|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 233
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 9:21 am: | 
|
" I just haven't heard anything to make me think it's an old hoax-"
Hey David - I'm not an "old hoax" advocate; I'm a we're-not-sure-what-the-age-of-these-artifacts-are advocate. On the face of it, the Diary and the Watch are "obviously" modern fakes, except that the testing and analysis SO FAR seem inconclusive to me.
One question that needs to be addressed is that IF it's an old hoax, why wasn't it used? Not an easy question to answer.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 742
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 9:35 am: |
|
Hi Sir Robert,
"IF it's an old hoax, why wasn't it used?" It wasn't used because it didn't exist. I think this is a really easy question to answer.
You're more open-minded on the subject than I am, Sir Robert. Maybe I'm just cynical. I think I'd burn the diary if I could--it's caused so much bad feeling between people who otherwise share common interests. Would it were only that simple! 
Cheers,
Dave
PS I should say I'd burn it if I owned it. I wouldn't dream of damaging someone else's property.
(Message edited by oberlin on February 15, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1894
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 9:39 am: |
|
hey Robert,
IF they are old hoaxes i can think of plenty of reasons (or several anyway) why they might not have been used.
e.g
whoever hoaxed them could have died.
the need for the hoax could have been overcome (here i am thinking of the date Florence died and the date she got out of jail)
whoever haoxed them could have come into money.
Jenni |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1895
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 9:45 am: |
|
David,
burn it? watch what you say you'll be first supect if anything should inflame it!
Jenni |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 234
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 10:13 am: |
|
"I think I'd burn the diary if I could"
Ahem. Perhaps not the best way to resolve the issue....
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Restless Spirit
Police Constable
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 6
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 10:47 am: |
|
Sir Robert
For what it is worth, just supposed the Diary was or is an old hoax. It would have to have been written by someone close to him, knowing his habits etc, and one who would benefit from James being out of the picture. Who? Why not Michael. His career was starting to slow down,he was getting older and he needed & wanted James prosperous business, place of abode and or money. So he(Michael) wrote this diary with the intention of framing his brother for the crimes in order for him to take over his estate as power of attorney. He knew of James additions and may have been convinced that he could have him comitted to an insane asylum. etc, etc. He didn't need to use the diary due to James untimely death. Now with Florence charged with his murder, there was no one to stop him from taking over, especially with the changing of James will. Hell, maybe he was the ripper. If so it would have been necessary for him to hang onto the diary in case he became a suspect. No problem he had it covered with the forged diary of James.
I guess this is a bit far fetched, please humor me, be gentle with your critisisms. But I think it would make a good book. n'es pas?
Restless Spirit
Restless Spirit
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 743
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 11:12 am: |
|
You're right, Sir Robert. So are you, Jennifer. If something did happen, I'd never be able to clear myself with the Ripper crowd--no matter that I live thousands of miles and an ocean away. With all the "what if's " I'd always be Dave the Arsonist to someone.
Cheers,
Dave |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 235
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 11:20 am: |
|
" It would have to have been written by someone close to him, knowing his habits etc, and one who would benefit from James being out of the picture."
Not necessarily....The Maybrick trial was a major event at it's time. Reams of testimony, plenty of press coverage. There was a great deal of attention paid to the case.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1897
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 11:42 am: |
|
Dave,
you might get away with it!!
Robert,
but that doesnt explain tin match box empty, right?
Cheers
Jenni |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1166
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 11:45 am: |
|
David,
Well, I'll come forward and second your suggestion.
Throw the cheap hoax in.
--John
PS: Nice to see Figment takes an occasional break from his duties over at the Land of Imagination (and the DiTA thread) to stop by and inspire such fanciful (but completely unevidenced) stories now and then. At least they are fun to read.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1898
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 11:46 am: |
|
John,
does this mean you don't think Michael maybrick was JTR!?
Jenni |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1167
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Jenni,
ha ha (as Michael always used to say...)
Hey, wait a minute....
--John 
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1903
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 12:39 pm: |
|
Did he?
Or are you disrespecting him!? |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 744
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 12:48 pm: |
|
Hi John,
I'm not being serious, but if I were the lawful owner, I'd maybe consider it. It'd be a win-win situation really:
People like me, who believe in a modern hoax, are already convinced anyway. Who cares what happens to a fraudulent document? We could have our sense of justice at last.
Those who enjoy the mystery of an older hoax would have still have the watch and relevant tests to point to--and your DiTA thread would be killed dead. For them, and I happen to like several of these people, the mystery could endure.
The forgers might also win because no legal case could ever be brought forward. No evidence! I've never cared about seeing a forger faced with legal repercussions as I think we'll all gone quite willingly to Diaryland.
And if the Maybrickians missed the Diary, we could easily make another one! The modern and old hoaxists could come together in a healing joint effort. We could just tell the Maybrickians Santa brought it, and then we could share a wink and a quiet laugh.
We could have a magnificent great bonfire, dance naked around it, and then all march across the street and adjourn to a pub for drinks, which is all I really care about. Loafing around the pub and talking to people is my idea of a great time. Modern fake, old fake, the real thing--"whatever gets you throught the night" is what I say, so it doesn't really matter to me what you think as long as you're not a mean drunk.
I guess the weak spot in my fantasy is when there's someone who truly hasn't made up their mind, who really doesn't have an opinion--I guess they don't win in the scenario. But that's why God made Guinness. And since we're a neighborly lot I'm sure someone will be ready to share an opinion. So they're going to be okay.
Realistically though, a pub outing would never happen because resentments go too deep. So we might as well keep the damned thing around.
Just having a laugh,
Dave
(Message edited by oberlin on February 15, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1169
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 1:12 pm: |
|
Hi Dave,
Until the last sentence, this sounded like an excellent plan.
Ah, well.
At least it kills the time until I can play golf again.
And fortunately, it's a bad hoax, so we can at least laugh.
Ready with the matches,
--John
|
Restless Spirit
Police Constable
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 7
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 1:19 pm: |
|
Sir Robert
Tks for response. Obviously your response makes more sense than my conjecture.
I must be thinking out load again
Phil
It is so true that circumstances have been changed in many cases to fit a suspect for convenience, so I promice that I won't complicate matters by doing the same again.However Stride's death is interesting, and many different scenerious have been suggested as to her demise.
It has been suggested that she knew her killer,I agree. I don't necessarily mean Kidney either. Maybe she actually knew the Ripper but not until the night she was actually murdered. He may have been a former client who she approached that night looking for a trick,she saw the knife or bag holding same. She knew what was coming and screamed, he attached her slit her throat and fled(he knew he had been seen by witnesses talking to her)
What about it? Sound plausible? Or am I out to lunch once more (HA)
regards
Restless
Restless Spirit
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1905
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 2:24 pm: |
|
Dave,
fundamentally we agree. (in theory)
the world of Ripperology would be a better place without the diary.
but tough luck cos there it is!!
but there are people out there (yes really) who actually believe that James Maybrick killed those women because of that diary. I personally don't understand it, but hey,
as long as those people exist
Jenni |
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 497
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 6:04 pm: |
|
Hi
Just a general thought.
The inventory of Catherine Eddowes belongings was made by the City Police.
So it would seem reasonable to me that they would have at least have there own copy of the list as well as the coroner. Assuming they did, would the City Police files be more easily accessible (obviously pre 1940s)then the Metropolitans?
Rob |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 237
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 6:33 pm: |
|
"The inventory of Catherine Eddowes belongings was made by the City Police.
So it would seem reasonable to me that they would have at least have there own copy of the list as well as the coroner. Assuming they did, would the City Police files be more easily accessible (obviously pre 1940s)then the Metropolitans? "
Good question, Robert.
There are at least 4 sources that I can think of to explain the infamous empty tin box remark, that would allow for the "old hoax" scenario.
1) The City police
2) The Met police - I can't imagine they wouldn't have a copy...
3) a yet undiscovered newspaper report
4) the coroners
The most reasonable explanation remains that it points to a modern forgery, but it's not enough to convert me from agnosticism.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 713
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 6:43 pm: |
|
Robert Clack
Bu what I really don't understand about suggestions like this -
Maybe it's possible that the City Police kept a copy of the Inventory, and that someone under some pretext managed to consult the document - making themselves pretty conspicuous in the process - and then after all that effort copied this one phrase into a fake diary, which they then inexplicably failed to do anything with.
Nobody can say that's impossible, but what I don't understand is why people should want to construct hypotheses like this, when the straightforward scenario of a modern fake explains everything so straightforwardly.
It's almost as though people are determined - regardless of the evidence - to say, "Well, damn you, I'll invent a hypothesis in which it could be an old fake!"
No doubt it can be done. But it's why you should want to do it I can't understand.
Chris Phillips
|
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 498
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 7:06 pm: |
|
Hi Chris, Sir Robert
Just trying to see things from all sides, listening to all opinions and drawing my own conclusions.
And the evidence for a modern hoax isn't that conclusive enough for me. Not from what I have read on these boards anyway.
Rob |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 238
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 8:00 pm: |
|
"And the evidence for a modern hoax isn't that conclusive enough for me."
Nor myself. The simplest explanation - modern hoax - should properly be given heaviest weight.
I guess, at the end of the day, it's the Watch lab reports that give me special pause before saying we can conclude anything definitive for now. I'm hoping that the Ripperologist per issue #57 will indeed be able to get some expert to comment on the existing reports.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 776
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 8:56 pm: |
|
Of course the hoaxer doesn't have to have seen the inventory.
"Hullo there, it's Detective Halse isn't it?"
"That's right, sir."
"Hi, I'm Obediah Foofah, reporter for the Liverpool Evening Splurge. I'm doing a piece on those old Ripper crimes you had down here. You were at the scene of the one, right? Wonder if you could help me out with a few things."
"I'll do my best sir."
"Well, I've got this list of things I think were found around the place. Is this correct?"
"Looks about right to me. Oh no, there was one other thing. There was this tin match box. Empty."
(At this point a full orchestra springs up, five cheeky chappy cockney sparrer boot boys come tap-dancing down the street and everyone breaks into the "Tin Match Box Empty" song. Ripper Diary, The Musical is born!)
"All I know of morality, I learned from football" - Albert Camus
Visit my website - http://www.ashbooks.co.uk/
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1171
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 9:03 pm: |
|
David can explain in some detail the location and history of this document.
And every bit of information we have now tells us that it was unavailable to the general public, including commonly curious reporters, until the 1980s and that it was fairly strictly guarded.
There is no evidence whatsoever that any other police force or agency had this document.
And we do have evidence that this specific detail did NOT appear in any of the press reports.
I know it's tough when all the evidence available is without exception stacked against you on this issue, but at some point it seems logical to acknowledge that.
Someone saw the line. Someone knew the box was tin and knew it was empty and used the identical syntax when writing it into the fake diary.
Of course, the line is featured in a number of readily available books (the list of items is even separated out and highlighted in at least one), and they all date from after the 1970s.
Never mind deduction, common sense should tell you something.
And still to this day no one, anywhere, ever, has been able to come up with a scenario that has an old forger knowing this line which is in any way specifically evidenced or even remotely free from simple Imagination.
I think sometimes that it is important not to let what we do know be trumped by fantasy.
Also, if you put this line up next to the precise and specific reference to a modern pub in the very same location, and specific mistakes about the murders found in modern books, and the excerpting of the very same single line from the whole history of human writing in a single modern book (owned by the guy who brought the diary forward) and in the diary, and the complete lack of any verifiable provenance or any real evidence of any sort that tells us the book existed in the correct century, it finally becomes clear that one simple, perfectly logical explanation accounts for all these difficulties and needs no amazing coincidences to be true.
Simple logic tells me, then, that this is probably the correct and obvious explanation.
But maybe I just think differently than other people around here.
Meanwhile, the watch reports announce themselves to be speculative and preliminary at best and therefore still allow, by definition, for this single simple common sense explanation.
But you all already knew that,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on February 15, 2005) |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 444
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 9:58 pm: |
|
The Diary is a hydra-headed document in the sense that while one can (usually only with great effort) raise a plausible argument that a particular element of its contents is possible (say the secret word and Jenni applauds) defenders cannot rest on their laurels because there are still a dozen more sticking points to be explained, each with its own degree of possibility (or, more pointedly, improbability).
In order not to be a hoax, the Diary must satisfactorily explain ALL the various anachronisms and other impediments to acceptance like the handwriting not being that of James Maybrick. And while each individual quibble raised may be just possibly explained, the probability of all being possible approaches the infinitesimal.
The odds against the Diary being genuine are much too great. Of course, whether an old or new hoax might still be argued, but there is one point for those who would plump for an old hoax to consider: Why, if it were at all a product of the 19th century would the hoaxer start with a used scrapbook from which he/she had to remove the first 40 pages?
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 239
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 10:17 pm: |
|
"Why, if it were at all a product of the 19th century would the hoaxer start with a used scrapbook from which he/she had to remove the first 40 pages?"
Of course, it doesn't have to date from the 1880s to be an old hoax, does it? I think the 1920s would do just fine, 1921 plus/minus....
First of all, I would readily agree the Diary is on shaky ground. For better or worse, I can see rebuttals to most of the points raised against it. There are a few things that impress me more in the argument, such as the tin box comment. Poste House doesn't do it for me, and neither does it being an old scrapbook.
If someone is twisted enough to hoax a document for jollies, does it really matter to them what they're writing on? Would they care? Would they say, "Oh, people are going to know that the Ripper was crazed enough to butcher women but he'd have drawn the line at using a scrapbook!!" ?
And let's turn it around: if the hoaxer had done things "properly" and bought an old Victorian diary would you give the Diary more credence?
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 536
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 11:30 pm: |
|
"And I don’t see why I shouldn’t keep asking questions of the modern hoax conspiracy believers regarding both artefacts. "
Caz--No, of course not; which was precisely my original point. We, the skeptics, have foolishly taken to the battlefield. We're taking the onus on ourselves. And you, quite rightly are asking questions. But we need not do this. We've already stated our case. The Sunday Times exposure; the Rendell exposure; the Melvin Harris files. We've been there, done that. I'm just wondering if the Diary could really survive without detractors. If we weren't around, the only thing left would be for the Diary's supporters to present a cohent argument as to why it should be considered a historic document. Has the case for the Diary really advanced any since Feldman's effort? Cheers, RP
Sir Robert--It might be worth remembering that Rod McNeil later withdrew his 1920 +/- estimate. It seems that he couldn't coherently explain to those like Dr. Eastaugh, Rendell, or Robert Smith exactly how his test worked. If it isn't independently repeatable, it isn't science. |
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 499
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 3:42 am: |
|
John
You telling me the City Police, wouldn't have had a copy of there own list?
Don't buy it for a minute.
Rob |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1908
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 4:18 am: |
|
Hi everyone,
from the top.
maybe the City police had a copy of the inventory, maybe, maybe, maybe, certainly they wrote it in the first place right?
let's be clear about something. The met police would know where the breasts were (ie not on the table!!) they wouldn't make such a fundematal error. We cannot reconcile tin match box empty with a met police forgery. let us please be clear on this matter. and if we're assuming that the police shared their info we cannot reconcile it with a City Police forgery either, can we?
I think we need to make a distinction between what you might regard as an old forgery (sorry to throw a spanner in the works) only an old forgery can cover such a large timescale basicaly anything before 1990 so...
an as yet undiscovered newspaper report (well i am the first to admit it's possible but that said) that would be quite a miss.
of course someone stupid would still have to have copied it into the diary word for word. which is harder to believe when they would have had to copy a copy. but possible.
Alan,
you should write that musical it sounds good!!
Jenni
ps hi Don, where did this reputation for saying things are possible come from!? |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1173
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 6:52 am: |
|
Hi Rob,
Perhaps.
But David has written here what would be necessary for anyone prior to the 1980s to get a look at the list.
I don't "buy" the idea that this silly hoax is the product of some police or coroner conspiracy, at any point in time. Especially since there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any sort to support such a flight of pure imagination.
Time and time again this book itself points to its own creation in modern times, after the Poste House (complete with the simply identical upper case proper name) appeared right there in the same place, after the Sphere Guide was published with the same single line excerpted in the same way as the diary, after the inventory list was published and generally available, after the modern books with the mistakes about the murders also made by the diary were published, after the Ryan Maybrick book was published with its own misleading lines and vocabulary that also appear in the diary, etc.
Everything that presents a problem for reading this text as authentic or as written during the correct century even, everything that seems difficult to explain, is explained simply and easily with a single theory. Every dating problem concerning the text is solved when you posit a modern forger.
Simple common sense then begins to tell even a casual reader the obvious. This theory is the logical one.
Unless, for some reason, you don't want it to be.
--John
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 240
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 7:21 am: |
|
"the Rendell exposure;
Hi R.J. !
I think it is worth reading Rendell's chapter on the Diary in his 1994 book "Forging History". While scathing in tone, his argument reduces to "It's absurd to think this could be the Ripper's diary; therefore it's a fake."
I wish the entire chapter could be archived on the Casebook. There's less there than I imagined before buying it. And to put it in context, the chapters on other famous frauds he's debunked are far more analytical and meatier, and it's not simply because he spent more time with the other objects, because in some cases he didn't.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1176
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 8:40 am: |
|
Sir Robert,
Of course, there are some very analytical and meaty chapters archived on the Casebook that patiently go through the diary and the science and demonstrate why the most logical explanation time and time again is that it is a modern forgery. You might not like how they are written (I don't like the tone of several of them), but the meat in the analysis nonetheless remains and is both thorough and detailed.
The link I posted earlier to one of them is a good place to start, since it details nearly all the places the diary poses interpretive problems and the modern sources that account for these difficulties over and over again.
If Rendell leaves you wanting more, it's here.
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1484
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 10:21 am: |
|
Hi Chris P,
In future I am happy to put H 9/3 if it'll stop you reading into my posts stuff that's not there. I don't care whether it's H 9 3 in the watch or H 9/3 - whatever Dr Turgoose meant by this, his stated opinion, after examining the marks under high magnification, was that the 'J' of 'Jack' was made before the H 9/3 and 1275.
I don't know how likely it is that Turgoose could have been entirely mistaken about this. I am open to the possibility that he could have been, simply because I wasn't in his shoes when he was poring over the marks, and don't know enough about such things. By simply posting his report on the message boards, I am no more in a position to endorse anything he wrote than Stephen Ryder is, just because he agreed to scan the reports onto the Casebook.
But as you are the one actively disputing what Dr Turgoose described in his report, and are publicly suggesting that he got it so very wrong, isn't it up to you to try to confirm your doubts about his work?
Hi John,
Every dating problem concerning the text is solved when you posit a modern forger.
And if only someone - anyone - could deposit your modern forger with me, I'd be delighted to offer Robert £2 for the diary, and use it to box the forger's ears. 
Simple common sense then begins to tell even a casual reader the obvious. This theory is the logical one.
Unless, for some reason, you don't want it to be.
Well, I suspect Keith Skinner would love the modern hoax theory to be the only logical, obvious and common sense one for him. But of course, he is a million light years away from being 'a casual reader'.
Don't you ever suffer the slightest little nagging feeling that this perhaps ought to tell the more casual reader (ie every last one of us) something? What does it tell you, I wonder?
Hi RJ,
Lovely idea, but I don't see how you are ever going to persuade 'the detractors' to busy themselves with the more important issues in their lives (like pulling the wings off flies or burning books that annoy them), when they continue to buzz like a swarm of angry wasps around anyone who doesn't immediately dance to their tune.
It can't be that they feel their position is in any way threatened by the occasional poster who asks questions or doesn't entirely agree with one of their arguments. Yet it seems that they would prefer such people to stay away, so they could imagine they don't exist, and would feel better if the diary didn't exist, or had never existed.
Wishing for something one has no control over is a waste of time.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1177
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 10:56 am: |
|
Caroline cites me saying:
Every dating problem concerning the text is solved when you posit a modern forger.
And then she writes:
And if only someone - anyone - could deposit your modern forger with me, I'd be delighted to offer Robert £2 for the diary, and use it to box the forger's ears.
In legal terms, as she probably knows, this comment would be called "non-responsive." It does nothing to change or even challenge the truth value of my original assertion. I'm not surprised by that. But it should be noticed.
And in response to her final line, I would simply restate what I told Sir Robert. Whether we have control or not over what other people do should certainly not prevent us from saying what the right thing to do would be.
Speaking up for learning more is never wrong, whether we can control those who could make it possible or not.
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1912
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 10:57 am: |
|
Caz,
excuse me?
Jenni
ps 5 word rule! |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1914
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 11:29 am: |
|
I should clarify,
Firstly and perhaps most importantly
I have never pulled the wings off of flies.
I wouldn't even burn the diary if I had a chance. i own Paul feldman's book and have no desire to burn it. in fact i get very tetchy about books getting damaged, people writing in books my books getting creased. i really am a sad case!
all in all i'm pretty harmless.
i don't like your description, not only because it is wrong but also because it is misleading.
position? no not worried in the slightest am only too happy to alter my position at any time if the evidence suggests this is a good idea.
maybe keeping a position is what concerns you, but it is the truth which concerns me.
You cannot change what is - so maybe i would prefer it if the diary had never existed (after all i do think it is a modern fake which immorally frames a long dead man for a series of ghastly murders!) but there it is. there's not much you can do about what has already come to pass now is there?
Wishing for something one has no control over probably is a waste of time, but i'm not sure what you are referring to!
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 715
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 11:31 am: |
|
Caroline Anne Morris wrote:
In future I am happy to put H 9/3 if it'll stop you reading into my posts stuff that's not there. I don't care whether it's H 9 3 in the watch or H 9/3 - whatever Dr Turgoose meant by this, his stated opinion, after examining the marks under high magnification, was that the 'J' of 'Jack' was made before the H 9/3 and 1275.
Really I'm just trying to understand why there's any question at all over whether the "/" is part of the "repair mark".
I don't understand why you keep saying "H 9 3", but I think you are wrong to say "I don't care whether it's H 9 3 in the watch or H 9/3".
Turgoose says that he bases his conclusion about the priority of the markings "particularly" on Micrograph 3. This shows the "/" (if it is a "/"), but not the "H", the "9" or the "3". If the repair mark were really just "H 9 3", the main evidence as described by Turgoose would disappear!
But as you are the one actively disputing what Dr Turgoose described in his report, and are publicly suggesting that he got it so very wrong, isn't it up to you to try to confirm your doubts about his work?
As so often, what you say is simply untrue.
In this instance, you are the one making the claim (frequently) that the "repair marks" were made after the Maybrick marks.
All I have done is to ask if anyone else can see the features in the micrographs that are supposed to demonstrate this. Indeed, I have specifically said that I'm not claiming that the micrographs show the opposite - only that I think they are hard to interpret.
Now - am I safe in assuming that you can't see these features for yourself in the micrographs, and that you are simply taking Turgoose's word on this?
Chris Phillips
|
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 500
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 3:26 pm: |
|
Hi John,
I never said I believed the diary was hoaxed by a policeman or coroner. I am just pointing out that there could be at least two copies of the inventory. As we know the Metropolitan files have been looked at long before they were opened officially, so why not the City Police files.
Quick question for you, do you know why the Poste House (the one thats there now)was named that?
Hi Jenni,
If you were going to mutilate someone (hypothetically speaking, don't go out and do this)and you placed the body parts in various places, would you remember where you put them? maybe/maybe not. If you didn't you could always find out by reading the newspapers.
Rob |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1917
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 4:19 pm: |
|
Hey Rob,
yes i would which is why i say it!
Jenni |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1182
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 4:36 pm: |
|
Hi Rob,
Well, you'd need at least a little bit of evidence to support that particular claim. And so far no one that I know has ever discovered any.
And to answer your question about the pub -- Yes, or at least I have the stories that some have reported here. But the proper name remains the proper name, in upper case, there in Liverpool exactly as it is in the diary and as it was not before the 1960s.
Sometimes, the words simply mean exactly what they say.
Just like sometimes a text is not written in anything close to someone's known and verified handwriting simply because that person didn't write it.
Just like sometimes a text makes basic mistakes about the murders simply because the writer didn't commit the murders.
Just like sometimes a text makes basic mistakes about the history simply because the person writing it wasn't there.
Just like sometimes a text quotes verbatim a line from a published document simply because the person who wrote the text saw the document.
Just like sometimes a text has no verifiable provenance and there's no evidence that it even existed in the proper century simply because it didn't.
Sometimes the obvious and simple explanations, when each and every time they lead to the same conclusion, are the best ones.
Sometimes X just means X.
I know that's dull. I know that's no fun. But sometimes it's what we have.
In the name of common sense and the logic of the obvious,
--John
PS: Hi Jenni.
(Message edited by omlor on February 16, 2005) |
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 501
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 5:26 pm: |
|
Hi John
I suppose "tens of years" must mean "tens of years" then  .
If only it was that simple.
I got the impression from your post, that you believe I think the diary is genuine, I don't.
While I am leaning towards an old hoax at the moment, I would rather check all sides (modern hoax, old hoax and genuine) and all arguments.
There are just as many unanswered question to the modern hoax theory as there is to the old hoax theory.
I have my own theories about the Poste House, which I know you will disagree with as illogical, but they are logical to me. I wont waste the time posting them as in the end you wont convince me and I wont convince you.
Rob |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1184
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 5:40 pm: |
|
Rob,
It doesn't just say "tens of years." You do need to read the rest of the sentences, after all. And then, yes, the words there mean exactly what they say as well. And they are anything but definitive and even announce their own incompleteness.
And I'm sorry about the impression you got. I wasn't suggesting you thought one way or another about the diary. I was making a simple point about logic and common sense and explanations.
This sentence, however, you do not support:
"There are just as many unanswered question to the modern hoax theory as there is to the old hoax theory."
If you read the lengthy set of dissertations on the Casebook about the Maybrick hoaxes, you'll see that the modern hoax theory answers a great number of questions, nearly all of them in fact, quite neatly.
There is no old hoax explanation yet, since no one has done the work. No one has offered any similar set of explanations and evidenced scenarios. No one has ever in any written form that I have ever seen, sat down and comprehensively made a believable case explaining exactly how an old hoax would work, accounting for all the textual problems including the matchbox line and the proper naming in upper case of exactly the right pub in exactly the right place and the Crashaw line being in both books and the mistakes being the same as the ones in modern sources and the complete lack of any verifiable provenance whatsoever and all the rest.
No one has ever done that, here or anywhere else that I have ever seen.
The modern hoax scenarios have nowhere near this many problems and in fact a modern reading explains all of these particular items quite neatly.
Of course, if you'd care to be the one who finally does for an old hoax scenario the same sort of detailed and thorough and careful construction that Melvin Harris, for instance, offers of the modern account on the dissertations page, I'd love to read it. Let's see just how many problems an old hoax theory can simply and clearly and obviously explain.
I don't think there will be any comparison in the end. But the results should be fascinating.
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 719
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 5:45 pm: |
|
Robert Clack
There are just as many unanswered question to the modern hoax theory as there is to the old hoax theory.
I'd be interested to hear what you feel the difficulties are with a modern hoax.
Also - for that matter - your theories about the Poste House.
Chris Phillips
|
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 502
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 6:33 pm: |
|
Hi John, Chris
John you said "There is no old hoax explanation yet, since no one has done the work."
That's exactly why I am asking questions and getting all the answers I can. If I don't get satisfactory answers to support an old hoax, then I will change my mind, it doesn't bother me if I am wrong, I've got no ego.
Okay, problem with modern hoax. If Mike Barrett was involved in the hoax, why when he announced to the world that he hoaxed the diary did he not mention that he owned the Sphere book? You would have thought owning up to having a copy of the Sphere book would have added to his credibility, but no he waited to several months later to tell people he actually owned it.
What was the point of the hoax? certainly not for profit. No one has benefitted from it have they? It's left a trail of broken lives like a mummy's curse.
Chris, my Poste House theory is very simple. I've got no problem in believing that there was a pub, inn or hotel that was called by that name by the local population. I just don't have a problem excepting that. The reason I asked John if he knew why the Poste House is called that was because the Poste House might have been traditionally called that and it was made official. I do have an idea where it was, but it needs more research. I've got a feeling I may be wrong, but i'll keep digging.
What convinces me most about a modern hoax is the timing(pun not intended)in which the watch first appeared.
Rob |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1185
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 11:17 pm: |
|
Hi Rob,
First of all, I think it's interesting that's it now over ten years later and no one has yet detailed the old hoax case in any specific or evidenced way. It's all just vague "what-ifs" at the moment. That's not the case with its alternative, as you can see on the Casebook site.
Second of all, saying that the case has been made in detail for the diary being composed in modern times is not the same thing as saying Mike Barrett composed it. The text demonstrably points over and over again to a modern moment of composition. But the evidence that would be needed to identify Mike as the modern composer has certainly not been offered by anyone. The two propositions should not be confused.
Also, asking why Mike Barrett would or would not do anything becomes pointless once you learn even a little about the man and the way he has behaved for the past decade.
And there are plenty of possible motives for such a hoax besides money. A quick look at hoaxes of the past tells us that. Someone might very well be laughing at us even as we write this. And that may be an end in itself. Of course, it may also be a for-profit scheme that went awry, a badly handled plan created by less that rational individuals whose behaviors proved less than predictable the consequence of which was that no one made the money they thought they might. Be assured, though, people did make money.
As for the Poste House -- it's one of the few moments where the diarist is careful to make the name a proper name, to capitalize it as well as employ the unique spelling, as if that was the official proper name of the pub and not just the casual one. And remember, that's exactly the proper name of the pub that's right there in the same town, and we know it used to be called something entirely different. So either this is a truly amazing historical coincidence, an accident of writing that defies all odds, or the pub referred to by that proper name with that unique spelling and capitalization is simply the same pub that is right there in that same town with that unique spelling and capitalization.
Now what's the most obvious and simple common sense explanation?
Anyway, read the dissertations on the Casebook site, pay attention to the details in them, ignore the inflammatory rhetoric and look carefully at the references they offer, and you'll see that one explanation accounts for all the textual difficulties. Meanwhile, the alternative case has never even been made.
That alone tells you something.
Waiting for the work to appear, just like we've been waiting for the proper tests to be done,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on February 16, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 720
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 3:26 am: |
|
Robert
Thanks for letting us have your thoughts.
I think in fairness you must admit those two questions don't really amount to "just as many unanswered questions" as with the old hoax theory.
I think Barrett's ability to identify the Crashaw quotation is very strong evidence that he was involved in some way in the production of the diary. The odds against a random quotation from Crashaw, used by a pre-Sphere-Book faker, being selected for display in the Sphere Book, then being luckily found there by Barrett, are obviously huge.
What exactly Barrett's involvement was, and why he behaved as he did, I don't claim to understand.
As for "What was the point?", surely the same question can be asked whenever the diary was faked.
Chris, my Poste House theory is very simple. I've got no problem in believing that there was a pub, inn or hotel that was called by that name by the local population. I just don't have a problem excepting that. The reason I asked John if he knew why the Poste House is called that was because the Poste House might have been traditionally called that and it was made official. I do have an idea where it was, but it needs more research. I've got a feeling I may be wrong, but i'll keep digging.
If I remember correctly, the current Poste House was named after a nearby post office which post-dates 1888.
People arguing that the diary may be an old fake (or genuine) generally suggest that it was a different pub known by this nickname, or else that Maybrick was just referring to the pub in question as a "post house", and using idiosyncratic spelling and capital letters.
As with all these explanations, it's impossible absolutely to disprove it. What makes me sceptical is that "The Post(e) House" is an extremely rare name for a pub, so that its otherwise undocumented duplication in the same city - "olde worlde" spelling and all - is extremely suspicious.
Chris Phillips
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 778
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 3:50 am: |
|
Just a point but in a very brief five minute trawl on the internet I found the following pubs called the Post House
Bridge Road Cambridge
Sproughton, Ipswich
Ipswich Road, Norwich
High Road, Epping
Cliff Road, Plymouth
Northney Road, Hayling Island
Singledge Road, Whitfield, Dover
Povey Cross Road, Horley
Southwold Road, Bexley
Purley Way, Croydon
Bostocks Lane, Nottingham
Emerson District, Washington
Granted it's not as common a name as the Kings Head or the Rose and Crown, but "extremely rare" it most certainly isn't.
"All I know of morality, I learned from football" - Albert Camus
Visit my website - http://www.ashbooks.co.uk/
|
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 503
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 5:15 am: |
|
Hi John, Chris, Alan
John, I mention Mike Barrett, because you seem to make a big deal out of him owning both the Sphere book and the Diary.
John you said "There are two books with that single line from that single poem by that single author excerpted and cited within them. Mike Barrett owned them both."
To me you are clearly implying Mike Barrett of some involvement in the Diary. If I am wrong then could you clarify what you meant please.
Chris, your probably right there.
"Mrs Hammersmith" is a problem. This name doesn't appear in any books that I know of. Wouldn't it be easier to take a look at the 1881 or possibly 1891(depending on when a modern hoax was done) census, and choosing a genuine name?
What research I have done into Post Houses is that they appear to be fairly common up to the mid nineteenth century and were slowly dying out by the 1880s. The ones I found so far are spelt with out the 'e'.
I haven't ruled out finding a Post House in Liverpool yet.
This is an 1846 advertisement.
Rob |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1919
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 5:16 am: |
|
Hi Alan
and let me try to get in first here.
how many were called the PostE House!
Jenni |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1920
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 5:23 am: |
|
Hi Rob,
exactly, i agree, there may well have been a Poste House in Liverpool. In fact really i don't think it would be that surprising if 1888/9 Liverpool contained a Poste House, or rather a post house, either way, and that's why if it was the only factor that seemed to point to a modern hoax i wouldn't be happy.
but hey it's not!
Cheers
Jenni
and since you ask
1891
Hammersmith, Annie 17 location, Shropshire / Salop info location Warwickshire
Hammersmith, Emma E 59 London info location London
Hammersmith, Helen E 27 London info location London
Hammersmith, Henry 28 London info location London
Hammersmith, John H 54 London info location London
Hammersmith, Mary A
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
