|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1191
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 4:22 am: |       |
Hi Stan, All,
I don’t see a problem with Stride not being mutilated. For all her killer knew, Schwartz’s intention could have been to send the first man – or copper - he met running back to the scene to make sure the woman had managed to take care of herself. Ripper or not, his survival instincts probably took over, resulting in him finishing her off quickly (possibly to prevent later identification) and not hanging around.
Talking of lack of motive, what kind of motive would we expect to find if and when we come face to face with a mutilating serial killer? Anything the killer himself suggests must be treated with the utmost caution; even if he understands why he does what he does he may not be willing to admit it, or able to articulate it. A supreme lack of any discernible or recognisable motive – even to their nearest and dearest after being identified and proven guilty – often defines such killers, surely?
Not since the days of Peter Wood has anyone here seen it as their mission to try to ‘actually advance’ Feldy and Shirley’s case for Maybrick being the ripper, as far as I can tell.
I simply don’t like loose ends: if the diary is modern, and therefore the watch, we still have at least two independent forgers (and almost certainly two or more co-conspirators) who have resisted all attempts, by the smiling Melvin Harris et al, to expose them once and for all. We also have Diamine Ink’s chief chemist, estimating the writing in the diary to be 90+ years old; we have two independent watch examiners concluding the scratches are likely to date back several decades. And then we have various other academics, with impeccable credentials and reputations to consider, and no apparent axes to grind, who find themselves unable to dismiss either artefact as modern with the same ease as the vociferous minority on these boards and their faithful entourage.
In short, I have always preferred to keep all my balls in the air, while I still have more questions than answers.
I can see why having only the one ball to play with might bring out the dictator in some people. 
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 615
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 7:27 am: | |
"Dictator," huh?
Interesting choice of terms.
Certainly not "value neutral." But of course, it's a completely unsupported claim, as usual.
The use of simple commmon-sense logic, reason, and a careful reading of the history, the data, and the evidence against the words in the text is hardly a "dictatorial" operation. It is, however, rational -- as opposed to the offering of desperate excuses and the replacing of reason with desire.
Caroline is certainly not one to come here and "advance" the case for Maybrick being the Ripper or the diary being authentic. That's because she already knows that there is no real evidence to support either claim. In fact, she already knows that both claims are false. She just won't admit that here in public.
Somewhere above, Simon's simple question still sits, completely unanswered.
And now, thanks to some fine research on another thread, we have some solid facts about just how possible it would have been for even an old forger to see the police report. But I'm sure that won't matter, either.
Making impossible excuses is not a way to "tie up loose ends." it's just a way to keep hope alive purely through desire and imagination.
But I think we all see that by now.
This has been a very useful month, even without any new tests or results of any kind.
All the best,
--John |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 65
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 5:41 pm: | |
Maybe if someone published the tests on the Watch we might know more ?
Surely logic dictates that the Diary is a modern forgery ?
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 455
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 6:35 pm: | |
Maybe if someone published the tests on the Watch we might know more ?
Indeed. These reports were originally to have been published in March. At the last minute, the required permission was found not to be forthcoming.
I've asked several times exactly whose permission this referred to, only to be answered by the embarrassed silence that greets all awkward questions on these boards.
If the reports really bear the interpretation Caroline Morris would have us believe, why weren't they published in full long ago?
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 620
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 7:05 pm: | |
Come on, guys.
Have you forgotten where you are?
Just check the DiTA thread to see the status quo in full operation.
"Nothing new. Nothing real."
That's the motto around here; and no doubt it will be as long as you can say "keep hope alive."
--John (not talking about Jesse Jackson) |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 75
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 8:47 am: | |
AIP, and Chris Phillips,
Fine. You say that the Loftus / Donner version does not exist and never did.
Now you are responsible for explaining why MacNaghten was chosen to write an internal memo defending Thomas Cutbush, that would be seen by no one but police personnel.
You can't have it both ways. Explain away.
STAN RUSSO |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 632
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 9:07 am: | |
Tiddley Boar might be my favorite Diary World poster of all.
Every so often old TB comes here and says "I have evidence that helps prove that the real James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper, but I'm not going to tell you what it is." Then he (or she) mentions he (or she) is looking for a publisher and vanishes.
This has been happening for years. I mean actual years!
At one point, someone from the diary camp even responded saying that if he (or she) gave them this secret squirrel info, they'd help him (or her) publish it.
Obviously, that never happened.
So instead we are treated to the occasional empty visit, where the evidence isn't revealed here, but we are told that it's not going to be revealed here.
I guess that's just in case we had forgotten.
Well, we haven't forgotten, TB. You are always in our hearts and in our minds. We know you're out there, secretly guarding your spectacular evidence like some Dickensian miser guarding his gold pieces, and just stopping by every so often to remind us all you have it but you're not going to share it with us.
We all feel better knowing you're out there with the truth. We truly do.
We don't need to see it.
We'll just believe you, OK?
Honestly, can this Diary World place get any weirder?
Where do these people come from, anyway?
Happy to see my favorite name again.
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 458
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 11:54 am: | |
Stan
Fine. You say that the Loftus / Donner version does not exist and never did.
I don't think either of us said that.
I'm not trying to make a big issue out of this (especially not on this thread where it's off-topic), but I do think Loftus's recollections are clearly inaccurate in some respects.
Chris Phillips
|
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 77
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 1:40 pm: | |
There is no evidence that Maybrick was the Ripper.
If Florence Maybrick had poisoned her husband because she feared he was the killer , why didn't she say at the Trial or even afterwards.
The FM supposedly on the wall was never written on the wall , the police or the papers would have noted it.
The ' Mr Micbrac was Maybrick ' thing - thats an assumption which seems very unlikely to be true. And even if Maybrick stayed in London under the name Micbrac , it doesn't mean he was the Ripper. |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 637
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 3:33 pm: | |
Ah, but Simon,
You don't know Tiddley Boar's special super secret evidence! 
No one does.
Because Tiddley Boar won't tell anyone.
Tiddley Boar will, however, come here a few times a year just to say that Tiddley Boar won't tell us what the special super secret evidence is, just so we can wonder what the special super secret evidence might be.
Because, apparently, no one so far has been interested in publishing the special super secret evidence either.
Oh, well.
I guess it'll just have to remain super secret.
The lunacy of Diary World just seems to bring them out of the woodwork, doesn't it?
We can add TB to the list of crazy, wacky characters in this saga who have everything but an appreciation of simple facts and honest common sense.
At least until we all get a peek at the special super secret evidence.
Man, I wish we had some really cool spy music to play right about now.
Just delighted,
--John
|
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 77
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 10:15 pm: | |
Chris,
Good dodge to the question asked. Yes it is off topic on this particular section so I guess it does not deserve an answer from you. I'd call you out for an answer on the Druitt board but I'll expect another dodge of the question.
Kepp believing everything without questioning anything. All the police were impeccible sources and everything they said and did is beyond reproach. Also, as a result, there are 37 Jack the Rippers. That shouldn't matter though.
STAN RUSSO |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 641
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 10:27 pm: | |
Hey!
Maybe Tiddley Boar has some super secret evidence against Druitt too, that hasn't been published yet and that no one is allowed to see.
In fact, maybe TB has got super secret evidence against all 37 Rippers.
Who knows? It's a mystery.
Like so many imagined mysteries here in Diary World.
It's a small world, after all,
--John 
[Obligatory thread reference: the real James Maybrick was NOT the Ripper. But you all knew that already, didn't you?]
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1199
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 3:48 am: | |
Hi Chris P,
You wrote:
‘At the last minute, the required permission was found not to be forthcoming.’
And:
‘If the reports really bear the interpretation Caroline Morris would have us believe…’
I don't know whether you knew your first statement was misleading, but your second was deliberately so.
As you know very well, I transcribed a few extracts from the reports, clearly stating several times that I didn’t expect you, or anyone else, to take my word for it, and that any attempts on my part to interpret the various findings could be wrong. This could hardly be less a case of dictating my own interpretation and having you believe it.
I try to learn by experience. And experience has taught me that if I were to interpret the word ‘cat’ to mean a four-legged furry animal, you would be sceptical.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 459
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 5:08 am: | |
Caroline Morris
Sorry, but we've been over these two points too many times to make it worthwhile going over them again.
Even you must be getting a bit bored with it by now.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 642
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 7:27 am: | |
Caroline write to Chris, worried that, "if I were to interpret the word ‘cat’ to mean a four-legged furry animal, you would be sceptical."
Well, I can reassure her to this extent.
Is she were to interpret the words "The Poste House" to mean "The Poste House" and the words "Tin matchbox empty" to mean "Tin matchbox empty," I wouldn't be sceptical. Nope. It would make perfect sense to me.
But since she doesn't, I suppose a certain amount of scepticism about her reading tendencies is bound to creep in.
Is anyone surprised?
--John (Still waiting for those reports, but not surprised about that, either. Remember where we are, people.)
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 645
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 8:19 am: | |
All right, now I really am scared.
Has anyone else noticed it, or is it just me?
Tiddley Boar's post about the special super secret evidence against Maybrick has vanished again. It's disappeared into the super secret mist.
It's like old TB is the official Diary Word ghost.
Yes, friends, Diary World is now officially a haunted place, where, once every month or so the weird and wonderful ghost of Tiddley Boar writes words that arrive here only for a moment and then vanish back into the land beyond the grave...
Man, that special super secret evidence must be some powerful stuff.
But you all saw the post, right? I mean it's not just me being driven slowly mad, Poe-style, by the desperate, irrational, desire-filled ravings of Diary World, where common sense is now continually trumped just by changing the words on the page, right? Old TB was really here with us for a moment, right?
Right?
--John (who is really glad Diary World now has its official ghost)
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 461
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 8:42 am: | |
Stan
I wasn't trying to "dodge" your question, as you put it. As a matter of fact I did start to draft a reply to it. The problem was I couldn't really work out what you were asking.
By all means repost your question on a more relevant board (where it may be seen by people who could help, but who avoid the diary discussions). I think it would also be helpful if you could clarify which aspect of the memorandum you're questioning - the choice of Macnaghten as author, the purpose of exonerating Cutbush, or the claim that it would be seen only by police personnel (which I don't think is necessarily true).
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on August 21, 2004) |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 80
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 8:52 am: | |
Chris Phillips,
There you go. I placed the question in the oh so very neat and tidy proper place for you. I don;t know why it couldn't have been answered here, but now the challenge remains, answer the question to back up your claim regarding the Loftus / Donner version of the MacNaghten memorandum.
STAN RUSSO |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 785
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 8:59 am: | |
John,
yes i had noticed and I'm more than a little concerned as to what the hell is going on in that regard. Is the govt. wiping TB's posts because of the top secret info?
Jennifer
ps if diary world has a favoured ride then I've noticed that it's surely the roundabout!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 8:50 am: | |
Stan Russo.
Explain what? Your question makes no sense.
Perhaps you would like to start another thread under an appropriate heading. |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 677
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 10:31 pm: | |
AIP,
I believe the thread has already been started by Stan and Chris. It's now over under the Druitt threads I think.
Best of luck,
--John |
Busy Beaver
Detective Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 60
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 10:29 am: | |
John you're absolutely correct- the REAL James Maybrick was not Jack the Ripper. It's amazing what this fictitious nonsense (aka the Diary of Jack the Ripper) has led some people to believe.....
Busy Beaver |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 879
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 2:40 pm: | |
Hi everyone,
James Maybricks brothers had his house and room searched after he died to look for posion/medicine.(Ryan) Is this correct?
Jen
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Birgit Lindh
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 7:17 pm: | |
Hi....I posted a couple of times on this board years ago, but never returned as the Maybrick Hoax, or shall I say the interest in the hoax, made me sick and uninterested in the whole JtR mystery. Well I returned now, and what do I see? That the forthcoming books about the "History of the Hoax" are being advertised here on this site...
Why? If you say about some books that they "are bad and not properly researched, do not buy them" why is it that we are encouraged to buy books about the controversy and history of a blatant fraud/lie ? Why - since you declare that you DO NOT believe in it - don't you say "don't buy this book 'cause then you are rewarding the ppl making money out of it".
About the exasperating war on this board - isn't it obvious that the "maybrickites" will answer and answer and answer....We don't know who are behind all the signatures supporting them. And they NEED this war, cause then they can publish - and sell and MAKE MORE MONEY - yet another book about the hoax.
"Not that anyone today believe in it of course - it was finally proven a hoax in 2006 and even we admit it - but buy this our 11th book about the fascinating history of our hoax and understand how the debate still rages, and oh how many people who have gotten jobs thanks to us, and how much scientific work our hoax has generated etc etc..."
God how I miss Melvin Harris... |
Tiddley Boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 9:08 am: | |
Sorry I can’t help you with the whereabouts of the AWOL postings, I certainly don’t have the facility to remove them, being an ‘unregistered guest’.
The reference to ‘roundabout’ in ‘diary world’ is interesting, though perhaps more apt for the continuance of many of these threads.
At the end of the day it’s each to their own regarding the diary. My gut feeling is that the diary is genuine though I’m not personally that bothered, the little bits of the diary are the pointers yet no-one seems to pick up on them.
The continual discussion about such subjects as ‘Mrs Hammersmith’ are totally pointless. She doesn’t have to be apparent on any census years before or after the period, there could be many reasons for her not being found. Conveniently if she were found then that source would also be cited as the source for the diary forger.
Rings, farthings and pills – actually there or created by the newspapers? It is not relevant, the diarist could have picked up on it from the papers if they weren’t actually there and used them in the creation of his doggerel. The placing of body parts, though confusing, may also have been for him at the time or is it just an attempt in the diary prose to produce a requirement of the author? It is well reported is it not regarding the supposed positioning of body parts? Could they have got it wrong at the time? Was the diarist right all along? Surely a forger wouldn’t have tripped up over such an obvious bit of well documented history? Unless of course it’s not a forgery.
The interpretation of S.E. MIBRAC was lambasted, but to think that it was around for 104 years before the name Maybrick was even on the scene is at very least interesting. Also the odds of Maybrick having been responsible for it are far LESS than some one else having done it by chance.
The findings of my colleague and I, regardless of the diary or the watch point without question to Maybrick being Jack the Ripper. Hopefully, time and suitable publisher permitting the findings will be available. Hope this finds the Message Board and at least lasts a short while. No doubt I’ll browse on here before long. Regards, Tiddley Boyar (that’s with a ‘y’ John).
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 700
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 10:59 am: | |
I would reply in detail to the stuff in old TB's post above, but I have the feeling it's just going to disappear soon anyway, since he's obviously a ghost (and our local DW ghost at that).
Suffice to say that it reminds us of just how desperate the excuses necessary to keep hope alive really are.
And of course it reminds also of the special super secret evidence that, still (crazy) after all these years, is waiting for a publisher and which none of us are allowed to see.
I love the faux-mystery of it all, and the false bravado.
TB also gives us another great line from Diary World:
"Surely a forger wouldn’t have tripped up over such an obvious bit of well documented history? Unless of course it’s not a forgery."
This is, of course, pure nonsense.
The forgers "tripped up" over all sorts of things, the name of a modern pub, the line from a document the real James could not possibly have seen, and all the rest, including the most basic thing in any forgery -- the handwriting, which they didn't even get close.
This stupidity on their part is NOT evidence that the book is real. It's evidence that the forgers sucked.
It's as if someone came here and said,
This is such an obvious forgery, such an ahistorical and flawed document that is not even in the supposed author's own handwriting, it's such a bad fake, that it MUST be real.
At that point, all hope for a rational conversation flies away, because you are clearly dealing with someone who is either simply delusional or whose own desperate desire has taken over and now controls their more logical faculties.
In either case, it's hilarious.
The fact that this is such a bad forgery is evidence that it is a forgery, obviously.
If I were younger, I'd say,
Well, duh!
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 889
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 11:59 am: | |
John,
Are you psychic, I mean it was here right now its not!
You're not TB are you?
Cheers
Jennifer
ps I'm slightly concerned he is part of our collective imagination!!!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 701
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 12:24 pm: | |
One other thought.
I think Birgit makes an interesting point. At what point do we seriously start thinking about not buying any more books, about not buying any more editions of this forgery or any new editions of books that pimp it as authentic or even any new books about the whole mess in general?
Is there an ethical concern, that we are perpetuating this nonsense by giving it our dollars?
I'm not sure.
I know I have not bought a new edition of the Diary since the first one (on purpose). I know I bought the cheap paperback version of Paul Feldman's "book," but would certainly not pay for any new edition or for any other such further propaganda. I read the recent book about the Diary case in the bookstore, cover to cover, and learned exactly ONE thing I had not known before. So I didn't see any need to buy it. Of course, that's unfair, since I am not the intended audience for that one -- it should be for people who want to learn what happened, not for those who already knew. So I do think that book had a real and legitimate purpose.
But now, perhaps, we have arrived at the moral saturation point. Perhaps now is the time to begin urging people NOT to buy new editions or new books on this nonsense, NOT to create a larger market for this topic, to say NO with their pocketbooks.
I'm sure that would be a futile gesture, an idealistic dream that ignores the way people really are, and perhaps even not the best advice, I don't know.
But I do get her point and I do think that perhaps it's now time for people to reconsider whether buying new editions and new books on all of this silliness is the right message to send, is the responsible thing to do for the field of Ripper Studies, and is the correct way to treat this deceitful forgery.
That's a question everyone can only decide for themselves, of course.
But I know which way I am leaning.
Thanks, and thanks for raising the issue, Birgit.
All the best,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 893
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 3:57 am: | |
John,
its no worse than buying many other ripper books.
Let them buy it!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1220
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 4:36 am: | |
‘I read the recent book about the Diary case in the bookstore, cover to cover, and learned exactly ONE thing I had not known before. So I didn't see any need to buy it.’
How very honest to admit to doing something like this, I bet the bookstore would be pleased to hear it. 
I can see exactly how John succeeded in absorbing just ONE thing he didn’t already know, if he had to attempt a speed-reading world record to avoid being thrown out of the bookstore.
In fact, this must have been the case, since John had no prior access to new material and personal testimony in Ripper Diary, which emerged as a direct result of enquiries made by the authors, while checking out and clarifying certain aspects of the existing record.
Oh, and by the way, what's the big difference between John writing reams about the dodgy document here on a daily basis, thus keeping it in the thoughts and minds of all those who come across his posts, and offering a publication which tells the story since it emerged, for anyone who fancies reading about it?
Happily, potential readers are free to make up their own minds what info they want on the subject - if they want any at all - and whether to buy a related book, borrow one from a library, or read all John's work here for nothing.
And some will even read a bookstore's goods for free if they are that way inclined.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 738
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 5:43 am: | |
Actually Caroline, the bookstores in the states actually encourage this practice. They provide instore coffee shops and loads of big squishy armchairs all for people to sit around and read books they haven't actually purchased. The thinking behind it is, if you sit down read a book that you might not otherwise be inclined to spend money on and find it sufficiently engaging or worthy, you might purchase it anyway.
So implying that John did something wrong by this practice is petty and ignorant. It's not that John did something incorrect, he just didn't find the book sufficiently engaging to merit a place on his shelves. A new interviews and personal experiences all from one perspective doesn't really add anything to the case so who really cares? Wow...it was Anne's birthday when she got bad news..boo hoo for her. Wow..Anne was distraught while all this was going on...boo hoo for her squared.
 |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 703
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 8:22 am: | |
This isn't really worth a serious discussion, but I'll say a word or two for clarification.
Yes, Caroline, I read the book at my local Borders.
Yes, as Ally reports, it does indeed have big armchairs and food and drink and I spend many hours there, sometimes whole afternoons and evenings.
No, I did not need to speed-read the book in any way. It's not exactly the most complicated prose I have ever read. If I can work my way through Derrida in that store, I think I can manage the narrative in the Ripper Diary book.
Yes, I did read every page carefully and yes, I learned ONE significant detail I hadn't already known, even with all the "new material and personal testimony."
That's not a criticism of the book -- much of it, it seems to me, was intended to be a review of what happened and therefore had already been discussed.
And if you read my post above more carefully, you'll see that I endorsed your telling "the story since it emerged, for anyone who fancies reading about it."
I think the book in question provides a useful resource especially for newcomers and those seeking more details than they have already seen or heard.
That's why I said that the book "had a real and legitimate purpose."
(Sometimes I do wish you'd read.)
My questions concerned buying new editions of the diary and of the pro-diary propaganda and, yes, subsequent editions of books already available about this mess, and whether or not at some point there might be a valid ethical reason to say NO, to stop buying them, to stop letting people profit from what is obviously a deliberately deceitful forgery.
That question remains.
Your small fit of faux-pique here about my reading your book in the bookstore was charming, but it did nothing to address it.
But thanks anyway, for the thoughts,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 902
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 10:46 am: | |
Ally, John,
to be fair I don't think the security would like it if you read an entire book in a UK bookstore, I guess this is simply a cultural difference!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 708
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 11:29 am: | |
Hi Jenni,
You should visit a Borders over here if you get a chance. They are great fun.
--John
PS: Mine often has live jazz in the cafe corner on weekends. You can read, listen to the music, and have a piece of cake and a coffee. |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 401
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 11:52 am: | |
Hi, Jenni,
The Borders stores are huge and you can easily spend half the day in them. They're definitely made for lounging and they've got little Starbucks-like cafes in them. I remember spending all afternoon at Chicago's Michigan Avenue Borders, and a friend of mine took a nap in the middle of the store. Nobody cared, but I felt obliged to buy a few extra books.
They're similar to Waterstone's, which I think you have in the U.K.
Dave |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 119
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 1:45 pm: | |
I was in my local Borders today ( Birmingham UK ) , and my girlfriend had a sit in a big comfy armchair while I purchased some Burne Hogarth books ! Yeah , they let you read the books ! The same is true of the Borders in Charing Cross Road London , I sat on a sofa and read some Vietnam books once !
Waterstones Birmingham has a lovely little cafe in it and a ' book garden ' , can't remember if Borders in Birmingham had a cafe but it had lots of music for sale and pop music playing as well.
I was buying art/drawing books today , so I didn't get a chance to check to see if any new Ripper books are out , the new Begg book is out I think. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 905
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 2:42 pm: | |
Everyone,
Yes I have visited Borders what great shops they are (I expect the cheque to arrive soon) they do have seats in. My only point was that they are an americanism, they are recent to this country and as far as I can tell they are superb. However, my point was it is not usual for this type of shop to exist in the Uk and that kind of practice they are not a WH Smiths or Waterstones.
Ok, the Uni bookshop has chairs in but god forbid you sit in one and look at a book!
Just thought maybe when you jumped on Caz as though she had said she two heads or something you hadn't quite thought it through thats all!!
Jennifer
ps thread reference - i doubt very much that James Maybrick was JTR
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 880
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 3:35 pm: | |
Hi, all
Borders and Barnes & Noble are places to go to have Starbuck's coffee and a panini and croissant. A gentrified bazaar or comfy supermarket for books. If a person reads a Ripper book cover to cover in a Borders and does not buy it, does that make them a Borderline personality? Whoops, sorry, John. 
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 709
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 5:33 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
No problem at all.
I'd be happy to be called a "Borderline" personality. Heck, for all the time I spend there, they could at least give me a badge that says that.
I read the latest edition of the diary there, too, and refused to buy it, despite it now having my name in it (and Maybrick killing women in Texas or some such place
The diary is, after all, just a cheap fake.
Enjoying the chatter,
--John
PS: I do also buy a great many books there, in case anyone was wondering. |
Howard Brown
Detective Sergeant
Username: Howard
Post Number: 54
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 8:43 pm: | |
For them whats on a limited budget, may I suggest one and all check out those "Bargain Book Blow-Out !" jernts. Whenever a Toys R' Us or department store goes belly up, they usually have these 2-month leased space occupiers that often sell Ripper books for a buck....Thats where I first got my "Diary" 10 years ago...for a dollar. They don't have bagels and coffee,but they do have inexpensive Ripper books... |
Birgit Lindh
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 10:11 pm: | |
John. Of course everyone decide for themselves if they want to spend their money on books about hoaxes, it's just that I find it amazing that shoddily researched books are reviewed less favorably then the ones making money out of frauds..
In the dissertations here at Casebook, Harris and others stated clearly why the diaries couldn't be real. They seldom got answers - only evasions and complaints of rudeness etc. It's the same old story on this board - never a real answer, but as long as the "discussion" goes on, the maybrickites are satisfied; they can hardly hope for more books about Maybrick as the ripper being taken seriously, but several about "the fascinating battle that goes on and on and refuses to die.." Not to mention their struggle - going on for years - to shift the interest from facts that cannot be disregarded, to the "intriguing mystery of who made them". That should be enough for at least 4 more books.
As I was browsing around this board looking at suspects, victims etc I found ever so much new, interesting and exciting information digged up. This message board is the most marvellous goldmine when it comes to research. This Chris Scott fellow is just amazing - how does he do it?? And he is not alone. But I saw that often noone had bothered to answer or ask questions about the new stuff. (No that's not true - I know that some of you do that, and also congratulate etc but surprisingly often it's no reaction or very few answers). So I got mad when I compared and saw how much answers the maybrickites got on their evasions.
But I seem to be doing exactly the same thing myself apparently, wasting time and space on them (=helping with their future books) instead of congratulating Scott et al... |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 167
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 1:02 am: | |
Hello all,
I virtually never post on Diary threads, but I saw all the heavyweight names on here (who aren't posting elsewhere - ahem!), so I thought I'd check it out. Pretty interesting topic. John's suggesting we shouldn't feed the Diary monster by purchasing the books. Here's my two pence (if I throw in one more do I get a knee-trembler? :
I purchased Caz's book and liked it very much. I learned a lot about the people involved I didn't know before, because I don't obsess over the Diary. It will be a book that I reread in the future. As a hack, I envied their ability to condense so much information into a readable format. In this respect, it kicks A LOT of other Ripper books to the kerb. Did I have problems with it? Yes. It portrayed Melvin Harris as a villain, standing over a girl tied to the railroad tracks, pinching his mustache and laughing maniacally. It painted Paul Feldman as an unstoppable super-human. It wasn't the unbiased work I'd been promised by the blurbs. In this respect, it was a masterpiece, as a novice would finish the book thinking two things, a) it was an unbiased account, and b) The Diary is genuine. Do I agree? No. Do I believe this mild deceit was the authors' intention? Yes. But, you know what? Authors can write whatever they want and publishers can publish whatever they want. I enjoyed the book, so sue me. I think it was superior to Harrison's recent book, although I very much enjoy her writing style. Her articles for Ripperologist are always welcome. What disappointed me was the lack of American connection, despite the title of the book. If I were to recommend one diary book, it would be Caz's (and yes I know there's two other authors, one being Keith Skinner. Forgive me, I can't think of the other's name), because it's literally packed with info on the behind the scenes stuff. Forget whether or not Maybrick was the Ripper, it makes for a good story.
As a complete and total non-diaryist who now only reads the books and doesn't follow the debate, I can understand a pro-Diaryist being obsessed with the theory. After all, they believe in it and want the world to come around. What loses me is that it seems some people (and no, I'm not necessarily talking about you folks)who DON'T believe in the Diary put as much or more effort into studying it, discussing, and literally getting evil about it. Why? Go study the case, have fun, and talk about it with us in the other threads. I don't think any of us picked up this hobby so we could find new people to hate.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 711
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 6:51 am: | |
Hi Tom,
I understand your points about the Diary World book completely, and as I've said, I don't disagree. It's a story, and a useful story for some, and there are good reasons for the book to exist. I think it's a bit chatty in spots and could have used some editing, but I have no problem with its arrival on the scene or its purpose, per se.
Feldman's "book," on the other hand, is mostly just nonsense -- and badly written nonsense at that. I have many friends who are readers and editors at publishing houses and if any one of them pushed a manuscript like that up the ladder with a positive recommendation, I suspect they wouldn't still be employed. Page after page of rhetorical questions in place of argument and completely misleading use of what research does appear all add to the hilarity. The whole thing is a colossal battle between cheap melodrama and the simply made-up. Of course, that certainly does not make it unique among Ripper books. Except this one also actively pimps a forgery.
But as to your last point, I think you know why I hang around, why I spend my time here. There are two relevant questions. What's good for the field of study and what's good for the newcomers?
In the first case, a forgery is bad for any discipline's integrity. So as long as there are people here still offering excuses, still offering desperate and irrational readings as a way of pimping the possibility of authenticity, some of us should hang around and protect the integrity of the field, the truth of the record, by refuting, by reading them for what they are, by demonstrating the silliness within them, and by reminding everyone that this thing is a fake and should not be taken seriously.
In the second case, as long as new people show up here, many unfortunately via hearing about this fake as if it were serious or reading Shirley or Paul's little exercises in creative snake-oil salesmanship, there should also be people here to give the other side, to review what the real evidence actually tells us without exception, to assure those new arrivals that the real James Maybrick did not kill these women and that the books they read were talking about a hoax.
It's a fairly easy thing to do and not an unpleasant task, and I get to hang with all you good people, so why not?
Anyway, that's why my "effort" continues to show up here. Yes, we know the thing's a fake. Yes, we know that unless more than a handful of purely staggering and unbelievable coincidences all happened to take place completely simultaneously, the thing's a modern fake. But we also know that fakes are bad for the soundness of any historical discipline, even if they are good for "business."
That's why I hang around, even if you weren't "necessarily talking about" me. 
Take care,
--John
PS: Thanks Birgit, for the response. I do not disagree.
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 170
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 9:55 pm: | |
John,
Thanks for the response. I understand what you're saying. Recently, on another Ripper site, I was fighting to have the Maybrick and Sickert threads removed so that discussion could be directed to more lucrative areas. To be honest, I would have liked to have seen NO suspect threads (though I know that's not realistic) because I find the threads devoted to a particular aspect (witness, press reports, evidence, etc.) of the case more enjoyable and productive, when looked at free of suspect bias. My reason for picking on Maybrick and Sickert in particular (do I really need a reason for Sickert?) was because a) they're the two most well-known suspects, and, b) and this is the main one - they're not contemporary suspects. Not only that, but Diary discussion breeds more contempt than does any other clique in Ripperology. Every time I've glanced at a Diary thread I've seen someone (usually Caz) getting called a name (and yes, I know she gives as good as she gets). Why?
But, I know the Diary is here to stay. And, as long as the shelves of used books stores contain more copies of Diary books and Cornwell than any other Ripper book, these will be the theories most people hold to, and the suspects new posters want to know about. And, as more educated Ripperheads, that's our burden to bear. The irony of it all is that this message board/site we all love so much was created from Ryder's interest in the Diary and, in 25 years, the Rumbelow/Evans of that generation (whoever he is) will probably point to Cornwell as the reason he took interest in the case (and it all started because of a fistula!.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. If the anti-Diaryists, such as yourself, stopped posting in force, the Diaryists would to, and when newbies showed up, they wouldn't be fronted with a discussion list consisting of 50% Diary threads. Just a thought.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 925
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 5:57 am: | |
Hi Tom,
I followed your discussion of the other site with interest. And I see your point, and I think you are probably right in most of what you say. But the thing is its so much fun here in diary world!
Perhaps we should cut back to just the one Maybrick thread (ie this one!!)?
things happen for a reason, the Diary Of Jack The Ripper gave us these message boards, probably one of the bests assets in ripperology, its only fair in return these message boards should be frequented by so called anti diarists!!
Jenni
ps on topic remark, no i don't think Maybrick was JTR!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 714
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 7:57 am: | |
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I'll offer a slight disagreement on only two small points.
I do not really think that the Diary nonsense and the Sickert nonsense are "the theories most people hold to." They make the most noise (partly because of the international multi-media publicity they both received at their beginnings and partly because of the size of their publishing runs) and many people do indeed find their way to the case via this stuff despite the fact that one of them is largely just an irrational exercise in self-promotion and the other is the selling of a cheap fake. But I believe that most people who hang around actually do see them for what they are eventually, and it's only the desperate but insistent few who hang on to the impossible dream at all costs and despite the evidence. Of course, those few are often going to be the ones who insist on those dreams, so it's going to sound like there are lots of them everywhere. But in fact, I doubt there really are.
And I do think you're probably wrong about what you say in your PS. In fact, we've tried it. We've gone days in the past without posting (mostly when the loyal and desperate few were away or unable to post, etc.), but it changed nothing. As soon as one of them was again able to post, they did. And everything began anew. Rest assured, that some here are far more interested in the discussion continuing and in talk of the diary being kept alive around here then others and if we all stopped posting on all of these threads right now, we'd see more diary stuff here, more dreams and wishes soon enough.
But it's a nice thought.
And besides, Jen is right. Diary World is a lot of fun sometimes. Especially when the silly excuses and desperate readings get really goofy. 
And especially, of course, on the 14th of every month.
It's a land of Imagination here Tom, where dreams can make wishes come true, but where we all know that there is still nothing new and nothing real.
Now I must go to a weather website and see if another hurricane is heading my way.
Loving this summer,
--John
PS: All that being said, I'm not above trying silence again, if everyone wants to. Everyone who thinks (and will admit that they think) that the diary is a fake and was not written by the real James Maybrick could agree not to post on any diary thread for an indefinite period and we could see what happens. Anybody up for this?
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 927
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 9:39 am: | |
Come on John, Tom
each ripper message board should have at least one diary thread - its only normal, its the right thing!!
And knowing the trouble they've been having in this area over at the other site i wouldn't want to be a part of any attempt (fun or otherwise) to stifle or halt discussion on any topic or close any discussion thread (yes even the AARR?? thread before you ask!).
And John, we know you'd be bound to post on the 14th of every month, there's no point pretending.
Jenni
oh ps slightly on topic customary remark, if Maybrick was the Ripper did he where that hat to do it, because that's the kind of hat one imagines!!(thanks to the movies)
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 715
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 10:28 am: | |
Hi Jennifer,
Yes, I suppose the merry DiTA watch would continue. 
And I'm certainly not advocating stifling anyone or anything -- I was merely asking about a purely voluntary agreement.
I'm fine with whatever happens around here. It's a pleasant enough diversion.
Heading out for a last day of golf before the storm,
--John |
Nathan merry
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 9:37 am: | |
Hi ho people, longtime reader first time postee,
Yes i am actually that bored on my lunch break that i decided to write in, i've just got a couple of Questions for u diary slatting guys (obviously u guys know alot more about it then me)
1. if the Diary is a forgery, a modern forgery a that, then why has know one to my knowledge been able to prove conclusively who forged it and how it was done, its all been speculation so far but nothing concrete.
2. the poste house, the diary's a forgery becouse it mentions a pub that didn't exist in liverpool untill the 1960s, i might be wrong, i havent actually read the diary for well over a year but doe's it say in the diary that the pubs actually in liverpool. |
Tee
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 8:48 am: | |
Hello again Tom, Jenn and John.
I`m not here to stir anything up. But yes there are Maybrick sections on other forum`s and this is for the same reasons that you speak of John.
Without having these threads and the anti diarists with them, then there would be no "for and against" discussion. And we always know that the against arguement will come up trumps if the material is all read correctly.
As John stated this particular side of the case is the one that`s thrust in most peoples faces, or recommended by others (Bookstore staff usually). But If they are true to the case then they`ll see it for what it is. If not they can talk to people like yourselves and have told to them the myth within the Maybrick as the Ripper case. If they still want to believe it, then thats their problem. But until ALL Ripper related sites show that they feel its a nonsense and have as much evidence against it as possible, then the scholar must then make up their own minds.
The Maybrick threads will remain until they no longer get filled.
And we are all here to unfill them. But with the factual side of it. And not censorship.
Tee
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
