|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 713
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 1:04 pm: | 
|
Oh wise ones. The year is 1992. The month is February. Clinton was president. John Major was PM. The buds were not yet in bloom. And, more relevant to our story, the mysterious Mr. Williams had not yet called Rupert Crew. Of that mysterious time, that chill month, so little is known. So every scrap must be eagerly clawed. Why does Ms. Harrison write (Blake edition) that Pan Books wasn't interested in publishing Mr. Barrett's story? This puzzles me greatly. What story? Is there a story somewhere? O Brave New World. Didn't someone else we love dearly once use that self-same word, coupled with the word 'hope.'??
Shirley seems to be such a careful writer. Story. It just doesn't quite strike me as "le mot juste." Surely, "Diary" would have been a more natural choice of words? Love, RP |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 337
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 3:12 pm: |
|
Hiya R.J.,
If I had to guess, and of course I do, I'd say that Shirley meant that he was trying to sell his story of receiving and investigating the diary.
It certainly is an odd choice of words, but I've always had the impression that Shirley truly believes in the diaries authenticity. Her books give plenty of reason to doubt her objectivity, but not her sincerity. I would be surprised and disappointed to find that she knew that the diary is a forgery.
But then again, people surprise and disappoint me often.
Best regards,
John |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1635
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 3:22 pm: |
|
Hi R.J. and John
I don't find that particular choice of words to be significant. As I interpret it, Shirley simply meant the Diary, which is after all a story. A loose way of referring to it, I suppose, but to my mind that is all that is meant.
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
http://christophertgeorge.blogspot.com/
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 715
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 6:43 pm: |
|
Gentlemen--I'm not sure I agree. Throughout the discussion of Barrett peddling the document to Crew, it is always referred to as 'the Diary.' And why wouldn't it be? It was the Diary. Please refer to Shirley's book. Her account is entirely steady on this point.
Yet, in referring to Barrett's attempt to sell something to Pan Books, she suddenly refers to "a story." (A one-off instance).
I have already considered Mr. Hacker's option. But alas, what personal story did Barrett have to offer? According to Mr. Begg, Barrett had shown no real evidence of 'research.' He had 8 or 9 triple spaced sheets of 'notes.' He had some 'story' about getting it from a bloke in a pub. But certainly none of that had any commercial value. Only the DIARY had commercial value, and that is certainly what Barrett was selling when he contacted Crew a short time later.
We do have, however, a proven record of Barrett having attempted to be a writer. We have reference to a short story called "Daniel the Dolphin Boy." We have the word of an editor who had accepted some of his articles. We have a typescript of the Diary (not exactly a facimile of the original) that was very soon after given up for the use of Crew, and was also found on Barrett's PC. We have Anne Graham saying, with much melancholia, that the Diary was "never meant to be pubished by her, that she was hoping that he [Mike] would write a story based on it. That word again---story. Finally--though this isn't public knowledge, I believe---we have Mike Barrett telling Alan Gray at one point (and yes, he told a LOT of things to Mr. Gray) that the Diary didn't even PHYSCICALLY EXIST when he had first phoned Crew in March 1992, and as seeming corroboration of this fact (?) we have Barrett attempting to purchase a blank Victorian diary on or about the same day as that initial phone call.
And no, I'm not accusing Shirley of anything. I apologize if I gave that impression. I am just wondering if there is more to this 'story' (excuse the pun), such as the possibility that she chose this peculiar wording based on a letter or phone call she received from Pan when she checked out Barrett's claim...as I am sure she (or Keith) must have done at some point. For instance, was there a note saying Barrett submitted a story?
As you may or may not know, my hypothesis is that the Diary was first intended to be a piece of fiction, and that it was turned into 'the McCoy' on impulse. I believe this explains Ms. Graham's rage when she found that Mr. Barrett brought the Diary to London, and the peculiar circumstances surrounding the purchase of the maroon diary. I by no means suggest that I can prove this hypothesis...it just seems to me that it is the only one that makes the least bit of sense, based on all the facts in the public domain. I do admit this could be nothing---Pan Books might have even recalled it as 'a story' since they must get many unsolicited pieces of fiction. But was there something more? Some piece of documentation that made Harrison use this wording? That's what I would ask her if she makes another appearance. Thanks for your comments, RP |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2148
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 5:55 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
Well to me it's simple journalist/publishing speak - everything you get is a 'story'. And the fact that Mike Barrett was claiming to own Jack the Ripper's Diary was arguably the biggest story to hit Ripperology at that time. I see nothing sinister in that whatsoever.
He had some 'story' about getting it from a bloke in a pub.
Did he? Mike's 'story' (one of many never to be verified) was that he was given it by a bloke in that bloke's home. Maybe Mike did get it in a pub, but did he ever say so?
We have a typescript of the Diary (not exactly a facimile of the original) that was very soon after given up for the use of Crew, and was also found on Barrett's PC.
Very soon after what, exactly?
Very soon after it was typed up on Mike's word processor, for Crew's use as well as Mike's, would fit perfectly with the evidence we have. So there's nothing sinister about it being on the word processor, but was it actually 'found' there during the police interview with Mike? Whose word are you taking that it was?
...we have Mike Barrett telling Alan Gray at one point (and yes, he told a LOT of things to Mr. Gray) that the Diary didn't even PHYSCICALLY EXIST when he had first phoned Crew in March 1992, and as seeming corroboration of this fact (?) we have Barrett attempting to purchase a blank Victorian diary on or about the same day as that initial phone call.
Yes and we also have Mike telling Gray at one point that Anne dropped a kidney on the inside front page of the diary, and as seeming corroboration of this fact (?) there is a kidney-shaped stain there.
What is so sinister about Mike's order for a genuine Victorian diary if, for argument's sake, he had been given the Maybrick one with no further info and had, on phoning Doreen (maybe it was something she said), become worried by - or curious about - the fact that it didn't really look like a diary, and decided to find out what the genuine Victorian article should look like?
The order seems to have been on impulse and, as we know, the tiny 1891 diary (useless for a forgery - and why didn't he specify that he needed two, one for 1888 and one for 1889?) arrived in the last week of March 1992. By April 13, Mike was happily showing the scrapbook to Doreen and co, and allowing Shirley to take it to Jarndyce and the British Museum.
I believe this explains Ms. Graham's rage when she found that Mr. Barrett brought the Diary to London...
When do you believe Anne first became aware of Mike's approach to Crew then? Not until after Mike left for London with the diary in the April?
All you know is that at some point Mike ends up with the diary, and in March 1992 he is trying to flog it to a publisher. Can't you think of any reason why Anne might be very unhappy about that, when she sees what he is doing, apart from the knowledge (according to your hypothesis) that her hapless husband is gaily attempting one of the most outrageous frauds in history, using a piece of fiction that she herself wrote??
Do you seriously believe Anne would have sat back and let that happen? And do you seriously believe that 13 years later it would not have all unravelled - if not with Melvin's expertise, or Keith's, with yours?
And finally:
Oh wise ones. The year is 1992. The month is February.
Why February? What do you know happened in February 1992, that was in any way diary related?
Anything?
Anyone?
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2946
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 6:29 am: |
|
Caroline,
you almost sound defensive.
are you ok?
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my momma taught me better than that."
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1747
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 6:52 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
I've read over the exchanges above and as far as I can tell, RJ is speculating on what he thinks could have happened. I'm not sure it did, but certainly nothing Caroline writes indicates that it couldn't have.
All she is saying, it seems to me, is that RJ doesn't know it happened this way (which I suspect RJ will admit). But she offers no evidence that it must have happened any other way in particular.
Except for this speculative gem, which I have never been comfortable believing, no matter who says it:
What is so sinister about Mike's order for a genuine Victorian diary if, for argument's sake, he had been given the Maybrick one with no further info and had, on phoning Doreen (maybe it was something she said), become worried by - or curious about - the fact that it didn't really look like a diary, and decided to find out what the genuine Victorian article should look like?
This suggests that Mike suddenly wants to compare the book he allegedly already has with a "genuine Victorian diary." So what he does he do? He goes out and orders one? He doesn't just head off to the library to see a photo of one or to a shop to see what one might look like or to a museum or any of the other easier, more obvious, and less expensive options? Well, maybe so, maybe once again Mike's behavior makes no real sense. But then, if his behavior makes no sense, there's simply no way of telling whether Caroline's version or RJ's is the more likely here, is there? So we have learned nothing.
What we do know is for sure is that Mike brought the book forward, Mike lied from the beginning and has ever since about all sorts of things, the book has no provenance whatsoever before modern times, it's obviously a fake, and Mike was the only person able to tell us where at least one line from the diary could also be found.
In any case, you're right about the tone. I wonder which nerve got struck?
--John |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 717
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 11:13 pm: |
|
If I might be annoying for a moment, let me quote the passage in full.
“So he rang Pan Books because he had some of their paperbacks at home and asked if they would like to publish his story. London publishers are not so easily enthused and advised Michael to get himself a literary agent, recommending Doreen Montgomery.” (Harrison, The Diary of Jack the Ripper,(Blake), p. 10)
I dunno. I'm not really trying to push any particular reading, draw your own conclusions. It still strikes me as awkward. No one reading this for the first time would dream that it referred to a historical document, would they?
Forgive my morbid suspicions.
R Palmer
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2153
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 7:09 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
Could you address my questions please?
There's nothing wrong with speculation in the absence of further information. But I genuinely would like you to read each of my questions again and see if you have any answers.
Also, it might be an idea to re-read your recent posts again and see how many ascertained facts are there, and how much may be based on the word of Mike alone, or Shirley and co's understanding, and thereby yours, of what actually happened.
Crucially again, what do you know was going on in February 1992 concerning the diary? You seemed to make a big deal of that date, so what part does it play in your little drama?
No Jenni, I didn't mean to sound defensive - or indeed offensive. It's RJ who is trying to defend his hypothesis here, and I can't help it if I see holes a mile wide in it.
If your boyfriend took a piece of fiction you had written, got a pal to modify it and handwrite it into an old scrapbook and then tried to flog it as a possibly genuine and sensational Victorian document, would you seriously wait for Doreen and co, and later the public, to be hoodwinked, making you just as guilty as him?
Wouldn't you call Doreen at the earliest opportunity, apologise for your boyfriend's stupidity, and ask her to say to him politely, and without mentioning your phone call, "Thanks but no thanks"?
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1468
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 8:15 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
Could you address my questions please?
There's nothing wrong with speculation in the absence of further information. But I genuinely would like you to read each of my questions again and see if you have any answers.
My God!
Had I better get out that list of about three dozen questions that I asked Mrs Morris, and she never answered?
Astonishing.
Chris Phillips
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 718
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2005 - 9:51 am: |
|
"Crucially again, what do you know was going on in February 1992 concerning the diary?"
Excellent Question Caz! But you're answering my question (note the question mark after 'Le mot Juste' at the subject heading) with another question. In this case, I'm afraid, the only one who can answer it is Shirley Harrison. She identifies this 'event' (Barrett contacting Pan Books) as having happened in February.
"By February 1992 Michael knew he was out of his depth..." (pg. 10 again)
At present, I have no reason to doubt that this information isn't based on something in Ms. Harrison's research, and indeed, that is my question. Was it? Is it? Is there a specific reason she is calling it a 'story'? I'm asking; not insisting. So thank you for the very apt clarification. Cheers, RP |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2170
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 6:55 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
So it was a trick question then, or one you don't really want answered, because Shirley rarely visits the boards, and you could simply have asked her via email.
I don't know if Shirley ever contacted Pan to see if they remembered a phone call from Mike about the ripper's diary. I presume if she did, they didn't remember, otherwise we would know about it and we wouldn't have referred to the incident in Ripper Diary as merely a claim made by Mike to Martin Howells. It would have been acknowledged as one of the few things Mike said that could be verified independently.
I imagine that Shirley, from the beginning, thought about it in terms of Mike's 'story', as he told it to her. I still see nothing unusual about Mike or Shirley using the word 'story' in this context. Someone announces he has Jack's diary? There has to be a story behind that. Mike knew it. He knew he would have to tell the story of how he came by the document to whoever he contacted with a view to getting the thing published.
Perhaps it's an English v American thing, whereby over here, telling one's 'story' to a prospective publisher or agent is an entirely natural expression, and wouldn't by itself imply anything untoward. An account of one's experiences is a 'story', whether it's known by the teller to be fact or fantasy.
Somehow, at some point in time, Mike got hold of Doreen's number. We know he called it, on March 9 1992, to give her the 'story' he claimed he first tried to give Pan. But nothing that happened before the call to Doreen is set in stone yet.
And this is the biggest problem for anyone with a hypothesis such as your own. It can and will be questioned and tested, because there is not a single solid brick that can be built on Mike's 'stories', as they stand (and many have fallen already).
If you are looking to Mike to help you build, using anything he has ever said, I fear it is a lost cause.
Love,
Caz
X
PS And before anyone jumps up and down and mentions the bloody library, I will not be relying on anything Mike has said to form any opinions or reach any conclusions.
(Message edited by caz on October 12, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1500
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 7:26 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
Perhaps it's an English v American thing, whereby over here, telling one's 'story' to a prospective publisher or agent is an entirely natural expression, and wouldn't by itself imply anything untoward.
You keep saying it was a question of telling the 'story' to the publisher.
But what Shirley Harrison wrote is quite different:
So he rang Pan Books because he had some of their paperbacks at home and asked if they would like to publish his story.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1763
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 8:24 am: |
|
And we had such lovely days of quiet, with this pathetic modern fake gradually getting lost in the ash heap of memory, even here.
But she's back.
So let's have some more fun.
I see nothing in anything that RJ has written here that would qualify as a "trick question." Does anyone?
--John
PS: Hmmmm.... If Caroline is not relying on Mike's incredible tale of the miracle being true, then how else did he know where the line could be found excerpted and cited in a modern source just like it is in the diary? I can't wait to hear the newest explanation. |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2955
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 4:05 pm: |
|
Hi John,
it WAS NOT a miracle
thank you so much
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my momma taught me better than that."
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1502
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 4:17 pm: |
|
Jenni
Quite right - 'cause it never happened!
Chris Phillips
PS I never thought I'd be able to say this to you, but you're off-topic!
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1765
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 5:22 pm: |
|
Jenni
Quite right - 'cause it never happened!
--John (happily cutting and pasting now)
PS: And if someone ever did take only five words which they had never ever seen before and carry them into a library and from the whole history of writing in English just happen to find a single random page in the middle of the only other book that exists among all the books on all the shelves that happens to also have those very same five words excerpted and cited in it like they are in the original source, that certainly would be a miracle.
So when a known liar tells you this happened, and then shows you that very same singular old line of poetry just conveniently excerpted in the middle of a modern book of prose he somehow knows about... excerpted like it is in some fake diary he just gave you without being able to explain where this diary came from or how he got hold of it.... well, what was it Paul was saying about "common sense" and the "most likely" explanation on that other thread?
PPS: Find those words yet? Feel free to send me e-mail if you have. We don't want to get Chris riled up about being off-topic.
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1503
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 5:34 pm: |
|
John
I should make it clear I know I'm normally a terrible offender. I'd even rather talk about vampires and suicides buried at crossroads with stakes through their hearts than chloroacetamide and "tin match box empty". That's how bad I am!
But I know Jenni is quite rightly a stickler about deviation. Just as you are about repetition. Come back, Kenneth Williams, all is forgiven ... (Does that mean anything at all to an American?)
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1766
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 6:11 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
No worries, I was just joking around. I figure since we've long ago and repeatedly said it all already and no one is really reading any of this for any new stuff, we might as well just poke fun at each other and have a good time.
But you're quite right. Back on topic everyone.
Uh, what was it again? Oh yes, RJ's "trick question."
Seems to me he was genuinely looking for reactions and information concerning a certain line he noticed in a book.
I'd hardly call that a "trick question" -- but perhaps I don't fully appreciate such slyness.
Happy days,
--John
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1505
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 6:41 pm: |
|
John
But at the risk of veering off-topic again - do Americans know about deviation, repetition and ... Kenneth Williams??
Chris Phillips
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 733
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 8:07 pm: |
|
Caz--Don't unleash the hounds just yet. Here is another version of the event (the original), from the hardbacked version of Harrison's book; hadn't noticed this at the time of my first post.
"He rang a firm in London and invited the publisher to visit Liverpool and read the document. London publishers are not easily enthused, though, hearing with regularity from legions of would-be writers with earth-shattering discoveries.
'Find yourself a literary agent,' the publisher told Mike, and directed him to Doreen Montgomery...." (p. 7)
The two versions are quite similar, but there are two differences. Obviously, the biggy is that the reference to a 'document' later got changed to 'story.' Second, the first version contains what proports to be a quote ('get yourself...'), though I reckon this could just be a literary flourish, and not based on any known communication.
But this leaves more questions than answers, though none of the trick variety. It seems if there was any real documentation that Barrett offered to show Pan books a document before his call to Montgomery it would be of great importance, since it would utterly negate the 'evidence' (for lack of better word) of his purchase of the maroon diary. Am I right in concluding that there really is no hard evidence either way? Cheers, RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on October 12, 2005) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 550
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 8:42 pm: |
|
Hey R.J. - Make of this what you will, and I'm sure it'd won't be the end of it, but I rang a pal who is a sports editor of the New York Times and asked if "story" implied fact or fiction. Now, it's a newspaper and not a book publisher, but I've got to say he obviously thought I was a moron for even asking. He sited "Check the facts on that story" as well, kind of ...pointing us in the right direction, shall we say. He also asked that what else I would call things that weren't editorials or ads....
Like I say, he thought I wasn't the sharpest pencil for even asking, so I blamed it all on you.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1767
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 10:44 pm: |
|
RJ,
Is the phrase "Find yourself a literary agent" in quotes in the original?
On the surface, it sure sounds as if the writer has some sort of general record of this conversation. But as you say, this may just be a kind of loose poetic license. Still, one is left wondering then about the source for this narrative.
Odd.
Thanks,
--John
PS: Chris, as a generalization, I would say most Americans do not know of Kenneth Williams. I know only vaguely of his career. I know a good deal more about another Brit named Raymond Williams -- but that's another kettle of fish altogether (and would take quite a bit longer to digest). |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1506
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 3:53 am: |
|
John
This is why I was asking, but I realised it probably wouldn't cross the Atlantic successfully:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/comedy/justaminute.shtml
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2958
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 4:51 am: |
|
Just worth noting that even when its mentioned in small tiny print i still pick up on it!! lol
what is the subject of this thread anyway?
I guess I give up!
(Message edited by jdpegg on October 13, 2005)
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my momma taught me better than that."
|
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 11:47 am: |
|
The thing that bothers me the most is that it is not really up to us,the readers, to prove one way or another that this thing is a forgery. Rather it is,or should be,up to the author to prove to us that it is genuine.So convince me...
Jack is not a familiar for James it is a familiar for John.
Annie Chapman had three rings not two.
Senior police officers(Littlechild included) stated that the 'Dear Boss' letters were written
by a journalist.
The handwriting in the diary does not match that of James Maybrick.
Maybrick supposedly 'often' stays with his brother Michael and yet he does not even know what Michael does for a living?????
As will be made clear in a forthcoming book,there was no FM scrawled on the wall of Mary Kellys room,we're we actually supposed to believe that police officers would have missed that? the wall was photographed for goodness sake!
Her breasts were not on the table.Serial killers are well known for having photographic memory where their crimes are concerned.
Whoever killed Mary Kelly could easily have decapitated her,as has been shown an axe was used.
They door to No 13 did not need a key to lock it - only to open it - as it was a spring lock.
But we all know this right? I'm still amazed by the uproar this document has caused and even more at a loss to explain it.The proof that this document is a fake is not in dating the ink or any 'confessions' of forgery or even in what is written in it.The proof is in what is NOT written in this document - you,me,my Mum or my next door neighbour could have written it, and that is something NOBODY can deny.
One last thing bothers me, and its that it does not actually read like a diary.It's very much a compilation of deeds and explanations rather than actual thoughts. I'm very much with John on this one - it's a dead horse so I'll be another one who will cease to flog it.
Jog on 
Steve
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 3:19 am: |
|
Hi ho
with this pathetic modern fake
A pathetic modern fake is the thing being bashed on the "Uncle Jack" threads.
THIS "pathetic modern fake" still has not been proved modern. In fact, in the interest of stirring it up a little, there is less evidence of modernity against it than for example, Turin shroud, Vinland map, Voynich manuscript. Of course there is less eveidence of old(er than modern fake) age for it than there is for these three as well.
But a "pathetic" fake it cannot really be said to be.
And (sorry JVO but I cannot resist), I hardly think that: "whole history of writing in English was contained in the library in Liverpool or whereever it was. Unless such libraries are getting better funding these days.
But the point is taken.
Mr P |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1768
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 8:20 am: |
|
Hi Steve,
The good news is that there really is no "uproar" anymore. There are maybe six people in the world who even pretend to care, and if it wasn't that some poor schmuck might still buy the bogus books about this cheesy trash and get suckered, it would all be nothing but silly. Here, we're just playing around 'cause we're bored. We all already know everything each of us is going to say before we say it, but chatting pointlessly like this passes the time in an off-hand way.
In any case, thanks again for the reminders and the thoughts.
Lars,
Fine, you can feel free to add "in the library" to my phrase.
And I called this bad modern fake "pathetic" for some of the reasons Steve has listed and many more -- including the simple and obviously logical one that if it's modern all the textual problems are easily and simply accounted for using basic "common sense" and otherwise none of them are except through vague prayers about undiscovered evidence.
Of course, I was using "pathetic" in its colloquial manner -- as in, "Man that was a pathetic attempt at faking that diary, dude." or "Man, that offense for the Bucs is pathetic." You know, as in, "it sucks."
In fact, I have long suspected that one of the reasons the diary has long been a flashpoint in this weird world of cyber-trekkies with knives we hang with is that it IS such a bad fake, such an obvious one, and yet there's a book out there which includes the names of people who consider themselves "big" in the field where they don't all immediately recognize this and shout it from the rooftops and do their best to stop everyone from being suckered. Much of what we still see is, I suspect, simple rep recovery and that's why the game goes on -- that, and the fact that after thirteen years the thing still hasn't been properly and thoroughly analyzed in a lab in order to learn all we can about it objectively.
But back to the thread's topic...
I can now answer my own question. I dug out my copy of the hardback edition of Shirley's book and yes, the phrase "Find yourself a literary agent" is indeed in quotes, just as RJ cited it.
The writer does not mention anything about where the account of the event comes from or who told her what. It's just written as if it happened. Of course it also begins with the following phrase -- written as if it was true as well:
"But Mike was out of his depth, and he knew it. He wanted to keep his promise to Tony..."
Oh, really?
And we know Mike made this promise to Tony how? And we know Mike wanted this how? And the evidence that any of this is true is what?
This is what comes from sloppy writing and sloppy thinking designed solely to convince others and not to discover the truth.
And this is, in large part, why we're still here today.
Thanks RJ for reminding me about this stuff,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on October 13, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2188
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 12:16 pm: |
|
Hi RJ,
It seems if there was any real documentation that Barrett offered to show Pan books a document before his call to Montgomery it would be of great importance...
I'm not sure why - it would still only have been an offer made by Mike, and the same offer that was made to Doreen. If your hypothesis is still that Mike had yet to create the document when he called Doreen, on March 9 1992, it must allow for the possibility that he used the same bluff on Pan too, knowing he would have some considerable work to do if and when his bluff was called.
Ok then, no trick questions, and this isn't a trick answer.
It's obvious that we are getting nowhere regarding what Mike told Shirley; what she was or wasn't able to verify; and how she interpreted all the details and chose to present them in her story.
I still don't see the relevance of whether or not Mike asked Pan if they would like to publish his 'story'. We know that Doreen set about getting a publisher for both the diary and Mike's story of how he came by it.
But if you really think it could help with your hypothesis, the simple answer, and the only practical one, is to ask the person who wrote the words - Shirley. Ask her if she contacted Pan, and if they recalled anyone talking to them about owning Jack the Ripper's diary.
But I suspect that either way it's not going to reveal any startling new information, or give you any new leads.
Hi Steve,
Welcome - you brought us something I hadn't heard before:
Serial killers are well known for having photographic memory where their crimes are concerned.
Could you give some examples and do you know of any exceptions to this rule?
If you are right, it would seem that Albert Fish, for one, lied for some reason, when he claimed that after he had abducted and cut up a young girl, and while the body pieces were still in the room with him, he believed he had just killed a boy.
I know such killers can and do lie, but this one gained him nothing. It just made him look all the more cold and callous.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1771
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 1:19 pm: |
|
Caroline writes:
It's obvious that we are getting nowhere regarding what Mike told Shirley; what she was or wasn't able to verify; and how she interpreted all the details and chose to present them in her story.
Precisely.
Absolutely true.
Without question.
And yet we all have Shirley's book right in front of us.
What does that tell us about the quality of the writing, about the thoroughness and accuracy with which the facts are presented and cited, about the motivation for the prose? What does that tell us about the reliability of the entire enterprise? And what does that tell us about what we can expect in the future?
Just a few questions, for entertainment purposes only,
--John
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2965
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 2:20 pm: |
|
i think your being to hard on Harrison. it tells us a lot more about ourselves than it does about her.
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my momma taught me better than that."
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2966
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 2:22 pm: |
|
Plea - can we stick to the one diary thread and not discuss the same thing on three different threads?
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my momma taught me better than that."
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1772
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 3:12 pm: |
|
Jennifer,
If you can show me where in that book Shirley does spell out these details in a thorough or responsible manner or even begin to cite the source for this specific information, I'll retract my reading.
Otherwise, I'm afraid the writing on the page lives up to my description of it.
Thanks,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2195
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 7:16 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
I'm afraid Shirley alone is responsible for what she writes, and anyone is free to question her content and her sources - even if it's in a place she is unlikely to see that questioning, and even if they have no intention of asking her directly.
Anyone can of course write to Shirley care of one of her publishers, if they are genuinely concerned about her readers' welfare, and if they haven't already got an email address for her. I am also happy to pass on any questions if they are emailed to me.
There now. Can't say fairer than that, eh?
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1773
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 7:46 am: |
|
Regarding Shirley and her book:
If people are "genuinely concerned about her reader's welfare," they should remind those readers wherever and whenever possible that the diary she is writing about is clearly and obviously a fake and the stories she tells about Maybrick, both in England and America, are fantasies completely unsupported by any real evidence.
But I don't want to discourage anyone from also asking Shirley and Robert and anyone else who has made published claims in favor of this silly book's authenticity any questions they want. I've tried it myself. It's fun, in a completely pointless sort of way.
Best of luck.
--John
PS: Write to Albert, too. Ask him a couple of simple questions. It's a learning experience in its own special way. |
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 3:53 pm: |
|
Hi Steve,
Welcome - you brought us something I hadn't heard before:
Serial killers are well known for having photographic memory where their crimes are concerned.
Could you give some examples and do you know of any exceptions to this rule?
Well just off the top of my head....
Henry Lee Lucas for one,Ted Bundy for another.
Dennis Nilson,although Nilson tended only to remember what suited him.Christie was similar,he remembered each killing in detail but only gave HIS version of it.
Albert Fish is unusual, he was obviously as mad as a hatter but if you read between the lines I would say his memory was selective.
DeSalvo also remebered every crime in detail but often only gave his version of each killing. Ivestigators often have to piece together the real version of events from snipets the killers give them, but its obvious that they DO remember the crime but they're playing with their captors.
The one that sticks in my mind who really could not recall his crimes was Dahmer, but he was VERY confused.
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 7:09 am: |
|
Howdy
there was no FM scrawled on the wall of Mary Kellys room"
Can someone tell me where in the diary it says this (FM). Its frosting my flakes not being able to find it.
Serial killers are well known for having photographic memory where their crimes are concerned.
Off the top of my head: Ian Brady cant remember where he left some of his victims and Ive never heard of a photographic memory in serial killer cases. They may focus on things we wouldnt (such as the colour of a hat or something as opposed to the offal on the floor).
Whoever killed Mary Kelly could easily have decapitated her,as has been shown an axe was used.
I mentioned this axe before as some surgeon suggested her split femur was done by an axe but never got an explanation. Was an axe used or not? Surely it is of some concern and interest if there was one used?
Senior police officers(Littlechild included) stated that the 'Dear Boss' letters were written
by a journalist.
They said a lot of things. Ask Druitt.
Mr P.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1776
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 10:31 am: |
|
Just a polite reminder...
No one here believes the person(s) who wrote the diary ever killed anyone.
Right?
--John |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 560
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 10:50 am: |
|
"Can someone tell me where in the diary it says this (FM). "
It doesn't . It's asserted in Harrison's book(s), but not the Diary itself.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 6:13 am: |
|
Whoever killed Mary Kelly could easily have decapitated her,as has been shown an axe was used.
I mentioned this axe before as some surgeon suggested her split femur was done by an axe but never got an explanation. Was an axe used or not? Surely it is of some concern and interest if there was one used?
Sorry about the above but Im still trying to figure out if an axe was used or not. If her femur was split and it wasnt an axe, does that not say something about the knife used ? ie. that it was big enough to split a femur, may have had a flat back, whatever?
Mr P |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
