|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 531
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 11:29 am: | 
|
For those who are interested (and for those who are not), here is the Richard Crashaws poem.
SANCTA MARIA DOLORUM
Or the mother of sorrows; a pathetical descant upon the devout plainsong of "Stabat Mater dolorosa."
In the shade of death's sad tree
Stood doleful she;
Ah, she! now by none other
Name to be known, alas! but sorrow's Mother.
Before her eyes
Her's, and the whole world's joy,
Hanging all torn, she sees, and in his woes
And pains her pangs and throes.
Each wound of His from every part,
All, more at home in Her own heart.
What kind of marble, then,
Is that cold man
Who can look on and see,
Nor keep such noble sorrow's company?
Sure even from you,
My flints, some drops are due,
To see so many unkind swords contest
So fast for one soft breast;
While with a faithful, mutual flood
Her eyes bleed tears, His wounds weep blood!
O, costly intercourse
Of death's, and worse
Divided loves: while Son and Mother
Discourse alternate wounds to one another!
Quick deaths that grow
And gather as they come and go!
His nails write swords in Her; which soon Her heart
Pays back, with more than their own smart;
Her swords, still growing with His pain,
Turn spears, and straight come home again.
She sees Her Son, Her God,
Bow with a load
Of borrow'd sins, and swim
In woes that were not made for Him.
Ah! hard command
Of Love! Here must She stand
Charged to look on, and with a steadfast eye
See Her life die;
Leaving Her only so much breath
As serves to keep alive Her death.
O, Mother-turtle dove!
Soft source of love!
That these dry lids might borrow
Something from Thy full seas of sorrow!
O, in that breast
Of Thine, the noblest nest
Both of Love's fires and floods, might I recline
This hard, cold heart of mine,
The chill lump would relent, and prove
Soft subject for the siege of Love!
O, teach those wounds to bleed
In me; me, so to read
This book of loves, thus writ
In lines of death, my life may copy it
With loyal cares.
O, let me here claim shares!
Yield something in thy sad prerogative,
Great Queen of griefs, and give
Me to my tears; who, through all stone,
Think much that Thou should'st mourn alone.
Yea, let my life and me
Fix here with Thee,
And at the humble foot
Of this fair tree take our eternal root.
That so we may
At least be in Love's way;
And in these chaste wars while the wing'd wounds flee
So fast 'twixt Him and Thee,
My breast may catch the kiss of some kind dart,
Though as at second hand from either heart.
O you, your own best darts,
Dear doleful hearts!
Hail, and strike home and make me see
That wounded bosoms their own weapons be!
Come, wounds! come, darts!
Nail'd hands! and pierced hearts!
Come, your whole selves, Sorrow's great Son and
Mother,
Nor grudge a younger brother
Of griefs his portion, who, had all their due,
One single wound should not have left you.
Shall I set there
So deep a share,
Dear wounds, and only now
In sorrows draw no dividend with you!
O, be more wise,
If not more soft, mine eyes!
Flow, tardy founts! and into decent show'rs
Dissolve my days and hours:
And if thou yet, faint soul, defer
To bleed with Him, fail not to weep with Her.
Rich Queen, lend some relief,
At least in alms of grief,
To a heart who, by a sad right of sin,
Could prove the whole sum, too sure, due to him.
By all those stings
Of love, sweet bitter things,
Which these torn hands transcribed on Thy true heart;
O, teach mine, too, the art
To study him so, till we mix
Wounds, and become one crucifix.
O, let me suck the wine
So long of this chaste vine,
Till, drunk of the dear wounds, I be
A lost thing to the world, as it to me!
O, faithful friend
Of me and my end!
Fold up my life in love, and lay't beneath
My dear Lord's vital death.
Lo, heart, thy hope's whole plea! Her precious breath
Pour'd out in prayers for thee; thy Lord's in death. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1327
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 2:05 pm: |
|
Question,
Out of this whole poem, what lines appear excerpted and cited in the Sphere Guide?
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2092
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 2:21 pm: |
|
John,
oh that is hard!
can we staret with something easier?
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 533
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 2:28 pm: |
|
John, the poem is there for people who might be interested in reading it.
And shouldn't you be saving your silly comments for the 14th
Rob |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1328
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 8:02 pm: |
|
What? No Answer?
I repeat,
Out of that whole poem, what lines are excerpted and cited in the Sphere Guide?
--John |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 333
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 8:46 pm: |
|
Hey Robert! Thanks for posting that.
Recognizing that it doesn't necessarily shed light on the Library Miracle...but today I bought Bartlett's Familiar Quotations , 17th Edition. To my amazement, Crashaw has an entire page devoted to him (pg. 272). So much for the obscure angle....And of course, because it would make life simpler, "O costly..." ain't there.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 819
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 3:38 am: |
|
Sir Robert
Yes, as John has said many times, this isn't a known "quotation" (e.g. Stevenson's massive "Book of Quotation" - 8th edn - has 24 entries for Crashaw in its index, but not "O costly intercourse").
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1329
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 7:03 am: |
|
I can't believe this!
No one here knows the complete answer?
Once again, out of this whole poem, over 100 lines, what lines are excerpted and cited in the the Sphere Guide?
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2093
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 7:06 am: |
|
maybe we are just too busy to play these games!!
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1330
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 8:44 am: |
|
No game, here, Jenni.
I'm genuinely curious to see if anyone knows exactly what lines from this whole poem appear excerpted and cited in the article on Herbert in the middle of the Sphere Guide.
Apparently no one does.
I'll have to answer my own question then.
--John |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1331
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 8:53 am: |
|
Notice,
Out of this entire poem, over 100 lines long, only four lines appear excerpted and cited in the middle of a page in the middle of an article on Herbert (not Crashaw) in the middle of the Sphere Guide.
Only four lines from the middle of a stanza and reprinted by themselves in the Sphere Guide. Like this:
"O, costly intercourse
Of death's, and worse
Divided loves: while Son and Mother
Discourse alternate wounds to one another!"
Now then, out of this whole poem, what one line is cited and excerpted in the Ripper diary?
Yup.
What is the publication date of the Sphere Guide?
Yup.
What is the date the diary first appeared?
Yup.
Amazing.
--John |
AAD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 4:34 am: |
|
Just who is influencing 'Sir Robert Anderson'? |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 338
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 11:05 am: |
|
"Just who is influencing 'Sir Robert Anderson'?"
I have certainly been under the influence, as recently as last night.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1648
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 5:41 am: |
|
Hi Rob,
Many thanks for posting the poem.
So the hoaxer pops into the Poste House in Cumberland Street for refreshment in the late 1980s; doesn't know, or doesn't think to check its history, which was well-known locally; then succeeds in faithfully reproducing the modern name when foolishly referring to it in the diary.
The same hoaxer later sits down with his trusty Sphere Guide, and sets about transcribing the quotation, which isn't reprinted in this edition thus:
"O, costly intercourse
Of death's, and worse
Divided loves: while Son and Mother
Discourse alternate wounds to one another!"
but thus:
O costly intercourse
Of deaths, & worse,
Divided loves. While son & mother
Discourse alternate wounds to one another.
and renders the first five words thus:
Oh costly intercourse
of death
Mike Barrett never told the truth about anything, and no one here really believes he penned the diary. So we don't have to think of him sitting down circa 1989 and getting all his capital and small letters in their right places for once in his life with 'the Poste House', but then making three errors when copying 'O costly...' straight from the volume two which he didn't own then because he never told the truth about anything.
When Mike started telling Alan Gray about the poem, in November 1994, he kept referring to the incriminating quotation as "O sweet intercourse", which wasn't too clever since he was desperately trying to convince the private investigator by this point that he had found the quotation and put it in the diary himself.
Finally, in the December, Mike hits Gray with a number two (in more ways than one, considering it was bullsh*t that he had it when he first claimed to have written the diary).
According to Melvin Harris, Mike naively claimed that the quotation had struck him as suitable for the diary because it referred to sex and death.
Coming after Sir Jim has committed a string of murders, and when he is telling himself to banish all the thoughts of them, the diary author nevertheless writes 'death', instead of going with the Sphere Guide's 'deaths'.
Intriguingly, the diary author was not alone in using the singular, but a hoaxer taking the words from the Sphere Guide would not have known that other printed versions of the same poem existed, where the word was rendered 'death's', implying 'death's [singular] costly intercourse', ie 'costly intercourse of death'.
Perhaps it was Mike after all, making an intellectual statement by dropping the s, thinking this may have been Crashaw's original intention.
But I wouldn't bet on it. 
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on April 18, 2005) |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 880
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 6:15 am: |
|
I am sorry, excuse me? When did I miss the factual revelation that Mike Barret never had a copy of the Sphere Guide? As you are now claiming to know for a fact that Mike Barrett didn't own a copy of the Sphere guide, I am presuming there was some research into the matter. When was this proven? Would you mind pointing me towards the thread where this revelation was brought to light. I am assuming there was one already since you are stating so emphatically here that it was bullshit that he ever had it when he claimed to have written the diary.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1358
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 6:55 am: |
|
As usual, Ally, Caroline is just making things up (or at least hoping something Mike said IS true, because she has no evidence to support her case).
She has no idea whether or not Mike had a copy of the Sphere Guide or when. She cannot offer a single alternative scenario that is in any way believable for how he could have identified this quotation (which he gave Shirley first, remember), but she really hopes and prays it's not because he had already seen it in the only other book in all of history that excerpts and cites it -- the very same book he just happens to show everyone.
She has deliberately and deceitfully transcribed my saying that I don't believe Mike about anything into the significantly different "Mike never told the truth about anything." But of course these two sentences mean completely different things.
I don't believe anything Mike says, but I KNOW for sure he told the truth about things at some point. How do I know? Simple logic. Mike says he wrote the diary. Mike says he did not write the diary. At some point, Mike must necessarily have told the truth. Therefore, Caroline's silly claim that he has never told the truth about anything is simply and demonstrably wrong. (No surprise there, of course -- we're used to that by now.) However, my claim is that I never believe anything Mike says. And in this case, I don't have to -- only she does.
She needs to believe Mike's library miracle story to explain how he could possibly have known the source of these five words.
I don't need to believe Mike about anything to know that story is a lie.
And I know these five words appeared excerpted and cited in prose in only two books anyone has ever found in all of recorded time.
And THE SAME GUY found both these books and showed them to everyone?!
Reaching the logical and common sense conclusion -- that he could identify the quote he gave to Shirley because he knew where it could be found -- does not require any faith in anything Mike has said or has not said. It merely requires a simple grasp of probability and some experience in libraries and, of course, the awareness that there is no other believable explanation.
The desperation truly shows throughout this post of hers. She has no alternative account for how Mike knew this quote -- the old hoax theory can't explain it in any logical or believable way, so they have to just hope Mike was telling the truth about the library miracle and hope no one notices where they are pinning their faith.
But it's hard to miss.
Once again. Out of the over one hundred lines in this poem, only four appear excerpted and cited in the Sphere Guide.
Out of the over one hundred lines in this poem, only five words appear excerpted and cited in the diary.
Guess what? Yup.
And the Sphere Guide first appears when?
And the diary first appears when?
And the first person to show us all the diary was who?
And the first person to show us all the Sphere Guide was who?
Yup.
Desperation. I guess it's all that's left.
Amused as always,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2122
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 8:40 am: |
|
who cares the diary is fake anyway!!
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1359
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 8:41 am: |
|
And here's another thing.
Under a modern hoax scenario, the mistranscription of the line and the correct proper naming of the Poste House both make a certain sort of simple, logical common sense.
If someone did indeed see the line excerpted and cited in the modern Sphere Guide and saw the words "intercourse" and death," later when they were involved in the composition of a book largely about f*cking and killing, it would indeed make sense that they might remember it (and the fact that it sounded old would just add to the idea of sticking it in somewhere -- look how it appears on the diary page, almost as a separate insert). That's easy enough to understand. And if that's how it happened, they would not be copying down the line at all, but just writing down the part they remembered that for them was the relevant bit. So they'd write it as they remembered it, which could easily account for both the "Oh" and the "death" in the citation. And of course, since they couldn't be bothered to check to see what the real James's handwriting looked like and they couldn't be bothered to check to see if the pub they named was even there at the right time and they couldn't be bothered to check to see if they got the details of the murders right and they couldn't be bothered even to come up with a vaguely believable provenance, why should this surprise us at all?
Of course, it shouldn't.
On the other hand, when that same person was writing the name of a pub they knew for sure was there in Liverpool, why wouldn't they simply put down the name as a proper name? Since after all, simply and logically, THAT'S WHAT IT IS and since they knew the pub from their everyday lives, they'd simply write the name down precisely as it appears in the diary. And lo and behold the name in the diary and the name of the pub are...
wait for it....
identical.
What an amazing coincidence. Or not.
Under the old hoax scenario, both of these phrases -- "Oh costly..." as well as as The Poste House (as well as "tin matchbox empty" as well as the mistakes from modern sources as well as the lack of provenance as well as modern handwriting formations) have no simple, logical, or believable explanations.
Under the modern hoax scenario, each and every one of them is easily explained using only simple logic and perfectly reasonable common sense.
This happens every time with everything in the book.
But still some cling to the dream out of pure desperation.
And that's what's really sad.
--John |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1360
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 8:45 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Indeed it is.
And you ask a very good question.
All the best,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2124
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 9:48 am: |
|
actually,i care but still,!!
Who wants to get into a debate about libraries!!
not me!!
"All you need is positivity"
|
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 546
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 6:14 pm: |
|
Hi John,
If the Library miracle never happened, and Mike Barrett already had a copy of the Sphere book when he brought the diary forward in 1992. Then explain to me why, when he announced to the world in 1994 that he wrote the diary, why didn't he mention that he owned the Sphere book? If it was me, I would be shouting it from the top of The Poste House roof. But no he waited several months, and only mentioned it after being sent on an errand by Shirley Harrison.
Rob |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 344
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 6:32 pm: |
|
"Then explain to me why, when he announced to the world in 1994 that he wrote the diary, why didn't he mention that he owned the Sphere book?"
Hey Robert - I'll take a stab. He didn't own the Sphere book at that time. If he had, he would have triumphantly produced it. Bear in mind that when he called Feldman's assistant in September of 1994, he claimed to have a copy in front of him, yet failed to mention the "death" versus "death's" misquote.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 882
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 6:38 pm: |
|
Or..he had misplaced it..or after two-three years and many alcohol libations couldn't remember which book he had used and required an extensive search of his attic to find it. As for not mentioning the slight discrepancy in death vs. death's...why exactly would he? Not everyone is as obsessively anal about detail as some.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1364
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 6:58 pm: |
|
Robert,
The problem with your question, which has been asked and answered too many times to count now, can be found in your phrase, "If it was me, I would be....
It wasn't you. It was Mike. And at no point in this whole affair has Mike behaved in a rational, logical, predictable, or explicable manner. His behavior has been thoroughly and routinely contradictory even day to day, let alone week to week or month to month. Asking questions like "Why would Mike do this.." or "Why would Mike do that..." is dooming oneself to failure because the questions already presuppose that there is a logical explanation for Mike's behavior. Over and over again we have seen that there is not.
But I can tell you this much: Mike did not carry only five completely unidentified words into a library and just happen to come out with the only book ever written that excerpts and cites these same five words amidst prose on another subject just like they are excerpted and cited in the diary. It's counter to all pre-computer library experience I have ever had or ever heard of from anyone else. And more importantly, it is an act of either complete stupidity, colossal naivete, or simple self-interested desire to believe a known liar when he tells such an amazing and incredible story. Especially since he's the one who gave Shirley the quote in the first place.
Try the experiment for yourself and see what happens. I can give you five words if you like.
I do seem to recall that Mike mentioned an evidential book to Alan Gray in August of 1994 and named it by the first week of September of that year, weeks before he announced the miraculous revelations to Shirley.
But notice: we needn't rely on anything Mike has ever said or not said. All we have to do is use our common sense, not in regards to Mike's behavior, which rarely if ever displays any such thing, but simply with regard to our own experience, simple logical odds, and what we all know for certain about Mike's own character as a known and proven liar.
The miracle never happened. And there is no other explanation for how Mike knew the source of the quote and was able to produce for everyone the only other book that exists that also cites this specific line excerpted amidst prose just like it is in the diary which he also brought forward.
When did the Sphere Guide come out, Robert?
When did the diary come out?
Who first showed us the diary with the line excerpted and cited in it?
Who first showed us the Sphere Guide with the line excerpted and cited in it?
If you can answer these questions, honestly, in your own mind, and ask yourself what in the world of simple logic and rational common sense the answers to these questions tell you, you'll see exactly what I am saying.
If you can't or won't do that, I can't help you.
Those who will believe Mike's tales of miracles, simply will. We can all decide for ourselves why they will, but we know they will.
The rest of us will trust our common sense, our own experience with such matters, the odds of probability, what we know about the character of the storyteller, and the most likely, simplest, and most direct explanation of how Mike could have identified the quote that he himself originally gave to Shirley.
I know which club I'd rather belong to.
All the best,
--John
PS: You might also ask yourself whether or not anyone ever confirmed any part of Mike's story about having the Sphere Guide before the library miracle. That would be interesting to know, wouldn't it? |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1365
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 7:00 pm: |
|
Sir Robert writes about Mike:
If he had, he would have...
And thereby dooms his argument to failure by its very structure.
Of course, that happens a lot around here,
--John
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 345
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 10:51 pm: |
|
"As for not mentioning the slight discrepancy in death vs. death's...why exactly would he?"
For starters, Mike was eager to "prove" he'd found the quote in his Sphere. From p. 143 of "The Inside Story":
"According to Rooney, Barrett told her that he was sitting with the book in front of him. She later realized that he must have seen the real version because he knew that the Diary was wrong: "Oh costly', he told her, correctly as it transpired, should have been written, 'O costly'. The significance of the telephone call, however, went far beyond the fact that Barrett had been the first to reveal the source of the quotation. As far as Rooney could recall, Barrett was claiming that his awareness of the source was proof he had forged the Diary. How else, he asked her, could he have known it? "
It's not as if Barrett was being forced to compare and contrast a lengthy citation. If the Sphere book was in front of him as claimed, he'd have pointed out both errors, not just one. I'd buy into your line of questioning if he'd failed to mention either mistake.
Obviously - or maybe not so obviously - the question of whether or not Barrett was the hoaxer is separate from whether or not the Diary is an old(er) hoax. This line of reasoning doesn't "clear" Tony or Anne from suspicion.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 547
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 3:33 am: |
|
Hi John,
And the answer to my question is.... "I don't know".
Hi Sir Robert,
I noticed you have asked the same question several times, did you ever get an answer to the question that has been asked and answered to many times to count?
Yours and Ally's posts above are the first time I have noticed it has been answered.
Rob |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 843
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 5:21 am: |
|
Sir Robert
I do think John's point is valid. Your deductions rely heavily on the assumption that Barrett behaved as you would expect him to.
In your latest post you do this again:
If the Sphere book was in front of him as claimed, he'd have ...
Unless you can come up with a plausible explanation for Barrett's identification of the quotation, it's pointless to speculate about how you would expect him to act in various situations.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1366
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 6:39 am: |
|
Hi Robert C.,
So this is how you read? You reduce an extended explanation of the facts, personal and professional experience, the questions that remain, and the probabilities to a single sentence that says something completely different?
No wonder a serious discussion is impossible around here.
Thanks for the demonstration of your reading comprehension,
--John
Please read here: http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=127151#POST127151 |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1652
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 7:49 am: |
|
Hi Ally,
Compare these statements of 'fact':
James Maybrick was not the ripper.
James Maybrick never read or quoted anything by Crashaw.
Mike didn't find 'O costly...' in the library.
Mike didn't acquire a volume 2 of the Sphere Guide until after September 1994.
Now what was it about the last one that made you stop in your tracks and start jumping up and down demanding proof of this specific negative and only this one?
No one can prove Mike didn't go into Liverpool library with no idea where 'O costly...' might be found, and come out a week or so later with the goods. (It was there, after all, in at least three books out of a finite number of volumes available on the subject of pre-20th century English poetry and prose).
And similarly I can't prove Mike didn't already have a volume two.
That's just the nature of negatives like this, isn't it? Sorry.
But if you allow others to get away with statements like 'Mike lied about finding 'O costly...' in one of the available library books, trust me', you'll just have to put up with me stating that Mike didn't own a volume two until weeks after he realised how it could help him with his forgery claims, by which time it was too late to prove anything.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1368
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 8:11 am: |
|
See Ally,
Caroline wasn't being serious when she wrote what she wrote. She was just playing some perverse little game of "If he can do it, I can do it..." Because we are after all in the schoolyard, so why not?
Meanwhile, she's stuck having to believe a known liar about an incredible miracle story without any evidence whatsoever to support it and despite all the odds while a modern hoax scenario explains all the textual problems in the diary including the Crashaw quote without relying on anything Mike has ever said and through simple, direct, common sense explanations.
That's why this rhetorical desperation and these little games of "nyah nyah nyah" are all that's left to her.
It kind of sad, really.
But not that sad.
All the best,
--John
PS: James Maybrick was not the Ripper.  |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 346
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 9:47 am: |
|
"Unless you can come up with a plausible explanation for Barrett's identification of the quotation, it's pointless to speculate about how you would expect him to act in various situations. "
I have posted a very plausible explanation for Barrett's ID of the quote. You don't care to believe it, which is fine, but you are then forced to explain away certain of Mike's actions which make no sense even by the bizarre standards of Diary World.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2127
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 9:56 am: |
|
John,
wasn't he? damn! i've spent all this time thinking he was.... thanks for straightening that out!!
Oh! Seriously!!?
Oh - Okay if you insist upon it.
Hi Caz,
you say
Compare these statements of 'fact':
James Maybrick was not the ripper.
James Maybrick never read or quoted anything by Crashaw.
Mike didn't find 'O costly...' in the library.
Mike didn't acquire a volume 2 of the Sphere Guide until after September 1994
I'm tempted to ask, what your point is? But maybe that would sound a little rude? So I won't!
We all know that however the O costly quote got there it got there because some idiot faking the diary wrote it in there like an idiot.
The fact we're all still arguing about it...well I guess that makes us the biggest fools!
Hi Rob C.
If the Library miracle never happened, and Mike Barrett already had a copy of the Sphere book when he brought the diary forward in 1992. Then explain to me why, when he announced to the world in 1994 that he wrote the diary, why didn't he mention that he owned the Sphere book?
know i don't think the library miracle is a miracle and i do wish people (they know who they are) would stop calling it that.
But nonetheless perhaps you could explain to me why Mike brought a copy of the book even though it was in the library. Did he like to just waste his money?
It occurs to me we are trying to rationalise here, when perhaps we shouldn't be bothering to!
Robert A,
you are saying he got the quote from the library incident therefore he didnt have the book in front of him at the time of the phonecall? Now hold that thought and tell me why he mentioned O and not s? does an explantion that makes sense spring to mind to anyone.
I'm having trouble to find one.
Anyway, sorry to rant on.
I'll be back the next time i want an extended break!
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 845
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 10:18 am: |
|
Sir Robert
I have posted a very plausible explanation for Barrett's ID of the quote.
Well, if you'd describe as "very plausible" that farrago of nonsense about someone identifying the quotation and telling the publishers, and the publishers telling Harrison, and Harrison entrusting her professional reputation to Barrett by secretly telling him the source of the quotation, and all these people involved keeping it secret for all this time, despite the fact that having Barrett identify the quotation ran clean against Harrison's interests - if you'd describe that as "very plausible", I wonder how you manage to walk the streets without being fleeced daily by every swindler and con-man in the business!
You don't care to believe it ...
Oh, for heaven's sake, come off it!
No one except you believes a word of it! Not even Caroline Morris could bring herself to defend something so patently ridiculous.
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 347
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 11:02 am: |
|
"Robert A,
you are saying he got the quote from the library incident therefore he didnt have the book in front of him at the time of the phonecall? Now hold that thought and tell me why he mentioned O and not s? does an explantion that makes sense spring to mind to anyone.
I'm having trouble to find one. "
I have no idea why someone desperately trying to prove either authorship and/or research ability would fail to identify two glaring errors in a five word quote with a correct copy in front of him. That leads me to believe that what Barrett had in front of him when he called was either:
1) nothing -or-
2) a transcription that itself had death not death's.
The most charitable explanation is that having gone to the Liverpool library, Mike copied the relevant quote down incorrectly.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1372
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 12:18 pm: |
|
Do I hear the sound of Quoteman! returning?
Hurrah!
Man, talk about desperation. The only two explanations put forth by any old hoax theory are an odd's defying and incredible miracle story told by a known and compulsive liar and the creation of a purely fictional character whose involvement would require that Shirley Harrison has lied repeatedly in public and in private emails about what she knew and told Mike when she sent him to the library.
I'm glad I'm not tied to either of those fabulous fantasies.
As to the mistranscription, if you read the following post, you'll see what it makes simple sense within a modern hoax scenario.
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=127058#POST127058
In the meantime, let's talk about Quoteman! some more -- perhaps we can even get Caroline on board with this bit of imaginary goofiness.
Happy to see the mystery figure return, even if it does have nasty implications for at least a few people's honesty,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2129
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 12:47 pm: |
|
John,
you know how i feel about the old hoax theory but really i do not think it relies on this quotetman thing!
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 883
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 3:20 pm: |
|
Caroline,
" But if you allow others to get away with statements like <snip, snip > you'll just have to put up with me stating <snip, snip>".
No, I don't and let me tell you why. John Omlor has never made any pretense of which side of the fence he falls on. Neither has anyone else posting such statements. So when he states a fact that everyone knows is not, we can attribute it to his held opinion, which he has stated for the record. John Omlor has never claimed to be waiting for evidence to make up his mind. You however have, repeatedly. You have said time and time again that you want the facts...not useless, opinion driven speculation. So therefore, no, when you state a "fact" that is anything but, it cannot be presumed to be driven by your opinion...since you consistently refuse to directly provide it.
(Message edited by Ally on April 19, 2005)
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 846
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 3:40 pm: |
|
Ally
So therefore, no, when you [Caroline Morris] state a "fact" that is anything but, it cannot be presumed to be driven by your opinion...since you consistently refuse to directly provide it.
Though we all know what it really is (diary fake; strong case made for modern fake), because she used to be quite open about it.
That was before she decided she would rather pretend not to have an opinion, for reasons of her own.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1373
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 5:01 pm: |
|
And I would add to this that there is, in fact, a significant and demonstrable difference between the fourth statement on Caroline's original list and the other three. The others do not rely on an incredible tale of a miraculous discovery told by a known and compulsive liar for them to be true.
That seemed worth noting.
All the best,
--John |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 884
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 5:07 pm: |
|
Actually John, it really wasn't.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1375
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 5:08 pm: |
|
Well, then, perhaps it wasn't.
That's fine, too.
But it's still a difference,
--John |
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 550
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 6:52 pm: |
|
Hi John,
I did not ask you about the Library miracle, I did not ask you about Mikes chances of finding five unidentified words. I asked you a simple question. When Mike Barrett announced to the world he wrote the diary, why didn't he say he already owned a copy of the Sphere book?
No where in your post did you answer that.
Thank you for demonstrating your ability to answer questions.
Hi Jenni,
I think it's important to find out when exactly Mike Barrett got the Sphere book. To be honest I've read books in the Library, and went out and bought a copy.
And I agree with you I don't think the Library visit was a miracle, but I wont get into a debate about it, you just can't rationalise with some people.
And you never rant, I admire your perseverance.
Rob |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1380
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 7:14 pm: |
|
Robert,
Indeed I did answer it.
I explained patiently, citing specific past behavior as evidence, precisely why questions that have to do with Mike Barrett and begin with "why didn't he..." or "why did he..." are doomed to failure as questions and are by definition illogical since they presuppose that there is a rational and definable and understandable explanation for Mike's behavior, and we have seen over and over and over again during the past ten years that this is not the case.
Sorry if that's not the answer you wanted. But it's the historically accurate and logical one.
Incidentally, if you don't think Mike's tale is miraculous try it yourself. Jenni did. And I happen to know the five words she took in to her library were similar to the ones Mike had and that there were also several copies of the source book on the shelves just like in Mike's case.
Sometimes miracles only happen once, I guess.
Thanks for the thoughts, Robert. I enjoyed them.
All the best,
--John |
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 551
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 7:31 pm: |
|
John
I have enough trouble trying to find obscure street names and places on maps that don't exist anymore.
Live long and prosper.
Rob |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1382
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 7:53 pm: |
|
Thanks, Rob. Enjoy the evening.
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2130
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 6:35 am: |
|
Rob,
sure it is important to know if Mike is lying about the library.
But as i may have mentioned, as the book was in the library (the library were the hoaxer probably found most of their info)then i don't think it makes that much difference.
It seems like the sphere guide is the source.
Jenni
ps don't start about the library John
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1384
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 6:54 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
You're right. It is important. And he was.
But I'm sure we'll hear more about this before the day is over,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on April 20, 2005) |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 199
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 11:16 am: |
|
Well , its obvious that the quote as it appears in the Diary is completely out of context in relation to the poem , isn't it ?
Which surely suggests that whoever saw the quote originally came across it out of context , such as in the Sphere book. In its original form , it has no relation whatsoever to Maybrick's situation. |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 200
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 11:28 am: |
|
Surely James Maybrick is no longer a serious candidate for Jack the Ripper ?
We are dealing with probability here. A case could be made for any bogus theory concerning any unlikely candidate for the killer , but without credible evidence we would be right to dismiss them out of hand ( or consider such a theory a mere speculation ).
The entire case for Maybrick being the Ripper rests on the Diary , which to be considered as a genuine document needs a lot of fudging and wrangling to explain its flaws. Lets consign it to history as the fake that it is. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
