|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
James Maybrick
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
James Maybrick
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 06 February 2002 - 06:32 pm |        | Ah, Peter,
I know you know how to read. I really do. I just wish you'd do it with at least a little care.
You cite this line of mine:
"But I can easily see why a forger, especially this forger (with his penchant for cheese)".
But you fail to mention that this is in the middle of a discussion between Caz and I about what a forger could or could not have done. Therefore, within the context of that discussion, it was already assumed that we were talking about the idea of this text being a forgery (thus my "especially this forger"). This isn't simply assuming the inevitability of a conclusion, this is a fundamental rule of discourse -- meaning is determined by context. Surely you understand the difference. Perhaps not. Perhaps I am expecting too much. If so, I apologize.
And then you say:
"John, you already believe the diary is a forgery, you have stated this many times, therefore I really can't misrepresent you on that point."
But that is not what you wrote. You wrote, as if it were my stated position:
"John makes mistakes so the diary must be a forgery."
This is stupid. It is insulting. It presents me as arguing a position I have never taken and would never take -- and an utterly ridiculous one at that. It is childish and reveals a simple lack of thought. And more than that it is clear and convincing evidence that you are not reading or arguing carefully or in good faith but simply playing schoolyard rhetorical games and pretending that I have said things which I have never said and would never say, just so you can then ridicule them. It's grossly unfair of you, and also indicates a complete poverty of serious thought on your part. I suspect it is the result of your having no evidence whatsoever to support your argument for the diary's authenticity.
I am sorry you feel the need to resort to such foolishness. It does not become you.
Then you once again exaggerate for effect, remaining blind to the facts:
"If the diary says something that agrees with the historical record? It's very rare that we can even agree on that, John!"
Nonsense, there are plenty of historically accurate things in the diary (where James worked, his children’s names, etc.) and these are not evidence of forgery.
That's the difference between your position and mine. Mine is logical -- accurate statements are not evidence of forgery, inaccurate ones are. Yours is circular and tautological and invalidly assumes the inevitability of its conclusion -- accurate statements are evidence of authenticity and so are inaccurate ones. Your position is both nonsensical and patently illogical. Mine is not. That's pretty simple.
Then you say:
"Time and time again PHF has picked up on apparent discrepancies between the diary and the historical texts and set out to challenge those discrepancies. Time and time again PHF has been proven right."
No, he hasn't.
Then you say:
"And not one of you, even for a moment, has come up with any explanation that makes sense of the known facts and would admirably explain who the forgers were/are and what their roles were. You can't even agree on who the forger was."
And this is simply not evidence that the book is authentic. There is nothing about anyone being unable to name the forgers that suggests that the book is authentic. That's not how logic works.
In fact, there is not a single piece of evidence anywhere in the world offered by anyone on the planet earth at any time that links this book to its self-proclaimed author or even to the proper century. There remains no evidentiary reason to think it is authentic whatsoever. And this does not change one little bit whether or not the identities of the forgers are known or not known.
And, as I have previously said, the fact that it cannot be linked in any way whatsoever by anyone on the planet to its self-proclaimed author and the fact that it is not even written in the handwriting of its self-proclaimed author and the fact that every scientific test ever done on it places it in the wrong century also all serve as evidence that it is obviously a forgery.
The silliness of the prose and the Crashaw quote's appearance and this book's utter lack of any established provenance and all the other silly stuff in it -- that's all just icing on the cake, evidence-wise.
Then you say:
"You argue that Maybrick's handwriting doesn't match that in the diary and that proves the diary to be a forgery. But there are many more examples of Mike and Anne's handwriting available than there will ever be for James Maybrick. And neither of them match the diary."
This one is a classic, Peter. Nothing in the second half of this quote contradicts the first half. Surely you realize that. Whether or not Mike and/or Anne wrote this thing or their handwriting matches this thing is completely irrelevant to the fact that James Maybrick's handwriting does not match this thing. You are confusing two separate issues. The fact that we do not know who did write this book does not change the fact that we have lots of evidence supporting the case for who did not -- James Maybrick. And no one anywhere has ever been able to offer even a single piece of reliable evidence that suggests that he did. That's not even a close call, Peter.
Then you say, regarding the Crashaw quote:
"Mike could not possibly have been the provider of it for the diary text"
This is a lie. Mike could possibly have been the provider of this quote. Therefore, your sentence is simply false. Please try again.
Then you write:
"So, in fact, you have ...nothing."
Putting aside the charming but pointless Feldmanesque ellipse, "we" have, Peter, a diary that cannot be linked to its supposed author in any way, a diary whose handwriting does not match its supposed author's, a diary filled with historical and personal inaccuracies, a diary whose origins every scientific test ever done on it has placed in the 20th century, and a diary which has not a single piece of real evidence in favor of its authenticity and no established provenance whatsoever and cannot be demonstrated to have even existed before 1992. That is what "we" have.
The case for this book being linked in any way to the real James Maybrick or ever even having existed in the 19th century -- that case has clearly and demonstrably nothing. Even after ten years. And your own work here has gone a long way towards demonstrating that.
Just wanted to keep the record straight.
All the best,
--John
PS: Please read me more carefully and with more attention to detail and please refrain from caricaturing my positions in silly and unfair ways if you would like me to continue to respond to you. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 07:43 am | | Hi John,
‘He read about the Prince being there -- so it was a good chance for him to do the bit about the Ripper being near the Prince.’
My point, of course, was that he didn’t just put the Ripper ‘near’ the Prince. He put him ‘a few feet away’, and enjoying himself thoroughly went on, in the same sentence, to put him ‘less than a few feet away’ (though one could argue that this is a meaningless exaggeration, because what would be less than ‘a few feet’? Two feet or less, presumably, which would then contradict his original ‘few feet’, and leave poor HRH breathing the arsenic fumes. Did I hear an “Arrrrrrghhhh!” from someone at the back there?  )
‘…so this little mistake and or slip from history in the name of drama wouldn't surprise me a bit.’
Well it would still surprise me just a teeny-weeny bit, for anyone to write about their subject standing this close to the heir to the throne in the name of drama, and not imagine for one moment that they were making a slight departure in the process (and rather more than a two-foot one) from what history do tell. If our forger is/was anything like a Sun reporter, he’d have known this from his cradle.
Anyway, we’re getting there, because you wrote:
‘Of course, we will never and can never know the deliberate intention of our author or why exactly he included this little historical inaccuracy. It might have been intentional and it might not have been. But there is no reason at all to read it as anything other than still more evidence that the writer wasn't there and therefore could not have been James Maybrick.’
That’s fine by me. And I don’t think we were ever arguing as such – I was just trying to show you mine after you had shown me yours – best reading that is. You thought that the author more likely made an unintentional mistake, and I have given you my reasons for thinking he knew his placing together of Jack and the prince was unlikely to be historically supportable, but did it anyway.
Hi Peter,
Will has my vote too. I agree the guy is pure class. When he did that Aretha song a few weeks back I melted. If only I were 28 years Younger (sigh)…
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 08:18 am | | Hi Caz,
Yes, I think we basically agree, despite the variations built into our preferred readings. And I like this image of yours regarding a forger having fun:
"He put him ‘a few feet away’, and enjoying himself thoroughly went on, in the same sentence, to put him ‘less than a few feet away’"
I could see our man (or woman) getting carried away with the over-the-top melodramatic prospect of putting his Ripper character near the Prince, and edging him even nearer, despite history. And it fits with other parts of the diary (needing Mike to be a versifier, despite history, so that the forger could have James scribble bad rhymes; having Abberline be the sole emblem of investigative authority, despite history, so that he could create the classic good guy/bad guy cliché (complete with goofy dream sequence a la the peasants in the movie version of Frankenstein), and all the other moments in the text that signify a delight in bad fiction and bad drama). And then (s)he apparently threw in a quote from, of all authors, Richard Crashaw, one of the people, historically speaking, that a C. of E. businessman in the late 19th century would have been least likely to have read or even heard of. But of course, our forgers might not have known that.
Anyway, perhaps the inaccuracy in the placement of their "James" slipped by them in the excitement or perhaps it was deliberate, another sacrifice to the God of melodrama from history. We'll probably never know. But it is interesting that although the diary has some information that agrees with the history and some information that is historically inaccurate and even some information that does not appear in the history and cannot in any way be confirmed (the unfindable Manchester murders, for instance), there is one thing the diary doesn't have -- one single, solitary piece of new, verifiable information, one item of data or one experience or one simple fact that was previously unknown and that can be confirmed. The alleged personal diary of James Maybrick as Jack the Ripper contains not a single verifiable fact that was not already known and available to the public in 1992. Damn. Either historians are really, really good, and incredibly thorough bastards, or this book was written by someone who wasn't there. 
Anyway, thanks for showing me yours. We should both probably get dressed.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 08:59 am | | Hi John,
Interesting, yes. But only what we'd expect from someone working from the same information that would have been available to any member of the non-forging public.
And there's the rub. That's fine if this someone is one of those already named as a suspect, and was working on this information at some point after mid-1989.
Otherwise, we have a slight problem with how Mike came to be in possession of the work of an, as yet, unidentified person. And a much bigger one if this person was working with information at a time when some of it wasn't available to members of the non-forging public.
And it's all right for you sitting in the Florida sunshine. I had to work out how to show you mine while fully clothed. If you'd been here undressed you'd have had no chance of showing me anything. 'Less than a few feet' would take on enormous proportions in comparison. 
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 09:23 am | | Hi Caz,
You write, concerning the absence of any new, confirmable information of any sort in the diary:
"Interesting, yes. But only what we'd expect from someone working from the same information that would have been available to any member of the non-forging public."
Indeed.
Then you write, not about what I have shown you , but about the problems we might face:
"And a much bigger one if this person was working with information at a time when some of it wasn't available to members of the non-forging public."
But, of course, first we'd need some evidence, at least one piece of solid evidence, that this was so. And since, so far, the diary cannot be shown to have even existed before 1992, we don't seem to have any. There's certainly nothing in the text that would be evidence that it could only have been written before the material was generally available.
Still, you are absolutely right that one of the biggest problems that remains with us is how, if the diary was forged after 1989, but by someone not known to us yet, it went from them to Mike. And if it was forged by someone known to us, who? -- since no one's hand that we know about seems to have held the pen (barring new test results) and the continued silence about the sacred Kane relics seems to at least suggest that they prove nothing.
The evidence clearly indicates a forgery, it also seems to me to indicate a modern forgery in many respects. But I think that is as far as we've come. As to who forged it and how it got into Barrett's hands -- we're still lacking any real evidence on those points.
And I think I was saying that last year.
All the best,
--John (who'll be here all day, because it's raining on a no-class day so there's no golf and as of now I have only an invitation to go to the track with my brother and I don't particularly want to watch horses lose my money)
PS: Regarding how it got to Mike from forgers known or unknown -- perhaps this is where the money trail becomes important. |
Author: Peter Wood
Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 05:19 pm | | "Please read me more carefully and with more attention to detail and please refrain from caricaturing my positions in silly and unfair ways if you would like me to continue to respond to you".
People who live in glass houses shouldn't thrown stones.
John, the fact that you haven't got a match between the handwriting of Mike and/or Anne and the diary is material evidence. The option has always been that either James Maybrick wrote the diary or it was forged by Mike/Anne or someone very close to them. And despite that very small field for you to select from it has taken you ten years to arrive at ...nothing.
If the diary is a forgery then you know which group of people the forger comes from and you still can't prove it. Mike didn't forge the diary, his ridiculous 'confession' to Harold Brough and inability to answer even the most basic of questions on how the diary was put together proves that. His daughter's evidence proves it too. So that narrows the field for you even further. And still you struggle to find the 'forger'.
Here's one of John's favourite sayings:
'In fact, there is not a single piece of evidence anywhere in the world offered by anyone on the planet earth at any time that links this book to its self-proclaimed author or even to the proper century'.
O.K. John. What scientific evidence do you think exists that would enable Mr very important scientist to say 'Yep, that book was composed in 1888'? But the tests have placed the diary within 20 years of 1888 and upto 80+ years before the time that Mike took it to Doreen and Shirley. I would say that is more of a problem for you than it is for me.
As to what you have said regarding your belief in the diary being a forgery, here are just a couple of quotes from recent posts of yours:
"Admit that the diary is not history. It's fiction (and cheesy, melodramatic, formulaic, clichéd fiction at that)".
Sounds like an opinion to me.
Then.
"The forger or forgers wrote the diary. They are responsible for the historical inaccuracies in the book. They were never at the race (or even alive in the 19th century) and their language about it remains evidence of that".
Those quotes aren't taken out of context, John. They are your true opinion. I'd respect you more if you admitted it.
Then you get upset about this:
'You wrote, as if it were my stated position:
"John makes mistakes so the diary must be a forgery."'
John. It's time to hurt your neck again. Think laterally. Read between the lines. If you think I really meant that literally then you are not half the man I have you down as. But, for some reason, you made pains to point out that your students make mistakes, you make mistakes, we all make mistakes. That, I believe, was supposed to explain why the forgers would ignore the written page of 'modern' books such as Ryan's and go against 'modern' opinion. Fair enough, John. I precised your argument to the small quote that I mention above, the one that upset you. It's a ...umm, 'device'. I hate to say this John but I was exaggerating. And I think you knew that.
I'm sorry I can't e mail you privately for now as my Outlook is shafted and I can't be bothered making the effort to fix it, but, regardless of the arguments that fly backwards and forwards in here, I'm sure you know the high regard in which I hold you.
Hope that cheered you up.
Regards
Peter. |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 06:47 pm | | Peter,
I believe you are now trying, deliberately, to miss the point. There is simply no way that you could not have understood that my request for you to stop “caricaturing my positions in silly and unfair ways” was a direct reference to the this piece of utter nonsense:
"John makes mistakes so the diary must be a forgery."'
And your pathetic attempt to excuse this unrecognizable caricature of my position reveals to me that you have no respect for serious thought or for intellectual honesty or for accuracy in reading in this discussion.
You actually write:
“I precised your argument to the small quote that I mention above, the one that upset you. It's a ...umm, 'device'. I hate to say this John but I was exaggerating. And I think you knew that.”
No, it’s not a “device” (whatever the hell you think that means). It’s simply wrong. And it’s deliberately stupid. I not only never said such a thing, I never implied such a thing, I have never argued such a thing and I would never argue such a thing or even anything like it – because it’s obviously ridiculous. It’s more than an exaggeration, Peter. It’s a deliberate transformation. And the reason you wrote it that way, the reason you “exaggerated” what I did write in this manner was to make my position look ridiculous to readers. This is simply unethical. You should be embarrassed by such schoolyard tactics, but instead you try explaining them away with a silly rationalization about my thinking too literally. You actually try and shift the blame to me because I am reading accurately and have a little rhetorical sensitivity to what words mean and why they are written and rewritten in specific ways. That gesture would be priceless if it wasn't so blindingly manipulative.
But here’s the problem. My position, which was that reading and composing mistakes of a certain type are commonly possible, especially when research is being translated into writing -- and that we all have plenty of experience to support such a claim -- and that therefore it is possible for forgers to have read Ryan and still had an historical inaccuracy slip by them –- that position is not in any way reducible to nor equivalent to nor even similar to "John makes mistakes so the diary must be a forgery." And you knew that when you wrote this silliness, and you wrote it this way simply because you were not able to attack or argue against my real position and therefore you had to change it (“precise it” or “exaggerate it” – to use your own unfortunate words) into something stupid so that you could use it for your own rhetorical purposes in an easier way. This is not only irresponsible, it’s intellectually lazy. And it does not speak well for your case if you have to resort to such childish linguistic maneuvers into order to continue your argument. Perhaps the real lesson to be learned here is about the poverty of your position and the callous lack of care behind your thinking and your writing in this instance.
And you also offer this pointless cliché:
”People who live in glass houses shouldn't thrown stones.”
And then write this
”John, the fact that you haven't got a match between the handwriting of Mike and/or Anne and the diary is material evidence.”
Not of the diary’s authenticity. Not in any way, shape or form.
But you insist.
“The option has always been that either James Maybrick wrote the diary or it was forged by Mike/Anne or someone very close to them. “
Peter. That has NEVER been the option. This is also simply wrong. The option has always been that either James Maybrick wrote the diary or he did not. You have no evidence at all that suggests he did. There is plenty of evidence that he did not.
Your recharacterizing the debate in this way is not only stunningly illogical, it is simply false.
You say this:
”If the diary is a forgery then you know which group of people the forger comes from”
No, we don’t. And there is no reason for this to be assumed and you know that.
Then you ask me:
“What scientific evidence do you think exists that would enable Mr very important scientist to say 'Yep, that book was composed in 1888'?”
Well, it would be nice if any one of the tests done on the diary of any sort said that it was at least possible that this book was written in the correct century.
Not one does.
Every test ever done on this diary places its origin in the 20th century. I don’t need 1888, Peter. But we should need the proper century, don’t you think?
No test ever performed on this book has ever determined that it is even possible that this book was written in the 19th century. None. Not one.
Everyone on of them has said the book was produced in the 20th.
I hope everyone understands that.
And then Peter, you do it again.
You take two quotes of mine which were both written in the context of an examination of the evidence and possible interpretations of it and print them out of that context as if I am insisting, as you do, that all evidence must only be in favor of a single position. The first quote begins “Admit that…” -- that’s because it appeared as a pair of choices. The second quote, that begins “the forger or forgers wrote the diary” also appears in a paragraph offering different possible interpretations and making it clear which one I thought was much more likely given the evidence.
You have either maliciously or out of sheer ignorance of the concept of context, separated these two lines from their original discussions and then claimed that they mean something they do not. Meaning is determined by context, Peter. Surely someone once taught you that.
Of course, I believe this diary is a forgery. I also believe the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of that conclusion. But unlike you, I do not argue from the absurd position that any historical evidence in the book must necessarily be evidence of a single conclusion, my own. When you argued that historical accuracies in the book were evidence of authenticity and historical inaccuracies in the book were also evidence of authenticity, that is the patently illogical position you took and it is utterly and demonstrably different from my own. (See my previous two posts for clear demonstrations of this difference, demonstrations which you have been apparently unable to follow despite their being laid out in the most elementary terms.)
And in any case, none of this, including the obvious fact that it is my opinion that this dairy is a forgery, is in any way fairly or properly reducible to:
"John makes mistakes so the diary must be a forgery."
And if you still think that this is responsible reading and writing, then perhaps we cannot continue this discussion.
The sorry fact is, Peter, that the case for this book’s authenticity has nothing at all behind it. Not a single piece of evidence anywhere on the planet links this book in any way to the real James Maybrick or even to the appropriate century. And the list of historical and personal inaccuracies, handwriting problems, provenance problems, scientific problems, and literary problems this book suffers from remains in place and no one, including and especially you, has even begun to surmount them or even to offer one small, reliable piece of evidence with which to begin a case for this book being anything other than a forgery. And that doesn’t change regardless of who the forgers turn out to be or whether we know their identities or not.
So instead you are reduced to demonstrating via mischaracterizations and immature linguistic maneuvers the poverty of your own case and the intellectual shallowness of your argument.
That does not cheer me up.
--John |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 08 February 2002 - 12:00 am | | Oh, for God's sake give it up, please! He didn't do it! Get real lives for yourselves, before it's too late.
If nonsense were solid, an infinite number of monkeys playing with an infinite number of typewriters would sink an infinite number of dreadnoughts. Get my point?
David |
Author: Ally
Friday, 08 February 2002 - 08:58 am | | Am I the only one who sees that this has descended past the sub-farce level?
John, did you actually write, "you have no respect for serious thought or for intellectual honesty or for accuracy in reading in this discussion. " to Peter Wood?? Where have you been for the last few months to have thought that he ever did desire reasoned and rational debate?! If you keep feeding the animals, don't blame the bear when you wind up with bear crap all over the floor. |
Author: david rhea
Friday, 08 February 2002 - 09:28 am | | | You have the Diary presented by Barrett.Other than that, is anything known that is not conjecture? What is it? After awhile one gets lost in all this verbiage.Every now and then perhaps a summary is needed for those of us who are not as versed in the convolutions as the movers and shakers of this case.John Omlor thanks for your continued effort. |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 08 February 2002 - 09:34 am | | Hi Ally,
I know, I know. But for a while I was enjoying the ride, at least while it mimed the conventions of a real discussion.
And at least it is now possible to see exactly how little evidence or material actually supports the case for authenticity.
That's a small thing, I grant you. But it's something.
All the best,
--John (who will try to do better)
PS: Thanks, David. Our posts crossed. Yes, perhaps some of us down here will have to contribute to Ally's FAQ document. |
Author: david rhea
Friday, 08 February 2002 - 10:12 am | | | I have been interested in the effects of arsenic addiction on mental states. I was reading in 'Do What Thou Wilt'-Lawrence Sutin--"It must be understood that the social atmosphere and legal consequences of drug experimentation in that period were entirely different from our own.There was a strong nineteenth-century tradition of using drugs as a means to explore the human mind----Laudanum was one of the most frequently taken drugs in England throughout the nineteenth-century, readily avaliable in a variety of patent-name preparations as a cure for stomack ailments, a pacifier of the child labor force that worked in factories, and a means to increase the productivity of adult laborers by controlling the diarrhea that stemmed from the appalling sanitation conditions of the slums.Cocaine, cannabis and other consciousness altering drugs were not as frequently used as laudanum but were perfectly legal at the time--"Allan Bennett, a friend of A. Crowley was afflicted by spasmodic asthma. "The drugs Bennett took were opium for about a month, when the effects wore off he had to inject morphine for a month then cocaine which he took until he began to see things and then was reduced to choloroform--He went on to experiment with poisons until he reached the point that he could take tremendous doses.Maybrick was probably mixing the arsenic with some form of opium which helped his stomach ailments but this would not raise an eyebrow in those days. |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 08 February 2002 - 10:39 am | | Dear John
Something really upset you there, right?
I still don't think I've quoted you out of context.
And when it comes to literary ability - you may be the prince and I may be the pauper, but I don't think your attacks were warranted. Not only were they unwarranted, but they were beneath you.
I'm not into preaching to the converted. I don't have tea parties round my house with other James Maybrick wrote the diary 'believers'. I prefer to spend my time (like Jesus did) with the sinners.
I think it is only fair that I should be allowed to challenge your observations. When you have challenged mine and publicly humiliated me with your high flown language I haven't descended into the language of the gutter. No John, I relish the debate.
I don't expect you and I will ever agree on the diary. But at least we should be allowed to put our opinions (on each other's opinions) over without it descending to this.
Ally - as a peacemaker and a guardian of the boards you make a pretty good arsonist. If you had been Prime Minister of Great Britain during World War Two, the building I am now sitting in would have a couple of German soldiers patrolling the perimeter. But you have your favourites. That's cool.
Relax
Peter |
Author: Ally
Friday, 08 February 2002 - 10:48 am | | Hi Peter,
I never claimed to be a peacemaker, and it clearly states in the guidelines to posting here, we don't feel it is our duty to protect people from the consequences of their own irrational behavior. If you want to argue in a completely illogical manner about absolute bunk and people want to respond back and chew up forum space with inanity, feel free. But don't expect me to not give my opinion of you doing it if I desire to.
Ally |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 08 February 2002 - 10:58 am | | Peter,
This will be that last time I try and explain things to you.
First of all, you reduced my otherwise responsible and logical position concerning the forgers use of research and possible mistakes to a deliberately ridiculous sentence for your own manipulative purposes and then when I pointed out that this was unfair and irresponsible and unethical and intellectually lazy of you, you actually saw fit to accuse me of reading too literally and offered some nonsense about a "device" and an "exaggeration." But you did not exaggerate my position, Peter, you transformed it completely into something unrecognizable so that you could score meaningless rhetorical points. This is a shallow and irresponsible way to engage in a discussion.
And my "attacks," as you call them, have been directed specifically at your manipulative prose and what it reveals about the emptiness of your arguments. Not only are they not "beneath me," they illustrate clearly and precisely both the logical nonsense you have been using recently in place of argument and the utter poverty of the case for authenticity.
Saying "John makes mistakes so the diary must be a forgery" is not "challenging my observations," Peter. Taking my words completely out of context and then implying they mean something they never meant is not "challenging my observations," Peter. Writing in this way and reading this carelessly is simply arguing for the sake of arguing and adding nothing to the discussion. That's why I don't think this specific discussion should continue in this vein. Ally is correct about that.
And I don't know who you think is having tea parties or preaching to the converted. I have argued as much with RJ and Peter Birchwood as I have with you. It has nothing to do with who is converted and who is not. It has only to do with what the evidence allows us to claim, what it supports, and what it does not.
And I have used neither "high-flown language" nor the "language of the gutter" in this discussion. At least not from my perspective.
The descent you speak of, Peter, is to be found in your prose and your refusal to read carefully. I am now going to let it rest there. If you have something new to say about the diary or even one piece of real evidence that supports its claim to authenticity, I would like to see it. Otherwise, I will devote my time and reading energy elsewhere. It's seems both the wisest and most judicious thing to do and I'm sure our mutual readers will understand.
--John |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 10 February 2002 - 06:00 pm | | Hi John
Well I do have something new to discuss relating to the diary.
Maybe not 'new', but certainly something that hasn't been done to death - and definitely something on which I would value your (and other's) opinion.
You see, I have been reading 'Letters from Hell' by Stewart and Keith this past week. It wasn't the book that I thought it was going to be.
On first reading, and bearing in mind that a lot of the letters are reproduced in text format only, it would seem that of the hundreds of letters that were sent it is highly likely that some "authors" sent more than one. For instance, there appears to be a series of letters referring to my 'cousin'. That's just an example and not one that I think has anything to do with the diary.
Firstly, do you agree that some of the letter senders sent more than one letter?
Secondly, which of the letters do you think could have influenced the 'forgers' during the making of the diary?
Like I said, I have only read through the book the one time so far and am unsure which letters would have been available to the public during the time span that the diary could have been forged (bar the obvious ones that we all know about). But on first reading at least it seems to me that there are some letters that we haven't mentioned before, and which were not mentioned in Paul or Shirley's books, that could either have been written by the diarist OR could have been influential on the forgers.
One in particular I am thinking of ( can't find it - so please excuse the lack of a page ref) refers to the writer being 'down' on Monroe. At least I think that's the particular police officer to whom it refers, although the subject of the vitriol is irrelevant because it is the 'down' part that caught my attention as the diarist refers to himself as 'downing' a whore. I remember, also, the 25 September letter.
I was rather hoping that we may be able to spark a more interesting and pleasant exchange of views.
Sincerely ( nearly put 'Yours Truly')
Peter.
P.s. Ally: Next time you see a bandwagon rolling through town, do you think you might be able to resist the temptation to jump on it? What was the last original thought you had? |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 10 February 2002 - 06:20 pm | | Hi Peter,
There are so many letters and they vary so widely both in terms of availability to potential diarists/forgers and in terms of content that it is impossible to say, off hand, which specific ones, if any, might have figured in the creation of the diary (besides the obvious ones, of course).
But an illustration of the difficulties that come with this sort of reading-for-influence is given by your own example. The diarist saying he is going to "down" a whore actually has many possible sources, as it was, I believe, not an uncommon expression. In fact, it's still sometimes used today, in hunting for instance.
Being "down" on someone is another matter -- and some of the letters do have their fictional Jacks being "down on whores," as you know -- using it in the way it is used in the letters you cite.
But none of this would be a singular or even particularly unusual use of language, even by a modern day forger who had read even the most commonly cited letters, and there would be no reason to suspect that the word "down" in either of these two contexts or variations would have had to its source in any one particular letter.
In fact, there would be no way to even offer reliable or meaningful speculation for the specific origin or inspiration for such a fairly ordinary phrase.
At least, that's how it seems to me.
But I am glad that you are enjoying that excellent book. You have also noticed, no doubt, that more than a few of the letters mention or predict a treble event (like the diary) and that it, like promising future killing, was a fairly common theme in work by people pretending to be Jack.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 11 February 2002 - 07:59 am | | Hi Peter,
You asked Ally "What was the last original thought you had?"
I think I can help you here. We were discussing Stewart Evans' recent appearance on the tv documentary 'To Kill and Kill Again' over on another board, and I recall Ally saying something about everyone looking bad on tv or in pictures unless they are photogenic, in which case they are bad in person.
Well, apart from striking me as a highly original, if not unique, thought, and suggestive of being 'down' on the combined beauty of Hollywood, I am now forced to give a perfect example of just how crackpot this theory is.
On Friday night, I had the pleasure of watching the very photogenic Paul Begg on ITV's Big Screen (sandwiched between several topless nubile young things from other up and coming productions), emerging from The Ten Bells to take a tour round the ripper sites and talking us through the murders, after hearing from another photogenic young man's interest in the case, one Johnny Depp.
I can't speak for Johnny, not having had the pleasure of meeting him in person (more's the pity), but I can vouch for Paul being not at all 'bad in person'. And I've heard him on more than one occasion say he'd like to 'down a pint', so does that put him on the short list for writing the diary?
QED I think.
Love,
Caz
PS And wasn't Will fabulous? He can light my fire anytime. There were five of us watching in our house on Saturday night and my daughter rang in ten times so we could all vote for him twice. |
Author: Ally
Monday, 11 February 2002 - 09:26 am | | Hi Peter,
In regards to what was the last bandwagon I didn't jump on, it would be the one where people think being boring and repetitive should be a reason for being banned. I disagreed. You and Caz can both thank me for that.
Ally |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 11 February 2002 - 09:49 am | | Oooh! Get back in the knife drawer, Mrs. Sharp.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 11 February 2002 - 09:51 am | | Hi, Peter, John, Caz, et al.:
Peter, I am glad that you have had the chance to read Evans and Skinner's excellent Jack the Ripper: Letters from Hell and have begun to realize the many styles of writing in which the letters were written, obviously many of them from different individuals who were striving to get their moment of fame. Since I was privileged to have seen a number of these lesser known letters prior to the publication of the book by Messrs. Skinner and Evans I had some conception of the breadth and complexity of the letters received by the authorities. They give quite an eye-opening view of humanity but I do believe most if not all of them are hoaxes even if, as you say, some of them appear to be from the same individuals. I do believe that the penman in the Diary was trying to emulate the Dear Boss letters which were then and until the publication of Evans and Skinner's book the ones most widely known apart from the Lusk (From Hell) letter.
I personally think that the authorities saw they made a mistake by publicizing the Dear Boss letters which opened the floodgate to other letter writers, so most of the letters that you read in Letters from Hell will not have been seen by the general public, only by the correspondent and the authorities. The fact that the Diary closes with the closure "Yours truly, Jack the Ripper" used in Dear Boss and mentions sending the letters to "Central" presumably meaning the Central News Agency, where the original letters were sent, shows the hoaxer was mainly aware of the Dear Boss missives, though they probably also knew about the Lusk (From Hell) letter too since they talk about frying a kidney and eating it.
In regard to the expression "down on whores" meaning to be against whores yes such expressions do occur in the letters, e.g., in the Dear Boss letters, consistent with the slick tough guy slang that the person who wrote those missives chose to use. I really think whomever wrote in the Diary that they wished to "down a whore" misconstrued the expression used in Dear Boss. What they wrote is equivalent to saying they wanted to kill a whore but it is not the same as meant by Dear Boss which merely was an expression saying they hated whores.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 04:55 am | | (OT)
Caz -
I suggest that, in the light of the 'multiple voting' information you've just given, you shouldn't go near Bradford for a while. Apparently, some folks over there are a little sensitive about that sort of thing at the moment
Cheers
Guy |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 06:55 am | | Hi Guy,
I figured if my daughter was able to do it for our choice, others were for theirs. Unless it was a case of only where there's a Will there's a way.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 01:15 pm | | I thought that too - but you just try telling some people that...
Cheers
Guy |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 03:39 pm | | Hi guys
John, Chris - I'll come to you in a minute.
Caz: I sat pressing 'redial' for 40 minutes (sad, I know) and estimate that I must have attempted to get through approaching 500times. I actually got to register my vote 12 times. Did you know that Gareth is being repackaged as a rap artist, apparently they're going to call him M.C. Stammer. William Young is definitely one to watch, GG (unfortunate initials) will be played to death for twelve months and then go to work in a B&Q warehouse or something.
Ally: You know, I really wanted to write something incisive and clever in retaliation to your 'Mock Blair' ite post. But the thing is Ally, you don't inspire me that much. In fact you never have done. We have discussions, we argue certain points to death, but that is our perogative.
John, Chris: Well, yes - I will concede that there are certainly more than the one letter that PHF refers to that mention 'treble events'. But then again chaps, there are quite a few that say things along the line of "I can write in five different hands".
That is why I would like to see the originals of those letters next to each other. To compare them.
Now then gentlemen, with regard to the letters I have an interesting point to make. But I won't make it here because it would be 'off topic'. Please do me the honour of joining me under a post I will soon be creating - 'The Lusk Mystery'.
Just give me thirty minutes to do it.
Cheers
Peter. |
|
|
|
|
