|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1079
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 8:23 am: | 
|
Me? Personally?
I take "speculation" to mean "speculation."
And I take "preliminary" to mean "preliminary."
Call me crazy,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1706
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 9:27 am: |
|
John,
really, I have to go look in a dictionary now!
But seriously. we have to work with what we've3 got, don't we?
Jenni
ps isn't that 1850-1973?
pps unless of course...etc!
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1081
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 9:56 am: |
|
Jenni,
Have fun with your dictionary. 
--John
PS: Not necessarily. |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 792
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 12:28 pm: |
|
"What is your evidence for this? Hearsay, perhaps?
Love,
Caz"
Well gee shucks. Hearsay? I don't know if you would call a document between Alby's attorney and the diary camp to pay 2,000 pounders "for use of material relevant to the watch on paperback edition" to be hearsay. Now maybe we could call it...uhm..hmm no that would just be plain ole evidence not even circumstantial evidence. Although you could claim circumstantial evidence if you want to stretch and say that just because they made an agreement with Alby's attorney to give them 2000, that doesn't mean Alby directly benefited. He could have a real shyster lawyer who kept it all for himself! For what? Why legal fees. But then, no. Because your very own book states that it is believed that the lawyer now owns partial interest in the watch, so he would hardly be collecting fees for representing the watch if he owned interest in the watch now would he? Hmmm..nope. Looks like Alby did recoup some of that expense. If one wants to deal with logic and not fantastical speculation which seems to be the preferred method around here.
Oh and Caz, dear, you did send that address to Omlor didn't you? We are all on pins just waiting for John's announcement that the letter has been mailed!
(Message edited by Ally on January 24, 2005)
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1441
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 4:14 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
so you agree with the idea you can't prove something true you can only prove it false?
Yeah, I think so. But obviously you could only prove something false if it is false. If it's true it's not always going to be possible to prove it to the majority's satisfaction.
Hi Ally,
Thanks - I asked you for your evidence and you gave it, to the best of your knowledge. So why all the histrionics?
If the words 'It is believed' get you all gooey, try this one: it is believed by all who know Albert that he is about as likely to be involved in a hoax as you and John are in a commissioned diary book project.
Yes, I did indeed send John, not one address but two, that will ensure Albert receives his letter in the next week or so. John will even get confirmation of its safe arrival.
John is not happy with this because he insists I give him Albert's home address, and pretends ignorance about how these things should be done.
Now there is either something sinister going on here, if he really needs Albert's home address for some purpose we don't yet know about (in which case it's just as well that he's not getting it from me), or he is on the verge of making another excuse.
We'll see. I'm on pins too.
Love,
Caz
X |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 793
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 5:09 am: |
|
Histrionics? Oh Caz. If you actually believe that being able to back up one's claims with evidence to be histrionics, then you really have been hanging out in Diary world too long. I know that it's a foreign concept, but you should be immune to the culture shock of it by now.
And you can hardly blame John for being a bit puzzled if he is indeed puzzled. You promised him "Albert's address" should he write to you, not an address that would ensure that Albert receives his letter in a week or so. But again...not being able to back up one's rash claims. Perhaps it was you who was ignorant of how these things are done when you promised Albert's address to a total stranger on the internet before securing permission from Albert. What are these two addresses that promise to send off Albert's mail in a week or so?
Hugs and Kisses,
Ally
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 794
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 6:04 am: |
|
" If the words 'It is believed' get you all gooey,( they don't but I appreciate you trying )try this one: it is believed by all who know Albert that he is about as likely to be involved in a hoax as you and John are in a commissioned diary book project."
Let's consider this statement for a moment. No one who knows Albert believes that he could have done this. I have heard this ad nauseum as somehow proof that he couldn't possibly have done this. We have his wife being held up as a paragon because she is a kiddie school teacher. Me, I know plenty of really unethical kiddie school teachers, but her occupation is somehow an example of her virtue. We have Albert being considered a nice old man so how could he hoax this watch. Now let's consider options using the scenario that Caz mentioned. Say one is writing a book about a subject and one is going to get a little bit of name recognition and a little tiny bit of money. You aren't going to be rich but hey...a little bit of fame, a little bit of cred. What would you do to ensure that you got the info you needed for your book? Would you lie? Would you engage in a little bit of extortion? Would you do unethical things and justify it by saying no one is really going to get harmed by my doing this? And finally, what would your friends say if they were asked point blank, Do you think So-and-so would lie, cheat, scheme, blackmail and extort in order to get what they want? Your friends would probably all say no. Because people don't tend to see that side of their friends. And people don't want to look at their own actions in that light.
So the argument that no one who knows Albert believes that he could do that is moot and really has nothing to do with whether or not he forged the watch. None of Ted Bundy's friends believed that he could do what he did either. Even if Albert forged the watch, he could very well be a nice old man. And if he did it, that could be how he justifies it to himself: Let's face it. It's a watch. Who is really hurt by the forgery?
(Message edited by Ally on January 25, 2005)
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1082
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 8:36 am: |
|
I wasn't going to discuss any of this unless Caroline did first, but there she is, giving an incomplete version of the facts.
So let me clear and simple and polite.
These are the words Caroline Morris posted here.
"Anyway, assuming your current 'no excuses' campaign extends to yourself, email me and I will gladly supply you with Albert's address. Then you can put all your questions to the one person in a position to give you answers you can work with."
However, this turned out not to be true.
Caroline has decided not to send me Albert's address. She cited as a reason, that she did not want to give out anyone's address over e-mail. I understand this concern. So I have asked her to send me Albert's address via regular mail and I have sent her a private e-mail with my home address.
Now she has refused even to do this. The only way I am allowed to write to Albert is if I send HER the letter first, either as an e-mail or printed in a separate envelope. Then I must count on her to deliver it to Albert.
Personally, I would rather take this responsibility on myself. I would rather do this without going through Caroline. I would rather write directly to Albert, as Caroline herself suggested.
But now she is not allowing that.
Internet security can no longer be a concern, because I have in fact sent her my home snail mail address and am willing to wait for the address. If she has a specific reason why she will not send the address that way, I have not heard it.
I will ignore her remark about "something sinister going on here" and simply state the facts.
I have just sent her e-mail telling her that I prefer to write Albert myself directly and have no problem waiting for the address to arrive through the US mail. Also, I am happy to provide her with my home phone number so that, if she'd prefer, she can call me personally and tell me the address or leave it on my answering machine if she'd like.
If there is another way I might get the address, so that this letter does not have to go through Caroline, I am open to suggestions from anyone.
Also, anyone living in the area of Albert Johnson who might be able to look up his address and forward it to me -- only, of course, if it is already published -- would receive my gratitude. Please be assured, all I am planning to do is send Albert a polite letter of inquiry.
But I plan to do so directly, as originally suggested.
Without excuses,
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 652
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 8:51 am: |
|
John
So when Mrs Morris wrote -
Yes, I did indeed send John, not one address but two, that will ensure Albert receives his letter in the next week or so.
- was it just her own address she had sent you?
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1085
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 9:07 am: |
|
Chris,
As far as I can tell, she was referring to the address she sent me which was to "Caroline Morris" at an office (where she works, I suppose). And the second address was her own private e-mail address.
--John |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 795
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 9:17 am: |
|
So after haranguing you and mocking that you should ask Albert directly and lift a finger for yourself once in a while and not pester her with your questions indeed and stating-- "you won't be expecting anyone else to contact Albert for you, will you?" She is now saying that you should expect someone else- *her*- to contact Albert for you?
That's just...strange.
But about what I've come to expect in the marvy land of the Diary.
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 653
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 9:20 am: |
|
So when she wrote -
I will gladly supply you with Albert's address
- what she meant was I will gladly supply you with my work address?
Or else my email address? (Which she wanted you to ask her for by private email??)
Priceless!
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on January 25, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1707
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 3:14 pm: |
|
Caz,
yes obviously.
which is easy when it is!(yes start laughing now!!)
Guys,
ah nevermind
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1712
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 11:58 am: |
|
Actually,
i do agree that it would be wrong to give out Alberts address without asking him.
but i assumed Caz, had.
In which case she was still lying in saying she would give it to you. in fact goading you to ask for it
not to put too fine a point on the issue,
still
watch reports
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Kelly Robinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 120
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 12:16 pm: |
|
I'm definitely in diary world: The words "will", "supply", "Albert's", and "address" mean something else other than "will", "supply", "Albert's", and "address". Yup.
-K
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 796
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 4:10 pm: |
|
Isn't it great to be here Kelly? It's so very Godot-like. It passes the time, but it would have passed in any case.
I personally was hoping there would be some resolution to this little debacle today but it doesn't look to be forthcoming. So I guess we will never ever get to hear straight from Albert what he thinks. So we shall have to speculate.
It seems to me to be the two main points that the pro-diary camp use to state that Albert couldn't have forged the watch were that he just isn't the type and he spent money out of pocket on it. Since we now know that Albert did in fact recoup his expenditure and therefore that argument is moot and the argument that no one thinks he's the type has always been irrelevant...what are we left with here?
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1086
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 5:25 pm: |
|
Hi Ally,
I am still hoping that I will be able to get Albert's address through some other source, so that I might still send him a letter directly and ask him a few relevant questions.
Here's one of the many things I still don't understand from the past week. Why would Caroline insist that I ask her three separate times to send me the address and even inexplicably demand that the third time be in a private email (even after I had already asked twice right here and posted my own address in a message), if she did not plan to send the address as she'd promised?
What was all that about? She even sent the following message to the boards after I had already asked her twice publicly to send the address:
Hi John,
If you find sending a one-line private request to me too taxing, I'll make it even easier for you. You'll need to keep your strength up for writing that letter. So you'd be a fool to waste your time and energy writing another word on the subject until you have made Albert fully aware of all you are asking of him.
I don't actually care whether you write or not, but either way it'll give us all a well-earned break from your pointless repetition on these threads of stuff only Albert can help you with.
Simply cut and paste the following and send it to me:
Yes, please rush me Albert's address.
Just do it.
No more excuses. (Blimey, I could be your father speaking. )
Love,
Caz
Why would she bother to take the time and type out the phrase "Please rush me Albert's address" for me to cut and paste in a message to her?
And why did I have to send the request in a separate private e-mail after I had already made it twice right here for everyone to see?
I hope at some point we get rational explanations for all of this.
Meanwhile, I am still looking into other ways of getting the information.
Cheers,
--John
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 797
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 6:30 pm: |
|
John,
It's not that hard to figure out what happened here, it's fairly clear. Caroline had some private information that she rashly promised to hand out until someone snapped her back to reality and said what the hell are you doing? At which point she realized what she had done and tried to backpedal by claiming that it was you who didn't understand proper procedure. Now I understand that you are frustrated as it is you who has been toyed with this past week, but I am not going to speculate or comment on this situation further because it is so blatantly...er... I don't know..just embarassing I suppose... that I would feel tacky continuing to discuss it as I am not directly involved in the situation. It is obvious that Caroline is either a.) taking time to regroup in order to formulate a reply or b) ignoring the situation entirely in the hopes that it will blow over, but regardless, the bad history between us would only make it seem as if I was kicking her when she is down should I continue to discuss it without her putting up any sort of defense at this time. And I do prefer my opponents to be at least semi-vertical when I am kicking them, it makes the crunching noise all the sweeter. I hope you don't take it amiss or feel I am not properly supportive of the frustration you must feel but as long as Caroline is being mum, I will have to be as well.
P.S. I do hope that you are able to find Albert's address as I would like to hear from him as well. Maybe I will ask around and see if I can find it out and if I do, I will write directly to him myself. I know that won't help you out in your quest to directly contact him, but we would probably have a lot of the same questions.
(Message edited by Ally+ on January 26, 2005)
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1087
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 10:09 pm: |
|
Fair enough, Ally.
I understand completely.
I wish you luck in your search, as well.
All the best,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1451
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 5:10 am: |
|
Hi John,
You wrote:
Then I must count on her to deliver it to Albert.
Well, you were counting on me to give you a correct address for him, so why can you not now count on me to forward a poxy letter to his home address for you?
I explained to you privately that I had asked for legal advice at work and been told I was wrong to have offered a third party I only know from the internet a private individual's home address.
I don't know what you do in the US, but Albert lives in the UK and is entitled not to have any Tom, Dick or Harry knowing his home address, whether they have sincere and legitimate questions to put to him, or a compulsive axe to grind about his perceived moral obligations.
Ally asks: what are we left with here?
You, and your own suspicions. I'm out of here until you stop being so juvenile and get that letter off to Albert.
If you can't even bring yourself to pop the letter in a sealed envelope and send it to me at the solicitor's office where I earn my crust, it says a lot about your sincerity when you demand that others do 'the right thing'.
Ask Peter Birchwood - he once suggested he had addresses for most of the people involved in the diary and watch sagas.
At least no one should have to suffer another word from you here, that only Albert is in a position to address, until you've found a way to avoid writing my name on an envelope when you communicate all your concerns to him.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 799
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 6:39 am: |
|
Okay, well she's up and kicking and so this just has to be addressed.
Caroline,
The fact that you refuse to accept any of the fault here is just pathetic and that you then go on to accuse John of being juvenile is even more pathetic. A lawyer shouldn't have had to tell you that you can't randomly hand out people's home addresses to strangers on the internet. You spent DAYS mocking and insulting John, making him jump through hoops to ask you for ALbert's address, and once he did, you didn't give it to him and you are STILL BLAMING JOHN FOR THIS MESS.
I am sorry, but own up to it. I have screwed up on the boards before and had to suck it up and apologise. Look back and read your own words for the past week and accept the fact that John is not at fault here. When you screw up, you have to own up. To paraphrase you and one of your lovely little taunts to John, I feel like your mother having to explain that to you. I for one am sincerely fed up with your tendency to never admit you screwed up and never apologise sincerely when you screw up, instead you try to backtrack and weasel out of it and put the blame on others.
You need to grow up and stop trying to cutesy your way out of everything. It's pathetic on anyone over 4.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1088
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 7:16 am: |
|
Well, there it is, folks.
I'm going to ignore Caroline's post, since it's so obvious what she is trying to do.
And I'm not even going to ask her about her still completely unexplained attempt to turn me into a reverse-Peter, forcing me for no apparent reason to say "yes" three separate times before the crowing (which in this case never came anyway).
And I'm just going to offer this, as politely and respectfully as I can:
The past week on this thread, beginning with these words to me from Caroline:
"Anyway, assuming your current 'no excuses' campaign extends to yourself, email me and I will gladly supply you with Albert's address. Then you can put all your questions to the one person in a position to give you answers you can work with."
through later in the same post,
"Since you couldn't even be bothered to take this elemental - nay, essential first step in your own 'let's test the watch and no excuses' campaign, you won't be expecting anyone else to contact Albert for you, will you?"
and ending with the post she has just written above, should stand as a perfect illustration of precisely how this diary issue is so often handled and has been handled from the beginning.
Everyone who wants to come to Diary World should have to read these messages, all of them, as a sort of initiation -- as a demonstration of exactly how "logic" and "reading" and the manipulation of words work around here.
This should be our lighthouse, warning all approaching Boarders of the dangers that lie on these shores.
I'm glad, for that reason, that this record is here.
Kelly had it exactly right.
At least we know where we are.
I have indeed sent out some private email requests to others for Albert's address.
Thanks everyone for reading all of this and for sending me your words of support privately as well. It has all been much appreciated, by the way.
Cheers,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on January 27, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1714
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 7:39 am: |
|
For crying out loud!
OK. I'm going to start this post with the following words,
I am as bad. Yes it's true I AM AS BAD. But it's got to stop. Come on guys!
This is verging on nursery school (kindergarten to you Americans) behaviour. Only there's no teacher to run to shouting "Miss!"
Caz, has acted a little bit oddly, but let's be honest she wouldn't be the first of us to do so and she won't be the last.
I totally agree it would be immoral and wrong in every sense for her to give John, Alberts home address without asking him first.
Clearly she has realised this now AND come up with an alternative (in fact a couple of alternatives) which should suit you. Now I'm not saying goading you, as I put it earlier, and then not producing the goods is acceptable, but in this instance we have to accept it is justifiable.
She's only human, she made a mistake, which she has offered to amend. Everyone is entitled to make mistakes in life, life is like that. We are the ones being unreasonable here. And perhaps it is only because we cannot find it in ourselves to drag ourselves off the level of the playground and up to the level of adult conversations, in the real world, which involves real people, who have have real feelings.
We all need to think more.
Now if John doesn't trust Caz to get the message to Albert fine. We just have to draw a line under the situation and accept that it is no ones fault.
Sometimes Caz must feel like the world is against her when she reads these boards .
but anyway
Rant over
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1090
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 8:18 am: |
|
Honestly, Jenni, I don't disagree with much of what you say.
But you don't find it slightly troublesome that even in the post where she supposedly admits to us she made a "mistake," she still finds time to call someone "juvenile" and question their "sincerity"?
Or that she still has not even attempted an explanation for why she made me say "yes" three separate times, in three separate messages, for no reason whatsoever?
I appreciate that you want to rise above all the pettiness here. And I agree with you that there is no reason to continue trying to get Caroline to say any more about any of this. But I still believe that the past week's discussion are illustrative of much of Diary World's history. And I'm glad the archive remains.
Thanks, though, for your rant. It made some good points.
All the best,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1716
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 9:07 am: |
|
John,
glad to be of service!
now watch reports!
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1091
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 10:30 am: |
|
Hi All,
I believe I have now acquired Albert Johnson's address.
I will soon be sending off a letter to what I hope is the correct destination.
When and if I receive a response, you will all be the first to know what it says.
Cheers,
--John |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 800
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 11:30 am: |
|
Hi Jenni.
And what do you consider the proper procedure when one makes a mistake? Do you blame everyone else for your mistake or do you own up to it? I cut people slack when they say "hey I screwed up" not when they do whatever it takes to shift the blame.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1717
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 11:39 am: |
|
Hi Ally,
no i do not consider John to be at fault.
sure i expect Caz to admit she made a mistake but the point is we aren't exactly creating an environment where that is possible or likely. so we should just accept mistakes happen and anyway as it doesnt appear to matter now.
who cares?
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 801
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 1:50 pm: |
|
Jenni,
Ah. "We aren't creating an environment where that is possible or even likely"...so it's our fault that Caz won't own up to a mistake? Taking responsibility for your actions means you do it, regardless of whether the atmosphere is supportive or not. Caroline has created this exact same atmosphere for many other posters in the past so she can hardly cry foul over it now that it's happening to her. And she was completely unsupportive and mocking to people who, like you are trying to do for her, attempted to ameliorate the atmosphere for others when she was the one causing it.
As for who cares, well I imagine John probably does and you probably will too should you ever be on the receiving end of one of Caroline's little games.
I realize you have sympathy for Caroline. That's your prerogative and you have absolutely no reason not to feel sympathy for her. I have no sympathy whatsoever for her. You reap what you sow. She's reaping.
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 802
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 2:09 pm: |
|
Hey John,
Glad you got the address. Since you are going to write, I won't but I look forward to hearing what reply, if any, you receive.
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 803
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 2:12 pm: |
|
Now as Jenni has said...back to the watch again.
This will just be a reiteration of my post above and I doubt Caroline will answer as she has a fine excuse not to, but I would like to know what she has to say about the fact that Albert received money for the watch that exceeded his expenditure and what that does to the argument that Albert has incurred huge out of pocket expenses on the watch and therefore is not likely to have forged it.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1092
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 4:51 pm: |
|
I've just returned from the St. Pete Beach Post Office.
The letter has been mailed to what I hope is the right Albert Johnson's address.
It's been a fascinating and illustrative week,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1720
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 5:51 am: |
|
Ally
doesnt matter the letters sent!
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1453
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 7:45 am: |
|
Hi All,
Just for the record, since it appears to have been missed, or at least not considered enough of a sackcloth and ashes response, I admitted:
I was wrong to have offered a third party I only know from the internet a private individual's home address.
And, as Ally so rightly says, a lawyer shouldn't have had to remind me that one 'can't randomly hand out people's home addresses to strangers on the internet'.
I acted impulsively and should have thought before offering to give John Albert's home address.
But if a lawyer shouldn't have had to tell me what I should have known already, and what Ally and John did know already, then Ally and John must have sat there watching and waiting for me do the wrong thing.
No wonder Ally said she was on pins. If I had given John the address, I would have been guilty of 'randomly handing out people's home addresses to strangers on the internet', as she puts it. And because I was brought back to earth just in time, and suggested to John the perfectly reasonable and usual method of sending me the letter to forward on, Ally instead enjoyed trying to make a right royal banquet out of my earlier mistake, which she and John watched me make and let me make.
So I was damned either way, and Jenni saw right through it. (Many thanks Jenni, by the way, for showing more common sense than any of us here!)
Now then, back to Albert's financial losses and gains. If Albert has indeed received money for the watch exceeding his initial expenditure (and was knowingly involved in a hoax), he presumably couldn't have anticipated this happy circumstance when taking his watch to not one, but two professionals.
Had either of them not been fooled, or not produced a favourable report, Albert could have kissed goodbye any thoughts of getting his money back later in other ways.
If anyone thinks Albert's losses and gains (or indeed any of his actions at any time) suggest he is likely to have forged the watch himself, or to know who made the scratches and when, then I'd be interested in seeing their arguments.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on January 28, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1722
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 8:20 am: |
|
Like I said everyone is entitled to make mistakes. please lets just forget it!
Jenni
now these watch reports!
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1093
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 8:29 am: |
|
See, Ally?
It was our fault, too! It was a plot. A clever trick to trap Caroline into messing up. Damn, we're good.
Honestly, people.... I only wish I were that clever. Bust silly me, I just read Caroline's words promising to give me Albert's address (not once, not twice, but several times) and figured she had already done the responsible thing long ago and received the man's permission to make such an offer.
And she still has not explained why she made me say "yes" to her offer three separate times, including insisting on a private email that said exactly what my two public messages had already said. I'm waiting to hear what that was about (since that one had nothing to do with her being mistaken about what she could and could not give out).
Meanwhile, as we wait for Albert to receive my letter, we might remember that we do have direct and almost immediate contact right here with someone who supposedly has spoken to the man himself.
So let's ask her some questions and see if she's willing to cooperate.
Caroline,
When was the last time you spoke directly to Albert?
Have you ever asked him explicitly whether or not he believes he's a Maybrick. If so, what was his response to you?
Have you ever asked him if he would be willing to give a scientist full and unlimited access to the watch in an advanced laboratory setting so that Dr. Wild's called for "thorough investigation" might finally be carried out?
If so, what was his response?
What, if anything, has he said directly to you about his personal beliefs concerning the history of the watch?
As long as you're here, and you know and speak to the guy, it seems like we might learn something...
Still amazed, sometimes, at what turns up written here,
--John
PS: Sorry, Jenni. We cross posted. But I wanted to give Ally a chance own up to her wrongdoing... 
(Message edited by omlor on January 28, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1723
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 8:35 am: |
|
You know i think James Maybrick scratched the watch.
yes your right, I was just getting your attention. I dont think that at all.
Lets just take a deep breath and think about the phrase at least several tens of years old means again.
personlaly I am having so much fun trying to figure out who forged the watch in 1973 i don't even give two flying ****s what Albert johnson thinks!
(Message edited by jdpegg on January 28, 2005)
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1094
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 8:50 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
I've sent you email privately about why, perhaps, you should give at least one flying....
"Watching and waiting,"
--John  |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1724
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 9:17 am: |
|
John,
hell that post served it's purpose I see.
Like i used to say a lot damn watch reports - i don't know!
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1726
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 9:21 am: |
|
ps i'm sorry John, i wasnt being serious at all with that last post! (that is the 1973 one)
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
A. J.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 8:28 am: |
|
Hello all,
Am new here to this thread, and am already shocked (though not surprised) at seeing the power of the ever rolling ripper machine spewing out rhetorical spasms, some ill-informed people might see as ‘un-polite conversations’.
Though it can not be ignored that everyone present on this topic of Albert’s Watch has by some means a significant contribution to make, it does most certainly seem worrying (in recent posts) that people are waiving any proper ethical issues regarding privacy! Disturbing as it is that posters here arguing to prove a point would initiate an attempt at harassing some poor old man - does make one wonder at what extremes people are willing to go - perhaps that’s what got the watch here in the first place…?
Curiously enough, in a same scenario I remember here on the message boards years ago in an attempt at sending info to Don Rumbelow via apparently someone who knew him, but when it came to the crunch they ended up being all words and no play - I suspect Caz is the same.
As for Alley & Jennifer believing John to be seriously overestimating
‘…the general importance or interest of the Jack the Ripper saga.’
I say where have they been for the last decade or two ‘under a bloomin rock?’ For gawd’s sake one only has to look into the plethora of books, movies, music, art (yes prestigious museums & private ones), toys, dolls, magazines, newspapers, guided tours, conferences, postcards…the list just keeps on going on… and guess what… the ripper band-wagon has been doing this every year since 1888, and has been going at an ever increasing speed! Overestimation I think not - and yes Ally there are various Museums around the world dedicated to Jack the Ripper - some even include important early criminal memorabilia such as that from the Crippen case. As for John’s post script on Albert putting away a ten pound note each week (chuckle  ) to pay for expenses - anyone could see the light-hearted funniness in that a mile away - evidently not for some!
One thing is for sure - cant wait to read Begg’s report in the latest issue of Ripperologist about the watch - should make good reading.
Remember be kind humans.
Yours ever faithful,
A. Jacunius. |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 805
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 11:06 am: |
|
Sigh. Yes John I noticed that even in the midst of her so-called apology, she totally blames both you and me for setting her up. So let me just state clearly for the record:
When I mentioned I was on pins, I had absolutely NO IDEA that Caroline had not secured Albert's permission to pass along the address. How in the shady depths of hell would I possibly have known that she hadn't gotten permission and was therefore gleefully waiting to trap her? I admit that I am brilliant to a degree rarely seen in man, but I have my limits and psychic precognition is definitely beyond them.
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 806
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 11:11 am: |
|
Jacunius,
I know there are crime museums and ripper museums out there who might be willing to display the watch (whether it is genuine or not) but the point which I probably didn't make was this:
John asked why the watch was not on display in a museum. There are no museums that I know of who are dedicated to crime or Jack the Ripper who would be willing or able to buy the thing from Albert. He has already turned down tens of thousands of pounds for it; the museums who focus on Jack probably do not have the capital to make it possible.
I realize I didn't quite make that point, but I just don't see a museum out there willing to invest that much in it.
|
Kelly Robinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 124
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 12:24 pm: |
|
A.J.
"Disturbing as it is that posters here arguing to prove a point would initiate an attempt at harassing some poor old man"
I've followed John's posts for a long time. It's very clear that he is level-headed, articulate, and professional. I have no doubt whatsoever that his missive will be as polite as is possible. If he's not interested he can throw it away, but I doubt very much he'll be disturbed by it.
-John's #1 fan
P.S. The V stands for "voice of reason", ya know.
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 808
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 2:14 pm: |
|
And also, Kelly, I'd like to add to your point that once Albert accepted money to have his watch story told to the world, he opened himself up to scrutiny. He should not consider perfectly legitimate questions to be harassment and if he does consider questions about his involvment in the watch to be intrusive and insulting, then he shouldn't have accepted money to have his story published.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1095
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 4:13 pm: |
|
Thanks Kelly,
Anyone who reads over the past week's messages can see clearly who set in motion the original ploy. And, of course, as our visitor points out, the result of the game was that the one who initiated it turned out to be "all words and no play."
The letter itself is indeed quite respectful in tone, I think, and polite.
I look forward to receiving a similar response. Although I won't be offended if I don't get one.
Anyway, thanks all. This whole affair has proven to be quite interesting and even useful in some ways.
All the best,
--John
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 812
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 12:26 pm: |
|
I am quite honestly confused here on a minor little point that has been nagging me for a couple of days. Caroline had Albert's address. Caroline by her own admission has apparently spoken with Albert and Caroline's name appears as one of the authors on a book on this subject called "The Inside Story". So my question is this, in attempting to get to the truth of the matter, in the interests of accuracy and presenting a balanced and neutral story,
did not one of the authors ever bother to actually ask Albert how much money he had made off the watch? It seems as if Caroline is totally in the dark about money that Albert received for the watch...wouldn't this be an essential thing for the authors to determine?
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 194
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 12:59 pm: |
|
It would be interesting to know whether Albert himself believes the watch is genuine or a clever forgery , if its the case that he didn't forge it then surely he must have some doubts. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1455
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 6:15 am: |
|
Hi John,
You didn't seem 100% certain that you had been given the right Albert Johnson's address. So if you'd like to email me with the address you used, I could verify it for you, just so we at least know the letter will get to the correct destination.
When was the last time you spoke directly to Albert?
We spoke on the phone at some point between the end of October (which was when hubby and I met up with Albert and Val in Liverpool) and Christmas, but I didn't make a note of the exact date.
Have you ever asked him explicitly whether or not he believes he's a Maybrick.
Not as far as I can remember. That's something I assume you have asked in your letter.
Have you ever asked him if he would be willing to give a scientist full and unlimited access to the watch in an advanced laboratory setting so that Dr. Wild's called for "thorough investigation" might finally be carried out?
No. You've made that very much your domain, and something I assume you have asked in your letter.
What, if anything, has he said directly to you about his personal beliefs concerning the history of the watch?
Albert has told me he has no reason not to believe what the Murphys were able to report about the history of his watch.
He has told me that he believes Mr. Murphy saw the scratches in 1992 (without realising their significance until Albert returned a year later) and tried to minimise them to improve the watch's appearance before putting it in the window.
I've already told you what Albert has said about the possibility of anyone tampering with the watch and putting the Maybrick marks in it (plus the H 9 3 and 1275) after the purchase, on July 14, 1992.
Hi Ally,
Albert's precise losses and gains might have been of interest to some of the readers of our book (for instance, if there was a net gain that suggested to them a financial motive for getting involved in a hoax), but whether this information was 'essential' for the authors to obtain in documented form before telling the story is for others to decide.
We did try to get accurate figures for many of the financial transactions involved over the years concerning both diary and watch, and where we succeeded in obtaining the relevant documentation, and felt the info warranted inclusion, we did so.
But with the best will in the world, had we included absolutely every scrap of info, financial or otherwise, verified or not, we would still be working on the first half of the first chapter!
As I said in my previous post, if anyone thinks any of Albert's actions at any time suggest he is likely to have been knowingly involved in a hoax, I'd be interested in seeing their arguments.
I take it you have nothing essential to say on the matter?
Hi Simon,
You make a valid point. Even if Albert sincerely believes the watch is genuine, he wouldn't have any more or less evidence than anyone else to help him decide.
But if he has taken on board what various ripper historians have said over the years about the impossibility of the old hoax theories, and sincerely believes the scratches were already in the watch by 1992, you can see how he may believe there can only be one conclusion.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on February 01, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1097
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 7:10 am: |
|
Caroline,
Confirmation would be good. I'm sending the address I used. Thanks in advance.
So then, you haven't asked Albert if he thinks he's a Maybrick, so you don't really know what he believes about that. And you haven't ever asked him how he would feel about new tests, so you don't know what he really believes about that.
Interesting.
That's good to know.
Just reviewing where we are,
--John
PS: I suspect Albert does not believe quite everything Mr. Murphy was "able to report about the history of his watch."  |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
