|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 279
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 11:44 am: |       |
Hi Chris,
I am not 'convinced' of anything, but you apparently either missed it when I said as much to the audience in Liverpool, or you simply don't believe that I remain unconvinced by any of the scenarios so far put forward to explain the origins of both diary and watch.
If it was an easy thing to discover 'the full, real story behind the Diary', our book may have turned out very differently indeed, if we had written it at all. As it is, I am proud to 'admit' that our book does not, never did, intend to make a case for these artefacts' origins. I know of no information that would induce me to conclude anything at present about the when, who, why or how.
Incidentally, as you well know, Anne's story does match Mike's original story that he was given the diary by Tony Devereux, so your observation could be quite misleading. Before she left Mike in 1994, Anne claimed this was all she knew. Some months after their separation she claimed that she gave the diary to Tony to give to Mike.
Why do you think it strange that Keith and I should invite you to meet two of the main players? Don't you think it's important, if not essential, to find out as much as you can about anyone you believe must either be involved in modern foaxery, or at least be holding something back that would point to the artefacts not being old creations?
Of course these are 'questionable' artefacts, and of course there is no 'tangible evidence' to show that Maybrick may have been the Ripper. I have not been suggesting otherwise. But what has that to do with anything?
Love,
Caz
|
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 291
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 11:53 am: | |
Hi, Caz:
You wrote: "Incidentally, as you well know, Anne's story does match Mike's original story that he was given the diary by Tony Devereux, so your observation could be quite misleading. Before she left Mike in 1994, Anne claimed this was all she knew. Some months after their separation she claimed that she gave the diary to Tony to give to Mike."
That's two different stories, isn't it? Aren't you saying that Anne made two different claims?
Let me say that I feel entirely ambivalent about the question of Anne Graham. I was rather amazed that she was there at all. I don't feel that her "revised" story is the correct one. I understand that at first she did not want to talk about the Diary at the Liverpool conference but eventually was coaxed to do so. I don't see the point of talking to someone whom I distrust. Possibly what this comes down to is, as we have said all along, we need new information, and possibly that information has to come from Anne or some other party.
Best regards
Chris
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 280
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 12:09 pm: | |
Hi John (O),
Don't you think it's a good idea to meet the people who are believed to know the diary and watch are not old creations? I could have sworn you used to agree with me on this one. In case I'm wrong, could I ask why it's not important, or even a bad idea, to take advantage of such an opportunity?
Does anyone seriously believe that armchair sleuthing is more productive than questioning the suspects while they are around to be questioned? Chris's excuse seems to be related somehow to his assumptions about other people's thinking. I can't think why this is relevant, but perhaps you could explain, or excuse Chris on more understandable grounds.
Love,
Caz |
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 120
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 12:15 pm: | |
Hi, Caz and Chris:
I'm still curious about the forty pages that were posted about last year. I recall Caz had posted that Mike Barret had contacted Keith Skinner with the news he possessed newly-discovered pages (apologies if my memory is faulty). I remember Keith was going to meet with Mike, but I've heard nothing since. Were these documents ever produced and were they discussed at the conference? Have they been tested and how do they match up with the original Diary?
Caz, will this meeting and the results of it be something that your upcoming book deals with?
Thanks,
Dave
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 281
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 12:21 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
I've just explained, for anyone who didn't already know, the difference between Anne's story since 1994 and what she claimed to know previously. I was simply pointing out that your words were misleading - the stories did match in the specific detail you chose to describe.
'I don't see the point of talking to someone whom I distrust.'
Well, that says it all really.
Me, I don't see any point in making up my mind about people if I know there may be more to find out about them.
Love,
Caz |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 282
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 12:27 pm: | |
Hi Dave,
Yes, we do mention Mike's new pages in the book, but no, they haven't been 'tested' as such.
Find of the century, or much ado about nothing? We let our readers make up their own minds. 
Love,
Caz |
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 121
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 12:36 pm: | |
Hi, Caz
Thanks for the quick response. Can you confirm that these pages do in fact exist and who has them today?
Dave |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 292
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 12:51 pm: | |
Hi Dave:
From both what was said in Liverpool and in the short discussion of the "new pages" in the book by Skinner et al. the newly found pages appear to be but a pale version of the Diary pages. Keith did say that the paper does not match that of the ledger containing the journal and nor, apparently, is the writing consistent with that in the Diary.
Mike has apparently told a couple of different stories about the new pages' origin, one being that he kept them aside from the original pages of the Diary, which plainly cannot be true if the paper is different. Perhaps Keith, Caz, or Seth can expand if I have got any of this wrong. I don't have their book in front of me, and in any case the "new" pages are only addressed, rather dismissively, in a short paragraph or as someone said to me, in a sentence in that paragraph.
At any rate, I get the impression that this was another attempt by Mike to reinsert himself into the situation and that perhaps he manufactured the pages to try to draw the spotlight back to himself.
All the best
Chris |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 283
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 1:14 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
If you have read the 'new pages' passage, you may have missed the one word which should tell you all there can really be to know.
I don't wish to 'expand' as I have spent the last few months getting down to my target weight. 
Love,
Caz
|
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 295
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 1:25 pm: | |
Hi, Caz:
I shouldn't pick on you because after all, you are here and Keith isn't. However, I don't know why you and Keith are being elusive about this question of the forty new pages, and why the answer has to be "Read the book" -- which as I described it, does not say overmuch about the pages anyway. I don't know either why Keith came across as being hostile to me at the launch of the book when I asked about the forty new pages. A number of people commented to me afterwards that they had not seen Keith like that before. What's the explanation? I think we are all after "the truth" but could part of Keith's "attitude" have been that he believes Anne's story while others don't?
All the best
Chris
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 284
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 1:25 pm: | |
Hi Dave,
I believe Keith returned the pages he was given by Mike to their rightful owner.
I did see copies though.
Love,
Caz |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 285
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 1:41 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
No, you shouldn't pick on me. One of the more obvious reasons why we don't offer opinions or conclusions in our book is the fact that there are three co-authors, which means three sets of views that aren't necessarily going to be identical in every aspect.
I can't understand all the fuss about the 'new' pages, but each to his own I suppose. A lot of assumptions were made when they were first mentioned, though, and my advice at the time was to assume nothing, wait for the book and time would reveal all. Peter Wood came the closest when he had a stab at what the pages would probably consist of.
Love,
Caz |
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 122
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 2:15 pm: | |
Caz,
Thanks again. Will we also be able to see copies in the new book? If not, may I have a scan? If you don't have access to a scanner, I'd gladly send you the funds to cover photocopy and mail expenses and then you could post them to me.
Since Mike is a central figure in the Diary tale, his coming forward with these pages is an important event.
Cheers and thanks again,
Dave
|
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 123
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 2:47 pm: | |
Chris,
Thanks for that. I confess that I've been very curious about these pages since Caz first posted about them.
Cheers,
Dave |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 296
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 2:54 pm: | |
Hi David:
I believe the new pages are not illustrated in the new book by Skinner et al. but only dealt with briefly in the short paragraph in the book that I alluded to in my prior post. Neither were these so-called new pages, or copies thereof, shown at the conference. I am prepared to take Keith's say-so that the pages are not pertinent to the issue at hand, i.e., to the Diary. Again, my impression is, from Keith's inference at the conference, and as I recall also in the book, that the material was only an attention-getting ploy on Mike's part.
These new pages are then as useless or useful, some might say, as the piece of writing that Barrett wrote for Paul Feldman that is reproduced in Feldman's book where he wrote "Yours truly, Jack the Ripper" in a style different to the handwriting that is evident in the Diary. Useful I mean of course to show, possibly, that he did not as he has claimed pen the Diary. As you might recall, one story he told was that Anne dictated the Diary and he wrote it, though he also contradictorily said he dictated and Anne wrote. . .
You might be interested though to know, David, that the book does reproduce a sample of Gerard Kane's writing and compares it to the Diary, and there is some similarity in the writing. This is one of the samples of Kane's writing that was discussed at the Oxford mini-summit after the Bournemouth conference in 2001 that included Shirley Harrison, Keith Skinner, Peter Birchwood, and myself.
All the best
Chris |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 272
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 3:59 pm: | |
Hi Liza
I would love to see the photo and I would be happy to contribute a pound to the club.
I couldn't get to the Conference because of my wife's birthday.
All The Best
Gary |
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 124
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 4:13 pm: | |
Hi, Chris
Thanks again. I think it's pertinent that Mike Barrett was in possession of a forgery for the second time in his life. I think it's important that the forty pages are apparently not in the same handwriting as the original diary. I believe you when you say that Keith says the forty pages are different from the original document. But I shouldn't have to.
That is not a knock and not meant to be rude to Keith (or Caz or Seth). I don't know Keith, but I believe that a researcher of his stature would agree with my sentiment. Besides, I've only ever heard good things about Keith. After all, he's the co-author of the Sourcebook and Letters From Hell, for my money the two most important books ever written about JtR, exactly because I don't have to take anybody's word for anything. I can look it up for myself.
So in the tradition of those two books, and whether or not the new pages are pertinent to the Diary, I would like to see them for myself, if only to satisfy my curiosity (many respected researchers here will be familiar with my numerous requests, which are more often than not granted)  Since I'm willing to pay for any out of pocket expenses up front for a copy, why shouldn't I have them?
And I would scan them and forward them on to anybody who asked.
Dave
|
John V. Omlor
Detective Sergeant
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 115
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 4:52 pm: | |
Caz,
I think that everybody should meet everybody else and say anything to them that they want.
Beyond that, though, I choose not to comment, upon advice of counsel.
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 287
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 9:15 am: | |
Hi Dave,
Actually, the first post about Mike's new pages was by Keith, in the days when I was acting as his postwoman.
As with all things diary, people will put different interpretations on everything, and these pages are no exception. Their importance to the whole story is also very much a matter of personal opinion, but we did all feel that the short passage in our book says all we really needed or wanted to say on the subject. Others may disagree but I'm afraid that's just the way it is.
The pages are not mine, of course, so your best bet would be to write to Mike Barrett (via his publisher, Blake) and ask him for permission to see them. But I would strongly advise you to read the passage in our book carefully before you spend any more time wondering, as I see you are already assuming too much about the actual pages Mike handed to Keith.
Love,
Caz
|
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 125
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 11:21 am: | |
Thanks, Caz
Unfortunately, nobody will be able to interpret anything as only a few people have been allowed to see those pages. Did Mike specify who was to see them? Or is this a constraint you are imposing?
Unless you share what you have, nobody else can form any opinion at all. That I should have to wait until November for your paragraph or sentence about this subject is a little silly, isn't it? I don't know if you mean this as a tease to whet my appetite for your book, but it's not a good marketing tool.
I'll write to Mike, but with low expectations. Perhaps I'll try Keith as well.
Since this is supposed to be a bunch of nothing, I don't understand the reluctance to share the information. I only want to see what you have seen.
Have a good weekend,
Dave
|
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 299
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 11:53 am: | |
Hi, Dave:
Here is the relevant passage from the new book by Linder, Morris, and Skinner on the Diary controversy where they address the "new" Diary pages produced by Michael Barrett in March 2002. I post it here now without further comment.
"There is another subject we need to dispense with. On a visit some months previously, in March 2002, Barrett had given Keith Skinner ten handwritten pages, which he said he had transcribed from some of the missing pages of the Diary. He said he had removed the pages from the Diary when he first received it and had been holding out to write his own book on the subject. Now he tells us they were created by him at the outset, before he believed the Diary was genuine, to see if he could match what was written in the Diary. The content, in truth, bore no resemblance to that of the Diary. We do not dwell on the subject."
Seth Linder, Caroline Morris, and Keith Skinner, Ripper Diary: The Inside Story, Sutton Publishing, 2003, p. 271. |
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 126
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 12:18 pm: | |
Now, thank you for that, Chris. That's incredibly helpful.
I'm still interested in finding out what the content actually was. Although the authors of The Inside Story have moved on, I'd still like to see it for myself. Not because I don't believe the passage above, only because I'm curious about it.
Thanks,
Dave |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 273
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 12:59 pm: | |
Hello All
I don't understand why we can't talk about the Diary dispassionately. I have read everything that has been written on the thing and I have my own set of beliefs which I have stated on the Diary thread. I will look forward to Caz's book and look forward to any new information it may reveal. I could be wrong about my conclusions and I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
It almost seems to me that many peolple feel they are being duped and someone out there is getting a kick out of the very fact that we are paying attention to the thing. Someone could be laughing at my post at this moment and I don't care. I don't take the fact that it exists and someone may be pulling off a hoax personally.
I don't think Maybrick was JTR for numerous reasons and I don't think many informed people do.
I believe it is modern, but for all we know my 15 year old son could be right and that certain of the tests are correct and it was written in the 1920's, either as a lark or in response to Florrie's situation.
When I was eleven years old we lived less than a mile from lake Ontario and I often walked there to visit a friend who lived right on the lake. I buried a scrap of paper in the ground near the lake after burning the edges and putting some grease on it. The note was a treasure map. Some stuff was written on it claiming that treasure was buried and could be found after following such and such directions. I thought that if I fooled someone it would be amusing.
I quess I have made my point and won't dwell on the subject too much too much more.
All The Best
Gary
P.S. Shouldn't this subject be taken to the Maybrick thread. |
Billy Markland
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 10:59 pm: | |
Ladies and gentlemen, the one thing I have always stayed clear of in my brief time dealing with the Whitechapel Murders is who did what and when to the Diary. To me, after reading a few pages of it in a book, it seemed too "pat", i.e. the writing was just as I, a layperson, would expect a madman to write.
I for one will eagerly buy a non-biased history of the Diary story such as Caz, Keith, and (forgive me, I forgot) collaborated on. Their research and non-partisanship does not make them the "enemy" to non-believers. Jimminy, don't treat respected researchers as if they were Cornwellians for crying out loud!
Caz, if you would do me the favor of either posting the anticipated release date here or emailing me at bjmarkland@aol.com, in order to preorder it, I would appreciate it.
Now back to the fun and games, folks (or in other words, let us quit cannibalizing ourselves!)
Off the pulpit now <grin>,
Billy |
Adrian Morris
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 8:52 pm: | |
Caz, Christopher.
I met Anne Graham at the Liverpool conference. Anne Graham was warm, kind and a total delight to talk to.
Only problem is, this had no bearing what-so-ever on my unshakable belief that the 'diary' is a modern fake!!!! Sorry. I think my chat with Christopher and Frogg after the book launch made this clear!!
I'm immersed totally in your book at the moment Caz. It's great reading it and remembering, Gosh, I was following that when it happened. Brilliant read.
ADRIAN.
P.S. Mick Warboys is recovering at home from his tumble at London Bridge station. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 292
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 1:09 pm: | |
Hi Billy,
'Their research and non-partisanship does not make them the "enemy" to non-believers.'
Thanks for that.
And for anyone who may believe otherwise, the book does not set out to make a case for or against authenticity. It simply tells the inside story of the people involved with bringing the diary and watch to public attention, and those who have attempted to discover their true origins.
Hi Adrian,
Glad to hear Mick is recovering from that nasty fall. Tell him to eat plenty of pie 'n' mash to regain his strength for the October meeting!
Thanks for your kind comments about the book. Do let me know what you think when you've finished it.
Hi Dave,
Am I really to be criticised for not quoting chunks from our book on demand? I have tried to make myself available here for any questions or concerns people may have, although I could reasonably have requested that you read the whole story for yourself before making assumptions about the 'few people' who have been 'allowed' to see Mike's pages, along with every other piece of documentation that has 'allowed' us to produce this book. I thought I made it plain that, in my opinion, there is absolutely no point in dwelling on these pages, so I don't know how advising you not to dwell on them either can be interpreted as a 'tease' to whet your appetite!
If, when you've read the rest of the story, you are still genuinely curious about the pages Mike produced for Keith's inspection, or worried about our treatment of this one episode in the book, or in any way doubt our motives, I will gladly listen to your reasons and do my best to address all your concerns.
Love,
Caz |
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 127
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 4:43 pm: | |
Hi, Caz
First of all, I don't think you're the "enemy". Nor do I think you are lying when you write in your book that the paper, handwriting, and content bear no resemblance to the original Diary. I just believe everybody should have access to copies of those ten pages (at least a transcript) so we can see for ourselves how this is true. Again, it's not because I don't believe you; I just want to see it. That's not unreasonable. Since you're written the inside story of the Diary and have at least seen a copy of Mike's ten pages and referred to them in your book, you seem the logical source for this information. That you've seen them and see no point on dwelling on them is fine, but I haven't had the opportunity to follow your example. All I know about them is what was posted on the boards last year, which is not much although it generated some interest.
I haven't asked you to quote chunks of your book, and I haven't demanded anything. I have only asked to see this one document and if not, then I have asked why. I have not asked you to produce it "along with every other piece of documentation that has 'allowed' us to produce this book." Your answer was to refer me to Mike Barrett and a mysterious hint that my assumptions were false. If I have a criticism of you, it's that you did not tell me why when you easily could have (which I interpret as a tease). I chalk it up to a difference in personal communication styles.
Caz, I wish you well with it. I'm looking forward to reading it when it's released here in the States.
Cheers,
Dave |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 293
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 5:10 am: | |
Hi Dave,
I suppose I have only myself to blame for this criticism. In my defence, I can only repeat that the book does not set out to provide the evidence for or against authenticity of the diary or watch. It is the story of the people who got involved with both. The question of whether they are old or recently created artefacts is not one we sought to address, or wanted or expected to be able to resolve. This is something for others to concern themselves with, if they so wish.
It simply isn't within the authors' means to make anyone else's documents publicly available without their permission. We mention the ten pages produced by Mike simply because they are a part of the ongoing saga. We do not seek to make any sort of argument surrounding them.
If you or any other readers want to see these ten handwritten pages (remember, Mike is not now claiming to have ever seen any 'missing' diary pages), in order to assess their worth as evidence of anything - which was not the purpose of our book, even if readers feel able to reassess various aspects as a result of what we have reported - you can ask Mike's permission. I have no idea whether you are right to have low expectations. For all I know, Mike may be writing his own book as we speak, planning to reveal all.
I have tried to explain what our book is about, and what it is not about, because it does appear that you, and perhaps others, already feel it is not going to meet your preconceived expectations.
Love,
Caz
|
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 295
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 1:58 pm: | |
Guys,
I really am pissed that I didn't make it. I'll see all of you in ole' Bawlmer though!
B |
Rodney Gillis
Police Constable
Username: Srod
Post Number: 1
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 10:02 pm: | |
Brian,
I can tell that you're not from "Bawlmer". You did not end your sentence with "hon". That's ok, have a Natty Boh on me and go see dem O's before you go down de ocean dere hon. |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 303
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 10:42 pm: | |
Rod,
I been downy oshun too often. Lost my merlin accent.
It's this damn DC - makes me forgot my roots.
B |
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 7:16 pm: | |
Having not been into Ripperology very long I did not attend the Liverpool Conference. I was quite disgusted to see some very tacky T shirts for sale on e-bay though, using the blue meanie as a ripper caricature. Totally tasteless and making a mockery of the whole Whitechapel Murder mystery, JTR was a murderer, he killed innocent people. Keep it real. |
Barbara L. Cobb
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 10:42 am: | |
Dear Ms. Graham,
I am a writer and need if you will the way in which I can assertain the pictures of the Maybricks ie premission to publish them in my book. Please help me.
Thank You,
Barbara Cobb |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page