|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 8:14 am: |       |
John Hacker
I hope Dr Omlor will respect you enough to lay off making offensive and personal remarks about people he doesn’t know. It is sheer fantasy to suggest, that anyone here is “promoting a hoax”. It is quite obvious, that everyone on these boards, including Dr Omlor, actually is sincere about their beliefs and their analysis of the diary. That is why we are here. Cynicism in any field of life debilitates and demotivates those concerned, and that includes the cynic.
I do absolutely accept that there is a public interest factor in establishing whether or not the diary is a hoax, and I will cooperate with sensible proposals for scientific or other investigations to that end.
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 206
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 10:44 am: | |
Hi All,
A few more notes about Dr. Canter's history with the diary.
Apparently his first examination of the diary took place in July of '93 during filming for Paul Feldman's video. Apparently that initial experience was not a positive one, as he states in the introduction to the Blake Ed of Shirley's book "Indeed, before I met Shirley Harrison and was approached by others to comment on the 'Diary', not only was it impossible to get any clear or detailed information about its provenance, or the tests that had been carried out on the 'Diary' it was not really feasible to enter into any sensible dialogue about the claims and counter-claims, so vociferous were the advocates." He also mentions the experience in Mapping Murder "I was first approached by Paul Feldman to comment on the Diary. All I remember of that was his unremitting advocacy of the diary's authenticity."
Apparently he was also present when Pamela Ball did her crystal waving over the diary in 1997. That I would have loved to have seen.
I believe that his first "up close and personal" dealings with the diary were as Chris suggested, at the Fifth International Investigative Psychology Conference in Liverpool. Shirley Harrison and Keith Skinner were guest speakers, and Mike Barrett showed unannounced up to tell the assembled delegates that he forged the diary. This seems to be when he started to form his opinions about the diary.
While he doesn't fall strictly on the side of authenticity he seems to feel it's a possibility, and that if a forgery that it shows a marked degree of skill. I don't agree with all of his ideas. And I think he gives the author too much credit in a few cases for what he perceives as subtlety that are probably more pragmatic decisions on the part of the hoaxer. But his work is well worth reading, and interesting. Particularly as it's the only book I am aware of on geographical profiling which is a fascinating new field.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 715
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 11:04 am: | |
Hi John (O),
Yes, I admit I have been tossed about a bit by the waves of opposing academics who have given me pause for thought at various times. And new information has emerged occasionally, or I find I have overlooked something I had all along, that will also make me reassess my own understanding of the facts, and perhaps question the arguments and assumptions of others, and what is regarded as evidence of anything.
It’s an ongoing process and my ‘position’ is therefore not static in nature. I can’t allow the weight of one person’s anchor of ‘evidence’ to drag me off irreversibly in one direction while I know others are pulling in the opposite. I can’t even pin myself down to a specific point ‘in the middle’, so it would be pointless for anyone else to try. I have to remain your flexible friend.  If that appears like some sort of cop-out I apologise, but Caz’s ‘position’, whether estimated by Caz or guestimated by anyone else, can have no possible relevance to the question of when the diary was actually written. And talking about the days of old here, you used to insist until you were blue in the face that no one need rush to judgement concerning the modern hoax theory before sufficient evidence becomes available that allows for definite conclusions to be reached.
Our basic disagreement is about whether or not evidence is now available that tells us all we could ever need to know. You believe you have found it, and your mind is made up accordingly.
Hi RJ,
I am not accusing Baxendale of being mistaken about photos, or their size (although his info about nigrosine was mistaken). Baxendale only said the missing items ‘may’ have been photos, so equally they ‘may’ not have been. Even assuming they were photos, he only said they were of a size that was ‘popular’ between the wars. Have you information that the items were photos of a size not available until after 1888?
I’ll debate whichever points I wish to debate. I have certainly never argued that James Maybrick’s (or any other named person's) handwriting appears in the diary and I don’t intend to start anytime soon. But I reserve the right to challenge any other argument put forward as evidence of a hoax. More and more of these arguments are trotted out daily by people who presumably accepted the handwriting as a smoking gun years ago. If they need to use more arguments to support the handwriting evidence they are free to do so. But I am equally free to say where, in my opinion, those arguments fail to give the additional support claimed for them. My question would be why does anyone think they need additional support?
I agree it’s a complete waste of anyone’s time to argue that the diary is in Maybrick’s handwriting. And I certainly won’t be mentioning the person you mentioned in conjunction with any argument of mine whatsoever.
Love,
Caz
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 587
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 11:51 am: | |
Hi all--
In looking for information for the "I Beg" section for the current issue of Ripperologist, I chanced on another investigation that Messrs. Rendell and Nickell had been involved in for Warner Books. This was into the investigation of a narrative written by a former slave and published subsequently by Warner after being examined by the two experts. See "Who was Hannah Crafts?" by Timothy Davis.
In discussing Joe Nickell's examination of the writing in the narrative, the article quotes an analogy he made between the authentic-looking script in the ex-slave's writing to that in the Maybrick Diary: '"You want to see that the handwriting looked like natural handwriting. The Jack the Ripper Diaries [sic] were filled with all sorts of curlicues and things to try and make it look sort of 'Ye Olde-ish,' to coin a phrase," Nickell laugh[ed].'
Chris George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
(Message edited by ChrisG on February 10, 2004)
(Message edited by ChrisG on February 10, 2004) |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2956
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 12:02 pm: | |
Hi CG -
Excellent article, thanks for posting that. I always enjoy reading about similar questionable document investigations, and wasn't aware of this particular case.
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 192
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 12:08 pm: | |
A series of short responses.
Paul, Fair enough. Keep researching and compiling the list. Look carefully at the analysis of the diary text that Chris George and I and others undertook on these boards. It proceeds page by page, nearly line by line, through the book in a detailed fashion . Look carefully at the history of Crashaw's standing and availability in the canon of British Literature as I sketch it out during the same time in the archives. Look carefully at the handwriting we know to be the real Maybrick's, the handwriting on the various letters the diarist claims to have written, and the handwriting in the diary itself and then read carefully the transcript of Maybrick's trial concerning his health and behavior and the conclusions of the Rendell report RJ cites above. And notice that there is not a single verifiable fact in the diary which was not already available in present-day sources. All of these details and information can be found spelled out on various threads on the archive CD. Work your way through it. See how long the list of "highly unlikelies" really is. And then let me know what you think when you're done.
Robert, I had no doubt concerning what you would and would not "accept." And before I release any of my colleague's names to you or anyone else, I will not only ask their permission, the proper thing to do, but inform them of just what they might be in for. I will allow my own personal experience in the matter to serve as an example for them.
Caz, I have no real idea what your response to me means, but I was just asking if you were still inclined to believe the diary was not written by the real James Maybrick, as you once wrote. (And all I have been arguing here at the moment is that it was not.) Should I take your paragraph as a yes or a no to that question? If your answer is that you honestly don't know whether you believe it was written by the real James Maybrick or not, then I will accept that as a no, that you do not believe what you once did. That doesn't seem very complicated to me.
Your remarks to RJ about the handwriting make it a bit less clear, though.
And since you seem to want to characterize my own position, let me clarify your characterization:
I believe all the evidence that is necessary to tell us that the real James Maybrick did not write this book is indeed "now available." And therefore a valid inductive conclusion concerning the question of authenticity is certainly possible (despite all the singular buts and ifs and excusing logics designed to keep the hoax alive).
And I believe that it is in the best interests of the discipline, of the seriousness and professionalism of the field of study as it develops, that the hoax therefore be treated for what it is, even as we pursue, if we choose to, the more complicated issues of when it was created and how and by whom.
I hope that clarifies my own position.
John -- Thanks for the further info about Dr. Canter and his role in all of this.
I think that's everyone. I'm heading away from this now because papers need to be graded and I have to give a couple of guest lectures at a couple of schools in the upcoming weeks and because I see absolutely no signs at all that anything new is likely to develop or be learned concerning this book in the near future (that's not cynicism, John, just my own honest evaluation of the discussion and the past habits and behaviors of those involved).
I will return though, eventually. And I'm sure I will recognize the neighborhood.
Best of luck to you all,
--John
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 287
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 11:22 pm: | |
Alan--You ask a good question, and the best answer is right there in the first sentence of Maybrick's will:
"Liverpool, 25th April, 1889
In case I die before having made a regular and proper will in legal form, I wish this to be taken as my last will and testament."
Ergo, this was not written by a solicitor-- Maybrick meant to have a more legal version drawn up at a later date. This was just a quicky do-it-yourselfer to replace the will he destroyed after one of his infamous battles with Florie. As I say, there were two witnesses that afternoon and both these men were later at probate.
Incidently, Maybrick, in his lack of legal expertise, forgot to name an executor--which is why it went through the extensive probate process.
But it's clear that Kenneth Rendell was making his judgement based on forensics: the formation of the letters, the angle of the writing, the size of the nib, etc. So, here we have the historical record, the forensic examination, and the internal evidence of the will itself all in agreement. The handwriting is Maybrick's.
(Message edited by rjpalmer on February 10, 2004) |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 288
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 11:39 pm: | |
Robert---not to challenge your statement, but only to admit to my own confusion on this point. A couple of years ago I did look into the history of the 3 1/2 X 2 1/2 photograph and could not confirm that this size was available before 1910ish (going on memory) except, perhaps, in tintype. My notes were destroyed long ago, but the following UK link has much of the same information:
http://www.edinphoto.org.uk/1/1_early_photography_-_sizes.htm
I think commonsense suggests that we aren't talking about tintype because Baxendale found the paper corner of a photograph wedged into the binding. Cheers, RP |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 11:40 am: | |
Dear RJ
Yes I had seen your question concerning my statement that I felt there were things in the diary that could not have been gleaned from the books on the Maybrick case.
I wasn’t ignoring you, but at that time I was considering giving up here until things had calmed down a little as it was all getting a bit out of hand, and nobody semed to be listening to anyone elses opinion anyway.
As John H seems to have skilfully mediated and restored peace for a while, I am happy to expand. I stand by my comments entirely, although there is nothing new or startling about any of it. I don’t suppose for a moment that you thought it would be.
My knowledge of the Maybrick case relies entirely on Morland, Christie and MacDougall, plus a few second hand references to other papers held at Kew and in Christie’s collection in the US.
The diarist regularly uses “Sir Jim/James/Jack.” as a means of describing himself. I can’t find any support for that in any of the books. Florence Aunspaugh, who stayed with Maybrick as a child confirms in her reminiscences of her time at Battlecrease, that the household servants did in fact refer to him as Sir Jim/James. That information had never been published prior to the diary’s discovery as far as I know. Either that is a very happy coincidence, or the diarist knew.
There is also the little detail about his daughter Gladys being a sickly child. Another fact confirmed by private letters and not mentioned in any of the books.
Tiny details I know, and they could just as easily be explained by a hoaxers good luck, but confirmed independantly nonetheless. There comes a point where such a consistant run of “good luck” makes you stop and think, and that is just where I am with this at the moment.
If this matter is going to be resolved, and a hoax exposed, by means of the diary’s contents alone, (and I doubt it will), then it’s these small details where I think the fault may be found. The Maybrick case has a lot more certainties to it than JTR where the “facts” seem to be open to a very wide interpretation.
My diary is almost permanently out on loan at the moment so I’ve penned this from memory. There are many other points concerning Maybrick that impressed me too, and which I’m sure will all get an airing in due course.
Regards
Paul
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 726
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 10:55 am: | |
Hi Paul,
The diarist’s choice of words ‘Gladys is unwell yet again’ indicate to me that a hoaxer would either have had to read the word ‘unwell’ in this context, or otherwise have a good appreciation of which word Maybrick might have chosen had he been describing his daughter’s condition. A hoaxer could have made the natural assumption that most young children in Maybrick’s day would have been afflicted from time to time with any number of colds and other childhood maladies, and decided to introduce invented personal details like this one to show vestiges of the ‘gentleman born’. But assuming that’s the case, I think the hoaxer did rather well not to go for ‘not very well’, ‘poorly’, ‘sick’ or ‘ill’, and plumped instead for ‘unwell’.
I’m not sure I would have thought of using a word like that.
It doesn't mean much, of course, but it might indicate a degree of care taken when choosing what word to use in this instance. Maybe one of Maybrick's business letters will one day come to light to show how he spells rendezvous.
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on February 11, 2004) |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 179
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 12:08 pm: | |
Paul Stephen wrote:
The diarist regularly uses “Sir Jim/James/Jack.” as a means of describing himself. I can’t find any support for that in any of the books. Florence Aunspaugh, who stayed with Maybrick as a child confirms in her reminiscences of her time at Battlecrease, that the household servants did in fact refer to him as Sir Jim/James. That information had never been published prior to the diary’s discovery as far as I know. Either that is a very happy coincidence, or the diarist knew.
I think when using evidence like this you need to be a bit careful how you quote it.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that there is a reference to a servant calling Maybrick "Sir James", whereas the diarist refers to himself as "Sir Jim" or "Sir Jack"? That's rather less impressive.
(Perhaps there is a "Sir James" buried in there, in which case the coincidence would be more exact, but certainly "Sir Jim" is the usual form.)
Chris Phillips
|
Robert Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 10:44 am: | |
RJ Palmer
I don’t know enough about Victorian photographic techniques to comment sensibly. But I do have quite a number of pre-1910 paper photographic prints in a variety of sizes, including 3 ½” by 2 ½” approximately.
Perhaps we need an expert in early photography to advise us.
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 209
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 3:03 pm: | |
Paul and Caz,
As a father, I agree that a hoaxer would have probably been safe in assuming that a child would be ill on occasion, especially in that day and age. My son brings home some form of plague almost weekly. Then he quickly shrugs it off and passes it on to my wife and I.
But I also agree that the choice of words is interesting. I wonder what would be most appropriate to the period? "Unwell" certainly has a more gentlemenly ring to it.
It reminds me of a line from one of my favorite films, My Favorite Year. When Benjy tells Peter O'Toole that "I think I'm going to be unwell.", Peter O'Toole tells him "Ladies are unwell, Stone. Gentlemen vomit."
No real point there, but I love that scene. :-)
Regards,
John
(Message edited by jhacker on February 11, 2004) |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 592
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 3:32 pm: | |
Hi, John et al.:
I should think the use of the term "unwell" to indicate the state of health of Maybrick's daughter is indicative of the type of language that the hoaxer believed would have been used by a Victorian middle or upper middle class gentleman, much as the use of the phrase "frequented my club" and the quaint-looking penmanship also reflects a attempt to evoke the forger's notion of a Victorian. However, knowing how distant parents were in that era from their children, cared for as they were by servants, I doubt if the real James Maybrick knew much about the state of health of his children or would have thought to make a note of it in any journal or diary.
Best regards
Chris
(Message edited by ChrisG on February 11, 2004) |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 289
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 3:35 pm: | |
"Dearest Gladys is unwell again"
This would seem to suggest that the Diary writer is aware of Glady’s Maybrick’s illness in the latter half of 1888. Impressive to many. Indeed, to this line, Sally Evemy, one of the early researchers into the Maybrick journal, asked the following: "How had he found the information for the line in the diary 'Dearest Gladys is unwell again,' when the only passing reference to Maybrick's daughter being constantly ill is a letter in the Kew Public Record Office?" (p. 95, Linder, Morris, & Skinner).
However...
Here is a passage from "The Poisoned Life of Mrs. Maybrick" by Bernard Ryan. The book was published in 1971, republished 1986.
Ryan writes: “On a day early in March, Dr. Richard Humpreys, a general practitioner in Aigbuth, was summoned to Battlecrease House. He had often attended the Maybrick children, and he found one of them suffering from a minor illness.” (p 32). Ryan does not identify which of the two children is ill. In fact, both Gladys and her brother were suffering from whooping cough. This passage comes in a small section of pages that gives nearly all the details that would be needed to write confidently about Maybrick’s family and co-workers.
A passage in another well-known Maybrick book refers to Maybrick taking Gladys out of Liverpool during an epidemic.
Not a great stretch that a modern forger could create this line without recourse to obscure letters. |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 210
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 6:29 pm: | |
Chris,
I don't know that I agree that Maybrick would have been unaware of the state of his childrens health. There are incidents recounted in Ryan's book of Maybrick playing with the children or asking to see them which seems to indicate actual parental concern.
Also, as R.J. has noted that during an epidemic in which James (the son) became ill, James took Gladys and the nurse and fled Liverpool to protect her health. I think we can assume he had normal fatherly concerns, though they were probably more reserved in their expression of such in those days.
Regards,
John |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 593
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 8:41 am: | |
Hi, John and R.J.:
Thanks for pointing out that it has been documented in modern books that Maybrick showed awareness of the health of his children. R.J., also thanks for pointing to the page 32 in The Poisoned Life of Mrs. Maybrick by Bernard Ryan where it is recorded that Dr. Richard Humpreys, a general practitioner in Aigbuth, often attended the Maybrick children, a detail that you indicate would be sufficient to give a forger information to put in the Diary.
Best regards
Chris |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 8:23 pm: | |
Dear Caz, Chris, John and RJ.
I wasn’t trying to make some exceptional point here concerning the Sir Jim and Gladys’ health issues as I’m sure you realised. Just that I do feel that these tiny details are where a hoaxer would be most likely to slip up, and so far, to me at least he hasn’t. The Maybrick details are in the main verifiable, whereas a lot of the JTR details are to a certain extent, theories rather than facts.
As a father too, my kids have brought home all manner of plagues, but I don’t think I would necessarily think of recording that normal fact of day to day life unless it was something a little more serious.
Nineteenth century parents of course, would have considered much greater illnesses, and even child death, as much more common place than we do today.
I am imagining, rightly or wrongly, that Gladys’ illness would have been something a little more significant to warrant a mention in the diary.
There I go again, assuming Maybrick wrote it…..slap on the wrist for Paul!
Regards
Paul
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 730
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 12:08 pm: | |
Hi All,
Leaving aside for one moment poor ‘unwell’ Gladys, does anyone know what Victorian business cards would have been like? Would there have been standard sizes and, if so, what dimensions?
I agree with Robert’s point that if the scrapbook did date from, say, as early as 1870, like the almost identical one he managed to find with correspondence dating from 1871, or even as late as 1910, it would seem a bit strange if it only started being used for mounting photos after 1918.
However, if the photos could have been much older, or not photos at all but business cards or something similar, I could imagine it beginning life on an office shelf somewhere, and if someone wanted to record their secret thoughts, what better place than to use the blank second half of a scrapbook perhaps no longer in active use, that no one else would have occasion to pick up and open?
This is all just speculative food for thought, in this new atmosphere of being able to discuss such things sensibly and not fear instant ridicule, but Lowry the clerk has a very interesting cameo appearance in the diary and I would love to know what was in the author’s mind when he wrote about Maybrick’s rage, and the subtle suggestion that Lowry’s questions made him consider replacing missing items and could have made him rip out those missing pages.
Love,
Caz
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 600
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 8:15 am: | |
Hi Caz
The Victorian business card or calling card would have been similar in size to the business cards we know today, and similarly of stiff card stock. The below example of a Freemason's card is like those left at each murder scene and swiftly picked up by the Met on strict instructions from Sir Charles Warren, himself of course a Freemason of the highest level. 
Best regards
Chris George, Secretary
Scouse Order of Freemasons
Liverpool, England
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 601
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 8:20 am: | |
Postscript (you knew there had to be one)
My God, case closed, look at the "G" inside the magic holy mason's triangle! It obviously must be Sir William Withey Gull's calling card! 
Yours in relief
Chris George |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 7:55 am: | |
Caz
The recent discussions about the possible photographs that may have been glued into the diary have made me have a think as well.
I have never seen the diary in the flesh, but I am assuming that the impressions of what may have been photos must be on the inside of the front cover, as the next umpteen pages have been surgically removed. Is that right?
If this is so, it would be a funny place to start gluing in pictures if the rest of the book was empty when you started. You would naturally start gluing things on the right hand inside page, and not on the inside cover.
This would imply that any photos, if photos they were, would likely have been added later than the text or whatever it was on the missing pages.
I seem to remember that there is a glue smear somewhere in the diary that is ON TOP of the ink, showing that the text was possibly there before it was used for gluing anything in.
If I’m right in my assumption, then to date any possible photos that may have been there would not really help us date the diary either way.
Regards
Paul
|
Robert Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 8:40 am: | |
John Omlor
For the record:
1. Three times now, you have evaded offering any of the “clear evidence”, which enabled you and about ten other PhDs to prove “that the thing was a forgery”.
2. On 6th February 2004, you wrote: “Robert, I’ll be happy to give you names and titles [of the PhDs] if you want them (and with their permission).”
But when I took up your offer on 9th February, you promptly withdrew it, and abruptly announced, that you are leaving the boards for a while.
You claim to champion “serious scholarship”, “professionalism” and “objectivity”. Yet, you won’t declare the professional details and relevant experience of your PhDs, essential for an evaluation of their expertise.
If you won’t now give me their details, will you give them to John Hacker and to Chris George, both of whom you do trust completely?
We must now wait until you do return, to receive your presentation of the “clear evidence”, which you and the anonymous PhDs are so reluctant to provide.
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 602
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 9:18 am: | |
Hi, Robert Smith and John Omlor:
Robert, I would be glad to act as intermediary in your discussions with Dr. Omlor. I can't speak for John Hacker, but I should think he might also be willing to serve in such a capacity as well.
All the best
Chris |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 194
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 10:00 am: | |
Man,
You can't go away for a moment without being invoked like the patron saint of the opposition. I received a private e-mail this morning alerting me that I was being challenged about the Crashaw quote yet again here on the boards.
I only have a moment.
Robert, I was trying to be polite -- but since you insist on this, I will, as I said, speak to my colleagues, but I will also tell them about my adventures with lawyers and lawsuits and everything else dealing with you on this topic seems to involve.
I have a feeling, knowing their collective wisdom, they might choose not to get involved. I wouldn't blame them. If, however, any of them are up for such personal melodrama, I'll pass the names on to you. As for the credentials, I can tell you that they are all tenured faculty and that they still actively teach the subjects I have already listed and that at least one of them is an endowed chair. I can send you my own professional credentials as well, not that that would do any good.
Meanwhile, if you seriously believe there is any way the real James Maybrick cited that line from that poem anywhere, and if you have already read the specific details and evidence concerning Crashaw and the history of his place in the canon in the 19th and 20th centuries that I offered at some length already and that is still available on the archive CD, then once again this discussion is destined to go nowhere and my choice to step on to more productive tasks seems to have been a wise one.
It's sad that I was called back here in this way.
Anyway, I'm outta' here again and hope not to get word that the silliness is continuing.
(Naive optimism on my part, I'm sure.)
--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.
|
|
|
|
