|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 971
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 11:39 am: |       |
Simon,
there's certainly a dispute - have you not been reading this board?
The point is the dispute doesn't matter because any forger could have used the sphere book which has the quote in to forge the diary. The quote was in the book, the book was in the library, if it wasn't in Mike's attic too, its hardly proof the diary is genuine, is it?
John,
I like your game. Lets have a go!
I see your challenge
Jenni!!!!!!
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 746
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 12:07 pm: | |
Simon,
You bet your ass this is Diary World. And you can be damn sure Caroline will soon be here to tell you that there's no evidence at all that Mike really got the Sphere book when he says he did or that it was ever in his attic at all (except of course for the fact that he was the only one who could tell everyone the source of the line and who could point everyone to the only book in all of history that had it cited in it as it is in the diary -- but hey, you never heard of a miracle?).
And she'll tell you can't believe Mike, because he lies all the time.
Except when he's recounting miracles, of course.
But the game I outlined for Jenni above reveals just what happened.
Mike brought the diary forward.
Mike identified the source of the line.
Mike also produced the only other book in the history of the world with the same line cited in it like it is in the diary.
And Mike told the incredible story of the game.
Of course, that won't stop Caroline from ignoring the staggeringly unbelievable nature of the amazing miracle she is asking us all to have faith in, and reminding you that there is no real evidence Mike told the truth about getting the book for the charity drive or ever having it in his attic.
Just watch.
But remember, as she does, that there are only two possibilities.
1. Mike knew when he handed Doreen the book where the words were from because he had already seen them somewhere else.
2. Mike took the the five words after the fact and, with no clue where they might have originated, discovered their source himself by just coincidentally finding the only page in the only book in all of human history to have the words excerpted and cited just like they are in the diary.
And it was Mike who first brought the diary forward.
Now then, which of these two scenarios is the believable one?
--John (always remembering the rules of the game)
|
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 139
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 12:50 pm: | |
John , Mike's friend JM confirmed to Shirley Harrison - and its on p.145 of the ' Ripper Diary ' book - that Sphere gave Mike some of their critical works in 1989 to raise money for the Hillsborough football disaster. And Mike lent some of these books to JM's son in the summer of 1994 ( when I was working in the brick industry incidentally  ).
So which is the more believable statement from Mike - he had the book in his attic , or he spent 6-7 weeks combing the bookshops of Liverpool looking for it ?
Should it be - somewhat incredibly - true that Mike had no part in creating the Diary however , it still doesn't mean the thing isn't a forgery. In fact with three copies of the Sphere book in Liverpool library , if Mike didn't turn up the quote in his attic then someone else probably turned up the quote there. |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 747
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 1:19 pm: | |
Hi Simon,
You might look into just where those "three copies" were, and at what time, too.
You'll find some fascinating stories.
Filled with memories,
--John
PS: And remember what would have had to happen for the miracle to take place as described in our new little game above. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 973
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 3:09 pm: | |
John,
I'm serious!
Jenni
oh my god five word rule!!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 748
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 4:14 pm: | |
Hi Jenni,
OK, we'll play on Monday (barring the arrival of Ivan).
A boxed version of the game will soon be available in the Diary World gift catalog, right next to the "Holy Miracle of the Liverpool Library" shot glasses and the "O costly tin matchbox of death" t-shirts.
Figment gift bags cost extra.
Rolling on,
--John
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1234
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 5:29 am: | |
Hi Simon,
When Mike telephoned Feldy’s secretary, on September 30 1994, to announce that he had just found the quotation in a library book (although he didn’t, at this point, give any further details), he claimed in the next breath to have had the same “volumes” (emphasis on plural) at home since the 1989 Hillsborough appeal, and would now be able to make his forgery claim stick, simply by producing the one containing the Crashaw lines.
However, when Mike revealed the name of the book, to Shirley Harrison, just a couple of days later, he told her he thought it was volume 6 of the Sphere English literature series: he was wrong. Volume 6 is actually entitled The Victorians (and contains a wealth of quotations that could have been used by a modern forger to equally good effect in the diary). Mike’s uncertainty here is interesting, and might indicate that he hadn’t yet checked which volumes he had obtained in 1989 and had only in recent weeks taken to JM’s house.
Assuming Mike’s next move was to retrieve the ‘incriminating’ volume from his new friend, and take it to his solicitor, as he told Shirley, on October 12 1994, that he planned to do that very day, did he perhaps pounce on volume 6 in the first instance, only to realise his mistake? Once he had identified volume 2, he could have taken it to his solicitor, or even handed it straight to Alan Gray, with a full explanation of its significance. Instead, he telephoned his solicitor’s office, on October 13, with the news that he had found the quotation in the library. He then waited until early November before talking about it to Alan Gray, and let another month slip by before finally handing volume 2 over to him. Could he have made the frustrating discovery that the volume containing the Crashaw lines – volume 2 – was not among the books at JM’s after all?
As you see, I am simply asking the question, and not, as John O keeps repeating, ‘choosing to believe’ one of Mike’s stories over another. John chooses to believe that Mike knew how Crashaw got into the diary because he had volume 2 all along, and gave it to a new friend’s teenage son around the time he needed it to support his ‘confession’ to forging the diary single-handedly.
If everyone else is entirely satisfied with John’s assessment of the odds, and concludes that no one could have succeeded in finding the Crashaw lines in Liverpool Central Library if they didn’t already know which book would contain them, that’s fine by me. But I feel it’s worth bearing in mind that his assessment is not based on the actual number of books on the shelves on the subject of pre-20th century poetry: I’m pretty sure he doesn’t know that number. He doesn’t want to know, because he thinks he doesn’t need to know.
John’s entire argument about odds is fuelled by his underlying faith in the diary being a cheap modern fake. Ironically, that faith also renders his odds assessment pointless. It doesn’t matter how many – or how few - books Mike would have been faced with in the library; it doesn’t even matter if the book was in a book shop until late 1994. None of this matters to John - because his argument is exactly the same in the end: the diary is a modern fake, therefore the Crashaw lines must have come, directly or indirectly, from someone’s Sphere vol 2. It’s the same with other arguments about the odds, such as the empty tin match box and the post house: the diary is a modern fake, therefore the faker must have pinched his match box from the published list and his Poste House from Cumberland Street.
I prefer to come at things from the other end: prove that the Crashaw lines in the diary came from Mike’s volume 2. If you succeed, the diary must be a modern creation. You wouldn’t need to argue your socks off that the real James Maybrick never knew those lines; you wouldn’t need to bang on about the odds against the killer knowing about the tin match box that was empty, and thinking up the phrase tin match box empty when recording the fact; and you wouldn’t need to be in denial about the existence of a former Liverpool coaching inn that could easily have been called ‘the post house’ (pronounced the same as ‘the Poste House’) by its Victorian regulars – you’d be home and dry.
Still a bit moist around here.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1008
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 6:38 am: | |
Caz,
lets just be clear on this, it doesn't matter where Mike identified the source from, it doesn't matter if he had a copy, it doesn't matter if the earth is flat.
All that matters is that the quote was in the book and it was in the library, any potential forger could have gotten it from there, doesn't it strike you as odd that these two documents should quote the exact same line? That's odd to me, very odd.
But guess what , its not incriminating
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 488
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 7:09 am: | |
Caroline Anne Morris
But I feel it’s worth bearing in mind that his assessment is not based on the actual number of books on the shelves on the subject of pre-20th century poetry: I’m pretty sure he doesn’t know that number. He doesn’t want to know, because he thinks he doesn’t need to know.
I've already explained, several times, why it isn't necessary to know how many books are in Liverpool library to make a rough estimate of the odds.
Let's have one more try, and let's make it really, really simple.
Janet and John go to ToyTown Library to try to track down a 5-word phrase that occurs in one of the 500 Ladybird Books that have been published. ToyTown Library has a stock of 50 books, but Janet and John have time to look at only 10 of them before tea. Probability of finding the phrase: 10/500 = 2%.
Mary and Malcolm don't have access to a public library, so they go up into Uncle Mike's attic, where there are only 10 Ladybird Books. They are meeting Janet and John for tea, so they too have time to look at only 10 books. Probability of Mary and Malcolm finding the phrase: 10/500 = 2%.
Despite the fact that Mary and Malcolm looked at all the books in Uncle Mike's attic, they stood no more chance of finding the phrase than Janet and John did!
Chris Phillips
Next week: Janet and John go to the Corporation of London Records Office ...
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1009
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 7:15 am: | |
It doesn't matter what the chance was they could have still done it as long as one of the books they looked in was the sphere book, the sphere book which was coincidentally in the library in which they were looking!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 489
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 7:40 am: | |
Jenni
It doesn't matter what the chance was they could have still done it ...
I hope I've always been consistent in saying that it does matter what the probability was.
I've never argued that it was impossible that Barrett could have discovered the quotation by chance, only that it was mind-bogglingly unlikely.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1012
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 7:54 am: | |
What's more strange is that the quote was in the Sphere book in the first place an happened to be exactly the same line, right?
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 771
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 8:26 am: | |
Not to worry.
The game has begun.
Meanwhile, Caroline writes:
"John chooses to believe that Mike knew how Crashaw got into the diary because he had volume 2 all along, and gave it to a new friend’s teenage son around the time he needed it to support his ‘confession’ to forging the diary single-handedly."
Correction...
John chooses to believe that there's no way Mike Barrett walked into any library with only five words in his hand, completely unidentified words that he had never seen before, and just by pure luck discovered the only page in the only book in the world, the only book anyone can find in all of human existence, that excerpts and cites those same five words just like the diary does.
John chooses to believe Mike lied when he told everyone about this utter miracle.
I believe Mike lied.
Caroline has not said she believes Mike lied about this.
That's the difference between us.
Do I have reason to believe Mike lied (aside from the obvious one that he lies all the time, as Caroline used to remind us all the time, when she didn't need his impossible story to suddenly be true)?
Yes.
As far as I (or anyone else, it seems) can tell, there are only two books on the whole planet that have this line excerpted and cited in them. One is the diary. The other is the one Mike Barrett (owner of the diary) showed everyone. And his only explanation, AFTER he sourced the quote for us all, was that he took only the five words, all by themselves, and walked into the library, and just happened to pull down the only other book that exists in the whole world to have that same single line cited in it in that way.
Yes, I have good reason to believe old Mike was lying.
Add to that the fact that we know where these five words appeared when they were given to us all -- they came from a book MIKE himself gave to us. So let's understand this, we're giving Mike unidentified words from a book HE gave to us and then telling him to identify them, and when he does, the only way he can explain how he knew where they were from (when do one else did) is by producing the only other page in the only other book in the history of the world to have that line excerpted and cited in it and THEN claiming to have just "found it" in the library?
Gee, you think he might be lying?
Mike?
He gave us the first book with the line excerpted and cited in it.
We asked him where the line was from.
He told us.
Then he gave us the only other book in the whole world with the line excerpted and cited in it.
That book first came out in public in the 1970s
The second book, the one Mike gave us, first came out in public in the 1990s.
And we have no idea who wrote that second one.
Now what do you think happened?
Remember what we are talking about here people.
Five words.
Only five words.
Less than one half line on one page in one book in the whole library.
And Mike, the guy who gave us the book with the line in it to begin with, says he walked into the library and "found" it.
Heh heh.
No wonder this forgery is still around. Some people obviously will buy anything.
Then we're treated to the invocation of even more truly incredible coincidences, defying all odds, like the appearance of the same oddly-syntaxed line in the diary that also appears in a police document on the case which the real James could not possibly have seen, or the appearance of the exact same uniquely written name of a pub that does exist right there in Liverpool, but which the real James could not possibly have known anything about. Caroline can only insist that all of these truly amazing and incredible coincidences, reproducing exact words and phrases from places the real James could not possibly have had access to, are just somehow amazing coincidences, and that the book might still be old.
And of course, that’s not even mentioning the fact that the book is not in the real James's handwriting or that it gets the details of the murders wrong in just the same way modern sources do.
But I'm sure those are just amazing coincidences too. They have to be if we are to keep hope alive, don't they?
What desperate silliness.
All the evidence points exclusively in a single direction, without exception.
And once again, it seems there are only two books in the whole wide world that excerpt and cite this line from this poem by this poet.
One is the Sphere Guide.
One is the diary.
Mike Barrett owned them both.
Thanks for coming,
--John
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 157
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 8:27 am: | |
Whether Mike had a copy or not , I think its almost certain that the line came from the Sphere Book 2.
A line from a veh veh obscure poem , out of context , no other references in the rest of the Diary to Crashaw - whats the chance eh ?
I had a look in one of my local libraries last week , and despite looking at anthologised poems of Crashaw in the literature section , I couldn't find the Sancta Maria Dolorum poem at all. I would suspect very few people even know of this poem , let alone know of Crashaw himself. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1014
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 8:33 am: | |
Excuse me dears, I have thought of something, i may have asked before (forgive me)
where did the Sphere essay writer get the quote from?
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 774
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 9:24 am: | |
Hi Jenni,
I've sent you mail reviewing the origins of the quote.
Simon, as far as I know (and no one has ever found it anywhere else), that particular poem remains available only in a copy of Crashaw's Complete Works.
Let's see if anyone corrects me on that.
But, of course, that one particular line can be found buried separately within a prose essay in a page of the Sphere Guide that Mike Barrett owned -- the only book anyone has ever seen that cites this line this way. Almost.
Because, of course, that one particular line can also be found in the diary that Mike Barrett gave us.
All the best,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1016
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 9:40 am: | |
John,
thanks i got your email. You should get a reply.
Jenni
ps the sphere book is the most likely source for this quote but that doesnt mean Mike couldnt have found it as suggested
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 775
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 9:50 am: | |
Jenni,
Tell me that when you find the five words. 
Yes, I know, there's always those pyramids and the shape of the earth.
Let's see how the game goes, and then we'll talk again.
--John (who has spent much of his life in libraries and knows Mike was lying about this miracle) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1018
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 10:19 am: | |
John,
All it proves if i can't find it (read when) is that Mike is a far superior investigator to myself
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 776
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 10:26 am: | |
Jenni,
Yeah.
Right.
Looking forward to the outcome,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1019
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 11:03 am: | |
John,
I've had my timetable and there seems to be an incredible amount of time free three or four hours on a monday. so i'll be giving it a test on monday the 4th oct!! (not 27th as i originally said as there is all kinds of stuff to attend that day) I maybe get an hour to look on wednesday sep 29th too!
But we must lose site of the fact that the quote was in the book. Perhaps Barrett got lucky?!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 777
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 11:15 am: | |
Hi Jenni,
No hurry. Around Diary World, nothing ever happens quickly. And some things never happen at all.
Looking forward to seeing just how "lucky" you get.
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1021
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 11:37 am: | |
John,
I hope to get very lucky (as i'm really too lazy to be bothered with all of this!)
In time John, this will happen in time (it may well take a lot of Mondays!) of course its going to help that i will have four hours to waste, working on actual photcopying etc for uni isnt going to take four hours (lets hope it takes a few weeks to find the quote, i'm going to be bored otherwise!!)
An actual 9-5 day!! (we're not used to that!!)
Anyway i divert. Barrett could have gotten that quote like he said. Note the word could!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 778
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 11:51 am: | |
Like I say, Jennifer,
Take all the time in the world. I don't think it will make a difference. So no worries.
You say, "could."
Let's see if you can.
Happily patient,
--John  |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1022
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 3:48 am: | |
John,
even when I can't Mike Barrett still could have
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 780
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 8:07 am: | |
Jenni,
Unless you are using "could" only in the silly "space aliens 'could' have built the pyramids" way, I think, once the game is finished, I'll be able to explain why in realistic terms he did not.
We'll see.
I'll wait for your results.
--John
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 163
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 8:22 am: | |
Theres a story in the news at the moment about the singer Tom Jones , who is supposed to have got a young lady pregnant after a 4-day fling of lust.
DNA has proved that Jones is 99.7% likely to be the father , yet Tom has said ' I won't accept the lad as my son because there isn't 100% proof hes my kid ' ( or words to that effect ).
Why am I reminded of Diary World here ? 
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1024
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 8:25 am: | |
John,
my duck its simple its probability wise odds stacked against, so it winning the lotto, but people still win it.
It could have happened.
This is where I guess we should agree to disagree safe in the knowledge we do at least agree on the important things, like that James Maybrick was not JTR!
Jenni
ps how long did it take Mike again? (that's competiveness!)
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1025
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 8:33 am: | |
Simon,
our posts overlapped.
The fact is this Mike could have gone into the library and looked in the book and found the quote.
did the quote exist outside the diary - answer yes it did.
was there a version of this line in print - yes the sphere book for example.
was the book in the library,- importantly the book was in Liverpool library.
where did Mike say he found the quote - in the book that it was in in the library.
If the book wasn't in the library - then that would be different.
Its not about odds its about what could have happened, guess what it could have happened!!!
Jenni
ps this is where i guess we should agree to disagree safe in the knowledge we agree on the important things, like that James Maybrick was not JTR!
pps this is getting silly now!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 781
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 8:36 am: | |
Jenni,
You'd best wait and see what happens.
Yes, of course you can always say "well, space aliens 'could' have built the pyramids." But sometimes, as in that case, there is solid and compelling evidence that allows us to conclude they did not, right? Even though, theoretically, they "could" have.
Play the game out, see what happens, and I suspect we'll then be able to talk about solid evidence which would allow us to conclude that this did not happen either.
And then we will not disagree.
The PS, by the way, is a very good question. Let's see what answers appear.
All the best,
--John
PS: Simon, yes, I know what you mean.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1026
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 8:57 am: | |
John,
it's a good job I like you else i might take that the wrong way - are you doubting my ability to find five random words!!
Let's be clear about this - its not possible like space aliens are possible. (because space aliens are not possible - are they?)
Lets look at the evidence that space aliens built the pyramids and compare it to the evidence that Mike could have found the quote in the sphere book.
Let's start with space aliens
here is where this 'information' that space aliens built the pyramids is taken from
http://www.outerworlds.com/likeness/aliens/aliens.html
ok this is a good one - now i will leave you to figure out how the egyptians one of the most advanced civilisations could have done that!
I will leave you to figure out how the egyptians lined things up with the sun.
Ok now we can clearly see that the evidence that space aliens built the pyramids is suspect. We should be glad we don't have these people to contend with.
Now for how Mike Barrett could have found the quote, this ones a lot less wacky,
mike went in the library and found the book with the quote in (probably lucky).
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1027
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 9:05 am: | |
Now lets do the flat earth while we are here!
Here is where this info comes from
http://www.flat-earth.org/
this is my favourite part
Does Idaho exist
No. The existence of Idaho is a lie, fabricated by a conspiracy of cartographers, as is England (see question 10).
now we have proof this is wrong, I AM SITTING IN IT. however,
mike could have gone to the library picked up the sphere book and found the quote.
couldn't he? admit it!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1028
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 9:13 am: | |
isn't it far more interesting to note the coincidence that both sources should quote exact same line. that is why it would be a fair ASSUMPTION the sphere could have sourced diary, but that said we must note that that does not mean Mike could not have found the quote how he said he did.
After all if we think the diary is fake (which i do) then we must conclude the diarist got the quote from somewhere (but we don't know it was Barrett)
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 782
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 9:41 am: | |
Hi Jenni,
I've looked at the sites. I'm not sure of your point, though. Space aliens are indeed "possible" and it is I suppose theoretically "possible" that they built the pyramids.
But we have enough empirical evidence to conclude they did not. Right?
Have a go at the five words in the library.
Then we'll talk about what is and is not "possible," exactly what sort of "luck" we're talking about, and what empirical evidence we would then have to conclude that, similarly, Mike did not.
Wait until the experiment has been conducted before you start analyzing the results.
At least, that's how it's usually done.
Thanks,
--John |
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 9:52 am: | |
James goes to his club for a few drinks and during the evening is involved with, or is party to, a scholarly group of chaps discussing poetry. During the conversation the line is quoted by one of the party and is of particular interest to James given his personal circumstances. The words are etched firmly on his mind and are later incorporated in his ‘journal’ of thoughts. He doesn’t have a book with it in and probably doesn’t even know who wrote it either. Simple and plausible. |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 783
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 9:50 am: | |
Figment lives!
Pure, desperate imagination.
Paul Feldman would be proud.
Of course, not a bit of evidence of any sort to support it. So why bother responding seriously?
I love Diary World, where dreams CAN make wishes come true.
--John (deep in the heart of make-believe) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1029
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 10:00 am: | |
John,
it's nice to hear you say that. Ok!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1238
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 2:05 pm: | |
Hi Chris P,
Next week, Janet and John are going to teach you all about apples and oranges – the former being your fictional assessment of odds, the latter the actual circumstances we have been discussing.
Oh, and I’ve told them you won’t need a lesson in being facetious.
Love,
Caz
X
PS I hope, Jenni, for your sake and that of your sanity, that if John has sent you looking for five words, he has made sure the circumstances are as similar as possible to those allegedly facing Mike, you being Mike and John being Shirley (it's funny already):
Asked by 'Shirley' to try to find two lines, made up of five words, of what looks like it could be a poem, you ('Mike'), with bags of motivation and plenty of free time, go to the main library in your nearest city, where, as John (as John, not Shirley) must already know, for the experiment to be fair and comparable, there are three books on the shelves which contain the lines you seek. We know this was the case when Mike was sent to look for the quotation. And we have to forget any idea that Mike knew beforehand - even though John, as John, insists he must have done - because you, as 'Mike', won't know beforehand. Except that you, as Jenni, now know the quotation will be in three of the books you will be looking at, unless John has failed to make his experiment comparable - d'oh!  logic overload - logic overload
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1036
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 2:13 pm: | |
Caz,
I think my brain ceased there. I no doubt will be able to tell you more when I find the words!!!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 491
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 2:52 pm: | |
Will any useful purpose be served by pointing out to Caroline Anne Morris yet again that a large part of the astronomical unlikelihood of Barrett's miraculous identification of the phrase lies in precisely the unlikelihood of an obscure five-word phrase from an obscure 17th-century poet ever being included in a readily available volume like the Sphere Guide?
I'm afraid there does come a point - when a pertinent point like this has been explained about a dozen times and she chooses simply to ignore it - when her argument for the plausibility of the diary becomes blatantly misleading.
Is Mrs Morris really the only one who doesn't appreciate this fundamental point?
Chris Phillips
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 918
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 2:54 pm: | |
Hi, Jenn--
Or as in Monty Python, your brain hurts, eh???!!! I have to say that while discussion of the Diary is worthwhile, because we all would like to (presumably) know who dun it in terms of having forged the Diary, the arguments here by Caz and John for some time have been very repetitive. Partly no doubt because there are no new data to discuss, as John has validly pointed out. I think I am not alone in saying that I would prefer though that everyone should keep their discussion on the issues without letting it stray into personal insult.
All the best
Chris
(Message edited by chrisg on September 15, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 791
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 4:01 pm: | |
Caroline, in speaking about our little game, wants to make sure that:
"John (as John, not Shirley) must already know, for the experiment to be fair and comparable, there are three books on the shelves which contain the lines you seek. We know this was the case when Mike was sent to look for the quotation."
Next, please.
--John
PS: Yup, Chris -- round and round we go. But this experiment will be fun nonetheless. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1241
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 6:08 am: | |
Hi Chris P,
You asked:
‘Will any useful purpose be served by pointing out to Caroline Anne Morris yet again that a large part of the astronomical unlikelihood of Barrett's miraculous identification of the phrase lies in precisely the unlikelihood of an obscure five-word phrase from an obscure 17th-century poet ever being included in a readily available volume like the Sphere Guide?
What? I mean – what??
No doubt the chances of ‘an obscure five-word phrase from an obscure 17th-century poet’ being contained in three copies of a book that just happened to be on the shelf in Liverpool library are mind-bogglingly high. Despite this, it was there. And it was also in a volume with a natural tendency to open at certain pages, one of which was the page containing the phrase, indented so that it would easily catch the eye of anyone scanning that page. No one except the Almighty arranged for those circumstances. Mike Barrett certainly didn’t. He was simply able to take advantage of them, whether he already knew which book would contain the phrase or not.
The scene was already set – all Mike had to do was go into the library after being asked by Shirley to help find a source for the phrase. Once there, the odds of him finding the right book (if he didn’t already know which book that was), would have depended on the number of books he might have had to look at before picking up and opening the Sphere vol 2. If there were only a dozen books, for example, he could have found what he was looking for before the pubs opened, and called Feldy to brag about it.
If you don’t know how many English literature reference books were on the library shelves, how can you even begin to assess the odds against Mike finding a phrase which we know was in three of them, despite the odds against this being the case?
That’s the fundamental point as far as I’m concerned.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1045
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 6:26 am: | |
Indeed it's always worth bearing in mind that the book was in the library and the quote was in the book
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 793
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 8:28 am: | |
"All Mike had to do..."
God, I love that phrase!
That's my new favorite.
And it's definitely going on a t-shirt. Perhaps with the Liverpool Library logo on the back.
"All Mike had to do...," after all, was go into a library with only five words, only five completely unidentified words, and find the only page in the only title in the entire library that has just those words excerpted and cited on it amidst writing in a completely different mode.
Indeed, he just "managed" to find the only page in the only book in the whole history of the world that had those five words cited that way, except for one other. The diary. His diary. The one he brought forth.
And the only reason we have to even begin to believe that such a miracle ever happened is because Mike says it did.
No wonder Caroline pushes this as possible.
After all, Mike said it.
And besides, "all he had to do....."
I wonder, Caroline, has anyone ever found any expert, on library science, on academic research skills, even on just the business of using libraries, that has ever said that what Mike said happened happened? Any expert that has ever even hinted that they might believe this incredible odds-defying fairy tale?
I do research in libraries as part of my profession (Hi, Robert). I'm telling you the odds against this story being true are astronomical. One line. On one page. In one book. From an entire library. Without ever having seen the words before and knowing almost nothing for certain about them.
Mike lied.
But we'll see. An experiment will be underway before the month is over. It will be mocked by those with specific interests, for obvious reason. But when it is over, we'll have something new to talk about.
In the meantime, remember this.
As far as anyone can tell, there have only been two books in the entire history of writing, the entire history of publishing, that have this specific line excerpted and cited in them
One appeared in the 1970s.
Another one appeared in the 1990s.
And Mike Barrett owned both of them.
And we're talking about odds here?
Loving the departure from common sense that morning visit to Diary World always offers me,
--John
PS: Of course, there is another much simpler, much more logical, much more obvious, much more explainable, much more rational explanation for all of this, isn't there?
(Message edited by omlor on September 17, 2004) |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 929
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 10:58 am: | |
Hi John
Here's a copy of the Liverpool City Crest so you can start getting the tee shirts printed up.
Actually though Liverpool is famous for a statue on Lewis's department store so here's another image you might consider. Mike Barrett with everything bared. No, not really. David Lewis was a Jewish shopkeeper whose store began in the 19th century but was rebuilt after the old store was bombed in the Blitz of the Second World War. The statue by Jacob Epstein called "Liverpool Resurgent" can be seen opposite the Adelphi Hotel where the 2003 Ripper convention was held. This goes to show that Ripperologists and Diarists likewise have nothing to hide. 
Have a good weekend, everyone!
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1046
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 12:18 pm: | |
John,
I don't think anyone is doubting the sheer good fortune it would have taken or time but that does not change the fact that the quote was in the book in the library.
Far more interesting is that the quote was in the book and that the book was in the library and probably the source than if Mike Barrett is lying!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 492
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 12:38 pm: | |
OK just one more try, and then I really will give this up.
Which is more likely (and by how many orders of magnitude)?:
(1) A Victorian businessman quotes in his diary an obscure five-word phrase from an obscure 17th-century poet. A century later the diary comes by unknown means into the hands of a man in Liverpool. Also in the following century, a book on literature quotes these very same five words, and by sheer chance the man who has the diary is able to discover that quotation (either in the library or in a copy of the book in his possession, it doesn't much matter which).
(2) In the late 1980s someone forges a Victorian diary, and quotes a bit of obscure poetry from a book on literature. Later, a man connected with the forgers reveals where the quotation came from.
And I'm really getting tired of patiently explaining to Caroline Morris that just because an event happens, it doesn't mean that it isn't an event of extremely low probability (think about the National Lottery for a moment!).
But, being a bit more charitable, I'm beginning to think she really can't understand these concepts, straightforward though they are. Is it really too much to wish for that people would have some inkling that they aren't capable of understanding, though? I suppose it is ...
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1049
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 12:48 pm: | |
Hang on though because this could also have happened,
someone else forged the diary and got the quote from the sphere book.
the sphere book was in the library where Mike found the quote. This being equally possible!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Robert J Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 1:30 pm: | |
Simon and Jennifer,
Crashaw and his poem Sancta Maria Dolorum are indeed obscure today, but they weren’t in 1888. As I will show, Crashaw had been rediscovered by the later Victorians, after a pretty sniffy reception during the Romantic Age.
As Simon points out, we only know of the poem’s existence through a brief reference to it in Robert Ellrodt’s essay on George Herbert, Richard Crashaw and Henry Vaughan in the Sphere Guide, or by referring to an out-of-print edition of Crashaw’s complete works. Significantly, there is no edition in print of Crashaw’s poems, either complete or selected. And Crashaw receives only scant recognition in modern books of criticism on seventeeth century literature.
By contrast, the later Victorians were steeped in Crashaw. John Omlor likes to imply that the metaphysical poets weren’t much regarded, until TS Elliot highlighted them for twentieth century readers, but I’ve got news for him – the Victorians and the Edwardians got there first. In fact, in the years from 1858 to 1908, there was considerable publishing activity around Crashaw’s poetry.
Here is the documentary evidence:
1. 1958. A new edition of Crashaw’s Complete Works, edited by William B Turnbull, was published.
In the last two years or so, I have found randomly in bookshops two copies, almost 150 years after publication. One cost Ł10, the other Ł15, so we are not talking about rare books from a limited print run.
Interestingly, the second book is marked by the owner on the flyleaf: “CS Campbell, Liverpool 3.1.50”. The two lines quoted in the diary are at the very top of a right hand page, so are easy to spot. Unlike Mike Barrett, who could only verify he had possession of the said volume, several weeks, even months after his “miracle” in Liverpool Central Public Library on 30th September 1994, fellow Liverpudlian Mr Campbell actually owned the complete works. Surely that makes him rather a good candidate for the forger.
2. 1872. A new two-volume edition of Crashaw’s Complete Works by Rev AB Grosart was published. In 1888, Dr Grosart created something of a literary sensation by publishing a pamphlet of newly-discovered poems by Crashaw.
How coincidental that in Dr Grosart’s edition of the Collected Works of Andrew Marvell, a contemporary of Crashaw’s and a fellow metaphysical poet, this line from 1670 should appear: “I wrote to you two letters, and payd for them from the posthouse here”.
As an aside, isn’t it funny, how certain people have chosen to ignore my discovery of the words Posting House written in large letters on a coaching inn in Ilford, Essex as evidenced by a photograph dated 1890. They continue to claim there is no post house (a synonym for posting house) anywhere in England at that time. Such honesty.
3. 1883. The enormously influential Victorian critic, Edmund Gosse, dedicated a 32 page major essay on Crashaw in his Seventeeth Century Studies, published in this year. It was reissued in 1885. The choice of Crashaw as the subject of a major critical essay rested solely on the complete works, being recently made available to the public.
4. 1898. Another prominent Victorian critic, George Saintsbury, described Crashaw as “one of the Greatest of English Poets”.
5. 1901. Another new edition, “The English Poems of Richard Crashaw”, edited by Edmund Hutton, was published by Methuen.
6. 1903. Chambers Cyclopedia of English Literature, comments: “Many poets in the latter half of the nineteenth century have acknowledged Crashaw’s fascination.”
7. 1904. AR Waller’s edition of Crashaw’s works was published, making it the fourth new edition in less than 50 years.
8. 1907. Simon, if you are looking for quotations from Sancta Maria Dolorum, look no further than William Stebbing, Hon. Fellow of Worcester College, Oxford, who in his book published in that year, The Poets, raves on for over a page about the poem, and quotes eighteen lines from it, which start, appropriately enough, with the quote from the Sphere Guide.
He writes further: “The eleven stanzas are an inspiration, I would almost say, incomparable in hymnology – a combination of woe and triumph, submission and sovereignty, pathos, spiritual, sublimity, everything.”
Yes, the Victorians and the Edwardians liked Crashaw a lot, Catholics and Protestants alike. One of the many nonsensical claims by John Omlor is that Maybrick, being a Protestant, could not have been acquainted with Crashaw’s poems.
Whenever, I counter with: “By that analogy, do you also believe that Catholics would not have read the poems of the great metaphysical poet of secular and religious verse,John Donne, Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral?”, which is so Church of England, that its future Head, Prince Charles, married Diana there, John unsurprisingly remains mute.
As for Mike’s discovery, there were three copies of English Poetry and Prose 1540 – 1674 published by Sphere amongst a limited selection of books on English Literature in Liverpool Public Library in September 1994. For Mike to locate one of those copies doesn’t seem to be the miracle it is portrayed to be. And remember, it was Shirley, who asked him to look for it in that library.
As Simon has suggested, once you have the book in your hands, the chances of finding the quote in it, while in the public library must be pretty well identical to finding it while looking through the book in your home.
In this particular instance, it is much less likely that Mike would have found the quote in the book at home, even assuming he owned a copy prior to 30th September 1994. We know that Mike was in the library actively looking for the specific quote, as directed by Shirley. That makes sense. It makes no sense that the unscholarly Mike would have been idly looking for an appropriate seventeeth century quote in a book of literary criticism to pop into the diary, when there is no other literary quote in the diary. Was it so that he could later prove he wrote the diary, surely a very unlikely motivation in or pre 1992? And if he did plan to make such a claim, why didn’t he use the information at the supremely apposite time of his confession, three months before the official discovery of the quote in the library? The answer is, because, at the time of his confession, he didn’t know where it came from.
We are all agreed that if Mike did provide the quote for the diary, it must have come from the Sphere book.
But look at the paragraph in the diary immediately prior to the quote:
“I keep seeing blood pouring from the bitches……..See if there eyes pop”.
Now look at the line immediately preceding the quote in Crashaw’s original poem:
“Her eyes bleed tears, his wounds weep blood”.
That’s a pretty amazing linguistic coincidence, isn’t it? Or could the writer have known Crashaw’s poem better than we thought? John asserts that James Maybrick “could not” have been acquainted with Crashaw’s poem. That bold and bizarre assertion of “could not” however, must surely also be true in the case of Mike Barrett, even if he is a Catholic. However hard I find it to imagine Mike having the linguistic skill and subject knowledge to research and write the diary, it is even harder to imagine him settling down of an evening with a whisky or two, avidly reading Crashaw’s Sacred Poems or even looking through English Poetry and Prose 1540 – 1674 for an appropriate literary quote to be dropped uniquely into the Diary.
But in the daily outpourings of dogma and mantras, where aggressive and relentlessly repetitive opinion passes for certainty and proof, anything is possible.
It is so bad, that when Simon and Jennifer, who seriously believe the diary to be a fake, demur on any single point of the dogma, they are persistently attacked until they give up and move on. Your only choice is to accept the whole dogma, because there are terrified, that if one small point were ever to be conceded, then the whole pack of cards would collapse.
For my part, I look to further research and further scientific tests, to provide some real new information. Don’t expect any practical contributions from the men of dogma. Posturing not doing, is what they are about.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
