|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 419
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 12:48 pm: |       |
Hi John O,
Here's one thing my own mind can't manage to open itself to....
No condemnation from me. What you say obviously makes perfect sense to you, from where you are sitting. Let's just hope you are right - for history's sake.
Hi John H,
Ok, I'm glad you have never assumed that the diary was presented to Doreen with a claim that it was genuine, by someone who knew very well that it was not only a fake, but a modern one. Ditto the watch, as presented to Robert Smith.
My mind is capable of opening itself to the possibility that Mike, Anne, or Albert were actually involved in the creation of the diary and watch. Just come up with a scenario that takes account of every bit of information and evidence there is (no assumptions or opinions please) and doesn't conflict with anything. I'll be glad to keep an open mind about it.
If Albert does believe the scratches must have been in the watch when he bought it, that tends to imply that he doesn't believe anyone had access to it between its purchase and the discovery.
What I meant was that any money I do make from the book will not even begin to fill the hole my living expenses and self-imposed loss of regular income has created. But at least it's a book that provides information, while not claiming to have solved anything. 
Love,
Caz
PS Anne was quite annoyed when she heard that Mike had managed to find the poem in 1994. She had been looking for it too around that time and failed. But of course, her time spent searching and her annoyance could all be part of the charade she feels she has to keep up.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 114
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 2:43 pm: | |
hi
re 1920s improbable yes lots of things are improbable but we still believe them. for example it is improbable that JTR wrote a diary!
i recall a quote that goes something like this
when you have eliminated the impossible, whatevers left however improbable must be the truth!
(and no i don't particularly agree with it)
nextly, oh it must have been written either at the time or in the 80s bcos we didn't know something about the case thats in it then only jack could have.
ask yourself the following,
1. how do you know these things?
2. did these things, facts about tin cases, positioning of the body, mJK's heart, whatever these facts are, sit in a void for a hundred years or rather is it simply that you didn't know it.
3. must someone other than JTR known these facts at somepoint, for example whoever wrote the said facts down.
4. is it so impossible that something knowledge of whatever kind was infact in existance b4 you discovered it.
(i use the word you loosly as i am not critising any one person here i am just not trying to sound to snobby by putting one or whatever!)
yes the pages are missing, i do not know if this is done by james maybrick or any other damned person in over 100 years and whatever it had on, if you are saying it is a forgery then the date is irrelvent as they probably are nout to do with the maybrick family and if you are saying it is genuwine then it probably wasn't the kind of thing that sat well,
damn it i'm missing eastenders now!!!
jennifer |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 78
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 3:50 pm: | |
Ok. Just time for one quick post before I flee work :-)
Caz,
"Ok, I'm glad you have never assumed that the diary was presented to Doreen with a claim that it was genuine, by someone who knew very well that it was not only a fake, but a modern one."
In all fairness I do think it's the still the most likely possibility, but I don't assume that it is true and I'm open to any plausible alternate explinations.
Jennifer,
It's more than simply implausible that it was made in the 20s. There is no reason to think that it is the case. There is no evidence that points in that direction.
As far as your questions go:
1) The missing records that turned up in the 80s.
2) They were not in newspaper reports. They were in the police records, until they disappeared at some point in time. The papers must have existed in the interim, but whoever took them did not do so with permission so we can assume that they probably weren't trumpeting their existance or contents. It is possible the information was also recorded elsewhere, but it seems likely that a legitimate researcher would have found the alternate source by now if the forger found it.
3) Obviously.
4) Of course it was in existance, but it doesn't appear that the information was publically accessible.
There are other reasons than the missing information to think that a late 80s date is most likely. In particular, read John Omlor's posts on the similarities between the diaries narrative structure and that of the Michael Caine JtR movie, particularly in regards to how Abberline was portrayed in the diary.
Regards,
John Hacker
|
John V. Omlor
Detective Sergeant
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 136
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 7:20 am: | |
John H.,
RE: The miracle of the Liverpool Library...
It never happened. Mike was lying.
(And no one says that's not "in his character.")
--John
PS: And the odds aren't high that someone wins the lottery (indeed, someone almost always does -- it's designed so that someone wins). The odds are high that you'll win the lottery (or any other specific person). But someone will. On the other hand, no one does what Mike said he did. No way. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 420
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 7:20 am: | |
Hi John Hacker, All,
John, I’d like to go back to your observation that my efforts seem only devoted towards convincing others of my own assumptions. Well, assuming you are not including any of my efforts devoted to recording the words and actions of those most closely involved over the last decade, I’d just have to repeat that what I spend most of my time doing here on the Diary boards is questioning other posters’ opinions, assumptions or conclusions, whenever I find myself struggling with their reasoning. If you can sum this all up as pushing assumptions of my own, that in itself may tell us something about your own reasoning and judgement.
For everyone still bothering to read about the diary, consider the following:
Diary not in Maybrick’s handwriting + scallywag scousers (ok, John O, + the Sphere Guide ) = modern forgery
QED
Isn’t the decade’s worth of effort, investigation, debate, controversy, heartache and misery, involving suspects, researchers and writers, pro-diarists, anti-diarists and all shades of grey in between (including everyone still discussing and reading it here), sufficient testimony to the fact that we all know it really isn’t as simple as it looks?
Are the inmates, observers and critics all so terminally dim that we didn’t see the sense of leaving it at that from the very start?
Look at the reaction when Cornwell flounced up, took a quick nose around Ripperology Hatch, gawped at the inmates who have been struggling to identify Jack, and pitying their combined stupidity and blindness, grabbed a pair of Marigolds and hastily swept all the inmates’ careful years of research under the carpet and came up with her equally simple accounting method:
Fistula + ripper letters + paintings = Sickert the evil-eyed monster
QED
People will no doubt protest that there is a world of difference between the two. But I know that most of the original Diary inmates (my admission is still under consideration) would be far too polite to observe publicly that from their padded cells in Diarist’s Retreat, still no wiser about the diary’s origins after years of hard graft and having rotten tomatoes thrown at them, it can feel like the casual visitor/observer is doing a Cornwell on them.
However, the difference between Cornwell and many of the less casual Diary observers is the amount of time and energy the latter are still putting in to their own armchair sleuthing, despite criticising the inmates for not reaching the obvious conclusion years ago and sticking with it.
I think I will be speaking for the majority of the Diary inmates when I say that anyone who thinks they can do better is most welcome to try.
Marigolds anyone?
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
|
John V. Omlor
Detective Sergeant
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 137
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 7:28 am: | |
Caz,
Your equation is unecessarily and innacurately reductive, since there are a number of other things, both textual and extra-textual, that lead some of us towards a modern date.
And no, it still may very well be "as simple as it looks."
--John |
Chris Phillips
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 113
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 7:52 am: | |
Just for good measure as far as evidence that the hoax is modern goes (post-1959 at any rate), of course there's its use of the "Eight little whores" poem printed by McCormick in "The identity of Jack the Ripper".
To my mind, Melvin Harris's point - that the poem mentions "Henage Court", not associated with the Ripper until the publication of Spicer's story in 1931 - is decisive against the poem's genuineness. (The poem even reproduces the idiosyncratic spelling, "Henage" rather than "Heneage" found in the Daily Express article recounting Spicer's tale.)
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 421
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 8:04 am: | |
Hi John O,
If you gave a monkey those two lines in 1994, put him in that library and trained him to pick books off the shelves one by one, how long would it take before he held in his hands one of the volumes we know contained the lines?
What if he were perhaps drawn to this particular series of books because it looked somehow familiar to him? And what if one of those books were to open at exactly the page where the lines stared straight out at him?
The odds could - just possibly - be a bit lower than we first assume.
Food for thought: if Anne was involved in creating the diary, would she have known about the poem? If so, she would have been afraid - very afraid - when Mike first confessed, that he would simply produce the Sphere volume and their goose would be cooked.
Is there any evidence that she tried to retrieve this damning evidence from Mike before he could use it, either while she was supposedly busy cooking up a (very silly under such circumstances) new goose of her own, or later, while apparently only pretending to look for the poem herself in the library? No wonder she was miffed and surprised to find Mike had beaten her to it. Miffed? She should have been wondering why it had taken him so flipping long, and kicking herself for pretending the diary was older than the Sphere book that was surely going to condemn them both!
Love,
Caz |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 79
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 8:28 am: | |
John O,
I agree completely in regards to Mike lying in regards about finding the quote in the library. The odds of him finding it there AND having the same book at home are so long as to be virtually non-existant. It IS possible in the same sense it's possible that the same person COULD win two succcessive lotteries, or that a person might be killed by having their own father fall on them from a plane that happened to explode overhead, but the chances are so remote that it doesn't really merit serious consideration.
The dual factors of both having the book at home, AND finding the quote in the library pushes it past the point where anyone could reasonably conclude that his story is anything but a lie.
Regards,
John Hacker |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 80
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 9:43 am: | |
Caz,
"John, I’d like to go back to your observation that my efforts seem only devoted towards convincing others of my own assumptions. Well, assuming you are not including any of my efforts devoted to recording the words and actions of those most closely involved over the last decade, I’d just have to repeat that what I spend most of my time doing here on the Diary boards is questioning other posters’ opinions, assumptions or conclusions, whenever I find myself struggling with their reasoning."
I'm sorry Caz, I can only call them as I see them. The majority of the posts that you portray as struggling with the reasoning of others, really don't address their reasoning at all. They drive directly back to how they don't match up with your ideas of what the forger would do, or why that behavior is inconsistent with your perception of the diary principals which is the original point I made when I re-entered the diary debate.
Examples:
"Food for thought: if Anne was involved in creating the diary, would she have known about the poem? If so, she would have been afraid - very afraid - when Mike first confessed, that he would simply produce the Sphere volume and their goose would be cooked."
"You fail to ever go back and question this original assumption - which has now become a firm belief - even when the facts start getting in the way of little things like Anne's 'potential' money motive, or when you are forced to conclude that an intelligent woman with a young child risked prison sentences for her husband and/or herself if the diary had quickly proved to be bogus."
"Did your forger not give a damn either if Doreen, or whoever else became involved, turned out not to be in the 'one born every minute' category?"
"Was there no concern that the forgery might never reach first base if records existed that your forger hadn't bothered to look for? Particularly when it would be pretty obvious who would therefore be suspected - and possibly charged with a criminal offence and even put in prison, as had happened to the forger of the Hitler Diaries?"
Etc. etc. etc.
These don't address reasoning, these all drive back to your perception of the forger, the risks, and the principals. I've said it before, and now I'll say it again. People don't always make sense. If you are looking for an explination that makes sense of all the contradictory behaviour of the principals, and meets your criteria of what the forger would have done, you'll never get anywhere.
I find your comparison with Cornwell to be particularly interesting, but probably not in the way that you intended. Cornwell used her subjective opinion of Sickert's paintings and personality (and of course the unproven penile fistula) to paint him as Jack, because he met her mental picture of what Jack would look like. You're using your own mental picture of the forger and the principals as the stick against which you measure everyones reasoning. I have seen very little examination of the actual evidence and a whole lot of speculation about what the forger would have done, why they would have done it, etc.
"Isn’t the decade’s worth of effort, investigation, debate, controversy, heartache and misery, involving suspects, researchers and writers, pro-diarists, anti-diarists and all shades of grey in between (including everyone still discussing and reading it here), sufficient testimony to the fact that we all know it really isn’t as simple as it looks?"
I don't think so Caz. As far as I can tell most people came to their conclusions years ago and haven't thought about it since. It seems to me that very few people are still wrestling with the diary. And the majority of those are struggling with it's authenticity as opposed to when it was forged. And of those who are still struggling with the when, I don't see much effort directed towards actually answering the question.
I certainly respect your desire for absolute certainty. I want absolute certainty too. That's why I'm here. But I don't think the approach you're taking will get you any closer to actual answers. If you're unhappy with the direction the diary debate is going, then perhaps your efforts might be better directed to answering your own questions, rather than asking other people why their thoughts don't match up with your interpertation of the the forger should have/would have behaved.
Have a great weekend!
Regards,
John Hacker |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 422
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 9:47 am: | |
Hi John H,
...it doesn't really merit serious consideration.
...pushes it past the point where anyone could reasonably conclude that Mike didn't lie about when he first found the Crashaw lines.
Isn't that a turnaround from your previous claim not to be assuming, or concluding, that Mike knew very well that the diary was a modern fake in 1992?
Hi John O,
...there are a number of other things, both textual and extra-textual, that lead some of us towards a modern date.
Well quite. That’s why I divided you into casual and less casual observers.
And no, it still may very well be "as simple as it looks."
If the inmates ever come across anyone whose writing looks like that of the diary, and who associated with either of the Barretts at the right time to have been a co-forger in such a conspiracy, I’ll get back to you on that one.
Hi Chris P,
You have to show exactly how the diary author makes use of “Eight little whores” before you can use the claim about when the latter was likely to have been written as evidence that the former is a modern hoax.
Otherwise your argument rests not on the claim but on a subjective view of a small piece of text which is open to alternative interpretations that others feel are actually simpler and more likely. Basic counting rhymes on topical themes have probably been with us for centuries.
In other words, Melvin Harris's point is pointless if the diary author didn’t need eight little whores to count down from in order to count up to four of his own.
Love,
Caz
PS Does anyone think Anne knew about the poem or its source in June 1994? Any ideas why Mike didn't produce the Sphere book earlier than December 1994?
|
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 81
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 10:42 am: | |
Caz,
"Isn't that a turnaround from your previous claim not to be assuming, or concluding, that Mike knew very well that the diary was a modern fake in 1992?"
Nope. Not at all. I am still not assuming it.
1) He didn't need to be aware of the forgery necessarily to have been pointed at the Sphere guide by someone who WAS aware of it.
2) The Sphere guide was "found" AFTER the diary was presented.
3) He could have found it in the Sphere guide at home, and reliazed that it would look bad to have found it there and then convieniently re-found it elsewhere.
4) It COULD be an incredibly unlikely coincidence, but the possibility simply doesn't merit serious consideration. It's not only unlikely, it's simply not testable.
There are many possibilities here, but some are simply much more likely than others. It's possible that it was all a giant coincidence, but simply because something is possible doesn't mean that it's realistic.
Regards,
John
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 423
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 11:34 am: | |
Sorry John H, our earlier posts crossed.
What exactly are my 'ideas' of what the forger would do? What exactly is my 'perception' of the diary principals? If the majority of my posts are full of 'em, you'll have no trouble with these two questions. My ideas and perceptions have in any case no bearing on whether anyone else can prove their various modern conspiracy theories.
All those questions you repeat back to me address the reasoning of all those who have been more than happy to conclude that Mike and Anne wrote the diary between them for money and presented it to Doreen hoping they wouldn't be found out. Several millions of words later, some are beginning to realise that their reasoning doesn't entirely make sense when applied to all the facts, even if you think it doesn't matter whether their suspects' actions make any sense or not. You'll never get anywhere unless there's somewhere to go. I'm simply asking you to consider what your suspected forgers did and said after the diary came to light, to see if it helps your theory that they were involved, or could possibly hinder it, or make it any less likely at all. If none of it makes any sense, this may not cause you think it all through again, but surely this wouldn't help your theory, would it?
You're using your own mental picture of the forger and the principals as the stick against which you measure everyones reasoning. I have seen very little examination of the actual evidence and a whole lot of speculation about what the forger would have done, why they would have done it, etc.
No, John. I am using the documented facts, together with my own and other people's experience of your suspects to question what you are arguing that they did. I have no idea what Mike or Anne or Albert would do or would not do if they were involved in forgery. But those who claim that these people were involved are not IMHO giving enough thought to how they could actually prove their involvement. (And a penman would be nice too, although I realise this is way beyond any of us.) If none of this matters in your opinion, because none of the suspects' words or actions are relevant or have to make sense, fine. You are welcome to your opinion and your unproven theories.
Incidentally, you could always read the book if you wanted to see a reasonably thorough examination of the actual evidence so far assembled against the modern suspects.
No, I fully appreciate that my 'approach' here is highly unlikely to get me any closer to actual answers. Why on earth should it, unless one of you were to suddenly produce some evidence I don't already know about? I'm asking questions of people who assume they've already given me all the answers I could possibly need.
Let's hope your answers are all you ever need.
Love,
Caz
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 424
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 11:56 am: | |
Hi John H,
I take it all back. I see you are now thinking through possible actions taken by Mike and others and relating them to the 'finding' of the Sphere Guide.
You see, there is some merit after all in trying to examine and interpret the words and actions and possible motivations of those involved in the story, as well as speculating about what else they may have said and done and why.
In fact, I'd say it was pretty much an essential part of any such investigation.
Now then, does the evidence suggest to you that Anne knew about the poem before Mike's 'discovery'? And does it suggest that Mike knew about his Sphere Guide in June 1994?
Love,
Caz |
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 74
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 12:06 pm: | |
Hi all
I know very little about the origin of the diary, having read it and decided that it was fake that was about as far as my interest has gone. And I have no wish to get bogged down in this argument. However it does occur to me that John has left one very obvious option out. You said:
1) He didn't need to be aware of the forgery necessarily to have been pointed at the Sphere guide by someone who WAS aware of it.
Couldn't we add to this - or by someone whose only involvement with the diary was having read it, but just happened to love poetry, own the sphere guide and be aware that the poem was contained in it? |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 425
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 1:42 pm: | |
Hi Alan, John, All,
If a poetry lover helped Mike, they either didn’t want their identity revealed, didn’t mind Mike claiming to have found the poem himself or used it for a forgery, or, most likely IMHO, they simply haven't been following the story.
If someone who was involved in the forgery pointed the source out to Mike, I wonder why. Mike has never said this is what happened, or who did it, even when drunk and desperate, or making claims about who helped him (or who he helped) with the forgery.
Whether involved in the forgery or not, no such person has ever been mentioned by Mike.
If Mike found the poem in his own Sphere guide, realised it would look bad and decided to convieniently re-find it elsewhere, he had to find somewhere else that had a copy, that would be available on the shelves for him to find, or just guess that the library would have one.
But then, if Mike realised how bad it would look if it came out that he had his own copy, he nevertheless remarked to Shirley that, by coincidence, he had had the same book at home since 1989.
It seems almost simpler to say that Mike went along to the library, found the quote and then realised he had a copy at home all along. He did say that he was amazed and that his first thought was that no one would believe it in a million years.
There is no evidence that Mike knows the diary is a forgery, apart from this business with the Sphere guide. But if he didn't know he had the poem at home, who did?
Love,
Caz
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 173
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 1:59 pm: | |
RE: The miracle at Liverpool.
Caz--Sigh. How slowly things progress. (Or rather, how slowly things don't progress).
You once again mention the possibility that Mike Barrett stumbled across the Sphere volume at the Central Library. But, as you sometimes like to say, "it's not quite that simple, is it"?
All probabilities aside, it has not been established that the Sphere volume was even on the public shelves at the Central Library in 1994. You have to know this; we've discussed it several times. Melvin Harris (in 1995) was told by a librarian that they didn't own the volume; Shirley Harrison was later told that they DID own the volume, but that it was in storage. (Which probably explains the contradiction---Harris contacted the Library again and was told that the book wasn't listed in the regular catalogue.) For anyone who has spent any amount of time in a library, this is not at all strange. There's usually only one or two highly competent librarians who know what is going on, and the shelves get shuffled around all the time.
The present evidence suggests that the only way Barrett could have found the Sphere volume at the Central Library was to ask for it specifically. That's the only way Shirley Harrison found it.
I think we are going nowhere, and I think we are going nowhere slowly. It is vital to remember that Barrett in 1994-96 was playing off three different "factions." We always have two or three different accounts of various events because Barrett (and to some degree Graham) would tell a different story depending on who the listener was. It's very clear that Barrett was trying to play all sides at once; I can listen to the Barrett tapes and hear this going on. It is simply not credible to me that he was a 'dupe.' He's too adept at manipulating the situation and deliberately confusing the issue. Yes, I can understand how people could finally throw up their hands in horror & frustration screaming "this man knows nothing!" but I don't think that that is the right answer. Mike's an interesting study, of that I am convinced. He would have made an incredible volley-ball player.
Alas, I still predict a stale-mate. At this point, only a credible confession would settle the matter once & for all. But it's not going to happen. Barrett can never be believed; he's said too much already. Anne can't help either. If you believe her, she's already said all she knows. If you don't believe her, you just have to live with it. There's no way at this point that she would ever change her story. Finis. |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 354
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 3:09 pm: | |
Hi, R.J. et al.:
R.J., I agree with your assessment that it's not strange that one librarian would have no knowledge of the Sphere guide but that another would know it is in storage. As an example, I have just been having a battle with our local cable company about a soccer match that was supposed be on digital cable channel 603 last Saturday--Liverpool versus Arsenal. When I tried to access the channel on Saturday it said on the screen, that I had to subscribe to the channel subscriber and to call the cable company, Comcast. I duly called and was told Comcast do not carry channel 603 in Baltimore City, where I am located, and that moreover they have never carried the channel and that their numbers only go up to 400. And yet prior to Saturday I have watched matches on 603 at home and have even recorded a number of them!
I know from John Omlor's perspective it seems incredible that Mike Barrett could have gone into the Liverpool library and found a book that contains the two lines of Crashaw's poetry that appear in the Diary. It does seem amazing. However, Caz's trained monkey anecdote holds some water--he could have recognized the book that he held in his possession. Also if the book opened at the very page of the quote because of a binding error, as it apparently did, his locating of the quote is not so miraculous. 
As you know, I hold no brief for the innocence of Mike Barrett or his former wife, who now calls herself by her maiden name, Anne Graham. I find Anne's "in the family for years" story fishy in the extreme. If Mike did not know the very place to look for the quote before he went to the library, it doesn't mean that he created the Diary or put the quote in the document, but it might imply he knows more about the creation of the Diary than he has told. The Sphere guide episode plus the episode with the little red 1891 diary that the Barretts bought around the same time that Mike went to London to meet with literary agent Doreen Montgomery are two odd episodes that have remained unexplained and might indicate that Anne and Mike know more about the origins of the Diary than they have told us, and may point to some involvement in the creation of the Diary even if they were not the primaries in the scheme in terms of being author and penman.
All the best
Chris |
John V. Omlor
Detective Sergeant
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 138
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 4:21 pm: | |
Hi All,
RE: The Miracle of Liverpool Library...
Once again, it never happened.
And the fact that people are seriously discussing whether it ever happened, rather than allowing their common sense to function, is a perfect example of why this whole diary mess has been made much more complicated than it actually is.
Carry on,
--John
PS: Alan, the poem in question is not actually "contained in" the Sphere Guide. There's only a very small excerpt -- conveniently containing the very two lines that also appear in the diary -- stuck in the middle of a prose essay on other things. So no, a literature lover would not have known to go there for those lines.
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 175
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 4:47 pm: | |
Chris--Hi. Yes, I think we've all been there! Perhaps you were watching football matches from the Great Beyond without knowing it?
In regards to the diary. I think by & large we agree on all the essential points. I wish to tread carefully here, though. Caz's trained monkey anecdote holds true only if the monkey had an opportunity of finding the book. Maybe I'm biased, but the evidence suggests to me that he didn't have the opportunity: the book was in storage. Couple this with the apparent fact that Anne Graham was working with the Feldman's "team" in 1994. Unless I am very much mistaken, Anne herself once claimed she was doing research in the Central Library during the same time---ie., the Summer of 1994--mentioned somewhere in Feldy's book. Barrett allegedly spent his 'serious week' digging for the quote. Yet, apparently, never the twain did meet. Anyway, even if the Sphere was available in the Library, and Barrett found it , this doesn't explain Barrett's possession of the same book. Too many questions. Too incredible.
Just my opinon here, but personally, I believe Anne's supporters when they say she is fundamentally honest & decent. I don't believe she was involved in the hoax. I think the explanation is that Barrett brought the thing home & Anne fought bitterly with him over it. This agrees completely with the known facts. It also agrees with the oddity of the check that bought the little red 1891 diary: Mike's handwriting but Anne's signature. That's a strange little document in itself. Any hunches as to why it is filled out like that? My guess is that Barrett weedled a blank check from Anne (probably for groceries; she was the breadwinner) & instead bought the red diary on the sly. You see, I don't believe the Graham provenance was a matter of greed or an indication of complicity. It was an irresponsible attempt at being responsible; an attempt to get Feldy from pestering Barrett's family and the Devereux household. It led to the mess we are now in. All the best. |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 176
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 4:56 pm: | |
John--I agree with you. It didn't happen. And there is no evidence that it could have happened.
RP |
Chris Phillips
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 114
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 5:28 pm: | |
Caroline Anne Morris wrote:
You have to show exactly how the diary author makes use of “Eight little whores” before you can use the claim about when the latter was likely to have been written as evidence that the former is a modern hoax.
Otherwise your argument rests not on the claim but on a subjective view of a small piece of text which is open to alternative interpretations that others feel are actually simpler and more likely. Basic counting rhymes on topical themes have probably been with us for centuries.
I must admit, I thought the "pro-diary" case was that the poem was genuine, not that it was unrelated to the "draft" in the diary.
Could you specify who are the "others" who argue that the resemblance is only coincidental?
Chris Phillips
|
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 75
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 7:36 pm: | |
Well firstly John, to say that if a person owned two books containing the same lines they would not have known where to look for them is patently ridiculous and if that is the level of your argument then you are being as closed minded as Caz says you are.
However, that wasn't really my point. My point was that this argument has been raging on pretty much non stop since I started posting on this board over a month ago and so far nobody on either side seems to have said a single thing that would convince the impartial observer of anything. Every argument seems to begin "it couldn't have been that way because..." and uneducated little me every time thinks to myself "yes it could". It also seems to me that nobody except the person or persons who actually did write the diary (assuming they are still alive) actually knows the truth and that this argument could keep going in circles forever more without either side budging a single inch from their current positions. |
Chris Phillips
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 115
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 8:19 am: | |
Having just looked at Shirley Harrison's book again, I'm surprised that people are claiming that the resemblance between McCormick's "Eight little whores, with no hope of heaven" and the diary's "One whore in heaven" is just a coincidence.
That certainly isn't the view expressed by Harrison herself. Nor, from memory, is it Paul Feldman's - certainly in his book on the diary he spends enough time establishing Dr Dutton was a real person.
One would have thought the ending of the first line with "heaven" would be enough of a giveaway. Certainly, "heaven" is often used in counting songs as a rhyme for "seven", but why use it at the beginning of a song counting up from one, where it rhymes with nothing? Unless, of course, one is using another rhyme as a model, where "heaven" occurs on the first line.
For what it's worth, there's another strong echo of the McCormick poem earlier in the diary. McCormick has:
Two little whores, shivering with fright,
Seek a cosy doorway in the middle of the night.
and the diary has:
May comes and goes/in the dark of the night
He kisses the whores/and gives them a fright.
Admittedly, neither of these is as conclusive as the "tin box empty". But given that the diary wasn't written by the Ripper, it was obviously written instead by someone mining sources for information about the Ripper - some accurate, some inaccurate - and stuffing as many references as he/she could into the text. From that perspective, it seems perverse to deny that McCormick's poem was the source of these lines.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 116
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 11:40 am: | |
yes, it wasn't publically accessible because someone who was not supposed to have it had it all along
was this an honest law abiding member of the public, no , was someone who may forge a diary likely to be so either, no,
i do not rule out in my mind any of the following possibilities
1. the diary is genuwine as shirley harrison believes
2. the diary was forged at some point after 1980
3. the diary was forged at sopme other point
therfore to help prove the diary is genuwine how about something in it that there is no record of anywhere else that could be true?
jp |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
