|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Dale
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 15, 2005 - 5:38 pm: | 
|
Hello,
One last point I would like to make from a synic. Do all of you deep down believe that Maybrick, or whomever was the Whitechapel murderer, would have kept such a blantantly overt record of his doings, which if found, would have put him swinging from the end of a rope.Can you imagine this - HE KEEPS HIS 'GALLOWS SENTENCE' RECORDED IN A NICE BIG RED OLD FASHIONED BOOK MARKED "DIARY". Give me a break! If the real murderer ever was foolish enough to record his work, he would have done in a trivial way. Maybe a small coded message on a piece of paper, or in the back of a book. He would not have made little rymes and used HA HA. The writer obviously saw the hoaxed ripper letters.
The funny thing is this. If I were a hoaxer and wanted the spotlight , this is exactly what I would do. I would get A BIG OLD RED BOOK MARKED DIARY, put in stuff already known about the ripper, but make it more user friendly. Give some embellishments, put some catchy little phrases in, I'd write HA HA, and to top it off I would even sign it ' Jack the ripper' for effect.
* one last point - everyone in the ripper communications sections concedes that the 'Dear Boss' letter was certainly written by a writer at the CNA. Everyone discredits this as a hoax now.This letter alone gave rise to the name JACK THE RIPPER.Thus by default, the name JtR is a hoax name.The writer of the diary, by default, was a hoax too.
Thanks Dale |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 3:28 am: |
|
Hello
Have been wondering about the arsenic issue and the document.
In Ms Harrisons book, there are a number of mentions of maybricks arsenic taking. He seems to take a solution (Fowlers), a grey powder and a white powder. In 1851 the passing of the arsenic act meant that a man buying arsenic had to be over 21 and known to the chemist. They also had to sign a register. It also stated that, to prevent them being confused with sugar or flour, arsenic compounds had to be coloured (with charcoal or indigo). Also available was Fowler's solution, also known as Kali Arsenicosum or Kali arseniatum, it being a 1% solution of potassium arsenite.The chemical formula is KH2AsO4. Chemically, arsenic is classified as a transition element or metalloid and it usually exists in the form that is bonded to other elements such as carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. It would seem from the descriptions that he was taking Fowlers solution and either metallic arsenic (grey), arsenic trioxide (grey powder) or some other form mixed with charcoal maybe (white powder plus black powder equals grey powder).
Arsenic may exist in three different oxidation or valence states, namely the metalloid, arsenite and arsenate states and the valence state it exists in seems to affect its toxicity.
I imagine in the Victorian era, the most common arsenic compound available was arsenious oxide (also called Fowlers Arsenic, Grey or white arsenic and used as a pesticide and in tanning). And this has a valency of three.
What I am trying to get at here is that the arsenic most likely used by Maybrick had a specific chemical state. If the author of the diary had seeded the book with what arsenic he was willing to buy, steal or extract himself, it is possible that the "seed" arsenic has a different chemical state (the pentavalent state) or is associated chemcially with other species that could not have constituted Victorian preparations of the metal. And that sort of work is possible to do scientifically.
Therfefore once again Im suggesting that the black powder that some suggest was found in the diary or th epages themselves are tested for arsenic and if found, that this arsenic is subjected to whatever tests are necessary to try and figure out if the arsenic present could have been from a compound typically used in Victorian times or not.
Mr Poster
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1361
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 12:32 pm: |
|
First of all, let me say I am flattered that Mr. Poster (seriously, that's what he wants to be called?) is concerned about my standing with my employers and I am also flattered that he took the time to Google me. I do not share his concern about having my name associated with this Casebook nor do I find it too much trouble to send a simple letter (and he's already written enough words here to fill several letters anyway). Still, I want to thank him for worrying about me and I can assure him that all is well here at my job.
He might want to do a little reading and find out more about that black stuff in the book's binding. But that's no matter.
He might also be interested to know whether anyone has in fact read the transcripts of Florie's trial in light of the diary text. Perhaps he could find that material discussed in a book or on the Casebook, in the dissertations section even.
As for stories of children running about, I do hope he's not getting that from Paul Feldman's book, since we all know the problems with citing anything from that work of dubious scholarship and often utter fantasy. But he should feel free to search for corroborating evidence. I think that would be a fine idea.
I don't have to say anything about suggestion number four. Just its heading is enough for everyone to know where I stand on the subject.
Still.
But I do want to take exception to his phrase, "fine job" concerning the framing of the real James. The book we are talking about here is written in completely the wrong handwriting, has a number of simple historical errors, cites a document the killer could not possibly have seen, mentions the exact name of a pub that didn't exist until modern times, has 20th century handwriting formations, has a completely artificial structure complete with an opening page that offers total exposition despite the pretense of being in media res yet includes almost no immediate details about the killings or even a single verifiable new bit of historical information, and is completely lacking any credible or verifiable providence whatsoever.
The only amazing part is that anyone ever took it seriously at all.
It's a bad melodramatic error ridden textual joke written in the wrong hand and with no provenance.
But desire can sometimes outweigh reason, I guess.
Fine job, indeed.
The only real accomplishment on the part of the hoaxers in this case is their keeping their mouths shut, and it isn't even clear that they have managed to do that.
Still, I favor all of Mr. Poster's fine suggestions and urge him to get started on this research right away. I'll be looking forward to his reports.
All the best,
--John
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1649
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 5:50 am: |
|
Hi All,
Jeff,
In June 1994 he [Mike] hired a private detective named Alan Gray to help him prove he’d forged the diary, but about this time Shirley Harrison’s paperback edition was published…
I understand Alan Gray came on the scene later than June, and was initially engaged to try to find Anne. The paperback came out later too, in the September.
…unless one assumes that after the euphoria of finding the quote had worn off, Mike realised that his discovery could be used to support his claim to have forged the diary and therefore claimed to have possessed a copy of the Sphere book.
Mike realised how ‘O costly…’ could help his forgery claim when he phoned Feldy’s secretary on September 30, 1994, in the first stage of ‘euphoria’, to announce that he’d just found the quotation in a library book.
If Mike had already instructed Gray to help sell his forgery story by then, and could also produce his own volume 2, he must have had his reasons for holding back until November, when he first tried to explain to Gray about ‘O sweet intercourse…’; more reasons for waiting a further month before finally handing over the only material evidence IMHO that Mike ever had; then another month went by, presumably while he got his act together, before making a full confession statement in January 1995 - full to the brim with false and unverifiable claims.
Just for the record, in November 1994, Mike appeared to slip up when he let Gray have sight of some paperwork which referred to him finding the quotation in the library. Later he slipped up again by gloating on the phone to Melvin Harris about finding what “all you scholars” had tried and failed to find. But Melvin conveniently failed to catch the implication, that Mike had only started looking when it had been pointed out to him that the professional investigators were having no luck identifying ‘Oh costly…’.
The last time I had any contact with Mike was when we interviewed him while working on Ripper Diary. I have no idea what he would claim today about the diary’s origins if asked, nor whether he would agree to take a lie detector test. But I seriously doubt it. He obviously knows how he came by the diary, and there’s every reason to believe he has yet to give a truthful account of the circumstances, in which case there would be reasons why he can’t or won’t do so. A test might clear him of forgery, but if he has been keeping something else to himself from the beginning, he’s not likely to play ball.
RJ,
It would have been economic suicide to have given a full confession, without some hope of recompense.
But it was economic suicide from the moment Mike first claimed he was the world’s greatest forger. You, of all people, must be able to appreciate that it really hasn’t mattered two hoots that he hasn’t gone on to prove inside knowledge of a modern hoax - he didn’t need to. There are enough people around who will always suspect his involvement, on the basis of that original ‘confession’. I recall one of your first ever posts to these boards, asking why we needed to investigate any further - after all, Mike said he did it; why wasn’t that enough for everyone?
…Gray's own slow recognition of the Sphere book's importance, and his slow ability to glean any useful information from Barrett as the latter vacillated between his desire to retain royalties and his desire to discredit Feldman.
If you are going to speculate on what was motivating Mike during this period, based on an assumption that he knew about the Sphere book from the beginning, the timing of events is particularly important. Gray wasn’t slow at all; Mike didn’t tell him about the quotation, and where it came from, until the November. This is all covered in Ripper Diary, and fully supported by the historical record. And Mike’s desire to retain royalties had already given way to the anger and despair which sent him over the edge and to the papers in the June, in his desire to “get back at” Anne and/or discredit Feldman.
I do, however, find Paul's explanation perceptive, in that Barrett himself might not have realized the damning nature of the Crashaw quote…
But as I explained to Jeff above, Mike had realised by September 30 (because he said as much to Feldy’s secretary when announcing his library find), but he still said nothing to Gray for several weeks. What reason did he have at that point in time for not producing the Sphere Guide and showing Gray how it was used in the diary’s creation? A perfect reason would be if he couldn’t, because he didn’t have his own copy at the time. But I can understand why you keep searching Mike’s mind for any reason other than that one.
Audrey Johnson--who we have no reason to doubt-- describes Anne Graham being upset at work about her husband 'writing a book' sometime prior to 1992.
Now it may be my turn to be muddled over the timing, but my impression was that this happened later, after the signing of confidentiality agreements, when Mike was officially co-authoring the first diary book with Shirley. He was trying to help with the research and claiming expenses from the advance royalties for his efforts. If, as we all believe one way or another, Anne knew something that she didn’t want revealed, she had every reason to be twitchy and upset. And she was also contract-bound not to talk to Audrey or anyone else about the book her husband was helping Shirley to write. Could I ask where you got your ‘sometime prior to 1992’ from? I’m not disputing that you read it somewhere (hope it wasn’t in Ripper Diary or I’ll look even more of a twit than usual!  ). But I’ve never known a subject where dates and timings have mattered more and also been muddled more, by professional researchers and amateurs alike; by innocent witnesses and suspected hoaxers alike.
…even Paul Begg…has stated his belief that the diary is a modern fake. If it is, then the chance is all but utterly nil that Graham or Barrett doesn't know where it came from; the position that it is 'unlikely' that they 'wrote it' becomes ever-so slightly evasive.
But whenever the diary was created, Mike knows where he got it from. Anne may or may not know. But that in no way implies that either of them know where it was before Mike got it, who wrote it, when or why. He could have found it in a skip for all you know, and worried that if it proved valuable the person who threw it away would reclaim it and remove him from centre stage. Coming up with his “given it by a dead mate” story was evidently his best shot and, however unsatisfactory it was as a provenance, it couldn’t easily be disproved.
The same spirit that makes people believe in Albert Johnson--his openness and his willingness to be accessible, is completely lacking in Graham and Barrett.
As I said, this is easily explained if Mike hasn’t told the truth about how he came by the diary. Albert was sold the watch in good faith and ten months later discovered the scratches.
Chris P,
Barrett's identification of the Crashaw quotation is as strong a piece of evidence that he wrote it as we are likely to get.
I agree - I doubt there is any more mileage to be had, whether it’s from the ‘Mike dunnit’, or the ‘Mike knows it’s a modern hoax’ theories.
I predict that this is your lot - that no further evidence will be found against anyone in Mike’s circle or outside it, for having created the diary in modern times.
You'd better hope Mike didn't acquire his volume 2 during the autumn of 1994.
And as for anyone named by Mike himself as a co-forger - forget it. He lied - IMHO.
As Sir Robert said, I sure as heck wouldn't want to build the modern hoax theory around him.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on April 19, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 844
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 6:14 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
As Sir Robert said, I sure as heck wouldn't want to build the modern hoax theory around him.
There's plenty of internal evidence in the diary for a modern hoax. It doesn't rely on anything Barrett said (though it is strengthened by the fact that he was able to identify the Crashaw quotation).
But you knew that. After all, it was you who found Melvin Harris's exposition of the case so convincing five years ago.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1367
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 7:12 am: |
|
Caroline writes:
"Mike realised how ‘O costly…’ could help his forgery claim when he phoned Feldy’s secretary on September 30, 1994, in the first stage of ‘euphoria’, to announce that he’d just found the quotation in a library book."
I am sure I have seen it written somewhere that Alan Gray's claim was that Mike mentioned a book to him in August of 1994 and even gave him the name Sphere the first week of September.
Wait, yes, I have here on my computer an old post of Melvin's that I saved for some reason, entitled "Clarifications" (I don't have the date) which says this directly.
I quote: "Now Gray was not involved in Ripperology, neither did he know anyone thus involved. Yet Gray can vouch for the fact that Mike had mentioned an evidential book at the beginning of August 1994 and by the first week of September had named it as a Sphere book of poems. This was way before the amazing revelation date of September 30, 1994."
Is there any evidence that Gray was not telling the truth about this? I'm sure there must be, or we wouldn't still be having this discussion right? I know someone will refresh my memory as to why Melvin got this wrong, too.
But it doesn't really matter.
Why?
Because, in any case, the simple and unspoken truth is that no one, including Caroline, has ever found or offered any real evidence whatsoever that indicates that the miracle in the library ever happened or that Mike was telling the truth about it. None. Ever. Nor have they been able to offer any real evidence concerning when he first acquired his own copy of the Sphere Guide. None. Ever. And they are completely unable to offer any other explanation for how Mike identified the five word quote he first gave to Shirley. There is NO OTHER explanation for them. So they are all just hoping against hope that an amazing miracle story told to them by a known liar is nonetheless somehow, against all odds and common experience, still incredibly true.
Man. Sucks to be them.
That's right, Caroline is stuck believing in incredible and amazing tales of research miracles told to everyone by a known liar. And she is also stuck with incredible and amazing textual coincidences galore that also remain completely inexplicable in rational or common sense terms by any old hoax scenario, from the Poste House to "tin matchbox empty" to the modern writing formations to the complete lack of verifiable provenance and on and on and on...
How sad that must be.
On the other hand, the modern hoax scenario does not have to believe a single thing Mike ever said to explain the Crashaw quote and all the rest of these problems.
Then Caroline writes something we all agree with:
"Mike obviously knows how he came by the diary, and there’s every reason to believe he has yet to give a truthful account of the circumstances..."
That's right everyone, it's over ten years later and Mike still hasn't told the truth.
Remember that.
Keep it always in your mind.
As you ask yourself questions about the library miracle story and the provenance of the book and the origins of the book and the age of the book and all the rest, remember that one simple undisputed fact -- the guy who brought the book forward won't tell anyone where it came from.
And then ask yourself what that tells you.
Finally, Caroline herself writes a sentence with the following phrase concerning Mike Barrett:
What reason did he have at that point in time for...
You'd think she'd know better by now.
I guess some lessons are never learned.
The circles continues and, in case anyone has missed it, we're right back in last August, almost word for word.
It's Deja Vu All Over Again,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on April 19, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2128
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 10:03 am: |
|
Not for the first time (this month!)
the modern hoax theory does not rely on Mike Barrett forging the diary.
I wouldn't be sitting here on this side of the fence if it did.
Could i make that any clearer?!
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1371
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 12:10 pm: |
|
That's true, Jenni.
But it does explain all of the textual difficulties simply and logically.
Unlike any other theory.
All the best,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2131
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 6:36 am: |
|
Indeed John,
it does
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 68
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 7:25 am: |
|
Is there any information that gives an insight into what Mike Barrett's behaviour was, prior to the diary days.
I view his behaviour of recent years as irrational and deceitful,as far as the diary is concerned,but I doubt he was always,and in other situations,as bad.
He was,I believe,a person who became involved in a situation he was not capable of handling,but like others in similar circumstances,thought bluff and untruths an easy way out.
|
Lars Nordman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 5:34 am: |
|
hello
John writes:
Because, in any case, the simple and unspoken truth is that no one, including Caroline, has ever found or offered any real evidence whatsoever that indicates that the miracle in the library ever happened or that Mike was telling the truth about it. None. Ever. Nor have they been able to offer any real evidence concerning when he first acquired his own copy of the Sphere Guide. None. Ever. And they are completely unable to offer any other explanation for how Mike identified the five word quote he first gave to Shirley. There is NO OTHER explanation for them. So they are all just hoping against hope that an amazing miracle story told to them by a known liar is nonetheless somehow, against all odds and common experience, still incredibly true.
John wrote (in 2003!):
You'll hear nothing further here from me on the Miracle of the Liverpool Library. I sympathize with your pleas to take it elsewhere and I'm fine with what now stands in the archive. (Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 5:50 pm
If only.
Lars
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 3:47 am: |
|
Hello
If we take the word "framing" as meaning "wrongly convicted" and if we take the word "convicted" as meaning "deemed guilty" presumably by a jury of people, then according to the poll on the front of this site, Maybrick has been framed (assuming the poll reflects the number of people who think him guilty). The result obtained for the, it must be assumed, minimal amount of effort expended in such a "melodramatical error ridden textual joke" would seem a "fine job" to me. I can only aspire to such results for such sloppy work.
Unfortunately, the only book on the diary I have read is Ms Harrisons. And the stuff on this site. But on to the suggestions:
He might also be interested to know whether anyone has in fact read the transcripts of Florie's trial in light of the diary text. Perhaps he could find that material discussed in a book or on the Casebook, in the dissertations section even.
This comment assumes that that is all there is and there is no more to be found. If that logic is true then we can all pack up and go home right now.
As for stories of children running about, I do hope he's not getting that from Paul Feldman's book, since we all know the problems with citing anything from that work of dubious scholarship and often utter fantasy. But he should feel free to search for corroborating evidence. I think that would be a fine idea.
No, but I assume the chap who mentioned it got from there then. Still, I would like to know if any old people from the area had ever heard it before.
Mr. Poster (seriously, that's what he wants to be called?)
No, Id rather be called "Inspector Abberline", or "Mary Jane Kelly" or any of the other half dozen creepy pseudonyms Ive spotted round here. Really.
And I am glad that all is well in academic circles across the pond!
Hello
Mr Poster |
AAD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 4:23 pm: |
|
I fear Mr. Poster may be full of suggestions but won't be stirring himself too much in the direction of serious research. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1393
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 5:34 pm: |
|
Hi Lars,
Sadly, some people keep returning to make the same unevidenced and completely unlikely and unsubstantiated claims.
And so it becomes necessary once again to return and point out that they are in fact "just hoping against hope that an amazing miracle story told to them by a known liar is nonetheless somehow, against all odds and common experience, still incredibly true."
Because that's the only explanation they have left, even if there is no evidence anywhere to support it.
Meanwhile, of course, it's not a problem if the diary was a modern hoax.
Odd how that is so often true about the text of this book.
Mr. Poster,
You might want to check the data on that Casebook survey you cite and see when the votes were cast and by how many different people and how often. I think you'd be surprised.
Also, the fact that some people were sadly (and in some cases embarrassingly) taken in by what truly is a bad melodramatic error ridden textual joke written in the wrong hand and with no provenance is evidence only of the gullibility of certain readers. I can find you websites full of people who believe the earth is flat and that space aliens built the pyramids and that (as we can see now on another thread where I have cited the URL) the moonwalks were faked. So nothing surprises me -- not even that this "bad melodramatic error ridden textual joke written in the wrong hand and with no provenance" suckered some people in.
I do hope you read the Dissertations about the Diary and the Maybricks and the chemical tests and the textual anachronisms and the trial and all the rest that are there in the Dissertations section of this very website we are all on. Then you'll discover for yourself at least some of what people have and have not already considered.
Happy reading,
--John
PS: When you are done with the dissertations on Maybrick and the diary, check this work out: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm Just for fun.
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 74
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 7:41 am: |
|
But until you can finally and catigorically prove the diary is a fake, people will continue to see Maybrick as the Ripper.
You can find as many gapping cracks as you like, discredit it as much as you like, but the reality is, the shoddy house of cards still stands and you cant prove otherwise.
So Mr poster is correct. If you can find a ticket saying Maybrick was in the States the diary finally colapses.
Taken individually, and however compeling, we have not yet proved that the Diary is a fake, just that it is probably a fake, which is not the same thing at all....which is why we need more tests.
Until then Maybrick will be in the top ten suspects. (But largely because the other 134 are, beleive it or not, even worse.) but also because in Ripper terms its a damn good story, so why let the facts get in the way. (poor old Maybrick, worst trip of his life)
Look forward to AAD's research on the matter.
Jeff |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2138
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 8:06 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
quite obviously I agree that testing is the way forward, well at least a way forward.
Still think we need to be careful about what tests it is we are asking to be done, by whom and when. It is one thing for me to agree with you testing is a way forward, well that's nice, but it doesn't get any testing done. i've had a quick look round and no - i can't see myself leaping into ction, all i can see is a book i am supposed to be reading a bottle of Cola and a big pile of mess that is supposed to be my revision notes. So I guess what i am saying, in my own, over complex avoiding doing any actual work way, is that agreeing testing is a way forward is only a start.
So lets reiterate some points, what tests? what can be tested. i mean we are talking diary here. The likelihood of new watch tests, seems sadly, to be slim, but we live in hope.
So, anyway, that was a pretty random collection of words,
I'm getting back to faith schools now while the goings still good.
Jenni
ps there is nothing 'wrong' with beleiving james maybrick was 'Jack the Ripper' anymore than there is anything ''wrong' in believing Walter Sickeret was 'Jack the Ripper'!
"All you need is positivity"
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 75
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 8:25 am: |
|
I agree totally. The diary needs to be examined by experts to see if tests can be carried out that could achieve anything. No point carrying stuff out at random.
Glad you have no sympathy for Maybrick or Sickert, they're probably enjoying the notoriety. The only suspects I have any sympathy with is Lewis Carol, John Merrick and poor old Joe Barnett. Even the royals diserved it. Anyway I digress.
But totally agree. Jeff |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2141
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 8:52 am: |
|
I agree totally.
Really?? What's going on? are you sure you're in the right place. This is diary world where no one ever agrees!
But seriously, oh ok, thanks.
I don't think experts would need to 'see' the diary to know what tests can be done.
The main thing is to 'find' an expert in the first place.
Glad you have no sympathy for Maybrick or Sickert, they're probably enjoying the notoriety.
You misunderstand what I am saying.
But never mind!
I would hate to disagree with you!
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 3:12 am: |
|
Hello John
I have "read the Dissertations about the Diary and the Maybricks and the chemical tests and the "textual anachronisms".
And I agree they are damning. But once again, in the spirit of the repetitous side of the forum, I'm not really interested in who/when/why but rather in focussing on efforts/means towards proving one of the above either way.
I have tried going behind that poll but my skills are lacking and I cannot see the breakdown beyond that by name (of suspect). But I suspect you are right having seen what goes on with Amazon reviews.
People who want to believe it (or say they are undecided) and those who dont will never be convinced by arguments based on the data to hand. The dissertations on the ink for example are all very well but discussions for or against based on the technical analysis (I am not calling it scientific as that implies it was conducted in a rigorous scientific way) are fundamentally flawed as they were not conducted in a way (and I am not detracting from those who conducted them) that would stand up in any court mostly due to financial or other constraints. Therefore they are no more valid as they stand than the "astrological evidence".
And I have a question. The detractions usually focus on a few specifics and yes, I have read the casebook and know what they are. But if the whole thing is so obviously flawed, why does the whole house of cards not come crashing down?
And I do not believe it is just psychology otherwise we would still be thrashing out the Freemason theory which was in effect a lot more conspiratorial and attractive to such people who believe in flat earths than a junky cotton merchant. And yet we are not still discussing it (really). And yet it seems to me that on the surface, the evidence that dispatched the Freemason theory was not that much better than the evidence used to question the diary yet we are still flogging that horse.
Plus, the concept that there is a "psychology thing" in operation regarding the diary is null and void now as once it was mentioned (and it has been) the existence of the psychological factor has been changed by the fact that the particpants know they are been observed. More probaly (and I cannot remember who said this), some people will argue and defend an obviously untenable position just because the other side are so appalling.
The way the diary arguement has been conducted has probably destroyed any chance of reasoned discussion between those for (or "on the fence" and against. And it is the people who are against the diary who bear the most guilt for fostering the intractable positions they profess to be unable to understand and are so frustrated by.
The Melvin Harris style of prose has probably done more damage to the chance of a reasonable outcome to the debate than anythiong else. Therfore the only logical thing to do is step outside the battlelines as they have been drawn and hope that cold clinical science can do something.
All the little bits of "evidence" presented in the books, all the coincidences, all the circumstantial evidence built against J.Maybrick... Apart from one or two others, Maybrick must be one of the suspects with the most documentation pertaining to him and yet someone should be able to once and for all pinpoint him somewhere at some time where the diary (or the crimes) says he could not have been and annihalate the above evidence. The problem with the "Mrs Hammersmith", "Poste House" "ink" arguements is that they are open ended and can be argued (which they are). A minute from a Cotton Meeting or whatvever could be trickier to ignore. Its just no good to say that "we cant find a Mrs Hammersmith so she didnt exist so its all a lie". Thats just not strong enough as evidence. The post house thing similarily. I drink in a pub called "X" whose real name is "Y" and in two hundred years the validity of either name for that pub could be argued as over the years the pub is called many things by the various social groups drinking there. I give up on tin box empty. I tried following that arguement but its presented in such heated tones every time I see it that its too confusing to follow. The Crashaw quote thing stinks to high heaven but when it is supplemented by "Maybrick couldnt have read read Crashaw 'cos he was a Protestant or whatever" it loses credibility. Im a fairly un-lapsed Catholic and I regularly read Protestant things.
Lack of provenance is not enough either. Museums, collections and auction houses are full of things of doubtful provenance. Lack of provenance is often removed as a problem by scientific (ie. reproducible, well funded, un-fettered, consensus forming) analysis. Which is what we need.
Of course some of the pro arguements are insane. The diary was brought to a fourth generation book binder who said the pages weer hacked out. "Hacked out!!!!" By the Ripper!!!!! Its like the Life of Brian or something. "He said Jehovah!!!!!", "He died penniless and intestate but it is said he left a gold watch under his pillow" "Gold watch!!!!!" "He's the Ripper!!!!!"
But it is very frustrating to wade through the same arguements from both sides which do not seem to get shorter in length as time goes on. A reference system would be very nice.
Dear AAD (advanced attention deficiency ?)
Just for the record, I have absolutely no intention of reploughing fields so thoroughly done by other, more experienced and undoubtedly more qualified people. If there is something to find, they will find it as they have done in the past and I have full faith in them. To each his own and in a number of posts I have outlined potential avenues of scientific exploration that may be worth considering or may not. None of these just happenstanced themselves into my head but involved researching some of the most turgid areas of analytical science I have ever seen. If you check carefully, from what I can see it seems that there is a level of inverse correlation between the number of words posted by any one poster and the amount of fresh ideas/research brought to the table. I think it was the Sugden man or someone who said that the future of Ripper research lay in science and yet science still does not seem to be the getting the attention it deserves in this field. If you mean by "research" joining the queue outside the PRO or tracing the family tree of every illegimate waif who may or may not have been the fruit of George Hutchinsons cousin, then I will quite happily just continue as I am. Thanks very much. (By the way, is the photo on this site really George H. http://www.holmesonscreen.com/RipperSuspects.htm)
Mr Poster |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 352
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 11:35 am: |
|
"The Crashaw quote thing stinks to high heaven but when it is supplemented by "Maybrick couldnt have read read Crashaw 'cos he was a Protestant or whatever" it loses credibility. Im a fairly un-lapsed Catholic and I regularly read Protestant things. "
Mr. Poster - I raised a point awhile back about Crashaw in "Barlett's Familiar Quotations". I've got the 17th Edition, but I see that it was first published in 1855. My copy devotes almost an entire page to him, which I find surprising insofar as I thought Crashaw was rather obscure and yet he has more space than many well known persons.
Now, "Sancta Maria Dolorum" is NOT cited, so this doesn't avoid the Sphere issues...but it does raise questions in my mind as to where else a Victorian might have found a Crashaw quote. If he was "big" enough to warrant a page in "Bartlett's", is it at all feasible to start thinking of other places a Crashaw quote might have appeared? Newspapers, magazines, scholarly journals, etc etc etc.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2149
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 11:36 am: |
|
Hi mr Poster,
But if the whole thing is so obviously flawed, why does the whole house of cards not come crashing down?
this is diary world, if only life were that simple here!
I give up on tin box empty. I tried following that arguement but its presented in such heated tones every time I see it that its too confusing to follow
No it's simple really - the tin match box did not contain any matches, is the strongest bit of evidence the diary is fake. It matches word for word the police inventory list of Catherine Eddowes possessions which was released at the time of the murders, but for some reason without the line about the empty box of matches. therefore to know about it it must come from a book released after 1987 when the full list was made known.
It is highly improbable that the real James Maybrick managed to put the exact same words in the diary, as even if he knew about the box he could not have seen the report.
Hope that was an explanation not a rant!
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 552
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Hi Sir Robert,
My book on Crashaw (Complete works of Richard Crashaw) is dated 1858 and that does contain 'Sancta Maria Dolorum'.
And this is from 'The Times' Thursday 25 December 1884
Rob |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2153
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 12:49 pm: |
|
Hi guys,
Richard Crashaw was pretty decent wasn't he!
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 553
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 12:52 pm: |
|
Jenni,
He nearly put me into a coma.
Rob |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2154
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 12:55 pm: |
|
One of the most underrated poets of ALL TIME!!
"All you need is positivity"
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 353
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 1:01 pm: |
|
Hey Robert - Yes, I understand that 'Sancta Maria Dolorum' is in "The Complete Works" - I'm just pointing out that Crashaw was more widely known than I had thought. A full page in "Bartlett's" is impressive, IMHO.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1397
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 2:50 pm: |
|
Once again, for the record, this particular poem is completely unanthologized and appeared only in Crashaw's Complete Works.
But that's not the point.
The line in question appears excerpted and cited amidst prose about something else in only two books in all of written history.
The diary and the Sphere Guide.
And the same guy first showed us both books.
The Times article Rob cites is very interesting indeed, since it is obviously a piece at least in part on poetry concerning the Nativity and Milton and it lists other poets of Milton's time that wrote about this topic and then feels compelled to introduce its 1884 readers specifically to Crashaw, as if they would not have immediately known his work or who he was. A telling assumption in the rhetoric there. I hope Sir Robert noticed it.
I can go back and link you all to the extensive post I have already written detailing the evolution of Crashaw's place in the literary canon and the publishing history of his Complete Works and which of his poems are routinely anthologized (definitely NOT this one) and all the rest. But I don't really feel like it and there is really no need to.
Why?
Because the line in question appears excerpted and cited amidst prose about something else in only two books in all of written history.
The diary and the Sphere Guide.
And the same guy first showed us both books.
Or did I already say that?
Now then, on to more interesting psychological matters.
Mr. Poster asks:
"But if the whole thing is so obviously flawed, why does the whole house of cards not come crashing down?"
It has. Shall we name the experts on this case that think the diary is real or that the real James was the Ripper.
It won't take long, will it?
Shall we name the people regularly posting on this site who think the diary is real or the real James was the Ripper?
It won't take long, will it?
Where are all these people who still believe?
Where is anyone who still believes?
I hate to disagree with you Mr. Poster, but there are far more people still pimping some version of the Freemasons theory around here than there are pimping the diary as real or James as the Ripper.
We are certainly NOT still discussing the question of authenticity or flogging the horse of "Maybrick as Ripper." In fact, practically no one ever talks about it. I can count on one hand the number of times anyone has come here in 2005 and written a post saying the diary is real or Maybrick was or even might have been the Ripper.
The "Maybrick did it" clan is quieter than a church mouse. And they ain't exactly buying books either -- have you checked out the latest sales figures for the Feldman, the Harrison, and the Skinner books? You should do so.
We killed the diary as a real piece of evidence in the case some time ago, Mr. Poster. You just missed the wake. All that we do here is argue about whether it's an old fake or a new fake (yes, that's how sad our lives are).
Then you say something interesting:
"And it is the people who are against the diary who bear the most guilt for fostering the intractable positions they profess to be unable to understand and are so frustrated by."
First of all, everyone here is "against the diary." There is no one regularly writing here who is for the diary, so we're really not frustrated by them at all.
Also, I'm not sure what sort of revisionist history you are peddling here, but let me tell you just one little piece of a story, without getting into specifics. My particular attitude about all this used to be fairly relaxed and although I have always known the diary was a cheap melodramatic hoax in the wrong handwriting and brought forward by liars, I was never really all that concerned about whether it was an old hoax or a new one. In fact, I spent a lot of time arguing against those who said Mike Barrett could be indicted as the hoaxer. I offered my opinions about what I thought the diary was and why I thought the evidence was not available to name a hoaxer and how I thought the book should be thoroughly and properly retested. If I pissed anyone off, it was usually the "Mike did it" crowd. Just ask some of them. Then, after including one of my less than sensitively expressed opinions about the progress of testing in the PS of a social post about tennis, I was actually threatened personally with a lawsuit. I don't want to argue about why or whether or not I should have been. That's all in the past. But you wanna' guess the effect that this personal legal threat had on me and my approach around here? Damn right. From that moment on, I was not going to go away. I was not going to let things slide. I was not going to let people make arguments based solely on desire or mention lines in documents without properly citing them or offer impossibly coincidental and unevidenced excuses for the words in the text in place of logical explanations. I was not going to stop posting or fade back into the ether -- just the opposite. And it's been that way ever since. So I really don't think the tenor of the discussion here is all just the fault of the "people who are against the diary." But perhaps that's just me.
In any case, the flat earthers are still out there, the aliens built the pyramid crowd is still out there, the moonwalk was fake people are still out there and there are a few Maybrick was the Ripper types out there as well. There always will be, in each case, no matter how convincing the evidence. But you wouldn't say that the case for the flat earth has not "come crashing down" or that the case against the moonwalks being staged is still alive any more than you can claim that the Maybrick candidacy (or the Lewis Carroll one, etc.) is still really seriously standing. Of course, to some degree all these silly positions are still alive and standing among the sort of people who believe such things. But they will always be there no matter what the evidence says, so they are really not worth worrying about. That's why we never talk about authenticity around here.
And I assume from your post to AAD that you are not heading out anytime soon to change the debate here with any new information, scientific or otherwise, so the truth is you are now just one of us -- another denizen of Diary World who writes the same sorts of things in every post and who rides the merry-go-round each day knowing it's going nowhere and who, despite all protestations to the contrary, is as guilty as everyone else here of keeping the whole thing going.
That's OK. You'll realize soon enough that you have become one of the dark underground people and you'll get used to it and then you won't mind it so much down here in the basement.
Welcome to DW,
--John
PS: "tin matchbox empty" -- it's not that complicated. Really.
(Message edited by omlor on April 21, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2165
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 5:35 am: |
|
yes, that's how sad our lives are
indeed it is! never a truer word spoken in all of diary world.
PS: "tin matchbox empty" -- it's not that complicated. Really.
with regard to oh botherement there was nothing left in the matchbox, i have to agree.
Jenni
ps you mean welcome to DW - you'll never leave!?(wheres that from!)
"All you need is positivity"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1658
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 5:51 am: |
|
Hi Rob,
Many thanks for finding and posting the extract from the Christmas Day, 1884 edition of The Times, copies of which you kindly gave me last summer (your turn to buy lunch when we next meet, by the way! ).
In for a penny, in for a pound I guess, so I may as well add that the whole article was on Christmas Books and The Poets of Christmas, and that in the preceding column, immediately to the left of the words 'single specimen' in your extract, the name F.E.Weatherley appears. Bet he was proud to see his name that Christmas morning, alongside those of Milton and Shakespeare.
Hi All,
Just to clear up a bit of thirdhand misinformation posted recently about when Mike first mentioned the Sphere volume containing 'O costly...':
I have already pointed out that the original misinformation was corrected two years ago in Ripper Diary. For those who haven't read it yet, or didn't manage to absorb the information first time round, it's covered on pages 253 and 254.
In short, Alan Gray confirmed to us that he made no notes relating to 'an evidential book' or 'Sphere book of poems' mentioned by Mike. And it is clear from the taped conversation in November 1994 that Alan was hearing about "O sweet intercourse..." and the Sphere book for the first time.
If Mike did mention anything about it in the August or September, Alan Gray clearly retained no memory of it by early November. How is it possible that, years later, he suddenly got a perfect flashback to the summer of '94 and remembered an earlier mention?
The fact that this miraculous feat of memory is still being put forward as evidence that Mike knew about the Sphere book before the end of September 1994 indicates an acknowledgement that the 'library miracle didn't happen' argument is just not powerful enough by itself.
But desperate, misinformed attempts to support it with old, discredited claims, that never even approached the scholarly definition of evidence, won't help now.
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2166
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 5:55 am: |
|
But it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter
it doesn't matter
(was that enough times)
thanks to tin matchbox empty.
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1405
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 7:08 am: |
|
I love paragraphs like this:
If Mike did mention anything about it in the August or September, Alan Gray clearly retained no memory of it by early November. How is it possible that, years later, he suddenly got a perfect flashback to the summer of '94 and remembered an earlier mention?
It doesn't actually say that Melvin was wrong. It doesn't actually say that Alan Gray would not, in fact, vouch for what Melvin said he would vouch for when Melvin wrote those words.
It just asks a Feldmaniacal question and leaves the insinuation hanging in the air.
That's not argument. That's rhetorical dancing.
And it's fine, as I said. I knew Caroline would come along and tell us such a thing, explain to us that Melvin must have been wrong or that Gray would not vouch for what Melvin tells us Gray would vouch for. Although clearly all she is left offering us is another rhetorical question and a hope that Melvin somehow was wrong. If that is the same to her as "discrediting" Melvin's claim, that's fine. It's telling. But it's fine.
Of course, it also doesn't matter.
Why?
Because, in any case, as I have already noted, the simple and unspoken truth is that no one, including Caroline, has ever found or offered any real evidence whatsoever that indicates that the miracle in the library ever happened or that Mike was telling the truth about it. None. Ever. Nor have they been able to offer any real evidence concerning when he first acquired his own copy of the Sphere Guide. None. Ever. And they are completely unable to offer any other explanation for how Mike identified the five word quote he first gave to Shirley. There is NO OTHER explanation for them. So they are all just hoping against hope that an amazing miracle story told to them by a known liar is nonetheless somehow, against all odds and common experience, still incredibly true.
Still, I'm glad I cited Melvin about the dates. It's good to know what else we don't know for sure.
All the best,
--John
PS: "made no notes" -- Interesting way of phrasing that. Not "Mike did not mention.." but Gray "made no notes..."
PPPS: Want to read a great discussion? It was one of my favorite extended moments of reading during the last few years. If you are really bored, go here and read through the morning of September 14th:
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=105922#POST105922
Such strategies are clearly still at work.
(Message edited by omlor on April 22, 2005) |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 3:14 am: |
|
Heres something you dont see to often!
A post without lots of black "he wrote, they wrote" sections.
John - sorry for your legal troubles in the past. Sometimes the stick that beats us is of our own making.
It is still my contention that:
1. There are enough people out there who think the diary is at least an old hoax that these discussions are warranted.
2. The evidence so far against that is obviously not good enough to convince them. Or some of the poeple who post here.
3. MOre evidence is needed probably best obtained scientifically.
4. The belligerent way the diary is discussed from some quarters is a contributory factor in its refusal to go away.
5. The "House of Cards" obviously has not collapsed.
6. Ive never missed a good wake in my life but there seems to be life in the corpse yet so maybe we were premature putting pennies on its eyelids.
PLus, can someone (John?) please post an analysis of the voting for Maybrick on the front page of this site. I cannot get it. By day and IP address if possible. Just so we can see if it was rigged or not.
And in the interest of traditional repetition.
"flat earth, moonwalk, Virgin in a grilled cheese sandwich"
"Crashaw"
"Tin mathcbox empty!"
"Poste Haste"
"melodramatic error ridden textual joke" (my favourite)
Mr Poster |
ex PFC Wintergreen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 9:25 pm: |
|
I'm not a serial killer expert but the type of killer that Jack the Ripper is, reminds me a little bit of two others. That being Peter Suttcliffe and Jeffrey Dahmer.
He reminds of Suttcliffe in the way he victimized prostitutes, late at night, and left the bodies where they were. He mostly made prostitutes believe he was a client, much like Jack the Ripper.
However in what Jack actually did to the women he is more like Dahmer. It seems to me that Jack was interested in their dead bodies, especially the uterus.
Dahmer of course only killed men, but he had a fanatical interest in dead things, and wouldn't actually enjoy the killing as such, just the depths to which his curiosity would take him after they were dead.
Jack's interest in dead things is obvious as he kills his victims then mutilates them, with what I believe is a curiosity not unlike Dahmer's.
What this has to do with Maybrick is this: Dahmer and Suttcliffe were both completely remorseful about their murders, even during their killings. Suttcliffe constantly reffered to himself as a monster.
Maybrick's diary however is written by a smug, proud bastard, who constantly talks about how "clever" he is. He has remorse towards the end, but this just a cathartic invention by the diarist.
What I beleive is Jack, Pete and Jeff's attitude to their murders is different from someone say like Ted Bundy. Bundy got off on the power he had over his vitcims and his main interest wasn't in the dead human body but the torture and humiliation he could inflict on his vitcims.
If anyone knows of a serial killer more similar to Jack, could someone please tell me.
Regards Wintergreen. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1412
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 10:37 am: |
|
Mr Poster returns in an aphoristic mood and writes:
"Sometimes the stick that beats us is of our own making."
And sometimes it's not. But in either case, it was the lasting, long-term effects I was explaining -- just in case anyone wants to know what to blame for my continued presence around here.
And now you've changed your argument, my friend. Originally you were discussing the "Maybrick did it" crowd and the Casebook survey. But now all your listed points have been neatly revised to deal with the "old hoax" versus "new hoax" question.
So I assume that the "house of cards" that was the "Maybrick as Ripper" case has indeed long ago fallen down in serious circles and still exists only in the same way that the flat-earth and fake moon landing nonsense still exists, among those who care not a whit about actual evidence.
Excellent.
Perhaps Stephen will help you with the voting data.
In any case, one thing is perfectly and demonstrably clear. The only debate still alive on these boards is the question of when and by whom this hoax was created. The "Maybrick was the Ripper" silliness is barely even mentioned here anymore.
And I can't find anything either new or useful in any of your points concerning the old hoax versus new hoax debates, so I'm not sure how to respond.
You say, "there seems to be life in the corpse," but what corpse? The "Maybrick wrote the diary and killed these women" case can't be found anywhere on these boards. So that one does indeed seem to be long dead around here. The "it's an old hoax although we have no evidence to support this dream and all the textual evidence points to a modern date of composition" patient is still clinging to life here via various machines and a feeding tube. But I live in Pinellas County, Florida, so I know how these situations end.
However, if all you are saying and have been saying all this time turns out to be that the question of whether this is an old hoax or a new hoax is best determined scientifically, well, then, guess what?
We're friends.
Happy it's come to this,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2183
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 10:40 am: |
|
Hi Mr Poster,
in relation to your points.
1) yes indeed so - but there is not evidence to support the theory in all cases, particularly in the case of tin match box empty.(TMBE)
2) indeed each to their own I'd like to know what they think about TMBE.
3)i agree scientific anaylsis is a good thing.
4)have you ever been on the James Maybrick yahoo group.
5)no the house of cards collapse but there are some who think that doesnt matter (WHAT!?)
6) -
i doubt it is rigged,
the Earth is flat.
man did not walk on the moon
that was the image of the madonna on the toast
the 'miracle' in the library was possible
tin match box empty proves the diary is a modern fake
poste house could be anywhere
Jenni
ps you can work out for yourself which ones of those i think are true
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1413
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 10:44 am: |
|
Jennifer mentions, "the James Maybrick yahoo group."
I just wanted to say it again.
The James Maybrick yahoo group.
With Swiftian glee,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2185
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 11:08 am: |
|
while i now understand what you are saying, i do wish you wouldnt talk in riddles
"All you need is positivity"
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 853
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 11:32 am: |
|
Mr Poster
1. There are enough people out there who think the diary is at least an old hoax that these discussions are warranted.
I'm not sure any of the regular participants here do think the diary is an old hoax.
Several think - or claim to think - that when it was hoaxed is still an open question, but that's rather different.
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 354
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 1:12 pm: |
|
"I'm not sure any of the regular participants here do think the diary is an old hoax.
Several think - or claim to think - that when it was hoaxed is still an open question, but that's rather different."
If you define pre-1980s as "old hoax", then I definitely fall into the old hoax school of thought. If old hoax means stemming from Victorian times or the early part of the 20th century, I'd say "possible".
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 11:04 am: |
|
Hello John V. Omlor
And now you've changed your argument, my friend. Originally you were discussing the "Maybrick did it" crowd and the Casebook survey. But now all your listed points have been neatly revised to deal with the "old hoax" versus "new hoax" question.
Nope, just realised that pro-diary is not a good description. So I am using "old hoax" to signify people who think it may be significant (the diary not the comment)or still worthy of discussion. Too often semantics are used round here to confuse others and open the way for lengthy "he said , you said" posts. But not to be distracted by such ploys:
You say, "there seems to be life in the corpse," but what corpse? "
You said earlier on that I "missed the wake" and theres no wake without a corpse so I just refer to the corpse you brought up. I assumed you meant the corpse was the case against Maybrick or the diary as anything but nonsense. I refuse to outline your usage of the phrase in black italics.
AS for being aphoristic, its not something your good self could be accused of. So cheers!
Interesting about the poll however. You have pointed at that poll more than once as "suspect" and it might appear that you have no evidence of that. If you had, I would not imagine you being shy about using it. So as you have no real evidence to the contrary, it remains that there could be a significant number of people who, God forbid, STILL think Maybrick did it!
Which has implications for a lot of your previous posts about this all being a dead duck.
And just for the record: as an undergraduate I had a very nice physics lecturer who was quite easily able to prove the world could be flat using maths. And to start you all off with a practical example of the phenomenon upon which this is based rather than just linking to some crank site:
Next time you are in a car moving at speed, look out the window at the ground and register how fast the ground appears to move and then focus on a distant object and note its realtive speed. And any creative thinker van use that as the basis for a reasonably robust flat earth theory that even explains photos from space.
Greetings
Mr Poster
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 855
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 4:13 pm: |
|
Sir Robert
If you define pre-1980s as "old hoax", then I definitely fall into the old hoax school of thought.
Well, I stand corrected.
But if you do actually believe that, you must have some reason for believing it.
This is the point I've never understood. What is the evidence that makes you think the diary was faked before 1980?
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on April 22, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 856
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 4:16 pm: |
|
Mr Poster
And just for the record: as an undergraduate I had a very nice physics lecturer who was quite easily able to prove the world could be flat using maths
Hmmm. I suspect he wasn't able to prove that, you know.
Chris Phillips
|
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 554
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 5:42 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
I'll e-mail you next week with my days off and we can arrange something. And since it's my turn to pay, we will be going to that cheap place we usually go to.
Hi John,
Just out of curiosity, why does the Crashaw poem need to be anthologized?
Rob |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1416
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 6:00 pm: |
|
Mr. Poster,
There seems to be very little that needs a response in your last post to me, but I'll see what I can find.
"Old hoax" as a phrase is, of course, completely different than "Maybrick did it." The Maybrick candidacy on this website has been long dead. Do some real research and come back here and tell me how many posts in year 2005 have appeared here that actually argued that the diary was real or that Maybrick was the Ripper. Then, just for extra added effect, tell me what percentage that is of all the posts on the diary.
No one here is talking about the Maybrick candidacy as serious or the diary as possibly real.
So the argument has indeed changed.
Here we debate other stuff.
When I cited you mentioning the corpse and then asked you "what corpse," I was asking whether you meant the "diary is real and Maybrick was the Ripper" corpse (which has been dead so long around here that there's nothing left even to smell anymore) or the "old hoax" corpse, which remains completely unsupported by any real evidence and so is stuck being artificially kept alive by any means necessary, including desperately made-up excuses for the text and many other forms of rhetorical life support. Of course, since the old hoax theory doesn't even exist, since no one has ever bothered to sit down and do the work necessary for there be a comprehensive "old hoax" theory, there won't be much a corpse in the end anyway.
As for the poll, I prefer to let official voices discuss its operation and results. But I can and will say this -- look at the posts here. Look at the sales figures in the last year. Where are all these yahoos supporting Maybrick as the Ripper anyway? Oh, that's right. They're over at the perfectly named "Maybrick yahoo group."
Incidentally, your final anecdote proves my point. "Any creative thinker" can come up with a flat earth theory, no matter what the real, serious, logical evidence says. But that doesn't mean the flat earth theory is still alive in any meaningful way. Any creative thinker can come up with an imaginary and desperate "Maybrick did it and the diary is real" theory, no matter what the real, serious, logical evidence says, but that doesn't mean the "Maybrick did it" theory is still alive in any serious way. It's not. (It hasn't been really since we acquired the samples of the real James's handwriting and carefully read the text of the diary.)
Of course, that hasn't stopped some people from pimping the diary and selling stuff related to it in one way or another, but the flat-earthers do that, too, as do the moon landing crazies. And, thankfully, the diary stuff hasn't been selling all that well lately.
I'm not sure what you are really arguing about anymore, Mr. Poster. But I'm having fun responding, so feel free to keep this going. It is of course a perfect example of the sort of discussion that you so haughtily criticized when you first arrived here with all your high-falutin' rhetoric about getting something done and new ideas and freshness. Here you are, trapped in a typically circular, largely pointless, repetitious, classical Diary World argument about nothing much, and you're going at it full bore, just like the rest of us, with the pun intended for us both.
So I'm glad you've decided just to be one of the guys. People always think they are different when they first arrive, but they soon realize that they are just like the rest of us down here -- happy as clams to ride the merry-go-round everyday just for something to do.
Looking forward to your response,
--John |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1417
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 6:11 pm: |
|
Rob,
It doesn't. In fact, it's not. But Crashaw, of course, is. And that's yet another indication of the work's place in the canon. For more on the evolution of this canon, please see my long and detailed bibliographical post about the matter on the old boards CD.
And remember, only two books in the whole history of writing have this particular line from the middle of this particular poem excerpted and cited amidst prose about something else.
The Sphere book, which appeared first.
And the diary, which appeared after it.
And lo and behold the very same guy who showed us all the diary, is also the guy who showed us all the Sphere book.
And he's a known and repeated liar. And he has never told us where the diary really came from.
And he was the only one at the time who could identify the source of the quote and he did NOT do it by identifying it in the poem or in an anthology of poetry or in a collection of Crashaw. No, he gave us the only other book in the world that had that same line from that same poem excerpted and cited in it amidst prose about something else.
But everyone already knows all of this, don't they?
Loving the circles as they spin,
--John |
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 555
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 6:29 pm: |
|
Hi John,
Thank you
Rob |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 3:27 am: |
|
Hello JOhn
Interesting. Normally when I post I am suggesting or asking something. Sometimes I post in reply to one of your usual missives in which case I suggest nothing and just joust a little. Which means, as I suspected, that for the most part it is you that generates the circular argument. As without you, I or no-one else would have to bother with those type of posts. And I admit defeat. But some itches are worth a scratch or two.
I have indeed checked or tried to check sales for the various versions of the books by the authors you mention. And readily admit defeat. As you seem so cocksure of that (as you did about the poll strangely enough) I assume you have the figures. Therefore could you do me a favour and post them up here so I can benefit to the full. Thanks in advance. I am sure that a man who requires everyone else (often in no uncertain terms)to post their evidence will have no problems posting your evidence that sales have been bad or whatever. I can add it it to the evidence confirming the statements that the poll was rigged.
The reason people still seem to believe its an old hoax/Maybrick did it/anything other than its a modern hoax is because of two things I assume:
1. the crafty writing of the books (I cannot resist, I must use the next word) "pimping" its worth (what Baroque canon does "pimping" come from?);
2. the problems with the evidence against which are mostly related to it not being watertight.For every expert who says the handwriting isnt Victorian, there seems to be one more who says it is. One single solitary piece of evidence as to its being modern with no wiggle room should put it to bed for ever. And dont mention the technical "evidence".
The chance, however slim, that it is an "old" hoax is worth pursuing as that would make it an interesting document in itself (why, when, whom) and give some nice insight maybe into how people thought about the case at the time of the hoaxing. Slimmer chances than this one have been pursued many times on these boards.
I agree with most of the evidence presented as to it being a modern hoax. The problem is that having asked a fervent pro-diary (old-hoax) person what they had against the evidence they said the following regarding the now famous "tin box empty" : "the tin box empty case assumes that we have every document pertaining to the case and there are/were no more. But there are so many files missing that material could have been circulated at any time from 1889 to WWII that we dont know about. So to say that "tin box empty" only appeared later is not logical. We do not know what documents/material were circulated and lost in the previous 100 years".
And right or wrong, I can see the point even if it badly expressed.
But I will continue coming back and saying "test more" and offering anything I can think of regarding possible further avenues. Other people are equally repetitous about equally fruitless ideas. If people want to indulge in circular arguements, thats OK. Thats what people with hobbies do. Endlessly discuss the topic. Often not going anywhere. But the enjoyment is the discussion. This is not a thread for logic or philosophy or the merits of inductive reasoning. You can find those elsewhere.
But all I can say in my defence is that as pointless as my contributions may be, they fade into insignificance compared with the purple fonts and the dragon.
Regarding my phyiscs lecturer. I doubt he believed in a flat earth. More probably he used it as an example that relatively convincing "proofs" can be proferred for most things. That what in essence was a light hearted aside could be construed as belief in flat earth is a sign of the frayed nerves I guess. I wonder what could cause them to be so frayed?
And I could be wrong but I suspect, given human nature being what it is, that if one shred of evidence of that diary being "old" was found, a lot of people would start putting a foot down from the fence. We're human after all.
Awaiting the avalanche of pith,
Mr Poster |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1434
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 10:37 pm: |
|
Mr. Poster starts with blame:
"Which means, as I suspected, that for the most part it is you that generates the circular argument. As without you, I or no-one else would have to bother with those type of posts. And I admit defeat. But some itches are worth a scratch or two."
Well, I'm pleased to see that I am that powerful -- all by my lonesome -- to be able somehow to compel Mr. Poster into the schoolyard in this way. I guess I have underestimated the hypnotic effect these little messages have.
Also, he accuses me, oddly, of saying the Casebook poll was "rigged." I'm not sure where or when I ever said such a thing. I trust he'll post the citation -- a habit he really should get into for the purposes of an easy to follow discussion, especially since his posts are delayed a bit since he remains unwilling to join our little community. I do remember asking him what he knew about how the poll worked. He admits he knows nothing about it. Consequently, any of his original claims based on it become meaningless.
I did ask him to check the latest trends in sales for the diary books. He was unable to, for some reason. The latest report I received was that the sales for the Skinner book were down enough to make a new edition seriously doubtful. If that has changed, I'll sure I'll be informed here quickly enough. I do know that the Feldman book sales are considerably lower than they ever have been in the past and that the latest edition of the diary was also a disappointment. Again, if I have been misinformed, I trust the appropriate parties will correct me.
Then, oddly enough, I find my respondent once again conflating the "old hoax/Maybrick did it" positions.
I find this staggeringly bizarre, since these two positions are directly in conflict with one another.
But then he writes one thing with which I agree, and which also explains this nonsensical conflation:
"This is not a thread for logic or philosophy or the merits of inductive reasoning."
And therein lies the problem and the reason why this remains lar}gely a pointless waste of time.
Now I wonder, did he ever go back and find out how many posts have been sent here this year that argue in favor of the diary as authentic or Maybrick as the Ripper?
I'll bet the percentage figure is less than 1.
Let's wait until he does the math,
-- John (still pithless)
(Message edited by omlor on April 24, 2005) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2206
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 3:26 am: |
|
John,
who cares, about the percentagevfigures.
the reason i am making this post is ll your fault is has nothing do do with killing time while i wait for my lecture,
nothing at all to do with that
cheers
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1437
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 6:18 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
You know, perhaps you are right. Perhaps I have been unfair to Mr. Poster here.
I was under the impression that when he first came here he was claiming that the pro-diary, Maybrick did it theory was still alive in some meaningful and significant way and had not fallen from lack of real evidence.
But he has since become very vague about whether he meant this or whether he was just referring to the old hoax theory.
So, to clear matters up and in the interest of perhaps stalling further hostilities, let me try to clear things up.
Mr. Poster, are you claiming that the pro-diary, "Maybrick was the Ripper" candidacy is still significantly alive and serious either around here on these boards or within the general field of study?
If so, what is your evidence to support this specific claim?
If not, if you are only claiming that the old hoax theory is alive (a quite different theory, one imagines, since its founding premise is directly contradictory to the pro-diary argument), then could you explain to us in detail exactly how the old hoax theory works?
There. That seems fair enough, and without a single impolite or uncivil clause.
Hoping this ends up clarifying the matter,
--John
PS: Jenni, as always, I'm happy to provide you with someone to blame for killing time. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
