|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
A Hoax is a Hoax is a ...Conspiracy?
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Letters: General Discussion:
A Hoax is a Hoax is a ...Conspiracy?
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 11 April 2001 - 11:36 am |        | Hey All:
In light of the rumors of a forthcoming book alleged to be attempting to prove Bulling and Moore, against whom there has not surfaced any direct or indirect evidence, recruited a clerk as an accomplice...
I offer this quote as a starting point for discussion:
From "Spies" by Ernest Volkman, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., copyright 1994; page 67 of the paperback edition
"Like all intelligence operatives in sensitive positions, Gouzenko had been exposed to the inevitable office gossip during the years he worked in Moscow. Outsiders might be surprised to learn that there are few real secrets inside the halls of the average intelligence agency; like human beings everywhere who work in offices, intelligence agents like to exchange gossip about their superiors, complain about their treatment, carp against their perceived rivals, and boast of their greatest accomplishments. [new paragraph starts] Even in the rigidly controlled Soviet intelligence system, office gossip and office politics ran rampant..."
Now, a hoax can be a momentary 'weakness' of character or judgement, indulged by the trickster, without regards to consequences or motives (simply, 'a clever thing to do, eh?'). Or it might involve an amount of planning justified only by some demonstrable return on the invested time and effort. If no direct evidence via some mistake made reveals the hoax or -- in this case -- the trickster, only the perpetrator can denounce him or herself.
A hoax involving two people at least doubles the likelihood of incriminating mistakes or self-denunciation, whether accidently or because of conscience...maybe it even increases exponentially.
A third person at least triples the same risks.
If in the realm of "intelligence" gathering -- a deadly world indeed, where death for trivial matters or for almost no reason at all are documented -- "secrets" cannot long be held in a communal environment, how much more true would this be in a much looser, far less dangerous environment as a newsroom?
So as more people are required to make the letter hoax charge against the CNA/Bulling/Bulling & Moore stick, the odds increase to the point of near certainty that the supposed "secret" would eventually be revealed. And not just in vague, hazy terms of "we generally believe they did it, but not who, how, or why...exactly." One, some, or all of the 'conspirators' would name names and give dates and circumstances to someone who would pass on the story, who would tell someone else, on and on. It is human nature; it is in the nature of 'holding' secrets. If we did something 'clever,' eventually we'd want to tell someone. If we think we did something 'wrong,' our conscience moves us to confess at least to someone we trust to hold/share our 'secret' burden (almost always we are mistaken in that trust, either by our confessor's own inner imperatives or [lack of] morals, or innocent slips of the tongue).
The charges against Bulling, in particular, and sometimes Moore, and now possibly a third person, at least, would long ago have been specified and known...not believed, not theorized, not suspected, not rumored...KNOWN!
And we'd have probably heard about these details through one of the conspirator's 1888 contemporaries, but certainly in more definitive and verifiable detail from the generations who followed and had no "allegiance" or "noble ties of friendship," no "bonds of professional courtesy" to the trickster. All we get about Bulling et al. is dreary gossip that believes it proves its own logic and terms the more times it is told and the more people tell the tale.
The facts (hopefully) or arguments (probably) regarding this alleged "Third Man" theory will at least settle the issue of whether Bulling/Moore, perhaps the CNA itself, all knew of and participated in the letter hoax...once and for all, IMHO.
Exoneration of the 'usual suspects' doesn't mean the letters aren't still a hoax; only that the 'usual suspects' will have been either convicted or exonerated.
Yaz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 11 April 2001 - 05:09 pm | | Hi Yaz,
So, on this basis, how long do ya think Melvin's half a dozen or so suspects in the Maybrick Diary/watch hoax can survive before one of them, or someone somewhere connected to one or more of them, reveals their secrets? 
(And I don't mean Mike Barrett!)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 11 April 2001 - 06:24 pm | | Hey Caz:
Leave it to you to torment me with the dratted Maybrick thang!!
Suffice it to say, revelation would all depend on who knew the whats/whys/hows/whos/whens, such as:
1) the purpose for writing all or parts of the 'dairy;'
2) who did the alleged conspirators consort with; was this 'diary' a case of a sequence of potential frauds, conducted independently, all of which failed until the last 'fraud' hits on the right set of circumstances or time
3) whether some of all of the 'conspirators are dead; as well as anyone they might have told their whole or part of the story
4) the perceived importance of any revelation along the lines of walking into the local bar and announcing to your budddies, "Golly, guys, I done just writ up a book on Jack the Ripper," upon hearing which said buddies mumble 'That's nice. Bartender, could you turn up the volume on the television? I can't hear the next Jeopardy question.'
On and on.
To my (exremely limited) knowledge, the hoax was a miserable failure until relatively recently. Failure to achieve the aims of your hoax is probably the biggest reason for silence. But the recent success of the 'diary' might bring forth a revelation if someone who invested their time/money/whatever in the scheme is still around, still follows things JtR (the world does NOT revolve around the 'diary' and JtR, after all...I think), and might be upset that he/she/they reaped no rewards from it. Of course, with all the negative fuss made about the 'diary,' other 'conspirators' may have wisely gone to grass...even several thousands of dollars not being worth facing the Wrath of Melvin and the like.
Finally, is their absolute proof that more than one person knows and always knew the 'diary' was a fraud, was willing to state/represent otherwise in the face of "The Wrath" and potential lawsuits by publishers on the grounds of misrepresentation, and is still alive and well and litigating for every penny the...er, 'diary' is worth?
Hie thee hence back to the Maybrick cloister, woman! Get behind me, Satan! And how the heck are you, by the way; hope all is well with you and yours (and I'd advise you to grill that precocious child of yours on what she knows and when she knewed it...I'm convinced the answers lie with that young Shadow -- or should I say, "Laura Croft!" Ooops, did I just reveal her secret identity?!)
Grins,
Yaz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 11 April 2001 - 06:43 pm | | Cheers Yaz.
Back to my cloister I go. I'm absolutely fine thanks - hope you are too. My precocious child has become a young woman, so grilling don't work no more - she's already done to a turn.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 11 April 2001 - 06:49 pm | | Hey Quickdraw:
She knows, Caz, she knows. I'm telling ya. And she doesn't just think she knows that she knows either. I bees well, thankee.
Please ensure I'm completely forgotten on the 'diary' thread and I'll be eternally grateful.
Yaz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 12 April 2001 - 03:54 am | | Will do.
Byeee.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 12 April 2001 - 08:37 am | | Drat you, now I've felt obliged to attempt the Mt. Maybrick summit, and in the bad season (i.e., anywhere between the start of January to the end of December) and without a loyal guide and sherpa who'd keep his mind on me not falling in a crevasse rather than on watching for signs of Yeti.
Love back at ya,
Yaz |
|
|
|
|
