If There Were Multiple Killers Wouldn't We Expect to See More Killings?

[Errata]

Hi Rivkah

Off topic I know, but the film credit that really cracked me up was at the end of "Silence of the Lambs"..."Moth Wrangler"

All the best

Dave

Sort of implies that there was a guy on a horse cracking a whip at a swarm of moths... galloping off to chase down the "dogies". Hanging a really bright lamp up at night to keep the moths in camp while he plays his harmonica...

[RivkahChaya]

Off topic I know, but the film credit that really cracked me up was at the end of "Silence of the Lambs"..."Moth Wrangler"

Sort of implies that there was a guy on a horse cracking a whip at a swarm of moths... galloping off to chase down the "dogies". Hanging a really bright lamp up at night to keep the moths in camp while he plays his harmonica...

A "wrangler" is anyone in charge of specialty props, particularly things that have to be authentic. Sometimes you have a "talent wrangler" and you think "doesn't every movie need that?" but it's only movies that have big scenes with street performers in the background, or a circus, or even something like A League of Their Own, where they needed a lot of women of different ages (including old women, for the final scene), who could play baseball. In period movies, you sometimes have a "product wrangler," who makes sure all the labels and boxes and things are correct for the year of the film.

But yes, it can end up looking very funny.

My favorite credit was the 1929 Taming of the Shrew, which I think was Mary Pickford's first talking film, and the beginning of the end of a great career. It was "screenplay by Sam Taylor"; "additional dialogue by William Shakespeare."

[Errata]

yeah, I've been a sword wrangler, a whip wrangler, and a frog wrangler for one very strange commercial. But the image always cracks me up.

[caz]

1) it was just a hypothetical, not a real-life example.

2) stupider statements are made when the diary is discussed.

3) no matter how stupid that last statement looks out of context, if it's a response to someone who has made some assertion like this: "The murderer clearly wasn't literate in English, and we know it wasn't a gang, and since that rules out two of the only three suspects I consider viable, Lewis Carroll, and the Gang Leader Tookie Bedford Forrest, then it must be the third suspect, Ostrog. I will be opening champagne tomorrow at noon, GMT, if you want to join me," well, don't tell me statements like that have not occasionally popped up. Sometimes they're trolls, and we don't bother answering.

4) what I said wasn't quite that stupid, but in any event, it was meant to be ridiculous, because remember, I was pointing out that comparisons between a forged document and the suspect forger don't mean much, since you can assume he was trying to disguise his writing, so, maybe the intellectual author actually wrote it down himself, or maybe he had someone else do it; it doesn't matter. Whoever wrote it is, presumably, going to try to make the handwriting look like the individual being forged, and that's from whom you need exemplars for comparison.

You'd think so, wouldn't you Rivkah? But whoever wrote the diary made no attempt whatsoever to make the handwriting look like Maybrick's, despite those exemplars being available to anyone wanting to forge such a diary in the late 20th century.

Either the author didn't care, or it was written when getting hold of any of Maybrick's known handwriting would have been a lot more difficult - for the author and document examiners alike.

Love,

Caz
X

[RivkahChaya]

You'd think so, wouldn't you Rivkah? But whoever wrote the diary made no attempt whatsoever to make the handwriting look like Maybrick's, despite those exemplars being available to anyone wanting to forge such a diary in the late 20th century.

Either the author didn't care, or it was written when getting hold of any of Maybrick's known handwriting would have been a lot more difficult - for the author and document examiners alike.

Love,

Caz
X

Well, OK then. We have a very bad forger. However, comparing the handwriting to Barrett's is probably still pointless. Considering how the diary supporters work, they'd probably come up with some theory that Maybrick's handwriting when he was writing as "the Ripper" was different from his writing when he was "Maybrick," and it just coincidentally looked like Barrett's (assuming that it does). You can probably even find a contingent of diary supporters who will claim that Barrett was "channeling" Maybrick.

Does it, in fact, look like the writing of Barrett, or his wife? and doesn't look like Maybrick's, and still it has supporters?

Why do some people want so much for the diary to be authentic? is it because the "arsenic addiction" gives a reason for the brutality of the crimes, so they don't have to accept that such things lie within the range of natural human behavior (albeit, far to one end of a spectrum, or bell, curve, or something)? Is it just because they want the mystery to be solved?

[caz]

Well, OK then. We have a very bad forger.

Or someone who wasn't even attempting to forge James Maybrick's handwriting.

However, comparing the handwriting to Barrett's is probably still pointless.

Pointless or not, it's been done - and the writing could not look less like Mike or Anne's. It's arguably as pointless for Barrett conspiracy theorists to accuse either Barrett of penning the diary as it is for Maybrickians to argue that James Maybrick could have penned it.

You can probably even find a contingent of diary supporters who will claim that Barrett was "channeling" Maybrick.

How many diary 'supporters' do you think are still out there? And did you not know that Mike Barrett cannot even pen a complete sentence without mIxiNg uP his uppER aNd lowER cAsE lEttERs? He is a stranger to grown up, joined up handwriting.

Does it, in fact, look like the writing of Barrett, or his wife? and doesn't look like Maybrick's, and still it has supporters?

In a word, no.

You really must think an awful lot of intelligent, objective forensic document examiners and researchers (none of whom are diary 'supporters') are a bunch of clueless idiots. Twenty years and counting and all the time the writing looks like Mike's or Anne's??

Are you having a laugh? Or as they say across the pond, give me a break.

Love,

Caz
X