|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 697
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 2:46 pm: | 
|
Chris Scott
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.
As far as I know, the Eddowes inventory has always been in proper custody along with the rest of the inquest papers. It's not one of those documents that had bee missing and were returned in the 1980s.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 698
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 2:52 pm: |
|
R. J. Palmer
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.
Well, assuming you mean Caroline Morris, a browse through the messages from about 5 years ago shows she used to be a good sight less circumspect about acknowledging that the diary was a fake, and even about accepting that the evidence pointed towards a recent fake.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on February 12, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1155
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 2:59 pm: |
|
Chris,
I believe it was established here some time ago that the document in question was not among the papers that went missing and were returned. Apparently, the police list with the diary line in it would indeed have been unavailable to the general public until the 1980s.
Hi RJ,
Good post.
You write:
"These days, certain quarters are very, very careful not to make any claims about the Diary."
I know what you mean. But Albert came out not long ago in the newspapers and said he thought the watch scratches were real. And Robert has said repeatedly that he believes the diary might well be real and that he is genuinely interested in learning the truth.
If both men mean what they say, then the responsibility to support these claims falls to them.
And besides that, learning whatever we can learn by any means necessary is surely everyone's goal, right?
If not, then we can learn something from that as well.
Even excuses teach us something.
--John
PS: Chris P. -- Sorry for the cross-post and repetition.
(Message edited by omlor on February 12, 2005) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 223
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 3:04 pm: |
|
The onus is on those who assert the Diary and/or to be genuine to prove their case. No question here on that. I tend to think of weightier matters when discussing morals or ethics, however.
No one posting here has control over what the owners do, for better or worse. We can discuss and debate what forms of testing should be done and what sums of money would be needed to be raised. Personally, I think that would be enlightening. Folks should read Rendell's book "Forging History"; there's a chapter on the Diary. Good starting point.
"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.'"
There's no debate - efforts at discussion are met with derision. We're told there is no point to testing, or there's no point to saying anything until we test, with no suggestion as to what those tests may be. We're told it's meaningless to discuss the results of the preliminary tests, as the experts involved hedged themselves by saying more tests needed to be done.
" 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. "
That would be Caz, of course. I think that after years of study of the subject, she just doesn't know. I find that interesting in and of itself because consensus here is that the Watch and the Diary are obvious modern day forgeries, and therefore study of the subject should deepen one's conviction of that "fact". Instead, it's turned Caz into an agnostic. Or kept her one, as the case may be.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1156
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 3:16 pm: |
|
Sir Robert,
There are, of course, other possible interpretations of why certain people take the positions that they do regarding testing and regarding what they will claim to believe and not claim to believe.
Also, not having control over what other people do certainly does not and should not prevent us from discussing what the intellectually honest and responsible thing to do would be.
We should learn whatever we can whatever way we can and those responsible for these items should be working hard to make that happen if they truly believe what they say.
At least, that's how I see it.
--John
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 224
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 3:20 pm: |
|
I agree with what your saying here, John.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1872
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 3:22 pm: |
|
Ahem,
Hi Chris S.
I know what you mean - and i agree!
Re Anne's provenance 'claim'
i take it she doesn't actually think she's related to Florence which some people would try to convince us of.
Because let's be honest that's simply and provably a load of rubbish!
as for the provenance question. assuming the diary were genuine and that it was in the possession of Florence Maybrick, let's be honest as soon as James died she was detained in her room then carted away, she would not have retained possession of the diary even if she had of had it in the first place. to suggest it could have been passed from her must be bogus. if the diary were real and were in the house then the Maybrick brothers would have found it. they would have had possession of it.
not that that was concerning anyone!
Jenni
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 732
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 3:44 pm: |
|
Hi all,
The Eddowes inquest papers have been either in the custody of the coroner or an archive. Until 1984, you'd have needed the permission of the coroner to view them. A bit of work to go through to get a tiny detail like "tin match box empty", particularly when the Eddowes inquest was widely covered in the press in detail.
Cheers,
Dave
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1694
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 4:13 pm: |
|
Hi all
many thanks for the correct info - duly noted:-)
all the best
Chris |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1695
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 4:29 pm: |
|
Can I just clarify the basis for the matchbox argument as I am a little puzzled. The Harrison book says that the tin match box was not mentioned in any newspaper at the time and is only referred to in the police list. Also that the first published references to the match box were by Rumbelow and Fido in 1987.
However, the earlier edition of Rumbelow, published in 1979, refers to the matchbox in a list of Eddowes' possessions (page 43) and Farson in his book (I have the 1973 edition) also gives a list of Eddowes' possessions and includes the matchbox (page 36)
All the best
Chris |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 733
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 4:42 pm: |
|
Hi Chris, can you tell us whether they're citing the inquest record in those editions and do they use the phrase "tin matchbox empty"?
The Star 1 Oct 1888 references the matchbox, but not "tin matchbox empty":
The clothing of the woman was very thin and bare. No money was found upon her, but the following articles were in the pockets of her dress:- A short clay pipe and an old cigarette case; a matchbox, an old pocket handkerchief, a knife which bore no traces of blood, and a small packet of tea and sugar, such as poor people who frequent common lodging-houses are in the habit of carrying.
Dave
(Message edited by oberlin on February 12, 2005) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 225
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 6:01 pm: |
|
"Re Anne's provenance 'claim'
i take it she doesn't actually think she's related to Florence which some people would try to convince us of."
Somewhere in my study I've got a copy of The Last Victim, and I remember Anne discussing what her familial relationship to all this might be. I'll try to find it. If someone else has it handy, let us know!
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 699
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 6:08 pm: |
|
Likewise the Times had:
There were also found upon her a piece of string, a common white handkerchief with a red border, a match box with cotton in it, a white linen pocket containing a white bone handle table knife, very blunt (with no blood on it), two short clay pipes, a red cigarette case with white metal fittings, a printed handbill with the name "Frank Cater, 405, Bethnal-green-road," upon it, a check pocket containing five pieces of soap, a small tin box containing tea and sugar, a portion of a pair of spectacles, a three-cornered check handkerchief, and a large white linen pocket containing a small comb, a red mitten, and a ball of worsted.
What has to be explained by anyone who thinks the diary could predate the 1980s is how the diary could reproduce the exact phrase "tin match box empty" found in the inventory.
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 226
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 6:21 pm: |
|
"What has to be explained by anyone who thinks the diary could predate the 1980s is how the diary could reproduce the exact phrase "tin match box empty" found in the inventory."
Or why they'd be so stupid as to exactly copy the phrase... I don't think the Diary is great literature, but it doesn't appear to have been written by an idiot.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Kelly Robinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 132
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 7:39 pm: |
|
"Or why they'd be so stupid as to exactly copy the phrase... I don't think the Diary is great literature, but it doesn't appear to have been written by an idiot."
Rather than copy the phrase outright (which WOULD be idiotic), it's more likely that the writer unconsciously wrote the phrase that he'd read before.
-K
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1157
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 11:01 pm: |
|
Sir Robert,
Remember, these are the same hoaxers who couldn't be bothered trying to even approximate the real James Maybrick's handwriting. They got it completely wrong, it turns out. So the fact that they slipped up and included a few things that the real James could not have possibly seen or known about (and likewise made mistakes about stuff the real killer should have known) shouldn't surprise you.
Of course, I'm not one to talk. The fact that we're still talking about this stuff continually surprises me.
But then I remember...
--John |
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 114
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 3:23 am: |
|
The match-box and its link with official papers may just be a red-herring.
One day we may stumble across an account of the JtR crimes, perhaps overlooked, which will show where the reference and others came from. Maybe not - but to my mind, A "genuine" Diary should contain much more we didn't know, or logical explanations for events, than one obscure reference to a minor object.
It's as if the genuineness of the "Hitler Diaries" had depended on a reference to the contents of martin Boorman's pockets, given the earth-shattering events going on around at the time!!
I recall one of Ian Wilson's books, about "Reincarnation/Regression" where he investigated people who, under hypnosis, recounted incredibly detailed accounts of past lives. One was a sailor in Nelson's navy; another of a governess to Constantine the Great.
Wilson showed that all, bar the latter, were based on subliminal memories of books read or things heard by the individual (in THIS life) often years before, and forgotten until they were put under hypnosis.
In the case of the governess, it was very detailed and factual and they could not find a book that covered this story - it seemed the exception that might PROVE past lives were a real phenomenon. Then, just before publication, they traced a novel, and the woman's recorded words under hypnosis reflected in detail the words used in the book and the effects described. the book had a limited print run, was never republished and languished in a copyright library unread for decades. Finding it, and its date etc made it sure that the woman had read it (coincidence was simply not possible).
I think something similar will be found about the Diary. A source will be found, in Liverpool or elsewhere, that will reveal the origin of the Diaries contents - and it won't be James Maybrick's mind!!
Phil |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 700
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 4:20 am: |
|
Phil
One day we may stumble across an account of the JtR crimes, perhaps overlooked, which will show where the reference and others came from.
I think you may have misunderstood. There's no mystery about the origin of this phrase - a transcript of the inventory was published in 1988. The straightforward explanation is that the diary was faked soon after that.
Sir Robert
Or why they'd be so stupid as to exactly copy the phrase... I don't think the Diary is great literature, but it doesn't appear to have been written by an idiot.
Regardless of your opinion about how stupid the faker was - which I don't particularly share - if you think it could have predated 1988, you have to be able to come up with some plausible explanation for the use of this phrase.
You keep complaining that people are unwilling to discuss when the diary was faked. From my point of view it's the advocates of the "old fake" possibility who consistently avoid answering questions like these.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on February 13, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1875
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 6:02 am: |
|
does it matter how stupid they were or not, they've gotten away with it for this long (however long that is!) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1158
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 7:07 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
"They" have had help.
--John
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 227
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 11:12 am: |
|
"Regardless of your opinion about how stupid the faker was - which I don't particularly share - if you think it could have predated 1988, you have to be able to come up with some plausible explanation for the use of this phrase. "
Please refrain from misquoting me. One of your favorite tactics is to interpret something one says in a way never intended by the author.
I don't think the hoaxer was "stupid".
There are several explanations for the use of the phrase; whether they are plausible or not remains to be seen.
1) The hoaxer copied the exact phrase as he or she read it in published reports.
2) The hoaxer copied the exact phrase as he or she
read it in police files.
3) The language used just happens to be exactly that in the reports or files, and it's simply coincidence.
Number 1 is logically the most likely scenario, but I would not rule out #2 or #3. The notion that the hoaxer(s) may have access to police files is
an angle worth discussing.
"You keep complaining that people are unwilling to discuss when the diary was faked. From my point of view it's the advocates of the "old fake" possibility who consistently avoid answering questions like these. "
There are answers; you just don't care for them. It all remains to be seen as to which is the correct explanation.
I do not want to put words in Jenni's mouth, but her comment that "they've gotten away with it for this long" is apt. Attempts to land a knockout punch on the Diary as a modern forgery have so far failed; needless to say this doesn't prove it's old either. What intrigues me is that Skinner, Linder and Caroline Morris spent a lot of time digging into the story, and seem to have come away with no conclusions themselves. If anything,
"their collective compass tilts ever so slightly toward the pro-diary claimants" per the Casebook review.
This is what I'd like to discuss: what are the proper tests to conduct on the Diary and the Watch, and how much do they cost?
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1159
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 11:51 am: |
|
Sir Robert,
Surely you recall that we have recently discussed the answer to your final questions. In fact, if you take a look at the letter Shirley received from McCrone, which she printed in her book, you'll see that even there they are quite clear about wanting to examine the entire book. And they have also been clear about not being able to say precisely what will or will not be possible or what set of tests would end up being best or precisely how much it would cost (depending in large part of course on how many and which tests turn out to be necessary), until as professionals they can at least have a look at the old reports and the artefacts. That's what I was told personally by the director of that very same lab.
The answers to the questions you are asking can be learned, of course, but the owners of the artefacts have to be willing to put the time and energy into learning them. They own the material and are responsible for the items, so they have to do the work.
It's been years now.
Do you see any sign that they are truly likely to do so?
Surely, that should be considered significant in itself.
Meanwhile, the line from the police report that also appears in the diary was unavailable to anyone in the general public until the 1980s. Yet there it is in both documents. The Poste House wasn't the Poste House until modern times. Yet there it is in the document. Vocabulary and mistakes from modern Ripper and Maybrick books appear a number of times in the diary. You can see a partial list of them cited in one of the dissertations right here on this site -- http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/mhguide.html. No one can verifiably account for either object existing as presented more than a few months prior to their public appearance. And the list of so-called "coincidences" (like your number three above) that all would have had to have happened simultaneously for this book to be anything other than a modern hoax is well-known and considerable. At some point, the logic of induction takes over and common sense reading indicates a valid conclusion.
But this is all just endless repetition on my part, as RJ has properly pointed out.
We've been here before, and nothing has changed,
--John (looking forward to another you-know-what day tomorrow)
(Message edited by omlor on February 13, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1877
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Robert,
all I mean is they didn't need to be clever
Jenni
ps John - you mean Valentine's Day? |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 228
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 12:14 pm: |
|
"Surely you recall that we have recently discussed the answer to your final questions"
Yes.
"until as professionals they can at least have a look at the old reports and the artefacts."
You know, John, there are plenty of books out there on forgery. (I only have Rendell's...) Surely it is possible for neophytes to poke around at what type of tests are desirable.
Your default solution is that it is pointless to discuss these matters until objects not under our control are examined by labs whose fees we're not paying. I disagree.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 229
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 12:31 pm: |
|
" The Poste House wasn't the Poste House until modern times. Yet there it is in the document."
Of all the textual "errors" in the Diary, this one concerns me the least.
The Diarist consistently spells ‘post’ with an ‘e’ – ‘poste haste’, ‘poste house’ and ‘poste restante’.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 701
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 12:32 pm: |
|
Sir Robert
Please refrain from misquoting me. One of your favorite tactics is to interpret something one says in a way never intended by the author.
Another tip if you want to encourage people to have discussions with you - please don't accuse people of misquoting you when all they have done is to use copy and paste to quote you 100% accurately. And please stop and think before you fly off the handle and accuse people of deliberately misinterpreting what you have written.
You questioned whether the faker was "so stupid as to exactly copy the phrase", and you went on to say "it doesn't appear to have been written by an idiot". That's what I meant when I said I didn't share "your opinion about how stupid the faker was". You think the faker wasn't stupid; I think he or she was pretty stupid. (Or did you think I meant it the other way round?)
As John has pointed out, no one particularly bright would sit down and spend all that time faking James Maybrick's diary in handwriting that bore absolutely no resemblance to that of the real James Maybrick!
There are answers; you just don't care for them.
I didn't say there weren't any answers, I said that those favourable to the "old fake" possibility avoid giving them. So it's creditworthy of you to state them so clearly.
Your "old hoax" explanations are:
(1) The faker copied the phrase from the original inventory.
Of course we can't say this is absolutely impossible, but we can say that this document had not been discovered by any Ripperologist before the 1980s, and thanks to David O'Flaherty's researches, we know that these papers were actually closed to public access before that time.
(2) The faker used the same phrase that occurs in the inventory, "tin match box empty", by pure chance.
Not only that, but as the closest information we know of in press reports is simply "matchbox" (sometimes described as containing cotton), the faker apparently must also have decided that it was made of tin by pure chance, and that it was empty by pure chance.
You may think it "remains to be seen" which is the correct explanation, but if you really hold back from deciding between these possibilities, and the straightforward explanation that the faker simply read the inventory after it was published, I can't imagine what kind of evidence you would consider definitive.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1880
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 12:42 pm: |
|
Chris,
let me stop you there because you are assuming the faker could not have been the coroner or whoever actually had the inventory in their possession at the time. now that is possible of course i must add, for moral reasons, i do not think that happend considering the other problems with the diary.
pure chance?
Jenni |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1160
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 12:47 pm: |
|
Sir Robert,
You write to me:
"Your default solution is that it is pointless to discuss these matters until objects not under our control are examined by labs whose fees we're not paying."
I write to you:
"Please refrain from misquoting me."
I've just discussed it. I told you what I was told by the experts. I'm sorry if you did not like the answer, but it was the one I was given. And so we won't know the actual answers to your specific questions until those responsible for these specific artefacts actively pursue those answers. Any other discussion would necessarily be purely speculative and wildly general.
Also, I'm glad you're not bothered by the truly amazing coincidence that there is one pub with that exact unique name with that exact unique spelling and capitalization (the latter being something the diarist certainly does not do consistently elsewhere in the book) and that pub happens to be right there in Liverpool, the very same town in which the diary is set and from which it appeared. Another amazing coincidence? The only problem being the pub with that exact name written just that way wasn't there until modern times.
Sucks for the forgers.
Or it would, except...
Meanwhile, Chris has done an excellent job in the post above of presenting the facts concerning the "tin matchbox empty" line. It would require not one, not two, but three separate amazing coincidences for an old forger, to whom the document was unavailable, to have gotten it right.
The dance continues,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1882
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 12:52 pm: |
|
Hey John,
honestly you not what i'm going to say.
'Also, I'm glad you're not bothered by the truly amazing coincidence that there is one pub with that exact unique name with that exact unique spelling and capitalization (the latter being something the diarist certainly does not do consistently elsewhere in the book) and that pub happens to be right there in Liverpool, the very same town in which the diary is set and from which it appeared. Another amazing coincidence? '
only if we are sure that there were no pubs in liverpool before then which could have been known as the poste house. and even then 1960's right?
what? don't look at me like that! you knew id say it!
Jenni |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 702
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 12:57 pm: |
|
Jenni
let me stop you there because you are assuming the faker could not have been the coroner or whoever actually had the inventory in their possession at the time.
Well, I did say we couldn't say it was absolutely impossible, but if we're driven to suggest the City of London Coroner faked the diary, that only underlines just how incredibly unlikely this explanation is.
My own attitude to "new fake" versus "old fake" is along these lines: "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, why call for a DNA test?"
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1883
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 1:06 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
exactly true. i think that the old fake explanation must rest on the coroner being in on it.
or chance i guess, umm chance would be a fine thing!(jonathan creek!)
Jenni
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 230
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 1:09 pm: |
|
" Any other discussion would necessarily be purely speculative and wildly general. "
In your opinion.
Last I looked, the entire Casebook message board contains a great deal of the speculative.
I'm on the board of directors of two biotech companies. (I'm not a scientist, nor do I play one on TV.) We have plenty of speculative discussions as to what sort of tests the FDA might want us to run to prove the safety and efficacy of a given drug, even when said drug is just a gleam in a mad lab tech's eye. There are myriad "what if" conversations that lead to resources being pointed in one direction over another.
There are specialty firms called FDA consultants, and they work with companies to access what the FDA might want to see. I have NEVER seen a situation where the consultant didn't say that until they "see" the actual drug, all their recommendations are speculative. (They also ALWAYS demand more tests...and more fees for them.)
And I can't imagine that there's no way to think about what tests we'd like to see done on the Diary, and what a budget for such tests would look like.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 231
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 1:25 pm: |
|
Jenni and Chris - when you discuss who is "in on it", just remember that if it is an old hoax, it was a hoax that wasn't used. Perhaps someone connected with the investigation of either the Ripper case, or the Maybrick murder, or both, did it for a lark. Perhaps it was a private joke.
The reason why I say this is because it is highly unlikely - in my mind - for there having been a hoax conspiracy involving the coroners or the police with an eye to producing something for public consumption. But I could see someone doing it for amusement.
There's an antiquarian dealer here in NYC that has on offer the following:
Autograph letter signed "H. Irving"
Irving, Henry Brodribb
Price: US$ 250.00
Book Details
Book Description: London: Queen's Theatre, Shaftesbury Avenue W, 2
March 1910.
Asking whether he and Sir Arthur Pinero can come to see MacNaghten at Scotland Yard to ask him some questions. Henry Irving, the son of most famous actor and an eminent actor and manager on his
own part, was originally educated for the bar and very much interested in criminology. He wrote several books on the subject as H[enry]
B[rodribb] Irving including "A Book of Remarkable Criminals," "Studies of French Criminals of the Nineteenth Century," editing several trials
incuding those of Mr. Florence E. Maybrick, Franz Mueller and Henry and T. G. Wainwright.
There's one possible connection right there between the Maybrick case and the Ripper investigation, and that's from a simple Google search. (Before you attack, I'm not suggesting anything other than these folks knew each other and had access....)
What else is out there?
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 703
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 1:33 pm: |
|
Sir Robert
it is highly unlikely - in my mind - for there having been a hoax conspiracy involving the coroners or the police with an eye to producing something for public consumption. But I could see someone doing it for amusement.
Surely you're pulling our legs now?
You mean that you don't consider it "highly unlikely" that the City of London Coroner who presided over Eddowes's inquest was involved in producing the "Maybrick Diary" - provided he meant it only as a private hoax?
Chris Phillips
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 734
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 1:33 pm: |
|
Hi Chris Phillips,
Thanks for that, but I think everybody already knew they were closed to the public. I guess there was that question about a twenty year window of access, but that seems to have been some off-hand speculation. In any case, between looking at the Public Record Act 1958 and bothering several kind archivists (laugh), it turned out that there was no twenty year period of access.
Hi Sir Robert,
Your scenario #2 has been discussed before; I sure agree with you that it's not as likely as your scenario #1, which is what I favor--a modern forgery. Chris is right when he says it's not impossible that someone could have received access to the inquest record before it was opened to the public in 1984. But under what sort of conditions would this have likely happened? I tried to determine this by looking at the Public Records Act 1958 and by corresponding with archivists at The National Archives and the CLRO, which physically holds the Eddowes inquest papers. Any access would have been considered "priveliged" and would have had to come from the relevant coroner for the district and only the coroner. Access was completely and solely up to the coroner. Here's the rub: while coroners maintained control of the records of their office, even those in archives (and no archivist could provide access to a record at the CLRO, even to family members), coroners also followed governmental policy laid down by the Home Office (which also develops coronial policy) and then later on by the Lord Chancellor (who as I understand it, is the only figure who has the power to remove a coroner from office).
And both entities had closed the files, so the archivists I corresponded with at the National Archives and the CLRO both felt that coroners would have adhered to whatever governmental policy was. The policy was closure.
Maybe a coroner would have provided access to someone with a "legitimate" interest--we're talking family member, police conducting an investigation, insurance companies, maybe a researcher looking for statistics concerning the public health.
But again, because coroners were and are individuals, you can never say access was impossible. Maybe there was a liberal coroner with flexible ideas about what legitimate interest was--but the publishing history of this particular phrase doesn't support that so far. My own feeling is that access would have been grudging; that a reporter or someone writing a book about Jack the Ripper would have been turned away and pointed in the direction of the press reports, which covered the inquest extensively. But you know, I wasn't around so I don't know. It would be interesting to hear from some of the researchers who were active at this time if anyone was able to get in to see the files before 1984. Again, judging from the publishing history, it doesn't appear that anyone did, but maybe Chris Scott is about to prove me wrong by showing that Rumbelow or Farson cited the actual archived record back in the 70s when it was closed.  Sounds to me like those two authors might have been referring to press reports like those from the Times and the Star posted above. I could be wrong.
Sorry to go on (and on)! There's some speculation in the above, but I'm trying to make it informed speculation. One good thing about the access question is that it's fueled my interest in coroners, who I think inhabit a kind of shadowy, grey area. It's strange that they should, since the inquest records and reports of inquests are really the canon of Ripperology.
Cheers,
Dave
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1161
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 3:05 pm: |
|
Dave,
Thanks for the solid report. It seems clear enough. And I do not believe there is any citation of the "tin matchbox empty" line in either the earliest edition of the Rumbelow or in the Farson.
Someone saw that line, someone knew the matchbox was tin and empty and saw the syntax and somehow the line made its way into the diary, just like the exact and unique proper name of a modern pub in Liverpool, just like the single line from the whole history of literature conveniently excerpted in another modern book as it is in the diary, just like the mistakes about the case that appeared in both the modern sources and the diary, just like... Well, you get the idea.
Sir Robert,
Of course, you can always feel free to have a go at finding a different answer than the one I was offered by several experts. Best of luck. Let us know how you do.
Jenni,
The City of London Coroner faked the diary. No question about it. That's the only explanation that makes any real sense. 
All,
I realize that common sense is sometimes a rare commodity in all things Diary related, but honestly, at some point, it really should kick in. The words say exactly what they say: "O costly tin matchbox of death."
No wait, that's not right. That's one of our DW t-shirts.
Anyway, fanciful what-ifs and tap dancing aside, one particular explanation accounts for all these problems. A modern forger. And there is nothing verifiable anywhere in the book that a modern forger could not have known. Another amazing coincidence? I think not.
Again, as much as I dislike his particular style of rhetoric, the Casebook dissertation link I posted by Melvin Harris above demonstrates how nicely the modern forger theory accounts for all the textual problems in the diary.
The rest seems more and more to be just "wishin' and hopin'" as the song goes,
--John (who wants that coroner investigated!)
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 704
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 3:46 pm: |
|
David
Thanks for that, but I think everybody already knew they were closed to the public. I guess there was that question about a twenty year window of access, but that seems to have been some off-hand speculation. In any case, between looking at the Public Record Act 1958 and bothering several kind archivists (laugh), it turned out that there was no twenty year period of access.
Well, in the event the theory about a "window of opportunity" for consulting the inquest papers did turn out to be ill-informed speculation, but that didn't prevent it being put forward - both on these boards and elsewhere - as a serious reason for doubting that the Diary fake was a modern one.
I think it was valuable to have that question settled, though I still think the idea of a hoaxster doing this ground-breaking archival research in the 1930s or whatever - decades before any Ripperologist was doing any research in archives - was a fantastic one, whether the documents were formally open to public access or not.
The modern enthusiasm for genealogy has changed things enormously. In the first half of the 20th century, access to records would have been a far more exceptional thing. I think it would have been very much a question of solicitors and their agents searching records for legal reasons, together with the odd academic historian (and I'd think it's only recently that academic historians have shown any interest in the Whitechapel Murders).
maybe Chris Scott is about to prove me wrong by showing that Rumbelow or Farson cited the actual archived record back in the 70s when it was closed.
I can help with Farson (from the 1973 Sphere Books paperback edition):
Her possessions were many but pathetic: a piece of string; a 'common' white handkerchief; a blunt table knife; a match box with cotton in it; two clay pipes; a red cigarette case; five pieces of soap; a small box with tea and sugar; 'a portion' of a pair of spectacles; a small comb, a red mitten and a ball of worsted.
[p. 36]
This sounds as though it's extracted from the account in the Times that I quoted earlier.
Chris Phillips
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 736
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 4:12 pm: |
|
Hi John
Right, and regarding the subject of coincidences: I wonder how many verdicts of coincidence are returned in cases of plagiarism, times when there's identical phrasing between two documents. I'm not a law student so I don't know.
And like you say, that's only one problem phrase among many which, funnily enough, are all explained by the modern forgery theory. So modern times, that's where I'm making my home. I am kind of interested to learn more about the ion migration test that's supposed to date the Diary back to around 1921, and which flies in the face of the very convincing textual evidence. I suppose there, if you want to use such a method to determine age, the question is whether ions migrate at predictable rates or not, and whether those rates can be affected by the acidity of paper as was very recently suggested by another poster. I've tried to ask a couple of professors of chemistry about that but have never received a reply. I also tried to find out whether ion-migration was used to commonly determine age, and I haven't been able to find any instances of it. None--which I suppose might tell me something right there. But I think if this ion-migration test is going to be argued, maybe it would be helpful to know what we're talking about. Maybe some professor of chemistry will inform us about what's reasonable and what isn't! Maybe someone will run that down.
Say, Chris Phillips--thanks for that from Farson! Sounds like the Times to me as well, although I don't suppose he footnotes it? I'm ashamed to admit that I don't have either book.
Cheers,
Dave |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 705
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 5:05 pm: |
|
David
Sorry - no chance of a footnote in Farson's book. The dawn of Ripper scholarship. Still, sooner the dawn than the sunset ...
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 232
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 9:14 pm: |
|
"Chris is right when he says it's not impossible that someone could have received access to the inquest record before it was opened to the public in 1984. But under what sort of conditions would this have likely happened?"
Hey Dave - it's interesting to me that folks don't consider one group that always had access to the inquest record : the police.
If it's an old hoax, it clearly wasn't used.
Humor me for one moment and let's assume it dates from the 1920s or so. Someone created it, and didn't use it. Why?
Again, I think it is reasonable to speculate that perhaps someone connected with the investigation did it as a amusement. Cops and medical people have a pretty twisted sense of humor at times. We're willing to assume that a med student sent a piece of human kidney to Lusk, but hoax a journal?? Oh God, no !
There's another line of thought that the trail might lead to someone in the Florence Maybrick camp....I don't think we have to search too far to find a host of people interested in doing a hatchet job on Sir Jim's posthumous reputation.
And yes, that's IF it's an old hoax.
I lean in that direction, but remain skeptical.
Seems to me that the tests done so far are not conclusive, and the textual "errors" can be explained. For instance, the Diarist consistently spells ‘post’ with an ‘e’ – ‘poste haste’, ‘poste house’ and ‘poste restante’. (Ripperologist #56 has an article by Jenni that does a good job of offering explanations of the various issues with the text.) I sure as hell wouldn't stake my life on it either way.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 737
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 10:36 pm: |
|
Hi Sir Robert,
Interesting, but it's all just a story isn't it? You can always come up with a story. I don't buy the coroner theory--from what I've read, despite whatever individuality they might have, they tend to take their authority and the whole inquest process pretty seriously. Not the practical joker type at all.
Sir Robert, I'm not trying to convince you and think we'll have to agree to disagree. I just haven't heard anything to make me think it's an old hoax--Anne's provenance is no good for me because it's not documented. Maybe someone who understands ion migration can explain whether it really is a sound method to determine when ink hit paper.
Cheers,
Dave |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1884
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 3:04 am: |
|
Hi,
that might possibly just about explain tin match box empty (just about!!)
but of course it would not explain the line about leaving them on the table - in fact i may even go as far as to say there is only one way to explain both, but stil....
Cheers
Jenni
(Message edited by jdpegg on February 14, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1885
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 3:08 am: |
|
and i mean thinking about it in any instance putting in tin match box empty seems pretty crazy,
James Maybrick= pure chance?
old = must be the coroner why why why would he?
modern = stupid person copied it out book!
but there it is! |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 706
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 4:52 am: |
|
Jenni
Well, I think Sir Robert and I will have to agree to disagree, like Sir Robert and David O'Flaherty.
To be fair, not all the errors in the text point to a recent fake; some of them - such as the breasts on the table - are equally consistent with an old fake.
But apart from "tin match box empty" and "the Poste House", there is of course Barrett's identification of the quotation from Crashaw. A lot more "pure chance" has to come into play there, either if the diary was faked before the Sphere Guide was published, or if it was faked by someone unconnected with Barrett.
Too many stunning coincidences for my liking, if the diary is an old fake.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1162
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 6:33 am: |
|
Yes, Jenni and Chris are correct. The stunning coincidences pile up as you try and get away from this being a modern hoax. And for it not to be modern, every single one of them has to have happened, without exception, simultaneously.
Of course a different theory explains them all, every single one of them, without having to rely on fantastic speculation about the police writing the diary or having to rely on the simultaneous occurrence of numerous amazing coincidences.
So which theory then is more in line with what's likely according to simple common sense?
It's a rhetorical question, of course.
--John
PS: Once again I remind interested readers that the "e" is only half the problem with the name. And the matchbox line would need three separate coincidences all by itself (unless that nasty coroner was up to his old tricks). |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1482
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 7:17 am: |
|
Hi All,
RJ thinks those connected with the ongoing investigation should ‘perhaps…withhold further comment until they can provide something worth discussing’. He may have a point there.
But I did provide you 'orrible lot with the full watch reports, with Albert Johnson’s blessing, after some posters moaned like hell about them not being available, and seemed to think they would be worth discussing. And lots of discussion did follow. And I don’t see why I shouldn’t keep asking questions of the modern hoax conspiracy believers regarding both artefacts.
Dr Turgoose’s report revealed that the H 9 3 and 1275 were engraved after the ripper related scratches were made - new information that tells the believers something they didn't know before about their hoaxer, and adds a new puzzle - why H 9 3? Why 1275?
Love,
Caz
X |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1483
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 7:38 am: |
|
BTW, I don't recall 'poste restante' featuring in the diary. It was simply my observation that the sign 'Poste Restante' would have been a common one seen by ladies and gents in Maybrick's day, while 'post house' was more a term used in conversation.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 707
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 7:43 am: |
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Dr Turgoose’s report revealed that the H 9 3 and 1275 were engraved after the ripper related scratches were made - new information that tells the believers something they didn't know before about their hoaxer, and adds a new puzzle - why H 9 3? Why 1275?
One small point. In his report, Turgoose refers to "H 9/3", yet in your posts you consistently change this to "H 9 3". Do you have a particular reason for doing this?
On the larger question, I asked a few days ago whether it was clear to anyone else from Turgoose's micrographs that the "9/3" of "H 9/3" and the "5" of "1275" were made after the marking identified by Turgoose as the tail of the J.
Apparently no one else could see clear evidence for this in the micrographs. Can you see any, or are you taking Turgoose's opinion on trust?
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1164
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 8:24 am: |
|
Good question, Chris.
I'll be interested in seeing any answers that might appear.
--John
PS: Remember the precise, proper name of the pub that's actually there. Unlike all these other variations, it's simply identical. But perhaps that's too obvious. Common sense sometimes makes the discussion dull, I guess. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1890
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 4:17 pm: |
|
you think there is meaning i H9/3 ans 1275.
arent they just supposed to be repair marks? |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
