|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3000
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 4:30 pm: | 
|
John,
what would you say about a test that Robert had commissioned and paid for by himself. Be honest. We (i mean collectively as anti diarists) have to accept the consequences of our actions don't we?
Jenni
"it is hard not to feel a twinge of guilt. Guilt for the fact that this man's name would always be coupled with something other than the great works of book-collecting and abdominal operations with which he is now associated."
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1798
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 4:58 pm: |
|
Jenni,
If the test results were immediately made public for everyone to examine in their entirety and if he had done the work necessary to make sure an independent party observed, as we've already discussed, I would say great, good for him (and I would also take it as a happy victory of sorts).
But you are certainly correct about taking responsibility for our actions - that's why it seems so crucial to me that Robert take full
responsibility for this document he owns and for its appearance in a commercial project that claims James was a murderer on two continents -- and that he also take full responsibility for allowing it to be sold that way without ever having the document thoroughly and properly tested and even without having the simple and inexpensive tests done to determine once and for all what is and isn't in the ink.
Yes, taking responsibility for our actions (and delay and inactions) is indeed key here -- and the actions that were taken against me some time ago also had consequences. Among other things, they resulted in my nowadays not being willing to go through all that childish nonsense a second time.
But if we're truly talking about responsibility and consequences here, then I think our first discussion should be about publishing a book that charges a man with multiple murders based on an obviously fake document and allowing that document to appear in such a book in new editions even while the simple tests to solve simple conflicts in the science still aren't being done.
The questions concerning "responsibility" and "consequences" are simple ones:
Who owns the diary?
How long has he owned it?
Has he allowed it to appear in any commercial projects?
Have those projects made any claims concerning its authenticity?
Prior to allowing it to appear in such for-sale ventures, has he had the document thoroughly and properly tested in a professional lab in order to learn everything possible about it and has he done the simple tests necessary to resolve the conflicts that currently exist in the data we do have?
What's more important, getting new editions of the diary book on the shelves or learning the truth about the document?
Why has he had time to make sure one happens and not the other?
What does this tell us about the priorities here?
What does it tell us about the respect for the book's buyers and readers?
What does it tell us about this entire sad and pathetic episode, from start to finish?
Yes, Jenni, I agree -- people should accept the consequences of their actions (and inactions).
Thanks,
-John
(Message edited by omlor on October 26, 2005) |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3004
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 5:01 pm: |
|
John,
thank you for that.
I am pleased you would react like that. i'm sure I'm not the only one
Jenni
"it is hard not to feel a twinge of guilt. Guilt for the fact that this man's name would always be coupled with something other than the great works of book-collecting and abdominal operations with which he is now associated."
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1800
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 5:36 pm: |
|
No problem, Jenni.
I look forward to finally seeing this document thoroughly and properly tested, hopefully sometime before it appears in a new edition of a book charging James with so many murders.
That would be the right thing to do.
It would have been the right thing to do years ago.
--John |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3008
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 4:18 am: |
|
Hey John,
yes, something like that
Jenni
"it is hard not to feel a twinge of guilt. Guilt for the fact that this man's name would always be coupled with something other than the great works of book-collecting and abdominal operations with which he is now associated."
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 7:17 am: |
|
hey ho
Caroline Anne Morris...Hello. Fair point about the pre 1992 Diamine. But to be fair, if someone had a liquid sample of it, it would be worth analysing it in tandem with the diary samples.
hello Maria Birchwood. Maybe the provenance of the map is not 100%...thats fair enough. But there is virtually no evidence to suggest it is any younger than Yale claim it to be. As of yet of course. Was there not something about wormholes?
In general, what is a "micro-dot" or "micro-sample" ?
Mr P. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1808
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 10:43 pm: |
|
Excellent.
I had nothing else to do tonight.
My best friend Robert writes:
"I have no involvement whatsoever in publishing the diary or Shirley Harrison’s book..."
And then he writes,
"Shirley and her publishers were granted the rights, first by Mike Barrett, then by me, to publish the diary as an integral part of her book and all editions of it..."
Once again,
"then by me"
I love that part.
I don't even have to argue here, Robert is doing my work for me.
And Robert, the simple fact that your diary is now contractually stuck in some book claiming James was murderer actually increases your personal responsibility to have the document thoroughly tested.
That’s right – it doesn’t let you off the hook – it places you more firmly on it.
If your document is going to be used to charge a man with murder, whether you want it to be or not, then surely you should be doing all you can to make sure that we learn everything we can about the authenticity of that document as soon as possible, shouldn’t you?
Next, after admitting that he has indeed been in print concerning the diary's authenticity, precisely as I claimed (thanks again for replying for me, Robert) he goes on to say, "I have revised my views on whether James Maybrick wrote the diary."
Oh please do tell us what they are now, Robert, just for fun. We'd love to hear them. Why haven't you included them in this post of yours above I wonder?
I'm hoping they'll be spelled out explicitly in your next post so that we can have some real fun.
But back to this one...
I'm not going back into the childish ugliness I was faced with years ago. It's pointless. As I've said, I have the badly researched and ugly personal e-mails and the nasty legal threats and all the rest still on file and will send them to whoever wants to read the nightmare of a record. I've already sent the complete collection to more than a few of you out there, some a long time ago.
There's no point sending it to Robert -- he created much of it.
As for "screwing up the McCrone tests" -- when I last spoke with them they were still quite excited about seeing the diary and getting a chance to determine what we might learn from it. Their published letter to Shirley and their remarks to Jeff Leahy indicate precisely the same thing. That's three times now they've said it, to three different people -- and still nothing has happened. I wonder why?
Then comes my favorite part of the whole post.
Robert Smith (that's right, Robert Smith) writes:
"The time has come to stop passing the buck"
Please, let me type that again while I cough up some blood:
Robert Smith writes:
"The time has come to stop passing the buck"
My lord, I am delighted.
Finally, Robert will no longer pass the buck.
Finally, he'll get this suspicious document of his thoroughly tested to learn everything possible about it.
At last.
Finally, he's agreed that it is his responsibility.
Finally he's agreed that "The time has come to stop passing the buck."
The dream is about to come true...
But wait...
No!
It can't be!
I read on and what does Robert do in the second half of that very same sentence and for the rest of the post?
Wait for it...
Yes, that's right...
He passes the buck!
I'm astounded.
This can't be happening.
He writes, "The time has come to stop passing the buck" and then proceeds to do exactly that!
What a tease.
He says the time has come to stop passing the buck and then he tells us all it's not his job, it's someone else's.
If it weren't so brazenly callous and irresponsible and transparent, it would almost be hilarious.
Robert, my dear,
The question is not "what on earth is stopping them?"
The question is, what on earth is stopping you?
You own the book.
You should be doing the work necessary to see that the truth about it comes out.
It's your responsibility.
When it appears sold in book form commercially, everyone knows it's your document being pimped as real in the book and being used to charge a man with multiple murders.
You have the ethical responsibility to see that this document is thoroughly tested to learn everything possible about it.
You had that responsibility before it ever appeared in print.
You still have that responsibility.
That you don't recognize or admit this, that you hide behind childish excuses of "it's not my job, it's someone else's" is just sad at best and crass and irresponsible at worst.
It's not the critic's job to make sure your document is thoroughly tested -- it's your job.
Why won't you simply see to it that it gets done?
Why won't you finally, after all these years, do the right thing and take whatever actions are necessary to learn the truth?
It's been more than a decade Robert.
And we still don't even know what is and isn't in the ink.
You could have determined that years ago simply and inexpensively as we have been told here by an expert.
Instead, you dance around claiming it's someone else's job.
That's just embarrassing.
I'll leave Robert's obsessive rantings about my job aside. Those who know me know the truth, those who don't can write me and be shown it. I have never done anything but be honest about it, happily. And, as always, I can supply anyone who is interested with my credentials. Robert returns to this, I guess, to distract readers from his childish and irresponsible dance of avoidance (or because he still loves me).
It won't work.
We know what has and has not happened for the last decade.
Nothing he has written, although it was good for a few laughs, changes any of that.
One can only hope that at some point some bit of personal responsibility for learning the truth about his own document will kick in and he'll finally do the right thing.
But I'm not holding my breath...
I know the past.
--John
PS: I do love the Melvin Harris style boldface headlines, Robert. |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3013
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 3:45 am: |
|
I am so glad i got up this morning now, diary world is such fun.
Jenni
"it is hard not to feel a twinge of guilt. Guilt for the fact that this man's name would always be coupled with something other than the great works of book-collecting and abdominal operations with which he is now associated."
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3016
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 5:55 am: |
|
Ok, I do think that some things need to be said.
And against my better judgement I'm going to say ast least some of these things now.
#1 Mcrone,
from the depths of despair. Enough about Mcrone already!! He said this, he did that, blah blah blah. Who cares. I know what you both think about it. You know what i think about it to. Everyone going on about it surely isnt helping.
I'd like to think i knew a fair bit about what went on there, but do I want to know more, not really. Its not solving the here and now.
And yes i have read your emails on this subject that you offer to send out to others.
#2 My ears are burning,
Robert mentioned that I would concur on something. And indeed i do.
#3 i could go on but my better judgment is telling me to go to the ink thread.
Jenni
"it is hard not to feel a twinge of guilt. Guilt for the fact that this man's name would always be coupled with something other than the great works of book-collecting and abdominal operations with which he is now associated."
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2244
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 6:08 am: |
|
Hi All,
In case anyone missed it, Robert Smith posted a response on Tuesday October 25 at 1.18pm. It seems to have been moved and put back in date order, as he is an unregistered guest. So the post has already been archived, although it only first appeared yesterday evening.
Hi Jenni,
Well at least we've had a few more errors corrected, concerning the repeated ad nauseam suggestion that Robert has been actively involved in publishing and republishing the diary, when he has had no involvement whatsoever for nigh on a decade.
And of course, we are left with a Robert who, despite having no commercial interest in the diary whatsoever and despite making no claims about the diary whatsoever, is still more than happy to give unlimited access to the diary for testing by an accredited and appropriately experienced lab.
And that is actually more than John was asking of Robert in 2002, when the former declared himself completely satisfied with the written agreement, but decided he was technically and professionally inadequate for the job - the one you had no trouble taking over last year.
The funniest thing of all was when John asked his last staunch ally on the boards, Chris Phillips (his secret army of fans don't count if not one of them will venture out of the email closet to pat him on the back in public), to chip in a bit of hard cash for a new test that already has Robert's approval. For staunch read soppy - Chris won't play ball and is now left making empty claims about the diary's modernity, with only a limp-wristed "I am convinced" in support.
Oh yes, Chris knows all about personal responsibility for supporting claims made here on the boards, and he has shown John exactly what he thinks of it - with his feet.
I wonder if Shirley has been contacted yet and told what her personal responsibilities are, as the author of a book claiming that Maybrick was a murderer.
Or is there a teeny tiny chance that this is personal, do you think?
Have a great weekend Jenni and keep up the brilliant work. No one could call you inadequate. 
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on October 28, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1810
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 6:31 am: |
|
Look, everyone, it's very simple.
Robert Smith has just admitted that at some point, before learning everything possible about the diary scientifically, he allowed his document to be placed in a book which used it as the basis for charging a man with murder.
It's still there.
And, even after more than ten full years, as his diary continues to be the basis of and appear in that same book, he still has not done the work necessary to learn everything possible about its authenticity.
That's just wrong.
--John |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3019
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 7:04 am: |
|
John,
well that might be how you see it
Jenni
"it is hard not to feel a twinge of guilt. Guilt for the fact that this man's name would always be coupled with something other than the great works of book-collecting and abdominal operations with which he is now associated."
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1814
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 7:20 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Let's go point by point, then.
"Robert Smith has just admitted that at some point, before learning everything possible about the diary scientifically, he allowed his document to be placed in a book which used it as the basis for charging a man with murder."
True?
"It's still there."
True?
"And, even after more than ten full years, as his diary continues to be the basis of and appear in that same book, he still has not done the work necessary to learn everything possible about its authenticity."
True?
If you've said yes to just these three questions, I'm happy.
Thanks,
--John |
Ally
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Ally
Post Number: 1088
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 7:27 am: |
|
Sometimes I get the feeling that John believes that if he just says something over and over again, it will become the truth.
Sorry John, you are wrong here.
Just because someone owns an artifact of disputed authenticity does NOT ethically force them to get it tested, just because some whiny people want it tested.
And yes, while I think that as it is being used to accuse someone of murder it should be tested, however, and hey,
There have been tests done on it recently. Robert Smith apparently agreed, handed over the diary, and let it be tested. The fact that the tests satisfied no one is moot.
If Robert is indeed not claiming any income from the diary, then it is not his financial responsibility to fork over the funds to do it. In fact, since you are the one badgering the most to have the thing tested, I would say that falls to you.
As in, put your money where your mouth is.
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3020
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 7:30 am: |
|
John,
I'm so not going there.
I don't agree with you, no, but you knew that already
Jenni
"it is hard not to feel a twinge of guilt. Guilt for the fact that this man's name would always be coupled with something other than the great works of book-collecting and abdominal operations with which he is now associated."
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2247
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 7:45 am: |
|
Hi Ally,
And actually, whenever John repeats himself he is being deeply patronising towards his remaining readers, because he must assume they are so stupid they didn't understand the first time.
It's like after an election when the losing party claims that their message was right - it was just that the public weren't quite mature enough to grasp the merits of it.
Now then, has Shirley been contacted yet, I wonder?
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1815
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 7:48 am: |
|
Ally,
You write, quite correctly, that "Just because someone owns an artifact of disputed authenticity does NOT ethically force them to get it tested, just because some whiny people want it tested."
But then you write,
"And yes, while I think that as it is being used to accuse someone of murder it should be tested..."
So let's go from there.
Robert owns it.
He gave his permission for it to be used that way, to charge a man with multiple murders.
It's his document being used in a way that he allowed.
Therefore, he as a moral responsibility to make sure to learn everything possible about its authenticity.
He has not done the work necessary to do that.
He hasn't even made the simple and inexpensive effort to find out what's in the ink.
And I am certainly not saying that Robert has the "financial" responsibility to do anything.
I am saying that he has the ethical and moral responsibility, if his document is going to be used, via his permission, to charge a man with multiple murders, to do the work necessary to learn everything possible about that document's authenticity, in the name of both the simple truth and the historical record.
As for the money part of it, I've already said several times that there's a signed check sitting here on my desk when and if he ever lives up to his responsibility and does the work necessary to get these tests done.
It's still there.
Thanks,
--John
PS: Jenni, It was just three simple yes or no questions. All three sentences are simply and factually true, aren't they?
(Message edited by omlor on October 28, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1816
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 7:54 am: |
|
Caroline,
It's not Shirley's fake document being used to prop up these bogus allegations she is making, it's Robert's. He owns it, he has the responsibility to make sure everything possible is known about it's authenticity (or lack thereof).
That being said, there is no question at all that Shirley also must be responsible for everything she has written based on this document that has yet to be thoroughly and properly tested (or even simply tested to find out once and for all what is and isn't in the ink).
Yes, of course, she too should be held responsible for the nonsense in those horrible books that use a fake document to charge a man with multiple murders.
Thanks for reminding me of that,
--John |
Ally
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Ally
Post Number: 1090
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 8:13 am: |
|
John,
Here I disagree with you on two counts.
1. There have been tests done on the diary. They don't satisfy. Too bad. But there have been tests done both prior to publication and in present day. Is Robert somehow obligated to continue testing this thing for the rest of his natural life to satisfy you? My you consider yourself to be important, don't you?
2.) Shirley is the one making money and writing about the diary. She is actually the one making the accusations. So how can you say that she holds less responsibility to make sure that what she says is authentic.
Frankly, I think you are just pissed at Robert to the point where reason has no chance of entering your brain and you are going to ride your little OCD right into the ground. Now it's not enough that the thing gets tested, Robert has to be the one to initiate the tests to satisfy whatever you feel is proper. What do you actually want, the diary tested or to see Robert dance?
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3022
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 8:22 am: |
|
I've gotta agree with Ally.
Jenni
ps is that five words?
"it is hard not to feel a twinge of guilt. Guilt for the fact that this man's name would always be coupled with something other than the great works of book-collecting and abdominal operations with which he is now associated."
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1818
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 8:59 am: |
|
Ally,
Thanks for your opinion as to my motives.
I could tell you that you are incorrect concerning why I think it's so important that Robert live up to his responsibility (since his document is being used with his permission to charge a man with multiple murders) to get that document thoroughly tested -- but you'd have no real reason to believe me. So I won't.
Yes, Robert is "obligated" to do whatever is necessary to learn as much as possible about the authenticity of his document. He has allowed his document to be used to charge a man with being a serial killer. He should do the decent thing and get the tests done. He hasn't even done the simple and inexpensive tests to determine once and for all what's in the ink. That's just sad.
And I don't think Shirley is "less" responsible for verifying her accusations.
As to your final question, I've seen Robert dance enough to satisfy me for two lifetimes.
Let me put it this way.
There is, right now, on the bookstore shelves, a book which uses an obviously fake document to charge a man with multiple murders on two continents.
The owner of the fake document, who gave his permission for this to happen, the writer of this horrible book, and yes even the publishers of this abomination should all be held morally responsible.
But the one who actually owns the document certainly should do whatever it takes to learn as much as possible about his document's authenticity, including conducting simple and inexpensive tests to learn at least what is and isn't in its ink.
If people here truly believe that Robert doesn't bear a responsibility for thoroughly testing his own document and learning everything possible about its authenticity despite allowing his document to be used to charge, in print, a man with multiple murders, then I must say I think I'm in the wrong place.
I guess what seems simply decent to me really is different than what seems simply decent to everyone else.
Sorry we disagree,
--John
|
Ally
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Ally
Post Number: 1091
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 9:08 am: |
|
John,
Weren't you the one recently calling for people to post only new things? Your lasts six posts have been near word for word repeats of your last 200.
Put on a new record, that one has been done to death.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1819
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 9:17 am: |
|
Thanks, Ally.
All the best,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2249
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 10:23 am: |
|
2000 more like, Ally.
And the first 1000 added that Robert would never let any lab near the diary again in our lifetime - while Robert was doing exactly that, with Jenni's assistance.
So the more John has to repeat the same old words, the more he will be just pissing in the wind.
In fact I feel like a pervert every time I notice out of the corner of my eye that he's doing it yet again.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1820
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 11:57 pm: |
|
Yes, Caroline.
I'm sure that's exactly what you feel like.
Thanks for the pointed post as usual,
--John |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 6:50 am: |
|
This thing about "independant observers" is contradictory to the concept of "simple and inexpensive" as there is no lab that is going to such an obsrever in the door to look over their shoulder and still keep their rates reasonable. Why would they? Independant observers mean controversy and that always means more work than the analysis itself.
I may have read wrong but is it true that Jennifer D. Pegg is student at Warwick? If so, their chemistry dept. should be filled to the gills with just the sort of stuff needed. As JDP already has proved successful with getting some tests done, seems like a reasonable person (if a little young!: joking, joking, joking!)and could be regarded as unbiased to liase with a chemistry dept. that may be only a few minutes walk from her office?
Just a thought. Can understand if she wouldnt want the hassle. I wouldnt.
Mr P. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 8:17 am: |
|
I have to ask this:
If I own a knife and lend it to someone who, it must be assumed, knows the legality of knife handling, and they stab someone with the knife: how much responsibility do I have for what has happened?
I just dont get this "owner/responsible" thing at all.
Its not the vaticans responsibility to keep testing the shroud despite the fact that some members of the club it is responsible for (the catholic church) continue to write reams about it and I assume make a few quid selling tawdry knick knacks.
Mr P. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 4:42 am: |
|
Howdy
Just have to comment on this one:
And we still don't even know what is and isn't in the ink.
You could have determined that years ago simply and inexpensively as we have been told here by an expert.
To be fair to everyone, 10 or more years ago such things may not have been so cheap, maybe not so "simple" and maybe not so widespread.
Plus, if one didnt know they were out there, or were just asking various chemists "can you date when ink was put to paper" they would get the oft mentioned "its very expensive or difficult/impossible" reply.
This answer seems to have been confused over the years with the answer to the question "can you tell if there is chloroacetamide in the ink" which should have been rather different and should, even 10 years ago, have been along the lines of what has been said on this thread.
You cannot get a straight answer from a scientist unless you ask a very straight question and even then the answer will always have an uncertainty associated with it.
Mr P. |
PMM
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 6:22 am: |
|
Lets be honest, do any of you really want to have this case solved conclusively, lets assume the ink in the diary proves to be victorian, the non believers will find another problem, lets assume the ink isn't Victorian, the believers will find some reason to doubt the tests. Unfortunately the "industry" of Ripperology will prevail, there are too many people making too much money from their own favourite suspects and the books that they write about them. Do the authors of these books actually want to solve the case? Lets be honest, whatever documents, or evidence turns up, you will never 100% agree that a murderer has been found. I feel I must state that, to my mind, none of the books I have read have satisfied my curiosity completely, there are too many leaps of faith and manipulation of facts in everyones theories. In fact it seems that to become a ripperologist, all you need is a Victorian male,(anyone will do though preferably famous,) and a good imagination, a simple twisting of the facts to suit your guy, then hey presto, one best seller. You never now, now that Derek Acorah is on the case, we will all know the real truth.......... or we won't. |
Robert J Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 8:44 am: |
|
I will leave the intelligent people who log on to these boards, to read my post of Tuesday 25th October carefully, and conclude for themselves whether John Omlor has anywhere left to go with his increasingly desperate attempts to persuade me to test the diary.
Let me be quite clear. I will not be spending any of my personal time or money on what is likely to be a pointless exercise of testing the diary “thoroughly”, just in case “we might learn something”. But I am happy to give the opportunity to anyone, who has such a strong belief to the contrary, that he/she wishes to organise and raise funds for the tests.
There are one or two blindingly obvious points to make:
1. John is very seriously worried, that Shirley has charged perhaps an innocent man with the murders of Jack the Ripper. There can only have been one murderer, so perhaps authors had better stop writing about suspects right now, in case they commit the same error.
2. Shirley Harrison is the author of her book, and is totally responsible for its content. That is why every author agrees to indemnify the publisher against libel, obscenity and all other potential legal actions.
3. I am not claiming it is anyone’s job to re-test the diary. John did take the responsibility in 2002, then ran away from it, on the very day the process was to begin. That, in a nutshell, explains his personal and manic campaign over the last two years.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1823
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 1:37 pm: |
|
Lars,
If your knife was used in the killing with your permission, it would be a different story, wouldn't it?
Robert knew the diary book charged James with murder and he still let his fake document be used as the basis of that charge (without even doing the tests necessary to resolve the conflicts concerning the ink). It's still being used that way and it's still his book, so the decent thing to do would be for him to get all the information possible about it. That's certainly what I would do if it was my document being used in such a way.
Robert returns to tell us he's not going to do any thorough testing "so that we might learn something." This despite the fact his document is being used in such an ugly and irresponsible way, with his original permission. Well, fair enough. Clearly he and I have a different idea about personal responsibility for the things we own.
As to his three points: 1. The difference between Shirley's book and all the other suspect books is that Shirley's uses a fake document, a hoax that Robert owns, as the basis for its charges. 2. I agree -- I'm talking here about personal responsibility, though, and clearly some of it also rests with the person who gave his permission for his document to be used in such a manner. 3. I am not going to go back into what happened three years ago here in public. Once again, people are cordially invited to write if they want to know exactly what happened, despite the typically nasty innuendo here.
As an aside, I might point out that Robert did not, upon his return here, offer us his "revised" opinion concerning whether James wrote the diary he owns (although in his last post he has said he has in fact changed his mind about this). Could it be that not even the owner of this silly piece of trash thinks it's real anymore?
I wonder,
--John |
Ally
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Ally
Post Number: 1103
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 1:57 pm: |
|
Since it is completely obvious that we are never going to get John to stop his ode to his own martyrdom at being the only person afflicted with the curse of ethics in this whole diary debacle, I have decided to get one other thing out of the way. I would like for both Robert Smith and John Omlor to set their accounts here in public together for all to see of what happened with the whole testing situation.
John's constant plea for people to email him so he can tell his side, is hardly fair considering those same people probably cannot get Robert's full side ( I don't have his email anyway). If both sides would agree that they would set it out here, no accusations of slander, libel or whatever, with the clear understanding that both sides are expressing their OPINIONS about what happend and let us decide for ourselves, at the very least we can put to rest one part of John's ceaseless litany of complaint on this matter.
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3049
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 3:12 pm: |
|
Yo Ally
oh please lets not. I happen to have had Johns emails plural and honestly -
yo!
Jenni
"Don't you know it's true what they say, Things happened for a reason,"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1824
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 3:22 pm: |
|
Sorry Ally,
I'm not doing it again here on the boards. Not only did it almost get me kicked off last time, and not only is much of the record already here anyway, but I also have no desire to get into yet another discussion about it with Robert (or Paul Begg or anyone else who has argued with me about it here or in private. Robert can mail you his side if he likes. I believe you are among the persons to whom I've already sent my history of that period, including the e-mail record, aren't you?
If you go back to the last time we hashed this out here on the boards (with Paul Begg's eventual participation as well) you can see what everyone thinks happened.
I will say this much. When I left (as much for personal reasons, by the way, having to do with an immediate family situation, as my own concerns about my role in the process), McCrone was still very interested, I had received pledges of money and Paul Begg said he'd take over the project. What happened after that? Nothing, really.
And, for the record, my "litany of complaint on the matter" HAD ceased after my recent exchange with you and Caroline, until Robert returned and Lars addressed me indirectly with a hypothetical.
I'm happy to end it again, but I'm certainly going to respond if my name is mentioned or I am addressed.
By the way, if Robert would like to come here and post once again his side of those unpleasant events (as he already has), he should certainly feel free to do so. I don't want to discourage him from having his full say. I believe he's already posted that account twice, including at the start of the "Diary Testing" thread, for anyone truly interested.
You can conclude whatever you'd like from my not agreeing to rehash all this once more in public. It won't change my thoughts on who is and is not responsible for getting the document properly tested and for the way this hoax is being used to charge a man with murder in print.
Thanks for the suggestion,
--John |
Ally
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Ally
Post Number: 1104
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 3:29 pm: |
|
Well then John, if it is already available on the Casebook in it's entirety, why do you keep inviting people to email you for your side only?
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1826
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 3:36 pm: |
|
Ally,
I write the line about "people who want can email me for the record" because I don't want to go back into it all here again in public. I could just as easily write "people who want to know what happened can go look it up here where it's already been hashed out in public by me and Paul and Robert a couple of times" I suppose.
Either way is fine with me.
--John |
Ally
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Ally
Post Number: 1105
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 3:54 pm: |
|
John,
Considering you were trying so desperately to keep people from rehashing old news, and even being helpful and providing them with the links to old topics you thought had been done to death, why don't you provide people with a nice little link to a conversation that gives your side and Robert's both, rather than making them search through the thousands of posts you have made on this subject for a relevant one.
I mean in the interest of fairness and all.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1827
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 4:29 pm: |
|
Ally,
You can find one of Robert Smith's versions of what happened as the first post in the thread named "Diary Testing." There's also a response from me. The extended argument I had in which I gave my version of old events in response to Robert and Paul Begg happened some time ago, also here on the boards, but frankly I'm not about to "search through thousands of posts" to find it.
People can do that for themselves if they really want to see my side spelled out (although I've already sent my version to you once I believe, privately, and I've just told everyone where they can see Robert's), or they can write me and I'll send my copy of the record to them.
Also, of course, if Robert is interested he can always repost his version here and add anything he wants to.
And if anyone does locate the debate with Paul and Robert and myself about who did what when and why, they should certainly feel free to post a link here for everyone to see.
I should say that I was warned at the time by Stephen not to get back into all of the details of this on the boards, which is one reason why I decided that offering to send the info to people privately was the simpler and wiser way to go. Since then, whenever the topic has come up, that has always been my response.
I'm sure Robert would also be happy to explain to anyone interested exactly what he feels happened.
By the way, is anyone interested?
--John |
Ally
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Ally
Post Number: 1106
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 4:35 pm: |
|
Well John,
If you're not interested in making sure both sides are shown by providing links, I hardly think it is fair for you to keep inviting people to get your side only. That's hardly responsible. I mean you are accusing Robert Smith of despicable things and one would think it would be your responsibility to make sure that every bit of information was available to the people you are inviting to get the story. And you don't even have to go out and get anything tested!
But I guess I just have a different view of fairness and what's right than you do.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1828
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 4:53 pm: |
|
Ally,
What nonsense. I have just provided you with a link to Robert's side and I have offered everyone a full copy of my side.
I understand that you are trying to be clever and develop a crude sort of parallelism so that you can accuse me of being hypocritical (and that this has had nothing to do with what actually happened three years ago since you have already read Robert's side and I've already sent you mine), but the trick doesn't work because I have in fact made sure everyone could see both sides if they want and every bit of information is available to the people I am inviting to get the story.
If you want to keep playing this out, that's fine with me, but it in no way changes the fact that Robert gave his permission for his document to be used in a book charging someone with murder and he still hasn't had that document thoroughly and properly tested in order to learn everything possible about its origins.
But then again, perhaps you are right. Perhaps I should just copy and post all the e-mails and the dates and the allegations made about me and all the rest here for everyone to see.
Yes, perhaps I should.
--John
PS: One thing more about hypocrisy, Ally. Even if I was being a complete and total hypocrite and even if in some way or another in my own life I was absolutely guilty every day and in every way of everything I am accusing Robert of here in terms of his responsibility for his own document, that would in no way alter or affect his responsibility and it would in no way alter his or Shirley's or the publisher's role in instituting and perpetuating this completely irresponsible horror show in print.
|
Ally
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Ally
Post Number: 1107
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 5:10 pm: |
|
Wait John,
You can't even be bothered to post a simple link, but you think Robert should jump through hoops to get the diary tested for the rest of his life until it shows what you want it to.
I mean me, I personally find it despicable to post or share private emails without the other person's consent, but hey that's me. You obviously feel no problem doing that.
Everyone has a different level of what they consider right and wrong, it's just you can't help but beat everyone over the head with what you think is right for thousands of posts until really everyone is tired of hearing it.
I don't need this example to call you hypocritcal, I can say that by you just a few weeks ago telling people we should all quit posting the same boring crap over and over, and yet here you are again. Of course, you think you have a good excuse..after all you are just replying to others. But that doesn't really hold much water.
The fact of the matter is that Robert has recently handed over the Diary for further testing despite your righteous assertions that it would never happen. You were flat out wrong. And the fact that you continue to berate him for not getting the Diary tested is ludicrous at this particular juncture. It's petty, it's demeaning to everyone involved, but mostly to you.
Accept the simple fact: You were wrong. The diary has been recently tested. Now you want more tests done without acknowledging at all what has been done because of your own sense of what you think is right. That's infantile and it has gotten old.
Robert smith has said he is willing to get the Diary tested. Whatever you personally think, you bailed when you had the opportunity to do so. Whatever your reasons, you chose not to go through with it. If his demands were unreasonable, you could have attempted to work through them, but perhaps you weren't willing to give an inch.
Bottom line: You quit. You didn't attempt to compromise or go ahead to see what could possibly be done. You think his demands were outrageous. Jenni apparently didn't and she managed to get the Diary tested. So as for whether Robert is completely unwilling to work with people in getting the Diary tested and makes unreasonable demands: the evidence is against you.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1829
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 5:11 pm: |
|
Hey all,
Now I am curious. Is the "keyword search" function not working? I'm trying it and can't get anything to come up, even when I type words I know are here. I genuinely would like to find that link where Paul and Robert and I went over all of this, independent of the silly games being played out here.
Thanks,
--John |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1830
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 5:25 pm: |
|
As I was posting that honest request, Ally has returned, so let me go back and address her post.
Ally, I said many posts ago that "If people here truly believe that Robert doesn't bear a responsibility for thoroughly testing his own document and learning everything possible about its authenticity despite allowing his document to be used to charge, in print, a man with multiple murders, then I must say I think I'm in the wrong place. I guess what seems simply decent to me really is different than what seems simply decent to everyone else."
Now you've gone through all this just to tell me that?
Well, thanks. I agree.
I have never posted anyone's private e-mails without their consent. And if I recall, you were one of the first to ask me, happily, to send you the e-mail record privately, so you're obviously not too bothered by that practice.
And I continue to berate Robert for not getting the diary thoroughly tested (or even getting the tests done to resolve the conflicts about the ink) for the past ten years because his diary is being used with his permission to charge a guy with murder.
You can think what you want about what happened three years ago and why I "quit" at that time, but the facts don't change. It's now over ten years since this diary appeared and the record of what has and has not been done with this book by a fully professional and outfitted lab is quite clear.
And the book is still being sold.
If finding that despicable and complaining about it is being petty, then I'm quite happy to be called petty.
--John
|
Ally
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Ally
Post Number: 1108
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 5:38 pm: |
|
Actually I would be VERY surprised if I asked you to send the email record. I may have asked you what happened and what occurred but if I indeed did ask you for the email records, I would be extremely surprised. If you can find that email and forward it to me, I will recant here publically.
I am not saying I didn't, I have occasionally done despicably nosy things, but I don't usually ask for email forwards.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1832
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 6:32 pm: |
|
Hi Ally,
I'll gladly check the record when I get home and see how you worded your request to me, if I still have your request.
Now I'm off to a celebration.
Until later tonight,
--John |
Ally
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Ally
Post Number: 1110
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 9:30 pm: |
|
John sent me the emails tonight. At the time there was threat of lawsuit and I asked to see the emails regarding the lawsuit as Casebook was dragged in.
He is right, I did ask to see those emails. Oh well, like I said, everyone decides for themselves what's right and wrong. I did a wrong.
|
Ally
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Ally
Post Number: 1111
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 5:05 am: |
|
Okay now that everyone has had hours to absorb my perfidy without any qualification from me, let's continue.
What, John? You thought deflecting onto my own bad deeds would give you an escape route? Please. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong and besides, like you said above about Robert, just because I am an evil sleaze doesn't distract from your own shortcomings.
So let's recap. In your deflection to my own badness, these are the points you failed to address. I'll just make them yes or no questions for ease, okay?
When given the chance to make meaningful contribution to the case, you quit. Yes or no?
For the last several years, you have been stating loudly and constantly that Robert would never allow the Diary to be tested. Yes or No?
Meanwhile Robert allowed the Diary to be tested. Yes or No?
You were wrong. Yes or No?
So as stated above, your righteous indignation over the situation is completely out of proportion. You can go on about what happened in the past all you want, but in light of the fact that Robert apparently did allow the diary to be tested, your claims are meaningless.
Now to the future, you can keep harping on Robert's responsibility all you want. I am sure it keeps you from admitting even to yourself that you could possibly be wrong about this situation. You may even really believe that and it's not just an excuse to keep a grudge going that is clearly not supported by the evidence.
So you can keep on going, and I 'll just be right there behind you chanting, You were wrong, the diary was recently tested, you were wrong the diary was recently tested.
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1835
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 6:19 am: |
|
Hi Ally,
First of all, I had no real interest in "deflecting" anything or talking about your deeds especially. You mentioned your feelings about the e-mail forwarding thing yourself. I don't actually think there's anything wrong with what you did.
And, by the way, even after I faced my own personal difficulties, I only withdrew from part of the process and made it clear that I was more than happy to participate by being in charge of raising the funds for the tests when Paul arranged them. It was only after nothing happened for a long long time and, after I called everyone's attention to this fact, I was personally threatened with a lawsuit, that I pulled out entirely.
And Robert still has not sent the diary to a fully qualified and professional lab even so that they might examine it and see what might be possible with it, despite at least one such lab saying three different times that they'd like the opportunity. The tests that Jennifer arranged, while admirable, were a different sort of thing altogether and even then I congratulated both Robert and Jennifer right here on these boards after those results were announced.
I am quite happy anytime any tests occur. And yes, there is no doubt that I am also quite happy that I was wrong when I speculated about Robert never letting the book see the inside of any lab ever. Now if only I could be wrong about saying he's not going to get his diary thoroughly examined and tested by a full lab, I'd be delighted.
As for my "claims," I need not make any, really. I need only point to the current date, point to the date Robert bought the diary, point to the conflicts that still exist in the data and leave it at that. My only addition is to point out that in all that time, meanwhile, the diary is still being used to charge a man with murder and, as I've said, if that were my diary I'd have resolved those conflicts and learned anything else I could a long time ago.
You can now feel free to chant away. I'm also happy to have the opposing voice and the perfectly correct reminder.
And despite this entire discussion, the record remains exactly the same concerning this book and what's happened to it for the past decade.
Thanks,
--John
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3055
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 12:03 pm: |
|
I love diary world.
i like nothing better than to come home to such a fun filled day in diary world and soak up the atmosphere.
So anyway
Jenni
"Don't you know it's true what they say, Things happened for a reason,"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2260
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 12:30 pm: |
|
Hi Ally,
Whatever your reasons, you chose not to go through with it. If his demands were unreasonable, you could have attempted to work through them, but perhaps you weren't willing to give an inch.
Bottom line: You quit. You didn't attempt to compromise or go ahead to see what could possibly be done. You think his demands were outrageous. Jenni apparently didn't and she managed to get the Diary tested. So as for whether Robert is completely unwilling to work with people in getting the Diary tested and makes unreasonable demands: the evidence is against you.
Just to make it absolutely clear and unambiguous for any readers who don't want to go looking for every available detail - at the time when John quit, he was still in total agreement with Robert about the way forward, fully acknowledging and accepting all Robert's reasons for not being able to give his own time and money to the McCrone proposal.
Indeed, John was happy to remain 'in charge of raising the funds for the tests' and was aware that Paul Begg, as his successor, had the job of relaying information from McCrone back to Robert and advising him if and how he should proceed. At no time did Robert have any direct contact with McCrone and, eventually, Paul Begg gave up trying to get anything he considered useful from them. But at least he gave it a go.
It was only after nothing happened for a long long time and, after I called everyone's attention to this fact, I was personally threatened with a lawsuit, that I pulled out entirely.
Bollocks.
Without even contacting Robert privately, to ask what progress, if any, Paul Begg had made with McCrone, John suddenly took it upon himself to libel Robert publicly, and until Jenni's efforts appeared on the boards, never let a month go by without telling anyone who would listen what a rotter Robert had been to him and that we'd all be dead before the diary would be examined again.
If any of the foregoing is factually incorrect, I'm sure we will hear all about it in a few seconds.
Love,
Caz
X |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
