|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 28
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 8:42 pm: |       |
Testing testing. Anybody?
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 576
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 8:54 pm: | |
G'day Glenn,
Did you just work out how to do it?
LEANNE |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 211
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 9:16 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
I wouldn't be offended and take anything on the boards personally. Life is too short and there are too many real concerns in life to worry about.
Best Regards
Gary |
John Hacker
Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 45
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 10:04 pm: | |
For anyone interested in the "spitting" episode that Leanne refers to, it's from Farsons book: (Typing courtesy of Chris Phillip's post which I shamelessly cut and pasted from.)
"I heard of a curious incident which took place in the cemetery that afternoon. The mother of the person who wrote to me was visiting another grave. After the mourners for Kelly had gone, she and her friend noticed that one man stayed behind and after some time, believing himself to be alone, he parted the boards above the grave and spat down on it while the terrified women hid behind their tombstone."
An unsourced, unsupported incident, decades after the fact, lacking even a description of the alleged "spitter". How anyone can believe that this is in any way related to Barnett, or that it supports his suspecthood is utterly beyond me.
Regards,
John |
Glenn L Andersson
Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 32
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 10:08 pm: | |
Hello, Leanne.
"Did you just work out how to do it?"
Well, I could ask you the same thing; you've been on that thread longer than I have.
Regarding your earlier message on the "pipe" thread:
"Don't you think that Jack the Ripper indulged in exaggerated killing? Do we see these type of murders every day?"
That was exactly my point and that is also one of the reasons why I suspect that Barnett may not be our man.
Once again -- since you're totally avoiding the subject -- what are your grounds for drawing such wild conclusions regarding Barnett (other than emotional ones)? I don't think any other individual here would dare to point out a certain man as a suspect. Again, it is all speculations. But I've never seen you use the words "maybe", "probably" or anything else in that direction.
You could very well be right in your suggestions, but why are you argumenting as if they were absolute facts?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 578
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 10:51 pm: | |
G'day Glenn,
I don't state "maybe", because I don't think I draw 'wild conclusions'. I'm quoting from newspapers, inquest statements, books! In 1888 police hadn't delt much in apparently motiveless murders.
'JOHN: Should we just ignore the Dan Farson radio incident, because no one ever wrote a police report on it? It wasn't even reported at the time! There were two men there, the Catholic priest and Joseph Barnett!
LEANNE
|
Jeff Hamm
Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 29
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 11:44 pm: | |
Leanne,
If, as your post states, there were only two men at Kelly's funeral, the Catholic priest and Joseph Barnett, then doesn't this mean the "spitter" must be the priest? I mean Joe's the only morner and the testimony is "...after the morners for Kelly had left ... one man stayed behind ...".
They specifically point out that the morners have left, and of the two, only Barnett can be the morner; so he must have left. That leaves the priest. He's a man, and he can be disguished as being "other than a morner" (which is, of course, what enabled the witnesses to know that the man who left was the morner).
Anyway, this event was described so many years after the fact that to put any stock in it would be very unwise without some other indication that it's anything more than just a tall tale.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 579
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 1:31 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
Read the newspaper coverage of that funeral! There was a huge crowd outside the gates of Leytonstone cemetary, and the only ones let in where the Father, Joe, and some of Mary's female friends.
The girls wouldn't have known which one's were the mourners, but if the Father stayed behind after all the howling females left, wouldn't they have been able to identify him by the clothes he wore? And if it was a part of the religious ceremony, why wasn't it done before the 'boards' were placed into position?
If it came to light too many years after the fact for you, why is there so much debate about a diary that showed up after the fact??
None of the police were able to prove who the Ripper was back then, so if you keep looking for contemporary facts to prove who he was, you'll be looking for a long time!
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 250
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 5:41 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
I would echo Glenn's concerns here. I just don't understand why, on the evidence you have, you would want to believe Joe Barnett was guilty of the horrific murder of Mary Kelly.
Now Pat Cornwell wants to believe Sickert was the ripper, using wild speculation that actually goes against the evidence she has, to argue that, for example, he couldn't perform sexually and therefore had hangups that caused him to slaughter and mutilate prostitutes.
But at least, with Cornwell, we can imagine the reasons why she might want to believe she has closed the case by naming Sickert.
What are your reasons, Leanne, for wanting to believe Joe killed Mary and the others? Not your actual reasons for believing it - we've been through all that and you are entitled to your opinion that he makes as good a suspect as any. What concerns me is your desire to read guilt into everything you know about Joe, when what you know could equally point to his total innocence.
Have you ever tested your own beliefs by trying hard to defend your suspect, with a view to eliminating him? Isn't this the approach that ought to appeal to all, rather than adopting the role of eternal prosecutor?
You are far too nice and enthusiastic about the case to waste it all on this determination to see a man condemned for such terrible crimes.
Love,
Caz |
Glenn L Andersson
Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 33
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 6:29 am: | |
Hi Caz.
Thank you!!!!!!!!  That was really appreciated.
Your approach is actually something I have used on the different suspects myself for quite some time now. I don't know if it had lead me anywhere in identifying ol' Jack (even though the scale might tip against one or two for me -- or at least at a certain personality type), but -- most important of all -- it have made me reailize how hard it is to state something with certainty in this case.
It's a lesson well learned for everybody.
Leanne,
"I don't state "maybe", because I don't think I draw 'wild conclusions'."
Well, I think that you should (at least if you want to be taken seriously) -- you must be the only one here who doesn't. In the case of Jack the Ripper we can be certain of absolutely nothing at all. It is all right to have opinions and to draw conclusions but they must constantly be exposed to self-examination. One great thing I think Cornwell's project (and the mistakes that were made there) have learnt us, is that one must over and over again remain critical against one's own sources and that one shouldn't search for facts that only fits one theory -- your own. For that is not a proper way to do an investigation.
I wouldn't -- if I were you -- pay too much attention to newspapers as a reliable source, even if I assume that you probably check their statements with what the police material say (I hope) -- these are usually full of errors and speculations.
I agree that the facts that's available to us aren't conclusive enough and sometimes even inconsistent. Therefore I myself are no stranger to the common sense approach or to use my imagination. But I am well aware of the shortcomings of this method scientificly; when we don't have enough facts to go on, we can use these methods but we must use them in a humble way, and not draw conclusions that confuses thoughts and speculations with absolute truth.
Cornwell also set out to condemn one certain man for the crimes (and manipulated facts on the way) -- but without a shred of evidence. I think that should have learnt us something.
Don't take this as personal critizism, it's just a bit of friendly advice...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
John Hacker
Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 46
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 7:28 am: | |
Caz and Glenn,
I just wanted to agree with both of you regarding the approach of looking at suspects with an eye towards eliminating them.
The approach I've followed when looking closely at a suspect is to spend a period of time trying to look at the case against them from the perspective that they are guilty to identify the strengths of that case, and then to go back and re-examine the case with an eye towards identifying the weaknesses and baseless assumptions. Then I would compare the two perspectives to see if there's any realistic possibility that this is indeed our man. I find that looking at it from both sides helps to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the case against any given suspect.
Barnett is actually the first suspect I examined seriously in this fashion. (Primarily because Paley meticulously sourced his book, but also due to Leanne's tireless plugging of him throughout the years.) I probably spent the better part of 6 months of weekends researching Joe Barnett before tossing him into the "possible but highly unlikely" pile. (The pile that most able bodied London males of the time reside in my mind.)
One thing I've come to realize is that 115 years after the fact is that we're never going to understand what makes these people tick psychologically based on the small set of statements and information we have available.
Even today, after seeing litterally 100s of statements by our Fearless Leader Bush the Second, I can't come any serious conclusions as to his motivation behind his actions.
We can never really know what's going on in someone elses head and to pretend otherwise isn't going to lead us towards the truth, but only away from it because instead of working with fact we're simply exercising our imagination. And our imagination can make virtually anyone guilty.
Regards,
John |
John Hacker
Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 47
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 7:40 am: | |
Leanne,
"Should we just ignore the Dan Farson radio incident, because no one ever wrote a police report on it? It wasn't even reported at the time!"
Ignore it? Nah. Just throw it on the pile of of items that might have relevence if it could be corroberated by a contemporary source. But as it stands now it has no evidentiary value whatsoever.
We have no source for the statement which is clearly secondhand at best.
And as you noted it wasn't reported at the time. This could easily be because it didn't happen.
Even if it did, we have no way of tying the "spitter" to anyone alive at the time or for their reasons for doing so.
Trying to fit that in with any given suspect is simply an exercise in pure imagination with no real grounding in fact at all.
Regards,
John |
Glenn L Andersson
Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 34
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 9:08 am: | |
Hi John.
You're a source of wisdom.
I'm used to dig into old cases, and what always frustrates me is the lack of information and facts. Naturally, it becomes tempting to use speculations (common sense and instinct are by the way important assetts also in ordinary police work) and imagination in its place. I think that is all right, as long as one is aware of the danger of drawing too wild conclusions from it. Speculations can never be regarded as facts or truth if they can't be verified by reliable sources.
In the case of Jack the Ripper we are mostly stumbling in the dark and we all need to accept that -- we may have our personal thoughts, but they still remain thoughts and most likely theories, not the truth. That doesn't mean they can't be discussed, it's just a question of how these opinions are discussed.
I can't say with absolute certainty if Barnett was the perpetrator or Jack the Ripper, but I find it quite unlikely. There are a few points, that I've stated earlier, that makes him interesting, but not enough, in my view, to be convinced about his guilt.
Thanks again, John.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 251
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 11:49 am: | |
Hi John,
I just gave your post five stars - I think it's one of your best ever.
The bit about not being able to come to any serious conclusions as to motivation behind an individual's actions is spot on, and anyone who thinks they can do this is usually kidding themselves. I've seen too many people come an absolute cropper in the attempt, yet they will often continue to insist they are right, even that they know better than the person whose head they claim to be able to get inside!
Now then, would you do me a favour? In a couple of months or so I'd really appreciate it if you would apply your admirable methods once more - you can guess what's coming - to those suspected of knowing the Maybrick diary and watch were modern fakes when these artefacts entered the public domain.
Love,
Caz
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 218
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 12:00 pm: | |
Hi John
What you describe, playing the devils advocate and looking at the issue you are dealing with from the opposite point of view, is an old lawyers method of preparing for trial. It is the anticipation of an argument in advance of being presented with it in court.
All The best
Gary |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 252
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 12:33 pm: | |
And as we know from school debating days, being asked to construct a decent argument that can go against one's personal opinions, beliefs, instincts or prejudices, is supposed to be a good exercise in objective thinking.
I know I should now set an example and construct an argument for Barnett killing Kelly, but my excuse is it's far too hot for thinking caps right now. I'll have to slip the judge a note to get the air-conditioning working first. 
Love,
Caz |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 205
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 1:50 pm: | |
Hi Everyone,
I started this thread originaly, naming it Joseph Barnett number one suspect.And I still maintain , even more so that is a apt title.
There are about 800 posts on these new boards about this character, not to mention the old boards, so there is considerable debate surrounding his innocence or guilt.
The grave spitting event , is an important clue, of course if such an event took place?
He was the spurned lover of Kelly, that has been a motive for murder since the year dot.
The number 39 which has been in evidence in all these murders, has a relevance to 26 Dorset st, room 13, the date he started to live with her, the date he left her, the date she was killed are all relevent. A recent connection with jews has also come to light, and more about his life, then we have never known before. The man was suffering from an illness , which is controlable today with daily medication, but not in 1888, such an illness could send him into fits of depression, when faced with a change of routine, something which Barnett had lost in the last few months.
All roads lead to Dorset steet, in this case, simply because the killer and victims had connection to that vacinity.
So summing up Leanne , and myself are on the same wavelength, regarding Barnett, and unless someone can disprove his guilt, and by all means try, I will continue to strive to assertain his guilt.
Richard. |
Jeff Hamm
Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 30
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 6:38 pm: | |
Leanne,
I was pretty sure there were more than just two at Mary's funeral, what I was pointing out is that you're using a different criterion to evaluate the spitting testimony than you used when evaluating Anderson's pipe statement.
The statment tells us the morners have left and a man stayed behind. The priest is a man, and he's not a morner. He's the only one who fits the testimony as given. It's like the fireplace when using your pipe criterion.
As for your concern that we may not be able to name Jack if we stick to contemporary documents, well, "naming Jack" isn't my primary goal. What I'm most interested in is sorting out the solid facts from the myths, legends, conjecture, and speculation that riddles this case. I want to ensure that what I know about the Ripper crimes can be verified by multiple independent sources because that will cut out a lot of the above "noise".
The more independent, and reliable, sources that tell the same story makes the information more reliable, more likely to actually tell us something real about the case. This is the problem with "news paper reports", they aren't really independent. Different papers would print the same story, so just because two or three papers say similar things does't make these two or three independent sources. Also, the papers are notorious for making up stuff.
Once this "clean" evidence set is established, it is hoped that it will point us in the direction of what to look for next. Our reduced, but noise-free evidence, might even suggest a central story, or a set of statements that would have to be covered by any theory that is to be taken seriously.
On the other hand, speculation, because it's by definintion not based on evidence but rather it's derived from guessing, has almost no chance of pointing us in the right direction because there is an infinite number of wrong directions that can be chosen by chance. So to rely on speculation is to rely on chance. If the speculation can't be verified, if further research fails to turn up support for our "guess work" or if it turns up evidence that requires us to add more "guess work" to our theory to get around the evidence, that's a pretty good sign we're heading down the wrong road in the first place and should try looking elsewhere.
So, it may turn out that we are in the unfortunate situation that there just isn't enough evidence remaining in the world to actually name the Ripper. And if so, then so be it. I'm interested in finding out as much as we can, which in research is rarely as much as we want to.
- Jeff |
John Hacker
Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 48
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 7:59 pm: | |
Glenn,
Thanks for the kind words.
I couldn't agree more in regards to speculation. I indulge in it all the time, but I try to keep it in a seperate mental "bin" than the facts of the case and I don't "stack" speculations. Indeed, the more I study the JtR case the less convictions I really have, simply because of the lack of solid facts, the huge amount of speculation presented as fact, the wildly differing newspaper accounts, etc.
The more I look at any aspect of it, the more viable possibilities I see and in many cases, there isn't any good indication as to what the correct answer is. At this point, I'm happy to find answers to the small questions in regards to specifics of the crimes. Trying to to actually solve the case at this date with the information we have, and almost limitless possibilities seems to me to be an impossible task.
Barnett is cetainly a viable suspect in some ways, but I think on the balance it's incredibly unlikely that it was him. It's certainly worthwhile to discuss his potential guilt, but to say he IS guilty on the evidence shown to date is a HUGE stretch. (The same holds true for all of the named suspects.) By discussing them we can gain a much better understanding of who the pros and cons of a given suspect are, but I think those that think they have "solved" the case are fooling themselves, and indeed are cheating themselves of the opportunity to evaluate other suspects or even the crimes themselves objectively.
Regards,
John |
John Hacker
Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 49
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 8:02 pm: | |
Caz,
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I appreciate it. :-)
As you know, I've looked long and hard at the whole diary mess. And I will certainly add your book to my ever increasing diary book collection. (I've got an entire shelf devoted to it at this point including books on forgery, metallurgy, and inks, as well as plenty of Maybrick background books, including a transcript of Florrie's trial.) And I would never pretend that I can understand what's going on in the heads of anyone involved in that mess.
I would certainly not suggest that anyone other than the forger(s) KNEW it was a modern fake. If the boards have taught me nothing else, it's that some people will believe no matter what the evidence shows. People see things differently and what is proof to one is silliness to another. Fortunately the number of diary believers seems to be ever dwindling. Nor will I pretend that I can understand the motives of the forger(s).
I have looked extensively at all of the people involved in the diary affair, what they've said and when, etc... There's probably more hard evidence in the diary case that the JtR case. I've played the devil's advocate game with most of the players, and personally I think there is enough objective evidence to suggest that certain people in a very small group were involved in it's creation. (Some people in that group could be innocent.) But the alternate scenario where they're ALL innocent simply doesn't hold up well.
But those are only my opinions, and I certainly recognize that I could be mistaken. I don't feel any need to go pointing any fingers at this point based on pure speculation. I've satisfied myself (I'd say I'm about 90% convinced on who created the diary. Not so on the watch, although I have definate ideas about when it was created.) and see no reason to try and convince anyone else, or to malign the potentially innocent on the boards at this time. (Especially given some of the sad legal threats made to the Casebook of late.) It's a fake, and I'm pretty much willing to leave it at that for the moment.
I do look forward to your book, and hope it might add some color to the picture. It might even cause me to change my mind. :-) I will certainly go back through my notes and include any new information that might change how I view things. My opinions have changed as I've accquired more information, and I expect they will continue to evolve over time.
But unlike Jack, I DO believe that the mystery forgers will be publically unmasked at some point and I'm content to wait for that day and then go back and see how I did. :-)
Regards,
John |
Jeff Hamm
Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 31
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 8:45 pm: | |
John,
I think you've summed up my position as well, and much better than I have been able to.
As for the diary, one thing that must be remembered is that being unable to prove who the forger(s) is (are) doesn't mean one hasn't proved a forgery occurred. Much like, being unable to prove who a murderer was, doesn't mean one hasn't proved a murder occurred. In fact, one can't prove the "criminal" until one has proved there was a "crime".
Personally, I've seen little that convinces me the diary is worth the price of the ink needed to put the the letters N, O, N in front of fiction. 
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 580
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 08, 2003 - 3:14 am: | |
G'day,
CAZ: Why do I WANT to believe Barnett was guilty???? I don't WANT to believe anybody was guilty, but someone was! You seem to WANT to believe that a man couldn't possibly mutilate a woman he's made love to.
From what I've read about murders, we're foolish to believe that its not possible. And some one even said that because it's not an everyday occurrance, we should rule it out!
Please don't compare me to Patricia Cornwell thankyou! I am trying to co-write a book by getting right into the Ripper case. I put forward suggestions found in Bruce Paley's book, to see what peoples reactions are and debate them to death! In this way I work out where the weak spots are. Don't worry Stephen, this site will get heaps of credit!
JOHN: Why do you put Barnett in your highly unlikely pile?
About that funeral thing: Why would anyone tell such a lie to their daughter? Do you think that this woman, or the daughter who wrote to Farson, had some sinister motive for inventing such a story? Do you think they secretly wanted to become famous? Do you think they wanted to write 'The Diary of Jack the Spitter'?
RICHARD: The reason why I keep pushing the case against Barnett is that I don't understand why people just refuse to consider him!
JEFF: Why would Dan Farson lie about receiving that information? And if he wasn't, why would a mother tell such a story if it wasn't true? Do you think that she wanted to make her daughter wet the bed? I don't see it as a bad choice choosing Barnett out of the 'given suspects' and I won't even consider that it was the Catholic priest!
GLENN: You don't have to tell me that we can't always rely on what we read in the newspapers. I learnt that when I first started on 'Casebook', years ago! I ask myself: 'Could that be a newspaper selling tactic?' That's why I dismissed the report that said she had a child living with her! Tell me, would anyone one have gained by reporting a false description of Kelly's funeral? That's how I use my common sense!
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 38
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 08, 2003 - 4:09 am: | |
Hi John,
Once again you seem to speak the same language as I do, so I just had to give you some stars.
Yes, that is indeed a sad fact; the more we seem to learn about the case and the persons involved, the more complex it gets and more probable suspects turns up on the agenda.
------------------------
Jeff,
I don't want to be the one throwing stars over everbody for nothing, but I gave your message five shiny ones -- it was one of the best I've read on the board for a long time.
I totally agree, naming Jack isn't the prime goal for me either. It's what we can learn from it and to sort out facts from fiction, that interests me. And, furthermore, I also happen to be interested in this period of history.
---------------------------------
Dear Leanne,
We don't know what's driving people to make false or unexplainable statements, but it happens nevertheless. We all have different things to gain from what we do. We don't know exactly why people deliver misleading testimonies or fake letter and diaries, but one explanation -- among others -- could be for money, for getting attention or (as in the JTR case) simply just because it's a thrilling case to be connected with one way or the other. I'm not saying that is the case in your example, I 'm just pointing out that we all have different reasons for what we do (and different personal gains), although it sometimes may seem totally incomprehensible and illogical to the rest of us.
Furthermore, have you really tried to attempt the method that Caz so splendidly pointed out? Even if it won't make you change your mind or your views, it would most certainly show you that things aren't that water-proof as they first appear to be, or that you can't be too self-confident about your theories in a case like this.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 581
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 08, 2003 - 8:17 am: | |
G'day,
Have a good, long and hard look at the detailed description of Mary Kelly's funeral in the 'Walthamstow and Leyton Gardian' 24th November: 'Barnett and the poor woman who had accompanied the funeral, [Julia Venturney I believe], knelt on the cold clay by the side of the grave while the service was read by Father Columban.' (So that's 3 people), one was a woman so she's not the spitter. 'The coffin was incensed, lowered then sprinkled with holywater and the simple ceremony ended....There was a very large concourse of people outside the gates.' But they wouldn't have kept out those visiting other grave sites, before the gates were closed. Now if one man remained until all the mourners outside the gates had gone home, I'd say there's a pretty good chance Barnett stayed behind.
Now that would have sold papers because it was beautifully detailed, but would it have been lies?
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 257
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 08, 2003 - 8:27 am: | |
Hi All,
Hi Jon,
I don't want the diary to hijack this thread so I'll quickly say this and be done with it and hope time reveals a bit more.
Could I ask you, after you've digested the new book, to review the following:
'....personally I think there is enough objective evidence to suggest that certain people in a very small group were involved in it's creation.'
And: 'I'd say I'm about 90% convinced on who created the diary. Not so on the watch, although I have definate ideas about when it was created.'
I prefer to presume all individuals innocent unless or until I have found enough information to put things beyond reasonable doubt, so I have a natural aversion to phrases like 'potentially innocent'. While I know of no actual 'legal threats' made to the Casebook concerning the diary I do understand your concerns.
I would love to believe, as you do, that the diary creator(s) will be publicly unmasked at some point, so we can see how well or badly we all predicted how it would end. As people have pointed out lately, conspiracies have a tendency to unravel eventually, no matter how careful the conspirators have been, and no matter if anyone is out there hoping this one won't fall apart.
Hi Jeff,
No, one can't prove the "criminal" until one has proved there was a "crime". Fortunately, when confronted with a dead body, it's usually fairly straightforward to confirm if recent foul play means there's a murderer about. With the diary, no one has yet shown that a crime has definitely been committed by anyone.
The diary is worth the price of the ink needed for a non-fiction account of its known history, if it helps with our understanding of why this particular questioned document should have caused quite as much mayhem as it has.
Hi Leanne,
You say that I want to believe that 'a man couldn't possibly mutilate a woman he's made love to'.
That's just silly and I don't think it is reflected in anything I have ever written about the Barnett theory or the ripper.
Love,
Caz
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
