|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1936
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 8:14 am: | 
|
Thanks, Jeff.
Perhaps when the time comes, you can explain to the professionals, with Jenni, exactly what you are proposing.
I hope there is no real problem with recording the process in some way for everyone to see.
Thanks, Eddie, for the thoughts.
All the best,
--John |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 326
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 10:52 am: |
|
Cheers John
I think like it or not these tests are going to create some media interest. So having some sort of plan in place how this is going to be controled is actually a sensible idea.
The press just want a story, give them what they want and it can be far less intrusive than journalists digging around for themselves.
I know MR P has often pionting out that scientists dont like this sort of thing much, but actually giving one interveiw to tape and releasing it at the right time might be less intrusive than give many interveiws.
Like it or not the press will want to know and demonstrating that this has been considered and will be handled professionally might make the undertaking of this process more atractive to those involved not less so.
Look at the hard time some scientists have been given in the past over tests.
Everyone needs to be clear exactly what is being done, how these results will be interpreted and how you plan to release that information.
Jeff |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2373
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 8:14 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
I'm sorry I misunderstood what you are proposing.
I was carried away by statements like:
Once these tests are done you will never again capture the moment.
And:
I think if people are putting up money they have a right to see exactly what went on and how it was done.
And:
I can not beleive after all your Maybrick threads words about tests needing to be done out in the open and with independant witness that noone is willing to speak out against Jennifer Peggs decission to do these tests in secret and behind closed doors.
And:
Despite the fact that she has done nothing to discuss the details of what could or couldnt be done in terms of actually filming this process.
And:
I say again if your going to do this...DO IT OUT IN THE OPEN WHERE EVERYONE CAN SEE.
And:
However I feel the principle that these tests are seen to be out in the open and that everyone can see what is taking place and why, is a good one.
Obviously the contamination issue won't arise if you mean that all but the actual ink testing could be filmed for the telling of your story, including the odd mock-up and reconstruction.
But then the whole 'let's have it all out in the open' principle, to show everyone that the testing itself - and crucially the findings - are entirely above board and kosher, falls a bit wide of the mark somehow.
And as Don said, anyone who doesn't trust in Jenni or the chosen professionals to deliver the goods fairly and competently, without a cameraman recording the entire process, doesn't have to contribute.
But it would be a crying shame if this put anyone off filling in their cheque details, when anything they can learn about the diary is better than learning nothing at all, and at least the decade old chloroacetamide/Diamine issue could be resolved at long last.
I wish you luck with this Jeff, but have you not noticed that interest in the diary threads of the best internet site that exists on the ripper is confined to about half a dozen people, who can rarely agree what day of the week it is? 
Love,
Caz
X
PS Unfortunately, I had a Hitler in Saturday night's lottery - only got one ball. I'm hoping for a few more tomorrow. 
(Message edited by caz on November 29, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1937
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 10:31 am: |
|
Caroline cites a bunch of Jeff's words and also writes:
"And as Don said, anyone who doesn't trust in Jenni or the chosen professionals to deliver the goods fairly and competently, without a cameraman recording the entire process, doesn't have to contribute."
As someone with whom I often disagreed once wisely said:
"Trust. But verify."
And yes, I know that this process, unlike the other secret kids' clubs investigations of the past and present, will take place without whispers and hints and rumors and non-disclosure agreements and all the rest of that nonsense. And all the related events and exchanges will be made public as soon as they happen and the results will be made immediately available to everyone for free without anyone else getting to review them privately first or publish them and charge people to see them. That, at least, will indeed be something refreshing here in Diary World, no matter what we learn.
And we still have no real way of knowing whether a lab would have any problem at all with filming the tests themselves, of course.
But at least we know that how they respond to such a proposal will be immediately and accurately reported in its entirety.
Also, I trust that at some point, in any case, the scientists will be given the opportunity at least to examine the book and determine what they think is possible, as Scott has suggested. Perhaps the list of contributors would grow a bit longer once a lab's specific recommendations and proposals were received and made public and people knew exactly what their money might accomplish.
That would indeed be something.
--John |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 328
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 10:32 am: |
|
So what would you suggest Caz..we leave the camera running 24/7 and hope the public will be interested in watching several weeks of footage?
Perhaps if thats what your suggesting you'd be better off creating a website and leaving the whole thing on web cam.
Yes the Maybrick thread is probably half a dozen people. But there is a much wider oridience interested in the Ripper story.
Like it or not Maybrick has been one of the top suspects since this diary came into existance.
Many people have watched the TV programmes claiming he was the Rippper even more have bought books on the subject.
I dont beleive that there is only a handful of people interested in the truth about the diary just because they dont choose to log in evrey day. I know lots of people interested in the story who have never logged on to Casebook.
My proposel was to cover what matters and what could be explained. Looking at what tests were discided apon and why? and what you hope those tests might prove.
Also to fill in some of the back story for people who want to know more about why these tests have been so problematic in being undertaken.
Giving people a chance to understand the problems that have been associated with authenticating this document is not only valid but also has something to say about wider issues and other similar documents.
These test are a peice of history in the making, and there are many who will be interested in the end out come.
You seem to be creating problems for filming this process where none need exist.
Jeff |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 329
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 10:42 am: |
|
PS given the problems with poeple that have done these tests in the past, I think that it is important that anybody who does these tests is willing to stand by their results and go on record that they stand by those results.
You only have to look at the Casement Black Diaries to realize that know matter what evidence is presented others will still try and debunk results and findings.
Jeff |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 330
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 10:48 am: |
|
PS PS and what you and Jenni have failed to explain, which is all I have asked for, is exactly What problem will be caused by a camera documenting this process? and in what way you feel this will be complicated?
Jeff |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1938
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 11:13 am: |
|
Jeff,
Rest assured that neither Caroline nor anyone else here knows whether the filming of the tests will pose any problem for the lab whatsoever.
So you can pretty much ignore everyone's thoughts on that subject until we hear from the scientists and they respond to your specific proposal.
Until then, this is all just talk for talk's sake by people who don't know anything.
You see, that's what we do around here. 
--John |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 3:41 am: |
|
Hello Jeff
The problem is, and especially in a case such as this, that if formal language of a scientific nature is not used, the results are open to the "tiny traces" syndrome where the language used to describe to such things to people not familiar with th emore formal, leaves the whole thing open to often inane discussion.
If the formal language is used, there is less room for weird interpretation but the general public do not understand.
So a sicentist cannot win once a camera is produced. If he uses the formal language which is more correct, he is accused of being incomprehensible. IF he uses the more understandable language, his/her results are open to lunatic interpretation.
So unless one is David Attenborough or some other zoologist or anthropologist where it just doesnt matter, analytical scientists rarely relish the thought of a camera.And why should they given the way they tend to get treated by the mass media.
Mr P. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 8:05 am: |
|
Just out of interest....
How does video footage show anything about a chemical procedure?
"I take this bottle of clear liquid and inject some into this rubber thing and out of the other end of my big black box I get this wavy line on a screen"
Im just a little confused as to the benefits of video in this case if it only serves to antagonise
the chemist.
A good or bad procedure will be evident from a typical lab report if it is properly written up.
Mr P. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 5:01 am: |
|
Howdy
Regearding filming:
I dont think a lab not allowing a camera in is a question of them not being willing to put what they do on the record.
Its been my experience (and this is no slight on Jeff or his work) that once the popular media get involved things can go to hell.
The proper record is a well documented report following the usual scientific conventions and that allows reproduction of the work in the usual scientific way.
Mr P |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 136
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 11:48 am: |
|
Mr P
I understand your point. I didn't think of how long the process will take. Some tests might even take hours.
But if Jeff can't take the video of the testing, I suggest he should video the arguments after the decision on the ink is made. Instead of donating money, I 'll send a few pair of boxing gloves over there.
yours Truly,
Eddie |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1940
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 12:12 pm: |
|
Lars,
Surely the language problem you describe arises whether or not there is any camera anywhere. So that's not really relevant to the discussion.
Secondly, I'm not sure whether Jeff can fairly be called "the popular media." I mean, it's not like anyone is suggesting sending in the networks.
And finally, no chemist has said he or she'd be "antagonised" by anything yet, so surely this is all extremely premature.
Let Jeff make his case to those involved and we can all observe the response for ourselves. After all, where's the harm in asking?
Right?
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2376
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 12:43 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
So what would you suggest Caz..we leave the camera running 24/7 and hope the public will be interested in watching several weeks of footage?
I wasn't suggesting anything - nor was I trying to create problems. I was merely asking for clarification of your filming proposal and its aims. It was actually John who responded to your idea with:
I think the idea of recording the entire process from start to finish for public presentation is an excellent one.
So he seems to have got the impression from you that the camera should miss nothing.
PS PS and what you and Jenni have failed to explain, which is all I have asked for, is exactly What problem will be caused by a camera documenting this process? and in what way you feel this will be complicated?
Once again, I am not involved in the testing process. And I said nothing about a camera making things complicated.
When you find a tv company willing to commit to such a project (have you approached any yet?), it would then be Jenni's decision whether to ask the testing organisations if they have any objections to filming any part of the process.
Let's wait and see how much money Jenni is pledged first. If it's more than an old penny and a couple of shirt buttons, she may be able to start negotiating with an expert or two, at least regarding the Diamine issue.
We wouldn't need to worry about anything further if a hoaxer did indeed use Diamine, as has been proposed by many a modern hoax believer since the AFI test eleven years ago. (But the more John insists that thorough and complete diary testing, beyond just testing for any one thing, should be undertaken, the clearer it becomes that he is not one of the 'Diary written in Diamine' believers. No one would call for Jenni to waste her time, and others to waste their money, commissioning further testing yet, if there was a reasonable chance that one quick and affordable procedure would prove it modern and - in John's words - get this thing settled once and for all so that we don't have to hear about it any further.)
And finally let's wait for the experts to tell Jenni precisely what they would need from her in order to make a formal testing proposal - whether it be money, documentation ie the previous scientific reports, or sight of the diary itself.
Love,
Caz
X
PS My brother is in the process of selling our late father's stamp collection, which he began when he was 14, in 1929. Jenni, my contribution has just doubled. I've emailed you. |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 331
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 12:53 pm: |
|
Hi Mr Poster
Glad for your input. And pretty much guessed that you'd be worried about protecting the chemist. And to some extent I'd agree that trying to explain the finer details of what he is doing and what various graphs and liquid bottles mean is nie on impossible. Besides it would just make bl**dy boring television.
I wont pertend to know how the practicalities of your job works, any more than I'd be able to explain how to do Top notch Historical research or how to write a book on the subject.
I tell stories and I aim those stories, on the whole, to explain to people in a simple way what is going on and why various things happen and what they mean.
You dont have to be a nuclear physist to make a programme about Light you need to be a good TV director.
I dont need detail, I just need enough shots to cover the story. Most of the explination would be done with 'Vioce of God' and interveiws. But I need basics like the sceintist looking at the diary, scientist examining a computer screen, pipets and what ever else you guy's use, to explain the story.
Once this diary is tested it will be almost impossible to recreate those shots. Its a peice of history. I need to show where this happened, shot exterior of the building, who was involved, shot of scientist, what they were doing, shot of man twisting button on mechine that goes beep, etc etc. Making a programme is a language of its own.
Its not going to give the detail but if its a good programme it should hold your attension and get you interested in whats going on...then go and read a book.
However asking someone to make a television programme about 'new tests on the Maybrick Diary with out at least getting some shots of someone actually testing the diary wiould be impossible.
It reminds me of an early 'Goodies' episode where Mary Whithouse asked the 'Goodies' to produce a sex education video without mentioning sex. It was bound to end in tears.
Contrary to what Mr Souden may beleive not everybody in television spends all there time with Simon Cowl drinking it up at String Fellows.
All I have ever proposed is making an interesting, factual hsitory programme about the testing of the diary, explaining why the Diary has been so controvercial and why it has been so problamatic proving or disproving its authenticity.
I beleive that can be done in an interesting, knowledgable way that a wider audience will be interested in watching. I'm not proposing that the camera is there to act as some kind of policeman to check people dont cheat. And I'm not proposing that its there to get in anybodies way to stop them doing their job or risk contaminating any processess.
I just need enough cut aways and talking heads to make a factual history programme about the Maybrick Diary tests.
Obviously it is the results and findings that would be the trust of such a programme but you cant make a programme without 'footage' of what happened, its simply not like wrting a news paper story or book.
Perhaps the Gloves are a good idea Eddie...Jeff |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1941
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 1:18 pm: |
|
Another bit of amateur logic that falls perilously close to hilarity comes from Caroline Morris (who at some point should at least read Copi for beginners):
"(But the more John insists that thorough and complete diary testing, beyond just testing for any one thing, should be undertaken, the clearer it becomes that he is not one of the 'Diary written in Diamine' believers."
Nonsense.
And completely illogical as an argument.
To argue that complete and thorough testing of this book should take place (and should have taken place long ago) in no way says anything about whether the diary was or was not written with Diamine or any other ink. I don't know whether it was or not. I would have no way of knowing. But in any case, complete and thorough testing of this diary should of course take place. Period. It's that simple. It's been that simple for over a decade now. And I've said that for many many years now. Perhaps this thing was written with Diamine and perhaps it wasn't, but that in no way affects this consistent and long standing position of mine -- thorough and complete testing of this book should take place.
Caroline wants to make some sort of point here about something, but because her arguments consistently ignore the written record and what I've posted here for years and because they ignore the simple rules of valid conclusions logically following from relevant and established premises, it's not only difficult to tell what that point might be, it's also unnecessary, since the argument is demonstrably nonsensical.
Also, if it is possible that some folks would be willing to donate funds after they see what the lab has said can be done and offered a complete proposal, then surely that's what should happen.
Or does that make too much sense?
Jeff, remember, there's no point listening to anyone about filming until the relevant people have been approached and responded. Feel free to ignore all of this and prepare your proposal for when the time comes.
Meanwhile, the silly chatter here among people who know practically nothing will no doubt continue.
And I include myself in that group, of course.
--John |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 332
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 5:33 pm: |
|
Caz
Yes you only have to follow my threads to see that I have over the past three years made a number of pitches in various forms and at all times done my best for you all to raise money to do these tests.
And as you so rightly piont out one of the main problems with commisioning editors is that they wish to know what story they are getting, how much it will cost ,and when it will be dellivered?
And as you all realize, there are no guarantees I can give, as to how much, what the results will be and when they'll have the answers...why do you think its such a difficult story to sell?
However if you are going ahead with tests then the hard work I have put in is all for nothing.
Which is why I have offered to film, what I can ,when I can, for nothing. I can supply you all with a DVD of what I shoot.
But without knowing the out come of the results its very difficult for me to know, what the programme I'm going to make, will actually be about.......So how would you all have me pitch it....I've already had two no's from BBC.
Making a TV programme is very differant from writing a book Caz....THere are shots that can never be recreated...the look on the chemists face when he first opens and examin's the Album. I havent got Dustin Hofman on the books to do this sort of re-con, its got to be for real when it happens.
My offer was clear: I'll film what I can and do the best job for you all, anyone could do. I'll supply you with a DVD for your own consumption. But I can not possibly give any guarantees beyond that because filming this programme could potencially take years as we do not yet know what the tests will say.
Please go back and read my posts.
I dont think John ever really suggested that I film the thing adverbatom and as I explained this would be impossible anyway. If you want this use webcams.
Of course I'm in total agreement with John about tests and have been for some time.
But its important for you all to be clear about what you propose and what you hope these tests will tell you. So in a way I've always found MR P's posts of most interest.
My offer to you all still stands, as does my offer of financial assistance...whether you choose to help me or not...My main interest is still the truth.
I have another meeting tomorrow...I made 19 pitches (for various programmes) last week and I'm praying one comes off or I will have to cancil Xmas.
Perhaps Eddie is right, wheres the boxing gloves...my shoe will have to do..*&^yhvcbfl;iv Ahhh!! hhjvdafjf7f ...Ahh! 288573463yf*** Ahh!
There I feel better now...Good Night.
Jeff x |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2377
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 3:51 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
However if you are going ahead with tests then the hard work I have put in is all for nothing.
This is just one bit of your post that I didn't really understand.
I am going ahead with nothing; Jenni is, if she is pledged enough cash to get the latest testing proposal off the ground.
Your filming proposals (and John did say it was an excellent idea of yours to record the entire process from start to finish, even if that's not what you meant, and not what he meant) are for you to discuss with Jenni, who has accepted the ghastly role of administrator, and has to put up with us all arguing about every little nuance.
I am confused now over whether your filming is all about having the testing out in the open, or about making an 'interesting' future documentary, that may or may not appeal to a tv company, depending on the results. (If the results show: modern, there's no story, because The Sunday Times was there, did that and got the t shirt in 1993. If the results show: consistent with 1888, there's still no story - is there?)
But my confusion is not the issue. The issue, for me, is allowing Jenni to get tests organised, with as few restrictions as possible.
John wrote:
Also, if it is possible that some folks would be willing to donate funds after they see what the lab has said can be done and offered a complete proposal, then surely that's what should happen.
I can't see the problem with indicating how much one is prepared to cough up in the event that an agreeable proposal is offered. It's only fair on Jenni that she knows if it is even worth doing the initial slog of contacting the professionals and entering into discussion with them.
Jeff, remember, there's no point listening to anyone about filming until the relevant people have been approached and responded.
I agree for once. The relevant person is Jenni. When she has got her experts on board, she will decide whether she can afford to whisper the f word to them. If the idea of filming doesn't bother them, she can then liaise with you - if that's what she wants at the time.
And it's all very simple. If there is money in the pot to pay for more than the Diamine test proposed by Robert, more tests can go ahead if the ink isn't Diamine.
If it is Diamine, why on earth would anyone need to know any more?
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1942
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 6:45 am: |
|
I wrote:
"Jeff, remember, there's no point listening to anyone about filming until the relevant people have been approached and responded."
Caroline replied:
"I agree for once."
And yet on she goes "arguing about every little nuance." One can only wonder why she doesn't just let Jeff be, let him prepare his proposal for Jenni and the scientists, and see what they say.
And it's nice that she can't see the problem with people promising funds before there is any word on what the lab can do. But who cares what she does or doesn't see a problem with? If some people here feel (as they have already said) that they would only be willing to pledge money after they see a professional proposal, then surely a proposal should be shown them if we are interested in having them pledge funds. And we are, aren't we?
I realize simple common sense is a scarce commodity in these discussions, but surely it should show up sometime.
Let the lab tell us what it can do and perhaps we'll have more interested parties here.
And, consequently, we'll have more money to do thorough testing on this book. Finally.
Surely that's what everyone wants.
Isn't it?
--John
PS: Since Jeff has already pledged that his filming would be at no cost to us, surely the question of whether Jenni can afford to ask the professionals about it is moot. Asking is free, right? |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 333
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 8:43 am: |
|
Caz
Can we just get this clear.
I made an offer of financial assistance and an offer to help with my expertise with a camera.
This original offer was refused with the reason : A film crew (which was never suggested, I ony offered myself) would be to complicated and a... Sorry.
Which I took as a diffinate NO.
If the possition is infact; that you would like my help but are unable say at present what the position will be, until it is discussed with various parties in more detail.
Then that I would take as a: 'possibly.'
Which is a very differant position.
There are a number of ways that a camera could be useful...especially a HDV which would also give you high rez images that could also be used as photos and jpegs.
Whether you can give me only very limited, limited, good or very good access will depend on what sort of information could be recorded and how that information might be useful.
My personal interest is having images that could possibly be used in an eventual TV programme which may or may not happen.
I have a number of other projects which I have filmed and hope one day may be useful...miss the event and its simply gone for ever.
And I have made it clear that as I will be filming off my own back, with my own film I am 100% happy making this material available to anybody that wishes it...as the images will not belong to someone else. I am more than happy to make these rushes available to you , John, Jenni or Mr P or anybody on casebook that wishes them. Unless you feel some sort of restriction needs to be placed on them, which your obviously within your right to make, as is the owner of the filming location should they choose to make them.
What could or could not be offered depends on what access is available and what you require.
When I said 'be seen to be in the open' my thoughts was really as a PR exercise, not some slight on anybodies integrity. As it is obvious this is a very sensitive subject with many people.
All I wish clarifying is , IS the answer NO or is it 'Possibly' depending on how the tests develop.
If the answer is 'possibly' I can give you more potencial ideas of what might be done.
Is there a spirit of potential cooperation here or not?
If there is then I am more than happy to do everything in my power to help.
Yours Jeff |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1943
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 8:52 am: |
|
Jeff,
Neither Caroline nor I nor anyone else here can say "No" to you.
I'm sure Jennifer will consult with the lab when the time comes about your idea and their feelings about filming. I'm also sure that she'll tell us all exactly what their response is, in its entirety. And we can go from there.
So, logically speaking, the answer can only be "possibly" until that happens.
And it doesn't matter what anyone here says.
Hope that helps. Some of us do really appreciate your interest and your generous offers.
Thanks,
--John |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 334
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 9:34 am: |
|
Cheers John
It would be nice to know that Jenni is happy with this position. I must apologuise if some of my posts have appeared a little edgy over the last couple of days, I have a number of other projects on the go and they all seem to have hit a brick wall at the moment which is becoming very frustrating...(although I think I have permission to film a dive on the Girona in Irland this morning, which is rather exciting)
Sometimes you just get to the piont where you think you should give up and get a proper job. Perhaps its all those ominious christmas adverts on the radio.
Anyway I'd better get on, but many thanks. For what its worth I'm really pleased your all finally getting something together on this project. I've been scoating some other sites this week researching a story about the Nazi Atomic bomb. Compared with some of those posts on those sites your all 'lovies' honest.
back to the grain. Jeff |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2384
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 1:24 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
If you had a definite 'no' in private from Jenni, it's Jenni you need to persuade to change her 'no' into a 'possibly'. I have no say in what happens or what doesn't happen.
I'm simply telling you how it is: if Jenni commissions new testing and gets good vibes from the testing organisation, she may feel positive enough at that stage to ask them what their feelings are about being filmed.
John thought I meant 'afford' as in money; I didn't. I meant that Jenni would have to gauge whether asking about filming might just put the testing organisation off totally.
Filmed tests would be great.
Unfilmed tests would be almost as great.
No tests at all, in the event that the f word goes down like a lead balloon, would be tragic.
It's a call Jenni will have to make when the time comes.
When I said 'be seen to be in the open' my thoughts was really as a PR exercise...
And I thought your public 'outrage' at Jenni's private decision was moral outrage because you believed the testing should be - to use John's words again - 'above board'.
I must say I don't get the impression from John that he would be satisfied with anything smacking of a PR exercise - quite the contrary.
For what its worth I'm really pleased your all finally getting something together on this project.
Good, and so am I. John and I have at least this one thing in common - we badly want this latest testing proposal to lead to results from which we can all learn something - anything - about the diary that we don't know already.
But we can hardly expect Jenni to start contacting testing organisations and asking for proposals and prices if she doesn't know if she has sufficient pledged funds to cover the cost of the proposals themselves, never mind 'thorough and complete' testing - which is likely to test the most generous of intentions.
John is still pretending he hasn't read, or doesn't understand, this part of Robert's original post on the subject:
Obviously no money needs to be paid over, until there is a proposal outlining the tests and the costs, which is acceptable to the donors.
So no one is going to force open anyone's cobwebby wallet, in the event that no proposal is acceptable to the wallet owner.
I'm sure everyone offering to donate, however, would be more than happy if Jenni can afford (moneywise this time) to ask the scientists to tackle the basic Diamine issue. Solving that one, for starters, would allow us all to move on - either to pastures new, far away from Dead Diary World, or on to more tests, as Robert suggested, depending on what can be afforded.
No harm in trying - and either possibility would be progress. And I can see no real reason not to get done whatever else is possible within Jenni's budget - if more needs doing once the Diamine issue has been resolved.
Does anyone disagree with that? And if so, why?
Love,
Caz
X |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 335
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 4:25 pm: |
|
Caz just chill
If I were John and putting up some money I'd be interested in who and where these tests were being made by...as I would suspect would Mr P (if your honest Mr P).
And it seems that you also agree that ideally it would be good to get some record of events if it were possible, which I think everyone would agree on, if it were possible.
I've said several times now a camera can not be a policeman, I dont think John has ever suggested this...
And I am certainly not on anybodies side, I have deffended you on numerous occations if you choose to look back at my posts.
I was up set by Jenni's reply..yes...I have since appologuised if my posts have been a little tetchy...and I appoloiguise again.
I would like if possible to film, if possible, and I'm willing to pay out of my own pocket and make that material available to casebook people. I beleive there could be other advantages and uses for that footage.
Like you I'm waiting on a lotary...hopefully it will come in soon...if it does I will make an offer with no strings attached...
It would be nice to here Jenni's veiws on this...and yes I am aware of the work she did on the uncle Jack story and I have every respect for her ability to do this project correctly...
I still would like to document it....
Like it or not 'Cobwebby wallets' are a fact of life....
And yes we all wish to move on so we all agree...
group hug..Jeff |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1945
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 5:59 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
You have to wonder, why did Caroline feel the need to continue this discussion anyway?
Why did we need any more than this: "I'm sure Jennifer will consult with the lab when the time comes about your idea and their feelings about filming. I'm also sure that she'll tell us all exactly what their response is, in its entirety. And we can go from there."
That, after all, is all we can say at the moment.
So I have to ask -- why can't Caroline bring herself to simply leave you alone to make your proposal to Jenni and the scientists and then see what happens?
Why this endless prattling and uninformed speculation on her part about what they might say or whether they might somehow be offended or such when she has no part in the process or the decision and clearly doesn't know what she's talking about in any case?
Is it just to pester you into admitting something (though I can't imagine what)?
Is it just to somehow get a last word in despite that last word telling us nothing at all?
Is it just because she wants to keep you responding for some reason, even though nothing she says matters or is in any way informed?
Why can't she just let you be and let you propose what you want to to Jenni and the scientists and wait to hear what they say?
Why is that proving so difficult for her, I wonder?
And once again, she goes on about Robert's original post, which I understood completely -- that's why I sent Jennifer my pledge some time ago. After the fact, I was talking about those (like Scott, for instance) who said they'd be willing to pledge funds after they've seen a careful and comprehensive proposal from the professionals. If producing such a proposal and posting it here might help us raise even more funds (and apparently it would), then surely, that's what we should do, since we need all the money we can get and we will never know how much we might get until such a proposal is produced.
It really does make rather simple sense.
But I'm sure I'll get an argument anyway. Apparently, it's what keeps her alive.
Waiting for the inevitable response,
--John |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 879
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 7:18 pm: |
|
Jeff,
I don't think I am telling any tales out of school to say that Jenni is busily in the throes of the final week of the first term of her master's degree studies. As such, I would think she has more important things on her mind than the Maybrick Diary or your impatience for an answer.
As it is, and as people have counselled you now for a week, there can be no answer to your request until the money is raised, a laboratory is decided upon and other details attended to.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1946
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 8:00 pm: |
|
I must say, I got the impression from Jeff's last post to me -- found here: http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=150807#POST150807 -- that he understood this and was willing to wait and see what happened.
In fact, he wrote no more after that (nor did I), until Caroline returned with yet another post bringing it all up again for no apparent purpose, since nothing she wrote told us anything new or in any way changed the situation or contributed to the previous discussion.
Before she reappeared, Jeff had agreed to wait until the proper time and then make his proposals to Jenni.
After she came and wrote more unnecessary stuff to him concerning something she knew nothing about, he naturally responded to her. But nothing really changed. He was still waiting until the proper time to make his proposals to Jenni.
And that's sort of the way the discussions go around here, isn't it?
If you go to the top of this screen, you'll see that everything that needed to be said about filming at this point (before Jenni has actually talked to anyone about anything yet), was said by Monday, November 28, 2005 at 8:14 am. Since then, this has been a study in irrelevant written nonsense tossed about amidst the collective boredom of waiting.
And that's what makes Diary World so special.
--John |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 336
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 6:15 am: |
|
John Hits nail on head...end of story.
"Dog barks, wind blows, caravan moves on."
Jeff |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 138
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 8:13 am: |
|
Hi John, Jeff, Caz, Jenni
I just thought of something. If there are more books or documentaries planned for the Diary, wouldn't there be certain film producers who have the copyright or contract to do any filming about it ?
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2386
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 9:05 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
Assuming you are happy for me to respond to posts you have actually addressed to me (I don't care what Mr Nosy thinks), I have simply been trying to clarify the situation for you, since you seemed a little unsure about certain aspects.
Again, here:
If I were John and putting up some money I'd be interested in who and where these tests were being made by...as I would suspect would Mr P (if your honest Mr P).
I agree entirely and never suggested otherwise. Just because my contribution is unconditional, because I happen to believe anything we can learn is better than nothing, I don't expect others to share that view. And neither does Robert expect it.
Just to make this even clearer than I did before, no one pledging money within the two weeks from Robert's message has to part with a penny piece if they are not entirely happy with whatever proposal Jenni succeeds in eliciting.
I do wish you luck with your own proposal to Jenni, and I wish Jenni luck too, of course, in her master's degree studies (which must take priority), but also in getting a healthy starting figure that she can at least take to the table.
If the professionals start talking ££££s and, quite reasonably, ask Jenni what her budget can stretch to so they can tailor their proposal accordingly, a "dunno yet" is none too helpful.
But at least no one is disagreeing with the basic starting point of trying to resolve the Diamine issue. And Jenni may be able to ascertain in advance how much this would cost and tell us how much more will need to be raised in order to commission it.
One of my daughter's friends is the son of the man (God help him) who set the words of The Lord's Prayer to the tune of Auld Lang Syne and gave it to Sir Cliff for Christmas.
So Carly and I have come up with a sure-fire way of hitting this year's festive top spot and earning more than enough filthy lucre to fund 'thorough and complete' testing.
We are giving Sir Cliff the words of Psalm 23 set to the tune of The Birdie Song.
It's a winner - just try it. 
Love,
Caz
X |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2387
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 9:10 am: |
|
Hi Eddie,
Certainly, anyone planning a new diary book or documentary would have to check out the copyright situation.
Love,
Caz
X |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 5:24 pm: |
|
HHey ho
writing from a hotel @internet tv@ so not sure if this works....
Jeff, Ive only glanced at your post as this is costing me a kidney. But the gist I got is that the camera only needs to be in the lab to take some @stock@@ footage. And I AGree. IF The footage and accompanying stuff is forr explanation purposses thats OK. IMM ALL FOR inforrming people. But I dont think the presence of a camera will ensuure a good job with respect to wwhat chemistry is being done.
INN fairness, JVO is right. Wait and see what the guys approached to doo the work say.
And I doo wwish you rthe best as I think guys in white coats shouldd bee "sexed up" as much as possible.
I have to go. THis keyboard is doing my head in.
Mr P |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 5:19 pm: |
|
HHey ho
writing from a hotel @internet tv@ so not sure if this works....
Jeff, Ive only glanced at your post as this is costing me a kidney. But the gist I got is that the camera only needs to be in the lab to take some @stock@@ footage. And I AGree. IF The footage and accompanying stuff is forr explanation purposses thats OK. IMM ALL FOR inforrming people. But I dont think the presence of a camera will ensuure a good job with respect to wwhat chemistry is being done.
INN fairness, JVO is right. Wait and see what the guys approached to doo the work say.
And I doo wwish you rthe best as I think guys in white coats shouldd bee "sexed up" as much as possible.
I have to go. THis keyboard is doing my head in.
Mr P |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1947
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 10:01 am: |
|
And on we go...
It was good try on our part, Jeff.
But we knew it was doomed to failure, didn't we?
Eddie,
I don't know if there are such people. But if there are, I say screw 'em. I say we post whatever we want here, in full, so that no one has to pay anything to see all the documentation, all the results, all of what happened, etc. Make it all available to everyone instantly and then let 'em try to sell whatever subsequent commercial nonsense they want. Maybe this would even discourage them. Lord knows no one truly needs yet another silly book or movie based on this cheap fake -- and no one should make another dime off it either.
But that's just my opinion,
--John
PS: Why is there some goofy two weeks deadline for pledges anyway? Surely, if Jenni doesn't have enough money pledged in two weeks to at least approach a lab about producing an initial proposal (which might attract even more money), then the deadline should be extended and we should try to raise more money and keep trying until we get enough. Why should the process be artificially closed at the end of two weeks? |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2389
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 1:27 pm: |
|
Hi All,
Robert's exact words were:
Even if you feel that there are better tests, which could be done, please do, in any case, contact Jenni within the next two weeks, to tell her what sum you believe you can spare, so that she can at least estimate the budget available for these tests or for alternatives.
I take this simply as Robert's way of getting the ball rolling. It would have been no good Jenni approaching a testing organisation if the interest shown in contributing towards further testing had been insufficient for a small shopping trip to the Pound Shop.
If, at the end of two weeks, John's early optimism concerning the number and size of the donations, and what they could fund, is realised, we will all be cheering Jenni on.
But what is Jenni meant to do with, say, three or four pledges by the end of the fortnight and John's assurances that a proposal might attract more money? Does he seriously think that there are many would-be contributors, watching and waiting in silence for Jenni to bring them a 'thorough and complete' testing proposal, at which point they will suddenly show their hand and sign enough fat cheques to cover the work?
And if these people exist, what's stopping them telling Jenni right here and now the maximum they would be prepared to pay, if they were to be shown a testing proposal that they were entirely happy with?
Jenni will do what she can with whatever she's got, when she's got it. I hope that, by the end of the fortnight, she will at least be in a position to ask for an initial proposal concerning the Diamine issue.
If a test is available and within budget, terrific. And I assume John will be up for it too. If it's beyond the budget, Jenni would need more pledges at that stage in order to proceed.
This is really simple. If enough people have enough desire today to learn more about the diary ink, and to contribute the necessary funds to do so, the testing - and the learning - process will continue.
If they don't have that desire today, we'll just have to wait until the day they do.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1948
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 4:33 pm: |
|
Yes, I know what Robert wrote.
That's why I asked the question.
(I guess I sometimes make the mistake that there is no such thing around here as "too obvious.")
Unfortunately, Caroline hasn't answered it.
Why only two weeks?
Why such an arbitrary time period (and why such a surprisingly short one for Diary World, where time moves in years more often than not -- look at the apparently endless super secret squirrel investigation for instance)?
Why, if even a proposal is "beyond the budget" at the end of two weeks, shouldn't we keep trying to get pledges and raise money?
And, of course, I have no way of knowing how much more money might be raised after we present a clear and comprehensive proposal from the experts.
But I'd like to find out.
Who wouldn't?
So then, for the record, there would be no excuse for ending the discussion or the process after two weeks if we haven't raised enough money yet -- we should keep trying. Right?
And since we're going on the record here, there is also no excuse for not showing the experts anything they might want to see, including old reports, data, or the book itself, if they ask for it prior to and in order to properly prepare such a proposal. Right?
And, if a proposal is prepared, there is no excuse for concluding that there is not enough money for tests before we see how much total money we might collect before and after that proposal is made available to everyone. Right?
We can guess all we want about what might or might not happen, but we should also do all we can to actually find out what's out there. Without making excuses.
I trust we will.
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2391
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 5:05 am: |
|
I think John is finally getting it!
I wrote in a previous post that the experts will obviously tell Jenni exactly what they need, in terms of funds, previous reports or sight of the diary itself, in order to produce a written proposal.
And finally John catches up with me and says:
...there is also no excuse for not showing the experts anything they might want to see, including old reports, data, or the book itself, if they ask for it prior to and in order to properly prepare such a proposal. Right?
Right - so what's his problem now?
And just yesterday, I wrote that if a test is available but beyond Jenni's budget, she would need more pledges at that stage in order to proceed.
So John's next question is equally odd:
And, if a proposal is prepared, there is no excuse for concluding that there is not enough money for tests before we see how much total money we might collect before and after that proposal is made available to everyone. Right?
Again, right - does John seriously think that Jenni would sit there and say to herself, "Well, I didn't get enough money within the two weeks, so that's it then". No, I trust her to take into account any money pledged after the fortnight and up until such a proposal is produced, and then to come back here and - shock, gasp, surely not - ask for more.
If we'd been given six months to contact Jenni and express our initial willingness to help fund new tests, John would now be sneering at the long delay! We have to start somewhere.
Anyone would think that John, of all people, would be feeling extremely pleased, positive and excited at the prospect of further tests, with Jenni at the helm this time and making all the administrative decisions. He's been screaming for something like this to happen for as long as his readers can remember.
And yet the tone of his posting just lately suggests he is seriously pissed off about something.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1949
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 7:03 am: |
|
Nope, not pissed off at all.
In fact, "pleased, positive and excited."
And very glad that the answer to all my questions is "Right."
I do know what I'm doing here.
Honest.
--John |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 337
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 7:27 am: |
|
Hi Eddie
The simple answer to your question is NO.
Obviously if someone is producing a film based on the contents within the diary and they have bought the copyright to develop a story based on that (usually purchased from the book owner for a specified period of time, this can vary alot, look at Lord of the Rings) Then they will have the right to stop another company producing that story.
But a documentary is not covered by that because the story will be unique to its writer even if it is about the Diary.
There are copyright issues that will need to be observed in a documentary. Although some of these areas are grey...especially if the producer was claiming the 'public have a right to know' in the public interest is balanced with personal privacy laws. And is always subjeect to Liable and Slander laws.
If you are reproducing areas of the diary deemed readable by the veiwer, you would also have to pay a licence fee to the Diary holder...although this again can be a grey deffinision. I recently filmed the 'Monteagal letter' at the public record office and we only required a general licence not a 'Reproduction licence' which is considerably cheaper.
You as a rule require two peices of concent everytime you film. Permission from the contributer and Permission from the location owner. You can film in public areas but if you place a tripod on the ground you also require permission and public liability insurance.
But basically noone can stop anybody producing a documentary as long as that idea is unique to them, which if five people make a doc about the Diary each will be.
I'm afraid I'm a little rusty on the details of various laws reguarding copyright but I can find more specific details (which production managers are usually up on) if people would like to know more.
Hope this clarifies your main piont.
Yours Jeff |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 338
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 12:09 pm: |
|
Hello Jenni and Maybrick world
Last year I worked on a story about Brian Jones (ex-Rolling Stone) with a chap called Trevor Hobley. He has been working with a phorensic company for sometime on the case and I gather with some success (although I can not give details on this case at present)
However he has made a number of contacts at the lab he is dealing with that may be of interest to you all. I gather the lab is a private company but they do work for all sorts of professional agencies including the police.
If you still have not finalized which lab you intend to use he is happy to help you out and put you in contact with this laboritory to see if they can help with the questions you need answering.
I'm offering to put you in contact with him to see if anybody at this laboritory can help with these tests. I gather that he is very happy with the work they have done for him.
Anyway if you would like to find out more let me know and I will put you in touch with him. Sometime recommendations are a good way forward and I can vouch for Trevor Hobley.
Anyway thought I'd get the ball rolling.
Yours Jeff |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 139
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 1:09 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff
Thanks for explaining that to me. I wasn't sure how that stuff works. Here's hoping you get that chance at the documentary.
Yours Truly,
Eddie
p.s. First time I saw the Stones was after Brian died. Mick Taylor was his replacement. |
AAD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 5:55 am: |
|
There should be no wonder at anyone being p----d off with this thread and the nonsense found here. And all over a modern hoax. |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 339
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 5:33 pm: |
|
AAD
Very constuctive. Do you have anything vaguely intelligent to add?
Can you prove your claims? we think not...
IS it a hoax? probably the best lager in the world..
Jeff |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 340
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 6:03 pm: |
|
Eddie like you I was bought up on Satisfaction,
But if the recent film is to be beleived the builder who done it must have confessed, did he?. But there are big wholes in the story, and a recent channel 4 documentary made some big miss takes, someone was NOT at the recording studio that night.
And questions will be asked about where they invested their money.
2006 is going to be a hectic year if you want to satisfy that satisfaction.
Jeff |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3301
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 11, 2005 - 9:10 am: |
|
Hi everyone,
just to let you all know that i am of course aware two weeks has past.
I'm still looking into things but it may take a bit longer than i would like now that the Xmas holidays have arrived upon me.
I will of course keep you up to date as and when anything might occur but like I say with it being Xmas I don't expect to get things moving until the new year (as i have two essays to write opps!)
Anyone i owe an email to, i'm awfully sorry, I am trying to keep on top of it but just so you know they have been read!
Jenni
"Does a 'ton up' on his sleigh? Do the fairies keep him sober for a day?"
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1565
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 11, 2005 - 12:05 pm: |
|
I think Jenni definitely deserves everybody's gratitude for signing up for this thankless task - rather like acting as a referee in the famous England v. Germany match of Christmas 1914 (though without the goodwill).
I'm sure everyone will want her to take as much time as is necessary to ensure a successful outcome to the process.
After this - on top of the exposure of the disgraceful "Uncle Jack" fraud - she'll undoubtedly have established her credentials as the undisputed Miss Marple of Ripperology.
Chris Phillips |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 892
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 11, 2005 - 1:57 pm: |
|
Chris,
No question that Jenni has demonstrated outstanding negotiating skills in getting acceptance for a second series of Diary tests and her unmasking of the Uncle Jack documents fiddle is a stellar achievement -- but Miss Marple?
Make no mistake, I enjoyed Jane Marple's adventures (and found her stories superior to those of Hercule Poirot). Still, to compare the young and vital Jen with the elderly Jane Marple seems a bit unfair. More likely is that future generations will annoint some up-and-comer as "The next Jenni Pegg of Ripperology."
Don.
PS: Of course if she doesn't get her essays done (hint) all bets are off.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1566
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 11, 2005 - 2:45 pm: |
|
Don
Oh, all right - the Nancy Drew of Ripperology, if you insist.
Chris Phillips |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2407
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 3:35 am: |
|
Hi Don,
There is no doubt that Jenni walks where few men would dare to tread - whether it be putting final nails in Uncle Jack's coffin, or trying to do the same with the diary.
But she didn't need 'negotiating skills' in order to get 'acceptance' for further Diary tests. It was Robert Smith who came to the boards and posted his request for willing volunteers to help with the testing process, to which Jenni responded; the end result was Dr. Platt's report.
Now Robert, with Jenni's help, is doing the same again, but this time they are inviting us all to contribute financially to the process, in the event that further testing will need to be funded.
Just clarifying that no arm twisting was needed on Jenni's part to get the diary released.
Love,
Caz
X |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 893
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 10:25 am: |
|
Caz,
A strange post -- I never suggested there was any arm twisting, nor would I consider that a negotiating "skill." Nothing is ever allowed to be straightforward in Diary World, is it? Not even a lighthearted little encomium it would seem.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
