|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 929
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 7:02 am: | 
|
Hi Chris,
I have no definitive answers to offer you, no claims I want to make to you about when the diarist could or could not have been writing, no beliefs to push. I still don’t know when the diary was written, nor when the watch was scratched, but the available evidence about the latter is likely IMHO to prove as tough, or even tougher to explain than an empty tin match box.
If you, like John, have already worked out the truth about both artefacts to your complete satisfaction, then fine. But from that moment I have no longer been questioning your opinions, have I, only the truth as you see it, which by definition means there is no debate taking place here between us, nor can there be. If you can reassure me that you have a personal interest in hearing any opinions or arguments or explanations that I could offer you, whether they be about the match box, the watch scratches or anything else, which would indicate that your mind might not yet be fully made up, then do so by all means and we can continue via email.
However, if your interest was purely to prove your point that I have no answers (as I myself have conceded a thousand times before), and you need no reassurances about your own conclusions, then you’ve done it, and you have no further need of my words or my time.
Hi John,
So very briefly and simply, a hoaxer could not go wrong with this nickname, and the icing on this particular little fairy cake was the correspondence later found in which ‘Jim’ was also referred to as ‘May’.
Thanks, that’s all I wanted to know.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 246
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 7:19 am: |
|
Thanks, Caz.
Well then, perhaps someone else might like to answer Chris's question, remembering the words of the unchallenged expert cited above about what is "impossible" and keeping in mind the history of the item and its record.
Anyone?
Or is this simply unanswerable, in which case the old forgery possibility has now died a quiet death?
Aren't we at this point left simply to decide between modern or genuine? If so, Chris has performed an admirable service for us, whittling down the borders of our discussion considerably.
With gratitude,
--John (confident as always that "genuine" will win out)
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 271
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 4:55 am: |
|
Perhaps it's worth pointing out someone else has suggested two possible explanations to me by email:
(1) The forger may have had access to the unpublished inventory.
(2) The details may have been published in a provincial English newspaper, as yet undiscovered by Ripper researchers.
Neither seems particularly likely to me, particularly since - as the diary duplicates the exact wording of the inventory - the newspaper would have had to published the report verbatim for the second explanation to work.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 250
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 6:05 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
1.) How?
2.) And once again, the diary is used to rewrite history. It's amazing. When the record makes something in the diary seem impossible, the response is always the same: change the record. Just make something up.
Why?
If this is all that's left, then yes, it seems the old forgery theory is dead as the proverbial doornail. We are indeed down to two choices, the real killer in the 1880s or a fake from the 1980s.
Now then, given everything else in the book, all the other allegedly ahistorical stuff, plus the handwriting, plus the lack of provenance, everything, which one of those two alternatives is more likely? Authentic or modern? Surely everyone can see that it's the former -- that we now can say with confidence, as our expert cited above does, that only the real killer could have written this book.
--John
PS: How would your correspondent reply, I wonder, to the words of our unchallenged expert about the Smith and Tabram murders not being in the book (making it necessarily post-1950) and the initials in the photo being referred to (making it post 1975) as well as his assurance that access to the inventory before the 1980s would have been simply "impossible?" I mean, this is a guy whose authority and reputation and qualifications no one is going to challenge, and he's very certain about this, as you can see from the prose I cited. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 248
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 11:51 am: |
|
Hi
you ask how the 'forger' (supposing one exists)#
could have had access to the inventory. was it in a locked safe until 1980 from the moment it was logged? unlikely so thats how someone could have had access to it!
cheers
Jennifer D. Pegg
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 252
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 5:07 pm: |
|
Hi Jennifer,
I'm not sure you've actually answered the question, "how?"
Where do you think it was before 1980? According to at least one unchallenged and fully qualified expert, "It was impossible for anyone to have this information prior to the mid-1980s."
He seems pretty certain.
Do you know something he doesn't know?
Hopefully,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 249
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 8:35 am: |
|
Why was it impossible? I know that information from a historical period does not drop out of the air. I am not disputing any claim made by anyone aS I had not read all of the above, I am simply stating because we (ie ripper researchers) don't know, didn't know or didn't have access to something we are sometimes (me included) guilty of assuming that no one could have ever had acess to this information before we did, which of course cannot be the case if information has existed for over 100 years unless you know that the information was logged in a secure place and that those who recorded the information in the first place did not reveal it to third parties etc (not accusing anyone of anything) just stating possibilities of the top of my head. I realise my above post might sound like I think the diary is genuine I was simply trying not to offend any ones position.
How, well where was the inventory that is what I would like to know????
I am not saying this is true it just needs to be considered that because neither view would accept it it can still be true, I am aware this is no longer making sense so I will get off!!!
Could is the key word i am not saying anything is certainly true but could have happened, ie it is possible!!!
Jennifer D. Pegg
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 253
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 9:09 am: |
|
Hi Jennifer,
I think I understand.
To be honest, I don't know what the expert knows, so I'm not sure why he feels so confident in writing that it was "impossible" for anyone to have had this information before the mid-1980s. But no one seems willing to challenge him on this either in print or around here, so I'm inclined to believe he must know what he's talking about.
In any case, given what you're saying, it now seems that the entire old forgery claim rests on the "possibility" that the single person on the planet that for whatever reason had the missing police report for all those years was also the same person who forged the Maybrick diary? That's the only way that this book could possibly be an old forgery apparently. Fascinating.
The entire old forgery argument now rests on the hope that this one missing document which turned up in the late 20th century also happened to be in hands of someone who, for some reason or other, also thought it would be a cool idea to write a fake diary where James Maybrick says he was Jack the Ripper. And they used that secret document they had for that single line in their project? That's the scenario that the old forgery argument requires us to believe?
So, then, let's do a little weighing.
One idea: the mysterious missing police report which does not become available until the 1980s was actually in the very same hands of the very same individual somewhere in the distant past who also just happened to come up with the scheme of forging a fake James Maybrick diary.
Another idea: The police report is published after 1980 in a number of readily available Ripper books and someone forging a Ripper diary saw it in one of those books.
Gee.
I must admit that I'd be hard pressed to decide which of those two possibilities makes more sense to me. Of course, I don't think either happened, as you know. I think James Maybrick wrote the diary, complete with the line from the police report, which leads me to conclude that either Maybrick wrote the report himself for the police or he was the one who stole it from the Scotland Yard files and then used the words in it in his own diary. Yes, that clearly seems to be the most likely scenario of them all.
But still, I'm drawn back to the idea that our highly qualified expert might be wrong, that it was "possible" for someone to have had this information before 1980. If that's true, then how would one account for the absence of the Smith and Tabram murders (which he says proves that the diary is authentic or could only have been written after the 1950s) or the reference to the initials in the Mary Kelly photos (which he insists proves that the diary is authentic or could only have been written after the photo was available in 1975)?
And what possible scenario actually, realistically exists that has the missing police report and the forger's pen in the same hands anyway?
There's always the "you just never know" response to anything. But, realistically speaking, practically speaking, just how is this possible? What would the circumstances be? I'd love to know, because as it stands now, it seems like the old forgery theory is hanging entirely on this very thinnest of historically improbable threads. And that leaves us with only two realistic possibilities, authentic or modern.
I must say, though, that I am happy with the way we are moving forward now. We are clarifying things quite a bit and seeing exactly what would be necessary to believe for the possibility of an old forgery to be considered. We are getting a much better picture of just what sort of arguments are necessary to keep that possibility alive.
I think this is useful. Seriously.
I ask the questions I do just to move that progress along and just to pin down precisely how likely such a theory might really be, just how historically possible and carefully evidenced the old forgery idea is. And I think we are, together, clarifying that here.
Thanks, and all the best,
--John 
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 272
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 9:42 am: |
|
As far as I know the inventory wasn't one of the documents that was missing and turned up in the 80s.
I'd be grateful if anyone could definitely confirm it, but when I looked previously it appeared that it's among the inquest papers at the Corporation of London Record Office. I believe coroners' papers are normally subject to closure for 75 years. If that applies, it would have been very difficult for anyone to have access to the document before the 1960s.
It has been suggested to me that the papers may have been open earlier - in the 1930s. If anyone can say definitely whether that's so, it would be useful.
However, even if there was technically access to the papers, I don't find it plausible that a diary forger would have had the wit to find this document decades before Rumbelow or anyone else - at a time when research into contemporary documents was unknown in Ripperology - and do no more than give himself away by copying an unnatural phrase like this verbatim.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 254
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 10:29 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
You know what? I believe you're right. Now that I think of it, I seem to recall that it was the "closed" coroner's inquest records that went missing and were returned anonymously in 1987, not the file with the police report. So apparently our expert has been right all along. Apparently, the police report would indeed have been unavailable to the general public until 1984.
Fascinating.
That seems to make Jennifer's "possibility" even less likely.
And it seems to suggest that the old forgery theory is once again rendered all but dead -- unless, I suppose, the forger was a policeman who worked on the Ripper case or a detective or someone who filed the report. Hey! Maybe Abberline wrote this diary! You know, during one of his prescient drug trips.
Seriously, though. This is getting even more interesting. Here I was mistakenly thinking that the report might have been out there in the public for a while when all along I should have listened to the expert, who was telling me that it was impossible for a forger to have had access to this information before 1987 and that therefore only the real killer (or a modern forger) could have known about the matchbox and written this line (although I'm still not sure how James got to read the police reports of his own crimes).
This is all becoming more and more enlightening.
Feeling stronger every day,
--John (indebted to my fellow posters, as always)
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 250
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 1:28 pm: |
|
Okay hello
This is what i get for trying to be considerate to everyone.
Let me clear this up.
1)first of all I never said (did I??) that I thought that diary was an old forgery ie that it was say, forged in 1912 or whatever that date no one else likes is!!
2) I probably said Idin't think the diary was genuine. I realise my above post might sound like I think the diary is genuine I was simply trying not to offend any ones position. This was to clear up any mis conceptions in my previous post not to support my argument about the line about the tin box. do I think the diary is genuine then? no but I don't support that 100%, if anything i would say i was 80% sure that James Maybrick was not JTR but that is for another day!!
3) I had no prior knowledge as to A) who this to me mysterious expert is what or b) when he said something what he meant and whether or not he was right or wrong!!
4) I had no intention of trying to offend anyone (INCLUDING JOHN O.!) though if this has been the case I would like to apologise (seriously). I accept that his knowledge of this is far greater than mine and was not trying to dispute him.
5) I was simply trying to answer the question of how - hyperthetically (excuse the spelling) speaking someone could have (ie a forger) had access to an unpublished inventory. That is to say because something is unpublished does not make it unknown to people and if we know about it it has existed in history.
6) I do not suppose it is a great leap of the imagination to suppose that if James Maybrick were JTR he would know about an empty tin box and so would the people who recorded the information, perhaps the pharse-ing is coincidental I am willing to accept this as (dare i put this!) a possibility!
7) Saying the forger is presupposing one exists i do not presuppose this i just use this term for this circumstance as in it may have happened.
So in answer to your question was something possible
I wrote the following
I am not saying this is true it just needs to be considered that because neither view would accept it it can still be true, I am aware this is no longer making sense so I will get off!!!
Could is the key word i am not saying anything is certainly true but could have happened, ie it is possible!!!
That is it for now!
Jennifer D. Pegg
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 251
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 1:37 pm: |
|
When you have eliminated the impossible whatever you are left with however improbable MUST!!!be the truth
}THINK ABOUT IT!!!!!!!THINK ABOUT IT!!!!}
}}
PS
I do not really care about the old forgery claim or think it rests on this as suggested.
Jennifer D. Pegg
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 263
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 5:52 pm: |
|
Hi Jennifer,
No worries. You didn't offend me at all. Not even a little. Honest.
But the point Chris makes, finally, is a good one. The police report with the phrase "tin match box empty" in it was not available to anyone in the public until the mid-1980s. After that, it was in several readily available Ripper books.
And it's in the fake diary.
What does that suggest to you? It seems pretty clear that either the diary is genuine (of course it is) or that it was composed after the phrase was available to a forger. And of course, since no one has even come close to eliminating the powerful possibility that that's where it came from, we needn't invoke Holmes just yet.
As for our expert -- he offers three solid and separate reasons why the text of the diary could only have been written by the killer (or by someone after 1950, 1975, and 1980 respectively). And no one has the slightest doubts about his qualifications and no one has challenged his writing on this topic as I cited it above.
It's good, though, that you don't care about the old forgery claim. Because this theory is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet its maker. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. If it wasn't kept alive here by hope alone, it'd be pushing up the daisies. It's metabolic processes are now history. It's off the twig. It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!
THIS IS AN EX-THEORY!
--John (who never wanted to do this in the first place. No. I wanted to be a lumberjack...)
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 956
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 7:41 am: |
|
Hi Jenn,
Big mistake number one:
Never accept that anyone's knowledge of this is necessarily far greater than yours where it matters, whoever they be. If anyone tells you they are infallible, or that anyone else is, it's a clear sign that they are spinning you or themselves a line - unless they can prove to you that the infallible one has superhuman powers.
Big mistake number two:
Don't even let it enter your head to try to dispute anything with someone who uses the word 'impossible' like it's going out of fashion.
It did, when they said it was impossible for the earth to be spherical.
I see a lot of spherical objects being talked around here, but if you weren't still here talking sense, their world would be a lot flatter. None so blind as those left talking cobblers amongst themselves.
I'm off. Turn the light out when you leave, Jenn. The others don't need it.
Nighty night. (Love that show.)
Love,
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 266
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 8:44 am: |
|
Just for the record,
The "impossible" I was using comes from a citation, from a published work by an undisputed and unchallenged expert on this issue. The citation in full can be found elsewhere on this board.
He offers three separate and specific reasons for his claim of impossibility, and not one has been refuted.
So just invoking the monkey-logic of chimps "possibly" typing Hamlet does not change the truth.
They won't.
And the old forgery dream is still stone dead, in a pet shop in Bolton as well as everywhere else.
It had beautiful plumage, though.
--John |
Chris JT
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 11:23 am: |
|
I'd be interested to know what evidence exists that Maybrick was ever refered to as "May". If this is true then we have here one of the most convincing clues as to the validity of the diary. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 252
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 1:49 pm: |
|
Ah good I'm glad that one's cleared up!!!!!!!!!!!
(take that to mean whatever you want)
Jennifer D. Pegg
|
Paul Butler
Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 46
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 4:26 pm: |
|
Hi Chris JT.
On 8th May 1889, Florrie sent a telegram to Alf Brierly referring to her husband as “May”. This fact was not available to a hoaxer in any book I am aware of.
Hi Jennifer.
Good on you for making your point yet again. It will sink in soon with any luck, or is that just wishful thinking.
Of course the Police inventory could have been seen by hundreds of people over the years until it was returned anonymously in 1987 or whenever. The records went missing and someone had them. They could have been seen by anyone in that time, even been the inspiration for a hoaxed JTR diary. Perish the thought!
The “tin matchbox empty” argument is a feeble one to use either for or against the diary in any event. Four words, three if you’re being correct, that could make sense in only two permutations, and in the context of the poem only one. The one the diarist used.
“Damn it, the empty tin box” just doesn’t scan quite as well does it?
Regards
Paul
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 271
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 5:06 pm: |
|
Paul,
I think you've got your history wrong. As Chris Phillips has recently pointed out, the police inventory was NOT among the papers that went missing and were later returned anonymously. It remained locked in the records that were unavailable to the public until the 1970s. And it did not appear in available books until the 1980s, right about the time of the centennial and a short time before the diary appeared with the same information and even the very same phrase in it (and with the same near-miss scene between the ripper and Abberline from the TV miniseries, which also appeared at precisely the same time, and with the same lines from... well, you get the idea.)
The inventory could not have been seen, as you say, by hundreds of people. Because, as Chris pointed out over a week ago, it did not "go missing."
But it was a nice try. And still, there's no explanation whatsoever for this information being in the diary unless it was written by the killer or seen after the 1980s. And still our unchallenged and fully qualified expert is correct (as he is about the Smith and Tabram absences and the reference to the Kelly photo). It's modern or real. Take your pick.
The "May" question has been asked and answered on another thread, incidentally.
But keep trying, guys. It's fun.
--John (just clearing things up) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 972
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 05, 2004 - 10:14 am: |
|
Hi Paul,
Of course, the only remaining argument for a modern hoax that hasn't had reasonable and logical counter arguments thrown at it elsewhere - ie no hoaxer working before 1987 could have found an empty tin matchbox among the available historical records, providing they even knew where to look and what they might hope to find there - somewhat misses the point.
The diary author got it right.
An empty tin matchbox was listed among Eddowes' possessions. Either the killer knew about it or he didn't. If he had tried to find matches to light the scene - or possibly to light a lamp he had brought for the purpose - he could have tried Eddowes' pockets, found the empty box, cursed and left it there; it could even have been his own now useless matchbox, shoved in with the victims' other bits and pieces, after the last of its contents had been struck and had failed to do its work.
None of the above could be included in anyone's 'impossible' list.
And while I'm away, perhaps Paul, or someone else with an enquiring mind, could try to work on the following diary try-out lines:
bastard
Abberline
bonnett [sic]
hides all
clue
clever
will tell you more
Another damned 'bonnett'. Not apparently the mole one saved by Christmas though. Blimey, the bastard wasn't giving away one of his wife's bonnets to each whore he kept a 'ripping' appointment with, was he? Perhaps Abberline kept back the one Eddowes was given, hoping Jim would return to the scene to look for it.
Love,
Caz
X |
Belinda Pearce
Sergeant
Username: Belinda
Post Number: 20
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 05, 2004 - 12:11 pm: |
|
One thing that bothers me about the diary is the way the r's are formed.The predominate way of writing the letter at the time is displayed in the writing of Druitts note that sometimes appears at the top of the page but in the diary they are done the more modern way.
I think the diary is a hoax maybe by someone who wanted to stimulate interest in the Maybrick case |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 275
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 05, 2004 - 12:31 pm: |
|
Yup.
Caz nails it again.
The diary author got it right.
Which, as she now seems to be suggesting (if her logic is followed to its conclusion) leaves only two choices. Either the real killer wrote the book or it was written after 1987.
Of course, there's also all that stuff the diary got wrong, including the handwriting and everything else detailed on the other boards.
So now what are our choices?
Things are indeed getting much clearer.
--John |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 268
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 05, 2004 - 4:38 pm: |
|
Hi, Caz
To the best of my memory, that empty tin wasn't found until Eddowes was stripped at the mortuary. Maybe the Ripper really did rifle her pockets, found the empty tin, and then put what he wasn't interested in back where he found it. Seems like an awful lot of extra work for a guy who's supposed to be working fast.
It seems more reasonable that the Ripper never knew it was there. But the Diary author did.
Cheers,
Dave |
SAL
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 1:56 am: |
|
I am one of those strange people who like to play around with letters and names...I didn't think there was really a change of Maybrick being the Ripper until I played around with his name a bit more.
But if you take the first two letters of his first name and last two letters of his surname, like so...JAmes maybriCK...it spells Jack. I haven't seen this posted anywhere else. Maybe its just coincidence, but I find it somewhat interesting. |
Stefanie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 6:12 pm: |
|
Before I make a decision on what I think of the diary, I would likie to know if the letter signed, "Yours Truly, Jack the Ripper" had the same handwriting on it as the one in the diary.
Because that letter was the first document with that name on it (as far as I'm concerned), I am wondering which came first. If the diary has dates, and the diary refers to Maybrick as Jack the Ripper, then the diary dates should be before the letter, right? Because if the letter and the diary don't have matching handwriting, and the date is before the name Jack the Ripper was used, then it would be impossible for Maybrick to truly know about the name if it was before the letter unless it was him.
I fear I made that a bit more confusing than I would have liked too, but I am no good with words.
If anyone can give me any information on the dates in the diary as well, I would appreciate it. Thanks,
Stef |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 527
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 3:02 pm: |
|
Stef,
That's a good question, I think that is something we would all like to know. I think I am right in saying that the diary leaves words Jack The ripper until the end 1889(date?) but the letter you refer to signed Jack The Ripper was dated 1888. Hope this helps,
regards
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 437
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 7:13 pm: |
|
Hi Stefanie,
Nope. Not even similar.
You can see the letter in question on page 17 of Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner's Letters from Hell. And of course you can see the diary's last page in Shirley's edition with the facsimile of the diary's pages (it's on page 269 of the first Hyperion edition, for instance).
They are drastically different.
Just the two letter Rs that begin the two appearances of "Ripper" are completely dissimilar.
And every other word is too.
And to top it off, if you then go back to Evans and Skinner and check out the other letters the diarist suggests he wrote, the writing in each of those is completely different still from these first two.
Check them out for yourself. Check out the two signatures, the one in the diary and the one from the Dear Boss letter. Then tell us what you think.
As for dates, the date of the last page of the diary is of course supposedly well after the date of the Dear Boss letter (it's probably about hundred years after, really). And although the diarist does sign the diary with the same phrase as the letter, it's obvious that the two handwritings are completely different.
How anyone ever thought that the person who wrote the "Yours truly, Jack the Ripper" in the diary could have been the same person who wrote the phrase on the Dear Boss letter OR who wrote the real James Maybrick's own verified letters remains a complete mystery to me.
Of course, both of the men who edited the edition of the letters I am recommending say that the handwriting in the diary looks nothing like it should and that the diary is clearly a fake.
And no expert anywhere has ever or will ever say that the real James Maybrick's handwriting is even close to a match for the handwriting in the diary. And we have good, verified samples of it.
It's not a mystery, no matter how hard some try to make it one.
But look for yourself, and tell us what you see.
Thanks for asking, and all the best,
--John
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1134
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 6:06 am: |
|
Hi All,
Of course, we know that whoever created this diary must, by definition, be a liar, most probably a rogue, and almost certainly a fantasist. So the sensible thing would be to treat all the claims made in said diary, unless there is independent verification, with the utmost caution.
If a serial killer were to keep a diary of his thoughts and deeds, either for himself or intended to be read one day by others, would you give his words any more credence than you would the words of a hoaxer, faking someone else's diary? If so, why?
There is no way to tell whether the Maybrick diary author was primarily deluding himself (or at least pretending to do so), by, for example, imagining himself to be the 'Jack the Ripper' character, as created by an 1888 hoaxer); merely attempting to delude anyone who happened to read his words; or a generous helping of both.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by Caz on July 16, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 531
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 6:15 am: |
|
Stef,
I think you've hit a nerve!
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 439
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 7:43 am: |
|
Ah, see.
Here's the beautiful part. When faced with the simple fact that the handwriting in the diary looks nothing at all like the handwriting in the letters that the diarist says he has written or even like the handwriting of the person the diarist claims to be, instead of concluding that the the diary was therefore not written by the person claiming to have written it (because, obviously, that would make too much sense) we are given this stuff:
"But, you see, the diarist is a crazed serial killer, so maybe he was lying in his own personal journal and he really didn't write the letters he says he wrote and that's why the handwriting doesn't match any of those letters."
Of course, this little excuse can be used to get out of any historical problem. Any time something in real life, anything in history, doesn't match what we find in the diary, someone can always offer up, "but maybe the real James was just lying in his own diary..." and that's why Mary's breasts are in the wrong place or why events that never occurred are described, or why the history is wrong, etc.
With willing readers like that, it's no wonder this forgery has been able to survive in some places for so long. It has nothing to do with how clever the forgers were, it's simply a question of how utterly and completely willing certain readers are to go out of there way to find excuses for the simple mistakes the forgers made.
As long as they didn't write about something post-1888 like, "Saw the Rolling Stones in concert last night. They rock," the willing readers will happily excuse all other historical anomalies by saying the diarist just was lying in his own diary. In fact, even when the forgers DO write something the real James could not have seen or read, the willing readers find some way to excuse that away, too. (What do our t-shirts say, everyone?).
It just makes you want to have a drink with Mrs. Hammersmith at the Poste House, doesn't it?
Of course, this particular "the diarist might have been lying" excuse doesn't explain why the writing also looks nothing at all like the letters we have from the real James Maybrick either.
And that's why we sometimes have to start talking about multiple personalities and other such nonsense.
Man.
And people wonder what I mean by reading driven by desire.
And people wonder why there are still websites claiming the earth is flat and that people lived with the dinosaurs.
And people wonder why Diary World will never go out of business.
Of course, it's still the happiest place on Earth. So I guess we shouldn't complain.
Glad to see the new year DiTA year hasn't changed our world too much,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 535
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 8:04 am: |
|
John,
give DiTA year a chance its been less than a week. We're not Linford Chrisite you know!
What do the t shirts say i forget!
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1138
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 4:53 pm: |
|
"But, you see, the diarist is a crazed serial killer, so maybe he was lying in his own personal journal and he really didn't write the letters he says he wrote and that's why the handwriting doesn't match any of those letters."
Who wrote this? I didn't.
I simply asked why anyone would give credence to the thoughts and fantasies of a crazed killer, if he were to write them down. It's a simple enough question, surely?
Evidently we must take every word at face value, even if they were the words of Harold Shipman, Fred West or Charles Manson. I'm just asking why.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 445
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 7:54 pm: |
|
And so the pattern continues.
Wasn't it Billy Preston who asked, "Will it go 'round in circles?"
Billy, the answer is yes, dude. A big, demonstrable, resounding YES!
Isn't this just a beautiful argument, people? I doubt even our forgers could have ever dreamt they'd find such an audience.
Just laughing, now, in the happy spirit of the new year,
--John
|
Restless Spirit
Police Constable
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 2
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 11:14 am: |
|
Hi all
I've read many JTR books and have followed the case for some time, this includes the Diary,which I did enjoy, even though there was an error in a picture naming James as Michael or vise versa. I have always wondered though why JTR who outsmarted the whole of London police force,Scotland Yard, and have people over 100 years later not knowing his true identity, why would he write a complete diary on his crimes and advertize on his watch that he was Jack. He surely did not intend to be caught, he was too cagey and must have had well planned escape routes orsomeone to hide him, whatever. But he knew he would die eventually as we all will,and no doubt his diary would have been discovered and or the watch, which would have been part of his estate, which at the time would have gone to the kids or brothers. Why go through all the trouble of alluding police, fooling your friends and family etc, only to confess in detail in writing. This doesn't make sense to me. Since Jack was smart enough or lucky enough to avoid being caught he sure as hell wouldn't want to spoil the fun, game or whatever he considered his actions to be by out and out confessing.
Sorry to have been long winded, does anyone agree with me.
Restless Spirit |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 219
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 4:17 pm: |
|
<<why>>
I don't think you'll find too many folks on the Casebook believing that the Diarist was Jack the Ripper in the first place. I don't.
However, I don't think that someone mentally ill enough to do what Jack did would somehow draw the line at writing down his thoughts...
Actually, that raises an issue: have any serial killers written any kind of extensive journal? I suppose Ted Kaczynski qualifies. Any others?
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 220
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 4:24 pm: |
|
Digging around the Net for Kaczynski and found this:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ken_crossman/Gore.htm
Pretty amazing.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 110
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 2:42 am: |
|
From the moment the Diary was announced as having been found, I thought it an implausible idea. I have never thought of "Jack" as the sort of killer who would (as others have said) commit his innermost thoughts to writing.
We have, after all, by and large moved away from the idea of "Jack" as a mocking letter-writer, with only a couple of items (for instance the letter than accompanied the "kidne") as possibly originating from the killer. Frankly, I doubt even that!!
Secondly, there was the alleged author - Maybrick. How convenient that the writer should be someone not previously suspected, but a man with a "known" past (so research was easier by the writer). To pick someone largely unknown, or invented, runs the risk of detection. Maybrick is a sort of middle-way.
Third, the Diary tells us nothing new. the actual Diary of "Jack" ought to be full of information that would make anyone intereste in the case say "Oh Yes!" and "Of, course!!" as evidence drops into place. It should also be full of new details. In fact this "Diary" avoids information in a way that suggests the author did not wasnt to give too much away for fear of someone catching a mistake (something the real killer wouldn't have given a d**n about). I have always felt that if a close enough textual analysis was done on the Diary you could pin-point the year of writing by what information was/or wasn't then publicly available.
Fourth, the fact that the Diary is a photograph album with pages missing, suggesting it was the only period "book" with plainish pages available but had to be converted from its original use as a album. Maybrick would have been able to afford a new Diary I feel.
Fifth, the later appearance of the watch, supposedly helping to verify the Diary but actually undermining it. Most of the women who JtR killed went by a variety of names. How odd that the "Jack" who owned the watch just happens to use the initials most familiar to us, and only to know/use the broadly canonical names!!
Finally, the lack of clear expert analysis to prove the Diary is genuine - this should have been easy from a variety of perspectives. In fact years on, doubt is still abundant, and, as I understand it, tests that could have been done independently remain undone.
I would also add, in the spirit of "J'accuse" that the leading experts of the time when the Diary first emerged, served the area of study ill by allowing themselves to be signed up by the owners of the Diary and then of signing a confidentiality agreement that silenced them. They should, of course, (whatever the longing to see and touch it) have remained aloof and insisted on freedom of access. The result was reminiscent of Lord Dacre and the admittedly forged Hitler Diaries - experts seem foolish and lose credibility. In the case of the supposed Ripper Diary sokme of our experts allowed themselves to be quoted as saying some very unwise things as I recall.
For many years, I revered Colin Wilson as a writer for many reasons, not least his long interest in JtR. Since his comments on the Dairy I wouldn't trust anything he said on the subject.
The burden of proof is on those who believe in the Diary's genuineness - they must demonstrate what they claim. To date they have not, for me, come close to doing so, and i don't think they will ever be able to.
Caveat emptor is my advice.
Phil |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 695
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 5:36 am: |
|
Phil
Oh dear. Something tells me you're about to receive a reply at least three or four times longer than your original message!
I have always felt that if a close enough textual analysis was done on the Diary you could pin-point the year of writing by what information was/or wasn't then publicly available.
I think it's difficult to put a later limit on the year of composition in this way, but for anyone except a "diary desperado" an earlier limit is 1988, when the inventory containing the phrase "tin match box empty", used in the diary, was published.
Realistically, for the diary to have been written earlier than this, the faker would have to have done archival research. (I can't believe the alternative suggestion, that this long inventory was published verbatim in a provincial newsletter at the time of the murders, and has lain undiscovered since.)
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1869
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 5:40 am: |
|
but possible!
oh come on you knew i would say it! |
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 111
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 7:09 am: |
|
I responded to the question posed in the thread title, not to anything else.
I don't care how long any reply is - the onus is on those who believe the Diary genuine to PROVE it, not to persuade me that my doubts are unjustified, to over turn my arguments or to convince me that the Diary MIGHT be genuine. the standards for me are those of a court of law - anything less is nonsense and a waste of time.
Either it is unreliable, unproven material that must be left out of the reckoning, or it is genuine and there is no question. At present it remains somewhat less interesting or useful than the Rumbelow knife that at least appears to have some provenance. The Diary has none beyond a few years - and even that appears to be questionable given fluctuating stories about it's acquisition and whereabouts. As in archaeological studies, context is everything - without context an artefact can tell us virtually nothing.
I rule out all special pleading, I couldn't care whether it is an old or new forgery (in either of those two cases it is not genuine and thus effectively rubbish).
It claims to be James Maybrick's Diary - so at the very least some connection to the man or at least his family must be demonstrated; a similarity of handwriting accepted by experts; an absolute fidelity of content that shows no anachronism; and a reliable account of how and by what means it has come down to us.
At the moment, the Diary appears to be akin to the Turin Shroud - well-known; but questionable. Unlike the Shroud the Diary does not appear to have worked miracles (least of all convincing doubters of its genuineness) apart from putting money into the pockets of those who own it. One reason by the way that other than the initial volume of it and containing the transcript, I refuse to buy any book about the Diary.
Phil |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1152
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 7:19 am: |
|
Fine posts, Phil.
Well done.
And I would add to what Chris said the date the Poste House became the Poste House and few other things. Yes, the text itself does indeed reveal to careful readers who are willing to admit the obvious the most likely time of its composition.
After that, though, the tap dancing and desperate excuses usually arrive and struggle to place a long list of highly unlikely and stunningly simultaneous coincidences over simple common sense.
And that's been the story for more than a decade.
--John
PS: Oh come on, you knew I would say it.
PPS: In the latest edition of Shirley's book, she lists as a single line unto itself, as part of her proof that Mike was not telling the truth in one of his confessions, that the handwriting in the diary is not Anne's. I wonder how come the handwriting not being Anne's tells her the diary was not written by Anne, but the handwriting not being James Maybrick's, not being even close to the real James's verified handwriting, does not tell her (and everyone else) that the diary was not written by the real James?
This is what I mean by desire driving reading.
PPPS: Also, as I have explained on another thread, the diary is a markedly different sort of artefact than the Shroud in a few crucial respects, especially in the materials to be tested and the time frame of the historical claims, and so the scientific experience with the Shroud cannot be properly or accurately compared to possible future scientific experience with the diary (or the watch). Of course, it remains highly unlikely that the latter will be a future anyone of us ever sees.
(Message edited by omlor on February 12, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 696
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 7:47 am: |
|
John
I wonder how come the handwriting not being Anne's tells her the diary was not written by Anne, but the handwriting not being James Maybrick's, not being even close to the real James's verified handwriting, does not tell her (and everyone else) that the diary was not written by the real James?
That's easy to answer, isn't it?
I mean if James Maybrick had been writing a diary chock-full of identificable details about his life, he would naturally have disguised his handwriting, wouldn't he?
Whereas if Anne Graham had been faking a diary with the idea of her husband passing it off as a historical artefact, she would obviously have used her normal handwriting.
Hang on, I think I've got that a bit wrong ...
Chris Phillips
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 533
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 10:02 am: |
|
John--Slight confusion. Since you agree with Phil Hill's post above (as do I) that the onus is entirely on the Diary's supporters, I fail to see why there has been a continual call for more testing. Isn't this somewhat of a mixed message?
As it now stands, there is nothing whatsoever to show the Diary is genuine. The handwriting doesn't match; the text is utterly suspicious; the diary's original owner (Barrett) has been entirely discreditted, etc. Ergo, all arguments that it should be taken seriously have failed. Insert appropriate cliches. The goose has been cooked. The ball is sitting in the opposition's court. The large lady has sung.
To call for more tests at this point is to tacitly promote the idea that we somehow are obliged to 'prove' the thing is a fake. Observe Caz's latests posts saying that we all have 'failed' to nail the forgers, which I find somewhat curious. We don't need to nail the forgers, and no document examiner thinks this way. His (or her) aim is to authenticate a document, since every document that comes to light has to be looked at with uncertainty, and maybe even a little bit of suspicion. Kenneth Rendell had a case of a letter of some importance to the history of the Mormon church. The paper was shown to be from a paper mill of the 1840s. The ink posed no problems. The handwriting was credible. In short, it in many ways the letter "passed" a battery of tests. But this isn't good enough. Rendell still refused to authenticate it. The provenance was poor, and the paper was folded in an odd way--suggesting it was cut from a larger sheet. All rather subjective. He couldn't prove it was a fake, but he viewed it with suspicion. As it turns out, it was one of Mark Hoffman''s many forgeries.
Compared to this, the Diary is swamped by a hundred questions. Many different people have already created a body of legitimate reasons to view the diary with great suspicion. This is enough. There is no onus to go further. And so, while I've always known what you're getting at, it has always a struck me as a bit strange to suggest that the Diary's supporters give up the ghost for more testing when they must know that they have nothing whatsoever to gain by this and everything to lose; an object can pass a battery of tests (as per the Rendell example) and still be bogus. And this is precisely where the Diary stands. Because of the behavior of Barrett and the textual anomalies, etc., no amount of "positive" testing can hope to resuscitate the Diary's credibility. What you really seem to be driving at is that the Diary's supporters have a moral responsibility to show that their document is a fake. This is a tricky question. Since the Diary's supporters don't see things your way (nor mine) they are merely insulted by the suggestion; and, perhaps, they have some small justification for being insulted. The way I look at it, without a provenance, it truly is over. The situation is odd; the detractors are the one's calling for tests, and the supporters aren't particularly interested. Really, shouldn't it really be the the other way round, considering the "onus"? If each "side" would retreat to their appropriate end of the battlefield, the war here would truly be over. Best wishes, RP |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 221
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 10:03 am: |
|
"I don't care how long any reply is"
Glad to hear it. I'm interested in discussion.
"the onus is on those who believe the Diary genuine to PROVE it"
Couldn't agree more.
"At present it remains somewhat less interesting or useful than the Rumbelow knife"
Well, that depends on your point of view, doesn't it? I think the Maybrick hoax is interesting in and of itself. And since it purports to be from the Ripper himself, it's at least tangential to the Case.
"that at least appears to have some provenance. The Diary has none beyond a few years"
Of course, it does have a fair degree of provenance IF one believes Anne has been telling the truth.
"I rule out all special pleading, I couldn't care whether it is an old or new forgery (in either of those two cases it is not genuine and thus effectively rubbish)."
That's your opinion. I respectfully disagree. If this is an old hoax, it's a fascinating puzzle in and of itself. Who wanted to defame James Maybrick?
"At the moment, the Diary appears to be akin to the Turin Shroud - well-known; but questionable."
Agreed. But I've used the Shroud in these discussions to illustrate that even with wider access and pretty much limitless funding that experts are still at each others throats over the Shroud's age and origin. I was on a Shroud discussion list for awhile after seeing the object in Turin; if you think we have flame wars, you should see the way those guys go after each other...
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1153
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 10:44 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
You write:
"To call for more tests at this point is to tacitly promote the idea that we somehow are obliged to 'prove' the thing is a fake."
Yes, I've considered this for some time. But ultimately I think it's bad logic.
Whether or not the thing is a fake, whether or not all the evidence points clearly and exclusively to the thing being a fake, both of the owners of these artefacts have said in public that they believe these things are or might well be real. Also, there remains an ongoing argument concerning the dates of these hoaxes.
Now then, surely the only upright, honest, responsible thing for these owners to do is to support their claims by finally offering complete access to these items to fully qualified professionals in laboratory settings for thorough testing.
And of course, the best chance we have for finally getting determinate objective data concerning the age of these items still rests with the scientists.
So calling for these tests in no way accepts the ridiculous premise that you or I or anyone is obliged to "prove" that these things are fakes.
It's just a simple common sense proposition concerning the ethical responsibility of those who own the items and publicly promote the idea that the objects are (or even might be) authentic.
Of course, saying that, you are absolutely correct about the burden of proof for any responsible document examiner or any critic of these claims.
And of course, I too find it "a bit strange to suggest that the Diary's supporters give up the ghost for more testing when they must know that they have nothing whatsoever to gain by this and everything to lose." But those same supporters can (and will) never admit to feeling this way or being in this position, since it would be admitting defeat.
See, here's the thing. I prefer to believe that Albert and Robert are careful, decent, responsible men who only want to know the truth about the things they own. If that's true, then what should their position be concerning this issue? Surely, they should be doing all they can to get these things as completely and thoroughly and professionally examined as possible given the latest technologies in order to get closer to finally objectively determining that truth, right?
It's been over a decade now and what sort of action have we seen lately?
None.
To me, there's something not right about that.
Also, finally, there is a simple academic argument.
This entire investigation, like all such investigations, should ultimately be about learning as much as possible. It should not be about who is right or wrong, or about reputations, or about behavior, or about any of the other personal nonsense. It should just be about learning.
And yet week after week, month after month, year after year passes without anyone learning anything or even being given the opportunity to learn anything. In fact, this is the only historical investigation I've ever seen where the very idea of learning whatever it is that science might teach us is actually argued against, where excuses and explanations are offered for not testing, for not learning.
And to me that's just downright odd.
We know the diary and watch both have no verifiable provenance of any sort. And I of course agree with you completely that the question of authenticity has long been "truly over." The fact that no one ever even offers a single argument in favor of such a claim around here and hasn't for years is evidence of that simple fact.
But that does not absolve the owners of these two items of their responsibilities concerning the truth and concerning learning as much as possible about when they were created and how.
And although I understand and sympathize with your position about the state of the case, I am not inclined, when people show up here to make excuses or to argue against common sense reading and against learning, to let it pass.
But maybe that's just me.
With sincere appreciation for your thoughts, which I think have some serious merit,
--John
|
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 112
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 12:13 pm: |
|
"At present it remains somewhat less interesting or useful than the Rumbelow knife"
Well, that depends on your point of view, doesn't it? I think the Maybrick hoax is interesting in and of itself. And since it purports to be from the Ripper himself, it's at least tangential to the Case.
It claims to be from the Ripper, but without any evidence or credentials that mean a thing. The Diary has NO provenance that takes it back more than a few years. On the other hand, the knife has a well known provenance that links it to reliable sources which might well have ben able to receive such an object at an early date.
The knife is FAR and away a better bit of evidence than the Diary, though I agree the knife needs to be used cautiously. there is nothing about the Diary to allow us to use it AT ALL!!
...it does have a fair degree of provenance IF one believes Anne has been telling the truth.
That's an awfully big "if"!!
...If this is an old hoax, it's a fascinating puzzle in and of itself.
But need have NOTHING WHATEVER to do with JtR!! That's irrelevant to me, as now is the Dr Howard hoax, since that was exploded.
Phil |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 222
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 1:51 pm: |
|
"there is nothing about the Diary to allow us to use it AT ALL!!"
I'm not trying to be obtuse, but in what way do you think people are attempting to 'use' it? Some of us would like to discuss the hoax, and some of us are willing to CONSIDER the possibility that the Watch and the Diary are 'old' hoaxes, which raises questions about why someone would want to trash Maybrick's reputation posthumously.
I said: ...it does have a fair degree of provenance IF one believes Anne has been telling the truth.
"That's an awfully big "if"!!"
Sure. But if you want to say it has no provenance, then Anne must be lying about the history of the Diary. I have no problem with someone alleging that, it's just misleading to state there is no provenance. There is one, going back decades. It's suspect, however.
It's an important point. Anne doesn't claim to have found it in the '90s, but says she saw it in the 60s. Once we go past the 1980s, the question of archival research can be raised.
I said:...If this is an old hoax, it's a fascinating puzzle in and of itself.
"But need have NOTHING WHATEVER to do with JtR!! That's irrelevant to me, as now is the Dr Howard hoax, since that was exploded. "
The hoaxed letters are discussed on the Casebook because they all claim to be from the Ripper. We discuss those without animosity. Why not the Diary?
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1154
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 1:58 pm: |
|
Sir Robert writes:
"...it's just misleading to state there is no provenance."
To be precise, neither the diary nor the scratched watch has any verifiable provenance whatsoever much beyond their first public appearance.
Odd, that.
--John |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1693
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 2:22 pm: |
|
Either the real killer wrote the book or it was written after 1987.....
If we are talking about eliminating the impossible, there is logically one more person who would have known about the tin box. Namely, whoever had possession of the relevant papers before they were returned.
Chris |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 535
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 2:36 pm: |
|
John--Hi. Thanks for your thoughts. Going back to your earlier post...
The darned thing is, I can agree with your point.
But we already know what the counter-argument is going to be, don't we?
I realize you're aware of all this--painfully aware, even--- but it still seems worth making explicit. The debate--if one can even call it that--has become necessarily pointless. No one is willing to assume responsibility, because no one is willing assume what Mr. Hill calls 'the onus.'
These days, certain quarters are very, very careful not to make any claims about the Diary. It's hard not to notice that most 'official' statements about the Maybrick Diary are almost gymnastic in their ability to stay non-commital. The motive seems to keep everything in a state of suspended animation. It's relatively obvious why this must be. It's a way to turn the tables, to leave the 'onus' on those willing to actually say something. There is one poster here who, after five or six years of intensive study, refuses to even acknowledge holding any opinon as to whether the diary is old, new, genuine, or fake. Perhaps that's a legitimate position to take if one is involved in on-going research, but if that is the case, perhaps they should withhold further comment until they can provide something worth discussing. Of course, there is another side to being non-commital. It allows one the moral high ground. If you or I or anyone states the diary is a fake, the argument runs, we have assumed the ethical responsibility to prove our case.
Of course, you're denying this. It's not what you're about; I can certainly accept that.
Thus it goes around, or, rather, doesn't go around, endlessly, in grinding eternal limbo.
Frustrating as hell, Mr. Lusk.
RP
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
