|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 211
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 12:25 pm: |       |
The subject line description here describes the scene and asks us, "Is this verifiable by the historical record?"
The answer, of course, is no.
But it is "verified" by the Michael Caine mini-series which aired on British television at around the time of the centenary.
It's in the mini-series, and it's in the diary, and yet there's no evidence anywhere that it ever really happened. It was made-up by the writers of the film.
And it's even in about the same point in the narrative in both.
Hmmmmm.
But I'm sure someone will soon be here to offer an alternative excuse and explanation.
See ya',
--John (just having fun)
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 214
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 4:56 pm: | |
OK, I've changed my mind.
I see now that the "Abberline almost captures the Ripper" scenes in both the diary and the mini-series are not evidence that the diary was informed by the movie, but just the opposite.
Don't you see?
The filmmakers read the diary!
Of course.
This explains everything. See, they were looking at all the stuff we know about the Ripper and reading books like the Knight conspiracy stuff they used, but they still didn't have a dramatic close-call scene or a central way to structure the movie's narrative.
Then they read the amazing confession of James Maybrick (without telling anyone and without announcing its existence) and eureka! They had just what they needed.
They could turn the whole story into a mano-a-mano psychological struggle between the Ripper and Abberline. Just like the diary. They could have Abberline almost catch the Ripper in a dramatic moment near the end of the murders, just like the diary. Of course, they couldn't have Maybrick actually be the Ripper, because that would force them to reveal where they stole this stuff from. So they used the Knight theory and off they went.
Of course, it wasn't the diarist who stole the scene and the plot structure from the film, it was the filmmakers who stole them from the diarist.
And, of course, even though there's no historical record of such a close-call ever happening, who's to say it couldn't have, even if Abberline never left any trace of such an event anywhere?
So maybe this is even more proof that the diary was really written by the murderer -- since only he would know if this happened or not. And the movie guys might just have stumbled into the truth!
I guess time really does reveal all.
--John (now lovin' it) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 683
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 10:23 am: | |
Hi John et al, (mainly John has been talking to himself here I see! ).
Can I just ask in reality did Abberline go plodding about at night as it were or would it be more likely he would only arrive on a crime scene after the murder had been found.
It is interesting what you say John about the TV series and diary appearing to coincide.
All i would say is it is possible to be true and for the movie to have by chance alone written the same sort of encounter.
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 536
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 10:38 am: | |
Hi Jennifer,
Yes, "possible" -- like our space alien architects -- but since there's no record of any such event actually taking place or even likely to have taken place, even if both the forger and the movie writers did just by chance happen to write the same ahistorical "close-call" sequence at the same place in their narratives, it would still tell us that both were works of fiction, and therefore that the diary was a fake.
Of course, the "coincidence" that both the movie and the diary have the very same sort of event at the very same place in their stories AND it's an event which never actually took place is a delightful one.
Now what was the date on that movie again?
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 686
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 10:51 am: | |
John,
honestly the date, 1988?
I know but you did ask John and thats all i could think of
Later
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 842
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 10:50 am: | |
Excuse me i have a question,
Please I don't want to watch the whole movie again (which i own on video incidentally)
so could you please tell me the point in the movie where this is relevant ie after which murder etc ...
Please, RJL misrepresentation to the point of laughing(the words gross over exageration of the truth spring to mind in relation to this point!)
Please don't make me!!!
My thanks to you are extended in advance!
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 684
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 11:05 am: | |
Hi Jen, It's the scene where Michael Caine as Abberline sets up the Ripper in the alley and is about to spring on him and he gets away.
It happens somewhere near the end of the film, if I remember correctly.
As, I seem to recall, it also happens in the diary's narrative.
Of course, it never happened in real life.
But you should watch the whole film anyway.
Apart from all the goofiness in it, one thing it does is frame the entire case as a sort of mano-a-mano struggle between two men, the Ripper and Abberline. It makes Abberline the central figure in the investigation and the other person in the duel.
So does the diary.
History, of course, was a bit different.
In fact, the Abberline talked about in the diary could easily be Caine's, if you read it again having watched the film.
Anyway, this particular piece of speculation on my part is not evidence, the way that the appearance of "Poste House" in the diary is, or the appearance of "tin matchbox empty" in the diary is, or the appearance of the very same line excerpted and cited in both the diary and the Sphere Guide is, or the appearance of the simple ahistorical mistakes concerning the murders is, or the appearance of the utterly wrong handwriting is, or the complete lack of any provenance is.
This is just yet another odd coincidence I noticed and found interesting.
Check it out.
Perhaps you will too.
Enjoy, and laugh at the RJL parts.
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 843
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 11:32 am: | |
John,
I thank you so very much, I will not have to watch that particular film all the way through (will have to watch the end though)
Jennifer
ps Lees was not having any kind of relationship with Richard Mansfield, he did not own clothes like that, he did not see wheels, he probably did not help the police capture JTR, he was married with appox ten children at the time, he was not JTR......
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 851
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 7:22 am: | |
John,
having fast forwarded through the whole film, I think I've missed the vital bit (probably wasn't paying proper attention) alley you say is that after the Kelly murder or before?
Jenni
ps he wasn't queen victorias medium in all probability, his hair was not like that.....
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 102
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 8:05 am: | |
John , its not in the Michael Caine film.
The scene you are talking about is in Murder by Decree ( 1979 ) which starred Christopher Plummer as Sherlock Holmes and James Mason as Watson ( Jenni - Robert Lees was played by Donald Sutherland ! )
Holmes almost catches the Ripper in a foggy alley near the docks but the Ripper escapes , Holmes injuring his arm in the process either being shot or hit by a crane arm/ships mast/something else ( I can't remember which ). Then Holmes goes to the Masonic Hall to confront Lord Salisbury ( played by Sir John Gielgud ) , the Ripper is called William Slade but hes obviously meant to be Dr Gull ( the film follows the Royal Conspiracy theory ).
So Abberline isn't involved at all sadly , the Inspector in the film is called Inspector Foxborough. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 855
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 8:34 am: | |
Well there goes that one. Thank god i didn't watch it properly all the way through (phew!)
I've been told by those in the know that the portrayal of Lees in Murder By Decree is much more realistic!
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 690
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 8:56 am: | |
Simon,
Haven't seen that one,
But a similar scene with Abberline is indeed in the Caine film. Now I'll have to find some time to watch it again to tell you exactly where. The close call occurs in an alley, I seem to recall, and involves a carriage (of course).
Sorry, Jen, but you still might have to sit through it.
All the best,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 859
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 9:44 am: | |
John,
SPOILER!!
at the end of the film gull is set up by nettley and abberline when he is attacking the blonde girl in the alley at the end but he does catch her?
Jenni
ps cat cat!!! dog maybe he had a dog i seem to recall cat? (sigh!).......those clothes...those wheels, please .....
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 691
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 9:52 am: | |
Ah, Jen,
I think at that point he does indeed get his man, doesn't he?
Or maybe not. I haven't watched it a year or so.
I think the "close call" one is around the time of the Kelly murder.
In any case, already you can see what I am saying about the Abberline vs. the Ripper duel being in both the diary and the movie (but not really the history that we have).
Just a thought,
--John
PS: Yes, the "visions" are hilarious. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 860
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 10:00 am: | |
John,
I can see what you mean.
I'm going to have to watch it aren't i? at least it is the bank holiday weekend here!
i think Figment may have come from the land of imagination to write some aspects - but then again it is supposed to be entertainment not real!
Jenni
ps Robert Lees, who'd have thought i'd be talking about him on this Maybrick thread!
pps apparently wgo'd is a word now!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 693
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 7:54 pm: | |
Hi Jen,
No question. Figment was definitely one of the co-writers.
--John (who hopes his memory isn't failing him about the location of the scene, but knows he's right about the battle) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 872
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 5:05 pm: | |
John,
may have managed to persuade company for a bank holiday treat!!
Jenni
ps let you know how i get on in due course!!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 695
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 5:29 pm: | |
Hi Jen,
Since you are going to put yourself through that torture again, you might also watch for moments where Abberline seems to talk directly to the Ripper (in his head or to himself) as if this were a duel between the two of them.
He does it in much the same way the James character in the diary does the reverse.
In fact, at times it's almost as if the two of them were having a conversation if you read the words of the diarist and then listen to Abberline.
Of course, that could just be my hyperactive imagination at work, as I always watch this movie with Figment by my side.
You sort of have to, don't you? Otherwise you get run over by a mysterious carriage. 
Remember to laugh, it's all in good fun,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 873
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 5:26 am: | |
Hi John,
you could get run over by a mysterious carriage driven by a person who didn't exist and carrying a famous doctor if only you had figment by your side!
Jen
ps hows figment?
did he enjoy the movie?
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 880
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 2:56 pm: | |
SPOILER!!!
John,
I meant this. Do you mean after the Stride murder when Abberline and Godfrey arrive at Dutfields Yard and discover they cannot long have missed the killer?
They are talking about between one and five past with the cart guy?
This fits with the narrative in the diary in a different earlier place before tin match box empty but not with the narrative in the diary after/around the Kelly murder when this line is written.
Jennifer
ps i thought Nettley did not exist but they say he died in 1903, then again they also imply Robert Lees (who had 16 children) was homosexual (not that there's anything wrong with being homosexual its just the film is clearly wrong about RJL being so as with a lot of other details for a film claiming to have been based on fact doesn't fill me with confidence in the case presented against WWG!)
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 698
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 3:42 pm: | |
Hi Jen,
I'll have to go back and double-check to be sure, but that does sound familiar. I seem to recall another one, too, where Michael thinks he's got the killer trapped. But that might be just my imagination once again. 
I hope you are also seeing a bit of what I mean about the way the film, like the diary, turns the case into this one-on-one type struggle between the Ripper and Abberline (at least in his mind), seeing who can be more clever and outfox the other one.
The whole characterization of Lees, of course, is just silly.
All the best,
--John
|
A Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 7:45 am: | |
Of course we know what you mean John. The scene which isnt actually in the film you refer to is a clincher for me.
Alan |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 728
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 8:35 pm: | |
Alan,
Read my post again. It's about more than one scene. And yes, when I watch the film again, I'll be happy to tell you where I find the original scene I meant.
Thanks for your usual insightful input,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 954
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 8:12 am: | |
incidentally
i know what John is driving at, perhaps it is because we had some of this conversation by email?!
anyway, thanks
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 6:20 am: | |
Maybrick was almost caught AT the murder of Eddowes.
"The mind is more subtle than a hard fact" |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1031
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 10:22 am: | |
TB now your what?
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 786
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 10:49 am: | |
TB,
You are turning purple.
The text of the diary cannot be used as evidence for what happened, since the diary cannot be established as real.
Sometimes, in their desperation, people forget that.
--John (smiling at the latest Figment moments)
PS: Oh, wait, maybe this all has to do with the super secret evidence that no one is allowed to see but that we all have to believe exists.
If that's so, then now I'm just laughing. |
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 7:23 pm: | |
I am laughing too! (adds more words to allow posting)  |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
