Archive through December 14, 1999

** 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 December 14, 1999

Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics: THE DEATH OF LOGIC: Archive through December 14, 1999

Author: Melvin Harris Tuesday, 07 December 1999 - 02:58 pm
Long before Feldman's book appeared I wrote this on the Internet:- "Paul Daniel has forecast that the revised Maybrick case uses 'a staggering amount of researched evidence'. But he bases this claim on just one encounter of just four hours; an event that was blurred, confused and exhausting. Such kaleidoscopic impressions can never be the basis for serious thought. Four hours are not enough to digest such a mass of material, especially when accompanied by frequent and fervent verbal advocacy. And remember that Paul Daniel had no one with him able to scrutinise, to act as a neutral observer, and advise caution. Experience teaches us that all previous Diary 'positive research' has been suspect, flawed, even worthless. In Daniel's case, I forecast that his euphoria will evaporate in due time." But I was wrong. Paul Daniel has never denounced or even mentioned the bogus 'evidence' that Feldman was flourishing. Never a word from him about the altered text of that Forbes Winslow letter; nothing at all about the false claims for the birthday book entry, or the McKay signatures, or the Woodhall absurdities. No acknowledgement of the fact that all the so-called obscure Diary references were in an easy-to-find popular paperback, and so on. I therefore doubt if he has ever checked on the mass of papers used to bamboozle him. He is now so blind to the real proofs of the worthlessness of the Diary case that he has lost his sense of proportion. He is now emitting statements that are grossly dishonest - to put it mildly. He has allowed himself to fulminate against critics including Alex Chisholm, Peter Birchwood and myself, with words that are infantile and without support. By contrast, I have given him a sporting chance to back up his words. My letter to the December Ripperologist reads : - "Dear Editor- Page 2 of issue 25 carries the following slur '...take into consideration the extra - totally unexpected and completely undeserved - criticism Shirley has had to put up with during those years from the obsessive and continual harangues from the likes of Melvin Harris...' This I find quite wild. Perhaps the editor will now do the honest thing and PUBLISH the dates of any documents issued by me which merit the descriptions 'undeserved criticism' and 'obsessive and continual harangues.'? For the record, let me state that I have only written to Mrs Harrison three times and I am quite happy to publish those letters. My criticism of her book in my True Face was mild and to the point. Its validity was partly acknowledged by Mrs Harrison herself when she altered the text of her paperback to take account of my objections. Yes, I have protested on Internet about some of her misrepresentations and about her misuse of documents in the case of the Maybrick Will and the ink-tests, but these slight protests were well within the requirements of true scholarship and came years after my last book saw print. I find it sad to accept that the editor might be allowing personal loyalties or sympathies to blind him to the iniquities of misrepresentation. But I do think that his words were fired more by emotion than by calm logic. Let him now supply the dates I've asked for. Then you can all check the truth for yourselves. Yours sincerely-" And how does Mr Daniel reply? Does he show us a list of dates of my offensive attacks on Mrs Harrison? After all, if he has truth on his side he has nothing to fear. But alas, he is weighed in the balance and found wanting. His hot words are nothing but impressionistic anger. He has no facts to back him up. So he takes up an illogical and cowardly position by replying thus : - "As the writer of this letter has many times declined to name the three forgers he assured everyone he knew had forged the 'Diary', and the two books from which he alleged the 'Diary' was culled, I will also decline to answer." And there you have the measure of the man. There is no possible comparison between my refusal to name anyone and his refusal to identify my "completely undeserved criticism" and "obsessive and continual harangues." MY actions are those of a responsible and professional investigator with over 23 years of hard experience. If I keep some knowledge private, then I have good reasons for doing so. (At last count I am sitting on 12 solved cases some of which may never gain full publication). Mr Daniel, on the other hand is pointing to material which he claims is in the public domain. But he has no dates to offer, so he resorts to this low attempt to evade responsibility. It is dishonest and despicable. As for his claim that I have "...declined to name...the two books from which...the 'Diary' was culled." This discloses his eagerness to cover his tracks with cheap sneers. It also reveals his appalling ignorance of events in the real world, and worse. THE TWO BOOKS WERE NAMED IN MY INTERNET ANALYSIS OF FELDMAN'S BOOK ENTITLED: 'THE MAYBRICK HOAX; A GUIDE THROUGH THE LABYRINTH'. On screen I matched those two books, text after text, with the matter on the 'Diary'. Now note this well, some time back Paul Daniel claimed to have READ that piece and described it as too long. So what has now happened to his memory and sense of fair play? And for good measure, how did he miss my recent posting which, once again, named the two books and gave some much needed facts about the watch hoax? How indeed! Finally, I now ask him to make good his claims or withdraw them. Melvin Harris
Author: NickDanger Tuesday, 07 December 1999 - 07:49 pm
I find myself in agreement with some of Melvin Harris' observations on Paul Daniel, especially in light of Paul's posting of last August trashing these message boards. I have been re-reading his editorials in 'The Ripperologist' and it does indeed seem that he has allowed his personal affection for Shirley Harrison and Paul Feldman to cloud his views on the diary and avoid facing the hard facts. This is no longer a subject that he can finesse by falsely claiming that its purveyors are being unfairly attacked, when in fact they are merely being subject to scholarly challenge. Nick
Author: Alan Tuesday, 07 December 1999 - 10:35 pm
Well said Nick.
Author: Guy Hatton Wednesday, 08 December 1999 - 03:36 am
It does appear that Mr. Daniel is incapable of distiguishing between the dross which (undeniably) mars these boards on occasion, and the valuable material appearing here. If his criticism of Mr. Harris' Guide Through The Labyrinth is based solely on his opinion that it is "too long", then we might be justified in asking whether he really has the stomach for serious debate. The Guide, in my opinion, is one of the most thorough-going and cogent refutations of the claim that the so-called Diary could not have been written without "inside" knowledge of events in 1888. It does so at a length which is wholly appropriate to the task at hand. I for one would rather see the issue dealt with in this manner than by the kind of rapid-fire guttersniping indulged in by some other commentators. All the Best Guy
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood Saturday, 11 December 1999 - 05:44 am
I wasn't going to bother to say much about Paul Daniel's October Ripperologist editorial but Melvin's latest piece has made me think about it. In the last lengthy dispute that I was involved with on these boards, it ended with a rather unfortunate reference by two authors/researchers to the possibility of me having a commercial motive in writing against the diary. Now any reasonable person might have thought that it's only by criticism of something like the Diary that purports to be a solution of a 112-year-old mystery that the truth will emerge. Throughout the time that I've been sending comments here I have been concentrating on two points: the somewhat distressing genealogy, some of which has led to an obviously unlikely provenance and the logical absurdity of the Diary itself. I do happen to be an expert in genealogical research and therefore have a logical mind so I think I'm qualified as a critic on both topics. To get to Paul Daniel's points ( and frankly although stories of his life in the Performing Arts are interesting, they really have nothing to do with this subject) I see no reason why Shirley Harrison should not have made some money via a book that has had several edition and did appear on the best-seller list for some time. It is, I believe, quite proper for an author to earn so much money that they need to hire a large man to carry it around for them. Although Mrs. Harrison is not in the league which Cliff Irving hoped to be in, she still has made enough money (as she told me) to buy her current house. Any comments on her complete earnings should perhaps be addressed to her accountant rather than here. Speaking for myself, I think that my "totally unexpected and completely undesearved" criticisms have been levied not so much at her but rather at the researchers who worked for Mrs. Harrison and Mr. Feldman and I would expect Paul to explain to me exactly what he means by that. Her book is very readable and it would be unusual if after so many years work she didn't believe in what she was writing. I don't criticise her on her book but do on her judgement in accepting certain pieces of "research" and on believing some stories that have little or no credible evidence. I think my words have been to the point and I therefore believe that I am owed an apology from Paul Daniel for being accused of "obsessive and continual harangues." He may do that either on these boards on in his magazine. Peter
Author: Merry Christmas Sunday, 12 December 1999 - 10:05 am
I got the impression that when Paul Daniel wrote of 'obsessive and continual harangues' he was referring to the number of articles and message board contributions about the diary written by Melvin Harris. Since these far outweigh his contributions to any other aspect of the Ripper case they may be interpreted as continual and revealing a touch of obsession. And the titles and tone of many of those articles have been direct to the point of being offensive (even some of Harris's supporters here have acknowledged this!), which may justify the word harangue. Harris also appears to believe that Harrison and Feldman are guilty of fostering what they know to be a forgery, yet Harris hasn't presented any evidence to support this view. I suspect that this is what the likes of Paul Daniel objects to, especially when Harris hasn't been altogether polite in some of his comments - I seem to recall that somewhere Harrison objected to Harris calling her 'a practiced deceiver', which, if true, was an uncalled for personal comment. Harris also obscures the point made by Daniel that he claimed to be able to name the forgers and hasn't yet done so. I have to say, therefore, that I don't find Harris the pure innocent he perhaps likes to claim for himself. As for Peter Birchwood, Loretta Lay was referring to specific charges he laid on these Boards against Keith Skinner and to which several people objected. As I recall, Birchwood's criticism was never supported by any evidence and overall the criticism proved unfounded. Birchwood prevaricated, never apologised and tried to change the subject to another issue which he also failed to make stick. The exchanges are all here somewhere. Loretta Lay was angered by this and wrote in protest of it, urging an end to 'negative and destructive attacks'. It says much of Birchwood that he changed those sentiments, which I am sure we all agree with, to Lay suggesting that we 'only say nice things about theories, not point out how specious they may be.' This was a gross perversion of someone's words. As we approach a new century it would be nice if these people could stop their petty bickering. There is wrong on both sides, but Daniel was right in the sentiments of what he wrote, whether Harris wants to acknowledge it or not, though he may be wrong in the precise use of the words he chose to express himself. And Lay was correct to criticise Birchwood, who continues to demonstrate an ability to twist words. But at the end of it all, all the critics are saying is: be generous in spirit to others. And at this time of year I think that is something you would all like to take to heart for the new century.
Author: anon Sunday, 12 December 1999 - 12:05 pm
Merry Christmas, whoever he/she may be, is a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black. He/she also displays a clear non-understanding of Melvin Harris' clear and well reasoned demolition of an impudent modern hoax, the 'diary.' Rather than an obsession, it is refreshing to see that at least one person who is totally au fait with this subject is prepared to stand up for honesty and right thinking. Someone who is prepared to reveal fraud and misinformation in whatever form it rears its ugly head. This is not being offensive - it is merely proving the old adage that the truth hurts. The 'Merry Christmas' posting is strongly redolent of Mr Begg, or one of his acolytes. That man is still trying to justify his unwarranted initial (and subsequent) support for the fraud - a support which directly led to its success. When Mr Harris has not been polite it has been because of the unwarranted attacks and comments he has suffered merely because his is standing up for what is right and true. And note well - all those who claim to have been offended are well established in the diary camp, or its supporters. I will not enter too deeply into an argument around the rights and wrongs of the exchange with Paul Daniel as I am sure that Mr Harris will want to do that himself. And, if 'Merry Christmas' is launching a personal attack of the type he claims to abhor, perhaps he/she would like to identify him/herself. I will not defend Mr Birchwood as I am sure that he is perfectly capable of doing that himself and is a regular contributor to these boards. 'Merry Christmas' makes references to postings that he/she seems to recall are 'somewhere,' 'as I recall, and 'The exchanges are all here somewhere.' In the light of the seriousness of these slurs being cast by 'Merry Christmas' I suggest that he/she quotes chapter and verse before anyone takes him/her at all seriously. Perhaps 'Merry Christmas' could stop this petty sniping - he/she is wrong. This sloppy 'peace and goodwill to all men' message falls a bit flat when you look into the implications of it. It is trying to release those who continue to perpetuate a crass, money-making, public-deceiving, shabby, nonsensical, impudent, fraudulent, bogus, false, piece of total crap from any rightful criticism. Get a life 'Merry Christmas' - lift your head out of the sand in which it is fully embedded.
Author: Melvin Harris Sunday, 12 December 1999 - 05:56 pm
CRACKERS? 'Merry Christmas' is obviously an imposter. He pretends to be judging the issue in question, but hasn't even studied the relevant material. He is so mean with the truth that he is obviously Scrooge in disguise. You see, Paul Daniel's words did not apply to me alone but to Peter Birchwood and Alex Chisholm as well. Merry C should now start by locating the messages posted by Alex which justify the words "obsessive and continual harangues". We all await his revelations. As for my postings, Daniel's claims are related to Shirley Harrison and no one else. But the record shows that I have devoted very little space to her. Check that out. Extra, intelligent checks will prove that Paul Daniel was making unacceptable claims for Feldman's research well before I wrote anything specific for the Internet. And we now find that he has done little or nothing to study the material which disproves the illusions he enthused over. Instead we find that he is willing to misrepresent my actions in order to justify his emotional blunders. He has stated that I have refused to name the famous "two books" and that is dishonest. He has claimed to have read my initial analyses of Feldman's book, but this names the two books as early as page THREE. So once again he is dishonest. But Merry C chooses to ignore these things. And our Merry chappie adds even more impressionistic nonsense when he writes "I seem to recall that somewhere Harrison objected to Harris calling her 'a practiced deceiver'..." I have never said such a thing. But I did label her 'a practiced evader' which is very different and demonstrably true. It is true, though, that I find her standards of accuracy are not exacting enough. And I also find some of her actions and statements thoughtless and irresponsible. Specifically I have pointed to her actions and words relating to the Maybrick Will and the ink-tests. And to that we can now add some of the false and incomplete statements that appear in her latest paperback. Then note that, like Paul Daniel, she has remained silent on the issue of the bogus claims found in Feldman's book. When I deplore her shortcomings it is always from the standpoint of valid scholarship. It is never a personal attack on her lifestyle, morals, religion etc. And I do not believe that she is deliberately promoting a forgery. But I do know that she evades the tricky questions. This may be comfortable for her, but I expect better from someone who calls herself an experienced journalist and a partner in a research organisation. She is no novice and therefore cannot take up a 'hard-done-by' position.
Author: xxy Sunday, 12 December 1999 - 11:26 pm
RE Harris: " ...postulation of other writers' thought processes can be wildly wrong and actually conflict with impeccable written evidence, and his indignation when he believes he has perceived chicanery may lead him to make demonstrably unjustified assertions (A-Z, 1996, pp. 156-57). This is indeed a mild statement regarding Mr. Harris. So what is this "verbage" supposed to mean? Exactly what it says.
Author: D. Radka Sunday, 12 December 1999 - 11:28 pm
Use of the term "au fait" by "anon" above indicates that he is likely one and the same as "Robert," who has posted here recently. "Robert" used this terminology twice in the past month or so, and is a chief critic of Gordon. David
Author: anon Sunday, 12 December 1999 - 11:39 pm
xxy has served to show us all how malicious the authors of the A-Z were to a professional author of known integrity merely and only because of his stand against the diary rubbish. I think the correct word to describe the A-Z entry is verbiage. As for Mr Radka, I suggest he gets back to his spaceship and blasts off.
Author: Merry Christmas Monday, 13 December 1999 - 10:08 am
It seems that a gentle plea for decent behaviour in the New Year is sufficient to awaken anon's paranoia. My words were a defence of Paul Daniel and I wrote nothing that was pro- or anti- the diary. Much of what Anon writes is therefore built upon his own faulty and I suspect prejudicial perspective. Anon might like to ponder the proposition that Harris's criticism of the diary can be as obsessive as Feldman's defence of it and an obsession, be it pro- or anti-, is still and obsession, is still unhealthy and is still open to just criticism. An alphabet of writers from Begg to Wilson have criticised Harris, not specifically for what he has written, but for the way he has written it. In writing as he has done, Daniel merely added his name to the list. And it simply isn't good enough to claim that all these people are critical of Harris because they belong to a pro-diary camp. That's simply an easy option get out to diminish their arguments by suggesting a bias. These people seem genuinely weary of Harris's approach. And when I see a rebuke of Daniel published under the somewhat offensive heading "Death of Logic", I am fed up with it too. As for Harris's comments, yes, Daniel did name Alex Chisholm and Peter Birchwood and perhaps he was wrong to do so, but that doesn't in any way alter the fact that his words were applied to Harris as well and that as far as they applied to Harris they were fair. And Daniel's words were fair because for several years Harris's contribution to these boards and elsewhere has been almost exclusively diary related. If Daniel wishes to interpret this is as 'obsessive and continual harangues', I think he was justified in doing so. It may equally be true to say that Harris has not directed any considerable space to Harrison personally. But criticism of the diary is inevitably criticism of Harrison and, as I pointed out, some of the titles of the article were offensive, and Harrison has had to work against the barrage of criticism. Nobody likes to be conned and the vigilant eyes of the likes of Harris and his friends are to be welcomed and supported, but there are good ways and bad ways of indulging in criticism. Many people, Daniel among them, seem to feel that Harris supports the bad ways and they have objected. We can be nitpicky about their objections, as Harris is nitpicky of Daniel's article and of my post, but I think Daniel made his sentiments perfectly clear: he objects to the manner (not the substance) of Harris's criticisms. I see no reason why the substance of that complaint can't be heeded for the New Year and perhaps be used to heal some wounds and build some bridges, rather than be dismissed as 'the death of logic.'
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood Monday, 13 December 1999 - 11:56 am
"As for Peter Birchwood, Loretta Lay was referring to specific charges he laid on these Boards against Keith Skinner and to which several people objected. As I recall, Birchwood's criticism was never supported by any evidence and overall the criticism proved unfounded. Birchwood prevaricated, never apologised and tried to change the subject to another issue which he also failed to make stick. The exchanges are all here somewhere. Loretta Lay was angered by this and wrote in protest of it, urging an end to 'negative and destructive attacks'. It says much of Birchwood that he changed those sentiments, which I am sure we all agree with, to Lay suggesting that we 'only say nice things about theories, not point out how specious they may be.' This was a gross perversion of someone's words." The dispute between Keith Skinner and myself to which the above goop is referring was one that should have been discussed between us in private and which for his own reasons, Keith refused to do thus making it difficult to be specific about some matters for obvious reasons. Of course, I have had experience of discussing matters concerning third parties by letter with Keith only for copies of those letters to be sent to those very same third parties. I may have mentioned this before. Anyway, the matters that were mentioned were backed up by affidavits. Other matters which perhaps we should refer to as Comrade Mike's Little Red Book have still not been explained Although promises have been made that all will be revealed, I still find the matter depending almost completely on the word of one participant. This may be evidence: as far as I'm concerned, it's hardly satisfactory. To see who is prevaricating, I suggest you all check out the saga which I believe happened around June. As to LL who I have never met and who therefore knows very little about me or my own field of expertise, I would suggest that her support of Keith says a lot for her loyalty but as someone who I believe has something to do with selling books she should realise that loyalty can be expressed without quite so much silliness. I really don't understand how I can be accused of perverting LL's words. Is it being positive and constructive to say that the diary is spurious and was obviously designed for commercial reasons? No, I'm sure that LL and her mysterious accolyte would say that it's negative. I suspect that "positive" is what Ms L thinks is true and "negative" is a criticism of what she thinks is true and I certainly don't believe that's a perversion of what she said. But as she's not going to reply to this, I expect that will continue to be a mystery. And lastly: let me at least agree with something that the good lady said. "If a person hides behind an anonymous title, how on earth can they expect anybody to regard their views with any credibility?" Wise words indeed.
Author: Merry Christmas Monday, 13 December 1999 - 01:18 pm
People should indeed return to the appropriate message boards and decide for themselves whether Birchwood's criticism of Skinner's integrity was justified or not. According to her letter to Ripperologist, Loretta Lay did read those posts, was 'saddened beyond belief' by them, and 'found Peter Birchwood's slurs on Keith Skinner totally unacceptable and intolerable.' Lay wrote of being horrified at the what she described as 'attacks on the integrity and honesty of people...' - into which category she included Birchwood's attack on the integrity of Skinner - and appealed for 'an end to the negative and destructive attacks' and for a change to positive and constructive comments. In his letter to Ripperologist (December 1999) Birchwood quoted Lay words and the delivered his own interpretation of their meaning: "The last point I would like to make regarding Ms Lay's request to: "see an end to negative and destructive attacks - let's have positive and constructive for a change..." I think that means: "Let's only say nice things about theories, not point out how specious they may be.' That is clearly not what Lay said or meant. She said nothing about theories and appealed only for an end to attacks on the integrity of individuals. Birchwood's own words therefore show him to be perverting what Lay said and avoiding her direct criticism.
Author: Karoline Monday, 13 December 1999 - 02:20 pm
Mr. Christmas, are you saying it's okay for people to criticise the 'diary' and it's various supporting hypotheses providing they do it politely - or are you saying that no one should voice any doubts at all - in case the people who believe in it get upset? I hope you understand that most people would entirely agree with the first, but find the second slightly too much like censorship of opinion. Karoline
Author: anon Monday, 13 December 1999 - 03:33 pm
I think that the identity of 'Merry Christmas' is so obvious that it seems pointless in continuing to refer to him by that rather inappropriate name. It is typical of the semantics we have seen so much before on these boards that he describes his initial post as a 'gentle plea,' and 'a defence of Paul Daniel.' For there he is, once again, on his diary bandwagon trawling both Harrison and the diary into his 'defence.' In any contentious field of study 'petty bickering' is the least of our worries, and there is often worse. It is not to be found only in this particular area of debate. Harris' criticism of the bogus diary, which is fully justified, is far from obsessive, it is merely brought into play whenever more rubbish is published from the 'diary fraternity.' So no, I have no need to ponder, you are the one who needs to ponder on the obsessive pushing and promulgating of the diary. "An alphabet of writers from Begg [MC?] to Wilson have criticised Harris..." crows our man. He continues, "And it simply isn't good enough to claim that all these people are critical of Harris because they belong to a pro-diary camp." This is utter balderdash - Begg [mega-pro-diary] to Wilson [totally conned and fully believing in the nonsense] they are all in the pro-diary faction and should be ashamed of themselves as they should (and some do) know better. Just name one writer who has criticised Melvin Harris and who has no diary interests. You have been fed up for a long time - you can prepare yourself to be fed up a lot longer. For anyone who pushes this con and total nonsense on those who know no better will not get away with it without comment by those interested in the truth and honesty. In Peter Birchwood, Alex Chisholm and Peter Birchwood you have three of the most scholarly and honest commentators on this case. Their objectivity and veracity is recognised by most of us but obviously not you. Unlike Begg who has been sitting on the diary fence for so long now he must be almost divided longitudinally and Wilson who cannot even get all his facts in published books right. Anyone who foists a hoax like the diary onto people must expect vehement criticism - that is right and just. Begg knows the diary is not genuine - he has been saying so for long enough. As I recall Mr Harris has never been apologised to by the authors of the A - Z for their unwarranted and misplaced comments about him published in their book - an alleged reference work. I can't see any wounds healing until a few apologies are forthcoming. The bogus diary and acceptance of its nonsense is most certainly best described as 'the death of logic' and no bridges will be built over this matter until its proponents are totally honest with what they write and say. I can but agree with Karoline for she has correctly identified the stance being taken by our old 'friend.'
Author: ChrisGeorge Monday, 13 December 1999 - 04:18 pm
Hi all: And Peace and Good Will to All Men? It seems not, not in the world of Ripperology. Nothing seems to have fractured the tight little circle of Ripperologists as the Maybrick Diary has. Just an observation. Chris George
Author: Caz Monday, 13 December 1999 - 06:11 pm
Judging by the balance of this board so far, I don't see that anyone need worry too much about any 'censorship of opinion'. Just another observation. And I do hope all the wounds heal soon anon, for the sake of ripperology. Most impartial observers must find all this a real turn-off. Be happy. Love, Caz
Author: anon Monday, 13 December 1999 - 06:30 pm
She even turns up here!
Author: Dimetrius Monday, 13 December 1999 - 09:40 pm
You know Caz; I think anon finally got something right. You (and Chris George) don't belong among this nest of vipers. You're just not all that adept at twisting words .