|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through May 16, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Carroll, Lewis:
Archive through May 16, 2001
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 22 April 2001 - 06:49 am |        | Is the q serious, Rosemary? Or am I walking into another of your booby-traps by saying 'Lutwidge' roughly = Lewis, and 'Carroll' (from Latin Carolus) roughly = Charles. The use of a pseudonym would seem distated by the need to distance the author of children's books from the mathematician fellow of Christ Church
Martin |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 22 April 2001 - 10:54 am | | Dear Martin,
I think I was underlining a previous post re, that
reading a man,s writing is not the same as reading a man's mind. Be that as it may, I expect a man of Dodgson's wit to be equally apposite in the new name chosen to narrate Alice's Logos? Not a "roughly"...but a crisp correspondence with an
"obviously!" :-) Alisio...?
Rosemary |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 22 April 2001 - 11:10 am | | You've lost me again, Rosemary! I feel incredibly slow-witted whenever you appear on the boards.
Martin |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 22 April 2001 - 04:05 pm | | Dear Martin,
Its the nature of these things! "Dear me" said Alice, "Is not a Rosemary a Rosemary by any other name?" Quite unperturbed, the little herb replied,
"Really Alice, fancy YOU asking such a silly question.Why everyone knows why Rosemary is called Rosemary...don't they?" The herb went very quiet.
Alice was amused by the herb's reply. And ever so sweetly Alice replied, "I suppose, not everyone
knows...but they try, I suppose."
"Yes", said the herb. "I suppose."
Rose. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 22 April 2001 - 05:35 pm | | Dear Martin,
I mean, really...Lutwidge=Lewis. How preposterous
reposterous the Operosterous!
Honestly, I've only read Alice in Wonderland over
30 years...damn it, I never thought there could be a sequel! And, this could be it, Martin. :-)
That reminds me, ever read any Ludwig Wittgenstein ..."the light dawns over the whole"?
Em,
Rosey |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 05:58 am | | Dear Martin,
Whilst the term, "Lewis" is the name of a few islands of the coast of Britain ("Isles of the Dead"), and has connotations regarding a Young
Woman...of an indeterminate orientation? Ivor, thinks it relates to Masonic affiliation.
Rosey. |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 06:45 am | | I noticed that, Rosey, and was surprised. I've long known that were I ever to think that mystic mumbo-jumbo about Hiram Abiff and passwords like BoAz and handshakes with a thumb pressed between index and middle knuckles were an enjoyable semi-serious addition to evenings of good fellowship, dining, and raising charitable funds, then I should find myself called a Lewis. But I didn't know daughters got the same treatment. (Perhaps this applies to America where masons may wear funny hats and march publicly in processions and - save the mark! - probably have women's lodges: a bow to Political Correctness which will make that magic eye on the back of the dollar bill shut in horror if it ever becomes widespread).
Martin |
Author: Alegria
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 07:49 am | | "The son of a Mason is, in England, called a Lewis, because it is his duty to support the sinking powers and aid the failing strength of his father. In the rituals of the middle of the last century he was called a louffton. From this the French derived their word louveteau, and call the daughter of a Mason a louvetine. Louveteau is probably derived directly from louve, the French name of the implement. In Browne’s Master Key, which is supposed to represent the Prestonian lecture, we have, in part, the following dialogue:
Q. What do we call the son of a Freemason?
A. A Lewis
Q. What does that denote?
A. Strength
Q. How is a Lewis depicted in a Freemason’s Lodge?
A. As a cramp of metal, by which, when fixed into a stone, great and ponderous weights are raised to a certain height and fixed upon their proper bases, without which Operative Masons could not so conveniently do.
Q. What is the duty of a Lewis, the son of a Mason, to his aged parents?
A. To bear the heavy burden in the heat of the day and help them in time of need, which, by reason of their great age, they ought to be exempted from, so as to render the close of their days happy and comfortable. " |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 10:14 am | | Dear Martin & Alegria,
As I suspected...a couple of neophytes:-)I just thought Ivor might be corrected on the more arcane terminolgy in Freemasonry...a son of a mason.
So, "Lewis". Now what could "Carroll" refer to...
in this same inane/arcane terminology? This is a
Socratic method of ...but I'm sure you know this too.:-)
Do remember that there are masons and there are Masons...and behind them are 13foot lizards, according to David Icke!
Masonry, Year O. |
Author: Alegria
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 10:21 am | | Caroll: what the men in their funny hats do as they march in their parades.
Clearly Lewis Caroll was a freemason. His everyname implies it.
(okay I made that parade bit up)
Ally |
Author: Seth Bock
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 01:26 pm | | Mike,
Thanks for your insights. I’m not quite sure why your response takes on a defensive posture. Yes, I think there is a good chance Dodgson was the Ripper, but I would never mortgage my house on it either. I take it as an assumption that we are all sorting through a speculative science and that the true identity may never be revealed. That said, I do find a few gaps in your thinking and want to point these out.
Indeed, if Carroll was the Ripper we should find this in his diaries. That makes perfect sense. To quote your last email “the key to Person X's character is to be found in what Person X says and (especially) does.” Do you think that Jack the Ripper would overtly advertised his crimes? Quite contrary, the Ripper was able to fool people by shedding his night time skin during the days and in places of contact with the outside world, including his diary.
The “Dear Boss” letter clearly demonstrates that this person was arrogantly teasing and taunting Londoners, as if he was sure he would not be caught. He enjoyed controlling an entire city with riddles and threats, “catch me if you can.” There is also a reference to game playing in the letter. The letters and the crime scenes have the finger print of Dodgson’s fantasy world. Wallace expounds on this in far greater detail.
The works of Lewis Carroll contain many layers of information, many themes and plots. But there is one element that is virtually universal, even in his more obscure pieces. That is, perpetration of his characters and audience with riddles, word games, double meanings, deception and blood and guts. Dodgson was clearly thinking about hideous crimes long before the Ripper Murders. This does not mean that Dodgson was the Ripper, however, the extent of blood shed in his children’s books and pieces has not been accounted for in the major works, Leach, Cohen…
Leach does a remarkable job of avoiding the content of Dodgson’s fantasy world and bases her work on the diaries. To write a biography about an artist based on their diaries, without exploring his/her artwork, is to accept wholesale the image they sought to weave. I have not read any of Leach’s Ripper related musings, and had hoped that this interest would be covered in “In the Shadow…” Perhaps someone could point me in that direction.
As for anagrams, read Wallace’s early message board postings. He clearly and definitively settles this.
The one fact that is not concordant is the witness account you mention. I’m would like to know if there are any thoughts on the likelihood that the witness actually saw the Ripper.
Thanks,
Seth |
Author: Alegria
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 01:57 pm | | Hi all,
After reading Seth's post I have a comment to make about Caroll's use of blood and guts in his children's stories. Most children's stories of the past are not the cute Disneyfied versions that were are accustomed to today. Any children's fairy tale is full of gruesome stuff from the stepsister's eyes being plucked out in Cinderella, the princes dying impaled and strangled on thorns in Sleeping Beauty and so on and so forth. Most also include riddles, word games or such. I do not know if Caroll's children's stories were indicative of the man or simply of his time.
Just something to ponder,
Ally |
Author: Mark List
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 03:12 pm | | Hey,
Sorry to sound silly, but what I've read about Caroll being the Ripper seems odd (I'm not saying impossible-just odd)
Wouldn't he have been too old to perform the slaying? He would have been in his 60's right? Or am I missing something of importance that I haven't heard yet?
Mark
P.s. Ally's right about childrens stories - just read some Grimm fairy tales. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 05:46 pm | | Dear Alegria,
Carrol-lingian...or talking in tongues!
Sore, :-) |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 08:32 pm | | Dear Martin,
There is a theory, held by a few very high-ranking
Masons, that "Jack the Ripper" was an agent-provocateur! The 'organisation' which sent him to
carry out his 'mission' remains a mystery...and speculation is discouraged.Therefore, discourses
on JtR & Masonry are to be avoided...and when necessary, subverted.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 10:50 pm | | | Rose,The Hidden life in Freemasonry Page 106.One who is the son or daughter of a mason is called a lewis.( because he is supposed to support his parents in their old age )By the way the name of the stone which the lewis supports is referred to as an ashlar.A rough or smooth ashlar.The smooth ashlar represents the condition which should be attained by the F.C.If Martin is familar with the murder of 'Gods Banker" under ( what was it ) Blackfriars Bridge. Then he will know the connection.It was said by many that this was a masonsic murder. Rough Stones were found in the victims pockets which some people connected to the rough stone known as ashlar. Because they have a certain meaning.The rough ashlar indicates the untrained mind of the canidate. He is supposed to be in a state of darkness and ignorence but gradually through the masonsic work and knowledge his mind will be polished, and it may then be tested by the square etc.Other things were thrown into the case to make it appear to be a masonic murder. And before someone jumps down my throat I am simply stating what was said at the time. LEWIS, this instrument was so named by the architect who invented it, in honour of the French King Louis XlV. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 12:25 am | | from Alumni Oxoniensus, 1715-1886:
Drewitt, Fredrick George Dawtrey 1s. Robert Dawtrey, of Burpham Surrey (sic), arm. Christ Church , matric. 23 May, 1866. aged 18; B.A. 1871, B Med & M.A. 1878,
Dodgson's probable 'Druitt' connection as alleged by Wallace. The name is spelled 'Drewitt' in Dodgson's 1878 diary entry. Yawn. But certainly this is underkill? |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 05:15 am | | Dear Ivor,
Then you know the reason for the pure white lamb-skin apron and the pretty white gloves...don't you, Ivor.
Guilty,
Rosey. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 10:04 am | | Well, its all symbolic...to prove they have no
"blood-guilt".
Except, that, Jack thought otherwise.Warren caught
Jack's meaning right smack in his smug face...and so did the other brethren. Men...they never cease to amaze me with their grandiose notions.
Anyway, that's my theory... but I'm always wrong about these things.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 04:33 pm | | So, the allegation that I stole valuables to the tune of £200,000...and a RARE MANUSCRIPT, from a piedaterre in Buxton, belonging to the Duke of
.....shire, was never resolved - even with the efforts of the masonic plods and the help of Crimewatch!
Our Rosey is a clever girl!
:-) :-) :-) |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 01:10 pm | | Like most serious scholars in Eng Lit I've suffered enough of the word-games, rebuses and supposed hidden codes by which Durning-Lawrence 'proved' that Bacon 'proved' he was Shakespeare, and I turn off pdq when I see such data being offered as proof of anything. I'm no mathematician, but I was very surprised to see Mr Wallace saying that mathematicians had quoted him amazing statistics to prove that his anagrams didn't mean anything. I'm more accustomed to hearing such proofs cited the other way round. John Wilding, the nicest and sanest of men with the maddest and possibly worst of theories is wont to cite me hugely convincing sounding mathematical evidence that the odds are astronomical against so many Ripper-related names turning up by chance anagrammatically in the letters and graffitto. I still don't believe his theory.
I'm rather more perturbed by Mr Wallace's innocently trying on a rather devastating accusation against some one for size, as it were, without committing himself. It is a highly unpleasant thing for most people to be told unexpectedly that an ancestor, or a relative, or some historical figure they respected might actually have been a seriously perverted villain. It should only be done if the writer is really convinced by his arguments, and should never be thrown out just to see what happens. Mud can stick. The irresponsibility would be clear if I were to suggest that I could make an interesting case for the late Mother Teresa's using her hostel for the homeless as cover for a brothel, or Mahatma Gandhi's commitment to non-violence camouflaging his arrangement of explosives purchases on behalf of anti-imperialist subversives... not that I asserted such things definitely were so... only that it was interesting that nobody had ever noticed how the facts could be arranged to fit the case... Somebody might easily believe me, as Seth has believed Mr Wallace's 'only a try-on' arguments. If we were to do anything similar with the history of the prophet Mohamjmed (PBOH) we'd probably call down a fatwa on ourselves, and unlike Salman Rushdie might well be seen as having asked for it.
While the survival of rather prudish parsons - (I use the terminology of a waspish former Student of Christ Church introducing colleagues at high table: 'This is my very dear friend Sir Roy Harrod... those are four parsons...') - in the climate of Victorian sexual denial presents us with many puzzles, and I'm often made rather unhappy by the way Dodgson's presumably inevitable sexual drives, and possible unconscious erotic attraction to small girls are cavalierly treated as though the manifest sublimation into friendship and a certain aesthetic sentimentality were not his actual experience, I do think that turning him into a Ripper candidate takes the biscuit, and is in itself highly improper.
I really like the suggestion of his having a very mild case of Asperger's syndrome though (stressing the 'very mild'). It's the one thing that doesn't make me detest the very existence of this particular board.
All good wishes,
Martin F |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 03:21 pm | | Oh God, Martin, don't start on Dodgson's alleged sexual interest in small girls.
Didn't you know someone wrote this great book that shows that idea is pretty much a myth? Alas, there are no anagrams. Though there are some pictures of naked women.
I appreciate (seriously) your feeling offended at him being named as a possible ripper. It is a pretty silly cheap trick to pull. But you know, the man had a great sense of humor and would probably have laughed himself sick at the idea of himself hobbling round Whitchapel with a bad knee and a long knife, asking prostitutes how old they are so he can get his murder-sums right.
Oops, I've just made fun of it again. Seth will be all offended. Oh rats.
K |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 03:57 pm | | Martin:
"I'm rather more perturbed by Mr Wallace's innocently trying
on a rather devastating accusation against some one for
size, as it were, without committing himself. It is a highly
unpleasant thing for most people to be told unexpectedly
that an ancestor, or a relative, or some historical figure
they respected might actually have been a seriously
perverted villain. It should only be done if the writer is
really convinced by his arguments, and should never be
thrown out just to see what happens. Mud can stick."
I appreciate your opinion here and perhaps it might explain my reaction to the Great Weedon Grossmith Controversy," of some time ago. It did cause what is now a permanent board breakup between Mrs. Morris and myself for which I am, in retrospect, sorry. However I saw it then and now as an attempt to pick on someone clearly active in London at the time and of the right age but with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. As it was coupled with an attempt to explain the Maybrick diary as a production of Grossmith's in order to pin the crime on Maybrick, the whole thing seemed doubly unfortunate. |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 08:53 am | | Actually, just out of curiosity (since the same question's been raised about Maybrick) is there any evidence to show Weedon Grossmith couldn't have done any of the murders? Are his whereabouts known for any of those days?
I'm just thinking that it would be a good way of checking just how rigorous or lucky the diary-forgers would have to have been, if we grab a few names at random (not politicans or anyone too famous) and see if any of them happen to have material showing where they were on those four days in 1888?
Caroline, maybe you could start the ball rolling. While you were checking out your suspicions that the author of Diary of a Nobody was the ripper and an associate of Maybrick's, did you manage to show where the man was on any of the dates in question?
Karoline |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 09:13 am | | Hi Karoline,
I'm sorry my convoluted sentence misled you. I actually agree with you that there are no hidden anagrams, and that Dodgson's friendship with little girls was perfectly innocent, cooling off after puberty because of his habitual shyness with adults, and not because his attraction to them was paedophiliac. And that his liking for cutesy fairy pictures of nude moppets was a matter of sentimental aesthetic taste, and no more perverted than Raphael's painting putti. And I intended the additional note that we are naturally puzzled to know just what the sexual feelings and activities of genuinely respectable Victorians might have been, given the intolerable myth-burdened climate of repression in their culture. And that I wouldn't venture into the quagmire of anybody's supposed 'unconscious' motivation if I could help it.
Peter - (and now Karoline) - My trawl through the boards hasn't yet led me to the Great Grey Green Grossmith Adventure: only spin-off on other boards. But I do hope Caz acceptes what seems to be an apology from you, Peter.
With all good wishes,
Martin |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 09:43 am | | I don't think Caz has any reason to expect an apology from Peter, since she's been far ruder to him than he ever has to her. It's something she is very good at.
And, Martin, it was my tangled prose - not yours. I absolutely know you are far too sane and intelligent to buy into the anagram thing.
But actually Dodgson's friendships with girls didn't cool off at puberty - that's part of the myth.
(it's no good you are just going to have to get yourself informed about the latest research!) |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 09:44 am | | Hi All,
I certainly accept any apology Peter kindly makes, and I would hate to think that there was any kind of 'permanent board breakup' between us. I am ever hopeful of reconciliations between myself and those I regard as 'friends never quite made.'
Martin wrote, and Peter quoted:
‘It is a highly unpleasant thing for most people to be told unexpectedly that an ancestor, or a relative, or some historical figure they respected might actually have been a seriously perverted villain. It should only be done if the writer is really convinced by his arguments, and should never be thrown out just to see what happens. Mud can stick.’
Well, just to set the record straight, my very ‘unusual’ suspect, WWG, was not an attempt by me ‘to pick on someone….with absolutely no evidence whatsoever.’
My mistake, which I readily admit, was to drop hints on these boards, as a newcomer totally ignorant of Casebook politics, about some research I was doing into the life of a Victorian gentleman, which revealed to me what I think are some pretty fascinating links with the Ripper story. Peter latched on to my impolitic hints, and appears to have been unable to quite forgive or forget that I had dropped them in the first place, and was actually the person (forgive me if I’m wrong here, Peter) who finally ‘outed’ the name of my Victorian gent for me on these boards! I explained over and over that my research was ongoing, and that I would never make a definite accusation without more evidence, and that I certainly would not dream of publishing any theory based on my current information. Then, a crisis point came when Peter threatened to contact the Grossmith descendants about my research (which Peter still knows hardly anything about), and I warned him against doing so, because I was bearing in mind how ‘highly unpleasant’ it might be for anyone to be told unexpectedly that an ancestor was being researched in connection with the Ripper. In fact, I told Peter at the time that, if he did contact the family, “On his head be it.” I was rewarded by Karoline telling me that I was “unbelievably stupid”, for not wanting Peter to approach the Grossmiths on my behalf.
Well, quite by chance, I did eventually make contact with a Grossmith descendant, and we had some very friendly correspondence, without my mentioning the Ripper at all. I was given permission to contact another more elderly descendant, who would have been able to tell me a great deal more about Weedon, but I declined to follow this up, due to the age and infirmity of this relative (and because I felt guilty about my ‘other’ reason for being interested). But I did gain a few more snippets about Weedon’s character and eccentricities. So I’ll just finish here by saying, to borrow some of Karoline’s own words:
‘But you know, the man had a great sense of [sick] humour and would probably have laughed himself sick at the idea of himself’ writing the diary of another ‘Nobody’, in order to pin the ripper crimes on Maybrick.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 09:50 am | | Quote the source please - where did I tell you you were "unbelievably stupid?"
K |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 10:07 am | | I wonder if citizen Kane will be given an opportunity to laugh himself sick at the idea of himself writing the Maybrick Diary...
Love,
Caz |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 10:42 am | | Caz
once again - where did I call you "unbelievably stupid" and where did Peter B. ever "threaten" to contact anyone?
I remember him offering you the assistance of his experience as a genealogistto trace descendents of thre Grossmith family. And I remember me taking the trouble to read through all your 'evidence' against Grossmith as well as advising you on how to get a publisher.
Do you remember me taking that trouble for you? And do you remember why I decided not to take any more trouble for you?
Can you please quote me where these accusations and threats were made?
Karoline |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 11:06 am | | God, Karoline, give me a chance! People have to wait weeks for some answers from you on the Maybrick boards, and still they wait!
Actually, I never gave you 'all my 'evidence' against Grossmith' at all! I simply e-mailed you to tell you I had some, when you invited me to e-mail you if I wanted advice on getting a publisher!
I have just managed to dig out some old print-outs of the relevant posts, which were on the 'Unusual JtR Theories' board, under General Discussion, started by Peter on Sunday, March 14, 1999 - 12:41 pm. I can't find this board on the current Casebook, so it may have gone missing in last summer's troubles.
On March 16, 1999 - 12:51 pm, Peter wrote:
'I think that it's pretty clear from those hints that the suspect is meant to be Weedon Grossmith.’
‘I am…within a couple of days of being able to speak to descendents [sic] of the Grossmith brothers. Now, do I contact them or not? If anyone has any reasons as to why it would be inadvisable to speak to them, or that I'm completely wrong and the suspect isn't Weedon, please let me know and I'll stop the investigation right here.'
(I took this to mean that Peter would go ahead unless I read his post and intervened, asking him not to.)
On March 17, 1999 – 06:54 am, I wrote:
‘Peter,
I can’t stop you but on your head be it if you go disturbing the peace of totally innocent and unconnected people who probably know zilch about the person we know as Jack. I wish I could tell you more, I really do, for the Grossmith descendents’ [sic] sake. Please trust my judgement just this once and hold your fire.
Best wishes and do take care. I’m off to a funeral so I will catch you all tomorrow.
Love,
Caroline’
Then Karoline, you wrote on March 17, 1999 – 09:32 am:
‘What is all this unbelievable rubbish about ‘I can’t stop you’ etc. as if Peter’s offer was some terrible adolescent gaff?’
‘Caroline – you’re extremely lucky to have a researcher of his calibre make such an offer.’
‘- if you’re that worried about the family feelings then you’d better not publish your theory at all. It’s bound to upset them a lot more than a letter from PB.’
Well, Karoline, I was wrong and I apologise unreservedly. You did not tell me that I was ‘unbelievably stupid’ - you simply asked me what ‘unbelievable rubbish’ I was talking. And Peter didn't make an outright threat to approach the descendants, but seemed to be saying it was up to me to intervene, otherwise he would do so.
But at least I have agreed with what you wrote about not publishing a theory at all. It seems a pity you can’t acknowledge this and move on, like I have.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 11:30 am | | | And Karoline, how do you feel about how upset citizen Kane and his family is 'bound' to be, if and when they find out what you have publicised on these boards about a 'consensus' that has him down as a likely forger? |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 11:50 am | | Thank you Caroline,
you have made it clear that Peter was saying that if you or anyone didn't want him to contact the Grossmith descendents then he wouldn't do it, and that he was not threatening anyone.
You have also shown that you responded to him with the curious and rather hysterical statement "I can't stop you", which was very curious, because of course you could. He was actually saying - stop me if you think I shouldn't do it.
And you accept I didn't call you "unbelievably stupid" or anything else. I said "what is all this unbelievable rubbish about 'I can't stop you etc'", which gives a signficantly different impression.
I'm afraid I thought your response to him very odd. I would have loved to have a researcher offer to contact people for me when I was doing my book.
By the way did you ever uncover where WG was on the relevant dates in 1888?
As I said, I thought it would be quite interesting to discover how many ordinary Victorians could be pinned down on those dates - just to test how lucky the diary-forgers actually were.
And thank you for your latest addendum, in which you again accuse me falsely of publicising Kane's name on the boards.
That is the third time you have made this false allegation. (but gee at leat this time you aren't vomiting about it!)
Meanwhile, in another part of the forest, Paul is busy telling me you have never made those allegations at all!
Maybe you two should talk.
And do you think it would be a good idea if you both began behaving with a little more sense and dignity?
Karoline |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 12:10 pm | | Karoline,
Peter put the onus on me to let him know if I had any objections. I was afraid he might go ahead if I hadn't read his post and voiced my objections. That's all. It worked, and I never published anything anyway.
In your opinion, if you think someone is talking unbelievable rubbish, does this mean you don't think they are being unbelievably stupid?
And if you think I have the appetite for ever discussing with you again what I did uncover about WWG, you really must think I am unbelievably stupid. 
Incidentally, this all seems incredibly nitpicky and irrelevant, when you have been telling people you have had no time to address far more important unanswered questions.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 12:30 pm | | Karoline,
Did you, or did you not, publicise on the Maybrick Diary board, in your post of April 22, 2001 - 10:08 am, that:
the consensus seems to be that it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'.
Kane can of course be tied in with the Barretts through his friendship with Devereux that went back to at least 1979.
Well, did you?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 12:54 pm | | Caroline,
For goodness' sake, are you actually attacking me for just using the word "consensus"? Or were you trying to imply I had 'publicised' this man's name? (ie named him for the first time?)
You have certainbly accused me of "fingering" him publicly. What does that mean if not accusing him for the first time?
If you aren't claiming that, then what exactly am I supposed to have done that makes you want to throw up?
K |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 12:58 pm | | Addressing the great Weedon Grossmith Controversy about which Mrs, Morris has just commented, I think that if she delves into the archives to "General Discussions: Modern Musings, 12 Angry Persons, she will find WG messages neatly archived from 23rd February 1999. Before that, they were on the Maybrick/Watch board. Of course anything now more than two years old is likely to be embarrassing.
Interestingly enough, in a post dated March 9th 1999 where she was for some reason trying to associate the illustrator Sidney Paget with the Grossmith Mystery she says: "Can someone look into why Sid[Paget] displayed so many other initials and pseudonyms on his work. (SP/SWAIN, SP/this, SP/that.)" I mention this because of Melvin's recent suggestion that when MB said that the JtR cartoon from Punch was by "PW Wenn" he was actually misreading the sign of John Tenniel and the engravers mark (Swain.) Maybe this shows that such a confusion is easily possible. (She also says: " But the drawings, of suspect and his brother, among other illustrations, in said brother's biography, were by SP/Y, and the handwriting beneath some of them looks suspiciously familiar to me." This makes me suspect that the artist here was actualy SPY who drew many Victorian notables for magazines such as Vanity Fair etc.
Regarding a point on another board which she has raised, in my researches I found the following:
"I have always thought that the "Diary" is a forgery. The weight of probability obviously favours a modern, post-1987 forgery perpetrated by those who claim to have 'found' it (i.e., Mike Barrett, Ann Barrett, and your choice of various others involved with them, such as Billy Graham, Tony Devereaux, and even the poor old bloke, Gerard Kane, who signed Devereaux's will)." (By Paul Begg on Tuesday, December 08, 1998 - 01:07 am)
Has anyone located an earlier mention of the name? |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 01:12 pm | | Sidney Paget wrote the Maybrick diary?
Caz, how could you possibly "finger" a poor dead man who can't defend himself?
I think a lot of people might call that a "stupid, blinkered, dishonest, and cowardly libel".
Now, what does your own medicine taste like?
Just imagine the smiley face, because I just won't do one for anyone on this earth.
And don't forget to answer my question - what was it about my using Kane's name that made you want to vomit?
Was that an honest response, or were you just finding another excuse to be spiteful?
K |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 01:57 pm | | Hi Peter and Karoline,
No chance of a reconciliation then, I take it? 
Lots of love,
Stupid, blinkered, dishonest, cowardly Caz
PS I quite like taking medicine actually. Even if it comes with acid drops instead of a spoonful of sugar. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 02:04 pm | | I don't think I ever 'accused' Paget of writing the diary, did I? I didn't think one could libel the dead either. Oh well, you live and learn.
I'm off for a hot curry - to take the bad taste away and wipe the silly grin off my face.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
