|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 27 February 2002
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
TIME FOR A RE- EVALUATION!:
Archive through 27 February 2002
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 04:40 pm |        | | Chris, Caz--Thanks for the additional information. After I posted, it suddenly dawned on me that I was in a muddle and that there must be two entirely different projects concerning the Maybrick mystery. Thanks, RP |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 05:48 pm | | Hi John
Good questions. I still don't get the big preoccupation with Mike's finances.
Wasn't he on invalidity benefit before the diary got published? What's that? £100 per week? Less?
Believe me John, I'm talking from experience here, when you've had no money and then you get some (a shed load at that) you tend to go a little crazy with it. Mike could have gone to the bookmakers and gambled several hundred pounds at a time. He might have splashed out on presents for friends. All you know is that the money left Mike's bank - you don't know where it went. Until you do then everything else on that subject is pure speculation.
And so to this:
"Now if this was really the killer writing this, one might expect his first murder to be his most vivid and the recollections of it to be rather detailed. But let's let that pass".
Exactly why should one expect the first murder to be the most vivid?
Isn't it a trait of serial killers that they start off small and end up big? Wouldn't it then fit that, in relation to the first murder, he would have very little to say? "Yep, I strangled her ...err, that's it".
The second Manchester murder was always going to be an anti climax. The mood of the diarist when the 2nd MM takes place fits perfectly with this premise. He had peaked with MJK and could never realistically expect to reach those heights again.
I must own up to being confused as to your allusion to "red stuff". Could you elaborate further?
But to this -
"Or where exactly James cooked and ate his kidney (Shirley suggests the whole diary could have been written in James's office, but "James" talks about having the organ right in front of him -- is he cooking and eating his human kidney somehow on a hot plate in his office (were there even hot plates then)?"
- I do have an answer.
The diarist does not claim to have Eddowes' kidney 'in front of him'. Ever.
What he does claim to have done is this:
"Maybe I will take some part away with me to see if it does taste of like fresh fried bacon"
then
"I was vexed with myself when I realised I had forgotten the chalk. So vexed in fact that I returned to the bitch and cut out more. I took some of it away with me. It is in front of me. I intend to fry it and eat it later".
It is true that Shirley has speculated that JM wrote the whole of the diary in his office. That is of course just speculation. But the diary isn't at odds with that theory. The diarist doesn't claim to have 'kidneys' in front of him. In fact the relevant section is written before the description of the Double Event ending in Eddowes' murder. He is in fact referring to Annie Chapman's murder. Quite what he cut out is open to discussion. And yes, he may be sitting in his office, and yes, the piece of flesh may be in front of him (he says it is), but he says "I intend to fry it and eat it later".
So there is no evidence to suggest that James was waiting until Lowry turned his back before frying up a few body parts.
But interestingly enough, Paul does describe an instance when Lowry was sent out of the office to buy a pan in which to warm Maybrick's Revelenta. Clearly there were cooking facilities at the office.
I await your comments with interest. Once again you fail to trip the diary/diarist up.
Cheers
Peter |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 06:27 pm | | Peter,
It can never be a question of tripping the diarist up. We are reading, and as you have so ably and sadly demonstrated, there are always ways around reading, other possible readings to explain away inconveniences.
Watch what follows.
You write:
"Exactly why should one expect the first murder to be the most vivid?
"Isn't it a trait of serial killers that they start off small and end up big?"
I never said anything about the murder being big or small, I talked about the killer's recollections of his first killing being vivid, that is, engrained in his mind, worth writing about in some detail in his diary, which was after all designed to serve as a confession of his murders. The first experience of taking a life -- and yet we get almost nothing. You say it's because the writer had nothing to say. I suggest it could be because this murder never even happened, so there were no details to write from, nothing in the books in front of our author, and his imagination couldn't come up with any. Later, when he had details from books, he suddenly "remembered" stuff. And as he came to murders with more details available, he suddenly "remembered" more stuff. And when he got to a murder in the series that didn't have any details already available, he again remembered and wrote almost nothing. What a strange coincidence that his memory matches exactly the availability of historical information. And through it all he does not ever remember a single verifiable thing that was not already publicly available information. How odd.
Come on, Peter. Read the text closely and you'll see just what I mean. (And then you'll try and explain it away without once offering any evidence that supports your reading historically in any way.)
And Peter, are you actually denying that the diarist ever talks about eating a victim's kidney? You don't remember the references to this (there are several)?
But even that is beside the point.
Because you are seriously telling me that "James" was just sitting in his own business office with a piece of his victim on the desk in front of him, happily writing in his diary, yes? What piece from Annie Chapman might this be, Peter?
And, according to the diary, he most certainly did eat whatever this was in front of him, Peter. The diary tells us that. "I ate all off it, it did not taste like fresh bacon but I enjoyed it never the less. She was sweet and pleasurable." (The prose is priceless -- Do you really believe this stuff, Peter? Sometimes, I just have to ask.)
So where exactly did he cook her? Is he frying human flesh in his business office, Peter? Is he chasing the servants from his own kitchen to cook Annie up? Are you serious about any of this?
It's amazing.
And do you know there were cooking facilities in the office, or is this another of Paul's "speculations?"
Your reading never ceases to amaze me, Peter.
Thanks,
--John
"She was sweet and pleasurable."
--the character of "James" in the diary, on eating a chunk of Annie Chapman. |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 06:52 pm | | "Because you are seriously telling me that "James" was just sitting in his own business office with a piece of his victim on the desk in front of him, happily writing in his diary, yes? What piece from Annie Chapman might this be, Peter?"
I'm afraid you've boobed here John.
I have never said any such thing. I did own up to Shirley's theory that James wrote the whole of the diary in his office, but that is just Shirley's theory - and the part about Annie Chapman's piece of flesh is not at odds with that theory.
The diarist simply says that he has it in front of him, but you twist the words to place it in the office. You twist the words to say that he cooked the flesh in his office. But don't deny that you were wrong about the kidneys, the diarist - on the occasion that you were referring to, in his office - does not claim to be writing of a kidney. In fact he makes it pretty clear that he ain't.
"And, according to the diary, he most certainly did eat whatever this was in front of him, Peter. The diary tells us that. "I ate all off it, it did not taste like fresh bacon but I enjoyed it never the less. She was sweet and pleasurable." (The prose is priceless -- Do you really believe this stuff, Peter? Sometimes, I just have to ask".)
Do I believe that serial killers eat their victims? Yes, of course I do, witness Chikatilo, Dahmer etc etc. Ask as many times as you like, I'll always stand by that.
So the diarist has not made a mistake. You had him in his office, looking at a piece of kidney, then frying it and eating it. But the diarist says no such thing.
You haven't even established that he was in his office.
The piece of flesh was from Annie Chapman and couldn't have been Eddowes' kidney.
The diarist clearly states " ...fry it later", thus inferring that he won't be doing it where he is.
The reference to the cooking facilities in James' office, I believe, came from statements made at Florie's trial. A statement that Lowry made. Not me. Not PHF. Lowry. If he was sent out to buy a pan then there had to be cooking facilities, right? You have to admit that much.
I do take your point on the first and last Manchester murders. I guess we'll just agree to disagree on that point. You can't have it both ways John. When the diarist writes something that can't be verified, you say he made it up. When he writes something that can be verified you simply quote a source that the 'forger' must have used. The diarist had an imagination (if he was a forger) - surely he could have invented details surrounding a fictitional murder? Why not? He'd hardly be tripping himself up on the historical record.
But with the matter of the flesh that didn't taste like fresh fried bacon ...I suggest you read the diary again. I know I'm right on that point.
"And Peter, are you actually denying that the diarist ever talks about eating a victim's kidney? You don't remember the references to this (there are several)?"
No, I'm not denying that. I'm just denying that it happened at the time you have it happen, in the way that you have it happen. I've demonstrated that clearly enough. It would be nice of you to concede that point, at least.
Be careful of using words like 'several', you'll have Caz getting her calculator out!
Regards
Peter |
Author: david rhea
Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 07:04 pm | | | I said awhile back that a man who thought he had every disease anybody talked about and took all kinds of medicines for them could not be eating parts of diseased and not very clean people.The word I used was hypochondria, but that was shot down with the information that hypochondria was a trait of many serial killers. With Maybrick though there is no proof that he had this trait because of some insecurity in his raising.It came later in his life with a bout with malaria.A man so concerned with his health to make an obsession of it could not dine on such cuisine wherever he cooked it.There is no proof from my reading that Maybrick had periods of not being aware of who he was or thought or that he suffered from multiple personalities. |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 09:46 pm | | John Omlor,
I agree with you that the lack of detail in regards to the Manchester murder is significant. There's virtually nothing there. It's a bit of a stretch to believe that the writer planned on killing a woman, did so, felt dissatisfied with the experience that he's been longing for, and then spends less than 35 words describing the experience in his diary. Why wasn't it satisfying? It obviously didn't live up to his fantasies, so what went wrong? He doesn't even seem to be particularly upset by the experience, or his own lack of enjoyment. There's no insight there whatsoever.
And then of course, we get a bit of cheap melodrama about how he's like to throw acid on them and watch them scream. We get a number of little bits like that in the diary where the author suggests that he'd like to inflict pain. Of course the historical JtR didn't appear to driven by a impulse to cause pain, only to kill quickly and play with the remains.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 14 February 2002 - 10:01 am | | Peter,
You wrote:
"And yes, he may be sitting in his office, and yes, the piece of flesh may be in front of him (he says it is), but he says 'I intend to fry it and eat it later'.
That's why I asked you:
"Because you are seriously telling me that 'James' was just sitting in his own business office with a piece of his victim on the desk in front of him, happily writing in his diary, yes? What piece from Annie Chapman might this be, Peter?"
That does not seem to be a misreading of what you wrote above. Is it? So what piece of Annie was there on the desk, Peter?
(And if you don't really believe this, if you were just standing up for Shirley, then please explain how you think this was happening.)
And yes, I agree that in the diary it can't be Kate's kidney at this point. But he talks and jokes repeatedly about eating kidney, echoing the letter we all know about, at times later in the diary. I can cite the lines if you want. Remember “by eating cold kidney for supper”?
And there is no doubt that the diary has him actually eating this part of Annie somewhere. I quoted the relevant passage. So did he cook it up right there in the office using Lowry's pan or did he take the juicy bit home and chase the staff out of the kitchen and give the cook the night off and fry a piece of Annie up himself? Do you really see the real James Maybrick, Victorian businessman and owner of Battlecrease, going down into the kitchen, shooing the staff and cooking his victim in his own house? Or even in his business office? And then writing "She was sweet and pleasurable." This is the scenario you are telling me actually happened?
That's wonderful.
And when asked you if you really believe this stuff, Peter, I wasn't asking about the cannibalism part, I was asking about the prose used to describe it.
This is how the diary has Jack the Ripper write about eating a part of his victim:
"I ate all off it, it did not taste like fresh bacon but I enjoyed it never the less. She was sweet and pleasurable."
I was asking if sometimes you don't just find the writing itself, the goofiness and forced melodramatics and awkwardness of the simulated prose, just a little bit insulting to your intelligence as a reader. But never mind. I think I know the answer to that one.
Keep reading your diary, everyone. There are more than a few similar laughs.
--John (who is now singing to himself, in honor of Three Dog Night, "I've got pieces of Annie, it's a morning in May")
PS: Someday we should talk about the peculiar spelling and grammar mistakes and changes in this little book. The writer screws up some simple little things, almost deliberately, but then spells stuff like “pleasurable” correctly and uses, in other places, overly formal and proper constructions, as if they were trying hard to make it sound old. But that would take a long and detailed reading. Perhaps over Spring break. |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 15 February 2002 - 10:20 am | | Hi, John:
I thought in your welcome multi-part treatise that amounted to a page-by-page reading of the Diary we did touch on the spelling idiosyncracies and the unusual constructions in the document, but I would welcome a separate discussion just focused on just this aspect. I would agree that some of the odd constructions are because the penman was trying to make the language sound antiquated. I also think that other oddities are due to imperfect reading of the Ripper and Maybrick case literature. I recently mentioned that I believe the passage where "Maybrick" says he was trying to "down a whore" is a misreading of the 25 September 1888 Dear Boss letter writer's statement that he was "down on whores" and I am sure we can find other examples. Perhaps similarly, the writer has given us "Oh, costly intercourse of death" instead of using the poetic "O!" that appears in Crashaw's original poem.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 15 February 2002 - 01:41 pm | | Hi John (O),
'And Mike going through over 16,000 pounds of diary money alone in just three months is more than just wild spending. He was spending it on something and there was nothing to show for it that anyone could see. There are problems here.'
If Mike had been promised diary money for any length of time before he actually saw any (as I believe was the case), and if, just as a for instance, he had somehow been financing a spending spree stretching over as many as, say, 18 months, while waiting for his royalty payments to filter through, there wouldn't have been anything 'to show for it that anyone could see', if he was simply paying back, over the 3 months you mention (March-May 1994), £16,000's worth of debt he could easily have run up by then. Even in those days, £16,000 over 18 months wouldn't have been a huge amount for someone like Mike to get through, especially if he was banking (literally) on getting rich out of the diary and not having to join the nine-to-fivers, or survive on invalidity benefit for the foreseeable future.
Where the diarist appears to others to be trying much too hard to make his work sound old, I agree that Peter has a problem if he is going to argue that this is not the case. But, just out of interest, where you quote:
"I ate all off it, it did not taste like fresh bacon but I enjoyed it never the less. She was sweet and pleasurable",
and then write:
'I was asking if sometimes you [Peter] don't just find the writing itself, the goofiness and forced melodramatics and awkwardness of the simulated prose, just a little bit insulting to your intelligence as a reader',
I'd like to know how you imagine a real killer, or even someone fantasising about doing such things, might have written this down. In what way would you expect their efforts with prose (leaving aside for now any argument that someone like this wouldn't write about it in the first place) to come across as non-goofy, unforced, non-melodramatic and natural-sounding?
Just wondering.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 15 February 2002 - 02:02 pm | | Hi, John and Caz:
I don't have Shirley's Hyperion edition in front of me, but does the diarist actually write, "I ate all off it," or is this a typo on your part, John, where the wording in the Diary actually reads "I ate all of it"? Just want to clarify that. If it actually does read "all off it" this is a passage with two oddities: "all off it" when he meant "all of it" and "never the less" which should be all one word, "nevertheless." If both of these errors were the penman's they may betoken hastiness in the case of the first error. Possibly the writing of "never the less" might be a reflection of the forger's educational background. Thoughts, anyone?
Have a great weekend, Caz and John and everyone!
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 15 February 2002 - 02:12 pm | | John, Chris, Caz, t'other John.
John
So what are we really discussing here? Not which body part James/the diarist has in front of him. Not which victim that body part came from. Not even the location of the events really?
You ask:
"Do you really see the real James Maybrick, Victorian businessman and owner of Battlecrease, going down into the kitchen, shooing the staff and cooking his victim in his own house?
In all honesty, John, and this may surprise you - but NO, I don't. I find it VERY hard to imagine. I try to picture James Maybrick scuttling out of Miller's Court at 6.a.m. with his bundle of knives. I find it hard to picture him knelt over, in the darkness, dissecting Kate Eddowes' in Mitre Square. But John, to put this in context - I find it very hard to imagine anyone doing any of those things.
But somebody did.
So it matters not what I can and can't imagine. You perceive James Maybrick as a moral and upstanding Victorian Cotton Merchant. And if that were true then you are right, it is very hard to 'imagine' him committing the ripper murders in the awful fashion in which we know that they happened.
But I think you are being unfair John. You paint a picture of James that you can't back up with fact. PHF and Shirley paint a different picture of James, and they can back that up with fact. He was a drug addict. He beat his wife. He was hypochondriacal (witness the number of visits to his doctor). He was once arrested for the murder of a Liverpool prostitute.
O.k. I made that last one up, just to amuse David Rhea.
Let's see if he notices.
I find it hard to imagine any of the things that take place in the world today. In the last week, a 22 year old man from Bolton has been arrested on the suspicion of murdering a 7 year old boy. Let me say that again, a 7 year old boy.
Echoes of Bradford during the ripper scare?
It is, by it's nature, unimaginable. Nobody should do those things. But somebody does.
And just because I can't 'imagine' James Maybrick doing them, doesn't make him a weaker candidate than anyone else.
I am tired, I should be in bed. A hard day at work and a thrilling lunchtime game of snooker (where I got through to the semi finals of the works tournament - did I ever explain snooker to you John? It's like pool, only the table's bigger). But tonight her royal highness wishes to go out. So I expect I won't be posting before tomorrow.
Regards to all.
Peter. |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 15 February 2002 - 06:25 pm | | Hi all,
Peter Wood writes, concerning the character of "James Maybrick" doing things like disemboweling prostitutes as some sort of revenge against his adulterous wife and, at some point, either in his own place of business or in the kitchen of his big house, after somehow getting rid of the servants, cooking up a still unidentified piece of Annie Chapman and eating her:
"And just because I can't 'imagine' James Maybrick doing them, doesn't make him a weaker candidate than anyone else."
No, the fact that there is not a single piece of real evidence anywhere in the world that links the real James in any way, shape, or form to this diary or to these crimes -- the fact that no one has ever found even a small item of any evidentiary value whatsoever that ties the real James Maybrick in any way to these murders -- the fact that no one has ever been able to link the real James Maybrick in any way to this alleged diary -- the fact that no one has ever been able even to place this diary in the right century, let alone the right place and time -- the fact that there is simply no valid or supportable reason whatsoever to suspect that the real James Maybrick had anything at all to do with this book, which is not even written in his handwriting, or with these crimes -- the fact that there is not a single piece of evidence at all against the real James Maybrick, anywhere...
That's what makes him not only a "weak" candidate, but a pathetically irrational one.
By the way, Peter, exactly which part of Annie Chapman was the book’s "James" chewing on, anyway?
Chris,
Yes, the diarist writes "off" and "never the less." Neither were typos, they are just more silly mistakes by a diarist who has no problem, at the same time, getting much harder things right grammar and spelling-wise, when they want to. And it isn't even a sort of simulated drug-induced craziness, since the prose is wrong in silly ways and yet proper and correct in the very same sentence or two.
Caz,
"She was sweet and pleasurable"? It just sounds tinny to me, like a hollow phrase that is empty and does not carry any immediate sensory experience behind it. Much of what the diarist writes seems to lack specific sensory detail or the immediacy of powerful memories. It sounds "told." This would seem to argue against the speaker really writing his first hand memories down in his own diary as they happen to him. But maybe that's just me, as reader, and my ear.
I guess what I'm saying is that I would expect, from someone who actually had done some of these things, or even a half-decent fiction writer, some visible recreation of sensory detail as he writes his recent memories and some immediacy to the language and some suggestion of first hand experience. I get none of that in the diary prose, personally. I get vagaries and shallow melodrama and simple cliché and bad poetry and echoes of the letters in awkward and forced ways and historical inaccuracies and pop psychology and traces of already published Ripper literature and not a single new, verifiable piece of information anywhere in the book.
But you knew all that already.
As to Mike and his spending and what there was to show for it all, I'm still working on such things. But there does seem to me to be real questions attached to the diary money.
More later. I must grade for a couple of days.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 16 February 2002 - 06:44 am | | THE ILLUSIONS ONCE MORE MELVIN HARRIS
Dear Robert Smith:
I am not on internet; I have very little free time, and to reply means I have to impose on other people, so try looking back on my earlier posts; they answer many of the points you raise. (This applies to others as well.) As it is, you now misunderstand things once more. Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough. First, no quantative analysis was sought since I was not interested in knowing how much of EACH substance was present in the tiny amount of ink-on-paper available. Second, my prior understanding of the extraction problems meant that the amount of any chloroacetamide discovered was not important. The question asked was the one posed by Voller: "Is it there?"
Now look at your maths again. Your 3.28 is just wild. Voller's formula is qualified with a capital W. Right, this means that in 100 grams of ink 92.08 grams will be water, so we forget that. This leaves 7.92 grams of the eight essential substances needed to create a 100 gram batch of his ink. Of that 7.92 grams, just 0.26 grams are chloroacetamide. But even that figure is not quite accurate since the purity level of the chloroacetamide has to be established. For example, that chemical, as sold by Aldrich is 98% pure. Then added to the dried ink mass will be the weight of any substance shed from the water itself. However, if we accept the 0.26 grams present in that 100 gram batch as a starting point, you can see that the amount present in the AFI ink samples was tiny indeed since their samples weighed less than 0.0000583g. And since neither you, nor I, nor AFI, can know just how much of that tiny amount dissolved out in the limited time, no extended use can be made of any measurements derived from the AFI tests. That lab was not looking at the ink as such but for ONE item in a mixture of extracts derived from that ink. The ratios between any of the substances extracted were unknown, but they would certainly fail to mirror those of the original ink formula. Now until you grasp the problems arising from the differing extraction rates, you will never be able to see where your thinking is going wrong. Even so, the AFI test was merely to establish the PRESENCE of one compound and nothing else. It did that.
You state that Leeds failed to find Chloroacetamide, but you forgot to mention that they ALSO failed to find sodium, which Dr. Eastaugh found in every test.
You ask about the special batch of ink made up by Voller. I never had any, since I was never in touch with him. But he wrote to Nick Warren at the end of 1994 stating that he was sending Nick half the batch and the other half would go to Mrs. Harrison for her and you to test on Diary paper. This is the ink used on Nick's test letter of Jan. 26th 1995. My letter of 25th October was not written in Diamine ink; if it had been I would have recorded that fact. It simply shows the swift ageing affect of dilution of a pure iron gall ink; one without any dyestuffs. And yes, you shall have a colour photocopy of Nick's test letter, as soon as I get a chance to have one made. Bear in mind though, that it is written on hard-surfaced paper quite unlike the softish thick paper of the Diary. A simple comparison cannot be made. What you can see is the NATURE of the changes that time can produce.
My quote from Voller is from HIS LETTER to me. He is accepting that his ink can alter fast, even though different circumstances will govern such changes. And I do not quote from phone chats with him since I spoke to him TWICE ONLY BACK IN 1994. These were very brief, purely technical exchanges. Which fact makes Mrs. Harrison's recent slur look pretty ugly. On this board she said that with Voller she had "...actually backed off discussing things when I realised that he was becoming increasingly irritated with Melvin's telephone manner." I have relayed these words to Voller, who comments: "I can confirm that you have only contacted me twice by telephone and in fact can only vaguely recall the conversations in question, so I doubt if I found any great cause to get agitated about them at the time. Nor would I have said that Mrs Harrison ever gave me the impression of "backing off". I had many telephone conversations with her which took us along quite a few little-travelled byways of chemistry and ink technology. There were occasional gaps when some weeks would go by without any contact, but it was always my impression that this was because there was nothing new to say, rather than that she was afraid to ask."
And there it is, another grand lie in full perspective. Following those two calls of mine, Mrs. Harrison made mMANY calls, week after week, well throughout the next year. I am sure you would have known of these actions of hers, thus I trust you would now like to sisassociate yourself from her remarks.
As for the facsimile display in Liverpool, I take it that you have forgotten that in one of our conversations I asked if the Diary had been shown around in Liverpool, at the British Legion and other venues. You mentioned the security aspect. I said that a dummy version (a matching case with blank paper inards) could be displayed. Someone in Liverpool must have seen the exterior before 1992, whether they owned it or not.
The lack of variety in the Diary ink is a bit of a teaser. On page 251 (para 1) the faker has Maybrick travelling to London and back with both the Diary and ink in his possession. A stupid idea of course, but logically, the ink bottle would be a small one. Yes, just one small bottle could certainly last for 63 pages but each time that bottle was opened it would alter the density of the ink. Over a year, this would show. (This thickening was a problem with iron-gall inks.) But this is just an aspect of farce in the faker's thinking.
I have dealt with the Kane issue earlier on. Please look back.
As for the Sphere book, it was given to Gray by Mike. Gray has now given it to me. Yes, you can certainly borrow it and show it to anyone you like. I will set out my terms, together with some extra details of this book's saga, as soon as I have some more free time. |
Author: Tee Vee
Saturday, 16 February 2002 - 07:39 am | | So whats this film like then ? "From Hell" Any good ? I just heard that in this movie he drives a horse and carriage ? who`s the suspect in it ? a horse drawn carriage ? or have i heard wrong?
Still havent finished the book Paul. Take care everyone.
Yours truly.
Tee |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 16 February 2002 - 08:29 am | | MESSAGE TO MELVIN HARRIS
That sounds very reasonable to me. Lets hope that Robert takes you up on examining the Sphere book.
Then we'll have something else to discuss in here and you can occasionally post via PB and IE on why Robert and Shirley are wrong on that book too.
As things stand we are never going to agree on how the tests already carried out can be interpreted. I suggest the only way forward would be for you, Shirley, Robert and PHF to get together, agree the parameters for a new set of tests, agree a way of paying for them, agree on a panel of people to interpret those results and then write the book so we can all get to see the results.
Why no internet connection? It's only £15 a month with AOL. £14.99 with B.T. £12.99 with Freeserve. Aren't your books selling as well as they used to?
What chances of all sides getting together to agree on a new set of tests? Hmmm ...
Regards
Peter. |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 24 February 2002 - 12:43 pm | | Hi guys
I've been away for a while due to ISP problems and you all seem to have been neglecting our good friend James Maybrick.
I'm still following John and Caz's discussion on the watch - without understanding how John reaches a lot of his "conclusions", but we'll leave that for the other board.
For now I would like to set a question regarding the psychopathology of the diary, if indeed that is the term to use.
The "experts" in that field have said that, on balance, the diary is more likely to be genuine. John Omlor has repeatedly said that the lack of genuine detail on each murder makes it suspect. John would expect the diarist to have written like Stephen King on acid.
I have to respect John's opinion, but I have to balance it against the opinions of the experts. The Manchester murders have come under attack for not being described in detail. But, as Shirley has it, wouldn't such 'try outs' be common amongst serial killers? And note that in the first murder he only strangles his victim, so there is no "ripping" to write of.
One more thing on the Manchester murders. Shirley writes "Police records are incomplete, coroners records have been destroyed ...". That set me thinking. Why would we expect to discover information on a previously undiscussed murder that happened over a hundred years ago?
The ripper files have been pillaged and are incomplete. If the Whitechapel murderer hadn't become known as 'Jack the Ripper' and created such a frenzy in the press, isn't it likely that we would struggle to find information on Nicholls, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, Kelly?
So why the problem with the Manchester murders?
Nice to see that you've all missed me. NOT.
Cheers
Peter. |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 24 February 2002 - 12:45 pm | | P.S. DISCLAIMER:
John Omlor has never actually said that he would expect the diarist to write like Stephen King on acid (if it were genuine). That's just me being controversial again.
C'mon John, get back into battle mode! Your team won today! |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 24 February 2002 - 02:27 pm | | Hi Peter,
Sorry, you'll have to do without me for a while longer (at least a week or two). I am in the midst of mid-term grading time and have a couple of hundred papers to get through before I can come back to talk about stuff on the boards. It always happens this time of the semester.
Just for a final quickie, though -- when you write:
"I have to respect John's opinion, but I have to balance it against the opinions of the experts."
What experts? Shirley is not an expert and the psychologists who have read the book have never said anything specifically about the lack of significant sensory details concerning the murders being in any way indicative of anything. There is no real evidence in this book that the writer did anything at all that he is writing about. Not a single new piece of verifiable information about any of the killings appears anywhere in the book. There's no compelling reason at all to assume this is all anything but pure fiction on the part of the writer -- especially since the book can neither be linked historically to its supposed author in any way nor placed even in the proper century.
And you say:
"The Manchester murders have come under attack for not being described in detail. But, as Shirley has it, wouldn't such 'try outs' be common amongst serial killers?"
But that's not a response to the criticism about the noticeably vague, markedly sketchy writing.
"And note that in the first murder he only strangles his victim, so there is no "ripping" to write of."
No, but there was a killing to write of, allegedly, the actual, physical act of murder -- his first, allegedly. Now read what the diary says about it.
No wonder it's so hard to take the prose in this book seriously.
But I have no time to cite and detail the passages and to discuss the problems I have with the clichéd and hackneyed and historically inaccurate writing in this silly little book.
Have a good time for a while without me, and I'll see you in another week or so, when the grading is finished.
Bye for now,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 25 February 2002 - 07:19 am | | Hi All,
Hi John,
For a 'silly little book', as you call it, it don't 'alf activate your thought processes, generate a wonderful lot of words and fire some powerful imaginations.
It's almost like you see it as having a life of its own - not a sick or evil one, but a 'silly little' one. Belittle it and it may go away? 
See you when you're done gradin'.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 25 February 2002 - 07:28 am | | Hi Caz,
What's silly in this little book is the prose. What's fascinating is the mystery of who wrote it and how and where and when and why. Even if there's no reason to think the real James had anything to do with it at all (and there's not), those questions remain interesting to me, of course.
And the book won't "go away" until those questions are answered. But their being still unanswered doesn't make the writing in the book any less silly.
So I guess I was belittling the prose, not the mystery.
Off to work,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 25 February 2002 - 10:27 am | | Hi John,
I'd be fascinated to know what our forger thinks or cares about your belittling of his prose.
Perhaps he is still far too busy laughing all the way to the bank, paying in those lovely £1,000 cheques Mike Barrett has made for him - that is, when Mike's not buggering up the forger's plans for filthy lucre by confessing to writing the silly prose himself, of course.
What beats me is why, in 1994, when his world was falling apart, anyone thinks Mike would still protect the very person who had started the chain of events that led to all this misery, and even more baffling, that he would pay this person for the privilege too, leaving himself with less than zero in the process.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 25 February 2002 - 12:23 pm | | Hi Caz,
I'm sure our forger(s) couldn't care less what I think of their prose.
I don't blame them for that.
And if Mike isn't our man and not laughing all the way to his (empty) bank account, then I'm not sure how our forgers are laughing all the way to any bank, since no one else except Anne and the Feldman and Harrison enterprises are seeing any money at all off this thing as far as I know.
Which brings us back to the mystery of motive. If it wasn't Mike and/or Anne who produced this thing, what prompted the forgers to do it anyway? And what happened to the original plan?
All unanswered questions, still.
As is, I agree, the question of why Mike would have been still protecting partners even in the midst of the late '94 mess (unless the carrot of film money, as some have suggested, was enough to keep him from blowing everything once and for all).
All these problems, and many more, remain. They are much more interesting than the words in the book, if you ask me.
On my lunch break,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 25 February 2002 - 02:50 pm | | Hi John,
Yep, still a whole load of unanswered questions - including how the carrot of film money, if it was enough to keep Mike from blowing everything in 1994, had altered shape for him by 1999, when he again 'threatened' to reveal all but didn't, and whether he still sees it dangling away in his mind's eye, just out of reach, or thinks it must have shrivelled up and rotted by now.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 26 February 2002 - 04:43 am | | Hi guys
Did I mention somewhere that the Great British Public were so convinced by Jeremy Beadle and Shirley that they voted MAYBRICK the most likely candidate to have been Jack The Ripper?
I feel vindicated at last. But where are they all? Why am I so alone in here?
A thought came back to me whilst watching the programme and refused to go away: Anne claims to have seen the diary in 1968/9. Her father even earlier. If we accept their evidence (and we have no reason not to) then the diary must must must be genuine.
The programme left me wondering what Mike Barrett's take on everything is these days? And I wonder if Feldy had loaded the studio audience with members of his family?
A late start to work today, so I thought I'd get this in early.
John: The expert? David Forshaw, I believe.
Sorry to hear you will be away from us for a while, but good to hear that you have a life outside of the boards.
Take care
Peter. |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 26 February 2002 - 07:54 am | | Peter,
At what stage are you (and the Great British Public) gonna realise that it was all a Beadle prank ???
You've been framed mate !!
A biased show is bound to have a biased conclusion....but wait, I've been here before....with Caz...time to get off the roundabout again....Why do I always get nauseous going round and around? 
Monty
|
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 26 February 2002 - 09:24 am | | Peter,
I trust you were joking.
If you truly feel "vindicated" by what the "great British public" votes in response to some television show, then you really do not understand the nature of evidence and historical analysis and careful argument and thorough research and rational thought.
If this is all you were after, we could have ended this discussion a long time ago. I would have granted you the wonderful Casebook poll results and you could have been happy.
Of course, if you think the way to determine the truth of a question is to let the great tv watching public vote on it, then your history is bound to be as bad as your logic.
That's not a method I would recommend for thinking, Peter. It's certainly not a method I would recommend for vidication. In fact, I would have been embarrassed to have even said such a thing. Even as a joke.
But that's just me.
And of course, you suggest we have no reason not to accept Anne and Billy's evidence.
Here's one:
They haven't offered any.
Anne has never given us one single piece of evidence of any kind whatsoever to support her story. Nothing. Not one piece. Ever. There can be no question of accepting their evidence, Peter. They have none.
Really, Peter. Sometimes it's just too easy.
All the best,
--John
PS: Dr. Forshaw never said anything specifically about the lack of significant sensory details concerning the murders being in any way indicative of anything. And there's still no compelling reason at all to assume this is all anything but pure fiction on the part of the writer -- especially since the book can neither be linked historically to its supposed author in any way nor placed even in the proper century. And my face isn't even close to blue yet. |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 26 February 2002 - 02:27 pm | | O.K. John.
What evidence do you think could possibly exist that Anne could unearth to back up her story?
Here's why I choose to believe Anne's story: Because you can't prove it's a lie. And you never will. Ever.
Seriously John, my post was supposed to say this: If Anne is telling the truth then the diary is genuine. If Anne is lying then the diary is a forgery.
It's that easy.
And no one has broken Anne's story.
Remarkable.
Monty: Not for the first time today you have made me smile! I would dread to think that old Jeremy could succeed in getting one over on me. If you watched closely Jeremy took the whole debate in good spirit, and even applauded the other commentators. He adopted a persona for the programme and it worked. And the programme wasn't biased. They just pointed out these facts:
1) Kosminski didn't speak English, just yiddish.
2) Gull was seventy one years old, had already had one stroke, and within a couple of years was to die from another.
3) Tumblety was arrested two days before the Kelly murder - and was later to 'abscond' to America where he lived happily and quietly with his sister for ten years. Hardly the behaviour of "The Ripper". Unless of course you subscribe to the theory that he temporarily stopped off in Nicaragua or Jamaica or wherever it was.
4) Robert was honest enough to admit that we don't have a match between the known handwriting of Maybrick and the writing in the diary. That could have been enough to put some people off, but they took into account Anne's evidence and the evidence provided by Albert's watch, and they made the right decision.
It was a thoroughly entertaining programme.
Regards etc
Peter. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 26 February 2002 - 03:08 pm | | I didn't see this TV show as we don't have cable or satelite. It seems to have had a pretty small audience considering that the Pop Idol vote (which I also did not see) netted several million. and from what I hear both on and off the boards was rather biased. Apparently the original idea was to feature Tumblety, Druitt, Kosminski and D'Onston. The producers swore blind that there would be no mention of The Diary. And then of course, things changed. In my experience it's unsafe to trust Attornies, Bankers, Real Estate Agents and TV Producers.
I would have been interested in seeing Anne Graham. I have heard the opinions of two persons who have met her; one being that she is honest and reliable and one that she is hard and ice-cold. Which is right? Would it have made a good show if Albert Johnson had actually produced the millionaire who has offered to buy the watch? If he has friends, I might be able to put him in the way of purchasing a small country, semi-detached with plenty of running water, 10 million bedrooms and three bathrooms. It comes with its own performing Assembly.
Incidentally, I have an email from Shirley where she thinks that it's probable that the £5,000 car actually was only £500. She also believes that there is "disappointingly
unsinister explanation for the withdrawals..." which she is investigating so we may be able to put that story to bed at some point. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 26 February 2002 - 03:21 pm | | "Seriously John, my post was supposed to say this: If Anne
is telling the truth then the diary is genuine. If Anne is
lying then the diary is a forgery."
Well obviously wrong because AG could still be telling the truth about it being in the family since at least the 1940's and it could still be an "old forgery." Equally, if she is lying in order to make her claim to the thing firm and to cut her ex-spouse out of things, then the thing could STILL be genuine and just have a mysterious provenance.
This is of course what makes Peter Wood so entertaining: his almost complete avoidance of logic and research method.
Certainly though, whether she is a saint or a sinner, the storys told by AG over the years have differed to such an extent that they can not all be true. |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 26 February 2002 - 07:19 pm | | Hi Peter W.,
You can, of course, "choose" to believe whatever you want. But there is simply no rational evidence of any kind to support Anne's story. There is no independent witness testimony to support it, no material evidence to support it, no documentary evidence to support it, and no historical evidence to support it. In fact, no one has ever been able to offer even a single piece of evidence of any kind that this book ever existed before the 1980's, let alone in the 1880's.
Not you, not Anne, not Billy, not Shirley, and certainly not Paul Feldman with all his "research." No one. Ever. That ought to tell us something.
Anne's story, of course, remains just that -- a story, without any meaningful or verifiable provenance behind it of any sort.
It would be nice if she had just a single piece of evidence of some kind that even suggests that she is telling the truth about the book having existed more than fifty years ago. She does not.
So your "choice" about what to believe is simply random and arbitrary -- and it remains completely and utterly meaningless until you or Anne or someone can offer at least one little piece of reasonable evidence to support the story in question.
Peter B. has demonstrated the patently illogical nature of your claim above. But not only is it illogical, it's also completely unsupported by any evidence.
And these seem to be the two characteristics that all claims for this book's authenticity have in common. They are blindingly illogical and completely unsupported by any real evidence whatsoever. By definition, that makes them worthless.
And once again Peter, the burden of proof remains on those, like Anne, claiming authenticity, since the diary remains a found twentieth century artifact until someone somehow can manage to place it in the other, proper century.
No one has, of course.
In fact, the burden of proof has not only not been met, it hasn't even been approached. There is still no case at all for considering this book authentic, since there is no evidence of any sort anywhere on the planet that links it in any way either to its supposed author or even to the proper century.
And Anne has never offered any evidence at all of any sort to support her particular story.
So "choose" to believe what you will -- but that choice will having nothing to do with any argument concerning what is the truth. Truth value is determined by an analysis of the evidence, and there is none at all to support the truth of this particular story. Until there is, it has no truth value, whether you believe it or not.
Hope that is reasonably clear.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 27 February 2002 - 05:36 am | | Hi All,
Hi Peter B,
You seem to have formed several opinions here about a programme you haven't seen and about people you haven't met, from - er - other people's opinions. I grant you that's all we can do to start with - if we are determined to form opinions and express them publicly, that is. But it would be a very good idea, in that case, to grasp any opportunities offered along the way to get our opinions first-hand.
I'd be very interested to see examples of exactly where you have found 'the storys [sic] told by AG over the years' to have 'differed to such an extent that they can not all be true'. I thought there were basically only two - the first where she knew no more than that Mike brought the diary into their home one day claiming to have been given it by Tony D, and the second where it had been in her family for years and she gave it to Tony to give to Mike.
Hi John,
I was fortunate enough to meet Anne at the LWT recording and we chatted for twenty minutes or so. And your post about there not being a shred of anything in support of her 'in the family' story, consistent since July 1994 as far as I am aware, reminds me of part of the conversation where Anne talked about the family tradition that Granny Formby had accompanied Alice Yapp to Florie's trial. If she was simply retelling a lie (the lie being the existence of such an oral tradition coming down through the Graham family) that she had told over and over again until she almost believed it herself, she did a good job of making it sound fresh and sincere and spontaneous, and - damn it - believable, when combined with the research that proves these women lived within half a mile of each other in the early 1880s. (Incidentally, Peter B used this living 'within half a mile of each other' line to suggest the modern forgery suspects could have known one another.) Perhaps Anne missed a great chance to make it as an actress, especially if she can come across as 'honest and reliable' to one person, and 'hard and ice-cold' to another. But are these characteristics even mutually exclusive anyway? Couldn't someone be basically honest and reliable, without being naturally all soft and warm and sociable with strangers at the same time? And let's face it, whether she is lying through her teeth, or telling a truth she knows can't be backed up, one thing Anne must be used to by now is talking to people who will automatically be watching her every word and her body language for signs of duplicity. Enough to make all but the most laid-back come across as defensive at the very least.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 27 February 2002 - 07:28 am | | Hi Caz,
You write:
"If she was simply retelling a lie (the lie being the existence of such an oral tradition coming down through the Graham family) that she had told over and over again until she almost believed it herself, she did a good job of making it sound fresh and sincere and spontaneous, and - damn it - believable, when combined with the research that proves these women lived within half a mile of each other in the early 1880s."
I'm sure all that you say is true. Of course, it's not actually evidence of anything at all. I'm sure Anne has told the story of this book many times and yes, perhaps she is quite good at telling it. But there is still no reliable evidence of any sort to support it. No one else, other than her (and perhaps her father), can ever remember seeing the book, there's no historical record of it ever having existed, there's not a single piece of documentary evidence or material evidence of any sort that links it to the past, the science can't place it in the past that Anne wants it placed in, there's no historical evidence in the book or attached to its provenance that supports her story, and all this still seems significant.
As I say, she may be very convincing when she tells her tale, and we can certainly choose to believe her because of that, but that will have no bearing on the actual truth value of her story -- which can finally and only be properly determined by an appeal to the evidence -- and right now the evidence to support the truth of that story is sadly lacking.
And of course, I don't know whether Granny and Alice knew each other or not. But that's not the part of the story that needs real support -- because even if it is true, it still doesn't establish the actual existence of this specific book prior to the 1980's. And that's the claim that seems to exist in a massive and remarkable vacuum of evidence. It remains perfectly possible that Granny and Alice might have known each other, or at least that there was an old story that they did, and that this book was still written sometime since 1980.
I'm glad Anne tells that part of her story well. Now if she could offer us some real evidence either that her story about the book being old is true or that this book has any link at all to the distant past, her story might begin to acquire some truth value. Until then, it remains completely uncorroborated and the book still has no fairly or reliably established provenance whatsoever. And that fact remains very important.
All the best,
--John
PS: My own personal opinion is that by now Anne might very well have come to believe the story about Granny and Alice, or at least believe that such a story has long existed, even if it is, in fact, the result only of the initial evolution of the diary investigation and Paul F's involvement. Desire is a powerful thing. |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 27 February 2002 - 08:27 am | | Peter,
You or Jeremys or whoevers points re Kosminski, Gull and Tumblety are valid. Against those suspects (with possible exception of Tumblety) I could have come up with a decent challenge for Sooty doing the deed.
I cannot help feel that Maybrick was chosen simply because of the 2 gimmicks, the diary and watch.
If it brings people to the debate though then thats great, let them join in.
Hopefully they then may realise its a high possibility that the diary had nothing to do with the Whitechapel murderer.
Now you know I dont like venturing down to the basement so I shall retreat up the stairs to the door and watch you lot from there.
Monty
You diarists make me shiver |
Author: Tee Vee
Wednesday, 27 February 2002 - 11:20 am | | Ok so lets play “forgery” ….
Our team of `conspirators’ must comprise at least … Anne Graham, Mike Barrett, Billy Graham, eleven year old Caroline Barrett, Albert Johnson, Tony Devereux, Richard Bark-Jones (Barrett`s solicitor) and Tom Cobbly and all.
One day, one of them suggests that a diary should be written, and signed `Jack the ripper’. As they come from Liverpool, Mr James Maybrick seems a good candidate.
Someone must`ve also decided that, instead of a watch being `found’ with the diary, Albert would have purchased it a `year ago’.
Now, they have to make sure that one of them understands Victorian English to the extent that they can even prove the `Oxford English Dictionary’ wrong. Someone else has to learn the art of metallurgy in order to implant a piece of copper that is decades old into scratches that they make using a complex process (the same people have J.O. engraved on the back of watch instead of J.M.)
Another reads up on the psychopathology of serial killers. Another becomes an arsenic addict to convince doctors that they understand the affects of such a habit. Of course, knowledge of graphology is required, whether the public believe it or not. Graphology experts interpret letters in a particular way, and our forgers have to make sure that they interpret them in the way they want to.
Maybe it was Anne, or Billy, who suggested a crash course in `How to write in a way that an ultra-violet test does not detect recent writing’ might be useful.
Who was going to learn how to speed up the transfer of ions from ink to paper? Oops! Someone had also better find out where to buy Victorian ink that is still usable. If they could not, of course, it did not matter, just make one up from an old formula using tap water. That will do.
Our team of geniuses achieves all this very quickly. Then they decide that perhaps it would be a good idea to look at the cases of James and Florence Maybrick and Jack the Ripper. If James is in New York or Liverpool or anywhere else at the time of Jack`s crimes then their efforts so far would be a waste of time. Still, that’s how the cookie crumbles. They read every book, newspaper and home office files on the Whitechapel murderer. They have to achieve this without being seen. Perhaps that is not entirely true. They may have collectively read and absorbed everything in one day, thereby not really being noticed.
To get the Maybrick files before anyone else, our team of evil, greedy forgers arranges with someone on the inside to get the material out. That way no-one would know that they have read them. The data is then computerised.
As this team have the ability to absorb everything they read instantly, they are able to know which books have references that are wrong and avoid only that information.
Billy, having read, and became an expert in, all local history while doing shifts at `Dunlop’, is aware that James Maybrick`s wife came out of prison, and by sheer fluke, called herself Mrs Graham, Although that is Billy`s surname, the team decides not to reveal this to the world immediately, simply implying that there is a relationship in order to keep everyone in suspence. Instead, tony Devereux agrees to die so that Mike can say the diary came from someone who could not be questioned.
Billy is perceptive. He considers that people may still not believe in the diary, and also agrees to die. He does of course , on his death bed, tell the world a blatent lie in order to protect his daughter from any implication of a hoax.
Now having gained enough scientific knowledge so that scientists would not be able to prove that the ink was put to paper between 1989 and 1992, and confirmed their tactics, they agree to start collating everything they can about the Ripper and James Maybrick.
Fortunately, although James Maybrick travelled all over the country, and visited his doctors like twenty times in the Autumn of 1888, and prescribed drugs were found all over the house, and he lived in liverpool, none of his movements seemed to prove that he could not of been in London at the time of the crimes.
This team were not just good: they were very, very lucky.
While they researched unnoticed at Colindale library and the P.R.O, they discovered things that no other author had noticed:
That the letter`s FM were on the wall in the room where Mary Kelly was murdered. Write it in the diary. It fits too. lucky.
That the inverted V`s cut into catherine Eddowes face look like an M. Write that in the diary. That fits too. Lucky.
That an empty tin match box had been excluded from the list of Eddowes belongings given to the media. Write it into the diary. Observant.
That a J as well as an M was on an envolope found at the scene of the Annie Chapman`s murder. Lucky. Write it into the diary
And so on. And so on.
They must have met up regular to consolidate their research. It must`ve been a secret location, as nobody has ever seemed to of seen them together.
Imagine how happy they were when they realised that the first two letters and last two letters of James Maybrick make Jack. When they realised that the evidence from the trial of florence Maybrick was supressed – about James. And he had lived on the edge of Whitechapel. And worked there. And that a drawing in the `Daily Telegraph’ on 6th October 1888 look just like him.
Somehow, Billy arranges for his sister and his father to bear a striking resembalance to Florence Maybrick, and for his father to be born in the year that Florence was in England. Lucky. Some might say.
… Where you have eliminated the impossible,
whatever remains, however improbable,
must be the truth.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 27 February 2002 - 12:17 pm | | Hi John,
‘…the science can't place it in the past that Anne wants it placed in…’
Well, if the science, or the circumstantial evidence, could place the marks in the Maybrick watch in the past (as in before Albert bought it in 1992), that would automatically do it for the diary too, wouldn’t it? And then it wouldn’t matter whether Anne ‘wants’ it placed anytime other than where it belongs. She could do damn all about it.
But we can still explore the troublesome timepiece over on t’other topic.
‘It remains perfectly possible that Granny and Alice might have known each other, or at least that there was an old story that they did, and that this book was still written sometime since 1980.’
Yes, but hardly likely, unless Anne was directly involved in the forgery. We can explore that one too if you like.
Hi Monty,
‘…the 2 gimmicks, the diary and watch…’
Yes, but whose 2 gimmicks be they? That be the question.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 27 February 2002 - 12:18 pm | | Hello Tee Vee,
Almost none of this would have had to have happened.
You begin by saying:
"Our team of `conspirators’ must comprise at least … Anne Graham, Mike Barrett, Billy Graham, eleven year old Caroline Barrett, Albert Johnson, Tony Devereux, Richard Bark-Jones (Barrett`s solicitor) and Tom Cobbly and all."
This is simply not true. In fact, it's nonsense.
The diary could easily be a modern forgery and its production could have not involved any number of these people.
So your opening premise is simply and demonstrably false.
Consequently, the rest of your entertaining and fanciful scenario might allow you your convenient irony, but it has no real, necessary bearing whatsoever on the truth.
All the best,
--John
PS: Just for instance, whoever wrote this book could have done so in the late 1980's and not have needed any secret Maybrick files whatsoever. There is not a single piece of verifiable information anywhere in this book which would not have been easily and publicly available to general readers in 1986. And also for instance, not a single scientific test done on this book has ever placed it in anything but the twentieth century. And the writers would not have had to know anything at all about "graphology" or any such thing -- it would have been nice if they had known a little something about what the real James Maybrick's handwriting looked like, but never mind. In fact, most of what you write here is not evidence at all but Feldmaniacally convenient, forced interpretations created after the fact (the FM on Mary's wall -- are you serious?) and would not have needed to have been known by any modern forgers. Thus, most of what you write is hopelessly out of order and leads only logically invalid assumptions and conclusions. And none of it offers us even a single piece of real evidence that links this book in any way at all to its supposed author, the real James, or places it even in the proper century. |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 27 February 2002 - 12:33 pm | | Hi Caz,
The science would have to place the watch at least back before the eighties to help Anne out at all -- and reliably farther back to directly support her story going back to at least the sixties. But in any case, the science hasn't done so.
And the Crashaw quote and the existence of the Sphere Guide and the tin match box empty line and other textual moments need to be weighed against a vague story about this book being old which has no support behind it whatsoever and remains only a told tale with no evidence of any kind attached to it and none, apparently, discoverable.
And I do understand your "hardly likely" conclusion. But there might have even actually been an old family story about Alice somehow knowing Granny and Anne might still have not participated in the recent creation of this book, no? Such a thing could happen. I doubt it, personally (I think Anne convinced herself of the existence of the story after the fact, because she needed to). But it is certainly possible. And it is also possible that Anne was involved in the recent creation of the document, of course.
But all of these options are much, much more possible and much, much more likely than that this book ever had anything at all to do with the real James Maybrick or the real Ripper crimes. And that latter possibility remains completely without even a shred of evidence in support of it, of course.
But you already knew that.
--John (at the end of his lunch break) |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 27 February 2002 - 01:04 pm | | Caz,
Just a few quick points while I'm on my lunch break.
Regarding Anne's "honesty"... Even if we were to take her at her word on her latest story (which I would like to make clear, I do not), she would have been engaged in a fairly nasty deception put over on her husband Mike. Either way you look at it she is obviously capable of a sustained deception. And frankly anyone who could come up with the "I gave it to Tony to give it to Mike" story (true or not) is someone not to be trusted in my opinion.
"Well, if the science, or the circumstantial evidence, could place the marks in the Maybrick watch in the past (as in before Albert bought it in 1992), that would automatically do it for the diary too, wouldn’t it?."
It hasn't placed it there, and it can't place it there. :-)
But yes, we should continue that on the other board. I've been in "crunch mode" trying to get a project at work done that's kind of eating most of my time, but I will try and get posting again tonight. I've been thinking through the evidence a bit more (particularly in regards to RM's polishing activities) and have some more points you might find interesting.
"Yes, but hardly likely, unless Anne was directly involved in the forgery."
I'm just curious, but does this really seem unlikely to you? Anne is a pretty solid candidate for the forger IMO.
Regards,
John Hacker
P.S. I loved your post TeeVee! Just the right mixture of righteous indignation, hyperbole, and not an ounce of fact or reason to water down the effect. |
Author: Tee Vee
Wednesday, 27 February 2002 - 01:39 pm | | well you sound like the expert, you tell me your theory then?????? you have less proof that its a modern hoax (which is what you seem to be claiming) as to what we have to prove it real. its been 13 years and still the anti dairyists have not answered the 3 question who, when, why ? was it written, if it was a forgery, let alone scientific evidence of any kind to say it was made around 1989. horrible isnt it, it looks as though we will continue to spiral out of control with arguments for arguments sake.
I`ll leave it there as i`m still tired from writing previous post (that didnt even get read properly) just bought a new book too. "The Jack the Ripper scource book" yum yum, cant wait to read that, maybe tonight whilst at work. Oh yeah and god bless Mr Spike Milligan. (not Jack the ripper) take care fellow Ripper fans. whats this movie like then ? any good? Tee Vee |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 27 February 2002 - 03:27 pm | | "Well obviously wrong because AG could still be telling the truth about it being in the family since at least the 1940's and it could still be an "old forgery." Equally, if she is lying in order to make her claim to the thing firm and to cut her ex-spouse out of things, then the thing could STILL be genuine and just have a mysterious provenance.
This is of course what makes Peter Wood so entertaining: his almost complete avoidance of logic and research method.
Certainly though, whether she is a saint or a sinner, the storys told by AG over the years have differed to such an extent that they can not all be true".
Excuse me? AG "could" be telling the truth and it could still be a forgery? Well, yes I suppose so, if you believe in fairies. Here's the deal: If Anne is telling the truth about seeing the diary in 1968/69 then you have to explain 'tin match box empty', the reference to Maybrick's parents being buried together, the reference to 'placing them by the whores feet. That is why I stand by my statement. And don't think you can sit on your high horse laughing just because you've got Mr John Omlor sitting next to you. My point is logical. Yours is just wishful thinking. No, it's not even that, it's just taking things to the extreme.
At some point you have to make decisions. I've made mine.
" ...the storys told by AG over the years have differed to such an extent that they can not all be true".
Again you fail to understand that Anne has never wavered from her story. She merely added to it. The diary came down through her family, she gave it to Tony to give to Mike.
That's just one story. The truth.
Tee Vee. It seems you are capable of quoting Feldy just as much as I. Watch out for the copyright police!!!
Monty. Great to see you here! Come back anytime, otherwise I'll just come and find you.
Regards etc
Peter. |
|
|
|
|
