|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 611
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 6:49 pm: | 
|
"Because I was thinking about Florence making the Diary too. But how did she know all the stuff that was written."
I have to tell you, Eddie, that I don't see anything in the Diary that points to something-only-the-murderer-would-know. On the other hand, when you're talking trashing someone's reputation, ex-spouses are generally skilled at that sort of work.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 56
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 10:07 pm: |
|
Sir Robert,
Right. She wouldn't know about the Initials. But what if he had an accomplice? He would know everything that was done. And, of course, he wouldn't mention himself.
I agree with Caz about the statement,"I placed it all over the room". He is talking about the Initials or Letters, not body organs. Like I said before. A Serial Killer way ahead of his time.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 58
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 6:12 am: |
|
Morning, John
Go to the Mary Kelly Mystery Image Thread. Look at my post from November 01 and tell me what you think. This is what my daughter calls the "Tip of the Iceberg"
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2290
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 6:32 am: |
|
Hi Eddie,
I don't think I've ever commented on the statement: "I placed it all over the room".
I have simply observed that the diarist doesn't actually tell us what is meant by "An initial here and a initial there" or "Left it (my emphasis) in front for all eyes to see".
Love,
Caz
X |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 59
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 6:48 am: |
|
Hi Caz
Thanks for correcting me on that. I knew it had something to do with the Initials though.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1872
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 6:49 am: |
|
Eddie,
I have a feeling that what your daughter has found in the photograph is going to change the Maybrick case forever. I suspect that once and for all we're going to be left with nothing else to do. Something tells me this is the break that we've been waiting for for over a decade now and that thoroughly testing the diary and watch scientifically and learning everything possible about them in a responsible and objective way will no longer even be necessary.
In fact, it won't even be necessary to argue about the handwriting or the rest of the words in the book.
This is it. And I, for one, am truly excited at the prospect of finally identifying James Maybrick as Jack the Ripper and being done with all this nonsense.
Many many thanks in advance,
--John |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 60
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 6:58 am: |
|
Hi, John
If the Ripper is finally identified, many more books can be written. How did he fool everyone for 100 years. What was in his mind. Best of all, I think, would be a book on the Letters to Police. Which ones did he really write. And did he put any hints or clues on the envelopes or letters. The Horror Museums can also put a real face on their figure. Years and Years of studying this man.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2291
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 6:59 am: |
|
Hi Maria,
The same way when he told me that there were was enough ink in the diary for more tests... But as you can see in Shirley's few pages of the diary, there is plenty of ink left.
Christ on a bike, how many more times do I have to correct your misunderstanding?
The tests that used up all the blotches, 'ENORMOUS' and otherwise, that you and Melvin saw in Shirley's facsimile and Feldy's photocopied pages respectively, WERE CONDUCTED AFTER THAT FACSIMILE WAS MADE.
AND THAT'S SHOUTING!!!
I don't want to spend more time finding out where else she said that there was no more ink and for further tests, the letters of the diary text would have to be used.
I bet you don't - because you won't find it! And what do you think the text is, if not ink? I made it quite clear that all the blotches you claimed were still there had been used, and that further ink samples will therefore have to come from the text itself.
In 1994, Leeds University found the diary ink extremely difficult to remove from the paper, so it might not be the doddle you think to extract samples from the work that remains.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1873
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 7:07 am: |
|
I'd like to take a moment here and respond to a discussion taking place on a thread outside of Diary World, because a strange exchange has occurred there.
In that discussion, Caroline Morris has just quoted Chris George and then replied:
Chris: "You and I both know it is a fake. What we don't know who did it or why it was done."
Caroline: "You can put words and opinions in my mouth, that I haven't expressed, and you can make assumptions about what I know and what I don't know. But it won't help your credibility by doing so."
But Caroline Morris has written to me privately in the past telling me that she knew the diary was a fake.
So, unless she is now saying she has changed her mind, Chris seems to have been quite correct in what he wrote and his credibility remains intact.
I think people should know that, if Caroline is going to challenge Chris's credibility in public.
Thanks,
--John |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 62
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 7:22 am: |
|
John
I know who the Ripper is. But the Diary is definitely still a question. Sir Robert made a good point about Flo writing it to try and get released from prison. Or, as I said before. Did he have an accomplice that wrote it?
But, I think, before more money is spent testing this Diary for Chloroacetamide(which might lead to more confusion and arguing), I think there is another way to investigate this without emptying anyone's pockets.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2292
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 7:31 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
Diamine was also the only manuscript ink in the 1990s that was also using nigrosine....like the Diary.
Well, Baxendale and Voller believed the diary ink contained nigrosine, but Eastaugh and Leeds didn't. And Voller was also certain that, whatever ingredients it contained, it wasn't his very own Diamine Ink.
Leeds concluded that there was no chloroacetamide and no nigrosine either and that the ink was without doubt of the iron-gallotannate variety.
I find it a remarkable coincidence that the art shop pointed out by Mike Barrett "just happened" to sell an ink that is compatable with what is known to be in pre 1992 Diamine--both in nigrosine and in chloroacetamide.
That's the problem. With such conflicting findings and beliefs, you just can't be sure that the diary ink is compatible with the pre-1992 Diamine formula.
The whole point of why Robert Smith wanted a bottle a pre-1992 Diamine Ink came about because Diamine changed their formula because they found that it quickly faded.
Really? Then doesn't that sort of prove that the diary ink isn't compatible with this quickly fading formula? What do you mean by 'quickly' - Robert has been waiting since 1992 to see if the diary ink would fade or alter in appearance; it hasn't.
But there is no need to find a bottle of unopened Diamine ink from before 1992. Voller knows the exact formula and even made-up and supplied samples of this ink to both Robert Smith and Nick Warren to "play around with." A comparison between the Diary's ink and the pre-1992 ink could have been made ten years ago.
Robert was never supplied with any such sample. Shirley was, and I believe this was what she gave to Leeds.
Leeds compared the diary to two documents from the 1880s and found the inks identical. Voller told Shirley that there needs to be nitrogen present if chloroacetamide is in the ink. Neither Leeds nor Eastaugh found any nitrogen in the diary ink.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1875
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 7:36 am: |
|
Caroline writes to RJ,
"That's the problem. With such conflicting findings and beliefs, you just can't be sure that the diary ink is compatible with the pre-1992 Diamine formula."
Gee, then I wonder what we should do when we are stuck with such "conflicting" scientific findings?
I wonder what should happen then?
Still here in '05,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2293
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 7:38 am: |
|
But Caroline Morris has written to me privately in the past telling me that she knew the diary was a fake.
Nice try.
If I did I was naughty, because I couldn't have known that. But 'in the past' is in the past. If I said "The handwriting is not recognisable as Maybrick's" I'd be happy with that today.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1876
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 7:46 am: |
|
Caroline,
If you'd like, I can quote the message directly.
If you are now saying you have changed your mind regarding what you wrote to me (which was quite definitively stated), then unless you've informed us of that fact somehow during the intervening time, you can hardly challenge anyone's credibility for saying what you yourself have said "in the past."
You seem to be dancing here. I wonder why.
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2301
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 9:19 am: |
|
I would challenge Chris George's credibility on two grounds:
1) He had no right to inform Professor Ian Findlay that the diary is a modern hoax. He should have made it clear he was simply expressing his own point of view, in the absence of any proof.
2) It is not up to him to assume what my current opinions are and to express them for me, nor to assume what I know or do not know.
Nothing is set in stone yet and, to echo Mags elsewhere, the more I learn the less I realise I know.
I would like to know the date of the email.
Caz
(Message edited by caz on November 09, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1877
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 9:47 am: |
|
Caroline,
I'm at work now, but when I get home I'll give you the exact date. It was sometime in '03, I believe. Perhaps slightly later.
Of course, there has been no new data or information about the diary in many years, so if you have in fact changed your mind about the question of authenticity in the last couple of years it would be interesting to know why.
Nevertheless, that's all irrelevant to your chastising Chris for simply saying what you yourself had already admitted.
If Chris had written "you and I both knew the diary was a fake years ago" I assume you would not have a problem with that, then, as it would accurately reflect your own writing in the past.
By the way, you and I both know the diary's a fake.
The fact that you want to dance on the pinhead of rhetorical skepticism for your own personal purposes doesn't really change that, you know.
--John |
maybricksghost
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 3:01 pm: |
|
Chris: "You and I both know it is a fake. What we don't know who did it or why it was done."
Caroline: "You can put words and opinions in my mouth, that I haven't expressed, and you can make assumptions about what I know and what I don't know. But it won't help your credibility by doing so."
------------------------------------------
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 06:27 am
The whole thing, to everyone's mind here (except one, but including mine), is a hoax. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1878
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 10:56 am: |
|
Lars,
First, I think you want to be careful calling Maria (or anyone) any names, with or without the missing letters, whether she is able to respond or not. I don't know the details, but I hear that some people got bumped off the boards recently.
Second, if you send me e-mail, I'll happily send you the full page of the newspaper.
I also think that RJ has accurately stated Melvin's position. Maria, I seem to recall, then thanked RJ and agreed with his summary. So if you are having problems parsing the language of the arguments, the best thing to do would be to read RJ's post.
To the anonymous poster -- thanks for the citation. I knew that Caroline had also posted here on the boards that to her mind the diary was a hoax. Clearly she still felt that way when she sent me the e-mail. So Chris had fair reason to assume what he did.
I'm sure she will dance away from this quote, too, since she apparently finds it more convenient now not to state her position on the question of authenticity and to keep people guessing. But I think there's really no mystery. Caroline -- like Keith Skinner and Paul Begg and Martin Fido and Stewart Evans and Don Rumbelow and Philip Sugden and Chris George and Jenni Pegg and Robert Anderson and almost every other poster on these boards including me -- knows this book is a fake.
The rhetorical positioning is just performance.
All the best,
--John |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3164
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 7:04 am: |
|
Rhetorical positiioning? is that what all this diary world stuff is - ahhhh - i was wondering
ps yo
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 63
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 11:01 pm: |
|
Mr. Poster
Anna Koren is the graphologist who claimed she couldn't tell if the Diary was written with a lot of energy because "it is a very old document and the pressure marks left by a pen are no longer there".
How long does it take for this to happen? 2 years? 10 years? 100 years?
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3177
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 4:36 am: |
|
Yo Eddie,
I think this indentation thing is a new one on me.
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 64
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 7:24 am: |
|
Yo Jenni
I'm confused. Can a graphologist really tell if there are still preesure marks on the paper? Or is this the same as taking the Diary to a phsycic or something ?
Yours Truly
Eddie |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2307
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 7:54 am: |
|
I'm at work now, but when I get home I'll give you the exact date.
Nope, I don't see a date yet. He must be working uncharacteristically long hours this week.
Nevertheless, that's all irrelevant to your chastising Chris for simply saying what you yourself had already admitted.
Look again at exactly why I chastised Chris - it wasn't for simply expressing his opinions (which I may or may not share these days); it was for assuming my own current views, which John can kiss anyone's arse but mine for.
And it was for stating as a fact that the diary is a modern hoax, when he doesn't know that for a fact.
I knew that Caroline had also posted here on the boards that to her mind the diary was a hoax.
I'm still waiting for the exact date of my privately given views, although if I expressed them publicly too, I can't see the big deal. Anyone can read what I posted 'in the past', if they think it's that important.
But John is now, I trust, going to provide the date of the email and, hopefully, the link to where I posted that, 'to my mind' (which would clearly be an opinion, if I used these words, and not knowledge, nor what John terms, with his usual spin, an 'admission' - as if I had previously been claiming it was the genuine work of James Maybrick aka the ripper) the diary is a 'hoax' [sic].
Love,
Caz
X |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Inspector
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 295
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 8:16 am: |
|
Whatho all,
The thought of kissing Caz's arse.
Hmmmmmmm. Nice.
Cheers, Mark Andrew Pardoe
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1880
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 9:02 am: |
|
Oh right, the date. I was waiting to see if Caroline still wanted to play.
Friday, October 24, 2003 2:47 AM
And there was no "to my mind" in the e-mail I was sent. The statement was unambiguous and stated as definite fact. Indeed, it was distinguished in the post from nearly everything else, which she called "conjecture."
But this is the part of Caroline's last post I really love:
"his opinions (which I may or may not share these days)"
It's that coquettish voice of mystery.
No explanation for why she won't simply tell us what she thinks, whether she agrees with Chris or not -- just that whole "Look at me, I'm a mystery, I'm not saying even though I know stuff..." nonsense.
It really is sort of sad, this performance, this game of not saying and then saying that you're not saying.
On another thread she mentions the super-secret squirrel investigation and some mysterious "turn" it has taken. But as usual, it's just a mention. I understand wanting not to talk about a secret. But I've never met anyone who talks so much about something she's not supposed to talk about without saying anything.
Maybe someday a simple straightforward explanation and honest disclosure of her position about a topic she writes millions of words about in public will be forthcoming.
But I doubt it. I think the game's the thing. I think this is all just for fun and attention. I think she knows the book is a fake, just like all those other people I listed earlier, and the mysterious secret that is being withheld from us all is that there is no mysterious secret.
Wouldn't that be just typical of Diary World?
Amused as always,
--John
PS: I assumed the citation our anonymous poster offered was from the boards. I might well be wrong about that, though. Perhaps this was another private statement of her position. In any case, by the time she wrote to me she had certainly solidified it into a statement of fact. If it was from the boards, I hope its poster will provide us with the link. |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3180
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 12:12 pm: |
|
Yo Eddie,
well i don't know, you are the one who said it!! Where did you hear it?
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 66
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 1:19 pm: |
|
Yo, Jenni
It's in feldman's book. He mentioned about when she was going over the Diary with her hands. But I don't understand how someone can tell about pressure marks. How long do pressure marks last? That's what bugs me.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 67
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 1:26 pm: |
|
Yo Jenni
What I'm trying to say is, can the expert graphologists really tell how old a document is just by rubbing their hands over the writing?
Yours Truly
Eddie |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 3:17 am: |
|
hello Eddie Derrico
Thats something I dont know. I imagine it depends on:
the nature and type of the paper,
the humidity of the environment in which it was stored,
the pen and the pressure applied
But heres an interesting thing I read before. When extra pressure is applied to a ball point pen the tip digs deeper into the page causing pressure marks on the back.
When extra pressure is applied to a fountain pen, the nib splays out, not causing pressure marks but a wider ink stroke.
And it was that fact that many "graphologists" bemoaned as a lot of the expression was lost from writing on the transition to ball points as the lines stayed the same thickness irrespective of pressure.
So Im not sure if pressure marks are even expected to be visible when using a fountain pen on what I assume must have been fairly thick paper.
BUt I am not an expert on that and you would have to ask someone who knows of such things. BUt there are a lot of variables I would expect affects it.
Sorry I cannot help more.
Mr P |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 828
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 2:04 pm: |
|
Eddie,
A graphologist is not the same as a document examiner, as has been discussed many times on the various Maybrick threads. Graphologists "claim" to be able to read the personality traits and so on of a writer from the the handwriting. Palm readers just eliminate the middle man, so to speak, and attain the same information from the creases in your palm. What the graphologist's "laying on of hands" was supposed to reveal I couldn't say.
Document examination, on the other hand (ouch), is a legitimate research speciality.
Don
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3182
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 3:45 pm: |
|
I mean, i don't know but it doesnt sound very plausable. i should like to learn a lot more about it before further commenting
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 68
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 7:12 pm: |
|
Thank You, Don
That's what I was wondering about. A Document Examiner would be the scientific expert. A Graphologist is more with the psychic kind of stuff. I believe more in the scientific approach.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 69
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 7:16 pm: |
|
Mr. Poster
Thank You. I appreciate your post. I think Donald explained it enough for me to understand. Your statement about the fountain pen helps a lot too.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
maybricksghost
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 3:36 pm: |
|
From the CASEBOOK CD-Rom.
-
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: 'FM' At Miller's Court/An Inspiration For Forgers?:
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 06:27 am
The whole thing, to everyone's mind here (except one, but including mine), is a hoax.
-
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: The Maybrick Diary-2000 Archives: Archive through April 1, 2000
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 24 March 2000 - 11:57 am
But the watch doesn't help with the provenance! The person who owned it (Albert Johnson) was not known to the Grahams or Barretts when it first came to light. When Anne's father was asked about the watch (Feldman, p200) he said he thought it was a load of b*****s. And it certainly hasn't helped confirm anything about the diary, even if that was someone's original intention.
-
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: Maybrick/Jack's watch?: Archive through October 10, 2000
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 15 September 2000 - 08:50 am
And having read through everything again, I really have to agree with Keith’s conclusion – the diary and watch have to have come from the same stable.
-
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: Maybrick/Jack's watch?: Archive through March 2, 1999
Author: Caroline (webcache24b.cache.pol.co.uk - 195.92.194.44)
Tuesday, 16 February 1999 - 04:20 am
You are so right about the 'curtain calls and applause'. Trouble is, the real author was so torn between trying to make the thing sound genuine, and his own over-inflated ego as a writer, that his aim to nail Maybrick has gone way clear of the mark. Now, if the diary had been found on the very day it was completed, we might have had a very different story to relate.
-
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: Maybrick/Jack's watch?: Archive through October 20, 2000
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 03:35 am
Actually, I don't believe for one moment that old arsenic-head James Maybrick went prowling round the East End of London in his late 40s looking for Florie substitutes to stick pins in, but if you say I do, it must be so I guess. Though you and Mr Harris evidently do believe that Mike Barrett knows all about the subliminal angle of Mrs H and Bobo's behind, and that his O Costly intercourse was seized upon by the barmy army of fakers for the reason Mike gave that any quote mentioning intercourse and death would suit a sexual serial killer down to the ground.
Does no one else find the whole Hamersmith explanation laughable? I'm really sorry that I couldn't help but compare it with D'Onston since I'm currently looking again at this particular sod....
-
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: Maybrick/Jack's watch?: Archive through October 20, 2000
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 11:21 am
Is the whole thing beginning to look rather like a modern-day student prank....?
-
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: Maybrick/Jack's watch?: Archive through October 10, 2000
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 06:40 am
So Mike Barrett had to be involved in creating the diary content? Even if only to the extent of providing the obscure quote? Perhaps those who did most of the work (Devereux? Kane? Billy or Anne Graham? Or the Johnsons perhaps?) allowed Mike this one little effort in order for him to feel he had made a contribution other than just being the handler/placer of the document? He certainly seems unable or unwilling to prove any deeper involvement. In fact, when he was telling the world how he forged the thing single-handedly, it never occurred to him to mention Crashaw, possibly the only way he could guarantee that his story would be believed. Mind you, I guess we all realised very early on that he has never been overburdened with the grey matter. Which must make one wonder all over again why on earth anyone with an inkling of nous, whatever their motives, and however easy it was for them to knock this thing out in weeks, if not days, would trust this shabby piece of tat (which incidentally could not have been better designed to bring out the malevolence in people) in the hands of such a man. Maybe Anne had some ghastly premonition of all this conflict when she wrestled with Mike to try to stop him launching this thing on everyone.
-
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: Maybrick/Jack's watch?: Archive through May 09, 1999
Author: Caz
Thursday, 29 April 1999 - 08:50 am
Can we try to help out in future with everyone's posts by checking through carefully to see if we may have got something arse about face ourselves. Some of us know enough about each other now to do this to some degree successfully. It just might help us to keep the good discussions on an even and civil keel this time around.
Thanks for listening, all. I will do my utmost to stick to the above principles.
Keep well, everyone. |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3185
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 6:29 am: |
|
Yo,
it wasnt written with a fountain pen. it was written with a nib and ink style pen
yo
Jenni
(Message edited by jdpegg on November 12, 2005)
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 310
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 7:36 am: |
|
Eddie
As far as I've ever been able to discover the ability to tell personality by someones hand writing is just an art form with no more scientific evidance than palm reading. The only thing that hand writing examination can really tell is whether or not writing has been created by the same person. I beleive that the canadians with developed a computer system that can accurately match peoples hand writing from various forms. ie tell if writing was indeed created by the same person or by someone else.
As for consulting psychic's theres no piont as most of them have Maybrick trust up like a Kipper (apart from Lees of course). However the Diary is probably a fake...strange contratiction somewhere. Anybody know of any other Maybricks hanging around the East End?
Anyway the only thing the hand writing can really prove is who wrote it. And I beleive from known samples of Maybricks hand writing it wasnt Maybrick.
Yours Jeff |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2311
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 11:12 am: |
|
Hi maybricksghost,
Many thanks for posting this ancient stuff, some of it from the days when Chris George knows who I thought may have written the diary, and it wasn't James Maybrick.
Chris was following the boards when I first found them at the end of 1998, and has been able to read my diary observations and thoughts ever since. So he knows I have not been expressing any views on the diary's origins for some time.
If that means I have to put up with views I expressed over two years ago being reposted as if they are current, there's not a lot I can do about it. But it says more about those who do so, than about me.
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: 'FM' At Miller's Court/An Inspiration For Forgers?:
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 06:27 am
The whole thing, to everyone's mind here (except one, but including mine), is a hoax.
Not much context there. Could you oblige with my whole post, and preferably any posts to which I was directly responding? Thanks.
BTW, here is the complete text of my email to John, sent back in October 2003, a month or two before the investigation took a new twist:
Hi John,
It's that old communication problem again, with you making assumptions about
claims being made. Forget claims - I'm not making any. Forget Maybrick.
Think forgers - at any time - putting Crashaw in the diary. This is, after
all, what you claim to know all about.
John: ...very few people
anywhere, other than poets and Catholic lit. scholars or devotees of
Catholic devotional writing... would have had one of those on their shelves
then...
Christopher Ricks: Crashaw would reasonably have found a place on the
Victorian bookshelf
of any man with an interest in educating himself.
And Caz, once again, is stuck in the middle of two conflicting opinions -
one saying something is downright impossible, the other saying something is
possible, even reasonable - and I clearly don't know whose opinion I can
trust. All I know is that if I stay in the middle while I'm trying to decide
which of you is more likely to be right, I get a load of abuse from you, and
you automatically assume I am claiming Ricks is right and you are wrong. I'm
not expecting you to budge an inch from your own position, because you are
clearly incapable of doing so. All I ask is that you understand and respect
the reason why I can't and won't reach conclusions under such circumstances.
Maybrick didn't write that diary - it's not in his handwriting.
Ditto Mike/Anne/Billy/Tony/Gerard.
Everything else in this whole 'fiasco' is conjecture.
Why don't you look at your own behaviour in all this, and that of the most
extreme anti-diarists? I don't believe the behaviour of all those who keep
an open mind about the diary's origins have behaved badly at all by
comparison. The abuse and ranting and raving (and your 'snickering') we've
all had to suffer undeservedly at the hands of certain anti-diarists should
be a clue. It has happened throughout history when one group of people has
to resort to abuse and ridicule of another group. It's that old fear of
minds that work on a different level. I'm happy to be in the group that gets
snickered at by the likes of you John. Don't you see? People like you HAVE
to 'see' people from the other group as 'self-interested hacks or
incompetent bunglers' who are all 'thoroughly stained' even though you know
as well as I do that we are not all like that.
Don't you realise that both groups look in the mirror and see similar faults
in each other's group members? You used to know all this, when you were the
one snickering the loudest at Melvin. If you read our book carefully you
should still be snickering along with everyone else with half a brain. But
you are now in step with Mel, so everyone who snickers at him would also
snicker at you if they had heard of you.
Ripper Diary may help the public to decide for themselves if the diary was
thrown together in 1980s Liverpool by the Barretts, or the watch scratched
by the Johnsons in 1993. It may leave them as baffled as I am. I am not
ashamed of that. Snicker away - the louder the better.
But you sure spend an awful lot of time telling anyone who will listen that
this document (and the story surrounding it, and the lessons we can learn
from it - the main reason for our book by the way, in case you didn't get
it) is 'a silly waste of time'.
The 'personality quirk' of having the last word works both ways, John. The
only way to prove it's mine and not yours is not to respond to this. Blimey,
and you think I'm stupid!
Seriously though, I suspect we both care about the fact that things started
so well between us, and that's why we keep responding to each other. I'm
still exploring how and why and when it all went so badly wrong between us.
If I didn't care I'd have stopped by now. If you don't respond to this I'll
know I care more than you do and let it go.
Love,
Caz
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1882
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 1:35 pm: |
|
For those of you who might have missed it, buried amidst all that other irrelevant stuff and the mysterious hinting at what she's not supposed to be talking about, here's the line Caroline wrote to me privately, without any qualification on her part:
"Maybrick didn't write that diary - it's not in his handwriting."
Seems clear enough, doesn't it?
Take away all the after-the-fact dancing and pathetic pleas for mystery, and the truth turns out to be pretty simple, just as I suspected it would be.
Another case closed,
--John
PS: I'm sure I won't get an answer but I guess I should ask the obvious question.
Caroline,
What "new twist" (from 2003) are you talking about? And if you can't talk about it, why are you talking about it? |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3187
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 3:28 pm: |
|
Yo
I'm telling you both now I am having the last word. thats right me!!!
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 71
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 5:07 pm: |
|
John and Caz
I saw some similarities with the handwriting in the Diary and that of James Maybrick. I think if he was schizophrenic, he could have differnt handwriting at different times. Compare some of the letters and see how he changes them as the Diary goes on. Then he goes back to the same handwriting as the beginning. I think he could very possibly be the author of that Diary.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1883
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 5:19 pm: |
|
Thanks, Eddie.
I needed that.
--John |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 72
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 5:31 pm: |
|
Your Welcome, John
p.s. All Quiet on the Maybrick Front |
maybricksghost
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 6:21 am: |
|
Caroline,
It is not my responsibility to be the caretaker of your memories. You have to explain the context of your posts, not I, and why you took Chris George to task for his supported statement.
Author: Alan Hayhurst
Monday, 04 February 2002 - 10:30 am
I'm interested in all this earnest conversation, but as a keen student not only of JTR (I was a speaker at the last JTR Conference in England three or four years ago) and also of the Maybrick case, having lived in Liverpool for 18 years, I am far from convinced that James Maybrick had anything at all to do with Jack the Ripper.
The whole thing is, to my mind, a hoax and JTR afficionados are being sidetracked into a dead end.
-
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 06:27 am
Hi Alan,
The whole thing, to everyone's mind here (except one, but including mine), is a hoax.
So I don't think you need be too worried that JtR folk are being sidetracked into a dead end.
Those discussing the Maybrick diary would just like to know who wrote it, when and why - that's all. Any sidetracking is at their own risk and from a free choice to discuss whichever aspects of the ripper case (including the mythical ones) they fancy.
No one has to join in if they don't want to. But feel free if you do.
Love,
Caz |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 4:00 am: |
|
Hi ho
Im not a big believer in "Graphology" (or any "ology" for that matter) but it seems to me to be unfair to condemn graphology as "psychic" when thousands of scientific professionals make use of the same principles every day in using Rorschach prints to diagnose mental problems and using "pictures" to determine situations regarding childrens mental health or previous experience with things they may not be able to talk about.
While the practice of the technique may be dubious in certain circumstances ("cold reading" individuals etc.), it seems to me that if we accept similar techniques in psychiatry or related disciplines we must accept that there is some underlying principle that is of some use.
And, while still not accepting the technique as evidence of anything and having not read the full reports, at least the Koren women did not come out with the usual nonsense such as "Oh he was a mother fearing homosexual becuase his "g's" had a inverted bispiral loop".
MR P. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 6:37 am: |
|
Hello
it wasnt written with a fountain pen. it was written with a nib and ink style pen
Yes indeed, and I could be mistaken, but despite the ink reservoir being different the ink delivery mechansim is the same. A split nib.
The nib on a fountain pen is surely the same principle as the nib on a "dipping" style pen. And therefore would it not respond in the same way to pressure (ie. splaying of the nib)?
I only used the word "fountain" in relation pen as a convenient way of writing "pen and ink".
Either way, the original point is valid as it regards the nib.
Mr P |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 4:19 am: |
|
Me again
Just a thought based on the idea of fountain pens.
If a fountain pen does indeed produce a wider stroke with the application of pressure (which it must be assumed would be independant of the amount of ink on th enib) and pressure corresponds in some way to the "intensity" or whatever of the writer, could the width of the text strokes be used as some kind of diagnostic so to speak?
So for example, a writer unskilled in fountainpenmanship would be expected possibly to apply more pressure while carefully writing th eletters he found difficult.
A more skilled penman may not have that trouble and would apply more pressure when writing text he was slightly emotional about.
So, just roughly thinking it through, if each word in the text was put in ranks from, say 1 to 10, 10 being a word that could be said to have been associated with high stress for the writer had he been the killer (so "whore" maybe, or "ripped" or whatever) and 1 is a no stress word (like the text in his lttle rhymes where it could be thought he was just relaxing a little), could the folloiwng be hypothesized:
That if the writer was a modern forger/not the killer the width of his strokes should not correlate with the stress rank of the word but just with the difficulty of the letter formation. This should be expected to decrease as one goes through the text assuming that the forgers penmanship improves a little as he gets used to the construction of the text.
That if the writer was the killer, the width of the strokes should correlate with the stress rank of the word and otherwise remain fairly constant.
If the writer was an old forger (you know what I mean) then there should be no variation in stroke width as he is both used to a fountain pen and is feeling no emotion as he writes the text.
Just a thought
Mr P. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 5:14 am: |
|
Hello Maybricksghost
It just might help us to keep the good discussions on an even and civil keel this time around.
I appreciate the sentiment but it usually just descends into "you said, I said, then you said" type discussions which are to some extent the bane of the Diary threads.
So a separate section should be set up in which such discourses could be accomodated. All the different "you said" conversations could have their own thread named according to whatever statement is being disputed and the date it was made and by whom so we have a handy reference.
Then again, it could be argued, that people are allowed change their mind as they read more or whatever. There is no point in hassling someone if they have changed their minds.
If they are saying something controversial however, such as someone saying old ink has chloroacetamide, then the author should be compelled to provide some back up.
Plus the concept of "even keels" dont seem to apply round here. I give one example.
Above somewhere is a statement about the old ink. This staement was then questioned and a third party intervened to explain what was meant and the converstaion finished there, as it most probably should.
But some weeks ago, Caroline Anne Morris made a statement of much less import than that of above, the phrasing and intent of which was clear to most people (it was the use of the word "they'll" I believe caused the problem but I may be wrong). Yet she was hauled over the coals about that for at least a few days despite many people jumping in to say they had understood the meaning and explaining the meaning. And that festered for about a week.
SO there are no even keels here. Or in Diary World in general.
Mr P. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1884
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 8:06 pm: |
|
Hi Lars,
You write,
"If they are saying something controversial however, such as someone saying old ink has chloroacetamide, then the author should be compelled to provide some back up."
Well, Ms. Morris has recently made the repeated claim that there was some sort of "new twist" in the alleged diary investigation sometime late in 2003 that somehow changed the case for authenticity in a way significant enough to force her to change her own writings on the subject. But she has refused to tell anyone what that "new twist" was way back then.
Seems like she should be "compelled to provide some back up" -- or at least offer a specific explanation of just what the heck she's talking about.
No?
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2322
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 7:35 am: |
|
Hi Sir Robert,
A while ago you wrote:
The Diary conveniently ends with Sir Jim telling us he's going to confess all to his wife; if that was indeed true, don't you think Flo might have mentioned this at her trial, especially after being sentenced to hang ?
I’m trying to imagine the scene - Sir Jim, delirious on his death bed, insisting to Flo that he was Jack the Ripper. “Yes dear, of course you are. Now I really don’t think you should have any more of that powder you keep asking for. It just makes you worse.” “No, really, Bunny, I am Jack. I killed those whores in that London. The nightmares are hideous. I wanted to tell you because I’m not long for this world. I did it all because of my love for you.” “You really must get some rest now, Jim. You’re hallucinating.”
I can’t see Florie believing such a confession and, if she even suspected there could be a grain of truth along with the grains of arsenic, I imagine she would have been in total denial, for her own and for her children’s sakes. The very thought of the world knowing that she could have married the world’s most infamous monster and allowed him to father her babies would have been bad enough. Infinitely worse would be the very real risk of the world rejecting her tale as the most cruel and ludicrously elaborate lie she could have told, in a desperate attempt to gain sympathy and escape the rope.
John’s curiosity bone is itching and so he asks:
What "new twist" (from 2003) are you talking about? And if you can't talk about it, why are you talking about it?
Pretty obvious really. I can’t help it if, as I inevitably acquire more information over the months and years, I reassess everything and modify my thoughts on what I previously considered possible or impossible, likely or unlikely and so on. I won’t apologise for doing so. And there’s no law that says I have to give my current views, whether they are fully-formed or more nebulous than ever before. Since when has anyone had to support a position of silence with evidence that explains that silence??
And, in fact, for the reason John is always banging on about, it would be quite wrong of me to express views, put forward arguments or make claims, directly related to information I am not yet at liberty to reveal. The only reason I have to keep reminding people that a certain investigation is ongoing is that people like John, Chris George and now maybricksghost insist on expressing or rehashing thoughts I posted years ago and, as a result, I feel obliged to point out that they don’t necessarily apply today. All that achieves is constant prodding to reveal my current position, which is not black-and-white in any case, and is inextricably bound up with an investigation I’m not at liberty to discuss here.
John keeps prodding, then kicks me when I squeak, but not loudly enough for his liking. It’s the old trick of laying out the rug for us to tread on, then pulling it from under our feet. Well my behind is made of sterner stuff and it's not me who is going to come a cropper one day.
Hi maybricksghost,
It is not my responsibility to be the caretaker of your memories. You have to explain the context of your posts, not I, and why you took Chris George to task for his supported statement.
Well, Chris talked about both of us knowing what the diary was. So it was an unsupported and insupportable statement, regardless of the responsibility you take upon yourself to scour the archives for my past observations when my information was more limited.
Hi All,
I was hoping for a response from RJ, regarding the alleged compatibility between pre-1992 Diamine and the diary ink. I’ll wait a while longer and post something on the subject in due course.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on November 15, 2005) |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 3:41 am: |
|
Hi ho JVO
Yeah....I guess I would like to know what it was as well.
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.
|
|
|
|
