|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2143
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 9:55 am: | 
|
(And why I don't believe it!)
Am I being too ambitious with this here thread?
Probably! It’s very hard to write about a theory you don't believe in as though it is correct, so do excuse me. Only I felt the need to try (people do keep saying no one has and I do like a challenge).And anything but work!
So anyway,
Science
All the tests show that a date for an old hoax can be given scientific credibility.
Evidence for an old date can be found within the testing. Take the 1921 date from the ions migration tests as the clearest pointer that an old hoax is the most likely scenario and work from there. Not one single test done has been able to discount the old hoax theory. The ion migration test (however flawed it is) shows that this cannot be said to be the case for the other two theories (modern hoax/genuine).
As the handwriting in the diary is not James Maybrick's (according to analysis) then if the diary is old, someone else must have written it, indeed however old it is, someone else must have written it (this here is a point in common with the modern hoax theory, therefore anyone arguing against it must necessarily think that there is a genuine possibility James wrote it)
Textual Inaccuracies
Poste House
It is possible that there was a place called this in Liverpool in the period an old hoax was created. In common with claims of authenticity it could be argued that this means somewhere other than the Poste house Cumberland St, since the diarist cannot spell poste. In common with the modern hoax theory it could be argued that this means the Poste House, Cumberland street, est. 1960's (right?)
In conclusion, on this point the date for a hoax cannot be made. Even if all possible post houses can be ruled in or out,
So moving on
Mrs Hammersmith
In common with the modern hoax theory, the most likely explanation is that the hoaxer made up this person.
If Michael can etc
In common with the modern hoax theory the hoaxer was mistaken about Michael Maybrick's verse, something the real James Maybrick would have known (you'd hope!)
ociod
See here
../4922/17262.html"#C6C6B5"> |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 849
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 10:24 am: |
|
Jenni
Just for fun, to argue against a couple of your items in favour of a modern hoax:
I have left the stupid fools a clue which I am sure they will not ...
I believe Simon Wood "saw" some initials in the picture, but didn't identify them as "FM".
Also, I shall be interested if anyone knows for sure, but my impression is that Wood's speculation wasn't widely known in the late 1980s.
No heart no heart
Perhaps this is a reference to the missing heart, but I don't think this can be argued too strongly, as it had always been well known that Kelly's heart had been cut out. On the "old hoax" view, this would be a reference to the removal of the heart from the body, not the room.
(There had even been some press speculation that the murderer had taken the heart away, though I doubt an old forger would be aware of it:
http://casebook.org/dissertations/dst-yostheart.html)
On the other hand, of course I agree that "tin match box empty" is strong evidence that the diary is a modern fake. This point has never been plausibly explained away.
I also think "Poste House" is much more likely to refer the modern "Poste House" than to some other hypothetical establishment.
I would also add the Crashaw quotation, which is strong evidence that the diary was faked after the Sphere Book was published (and that Barrett was involved).
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2146
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 10:47 am: |
|
thank you Chris, i see your point there in relation to the heart.
therefore I wholeheartedly agree it can be reconciled with the old hoax theory (sorry about the awful pun!)
In relation to
the tin match box which i found about her person, did not contain anything,
I think this is clear evidence of either
the old hoaxers identity,
or modern forgery.
there is no better evidence as it stands that the diary is modern, imho!
As for poste house and Crashaw, both these factors can be pre 1992 still (and the library thing, we try not to talk about it when john might be around!)
Cheers
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
ex PFC Wintergreen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 10:37 am: |
|
the "tin box empty" thing
why in all name of the famous four-lettered expletive would Jack the Ripper give an East Bostwanan dwarf's fecal matter about a tin match box?
Would he even have noticed it? And the fact that it seems so important in the diary, makes it seem that the reason the author wrote it there was to prove that it was an authentic "view from the killer". Ironically it almost proves the opposite, that it was said with such importance (at least twice from memory) that the Diarist who thought he was as "clever" as he made Maybrick think he was, put it there so we'd think it was proof.
But if Jack the Ripper was really so interested in the contents of a tin match box why didn't he take to collecting them instead of uterii?
Regards Spring-Clean-Winter-Green |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2148
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 11:25 am: |
|
hi
in my view the line about the nature of the empty box which was left at the Eddowes crime scene,
is the best proof the diary is fake. for sure
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1394
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 1:37 pm: |
|
Man, sometimes I truly am fond of you people.
Just for fun I thought about arguing against everyone and making the case for authenticity. But I played golf this morning and I'm a bit tired.
Hi Jenni! Nice job.
You write:
"It’s very hard to write about a theory you don't believe in as though it is correct, so do excuse me."
Its even harder to write about a theory that doesn't exist.
The sad truth is...
There is no old hoax theory.
No one has ever sat down and done the work necessary. No one has carefully laid out the precise ways an old hoax theory would account for any of the textual difficulties or the events surrounding the diary's "discovery" in the way that has been done for a modern hoax scenario.
No one has ever offered a complete, thorough, comprehensive theory which accounts not just for this (maybe) and that (perhaps) but for the entire text and the modern formations in the handwriting and the complete lack of provenance and the phrases that also appear in modern books and for the historical mistakes about the murders that mirror mistakes made in modern sources and for why Smith and Tabram aren't in the book (as one unchallenged Ripper expert has argued in print they would be if it had been an old hoax). No one has ever offered a believable identification for any other Poste House in Liverpool other than the one that's there (and wasn't there until modern times). No one has ever offered a believable account for how that same line from all of literary history got in both the modern Sphere Guide and the Diary or how the line from the police report could have gotten there before the police report became available in modern times. No one has ever actually created an "old hoax theory."
And the sketchy, "we hope it's just a coincidence, perhaps there was at one point that we don't know about, maybe Mike was telling the truth, the expert must be wrong about the writing and the provenance just can't be established" excuses that do pass for the beginning of an old hoax theory are all sad and desperate and completely without any real material evidence in each and every case and in most cases rely on incredibly fortuitous odds-defying coincidences, one after the other.
Meanwhile, the modern hoax theory accounts for every single one of these difficulties simply, neatly, using only common sense and obvious logic.
The science is contradictory. We know the book's a fake. All the textual evidence indicates a modern date of composition. No one among those who brought the book forward is talking and when they do, they lie. And that's where we are.
Still.
But thanks for the provocative posts everyone. I can honestly say I did enjoy them.
All the best,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2156
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 5:27 pm: |
|
John,
the theory does exist, it exists everyday in numerous postings made on this site, but in reality it does not exist because as i found here it is almost impossible to articulate.
Maybe this is because you cannot articulate something which is based on specualtion on single points and cannot be placed together. At least i figure that's why theres only you me and Chris on this thread, no one is willing to state the postion of the old hoax theory is any different to my vague outline above, odd that considering how many hoops we jump through everyday about the diary could be old.
Jenni
ps glad someone found a use for it!
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1399
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 5:49 pm: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Yes.
Actually, the "theory" does not exist. Excuses and dreamt of coincidences masquerading as isolated arguments exist, here and there, in vague and unevidenced and rather piecemeal fashion, hinted at and hoped for, built largely on faith and desire. But so far, the dreamers and the hinters have been unwilling or unable to sit down and tackle the tough work of actually creating a comprehensive and carefully built theory, of directly explaining in simple, rational, evidenced terms the case for an old hoax.
No one has done it.
And you know what? I don't find that the least bit surprising.
In at least two instances recently, I've seen claims made about stuff and when I asked for the documentation to support them, I've been met with a telling and deafening silence.
More and more, that seems to be becoming standard practice around here now, even if it is also shoddy argumentation and an indication that people are just making stuff up and hoping no one notices.
That's why the fact that no one has ever actually created and presented any comprehensive old hoax theory is not at all surprising.
But I'm sure someone will indeed be here in the next day or two to offer yet another excuse for why this work still hasn't been done.
That's easier to do, of course.
--John
(Message edited by omlor on April 21, 2005) |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 523
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 10:25 pm: |
|
Jenni,
I think your timeframe is a little off and I would like to make a brief case for The Really Old Hoax.
That is, I think everything is neatly explained if we simply understand the Diary is a transcription of a document originally penned around 1555 by Nostradamus. He saw all, he knew all, but sadly when you are peering 300-400 years into the future events tend to get cloudy and telescope (pardon the seeming pun there).
That is, things like the Poste House and "tin match box, empty" got all jumbled together in time. Ah, but you ask (and even if you don't) "What about Mrs. Hammersmith?" Alas, not even the seeric powers of a Nostradamus can cope with a woman's strength of mind. Clearly, a Miss Jones was "supposed" to marry a Mr. Hammersmith, but by the time 1885 rolled around she had long since decided to marry a Mr. Ramsbottom. 'Twas ever thus: man proposes, but woman disposes.
Hey, the theory works for me.
Don.
(Message edited by supe on April 21, 2005)
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Carolyn
Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 48
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 10:52 pm: |
|
Don,
Just when I thought, "just what we really need is another diary thread" you came up with this theory and made my day!
Thank you, it's as good as some other ones I have read. Even better than some...
Carolyn |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2164
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 5:25 am: |
|
Don,
yeah that works, great theory!
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1401
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 6:32 am: |
|
Excellent work, all.
I think you've finally answered all the questions (again).
Perhaps now there'll be no more posts in Diary World.
Wait, I'm getting a vision of the future....
Oh, well...
--John |
Lars Nordman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 3:30 am: |
|
Greetings Jennifer D. Pegg
I want to ask something that may or may not be suitable for this thread.
It seems that when we talk about what is and what is not "real evidence" we use, I assume, for the most part, Sugdens careful analysis of whats what.
IN doing this analysis he has applied "filters" to determine credibility or the level of probability that such evidence is credible.
Is it possible that those filters were wrong? What I am trying to say is that is there any reason to assume that a copper of the day was fastidious in writing things down? That the evidence presented at an inquest was complete, or fully recorded, or unbiased?
This is difficult to say in English. What I am trying to say is that should we not be a little more suspicous of all evidence? I often see a theory shot down because it does not accord with one piece of minutae (at the risk of invoking the wrath of John V.) yet it seems to me that the crdibility we invest in such minutae is largely a function of the "filter" applied by one man in one book.
If the filter of what could really be accepted as hard and fast evidence was tightened, are we not reduced to the crime scene photos and even they are suspect as it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that bodies were adjusted so the best lighting could be obtained by an inexperienced photgrapher etc. I reality could it not be argued that there is no evidence that would stand up in court today?
Lars
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2182
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 10:29 am: |
|
Hi Lars,
I'm not entirely sure what you are asking (it's been one of those days!). Nonetheless, in the true spirit of things i will attempt to answer.
If you are asking me if there is any evidence against james maybrick that would stand upin a court of law, my answer is no. against anyone, probably not either
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Lars Nordman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 10:44 am: |
|
Hi J.D.P
I try again. Were Sugdens criteria for acceptance strong enough?
Just because something appears in a PC's notebook or at an inquest does not mean its reliable?
So heres an example (at the risk of incurring the Wrath Of Omlor):
Group of people standing around a dead woman. Including the Ripper (not so strange, the police often checked bystanders for blood).
The coppers come along and start doing whatever they do. Checking her stuff or whatever. One says to the other "whats that Fred". Fred says "Oh I dont know, tin match box? Empty. Better write it down I suppose"
To say that "Tin match box. Empty" only existed in a police mans notebook that was not seen til 1988 or whatever makes no sense. Sugden himslef admits in his discussion of the postcards that information travelled like wildfire around Whitechapel. All it takes is for the Ripper to have heard someone say "Tim match box empty".
Unlikely I know, but limiting what is and what is not acceptable as evidence based on any criteria is dodgy. If anything, even police lists, inquests etc. are all dodgy and I dont see why they are accorded so much copper fastened credibility.
I have trouble trusting anything except the fact that women were murdered.
And John! Just write "op cit" if you are contemplating a long rebuttal as it will save my mouse finger having to scroll past it.
Lars |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 355
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 2:18 pm: |
|
" Unlikely I know, but limiting what is and what is not acceptable as evidence based on any criteria is dodgy. If anything, even police lists, inquests etc. are all dodgy and I dont see why they are accorded so much copper fastened credibility."
Lars, I tend to agree with you. More importantly, there is so much material missing from police files on this case that we have no clue what may or may not have appeared in additional reports.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 854
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 4:05 pm: |
|
Lars
Group of people standing around a dead woman. Including the Ripper (not so strange, the police often checked bystanders for blood).
The coppers come along and start doing whatever they do. Checking her stuff or whatever. One says to the other "whats that Fred". Fred says "Oh I dont know, tin match box? Empty. Better write it down I suppose"
Just to understand what you're suggesting - you think the police inventory was composed in Mitre Square while the body lay there in situ, and you think the murderer (James Maybrick, to be precise) had not only returned to the scene of the crime, but came and stood so close to the police that he could overhear what they were saying?
Do you really think any of that is remotely credible?
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2191
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 4:52 pm: |
|
Lars,
what can i say i'm stumped.
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1414
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 5:25 pm: |
|
Lars,
Please read David O'Flaherty's historical research on the availability of the document with the line cited in the diary.
Thanks,
--John
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 4:24 am: |
|
Hello John
I see you are here too. Very good. Anyway....
I doubt Lars (hello Lars) is trying to say thats what happened. He seems to be saying that its possible the phrase "got out" some other way.
I have read D.O'F.'s stuff on the availability of that document. And its very good. I am sure he is absolutely correct. He seems very thorough. The only version of that list we know of was not available prior to the date he says. I agree that that is the situation.
However the assumption is made that that is the only instance of that phrase or list. Carbon paper was invented in 1808 after all so it would seem to me that the possibility remains that a copy of the list may have been made, a transcript of the list may have been made, notes referring to the list may have been made or any of half a dozen possibilities exist.
There is no reason to assume there wasnt. If that copy or whatever was not included in Eddowes' papers archived, then it is quite feasible it was in one of the bundles of papers "lost" over the years. Wasnt a bundle of papers handed back to Scotland Yard at some point having been "lost"? No reason why other bundles (maybe containing a copy of that list) that were "lost" were not handed in. So maybe that phrase was available to an "old hoaxer".
It could be argued that it is arrogant to assume we know for certain it wasnt.
Awaiting the W.O.O. (Sorry Lars, I'm poaching!)
Mr Poster
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 358
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 8:40 pm: |
|
"The only version of that list we know of was not available prior to the date he says. "
He's right in terms of what we know, but let's go back to Fido's "The Crimes, Detection and Death of JtR" pgs.68-70.
"The official police list of her clothes and property attached to the coroner's papers is interesting offering more detail and some variants from the familiar inventory published in the press....
1 Tin MatchBox, empty....."
Are we supposed to take from this that the police failed to make any copies of said report? That they gave the coroner not only an official copy but the only copy? And where did the 'variants' published in the press come from? Obviously the press saw copies of copies of the inventory, copies that differ but are copies nonetheless. Reminds me of the old game of telephone, where as a phrase is repeated it becomes less accurate.
A minor point, BTW.
The police report says
"1 Tin MatchBox, empty" not
"tin match box empty".
Critical difference? Probably not, but as with the Crashaw quote, a poor job transcribing a few words. And as with Crashaw, it argues for the Diarist not having the source material in front of him (or her).
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1428
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 8:59 pm: |
|
Hee hee,
Carbon paper. I love that.
Sir Robert,
You're right. It's "probably not" a critical difference, but it does indicate a poor job transcribing (or just a general sloppiness). Now then, let's see if we can find any other qualities in the diary that also indicate a general sloppiness. Hmmmm -- the completely wrong handwriting even using some modern letter formations, complete exposition on the first page despite pretending to be in media res, simple mistakes even about the murders themselves, mentioning the precise proper name of a pub that wasn't there at the right time, the idea of even referring to a document that was not available to the general public until modern times, and on and on and on.
Yes, clearly there is no reason to be surprised by the sloppiness in the creation of this fake text. In fact, it's a fully developed pattern.
I wonder what we might take from that concerning our composer?
But I do want to comment on the rhetorical strategy to be found in Mr. Poster's rampant and imaginative speculation concerning a mysterious missing and never mentioned in the record copy of the document in question.
It is, I would be tempted to say, just a Figment... But that's too easy.
No, I want to comment on it because I saw something very similar just this morning.
Caroline Morris cited a letter (which she has not posted in its complete form), in which an expert mentioned that:
"whenever the first large scale commercial use of chloroacetamide in ink began, some small shop could have made its own ink and tried various additives."
And I noticed this citation of her and wrote the following, which I can now repost in its entirety right here, without changing a word, because Mr. Poster's little fantasy-as-argument can be quickly added to the list:
Some small shop could have... or, in this case, maybe some mysterious copy was made and lost in a bundle we know nothing about and have never heard of...
That's the hope here. That's the gasp. That's the sort of vague, remote, we don't know but perhaps, we don't have a record of but... sort of argument that the old hoax theory is always having to rely on. That's the sort of prayer they offer for the Poste House, for the "tin matchbox empty" line, for the mistakes about the murders, for the lack of provenance, for the library miracle, for everything every time.
You'd think after about the umpteenth time you needed to rely on a "maybe, perhaps, it wouldn't be likely or common, but..., we don't have a record of, but..., it's against the odds, however..." sort of desperate prayer that you need in order to replace simple common sense explanations, they'd start to see a pattern developing.
But no, in some cases I guess the light truly can be blinding.
And I see it's still just as blinding over here on this thread.
But when desire drives reading, all hope for logical evidence based, supported argument is lost.
Add another one to the list,
--John (saving time only typing things once)
PS: One other thing I love -- how often around here, when the diary conflicts with the known history, people want to conclude that it's the history that somehow must be wrong. What can you say about reading and thinking like that. It's priceless.
(Message edited by omlor on April 24, 2005) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 360
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 9:19 pm: |
|
"Wasnt a bundle of papers handed back to Scotland Yard at some point having been "lost"? No reason why other bundles (maybe containing a copy of that list) that were "lost" were not handed in. "
To follow up on your point, Mr. Poster...let's take Tumblety, a great suspect. In fact, if it weren't for his mustache, height, hair color, and being a Yank, I'd say there's a good chance he was the Ripper. But until Stuart Evans acquired the Littlechild letter, he wasn't even considered a suspect. Where's the police files on Tumblety? Scotland Yard even had him tailed to America. Where's Inspector Andrew's report(s)?
Last point on this: Tumblety was apparently in custody when Kelly was murdered, and to get around this Evans theorizes on an unrecorded police bail.
I am NOT criticizing Evans' very worthy research effort; just pointing out that finer Ripperologists than you and I have postulated about an incomplete police record. Given the Blitz, I'm surprised that anyone regards not having a document in hand as a knockout blow for ANY theory.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1432
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 10:09 pm: |
|
Sir Robert,
Call me crazy, but for some reason I prefer to subscribe to theories based on documents that do exist rather than theories based on documents that don't.
Of course, clearly this is not the place for that sort of logic.
Amazed as always,
--John |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1435
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 11:49 pm: |
|
OK, I'm bored.
So let's make at least a partial list.
"tin matchbox empty"... Maybe there's a copy of the document we know nothing about.
The Poste House... Maybe there was a pub back then that we know nothing about.
Mrs. Hammersmith... Maybe there was a woman in that city at that time by that name that we know nothing about.
The Manchester murders... Maybe there were really murders at that time and place that we know nothing about.
Mike's identification of the Crashaw quote... Maybe there is a logical explanation for it that we know nothing about.
The modern handwriting formations described by Dr. Baxendale... Maybe there's a historically anomalous explanation that we know nothing about.
The lack of any verifiable provenance... Maybe there's a hundred year old story somewhere that we know nothing about.
The lies told by the people who brought the diary forward... Maybe they had reasons for lying from the very beginning even though the book was old, reasons that we know nothing about.
Every single time issues such as these come up with the text, the old hoax theory is reduced to saying, "well, maybe there's an explanation that we know nothing about."
But notice, for the diary to be an old hoax, that ABSOLUTELY MUST be true not in one case, not in two cases, but in each and every case, one amazing and incredible historically groundbreaking coincidence after another.
Otherwise, we MUST have a modern hoax on our hands.
And notice also the stuff we know. We KNOW "tin matchbox empty" really was available in modern source books. We KNOW the Poste House is there in modern times and has that exact name. We KNOW Mike gave Shirley the diary with the Crashaw quote in it and then was the only person able to identify its source. We KNOW Dr. Baxendale found modern letter formations in the handwriting. We KNOW the people who brought the book forward lied about it from the beginning and have never been willing to offer us any verifiable provenance whatsoever.
All the stuff we KNOW points in the same direction, to a modern date of composition.
What in the text points to an old date of composition?
"Maybe something we know nothing about."
Now I remember at least a bit of my intro. to Logic class from grad school. I remember the way inductive reasoning works.
And I KNOW the logical, rational, common sense conclusion offered us in this situation.
Of course, that does not figure in personal desire.
There's always a catch,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2203
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 3:17 am: |
|
Oh man!
yous lot took your time - maybe there's a copy of the document we don't know about? And the old hoaxer had it then it vanished.
Maybe that's what happened. Now i'm not saying it couldn't have happened that way....
Hey John
thats a good list going on there
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 868
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 4:21 am: |
|
Sir Robert
A minor point, BTW.
The police report says
"1 Tin MatchBox, empty" not
"tin match box empty".
Are you sure that's what's written in the inventory? "MatchBox" sounds like something very unlikely for a Victorian to have written. Caroline Morris recently posted it as 1 Tin Match Box, empty, when she was specially trying to emphasise the differences from the diary version.
But you're right, this is a minor point.
What I still don't understand is why people are willing to spend their time spinning obscure hypotheses that would allow the hoax to be an old one.
Obviously you can suggest there was another copy of the inventory lying in an archive somewhere that wasn't technically closed to public access in the 1930s or whenever, and you can suggest that the diarist found it, by some amazing process of intuition akin to Barrett's claimed discovery in Liverpool Library. Even though all the most dedicated Ripper researchers have failed to find it since then.
But why go to the effort, when there's a perfectly simple alternative explanation: The diarist read the inventory after it was published in a book in the late 1980s?
Why? I keep asking, but I never get an answer. Do you know any evidence at all that indicates the diary was written before the 1980s? (This is meant to be the subject of the thread, by the way.)
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 363
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 10:10 am: |
|
"maybe there's a copy of the document we don't know about?"
Let me answer a question with another question.
I mentioned the case of Tumblety, and the fact that we learned about him through non-police sources, as the files on him are missing.
Why would anyone base a "definitive proof" on any aspect of this case on the claim that since we don't have another source, what we have is all there is?
And Chris:
"The diarist read the inventory after it was published in a book in the late 1980s?"
OK - fair enough. Quite possible. But I've got Fido's book in front of me, and on pg. 70 he lists it as "1 Tin MatchBox, empty" not "1 Tin Match Box, empty", and certainly not "tin match box empty".
So we have several possibilities:
A) Mike's the world's worst transcriber. How many errors are we facing in 10 words? O/Oh, death/death's, 1 and a comma missing, and match box/MatchBox.
B) Mike didn't have the source material in front of him when he was authoring the Diary.
C) There are more variants out there for these quotes than we thought.
D) One or both quotes are not in fact direct quotes from anything.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2212
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 10:23 am: |
|
i agree i had not thought of the posbility neither was a qoute.
But even if tin match box empty wasnt a quote,
how would the old faker have known?
"All you need is positivity"
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 871
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 10:26 am: |
|
Sir Robert
You'll have to take up "MatchBox" versus "Match Box" with Caroline Morris. (But certainly I've never seen a Victorian write anything like "MatchBox".)
But just to check - you really think that because the capital letters and the comma aren't reproduced in the diary, then the "tin match box empty" in the diary came from somewhere other than the Eddowes inventory?
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1440
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 10:29 am: |
|
Sir Robert,
So in the end, we have two choices.
The choice that bases all of its explanations for the text on the hope that "maybe there was something that we know nothing about..."
And the choice that bases its explanations on simple and obvious events that are easily accounted for using available documented source material and real places and events.
OK.
I'm comfortable with that situation and with the conclusion it leads me to.
If one of those "maybes" ever becomes anything more than just a desperate wish, I'm sure we'll hear about it.
Until then, the textual evidence remains consistently, logically, and overwhelmingly in favor of a modern date of composition.
Not holding my breath for that to change anytime soon,
--John |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 365
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 11:05 am: |
|
"You'll have to take up "MatchBox" versus "Match Box" with Caroline Morris."
OK - let's see... The distinction between "MatchBox" versus "Match Box" is important enough to take up with Caz, but the difference between the police report saying "1 Tin MatchBox, empty" instead of "tin match box empty" can be safely ignored.
"(But certainly I've never seen a Victorian write anything like "MatchBox".)"
And ? Are you saying that Fido also transcribed the list incorrectly ? What source do you believe he used ?
Let's be clear about this for those playing along at home: Martin Fido's 1987 book "The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper" is regarded as the first time the official police list of Eddowes' belongings, which was attached to the coroner's report, was made public in detail.
Do you believe Fido got it wrong, Chris ?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2215
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 11:17 am: |
|
whn in doubt do what all ripperologists in doubt should do,
turn to Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner,
pp228 the ultimate jtr sourcebook
"1 Tin Match Box. empty."
thats what the inquest papers say.
glad to have cleared that up
"All you need is positivity"
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 874
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 11:34 am: |
|
Sir Robert
Do you believe Fido got it wrong, Chris ?
(Am I the only one who finds this desperation to score a point, however petty, a little embarrassing?)
Unless it's a simple typo on Fido's part, I suppose what happened was that the space between "Match" and "Box" was narrow, and that for some reason Fido omitted it. If that's what happened, yes, of course it was an error - the Victorians didn't put capital letters in the middle of words like that.
If I remember correctly, Rumbelow also published the inventory in 1988. If you think the point is of importance, you should check his transcript against Fido's.
Anyhow, if you can give the point-scoring a break for a moment, please could you clarify your latest theory for us?
Do you really think that because the capital letters and the comma aren't reproduced in the diary, then the "tin match box empty" in the diary came from somewhere other than the Eddowes inventory?
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 367
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 11:59 am: |
|
"whn in doubt do what all ripperologists in doubt should do,
turn to Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner,
pp228 the ultimate jtr sourcebook
"1 Tin Match Box. empty."
thats what the inquest papers say.
glad to have cleared that up"
That clears up nothing, Jenni. My copy of that book says "First published in the UK 2000". The specific claim here is that the Diarist cribbed "tin match box empty" from Fido's 1987 book. Evans' book postdated the Diary.
Interesting - for a simple phrase from a single list, nobody seems to agree on what the original said.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2218
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 12:06 pm: |
|
So sorry, i thought you were asking what the inquest papers said.
you know the ones made public in 1986.
sorry
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1442
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 12:09 pm: |
|
Chris,
The answer to you parenthetical question is no.
tin matchbox empty -- those words, in that odd order appear in both the diary and a police document that was not available to the public until modern times but was thereafter published in Ripper books.
Like the Poste House, like the handwriting formations, like Mike's identifying the Crashaw quote, like the lies told by the "discoverers," like the complete lack of any verifiable provenance, this is yet another problem that is explained simply if the diary is a modern hoax written after the phrase was generally available in published sources.
Otherwise, all we are left with is, "gee, maybe there was something we know nothing about..." or "perhaps it was just an amazing coincidence."
In each and every case.
The pattern remains.
--John |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 876
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 12:13 pm: |
|
Sir Robert
Sounds like you missed this in my post:
If I remember correctly, Rumbelow also published the inventory in 1988.
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 368
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 12:24 pm: |
|
"So sorry, i thought you were asking what the inquest papers said.
you know the ones made public in 1986.
sorry"
If you want to descend to sarcasm, fine. It doesn't advance your case.
The Diarist couldn't have accessed Evans' book because it dates from 2000. Fido's 1987 version is what matters with respect to where the modern hoax theorists claim Barrett got the quote.
Or are you saying that the Diarist accessed the primary source material (after 1986, to be clear) ? That's more scholarship than I've ever seen attributed to Barrett.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 877
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 12:25 pm: |
|
By the way, Sir Robert, if you're interested in having a sensible discussion, why is it that you never give us an answer to a straight question?
Anyone would think you'd been taking lessons from Caroline Morris!
Is there any point in my asking again?
(1) Do you know any evidence at all that indicates the diary was written before the 1980s?
(2) Do you really think that because the capital letters and the comma aren't reproduced in the diary, then the "tin match box empty" in the diary came from somewhere other than the Eddowes inventory?
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 878
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 12:28 pm: |
|
Sir Robert
The Diarist couldn't have accessed Evans' book because it dates from 2000. Fido's 1987 version is what matters with respect to where the modern hoax theorists claim Barrett got the quote.
OK. Repeating for the third time now:
If I remember correctly, Rumbelow also published the inventory in 1988.
If you could just take a break from point-scoring long enough to read properly what other people are telling you, you might find things a bit clearer.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1444
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 12:35 pm: |
|
Jenni,
Were you "descending?" I must have missed that. 
And here's another question: apart from the simple and obvious explanation -- that the phrase came from the list after it was available to the general public and published in Ripper books -- isn't the only other possible logical explanation really "gee, maybe there's something we know nothing about?"
It's pretty sad when that is the only hope you have in each and every case with each and every textual problem.
--John
|
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 558
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 12:51 pm: |
|
Hi Chris.
The inventory list is not in Rumbelow's book (revised Hardback 1987 or Paperback 1988) unless I missed it, but shouldn't we be asking did Mike Barrett own (or have access to)a copy of Martin Fido's book?
I did a quick check and I think Fido's book was the only one which published the inventory around that time, but I could be wrong.
Rob |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 879
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 1:38 pm: |
|
Robert
Thank you for that information. In that case I stand corrected.
I could have sworn it appeared in two books in the late 1980s. But perhaps what's confusing me is that - I think at least I'm right in saying this - Rumbelow was the one who discovered the inventory.
Chris Phillips
|
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 559
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 2:06 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
As I said it was a quick check through the books published around the centenary, but I think I would have spotted it if it was there.
"The Jack the Ripper A-Z" published the inventory in its first edition which was 1991.
It was transcribed in that book as:
1 Tin Match Box, empty.
Rob |
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 560
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 2:06 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
As I said it was a quick check through the books published around the centenary, but I think I would have spotted it if it was there.
"The Jack the Ripper A-Z" published the inventory in its first edition which was 1991.
It was transcribed in that book as:
1 Tin Match Box, empty.
Rob |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2220
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 3:22 pm: |
|
(Aside desecended implies i wasnt already there.)
Let me put this simply to you, for want of a better expression I am a modern hoax theorist, Martin Fidos 1987 version is not where modern hoax theorsit claim Mike got the qoute, that is the first thing, some of us don't like to accuse Mike, the centenary books starting with Fido are the first time the match box is mentioned in the public domain at all, equally the forger could have gone where those authors went to obtain the information, that is to the records, which were opened in 1986, i am saying that it is possible, i am not saying Mike is the diarist, nor have i ever to my knowledge said that, why would i? i would have to think it in order to say it.
I have the 1988 edition of Rumbelow, paperback,
pp64
"In her pockets was everything she owned[...]an empty tin match box"
(just in case you were wondering everything is written into sense like that ...because no one would say tin match box empty they would say empty tin match box)
it does not say 1, tin match box, empty. as the other book does.
Jenni
ps hi John, hi Chris, descended here but still who cares!
"All you need is positivity"
|
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 561
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 3:52 pm: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Thank you, my mistake then Chris. I checked, and it is on the same page in the 1987 hardback edition.
Rob |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1447
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 4:29 pm: |
|
So, to be sure I have my dates right, then.
The match box is listed in Rumbelow in 1987 and the actual phrase appears in the same odd list-like syntax that it takes in the diary in Fido's book also in 1987.
And not only that, as I understand it, the dust jacket from that edition included the Punch cartoon that is also mentioned in the diary. And not only that, but I believe the inventory list is actually set apart on the page and printed in bold face (as opposed to the regular text) in my edition. And not only that, but in the very first ten pages the same Ripper letters that the diary makes explicit and repeated references to, complete with the diary's favorite underlined ha ha line and the diary's signature closing, are also separated, indented, and printed in boldface -- yes, all in the very first ten pages -- as is the Eight Little Whore's poem (still within the first ten pages), and the Ripper author Richard Whittington-Egan's name is even mentioned before the end of page 10 (ask RJ why this last item is interesting).
So we have 1987 for all of this being generally available.
And the diary first appears when Mike Barrett carries it into Doreen's office when?
A spring day in 1992.
All righty, then.
Meanwhile, the other explanation is...
"Maybe there's something we don't know anything about...."
Excellent.
--John
PS: For a full listing of all the cool stuff in the diary and some of the modern sources where it can be found, go here:
http://casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/mhguide.html
I especially love this item, which I really should post on a different thread:
"Then in 1991, Dennis Parsons based a Black Magic theory on the images he claimed to find on the Kelly photograph. He discovered a man with a crown; a child; part of a castle, and a man with a large spiked helmet on his head! |
Lars Nordman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 5:18 am: |
|
Hi all
On the point of possibilities and impossibilities and dont say to me "He didnt write it", these are examples of things that have been posted, not my opinions..
Which is more bizare :
"James Maybrick absolutely could not have read that poem by Crashaw"
"There may have been more one than one copy of that list"
My fantasy would be that MB knew it was an old (ish) hoax (where he got it I dont know) and tried to market it as real. He had it for a long time and used a lot of time identifying that line. No miracle, it took him ages, as it should.
Take my fantasy further and I like to think a journalist may wrote it. The Ripper letters were losing their impact so he picked the two biggest stories of the day and tried to combine them. Maybe a journalist had better acess to now lost papers.
Question for John (polite answer please):
You describe the story of the doucment as too melodramatic. an introduction and so on leading top a climax like a film or whatever.
Is that because the writer was influence by movies or stories or is the narrative as you describe it the way humans tell stories or describe their experiences? Do movies refelct the way we tell stories or describe things or does the way we tell stories reflect how movies and books have done it?
Lars
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
