came out.
I dare you. 
--John (who can always imagine stuff, too) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 791
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 9:02 am: | |
John,
I already know the answer it is 1987/8. Now i think about it i have a copy of that book from the library on my read list. I will get it. I thought it was a more modern book than it is.
Personally I'm glad that it is in the book because now we don't have to wonder if they actually went and got a look at the inquest list to know what it said. (who is this they I don't know i just mean putting on the forgery assumption hat for a second!)
This to me makes no sense at all
1 - if the tin match box empty produced the line 'damn it' because JM/JTR wanted a match to see - then how did he see to cut out Catherine Eddowes kidney (because damn it the tin box was empty). Furthermore if the argument JTR knew the about the tin box is to stand up - then he knew it was empty in the first place hence damn it doesn't seem to fit.
2 - does sugar and tea etc refer to James, it appears to as i read it if it does it makes no sense (one might wonder what fee?). If it is a third person reference to Catherine then it does not make sense because she did not flee and furthermore she had sugar and tea.
And if that wasn't bad enough there's the tin match box empty to go along with it.
How handy that I have a copy of that book too and had forgotten (well not forgotten just didn't realise it was the right one - see how easy it is to do!)
Cheers
Jennifer
ps John - was that book about in Liverpool library at the time at all?
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 650
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 10:12 am: | |
Hi Jennifer,
I don't know if Martin's book was in the library.
You could call them and see, I guess.
And I'm not saying here that the forgers used his book, either. Because I would remind people that there were a number of other available books with the same info in them, just as there were several books with all the necessary info about Maybrick in them as well, including some of the very same phrases we find in the diary.
In fact, there's not a SINGLE THING anywhere in the diary, not a single verifiable piece of information of any sort, that was not available in modern sources.
Think about that, for a moment.
Think about a personal diary that tells us nothing both verifiable and new, nothing that we couldn't have already found in modern books.
Amazing, huh?
--John
|
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 81
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 10:30 am: | |
Apart from ' Maybrick's ' killing of the prostitute in Manchester John , which er...never happened. |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 652
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 10:35 am: | |
Simon,
I think you'll notice the word "verifiable" in my sentences above.
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 793
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 9:37 am: | |
John, Simon,
I certainly find you use of bold in martin's book slightly odd but interesting in this context
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1207
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 6:34 am: | |
Hi Jenn,
Forgetting about the diary and who wrote it for a moment, what’s wrong with the following scenario?
Jack offers Eddowes his tin match box, containing a few matches.
Jack watches Eddowes pocketing it, then attacks and kills her.
Jack can now retrieve the matches, to use on their own, or to light a lamp he may be carrying, so he can see to mutilate Eddowes, including those delicate little facial cuts. He runs out of matches (and/or the lamp goes out) at some point, swears to himself and leaves the now useless empty box with his victim, before departing with the extracted organs and the apron half.
Hi All,
I have pointed out before that the diarist uses the same form of words for two of the rough ideas that end up in the finished verse: ‘tin match box empty’ and ‘first whore no good’. I remember joking that, following the reasoning about ‘1 Tin Matchbox, empty’ to the letter, the diarist should have taken ‘1st Whore, no good’ from the police list too and put her in the diary as ‘first whore no good’.
Anyway, joking aside, how many books apart from Martin’s contained ‘1 Tin Matchbox, empty’ (or, even better, 'one tin match box empty' - our diarist should have got rid of the capitals for his 'post house' too!) and would have been available to a forger in the late 1980s? I seem to remember Martin himself being unconvinced that his book had been used by the diarist. I also seem to recall that both his hardback and paperback would have been needed by a forger using ‘1 Tin Matchbox, empty’ and the Punch cartoon for inspiration.
Love,
Caz
X
PS Simon, the limited assumptions that can be made from the diarist's description of events in Manchester, have also been discussed before, on another thread.
(Message edited by Caz on August 24, 2004) |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 659
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 7:21 am: | |
Oh, that's right.
I almost forgot, Jennifer.
At least one edition of the Fido book ALSO had the Punch cartoon that the diarist refers to as well, complete with caption, I think.
At least, that what Caroline seems to be reminding us of.
And yet the diary had no verifiable NEW information whatsoever, anywhere in this guy's supposedly personal diary which was supposedly a confession to some of the most celebrated crimes in history.
Yup. The Eddowes list with the same oddly phrased line that appears on a document that Maybrick or an old forger could not possibly have seen, the Dear Boss letter (separated and in bold face in Martin's book), complete with the phrases that turn up in the diary, the PUNCH cartoon about which the diarist makes a big deal because of the word "may," and all the rest...
The diary contains references to all this stuff.
But no new information of any sort.
And it's in the wrong handwriting, and it names exactly a place that wasn't there until modern times, and it has the one same single line of poetry from that poet excerpted in it that is also excerpted in the Sphere Guide, and it makes the same mistakes about the famous murders as other modern sources, and it has absolutely no established provenance whatsoever and there is no evidence anywhere on the planet that even suggests that it existed before modern times or that it might be real.
It's been easy to produce evidence that it's a forgery.
In ten years no one has ever produced any real evidence that it's not.
What do you think that means?
Still here in the land of the obvious,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 798
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 8:23 am: | |
Caz,
thats an interesting hypothesis but its not what the diary says - at all!
Jen
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 662
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 8:33 am: | |
Hi Jen,
Clearly that is not a relevant concern.
But thanks for reminding us. 
--John
PS: Oh yes, Figment says to remind you that in Diary World, it's dreams and imagination that matter! |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
