|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 803
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 8:32 am: | 
|
Okay, now that John has actually responded to the point I made rather than his own made up one I can respond properly. The phrase "a giant leap forward" was the part of the sentence I was commenting on, which as you will see from the post above, was reported pretty accurately. The phrase "browbeating someone into submission" was really intended as a general comment on the normal behaviour of the more vocal elements of the anti-diary camp around here, though I admit Chris would not be the one most commonly guilty of that offence.
I thought you weren't posting here any more John? It's been nice and peaceful. People posting their comments politely, interesting points being made on both sides of the argument, actual debate taking place for a change. Still, I guess all good things must come to an end.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me" - Hunter S. Thompson (1939-2005)
Visit my website - http://www.ashbooks.co.uk/
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 765
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 8:53 am: |
|
Alan
And incidentally I understood your original point, I wasn't arguing with that, merely with the additional comment you tacked on to your original point, that being that browbeating somebody into submission would be a giant leap forward. It would not. If you want somebody to agree with you, it has to be because they have reached that conclusion for themselves and not just because it makes for a quieter life.
I was certainly not suggesting "browbeating" anyone into "submission", and didn't say any of the other words you put into my mouth either.
But thanks for reminding me why I've been avoiding the diary threads these last few weeks, anyway.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1237
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 9:12 am: |
|
Hey, whattayaknow, there's the author himself saying exactly what I thought the words said.
Imagine that.
Alan tries an Aztec two-step, claiming that even though he was responding to Chris, he was actually talking about other people and other posts.
So let's go to the videotape, shall we:
"And incidentally I understood your original point, I wasn't arguing with that, merely with the additional comment you tacked on to your original point, that being that browbeating somebody into submission would be a giant leap forward."
That's what Alan wrote.
Read it again, closely.
Yup. The phrase "browbeating someone into submission" is clearly identified as "the additional comment that you [Chris] tacked on to your [Chris's] original point."
So Alan is simply rewriting now what he clearly originally said, pretending it meant something else. And, of course, hoping we won't go back and read the actual words.
Unfortunately, the text remains quite clear, he was claiming that Chris's comment which, according to Alan, Chris "tacked onto his original point," had something to do with "browbeating somebody into submission."
Of course, it didn't. So the question becomes why would Alan want us to think it did? Why would he translate Chris's point in such a deliberately volatile and inaccurate way?
I have no answer for that.
But it does remind me exactly how things work around here, what sort of reading some people practice and why it's so much fun being a part of the show.
That's why I'm here and not going away. There's just too much fun to be had with stuff like this, where words can mean whatever you want them to mean and where reading is such a creative act.
Besides, I'm still waiting for Paul's "evidence" on another thread, so while I wait, I thought this was as good a place as any to kill some time.
Enjoying performing for the crowd,
--John |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 804
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 12:30 pm: |
|
My apologies John. After all I would hate to be accused of applying a double standard. I'm sure you would never in a million years make a statement which wasn't entirely accurate and when pulled up on it claim to have been making rhetorical jokes and insist that anyone who didn't understand that was being too literal.
So plainly I should have stated very very clearly so that everyone would understand exactly what I meant and not think that I was accusing someone of attempting to browbeat someone in a single sentence rather than over an accumulation of a great deal of time.
So I apologise unreservedly. Otherwise, why anyone would think that every time anyone appeared on these boards trying to discuss or debate the diary a posse descended on his head with cries of "we discussed all this years ago, read the old message boards on the cd and accept everything we say as gospel truth and never ever ever again try to think for yourself!" That would never do, would it?
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me" - Hunter S. Thompson (1939-2005)
Visit my website - http://www.ashbooks.co.uk/
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1238
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 1:43 pm: |
|
I'll take that rather long winded bit of sarcasm (something I know a lot about, being a devoted practitioner) as an elaborate way of saying that Chris never was recommending "browbeating" anybody into anything.
Cool.
At least that's one thing settled.
And people say we never progress around here.
Perhaps it's just the Easter spirit.
Meanwhile, just for good measure:
"What matters now is that this is not the end of the process, is that this marks only the beginning of a responsible and rigorous new testing regime which includes a state-of-the-art, thorough chemical analysis of the ink and the sort of independent examinations and comparisons with the record recently called for by RJ.
The goal is still what it always has been, learn as much as possible about the document."
Someone wrote that above and I agree wholeheartedly with it.
Have a wonderful Sunday and a fruitful week everyone.
From the land of hoaxes,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1599
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 7:31 am: |
|
Hi John,
You wrote it (and have already called for: ‘a state-of-the-art, thorough chemical analysis of the ink’ several times now), so adding that you ‘agree wholeheartedly with it’ typifies this love affair you have with the sound of your own voice.
It’s a great pity that you haven’t used that mighty voice of yours to apologise to your long-suffering readers for all that ‘time of the month’ belly-aching you indulged in - an unselfconscious exercise if ever there was one in bizarre and petty point-scoring that can now be seen for what it was: a series of own goals. Whining on about the inevitability of nothing new ever happening, and every month Jenni watched you making a bigger and bigger ass of yourself with your ‘monthlies’. I advise a couple of paracetamols in the run-up to 14th to ward off PMT.
No wonder things like "the Poste House" and "tin matchbox empty" don't have to mean "the Poste House" and "tin matchbox empty" but can mean other things with words added or letters changed.
Sorry, but your ‘words added or letters changed’ argument works against you when you try to apply it to the empty tin match box. You see, in the list this item is described:
1 Tin Match Box, empty.
In the diary, the item appears as a try-out line for a subsequent verse of poetry:
tin match box empty
You argue that ‘the Poste House’ can only mean the Poste House in Cumberland Street because the spellings and capital letters are rendered identically (ignoring the clear evidence that the diarist spells post with an e elsewhere in the document, and the fact that many establishments offering refreshment and/or close to postal facilities have been known traditionally as the post house or Post House, including the Old Post Office pub in School Lane, which was officially called The Post Office Tavern in 1888, and is situated right where the young Maybrick grew up); then you argue that the diary’s ‘tin match box empty’ must have been lifted from the list’s ‘1 Tin Match Box, empty’, despite the obvious differences between the entries.
Hi Chris P,
I’m sorry, but you’ll have to help me here. I don’t recall ever posting that I was ‘quite satisfied not only that the diary was a hoax, but that the "tin match box empty" line indicated that it was a more modern hoax than the 1970s’.
Nor do I recall ever stating ‘quite clearly’, or even vaguely, that my "pet theory" was that it was faked in the 1970s, but that the "tin match box empty" evidence pointed to a later fake.
I have always had trouble with the modern hoax theories, partly because none of the creation scenarios involving Mike Barrett and/or his associates stand up once you dare to penetrate the wafer-thin surface of suspicion IMHO, and partly because none of the watch evidence, scientific or circumstantial, points to the scratches being hoaxed in 1993, by one of Albert's close associates, again IMHO.
When we get the results of RJ’s proposal (and from personal experience I know how long these labours of love can often take to organise and make happen) I will not run from the implications if the ink has been changing colour, or has been gradually bronzing over the last ten years while the debates have raged. And I trust the modern hoax theorists will do likewise and hang around if the verdict is that the ink has not changed at all. I’m incredibly curious to know how this one will be explained away if it proves to be the case.
I certainly don’t recall ever warming to the idea that the diary was created in the 1970s, so I don’t know where you got that from. I’m pretty certain this would never have been a ‘pet theory’ of mine. Perhaps you are muddling me up with someone else. I can tell you for nothing that I currently think a 1970s creation is one of the least likely possibilities.
Anyway, in the absence of any proof of the age of the diary and watch scratches, I reserve the right not to ‘accept’ - or reject - anyone else’s pet theory in the meantime. I don’t see what is wrong with not having or pushing a fully-formed theory, being agnostic and continuing to monitor the situation and challenge arguments that I don’t find totally convincing, until such time as the ongoing investigations bear some real fruit.
Why would I want to stick my neck out before I have sight of all the answers?
If you want to stick your own neck out, carry on, but the more you write on the subject, the less you are tempting me to do the same.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on March 28, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 766
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 8:14 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
I’m sorry, but you’ll have to help me here. I don’t recall ever posting that I was ‘quite satisfied not only that the diary was a hoax, but that the "tin match box empty" line indicated that it was a more modern hoax than the 1970s’.
Nor do I recall ever stating ‘quite clearly’, or even vaguely, that my "pet theory" was that it was faked in the 1970s, but that the "tin match box empty" evidence pointed to a later fake.
...
I’m pretty certain this would never have been a ‘pet theory’ of mine. Perhaps you are muddling me up with someone else. I can tell you for nothing that I currently think a 1970s creation is one of the least likely possibilities.
Really?
As I already said, this came from your posts on the old boards on the Casebook CD, A.D. 2000 or thereabouts.
Unfortunately I don't have access to my copy of the CD at the moment, but I believe you did actually use the phrase "pet theory", so it shouldn't be too hard to find the post in question.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on March 28, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1239
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 8:15 am: |
|
Heh heh...
I knew someone would point out the author of those wise words. I couldn't have dreamt it would be Caroline, though.
Well, there's no pulling the wool over some eyes.
She should rest assured that the monthly DiTA reports will of course continue. They are the place, once a month, where we can all go and learn if there are indeed any new results of any tests on either the diary or the watch. These latest results, even though they tell us nothing new, will of course be reported. Also, Figment will still return every month to see if the new testing regime I am confident is now beginning has produced a thorough state-of-the-art chemical analysis of the ink and if RJ's proposal for a series of observational comparisons of the ink with the record have produced any interesting information. Remember, this is not the end of anything, only the beginning, we hope.
Then comes more praying and hoping that the phrase that appears in the diary and also appears in an unpublished police report unavailable to the public until modern times might somehow have gotten into the book some other way (of course, no other believable scenario is offered because none exists) and that the the precise, uniquely spelled and capitalized proper modern name of a pub might somehow have gotten into the diary some other way (of course no other believable scenario is offered because none exists).
It's the same old song and dance of incredible coincidences that has been going on for years, but the words in the diary and the words in the modern Ripper books and the name of the pub all remain the same and so the evidence remains the same (there is none that actually suggests this book is old, by the way) and this hoax is still a hoax.
The rest of her post is directed to Chris and seems to be saying that she doesn't know for sure when the diary was created, which I believe was what all four posters on this thread yesterday were saying about her position as well. But I hope Chris rises to the bait. We need another good, irrelevant, pointless and trivial argument about nothing in particular. It makes the day fun.
Having a fine Monday already,
--John
PS: Chris and I cross-posted. Well, now I hope that Caroline comes back with some reply insisting that she never said what Chris is saying she said. Oh, and something about me, too, just so I can stay involved.
(Message edited by omlor on March 28, 2005) |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 590
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 9:16 am: |
|
John,
After everyone else gets that you've been dead wrong for months and insulting people for not doing what they actually were doing, you still want to post more DiTA nonsense and purple dragons? Have you no shame?
Your actions do nothing to support the testing of the diary. It's clear from your posts to those threads and when you rudely claim that comparisons to tests of the Shorud of Turin are false analogies (showing only you don't comprehend or respect the analogies being made) that your only goal here is to mock anyone and everyone who disagrees with you, even those who would normally be on your side on most issues.
Did posting pictures of a cartoon dragon every month get the diary tested? No. Is there any way any honest person could claim that doing so would lead to diary testing? No. Is there any reason at all for anyone to pay attention to anything you say at this point until you admit that you were acting like a spoiled brat and that you were wrong? Not that I can think of, no.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Lonely Guy
Police Constable
Username: Lonelyguy
Post Number: 9
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 9:27 am: |
|
In the interests of sanity.....
I am a newbie here but a 'Ripperologist'of long standing. I have read most of the posts here concerning the Maybrick diary and whilst I realise that I am obviously far less expert than a lot of the people here (as they would have one believe) I have an observation to make...
It is extremely difficult (impossible?) to prove that an old document is genuine... BUT, it is very easy to prove that an old document is a fake. Hence - the Hitler diary was easily proved to be a forgery within six weeks. Despite what I read here the Maybrick diary HAS been examined and tested in many ways by many people in many fields - and not one DEFINITIVE forger's error has been found proving that it is not what it seems to be.
It may well be that it will never be possible to prove that the diary is genuine - but, by now, it should have been proven to be a fake - if that is what it is... Ergo, is it not time to change the mind set of our research into it and assume it to be genuine until proof of it's forgery appears?
Some will say, in horror, assume it to be genuine? - never. But, remember, many of the people who now support the diary as being genuine began from a position of scepticism. Perhaps the best way to find anything that would conclusively prove it to be a fake is to assume it to be genuine, look upon it as a confession and investigate the crimes in the light of the killer's claims. I believe that this is the method that law enforcement agents use to examine the many confessions they receive and soon find flaws pointing to the confession being false....
yes, I know some false confessions have resulted in miscarriages of justice but the fact is we know about them - a false confession is always found out - eventually.
catch me if you can
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1601
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 9:50 am: |
|
Hi Chris P,
I would really like to be proved wrong on this one if I am wrong - I'm going to need a visit to the doctor if it turns out I said anything resembling:
My "pet theory" is that the diary was faked in the 1970s, but the "tin match box empty" evidence points to a later fake.
It just doesn't sound like anything I have ever thought, or argued for, or believed.
Even in the earliest days, I'm certain I was posting nothing but doubts about the theory that the diary is a late 20th century artefact, and pointing out to anyone who would listen the implications if both watch reports had reached an accurate conclusion (at least several tens of years old), which would in turn support Voller's professional opinion on the age of the diary writing (90+ years), and confirm Keith Skinner's instincts, and Robert Smith's beliefs, that this is indeed an old document - old, as in decades before the 1970s.
But if I have ever gone down the path you suggest, I'd like to know when and where it happened. It shouldn't matter to anyone else what 'pet theories' I may have had in the past, but it matters to me if I've claimed one that I don't even remember considering!
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1240
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 9:56 am: |
|
Hi Dan.
Your first paragraph asks me two questions. The answers are 1. Yes and 2. No.
The DiTA thread has always been about watching and waiting for and referring readers to results. It still is.
Thanks for your opinions concerning my "actions." I have always called for and supported testing of any sort and I still do, of course.
I won't debate the efficacy of the DiTA thread with you. I see no reason to. But I am quite happy with what has happened and see no reason to apologize or change anything at all.
Sorry to disappoint you.
Lonely guy,
Just to take one simple point -- the handwriting in the diary is clearly not anything at all like the dozen or so samples we now have of the authenticated handwriting of the real James Maybrick. Why? Obviously, because the real James Maybrick did not write it.
Given that, if you want to "assume it's genuine," feel free. But it will be an illogical and intellectually unsound assumption.
Best of luck,
--John
PS: Using your "treat it as a real confession" theory -- what would a confession that contains simple mistakes about the details of the murders tell you? I hope it's not that the killer just couldn't remember what really happened, or this method is already doomed to failure. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 288
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 10:17 am: |
|
"Your actions do nothing to support the testing of the diary."
I'd argue that the ranting would actually make testing less likely. If I were Robert Smith and/or Albert, and I read these posts, I'd say "why bother, it's a kangaroo court." Fortunately, it appears that Smith is a bigger man than I'd be in the face of slander and libel.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1602
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 10:21 am: |
|
Hi Lonely Guy,
Actually, I've never figured out why almost every modern hoax theorist has been prepared to believe that Mike Barrett's flaw-filled written confessions were genuine, or at least based on some genuine involvement in the diary's creation.
I remain sceptical as all hell that Mike has ever told the truth about how he really came by the diary.
Love,
Caz
X |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 805
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 10:28 am: |
|
John, by all means continue to post your pathetically puerile purple dragons. It serves as a constant reminder to everybody just how seriously the rest of what you say should be taken.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me" - Hunter S. Thompson (1939-2005)
Visit my website - http://www.ashbooks.co.uk/
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1242
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 10:49 am: |
|
Works for me, Alan. I already assume that's how some people around here read anyway.
Sad to see the Easter spirit has left us. The DiTA spirit, however, has always been a joyous one, even from the very first entry.
--John
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1243
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 10:52 am: |
|
Caroline,
How about "James Maybrick's" flaw-filled confessions?
Do you also agree with Lonely Guy that we should assume they are genuine?
Just wondering,
--John |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1245
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 12:29 pm: |
|
One more little question...
Lonely Guy writes:
"But, remember, many of the people who now support the diary as being genuine began from a position of scepticism."
Without wanting to sound too much like Jerry Seinfeld, I would like to ask:
"Who are these people?"
Genuinely curious,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 767
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 12:41 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
But if I have ever gone down the path you suggest, I'd like to know when and where it happened. It shouldn't matter to anyone else what 'pet theories' I may have had in the past, but it matters to me if I've claimed one that I don't even remember considering!
As you're so concerned about it, I'll try to find the post when I have access to the disc again.
Unless you want to check for it yourself, of course. As I said, I think you did actually use the phrase "pet theory", and the date would be about 2000, in one of the Maybrick threads. It shouldn't take long to find.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 769
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 12:49 pm: |
|
Lonely Guy
It is extremely difficult (impossible?) to prove that an old document is genuine... BUT, it is very easy to prove that an old document is a fake. Hence - the Hitler diary was easily proved to be a forgery within six weeks. Despite what I read here the Maybrick diary HAS been examined and tested in many ways by many people in many fields - and not one DEFINITIVE forger's error has been found proving that it is not what it seems to be.
But in any other case the fact that the handwriting in the diary doesn't match known samples of Maybrick's writing would have been accepted as proof that it wasn't genuine.
The difference is not in the quality of the evidence, but in the strength of some people's desire to believe in the diary.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on March 28, 2005) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 289
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 1:05 pm: |
|
Unfortunately the handwriting in the Diary doesn't fit Mike Barrett's either....
"the strength of some people's desire to believe in the diary"
Fortunately, I don't see many of those people posting here.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 770
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 1:53 pm: |
|
Sir Robert
Unfortunately the handwriting in the Diary doesn't fit Mike Barrett's either....
So what?
The fact that it doesn't match Maybrick's handwriting shows it's a hoax.
If it doesn't match Barrett's hadwriting, all that shows is that he wasn't the hoaxer (or rather, that he wasn't the one who held the pen).
Fortunately, I don't see many of those people posting here.
Fortunately, not many, but Lonely Guy seems to have appeared as if on cue to underline the point I made previously - that some people here don't accept that the diary isn't genuine.
Just as Caroline Morris says she doesn't have enough evidence to conclude it's not genuine - "Why would I want to stick my neck out before I have sight of all the answers?", she says ...!
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 290
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 2:54 pm: |
|
"So what?"
So everything. Barrett brought the document forward, and later claimed he hoaxed it. I think it is reasonable to say that he would be our primary suspect as the culprit, except for the inconvenient point that he can't replicate the handwriting.
As I have said many times, I feel comfortable in saying that there are 3 individuals that did not write the Diary: JtR, Maybrick, and Barrett.
"The fact that it doesn't match Maybrick's handwriting shows it's a hoax."
A reasonable statement indeed. But it's far from clear that this is a modern hoax, and the older you assume the date of the hoax, some connection with the Maybricks is possible. The Dairy as a hoax doesn't preclude someone having thought Maybrick was the Ripper or simply wanting to besmirch him. Personally, I lean towards the thought of the Diary as a old hoax, done for private reasons ,and never intended for public consumption.
"some people here don't accept that the diary isn't genuine"
Some people don't accept Stride as a victim, yet the Stride threads aren't carpet bombed.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 771
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 3:22 pm: |
|
Sir Robert
We really seem to be going round and round in circles over this. Just to be clear:
(1) Saying the diary wasn't written by Barrett isn't equivalent to saying it's genuine. Nor is it equivalent to saying it's not a modern hoax. Nor is it equivalent to saying Barrett wasn't involved.
(2) You may "lean towards" an old hoax theory, but for such a leaning to be meaningful, I think you should have some way of reconciling this with the occurrence of the phrase "tin match box empty" and Barrett's identification of the Crashaw quotation. Both of those are strong indications that the hoax is a modern one.
Unless your leaning is a mere whim, surely you should at least be able to point to some sort of evidence in support of its being old rather than new.
(4) As to "carpet bombing", I'm afraid I feel these endless complaints about people putting the anti-Maybrick case are a bit silly.
We seem to have quite a number of people queuing up to bash John Omlor over the head, for consistently saying that these artefacts should be properly tested, and for highlighting (albeit in a rather lighthearted way) the length of time that's gone by without that happening.
I'd have a lot more time for these people if they showed any actual willingness to discuss the evidence pro or con. But many of them seem to want to float around in a woolly limbo where anything's possible, taking the occasional side-swipe at those who do take the trouble to look at the evidence and ask awkward questions.
Chris Phillips
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 797
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 5:41 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
I suppose there's a tone people object to, but it seems to me that John's following the advice of Frederick Douglass ("agitate"). I suppose you're bound to cheese off a few people going that route; after all, no one likes being agitated, particularly if their reputation has been questioned. But I don't think it takes anything away from Jennifer and Robert to say that I suspect there would not have been any new testing without John. John won't get any credit for that though because he's an agitator.
While we're talking about reputations and tone, did you know that Shirley Harrison described him as a dunce in a piece for Ripperologist? Not by name (that wouldn't be polite) but it's clear who she was talking about. It's up on this site.
To be fair, Melvin Harris was probably king of the insult. I respect Melvin's research, but I never understood how calling Martin Fido "Tricky Fido" enhanced his point. I hear from people I respect that Melvin was a kind and helpful person. I wish we'd had more of that here.
Chris, I used to frequent a particular pub for my usual Wednesday night drink. There was a Joe Pesci-type who also liked to come in there. He had a really curious idea of entertainment. One of his favorite things to do was play something he called "The Dick Game". The game consisted of this fellow going around and sneaking in really hard punches to his friends' privates before skipping away and shouting "it's the Dick Game!" Finally, one night the bartender (who was sick of being an unwilling participant) retaliated with a massive shot of his own--it really was a tremendous blow. It was such a shot that it made the Pesci-guy double so far over that a surprising thing happened. His toupee flew off. The toupee was a surprise; no one knew he wore one. What was most interesting about that, I thought, is that Pesci-guy's hands instinctively flew to his toupee instead of his balls. I suppose his pride was in his rug. Some people have different priorities.
We've been playing The Dick Game for a long time now. I think the debate pretty much boils down to so much toupee-grabbing, but I do think John has been trying to point out that there's a more critical question--scholarship.
You cannot be for scholarship in Ripperology 85% of the time but have an open mind towards a document with no provenance 15% of the time.
Dave |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1402
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 6:12 pm: |
|
Hi all
First of all I have been around here since the time of the old message boards in 1998 and I honestly cannot remember Caroline Morris or anyone claiming that the Maybrick Diary dated from the 1970s. I stand to be proven wrong on this, and perhaps Chris Phillips can come up with a quote from someone making the case for the Diary to date from that time. However, I really can't think of why the 1970s particularly might be chosen -- for example, I don't recall any disco references in the Diary. 
To John Omlor: We are often in the same corner, my friend, arguing against revisionist ideas that "tin match box empty" could be anything other than an evident reference to the police list of Eddowes' possessions, and that "Poste House" is anything other than a reference to the modern-day Liverpool pub of that name. But, John, I really wish you would drop your childish DiTA and the purple dragon and return to an adult level of conversation. Please.
Best regards
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1246
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 9:28 pm: |
|
OK people,
Reality check here.
Let's get some perspective.
Diary World is a place where, by and large, people gather on the internet to argue over whether an obviously fake book with no verifiable provenance whatsoever and in the completely wrong handwriting was created in the 19th or 20th century.
Pardon me if sometimes I have a hard time taking such a thing all that seriously or understand how anyone can see what we do here, when we all come together day after day, week after week, month after month and do nothing but repeat ourselves ad nauseum (all of us) for no practical purpose, as anything but amusingly odd.
Of course the diary and the watch should be given the full range of available tests of every kind in order to learn everything we can about them. David is right about the importance of scholarship and full access to the complete range of objective data.
But honestly, isn't this all just a little goofy, even goofier in fact than obsessively discussing who committed a two hundred year old set of murders? At least there we have some real history to discuss. Diary World is, for the most part, just sham conversations about sham questions concerning an obvious sham.
So why not have some fun?
And monitor the available test results at the same time?
Some of you have objected to the DiTA thread and its tone, calling it everything from "childish" to "slander" and even "puerile" (one poster's favorite derogatory adjective apparently). Putting aside whether or not I think these are amusing over-reactions and whether or not I think the thread has had an effect and what that effect might or might not be in the future or has been in the past, I would say only this.
There is a very simple and elegant solution.
If you don't like the tone and the dragon and the attitude and the words and the findings and the balloons and the seriousness and the silliness and all the rest of the stuff found on that thread...
Don't read it.
It's really pretty easy. You just don't click on that one thread title which reads "Check This Space." No one is harmed if you don't read it. No damage is done to me or to anyone else if you don't read it. I'm fine with you not reading it.
I'm sure, given what many of you say, that you have better things to read, even right here on these boards.
Meanwhile, there are still tests to be done (I hope) and still reports to be announced (I hope) on both artefacts and I see no compelling reason why Figment shouldn't be around to point to them.
What we do here is basically trivial and even humorous, in a very fundamental level, people. Surely you all realize that.
Alan, for God's sake, you have a quote from Hunter in your sig line. And you're objecting to the tone in the DiTA thread?
Anyway, I have to say that I'm amused by all this attention. But please remember, it's one post a month on one single thread among forty-one separate and different threads on the diary alone. You can always skip that thread that day and be the better person for it.
Now back to arguing about...
Well, you tell me.
--John (and Figment, Diary World's official mascot)
PS: Chris G., thanks for the reasoned and respectful suggestion. I'm sorry about this response. It is not directed at you, but at the situation. I think many tones, including the adult and the childish are at different times appropriate around here and that a little rhetorical variation can be both provocative (read this thread) and simply fun. I'm sorry we don't quite agree about that.
(Message edited by omlor on March 28, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 772
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 2:59 am: |
|
Chris
I honestly cannot remember Caroline Morris or anyone claiming that the Maybrick Diary dated from the 1970s.
I shall check when I get the chance, but it won't be for a while.
As I said, if anyone else is sufficiently concerned, I think they'll be able to find the post I'm thinking of quite quickly by searching the CD for the phrase "pet theory".
Chris Phillips
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 806
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 3:18 am: |
|
John, if you think DiTA day and the purple dinosaur are worthy of Hunter Thompson, you really have delusions of grandeur! 
But in truth, I think it is possible to have fun with the diary (as I'm sure you're aware I often do), without adopting the mocking tone which I would consider disrespectful to all those who have something serious to say on both sides of the diary argument.
The DiTA day thread, in and of itself, is fine. Personally I take your advice and only ever read it when somebody actually posts a reply in there, otherwise I know it is not going to contain anything of any actual interest. The purple dinosaur, on the other hand, is something I might have done when I was 12 but it is really beneath the level one expects from adults.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me" - Hunter S. Thompson (1939-2005)
Visit my website - http://www.ashbooks.co.uk/
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 773
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 3:50 am: |
|
It suddenly occurred to me that as Jenni went to so much trouble to organise these tests, it might be nice if we could actually have some discussion of them.
There are obviously two encouraging things we can take from the fact the tests took place at all.
The first is that Robert Smith agreed to them being done, for which he deserves credit.
The second is that an academic research lab was willing to carry them out for no charge. I've thought for some time that for various reasons the Maybrick artefacts would provide attractive research projects for academics, and for that reason the cost of testing might not be as much of a problem as people have feared.
On the tests themselves, I thought the most interesting observation was this one:
During the examination of the ink numerous fluorescent marks were observed throughout the diary. At present we are unable to explain their nature or origin.
It will be interesting to see the figures illustrating these when they become available. I assume the guest book from the 1880s didn't show these "numerous fluorescent marks".
I'd be particularly interested to know whether the marks bear any relation to the text of the diary, or whether they're just randomly distributed on the page.
Evidently some fluorescent substance has been in contact with these pages, and it seems likely this happened either as the text was being written, or as someone subsequently read it. If the marks coincide with the ink, I wonder whether it's possible to tell which was applied first ...?
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1605
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 6:24 am: |
|
Hi Chris P,
Just as Caroline Morris says she doesn't have enough evidence to conclude it's not genuine -
I'm finding this really tedious. Will you please quote my actual words in future, if you think anyone is remotely interested in reading them more than once.
For the last time, I reserve the right to reach no conclusions at all about the age of either the diary or watch - full stop. Got it?
Since you are not debating whether the diary is genuine or fake, and no one else appears to be either, why on earth do you keep trying to get me to make some comment on the subject, or put words in my mouth?
I really do believe you must be confused over this 1970s 'pet theory' I'm supposed to have had back in 2000. That was when Keith Skinner first asked me to help with Ripper Diary, and we discussed all the concerns we both had about the viability of the late 20th century hoax theories.
If you do find any evidence of it, I would seriously advise that you put it down to me having one too many cocktails that day and just forget it.
We seem to have quite a number of people queuing up to bash John Omlor over the head, for consistently saying that these artefacts should be properly tested, and for highlighting (albeit in a rather lighthearted way) the length of time that's gone by without that happening.
Really? I must have missed those posts. I've only seen people expressing their contempt for John's nasty little monthly bulletins accusing Robert Smith of being unethical and irresponsible and having no intention of ever letting the diary be examined again.
Scholarship isn't a word I would ever have associated with John's self-centered monthly rants - obsession more like. But each to his own, I guess.
There is about as much chance that the sun won't rise on 14th as there is a chance that John won't post his suitably modified rant. Don't fool yourself - he does it for no one but himself, and he can't stop now.
Scholarship? Don't make me laugh.
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2051
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 6:39 am: |
|
Yes far more happy aren't we to act like a bunch of children?
what? did i say i didnt include myself?
perhaps we should start adopting the policy if you dont have anything nice to say...
..or perhaps not..
...after all calling each other idiots mentioning flies wings etc, is so much fun, and so productive, oh, no wait.....
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 774
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 6:43 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
I really do believe you must be confused over this 1970s 'pet theory' I'm supposed to have had back in 2000.
As I said, if anyone else is sufficiently concerned, I think they'll be able to find the post I'm thinking of quite quickly by searching the CD for the phrase "pet theory".
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1247
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 6:54 am: |
|
Hi Alan,
You use the words "mocking" and "disrespectful." But I know you've read Hunter on politics, so I won't take that as a criticism. As for Figment, he's a mascot. He comes from the land of Imagination, and therefore is a delightfully appropriate figure to represent Diary World, where desire and imagination are so often allowed to trump reading and rational thought.
What I do love though is that you guys have spent a few days now actually discussing him. That's too delicious for words.
Caroline then writes to Chris:
"Since you are not debating whether the diary is genuine or fake, and no one else appears to be either..."
I'm guessing she has now either forgotten about Lonely Guy or is simply ignoring his post when she says this (maybe its just the result of his name becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy in her case). Anyway, apparently he's not alone. He says there are "people who now support the diary as being genuine," and he says we should assume the confessions of James Maybrick are genuine as a new analytic strategy. I asked Caroline if she agreed with him about that, as she did about another of his points, but she has chosen not to answer.
So I guess that's that.
Meanwhile, thanks go to Chris for finally saying something about the reports. Of course, many questions remain. And so of course the responsible thing to do is to continue this new pattern with a rigorous regime of thorough tests, including a complete chemical analysis of the ink and the fulfillment of RJ's proposed set of examinations.
"The Future is Now" as they say over of Hudsucker Industries. Let's hope it's a good one, without any fear.
With apologies to John and Yoko,
--John (but not Yoko)
PS: Hi Jenni. It's OK. I don't mind being told I look like an idiot. It's often true.
I do feel bad for the flies, though.
Nice job getting these scans done. I'd send you a drink, but I suspect the evil customs agents would down it and then pretend it never arrived.
Meanwhile, on with the show...
(Message edited by omlor on March 29, 2005) |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 365
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 7:48 am: |
|
"OFF WITH HIS HEAD!"
"No, Your Majesty, verdict first, and THEN the Sentence!"
Louis Carroll may not have been JTR, but he sure has been the creator of most of these Diary postings.
I'll just play the Doormouse, and have a cuppa-tea and a snooze.... |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 800
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 11:18 am: |
|
Hi Chris/Caz
You know, "pet theory" is probably the most popular phrase on Casebook. There were a lot of returns, so what I did was pull one of Caz's diary posts from 2000 and she was saying something very similar to her "draw no conclusion" stance today. For what it's worth.
Jennifer,
I apologize to you for the tone of some of my posts here. I agree that you and Robert have taken a positive forward step here and I'm glad to see that unlimited access amounting to four months was given to the lab. So thanks for the effort you've made.
Dave
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2056
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 11:24 am: |
|
Dave,
no really its not a problem - like i said i sincerely include myself, diary world is simply like that. for some strange unknowing reason
but wouldn't it be nice if we could be civil for once...
...maybe hell will freeze over first!
Jenni
ps i wasnt having a go at anyone specifically, dont take offence, certainly am not fishing for compliments! |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 801
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 11:34 am: |
|
Hi Jennifer,
Oh, I'm not offended at all--no worries there. You're right, civility would be nice, and I think the first few posts of this thread took a good shot at it.
Cheers,
Dave |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 778
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 12:14 pm: |
|
Dave
Oh. I suppose that does make sense about "pet theory" being a common phrase on the casebook. If the theory in question wasn't that the diary was written in the mid 70s, it's not the post I was referring to. But thanks very much for trying.
I had better check when I can look at the CD next week.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1250
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 12:24 pm: |
|
Hi David,
I just went back and read the first dozen or so posts on this thread that followed the reports.
Very interesting.
Watching the tone shift was fascinating.
I recommend this little bit of review reading to everyone here.
Thanks for the excellent point,
--John |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 802
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 4:16 pm: |
|
Hi John,
That's why I say the debate is about personalities and getting digs in on people. Personally, you've always made a lot of sense to me--so much sense that I've never been offended by your choice of emoticons.
Incidentally if I offended any of Melvin's friends by calling him "king of insults," I apologize for that. While learning a lot from his work, I still maintain there was a lot of unnecessary harshness in his postings. Of course, there are people on both sides who don't shy away from a fight. However, Melvin's not around to defend himself and I did not know him, so I should not have referred to him as king of anything. I would not wish to cause his friends or family any pain. In any case, Melvin is quite above it all now.
For an appreciation of what was good about Melvin Harris, people can re-read his obituary.
Dave |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 780
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 5:13 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
I’m sorry, but you’ll have to help me here. I don’t recall ever posting that I was ‘quite satisfied not only that the diary was a hoax, but that the "tin match box empty" line indicated that it was a more modern hoax than the 1970s’.
...
Even in the earliest days, I'm certain I was posting nothing but doubts about the theory that the diary is a late 20th century artefact, and pointing out to anyone who would listen the implications if both watch reports had reached an accurate conclusion (at least several tens of years old), which would in turn support Voller's professional opinion on the age of the diary writing (90+ years), and confirm Keith Skinner's instincts, and Robert Smith's beliefs, that this is indeed an old document - old, as in decades before the 1970s.
I'm most grateful to someone who has emailed me privately with some pertinent extracts from Caroline Morris's old poss of about five years ago.
While they don't include the particular "pet theory" post I was thinking of, they do tend to confirm the impression I'd got of the tenor of her contributions then.
Firstly, in those days she had no difficulty in publicly acknowledging that she believed the diary was a fake:
I don't believe the diary was James Maybrick's, and I would like the mystery solved. Everything I have ever posted with regard to the diary has reflected this.
[22 November 2000]
Secondly, she was openly sceptical about the idea that the diary was an old hoax, and acknowledged the weight of the evidence pointing towards its origin in or after the late 1980s:
So I do appreciate what you are saying, and it is up to those who cannot quite bring themselves to dismiss Anne's 'in the family' story, despite all the evidence that the Diary was written post-1987, to show their reasoning, judgement and evidence, flawed or otherwise, warts an' all.
I agree that Melvin has done all but prove that Anne's writing is on the written page. And again it is up to those not 100% convinced to put the case for Anne's defence, such as it is.
I also agree that until this is done to everyone's complete satisfaction, the case for 'old forgery' is lacking in credibility. I also think the case for Anne or Mike having penned the Diary lacks credibility from what I have managed to gather thus far, but as an amateur enthusiast with plenty of other interests, I would ask your forebearance for past mistakes and procrastination.
[19 June 2000]
I shall still try to track down the particular post I had in mind when I get a chance, but I think this substantially bears out what I said about her previous viewpoint (with the sole exception of the specific mid-1970s timing).
Chris Phillips
|
shirley harrison
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 8:05 am: |
|
it is a long long time since I contributed to the Diary, partly through other book commitments partly through a sense of helplessness. I am thrilled too the tests (about which we knew nothng) have been done but I would remind you all what I have previously said - my husband has documents dating from the mid-late 19th century which show no signs of bronzing at all. They are mostly leases and left lying around his office.
I wish that a conclusion could be found myself but I doubt that the ink is the way.
Shirley Harrison |
AAD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 3:35 pm: |
|
Surely all this is a joke - isn't it? |
AAD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 5:06 am: |
|
The sad fact is that it is a modern hoax and all debate here is - a waste of time. Still, I guess it keeps hope alive for all those who think there is more to be made out of this tired saga. |
AAD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 7:55 pm: |
|
What a load of bunkum. These tests were pointless in the first place as it is known that no test exists that can prove when ink was applied to paper. The tests that should be done are those to identify the chemical constituents in the ink. Still more pointless nonsense for the pro-diarists to crow about. |
shirley harrison
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 8:11 am: |
|
It is ages since I contributed to the Diary debate due to other book commitments and brain ache. But I am very pleased those tests (aboutwhich we knew nothing) have been done and that Robert's integrity is in the clear for the doubters. I would remind you all that I have said before, my husband has leases lying around his office, dating from the mid-end 19th century which have NOT bronzed at all. I doubt that the ink will ever give us the answer.
Shirley Harrison |
shirley harrison
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 8:05 am: |
|
it is a long long time since I contributed to the Diary, partly through other book commitments partly through a sense of helplessness. I am thrilled too the tests (about which we knew nothng) have been done but I would remind you all what I have previously said - my husband has documents dating from the mid-late 19th century which show no signs of bronzing at all. They are mostly leases and left lying around his office.
I wish that a conclusion could be found myself but I doubt that the ink is the way.
Shirley Harrison |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1253
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 8:08 pm: |
|
Hi Shirley,
Nice to see you here.
As I understand RJ's proposal, the question would not be whether a 19th century document would have bronzed during the last twelve years, but simply whether the diary, which several people reported showed no signs of bronzing when it first appeared but in which Alec Voller later did notice bronzing, has continued to bronze since Voller looked at it in the places Voller carefully described.
So unfortunately, the example of your husband's documents wouldn't help us much in that sense.
At least, I think that's the gist of what RJ is proposing. He can clear up any confusion I might have here.
AAD says, "The tests that should be done are those to identify the chemical constituents in the ink."
Yes. And here's hoping that this sort of testing will soon be underway, as well as RJ's plan for careful examination of the lines in question. We should continue to learn as much as possible about this document.
All the best to both of you,
--John |
Lonely Guy
Police Constable
Username: Lonelyguy
Post Number: 10
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 1:58 am: |
|
I think the most sensible comment to be posted in this thread was the one that said
"it mightn't be real..... it mighn't not" (or something like that).
If those of us who support the diary can entertain such a thought.... why can't the people who denounce it do the same???
BTW It is interesting to see the shift in emphasis change from it being faked by a boozy Liverpudlian (sorry Mike) to it being an old hoax by an expert in the field - when the original premise was found to be so obviously ridiculous.
PS to Shirley et. al. I live in Lancaster - is there anything I can do to help with watch research?
Robert
catch me if you can
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
