|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1636
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 7:52 am: | 
|
i sit behind door number two!
Jenni
(Message edited by jdpegg on January 13, 2005)
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1409
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 5:45 am: |
|
I sit behind no doors, and behind no one. I think for myself and I am not claiming anything about the diary's origins.
John is now asking questions about the real Mike, which is always a good thing. But it does tell us that he has made up his mind without knowing certain facts. I've given him the facts as I understand them about Mike and the library books. If he can explain to me why he needs to know whether Mike had a library card, or ever checked the book out, and what possible difference it could make to his own 'miracle' thinking, I might be arsed to make some enquiries.
The 'fun' one is just silly. I'm claiming nothing about Mike's alleged ownership of the Sphere volume pre-October 1994. I don't have to prove Mike didn't have his own copy in 1992. John is the only one making claims about what Mike did or didn't do in this forum.
And without a number two to pin on Mike when he made that first call to Shirley, in which he failed to give her enough details to check a sausage, John's claim is all too limp to stand up by itself.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1010
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 6:39 am: |
|
So far, then, the answers to the questions are:
Caroline doesn't know or won't say if Mike had a library card, and apparently neither can anyone else.
Caroline doesn't know or won't say whether Mike checked the book out of the library. Nor, apparently, can anyone else.
Caroline has NO evidence whatsoever of any sort that suggests that Mike did NOT have the Sphere Guide when he carried the diary to Shirley (other than the simple fact that Mike lies all the time).
And no one has ANY evidence of any sort that supports in any way possibility number 1 nor are they able to create any sort of believable scenario given all the evidence we DO have that number 1 MIGHT be true.
Excellent.
A very useful review.
I'm glad we had it.
Enjoy your day everyone,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1639
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 8:38 am: |
|
Caz,
just because one sits behind doors doesn't mean one can't get up and move!
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 10:18 am: |
|
Hi Jennifer
Afraid I'm not a member so my reply's may appear a little out of sink. However another puzzlement that goes through my mind, and presuming (which I think most probable) that you are correct.
Then surely this creation is a brilliant work of Art. Probably one of the best hoaxes (for which there is deffinately room for a TV series) ever created. I mean why does the forger choose Maybrick, not the logical choice if I was going to do such a thing. And surely the very nature of hoaxes is to profit by them, usually the arch villan smuggly comes forward and divolges how clever he has been. You must admit its a phenominal peice of work. None of you catigorically can say you can prove 100% beyond any doubt. The time, reseach and artist brilliance that must have gone into fooling so many, for so long, cant but help to find admiration.
Why has the hoaxer not collected his prize and cashed it in? Guess he could be waiting for the movie which I've heard rumours about. Does the discovery of the Diary have an aniversary coming up...perhaps you could get some money out of a tight fisted commissioning editor or something and put it to rest once and for all.
If your correct then the Maybrick Diary makes Damien Hurst look like a complete amitor, perhaps it could go for a Turner Prize...Personally I'd like to know 100% for sure.
Jeff
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1645
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 2:21 pm: |
|
Hey Jeff,
i think Maybrick was a good choice. Nothing known about him in terms of ripper research the fact that his name is not connected with it already some how that makes it more believable right?
I do think there are obvious signs of forgery in the document. I think it could have been done better. then it didn't need to be becuase it is serving a purpose, fooling the world, nothing to prove its age from any scientific basis that is conclusive. The textual problems are difficult and sometimes complext to resolve. The provenace is merky. That's why i am willing to be wrong, willing to change my position. there's no need to have fixed views on stuff. but as it stands yes i think the diary is a modern forgery made for either finacial gain or personal pleasure.
I can't help but think all the fuss somehow is enjoyable to them!
Ask as many questions as you want.
Some facts like the actual decendants of james maybrick and the real maybrick lines are easy to find out they are a matter of public record. as are Florence Maybricks trial papers.
I think Caz's book that she wrote with keith Skinner and Seth Linder called 'Ripper diary' is a good account of the characters involved.
Hope that was calm Jeff i always try to stay calm but sometimes it works better than others!
Cheers
Jenni
ps there is a thread entitled evdence against maybrick excluding the diary, i started it long ago! it remains possible i guess (john if your reading this don't start ok!)
pps that answer your questions?
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1025
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 2:42 pm: |
|
Jeff asks,
"Apart from the Diary and the Watch, what other evidence connects James Maybrick to the Ripper Killings?"
None.
Not a single piece.
Anywhere.
No one has ever found any evidence of any real sort that links the real James to these killings in any way.
Also, Jeff, we now have several full-length examples of the real James Maybrick's handwriting.
It looks absolutely nothing at all like the writing in the diary in any way.
Not even close.
As to why this hoax has been with us for so long, that has to do not only with the work of whoever created it, but also with the behavior of those who have handled it after its creation as well. Desire is a very powerful thing. And there are some forces every bit as powerful as money, including the instinct to protect one's professional reputation.
Actually, this book is a pretty shoddy fake, complete with numerous ahistoricisms, a line from a document that the killer could not possibly have seen, mistakes about the murders, a complete lack of any verifiable provenance whatsoever, cheesy dramatic structure, reduction of the entire investigation into a bad melodrama battle between the killer and Abberline, an author who claims to have written any number of Ripper letters that are not only NOT in his own historical handwriting AND each in DIFFERENT handwritings, but ALSO none of them are in the handwriting of the diary either, and to top it all off the whole thing is written in someone other than the real James Maybrick's hand.
It's pretty bad. So I'm not at all surprised that whoever wrote it didn't manage to make very much money off the thing, either. Clearly, they weren't the brightest stars in the heavens.
Hope that helps,
--John
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 147
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 5:44 pm: |
|
"Would it not be useful to have a third Maybrick thread not taking the diary and watch into account, to see if he has any credibility apart from these? "
It would be tough IMHO to give Maybrick much credibility aside from The Objects Which Shall Not Be Named (TOWSNBN). And Jenni did start such a thread.
A more interesting thread to start might be on Florence Maybrick herself, her trial,her guilt or lack thereof, and to see if any connection can be made on whether or not TOWSNBN can be linked to her in some fashion. If TOWSNBN are old hoaxes, it is reasonable to ask who might want to besmirch Maybrick, and who might have access to some degree to police records.
Yours in DiTA for TOWSNBN.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1032
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 6:24 pm: |
|
Sir Robert,
By all means, start a Florence Maybrick thread to discuss her trial and the question of her guilt or innocence. But of course, before you can link the diary to any of it, you'd have to prove it was around at the time (or at least in the right century).
And to do that you'd need either new tests on the diary or new evidence that contradicts all the textual evidence we already have.
Good luck,
--John
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1412
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 6:52 am: |
|
And to do that you'd need either new tests on the diary...
Hmmm, interesting. It appears John really does think there are new tests available that could prove the diary was 'around at the time (or at least in the right century)' if indeed it was.
I first wondered whether John had completely changed tack when he posted, on January 8th:
...if we want to learn finally, with hard data, when these two obvious hoaxes were created, we need them to be properly tested in a laboratory setting where the professionals have full and unlimited access to the material.
John's contact at McCrone Associates, Joseph Barabe, stated back in January 2003 that, to the best of his knowledge:
...there is no reliable method for determining when ink was placed onto a document.
And in mid 2004, John was of the opinion that, although we should give the latest technology a chance to help us, we shouldn't expect too much from it:
As for giving the book to a reputable lab to see what the latest technologies might make possible - I think it would be a good idea, if only because it might very well allow us to learn some new things about the book itself.
I don't think anyone disagreed with John that it would be a good, rather than a bad thing, to learn whatever we could about the diary that we don't already know (or think we know).
And quite a while back now, Robert Smith confirmed that he would release the diary for new tests, regardless of what they may or may not be able to achieve, as long as a third party found and financed the experts, so that no one could later accuse Robert of influencing the process and/or the findings.
And as far as I recall, John was cool with this.
So why is he still whingeing on, day after day, about Robert, as the diary's owner, not meeting his moral obligations to do the right thing?
But stranger still, why have John's own expectations changed, concerning what new technology can achieve? Why is he suddenly trying to give his readers the impression that scientific testing can and will provide the final answer to when the diary author actually put pen to paper?
What new research has John done that suggests McCrone, or any other lab for that matter, can do in 2005 what apparently no one could do in 2003, and John wasn't expecting anyone to do only last year?
Or was I being particularly stupid, to imagine that yet another of John's empty rhetorical gestures, written only for effect, was in fact something new, something real this time?
I sometimes wonder if even John can tell the difference as he writes this stuff.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1033
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 7:54 am: |
|
Oh good, even more desperate reasons not to try from Caroline.
One can only wonder what motivates this crusade to excuse the lack of thorough testing of these artefacts.
First of all, she offers a typically incomplete version of what I was told, not only by the director of McCrone Labs but by several other scientists as well -- that is that it was impossible to say exactly what would and would not be possible as far as determining the age of this document until they got a look at it.
All of them, including the lab director Caroline names, were optimistic that testing this thing using the latest technologies might indeed be able to tell us things about its age that we do not now know, could also help resolve the conflicts that already exist in old reports, and could even possibly rule out this hoax's claim to authenticity.
Meanwhile, I STILL think thorough testing would be a good idea, "if only because it might very well allow us to learn some new things about the book itself."
In fact, I think it would be the ethical and responsible thing to do at this point in the investigation.
And I can't help but laugh at the old chestnut about Robert being willing to... blah blah blah blah blah. It's been years and years and years and years. If he wanted the thing tested thoroughly, it would have been done by now.
And this nonsense about other people having to do it is a classic children's ploy to get out of a chore you'd rather not face. Robert should be doing this. If he's worried about seeming impartial, then HE should be actively finding a neutral third party to do the things he thinks would be compromised if he did them.
But he won't. And no one will be surprised by that.
And, as I have stated here repeatedly, no lab has ever or will ever say for sure what they will or will not be able to do precisely until they see the material to be tested. And they won't see it anytime soon, so this entire discussion is pointless.
Not only that, it has nothing to do with what I actually wrote to Sir Robert, which, you will recall, began with his own premise, not mine.
Here are my words again:
By all means, start a Florence Maybrick thread to discuss her trial and the question of her guilt or innocence. But of course, before you can link the diary to any of it, you'd have to prove it was around at the time (or at least in the right century).
And to do that you'd need either new tests on the diary or new evidence that contradicts all the textual evidence we already have.
And this logic is perfectly valid.
IF you want to link the diary to the time of Florence Maybrick's trial, you WOULD have to prove that it was around then, right? At least in the right century, right?
Now, how would one hope to do that?
As far as I can tell, there are only two possible ways.
1. New tests which somehow demonstrate scientifically that it was. And Caroline is correct that this might in fact not even be completely possible.
2. Discover new real evidence that contradicts the real textual evidence we already have.
And THAT is why I rather sarcastically wished Sir Robert "Good luck."
If Caroline can think of another way to accomplish what he would need to, to prove the diary existed in the right century, despite all the textual evidence, perhaps she can offer it here and thereby actually add to the discussion rather than just once again try to excuse the fact that years have gone by now and no qualified lab has even seen this book for all that time.
I don't suspect she'll offer any other way, though.
Circles and circles and circles and circles,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on January 17, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1415
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 10:14 am: |
|
Hi John,
Only you (and perhaps Feldy) could interpret:
I don't think anyone disagreed with John that it would be a good, rather than a bad thing, to learn whatever we could about the diary that we don't already know (or think we know)
as:
even more desperate reasons not to try from Caroline.
My questions were concerned with your change of tack about what the latest technology can be expected to achieve. Please re-read my post and tell me where I gave anything remotely resembling a reason 'not to try'.
I don't know what could be 'incomplete' about the statement from Joseph Barabe at McCrone, written in January 2003:
'To the best of my knowledge, there is no reliable method for determining when ink was placed onto a document.'
This looks fairly unequivocal to me. And Barabe obviously didn't need to see the diary in order to write this statement. No reliable method (as at January 2003) for dating the writing implies that no test could tell us anything reliable about its age, or reliably rule out a date of 1888/9.
Maybe you got the wrong end of the stick when you spoke to him. If so, perhaps it's just as well you excused yourself from the process for personal reasons, and were happy to leave Robert Smith to find a more reliable third party who could obtain accurate written information about what tests are currently available and what could be learned from them that we don't already know.
No excuses this time - you're right.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on January 19, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1047
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 10:52 am: |
|
More of the same incomplete history and desire-driven reading from Caroline.
But it won't wash.
I know exactly what I was told about what might be possible and what was needed before what would be possible could be responsibly determined. And what I was told is exactly what I wrote above.
I'll happily leave it up to readers to determine which end of the stick is the wrong one.
And I'll leave them with a single, simple question.
It's been two and half years now. Has Robert arranged to have the diary thoroughly and properly retested?
'Nuff said.
--John (who knows we'll all be dead before it happens, and why)
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1050
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 1:01 pm: |
|
Also, just to remind everyone of my original point (which Caroline conveniently and typically ignores), here it is again:
IF you want to link the diary to the time of Florence Maybrick's trial, you WOULD have to prove that it was around then, right? At least in the right century, right?
Now, how would one hope to do that?
As far as I can tell, there are only two possible ways.
1. New tests which somehow demonstrate scientifically that it was. And Caroline is correct that this might in fact not even be completely possible. We still don't know, even all these years later, because no scientist in all that time has ever been allowed to examine the book (or, as far as I know, even been sent the old reports). This includes the lab director I contacted.
2. Discover new real evidence of some sort or another that contradicts the real textual evidence we already have. You can find some of this existent evidence listed currently on another thread.
Caroline still does not offer a third way. I'll assume she can't think of one and my logic remains valid.
I love that there are no surprises around here, ever,
--John
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1418
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 4:43 am: |
|
Hi John,
You can assume what you like, but you wrote (and again there's no need to shout - I heard what you wrote, even if you have already forgotten it):
IF you want to link the diary to the time of Florence Maybrick's trial...
I don't and I'm not, so that should have given you a little clue as to why Caroline still does not offer a third way.
Remind me again, when you wrote:
no scientist in all that time has ever been allowed to examine the book (or, as far as I know, even been sent the old reports),
in all what time exactly?
Dr. Simpson was 'allowed to examine the book' in 1996, and Peter Bower (Cornwell's paper expert) and Donald Rumbelow's book binding expert were both 'allowed to examine the book' in more recent times. And I seem to recall Robert Smith posting details of at least one even more recent examination.
And 'as far as I know' says it all really, since how the devil would you know how the ongoing investigations are progressing, and what forms they are taking, and who might have been given access to the diary and the existing reports? When was the last time you contacted Robert Smith to ask him? He hasn't been posting to the Casebook in quite a while, but one of his last messages issued an open invitation to anyone who is able or willing to help with new tests to contact him. What makes you think you are going to be the first to know whether anyone has offered to do the job you excused yourself from? Hmmmm?
Finally, you wrote:
I know exactly what I was told about what might be possible...
Well I'm happy for readers to decide whether remembered conversations from mid-2002, delivered by our very own board spin doctor are likely to contain more reliable and up to date information than a direct written quote from the expert himself:
'To the best of my knowledge, there is no reliable method for determining when ink was placed onto a document.'
Joseph Barabe, January 2003
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on January 20, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1057
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 8:05 am: |
|
Caroline,
You ask me why I wrote,
"Caroline still does not offer a third way."
Because you chose to respond to a post I wrote to Sir Robert saying that there were only two ways one could prove this diary actually existed in the proper century for it to be linked to Florence Maybrick's trial.
Since you did not offer any other ways, and still have not, I will assume my conclusion in that post was correct.
You ask "in all what time, exactly?"
I thought that was pretty clear. In all the time that has passed since I spoke to the scientists concerning what would and would not be possible and what they would need to determine what might very well be possible. I believe that was indeed mid-2002, wasn't it? And since then I do not believe any scientist has even examined this book nor has it been sent to any lab whatsoever.
As for contacting Robert Smith...
Well, here's something I DO know. I know exactly where that path leads me, because I've been down it several times before.
And as far as what has and hasn't been done -- where are the results? You and I both know the diary has not been thoroughly and properly tested since that time and it's not about to be. So play whatever games you like and offer the usual vague hints about secret-squirrel ongoing investigations. I know it's a way to keep the readership steady, but at some point no one is going to believe there's a wolf.
Finally, you might read that line from Dr. Barabe carefully, then read exactly what I said I was told about what might be possible concerning determining the age of the document, resolving the conflicts in old reports, and even ruling out claims to authenticity as well as what would ultimately be necessary to determine precisely what could be done in this regard.
Remember, determining when the ink was placed on the paper is certainly not the only way to determine the objective age range of the document or to rule out certain age possibilities, nor is it the only way to learn valuable information about the text scientifically.
But you already knew that, didn't you?
Listening to the crickets in the empty labs,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 635
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 9:01 am: |
|
Remember, determining when the ink was placed on the paper is certainly not the only way to determine the objective age range of the document or to rule out certain age possibilities, nor is it the only way to learn valuable information about the text scientifically.
Indeed, has it actually been shown that the paper itself is older than 1888, or even pre 20th-century?
That's obviously one aspect of the question that could be investigated scientifically.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1058
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 9:20 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Actually, I was thinking of a number of other things that might in fact be learned about the ink that every scientist, without exception, told me could certainly help determine an objective age-range for the document, help resolve the conflicts in the old reports, and even perhaps rule out definitively certain possibilities concerning authenticity. Of course, they'd need to see the document first, before they could determine exactly how much of this would be possible. They all told me that as well. And it didn't surprise me a bit, since it makes perfect logical sense.
I do believe the book itself has been shown to be an old Victorian book.
Anyway, we'll never know exactly what would or would not have been possible regarding the ink itself, even independent of the question of when it hit the paper, since the book won't be going to any lab anywhere anytime soon.
At least that's what this swami predicts.
Not needing a crystal ball,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 636
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 11:00 am: |
|
I do believe the book itself has been shown to be an old Victorian book.
Oh dear. I must have missed that. No doubt I shall have my knuckles rapped for not paying attention in class.
Was that a quantitative dating, or just a finding that it looked Victorian on grounds of style? If the former, I'd be interested to know how it was done, and what the estimated date was.
What stuck in my mind was that Barrett stated in one of his confessions that the book was dated c. 1908. If that had been true, it might have been possible to prove the thing a fake by dating the paper.
Chris Phillips
|
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 6:39 am: |
|
Hi all many thanks for your replies. I will search for the evidence against Maybrick thread.
Took a couple of hours out on friday following some Diary threads. Had made the mistake of thinking the Diary surfaced in the 80's not the 90's. Also figured out who the 'Mike' you refer to was, presumably Mike Barrett, who's confession to writing the diary is on this site. Admittedly it sounds a little like the Monty Python Sketch where Palin claims to have writen all shakespears plays ('and my wife wrote his Sonets'). In my experience a good liar usuaully tangles the lie with snippets of truth until he/she cant distiguish or remember the truth. If Barrett didn't write the diary perhaps his wife did and he wanted to get back at her? Looks like I'm going to have to track down 'Caz's' diary tome now. How can I purchace a copy?
It is an intriguing story especially as the Watch has a seperate story to the diary. Logic dictates that the forger would have done both.
It is an intriguing idea that someone tried to discredit Maybrick because Florence was unfairly tried. (which she almost certainly was) THis would also mean that Maybrick's connection to the case (in rumour anyway) was much older than thought. It would also mean that the forger failed.
Anyway I wont waste any more of your time, but will nose in from time to time on what your current thinking is. I'm suposed to be working on the Brian Jones case not the Ripper. Just keep getting drawn back for some reason.
Looks like your all agreed that the diary needs further testing, I presume that the main problem is who will pay for it? You either need a rich benefactor or get the BBC to do something useful with the licence fee. In my experience you need a new angle and an aniversary to hook a TV programme into. Its long over due however.
I'm afraid my conclusion was that it is probably a fake but hay I thought that about the 'Shroud of Turin' until the yogart theory. No doubt the truth will out eventually. Happy arguing. Thanks for being gentle. Jeff |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1059
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 2:48 pm: |
|
Glad to have ya' Jeff!
Come back to Diary World any time. We're always open and nothing much really changes.
Take care,
--John  |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 160
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 10:38 pm: |
|
"I'm afraid my conclusion was that it is probably a fake but hay I thought that about the 'Shroud of Turin' until the yogart theory. No doubt the truth will out eventually. Happy arguing. Thanks for being gentle. Jeff"
The Shroud is a probably an instructive case for Diary World netizens to study. To say a lot of scholarly time and a lot of lab work has gone into analysing the Shroud is the understatement of the year. Still very far from solid answers....and researchers have had some pretty big budgets to work with.
There's an interesting parallel to Diary World, too, in that there is a significant school of thought that the Shroud is an old fake dating from the 13th century...but that opens up the bigger question: how'd the heck they do it? Similar to the Diary - IF it's an old fake, how'd they get access to info not released until the '80s?
There is a mystery to the Shroud that is not answered by simply saying it's not Jesus' burial shroud. Likewise, dismissing Maybrick as the Ripper avoids other questions....
Here's a recent blurb on the subject:
12.16.04
NEW IMAGE FOUND ON SHROUD OF TURIN
A growing body of evidence is calling for reassessment of the shroud, which is kept in Turin, Italy. The latest item comes from the London-based Journal of Optics, published by the Institute of Physics. Two scientists from the University of Padua, Giulio Fanti and Roberto Maggiolo, report in the journal's April edition the discovery of a heretofore-undetected reverse image on the shroud. They say the smaller, fainter image on the back of the cloth depicts just the face and hands. And it's a superficial image, adhering only to the outermost fibers, just like the image on the front. "It is extremely difficult to make a fake with these features," Fanti writes.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1422
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 5:43 am: |
|
Hi John,
You wrote:
We still don't know, even all these years later, because no scientist in all that time has ever been allowed to examine the book...
And you think it was 'pretty clear' that you meant mid-2002? Two and a half years ago??
No wonder we had all that curfuffle over what 'at least several tens of years' means!
As for contacting Robert Smith...
Well, here's something I DO know. I know exactly where that path leads me, because I've been down it several times before.
Once again, there's no need to shout when you're trying to confuse me.
Tell me I'm wrong here, but I thought the last time you contacted Robert Smith was in mid-2002, when you parted on perfectly good terms, having excused yourself from helping with the testing process for personal reasons.
Before you excused yourself, did you pass on to Robert all the details of precisely what you learned might be possible, together with an idea of cost?
If not, why not? And why not give your readers those details here and now, instead of asking us to take your word for what might be possible?
You said it was sad to keep hinting on the boards about behind-the-scenes investigations, if one can't or won't share one's findings.
Hi Jeff,
You could do what more than two thousand readers across the UK did between July 2003 and June 2004, and get Ripper Diary - The Inside Story out of the library. 
If you'd prefer your own copy, the cheapest way may be to order it online from Amazon.
If you would like one signed by all three co-authors, try Loretta Lay:
www.laybooks.com
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on January 21, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1060
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 6:42 am: |
|
Sir Robert,
You write:
"Likewise, dismissing Maybrick as the Ripper avoids other questions...."
Well, it's pretty good place to start, don't you think? We can always also get to the other questions, but surely we should be honest about what all the evidence that exists does tell us, every bit, without exception -- and that is that the real James Maybrick was not Jack the Ripper, did not kill these women or write this diary or scratch this watch. No one has ever found even a single bit of real evidence that suggests he did, nor have they ever come up with an even remotely believable scenario that accounts for the evidence we have and still has him being the Ripper. So simple logic tells us at least that we can start by, as you say, "dismissing Maybrick as the Ripper."
Caroline,
Two and half years since I spoke to the scientists, two and half years since Robert said he was open to having the diary thoroughly and properly re-tested, by my count over one hundred and twenty five separate weeks have passed with nothing, The thing hasn't been sent anywhere, no qualified professional has seen it, examined it, or, as far as I know, even been sent the old reports. Excuses come and they go, but the labs are still empty and that's not going to change anytime soon, is it?
Also, you say, "Tell me I'm wrong here, but I thought the last time you contacted Robert Smith was in mid-2002."
OK. You're wrong here. Robert and I have had a good deal more contact that I could ever have wanted since that time -- much of it right here in public, right here on these boards. He's "contacted" me and I've "contacted" him in a number of ways I would really rather forget. And yes, we have exchanged an e-mail or two since then as well. In fact, the last one I sent him was sometime near the end of the summer of 2003, over a full year later, when I had to inform him that I would not be sending him the names of my lawyers.
No, you won't get me going into that dark and creepy forest again. Thanks, anyway.
And I have already told you what I was told by the director about the precise cost being impossible to determine until the lab could get more information and a even look at the book to see exactly what tests would be necessary and possible. But, for what it's worth, I did indeed pass on news of the Director's guarded optimism about what might be accomplished to Robert and Paul way back when (they were working together at the time).
Here's a question, by the way. And I think I already know your answer.
What real difference does it make now what happened in mid-2002 anyway?
The diary is still in Robert's possession. The lab is still there and there are numerous other labs all around the world. The diary is still a suspect document. The reports that do exist are still conflicted and need to be resolved. There is still any number of chances that we can learn new things about the artefact, resolve the problems in the reports we already have, rule out specific age possibilities and even possibly rule out the claim to authenticity once and for all.
So why the hell not do this?
What real motivation would anyone have not to do it?
And what's taken so long?
Anyone want to speculate about these questions, just for fun?
It should have been done already,
--John
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 162
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 12:26 pm: |
|
"Sir Robert,
You write:
"Likewise, dismissing Maybrick as the Ripper avoids other questions...."
Well, it's pretty good place to start,"
Fine place to start. Necessary place to start. But it doesn't end there.
IF the watch scratches are old, it casts doubt on the Diary as a modern forgery.
IF the Diary is an old forgery, someone connected to the Ripper investigation seems to have given the hoaxer non-public information.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1693
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 12:41 pm: |
|
No,
the watch is one thing and the diary is another.
maybe they are old forgeries. no let me clarify maybe the WATCH is an old forgery.
there i said it. shot me now!
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 163
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 12:42 pm: |
|
"It is an intriguing idea that someone tried to discredit Maybrick because Florence was unfairly tried. (which she almost certainly was) "
She may have been unfairly tried, but it is far from clear that she was not guilty. Some of the evidence presented against her is pretty damning. Here's one tidbit: On May 8th 1889 she wrote a letter to her lover, A. Brierley, saying that "he (Maybrick) is sick unto death." Only problem with that is that Sir Jim wasn't particularly ill on the 8th, and his physicians weren't that concerned. On the 10th he took a turn for the worse, and died on the 11th.
Oops.
It's my contention that we may not have to look too far afield to come up with people that may have been interested in besmirching Maybrick posthumously.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1694
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 12:46 pm: |
|
I said MAYBE ok?!!
Jenni
ps five word rule
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1065
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 12:53 pm: |
|
Hi Sir Robert,
You write, concerning dismissing the idea that the real James was the Ripper or that he wrote this silly book or scratched this watch:
"Fine place to start. Necessary place to start. But it doesn't end there."
Well said.
We are in complete agreement.
Now then, there is also no evidence of any sort anywhere that anyone has ever found that suggests that either of these artefacts actually existed in the 19th century. (Of course, we know they existed in the 20th.)
So the next thing to do would be to try and establish somehow that either the watch or the diary or both actually existed in the proper century.
So, any idea about how one might do that?
If not, then the idea that they were around at the time of the trial is just unevidenced speculation, pure and simple.
Which is fine, of course. That's one of the things we do here.
But it should be clear when we do it that it's what we're doing.
Waiting for a faculty meeting to start and bored,
--John
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 165
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 2:47 pm: |
|
"If not, then the idea that they were around at the time of the trial is just unevidenced speculation, pure and simple.
Which is fine, of course. That's one of the things we do here. "
Virtually all of the posts on all of the Casebook threads are unevidenced speculation. We are chasing ghosts for the most part.
I will point out that Florence Maybrick lived until 1941, and of course connecting her with the Diary is wild buck naked speculation, but it's clear that IF the Diary is an old hoax circa - say the 1920s - she was alive at the time.
If you read about her later life it is clear that she was a trifle eccentric as well...
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1066
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 5:48 pm: |
|
Fair enough, Sir Robert. Feel free to imagine whatever you'd like.
But as I've said before, unlike the rest of the Casebook, here the "ghosts" we are chasing are still around. The book still exists and the watch still exists -- so proving they existed in the proper century is not quite the same thing as proving whether Caroline Maxwell was lying or not. We still have the items in question, the "evidence" to examine and investigate, and the people who brought it forward are still alive -- so theoretically we shouldn't have to speculate quite as much.
Except...
Well, you know the rest of the story.
Have a fine evening,
--John
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 167
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 7:51 pm: |
|
"Feel free to imagine whatever you'd like. "
Gee, thanks. Mighty kind of you.
"But as I've said before, unlike the rest of the Casebook, here the "ghosts" we are chasing are still around. "
Yup. That's your assertion. I am willing to consider that the items are older than commonly thought, and it is a reasonable topic of analysis as to who might have hoaxed them if such is the case.
The Maybrick murder case - while not front of mind for the majority of modern day Ripperologists - was notorious in its day. In many ways Maybrick was an awful choice for a hoax, as the possibility of someone digging up obscure info on him once the Diary appeared was rather high.
Personally, if I was forging the Diary, I'd pick a complete unknown. Go with the insane Polish Jew variant or some such. It's hard enough to avoid tripping up on Ripper details; why risk Maybrick?
So as with all crimes - and forgery is one - the question of motive is important to consider. Who would have targeted Maybrick of all people?
Florence and/or her lover, or myriad sympathizers come to mind. And as I've said, she lived until 1941...authored an autobiography as well...so...well, I'm not imagining, I'm speculating.
Oh, and one more thing: Florence, despite living a life of poverty in her later years, did manage to make it back to Liverpool in 1927 for a visit. And one of the tests we endlessly debate says that the age of the diary was around 1921 +/- 12 years.
Case closed? Far from it. But worth looking at.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1067
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 11:29 pm: |
|
Sir Robert,
You write, concerning my assertion that the "ghosts" we are chasing are still around:
"That's your assertion. I am willing to consider that the items are older than commonly thought..."
No, no, you misunderstand. What I meant was that the diary and the watch are still around, still available for examination, whether or not their creators are.
The "evidence" is still around and waiting to be fully examined and investigated. That's something they can't say on the other boards.
Also, I would calmly remind you that the diary showed up shortly after the centennial of the Ripper case and all its attendant publicity and it showed up in Liverpool -- home of the Maybrick case, which had also just had a publicized anniversary.
And again, the textual details of the diary...
Well, you know the rest. And there is still no real evidence whatsoever that this book was even around at the right time for your rather fanciful and unevidenced scenario.
But I am enjoying the speculation nonetheless.
--John
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 170
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 11:44 pm: |
|
"And there is still no real evidence whatsoever that this book was even around at the right time for your rather fanciful and unevidenced scenario."
Yawn.
Real evidence for whom? I see question marks. I see the need for more research.
Fanciful? Show me which of the 150+ posts on the Casebook in the last 24 hours aren't based on conjecture.
"Also, I would calmly remind you that the diary showed up shortly after the centennial of the Ripper case"
Yeah....and what else was mailed back to Scotland Yard on the Centennial??? I don't see you disputing that "artefact".
And Tumblety was only recently advanced as a worthy suspect. What else is out there?
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1429
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 5:32 am: |
|
Hi John,
There is still any number of chances that we can learn new things about the artefact, resolve the problems in the reports we already have...
I don't disagree, which is why I applaud Robert Smith's open invitation to willing and able volunteers to help him with the testing process.
By all means have a dig at the excuses made by anyone you know who has yet to respond to Robert's invitation, or help him in other ways. But remember you once made your own excuses for bowing out even before Robert had a single thing in writing from the lab concerned about possible new tests.
Regarding your 'clear textual evidence' for a modern hoax, I notice that there has been nothing new added to your little list since the days when I knew Keith Skinner and Paul Begg were regular readers of the Maybrick boards.
If and when you find the single piece of textual evidence you need to prove your case, perhaps you will share it with us here, so I can make sure Keith knows about it. It may save an awful lot of his precious time and trouble, trying to prove his own belief wrong that the diary is not of recent origin.
And I'm sure Paul would also be delighted to be able to give his piles a treat and finally come off that uncomfortable fence.
In the meantime, you are simply repeating the same old speculative arguments over and over and over, taking up more and more space on the Casebook, when you know it is getting you absolutely nowhere.
If ripper historians and researchers of the formidable experience, expertise and thoroughness of Skinner and Begg weren't bowled over the first time you listed your textual 'errors', they won't be any more impressed the millionth time.
I'm not bowled over either, but then I'm the very last person you need to convince.
Love,
Caz
X
PS Maybrick was a horrible horrible specimen of manhood. And if that made him the ripper, there'd be a lot of rippers about. But at the time of Florie's trial, there would be thousands upon thousands of true crime buffs who were convinced that Florie was innocent, but who wouldn't have entirely blamed her if she had wanted shot of the old bastard - which she could have been, easily, by divorcing him for adultery. No murder required.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1068
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 7:42 am: |
|
I mention that there is no real evidence anywhere that even suggests this book was around in the same century as James Maybrick and Sir Robert asks,
"Real evidence for whom?"
And I answer,
Real evidence for anyone.
Not one piece.
Anywhere.
That anyone has ever found.
Hope that's clear enough.
Of course, if anyone knows of any real evidence that tells us this book was around in its current form in the 1800s, speak up now, please. I'd love to see it.
Then Caroline chimes in with the old goofiness about,
"Robert Smith's open invitation to willing and able volunteers to help him with the testing process."
An invitation is all very nice, but it doesn't excuse Robert of his responsibility to do the right thing and get this thing properly and thoroughly tested. And if that means he actually has to go out and find someone to help him, then that's what he should do. He's only had years, for god's sake. This "but I said I would, honest" thing can only go on for so long and eventually, someday, people are going to realize that it's a nice sentiment, but nothing is ever going to be done because he's not going to take the steps necessary to make sure it happens.
And that's shameful, if you ask me.
As for all the textual evidence that makes the case that the diary is a modern hoax, it's all well known and obvious. It, of course, will never "prove" anything to some people, simply because of their own desire. If they are willing to deny that the Poste House simply means the Poste House or that "tin matchbox empty" came from the document that says "tin matchbox empty" and all the rest, then "proof" is an irrelevancy in any discussion with them.
And of course I don't "need" to convince anyone of anything. But I do think it's a riot that Caroline Morris actually shows up here and criticizes someone, anyone, for,
"repeating the same old speculative arguments over and over and over, taking up more and more space on the Casebook, when you know it is getting you absolutely nowhere."
Perhaps her house is being painted and someone has removed all the mirrors.
Having a joyful morning.
--John
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 172
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 11:15 am: |
|
"Sir Robert asks,
"Real evidence for whom?"
And I answer,
Real evidence for anyone. "
You're wrong, and repeating it 1500 times doesn't make it right.
The tests done point to the need for more tests, as they are inconclusive. You yourself argue for more testing; why bother if the "real evidence" closes the case?
Begg is correct in saying we MAY be dealing with an old hoax. Hardly a dramatic, earth shattering postulate.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1432
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 12:01 pm: |
|
Hi Sir Robert,
The case for a modern hoax is only obvious to John because he believes in it - obviously.
It is obviously not obvious at all to Keith Skinner; it is obviously not that obvious to Paul Begg.
It is clearly not obvious to the former chief chemist at Diamine Ink either. Dr. Alec Voller is on record as stating in 1995 that the diary writing was, in his professional opinion, 90+ years old.
It is clearly not obvious to many others either, in several different fields of expertise. At least two academics, Professors Bill Rubenstein and David Canter don't find it obvious at all that the diary is a modern hoax.
It is clearly not obvious to Drs. Wild and Turgoose that the watch is a modern hoax - which it has to be if John's case for the diary being modern is so obviously watertight.
Where is Skinner's desire? He is doing things the right and responsible way by trying to prove his own opinion wrong. John could learn a lot from him.
Where is Begg's desire? Or Dr. Voller's? Or Rubenstein's? Or Canter's? Or Dr. Wild's? Or Dr. Turgoose's?
I wonder how John plans to back up his claim that all (or any) of these professionals are desire-driven concerning either of the two disputed artefacts?
The very idea is as mad as a box of frogs and would be hugely insulting if it wasn't coming from John's jaundiced pen.
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1698
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 4:03 pm: |
|
Is that what John is claiming. i don't think it is but hell i'll find out soon enough i guess.
i think he is saying it about you, and I don't agree with that. But lets not get these things out of context. why would john be refering to those people none of which have been on the casebook in recent memory to talk about watches or diaries?
I mean, maybe he is, but i didn't think so.
Now you will, no doubt, accuse me of following mad sheep dogs over cliffs. Of which i am all too willing to accept.
there remain two basic options that James Maybrick, fulled by the effects of arsenic and strychine and the effects of withdrawal from these, and angered by an affair his wife was having, did firstly get an old scrap book removing the pages with stuff on with a knife, secondly did continue to write in the 'diary' about his murderous desires, did use the said diary to plot to kill fallen women 'whores' who he likened to his wife, did then go to Manchester and do a practice run on two prostitutes. Then did, still jotting down his murderous intents in said diary, decide that given the uncanny namesake in london Whitechapel would be a good place to go murder some women. did then, in cold blood, murder five women, recording every detail in his said diary. did acquire a watch (or indeed had a watch) did open the watch and scratch the intials of the women and his name on the watch, did become gradually more ill over the next five months but not kill anyone else, eventually becoming bed ridden did predict his own death and stop writing his diary signing it in time and hiding in a good place where it remained hidden for the next 100 years.
that is scenerio number one.
OR and perhaps more likely
someone else wrote the diary and scratched the watch perhaps the same person perhaps different people. but none the less not James.
I know which i think is the more likely option.
Robert,
no hardly earth shattering
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1071
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 5:23 pm: |
|
Fine post, Jenni. 
Sir Robert,
You quote me out of context.
What I said was, "there is no real evidence anywhere that even suggests this book was around in the same century as James Maybrick."
And there isn't. No one has ever even offered any. Not Paul, not Keith, not Caroline, not Wild, not Turgoose, not Robert, not Shirley, not Feldy, not anyone. You can't cite me one piece of real evidence that suggests this book was actually around in 1888. No report tells us this, no provenance tells us this, no clear indications in the text tell us this. No one has ever found a single piece of evidence actually in favor of this book being around in the 1800s. Ever. And there's lots of evidence that suggests it wasn't.
So that should tell you something.
As for Caroline's post, it's delightfully irrelevant. What I wrote concerned only those who "deny that the Poste House simply means the Poste House or that 'tin matchbox empty' came from the document that says 'tin matchbox empty' and all the rest..." If the people she mentioned actively deny that, then there is no hope of proving anything to them. But I don't believe they do.
In any case, Jenni has laid things out quite clearly.
So I can just relax and enjoy the evening.
Now leaving the land of hoaxes,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 643
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 6:59 am: |
|
I must admit I'm not convinced by "Sir Robert's" suggestion that Mrs M may have faked the diary (Mrs Maybrick I mean, of course).
But it's only just struck me that this is the same scenario imagined by Peter Ackroyd in his Diary-inspired novel, "Dan Leno and the Limehouse Golem".
Ackroyd included an additional twist, in that the Florence figure's motive in faking the diary was to cover up the fact that she had committed the murders herself, disguised as a man.
As we're just speculating for fun, I'd suggest that this twist could be a useful addition to "Sir Robert's" theory, as it would get round part of the difficulty old-forgery theorists have with "tin match box empty" (though sadly the other part of the difficulty would remain insuperable).
And it would give us a new suspect for the Whitechapel Murders, in the form of Mrs Maybrick herself. Everyone loves a new suspect, and, in a sense, as a convicted murderess she would be more plausible than many!
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1438
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 6:06 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
John wrote:
As for all the textual evidence that makes the case that the diary is a modern hoax, it's all well known and obvious. It, of course, will never "prove" anything to some people, simply because of their own desire.
If John wants to make a definite distinction between the various professionals away from the boards who couldn't agree with John less about the case for the diary as a modern hoax being sewn up by his textual evidence, and anyone here he perceives as being desire-driven, such as myself, simply for exploring the conflicts of opinion between John and these other professionals (and asking why they remain conflicts of opinion despite all John's preaching here to the great unwashed), then he can go ahead and make that distinction, by clarifying what he believes distances these professionals from his own beliefs, if not desire.
Your scenarios were charmingly written, but my questions were specifically related to John's statement above, and were not concerned with who did or did not write the diary.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1078
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 6:21 am: |
|
Since I'm mentioned by name six times there....
John is perfectly happy with the distinction as he has drawn it up his last post above and sees no need to repeat it.
He also is delighted by this chance to speak about himself in the third person.
He remains,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1704
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 7:21 am: |
|
John, Caz,
don't mind me!
Personally i don't understand your problem Caz, but hell who cares!?
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1442
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 4:43 am: |
|
My 'problem', Jenni, is that I can't take everything John says as gospel while various other professionals in related and unrelated fields have very different views about what evidence there is, beyond the superficial, highly subjective and circumstantial type, for when the diary and watch were or were not created.
I don't take their views as gospel either, but they are not preaching them day in day out. If they were, I would be challenging them and asking how come they differ so much from that John Omlor fellow, who sits quietly satisfied that the diary could not possibly have been completed before May 1989, nor the watch scratched before May 1993.
My problem is that I don't take anyone's views as gospel, and some people think I either do, or should. And I get accused of having strange desires, when I am really just a stubborn old so-and-so who is in no hurry to rush to judgements.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1083
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 8:52 am: |
|
Have just learned first hand on another thread that I certainly cannot take what others write here as gospel (or even true), I accept and admire the wisdom of Caroline's post above.
The handwriting alone tells us that the real James Maybrick did not write the diary. It is a hoax.
And barring an unprecedented string of highly unlikely simultaneous textual coincidences, the diary is a modern document. That's where the existing evidence leaves us.
Also, "preliminary" results, by definition, are able to be overturned upon further investigation. That's why they are considered only preliminary. So there is still no solid evidence that either of these hoaxed artefacts existed before the second half the 20th century.
That's the gospel, not according to John but according to the state of the current evidence.
As always, all are free to believe or not to believe,
-- John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1708
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 4:35 pm: |
|
Caz,
ok good, that's nice.
No one takes the word of anyone around here as gospel.
surely you've been reading the threads?
Don't rush to judgements i wasn't asking you to. It's not necesarily a good idea to rush to judgements!
John,
hi
Cheers
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Jeff leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 6:11 pm: |
|
Hi all
I know I promised to stay away but I was watching Eastenders and suddenly had an over whelming urg to catch up on your progress. Which plot wise seems to be the same as Pauline and Dirty den (caz and John).
Still having read through the threads my sympathy's are currently lending towards CAZ::> *@*?*@* yes I heard that...but surely all she is saying is....???? Knowbody knows anything for sure, so anything is possible....and its dangerous to make any asumptions until testing has come up with a diffinative answer....and...and even more unnervingly...even after further testing, we have to allow a possibility that that testing..with current know how... could be wrong.
Which sort of brings me back to the shroud of Turin....we are at the mercy of experts who also get things wrong until the next expert comes along.
I know Mr Begg looks in on these posts, and am now starting to understand his caution in giving answers on the subject. I have decided to take Caz's advice and purchase a copy of said book-better than eastenders.
It still doesnt make sence that this Barrett chap claims to have forged the diary when he did not..but I better read the book first..no doubt you will all still be here.
Testing will not resaolve all your problems but it is the NEXT step forward. I await Pauls watch report, if true that he is testing, with baited breath.
Dum Dum Da Doom..Jeff |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1100
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 10:28 am: |
|
Jeff,
What? Paul is testing the watch? I must have missed that.
Please, do fill me in on the details.
Waiting with baited breath to hear about Paul's "testing",
--John
PS: Here's something we know for sure -- the diary is not written in the real James Maybrick's handwriting. It's not even close. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1732
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Jeff,
you have been watching too much Eastenders!! but seriously,
many things are possible,
we will still be here,we always are, as predictable as ever (thats us!)
Cheers
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
