|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Professional Standards
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
Professional Standards
Author: Alegria
Friday, 08 June 2001 - 07:29 am |        | John,
You write “he has decided not to tell us whether there is any link whatsoever or even the slightest bit of evidence of any link whatsoever between Mike Barrett and a certain Mr. K. or whether the new handwriting samples of Mr. K will ever be analyzed by any experts. ” . I have missed the posts where Melvin has stated that there was a link to them or of knowledge of the new handwriting samples. Others have made this claim, but not (that I remember) Mel Harris. So why has the burden to provide the proof of their connection fallen on him? If you could point to the posts where he has made the claim, I would appreciate it.
Paul,
Once again ..if you get to make inferences about what Mel meant in certain situations then Mel gets to make inferences about what Feldman meant. Two way street and glass houses and all that. And as we are on the subject… if the samples were under seal, how could Feldman have suggested that they were accidentally opened and accidentally contaminated? Something under seal is either deliberately opened or it is not. If Feldman suggested that Mel opened a sealed package prior to delivery…that’s not a suggestion of tampering?
Happy Friday!!!!
Ally |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 08 June 2001 - 10:11 am | | Hi Ally
If it is assumed that all inferences carry the same weight then your observation might be valid, but they don’t so it isn’t. An inference is a meaning deduced from what is said. Whether the inference is justified depends on what is said and on how it is said. I could infer something from what Melvin has said that was capable of no other meaning. Melvin could be inferring something from what Paul Feldman has said that is capable of many interpretations, Melvin having chosen the worst. In asking for an example, I am neither sitting in a glass house nor casting stones, I am simply seeking clarification in the shape of an example of Paul Feldman accusing Melvin Harris of rigging the ink tests. Either Melvin can provide one or he can't. Either Feldman never said it or it is a meaning Melvin has inferred (and if it was infereed then we see the statement on which the inference was based before making "glass house and stone" comparisons).
And to answer your point about the ink samples, who said anything about the ink samples being under seal? As far as I know, Paul Feldman knew absolutely nothing about how the ink samples had been supplied. He simply heard they had been opened. I don’t know what he thought this meant – probably unscrewing the top of a test-tube and looking inside. As far as I am aware he thought this would have permitted accidental contamination and without seeing evidence to the contrary I am unable to say whether there was or is any justification for inferring that he meant anything else. |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 08 June 2001 - 10:26 am | | Hi, all:
I guess Melvin Harris is content to see the Maybrick industry churning on and on with more people being misled. That, to paraphrase his own words, is "good enough for him."
John, I am not sure that there was any talk of Melvin meeting with Shirley Harrison and Keith Skinner. The meeting that was in the offing, I believe, was between Peter Birchwood and Keith and Shirley.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Alegria
Friday, 08 June 2001 - 10:47 am | | Paul,
In regards to the ink being under seal, in Mel's post above he quotes a letter that is from Feldman to Nick Warren :
"Melvin Harris received from America three ink spots when he could have done the tests directly from the Diary, as he had been offered previously, and then having received these under seal from the US the seal had been broken prior to them being given to the laboratory for testing, which is contradictory to the statment given to the Evening Standard."
This seems to clearly show that it was Feldman's belief that the ink had been under seal and that Mel had broken the seal prior to delivery.
I would draw the same inference as Mel from this letter. It is a valid inference. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 08 June 2001 - 12:56 pm | | Hi Ally
Sorry, I didn’t realise you were taking the information from the quoted letter to Nick Warren.
That letter - which doesn’t mention anything about contamination, but simply states that the seal was broken, contrary to a statement given in the Evening Standard - dates subsequent to the threatened legal action, which puts it sometime after June 1995, by which time the supposed accusations of tempering had long ago been made.
As for ‘under seal’, what did Feldman mean? That the ink samples were packaged in an envelope that had been unsealed? That test-tubes containing the ink samples had a wax seal that had been broken? That the test-tubes were contained in a polystyrene package that was sealed with tape? And why does breaking the seal mean or imply deliberate contamination? All Feldman could have meant – and for all I know, all he did mean – was that the seal had been broken to facilitate examination of the contents? Now, if you believe that the ink samples and the chloroacetamide had been handled by the same person, as did Paul Feldman, and further think that the ink samples had been opened by that person, given that there were two professional tests producing contradictory results, it is perfectly reasonable in the circumstances to postulate contamination. It is quite another to infer from this an accusation of test rigging and deliberate contamination.
However, let’s get one thing straight. I have not accused Melvin of anything at all. I am not chucking stones from a glass house (or from any sort of ‘house’ for that matter). All I have done is to ask Melvin Harris to provide a clear example of Paul Feldman accusing him of deliberately contaminating the ink sample and rigging the ink test. I asked for this example because I am personally unaware of Paul Feldman having said this. He may have said it or Melvin may have inferred it from things Paul Feldman said (in which case it might be nice to know whether it was a fair inference or not). |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 08 June 2001 - 01:35 pm | | Hi Ally, Chris, and everyone,
Chris,
I was referring to the several posts in which Shirley offered to meet with Melvin (as well as Peter) and to share information. Peter responded saying that he would be willing to meet with them, but Melvin never replied and never said one way or another whether he would be willing to meet. Keith then seconded Shirley's offer to meet Melvin as well and to share stuff. But once again there was no response. I kept waiting to see if Melvin would agree to meet as suggested by Shirley and Keith, but Melvin never replied either way. Now I read his good-bye post and withdrawal from any discussion of who wrote the diary as indicating that he plans not to accept their invitation to meet with them nor to share information. This saddens me.
Ally, you are quite correct that Melvin has not ever said there was any evidence of any link at all between Mr. K. and the Barretts. He has none. I have often pointed out that he has never offered this claim or any evidence to support this claim. However, when Mr. K. was discussed by Peter and Karoline earlier as a possible penman, they tried several times (completely unsuccessfully) to suggest a link between Mr. K. and Mike (through Tony -- I can go back and cite the posts) and to suggest also that there were new samples and a new consensus, etc. And when Karoline listed the people that had seen the new handwriting samples, she included Melvin, Peter, RJ (she said perhaps), and herself. Melvin has never publicly denied Karoline's assertion. I know that, at least. And I seem to recall (although I could certainly be wrong) that the idea that K's handwriting on the will in some way might resemble the writing in the diary is hinted at by Melvin in one of his essays over on the Casebook (I can go back and check this if anyone is interested).
In any case, Ally, whether Melvin has admitted in print that he had access to the new handwriting samples (or was Karoline simply wrong about this?), and whether or not he ever believed that K. might be a possible penman, my conclusion regarding his departure stands -- he, for one, apparently does not have any useful evidence concerning the handwriting and concerning the identities of the forgers and concerning the relationship between Mr. K. and Mike. And neither apparently does anyone else.
That, for the sake of clarity, was the point I was trying to make.
[Interesting aside -- the people once listed as having seen the new handwriting samples and deciding, as an alleged "consensus," that "it now looks very possible" that poor Mr. K. could have written this diary (as someone once said) are the very same people who have recently announced their refusal to even discuss the diary any further. Look at Karoline's list -- Melvin, Peter, RJ (perhaps), and Karoline (and unnnamed others). Look at who has bowed out of the conversation -- Melvin, Peter, RJ, and Karoline. Can any conclusions to be drawn from this? I honestly don't know.]
Thanks all, and have a fine weekend. My attentions, I'm afraid will be elsewhere for a day or two (a small setback for my dad, involving a blood clot in his lower leg and a trip back to the hospital for blood thinners).
I'll be keeping an eye here though in case Melvin returns with some response.
Bye for now,
--John |
Author: Alegria
Friday, 08 June 2001 - 01:45 pm | | Hi Paul,
There may not be a direct statement of tampering to be shown anymore than Melvin made a direct statement about Paley's plagiarism. Melvin said that the original accusations were made via the telephone and therefore cannot be cited as evidence. He then cited this letter from which it is reasonable to infer that Feldman was accusing him of tampering. As I said before..allowances are constantly being made for what other people infer about Melvin, but gods-forbid that Melvin make an inference. This is a double-standard. Either everyone gets to make inferences or no one does.
Regards,
Ally |
Author: Alegria
Friday, 08 June 2001 - 02:06 pm | | Hi John,
I am going to sum up what I have taken from your argument.
1. Karoline has said that she has seen the K-samples.
2. Karoline has said that MElvin has seen the K-samples:
"when Karoline listed the people that had seen the new handwriting samples, she included Melvin, Peter, RJ (she said perhaps), and herself"
3. Melvin has retired without mentioning the samples or proving to your satisfaction that there is evidence that exists.
4. Therefore the evidence doesn't exist.
"my conclusion regarding his departure stands -- he, for one, apparently does not have any useful evidence concerning the handwriting and concerning the identities of the forgers and concerning the relationship between Mr. K. and Mike. And neither apparently does anyone else."
Whether Mel has seen the samples or not, I am not in a position to comment on. His non-commital policy does not mean that the proof does not exist..it proves that the person who owns it is not ready for it to be shared with the general public. Everyone who has seen the samples and has NOT commented on it is simply respecting the wishes of the person who showed them the samples..that doesn't mean they don't exist or that they aren't persuasive.
Regards,
Ally |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 08 June 2001 - 02:56 pm | | I've left the diary debate, but I'd like to make a couple of comments in regards to Melvin's departure. Melvin Harris has utterly dismantled the arguments made by Shirley Harrison and Paul Feldman. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Maybrick diary is a forgery and a recent one at that. But long ago this debate was 'spun' to put the burden of proof on Melvin Harris, and many have been quick to fall-in-line with this focus. Sorry, but I always felt that this was misguided & a little ridiculous. Years ago Harris stated that he had no intention of getting involved with the actual fingering of the forgers but was only interested in the textual & forensic evidence against its authenticity. Read his dissertations and see for yourself. There is little mention whatsoever even about Mike & Anne, for instance. But a couple of relatively obscure quotes were repeated on the Maybrick board on a weekly or even daily basis (the newspaper quote, where I believe Melvin felt that the reporters were going to reveal the forgers' identities, is the main example) to the point of being misleading in their emphasis. As something resembling a publicity stunt, it was quite effective. The burden of proof was now on the shoulders of Melvin Harris--and he had no intention of discussing it! A very convenient focus for those who wished to believe AEG, it seemed to me. Unfortunately, however, the burden of proof for those who wish to believe the diary is still a mysterious document STILL falls on the shoulders of Anne Graham, not on Melvin Harris or anyone else. It would have been easier for me to take Caroline Morris and John Omlor's demands of Harris a little more seriously if they had been as emphatic in asking for Anne Graham to come forward or for the transcripts of the Billy Graham interviews to be released to Peter Birchwood. But I see by the above posts there is still the same whistling past the old graveyard. It would have been easy enough to log-on every day and post similar marathon-length posts demanding Anne Graham to prove her claims, etc. etc, and thus focus the debate in that direction, but why bother?
Anyone can believe what they wish about the Maybrick document, I suppose, but the messy fact that they are left with is this: It is a PROVEN forgery with painfully obvious modern elements, brought to market by a bloke who has repeatedly changed his story, and an ex-wife who has given an alternative scenerio (that can't be true nor confirmed) and refuses to be interviewed. [And, according to a post by Martin Fido, went into a rage when thought she was to come in contact with a critic of the diary]. Messy facts, indeed. But, as John would (and probably will) say, these messy facts "prove" nothing. Denial is a powerful weapon. Quarantined? What seems to be being quarantined is the Billy Graham tapes & AEG. [My observation? As long as they continue to be, no one will take the diary seriously].
The situation somewhat reminds me of a hoax out here in on the west coast, something Charles Forte might have appreciated. Back in the early 1960s three rock hounds in California found an interesting stone in strata that had to be at least 500,000 years old. When one of them cut it open --the story goes-- there was a strange piece of porcelein & metal in the center of the stone--- clearly a man-made object of great sophistication. An x-ray showed something that looked like a spring inside. Proof of ancient technology, perhaps? The item has since gone missing. Further existing x-rays examined by people knowledgeable about these things show that, without a doubt, the item inside the stone was a 1920s Champion spark-plug! Two of the rock hounds are no longer to be found anywhere. The third refuses to be interviewed. In obscure crack-pot literature there are still those who argue that the 'Coso' artifact is a mysterious item, but most of us others just laugh at it all. Others might, of course, flip it all around and demand geologists prove how they know the stone is 500,000 years old & wonder if the 1920s spark plug proves that the rock hounds were ignorant of its origins. Ah, well.
To Melvin Harris--Thanks for the contributions.
"Truth like a bastard enters the world, never without ill fame to he who gives her birth" --John Milton.
RJP |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 08 June 2001 - 04:20 pm | | Hi Ally and RJ and everyone,
I want to go very slowly here and be very clear, in the name of accuracy.
Ally, I agree with your summary with one addition to your sentence number four. I am not simply saying that the samples do not exist (I suspect they do) or that they are clearly not evidence (I honestly have no idea whether they are evidence of anything at all or not).
But Melvin Harris has written that he no longer wishes to discuss the possible identities of the diary's authors or the scene of its composition, and he has explicitly said this:
"We have now reached the stage where all the usefull and valid information can be found on screen."
This sentence seems to suggest that Melvin has no more "useful and valid information." This, in fact, is what it says. I assume that Melvin has seen the alleged new samples (unless Karoline is simply wrong). Still he says that all the useful and valid information is already on screen.
Perhaps I am mistaken when I read this and conclude that therefore there is obviously nothing in the new samples that he has seen that would be, in his words, "useful" or "valid" in determining the identity of the forgers. Karoline, after all, has said there is something "useful" in what we have not yet seen on screen -- since, in discussing these new, still unscreened (and still to be expertly examined) samples, she has said that it "now" looks "very possible" that someone in particular could have written the diary.
But in any case I am deliberately trying to provoke a response from Melvin here. After all, Melvin has said that the field is not open for lies and misrepresentations.
I am saying here that Melvin has no evidence at all that is either useful or valid that would help us in linking Mr. K to this book in any way or to the Barretts in any way and he has no evidence at all that would help us actually identify who wrote this book. If this claim of mine is a lie or a misrepresentation (as it very well might be) then I trust he will correct me.
And furthermore, since the K-samples, like the identities of Melvin's three unidentified flying forgers, remain completely unavailable to us and we are not able to discuss them, for our purposes here in discussing this diary and its origins, these samples and this evidence simply do not exist. They function in an exactly identical way, for our discussion here, as evidence which does not exist -- whether they actually do exist somewhere else and are actually evidence of anything or not -- they cannot be considered as evidence or discussed. Unless of course, this evidence does exist and we can talk about it. Does it? Can we?
In any case, Ally, perhaps you are correct. Perhaps when Melvin was saying that there is no more useful or valid information, that all the useful and valid information is already on screen, he was not speaking of the new samples or what they allegedly show according to the now infamous "consensus." Perhaps he was speaking only of the useful and valid information that demonstrates the diary's inautheticity. Perhaps he does not know whether there is any useful or valid information concerning the identities of the forgers still not on screen.
Still, there has been no evidence offered anywhere by anyone at any time linking K in any way to the Barretts or to the diary (have you seen any? do you know of any? does anyone here know of any?), and nothing Melvin has written above does anything but reinforce that conclusion.
Thus, we are left, as you suggest, in a position that is all too familiar. Once again, people have claimed over the last few months that there might be new samples and new evidence that "now" show that something is "very possible" and that someone could very well have written this diary. But once again the evidence is only hinted at and whispered about and then everyone who has allegedly seen it abruptly withdraws from the discussion. Like Melvin's three mysterious forgers, like his claims that Mike and Anne were used as placers, the handwriting of K. and what it shows remains quarantined and unavailable and therefore cannot be treated as if it exists in any fair and reasonable analysis around here of the diary and its origins.
And people have stopped talking.
RJ,
Although your quote from Milton is charming, I'm afraid it might also be misleading. What Melvin has actually proven concerning when this diary was written or where or why or by whom is precious little. Now, you say he has no interest in fingering the forgers. Fine. If I read your summary correctly, all Melvin has finally told us -- the truth he has given birth to here -- is that James Maybrick did not write this book and that it was probably written sometime in at least the last fifty or so years. Beyond that, his own analysis of the science remains completely unhelpful and contradictory, his hints about three forgers remain completely unsubstantiated and the stuff of myth and legend and his naming of Mike and Anne as "placers" remains so vague as to be useless.
And I do not need the words of Anne Graham to claim that this is a mysterious document.
It is.
No one knows who wrote it.
No one knows where or when it was written.
And no one knows why it was written.
Now that, RJ, is what I call one mysterious document.
Do you have any idea at all who actually put this pen on this paper?
And yes I have used the word "quarantined." Melvin has said the identities of the three unidentified flying forgers remains unavailable for discussion. The new handwriting samples remain unavailable for examination by any experts. What they do or do not show remains unavailable for discussion. All of these things have been effectively quarantined by someone or other.
Of course I think that any statements made by Billy Graham or Anne or anyone should be made available to everyone immediately in whatever form possible. I have in fact already offered to transcribe old material for Shirley and for anyone else interested who might need my help to make it available in the future for all to see right here.
And yes, nothing you have said above or anywhere else offers us any reliable evidence to claim with any confidence that Mike or Anne knew that they were carrying a fake diary into Doreen's that day in April of 1992 or that they knew who wrote it or who composed it or where or when. And neither you nor Melvin nor Karoline nor Peter nor anyone has been able to make a complete or even careful and responsible case against this "bloke" and his "ex-wife" using anything but hunches and preferred readings and subjective and favored interpretations.
So whatever "truth" Melvin is supposed to have brought forth into the world, either naturally or through the violence of a forced delivery, has done little or nothing at all to solve the mysteries that surround the planning, the research, and the composition of this diary. And if you feel that Melvin has received ill fame, or is receiving ill fame now because he, like you and Peter and Karoline, has chosen to withdraw from any further discussion of who wrote this book or what the evidence fairly allows us to claim or even indeed what we do not know yet about who wrote this book, then I guess I can see why you chose your quote. But somehow, I do not think that Milton, when he was thinking about the fate of Truth-tellers, when he composed these lines, had a writer like Melvin Harris or even this sort of discussion and these sorts of "truths" in mind.
But thanks for the thoughts,
--John |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 08 June 2001 - 05:31 pm | | | Happy whistling, John. |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 08 June 2001 - 07:04 pm | | Thanks RJ,
By the way, you might check out an excellent cd called Blue Valentine by my man Tom Waits, which does indeed include, as its seventh track, the tune "Whistlin' Past the Graveyard."
--John
"with an arm full of boxcars/ on the wings of a magpie/ 'cross a hooligan night" |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 08 June 2001 - 11:08 pm | | Hi Ally
I think you are wrong, but have it your own way. |
Author: Alegria
Friday, 08 June 2001 - 11:12 pm | | Thank you, Paul and ditto.
Regards,
Ally |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 09 June 2001 - 08:42 am | | Hi RJ,
Glad to see you haven't quite departed yet. 
You wrote:
'Unfortunately, however, the burden of proof for those who wish to believe the diary is still a mysterious document STILL falls on the shoulders of Anne Graham, not on Melvin Harris or anyone else. It would have been easier for me to take Caroline Morris and John Omlor's demands of Harris a little more seriously if they had been as emphatic in asking for Anne Graham to come forward or for the transcripts of the Billy Graham interviews to be released to Peter Birchwood. But I see by the above posts there is still the same whistling past the old graveyard. It would have been easy enough to log-on every day and post similar marathon-length posts demanding Anne Graham to prove her claims, etc. etc, and thus focus the debate in that direction, but why bother?’
Well, firstly, as John says, unless you know who wrote the diary, when and why, you defy all logic by suggesting it is anything other than ‘still a mysterious document.’
Secondly, I think I have always acknowledged that Anne’s credibility is going to remain either in doubt or non-existent, unless she can somehow prove that the diary had been in her home for decades, as she claims, even if she has no idea how it came to be there. I have also agreed with Keith that Anne ought to be prepared to respond to the latest round of questions, for the sake of everyone who has been affected by her testimony, if not her own credibility. You say yourself that you didn’t see the point in posting long demands every day for Anne to prove her claims, yet you criticise John and me for not being more emphatic in asking her to come forward. What more can I realistically do than hope Keith will be able to persuade Anne to do so? (As for the transcripts of the Billy Graham interviews, and other bits and bobs that Peter has asked to see, isn’t this all being sorted out behind the scenes between Keith, Shirley and Peter, for the meeting that has been proposed, albeit with an empty chair where we would like to have had Melvin park his bot?)
And what good would ‘demanding’ do, if Anne is unable to prove her claims, for whatever reason? If she lied, she presumably won’t respond to anyone’s pleas, and if she has told the truth, as she sees it, and there is no more she can tell, she will just have to live with all the continued scepticism. Maybe Anne is resigned to the fact that there is nothing more she can do. Or maybe she is more than happy to sit back and let others stew, while she continues to earn from the diary. Will she be relieved, I wonder, if she learns that Melvin hasn’t responded to our collective ‘demands’ (I prefer to call them persistent requests) to reveal, to Shirley and/or Keith, the private information he led us to believe could prove the various claims he has made on screen about the nest of modern forgers? (And that you, RJ, presumably still believe he possesses, even though it apparently contains nothing more useful or valid than what has already been made available?)
As far as I can see, the people who would lose, by Melvin producing what it takes to bind at least one modern suspect to the diary’s creation, are those who continue to make money from it, and anyone who may do so long into the future. I can’t get my head round what you think would or could be achieved, in terms of demolishing the diary for good, by all of us here leaving Melvin alone (and letting Karoline and Peter air their various unsupported suspicions without comment), and concentrating instead on ‘demanding’ that Anne prove her claims. How would that persuade Shirley, Feldy or Keith that the diary is what you – RJ – are telling them it is – ie a fake of very recent origin? These are the people who really need persuading to drop the dead diary, aren't they? Not I, not John, not anyone continuing to read here for fun.
The bottom line is that, if we please you by not badgering Melvin and others, like Peter and Karoline, to support their suspicions with evidence, they remain only suspicions and the diary lives and breathes another day. If you are happy with that, fine. If not, why don't you join with us in calling for whatever evidence has been hinted at as existing, but 'not yet in the public domain', to be revealed, and as quickly as possible?
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
