|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Archive through June 08, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
Professional Standards:
Archive through June 08, 2001
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 05:47 am |        | I appreciate the comments by Chris George, Joseph, Caz and so on, but I think it is now clear that this argument is going nowhere and should be dropped. I am certainly going to drop it and will cease to acknowledge or respond to posts on this matter. My silence should not be taken as agreement with anything that is said. And I am not dropping the subject because I find any of the accusations unanswerable. On the contrary, I have tried to answer them, but as my attempt to clear up the problem regarding Rod Green demonstrates, all it does is generate another batch of complaints and abuse.
As far as Ms. Leach is concerned, she is either trying to reopen the argument about the A to Z entry, a subject with which she seems unaccountably obsessed, or for some reason I am unable to perceive she isn't aware that the topic of discussion is the letter sent to Rod Green of Virgin Books. However, personally I have found Ms. Leach to be a very biased commentator who misses few opportunities to hurl criticism at the authors of the A to Z, but whose grasp of the issues involved is limited and often wrong (as in her post above dated Wednesday, May 16, 2001 - 01:29 pm) and whose conclusions are invariably subjective. I am afraid that I do not believe that Ms. Leach is interested in the truth or the facts unless they are her version of the truth and her version of the facts. I base this conclusion on her recent demands that the A to Z authors provide an example to support their contentious A to Z entry. When the example was provided, she did not read it. Her attention was drawn to it several times, but she did not read it. Her attention was drawn to it again, but she claimed that she had thoroughly searched and not been able to find it - which provoked a harsh but well-deserved observation from Martin Fido over which Ms. Leach has bleated foul ever since, as if she was an innocent lamb cruelly and unfairly abused. When she did find it, instead of the careful and considered analysis one would expect from an objective commentator, she gave it what she acknowledged was a quick glance. On the basis of this quick glance she continued to hold her original opinion, even though she apparently did not have the source data available to make any sort of qualified judgement. When she did get the source data she continued to hold her original opinion, but offered not a jot of supportive argument.
Karoline Leach represents herself as a fair and objective commentator. I have not found her to be either fair or objective, but vindictive, impervious to reasoned argument, subjective, and not scholarly or fair in her assessment of material and arguments contrary to her own mindset and beliefs. I do not say this with malice or pleasure, but to explain why I think it is pointless trying to discuss anything with her.
The A to Z entry is an old argument, discussed to perdition and back. I have tried to answer her, offer explanations and correct misconceptions, but, as is illustrated by the Rod Green business, all that happens is that different accusations are flung in one’s face, then more, and the wheel turns until it comes to the start again. Frankly, the horse is dead. Ms. Leach can continue to flog it and present her views on matters far and wide, but it is obvious to me that nohing profitable will come from further discussion with Ms. Leach and her friends. More importantly, I think the bile and acrimony is spoiling these excellent Message Boards for a lot of people who probably neither understand nor have any interest in these arguments. It is time to move on. So, I’m sorry, Ms. Leach, but as far as I am concerned I will have to consign your messages on these topics to the wilderness. |
Author: Joseph
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 07:41 am | | Mrs. Leach,
You continue to exhibit the same irrational behavior that has become your trademark.
You shift the tone of the debate from, historical criticism to personal attacks, and then fake amazement when your opponents overwhelm you. You are the source of your problems Mrs. Leach, getting you to understand that simple fact has become the readership's problem.
"I'm afraid the A-Z team and their few followers here are the instigators of the abusive system. They applied it against Harris in order to discredit him since his work on the diary was an
embarrassment to them. They continue to apply it to anyone who they see as "opposing" them or who simply asks them questions they prefer not to answer." (Leach, 21, May)
This paragraph is a perfect example of your perfidy Mrs. Leach; you assign your sins to others, apparently, they are too much for you to bear. Aren't you the person who has yet to answer Mr. Omlor's inquiries? Haven't you been asked repeatedly to address the issue in front of you, instead of answering a question not asked, or changing the subject of debate, and abusing the other participants for their failure to pay attention?
And the subject of instigation is one you are eminently qualified to comment on Mrs. Leach. Tell us about the following diatribe Mrs. Leach. Please explain your justification for holding another contributor up to public ridicule.
By Wuz on Sunday, April 11, 1999 - 06:34 am: Edit
Hi all!
I'm only posting this to say that I'm just too busy with my exciting life to post anything. And sorry about all the spelling mistakes, but I'm just jigging about to my Abba's Greatest Hits too much to hit the wight keys (oops see!)
Anyhow I'm not a lonely sad case with a mad idea about JTR or anything. I'm not posting here because I'm in a mid life crisis, with no career and no hopes and a husband who ignores me.
Gosh no!. My life is wonderfully fulfilling (though very average and unpretentious). I'm covered in chocolate right now with half a dozen famous people licking it off. It's just that I have accidentally discovered that JTR was really
the entire chorus of the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company and I just have to prove this by ordering lots of library books and posting crap on this board. Oh and by gratuitously insulting anyone who tells me I might be even everso slightly short of roos in my top paddock (grin - just one for you Jules you charming old rogue you. Do make some
more jokes about excrement soon, How we will all laugh!") Anyway got to dash - have a thousand things to do which will keep me away from here for anything up to three hours. It's no joke trying to bring up a family, and prove that thirty five mixed singers were wandering about Whitechapel killing defenceless women. But if it helps to clear the name of one innocent person my time will have been well spent
Be seein ya
Wuz
Can you name one single similar comment I have made to her?" (Leach, 21, May)
I'm sure you'll agree Mrs. Leach, the above message written by you under a false name, is considerably more then a comment. You are consistently insensitive to others, but demand a massive amount of sensitivity for yourself; one could get the impression that you are a bit selfish Mrs. Leach. And please stop scolding Mr. George for not buying into your web of deceit you are making everyone uncomfortable.
In closing let me point out that I do not harbor an intense dislike for you Mrs. Leach; in fact, I admire you so much I had an edition of Dream Child printed up on specially embossed, and segmented paper. For convenience, I had it configured into a round, narrow cylindrical shape; I manage to read a few pages every morning after coffee.
I think your talents lie elsewhere Mrs. Leach, and if you go there quietly, we could get on with the business of the Whitechapel Murders.
Best Regards
The person named Joseph |
Author: Alegria
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 07:59 am | | Karoline has made an appeal/demand for moderation so I would like to address issues related to this. She feels that her recent treatment has been sufficient to warrant intervention by the powers that be. My question is-- What behaviors warrant intervention? Right now the behaviors seem to be profanity (which is automatically disallowed) and insults that have no bearing on anything, such as slurs against sexual orientation or race. An edited version of what Karoline proposes is below—yes I know, editing is wrong---and my comments.
1. No gratuitous personal abuse of any kind to be tolerated. if abuse occurs the moderator should step in immediately, warn the individual that such behaviour is not tolerated.
Sounds reasonable, except what constitutes gratuitous? Mel Harris has grounds to dislike the A-Z, so would any abuse he hurls at them be gratuitous? I am sure that rules could be made to cover this but what would they be? If I get into a debate with someone and it turns nasty partly through my own actions, am I not equally to blame? What actions of mine would be considered contributing?
2. If questions are asked that have already been answered, the moderator directs the questioner to the earlier discussions in the archive. This prevents circular repetitive questioning which can take up space and be wearisome for other posters.
Why would this be a moderator responsibility? Why should a moderator be responsible for remembering and keeping track of every post?
3 Allegationsd (as opposed to abuse) are to be discouraged, but if they are made, then the moderator must insist they are backed up with evidence. If the maker of the allegations refuses to do this, then the moderator should insist that the allegations are withdrawn.
Are we only talking about allegations made against other posters or allegations in general? Theories relating to Kane could technically fall under this category. Any theory at all could fall under this category.
If these simple rules were applied impartially here then all the abuses that presently happen, would be fairly easily prevented. There would be no censorship of opinion, there would just be the rational management of a good debate.
And here is the main problem that I see—the word “impartially”. Who would we trust to provide an impartial judgement? Stephen Ryder provides the boards as a benefit for us. We forget that they are not the main bulk of the Casebook. Even if he were willing to do so, he does not have the time to referee our disputes. So who would you suggest moderate?
I think that the boards could use a bit more moderation. How that would be accomplished and who would do it is a problem. That is my opinion. I would not, however, presume to suggest how Stephen ought to run his boards. If I do not approve, I don’t have to participate. |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 09:16 am | | Hi, Karoline:
I withdraw my comment to you that you have been rude in your posts. You and I pretty much agree on the issues. I certainly go along with your call for moderation on these boards.
With all good wishes
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 09:28 am | | Hi Alegria,
Thank you so very much for your comments. They sum up pretty much what I felt when reading through Karoline's ideas for regulating the boards.
It strikes me that she seems more interested in making the boards safe for her to tread, than she is in treating others as she herself would like to be treated here.
Karoline has shown herself over and over to be someone who cannot tolerate even the slightest inferred criticism (to the point at which the amount and style of that criticism becomes almost irrelevant). Yet still she chooses to join the world of written debate - a battleground destined to be strewn with the bodies of those who take any form of disagreement too seriously or personally. If she makes what she calls a 'joke', as in her 'Wuz' post, at someone else's expense, but expects everyone including me to see the joke and join in the laughter, but cannot ever laugh at herself, or jokes made at her expense, that is just one problem she may want to tackle for her own future peace of mind. There are Carolines all over the world, who can laugh at themselves, but will return the dart that comes their way, and judge the intended point from the howl of pain that emanates from the originator on its return home.
God knows, I have tried to understand Karoline's problem with me and others - I've even tried to help behind the scenes - as some readers may know - all to no avail in the end. I hope that no one who really knows me would ever describe me as an abusive bully in my dealings with Karoline, or anyone else. But that's for others to decide, if they care to read my posts here, rather than rely on the opinions of those who are still determined to see the worst in me, no matter what I say or do.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 09:39 am | | And thanks, Chris, for suggesting that Karoline's 'Wuz' post was perfectly polite and respectful (even if you or she thought it was justified). 
I promise I won't go all 'girly' on anyone by using terms like 'you big bully, you.' 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 10:12 am | | Hi Karoline,
I'll try once more on the Kane issue. Then I may just give up flogging another dead horse.
You wrote:
Just to give an example - Caroline Morris' latest post to me would bring the intervention from the moderator a)that, as has been pointed out repeatedly, I did not instigate any allegations against Kane; b)that as has also been repatedly pointed out, I have already asked the owner of the handwriting sample to publish it, and c) therefore this particular thread should be closed pending further developments.
This was presumably in response to my words:
So, Karoline, what have you done so far to put pressure on the owner of citizen Kane's handwriting samples to get them analysed, so you can back up your own public view that he could have penned the Diary?
Again, I have never written anything about your having 'instigated' allegations against Kane. This is a product of your own misinterpretation, which has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Once more - I never wrote it and I never meant it. (So your continued use of this false argument would be ruled out by order of your own management.) And my latest question concerned Kane's handwriting being analysed professionally, not published, for amateurs to squabble over.
This is a clear example of our current communication problem, which I am rapidly losing any real hope of reconciling, unless you are at least prepared to acknowledge the problem is not all on my side.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Karoline L
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 10:35 am | | Chris,
thank you for that very gracious withdrawal. And thank you too for your support for my call for proper moderation. Both things are keenly appreciated as I have had nothing but respect for your views in the past.
I wrote:
"No gratuitous personal abuse of any kind to be tolerated. if abuse occurs the moderator should step in immediately, warn the individual that such behaviour is not tolerated."
Alegria responded:
"Sounds reasonable, except what constitutes gratuitous? Mel Harris has grounds to dislike the A-Z, so would any abuse he hurls at them be gratuitous?"
Alegria:
All personal abuse is gratuitous, even if everyone does it sometimes. It should always be warned against or discouraged, and those who do it persistently must be warned that if they don't stop their posts will be banned.
This is just standard practise on most discussion boards.
Look at the above posts. Do you want crude silly remarks like Joseph's (he tells me he has turned my book into toilet paper), to be associated with a decent and serious site like this?
Alegria writes:
"Why should a moderator be responsible for remembering and keeping track of every post?"
I don't suggest the moderator should keep a note of every post (who could!?) - just a broad outline of what has been discussed where.
Why? Well, because that's part of what 'moderating' means. It just goes with the territory. As I've mentioned before, my partner Mike runs another discussion group which is very lively. One of the things he does routinely is direct people to the archives if they are asking questions that have been covered many times before.
Obviously you don't need to give exact dates and times, but saying something like - "This question was coverd in detail by XXX on the YYYY board" will direct people to the info they need while not clogging up space with too much needless repetition.
I wrote
" Allegationsd (as opposed to abuse) are to be discouraged, but if they are made, then the moderator must insist they are backed up with evidence. If the maker of the allegations refuses to do this, then the moderator should insist that the allegations are withdrawn"
Alegria replied:
"Are we only talking about allegations made against other posters or allegations in general?
Theories relating to Kane could technically fall under this category. Any theory at all could fall under this category".
That's a good question.
A theory is by it's very nature a piece of guesswork that is presented as such.
"Maybe the evidence suggests Kane forged the diary...." is a theory.
An 'allegation' is a defamtory claim presented as a fact.
"I know Kane forged the diary ..." is an allegation.
But maybe theories concerning living people do come under the heading of allegations, or at least risk sliding into that territory.
Maybe the rule of thumb could be that no one is permitted to introduce claims against anyone who might suffer by them - without producing the evidence on which the claims are based.
How about that?
Alegria writes:
"And here is the main problem that I see—the word “impartially”. Who would we trust to provide an impartial judgement?"
Whoever is entrusted with the job must simply do their best to be impartial. Okay they might not always succeed, but that's the same the world over. Referees, umpires, adjudicators and judges all have to take on that burden.
Probably no one can be totally impartial - but provided they are honestly motivated to try their best to be so, then that's probably about as good as it gets.
Don't knock yourself. I think you could do it. At least I don't see anyone ever telling you what to think or making up your mind for you.
You handled the business over Paley and Harris and Fido very well. You could do the same on a day to day basis.
Alegria writes:
"If I do not approve, I don’t have to participate."
That's true, and that's an option a lot of people already take. They don't post for fear of attracting the abuse etc that is generated here by a very very few. It's an option I'll have to take if I get more of the stuff I've been receiving continuously for weeks now.
I'm just suggesting there could be a better option than just letting this minority set the agenda.
K |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 10:41 am | | Hi Chris, Alegria, Caz, Joseph, et al
I think serious factual misrepresentation is as serious if not more serious than any perceived rudeness, especially when delivered under the guise of a call for fairplay and reason.
There is much a could take issue with in what Ms. Leach has uttered, but let me point out that Martin Fido did not call Karoline Leach "stupid, intellectually dishonest, incompetent" and she has been told this several times already. And it is an absolute lie of the worst kind to say that the entry in the A to Z about Melvin Harris had anything to do with the Maybrick ‘diary’.
I would also dispute her claim that the A to Z authors have engaged in a “crusade of rudeness, false-allegations and character-assasination”. They have not.
If Ms. Leach wishes to malign my colleagues, myself and other people on these Boards, she should stay very strictly within the facts. It would help if she also realised that her misrepresentations and falehoods generally provoke ill-tempered responses over which she then cries and screams bully. |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 10:59 am | | I've really got to make this quick as my mother has to be taken to the hosapital by ambulance (non-life threatening crap due to old age).
Melvin needs two things:
1 a sense of proportion about any and all criticism
2 his own Internet access -- immediately. No one can assume the responsibility of sending him all the posts, seeing how the discussions evolve, where, when and how.
Other personal issues have been addressed and settled before now.
Melvin's sense of injury is repeatedly raising questions of harm, damage, and mean-spirited posts.
Yaz |
Author: Alegria
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 03:55 pm | | Karoline,
Stop..I'm blushing.  Although your post will help me demonstrate the point I want to make. I think that rules could be made to moderate the discussion. The main problem would be the impartial judge. You feel that I would make an impartial judge and as nice as that made me feel, I also know that several people fell off their chair when they read that remark. For any one person who thinks I would be good, there would be several who disagree. The same could be said of any poster on this board. The boards have had only the minimum of moderation up to this point, getting people to agree to moderation would be a daunting task. Getting them to agree on a moderator would be herculean. I think the boards could benefit from it. Trying to figure out how it could be accomplished overloads my nueral net.
Yaz,
I think many could do with a sense of proportion and less heightened sense of personal injury. Sadly, I don't think it's going to be happening any time soon.
Ally |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 04:40 pm | | Hi All,
I just want to say on the record that I would not be in favor of any increase in moderation nor do I think these boards would seriously benefit from it.
As messy and sloppy and ugly and slow and sometimes downright ridiculous as these boards are, they are still more polite and genuinely informative than many of the other lists, newsgroups and boards I have read and written on and, for me at least, their lack of seriously involved or active moderation and their general free-wheeling process and inconsistently aggressive and gregarious tone keeps them interesting, attractive, and fun.
But that's just me. I think Stephen does an excellent job, whether by choice or circumstance, of staying out of things here. And I really don't mind the bursts of nastiness now and again, nor even the false affrontery and the posed, wounded pride (or even the real, wounded pride) nor the sad cries of the offended.
Roll on. In the big scheme of things, this is all just so many words disappearing into cyberspace (as will the archive eventually), and no one is being cut open and having their heart stopped because of it.
But perhaps mine is not the best perspective to listen to at the moment.
Sorry in advance if it's not.
--John |
Author: Joseph
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 05:30 pm | | Mrs. Leach,
When you suggest the extensive re-structuring of the Casebook the way you do, what you are really saying is that you don't like the way Mr. Ryder runs things; you would prefer a degree of censorship that inhibits dissimilar points of view, and guarentees we march lockstep to your cadence, or else.
Mrs. Leach, wouldn't you be better off starting your own web page? You could call it Leachy's Private Idaho, and once there, you could surround yourself with all your special friends. Mean old Mr. Grumpypants will be there, and the ever informative Wee Willie Weasel, but most of all Mrs. Leach, it will be a place where you could boss everyone around, and tell them what to think, and how to behave according to your bland perception of reality. I think that is the only alternative available that doesn't involve you controlling other people's lives. Frankly, I don't know where you get the nerve to write the selfish things you do. Don't you feel the least bit pretentious telling Mr. Ryder how to run his boards, or telling Alegria how to allocate her time, just so they can accommodate you? |
Author: Corky Witherspoon
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 09:39 pm | | Looks like she's up to her old games again.
Someone needs to back her up with evidence.
You are the weakest link,
Good-bye!
Corky |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 12:54 am | | My apologies for being so abrupt this morning but my sister’s appearance in my home-office doorway took me by surprise, as did her news of what was happening since I left the living room area of the house.
Anyway, Karoline asked me something that I’d like to try to answer. My answer turns out to be rather long so I’ll split it into two posts. If you don’t like the manner or matter of the one, you’d probably not wish to read the other. But I’d like you to keep in mind that I like Melvin, I respect much of his work. I’m just sorry that he’s chosen to air his problems with other professionals as if they were all politicians or beauty pageant contestants and that, if he can win a majority of our "votes," that would somehow prove he was or is right.
I know my answer will be inadequate before I start but the recurrence of the circumstances that causes questions about Melvin (and many unpleasant posts besides) makes me think I should at least give it one more try.
As to the specific issue of Melvin Harris’ entry in the A-Z
All of you must know that I think this issue is spurious. Let’s look at Melvin first.
(1) He felt he had a grievance over the entry and tried to convince the authors to share his view. How many times he tried to convince them is irrelevant except to show how how dogged Melvin was in his pursuit for some redress.
(2) The A-Z authors did not share Melvin’s view, as many others do not share Melvin’s view – including the specifics of the disputed sentences and any purported "damage" these words either have or could cause Melvin.
(3) Melvin takes his case to the publisher. It seems an agreement was reached that in the next edition of the A-Z -- note that it is not the next printing, but the next update/revision/edition of the A-Z – the sentences Melvin found offensive would be removed. The question is: was this agreement unilateral? That makes no sense. The only logical agreement that could be reached is, that in exchange for Melvin dropping his grievance, the A-Z would be changed. Whether these words were spoken, written, or simply understood amongst all parties: a bilateral agreement, a contract – written or verbal – had been entered into.
(4) Has Melvin since that time, in fact, dropped his grievance after he successfully negotiated for himself (not for the A-Z authors, and probably not for the A-Z’s readers (but censorship and freedom of thought and speech will have to wait for another occasion) a settlement of his dispute? No. Has Melvin attempted to stop others from reiterating Melvin’s grievance after he reached this agreement? No.
(5) Have the A-Z authors reneged on their part of the agreement? No. No new, revised, or updated version of the A-Z has yet appeared. Have they made any statement contradicting that agreement? No. Paul Begg and others have told anyone who will read their posts that their intention is to abide by the agreement.
(6) Does Melvin’s actions, in word or in deed (by allowing others to continue his grievance in a public forum), constitute bad faith by not keeping to the stated, written, or implied terms of his agreement? Yes. Has Melvin in fact actually broken his word, his pledge, his honorable promise to drop his grievance in public in exchange for the deletion of the unsatisfactory sentences from the A-Z? Yes. Could it be construed or argued that Melvin has broken a contract – whether written or verbal; formalized or implied – by failing to keep his word, his promise to drop his grievance? Yes.
If Melvin had ever been in the "right," his breaking faith, breaking his word, breaking his agreement, breaking his written or verbal contract (formalized or implied) means Melvin is no longer "in the right" or justified in continuing his grievance…Melvin has become the one in the wrong. And "but me no buts" that the entry "isn’t fair" or it "isn’t just." By expressing his agreement and satisfaction with the offered solution, all questions about the entry "fair" and "just" or anything else have been settled…most decidedly in Melvin’s favor.
If I were one of the A-Z authors, I would strongly lobby amongst my colleagues and my publisher that Melvin be given notice that he faces the consequences of a legal action unless:
(a) Melvin Harris must immediately cease and desist from breaking his word, his contract, given in any verbal or written (formalized or implied) agreement or, in legal terms, his contract with the A-Z authors and their publisher.
(b) He must not bring up this long-settled grievance, and – this should go without saying, but this issue is impervious to reason – he must stop describing the said "grievance" in terms as if the A-Z authors and their publisher have not already honorably satisfied his "grievance."
(c) Melvin Harris must do everything within his power, using his considerable influence, to stop friends, colleagues, associates, or any others from using his "grievance" for either his or their own purposes, especially to cause distress or provoke unwarranted further explanations from the A-Z’s authors.
(d) He must ensure that the terms of his agreement with the A-Z authors and their publisher are made known to all.
(e) He must also make known that the agreement has, in fact, long been settled to his satisfaction.
As to anybody’s honest questions concerning the reasons or propriety of the wording of Melvin’s entry in the A-Z:
(1) Anyone who finds one instance, in either Melvin’s writings or in Melvin’s other utterances (radio, TV, etc.), that proves to their own satisfaction that the entry’s description, in whole or in part, is based on evidence you have either read, seen, or heard – nothing need be said. You can do what you like with the information – both the opinion expressed in the A-Z and your own. I plan on continuing to buy and read Melvin’s books – if he’d get off his rump and see that more get printed in America, at least. I imagine the authors of the A-Z entry are planning to do the same.
(2) Anyone who doubts the entry’s accuracy or its authors’ intent: You must at least do the A-Z authors (and Melvin!) the courtesy of reading, viewing, or listening to every book, article, published writing, or broadcasted utterance Melvin has made before you state the entry is false or inaccurate and that the A-Z authors’ intentions are manifestly dishonorable. I would go further and say it is your obligation to do so. If you have not performed this task, it is not the obligation of the authors to read for you, listen for you, watch for you, think for you. You cannot say that they are wrong or unfair if you have not, in fact, put their criticism to its fullest test. Once you have digested all of Melvin’s public utterances, and if you still disagree with the wording of the entry, state your viewpoint to the authors once and then move on. Contrary to what seems to be Casebook belief, what any given person says about anyone or anything does not constitute some form of "Holy Writ" or a tablet etched in stone to which we all must bow. That is a belief-system of a less intelligent and less autonomous creature than a Human Being.
Yaz |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 01:26 am | | Why does this problem of nasty, vituperative postings keep recurring? Why does the problem seem to center around Melvin, his often personal (not to say private!) disputes with others, and that his posts are delivered through intermediaries?
It is undeniable that Melvin is either in the eye of every major storm on the Casebook, or at least not far from it.
Why? What is it about Melvin?
Obviously I’m not alone in believing it is a combination of the manner and matter of his posts that cause the problems. But I also think Melvin has his own, self-defeating sense of proportion about what matters and what doesn’t.
There is no excuse – save for any religious beliefs I am currently not aware of – for a man who seems to appear on television and the radio not to buy his own computer, learn its rudimentary capabilities, read the Casebook postings for himself, and type his own posts. By relying on the kindness of others to send him messages and post his replies, Melvin does everyone, especially himself, a grave and serious disservice. Who should decide which posts are relevant to Melvin’s complete understanding of any given issue – rather, who better than Melvin himself? The answer is "No one but Melvin!" Who should write any necessary reply and ensure it is typed as Melvin wishes it presented, and placed where he wishes it to be placed -- rather, who better than Melvin himself? The answer is "No one but Melvin!"
At least in his Casebook/Internet persona, Melvin is like Polyphemus, the Cyclops in Homer’s The Odyssey. He has only one eye but guards his cave and his treasures, compensating for his partial blindness with brute strength. He lashes out at any real or imagined wrongs done to him or what he values—no matter how slight -- and in the process, harms everything his anger touches.
Why is he so angry, so certain he alone is always right; allowing only those who agree with him to share in his righteousness? No one can argue he isn’t human like the rest of us; but why is it that no one ever notices Melvin’s human weaknesses, or points them out to him, insisting as you would anyone else that he change? Does he never make mistakes, say or do things when he is unwell or tired that he wishes he could take back?
Is Melvin Harris the one human being on this planet incapable of committing an error while pursuing any matter that draws his interest and concentration? Can’t he become so involved in his interests that he sometimes(?) fails to differentiate between the work, the world outside himself, and the world inside himself?
IMHO, I think a near-lifetime spent in controversy and working in areas where he is almost alone in exposing fraud, deceit, corruption, lies, has made Melvin what he is. He cannot be wrong or mistaken about "the important things" because if he is wrong or mistaken then perhaps -- or is it just in his own mind, his own self-perception -- his Cause is wrong as well. Pretty soon, everything becomes "important things." A criticism that would improve his work becomes an attack both upon his "Work" but also upon this other "Melvin" – the one who isn’t like the rest of us with our foibles, our mistakes. In Melvin’s world, it’s not just Melvin’s reputation that’s at stake, it’s – to put in Melvintonian form – "THE TRUTH." A suggestion to change his tone or approach with others becomes a deviation from…"THE TRUTH."
Melvin and his Causes are one and the same – certainly to one part of Melvin. If his supporters believe in Melvin, no matter the issue then they are just as apt to fall into Melvin’s solipsism. If his supporters only support the same Cause as Melvin, then they are using him: whether for the sake of their common Cause, or to defeat their common "adversaries" by using Melvin’s rational argument, bullying, demagogy, intimidation, badgering…whatever means, fair or foul. To Melvin, nothing less than "THE TRUTH" hangs in the balance.
Melvin doesn’t write posts; he dictates them to others.
Melvin doesn’t read posts; he has others do that for him and send on the ones he might be interested in.
Doesn’t anybody realize how the tone and the intention of this form of communication can unintentionally become distorted, all meaning either lost or made to appear out of proportion to its original intent -- as if we all just sit around each day and think up bad things to say about Melvin!
Reading his posts is like reading the thoughts and feelings of someone who stands at a great distance from the wherever we are in the world. His posts never quite synch with what anyone is talking about at any given time. Melvin hasn’t joined us, he doesn’t speak with us but to us. Melvin is as far removed from the rest of us as an actor is on a stage. He’s writing Shakespearean soliloquies; either appearing to us as a noble Henry V lending us strength before our own little Agincourt; or a jealous and deceived Othello; perhaps a once great Lear who makes the very worst decisions for all the best reasons? But never a Hamlet; no, no, Hamlet would never do Melvin Harris…or is that vice versa?!
Melvin is both wronged at times but he also does much wrong, perhaps even the greater wrong. Instead of trying to clean up or fix a mess around the house, Melvin simply sets the house on fire! No mess, is there? But no house either. That he cannot see how he acts, speaks, treats everyone around him, and how he is perceived in return, let alone ever understanding how this version of himself ever came to be, is his own personal little tragedy.
We should only watch and listen in silence, learning from Melvin’s struggles with his own self-consciousness (his own sense of (dis?)proportion) what lessons we can.
Yaz |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 03:51 am | | Alegria,
the moderator doesn't have to be voted in. You set the rules - and if people don't like it then (as you have said) they can stop posting.
You practise this sytem already. I'm just suggesting you make the rules more rigorous and more fair, based on the universally accepted standards of good manners - is this really such a crazy idea?
You, Alegria, might feel that it's over sensitive for people to want to be free of the threat of personal attack. I don't agree. And I think you might feel differently if it was you on the receiving end.
After all, wasn't it the nasty things being said to you a few weeks back than persuaded you to set up a new code of practise?
Didn't you post a list of rules back then almost identical to the ones I have suggested?
So I for one don't understand the problem.
I'm just saying to you - why not enforce the rules you created and make for a more civilsed and interesting forum?
(I don't know if you've notice that it's the very people whose behaviour would be most curbed by any new rules who are the most vociferous against imposing them?)
But, look, I guess you have made your decision. For some reason you seem to be happy to let things go on as they are, and for the likes of the unstable Joseph to be free to say anything he chooses here.
Okay, but I'm afraid that I for one am bowing out. Because if the price of contributing here is laying myself opem to that man's obscene sexist slime and the general abuse of anyone who feels like being abusive then the price is just too high.
Chris George has acknowledged that the abuse here came from one side only - I and others have been insulted, attacked and denigrated just because we have opinions on the diary that others don't like.
In a system like that free debate is impossible. That you find that acceptable is sad and sorry, but there's nothing I can do.
I wont be contributing any more until the right to abuse and tell frank lies here has been curtailed. Others, more eminent than I have already made a similar decision.
I leave the place to Joseph and his chums - and you with this thought.
All Harris has ever done is point out facts, and defend himself against false accusations. His language has been strong sometimes, but he has never been gratuitously personally abusive.
Has he Alegria? look in your archives and see.
Joseph, on the other hand has made a career out of making the kind of sexist vile personal attacks that would get him arrested if he did them over the phone.
Again- look in your archives, check it out.
Yet you, Alegria, and Paul Begg and Yazoo, have commented profusely on "Mel's" bad manners, but said nothing about Joseph (or Caroline, or Martin)
What does that tell me and others?
I don't know. That there is some kind of integral bias operating here?
I think so, even if you are not aware of it.
It's a pity, but there we are.
Karoline |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 04:21 am | | Hi, Karoline:
First of all, Stephen wrote to me in a recent e-mail that he prefers a "laissez-faire policy" as "the best course of action." So I don't believe you are going to get the rigorous monitoring that you are advocating.
Second, I do not believe I have "acknowledged that the abuse here came from one side only" so please do not attribute that statement to me.
Third, if you do not think Melvin Harris "has never been gratuitously personally abusive" I think you must have a seriously blinkered attitude. What do you call his constant allusions to "lies" and "deception" on the part of specific individuals, including Paul Begg, Martin Fido, Shirley Harrison?
Fourth, if Yaz is correct that the authors of A to Z have agreed to amend the entry on Melvin Harris in the next edition (should there be one) that would seem to solve the problem. Also if that is so, it behooves Melvin not to talk about the problem further if such an agreement has been reached.
Fifth, Karoline, I agree that Joseph's posts have been excessive toward you and would urge him to apologize to you. I am sorry that you have been offended.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 04:50 am | | Hi Karoline,
I'm sorry if you really have decided to call it a day. But if you go, please don't forget - you jumped - the management didn't push you - which is what you would have had the management do to me, because I dared to disagree with you, sometimes strongly, using a tone that I recognised from your own disagreements with myself and others.
All the best, whatever you decide to do. Perhaps you might like to start by drawing up your list of
'universally accepted standards of good manners', which might help Joseph to tone down his own excesses in future. Perhaps you could set the perfect example by using your hilarious 'Wuz' message as the first entry. Could be a bestseller....
Love,
Sad, middle-aged, no-hoper Caz 
PS You will be correct again soon with the 'no career' bit - hubby's got himself a new job (hooray!), so we can give up the limited company director/secretary nonsense, and I can go back to being the good little housewife and mother. Can't wait! Now, where's that chocolate? I think I'll put Abba's Dancing Queen on and have a quick jig about... |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 05:05 am | | Chris,
thank you for commenting on my perspective. I admit it's not a very popular one here. But that doesn't necessarily make it wrong does it?
And it is manifestly not gratuitously insulting to claim someone has lied - if they have is it?
It's just a statement of fact.
Harris has demonstrated that the people he accuses have done the things he says.
Look at Harrison's deliberately distorted version of his letter to Reed Hayes. Look at the A-Z entry. Look at the accusations of evidence-tampering fed to the press by Feldman.
I hold no brief for Harris's manners. But he has been falsely accused and he has been lied about, and he has been the victim of a determined and ruthless smear campaign as a result of his activities re: the diary.
This is not opinion, it's fact. In fact Harris has conformed to the very rules I am suggesting be applied - he has backed up his claims with data - and the data speaks loudly for itself.
It's been published here, and Harris has clearly stated he is happy for the entire history of his relationship with the A-Z team to be published on this board.
The A-Z team on the other hand signally fail to post their own data. Most of their allegations have either been shown to be false, or exaggerated, or are simply a matter of their word, bare of any evidence at all.
This must raise the question of whether they are any more justified than their one-time employer, Feldman's smears.
This is mere common sense and common ethics.
If you choose to read some kind of pitiful partisan pleading into it - then that is your vision, not mine.
And please don't ask Joseph to apologise. His brand of obscentity is as beyond apology as it is beyond normal psychology. It would be like a dirty-phonecaller ringing back to say sorry.
Goodbye, as I said, I'm not willing to be a part of Stephen Ryder's "laissez-faire" policy which in practise means that people like Joseph and those with a powerful agenda get to bully, misrepresent and abuse both individuals and the system.
I think he should reconsider. I think he should take a look at the methods employed on most other boards and realise that his system is both unethical and impracticable.
K |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 05:09 am | | Hi Chris
It was agreed many years ago that the offending entry would be removed from future editions of the A to Z.
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 05:57 am | | "Look at Harrison's deliberately distorted version of his letter to Reed Hayes...." Karoline L. Tuesday, May 22, 2001 - 05:05 am
It has not been shown and as far as I am aware there is no general agreement that the quoted extract from the letter to Reed Hayes does distort the truth. And it most certainly has not been demonstrated that Shirley Harrison's intention was to 'deliberately' distort the truth.
And has any evidence been presented for anyone to look at to support Melvin's assertion that Paul Feldman accused him of rigging the ink tests?
"bully, misrepresent and abuse both individuals and the system"...? |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 06:43 am | | Karoline,
As I told you a couple of days ago, my moderator powers extend to deleting duplicate posts and grunt work to save Stephen some time as I am here more than he is.
As for the rules that were posted a few weeks ago, the did not come because I was under personal attack.
There is a fundamental difference between someone arguing with Paul Begg or Caz and having them disagree and having an anonymous, multi-named person use the forum as a venue to carry out his/her personal vendetta. If someone wants to attack me based on my position or an issue I am discussing, feel free but do it openly.
I think Joseph's post was over the top. It furthers nothing and is against what I, personally want for the boards. If I had the authority, that would not be allowed. I don't have the authority. You don't. It's over. The boards will not be moderated to the degree you want.
To the people who don't want moderation of any kind and claim free speech. Think about the kind of thing that has been said in here recently. Would it be an accepted way to speak to a colleague, a client or a boss? Would it be accepted in any place of business? Why not? What about freedom of speech? It is always the people who claim Free Speech the loudest that are quickest to abuse the privilege. Free speech is a great thing when people are kind enough not to abuse it. Disagreeing with someone is fine. Insulting someone is even fine. Disparaging someone has it's place in certain situations. Doing nothing but disagreeing, insulting and disparaging someone on the same topic ad nauseum gets old quickly. There is a time to call it quits. So quit already! |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 06:50 am | | Hi Yaz:
One point: Melvin isn't the only one who doesn't have an internet connection and who relies on others to show him pieces that might be of interest and to present his thoughts and retorts. Keith Skinner is also one of the persons either noncomputerate or who have just decided not to bother. Both are reliant upon others who may or may not send them everything that gets on these boards. What's more likely of course is that the "flappers" consciously or unconsciously only send material that they think the other person "ought" to know about and of course that is, even for the best reasons, censorship. Could I therefore reword slightly one of your paras to add balance:
"By relying on the kindness
of others to send him messages and post his replies, Keith
does everyone, especially himself, a grave and serious
disservice. Who should decide which posts are relevant to
Keith's complete understanding of any given issue – rather,
who better than Keith himself? The answer is "No one but
Keith!" Who should write any necessary reply and ensure it
is typed as Keith wishes it presented, and placed where he
wishes it to be placed -- rather, who better than Keith
himself? The answer is "No one but Keith!" |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 07:02 am | | Dear Paul:
You have every right to say: "It has not been shown and as far as I am aware there is no
general agreement that the quoted extract from the letter to
Reed Hayes does distort the truth." I have every right to tell you that you are wrong; it has been shown; and the printed few lines of the letter do distort the truth. I'm sure however that you will have at least two others agreeing with you. |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 07:36 am | | Peter
You can tell me whatever you like, but telling me doesn't make your opinion correct. You think one thing, I think something else. You have given your reasons, I have given mine. I don't think your reasons are persuasive. You don't think mine are. Who else has commented? The fact is that there is no general agreement one way or the other - and anyone interested in fairness would acknowledge this, not cite it as proof supporting a particular argument. |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 08:49 am | | Yaz,
As I started the questioning of the A-Z entry, I wanted to make my position plain. My point is not whether Harris is everything the A-Z claims him to be, as you pointed out, people can read his works and make up their own mind. My question was, why was he singled out to receive negative treatment. Stephen knight received a better review than Melvin Harris did. In a post here, Martin said that he had just died and so it wouldn't have been seemly to be negative towards him and also that it was Martin's opinion that Knight didn't know Sickert had lied to him until after the book deal had already been signed. So Knight gets the kid gloves due to the fact of his death and a book contract releasing one from the obligation of being truthful and allows one to knowingly deceive the public. McKormick's blatant manufacturing of evidence is excused as a product of the times, although I was unaware that this was accepted research practice at any time. Live and learn. Harris is slammed because we don't like his opinion of the facts he writes about and we don't like his tone. But what he writes is indisputably facts. Out of the three, 1.) blatantly lying, 2.) continuing with a lie after you know it to be one or 3.) Telling the truth in the most obnoxious manner possible, which do you think is the least objectionable when it comes to researched material?
Ally |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 09:33 am | | Alegria
"Harris is slammed because we don't like his opinion of the facts he writes about and we don't like his tone." If this is supposed to be an explanation for the entry in the A to Z then it is completely untrue. I have explained elsewhere several times precisely why the reference to Melvin was made. It is also not true that Stephen Knight had just died. Stephen died in 1985, eleven years before the 1996 edition of the book. And it isn't that Stephen didn't know that Joseph Sickert had lied to him before the book contract was signed, it is that Stephen's correspondence, to which were were granted access by his literary executor, shows that he appears never to have disbelieved Joseph Sickert. We do not excuse "McKormick's blatant manufacturing of evidence...as a product of the times" by observe, rightly, that in the 1950s it was common and accepted practice to invent dialogue and leave out sources. We, however, conclude by saying that his book should "be used with extreme caution". In the case of both Stephen and Donald McCormick it is self-evident that they are building the case on which ultimately they advance a theory you are invited to believe. They are not setting out a history you are expect to believe. This distinguishes them from Melvin, who demands belief, as illustrated by his expectation above that he should be believed about Michael Dibden rather Shirley because his research skills are superior; whether or not what Melvin writes is "indisputable fact" is, of course, the question. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 09:48 am | | Hi Peter,
I agree wholeheartedly that it would be far better all round if Keith had his own computer access. I would be saved the time it takes to act as go-between, and the responsibility, and any speculation or suspicion - voiced or not - about why I'm willing to do it and whether I'm doing a fair and reasonable job of it.
Now, in the interests of helping me to do the right thing, please would you advise me if you want your post to Yaz, on this thread, to be seen by Keith? I have been sending him, on a regular basis, the conversations as they appear on The Maybrick Diary boards. It would be very difficult for Keith to follow the flow and context of the conversation if I were in any way selective. So he gets all such posts, clearly marked with the thread they come from (eg The Maybrick Diary/Forensic Evidence Board etc etc), including all the dates and times of posting. Occasionally, I am aware that Keith sees - usually courtesy of Stewart Evans, I believe - and responds to posts on other boards. Keith is also aware of the existence of this 'Professional Standards' board, and knows that the diary, and the A-Z and its authors, have been regularly pulled to pieces – sorry - discussed in this place. So he knows he only has to ask, and I will send him everything from this thread too. But I’m sorry – unless Keith specifically asks me, I will not be sending him everything on this and every other board just because the diary spills over occasionally from its natural home. If anyone wishes me to forward a specific post to Keith, which doesn’t appear under The Maybrick Diary boards, they will need to let me know. And I don’t mind how they do that, but would much prefer it if they could bring themselves to address me directly.
Love,
Caz
PS There's a post coming up shortly for you from Keith over on the Maybrick Diary board. |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 11:19 am | | Paul,
I wrote the statement about Knight having died in response to Martin's post that stated: "The Stephen Knight entry was complicated by the fact of his untimely death, so that hitting him hard for inaccuracy would have looked a bit like kicking a man who couldn't answer,". I mistakenly took that to mean that he had recently passed due to the word 'untimely'. My mistake and noted as such.
I still don't understand the point being made. So if someone misrepresents the truth or fudges facts in their work, if they are dead, they get away with it? My statement about Knight's belief in Sickert was in response to Martin's opinion on what happened--that Knight had not known Sickert was lying until it was too late into the deal. Your opinion on events appears to differ and is noted.
However a person lays out his theory, whether inviting or demanding, it is still up to a reader to judge for themselves. Melvin is still being condemned because we don't like his tone. I still don't believe it has any relevance to what should be an unbiased encyclopediac work. |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 12:52 pm | | Alegria
I think there may be some confusion between unbiased and uncritical. An encyclopaedic reference work should be unbiased, but I don’t think it has to be uncritical. An unbiased encyclopedia should not display undue favour to a theory or viewpoint, but an uncritical one would be doing a serious disservice to many of its readers by failing to offer fair critical guidance. Most encyclopedias of music offer critical evaluations of different performances. An encyclopedia of King Arthur would point out that Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History of the Kings of Britain was largely fictional, an encyclopedia of sea mysteries might highlight the most satisfactory explanation for the disappearance of the crew from the Mary Celeste. And the A to Z offers fair critical guidance concerning other books, such as Sickert and the Ripper Crimes – where it is worth noting that the author is reciting a story received at first-hand by her mother, our criticism being restricted to factual conflicts of which the non-expert might be unaware. What falls within the parameters of ‘fair critical guidance’ is possibly an area where there will be disagreement, so I think we should agree that it ultimately remains with the book’s author(s). However, I think an inclination to attribute the worst possible motive to an action – such as saying that Shirley Harrison “deliberately distorted” something when it isn’t known whether the distortion (if there was distortion) was deliberate or completely unintentional (which I use purely as an example of the kind of thing I am talking about) then I think it warrants (even demands) comment – not to criticise the person who says it, but to alert the reader not to be influenced towards a harsh and prejudicial judgment before investigating further. Of course, this would not always be necessary, but when the writer in question is as influential exposure of frauds, fabrications, errors and lies, then I think comment on occasional errors made in specific circumstances is justified. Whether the wording in the case of Melvin was too harsh in this respect is a matter of opinion and in the opinion of some people it was too harsh. We acknowledged and accepted that view and criticism. I can do no more than draw your attention again to my post on Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: The Maybrick Diary: Sunday, April 22, 2001 - 08:09 am.
I do not intend to debate the A to Z anymore and I have written the foregoing simply to point out that the A to Z entry has nothing to do with melvin’s “tone”. I do strongly strongly object to Melvin Harris’s tone, not because it is offensive (although I do find it offensive) but because I firmly believe it provokes ill-feeling, alienates people and causes them to dig in and defend their corner, which all serves to prolong argument and prevent amicable resolution to disagreements.
I know my opinion of the events differs from Martin’s, but as I have intimated elsewhere, Martin was preoccupied over a lengthy period of time with other business and difficult and important domestic matters and his memory of the whys and wherefores can be slightly wrong. |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 01:41 pm | | Paul,
I understand and agree with the differences between unbiased and uncritical. When I originally started this I stated that criticism was to be expected as a matter of course and was using that argument to defend the A-Z. After further reading, I began to question whether the A-Z was unbiased. That has been my aim in this. Our opinions on this matter will differ, but I have satisfied myself on this issue and agree that there is nothing more to be gained from discussing it.
Best Wishes,
Ally |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 26 May 2001 - 08:24 am | | Peter - Before this blew up into a considerable storm, (which it seems to me Paul and Alegria from various positions have answered admirably), and just as I went away for a short spell, you thanked me for info concerning Shirley's words about a modern compound that her analysts should have discovered, and asked if I could help over her remarks on nigrosine. I'm not sure what the latter were: I have a copy of a letter she sent Melvin in c.1995 where she said that both iron and nigrosine had been found to be no part of the diary ink, and I see that I highlighted the latter and put the marginal note 'contra Baxendale, Eastaugh, Rendell!' So if the question was why she believed nigrosine wasn't present, obviously I had no idea at the time. But I'm preparing a much longer posting on the history of the scientific reports which will appear on the Maybrick Diary, Forensic Evidence board. (And if you wonder why I didn't ask her, or imagine as Melvin recently suggested that I was in some way derelict in my duty not to investigate the science, please bear in mind that I am not a scientist, as Melvin easily demonstrates by citing my misspelled and inaccurate summary of the scientific evidence in True Crime Digest, and I was only employed to advise whether Shirley was making blatant howlers in her handling of the historical evidence. The scientific advisers weren't invited to say what they thought of the diary as a historical document or Shirley's reading of it as viable or otherwise, and Paul, keith anad I weren't asked to comment on the science. Certainly by the time the nigrosine and chloroacetimide disputes were raging I was bored out of my tiny mind with the charges, countercharges, and sheafs of scientific rports and (to me) often incomprehensible critiques of them that kept arriving, unsolicited, in my post or over my fax machine).
With all good wishes,
Martin F |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 26 May 2001 - 01:33 pm | | Martin:
Thanks for the explanation and I'll look forward to seeing your more extensive post but like you I have no scientific background and have difficulty in understanding the ink complexities. I hope to see Shirley and Keith in a few weeks and look forward to discussing this with them. I shall take along my Dictionary of Incredibly Boring Scientific Expressions. |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 27 May 2001 - 06:54 am | | Hi Peter,
I thought I'd posted this apology yesterday, but I guess whereas I double-posted elsewhere, I just didn't get this one on at all.
My frightful memory - when I went back and looked at the letter again, I saw that Shirley was ascribing both absence of irona nd absence of nigrosine to the Leeds (Wolfson Laboratory) report.
All the best
Martin |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 07 June 2001 - 12:16 pm | | SOME FAREWELL FACTS: MELVIN HARRIS
In my case, Martin Fido's posts are notable for his tall stories. We have had him cite my articles in Ripperana; pieces that never existed. When caught out on that score and without any apology he switched the claim to articles in Ripperologist; once again to non-existent writings! And there was a quite daft claim about my piratical attempt to hijack his radio programme; yet another non-existing event.
Then we had the imaginary event of the US Ripper lady who tried to seduce me! When I set the record straight, Fido just wouldn't have it. He remembered it wel! Here now are the exact events proving that Fido is not to be relied upon, even to the smallest of details, when he is on the defensive.
In June 1992, Fido wrote and informed me that an American lady on one of his walks, had stated that she had met me and I had confessed to her that I did not believe in my own candidate. In other words, that I was a dishonest sham. I had a batch of new A-Z material to send him and I opened my letter with the following words: "Your letter has helped me identify the defaming damzel. I'm certain that it has to be the lady who wrote to me twice from the US. It looks like a case of: "Hell hath no fury..."She praised my book lavishly and told me that she was hopelessly fascinated by the subject. So much so that she intended to visit London and go around all the areas associated with the crimes and the suspects. She asked me to meet her and said that it would be the high point of her trip. She then sent an entry to the weird competition organised by Harrap's publicity dept. But her entry was simply copied from page 93 of Richard's book. (She had bought almost everything written on the subject.) I wrote to her and gently said that her entry could not be accepted since new thoughts were being sought. I also said that I could not meet her since I had too many commitmants, but I wished her good hunting. She didn't reply and it now looks as if she took my letter as a personal rejection - as a slight. Hence the bitterness that resulted in her lies.
On June 15th I located the lady's letters and rang Fido to give him her name. But he could not remember having heard her name. On June 16th Fido replied to my letter and call thus: "Many many thanks for your letter with its fascinating enclosures, and yesterday's phone call. What an extraordinary woman! ...Your woman sounds quite barmy, making stuff up entirely to no advantage whatsoever." So much for Fido's present-day muddle!
Unfortunately, where he does attempt to present authentic material, he allows unfounded judgements to creep in which mar his work. Here I specifically pinpoint his survey of Alec Voller's views. Fido misrepresents my words about "playing games." My words do not refer to Voller but to the conclusion to be drawn from Mrs. Harrison's failure to name the "modern synthetic dye." This implies that Voller witheldthe name from her, which I refuse to accept, since he had no reason to play such childish games. The full responsibity for finding the name was hers.
It is true that in 1994 Voller gave me a formula for Diamine MS Ink, but it is misleading to state that this was the full chemical formula. It was not. It did not include mention of either oxalic acid or Artilene black. And I did not know of Voller's advice to test for precise quantities of iron or the presence of oxalates, until today. Why? Because contrary to the impression given in Fido's posting, I was NEVER one of Voller's correspondents. I spoke to him twice, briefly, soon after the Diamine name became known in 1994. And that was that. So for seven years I neither phoned, nor wrote to him. Thus I was never party to any badgering, or involvement in the "outrageous pressure both sides brought to bear [on him.]"
The position is slightly different now, since on May 19th I had my FIRST letter from Alec Voller. This acknowledged the receipt of a colour photocopy of the 1995 test letter written to me by Nick Warren, using Diamine MS Ink. In a long letter he speaks of:"...the poor opacity and fading and bronzing that are apparent in your copy of Nick Warren's letter. These are aspects that can be drastically influenced by relatively small shifts in the conditions...One factor that can strongly affect both the initial result and the subsequent behavior of the ink , is the choice of paper and it may perhaps be that Nick's choice was not such as to bring out the best in the ink...I agree that the ink of Nick's letter has taken on an appearance similar to that of the Diary, as regards fading and bronzing..."
As for Nick's choice of paper; he would have been delighted to have been given one of the blank pages from the Diary to write on, but this was never possible. Robert Smith and Co. were never that helpful. Far from it. And no attempt was made by Smith and Harrison to carry out their own test on the Diary blanks. Smith is now using excuses to defend his inactions, but the blank sheets are not sacred relics and have no bearing on the text of the Diary itself. A sheet or two could have been sacrificed easily.
Finally, Alec Voller has written: "I am a private person by nature however and the appearance of my name in Shirley Harrison's book has brought me an extremly unwelcome amount of publicity." Because of this, I propose that Voller should be left out of any further discussions, unless he produces something new that we should all take notice of and which he wishes to publicise.
I think we all now realise that Voller's tests will never be undertaken. But Nick Warren's test of 1995 tells us that Voller's ink will age-bronze in a short time. This proves the point I made back in 1992; namely that there was no reliable way of dating an iron-gall ink once it had lain on paper for 18 months or so. In any case, today the ink issue is no longer of importance. My original drive to have the ink tests done was not to prove the Diary to be a modern fake; that had already been established. The sole aim at that time was to see if Mike Barrett had identified a Liverpool ink used by Liverpool fakers. Did he really have some VERIFIABLE "inside information?" (Note: by then Mike had not yet produced the Sphere book.) But none of this matters anymore.
We have now reached the stage where all the usefull and valid information can be found on screen. An odd item or two may surface in the future, even so, all the essential material needed to assess this fake is on call. As I have said repeatedly, it is that artifact alone that I took a keen interest in. It can be examined in its own right. But the people behind it are of no great interest to me. Any "human-interest buffs" should focus on the prepublication research, both Harrison's and Feldman's. Why was it so faulty, indeed wretched; and why were people so gullible? However if posters still want to chat on about who did it, and when, and why, well that is their free choice. But it is not mine. And I have no more time to spare. So I am withdrawing from this board. That does not leave an open field for future lies and misrepresentations. But it does mean that anyone who needs factual questions answered will have to search through my past postings until they find them. |
Author: Mike David
Thursday, 07 June 2001 - 03:39 pm | | This was passed on to me for posting some time ago - my apologies to Melvin for forgetting to do so.
From Melvin Harris
Re: Paul Begg's questions about the ink-test tampering libels.
These have been answered more than once. For example, Mrs Harrison's slur by innuendo of 11 Dec 1994 was instantly recognised as such by Dr Diane Simpson, who demolished the idea in her letter of Dec 20 1994, and that letter has been put on screen.
Could it be that Begg is attempting to make a cheap point, since the first three tampering charges were made by phone and thus could be classed as slander (not libel)? But he already knows about the three reporters who were assured by Feldman that the chemical AFI were asked to find had been in my possession and that the ink samples had been opened and got at before they reached the labs. Robert Smith was made aware of these charges when they were first made. He denied having any part in spreading such lies and I accepted his denial. And recently Mrs Harrison has stated that the tampering ideas originated with Feldman, not her.
When Feldman first rang me to threaten legal action, I warned him that his slanders were now on record with my Union's solicitors. Following that he became a trifle more cunning and anything he wrote was drafted with some caution, even so he told Reed Hayes that I had the chloroacetamide in my hands, and coupled this with the clear innuendo that I was in a position to contaminate the samples. It is hard to believe, but even after he knew that this story was absurd he wrote 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."
Now the above sentences contained lies which had been exposed by myself and Dr Simpson. As Robert Smith will confirm, there never was an offer to me to test direct from the diary pages. And Dr Simpson had smashed the contamination lie beyond repair. Feldman was aware of this yet he still persisted in repeating his litany. |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 07 June 2001 - 07:24 pm | | Melvin Harris writes a good-bye post above.
In it he says:
"However if posters still want to chat on about who did it, and when, and why, well that is their free choice. But it is not mine. And I have no more time to spare. So I am withdrawing from this board. That does not leave an open field for future lies and misrepresentations. But it does mean that anyone who needs factual questions answered will have to search through my past postings until they find them."
This is a very sad day.
I assume from this that Melvin has decided not to tell us if he now thinks Anne and Mike knew the book was a forgery when they took it to Doreen's; and he's apparently decided not to tell us if he really does know the identities of the forgers or even if he still thinks his "evidence" (which remains quarantined) is conclusive and decisively identifies the mysterious and hypothetical "three forgers."
Also, I assume this means 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.
And perhaps saddest of all, I assume that this means that Melvin Harris has decided not to meet with Shirley or Keith and not to share any information he might have on Mr. K. or the will or the possible identities of the forgers or any other matter concerning who wrote this book.
But Melvin Harris tells us that the field is not open for future lies or misrepresentations.
I have seen several times a series of polite questions about these matters put to Melvin here on these boards over the past few months. I thought once that he might answer some of them directly. It now appears he will not. It appears he would rather write about other people and other things here (time and his busy schedule obviously have not prevented him from doing that).
 Very well then, I can only conclude from this that Melvin Harris’ alleged "evidence" concerning the identities of the forgers is severely less than conclusive in any case, and that he has been completely and utterly unable to link Mr. K to Mike Barrett or to find any evidence that they even knew each other and that he has also been completely unable to establish that K's handwriting is the handwriting in the diary and that he remains, like the rest of us, completely without a penman or even any motive for a penman. And finally, I can only conclude from this that Melvin Harris, in fact, has no real idea who wrote this book or why and cannot begin to describe its probable scene of composition
If any of the above is in fact a misrepresentation of what he knows and what he has evidence in support of, or if any of it is a lie, I trust he will set the record straight at some point.
If he does not, I will assume that all of this is true, and I think others can assume that as well.
Yes, this is a deliberate attempt on my part to be provocative. Because what I see in the post that appeared posted by Peter above is clear evidence to me that Melvin knows little or no more for sure about who actually composed this book or anything more useful concerning where and why than any of us do and that is why he is not anxious to meet with Shirley or Keith and why he will no longer address any questions on the subject here.
If I am wrong about this, I trust he will correct me.
We'll see.
In the meantime, I remain an utterly unapologetic "human-interest buff."
--John
PS: It also now seems clear from Melvin's own posts that the science does not help us one little bit in pinning down a date in the last several decades for when the ink went on these pages, and that it neither directly supports nor clearly contradicts Mike Barrett's confession and that this science therefore is of little or no use in determining the confession’s validity or usefulness and in no way helps us reliably identify any prospective authors or to discover any scene of composition. And that it certainly does not tell us that the ink had been on the page "almost no time at all" in April of 1992.
I trust Melvin will correct me here as well, if I am misrepresenting his position. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 08 June 2001 - 04:32 am | | Rather than suggest that I have nothing better to do with my time than attempt to make some pettifogging cheap point, Melvin’s own time might have been better employed resolving the matter by simply giving an example of him be accused of rigging the ink tests. But his post above does no more than illustrate just how difficult it can be to extract a direct answer from Melvin.
Very simply, I know that Paul Feldman believed that Melvin Harris had handled both the ink samples and chloroacetamide and that at some point he believed that the ink samples had been opened. I know that Paul Feldman openly speculated that contamination by Melvin Harris was a possible explanation for the AFI ink tests finding chloroacetmide in the ink samples and the Leeds tests not finding any. But there is a huge difference between suggesting possible and accidental contamination and the accusation of deliberate contamination and the rigging of ink tests that Melvin alleges. The former is understandable, the latter an outrageous suggestion. I know of no evidence that the latter is true. I therefore wonder whether the latter is true or whether it is an exaggeration grown from an objection to and rejection of inferred rather than intended accusations of deliberate contamination.
The question was asked for no other reason than a desire to see the evidence on which Melvin's vehement complaints were based and it would be quickly and simply resolved by Melvin providing an example of him being accused of deliberately contaminating the ink samples. I thought this would have been fairly simple for him to do, given the fuss he’s made over it (and an understandable fuss, if it is true), but he has not done so. Consequently people must reach their own conclusions. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 08 June 2001 - 05:19 am | | Hi All,
I agree with everything John has written. I go further. I would add that what Melvin has written here is telling, and good enough for me to conclude - unless Melvin himself corrects me and tells me I am lying or misrepresenting his words - that his modern hoax theory, with Anne and Mike as placers and handlers of a document, which one or both of them knew to be composed and penned by anyone post-1989 has collapsed due to lack of evidence.
What a shame if that dreary diary really was conceived and produced some ten years ago, by a small group of broke scousers with indifferent literary and forgery skills, and that Melvin still hasn't been able to prove it as we blow out the candles on its tenth birthday cake.
Hi Paul,
Indeed, I think people have almost certainly been reaching their own conclusions – on each and every occasion that Melvin has side-stepped a simple question and launched instead into War and Peace, before pleading that he has run out of time to spare for the message boards! At least he now admits we have reached the stage where he has also finally run out of ‘usefull [sic] and valid information.’
Have a good weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
