|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 07 March 2002
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
TIME FOR A RE- EVALUATION!:
Archive through 07 March 2002
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 04 March 2002 - 07:39 am |        | Hi Scott,
Sorry, it's what I do. Remember, Maybrick is the still the most popular or among the most popular suspects on the Casebook poll, the diary still outsells all the serious Ripper books, and the nonsense about it being authentic remains a much too popular myth. So I'm not sure it really is a waste of space for at least one person to stand guard in the name of reason and rational thought and intellectual honesty and make sure that the complete lack of evidence for its authenticity is continually noted and that the illogical nonsense of the case against the real James Maybrick is continually exposed.
Of course, since you have read the debate already and since this sort of thing is bound to get repetitive given how little stuff the pro-diary people actually have to use in their "arguments" (what with not having any actual evidence and all), you can feel free to skip stuff by Peter and myself on this board and not fear that you have missed anything. But new people arrive here all the time, and many of them are seduced early by the convenience of the diary myth -- it's a neat and clean solution with an easy to understand confession and an attractive fiction that has sex and jealousy and murder all written up in a nice Aristotelian fashion like a badly clichéd movie. It has a conventional and simplistic sort of appeal. The fact that there is no evidence whatsoever anywhere on the planet that links the book in any way to its supposed author or even places it in the proper century and the fact that the entire case for this book's authenticity is based on bad thinking, bad writing, and utterly illogical conclusions like the ones listed at the end of posts above both need to be continually a part of any diary discussion so that those who arrive here thinking there is any legitimate reason to believe that the real James Maybrick had anything to do with this book or these crimes can be given the truth -- that there is simply no evidence anywhere which links him in any way to either.
I will try and streamline my responses to the logical nonsense that floats around here. But I will continue to highlight it and critically respond to it and show it for what it really is to whatever readers there might still be out there. I think it is the responsible thing to do.
Thanks,
--John
PS: Caz, yes I have been distracted by the other silliness for a time -- but I do want to say a thing or two about your discussion with RJ concerning Anne. I think you are correct about one thing -- what Anne says once the diary hits the public, after 1992, is not necessarily relevant to the question of whether she was involved in the actual creation of the book. She could have done exactly what she did and told the exact same story in the evolving way she did for obvious personal reasons whether she knew where the book really came from or not. So her behavior after the money started arriving cannot be properly used as evidence concerning her participation in the forgery. I'll try and say more about this later -- but now I must head off to work. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 04 March 2002 - 08:33 am | | Caz--Hi. Say that again, I don't follow. How am I being inconsistent? Let me be plain. I don't believe Anne Graham is disgusted or outraged by Ripperologists. I think she is disgusted and outraged by people who ask her uncomfortable questions about her ridiculous tale.
This has nothing whatsover to do with the likeliness of her giving the diary to her husband to write a novel about Jack the Ripper. I don't believe that story for entirely different reasons: the diary isn't old; Anne didn't know Devereux; Mike seems to know where the diary came from; it is a bunch of convoluted claptrap that only emerged after Mike's confession, etc. etc.
But you've got John Omlor involved. I now see we'll get another large dose of John's often repeated arguement that Anne's "behavior after the money started arriving cannot be properly used as evidence concerning her participation in the forgery"
To which I say again, yes, yes, John, but that's missing the point. Another way of saying "yes she's a liar but she's lying for different reasons."
The point, John, is that Anne's story is bullocks and she needs to tell the truth about what she does or doesn't know about the diary. It seems to me that you are nearly inhibiting the discussion by defending her right to lie because it doesn't tell us who forged the diary----hen of course, her tale tale does deflect the truth and keep this "old" document stuff alive.
The diary isn't old. Anne Graham needs to tell us what she knows. RP |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 04 March 2002 - 10:36 am | | Hi RJ,
I'll try to explain your inconsistency to you again. You implied rather sarcastically that Anne couldn't really think ripper research was that sick because she went ahead and wrote a chapter about it in her own book. In the next breath you argued, again rather sarcastically, against Anne having given the diary to Mike to help his self-esteem and maybe write a novel about it if she truly thought any interest in the ripper was sick. One argument depends on Anne not thinking ripper research is sick, the other depends on the opposite. Which one is it?
You now write:
'I think she is disgusted and outraged by people who ask her uncomfortable questions about her ridiculous tale.'
Well, Anne willingly appeared on The Trial of JtR programme, and remained available afterwards for anyone present to ask her any manner of uncomfortable questions if they so wished. Whether she had ulterior motives for putting up with the disgust and outrage she felt as a result I can't say. But you could at least have conceded that your recent point against her that she has kept a low profile and refused to talk at all no longer applies.
And you are again making my point for me by writing: 'The diary isn't old', and describing Anne's tale as 'ridiculous' and 'a bunch of convoluted claptrap', as if that helps your modern hoax argument in any way, shape or form. (See arguments 1) and 2) in my previous post.)
What you want, RJ, is for Anne to come out and say, "My 1994 story is not true after all." And I can appreciate that's because you believe 100% that it isn't true and you want everyone else to believe it too.
But if Anne did that tiny thing it would achieve nothing, as you suggest, unless she were also able to tell us that she knows the diary isn't old and how she knows. And there is no reason why she should know anything just because you say her story is 'bullocks' and 'the diary isn't old'.
And, in fact, all your recent posts have argued against Anne knowing anything. So forgive me if I don't understand the purpose of keep calling her a liar if it won't get you or anyone else an iota nearer who wrote the diary or when. Even Peter Birchwood could see that Anne not knowing anything doesn't prove the diary either new, old or genuine.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Tee Vee
Monday, 04 March 2002 - 02:23 pm | | Hi all,
I am genuinely sorry if i lowered the standard of the boards but i still state that i`m serious in my interest, and to those who even care to know, i`m not just interested in Maybrick either, i like the whole mystery around Jack the Ripper. I have read about 12 major books now by credited authors, and only 2 of those were about the diary, granted that it was SH`s diary that i read first but that was down to it being the latest one out at the time. I still have two on standby for when i finish my new baby, and by heck its good.(had some strange looks on public transport i must say, but then again i do use a photo of my girlfriend as a book-marker ha ha) Big up to Stewart P. Evans and Keith Skinner for that little (well family sized) gem.
I thought that when tests were done on the journal`s ink, it was said to be "Decades old" so that would at least put it in the 70`s - 80`s, but hey i`m a menial.
Yours Truly
Tee.
P.S have a good evening all. |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 04 March 2002 - 04:05 pm | | Hi RJ,
Have no fear. I have made the point that I thought was important, which you have accurately summarized and cited. I do realize that I have said it in such a way that it might seem to you like I am defending her right to lie. I assure you, I am not. I am merely being clear about the fact that her lying or her telling her story to Paul does not indicate whether she actually participated in or even knew about the forgery. It's not even necessarily evidence in that question, since there was more than an adequate motive of self-interest for her to lie to Mr. Feldman whether she helped create the document or not.
That's not missing the point, it's making a related point which should not be forgotten, lest we begin to assume that the possibility of her telling a lie about having seen the diary long ago, in order to keep collecting money, allows us to claim she is a forger. It doesn't.
But I agree with your conclusions as well. Anne does indeed "need to tell the truth about what she does or doesn't know about the diary."
I'm just not sure there's any real way of making her do that and until we can come up with one, or until we discover the truth for ourselves about who wrote this book, we can't use her little story about the book being old as evidence of her participation in its creation, even if it is not true.
But I do not want to "inhibit the discusion." So I'll stop there.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 04 March 2002 - 06:33 pm | | Scott says:
"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... ?"
Let that stand as a momument to the intellectual capacity of Scott's brain. If you don't agree with somebody then what they are saying is ....nonsensical.
Maybe the correspondence should take place privately?
And how do you, dear Scott, know that further conversation between myself and John, Tee Vee and Caz et al doesn't take place privately? Maybe we all open up a private chat room and invite each other in and you are the only person who isn't invited.
Ever get the impression that you missed out on something? Now have you got something constructive to say or not? Because just by being here you are taking up " ...valuable server space".
John Omlor: It is rare that we agree, but this is a discussion board and the world would be a much poorer place if we all bowed down to Scott and agreed with each other. Yes Scott, No Scott, Three bags full Scott.
It's a discussion you gimp, that means people putting across opposing views. Now get out of my way, I'm bored of you.
By the way John, I admire the way you put yourself forward as the guardian of moral goodness, the last man to think the diary is a forgery. But in truth, I have battled on alone here for months whilst you have the world on your side. What someone like Scott needs to realise is that it was me that started the 'Time for' line of discussion. Everyone else just came to me.
And what does John have against the diary tonight? Yep, that tired old chestnut:
"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".
This is what I say:
Not a single test on the diary or it's component parts has ever proven it to be a forgery. Worse than that, the tests haven't even suggested it to be a forgery. Even worse (for you Johnny) the tests lean more and more towards the diary being genuine. Even you must understand that simple fact, dear John".
Much of the ripper case in general is built around speculation, hypothesis, some of it downright made up lies.
The diary isn't a lie. It exists. And I put forward again:
"If Anne is telling the truth the diary is genuine. If Anne is lying the diary is a fake".
I understand the other possibilities (viz. Colonel Mustard) but all they amount to is something along the lines of '... it could have been the Loch Ness monster wot done it'.
I am trying to be reasonable with you John. I am trying to present the most likely options. All you have to do to get me to join your side is break Anne's story. Why don't you even have a go?
It crossed my mind that Anne kept the diary saga going at a time when her relationship with her husband was at an all time low. Get ready John, I'm about to use that 'must' word. Therefore, if the diary was forged, Anne and Mike must have collaborated on it. Why? Why else would Anne keep the story going and invent a provenance for an article of which she may have had no idea as to it's real provenance.
If Anne had taken a leap of faith, a shot in the dark, she wasn't to know that say two months down the line someone could come forward to 100% date the diary to 1990.
But that hasn't happened.
And Anne wasn't taking a chance because Anne is telling the truth.
All you serve to remind us of John, is that the scientific tests are somewhat contradictory. But not one of them has proven the diary to have been written in the three years or so before it went to Doreen Montgomery (Monty?}. They don't even come close to it.
My argument stands. My reasoning is sound. Break Anne's story and you break the diary.
End of (that) story.
Now John, back to Richard Bark Jones for a wee moment ...
Where did you get this from? "If the diary is a forgery, Richard Bark-Jones must be a conspirator."
I've re read Feldy's excellent book and don't find that quote anywhere. What I did find, on P. 179, was this:
"If anybody claims after this that Mike Barrett forged the diary then they are also claiming that this firm of solicitors (RBJ's firm, Morecroft Dawson & Garnett)were lying as well. They will have to answer that criticism, not to me but to Morecroft, Dawson & Garnett".
RBJ's words to describe Mike's confession?
" ...totally incorrect and without foundation".
Totally incorrect? I've chewed over your arguement previously, John, that RBJ may just have been absolving Mike of this particular confession. But Mike's statement was 'totally incorrect and without foundation'. That is unambiguous. That absolves Mike of ever having been involved in a forgery at all. Ever.
How are things up on the moral high ground these days? Lacking in oxygen, I suspect.
Take care on your slow descent.
Regards
Peter. |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 04 March 2002 - 06:57 pm | | Peter,
You write:
"By the way John, I admire the way you put yourself forward as the guardian of moral goodness,"
Once again you refuse to read.
I said that I thought someone should "stand guard in the name of reason and rational thought and intellectual honesty and make sure that the complete lack of evidence for its authenticity is continually noted and that the illogical nonsense of the case against the real James Maybrick is continually exposed."
Nothing about "moral goodness" in there at all.
But this is typical of your refusal to be accurate in your reading and writing.
I write in favor of reason and clarity, intellectual honesty, and care and thoroughness of thought. I have nothing at all to say about who might be moral or immoral nor am I the guardian of any such distinctions, which remain irrelevant to our project of critical analysis of evidence and the lack of evidence and of reading and writing.
Then you write:
"Even worse (for you Johnny) the tests lean more and more towards the diary being genuine. "
Pay attention everyone:
THIS IS FALSE.
Every test ever done on the diary places its creation in the wrong century. Therefore, not a single one leans in any way towards it being genuine. In fact, unless every single test ever done on the diary is wrong, the diary is a forgery, since every test places its creation in the 20th century.
Peter is simply and remarkably wrong. If it is on purpose, then it is a lie. If he is not being deliberately deceitful, then he is ignorant of the truth.
But in either case, he is writing something here that is blatantly and demonstrably false.
I hate to think he is doing it on purpose because he has no honest arguments.
Then, Peter, you say this further nonsense, proving again that you have no idea what the word "must" means or that you are unwilling to argue fairly, using your words responsibly:
"Therefore, if the diary was forged, Anne and Mike must have collaborated on it. Why? Why else would Anne keep the story going and invent a provenance for an article of which she may have had no idea as to it's real provenance."
To continue receiving money. That was easy.
Then you ask:
"Where did you get this from? 'If the diary is a forgery, Richard Bark-Jones must be a conspirator.'
I got it from a post by Tee Vee which you endorsed.
And finally there's this:
"But Mike's statement was 'totally incorrect and without foundation'. That is unambiguous. That absolves Mike of ever having been involved in a forgery at all. Ever."
Peter, where did you learn the English language? Mike's statement was totally incorrect and without foundation. Which statement? The statement he made to Harold Brough.
Valid Conclusion:
The particular statement Mike made to Brough was totally incorrect and without foundation.
NOT a Valid Conclusion:
Mike could not have been involved in the forgery.
In fact, Bark-Jones is specific in his statement, referring to Mike's claim that "he himself had written the diary." That's the claim that Bark-Jones says is incorrect. He says nothing at all about Mike's being involved in or not involved in the creation of the forgery with others. He never has.
Sometimes, Peter, it really does pay to read.
But I'm going to stop now since the incredible emptiness of your arguments and your complete and utter lack of evidence and lack of respect for the simple rules of logic are, I believe, apparent to all careful readers by now. Scott is correct about that.
There is no evidence that has ever linked this book to the real James Maybrick in any way or ever placed it even in the proper century. You have no case whatsoever and the pathetic illusion of a case you do try and offer is completely bereft of logic, care, thoughtfulness, responsibility and, most importantly, actual evidence of any sort.
So enough.
I'm happy to let things rest here until you’d like to offer something new.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Tee Vee
Monday, 04 March 2002 - 07:28 pm | | | Hi again guys, that quote is from page 400 of the "Final chapter" paper back version published 98/99 by Virgin. Tee |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 04 March 2002 - 07:48 pm | | Thanks, Tee Vee.
--John |
Author: John Hacker
Monday, 04 March 2002 - 09:16 pm | | Hiya Caz,
This is in response to your post of Friday. I'm sorry it took so long to reply. When the flu was done with me it decided to ravage my family so I've been playing nursemaid. I'll have to work my way forward through all the stuff I missed, ugh.
While I would certainly agree that Mike's alcoholism could bring her to the point of desperation, I still can't see why she would have been impelled to that particular decision. I will certainly admit that people make some odd choices, but I don't see why she would have thought that giving it to him would result in Mike's drinking less. There doesn't seem to be any reason whatsoever that it would. It simply makes no sense.
Even beyond the failure of the basic plan to make sense, there are huge problems with her story. Would Tony Devereaux do such a thing? Why? I would be unlikely to put myself in the middle of anything like that if approached by a friends wife, it's simply asking for trouble. And there didn't seem to be any particular closeness between Tony and Anne unless I am missing something.
And once what was is the package became apparent and Mike started badgering him with questions, why didn't he rat her out? It would have had to have been a pain. I would have found it especially annoying if I was used as a patsy in this way. I think virtually anyone would.
And if we take Anne at her word, she didn't want Mike to know the origins of the diary so that he wouldn't pester her sick father. And yet she seems perfectly willing for Mike to hound this other poor sick guy who is only involved because of her. Nice. The more I look at it the more it bugs me on a lot of levels. It's rather hard to swallow to say the least.
But having once given the Tony Devereaux story, if she wanted to change her tale to cement her claim to the diary (or possibly to deny Mike a claim) she would be pretty much mated to a tale of the sort she gave. One where personal concerns and stress are invoked to explain a totally nonsensical action.
It's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that she's telling the truth, people under stress do odd things. But I must admit, it doesn't seem very likely to me. To buy her story I not only need to believe the whole Anne "thought it would help Mike" thing, I also need to believe Tony Devereraux would be willing to be used cruelly, and that the diary existed in it's current fashion in the 60s. That's a whole lot to swallow.
I saw your post this morning and I'll get a response up as soon as I catch up.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: John Hacker
Monday, 04 March 2002 - 09:28 pm | | John Omlor,
Back on Saturday you said this regarding Paul Feldman's lovely book, "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."
I just wanted to say that personally I find it incredibly hilarious simply because he is serious. Reading Paul Feldman's book always reminds me of Criswell narrating the opening scene to "Plan Nine From Outer Space" where he spouts out some incredibly nonsensical drivel, full of "meaningful questions" in a serious yet almost hysterical manner. And ends by challenging the viewer, "Can you prove it didn't happen?"
Poor Ed Wood, he never got the joke either.
Regards,
John Hacker
P.S. For big fun, try to imagine Criswell reading your favorite Feldman passage aloud. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 04 March 2002 - 11:27 pm | | Caz--Hi.The inconsistency you are seeing is entirely Anne Graham's--there's no use in avoiding that fact by trying to sluff it off on me. Turn the question around and ask it to Anne if you have a chance to see her again. Which is it? "Do you hold those asking questions about the Maybrick diary in complete contempt [as your message to Keith Skinner last July stated] or do you actively promote the diary by showing up on the Trial of Jack the Ripper show?" "Did you find the diary evil and didn't want it published...or did you give it to your husband so he could write a book and even helped him type up his research notes and a make a draft for the publisher?" "Do you find Ripperologists "sick" or did you included a chapter on Jack the Ripper in your biography of Florie?"
In brief, I can't answer the question, Caz. I don't know which face Anne is showing this week.
Also you write:
"So forgive me if I don't understand the purpose of keep calling her a liar if it won't get you or anyone else an iota nearer who wrote the diary or when. Even Peter Birchwood could see that Anne not knowing anything doesn't prove the diary either new, old or genuine."
I'd have to say you are one of the least naive people on these boards, Caz. But here, for once, you seem incredibly naive.
What constitutes a hoax? Is it the act of the penman? The author? Or is it someone who actively promotes and/or profits off the hoax? Or is it someone who supplies a provenance for the hoax when it is in desperate need of one? Or is it someone who simply doesn't tell all they know about the origins of the hoax?
I look at it from the exact opposite angle. It matters not one iota to me whether Anne has anything to do with the creation of the Maybrick diary or not. I tend to think she didn't---that you already know. But it's her provenance story that is keeping the diary alive. If this is a recent forgery coming from someone associated with the Barrett household [and the Sphere greatly suggests it is] then the chances of her not knowing the truth about the diary seem to me to be about zero. So even if she simply admitted that she knew nothing other than that Mike brought it home one day [which, of course, is exactly what she told Harold Brough!] it would be a huge help in finding out the truth about the Maybrick document. That's why I keep pestering her. Cheers, RP |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 05 March 2002 - 06:10 am | | "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"."
If you're going to quote from Feldy's works, try to get it right. Sister Mary (Ursula Maybrick) said: "I knew he was a Maybrick..." not "I ALWAYS knew..." Did she actually see Albert in the flesh or just a photo? Was Albert present at Brian's funeral? It may be that Feldy respected her "honest response" but that's all there is; there is no reason whatsoever to believe Albert to be connected to the Maybrick family because all of Feldy's "evidence" along those lines has been shown to be wrong and misleading. I would be prepared to accept Sister Mary's opinion on religious matters but not on this sort of "identification."
And please, no more references to JM living and working in Whitechapel. He didn't. He visited the general area on occasion and was the Liverpool agent of a business located within a mile or two of Whitechapel but if you believe that proves him to have lived there, then you deserve the Feldman Prize for Creative Ripper Research.
"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." Good Grief!
"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?" Because it's the provenance that she has put together that seems to be becoming the accepted view of Diary believers and if she has already shown herself to be "deceitful and untrustworthy" then anything she says must be taken with a Lot's wife of salt.
"'What did Mike Barrett get nicked for?'" Obviously the past conduct of a person must have some influence on how we perceive their present conduct. In this case we have in a group of four people immediately involved in the Diary/Watch situation, two of them having some sort of Police record. We know more or less what Robbie went down for but how about Mike? Was it something serious or minor like overdue parking tickets? And quite honestly, what do we know about the others? Feldy makes a point about some sort of glitch in Anne's previous history and tries to get us to believe that it involves some sort of conspiracy but what is the truth? If someone knows about these things but doesn't want the details put here, they can email me privately.
As to getting arsenic, try buying 150 gallons of homeopathic medicines and boiling it down. You'll end up with enough arsenic to solve any problem. However I'm sure that we will all keep an eye on the Surrey Advertiser for news of an epidemic of stomach pain. |
Author: Tee Vee
Tuesday, 05 March 2002 - 07:24 am | | | And weak knees lol@me. Its my birthday so i`m in a happy mood, dont know why but hey. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 05 March 2002 - 07:29 am | | Morning All,
Hi Peter W,
You wrote:
‘Break Anne's story and you break the diary.’
Can you explain why, if Anne lied about the diary being in her family for years, you think that automatically makes it a fake, before any other evidence is even considered? I don’t understand.
Hi John O,
You have often written:
‘Every test ever done on the diary places its creation in the wrong century.’
I’m slightly surprised to hear that all the professionals involved were willing or able to be that definite in their opinions and conclusions when reporting the results. I always thought that the wording in scientific reports tended to err on the side of caution, and that the best we could ever hope for would go something like ‘In our considered opinion…’ or ‘The results we were able to obtain using the most up-to-date methods available to us indicate that…’ or ‘While there is no reliable way of dating ink conclusively once it has been on the paper for x amount of time, it would appear that…’ – you must know the kind of non-committal wording scientists generally use in case future technology catches them wanting. So I find it rather unlikely that the conclusion of any of the scientific reports on the diary would have used words to the effect that ‘Our test places the diary’s creation in the 20th century’ – no ifs or buts.
Hi John H,
Good to see you back, fully recovered I hope. I do understand why you find it hard to swallow that Anne would give the diary to Mike via Tony in an attempt to curb his drinking. I have agreed that it doesn’t appear to make much sense on the face of it. The only thing in its favour would be if Mike did, as has been claimed, have some ambition to write, and perhaps in the past Anne had noticed that he drank less whenever he was absorbed in some writing project or other. This is pure guesswork, and others have used this claimed ambition to argue that Mike wrote, or helped write the diary. And people do indeed make some very odd choices, especially when it comes to marital strife. Tonight, for instance, on British tv, there is a documentary called ‘The Lottery Winner: Real Life’, which (according to The Radio Times) ‘tells the extraordinary story of Howard Walmsley, who, in order to save his ailing marriage, fabricated an £8.9 million lottery win and then managed for six months to keep up the deception’.
I also agree that it was an odd thing for Anne to ask a virtual stranger to do, to give the package to his drinking companion and say nothing about where it came from. But, if the story is true, and Tony gave the package straight to Mike without either opening it or knowing what it contained (until later), Tony wouldn’t have known that he was putting himself in the middle of ‘anything like that’, or that he was ‘simply asking for trouble’.
Mike has said (although we can’t rely on it of course) that Tony did eventually get so fed up with his questions that he made that cryptic remark about looking to his own family, which Mike allegedly first took to mean his dad, and only later wondered if Tony meant Anne.
You wrote:
‘And yet she seems perfectly willing for Mike to hound this other poor sick guy who is only involved because of her. Nice. The more I look at it the more it bugs me on a lot of levels.’
And in the next breath ‘It's rather hard to swallow to say the least.’
Well, either Anne callously stood by and let poor sick Tony be hounded by Mike – which means he was only involved because of her, and, er, makes her story true - or it’s hard to swallow because it isn’t true and, er, she never did stand by letting poor sick Tony be hounded by Mike.
See, this is what I was trying to get at earlier. If her story is true, her callousness and deceit and treachery and whatever may know no bounds, and may make you sick to your stomach, but what does it do to the diary? That’s the point in all of this, surely?
As I’ve said, I’m not asking you to ‘buy’ Anne’s story. I couldn’t possibly. I don’t know if it’s true myself. But the modern hoax theory does depend on Anne’s story being a lie. And it’s not a hurdle that the modern fake theorists usually have any trouble getting over. With Anne it’s remarkably easy not to swallow her tale. So I do find it a trifle odd when RJ, for example, appears quite so keen to see her get her just des(s)erts. 
I still can’t see, if Anne knows nothing about the diary’s true origins, what it would achieve if she admitted her ‘in the family’ story was a lie. It wouldn’t make the diary recent if it’s not, nor old if it’s not. And it wouldn’t alter many people’s beliefs either way (despite Peter W’s theory that it would somehow prove the diary a fake.) We still wouldn’t have a clue who wrote it, when or why.
Hi RJ,
If you had been reading carefully, you’d have seen that I have in no way been avoiding the fact that Anne has been inconsistent. She has. But that fact is totally irrelevant to your own argument, that ‘the diary isn't old’, and that therefore Anne’s story must be untrue. Or are you saying that if she had produced (not as in created, but as in handed over) this same diary herself in 1992 and given it up for research for free, saying it had been in her family for years, you’d have believed her?
All your questions for Anne would be constructive if they could possibly lead to answers that would satisfy you as to her sincerity or lack of it, or to the truth or otherwise of her story. But if you would disbelieve her whatever she says, because you have made up your mind that it all depends on which face she is showing at the time, the exercise would seem pointless. And as I keep saying, it would do neither of us much good to break Anne’s story unless she could tell us something about the diary’s origins that is true and could be verified, and I’ve seen nothing yet that suggests that would be the case. Have you?
You say that I seem incredibly naïve about all this and that you think the chances of Anne not knowing the truth about the diary are about zero. But I truly don’t understand what you mean when you say that even if she simply went back to her original position, by admitting that she knew nothing other than that Mike brought it home one day, ‘it would be a huge help in finding out the truth about the Maybrick document’. Could you explain how? Thanks.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 05 March 2002 - 08:19 am | | Caz--Hi. Just a moment before work. The value of Anne racanting her story should be plain enough, Caz. You'd then know that the diary really did come through Barrett and/or Devereux, and not through Anne Graham. It would also leave our Mike with the sole possessor of that pesky Crashaw quote, no? This whole sideshow about Graham, Ingraham, Formby, Yapp, Steve Powell, etc. etc. has been a wild excursion out into nowhere land i.m.h.o.
It's sure interesting though that the woman that stayed in the shadows and found the diary evil and didn't wish for it to be published is now the one using it in biographies and is actively helping to promote it on the television. Maybe I've misjudged her. To be honest & blunt [which I always try to be] I've always wondered if there wasn't more than a grain of truth to Mike's statement in his sworn affadavit that "someone" told him to "just keep his mouth shut" and he'd soon be getting a royalty check...
Mike's been quiet lately.
On a different matter. Only a couple of quotes exist in print about Tony D. One by Devereux's son-in-law [printed in the Times], the other by the bartender at the Saddle [printed in Shirley's book]. Ever notice that they said the same thing? Something to the effect that Devereux wouldn't have given anything away if he had known it had any worth. Wonder if this tells us anything? Well, for one, maybe that Anne chose the worst possible confidant.
By the way, do you know anything about the Saddle pub? Wondering about that name. Is it a theme bar, for instance? Is it associated with horseracing or is it just the run-o-the-mill corner pub? Some of the characters in this drama seemed to like to bet on the horses, didn't they?
See you later, RP |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 05 March 2002 - 09:38 am | | R.J -
A quick Google search throws up three 'Saddle' pubs in Liverpool - I'm not sure which is the right one - could somebody else identify it? Or is it another one altogether? Anyway, I didn't find any mention of a specific racing theme applying to any of them, and the one in Hackins Hey certainly predates the idea of the theme pub by a safe margin.
1.) 86, Fountains Road, Bootle L4
2.) The Saddle 13-15 Dale St. L2 (0151 236 2029) (No picture)
3.) Hackins Hey (On the corner).
'Many well known shipping lines were connected with Liverpool. The most important transatlantic steamship company after Cunard was White Star. In 1869, Liverpool's Thomas H.Ismay founded White Star Line and entered the transatlantic trade in 1871. His headquarters, Albion House were built in 1898 and still stand today. In 1902, White Star was taken over by American financier J.P.Morgan. Five years later the company's express liners were moved to Southampton on the south coast of England. Thomas's son, J Bruce Ismay survived the Titanic disaster but with his career ruined. His American wife continued to complain through her Liverpool solicitors, about newspaper coverage of her husband up to 1962. There is a memorial to the Titanic, many of whose crew were from Liverpool at Saint Nicholas Place near the Pier Head. The Saddle Inn in Hackins Hey was run by Ismays cousin. See the separate page about Ships Connected with Liverpool.' (From: this page.)
Cheers
Guy |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 05 March 2002 - 09:57 am | | Hi Caz,
Ah, but you know as well as I do that, with all of their necessary phrases of responsible qualification, the volunteered conclusion that every scientist has ever reached concerning this diary is that it was created in the 20th century. Every date ever offered as even a possible creation date by every scientific test ever done on this book is in the 20th century.
So of course, all the inevitable limits of science always apply, but that in no way prevents us from noticing the results they did get and what they all have in common -- they all give us their best conclusion and in each case it is that the diary was created in the 20th century.
James Maybrick was not alive in the 20th century.
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 05 March 2002 - 12:27 pm | | Hi RJ,
How would we know that the diary really did come through Barrett and/or Devereux, and not through Anne Graham, if she simply turned round and said, “Ok, enough’s enough. I made it all up. The diary is nothing to do with me or my family. I wash my hands of it. You can all get on with it.” They would just be so many words, coming from a woman you believe to be a liar, wouldn’t they? How would you know for certain that she was telling the truth this time? Because it would fit with what you have already assumed the truth to be? Hmmm. Right. Sounds like something the pro-diarists are accused of saying. “Anne says the diary was in her family for years, so it must be the truth.” “Anne now says the diary is nothing to do with her, so this must be the truth.”
It’s all too predictable that you now condemn Anne for ‘actively helping to promote’ the diary on television, after having criticised her for keeping a low profile and refusing to talk about it at all. It’s been observed before that whatever the woman does she can’t win and this confirms it for me. I can well imagine what you’d have read into it had she been asked to appear on the show and stay around for questions afterwards but had refused to co-operate.
I don’t get your point about Devereux not giving away anything if he knew it had any worth. If Anne chose him to act as go-between to pass the parcel on to Mike, it would neither have been his to give away, nor would he have known what it was until after it was in Mike’s hands. Unless the son-in-law and bartender were suggesting that Devereux was the sort to nick it from the Barretts on the off-chance it contained something valuable. The only thing it could tell us, if true, is that it is highly unlikely that Devereux would have willingly entrusted a potentially lucrative fake diary of JtR, that he himself had helped create, to Mike to handle and place, either knowingly or unknowingly. Which would leave you with Mike taking it from Devereux without permission or getting it from somewhere else entirely - and the chances of Anne not knowing the truth about the diary actually quite high.
Hi John O,
Sorry. I thought Dr. Eastaugh had said something about nothing in the diary ink being inconsistent with 1888. And that Rendell had endorsed Eastaugh’s work. And that McNeil’s 1921 + or – 12 years had been just about the only example of an actual attempt to date the ink on paper, but that the test used was subsequently considered unreliable. And that other tests were done on the basis of ingredients found, and when these ingredients were assumed to have become available, some of the resulting conclusions about date later being shown to have been based on wrong information.
The best conclusion in each case might therefore already be in need of a bit of serious revision before you can safely use it to support your argument that the science overwhelmingly supports a diary created in the 20th century.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 05 March 2002 - 01:19 pm | | Hi Caz,
Let's go one at a time.
If you believe the McNeil report, the diary was composed sometime in the 20th century, even given the margin of error. If you don't believe that report, then it doesn't matter.
If you believe the results offered by the tests on the material in the ink, the diary was composed sometime in the 20th century. If you don't believe those reports, then it doesn't matter.
The published report by Dr. Easthaugh that you cite is irrelevant to this particular discussion, since it said nothing at all about when the ink was created. It simply said that the ink was an iron-gall ink -- which tells us nothing conclusive at all either way about when the ink was created or when it was put on the paper. He did not find anything in the ink that was inconsistent with it being modern either. So his report does not speak to this question one way or the other.
Finally, if I remember my Melvin Harris on this question, I believe that the four examiners who met with Robert Smith in Chicago at one point, all agreed that the diary was a "recent product," no?
In any case, none of this changes my claim or the truth of it. Every test ever done on the diary in order to determine its age has produced a result placing its creation sometime in the twentieth century.
Not a single test ever done on the diary has concluded that it was created in the 19th century.
Now you can choose not to believe the results if you want, and you can criticize the way they were produced and you can even properly criticize the logic and methodology of the scientists. That is another, much more complicated debate.
But the record as it exists is clear. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever, of any sort, that places this diary in the 19th century. The diary remains completely unlinked in any way whatsoever to its supposed author and completely unlinked even to the proper century.
What science is currently available, what science does offer conclusions about the time when this diary was actually composed, places its composition in the wrong century. That record has not changed yet. No scientific test has yet been done that in any way places the origins of this document in the correct century.
Until one does, there is no evidence of any sort whatsoever that this diary existed at any point before 1900.
And that's too late.
--John |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 05 March 2002 - 02:35 pm | | Caz:
First this:
‘Break Anne's story and you break the diary.’
Can you explain why, if Anne lied about the diary being in her family for years, you think that automatically makes it a fake, before any other evidence is even considered? I don’t understand.
Here goes:
...because, Caz, there are only a limited number of 'forger' theories worth considering. One of them is that it was created by Anne or Mike or the two of them together. My personal opinion is based on the fact that Anne, at a time when her relationship with Mike was at an all time low, came up with an incredible piece of 'evidence' that took the problem of proving the diary's provenance out of Mike's hands.
Mike and Anne are inextricably linked on the diary, either before the fact or after it.
Mike has had plenty of opportunities to 'create' a provenance for the diary, probably the best of which was when the electrician 'offered' to say he found it in Battlecrease House. That would have cost Mike about 5% of the royalties to Paul Dodd, and Paul Feldman a few pints of Guinness and maybe £500. Mike's response? "Tell him to f*ck off!".
That, in PHF's opinion (and also mine) meant that Mike was reporting to no-one on the diary. The decisions were his. I mean seriously, if Mike had forged the diary, how unbelievably stupid was he to pass up that opportunity to 'buy' a provenance for the diary?
So the 'Mike for forger' theory now runs to Mike thoroughly researching the content of the diary, brushing up on details of Maybrick's private life previously not in print, but being so mind numbingly stupid as to miss the opportunity to buy a provenance for the diary. It might have cost Mike 5%, but overall his income from the diary could have increased tenfold.
Anyway, back to Anne.
Anne 'creates' the story about the diary being in her family since at least the 1940's, knowing that at any moment Mike could drop her right in it? How confident could Anne be that, at any moment, a definitive scientific test would not finally determine what all the others have failed to do and prove the diary to be a forgery?
Anyway you work it, the forgery theory does not make sense.
But it is to John Omlor that I turn next ...
"If you believe the McNeil report, the diary was composed sometime in the 20th century, even given the margin of error".
No John, you fail to understand. This is what you should have said:
"If you believe the McNeil report, then Mike cannot possibly be held to account over the Sphere guide, 'tin match box empty', diamine ink etc etc".
And John, if the McNeill report can place the diary pre: 1989 then it's bye bye 'Mike for forger'. And if that part of your argument goes up in smoke then the only realistic option left is that the diary is genuine.
All the books you say the forger must have used, all the texts you quote, cannot possibly have been used IF you believe the McNeill report.
So John, don't argue for the McNeill report, because it does your argument no good whatsoever. Admittedly it still falls short of placing the diary in 1888, but it does take all your evidence out of the equation, texts and books that 'must' have been used if the diary is a forgery. And that leaves the diary being genuine.
"Even worse (for you Johnny) the tests lean more and more towards the diary being genuine. "
Pay attention everyone:
THIS IS DEMONSTRABLY TRUE.
T - R - U - E. TRUE.
Then:
"Where did you get this from? 'If the diary is a forgery, Richard Bark-Jones must be a conspirator.'
I got it from a post by Tee Vee which you endorsed
True, I endorse Tee Vee's post, but even taking into his page reference, I still can't find the quote. I only endorsed his post. You took the quote and repeated it time and again, emboldened as a beacon to all your 'readers'. And you dare to call my research "shoddy"?
Peter, where did you learn the English language? Mike's statement was totally incorrect and without foundation.
I learnt the English language at home from my parents, at school from my teachers, in the playground with my friends, from books, radio, television etc. I don't understand why you asked that question, but there is the answer.
Now let's get this right. Mike's statement was "totally" incorrect. Totally. Not partially. Totally. That means that every component part of that statement is incorrect. That means the part about Mike forging the diary is incorrect.
Mike has confessed to forging the diary. Mike has fallen far short of proving it. If he had forged it, he would be able to prove it. He can't. And the experts are queueing up to denounce Mike's confessions.
Something new? Not much chance of that I'm afraid. But here is something looked at from a different angle:
My View: The diary is genuine. It was written by James Maybrick in 1888/89. James Maybrick was the Whitechapel murderer.
Your View: Err, what is your view? Come on, let's have it. Detail how the forgery was made. Tell us who did it. When it was done.
The very least you could do, John (or anybody else), is put your theory across and let me take shots at it. For instance, if you think Mike forged it then say so. If you think Gerard wrote it then say so. Put something forward. Let us see your theory. You have mine. Stop hedging your bets.
And now I have more important things to attend to . Eastenders is coming on.
One last thing:
"You have no case whatsoever and the pathetic illusion of a case you do try and offer is completely bereft of logic, care, thoughtfulness, responsibility and, most importantly, actual evidence of any sort.
Ditto.
Peter |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 05 March 2002 - 03:05 pm | | Hello there Peter,
First of all, the fact that you, in your remarks to Caz, suggest that there are any theories of any sort which are not "worth considering" is fascinating, given the far-fetched and completely unevidenced theory you actually advance.
So a sentence like "there are only a limited number of 'forger' theories worth considering" coming from you is a real hoot.
After all, the one theory you actually support has not a single piece of evidence of any sort whatsoever behind it that would make it in any way seriously "worth considering."
The rest of your post Peter is just a repetition of more of the same nonsense. I will be brief in my response. That is all I think it deserves.
The McNeil report, if you believe it, Peter, makes the diary a forgery because it places its creation in the wrong century. Regardless of what happens to all other aspects of the debate, if the diary was created in "1921 + or – 12 years" the debate is over. James Maybrick was dead.
And I'm not even saying I believe this report. But, like all the other reports which actually offer a time of composition, this one puts the diary's origin in the wrong century and after Maybrick's death.
And by the way, Peter, closer doesn't count. Whether this book was written in 1910 or 1990, it's still a fake. Until at least one test somewhere by someone somehow suggests that this book actually existed in the 19th century, there is no scientific reason whatsoever to consider this book anything but a fake. No test ever has. Ever. And your sentence that says that "the tests lean more and more towards the diary being genuine" is simply a lie. No test leans that way at all and never has. NO test has ever placed the diary even in the correct century.
The fact that you are willing to come here and lie makes this discussion a waste of time.
And only you, Peter, could actually argue that a report which specifically places the diary's composition at least twenty years after James Maybrick's death allows us to conclude that the diary must have been written by James Maybrick.
It's no wonder Scott thinks I am wasting my time. Still, let me try and offer a curious biological fact: James Maybrick could not have written this diary when he was dead.
And once again you refuse to read Richard Bark-Jones's complete quote. In it he is quite clear that he is referring to the statement that Mike made to Brough, and specifically to Mike's claim that "he himself had written the diary." Bark-Jones emphasizes at the end of his remark that he is referring specifically to "that statement" in particular. That is what is "totally incorrect." He says nothing at all anywhere ever about Mike participating in or not participating in the creation of the document or Mike knowing or not knowing the origins of the document.
Your conclusion that this somehow takes Mike completely out of the forgery scenario is utter nonsense. But no one is surprised by that, I suspect.
I asked you where you learned the language because it appears that you cannot read. Or you do not understand the way in which a conclusion may be validly drawn. Or perhaps you just refuse to do so when it does not serve your single-minded purpose.
Finally Peter, you misconstrue my role here. I thought I had explained it clearly in my post to Scott above. You can find that explanation at the top of this current thread (just scroll up) in a post by me dated Monday, 04 March 2002 - 07:39 am. I'm not going to rewrite it here. Just as I am not going to offer any unfounded, speculative, totally unevidenced, and shamefully irresponsible arguments or guesses about who wrote this book or why. I am not Feldmaniacal in that respect. Perhaps that is the difference between us. You may consider this cowardice. I consider it a sense of professional responsibility. I am proud of it. I would be ashamed to make arguments for which I had no evidence or support and which had no logical and rational and careful thought behind them whatsoever. I am proud of that, too.
I will stop there.
--John |
Author: John Hacker
Tuesday, 05 March 2002 - 09:28 pm | | Hiya Caz,
This is in response to your post from yesterday morning. My wife is still down with the flu so I'm playing dad and nursemaid. Sigh. I'll never get caught up at this rate.
You express a number of concerns regarding what we can determine from Anne's story. And to a degree I agree with you, simply demonstrating that she lied wouldn't necessarily prove anything regarding her involvement with/knowledge of the forgery. But it would certainly have value.
"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."
I would suggest that the textual evidence of the diary cries out modern origin as well. :-) However Anne and Albert are entirely different cases. Anne has provided a 30 year alibi for the diary. If it can be dated more recently than that, she lied. As Peter is fond of saying, "End of story." But even if the watch scratches can be dated as recent or a forgery, that doesn't necessarily implicate Albert.
"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."
Which is as it should be. I think Anne's testimony to date should be treated with extreme caution.
"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."
If Anne would care to offer some evidence that would support her story than that would certainly change things. However that seems pretty unlikely at this point. The age of the diary is the one aspect of her story that seems most likely to be testable at this point.
"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?"
I will agree that simply knowing that Anne's story is bunk would not necessarily prove she was involved in the forgery. Although I must admit I find the idea that someone else wrote the thing and let the Barrets front for it fraught with problems, and I doubt they found it on a park bench or anything. But the possibilities are undoubtedly endless and simply knowing she lied doesn't narrow it down too far. Just because it's farfetched doesn't necessarily mean it's not true.
However I think we can glean some insight into Anne simply from knowing she lied, regardless of why. It may not help us solve the case directly, but better understanding the players can only help towards that end. (As an aside, do you think that it's possible that if Anne did lie, that perhaps the "help Mike" story deliberately painted her in a bad light to add a sort of "Why would she say that if it weren't true?" sort of realism? The story doesn't make much sense on it's face but it might as a device to buy her "credibility" in an odd sort of way.)
We would then know that she was capable of doing historical research, and creatively amending history. Her story wasn't overly complex, but there were enough details to make it a non-trivial fabrication. It wouldn't really say anything definitive regarding knowledge of the diary's origin, but it would certainly suggest she could be capable of doing so. Wouldn't you agree?
Also, if it could be proved she lied, it's a lot more likely she could be talked into telling the truth about what she really does know. At least there would be some leverage where there is none today.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 06 March 2002 - 06:08 am | | Hi John O,
First of all, the statement I (still) question as misleading is the one where you have ‘every test ever done’ placing the diary’s creation in the 20th century.
I have absolutely no problem with your latest statement, which goes:
‘Not a single test ever done on the diary has concluded that it was created in the 19th century.’
Do you see the difference?
If no one places any credence in McNeil’s dating technique any more, including it today (even by implication) as one of your tests that once placed the diary’s creation in the 20th century is IMHO misleading, albeit unintentionally. (And yes, before anyone says it, I know about the suggestion that McNeil's results may have erred on the side of showing the diary to be older than it really is. But we either accept the test that was actually done or we don't. And it is, I believe, generally not accepted.)
I’ve already explained that some results from tests where dating relied on finding ingredients that were compatible/incompatible with ink manufacture in the 19th century were later found to be based on erroneous or incomplete information. So including any such tests today (also by implication) as having once placed the diary’s creation in the 20th century is also IMHO misleading.
I agree that you can’t include Dr. Eastaugh’s findings in your ‘every test ever done’ argument, because he clearly didn’t ‘place the diary’s creation in the 20th century’. The fact that you say he didn’t find anything in the ink that was inconsistent with it being modern either is neither here nor there. It only means that I couldn’t include his test in a counter argument for any of the science placing the diary’s creation in the 19th century, which I haven’t done, because, as you say, the science hasn't placed the diary's creation in the 19th century.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 06 March 2002 - 06:35 am | | Hi John H,
‘If it can be dated more recently than that, she lied.’
I agree. And I think it can only be that way around. Showing that Anne has lied about the diary doesn’t necessarily tell us a thing about its actual age.
‘But even if the watch scratches can be dated as recent or a forgery, that doesn't necessarily implicate Albert.’
I’d have to disagree with you there if the scratches were made recently. I’ve yet to see an argument for how anyone else could have manipulated Albert and co’s discovery of the scratches at work.
‘I think Anne's testimony to date should be treated with extreme caution.’
It is – and rightly so.
‘If Anne would care to offer some evidence that would support her story than that would certainly change things.’
Don’t you think she would if she could?
Your idea that Anne told her "help Mike" story to deliberately paint herself in a bad light to add a sort of "Why would she say that if it weren't true?" sort of realism, to buy her "credibility" in an odd sort of way, is interesting but smacks of RJ’s ‘convoluted’ to me. Those who think this part of her story paints her in a bad light don't give the rest of it any credibility do they? At one time, when we were discussing Anne’s financial motive, someone suggested she was in it for the money, but deliberately didn’t make any moves to secure a share, so as not to be accused of wanting to profit from it. But Paul Begg pointed out the fuzzy logic of this argument by asking how not actively seeking money could possibly be used as evidence that she was seeking money.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 06 March 2002 - 07:09 am | | Hey Caz,
Just a quick post before I run off to work.
"I’d have to disagree with you there if the scratches were made recently. I’ve yet to see an argument for how anyone else could have manipulated Albert and co’s discovery of the scratches at work."
I cannot think offhand of how his discovery of the scratches could have been manipulated, but I don't think that would necessarily mean Albert would have to be behind it. I don't think the science will ever get to the point that it could date the scratches as after the purchase but before the "discovery".
"Those who think this part of her story paints her in a bad light don't give the rest of it any credibility do they?"
That's kind of what I was trying to get at. The people who look at her story critically are not likely to be buy her story in any case. But for some people, the emotional content of her story and her "weakness" (Or whatever you want to call it), is likely to increase her believibility.
"At one time, when we were discussing Anne’s financial motive, someone suggested she was in it for the money, but deliberately didn’t make any moves to secure a share, so as not to be accused of wanting to profit from it. But Paul Begg pointed out the fuzzy logic of this argument by asking how not actively seeking money could possibly be used as evidence that she was seeking money."
While I agree that any discussions of her (or anyone's) motivations are highly speculative, but I would suggest that this is somewhat different then trying to imply something from her inaction. If it's demonstrated that she lied, I certainly think her particular choice of lies could be instructive. Especially with such a grotesque story. I honestly don't understand what you mean by convoluted in this case. Trying to believe her story is (or even could possibly be) true is far more convoluted, this is the only option I have seem so far that makes any sense at all. I'll keep thinking on it.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 06 March 2002 - 07:31 am | | Hi Caz,
OK, since we all agree that "not a single test ever done on the diary has concluded that it was created in the 19th century," let's see whether or not it's also true that every test ever done to determine the diary's age also places it sometime in the twentieth century.
Dr. Easthaugh's test, it seems, was not designed specifically to determine the diary's age, but rather what sort of ink it was written with. He says it was an iron-gall ink but he does not say anything about the age of that ink either way. So that would not be one of the tests that I would include when speaking of the tests done to determine the diary's age.
Whether anyone "places any credence" in McNeil's test or not does not alter the truth of the original statement. It was a test. It was done on the diary. It was done to determine the diary's age. It placed the diary's creation at a point in the twentieth century, after Maybrick's death. Therefore, it was a test done on the diary to determine its age and it placed the diary in the twentieth century. The statement is true whether or not you believe the results of the test.
The tests done on the materials in the diary also placed its composition in the twentieth century. Whether you feel that those tests were all "based on erroneous or incomplete information" and whether you feel their results are all wrong is still irrelevant to the truth of the original statement. They are tests. They were done on the diary. They were done to determine the diary's age. They placed the diary's creation in the twentieth century.
Therefore, every test ever done on the diary to determine its age places it in the twentieth century.
We can all argue elsewhere (and we have) about whether we choose to believe those results and why, whether we think think they are all reliable or that only some are reliable or that none are reliable and why, but none of that changes the truth of the original statement.
Every test ever done on the diary to determine its age places it in the wrong century and has it being written after James Maybrick's death. No test ever done on the diary ever places it in the 19th century.
There is still absolutely no valid or rational reason whatsoever to think this diary ever existed in the 19th century, not a single piece of evidence of any kind links this diary to the 19th century in any way whatsoever, and by the end of the that century, James Maybrick was already dead.
What does that tell us?
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 06 March 2002 - 08:25 am | | Hi John O,
Er, it tells us that there is still no scientific evidence that places the diary's creation in the 19th century. There is also still no scientific evidence that reliably puts any date on the diary's creation (that is, before circa 1989, after which the ink would presumably have tested conclusively modern).
But, for the reasons I gave you, I still think your 'original' statement, that every test ever done on the diary [even with the 'to determine its age' now added] places it in the twentieth century, is misleading and simplistic - especially for new readers who haven't read through all the previous arguments about all the scientific tests in general being inconclusive, unsatisfactory or now invalid.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 06 March 2002 - 08:34 am | | Caz-- "It’s all too predictable that you now condemn Anne for ‘actively helping to promote’ the diary on television, after having criticised her for keeping a low profile and refusing to talk about it at all. It’s been observed before that whatever the woman does she can’t win and this confirms it for me. I can well imagine what you’d have read into it had she been asked to appear on the show and stay around for questions afterwards but had refused to co-operate."
But clearly, Caz, I was not criticizing Anne for actively engaging in discussion about the diary. [I hope she gives many interviews in the future.] I was merely pointing out that her actions and words seem to be inconsistent and unfathomable. You claim that Anne stayed around, kept a steady gaze, and was quite willing to answer questions after the show. How am I supposed to reconcile this with the following post that you yourself posted for Keith Skinner a mere six months ago?
"From Keith Skinner To The Board [29 July 2001]
Scott Nelson and Chris George justifiably enquire as to what response I have elicited from Anne Graham with reference to the posts I sent to her a couple of months ago.
Anne’s reaction was terse and direct. On Wednesday evening, May 30th 2001, I received a message from her on my answerphone. Anne said that she would not be replying to anyone and expressed her contempt for those of us who contributed to the discussion, (making no discrimination between those who condemned her outright and those who did not.) As far as Anne was concerned, ignorance was bliss and she requested that I refrain from sending her anything further as she found it too upsetting to read."
Am I being unfair here? The floor is yours, Caz. But I honest don't know how else to interpret the woman. She evidently voices contempt for 'Ripperologists' that are asking questions about the diary, but ---on the otherhand--- is willing to 'promote' [I think that is a fair word] her Maybrick provenance to the media. I'll be blunt again. My interpretation is that her motives are mercenary. She wants the books to sell, but she doesn't want to face the critics. If this is unfair, please tell me how you interpret her actions. Cheers, RP. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 06 March 2002 - 08:36 am | | Hi John H,
'I cannot think offhand of how his discovery of the scratches could have been manipulated, but I don't think that would necessarily mean Albert would have to be behind it.'
Sorry, could you explain that one for me? How was the forger planning for the watch with its scratches to make its debut, if Albert knew nothing about the plan and was therefore not assigned an active role?
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 06 March 2002 - 08:43 am | | Guy--Hi. Many thanks for the links. Chris George posted some time back that the 'Saddle' in question was the one at 86 Fountains Road, Bootle---so you've found it.
I'm guilty of wild speculation here. I once knew of a pub called something like 'The Home Stretch' or some such name; it had racing forms, etc. and off-track betting. I just notice that the Maybrick diary had a reference to 'making a substantial wager' and was wondering if there was a link somewhere. A couple of the players in our saga liked to make a bet now & then and I'm still wondering where all Mike's money went. There's only a couple ways to go through that kind of money so quickly. Cheers, RP |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 06 March 2002 - 08:47 am | | Hi RJ,
My question for you, as always, is what do you hope to achieve by even trying to 'interpret the woman'?
So Anne's motives are mercenary, and she wants the books to sell without facing her critics. Does that mean she was involved in forging the diary? If not, does it mean she knows who was, or when?
What about your point (and my reply) about Devereux not giving away anything of value?
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 06 March 2002 - 09:52 am | | Hi Caz,
Well, I do accept and appreciate your expression of concern for new readers. But my statement remains true. All the results that have been offered concerning when the diary was written place the production in the twentieth century.
What you have done, quite properly, is question the reliability of those tests and argue that those results are problematic and questionable and perhaps even scientifically invalid for specific reasons concerning how they were carried out. As I say, that's another debate, and one which new readers can find out all about on a number of boards here and in specific details in a number of very good articles on the Casebook.
But that doesn't change the results that were offered by those tests, and they do all place the diary in the wrong century.
Reliably?
Perhaps some more than others, perhaps not at all, perhaps only within large margins of error, perhaps that remains to be decided.
Do further tests need to be done?
Absolutely.
Has any test even once offered even a speculative result that actually places the diary in the correct century for it to be authentic?
No.
But I'm willing to let our exchange here stand as a warning to new readers to find out the specifics concerning all the diary tests and their results. These specifics can be found on the Casebook in a number of excellent articles and here on a number of relevant boards.
Still, there remains no valid reason whatsoever, of any sort, to believe that this diary actually existed in the 19th century. No one has ever offered even one piece of evidence of any kind that places it there or even helps to place it there. And therefore, there is no reason to believe that the real James Maybrick wrote it.
But you and I agree about at least that, Caz.
All the best,
--John (who will have a happy announcement soon -- six hours and counting) |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 06 March 2002 - 10:27 am | | Hi, RJ and Guy:
Yes as I indicated earlier, I believe the Saddle pub in question is the one at the corner of 86 Fountains Road, Bootle. The other two pubs of that name are definitely in the Liverpool city center. Bootle is a different jurisdiction altogether with family connections on my mother's side and the site of the unfortunate murder of toddler Jamie Bulger in 1993.
Some of you may be wondering why I am no longer plastering these Maybrick boards with posts. Frankly I am tired of the circular debate here. I became disenchanted about the time that John Omlor and Peter Wood -- or was that Ed Wood?  -- were debating how the wording in the Diary reflected how far Maybrick's omnibus was from the grandstand where the heir to the English throne, Bertie, the future Edward VII, was ensconced at the time of the running of the Grand National in spring 1889. I think Scott Nelson has a point that a lot of the discussion here is not productive and is a waste of space. I have been monitoring the boards since the "omnibus affair" but I continue to see a lack of much useful discussion and considerable repetition of previous points made. As we might say, friends, we need a break in the case of the Maybrick diary. Yawn. 
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 06 March 2002 - 12:01 pm | | Hi Chris,
The funny thing is, I agree completely with your review of the recent debates between Peter Wood and myself (and others, to be fair). But I still think it is necessary to continue to demonstrate the complete lack of both logic and evidence that inevitably accompanies the ridiculous claims for this book's authenticity, even if that means too often repeating oneself in the face of new or more nonsense.
But I think you are right to have stopped participating in such a discussion, since you know already that there is no logically valid or evidentiary reason to think this book is anything but a fake.
The other discussion, the more relevant and interesting one, concerning who might of forged this book and why, is as you suggest stuck waiting for a break in the case. That discussion continues here along speculative lines, some more promising than others, and through research off line, but that doesn't mean it's going to be continually fresh or interesting.
Still, some people, myself included, also just like talking about it. They find it fascinating. If only for that reason, I'm glad the basement still exists, even if not much light is shining down here at the moment.
All the best,
--John (less than five hours to go until...) |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 06 March 2002 - 01:20 pm | | Hi John O,
'Has any test even once offered even a speculative result that actually places the diary in the correct century for it to be authentic?
No.'
Has any test even once offered a result that reliably and conclusively puts any date on the diary's creation?
No.
I don't mind you showing yours if I can show mine alongside for balance.
(And the defence always goes second. I am assuming the role of defender here simply because the diary debate over the last two years is predominantly about the argument for a modern hoax.)
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 06 March 2002 - 01:40 pm | | Hi Caz,
If you read my post to you above, you'll see that I've already distinguished between your legitimate concern about the reliability and conclusiveness of the results of the tests and what specifically the results themselves do claim.
The results themselves have all placed the diary in the twentieth century, after the real James was already dead. The reliability and conclusiveness of each of those results, separately, remain the topic of another discussion, which has already taken place elsewhere and which will no doubt continue to take place in the future.
All the best,
--John (now less than three hours until joy....) |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 06 March 2002 - 04:04 pm | | Caz--Hi. Actually, I had no 'point' about Devereux. It was merely an observation. We don't know that much about the guy. I just found it interesting that the two quotes that we have about TD happened to say the same thing: that he wouldn't have given away anything of value. I'm not sure what it tells us, if anything.
As for Anne, maybe her inconsistencies don't 'prove anything'. Maybe that is a valid point. But they also don't exactly inspire confidence that she is being truthful. And without that confidence, what am I left with? She has no documented evidence--even Keith has admitted that. So I have to base my judgements on the facts that we have. And the facts certainly seem to indicated to me that the diary is of recent origins. Are you willing to use the same standard of logic with Mike Barrett? Do his many inconsistencies really tell us much about whether he was involved in the forgery or not?
By the way, while you & John debate the merits of the scientific evidence, I happen to notice that you've lately dropped your points about chloroacetamide. Or maybe the conversation has just drifted elsewhere. Melvin has cited his sources. So what do you think? Are we in agreement now that the AFI tests only showed the chemical's presence? Melvin Harris and Philip Dowe have independently claimed here that the chemical compound wasn't likley to have appeared in ink until after WW II. What does this do to the alleged Formby connection?
Not to knock anyone--I've contributed as much as the rest-- but I guess I have to agree with Chris and the general consensus that the diary debate has reached a sort of stalemate. Anne & the diary will continue to have supporters despite the lack of evidence, and the 'anti-diarists' will continue to point out the many glaring difficulties of the document without being able to pin a specific forger to the mat. I'm not sure we are accomplishing much. Maybe Peter Birchwood's practical approach of attempting to track down information in Liverpool is the only one that promises any resolution. But I'm not sure that without the cooperation of Anne Graham or Mike Barrett that it will ever lead to the truth. Maybe this is already the end. Cheers, RP |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 06 March 2002 - 04:51 pm | | Hi RJ, Peter, Caz, Chris, Scott, Tee Vee, and everyone reading down here in the basement, mole-people all.
RJ,
What a perfect lead in!
I am both happy and sad to announce that as of right now, 4:45 pm in the Eastern US, my Spring Break has officially begun.
Tonight I pack for two fun trips, back to back, during which no work will be done (even though this means eventually coming home to too much work).
I'll be gone for ten days and will probably not be able to get on the web to see you all during that time (although I might sneak a peak in a local bookstore for a moment or two).
So for me, this is indeed "already the end." At least for a while.
Thanks everyone for putting up with my stuff, and have a fine week or two, and carry on with all the energy you can muster.
Me? I'll be misbehaving.
Bye,
--John
(PS: I will probably be able to check my e-mail once or twice, so if any Ripper emergencies come up, I can be reached that way. ) |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 07 March 2002 - 02:48 am | | Hi John:
Have a great time. I know you will. Although disenchanted me probably will not contribute down here in the shadows while no new information is forthcoming I will be monitoring things ne'ertheless just in case some new nuance sheds light on this confounding document! 
All the best
Chris |
|
|
|
|
