|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 March 20, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
College course tackles the Diary:
Archive through March 20, 2001
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Monday, 19 March 2001 - 10:28 am |        | Caroline (or does everyone call you Caz?)
That's a good point which I had been wondering about. While the parallels between the Diary and "Dear Boss" are pretty specific, the echo of "eight little whores" may or may not be. I'd be interested to trawl through the contemporary literature to find any similar-sounding poems. Or, alternatively, does anyone know when "Ten Little Indians" was coined? I always assumed the "Eight Little Whores" echoed that.
madeleine |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 19 March 2001 - 10:29 am | | Hi, Paul:
I hate to go once more round the Mulberry Bush with you on "Poste House" but I wish we could "knock on the head" once and for all your insistence that it could be any other drinking establishment called the "Poste House" than the known one in Liverpool. The logic of Diary itself tells us this is the one meant, for Maybrick has just seen Florie having her "rondaveau" with her lover Alfred, in Whitechapel, Liverpool, so where does he go and take refreshment but in the conveniently close and well-known (today) Poste House? It is all part of Maybrick's grand if labored reasoning "Whitechapel, Liverpool - Whitechapel, London." The internal logic and structure of the Diary tells us it has to be the same Poste House. It also tells us that the Diary is likely a fake and that the hoaxer slipped up badly, because the watering hole was not known by that name until recent times. Paul, I really do find your argument on this point to be an empty one. As empty as a pint glass of ale after one has just finished it in the Poste House, Liverpool. 
Chris |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Monday, 19 March 2001 - 10:39 am | | p.s. Paul, I agree that what we have here is a preponderence of evidence rather than conclusive evidence: mispellings don't mean much, nor do pub names. Little yields a certain deduction. Even if there were no pubs at the time in Liverpool called "Post House," that wouldn't be conclusive. Lots of us have private names for places, or just get the names wrong because it reminds us of somewhere else. I mean, who knows? Of course, put together, it's pretty damning....
I just finished another big fat Ripper book (The Mammoth Book) and am struck by how often the rhetorical question is used to support conclusions. It's usually something like this: "Critics of my theory that Oscar Wilde was the Ripper need to address this: What ELSE would Wilde have been doing in this part of town on that day? Why is there no mention of his presence at the banquet that fateful night? Why should he lie about his motives? etc. etc."
The problem with such devices is not that there's no answer. It's that there are hundreds of answers. Example: "Why should Maybrick mispell his daughter's name?" Possible answers: (1) dyslexia; (2) illness; (3) variant of the way she spelled her name (I spell mine three ways); (4) a private joke; (5) he'd just read a novel about a heroine called "Eveleyn" and the variant spelling was fresh in his mind; (6) his brother was carping at him, saying, Jim! Don't make any mistakes now! We don't want an invalid will! and just to annoy him, mispelled the name; etc. etc. etc....
You can't really support an inference by implying that since readers don't have the *right* answer, your answer is unchallenged. Not logical, Captain.
Just getting my logical two cents' in there...
madeleine |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 19 March 2001 - 12:19 pm | | Hi RJ,
You wrote:
I hope we aren't seeing a pattern here, though. Poste House was readily accepted as Poste House, Liverpool until Roger Wilkes pointed out it was called the Muck Midden in Maybrick's time. Then suddenly the allusion in the diary might have been to a different Poste House. When it was widely pointed out that the 'Dear Boss' letters were most probably the work of 'enterprising journalists', Feldman attempted to show that it was the Lusk letter that was the work of journalists. Is the 'Eight Whores Poem' going to receive a similar treatment?
It seems to me that those who are arguing that the diary is an old document starting with a conclusion ('it is old') and now are interpretting the facts to fit that conclusion. They should be working the other way around.
Well, firstly, I don't look at all like Feldy, and I hope I don't sound like him either.  I certainly share very few of his views and conclusions about the diary. I formed some of my own very different conclusions from reading his book before Shirley's, and before reading Melvin's articles on the Casebook. Some of those conclusions have since changed - not so much to other definite conclusions, but to actually having no firm conclusions at all any more! Some remain exactly the same. I never thought it conclusive that the author was referring to the Poste House, not yet so named when the diary was purported to have been written. That opinion has not changed because of Roger Wilkes' revelations. And I never limply accepted what Feldy was trying to tell his readers about the JtR letters. In fact, I think the diary does reflect the Lusk letter, in the comic rhyme about eating cold kidney for supper.
Is the 'Eight Whores Poem' going to receive a similar treatment?
Who by? Feldy, do you mean? I don't know RJ, I really don't. My question really was a simple one. I know you yourself believe the eight little whores poem directly influenced our faker, causing him/her to put certain lines into the diary. I know others, like Feldy and Harris do too. I never did think this was conclusive, from the outset, but I'm no expert, which is why I wanted to get a few informed and, hopefully, objective opinions from others, and I am grateful to Madeleine for hers, even though I would have liked to see a few more!
BTW, Madeleine, call me whatever you like, Caz is quickest to type - Keith Skinner calls me Dopey.
Back to RJ,
I was asking a sincere question, not 'interpreting the facts to fit' a particular conclusion - I leave that art form to Feldy and, er, no, I'd better not... .
If everyone thinks the diary author and ELW are inextricably linked, I'll move on - honestly.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 19 March 2001 - 12:55 pm | | Dear Shirley:
Thank you for your advice but I really don't need to send messages to people via their publishers when I already have their addresses here on file. "We are in danger of drifting off along yet another
irrelevant line of argument" I wouldn't think that queries concerning the only printed fragments of an interview with a now-deceased participant in the affair "irrelevant" but as there's no chance of this being elucidated, I'll drop it.
Regarding events of which you had no part, I would have imagined that you would be involved in negotiations concerning your contract. Surely Ms. Montgomery would not do something of this sort without discussing this with you? If you assure me that you have no information concerning this at all then I will of course accept your word.
And of course I would not anwer your query on these boards because you yourself suggested that we communicate privately.I have been awaiting your email. Now I have your address, I'll contact you. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Monday, 19 March 2001 - 01:29 pm | | VERSE AND WORSE!
Well Begg, has it not dawned on you that my extra remarks on Fleming were added because it was obvious that you often choose to lose the real meaning of sentences when it suits you? My original remarks gave my deductions drawn from the teasing clues I was fed. Only one person fitted the clues to my mind and anyone reading my words fairly would appreciate that. Nowhere do I say that Fleming's name was mentioned. But you are intent on trying to score points thus you were quick to distort the meaning of quite a simple statement. And it is not the first time. Never mind, I will make one last attempt to set the record straight. Not just for you, but for anyone who genuinely wants to know why the fuss is being made over one set of cheap verses.
Your basic problem is that you pontificate about subjects that you have never bothered to study in depth. You did that with the Maybrick material used to create the Diary and you excused your laxity by saying that you were not hired to read it. And you did it with the so-called 'Dutton diaries' by neglecting to examine McCormick's main source- H L Adam. If you had bothered to read the essential texts then you would have discovered that the whole of McCormick's 'Dutton based adventures' were bogus.
And if you had ever bothered to check on the location of the "Eight Little Whores" poem you would have noted that it was not an item presented in isolation, but is an integral part of an almost two-pages-long alleged extract from Dutton's papers! Of this poem Dutton is made to say "It may not be verse in the accepted sense, but this is certainly not the composition of an illiterate." At the end of that same long extract we also have 'Dutton' claiming that he took a micro-photograph of the writing on the wall, a claim that is preposterous. (see my original paper)
Now this handwriting section was said by McCormick to be taken from Dutton's early diaries that ended in the 1890's. But the poem is constructed from non-Ripper material that emerged in 1931 and was discovered and used by McCormick 28 years later. And the bogus Chapman hunt was also said by McCormick to be part of that same Victorian diary. Yet we now know that it was faked using material that did not emerge until 1930.
So when I demonstrated all this to McCormick in 1987, I put it to him that there was no possible escape from the proof that his 'Dutton extracts' were faked. Eventually he accepted that there WAS no way out and he knew the game was up. The formula I offered him then was a transitional device that allowed him to think around his position and his possible appearance in, or statement to, our television programme. By not asking him to name anyone AT THAT POINT I gave him a chance to make the best of a bad job. After all, he knew that the Adam text was there to damn him, whether he agreed to cooperate or not.
In short, McCormick admitted that the whole of the Dutton material was bogus. And the poem was an integral part of that material. If any parts of his book involved suggestions or additions from others, then, in the end, this is of no real consequence, because the responsibility for the book, as issued, is his and his alone.
And how do I know about the state of his mind in 1995? Easy. He told me and I have already recorded this. At our meeting at Camille's he was chuffed enormously by being greeted by so many people who wanted to meet 'The Pioneer'. He said to me that it was like the old days once more. He told me that his Ripper book had given him more publicity than anything else he ever wrote, and brought him in some hundreds of letters and a spot on an early television programme. He clearly loved the attention and adulation. He was elated, even though he was a deceiver with a false reputation.
In his last years he added to the deceit by inventing new provenances for the verses. First he said that he found them in several Victorian newspaper clippings. Then he told Colin Wilson that his father had recited the lines to him when he was a boy! But when I spoke to one of his close friends about his deception that friend said: "It doesn't surprise me in the least. It is just the sort of thing he'd enjoy doing." As the friend who wrote his obituary said "He was somewhat piratical and a difficult man to come up against."
So that was the man. But we are still waiting for an explanation of the extraordinary conduct of Feldman and Harrison. Did they ask McCormick point-blank if it was a fake? But more importantly, why did they wait FOR YEARS after May 1993 before contacting McCormick?
As for Sickert, here is a memory-jog. I spoke to Colin Haycraft of Duckworth Publishers, in November 1992 about the fake Abberline diaries used in Melvyn Fairclough's book. He asked to see some specimens of Abberline's real handwriting. My files were in store at that time and I was tied up by a television commitment, so I rang you and asked if you could send me some of Abberline's reports. You kindly supplied the ones I asked for and at that time you revealed that there were plans to question both Fairclough and Sickert for a video. I sent those reports, along with some earlier and later Abberline writings, to Haycraft, on Nov 28. Following that you rang me and when I said that the stuff had been sent to Duckworth you said that you knew this already because Sickert and Fairclough had the documents with them and both men were with you at that time. Need I go further? |
Author: Melvin Harris
Monday, 19 March 2001 - 02:11 pm | | READ AGAIN PLEASE
Just been shown a printout which reveals that Begg is yammering on about muddle on my part. And in the same post he tells us "Adam Wood made a very good observation...when he wrote 'And if McCormick did write the poem, surely he'd have known that there was no murder in Henage Court...Spicer is reported as stating Henage Street, not Court, so his report wasn't followed that closely.'" Sorry Begg, but once more you betray your eagerness to grasp at anything you feel might help your grudging attitude. And you are wrong once more, as is Adam Wood. Spicer DOES set his story in Henage Court, not Street. Did someone mention muddle? |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Monday, 19 March 2001 - 03:21 pm | | Melvin,
Just speaking as a lay-person, I'm curious as to why these details matter so much? I'm not really clear what point is being supported or refuted by them, or whether it the support/refutation is conclusive.
Madeleine |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 19 March 2001 - 04:53 pm | | Hi Madeleine,
Good question.
By the way, the best information I have come across, from a website on the history of children's music, suggests that the children's song Ten Little Indians was actually used by wagon-train families (heading West in America in the first half of the nineteenth century) to teach children to count. It has, not surprisingly, come up for discussion in the past few years on education discussion boards and at conferences among elementary-ed people because of the racial sensitivity issue. It is, of course, by no means the first of its kind. There have been counting songs similar to it going back for centuries. (And much later, one of them even turns up, I believe, at the end of a tune on Abbey Road.)
I thought of it, too, when I read the crossed out words in the diary.
I may as well throw out here my own speculation concerning Paul's earlier question about the composition process. It seems to me, on "gut" instinct, as they say, that this thing was completely constructed, including lines written and crossed out, before anyone put pen nib to Victorian paper. I think we are clearly meant to be able to read the crossed out sections -- as if we are being offered a performance of a creative mind at work. Again, this is another piece of evidence, for me, that we are dealing with a writer with a fondness for word games. But that is only a hunch.
***************************
Also by the way, after a frustrated attempt at creating verse, including the "One whore in heaven" lines now under such intense debate, the writer of the diary curses Michael "for being so clever the art of verse is far from simple. I curse him so."
Now, I may be just totally dim here, or badly misinformed, but didn't Michael (as Stephen Adams) only write music? The words to his songs, I thought, were penned by Fred Weatherly. As far as I know, Michael never wrote verse or even lyrics, did he?
I'm sure this is too simple to be of importance and someone has either mentioned it before or I am wrong about Michael, but I thought it seemed odd.
Sorry for interrupting the debate about McCormick and who wrote what rhyme when, but I just wanted to mention these few things.
--John |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 19 March 2001 - 06:25 pm | | John - Wouldn't the counting-song 'Ten little Indians' be
One little, two little, three little Indians,
Four little, five little, six little Indians,
Seven little, eight little, nine little Indians,
Ten little Indian boys. ?
Whereas the 'little whores' are based on what the unregenerate Agatha Christie and I, fifty years apart, learned as
Ten little n*gger boys going out to dine:
One choked his little self - then there were nine.
This last rhyme can be dated back to an appearance in a book of children's rhymes from earlier than the Ripper crimes - in the 1870s I think. I hoped I would turn up the reference among my Agatha Christie files, but have so far failed to do so.
All the best,
Martin |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 19 March 2001 - 06:44 pm | | Hi Martin,
Right, that's the Ten Little Indians song that I thought Madeleine was asking about.
The one that turns up in the Agatha Christie book and play was indeed the rhyme Ten Little N*gger Boys, but when these two texts were published in America, both the reference and the titles of the Christie works were changed to Ten Little Indians. Also, in Christie's autobiography, she discusses the changes she made as she adapted the book to the stage and mentions having to make "one modification of the original story. I must make two of the characters innocent, to be reunited at the end and come safe out of the ordeal. This would not be contrary to the spirit of the original nursery rhyme, since there is one version of 'Ten Little N*gger Boys' which ends: "He got married and then there were none."'(569)
Of course, the form of the Ten Little N*gger Boys rhyme is apparently the source for the pattern of the diary rhyme.
Sorry for the confusion. 
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 19 March 2001 - 06:51 pm | | Hi, John:
You are exactly correct that the fact that Michael Maybrick was a composer and Frank Weatherly his lyricist has been discussed, by Melvin and others. Michael was a music man not a word man, so Melvin is on solid ground in saying that it is a definite "duff" note, and a true indication of a hoax, to have James Maybrick talk of his brother being a poet and lyricist instead of a composer.
John, I also entirely agree with you that the struck-out lines in the doggerel have the appearance of being meant to be read. This is something that struck me as artificial when I first saw the facsimile of the Diary, and that I have remarked on here before. As a writer who often writes with pen and paper (aren't I old fashioned???), when I delete a line, I scrub it out with several lines of ink so it does not confuse me. Not so this character, who was not really composing poetry as he went along but just trying to give us the impression that he was versifying and so competing with his brother the supposed "word hack."
Hi, Rick:
I look forward to meeting you and your wife as well. We Statesiders who were at the US convention last April had a ball and are looking forward to having a similar convivial and informative weekend in Bournemouth this autumn.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 19 March 2001 - 07:08 pm | | Thanks Chris,
I knew someone must have mentioned it before.
By the way, for those interested, the Agatha Christie book and film that would have brought some new attention to the Ten Little N*gger Boys rhyme, were originally published as Ten Little N*ggers in 1939 and '45 respectively. The film title was altered to And Then There Were None in the US. Its structure of murders, based, of course, on this nursery rhyme about the fates of a diminishing group of "little n*ggers" was changed to "little Indian boys" in later publication, although the phrase "n*gger in the woodpile" remains in a 1986 American edition of the book.
Oh, I just found a copy of something called the Ten Little N*gger Boys Book, dated "early 1900's," for sale online.
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 19 March 2001 - 10:16 pm | | Hi everyone,
A bit more information, since I have a moment. One web source tells me that the Ten Little N*gger Boys piece, collected in various Mother Goose volumes was a "nursery rhyme written by Frank Green about 1869." This is the version that begins:
"Ten little n*gger boys went out to dine;
One choked his little self, and then there were nine.
Nine little n*gger boys sat up very late;
One overslept himself, and then there were eight.
Eight little n*gger boys travelling in Devon;
One said he'd stay there, and then there were seven.
Seven little n*gger boys chopping up sticks;
One chopped himself in half, and then there were six."
etc.
It had already gotten into the popular culture in a few different versions by the end of the century. I also discovered, for instance, that "The Game of Ten Little N*ggers," introduced by Parker Brothers in 1895, was a variation of Old Maid that featured Black characters exclusively."
Finally, I came across a significantly different version of the poem that apparently was also collected in anthologies.
A reader at http://www.middlebury.edu/~harris/indians.html mentions,
"I was surprised to find it stated explicitly in an old illustrated child's edition of Mother Goose which I have had around for years unread. I don't know if you know the stanzas of "Ten Little Injuns", so let me quote the specific ones which jarred my eye:
'Eight little Injuns never heard of heaven
One kicked the bucket and then there were seven
Six little Injuns kicking all alive
One broke his neck and then there were five
Two little Injuns fooling with a gun
One shot the other and then there was one
One little Injun living all alone,
He got married and then there were none.'"
So there were obviously a number of versions of this verse going around from at least 1869 on, and the poem returned at least tangentially to the popular culture in the late 1930's with the Christie book and play, which became a popular film in the '40s. The film, of course, has also appeared on TV regularly up to the present day.
Interesting dates, all.
Sorry if this is more than anyone wanted to know. I was bored.
--John |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Monday, 19 March 2001 - 10:59 pm | | No, thanks John, Martin & Chris for the info!
Yes, the nursery rhyme books I remember rewrote the original "ten little Racial Slurs" and I knew it as Ten Little Injuns (not much of an improvement really!) I was indeed thinking of the pattern that goes "Ten little whatevers are drinking wine/One was poisoned by his Merlot and then there was nine" etc.
I figured this must have been discussed already. Everything has. I strive to make some new point, but I fear I am too behind....
I also agree that the crossings out contribute to the overall performance-art quality of the diary. Bogus, bogus. I wonder who wrote it though. A ripperologist? ... Could the "Killer" be... one of "us?"
(Re-reading my Christie books again!)
madeleine |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 02:20 am | | Hi, John, Madeleine, etc.:
The owner of a bookstore yesterday suggested to me a possible military history topic to follow up on my recent book on the War of 1812. The new book would have to do with Indian warfare. In looking up material on the web about the topic, I found an interesting site out of Australia that has to do with the origins of proverbs. One of the proverbs discussed is the notorious, “The only good Indian is a dead Indian” which has a bearing on the “Ten Little Indians” rhyme. Look at http://www.deproverbio.com/DPjournal/DP%2C1%2C1%2C95/INDIAN.html
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 07:23 am | | I have not been able to keep up with the boards lately, so I am responding to some old information. Sorry!
I am actually moved to defend Harris on two points. First, relating to who provides his internet service and whether they agree with what he writes is irrelevant. Harris obviously does not have a computer, however since we continually debate his theories and whatnot, he has the right to defend himself. Whoever posts for him understands the basic right of a person to say what he wants whether s/he agrees with it or not. If the person posting for him is friends or acquaintences with all parties involved, it puts him or her in an even more difficult situation. Therefore, it is only right that they not get involved and simply post Mel's answers as they are written. If the person agrees with everything Mel says, that is his/her business and none of ours. While I take huge offence at 99% of what Harris says, I would agree to post any of his replies. If we are going to debate him, he gets the chance to reply without censor (censure is of course another matter).
Second, there was some comment made about greed in relation to Harris refusing to post information he planned to put in his next book. Harris is an author who earns his living off the money he makes. That is no more greed than an architect refusing to draw plans to a building for free.
Again sorry for the lateness of this response. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 08:03 am | | Madeline--Hello. I hope you don't mind me butting-in here. I realize that much of the discussion over the McCormick poem must seem infintely tedious and wayward, but the point that is 'being refuted' has to do with the proposed provenance of the diary. As you probably know, Anne Graham has claimed that the diary came to her through her father, who got it from his step-mother sometime before 1950. (There is also the claim that this step-mother, Edith Formby, had a mother who was friends with Alice Yapp, a maid in the Maybrick household; one argument that being thrown around is that the diary is an 'old hoax', and thus, even if a forgery, has some historical interest).
Now, for the sake of the argument, let's agree that diary's 'one whore in heaven/two whores side by side' refers to the earlier poem:
"Eight little whores, with no hope of heaven
Gladstone may save one, then there'll be seven.
Seven little whores begging for a shilling,
One stays in Henage (sic) Court, then there's a
killing". Etc. Etc.
You can see that, in respect to the provenance, it would make a big difference whether the poem could be dated to 1931 (Dutton's Diaries) or to 1959 (McCormick's book), and the subsequent reprints of the poem in later Ripper texts. Obviously, if the poem wasn't written until 1959, then the story that the diary had been in the Graham household since the late 1940's cannot be true. Thus the argument.
My view is that even if it could be shown that the 'Eight Little Whores' poem was written by Dr. Dutton in his infamous legendary diary in 1931, it would be an argument of reductio ad absurdum, as the conclusion drawn would be that the forger of the Maybrick diary would have access to those diaries; but, even if they had existed, those papers were alleged only to have been seen by a very small amount of people. Common sense would suggest that the reference to the poem came from its reprint in one of the more recent Ripper books. (And indeed there is one Ripper book that contains not only the 'Eight Little Whores' poem, but also the police list, the Punch cartoon, and other elements mentioned in the diary).
Best wishes,
RJ Palmer |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 08:41 am | | Dear Allegria,
Of course I agree with you that Melvin has the right to defend himself and, if he wishes, to be as abusive and ill-bred as he chooses. I would certainly be happy to post anything reputable for him. If, however, he chose to say, 'Allegria's conceit has over-reached itself as I always predicted it would, and her habit of colouring everything she says with her fatuous religious beliefs vitiates her work' - (a slightly extravagant paraphrase of things he has said about me) - I should probably decline to post it. And given his propensity to mount personal attacks as a part of his arguments, I should always make it known that I was posting for him.
To criticise the anonymous posters is not shooting the messengers: it is demanding that they accept responsibility for what they assist in publishing. The British Post Office will not knowingly deliver obscene material, and Spryder will not let us use certain words on this board. If I assist in posting abuse of other people, it becomes my responsibility to acknowledge that I have done so; otherwise innocent parties may be suspected of associating themselves with it. If I were to post anything offensive about you on Harris's behalf, I should take care to let you know that while I had decided he was entitled to say what he chose, I did not endorse his comments: or, at the very least, to identify yself as the poster so that you could take it up with me if you chose. Bear in mind that Melvin Harris's and Paul Begg's and Keith Skinner's and my common friends - (my habitual pedantry debars me from the common error of calling them 'mutual friends'!) - include Stewart Evans and Don & Molly Rumbelow and Nick Warren and Richard & Molly Whittington-Egan, and you can see that the posters who skulk in silence risk throwing a net of doubt and suspicion around a wide circle of very pleasant people. I can well understand that anybody who has posted the sorts of things Harris writes about other people feels ashamed to acknowledge it. But unless such acknowledgement is made, I will have no part in a correspondence which has the potential of defiling like pitch.
And, I say again, these strictures do not apply to Peter Birchwood who has properly and honestly acknowledged to posting for Melvin as, indeed, I think somebody certainly should do in the interest of free debate and discussion.
With all good wishes,
Martin Fido |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 08:50 am | | Hi Chris/Madeleine
There’s a line in a movie: “assumption is the mother of all screw ups” (well, that isn’t exactly the line, but it conveys the message) and what I am arguing against is the reasoning that the ‘diary’ is a fake because the modern Poste House was named Muck Midden in 1889. That the present Poste House was called Muck Midden in and after 1889 only tells us that it couldn’t have been the pub the diarist is referring to. It does not tell us that there wasn’t a pub he could have been referring to. There could have been – and this is the crucial point, there would have been a post house in Liverpool at that time. And the assumption here is that it wasn’t close to Whitchapel, Liverpool (like at the Whitechapel end of the New Scotland Road artery for example).
As it happens I have always accepted the contextual argument. I also accept – and stress, but it always seems to get lost somewhere – that the ‘e’ in ‘poste’ is a relatively modern affectation. I even incline to the belief that the diarist meant the current Poste House and made a mistake pointing to a modern date for composition. But I don’t think speculation and assumption is the better alternative to establishing where the post houses in Liverpool were located. And call me a boring pedant if you wish, but if it should turn out that there was a post house was slap bang in the middle of Whitechapel then perhaps you will both do me the honour of allowing me to buy you both a pint in the Poste House or post house!
Madeleine, when you wrote “Just speaking as a lay-person, I'm curious as to why these details matter so much…”, which details did you mean? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 09:57 am | | Hi All,
So, what's the verdict regarding my question about the eight little whores poem? Could the diary faker have written the lines we are talking about without ever having heard the poem that Melvin now dangles as the likely invention, around 1959, of the man who gave us his 'Bond'?
We can see some very plausible influences for McCormick's joker, in the form of those ten little black boys, but did his efforts in turn influence the diary author, who was also pretending to have great difficulty producing quality funny little rhymes? Small point, but this is what our faker intended to convey – he/she was not pretending to have difficulty composing decent music, like James’ talented brother, Michael. The assumption is that the faker will be cursing him/herself for this ‘error’, but could it be a case of poetic licence, with the emphasis firmly on the sibling rivalry issue? In other words, it would have been simpler for the faker if James had obliged by having a famous poet, author or librettist for a brother, but he didn’t. My imagination fills in the gaps and tells me that Michael – if and when composing verse for fun – would still have outshone James. And before RJ tells me I mustn’t interpret the facts to fit a particular theory, this interpretation could fit with two of ‘em – modern or old hoax, but not genuine.
Hi RJ,
My own thoughts about the diary generally – just to hammer the point home again – are that I can’t see how it could possibly have been written by James Maybrick, or that James could have been Jack. Neither can I imagine how an old fake could have found its way into the hands of Anne Graham, be it via Granny Formby and Billy Graham, or by some other route. So, until someone comes up with a workable permutation involving at least one of the modern players – or unless Melvin decides to share the one he’s got – I’m stuck in no-man’s land. My aim is to firm up or modify some of my own opinions by asking questions and checking what other people think. Since I have very few fixed-in-stone opinions, unlike many others on both ‘sides’, I can see very little point in anyone assuming I have, even less point trying to guess what they are and, least of all, seeking to change them!
I’ll leave you all with another taste of those Three Little Maids:
One little maid is a bride, Yum-Yum –
Two little maids in attendance come –
Three little maids is the total sum,
Three little maids from school!
From three little maids take one away,
Two little maids remain, and they –
Won’t have to wait very long, they say –
Three little maids from school!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 10:02 am | | “He freely acknowledged that it was based on the Express story but bounced around clues and diversions when asked about the authorship. From the smokescreen emerged one man. His friend and fellow-delighter in crafting engaging yarns; none other than Ian Fleming.” (Melvin Harris, Tuesday March 13, 2001. “Concealed Again”)
Interpreting these words as meaning more than a guess is, according to Harris, ‘to distort the meaning’ and that ‘anyone reading (his) words fairly would appreciate’ he was just guessing. Frankly, I doubt it.
Harris’s argument seems increasingly pointless and wildly off topic, and since it seems established that McCormick didn't write "Eight Little Whores" and that we don't know who did, continuing this discussion falls into the flogging a dead horse category. However, I am pleased to learn that Donald McCormick’s final years were enjoyably spent being feted as a Ripper pioneer. I wonder, though, whether McCormick actually told Harris that this was why Harris could forget about a public confession? I wonder this because I can’t make up my mind whether it is something McCormick actually said or whether I should be reading Harris’s words with greater fairness and appreciate that it’s all Harris’s guess.
To quickly comment on Harris’s supplementary post “Please Read Again”, the point of importance in the Adam Wood quote is that McCormick knew there wasn’t a murder in ‘Henage Court’ so if he’d composed “Eight Little Whores” why did he imply that there was one? That is a good and reasonable point. And if I hadn’t quoted Adam Wood in full then Harris would probably have found some reason why I should have done and accused me of concealment, as he usually does. As a matter of interest, however. Spicer said: “On this particular night I had walked my beat backwards, and had come to Henage-street, off Brick Lane. About fifty-yards on the right down Henage-street is Henage-court. At the bottom of the court was a brick-built dustbin.” |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 10:04 am | | Martin,
I worked as an interpreter for 2 years. My job was to say whatever the student signed without altering it or refusing on the grounds that I objected to the content. Although I respect the teaching profession as a whole and this particular teacher in specific, I once had to call a teacher a smelly old bitch even though she was none of those things. I have had to call black people n*gger, not because I think they are or because I approve of the word but because that is what the student signed and I had to deliver it uneditorialized. In both of these situations I felt ill and later apologized to both the people in question. They assured me that they understood my role was simply that of the messenger. Although I know there is not a Code of Ethics guiding what is posted on the board as there is in interpreting, I feel that Mel should be allowed to say whatever he wants and the person posting it should not have to come forward if they choose not to. Having been placed in the position of being blamed for what were not my words, I understand this position totally. Mel Harris can call me anything he wants and I will post it. He has the right to be as objectionable as he is able to be. And while nothing that he has said is fair, nice or cuddly, I do not think it qualifies as obscene, except perhaps to the rule of logic. |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 10:27 am | | RJ,
Serious thanks for your clear explanation of just what is at stake in the debate over who wrote the "Eight Little Whores" poem and when. I think I understand your reasons (and those of most others, apparently) for determining that the lines in the Diary are a direct reference to "Eight Little Whores" and not one of the similar nursery rhymes or just another of the writer's failed attempts at composing.
In light of Caroline's recent question concerning whether there was, yet, a scholarly consensus on this influence, whether it is agreed upon that the lines refer specifically to the "Eight Little Whores" poem to the exclusion of other readings, I thought I'd try to follow the logic.
The lines in the diary are:
"One whore in heaven,
two whores side by side,
three whores all have died
four"
That's it, as far as I can tell. Those are, I think, the only lines being considered. (I may be wrong here, or missing other relevant passages.*) And the argument is that these lines are a direct reference to these lines.
"Eight little whores, with no hope of heaven
Gladstone may save one, then there'll be seven.
Seven little whores begging for a shilling,
One stays in Henage (sic) Court, then there's a
killing". Etc. Etc. "
And *these* lines are obviously a play on the well-known "Ten Little N*iggers" nursery rhyme which has been around in several forms and frequently anthologized in Mother Goose collections, apparently since around 1870.
Now, the origin of "Eight Little Whores" parody is unknown but is clearly (this, at least, seems agreed upon) a post-1931 poem, though possibly written by McCormick or friend as late as the 1959 date of the publication of his book (thereby posing an insurmountable problem for one of the provenance theories).
However, I think I also am now beginning to understand Caroline's concern about the ground on which we base our assumption of direct reference and influence here. Of course, it makes a certain sort of assumptive sense to conclude that since a poem like "Eight Little Whores" does appear in various modern Ripper books, and a number of other items and phrases referred to in the diary also appear in those *same* books, therefore a poem similar to "ELW," if it appears in the Diary, might be claimed to have been influenced by the "ELW" poem.
However, this tentative conclusion seems to me to assume at least two things that I'm not sure have been established, even though everyone, including, apparently, Shirley Harrison and Paul Feldman, have readily agreed to them. First, that the lines cited above are a clear and direct reference to the lines cited just below them and not just more failed attempts to write verse and construct quatrains along the lines of other failed constructions throughout the text. And second, that even if the lines *are* a reference to the structure of the "Ten Little N*gger Boys" poems, they must also be a direct reference to "ELW," since this is, after all, a *Ripper* diary and that poem was much cited and discussed among Ripper scholars, appeared in several Ripper studies, and at least once or twice falsely assumed to be composed at the time of the murders. This, it is argued, would make very unlikely the possibility that the structure of the failed rhymes scratched out by the diarist could merely be influenced by the diarist's familiarity with an old nursery rhyme (assuming that *is* the origin of this three and a quarter line variation) or some other counting song or, indeed, just the counting progression device of someone trying to perform the part of a too-simple mind trying to work out verse.
Are we creating clues here, rather than discovering them, and thereby making the reading even more complicated than it already is? What are our own expectations and assumptions? We don't know who wrote the diary or when, of course. We don't know who wrote the "Eight Little Whores" poem or when, of course. But we are comfortable assuming that three lines in a diary allegedly by the Ripper which mention "whores" and which include the numbers "one, two, three, and four" must have a direct connection.
I guess I can see why the reading is being offered, but I guess I am also not quite sure yet that it is the only or even the simplest or most likely reading available.
I apologize for going over all of this again and in such a newcomer style. I know from reading the archives how this has been going round and round and I also know that this post isn't really advancing the argument any. I wanted to clearly understand the steps involved in these interpretations for myself and thought posting this little review might help others who are also just joining these ongoing acts of reading.
Thank you for your patience with all of this. I offer no conclusions or even speculations here and appreciate all of the research and reading that everyone has offered in this discussion.
--John
*Earlier in the diary, of course, the "poet" writes, concerning evidence with which we are all familiar and which is also subject to much debate elsewhere,
One ring, two rings,
a farthing one and two,
Along with M ha ha
Will catch clever Jim
its true
No pill, left but two.
This is the final version of a "funny little rhyme" that is offered after other scribbled out attempts to play with number sequences, including,
"One dirty whore was looking for some gain
Another dirty whore was looking for the same."
and
"two farthings
two pills
the whores M
rings
think"
the word "gain" returns as a possible rhyme for "cane" and "insane" again just before the "One whore in heaven" lines.
I'm not entirely sure if we are assuming that all of these games with number sequences in poems about whores are "ELW" references or the just the three lines and a word scratched out that I posted above are the ones in question.
Again, I am sorry for going on much too long. |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 10:34 am | | Caroline,
We seem to have been writing at the same time and asking similar questions. I had not seen your post when I hit the "send" button on mine.
Please be assured, everyone, that I am in no way trying to "move the goalposts" here (is that right? should it be "shift?") nor, I think, is Caroline. I am just trying to sketch out the boundaries of the readings being offered.
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 10:40 am | | Hallelujah! RJP is totally correct. If the ‘diary’ reflects “Eight Little Whores” and if that rhyme was found by McCormick in Dr. Dutton’s ‘Chronicles’ then it dates the ‘diary’ post-1931 and, because nobody else had access to the Dutton material, it must date the ‘diary’ post-1959.
But, despite what Shirley Harrison and Paul Feldman think, does the ‘diary’ reflect “Eight Little Whores” or some other counting rhyme from which both it and “Eight Little Whores” could be commonly derived? |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 10:47 am | | | Ah, I see everyone else has got there before me. I think I'll just sloped off and make a cup of tea. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 11:21 am | | Hi, Paul, Caz, R.J., and John:
To my mind, it is not clear that the crossed out lines in the Diary are a direct cadge off "Eight Little Whores." The wording, rhyme scheme, and meter are quite different. The only similarity perhaps is the "whore in heaven" idea and the word "dead" instead of "killing." Does this prove the Diary lines derive from ELW? I don't think the proof is there.
Melvin zooms in on these lines as if it is proof positive that the hoaxer is quoting ELW, which, he insists, McCormick confessed was invented by the writer for his 1959 book--or at least could be dated to 1931 (Dutton's Diaries). However, if we all think about it, it is not entirely clear that the longer lines in ELW led to the stubbier and different rhyming lines contained in the Diary. It is another of those great big "maybe's" but not definite proof that this is where the hoaxer got the rhymes.
In fact, is Melvin reacting as much to Feldman's conclusion that the lines in the Diary came from ELW as to what is actually in the Diary? In his eagerness to put Feldy in the dock for his conclusions and research methods, is Melvin jumping the gun? As we have read, Melvin has much to say about his meeting with McCormick but is there necessarily a connection between McCormick and what appears in the Diary? Neither, I would add, is it clear which if any Maybrick or Ripper books the forger may have used (e.g., one that quoted ELW). Indeed, whomever concocted the Diary probably did refer to several books on the two cases but I don't think Melvin has identified with any certainty which ones they were, just that two or three books were probably used, sufficient to give enough material to provide background information for the Diary narrative and details.
Best regards
Chris George
P.S., John, don't ever feel you are going on at length. Your contributions are important! |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 11:46 am | | Chris,
Thanks.
A last note.
In the interest of full discussion, I should probably mention that it is argued in Shirley Harrison's book on the Diary that the "Eight Little Whore's" poem is also echoed in a few other ways in the diary's text.
First, the line in the "ELW" poem "I'll set the town alight" could remind us of a passage in the Diary where "Maybrick" considers someday burning down St. James's church.
Second, the poem's final line -- "And the last one's the ripest for Jack's idea of fun." -- is allegedly echoed when the Diarist claims in a line elsewhere in the diary that MJK "ripped like a ripe peach." The presence in both lines of a form of the word "ripe" implies a connection.
Finally, the "ELW" poem's mention of Henage (sic) Court is said to be echoed in the Maybrick diary, if we assume that the man with the black hat that PC Spicer says he ran into there and later saw repeatedly at Liverpool station was actually Maybrick. (In my edition of Mrs. Harrison's book, it is claimed Spicer "arrested the man later at Liverpool station" although in the Spicer statement to the Daily Express in 1931, he seems to claim that he "took" "Jack" while "Jack" was sitting on the dustbin in "Henage" Court with Rosy and only saw him later several times at Liverpool Station, where they would apparently enact a sort of running gag around the line "Hello, Jack! Still after them?" This matters, because the claim in the book is that an arrest at Liverpool station is significant, since "It is more than coincidental that the station is at the end of Middlesex Street where James Maybrick rented a room." (109) But I have an older edition and this discrepancy may have since been addressed.) The book claims that, because the description of the man in Spicer's account also seems to fit Maybrick, this link is "the most telling of all." I do not believe, however, that any mention of "Henage Court" (spelled either way) or the run-ins with anyone like Spicer ever actually appears in the Diary. I could be wrong about that.
In any case, these three other "echoes" of the poem in the diary seem to me to be moments where there is language in the "ELW" poem that also appears in diary entries. But the language in each case is sufficiently vague and the associations sufficiently speculative and only implied in such a tentative manner that the question of whether one work is a direct influence on the other must still, it seems to me, remain in some doubt.
--John
(Hmmm. "She ripped like a ripe peach." -Ripped- -ripe- I still we think we have at least a casual word-game player here, though clearly not a poet.) |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 11:50 am | | Hi Allegria,
First - of course I'm not suggesting that anything Melvin has said is obscene. (He's sufficiently pure-minded to object that I use improper language in my private life, with the apparent implication that this somehow vitiates my historical work!) I only used the examples of the Post Office and Spryder to show that even institutional 'messengers' recognise some responsibility for the content they deliver.
Now, two main points.
1. There is an enormous difference between paid work as an interpreter or translator, where the moral responsibility to reproduce the original accurately is paramount, and writing or posting for these boards, which most people use for entertainment and enjoyment, with only very occasional students popping in for help with their theses. Under these circumstances I declined some time back to participate in a discussion of the Maybrick Diary which was turning on the mendacity or truthfulness of a certain person. In that instance I had told the person concerned exactly what I think, face to face in person as well as in private letters, and I am not prepared to engage in the dissection of some one else's moral character in this forum. Thus my comments on Melvin have concerned themselves with the tone, content and accuracy of his arguments: to accuse him of 'sneering and jeering' as I did when he mounted his first personal attack on me for something I had posted, was a comment on his usual tone. He, by contrast, has talked about my private profanity and drinking habits, as apparently gossipped to him by some acquaintance. He has subsequently indulged in wildly inaccurate speculations about my religious convictions (presented to all the world as facts!) He is prone to accuse other people of lying whenever they point out something to his scholarly discredit. And in general he has posted things about me and other people which I consider have no place in this forum, and which nobody with the faintest conception of good manners would have introduced. So I am content to sever all further communication with him.
2. And most important. You 'felt sick and apologised', even though - as you rightly say (or imply, or I'll say it for you) - it was your bounden duty to reproduce an exact translation of insults being offered. So would I, and so would any decent person. If I found it essential to post some of Melvin's insulting words about anyone else (in answer to a student making an urgent request for information for research purposes, for example) I should also feel it incumbent on me to offer the victim an apology. Especially if I knew them personally. To suspect that anybody who behaves toward one with general cordiality is secretly abetting another in placing public insults is both offensive and, to me, intensely distasteful. I ought to be above entertaining the faintest suspicion that anybody I know and like could be capable of such hypocrisy. Yet it has been suggested to me that it is happening; I have found myself entertaining a thought I think unworthy of myself; I conclude that keeping up any form of correspondence with Melvin is contaminating, and I decline to do so unless the people who post for him are willing to stand up and be counted. If like Peter Birtchwood (or, indeed, yourself should Melvin take up your offer) they are not personally acquainted with me, I feel not the slightest resentment over their acknowledged posting of other people's words. But those who prefer to hide in the shadows must be presumed to do so because they are aware that they are doing something shabby. There is absolutely no comparison with a professional interpreter whose intermediary position is clear, open and acknowledged, and who still has the grace and courtesy to offer an apology for beng compelled to retail another person's filth.
Nothing I say, of course, stops Melvin from saying anything he likes, although at one point he described my position as 'censorship'! I am perfectly content that a study of his back postings will make clear to any fair-minded person why I take the position I do, and I do hope you don't imagine it casts the slightest reflection on you and your work, Allegria.
With all good wishes,
Martin F |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 11:53 am | | Hi John
Dittoing Chris's P.S., I have found your contributions highly informative, illuminating, fairly argued and a real breath of fresh air. All who have contributed to the literary discussion here should be congratulated. |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 12:18 pm | | Hi Alegria
I think the point about anonymous posting is a difficult one and it all dates back to the trouble we had with the pseudonymous poster when one or more people appeared under various guises and caused a deal of upset in one way or another. It was believed that that person also posted for Melvin Harris. Melvin also once told us why that person posted pseudonymously (because he didn’t want letters and telephone calls), which either reflected Melvin’s ignorance about the Message Boards or indicated that the pseudonymous poster was someone known to use on a personal level and who’s address and telephone number we knew. Obviously this creates a difficult problem because there is somebody who we know and who knows us who is taking issue with us but doing so from the protection of several pseudonymns. It really does breed distrust and is exceedingly unpleasant. Martin has thus decided that he does not want to discuss anything with Melvin unless whoever posts for him acknowledges it. I can see why Miss Sproggett next door prints off stuff for Melvin and puts up his replies and might otherwise choose not to get involved, but I don’t see why a contributor to these Boards shouldn’t acknowledge that they do so. After all, Caz acknowledges that she puts up Keith’s messages and I have always acknowledged that I have put some up for Shirley. But at the end of the day they don't have to identify themselves if they don't want to and Martin doesn't have to reply to Harris if he doesn't want to - which is maybe just as well, since Martin's replies would no doubt sting very sharply. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 12:19 pm | | Hi All,
Hallelujah and Christ on a bike! I have been banging on for two bloody years (and no apologies for swearing) about not being certain that the diary author was directly influenced by the ELW poem, and asking what others thought - and I honestly got the impression most people saw me as some dopey female with no brains or common sense! Now John puts it in clearer terms than I ever did, endorsing my concerns, and suddenly my original point is receiving deserved consideration.
Regarding the thorny issue of Melvin’s various postmen, I can see Alegria’s point that Melvin has every right to be allowed his voice, whatever method he chooses to get it heard – in his case, with his postmen’s co-operation. But I also agree with Martin, that being a postman/woman comes with certain responsibilities when one is familiar with the contents of the package. A Royal Mail man is generally obliged to deliver the contents of his sack, but he would be relieved of any such obligation instantly, if he knew, or suspected, that what he was delivering was harmful to the recipient, whether it be a poison pen letter, a dog turd, or a parcel bomb.
When I perceive Keith Skinner to be defending himself against unwarranted attacks on his professional competence and judgement, I make no secret of being delighted to type up and post such messages for him. Perhaps this is how Melvin’s postmen actually see his posts – defence, rather than attack - I can see how it may be nigh on impossible not to be subjective here. And I can’t say how I would react if Keith ever asked me to post a message, which I felt constituted an unwarranted attack on someone I saw as a personal friend of mine. I sincerely believe I won’t ever be put into that position, but equally sincerely believe that Keith would neither be surprised nor the least bit offended by my telling him to find someone else to do his dirty work! Surely this would not be seen as censorship, just a perfectly reasonable reaction to an unreasonable request. An alternative postman would presumably have to be someone totally impartial, or in complete agreement with the attack – or, failing that, he would have to do a spot of DIY in order to get his message across.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 01:02 pm | | | I am just curious I guess about one more question. What would knowing who the poster was do? I can't really argue a point about wanting excess knowledge when I don't understand what the knowledge is intended for. Will you end a friendship if it turns out to be someone you know? Cease to respect someone if it is someone you currently admire? If the person involved is simply posting to provide a vehicle for Mel and doesn't agree with it, then they risk offending Mel. If they do agree with it, then they risk offending all. So in order to keep the peace, they post without comment which seems the wisest course of action. Neither condemning nor condoning. We all assume that his source is someone who gives a fig about the diary or Jack the Ripper. For all we know it could be the 10 year old kid down the street that Mel is paying 10 pounds a week for his service. I suppose I just don't understand the argument because I don't see what knowing who the poster is will change. Harris is the one and the only one responsible for what he posts. Although I have rated only an insult or two, nowhere near the slams done to Mr. Begg and Fido, I do not feel the need to know if the poster agrees with them or not. If he does agree then I suspect he will not be someone who wishes to associate with me and his opinion will be clearly shown by his attitude whether I know he is the poster or not. If he doesn't agree, then I will assume he is genuine in his friendship with me regardless of his other associations. |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 02:55 pm | | Dear Alegria,
As I said earlier, I do not think that posting the sorts of things Melvin has said about me without making some apology is compatible with claiming my friendship. If the poster is some one I know and whose general comportment toward me is such as to suggest that he would not wish to give me any offence, then he or she is simply a scabby humbug, and I should certainly wish to break off the association unless I received an apology. If it is some one I don't know, then I am entitled to be aware of their hostile actions in view of the possibility that I could meet them at one of the conferences. If they think that disagreeing with Melvin's opinions makes their action in posting his abuse of me inoffensive, then they are wrong. They have given offence. I always accept apologies. But I am quite unforgiving if no apology is forthcoming.
Anybody can say or post anything they like if they identify themselves and clarify their attitude to what is appearing. Stewart Evans kindly drew my attention to postings by somebody called Neal Glass a year or more ago when I was not myself using the boards. These were intensely hostile to me: Mr Glass had apparently read my piece in Jakobowski and Braund and detested it, both for content (which he thought erroneous) and tone (which he found cocky). Fair enough. I took the view that his pieces showed him to have very little knowledge of the case or the proper pursuit of history; was confident that this would be apparent to most people reading his diatribes; and made no response. If Mr Glass ever meets me at a conference, he will have a modicum of my respect for having made his position clear in an open fashion. But I doubt whether he will expect me to beam encouragingly at him and urge him to plunge further into Ripper studies.
If, as you suggest, or Paul suggested, Melvin were indeed using a completely anonymous neighbour's internet access, and the neighbour had no interest in the Ripper nor any wish to know what Melvin was writing or be involved in any way, it would indeed present no problem. But as Paul Begg points out, when the problem of anonymous posting was raised before, Melvin effectively declared that this is not the case. And he repeated this implication when responding to me at one point by saying that - I think it was 4 people - were helping him in 'bringing out the truth' (or some such phrase). Peter Birchwood having honourably identified himself as one, we can assume,indeed, that Melvin is enlisting allies who share his opinions. Nobody can object to Ivor Edwards' sharing his opinion that Donston was the Ripper. But if Peter Birchwood ever posted any of the personal diatribes against me - (and I know of no reason to suppose that he did) - I am sure he would wish to explain himself before entering into any friendly conversation over a cup of coffee if we met at Bournemouth or Baltimore. Indeed, I am sure he will recognise that either apologising for unthinkingly contributing to deliberate public insults directed at me, or denying that he had any association with those particular postings, would be the absolutely essential preliminary to any social intercourse between us.
I'm sorry if this all sounds unduly fierce to you. But the world of Ripper enthusiasts was a happy one of benevolent mutual encouragement before Melvin Harris crashed into it. To this day, I can disagree profoundly and absolutely with Shirley Harrison and John Wilding without its causing any rift in our mutual rspect for each other as human beings. Richard Whittington-Egan's mind is a rapier which he willingly draws to skewer bad history and bad argument. It has never made him enemies in the Ripper circles. When you find bad blood, you find Melvin Harris at the back of it. And his use of anonymous posters is just one of the ways in which he shows himself (and them) completely undesirable company from my point of view.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 04:34 pm | | Dear Martin,
Whoever wrote the "Eight Little Whores" ditty,
obviously believed that Jack had at least 8 deaths
under his belt. |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 05:35 pm | | Martin,
I understand that enmity is fierce in this regard. I believe that you (and others) have every right to be angry at the treatment you receive from Harris. Let's agree to disagree about the posters, shake hands and call it done. 
I have never seen the parallel to the eight little whores poem. I have to go with the idea that counting rhymes are as old as counting, I expect, they all have similar rhythm patterns and work their way into the subconscious mind.
Anyone know 10 little monkeys jumping on the bed? |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 05:41 pm | | Alegria,
Know it!? I had it practically seared into my brain a few years ago, when my two nieces were ages three and five and it became one of their favorites, complete with the requisite jumping.
Even now, I can hear the nightmarish echoes in my memory... 
--John |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 05:50 pm | | It's no fun if you don't do the requisite jumping.  There was also one about jack o lanterns on a fence..but the details are fuzzy. |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 05:55 pm | | Chris,
In addition to the differences between the "ELW" poem
"Eight little whores, with no hope of heaven
Gladstone may save one, then there'll be seven.
Seven little whores begging for a shilling,
One stays in Henage Court, then there's a killing". Etc.
and the three lines,
"One whore in heaven,
two whores side by side,
three whores all have died
four"
that you have already discussed in your post above, there remains, of course, the rather simple problem that the numbers seem to go in the wrong direction.
Apologies for stating the obvious,
--John |
|
|
|
|
