|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Previous Reader Discussion
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Media: Specific Titles:
Non-Fiction:
Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter (Feldman):
Previous Reader Discussion
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Thursday, 19 November 1998 - 12:12 am |        | 1.
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 12:54:53 -0400
From: Robert Shreeve
Virgin Publishing is about to publish the above book - in fact copies are already beginning to appear in the shops. I've heard that individuals have been receiving e-mail suggesting that we have cancelled publication of the book. There is no truth in such rumours; the book has been printed, bound and delivered to our warehouse, from where orders have been and continue to be despatched.
Regards
Peter Darvill-Evans
Publisher
Virgin Publishing Ltd
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 02:02:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: JackMaybri@aol.com
>
Who is responsible for the e-mail? Who would start such rumours?
There is one writer whose campaign against the Maybrick diary is so shrill and so vitriolic that it is easy to believe that, for selfish reasons, he would organize a "dirty tricks" campaign against distribution of anything pertaining to the diary.
This particular writer is already on record as having FALSELY declared that Diamine ink was used in the writing of the diary, notwithstanding the contrary declaration of the head chemist at Diamine. I have no proof, but there is reason to believe that this particular writer attempted, unsuccessfully, to taint the sample of diary ink that was once in his possession in order to get a test result consistent with the pre-existing viewpoint trapped in his forever-closed mind.
I think that this particular writer, whose name shall go unmentioned but who is readily identifiable, is capable of organizing a campaign against the diary based on DIRTY TRICKS and LIES and of justifying such a dishonest campaign to himself as being in pursuit of a higher truth.
Vigilance must be exercised!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 10:05:43 +0100
From: Paul Begg
I believe the rumour that Paul Feldman's book was going to be withdrawn is the result of a misunderstading. As for the suggestion that a certain identifiable writer attempted to tamper with a sample of the "Diary" ink, that is given absolutely no credence by *any* serious Ripper author or historian. Whatever one's feelings about said writer may be, his honesty is not and never has been in question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 21:29:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Feldman (author, Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter)
Let me make this perfectly clear.
My book does not suggest in any way that Melvin Harris tampered with the ink spots that were supplied to him from the USA. It does however provide a sensible and rational solution to many conundrums in respect of Maybrick/Ripper. The 'ink problem ' is just one of many.
I believe that this rumour has circulated as a result of Leeds University observation that the ink may be contaminated and the AFI report(commissioned by MH) that the samples of chlorocaetamide AND the ink spots were provided by its' client. The AFI report was incorrect. The chlorocaetamide sample was provided by Nick Warren.
It is easy to see how a simple statement of fact can be misinterpreted by many to be something 'evil'. I, for one, do NOT believe that ANYTHING untoward can be attributed to Mr. Harris, Mr. Warren or anyone else in respect of this matter.
My explanation, is, as stated above, fully explained in the book.
The excellent site on the Internet, provided by Stephen P. Ryder has already reported that previous 'debunkers' of the diary have 'admitted' the persuasive argument that I have put forward in favour of its' authenticity.
Most of the research and material contained within the book has NEVER been seen before, not even by Melvin Harris.
If Mr. Harris can at least admit that the diary HAS to be treated seriously, as a result of my research, not only will he be of great value to any further research into the subject,.but he will grow in stature and respect to all his contemporaries, of whom not one that has read my book has argued with its' value to the extraordinary world of 'Ripperology'
If MH goes back to the 'profile' he provided me with of 'The Ripper' when I first met him, he will see that he was able to identify nearly 75% of facts we now know of James Maybrick.
I sincerely hope common sense will prevail........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 03:16:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: JackMaybri@aol.com
I thank Mr. Begg for his polite but firm, well-measured and temperate response to my last post. With respect to the particular issue under discussion, I concede that I am not in possession of all the facts. I never claimed to be in possession of all of the facts, and I never claimed to be in possession of anything but my own suspicions so my conscience is crystal-clear.
Still, I consider myself justly reproved. I am willing to defer to Mr. Begg's superior knowledge and judgment with respect to the integrity of a particular author, and under the circumstances, it would certainly be unfair to pursue that topic any further.
However, I have this much to say in my own defense. The game of Ripperology is certainly a fun game for me to play from the comfort of my armchair and/or from the comfort of my computer terminal, and I am sure that others who visit this site feel the same way. I don't necessarily consider myself an investigator, but as a 13 year member of the California State Bar, I like to think that I can play "judge" at least as well as the next person -- weighing and sifting the evidence and so forth.
But in the arena where Mr. Begg and Mr. Feldman and Mr. Harris and others operate, it seems to be an entirely different story. In that arena, the game of Ripperology seems to be cutthroat competition indeed -- forgive me for that play on words! It seems to be as ruthless as the cotton trade!
Allegations of forgery and fraud redound like margin calls on the floor, and Scotland Yard even gets called in to investigate the possibility of criminal conduct.
Allegations of a certain author or authors trying to censor the work of other authors also are outstanding, and Mr. Begg seems to take these allegations pretty seriously, more seriously than he takes allegations of evidence-tampering. Again, I am willing to defer to his superior knowledge and judgment.
In his Casebook Interview of January 14, 1997, Mr. Begg states, "It has also been claimed that efforts have been made to prevent books from being published, films being made and so on. I simply cannot condone this sort of censorship." I take this to mean that he does suspect that the censorship has been taking place or he would not take the trouble to say that he cannot condone it.
In the same "confession" in which Michael Barrett asserts that he conceived and his wife wrote the Maybrick diary -- in Diamine Manuscript Ink -- he also asserts that Paul Feldman stole his family from him and threatened his life on several occasions, and in particular, states, "there is no doubt in my mind that Paul Feldman in particular wants me dead".
Together with the body of the Barrett "confession", these allegations have been dutifully reprinted in this Casebook. And there is clearly no possibility of a misunder-standing. Either Paul Feldman is a monster for having done such things or Michael Barrett is a monster for having fabricated this.
Within the context of this environment, within the context of this environment, I say, my original suspicions, which Mr. Begg has since allayed, did not seem so far-fetched to me at the time that I voiced them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 04:26:21 +0100
From: Paul Begg
I thank Jackmaybri for his courtious response and of course I accept and fully understood that his suspicions were justified by the climate he perceived and described. Indeed, those suspicions were inevitable and even justified in the sense that if the ink sample was contaminated one of the times contamination could have happened was when the ink sample was in said writer's possession. Other times would have been when the ink was taken from the page, at some point during transit, or when being tested. Any and every serious analysis should consider each of these possibilities and Jackmaybri's clearly did so.
What is sad is that the climate described by Jackmaybri should have been perceived in the first place - and that isn't Jackmaybri's fault either!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 22:20:53 +0100
From: Gary Vespucci
Let me first congratulate you on what is most definitely the finest ripper site on the net. I am writing in reference to Mr. Feldman's new book, which I have just read. While cynics will always persist for one reason or another, I feel that it is unquestionable that Paul Feldman has put forward the most (and I cannot stress it enough) Ripper theory so far. It is a shame that the controversy regarding Mr Melvin Harris seems to have overshadowed the expected excitement about the book on this web site. Regardless of any personal feud (which is, let's face it, not uncommon in most professional circles), it is clear that Feldman's argument is valid, and I strongly believe that those who focus on a dispute between Ripperologists on a personal level, rather than the fact that this new book essentially provides a solution to 100 years' worth of mystery, cannot truly call themselves Ripper enthusiasts. Rather they are sensationalists. As Mr. Feldman says in his book, I do hope that common sense will prevail.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 97 01:15:25 -0000
From: Tedcasablanca
I began reading it with scepticism, pencilling in argumentative points next to every para, but was soon totally engrossed and sat up all night reading. There are tenuous connections and some 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' thinking, and some of his contentions sound more plausible in context than when examined severely (that Michael Maybrick was a Mason, no matter how high, does not validate any part of the Knight theory, for example). But there's much that appears very persuasive. I particularly like his explanation of the Miller's Court victim as someone other than Mary Kelly, having always had problems with those witness reports of Kelly being seen the following day. It certainly puts Melvin Harris back in the hot seat I look forward to reading his comments in the Casebook !
I'm quite surprised that there's been little in the UK media on the book. I got my copy last week, but saw no reviews or news coverage in either the nationals or in Liverpool (though I've been out of Liverpool for the last few days) certainly nothing like the debate the original diary or the subsequent hoax claims received.
Response from Paul Feldman:
Delighted that you enjoyed the book. However i do not attempt to validate Maybrick masonry level with Knight theory. I simply point out the strange coincidences with it. Remember, Knight's researchers WERE told that his source material of a woman would seem to describe Florence Maybrick. And John Netley, the coach driver, WAS killed outside MMaybrick's front door.... worth re-reading the chapter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 12:47:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Feldman
It was hardly surprising to see the the intelligent, analytical, historically persuasive argument put forward by Mr. Harris against my book. I am sure that your readers were most impressed by the concise and detailed facts that he puts forward to dispute the validity of the book.
My book does of course:
1. Prove that all of Mr. Harris's arguments against the diary are severely FLAWED
2. That his knowledge of the Ripper case relies partly on secondary sources
3. That he has done little research of James Maybrick, other than possibly reading MacDougall. If any other research has been done, he clearly has a problem in communicating his findings to anyone else.
He describes my book as Hocum, an appropriate word for someone that has written three books on Roslyn whatever his name was.
Strange how ALL of his contemporaries, including of course Stephen P. Ryder and Andy Aliffe have been impressed by the research and new historical data that my book has introduced to the strange world of Ripperology. Indeed, my book has produced far more new facts on the Ripper case than all three of his put together. (count them)
Mr. Harris couldn't be biased, could he?
Now. Mr. Harris is claiming that the lack of DNA tests shows that my book is Hocum.
Very odd... for someone who has repeatedly claimed that he knows who the forgers are. Even stranger for someone who claims this to be a modern forgery? is this a display of doubt by the World's greatest and all knowing Ripperoligist?
On radio, in England on Monday, Mr. Harris put the DNA forward. Anne Graham (formerly Mrs. Barrett), told him "Dig her up and I will have a DNA"
I DID make tentaive enquiries for exhumation whilst researching my book. The task, however was long, very expensive and difficult.
Mr. Harris claimed on the radio that it was 'simple'.
OK..............
AN OPEN CHALLENGE
Mr. Harris will organise the exhumation of Florence Maybrick. he will then arrange a DNA test with Anne Graham. Anne Graham has already confirmed she will co-operate.
If Anne is a descendant of Florence, Mr. Harris will
1. Admit true provenance of the diary has been found
2. Will pay for all the costs
3. Admit that the diary is not a modern forgery and that he does NOT know who the forgers are
If DNA proves Anne is NOT related to Florence Chandler, I will
1. Publicly state that my book must be HOCUM
2. Pay all costs of exhumation and £500 per day to Mr. Harris for the time he dedicates to it (which should not be long as 'it is simple')
Yes or No, Harris?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 16:03:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ivor Edwards
It comes as no surprise to myself that Paul Feldman is asking money for his signature. He is asking twenty five pounds stirling for a signed copy of his book. About eight pound stirling a signature is his asking price. When others sign books they charge nothing in return. It would appear that P Feldman is filled with self importance and is only in this situation for the money that is to be made at the expense of others. His greed is quite apparent.I question the integrity of a man who thinks his signature is worth about eight pounds stirling. Has he not made enough money from the Maybrick Hoax already.It may come as a surprise to P Feldman to learn that there are those involved with the JTR case that are not in it just for the money alone. Would P Feldman like to imform me that I am wrong and that he intends for all the money raised by his signature to be forwarded to the same childrens cause that receives money from certain royalty's earned by men such as Melvin Harris. And no I never bought a copy of Mr Feldman's book.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 17:31:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Feldman
Perhaps Mr. Edwards would like to pick, pack and purchase all materials to distribute my book free of charge. I am not a mail order operarion and will be delighted when my book is available through the Internet from someone else.
Perhaps he will also agree to return my investment in this project in return for all receipts and income that i have had from it.
As he has not read my book, his claim as to the diary being a forgery....
Tell you what Mr. Edwards. I will sell you my stock signed at £10. I will pass on all orders and change asking price for whatever you suggest is fair. You do the work.
Charity?
You do not know very much about me at all, do you?
What sort of man lets it be known what he gives to charity??
How do you know what Mr. Harris gives .... unless you are very close to him?
Is this valuable site going to turn into a network for personal irrelevant attacks?
Or will Stephen P. Ryder recognise B******T and edit accordingly?
(sound like an introduction to a 'SOAP' episode)
Response from the Editor: The only posts I disregard are those containing excessive profanity or exceedingly inappropriate remarks. Regardless of my own personal feelings about the validity of each post, those conforming to the above two requirements receive equal treatment on the Conference.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 15:14:07 PDT
From: I J Edwards
For the record I did read the diary of Jack the Ripper and my conclusion was that it was a hoax. Mr Feldman stated that I did not know very much about him at all, he assumes to much. One of the questions put to me by Mr Felman was; How do you know what Mr Harris gives, unless you are very close to him? Again Mr Feldman assumes to much. In published work by Mr Harris it is requested that certain royalties be sent to the NSPCC It is because that Mr Feldman has assumed to much that he believes the diary to be genuine when in fact it is a hoax. Mr Feldman goes on to state is this valuable site going to turn into a network for personal irrelevant attacks, or will Stephen p Ryder recognise B******T and edit accordingly. As for personal attacks mention by Mr Feldman this is a typical case of the pot calling the kettle black. Was it not Feldman himself that made a personal and irrelevant attack on Mr Melvin Harris when his bribe of research and stature failed just days prior to them both going on Radio five . Was it not Jack Maybri that made a unfounded irrelevant attack on Melvin Harris in relation to a Ink sample and alleged sending of false e-mail? It seems to me that all the personal and irrelevant attacks are coming from the Feldman camp. Feldman goes on to say "will Stephen Ryder recognise B******T and edit accordingly" If Mr Ryder were to take such action Mr Feldman would be the first to feel the pinch. Mr Feldman is the first person to lower the tone by using the term B******T. Again it is a case of Feldman the big I am coming on the scene thinking he can buy people like Stephen Ryder and use him to stop any opinions and statements that do not help the cause of Feldman appearing on the casebook. The only B******T is coming from Feldman himself, who thinks he is a stand in for the pope. Well I will bring this letter to a close with the following message. The Internet is a medium to which nobody has any powers to edit or control, Please try to remember this in future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 17:34:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: JOHNSON755@aol.com
I have read Jack the Ripper the final chapter, and have found it somewhat amusing. If possible could you put my views on your casebook in the final chapter.
I was going to buy a copy of the Maybrick diary, and I was informed by a colleague of mine at Scotland Yard, not to waste my time or money on the book, because the Yard consider it to be a forgery. I was also advised that it is believed that a woman is also involved in the fraud. It amused me to read the letters of Paul Feldman in the final chapter. I'm aware of the works of Melvin Harris and also of his achievements in the field of investigative studies, and for Mr. Feldman to make such comments on a man whom is respected by all of his contemporary of any standing is a discrace. In the final chapter Jack Maybri makes false accusations against Melvin Harris. Paul Begg appears on the scene and stands by Mr Harris then Paul Feldman comes on the scene stating that such an accusation does provide a sensible solution. Mr. Feldman then attempts to bribe Mr. Harris by promising him certain rewards if the latter bends towards his will. Mr. Feldman goes on to add " I sincerely hope that common sense will prevail, It would appear that Mr. Feldman shows little or no common sense, for he goes on to state that certain material that goes onto the casebook and is degenerate to the whims and believes of Mr. Feldman should be banned from the casebook. I refer of course to a letter sent in that criticised Mr. Feldman. If this is the manner in which this man reacts to certain situations it comes as no surprise to myself to find that he is a man to be ignored by anyone who knows anything about Jack The Ripper. To sum up my thought of this man. His aim and objective is to deceive people. He appears to be a person who thinks he can rough ride over anybody and buy anybody. It is Mr Feldman who has turned the situation into a 'SOAP'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14.
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 97 02:01:20 UT
From: Jayne Chisholm
It was certainly good to see Mr. Feldman repudiate the 'rumour' that ink samples may have been tainted by Jack Maybri's 'one writer'. It was also most gratifying to see the said 'Jack Maybri' concede his/her ignorance of the facts.
Let's hope such concessions, coupled with a commitment to appropriate forms of historiographical disputation, continue once the critical reviews of "Jack The Ripper: The Final Chapter" begin to appear. For appear they most certainly will as, contrary to the impression some may have formed, not all 'previous debunkers of the diary' have 'admitted the persuasive argument' put forward for its authenticity.
Indeed, even amid the fence-sitting and tacit compliance of past months, when only the dissenting voice seemed certain of rebuke, there remained at least one 'so-called historian' - to coin a Feldman phrase - who continued to regard as preposterous any attempt to present this diary as genuine. A 'so-called historian' who remains assured that, far from having to be 'treated seriously', reputable historiographical analysis reveals the so-called Maybrick diary to be no more than a farcical late 20th century joke.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15.
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 16:43:54 +0100
From: Paul Begg
I found Jackmaybri's statement about Melvin Harris regrettable because such accusations can damage reputations and even livelihoods. Nevertheless, his reasons were understandable and his explanation more than acceptable. Mr. Ivor Edwards' comments were, again, understandable - at first glance Paul does seem to have put a high price on an autographed edition of his book - but was it necessary for Mr Edwards to resort to insult? Surely Paul Feldman can charge what he likes for a book, just like any bookseller, and people can make their feelings felt by paying or not paying as they wish. And, additionally, as Paul says, he has to cover his time and costs. Mr Edward's remarks were unacceptable - a 'personal irrelevant attack', as Paul says. As for Melvin Harris's comments about the DNA, it is all very well saying that this or that promised test hasn't been performed and to leave the statement hanging as some sort of indictment. In fact, often the test hasn't been performed for a good reason, such as cost. What reasons, however, does Mr Harris have for publicly saying that he can name the forgers and for avoiding naming them when asked to do so. If he can name them, let him name them. If it isn't true, perhaps Mr. Harris can explain why he has lied. Mr Harris has also stated in print several times that the content of the "Diary" can be derived from just three books. Mr Harris has repeatedly been asked to name those books. He has consistently avoided doing so. I mean no disrespect to Mr Harris, but one challenge can so easily be met with a counter-challenge and none of it gets us anywhere. What follows is a very oversimplified statement, but when assessing the "Diary" and Paul's book the essential evidence to question is the testimony of Ann Graham and William Graham. Ann says she saw the "Diary" and its content in the 1960s. Her father says it was given to him c.1950. If they are telling the truth then we are looking at an old document, not necessarily from the hand of James Maybrick, but not a "modern forgery" either. If they are lying, the probability is that they forged or were party to the forging of the document.
I have met Ann Graham many times. I honestly don't know whether she is lying or not. How does anyone really know if they are being lied to or not? Maybe she would agree to a lie detector test? (Who's going to pay for it?)My colleague, Keith Skinner, knows her a lot better than I do and considerably better than any of the critics. He believes her. So, I allow for the possibility that she is telling the truth. If she is, where do we go from there? How do the arguments in Paul Feldman's book stack up? Perhaps readers could discuss the pros and cons of Paul's book - a little tough for Mr Edwards, given that he hasn't read it! - without the hostility and abuse.
In response to post #12 by I.J. Edwards:
Can somebody please explain what Ivor Edwards is going on about?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16.
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 09:25:19 +0100
From: Stephen P Ryder
Melvin Harris is not on-line and therefore has not been able to defend himself against many of the attacks commented upon above. He does, however, monitor the Casebook through a colleague of his, and he is aware of the comments which are being made about the diary, Feldman, and himself. Mr. Harris has asked me through personal communication to make a statement in my own words, on his behalf, concerning a few points he wishes to be voiced within this debate.
Mr. Harris has already sent me a short piece which discusses some of the points covered in the early posts, and which will be added presently. Unfortunately, since he is not on the Internet, all of his material must reach me by post, causing a delay of about a week to a week and a half. Therefore it is only fair to comment upon the fact that while those participating in the discussion can have their opinions voiced within a matter of minutes through e-mail, Mr. Harris must wait a minimum of one week to have his arguments heard. It is for that reason he wishes me to inform our readers that his silence on this page is a result of nothing more than delays incurred through the postal system.
Mr. Harris also wishes to comment upon the statement made above that "if he knows the identities of the forgers, as he has claimed for so long, why does he hold this back?" In a telephone conversation this morning Mr. Harris told me he has held back this information only because he has been waiting for the release of Feldman's book, in order to see which points were stressed within the work so as to properly build his case around them. (He stressed the fact that Mr. Feldman's book was originally to be released in 1996, and that the book has incurred a number of subsequent delays prior to its publication last week). Now that the book has been released, Mr. Harris wishes our readers to know that he is working diligently on a full-length rebuttal of Mr. Feldman's book, which he will be posting to the Casebook immediately upon completion.
Stephen P Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17.
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 10:35:19 +0100
From: Melvin Harris
THE LIE FACTORY AT WORK: UPDATE ON THE DIARY INK. MELVIN HARRIS
The piece from Nightma 949 (5 July 1997) reveals a very strange mentality indeed. The author of that piece has (in E mail) described himself as an "American attorney for almost 13 years...", in that case I invite him to name himself. I would like other lawyers to know the identity of this fellow who is prepared to disregard evidence, who is prepared to libel and misrepresent, simply in order to shore up his beliefs.
In an E mail to Mr Ivor Edwards in England this man asserted that I had tampered with the Diary ink samples sent for testing to the laboratories of Analysis For Industry. When challenged, he wrote this: "As for Melvin Harris, I said that he was capable of tainting the ink sample. I still do. I acknowledge that there is no proof of this but the incident shows at the very least his incompetence.. Of that there can be no doubt whatsoever."
These statements are so bizarre that I have to conclude that someone has lied to our attorney. Even so, it is naive and quite irresponsible of this man to accept such lies as realities. The details of the ink tests have been on the Internet for months and they show that the tests were conducted impeccably by AFI.
As for the samples, they were sent to me by Robert Kuranz of Wisconsin and forwarded on to AFI unopened, and untouched, in exactly the same condition as despatched from the US. But the reference sample of chloroacetamide ('the pollutant') was never in my hands. This was obtained direct from the Diamine factory by Nick Warren, surgeon at an outer-London Hospital and editor of 'Ripperana'. It was then sent to AFI by Mr Warren, and that puts our gullible attorney right on the spot.
What he conceals is the fact that you can not buy chloracetamide from chemists' shops; it is a specialised industrial chemical, supplied in bulk to the few manufacturers who use it. So, is this attorney inferring that surgeon Warren conspired with me and secretly gave me the chloroacetamide needed to pollute the samples? And is he prepared to state that my wife, who took immediate charge of the samples and despatched them to AFI, was party to this pollution? We all await his answers.
But these are not the only questions he has to answer. Since he has been lied to, will he now name the liar? And, since he claims that I am 'capable of tainting the ink sample', will he now identify just one incident in my career as an investigator which proves that I would fake anything? Here we are talking of a career that spans over 25 years.
And then there is the big question. He now has to explain how it is possible for anyone to have tainted six samples (ink on paper) weighing in total a mere 0.000583 g. Of this weight probably 90% was the weight of the paper. Of the remaining weight the greater part would be made up by the iron salts and other chemicals. Any chloracetamide would be represented by an ultra-tiny weight expressed in nanograms! So, Mr. Attorney, what techniques does one use to pollute a sample at the nanogram level?
One last question remains. This anonymous defamer asked this of Mr Ivor Edwards: "Why is it that the sample of diary Ink that Melvin Harris provided for Analysis for Industry apparently the only sample to contain chloroacetamide?" This a typical example of a rigged presentation. It is dishonest, since it implies that many samples have been examined. The truth is that only TWO samples have ever been Involved. The one handled by AFI; the other by Leeds in 1994. AFI found chloroacetamide; Leeds didn't.
Here the real problem is evaded by our man. If he wants to use the Leeds findings to combat the AFI results, then he is in deep trouble. Yes, Leeds failed to find chloroacetamlde, but they also failed to find sodium in the ink. Yet two years earlier Dr David Baxendale discovered Nigrosine in the Diary ink and Nigrosine is a sodium salt. Shortly afterwards Dr Nicholas Eastaugh found sodium in every sample of the diary ink tested. And the sodium was there as a major element, not a trace.
I placed the results of all those tests on the Internet months ago and I advise our man to go and read them. This item of mine deals as well with the ion-migration tests and the Rendell committee's function. It also registers the facts that the Leeds tests did not duplicate the AFI tests and that the promised retests were never undertaken by the Diary camp. ( Look under: THE MAYBRICK HOAX: A FACT-FILE FOR THE PERPLEXED.)
While we wait for this detractor to face up to the truth, I can assure viewers that my promised feature on the origins of the Diary text and the bogus watch will be with them soon. In the meantime, those reading my piece on THE MAYBRICK WILL can add this to their knowledge: American researcher William Lindsay Hopkins dug out 12 interesting letters from the archives of the Richmond Chancery, Virginia. They were written by James Maybrick and the writing matches the writing on the Somerset House Will!
It only remains to add that this research was paid for by Paul Feldman!....... Nemesis certainly comes in strange ways.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18.
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 16:03:12 -0700
From: Adam Wood
Am I alone in wishing for evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the diary is either genuine or a hoax? (I suppose this is "sitting on the fence").
I appreciate that just about everyone had made up their mind about it before Paul Feldman's book was released, but do we really have to decide by being told "not to waste time or money on the book, because the Yard consider it to be a forgery". This is the same as deciding it's a hoax because my Uncle told me it was.
I will be one of the first to congratulate Melvin Harris if his promised naming of the hoaxers (see above) proves the diary is a fake.
In the meantime, I'd like to ask the following questions raised by comments above:
* Can Ivor Edwards explain how he knows the Diary is a hoax? Did he write it?
* What bribe, mentioned by both Mr Edwards and JOHNSON755, has Mr Feldman made?
* Does JOHNSON755's observation mean that those of us who do not ignore Mr Feldman, but carefully consider his research as we would anybody else's, know nothing about Jack the Ripper?
* Can Jayne Chisholm tell me what cast-iron proof she has that shows the diary to be a late 20th-century joke?
* Could Mr Edwards and others credit Stephen Ryder with some intelligence - the suggestion that he would be 'bought off' by anyone is laughable. What Mr Feldman has asked for is the continuation of sensible, creative observations without the unecessary personal attacks. I would also remind Mr Edwards that although the net is indeed blissfully free from censorship, the Casebook IS controlled by one individual: Stephen Ryder.
Lastly, I'd like to mention that with a surname like his Mr Feldman is unlikely to see himself as the Pope!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19.
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 13:56:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Feldman
I had to laugh when Mr. Harris claimed he did not name the forgers as he was waiting for my book to be published.
He originally made this claim in December 1994....long before I had even thought of writing a book....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20.
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 16:58:16 +0100
From: Paul Begg
Just a small point for the historical record.
Melvin Harris was reported in the London *Evening Standard* on 8th December 1994 as saying: "The identities of the three people involved in the forgery will soon be made known."
I think this was some considerable time before Paul Feldman began writing his book, but whether it was or it wasn't, I don't understand why Mr Harris didn't name the forgers at that time. Why has he allowed almost three years to pass? Why has he resisted all requests that he name the forgers? Why does he now claim that he has merely been waiting for Paul Feldman's book to be published when he could very simply have saved Feldman the trouble of writing it, his publishers the trouble of publishing it and the rest of us the trouble of having to read it? Why hasn't he simply named the forgers and put this whole business to bed? It is all smells a bit fishy to me. But no doubt all will be revealed in due course. I do hope so. It has been one hell of a long wait.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21.
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 19:26:38 +0100
From: Gary Vespucci
I have been reading people's comments with great interest, and through all the name-calling, back-biting, and generally childish behaviour on all sides, one thing rings startlingly true. The detractors of the diary are so desperate, that they have to resort to accusing Mr Feldman of bribery, amongst other things. This is the talk of someone on the run. Those who have a case to put forward, do so. Those who do not, squabble. This is extremely clear to me. I would also like to criticise those who seem to have taken Mr Feldman's book as a personal insult; those who have written books pointing the finger at Druitt, the Duke of Clarence et al have merely been argued with or agreed with. Simple as that. And rightly so; every reader has the right to agree or disagree with a theory that has been put to them. However, Mr Feldman seems to be at the centre of an extremely harsh field of personal insults and serious accusations. I put it to the casebook that the reason for this is that finally, after a zillion books have been written, we actually have a SERIOUS contender for the Ripper 'crown'. Unquestionably, Maybrick is the MOST likely candidate. Whether someone wholeheartedly believes this or not, it is clear that Mr Feldman does. This is why I cannot understand the attitude which people have taken, almost incinuating that Feldman wrote the book knowing the diary was a forgery. This is clearly not the case, and so I would recommend to the disbelievers out there that, while of course their opinion is valid, so is that of Mr Feldman, and if they choose to level criticism at him, then they should do the same towards EVERY SINGLE OTHER author and historian, whose views they do not share.
I would appreciate, in the light of all the new historical evidence that has been put forward in Paul Feldman's book, someone to actually retort with some real evidence, and not just weak insults. I have given my email address if they wish to send any opinions to me personally.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22.
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 16:23:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Karen Kelman
Having read the fascinating book by Mr Feldman, I decided to look at your site for other readers opinions.
I was perplexed. What is clearly a brilliant piece of work, containing more new information about Jack the Ripper and, in the same book, the Florence Maybrick Trial, is being debated by petulant children.
It is notable that the argument of the ink and will is again put forward by Mr Harris. Then, so did Mr Feldman. He argued the points fairly.
The last correspondence from Mr Feldman's antagonists on this point does not mention the historical fact that there WAS another will. It is even recorded in the manuscripts of the trial-my true fascination with this subject.
The current communications to your site against Mr Feldman's book seem to be entirely from Mr Harris and friends.
I am now convinced the diary is for real and Mr Harris & co are terrified that it is. That is why they are resulting to personal attacks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23.
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 17:49:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Feldman
I am perplexed...
Once more Melvin Harris has claimed he can name forgers....
Why on earth is he therefore debating the ink and the will. What for?
If he proves the 'forgers', then there is nothing else to debate. Even I will admit that. Contrary to beliefs, I invested in this project, without knowing the outcome. If I would have found the diary was forged, I would have said so, AND WOULD HAVE BEEN THE ONLY PERSON TO HAVE DONE SO.
That was not the case.
Why is Harris even requesting a DNA test if he can prove the forgers?
Now he claims the twelve letters which I TRACKED DOWN at Richmond Chancery Court in Virginia, match the handwriting of the will.
Did he compare them to the Jack the Ripper letter sent from Galashiels in Scotland, as I openly and honestly did? Does he even mention the JTR letter? Why not?
The Maybrick letter on page 276 of my book and the JTR letter on page 277 are undoubtedly written by the same person.
....and Harris knows that by admitting that fact, a fact he has clearly avoided to mention, then his claim of a modern forgery go to the same place as Maybrick.
SIX FOOT UNDER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24.
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 17:50:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mr. Johnson
Editor's Note: I was originally not going to post this, but neither Paul Begg nor Adam Wood had a problem with my doing so and regardless, it will serve well to illustrate the mentality of some of those involved in this debate.
In answer to Adam Wood I state the following. You seem to think that you are the only one right and every body else who disagrees with the diary is wrong. You sir are nothing more than a trouble maker yourself and a hypocrite in every true sense of the word. How long have you been a lackey of Paul Feldman and Paul Begg? This brings me to my next point. Paul Beggs name always pops onto the scene when the name Melvin Harris is mentioned or when Feldmann is in trouble with criticism It would appear that Begg appears like a dog to side with his master with his tale tucked between his legs, I along with others are getting fed up with the name Paul Begg appearing all the time. It would be of benefit to everybody if Wood Begg & Feldman would shut up and put up. One also knows that I am not alone with these thoughts It would appear by your ridiculous comments that you know nothing what so ever about forgery, I found your comments inconstructive childish and it is quite obvious in view of the comments made against Jane Chisholm & the anti maybrick cause, that Adam Wood is a total waste of space and a idiot in the bargain. I have one message for Paul Begg, Take a gun to your head, and pull the trigger. PS Don't forget to load the gun, and your head is that big round thing on top of your neck. I hope this helps you? What you know about JTR is not worth knowing.
Responses to Mr. Johnson's post:
"It's nice to see the anti-Diary critics snapping back with the reasoned and intelligent arguments we have been appealing for." -- Paul Begg
"It's funny how those who go ballistic when confronted with something they don't like immediately lose all sense of grammar..." -- Adam Wood
"I'll use Mr. Johnson's own words to illustrate my personal opinion of this post: "I found your comments inconstructive (sic) [and] (sic) childish... a total waste of space." -- Stephen P Ryder
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25.
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 17:59:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: J Smithers
I have been viewing the final chapter with some interest. In the past I have discussed the matter of Jack the Ripper with Professor David Canter at the dept of psychology Liverpool university. David Canter is one of the countries leading authorities on serial killers, and has in fact aided the police in bringing such men to justice. This man has written on the subject of Jack the Ripper. Professor Canter believes the diary & the maybrick sager to be a hoax, and I agree.
When talking to such men as Professor Canter and leading forensic scientists the opinion being that the diary is indeed a fake. I find it very surprising that the tone of the argument led by Paul Feldman and Paul Begg has managed to reduce itself to such a low level, viewing what they have said on the casebook it come as no surprise to me that they lack the supporters. I am disappointed in the standards shown by such men on the casebook.
Response:
Paul Begg: In reply to J. Smithers I should point out that I am a little baffled by what was meant by the tone of my arguments having reduced itself to such a low level. What low level? However, be this as it may, Professor Canter did not dismiss the "Diary" in his book *Criminal Shadows*, but considered Maybrick on an equal footing with Kosminski, whom he favoured. Following inquiries about his current thinking, he has said that he has an open mind about whether or not the "Diary" is a forgery and has actually asked to see the "Diary" and to make a study of it.
I have learned of Professor Canter's current opinions at second hand, but have every reason to believe my words above to be a fair and honest representation of what he thinks and feels. J Smithers does indeed have a very good point in that the opinions of men like Professor Canter are important in any assessment of the "Diary". If Professor Canter is indeed less dismissive of it than was the impression received by J Smithers, maybe J Smithers would care to re-evalute his/her own conclusions.
J Smithers posting was sensible, but could I please make it clear that I am not advocating James Maybrick as the Ripper, only that the evidence for and against the "Diary" be fairly considered.
26.
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 12:14:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: I.J. Edwards
I find Paul Beggs attitude two faced to say the least one moment he is stating one thing and then he adopts the opposite attitude. One moment he states that certain accusations can damage reputations then he goes on to condemn such action. He then accuses Melvin Harris of being a liar by stating; ' If he can name them ( ie. the forgers ) let him name them.' If it isnt true, perhaps Mr Harris can explain why he lied'. Just because Mr Harris has not named the culprits to date that does not mean to say he is a liar. There could be several good reasons why Mr Harris has not informed Paul Begg of such information. Mr Begg it would appear is no better than a snake in the grass. In relation to my letter, post # 12 Mr Begg stated, 'Can somebody please explain what Ivor Edwards is going on about '. It would appear that Paul Begg is a bit slow on the uptake in more ways than one. He is no more than a self-appointed, self-opinionated ripper expert who does not even know the name of the man he is supposed to be a expert on ! He has met Anne Graham many times and he does not know if she is lying ! Then he asks, ' How does anyone really know if they are being lied to or not !'. Some slueth you are Mr Begg. If you have to ask such questions it just goes to show that you do not know what you are about. It also shows how gullible you really are. The ripper A to Z you helped compile is full of mistakes in fact I saw a request which asked readers to contact the publishers and inform them about mistakes made which would then be rectified. Some recommendetion that is for such a book. It makes me wonder how many such mistakes you have made while researching for Paul Feldman. If you had any common sense you would not be making such a big deal of asking Mr Harris to name the forgers, for if you or others like you were any good at what you do then you would know who they were without having to ask others. It is plain to see that you are a cowboy when it comes to JTR.For the record why dont you use the name vpisces any more when leaving certain messages!! You are Paul Feldman can fool some of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time. but you cant fool all of the people all of the time and only a fool like yourself would try. Both you and Paul Feldman are a discrace to the profession and I advise those that wish to learn about JTR to turn elsewhere for their knowledge because quite simply you or Mr Feldman have no answers. My advice to you and Mr Feldman is simply this. Go and buy youselves a pair of fire proof suits because the heat in the kitchen is going to increase by dramatic leaps and bounds.People are aware than you and Paul Feldman are trying to discredit Mr Harris because of the stance he has made. All other efforts have failed to win him over, now you try and damage his reputation. Remember what goes around comes around you lacky. You and Mr Feldman will now reap the harvest you have sown, a harvest that you both so richly deserve.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27.
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 13:28:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Melvin Harris
Paul Begg and anyone else interested should read the last section of my reply to Mrs Harrison and Kieth Skinner. I have no intention of naming anyone I have given my reason twice on those statements. The material I have been holding back is simply that involving the diarys printed sources and you will all read them soon.
NOW AVAILABLE: THE MAYBRICK HOAX; A GUIDE THROUGH THE LABYRINTH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28.
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 14:34:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mr. Johnson
I have read Mr Feldmans Book. It does not prove that Anne Graham is related to Florence Maybrick. Neither does it prove that Albert Johnson is connected to Maybrick. The book written by Mr P Feldman along with the Diary does not prove that Maybrick was Jack the Ripper. We have been promised a solution to the riddle only to be left in limbo, and none the wiser.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29.
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 13:37:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Colin Wilson
There have been so many books with titles like Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution, and Jack the Ripper: The Mystery Solved that even the most enthusiastic Ripperologist is likely to groan at a title like Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter. But the reaction would be premature; in this case, I suspect that the title is justified. At the very least, this is one of the most important and definitive books on Jack the Ripper that has yet been written.
In 1992, an out-of-work scrap metal dealer named Mike Barrett approached a literary agent with a handwritten diary signed 'Jack the Ripper.' Internal evidence revealed that it had apparently been written by James Maybrick, a Liverpool cotton merchant who had died in 1889, and whose wife, Florence, had been accused of poisoning him with arsenic. She was sentenced to death, although the sentence was later commuted to fifteen years in prison.
Maybrick was violently jealous of his attractive young wife, who was more than twenty years his junior. When she had learned that he kept a mistress who had borne him five children, she banished him from her bed, and began to have love affairs. The diary seemed to show that Maybrick was the man who killed and mutilated five prostitutes in Whitechapel, London, in 1888, driven by jealousy and drug addiction - he used to sprinkle arsenic on his food like salt.
There was one major problem : the handwriting of the diary was nothing like the only known sample of James Maybrick's handwriting in his will. The Sunday Times, still smarting from its fiasco about the Hitler Diaries, denounced it as a forgery.
A video producer named Paul Feldman succeeded in buying the video rights to the diary, and set out to prove it genuine. He spent tens of thousands of pounds in tracking down the unknown details about Maybrick's life and background, and in trying to find more samples of his handwriting. When he learned that Maybrick had lived and worked in Whitechapel as a young man, and had fathered children by a mistress there, things began to look promising. But his chief problem, of course, was to try and demonstrate where the diary came from.
Mike Barrett claimed he had received it from a friend named Tony Devereux, who had simply told him : 'Do something with it.' Devereux was now dead. Was it possible that the diary had been found by some workman in Maybrick's Liverpool home, Battlecrease House, and passed on to Devereux?
After more than a year of probing, Feldman found what looked like the answer. Barrett's wife Anne confessed that the diary had belonged to her. She and her husband were hardly on speaking terms, due to his alcoholism. But he wanted to become a writer. Anne thought that the diary might provide him with something to do, and asked his friend Tony Devereux to hand it to him.
When Feldman learned that Anne's unmarried name was Graham, he began to see light at the end of the tunnel. Florence Maybrick had called herself Graham after her release from prison. Anne said she had received the diary from her father, who had received it from his father, William Graham. Feldman was convinced that William Graham was one of Maybrick's many illegitimate children. But when he succeeded in interviewing (and taping) Anne's father just before his death from cancer, he was staggered to learn that William Graham had not been a Maybrick; all the evidence pointed to him being the illegitimate child of Florence herself, who had got herself pregnant by a Liverpool ship owner when she was sixteen. It looked very much as if the original owner of the diary was Florence herself.
Feldman's book is a compulsive detective story, describing his quest for the real James Maybrick. He shows beyond all doubt that Florence should never have been convicted - the arsenic found in Maybrick's system was the result of years of 'arsenic eating.' (In small doses it is a stimulant.)
Finally, he found what he had been looking for - samples of Maybrick's handwriting. Not only were they closer to the handwriting of the diary; they bore an incredible resemblance to the handwriting of one of Jack the Ripper's famous letters, the one beginning 'Dear Boss.' The less regular handwriting of the diary can be ascribed to Maybrick's mental state: his manic jealousy, his paranoia and his increasing sadism. Maybrick had been a 'sex maniac' from the beginning, in the sense of being sexually insatiable. The knowledge that his wife was taking lovers while she denied herself to him drove him to a frenzy that had a strong tinge of masochism as well as sadism.
Feldman writes well; his sheer enthusiasm, and his love of the dramatic twist, carries the reader along, even when he is describing obscure details of his research into Maybrick's illegitimate progeny. Unlike most books on the Ripper, which spend three quarters of their length describing the crimes, and the remaining quarter discussing the author's pet theory, this is almost entirely original research, and it devastates the objections of those who think the diary is a modern forgery. As I closed it, my own feeling was that Feldman has taken game, set, and match.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30.
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 18:50:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Feldman
In response to post #28...
Anne Graham has volunteered to have a DNA test as already mentioned on this site. Mr Harris has not, as yet taken me up on my offer. Perhaps you would like to take his place?
Ps You are not related to Albert are you? (joke)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31.
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 23:15:18 +0100
From: Gary Vespucci
I'll keep this blunt. If anyone has any evidence. Any REAL evidence (e.g. NOT the will - if you read the book in question you will see that this has been addressed!) then they should submit this. To all the objectionable, childish, rude and generally desperate entries that have now and again appeared on this page so far, I reply thus:
If you have any proof that Mr Feldman is the liar that you say he is, for goodness sake, show us it and put us out of our misery. The taunting is very BORING.
If you do not, then keep your insults to yourself - they are superfluous to an intelligent debate.
This roughly translates as, and please excuse the vernacular - 'put up or shut up'.
I have no desire to level criticism at ANY individual - this approach just seems fair to me, having read The Final Chapter.
Response from Paul Begg: And so say I, Mr Vespucci. And so say I.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32.
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 09:29:44 +0100
From: Paul Begg
If any reader of the Casebook can detect amid this torrent of incoherent and venomous abuse any legitimate points which they feel it would be worthwhile addressing, perhaps they could let Stephen Ryder know and they can be discussed on this page. Otherwise , all sensible readers of will appreciate that I regard Mr Edwards' remarks, along with those of Mr Johnson (If, indeed, they are not the same AOL member with poor grammar, a penchant for extreme rudeness and a fondness for words like "lackey") beneath contempt and certainly not worthy of the time and trouble of a response.
Responses:
Mr. Johnson: I am writing this letter to try and clarify a few points, or any confusion over the identity of myself. I of course refer to the letter placed on the case book by Mr. Begg, insinuating that I could be the same person as Mr. Edwards. Firstly I find this to be most offensive, and I would appreciate an apology. If Mr. Begg or anyone else feels that my word is not good enough, I would be more than happy to meet any of you face to face, and if Mr. Edwards would like to come along this may help. I hope this would put allot of minds at rest. I am some what surprised that Mr. Edwards has not come to his own defence as of yet, going on past form he tends not to take his time. In light of Mr. Beggs recent accusations, it surely places doubt on whether we can believe anything he writes.
I.J. Edwards: Paul Begg has inferred that I am responsible for post # 32 which appeared on the final chapter. It would have been impossible for me to have sent such a letter at the time stated. I was in the company of several people who are prepared to meet with Mr Begg and explain to him why it would have been impossible for me to have sent that letter. My telephone line has been out of commission hence this is the first opportunity that I have had of defending myself againest such a outlandish accusation. Little does Mr Begg know me for when I send anyone anything I always make sure that it has my signature on it. Mr Begg should opoligise for making such a false accusation. However one lesson has come to the forefront of this situation. It is quite obvious that Mr Begg is less of a detective than he would have us believe. And his abilities as a letter examiner are nil. Such people as this are supposed to know what they are doing in relation to such matters. Talk about the blind leading the blind. I thank Mr Begg in his persistance of proving me right in my statements regarding dirty tricks and incompetent.
Response from Paul Begg:
After all unwarranted and disgusting abuse I and others have been subjected to by Mr Johnson and Mr Edwards, I find their demands for an apology from me to almost be beyond belief. Not, of course, that I actually said they were the same person. I merely observed that certain similarites (which I stated) suggested that they were. Nevertheless, I am happy to apologise for whatever offence this observation may have given.
Would Mr Johnson and Mr Edwards now care to apologise for their extreme and extraordinary rudeness to me?
In the meantime, as I said, if anyone feels that either gentleman has said anything amid their torrents of personal abuse that deserves discussion (or, indeed, can find anything I have said to justify their abuse) perhaps they would be kind enough to communicate with Mr Ryder.
This page is for the discussion of Paul Feldman's book. In the future can Mr Edwards and Mr Johnson restrict their comments to that book, rather than their opinions of my knowledge of the case and abilities to investigate it, and do so in a mature and intelligent fashion without resorting to unwarranted personal insults?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33.
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 18:46:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: I.J. Edwards
Mr Feldman has stated that Anne Graham is prepared to take a DNA test. If the said test was to be undertaken and a positive result obtained in favour of Mr Feldman, then you would appreciate that this in itself would not be proof that the diary was in fact genuine. Neither would it substantiate Maybrick as the Ripper. It would only enforce the belief that Anne Graham was in fact a descendant of Florrie Maybrick. This in turn could then be interpreted by some to mean that Anne Graham had obtained information from her family tree, which was then used as background material for the basis of a forged diary. This would mean that Mr Feldman would be back at square one again. To avoid such a situation may I be so bold as to suggest alternative action. I believe that attention should now be focused on Albert Johnson and the diary itself. For if the diary is proven beyond any shadow of a doubt to be genuine and written by Maybrick then it would stand to reason that he was in fact the Ripper. It would be most appropriate under the circumstances to take the diary to the Home Office laboratory at Lambeth and let them decide on the validity of the diary. The watch could also be tested for validity at the Home Office laboratory. I also feel that a DNA test on Albert Johnson would be most wise. I believe Mr Feldman made a statement at a book signing session in the Portobello Road on January 25th 1995 to the effect that he would indeed pay for DNA testing. The cost of such a test would be less than four hundred pounds Stirling. If these concessions were made by the partys involved then I for one would feel more than confident that the matter can, and should be resolved in the very near future. This is a constructive effort to see the matter resolved once and for all. This method of conciliation is a simple, cheap, and quick solution to the problem faced. It is in the interests of all concerned that no more accusations or suchlike appear on the casebook the bitching must stop. I also sincerely hope common sense will prevail at the end of the day
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
34.
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 08:41:50 +0100
From: Paul Begg
Any assessment of Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter must ultimately rest on whether or not William Graham and Ann Graham are telling the truth or not. If they are not - if the "Diary" is a modern (say post-1987) forgery - then there is no real point in assessing the book. If they are telling the truth - if the "Diary" was composed sometime prior to 1950 - then a myriad of questions present themselves and many of the arguments advanced by Paul Feldman Must be seriously considered.
Of course, many have no interest in the "Diary" - or Paul Feldman's book - if the "Diary" wasn't written by James Maybrick. This is understandable. There is what appears to be a growing number of people, however, who think that even an old forgery has interest - if only because the mystery of who forged it and why may makes a good story in itself. Some people are also interested in the possibility that the "Diary" contains intimate Maybrick family details which could indicate that the "Diary" was written by somebody close to the Maybrick family and may even reflect a genuine tradition that linked James Maybrick with the Ripper murders.
The question of who wrote the document is therefore less important in this respect than the question of when it was written. This is why two claims by Melvin Harris are important and highly relevant to the assessment of Paul Feldman's book. His claim to be (or the implication that he claimed to be) able to name the forgers is vitally important to the dating of the document.
Mr Harris has never denied knowing the identity of the forgers. He has instead refused to name them because the "Diary" was being investigated by Scotland Yard, because unstated legal reasons prevented him from doing so, and because he was awaiting the publication of Paul Feldman's book. Now he says: "I have no intention of naming anyone" (see posting 27). Sadly, since an unsubstantiated claim cannot really be weighed as evidence, there seems to be no alternative but to discard Mr Harris's claim to know the identity of the forgers.
The other claim Mr Harris has made is that all the information in the "Diary" can be derived from no more than three published books. This claim is important because Paul Feldman, Shirley Harrison and others have not been able to find in any published sources certain intimate Maybrick family details (such as confirmation of the Diary's claim that James Maybrick liked to be called Sir Jim) that perhaps suggest an 'inside' diarist. If Melvin Harris can point to a published source for such information then at least this bit of intrigue will be removed. Sadly Melvin Harris has resisted all entreaties to name those three books. Again, then, we have an unsubstantiated claim which we have no alternative but to discard.
So what other evidence is there to point to a 'modern' (that is post 1987) forgery? Or, indeed, to point to a date of composition post-dating 1950, the year William Graham claimed to have been given the "Diary"?
I would appreciate any corrections to what follows, but the best clue to the date of composition so far advanced is the ink test performed for Mr Harris by a highly reputable company called Analysis for Industry. This test revealed that a sample of ink punched from a page of the "Diary" contained a chemical preservative called chloroacetamide. As far as is known this chemical was first used as an ink preservative by a Liverpool-based ink manufacturer called Diamine in 1972. The presence of chloroacetamide in the ink therefore clearly indicates a date of composition post-1972. Or does it?
Tests performed by Leeds University for Shirley Harrison failed to find any chloroacetamide in the ink sample they took from the "Diary" page. Leeds University have defended their tests and even went so far as to suggest that Analysis For Industry may have contaminated their own sample, as, indeed, Leeds had inadvertently contaminated the first sample they tested. Leeds University also seem to have argued that the smaller the quantity of chloroacetamide found in the ink, the less likely it would be that the contaminant would have been detected by the anti-contamination procedures used by Analysis.
In response to this it has been argued that the Leeds tests were deficient and I have to acknowledge that the arguments are persuasive. However, even if it is accepted that chloroacetamide was detected in the ink sample tested by Analysis for Industry, expert opinion seems to be that the possible trace of one very old chemical is weak evidence and far from decisive. According to the Merck Index chloroacetamide dates back to 1857. It isn't known to have been used in inks - though curiously it was used in the cotton trade - but that doesn't rule out the possibility that it was employed by one or more small manufacturers. It could also have found its way into the "Diary" ink by some other means (I understand that it is airborne, hence concerns about chloroacetamide by dermatologists). One authority has even expressed concern about the gelatine in which Mr Harris's ink sample was preserved (apparently gelatine is highly volatile and absorbs anything - did it absorb the chloroacetamide?). On top of all of this, the head chemist at Diamine ink - the man who is the first known to have used chloroacetamide as a preservative in inks and who might be expected to recognise Diamine ink when he saw it - is on record as saying that the "Diary" ink is not Diamine ink.
Thus there seems to be considerable ambiguity and uncertainty surrounding the tests, the results, and whether the results can be taken as proof positive that the "Diary" is of recent composition.
So, when was the "Diary" written? This, I think, is the question to bear in mind when assessing Paul Feldman's book and, I suspect, Melvin Harris's promised paper. If Mr Harris can show a date of composition post-1950, Paul Feldman's arguments won't matter. If he can't, then you have to consider first whether the case for composition prior to 1950 is valid and then whether Paul Feldman has produced enough evidence and argument to suggest that the "Diary" could have its origins within James Maybrick's family. If you answer 'yes' to that question then…. Well, that's a bridge which will have to be crossed when we come to it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35.
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 11:54:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Feldman
In response to post #33...
I find it amusing that excuses are being made prior to Anne Graham even undergoing DNA tests.....
Is there an acceptance in Mr. Edwards correspondence that she may be?
I put forward the following.....
1. You suggest that a DNA test on Anne Graham would only prove that she is a descendant of Florence Maybrick, and NOT that provenance of the diary has been found. Why should you therefore suggest a DNA on Albert Johnson? Why would that prove anything different?
2. You state that a positive DNA between Florence Maybrick/Anne Graham 'could then be interpreted by some to mean that Anne Graham had obtained information....' 'which was then used as background material for the basis of a forged diary.'
Is Mr. Edwards suggesting that Anne Graham forged the diary with family knowledge that James Maybrick WAS the 'Ripper'?
Anne Graham, Michael Barrett and close relatives have had their handwriting compared to the diary. Not one analyst has suggested any remote likeness.
3. Some time ago, Scotland Yard were offered the opportunity of putting the diary through Forensic tests. They declined to do so, on the grounds that 'They would not be involved in a commercial venture...' . BUT...the offer was made. If Mr. Edwards can make arrangements that are confirmed in writing by the Home Office, I know that neither the diaries' owners or Albert Johnson would have any objection to tests being carried out. Indeed, the owners of both artefacts have never resisted any suggestion to authenticate them.
Others, however, do not seem prepared to put their hand in their pocket should they be proved to be wrong.
4. Like Mr. Harris, Mr Edwards claims a DNA test is 'simple' and would cost no more than £400.
Fine, Mr. Edwards. arrange it. For both Anne Graham AND Albert Johnson. You say it is simple. I bow to your expertise of arranging for the dead to be exhumed. I did not find it simple or cheap. You obviously know better.
Rod Green of VIRGIN PUBLISHING LTD. is happy to confirm that should you be able to make such arrangements, then VPL will pay the bill in accordance with the estimation that you have quoted.
5. Finally, you claim on the one hand that this 'is a constructive effort to see the matter resolved once and for all.' Yet, I refer again to my point number 1.
Could you please explain?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36.
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 16:53:40 +1100
From: Jeffrey Harris
Fact - People who believe in the validity of the diary aren't going to be swayed by any arguments here.
Fact - People who don't believe in the validity of the diary aren't going to be swayed by any arguments here.
Fact - Laypeople, like myself aren't being swayed by either side. I am quickly losing respect for a few people I thought were 'masters' of ripperology.
Fact - Accusations on both sides aren't being followed with useful evidence. If someone on either side produces evidence, the other side instantly scream 'FRAUD FRAUD'.
Fact - This debate is going nowhere. Everyone should agree to disagree at the moment, and let time be the judge.
Opinion - I hope that people can now take a step back, and have a look at what they have written. Try to read what you said, from the point of view of your 'opponent'. You are all sounding very silly. This is beginning to look like alt.flame.
Opinion - If the diary IS a fraud, it will be found out. If it ISN'T proof will come. (We might have to wait another 109 years though)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
37.
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 06:48:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Feldman
Jeffrey Harris points are valid.
I can only emphasise that after nearly five years of scientific and historical study, there is not a shred of evidence against the authenticiity of the document or the watch.
Furthermore, as my book clearly shows, much of so-called 'Ripperological belief' has been overturned with hard facts.
Mr.Harris is correct in questioning his mentors. Something which both Keith Skinner and Paul Begg encouraged me to do, by NOT accepting secondary sources.
There are only three possibilities for both the watch and the diary. I cannot emphasise this enough.
1. A Modern Forgery
Not one scientist has said either artefact is modern. Moreover, there would be a vast amount of people involved in a conspiracy of a nature that would be mind-boggling. And..where would the information contained in the document have come from? Nobody saw the Maybrick files at the PRO (which support detail within the document) ...save for Roger Wilkes...until AFTER the diary was made public.
2. An Old Forgery
Most 'Ripperologists agree that the information of the RIPPER alone could NOT have been known before 1989. (Kellys Heart) or 1987 (Catherine Eddowes..the empty tin match box). The arguments on Maybrick are as valid for an old forgery as a modern one.
3. Genuine
For those who have read my book, perhaps they would try and contrive a scenario as to WHO, WHEN AND HOW the document could have been faked.
The diary makes sense of many Ripper conundrums, as well as giving us the solution to why the 'Florence Maybrick Trial' became such an International debate lasting fifteen years and solves what was then known as THE MAYBRICK MYSTERY
Response from Jeffrey Harris:
Thank you for your thought provoking reply to my message.
In this reply, you state that no evidence against the authenticity of the Diary or watch has been found. I believe that evidence has been tendered, evidence that you refute.
I would agree with your rebuttal to a point.
Consider this... If you produce any evidence as to the diarys' authenticity, your opponents will decry it, and argue irrelevant points.
>From what I have seen (admittedly from the outside looking in) the opposite is also true. This is because, as far as I know, no evidence has been found by either side that totally vindicates their argument IN OTHER PEOPLES MINDS. Its not good enough to prove something to yourself, you have to prove it to others.
I agree that noone should ever accept a secondary source, but should, if possible, investigate 'facts' for themselves. I have to say though, that personally, I have made many errors in learning about this crime. I read 'JTR: Americas' first serial killer', and formed the opinion that Tumbelty was the ripper. That was, until I found out that he was in gaol at the time. People have to make decisions with the facts at hand. At the moment, I don't believe that there is enough evidence to believe in the diary and the watch, as actual 'ripper' relics.
You say that there are three possibilities for the diary and watch. What about, the possibitiy that the diary/watch is old, but the writing is new. It is an obvious possibility, that has to be considered (I apologise if you actually meant this anyway.)
I disagree with the statement "Most 'Ripperologists agree that the information of the RIPPER alone could NOT have been known before 1989.". The fact is that the information was out there. Just we didn't know about it. It is entirely possible that someone out there knows exactly what happened in 1888, with evidence unimaginable to us, who either dosn't care, or doesn't want anyone to know about it. Or, this evidence could be sitting, forgotten, in some old attic, just waiting for someone to find it. Or, maybe there is nothing to be found. It would be wrong to assume that the information was NOT known before 1989.
I wont pretend that I have a clue either way about the diary or watch, I'm just saying that the answer is nowhere near as cut and dried as many people seem to think.
An ammendum to my reply...
I stated that "...and formed the opinion that Tumbelty was the ripper. That was, until I found out that he was in gaol at the time...". This was a mistake, I meant Dr Cream. I made a mistake in a paragraph about making mistakes. Amazing! Of course, Dr. Cream wasn't the subject of "JTR: Americas First Serial Killer" either. I do believe that my basic points still stand though.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
38.
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 14:11:25 +0100 (BST)
From: Andrew Lorne Morrison
If the Maybrick Diary is forgery and if it was forged in the 1950's or earlier then this raises the question of why it was forged. The first book in english about the ripper was Leonard Matters' "The Mystery of Jack the Ripper". This was not followed by an avalanche of books. Indeed, the ripper book industry did not take off until the 1960's and as we all know it has now reached the point where there are books coming out of the woodwork and most of them are junk. My point is that if the diary was forged c1950 then it is not likely to have been done for commercial reasons, unless the forger was a farsighted business man.
If the diary was a forgery by somebody who believed or knew that Maybrick was the ripper and wanted to point the finger at him the why was the diary not unleashed on the public until the 1990's?
If the diary was just a forgery for fun again we must ask the question why was it kept hidden for so long? There is little point in concocting such a thing unless people are going to see and be fooled by it.
A believe that the diary is a modern forgery created after 1987. However I could be wrong (Shock horror! Somebody in this rather squalid debate admitting that they are not infallible and could be mistaken!) If the diary was created befor 1987 then I think that it is more likely to be genuine than to be an earlier forgery (Again I could be wrong).
On another note why has there been so much debate on the authenticity of the Maybrick Diary while the Swanson Marginalia and the Littlechild Letter, both as important as the diary, were accepted as genuine with barely a murmer? After all I would imagine that a single letter or a few scribblings in a book would be much easier to forge than a diary and should therefore be more suspect.
One final point. If Melvin Harris does know the identity of those that forged the diary surely he should give these names to the police or otherwise he will be aiding and abetting forgers. If the police know the names of these people and have taken no action against them then it suggests that they are not forgers.
The Heart of the Matter...
One thing that suggests that the Maybrick diary is a forgery is something which at first sight supports it being genuine. This is the matter of Mary Kelly's heart. The rediscovered medical report shows that Kelly's heart had been removed. This diary mentions Kelly's heart being missing. If the diary had come to light before the report had been rediscovered then it would have been dismissed as a forgery because the general thinking at the time was that Kelly was pregnant (she wasn't) and that no organs had been removed (they had ie the heart). It is a coincidence (and therefore suspicious) that the diary which appears a few years after the report is rediscovered mentions the most significant fact in that report. Diary supporters may well argue that this shows the diary to be genuine but it equally suggests that it is a modern forgery making the most of the latest information.
Response from Paul Begg:
You are absolutely correct in pointing out that a pre-1950 date for composition raises the question of "why" the Diary was forged, why anyone would have forged it prior to the surge of interest in the Ripper in the 1960s, and why it was not until the 1990s that its existence became known.
In the decade between the publication of Matters' book in 1929 and Stewart in 1939, there was quite a lot of interest in the Ripper. We saw the publication of Edwin T. Woodhall's book, Walter Dew's "I Caught Crippen" (with its one-third devoted to the Ripper), H.L. Adam's The Trial of George Chapman with the claims attributed to Abberline, and Benjamin Leeson's Lost London; also the emergence of the Lees story, the Dutton story and the Spicer story. The 1930s certainly look a likely decade for newspaper interest in the Ripper.
For whatever reason the "Diary" was forged, it presumably wasn't used because we'd know about it if it had been (unless it was used for a private purpose such as blackmail). We can speculate about why it wasn't used, but an obvious one would be the build up to and outbreak of WWII and the possibility that the forger was killed during the conflict.
If we assume that the "Diary" was forged for a purpose but never in fact used, then it eventually passed into the hands of William Graham and thence to his daughter, both of whom accepted it as genuine. Thus we would have an answer to why it didn't become public until the 1990s and we can see the "Diary" as a forgery that sat around like a forgotten time bomb just waiting to go off. I would be very interested in knowing of any such cases where something like this has happened..
Turning to the interesting question of why the authenticity of the Maybrick "Diary" is debated and the Swanson marginalia and Littlechild Letter accepted almost without comment. Considerable doubt surrounds the provenance of the "Diary". No such doubt exists concerning the Swanson marginalia. We know exactly where it has been, the owners are above reproach, the marginalia is part of a body of Swanson's papers, and a Home Office document examiner has confirmed that the handwriting is Swanson's. I believe there is likewise no serious question surrounding the provenance of the Littlechild Letter, which was bought as part of a collection of correspondence by G.R. Sims from a highly reputable dealer.
As for the question of the heart, the point is a perfectly valid one. Not every argument supports an 'old forgery' theory, just as not every argument supports a 'modern forgery' theory. But on page 62 of his book Paul Feldman states that the diarist did NOT claim to have taken away the heart, but in fact stated 'I took none of it away with me.'
I hope this at least provides a little more food for thought and may I just simply observe that it is a pleasure to see such constructive comments appearing on this page.
Response from Paul Feldman:
And so say I, Mr Begg, And so say I.....
39.
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:50:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Butler
Mr Feldman, I have read Mr Wilson's review and to my dismay other reviews concerning your book.Mr Wilson's review was excellent!What I find puzzling with all the other arguments condemning the diary is that they seem to miss a few facts;or for that matter they want to ignore some interesting points in the diary itself.You mentioned them in your rebuttle to "his name escapes me" when you mentioned the "tin matchbox empty"and let me add the five original murders.The empty matchbox was not known to the general public until the 1980's;and prior to the 1950's before Macnaghten's personal papers were revealed it was "common knowledge"that JTR murdered more than the five women!Throw in the small yet largely telling clues of arsenic and strychnine abuse(the severe changes in mood and remnants of charcoal found in the diary)and one has a huge problem trying to expose the diary as a fake!Anyone can try to prove the ink and paper does or does not fit the time period!But can anyone really duplicate what it was like to be an abuser of "modern times'"deadliest poisons??!!I do not think so!To think that some person or persons can describe the "powers given to them"so convincingly of a 19th century addiction(when we in the 20th century see certain death) and reveal "modern facts" at the same time leads me to believe that the writer was and certainly is the number 1 suspect in my mind!! Being a pharmacist(druggist)for nearly two decades-- I for one have never heard of arsenic or strychnine abuse!Nor would I even think that such an abuse was possible!! Mr Feldman,in closing I feel many of the doubters are really missing the important facts concerning this diary!Looking past the physical aspects of the diary itself one must surely see that the facts, mindset,and habits of the person who wrote it surely does not belong in our late century!To do so one would have to be a historian of late 19th century drug abuse and privy to the most modern knowledge we have of the case of JTR(before becoming public knowledge!)I don't know about anyone else but that is some tall order for any common folk to accomplish-let alone stump various experts for four years or more!! Respectfully yours,David Butler
Response from Paul Begg:
I am sure Paul Feldman will respond to you and I know that Shirley Harrison will also find your observations of considerable interest. Dr David Forshaw 'a specialist consultant in addiction at the Maudsley Psychiatric Hospital in London''(Harrison, pg. 10) was also impressed by the knowledge of arsenic addiction and its effects as presented in the "Diary". He was also of the opinion that finding the necessary source material (documents, not arsenic) to gain such knowledge wasn't easy either. This is open to question, it being widely reported at the time of Florence Maybrick's trial that James was an arsenic eater, but I find it very interesting that two knowledgeable people are both impressed by the "mindset" of Maybrick portrayed in the "Diary". This is something which perhaps only an expert in such matters could detect - and, whether or not it is accepted as indicating that the "Diary" is genuine, it certainly raises the question of who could have forged the "Diary". Are we indeed looking at an obvious and inept modern forgery as has been claimed?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40.
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 14:37:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: I.J. Edwards
I have been informed by the Home Office that they are prepared to examine the Maybrick Diary. I have agreed to send them photocopy's of the diary and a copy of Maybricks handwriting. They in turn will then send me the estimate of the cost of the work to be undertaken. I have contacted the office of Rod Green, of Virgin Publishing and I am awaiting confirmation that Mr Green is prepared to pay the sum that I quoted for Mr Johnson to take a DNA test. The Home Office are also prepared to examine the watch that is alleged to be the watch of Jack the Ripper. This matter can be laid to rest in a very short period of time if the owner of the diary is prepared to let the matter rest with the Home Office. My priority at the moment is to have the above dealt with thus ending this saga one way or another. Is this not what everyone would like to see happen ?
Response from Paul Feldman:
"I would be grateful if Mr Johnson could explain what forensic evaluation of the diary could be done from a photocopy?"
Response from Ivor Edwards:
In reply to post 40 written by myself Paul Feldman refers to me as Mr Johnson. He then goes on to add; what forensic evaluation of the diary could be done from a photycopy ? Firstly I am not Mr Johnson and I would like you to apologize for insinuating that I am. Either Mr Feldman is trying to be funny or he is paying no attention to what has been written on the final chapter. The Home Office do not need photycopys for forensic evaluation ( ie. ink tests ). They have another purpose for wishing to see photocopys. At the moment all is being performed on a need to know basis, and Mr Feldman and Mr Begg do not need to know at this stage. I have been informed that a letter from the Home Office will be sent to myself confirming that they are indeed prepared to perform tests on the diary. I will foward this letter to go on the final chapter when it is recieved. A reference was made on the final chapter in relation to Mr Harris and friends voicing their opinions. Out of 42 letters that have appeared on this chapter 22 have been written by Mr Feldman and Paul Begg with a further 8 coming from their camp making a total of 30 Mr Begg is aquainted with more than 2 people who have written letters on the final chapter. As far as I am aware Mr Harris has not met one person who has wrote a letter in his defence on the final chapter. I have never met Mr Harris but I have spoken to him over the phone. These facts show the true situation and prove the opposite to what some would have us believe.
Response from Paul Feldman:
I apologize for referring to you as Mr. Johnson. As the site shows, I was not alone in making this error.
In the mean time, perhaps you would like to take note that my surname contains the letter D. (not as shown in your correspondence No 12). An apology is not necessary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
41.
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:27:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jtrfan@aol.com
After reading the letters posted to this site, I have to express my disgust with the ridiculous behavior of so-called Ripper experts. The camaraderie that exists between people of like interest has always been the hallmark of the Ripper circle. I can't believe people I have met and discussed Ripper topics with have been reduced to such scathing accusations. It is puzzling and I never imagined I would have to address such an issue. Professionalism requires professional conduct, regardless of personal animosity. I can understand the high emotions attached to this topic, but it is doubtful that anyone can prove anything about JTR without hard evidence. The only evidence we can have at this point is written; hidden letter, note or, dare I say it? a diary. My personal feeling is that the diary is not genuine. That is not a reflection of the research undertaken by Paul Feldman, nor is it a reflection of the accusations leveled against Melvin Harris. I would like to see all parties involved do as they have proposed. A reference was made concerning "friends of Melvin Harris" coming to his defense. I have not had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Harris, but I have met Adam Wood, Paul Begg and other "Ripper people" at a meeting in March 1997. I found them to be pleasant people and their comments on this page are puzzling. The point I am trying to make is that we are all interested in this subject, deserve to be heard and respected for our opinion, if not agreed with. I feel the burden of proof is on the author of a work. Complete, detailed research is called for and Paul Feldman should be willing to put forward his evidence. DNA tests, reports about ink and paper and handwriting analysis should have been completed PRIOR to publication. At this late date, I too would be nervous about the findings. Happy hunting.
Response from Paul Begg:
I am glad you enjoyed meeting us Adam and myself in March and I am especially pleased that you found us pleasant people. We, too, value the camaraderie of Ripper research, which is why I am concerned by your posting which seems to suggest that we have resorted to scathing accusations (whereas we feel that we have been the victims of them). I have reviewed postings by myself and the single posting by Adam and I can only wonder what it is that we have said that justified the sort of attacks we have suffered. Again, I am sure I can speak for Adam when I say that nothing malicious was ever intended by either of us in anything we have said and we apologise if anything we have said has been so taken. My sole purpose in contributing to this page has been in an effort to set some parameters for the discussion of Paul Feldman's book, rather than have the Maybrick "Diary" simply dismissed without reason.
Just to clarify one small point, tests of various sorts have been conducted and were conducted prior to the publication of Paul Feldman's book and, indeed, prior to the publication of Shirley Harrison's, and usually the results have been ambiguous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42.
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 05:23:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Feldman
In response to post #41...
Clearly, this JTR fan has not yet read my book, which contains more original research than any other JTR book.
It also contains the results from all the scientific evidence and debates all the known arguments (at the time of writing) against the diary. The book does not shirk its' responsibility.
A DNA test was suggested by ME to determine as a FACT a relationship between Florence Maybrick and Anne Graham, and enquiries were made.
There seems to be a naive belief that one simply goes to the authorities in Conneticut and demands that a body buried in South Kent 56 years ago is exhumed in order to satisfy a debate on the Internet site!!!
There are those who accept that Anne IS a descendant of Florence Maybrick and that Albert Johnson is a descendant of James Maybrick, and that knowledge handed down through generations merely fuelled the fire for a forgery!!!!! THe mind boggles.
No, Sir.
I believe my book disproves THE MODERN FORGERY
I believe my book disproves AN OLD FORGERY
There is only one other possibility.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
43.
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 21:48:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Feldman
Having re-read the constructive letters from Jeffrey Harris and Andrew L. Morrison, I would like to point out the following...
1. An 'old' watch with modern inscription and/or an 'old' diary with modern writing, would fall into the category of a modern forgery, as far as I am concerned. Scientists that have examined both have, at the very least confirmed that both are 'old'.
Not one scientist has been prepared to state that either were created in or after 1987/9, a crucial date for historians ..... and that even includes AFI ( see other correspondence on this site).
2. There is a vast amount of knowledge in the 'diary' of James Maybricks' life. Knowledge supported not by books, but by the Home Office Files and Private correspondence found by my research team in Richmond Chancery Court, VA, USA and Wyoming University, USA. We checked that, in each instance, these documents had not been seen previously. The Home Office Files were the only ones that had....by Roger Wilkes...who has publicly stated his DISBELIEF in the diary.
So, Jeffrey Harris was right. The information was out there. But nobody had seen it, as my book proves. I am sure that Paul Begg can confirm that the origins of certain 'Ripper' information, whilst 'out there' was discovered by reputable people giving the dates that have set the historical barometers.
But let us not forget that some have described the diary as an 'amateurish hoax' that could have been concocted 'in about ten days'.
As far as Andrew is concerned....he has homed in on one of topics that impressed me so early on in my research. Mary Kelly's heart.
I remember meeting Paul Begg at Potters Bar station, telling him that the diary (explains ) the conundrums and conflicting reports surrounding the debate of the'missing organ'. My book debates this matter in some detail having scoured all original material.
I would like to say how delighted I am that this site is beginning to display correspondence from individuals who are giving considered and serious thought to the subject. I will always respond to ANY sensible question on my book, the diary and the watch.
I will sign off by referring to Andrew's point of a forgery circa 1950 or earlier.
Other than Kelly's heart and Catherine Eddowes 'empty tin match box', where did the reference to the 'Eight Little Whores' poem, clearly echoed in the diary, come from? It was not published until 1959.
Paul H. Feldman
NOTE; Earlier correspondence on this site has suggested that knowledge of 'Mary Kelly's heart' is simply due to an interpretation of the phrase in the diary 'No heart, No heart'.
WRONG.
Bond's report was not published until 1989. He claimed that one of Kelly's breasts were left by her feet.
A line in the diary, (that was crossed out) stated...
'I thought of leaving them by the whores feet....'
Just Luck?
Response from Paul Begg:
Perhaps Paul Feldman's point here requires a little more clarification.
Late in 1987 Scotland Yard recovered various documents which included photographs of the Ripper victims and Dr. Bond's report of the autopsy conducted on Mary Kelly. This report noted: "The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent."
That the heart had been removed from the body was already well known, it having been widely reported in the press at the time of the murders. However, in Dr. Bond's report he stated where the murderer had placed various organs, but he did not specify the location of the heart. This led some people to accept that the heart had been taken away by the murderer (see Fido, Martin. The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1989 (revised paperback pg. 94). Other people picked up on this and noted that the "Diary" appeared to refer to Kelly's missing heart: "May God forgive me for the deeds I commited on Kelly. No heart no heart". They argued that this information could only have been known by the murderer (see Harrison, Shirley. The Diary of Jack the Ripper. London: Smith Gryphon, 1993. Pg.170) because missing heart wasn't public information until 1987.
Others felt that on the contrary it showed that the "Diary" had been composed after the recovery of Dr. Bond's report in 1987 (see Harris, Melvin. The True Face of Jack the Ripper. London: Michael O'Mara Books, 1994 Pg. 198: "The overwhelming verdict of all who have considered this diary is that it is a modern fake, created after 1987.").
However, the "Diary" also contains the following lines concerning Kelly's breasts:
I thought of leaving them by the whores feet
but the table was bear
so I went and left them there
Prior to the recovery of Dr. Bond's report by Scotland Yard in late 1987, it was accepted that Kelly's breasts had been placed on the bedside table. This was what had been widely reported in the press at the time (see The Times, 10 November 1888, among other newspapers, where it was reported: 'The kidneys and heart had also been removed from the body and placed on the table by the side of the breasts').
This posed the following question: if a forger had used the Bond report as a source document, as perhaps indicated by the reference to the missing heart, then surely he would have followed Dr. Bond who said that one breast was placed by the right foot and the other under the head. Does the diarist's following of the traditional placement of the breasts on the table therefore indicate that he/she did not use Bond's report? If so, could this mean that the "Diary" was composed prior to 1987?
Paul Feldman has now made it clear that the diarist did not claim to have taken away the heart - "I took none of it (the body) away with me" (Feldman pg. 62). The supposed reference to the missing heart therefore does not indicate either knowledge known only to the murderer or a post-87 composition of the "Diary". That Dr. Bond's report wasn't used by the diarist is also indicated by the traditional placement of the breasts on the bedside table.
But some Casebook readers may have noted that the diarist made reference to the intention of leaving the breasts by the feet and they may choose to ponder why, of all the places in Kelly's room where the diarist could have claimed to have left a breast, one was found by Dr Bond in exactly the place where the diarist says he thought of leaving one. Maybe the murderer did indeed plan to leave the breasts at Kelly's feet, but forgot where he had in fact placed them and followed the newspaper accounts instead. Maybe this is a clear pointer to the "Diary" being genuine. On the other hand, of course, it could be luck, or sheer coincidence, or just a totally unimportant detail.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
44.
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 22:23:14 +0100
From: David A.Rose
Having read The Final Chapter, I am not surprised that other authors are so antagonistic towards the writer.
No one has produced any evidence to disprove the facts that Feldman produced to confirm that Maybrick was the Ripper, therefore, there is no further need for any more books on the subject. I certainly won't buy any.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
45.
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 10:26:00 GMT
From: Bert Coules
I was delighted to find your Jack the Ripper site, but I read with dismay the seemingly endless torrent of name-calling and childishness on the pages devoted to the new "Final Chapter" book. Perhaps you should consider splitting the material into two sections: worthwhile debate (for those readers with a general interest in the Ripper crimes) and cliquish in-fighting (for members of what seems to be a private inner circle).
Response from Editor:
I agree wholeheartedly, and have made a decision to post only comments germane to the subject at hand from now on. No longer will any personal attacks be granted a voice on the Conference. I do apologize to our readers for letting this debate get out of hand.
Response from Paul Begg:
Stephen Ryder's comment here is very welcome, but no apology is necessary. In the current issue of Ripperologist (issue 13) the editor, Paul Daniel, introduced an account of a second visit to see Paul Feldman with cautionary preface which included the observation that "Accusations of trickery, fakery, and all other kinds of falsehoods and dirty dealings have already been aimed at Paul Feldman in the past three years..." Casebook readers can now see the sort of comments directed at Paul Feldman and Shirley Harrison and they may find the examples instructive if they sense any raw nerves displayed in the book or when reading responses on the Casebook. Nevertheless, there is now no justification for further postings of the kind witnessed here, nor do they have a place in such a quality site, and I am grateful for your decision to ban them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
46.
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 19:10:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mike Fellows
I can truly say that it is by far the most rational, sturdy explanation I have encountered ( and this is from someone who took the Maybrick Diary with a heap of salt).
I read the book in approx 1.5 days and found it totally enthralling from start to finish.
Once again thanks for the best read I've ever had !!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
47.
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 13:50:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jtrfan@aol.com
Glad to see there are still people out there willing to debate the Ripper and not resort to any personal attacks. I am waiting for a copy of Paul Feldman's book to arrive at my local (backwoods!!) bookstore, and from the comments I have seen on this site from people who have read it, I have quite a treat in store. Could Jack have been found? I do have some questions concerning motive, etc. If the Ripper killed because of a poor relationship with "Bunny," why not kill women who were looked like her or in his own area? I'm sure the book will answer my questions, but I am really curious about this book and can't wait to get an answer. Thanks for responding to salient comments, I hope to see much more discussion in the future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
48.
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 97 23:57:38 PDT
From: Dan Mitchell
This is the first time I have written on this subject, but having read most of the last 20 years JTR books I have to say that the two which most impressed me so far have been the DIARY and Paul's latest work. I'll give a considered reply on the PF's book later,but --
The "Diary --" whoever wrote it, is SUPERBLY written - if fiction, I have never read anything like it ! While it appears to be a short simple document, in reality it is packed with detail, and has a ring of truth about it. A whole team of Ripperologists would surely be needed to concoct such a document as the Diary. The arsenic addiction detail alone is remarkable - where could this detail possibly have come from, if not from the participant ?
Paul Feldman's book - well it sure contains a lot of original research, some of it confusion - I feel it needed some family trees to explain the various Maybrick descendents/relatives. It deserves sober assesment - not dismissal.
So you guys - let's stop the bile, and produce a sober refutation if you can.
Response from Paul Feldman:
Thankyou for your constructive comments.
The 'family tree' was not something that I, nor my colleagues, ignored. Indeed, the MAYBRICK family tree alone covers my front living room floor...and that WITHOUT the illegitimate lines...
Nevertheless, Virgin have agreed to publish a 'LIST OF CHARACTERS' in the paperback edition stating the individuals connection to the events of the time.
I note your comments that if the diary was a work of fiction, that it would need a team of 'Ripperologists'...a conclusion I came to early on...what about the team of 'Maybrickians'?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
49.
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 08:39:57 +0100
From: Paul Begg
First, although it has become convenient to talk about a pro-"Diary" camp and an anti"Diary" camp, there aren't really any camps at all. There are just two extreme points of view. One extreme is represented by Shirley Harrison and Paul Feldman, who believe that the "Diary" is genuine. The other extreme is represented by Melvin Harris, who believes the "Diary" is a modern forgery and is by far its most vociferous critic. The rest of us are in between, listening to both sides and trying to make sense of the various and often conflicting arguments and evidence.
The problem to head off at the pass concerns any tests likely to be done on the "Diary". Paul Feldman does not own the "Diary" and cannot sanction any tests done upon it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50.
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 11:40:47 +1100
From: Jeffrey Harris
I have read with interest Paul Feldmans' reply to my messages. I now have a few more points to make.
1. If the ripper diary is a forgery, it isn't a bad one. When it first appeared it was quickly dismissed as an 'obvious fraud', and I purchased it only to round out my collection of ripper related books. I never seriously considered Maybrick as a possibility. I allowed myself to be led by the beliefs of experienced ripperologists. I'm not saying now that it isn't a forgery, I'm just saying that Maybrick deserves serious consideration as a suspect. If the diary was an 'obvious fraud', surely the knock out blow would have been delivered by now. There has been consideration given to many suspects that can only be described as 'unlikely', by even the kindest person. Why not give consideration to Maybrick?
2. If it isn't a forgery, people will always believe that it is. There is no changing this. It is human nature to believe in your own argument, in the face of all evidence. People still believe that Elvis is alive!
3. First the reference to a heart was given as proving the validity of the diary, now it is seen as meaning something totally different. Couldn't this be the case in much more areas of the diary?
4. You say that the information was out there, but that nobody had seen it. I'll give you a hypothetical example. Isn't is possible, that before the bombing of London, during WWII, that there was plenty of information of the ripper killings, and possibly James Maybrick that while not widely known, was still 'in circulation'? And that this information was destroyed during the blitz? Of course it is. It is more than likely that this didn't happen, but I'm just making the point that in almost 110 years, anything could have happened.
A final comment. As I have stated before, I am only a layman, when it comes to knowledge on the ripper case, so maybe this has already been covered... If I was forging a diary I would include a murder not listed anywhere, and give the full details of it, time, place, and how I dumped the body in the Thames, and how mad I was when no fuss was made in the papers. I'd put this killing just before the Mary Kelly slaying, thus neatly explaining the long gap between the 'double event' and her murder. It would then be seen as proof that the diary was genuine because "Why would I have put something in the diary that couldn't be checked." If I could think of something like this, surely a person, bent on forging a document, would think of something more devious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
51.
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 07:17:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Feldman
Imagine my utter astonishment when I learnt today that Ivor Edwards was planning to have his OWN book on Jack the Ripper published next year...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
52.
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:57:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Feldman
It is refreshing to see the thought process that Mr. Harris is going through. It is reminiscent of the debate carried out by Ripperologists in the early days....
Let us examine the possibiltity of the info being 'out there' pre 1950....
1. All newspapers still exist. They were not destroyed. Indeed, technology has allowed us greater access to them now than ever before.
2. Possibly, Home Office and/or Police Documents were destroyed during the blitz, or. indeed, for any reason. But access to such documents would be limited to very few people and very important people.
One or more would need to 'mentally' put the cases of James Maybrick and Jack the Ripper together and HOPE that nothing is discovered to disprove this 'hoax'. Then...they do not bother to impress their work onto the world... but instead, these important people seek out Anne Graham's family to pass it on to ! !???? Graham being the surname that Florence used when she was released from prison in 1904.
It was once mentioned to me that Graham is a name used by many.... I responded that well over 99% of the western world DO NOT USE IT.
A Forger, modern or contemporary, had historical facts work in his/hers/their favour that 'no self-respecting hoaxer could ever possibly expect to have' (Colin Wilson).
The worst person in the world to choose would be James Maybrick. A man that, as a victim, had his life well chronicled to be checked by historians all over the world. If Maybrick was NOT the Ripper, science would not even come into it. Historical references would have been found by now to disprove the documents authenticity... not about 'JACK' but the classified movements of Maybrick....
Look at the coincidences OUTSIDE of a forgers control...
The first ten that come into my head are....(in no particular order)
1. That Jack can be formed from the first two and last two letters of the author's name
2. That 'FM' is on the wall of Millers Court
3. That a J and a M were found on the envelope at the scene of Annie Chapmans murder scene
4.That the handwriting of James Maybrick and a Jack the Ripper letter are identical.
5. That the author of such letter claims he is visiting...'The Tweed Factories' (as a cotton merchant would)
6. That the author of another letter signed Jack the Ripper was sent to the police from New York in October (on his way to Philadelphia)...predicting that their would be no more murders for a while (because of where the author was.... James Maybrick went from New York to Philadelphia regulary to visit his wife's lawyers.
7. That James Maybrick did live in Whitechapel.
8. That Maybrick worked in Cullum Street, on the edge of the Minories, and very close to Whitechapel (up until the time that he died....GUSTAVE A WITT)
9. That the Duke of Clarence, Queen Victoria, Masonry, A cover up and J.K Stephen ALL connect to James Maybrick. Either directly or through his brother, Michael.
10. That Florence's mother DID threaten Queen Victoria to make public what she knew about James Maybrick unless her daughter was set free.
(Why, if the Ripper was not Maybrick, could the Queen give a damn what was said about him?)
As my book shows, I could go on and on....
NO FORGER IS THAT LUCKY
ps I have sent my comments re Mary Kelly's Heart to Stephen P. Ryder. I trust he will post them in due course
Mr. Feldman's comments on the heart are as follows:
I found that the entry in the diary re Mary Kelly was one of the most persuasive in favour of its' authenticity.
The entry begins.....
I have read about my latest...my God the thoughts....
NOW, every paper stated that the breasts were on the table. Let's face it, in 20th century terms, whoever the Ripper was, was out of his frigging box that night.
Yet something is niggling away at the author....and two or three pages on, an attempt to write poetry is crossed out |
|
|
|
|
