The Diary

[caz]

I never said it was confusing, I said it depends on whom you feel had the best chance of being right.

A detailed examination is exactly what we need, but starting from which premise and which suspect?

I get the idea, Phil, that you think me some sort of idiot. If I don't blindly follow your lead, you belittle my knowledge. I am damned tired of your condescending attitude. I try to be polite; I keep getting cut down.

Bite me. They can ban me if they want, but I am sick of being treated like a child!

Darkendale

Please don't let Phil drive you away from the diary boards with his unfortunate manner, Raven. In my experience he hasn't treated your posts with any more contempt than he treats anyone else's.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Caz

One person's "nonsense" is another person's "truth" else why are there so many conflicting convictions on the identity of JtR? It would seem that Maybrick named himself JtR, but only if you accept the Diary as fact. It would seem Montague John Druitt was JtR, but it requires you to accept the McNaughten Memoranda.

Kosminski was certainly favoured as the main Jack the Ripper suspect by the head of the C.I.D. Dr. Robert Anderson, and the officer in charge of the case, Chief Inspector Donald Swanson. Druitt appears to have been Macnaghten's preferred candidate, whilst the fact that Ostrog was arrested and incarcerated before the report was compiled is why he was included as a viable Jack the Ripper suspect in the first place.

The fourth Jack the Ripper suspect, Tumblety, was stated to have been "amongst the suspects" at the time of the murders and "to my mind a very likely one," by the ex-head of the Special Branch at Scotland Yard in 1888, ex-Detective Chief lspector John George Littlechild.

So any suspect depends on whom you believe

God Bless

Darkendale

I agree entirely, Raven.

Therefore, to relate this all back to pinky's question, should Anderson, for example, have published his 'definitely ascertained fact', based as it was on his moral certainty, and not as far as we know on evidence beyond reasonable doubt?

If a belief is sincere, then maybe it should be fine to publish, as long as nothing is being put forward as proof, only personal belief?

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

We have exchanged PMs on this and I have sought to respond to what you said there - just so others no I have not ignored your heartfelt post and draw further wrong conclusions.

My sincere apologies again.

Phil

[RavenDarkendale]

Apology accepted, I think. You know why I "interpret your posts" the way I do? Pray, enlighten me.

You are going to run and hide rather than discuss anything in a thread in which I am posting? I have no quarrel with you. I get tired of anything I say being poo-pooed. Never said I couldn't continue. No, mon ami, you are the long time resident here, I am just an interloper, as I keep getting reminded all the time. I shall go. I fear no one, I believe my arguments are as valid as any. But I hate it when I get mad like this. I'm leaving for good.

Goodbye and God bless

Raven Darkendale

[Phil H]

I do apologise RavenDarkendale, if I have inadvertently offended. That was certainly not my intention in writing what i did. Your post may have acted as a sort of inspiration, but I had not perceived it as a particular response to you.

Nevertheless, I quite understand why you interpret what i say as you do.

I will revert to my previous intention of not posting in any thread where you are currently engaged. That way, I hope, you will not be further incommoded by me.

Phil

[RavenDarkendale]

I never said it was confusing, I said it depends on whom you feel had the best chance of being right.

A detailed examination is exactly what we need, but starting from which premise and which suspect?

I get the idea, Phil, that you think me some sort of idiot. If I don't blindly follow your lead, you belittle my knowledge. I am damned tired of your condescending attitude. I try to be polite; I keep getting cut down.

Bite me. They can ban me if they want, but I am sick of being treated like a child!

Darkendale

[Phil H]

With respect Dale - does it.

I think what is lacking is a detailed analysis of when these views were held or expressed, what we know of the information available to the writers when they wrote (even if some of tht no longer exists).

One author rather demolished the argument that Abberline favoured Chapman by showing that the dates were wrong and how the quote interlinked with others.

There is much more work to be done, IMHO, on the motivations and intent of MM in writing what he did, and on the changes made between the Aberconway version (I think a draft) and the file copy. Why exactly was Ostrog included,? why is the memo phrased as it is - eliptically, in the careful terms I well recognise as an ex-civil servant, used when one is trying to avoid saying something?

We cannot ignore Swanson's marginalia because (unlike the "Diary", for instance) they reveal new information - not all of it I feel fully understood - and because Swanson no where else expressed a view. So the comments must carry weight.

My point is, that the information we have on contemporary suspects may only be "confusing" when examined in an undifferentiated "lump".

Anyone who has worked in a large organisation will know that it is perfectly possible for someone working in one area (Littlechild say) to be working on one thing, unaware that other parts of the business are doing something else. That is even more explicable and likely, if what Littlechild is referring to relates to a different time to that (say) that Swanson and Anderson wrote about.

MM was not part of the investigations in 1888. So anything that had happened then he could know only at second hand - from persusing the files, briefings by others better placed, or through gossip. If the events related by Swanson had proved unproductive and been dropped, were known only to a few anyway, MM might never have heard about them.

So I agree, we do SEEM to have conflicting views from key contemporary actors, but if we seek intelligently to refine that information, to analyse it and seek better to understand it, we may find that it is less confusing than it seems.

Regards,

Phil

[RavenDarkendale]

Caz

One person's "nonsense" is another person's "truth" else why are there so many conflicting convictions on the identity of JtR? It would seem that Maybrick named himself JtR, but only if you accept the Diary as fact. It would seem Montague John Druitt was JtR, but it requires you to accept the McNaughten Memoranda.

Kosminski was certainly favoured as the main Jack the Ripper suspect by the head of the C.I.D. Dr. Robert Anderson, and the officer in charge of the case, Chief Inspector Donald Swanson. Druitt appears to have been Macnaghten's preferred candidate, whilst the fact that Ostrog was arrested and incarcerated before the report was compiled is why he was included as a viable Jack the Ripper suspect in the first place.

The fourth Jack the Ripper suspect, Tumblety, was stated to have been "amongst the suspects" at the time of the murders and "to my mind a very likely one," by the ex-head of the Special Branch at Scotland Yard in 1888, ex-Detective Chief lspector John George Littlechild.

So any suspect depends on whom you believe

God Bless

Darkendale

[caz]

I don't know, pinky.

But if it helps, I do know Shirley and Feldy were both 100% sincere in their conviction that the diary was no hoax.

Should the bible continue to be published, when so much of it is provable nonsense?

Serious question for the weekend.

Love,

Caz
X

[pinkmoon]

You can ask, pinkmoon, but a girl can hardly promise to answer yes or no until she knows what the question is.

Is "I don't know" allowed?

You may answer yes, no, or "I don't know".

Love,

Caz
X

The diary couldn't be proved genuine but it couldn't be proved a fake......do you think those books should have been published (Harrison's and Feldmans) under those circumstances and money made

[RavenDarkendale]

Question: Where was the door in relation to the body? If this is the view from say, the window, then front could mean another angle. Front could refer to what you see immediately upon entering, that first glance that tells you horror has happened here. Just saying...

[caz]

Thanks caz need to dust my diary books of and refresh my memory while I'm on can I ask you a direct question which would require a yes or no answer.....don't panic it's not a marriage proposal

You can ask, pinkmoon, but a girl can hardly promise to answer yes or no until she knows what the question is.

Is "I don't know" allowed?

You may answer yes, no, or "I don't know".

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

And as for 'yes and no' answers, do you still beat up your children?

Yes or no, Stephen, are you still happily falling for any of Mike's claims?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

She has a handsome husband so no panic there.

He's not my husband yet Stephen, but he may be one day - if he's not careful.

Love,

Caz
X

[pinkmoon]

Good reply you have my utter respect