|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2454
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 9:29 am: |       |
"you might stroke yourself in public I certainly do not!"
Jenni, you don't know what you're missing... 
All the best
G, sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1475
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 10:16 am: | |
Glenn,
and that's a bad thing?
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1196
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 1:15 pm: | |
Hi,
My hope for 2005, is that a new diary is discovered in whitechapel, in a terrible condition barely readable written by a local resident of that period, mind you it will still be a hoax, but at least it would tear us away from the nonsence that this much talked about load of rubbish has created over the past year or two,
Please folks Druitt, kosminski, chapman, Tumblety, even [ bias] Barnett, or even better a new name for 2005, but the watch , the diary, and poor sad JM, No.....
Regards Richard. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1480
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 2:47 pm: | |
Richard,
this is highly addictive once you start, that's it. #ain't no stopping us now# come on sing it with me!
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1200
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 3:02 pm: | |
Hi jennifer,
I Prefer.
James and Florrie were lovers,
Lord how they could love,
Swore to be true to each other,
Just as true as the stars above,
he was her man,
but he done her wrong.
That just about sums up the whole Maybreck case, the only discussion we should be having is was she guilty of poisoning him , or did he unwittingly overdose?.
Richard. |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 935
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 3:39 pm: | |
Boy are you guys going to be in trouble when the teacher gets back!
I can already hear the lecture. And that's before she slaps your typing hands with a ruler for not respecting everyone's right to say nothing new or important over and over again for years.
Don't you see that this is all a fascinating and constantly changing study of the human condition as well as an endlessly intriguing mystery for the ages? Well, either that or an occasionally deceitful exercise in ego, self-defense, and trivial tedium.
Anyway, when I wake up tomorrow, I'm sure there'll be a demonstration waiting for me of exactly which one we have here.
And you guys will have gotten your comeuppance. As will I.
Now I don't know if I'll be able to sleep tonight,
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 581
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 6:50 pm: | |
Maybe we should organise a New Year's competition for the best fake Ripper Diary!
Could be fun. How about this:
9 November 1888:
Woke up, fell out of bed
Dragged a comb across my head
Found my way downstairs and drank a cup
And looking up I noticed I was late
(Pant, pant, pant)
Found my coat and grabbed my hat
Made the horse-drawn omnibus in seconds flat
Found my way upstairs and had a smoke
Somebody spoke and I stabbed her to death, butchered the body, shaved off my handle-bar moustache, burned my clothes in the grate, disguised myself as a woman and went to watch the Lord Mayor's Parade
AhHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaaaaaa...
NB Any verbal resemblance to anything written the following century is purely coincidental. There is absolutely no doubt that the author was addicted to Mogadon, so he was still half asleep at the time and may have got a few of the details wrong. Oh, and just in case it turns out that Mogadon wasn't invented in 1888, I suggest that Mogadon may have had an unrecorded prehistory as a demotic slang word for any sort of sleeping draught. At any rate, I'll bet nobody can disprove that...
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on December 23, 2004) |
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 152
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 9:07 pm: | |
Brilliant, Chris! Am all ears!
Bestest,
Lyn  |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1486
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 6:40 am: | |
Chris,
what was it you were saying?
Jenni
ps ingenius!
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1375
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 12:32 pm: | |
Hi Chris P,
This is what you wrote on December 8:
(1) Turgoose holds the degrees of MA and PhD (which probably makes him a graduate of Oxford or Cambridge)...
This is why I responded with:
I assume John [Omlor] will have emailed you to explain that MAs and PhDs here in the UK are not ‘probably’ a sign of an Oxbridge graduate at all, as you seemed to think.
I have said nothing whatsoever about whether I think Turgoose was suitably qualified to produce the scientific report he was commissioned to produce. I have said on many occasions, however, that I don't know.
I certainly don't know that you are in any way more qualified, or in a better position, to judge the age, or order, or nature of the scratches than Drs. Turgoose and Wild. If you want me to know this, you will have to enlighten me somehow.
One more thing about watch 'experts', while we're on the subject. You appear to put a lot of faith in Stanley Dangar's expertise regarding the 'gender' of Albert's watch. You obviously want to believe it is a lady's watch, for some obscure reason, so you wheel Dangar in as your authority.
So do you also have faith in his other opinions? Such as his outlandish theory at one time that Paul Feldman had orchestrated the watch scratches, and that Robbie Johnson was bumped off because of his involvement? What about the call Dangar made to Shirley Harrison in 1999, when he told her it was "quite clear the watch is not a modern forgery but it can't be accurately dated"?
What do you think Dangar meant by "quite clear"? And do you think he was talking from a position of knowledge about the watch one minute, but out of his backside the next?
I see John Omlor has been talking claptrap as usual, in my absence, and has in fact talked himself into zugswang. It had to happen.
He has allowed himself to conclude that "everyone on these boards knows that the watch is a hoax (and the diary, too)", because:
"No one on these boards says otherwise.
No one on these boards argues the contrary."
Funny, I thought proof had to come before knowledge. Knowledge in the absence of proof is usually confined to such things as religious faith. Let's see: "everyone here knows God exists, because no one here says otherwise. No one here argues the contrary".
What about those who don't know either way, and either admit to not knowing or keep quiet? They may be torn to pieces by an overly zealous mob if they say they don't know. But failing to say that God doesn't exist, or failing to argue that he doesn't, is hardly the same as "knowing" he does exist.
I don't know when the watch was scratched. How am I therefore meant to say it isn't - or is - a hoax? How am I meant to argue against - or for - a hoax, from a position of not knowing when the scratches were made? It's a simple enough question, and John knows it, but he also knows he has no choice but to funk it.
I don't know that the watch was scratched after April 1993. But I do know that, as you at least appear to appreciate, the whole hoax theory depends on someone being able to prove it was.
As O N S Tee says, "anyone with an ounce of common sense" knows that if the scratches were hoaxed, they were hoaxed in the early 1990s in reaction to the emerging diary story.
So we'll have to leave it there, and assume that John has the common sense not to seriously think the watch could have been hoaxed by Mr. Murphy or by someone working pre-1992 - even though he keeps funking the question: how could the watch be a hoax and not have been hoaxed in May 1993, with Albert's knowledge and co-operation?
Harry makes a very good point, which someone will surely be in a position to follow up. Perhaps the experts should be asked whether, in their opinion, the markings could have been made just a few weeks or months before being examined by Drs. Turgoose and Wild.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 583
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 1:44 pm: | |
Caroline Anne Morris wrote:
[A lot more silly stuff snipped]
Sorry - don't have time to play these silly games. I really don't believe Mrs Morris misunderstands half as much as she pretends to.
It's pretty obvious that if she knows nothing about Turgoose's qualifications, she won't know when she hears from someone at least as well qualified, which is what she said she wanted to do. (On the other hand, not making up your mind until you've heard something you won't recognise even when you have heard it may be an excellent excuse for never making up your mind!)
And just in case anyone is misled - yet again! - I don't know whether Dangar was right or wrong about it being a lady's watch. I only know that this view, stated by an acknowledged expert, gives the lie to Mrs Morris's claim that there was "absolutely no doubt" it was a man's watch! In the ordinary way in which most people use the English language, at any rate ...
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1496
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 1:51 pm: | |
Caroline,
I will now once again write a thoughtful and jolly little post in response to your above post. Though this time I may not bother to proof read it even slightly as you will probably continue to ignore everything I write. It's been a week now so why would I think otherwise? I don't know what I have done to get ignored in such a way but note that I do take it the wrong way (hey sorry but I am only human, and there's so much stress going on here with my university based work and so on. There's only so much I can take!!)I do prey tell me what it is i have done to get ignored so, so I can take amending action??
Anyway, in your above post to John and Chris P there are some points I want to take up with you that the post raises!!
I have to ask about the gender of the watch! I always recall being told it was a ladies watch. What is your problem with that ? Is it so hard to accept the watch is female? Does that make it anymore or less old? Not where I come from!!Maybe in your house? I guess but I don't know! (maybe because you keep ignoring me?)
I am sure I cannot speak for Chris P., nor would I wish to do so even slightly, but I would say these things in relation to what you write about Mr Danagar and his belief about the ladies watch - because here was me thinking he was an expert in watches?!! In fact YOU might describe him as a horologist, (pp 205 of Ripper Diary: The Inside Story !), so his opinion on what type of watch it was might be ever so more slightly valid than mine or indeed more valid than yours! Just a guess!! It is probably more valid than his opinions on The Johnsons and on MR Paul H. Feldman too. Indeed I would argue that this is highly likely! Well, well what he says about forgery, you give credence too now - i thuoght you didn't respect his opinion - make up your mind!
John has created a zugzwang now has he? why is it disvantageous?
yes proof, there's a thought isn't it proof? Ahh proof! is it the word knows to which you object perhpas everyone thinks would be a better expression for you. Of which the factors John O. mentions do appear to prove, do they not?
And don't bring religion into this is has nothing to do with anything.
Listen I don't know when the watch was scratched, newsflash there is no solid data to tell us. NEWSFLASH!!! Hoax, (for some reason I have a copy of my dictionary here!) it defines a hoax as a deception or trick. So here it is spelled out for you, when saying the diary is a hoax we are not talking about it's age, unless we prefix the word hoax with modern, old contemporary etc, we are in fact reffering to whether Jack the Ripper or someone else wrote it.
When the scratches were made is not the issue it is who made the scratches that is. Or hell maybe I am misreading what you say, but how do I know??
Let's get this straight the hoax theory does not depend on the watch having to be scratched after 1993. Unless you believe the Barretts and or their friends had to have forged the diary and this has to mean no one else could have possibly ever connected James Maybrick to the crime maliciously and that the diary is fake and so James Maybrick must be innocent. Is that what you believe? it is not what I believe had to happen! I do of course believe James Maybrick is innocent
The hoax theory depends on nothing accept that someone other than Jack The Ripper scratched the watch, right?
please help me out here talk to me!!
Jenni
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 938
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 2:41 pm: | |
Well, I guess the holidays really are over.
I knew the repetitious lecture was coming -- yet again. It turned out just to be a few blissfully peaceful days delayed.
But, as sure as the seasons turn, Caroline Morris will not stop with her pointless and, it should be noted, entirely meaningless rhetorical games.
She writes half a post to me. Let's see what's in it.
Not a bit of new information.
Not a single new thought or idea.
Not even a previously unwritten notion.
So let's continue stupidly repeating ourselves, as it seems to give Caroline something to do.
I wrote that everyone on these boards knows these two items are hoaxes.
I cited as evidence for this claim that no one comes on these boards and ever argues the contrary -- no one comes here and makes the case that they aren't hoaxes or even that they truly might not be hoaxes or that the real James had anything to do with them or was Jack the Ripper.
And, once again, in response, Caroline does not, either.
Telling, that.
Instead, she invokes some imaginary people out there in the dark and asks, "What about those who don't know either way, and either admit to not knowing or keep quiet? They may be torn to pieces by an overly zealous mob if they say they don't know."
Awww, such touching concern for other people's well-being.
Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever around here that those other people actually exist. And Caroline's charmingly strategic rhetorical claim to not knowing herself is consistently belied by the simple fact that she never once, in her billions and billions of words here, ever even attempts an argument that suggests that the real James might somehow have been Jack the Ripper and these things might be real. Of course, that would be a tricky argument to attempt, since there is not a single piece of real evidence anywhere on the entire planet that would actually support it.
But, in the interests of mundane accuracy, and with a thought to the silent and intimidated, I'll happily revise my earlier comment:
Everyone contributing to these boards knows these two things are hoaxes.
That leaves out the shy and scared huddled masses that Caroline supposes might really be out there shaking at the thought of typing a cogent argument defending even the possibility of James as Jack or suggesting that these things might be real.
I'm not convinced these people exist, of course, but I'd do anything to make Caroline content and allow her to return to the past few days' silence, giving these silly hoaxes the attention they truly deserve. None.
It does not, however, leave out Caroline.
Now she can write back and tell me I'm wrong again. And she can claim not to know anything again. Not knowing, it seems, is her rhetorical specialty, despite all the evidence pointing in a single direction, despite the absence of any evidence pointing in the other direction, despite even her own knowledge about the items and the history and the evidence and despite her own consistent unwillingness to even attempt to offer the counter argument -- we must all believe that she doesn't know whether the real James Maybrick wrote the diary and scratched the watch... right.... sure. By all means, keep hope alive, Caroline, no one will ever wonder at the motives....
Anyway, I'm rambling. And I must stop so that she'll have a chance to tell me all the stuff I don't know and how wrong I am about what she knows and how there just might really be those people out there in the dark and how we still don't have enough information to say that the real James was not Jack and did not write this diary and scratch this watch, etc. etc.
Hey, maybe I should just write her post for her. I already know what it is going to say.
Perhaps if I get bored tonight, I'll send it along and save her the time. It would begin with something like...
Hi John,
I don't know how you can begin to assume what I know or how you can possibly claim here that "everyone knows" anything at all. After all, you are coming to a conclusion without establishing the truth of the facts and it's quite possible that people here do not know whether these two items are hoaxes or not. I myself can't claim to know that this watch is a hoax since it is impossible to come up with a believable scenario in which it is a pre-1993 hoax. And since I can only be uncertain, I can't very well claim to know this watch is a hoax and so your conclusion that everyone here knows these items are hoaxes must be wrong even though because I don't know I can't very well argue that it's not a hoax either, can I?
Etc. etc. until death. 
Meanwhile, both of these items are hoaxes. Everyone here knows it.
And, of course, they should both be thoroughly and professionally scrutinized by the latest technologies and by scientists who are given unlimited access to them for testing purposes, in the interests of full information and responsibly establishing the objective truth. And everyone knows that, too.
And Caroline will not admit here in public that she knows that these two items are hoaxes and that the real James wasn't Jack the Ripper or the writer of this diary or the one who made these scratches.
Everyone here knows that, too.
And so there is still nothing new.
And there is still nothing real.
And you can all get ready to read the response you now know is coming.
--John
PS: By the way, you are correct Jenni concerning the limits of what it means to say this watch is a hoax.
(Message edited by omlor on December 28, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1498
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 3:06 pm: | |
John you mean that the hoax theory depends on nothing other than someone else other than JTR scratched the watch?
Jenni
ps i love watch world!
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 939
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 3:29 pm: | |
Hi Jenni,
If the real James Maybrick did not make these scratches in this watch, then it is a hoax.
--John
PS: I first wrote this sentence:
"Everyone on these boards knows that these things are both hoaxes."
on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 3:08 pm.
Elapsed time since those words appeared:
20 days (as in 480 hours).
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1503
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 4:29 pm: | |
John,
i am simply grateful you are not ignoring me for no reason unlike some people!
Jenni
ps everyone knows John!
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1377
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 9:40 am: | |
Hi Jenni,
I can assure you that I haven't intentionally been ignoring you. Odd as it may seem, I do give priority to my family over Christmas, if it's a toss-up between spending time with them or reading and responding to everything on the Maybrick threads!
I don't really know what you want me to tell you. I've said everything I can say about the watch's gender, and my books of photographic evidence, which confirm that Albert's is just a very normal example of a gent's dress pocket watch. I don't care that this is what it is, according to my books. It could have been a lady's watch, and Dangar could have been right, for all I care. It's Chris P who seems to be desperate to believe it's a lady's watch, and I have no idea why. If it's a hoax, and if everyone is supposed to know it's a hoax, why is Chris P so determined to dismiss my books as incorrect, and believe that Dangar could not possibly have made a mistake?
If it's a hoax, and everyone posting here is supposed to know it's a hoax, what is so brilliant about John O pointing this out? His writing, in my absence, has continued to display all the wit and charm and brilliance of a virulent stomach bug.
And still he fails to answer my very simple question:
How can the watch be a hoax and not have been hoaxed in May 1993, with Albert's knowledge and co-operation?
I have been asking the questions here, Jenni. If there are any questions you have for me, which I haven't already addressed in one way or another, or in sufficient depth, then I apologise. Fire away and I will do my best, if you think it will help your understanding of certain matters. Just give me a few days to get back to you, please.
I'm not sure why you need me to tell you anything else, though, if you think John has said it all already. Maybe you could ask him to explain how the watch could be a hoax if it was already scratched when Albert bought it, and therefore before the diary's existence was made public. He's not exactly responding when I ask. Stroking himself in public (and being psychic about what I know and what I'm going to post next, as if it has any bearing on when the scratches were made), seems to be taking up all his time and energy, and can't be doing his poor hand much good either. But he can only stop, and turn his mind to higher things, if he wants to stop. 
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1526
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 9:53 am: | |
Caz,
thank God I really thought i must have pissed you off or something! phew!! sorry for the misunderstanding.
Anyway now thats out of the way,
yes maybe its a ladies watch maybe its a mans watch who cares!!??
How can the watch be a hoax and not have been hoaxed in May 1993, with Albert's knowledge and co-operation?
quite quite easily, in the world without assumptions in which i live. you are assuming the watch is a product of the dairy, I would say thats where my opinion lies, its not the only way. By far.
Believe me i ask john plenty, i am sure he will be delighted to hear you think he is the ultimate authority
Jenni
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1528
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 10:31 am: | |
mooo
naturally i meant diary!
mooo
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 940
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 10:39 am: | |
I'm getting really good.
I could have written both of those previous two posts (Caroline's and Jenni's -- not counting the cow one). I think I already wrote part of the first one, basically -- since it is pure repetition.
Caroline writes:
"If it's a hoax, and everyone posting here is supposed to know it's a hoax, what is so brilliant about John O pointing this out?"
Absolutely nothing.
Except that Caroline is still discussing it 23 days later.
The brilliant part of pointing it out was that it actually kept Caroline occupied writing about this simple and obvious claim over such an extraordinary period of time.
And I suspect it's not over yet.
At this point, I'm just fascinated to see how long this will continue.
Meanwhile, everyone here knows both of these items are hoaxes.
Everyone.
(Sorry, just trying to get at least another week out of it.) 
And, for the record, and for the eighty-second and half time, I am not about to create any fanciful or imaginary scenarios without any evidence to support them just for the sake of rhetorical points. That's long been the job of those who pimp the diary.
Look, Caroline knows the book's not written by the real James or the real killer. She knows it's clearly in the wrong handwriting and peppered with simple mistakes about the history and includes specific references that are historically impossible. Of course, she and others can always come up with desperately fanciful but utterly unevidenced speculation to try and explain away all the obvious problems -- but they are there and they remain and everyone knows it. So the diary is obviously a hoax. There is not a single piece of real evidence anywhere on the planet that even suggests any other conclusion. Messrs. Begg and Fido and Evans and Sugden and Rumbelow and all the rest of the rational experts know that, and so does Ms. Morris. And the watch just happens to appear in public, scratched in just that way, right on the heels of this obvious fake, and like the diary, completely without any provenance or any evidence linking it in any way to its supposed owner.
Just another in a seemingly endless string of purely unbelievable coincidences?
Of course not.
It's a hoax.
They both are.
And as this year draws to a completely uneventful and even stultifying end here in Diary World, nothing at all has changed. There is still nothing new. There is still nothing real. And Caroline still will not admit in public what she knows to be true. James Maybrick was not Jack the Ripper, did not write this diary and did not scratch this watch.
So go elsewhere, loyal readers. There is, as usual, nothing at all to see here except the usual mindlessness ad nauseum. And there'll only be more of it when the response to this post appears.
I know, I know, my fellow boardsters, you want to look away -- you know it's horrible and dangerous and waste of your time and that it's certainly not good for your psyche -- but you can't stop reading, can you?
Diary World is like the highway accident of the Boards. You just have to slow down and look (and, if only just for an instant, thank God it's not you).
Stay in your lane.
And remember to drive courteously, or this could happen to you.
Here's to another year of nothing real and nothing new in the world of hoaxes and keeping hope alive at all costs,
--John
PS: Be assured that the DiTA thread will continue to run through all of 2005 and beyond, whether or not the owners of these two artefacts ever stand up and do the right thing.
(Message edited by omlor on December 31, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1529
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 10:50 am: | |
John,
At least my 'cow' post was not predictable. thats makes me so happy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I hate to be predicable even in diary world!
John,
everyone, knows, until later
Jenni
ps 'just so predictable In every way '
an orangutang did it!
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 942
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 11:01 am: | |
Jenni,
Repetition, predictability, empty rhetoric, language games...
In a world where nothing is ever new, nothing is ever real, and all we talk about are hoaxes, there is no escape for any of us.
We are all repetitious and predictable, just was we all know the truth.
So at some point, it just makes sense to admit it and start revelling in it.
Perhaps that should be our battle cry in '05 -- since there will be nothing new or real and both of these things will still be fakes and certain people will never admit it, and there'll be no tests...
Yes.
For '05, perhaps the full verse should read:
Nothing real. Nothing new.
Repetition. It's what we do!
From the land of cheap hoaxes and ugly history,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1530
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 11:02 am: | |
John you mean that the hoax theory depends on nothing other than someone else other than JTR scratched the watch?
Jenni
ps i love watch world!
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1531
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 11:03 am: | |
see what i did there, man i am funny!
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 584
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 11:31 am: | |
It's Chris P who seems to be desperate to believe it's a lady's watch
I think there's little point in trying to have sensible discussions with someone who keeps on peddling the same lie - and a pointless one at that - no matter how many times it's been corrected.
But I'll be charitable, and assume that she's not trying to mislead, but is genuinely too stupid to understand the difference between "it's not obvious that it's a man's watch" and "it's obvious that it's not a man's watch"!
Equally no point prolonging such an inane discussion, though.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1535
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 1:16 pm: | |
Chris,
happy new year to you me duck!
never make assumptions in diary world chris!
Jenni
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 181
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 4:59 pm: | |
My entry to compliment Mr. Phillips's very good Beatles tune...
Maybrick Diary Writer [ Lennon-McCartney...and How Brown for updated lyrics...].
Dear sir or madam..
Will you take a look....
..as to the references to murder
within my scrapbook?
They’re the last days of a broker,
a dude named James,
who was pissed at his wife
..and plays “funny games”
Maybrick Diary Writer....
Maybrick Diary Writer !
May-brick Dia-aaaa-ry Wri-ter!!!!!!
It’s a made up story
‘bout a real life man
..and a cheating wife,
you understand...
An October Will left all to Flo,
but on November 9th, all systems were go !
Maybrick Diary writer..
Maybrick Diary Writer !!!
May-brick Dia-aaaary Wri-ter!!!!!!!1
Its 50 pages,give or take a few
all the entries spot on,well...maybe not one or two..
A first class find,brother, I ain’t kiddin’.. Don't tell 'em Poste House
was really Muck Midden !
Maybrick Diary writer...
Maybrick Diary Writer !!!
May-brick Dia-aaaary Wri-ter !!!!!!!
If you really like it
By all means,you have that right..
Just don’t get it tested
‘cause you’ll get a fight..
If you think its fake,then leave it in peace,
...and send it back to the hack from Battlecrease !
Maybrick Diary writer.
Maybrick Diary Writer !
May-brick Dia-aaary Wri-ter !!!!!!!!
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 585
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 6:07 pm: | |
Howard
Spot on! Maybe you could add:
I'll be writing more in a week or two
I can make it longer if you like the style
Or even:
If you really like it you can have the rights
It could make a million for you overnight ...
Or maybe not.
Goodbye cruel Diary World ............. !
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1542
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 7:41 am: | |
Chris,
sniff, sniff!!
How,
good work!
Jenni
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1379
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 9:41 am: | |
Hi Jenni,
You asked who cares whether it's a lady's or a man's watch. Well, I don't care, as I thought my previous post made clear. And neither, it finally appears, does Chris P really care. I'm sorry I got that so wrong. I thought he had wheeled in Dangar and his 'expert' opinion for some useful purpose. I was evidently wrong about that too. A funny little rhyme will do nicely to change the gender subject - I can see why he's grown tired of it.
I hate to press you on this one, Jenni, but you did suggest there are many scenarios for the watch being hoaxed, other than as a timely response to the emerging diary news in the April and May of 1993. Could you suggest just one of them for me? Thanks very much in advance.
John, for obvious reasons, won't even go there. He knows he would get in a right mucking fuddle if he tried. But neither will he admit that the only scenario he's got to work with - the May 1993 hoax - has no legs unless Albert is the hoaxer, or planned it with a little help from his family and friends, or co-operated with the hoaxer.
As John explains, he is 'not about to create any fanciful or imaginary scenarios without any evidence to support them just for the sake of rhetorical points'. He seems to forget that the watch and its scratches, and Albert Johnson, are not rhetorical points, but real obstacles he has to overcome successfully if he wants to support his claim that there is 'no doubt' that the scratches are 'modern'. But he does appear to appreciate that no scenario exists that would not be both fanciful and imaginary.
You wrote:
Believe me i ask john plenty, i am sure he will be delighted to hear you think he is the ultimate authority
Where have I expressed such an opinion? If you can quote me doing so, I'll gladly admit to having had one festive sherry too many.
Your merry quip that an orangutang did it is, of course, no better or worse a scenario than all the fanciful and imaginary ones that involve Albert in 1993 (or the Murphys before July 1992, presumably in cahoots with Mike Barrett), and which John knows better than to touch with a barge-pole.
I see that John continues with his attempts to fill the vacuum of his scenarioless, motiveless and evidenceless right royal modern hoax conspiracy theory, regarding Albert's timepiece, with his proposed 'battle cry' for 2005 (hardly a battle of wits, and it can't be a battle over the evidence either, since he admits he has none for the scratches being modern):
-- since there will be nothing new or real and both of these things will still be fakes and certain people will never admit it, and there'll be no tests...
I can't hear you taking up John's battle cry, Jenni, and I don't blame you. The casual reader might be forgiven for thinking it would be much more productive to shut me up by showing me just how the modern watch hoax theory could work in practice; the experienced reader should know precisely why John can't do that, and instead uses his repetitive battle cry as a comfort blanket.
Unfortunately for him, it is growing so threadbare with excessive use that eventually it will cover nothing.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1557
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 10:06 am: | |
Hello Caroline,
first things first
you said Maybe you could ask him to explain how the watch could be a hoax
in so doing..
Anyway!
Good none of us care if it's a ladies or mans watch. lets just say that again - none of us care!!!!!!(honestly!!)
I hate to press you on this one, Jenni, but you did suggest there are many scenarios for the watch being hoaxed, other than as a timely response to the emerging diary news in the April and May of 1993. Could you suggest just one of them for me? Thanks very much in advance.
Ahhh, come on,
Caz, really, why do you keep insisting Albert is the hoaxer or no one is. It almost sounds like you think the watch is genuine. It almost sounds like you think the watch is a modern hoax (well ok it doesn't). it almost sounds klike you think Albert is the hoaxer.
i will let John speak for himself. i am sure he will be delighted too.
My quip about the organgutang was based soley on trying to be unpredictable!
Please, what about the modern hoax watch theory don't you understand
Jenni
ps hi John O.
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 943
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 10:23 am: | |
A New Year. A New Month. A New Week. A New Day.
And nothing but pure, pointless repetition.
Nothing but exactly the same old same old.
Not a single new idea, new piece of information, new piece of evidence. Not even a new thought. Nothing.
Caroline is here again. Writing exactly the same empty rhetorical gestures about nothing again. And I am here again, responding in exactly the same way again.
Let's review her last post in case I'm missing something.
Paragraph #1 -- A pointless little bit of sarcastic rhetorical game playing directed at Chris's quite properly pointing out that his views had been once again misrepresented. Caroline can't even offer an apology sincerely.
Paragraph # 2 -- A repetition of exactly the same question, the same request for imaginary and unevidenced speculation for its own sake that she has already made an absurd number of times. Of course, one can imagine all sorts of fantasies about when the hoax diary and the hoax watch were scratched -- both long ago and recently, both near and far, by known and unknown figures. But doing that sort of Feldmaniacal thing is best left to the Diary pimps -- not to those who base their conclusions on what the actual evidence consistently tells us, that James wasn't Jack and that these things are both hoaxes.
Paragraphs # 3 and # 4 -- Another sad and pathetic attempt on her part to get me to accuse Albert of something. Elsewhere, she tried to get me to accuse Mike of something specific (other than lying) so she could argue with me about such an accusation. She failed. I wouldn't do it. So here she is now trying the same trick with Albert. She'll fail again, of course. I won't accuse him (or anyone in particular) of making these scratches until I see evidence that I feel makes such an accusation appropriate. She'll try and goad me into it again and again, of course, because she can't argue with me about the fact that the real James had nothing to do with either of these things, so she needs to me to say something she CAN argue with. She spend most of her time here arguing with things I haven't said, because she still can't argue with the things I have, the things I have actually written -- like the real James had nothing to do with these hoaxes and she (and everyone else here) knows it.
Paragraph #5 -- I think it's an attempt at a joke. It's hard to tell. Nothing new, certainly, and nothing useful. Typical rhetorical games to no purpose. Representative of precisely what this discussion here in DW has long been like.
Paragraph #6 -- Another glib sort of throwaway paragraph designed once again, without any new though or new idea or new information, to chastise me for not making irresponsible accusations. The ethics of this are fascinating, if slightly frightening.
Paragraph #7 -- Caroline actually uses the word "evidence." Of course, when it comes to debating the question of whether these things are real or hoaxes, all of the evidence, all of it without exception, points spectacularly in a single direction. HOAX! Not a single piece of evidence anywhere of any sort in either case points towards the real James Maybrick having anything to do with either of them. That's why the evidence never comes up in Caroline's posts. She knows what the handwriting looks like, she knows the stupidities in the diary, she knows the timing of the watch's appearance in public and it's complete lack of any historical provenance linking it in any way to the real James. She knows there is no evidence of any sort that even suggests that either of these things are authentic. So I'm glad she mentioned the word.
Then comes quote from me that will prove to be so prophetic in '05 that it bears repeating:
...there will be nothing new or real and both of these things will still be fakes and certain people will never admit it, and there'll be no tests...
Watch and see if I am not right. Check the DiTA thread every month. This year will be just like last year. We all know that, too. Right?
Paragraph #8 -- At least this one has a nifty metaphor. Of course, it too offers us no ideas or information or anything else other than a mindless little rhetorical jab that is meaningless in the end and that once again typifies all she has written here and this entire discussion. And as for "shutting [her] up" -- well, that's...
Nah, never mind.
It's too easy a joke.
So we have 8 paragraphs of nothing. Nothing new. Nothing real. Not even a single line arguing the possibility that the real James was Jack or might have had anything to do with either of these artefacts.
Anyone want to guess why that is? Why those words are missing? Why Caroline NEVER even suggests such a thing?
It's because she, like Paul Begg and Stewart Evans and Martin Fido and Donald Rumbelow and Phil Sugden and practically every other serious scholar of the case, knows that these things are hoaxes.
And so all we are left doing here is spouting stupid repetitions, writing mindless posts that have no new information, no new thoughts, no new ideas, nothing of any real value, and then waiting for the inevitable response.
I'm sure one will be along soon enough.
At least I give her something to do each day.
It's my little act of psychological charity.
From the land of nothing but fakes,
--John
PS: Hi Jenni.
(Message edited by omlor on January 02, 2005)
(Message edited by omlor on January 02, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1558
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 10:30 am: | |
Hi John,
Jenni
ps the five word rule!
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 70
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 11:51 am: | |
"It's because she, like Paul Begg and Stewart Evans and Martin Fido and Donald Rumbelow and Phil Sugden and practically every other serious scholar of the case, knows that these things are hoaxes. "
Paul Begg, in The Facts, says: "We are possibly looking at an old forgery, a con that was created but never used, and the task is not merely to authenticate the document, or otherwise, but to date as closely as possible its creation." p.417
I don't want to parse his sentence to death, but IF it is an old forgery, then none of the parties that brought the diary forward really deserve to be called grifters or hoaxers as they were simply not in on the original con. Yes, the provenance is horrible and Barrett is obviously a strange individual, but I don't see much evidence to conclude that the pro-Diarists have tried to disguise these facts.
Personally, I come out as follows:
Diary - Highly skeptical of it being authentic, leaning towards the "old Hoax" point of view...
Watch - An agnostic....I just don't see how the evidence is conclusive either way.
And if it is an old hoax, I think that the Diary would still deserve consideration from Ripperologists as it raises plenty of questions as to WHO and WHY? Just two examples: did someone connected to Florence write it? More importantly, did the author actually believe Maybrick was the Ripper, based on family tradition?
Happy New Year, everyone.
Sir Robert
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 944
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 12:16 pm: | |
Sir Robert,
Absolutely, at some point there is no harm in discussing whether these are old hoaxes or new hoaxes.
But Paul is on the record both in public and in personal e-mail to me as saying that they ARE hoaxes and that the real James was not Jack.
All the other serious scholars in the case have said the same thing.
Caroline knows they are hoaxes, too. The difference is that unlike them she won't admit it.
But sure, once we all agree and state honestly and clearly that we know these things are hoaxes and that the real James was not Jack the Ripper and did not write this diary or scratch this watch, then we can of course start arguing about who did and when and why.
Thanks for visiting. Sorry there's nothing new here,
--John
PS: By the way, there is plenty of powerful textual evidence that the diary was indeed composed in modern times. But that is all available on other threads. The number of all but impossible textual coincidences that would all have to have taken place simultaneously for this thing to be anything other than a modern document are incredible -- from the specific proper naming of a modern pub and the citing of an unavailable until modern times police document and the appearance in the diary of the very same mistakes about the crimes that appear in modern books to the coincidence of the same single line from the whole history of writing being excerpted in both the diary and the modern Sphere Guide and on and on and on... The evidence all points in a single, unified direction (until you start reading the apologists sadly desperate, dancing fantasies and elaborate excuses). You can see it all discussed in length and fine detail on the threads dealing with the diary's many textual problems. And that's not even mentioning the handwriting, which we know is not the real James Maybrick's. Yes, these are hoaxes. That much we know.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1559
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 12:21 pm: | |
I would AGREE WITH JOHN, for those taking notes on such matters
Jenni
ps over three thousand and counting!
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 945
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 12:38 pm: | |
Oh and since Sir Robert has appropriately cited Paul Begg, let me second what Paul has written.
Concerning the diary, he is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT when he says that our task is eventually, "to date as closely as possible its creation."
One important step in doing that, of course, would be for the owners of both of these artefacts to step up and do the right thing, to take the moral and ethical path of action and to arrange for new thorough and professional tests wherein they provide qualified scientists in labs using all the latest technologies with unlimited access to these two items.
It won't happen, of course. And we can feel free to conclude from that whatever we'd like.
I'll write the same post here at the beginning of '06, just for effect.
--John
|
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 71
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 12:41 pm: | |
"By the way, there is plenty of powerful textual evidence that the diary was indeed composed in modern times."
Yes, there is. The burden of proof is clearly on the pro-Diary camp's shoulders. I would just hesitate to say that the pro-Diary folks KNOW that it's a hoax. And the Watch is even more puzzling.
Sir Robert
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1560
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 12:47 pm: | |
i think the watch is very puzzling
Jenni
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 946
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 12:47 pm: | |
Well, for some of them, Robert, I would hesitate to say it, too.
Of course, the power of personal desire can outfight logic any day of the week.
Welcome to our world,
--John |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1266
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 12:54 pm: | |
Hi all
The bottom line is that we are stuck with these two very unsatisfactory artifacts that have not been adequately tested to prove they are hoaxes, but that most authorities on the case think they probably are hoaxes, whether of recent or of earlier origin. Meanwhile, do we see James Maybrick falling out of a closet with bloody knife in hand, bloody guts and intestines and all, to prove he was the killer? No.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1561
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 1:02 pm: | |
Chris,
thanks for that image!!
he's not because he is innocent. I will sa it as many times as is necessary!
All the best
Jenni
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 947
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 1:50 pm: | |
Jenni, Chris,
What's the name of that old Leonard Cohen song?
That's how it goes,
--John |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1267
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 2:00 pm: | |
Leonard Cohen - "Everybody Knows"
Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That's how it goes
Everybody knows
Everybody knows that the boat is leaking
Everybody knows that the captain lied
Everybody got this broken feeling
Like their father or their dog just died
Everybody talking to their pockets
Everybody wants a box of chocolates
And a long stem rose
Everybody knows
Everybody knows that you love me baby
Everybody knows that you really do
Everybody knows that you've been faithful
Ah give or take a night or two
Everybody knows you've been discreet
But there were so many people you just had to meet
Without your clothes
And everybody knows
Everybody knows, everybody knows
That's how it goes
Everybody knows
Everybody knows, everybody knows
That's how it goes
Everybody knows
And everybody knows that it's now or never
Everybody knows that it's me or you
And everybody knows that you live forever
Ah when you've done a line or two
Everybody knows the deal is rotten
Old Black Joe's still pickin' cotton
For your ribbons and bows
And everybody knows
And everybody knows that the Plague is coming
Everybody knows that it's moving fast
Everybody knows that the naked man and woman
Are just a shining artifact of the past
Everybody knows the scene is dead
But there's gonna be a meter on your bed
That will disclose
What everybody knows
And everybody knows that you're in trouble
Everybody knows what you've been through
From the bloody cross on top of Calvary
To the beach of Malibu
Everybody knows it's coming apart
Take one last look at this Sacred Heart
Before it blows
And everybody knows
Everybody knows, everybody knows
That's how it goes
Everybody knows
Oh everybody knows, everybody knows
That's how it goes
Everybody knows
Everybody knows
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1562
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 5:19 pm: | |
and....everyone knows we are a bunch of sados on here.
Jenni
ps esp. me I not only hug my armchair i've named it (thats about what Chris P. said once, last year!)
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1381
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 8:55 am: | |
Hi Jenni,
This from John (yet again, as if he is terrified that if he doesn't keep chanting it the spell could be broken, or lose its power):
...there will be nothing new or real and both of these things will still be fakes and certain people will never admit it, and there'll be no tests...
Watch and see if I am not right. Check the DiTA thread every month. This year will be just like last year. We all know that, too. Right?
Is John right, Jenni, or is he right? You wrote:
I would AGREE WITH JOHN, for those taking notes on such matters
Yes, I am taking notes, Jenni. So would other readers be right in thinking you mean that you do AGREE WITH JOHN?
Think very carefully here, Jenni. John goes on to write:
I'll write the same post here at the beginning of '06, just for effect.
I'm looking forward to it already, Jenni. And to seeing you agree with him again.
I'm afraid someone has to prove the diary and watch are modern hoaxes before you may say with certainty that James Maybrick is innocent. Then you may say so as many times as you like, with my blessing. At present you may only presume he is innocent, which in the process, however cross it makes John, leaves Albert in the guilty corner as far as anyone who rejects the old hoax idea is concerned.
But what do you mean by: 'I will say it as many times as is necessary'? Necessary for what? Have you caught the John bug? The one that makes the sufferer think that the repetition of a fixed belief at regular and frequent intervals will eventually make up for having no proof?
Funny thing is, John appears very reluctant to repeat his opinion that there is 'no doubt' that the scratches are 'modern'. And he seems particularly cross with me for challenging this view, and asking him to support it with slightly more than a "well, it's obvious" kind of response.
And if John can't see how this view locks Albert up, throws away the key and robs him of the ethics and morals that he would have needed to get his watch tested in the first place, then he really hasn't been paying attention to the nuts and bolts.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1567
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 9:36 am: | |
Sorry, i was busy hugging my armchair. I've lost the point somewhere. I have emailed you Caz.
Jenni
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 948
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 9:37 am: | |
OK,
The games are still going on, so let's see if they amount to anything.
First, there is the reaffirmation that I wrote the following words:
..there will be nothing new or real and both of these things will still be fakes and certain people will never admit it, and there'll be no tests...
Watch and see if I am not right. Check the DiTA thread every month. This year will be just like last year. We all know that, too. Right?
So, in case anyone had any doubts, YES. You bet I wrote I them.
Now let's see what happens.
And of course, since the proper, thorough tests will not be done, no matter how many other times and ways we prove that the diary was not written by the real James -- whether it's via the handwriting or the textual errors or the ahistoricisms or whatever, Caroline and the sadly desperate few can always allow their own desire to trump simple reading and common sense and come up with elaborate and fanciful excuses, no matter how absurd, as a way of being able to say "it's not been proven, see?" -- as a way of keeping hope alive at the expense of rational thought.
Hell, they still haven't come up with an even remotely believable excuse for the handwriting not being James Maybrick's. That alone should tell normal people that he didn't write the diary.
But of course, it doesn't tell Caroline that. Instead she tries boldly but sadly to shift the burden of proof, knowing no one has ever been able to deny that all the evidence without exception leads us to conclude that the diary was NOT written by the real James and that there is nothing anywhere that has ever been found that in any way links him to either of these bogus artefacts and that he was NOT Jack the Ripper.
Caroline then offers us a review of her own writing here, describing it as,
"repetition of a fixed belief at regular and frequent intervals will eventually make up for having no proof..."
Oh, wait. Well, it's an understandable mistake on my part.
But I'm always willing to repeat myself, Yes, I still agree with that other poster's words (though I don't know his or her identity) -- the scratches are modern.
The timing of the watch's sudden appearance along with the historical and textual problems in the diary that immediately preceded it and the complete lack of any provenance whatsoever for the item in the proper century convince me of that.
And, she gives it one last desperate try to get me to accuse Albert (just as she did with Mike). And she fails one more time.
Is anyone surprised anymore?
Glad to see the song remains the same. It's obviously all she has.
Here's to tomorrow's rerun of the same words and phrases,
--John
|
Enid
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 10:54 pm: | |
If one believes both the Diary and the watch to be fake, does this completely negate James Maybrick as a potential suspect ?
Might James Maybrick still be a serious Ripper suspect if, coincidentally 100 years later, someone chooses to use him as part of two elaborate hoaxes?
Apart from the two finds, is there any other evidence that might point to him as the Ripper?
If you adhere to the psychopath theory, is there any evidence that he displayed psychopathic tendencies?
Where was he at the time of the murders?
In short, can he be eliminated as a suspect?
Enid |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 4:49 am: | |
I believe that the watch and diary are hoaxes,and that the their date of presention are close to the year that the hoax was planned and put into operation.
Again I will say that the expert's opinion should be sought on whether that statement could be true.Can any expert determine,and state positively,that the writing in the book and the initials on the watch,could not have been entered in a short timespace before the watch and diary were produced.
To state that this or any person could not or would not lie on a given matter ,is wishful thinking,and I talk from experience.
Neither the watch or the diary can,by a chain of possession,be proven to have been owned by Maybrick,or to have been ,at any time ,in his keeping.Neither can they be,in their present condition,proven in any other person's possession except for those that produced them.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
