|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| |
Thread |
Last Poster |
Posts |
Pages |
Last Post |
  | Archive through May 29, 2005 | Ally | 50 | 1 | 5-29-05 10:11 am |
| |
 Closed: New threads not accepted on this page |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1790
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 30, 2005 - 5:11 am: | 
|
Hi Ally,
I just said that I don't mind you trying to 'bash me' in the least. You just keep bashing away for all you are worth.
By supporting your suspicions, I didn't mean churning out the same old stuff we've all churned out, about the Barretts' failure to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and the fact that they made money out of the diary. That's way too easy.
I meant actually coming up with something solid for your suspicions that Mike and/or Anne, and a brother Johnson or two, were involved in creating two hoaxes.
Love,
Completely unethical, sleazy, scheming Caz
X
PS And that's one in the eye for Shirley Harrison; she was merely a practised deceiver, according to Mighty Mel. 
(Message edited by caz on May 30, 2005) |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 953
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 6:53 am: |
|
I'm back! Did you miss me? I know you did.
Anyway, I wanted to say kudos Caz on accepting yourself as you really are. It takes guts to accept all the less than fine sides of ones character, and rather than seeking to change them, embracing them and claiming them as a way of life. Good for you!
But then we come to the somewhat ridiculous part of your post: your claim that showing the Barret's lied, the took money, they lied some more, that these facts are not a solid basis for suspicion. Are you for real? What would you consider a solid basis for suspecting someone of creating a forgery if not lying and profit making?
I mean, I understand from what you say in your above post you have embraced the idea of being unethical, but most people would consider lying and profit from a hoax to be a very solid basis for suspicion.
It's sad that it has to come to having to explain this to you.
Love,
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1842
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 8:31 am: |
|
Hi Whiter-than-white Ally,
Lying about the diary's true origins, and making a million pounds out of it, still wouldn't mean that the Barretts created it, or even knew who did.
And that makes your suspicions worthless.
Just as mine would be, if I argued that James Maybrick's penchant for prostitutes and drug-taking were a solid basis for suspecting him of murder.
I'm not knocking my head against the brick wall of your suspicions, so I will admit to any faults you care to thrust upon me. Your need to keep harping on about them is evidently far greater than my need to defend myself.
Mike and Anne were not involved in creating the diary. If you want to make all your suspicions and accusations less worthless, prove that they were.
Love,
Blacker-than-black Caz
X |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 954
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 9:32 am: |
|
I'm more pinky beige I'd think.
And no, my suspicions aren't worthless. Suspicions are based on a persons actions. If I said I had proof that they did it because they lied and took money, that would be worthless proof, but it is hardly worthless as a basis of suspicion no matter how many times you desperately claim it to be so.
And you say you don't need to defend yourself, and yet you take every opportunity to do so, every time I make a mention. If you don't need to defend yourself, why do you keep doing it?
Apparently, you aren't as sanguine as you'd like to appear.
Bzzz Bzzz,
Ally
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1847
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 7:32 am: |
|
Hi Pinky Beige Ally,
I didn't think I was defending myself. I just explained why it would be a pointless exercise. But if you thought I was, that's ok by me too.
Regarding your other worthless suspicions, they are worthless because they are circular. The Barretts would only have been wrong to profit from the diary if they knew it was a recent fake because they were involved in the faking of it.
And if you had evidence for that, you wouldn't need the profit argument. As it is, it's toothless.
And because Mike has told so many lies, you can't use them to claim he was involved - he lied in all his confessions too.
Your suspicions depend on Mike not telling lies when he claimed to have forged, or helped forge the diary. Since you believe some of the stuff Mike came out with when he was in his 'master forger' persona, your claim that his lies are a good basis for suspicion looks a bit wonky.
So, as I said, your suspicions are worthless as posted here. 'Where do we go from here?' Back to the start or round in circles, in your case.
Love,
Caz
X |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 955
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 3:41 pm: |
|
You just can't help but justify yourself can you? Buck up girl, have the courage of your convictions if nothing else.
Anyway on to your somewhat ludicrous argument. First of all, suspicions cannot be circular. Arguments can be, reasoning can be, but suspicions are linear.
Second, suspicions don't require proof. Here's a definition since it is clear that you are ignorant about the topic which you keep arguing.
Suspicion: "the act or an instance of suspecting something : a mental state usually short of belief in which one entertains a notion that something is wrong or that a fact exists without proof or on slight evidence"
See that? Suspicions require neither proof, nor large amounts of evidence.
Therefore, no sorry. My suspicions are of complete worth and linear, unlike your protestations which are ill-informed and circular.
Cheers,
(Message edited by ally on June 13, 2005)
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 200
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 10:33 am: |
|
Jesus no wonder everyones desirted the Maybrick thread lissen to yourselves.
Mike Barrett might have created the Diary. It is possible, on the current evidence.
Lets face it he's our only serious contender although its possible Mrs Graham could have been involved.
We just do not know for sure. It is very strange that after all this time no one has been able to prove he did. End of arguement.
The only way either of you will ever know is if we can get Mike Barrett on a 'lie detector' to do an interveiw.
In the mean time as far as I remember, those who beleive the Diary is a modern Hoax and those that beleive it is something other than a modern hoax and those of us in the FENCE party, have surely all agreed that the best way forward is to carry out specific tests, hopefully recommended by people who have an idea what their doing, to try and date the diary.
and although I understand that some experts I have spoken with have reservations about what can and can not be proved. The first step is raiseing finance to make re-examination possible.
Its apparent that the Clorecitmide question can be answered. My fears are that it will still leave us in stale-mate.
However a start must be made somewhere.
Mr Poster seems to be doing his best and at least making positive suggestions.
Piontless bickering is getting everyone nowhere.
So please put on your thinking caps and try and be constructive.
ideas appreciated
Otherwise....will the last person able to stand the Maybrick bickering, please turn out the light |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 641
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 11:09 am: |
|
Caz--- Could you please give me the source for the statement below? Either on or off the boards is fine. Many thanks, RP
"At some point it's agreed that the Barretts will produce a typed transcript of the diary (fact)."
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1859
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 11:32 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
The statement, in case any of your readers are wondering, came from a private email I sent you, in response to yours, in which you outlined your current hypothesis for the diary's recent origins.
There is absolutely no doubt that a typed version of the diary text was produced on Mike Barrett's word processor, a copy of which reached Keith Skinner on June 4 1992.
Mike and Anne both signed the May 1992 collaboration agreement with Shirley Harrison, giving all three responsibilities for the forthcoming publication.
My understanding is that one of the earliest responsibilities taken on by the Barretts was to produce a transcript of the diary for Doreen, Shirley and her chosen researchers to consult. (Now, the length of time that elapsed between 'producing' it, as in typing it, and 'producing' it, as in handing it over, is anyone's guess.)
I know that you suspect this typed version was actually a draft, used by the penman to produce the hoaxed diary, and not a transcript made from the diary, after Mike acquired it. You claim it is material evidence of a modern fake.
I will certainly contact Shirley to ask if my statement was in error. I will also ask her if she knows whether the police were able to date the typescript they found on Mike's word processor. If they were, then presumably they found it was not done incriminatingly early. If they were unable to date it at all, you're back to square one.
According to your hypothesis, Mike either handed over material evidence of his own hoax when asked to produce a transcript, or he volunteered it. I can't think why he would have done either, when he didn't have to. Perhaps you have some ideas?
Hopefully, Shirley (or Doreen) will at least be able to settle the question of who first mentioned the subject.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on June 15, 2005) |
Dale Huddlesceugh
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 4:23 pm: |
|
I'm just passing through after revisiting an old interest in the case following a recent visit to London. I bought the Diary when it came out and was thrilled, horrified and, initially, convinced by it (and the watch!). Now I'm not nearly so sure! What I will say though, it is a very good effort by whoever wrote it (and scratched the watch!) - reading through the posts on this site I don't think it gets enough credit for its [attempted] plausibility from its detractors. If it is a forgery, I think it is symptomatic of the way that people seem to approach this case looking for a perfect solution, i.e. one that encompasses all or most of the mythology surrounding the case, as if the killer was some kind of malevolent gamesmaster who has set a timeless puzzle that only his equal will eventually solve. My guess is that the killer was by no means a genius and was just lucky not to be caught. If he did indulge in any jokes or wordplay, chances are most of them would fall flat or simply not be "got" by most people. (Full marks to the Diary again for Maybrick's gloriously crap sense of humour!) |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 642
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 1:27 pm: |
|
Caz-- After checking, I've been unable to find anything at all in the pubic domain to support the statement:
"At some point it's agreed that the Barretts will produce a typed transcript of the diary (fact)."
Indeed, all the evidence suggests that this was not the "fact."
Of course I do not question your claim that Keith Skinner (and others) received a document proporting to be a typescript of the Maybrick Diary in June, 1992.
What I do wonder about is whether we have any credible evidence to indicate when and for what reason that typescript was created. Here's why.
On Nov., 1993 Shirley Harrison & Kenneth Rendell had a joint appearance on the Larry King Show. Rendell stated that there had been a sinister development, that the police, armed with a warrant, found a word processor in Barrett’s home with the Diary on it. (Harrison, pocket books paperback, p. 272)
Harrison responds: “The police did not have a warrant. The WP was hardly ‘found’ it was on the dining room table.” (Ibid. p,272) (Remember this, because we’ll be coming back to it eventually).
A few months later, Nick Warren, writing to Doreen Montgomery mentions the unusual discovery on Mr. Barrett’s W.P.
Montgomery writes to Warren on 8 May, 1994:
“Of course we know what the SFS found--a transcript of the Diary! There’s nothing sinister in that. "Right from the word go, everyone knew that Mike had bought a WP precisely to transcribe the Diary, in order to study its contents more easily.”
(SFS=Serious Fraud Unit)
Now hold the phone. Multiple Questions.
If the argument is currently running (see your statement above) that this transcript was typed up at the request or "agreement" of Doreen Montgomery and the ladies at Crew Literary Agency, why on earth didn’t Montgomery say this? Why didn’t she say something like, “Why Mr. Warren, of course Mike had a transcript of the Diary!..it was agreed that he and his wife would create a typescript for our benefit.” The contractual agreement (Crew was a professional business) could then have been produced showing this. But clearly, this wasn’t the understanding of why the typescript was produced as of May, 1994.
Enter Paul Begg.
Author: Paul Begg Casebook Message Boards Archives
Thursday, 12 April 2001 - 06:03 pm
“Hi Martin
Your understanding is pretty much the same as mine. I likewise thought or probably more right I assumed it to be a copy made at the request of Doreen Montgomery, and only later did I understand it to have been a copy made by Mike.”
So independently, we have two sources with the seeming belief that this ‘typescript’ actually preceded Barrett’s arrival at Crew, and at no time was this made at the request of Doreen Montgomery... It was made by Barrett, for Barrett. Doreen's own statement suggests this.
It should also be noted that Barrett’s claim (implicit in Doreen’s statement of May 8, 1994) was demonstatably false. Barrett did not buy the word processor“precisely to transcribe the diary.” Research by private detective Alan Gray revealed that in fact the Barretts bought the Amstrad in 1986..roughly five years before showing up at Crew. Remember that this inexplicable (?) lie by Mr. Barrett was long before he allegedly began making false confessions, currently dismissed by some as soley due to psychological pressures of his ‘marital breakdown’... This is back when Mr. Barrett was still stating the Diary was too legit to quit. Those who believe Mr. Barrett’s confession can be explained by psychological pressures need to further explain why he was already being deceptive in 1992.
But does any of this raise a troubling question?
Why is it now stated or more rightly claimed that the typescript was created by an "agreement" with Crew? Where did this idea come from? The answer, as far as I can tell, is rather suprising. Or am I missing something? It appears that it’s genesis can be traced to Anne Graham a number of years after the fact.
In 1995, a full year after Montgomery wrote to Nick Warren, Anne Graham was subjected to an interview. Graham, now seperated from Barrett, and unable to compare notes with him, tells her version of the where the typescript came from.
The gist of this interview is recorded in the following note made by Keith Skinner, dated May 31, 1995: (this comes from a posting on the Old Casebook Archive).
"Anne said that the transcript [of the Diary] was made after they were in a 'go' situation. It was done fast. Mike’s typing was hopeless so Anne had to redo it. Mike read it [i.e., from the Diary] and Anne typed it [i.e., the original transcript] checking back against original, every so often, as she believed that it should be same as original."
(My emphasis is underlined).
As far as I can fathom ---and the truth is far from clear--something rather strange is going on. If it was known that typescript was created "by agreement" with Crew, why is Keith asking Anne Graham about it? One can only conclude that there was still some mystery as to when and why the typescript was created. Hence the questions put to Anne in 1995.
Yet, it certainly seems that Graham’s version of events directly contradicts Barrett’s earlier version as reported by Montgomery. Montgomery clearly believed Barrett bought the word processor specifically to transcribe the diary and study it; Graham was now stating that the typescript was not made until the Diary was ready ‘to go’ to a literary agency.
Is there any reason why we should now accept Anne's revision? Any ideas? (more later) Have a good weekend. RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on June 16, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1864
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 11:52 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
I appreciate your comments.
I don't know how you would be able to pursue your suspicions about the typed version of the diary.
Shirley responded to my questions and said my statement was correct. She wrote:
We certainly asked Mike to produce a transcript.
She also confirmed that the police found nothing on which they could prosecute, and that Anne was still using the Amstrad word processor at a later date when she and Keith were doing transcripts of tapes.
The fact is, Mike (with or without Anne's help) did supply Doreen and co with the only typed version of the diary known to exist by that time. Your hypothesis would seem to depend on this version having been created in advance of the diary, and being handed over to Doreen, as if it had just been typed up from the diary, without any qualms on Mike's part.
We already know that Mike tells porkies. He was as capable of telling them in 1992 as he was in 1994. He gave a false name when he first telephoned Doreen, for instance. It would make sense if he didn't want anyone to know about his writing ambitions at first, for fear of arousing suspicion. When the subject of a transcript was raised, I can also see why Mike might have pretended to have bought the word processor for the purpose, rather than admit he'd had it since the mid-1980s.
But analysing another one of Mike's dodgy claims, or concluding that Mike initially typed this version for his own use, won't actually get you any nearer knowing when it was done.
Another problem is that you don't know exactly when Mike first held the finished diary in his hand. His own story was that Tony Devereux gave it to him around May 1991. So in theory, Mike could have made a transcript innocently, and in ignorance of the diary's origins, at any time after that.
Anne's story, however, is that the transcript was a joint effort once Doreen and co were on board.
I wouldn't read too much into the fact that Keith was asking Anne about the transcript in 1995. By then, all sorts of suspicions had been voiced about the Barretts' alleged roles in the affair. And Keith was nothing, if not thorough, in all his investigations concerning the various alleged circumstances surrounding the emergence of this document; he still is, thank goodness.
If Keith hadn't questioned Anne in depth about every little piece of the jigsaw - if only to compare Mike's accounts with hers - you would have much more reason now to worry that something incriminating may have been missed.
Since you are already corresponding with Keith, may I suggest that you put any more related queries to him. There is certainly no one better informed to assess your suspicions.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on June 18, 2005) |
Jason
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 12:49 pm: |
|
I'll tell you where we can go from here. We can drop one James Maybrick from the equation.Most of the arguments about him and the diary are not required. I'll fill you in. The Whitechapel murderer of 1888 wasnt the riddler off Batman - or even the Joker.The fantasies that have grown since 1888 are almost comical.I suspect that T.V. and movies may have alot to do with it. Even the Royal Family is a suspect.HA HA.
I doubt the animal responsible in 1888 was into funny little rymes and wordplay. At the very most, he may have scraped together, with all his brainpower, the 'From Hell' letter. I even doubt though that he wrote that. Whom ever wrote that diary did thier homework. They found a subject that fit the mould , and old James was it.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 1:09 pm: |
|
Mr. Huddlesceugh wrote:
"...People seem to approach this case looking for a perfect solution, i.e. one that encompasses all or most of the mythology surrounding the case, as if the killer was some kind of malevolent gamesmaster who has set a timeless puzzle that only his equal will eventually solve."
>>Ah, but the Ripper WAS a malevolent gamesmaster! It's just that nobody had been able to figure out what his various games were. Please see the A?R Summary, Dissertations section.
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 645
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 2:46 pm: |
|
Caz-- Looking it over, I am still unable to reconcile Shirley's statement with Doreen's.
Shirley: "We certainly asked Mike to produce a transcript."
Doreen: ""Right from the word go, everyone knew that Mike had bought a WP precisely to transcribe the Diary, in order to study its contents more easily.”
It seems probable to me that this apparent conflict can be reconciled if Barrett's "typescript" of the Diary was an alleged part of his orginal "notes."
This would make perfect sense in reference to the agreement of April 30th, 1992.
" IT IS AGREED that the Owner will make available to the Author with mutually agreed safeguards for research purposes the Diary and his own research notes...."
If there is no individual reference to the 'production' of this typescript --and one would think that there should have been--than I think it is best to conclude that the typescript was portrayed as being part of the 'research notes'., ie, that it already existed, as per Doreen's later letter to Nick Warren.
Thus, all one can logically infer is that Barrett was asked for a typescript and (at a later meeting) delivered one. It doesn't tell us whether or not he went home and typed one up, or whether he merely downloaded it off his WP. Doreen's statement suggests the latter.
This brings to the forefront Pan Books. If Barrett had indeed contacted Pan Books prior to contacting Rupert Crew, would that not qualify as a 'go' situation? You see, in my hypothesis, I don't rule out the possibility that Barrett's transcript is what he was presenting to Pan Books. Oddly, Shirley uses the phrase "story" in regards to this episode. I don't know why that is. Pan Books published, among other things, mystery novels, and Barrett mentions elsewhere owning a copy of a Colin Dexter mystery which was (I checked) published by Pan Books. Thus, his claim to get their name from a book lying around the house is at least somewhat credible. In one of Barrett's ramblings to Alan Gray he stated that the diary didn't even physically exist when he contacted Doreen. He bamboozled her. Nothing Barrett said can be accepted without evidence, of course, but it certainly does fit in with the apparent fact that Barrett ordered the maroon diary on or about the same day he called Rupert Crew. It might be worth noting that one of Barrett's 1995 affidavits stated that he got the bookdealer's address from the Writer's Yearbook. This has been proved false. But wasn't Rupert Crew advertising in the Yearbook? Barrett had muddled the two events in his mind; the two events went together. Or at least that is how I see it. Cheers RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on June 23, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1886
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 6:42 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
Well, if you are depending on what Mike told Doreen, you are already lost.
A copy of the transcript was finally sent to Shirley from Doreen's office on June 10 1992. Keith and I are still trying to establish exactly when Doreen received it.
Mike handed over his research notes (which Anne said she had tidied and typed up on the word processor) to Shirley in Liverpool, a month or two later.
There is simply no evidence that either of these documents existed before the finished diary, or even before it was first shown to Doreen, on April 13 1992.
But since Mike's story at that time was that he had had the diary since the late Spring of 1991, I can imagine Doreen asking him what research he had done so far, and even if Mike had done very little, he would no doubt have bluffed his way through and said, "oh loads of stuff and what have you", and then had to get his act together to produce it - which he did, but not until well after the publishing auction.
If Mike had the typescript and research notes all ready to go, in March 1992, he could have handed them straight over with the diary - after all, according to his own account, he'd already had some ten months after acquiring the diary to do it all. Mike told Doreen that he had bought a word processor specially to transcribe the diary, not wanting her to know about the writing ambitions that had led to him buying it back in the mid-1980s.
So when Doreen asked him for the transcript and his research notes, why wouldn't he have sent them without delay, to make out that the previous ten months had been filled with his efficiency and enthusiasm for this mysterious document? Could it not have been because he hadn't actually done the work yet, but wanted Doreen to think he hadn't been idle all that time?
You see, there are different ways of looking at Mike's words and actions, and not all of them point to his involvement in the diary's creation. Try the simple 'Mike found it in a skip' idea, and see if the known facts since March 1992 could fit. If they could, you are no nearer supporting your own hypothesis, that Mike obtained the scrapbook and got a pal to pen the 63 pages from the typescript, all between the end of March and April 13, when he let Shirley take the finished document to the British Museum and Jarndyce.
I just don't believe that the composer would have written:
...what I have in store for them they would stop this instance [sic].
This is the first (existing) line of the diary, according to the Barretts' typescript, and which a hoaxer is supposed to have begun in mid-sentence to inject realism. If this is the case, some thought would have gone into the composition and meaning of those first words. Yet the typist was evidently not familiar enough with the expression - 'stop this instant' - to get it right. Your penman saw the error though, and corrected it to 'instance', and even changed the 'I' to 'they' for some reason.
Don't you think it is much more reasonable to suggest that the first words of the diary were mistranscribed, because it was typed up hurriedly at the last minute (maybe from dictation?), and by someone who didn't often use that expression themselves - at least not in writing?
Finally for now:
It might be worth noting that one of Barrett's 1995 affidavits stated that he got the bookdealer's address from the Writer's Yearbook. This has been proved false.
This is news to me, RJ. When was it proved false, and how? Where do you think Mike got the bookdealer's address from?
Love,
Caz
X |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 646
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 2:38 pm: |
|
"if you are depending on what Mike told Doreen, you are already lost."
Caz--In all honesty, that 'spin' is getting a little tired. Alas, I'm only relying on what Doreen told Nick Warren and am wondering why it neither agrees with Shirley, nor Anne Graham, nor with your own belief (for which no evidence exists) that Graham typed-up this typescript directly at the binding of Rupert Crew. Might it be notice that Ms. Graham's claim is not only self-contradictory, but changes a year later when asked by a second interviewer?
But let's look at this from another angle. Is there any definitive evidence that the typescript given to Rubert Crew is even the same as what was later found on Barrett's word-processor? Martin Fido asked that question four years ago; if there's been an anwer, I've missed it. Take care, RJP
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2231
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 6:27 pm: |
|
You two ought to get married.
Plenty to talk about. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1888
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 6:57 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
Ah, so although you haven't really addressed any of the points I made in my last post, you are now changing tack and suggesting there were two typescripts - one being the draft composition that Mike's penman worked from, and one being the transcript made for Doreen, that begins:
...what I have in store for them they would stop this instance [sic].
It seems Martin Fido was also stymied by that first line, because it makes no sense to argue that the diary composer wrote it like that and the penman corrected it.
If this is a serious claim, I guess it's up to you (or Martin) to find evidence that there were two separate versions on the word processor when the police called.
Love,
Caz
X |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1891
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 6:34 am: |
|
Hi again RJ,
I have to thank you very much indeed for bringing my attention back to the Barretts' transcript.
I have started comparing it again with the diary itself, and have found something intriguing on the second page of the diary text:
Opportunity is there, of that fact I am certain. The bitch has no inclination.
This always seemed to me a bit of a non-sequitur. But this time I read the words, it struck me that the diarist probably meant:
The bitch has no inkling.
In other words, 'Sir Jim' figured he could bugger off to London on a weekend without Florie having the faintest suspicion what he got up to.
Suddenly the two sentences flowed instead of jerked.
Then I looked again at the previous passage:
Thomas has requested that we meet as soon as possible. Business is flourishing so I have no inclination as regards the matter he describes as most urgent. Never the less I shall endeavour to meet his request.
I used to think this didn't sound right at all, but assumed the diarist selfishly meant:
My business is flourishing so I am not too fussed about the matter Thomas says is urgent.
But if the diarist meant inkling here too, the whole thing flows:
Thomas has requested that we meet as soon as possible. Business is flourishing so I have no inkling as regards the matter he describes as most urgent. Never the less I shall endeavour to meet his request.
In other words:
Thomas's business is flourishing so I haven't a clue what he thinks is so urgent.
Initially, I took this to be just another malapropism, like 'gorge out their eyes', when it should be 'gouge'; and the courage 'alludes' rather than 'eludes' him. The words inclination and inkling appeared to have nothing in common apart from sounding a bit similar.
But no - I could never have guessed what was coming. In the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, the fourth definition of inkling is in fact inclination, dialect only, and its earliest recorded use in dialect was 1787.
So the diarist had 'Sir Jim' use dialect, a hundred years after its earliest recorded use, writing inclination for inkling.
And it appears that Dr Kate Flint, lecturer at Oxford University, missed this little gem. But then she did specialise in literature rather than language.
You couldn't make it up, could you?
Love,
Caz
X |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 647
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 4:53 pm: |
|
Caz--i'll be brief because i don't wish to seduce Heckler Wolf from the 39 maledictions against THC (the jobber, not the narcotic). Yes--could be, or could be someone we already know who has trouble with their inklings and nigglings. As for your first post. Maybe it's time to change 'it's agreed the Barretts will produce a typescript into 'it's agreed the Baretts will deliver a typescript?? Bye. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1895
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 7:08 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
You may have missed it, but back on June 15, I wrote:
My understanding is that one of the earliest responsibilities taken on by the Barretts was to produce a transcript of the diary for Doreen, Shirley and her chosen researchers to consult. (Now, the length of time that elapsed between 'producing' it, as in typing it, and 'producing' it, as in handing it over, is anyone's guess.)
So I have already acknowledged that 'produce' means 'deliver', and that we just don't know for sure when it was 'produced', as in typed.
But it's up to you to demonstrate that the typescript that was delivered was produced before the actual diary. And you haven't even begun yet.
I knew you'd have an excuse ready for the diarist's use of the obscure 'inclination', to mean 'inkling'. Of course, you have no evidence at all that Anne would have trouble with 'inkling', just because she once had trouble with 'niggling'.
Are you seriously suggesting that a mistake on Anne's part coincidentally took the form of a totally separate but genuine dialect word, which was actually used to mean the very word she was searching for in vain - inkling?
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on June 28, 2005) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 441
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 10:26 am: |
|
"Are you seriously suggesting that a mistake on Anne's part coincidentally took the form of a totally separate but genuine dialect word, which was actually used to mean the very word she was searching for in vain - inkling?"
And of course it was used not once, but twice.
Two questions for you Caz, as I don't have access to my books for the time being:
1) Have you found any other examples of dialect in the Diary ?
-and-
2) Florence wrote an autobiography; has anyone checked that for "inclination" ?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1899
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 5:42 am: |
|
Hi Sir Robert,
I am slowly going through the diary to see if I have missed any other expressions that might say something about the author.
We need a language specialist to tell us if 'inclination' was likely to be used colloquially to mean 'inkling' as late as 1987. It won't help if it is peculiar to the Liverpool or north west area, but if it was also peculiar to the good old days...
I have never seen Flo's autobiog, but I will ask the question of someone who has.
Isn't this exciting?
Love,
Caz
X |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 648
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 11:30 am: |
|
"We need a language specialist to tell us if 'inclination' was likely to be used colloquially to mean 'inkling' as late as 1987."
Caz--Err....sorry, but when you find that language specialist you might want to run your linguistic theories but them in slow motion. Do you see what you've done? You've reasoned backwards using 'inkling'...a word that doesn't even appear in the Diary, and then claim that 'inclination' is also used 'coloquially' to signify 'inkling.' But I suspect language isn't quite that simple, and the equations don't work in reverse. A quick look through the OED shows no definition under 'inclination' that signifies 'inkling.' In other words, they might shoot smack in Newark, but it doesn't mean they dope their lips in Manhattan when eating cream-cheese bagels, if you get the idea... RP |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1903
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 1:44 pm: |
|
Hi RJ,
Maybe I didn't explain it properly.
The diarist uses the word 'inclination', not to mean 'inclination', but to mean 'inkling' - twice.
As you have discovered, if you look up the word 'inclination' in the OED, you won't find 'inkling', because you can't use 'inkling' to mean 'inclination'. The diarist didn't, for example, write:
My inkling was to run/I had no inkling to rip tonight.
But according to the OED, people were using the word 'inclination' to mean 'inkling' from at least 1787 - two hundred years before you claim the diarist composed the text.
I believe it's a misuse, because 'inkling' comes from Middle English inclen: to hint at, while inclination comes from Latin.
They are supposed to be two completely separate words, with completely separate meanings, and therefore completely unlike your smack/dope analogy; only the people who used 'inclination' to mean 'inkling', just like our diarist, obviously didn't know that, and it slipped into the language by default.
There is no doubt that this is not a one-off mistake; 'inclination' is a word used in dialect for 'inkling' - or at least it was when the diarist demonstrated this very usage twice.
Coincidental error? You'll have a job convincing the linguists.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on June 30, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1112
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 2:54 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
Perhaps this will be useful to you in your ongoing Diary research:
http://tinyurl.com/dd7h2
Chris Phillips
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 649
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 3:15 pm: |
|
Caz--Thanks. My last post was a little unclear, I guess. Let me try again, though I fear AP is about to give me a well-deserved lobotomy.
...according to the OED, people were using the word 'inclination' to mean 'inkling' from at least 1787 - two hundred years before you claim the diarist composed the text.
But this simply isn't true... What the OED actually states is the other way around: that some dialect in Britain used the word 'inkling' to signify the same definition as 'inclination' at least 200 years ago. You're still reversing it. The different roots (one Middle English, the other Latin) actually supports my point. While we can both accept that the OED is correct in stating that some dialect (where? Isle of Man? Cornwall? Outer Hebrides?) used the word "inkling" in such a fasion, it simply doesn't follow that a dialect also started to give the Latinate word "inclination" a meaning akin to the Middle English root "inkling." I can't imagine that language works that way.
I hope that's clear.
"Business is flourishing so I have no inclination as regards the matter he describes as most urgent"
No reason to substitute 'inkling', as far as I can tell. Sorry. RP.
(Message edited by rjpalmer on June 30, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1904
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 3:45 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Many thanks.
So as you see at no.6:
Different meanings that the word has, as well as synonyms (same meaning) and antonyms (opposite meaning)
Look up 'inkling' in the OED and you will find 'inclination', used as a synonym for 'inkling', but only in dialect.
Look up 'inclination' and you won't find 'inkling' used as a synonym for 'inclination'. It's a one-way street, and the diarist walked it twice.
Don't you think this is exciting? Or would you rather I had left well alone? 
Hi RJ,
Sorry, wrong again.
'Inclination' is the word used in dialect to mean 'inkling'.
'Inkling' is not the dialect word here, 'inclination' is.
I'm sure you will not find any documentary evidence that 'inkling' was ever used to mean 'inclination'.
In 1787 both words were known and used, so their separate roots are irrelevant. The fact is, certain people in certain areas (I'll try to find out the who and the where) were misusing the word 'inclination' to mean 'inkling' - so often that it slipped into the OED as a genuine dialect word, used instead of 'inkling'.
(Think of President Bush and you will get the idea of someone deciding that 'inkling' should have 'ation' on the end.)
So how do you make sense of:
"Business is flourishing so I have no inclination as regards the matter he describes as most urgent"?
Business is flourishing so I have no desire/I'm not inclined regarding the matter?
Does that make sense?
But:
Business is flourishing so I have no idea what can be so urgent.
Now that makes much more sense and it is supported by the OED no less.
I've an inkling that your inclination to rubbish my discovery at all costs has affected your normal reasoning.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1113
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 4:29 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
I'm sure you will not find any documentary evidence that 'inkling' was ever used to mean 'inclination'.
Is this some kind of bizarre joke?
You have just told us that
In the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, the fourth definition of inkling is in fact inclination, dialect only, and its earliest recorded use in dialect was 1787.
Repeat:
inclination is a definition of inkling
In other words:
inclination is a meaning of inkling
In other words:
inkling means inclination
That's how a dictionary works. This really is primary school stuff!
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on July 01, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2620
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 7:13 am: |
|
i love diary world. whats all this even about!
Jenni
"be just and fear not"
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1117
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 7:19 am: |
|
Jenni
Don't worry, just one tiny part of the "ongoing investigation". Let's only hope that the mystery benefactor isn't paying good money for Mrs Morris's not-so-learned researches in the Oxford English Dictionary ...
Chris Phillips
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 958
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 7:22 am: |
|
Sigh. This is dumb. For two reasons. One, even if inclination is used slang-like to mean inkling, it would only be of import if it came into use AFTER the reported diary was written, post-1888. It could well be a) a maloprop, or it could be and hey here's an idea, that whoever forged it used inclination to mean inking as apparently several thousands of people do, making it sufficiently common to be put in the OED. How is that exciting? That's like saying, hey the word carriage is in the diary and carriage only came into use as a word in 1600 (I made that number up) so woo-hoo we have made a discovery. No, no you haven't.
Second, in the example given, inclination does make perfect sense as meaning inclination.
"Thomas has requested that we meet as soon as possible. Business is flourishing so I have no inclination as regards the matter he describes as most urgent. Never the less I shall endeavour to meet his request."
Thomas is bugging the piss out of me to meet, everything's fine with the business so I really don't want to take time out of my busy day. Nevertheless, despite not being inclined, I will meet with him.
It makes perfect sense as inclination.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1912
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 7:23 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Definition was my word and it was ill-chosen for this example.
The OED gives 'inclination' as an alternative word that is/was used for 'inkling', but only in dialect.
If 'inkling' meant the same as 'inclination', dialect wouldn't come into it, and you would find 'inkling' as one of the definitions of 'inclination' - it isn't there.
The two words have entirely different meanings - except when 'inclination' is an obvious corruption of the correct word 'inkling' - in dialect.
It doesn't work the other way round, unless you can prove otherwise.
So give me an example where the word 'inkling' is used to mean 'inclination'.
Love,
Caz
X
PS Ally seems to get it - although she also claims that thousands are still using 'inclination' to mean 'inkling'; or if that argument falls flat, the diarist meant 'inclination'. So the bitch has no inclination to do what exactly? I think she had no inkling about Sir Jim's trips to Whitechapel.
(Message edited by caz on July 01, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2621
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 7:49 am: |
|
Caroline,
i am afraid you have lost me there. What do you mean?
Jenni
(Message edited by jdpegg on July 01, 2005)
"be just and fear not"
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1118
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 7:50 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
This is getting really unbelievable.
You wrote In the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, the fourth definition of inkling is in fact inclination, dialect only, and its earliest recorded use in dialect was 1787.
Now that it's been pointed out to you that this doesn't correspond to the usage in the diary you claim The OED gives 'inclination' as an alternative word that is/was used for 'inkling', but only in dialect.
That is exactly the opposite of what you claimed in the first place, and it is certainly not borne out by either of the dictionaries I have just checked, which both give "inclination" as a meaning of "inkling", but not vice versa.
This is either extreme stupidity on your part, or extreme dishonesty (or perhaps a combination of both).
Chris Phillips
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 959
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 8:04 am: |
|
Well see Caz, first, you say that there is the possibility that the argument would fall flat because I haven't proved that thousands are still using "inclination" to mean "inkling" but neither have you proved that a hundred years after it's recorded use that it was being used commonly in 1888. So your argument in that regards would fall just as flat as mine.
Second, I don't happen to have access to the Diary text at this time, and therefore can't look at the text surrounding the excerpt, but I can still read it several ways depending. If the forger is talking about Jim going to London, and writes that she has no inclination, it could be read as I am going to to London to get some because my cold fish wife isn't hot and horny, or it could be read that he is going to London, and his wife isn't inclined to go. But chances are, I would go with the first interpretation which is, I am going to town because my wife has a headache.
(Message edited by ally on July 01, 2005)
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 960
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 8:21 am: |
|
And apparently this whole conversation is over anyway because I just read the preceding posts (should have done that first before responding to the one post that caught my eye) and find that the dictionary says inkling means inclination but not the other way around. Geesh, I really need some coffee. So what the hell is the argument about?
Inclination has not, never has been used to mean inkling. Game over.
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 218
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 11:33 am: |
|
Reading this thread has made my head spin !
( not like in The Exorcist though , thankfully ) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1915
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 5:34 pm: |
|
Hi Ally,
...neither have you proved that a hundred years after it's [sic] recorded use that it was being used commonly in 1888.
But I wasn't claiming any such thing. You said that 'apparently thousands of people' do [present tense] use the word 'inclination' to mean 'inkling', so it wouldn't be surprising if the diarist did too. But you have no inkling as to whether this dialect word is still in use today, or died out many decades ago.
All we do know for now is that if the diarist meant 'inkling', the dialect word 'inclination' was used - whenever the diary was penned. And no one seems to have heard of anyone using 'inclination' to mean 'inkling' in modern times.
Hi Chris (and Ally),
Look, maybe I'm crap at explaining this, but you are not up against me here; you are up against the OED.
Under the word 'inkling', the word 'inclination' appears, and this is described as a dialect word, and its earliest recorded appearance was in the year 1787.
My understanding of this OED entry remains exactly the same: that 'inclination' was, from 1787, a recognised dialect word, used as a synonym for 'inkling'. But 'inkling' is not used as a synonym for 'inclination', hence it does not appear under the latter in the OED.
If the OED were telling us that 'inkling' actually meant 'inclination' (as in the generally recognised meaning, not the dialect use), they would have said so, and they would have put 'inkling' under 'inclination' too. But they are obviously not interchangeable.
That's about as clear as I can make it; now it's up to you to get to grips with what the OED is telling you.
You can start by giving me a sentence containing the dialect word 'inclination', as it appears under 'inkling', and as it might have been used when it appeared in 1787.
That should sort it out once and for all, if you claim to know what you are talking about.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on July 01, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1120
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 6:08 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
Under the word 'inkling', the word 'inclination' appears, and this is described as a dialect word, and its earliest recorded appearance was in the year 1787.
Yes. What that means is that the compilers of the dictionary found an example of the word inkling, used in dialect in 1787, and the meaning of it was inclination.
That's how a dictionary works!
This is exactly what R. J. Palmer was telling you in the first place.
Rather than just coming back with another knee-jerk contradiction, can't you go away and think about it a bit more? Look at some other entries in the dictionary and see if your interpretation really makes sense. Think about R. J.'s dope/smack example.
Chris Phillips
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 961
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 8:37 pm: |
|
Caz,
Sic? Since I assume you are perfectly aware that this isn't a published work of any import that requires you to [Sic] what you quote, that it is merely a message board, is your only purpose in Siccing to be a pratty snot and once again point out typos and grammatical mistakes in an attempt to detract from your lack of argument?
Let me see if I can come up with an explanation simple enough for you to understand. It is quite possible that if I were to look up the word "dog" (inkling) in the dictionary, one of the defintions I might find would be "ugly person" (inclination) because "dog" is used to mean an ugly person.
So if someone writes without a context: What a dog! I can only guess whether that person means a canine, or an ugly person.
However if someone writes: What an ugly person! I cannot assume or even stretch to consider that they are talking about a canine.
So if the dictionary listing for inkling states that one use is as inclination, and if the diarist had written, "I have no inkling" you could argue he may have meant inclination because it can mean either. The diarist however wrote "I have no inclination" and that cannot be read as being "I have no inkling". You are attempting to take a bastardized slang word and say that the converse works as well and it doesn't.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2624
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 03, 2005 - 6:20 am: |
|
Ally. wouldnt worry about if youve used the right commas myself - just worry about what Caz means.
Jenni
"be just and fear not"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1918
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 04, 2005 - 6:52 am: |
|
Hi All,
I must apogolise - I've just asked my brother about this, and he says I'm wrong, and that Chris is right - ie that, according to the OED, 'inkling', in dialect, could mean 'inclination'.
My brother also said that people are always confusing similar-sounding words like this, and since 'inkling' was once commonly used to mean 'inclination', it's more than likely that some would do it 'tother way round.
Perhaps Anne wrote it after all - er, no I won't go that far.
Once again, sincere apologies for my mistake. 
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2631
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 04, 2005 - 7:50 am: |
|
Caz,
I suppose we will let you off since you apologised!! These things happen.
Perhaps Anne wrote it after all - er, no I won't go that far
no I would advise to be very careful about saying such things
cheers
Jenni
"By the power of Greyskull - I have the power!"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1920
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 04, 2005 - 2:20 pm: |
|
Aaaargh! I mustn't apogolise - I must apologise. 
Oh well, tomorrow's another day for learning through making mistakes...
Love,
Caz
X |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 9:41 am: |
|
And where is John V. Omlor when we need him........or some pith! |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2637
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 05, 2005 - 5:37 am: |
|
Caz,
don't worry, it was clearly a typo, we wouldn't bring that up, we're quite reasonable really!
Jenni
"By the power of Greyskull - I have the power!"
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 650
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 12:22 pm: |
|
Now that Caz has withdrawn her argument, I take it that Dr. Kate Flint has regained her dignity and remains happily unrebutted--ie., the Diary's language does not sound Victorian to her trained ear, but only pseudo-Victorian?
Moving along...
Caz asked about the Writer's Yearbook. He is Barrett's statement in his affidavit, 5 January, 1995.
"Roughly round about January, February 1990 Anne Barrett and I finally decided to go ahead and write the Diary of Jack the Ripper. In fact Anne purchased a Diary, a red leather backed Diary for L25.00p, she made the purchase through a firm in the 1986 Writters Year Book, I cannot remember their name, she paid for the Diary by cheque in the amount of L25 which was drawn on her Lloyds Bank Account, Water Street Branch, Liverpool.'
The argument was (see Harrison, Blake ed.) that Barrett got it all wrong because the bookseller that sold him the blank diary didnt' advertise in the Writer's Yearbook. This is, at base, a rather silly argument. The receipt was produced and the purchase of the maroon diary proved. What remains interesting is that Rupert Crew evidently was in the habit of advertising in the Writer's Yearbook. Records show that Barrett contacted Crew and purchased a blank diary on or about the same day. Thus, the two events are linked in his mind. Clearly, MB's memory is merely slightly garbled, the facts are basically accurate. I remain haunted by the idea that the rest might be basically true as well. Now, wouldn't that be ironic these ten years on?
Keep safe for the important things. Londoners have always survived whatever has been thrown at them. Cheers, RP |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1940
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 2:36 pm: |
|
Hi RJ,
And the diary - and Mike Barrett - continue to survive everything you throw at them both.
The order and purchase of the maroon diary proves nothing, apart from the fact that Mike wanted to get hold of a Victorian diary for some reason. The maroon diary is dated 1891.
Are you seriously suggesting that Mike (or his penman) didn't check the dates of the ripper murders and Maybrick's death until after March 26 1992, when the maroon diary arrived? Or that it just didn't occur to him to specify which year he needed it to be for?
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on July 08, 2005) |
Dorset
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 3:16 pm: |
|
I don't know if this has been discussed but looking through Gordon Honeycombe's Black museum book, Jack the Ripper and The trial of James Maybrick are featured on adjacent pages and published prior to the finding of the diary. Any theories regarding this would be gratefully received
David |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1586
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 3:29 pm: |
|
"Where do we go from here?"
That's the thread's title.
I noticed this afternoon that the thoughts about this question which I included in the last DiTA post, the stuff I have learned here recently which allowed me to make a few conclusions concerning the state of things here in Diary World, were sucked into the Pub Talk ether.
Fair enough.
But these thoughts, separate from the sad monthly reporting of nothing real and nothing new, seem to me to be especially relevant today, when we have once again seen someone show up here and say something that just isn't true as an attack against another poster. And when a simple review of the record revealed how completely untrue this attack was.
So for whatever you might feel they are worth, here are the remarks I made originally, taken out of their DiTA day context and reframed for the regular, more permanent threads. They were offered upon my return to the boards after an absence.
I've been away from the boards for the past month and half, but I've had a chance to catch up on my diary thread reading and I must admit that I've learned a few things.
The first thing I've learned is -- for the most part, no one really cares.
Practically speaking the diary is, among objective and rational and clear thinking people, a non-issue. The Ripper experts are all but unanimous -- the book's a fake. James wasn't Jack. Only a tiny handful of people even bother to post on the diary threads here on the boards anymore and, apart from those who have a personal stake in its maintenance as a controversy, the few that do frequent this twisted little world seem to be doing so just for the fun of fighting.
The Diary threads are, quite properly, the freak show of the Casebook circus. People read them for the same reason they watch the World Wrestling Federation -- sure, they know none of it is real -- but it's fun to watch the carnage and the silliness.
And that's probably as it should be.
There is one copy of the latest edition of Shirley's book and one copy of the Skinner diary book in my local Borders. They've both been there since the day they came out. I check each time I visit. I marked both in a small way just to be sure, in case someone actually bought one. Guess what? 
The diary is clearly a fake and people have largely lost interest. (But wait – we all know what's coming...)
Also, no one has anything new to say on these boards and hasn't for years. No one here is even thinking in new ways about the forgers with the possible exception of RJ Palmer, who is at least openly and honestly pursuing interesting avenues of questioning.
And regarding the so-called super secret squirrel "ongoing investigation" we hear mentioned here whenever things get desperate for one side in the debate -- so far it seems to have amounted to little more than vague and self-important puffery coughed up occasionally as a smokescreen to hide behind (generally when the writer in question runs out of evidence and arguments). The date on my copy of Shirley's diary book is 1993. That's TWELVE full years ago! That's over half of Jennifer Pegg's life. So if this alleged investigation is indeed "ongoing," then it's "ongoing" like the Arab-Israeli conflict is "ongoing" and progress is apparently being made at roughly the same rate. Meanwhile, Caroline Morris keeps genuflecting and crossing herself while invoking the sacred name of Keith Skinner whenever the issue comes up. If this investigation is being undertaken in the same way the Skinner diary book was put together, I do hope the results are at least a bit more accurate when and if they ever appear. After all, that's a book whose own jacket tells us that a decade after the diary first appeared "a growing body of opinion -- which includes noted academics -- believes the diary may be genuine after all." Pretty convincing stuff that, even if it is totally false.
I have learned other things as well.
I've learned that some people will try anything, from misusing a dictionary to quoting books from a different century that use phrases that are almost but not quite like what the reader wants them to be, just to keep their desperate hope alive and keep the sad and pathetic discussion going. Of course, it's all nonsense and easy to laugh at. But it is also intellectually irresponsible (as if that mattered in such a place as Diary World). The textual evidence still points repeatedly to a modern date of composition and no one has yet offered any other specific rational explanations for the numerous textual problems (except for the vague hope that maybe perhaps there might be something we just don’t know). As of today, still, there is no “old hoax theory.” But there is a common sense one.
And please do not doubt that RJ Palmer speaks the truth when he writes about a whole new and even more ridiculous suspect eventually being dredged up from this cheap hoax. Every last nickel is going to be squeezed out of the diary by the greedy, the self-interested, and the shameless. And if that means naming yet another Maybrick as the Ripper in another goofy book or consulting on an embarrassing film with such a cheap and nonsensical plot, or if it means publishing yet another edition of the discredited diary without at least admitting in public that it's clearly a hoax, or even, if absolutely necessary, finally pimping some silly subsequent book on the forgery itself, then that's what we'll see. And they'll all come with a price tag attached so that more money can be made from the fake. It's ugly. It's revealing. And it's just a matter of time.
Still, in a way, I hope they do play the gloriously ludicrous "Jim's famous brother Mike did it and faked the book after somehow seeing the police list and set up Florie for a fall" card. That would finally put the diary debate precisely where it belongs -- with the "Lewis Carroll did it" silliness and the "Maybe Florence Nightingale was the Ripper" element. And things would all be in their proper place.
Someone once suggested here that I hate the diary. I don't. As a book it's pretty funny (if hackneyed and melodramatic and obviously fake). I enjoyed reading it. I don't hate it at all. No. What I hate is the deceit that surrounds it. Put it this way. If I owned a painting which looked like a Picasso and was signed "Picasso," but which expert after expert told me was obviously not a Picasso, and I still told people it might be a Picasso and I allowed it to be reproduced in a book that claimed it was a Picasso and I made money off the idea it might be a Picasso, then I would deserve any scorn people might choose to throw my way. Begg, Fido, Evans, Sugden, Skinner, even Morris have all said that the diary is a hoax. Expert after expert agrees. But its owner still won't admit openly and in writing that it's a fake and he still allows it to appear in new editions of a book claiming that it might be real (and now even claiming that Maybrick was killing people in America as well). It's absurd and it deserves to be laughed away as a self-interested refusal to admit the simple and obvious truth -- as Caroline Morris once put it so clearly -- "Maybrick didn't write that diary."
Oh, of course there will always be the fringe elements, the sad crop-circle types who'll construct web pages dedicated to James as Jack and come up with fanciful excuses for the inconvenient fact that there's absolutely no real evidence of any sort anywhere that even remotely suggests he was. But like all basement dwelling crazies that fantasize on the web, they can be blissfully ignored (except when one needs a punchline).
No, it's the professional players with a vested interest in this sorry affair that are far more disturbing than the crazies. They try their best to keep the game going with pleas of "well maybe there's something out there we just haven't seen yet, you never know, there just might be, hey it's always possible" psuedo-logic of desperation in the face of all the textual evidence that points clearly to a cheap hoax and a modern date of composition just so they can preserve whatever it is they think they stand to lose, either financially or in terms of their own reputations.
And there's no reason to think this goofy little game will end anytime soon.
So, as you read the diary posts at this site, just remember this -- it's all a joke. It's a bad hoax being investigated by interested parties and discussed by people who all know the thing's a cheap fake. It means little or nothing and the debate here is intended for entertainment purposes only. Don't be fooled by pretensions to history or to scholarship or to responsible investigations or any other such ego-driven nonsense. Mike Barrett is the patron saint of all things in Diary World and Diary World has largely developed and taken shape in his twisted and perverted image. And that's how you should read it here. Come to this part of the Casebook for a laugh -- for mild bemusement or sometimes a good coffee-spewing guffaw -- but don't come here for serious history or to learn anything about Jack the Ripper. Unless what you want to learn is just how badly a part of this community can behave (and has been behaving since long before I arrived at this site) and just how self-interested and paranoid and bombastic and silly we all can be, including yours truly.
And that's where the relevant part of my remarks ends.
So it seems to me that the only place left to go, until the diary is finally thoroughly and properly tested, is around in circles.
We know the book's a fake.
The text itself tells us it's a modern fake, created after the police list became available and after the Poste House became the Poste House. No one can explain how Mike was able to identify the source of the Crashaw quote for everyone. And we know that the people who brought this fake book forward have lied about it (and about themselves) from the start.
So enjoy the circus, people. But remember, no one is likely to say anything new here anytime soon and the diary will still be a cheap modern fake whenever you return and visit us here in Diary World.
Thanks for reading as I put these scattered thoughts into the official record.
All the best,
--John |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1589
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 01, 2005 - 7:44 am: |
|
Here's an update.
The strange behavior that prompted me to repost the remarks above has now taken another turn.
After showing up on the Poste House thread and, without checking the facts, without even bothering to click and read, accusing Jennifer Pegg of "heartily joining in the celebrations" and "cheerleading" on the DiTA thread while the Platt tests were being arranged and conducted, Caroline Morris returns and offers her version of an apology.
But here's what it looks like:
"Hi Jenni,
"I get accused of stuff I haven't said and haven't done all the time. It's happened ever since I started posting, back in 1998. But two wrongs don't make a right, so I don't want you to think you are suffering the same injustice.
"So, if you never posted anything on the stupid dinosaur thread (rightly moved to Pub Talk - and by dinosaur I don't mean the daft purple creature, I mean the mantra that we'd all be dead before the diary owner did the right thing) or elswhere in Diary World, while the diary was being tested, that smacked of apparent approval of the 'nothing new, nothing real, no more testing in our lifetime' theme, I apologise."
Now, to continue my thoughts from earlier, let's take a look at this little missive. It might show us something about just where we are in Diary World these days.
First, Caroline begins by positioning herself as victim. Clearly, it's Jennifer who has been wronged here, even Caroline's own post later admits that this is the issue, and, as she says, two wrongs don't make a right, so why this first sentence?
Why the need to start what should be a selfless apology with a line about herself, and why cast herself from the outset as poor, misunderstood victim at that? What did she think the effect of this opening line would be? You'll notice she does not cite any instance where she was actually misread, she offers no evidence for this claim that she has been done wrong in the past -- she just drops it there so we'll all feel sorry for her before she eats her crow.
Then comes the apology. Sort of.
I say sort of, because it begins with the word "if."
Why "if?"
The period in question is still there. On the record.
It begins here: http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4469&post=104278#POST104278
And it ends here: http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4469&post=126791#POST126791
It takes up a total of eight months worth of time.
During that entire eight months, Jennifer Pegg sent four very short posts. They are all still there.
One of them asks what meat juice is, one thanks Chris for telling her, on says hi to Don and one says I wrote more than five words. A quick scan of the posts that fall between the two linked above will turn up each of them. Try it and see.
So here's the obvious question.
Why does Caroline insist on saying "if" in her response to Jennifer?
Is she too lazy, or too irresponsible, or too vindictive not to bother to go and check the posts and read for herself and see the facts?
Can she just not bring herself to see first hand that she was wrong?
Or does she really believe that if she writes the word "if" some of her readers might think the truth of the matter is uncertain and she might be right after all?
If so, this is a cheap and deceptive little ploy.
Fortunately, though, the record remains and can be checked by everyone to see quickly and easily that there is no "if" about it.
She was clearly wrong. She clearly posted her accusations without knowing what she was talking about.
Now, perhaps by this point you are saying "Aw hell, what difference does it make what she said? Who really cares whether Jenni posted on the DiTA thread? Who really cares if Caroline's claim was true or her apology was legit? This is all petty bullshit."
But there's a larger point here. And it's important and it explains a good deal about where we are and why the title of this thread has no meaningful answer.
This is not a question of the truth. The truth is clear for everyone to read. Jenni told it, Caroline did not and still cannot seem to face it (thus the "I'm a victim too" and the "if").
No, this is a question of behavior. Of writing and reading and how it happens routinely on these threads about the diary.
This is a question of Caroline showing up, writing something about someone without even bothering to look up the facts or learn the truth, just because she thinks it's true, and then hoping no one notices or calls her on it.
And it's a habit. It's a pattern and it reveals why this thread looks the way it does so often and why we are the gutter of the Casebook highway here in Diary World.
It's irresponsible and it represents bad scholarship habits and a reckless disregard for the truth which necessarily casts so much of what she writes here into similar doubt. It's why so little of what she writes concerning the diary and concerning what she thinks might be "evidence" in this case turns out be so unreliable (even before the world shows up to try and explain to her why she's wrong again, why you can't use a dictionary that way or why you can't cite 17th century texts for that purpose or why what she thinks she found this time or that time isn't really relevant at all).
And there's another question.
What was behind this attack on Jennifer anyway? Why did Sir Robert Anderson show up on a Poste House thread, in a completely different discussion, and suddenly quiz Jenni about her (practically non-existent) role on the DiTA thread? Why did Caroline then follow up and falsely accuse her, on that same thread, of "cheerleading" for the DiTA thread and "joining in heartily" with the celebrations there at the time the Platt tests were taking place?
What prompted this sudden and curious set of false accusations? What did Caroline and Sir Robert hope to gain from them? What had Jennifer really done that sparked this bit of self-righteous faux-indignation on their parts anyway?
I can't figure it out. What would make someone do something like that, and to direct their anger at a young woman who has never been anything but supportive of Robert Smith in any case?
That's the real mystery here.
Meanwhile, I know this has been a long and tedious read. But when I saw this morning's "apology," it immediately demonstrated to me exactly what the problem is and has been for such a long time here in Diary World.
I thought it demanded a closer and more careful reading, as a way of illustrating why the discussion here has looked the way it has for so long and why we move here only and always in circles.
Thanks for reading, and enjoy the day here in our little circus,
--John
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
