|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 06 February 2002
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
James Maybrick:
Archive through 06 February 2002
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 04:04 pm |        | Peter,
Thanks for the cute joke, but if you repeat a thing, you have, by definition, said it "repeatedly." The diarist repeats twice, I am almost sure, that he was only a few feet away from the Prince.
And I can tell you this, the bus was more than a few feet away from the Prince. If it wasn't, then someone found a way to park the bus in the grandstand, and I suspect people might have noticed that.
Now I must head home.
Bye,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 06:05 am | | Hi John,
Ok, let’s get pedantic here.
Firstly, to repeat something twice is to say it once, then say it twice more, making three times in all. This stuff is way too easy. 
Anyway, if you are teaching us all careful reading, and fair critical analysis, shouldn’t you be even more careful yourself not to give new readers the clear but wrong impression that ‘less than a few feet away’ was said over and over in the diary?
Now you’ve backtracked a little by writing:
‘Actually, the phrase "a few feet" is repeated in the diary, isn't it? (I'm at work and without my copy.) I seem to recall it appearing at least twice…’
The phrase ‘a few feet away’ appears twice, the second occasion coming in the same sentence, and with ‘less than’ added to ram home the point that the name all England was talking about was close to the prince at Aintree that day.
It worked. You came away with the impression, and repeated it for your readers, that the diary author uses the words ‘less than a few feet’ ‘several times', which they aren’t – not rhetorically, figuratively, mathematically, literally, whatever you want to call it.
And I thought it demonstrated rather deliciously the point being made about exaggerating stuff like quantity and distance.
And the author actually says ‘Regret I could not tell the foolish fool.’
To infer from this that the James of the diary must be saying he was physically close enough to hold a conversation with the prince at that point is pushing things a bit. It ain’t necessarily so. They were at the same function, whether ‘less than a few feet’ is meant literally or, like your ‘several times’, used loosely for extra emphasis. So the opportunity was there for James to approach the prince and speak to him. We know that. But how close he chose to get, or how wide of the mark the diary is, and why, remains unclear. Especially if the author used Ryan (as you and RJ do, to point out his supposed howlers).
But I am not trying to ‘rescue’ the diary, as you put it. Peter may be, but I am not. I am not even seeking to ‘excuse’ it for its vagueness ‘once again’. I agree that whoever wrote it would have had to make it vague where his information was missing, or his sources conflicting or inaccurate, or where his intended story-line did not quite fit with the known facts. As always, I’m exploring how well this was accomplished and how much care it might have involved – and in short, how much he got away with, even by the skin of his teeth, because of the different interpretations that can be put on his words.
To be fair, I don’t think I have been ‘torturing’ the diary’s language to death or attempting a rewrite of history in the process. If you at least admit that written language is always going to be open to alternative interpretations, and that writers since the bible have been misunderstood, and have had to explain all over again, and then some, what they were actually trying to say, I don’t know why you would try to confine the diary’s words to one, and only one, possible meaning, and then condemn others for considering all the alternatives. I am not saying ‘you are wrong, the author said such-and-such, so he obviously meant so-and-so.’ But this is what you seem to be doing. I am simply saying let’s be flexible enough to admit where the author could have meant something quite different.
Hi RJ,
All I said was that Keith has suggested there is hard evidence that the couple [Florie and Alfred] met before the murders. I never said anything about Keith having proof that the two of them were carrying on before 1888. And I do appreciate that this isn't enough to suggest that Ryan, Christie, etc. have it wrong, and that Florie's romance started much earlier than they suggest.
I think all I’m saying is the same as I’ve just been saying to John. Let’s at least be flexible and admit where the historical record can or can’t tell us something. If the historical record does indeed show that Alf was at Florie’s for a dinner party in the winter of 1887, it allows for the diary not to have made a fatal error if it is suggesting that ‘James’ already suspects the pair by the spring/summer of 1888.
Of course I’m not saying you have to ‘take it on faith’ that the diary is accurate about any of the things you mention. That’s just being silly. All I’m asking you to do is admit when it’s possible that the diary is not inaccurate after all - especially when information comes along that changes a previous conclusion, like the one that Florie and Alf couldn’t have been having an affair before November 1888 because they hadn’t even met by then.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 10:08 am | | Hi Caz,
Well, I'm not sure about this, but it seemed to me quite clear that when the diary said something twice it had repeated that thing. And when I wrote:
"The diarist repeats twice, I am almost sure, that he was only a few feet away from the Prince."
I simply meant, as I think you know, that the diary said this thing twice. It does. If you found the phrase "the diarist repeats twice..." somehow inaccurate or misleading, I sincerely apologize. It was only my intention to say that the diary says this thing twice -- it repeats it.
I will try and be more careful with my verbs for you in the future.
And, to be honest, I am not trying to teach anyone anything around here. That's not my job nor is it my desire. I am responding to what I read with my own reactions, just like you are. I am telling Peter, and others, what I think. But I am not teaching. And if I criticize anyone for what I think is sloppy analysis and careless reading or logical leaps of faith or wish-fulfillment or the torturing of language or even when I simply disagree with someone's reading or interpretation, I make my point not because I am trying to teach them how to read better or think more logically or clearly or write more precisely -- that would be both presumptuous and insane. I make my point because it is my point, it is something in their work that I see as troublesome or problematic for their case. And overall, I stand by my readings on this and all these other boards over the past year or two, in terms of their logic, their care, their rigor, their clarity, their patience, and their thoroughness. But I have no desire to teach around here. Besides, there's no money in it.
And, to be precise, there is a serious difference between my pointing out that the diarist locates himself only a few feet away from the Prince and does so more than once (even, perhaps, my misleadingly overstating that point, as you wish to claim), and my prose above. There is no way the bus was anything like "less than a few feet" from the Prince. James stayed on the bus while the others went away to see the Prince. James did not go away to see the Prince. Yet, the diarist places his James less than a few feet away from the Prince. I still believe this is at odds with the history. I am satisfied to stand by that reading.
And, if you notice, each time I mentioned the fantasy of James speaking to the Prince, I did qualify it, precisely because I was aware that this part of the sentence did not necessarily mean that James was in speaking distance. Of course it doesn't. I just found it another textual indicator that the diary might be positioning James closer to the Prince than he ever actually was. And I don't think the repetition of "a few feet" is quite the same as my own phrasing concerning this repetition. The diarist clearly gives the impression that James was close to the Prince ("less than a few feet"). We know he did not actually go with the others to see the Prince. To me that smells like a clear historical conflict, just like so many others that are in the diary.
But you say this:
"I’m exploring how well this was accomplished and how much care it might have involved – and in short, how much he got away with, even by the skin of his teeth, because of the different interpretations that can be put on his words."
Now, of course, these are two completely different questions. How much the diarist got away with "because of the different interpretations that can be put on his words" might have little or nothing to do with "how much care it might have involved."
Let me pretend to teach for a moment.
We know that the meaning of language necessarily exceeds its intention. This inevitable excess is built into the structure of words as they are read and their meaning is filtered through the desires and the experiences and the ears and the habits of the reader. And we know that this happens in idiosyncratic and heterogeneous ways. Consequently, reading is an inherently unstable act whose differences cannot be accounted for or measured or predicted between readers. This happens in small ways with simple utterances -- a man says to his wife "your hair looks lovely that way" (thinking he is complimenting her -- intending to compliment her) and his wife responds, a bit disturbed, "so you didn't like my hair that other way?" The meaning of his utterance has exceeded his intention. This happens all the time. It is, for instance, often how jokes work. But in a complex utterance, like a Crashaw poem or Moby Dick or a vague sixty-three page diary, this problem is expanded exponentially.
So, you and I read the sentence about James being only less than a few feet from the Prince and you read it as possibly an exaggeration or possibly a boast or some vague figure of speech and I read it as saying that the "James" in the diary got really close to the Prince, and for you it's an acceptable account of what we know happened and for me it's a clear historical inaccuracy, since we know that the real James did not get "less than a few feet" from the Prince (unless the bus was parked in the grandstand), but that he noticeably stayed behind while the others went to the grandstand to see the Prince.
For you, this difference can be excused in your reading because you see that language as vague enough to hold an alternative reading which might fit with what we know. For me, in order to do that, I believe you have to stretch the language in a way I am not inclined to do with this sentence, in part for a reason I will offer in a moment.
But in neither case is this necessarily the result of any care whatsoever on the diarist's part. It might be, or it might just be the inevitable instability built into the act of reading any text and the inevitable expression of the differences between our own desires as we approach this text. And the diarist would not have needed to do anything to produce that -- it would simply come with the territory.
Consequently, I am most certainly not trying, as you say, "to confine the diary’s words to one, and only one, possible meaning, and then condemn others for considering all the alternatives." Absolutely not. Quite the contrary, I recognize the inevitability of the alternatives. But I am trying to argue for what I think this passage means and for why I think it is historically inaccurate. If you or anyone does not consider it evidence that the diarist wasn't really there (as I do) -- that's fine. We all have different experiences with language and we all have different desires and so we will all have different readings, as you say. But we will have readings, and we will make our cases for those particular readings. At some point we will offer what we think is our best reading. That's what I have tried to do above.
And I wrote in response to others above, that I would never convince them of why I thought the "comet" theory and the "boasting" theory too conveniently erased what seemed to me to be a historical inaccuracy. But I do. And I have tried in detail to explain why.
The instability of language and the inevitability of differences in interpretation built into language because it always exceeds its own intentions does not render it impossible to take a position. That is all I have done in this act of reading. I have, finally, taken a position. I will leave it to the readers out there to determine for themselves, as part of their own reading, whether they think my position, my reading, is the most accurate one for them, given their experience.
And, once again, I would make the point that this sentence, this positioning of James "less than a few feet" from the Prince, is not the only one in the diary which raises the question of historical consistency. Indeed, I originally offered it as part of a larger pattern of sentences and passages which must be "rescued" or the saving of which depends on the rewriting of history or contradicting the experts at the time. That pattern remains, as does the Crashaw quote and the handwriting and all of the other difficulties for the case in favor of authenticity -- all compared to not a single piece of evidence available anywhere in the world that in any way places this book even in the proper century, let alone links it to its supposed author. But that is not a point of disagreement between us, and I realize that.
Finally, you write this concerning James at the race:
"But how close he chose to get, or how wide of the mark the diary is, and why, remains unclear."
Well, to speak literally for a moment, we know he did not get "less than a few feet" from the Prince. He stayed behind on the bus when others went to see the Prince in the grandstand. Yet the diary has James telling us he was "less than a few feet" from the Prince." It seems a logical reading to me here to conclude, then, that the diary is historically wrong.
And now I'll confess something silly. I think I'd be inclined to agree with your reading and with Paul's about vague phrases and exaggerations if the diarist had James saying he was a few feet from the Prince.
But when the diarist deliberately says "less than a few feet," that's a different marker. Troubling to say "less than a few feet" to me marks a difference. That phrase to me means something different that "a few feet." "A few feet" might be a general approximation, perhaps, a figure of speech to indicate closeness, maybe. But "less than a few feet" gets specific. It means something different -- a smaller distance. And to me that positions the James in the diary much closer to the Prince than the real James ever could have been given the history.
That may be my own unlikely and unfair and imprecise and less than critical reading. But I'll let it stand and allow the readers out there to judge its reasonableness.
All right, I've gone on much too long about this. I'll stop and read the other boards.
I offer this sentence and this positioning of James "less than a few feet" from the Prince as one in a series of problems for the diary's claim to authenticity. I do not believe anything can be necessarily inferred from it about the diarists' or the forgers' care or any necessarily deliberate control over their language -- this may all be a simple function of reading.
So I'll stop.
Thanks, Caz, and everyone, for reading.
All the best,
--John |
Author: david rhea
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 01:31 pm | | | I wonder why after all this quoting from Christie and Ryan no one has quoted from that tome recommended highly by Keith Skinner--'The Last Victim'by Anne Graham.It says p55 'Tripping gaily arm in arm (with Brierly) she returned to the ominibus to be met by an angry red-faced husband on the point of apoplexy'.This book says many unusual things== that Anne Graham is the descendant of the illegitimate son of Florence Maybrick, and she rearched this because she wanted to know more. There is no book I have ever read that has more-Could it be-Maybe-Perhaps-Had Florence-What possible tale could he have disclosed-There existed a strong possibility that facing execution she was 5 mos. pregnant---There is a possibility-Why did James Maybrick---Was James being less that honest---perhaps he---Was it possible--why was Florence Maybrick so determined to halt investigation into her husbands background--'All this in the first 38 pages.Talk about who did all this research into the Maybrick affair--with JM as Jack the Ripper.Hoe come nobody qoutes from this opus as a valid source for information about this case.Not once have I seen it even referred to. Recommended so highly by a Titan of the Case it should at least be considered too. |
Author: david rhea
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 02:30 pm | | | Another quote from this magisterial work 'The Last Victim'--Regarding the bloodstains in Kelly's room--'The police took an official photograph, but it would not be until 100 years later that crime reaearcher and writer Simon Wood (some relation of Peter's?) would notice in the photo on the wall above the bed there appeared to be 2 initials--Closer examination discovered that one was the letter M which was clearly visible while on the left was a letter F--Both were assumed to be written in blood. The killer would chillingly confirm that he had written them himself: An initial here and an initial there would tell of the whoring mother'.'Had the ripper revenged himself on the woman in Miller's Court because he identified her with his beautiful wife--the woman who had betrayed him with his own brother?--Mary Kelly was taken in by the murderers gentlemanly appearance who would in her eyes not commit murder.She invited him in and 'was heard entertaining him for a number of hours'(I guess James was in the mood for a Violet from mother's Grave?)Talk about making your ideas fit.She doesn't have any problem doing it. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 03:12 pm | | Hi, David:
Doesn't The Last Victim by Anne Graham and Carol Emmas merely though follow along the same path as Shirley Harrison and Paul Feldman? That is, as with those authors, their book is based on a tissue of hypotheses and conjecture based on a very shaky document that does not place James Maybrick in Whitechapel at the time of the murders, let alone prove that he held the bloody knife.
Chris George |
Author: david rhea
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 04:43 pm | | | That is very true, but Graham researched all of this at some detail.Skinner reccommends the book.Why? There is no reason for it other than to reinforce the diary. |
Author: Peter Wood
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 06:00 pm | | Chris/David
'The Last Victim' is a very informative read, that looks at the Maybrick case from a different slant, and fills in a lot of the gaps in Florie's side of the story that are left by Shirley and Paul's books.
Quite rightly too. 'The Last Victim' doesn't concern itself with "James for the Ripper", but it does concern itself with the unfairness of Florie's conviction.
Hello again John.
Yes, you gave your opinion. I can respect that. And apart from all the flak that has been flying back and forth that is all any of us could do.
Perhaps you would give me your opinion on just how far "less than a few feet" would constitute for you? 'Less than six feet'? 'Less than four feet'? Three? Or more? Are you prepared to stretch it to ...what, twenty feet?
'A few feet' to me, when taken literally, means no more than ten. Consequently 'Less than a few feet' means less than ten feet. Seriously, how many people on that day at Aintree could lay claim to being less than ten feet away from the Prince of Wales? It then follows that wherever the diarist was on that day then he was exaggerating.
I still see no problem with my point of view that the diarist was prone to exaggeration, especially given the circumstances. What was the alternative? "B*ll*x, I was miles away from that Royal ponce! Maybe I shouldn't have let Florie go for a walk with that berk Brierley.
Simon Wood? Don't remember a Simon Wood in my family, but I do remember reading somewhere that Brierley had a partnership in a company called 'Brierley and Wood'.
Just a quick aside to John. I'm sure you posted somewhere the other day that the diary would have made an inexcusable mistake if it had mentioned Mick Jagger amongst it's pages. No it wouldn't, Mick Jagger was born in 1857, everybody knows that.
Cheers
Peter |
Author: david rhea
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 06:13 pm | | | It is interesting that you never quote from 'The Last Victim'.Why? |
Author: Peter Wood
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 06:45 pm | | I don't quote from 'The Last Victim' because neither Anne nor Carole set out to write a book that proves James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper. That book is aimed more at a ...I hesitate to say it ...female audience.
It's more of a poor old Florie, altogether now girls 'Awwwwwwww' type book. A thoroughly good read, but I don't think it adds anything to our debate.
Peter. |
Author: david rhea
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 07:03 pm | | | There are many innuendos that point in that direction.Will you stand behind that scolarship that Graham made and inferred? |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 07:41 pm | | Hi Peter,
You write the following:
"'A few feet' to me, when taken literally, means no more than ten. Consequently 'Less than a few feet' means less than ten feet. Seriously, how many people on that day at Aintree could lay claim to being less than ten feet away from the Prince of Wales? It then follows that wherever the diarist was on that day then he was exaggerating."
Or, it then follows that he wasn't there at all.
We know that the real James was not less than a few feet from the Prince, because he stayed behind in the omnibus when the others went off to see the Prince. We know the diarist's character "James" says he was less than a few feet from the Prince.
You are saying this is just the real James exaggerating (though why anyone would feel compelled to do so in such a way in their own private diary remains a question). I am suggesting it is an indication that the "James" in the diary did not share and is not recounting the same experience at the race as the real James had, because the "James" in the diary is not the real James. The "James" in the diary, according to this reading, did not have this experience. He is a character created by a writer who was not even alive when the race took place and who was reading about it in books.
Real James -- back in the bus. Character named "James" -- "less than a few feet" from the Prince. My reading suggests these are two different stories, one historically documented, the other a fiction. You are suggesting that the guy who was historically known to be back in the bus wrote in his own personal diary that he was actually "less than a few feet" from the Prince.
I will let the readers out there determine for themselves whose interpretation is more likely -- especially given the complete and total inability of anyone on the planet to link this little book in any way whatsoever to the 19th century or to its supposed author, the real James, and especially given the appearance of the Crashaw quote and the many apparent conflicts with the documented historical record and the unverifiable murders and especially given the drastic difference between the real James Maybrick's known handwriting and the utterly dissimilar writing in the diary.
Yes, I think I'll let my reading stand for now.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 11:40 am | | Hi John,
Thanks for explaining your thoughts in so much detail.
Perhaps, instead of writing "I’m exploring how well this was accomplished and how much care it might have involved – and in short, how much he got away with, even by the skin of his teeth, because of the different interpretations that can be put on his words",
I should have written "I'm exploring how well or badly this was accomplished and how much or how little care it might have involved, and I'm also exploring how much he got away with, intentionally or unintentionally, even by the skin of his teeth, because of the different interpretations that can be put on his words".
There. I think that sums it up.
And perhaps, instead of writing that the diary author uses the words ‘less than a few feet’ several times, and that he "repeats twice, I am almost sure, that he was only a few feet away from the Prince",
you should have written that the diary author uses the words 'less than a few feet away' once, and that he "repeats once, that he was only a few feet away from the Prince.
Fair enough?
And of course, as you know already, I am not arguing that the diarist was James Maybrick and so was really there.
And I haven't settled on a best reading yet in this case. I'm still looking at those offered, such as yours, and trying to work out what, if anything, each one might be able to tell us about the author's research, or lack thereof.
By the by, I've had word from Keith that his source for Alf and Florie first meeting in 1887 is hard.
Now, out of curiosity, I wonder how long it would have taken in those days, for a couple in their circumstances, to go from the discovery of a mutual sexual chemistry, through deciding to do something about it and making careful plans together, to actually doing the deed for the first time?
A week? A month? Several months?
I don't know. I'm just fishing for ideas.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 01:40 pm | | John
Please can you try just taking the reference to the Grand National out of any other context you might wish to place it in?
Try arguing just that reference without having to resort to Crashaw or your oft used 'real James Maybrick'. If you can then you may see what I am trying to explain to you.
There were very few people on that day in 1889 who would have legitimately been able to claim being 'less than a few feet' from HRH. Therefore whoever wrote that line in the diary knew that they were wrong.
Now then, if our "forgers" inserted the line in the diary it simply isn't plausible that they would have done all the research that has been evidenced and ignored the obvious reference to James being one of only two people who didn't join the party to see HRH. If the diary was forged, then the facts were there for all to see, James didn't go to see HRH. Your theory doesn't work: The forgers want to convince us their creation is genuine, but they go against what is written in the record? No.
The only person who could go against the record is the diarist - and only if the diarist was James Maybrick. Why? Well, because the line as it is written in the diary only makes sense if it is read in the context of Maybrick being pompous and self important and exaggerating how close he was to HRH.
And don't forget that Caz has clearly pointed out that the diarist does not claim to have even so much as seen HRH, despite what you say with some clever manoeuvring to suggest that James fancied a quick conversation with him. In fact the diarist goes one further, he only claims to know that HRH is there.
It's obvious John, when the diarist wrote "less than a few feet" he knew that wasn't the truth, I just don't suppose he suspected that he was going to be taken quite so literally by someone like yourself.
You really need to look at things laterally sometimes, John.
Do you believe in Feng Shui? I'll bet you do.
And whilst we're at it, you stand on your soap box and invite the 'readers' to agree with you, but you confuse them with references to real and imagined James Maybricks and repeated, yes repeated, references to Crashaw.
Crashaw is a separate discussion.
The diarist/James Maybrick exaggerated.
The diarist is the real James Maybrick. There are not two of him; only one.
He wrote the diary that we are discussing.
Have a good evening.
Peter. |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 03:51 pm | | David--
I can't imagine anyone taking Graham's book seriously as academic work. If she had published it through a university and for an audience of historians, she'd have had a hell of a time.
From my recollection of his intro, Skinner's preface mostly defends the line of inquiry and her right to pursue it, rather than supports any of her implicit conclusions. Which is fair enough, I think.
Madeleine |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 04:22 pm | | Actually Keith believes Anne's "In my family for years" story.
And the conclusions reached are Paul Feldman's. Anne just did some research, along with Carole, into other parts of Florie's life that Paul and Shirley didn't feel needed to be done in quite so much depth.
Peter. |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 07:31 pm | | Peter Wood writes,
"You really need to look at things laterally sometimes, John."
I try, but it hurts my neck.
Caz,
Fair enough.
By the way, in his affidavit for the trial Brierly, under oath, said this:
"I first met Mrs. Maybrick at dinner at her own house about two years ago. I met her in company once or twice between that occasion and November 1888. In that month I went to a dance at her house. I subsequently met her at various dances, and became on intimate terms with her and her husband. Mr. Maybrick was at home on each occasion on which I visited or called at the house.
"I was never improperly intimate with her until our meeting in London on 22nd March last."
You can take this testimony for whatever you think it might be worth.
Also, the trial evidence does indicate that it took some time for the party to walk "up the course" from the carriage-bus to the Grandstand, in case anyone is still interested. And we know the real James never took that walk, although Florie and Alf did.
Peter,
You ask me to:
"Try arguing just that reference..."
Sure. The diarist has James saying he was "less than a few feet from the Prince." We know he wasn't. The diarist has James misreporting his position at the Grand National. You say its just an exaggeration or a vague phrase ("less than a few feet" is somehow vague?). I say it's a simple historical inconsistency.
Now then, on to the new argument (it goes: since almost everyone was more than a few feet from the Prince, the diarists must have known they were wrong -- or "reading the diarists' mind in order to once again rescue the diary").
I offer to the world the following paragraph. It is simply delicious:
"Now then, if our 'forgers' inserted the line in the diary it simply isn't plausible that they would have done all the research that has been evidenced and ignored the obvious reference to James being one of only two people who didn't join the party to see HRH. If the diary was forged, then the facts were there for all to see, James didn't go to see HRH. Your theory doesn't work: The forgers want to convince us their creation is genuine, but they go against what is written in the record? No."
Check it out, people.
If the diary is historically accurate, that's because it was written by James.
If the diary is at odds with history or inaccurate, that's because it was written by James.
Damn! How can you lose?
What more is there to say? I bow to the inevitability of this logic.
Bye,
--John
PS: Then there's this:
"And whilst we're at it, you stand on your soap box and invite the 'readers' to agree with you, but you confuse them with references to real and imagined James Maybricks and repeated, yes repeated, references to Crashaw."
Was anyone out there confused?
There is the real James. He lived in the 1880's. There is the diary's "James." He's a character in a book.
There is the Crashaw quote. You can read all about it on another board.
Who is confused?
PPS: Of course the argument that the diary wouldn't contradict history if it was forged is sheer and utter nonsense. The forgers might very well have thought it would be an ultra-cool idea to place the Ripper next to the Prince and have him think about that irony (since we know both the real James and the Prince were at the race), and then failed to realize that this contradicted the specifics in the history of the event.
But if historical accuracy is evidence of authenticity and historical inaccuracy is also evidence of authenticity, then I am clearly fighting a losing battle and the diary is proven to be authentic simply by sheer, inevitable force of will.
Why bother reading?
Sounds like time for a beer. |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 09:03 am | | But you don't drink Budweiser, John - so what beer do you drink?
Seriously - the "confusion" I referred to was you working into the "Less than a few feet" argument references to Crashaw, real and imagined James' etc etc.
People may have an opinion on Crashaw. They may have an opinion on the relationship between the real and imagined James'.
But let us put that aside and examine the "Less than a few feet" entry in no other context than it's own.
You say:
"The forgers might very well have thought it would be an ultra-cool idea to place the Ripper next to the Prince and have him think about that irony (since we know both the real James and the Prince were at the race), and then failed to realize that this contradicted the specifics in the history of the event".
That's the point, John. With the amount of research that has been evidenced, and the number of times you and other posters have insisted that the 'forgers' relied on one or other book, there is simply no way that the forgers would have used those books the number of times you insist they must have and missed the obvious point that James remained in the bus.
Therefore whoever wrote the diary, forgers or James, they knew that "less than a few feet" was an exaggeration.
Believe me John, it's just a commonly used expression and you are making too much of it.
Regards
Peter.
P.S.
David Rhea. I really want to get into that discussion with you about the FM on Kelly's wall, could you hang fire until I make John see sense on "less than a few feet"? |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 09:57 am | | Hi Peter,
I drink Newcastle Brown Ale, Fischer's Amber, and a few German dark beers. And a Bass or three when it's warm outside, like now.
You insist:
"With the amount of research that has been evidenced, and the number of times you and other posters have insisted that the 'forgers' relied on one or other book, there is simply no way that the forgers would have used those books the number of times you insist they must have and missed the obvious point that James remained in the bus."
This is simply and logically not true.
It is simply and logically possible for our forgers to have done research, gotten many things historically correct and still slipped on a thing or two. That's precisely one of the ways errors happen, as a matter of fact. People do it all the time. My students will write fifteen page research papers full of carefully documented insights and then miss something simple and stupid that was right in front of them. I'll mark this on their paper and when they get it back, they'll utter a Homer Simpson "d'oh!" and say they can't believe they missed that. This happens all the time, believe me. And they are really trying to get everything right and they are, thanks to me, pretty well trained. Hell, I've done this sort of thing myself. And I'm a professional.
And, as I stated earlier, your argument reduces itself to a logical tautology which assumes its conclusion before it even examines the premises.
If the document agrees with the history or seems historically accurate, that's evidence that James wrote it and it's authentic.
If the document is at odds with the history or seems historically inaccurate, that's evidence that James wrote it and it's authentic.
Why are we even here?
Peter, in "The Maybrick Case, A Treatise," by Alexander William MacDougall, London, Bailliere, Tindall and Cox, 1891, the author reviews the transcripts of the Maybrick trial. He cites, word for word, Dr. Hopper's testimony on the case and Mrs. Samuelson's as well.
Dr Hopper described the scene this way:
"Mr. Maybrick told me something about the Grand National and said his wife had annoyed him very much, and went off with a gentleman to walk up the course, although he had distinctly told her not to do so." [my emph.]
That's the real James, Peter, telling his doctor that his wife and Alf went off and walked up the course. And we know the real James did not go up the course with them, to see the Prince. Therefore the real James knew he was most certainly not "less than a few feet" away from the Prince. And the character of "James" in the diary says not only that he was a few feet from the Prince, he actually says that he was "less than a few feet" from him.
The history and the diary are at odds. I stand by that claim.
You can say it was just an expression or that it was vague boasting in one's own private diary and you can pretend to be able to read the diarists' minds to try and rescue the diary from an apparent historical inaccuracy, but the words remain. I'm happy to let the readers out there decide what they mean.
And, as I mentioned before, this is just one in a series of sentences that have to be rescued against the historical record in order for the diary to be continually saved. And the pattern itself is quite telling, as are the desires inscribed into your reading of it.
All the best,
--John
PS: Speaking of commonly used expressions that are obviously exaggerations -- the appearance of the illogical phrase "simply no way" italicized in your comment above stands out as a doozy of an example. |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 12:55 pm | | Hi John
What is a 'doozy'?
I shan't even bother discussing with you on 'simply no way', I'm sure you've got more important things to do, like making sure all your knives and forks and spoons are in the correct compartments and straight in your cutlery drawer.
O.k. John, you've told us many times before that your students have been known to make mistakes, as if that is evidence of something. But your students didn't decide to pick on a Victorian cotton merchant as the subject for a "forged" diary of Jack the Ripper. They are students, the whole point of them being at your University is to make their mistakes in front of you and then have them corrected so that they don't do the same thing in their final exams.
Students go to University to learn, ergo they will make mistakes. No great surprise.
But our "forgers" have the luxury of two or three years in which they could compose the diary behind closed doors with as many source books as they wanted open and at the right page. So whilst it is just about possible that the "forger" could read the relevant passages in the relevant books and then go completely against modern opinion, it isn't very likely.
The only logical conclusion can be that James Maybrick wrote the entry in the diary and that said James Maybrick was exaggerating, as we are all prone to do.
Otherwise you are left with the conclusion that the "forgers" (who we have never managed to establish as real or imagined)have the facts laid out in front of them and choose deliberately to ignore them.
Or we could go down the John Omlor route that the forgers were very similar to his students who make mistakes all the time.
It only makes sense if James Maybrick wrote it.
Cheers
Peter
P.s. I am very surprised that you can lay your hands on Newcastle Brown over there. It's been ages since I drank that vile liquid. |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 05:14 pm | | Hi Peter,
First of all, it's not only my students who make these sorts of mistakes. We all do.
You write:
"But our 'forgers' have the luxury of two or three years in which they could compose the diary behind closed doors with as many source books as they wanted open and at the right page."
How do you know this? How can you possibly know this? How do you know when the forgery was begun or how long the forgers had or how much time they spent on it before it turned up in Mike's hands being carried into Doreen's office? You're making stuff up again, Peter. Stop it.
Then you write:
"The only logical conclusion can be that James Maybrick wrote the entry in the diary and that said James Maybrick was exaggerating, as we are all prone to do."
See, folks, there it is. Just as I promised.
The "only logical conclusion," if the diary conflicts with history, is that James must have written it.
And the "only logical conclusion," if the diary is historically accurate, is that James must have written it.
We are at the mercy of a master. There is no way James could not have written this diary, whether he did or he didn't. Somewhere a little girl named Alice is smiling and nodding in recognition of this logic.
Honestly, Peter. You have no argument here. You're just saying the forgers couldn't have made this sort of mistake. Of course they could have. There's nothing behind your claim that they couldn't have except dreams and your own desire for the diary to be authentic at all costs.
The diary has its character "James" less than a few feet from the Prince. The trial testimony and the history tells us James wasn't there. I say this means the diary is historically inaccurate and that this is evidence that the people who wrote the diary weren't actually at this event and that they weren't "James." I'm quite happy to let that conclusion stand for everyone to read it and determine whether or not it makes sense and whether or not they agree with it.
No one said anything about any forgers making mistakes "all the time," Peter. And you know that. Please be precise if you are going to rewrite my arguments.
Read the diary everyone, then read the history and the trial transcripts and see what you think. This is just the first in a series of sentences in the diary that demand that history be rewritten for the diary to be real.
Of course, there's always another alternative.
Admit that the diary is not history. It's fiction (and cheesy, melodramatic, formulaic, clichéd fiction at that).
But the words are all out there now. I'm happy to let everyone read them.
All the best,
--John
"The only logical conclusion can be that James Maybrick wrote the entry"
Save this sentence. It works for everything. |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 03 February 2002 - 12:06 pm | | Hi John
I only did this to remove a double post, although I'm sure Ally or whoever would have caught up with it sooner or later.
Peter.
|
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 03 February 2002 - 12:07 pm | | Hi John
That's pretty cool. Your last entry I mean.
So as far as you are concerned "James" of the diary made a 'mistake' in the writing of his diary, thus this means that the "James" who wrote the diary wasn't in fact at Anfield on the day that the diary says he was. I like to think that he was exaggerating, and I'll let the readers decide for themselves if it is at all possible that James could have been at Aintree, wrote of only "knowing" that HRH was there (not of actually having seen him)and then felt self important enough to write the "less than a few feet" entry.
But here's the thing, John.
"James" makes a 'mistake'. You seize on that and insist that it means the diary is historically inaccurate and are not prepared to budge an inch. And all this from the man who is prepared to state that Dr Bond's medical report on MJK is more reliable than the evidence of John McCarthy even though Bond has been proven wrong on the most basic of points - namely that he stated MJK was naked and even we can agree that she wasn't.
I don't think R.J. would bother arguing with me on that one.
So how do you reconcile that, John? The diarist makes a 'mistake' (one that, incidentally, myself, Caz, Shirley and Paul have provided a more than adequate explanation to) and you crucify the diarist. But Bond makes a glaring error, one that isn't even open to argument or interpretation, and you back the man to the hilt!
Man, your standards sure are weird!
Then this:
"But our 'forgers' have the luxury of two or three years in which they could compose the diary behind closed doors with as many source books as they wanted open and at the right page."
How do you know this? How can you possibly know this? How do you know when the forgery was begun or how long the forgers had or how much time they spent on it before it turned up in Mike's hands being carried into Doreen's office? You're making stuff up again, Peter. Stop it".
Well John, this is how it works. The last piece of evidence that needed to be culled from the list of sources used by the "forger" would be Bond's report that MJK's breasts were under her head and at her feet, for our diarist has himself thinking of leaving them by the whore's feet. According to Paul Begg that would mean the diary couldn't have been concocted before 1989. Mike showed it to Shirley in 1992.
So there you go mate. Simple mathematics. Three years in which the "forgers" could do as they pleased, pore over as many books as they liked, researched Crashaw to their hearts' content. Of course they needn't have actually spent the whole three years doing it, but, potentially at least, it was available to them.
That is, it would have been available to them if the thing was forged. But it's not. James Maybrick wrote it.
So come on John, let us have your answer on how you let Bond off the hook so easily, but castigate the diarist for a simple piece of exaggeration.
I look forward to it, as do the readers, I'm sure.
Regards
Peter |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 03 February 2002 - 02:59 pm | | Hi Peter,
Let's follow the logical leaps. It'll be like a fun sort of video game.
I'll start with my favorite, and work backwards.
Premise: The forgers used material that became available in 1989.
Known fact: The diary was given to the public in 1992.
Conclusion: the forgers had "the luxury of two or three years in which they could compose the diary behind closed doors with as many source books as they wanted open and at the right page."
Who can spot the leap?
That's right.
Peter, you have no idea how long the forgers spent putting this thing together. You don't know how close to the 1992 distribution date they actually began this little project. Therefore, you have no idea how much time they had "the luxury" of using and how many books they had "the luxury" of using and your idea that they must have had the luxury of two or three years is actually just you making things up. Again.
OK, that one was too easy. Let's look at another one.
This one is just word play.
Premise: The diary is a fictional story.
Premise: It has a character in it named "James."
Premise: The diary has its main character say things that are historically inaccurate.
Question: Given the premises, who wrote the things that the main character says -- the things which are historically inaccurate? Not "James," of course. He didn't write anything. The forgers, of course. The people writing the book. "James" didn't write anything, remember? He's not real. See, that's how books of fiction work. The characters in them are just make-believe and the authors write the words.
So when Peter summarizes my position as:
"'James' of the diary made a 'mistake' in the writing of his diary, thus this means that the 'James' who wrote the diary wasn't in fact at Anfield on the day that the diary says he was."
he is being silly and slippery but linguistically misleading in a wonderfully Feldmaniacal sort of way (sometimes I swear he took the "Paul Feldman Course on Misapplied Inference and Invalid Conclusions, with the special advanced program in Creative Ellipses and Misleading Rhetorical Questions").
I have never said any "James" wrote the diary or "made a mistake" or wasn't at the race or any such thing. There is, of course, no "James" to do such a thing. He is a convenient and overwhelmingly unbelievable fiction. That is what I have said.
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.
That is why I asked everyone to read the diary about the race. Then read the trial transcripts and the language there - including what the real James told Dr. Hopper. And then decide for themselves whether the James who was really at the race is in any way likely to have written the account of the events as they appear in the diary, in direct conflict with what really happened.
And as for choosing between the doctor on the scene and the details concerning the placement of the organs in the room in the official report and the reaction of a civilian who walked into that room trying to recount what he saw, call me crazy, but I'll take the report as the beginning of the historical record. Especially since there is nothing in the photograph that we also have to contradict it concerning the location of the breasts.
But let's look at the language in the Bond report. The inaccuracy Peter cites appears in the very first line. "The body was lying naked in the middle of the bed the shoulders flat, but the axis of the body inclined to the left side of the bed. The head was turned on the left cheek."
Peter quite properly objects to the word "naked" here, since we can all see in the photo that Mary is wrapped in something white, either a nightdress or a nightshirt or a sheet or something, and therefore is clearly not naked.
And you know what? I agree with Peter. He's absolutely correct and the word "naked" is simply wrong. But you can't stop reading here.
Read the rest of the paragraph and look at Mary. Follow Dr. Bond's meticulous description of the geometry of her body.
Read the rest of the report. Notice its detailed measurements and precision in description. Notice the precise use of the later language, both medical and descriptive. Notice the biology of the post mortem. And now here is the passage that bothers our poor diary supporters. Notice how it is written.
"The viscera were found in various parts viz; the uterus and kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the right foot, the liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side and the spleen by the left side of the body."
Now then, Peter needs to use the word "naked" in that first sentence of this lengthy and detailed report to try and convince you that everything else in this report might be horribly wrong, especially this one little detail about where the breasts were. Why? Because the diary has them on the table!
You see what happens? We have to do whatever we can to rewrite history so that it fits with the alleged diary (rather than the other way around).
Is there a legitimate reason to suspect that the position of the breasts in this report is completely and totally mistaken and that there was no breast by the right foot and no breast under the head the way the Doctor records there being, and that they were actually on the table and the Doctor somehow missed them (despite chronicling in detail what was on that table -- the flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs)? Can we logically conclude this because he wrongly used the word "naked" early in his report?
You decide. What is a fair assumption here? Which is more likely to be right about the position of the breasts, this detailed medical report for the record, even given its mistaken use of the word "naked" early on, or the "Maybrick diary" -- a document which has been placed, by every scientific test ever done on it, in the 20th century and which isn't even in the handwriting of its supposed author and which cannot be linked to him in any way whatsoever by anyone on the planet?
That's another decision I'm happy to let up to readers everywhere.
Now let us speak of the so-called "evidence of John McCarthy" which Peter so passionately invokes hoping once again to rescue the diary.
In both his written statement to Abberline and his official testimony at the inquest, the landlord John McCarthy makes it clear that he did not initially go into the room -- he looked in through the window. Then he helped force the door open and saw the horror in that room. And at no time in either official statement does he ever describe anything in any detail about what he saw through the window or in the room. He certainly never mentions any breasts. McCarthy gave no evidence whatsoever about the breasts at any time.
Then the press comes knocking and McCarthy's story starts to develop and be embellished. He even comes up with a story about seeing Mary and a man or hearing about Mary and a man that very evening -- but further examination revealed that he could not have seen nor heard this when he said he did and that, as Philip Sugden has said, his tale "proved worthless as evidence."
But McCarthy tells his now fully developed tale to the Times, recounting the horror he saw when he entered that room. He says this: "Both her breasts too had been cut clean away an been placed by the side of her liver and other entrails on the table. I had heard a great deal about the Whitechapel murders, but I declare to God that I never expected to see such a sight as this."
Listen to the language of this story, the way it is retold for the press (though never in any official capacity as a witness of any sort) -- compare it to the precision and the thoroughness of Dr. Bond's report -- even with it's use of the word "naked."
It should be mentioned at this point that McCarthy's tale about the details of what he saw comes with the following note from Philip Sugden:
"McCarthy's account of the disposition of the various parts of Mary's body was, understandably in the circumstances, inaccurate."
Now then who out there wants to be believe McCarthy about where the breasts actually were, and who thinks it might be wiser to trust the medical report?
And who thinks we have to choose McCarthy's tale over the Doctor's report because that's what the goofy diary says -- despite there being no reason whatsoever supported by any evidence anywhere to consider the diary anything but a 20th century fiction?
This is really not a complicated question. Time and time again the diary must be saved by a desperate and argumentative rewriting of the historical record. Why? I suspect it's because the diary is not an historical document. I suspect it's because this cheesy bit of melodrama, pop psychology, formulaic plot devices, bad horror movie clichés and artificial Aristotelian closure is just a fake.
And there is still no evidence anywhere in the world that indicates otherwise.
All the best,
--John |
Author: John Hacker
Sunday, 03 February 2002 - 10:00 pm | | All,
Just a comment on the use of the word "naked". Naked doesn't necessarily mean a complete and utter lack of clothing. If he'd said 'nude', there be no doubt that he goofed. But in any case by the standards of the time she was scandalously undressed. Heck, my grandmother used to tell me not to play outside "naked" if I went outside without a shirt and she was a wild and crazy youngster compared to Bond. But I certainly agree it's a poor choice of words.
Also, I'd like to remind Peter that McCarthy's statement places MJK's liver on the table. The photograph however clearly shows that it's where Bond said it was, between her feet. Why isn't McCarthy's (cough) evidence thrown out with such a basic error?
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: david rhea
Sunday, 03 February 2002 - 11:46 pm | | | In your mind, was the select placing of certain organs a matter of intention on JTR's part. This whole argument about who knew what a breast was is absurd- a matter people not concerned to find the truth try to confuse the argument. The only professional testimony is Dr. Bond. If you can't believe him then we don't know anything about the slaughter of Mary Kelly.Was there method in the killer's madness. If so, what did it mean?-Certainly not to have a bizarre subject for a painting(Sickert). We probably don't know but it needs to be pursued.Surely some of you know a little about the possibility that this thing could be Ritual Murder. I read a book by an investigative reporter Maury Terry-'Ultimate Evil which is an investigation into the 'Process Church'-an organization that has a connection with the 'Son of Sam' murders-the 'Manson murders' and many more who practice ritual murder.Maybe there is nothing to it, but at least give it a hearing as you take into consideration the facts you already have.There is more here that poor old Druitt putting rocks in his pocket and jumping in the river.True, Ivor can be defensive and sarcastic but his position deserves a hearing from all of us, and such a pursuit should be a part of our studies relating to this matter. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 04 February 2002 - 03:20 am | | | David, It certainly is true that I can be defensive, and sarcastic.Sometimes with good reason. But to tell the truth many voices are quiet about the facts I have produced.I have been informed by far too many people involved in crime that I have shown that the murders were planned in advance with great care on a map.That the first four victims were placed East, West, North,and South on purpose and not by any freak accident.The distances from victim to victim and the layout of all the sites from the centre were done by design. My next door neighbour the Governor of Albany Prison on the Isle of Wight and his wife both informed me after seeing my work that it was plain to see what was going on.Some voices which are quiet hope that my research will die a quick death and that I will fade away. Neither will happen. If people wish to stick their heads in the sand and ignore the facts then that is fine with me. The tide of progress will prevail in this matter and wash over them. I have a job of work to do and do it I will.As I have stated before David my work is for those who have the ability to tell the difference between the truth and a fairy story.I am not searching for converts I am searching for the truth and the devil himself could not deter me.When I hear about suspects like Druitt, Maybrick,Lewis Carroll,and Sickert I wonder what the hell is going on.This subject needs sorting out badly it is out of order. |
Author: graziano
Monday, 04 February 2002 - 12:13 pm | | Carroll ? Maybrick ? Sickert ?
It makes the world go round.
And round and round and round.....
The only and holy truth. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 04 February 2002 - 03:23 pm | | Hi All,
Hi John,
Thanks for the quote from Alfred Brierley’s affidavit. Certainly, if we accept the absolute truth of his sworn testimony (which, as with Mike Barrett’s, has to be considered in the light of self-interest and the effect, adverse or otherwise, on Florie and others close to him – and James was of course no longer there to dispute anything, even if he could have), it points to any suspicions James may have entertained, that the couple were already having a love affair, or at least talking together about a desire to make their relationship physical, before the ripper murders began, being at best premature, and at worst invented by the diary author to suit the plot.
You see, the written history depends on the word of one of the lovers. Even if we can be sure they were ‘improperly intimate’ in London, on 22nd March 1889 - which Alfred presumably would have had great trouble denying - how would we know that previous rendezvous or intimate moments hadn’t taken place, which he could have got away with not admitting to, if no one alive had witnessed them?
I now have a message to post from Keith in a moment regarding the affidavit. He hasn’t seen the latest posts yet, including yours where you quote from it.
But just before I do, can I use you as a guinea pig for a moment please?
You convinced yourself a few posts back, genuinely and sincerely, that you had read the phrase, less than a few feet away, ‘several times’ in the diary, when in reality you could not have done because it is only written with the ‘less than’ qualification once. (You did say, though, that you didn’t have your source with you at the time.)
So could not the diary author have decided to have James/Jack convince himself that he had been more or less mingling with royalty at Aintree that day, despite the history saying it was otherwise?
Wouldn’t the author have kept his source – Ryan – beside him while composing? And if he didn’t have the source with him for some unknown reason, or didn’t bother checking it before writing his own Grand National episode, but still wanted to have the prince close to the name all England was talking about, in keeping with his general portrayal of James as self-important fantasist at best, or egomaniacal killer at worst, wouldn’t it have been perfectly ok and reasonable to have him positioned merely ‘nearby’ for the purpose? Why would he choose to put the distance in terms of feet, and then compound the blunder by adding ‘less than’ later in the same sentence, when he didn’t have to take the risk - unless it was quite deliberate? Any ideas?
To help work out what was going on in the forger’s head at this point, that caused him to be so exact in his measurements and wrong, (would you, for instance, have gone further and said, say, upwards of three times as opposed to several times, still without going back to your source to check?), I’d like to know what you think caused you to make your own error.
Was it simply that you didn’t have the diary to hand but believed you’d read that exact phrase several times? And could/would you ever have claimed to have read something several times had you not bothered reading the relevant passages at all?
In other words, did our forger check his Ryan at any time before deciding to write those curiously precise words, ‘less than a few feet away’, and just get it wrong because he forgot what he’d read or hadn’t read? Or did he check his facts but write it anyway, because he wanted his James to exaggerate at this point? Or did he not use Ryan at all, and think he could get away with inventing this particular detail that was anything but vague?
Thanks.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 04 February 2002 - 03:26 pm | | From Keith Skinner To R.J. and John Omlor
Dear R.J.
Thank you for your reply.
There are two sources, both publicly available, for the following August 1889 sworn affidavit by Alfred Brierley; (MacDougall 1896 – a published source) and the Home Office document, accessible at the Public Record Office.
“I first met Mrs Maybrick at her own house at dinner about two years ago. I met her in company once or twice between that occasion and November 1888.”
I draw no conclusions from this statement; offer it only as information – and note that Ryan is your preferred source.
Best Wishes
Keith
Dear John
In your post to Paul Begg of Friday,25 January 2002 – 04:33 pm you posit the question:-
“Could the written history be wrong about when Florie started hopping on Brierly (sic.)?”
I just wonder whether Brierley’s affidavit now allows for the possibility for the affair to have started prior to November/December 1888 – as, interpretatively, reflected in the Diary text?
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 04 February 2002 - 05:27 pm | | Hi Caz,
I certainly am not suggesting that we accept the truth of the affidavit or the word of the lover in this case. But I thought the quote was worth offering. Frankly, I have no idea when Brierley and Mrs. Maybrick first made the beast with two backs, but I do note that the way Alf is discussed in the second half of the book is rhetorically identical to the way the whoremaster is discussed throughout the first half and I don't believe we have any evidence whatsoever that the couple was getting their groove thing on before the first Ripper murder is chronicled in the diary -- there is certainly no real evidence anywhere of that early a date for their doin' it, is there? So there would still have had to be Whoremaster #1 and there I am inclined to agree with RJ that this might be the diarist stretching the dates of the affair to provide them with some sort of motive.
This is, after all, the same "James," in this diary, who according to Peter Wood either forgot or never knew what his own famous brother did for a living. So when the historical record seems to be being rewritten, as in the race account or the breasts or the Manchester murders any of the other goofiness, I'm not really surprised. And I wouldn't be in this case either.
And by the way -- does anyone really buy the logic of James getting "revenge" somehow on his unfaithful wife by butchering East End prostitutes?
Well, I suppose someone must -- you can sell anything these days.
As far as the guinea pig experiment goes, I don't think I did convince myself that I had seen the phrase "less than a few feet" several times. I was convinced I had seen the reference to a few feet more than once and I remembered at least once seeing the "less than a few feet."
You are correct, however, about what at one point I did write.
After Peter had compared the business of James not being less than a few feet from the Prince historically but saying he was in the diary to a comet passing millions of miles from the earth, I wrote, in frustration:
"I mean, Jesus, now we're talking about comets!
"Look, it's not hard. The diary has the 'James' character say several times, explicitly, that he was 'less than a few feet' from the Prince. The real James wasn't. We know this because he stayed behind when the others went off to see the Prince and he later scolded Florie for being away too long when she returned (so she had to be away, more than only 'less than a few feet' away, no?)." [my emph.]
And you are correct Caz, that I quoted the wrong phrase. I should have quoted the "a few feet" phrase and not the "less than a few feet" phrase in this passage. I should have said that the diary has the 'James' character say several times, explicitly, that he was only a few feet from the Prince. This was a mistake. And perhaps I should have even re-read the quote before I wrote this and noted that the phrase appeared twice, first without the "less than" and then with the "less than." This is a very good point.
But this is not the sort of mistake you are suggesting the forgers had their "James" make when he is supposedly recalling the race and he puts himself less than a few feet from the Prince even though we know he wasn't. Mine is a mistake of reading. James's mistake is allegedly one of personal experience (or it is boasting in his own diary, as you suggest). It is an historical error or a misstatement about the event, not a mistaken quotation.
Unless you are suggesting that it might be a reading mistake -- that, just like me, the forgers read and wrote too quickly here and therefore wrote one thing when they should have written another, if they had only read more carefully.
If you are saying that the forgers and I did exactly the same thing here, that we both read some words too quickly or composed without enough care and thus wrote the wrong thing down, then I agree completely with your argument and your conclusion. It's what I have been saying all along, after all.
And the fact that I myself did it just as you point out is even further evidence that people do this sort of thing all the time and the forgers very well might have, despite what Peter says. [And since what Peter says is that if the diary is accurate, this is evidence that Maybrick wrote it and if the diary is inaccurate this is also evidence that Maybrick wrote it (since forgers wouldn’t have erred like I did) -- since what Peter basically says is essentially "No matter what the text says regarding the history, that turns out always to be evidence that Maybrick wrote it"; what Peter says doesn't matter since he has already assumed the inevitability of his conclusion regardless of the premises.]
So yes, Caz, I think you lead us to a good point. I read too quickly and wrote down the wrong phrase despite the correct one being right in front of me. I suspect our forgers might have done the same -- just as they placed the breasts in the wrong place, just as they had Mike writing verse, just as they... well, you know the list.
And that is why we keep having to either rewrite history or excuse in vague terms of exaggeration or lies in a private journal.
Or, that is why a pattern is beginning to develop about the historical reliability of what's in these 63 pages.
Hope that helps answer your question. Thanks for asking it. It has been helpful.
Hi Keith,
I don't know.
As I say, I'm not sure that the affidavit does allow for this (unless we just assume Alf is lying under oath) and I do not believe we have any evidence at all that their knocking boots began before the party mentioned. Alf points out that Jim was around with Flo on the few occasions when they met before this. Of course he could be lying through his teeth and we could all happily agree to rewrite history, but not because there's something in the diary that suggests this, certainly, since the diary cannot be considered history or evidence of anything since there is still no way to link it even to the proper century. Now if we could find some evidence outside the diary that would support the notion that Alf and Florie were doing the nasty before the first Ripper murder, that would be another story. But I haven't seen any. Have you?
Otherwise, I think we're stuck with the record, aren't we? And the record in this particular case, as in more than a few others in this book, seems to contradict even the vague fragments and teasing hints scribbled in the diary.
At least that's how it keeps appearing to me.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 08:41 am | | Hi John,
Thanks for that.
You write:
‘I should have said that the diary has the 'James' character say several times, explicitly, that he was only a few feet from the Prince.’
Well actually, no, I don’t think you should. I would dispute that ‘several times’ ever means only twice, which was the exact number of times ‘James’ referred in his diary to how far away he was from royalty that day. To recap, he used ‘a few feet’ as his yardstick twice, in the same sentence, and qualified it with ‘less than’ in the second instance.
You say you wrote it in frustration at first, to Peter, but now you have had a chance to check, you still maintain ‘a few feet’ appears ‘several times’.
As you now confirm, yours is a simple mistake of reading. I am suggesting that we really don’t know whether the diary author a) made a similar mistake of reading, b) hadn’t any real idea about the distance between the two men, or didn’t think it mattered much anyway, or c) had his ‘James/Jack’ write what he did despite what he’d read in Ryan. But we can look at which might make most sense.
If a) applies, there is a subtle difference between your mistake of reading and his. You read something in the diary, then made a mistake about the number of times it was written. And you say that you read too quickly and wrote down the wrong phrase despite the correct one being right in front of you. But Ryan never goes into detail about the actual distance between James and the prince. So ‘less than a few feet’ wasn’t that kind of error. It wasn’t a simple misunderstanding, or mistranscription, of a fact he’d read, or an exaggeration of a documented distance of, say, thirty yards. It was a fact pulled out of a hat.
If b) applies, a careful reading of the event in Ryan would have given the diary author enough clues to stay out of trouble. Yet he chose to describe this unknown distance as ‘less than a few feet’ – clearly a mistake waiting to happen. I could understand this more if there weren’t signs throughout the diary of him being vague over details that might otherwise have tripped him up.
But c) is the one suggestion that seems the hardest for you to even consider as a possibility – that our forger had read the history, but wanted ‘James/Jack’ to imagine he’d been within a stone’s throw of the prince, and ideally making ‘the foolish fool’ drop dead on the spot by telling him he was the ripper. We know the real James was preoccupied with Florie making a fool of him with Alf. We know the real James was almost certainly not entertaining fantasies about his power over the life and death of the heir to the throne.
But we still don’t know the kind of person whose mind lives in a diary world like this.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 10:10 am | | Hi Caz,
You quote me first:
"‘I should have said that the diary has the 'James' character say several times, explicitly, that he was only a few feet from the Prince.’"
And then you write:
"Well actually, no, I don’t think you should. I would dispute that ‘several times’ ever means only twice, which was the exact number of times ‘James’ referred in his diary to how far away he was from royalty that day."
Uh, didn't that paragraph of mine then go on to point out that if I had gone back and looked at the sentence I would have seen it appeared only twice? That's why I said that your pointing out that my original comment was wrong was a very good point and emphasized "very." So I had already mentioned this fact myself. I believe I wrote:
"And perhaps I should have even re-read the quote before I wrote this and noted that the phrase appeared twice, first without the 'less than' and then with the 'less than.' This is a very good point."
So when you say to me:
"You say you wrote it in frustration at first, to Peter, but now you have had a chance to check, you still maintain ‘a few feet’ appears ‘several times’."
it seems to be you who are not reading precisely. I am not maintaining such a thing at all. But perhaps you just missed this, or composed too quickly and let it slip by you. Things like that happen all the time. They might have even happened to the diarist, no?
Concerning your three possibilities.
In a.) you write:
"But Ryan never goes into detail about the actual distance between James and the prince. So ‘less than a few feet’ wasn’t that kind of error. It wasn’t a simple misunderstanding, or mistranscription, of a fact he’d read, or an exaggeration of a documented distance of, say, thirty yards. It was a fact pulled out of a hat."
Yes. But not exactly. On the bottom of page 36 and the top of page 37, Ryan does tell us that the party went off to the grandstand from the bus to see the Prince. And Ryan has a one sentence, separate paragraph which takes the trouble to point out that James did not go with them. And Ryan then also tells us about Florie's "return" and James's scolding her for "being away too long." So Ryan does indicate that James did not go with the others to see the Prince and therefore was not ever "less than a few feet" from HRH. Could the forgers have missed this even though it was right in front of them? Sure. Why not? Could it have slipped by them when they wanted to have their James think of the Ripper and the Prince being "less than a few feet from each other" even though they never were? Sure. Why not? I think it is quite possible that the forgers here made what I would still call "a similar mistake of reading."
About b.) you say:
"Yet he chose to describe this unknown distance as ‘less than a few feet’ – clearly a mistake waiting to happen."
If it was a mistake that he chose to use this phrase, he wouldn't have known this at the time. That would have been the mistake. That's one of the things a mistake can be -- when you don't realize something that you should realize. Of course he should have realized it. Perhaps he didn't. That's what I'm saying. Just like he didn't seem to realize that brother Mike was a composer but did not write lyrics.
And I am much less willing to go along with the c.) reading because I see nothing in the passage in the actual text itself that indicates this and I personally believe it is the positing of a motive only after the fact. I may be wrong, of course. This could be what happened during the composition. But I am not convinced the text itself makes this clear or even probable. I still believe that this is simply another small case of the diary at odds with the known historical record and still more evidence that the diarist was never part of the known historical record because he or she was not even alive in the proper century.
Yes, of course the diary remains vague and partial and fragmented and incomplete about everything. But there are moments where, to me, it is obviously constructed, psychologically shallow, horribly clichéd, artificially structured, awfully melodramatic, and sometimes simply misleading about the history. This little passage, I believe, is a small one of those moments.
I readily accept that there are other possible readings. But I am happy to let my explanation of my own reading, and my explanation of why I think it makes a certain sort of common sense, stand for all those out there who are reading the book for themselves.
Thanks for keeping the discussion going, Caz. I think these are fascinating questions.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 01:01 pm | | Hi John,
You confused me by writing:
"And perhaps I should have even re-read the quote before I wrote this [meaning what you had just written in that very post] and noted that the phrase appeared twice, first without the 'less than' and then with the 'less than.' This is a very good point."
I assumed I must have read this wrong because I also assumed (wrongly as it turns out) that, had you realised, within the same post, that you had made such an error, you would have gone back and taken it out before posting it. But I guess you were actually making a point by keeping it in and alluding to it. My mistake. Must try harder.
Well, we've established that we can both be guilty of not reading precisely. So we've now narrowed our forger down, at least regarding his careful reading of source material, to being anything from a university professor of literature to a bored housewife with O level English.
About the use of 'less than a few feet', by someone who had either missed the relevant passage in Ryan, or not realised he was making a mistake at the time, you yourself said a few posts back that while one might try to argue that 'a few feet away' was a turn of phrase to denote 'nearby', the fact that the diary author qualified his few feet even further with 'less than', kind of disqualified that argument.
What I'm getting at here is that I'm using your own argument to suggest that the qualification of 'less than' makes it less likely that the diary author would not realise he could be making a big mistake by being so precise. That's all.
My c) reading, of course, if valid, would not mean the diarist had to be 'part of the known historical record' or 'even alive in the proper century.' And it would also conform to one of those moments where, to you, the diary is obviously 'horribly clichéd', 'awfully melodramatic', and 'sometimes simply misleading about the history.'
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 04:29 pm | | "And by the way -- does anyone really buy the logic of James getting "revenge" somehow on his unfaithful wife by butchering East End prostitutes?"
Yes, I do. And Dr Forshaw, as quoted in Shirley's book P. 350:
"If ...all falls back on content, then I would argue in that case, on the balance of probabilities from a psychiatric perspective, it is authentic".
And now John is holding up to the light as his "evidence" - "Hey, I make mistakes, look I made one when I miscounted the number of times 'Less than a few feet' appears in the diary, therefore readers the forgers made a mistake and this proves the diary a fake".
Errmmm, hang on a minute. You are prepared to accept that the 'forgers' could make a mistake, but not James Maybrick?
Here's another interesting excerpt from Shirley's book:
" ...When Maybrick's business colleague and friend wrote to the Home Secretary in 1889, he proclaimed 'I can state that I have known Mr Maybrick for more than 25 years on the most intimate terms as an exceedingly good natured, amiable and generous nature, who tho' after his marriage did not lead a happy life at home, was always trying to take a generous view of his wife's shortcomings ..."
Well, there you have it, contemporary evidence that proves Florie was messing around as soon as she got James to the altar.
But folks, John makes mistakes so the diary must be a forgery. Remember that.
The "forgers" had three years in which they could do as they liked. Whether or not they used the whole three years is open to discussion, but the fact is that they had potentially three years. Note to John: When I speak of 'James of the Diary', I'm simply trying to make things easier for you because you can't reconcile him with the real James Maybrick. Just think of him as a creation by your gang of 'forgers'.
It really isn't hard to understand that James Maybrick exaggerated in his personal journal, what is hard to believe is that Dr Bond was proven wrong on the most basic of facts.
And as to what we see between MJK's feet in the photographs - who can honestly say that 'thing' is her liver? And even if it is, so what? The breast isn't next to it! The photographs don't reveal the location of the breasts as being under the head and by the feet, rather they would seem to lead away from that possibility. But there is a pile of flesh on one of the tables that McCarthy took to be breasts. Now then everybody, biology lesson for the day, how would you recognise a woman's breasts?
But this is J.O.'s conclusion: "The forger or forgers wrote the diary". And then he accuses me of reaching my conclusion before examining the evidence. Now that really is rich ...
John can't even begin to accept the perfectly valid option that it is entirely possible for someone to be within a hundred yards of someone else and use the term "a few feet" as an expression to quantify the space between them. And why not? Because, according to John, the diary is already a forgery.
I'll leave you to make your own conclusions readers, John already appears to have made his.
Regards
Peter. |
Author: John Hacker
Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 06:01 pm | | Peter,
"And as to what we see between MJK's feet in the photographs - who can honestly say that 'thing' is her liver? And even if it is, so what?"
It's a liver, Peter. I was simply pointing out that McCarthy is clearly in error. And if Bond's testimony is worthless because of an error, then shouldn't McCarthy's be discarded as well? Oh. That wouldn't agree with the diary... Can't have that. (I.E. Your bias is showing again.)
And how on Earth do we get from:
"'I can state that I have known Mr Maybrick for more than 25 years on the most intimate terms as an exceedingly good natured, amiable and generous nature, who tho' after his marriage did not lead a happy life at home, was always trying to take a generous view of his wife's shortcomings ..."
To :
"Well, there you have it, contemporary evidence that proves Florie was messing around as soon as she got James to the altar."
Nothing was said about "fooling around". Nor "as soon as she got James to the altar". And when did hearsay become proof of anything? Sigh...
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 07:37 pm | | Hi Caz,
You write, admirably,
"Well, we've established that we can both be guilty of not reading precisely. So we've now narrowed our forger down, at least regarding his careful reading of source material, to being anything from a university professor of literature to a bored housewife with O level English."
Indeed. Because everyone makes mistakes when reading and writing.
But here's a point Peter fails to understand.
If the diary makes a mistake about the historical record, and it's a forgery -- that is a mistake of reading and interpreting and composing prose from a written record.
If the diary makes mistakes about the historical record and it's not a forgery -- that's a guy getting wrong what just happened to him when he goes to write it in his private diary.
And if the diary makes a mistake and has, for instance, Mike successful at writing verse rather than at composing melodies, and it's a forgery -- that's a forger screwing up concerning the historical record or trying to find an excuse for the failed doggerel they wanted to include.
If the diary makes a mistake and has Mike successful at writing verse rather than at composing melodies, and it's not a forgery -- that's a guy forgetting what his own famous brother does for a living.
I could go on (and on), but the point should be clear. The historical inaccuracies of the diary are understandable if a forger is trying to compose it from the record (putting James where he was not, etc.). If it was James and so much stuff was wrong, how would one explain it?
This, friends, is simply evidence that the diary was not written by the real James Maybrick. Perhaps that's why the book cannot be linked to him in any way whatsoever by anyone on the planet, nor even placed in the proper century. But most of you already knew this.
Now to Peter's fun,
Peter writes:
"You are prepared to accept that the 'forgers' could make a mistake, but not James Maybrick?"
See above.
Peter also writes:
"John makes mistakes so the diary must be a forgery."
This is a classic example of why this discussion should rarely be taken seriously. A statement like this is simply stupid. I have never made this argument, of course. It is not even a paraphrase of any argument I have ever made. I have pointed out that we all make certain sorts of mistakes, myself included, and there is no reason whatsoever to think that the forgers couldn’t have made similar mistakes, contrary to what Peter was arguing -- that somehow mistakes and historical inaccuracies were actually evidence of the diary's authenticity (a perverted syllogism worthy of Wonderland). I have certainly never said that because I make mistakes, the diary must be a forgery. This is ludicrous. And Peter known this and he is not arguing in good faith or fairly or responsibly, but simply caricaturing one of my positions for a misleading rhetorical effect. This is the sort of sleazy writing that occurs too often in the arguments of Paul Feldman, I fear, and which is starting to crop up more and more in Peter's prose as it begins to be clear that there is no case for the diary's authenticity and that there is nothing much behind his arguments except dreams and desires.
When writers give in to this sort of silliness and this sort of misrepresentation, when they simply refuse to read, it is a sign that there is no longer any serious thinking going on. Thoughtful people should probably begin to withdraw from such a conversation, but I am willing to ride the wave of craziness a bit longer only because I enjoy the giddiness of the movement.
Peter also writes of Dr. Bond, well after the invalid reading and faulty conclusion he draws from the passage he cites from Shirley's book (John H is correct, of course, the passage says nothing about Florie fooling around and is utter hearsay and proof of nothing and anyone with any ability to read can see that for themselves), but Peter gives us no evidence whatsoever that Dr. Bond's notes on the positions of the organs in the room are in any way wrong and he does not address the evolution of the McCarthy story told to the press, which was never offered as evidence of anything at the time (unlike the Doctor's report), nor does he address the conclusions of Philip Sugden, who has studied McCarthy's tales to the press and concluded that they are "worthless as evidence" and "inaccurate" concerning the distribution of body parts in the room. Consequently, the historical record clearly supports the doctor and does not support the diary and the diary once again demands that history be rewritten -- just like it does so often -- for it to be rescued from the oblivion of its own prosaic silliness.
Peter, of course offers us not a single new piece of evidence or material or data of any sort to advance any of his positions.
Finally, there are two more paragraphs that simply mislead.
"But this is J.O.'s conclusion: "The forger or forgers wrote the diary". And then he accuses me of reaching my conclusion before examining the evidence. Now that really is rich ...
Let's be very clear and watch the logic at work.
Peter's position:
A.) If the diary is historically accurate, this is evidence that James must have written it.
B.) If the diary is historically inaccurate, forgers would not have made such mistakes, therefore this too is evidence that James must have written it.
You see the inevitability of the assumed conclusion no matter what the evidence? I think you do.
My position is not simply the reverse, despite Peter's misleading prose. I do not say that if the diary is historically accurate, that would also be evidence of it being a forgery. Clearly, it would not be. That would not be evidence of it being a forgery at all. If the diary is historically inaccurate, that would be evidence of its being a forgery.
The diary is often historically inaccurate. This is evidence that it is a forgery.
So my position is that one thing would be evidence of it being a forgery and another thing (its opposite) would not be evidence of it being a forgery.
Peter's position is that one thing would be evidence of it being authentic and another thing (its opposite) would also be evidence of it being authentic.
One of these positions obviously assumes the inevitability of its conclusion no matter what the premises. The other position does not.
Can you tell me which is which, Peter?
One of these positions is logical, therefore, and one is not. One of them is a valid argument and the other is a circular tautology.
I hope that is clear.
Finally, I humbly amend Peter's mischaracterization of my position on the race account to read accurately:
I do have a difficult time accepting the opinion that it is entirely possible for someone to be within hundreds of yards of someone else and use the term "LESS than a few feet" as an expression to quantify the space between them. Why? NOT because I already assume the diary is a forgery. That's just Peter not reading and telling lies about me again. Actually, it's because I believe there is a difference between being the distance of a walk up the racecourse from someone and being “less than a few feet” from someone and I am not convinced that these phrases are accurately or simply interchangeable.
Two people tell you a story. In one, the person tells you that Bill was back on a bus, never closer than the distance of a walk up the racecourse from his friend that day. In the other, the person tells you that Bill was less than a few feet from his friend that day.
I say that those two stories conflict. I say that those stories do not agree with one another.
The diary conflicts with history. And this is not the only time it does so. And the magic act that is necessary to make the diary align with history, or the violent rewriting of history necessary to accomplish this feat, is evidence itself of the unlikelihood of the diary's authenticity.
Of course, the fact that it cannot be linked in any way whatsoever by anyone on the planet to its supposed author and the fact that it is not even written in the handwriting of its supposed 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.
Meanwhile, I see my own positions being written into utterly unrecognizable forms in the unfortunate post from Peter above. This is a sign, perhaps, that his own case for this book's authenticity has deteriorated into a simple game of schoolyard rhetoric.
I find that sad.
Hoping the discussion can be more productive, I wish you all the best,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 06 February 2002 - 08:00 am | | Hi John,
You addressed and agreed with my point about the author of the diary being capable of making mistakes when reading and writing, whatever standard of literacy he/she has attained and however careful he/she may try to be. Thank you.
But you got a bit bogged down in replying to Peter to address the rest of my post. And in that reply to Peter, you touched again on the point you had made before by writing:
'I do have a difficult time accepting the opinion that it is entirely possible for someone to be within hundreds of yards of someone else and use the term "LESS than a few feet" as an expression to quantify the space between them.'
I understand your difficulty. My own argument has similarities. I have a difficult time accepting that, when our forger wrote "a few feet", and in the same sentence reduced the distance further, by using the term "LESS than a few feet" as an expression to quantify the space between them, he was making a simple mistake of reading and writing, if he couldn't have read anything like that in his source material. Surely he had to be inventing, and even emphasising, this detail.
As I said before, it's not a question of the forger simply not realising he was launching himself into a mistake of reading and writing here. It's like he was totally reckless about quantifying a distance he could not have read about, or even imagined he'd read about, anywhere.
He had two choices - to read the passage in Ryan, who, as you say, takes the trouble to point out that James did not go with the others to see the prince and also tells us about Florie's "return" and James's scolding her for "being away too long", indicating that James was not ever "less than a few feet" from HRH; or not to read the passage in Ryan.
Yes, he could easily have read it quickly and missed the basic meaning and gone on to make an unintentional mistake in the diary. But could he reasonably have attached almost the opposite meaning and seriously believed Maybrick to be virtually standing next to HRH? And if that's unlikely, or he hadn't read the passage at all, would he have reasonably invented such a precise distance with nothing to guide him - unless his plot device was everything?
To take it to extremes to more clearly illustrate my point, had he written "I measured the distance between us and 'twas but eleven and a half inches", would you still argue that your best reading is that the forger made a silly mistake in reading and writing? My reading would still be that this was a deliberate invention, because he couldn't possibly have mistaken anything he could have read in Ryan or anywhere else to such a degree.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 06 February 2002 - 04:31 pm | | Hi Caz,
You write:
"Surely he had to be inventing, and even emphasising, this detail."
But not simply out of whole cloth. That's my point. He read about the race. He read about Alf and Florie being there -- so it was a good chance for his "James" to do the whoremaster bit. 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. The fact that the real James was never near the Prince makes the account historically inaccurate. But I can easily see why a forger, especially this forger (with his penchant for cheese), reading Ryan, would have seen the opportunity for this little bit of melodrama and stuck it in, perhaps not even realizing how he had contradicted the very source he had read (or simply not caring). After all, he lets the Mike-as-versifier silliness roll on despite the history and creates the unlocatable murders in Manchester, and turns Abberline into a literary emblem for the various authorities (and the star of a particularly hackneyed dream sequence), and all that other goofiness, so this little mistake and or slip from history in the name of drama wouldn't surprise me a bit.
You ask me:
"Yes, he could easily have read it quickly and missed the basic meaning and gone on to make an unintentional mistake in the diary. But could he reasonably have attached almost the opposite meaning and seriously believed Maybrick to be virtually standing next to HRH?"
Sure, absolutely, especially in the throes of composition and in the reverie of his love with his own melodrama. Sure. Or he failed to recognize or just paid no attention to the apparent conflict -- perhaps he figured it would be excused away by his readers. Why not?
You say:
"My reading would still be that this was a deliberate invention, because he couldn't possibly have mistaken anything he could have read in Ryan or anywhere else to such a degree."
Sure he could have. I could see it happening easily in just the way I describe above, once our writer got rolling. The contradiction could have slipped right by him. Or he could have done it deliberately, preferring melodrama over history and being unable to resist the temptation. 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. Whether he slipped for the sake of melodrama and stuck James close to the Prince even though the real one wasn't or whether he did it deliberately knowing the history but not caring about it or figuring people would just come up with some sort of semi-reasonable explanation ("it's James mysteriously exaggerating in his own private diary" or "he doesn't really mean what he says, it's just the vagaries of language" or something like that) despite the fact that the history once again simply contradicts the diary; it doesn't really matter all that much. Because in all these cases, what we have is evidence that the writer was creating a character and that the character was never at the real event referred to in the book and therefore it is evidence that the book is not authentic.
And so I'm not exactly sure what we're really arguing about a this point , since we seem to agree on that conclusion. But do press on if I haven't answered all of your questions.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 06 February 2002 - 05:52 pm | | Hi John. Hi Caz. Hi everybody.
John, I'm not trying to misrepresent you. Your meaning from your words is quite clear. Many times you have stated your belief that the diary is a forgery. This little quote will do to sum things up ...
"But I can easily see why a forger, especially this forger (with his penchant for cheese)".
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. You are arguing from an assumed position - it would be very difficult for you to see anything of any value to the diary in the context of it's discussion on the Grand National because you are already convinced the diary is a forgery. And cheesy. Hmmm.
If the diary says something that agrees with the historical record? It's very rare that we can even agree on that, John!
If the diary says something that doesn't agree with the historical record? Surely it's our duty and responsibility to investigate such anomalies? Not just accept that the 'diarist' has made a mistake. 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.
Like on the issue of the rings and the farthings, for instance.
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. 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. But you don't mention that. We are told that St Gerard's handwriting matches the diary, but it doesn't if we don't get the chance to examine it. It's that convincing that Melvin won't show it to anyone.
You don't have a match in handwriting. You don't have a motive (remember those who have made a financial gain don't have handwriting that matches the diary). You can't even make up a plausible expalanation. But you seize on the Crashaw quote as 'proof' when it should be clear to you that Mike could not possibly have been the provider of it for the diary text and, although it remains vaguely possible, it is highly unlikely that anyone else Mike knew read the Sphere guide.
So, in fact, you have ...nothing.
John Hacker.
" ...who tho' after his marriage did not lead a happy life at home, was always trying to take a generous view of his wife's shortcomings ..."
Come on John. You really should be working for Tony Blair as a spin doctor. Are you Peter Mandelson in disguise? The statement quite clearly points out that Maybrick was happy until his marriage, and was unhappy after it. What were the shortcomings? Well, it couldn't be housework or cooking, they had servants to do that. The only thing that a wife was any good for back then - her wifely duties - Florie was sharing with other people. Don't try to deny it. James knew it. So did his friends. So do you.
And leave Hear'Say out of it. They've got enough problems of their own.
On that note could everyone please vote for Will this weekend as the guy is pure class. The best singer since Frank Sinatra without a doubt.
Cheers
Peter. |
|
|
|
|
