|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 834
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 7:52 am: |       |
Caz,
but where was the Poste House in 1888?
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 469
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 8:04 am: | |
Surely it's some sort of comment on the standard of "discussion" here that when Caroline Morris says that a pub landlord "called" the Old Post Office "the post house", and Simon Owen points out that's not true, he is immediately accused of "twisting"!
Simply bizarre ...
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 680
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 9:17 am: | |
First, let me say this.
I think AAD's post that suggested that Caroline Morris was "rewarded for her pains by being made a co-author of a diary-related book" was completely out of line and I want no part of anyone who would suggest such a thing here in public in such a scurrilous manner.
I remember once when someone came here and suggested purely untrue things about me, meant only to damage my professional reputation and nothing else, things that were badly researched and childishly vindictive.
And, yes, I do remember who spoke out in public against such ugliness.
I knew then that if I saw the same thing happening to someone else, no matter who that person might be, I would speak out against it, too.
I don't think that nasty charge can be or should be leveled here in any way.
Of course, I have said and do believe that Caroline is making ridiculous and desperate excuses here and ignoring what the words on the page actually say and keeping the debate alive and hope alive for inexplicable reasons when we all know there is no way the real James Maybrick wrote this book.
And of course I am about point out that she has just done it again.
But I did want to make a point of saying that this sort of ignorant nonsense about how she came to be one of the authors of a book on the diary has no place here in a public forum (or anywhere else, for that matter).
Now then,
The pub owner story Caroline tells and retells is a story that took place entirely in speech.
We are dealing here with the written word.
So let's keep things simple.
What is written in the diary?
"Poste House."
Capital P, capital H, e on the end of Poste.
What is the name of the pub in Liverpool (the same city as the diary)?
"Poste House"
Capital P, capital H, e on the end of Poste.
They are identical, you silly people.
And they are right there in the same city.
So, the ONLY way the diary can be anything other than an old forgery is if a truly amazing coincidence occurred just by pure chance (a fact Caroline tellingly still refuses to address).
It has all become this easy.
The ONLY hope the diary has of being anything other than a modern forgery is if a diarist wrote down, while meaning the name of a completely different pub, the exact, identical uniquely-spelled name of a pub right there in the very same city that they could not possibly have ever known.
THAT is what Caroline is now telling us is her best argument for the possibility that the diary is not a modern forgery.
THAT and that the diarist ALSO MUST HAVE written down, just by accident and in another amazing coincidence, the exact oddly-syntaxed separate line from a police report that they could not possible have ever seen or known about.
THOSE TWO amazing coincidences must have happened simultaneously for the diary to be anything other than a modern forgery.
THOSE TWO AND the diarist wrote down, just by pure chance and amazing coincidence the very same single line of Crashaw's poetry, separated from all his other work and cited that also appears separated from all his other work and cited in the middle of the Sphere Guide that was also owned by the same guy who owned the diary (perhaps the only two books in the whole history of publishing that have this particular line separated and cited in the middle of them).
THOSE THREE amazing and unbelievable coincidences had to all have happened simultaneously for the diary to be anything other than a modern forgery.
THOSE THREE AND a couple of others concerning the mistakes about the murders being the very same mistakes that appear in modern sources and a fictional near capture scene between the Ripper and Abberline appearing in exactly the same place in the narratives of both the dairy and a modern fictional source, and I'm not even mentioning the handwriting....
Anyway, ALL OF THESE AMAZING COINCIDENCES MUST HAVE ALL HAPPENED SIMULTANEOUSLY for the diary to be anything other than a modern forgery.
That is what Caroline is left with.
That is what she is now forced to argue here.
You can tell all the stories about people calling out things to each other that you want, but unless the truly amazing happened, unless the diarist just happened by pure coincidence to write down the exact uniquely spelled proper name of a pub that actually exists right there in the very same city without ever knowing of its existence, the diary CAN ONLY BE a modern forgery.
A series of simultaneous and amazing odds-beating coincidences?
Or simple, obvious common-sense explanations for each line?
Which would you rather use to defend your position?
In the name of the obvious,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on August 26, 2004)
(Message edited by omlor on August 26, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 836
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 9:41 am: | |
Hi John,
in relation to the first part of your post I couldn't agree more. Actually I managed to miss it the first time!
its sure a load of nonsense.
Anyway,
i am nearly as convinced as it is possible to be that Poste House means Poste House Cumberland Street,
it doesn't really matter what people call other pubs, unless they were called it in 1888 were they?
Jennifer
as a great philosopher once said
'((Never)
pretend that it's all real,'
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 471
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 10:26 am: | |
it doesn't really matter what people call other pubs, unless they were called it in 1888 were they?
And it matters even less if those other pubs weren't even pubs in 1888!
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 841
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 10:38 am: | |
true enough Chris true enough!
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 96
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 11:00 am: | |
BUT the landlord didn't call the Old Post Office the ' post house ' , he didn't ! Its all backwards.
I'll try and put my argument across as clearly as possible :
1) Landlord is asked ' where is the post house ? '
2) Landlord directs enquirer to the Old Post Office pub.
Thats all we can be sure of , but the following is most likely :
3) Landlord directed the enquirer to the O.P.O. because he heard the word 'post ' and assumed the enquirer wanted the Old Post Office pub. He didn't call the O.P.O. the ' post house ' or the ' Poste House ' or anything ! That was probably the first pub that came to mind ( otherwise he would have said the Cumberland Street pub ).
But as John points out , all this is spoken. In the Diary our forger writes clearly ' Poste House ' with a capital P and a capital H , a proper name. Ok , even if for some weird reason he spelled ' Poste ' wrong , it still means we are looking for a pub called the ' Post House ' - and there wasn't one at the time , as far as we know. And neither was there a ' Poste House '
BUT !
If the Diary is a modern forgery , then there would be a ' Poste House ' , a pub in Cumberland Street that is still there today. And the name is spelled with an ' E ' on the end , just like it is written in the Diary ! Isn't that an amazing coincidence ? |
Jim DiPalma
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 101
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 11:15 am: | |
Hi All,
With some fear and trepidation, I enter DiaryWorld(tm) to address Ian's question.
That type of syntax is very common in the American military, at least it was some years ago. I can recall a day spent helping the supply sergeant inventory a huge warehouse full of gear labelled, "shelter half, 1" or "bag, nylon, sleeping". After a few hours, we all started to speak like that, "we're done in hours, two, then we can go to the PX and get beer, cold, several." Anyway, FWIW.
To AAP:
I wouldn't be so hasty to accuse Caz of having a purely financial motive in all of this. I am personally acquainted with two other Ripper authors, and they both still have full-time day jobs. Writing a book about the Ripper doesn't seem to be the path to riches.
Back to the land of the reality,
Jim |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 685
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 11:20 am: | |
Simon,
Yes, the choice continues to be between a simple, logical explanation that makes perfect common-sense and is consistent with all the other evidence.
Or a blind faith in a truly amazing coincidence whereby the exact uniquely spelled name just happens to be reproduced by accident.
And by the way, one stunning coincidence might be amazing.
Two simultaneous stunning coincidences would be incredible.
Three simultaneous stunning coincidences would be simply unbelievable.
But five or more stunning simultaneous coincidences MUST ALL BE TRUE AT THE SAME TIME for this book to be anything other than a modern forgery.
That much is clear. No one can deny it.
That's not just amazing. That's silly.
At some point a valid inductive conclusion is clearly available, people.
--John
PS: Every single one of those simultaneous stunning coincidences is easily and sensibly explainable if the diarist was writing in modern times. In that case, there are no coincidences at all, just obvious explanations.
|
Brett
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 10:29 pm: | |
The Poste House, situated at 23 Cumberland Street - a narrow street between Dale Street and Victoria Street in Liverpool - was originally a private house belonging to one of the town's merchants. It was not known as the Poste House until the 20th century, and it was patronised by such diverse people as the Earl of Sefton, and Prince Louis Napoleon. It is also a pub of many mythological stories; Hitler drank there, so did Rasputin, and the Beatles, but all of these claims are fabrications. In recent years, the amateur forger of a so-called diary of the Whitechapel Murderer said James Maybrick sought refreshment there - but this slapdash hoaxer forgot to do his homework, and referred to the pub by its modern name. The diary itself reads like a Liverpudlian whose only knowledge of Victorian-speak is derived from watching the Hammer House of Horror films. |
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 12:13 pm: | |
Thanks Jim/John,
Re: the use of the language in the phrase "tin matchbox, empty" wasn't just a UKism but a USism also.
From what I later read in one of Jennifers posts I gather The Diary didn't even use the "tin machbox, empty" phrase as part of a list which makes it a bit of a "crib, obvious" to me at least.
Thanks,
ian -- keeping one eye open and the other one closed.
|
Robert J Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 12:41 pm: | |
John Omlor
On 26th August, you returned once again to a subject, which I understood you had agreed would be closed on these boards. I had even given you the last word, but like a punch-drunk boxer, you come back for more. You wrote:
“I remember when someone came here and suggested purely untrue things about me”.
Up to March of this year, you claimed in your Casebook Profile, that your “occupation” is the very impressive sounding “Professor of Literature and Philosophy”.
However, from all that you have written on the subject, it appears, in fact:
1. You are NOT a Professor of Philosophy?
2. You are NOT a Professor of Literature?
And please don’t say again, you teach philosophy. That was never in doubt. The question is: are you a Professor of Philosophy?
The answer can only be “yes” or “no”. You could always ask the Head of the Philosophy Department at the University of South Florida, if you are unsure how to answer.
Why on earth could you not tell a straight story and give your occupation as “Adjunct Professor of English”? Adjunct Professor may be an appointment with a much lower status and importance, but, for you, it has the all-important benefit of being true.
Perhaps you also remember that it was one John Omlor, who kicked off the “ugliness” last year by calling me a conman. Now, that was “untrue”, “vindictive”, and clearly was not intended to enhance my “professional reputation”.
|
Robert J Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 10:25 am: | |
It has been asserted on these boards that the historic James Maybrick could not have referred to a post house in 1888, because their function had become obsolete with the arrival of the railways around forty years earlier. Yet, I have just seen irrefutable evidence that post houses survived to at least 1890, in name, if not in function.
The evidence was a photograph taken in 1890 of the Angel Hotel in Ilford, now a London suburb. The Angel had served the coaching route from London to Bury St Edmunds in Suffolk, and had been the foremost post house in Ilford. A standard inn sign set apart from the building carries the name “Angel Hotel”. But displayed in clear large letters across the whole front of the building are the words: “Commercial Hotel and Posting House”. Posting house and post house were interchangeable phrases. I also noted that the initial letters, P and H, in Posting House, were, as in the Diary, in large capital letters. If the Angel in Ilford could proclaim itself so boldly as a post house in 1890, forty years after it had ceased to be a working post house, then James Maybrick could have been planning murder in a Liverpool post house in 1888.
Incidentally, many people on these boards are confused about the purpose of post houses. The phrase has nothing to do with posting letters or with post offices. They were inns that catered for post travel, i.e. the hiring of post-chaises, post horses, and post boys for the stages (or posts) of the journey occurring at intervals of between ten and fifteen miles along the road.
It is from the post houses, that “post haste” derives, meaning to travel quickly. It is therefore interesting that the diarist twice uses the phrase post haste (spelt “poste haste” in similar fashion to his incorrect spelling of “Poste House”). A quaint phrase today, but it was not, of course, in 1888, when travelling post haste was a reality in recent living memory.
Coming into the twentieth century, readers living in England will, I am sure, remember the Post Houses, which were hotels/restaurants, developed throughout the country by Lord Forte in the 1960s, I believe. By the 1980s, there were over 120 Post Houses, and each one was referred to simply as the Post House. For instance, there was one built around an old inn called the Bell in Epping, Essex. Again, displayed in large letters on the hotel were the words, “Post House”, not the Bell. It only ceased officially being called the Post House fifteen months ago.
It is simply a fact that a coaching inn/post house/posting house, and even a modern hotel, could still be called a post house, long after the golden age of coaching. So, why the obstinant and ill-founded denials, when anyone suggests that the diarist could be referring in the diary to an actual post house in Liverpool, rather than to the pub in Cumberland Street, which never was a post house and only recently acquired the name “The Poste House”.
It is unarguable social history that the popular old names survive for a very long time in oral tradition. Just look at the name Petticoat Lane. Out of modesty, it was officially renamed Middlesex Street in 1830, the name it retains to this day on all maps of London. Yet, its popular pre-1830 name, Petticoat Lane, not only survived in oral usage, but today is the name by which most people refer to the street.
If the name of Petticoat Lane can survive its name change to Middlesex Street for 174 years in the oral language, then the Poste House can certainly survive as the popular name for an inn, which had been a working post house only 40 years earlier.
James Maybrick, as a boy, would have experienced all the excitement of watching the daily coaches arriving in Dale Street, Liverpool from London and other cities and towns. And let us not forget, that although travel on trains largely took over from road travel for longer distances in the mid-nineteenth century, horse-drawn coaches and carriages were still the main form of travel for more local journeys for several more decades, and would have been very much in evidence on the streets of Liverpool in 1888.
There is every reason why the historic James Maybrick in 1888, could have sat with murder in mind, in a pub, which he referred to as “the Poste House”. It is frankly ludicrous to suggest, that because the railways had put paid to long-distance coach travel by 1850, that people stopped referring to post houses as post houses. That 1890 photograph of the Angel, Ilford, with “Commercial Hotel and Posting House” boldly displayed across its High Street frontage, prove that the words, post or posting house could still pack a powerful punch in 1890. And Charles Forte, the owner of two of the most famous hotels in the world, The Grosvenor House in London and the George V in Paris, was no less aware of the benefits of promoting a century later the strong associations of post houses with hospitality and good fellowship
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 726
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 8:25 pm: | |
Classic Robert.
I write a post defending Caroline from scurrilous charges from other people, and he decides to write an attack post against me in response. I'm not sure what's bigger, his ego or his obsession with me.
Robert, I wasn't talking to you. I appreciate that you are lovelorn, but at some point you really MUST find someone else and move on with your life. You can't have me.
And yes, I am a professor at a major university in the southeast who teaches BOTH literature and philosophy and I have graduate degrees in both and yes when my profile asked me what I did, that's what I said.
English departments, Robert, are where we teach literature here. And adjunct professor status is every bit as "important" to the functioning of my university as any other, especially as regards my role in the Honors College, where I am employed. If you had contacted my Dean and asked about the work I do there, you would have discovered this. I long ago declined the option of what you would call "higher" status on purpose, for simple reasons of my own.
The profile did not ask for my title, it asked for my "occupation." And it has long since been appropriately amended for the sake of clarity.
You can rail all you like against my old profile. Your attacks are childish and ridiculous and only serve to make you look like a rank amateur.
As do your pathetic attempts to come here and shamelessly pimp this fake document by offering your lame excuses solely to try and get around the simple fact that the diary actually names, exactly, precisely, complete with unique spelling and the same capitalization, an actual pub that exists right there in Liverpool. The "Poste House." Just like it says.
So either the diarist, just by a truly amazing and odds-defying coincidence, changed the spelling and the capitalization of the pub he really visited in the exact, precise way he would have had to in order to accurately but purely by chance and against all odds reproduce the unique name of a pub that's actually right there in Liverpool right now but that he could not have known anything about, or he was simply naming a pub he knew and the book is a modern forgery.
Those are the only two options. Either a completely unbelievable coincidence (one of a good number of simultaneous necessary coincidences), or a simple, direct, common sense explanation.
Keep trying, Robert. At least we KNOW why you do it.
All the best,
--John
PS: He brought this one on himself, you know. |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 405
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 12:42 am: | |
I say dispense with all reputations. I have no reputation and I like it that way; it frees me up to do whatever I want.
John's title doesn't matter. His points either make sense or they don't. I think John makes good sense.
But Robert Smith, if you're concerned with reputations. . .you ought to agent another book like Letters from Hell. Good job getting that one out there, and I thank you for it. I've found it very useful. I even bought it.
Dave
PS Anybody see Zell Miller say he wished he could challenge Chris Matthews to a duel last week? We should bring dueling back because once it's done, it's done; dueling at least had that much going for it. I'll be John's second if he wants, and Peter Wood can be Robert's. Peter and I can get drunk together after. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 946
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 3:41 am: | |
So,
The Poste House hey!!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 731
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 4:08 am: | |
Hi David,
Thanks. I agree completely. In a few hours I'll begin a day which will consist of teaching four classes, two of them on Flaubert's Madame Bovary and two of them on Plato's The Republic. In both of them, the students will try and call me Professor Omlor or Dr. Omlor for the first week or so, until I can get them to call me John (trying in vain to sound younger than I am). So if I am not a professor who teaches literature and philosophy, then I'm wasting an awful lot of time and someone is paying me way too much money.
It never occurred to me to give my official title in my little online profile, just my job description. Of course, I couldn't imagine the possibility that someone would one day see it as a point of attack.
And, in case anyone cares, the other titles around this place, like Assistant Professor and Associate Professor, etc. (one of which I used to hold at another institution), come complete with mandatory committee work and a required role in departmental politics -- things I have always hated. So, when I could, I jumped all over the Adjunct Professor position I now have, which has none of those duties. All I have to do is design my courses and teach. It doesn't pay as much, but I'm lucky. I don't need the money.
I'm not sure Robert would understand this. But I thought it was worth explaining to you.
Whatever anyone thinks of my choice of occupation or my title, I'm proud of both.
Now perhaps, we can return to our discussion of this forgery.
--John (up at this ungodly hour and ready to navigate around a flooded Fowler Avenue)
PS: If I ever fought a duel, it would no doubt go down just like the one in Woody Allen's Love and Death.
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 732
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 4:11 am: | |
Hi Jen,
Yup. It's still there. 
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 951
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 7:22 am: | |
Incidentally,
I am certainly not disputing the idea that the post house could refer to other post houses.
It could, it's that simple.
But I still think the most likely explanation is that the Poste House on Cumberland Street is the Poste House. However, I admit, I have absolutely no evidence for this at all other than assumption and conjecture,
Just thought it was best to get back on topic!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 735
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 7:48 am: | |
Hi Jenni,
You say you have "absolutely no evidence for this."
How about the simple fact that the two names are written in exactly the same unique way!
"Poste House" and "Poste House"
Or is that too obvious to mention?
Always delighted,
--John
PS: I made it through the waters.
(Message edited by omlor on September 08, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 953
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 8:00 am: | |
Well John,
you might think that evidence but Feldy says people spelt poste post depending on where they lived, so poste house could mean post house (could mean anywhere)
Glad to find that you are delighted,
Jenni
ps glad you made it ok!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 736
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 8:30 am: | |
Hi Jenni,
Putting aside what Feldy says (like Mike killed his brother, for instance), remember both the name in the diary and the name of the pub are not only spelled exactly the same but are written as proper names as well. And both are in Liverpool, too. And there's not another pub whose proper name is spelled and written that way in all of England, if I remember the results of Chris's search correctly.
So either the diarist was talking about a pub whose real name was spelled and written differently and he changed it just by pure chance and complete coincidence to accurately reproduce exactly the unique name of a pub he could not have known anything about right there in the very same city -- or -- you know.
Sometimes the most obvious evidence is also the most important.
Thanks,
--John
PS: Of course, there's always that space aliens argument (anything is technically possible), but the more times we need to invoke it, the more obvious the truth becomes. |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 894
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 9:08 am: | |
Hi, all
In the matter of titles, in the military, a lieutenant colonel or a brevet colonel (an officer awarded a colonelcy on the field of battle but not yet officially a colonel) is referred to as Colonel So and So. Just like a post house that is not officially known by the name "Post House" can still be a "post house" in popular parlance. Just trying to see all sides of the issues here, folks. 
All the best
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 955
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 9:30 am: | |
John,
I already told you I think the poste house means the poste house!
Jenni
ps all it needs is one slip up - ie tin match box empty is enough for me!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 737
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 9:50 am: | |
Hi all,
Thanks for the smile, Chris.
Thanks for the reminder Jenni. I hadn't really forgotten.
"Poste House" -- just like that. It's really there. And in Liverpool, no less. Amazing, isn't it?
Happy to be dry and back at work,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 956
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 9:56 am: | |
Glad to hear to John,
It's truly amazing!
Happy to be of help!!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 131
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 10:28 am: | |
If Hitler and Rasputin supposedly drank at the ' Poste House ' then maybe thats why our Diarist wanted Jack the Ripper to drink there too ! Just a thought !
Yeah yeah , the Poste House/Post House thing. Happily Robert now disproves the theory for us that the Old Post Office Pub could ever have been called a post house , because it wasn't one and post offices would not have been called post houses - thanks Robert ! No-one has managed to find the pub in 1888 anyway.
So that leaves the Angel in Liverpool , which might have been called a Posting House.
But as John has shown , people don't define themselves by their title - they define themselves in relation to what they are. And they would naturally do the same thing in relation to the hostelry they drink in too : if Maybrick had written the Diary and he had sat in the Angel , he would have said ' the pub ' , ' the bar ' or ' the Angel ' not the ' posting house '.
As another example , I don't say ' I went to the dispensing chemist and pharmacist ' , I say ' I went to Boots ' or such like ( NB Boots is the name of the most famous drugstore chain in Britain , named after Jesse Boot ). Why should Maybrick be any different ?
So for the ' Post House ' to be referring to anything other than the Cumberland St pub , these objections must be faced :
1) It wasn't the name of the pub.
2) It wasn't the correct spelling of ' post house '.
3) There is no contemporary evidence that suggests that any pub in Liverpool ( not London , Robert ! ) was called the ' poste house ' or ' post house ' in 1888.
4) Theres no evidence that suggests Maybrick himself ever drank in any of the pubs that might have been called ' poste house ' or ' post house ' apart from the Diary.
If you accept that the Diary is a modern forgery however , then all those problems are suddenly cleared up ! Funny that isn't it ? |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 958
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 10:43 am: | |
Simon,
I think the diary is a forgery, as i explained already.
I think the poste house by some bizarre coincidence means the poste house on cumberland street, as i've already explained.
I think it is possible (but thats all)
that the diary could theoretically be refering to another different post house.
Even if there are alternative post houses the diary can still be a forgery as long as the diarist is refering to the cumberland street pub (as i've said before)
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 132
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 11:39 am: | |
Jenni , the Cumberland Street pub was only called the ' Poste House ' from the 1960s onwards. So if Maybrick wrote the Diary and he sat in the ' Poste House ' in Cumberland Street then :
a) He wrote the Diary from beyond the grave 100 years after he passed away. ( ' O costly intercourse of death ! ' )
OR
b) He had amazing psychic powers in 1888 which allowed him to forsee what the name of the pub was going to be in 100 years time.
Nah , Maybrick didn't write it.
And don't let anyone convince you otherwise that there were any pubs called ' poste house ' in the 1880s in Liverpool , because no-one who supports the Diary has yet shown any good evidence that this is the case. No-one has shown that there was a pub called ' post house ' or poste house ' in Liverpool in 1888 - there is no contemporary oral tradition , no trade directory reference , no newspaper clipping , no photograph , no signboard , no NOTHING.
And without such evidence , why should we believe the Diary is genuine ?
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1227
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 1:51 pm: | |
Hi Simon,
You wrote:
‘Happily Robert now disproves the theory for us that the Old Post Office Pub could ever have been called a post house , because it wasn't one and post offices would not have been called post houses - thanks Robert ! No-one has managed to find the pub in 1888 anyway.’
Eh? How exactly did Robert prove to you that The Old Post Office pub could never have been called a post house? It was established as a place of alcoholic refreshment circa 1800. And while it was indeed once a coaching inn – ie a post house – and these days is just a pub (or still was in 1997), it has never been a ‘post office’. It has been pointed out at least twice on this thread already, that the former post house took its name ‘The Old Post Office’ from an actual post office that had formerly occupied an adjacent site.
So it is more than plausible that Rigby’s landlord knew his local history when he told his enquirer about ‘The Old Post Office’ pub in School Lane, and gave directions to it, on being asked for “the post house”. The old post office itself was long gone from School Lane in 1997, as far as I can gather – only the former coaching inn/post house named after it remained.
I am planning another visit to Liverpool soon, with hubby this time. So I’ll gladly double check previous research - hic.  Any excuse to frequent a pub or three while we’re there.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 739
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 2:00 pm: | |
And we're back to tales of speaking and calling out when we're supposed to be discussing a written text.
Why?
Because the written text is too inconvenient. Because the written text contains a completely remarkable coincidence that defies all odds (or is simply ahistorical).
So don't talk about the staggering and unbelievable coincidence that would be necessary for this text to name exactly this pub in this city with the same unique spelling and capitalization.
No, instead tell tales of spoken exchanges and hope that no one notices we're no longer reading.
Sad, but common.
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 960
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 2:21 pm: | |
Simon,
where did i say i thought the diary was genuine?
You misunderstand me, i know the poste house wasn't there in 1888 - but i think the diarist probably meant it - the reason i think that is based partly on the fact i think the diary is a modern forgery and partly on the narrative.
All i said is that it was theoretically possible,
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 481
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 2:39 pm: | |
Caroline Anne Morris wrote:
It was established as a place of alcoholic refreshment circa 1800. And while it was indeed once a coaching inn – ie a post house – and these days is just a pub (or still was in 1997), it has never been a ‘post office’.
What is the evidence for these assertions?
Her original assertion was that the "Old Post Office" dated from about 1840.
I have pointed out that there is no entry for this address in directories from the late 1850s.
I have asked Mrs Morris repeatedly whether she has any evidence that the "Old Post Office" was even a pub in 1888, and she has always declined to answer.
Yet now she claims even more - that it was "a place of alcoholic refreshment" from "circa 1800", and that it was "once a coaching inn".
It is clear that discussions like these are absolutely pointless unless people are willing to provide evidence for such claims.
Chris Phillips
|
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 136
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 5:21 pm: | |
Re : my comments on the Old Post Office pub.
I may have been in Diary world too long. I think I might take a little break at this point.
     
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 740
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 5:59 pm: | |
Simon,
Have a little "medicine."  
You'll feel better in the morning. 
-John |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 137
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 11:10 am: | |
For some reason , I got it into my head that the Old Post Office had been turned into a pub , goodness only knows why !
Well , its not been confirmed that it was a pub pre-1840 or even a coach house at least ! |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 745
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 11:34 am: | |
Hi Simon,
And, of course, we do know where the "Poste House" is, don't we? You know, the one with the exact same uniquely spelled name as the pub in the diary, in the exact same city as the one in the diary.
We know where that one is.
And we know why some are so desperate not to believe that when someone writes the Poste House they mean the Poste House, when someone writes the exact, uniquely spelled name of a pub right there in Liverpool, they actually mean the exact uniquely spelled name of a pub right there in Liverpool. No, clearly that would be too easy. No, clearly that would be too obvious. No, clearly that would require too much simple common sense.
Instead, they deliberately try to design more elaborate, more fanciful, more desperate excuses in order to make the words on the page mean something other than what they say.
But Shirley revealed for us the natural and logical assumption, didn't she? The words and even the photo are there in my book.
So why, when it is revealed that this tells us that the book was written in modern times, do the radically diverse and desperately complicated alternative explanations suddenly start popping up to take the place of the obvious, common sense one produced by reading the words and looking at the name as it exists?
Why, indeed.
Surely, it can only be desire.
And reading driven by desire to make the words mean something other than what they say, especially in the case of proper nouns, is truly the last gasp of the desperate.
It will continue here. Of that, at least, I am certain.
Watchin' Diary World spin,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on September 09, 2004) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1233
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 6:25 am: | |
Hi Chris,
You may have missed it, but I also wrote:
I am planning another visit to Liverpool soon, with hubby this time. So I’ll gladly double check previous research...
I'm not sure how John O thinks the original enquirer is meant to have 'designed' this elaborate excuse of the future, back in 1997, by happening upon the landlord of a former coaching inn - now Rigby's in Dale Street - who just happened to know of another former coaching inn in School Lane, which he assumed his enquirer was referring to as the 'post house' when seeking directions.
I am told this drinking place bears an 'established circa 1800' inscription on its walls, but I mean to check this out for myself and to discover whether it really was a post house, what it was officially named and when, and also whether it could have been called 'the post house' by its regulars in 1888.
The fact that this pub happens to bear the name 'The Old Post Office', after the old post office that used to occupy an adjacent site (and yes, I will try to find out how long it has had this name and when the old post office moved) may only be relevant in that the association with 'post' could well have kept a colloquialism like 'post house' going ever since. Had the pub instead been named 'The School House', for instance, things would no doubt have been different.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 482
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 7:23 am: | |
Caroline Morris wrote (8 September)
It was established as a place of alcoholic refreshment circa 1800. And while it was indeed once a coaching inn – ie a post house ...
Caroline Morris wrote (today)
I am told this drinking place bears an 'established circa 1800' inscription on its walls, but I mean to check this out for myself and to discover whether it really was a post house ...
It seems the only definite fact we know is that it doesn't appear in directories in the late 1850s, under its present name or any other.
If you are going to Liverpool, my advice would be to spend an hour or so in the Record Office, where they have a comprehensive collection of trade directories:
http://archive.liverpool.gov.uk/leaflets/streetdirectories.html
That will give you more reliable information than the beliefs of the current landlord or even an inscription in the pub that says when it was established.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 753
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 8:12 am: | |
Caroline offers still more talk about talking, but not a word about what's actually written in the diary -- the "Poste House" -- or about the exact same uniquely written name of a real pub we know is right there in Liverpool -- the "Poste House" -- or the incredible and odds-defying coincidence that would have had to happen for a 19th century writer to change the spelling and capitalization of a name of a pub in exactly the single and unique way to just by pure chance reproduce the one that's right there in the same city now and nowhere else in all of England.
Amazing the muteness that desperation and denial produce.
One amazing and staggeringly odds-defying coincidence piled upon another and upon another and upon another for the book to be anything other than a modern forgery. None necessary for it to be a modern forgery. And so instead, all she can talk about is a verbal exchange that has nothing to do with the words in the book and how they are written.
But then why read, when you can dream?
Loving the self-imposed blindness,
--John (who asks only that readers remember the actual words as they appear on the page)
(Message edited by omlor on September 10, 2004) |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 144
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 9:16 am: | |
Diary World is certainly starting to make me spin John !
Lets hope Caz is able to do some research for us and find there was no pub called post(e) house or anything like that in 1888.
My contention is that the Diarist spells the word poste in ' poste haste ' wrong , because they have already spelled poste with an ' e ' earlier on in the phrase ' Poste House '. The word ' post ' is surely one that would not be spelled incorrectly by anyone with a basic education is it ? So if you like then , its a pun or allusion to the name ' Poste House '.
So what I'm saying is that the Diarist did not make an unwitting error in spelling ' Post House ' with an ' e ': they meant to spell the word that way because the pub they were thinking of was ' the Poste House ' in Cumberland Street - thus spelling ' poste haste ' in that way was just a little joke therefore , a reference to the pub name.
Any reference to a ' post house ' or ' posting house ' would be spelled without an 'e' because there is no reason to spell post with an 'e' - unless you are referring to a pub where the word ' Poste ' is spelled with an ' e' !
Phew ! What I mean is its a modern forgery , pure and simple !
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 756
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 9:57 am: | |
Hi Simon,
I understand. But your head needn't spin at all.
As you mention, there's a pub. Right there. Called the Poste House. Just like in the diary. With an e. And in caps. And the diarist could have simply wanted their hero drinking in a pub while he came to the decision to kill women (conveniently, right on the very first page of the story -- despite the fake appearance of being in the middle of things, the first page gives us all we need, including the major player introductions, the set-up of the conflict, and the decision that starts the plot -- amazing coincidence, huh? almost as if someone was writing a story from the start) and so they named one of the local ones.
D'oh! It wasn't called that in 1888.
Stupid diarist. Next thing you know they're liable to use a line from a document the real James couldn't have seen or get the details of the murders wrong or even write the book in a handwriting that looks nothing at all like the real James Maybrick's handwriting.
D'oh! D'oh! D'oh!
Honestly, if he weren't a fictional character, I'd swear Homer Simpson wrote this book.
If the Poste House means the Poste House (and there is no reason whatsoever to think it does not), then the diary can only be a modern forgery.
"Pure and simple" indeed, like the original reading Shirley naturally offered us.
Thanks,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 980
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 9:59 am: | |
Simon,
Feldy thinks people spelt poste with an e in some parts of the country
Jenni
ps please dont kill me for mentioning something feldy says will you John?
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 981
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 10:01 am: | |
John,
the poste house cannot only mean the poste house
Jenni
ps now im just asking for trouble, right?
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 899
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 10:05 am: | |
Hi, all
I might be wrong about this, but I don't think the Old Post Office pub in School Lane was ever a "post house" if by that we mean a coaching inn. Dale Street was where the coaching inn was, specifically the "Golden Fleece" from whence the coaches to London would travel in a direct route eastward out Dale Street to London Road and onward to the metropolis of London.
Serendipitously and of just the right year for us, there is a history of Liverpool on the net available as a PDF file written in 1889 that mentions the Dale Street pubs--
"Old Liverpool" by Richard Postance, MA (see p. 4)
On p. 6, Postance mentions that the Post Office was in 1889 to be found at the Custom House in Canning Place, "having been removed from 'Post-office Place', Church Street."
There are numerous examples around Britain of old inns that were located on coach roads and were therefore regularly referred to as post houses, e.g., The Crown at Mobberley, where it is stated, "The location, on the old Leek to Uttoxeter coach road, means that the pub was a coaching inn and post house during the 18th century."
By contrast, the Old Post Office pub in Liverpool was not on a coaching road so could not have been a "post house" per se. The mail coming into the Liverpool post office when it still was located in School Lane by the old Bluecoat School would have gone directly to the post office not to the pub, if they existed side by side, which sounds uncertain -- rather it sounds as if the pub was established in the building where the post office had been if what has been stated here previously is correct.
I am not excluding the possibility that the Rigby's publican in Dale Street might have been correct when he stated that locally the Old Post Office pub is referred to (erroneously) as a "post house." But I can say that as a Liverpudlian and sometime pub crawler in my home city, I don't recall the pub being referred to that way. However, as you might expect, I did know of the Poste House in Cumberland Street of our day before the Maybrick diary surfaced to public attention in 1993.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 982
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 10:12 am: | |
But Chris,
hang on a minute the Golden Fleece was a post house? there is alternative post house?
I am understanding you correctly, to clarfy the golden fleece was a post house??
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 900
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 10:34 am: | |
Hi, Jenn
Yes although Robert Smith named the Angel in Dale Street as the coaching inn, this 1889 author describes the Golden Fleece as being the inn from where the coaches departed from Liverpool. I am not sure which statement is correct. For all I know, the Angel and the Golden Fleece could have been the same establishment under different names or else one of them superceded the other in the capacity as post house or coaching inn. Alternatively, maybe both served in the capacity simultaneously, though you would think a single in at any location would be designated the official "post house."
Are you confused? I know I am. 
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 145
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 10:45 am: | |
Chris , the Liverpool Post Office was still at Canning Place in 1889 where it had been for 50 years. In 1894 the Post Office in Whitechapel was built and it was moved to there , this building is still standing in a derelict condition and is to be converted into a shopping centre.
Simon |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 483
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 10:45 am: | |
Chris G
I am not excluding the possibility that the Rigby's publican in Dale Street might have been correct when he stated that locally the Old Post Office pub is referred to (erroneously) as a "post house."
If I've understood the various accounts of what this man said (which we've been given at third hand), it hasn't actually been claimed that he stated the OPO was referred to as either a or the "post house".
The claim seems to be that when the mysterious unnamed "enquirer" asked for the "Post House", he or she was merely given directions that took him or her to the Old Post Office, not to the Poste House.
But given the way in which this incident has been referred to on these boards, I'm not surprised if people have got the impression the publican made such a statement, rather than just giving directions that could easily have been the result of a misunderstanding.
Chris Phillips
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 901
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 10:49 am: | |
Hi, Jenn
In fact it looks as if there were a number of coaching inns simultaneously in operation in Dale Street during the opening decades of the nineteenth century.
Go to
Portcities Liverpool and scroll down.
Darn it, no wonder Jim wrote in the diary, "I think I'll go take refreshment at my favorite Poste House but I am not sure which one I will pick today."  [That's a joke of course for anyone who does not know, the diarist does not state that. I don't want to mislead anyone.]
Nonetheless what I am saying stands as far as I believe that the Old Post Office pub in School Lane has never been a post house or coaching inn, though these other inns in Dale Street apparently all were coaching inns even if not all of them handled mail.
All the best
Chris
(Message edited by chrisg on September 10, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
