|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 635
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 11:01 am: |       |
Hi,
whats the deal with this one. I thought no one knew what happened to MJK's key.
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 398
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 11:42 am: | |
Jennifer
According to Joe Barnett the key had been lost some time before.
But some newspapers and secondary books reported that the key was missing, with the implication that the Ripper could have taken it. The diary follows in this mistaken tradition.
Joe Barnett might well have lied to protect himself if he were the killer. But, of course, he would have no reason to lie if Maybrick were the killer!
Incidentally, if I remember correctly, Caz has accepted Joe's statement in previous discussions. That leaves a big problem with "With the key I did flee".
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 639
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 11:53 am: | |
Hey Chris,
thanks yes I see what you mean if Barnet was the killer then the key issue doesn't matter. Thanks for answering my question so quickly
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 399
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 12:10 pm: | |
What I really meant was that if Maybrick was the killer there would be no reason to doubt Barnett's word - but an enormous problem for the diary!
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 643
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 3:14 pm: | |
Chris,
Whatever you meant I think you were onto something!
Though perhaps even innocent people act weirdly every now again.Perhaps Joseph Barnett could have lied even if innocent!
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Marcel Gootjes
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 11:21 am: | |
I think he(the murderer) threw it away, or kept it as a souvenir....
Most serial killers keep a souvenir. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1167
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 1:47 pm: | |
Hi All,
It would be nice to think I didn't have to look in on every thread in case Chris Phillips is there telling everyone else his own impression of what 'Caz has accepted'.
I 'accept' almost nothing that hasn't been tied down and forced to confess itself as fact - please remember this whenever another poster is tempted to suggest otherwise.
Anyway, a 'missing' key is not necessarily gone for good, even if Joe Barnett didn't know where Mary's was after a certain point. ("Look in the place you last had it!"  ) We can't know what happened to it, but we do know that Joe left Mary.
It's certainly possible that the key was later found again, or that someone had it without Joe's knowledge - Mary herself, perhaps, or a would-be pimp who saw an opportunity now Joe was gone to take the key and with it some control (I have previously suggested George Hutchinson for such a role).
If so, the key would still have been in use by November 9, and if the killer then took it away with him, Joe's 'missing' account would stand, with no one being any the wiser.
This isn't an argument for the diarist claiming he had the key and actually having the key, or merely imagining he took the key when he did nothing of the sort; it's not an argument that a forger 'got it right' or 'didn't get it wrong' either.
I simply don't know where the key went, and, if we choose to believe Joe Barnett, he didn't either. But if anyone did know (and it's at least possible), then the killer could have known too.
And that's all I'm saying.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 518
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 1:58 pm: | |
Hey, you know what?
The diarist probably was lying about taking the key, just like he was probably lying about the breasts and about writing the letters and about everything else he wrote that does not coincide with the historical record.
It if doesn't match up with history, he must have been lying, right? Either that or history is wrong. What other explanation could there be for the diary getting so many things wrong?
Oh.
Right.
There is one other explanation, isn't there?
A simpler one.
A more obvious one.
I forgot.
--John (still here where common sense is scarce) |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 404
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 3:57 pm: | |
I wrote:
According to Joe Barnett the key had been lost some time before.
...
Incidentally, if I remember correctly, Caz has accepted Joe's statement in previous discussions.
Caz wrote:
It would be nice to think I didn't have to look in on every thread in case Chris Phillips is there telling everyone else his own impression of what 'Caz has accepted'.
But despite the usual bogus histrionics, Caz doesn't deny that she accepted it, and in fact it seems pretty clear from this post of hers that she did accept it:
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=69011#POST69011
After a paragraph on what she thought happened once it [the key] went missing, Caz concluded:
I see Jack simply pulling the door to as he left the scene and the police, on finding it locked and no key available, just did the obvious and broke in through the door. I don’t think it’s a huge mystery why they didn’t open it via the broken panes, especially if it was a risky procedure only used in emergencies by a locked out occupant.
But of course, when the diary is under discussion, all this commonsense acceptance of the documented facts goes out of the window, and once again "all things are possible"!
Thanks for that, anyway, Caz. A very revealing insight into how you play the game.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 416
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 2:54 pm: | |
Caz
After you more or less accused me of misleading people, it's a bit disappointing that you've gone so quiet.
Maybe you could clear the air a little, by saying whether or not you accept Barnett's statement, and if not why you've changed your mind.
Thanks
Chris
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1405
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 7:54 am: | |
G'day,
Joseph Barnett said that the key had been missing for "some time". If he meant that it went missing before the couple's fight on October 30th, (in which the window pane near the door was broken), how on earth did Mary get in and out of her room?
If her door locked automatically when it was pulled to, she didn't need the key to lock it when she went out. But how did she open it again to re-enter? She would have been taking a risk to go out and leave her door unlocked.
By saying that the key had been missing for "some time" Joe Barnett wouldn't have been lying. "Some time" could be taken to mean a day, a week or a month or any time.
LEANNE
"Mommy, Mommy, Daddy's hammering on the roof again!"
"Shut up and drive a bit faster!"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 714
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 12:20 pm: | |
Leanne,
what type of lock was it . if it was a mortis locke I can see your point, I don't know quite where I'm heading with this one.....
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2807
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 5:19 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
Bet you that's why the window was broken - so they could get in when they found the key was missing.
Just a thought : there are no reports of broken glass on the ground outside the window at the time of the murder. If the window had been broken by Mary throwing something at Joe (inside the room) would not glass have tinkled onto the ground outside the room? And if it did, can you see Joe, Mary, or anyone else bothering to clear it up? I feel that the window was broken from the outside, the glass falling inwards, and Joe then reaching in to open the door.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1406
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 6:36 pm: | |
G'day,
JENNIFER: I didn't mean to turn this into another Barnett thread, but someone else mentioned his name first!
When we were discussing the lock before on another thread, people decided that it must have been a lock that locked automatically when closed, therefore the killer didn't need to lock it.
ROBERT: There was reference to the window being smashed on the night they had that row, and that Mary threw something at Joe. I'll dig it all up again when I have time tonight.
I think McCarthy would have made sure that glass was swept up outside, as the window was broken ten days before the murder. If the couple didn't want McCarthy to know, they themselves had plenty of time to clean it up.
LEANNE |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 565
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 6:57 pm: | |
Hi all,
Incidentally, in case any of you were wondering, the real James Maybrick wasn't there.
And there is no real evidence anywhere on the planet that even suggests he was.
Just thought I'd mention that. 
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 729
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 6:49 am: | |
its just if it were a yale style lock then it could be opened through a smashed window and if it were a mortis lock it couldn't because of how locks work, right?
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 434
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 8:33 am: | |
Jennifer
You'll find a lot of discussion about the key, the lock, the window and so on in various Barnett threads.
Abberline's evidence at the inquest included this:
An impression has gone abroad that the murderer took away the key of the room. Barnett informs me that it has been missing some time, and since it has been lost they have put their hand through the broken window, and moved back the catch. It is quite easy.
This post by Bob Hinton has some pictures of the suggested type of lock:
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4921&post=69838#POST69838
As has been pointed out previously, Barnett's statement doesn't make sense if the window was broken at the same time he moved out ("since it has been lost they have put their hand through the broken window"). I'm not sure what the evidence is for the window having been broken then. A Times report from 10 November 1888 says Bowyer, knowing that when the man Kelly and the dead woman had their quarrel a pane of glass in one of the windows was broken, but even if this is correct, there were known to be two panes of the window broken.
Barnett's account makes it sound as though they were in the habit of locking the door, but it's been suggested that it would usually be left "on the latch" while they were out. Certainly some of the contemporary sources say it was common for people to leave their doors unlocked in Whitechapel at the time.
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1182
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 10:25 am: | |
Hi Chris,
I thought I'd covered everything in my previous post. I neither accept nor reject Joe Barnett's statement.
All we know is that Joe reported, after Mary's death, that the key had gone missing at some point before November 9th.
If we assume Joe had no reason to lie about this, he was in no position to know what became of the key, or where it ended up, and could only have presumed it was lost.
You can argue that the key was probably irretrievable by November 9th, and that no one could have known its whereabouts at that time without Joe's knowledge. And of course, I expect you to do just that, because it fits with your beliefs about the diarist. But you couldn't do so with any degree of certainty, from the little evidence we have been left.
I'm not arguing for or against Joe's word, or for or against the key being lost and gone forever, from the moment Joe first missed it himself - because I simply don't know.
And this time I mean it - that's all I'm saying.
Take it or leave it.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 435
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 10:49 am: | |
Caz
Yes, we know that's what you said on this board.
As I made clear, what I was asking was why it's so different from what you said in that other message I linked to, on a board that wasn't linked to the diary:
About that key.... I tend to think that once it went missing Mary would have found it an inconvenience rather than a necessity to pull her door to, locking it in the process, every time she went out ...
I see Jack simply pulling the door to as he left the scene ...
In other words:
Barnett thread - Straightforward acceptance that the key was missing; suggestion that Kelly left her door unlocked for this reason; opinion that the Ripper just pulled the door to when he left the room
Diary thread - We know nothing; we know nothing; anything's possible!
Certainly you can stamp your foot and say you're not going to play any more (to which I can only say Amen), but it won't stop everyone seeing the blatant double standards for themselves.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 572
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 11:05 am: | |
Interesting comparison, Chris.
Caroline writes, as if it's a promise:
"And this time I mean it - that's all I'm saying."
But we both know that's not true, either.
It might be worth noting exactly when it is that she does indeed stop saying things.
For instance, over on the "Maybrick as the Ripper" thread, regarding the diary and handwriting tests, she told us six full days ago that...
"a serious investigation is ongoing in London and Liverpool. The results will not be discussed in a public forum until they have been published with full supporting documentary evidence."
Jennifer then mentioned that Robert Smith was saying to her that no tests were underway.
Since that time, that particular thread has not see hide nor hair of Caroline or her words. Not even a simple post to clear up what I'm sure is a perfectly understandable bit of confusion concerning the conflicting information.
There are times, it seems, where that really is "all she's saying."
Yup. 
--John
(Message edited by omlor on August 11, 2004) |
Simon Owen
Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 14
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 11:24 am: | |
I've just had a thought !
What if there WAS only one broken pane of glass , and the Ripper broke the second one to gain entry into Mary's room ?
Mary may well have put the door on the latch if she was sleeping alone that night , and the Ripper may well have not known how to enter the room or known about the broken glass. In which case , he may well have punched a hole in the other pane of glass to break into the room , he could easily have muffled the noise and the coat in the window would have helped too.
I think there was only one hole in the window in the George Sims thread picture of 13 Miller's Court. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2809
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 1:16 pm: | |
Hi all
I don't really see what the problem is with the window being broken on October 30th. If one of them found out that the other had lost the key, that would have caused a row. Then they'd have smashed the window to get in. Afterwards, Joe apparently was in the habit of visiting Kelly, and so sometimes he was the one who opened the door by reaching through the window.
Simon's suggestion is interesting, because the "Daily Telegraph" for Nov 10th says that Bowyer actually found blood on the glass - though as far as I know this is the only mention of this. Also, if Jack broke a window pane to let himself in, wouldn't the glass on the floor have been mentioned at some point?
Robert |
Simon Owen
Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 18
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 1:59 pm: | |
Robert , I suspect with the horrors in that room and the ' awfulness ' on the floor that Walter Dew slipped in , the last thing the police were looing for were bits of broken glass ! The killer may well have brushed bits of glass under one of the tables or into a corner when he was in the room anyway.
There is actually a way to ensure no broken glass falls on the floor when breaking a window however : you stick a piece of brown paper coated with honey over the glass , and then smash the pane. The shards stick to the brown paper and don't fall on the floor.
I think the mention of blood on the glass strongly suggests that the killer entered Mary's room by the window or opened the door using the window , rather than just by unlocking or opening the door. |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 578
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 5:20 pm: | |
Simon tells us,
"...the last thing the police were looking for were bits of broken glass !"
Well then, this explains how they missed that big "FM" scrawled right there on the back wall!
--John (who sees initials everywhere) |
Simon Owen
Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 19
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 5:42 pm: | |
Could it be that - shock horror ! - there were NO INITIALS THERE ??? |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 579
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 5:47 pm: | |
Gee.
Ya' think?
--John (who loves all things Feldmaniacal) |
Simon Owen
Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 21
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 6:04 pm: | |
My suspicions are inclined in that direction , uh huh !
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2817
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 6:48 pm: | |
Hi Simon
I know that in the original shock of entering the room the police may have been somewhat dazed. Nevertheless, at some point the room was properly investigated. The bed was moved and the doctors found a pool of blood on the floor under the corner nearest the partition ; the ashes were sifted through ; an inventory was taken, etc. Surely they'd have noticed broken glass?
But if they had, then Abberline wouldn't have taken quite such a keen interest in Hutchinson's statement of 12th, since the presence of glass on the floor would strongly suggest that Hutchinson's toff, who was invited into the room, wasn't the murderer - unless we take the view that Abberline actually suspected Hutchinson, and was just stringing him along by pretending to believe his story in order to buy time.
I'm assuming that broken glass on the floor would have been taken by the police as evidence of Jack's mode of entry - surely Mary wouldn't leave broken glass lying around in her own room (as opposed to outside it) for several days.
Anyway, if you're right and the murderer cut himself reaching through the pane, then that probably lets Joe out - the police would have examined him for cuts.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1010
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 5:00 am: | |
hi,
You cannot be serious, about the Ripper breaking into kellys room in the middle of the night, the window had been broken for days.
Judging by Kellys worries on venturing out alone, and her paronoid in staying in that room alone at nights during october, one would imagine that she when alone at nights locked the door from the inside securely, the only time she would have left the door on the latch would have been if she was not planning to be out long.
Mrs cox who followed kelly and Blotchy face into the court made no mention that kelly fiddled around putting her hand through the window, as she passed them outside room 13, kelly was entering the room , followed by her guest.
The only sure thing is the killer of kelly pulled the door shut after leaving the room, and therefore a key or the method of entry that Barnett and Mary had been using was necessary to gain entry.
Richard. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 739
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 5:14 am: | |
Hi Richard,
So the key was missing.
Well that makes the diary wrong.
Unless of course the killer found the key and flee with it?
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1408
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 9:45 am: | |
G'day,
The 'Daily Telegraph' of November 10 1888 said that Elizabeth Prater said: "the man with whom the deceased had cohabitated with until a week ago when they seperated in consequence of a quarrel in the course of which the window was broken."
So there it is...Proof of when the window was broken...and I believe it is also proof of when the key went missing, because I really dont think a woman who would put a coat up to block the hole as soon as she was given one, would have the courage to leave her door unlocked when she went out! But how else would she have opened her door?
LEANNE
"Mummy, Mummy! I hate Daddy's guts!"
"Shut up and keep eating!"
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 587
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 9:57 am: | |
Well, maybe when James wrote "with the key I did flee" he meant, "with the heart I did flee."
Maybe he wrote "key" but really meant "heart," because, after all, the heartbeat is the key to life.
You see?
So just because it says "key" doesn't mean it actually means "key." "Key" in this case could mean "heart." Right?
And Mary's was missing, right?
So that solves that.
Once again careful reading and impeccable logic rescue the diary from another problem.
It's easy when you get the hang of it.
-- John
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 839
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 10:28 am: | |
Hi, Leanne:
You wrote--
The 'Daily Telegraph' of November 10 1888 said that Elizabeth Prater said: "the man with whom the deceased had cohabitated with until a week ago when they seperated in consequence of a quarrel in the course of which the window was broken."
So there it is...Proof of when the window was broken...and I believe it is also proof of when the key went missing.
Sorry, Leanne, but look at the construction of the statement. It is saying that Mary Jane cohabited with the man "until a week ago" not that the key went missing a week ago, or even that the quarrel that led to the broken window was a week ago. It seems to me that Barnett's statement that the key had been missing for "some time" could still be taken, as you yourself have said, "to mean a day, a week or a month or any time." Moreover, Elizabeth Prater might not have been right, i.e., the window might not have been broken at the time of the quarrel but rather it was broken as he stated, to allow entrance to the room because the key had somehow been lost.
Best regards
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Simon Owen
Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 25
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 2:40 pm: | |
Heres another possibility then : the 2nd pane of glass in the window at Miller's Court was broken in Mary's quarrel with Barnett.
Mrs Prater said ' the window was broken ' , but it doesn't mean there wasn't a broken pane there already. This fits in with Barnett's statement about the missing key.
The way I see things happening is that there was a broken pane in the window , and when Joe and Mary lost the key they began using the hole in the glass to open the door ( via the latch ). About a week before Mary's death there was a quarrel involving Joe and her , in the course of which the window got broken ( again ). After this quarrel , Joe moved out of the room.
The Telegraph was and still is a respectable newspaper , so I am inclined to believe it when it says there was blood on the glass in the window : it would strike me that the killer entered Mary's room this way by reaching in and opening the latch. The way out for Jack would be through the door , which may have locked itself when shut.
Its possible that the killer broke a window to get in , but the absence of broken glass in the room would suggest this was not the case , so I'm happy to discard this theory.The above seems more logical to me.
(Message edited by simonowen on August 12, 2004) |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 163
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 4:47 pm: | |
I know this is not going to go down too well but, last night I was looking for something about those folded 'wet' clothes and I skipped through a press article mentioning that the missing key was found, the article also quoted Abberline"
"An impression has gone abroad that the murderer took away the key of the room. Barnett informs me that it has been missing some time,..."
If it really matters I'll try backtrack but I only stumbled across this thread now so I wasn't thinking that it was an issue.
The report said the key was found and that the opinion of Abberline was that it was a mistaken belief that the key was taken by the killer.
Sorry for the spanner..
Regards, Jon |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 591
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 5:08 pm: | |
No problem, Jon.
Thanks for the interesting citation.
But that's just history, and as the diary shows us time and time again, history is routinely wrong.
Besides, you must remember, he wrote the word "key," but he probably meant "heart."
It's just common sense.
Not worried,
--John (distinguished graduate of the Smith and Morris school of creative reading through desire) |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1409
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 5:40 pm: | |
G'day,
CHRIS: Elizabeth Prater: "...IN CONSEQUENCE, [because of], A QUARREL IN THE COURSE OF WHICH THE WINDOW WAS BROKEN."
The window couldn't be opened by lifting the pane, so it had to be broken to make the 'hand-through-window' trick possible.
If Barnett had nothing to hide from the police, no secrets to keep, and was so completely innocent, why didn't he fully explain to Abberline that the two holes in the window happened on two seperate occasions. Why wasn't he more precise in his statement: "for some time"?
LEANNE
"Doctor, Doctor, my son swallowed a pen! What should I do?"
"Use a pencil instead!"
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 167
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 9:53 am: | |
Hey John.
I hate to leave things hanging in a 'maybe'-'maybe not' fashion, so I tracked it down.
The Star.
November 12, 1888.
'..the key of the murdered woman's door has been found, so that her murderer did not carry it away with him, as was first supposed"
I guess the forger missed that one, huh?
Have a great weekend, Jon
(final nail in that coffin methinks) |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 607
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 10:17 am: | |
Hi Jon,
Of course, you'll soon be told here, by the desperate and determined, that the newspapers got lots of stuff wrong (just like history) and therefore the diary is probably right, not the record.
That's why this place is so much fun -- imagination consistently trumps the data.
Unless, of course, they offer the "he wrote 'key,' but he really' meant 'heart'" argument (a la The Poste House nonsense).
That one would be funnier, but only by a little bit.
Thanks again,
--John
PS: The coffin itself was buried long ago -- now we're just hammering nails into the desperate insistence on rhetorical nonsense. |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 168
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 4:43 pm: | |
"The coffin itself was buried long ago"
Glad to hear it, I don't have the patience for it myself. I boobed with this 'key' poste, I didn't realize it was a 'diary' thread.
I'll pay more attention in future.
All the best, Jon |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 609
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 5:52 pm: | |
No problem, Jon,
Stop by our land of fakes and imagination anytime -- just be prepared for the desperation and the desire-filled excuses.
You get used to it here in Diary World, where there is still nothing new and still nothing real.
--John
PS: You should see the list of stuff "the forger missed."  |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1196
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 4:55 am: | |
Hi Jon,
Was that a one-off Freudian slip, or have I detected in your writing a natural tendency - just like our friend the diarist - to spell post 'poste'? 
Love,
Caz
X |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1197
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 5:09 am: | |
By the way, I wonder where the key was found - that is, assuming a paper like The Star was above making up a story in an attempt to egg on the killer to send back the key (if he had it) just for jolly wouldn't you, so he could prove them wrong?
(Go go, go Johnny go go go )
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 626
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 8:36 am: | |
Jon,
I do hope you were prepared.
Simple, rational, logical burial does not kill dreams and desires in some worlds.
Desperation trumps history every time under some signatures.
But you can't say I didn't warn you.
From the haunted Diary-land of zombies,
--John
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
