Author: david rhea
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 07:47 pm |        |
| Dear Caz and Chris; Before it passes into the void,what do you make of James Maybrick's last words and Florie's reply?I do think it has some revelance to the discussion of Maybrick as JTR. |
Author: david rhea
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 07:49 pm | |
| Or anybody else who has an opinion. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 07:41 am | |
Well, I wonder if Melvin will be soundly spanked and sent to bed with no supper - not for being off-topic with his first post (did anyone notice that? Not the off-topic bit, the fact that he didn't use a postman this time), but for accusing Martin Fido of 'limp absurdities' and 'grotesque inventions', and holding him up as his standard of bad behavior, as usual. That was insulting the man himself when he is not here to defend himself.
But I think McCormick stumbled on a brilliant name for the first Bond Boy, if James ever does become Jemima one day - Poppy C*ck!
(Beats the living daylights out of Puss* Galore  )
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 08:09 am | |
Wow, I haven’t seen such a foot-stamping temper tantrum since the little boy down the road dropped his sherbet dab. Hurling insults and some tiresome canards, such as my supposed myopic 1994 reading of the Spicer article, Melvin managed to get down to gutter-level in double quick time. Unfortunately, from that level Melvin both missed and obscured the point.
There’s little point in responding to Melvin who never listens and remains entrenched with his own beliefs no matter what one says, but on the offchance that anyone is interested in what has brought up this bile, it is simply that Melvin Harris flatly stated that Donald McCormick admitted to creating the ‘Eight Little Whores’ rhyme attributed to Dr. Thomas Dutton. However, Donald McCormick equally flatly denied this - twice - and when the denials were brought to Melvin Harris’s attention, Melvin called McCormick a liar.
But McCormick was not lying and Melvin Harris knew that McCormick wasn’t lying. As Melvin admits, McCormick indicated – to Melvin’s satisfaction – that the rhyme was written by Ian Fleming.
Now, one wonders why Melvin didn’t jettison all the stuff about McCormick being a liar (we all knew that he wasn’t a reliable) and simply admit this in the first place? Why did it take weeks or months before he explained that McCormick’s denial was fair and that the rhyme had in fact been penned by Ian Fleming?
But we don’t know that it was penned by Ian Fleming either. It seems that McCormick never made anything approaching a straightforward confession. It was all wrapped up in a back and forthing of innuendo and cryptic clues. As Melvin wrote of McCormick: ‘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.” (March 13 2001 “Concealed Again”)
But was McCormick simply acknowledging that the rhyme was based on the Spicer article in the Express? That isn’t a confession to being the author of the rhyme. So what did McCormick actually admit to? Perhaps more to the point, what did McCormick think he was admitting to?
The ‘confession’ has to be set in context. Melvin was working on a proposed television programme in which he was going to expose Donald McCormick as a fraud and charlatan on peak-time national television. Melvin tells us that McCormick was quite philosophical about this - though I must confess to wondering just how ‘philosophical’ anyone would be in such a situation - but did express concern about the possibility that he would suffer an angina attack brought on by stress - not something that would help focus the mind. So, faced with the bombshell of Melvin’s intended expose plus his anxiety about an angina attack, how clearly was McCormick thinking? Did he fully understand what he was admitting to? Did he care?
On top of all of this, ‘Eight Little Whores’ just wasn’t an important part of the discussion. According to Melvin, ‘…the poem was just one marginal item of quite minor importance…’
In short, we have a man threatened with exposure on national television, anxious about a stress-related angina attack, highly evasive, engaging in nod-and-wink innuendo, apparently confessing to comething that was 'one marginal item of quite minor importance…' Is it legitimate to question exactly what McCormick may have been doing and whether he knew what he was doing and whether he even cared about what he was doing? I think it is. It’s a pity that one has to endure a tirade of abuse every time one does it.
As for Martin Fido's intro, I'm sure Martin will answer for himself. But the McCormick section of the excellent Letters From Hell was written without Keith Skinner’s input and apparently reflects a difference of opinion between the authors over the degree to which Dr. Dutton has been debunked. Martin commented upon this and since Melvin Harris’s investigations are at the core of the Dutton question, and as it has been established that the interview was wrapped in innuendo, cryptic clues and evasion, Martin wrote:
‘But the more he has been pressed for clarification on exactly how much McCormick explicitly admitted, the more it has seemed that a good many of his own conclusions rest on highly subjective deductions from McCormick’s evasive replies..’
Is this a fair comment?
Maybe 'poppycock' does lead through Flander’s Field to Flanders to Flemings to Ian Fleming.
But then again, maybe it doesn't. And if it doesn't, then who wrote 'Eight Little Whores'? All the nasty Harrisian abuse in the world doesn't get us any nearer answering that question. |
Author: Ally
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 08:19 am | |
Well Gee Caz,
Let me answer that question that you have rhetorically posed to me. But first let me congratulate you for once again demonstrating your ability to claim sweet innocence while continually hounding the objects of your disdain into the ground. It is truly a masterful, albeit hypocritical talent.
First of all posts by Melvin Harris have OFTEN appeared under his name. Check back, dearie, you will see. He has had a username since the beginning and it should have been used by whoever his designated postman was. The concern over who his postman is has always been ludicrous and using his own name will eliminate that.
Second, no I will not "spank him" for his comments about Martin. Martin was here a week ago and is quite capable of answering back. And he wasn't holding him up as his standard of bad behavior. Melvin was talking about something Martin had said in a situation that Martin is involved in. The standard of bad behavior comes into play when you bring him into a totally unrelated topic that has nothing to do with him and say, "well at least what so and so did isn't as bad as what Melvin did". That is what I had beef with you about on the "standard of bad behavior" although I am sure you will bat your eyes and say you are just too sweet and girlie to figure out what I mean, mean ole thing that I am.
Now that Melvin has posted something, you are welcome to indulge your vendetta , as long as you understand that I am welcome to do the same to you should I disagree with what you post.
Ally |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 09:52 am | |
Hi Ally
Surely the point is not that Martin is capable of answering back but is whether or not Melvin's post transgresses whatever is deemed to be acceptable behaviour on these Message Boards.
If the content of the post is not acceptable, then the post should be deleted and maybe the poster asked to rephrase themselves less offensively. If Melvin's post is deemed 'acceptable behaviour' by you or Stephen, I'd be interested to know why. |
Author: Ally
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 10:47 am | |
Maybe that is what the point should have been..but that wasn't the question asked. The question answered was the question asked and it was from my personal opinion.
If you have a question about Moderating, or a complaint to make, the appropriate channels have been EXHAUSTIVELY and REPEATEDLY explained. Post a message on the Moderators REad this Thread, or send an e-mail.
Thanks,
Ally |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 03:41 pm | |
| Can't be bothered tonight. |
Author: david rhea
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 07:29 pm | |
| I ask youall(tells you where i'm from) again-How do you interpret the last words that James Maybrick spoke and his wife's answer? |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 07:58 pm | |
Martin Fido is a bad man. A very bad man. A very bad man indeed. He is cool though.
My twopence worth.
Simon |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 10:28 pm | |
I have heard it all now, talk about double standards and hypocrisy,Caroline wrote,'That was insulting the man himself when he is not here to defend himself.God knows how many times Caroline Morris has attacked Melvin Harris for no reason when he has not been on the boards defending himself.She has attacked him when his name has not even come into a debate!!!I have mentioned this before to her and I am not the only one to have done so.What a hypocrite you are Caroline.And as it happens I repeat again that it was I who Melvin asked to post that message. He did not post it.
|
Author: Tee Vee
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 12:58 am | |
Thanks again Paul,
i`m trying to find that page still but i think it may of expired now. But I`m still looking, i cant of been the only one to of seen it? but the search is not over.
I thought that programme last night was a waste of time. RUBBISH. Just typical of ITV1. Off to work now.
Yours Truly |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 02:41 am | |
Ivor
What I wrote was: 'Hurling insults and some tiresome canards, such as my supposed myopic 1994 reading of the Spicer article, Melvin managed to get down to gutter-level in double quick time.
The remark ‘gutter level’ is not a snide remark, Ivor. Hurling insults is gutter level. It isn't necessary. And very often it is the resort of those who can’t otherwise articulately express themselves. Melvin Harris is very capable of expressing himself. He doesn’t need to sink to that level. But he did hurl insults and therefore did sink to that level. And amid all the flinging of abuse, he did miss and obscure the point. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 09:57 am | |
Hi Ally,
'But first let me congratulate you for once again demonstrating your ability to claim sweet innocence while continually hounding the objects of your disdain into the ground. It is truly a masterful, albeit hypocritical talent.'
Sorry. For a moment there I thought someone was talking to Melvin about his latest offering. Then I realised you were talking to me.
Yes, I think I will bat my eyes and say I am just too sweet and girlie to figure out what you mean. But of course in reality I understand perfectly that you are 'welcome to do the same' to me, ie 'indulge your vendetta', should you disagree with what I post.
It was poor old Ivor who was too sweet to figure out what I meant when I used your own words to me, 'That was insulting the man himself when he is not here to defend himself', to show your bias. You slag me off for insulting Melvin when he isn't here to defend himself. Yet you fall over yourself to defend Melvin for insulting Martin when he isn't here to defend himself. I don't recall seeing Martin here 'a week ago', and certainly not on the diary boards. So he may or may not be 'quite capable of answering back' at the moment. But we do know that there are people reading the posts on a regular basis who ferry messages back and forth for Melvin, and therefore I think it's reasonable to expect those people would soon let him know of any criticism of his past statements or work, justified or otherwise.
Then Ivor exclaims with indignation that I have attacked Melvin 'when his name has not even come into a debate!!!' One wonders then how he can defend Melvin for attacking Martin when his name hadn't come into the debate. Even more bizarre is why he chose to post Melvin's message on this particular topic. I was assuming that Melvin had posted it himself and wasn't familiar with the guidelines.
And on that note, it'll be interesting to see if Melvin's post is moved to a more appropriate board seeing as it's wildly off-topic - more so than any of the recent posts that were deleted from this same board (you know, the ones resulting from Ivor blowing a gasket when I dared to comment on his request to see Albert hooked up to a polygraph machine).
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 10:18 am | |
Ah, I realise now that Melvin was responding to Paul Begg on the question of McCormick, so I can see why this board was chosen, even though the message itself had nothing to do with the diary.
And I apologise for thinking Melvin had dispensed with the services of a postman when I saw he had his own email address and assumed he now had personal access to the Casebook.
But this, and his response to Robert's and other recent posts about the ink, confirms that Melvin has seen at least some of the posts.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ally
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 10:18 am | |
Caz,
And still after multiple explanations you are still pretending to be too dumb to figure out what I meant when I said that you bring Melvin's name into situations that he is not in. Fine. I encourage you to continue to protest your ignorance, considering I agree with it.
Melvin was responding to a post by Paul Begg in this thread around Jan 12, I believe. It is in the appropriate thread. Do try to keep up.
Ally |
Author: Tee Vee
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 10:59 am | |
Am I deeply mistaken or is that dear boss letter dated 11.10.88 the same handwriiting as maybricks handwritting on the SS Baltic letter or is it just me and Feldman who can agree that its chilling ????
Still looking Paul. now that movie is coming out its jumped to 23,000 google results ha ha. might take a while. how can i post a pic of these handwritting samples??????
"Yours Truly"
Tee |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 11:16 am | |
Hi Ally
On 12the January I wrote:
'Erm, we don’t in fact know whether ‘Eight Little Whores’ is a known hoax or not do we? I mean, Melvin Harris got some sort of story off Donald McCormick which Melvin thought was an admission to either authorship of the rhyme or to knowing who did author the rhyme. But McCormick twice denied that he was the author and Melvin thought the author was Ian Fleming, but the whole thing is so messy with nod and wink secretiveness that we don’t really know what was said or what McCormick may have thought he was saying or was saying or what. So where the rhyme came from, be it hymns ancient or modern, we don’t know.'
I can't help but wonder what is so dramatically different from the following:
The part McCormick played in creating the verses is not known for certain. Whether he suggested the structure, or indicated the items to be spliced in, or wrote part of them, was never revealed. And the hints at another hand at work were made in such a way that inspired guesses could be made but certainties were out of the question. And the subject was not pressed to a rock-hard conclusion because at that juncture those verses were of little importance and their genesis was not hard to see.’ (Melvin Harris, Saturday, 17 March 2001 - 07:14 pm Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: College course tackles the Diary: Archive through March 19, 2001)
If the 12 January post was what Melvin was responding to, don't you think his tirade was just a teeny-weeny bit over the top? |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 11:23 am | |
Hi Paul:
Let's leave Melvin's teeny weeny out of this! 
Chris |
Author: Vaughan Allen
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 11:30 am | |
Tee (interestingly (actually not at all interesting), my usenet names over the years have included 'Vee' and just my initial V., which I avoided here cos Viper already had it...ho hum...)
You, Feldy and Peter Wood. Oh, and supposedly Bill Waddell as well.
But, how then do you explain that the formation of the '8's is quite clearly different, and the 'D' in 'Dear'. Oh and above all the 'k's..in the JM letter, he forms 'k's by going down, thn across, then curving, all in one motion, so it's like the conjoining of l/c. IN the Galashiels letter, there are clearly two separate movements, first the slant / and then a ( which rarely touches the first element.
And that's just from a quick look..
Oh, don't know what you were searching under on google, but unless you'd enclosed the whole term, that number of results would include returns for the individual words as well...
Vaughan/Vee/V |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 12:03 pm | |
Hi Vaughan/Vee
Vee is looking for a reference to a seance at which MAybrick apparently appeared. Peter Birchwood has suggested that it is on a site run by Tom Sleman (many thanks indeed for that Peter), but I've had a quick root around there and can't find it.
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 12:16 pm | |
Hi Chris
ROFL - Happily.
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Ally
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 12:37 pm | |
Hi Paul,
Whether I think it is over the top or not doesn't really matter. Over the top posts happen all the time. Meanwhile if we are going to discuss the tone, not the content, then we should move this conversation elsewhere.
Regards,
Ally |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 02:15 pm | |
| I am always interested in your personal opinion of things, Ally, but in this instance I was not inviting an off-topic discussion, just expressing with a rhetorical question my astonishment at the content of Melvin's response to the post you cited. |
Author: david rhea
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 02:45 pm | |
| Is that true about the seance?What did he say? |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 02:59 pm | |
Hi David
I don't know, really, that's why I thought I'd look at the site and if it was interesting or quirky or both then I'd report it in Ripperologist.
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 03:02 pm | |
Paul,
Christ, don't tell Peter...He'd use it as evidence for.
Monty
 |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 03:44 pm | |
Hi, Paul:
The Tom Slemen web page where the story is told of Maybrick appearing and making the medium lose his lunch is called "A Curse From Beyond the Grave" and can be found by following the link.
Tom Wescott also pointed out to me that in another story, about the meeting of two lovers on a bridge in Sefton Park, Liverpool, Slemen apparently is using a story told by Roslyn D'Onston (it's recorded in Melvin's The True Face of Jack the Ripper) and has changed the locale from a bridge over the Thames to Liverpool. The male lover in the tale is named William Robert D'Onston and the tale is called, "The Valentine Ghost." You might also note that Slemen has an article called "Who Was Spring-Heeled Jack?"
I hope the above helps. If you can't get through to those links, I will send you the text.
Best regards
Chris |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 04:04 pm | |
Hi Chris
Many thanks for all that. Much appreciated.
Hi Monty
I think Maybrick claimed he didn't do it!
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 04:11 pm | |
Hi, Paul:
Glad the links helped.
Yes, Maybrick appeared in the seance allegedly held in Aigburth, Liverpool, and indicated he didn't do the murders. Maybe that's why the medium lost his lunch? He'd bet all his money that Sir Jim was the Ripper.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Tee Vee
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 05:33 pm | |
Well I`m glad someone else saw that sceance page Paul, I`m gutted i cant find it for you guys, cos it was creepy i can tell you. But i will continue the search. (I do think its gone though) as i found it on a quick search when i first got into the diary.
Well Vaughan i`ll take your comments in and absorb. Thanks
"Yours truly"
Tee |
Author: Tee Vee
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 05:38 pm | |
Has it now been found ???? the link ? could someone mail it to me please ??? pretty please.
"Yours truly"
Tee |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 07:15 pm | |
Hi Tee Vee
Chris George has identified the site and you can find it at http://www.ghostcity19.freeserve.co.uk/maybrick.html
Or just click on the underlined "A Curse From Beyond the Grave" on Chris's post. It's a live link and will take you right there.
The story is certainly eerie, but the lack of names for the witnesses and the medium should set alarms ringing about its genuinness. |
Author: david rhea
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 07:25 pm | |
| Paul;I realise that this is not the place for this but-Can I subscribe to your Ripper magazine by credit card? Can I obtain back issues? |
Author: Tee Vee
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 07:52 pm | |
THanks Paul. I`m going to go look now. i dont think that is the same page i looked at, but i`ll let you know. Cheers again,
Yours truly.
Tee |
Author: Tee Vee
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 08:05 pm | |
Paul,
that is the same page that i saw all those years ago, thanks to whomever found it too. i thought i was the only one in the world who`d seen it. And by the way My name is Tyler "Tee" is a nickname.I must say i`m in a bit of a pickle at the moment in what i believe in and am considering dropping out of this whole debate, i cant even finish my book now. Yet i just find it impossible to imagine anyone else being the ripper besides maybrick, if only because the pshycology of it makes sense to me. A lot of people say the person who did these crimes must`ve been of ill mind, well I work in mental illnesss and i`m sure i know the descendants of the Cohen family too (but confidentiality prevails) and i just feel that the maybrick story hit a chord with me. But i`m just becoming blank as there is no winner on here. no-one can believe, it`s all so convincing. Cheers again Paul.
Yours truly.
Tyler "Tee" |
Author: Tee Vee
Thursday, 24 January 2002 - 08:45 pm | |
the spring heeled Jack story is one of those storys you tell to your lover when your at lovers lane, or when you have a drink and there are loads of you kipping in the same gaff at the same time, I love it i must learn it word for word lol, i do remember a guy saying to me when i lived in plumstead (where we used to knock about in a park that used to be a cemetry, that still had the stones leaned up agianst its walls, old ones too)that he saw a guy jump over trees and reading that story gave me a chill, but maybe he was doing to me what i`ll do with that story, passing the tale on.
Yours truly,
Tyler |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 25 January 2002 - 04:53 am | |
Hi Tyler
Don't stop reading the book. And don't stop asking questions of yourself as you read it. One of the great things about this subject is that people read books, go to libraries, even sometimes do some original research and come across a titbit we didn't know before. We sometimes get a bit uptight with some of the books that get written, the theories put forward and the conclusions reached, but people are reading for goodness sake, and thinking, and quietly enjoying themselves. It's got to be better than mugging someone in the street. So keep on doing it. And just between you and me, one of the best books on the Ripper I've read was "The Ripper and the Royals". Not because of the theory or anything like that. But because it was well written and at the time I enjoyed it. That seems a good enough reason for reading it to me. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 25 January 2002 - 04:58 am | |
Hi David
I'm not sure about credit card payments. Adam Wood is setting this up I think. But you can certainly get back issues. You can find out subscription information from subscriptions@ripperologist.net or from our website www.ripperologist.net and you can download a sample copy of the magazine too.
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Guy Hatton
Friday, 25 January 2002 - 05:08 am | |
David -
You can subscribe to Ripperologist via magazineshop.co.uk and pay by credit card.
Cheers
Guy |
