|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Medical literature
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Medical / Forensic Discussions:
Medical literature
Author: Thomas Ind
Friday, 22 December 2000 - 02:48 pm |        | Iave just got my copy of this weeks BMJ 23rd December 2000. Regretably as I am now using Onnet rather than my laptop I cannot post the article but there is an article entitled 'Serial homicide by doctors: Shipman in prospective' by Herbert G Kinell a retired consultant psychiatrist. (The Xmas edition of the BMJ always has frivilous articles in it)
There are two paragraphs in the introduction section. The second reads as ollow;
'"Jack the Ripper," the perpetrator of five unsolved murders in 1888 in London, is thought to have been a member of the medical profession, although there is no conclusive evidence. Sir William Gull, "physician in ordinary" to Queen Victoria, and Thomas Barnardo were prime suspects, and there were advocates for Montague Druitt, a barrister (he was from a respected medical family and may have passed himself off as a doctor); a dr Stanley (he may have been fictitous); the Polish Dr George Chapman (real name Severin Klosowski); and the Russian Dr Alexander Pedachenko [refs 5 - 7]. Nor has conclusive evidence been found for Gaylord Sundheim ( a psychotic who had studied medicine) being the " mad butcher" of Cleveland, Ohio, in the 1930s.'
Ref include the Illustrated story of Crime, Gordon R Was Dr Barnardo a medica waif?, Rumbelow & a book by Wilson C.
I thought that I (and perhaps someone else) could write a letter to the BMJ and correct all the inaccuracies in this paragraph thus giving PR to this site +/- the C&D.
So perhaps people could post all the in |
Author: Diana
Friday, 22 December 2000 - 03:35 pm | | | Dr. Ind -- Wonderful to have you back. Please get a new Internet Service Provider! I think Jack only had rough expertise in anatomy and I have been largely guided by you in this. However he had one skill that I bet they didn't teach you in medical school. He was a fast, efficient, practiced throat slitter. To me this suggests a butcher, slaughterhouse worker, agricultural person, or cattle boat worker such as Arbie La Bruckman. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Friday, 22 December 2000 - 04:08 pm | | Thanks Diana
I still have my old service provider but my laptop is now based at work. E-mails are monitored and I just feel that some would not understand and interest in Ripperology. Thank you for agreeing with my thoughts from previous threads.
In this thread I am specifically looking for FACTS concerning the paragraph I quoted above. Are there any other doctor suspects? Didn't Tumblety pass himself off as a doctor etc etc etc |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 22 December 2000 - 09:02 pm | | Hi, Tom:
Indeed, Dr. Tumblety did pass himself off as a doctor and I am hoping to make some headway on him now that I have started work as an editor at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Washington, DC. Tumblety did, as you probably know, practice abortions, but apparently only using abortifacients to produce the abortion in the women, not surgery. He was a herb and pill man. On the other hand, I felt that the BMJ piece made a bit of a slur on Druitt who though he was indeed "from a respected medical family" in Wimborne, Dorset, did not as far as I know try to pass himself off as a doctor. The paragraph is indeed riddled with glaring inaccuracies. Thanks for sharing it with us. Incidentally, I may be coming to London in March in connection with the Jack the Ripper musical I have written the lyrics for (my collaborator, French composer Erik Sitbon, and I are supposed to meet with producers) so as you suggested I will try to look you up. Us Ob/Gyn men should stick together. :-)
Chris George |
Author: Thomas Ind
Saturday, 23 December 2000 - 05:05 pm | | Look forward meeting u
I am still receiving e-mails at my old address but only at work |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 05 February 2001 - 07:59 pm | | Hi Guys!
I am a 3rd year student studying psychology and I am very interested in the Whitechapel murders, re: deviance (whatever that may turn out to be).I can see how the Maybrick Diary excites the passions, even when 95% certain it is a hoax.But I think its the certainty of discovering its perpetrator and who is behind it - like the search for the ultimate suspect "Jack" that keeps everyone on their toes.
Anyway, I just sit quietly and catch up on the Maybrick posters...pretty daunting prospect :-) |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 06 February 2001 - 04:00 am | | Hi Rosemary,
Welcome.
I'd be interested to hear your views on the psychology of someone who decides one day to sit down and compose a confessional diary, combining two personalities from two infamous murder cases - not as a piece of imaginitive fiction, but as a serious attempt to deceive anyone who reads it.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 06 February 2001 - 11:59 am | | Hi Caroline,
My first reaction to your question is, that person is a cad!But it would all depend on one's level of outrage would'nt it? My teacher once likened deception to a 'transaction', sometimes it is one-sided but more often than not, it can be beneficial to both sides. In this instance, I'm...em...thinking about it.
However, I must add a rider to any final consideration regarding the psychology of deception, is the person He or She? What do you think Caz?
Love,
Rosemary. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 06 February 2001 - 01:08 pm | | Hi, Rosemary:
My reading of the Diary text is that despite the textual implication that it is written by a male serial killer, the mentions of the man's children all feel very maternal and loving, and thus it would seem that the author may be a female. I don't know if Caz has a feeling on this. The constant mentions of "Bobo and Gladys"--Maybrick's son James Chandler, known affectionately as "Bobo" born eight months after Florence and James Maybrick's wedding at St. James's Church, Piccadilly, London, on July 27, 1881, and their daughter Gladys Evelyn, born on July 20, 1886, seem more like the effusions of a close 20th Century mother than the distant Victorian parents that I would suspect both the Maybricks were.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 06 February 2001 - 10:06 pm | | Hi Chris George,
My rather tentative thought on your suggestion of a 'feminine touch' to the compilation of the Diary is that the overall textual composition is most likely that of a masculine author. Though admittedly, there is some minor feminine...shall I say, 'colouring'?
Perhaps we should await Caroline's thoughts on this suggestion.
All-in-all, the Diary is a most perplexing document, but I am certain that the breakthrough- when it comes- will provide more surprises. And I am still awaiting further revelations on these Boards!
Love
Rosemary |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 05:16 am | | Hi both,
I'm not sure I'm qualified to give much of an opinion on this one but, as a stab in the dark (!) I'd say the diary author was trying to come across as a Jekyll and Hyde type, and therefore had to think of ways to make Maybrick the 'gentleman born', whose love for his dear but faithless Bunny turned him into a monster. Therefore I feel that all the domestic references Chris mentions were deliberate, and not the instinctive additions of a maternally-minded female author.
Making Sir Jim tune into his feminine side (oh dear, rather a modern concept, that :-)) would achieve the balance between gentleman and monster quite nicely, wouldn't it? I'm sure this touch would not be beyond any male author, however good, bad, indifferent, or out of touch with all things gentle and feminine. And I tend to think, like Rosemary, that the overall textual composition is male.
My own view, from what I think I have come to know about Anne Graham, is that I would find it absolutely astonishing if this woman had the imagination or inclination to attempt this particular hat-trick: change gender (unsex me here, and fill me top-full of direst cruelty), then become Maybrick the gentleman, and JtR the monster, all rolled into one.
All I do know is that I myself would fail woefully at any such attempt, were I sick enough to make it while trying to bring up a young daughter and teach her the basic right from wrong stuff.
But Anne had to be involved - didn't she?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 05:42 am | | Hi Caroline,
Hi Chris George,
Both of your posters have given me a wonderful idea. I am attempting my first (clumpsy) psychological profile of the Diary's author/hoaxer. I am firmly of the opinion that suffient data is now available to begin its construction.
If you are really...really interested in my project, then email me and I shall send you both a copy.
Love,
Rosemary :-)) |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 07:00 am | | Hi, Rosemary:
Thanks. I will be in contact. I believe a worthy project would be to do "a psychological profile of the Diary's author/hoaxer" as you propose. Good luck!
Hi, Caz and Rosemary:
Yes, I suppose all the lovey-dovey sentiments expressed by the narrator in regard to the children, Bobo and Gladys, could have been a male author's attempt, as you say, "to make Maybrick the 'gentleman born'." I wonder though if it is more a late twentieth century male author's conception than a Victorian man's sentimentalizing???
Try this scenario, then: Mike Barrett provides the text of the diary to Anne to write down, which is how he says it was done in his January 5, 1995 sworn affidavit, the text of which is available on this site under "Suspects: James Maybrick" at http://www.casebook.org/suspects/james_maybrick/mb-con.bjan5.html:
I Michael Barratt (sic) was the author of the original diary of 'Jack the Ripper' and my wife, Anne Barrett, hand wrote it from my typed notes and on occasions at my dictation, the details of which I will explain in due course.
The idea of the Diary came from discussion between Tony Devereux, Anne Barrett my wife and myself, there came I time when I believed such a hoax was a distinct possbility. We looked closely at the background of James Maybrick and I read everything to do with the Jack the Ripper matter. I felt Maybrick was an ideal candidate for Jack the Ripper. Most important of all, he could not defend himself. He was not 'Jack the Ripper' of that I am certain, but, times, places, visits to London and all that fitted. It was to (sic) easey (sic).
I told my wife Anne Barrett, I said, "Anne I'll write a best seller here, we can't fail".
Once I realised we could do it. We had to find the necessary materials, paper, pens and ink. I gave this serious consideration. . . .
We were now ready to go and start the Diary. We went home and on the same evening that we had purchased everything, that is the materials we needed, We decided to have a practise run and we used A4 paper for this, and at first we tried it in my handwriting, but we realised and I must emphasie (sic) this, my handwriting was to (sic) disstinctive (sic) so it had to be in Anne's handwriting, after the practise run which took us approximately two days, we decided to go for hell or bust.
I sat in the living room by the rear lounge window in the corner with my word processor, Anne Barrett sat with her back on to me as she wrote the manuscript. This pose was later filmed by Paul Feldman of MIA Productions Limited. . . .
Several days prior to our purchase of materials I had started to roughly outline the Diary on my word processor.
Anne and I started to write the Diary in all it took us 11 days. I worked on the story and then I dictated it to Anne who wrote it down. . . and thus we produced the Diary of Jack the Ripper. Much to my regret there was a witness to this, my young daughter Caroline. . . .
I am the author of the Manuscript written by my wife Anne Barrett at my dictation which is known as The Jack the Ripper Diary.
I give my name so history do tell what love can do to a gentleman born, Yours Truly -- Michael Barrett.
Was this how it happened?
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 08:46 am | | Hi Chris,
Mike will love you for your faith in his abilities, but I'm sorry - not a cat's chance in hell. (IMHO) :-)
Hi Rosemary,
Will do.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 09:02 am | | Hi, Caz:
Well, you may be quite correct that Mike was not the big author we are looking for. However, I bet the forgery scheme worked much as Mike has outlined. I believe that Mike and Anne do know how the scheme worked even if they are not the principals in the forgery. Most probably Anne's revised story about the origins of the Diary was devised, as she has said, to get Feldman off the backs of people he was bugging with his questions.
I have not mentioned the Red Victorian Diary that Anne paid for in my postings either, have I? Sphere Book, Red Diary. . . the damning pieces of evidence begin to add up, don't they? Neither Keith Skinner nor Shirley Harrison can explain how it is that Mike owned the Sphere Book and that the couple bought the Red Diary. Think about it and maybe you will start to come around to my way of thinking.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 11:35 am | | Sorry, Chris, not a chance, on all counts.
On the basis of what I know, I will stick my neck out and say that I can't believe that Mike or Anne had much, if any, input into the creation of this diary. And if they knew 'how the scheme worked', what in heaven's name were the principal forgers thinking of, leaving their hard work in Mike's hands? (Unless of course you think, like Melvin, that no hard work was involved?) What I will concede is that Anne may not have told anyone all there is to tell.
We have discussed the ins and outs of the Sphere book and red diary incidents in great detail, Chris, and you know very well how limited Anne's input was in the latter, at least. Reducing it down to saying that 'the couple bought the Red Diary' smacks of over-simplification to me. And we both know of the problems over the earliest known date that Mike discovered the quote was in his Sphere book. What you claim to be 'damning pieces of evidence' adding up, have to be minutely examined and taken on individual merit, or otherwise. I don't think you can come at it from the angle that the diary is a modern hoax, therefore all the available evidence must be damning. If there is at least the possibility of an innocent - if coincidental and hard to believe - explanation, it isn't damning enough for me. Not in the case of Casebook v. The Barretts.
Love,
Caz
PS How can you ask me, of all people, to think about it?
What do you think I've been doing for the last two years??? :-) |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 09:02 am | | Dear Christopher,
Dear Caroline,
Sorry, but I have not got very far with my project re, 'profiling' the Diary author. My first effort resulted in my going around in a circle...a wheel came off. :-)
My second attempt involved me seducing my tutor into a careful examination of my sequences of deduction...but he (would'nt you credit!)preferred to scrutinise my notes...emm.
My third attempt is producing some baffling
findings. More later,
Love,
Rosemary |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 10:43 am | | Seducing your tutor sounds much more exciting than analysing that dull old diary author. 
Good luck, whichever you find more rewarding.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 11:19 am | | Dear Caroline,
I am dashing from one lecture to another...(whoops! I did not mean it that way! There are a lot of lecturous about, I mean't to say :-) ).
More seriously speaking...and to the point, that "dull old Diary author" is much more exciting than you can even imagine - he is brilliant - he is a Genius!
The KEY to this excruciatingly exquisite (!) mystery is staring us all in the face. Caroline, don't you see ? "O costly intercourse of death"!
The author of the Diary is 'celebrating' (?) a hundred years between 'Jack o'North and Jack o'South', (as my tutor says so poetically). In other words, 'Jack o'North' is challenging 'us'?
A cat and mouse game...no,probably chess (being a male thing)...to solve this mystery then we are some way to solving the mystery of 'Jack o'South!
Only this scenario explains certain puzzling features about the Diary, its author(s), and its
miraculous appearance 'at the right time in the right place'.This scenario defies 'profiling'.
For pities sake, Caroline, please reassure me I'm
not "off my trolly"?
Love,
Rosemary. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 11:44 am | | Dear Rosemary,
If you're off your trolley and between lecturers, you're obviously having way too much fun. :-)
Don't ask me for reassurance - just go and tell Mike Barrett he's a genius - he'll be all over you like a rash and Melvin Harris will give birth to kittens.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 12:17 pm | | Dear Caroline,
I'm so sorry you put me down like that. That sounds pretty bitchy of you, I must say.
You and others have stated on these posters that Mike Barrett is MOST DEFINITELY not The Diary's author...that is evident!
I am also stating that Mike Barrett is MOST DEFINITELY not the Diary's author!
What I can state is this, the author of the Diary is the FOREMOST AUTHORITY on 'Jack the Ripper'.
So, why are you suddenly e-v-a-s-i-v-e ? :-)
Still love,
Rosemary. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 02:37 pm | | Dear All,
I blurted out a terribly close secret did'nt I ?
Now he will have kittens :-)
Love,
Rosemary. |
Author: Alegria
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 06:51 pm | | Rosemary,
I don't think anyone here would believe that Mr. Harris is the author of the Diary. Mr. Harris may have his faults (as we all do), however, I can't see deception of this magnitude being one of them. One of his quirks is that he is quick to retaliate to attacks on his honor and reputation. For an attack of this magnitude he is liable to slap a libel ( :-D ) suit on you. I hope that you have something other than speculation to back up your statement. Otherwise, you are up the creek.
Best wishes,
Alegria |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 07:30 pm | | Dear Alegria,
Oh dear, now I've done it.But I have not mentioned any name, have I ? Anyway, who would dare risk a libel action over the allegation of being honestly called "a genius" !? Only a fool...
surely ? Um... |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 07:53 pm | | Dear Alegria,
Gosh, I forgot to mention in my excitement, my tutor says the Diary is not legally speaking a forgery - thats another exquisitely clever feature of the Diary, do you see? My tutor also said in an email: "Tell them, caveat et emptor (?)applies here." ( Anyway, its foreign for, "you gets what you pays for". Am I right?)
I think he really fancies me - not that ingenius old Diary author - my tutor! He is really really clever too.
Love,
Rosemary. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 04:39 am | | Dear Rosemary,
I wasn't putting you down or being bitchy - just being my usual ironic self. I am responsible for the words I write, not how someone chooses to interpret them.
The diary goes all the way from A-Z - some people think the author was a genius, while others believe the Barretts put it together in a few days. This puzzles me no end, because I just don't know which letter of the alphabet I'm at, or even if I'm using the right alphabet.
The dull old diary author was responsible for what he/she wrote, but our individual reactions and interpretations can really put human nature under the spotlight.
Have a good weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 06:44 am | | Dear Caroline,
Many thanks for your reply.Its me who seems to get everything downsideup, outsidein, and fronttoback :-)
I have now finished 'our' profile of the Diary author, but I have to keep it confidential for the moment as it can be construed as a dangerous
document in the hands of the wicked people...the
'author' could set the police on me with the techniques of deception: make a malicious complaint and set what the bobbies can find for you.But with my tutor's help (you should get one too Caroline :-) ) I shall take a leaf out of that old dull Diary author's book, and stay...
one step ahead !
Love,
Rosemary. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 07:17 am | | My tutors are all around me - I'd have to hie me to a desert island to lose them. :-)
All the best.
Caz |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 07:17 am | | If Rosemary suggests that the diary author was a KNOWN authority on the Ripper - (and this isn't necessarily implied in her wording) - why did his spelling and grammar collapse totally in the act of faking?
I find it worrying that, as far as I know, all the people I know and like who place their faith in Ann Barrett nonetheless still think that she's holding something back.
Martin Fido |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 07:44 am | | Dear Martin,
I did say: "FOREMOST AUTHORITY", but I can accept the term "KNOWN".
However, this 21th century masterpiece cannot be so easily encompassed and comprehended in the sentence, "why did his/ spelling and grammar/ collapse/ totally/ in the act/ of faking/".
Love,
Rosemary. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 08:19 am | | Caz--I am not entirely sure I understand your comment from Wednesday morning: "My own view from what I think I have come to know about Anne Graham, is that I would find it absolutely astonishing if this woman had the imagination or inclination to attempt this particular hat-trick..." I'm confused. What exactly are you saying? Do you think Anne (the author of The Last Victim) lacked the literary ability? Or merely the 'unethical' inclination? (Didn't she change her story about the provenance and --at her own admission--conduct a 3 year hoax on her then husband?). Or is it Anne's lack of 'motive' that bothers you? (See Shirley's Blake edition, pg. 303, for Anne's discussion of how she was 'desperate for money' at the time she presenting Mike with the diary).
I might also add that I find your sometimes easy dismissal of such 'coincidences' as the Sphere Guide, tin match box empty, the purchase of the red diary, etc. exhasperating. The quote by Henry David Thoreau (that Anne herself uses in her book) seems appropriate here: 'Depend upon it, sir, some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk'. |
Author: Alegria
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 08:42 am | | Actually, I feel that she did imply 'known' by her use of the word 'foremost'. One cannot be 'ahead of all others in terms of position or rank' and be completely unknown. If she had not meant to imply 'known' she would have just stated something to the effect of "he is an expert in regards to the Ripper". Her second post makes a direct reference to a leading authority, and in my opinion is a deliberate implication of the person whom she believes authored the diary. This may be a blind or red herring, or just a poor understanding of the implication she is making. However, as I clearly posted the inference I have made and she has not refuted it...
If she does, then I will be happy to tend my apologies for my faulty deduction.
Ally |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 09:20 am | | Dear All,
Perhaps a poll can be arranged on these Boards for the 'most likely candidate to be the foremost authority'. Put your knives away boys!
Love,
Rosemary. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 12:16 pm | | Hi RJ,
I think perhaps we should be discussing all this on the diary board. But, briefly, rather than simply repeating a load of stuff I've written before, it's an overall feeling I have always had that Anne Graham and the diary don't go together. Producing a biog on Florie doesn't show me that she had an urge to try her hand at a fraud involving imaginative fiction, with or without the ability. The money motive has been discussed many times, and all the circumstances, as we have been told them, don't fit as well as I would have liked with a get-rich-quick scheme.
Could you refer me to where I have been guilty of 'easy dismissal'? I have tried very hard not to dismiss anything easily, trying to examine in the minutest detail and make sense of every little twist and turn, every strange incident and coincidence. I could say the same about the easy dismissal of Albert Johnson's story, and the seeming reluctance on the part of anyone to work the scenario right through, and ask themselves honestly how they think Robbie's trick on Albert was planned and executed.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 06:39 pm | | Caz--I of course do think you rack your brains as much as anyone over the diary, but I also have to wonder with Chris George why you don't come closer to his way of thinking. Perhaps 'easy dismissal' isn't entirely the right phrase, but an example of what I meant is your comment about the red diary. It simply makes no sense to me why an innocent Mike and/or Anne would have been seeking such an object. The idea that Mike would have bought the diary merely to prove it could be done doesn't ring true to me. But I've moved this discussion to the other diary board.
Incidently, I don't necessarily agree with the thinking above that the hoaxer is a 'cad' or an amoral opportunist. Possible, but not proven. I tend to think the psychology of hoaxing is more complicated than that anyway, and there is probably as many different 'psychologies' as there are hoaxers. In general, I tend to think that most hoaxers are not callous machiavelli types, but the exact opposite, that they are intrigued by the mystery and the romance of the subject matter...they want it to be true. The world is often a dull, prosaic place, and the hoaxer is someone who is naturally drawn to the mysterious. Take the case of the well-known investigator of ghosts, Harry Price. He most certainly fudged his 'evidence' of the hauntings at Borley Rectory. Does this mean he was a charlatan? I don't think so. I think he genuinely believed (or wanted to believe) that there were such things as ghosts --enough to invent some rather wild claims and fudge his evidence. Even the scientist/monk Mendel is known to have faked evidence for his early theory on genetics...he saw the answer but couldn't quite prove it.
The Maybrick Hoaxer could be similar to the young poet Thomas Chatterton, a person with some innate talent, that committed an indiscreet forgery. The thing then took on a life of its own. I wouldn't call Chatterton a cad. His sense of honor was so extreme that he literally starved himself rather than to accept charity, and eventually downed some arsenic to end his life. (Tragic, of course, but it made for one heck of a fine painting by Henry Wallis in the Tate Gallery). I think there is even the possibility that some hoaxers come to believe in their own creations.
RJP |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 09:16 pm | | Hi RJ:
I accept your point that "some hoaxers come to believe in their own creations" and that the Diary could have vastly outgrown that person's fantasy, or as you put it, that it has taken on a life of its own. The analogies of Thomas Chatterton, Mendel, and the well-known investigator of ghosts, Harry Price, are well taken. Of course, I anticipate that Melvin would label (or maybe already has labeled) Harry Price as a charlatan. As we know, Melvin is a debunker and his style is damn wholeheartedly and not see any grades of gray.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 08:21 am | | I do see your point, RJ.
Apparently there are scientists living today who have somehow convinced themselves that the world was literally created in a few days because the bible tells them so - almost impossible for me to get my poor head around that one. My brother is an excellent scientist and my daughter well on the way to becoming one, and I would feel like banging their heads together if they believed such utter drivel. :-)
I guess it takes all sorts to make a world, but who does it take to write the Maybrick journal, if we are forced to pick from the little bunch we are stuck with? Melvin's forte is to bust hoaxes, be they wicked or otherwise, yet he is failing to put this one to bed.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
