|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 185
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 9:46 pm: |       |
Hi RJ,
Yes. It wasn't a test. Just an appropriate citation. 
All the best,
--John (who needs eleven more words and thinks that should be enough) |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 197
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 12:11 am: | |
Argh.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm getting a bit exasperated by the attitudes here of late. I can't pretend that I've never let frustration get the better of me in the diary debate, but the atmosphere in here has been unhelpful in the extreme lately.
For whatever reason, we're all here to discuss the "Diary". We don't all agree. We're not all on the same page here. However the diary debate has an annoying tenancy to quickly deteriorate into unpleasant accusations regarding the motives, beliefs, or personalities of the participants which is frankly frustrating.
A few random thoughts I need to get off my chest...
John Omlor,
I love ya buddy, but the cynicism isn't helpful. It fuels the "diary believers are persecuted" argument which makes this whole thing harder. If there is no hope, then there really isn't a point to continuing here, and I have to believe there is hope. I won't ask you to believe in the diary (Cause I don't based on the evidence to date), but if you could stop laying on innuendos, we'd all be better off.
Robert Smith and Paul Stephen,
There is no such thing as the "anti-diary brigade". We don't come out of the woodwork every time that someone suggests the diary could be genuine. Nor are comments like "The cause of the anger is, I suggest, because so many people don’t actually think it is a hoax." anything but insulting to those who are posting. None of us have a financial interest in the diary or it's validity, and of those in the "critical" section (A whopping 1/2 dozen or so posters if that. Hardly a brigade. We wouldn't even make a decent scout troop.) have in general spent YEARS researching our thoughts on the matter. If those who believe in the diary are to be given the benefit of the doubt regarding the sincerity of their beliefs, then I can only suggest that the reverse should hold true.
Caz,
It's great that your mind is open to all possibilities. Really. But I don't think that those who feel they have enough information to make an informed judgement (Pro or con) deserve the degree of criticism you seem to aim in their general direction. Everyone has different standards, and to criticize people for holding to their own standards is to open your own up to scrutiny. Just my opinion :-)
Personally, I would like to see the debate on these boards move more towards the specifics of the diary and the various issues as opposed to the personalities of those involved in the debate which seems to be more and more of a focus of late. If those who believe in the diary's validity want to have a forum to discuss that specifically, I suggest that a thread be created for self congratulation. The same should hold true for those who want to discuss the diary as a forgery. Woo hoo. Let's all clap each other on the back.
I make no apologies for my belief that the document is (as Andy put it so well), a hoax. I think the evidence points in that direction very strongly. Currently, I am unwilling to speculate as to when the document might have been created. The scientific evidence isn't as solid as I would like it to be to offer a definitive opinion on that point. But you know what? We're not all going to agree here. That's inherent in any honest debate. But let's focus on the issues at hand rather than those people participating. Let's all give each other the benefit of the doubt, and focus our attention on the document at hand.
But as Dennis Miller says... That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Regards,
John Hacker
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 198
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 12:27 am: | |
P.S.
R.J. You've been a shining light, with some new and truly helpful suggestions that could move the debate out of the rut it's in. New ground to cover is ALWAYS good when we've paced over the same turf for so many years.
Rock on! |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 199
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 7:09 am: | |
Sigh. After re-reading my post in the clear (and sober) light of morning I'm afraid that I didn't quite convey the message I intended to.
Clearly singling out individual posters wasn't the right way to go about putting an end to the finger pointing. My bad. But there was one person I should have singled out last night but didn't, so in the interest of fairness.
John Hacker,
Less sarcasm, and a thicker skin wouldn't hurt. You're too @#$% cocky, and are in no way innocent of fueling the diary acrimony. Or of being a judgmental SOB either, so who are you to go pointing fingers? Hmmmm? (And no more posting after staying up late drinking with the wife. Bad poster.)
I hope none of the people I mentioned above take my post in the wrong way. It was meant as a plea for common understanding rather than the accusatory rant it reads like right now. If anyone was offended, please accept my apologies.
I have great respect for all of those who post here, and would like to see us at least working together cordially rather than finger pointing, etc. I don't agree with everyone here, but I respect everyone's right to come to their own conclusions. I believe that all of those posting here are honestly expressing their beliefs, and have a genuine interest in getting to the bottom of the diary question.
I guess for me that the bottom line is whatever "camp" we individually fall into, we're all sharing a campfire here. So let's all respect each others right to disagree, and discuss this thing cordially while we toast some marshmallows. |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 186
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 7:46 am: | |
John,
Of course, you are right about all that, including and especially what you write to me. The diary debate has, for the most part, gone nowhere for years, and since everything has already been discussed at least a hundred times or more, all that's left for many of us is the frustration that comes with fatigue.
I do apologize if the result of that fatigue is an unpleasant rhetoric sometimes.
If I were to try one time to explain why I "continue here," John, I would say that what makes it a bit difficult not to be cynical and at the same time compels me to stick around is the knowledge that every day someone new is likely to be seduced by the hoax, and in any intellectual field, the perpetuating of a hoax damages the entire field's credibility at least a little. As this field of study moves more and more in the direction of serious scholarship and serious, historical research and analysis, things like this, I believe, become more and more a detriment to a slowly growing professionalism I see developing (both on the boards and in the publications about these crimes and this period).
But I have no doubt that what you say regarding each of us is certainly valid and an accurate impression. I know more than a few experts in this field, well published, thoughtful people who know as much or more about these crimes than anyone else alive, who have simply refused to talk about this book or the hoax in any way, who have decided that the best strategy for themselves and for their profession is to ignore it and carry on with their work. I understand their position and sympathize with what is probably a wise choice. But I do worry that hoaxes like this left untreated and unchecked contaminate the rest of the discipline. Perhaps I'm wrong about that. Perhaps they are simply the inevitable by-product of such a celebrated moment in history and will come and go no matter what is done, with no lasting damage to the serious work taking place. I hope so.
But I take your post as a fair reading and, after this little explanation of mine, will try to keep my natural and inherent cynicism to a tolerable level.
All the best,
--John |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 187
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 4:55 pm: | |
Cute joke, Paul.
But Crashaw was a 17th Century British poet and Maybrick was a Victorian gentleman, so professional expertise in 17th Century British poetry and Victorian literary history seems to me to be quite relevant to our concerns.
All the best,
--John |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 581
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 9:16 am: | |
Hi, John Hacker:
Bravo for your wise and helpful post urging the posters here to debate the Diary and not the personalities involved. And a second bravo to you for your self-deprecating postscript in which you faulted yourself for sometimes singling out personalities. Applause all round therefore for two brilliant posts which I hope people will heed, and here I include myself as well. 
Since the Diary has been around for eleven years and, as we have noted, the debate has developed a certain circularity, we can hardly be surprised that the conversation goes off track into name calling. Yet you are exactly right that we will get nowhere by namecalling.
Best regards
Chris George |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 8:39 am: | |
OK Dr O...Truce time eh?
I shall look forward to learning much, much more over on the new threads purpose built for the diary "inconsistencies" debate.
Regards
Paul |
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 10:17 am: | |
Hi Caz
I'm not particularly interested in charging someone with the 'forgery'. That wasn't the case I meant.
I realise that you and others seem to have an interest in who wrote it and when, but I don't see as that is relevant to the case (the actual JtR case) unless we first decide the diary is 'true' - which is the case I meant - the 'prosecution', if you like , for James Maybrick (or at least, for the person who wrote the diary) to actually be JtR himself.
By true, I mean written by the actual JtR, whether that was James Maybrick or someone who actually was JtR incriminating James Maybrick (he seems to have been unpopular, both now and then).
The evidence at the moment is not convincing that the Diary is true - indeed, most of it points to the diary as being a forgery. Only if we have convincing evidence that the diary is _not_ a forgery is it worth pursuing as far as JtR is concerned.
Age of the diary is obviously of interest, but only insofar as if it could be proved to be modern it would make it a certain forgery. Proving it is old, however, does not prove it 'true'. (As I believe has been shown by others, enough information existed during James's lifetime that even he could have faked it - not that I am suggesting that is the case!).
Regards
Pete |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 429
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 11:00 am: | |
John Hacker
I add my hearty thanks for your very sensible post. Unfortunately I also think that it will fall on stony ground.
I was one of those who instigated this thread because of a genuine desire to learn more about the diary. I was not coming from a pro or anti diary stance, rather from a point of view of wanting to amass all pro and anti diary evidence and then, and only then, decide which had the greater weight.
I also made it very clear from the beginning that I found it hard to believe that the diary was genuine, but would not rule it out unless I had very clear evidence in order to do so. Yet right from the word go I was shouted down and the tone of posts was effectively that even considering the remote possibility that it might be genuine puts me in the "pro-diary" camp along with Caz and Paul neither of whom have at any point said the diary is genuine either. The result was I gave up posting here because I found the whole process futile.
There are sensible voices here, on both sides of the debate, but they seem all too often to get shouted down. Claiming that because something is unlikely that makes it impossible doesn't help. John Omlor, you can find me a hundred people with PhD's in any subjects you like and not one of them can tell me what book a man had open on his desk 116 years ago.
Anyway, I promised Caz I would jump back into the lions den so here I am. My attitude is, and will continue to be, I don't know enough about the diary yet, please educate me but don't preach to me. I met Robert Smith on Saturday evening, he was very generous with his time - thank you - and not once did he try to convince me that the diary was genuine, rather his attitude was "keep looking, because we need people to keep looking". Surely that should be that attitude on both sides of the debate, because thats what keeps it being a debate and stops it from being a slanging match.
Alan |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 711
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 11:16 am: | |
Hi Chris (P),
I’m not sure if any of the recent posters would claim to be ‘arguing’ that the diary is genuine. I have always agreed that the onus is on Maybrick theorists to prove their theory, while modern hoax theorists have the same onus upon them to prove theirs. No one has to disprove either theory, but nevertheless they will both stand until they fall. Wishful thinking won’t make either topple into the Mersey.
Maybe the missing key issue is the smoking gun we are all seeking. I certainly don’t see anything in the historical record to indicate that the key was not lost, or that the ripper would have needed one. But I can only judge by more than a decade’s worth of wordy attempts by modern hoax theorists to shoot the diary down on other issues, like the handwriting and the obscure quotation, to mention just two. If the key with which the diarist did flee is all they ever needed to unlock Pandora’s Box and set all the diary’s ills free to make their wild dash for the Mersey, it’s a mystery why any of them are still fannying about with arguments about Kelly’s breasts, Michael’s lyrics or a tiny watering hole in Cumberland Street.
The key to proving a modern hoax is obviously still missing, whatever it is. But I’m not going to argue that our dodgy diarist was playing with words as usual, and maybe thought ‘flee’ just made a good rhyme for ‘key’. I suppose the actual killer might have smiled to himself, however, at the thought of people puzzling over the locked door, and imagining he must have used a key and taken it away with him, when he knew he had only needed to pull the door to.
Hi RJ,
I suppose, if the scrapbook itself could date from circa 1870, we would have no way of knowing whether the edges could have become extensively worn by handling in the first decade or so of its life, long before the idea of using it for a ripper confession could have occurred to anyone.
You quote Rendell saying the scrapbook ‘probably’ contained postcards; Baxendale saying it ‘may’ have contained photos, of a size that was ‘popular’ between the two wars.
You then sum up these two opinions to give us your ‘most likely’ date for the diary’s composition as post-1919, which, ‘in other words’ means it ‘must have’ been written a good 30 years after Maybrick’s death. Forgive me, but have I missed a stage of your calculations here?
Hi Robert,
My problem is that I have no academic qualifications of my own that I imagine would allow me to conclude when the diary was written, and so give me a fighting chance of working out who may have written it and why. I have only the experts in their various fields to guide me. Forensics, I thought, would occupy the most fertile ground, and provide me with facts and objective professional opinions. Dedicated historians with as few preconceptions as humanly possible would be next on my list of people to consult.
So I don’t know what I am meant to do with your list of diary commentators with PhDs. It’s all very well, but you and John Omlor, with his own group of qualified commentators, are giving me an impossible task here. There is no way that I am qualified to accept or reject the opinions of either group. Even if I had all their paper qualifications lined up in front of me right now, I wouldn’t know who would have the edge when it comes to the subject of the diary. The paradox is that I am considered a fool by John if I take seriously the opinions of anyone on your list, but a wise owl if I take seriously his own opinions, and those of his colleagues.
I am also apparently a fool for not rejecting out of hand the qualified opinion of Professor of English at the University of Cambridge, Christopher Ricks, who edited the essay in the Sphere Guide. Shirley Harrison heard from Ricks that he had no problem with the idea of a non-Catholic businessman in Victorian Liverpool having read some of Crashaw’s poetry. I am supposed to accept that Ricks’ knowledge on the subject is inferior to John’s, and all I have to guide me is the fact that Ricks doesn’t have a problem while John does.
How can I be criticised for being piggy in the middle, not knowing whose opinion I can confidently lean towards?
Love,
Caz
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 188
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 12:16 pm: | |
Alan,
RE: PhDs in literary history...
Actually, they can come pretty close. But you're right, saying that something is highly unlikely is not the same as saying it's impossible.
However, if you list one thing after another that's highly unlikely, and you get a long list of things that are all highly unlikely, then there's really no need for the "impossible" (which isn't likely to show up in any case, regardless of the truth of the thing).
Of course, one can always invoke the logic of monkeys typing Shakespeare (again) and say that anything is still possible. But inductive conclusions are just as valid as deductive ones, logically speaking. And the inductive conclusion concerning authenticity in this case comes from a substantial list of premises.
Caz,
Just for the record, are you really in the middle? I seem to recall you writing here in days of old that the handwriting issue pretty much settled things for you concerning the question of authenticity. Do I have that wrong?
Just wondering, for the sake of a complete and open discussion,
--John |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 202
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 1:07 pm: | |
All,
Thanks for the kind words. I really appreciate it and hope we come move forward in a more productive fashion.
With so much new blood in the discussion of late, I have more hope that I have in the past.
Alan,
I have to say that I envy you getting to meet Robert in person, it would be very interesting to meet him. Unfortunately, I'm on the wrong side of the pond. :-( In any case, welcome back to the discussion!
Regards,
John Hacker |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 584
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 1:18 pm: | |
Hi, John, Caz, and Robert:
If somebody would tell me that a criminal profiler such as Professor David Canter, Director of the Centre for Investigative Psychology at the University of Liverpool, would believe in the Diary and thus Maybrick's candidacy, I would say it would be "highly improbable."
Yet, in Dr. Canter's new book, Mapping Murder: The Secrets of Geographical Profiling (Virgin Publishing, 2003), he devotes three whole chapters to the Maybrick Diary. He concludes that the writer of the Diary was "a remarkably ingenious man" and he finds the narrative to be "inventive psychological writing of the highest order" to the extent that "few novelists could capture the all-embracing egocentricity with its mix of gloating irony and self-pity" as does the Diarist. Go figure.
As most of you will know, I hold no brief for Maybrick-as-the-Ripper. In fact, to my mind the thing is a schlocked-together artifact to make a suspect of a Victorian man who died at just the right time. However, I find it interesting and intriguing that Canter, with no financial motive but with impressive academic and criminological/psychological bona fides, would come down squarely in the Diary camp when one might expect to see him in the anti-Diary party.
Best regards
Chris George |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 189
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 1:30 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
Yes, but wasn't Canter already on record from early in the diary days, professionally speaking? My memory might be playing tricks on me (I'm at work and without my books), but hadn't Canter already come out with a similar sort of conclusion early in the investigation?
Maybe I'm remembering something else he did regarding JTR?
Genuinely not sure,
--John |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 585
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 2:31 pm: | |
Hi, John:
I am not sure that Professor Canter was involved in any way in the early stages of the Diary, except as a resident of Liverpool who heard about the Diary through the media. As far as I know, Canter's expression of views on the Diary and Maybrick's candidacy as the Ripper stems more from the later 1990's some five years after the Diary's appearance in 1993, or six years after Mike Barrett took the document to London literary agent Doreen Montgomery. A BBC news article of Wednesday, September 16, 1998 headlined "Ripper diary has historians stumped" related that "More than 100 delegates at the International Investigative Psychology Conference at Liverpool University failed to reach a consensus on whether Jack the Ripper was in fact a Liverpool cotton trader called James Maybrick." At that time, Canter, who hosted the conference, said psychological profiling shows it is "plausible" that the diary may have been written by Jack the Ripper.
All the best
Chris
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 203
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 2:42 pm: | |
Chris,
I am not sure that it's safe to say Canter believes in the diary. His book makes it fairly clear that his is not entirely convinced although he finds it plausible. There are any number of "If the diary is authentic..." CYAs.
He also seemed to have a few misconceptions regarding the basic Ripper crimes stating for example that "All the pundits seem to agree that the facts relating to the Ripper murders are correct.", which as we can see from the "Problem phrases" threads, isn't exactly the case.
He also writes off the handwriting differences between the diarist and James Maybrick in a what I feel is a rather cavalier fashion, stating that "Very little remains of any writing which can be claimed to be genuinely in his hand." Which is arguably true depending on your point of view on the will, but neglects the fact that the diarist also takes credit for the Dear Boss letter, which we know doesn't match the diary. His take on the graphological testimony however hit the nail right on the head in my opinion. 
But all in all I was very impressed by his pieces on the diary in Mapping Murder. His profile of the diarist, which was done independent of the question of it's authenticity was worth the price of the book alone. It's interesting no matter what your position on the diaries authenticity, and gives food for thought for both "camps".
Regards,
John |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 190
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 3:08 pm: | |
Thanks Chris,
Maybe that's what I was thinking of. I just had this vague recollection of Canter's opinions being invoked earlier in the process and therefore his having already been on the record.
All the best,
--John |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 285
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 10:39 pm: | |
Dear Caz--First of all, I'm assuming that Dr. Baxendale knows how to measure a rectangle. The First World War ended in 1918: 1918-1888=30 years. Do you have information that he is mistaken?
I'm also afraid that I can't let your rather puzzling statement go unchallenged:
"But I can only judge by more than a decade’s worth of wordy attempts by modern hoax theorists to shoot the diary down on other issues, like the handwriting...."
The handwriting? I'm confused. Do you wish to debate the point? Are you arguing that the handwriting is James Maybrick's?
Look, if we're going to be serious about examining the Diary's origins, we need to be mature and honest with ourselves. The starting point of any serious inquiry into the Diary must start with the frank admission that the text was NOT written by James Maybrick.
For starters, there is no way in Hades that the certified Maybrick will is a forgery. It was signed by two witnesses: friends of Maybrick, George Smith and George Davidson; further, AND THIS IS IMPORTANT--- both men were present at probate. (This happened on the 29th of July, 1889). Along with Smith and Davidson were the District Registrar of Liverpool (T.E. Paget), two of Maybrick's brothers, and any number of solicitors. What does this mean? It means that the will is entirely authentic and the certified copy is right there at Somerset House.
Even a cursory examination shows that the handwriting of the will does not even remotely resemble that in the Maybrick Diary.
On this very matter, Kenneth Rendell wrote the following important statement:
"Most important of all, a careful examination of the Maybrick will conclusively indicates that the signature on the will is signed by the same person who signed the marriage certificate---James Maybrick--and that the text of the will is also written by Maybrick. * * *
An analysis and comparison of the Maybrick will with the Jack the Ripper diary conclusively shows that they were written by two different people. Both examples were supposedly written at the same time. There is sufficient evidence to reach a definite conclusion. The historical facts in the diary so clearly identify the author as James Maybrick, that proof that he did not write the diary leaves only the conclusion that it is a hoax."
--Kenneth Rendell, Report on the Diary of Jack the Ripper, p. 10-11.
Rendell's findings were seconded by Joe Nickell. Rendell & Nickell are men who have written textbooks on document examination. Their findings were also confirmed by Maureen Owens, a document examiner with the Chicago Police Department for over 25 years.
Frankly, it is a waste of time to argue that the Diary's handwriting is James Maybrick's. It's not. The experts are in complete agreement. (And please don't mention Anna Koren. She is not a document examiner and she did not compare the Diary with known examples of Maybrick's handwriting. She merely looked at the Diary and gave something akin to a clairvoyant reading of the handwriting.)
Cheers, RP
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 286
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 10:44 pm: | |
Paul Stephen--Hello. I don't wish to put you on the spot, and perhaps you hadn't noticed my post of last Wednesday, 5:38 P.M. If not, you might wish to give it a look. You made a rather startling claim: ie., that the Diary has ""known facts about Maybrick in particular, that don’t feature in any of the books.". Now, we all know it's not uncommon for people to sometimes make hasty statements that they later realize aren't true. If you don’t wish to stand by this now, it’s not a problem. It’s o.k. On the otherhand, as it is a rather important point, I think it shouldn’t pass unchallenged. Presuming you still wish to make the argument, can you supply some examples of these obscure “facts”? (thanks) RP
|
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 430
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 5:48 am: | |
RJ
A question has been occurring to me all through looking at this issue which you address in your post above in Kenneth Rendell's words and that the text of the will is also written by Maybrick
Remembering that I am a beginner to this subject, do you know how this was ascertained? That would seem unusual to me. Under normal circumstances a person would employ a legal expert such as a solicitor to write the body of the will, someone who can frame the language in such a way that it could not later be contested. The testator would then simply append their signature, duly witnessed. Can you, or anyone, explain how it has been confirmed that this did not happen in this case and that the body of the will was indeed written by Maybrick? |
Robert Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 12:41 pm: | |
RJ Palmer
Yes, partly because of wear, but also partly because of the construction of the scrapbook used by the diarist, there is a clear view of the materials used in the spine. But I am more than happy for either “Bill” or Peter Bower to take another look at it.
Don’t just take my opinion about the date for the binding as being 1870 – 1910. I do have a personal and professional interest in how books ancient and modern have been produced, but I wouldn’t claim expertise. However, I am fascinated by Peter Bower’s pronouncement in 2003, that the scrapbook, in which the diary was written, was manufactured in 1900 or 1901. This was not his opinion, when he examined the diary in my offices in 1996. It is obviously important that he explains, in detail, how he was able to arrive at so precise a date.
I am 100% certain that the outline impressions of the “rectangular pieces” referred to by Rendell could not have been caused by postcards. It was mischievous of him to suggest this. Picture postcards did not come into use until the 1890s, and Rendell no doubt wanted to suggest, that this date is too late for a 1888/9 diary. However postcards were from the start much larger than the approximate 3 ½ x 2 ½ inches, which Dr Baxendale measured. It is true that photographs of that size were “popular between the wars”, but I have lots of Victorian and Edwardian photographs, which are also of this same size.
If I am correct, that the scrapbook was manufactured in the late Victorian period, it would seem odd (but not impossible) for someone, say in the 1930s when cameras became more popular, to be using an unused scrapbook from, say, forty years earlier, rather than buy a new, more appropriate album for the period, say in art deco style.
John Omlor
I don’t accept that your briefing of the PhDs achieved their objectivity, but I will let that go for the moment.
I ask again, what is your scholarly explanation for the assertion made by you in conjunction with ten or more other PhDs. So that you don’t pass over it again, here is what you wrote:
“Every single one of them confirmed without hesitation that the appearance of that line [“Oh costly intercourse/of death”] from that poem in a diary signed by that historical figure [James Maybrick] was clear evidence that the thing was a forgery”.
Will you please now present that “clear evidence”?
All we currently know is that, they have expertise “including Victorian literature and history, and 17th Century British Poetry”. The Crashaw quotation is crucial and we must know, what are the facts upon which you and they rely to claim “clear evidence” of a hoax?
Yes, do please e-mail me their names, job titles and the institutions where they teach. As for their permission being required, I would hope you and they all are confident enough in the scholarly basis of their “clear evidence” not to wish to be anonymous. However, unless you and they permit it, I will not publish their names.
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 2:56 pm: | |
Dear John H and All.
Exactly!.....That's why I'm here and wanting to find out more. Professor Canter amongst very many others have convinced me more than anything else, that a late 20th century Liverpool scally and his cronies probably had nothing whatever to do with it's creation.
If nothing else it's set us all thinking, and that can't be a bad thing.
Regards
Paul
P.S. Welcome back Alan. I was beginning to get lonely here! |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 7:03 pm: | |
Hi All,
How amusing to see Mr Canter appear in scene five of the Maybrick Diary...one could not have written with more intuitive power!
Eh, my first important Criminal Profile was accepted by the Home Office (Wm. Whitelaw) in late 1984 on behalf of Commander Greene, Ex RN,
re, the death of his aunt Ms. Hilda Murrell. The Chief Superintendant in charge of the operation made enquiries of a specific subject who then took his own life. Case Closed.
The Great Hoaxer is often blamed for the poverty of human thought, but my dear friends...look to the Great Truth-Tellers for the most apalling abominations of this world. The Great Hoaxer can only give you what YOU want. Is that not the truth?
Mr & Mrs Maybrick are only other characters in an otherwise simple tale.
Rosey :-)
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 5:48 pm: | |
Dear John O
"....if you list one thing after another that's highly unlikely, and you get a long list of things that are all highly unlikely, then there's really no need for the "impossible" (which isn't likely to show up in any case, regardless of the truth of the thing)."
I think several of us are here to discover for ourselves quite how long this list is before making up our minds. That has been my point, and the point of view of a few others I'm sure, all along.
I'm not convinced that list is quite as long as has been suggested in the past, and I for one don't have much of a problem with quite a few of the alleged inconsistencies based on my existing knowledge of the facts.
That's why I look forward to seeing the new threads, dealing specifically with the textual difficulties, taking off.
regards
Paul
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
