|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 779
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 11:59 am: |       |
John,
I guess so,
Jen
ps my post is too short!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1205
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 7:52 am: | |
Hi All,
John repeated his opinion that:
‘The real James was certainly not citing this line from Crashaw.’
Great – but what I actually asked him for was an assurance that there was no chance of ‘the two worlds of Crashaw and the Maybricks ever colliding outside the pages of the diary’.
Looking forward to getting one.
He also claimed that:
‘…Caroline herself knows the real James did not write this book, despite her public behavior…’
In case anyone is misled by his choice of words here, I also look forward to him assuring his readers that I have written nothing to him in private either, about knowing who did not (or who did) write the diary.
And why does he feel compelled to make things up, if his self-proclaimed expertise carries enough weight to squash what I actually wrote? I did not claim Crashaw’s Whitechapel connection means something; it may, or it may not. John is trying his damnedest to convince his readers that it is a meaningless coincidence. And I was just wondering aloud how much harder he will be trying if he has to convince them that a Crashaw/Maybrick link and the Crashaw/Whitechapel link are both just meaningless coincidences.
Then he does it again, with:
‘And, you knew it had to happen, she also suggests that the woman RJ cites as testifying that Mike gave the book to her son in 1994 might be lying for some reason.
She reads the direct testimony, not of Mike, but of someone else, and still says "I have no idea."’
He was so sure about knowing ‘it had to happen’, that he simply made it happen – he ‘saw’ it there in my words even though I wrote nothing of the sort.
I actually wrote:
‘Unfortunately, although Mike’s friend confirmed (to Shirley Harrison) that he had brought some books round for her son, no one established at the time…what their titles were…’
That’s all: no suggestion of Mike’s friend telling lies; and no direct testimony from her either, that one of the books was a Sphere volume 2. But John ‘knew’ it had to happen, so he had to pretend it did happen.
Hi Chris P,
I don’t have to imagine Barrett researching in a library containing only one book. Your argument is patently absurd because we know which library he claimed to be looking in, and we also know it contained three books containing the quotation he claimed to be looking for.
Hi Simon,
You wrote:
‘Caz , its pretty obvious who forged the Diary if you think about it , as well as who wrote it. Do I really need to spell it out ?’
You don’t need to spell out anything. But it might help your credibility as a modern hoax conspiracy theorist (though not as a royal conspiracy theorist) if you did – or maybe not.
‘Richard Crashaw is a poet who would only be known to academics at a university in the 1880s…’
Hmmm, you’re sure about that, are you?
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 794
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 9:41 am: | |
Hi Caz,
Lots of people have vague connections to Whitechapel. Does that mean that James Maybrick was Jack The Ripper - of this I am not so sure!
Jen
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 656
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 12:12 pm: | |
Caroline tells us that she "did not claim Crashaw’s Whitechapel connection means something." Of course, in a normal discussion, one would wonder why someone would deliberately point out something that was meaningless. But not here. I apologize. I understand completely.
She mentions some other Crashaw/Maybrick link (remember my predictions, people, I've seen this technique before), but she actually doesn't offer any yet, so this is all just so much dancing at the moment; no doubt to disguise the fact that there is still no evidence anywhere of any sort that the real James wrote this line in this diary.
Why am I still not ever surprised?
She also manages to completely ignore my latest post, from Friday, August 20, 2004 - 8:15 am, because it obviously raises a question she still deliberately refuses to answer in a simple, clear,direct,and honest manner.
Evasion and refusal and desperation, always the marks of thorough and honest scholarship.
And since we're talking about Crashaw and books, here's a question I raised elsewhere.
How many books in the whole history of publishing since the 17th Century have that one line from that one poem by that one poet isolated and excerpted in the middle of them?
I'll bet the number is very, very small.
It is certainly possible that there have been only two.
And Mike Barrett owned BOTH of them.
Think about that for a moment.
In any case, as I've said, I'm sure we'll soon be hearing more about oblique connections between between Crashaw and Whitechapel or between the Maybrick family history and Whitechapel or between the Maybrick family history and Catholic poetry or between relatives of Crashaw and Liverpool or between relatives of Maybrick and relatives of Crashaw or between the Maybrick family and the world of poetry or between in some general way one world and the other. And these too will be paraded here in a desperate attempt to link this man directly to this line from this poem by this poet.
But they will still not do that last thing, of course.
Because the real James did not write this book, as Caroline knows, despite what she might say or not say here.
So, as we await their inevitable and no doubt powerful appearance, remember the FACTS that we do know.
1. The diary had five words, with no context and no identification, placed in the middle of it.
2. Only one person could provide us with the source of those five words -- Mike Barrett.
3. He was unable to offer a rational explanation concerning how he knew where they were from.
4. He was the same guy who brought the diary forward in the first place.
5. He later showed everyone the same lines, conveniently excerpted in a volume not of poetry but of prose in an essay not on Crashaw but on Herbert.
And don't let the appearance here of tangential or marginal relationships offered strictly as products of desire distract you from what we know for sure.
Looking forward to the spectacular revelations,
--John
|
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 84
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 12:52 pm: | |
Caz says " ‘Richard Crashaw is a poet who would only be known to academics at a university in the 1880s…’
Hmmm, you’re sure about that, are you? "
Okay , maybe not exactly that then , but I think Crashaw's work would only be known to scholars and to those involved with Catholic religious groups : the point is the same. The probability of Maybrick having read Sancta Maria Dolorum is almost zero , surely ?
If we asked how many people on the Casebook had a book of Crashaw's poems in their home - and for reasons NOT to do with the Diary obviously - how many would say that they had ? Hardly anyone I should think. |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 658
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 3:03 pm: | |
Hi Simon,
Here's an even harder question. And one that's more immediately relevant.
How many people out there have a book that has this particular line from this particular poem by this particular poet isolated and excerpted separately in the middle of it?
Other than the Diary and Sphere Guide, of course.
No one, I bet.
In fact, there might very well only be two such books in the whole history of publishing. I only know of two and I've never seen anyone else come up with another one. Has anyone else? Ever?
How many do you suppose there are?
I know of only two books in the whole history of the written word that select and cite this specific line from this specific poem by this specific poet in the middle of them.
And Mike Barrett owned them both!
Think about that.
Think about the odds.
Think about what it suggests.
Just think.
--John
PS: Remember, too, that this very same Mike Barrett was the only person who could identify the origin, from the entire history of literature, of this unidentified line.
PPS: And the real James did not have either of these two books. Not at any point. I can guarantee that one for sure.
(Message edited by omlor on August 23, 2004) |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 466
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 5:05 am: | |
Caroline Morris
... we know which library he claimed to be looking in, and we also know it contained three books containing the quotation he claimed to be looking for.
Which "three books" do you mean? Do you mean three copies of the same book?
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1217
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 6:37 am: | |
Hi Chris,
You know I do - unless you haven't absorbed very much at all about this whole library business.
I will repeat the basics for you because I am in a very good mood today. 
For the purpose of assessing the odds against Mike finding the quotation by chance (ie if he didn't know its source beforehand), certain factors still have to be taken into consideration.
For example, a clueless Mike would very likely have begun his search in the main Liverpool Library. He would also very likely have begun by looking through books on the subject of pre-20th century English poetry. Remember that a clueless Mike would not have known whether any of the books he chose to look through would yield the diary quotation.
But we do know that three copies of the Sphere vol.2 were sitting there on the shelves for him, whether he knew it beforehand or not. And they all had the same words printed clearly on their spines:
English Poetry & Prose, 1540-1674
Now, what was all that nonsense about the odds of finding the quotation if the library had had only one book - or no books at all? How is that even remotely relevant to a realistic assessment of the odds of Mike finding it in a place where it could actually be found - not once, but three times?
Or were those books put there for decoration, and not for reference purposes at all?
Hmmmm?
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 850
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 7:17 am: | |
So did he start with volume one, because i would guess volume three would be where i would start but this probably isn't making sense so
Cheers
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 473
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 7:32 am: | |
Caroline Morris
I've already explained how the odds were calculated - sorry, but I don't have time to go over it all again.
How many copies of the same book the library held is irrelevant - unless you think that Barrett, having read one copy, would go on to read another, just to make sure!
What you're predictably missing is that you should be considering the wild improbability that this phrase would have been anthologised at all, and then the improbability of the anthology being in Liverpool Library. Then you can go on to consider the small part of the problem you've been thinking about - the likelihood of Barrett finding it given that we know it's in the library.
But I suspect conditional probability may be too confusing to you. Or rather, it will offer you too many oportunities for evasion.
Thankfully, common sense has already demonstrated to most of us how wildly improbable it would be for Barrett to find the quotation by chance.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on August 27, 2004) |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 99
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 7:37 am: | |
I have to concede Caz has a point here 
If the Sphere books were in the library , and if Mike was the diligent researcher he claimed to be , and if he didn't forge the Diary he could have eventually found the quote. Presuming he worked chronologically , after rejecting medieval poetry the next stop would be the 16th century poets and the Metaphysical Poets. Without time to search through every poetry volume for the quote , critical books like the Sphere books would be his first port of call.
In this case the ' miracle ' would have been the authors of the Sphere book mentioning the quote , rather than Mike finding it.
If Mike had copies of the Sphere book in his attic however , surely thats the most likely place he found the quote ! |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 688
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 7:40 am: | |
Ah, the belief of the faithful in miracles...
It's a touching and moving thing that can easily bring a tear to one's eye.
If only you weren't laughing so hard. 
Five words.
Completely unidentified.
From the whole history of writing.
And ace researcher Mike Barrett walks into the library and FINDS THEM.
And not in the poem from which they were taken and not from work on the poet who wrote them, no.
But from perhaps the only other book in the ENTIRE history of publishing other than the diary that also has those same five words separated and cited in the middle of it -- and in the middle of an essay (not a poem) on Herbert(not Crashaw)!
This is what we are asked to believe?!
This impossible miracle of coincidental research is our only hope for explaining how Mike knew the source of the quote -- and it's told to us by who?
Mike Barrett, the very same guy Caroline tells us over and over and over again we shouldn't believe.
Do I have to go back to the "Who?" thread to recite what she wrote to people there about believing Mike's words about Anne and Tony and company?
Do I have to run a search to find all the times she has told us all not to take anything Mike says seriously?
But this, his MOST INCREDIBLE STORY OF ALL, this, the one story that has no possible rational explanation behind it and no real way of being true -- this is the one she still chooses to pimp around here as possible?
Why?
Because of course she cannot otherwise explain how Mike knew the quote could found cited in both the Diary and the Sphere Guide (and quite possibly no other book in all of human history).
I ask you again people, after being told that in order for the diary to be anything other than a modern forgery, we MUST believe that the exact naming of the Poste House is just a bizarre coincidence and the appearance of the "tin matchbox line" is just a bizarre coincidence and the same mistakes about the murders being in both the diary and modern sources is just a bizarre coincidence, and the diary being in wrong handwriting is just some inexplicable coincidence and all the rest, we are here and now being told that the fact that Mike Barrett owned what could well be the ONLY two books on the planet to have this very same Crashaw line excerpted and cited in them is also only just a truly bizarre coincidence and he really learned the source of the lines from the library-miracle fairy.
That's right, on this one issue, Caroline's only hope is that Mike was telling the truth. Ha ha, indeed.
Mike, my dear friends, was lying.
The miracle NEVER happened (and she knows that, of course).
And what we DO know for sure is that Mike Barrett somehow owned the only two books I have ever heard of in all of human history to contain this particular line excerpted and cited in them -- the diary and the Sphere Guide.
Now then, which book do YOU think came first?
Once again facing the incredibly obvious,
--John
PS: Any sentence that begins with the words "A clueless Mike would have..." is instantly doomed to failure. Caroline has NO IDEA what a clueless Mike would have done; and knowing Mike, even if she thinks she could imagine one, based on god-knows what, she'd probably be wrong in the end.
|
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 100
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 7:44 am: | |
Well Chris , it is the case that the quote was anthologised and the book was in Liverpool library.
But - the chance of it appearing in a genuine or old Diary is surely very very small , given the obscurity of our poet Mr Crashaw.
Surely the most likely scenario is that a modern forger of the Diary stole the quote from the Sphere book , whether it was in Liverpool library or in Mike's attic ? |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 101
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 7:49 am: | |
Hey , I just got promoted , I'm a Detective now ! No more uniform for me !
 |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1218
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 7:49 am: | |
‘Evasion and refusal and desperation, always the marks of thorough and honest scholarship.’
John evidently missed the irony here, assuming this was an attempt at sarcasm in an earlier post and not what he actually believes - it gave me fits.
Who is claiming to be the scholar around here?
And whose idea of thorough and honest scholarship includes artfully avoiding giving me a simple assurance that the two worlds of Crashaw and the Maybricks would not have collided outside the pages of the diary?
Whose idea of thorough and honest scholarship includes refusing to admit that they have no idea what Caz does or doesn’t know about the diary’s origins?
Whose idea of thorough and honest scholarship includes desperately imagining I have written one thing when I have written something else entirely, and then pretending not to notice when this is pointed out?
Whose idea of thorough and honest scholarship includes the failure to acknowledge that I didn’t suggest Mike’s friend ‘might be lying’, but simply observed that she never confirmed seeing a Sphere vol.2?
Love,
Caz
X
PS Thanks, Simon. I thought I was the only one to see how a clueless Mike could have found a quotation that was actually there, in three real books, on real library shelves.
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 689
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 8:53 am: | |
Simon,
We posted at the same time
Ask yourself this, if I gave you five completely unidentified words without any context at all (except that they turn up in a supposedly Victorian diary), how exactly would you take those five words, all by themselves, and "working chronologically" even get through Medieval literature, let alone all the way to Crashaw?
And why would you start there anyway, since the book is supposed to be Victorian?
And what are the chances that you would find those very same five words, not in their original source, and out of the whole history of the written word, by pulling a book off the shelf not of poetry but of prose and not on Crashaw and see the same five words excerpted and cited there just as they are excerpted and cited in the diary.
It would indeed be a MIRACLE!
Of course, it never happened, as we all know.
And Mike lied (which would surprise no one, except...nah, it's too easy).
The same single line from the same obscure poem by the same poet appears separated and cited in only two books I know of and Mike Barrett owned both of them.
Mike was the only person able to give us the source of the line.
Mike could not come up with a rational explanation of how he knew it, apart from a miracle.
And Mike owned perhaps the only two books in all of written history that had that very line excerpted and cited in the middle of them.
What are the odds against all of this adding up to anything other than the diary being a modern forgery?
Surely this is obvious and makes perfect common sense to even the most sceptical and the most inclined to believe in MIke's super-hero like research powers.
But of course, no one here does believe in those, including Caroline.
And you will all no doubt have noticed that in her last post to me she not only STILL refuses to answer the simple, straightforward question that was the subject of my earlier post, she not only still evades it and desperately does anything except offer a clear and honest and direct answer, but she tries once again to talk about anything else as a way of changing the subject back to more comfortable (and pointless) issues.
Life as usual here in Diary World, where the circles keep spinning but the facts don't change and there is still nothing new and nothing real.
And the list of truly amazing and unbelievable coincidences necessary for the diary to be anything other than a modern forgery remains, as a monument to common sense and to the truth.
Not surprised at all,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 857
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 9:00 am: | |
Hi,
yes - Mike could have found the quote independently from the whole of english literature.
the forger could have got it from there too (if there was one) and without sounding like John, James Maybrick could not!
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 474
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 9:09 am: | |
Simon
Well Chris , it is the case that the quote was anthologised and the book was in Liverpool library.
We're getting into metaphysics here. It's like saying that just because you threw a 6, the probability of throwing a 6 was 100%, and the probability of throwing any other number was 0%.
If the diary is genuine, you have to picture Maybrick writing it before the phrase was anthologised (itself a highly improbable event, judging by what John has told us), then you have to multiply together these probabilities:
(1) that the phrase would be anthologised
(2) that given it was anthologised, there would be a copy of the anthology in Liverpool Library
(3) that given there was a copy of the anthology in Liverpool Library, Barrett would find it.
And when you've done that, you come back to essentially the argument I already went through about the number of books that contain the phrase, versus the number of books that Barrett could have looked at.
But discussing the details is a waste of time unless anyone here actually finds it believable that Barrett could have found the quotation by chance. No one does - or at least, no one is willing to say so.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 858
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 9:39 am: | |
Chris,
but the book was in Liverpool library?!
the probability of it being there was low but it was there, it was certainly there!!
Jen
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 692
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 10:01 am: | |
Just a point of clarification.
The Sphere Guide is not an anthology of poetry and the Crashaw poem is not in it.
The Sphere Guide is a collection of essays.
In it is one not on Crashaw but on a different poem.
In the middle of that essay, for comparison purposes, some words from one of Crashaw's poems just happen to be cited.
All by themselves, without the rest of the poem, without anything else by the poet.
GUESS WHICH WORDS?
That's right.
As far as I can tell, there are only two books in the entire history of the written word that have this line from this poem by this poet excerpted and cited in the middle of pages of prose.
Those two books?
The Sphere Guide and the diary.
We know who wrote one of them
The same guy eventually owned BOTH of them -- yes, he owned what may well be the only two books in all of history to have these words separated as citations in them.
The first book appeared in the 1970s.
The second one appeared in the 1990s.
The same guy owned both.
We don't know who wrote the second one.
How much of a genius do you have to be?
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 861
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 10:09 am: | |
John,
thats a good point who would look for a line of poetry in a book of essays, thanks for reminding me i had forgotten!
Jenni
ps this line isn't in any other anthologies/ collections of essays for comparison purposes by any chance?
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 475
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 10:12 am: | |
Jennifer
but the book was in Liverpool library?!
the probability of it being there was low but it was there, it was certainly there!!
I'm not disputing that the book was in Liverpool Library - I'm saying the probability of the phrase being in the book and the book being in the library and Barrett finding the book was extremely low.
Surely common sense tells people that, even if they find the statistical argument confusing!
Chris Phillips
PS Most weeks somebody in the UK wins the lottery. But just because Mr X has won it on Saturday, it doesn't mean he can say on Monday, "I know you say winning the lottery is extremely unlikely, but look - I did win it! So it isn't unlikely at all".
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 864
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 10:32 am: | |
Chris,
i'm sorry you confused me for a moment there but now i see where you are coming from.
Yes I agree wholeheartedly it was extremely low.
What's even more astounding is there was a copy in Mike's house he had forgotten about and that James Maybrick would have written it down!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 104
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 11:21 am: | |
The problem is John that the Sphere book says on the side of it ' English Poetry and Prose 1540-1674 ' , now if Mike went searching for the quote then he may well have decided to look in the Sphere book rather than search through the many volumes of Metaphysical and Tudor poetry that were on the shelves of Liverpool library. In fact its most likely he would have looked in anthologies , books of essays and critical works , to save himself a lot of time and effort. Whether he started at Medieval and went forwards , or Victorian and went backwards , if he decided at all to check Tudor/Stuart poetry then he could have found that quote.
To be honest , ' O costly intercourse of death ' DOES suggest Metaphysical poetry to me , the mixing of carnality and mortality is one of the standard features of the genre eg Marvell's ' To His Coy Mistress ' , I'm not saying that would occur to Mike though.
Presuming Mike didn't write the Diary , it would have been theoretically possible for him to eventually source the quote in Liverpool Library , because there was a book with that phrase in it on the shelf.
The real difficulty for the Maybrickites comes with finding an explanation how Maybrick would have known about the quote from Crashaw. And if Mike didn't forge the Diary , the real forger could have sourced the quote from Liverpool library themselves.
Sorry , but trying to look at this open-mindedly , I have to say that I think it was possible that Mike could have sourced the quote here. |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 105
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 11:28 am: | |
Let me try to clarify here :
* How likely is it that the Crashaw quote would appear in a modern book ? - given the rise in popularity in the work of the Metaphysical Poets since the 1930s , I'd say it would be reasonably likely , there are even volumes of Crashaw's poetry available now.
* How likely is it that such a book might appear in Liverpool Library ? - Since Liverpool has two universities and a strong academic tradition since the 80s , I'd say it was possible. If I , living in a small country town , tried to find the quote in my little library , I'd say it would be very unlikely I would be able to find it.
* What chance is there that the real James Maybrick would come across the Crashaw quote ? - Hardly any. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 866
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 11:31 am: | |
Yes - it is possible - thats true, and if Mike says thats what happened and it is possible who are we to argue?
Indeed the real problem is how Maybrick could have known,
Aside the real problem is tin match box empty!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 867
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 11:35 am: | |
Simon,
Liverpool has three universities Liverpool University
John Moores and Liverpool Hope or some such name
so I guess that makes it even more likely!!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 476
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 1:16 pm: | |
I'm afraid people are still falling into a fallacy by taking it as read that the phrase was already included in the Sphere book.
Given that the Sphere book was written after 1888, think about the number of words quoted in the book, and the number of other words that could have been quoted, and reflect on the extreme unlikelihood of any random five-word phrase from Crashaw being included in this or any other secondary book.
That's what has to happen to make it plausible that Barrett found the phrase by accident. That, as well as Barrett reading every word of all the hundreds of similar books of essays/compendia/anthologies.
Remember those 26,143 books published in the British Isles before 1640.
It's simply unbelievable.
Chris Phillips
PS I can't be the only one throwing up my hands in despair at a phrase like this: if Mike says thats what happened and it is possible who are we to argue?
|
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 106
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 1:55 pm: | |
Chris I see where you are coming from , I thought it was pretty miraculous that ' that quote ' ended up in the Sphere book , but I'm not so sure now.
I'm asking myself : ' Where did the quote come from in the first place ? ' either in 1988 or 1888. Our Diarist read the Crashaw quote and decided it would be appropriate for the Diary , but where did they get it from ?
The most likely options are : a book of poems with the poem in , a newspaper review or extract , a critical essay on the Metaphysical Poets , or the Sphere book. Now obviously the Sphere book is the most likely , but if it was Mike who forged the Diary then how did he find the Crashaw quote in the first place ? Presuming Mike is not a scholar of English Lit. , we have to say...
...he found it by accident in the Sphere book !
Its the same thing ! If Mike forged the Diary , he most likely found the Crashaw quote by accident in the Sphere book ! But if Mike didn't forge the Diary then he most likely found the quote by accident in the Sphere book !
Help !
|
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 107
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 1:59 pm: | |
What this means is that the fact that the Crashaw quote ended up in the Diary at all is the weirdest thing of the lot. And its possible that Mike wasn't involved in forging the Diary after all. But I still think the Diary is a forgery. |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 871
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 3:08 pm: | |
Hi, all
Mike may or may not have forged the Maybrick Diary but it seems to me that it is apparent that the strange set of circumstances surrounding the Barretts, the Diary, and Crashaw quote, the explanation that Mike "found" the same quote in a book in the library, and that simultaneously he owned the same book back home, the odd story of him "placing" the book with private investigator Alan Gray, in early December 1994, added to other unsatisfactory and unexplained circumstances such as the purchase by the Barretts of the little red 1891 diary, are all a function of the different stories told by a disingenuous and untrustworthy person.
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: 868
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 4:32 pm: | |
Hi Chris P -
surely you must see that the only other place aside from the diary this quote is known to have been at the right time is the Sphere book (of legend). Mike says he found the quote in the Sphere book (of legend), its there, he knew it was there, it is how he knew it was there that I thought you were questioning and what motivated him to look and furthermore (if we don't believe the book fell open at that page) how he then managed to identify this single line which was not in a poetry context but an essay context.
And not withstanding all of that we have to wonder not only if James Maybrick would have been aware of the works of Crawshaw but that if he had he would have copied this exact quote, the exact same quote incidentally that appears in the Sphere book (of legend) which happens to be in Mikes house and Liverpool library, almost word for word into his journal (which was after all in fact an old photo album coincidentally), if he would have respected the work of Catholic poet Crawshaw who's works were not in print outside Catholic circles and who as a C of E man (with strong links to that church incidentally) James would not have nec. looked up to. And even if he did somehow see the poem how the hell he managed to copy that line down is quite remarkable,
esp. when he was trying to outdo his brother at rhyming verse and in this instance was clearly cheating!
And then there's Poste House and more importantly tin match box empty,
And if your asking what I think - I think James Maybrick is innocent OK!?
Jennifer
ps I see your point about how the quote ended up in the sphere book (of legend) and am not disputing it does the book contain references which might provide a clue to this matter?
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 870
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 4:51 pm: | |
That might have been a slight overreaction on my part........
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 108
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 5:12 pm: | |
I suppose theres always the possibility that our Diarist found the Crashaw quote in...a book of quotations. I mean its a pretty good quote if you want one about death isn't it ?
OT : I always wondered about Stephen Knight and where he got his quote about the ' noble gullcatcher ' , yes I know its in Shakespeare but I wonder how he came across it ? I can never seem to find good quotes ! |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 109
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 5:24 pm: | |
As for the ' O costly intercourse... ' quote , it looks like our Diarist has either come across it accidentally , or remembered it , and stuck it in the Diary because it seemed appropriate or neat.
Is the quote down to Mike ? Who knows ? He did have the Sphere book in his attic though , and as far as we know nobody else who might have forged the Diary was aware of this quote ! It seems more likely to me that it was Mike rather than Maybrick who put the quote in the Diary therefore.
(Message edited by simonowen on August 27, 2004) |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 477
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 6:08 pm: | |
I did check Stephenson's huge book of quotations a while ago, and though it includes a number by Crashaw, it doesn't include that one.
I suspect if it had been found in any book of quotations we'd have heard about it from the Maybrickites by now.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 694
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 8:55 pm: | |
Simon,
I should probably explain some things carefully here.
To start with, of course, I have never seen this line from this poem by this author quoted ANYWHERE as a citation, not in a book of quotations, not in the many essays on Crashaw I have read, not in the many volumes of critical essays on Metaphysical poetry I have read, not even in the scholarly books on Crashaw I have read. Nor have I ever heard anyone say they have.
I have only ever seen this particular line from this poem separated and cited in TWO places in my entire history of reading and working with literature (and that's more than twenty years of professional research in literature as a grad student, scholar, and professor).
One of those places just happens to be the Sphere Guide essay on Herbert.
The other just happens to be the diary.
Those are the only two places I know of, and I suspect they may very well be the only two places in the entire history of publishing where this line is selected and cited in the midst of prose.
If you can find me a single other example...
Well, then we'll have three.
But no one I know has ever seen even one other book or essay or abstract or article that cites this line.
So apparently Mike Barrett found the only book in the entire history of the Western world that selects and cites these very same five words that he just happened to be looking for.
That's what we are being asked to believe.
Or, is it possible that he found (or owned) the book with the citation in it FIRST, saw the line that we know is found there, and THEN it turned up in the diary?
Let's see....
The Sphere Guide -- first public appearance, the 1970s
The diary -- first public appearance, the 1990s.
As far as I know there was one book in the whole world that had this line from this poem by this poet selected and cited in it up until 1990.
That book was The Sphere Guide.
 After 1990, there were two.
And the guy who brought forward the second one JUST HAPPENED to also own a copy of the first one!
Now, what do you think happened?
Either it's another truly AMAZING and SIMPLY STAGGERING coincidence.
Or there's some simple cause and effect at work here.
*******************************************
So let's review. First, Mike was only given five completely unidentified words who's only potential context was Victorian (and no, I don't think he had a voice in his head saying "it's probably metaphysical poetry" -- I've heard Mike speak).
He alone is able to tell everyone where they are from.
When asked how he knows this he says he walked into the library and found THESE FIVE WORDS not in their original location, not in the poem, not even in a work on their author, but just coincidentally separated out and cited in a book of prose in an essay on another author. (Just like the diary.)
Mike says this.
Heh heh heh.
Oh, and by the way, he just happens to have a copy of this same book in his house, which he forgot to mention.
Heh heh heh heh heh.
But that's just a coincidence.
Heh heh heh heh heh... stop me, my sides hurt.
Meanwhile, it seems there have only been two books in all of history where this quote appears as a citation.
One is the book he just happens to have at home.
And the other is the book he suddenly brings forward.
We know who wrote the words in the first book.
No one knows who wrote them in the second.
But, as far as we can tell, Mike is the only person in the history of the world to have ever owned both books.
Hmmmmmmmmmm......
Am I making this clear enough?
****************************************
Simon,
You ask "where did the diarist get the quote from."
As far as I know, there are only two possible answers. An edition of the Complete Works of Richard Crashaw or the Sphere Guide.
(Unless their mother whispered the quote to them at night before they went to sleep.)
From everything I've read and heard, the poem in question has not been anthologized in any collections that anyone has ever discovered.
So that's out.
No one has ever seen any other critical essay or book or biography or newspaper article or abstract that uses this line in it as a quotation.
So that's out.
The only two possibilities I have ever heard of are an edition of The Complete Works of Richard Crashaw or The Sphere Guide (which has that very same line, out of all the lines of all the poetry by Crashaw, exclusively separated and cited right there in the middle of prose about someone else, just like the diary).
Now, we should also remember that the diary has no other quotes from Crashaw (or any other poet) anywhere else in it.
So this is a one time deal. As if someone saw this one single line somewhere and remembered it when they were writing about the Ripper.
But where, then, would they have seen just this one line?
Only one place on the entire planet in the entire history of publishing, as far as I can tell.
The Sphere Guide.
Now, do you want to talk about what is believable and what's not?
About what's the most likely explanation and what's not?
About the odds of Mike being the only person who could tell us the origin of the quote, not having a rational explanation for how he knew it, and owning the only two books in all of human history that have the quote excerpted and cited in them?
About the likelihood that Mike was LYING about the Miracle of the Liverpool library?
I'm teaching a hundred literature students at the moment. I could give them five completely unidentified words with no context and send them to our university library and let them stay there for weeks. Without using any electronic research tools, you know what the chances of their coming back with the origin of those five isolated and obscure words from the whole history of literature would be?
But THAT'S NOT EVEN WHAT HAPPENED HERE.
Because remember, it's not just that Mike was given the words. The words came from a book HE brought forward. Then HE was asked to find their source. The same guy who first produced the book in public was asked to find the source of the quote. He came back saying he found it in the library, not in its original form but excerpted and cited in a work of prose on a completely different person, just like it appears in the diary!
And THEN he says, oh, and I happen to own a copy of that same book at home by the way.
Imagine that.
That's what happened.
There is no way the real James Maybrick wrote this book. We know that. He didn't drink at the Poste House, he didn't see the confidential police list, he didn't kill these women and then forget how, he didn't write the Dear Boss letter, his handwriting is not in the diary, and there's no real evidence anywhere on the planet that even suggests that the book existed before the second half of the 20th century (long after the real James was dead).
So we can rule out that possibility.
There have only been two books, as far as I know and no one has suggested otherwise, in the whole history of the written word that have contained these five particular words as a citation.
Both of them turn up in the same house.
Both of them belong to the only guy able to tell everyone where the words originated.
The first one appeared in the 1970s and has a known author.
The second one appears in the 1990s and no one knows who wrote it.
Both books have these same five words separated out and cited in prose about someone else.
And no other books anywhere else have ever been discovered that do.
Do you think one of them might have been the source for the other?
Either that simple, common sense, obvious explanation is true.
Or this is another of the most unbelievable, staggering and inexplicable coincidences in the history of letters.
And HOW many of those are we being asked to believe now, anyway?
I hope this has all put some of this in the proper perspective for everyone.
I'll be happy to address any comments or questions from anyone tomorrow.
I think we are making progress here as we compile the list of all the staggering and amazing coincidences that MUST be true for this book to be anything other than a modern forgery.
Thanks for your time,
--John
|
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 11:53 am: | |
Hi Guys,
I'd like a *short* history lesson here, if anyone knows and is willing to share.
The diary surfaced whenever and was "investigated" to try and check it's authenticity and consistency with the known facts.
I am confused/vague on the timings.
I vaguely know/remember Mike came forward at some time and claimed either he or his wife forged the diary and used as part of his proof the Sphere book (plus the sources of the ink and the diary itself which, as I recollect, had the first few pages missing.)
Mike then recanted his confession I think, but _before_ then, was the quotation's source known about or even suspect or was it assumed to be a Diary original?
How long did the quote remain unattributed and was it Mike who first pointed to its source?
Was it an obvious attributable crib to those first checking the diary?
Cheerio,
ian -- keeping one eye open and the other one closed. |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 702
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 1:01 pm: | |
Hi Ian,
You're going to love this.
Mike takes the diary to the agents and the "O costly..." line in the diary is recognized early on as a quote from somewhere (the O probably tipping people off, and the syntax, which makes it stand out all by itself on the page).
So they assign Mike the task of finding the source.
And lo and behold, Mike comes back with the quote's source.
He's the only one who could tell everyone where these five words were from.
This was before any confession or anything like that.
In fact, he bragged to everyone that he could find it and no one else could and that he was smarter than everyone else... etc.
But then, of course, he had to explain HOW and WHERE he found it.
At this point, he doesn't mention that he might have a copy of the quote at home, isolated and excerpted just like it is in the diary, in a copy of what I think is the ONLY OTHER BOOK IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF PUBLISHING to cite this line this way.
No, instead, he tells a story.
He says he took the five completely unidentified words and just went to the library and looked around and asked around a little and wouldn't you know it, amazingly enough, he found the quote. But not in its original source. Not even in a book of poetry. Not even in a book on Crashaw.
No, he JUST HAPPENED PURELY BY COINCIDENTAL ACCIDENT, he says, to find it in the library's copy of THAT VERY SAME BOOK isolated and cited just like it is in the diary! Yes, he claims he just comes across the only other page in the only other book in the whole history of writing that contains this quote cited this way.
That's right. He seriously thinks people will believe that he wandered into the library with ONLY FIVE WORDS, no context, and never having seen them before, and from the entire history of the written language, simply came upon what is quite possibly the only other page in all the printed material that has ever existed on the planet that also has these exact words separated out and cited amidst prose (not poetry) about someone else (not Crashaw).
Mike told this story.
The same Mike that Caroline keeps telling us we should never believe (and yet, oddly enough, she chooses the most UNLIKELY of all his stories, the most staggeringly odds-defying impossible fairytale of all his lies, to be the one she actively pimps as possibly true -- she chooses this one to defend -- of course, there's a reason for this, isn't there? It has something to do with simple desire.)
Anyway, later, when Mike gets angry as all hell with Anne and Feldman and all the rest, he tells everyone about owning the Sphere Guide and that the quote can be found right there, cited and separated within its pages of prose, just like in the diary.
And sure enough, there it is.
Now, of course, there is a much simpler, much more obvious, much more comon-sense explanation for why Mike was able to tell everyone the source of the quote and point them to the only other book in all of human history to have the line separated out and cited in it like it is in the diary.
There's a perfectly rational explanation that fits in consistently with all the other evidence and that makes perfect, simple, obvious sense.
In fact, it's so obvious, so simple, so sensible, that I don't even have to tell you what it is.
So I won't.
Hope you enjoyed the story.
I'm sure you'll see a revised version of it here soon enough (if you know what I mean).
Bye for now,
--John
|
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 7:51 pm: | |
Hi John,
Thanks, 'tis indeed a wonderous tale.
I'm not sure about you, but it makes me begin to doubt the authenticiy of the diary.
Can there be an alternative version, I was asking for the historical record and there is only one history isn't there?
Doh, stoopid question really.
Cheerio,
ian -- Keeping one eye open and a finger in each ear |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1223
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 6:08 am: | |
John O asked:
‘How much of a genius do you have to be?’
One who has to make an awful song and dance about the quotation, as well as a dozen other diary issues, on a daily basis, apparently, in order to keep the sermon – sorry, message - fresh.
But it wasn’t John who first delivered the sermon containing the box of unshakeable beliefs; he simply retreads the well-trodden paths of former modern hoax theorists, but does it with a damn sight less brevity.
But then John’s genius let him down when he claimed:
‘And lo and behold, Mike comes back with the quote's source.
He's the only one who could tell everyone where these five words were from.
This was before any confession or anything like that.’
Wrong!
Mike did not come up with the source of the quotation until the very end of September 1994 - more than three months after his first ‘confession’, which was in the June.
John may argue endlessly that this is a mere detail that makes no difference whatsoever. But readers may now ask themselves whether getting the timing back to front here was the result of an unconscious desire to make his argument look stronger on the page than it really is, or just down to a moment of carelessness, poor recall, or a failure to check his facts before typing.
Whatever the reasons behind this mistake, and however trivial – or crucial – it is judged to be, readers will be entitled to ask how sure John can be that the rest of his words do not contain equally incorrect and therefore misleading information.
Simon:
You asked:
‘What chance is there that the real James Maybrick would come across the Crashaw quote? And then you answered your own question with:
‘Hardly any.’
I hope you have independent means of supporting this answer, and are not simply being swayed by John’s method of stating and then repeating over and over again that Crashaw’s work would have been inaccessible to your average Victorian gent.
You also stated as fact:
‘He [Mike] did have the Sphere book in his attic though…’
I am afraid there is simply no evidence for this. Again, beware being charmed by the repetitive chant that suggests Mike definitely owned this book before his June 1994 confession, and before he announced that he knew where to find the quotation.
Mike finally succeeded in handing a copy of vol.2 over to Alan Gray two months after he had succeeded in directing Shirley Harrison to three copies of vol.2 on the shelves of Liverpool Library.
Hi Chris P,
I’m not sure that the chances of a vol.2 being available in Liverpool Library are all that much different whether Mike decided to search there for the quotation, not knowing if any of the books contained it; or whether he already knew which book would reveal it, because he had a copy in his attic. In the latter case, Mike would still have needed the library to have its own copy on the shelves, in order to claim he found it there.
And the fact remains, there were three copies of vol.2 sitting on the shelves, none of them put there for Mike’s convenience. Yet their presence was convenient for him, whichever way you look at it. Try to imagine the effect of Mike producing a book from his attic, when first ‘confessing’ to forging the diary himself, in June 1994, that could not be found anywhere else. But that, as we know, did not happen.
Instead, as I explained again for Simon, Mike first led Shirley to the three copies of vol.2 in the library, in early October 1994, and went on to produce a fourth copy, in the December, for Alan Gray, which Mike had everyone believing he must have owned since 1989.
There is no ‘must’ about it.
If Mike could have come across the quotation in one of three copies of vol.2 in the library, as he might easily have done by flicking through every book with the words English Poetry and a pre-20th century date on its spine, he could have located a fourth copy of the same book during the following weeks.
I’m not saying I believe this is what must have happened – yet (I will await the results of the ongoing investigation in London and Liverpool before I even begin to make up my mind). It’s just a possibility that some readers might think ought to be considered – that Mike may not know to this day how Crashaw really found his way into the diary.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 716
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 6:55 am: | |
See, Ian,
I told you there'd be a revised version. 
And I'm not even prescient.
What amazes me first is the idea that I'm the one doing the "song and dance" around here. But fair enough. Let's hear the alternative tune.
Caroline does correct me, complete with one of Paul's exciting exclamation points, on a point of timing -- reminding us that Mike confessed before he told everyone where the quote was from (a fact I had indeed forgotten).
That part of her revision is useful, and I thank her for it.
However, the sentence she cites before that is the important one, and that one she cannot dispute:
"He's the only one who could tell everyone where these five words were from."
Now there are only two possible explanations for this.
1. That Mike just found what seems to be the only other book in the entire history of human language besides the diary to have this quote excerpted and cited in this way purely by a staggering and coincidental accident as he wandered the library.
or
2. That he knew the quote was there in the first place and so identifying it when asked was easy.
Gee, I wonder which one is more believable?
Of course, number one suggests that Mike actually lied.
And wasn't it Caroline who was just around here -- over on the Who? thread I believe -- telling everyone in insistent tones that they must not believe the word of one Mike Barrett.
And yet THIS story, one of his most incredible fairytales of all, this nonsense about this impossible coincidence involving the only two books ever produced with this quote cited this way, is the one told by Mike that she chooses to return here and pimp as possible.
Suddenly, when she needs him to maybe be telling the truth, in order to prevent the book from necessarily being a modern forgery, the sad desperation kicks in and she forgets her own warnings and says, "hey, maybe Mike really did do what he says!"
Remember, the man is given five completely unidentified words, asked to identify them from the whole history of writing, and comes up with the ONLY book in all of history to cite those words in the same way his diary does. And then manages to produce his own copy of that book.
And we're supposed to buy that all of this, like the appearance of the Poste House and the appearance of the Tin Matchbox Empty line is just a truly staggering coincidence and that the diary might still not be a modern forgery?
It's amazing -- the picking and choosing that goes on here in such a deliberate way to produce only and always the desired result, despite all the evidence and despite all the completely stunning and amazing coincidences one would have to rely on happening simultaneously, including this one, for any other conclusion to even be possible.
But it's not a surprise.
Then that old "ongoing investigation" is once again invoked as if it were a magic talisman.
But the facts remain.
The same guy, the only guy on the face of the planet who owned those two books which both contained the five words excerpted and cited, was the guy who could tell everyone where these five words were from. And where did he point everyone? To the first of those two books.
As I wrote earlier, by way of review:
There have only been two books, as far as I know and no one has suggested otherwise, in the whole history of the written word that have contained these five particular words as a citation.
Both of them turn up in the same house. Both of them belong to the only guy able to tell everyone where the words originated.
The first one appeared in the 1970s and has a known author.
The second one appears in the 1990s and no one knows who wrote it.
Both books have these same five words separated out and cited in prose about someone else. And no other books anywhere else have ever been discovered that do.
Do you think one of them might have been the source for the other? Either that simple, common sense, obvious explanation is true or this is another of the most unbelievable, staggering and inexplicable coincidences in the history of letters. And HOW many of those are we being asked to believe now, anyway?
And yes, of course there is a big difference in probability between Mike taking five words he knows nothing about, walking into a library, and just purely by accident stumbling on the only other page in the only other book in all of human history with those words cited on it as they are in the diary, and Mike "already knowing which book would reveal it" before he even goes there and then finding that book.
I would hope that even Caroline knows this.
What you are being asked to believe here people is a fantasy, a lie told by Mike Barrett that Caroline is using to keep hope alive in the face of the obvious, and in the face of the ever growing number of staggeringly unbelievable coincidences that we are realizing must have all taken place simultaneously for the diary to be anything other than a modern forgery.
Use your common sense. Use your critical thinking skills. Use your logic. And don't buy Mike's story, don't buy his lie, don't buy the snake-oil you are being sold.
Glad to see things are back to normal in DW,
--John 
PS: Still awaiting that groundbreaking and definitive revelation concerning the crucial historical link that proves the real James was citing this line by Crashaw...
|
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 121
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 7:39 am: | |
Caz , I agree that its possible that Mike Barrett could have sourced the quote in Liverpool library , I said that before !
But according to JM , Mike sent her some of the Sphere books for her son in the summer of 1994 , including the Crashaw one. So Mike already had the books in his attic ! Its Mike himself who says that he didn't have the Sphere book before October 1994 , and can we believe him ?
As for Richard Crashaw , the poem Sancta Maria Dolurum is a rare poem by a author who is pretty obsure in the canon of English literature anyway. But Mike had a book with the line in his attic. Who is more likely to be aware of the line , Maybrick or Mike ? |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 718
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 7:56 am: | |
Hi Simon,
I love this question:
"Who is more likely to be aware of the line, Maybrick or Mike ?"
We could spend days...
But of course, since we KNOW Mike was aware not only of the line but of the only other place in all of written history where the line appears excerpted and cited, it's not really a fair fight, is it?
Especially since Mike is also the guy who brought forward the diary -- the only other book, subsequently published, to also have that same single line excerpted and cited in that way.
It's all just a purely amazing coincidence.
Right?
Of course not.
At some point, I think we agree, common sense kicks in and outweighs even the desperately sad storytelling of Mike and his miracle in the library.
And the obvious explanation, the one which fits in with ALL the other evidence concerning the diary's text, turns out also to be the most likely one.
But you already knew that. 
--John
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1229
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 6:48 am: | |
Hi Simon,
You are still labouring under a few misapprehensions, and John O knows it. But obviously he does not feel confident enough about the strength of his own argument to put you straight.
You wrote:
‘But according to JM , Mike sent her some of the Sphere books for her son in the summer of 1994 , including the Crashaw one. So Mike already had the books in his attic ! Its Mike himself who says that he didn't have the Sphere book before October 1994 , and can we believe him ?’
One more time, JM never confirmed how many books or, crucially, what books, Mike offered her son. We therefore don’t know if ‘the Crashaw one’ was amongst them or not. I don’t recall Mike saying he didn’t have the Crashaw volume (the one handed to Alan Gray) before October 1994. In fact, it is his own claim, made back in 1994, to have had “the same books” since 1989, that you believe, while asking me, sceptically: ‘can we believe him?’! (Note for John: Feldy didn’t invent the exclamation mark. Sometimes it’s a useful little mark to point out blatant or humorous howlers.)
Mike did say something, however, much more recently, about it taking him “six, seven weeks, I don’t know” to track down a copy of volume 2 in a Liverpool book shop, having apparently misunderstood a question we were asking him about how long it took him to find the quotation in the library. At this time, he was still sticking with his claim to have obtained some Sphere books, but did mention something about two volumes being missing. He gave no clear indication of when he had allegedly been looking in book shops for a copy of vol 2, nor indeed why he would have needed to, assuming he already had the one that you believe was used in the diary’s creation.
However, it’s interesting to note how much time elapsed from the library ‘discovery’, at the end of September 1994 (when Mike also told Feldy’s secretary that he had the same series of books at home and would now be able to make his forgery claim stick), to the handing over of vol 2 in the early December: just over nine weeks. Of course, I suppose Mike could have been sitting there recalling the exact dates of these two events in his mind, so he could carefully work out the timing before making his unexpected and throwaway remark about the book shop and the six or seven weeks, in response to a different question.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 965
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 7:29 am: | |
Doesn't matter because the Sphere book (of legend) was in the liverpool library, and so long as it was it can still be the source for this quote.
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 742
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 9:29 am: | |
Hi Jenni,
Yes, if and ONLY if TWO incredible odds-defying miracles took place:
1. Mike was given those five completely unidentified words and walked into a library and apparently stumbled on the ONLY single page in the ONLY book in all of human history, of all the books ever published, that also just happened purely by coincidence to have that same specific line from that specific poem by that specific author separated and excerpted from its original source and quoted right in the middle of it just like in the diary!
AND
2. Mike Barrett wasn't lying.
Both of these things must be true for there to be any hope at all, for the diary to be anything other than a modern forgery.
Amazing, huh?
Of course, there IS a much simpler and obvious explanation. Isn't there?
But NOW, HERE, in this case, good old Caroline "never-trust-Mike" Morris, chooses to believe in Mike's miraculous fairy-tale.
Of all his sad stories....
Desire can do wonderful things.
Even as she writes a post to Simon above demonstrating how untrustworthy Mike is and how it's all but impossible to figure out why he would say and do the things he has said and done, she still continues to seriously assert the silly space-alien possibility of the Miracle of the Liverpool library.
Why?
I have no idea.
Perhaps because if it's not true, if Mike lied, then there's a pretty good chance this book is a modern forgery. And what do you know, that's what all the other evidence tells us as well. Remember, this is only one of the space-alien miracles we are being asked to buy, and if even one of them did not happen, the book can only be modern.
Meanwhile, lest we forget, we know there has been one man who owned the only two books in all of human history that contain this line excerpted and cited in the middle of them. One of those books appeared in the 1970s and the other appeared in the 1990s and the same guy who showed everyone the line in the 1990s one was also the only guy who could show everyone the line in the 1970s one, too.
Oh, and the 1990s one has an "unknown" author.
I appreciate the power of denial, but sometimes the obvious should take precedence over the desperate.
'Round and 'round we go,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on September 09, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 969
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 10:54 am: | |
Sorry John,
did I say who could have found those words in the book in the Liverpool library and used those words in a forged dairy? Did i proclaim anyone's innocence? Did i say even that Mike found the words by miracle on two occasions? Did I say I thought the miracle could have happened (since you mention it that is what I think) NO all i said was so long as the quote was in the Liverpool library that's all that matters - surely that is all that matters?
I was just pointing out that all this stuff about if Mike had the sphere book in his attic is probably irrelevant since he could have used the sphere book we know he knew was the source of the quote and which was in the library.
It doesn't take any imagination at all.
Cheers
Jen
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 744
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 11:23 am: | |
Hi Jenni,
I didn't mean to imply that you believed in the miracle. Not at all.
I was just reviewing what would have to be true for this whole silly and desperate story to be believable.
Of course, you are right about the other possibility.
But since you mention imagination, let's all play a game...
Imagine this...
I walk into a library, look around, and just pull a book off the shelf.
I open the book at random to any page.
I spot five words on that page and write them down.
I leave the library.
I hand you the five words, telling you nothing about where I found them. You've never seen the phrase before.
I then say, "go find that phrase."
Think you'll be in there a while? Think you have any realistic chance of finding that one five word line on that one page in that one book I chose from all the books on all the shelves on all the floors of the entire library?
But it gets worse. The phrase I chose is written in a different mode than the rest of the book it's in.
Now, off you go into the library.
OK. Stop.
Let's change the game.
This time it turns out that the phrase I hand you is one you've already seen, excerpted just as it is, in a book you've already seen.
Think your chances get a bit better?
Now, when you come out with the right line from the right page from the right book, the only book in the whole library, in the whole world, that has that phrase cited in it in that way, am I likely to think you knew where it was before you went in?
But wait, there's more.
Let's change the game again.
Let's say the phrase I chose, I did not choose at random at all. I did not even choose it from a book I found on a library shelf.
Let's say I chose it because it was on a page in another book that YOU YOURSELF gave me first. A book with an "unknown" author.
Now you come out with the right line on the right page in the right book, the only book in the whole library, in the whole world, to ever have that line cited in it that way.
Now what do I think happened?
I love this game.
--John
|
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 138
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 11:27 am: | |
Caz , Mike also said that he remembered that he had the Sphere book in his attic after he found the quotation in Liverpool Library , and the volume he took to Alan Gray was one he had been given in 1989 by Sphere publishing. ( RD , p.145 )
Since he had the book in his attic , why would he need to find one in a bookshop ? I don't think there is any dispute about Mike having the Volume 2 in his attic is there ? ( answer - there probably is , this is Diary World... ). |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
