|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 10 November 2002
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
TIME FOR A RE-VALUATION II:
Archive through 10 November 2002
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 30 April 2002 - 07:10 am |        | Hi Tee Vee,
No, not Darth Vader. Caz was just poking fun at my critical reaction to the structure and the prose and the artificially created narrative presentation in the fake Maybrick diary. But you are right. The Maybrick diary does at times delight in the same melodramatic and clichéd villainy as Lord Vader's would. They are, it seems to me, of much the same spirit.
And of course, my critique is based on the entire construction and written performance of the diary text in context and not from a single entry, and has nothing to do with whether the diary "sounds like" other killer's diaries (why should we even expect it to?), so Caz's joke, while cute, misses my point.
But I'm sure she knew that.
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 30 April 2002 - 09:57 am | | Hi John,
Indeed, 'we' should not expect the Maybrick diary to sound like other killers' diaries (wot d'ya mean, 'other' killers?  ), if 'we' are also arguing that this one was written by a modern forger who didn't need to know what a real killer's diary might sound like.
Regardless of what 'we' should or should not expect the Maybrick diary to sound like, it does (to the admittedly tone deaf ear of yours truly) sound quite uncannily like the voice that brought us:
"I wonder if he will enjoy what he is going to get! He`ll get what he richly deserves."
"I cant understand my violent impulses. I don`t know what is wrong with me. Today I must do it. There is no other way out. I`ve got to see it through. My head really pounds. I`m all shaky. Its time to die."
Love,
Cute Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 30 April 2002 - 10:15 am | | Hi Caz,
But you are taking a single line or paragraph and then positing an "uncanny" relationship from it. First of all, that is not a valid comparison of type or awareness on its face, since it is a small sample from a single other text. Second of all, it is not clear whether the fact that there might be similarities between certain language in two diaries is in any way indicative of anything concerning the authors of either text. Third of all, since both texts have a common subject matter (a character who commits murder) the fact that there are similarities is in some ways even inevitable.
So I'm not sure what you think we can fairly assume or conclude from any such comparison about the authors of the fake diary.
Logically, the answer still seems to be nothing.
--John
PS: One final thought. Certain aspects and patterns of "Jack's" voice already existed for our forgers -- in the words of the letters, which are clearly and deliberately referenced and verbally echoed in the diary text. So suggesting our forgers must have had some psychological insights or knowledge to create the voice of our "Jack" still seems an unfounded and unevidenced assumption. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 30 April 2002 - 11:16 am | | Hi John,
You make a valid point about the subject matter being common to both 'diaries'.
And of course it's a tiny sample. And if I can't assume or conclude anything about the author(s) of the Maybrick diary by comparing its turn of phrase with that of a real killer, then I can't, and that's that.
And neither can we assume or conclude anything about how many people contributed to the composition of the Maybrick diary (remember when you thought a second composer may well have taken over from the first, towards the end of the diary, and I thought this showed just how well a single composer had tackled 'James's' change of personality at that point).
Equally, we can't assume or conclude that the author(s) didn't have certain insights or knowledge. And it just appears to me that the more I read about it the less likely it is that they could have come to this project armed with little more than a couple of source books and a lorra lorra scousers' luck (I wince now when I use that four-letter word).
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 30 April 2002 - 12:01 pm | | The Michael Caine made for television movie was one of two ventures that I believe made it to the screen in recognition of the centenary of the murders. The other was more of a documentary and revealed as it's killer ...Aaron Kosminski.
Oh well.
Peter. |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 30 April 2002 - 05:49 pm | | Caz,
You write:
"Equally, we can't assume or conclude that the author(s) didn't have certain insights or knowledge."
Exactly! There is no way to know such a thing for sure either way and no valid evidence that would allow for a responsible conclusion either way. Consequently, the second half of that paragraph in your post remains random and unevidenced speculation. The "less likely" phrase you invoke can have no real evidence behind it, as far as I can see. Indeed, it seems to me just as likely that the echoed scenes in the TV movie we were just discussing above and the well known and readily available Ripper letters are as responsible for the narrative voice and dramatic structure in this book as any research into serial killer psychology might be. And the point is that neither of these two alternative source scenarios is, by definition, any more or less likely, since we have nothing more than our unique readings of the text to use in support of such claims. Consequently, both speculative scenarios remain utterly unfounded.
That's all we can fairly and responsibly say about what the forgers might have known and what they might have used for inspiration.
--John
|
Author: Tee Vee
Tuesday, 30 April 2002 - 06:39 pm | | Can I just state that the Ha ha was also in the diaries of Frank Vitkovik. And i only wrote out the last input as i did not have the time to cram a whole year in there. But upon reading it, and purely by accident i saw that these diary inputs where what someone needed. An insight into the mind of a killer with un-sound mind. And in 87 it was there. As an influence ? i dont know. I read it in a book called "Killing for pleasure" Bill O Brien ex police officer (should stick to it too. Its quite poorly written (I sound like John now.)
I thought i`d read a new book to take me off the Ripper for a while, just so when i do go back to it i can take it in more clearly. I have read nothing but Ripper in the last year and a half. so just a change of scenery for a week or so. I`ve just finished David Grays story and now onto George Hennerd. And after that Is Thomas Hamilton!!!! Anyway Caz and John thanks for reading my post and considering it.
Yours truly
Tee Vee |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 30 April 2002 - 07:44 pm | | Hi all,
I find it quite remarkable one simple fact concerning the diary - it is so brief and scant of details.
Has there ever been a diary written that is so short? My experience with diary writers is that they vary the amount of text but when in a highly agitated and frustrated state tend to write and ramble on - the diary isnt really like that.
The diary is so sparse it suggests not being the real bill. Perhaps the diary supporters have a theory on why he choose to keep a diary but not write very much in it.
Rich |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 01 May 2002 - 03:56 am | | Hi Rich,
John O will tell you, if I don't, that the length of the diary entries makes it no more or less likely that the author was a man who was killing whores in London, possibly keeping a mistress and five kiddies in London and Liverpool, working in Liverpool and keeping a wife and two kiddies in Liverpool and keeping at least one diary going, than the author was Mike Barrett, struggling to find new words and keeping the forged entries short as a result. Neither man's handwriting appears to match those diary entries, so we can safely say both scenarios are as unlikely as one another.
But I am actually surprised that a forger would bother writing so much, when a short confessional letter, drafted to his wife on his death-bed, but never found by her, ought to have done the trick, with less risk all round. One sheet of Victorian notepaper, a small bottle of Diamine, Maybrick's will to copy from, and Jack's your uncle.
Love,
Caz
PS Neither anti or pro-diary shall I be until I learn a whole lot more. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 01 May 2002 - 04:44 am | | Hi John O,
If your suggested Michael Caine-type influences are no more or less likely than other people's suggestions for what inspired/informed the author, they are equally valid as suggestions, and isn't that all you or I are really doing here?
You're suggesting it's possible that the modern forger watched Caine and turned him to gain, and my reply would be yes, it's possible (but only, of course, if the diary itself is modern).
I like to explore the broader question of just how much the author needed to know about anything in order to produce the diary, given the obstacle of no one knowing its date of creation.
It's interesting that we appear to have a parallel with the watch and the metallurgy experts. Drs Turgoose and Wild both conclude the scratches are most likely decades old. So people on these boards rush to assure us that such scratches just cannot be dated, and are therefore no more likely to be old than modern. And then go on to argue the case for them being far more likely modern. If they can't be declared 'old' by the good doctors, they can't be declared 'modern' by Melvin Harris or anyone else.
The psychologists conclude things about the diary author, which you assure us cannot be done. Fair enough. But just as we are left with watch scratches that can't be dated, we are left with a diary author whose influences/knowledge can only be guessed at, as you are doing with your Michael Caine suggestion.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 01 May 2002 - 07:15 am | | Caz,
Sigh.
"So people on these boards rush to assure us that such scratches just cannot be dated, and are therefore no more likely to be old than modern. And then go on to argue the case for them being far more likely modern. If they can't be declared 'old' by the good doctors, they can't be declared 'modern' by Melvin Harris or anyone else."
Yes, the scratches cannot be dated on the basis of the scientific evidence. Anyone who has done their homework should know this.
However not all the evidence is scientific. We have witnesses, we have the circumstantial evidence of the scratches themselves, etc etc etc. Hopefully we'll have a confession some day. Just because one detail is fuzzy doesn't mean we can't get a clear picture at some point.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 01 May 2002 - 08:11 am | | Abberline :- Jack the Rippas..hic...fausands of 'em....hic.....dont nick 'em till you see the whites of their eyes, lads !
Maurice
|
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 01 May 2002 - 08:12 am | | Hi Caz,
You write:
"we are left with a diary author whose influences/knowledge can only be guessed at, as you are doing with your Michael Caine suggestion."
Absolutely.
I agree.
I will say, though, that I find the number of parallels in voice and ahistorical narrative sequence and personal motivations and conflicts between the movie and the diary slightly disturbing. I find the diary's characterization of Abberline and the melodramatic battle it creates between its Abberline and Jack as eerily echoing the same characterization and battle in the movie. And I certainly find the existence, in both the diary and in the movie and at the same point in both narratives, of a dramatic "close call" scene in which Abberline almost stumbles on Jack committing a murder -- a scene which has no real historical precedent or referent -- especially bizarre.
Are these just suggestions on my part, just guesses as to whether this goofy film, released and shown on television during the centennial in '88, a few years before the diary appears and at the same time as a number of significant and new Ripper books, might have played a role in the diary's creation? No question about it. They most certainly are just guesses, just suggestions and observations.
Nothing more.
I'm not even sure I can bring myself to believe that this diary we've all spent so much time on actually was using something as lame and historically fantastic as the Michael Caine movie for some of its material and inspiration. In fact, I hope it wasn't. I, for one, would feel a little foolish.
But there is no question that I am only offering simple speculation here, guesses and interpretations and reading parallels that I cannot use as real or reliable or meaningful evidence of anything. Because the process of composition and intention cannot be finally recreated from the act of reading.
These parallels, in fact, are not even guesses yet. They are just observations. I make no actual or final conclusions whatsoever about them, guessed at or otherwise. I am happy, at this point, to leave that for others more so inclined.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 01 May 2002 - 09:47 am | | Hi, Caz, Snark, Monty, and John:
Having been away on a business trip and then a speaking engagement in South Carolina, to talk at a symposium devoted to Ban Tarleton ("Tavington" in The Patriot), I am just now catching up on John Omlor's musings on to what extent the Michael Caine movie Jack the Ripper might have been an inspiration for the Diary, and which elements from the film are reflected in the Diary.
I am not sure what makes you think, John, that the Michael Caine movie served as much of a basis for the Diary. The one thing that I think is evident is that there is emphasis on Abberline over any other police officer, something that would not have been as apparent to anyone reading the newspapers of the day. To that extent, because the Caine film dwells on Abberline so much, the Caine flick could well have been an inspiration. However, because so many of the other ingredients of the film are missing, e.g., Robert James Lees, the American actor Richard Mansfield (well played by Armand Assante), and Dr. Llewellyn, and so on, I have to wonder to what extent the film served to any great extent as a basis for the Diary. Moreover, John, in musing that the lines
"Am I insane?
Cane, gain"
refer to Michael Caine you are surely falling into the same trap you have argued against in saying that there are natural lines of thought for a forger to follow, e.g., three whores in one night being a natural extension of the Double Event. I think it is clear that the "Cane" reference refers to Maybrick saying he would ram his cane up a whore and not to Michael Caine, the cane of course also being the stereotypical accoutrement of Jack the gentleman killer.
All the best
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 01 May 2002 - 10:06 am | | Hi Chris,
Yes, if you read back over the initial post from last weekend, you'll see that I did indeed say that I thought the "Cane" thing was probably just fun Sunday wordplay on my part. I do get the cane ramming reference of course and have always assumed that was what the word's appearance signified. I still do. And I did try and spell out exactly what things -- specific language and scenes and narrative order and events -- prompted my initial musings upon stumbling into the film last weekend. Head back up to that first post in the archives dated Sunday, 28 April 2002 - 09:42 am and you'll see the few specific things my reading wanted to call attention to, spelled out in all their goofy detail. The "close call" scene that apparently appears in both the diary and the movie was just a bonus, confirmed later by Peter, as I myself was happily asleep at that point in the film.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 01 May 2002 - 10:24 am | | Hi, John:
Thanks for your reply. Yes I rather thought that your musings were half in fun but I thought I should address the issue of to what extent the film might have been an influence. We might even argue that if "Maybrick" is to set up a contest between himself and Abberline a "close call" would seem natural whether or not the coincidence of such a close shave occurs in the Diary and the film.
By the way, what do we all make of the most recent appearance (Sunday, 28 April 2002 - 09:50 pm) on this board of Steve Powell and his claim that he wrote the lines in the Diary,
"Victoria, Victoria the queen of them all
of Sir Jack she knows nothing at all."
The Australian angle continues to intrigue me with the possibility that the Diary really did originate with Anne Graham, though not through the "in the family for years" scenario but with a relatively recent (1968 or later) forgery scheme in Australia involving Anne along members of a rock group including Steve Park and a woman named Victoria Courtney (now Vickery).
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 01 May 2002 - 10:36 am | | Hi Chris,
Well, the problem remains a lack of evidence, right? Steve's testimony is fascinating, but, like Anne's story, it hasn't been supported by any material evidence of any sort or by anyone else's independent corroboration. That, I guess, is what we are all waiting for.
All the best,
--John
PS: Those lines about Victoria could have also been inspired by the goofy movie, of course, and all the silly scenes with the Prime Minister talking knowingly about the rumors concerning Albert Victor and brothels in Whitechapel and the Queen being worried and suspecting her own kin might be... Naaaah. Of course, any fake Ripper diary was bound to mention the Queen in this sort of way, especially after the Royal Conspiracy nonsense and in light of the more significant documentary records of the Queen's concerns over the case (mentioned in many of the Ripper books). But there is lots of nonsense in the film about her and there is Steve's old friend Victoria and, well, who knows. |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 01 May 2002 - 01:10 pm | | Dear John
The close call thing? That I confirmed? Well, yes it appears in the movie, because it is an example of entrapment. But in the diary ...?
Here you are asking us to believe that the "bastard" who almost 'caught' Maybrick must have been the Michael Caine inspired Abberline out of the movie, right? What balderdash!
Somebody nearly caught the ripper in the act (accoring to the diary), but nowhere does he intimate that the bastard he refers to is Abberline, not in that context.
My own reading of it is that "bastard" is one of Jim's favourite words and doesn't refer to just one person, but is rather something he would use if someone upset him. The first "bastard" of the diary is "That bastard Lowry". But we don't assume it was Lowry that nearly caught Jim red handed, anymore than we would assume it was Abberline.
I appreciate the coincidences you have pointed out between movie and diary, but in the past you have accused me of wishful thinking. Tonight you have been in dreamland.
Rich:
"Perhaps the diary supporters have a theory on why he choose to keep a diary but not write very much in it".
Go on then Rich, I'll have a stab (ouch) at that one ...
In fact you will find the explanation in Shirley's excellent book - it is not a diary in the ordinary sense, but a "confessional" for Jim to unburden himself about the murders. And you really don't know how much of it is missing from the front, do you?
My wife keeps a diary, of sorts, the entries in it consist of sometimes one word entries, or small sentences in pigeon English, if she kept it for ten years it wouldn't fill one page in the Maybrick diary.
So there you go. People don't write much in their diaries. Big deal.
Regards to all
Peter. |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 01 May 2002 - 04:45 pm | | Hi All,
I have responded via private e-mail to Peter's apparent inability to read.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 02 May 2002 - 04:44 am | | Hi John H,
Don't you sigh at me, when I talk about the undateable watch scratches! 
'However not all the evidence is scientific. We have witnesses, we have the circumstantial evidence of the scratches themselves, etc etc etc. Hopefully we'll have a confession some day. Just because one detail is fuzzy doesn't mean we can't get a clear picture at some point.'
Fuzzy? You bet.
And what do you mean by 'witnesses'? Did someone watch while Albert got his watch out and made his mark?
I thought all the witnesses to Albert's 'discovery' had absolutely no suspicion of any foul play that day.
If, by witnesses, and 'circumstantial evidence of the scratches themselves', you mean Dundas and Murphy, we've been all over their individual testimonies like a rash (take a look in the archives) and failed to come to anything like a reasonable conclusion as to whether the Maybrick marks were already there or not when Albert made his timely purchase.
And I wouldn't hold your breath for a confession either.
The only other circumstantial evidence I can think of off-hand is if you have already concluded the diary is a modern forgery and use that to bash the living daylights out of the watch.
Not very scientific, is it?
Love,
Caz
PS Caine - gain
Dancing Queen - Abba line
Feldmaniacal - cackle |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 02 May 2002 - 06:02 am | | Hi John O,
Reading the passage again, where 'James' is nearly caught in the act, I think there is another perfectly reasonable interpretation, besides the one that has Abberline there in person, 'the bastard', who prevents the scene from being 'truly quiet'.
In the same way as all whores come to represent the wife who has betrayed 'James', Abberline becomes his symbol for all 'the bastards' out there, the coppers, the witnesses etc, who are out to get him.
I think you sometimes take the words in the diary too literally. The forger got the City murder wrong, you claimed, because Abberline himself was never in charge. I suggest the author may have fully intended to use Abberline as James's constant bete noire, every copper symbolising 'the bastard Abberline', regardless of the reality. Such literary devices seem to me more important to the author than changing the identity of Sir Jim's enemy temporarily in order to stick rigidly with facts he surely would have picked up from his source materials. Why this should be I have no idea. But maybe he wanted his James well and truly stuck in his own little world where reality and fantasy merge fuzzily, and in which his mission is to destroy 'the whore' Florie, wherever she pops up. And in which his enemy, 'the bastard' Abberline, will try and try again, unsuccessfully, to prevent him succeeding.
Maybe the author even thought, rightly or wrongly, that this was how a real psychopath might view his own fuzzy world. Or maybe not.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 02 May 2002 - 07:58 am | | John,
Why tell us about your private response to Peter publicly ??
Nosey Monty
|
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 02 May 2002 - 08:34 am | | Hi Monty,
I have promised here not to engage in another debate with Peter on the boards. It quickly becomes circular, repetitious, and pointless. If you check the archives, you'll see that I was asked to do this several times by several readers (and was also asked in private by others I respect), and I agreed, not only for the sake of bandwidth but out of respect for the readership here. All my responses to Peter are therefore sent via private e-mail.
However, I did not want the readers, especially newer readers, to think I was simply ignoring him or deliberately being rude, and so I chose to confirm that I have in fact responded privately.
Hi Caz,
My remarks concerning "reading" referred to reading my own original post as much as they did the diary.
I wrote:
"And finally there is the 'close call' scene in the diary where the killer is almost caught and then curses Abberline himself, as if it was actually Abberline who almost caught him in the act. It is quite possible to read 'Abberline' at the end of that paragraph as being the 'bastard' in its opening lines."
I still maintain that such a reading is quite possible and even makes sense given the full context of the entry. The paragraph begins using a series of singular male pronouns and by its end it has named Abberline specifically (all in about 10 lines and without any interruption of spacing). Also, the entry immediately preceding this one is a specific set of lines about Abberline and the pronouns used at the beginning of the paragraph seem quite possibly to refer to the last person mentioned (as well as the next). So there is plenty of textual evidence to create a reading of this entry which posits Abberline as the "he" of the close call. Add to this that a similar event, wherein Abberline himself almost catches Jack in the act, happens at a similar point in the historical narrative in this silly movie released in 1998 as it does in the diary and the fact that there is otherwise no real or historical precedent for such an event and you have the sum total of my original observations.
You can draw whatever conclusions you like.
I am certainly not going to enter into another "less than a few feet" can really mean "more than a hundred yards" type of debate.
And when I mentioned the question of Abberline's jurisdiction, it was in light of the diary's claiming that Abberline had held something back. It is also interesting that in the movie, at approximately the same point in the narrative as in the diary, with the arrival at Central News of the Dear Boss letter, there is a scene in which Abberline proudly reveals to his side-kick "George" that he, himself, has had the information concerning Annie Chapman's ears being nicked "held back" and that this proves that the Dear Boss letter must be from the killer (don't ask -- it makes no real sense). So the figure of Abberline himself holding something back (despite the real history, which tells us he would not have been able to do so) is written into the film and written into the diary, just like the figure of Jack almost being caught, possibly by Abberline, in the midst of a murder.
More observations. The conclusions I leave to you.
Finally, Caz, I have no idea how you would possibly know whether I was reading "too literally" or not. What exactly would "too literally" mean and how would it identify itself, how can you possibly prove that a literal interpretation is not the correct one in this case and that a looser, more metonymic and therefore more historically forgiving one is? Is it not possible that a more metaphorical or metonymic reading might also be the product of desire? Why exactly is the literal reading "too literal" and the metonymic one not "too metonymic?"
As to the fixation on Abberline being ultimately a formulation of a rhetorical figure, if it turns out that the forgers really did watch this silly movie, which clearly and deliberately turns the case into a mano-a-mano struggle explicitly between Jack and Abberline, that would just as easily explain the diarist's decision to present his own battle as one against Fred ("Abberline Abberline I shall destroy that fool yet...") as would a fondness for metonymy.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 02 May 2002 - 09:00 am | | John,
Thanks for clearing that up.........I was scared that I was missing something.
Monty
|
Author: Peter Wood
Thursday, 02 May 2002 - 05:39 pm | | John
I haven't been receiving your e mails, because I changed my e mail address some time ago and don't know how to alter it on my profile. You can use either of these:
Peter.Wood@Salford.gov.uk
VanNistelrooj@aol.com (or .co.uk, I can't remember which).
It's not much of a discussion board,is it, if we simply exchange private e mails?
Nowhere in the diary does the diarist make an entry that allows you to conclude that he is talking about Abberline as the person who disturbs him at the scene of a murder. It simply does not happen.
Monty, glad to see you are sitting up and taking notice.
Whatever happened to those forty pages?
Regards
Peter. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 03 May 2002 - 04:43 am | | Hi John,
I simply wondered if some of the 'mistakes' you have referred to would be acknowledged as such by the author, if he could speak to us. Might he not tell us that he had read his source materials, such as Fido and Ryan, thanks all the same, and chose to write what he did regardless?
What I meant by reading 'too' literally, is that by reading everything as a historical fact, recorded by a forger who thinks he has his facts right when in fact he has his facts wrong, you might in fact be making a mistake yourself, because the possibility at least exists that the author in fact knew the historical facts like the back of his hand, and chose to interpret these facts exactly as they appear in his little creation.
As we don't know anything about the author, or his motivation, beyond the fact that he wanted to write this particular diary, and picked James Maybrick for his ripper, you can observe that he might very well be a modern forger using Caine for his inspiration but getting his facts wrong. And I agree with you that this is possible (if the diary is a post-1988 creation, of course), but I can also observe that he might not be doing this, giving my reasons and possible alternative interpretations.
Why you would see my own observations as more a product of desire than your own, I really don't know - especially when you yourself have argued that there is absolutely no way of telling at this stage whose are more or less likely to be on the right track.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Monty
Friday, 03 May 2002 - 07:33 am | | Peter,
Notice of what ??
Exactly, bit exclusive me thinks.
On the diary board ?????? Never !
Monty
|
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 03 May 2002 - 08:12 am | | Hi Caz,
I most certainly have not argued that your observations are "more a product of desire" than my own. Nor have I argued that you are reading "too metonymically," the way you argued that I might be reading "too literally." If you read my last post, you'll see that the questions I was asking you were meant to demonstrate that there is no way for you or anyone to make such a claim.
Here's what I wrote:
"Finally, Caz, I have no idea how you would possibly know whether I was reading 'too literally' or not."
I said this specifically because I was arguing that there was no way to know this.
Notice the also that appears in the following sentence:
"Is it not possible that a more metaphorical or metonymic reading might also be the product of desire?"
That "also" clearly indicates that both readings are the "product of desire." That means "yours and mine."
Consequently, there is still no way for you to answer the question:
"Why exactly is the literal reading 'too literal' and the metonymic one not 'too metonymic?'
And therefore, your original claim:
"I think you sometimes take the words in the diary too literally."
cannot be supported or evidenced.
How would you know? You wouldn't. And that's the point. The literal reading remains just as possible as the metonymic one.
Both explanations seem to work fine -- that the prose in the diary is "literally" ahistorical because it was influenced by things like the melodramatic Michael Caine movie and that the prose is rhetorically metonymic and therefore can be forgiven any apparent ahistoricity. I was deliberately and explicitly not drawing a conclusion. I said that at least twice in my post to you (both times in separated, single line paragraphs, in fact). I was making a series of observations about what appears in the diary and what I saw in the film. I'm happy to let the readers decide which explanation they all find more likely and to draw their own conclusions from any possible similarities between the two texts.
Where exactly you saw me writing that your reading was "more a product of desire" than my own, I really don't know.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Tee Vee
Monday, 06 May 2002 - 07:48 am | | Was that the show stopper then John ???? I saw tumble weeds roll by for days, and all i could hear was the wind.
Am I all alone ???? |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 06 May 2002 - 08:37 am | | Hi Tee Vee,
I don't know. Perhaps people have begun to realize that what could be said has been said. The evidence is there and the evidence, in some cases, is not there. It's all been researched and examined and made explicit too many times now. There are still many unanswered questions -- not concerning the diary's obvious lack of authenticity, of course, but concerning who forged it and how and why. Clearly, the evidence necessary to identify the forgers once and for all does not yet exist.
So, until something new appears or another confession is offered that, this time, can be verified, or some new evidence turns up that no one has yet seen, the debate can pretty much only go around in circles.
And so people have turned their attention to other fascinating questions on other boards, such as "who really was Jack the Ripper?" (and not so fascinating questions concerning politics and the boring sort of football without the helmets.)
But the diary board runs in cycles, like all things endless, and I'm sure it will return, nonsense and all.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 06 May 2002 - 08:40 am | | Just thought you may like to know that in a few days time James Maybrick will have been dead for 113 years and still no-one has managed to prove that the diary Mike Barrett took to Doreen Montgomery is a forgery.
That is, of course, because it isn't. It's genuine.
But diary or no diary, James Maybrick is still an excellent candidate for Jack the Ripper, there is more circumstantial evidence against him than against any previous suspect in ripper history.
Anyway ...
I was watching a programme on good old British terrestrial television t'other night and it was about how the Victorians treated their dead.
Apparently, for a long time, it was not illegal to steal bodies from graves, but in doing so the perpetrators could be charged with other minor offences.
There was a shortage of bodies available for post mortem examination due to the fact that the Victorian's liked to be buried "whole", fearing some sort of eternal damnation if they weren't.
Apparently the only bodies available for 'dissection' were those of convicted murderers. Of which there weren't many.
Then, a change in the law meant that anyone who died without the money to afford a burial could be offered forward for a post mortem examination, like it or not.
Suddenly, from having just hundreds of bodies a year available for examination, there were in excess of fifty thousand.
It then became common practice for body parts to be thrown in rivers as a means of disposal. The problem even got so bad that the outbreak of a cholera epidemic could be traced to a source of water contaminated with rotting human flesh.
So, does anyone still think that Jack the Ripper would have had to do what he did just to get access to certain organs? Especially when, on more than one occasion, he failed to remove the organ(s) that he was supposed to be after?
Food for thought.
Peter. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 06 May 2002 - 06:16 pm | | Hi all,
Still no one has "proved" the diary a forgery. With the huge hurdles put forth by the diary proponents there is little wonder. Let us review a few items that critics have cited pointing to proof the diary was forged and the explanations of the diary enthusiasts:
1. The handwriting of the diary matches none of the exemplars of of James Maybrick including his will. Explanation: the will is a forgery and the diary is the true bill.
2. Crime scene descriptions in the diary copy erroneous media reports of the era. Explanation: Maybrick was so crazed that he blocked out what he had really done at the crime scenes and reconstructed his diary entries from press accounts of the time.
3. The man who sold the diary to the media admitted that he forged the diary. Explanation: he was lying when he admitted the forgery.
As you see, of course, no one has "proven" the diary to be a hoax. With any circular argument anyone can explain away the evidence that suggests the diary a fake. The question for the diary proponents is: what evidence would or could ever surface that would convince them the diary is a hoax?
Rich |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 06 May 2002 - 06:49 pm | | Hi Peter,
You said there is much circumstantial evidence against Maybrick "diary or no diary." What would you point to as evidence against him that would point exclusively to him besides the diary?
Or do you mean there is some general information against him?
Thanks,
Rich |
Author: P. Ingerson
Tuesday, 07 May 2002 - 08:51 am | | Hi, Peter. You said:
"still no-one has managed to prove that the diary Mike Barrett took to Doreen Montgomery is a forgery. That is, of course, because it isn't. It's genuine."
Where do you get the "of course" from? While it might be because the diary is genuine, it might also be because the diary is a fake but definitive proof hasn't been found yet. The second explanation is more likely but, either way, there's no room for "of course".
Cheers,
Pi p |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 07 May 2002 - 02:03 pm | | Hi John,
It’s taken me a while to get around to reading the latest posts – long bank holiday weekend and better things to do I guess.
Anyway, just to recap, you mentioned my argument that you ‘might be reading too literally’. And then went on to suggest I read your last post again, where I’d see that the questions you were asking me were meant to demonstrate that there is no way for me or anyone to make such a claim.
You then wrote:
‘And therefore, your original claim:
"I think you sometimes take the words in the diary too literally."
cannot be supported or evidenced.’
You’re right. But I wasn’t really claiming anything John. As you say, I can’t possibly know whether or not you are reading too literally because of your tendency to cite historical ‘mistakes’ in the diary (or omissions) as indications of a modern forger who hasn’t done his homework properly. Even you can’t know whether you are reading ‘too’ literally or not – not unless or until we can ask the forger why he wrote what he did. All I really meant to do was offer my opinion that a particular reading of yours might prove to be too literal, just as my own might prove to be too metonymic, because of my tendency to offer alternative possibilities to your ‘unintentional blunder’ theories.
Hi Rich,
‘The man who sold the diary to the media admitted that he forged the diary. Explanation: he was lying when he admitted the forgery.’
It’s not an ‘explanation’ or an excuse, Rich. The available evidence points to the fact that Mike Barrett was lying when he admitted the forgery. That doesn’t make the diary any more likely to be genuine of course. But it still leaves us with no clue as to who wrote it.
‘The question for the diary proponents is: what evidence would or could ever surface that would convince them the diary is a hoax?’
I don’t personally believe the diary was written by James Maybrick. But certainly, if Melvin Harris had been able to commission a direct comparison between the diary ink and Diamine (as a result of his own suspicion that Mike Barrett was telling the truth about purchasing the ink himself) and the outcome had proved positive, I don’t believe anyone, not even Feldy or Peter Wood, would still be arguing that the diary might not be a fake.
Equally, if the forgers could only be named, as Melvin hoped back in 1994 that they would be, and conclusive evidence produced for the involvement of one or more of them in a modern forgery, I can’t seriously imagine anyone being in denial.
The mystery for me is how the forgers have managed to avoid, over a decade, a single fatal mistake that no one, not even the staunchest diary ‘believer’, could pretend, even to themselves, that they just didn’t make. I’d have expected loads of ‘em, if it is indeed the ‘shabby hoax’ that some truly believe it to be.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Tee Vee
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 11:07 am | | HEY!!! Where is everyone ?????????????
Has it been that long ???????
Well Mr Begg i have your new book. But need my ultimate concentration for it. I have just finished "The Rachel Files" by D.I Keith Pedder. So my mind is a bit of an unsolved murder mystery at the Mo. But congratulations on it. And good luck with it. And Mr Evans. I`ll be picking up your info pack soon too. As a xmas prezzie mind. Anyway good luck with your projects. And i`ll be glad to give feed back if wanted? Hope the rest of the gang are okay ????????
Yours
Tee |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 12:59 pm | | | Guess who's back ...? |
Author: Mark Andrew Pardoe
Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 07:41 pm | | Whatho Peter,
Welcome.
I don't agree with your views about the diary but this site needs your thoughts. Free speech is so important. Please don't get yourself another red card.
Cheers, Mark |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 08:07 am | | Hello Mark
If only everyone would wise up and 'fess that they believe JM to be JTR, then there would be no need for red cards.
I have re read both PHF's and Shirley's books during the last couple of months and am more convinced than ever that JM was the man who slaughtered five women in Whitechapel and two in Manchester.
Where can we go with this? Well, if Patricia Cornwell has the sense to use DNA testing in her pursuit of Sickert, then maybe we should try the same with old JM and some of the ripper letters connected with him. After all, the scientific test already done on the diary come down heavily in favour of it's authenticity ...
Regards
Peter Not Pete. |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 08:28 am | | Hi Peter:
Possibly we could dig up John Omlor to help make the Diary boards interesting again? 
In regard to Patricia Cornwell, yes it might pay her to test Maybrick's DNA, since he is actually buried. You may have gathered that one of her problems with Sickert is that she does not have his body to test for his DNA directly. He was cremated. Thus with regard to the Sickert letter to Whistler and the Openshaw letter, where she found the watermark similarity, the mDNA match enables her to tie Whistler, Mrs. Sickert, Walter, and the family dog together.
Boy, Peter, now that you're back, I had better start reading your manuscript again. 
All the best
Chris |
|
|
|
|
