|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 04 March 2002
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
TIME FOR A RE- EVALUATION!:
Archive through 04 March 2002
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 27 February 2002 - 04:31 pm |        | Hi Tee Vee,
I don't need to be an expert to see logical nonsense.
You wrote:
"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."
If the diary is a forgery, please explain to me exactly why Richard Bark-Jones "must" be a conspirator.
You see, you say stuff like this, but it makes no sense at all. If anything, Richard's unwillingness to provide the specific date that Mike lodged the Sphere Guide has helped his client's one-time desire to be seen as the possible creator of the forged diary at least as much as it has helped the cause of the diary's authenticity.
And the fact is that the diary could have been a modern forgery and still none of the people you name might have participated in its creation.
So your initial premise, with its irrational "must," was just plain silly.
And you have no evidence that even suggests that this book is real or can be linked in any way at all to its supposed author or even to the proper century.
And every test ever done on the book and its ink puts its creation in the twentieth century (and that’s not the right one, by the way) and the obscure Crashaw line in the book also appears excerpted conveniently in the Sphere Guide that came to the Barrett's house in the 1980's and the line from the police report available in the 1980's appears verbatim in the diary and the diary is filled with historical inaccuracies which must be rescued over and over again by rewriting history and it reads like cheap fictional melodrama throughout and as a document it is only known to have existed in the late twentieth century. Consequently, there is no reason at all to think this book is in any way linked to the real James Maybrick or to the real Ripper crimes. No one has found even a single piece of evidence of any sort that would allow us to think this.
And I remind you that the burden of proof rests with those claiming authenticity, since the diary is a found twentieth century document whose verifiable provenance goes back only to 1992. Until you or someone can offer at least one small piece of evidence that indicates it existed well before this, the diary remains completely unauthenticated.
As of now, that’s what it is.
There is plenty of evidence that it is a forgery. The diary is not even in the handwriting of its supposed author, for God's sake. The science consistently puts its creation in the wrong century. It includes historical inaccuracies and mistakes which also appear in popular Ripper books and it contains an obscure line of metaphysical poetry that not only is historically extremely unlikely to have come from its supposed nineteenth century author but happens to also exist conveniently excerpted in the middle of a late twentieth century book belonging to the only man we know has ever owned the diary. Not only is there no evidence that the diary is authentic, there is not even any evidence that in any way suggests that it was ever linked to its supposed author in any way or that it even existed in the proper century.
Paul Feldman wrote a whole book without finding or offering even one piece of reliable evidence that links this book to the real James Maybrick in any way. His book demonstrates absolutely and precisely nothing concerning who wrote this "diary." It also demonstrates a complete unwillingness to follow even the most basic rules of responsible argument, thorough respect for the conclusions validly offered by research, and the basic principles of serious scholarly writing. In short, he wrote a book of dreams and wishes. (And, if I may say so, he wrote it badly.)
But most importantly, not a single page in the book offers us any reliable reason to think this diary ever had anything to do with the real James Maybrick or ever even existed in the nineteenth century.
That's the state of the evidence today.
The fact that we do not know who actually wrote this book or why does not change that one little bit.
The fact that we do not know who wrote this book or why is not evidence of its authenticity.
There is no evidence anywhere of its authenticity, and people have been looking for some (and even trying to manufacture some through violent and forced interpretations) for a long, long time now. "FM" indeed.
And dear Peter, this little piece of writing is literally true, but slightly misleading:
"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."
Caz made this perfectly fair point as well above. And this is true. But not completely, since you have to include here when and how Anne's story "unfolded" and who she was talking to each time "she merely added to it." When did these particular "additions" take place and what was going on? What might that tell us about her story? The way you phrase it is too simple and not the complete story concerning the temporal evolution of and the timely additions to Anne's tale.
Now it's off to see some your countrymen perform The Tempest at the Tampa Bay Performing Arts Center. Personally, I'm rooting for Caliban this time. 
All the best,
--John |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 27 February 2002 - 06:28 pm | | John
Allow me to answer here on Tee Vee's behalf. You see, he was just quoting, en masse, from PHF's book.
So the question was really Paul Feldman's.
And the answer to your question is this John.
If the diary is a forgery then you "must" include Richard Bark Jones amongst the conspirators because when Mike made his initial "confession" - 24 hours later RBJ was in a position to state categorically that Mike's confession was untrue and without foundation. He also told PHF that he hadn't needed Mike's permission to say that. I.E. He was in possession of something else that proved the diary's provenance. RBJ knew that Mike hadn't forged the diary. That's what he told PHF. Therefore, Tee Vee is right, if you play the forgery game you have to include RBJ.
Hope that is good enough.
Hope you enjoyed the play.
I just watched the new George Michael video. It must've cost him millions. And he's gonna be kept off the number one spot by a 17 yr old from Bradford.
Take Care
Peter. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Thursday, 28 February 2002 - 04:45 am | |
Quote:… Where you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
I love it when people pretend to be clever by quoting this. The words of a man who believed the Cottingley Fairies were real. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 28 February 2002 - 07:05 am | | Hi John O and John H,
I did say '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.
I stand by that, John O. If the watch plus Maybrick marks was sitting in the Wallasey jeweller's shop window when it caught Albert's eye as he walked past in 1992, you'd have a whole lot of convoluted and contrived speculation in any argument for the diary being a post-1987 forgery - not too much more convoluted and contrived as the speculation I've seen on these boards over the years, by people who've never met either Anne or Albert, that has them both down as 'pretty solid' candidates for forgers.
And still no one has come up with anything like a satisfactory explanation for how Albert's discovery of the marks could have been orchestrated by someone else without his knowledge.
And so Albert has to be guilty so that Anne too can retain her status in your eyes as a crafty liar who'd callously deceive her husband, friends, family and colleagues all for the sake of - what? I'm not even sure that you know what she wanted to gain from it all, or whether she succeeded.
The bottom line is, if either of these two people are innocent, the status of both diary and watch remains utterly unknown to this day. And if either of them is guilty, it is surely someone's responsibility to try to prove it while we all agree that the diary believers have their own, quite separate, responsibility to prove authenticity.
I feel very strongly that it is as much a cop-out for the two Johnnies to use the burden of proof argument in lieu of having to explore how the two artefacts could both be modern without Anne and Albert's involvment in fraud/forgery, as it is futile for Peter W to keep saying that Maybrick must be the ripper if Anne and Albert are telling the truth.
Tell me why I'm wrong to feel this way.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 28 February 2002 - 08:01 am | | Peter,
Come and find me ??
I never leave you my friend...Im always with you...watching...and watching......and waiting...and, oh thats enough of that.
Monty
 |
Author: John Hacker
Thursday, 28 February 2002 - 09:07 am | | Caz,
"If the watch plus Maybrick marks was sitting in the Wallasey jeweller's shop window when it caught Albert's eye as he walked past in 1992, you'd have a whole lot of convoluted and contrived speculation in any argument for the diary being a post-1987 forgery - not too much more convoluted and contrived as the speculation I've seen on these boards over the years, by people who've never met either Anne or Albert, that has them both down as 'pretty solid' candidates for forgers."
How exactly do you get the idea that convoluted or contrived thinking is necessary to come to the conclusion that Anne or Albert might have something to do with the forgeries? And I don't think meeting them is necessary to form an opinion based on the evidence and testimony to date. I've got opinions on the guilt or innocence of dozens of individuals after reading the facts about their cases without ever meeting them. For example I'm pretty sure Bundy killed a lot of people and I never met the guy.
Let's look at this realistically, the forgeries were brought forward by the Barrett's and Albert Johnson. They are obviously the first, best suspects. They are the only people we know had the opportunity. What's convoluted about that? They both seem to be intelligent people who would certainly be capable of the forgeries if they wanted to. Anne has lied about the diary's provenance. There are a number of good reasons to keep them on the suspect list. And of course any other scenario would need to be more complicated. However I would certainly not rule out other possibilities at this time. If you got any other suggestions I am certainly glad to listen, but I'm just not seeing a lot of other viable options at the moment.
"And so Albert has to be guilty so that Anne too can retain her status in your eyes as a crafty liar who'd callously deceive her husband, friends, family and colleagues all for the sake of - what?"
Er, no. Albert's involvement with the watch has no bearing on whether Anne is deceptive or not. Anyone who could even concessive of tricking their spouse in the way she suggested she did is obviously not a particularly honest sort of person in my opinion. Whether Albert made the marks or not.
"The bottom line is, if either of these two people are innocent, the status of both diary and watch remains utterly unknown to this day."
I would pretty much agree with that statement in regards to Anne and the diary.
"And if either of them is guilty, it is surely someone's responsibility to try to prove it while we all agree that the diary believers have their own, quite separate, responsibility to prove authenticity."
I think that people should be able to back up their position. I would certainly like to have some proof as to where the diary came from. Unfortunately I still don't know that yet. I never claimed I have.
I'm a US based computer programmer with limited resources. I can't mount any kind of full scale investigation. All I can do is look at the information available and draw what conclusions I can, while keeping an eye towards ways of testing these conclusions. If I see a way that I can prove who created it you can be sure I will endeavor to do so. Until then I'll keep asking questions, and keep thinking it through and hope that it leads me to some answers.
"I feel very strongly that it is as much a cop-out for the two Johnnies to use the burden of proof argument in lieu of having to explore how the two artefacts could both be modern without Anne and Albert's involvment in fraud/forgery, as it is futile for Peter W to keep saying that Maybrick must be the ripper if Anne and Albert are telling the truth."
I'm not sure what you mean by "burden of proof" argument? I am certainly willing to explore other possibilities, but you'll have to give me some because at least in regards to Anne I'm pretty much out. I could postulate some possible scenarios, with mysterious 3rd parties, but I have no names to attach to these parties or even evidence of their existence (with the possible exception of Mike's money withdrawals) so there is no possible way to prove or disprove it. And if these 3rd parties do exist we're only going to find them by looking at the suspects we already have.
I will certainly acknowledge that there are other possibilities, which is why I've never said anything like "Anne is the forger". But I feel extremely comfortable in saying she's a solid candidate, and I am more than willing to defend that position. Anne and/or Albert may or may not be forgers, but they are certainly valid suspects and in my opinion there is no compelling reason to rule them out at this point.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 28 February 2002 - 09:37 am | | Hi Peter,
You write:
"If the diary is a forgery then you 'must' include Richard Bark Jones amongst the conspirators because when Mike made his initial "confession" - 24 hours later RBJ was in a position to state categorically that Mike's confession was untrue and without foundation. He also told PHF that he hadn't needed Mike's permission to say that. I.E. He was in possession of something else that proved the diary's provenance. RBJ knew that Mike hadn't forged the diary. That's what he told PHF. Therefore, Tee Vee is right, if you play the forgery game you have to include RBJ."
This is spectacularly bad thinking.
The fact that it is Paul Feldman’s and not yours or Tee Vee's only makes me feel a little better.
Peter, can you see the obvious logical flaws in the nonsensical argument you just wrote above?
Do you see how it remains perfectly possible for Richard to have said that he was in a position to say that Mike's initial confession was not true and the diary still be a forgery and Richard having nothing at all to do with its creation and not participating in any conspiracy whatsoever? You do see that, right? Otherwise, there is no hope for this discussion.
The problem with Paul Feldman's complete ignorance concerning simple logic is demonstrated beautifully by the "I.E." in your sentences above.
That "I.E." is stupid. It also preceeds a competely speculative, unestablished, and invalid conclusion.
The fact that Richard had evidence that Mike's initial confession was not the truth DOES NOT mean that the diary is genuine and Richard could prove the diary's real provenance or that he knew the diary's real provenance or that the diary even has a real provenance. AND IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT MEAN that Richard was actively participating in a conspiracy if this diary is a forgery.
If this is really "Paul's conclusion," then Paul is an even shoddier thinker, or more deliberately deceitful, than I thought.
In fact, Paul's conclusion -- if the diary is a forgery than poor Richard Bark-Jones "must" be one of the conspirators -- is a perfect example then of why nothing Paul Feldman says should ever be taken seriously again.
There is nothing in the two premises of Paul's argument:
1.) Mike confessed.
2.) Richard said that he was in a position to state that Mike's confession was untrue.
that allows Paul Feldman, or anyone, to conclude that the diary is real or that the diary has a real provenance that Richard knows or that Richard must be a conspirator in all this if the diary is a forgery. Nothing at all. None of these conclusions follows in any way from the two premises above.
This is why there is no reason to take the case for authenticity seriously.
Because it is based on "thinking" like this.
It's not thinking, it's magic. And poorly performed magic at that.
And the conclusion -- if the diary is a forgery, Richard Bark-Jones must be one of the conspirators -- should stand forever as a shining example of why the case for authenticity is utterly ridiculous. It is reduced to making such completely incoherent and irrational claims in order to keep the case alive. And therefore, friends, the case is obviously long, long dead.
If you guys can't come up with anything better than this nonsense, this is going to quickly become a complete waste of my time.
Bye,
--John
“If the diary is a forgery, Richard Bark-Jones must be one of the conspirators”
(From now on, let this claim be an eternal monument to the status of the case for authenticity) |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 28 February 2002 - 10:08 am | | Hi Caz,
I'm not sure you and I really disagree about anything here, except that I'm not sure what "burden-of-proof argument" you think I'm using as a cop-out. My mention of the burden of proof resting with those claiming the diary's authenticity has nothing to do with what you wrote above. At least not as far as I can tell.
Of course, if the science ever convincingly places the dates of the "I am Jack" watch scratches back long before the 1980's, then the question of the diary's origins becomes complicated by that fact. I agree. Would it still be possible for the diary to be a modern forgery? Sure, I suppose. But the existence of the watch prior to that modern forgery would have to be taken into consideration. Would this necessarily make the watch or the diary authentic? Of course not. Not unless the science could at least place the scratches all the way back before Maybrick's death and the watch could be linked historically to him in some way. Until then, questions would remain, and quite properly so.
But you write:
"And so Albert has to be guilty so that Anne too can retain her status in your eyes as a crafty liar who'd callously deceive her husband, friends, family and colleagues all for the sake of - what? I'm not even sure that you know what she wanted to gain from it all, or whether she succeeded."
Well, for me this is simply not true. The watch could certainly be a modern forgery and the diary could certainly be a modern forgery and neither Anne nor Albert could be among the respective forgers. I don't see any real evidence that suggests they were, in fact.
True, Anne's provenance story is unsupported by any evidence, of course, and she did stand to gain financially by telling it, so it's not as if she had no reason to lie. But that is well after the fact of creation. And there is no material evidence that I can see that can be used in a case against Anne or Albert as forgers.
The case for the diary being a modern forgery can be made easily without implicating Anne in its creation; it can be made simply using the diary itself.
I haven't looked into it as much, but I suspect the watch could be a modern forgery and Albert might not have been involved in its creation as well. I haven't seen any solid evidence that he was, in fact.
So as of yet there seems not to be anything like the necessary evidence to suggest that either of these two people must have been involved in the creation of the these two objects.
That means nothing of course, since there is still much evidence to be gathered and since the real tales of the watch and the diary have barely begun to unfold for us at this point.
I have no idea who wrote this diary or who scratched the watch. But the science cannot firmly place either of these items in the proper century for them to be authentic and there's lots and lots of reasons to think the diary had nothing to do with the real James Maybrick and the watch came upon the scene at a very convenient time and there is no provenance of any sort linking it to the real James Maybrick either. That's simply the state of things at the moment. Both of these -- the scratches in the watch and the words on the pages -- cannot in any meaningful way be linked either to their supposed author or to the proper century. Consequently, they remain only found twentieth-century artifacts.
Where did they come from? Who produced them? The answer to those questions, as you say, "remains utterly unknown to this day." I have not claimed that Anne produced the diary or that Albert produced the watch. I don't believe the evidence exists to make any such claim.
Is it possible that neither of them were involved in the modern production of these objects? Sure. Why not? But I won't say anything about any of that until more reliable evidence concerning the creation of these two texts, one on pages and one on metal, is available. That's not copping-out, Caz, it's simply maintaining a responsible position and not rushing into the creation of Feldmaniacal scenarios for desired solutions when they are not available. That I won't do.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 28 February 2002 - 11:35 am | | Hi John (Hacker),
I simply meant that some of the speculation we’ve seen on these boards over the years has been either convoluted and contrived in order to present Anne and Albert (and in the bad old days Mike as well) as pretty solid candidates for forging the diary and watch. I didn’t mean that convoluted or contrived thinking is necessary in order for others to conclude that Anne or Albert might have had something to do with faking them. Subtle difference there.
‘And of course any other scenario would need to be more complicated. However I would certainly not rule out other possibilities at this time. If you got any other suggestions I am certainly glad to listen, but I'm just not seeing a lot of other viable options at the moment.’
That’s my point. Anyone who is arguing here for the diary and watch being modern fakes does often appear (despite John O's very reasonable post above) to be simultaneously implying Anne and Albert’s guilt unless they at least try to put forward other options and explore their viability. Why are you asking me for other suggestions? I certainly don’t mind thinking about it, but I’m neither arguing for modern fakes or anyone’s guilt. I have been unable to reach any conclusions over the when, the why, the who or the how.
When I referred to Anne as, ‘in your eyes’, a crafty liar who'd callously deceive her husband, friends, family and colleagues, I was going beyond her alleged initial deception of Mike which, if her later story is true, was never intended to be callous, but a way of helping a heavy drinker help himself and so save their marriage. It’s Anne’s 1994 story, repeated ever since, that has made her, in your eyes, the crafty liar who callously deceived, and continues to deceive, anyone and everyone with whom she is associated. Only if Mike was involved with her in forging the diary would she not have been deceiving him along with everyone else. And I do understand if you still regard the ‘Anne and Mike did it together for the money’ option as a possibility.
‘I think that people should be able to back up their position.’
Absolutely. That’s all I’m asking you to try to do here. What I mean by the "burden of proof" argument is John O’s point about the onus being on the believers to authenticate the diary. If you can’t explore other possibilities for a modern forgery without me giving you some, ‘because at least in regards to Anne’ you’re ‘pretty much out’, what you appear to be doing in effect is saying that you can go ahead and conclude she is guilty in the absence of those other possibilities. And I am saying that isn’t good enough and that your conclusion should wait until you have more evidence.
‘And if these 3rd parties do exist we're only going to find them by looking at the suspects we already have.’
‘Anne and/or Albert may or may not be forgers, but they are certainly valid suspects and in my opinion there is no compelling reason to rule them out at this point.’
Precisely. So let’s continue to look at the suspects we have and let’s continue to ask questions about them. But if we first conclude the diary and watch are both modern forgeries and then assume our forgers must therefore be either among the suspects we already have, or be as yet nameless and mysterious associates of those suspects, what if they are not?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter Wood
Thursday, 28 February 2002 - 12:38 pm | | Hi guys
John Hacker first:
"Anne has lied about the diary's provenance".
You have proof of that, John?
That's a pretty strong accusation. I'd say Anne has told a very reasonable story about how the diary came to be in her possession.
Caz: I agree with some of what you say. For instance John (O) often 'taunts' me that the diary is a found 20th century artefact. He shouldn't do that. Because it isn't a 20th century artefact. It's a Victorian diary whose provenance through Anne and her daddy take it back to the 1940's.
As regards my own insistence that if you break Anne's story, then you break the diary, I still stand by this. But I do see the problems you have with it. Thus:
There are people who would think it possible that Anne and Billy are telling the truth and that the diary could still be a forgery. I don't go for that (No can do). I know Keith has toyed with that idea. If Keith's speculation was right and the diary was an old forgery then you could take Crashaw out of the equation. Tin match box empty would still be a problem, though.
Anne's husband has changed his mind numerous times. So much so that none of us has the right to believe anything that he says anymore.
Anne is different. She hasn't lied. Her story has evolved. And it fits the known facts.
So I stand by what I said. If Anne is lying then the diary is a forgery. The other 'options' are too far fetched to be credible. Yes yes yes, they are 'possible', but they aren't realistic. They are flights of fancy.
John O. You say:
"Do you see how it remains perfectly possible for Richard to have said that he was in a position to say that Mike's initial confession was not true and the diary still be a forgery and Richard having nothing at all to do with its creation and not participating in any conspiracy whatsoever?"
Absolutely, John. But again John, that is wishful thinking. You have nothing to support that hypothesis. And either way you read it, it takes Mike Barrett completely out of the 'forger' equation. And therefore the Crashaw quote, the Sphere guide are all red herrings.
You seem to be admitting that RBJ was correct in saying Mike was not the forger. I absolutely agree with you that there is another possibility - namely someone else was the forger and RBJ wasn't involved.
But John, the most likely option, in view of Crashaw and the Sphere guide and the ink, is that if the diary is a forgery then Mike is involved. And if RBJ is capable of taking Mike out of the forger equation then that leaves you with nothing.
And John, RBJ does take Mike out of the equation. Forcefully. And without Mike the whole forgery theory falls apart.
Just to clear things up, when PHF says "must", I'm sure he knows there are other options but they are, in your words, so spectacularly poor that he simply can't take them seriously. Or rather, he has thought of them, dismissed them but forgotten to include them in his diatribe for your pleasure.
Come on John. You're intelligent, do you really need me to explain to you what PHF means by "must"? Read between the lines.
Feel free to go if you must. It'd be a shame though, the discussions are getting interesting again.
Peter. |
Author: John Hacker
Thursday, 28 February 2002 - 12:55 pm | | Hi Caz,
"Anyone who is arguing here for the diary and watch being modern fakes does often appear (despite John O's very reasonable post above) to be simultaneously implying Anne and Albert’s guilt unless they at least try to put forward other options and explore their viability."
It's a bit tricky here as any scenario that involves anyone beyond the immediate people we can connect with the objects is necessarily contrived. I can put forward possibilities, and I've thought of quite a few, but there's really no way to look at their viability. The question of Anne and/or Albert involvement can be looked at (if not answered definitively) with the knowledge we have at hand.
"I certainly don’t mind thinking about it, but I’m neither arguing for modern fakes or anyone’s guilt. I have been unable to reach any conclusions over the when, the why, the who or the how."
That's exactly where I am. I am not arguing for anyone's guilt either. I am simply saying that Anne and Albert are valid suspects and that it's possible that they did in fact have something to do with it. It's a question I'm asking, not one that I have answered. I'm a long way from any actual conclusions, and my opinions change as my understanding increases.
"When I referred to Anne as, ‘in your eyes’, a crafty liar who'd callously deceive her husband, friends, family and colleagues, I was going beyond her alleged initial deception of Mike which, if her later story is true, was never intended to be callous, but a way of helping a heavy drinker help himself and so save their marriage."
I can't see how dumping that book on an alcoholic is in any way supposed to be helpful. And if it would have been helpful, why couldn't she have just said, "Hey Mike, I've got Jack the Ripper's diary up in the attic. Why don't you use it in one of your stories?" instead of the elaborate farce with Tony Deveraux? I would never dream of deceiving my wife in such a fashion. Maybe it's a personal pet peeve or something, but that still seems reprehensible to me.
"It’s Anne’s 1994 story, repeated ever since, that has made her, in your eyes, the crafty liar who callously deceived, and continues to deceive, anyone and everyone with whom she is associated. Only if Mike was involved with her in forging the diary would she not have been deceiving him along with everyone else. And I do understand if you still regard the ‘Anne and Mike did it together for the money’ option as a possibility"
No, it really is the "deception of Mike story" that make me think she's a deceptive type. Anyone who could think that idea up, true or not, is someone I'm unlikely to trust. Given the plethora of honest and open ways to help an alcoholic, slipping "Jack the Ripper's Diary" on him unawares strikes me as one of the most manipulative, dishonest, and downright dangerous approaches possible. I'll admit it's remotely possible that her diary in the family story is true, but even if it were that wouldn't change my base opinion that slipping it on Mike was an incredibly deceptive act.
I do still think it's possible Mike was involved, but I'm still thinking it through.
"If you can’t explore other possibilities for a modern forgery without me giving you some, ‘because at least in regards to Anne’ you’re ‘pretty much out’, what you appear to be doing in effect is saying that you can go ahead and conclude she is guilty in the absence of those other possibilities. And I am saying that isn’t good enough and that your conclusion should wait until you have more evidence."
I'm going to start with exploring the possibilities I have now, but I will certainly look at others as they come up. As they no doubt will. Again, I have not concluded anything! And with the evidence we have now it's unlikely I ever will come to any solid conclusions.
"So let’s continue to look at the suspects we have and let’s continue to ask questions about them."
Exactly!
"But if we first conclude the diary and watch are both modern forgeries and then assume our forgers must therefore be either among the suspects we already have, or be as yet nameless and mysterious associates of those suspects, what if they are not?"
I'm not suggesting we assume anything. Heck, I'm not even 100% positive they are modern forgeries, there's an outside chance they're older. But I think it's highly unlikely. :-) Right now it's all just possibilities to me, some look more likely at the moment than others but that will undoubtedly change as I look at them closer. And I will continue to look at them until I find some actual proof or eventually just give it all up as a lost cause.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 28 February 2002 - 01:27 pm | | It's of course good to be able to meet these people and try to judge them without of course assuming that everything they say is necesarily true or indeed false.
And we all form opinions and most of us express them publicly. Some of us have an ingrained belief in the goodness of human nature and that most people are completely honest. Those that are not can be easily identified by their habit of refusing to look you straight in the eyes, shuffling nervously or in extreme cases, wearing small black masks, striped jerseys and carrying sacks marked "SWAG" over their shoulders.
It would of course be nice to meet the elusive millionaire who is so interested in The Watch. I understand that Shirley has met him and perhaps she could favour us with a few details.
Tee Vee
This has to be a joke. Admit it, are you Peter Wood in disguise?
Breathless at the total acceptance of the Feldian Hypothesis all I can do is to refer you to the past several years of the Casebook wherein everything that you mention has been addressed and for the main part rejected as faulty research and wishful thinking.
Peter Wood:
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." To take an example at random please explain how at the meeting between AG, MB, Paul Begg and Feldie she could say: "Did you nick it Mike?" when she must have known that (providing her present story is true) he had nothing to do with the real provenance of the thing.
"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."
Simple: the forger had access to Met papers (Don't laugh, this was actually suggested some time ago before you favoured us with your presence.) The forger lived in Liverpool, studied newspaper accounts of the trial and checked the cemetery. The forger had to "place" them somewhere and got lucky. If you read the reams of material on these boards you will find that every explanation has been covered. Of course that's not to say that they are SENSIBLE explanations.
And of course both Keith Skinner and Paul Begg have examined the possibilty of it being an old forgery.
John Omlor is a remarkably astute analyst and although we have clashed in the past, I have respect for his opinions. However he is not sitting next to me either factually or figuratively. I would be telling you how daft your words are even if he was completely absent from these boards.
Richard Bark-Jones has not done me the courtesy of replying to my letters but look please at what he is quoted (p.160) as saying. To summarise it is that when MB said that he had written the diary, that statement "was totally incorrect and without foundation." Please consider that closely. What RBJ is saying is not that the Diary is the true voice of James Maybrick aka JtR. He is saying that Mike did not forge it and he is implying that he knows that for certain. Now please watch this carefully: HE MAY BE SAYING THAT SOMEONE OTHER THAN MIKE FORGED IT AND HE KNOWS WHO THAT WAS. So saying: "He was in possession of something else that proved the diary's
provenance" is unfortunately nonsense..
Peter (after returning from my four-month transplant checkup and realising that I am still doing fine) |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 28 February 2002 - 01:28 pm | | Peter Wood,
Do you know what the word "must" means?
It means it's necessary.
I appreciate your dancing, but you can't lead Paul out of this one.
If Paul says that Richard Bark-Jones must be a conspirator if this diary is fake, then Paul is making a patently silly and stupid claim that makes no logical sense whatsoever and he's doing so only for dramatic effect and with no responsibility or care for what the English language means or how it works or how one arrives at logical or valid conclusions.
And if you support him in that sloppy way of writing and thinking, then you are as irresponsible and irrational as he is.
And Richard has never even said that Mike did not participate in this forgery.
He said Mike's initial confession to Brough was not true.
(And I am inclined to agree with him about this, by the way.)
That tells us nothing at all about whether Mike really did have a hand in forging this thing or not. It just tells us that the story Mike told to Harold Brough was not true and Richard knew this. Even Harold suspected this anyway, as did many others.
At no time anywhere does Richard ever say that he is "capable of taking Mike out of the forger equation."
Paul Feldman (or you) simply made that up. Paul admits in his own book that he has no idea what Richard knows or has. This conclusion of yours is simply make-believe and yet another dramatic demonstration of how the whole case for authenticity rests on claiming things that have never been established and simply making stuff up when you don't know. It has really become one of the most irresponsibly written and argued cases for any theory I have ever seen at this point, and you should be embarrassed to be making these completely illegitimate arguments, which are so full of logical leaps and holes that they suggest either a pattern of horribly sloppy thinking and blindness to simple language and logic or the deliberate attempt to deceive simply to fulfill one's own unevidenced and unestablished desires.
The shallowness and pitifully poor construction of this argument about Richard Bark-Jones and his having to be a conspirator in this forgery is a new low for the pro-diarists and an embarrassing moment for all concerned.
Nothing anywhere in Paul's book or in any of Richard's statements in any way "takes Mike Barrett completely out of the 'forger' equation." (And even if Richard were to someday do that, this would not mean the book is not a forgery, of course.)
And to claim that to understand Paul Feldman one has to "read between the lines" is laughable. I understand Paul perfectly. He wants to make his own point, and the evidence and logic be damned. His language reveals that over and over for all to see. This latest ridiculous "must" is but a single example.
This is not a serious discussion anymore -- it's a pathetically simple lesson in reading and logic that even a grade school child should be able to follow.
To claim that if the diary is a forgery, Richard Bark-Jones must be conspirator is to make a completely invalid and illogical conclusion out of premises that do not lead to any such thing. It is to deliberately ignore or completely misunderstand the most basic rules of logic and reason. It is demonstrably nonsense.
Mike confessed to Brough. Richard claims he knew that Mike's confession to Brough wasn't the truth.
This does not mean that Richard knows the diary is real or that Richard knows anything at all specifically about the diary's real provenance, it does not even necessarily mean that Mike is not really one of the forgers, and it CERTAINLY does not mean that Richard is in any way a conspirator.
It simply means that the story Mike chose to tell Brough was not true -- that that story was "totally incorrect and without foundation."
To claim that it means any of the other things above is simply to make stuff up -- it is to construct a lie for one's own convenience.
And you cannot have a serious discussion with anyone who is willing to casually lie for their own convenience.
It is either that, or the people involved, including you and Paul, simply cannot read and follow arguments in English. And one cannot have a serious or productive discussion in that case either.
You and Paul Feldman, if you are both seriously claiming that if the diary is a forgery, Richard Bark-Jones must be a co-conspirator -- despite the fact that you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that in any logical way supports this scurrilous claim and this ridiculous scenario -- should both be considered less than responsible thinkers and less than serious writers.
And that is sad.
Bye,
--John
PS: For a stunning example of the shameless and deceitful way Paul Feldman reaches his so-called "conclusions" -- basing them on things like whether he thinks someone's face turns "a little paler" or whether, despite the fact that the person does not comment, "his face clearly told me that he did not know," -- to see Paul in all his embarrassing action -- check out pages 180 and 181 of his paperback. It makes me cringe just to read it. The man has no shame whatsoever about how he uses nothing but his own desire to assert his "conclusions."
Check it out, everyone.
Meanwhile...
"If the diary is a forgery, Richard Bark-Jones must be a conspirator."
(Let it continue to stand – these are the people who think the diary is real.) |
Author: Tee Vee
Thursday, 28 February 2002 - 04:39 pm | | To all whom ripped me a new A - hole.
Oops! I feel i shouldn`t of put the quote up ? sorry, i liked the book and did feel that he made of what he wanted, but i thought it was a good read, until i came on here and had my sinister believes shattered, so when i finally did read the final chapter of "The Final chapter" i thought i`d put it in, as to me i found it very funny, and it maybe does show that the constant confusion of changing family trees helped me to believe the words written in the leafs, but i dont feel stupid for that. the book was not in the "Fiction section" so i`ll think of it what i will. sorry about that. I do apologise for quoting "en masse" by the way, but it dont matter what you know, you`ll get torn to pieces on here, as to some its more than just interesting hobby. SAD! |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 01 March 2002 - 08:03 am | | Peter W.--Hey. Don't read too much into the Bark-Jones statement. It was just the standard lawyer line. 'My client didn't really mean what he said, etc. etc.' Damage control. You've seen it dozens of times at press releases. But look now what you and Feldy are doing with this. Feldy would have made a great salmon. He gets hold of this little morsel and he's off an running towards deep water. He goes from a simple statement by Mike's lawyer about Mike being drunk and turns into a whole strange theory about secret documents, government cover-ups of the true Maybrick lineage, etc. etc. Crazy stuff.
Let me put it this way. If Bark-Jones has documentation that proves the provenance of this document why on earth wouldn't he make it public? What would be his motivation for keeping his "proof" secret? Mull that one over, mate. If this amounted to an old letter from Florie Maybrick to Edith Formby [ha ha, that's a good one], there would be no motivation for keeping it private; it would merely be a matter of historical interest and no doubt Jones would have printed the letter in the pages of the Ripperologist for all to see. Hell, it would have been his duty. This secret whisper-whisper stuff is merely a very lame excuse for having an embarrassingly bad provenance. It's like the one Anne Graham tells about the diary being "evil" and that's why she hid it from Mike in the early days of their marriage. Funny, but no one has a shred of evidence that the diary existed before the police inventory list was public in 1988. Hmmm. Wonder what that means.
Bark-Jones has, I'm afraid, nought. Nothing. Indeed, if he does know anything, it seems likely to me that it could only be about the diary's recent origins. Cheers, RP |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 01 March 2002 - 08:04 am | | Hi John H,
Thank you for your thoughtful post. I agree with a whole lot of what you say. From what I’ve gathered, I think most people (including me, I hasten to add) do share your concerns about Anne’s account of dumping the diary on an unknowing Mike. It either strikes us immediately as a very unlikely course of action for anyone to take, or, if true, a heartless one. You write:
‘Given the plethora of honest and open ways to help an alcoholic, slipping "Jack the Ripper's Diary" on him unawares strikes me as one of the most manipulative, dishonest, and downright dangerous approaches possible. I'll admit it's remotely possible that her diary in the family story is true, but even if it were that wouldn't change my base opinion that slipping it on Mike was an incredibly deceptive act.'
When I spoke to Anne at the LWT recording, I asked her about her reasons for doing what she says she did and when she says she did it. Giving me bags of eye contact, and without shuffling nervously in the slightest, and not wearing a burglar costume (yes, Peter B, I know all about these tell-tale signs, and how even the poorest actor can avoid them at will with a little practice. And trust me when I’m looking you straight in the eyes, any belief I may have in the goodness of human nature is certainly not ingrained, and does not extend to assuming anyone is completely honest, or completely nice either – a few days reading these boards is enough to tell the most trusting of souls that!  ), Anne told me she was pretty much at the end of her tether because of Mike’s heavy drinking, and she just wanted him to stop. So she thought of the diary and how it would give him something to get his teeth into instead of going down the pub. But he mustn’t know it came from her. (I would understand this part totally if it’s true. One of the worst sins a drinker’s partner can commit is to make them aware that they are trying to get them to cut down on their habit, either openly or by craftier methods.) Their marriage was in crisis and Anne now admits that she wasn’t thinking enough at the time about the possible consequences. She also knows, too late, that an alcoholic has to want to help himself, and that there was therefore nothing she could have done, and that in fact, looking back, giving Mike the diary was probably the worst and most ill thought-out move she could have made.
'And I will continue to look at [the possibilities] until I find some actual proof or eventually just give it all up as a lost cause.'
I sincerely hope it won’t come to the second option, John.
Hi Peter B,
Firstly, I’m glad to hear you are still doing fine after returning from your four-month transplant check-up.
You wrote:
'It's of course good to be able to meet these people and try to judge them without of course assuming that everything they say is necessarily true or indeed false.
And we all form opinions and most of us express them publicly.’
Well, yes of course, I agree that we obviously form opinions about people based on whatever we’ve read or heard about them. That’s only natural. And our opinions are bound to differ, depending on how we see the world and those around us, and what experience has taught us. But I would hope that ‘most of us’ do not express opinions about other people publicly, particularly about those we’ve yet to meet or become acquainted with, either lightly, hastily or in a negative way. Those of us who do (and I have no doubt I’ve been guilty at times) risk making asses of ourselves.
I think I can help with an explanation for Anne’s “Did you nick it Mike?” at that meeting. You must have missed some fairly recent posts about this very question. (Perhaps they got lost when the site crashed?) Yes, indeed Anne must have known that Mike did no such thing if her present story is true. But Paul Begg being present was able to tell us about the context in which the remark was made, and it appears that it was in response to a line of questioning that was evidently leading up to whether Mike got the diary by fair means or foul. Anne picked up on this and simply put the suggestion directly on their behalf, saying in effect, “In other words, Mike, they want to know if you nicked it.”
Hope that helps.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 01 March 2002 - 08:40 am | | Hi RJ,
You wrote:
'It's like the one Anne Graham tells about the diary being "evil" and that's why she hid it from Mike in the early days of their marriage. Funny, but no one has a shred of evidence that the diary existed before the police inventory list was public in 1988. Hmmm. Wonder what that means.'
Well, what I find funny is that Mike has always taken pains to rubbish the idea that Anne hid the diary from him at all - not because they were forging it together, or because he was forging it by himself, or because he was forging it with Kane and/or Devereux at the time it was supposedly being hidden from him, but because he says there is no way she could have hidden the thing anywhere indoors where he wouldn't have found it.
Mighty strange reason that one, unless it's because that's what Mike believes, or wants to believe - or it's one lie that is far more subtle and better thought-out than most, except that it would also be a lie that doesn't actually help him, whether he's in confession mode or genuine mode.
Hmmm. Wonder what that means.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 01 March 2002 - 08:57 am | | Caz--Tell me. Why in the early days of Anne & Mike's marriage --when they were on good terms-- wouldn't Anne have mention that she just happened to own ['oh, by the way, Dear'...] the diary of Jack the Ripper?!? Heck, it sounds like good first-date material to me. Her answer: because it was evil. Sounds like something out of Wilkie Collin's The Moonstone.
But isn't there another problem with Anne's story of hiding it from Mike? I believe Martin Fido posted something along these lines, about the story not being entirely consistent with the moving of furniture or something. I try and look it up.
Either way, I'm sorry, but the story is really hard to swallow, whether Anne's eyes blink or not. And I think the hard truth is that her story will never be good enough, because she changed it, and didn't reveal what she claims she knew from the beginning. But this sounds like an old joke, really. How many Ripperologists does it take to unscrew a provenance? Cheers, RP |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 01 March 2002 - 09:11 am | | Caz---
Martin Fido, 14 April, 2001, 7:28 on the "Maybrick Diary" Board [He's talking about Anne Graham]:
"I agree about the polygraph, Ivor.
She has been through the type of questioning I outline above once (not in relation to Mike's statements). It led to a good deal of complicated revision of her account of the ways rooms had been used in the Barrett house from time to time and during redecorating to explain why the piece of furniture in which she hid the diary had switched from Caroline's room to the spare room in her own statements. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 01 March 2002 - 10:50 am | | Hi RJ,
Anne and Mike married in the mid-seventies didn't they? And I thought Anne's story went that after first seeing the diary in the late sixties, she thought little or nothing more about it until her dad gave it to her when he moved into a retirement home in the late eighties, by which time the marriage was not going so well.
If all that's true, along with Anne's insistence that she had no interest in a bogey man who carved up women, perhaps this goes some way to explain why she never mentioned the diary to Mike during the good years.
At the LWT recording, she made a point of saying to me that she thought we were all sick for our interest in someone who mutilated women. Whether this was for effect or whether it was sincerely meant I can't say for certain. But the comment wasn't exactly designed to butter me up!
It’s difficult to say if Martin Fido caught Anne out trying and failing to keep her story straight about which room housed the furniture where the diary was hidden. But wasn’t there some confusion because both rooms had been referred to at one time or another as either Caroline’s or the spare room, because Caroline had moved between the two, rather than the furniture? So I’m not sure about that one.
I agree that for us ripper buffs the story is always going to be hard to swallow, and I did suggest that Anne could easily have got looking people in the eyes off to a fine art. But if her reasons for not revealing all she knew to the world outside were deeply personal ones, related to her relationship with Mike, while she was still living with him, and not wanting him to find out the truth, isn't it perfectly natural that this would take precedence over the desires of a small group of true crime enthusiasts champing at the bit for more information?
In fact, it would be something of a joke for any of us to imagine otherwise.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 01 March 2002 - 11:38 am | | Caz--If those are Anne Graham's true feelings, then I can only imagine that it must have been a great burden indeed to write a chapter on Jack the Ripper's activities for her own book, The Last Victim.
But let me get this straight. It's sick to research the Ripper, but o.k. to turn around and give her own husband the journal so he can write a novel about it and get his self-respect back? Hmm. I'm sure you can see why Anne's story doesn't strike us doubting-Thomases as being very consistent.
But this is going over old ground. Cheers, RP |
Author: Guy Hatton
Friday, 01 March 2002 - 01:03 pm | | R.J. -
You took the words right out of my mouth!
Cheers
Guy |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 01 March 2002 - 02:02 pm | | Hiya John (O).
Firstly let us deal with your interpretations of Feldy's use of "must".
Oh dear John, what are we going to do with you? You must find it terribly difficult driving to work because you like to see things in such straight lines. Or maybe you travel to work in a straight line. You and I both know exactly what Feldy meant. You are just using your facade of John 'Logic is my speciality' Omlor. Come on John, you are influencing people around here unfairly with your insistence that Feldy's work is shoddy and I should be embarassed to associate myself with it.
"Must" to Feldy is just the same as you or I would use "In my opinion". That's all John. Stop getting your knickers in a twist.
And to put things strictly in context, this is what Feldy says:
"Morecroft, Dawson & Garnett are one of the most reputable legal firms in Liverpool. If anybody claims after this that Mike Barrett forged the diary then they are also claiming that this firm of solicitors were lying as well".
Then John this:
I telephoned Mr Bark Jones, and put it to him that his statement suggested he had information that proved that the diary was not forged by Michael Barrett and that (he) had not needed Mike's premission to say so. "You're the only one that spotted it", he said.
Clearly RBJ knew that Mike did not forge the diary. Clearly he didn't need Mike's permission to say so.
R.J.
"Let me put it this way. If Bark-Jones has documentation that proves the provenance of this document why on earth wouldn't he make it public? What would be his motivation for keeping his "proof" secret?"
R.J. You disappoint me. Ever heard of client confidentiality? RBJ may not have needed Mike's permission to say that Mike didn't forge the diary. But he would need someone's permission to make the evidence public. Solicitors don't put their reputations on the line so easily. RBJ clearly believed what he was saying. There was no reason for him not to.
Peter B.
Wasn't aware that you'd undergone an operation, but please accept my best wishes for your recovery. I'll go easier on you now I know your circumstances!
Caz has already adequately explained how Paul Begg helps us interpret Anne saying "Did you nick it Mike?" Just put the emphasis on "Did", not on "You".
And Peter, I will accept that a forger could have had access to Met papers many moons ago, but for this to work and in order to discuss it, you have to drop Mike Barrett from your list of forgers. Your scenario would considerably narrow the field. But explain how the forger of many years ago would get the inside line on the Maybrick household?
Caz, RJ, John H, Guy: Anne's motives don't strike me as all that bad. For you to denounce her as "wicked" or whatever term you used, you would have to first conclude that she knew the diary was genuine before she gave it to Mike. I don't think that was the case. I'm not even sure that Anne had read it cover to cover. Fair enough, she knew it was in handwriting and not typeset, but how does that prove that Anne knew what she was giving Mike? She wasn't particularly happy about having the diary around, she had a gut instinct about it, many people get those. (No toilet jokes here please, John Omlor).
"If the diary is a forgery, Richard Bark-Jones must be a conspirator."
(Let it continue to stand – these are the people who think the diary is real.)
Grossly unfair of you, John. Paul has never questioned RBJ's integrity. You shouldn't question mine. For when you write 'people', you mean me and Feldy.
But tonight I am in a good mood. And no amount of posturing is going to spoil that.
Hey, I've enjoyed it tonight!
Take care all
Peter.
P.S. Caz: Did you buy the single yet? I bought it on the first day. Can't wait for the album. Just saw the vid on C4 and was a little disappointed, but figured they wouldn't need to spend money on the vid if it's guaranteed to go to No. 1. |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 01 March 2002 - 06:12 pm | | Peter Wood writes, regarding the word "must,"
"'Must' to Feldy is just the same as you or I would use 'In my opinion'.
And that, my friends, in a single sentence, is a perfect example why Paul Feldman's book should be completely discounted as a serious work or as any sort of believable argument and hereafter thought of strictly as an exercise in wish fulfillment and pure desire and why it should have no credibility in any serious scholarly circles or among anyone who actually knows how to think and how to use the English language.
Let's see that comment again:
"'Must' to Feldy is just the same as you or I would use 'In my opinion'.
And that is why Paul Feldman should never be taken seriously.
And that is why nothing in his book actually links the diary in any way whatsoever to the real James Maybrick or even places it in the proper century.
And that is why the case for the diary's authenticity amounts to absolutely nothing at all.
And that is why finally there is no evidence whatsoever that suggests that this diary could in any way be authentic.
And that is why this discussion should be about who forged it and when and why and not about Paul Feldman's illogical and inaccurate and imprecise nonsense and his shoddy writing and his ridiculous conclusions which are not conclusions.
Finally Peter, you repeat Feldman's nonsense when you say:
"Clearly RBJ knew that Mike did not forge the diary."
This "clearly" is completely unfounded. This sentence is a convenient lie.
What RBJ "clearly" knew was that the story Mike told to Brough was not true. This is not the same as saying Mike wasn't one of the forgers or that Richard knew the diary's real provenance or that the diary was authentic or that Richard must be a conspirator if the diary is a forgery.
All it means is that Richard is saying Mike's particular story -- the one he told to Brough -- was not true.
And no one thinks it was.
But in his released statement, Richard is clearly NOT saying that Mike did not help forge the diary. And the fact that you and Paul Feldman insist that this is what his words must mean indicates either that you simply cannot read the English language or you are blind to simple logic or that you are being willfully deceitful.
Richard is simply saying that Mike's story to Brough was not true.
This does not allow us to conclude that Mike did not help forge the diary.
And Paul Feldman has never made that case, just as he, like you, has never made the case that the real James Maybrick had anything at all to do with this book or that it even existed in the proper century.
And as far as my writing:
""If the diary is a forgery, Richard Bark-Jones must be a conspirator."
(Let it continue to stand – these are the people who think the diary is real.)"
Tee Vee wrote this argument. You told me he was accurately quoting Paul Feldman. You support Feldman's position on this, don't you?
Therefore, this sentence remains a monument to the silliness of the case for authenticity.
So let's all read it once again:
"If the diary is a forgery, Richard Bark-Jones must be a conspirator."
This is another reason why Paul Feldman's writing and arguments should never be taken seriously, why he is an irresponsible writer and scholar, and why the case for this diary's authenticity is based on nothing at all except nonsense.
By now, that should be clear to everyone (almost).
All the best,
--John |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 02 March 2002 - 08:38 am | | And that is why finally there is no evidence whatsoever that suggests that this diary could in any way be authentic.
I know you are logical John. I know you are capable of over simplifying things. But really, that quote above is unworthy of you.
There is plenty of evidence that suggests the diary could be authentic, just as there is plenty of evidence that suggests the diary could be a forgery.
And now we have to hang Paul Feldman out to dry because he didn't go to the John Omlor School of dissertations and essay writing? This is grossly unfair reporting of the worst kind. Paul is a film producer who took an interest in making a video about Jack the Ripper. When he became interested in the diary he didn't even want to write the book himself, but decided eventually that he had to. You really should stop taking things so literally John. Paul may not be the authority on the English language that you are, he may also be guilty of using one word when you would use seven, but the basic premise of his argument should be allowed to stand, without you repeating quotes from his book for comic effect to your audience.
That adds nothing to your standing here, it just makes you look like a sad old comedian who would struggle to get a job as a warm up act for Jim Davidson (if you don't know him, take my word for it - he's cr*p).
So repeat as much as you like, John. Mock Paul, Tee Vee and myself if you wish. Stand on high and denigrate us because you have a greater command of the English language.
At least I am able to get the flavour of Paul Feldman's argument (and no, it doesn't leave a bad taste in the mouth)without having to know the recipe word for word.
Ultimately, the argument can never be about who forged the diary and when. The argument must continue to be about whether or not the diary is genuine. If, in passing, you can show who forged the diary then you will have scored extra points that may take you to the play off final.
Mike for forger? Let's see ...
Caroline Graham's evidence knocks that on the head.
RBJ knocks that on the head.
Mike knocks that on the head with his ridiculous confession to Brough and his revealing of the Sphere guide to Shirley.
Turgoose (if you accept that the watch and diary are inextricably linked) knocks that on the head).
Even the guys who concluded that the diary was written in the 1920's knock the Mike for forger theory on the head.
For me there are only two viable options. Either Mike is involved in the forgery OR it is genuine. John, I appreciate there are other options, but they are not realistic enough to be taken seriously.
Besides, as Shirley said on the Discovery channel, there is plenty of evidence to back the James Maybrick for Ripper campaign without having to rely on the diary.
The diary has been an amazing find. It has introduced me to a world of people who refuse to see beyond the ends of their own noses. A world of people who think it jocular to repeat phrases for comic effect. A world of people who expect everyone else to conform to their own, very high, literary standards.
Chew these over John:
'Mibrac' at the Charing X hotel.
'Tin Match Box Empty'.
'The whore's knife'. (Ooh, there's one we haven't discussed before).
References to Maybrick's parents being buried together.
References to Gladys being repeatedly ill.
Peter Birchwood got closer to the argument that you seemingly ever will John. Peter suggested that if the diary is an old forgery then the forger could have got some information from the Met papers. Why don't you start looking down that route?
I'm still sailing on the good ship Maybrick. And it's headed for Whitechapel, via Liverpool.
Don't bother repeating it John, it wasn't even funny the first time.
Don't bother repeating it John, it wasn't even funny the first time.
What's up? Have you heard that somewhere before?
Regards, Have a good weekend, Come back prepared for some serious debate, not just your pseudo-comic attempts at neo-honesty.
I believe the diary is genuine. You don't. That's a good starting place.
Peter. |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 02 March 2002 - 09:11 am | | Peter,
I was not being comic -- I was being deadly serious. Paul's arguments and his writing are both irrational and misleading. Repeatedly.
You write:
"And now we have to hang Paul Feldman out to dry because he didn't go to the John Omlor of dissertations and essay writing?"
It's called English. We both speak it. So does Paul Feldman.
Here is what you said:
"'Must' to Feldy is just the same as you or I would use 'In my opinion'."
Watch:
A must be B.
A is in my opinion B.
See the important difference?
The fact that Paul Feldman either does not see the difference or thinks there is no difference or thinks he can make the difference disappear just by wishing it so is a clear and demonstrable and decisive indication that he is not writing or arguing responsibly or in good faith and that he should not be taken seriously.
I hope everyone now clearly sees exactly why Paul Feldman's work, his shoddy writing and bad thinking and non-conclusions disguised as conclusions should never be considered as anything more than expressions of his own desire, with nothing at all to support them.
Thank you, Peter. You have been very helpful in making this clear.
And the reason quotes from his book can be cited for comic-effect is because he has written a comic book. The only reason it's not outrageously funny is because it thinks it is being serious.
But anyone with a halfway critical mind and a little patience and care and responsibility in their own reading and analysis can quickly see that it is junk -- intellectual shoddiness and pure desire accompanied by a complete lack of any real evidence or support.
It's no wonder he is never able to link the diary in any way whatsoever to the real James Maybrick or even to place it in the proper century.
Now then, as to your own nonsense, which then takes over the above post...
You write:
"Mike for forger? Let's see ...
Caroline Graham's evidence knocks that on the head."
No, it doesn't. Not in any responsible or objective way whatsoever.
"RBJ knocks that on the head."
No, he doesn't. You can read, right? RBJ merely said that the particular story Mike told to Harold Brough was not true. This is not at all the same as saying Mike wasn't involved in the forgery. Please try and read, Peter.
"Mike knocks that on the head with his ridiculous confession to Brough and his revealing of the Sphere guide to Shirley."
No, he doesn't. Mike could have done both of those things and still been involved in the forgery. This is getting silly.
Then you offer this ridiculous piece of logic, as if there were only two choices:
"Either Mike is involved in the forgery OR it is genuine."
Wrong. Simply and clearly and demonstrably wrong. And I think it is so wrong that everyone reading this post can see it instantly. It does not deserve further comment.
The there's this:
"Besides, as Shirley said on the Discovery channel, there is plenty of evidence to back the James Maybrick for Ripper campaign without having to rely on the diary."
There is none. Not one piece. Anywhere. Not a single piece of evidence that links the real James Maybrick to the Ripper crimes in any way whatsoever.
So if "none" is somehow the same as "plenty" (and Paul Feldman might say it is), then I guess Shirley is correct.
And, as if to demonstrate that there is no evidence at all that links the real James Maybrick in any way to this book or to these crimes, you offer the following sad old bits:
"'Mibrac' at the Charing X hotel."
A reference to a newspaper message about a lost item in a hotel which had no link ever established anywhere by anyone to the real James Maybrick. Feldmaniacal fantasy at its best. The fact that you think it is actually evidence of anything reveals the paucity of your case and embarrassing state of affairs in the pro-diary world.
'Tin Match Box Empty'.
Evidence of a modern forgery, yes.
'The whore's knife'. (Ooh, there's one we haven't discussed before).
Oh, yes, let's. By all means.
Peter, there is not a single piece of verifiable information of any sort anywhere in this book that would not have been available to the general public in 1986. Especially if one of the said members of the general public had access to the Sphere Guide. This includes all the material in the diary about Maybrick and his family.
And Paul Feldman knows this.
So let's see. No evidence. Irrational arguments. Using "must" without establishing any valid conclusion. Ellipses instead of facts. Rhetorical questions that have no evidence to support them.
All in a day's work for Paul Feldman, Peter. And all stunning textual and rhetorical evidence that there is no case for this diary as anything other than a forgery. The fact that you bother to support this sort of irresponsibly written drivel is only sad.
But carry on,
--John
"If the diary is a forgery, Richard Bark-Jones must be a conspirator."
"'Must' to Feldy is just the same as you or I would use 'In my opinion'."
(Now there are two monuments to the state of the diary case.) |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 02 March 2002 - 10:37 am | | You're doing it again John.
But if these are the depths to which you have sunk, then I will be the Schnorbitz to your Bernie Winters. The Cannon to your Ball. The ... what do you mean you don't understand? Ask Caz or Paul Begg. Don't you have cr*p comic duos in the States?
You are trying to turn the discussion into a comedy. That is not right and you should desist.
Dear Dear Dear Dear John. Have you never written something and meant something else? Have you never precised your words, in the knowledge that others would understand you? Or do you always use seven words when one would do?
Have you sunk to such depths that your whole argument against the diary now revolves around Paul Feldman's use of the word "must"? At the risk of being fired from your comedy cannon ... let me explain one more time. Let's see if your tired little brain cell (is it lonely?) can grasp this:
Paul Feldman writes:
"RBJ must be a conspirator".
Paul Feldman means:
"At this stage of my research I find it inconceivable that Richard Bark Jones would put his professional reputation on the line for an out of work scouse scrap metal merchant, therefore in order for the people who say the diary is a forgery to make any sense out of this they have to include Richard Bark Jones amongst their ever growing list of suspects".
Why can't you just see it as it is, Dear John?
Are you so blinkered?
"Either Mike is involved in the forgery OR it is genuine."
Wrong. Simply and clearly and demonstrably wrong. And I think it is so wrong that everyone reading this post can see it instantly. It does not deserve further comment.
John, that is the state of play for me. A lot of people, in fact probably the majority, think Mike forged the diary. I think it is genuine, but there are areas in Mike's story that cause me concern. Therefore I stand by my statement. And Yes John, it does deserve further comment.
Oh, logically speaking of course, there are hundreds of other possibilities, but sooner or later you really have to come to terms with the fact that The butler wrote it in the parlour with a candlestick dipped in diamine ink whilst Mike read the Sphere guide and Anne made tea simply does not hold water. There are other possibilities. Bugs Bunny could have written the damn thing. But he didn't. The other possibilities, right now, aren't worth considering. All the evidence suggests it is either genuine or Mike wrote it.
I say it's genuine.
I'm off to get some Purina now, because you are an irresponsible pet owner who won't feed his Schnorbitz.
You don't have a clue, do you?
Peter.
P.S.
"If the diary is a forgery, Richard Bark-Jones must be a conspirator."
"'Must' to Feldy is just the same as you or I would use 'In my opinion'."
(Now there are two monuments to the state of the diary case.)
It does not deserve further comment.
There is a single monument upon which John Omlor builds his case against the diary.
John, your wit knows know bounds, your post should stand as a comedy beacon for all the distressed amateur ripperologists floundering in the Maybrick ocean. |
Author: Tee Vee
Saturday, 02 March 2002 - 12:44 pm | | Well, either way i think its great how they all look a like, that was a long winded way of helping them all pull off the forgery. I`m on about the similarities in The older Mrs Florence Maybrick and Mary Graham, Ursala Maybrick and Albert Johnson, and if you say they dont look a like then my friends, you do need your eyes tested. Maybe Albert was such a great hoaxer that Ursula Maybrick is him in a habit ?? maybe he is Elizabeth Crawley too ?? and perhaps Margeret Minetta Maybrick also ??
So how did that get pulled off then ?? please explain that ? Maybe Feldy came round to my house with a gun and made me say that ?
P.S the pic i have of the elderly Florence Maybrick looks as if she is sitting in the middle of a big plantation of high grade skunk weed. |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 02 March 2002 - 02:53 pm | | Tee Vee
Bang on! Let's see what John makes of your points, 'cos I'm right behind you and endorse your post 100%
Peter |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 02 March 2002 - 05:39 pm | | Boys,
"They all look alike!?"
To whom? You guys and Paul?
This is evidence of something?
Personally, I think this is the most hilarious part of Paul's whole book. He has no actual evidence at all that links the real James Maybrick in any way whatsoever to this diary, so he is reduced to saying "see, this person looks like this old person in this photo, so maybe they're secretly related!" (or to use Paul's language as given unto us by Peter -- "They must be secretly related!") This isn't an argument, it's the worst sort of wish-fulfilling fantasy.
You don't need to work very hard to turn the discussion into a comedy around here when we are reduced to talking about whether people might look like other people from ages ago and therefore be secretly related.
You see, when doing research or investigating a case or making an argument, you need actual premises, the truth of which you establish using evidence and facts.
Paul Feldman has no evidence, his premises are nonsense and so he has no valid conclusion. Thus he is reduced to hoping people see facial resemblances in old photographs and buy a made-up story about them all being somehow related.
I'm not sure which is more pathetic -- the desire necessary for Paul to make his arguments in this ridiculous fashion -- without any real evidence of any kind -- or the fact that people believe him.
Why do I think the same people who think all these faces look alike and all these people must be secretly related also see an FM on Mary Kelly's wall in the photograph?
The power of suggestion is a formidable thing -- unfortunately it's not evidence of anything, it cannot count in an argument and it is most often logical nonsense.
They all look alike! They must be secretly related! I love this one. 
Now then, Peter -- once again you try and excuse Paul Feldman's amateurishly bad scholarship and horrible logic and shoddy writing by saying Paul Feldman didn't mean what he wrote.
Of course, since there's no real way to know this and since he did write what he wrote, it's a stupid argument.
And that word "must." It's one of Paul's favorites for a reason. He often writes such things. They are usually phrased as absolutes despite the fact that there is no evidence to support their truth, let alone their necessity.
That makes him either a bad writer or a deceitful one. I'm not sure which is worse.
It also makes his case inherently unreliable and logically worthless.
This discussion is a comedy, Peter. It is a comedy because of the way Paul Feldman insists on making claims he cannot support and which have no real evidence at all behind them, it is a comedy because of the complete and total absence of any evidence at all anywhere on the planet that links this diary in any way to its supposed author or that even puts it in the proper century. It is a comedy because the diary is not even in the handwriting of its supposed author and there is no historical reason whatsoever to believe he wrote it. It is a comedy because no one who argues that the diary is authentic has ever found a single piece of reliable evidence that links it to its alleged author or time period and all the scientific tests ever done on the diary place it in the wrong century and because there is no logical reason or valid evidentiary reason whatsoever to think that this diary is anything but a forgery.
It is a comedy, and the arguments that appear here -- such as "If the diary is a forgery, Richard Bark-Jones must be a conspirator" and "Paul Feldman uses 'must' when we would use 'in my opinion'" and "Look, all these faces in these photographs look alike don't they? These people must all be secretly related!" -- arguments such as these would be funny if they weren't so sadly lame.
You do try and rescue Paul by rephrasing his conclusion this way:
"in order for the people who say the diary is a forgery to make any sense out of this they have to include Richard Bark Jones amongst their ever growing list of suspects."
But this claim too is patently nonsense. It's completely illogical, not supported by any evidence and totally without foundation. Claiming that Richard Bark-Jones has to be considered a suspect if this diary is a forgery is just plain stupid. And the fact that you and Paul claim this is still further evidence that there is no rational case for the diary's authenticity and you have been reduced to uttering scurrilous and unfair and illogical conclusions to mask the emptiness of your own arguments.
And there is no reason at all to assume that either Mike forged the diary or else it is genuine. The evidence available simply does not allow us to responsibly claim such a thing in any way. If you think it does, you are reading this whole case irresponsibly and positing a conclusion you cannot establish.
That's why it did not deserve comment.
At some point the case for the diary needs some evidence to support it -- just one piece, somewhere -- that does not place the book in the wrong century or link it to modern documents or conflict with the available handwriting or contradict the history or not have been available in modern sources. Just one reliable, material piece of evidence that does not argue for a forgery.
The problem is, there isn't one.
Thus, like Paul before you, you are reduced to
"I say it's genuine."
And that's about it.
All the best,
--John
"If the diary is a forgery, Richard Bark-Jones must be a conspirator."
"'Must' to Feldy is just the same as you or I would use 'In my opinion'."
And now,
"Look, all these faces in these photographs look alike, don't they? These people must all be secretly related!"
(The list keeps getting better. I wonder whatever happened to reason, to logic, to rational thought, to evidence, to clear and reasonable writing, to basic intellectual honesty. Ah, well.)
PS: They don't actually all look alike to me. But I don't suppose that matters much. They must be secretly related anyway. Why? Because Paul wants them to be. Yeah, this is how to construct a rational and responsible argument.  |
Author: Tee Vee
Sunday, 03 March 2002 - 06:34 am | | Well sir,
If everything to you, apart from your beliefs are a crock of horse sh*t why come on here? Cos all you do is rip the arse out of everyone, LIKE I SAID I THINK YOU NEED YOUR EYES TESTED! And hilarious it may be, but you havent answered the question. I take it you have a personal grudge with Paul Feldman ? Because he got a book published ? i mean i just dont get it, there are a lot of people on here that like to knock people`s efforts to make of it what they will. This is a discussion board for the diary of James Maybrick/Jack the Ripper isn`t it? Maybe someone should build a board called "Anti diarists lot" And John dont talk to me like an idiot, I`m being polite here so please dont push me. I might not of gone to Oxford to study in english, but i CAN read. So please show some respect ("boys")
Oh and i was reading the police files the other day and i read something that interested me, about a man named "Thomas Ede" signal man who said on the morning of the 8th Aug (the morning Martha Tabram was killed) he saw a man with a knife sticking out of his trousers, he also says that the man appeared to have a wooden arm (why appeared ? Just stiff perhaps ? lack of movement ?) he continues... the man was about 5ft. 8in. in height about 35 years of age, with a dark moustache and whiskers. He wore a double peaked cap and dark brown jacket. He walked as if he had a stiff knee. now this man seems to me weak, just like Maybrick says "stiff legs" (arsenic side effects, Maybrick in the diary claimed to of had) He was always worried about paralasis. But hey, i`m doing a feldy now. I just thought it a point that stood out as i was reading it. I`m not saying in anyway that this MUST be Maybrick. So "Sir John" please dont bother kussing me about it. Enjoy the rest of your weekend, I`m off to work now, so enjoy what is left of a lovely weekend. All the best.
Yours truly.
Tee Vee |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Sunday, 03 March 2002 - 07:05 am | | "Peter Birchwood got closer to the argument that you
seemingly ever will John. Peter suggested that if the diary
is an old forgery then the forger could have got some
information from the Met papers. Why don't you start
looking down that route?"
This was actually suggested by someone whose name I forget over three years ago on these boards. The idea seemed to me both then and now as akin to hyena offal.
Regarding Paul Feldman's book: years ago when he was about to publish his book he actually sent me an email offering me £200 if I could trace James Maybrick's birth certificate. Now JM was born at a time when civil registration of births had only just started and it wasn't a legal obligation. Although JM's identically-named older brother (who died before our Jim was born) was recorded, Jim was not.
After publication, I looked at the genealogical evidence put there as fact by Feldman and found it wanting. Feldman's take on the material provided by his researchers was bizarre. The whole book suffered from the problem Feldman had which was that he so wanted to solve the JtR mystery that he accepted almost everything that to him fingered Maybrick and ignored or rejected anything that made it unlikely that Maybrick authored the diary or was JtR. In fact, although I disagree with much that Shirley Harrison put forward in her various editions, it is more readable than Feldman's book and Mrs. Harrison herself is a person with whom one can discuss things in a reasonable manner.
I was interested to hear some time ago that an interview with Feldman was projected for "Ripper Notes." That does not yet seem to have happened. It would be worth-while to hear his defense of his book. Until that actually happens, I must concur with John Omlor's opinion of that book.
There is actaully something that Peter Wood could do that might advance research somewhat. What did Mike Barrett get nicked for? As Lord Birkenhead once nearly said, the reputation of a scrap-metal dealer is like the bloom on a peach: touch it and it is ruined for ever. Certainly members of this profession have had a history of nefarious dealings. But what did our Liverpool example do to get him mentioned in the Post/Echo?
TeeVee:
Anthony Summers in his book about the killing of the Russian Royal Family said that by studying the photos of Anastacia and Anna Anderson, you could see that they were the same person. The shape of the earlobe was a dead givaway. However recent research has proved that Mrs Anderson was not Anastacia but was almost certainly the Polish woman (whose name escapes me) who had been suggested as her real identity in the 1930's. Photos can mean what you want them to mean and Feldman would have identified the Duchess of Kent as a Maybrick descendent if his theory had needed that. (Look at the nose on photos of Maybrick and the Duchess: it's identical!)
Arsenic sideeffects: Increased hair growth, improved complexion (which is why Madelain Smith and several other Victorian poisoners said they bought it) and better breathing. I've never heard that it gives you weak knees. |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 03 March 2002 - 07:21 am | | Hi there Tee Vee,
Well, let's see what actual, rational arguments and real evidence and meaningful claims are made in your post to me above.
First, we must remove the ad hominem nonsense and the simple untruths.
That takes out the first sentence. And the second. And the third and fourth.
"Everything other than my views" are not, to me, a crock of anything. Anything anyone writes here needs to be tested for evidence and logic and reasonableness and thoroughness of thought. That's all I do when I respond and that's all I am doing in my reading of Paul Feldman's writing.
And my vision is fine. I did have my eyes checked, not too long ago in fact.
I have no personal grudge against Paul Feldman. I've never met him, don't know him, and don't know anything about him personally. I do have a "personal grudge" against his book. But that's only because it is badly written, it contains incomplete and shoddy historical research and invalid conclusions written as absolutes, and its rhetoric is strikingly misleading. Also it remains a book utterly bereft of meaningful evidence and full of simple expressions of personal desire masquerading as truth.
I will always have a "personal grudge" against that sort of writing and that sort of thinking in any serious subject.
I do understand that you "don't get it." I will continue to try and explain myself whenever you ask. And yes, I do wish to "knock people’s efforts to make of it what they will," if those efforts are done publicly, in writing, in a published form or in a forum of which I am a part. That's simply called critical response or active participation. Paul opened his work up to such rational criticism when he published it and you and Peter and everyone here open their thoughts and work up to the same when they post them here. If you don't want the logic and the validity and the thoroughness of your efforts "knocked" in a discussion such as this, then why post them? You are participating in a discussion and my critical responses to what I see as the quality of your thoughts and analysis are part of that discussion. So I will continue to respond in precisely the manner you are describing.
Yes, this is "a discussion board for the diary of James Maybrick/Jack the Ripper." And that is what we have been discussing and I have been doing my best to show you exactly and precisely why there is no evidence at all that this little book is the diary of the real James Maybrick or Jack the Ripper, why no one has ever been able to find any evidence of any sort anywhere on the planet that links this little book to either the real James Maybrick or the Ripper crimes or even any evidence whatsoever, scientific or otherwise, that places it even in the proper century. That is the state of affairs concerning this diary today. That is the state of the evidence concerning this diary today. That is why such things are being discussed, quite properly, on this board and other boards around here.
And please be assured that my salutation and its use of the collective "boys" was not in any way meant to be disrespectful. I call my friends that, when they are in groups, all the time. I am sorry if it sounded like some sort of insult. It was certainly not intended as such. In fact, I was including myself among the group of boys that were hashing this thing out. I will stick to proper names in the future to avoid any further misunderstandings.
And finally, thanks for your mention of the Ede description. It is not evidence that in any way links the real Maybrick to any of this of course (nothing does), and yes it would be just like Feldy to key in on the mention of an apparent stiff arm and link that to Maybrick maybe having a stiff leg and then hope for an inference. Unfortunately, none are even remotely justified.
And you might want to check how old the real James Maybrick was in 1888, and if he had "whiskers" in addition to his moustache, either on his chin or along the sides of his face. I think you'll find that the description you cite could be a real problem for you.
Facts are stubborn things.
Just one piece of real evidence, someday, either in the case against Maybrick or linking the diary somehow to the real Maybrick or at least to the proper century, might be nice. But there is none.
Until there is, there is no case. Until then, I will continue to point that out.
All the best,
--John
PS: What "question" haven't I answered? |
Author: Tee Vee
Sunday, 03 March 2002 - 08:07 am | | Well thanks John,
I do understand that very serious people come on here and expect a descent discussion without the newbies (me) coming on and mentioning stuff that you have already discected and disposed of long ago, but i do consider myself interested, and i`m sorry if my intelligence absorbing research and not being an expert on victorian london and the history of the "Real Maybrick" is as good as most, and this is no way a knock to you either, as you have politely let me understand your tone of text in your previous posts. I`m just letting you know that I am a fan and will continue to be, And if i was rich and had all the tiome in the world i WOULD pay for whatever it took to get it all done and dusted, and yes even if i was going to invest in something that would probably turn out to be a forgery, i`d do it. so i`m here like you just trying to work out what is going on here and i do feel guilty at times that i may be accusing an innocent man of these crimes that in all honesty could of been done by several different people as they dont show that much of a similarity in the way they were killed (if we are talking the whitechapel murders, not the recognised Ripper murders) apart from the fact that we can work out that the killer just got more confident.
Sorry to suddenly change subject but i have to go to work soon so i want to get this over and done so i can go. I`m sure in the diary he said he was feeling weak, and i`m sure he complained of his limbs stiffening up, and that his medicine would give him the strength, and i`m sure if on the 8th if he had been hiding that night from nearly being caught "ripping" and not returning home in fear of being captured i`m sure he would have whiskers, we dont know, i dont know, that was just an example scenario of course.
And a point about a book having factual mistakes god i`d hate to of been there after you read the bible John. Another question. Sod Maybrick. Is God real ?????
But thanks for the response John, and I`m no longer reading the diary so no more quotes from me, well unless i feel like i have a valid reason for doing so. Cheers.
Yours truly.
Tee Vee |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 03 March 2002 - 09:05 am | | Hi guys
Tee Vee: I'm standing shoulder to shoulder with you, but you must remember that John Omlor is a comedian, please don't get upset when he uses terms like "boys", I find it rather endearing. I think if you were to meet John, you would find him an entirely different proposition than the character he portrays in here.
John: I must admit you had me in stitches with your post of one or two ago. Your list of emboldened quotes at the bottom of each post is indeed growing longer. But let's be fair about this:
There is no 'secret' relationship. They are either related or they aren't. A simple DNA test should suss that out. Then we have the respected opinion of Ursula Maybrick who said of Albert Johnson when meeting him for the first time, "I always knew he was a Maybrick".
You see John, you can belittle the evidence as much as you like, but evidence it is. Fair enough, if Florie in old age had looked like Billy Connolly with a beard down to the ground, and the other people involved had had ginger hair and a countenance like David Blaine, I'd be with you on this one. But the superficial likeness is there for all to see, and forever it shall stand. Now let's move onto something else.
On the night Liz Stride died she was seen in the company of a gentleman she referred to as 'Jim'. A portrait of a Jack the Ripper suspect printed in the Daily Telegraph on 6 October 1888 is so like James Maybrick that it could have been drawn from one of his photographs. Circumstantial? Very much so, John. But our 'forgers' had no right to expect such 'circumstantial' evidence piling up for them.
Maybrick lived and worked in Whitechapel. His family were from there. I believe he stayed at the Charing X hotel. (Go on John, embolden it and place it as the fourth quote at the end of your posts).
Paul Feldman has uncovered more circumstantial evidence against Maybrick than any other researcher or writer has ever done against any other Ripper candidate. Quite simply John, the case against Maybrick is the best one that there is.
I remember Chris T. George pointing out to me a while ago that the information regarding James' mother and father being buried together had been printed somewhere. But John, this is the same 'forger' that couldn't even copy five words from a Sphere guide correctly, and yet you and Chris would have me believe that he read every book on Maybrick, every book on Jack the Ripper, just to see where James' parents were buried? It's mentioned twice in the diary that they are buried together, it is important to the diarist.
The diary isn't in the handwriting of James? Well, we don't have many handwriting examples for James do we? But nonetheless I stick by my assertion that the person who wrote the Galashiels letter also wrote James Maybrick's will. That clearly put James Maybrick in the Ripper frame. And the writing in the Galashiels letter does not look unlike the writing in the diary (thanks to Shirley for pointing that out).
I don't have as much of a problem with the handwriting as you do, John. I would have been more concerned if it had been a perfect match to the 25 September letter for instance. I say a 'perfect' match, because that would have intimated a forgery. But hell, you'll just ridicule all this because you've made your mind up already.
There isn't one piece of reliable information that even places the diary in the proper century? You know John, I don't even have to do that, because it's quite obviuous that if the diary is a forgery then the 'forger' had access to various printed works that have been alluded to many times on these boards. The only other place that the 'diarist' could have got such information is if he was James Maybrick. So all I have to do is show that the diary was written before those printed works became available, right? Well, it's only logical.
And this is where I will carry on insisting that Anne Graham's evidence, and that of her father, continues to place the diary far back enough in time to prove it genuine. Because if, as Anne says, the diary was around in it's present form in 1968/69, then it must be genuine, there is simply no other option, as the information a forger would have needed if the diary was constructed before 1968/69 was simply not available then.
So John, I hold Anne Graham up as a shining example of the one piece of evidence that proves the diary to be genuine. Anne is prepared to put her reputation, her whole life and the life and reputation of her daughter on the line to secure the provenance of a book which, judging by what Caz says having met Anne, disgusts her.
Until you can prove that Anne is lying I shall continue to believe that the diary is genuine.
And rightly so.
Peter B. Your reading of PHF's interpretation of the genealogical evidence is o.k. by me. I don't put any store whatsoever in the birth certificates, death certificates etc. Want to know why?
Because Feldy builds the whole part of this argument around the fact that the 'Manchester' referred to in the diary is in fact 'Godmanchester' near Peterborough. That is utter tosh, I'm afraid. I've read the diary carefully and have come to the conclusion that the Manchester referred to in the diary can only be the one in which I live. Why?
This is why: When recalling the first Manchester murder the diarist makes it quite clear that he is back in Liverpool and that it is the very next day. There is no time delay. He says:
" ...Manchester was cold and damp very much like this hell hole ...I will take the bitch tonight. I need to take my mind off the night's events.
Now, I don't know whether or not you would be inclined to agree with my assessment of those entries in the diary. But I would go further, I think the diarist is writing as if it were the following morning - not day, not afternoon, not evening - but morning. So, it may surprise you all that I have a big problem with a major part of Paul Feldman's argument - I don't think it would be possible in 1888 for old Jimmy boy to murder a prostitute in Godmanchester and make his way home to be in his office in Liverpool by the very next morning.
But that's just me.
And that still doesn't stop me thinking Paul's book is a thoroughly well written and entertaining read. I don't need to make sense of his reading of the genealogical evidence (I don't think I will ever be able to) to be able to agree with him that the diary is genuine and was written by James Maybrick.
See you boys later.
Cheers etc
Peter.
"If the diary is a forgery, Richard Bark-Jones must be a conspirator."
"'Must' to Feldy is just the same as you or I would use 'In my opinion'."
And now,
"Look, all these faces in these photographs look alike, don't they? These people must all be secretly related!"
(The list keeps getting better. I wonder whatever happened to reason, to logic, to rational thought, to evidence, to clear and reasonable writing, to basic intellectual honesty. Ah, well.)
Dear dear John, the diary wasn't directed down the academic route, and quite rightly so. If we all lived our lives logically then the Backstreet Boys would never get to Number One, Footballers wouldn't be paid a lifetime's wages for one ninety minute game and Tony Blair wouldn't be British Prime Minister right now.
"First, we must remove the ad hominem nonsense and the simple untruths".
ad hominem? Didn't he write 'Stan'? |
Author: Tee Vee
Sunday, 03 March 2002 - 06:30 pm | | Hi guys.
In my previous post I wrote a piece about a man that was seen by a "Thomas Ede" on the 8th of aug 1888 (morning after Tabram murder). The man in his late 30`s that appeared to have a wooden arm, with the long knife sticking out of his trousers that limped. well "Thomas Ede" did not report this to the police until after the 3rd whitechapel murder(Nichols)as made clear by his name and tale being in "The Times" dated 18th Sept 1888 (page 12) and after my little joke about a link, i continued to search, and in "The Times" dated 24th Sept 1888 (page 3. And no there is no boobs there) it continues with this spooky little passage (well i like it anyway) ...
"William Eade"(sic) recalled, stated he had since seen the man whom he saw with knife near "Forresters-Hall". He ascertained that his name was Henry JAMES and that he did not posess a wooden arm.
THE CORONER said the man JAMES had been seen, and proved to be a harmless lunatic. HA HA maybe not. but hey i`m doing a feldy here. But also i read a report to "H" division dated 15th sept 1888 stating that a "William Stevens", painter had seen Annie Chapman put the two pills in the piece of paper that she picked up off her kitchen floor, near the fire place. so Could James of put it there at the scene ? hmmm my mind is ticking now. If Stevens is right then the diaryist is wrong. Damn! maybe i`ll see more i like as i continue to read.
Yours Truly.
Tee Vee |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 03 March 2002 - 07:45 pm | | Tee Vee,
Thanks for your first post.
My criticisms are mainly with the utterly shoddy work done by Paul Feldman and the way he too often claims to have reached a conclusion when he has, in fact, done nothing of the sort.
Remember this, no one has ever found even a single piece of evidence of any kind that in any way links this diary to the real James Maybrick or that even places it in the proper century. Not Paul Feldman, not Peter Wood, not Shirley Harrison, no one.
(That because there is no such evidence, I'm willing to bet.)
By the way, regarding your description above -- wrong age, wrong facial hair, and nothing at all that in any way resembles the real Maybrick. And nothing at all that links any of this to the real Maybrick. Remember, it's all just fantasy and wish fulfillment on the part of Paul Feldman. You should take none of it seriously. No one with a serious mind and critical eye should ever take any of it seriously. It's bad thinking and bad writing all done without even a shred of real evidence to support it.
And of course, the difference between this book and the Bible is that one of them is meant to be taken on faith. And that one is not the diary. But faith, bad faith, is the only thing that the diary offers -- it contains not a single piece of previously unknown verifiable information, it's not in the proper handwriting, all the tests ever done on it place it in the wrong century, it has no verifiable provenance whatsoever and there is not a single thing anywhere in it or attached to it that links it to the real James Maybrick in any way. All it offers is faith. And that is not good enough for a text that is claiming to be an authentic historical document stating the truth. So believe the Bible if you choose -- it's properly a question of faith. But under no circumstances believe the diary. There is not a single legitimate reason to anywhere on the planet.
And Peter,
You are seriously suggesting that Paul Feldman's desperate claim that faces in old photographs look similar is "evidence" of something. This is too absurd for words.
If the case for the diary's authenticity rests on someone saying "don't these people look alike -- maybe they're really related..." then this is a comic book and there is no reason to take any of this seriously.
Do a DNA test if you like -- and then you might have evidence of something. But until then, it's all just Feldmaniacal drama full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.
You say, "the superficial likeness is there for all to see."
First of all, I don't see it.
Second of all, this is not an evidentiary claim -- it's a casual observation that leads to no valid truth claim of any sort.
This is not how responsible cases are made and this is a clear indication of why the case for the diary's authenticity is anything but serious.
Onward.
You offer another "see, he kind of looks like this picture" bit of nonsense -- which is not a valid or rational argument, evidence of nothing and irrelevant to any serious discussion of real evidence.
Then you suggest that Maybrick stayed at the Charing Cross hotel. Unfortunately, like so much of what you write -- this is fantasy.
You have no real evidence whatsoever for this claim and you offer none and therefore there is no reason for anyone to take it seriously.
Once again, the first rule forgotten by both you and Paul Feldman needs to be reprinted:
Just writing something down does not make it true.
You can write down whatever you want, but if you never offer any real evidence to support any of your claims then they can be blissfully ignored by all people with serious minds and a sense of critical responsibility. Because just writing it down as if it were true does not make it true.
Paul Feldman has uncovered NO evidence of any sort against the real James Maybrick. None. Not one piece anywhere. Give me just one piece of evidence that is actually evidence against the real James Maybrick in the Ripper case. You don't in your post above, so please try. Just one.
You can't, because there isn't one. Feldman has NO evidence at all against the real James Maybrick and there is NO case against him whatsoever.
And the diary remains completely and utterly unlinked to him in any way and therefore is also not evidence against him.
Every piece of verifiable information in the diary was available to the general public in 1986. And the mistranscription of the Crashaw quote is a completely different sort of error from not doing research, Peter. And you know that. All the forgers had to do was read a few Maybrick books to get the Maybrick family details. Why are you so amazed that they did?
The writing in the Galasheils letter, Peter, looks nothing at all like the writing in the diary. I can post the letter here if you want. And the writing we have by the real James Maybrick looks nothing like the writing in the diary. NO expert has ever said otherwise. None ever will. Please accept the facts, Peter. I am growing tired of repeating them.
The handwriting in this diary looks nothing at all like any document written by the real James Maybrick, including his will. All the available evidence indicates quite clearly that this diary is not in the real James Maybrick's handwriting.
Facts are stubborn things and just writing stuff down, Peter, does not make it true. You have no evidence, so that's all you can do, I understand. But I'm sorry, but as long as you have no evidence, writing your desires down is a waste of time and critically irrelevant to any serious discussion of a historical nature.
And your weaseling about the dates is lovely but it slides over a simple fact.
No one, ever, anywhere, in any way, has ever been able to place this diary in the right century, let alone in 1888 in the possession of the real James Maybrick.
Not a single test on the diary has ever placed it in anything but the 20th century. Every test of every kind ever done on it places it in the 20th century. That's the wrong century, Peter. Even you must understand that simple fact.
And Peter, once again (this is tiring) -- ANNE HAS NO EVIDENCE. Anne has never offered any evidence at all to support her story. None. Not a single piece. So saying that her "evidence" places the diary back in time is colossally stupid. She has no evidence. She has never offered any evidence. All she has ever done is tell a story -- with nothing at all to support it or back it up. You can't use her evidence for anything, Peter, because she has no evidence. The evidence you claim places the diary back in time simply DOES NOT EXIST. Why you can't understand this is simply a mystery.
You actually write the following nonsense:
"I hold Anne Graham up as a shining example of the one piece of evidence that proves the diary to be genuine."
Anne is not a "piece of evidence," Peter. Anne has no evidence. She only has a completely unsupported story. Until she offers evidence to support it, it remains just that -- a story. And there is no actual evidence.
Since she has no evidence, she cannot "prove" anything. And consequently, your sentence above is not only a logical howler but a piece of linguistic nonsense.
I know you can think and write, Peter. But you must try and do it with some respect for logic and simple rules of evidence and serious care. Otherwise there is no reason to take any of this stuff seriously.
Finally, Peter, you quote me:
(The list keeps getting better. I wonder whatever happened to reason, to logic, to rational thought, to evidence, to clear and reasonable writing, to basic intellectual honesty. Ah, well.)
And then you say:
"Dear dear John, the diary wasn't directed down the academic route, and quite rightly so."
Dear dear Peter, the "academic" world is surely not the only place where reason, logic, rational thought, evidence, clear and reasonable writing, and basic intellectual honesty are required. I do hope these things are required by you when you read and analyze history such as this and documents such as this.
If not, if you do not value and seek for reason, logic, rational thought, evidence, clear and reasonable writing, and basic intellectual honesty in this discussion on these boards and in this attempt to arrive at some historical truths, then there really is no need for us to continue.
And, Peter, it is reason, logic, rational thought, evidence, clear and reasonable writing, and basic intellectual honesty that are missing entirely from Paul Feldman's arguments. And that renders them utterly invalid and historically irrelevant, not only in the academy but here as well, and everywhere where rational and responsible people seriously discuss history.
And that is, in fact, why I am here.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Scott Nelson
Sunday, 03 March 2002 - 11:42 pm | | Hi John (Olmor),
I was wondering why do you continue to bother going tit-for-tat with the likes of Peter Wood and others who post such nonsensical pro-diary arguments? It's chewing up tremendous quantities of server space on this website. And really, the only persons reading the stuff are you and your "advesaries". Maybe the correspondence should take place privately... ?
I'm writing as one who doesn't want to see the diary boards diluted any further than they currently are, into an utter waste-of-space, collection of nonsense (not referring to the stuff that you write.) It's hard enough to read through everything that's been written, especially if one can't follow the boards on a day-by-day basis.
I, and many others closely follow these boards to observe this great modern, historical mystery, but the only benefit is when rational discussion takes place. We're turned off when the 600-800 word essays, however rational, have to be writen to correct obviously defiecient reasoning.
You might consider resisting the temptation to correct every wayward post that pops up.
Enemies having been made,... |
Author: Tee Vee
Monday, 04 March 2002 - 01:37 am | | Wow someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed.
So what are you saying Scott? I dont think i`m going to like the answer to this one. I`m only on here as i`m interested in this subject too, and i think if you look at history on these boards, i`ve also been here, so because you dont recognise my name your going to be critical of all i write on this board. well i`m sorry about that, but it seems to me that you have a lot to say? So if you want to Diss me dont be subliminal about it. You have my e-mail address, speaking of wasting web space, you never said one thing constructive about either subject, Ripper or diary, you are just moaning. I can leaave this page alone, have done before. But I`ve signed up and i`ve left my details here, so dont i have a right to air my views ? And just because we are the only 3 people with something to say for the last few days doesnt mean we have hogged this board, i went away for a whole day and when i returned it was the same as when i left it. If as you say our debates have made people turn off then i`d like them to e-mail me with they`re say, and if what you say is true, I`ll leave this board. So there you have it Scott, i cant say anymore.
Yours truly.
Tyler |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 04 March 2002 - 07:06 am | | Hi All,
Hi RJ,
‘If those are Anne Graham's true feelings, then I can only imagine that it must have been a great burden indeed to write a chapter on Jack the Ripper's activities for her own book, The Last Victim.’
‘But let me get this straight. It's sick to research the Ripper, but o.k. to turn around and give her own husband the journal so he can write a novel about it and get his self-respect back? Hmm. I'm sure you can see why Anne's story doesn't strike us doubting-Thomases as being very consistent.’
Absolutely RJ. I wrote that I share the concerns about Anne’s account of dumping the diary on an unknowing Mike, and that it appears initially to be a very unlikely course of action for anyone to take, or a heartless one if true. I also agreed with you that her story is always going to be hard to swallow.
But – can you not see your own inconsistency in the above two statements? Do you think Anne is lying when she says it’s sick to research the Ripper, because of that chapter in her book on Florie? Or do you think Anne is lying when she says she gave the journal to Mike, and for the reasons she gives, because she really does think it’s sick for anyone to research the Ripper? You can’t have it both ways.
And this brings me to my main point, which I’d also like to address to John Hacker and Peter Birchwood. What relevance to the modern hoax theory does Anne’s change of story between 1992 and 1994 have? What relevance do any inconsistencies of attitude towards the diary and the ripper and the Maybrick case have? Basically, what relevance does it have to proving the diary is a recent forgery to keep pointing out that Anne has shown herself to be deceitful and untrustworthy?
Let me explain. I am not arguing that Anne has been telling the truth since 1994. I can’t. I don’t know whether she has or not. I’m not even arguing that she could have been telling the truth. But in order to even allow for the possibility of the diary being a modern fake, Anne’s ‘in the family’ story has to be a lie. And it seems to me that it always comes back to one of two arguments:
1) The physical evidence of the diary itself tells us we are dealing with a modern hoax, therefore Anne’s 1994 story cannot be true.
The same argument of course is used against the watch, and has no relevance whatsoever to the perceived characters of either Anne or Albert. Anne could be Mother Teresa and Albert the very devil for all the difference it would make. Anne’s story cannot be true. Albert’s story cannot be true. End of both stories.
2) 'Certainly though, whether she is a saint or a sinner, the storys [sic] told by AG over the years have differed to such an extent that they can not all be true.' (Peter R.A. Birchwood Tuesday, 26 February 2002 - 03:21 pm.) And we always end up with someone pointing out that, even if Anne’s 1994 story is true, it still shows that she deceived her husband and everyone else up until that point, and that therefore she can never be trusted.
The flaws in this argument are manifold, but the one that hits me in the face every time (and maybe John Omlor has been too busy not turning his own blue arguing with Peter W to notice) is that if Anne’s 1994 story is true, it wouldn’t make any difference if Anne had previously put six husbands in acid baths after taking out life insurance policies for them, the modern hoax theory would be in there with them.
And so what if Anne’s 1994 story isn’t true? Does this prove she knows anything at all about the diary’s true origins? No. And RJ seems to think she had nothing to do with forging it, in which case, any flaws in her character are again totally irrelevant to his argument for a modern forgery.
And for those of you who think Anne was in on the forgery, can you argue that Mike was too (despite the fact that he wrote to inform her in a private letter as late as 1996 that he knew she had written it herself)? Or, if you think Anne could be a veritable Lady Macbeth, can you argue that she duped her husband with a modern forgery, having used his Sphere in the process, and left it when she walked out for him to find later?
To sum up, can what we know about Anne’s actions and attitude help us decide if she was actually involved in the forgery or not? And if not, what’s the relevance of the fact that we all know she hasn’t been straightforward for whatever reason?
Hi Peter B,
‘What did Mike Barrett get nicked for?’
You’re not going to tell us he has asked for sixteen other forged ripper diaries to be taken into account are you? I don’t think I could cope with Peter W’s defence and John O’s cross-examination.
‘Arsenic side effects: Increased hair growth, improved complexion…and better breathing. I've never heard that it gives you weak knees.’
Any idea where I could get some? I don’t mind about the weak knees either way – I’ve got them already.
Hi Peter W,
I nearly fell off my chair laughing when I read:
‘…sooner or later you really have to come to terms with the fact that The butler wrote it in the parlour with a candlestick dipped in diamine ink whilst Mike read the Sphere guide and Anne made tea simply does not hold water.’
For all the times when John O rightly exposes Feldy for his flights of fancy and you for adding to them, I will have this indelible image in my mind as proof that both ‘sides’ are stuck in a groove.
But to be fair to John O, I would subtly alter his Cluedo conclusion to read:
‘A penman, who may or may not already have been identified as Citizen Kane, wrote it in a location, that may or may not have been his bungalow or the snug in the Forgers Arms, with a suitable pen, which was very likely dipped in Diamine ink, whilst Mike’s Sphere guide was almost certainly being used for the ‘O costly…’ lines, and Anne was quite possibly making up a story for later.'
Love,
Caz
PS I think Will is doing fine without me buying the single. In his first week he sold over a million copies, more than Band Aid did with ‘Do They Know It’s Christmas?’ or Elton with ‘Candle in the Wind’, to enter the record books for the fastest-selling UK single ever. Good luck to him and I too can’t wait for the album. |
|
|
|
|
