|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 880
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 4:33 pm: | 
|
Jenni
Thanks - so Rumbelow paraphrased it, but Fido quoted it verbatim? So I was wrong in thinking Rumbelow also quoted it verbatim.
It is, as Sir Robert says, a minor point. I guess most people won't have much trouble believing the diarist could make "MatchBox" into "match box", if Fido could make "Match Box" into "MatchBox" in the first place.
Above all, I still don't understand whether Sir Robert is suggesting that the diarist got the phrase from a source other than the inventory.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1452
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 9:53 pm: |
|
Lars,
Thanks for the fantasy. Unfortunately, the material and textual evidence remains unchanged, and your fantasy accounts for almost none of it, even speculatively.
And what's truly "bizarre" (and sad) is not just that every single explanation for every single textual problem can be reduced within an old hoax theory to the desperate hope that "maybe there was something we just don't know about...," but that no one can offer any single believable common sense explanation for how Mike Barrett could identify the source of the Crashaw quote that appeared in a book he gave to the world by also giving to the world the only other book in history that has that same quote excerpted and cited within it like it is in the diary. There is a simple, common sense explanation for that, of course. But I'm sure you know what it is.
Meanwhile, the answer to your question about the structure of the diary is neither one nor the other. It's not that simple.
For instance, the diary pretends to begin in media res. There are pages torn out from the front of the book and the first entry starts in mid-sentence as if it was already underway. And yet it also immediately establishes for the reader all the necessary information and offers a complete exposition of the story so far and sets up the dramatic situation and the motive and foreshadows plans for future plot developments. All within the first page, more or less.
Why?
Because it's an artificial construction, obviously.
If a real diary, the maintained chronicle of a day to day lived life, truly started in the middle of a random sentence in the middle of an entry, there would be no reason why it would feel the need to clue its readers in to the story so far and where we are and what's happening and where we are going. In fact, it wouldn't even KNOW it was starting there, so there's no way it could do that.
Now, there are aspects to the diary that do follow an artificial, Aristotelian plot structure of a well-made drama, with rising action, falling action, an artificially dramatic reduction of a series of historical life events into a single mano-a-mano conflict between the Ripper and Abberline, and all the rest. These are also textual indications of a self-consciously created artefact rather than a day to day chronicle of a life's events (read for instance any one of a number of actual 19th century diaries to see what I mean about the difference). Add to that the mistakes in the book about the murders, the historical anachronisms in the book, the citation from a document the killer could not have seen, the handwriting being completely wrong, and the general shallowness of sense memory and specific detail in it all, and it spells FAKE in capital letters. Of course, none of this structural analysis dates the diary in any way -- that evidence is elsewhere, in the anachronisms and the handwriting and the lines from modern sources and all the rest, including perhaps the construction of the Abberline character, which you can see explained in the Harris dissertation on the modern sources for the diary's text. But even the general structure does indicate, over and over again, that the diary is clearly a hoax.
It is a cheap melodramatic error-ridden textual joke written in the wrong handwriting without any provenance and brought forward by liars lying.
I read for a living. Fiction and non-fiction, memoirs and diaries and dramatic works of all sorts. I am, in fact, a fully qualified professional, credentialed in the methods of reading texts. You can choose to believe me or not. That's up to you, of course. But I am confident beyond all measure in this particular analysis.
For what it's worth,
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 881
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 3:40 am: |
|
Lars
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.
But (and of course I've asked this several times before) do you know of any evidence at all that indicates it was written before the 1980s?
If not, why fantasise?
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1670
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 7:54 am: |
|
Hi Sir Robert, Rob C,
For what it's worth, Martin Fido has said in the past that he didn't believe his book was used by the diary author as a source.
The diary only mentions a handful of items that the complete list included. Was it coincidence that one of the few items selected was also the only one previously unpublished - the empty tin match box?
Or is it made clear from Fido or Rumbelow's books that this was new evidence, which the diary author deliberately exploited, but then gave the game away by using the four words in the same order?
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1457
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 8:11 am: |
|
Caroline,
Please, once and for all, tell us. If the hoaxer did not lift the "tin match box empty" line from the police list where the line appears, the one that was unavailable to the general public until modern times, how did it get into the diary?
Hoping for a sensible explanation based on real evidence of some sort,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2222
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 8:19 am: |
|
'The diary only mentions a handful of items that the complete list included. Was it coincidence that one of the few items selected was also the only one previously unpublished - the empty tin match box? '
lets not go crazy here,
very old green alpaca skirt or mans white vest
could have paid my small fee
damn one piece of red flannel containing pins and needles
i doubt that has the same ring to it somehow.
How then are you saying the diarist knew about the tin match box?
If the diary is an old fake, where are you saying the information came from?
If the diary was written by James Maybrick where are you saying the information came from?
Curious Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1458
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 8:23 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Good questions. I wish I would have asked them. 
But I'm glad you did. Maybe you'll get an answer.
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2224
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 8:31 am: |
|
yeah,
so does everyone John!
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1459
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 8:45 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Absolutely.
Still, I think you stand a better chance of getting an answer than I do.
I do hope it's a good one, you know, with sound logic and real evidence and everything.
All the best,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2231
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 11:37 am: |
|
John,
are you feeling alright?
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1462
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 11:43 am: |
|
Hey Jenni,
It never hurts to be blindly optimistic now and then.
--John |
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 86
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 12:05 pm: |
|
Ok John its an interesting senario
So if the Hoaxer uses Rumblows book 1988. as his source...
What are the possible chain of events leading to Barrett handing over the book, spring 1992.
How long does it take to research, source materials and put into production?
And if not barrett, who are the likely conspiritors in a Rumblow...based Hoax?
Just specualation Now.
Jeff |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2235
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 12:11 pm: |
|
Not from Rumbelow, from Fido,
Jenni
(Message edited by jdpegg on April 26, 2005)
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1464
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 12:25 pm: |
|
Jeff,
I trust you are referring to my account of all the stuff in the first ten pages of Martin's book (not Don's) and how the list is in boldface, just like the other stuff that appears so often also in the diary.
Well, the book comes out in 1987. '88 is the big centennial of the Ripper crimes and there's mega-publicity in the papers and on tv (even a mini-series). Also, within another year the 100th anniversary of the Maybrick case will hit the news, in Liverpool I suspect there might be some mention of that.
The diary turns up in Liverpool four years after the Ripper centennial and three years after the Maybrick one.
It's in the completely wrong handwriting, has plenty of textual and historical errors (even about the murders), repeats mistakes from common modern sources (see the link at the end of this post), and is brought forward by people who lie about its origins and can't even be bothered coming up with an even partially verifiable provenance.
So are you asking me how long it would take to write such a silly and shallow book with pages full of goofy rhymes, very little sensory or historical detail, no new information of any sort, full of mistakes, and without even bothering to find out what Maybrick's handwriting looked like or taking the time to come up with a remotely believable history for the thing?
Certainly less that three full years, I'd say.
And that's taking weekends and summers off.
If you have any doubts as to how much real research was necessary to write the book, see the dissertation here:
http://casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/mhguide.html
Enjoy the reading,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on April 26, 2005) |
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 87
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 12:49 pm: |
|
Hi John
Just reread the post re: 1987 Mr punch etc. The book containing at least half dozen examples.
If I meant Fido I apologuise...this as a coinsidence is very interesting.
However can not except statement: without even bothering to find out what Maybrick's handwriting looked like or taking the time to come up with a remotely believable history for the thing?
While the first part is true we know for a fact that the Hoaxer took enough trouble and had enough knowledge to make an attempt to discuise the writing as Victorian. He also had to create a character of beleivable psychotic behaviour.
This took, skill, time and knowledge.
However your time scale gives us the best part of five years...which is more than feesable.
Beleive it or not I'm not trying to ask trick questions, just interested in who might have created such a thing and why.
Jeff |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1466
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 1:39 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
You mention that the hoaxer made "an attempt to disguise the writing as Victorian." And according to Dr. Baxendale, they failed even at that, including some modern letter formations in with the fake old ones.
And the character, what there is of it, is pure melodrama.
Look at the book's pages again. See how much space is given over to time wasting little rhymes and revisions of same and how little actually is written about any of the sensory details of the murders or of any psychology. Also, look at the Ripper letters and see how much of the voice of the character comes directly from them.
Have you read the dissertation I mentioned?
Composing the text of this hoax did not in fact take all that much time, skill, or knowledge. At least, none is demonstrated. Rather what you get are mistakes, laziness, sloppiness, filler, and melodrama. They couldn't even begin it properly, pretending to be in the middle of a sentence and yet still giving us complete exposition. It's just a bad job, Jeff.
And to be clear, I wrote:
So are you asking me how long it would take to write such a silly and shallow book with pages full of goofy rhymes, very little sensory or historical detail, no new information of any sort, full of mistakes, and without even bothering to find out what Maybrick's handwriting looked like or taking the time to come up with a remotely believable history for the thing?
The last two items are both true, but you misunderstood what I meant.
They did not manage to come close to the real handwriting of the alleged author AND they could not be bothered even to take the time to come up with a remotely believable or confirmable provenance.
That's what I was saying.
All the best,
--John |
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 88
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 7:15 am: |
|
Hi John
Back fresh...a good night sleep does you the world of good.
So Ok, the Hoaxer is not a master forger. But remember our discussion...what constitutes sophistication?
You say that the forger made no attempt to replicate Maybricks hand writing but you admit that he has made some attempt to discuise the writing as victorian, you even mock him for doing it badly. But the fact is our hoaxer must have known people would check the writing, otherwise why try to discuise it?
You also have a hoaxer who understands research. Because you link the crawshaw quote from one book and then make an excellent arguement for Fido's book.
How many books would be needed to research in 1988, the minimum number, to require all the information contained in the diary on Ripper and Maybrick? two? three? half a dozen? a dozen?
There was no internet as today.
A level of sophistication is required. A level of knowledge. YOu find a blank book that dates prior 1888. This requires thought. You need victorian ink, he must know this as he knows he needs victorian hand writing.....thought process far beyond man in street.
You need to have the dextral ability to physically write the thing with a dip pen, have you ever tried this? its very difficult, especially if you grow up with biro pen. Do you just through it down at random? no you delberately cross things out.
Somewhere, someone did designs, the diary wasn't created in a one off got it right first time manor.
It was not produced by man on street, OK not some of your streets, how many of you have been to university have good jobs, have read sophisticated books?
Some of you have even said he could have contacted or got knowledge from the local history society! What planet are you on! This is Liverpool for christ sake not cheltham or whatever goes for posh in the USA.
I come from the Eastend, most of the people round my way have difficulty getting through the sun news paper, let alone Crawshaw.
Mike Barrett comes from Liverpool and people up there call the eastend posh.
Are you trying to tell me that Mike Barrett conceived, master minded and produced a hoax that has had experts and scientists running in rings for the past fifteen years?
Are you trying to tell me that Mike Barrett was involved in a conspiracy. (and name me another conspiracy theory that really holds water and please dont say JFK)
If Barrett didn't create it, then why has (lets call him Big X)our master mind not come forward to profit from his creation?
Surely only Mike Barrett stood to gain financially.
Most of you seem to clear Feldman and the only other suspect is Mrs Barrett/Graham. (please if anyone wants to email me other suggestions feel free).
Where is your Big X? Shoddy, feeble, lazy, stupid though he is, he still seems to be having the last laugh, does he not.
You cant have it both ways. If the diary contains the contextual errors you claim from the sorces you claim, then in my book and probably from most peoples book from the streets of Liverpool, you are talking sophisticated Hoax.
Mike Barrett doesnt equal Big X. Thats what I cant get my head round.
Rant Over.
Will go and check your link.
Jeff
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2240
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 7:34 am: |
|
Jeff,
Well I would say Bernard Ryans book on maybrick (thats one)
peter underworlds book on jack (thats two)
Fido (thats three)
Plus the sphere guide is four.
Four!
Jenni
ps forgive me that was off the top of my head!
"All you need is positivity"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2241
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 7:36 am: |
|
ps the book wasnt blank hence the pages were removed!
"All you need is positivity"
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 887
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 8:39 am: |
|
Jeff
How many books would be needed to research in 1988, the minimum number, to require all the information contained in the diary on Ripper and Maybrick? two? three? half a dozen? a dozen?
You may be interested to look at this article by Melvin Harris, where he discusses precisely this question (or at least its Ripper component):
http://casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/mhguide.html
His answer is two for the Ripper information (provided the copy of Fido's book had its dustcover, otherwise three).
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1468
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 8:52 am: |
|
hi Jeff,
Let's go one by one.
the fact is our hoaxer must have known people would check the writing, otherwise why try to discuise it?
Who wouldn't have known that? No real sophistication here. And the fact that they couldn't even pull off the disguise properly supports this conclusion.
You need to have the dextral ability to physically write the thing with a dip pen, have you ever tried this?
As a matter of fact I have. I've done it a number of times. Had no real problem with it. And if you look closely at the pages of the diary, you will in fact see smudges and scrawls in a number of places.
This is Liverpool for christ sake not cheltham or whatever goes for posh in the USA."
Not that it's important, but are you saying Liverpool has no historical society or other such organization? Really? That would surprise me. I wonder if Chris George can help us here.
Then you leave the "sophistication" question, without offering any real evidence of any real sophistication in the diary, and turn to Mike Barrettt.
But since I have never claimed specifically that he wrote the diary, I needn't cite and respond to that. I will say, however, that Mike apparently had literary ambitions, had I believe created word puzzles for a time, and was the only one able to identify the source of the Crashaw quote.
Those things at least we know.
But what I am saying is simply that the text, when read closely, repeatedly indicates a modern date of composition and that there is little sign of any real sophistication in its production or in the creation of its provenance.
Take just two examples -- the opening, which pretends to be in mid-sentence but still announces its artificiality by offering us conveniently complete exposition right at the start, and the use of the police inventory; something the real killer would not have seen but which the diarist draws three specific items from and places them right next to each other in his work just like they are in the original document. This is just bad planning if he wants the confession to be believed.
Finally, you say, If the diary contains the contextual errors you claim from the sorces you claim, then in my book and probably from most peoples book from the streets of Liverpool, you are talking sophisticated Hoax.
Fine, if you are defining as "sophistication" merely the ability to read a few books and copy material from them (and do it badly), then I accept this. But simple literacy is not my standard for sophistication.
And why do you seem so doubtful about Liverpool having literate and sophisticated people, anyway? I don't know that much about this part of its reputation. Is it just assumed to be the home of dunces?
I think it's good that you are going to read the link I posted. It will help you in this case.
Thanks and all the best,
--John |
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 89
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 9:33 am: |
|
And I have indeed read the link posted which is most facinating.
And of course the diary is simply to good to acurate to be anything other than a fake.
My problem is not with the poeple of Liverpool, gaud bless their salty soc's.
But with Mike Barrett. And even though you continue to state you've never said Barrett did write the diary you continue to then preface.. But he did identify the quote etc etc. Surely an implication that he did?
Ok only two Ripper books were required but what about the other referances: He needed medical knowledge about Hooping cough, to have read Sherlock Holmes, someone called Underwood, poisoned life, etched in arsnic, Morlands book.
This is Mike Barrett were talking about not Albert Enstein.
The link you gave me talks of a conspiracy (I hate conspiracy theories) but who exactly was involved?
Nothing add's up. I'm not knocking scaucers per say but Barrett was Joe Bloggs the man on the street not a fellow from Liverpool university.
So I say go back to your link and read it again.
Because however created the diary went to some trouble to research Maybrick and the Ripper.
Now ask yourself again was that person Mike Barrett.....
So it wasn't Feldman, and Mrs Graham sounds like a woman who just wanted the whole thing to go away.
I suspect from your post that your no stranger to thinking establishments. Mike Barrett was not. You claim he'd studied writing.
To what level? (11+, cse, gcse, a level, HND, degree) what courses had he done? He did puzzles? what sought of puzzles? The Times or the Mirror, thomas the tank engine?
Barrett was unable to answer even basic questions about the Ripper, something the real hoaxer obviously could.
Your trying to paint a picture of Barrett which you know is not true.
I say again whoever created the Diary had some sophistication and brains not possessed by Mike Barrett.
Jeff |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2244
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 9:39 am: |
|
i don't know how much brains Mike Barrett has (i dont know if i care)
i don't think he wrote the diary.
but then again it wouldn't surprise me a whole lot if he did.
i dont think whoever wrote the dairy needed brains, and hell theyve got away with it, so it didnt matter in the end!
Jenni
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 90
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 9:47 am: |
|
The question about whether Barrett was capable of writing the diary has everything to do with it.
Because Barrett is the obvious suspect.
If Barrett didnt write it it opens up all sorts of cans of worms.
Including the possibility, howvever , remote that it was constructed before 1987.
Surely the Barrett question is key to everything?
Jeff |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1469
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 9:53 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
You write:
But with Mike Barrett. And even though you continue to state you've never said Barrett did write the diary you continue to then preface.. But he did identify the quote etc etc. Surely an implication that he did?
My position has been clear and consistent since day one on this. The evidence has not yet been produced that would properly allow us to rule Mike Barrett in or out.
Do you know anything about Mike's personal history or his history with words, by the way?
For whatever it is worth, I personally have no real reason to believe Mike Barrett (or Anne or anyone else I have seen named, for that matter) was incapable of reading books and lifting material from them.
I do know Mike and Anne have contradicted themselves (and therefore lied) about the book and where it came from.
I'm not trying to paint any picture of Mike at all --- but you might want to do a bit more reading and complete yours. You can find some discussion of his writing ambitions and his word puzzle experience here on the boards, especially the old boards.
But thanks for your opinions. I'm honestly glad that you continue to look into this further and with an open mind.
All the best,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2245
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 9:59 am: |
|
hey there Jeff,
I'm sorry to rant on here, but just indulge me i might get to the point,
i don't think the faker needed any great deal of brains.
i think Mike was capable of faking the diary.
But I don't think he did it. necessarily
why not? well a large part of me wonders if i think that just because i dont like the idea of being out smarted by Mike Barrett, which has nothing to do with rational sense, i admit,
but also i find there to be several other likely suspects connected to Mike. In this sense maybe he does hold the key.
it doesnt matter who faked the diary, the reason i think it is modern has nothing to do with who i think faked it (the reverse is true) the textual problem with tin match box empty, puts the diary in the period post dating 1986. there is as far as i am concerned no other explanation for tin match box empty that fits with the facts.
Jenni
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1470
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 10:03 am: |
|
Jeff,
Just saw your post to Jenni.
With all due respect, the case for a modern hoax certainly does not depend on Mike Barrett being the writer. It is made using the text. It is made using the repeated indications in the text of a modern date of composition. Each of these indications has a clear and simple explanation if the diary is a modern hoax. The only explanation any old hoax scenario is able to offer for ALL of them is "maybe there was something we don't know about yet..." (a dream and a hope in place a rational common sense account). It's the documents and history involved that make the modern hoax scenario the one supported by real evidence.
All the best,
--John |
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 91
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 10:21 am: |
|
Many thanks for your explinations.
We seem to have reached simlar conclusions for different reasons. Mine is simple and more from the stomach. If the Ripper had of writen a diary would he really have cared about the itoms in the victims pockets, then listed them so closely to the known facts and lists. No its all to neat.
The diary is to neat to good.
However the detective in me wants to know who did it....
Anyway thanks for your posts which have taken my pitch in a new positive direction.
Have just spoken it through wiz dear boss and its back on kickin', better get back to work.....many thanks
Jeff
PS go on jenni who are the other suspects, can we give chase? |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2246
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 10:33 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
certainly i would like to know who did it because i am curious!
Equally i think it is important establishing who didn't do it (the James Maybrick is innocent campaign if you will!)
Jenni
ps yeah I'd need evidence before i opened my mouth, which is why i'm not!
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 373
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 10:59 am: |
|
"The question about whether Barrett was capable of writing the diary has everything to do with it.
Because Barrett is the obvious suspect.
If Barrett didnt write it it opens up all sorts of cans of worms.
Including the possibility, howvever , remote that it was constructed before 1987.
Surely the Barrett question is key to everything?"
Jeff, I mean this in all sincerity - this is the best post I've read in Diary World in ages. It is indeed the heart of the matter.
If Barrett can be shown to be the hoaxer, or involved in the hoax, it's case closed. If not, the field is wide open.
Back to Fido, who seems to be back in favor as of yesterday amongst the modern hoax theorists. We know a phrase similar to ‘tin match box, empty’ was part of the inventory of Eddowes’ possessions in the inquest papers. No national newspaper has ever been found that listed the match box. A lot of newspapers have been looked at and transcribed since then, of course, but I think it’s still safe to say that there are a lot of provincial newspapers, even some quite large ones, that have never been scrutinised, so it is quite possible that the complete inventory is mentioned somewhere that we haven’t seen. (Not to mention where the heck is the police's own copy?)
All we can currently said is that a search of the major newspapers has failed to locate any reference to the empty tin match box line and that we are unable to trace it to any known published source prior to Fido in 1987, therefore it MIGHT indicate a date post-1987 for the composition of the diary. However, a broader search of newspapers is necessary before any firmer conclusion can be reached.
Over the years this has been transmuted into there being no published source pre-Fido. I am not saying that it is not an obvious source of concern, but like the Crashaw quote, not something that enables us to say Q.E.D. a modern hoax.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2247
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 11:05 am: |
|
With all due respect to you Robert,
what evidence is there that the police would have had their own copy.
i am genuinely curious
Jenni
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 374
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 11:36 am: |
|
"what evidence is there that the police would have had their own copy. "
OK, let's discuss this politely. Maybe we'll get somewhere....And for a moment, let's ignore the Maybrick Diary angle so it can be looked at dispassionately. To cite Bertrand Russell, "The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way."
We can agree that the list attached to the coroner's report came from the police, no? A policeman cataloged her belongings.
Which is more likely:
A) The police gave the coroner the only copy they had of Eddowes' possessions.
or
B) They made a copy....probably many copies...probably even had it telegraphed to Scotland Yard.
We should be able to agree that by the time of the Double Event, many many officials had the Case front of mind. Why would they not want to see the police report on her possessions? Why wouldn't they want to see the coroner's report as well?
Again, for one moment let's forget the Diary exists. Is it reasonable to say that at that time, more than a few senior people would want to know EVERYTHING that the coppers in the field knew?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 529
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 11:37 am: |
|
SRA,
Your notion of the news-gathering impulses and resources of "provincial newspapers" doesn't accord with my experience. A few of the larger newspapers might have their own London correspondent, but for the most part they were dependent on the London newspapers and press agencies for their out-of-region reports. And the further you go from London and the smaller the newspaper the greater the likelihood for this becomes.
Couple this with the demonstrated reluctance of the police to share anything with the press and the possibility that an inventory of Eddowes's belongings was only found and published by a provincial newspaper becomes more and more remote.
Finally, there is the practical question of whether one of these small newspapers would even waste valuable column space on the list. Such a list wouldn't sell newspapers and that was (and is) the business of newspapers.
There may well be nuggets to be mined from smaller, regional newspapers, but I don't think finding a contemporary inventory from the Mitre Square murder is one of them.
DOS
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 92
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 11:43 am: |
|
Sir Robert
Yes Barrett is really the pivitol piont.
The key to everything thats left really.
I dont think that the tests will conclude anything other than the diary is a modern Hoax but I would love to see tests put the thing to bed, get Barrett on a lie detector and finally get the exclusive of what really happened.
I shall remain open minded until then however.
Perhaps Florence did it to discredit dougal?
Wouldn't want the facts to get in the way of a good story.
Many thanks...time for bed Maybrickland.
Jeff
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1471
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 11:49 am: |
|
Jenni,
You must not ask Robert for evidence.
Robert,
First of all, you write this logical howler:
If Barrett can be shown to be the hoaxer, or involved in the hoax, it's case closed. If not, the field is wide open.
Nonsense. The evidence for the diary being a modern hoax comes from the text, not from Mike Barrett. The old hoax theory on the other hand has no evidence (other than "maybe there's something we just don't know about yet"). So whether Mike wrote or not, the evidence still indicates without exception a modern date of composition.
Now then, let's talk about the match box.
You say, it is quite possible that the complete inventory is mentioned somewhere that we haven’t seen.
And, as if you were actually here just to help me make my point, you demonstrate just what I have been saying all along.
We know the diarist saw the police list.
We know the police list was in a book generally available after 1987.
We know there is nothing in the text that tells us it was written before 1987.
We know that there are a number of other strong textual indications that the diary was composed in modern times (Poste House, modern letter formations, etc.) and that the book has no provenance whatsoever and that the people who did bring it forward lied about it.
Now, the simple, obvious, common sense explanation for the appearance of the list in the diary (a document which all the available historical evidence tells us NOT available to the general public before 1987 and which we know WAS available in a Ripper book, in boldface, with the parts in the diary separated from the rest of the list at the top of a page after 1987) remains that someone simply saw the list when we know it was available and put it in the book.
What possible reason could you have for preferring the "maybe there's just something we don't know about yet" explanation (or rather hope) to the simple, obvious and common sense one, especially when there is no other evidence in the text that the book is old and all the evidence we do have in the text about its date of composition suggests it's modern?
Can you name me one thing anywhere in the diary that can be considered evidence that the book is an old one?
One thing.
I can name you several that can be explained simply and logically using the documents and the historical record we already have if the diary is modern.
You cannot do the same for an old date, and so you are forced simply to hope that "there is something out there we just don't know about yet."
That's not argument, that's not evidence, that's not logic, that's just desire.
And, incidentally, please realize that there would not have to be just one thing out there we don't know about yet -- there would have to be a number of them, all at the same time -- one to explain the list's appearance, one to explain the Poste House, one to explain the letter formations, one to explain the lack of provenance, one to explain the behavior of those who brought the book, etc..
There would have to be stuff we don't already now about out there for each and every one of these problems. That's the only hope for an old hoax -- a massive series of simultaneous, heretofore completely undiscovered remarkable textual coincidences.
On the other hand, each and everyone of these problems is explained simply, easily, directly and in a perfectly logical fashion if the diary is a modern hoax.
Surely even you must recognize the implications of this.
Unless you just don't want to.
Hoping that's not the case,
--John |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1472
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 11:56 am: |
|
Sir Robert,
Just saw your second post, the one where you again offer no actual evidence in support of the list being generally available before 1987.
You cite Russell: "The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way."
It's a good quote. Unfortunately, as the post I have just written and the diary text itself repeatedly demonstrate, it's not a quote that applies in this case.
Thanks, though, for offering it,
--John |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 830
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 12:10 pm: |
|
Robert,
If you really think you can find niggling details of London events like "tin match box empty" in provincial newspapers like the Whitby Gazette that weren't covered by the press in London, then you should get cracking on finding out. If you wish to convince, you'll also need to demonstrate how a hoaxer (or the real James Maybrick) would have plausibly accessed such an obscure article.
In my limited experience, when provincial newspapers provide more detailed Ripper coverage than London papers in London is when they were covering local events (like the Birmingham Gazette's coverage of the Alfred Blanchard incident). In the case of the Birmingham Gazette, the articles on Blanchard weren't available digitally or even on microfilm--an archivist with the Digital Handsworth Project (Chris Sutton) took the trouble to go down into a library basement and physically trawl through boxes of old issues for me.
You can make up any scenario you want, but the question is this: did it really happen that way? Since you're presenting these scenarios on pre-1987 access, which you yourself call remote, it's on you to find out if they really could have happened.
Best,
Dave
PS The match box is mentioned in a couple of contemporary newspapers (London); it's the empty match box that doesn't make a public appearance until 1987. |
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 94
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 12:10 pm: |
|
Sorry one eye still open
But cant help thinking that some of that could be self fore filling professy.
Having worked on a programme with psychic's I've gleened that there is always a catch 22.
If they come up with information that can be varified..then they could have cheated in advance looked it up.
If they come up with information we dont no then we dont know and dont spot it.
We can only varifie information in the diary that we know about, how can we possibly acount for what we dont know we dont know...
How many know varifyable dont make any sence through away lines that have been ignored because knowone knows what they mean lines exist in the diary?
Back to bed Jeff |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1473
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 12:27 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
But there is stuff we do know written in the text. And, in each and every case where there is a difficulty or a problem, a modern hoax scenario explains it simply and easily using basic common sense while an old hoax theory cannot explain it except by repeatedly saying "maybe there's something out there we don't know about yet."
Every single time.
So either the simple and obvious common sense explanations are also the correct ones...
or
There exists a series of multiple simultaneous, heretofore completely undiscovered remarkable textual coincidences out there somewhere somehow despite all the available evidence and all the odds.
At some point, simple rational inductive logic allows you to opt for choice A.
Choice B is a far fetched dream, a desperate hope based on no evidence at all (in stark contrast to its alternative).
The pattern of evidence itself indicates a modern date of composition.
You see?
--John
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 375
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 12:29 pm: |
|
"SRA,"
Oooh, I like the ring of that. Sorta like "BTK".
"There may well be nuggets to be mined from smaller, regional newspapers, but I don't think finding a contemporary inventory from the Mitre Square murder is one of them."
Donald, I hear you loud and clear, and I agree with you. It may well be that you think I am trying to engage in a "how many angels dance on the head of a pin" discussion, but I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing.
As I have said before, I think there are three people that did not write the Diary. (You can read "hoax" for "write" as the situation applies.)
1)Jack the Ripper
2)James Maybrick
3)Mike Barrett
If you believe MB didn't do it, it doesn't lead to believing it dates from Victorian times. It may be just old "enough" for the limited testing done to so far to indicate the possibility of significant age. But we don't know, so far.
Now, if it is pre-1980s, and you have a glaring similarity to something in Fido's book, you have to ask the question, where the ^%$# did it come from? Over the years this has been transmuted into there being no published source pre-Fido. You may dismiss the caveat as one of those “ maybe out there somewhere arguments”, but I think my assessment and conclusion actually is fairer. We don't know all the potential sources.
If you think this is unreasonable, I would say it is at least equally unreasonable to say the police gave their one and only copy of Eddowes' possession to the coroner.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1474
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 12:43 pm: |
|
Still no real evidence that the police list was generally available before 1987.
Just the hope that maybe there's something out there we haven't seen yet.
See what I mean, Jeff?
That's all any old hoax theory has to offer.
On the other side, there is a list of multiple textual indications of a modern date of composition and clear and simple explanations for each of them.
Also, Sir Robert, please offer your evidence for the third name on your list being finally excluded from at least possible authors.
I know the real, material evidence for the first two.
What finally and definitively allows you to include the third?
And, as I have already asked you, what do you think it is fair to conclude, strictly logically, from the fact that Mike Barrett's confession is full of problems and he has never told us the truth about where the book came from?
Thanks in advance for the answers and the evidence,
--John |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 376
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 1:10 pm: |
|
"In the case of the Birmingham Gazette, the articles on Blanchard weren't available digitally or even on microfilm--an archivist with the Digital Handsworth Project (Chris Sutton) took the trouble to go down into a library basement and physically trawl through boxes of old issues for me. "
So obviously you have an idea of the enormity of the task of eliminating all possible newspaper references to any aspect of the Case, just as it is daunting to try to establish what may or may not be missing from the police files.
I agree that it would be incumbent on me to show tangible proof if I were asserting that this is indeed the way the hoaxer came across the inventory. I am, however, asserting that it is but one of several possibilities, and what I am asserting is in direct response to Jenni's contention that "tin match box, empty" is sufficient proof in and of itself that the Diary is a modern hoax.
It is not. It's a better argument than the Crashaw quote, but it is not Case Closed.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 888
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 1:14 pm: |
|
Sir Robert
Now, if it is pre-1980s, and you have a glaring similarity to something in Fido's book, you have to ask the question, where the ^%$# did it come from?
There's probably no point in my replying, as you seem to be completely unwilling to answer straightforward questions, but I'll try again.
What we have is this:
(1) A "glaring similarity to something in Fido's book"
(2) A complete absence of any evidence that the diary predates the publication of Fido's book and
(3) No known alternative source of the phrase, other than Fido's book.
Isn't the natural conclusion that the diarist copied the phrase from Fido's book?
I don't think there are many people who would look at this evidence, and say:
Hey, maybe the diary predates Fido's book. But if so, what the ^%$# is going on?
But you do. Why? What's the driving force that leads you to keep spinning these alternative hypotheses, completely bereft of any basis in fact, when the simple conclusion that the hoax is modern explains all the evidence straightforwardly and neatly?
I'm beginning to think there must be some hidden agenda at work here, that you're not telling us about.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1475
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 1:21 pm: |
|
Sir Robert,
But you have not offered any evidence whatsoever that would suggest that the diary is anything but the modern creation that the textual evidence indicates.
Also, you have not offered the evidence that you believe allows you to finally and definitively exclude Mike Barrett as a possible author.
And you have made that claim.
Without evidence, with only the wish and hope that maybe there's something out there we don't know anything about, your argument remains unable to address the textual evidence (all of it) that does exist and your claim that Mike can be finally excluded as a possible author remains completely unsupported and therefore only a vague feeling.
I hope you can alter that situation with real evidence,
--John
PS: Since you mentioned it, how was Mike Barrett able to identify the source of the Crashaw quote he gave to Shirley (using the only other book anyone has ever found that has the same quote in it excerpted and cited amidst prose as it was in his newly "found" diary)?
Please explain that.
PPS: Yes, I know I'm probably not going to get an answer to any of these questions. There's something to be learned there, as well. (Hi, Chris.)
(Message edited by omlor on April 27, 2005) |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 831
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 1:28 pm: |
|
Robert,
No, no--by suggesting these "possibilities" without providing evidence to back them up, and then pretending that you have made a reasonable counter-argument when all you've done is make something up, what you're really doing is promoting laziness and willful ignorance.
"So obviously you have an idea of the enormity of the task of eliminating all possible newspaper references to any aspect of the Case"
Exactly. You think a hoaxer may have come to the same conclusion and so would not have bothered combing through a mountain of newspapers to snag one little niggling detail? But if you think he or she would have, you should follow those footsteps. Yeah, it would be a lot of work--but think of the rewards! You might find it in the Whitby Gazette.
Realistically, there are things you could do:
1. You can determine what the police's standard operating procedure was. Would they have kept a copy for themselves? If so, who generally would have had access to it?
2. Was it you who suggested that a coroner might have hoaxed the Diary? Whether it was or not, if you think it possible, pull their handwriting from the archives (a letter would do since I believe depositions were written by clerks). Compare them to the handwriting in the Diary.
If you're really interested in making a good counter-argument (I think you're just pulling chains), back it up with something. Consider yourself challenged.
Feel free to drop me a line if I can be of assistance.
Best,
Dave
(Message edited by oberlin on April 27, 2005) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 377
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 1:29 pm: |
|
"What we have is this:
(1) A "glaring similarity to something in Fido's book"
(2) A complete absence of any evidence that the diary predates the publication of Fido's book and
(3) No known alternative source of the phrase, other than Fido's book."
I agree with #1; the other two points are your assertions. You may feel the "old hoax" theory is wrong, but it is not without evidence. Only in Diary World can posters assume away the limited scientific testing done to date. And the exact phrase is found only in the Diary; variants are to be found in Fido, Rumbelow, and - gee willikers - attached to the coroner's report.
"I'm beginning to think there must be some hidden agenda at work here, that you're not telling us about."
Please elaborate. I'm all ears.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1476
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 1:45 pm: |
|
Still, no textual evidence of any sort that the diary is old.
Still plenty of textual evidence that it is modern.
Nothing has changed.
Sir Robert offers only hopes and dreams.
And now, of course, an established refusal to answer simple questions.
And so, some cut and paste, just for fun.
Sir Robert,
Do you have any evidence whatsoever to indicate that the police list used in the diary's composition was available to the general public before 1987?
Can you name me one thing anywhere in the diary that can be considered evidence that the book is an old one?
Please offer your evidence for the third name on your list being finally excluded from at least possible authors. I know the real, material evidence for the first two. What finally and definitively allows you to include the third, MB?
What do you think it is fair to conclude, strictly logically, from the fact that Mike Barrett's confession is full of problems and he has never told us the truth about where the book came from?
Is there any believable old hoax scenario that explains ALL the textual difficulties previously listed using rational evidenced explanations the way a modern scenario does?
There are more, and they won't be answered, of course. So that'll do for now.
Happy to be ignored,
--John
|
Lars Nordman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 9:05 am: |
|
Greetings J.D.P.
If the diary is an old fake, where are you saying the information came from?
IF it was proved beyond reasonable doubt (yes, yes,I know) to be an old document then that would be a very exciting scenario for Ripperologists? It means someone had access to information that does not appear to be available today, does not agree with some of the information we have today and we would have to think very very carefully about the evidince we have due to the contadictions. I imagine it would be a "good thing" for Ripperology. Such fresh thinking could be very good indeed.
The original mention of Druitt as a suspect was based on information we do not have now but existed in some form at some point and I imagine some people have doen good work trying to find collaboration information.
Lars |
Lars Nordman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 3:48 am: |
|
Hi John
And what's truly "bizarre" (and sad) is not just that every single explanation for every single textual problem can be reduced within an old hoax theory to the desperate hope that "maybe there was something we just don't know about...,""
The desperate hope that keeps the Casebook going?
And you are more than likely right. But is the fantasy (and it probably is) that more may be found any worse, for example, than the fantasy that we can reconstruct Mary Kellys face by drawing on the photograph (altogether now.......Ewwwwwwwww! and "Why?") or the other fantasies that constitute many of the threads here? I duobt it. Can they do the same damage to our "credability" like the one we indulge in here? Probably if people knew we indulged in them.
But Ive read your reasons for posting here before. And know what I think of them.
Otherise, have a nice day.
Lars |
Lars Nordman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 5:27 am: |
|
Greetings Chris
If not, why fantasise
Because most of the other threads on this forum are about fantasing.
Marys face, artistic renditions of murder scenes, Barnett did it, etc.
So why cant we do it here?
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.
|
|
|
|
