|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 199
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 2:11 pm: |       |
Hi, Caz:
I may have missed something here but can you clarify this statement that you say was made to you by Keith Skinner:
Paul Feldman's extensive research uncovered this death bed confession, along with other papers relating to the writer, over seven years ago. These documents form part of his unpublished material, now being developed by Bruce Robinson for Columbia Pictures.
Whose death bed confession? James Maybrick? Michael Maybrick? Billy Graham? Writer? Confession about what? ???!!!
All the best
Chris
|
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 200
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 2:40 pm: | |
Hi, Jeff:
Thanks for your input on Sir Charles Russell in regard to Russell's political role as Liberal Attorney General in Gladstone's Ministry (1880-1886) and his support of Charles Stewart Parnell's Home Rule movement.
Jeff, I don't know whether you know it or not but I learned when I visited Northern Ireland in connection with my War of 1812 research that Sir Charles Russell (1832-1900), latterly Lord Russell of Killowen, was from County Down, and was the elder son of Arthur Russell, a Roman Catholic gentleman, who was engaged in commerce and brewing in Newry. Lord Russell was and is a well regarded notable from that area. There is an extensive biography of him on the 1911 Encyclopedia site which has added to my knowledge of Sir Charles's illustrious career.
Sir Charles Russell (1832-1900):
A print from Vanity Fair May 1883
captioned "A Splendid Advocate"
All the best
Chris |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 75
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 9:09 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
No, I didn't know about Russell's family background. I was aware of his brilliant legal
career (besides prosecuting Adelaide Bartlett, and
defending Florence Maybrick - and demolishing
Richard Pigott - Russell also defended Mary Ann
Cotton, who is usually considered the most prolific Victorian British poisoner). He was the
first Roman Catholic Chief Justice of England in
modern times. He was a remarkable lawyer.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 169
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 2:57 am: | |
Hi Chris,
Henry Wilson. Sorry, I should have made that clear for you before typing up Keith's observation.
Hi Jennifer,
What picture? The Fisherman's Widow? The Scream? Sunflowers? Doc? Picture about what? ???!!!
(Sorry Chris, couldn't resist. That'll teach you not to pay attention.  )
No, seriously, Jennifer, I think Bruce is working on a 'proper' film, although I must admit I'd quite like him to do an improper one, starring himself.
Love,
Caz
PS Please excuse my merry mood - must be Henmania.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 65
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 4:21 pm: | |
caz,
i hope your merry mood continues but think that it may not and might mention andy roddick to keep on side with american users!
that is what i meant- what a feature film is that the correct expression, thank you for the info.
now i can dream of the cast..................
how about.......no thats no good! |
Robert Constantine
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 4:56 am: | |
I have read the case against Maybrick and consider it sound . I think the diary could be real. As for the handwriting criticism in that it does not match Maybricks will - that is no surprise. A man of Maybrick's position in society would have his will drafted by a solicitor who would, in turn, have had his articled clerk actually engross the document. The argument that I think counts against Maybrick is his age and physical stature. I consider that to commit the crimes he did at the speed he did would have required a man of considerable strength. Maybrick hardly fits the bill. |
iain tidy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 24, 2003 - 3:53 pm: | |
>> Henry Wilson made a deathbed confession that he and a woman other then Mrs. Maybrick administered the arsenic that caused Mr. Maybrick's death.<<
as Maybrick didn't die from arsenical poisoning that should close the file on that one. |
John R. Fogarty
Sergeant
Username: Goryboy
Post Number: 35
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 05, 2003 - 2:58 pm: | |
Hi, all:
I gave Christopher George's post, regarding the alleged Maybrick Diary and Watch, five stars because it addresses the salient issue: what we need against Maybrick (or any other suspect) is actual, contemporary (1888-1889) evidence/testimony that he was the murderer -- "not questionable artifacts that magically appeared in the 1990's," to quote Chris.
Apparently, ink/paper dating technologies are not yet sufficiently advanced to conclusively rule the Diary in or out. Similarly, the watch engravings (though estimated at "tens of years" of age by Dr. Turgoose) must also remain suspect until further, conclusive testing can be done -- if for no other reason than the watch's "magical" appearance on the heels of the Diary, in 1992.
What we need is contemporary evidence, not well-timed "artifacts" of dubious authenticity.
Cheers,
John e-Rotten
(a.k.a., Goryboy) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 314
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 8:08 am: | |
Hi Goryboy, Chris G,
It could be considered rather irresponsible to encourage people to look for contemporary evidence against Maybrick, if you believe the 'magical' appearance of both artefacts can only point to them being modern in origin.
How could there possibly be any such evidence to find, if the subject of the diary was dreamed up by a hoaxer, or group of hoaxers, using the centenary of the ripper and Maybrick cases as their inspiration to connect the two?
If it's pretty mad for anyone to spend time, effort and money researching Maybrick as a potential ripper suspect if they also think the diary could be the product of a modern hoaxer's imagination, I think it would be totally nuts to recommend or pursue this line of investigation if the same or less expenditure could reasonably be expected to reveal conclusively that the artefacts are modern.
Don't you agree?
Love,
Caz
|
John R. Fogarty
Sergeant
Username: Goryboy
Post Number: 36
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 11:59 am: | |
Hi, Caz:
You make a sound, logical argument against wasting time on Maybrick if it's certain the diary and watch are fakes. Problem is, nothing's certain. We have a little smoke (albeit of dubious origin), thus we may also have a little fire smouldering away somewhere in the background. Who knows? I believe a serious, scholarly search of any and all contemporary records pertinent to Maybrick, his whereabouts on the murder nights, the watch, the diary, etc., is justified -- if for no other reason than to finally rule him out once and for all.
Having said that, I still don't buy Maybrick one iota. His age, size, physical condition, location, etc., all tell against him. Also, I believe the diary to be a modern forgery, employing a period postcard book, reproduction Diamine ink, and treatment of the pages with heat and possibly other chemicals.
The watch, however, is slightly more troublesome; the engravings aren't so easily dismissed. The victims' initials, the "I am Jack" statement, and -- especially -- the signature, appear to be roughly in Maybrick's hand (check the k's in Jack and Maybrick against his known signatures).
I'm no metallurgist, but I've read that such engravings could be treated, polished, retreated, repolished, and etc., ad nauseam, until they look old enough to fool even electron microscopes.
But even if the engravings really are Maybrick's, it's still possible that he, like Walter Sickert, Roslyn D'Onston, and countless others, was simply obsessed with the crimes and carved up his watch like a bad little boy. Possibly it gave him a kick or a secret sense of revenge or something. Again, who knows unless and until we look deeper?
Cheers,
John e-Rotten
(a.k.a., Goryboy) |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 322
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 3:31 pm: | |
Hi, Caz and Goryboy:
Let's be clear about it. There is nothing to stop anyone doing research to find out if there is any contemporary evidence against James Maybrick. So far it has not turned up. So far no one has proved either the Diary or the scratches in the watch to have been created by Maybrick.
The fact that scratches in the watch might look somewhat like Maybrick's writing is simply not sufficient. Sorry, John. I know you are not arguing for the watch's authenticity on the basis of the scratches but you did make the point about what you thought might be a similarity in writing styles between the watch engravings and Maybrick's known writing--patently unlike the Diary which nowhere near matches Maybrick's writing.
The scratches in the watch are very crude, and they are written in a very small space. Moreover, even in larger writing samples, period or copied period whorls and curlicues can look much alike. This is the very reason why certain people see similarities between the Dear Boss letters and the handwriting of certain suspects. Yes they can appear alike; the people lived at the same time, what do you expect?
Again, no problem from me about researching Maybrick as a possible suspect. However I draw the line at recognizing him as a legitimate suspect on the basis of a dubious "Diary" and equally dubious watch. That having been said, good luck to anybody who can find any bona fide circa 1888 evidence against James Maybrick.
All the best
Chris |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 322
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 9:35 am: | |
Hi Goryboy,
'I believe a serious, scholarly search of any and all contemporary records pertinent to Maybrick, his whereabouts on the murder nights, the watch, the diary, etc., is justified -- if for no other reason than to finally rule him out once and for all.'
But who would you expect to do all this work? You yourself 'don't buy Maybrick one iota'; I don't even buy him half an iota if the serious, scholarly majority here are right to dismiss the diary as an obviously modern creation without a further thought, let alone doing any of the research you are suggesting.
I admire your final sentiment - we can't really know unless and until we look deeper. I just find it odd that those, like Chris George, who are satisfied that: Anne Graham is lying about the diary being in her family for years; Albert Johnson does not sincerely believe the watch scratches to be old; both artefacts were created by hoaxers in the late 1980s/early 1990s, see no problem in sending others off on what, to them, is obviously nothing but a fool's errand.
A bit cruel, don't you think? Or does it reveal that no one is quite as certain as they usually claim to be?
Love,
Caz |
John V. Omlor
Detective Sergeant
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 117
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 10:49 am: | |
Caz wonders,
"Or does it reveal that no one is quite as certain as they usually claim to be?"
At the risk of an ungrammatical moment...
Not no one.
--John (at least as certain that the real James Maybrick wasn't going around quoting Crashaw as he is that Kafka wasn't prone to quoting Olaudah Equiano) |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 143
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 11:32 am: | |
Chris---It might be tedious over-kill, but one could, perhaps, attempt to research Maybrick's actual whereabouts in Sept-Nov, 1888 and settle the score that way. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to trace someone as obscure as Maybrick after 115 years. I attempted this very exercise a couple of years ago, knowing that Maybrick met with Dr. Hopper in Liverpool very frequently throughout the time of the Ripper murders (20 times at least, despite that both men were also absent on vactions during the same time-frame). It seemed to me that it would have put Maybrick almost constantly in Liverpool during a time that he allegedly went to London at least 7-9 times. I went so far as to contact Bernard Ryan who referred to a certain 'Hopper' in the credits of his book, but found it was a name coincidence and he didn't have any original source material on Dr. Hopper. Remarkably, I was astonished to learn that Ryan himself thought that Feldman had proven his case, that Maybrick was Jack, and he suggested that I re-read Feldy's book(!) A bit depressed at that point, I assure you.
Still, the exercise could be carried out, looking, for instance, at the society columns of the Liverpool papers on the dates of the murders or on the 'Dear Boss' postings. Perhaps Jim & Florie were out dancing, eh? Michael Maybrick's whereabouts might be easier to confirm.
But as I say, personally I no longer have the energy, it seems to me a bit of over-kill at this point. All the best, RJP |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 7:10 pm: | |
Hi All,
Been away awhile, per adventure, in the Scottish Highlands! Interesting angle...since we can no longer communicate with the folks from 1888, we will have to enter into a dialogue with artifacts from that era. Script,paintings, etc., being just such an area for further analysis in the ensuing investigation.
I have come across a most curious artifact,
AND I MEAN MOST CURIOUS ARTIFACT...Jack the Ripper's Cupboard, no less! Yes, I know. This is
impossible...I know it is impossible -and yet!
The cupboard I speak of is only one item in an amazing collection of Elizabethan, Stuart, Japanese and Chinese furniture. It measures 62 inches in length by 62 inches high by 22 inches wide. It is in two parts. The upper portion is divided into three sections with three doors. The lower section has three drawers.This cupboard is heavy, made from oak which has gone black with age
and having iron rings for the drawer handles. My expert on antique furniture has dated this cupboard to between 1530-1580.Italian.
Now, this cupboard is ornately carved, all the doors are carved with vines as are the drawers, but the most disturbing aspect is the FOUR carved figures of women...ALL HAVE THEIR THROATS CUT.And there is more...you will all have a chance to see
with your own eyes, soon.
The man who once owned this cupboard lived in Deptford, London, in 1888.
Rosey :-) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 323
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 12:24 pm: | |
Hi Rosey! Good to see you back again, cupboard and all. 
Love,
Caz (who wonders in idle moments whether Maybrick would ever have heard of Frank Thompson, or indeed Frank's admiration for the works of Dickie Crashaw - perhaps the three spirits are even now settling down to a tot of spirit and a natter about the rum do that sees their names appearing together on a site about the ripper - here's to old Jim, Frank and Dick. Cheers!)
|
John V. Omlor
Detective Sergeant
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 118
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 1:00 pm: | |
RJ,
Overkill indeed. But there'd no doubt still be a potential sale somewhere. Then again, that's also the advantage of continually claiming not to know....
--John
PS: Nice try, Caz, but according to doctrine their "spirits" would be in somewhat different heavens (or hells). |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 323
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 1:09 pm: | |
Hi, Rosie--
That wouldn't be the cupboard that once held the Diary would it???!!! 
Hi, RJ--
Thank you so much for filling us in about your interesting enquiry into James Maybrick's whereabouts during the period of the Whitechapel murders. Bravo, RJ, a very worthy research question, if I might say, the sort that hopefully might one day bear fruit. Also I appreciate you telling us about Bernard Ryan's reply to you, seemingly endorsing Paul Feldman's research, of all things. His reply to you is most curious if not exasperating. . .
Now about Michael Maybrick, I have just come across a site with an obituary of him which I am arranging to post on the Casebook. At least, ahem, we know where he was on that day. . .
Hi, Caz--
I accept your viewpoint on Anne Graham and Albert Johnson. Mind you, I don't entirely comprehend it but I understand where you are coming from.
One observation, Caz. I was invited at the Liverpool conference by your co-author Keith Skinner at the book launch of The Ripper Diary: The Inside Story on the evening of Saturday, August 16 to talk to Anne Graham, who was in the audience with her daughter Caroline, and to presumably use her presence and the opportunity to meet her to assess her honesty. I note however that your book expressly states that Anne told Seth, Keith, and yourself that she would make only one final statement on the Diary, which you included in your book, and that her daughter refused categorically to speak about the matter to you. Now, can you understand why I find it difficult to accept Keith and you urging people to accept Anne on her word given those sort of circumstances? I used to believe there were fairies at the bottom of my garden as well, down there among the foxgloves. . .
All the best
Chris
 |
John R. Fogarty
Sergeant
Username: Goryboy
Post Number: 37
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 2:06 pm: | |
Hi, CTG:
No offense taken, compadre. And you make a good point: "...even in larger writing samples, period or copied period whorls and curlicues can look much alike... the people lived at the same time, what do you expect?"
I hadn't appreciated just how similar handwriting samples from any given time period and place can be. Just look at American handwriting from the 1860s. A plethora of samples survive from the Civil War period, North and South, and many of them look strikingly similar, even though written by vastly different people.
Still, I can't quite shake the impact of that "k" in Maybrick, as scratched onto that watch. Eerily similar to Maybrick's known signature.
And the "FM" on Mary Kelly's wall, in blood... Note how the "M" is exactly the same as Maybrick's: with the first arch of the letter distinctly higher than the second. I'm not saying Maybrick put it there (and I have written elsewhere that I believe those marks to be arterial blood that jetted from Kelly's neck). Still, it does cause one to pause.
Caz: I appreciate your question. In response, I would expect and encourage Maybrick afficionados to continue researching their suspect as vigorously and objectively as possible. I, however, will take a pass on that bandwagon. I've other fish (and Kidnes) to fry...
Cheers,
John e-Rotten
(a.k.a., Goryboy) |
John R. Fogarty
Sergeant
Username: Goryboy
Post Number: 38
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 2:22 pm: | |
RJP:
You make an excellent suggestion: "...looking, for instance, at the society columns of the Liverpool papers on the dates of the murders or on the 'Dear Boss' postings."
This is exactly the sort of research I was referring to above. It's known, for example, that Maybrick and Frau attended the races at Aigbirth, among others, and apparently entertained lavishly at home. Surely, there must be some mention of him in Liverpoole at the time of at least one of the murders, or the posting of a Ripper letter (with an E postal code, indicating an East End mailing).
Good show!
Cheers,
John e-Rotten
(a.k.a., Goryboy) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 326
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 1:47 pm: | |
Hi RJ,
I attempted this very exercise a couple of years ago.... I went so far as to contact Bernard Ryan.... Remarkably, I was astonished to learn that Ryan himself thought that Feldman had proven his case, that Maybrick was Jack, and he suggested that I re-read Feldy's book(!) A bit depressed at that point, I assure you.
What took you so long to reveal that Ryan, whose book you have recently been arguing was used by a modern forger in composing the diary, evidently has far more trouble recognising his own work than you do?
How long did you even pause for thought during your bit of depression? If you thought Ryan was as daft as a brush when it came to ripper theories, I suppose it wasn’t much of a stretch to conclude he was no better when it came to his own field of expertise - Maybrick – and therefore he failed to see that someone had used his own book on the subject to commit fraud.
It’s a similar story with Alec Voller, who was Head Chemist at Diamine Ink when he looked at the diary. The argument goes that his expertise wouldn’t run to forgery techniques and detection, and that the poor man was probably out of his depth to think the diary had been written 90+ years ago. For some reason the leap is then made that he wasn’t competent to recognise his own ink.
Please tell me I’m wrong, RJ. But my guess is that if Ryan had said, “Well of all the nerve, some blighter’s borrowed from my work on Maybrick to forge the diary!”, and if Voller had exclaimed, “Stone the crows, the silly sod has used my own ink!”, we would all be singing from the same hymn sheet, and rightly so, saying it can’t get any better than hearing it from these two guys – the forger used Ryan and Diamine. If anyone should know, Ryan and Voller should – case closed.
I’m not saying that Ryan’s and Voller’s inability to recognise their expertise at work in the diary tells us anything about its age, or means we can put our faith in their opinions about its origins. I would simply ask how I can safely ditch their judgements in favour of the judgement of commentators such as yourself?
Hi John (O),
What do you mean by ‘potential sale’ and ‘the advantage of continually claiming not to know….’?
I see you are now adopting Feldy’s ellipses to imply something or other. In a hundred years from now some academic will swear it would have been impossible for John Omlor to be influenced by Feldy’s literary techniques to make a drama out of nothing. And who is ‘claiming’ not to know what? If you mean me, I genuinely don’t know when the diary was written and wish someone who does know what they are talking about could enlighten me.
Hi Chris,
You wrote:
I accept your viewpoint on Anne Graham and Albert Johnson. Mind you, I don't entirely comprehend it but I understand where you are coming from.
Eh? What viewpoint? What was there to comprehend? How could you understand where I’m coming from, if I don’t even know myself? All I think I said was that if you are satisfied that the artefacts are modern (and it then follows that you believe Anne and Albert have some explaining to do), then you obviously don’t need anyone to find an alibi for Maybrick.
You also wrote:
Now, can you understand why I find it difficult to accept Keith and you urging people to accept Anne on her word given those sort of circumstances?
I’m sorry, Chris, but when have Keith or I ever urged anyone to ‘accept Anne on her word’?
If she is telling the truth about the diary being in her family for years, I can’t say I blame her if she’d rather not spend the rest of her life trying to convince people of something she can’t prove. Ditto if she is telling lies.
But there must be things you don’t understand about Anne, like why she came to a conference about the ripper where she would expect to be asked about her role in the diary, that you would have better been able to form an opinion about from talking with her.
Love,
Caz
|
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 148
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 2:49 pm: | |
Caz--Hi. I guess I'm a bit slow.
My brief communication with Mr. Ryan had nothing to do with any theory involving his book. I merely sought source material about Dr. Hopper. Yes, Mr. Ryan did have an interesting thing or two to say about Feldy, and he did express an opinion about Feldman's theory. In fact, he endorsed it. I can appreciate the irony, and I suspect some might find his 'expert opinion' a great boon.
Really though, my analysis of the diary had already been completed long before I contacted the good fellow. I had gone through the tedious task of a line-by-line analysis, listing all the verifiable "facts" that the author would have needed to know about Maybrick & the Maybrick household. I forget now the exact number; it was relatively small. Something like 63 "facts." Bobo's nickname, details of the will, Lowry, Maybrick's mother & father being buried in the same plot, etc.
I then went through Morland, Christie, Ryan, &tc. to test the claim --sometimes still made-- that the author would have needed 'inside information' or, at the very least, extensive research from source material. To my surprise, I found that all the 63 "facts" could have be found in Ryan's book alone.
Now, this was strictly an objective exercise. No offense to anyone, but I don't see where Mr. Ryan's opinons--however interesting--really are of any concern to me whatsoever. If I made a mistake in my research---that is another matter. Please feel free to repeat the exercise, or, if you have uncovered something new & verifiably obscure in the diary, please point it out and I will retract the statement. I suspect, though, that my research is accurate. It doesn't prove anything about the author of the diary, but it does to my thinking caste doubt upon odd theories involving an old forgery by someone close to the Maybrick household. All the best, RP
|
John V. Omlor
Detective Sergeant
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 119
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 4:13 pm: | |
Sorry Caz,
The last time I wrote anything of any length or offered any serious, detailed, speculative thought about this matter I was threatened personally and privately with lawyers and lawsuits. So you'll get nothing more than brief vagaries and ellipses on the subject from me; only the smallest of whispers, so as not to awaken the children.
All the best,
--John (who is quite happy with the archive)
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 328
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 6:50 am: | |
Hi RJ,
My brief communication with Mr. Ryan had nothing to do with any theory involving his book.
Yes, Mr. Ryan did….express an opinion about Feldman's theory. In fact, he endorsed it.
….I suspect some might find his 'expert opinion' a great boon.
How about that for missing the point? I thought I made it clear that Ryan’s endorsement of Feldy’s theory is not an ‘expert opinion’, while it follows that Ryan clearly doesn’t share the opinion expressed here very recently – that the language in the diary has echoes from Ryan's book that are too close for coincidence. I’m sorry, but I don’t think your opinion in this one regard was likely to be more ‘expert’ than Ryan’s.
But no matter, because now you merely claim to be satisfied that all the Maybrick information the diary author chose to include could have been found in Ryan’s book alone.
Good for you.
Hi John (O),
I always thought that if one had something to say and the evidence to support it, one wouldn’t need to talk in whispers. Whispering finally only succeeds in making the whisperer look like he never had anything of any substance to say in the first place. Now there’s a novelty when it comes to diary revelations.
Going back to a previous comment you made about the spirits of Jim, Frank and Dick:
Nice try, Caz, but according to doctrine their "spirits" would be in somewhat different heavens (or hells).
Do we really all get a different afterlife according to the hymn book we sing from in this one? I thought we were all bound for the same place, most of us grudgingly admitting our faith was misplaced, with a few saying “I told you so”.
In that case I’d better work out what faith I fancy, then I’ll convert Stephen Fry (in more senses than one), so when I get to where I know I’m going I’ll be sure of some stimulating company (in more senses than one).
Is this how it will work with the diary, only in reverse? If you have faith in your opinion of how it came into being, that will be how it did come into being? So if no one ever discovers the truth in this life we can go happily into the next knowing we will all be right. Correction – you can. What happens to the ‘don’t knows’? Of course - they don’t exist if you don’t believe in them.
Love,
Caz
PS So do you think the ripper could have heard of Crashaw via Francis Thompson, even if Maybrick hadn’t? And don’t you think Crashaw’s poetry could have been ripe for ripper fodder?
|
John V. Omlor
Detective Sergeant
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 120
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 7:17 am: | |
Caz,
You write:
"I always thought that if one had something to say and the evidence to support it, one wouldn’t need to talk in whispers."
Well, I guess that's one of the side effects of legal intimidation and irrational threats. They stifle honest debate.
Bye,
--John
PS: History and theology are different. And since I don't know who the Ripper was, I have no idea whether he or she would have heard of Thompson. In 1888, certainly, almost no one had. (His first collection isn't published until 1893, and although his first two published poems do appear only just in the same year as the murders and receive some praise within specific literary circles, he is still homeless at that point, and moving, mostly anonymously, from job to job.) |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
