|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1568
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 9:41 am: |       |
Hang on a second,
Caroline,
John wrote
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.
To which i agreed.
others can read whatever they like into what I said i know what i put.
geez
Jenni
ops Hi John!
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1569
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 9:48 am: | |
And lets get a grip here. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution or maybe i missed something? no good i didn't think so!
INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty.
Reasonable doubt? Yes i think it's more than reasonable actually.
And so .....
what!
Jenni
ps hi again john our last posts clashed.
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1570
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 9:59 am: | |
and for god sake no one apart from you is accusing albert johnson of faking the watch!
not john, not me, not anyone!!
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 712
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 10:04 am: | |
Ah but Jenni, who are the prosecution? You are obviously taking this to mean that those who accuse James Maybrick have to prove their case. But surely those who accuse Mike Barrett of knowingly passing off a fake are also a prosecution, those who accuse Albert Johnson of knowingly passing off a fake are also a prosecution. So in those respects, based on your own argument, the burden of proof rests with that prosecution also. Which brings it all back to the point made earlier which is, if we assume the document to be fake, is it old or new? If it is old then these are entirely innocent persons who just happened to have these items pass through their hands.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1571
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 10:23 am: | |
Hey Alan,
Don't you start too!! (i'm already having a bad day, lol!)
indeed i did mean that about Maybrick. (for carolines benefit that = You are obviously taking this to mean that those who accuse James Maybrick have to prove their case.)
But surely those who accuse Mike Barrett of knowingly passing off a fake are also a prosecution, those who accuse Albert Johnson of knowingly passing off a fake are also a prosecution.
i am accusing nobody of anything due to lack of evidence!
If it new doesnt mean I am accusing mike or Albert
Jenni
ps Remind me when is your book out!!
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1572
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 10:23 am: | |
Hey Alan,
Don't you start too!! (i'm already having a bad day, lol!)
indeed i did mean that about Maybrick. (for carolines benefit that = You are obviously taking this to mean that those who accuse James Maybrick have to prove their case.)
But surely those who accuse Mike Barrett of knowingly passing off a fake are also a prosecution, those who accuse Albert Johnson of knowingly passing off a fake are also a prosecution.
i am accusing nobody of anything due to lack of evidence!
If it new doesnt mean I am accusing mike or Albert
Jenni
ps Remind me when is your book out!!
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 73
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 10:28 am: | |
"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."
John,
The problem as I see it is that the watch tests have brought back far more exculpatory results than what's been returned vis a vis the diary. Therefore, I personally would hesitate to say "Since the diary is a forgery, the watch is as well".
It is not unreasonable to posit that the diary, while a forgery, is not of recent origin and the watch may be genuine. Which leads to notions that someone, at some point in time unknown, believed Maybrick to have been the Ripper.
In a case where we only learned about Tumblety in recent years, I'd hesitate to throw out this entire line of inquiry.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 949
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 11:28 am: | |
Enid,
You ask, about the real James as a suspect:
"Apart from the two finds, is there any other evidence that might point to him as the Ripper?"
No. None. Not anywhere. Not a single piece. And there is also no evidence anywhere of any sort that even suggests that the real James had anything to do with the "two finds."
So let's be clear about that. There is no valid evidentiary reason at all to consider the real James Maybrick as a suspect in the Ripper murders.
Period.
Harry,
There is no expert evidence anywhere that would prohibit both of these items being modern hoaxes. None.
Turgoose offers no actual scientific findings and Wild's findings, he himself tells us, are only preliminary and incomplete because he was never granted full and unlimited access to the materials in order to do the sort of work that would be necessary for a full investigation.
Until fully qualified scientists using the latest technologies are given full and complete access to the materials for thorough testing, this silly debate will continue.
And that's what I am saying is not going to happen in this or any other year.
I hope someone will prove me wrong. I'm sure they won't. The scientists will not get full and unlimited access to both of these artefacts for thorough and proper testing anytime soon.
Sir Robert,
Don't overestimate what can validly be concluded from what you call "the watch tests." There is nothing in either report that excludes the possibility of this hoax being modern. And there is certainly nothing in either report that leads us to think the real James Maybrick might possibly have had anything to do with this watch.
We know he didn't write the diary -- a quick look at the handwriting and the text tells us that.
Incidentally, to be completely technical about it, I suppose it is inaccurate to say "there is no doubt the scratches are modern." After all, Caroline has enough doubt for us all. So doubt does exist in at least some quarters. Of course, saying that she has doubts is not the same as saying we all do.
Look, everyone, this is not really that complicated.
We know the real James Maybrick did not write the bogus diary. It's not in his handwriting, it's got plenty of mistakes and ahistoricisms and it would take a remarkable string of impossible coincidences for it to be anything other than a modern text.
It's a hoax.
We also know that the watch did not appear until right after the diary was made public. And there is nothing anywhere on the planet that has ever suggested that it can be linked in any way to the real James Maybrick or that the marks on it were made by him.
I have no way of knowing what anyone did or did not do or would or would not do. Arguments like, "Mike wouldn't or couldn't have done such a thing" or "Mike must have done this" or "Albert would never have participated in anything like..." or "Albert probably participated in this whole..." are all irrelevant to me, on both sides. They are based on impressions of people, not on material evidence.
And the material evidence all points directly away from either of these things being directly linked to the real James Maybrick and directly away from that silly and completely unfounded idea that the real James was Jack the Ripper.
Whether these hoaxes are old or new is a different argument and one that will ultimately be settled if and only if the owners of the artefacts do the ethical and responsible thing and give qualified professionals unlimited access to the material for thorough testing.
Or if someone finally confesses, of course. But we all know that even doesn't solve anything unless the confession is verifiable in a material way.
Until then, the rest of this is just so much casual speculation to alleviate boredom, but it's mostly sound and fury signifying you all know what and ten years after the fact nothing whatsoever has changed.
James was not Jack and these things are fakes.
That's what we will all conclude in the end.
Remembering the bottom line and listening, every now and then, to simple common sense,
--John
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 716
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 1:19 pm: | |
Oh Sir Robert, you should have known better than to contradict the great god Omlor in any way! You should have known that such an offence is always followed swiftly by a ten mile long post from the great man himself explaining how much of an imbecile anyone would have to be not to accept every word which emanates from his typing fingers as gospel truth! Followed swiftly, no doubt, by a quick pot/kettle/blackness style dig at Caz for keeping saying the same things over and over.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 74
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 1:26 pm: | |
"Don't overestimate what can validly be concluded from what you call "the watch tests." There is nothing in either report that excludes the possibility of this hoax being modern. "
Oh, fear not. I am thoroughly skeptical on many aspects of the Diary/Watch.
However, two things come to mind:
1) The jeweller who sold Johnson the watch was reported to have had it in inventory for "at least 5 years" before selling it. If the jeweller did the scratches, they would have brought the watch forward, IMHO. Selling it makes me believe they were oblivious to the markings.
2) Dr. Turgoose, examining it with an electron microscope, said the scratches were "unlikely to be recent".
I'm not willing to make great leaps of faith from this two statements, other than to say that the watch didn't materialize out of thin air and wasn't pawned off as "an heirloom in the family for ages", and that if Johnson scratched the watch, he must have done it right before bringing it to the University of Manchester for examination, because we know it was in inventory at the jeweller's for quite some time before the sale.
And I suspect fresh brand new scratches would have been quite obvious to Dr. Turgoose. I'm not saying Turgoose could date the scratches, just that I accept he's expert enough to readily detect if the scratches had just ben done....
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 950
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 1:47 pm: | |
Alan claims I have written,
"a ten mile long post from the great man himself explaining how much of an imbecile anyone would have to be not to accept every word which emanates from his typing fingers as gospel truth!"
Well, that certainly sums up my latest post to three people above in a nutshell, doesn't it? If you can't or won't bother to read, that is.
Read what I wrote, Alan, and tell me if you disagree with any of the specific conclusions I offer in the post to Enid, Howard, and Robert above.
If not, I'll accept your sarcasm as just the result of boredom.
Sir Robert,
1. I don't know if the jeweller was "oblivious to the markings" or not, of course.
2. Turgoose's conclusions were observation-based and, as Chris P. has repeatedly demonstrated, do not meet the criteria of definitive scientific findings. Also, it is not at all clear exactly how fresh a scratch WOULD have had to have been for it to be simply obvious to Turgoose, and he says as much in the caveats he includes. He himself tells us,
"The actual age would depend on the cleaning or polishing regime employed, and any definition of number of years has a great degree of uncertainty and to some extent must remain speculation."
and
"it must be stressed that there are no features observed which conclusively prove the age of the engravings."
So there is absolutely nothing anywhere in Turgoose's report that even suggests that these scratches were made in the 1800s or that they could have been made by the real James Maybrick.
And even he admits that what he is offering us about the age of the scratches being more than "tens of years old" must remain speculation.
That's why serious, thorough tests using the latest technologies by scientists who are given unlimited access to the material to be tested should be carried out.
Until then, speculation as to precisely when this hoax was created will remain just that -- speculation.
And I certainly won't speculate on who might have created these hoaxes.
--John
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 717
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 1:57 pm: | |
John
Irrespective of my own feelings for the diary and watch (which I have always consistently stated are "probably fake") I always disagree quite vehemently with anyone who persists in presenting their own opinion as fact. But it's nothing personal, and you're right, the word boredom probably does enter into it somewhere!
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 951
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 2:02 pm: | |
One other thing,
Alan mentions my "quick pot/kettle/blackness style dig[s] at Caz for keeping saying the same things over and over."
If he would kindly go back and read, he would discover that I am always very careful to include myself among those who are simply repeating themselves over and over again for no real purpose, since there is nothing new and we are all engaged in mostly pointless rhetorical gaming.
I say "we." I always make a point of mentioning that Caroline and I return day after day saying nothing but what we said the day before. I always include myself in the infected plague-list of Diary World's silly people. So if I am calling anyone's pot or kettle black, it would be my own as well as everyone else's.
Of course, Alan must not have noticed that when he was reading, despite my saying it "over and over."
Over and out,
--John
PS: Alan, we cross-posted. I hope you understand this point. I am careful to claim that I am as guilty as everyone else here of wasting time repeating myself and discussing these hoaxes without any new information or test results.
(Message edited by omlor on January 03, 2005) |
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 75
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 2:04 pm: | |
"That's why serious, thorough tests using the latest technologies by scientists who are given unlimited access to the material to be tested should be carried out."
Agreed.
"Until then, speculation as to precisely when this hoax was created will remain just that -- speculation. "
I'd prefer to see the test results before saying definitively the Diary/Watch is a hoax. And I realize that such tests may never be forthcoming, which is a shame.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1383
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 7:13 am: | |
Hi All,
The difference between me and John is that he prefers to use the word ‘know’ rather than ‘believe’ when stating his case, where I use neither when questioning it.
Yet he apparently thinks my own writing contains: "repetition of a fixed belief at regular and frequent intervals..."
What fixed beliefs do you think I have been expressing then, John, not once, but repeatedly? Only a short while ago you were insisting I knew the diary and watch to be hoaxes - make up your mind.
You are surely being too critical of your own reading ability if you consider it an ‘understandable’ mistake on your part, to think my writing could be thus described.
In the spirit of co-operation here, for the New Year, I’m happy for us to explore together, openly and responsibly, how your conviction, that the scratches are modern, fits with the basic evidence. Assuming you’ve been over all this a thousand times in your mind, as I have, we’ll start from the premise that the Maybrick scratches were not yet in the watch when Albert bought it.
Now then, Mr. Murphy tries to polish out some scratches before putting the watch up for sale in the Spring of 1992. But according to Dr. Turgoose’s findings there are no scratches beneath the hoaxer’s work for him to examine by August 1993. This either means that the scratches Murphy tackled must have been in a different watch, and he was badly mistaken, or the hoaxer succeeded in removing them before making the Maybrick marks and topping them off with the enigmatic H 9/3 and 1275. Have you decided which is more likely to have been the case?
Albert buys the watch, later chosen for the hoax, in July 1992 - the very month in which Mike Barrett successfully negotiated a publishing agreement for the diary. I have wondered whether this was purely coincidental, and now I tend to think it had to be. I take it this is what you believe too?
I totally understand why everyone found it so suspicious when the scratches were revealed so soon after the diary first made headlines. But the timing that you continue to claim is so suspicious that it should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind that the watch is a modern ie bandwagon hoax, relates exclusively to Albert’s decision to take his watch in to work, where it was opened up and held in the right light, enabling those present to see the Maybrick markings, and go on to decipher them.
This is the crucial part. If all those present, including Albert, had been unaware of the scratches’ existence until that point, and entirely ignorant of the trick being played, the timing here would have been purely coincidental too, from yours and the hoaxer’s point of view. The hoaxer could easily have waited in vain for his handiwork to be discovered, since the marks are so hard to see with the naked eye. The only way for the timing to have been no coincidence, and indicative of a very recent hoax, is if one or more of those present for the ‘discovery’ already knew the scratches were there, and chose that day to start the bandwagon rolling by ensuring that they would be found.
And that, my fellow explorer, is where you and I both know Albert comes in and stays in. Without his knowledge and active co-operation, the timing of the discovery has to be coincidental, and therefore you can deduce nothing at all from this about the timing of the actual handiwork prior to its appearance.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 952
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 7:47 am: | |
Caroline starts with,
The difference between me and John is that he prefers to use the word ‘know’ rather than ‘believe’ when stating his case, where I use neither when questioning it.
Ah, if that were the only difference.
Of course, she is right. I do prefer to use the word "know" in many cases. I "know" the diary was not written by the real James Maybrick. I "know" the diary and the watch are both hoaxes and I "know" the real James Maybrick was not Jack the Ripper.
I'm not alone in this knowledge, either.
Some pretty qualified historians and experts in the case claim to "know" this, too.
And seeing as how Caroline never once even begins to argue otherwise, I'm betting she's pretty sure of it herself.
Of course, that's not the real difference between us. The real difference between us has a lot more to do with desire than it does with knowledge.
But of course, none of this is relevant in any meaningful way.
As for repetition, well, if Caroline can't see that she, like me, has been doing little but repeating herself here for the last full month at least, almost every day, then I can only assume she doesn't read her own posts. I certainly know I've been repeating myself. I suspect the rest of our readers can affirm that I haven't been alone in this since I wrote that wonderful line about what everyone here knows.
As for the rest of her post -- believe it or not, I have no problem with it. What she says there is perfectly true.
It doesn't tell us who made these scratches or when, of course. And I'm still not going to accuse anyone of anything without proper evidence. We have no real idea who had access to the watch when, especially after Albert bought it, or why Albert decided to take it to work or who might have prompted his sudden interest in looking at it or when, so Caroline's fine summary of what happened is useful, but like the watch reports themselves, sadly incomplete. It has to be. There are too many questions still unanswered by anything other than personal stories.
So, we are in total agreement, but about nothing very important.
And we are exactly where we were before she posted, and where Turgoose and Wild both admit they leave us, with "speculation."
Again, that's precisely why serious, thorough tests using the latest technologies by scientists who are given unlimited access to the material to be tested should be carried out.
And we are also exactly where Sir Robert's post appropriately left us,
"And I realize that such tests may never be forthcoming, which is a shame."
Indeed.
Here we are,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on January 04, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1576
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 9:51 am: | |
there are one of a few reasons I make this post (in no particular order)
1) i want to have my new signiture on this thread. (yes it's this one!)
2) I feel I am missing out if everyone else posts and i do not.
3) habit
4) I have something relevant/useful to add.
5) its addicitve
6) Caroline and/or John O. are winding me uo a treat!!
7) i am bored.
Lets hope its four!
so here we go!
Caz, John,
help me out here. please my head is hurting! (i'm not joking)
evidence is a word...
brain says ahhh!
Why does Albert Johnson have to have forged the watch or nobody. hello hes not the only one who had access to it in the last 116 yrs is he?
Ok so Caz, this doesnt make it a contempory forgery
and john o. this rather dents our view the watch scrathes are modern
but geez we will get over it by looking at evidence
My Lord! what the hell is that
Jenni
ps rant over enjoy your day my friends!
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 953
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 10:25 am: | |
Hi Jenni,
Are are now arguing simply over when these hoaxes were created and by whom?
If so, unless and until the owners do the responsible thing and allow scientists full and complete access to the materials for truly thorough tests using the latest technology, we'll all just be creating imaginary scenarios, nothing more.
It's fun. But it doesn't matter much, really.
Party on,
--John
PS: Incidentally, since we're playing, can ANYONE create for me a believable scenario wherein the real James Maybrick DID write this diary and scratch this watch, one that explains the handwriting and the textual anomalies and the ahistoricisms and the mistakes about the murders and the complete lack of provenance for both items and the peculiar timing of their appearance and all the rest? Anyone? I suspect not.
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 721
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 1:01 pm: | |
Hi John
Okay, I will give you the fact that you are quite open about repeating yourself. About that I will just say, it only takes one person to stop and then the other one has to really.
However, John, you have numerous times on this and other threads pointed out your academic credentials. You've done it to me while claiming that they enabled you to know for certain whether or not James Maybrick had ever read Crashaw.
Whether you like to attack Caz with your "knowledge" or not, this is a pretty un-academic way to behave. I very much doubt your other qualified historians would claim to "know" these things at all, not if they are worth their salt at least.
You see knowledge implies certainty and certainty implies proof, and if you had proof we could all go home. It is your opinion that the diary and watch are a hoax. It's mine too. You may be certain of it in your own mind. I am. You may be certain of it beyond any doubt. But you do not know, and although my experience of academic circles only extends to being a part of the student body, I was always led to believe that claiming to know something that is only your opinion and for which you do not have proof was pretty much frowned upon.
Lets look at this sentence.
Everyone on these boards knows that these things are both hoaxes
I have no problem with most of these words. "on these boards" I have no problem with. "that these things are both hoaxes" I have no problem with.
But "Everyone". Now there's a problem. You see, I don't know that both these things are hoaxes, and I believe I am someone. I am pretty certain they are, but I would never claim to know. Sir Robert plainly doesn't know either. He would prefer to see the test results first before claiming to know. And Caz obviously doesn't know. So that's three people. Furthermore, while Stephen and Johnno may be able to tell at any given time who is active on this site, the rest of us don't. There could be other people who don't know. There could be 738 of them. So the word "Everyone" has to be thrown out of this sentence to start with. Best replace it with "A lot of people."
And then there's that word know again. Sorry, can't use it. Nobody on these boards knows that these things are hoaxes. In fact assuming these things are hoaxes and that the people who created them are still alive, only those people and those they collaborated with "know" that these things are hoaxes. Everybody else just believes that they are.
So really, to be absolutely accurate your sentence should have read "A lot of people on these boards believe that these things are hoaxes" which I realise loses a lot of dramatic effect, but at least it gains by being the truth.
Now I have said to Caz that I believe these things to be hoaxes. Many times, and to her face. And I've said the same thing to Robert Smith. And you know what, we've never once argued about it. We've certainly never gone round in circles saying the same things over and over again. You know why. The answer is three little words. "In my opinion."
As far as I recall, these three words are pretty common in the academic circles you move in John. Because good academics know that they should always qualify their opinions. That's why Einstein called it the "Theory" of Relativity and not the "Fact" of Relativity.
"In My Opinion." They're not difficult to learn, and boy would they save Stephen and Johnno a lot of server space!
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 80
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 1:57 pm: | |
"Sir Robert plainly doesn't know either. He would prefer to see the test results first before claiming to know. "
Alan, a great, well written, well reasoned post.
I think that the watch and the diary are forgeries, but I am not certain of it. Particularly with respect to the watch.
Then there is the issue that Paul Begg raises in "The Facts": "We are possibly looking at an old forgery".
POSSIBLY we are looking at forgeries that indeed tie into the case in legitimate fashion, whether as a side "whodunnit" OR relics of someone's desire to frame Maybrick.
Likely? Nope. Possible? Yup.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 954
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 2:23 pm: | |
Alan,
Two quick things before we get to the good part.
First, you write, concerning the endless repetition in Diary World:
About that I will just say, it only takes one person to stop and then the other one has to really.
You haven't been reading very closely here over the past five or ten years, have you? It's been tried. Several times. It doesn't work. Though it does go in cycles, and I'm sure it will be tried again soon enough.
Second, you say,
Whether you like to attack Caz with your "knowledge" or not, this is a pretty un-academic way to behave.
Absolutely. I behave in explicitly and obviously unacademic ways on these boards all the time. This is not work, Alan. This is fun and games, and there is certainly no reason for me to have to behave in a purely academic way here on an internet message board. I mean, seriously, Alan. It's not like anyone's being paid to read or write here. So relax and enjoy the goofiness.
You then try a little amateur epistemology on me.
But I'm not up for parsing the rhetoric of knowledge at the moment. I am indeed certain these things are both hoaxes. Hell, in the case of the diary, the handwriting and the text alone prove that. And so I say that I know it's a fake. That's common, everyday usage and perfectly appropriate for the situation at hand.
However, as I wrote to Caroline on another thread a few weeks ago, you can feel free to read the words "I think" or "I feel" before any sentence I write or have ever written on these boards if it makes you happy. I only write what I feel I know is true based on the evidence. I wouldn't write something I didn't think, so just go ahead and assume it's there. We all do this. Not long ago, Caroline wrote that "there is no doubt" that the watch is a man's watch. I knew what she meant. It's a shorthand we all use around here, and I suspect you know that, too. The rest of this is surely just faux-pique and rhetorical gaming for the purposes of trivial entertainment (unless you really are being serious and feel that self-righteous about all this).
Now comes the part of your post I really love.
Alan. How stupid do you think I am? Honestly.
Of course I knew exactly what I was writing when I posted the words "Everyone on these boards knows that these things are both hoaxes."
Of course I knew there was no way I could see into every person's mind or soul and tell what they knew or didn't know. Of course, I was making a patently unprovable and deliberately outrageous claim. Of course I knew that there was no way I could possibly be able to pretend to prove it or to know such a universal thing about every living person who reads these words or even every person who posts on these boards.
You don't think I knew that already? Seriously?
So why did I write the phrase? And why in that explicitly charged and extremely unequivocal and unqualified way? What do you think?
What is the point of rhetoric, Alan?
How does it work?
What are such sentences designed to do, do you think?
Well, sometimes they are designed to do exactly this. Right here. Look what's happening. Look who's here now. Look at what they are writing. Look at what Caroline wrote for the last month. Look at what you are doing here and Sir Robert. Look at the place we have now come to in the discussion above concerning what we can and cannot know and what will be necessary before the discussion can move any further.
Look carefully.
Surely, as a reader, you are sophisticated enough to see the effect of that simplistic and provocative claim.
And, incidentally, in all that time, not one person has come and advanced even the beginning of an argument that the real James might be the Ripper or that these things might be real? Have you noticed that?
I knew that would happen, too.
And what does all that tell you?
The phrase, like most rhetorical phrases of that nature, was designed to do exactly what it did.
And, by the way, these are definitely NOT "academic circles." Nor will they ever be. Nor are they designed to be. Nor should they be.
Would I write an article for publication or an academic book using the same language and rhetorical strategies and provocations I employ here? Of course, not. I'm a professional. I am smart enough to know the difference between one writing context and another, between one audience and another, between one rhetorical task and another, between one purpose and another, between what we professionals often refer to as "the scene of writing."
I know exactly where I am and what I am writing and why I am writing it, Alan.
And more often than not, my words have exactly the effect on readers that I intend them to.
Your post to me above, for instance, is a perfect example, although I am surprised that it took someone so long to finally write it.
But thanks. I do appreciate your playing along.
Now, do we all know precisely where the discussion is, can we see the point we have arrived at beyond which only imaginary speculation and unevidenced scenarios remain?
The evidence ALL points without exception in a perfectly singular direction -- away from the real James Maybrick writing this diary, scratching this watch or killing these women.
Both of these things, the evidence tells us repeatedly and exclusively, are hoaxes.
Beyond that, unless and until the owners of these two artefacts step up and do the ethical ad responsible thing and give qualified professionals full and complete access to the material for testing using the latest technologies, there is nothing more, nothing new to say.
In the interest of simple truth and out of respect for history, that's what should happen.
The rest is just verbal video games.
I do appreciate your post, Alan. It was exactly what I was hoping for.
All the best,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on January 04, 2005) |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 722
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 2:49 pm: | |
All of which translates to "I deliberately tell lies because I have no respect for anyone here." Well thanks John, at least your cards are on the table.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 81
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 2:59 pm: | |
"The evidence ALL points without exception in a perfectly singular direction -- away from the real James Maybrick writing this diary, scratching this watch or killing these women.
Both of these things, the evidence tells us repeatedly and exclusively, are hoaxes. "
That is incorrect, IMHO. The test results at the University of Manchester indicated that the scratches are "not likely to be recent".
That gives me pause, and room for discussion.
As well as a desire for more testing, naturally.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 955
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 3:02 pm: | |
Alan,
Now that's what I call careful reading.
I hope you read more carefully than that before you write professionally, Alan.
Still, I understand that in a place like this, you don't have to.
Words are designed to do things. Mine are chosen to do what I want them to do. So are yours.
I thought everyone knew that.
--John
PS: For anyone interested, Alan's absurd reduction is of course NOT at all what I wrote. But that's OK. My post is still there, you can read it yourself.
(Message edited by omlor on January 04, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 956
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 3:07 pm: | |
Sir Robert,
It may give you pause, but the phrase certainly does not point to the real James Maybrick having made these scratches, and it is accompanied by the explicitly added caveats about uncertainty regarding it as a scientific conclusion that I have already cited.
But I do agree with your desire. Naturally.
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1580
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 3:16 pm: | |
Guys!!!!
I am guilty to this morning - earlier on i was a but mardy, i confess! But lets just calm down a little and get to the point. the watch reports (remember them)
Luckily we love everyone always around here so.....
Chill!
maybe the artefacts were in fact hoaxed a different times in history. Maybe thats why we never agree about antything! But there you go. the fence is becoming once again an attractive place.
Jenni
ps everyone doesn't know, oh well!
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 957
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 3:37 pm: | |
Hi Jenni,
It may have all seemed ugly, complete now with Alan claiming I have been deliberately telling "lies" because I "have no respect for anyone here."
(If only he knew...  )
Perhaps in his case I overestimated his rhetorical sensitivities. Or perhaps this provocatively extreme language of his was only a bit of hyperbole as well. If so, I'm glad he's joined the fun. If not, if he's being serious and literal, one hopes he reads a bit more about language and rhetoric, context and performance, words and their specific effects at some point in his career.
In any case, the ugliness served a useful purpose in the end.
We are here, right where I wanted to be.
All of the textual evidence and the handwriting evidence and the distinct lack of provenances and the timing and circumstances of the artefacts' appearances point to these things being hoaxes. None of the scientific evidence, in either case, puts the artefacts even in the proper century.
There is still no rational historical reason to believe that the real James Maybrick actually wrote the diary or scratched the watch or killed these women.
In fact, no one has even said they believe that. Not one person.
No one has even offered a believable scenario wherein the real James MIGHT have written this diary and scratched this watch, one that accounts for all the evidence we already have.
So we are left in a very specific place.
Everyone can of course feel free to make up their own imaginary scenarios about when and where these hoaxes might have been created, but no-one has the necessary evidence to argue their specifics seriously.
So the only hope we have left (barring some sudden verifiable confession), is that the owners of these things finally do the responsible thing and arrange to give fully qualified professional scientists complete access to this material for testing using the latest technologies.
Until then, there is nothing material or newly evidenced or non-speculative left to say.
And that's where I had a suspicion we were heading all along.
Thanks and have a lovely evening,
--John |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 723
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 5:13 pm: | |
Well lets take a look at your post again John.
Of course I knew exactly what I was writing when I posted the words "Everyone on these boards knows that these things are both hoaxes."
Of course I knew there was no way I could see into every person's mind or soul and tell what they knew or didn't know. Of course, I was making a patently unprovable and deliberately outrageous claim.
So you were deliberately saying something you knew to be untrue. Now I don't know what that means during your rhetorical games or in your academic circles John, but in my circles that translates to "I told a lie."
Okay, next bit.
Would I write an article for publication or an academic book using the same language and rhetorical strategies and provocations I employ here? Of course, not. I'm a professional. I am smart enough to know the difference between one writing context and another, between one audience and another
So here we are saying that the audience here does not deserve the same careful, truthful, evidential responses that an academic audience deserves. That, in my book translates to a lack of respect.
I'm not interested in rhetorical games. I just consider arrogance and overbearing self-superiority to be the only real ugliness I can see here.
But sorry, I only have an MA to your PhD, perhaps you can explain again how I got it wrong in words of one syllable so that a dunce like me can understand.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 958
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 5:35 pm: | |
Oh, come on Alan,
Surely at some point you have studied rhetoric. Do you know what hyperbole is? Do you know the difference, within a public context, of a "lie" and a deliberate provocation? Do you understand the strategic performative effect of sentences within an exchange?
Surely you are not always as naive or painfully literal as you are being in this last post.
I wrote what I wrote for a reason. I wanted to see if the people out there who did not "know" or thought James might actually be the Ripper would come forward to disagree. I did not just want to ask -- that almost never works around here. I wanted to dramatically provoke, and that's exactly what I did.
If you want to call this "deliberately lying," that's fine. I consider that overstated analysis simply an indication of your own limited appreciation of the writing situation and the nature of rhetorical figures.
And your reading of the second citation in your post is truly perverse. I never once said anything about what this audience "deserves" or that one strategy was necessarily better or more legitimate than the other. They are both perfectly appropriate to the different formats, the different writing situations, the different communities and the different shared patterns of discourse. Surely you've read enough around these boards to know that.
In fact, in some ways what I can do here is much better -- much more honest and liberating, since it is moment to moment and constantly ongoing and does not come with the same formal rules of grammar and construction that writing for publication does.
You can have no idea how much respect I have for anyone on this list (using your own argument about what one can and cannot claim to know).
And you can have no idea which audience or community of readers I value more highly and take more seriously. (In fact, it's often this one, for many reasons.)
And if you are truly not interest in rhetorical gaming, then why are you continuing this conversation? It does not add a single thing to the discussion of the case or of these artefacts. It is entirely rhetorical.
So I'll turn to the state of affairs at hand.
I'll make a bold prediction.
I'll bet that every post that is about to follow on this thread, from everyone, including me, adds nothing material, no new evidence, and will be purely speculation.
And I'll bet that this will remain the case from now on, until the owners do the right thing and give the scientists full and complete access to this material for testing using the latest technologies.
Now let's see if I'm right.
Thanks for playing, Alan. The song remains the same.
--John
(Message edited by omlor on January 04, 2005) |
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 82
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 5:38 pm: | |
" the phrase certainly does not point to the real James Maybrick having made these scratches"
Agreed. I should have been more precise in my wording. However, and it's a big however, the scratches and their analysis to date do not point us in the direction of a hoax. A great deal of the textual "problems" in the Diary do point that way, no question. The Watch is another story, IMHO. Enough to change my suspicions - no. Enough to talk about it - yes.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 724
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 6:13 pm: | |
On your last point John, I agree with you 100%. In fact it would be your turn to have no idea how much I agree. Or perhaps you would.
On the first point I 100% disagree.
Neil Simon said "Once you write something down, it becomes the truth." I'm not an academic and I don't play rhetorical games. I'm a writer, and in my world the rules are that when you write something for the public domain, the onus is on you to be as truthful and accurate in your reporting as you can possibly be, because you don't know who is reading. That is as true for an internet message board as it is for a newspaper or a magazine. In many ways it is more true, because when you write for a publication you at least pretty much know your audience, on the internet there are a million eyes looking in.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 587
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 6:33 pm: | |
SirRobertAnderson wrote:
That is incorrect, IMHO. The test results at the University of Manchester indicated that the scratches are "not likely to be recent".
No.
What Turgoose actually wrote was quite different:
However, whilst there is no evidence which would indicate a recent (last few years) origin of the engravings, it must be stressed that there are no features observed which conclusively prove the age of the engravings. They could have been produced recently and deliberately artificially aged by polishing, but this would have been a complex multistage process, using a variety of different tools, with intermediate polishing or artificial wearing stages.
Chris Phillips
|
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 83
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 6:54 pm: | |
"What Turgoose actually wrote was quite different: "
I don't agree.
First off, I quoted "not likely to be recent" from Begg's "The Facts", page 415. (I quoted it and forgot to cite it. Sorry.) That is Mr. Begg's opinion as to what Turgoose's conclusions mean. A complete quote would be "{Turgoose} has given his opinion that the scratches are likely to be tens of years old, are compatible with a date of 1888/9 and are not likely to be recent."
A plain English interpretation of Turgoose's findings IMHO would be "the scratches don't look to be recent, unless it's a very skillful forgery".
I don't think I am torturing the statement to get it to confess; you may disagree.
And this is precisely what this thread is for: discussion of the report on the Watch.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 959
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 10:06 pm: | |
Alan,
Neil Simon was wrong.
And you write, in an earlier post:
But sorry, I only have an MA to your PhD, perhaps you can explain again how I got it wrong in words of one syllable so that a dunce like me can understand.
And then you write, in this last one:
I don't play rhetorical games.
Now Alan, who's kidding who?
Thanks for the chuckle,
--John |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 960
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 10:08 pm: | |
Chris and Robert,
Thanks for the perfect demonstration.
And for keeping my prediction alive.
Meanwhile, somewhere in an empty lab...
--John |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 727
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 2:24 am: | |
John
No he wasn't, and you have seen examples of how he wasn't on these boards a hundred times, every time an unregistered poster comes blundering on to tell us all what idiots we all are because can't we see that James Maybrick/William Gull/Walter Sickert was obviously the Ripper.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 728
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 2:40 am: | |
In fact, just to amplify that point, isn't that exactly why you are here, John? Because somebody wrote something down, and it became the truth. And you have spent the last however many years trying to make it untrue again. And doesn't it eat you up that there are countless, maybe hundreds or thousands of people out there on non-Casebook land that you can't reach for whom it remains the truth and probably always will.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 589
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 3:33 am: | |
SirRobertAnderson
Thanks for clarifying that you were quoting Begg, not Turgoose.
Fortunately, the text of the report is now available to us all at the head of this thread, and we can see that Turgoose does not say the scratches are unlikely to be recent.
Chris Phillips
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 772
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 6:32 am: | |
The Reports are Here! The Reports are Here!! Well I return to the boards and find that the long awaited Watch Reports have finally been made public. I see I have LOTS of reading to do over the next few days. Somehow I have the feeling that despite hundreds (sigh..possibly thousands if you include other Maybrickian threads) of posts to slog through, I am not going to be finding anything earth shattering to have occurred.
Have you missed me? You've missed me haven't you?
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 961
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 7:45 am: | |
Alan,
Yes, poor Neil got it wrong. Just ask Lyotard, or Wittgenstein, or, if you want to stick with dramatists, Beckett. We're talking about rhetorical figures, Alan. We're talking about self-conscious use of hyperbole.
You're not really a dunce who only understands one syllable words. That was just a rhetorical gesture on your part, a bit of exaggeration for effect. To call it a lie would be lunacy. So don't come here and tell me you don't play rhetorical games. You play them all the time. I've just cited you doing it. We all do. Language is rhetorical through and through, as my citation of your little bit of self-demeaning excess for a specific effect demonstrates. At least I'm honest enough to admit I do it. And none of it has anything to do with lying.
And if you are seriously comparing my using the phrase "Everyone on these boards knows these things are hoaxes" with someone hoaxing a diary that claims James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper, then either you have completely lost all rational perspective or...
...this is just another far-reaching rhetorical gesture on your point in order to make a point.
(You see, you really do do it all the time.)
Because of course the two things are in no way similar. One is a simple bit of obvious hyperbole designed to provoke further discussion from those not participating and to steer the conversation in a very specific direction (and it worked). The other is a deliberate attempt to deceive.
My god, Alan, if you really can't see the simple and obvious difference there, then we have no hope of having a meaningful discussion about this.
Or perhaps you do see the difference and your comparison was only for dramatic purposes. You know, a bit of rhetoric designed to steer the point in a certain direction.
In any case, none of it is material to the case, offers new evidence or is in any way relevant to the question at hand.
Was James Maybrick Jack the Ripper? Did he write this diary or scratch this watch or kill these women?
I say of course not.
I also say that until the owners of these artefacts finally do the responsible thing and give qualified scientists full and complete access to these items for thorough testing using the latest technologies, all we're gonna get around here is just this sort of diversionary chatter and more pure speculation about when and where these hoaxes were created.
And it certainly does not eat me up "that there are countless, maybe hundreds or thousands of people out there on non-Casebook land that you can't reach for whom it remains the truth and probably always will." There are hundreds or thousands of people out there who believe that space aliens built the pyramids or that the world is really flat. There always will be, no matter what. That's to be expected.
It does sometimes "eat me up," however, that the owners of these artefacts don't do the ethical thing and arrange for qualified professionals in state of the art laboratories to be given full and complete access to this material for the purposes of thorough testing.
But then I remember what we are dealing with, and I understand, and I go on and live my day.
Still, Alan, thanks for your concern.
Ally,
Guess what?
Nothing new, nothing real, no new tests. The place of the discussion is exactly where you left it. People are still calling other people liars, there's still not a single piece of clear material evidence that either of these things are real or that the real James had anything to do with them or the murders, and the hoax lives on in mostly mindless chatter and pointless rhetorical gaming.
It's what we do here in Diary World. Watch and see. I'm sure there's more on its way.
Nice to see you back,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on January 05, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1583
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 9:36 am: | |
Ally,
yes I missed you. Welcome back to the aslyum.
Folks,
|give up trying for the time being, your making my head hurt!!
Jenni
ps yes its easy to do!
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 962
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 9:41 am: | |
All right, all right, where is everybody?
It's 9:30 here in the eastern US.
By this time Jenni should have been here to tell Alan and me that we are straying way off topic and we should get back to discussing the reports like the title of the thread says (and urging us once again to "chill").
Caroline should have been here to say she agrees with Alan that I was lying and it just goes to show that nothing I say should be trusted, especially if I was willing to say such an obviously untrue thing, and then urge us to realize that the reports at least say that it's very unlikely that the scratches could be modern and that makes coming up with a believable scenario where Albert made them all but impossible. And then point out that all she's doing, after all, is asking questions.
Chris should have then shown up to remind her that Turgoose actually qualified that conclusion in a very deliberate way and that the reports do not demonstrate in any purely scientific way that the scratches could not be recent.
Sir Robert should have then reminded Chris that they don't say they were either and that they leave open the possibility that they are old.
Alan should have returned by then to say I was still not telling the literal truth when I wrote that "Everyone on these boards knows these things are hoaxes" and that since I knew that when I wrote it, I must have been a liar and we all have a sacred duty to write only things that are literally true whenever and wherever possible and that he never plays rhetorical games.
And, by this time, I should have had the chance to return and point out where, in Alan's post to me saying that, he uses deliberately rhetorical structures and phrases that are also not literally true and does so just for dramatic effect and to make his argument and the discussion move in a certain direction, and then remind everyone that there is nothing left to say here of any material or newly evidential nature and all we have left is pure speculation until the owners of these artefacts do the right thing and get these things properly tested.
So what's taking everyone so long?
--John
(Message edited by omlor on January 05, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 963
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 9:44 am: | |
Jenni,
Just as I was posting, there you were.
But you let me down.
(Not really, I understand completely).
Have a great day.
--John
|
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 87
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 9:53 am: | |
"we can see that Turgoose does not say the scratches are unlikely to be recent."
Hey Chris,
Just to be explicit, I am not a Diarist, nor do I play one on TV. I do think there is an interesting "whodunnit" vis a vis the Diary/Watch. There is also, IMHO, an outside chance that someone thought Maybrick was the Ripper, and/or wanted to defame him for reasons that aren't hard to imagine. If this was done to make money, it was a laughable effort, mangled from the start.
However, I have spent a career reading legal documents, and legalese, and I have to say that I read Turgoose as indeed saying the watch is unlikely to be of recent origin, with the caveat that it might be a very skilled forgery. Again, I don't think I am torturing the statement to get it to read what I want to hear. Turgoose clearly does not reach a definitive conclusion.
More tests, please.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 964
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 9:58 am: | |
Excellent.
Two down, four to go.
--John (one for two so far)
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1384
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 10:47 am: | |
John, about that little word 'know':
You already knew I was not an academic. So your rhetorical fun and games were deceitful, in that you knew how I would respond, and you also knew that my responses would be based on a lack of understanding of the kind of language games you now admit you were playing. You even had to explain them to Alan, so you can have been in no doubt at all that I was treating your words seriously when no seriousness was intended on your part - and you let me do it.
Not any more though. Now you've admitted that everything you write here is more or less a joke, because you don't have to be professional about it in such a medium, your readers won't have to afford it any credibility - not in a medium like this one. So don't worry; I shan't.
I have an admission to make too. I have thought that much of what you write has been a joke for a long time now, but it's good to really know, from the horse's mouth, that it was meant to be.
At least we know now that all that stuff about other people's lack of ethics and morals and responsibility and scholarship, and you coming here on your high horse to do the best job possible for the sake of truth and decency and history, is the self-confessed product of an academic mind on holiday.
You said it.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 590
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 10:51 am: | |
SirRobertAnderson wrote:
However, I have spent a career reading legal documents, and legalese, and I have to say that I read Turgoose as indeed saying the watch is unlikely to be of recent origin, with the caveat that it might be a very skilled forgery.
But what Turgoose said shouldn't really be a matter of opinion, should it?
The only reason I posted was to correct the false impression people may have got from your apparent attribution to him, in two separate posts, of the
phrases "unlikely to be recent" and "not likely to be recent".
All I wanted to do is clarify that he didn't use either phrase. Whether you or Paul Begg think he implied this or not is a different matter.
Chris Phillips
|
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 89
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 10:59 am: | |
"But what Turgoose said shouldn't really be a matter of opinion, should it? "
Of course it shouldn't.
I believe it is reasonable - on a Watch Report thread - to try to determine what the ^%$@ he's saying in plain English. And that's how I've phrased it. His statement is certainly not a ringing endorsement of the authenticity of the Watch, but it does imply that unless it's a really great forgery, it's not of recent origin.
Is that fair to say?
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 965
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 11:18 am: | |
YES!
Three for four. I'm on a roll!
Now then...
Caroline,
You're not serious, are you? You actually thought I truly believed I could see into every possible board reader's mind and could tell you exactly what was in them? You actually thought I did not know my language in that little sentence was deliberately extreme, unqualified, and over the top? You actually thought I was that blindingly stupid? You actually were unable to tell it was a deliberate provocation?
My god, that's sad.
And if you can show me where I have "admitted that everything I write here is more or less a joke," I'd be very grateful. Of course, you can't. Because I have not written any such thing.
But the really outrageous part of your predictable fit of faux-pique concerning my deliberate use of rhetoric in a single provocative sentence is the stunning hypocrisy you are demonstrating.
You use this very same sort of rhetoric ALL THE TIME. Your posts are filled with deliberately provocative metaphors that are purely figural and hyperbolic language that is designed solely to persuade through wit or cleverness (what was that thing about the fabric not too long ago?) and you engage in non-literal writing and non-serious and non-academic utterances on a daily basis. So your dramatically feigned "shock" that I too use rhetoric for effect smacks of the Chief of Police in Casablanca saying he is "shocked, shocked to find there is gambling going on in this establishment" while the waiter hands him his winnings.
See, that was a rhetorical device. Right there.
Seriously, Caroline, your umbrage is charming, but I don't buy it for a second. You're too self-aware as a reader to be that silly.
Also, just so you know, there is certainly nothing at all immoral or unethical or indecent about using hyperbole or other rhetorical figures within such a discussion, especially if they are painfully obvious ones.
If there were, then every philosopher, novelist, dramatist, historian, and psychologist would by definition be utterly immoral, unethical and indecent.
As would you.
Finally, let's return to the effect of my little sentence. It took us exactly where I wanted the discussion to go. Sir Robert and Alan came here to join you in taking exception to my claim, the point was pressed, and we soon realized that we have arrived at a place where there is nothing more that can be said that is both material and new or newly evidenced or non-speculative.
At least until the owners of these two artefacts finally step up and do the decent and moral and honest and ethical thing and provide professional scientists full and complete access to these items for thorough testing.
So every post that follows, like all that have appeared in the last days, indeed since the discussion reached this point thanks in part to the very rhetorical gesture Alan and you are so self-righteously objecting to within a rhetorical and dramatic act of your own, is doomed to be repetition, incomplete interpretation, and purely speculative.
And these things are both still hoaxes.
And I "know" exactly what's coming.
All the best, everyone,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on January 05, 2005) |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 4:46 am: | |
Caz,
Regarding your post of Tuesday 4th,what Turgoose examined might have been just the back of another watch.There was no neccessity for a totaly different watch.In fact it could have been a back made especialy for the hoax.
As John says,there will be no new evidence.That doesn't mean that there can be no suspicion based on the information already to hand.It has not been proven that the initials could not have been of recent origin.
There is no set date as to when the idea of a hoax was first considered,or when the idea was put into practice,so the presentation of the diary,the date of purchase of the watch and it's state and previous ownership,may be irrevelent.All we have are claims that have not been substanciated.
As a matter of interest what is the chance of a white coloured American passport being a forgery.Not in anyway revelent to the Maybrick saga,but it may show that caution must always be exercised where forgery is suspected. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
