|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 389
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 2:29 pm: |       |
Hi Jennifer,
Yes, well, that about sums it up.
--John
PS: See Airplane! for the Shirley joke. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 458
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 5:05 am: | |
John O.
I have been thinking you know. I have concluded that I don't really know if any of the suspects are viable. What makes a suspect viable? I don't know. I know I would laugh if someone told me they thought certain people were JTR but what evidence do I have?
Jennifer
Uncle Bulgaria,He can remember the days when he wasn't behind The Times.....
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 390
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 9:31 am: | |
Hi Jennifer,
Well, I've always shared the opinion of Don Rumbelow, who has said that when he gets to heaven and is told the real name of Jack he'll probably have to ask "who?" as he scratches his head.
But of course some suspects are at least more viable than others -- if they were actually mentioned by the police as suspects, for instance. Or if they were directly connected to the victims in some way. But certainly not because they painted dark paintings of women on beds or because someone wrote a fake diary and signed their name to it (in a handwriting that wasn't even theirs).
--John
(who happened to be at the Metropolitan Museum of Art last Thursday and saw the Sickert painting of the nude woman almost falling off her bed -- the one the PC mentions with such a Ripper inspired shudder -- and who had to laugh, really) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 461
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 3:22 pm: | |
John O.
I get your point. Nice to see you get neatly back to the point of this particular thread too.!
PC - thats a whole other kettle of fish/diffent game!
What I can't understand is why no one has proven things either way enough to convince people (I say people but speak only for myself!)
After all its been 11 years (OK some of us haven't been bothered all that time...its not the kind of thing one thinks about at that age!!)
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 393
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 5:12 pm: | |
Jennifer,
Faith and desire.
There are still flat-earth websites. And there are still websites that will try to convince you that humans played with dinosaurs.
Faith and desire.
For some people, they'll trump logic and evidence every time.
Count on it,
--John |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 396
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 11:05 pm: | |
Sorry, Robert,
But I'm just not, on your suggestion, going to wait any particular amount of time before responding. Waiting is pretty much all we've done here in Diary World.
Then again this won't take long, as I have read all these words before.
More than once.
And so there is very little that needs to be said.
I have indeed sent more than a few people "some information about the real problems with getting the diary tested."
I won't discuss any of it here, in line with an agreement I have already made with someone I respect and admire.
I offer it to anyone else, though, who wants to see it.
Anyone interested, who has just read Robert's post above and wants to be fully informed about the past and what the future might well hold, feel free to send me e-mail and I'll send you the appropriate materials.
Things don't change when people say they will. My own life experience has taught me that.
Talk, after all, is not very expensive.
Things change only when things actually change.
Until then, I'll wait.
For a change.
--John (who knows his calendar)
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 464
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 04, 2004 - 5:06 am: | |
John O.
Logic tells me I don't have a clue!!
Robert,
I can confirm John's email to me on this subject matched with what you stated above in many respects.
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Robert J Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 2:59 pm: | |
Jennifer,
You clearly are a fair person with an open attitude, not just toward the diary, but I suspect to life in general.
You can probably see by now, that there is sometimes a terrible problem about communication on these boards. I believe I had explained in clear English in my post of 1st July to Scotty and Dee, that I was agreeing with John Omlor when he wrote : “Test it all. Test everything. Do it now.” I also agreed with him that testing organisations should have “unlimited access” to the diary.
What do I get back from John? “Things don’t change.” And in his post of 6th July on ‘The Maybrick Watch’ thread, up comes his dark reference to my so-called “conclusive results” requirement, with the comment that it “has not been significantly altered”.
I suppose that, for people in total denial, nobody does or can change. But I will try to say it again, but even more plainly:
I offer the diary for a comprehensive and comparative testing programme by one or more independent organisations with the relevant experience and resources to perform the tests. I do not require any assurance whatsoever of conclusive results on the dating of the ink, prior to testing.
Can I say it any clearer than that?
Jennifer, I explained the historical sequence of events in my 1st August 2003 post on a thread called “Proposal for New Diary Tests”. (Yes, I was calling for new tests right there, almost a year ago). Please read it and tell me if it accords with the “information” John sent to you.
John’s problem appears to be with Clause 2 of the agreement between him and me, dated 28th June 2002, which he agreed to sign. It said:
“The purpose of such investigation [of the feasibility of new forensic tests] is to establish whether a testing organisation is able to determine conclusively when the ink was placed on the paper in the Diary within a reasonable margin of error.”
On 2nd July 2002, I opened out the definition of dating the ink in the way John wanted. I wrote: “If McCrone can say definitely that the ink is Victorian or if it is modern, that might well provide the justification under the current Clause 2.” He replied the same day: “Yes, I think perhaps adding a brief note including the possibility of the lab being able to tell us whether the ink is definitely Victorian or definitely modern (say, definitely from the 20th Century, thereby eliminating the possibility of authenticity), then Clause 2 would be fine.”
No problem there then. Frankly, if McCrone couldn’t tell us if the diary writing was either 19th or 20th Century in origin, would there have been any point to the tests?
His email ended:
“I’ll watch for the document tomorrow and sign it and send it right back, so that you can send off the previous results to McCrone along with a letter and they can send you back a proposal.”
As quoted in my last post, John resigned on the friendliest of terms a few days later on 15th July 2002, expressing “complete faith” in me.
Ten months went by, with not one word passing between John and me from August 2003 to 30th June 2004. On that date, he chose to write a post accusing me of a ‘con’ over testing and of obstructing testing through “unconscionable self interest”.
Because I reacted to his defamation of me by requiring an apology and retraction, he continually complains of being “burned”. When you start a fire, what do you expect? What did I do to deserve this tirade in the first place?
But really, this is old history – two years ago. So let us move on. Surely, we can agree, that what we all want is for the diary to be proved either fake or genuine. I don’t mind which way it goes. I just want to know the truth, so that I can draw a line under eleven years of grief on the subject. I am pilloried because I believe for many good reasons, that the diary is a genuine Victorian document, written by James Maybrick. That is why I published it from 1993 to 1997, when Blake acquired Smith Gryphon’s books.
If it was forged, then the story of how it was forged and who did it, will be fascinating. After all, it only took a few weeks to reveal the identities of the forgers of the Hitler Diaries and the forgers of the Mussolini Diaries and bring them to justice. If the Ripper diary was faked, the forger is in a class of his own.
All best,
Robert
|
Robert J Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 3:47 pm: | |
John,
Taking a leaf out of your repetition handbook, here is my statement again on open and unlimited tests. If any part of it is difficult to understand or capable of further misinterpretation, please let me know, and I’ll try to express it another way.
"I offer the diary for a comprehensive and comparative testing programme by one or more independent organisations with the relevant experience and resources to perform the tests. I do not require any assurance whatsoever of conclusive results on the dating of the ink, prior to testing."
Like the rest of the Ripper community, I await with mounting excitement, to witness the event you have been trailing mysteriously for months – Bastille Day 14th July. I am sure your revelations on its significance will justify the long promo period.
May I offer my own date, just one day later in fact – 15th July, 2002. This was the day when I got two opposing emails from you. It was a multi-personality experience.
The first email said: “As I mentioned in an earlier email, I was intending to head out to fax my signed copy of the agreement to you today…I will send over the fax tomorrow morning.”
The second email on the same day, just eight hours later, said: “……thinking things over, it became clear to me that perhaps someone with more experience in these matters and with a more direct, professional involvement in the case should be actively involved in the process as it continues.”
Why did your legs suddenly turn to jelly in those few hours on 15th July 2002, after six or seven weeks of thinking about it, during a constructive, amicable correspondence with me? Was it panic at the thought of the responsibility you had taken on, to see the testing process through?
Two days later, on 17th July 2002, you were still fully supportive. You wrote to me:
“I would still like to organize the fundraising….And I would have no problem making it clear that you are still willing to go ahead with the tests.”
In the ten months of silence, which ended with your “con” post of 30th June 2003 (sorry for the error on the year in my last post), you appear to have been hatching up a big conspiracy theory. In your retrospective rationalisation, you came up with the theory that I had set you up. It made sense, like all conspiracy theories. Princess Diana had to have been assassinated in Paris by MI6, but, of course, she wasn’t.
Whatever your fantasies about my wanting to obstruct the tests, in the real world, if you had not run off, and McCrone had come up with a decent proposal for testing the diary, how could I not have cooperated? No confidentiality agreement in the world would have saved me from the roasting you could have given me for the rest of my life and rightly so, if I had not allowed a comprehensive and competent testing programme by a respected independent organisation to take place.
But John, you first have to live with the fact that by resigning from the tests on 15th July 2002, and trying to dump the job first on Keith, then on Paul, you sabotaged your own initiative to prove once and for all that the diary is a fake. You are the one who walked away from the tests. No wonder you are bitter and in denial, standing cynically on the sidelines, and groundlessly accusing others of dishonesty and malpractice. Yes, the diary could be a fake and you lost the best chance yet of proving it.
But I am giving you, or someone else, another chance.
You claim to be worried that you might get “burned”. Then get a committee of regulators chosen by you to monitor me and anyone else involved in the tests, and report back to their boards, to ensure that the process is conducted with impeccable rectitude. You certainly have the time to do the job, to judge by the speed at which you reply so promptly to posts, apparently at any time of the day, any day, month after month, year after year.
So, instead of saying repeatedly: “There’s nothing new, there’s no change”, make something new happen. Otherwise it is words and more words, and you will have to live with your what-might-have-been nightmare, especially on 15th July each year.
All best,
Robert
|
Robert J Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 3:46 pm: | |
John,
Taking a leaf out of your repetition handbook, here is my statement again on open and unlimited tests. If any part of it is difficult to understand or capable of further misinterpretation, please let me know, and I’ll try to express it another way.
"I offer the diary for a comprehensive and comparative testing programme by one or more independent organisations with the relevant experience and resources to perform the tests. I do not require any assurance whatsoever of conclusive results on the dating of the ink, prior to testing."
Like the rest of the Ripper community, I await with mounting excitement, to witness the event you have been trailing mysteriously for months – Bastille Day 14th July. I am sure your revelations on its significance will justify the long promo period.
May I offer my own date, just one day later in fact – 15th July, 2002. This was the day when I got two opposing emails from you. It was a multi-personality experience.
The first email said: “As I mentioned in an earlier email, I was intending to head out to fax my signed copy of the agreement to you today…I will send over the fax tomorrow morning.”
The second email on the same day, just eight hours later, said: “……thinking things over, it became clear to me that perhaps someone with more experience in these matters and with a more direct, professional involvement in the case should be actively involved in the process as it continues.”
Why did your legs suddenly turn to jelly in those few hours on 15th July 2002, after six or seven weeks of thinking about it, during a constructive, amicable correspondence with me? Was it panic at the thought of the responsibility you had taken on, to see the testing process through?
Two days later, on 17th July 2002, you were still fully supportive. You wrote to me:
“I would still like to organize the fundraising….And I would have no problem making it clear that you are still willing to go ahead with the tests.”
In the ten months of silence, which ended with your “con” post of 30th June 2003 (sorry for the error on the year in my last post), you appear to have been hatching up a big conspiracy theory. In your retrospective rationalisation, you came up with the theory that I had set you up. It made sense, like all conspiracy theories. Princess Diana had to have been assassinated in Paris by MI6, but, of course, she wasn’t.
Whatever your fantasies about my wanting to obstruct the tests, in the real world, if you had not run off, and McCrone had come up with a decent proposal for testing the diary, how could I not have cooperated? No confidentiality agreement in the world would have saved me from the roasting you could have given me for the rest of my life and rightly so, if I had not allowed a comprehensive and competent testing programme by a respected independent organisation to take place.
But John, you first have to live with the fact that by resigning from the tests on 15th July 2002, and trying to dump the job first on Keith, then on Paul, you sabotaged your own initiative to prove once and for all that the diary is a fake. You are the one who walked away from the tests. No wonder you are bitter and in denial, standing cynically on the sidelines, and groundlessly accusing others of dishonesty and malpractice. Yes, the diary could be a fake and you lost the best chance yet of proving it.
But I am giving you, or someone else, another chance.
You claim to be worried that you might get “burned”. Then get a committee of regulators chosen by you to monitor me and anyone else involved in the tests, and report back to their boards, to ensure that the process is conducted with impeccable rectitude. You certainly have the time to do the job, to judge by the speed at which you reply so promptly to posts, apparently at any time of the day, any day, month after month, year after year.
So, instead of saying repeatedly: “There’s nothing new, there’s no change”, make something new happen. Otherwise it is words and more words, and you will have to live with your what-might-have-been nightmare, especially on 15th July each year.
All best,
Robert
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 419
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 5:04 pm: | |
I'm not sure why the post above has appeared twice. I hope both versions are the same. I'll respond only to the second one, not the first.
Now then, Let's go slowly.
To Jennifer, before he addresses me, Robert writes a wonderful paragraph:
"I offer the diary for a comprehensive and comparative testing programme by one or more independent organisations with the relevant experience and resources to perform the tests. I do not require any assurance whatsoever of conclusive results on the dating of the ink, prior to testing."
I hope this turns out to be true.
If so, I will consider myself as having been useful around here, regardless of what some might claim. I remain understandably suspicious, history being what it is. So I'm happy to wait and see (as I said the last time Robert appeared here). I pray for the best.
Robert then suggests to Jennifer that "John’s problem appears to be with Clause 2 of the agreement between him and me, dated 28th June 2002."
But it wasn't. My problem was with what I received well after that, in email from him on September 11, and from Paul Begg five months after that, and here on the boards from him and from Caroline, concerning the need for assurance about "conclusive results" before anything, including old reports would be sent to the lab. I have already cited one of Robert's own emails to me in this regard and one of Paul's.
But then he asks a very telling question:
"Frankly, if McCrone couldn’t tell us if the diary writing was either 19th or 20th Century in origin, would there have been any point to the tests?"
Actually, a full set of tests on the diary might very well have shown us all sorts of things without giving us a final date or even a conclusive time frame. They might have produced all sorts of leads regarding chemicals and processes and other such useful information. Then again, they might not have. I don't know. And neither does Robert. And that's the point, because the lab was never sent the stuff. And until a lab is, we'll never know, will we?
Robert's revisionism about my appearing here after a long period of silence can be quickly dismissed. I reappeared here and wrote of my concerns only after hearing from his agent, Paul Begg, and after writing to and discussing matters with Paul in email during January and February of 2003, in the midst of Robert's "ten months of silence." I have those emails. I'll quote from another one below. And it was only after those emails that I posted my remarks about the process being doomed in June of 2003. In fact, it was near the end of June, 2003. I know this because I received Robert's "proportionate response" letter on July 9, 2003 -- you all know, the one threatening to sue me over what I wrote in a PS to a post on a Tim Henman board here.
So let's get things, right, shall we?
Now then, as to Robert's post to me:
First as to July 14th...
I don't know what "justify" means in your sentence, Robert. I've marked the day on my calendar, for reasons I'll explain when the time comes. I have no doubt that the reasons will not seem "justified" or even very important to you. That's fine.
And your history of our exchanges is, in the beginning, fine as far as it goes. My problem with the testing process and what I felt and still feel is likely to hold it up did not develop until well after the days and exchanges you are talking about. It was not until nothing at all had been done for months and months and, when trying to discover why, I saw the language from both you and from Paul about "conclusive results" and phrases like "the diary will only be released if..." that I began to understand the problem and how it worked.
Here's another example -- on February 13, 2003, Paul Begg wrote to me, regarding his discussion with the lab's director:
"And we all know what Joseph Barabe meant by his cautious and realistic statement, and equally I know what Robert Smith means by his - he wants an answer that will give us a meaningful date."
That seems pretty clear to me. Is anyone confused by that statement?
Add this to Robert's own words from Sept 11th, 2002, indicating that he would release the previous lab reports to the scientists
"if [Paul] is convinced they are able to date the document in a conclusive way..."
and to Paul Begg's clear statement on January 7th 2003 that
"I have had to stress that this is the only time in the forseeable future that the diary will be made available for scientific examination and that we therefore need - and indeed the diary will only be released if there is a reasonable chance of getting - definitive answers, specifically a date when the ink was put on the paper"
and I think the record speaks for itself regarding what were and were not requirements for the lab seeing the material.
As for the mystical invocation of "conspiracy theories," that is nonsense. Unfortunately, the two short posts I wrote about this subject are no longer on the boards (legal threats, remember). I do however, still have them. If anyone would like to see exactly what I wrote that is causing all this ruckus and has Robert melodramatically invoking MI6, just send me private email and I'll send you a copy of both posts.
Honest.
As for the circumstances, much earlier on and when I still had no problem with the plan for tests, that demanded my scaling down to simply participating in the fundraising process, Robert knows the events that occurred in my family and my other concerns and I am not going to talk about them here. I have no regrets at all about choosing to do what I did at that time. I made absolutely the right decision for those most important to me.
However, as to why I do not return to the scene and once again agree to participate in a testing process -- well, that's an entirely different question. And the answer to that question has to do with a series of documents I am quite happy to send to anyone who is interested. Documents about lawyers and documents about lifetime bans and bizarre one-line email threats, and later documents, even more nasty ones, that frighteningly demonstrate a sad sort of vindictive behavior of which I want absolutely no part.
Send for yours today.
And in the meantime, I'll sit by and see if this latest offer does indeed lead to anything new, anything real. Or whether the motto of Diary World stays imprinted on our coins and stitched into our mouse ears.
Happy about the new language in the new paragraph, but still watching and waiting,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 492
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 8:18 am: | |
Robert and John,
I will get back to you shortly. Meantime Robert if you want to email me too (not suggesting you do or should) then the email address I give out on these boards so my regular one doesn't get spammed is jennipegg@yahoo.co.uk
I now have to go find the post you are referring to.
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 493
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 8:46 am: | |
Robert,
I would love to read the post you mentioned however, I cannot seem to find it. Could you provide a link?
You stated: -I offer the diary for a comprehensive and comparative testing programme by one or more independent organisations with the relevant experience and resources to perform the tests. I do not require any assurance whatsoever of conclusive results on the dating of the ink, prior to testing.
That's just great, lets get the thing tested then. What is stopping you?
Regards
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 506
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 11:36 am: | |
Robert,
I still can't find the link you mentioned, however, I have reread your post and have decided that it probably doesn't matter.
I do not wish to discuss the content or phrasing of private emails in public, however, I hope John will not mind my saying this. The purpose of John's email was to explain why he felt he could not get involved with testing the diary, it did not have anything to do with other aspects of this debate. The only reason i mentioned it before was because you seemed to be over concerned with it's content (and i knew its content fitted with what you said and with what i could vaguely remember happening). I therefore realised it should not be a concern to you.
The purpose of John emailing me was to keep it off the boards. I respect his position. Therefore this will be all I will be saying on this matter on the boards. I hope this is not objectionable to anyone concerned.
cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 508
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 7:52 am: | |
Robert,
further to the above post is this the post/infomation at any rate you meant?
http://../4922/6771.html"#C6C6B5"> |
Robert J Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 9:10 am: | |
Jennifer,
There were two separate posts, dated 8th July and 9th July on this thread, “The Handwriting”.
You ask, what’s stopping me testing the diary?
Given all the past accusations and innuendoes, it is crucial that all future tests on the diary are seen to be conducted impartially and objectively. As you are aware, there are some people on the boards, who would never believe, that any tests which I researched and organised, had been commissioned and performed on an objective basis.
All best,
Robert
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 521
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 6:48 am: | |
Robert,
I fully appreciate what you are saying. Would it therefore be correct to assume that you would be willing to let someone other than yourself arrange tests? As this seems to be what you were indicating earlier when you stated: - I offer the diary for a comprehensive and comparative testing programme by one or more independent organisations with the relevant experience and resources to perform the tests. I do not require any assurance whatsoever of conclusive results on the dating of the ink, prior to testing.
Regards
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 432
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 7:14 am: | |
Mornin' everyone. 
I am pleased to see that the spirit of the new DiTA year is taking hold.
Robert writes:
"...it is crucial that all future tests on the diary are seen to be conducted impartially and objectively."
And here, now, the day after DiTA Day 2004, I can happily and with joy in my heart announce that Robert and I are in complete agreement.
I look forward to reading the results of these future tests after they have been conducted.
With a warm, ET glow,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 537
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 10:07 am: | |
Hey John,
I missed this one. I guess the DiTA spirit is in all of us now. It's not just you and Robert who agree, as far as I can tell from posts on this board everyone feels this is the way forward.
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1140
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 6:04 pm: | |
So Jenn,
Who would you nominate to find an expert and raise the funds this time around, to enable Robert's offer to be taken up?
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 373
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 6:43 pm: | |
Caz
But what is Robert's offer?
You told us it was "no strings attached", which it turns out not to be.
That's no big surprise. The diary is his property, and no one is going to hand over their property to all comers on a "no strings attached" basis. (After all, they might just set fire to it, which would be rather cruel - but in another way it would be rather a relief.)
But it just leaves us asking what's the point of making such silly claims in the first place. To try to "win" a bulletin board argument obviously, but how much further does that advance any serious objective?
So, being sensible, naturally the owner of the diary will want to impose conditions, and it will be a legitimate subject of debate whether those conditions are too stringent, not stringent enough, or what. (For example, people shouldn't fly off the handle and accuse people of lying if they complain that the conditions are too stringent.)
If these offers of testing are serious ones (which I suspect they're not), you should realise that there are all sorts of "Catch 22" possibilities here.
Of course, Robert Smith can't say whether he will agree to any proposal unless the proposal is there. And the money is there. And the money won't be there unless the proposal is there and has been agreed to. And probably the proposal won't be there unless the money is there and the agreement is there.
And if we had some ham could have some ham and eggs. If we had some eggs. ...
And why are we wasting our time on this anyway, when the diary advovates won't even try to explain the numerous clear evidences of forgery presented by the text itself (tin match box empty)?
I'd seriously advise anyone thinking of contributing money to any program of testing to consider whether they are (in effect) being defrauded by the creator(s) of the diary and their fellow-travellers.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 444
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 7:49 pm: | |
Chris,
Let me know when the lawyers arrive.
--John  |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 541
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 7:16 am: | |
Hi Caz,
To answer your question I would not wish that unenviable task on any one single person.
Hi Chris,
Robert stated on these boards
I offer the diary for a comprehensive and comparative testing programme by one or more independent organisations with the relevant experience and resources to perform the tests. I do not require any assurance whatsoever of conclusive results on the dating of the ink, prior to testing.
To be fair I can't see any strings attached to that.
As for what you say about the rest of the diary I guess you are right.
Jennifer
ps if you want some eggs just go to the supermarket!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 543
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 12:44 pm: | |
To clarify what I meant above, when i stated 'as for what you say about the rest of the diary i guess you are right' i meant in relation to the difficulties with the problem phrases within the diary, most notably 'tin match box empty' (sic).
Furthermore,
to clarify what I was saying to Caz, it is not up to me to nominate people for such a task. if there is someone (or people) willing to take it up, then that is a different matter but it is up to them (and not me) to suggest them.
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1142
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 5:50 am: | |
That's fine, Jenn, but you and others were saying let's go ahead with new tests then, what's stopping us, and so on and so forth.
And I was simply wondering who was going to take up Robert Smith's offer - and I'm still wondering, since Chris is unhappy about Robert's wording and wants me to explain it for him, but thinks it's all a waste of time anyway, and is now warning people to think twice before offering help with funding.
Funny to see Chris, of all people, putting such a damper on John O's dream proposal of two years ago.
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 548
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 6:17 am: | |
Caz,
I still am saying it. I'll say it again if it helps, but I think Robert Smith explained exactly what was stopping him. As I've said before on these boards, I quite understand what he is saying.
Still it's early days, we live in hope.
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 549
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 6:22 am: | |
ps I guess Chris is right in the sense that whoever were to take up Roberts offer would have to put some serious thought into it.
jdp
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 448
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 6:49 am: | |
Caroline thinks it's:
"Funny to see Chris, of all people, putting such a damper on John O's dream proposal of two years ago..."
But of course, it wasn't Chris. He's just learned a thing or two by reading.
Meanwhile, wisely, we wait.
Always happy to have readers,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 376
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 7:07 am: | |
Caz
I'm not sure why you say Chris, of all people, putting such a damper on John O's dream proposal. I think I've always been clear I thought there was enough evidence to show the diary was a fake, and I don't think I've ever argued that more tests would be a good thing. (Though admittedly I asked for clarification about the conditions the other day, in a rash fit of curiosity.)
I'm more concerned about the danger of existing test results being misinterpreted.
I do think that anyone actively soliciting funding for more tests is going to have to be extremely careful about how they act. If they were to combine this with arguments in favour of the diary's authenticity, which later turned out to be misleading - or even arguments that it could be authentic - they would obviously end up in a very vulnerable position.
I'm sure Robert Smith is very wise to suggest that it should be done by a third party. But how likely is it that a third party will be willing to persuade people to stump up cash for more testing, when the existing evidence is already enough for most people?
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 552
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 7:13 am: | |
Chris,
there lies the fundamental problem, right?
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 450
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 7:27 am: | |
Hi Chris,
You ask:
"...how likely is it that a third party will be willing to persuade people to stump up cash for more testing, when the existing evidence is already enough for most people?"
Hmmmmmmmmmm.
Well, we'll just have to see, won't we? 
If those who have the diary genuinely desire to have it properly and thoroughly retested (and in the spirit of the new DiTA year, I now religiously believe that they do), I'm sure they'll work hard at convincing people to help, at recruiting people to arrange the contacts and finances in an independent fashion, at making sure, one way or another, that the things they know should be done are done, because they are the right things to do.
I'm sure that's what will happen, in this renewed spirit of willingness and responsibility that we now share.
I'm sure they'd rather make sure this happens, work every day to make it happen, constantly struggle to convince people to help them, than to spend another year pimping a book that might very well be nothing but a cheap fake, a ruse designed only to deceive people.
Hell, I know the thing's not real, and I'll still send a check to join the coalition of the willing.
Let's see what happens,
--John (facing the bright shining future with a smile)
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1144
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 6:58 am: | |
Hi Chris,
The 'fundamental problem' that Jenn has identified from your words was one I voiced myself more than two years ago, and which was dismissed by John O with the words: 'if we don't try, we won't know', at a time when he claimed that he was prepared not only to 'actively solicit funding' for new tests, but to guarantee adequate funding would be in place before the go-ahead was given.
Now I don't know what John thinks he means by those who have the diary, since it is self-evident that only Robert Smith has the diary and only he can release it.
But, as you and John have pointed out very eloquently between you, Robert is only in a position to release the diary once an impartial third party has - in an independent fashion - actively solicited adequate funds and successfully sought out the services of reputable professionals.
So yes, 'let's see what happens' more or less echoes my own sentiments over two years ago when I too wondered how likely it would be 'that a third party will be willing to persuade people to stump up cash for more testing'.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 559
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 7:13 am: | |
Hi Caz,
Can I say something - my impression (and it is only an impression) was that it was not funding that Robert Smith was worried about rather it was (and quite understandably) the organisation of the tests themselves, which we all seem to agree (though I only speak for myself, of course) should not be sorted out by Robert Smith himself because of actual or perceived problems that this would cause, but should instead be sorted out by an independent third party (as yet unidentified).
I think it is highly unlikely that anyone would be willing to try and get funds in such a way. It is, dare I say, almost begging to write to people asking for money - it seems a little problematic and unprofessional.
However, in light of Robert Smith's recent and most generous offer I remain optimistic and I am sure all this will be resolved in the future.
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1261
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 7:33 am: | |
Can I also say something?
....or rather ask a couple of questions?
Before I do, these are genuine questions and not provocation in any way what so ever.
1) How much would the testing cost ?
2) There was no money made from the sales of any of the diary books, well not enough to fund testing. Is that correct ?
Cheers,
Monty
No, you cant have one extra on the leg side...but you can have five ! |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 379
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 8:11 am: | |
Caz
But, as you and John have pointed out very eloquently between you, Robert is only in a position to release the diary once an impartial third party has - in an independent fashion - actively solicited adequate funds and successfully sought out the services of reputable professionals.
Actually, I suggested the opposite - I suggested it might well be feasible to find people who would do some testing for reasons other than the financial. I think you read the post, because you replied to it (although that often doesn't seem to follow).
The other obvious possibility is that Robert Smith could fund some tests himself. Apparently he still believes the diary is genuine, and presumably he would stand to gain a lot financially if this could be proved.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 457
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 8:27 am: | |
I've confused Caroline by writing,
"those who have the diary."
Sorry about that. I simply meant Robert and whichever agent(s) Robert might choose to act in his behalf to cooperate with an independent party in making contacts and raising funds. Oh, and I also include whoever might be advising Robert at any given time on what to do, of course. And whoever might be speaking either directly or indirectly at any given time in public for any of those people, too. That's about it I think. For now.
As for money, all I can say is that during the brief days that I looked into raising funds for diary tests, I was overwhelmed by the number of serious personal pledges I received for contributions. And some of them, I must say, were sizable.
Of course, I'm not at all sure that now, here today, people will still be as eager to send their dollars, euros, rubles, shekels, yen, etc.
The passing of history and a little reading of the recent record can do funny things to people's willingness to participate.
So now we will, indeed, have to wait and see what happens.
But, like Jennifer, I have every confidence that Robert and company really DO want the diary to be tested and that they will be relentless in their pursuit of a contact and the formation of a coalition of the willing in order to make sure that the right thing gets done and that everyone acts in the most responsible way to get the through, objective results that any fair and independent thinking person would want to see.
I'm delighted about the way things have turned, and I'm sure the reports and material will soon be in a lab where scientists can examine them in order to properly determine precisely what is and is not possible with current testing technologies.
And I also look forward to that day when we see the results.
Really.
I do.
--John  |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 564
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 9:12 am: | |
Hi everyone,
In order to know if testing is possible and if money can pay for it surely it is first necessary to know any costs involved rather than raising money and seeing what can be done with it?
Perhaps Chris' idea that there are other reasons for which people may test the diary are also fruitful?
Hi Monty,
in relation your first question I don't know but I assume it would depend on the lab involved the tests done and the amount of time it would take.
Hi John,
I too look forward to this day, I'm sure it is coming, soon.
Cheers everyone
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 464
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 12:21 pm: | |
Hi Jen,
I'm sure, too.
Cheers, indeed,
--John  |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 577
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 3:41 pm: | |
John,
Doesn''t it feel good to be sure?
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 466
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 5:09 pm: | |
Hi Jen,
Indeed. It's sort of a warm, glowing feeling, now that I know that a responsible lab somewhere will someday actually see the materials and the book prior to determining and in order to determine precisely what will be possible given the latest technologies.
Yup, it's a good feeling.
And it's all a result of my newfound faith in DiTA spirit and the return to Diary World of my good friend Robert.
Still glowing, like the Teletubbies' baby in the sun,
--John  |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 581
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 8:20 am: | |
John,
Indeed we all have a new found faith in diary world in the spirit of DiTA!!!
Jennifer
ps teletubbies don't have babies do they?
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 468
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 9:59 am: | |
Hi Jennifer,
They had this weird and frightening sort of baby-god whose face rose over them in the sun.
Even now it creeps me out.
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 586
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 10:46 am: | |
John, sorry you are quite right. I see your knowledge of Kids TV is second to none,
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1145
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 12:22 pm: | |
Hi Jenn, Chris, Monty,
As in all things diary, your best bet is to ask John O if you have any more questions about the funding issue. He agreed with Robert Smith over two years ago that the only role Robert could reasonably be expected to take was to hand the diary over when a third party (John O at that time) had done the basic groundwork – ie found the experts, investigated what tests they might be able to do and guaranteed the required funds.
If John had expected Robert to cherry-pick his own experts and fund them too, he wouldn’t have volunteered himself for the job, or passed the buck almost immediately to Paul Begg (while still promising that funding would not be a problem) when he realised he’d taken on more than he could cope with.
As I said before, if Robert were to fund his own choice of experts, and those experts failed to rule out a late 1880s creation date, you can be sure that some self-confessed hardened cynic would be sitting there just itching to question the impartiality of the whole deal, and to call for more tests and more money from someone else's purse to fund them.
Yep, if someone can encourage more specialists to examine or test the diary for little or no payment, this would be a real bonus, and, as I also said recently, efforts are being made towards this end as I type.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by Caz on July 21, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 590
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 12:29 pm: | |
Caz,
I know its great. That diary will soon be tested.
Hurrahh!
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 470
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 4:35 pm: | |
Hurrah, indeed. 
I can hardly wait.
But wait I will, until talk one day becomes results.
Happy to be here, still,
--John |
MF
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 2:45 pm: | |
In the meantime since handwriting analysis seems so important, (Not that I mind. Analyzing content gives me a headache.), how distinctive are the known Maybrick signature M and K? (From the Will, of course.)
And the MishterLusK M and K?
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 514
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 8:45 am: | |
Hi MF,
Completely different, of course. And also completely different from the writing in the real Maybrick's letters as well.
The writing of the real James Maybrick, of which we have several different samples now, looks nothing at all like the writing in the diary AND nothing at all like the writing in the various different Ripper letters the forger has James claiming he wrote. In fact, many of those letters themselves are in completely different hands (you can check them out in Evans and Skinner's Letters from Hell).
As a friend once pointed out to me:
"One of the truly crass aspects of the 'diary' is the fact that the 'diarist' claims authorship of the 'Dear Boss' letter, the 'saucy Jacky' postcard, the Goulston Street graffiti and the 'From hell' letter. So for the 'diarist' to be the Ripper ALL these communications HAVE to be written by the killer. This alone should give it away as an ill- considered forgery. To compound its own crassness it then contains many echoes of the 'Dear Boss' letter all the way through. [...]
"Taken together with the fact that all these communications are in different handwriting and are unlikely to be from the killer anyway (in my opinion), the whole thing becomes ridiculous."
And you know what? I think my friend is probably right.
But I'm sure someone will be along shortly pleading that "we all have many handwritings" or "the real James probably had multiple personalities" or "Maybe he was disguising his writing in his own diary even though he was telling everyone just who he was throughout it."
Desperation reigns supreme around here and I'm sure this thread will not be spared.
All the best,
--John
PS: Look at the signature at the end of the diary (Harrison, 269). Look at the signature at the end of the Dear Boss letter (Evans, 17). Same words. Also, look at the real James Maybrick's writing next to the both of these.
D'oh! 
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1166
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 12:50 pm: | |
'So for the 'diarist' to be the Ripper ALL these communications HAVE to be written by the killer.'
So everything a killer claims HAS to be what a killer does.
And a killer HAS to use his normal handwriting at all times, ESPECIALLY if and when he allows himself the luxury of reliving, through his diary, the darker side of his personality - you know, the side of him that does all that nasty killing and stuff.
And a killer could never write a mixture of lies, half-truths and fantasy - either for himself or with a sea of readers in mind, or both - as a result of a veritable soup of physical and mental impairments including delusions of grandeur.
Well, I am not qualified to judge such things, but I doubt I would feel 100% safe assuming a communication I had received, for example, was NOT from a killer, on the basis that it contained outlandish claims and was written in an unrecognisable hand.
And I would never advise a friend that they were safe under those circumstances.
But that's just me, erring on the side of caution as usual.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 517
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 1:45 pm: | |
Oh, right.
I forgot this one. It's a beauty.
Just because James says he wrote the letters in his diary doesn't mean he really did, maybe he was lying... In his own diary... 'Cause of the drugs or craziness or something.
Of course, this is beautiful because it can be used to excuse almost any historical mistake in the book (purely out of desperation and desire of course).
Maybe he was "lying" about where he put the breasts or about his stopping at a Pub which didn't exist or about the things that are also found as mistakes in modern books (strangely enough) or about writing the letter he keeps referring to or about...
You get the idea.
This doesn't work for everything, of course -- it can't be used to dance away from "tin matchbox empty" or the book being in the wrong handwriting (although we've seen elsewhere that he was not only lying in his own diary apparently, but he was also disguising his own handwriting in his own diary, even though he happily gives away his own identity on the very first page).
My God, if the excuses get any more desperate and stretched and convoluted around here, we're going to actually be reading a different text than the one we have in front of us (you know, the one in the wrong handwriting with all the mistaken details and ahistorical lines and no provenance).
There are, by the way, perfectly sound historical reasons for thinking that not only was the Dear Boss letter not from the killer, but that it was written by someone who has already been identified.
In any case, it is clear that the diary is in one handwriting. All the letters are in completely different handwritings. And the real James wrote in yet another completely different handwriting.
But that won't stop some from dreaming, as we can see above.
It's getting deep in this particular Egyptian river.
Outta' here before I drown,
--John |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
