|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 564
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 2:09 pm: | 
|
personally, i think i can now answer all of Paul Begg's famous diary questions, 'when?' who?' and 'why?' I think the answer to the last question is the convoluted and the muddled one, the one that sets a complex emotional chain of events in motion, makes the first two questions harder to answer, and the one that has tripped up nearly everyone. but the muddled motive --i have come to believe--can be discerned in the subsequent actions of the players; it explains why it all 'went down' the way it did, and why a solution will not be at hand anytime soon. sorry for being cryptic. now, i'm going to ride off into the sunset with mike barrett. take care and peace. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 298
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 8:44 pm: |
|
"Since we can't trust Mike about anything,"
Let's put it this way: if this was a honest-to-God court case, and Barrett was my main witness, I'd fold my cards. He's not a guy you want to go into battle with, is he?
"know too much about literature to take this discussion very seriously. "
Argumentum ad verecundiam , made even more problematic because:
1) On the Internet you can claim whatever you wish. Lotta experts walking around. We can only judge by what you post.
2) The heart of the matter lies in document forgery, where "literature" "expertise" may or may not be helpful. One simple point: whether the Diary is well written or poorly written probably tells us very little about authenticity.
I notice no one answered my original question: since Barrett in June of 1994 was trying to discredit the Diary and claim authorship, why didn't he produce his handy dandy Sphere book from the get go?
(Message edited by sirrobert on March 31, 2005)
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1272
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 10:07 pm: |
|
Lovely response, Sir Robert, but it missed the point.
I agree with you that we can't trust Mike whatsoever. That's why I said it would be important to find out whether anyone else has confirmed that he had the Sphere Guide. Don't you agree?
As to my claims, I can send you my CV if you want or my course schedules or my syllabi, but it doesn't really matter. You can agree with my reading (and my disbelief, based on over twenty years of first hand experience, in library miracles) or you can choose not to. I'm happy with exactly what I have offered in both cases.
The "heart" of the Crashaw matter does not lie in document forgery, not only because this document is not a forgery to begin with, but because this specific question concerns a literary quote and a tale of library research regarding a literary quote, two things in which I am indeed fully credentialed and experienced.
And it's not a question of "well written" or "poorly written," but how the text is structured and how it matches up with the historical record and how its narrative voice takes place.
That was what I was commenting on in my PS to Restless Spirit on another thread, where I offered a reading of the diary's narrative construction. And yes, I have indeed spent my professional career reading and analyzing such questions in texts of all sorts.
But thanks for your concern about my breadth of knowledge. You can feel free to maintain your own assessment of it, if you like. It would surprise no one.
Fortunately, people can read the thing with my account of the narrative and the structure in mind and see if they see what I am talking about. That's all I am asking.
Bye for now,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on March 31, 2005) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 299
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 11:23 pm: |
|
"this specific question concerns a literary quote and tale of library research regarding a literary quote, two things in which I am indeed fully credentialed and experienced. "
As I said, there are many "experts" on the Internet. There's usually an inverse relationship to the amount of times "expertise" is cited to actual expertise.
Now, it should be obvious to an "expert" in textual analysis that I was not referring specifically to the Crashaw quote when I said:
"The heart of the matter lies in document forgery, where "literature" "expertise" may or may not be helpful. One simple point: whether the Diary is well written or poorly written probably tells us very little about authenticity."
So if you believe that's referring specifically to Crashaw, as opposed to the Diary matter as a whole, then I rest my case.
Simple question: irrespective of when Barrett had physical possession of a copy of the Sphere book, why didn't he refer to it at the time of his "confession" ? Easy way to trash the Diary, especially when your handwriting doesn't match that of the Diary. Easy way to build credibility. We might not even be having this "discussion" if he had.
"The argument from authority is the weakest form of argument, according to Boethius." -- St. Thomas Aquinas http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AdVerecundiam
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 788
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 3:07 am: |
|
Sir Robert
Before we get into another endless circular acrimonious argument, please go back and look at John's post. You misunderstood his point.
He was referring to the finding of the Crashaw quotation when he said "[knew] too much about literature to take this discussion very seriously". He then confrmed he was talking about "this specific question [concerning] a literary quote and a tale of library research regarding a literary quote".
Admittedly when you replied you were talking about something completely different, but the fact that you misunderstood his post isn't a ground for questioning John's expertise in textual analysis!
Chris Phillips
|
Jeff Leahy
Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 37
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 5:28 am: |
|
Dear RJ
If you can indeed prove that Mike Barrett wrote the Maybrick Diary then please come forward with your evidence and save us all a lot of time , energy and lets face it expence.
If Mike Barrett did indeed create the Diary then as with most forgers who have hoaxed artifacts in the past, he should be able to demonstrate, while having the usual arch villans 'look how clever I am' smirk on his face, exactly how it was done.
I for one am willing to film and document the whole process for the world to see and finally put this Maybrick madness to bed. Perhaps he could knock out a couple of spare copies with exactly the same ink which we could store for different periods of time in different atmospheric conditions, to create controls to see if there is any validity in your bronzing theory.
If, as you seem to suggest in your earlier post, that Mike Barrett has some strange medical condition, which we will call 'Maybrickitus', that he contracted between creating the diary and publishing, we would be most grateful if you would produce the medical evidence which explains his inability to recreate the Diary.
Please don't get me wrong I beleive that checking the bronzing of the ink is a good idea but in itself I don't beleive it will be enough to catagorically age the diary and that more specific tests can and should be made inorder to finally solve the problem.
I don't claim to be an expert, which is why I had some sympathy with Dales confussion and obvious questions about Mike Barrett, I had been asking the same questions myself. While it seems that the most straight forward and simple solution is usually the case I also beleive its fair for people to ask Mike Barrett if he did create the Diary simply to demonstrate how, I'm sure if this is also the case that he could do with more money by now.
My offer to Mike Barrett or anyone else who claims to have writen the diary still stands however.
'I know that I know nothing' Jeff
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1273
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 5:34 am: |
|
Thank you, Chris. You saved me the trouble of going back and cutting and pasting my original remarks and then demonstrating to Sir Robert (who is obviously having reading problems) exactly what they were clearly in response to -- the discussion that was taking place at that time about the Crashaw quote.
And incidentally, if anyone has doubts as to my training and profession and degrees and formal fields of expertise, they can feel free to write me e-mail and I'll send them the relevant details.
But as I wrote to Sir Robert, all I have done in my PS to Restless Spirit on another thread is offer a reading of the diary's narrative structure and its signs of composition -- people are free to read the book for themselves and see if they too recognize what I have described, with or without relying upon my "authority."
Also, in answer to his repeated question, I long ago stopped trying to explain in rational terms ANY of Mike Barrett's behavior. I suggest Sir Robert might want to do so as well. Somewhere I have a tape I can send him of Mike trying to answer questions and he'll see why wondering exactly why Mike might or might not have done anything in terms of logical thought is pretty much a waste of time. That's something I think even Caroline would agree is the case.
Meanwhile one wonders what would make Robert take this particular approach towards me in this discussion.
Well, not really.
--John
PS: Robert -- once again, "document forgery" is not only NOT at the heart of the diary case, it has nothing to do with the diary, since this book is not a forgery. I don't need to be an expert in anything to know that. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1274
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 5:40 am: |
|
There's a problem, Jeff.
Mike Barrett no longer "claims to have written the diary." At least not at the moment. Or, to be precise, not the last time I heard. So I doubt he'd be willing to demonstrate anything, on or off camera.
Perhaps you might want to see if you can speak to anyone who can confirm that Mike did indeed own the Sphere Guide. Sir Robert still hasn't answered my original question, but I assume he too thinks that if there were such a person, that would be a significant detail to know.
Right, Sir Robert?
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1621
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 6:16 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
personally, i think i can now answer all of Paul Begg's famous diary questions, 'when?' who?' and 'why?'
The bit about believing the motive can be discerned in the subsequent actions of the players... gives the game away.
I'm afraid I don't think you can 'now answer' those questions; not correctly, anyway.
Sorry about that. 
And I'm not talking about you here, because you have never claimed any special expertise, but sometimes, in particularly troublesome cases, it's the self-professed experts who get it all wrong and the silly woman who watches and waits and smiles who can see it for miles.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jeff Leahy
Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 39
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 6:17 am: |
|
Cheers John for the latest up-date on Mikes position..I appear to be suffering from 'Maybrichitus myself.
The idea of actually trying to reproduce the diary however is something I've been quiet seriously continplaiting...and if I can ask you a serious question...how simple do you beleive it would be to create 'chapter 2'. Could you pass the same tests that the current diary has been subjected to...is it a relatively easy process or is the act of physical creation highly complex?
Just thinking out loud, but visually it would be an interesting process to follow...
PS It also occurred to me that given that Mike is currently saying he didn't make the diary I might owe him an apologue for my challenge, so if he checks in 'Sorry if I offended you'.
My offer to the real forger still stands.
Jeff |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1622
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 6:19 am: |
|
No one to my knowledge has ever been able to confirm that Mike had his own volume 2 of the Sphere Guide series before he handed a copy over to Alan Gray in December 1994.
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2071
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 6:37 am: |
|
i think it is distinctly posible to create such a thing Jeff!
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1277
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 7:06 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
It's a bit unfair of me now to say I could do it, because I've already seen what I'd need to do.
But I understand your point. I do think though that you have to consider the willingness of some people, both at the time of the diary's arrival and still today over ten years later, to make excuses, find rationalizations, and simply hang on desperately to any possibility no matter how slim solely for their own personal reasons. Such an audience makes a hoaxer's job much much easier. And in this case they found just such an audience. Even after we learned that the handwriting in the book was nothing like the real James's and that the details in the book were wrong and there was no evidence anywhere that linked to the book in any way to the real James and even though it was clear from the start that the book had absolutely no verifiable provenance, people still danced with it. And now their names are associated with it in ways I suspect some of them privately regret.
I'd like to point out a lovely little bit of grammatical ambiguity in the following sentence:
"No one to my knowledge has ever been able to confirm that Mike had his own volume 2 of the Sphere Guide series before he handed a copy over to Alan Gray in December 1994."
Because of the dangling clause here, it is not clear whether this means that no one offered this confirmation before 1994 or that they did not confirm whether or not Mike owned the book and when.
Perhaps Caroline would like to clarify before I respond.
Just giving her a fair chance,
--John |
Jeff Leahy
Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 41
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 8:34 am: |
|
John your a tart, god knows what you make of my grammer. I'm afraid I was a secondry mod boy with dyslexia. However it is obvious that language is your specialized feild.
My guess would be that actually, physically, with enough money and the right team of people creating the ink and buying an old memorabilia book is not that much of a problem. The easy part.
Doing the research on the murder scenes, getting the right info, comparitively easy.
But the dairy has fooled psycologists, and hand writing experts. The writing itself may not be Maybricks (a strange over site by the forger) but is it not true to say that the writing has been identified as being consistant with someone educated of an earlier period. Is it as easy as finding poems from books of this era and doing very similar lynguistic copies, is that how it was done?
Also the person physically making the hand writing must have been very familiar with dip ink writing. If I'd done this there would be drips and smudges everywhere. The diary had to be writen in one take..no room for error (although I gather there are some crossing outs and mistakes which Barrett refers to...)
At what level of lynguistic and cartography ability do you suppose the forger would have to be educated. And how much do you suppose it would cost a publisher to get people to create it for him?
Jeff |
Dale
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 2:04 am: |
|
Sorry, still a bit confused!
As I understand, the diary is iether a modern hoax or a 80 year old hoax - this is the debate.Are the actually people who think Maybrick has written it, for I wasn't sure if this was the case.I thought the conjecture that remained is how old the hoax is? Can some one put on the right path?
Thats why I thought Barrett's hoax staement about this hoax is odd.I cant see a reason for a hoax statement. I am assuming his moral scruples got the better of him and simply owned up to it.
Thanks, Dale the snail. |
Platto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 7:10 pm: |
|
Hello all. I would like to move away from the bronzing of the ink issue which I find fascinating but going nowhere. I am intrigued by the psychological aspect of the diary as the writer, if it is a hoax, would have to have had a fairly good understanding of the profile of a 'serial killer'. I have studied the diary in detail and I feel that it is far too close to the mark to have been written by someone simply 'making it up as they go along'. Although Mr Barret has claimed to have written the diary and therefore the whole thing is a hoax( in the same vein as the infamous 'Hitler Diaries') but, and no disrespect to Mr Barret, but I do not think that he has the required knowledge to enable him to have written this document.
The diary captures what can only be described as the mental disintegration of its author in a frightingly believable manner and further paints a very true picture of the physical and mental torture of someone who is taking both arsenic and strychnine.
I therefore do not believe that Mr Barret wrote the diary, which of course does not disprove the hoax theory - a sort of null hypothesisof sorts, but it does then raise another question; if Mr Barret did not write the diary then who actually did? Could it in fact have been James Maybrick?
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 300
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 10:03 am: |
|
"If, as you seem to suggest in your earlier post, that Mike Barrett has some strange medical condition, which we will call 'Maybrickitus', that he contracted between creating the diary and publishing, we would be most grateful if you would produce the medical evidence which explains his inability to recreate the Diary. "
Jeff, I think what RJ was getting at was not that Mike had a medical condition preventing him from recreating the Diary handwriting, but that he might be unable to distinguish between the truth and lies. I'd have to say that there's a good shot that he's on the right trail with that thought.
However, for the third time, I ask the "Internet Experts": if Mike wanted to expose the Diary as a hoax, why not refer to where he nicked the Richard Crashaw passage ? Let's put aside for argument's sake the question of anyone verifying that he owned it at that particular moment. I don't think he did have a copy then, but if he hoaxed the Diary or knew the details of the hoaxing, he'd have at least known about the Sphere book at that time.
Why not simply reveal the source in June of 1994 ?
As far as I am concerned, if he had, I'd be convinced the Diary was a modern hoax. IMHO it would be pretty darn hard to refute.
I suspect the answer is obvious: Barrett didn't write the document and didn't know who the ^%$# did.
Just like us.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jeff Leahy
Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 42
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 10:13 am: |
|
Hi Plato and Dale
Great to talk to people not dirrectly involved in Maybrick land. As it takes time to get up to speed from an outside point of veiw.
The more you discover about the Diary the less you seem to know. And what you can state about the diary seems to be negative rather than positive. It is on any level a facinating Document unlikely to have been producer by Jack the Ripper, James Maybrick or Mick Barrett.
Trying to work out who did though is a puzzling question because without Barrett there is little motive. Although greed is the usual motive for such documents, political gain, self importance and a joke have all inspired such things before.
It does appear to be a fairly sophisticated modern forgery or perhaps an old forgery. I beleive the cut off line between the two theories is 1887 when police records were released...not that I beleive back handers couldn't have gotten you through..it happens today.
But the only way we'll have of knowing for sure is modern accurate testing by a group of sceintists willing to stake there reputation.
I dont think I've found anyone willing to state Maybrick wrote the diary although some may keep it open as a possibility which is another thing all together. Check my back post about Barrett.
Welcome to Maybrick land. Everyone ends up writing like the diary.
Jeff |
Jeff Leahy
Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 43
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 10:19 am: |
|
Robert..yes I realized what RJ was getting at by medical condition. But apart from drinking to much I dont beleive there is a condition that explains how a master forger becomes a Hoaxing clown.
Perhaps RJ was suggesting some form of Munchhausans desease. I was just saying I've heard of know such diagnosis re: Mike Barrett.
Jeff |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 790
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 12:34 pm: |
|
Sir Robert
I suspect the answer is obvious: Barrett didn't write the document and didn't know who the ^%$# did.
So do you think it was just a coincidence that the same Crashaw quotation appeared in both the diary and the Sphere Book?
And do you think Barrett managed to find that quotation in the Sphere Book in the library purely by chance?
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 302
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 12:42 pm: |
|
"And do you think Barrett managed to find that quotation in the Sphere Book in the library purely by chance?"
Chance? No. I think we can thank Shirley Harrison for pointing out the important of the quote to Barrett, who then IMHO did some research in the Liverpool library and went about acquiring a copy ASAP.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 485
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 12:51 pm: |
|
Jeff,
I beleive the cut off line between the two theories is 1887 when police records were released..
You meant 1987, right? Else we must then put prescience into the genuine/hoax mix.
Attn: Jenni Pegg -- Could R.J. Lees have had a hand in writing the diary before the events happened? 
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 486
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 1:13 pm: |
|
Jeff,
Another small point. You said that the fact that the diary was clearly not in James Maybrick's handwriting was an oversight on the part of a possible hoaxer. I've said this before, but maybe it bears repeating: using a totally different hand for the diary was really quite clever.
While there are enough exemplars of Maybrick's hand to provide a master forger the opportunity to copy Maybrick's penmanship, any forger good enough to pull that off wouldn't waste his time on a Maybrick confession -- he'd be scribbling Shakespearean sonnets to sell to savants. And any effort by someone less than a master forger would be quickly found out.
However, to write the diary in an alien, but consistent, hand . . . well that leaves the authorship just possible enough to work. After all, if there were not all those niggling anachronisms and ahistoric references in the diary (with the scientific tests as ambiguous as they are to date) then the arguments about the diary's genuiness might well only be confined to the possibility that Maybrick had a multiple-personality-disorder to account for the wtiting differences, that his addictions changed his hand or that for reasons of disguise he penned the diary in a manner not normal.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 791
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 1:31 pm: |
|
Sir Robert
So do I really understand you correctly to say that you believe Barrett went into the library "cold" to look for that quotation, and managed to find it, without any foreknowledge at all to guide him? Remember that no one else had been able to identify it.
And I notice you ignored my first question:
So do you think it was just a coincidence that the same Crashaw quotation appeared in both the diary and the Sphere Book?
So you're saying that you find it easier to believe in this amazing coincidence, combined with Barrett's remarkable feat of scholarship, than to believe the obvious alternative?
Namely, that the same quotation occurs in both books because it was copied out of one into the other, and that Barrett was able to identify the source because he had been involved in that act of copying?
Chris Phillips
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 566
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 2:23 pm: |
|
Caz--Have it your way, but you're making a grave error. My first piece of advice to Messrs. Anderson and Leahy if they want to know the truth is to disregard the theories and theorizing of those who have investigated the diary--all of them; I mean Morris, Skinner, Harris, Harrison, Feldman, and my own good self, etc. It's been out for over twelve years and they have all failed to show you where it has come from, gents. With such a dismal success record, isn't it time to give them the sack? My advice? Do what I did. Start with Nancy Steele and move forward...slowly. Remember what you learn each step of the way, forget the claims and counter-claims. It's not that difficult. More when I have the time. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1278
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 2:41 pm: |
|
Sir Robert,
I have already answered your question about Mike's behavior in a post above, in the only way it could possibly be answered. I think it's charming that you believe in miracles, but there's no way Mike Barrett walked into a library with only five words in his hand and, from the entire history of literature in English, just happened to find the single book we know of with the only critical essay anyone has ever been able to find that also happens to excerpt that very same line from that very same single poem by that very same author just like it is excerpted in the diary. That's what you simply and dismissively call "some research?" You're dreaming. Believing this, especially since Mike said it, is believing in fairies. And no one has ever come forward to confirm his story or be a witness to such a miraculous act of research. Remember that as you think about whether or not anyone has ever confirmed that Mike indeed owned his own copy of the book.
But this is the one millionth time we've gone over this and it's just a silly and repetitive and pointless discussion. Those who want to believe Mike made the miracle happen will, no matter what anyone says and no matter the odds against such a miraculous thing happening. It's the nature of Faith.
I, however, would not buy a grilled cheese sandwich with the Virgin Mary appearing on it nor would I buy this ridiculous and odds-defying story from a known liar.
Maybe that makes me crazy or stubborn or closed minded or whatever. I'm happy to be those things regarding such an irrational scenario created by a known liar and without any outside confirmation of any sort.
Jeff,
First, the handwriting. Not only is it not anything at all like any of the dozen samples we now have of the real James Maybrick's handwriting, it's also neither consistent nor is it historically accurate.
Dr. David Baxendale wrote this in his report of July 1, 1992:
"The handwriting shows considerable variation in fluency and letter design, and I have noted that some of the letter designs have been altered. This shows that the writing has not all been naturally written.
"For the most part, the handwriting is in a looped cursive style, in other words the letters are connected to each other and have prominent loops. There are however many instances where individual letters have been written in a script style, i.e. plain letters written separately. For example, there are instances of script styles for the letters A, h, k, L, N, t, T and x."
And shortly later he writes:
"The [handwriting] styles taught in the late nineteenth century were almost invariably some variety of connected writing such as "copperplate" or looped cursive. Disconnected script styles did not become common until the middle of the twentieth century.
"A modern writer attempting to assume the style of an earlier period might very well fail to master the old style completely, and use some modern letter forms along side the adopted style. This would lead to inconsistencies such as those seen in the writing of the book.
"I therefore regard the handwriting in this book with suspicion."
They weren't even close in getting the handwriting to look anything like the real James's (and I'm not even convinced they realized the way this could act in their favor later thanks to a gullible audience that wanted to believe so desperately they'd excuse anything with MPD stories and other such nonsense or that they even knew where to find the real James's handwriting) and to make things even more ridiculous, they couldn't even get the period style down, Jeff.
Hope that helps you out.
Platto,
No, the real James had nothing to do with this book. And you might want to look into who in the whole case had any writing experience.
Nothing much new to say here.
I've seen it all through the yellow windows of the evening train.
--John (offering a Guinness to the first person who identifies the final quote)
(Message edited by omlor on April 01, 2005) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 303
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 4:03 pm: |
|
I love Tom Waits. One of my favorite artists.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1279
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 4:13 pm: |
|
Excellent! Sir Robert wins.
Robert,
I'll meet you at Grace O'Malley's Irish Pub in St. Pete Beach next Wednesday night at 7 for your free pint. But you have to play on my Quizo team that night as part of the deal.
Nice to know another Raindog's out there,
--John ("smellin' like a brewery, lookin' like a tramp")
PS: The CD is playing even now.
(Message edited by omlor on April 01, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1280
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 4:50 pm: |
|
Hey, that reminds me.
Here's a fun little way for some of you to waste some time.
Wander into a library of your choice and find the following five words in a book:
"the star that ever glows"
And remember, no computers.
No, I know that's not the same, since you can't be sure that your particular library has a few copies of the book that contains that line or that it appears on the page like the line of old poetry Mike allegedly, miraculously, just "found" excerpted deep in a modern book of prose, etc. But then, we could try and set it up so that we matched those conditions exactly and then give someone the chance to see if they could find the words through what Sir Robert calls "research."
Oh wait, we already did that.
Anyway, I don't want to get into an argument with Jenni. I already know how she feels about this. "It's possible, even though no one else has ever done it around here, and the odds are stacked against it and it probably didn't happen, etc...." But I thought I'd maybe give the whole Casebook a chance to scope out these five words and see what happens, just for fun. I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm not going to use it as part of any argument. Just consider it a game.
Go to it, people. Out of this whole crowd of well-read scholars, someone should be able to identify it and even find it in a book, just like Mike. Surely, you're all as capable at research as this Mike guy so many people are saying could never have written the diary. (Incidentally, have you ever noticed how it's often the same people who say Mike could never have written the diary, that he wasn't talented or smart enough to pull it off, that also say Mike could very well have pulled off the research miracle of the century? I wonder why that is?)
And while you're at it, look for RJ's "red hand" quote from years ago, too. No one ever found those five words either, did they?
Yeah, old Mike told the truth about the library miracle. Sure. Of course, it IS April Fool's day. Maybe that explains why we're discussing this nonsense again. It's an argument about a fool's errand that produced a miraculous fairy-tale from a known liar that only fools would believe.
And there's such a simpler and more logical, common sense explanation, too.
Ah, well. It is Diary World after all.
Off to drink like a fool,
--John
PS: I know, Jenni. You don't have to tell me.
(Message edited by omlor on April 01, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1281
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 5:05 pm: |
|
Hey!
I just thought of something.
Sir Robert,
When I saw that you had identified the line from the Waits song I was listening to, I naturally assumed that you were able to do so because you already knew where the line was from or where it could be found.
Was I right?
--John |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 304
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 11:28 pm: |
|
"because you already knew where the line was from or where it could be found."
Both. I am a devoted Waits fan. Have been from "Burma Shave" days. I have a soft spot for singers that can't sing - Dylan, Leonard Cohen, Capt. Beefheart, Neil Young , and Mr. Waits.
The phrase can also be found through a Google search, but I won my pint fair and square, big boy.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 305
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 11:30 pm: |
|
And don't think I don't know where you're going with this, either, lol.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2072
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 3:40 am: |
|
John,
yes i'm lazy but that doesnt make your point any more valid.
we can go over this again if you want ?
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 65
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 4:49 am: |
|
I left school some sixty odd years ago.During the whole of my schooldays,I wrote by dipping the pen,a nib on the end of a round piece of wood,into an inkwell.I was taught to write in what I believe is termed script,or as we understood it,longhand.(how long is it since i heard that expression).Block capitals were learned but rarely used.
I do remember an overloaded nib caused problems of blotting,but by senior school days one was proficient in loading an amount that prevented this.Perhaps one should seek an older person than Mike.
After that less than useful information,and being an avid fan of a recent hoax of both objects,watch and diary,my acceptance of a further test would require that the tester state catagorically and without reservation,that neither could have been hoaxed post 1985.It could decide whether I become a believer.Be quick,I wish to be baptised into the new faith should it be neccessary.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1282
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 7:04 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
No need. Let's see how the rest of Diary World does, just for kicks.
Hi Sir Robert,
Now, just for fun, imagine I sent you into the library, before Google and with no computers, with just that line in your hand. And you knew nothing about it and had never seen it before and had no idea who wrote it. What are the chances, do you think, that you'd find not only that single line, out of all the history of writing in English, and who wrote it, but you'd also find the line not in its original form (in the song by Waits) but excerpted and cited in a prose essay, just like it was in my post! Even if there happened to be more than one copy of that one book in the library, it would still be a stunning coincidence.
Now stop. Because that's not what happened in this case.
Let's say I did not know whether you had ever seen the line or heard it or knew its source or where it could be found or not. Now let's say I gave you the line like I just did. Let's say no one else knew where the line was from. Let's say you then took the line and then came back to me a while later and identified it for me, showing me not the Waits song, or even the CD, but that very same line excerpted and cited in a book. I'd be pretty astounded, but I'd still think it might have just been a stroke of incredible luck.
But wait. We're not there yet.
Let's say I did not give you the line at all.
Let's say YOU gave ME the line. And then I asked you where it was from. And then you came back with this unlikely and amazing and miraculous ID, the incredible tale of once in a lifetime library luck.
And let's say you've done nothing but lie to me since I met you.
And now you identify a line you gave me that no one else knew and tell me the unlikeliest story imaginary about how you knew that and show me a book with the same line excerpted and cited in it just like it was when you gave it to me.
Now can you see why I would not believe in the miracle, a tale told by a known liar who was, after all, the supplier of the document that had the line in it himself and whose only explanation for how he knew where the line came from was an odds-defying story of a library miracle that defies all the library experience I've ever had or ever heard of?
It's just a ridiculous story, told by a ridiculous and irrational guy, and the logical, common sense conclusion is the very conclusion I jumped to when you identified the line I gave you originally. That you already recognized the line because you had seen it before and knew where it could be found.
But I guess that makes too much sense.
And notice, I did not have to believe anything at all that you might have told me for me to come to that rational and sensible conclusion.
The only reason I would conclude otherwise and believe the miraculous fairy-tale is if I really really wanted you to be telling me the truth for some reason and was wiling to put my common sense aside and buy the nonsense just so I could still, at all costs, believe the book you gave me might be old.
But I have too much respect for the realities of the world for that. I won't do it. I won't believe Mike's story (I don't have to believe any story he told or anything he has ever said to conclude from the events that he already knew the line). And if that makes me "closed minded" or whatever, that's just fine.
Because at least my position is logical, does not rely on miracles, and makes simple sense.
That's all I'm saying.
--John
PS: And you would have had twelve words in your hand walking into that library. Mike only had five.
PPS: See you Wednesday.
(Message edited by omlor on April 02, 2005)
(Message edited by omlor on April 02, 2005) |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 567
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 10:34 am: |
|
Messrs. Leahy & Anderson---My last post sounded a bit mean-spirited which was not my intention. My apologies. I was attempting to be helpful in my perverse way, because I think I may have stumbled upon a certain insight into how this diary business went 'down.' I'm by no means attempting to force my view; feel free to ignore it. That strange fellow in the red robe--the Dali Lama--he once said something to the effect that 'even one's enemies own a certain percentage of the truth.' This is a key point. While I meant no offense to Harris, Harrison, Skinner, etc., it seems to me that none of these fine people allow this possibility; thus, I think it might be wise to ignore their theorizing, while retaining an interest in what we might learn from them individually. Or, let me put it another way.
Early on, Melvin Harris discovered some 'truths' about the diary. Through a textual study, he knew that Feldman &tc., were mistaken about the diary's complexity, that all the information needed could be gleaned from secondary sources. Melvin also knew that the references to the police inventory lists, etc., pointed to it being a 'modern concotion.' (1988-1991) and that Kenneth Rendell had been at the tops of his business for 30+ years and wasn't likely to be wrong, and that the AFI test confirmed this suspicion. After that point, I think, Melvin concluded that everyone was either being deceived or deceptive and thus he stopped listening to what the other 'side' was telling him. Let me just say at this point that Melvin was right about what he knew.
At the same time, Feldman and his circle, and Harrison and her circle, also found certain 'truths.' They slogged around Liverpool and spoke to the Johnsons, to the Devereux daughters, to those who knew Barrett and knew his abilities and habits; some of them even became friendly with Anne Graham and found her to be an honest and decent person. Feldman & Doreen Montgomery where there when Ms. Graham initially refused diary money; they realized the 'money' motive didn't make sense. They felt strongly that Barrett was incapable, and that there was no credible evidence against Devereux, etc. They, like Harris, knew what they knew was true. At this point, they concluded that Melvin must have been simply barking up the wrong tree and tuned-him out in the same way he tuned them out. Let me just say here that they were also right.
That was about ten years ago. Since then, very little has changed. Most of the energy has been expended in a misguided attempt to show how the other 'side' was wrong. It became a battle of egos with very little real communication going on; and this is still true even now that Melvin is not around anymore.
The answer, I think, lies in realizing where each side was right, and allowing oneself to accept that each person was telling the truth as they knew it. I think the answer is fairly simple, and I think I know what the answer is. That, unfortunately, is all I'm willing to say publicly, and leave it to everyone to draw their own conclusions. If you think I'm "full of it", as Caz evidently does, I am more than happy for you to feel that way. I would recommend however, that all interested parties listen very closely to what all the average blokes and blokettes were saying. Nancy Steele, for instance. Or Caroline Barrett. Good luck and take care. RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on April 02, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2073
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 1:49 pm: |
|
Hi RJ,
you are probably right they were telling the truth as they knew it. thats all anyone can do.
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2074
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 1:51 pm: |
|
John,
no i think it might well have happened. it could easily have happened. i wouldnt fall down with shock if thats how Mike found the quote at some point.
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2075
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 1:55 pm: |
|
and also miracle is the wrong word. turning water into wine is a miracle because it cannot actually happen with the laws of the known world and requires divine intervention. virgin birth=miracle.
finding words that exist in a book in a book in which they exist= not miracle.
i thank you once again!
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1284
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 2:01 pm: |
|
Jenni,
That's not the miracle.
But we've done this before. I know how you feel. My description to Sir Robert of the situation stands as a testament to what we are being asked to believe.
That's enough for me.
The miracle of the Liverpool Library never happened. Mike lied.
Anyone found "the star that ever glows" yet?
'Round and 'round we go,
--John
PS: Remember, Jenni, it was Mike who gave the line to Shirley first.
(Message edited by omlor on April 02, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1285
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 2:42 pm: |
|
OK, people.
I want you all to do me a favor.
I want you all to take your mouse in your hand.
I want you take your mouse in your hand and I want you to point over the link I'm about to put up.
I want you all to take your mouse in your hand and point it over the link I'm about to put up and I want you to click on that link.
I want you to click on that link and I want you to start reading.
I want you to click on that link and I want you to start reading a message sent by me to a different thread.
I want you to start reading that thread beginning with a message Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 at 5:50 pm.
That's right, last August.
I want you all to start reading that thread from that point and I don't want you stop until you get to the bottom, to the end of that section of the archive.
I want you all to read every message, the messages by Caroline Morris and Chris Phillips and Jennifer Pegg and RJ Palmer and me and everyone else.
I want you to read them all, all the way through to the end.
And then I want you all to come back here and laugh at us.
I want you to laugh long and hard and I want you to think of us all as stupid and silly and ridiculous and and I want you to pity us for the pathetic lives we lead and the pointless things we do.
And then I want you to say, "I'm bored as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore."
And I want you get up. I want you to get up and go to your computer. I want you to get up and go to your computer and turn it off. Just turn it off. Get out of your chair and go to your computer and turn it off and go outside. Get up and turn off your computer and go outside and breathe the air and get your heart started and smile at a pretty boy or girl live your life goddammit.
That's right.
Read those posts, people. All of them. Don't stop until the end of that section of the archives.
Read each post carefully. Look at the names.
And see what fools these mortals be.
START HERE:
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=103576#POST103576
Bored as hell,
--John |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 489
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 4:31 pm: |
|
John,
As Jenni might say, it is possible someone could be so bloody masochistic as to reread all those posts (actually, read one you've read 'em all), but then Diary World denizens have much the same reputations as the Gothamites of old so perhaps someone will.
I do like the instructions after "Get up and turn off your computer . . ." except it is pouring rain here at the moment (at least it's getting rid of the vestigial snow). But finding a pretty woman at whom to smile (and hoping she'll smile back), that is wonderful advice.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 308
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 11:12 pm: |
|
"Because at least my position is logical, does not rely on miracles, and makes simple sense.
That's all I'm saying."
John, I do hear you and would heartily agree with you, 'cept for one little problem. I'm not saying Mike went to the Liverpool Library armed with five words, and found the Crashaw quote all on his own. That IMHO is indeed an absurd scenario. (Although I suspect if I showed up at the main branch of the New York Public library with those five words, pre-Internet, someone there could have helped me find it. Ditto the Widener Library. And in another life I did spend some serious time in said locations.)
I'm saying that Shirley Harrison tipped him off to the source and nature of the quotation. C'mon John - the bloody thing was published worldwide. You're saying it's impossible for anyone anywhere to have identified it and called the publishers up on it?
I am also hanging my hat on one thing that I think does conform to common sense: If Mike had the book all along and that's how the quote ended up in the Diary, he would have produced the book the MOMENT he realised it could help him prove his June 1994 forgery claim, not several months later.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Barrett didn't hoax the Diary, nor does he know who did.
And that, John, holds irrespective of whether it's a modern forgery or not.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 795
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 03, 2005 - 3:58 am: |
|
Sir Robert
Your reply makes me think you still haven't thought things out about this quotation.
Although I suspect if I showed up at the main branch of the New York Public library with those five words, pre-Internet, someone there could have helped me find it.
But how exactly could "someone" have helped you find it?
As far as I know the NYPL hasn't compiled a complete concordance to the works of 17th-century English poets, which is sitting there in manuscript, for the use of reference librarians only.
And public libraries certainly don't have huge teams of employees willing to search millions of volumes for a five-word quotation on request (as genealogist, I only wish they did!)
I'm saying that Shirley Harrison tipped him off to the source and nature of the quotation. ... You're saying it's impossible for anyone anywhere to have identified it and called the publishers up on it?
This is indeed a new twist.
You think someone who read the Ripper diary was sufficiently interested to make a library search for the quotation on their own initiative - which, even if they had remarkably good luck, is likely to have taken many months if not years - and then told the publishers where it came from.
Then you think they told Shirley Harrison, and throwing her professional reputation to the wind, she entered a conspiracy with the notoriously unreliable Barrett in order to make it more plausible that he faked the diary? Despite the whole thrust of all her work being that the diary was genuine?
Meanwhile, the person who had devoted months of their life to finding the quotation remained and remains oblivious to all the controversy about it in Ripper circles, and hasn't revealed their part in the business. Though as Shirley Harriuson's professional reputation depends on their continued silence, perhaps you're thinking that she has taken measures to ensure they keep quite?
Well, for one thing this still doesn't explain the coincidence of the same obscure Crashaw quotation appearing both in the diary and in the Sphere Book.
But above all, it makes no sense at all, and is clearly orders of magnitude less likely than the simple commonsense explanation, which accounts for all the evidence - that the quotation in the diary came from the Sphere Book, and that Barrett - the man who took the diary to th publishers in the first place - had been involved in the hoax and therefore knew the source of the quotation.
Occam's razor springs immediately to mind ...
But I really am curious - to come up with such a painfully implausible "explanation" you surely must have some very powerful reason for believing Barrett wasn't involved - way beyond "Surely no one in their right mind would have behaved as stupidly as Barrett did?".
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on April 03, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2077
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 03, 2005 - 5:37 am: |
|
John,
you crack me up.
However, while your point is duly noted i would like to point out that i need to be on the computer becasue i am supposed to be writing two essays, you can work out the rest
o costly essay from hell!
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1286
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 03, 2005 - 7:26 am: |
|
Wow,
So now Shirley's in on it, too. She gets a call from some mysterious, unidentified literary fan who not only buys the book, but recognizes the quote and calls her and tips her off as to its source, and then Shirley points Mike towards the quote somehow without him realizing he's being fed the source (or did the two conspire together to create this charade, I wonder). AND she finds a way to have Mike find a book of modern prose essays in a public library which just happens to have that same single line excerpted and cited just like it is in the diary.
Amazing.
Well, at least that's a new one -- different from the arguments I asked everyone to go back and read yesterday, which were al exactly, almost word for word in fact, the identical ones being made here by each and every one of us last August.
Sir Robert,
Stick to whatever story you like (and I can't help wondering why you feel forced so strongly to believe Mike pulled all this off when you don't think there's any way he could have pulled off the diary).
But know two things.
1. The simple and logical explanation remains the explanation that accounted for your knowing the Waits line. The miracle did not happen, Mike lied as usual, and he knew the source of the quote he gave to Shirley in the diary when he gave it to her.
And more importantly,
2. NOTHING can ever be considered a common sense proposition that is structured as "If Mike..., he would have...," since it takes as its premise that Mike's behavior at this time worked according to simple common sense.
And that we KNOW to be false.
Sorry, Sir Robert. If you have evidence somewhere to support this conspiracy theory and this charge against Shirley, let's see it.
Otherwise, it just sounds like a desperate attempt to come up with another dancing rationalization, like the dances invoked to somehow magically explain the "tin matchbox empty" line (just an amazing coincidence or a secret gift from the killer coincidentally cataloged in the diary just like it was in the police report) and the appearance of the Poste House (just an amazing coincidence that there really is one right there in Liverpool but the diarist was actually talking about some other pub with some different name and of course spelled the proper name this way perhaps because he wanted to sound French for some inexplicable reason even though he still capitalized it as a proper name) and the handwriting styles which Baxendale noted had modern influences (someone somewhere must have had MPD or was do drug crazed that his handwriting leapt forward in time somehow and changed completely) and all the rest of the nonsense. And now we have this new one -- some mysterious stranger out there in the dark tipped off Shirley to the source of the quote who fed it subconsciously to Mike as part of a conspiracy to somehow make the diary more believable by...
what?
Showing us that Mike knew the source of the quote in the book he gave her and therefore making it look like he wrote it?
But that makes no sense at all, since Shirley's interest would have been to make it look as if Mike did NOT know the quote and couldn't possibly have written it.
Hey. Wait a minute.
Think about this. Why would Shirley, if she knew the source of the quote because she was tipped off by some mysterious stranger, want to make it look like Mike knew the source of the quote? Surely that would be the last thing she'd want if she wanted people to buy that Mike had nothing to do with the diary's creation.
Yeah, you're right, Sir Robert. This really IS the common sense explanation.
Amazed at what some people will do to hang on to hope in the face of all the evidence, still.
And we're back in August,
--John
PS: I have a new plan. Except for wacky new conspiracy theories like this one, all we get mostly here are the same tired desperate dancing keep hope alive at all costs excuses we've seen here for years now trying to deny all the textual evidence of a modern creation. So when they are offered again, I'll just post a link to one of my old responses. It'll save me time and it'll remind everyone that all of this has been said before. Diary World will gradually become Deja Vu World, at least until someone finally gets around to offering us an old hoax scenario that accounts for all these problems and amazing coincidences in something like a coherent and complete and believable way.
(Message edited by omlor on April 03, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 796
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 03, 2005 - 9:10 am: |
|
One more thought.
Let's have some consideration for Stephen Ryder and keep the libel laws in mind when we're speculating about the actions of living people.
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 310
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 03, 2005 - 10:41 am: |
|
"But how exactly could "someone" have helped you find it? "
Gee, Chris - I dunno. Maybe the small army of reference librarians at the NYPL might have something to do with it. Are you seriously asking this question?
"Why would Shirley, if she knew the source of the quote because she was tipped off by some mysterious stranger, want to make it look like Mike knew the source of the quote? "
John, I make no pretense at understanding the motivations of anyone in Diary World. As it is obvious that Mike did not know about Crashaw at the time of his "confession", he learned about it from someone. The publisher and Harrison are likely "suspects". The Diary was published worldwide.
And one last point about Harrison: at the end of the day, I think she's interested in the truth. And asking Mike about the quote might well have been part and parcel of it.
And finally:
"Let's have some consideration for Stephen Ryder and keep the libel laws in mind when we're speculating about the actions of living people."
Chris, I am so glad to see you thinking this way; I'm certain that if you and John craft an apology to Caz and Robert Smith they'll be satisfied. I can help you with it if you want.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2078
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 03, 2005 - 11:35 am: |
|
did i miss something?
whats with everyone today?
"All you need is positivity"
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 797
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 03, 2005 - 12:14 pm: |
|
Sir Robert
"Let's have some consideration for Stephen Ryder and keep the libel laws in mind when we're speculating about the actions of living people."
Chris, I am so glad to see you thinking this way; I'm certain that if you and John craft an apology to Caz and Robert Smith they'll be satisfied. I can help you with it if you want.
Please could you make it clear you aren't accusing me of libelling anyone?
Do you not realise we nearly lost the message boards a while back because of this sort of nonsense?
Chris Phillips
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
