|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
McCormick's Hoax, Plus Gullibility
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Media: General Discussion:
McCormick's Hoax, Plus Gullibility
Author: Melvin Harris
Monday, 03 May 1999 - 06:38 pm |        | Moving home has made it more than difficult for me to counter the absurdities prompted by my McCormick item. And since then we have had a further bout of dire nonsense. But, for those interested in hard facts and not slimy smears and sneers, here are some things worth remembering.
My McCormick exposure has been hailed by a number of well-informed authors as a welcome, long-overdue and definitive investigation. One writes: "It is a major contribution to Ripper research." But in his first comments on my piece the ever-grudging Begg states: "...most and perhaps all that Melvin has written is well-known." Now before fallacies consolidate into myths let me record that this claim is false. The only points well-known in that piece were
A. The photographic absurdities;
B. the alterations to the 'Ochrana Gazette' text;
C. the time-error in naming Petrograd;
D. that the 'Eight little whores' poem was bogus.
And these are known only because I brought them together in my "BLOODY TRUTH" of 1987. But all the rest of my evidence is new to the vast majority of the reading public; it is conclusive and it is devastating. (I did give the 'A to Z' people a small preview of some of my material and included a gloss of some of it on an earlier Internet entry, but this does not merit the description 'well-known'. I wish it was, but it isn't!)
And now I see that Begg has been saying that in commenting on my work he was "... merely offering some additional information for those who might be interested..." But why intervene simply to offer partial, misleading information? In his original posting Begg quotes McCormick as writing of me "As to H.L. Adam whom he mentions, I have never even heard of him." It then took Peter Birchwood's intervention to prise from Begg the basic and essential information that McCormick HAD in fact referred to H.L. Adam several times in his book. So why did Begg leave these damning facts out of his initial offering? In itself this proves that, by then, McCormick was either lying like mad or was, at least, well out of touch with reality (which I doubt). An honest objective observer would have pointed this out AT ONCE and drawn the inevitable conclusions. But Begg did not. So is it any wonder that I have no trust in his standards and regard his conduct and ideas as unhelpful and time-wasting and bordering on the sneaky?
Since not everyone has a copy of McCormick's book let me state that his Bibliography lists H.L. Adam's "Police Encyclopaedia" and H.L. Adam's "Trial of George Chapman". His index shows Adam mentioned on pp 108, 188-91, and 192. While his text includes a THREE PAGE discussion of Adam's theories about Chapman. It opens: "But what exactly were the grounds for believing that Klosowski was the 'Ripper'? H.L. Adam summed them up in his book on the trial of George Chapman and succeeded in building up a powerful case against the Pole...." From that point on McCormick not only deals with all the major arguments used by Adam but actually faults him for being inaccurate!
SO WHATEVER HE LATER WROTE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY AFFECT THE ADMISSIONS HE MADE EIGHT YEARS EARLIER. IN 1987 HE WAS IN COMPLETE COMMAND OF HIS FACULTIES. HE THEN ACCEPTED THAT IT WAS HIS CLUMSY USE OF ADAM'S WRITINGS THAT LED TO HIS UNMASKING. AFTER THE INITIAL SHOCK WAVES SUBSIDED HE MADE NO MORE ATTEMPTS TO BLUFF HIS WAY OUT OF THE TRAP HE HAD SET FOR HIMSELF.
And he was not soft in the head when he spoke to me in 1987. On the contrary he made it plain to me that my concern for his health was misplaced. He HAD been quite ill, but that was some 14 years earlier, a long rest period, however, had restored his equilibrium. His only concern then was to guard against too much stress, in case he had an attack of ANGINA, thus his state of health at the time did not involve any mental confusion. In fact in 1987 he was perky and lucid, with excellent recall and at no time did he attempt to hide behind a plea of blurred memories. On the contrary, he initially stated that he remembered all the events of the 30's and the 40's as if they happened yesterday. And before I unveiled the truth for him, he stated that it was certain that the 1888 hunt for Chapman was written up in the FIRST VOLUME of Dutton's 'Chronicles'; a volume that ENDED IN 1900. Those entries, he insisted, were written down first in late 1888 and went on to to embrace the pseudo-Ripper murders up to the 1890's. The 'extracts' he used in his book were said by him to be EXACTLY AS COPIED DOWN IN LONGHAND. As I have shown this was an impossibility.
And in 1987 he reluctantly admitted that the "Eight little whores" poem was a modern fake based on HIS DISCOVERY OF THE SPICER STORY. And that, of course, is death for the newly claimed provenance for the Diary. The faked poem first appeared in 1959, thus the claim that the Diary was seen and handled in the 1940's is hogwash.
Let me now emphasise that the later meeting in 1995 had nothing at all to do with extracting a confession from him. HE HAD ALREADY CONFESSED EIGHT YEARS BEFORE. Look at my words again. At that meeting I merely urged him to drop the coy, evasive words that he wanted me to use and set the record straight for those duped. But when the planned TV programme was axed I obviously lost the leverage I once had and that left McCormick free to play around with the truth with other people.
By that token those later letters to Feldman and Harrison carry no weight whatsoever. They are the emissions of a man who was THEN lying about his knowledge of the damning texts by H.L. Adam. Logically if a man couples such a lie with an attempt to discredit me, then HIS TESTIMONY AT THAT POINT IS WORTHLESS. His words, therefore, do not in any way cast any doubts on MY testimony regarding the events of 1987. AND I HAVE BACKED UP THIS TESTIMONY WITH THE SOLID PROOF THAT ALL THE McCORMICK 'DUTTON' MATERIAL IS FAKED.
And note, that long before I confronted McCormick, I had searched through every known newspaper archive in London, since I knew his working techniques, and anticipated his bluff. But the poem was not there and I told him so. That was years before he made any attempt to backtrack.
I have also indicated that McCormick was a liar many times over. And on the Pedachenko front he spawned a series of lies other than those attributed to Dutton. In 1947 he claimed that Hector Cairns owned a Ripper archive which included the very document written by Rasputin that indicted Dr Pedachenko. No one else on the planet ever knew of this material. And it is noteworthy that in 1947 McCormick could talk about Pedachenko without once claiming that he already knew of the man through Dutton! But Cairns' manuscript is as bogus as the Belloselski scrap-book and the Le Queux/Belloselski correspondence. The man invented freely whenever it furthered his ends. Indeed in April 1992 Martin Fido wrote this to me: "McCormick...he's a bloody liar whenever it suits his purpose. The demonstrable tampering with the Basil Thompson letter is more blatant than any other piece of Ripperological fakery known to me that emanates from a sane researcher."
Now if Paul Begg still wants to meander on about the possibility of there being a core of truth in the 'Dutton' blurb then let him identify that core, and do it now. The time for woolliness is past. Let him put his reputation on the line and point to a single sentence that can be regarded as conveying truth.
This, of course, may pose problems for Begg who is still more at home as a patently biased apologist. |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 04 May 1999 - 06:21 am | | I was going to add my bit here, but for once in this woman's life, words fail me. Sorry Paul, and all.
Yours,
Caz (disgusted of Surrey) |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Tuesday, 04 May 1999 - 10:46 am | | I agree with you, Caz,
My thoughts have already been expressed on the Diary boards.
Mr Harris, these boards are here for constructive debate. Nobody has a problem with information being provided about the Ripper. But these boards are not here for your attacks on Paul Begg which you try to disguise behind information already contained in articles on this Casebook.
You are abusing the privilege.
Dela |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Tuesday, 04 May 1999 - 10:57 am | | I don't know why I am bothering, but could someone please explain to me how proving the the eight little whores poem is bogus defeats the provenance of the diary. I do acknowledge that it is up to the pro-Diarist's to establish the provenance of the diary but the little whores poem and the argument that the Maybrick's will was forged are the arguments of Harrison and Feldman. Personally, I don't accept either argument. Feldman has himself presented evidence re the will handwriting in his book - the memo is in the same handwriting as the will. The eight little whores poem doesn't appear in the diary. Harrison and Feldman thought that an unfinished paragraph /i{may} have been the beginnings of the whores poem. I don't. For one the para counts up not down.
Rebutting some of the arguments of these authors doesn't destroy their case. If that were the onus then there'd be a lot of criminals escaping gaol (jail). I do note that Mr Harris' rebuttal of Feldman's and Harrison's arguments is far more extensive (and many of those rebuttals are convincing). But a rebuttal of one point is not enough in itself.
Dela |
Author: Julian
Wednesday, 05 May 1999 - 01:00 am | | G'day Paul, Caz, Dela.
Jules |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 05 May 1999 - 08:04 am | | I don't intend to post to these boards except when it is a matter of self-defence, as is here the case. Anybody 'interested in hard facts and not slimy smears and sneers' should go to the original posts and decide the merits of Harris's criticisms for themselves. They can be found at Diary/General Discussion/Articles by Melvin Harris/The Maybrick Hoax: Donald McCormick's Legacy. The post of mine referred to by Harris is dated Saturday, November 28, 1998.
Allow me the quick privilage of pointing out that Harris criticises me for not drawing attention to McCormick's denial of having ever heard of H.L. Adam (McCormick used Adam in his 1959 book). Harris wrote: "An honest objective observer would have pointed this out AT ONCE and drawn the inevitable conclusions. But Begg did not."
In fact my post of November 28 states of McCormick's denial of knowing Adam: "Another lie from an old rouge? Well, probably - his denial of never having heard of H.L. Adam is certainly, er, shall we say questionable'."
As for any conclusion which should have been drawn from this, on the one hand McCormick was being asked if he recalled a fairly recent confession made to Harris (which turns out to have been when Harris was threatening to expose him as a fraud and fabricator on peak time national television, a traumatic experience one might suppose Mr McCormick would remember). On the other hand he was being asked if he recalled H.L. Adam, the author of books he'd used as sources when writing his own book over thirty years earlier. The questions are clearly incompatible and it would be foolhardy to attempt to draw any meaningful conclusion.
A later post on the same file is dated December 1st and is from Peter Birchwood who asks about the references to H.L. Adam in the text and index of McCormick's book. I answered on December 2nd and my response shows no hint of reticence in giving the required information. Quite the opposite because Peter's question was unclear and I was volunteering the information which I thought Peter wanted. The reader might like to consider whether Harris's description of this as Peter Birchwood having to 'prise' this information out of me is unfair wordplay.
The rest of Mr Harris's piece is a regurgitation of the accumulated evidence that McCormick was a fabricator. My post states that McCormick is an unreliable source and is to be treated with considerable caution. This acknowledged, I do make it clear that the source to whom Mr McCormick attributes the Eight Little Whores poem, Dr Dutton, warrants special attention and I give my reasons.
As far as I can see Mr Harris levels several charges, none of them true. I do refer to McCormick's denial of having heard of H.L. Adam and even go so far as to say the he's probably lying. No conclusion can be properly drawn from the apples and pears questions. Peter Birchwood didn't have to 'prise' information out of me. McCormick's unreliability was very clearly acknowledged. Why Dutton should not be dismissed to hastily is carefully given.
Please do return to the original posts and draw your own conclusions. |
Author: Karoline
Wednesday, 05 May 1999 - 09:50 am | | If I could just volunteer my own conclusions.
I don't like it when discussions of issues become unduly personalised. But, in all fairness, Melvin's name was drawn into the 'diary' discussion, by others, and Paul CHOSE (wisely or not) to make the comments he did about the man's character. It hardly seems entirely reasonable to then complain about a tit for tat.
Re. this issue: McCormick clearly lied or was disastrously mistaken. It therefore behoves any proper scholar to say so unequivocally. Describing the matter as 'questionable' is therefore at best poor scholarship and at worst entirely disingenuous.
Paul - you have a considerable reputation in some quarters. Whether deserved or not is NOT for me to say. But I think you have to accept that it gives you a serious responsibility to be both fair and thorough.
Frankly in this matter, you have, demonstrably, not been so.
Sorry, but sometimes these things have to be said.
All best wishes to you anyway
Karoline |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Wednesday, 05 May 1999 - 10:23 am | | Hi Karoline,
Melvin's name was never drawn into the diary debate. Quite a few of the message boards on this site have been initiated by Melvin (including this one). In each he has sought to attack Paul Begg.
When everyone else starts a topic they ask a question or introduce some fact. Melvin has used it to reincarnate the grudge he obviously bears against Paul.
I don't care if they want to have a slanging match. I'd much prefer they have a rational discussion of arguments rather than go twelve rounds. But Melvin is taking what might otherwise be valid points (but are recycled and often irrelevant to any issue being discussed) merely to attack Paul. Paul is entitled to defend himself. If he makes attacks on Melvin then I don't condone that. But I would submit that Paul has made no such attacks. He has merely responded to the attacks on him. For some reason people can't be level-headed enough to properly interpret them. Tell me where in the above post of Mr Begg's does he attack Mr Harris? |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 05 May 1999 - 11:27 am | | Karoline - what is it you have in mind that I said about Melvin Harris's character? I am not clear about this because I have already stated very clearly that whatever way my words were read I did not suggest that Melvin had forged the "Diary". I did say that such a suggestion was absurd.
Did you actually read the posts or simply read my resume above, because I didn't and don't deny that McCormick either lied or was mistaken. But we are talking about an old man who pleaded ill-health being asked in an unsolicited letter whether he remembered an author he'd used as a source in a book he'd written over thirty years earlier! Maybe McCormick did recall H.L. Adam and lied. Maybe he had forgotten. Isn't it fair to give the man the benefit of the doubt? I'm sure as hell not going to call the man a liar, when in reality only his memory had failed him. That certainly isn't good scholarship, not in my book anyway. And giving somebody the benefit of the doubt surely isn't disingenuous, especially when whatever he said about H.L. Adam wasn't massivly important. We are talking about the ability to recall something. Adam was a minor thing that had happened thirty years ago! His confession to authorship of the poem was altogther much more serious and something he had done relatively recently and (as it turned out) in circumstances he was likely remember.
But the point is whether or not I drew attention to what McCormick said about H.L. Adam and the fact is that I did. I may have attached less importance to it than Melvin (and you) might think it justified (I don't think I did), but the fact remains that I mentioned it, contrary to what Melvin claims.
Your conclusions are valued, of course, and I will give your words considerable thought - curiously, I have no wish to malign Melvin Harris (I have long been an admirer of his work, which is why I recommended him as someone to whom Paul Feldman should show the "Diary" and on whose expertise he should call, as Feldman states in his book) and if I have done so unjustly then he deserves an apology. As it happens, I don't think I have maligned him or insulted him. Rather the reverse. |
Author: Karoline
Wednesday, 05 May 1999 - 12:47 pm | | I'm sorry, I really did think I'd made my point of view clear. I'll try once more.
Matthew: I meant that you introduced Melvin as a possible forger. Paul, maybe misguidedly, said things in support of your contentions. It's therefore - in this instance - neither right nor sensible to complain of Melvin making exactly the same personal comments in response.
Paul - you know I'm not trying to get at you personally, so let's not go down that road. Don't huff and puff. I just think you were wrong, that's all.
There was concrete proof that McCormick DID know about Adam. To describe the situation as 'questionable' was to misrepresent it, whether intentionally or not. That's all.
Of COURSE we shouldn't deliberately set out to hurt people's feelings. But, come on Paul, you didn't have to call the old man a 'liar', in order to tell the truth about what he had done. After all - I just managed to do it, didn't I?
Paul. I'm not accusing anyone of anything. Just saying that in this Melvin was right, and you were wrong.
Maybe it doesn't matter much. But I get all nervous when people seem to be saying that something is too unimportant to tell the truth about. That's probably my hang-up. I admit I do have this personal thing about truth. Particularly historical truth, because it shapes the way we see everything about the world. I think it matters. Always. Just for itself. Even in little things. And I also think that one doesn't have to tell direct falsehoods in order to present a false picture. I think a half-truth is as deceptive as any lie, even if it isn't intended that way. Indeed half-truths are worse, because, if you like they are wolves in sheep's clothing. They have the veneer of a virtue they don't really possess.
Of course Paul, you don't have to agree with me. I'm not trying to impose my standards on you. I'm just trying to explain why I take the view I do. Why it's just my opinion and no attempt to diminish anyone.
Hope this settles it.
Are you taking the vitiamins?
Karoline |
Author: Wuz
Wednesday, 05 May 1999 - 01:41 pm | | SOME people here, mentioning no names, who claim to have a 'thang' about the truth would not know that creature if it bit them on the posterior i'll warrant!!!??? you surely have to go along with that premise, leechy, or are you one of the few 'contributers' to ripperology with all the answers???!!! (along with a sidekick or two mebbys?) id lurv to hear just one of them sometime. that wood be entertaining ha ha!
take care, a course of something stronger than 'vitIamins' might be in order here, for some of you at leest---like a simple memory test for instance??????
wuz |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Wednesday, 05 May 1999 - 02:47 pm | | Matthew: " I do acknowledge that it is up to the pro-Diarist's to establish the provenance of the diary but the little whores poem and the argument that the Maybrick's will was forged are the arguments of Harrison and Feldman. Personally, I don't accept either argument."May I draw your attention to a small message of mine here in December 1998: "If however there are any diaryphiles left, I suspect that we might hear that the diarists: "One whore in heaven, two whores side by side..." has no correspondence with McCormick's "Eight little whores etc..." and Feldman made a mistake in putting the two together. Remember you heard it here first."
I also think that you'll find that a very small number of boards have been initiated by Melvin simply because (and this is something you should remember) he is not on line. His access to this assemblage is therefore erratic at best and means he normally can't reply to every Jack, James and Florrie. Your references to: a/ Melvin attacking Paul Begg, b/ an obvious "grudge" on Melvin's part seem to be produced of an ignorance of the two men's personalities which is understandable and a lack of knowledge of postings both here and on the old boards, which is not. Melvin's points are usually factual, (I say "usually" to be safe: I really can't think of one that wasn't.) They are certainly not irrelevant. I do suggest that you should consider this one point: My only contact with Paul has been via e-mail and he has replied to my questions and criticisms in what I would consider a decent, gentlemanly manner. I do however believe that his recent post, which contained a paragraph referring to Melvin and to the diary forgery was to say the least, unfortunate and liable to (as it did) provoke a rejoinder and this exchange is something that is between two individuals who have known each other for some few years.
About McCormick: There's plenty of evidence that McCormick, in the best traditions of journalism, made up a lot of his book in order to make the story run better and to give the plot a resolution. I think the evidence shows that he did make up the poem and that the diary author did use a version of that poem to "give versimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative."
There has been a certain amount of time dilation here too, because Paul's postings have tended to make events re McCormick and others appear as though they had happened in 1995 when he may have been ill instead of 1987 when Melvin interviewd him and he definitely wasn't. That should be sorted out.
And my last point: A lot of people reading this will not research what we all said a year-two years-three years ago either because they can't or because they have better things to do. It therefore behoves us to try to be precice in our messages and not simply assume that everybody knows as much about these things as we do.
Just posting this I see a rather peculiar message by some person calling herself "wuz." I have mentioned some time ago that the use of 5 question marks is the sign of serious derangemnet. 6 is an embarrassment.
Peter. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Thursday, 06 May 1999 - 12:56 am | | Dear All:
I am probably going to regret saying this, but I am going to say it anyway. I realize that I am going to be seen as a Paul Begg backer and apologist. So be it. Melvin Harris's posts criticizing Paul border on a tirade. Go after the hoaxers, the fakers, Melvin. You act as if Paul has committed crimes on the same order as McCormick or Stephen Knight, but to my mind that just is not so. You lay down a lot of ink here, but to what purpose? Perhaps you should really think about what you are doing, or your friends should advise you to think about it. Why not redirect your energy where it might do more good, instead of subjecting us to your labored repetition of Paul's alleged prevarications?
Chris George |
Author: Karoline
Thursday, 06 May 1999 - 04:10 am | | Chris, I don't think you come across as a PB 'apologist'. any more than I'm a Melvin 'apologist'. I tend to agree with you that personal attacks from either side are a waste of time.
But I do think we should separate attacks on an individual from criticism of what that individual may have DONE. The former being quite invalid, the latter entirely valid. A recognised authority like Paul has to accept open critical evaluation of his work and commentary. I don't necessarily think Melvin H.'s choice of style and language is entirely helpful. And I think he tends to diminish his own good case with needlesly perjorative comments. But that doesn't make his case invalid. I think some of the things he says are important and true. Let's not lose sight of them, because we don't feel comfortable with the way he chooses to say them.
And I've got that copy of my book for you.
Speaking of needlessly perjorative comments. I see that Caroline, who seems now to be calling herself Wuz, is attacking me with more venom than Melvin or Paul have ever used up on each other. Look at it - it reads like some deranged poison-pen letter. If I lived too close to that lady, I'd be worried. Paul, maybe you could explain what I meant about the 'vitamins', since she seems to have taken umbrage on your behalf.
K. |
Author: Sir Melvin Haddanuff
Thursday, 06 May 1999 - 05:15 am | | | Of course we could always dissect the spelling, grammar, style and punctuation of the original Wuz message posted on April 11, 1999 08:34 am and expose the hoaxer's identity. |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 06 May 1999 - 06:22 am | | Karoline - Let me first apologise for this long post, but you made two statements which must be addressed because they strike at the very heart of this matter. You wrote:
"But, in all fairness, Melvin's name was drawn into the 'diary' discussion, by others, and Paul CHOSE (wisely or not) to make the comments he did about the man's character. It hardly seems entirely reasonable to then complain about a tit for tat."
"Matthew: I meant that you introduced Melvin as a possible forger. Paul, maybe misguidedly, said things in support of your contentions. It's therefore - in this instance - neither right nor sensible to complain of Melvin making exactly the same personal comments in response."
Karoline, I did not make comments about Melvin's character, Matthew did notintroduce Melvin as a possible forger and I did not support any such contention. The sequence of events is as follows and the intent, I think, very clear.
On 26th April Peter Birchwood stated "The diary's a forgery and the motive commercial."
On 27th April Matthew Delahunty wrote "Several people have stated that they believe the diary was forged for commercial gain. If so then who is the forger? Presumably if the forger created it for commercial gain then that forger is involved in the diay's commercial exploitation. Now let's see, that means that either Shirley Harrison, Paul Feldman and his research team, Melvyn Harris, Anne Graham (and the publishers for each of these authors) are our prime suspects. They are the people who have gained a commercial value from the diary. The other is Mike Barrett, who from all accounts has squandered every last cent on the amber stuff. Now if anyone is serious in proving the diary to be a forgery made for commercial value let's start seeing the proof that one of the above forged it."
Matthew did not say that those named hadforged the "Diary". All he said was thatif gain was the motive then those named, having gained, were the prime suspects. The important word was 'if' and I read Matthew's piece as being a speculative argument.
A couple of people then argued that Melvin Harris had not profited from the "Diary". I disagreed. I believed and continue to believe that he has, albeit not necessarily in the way Matthew had in mind.
On 2nd May Matthew Delahunty posted a message in which he referred back to his first post and said: "PLEASE NOTE THE SECOND WORD THE THE THIRD SENTENCE, "IF". I never stated the listed people forged it. I introduced an assertion that the forger forged it for commercial motive. I wanted to show that this was baseless and unsupported and stated that IF this assertion was true then one of the above people must've forged it - which is ridiculous logic!"
He continued: "My original point, however, was not about the authenticity of the diary. It was about claims made by others that the diary is a modern forgery whose motive was commercial, which, presumably, on the above onus they should have to prove. There is no evidence that the motive was commercial. If the motive was commercial then the forger commercially benefited. The argument is absurd because those who have benefited - ie the people that I listed - didn't forge the diary. (I'll accept that Mike Barrett is a candidate but if you want to assert that then show me some evidence which proves it - it's open to debate)."
Here Matthew explained the intent behind his original post (and it was exactly the intent I had supposed on reading it). The reasoning is flawed, of course, because one can't say that profit wasn't the motive just because most of those who profited from the "Diary" couldn't have forged it. But there was a good point, namely that profiting from the "Diary" didn't make you a potential forger. And this point applied to Shirley Harrison and Paul Feldman as much as it did to Melvin Harris - which was precisely the point I was making when I stated that it was as absurd to think of Melvin Harris as the forger as it was to think the forger was Shirley or Feldy (there being no evidence that either of them knew about the "Diary" before Mike Barrett unwrapped it in Doreen Montgomery's office; and in Feldy's case not until some time after).
Both Matthew and I protested that we had not disparaged Melvin Harris in any way and had not intended any such thing. I drew attention to my original post in which I said: "Of course, in reality the idea that Melvin forged the "Diary" is absurd and no one can seriously entertain it." And Matthew could not have been clearer when he wrote: "I made no attack on Melvin Harris. If people think I did, then I apologise." And let it be remembered that we both made these statements on the day of the original posts!
Now, Karoline, people can go away from these boards and think whatever they want to think, but (a) the fact is that neither of us intended anything disparaging against Melvin Harris whatsoever; (b) I don't think that our words read in context should ever have given the impression that we did; (c) I could not have more clearly stated that the idea that Melvin forged the "Diary" was in reality absurd and beyond serious consideration; and (d) As soon as we realised that our words had given the wrong impression both Matthew and I immediately made it clear that the impression was not one we had intended.
All this was done before Melvin Harris posted to these boards, thus whoever sent the posts to Melvin evidently didn't send our correction to the misunderstanding or didn't accept it. Had they done so then Melvin might have understood that we had been misunderstood and not felt compelled to respond. However, it is distressing to find that even now our sincere protests have been unheeded and that you feel able to say that I made comments about Melvin's character when I did not and that Matthew introduced Melvin as a possible forger when he did not. And that you find justification for Melvin's posts in things which we have not done. So let me just reiterate that Matthew merely observed that Melvin could be considered a suspect if profiting from the "Diary" was a criteria for suspicion. Matthew actually did not accept that criteria and was arguing against it, as was I.
This has been a long post and a post of little interest to the majority, but I hope all will understand why I felt it was important to make a last ditch effort to set the record straight.
And very briefly on the less important point of H.L. Adam and McCormick, I have never said that anything was too unimportant to tell the truth about! I certainly don't want anyone walking away from these boards with that idea in their heads. What I said was that what McCormick said about H.L. Adam was not important in the context of whether or not McCormick had confessed to authorship of the Eight Little Whores poem. By the way, H.L. Adam has nothing whatever to do with the poem Eight Little Whores, the source of the latter (according to McCormick) being Dr Dutton. The reason it wasn't important was because it was felt - I think rightly - that McCormick's ability to recall a source he used when writing a book over thirty years earlier could not be compared to his ability to recall a confession to fraud and fabrication made less than a decade earlier -
McCormick having allegedly confessed in 1987 and H.L. Adam being a source he'd used in 1959.
Whether or not the use of the word 'questionable'is poor scholarship, in the context I don't think it is. The whole passage in my opinion is manifestly tongue-in-cheek and my meaning made abundantly clear by the 'er' and the inverted commas placed around 'questionable'. Now, maybe I should have made a bigger thing than I did out of the Adam reference, but it simply didn't seem to have any real relevance (for the reasons given above) to McCormick's denial that he'd confessed to authorship of the poem. But whether or not I should have made more out of it has no real bearing on Melvin's claim that I didn't refer to it at all. The fact is that I did refer to itand Melvin's criticism is not correct.
And let us not forget that these are posts we are talking about, not books or learned articles. I simply didn't make a big thing out of an aspect which I didn't consider significant to what was being discussed. However, when asked about it I provided the information openly and honestly. It did not have to be prised out of me, as Melvin states and thus gives the impression that I was concealing information. |
Author: karoline
Thursday, 06 May 1999 - 06:54 am | | Paul
I don't really think we have a quarrel, (which is great, because the last thing I want to do is quarrel with anyone who can keep down a tuna and anchovy pizza).
I've never suggested that you MEANT to attack Melvin (look back over all my posts and see). I merely said that yout words gave the IMPRESSION that you did. And this was why Stewart and the others came to his defence.
I'm sure you're not in the business of backhandedly sniping at anyone. I just think it pays to watch the way we express ourselves sometimes.
The same with the McCormick stuff. The word 'questonable' WAS misleading, though I don't suggest for a minute that you meant it to be.
I'm just trying to say that I'm not taking sides (I hate that whole thing), simply trying to articulate the cause of the disagreement between you and the other great minds here. But since they all seem to have gone and left me to do it on my own, I'm probably getting out of my depth.
You know I do understand how it feels to receive apparently causeless personal vituperation (look at the above Wuz post for example). It's always wrong and counter-productive. I would say so to Melvin, and I guess you would say so to the lovely person who wrote the above.
Is that a fair conclusion? Shall we both stop boring the natives now?
And ARE you taking those vitamins?
take care, everyone here
K |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 06 May 1999 - 09:19 am | | Hi Karoline - well, when you write in mitigation of Melvin that 'Paul CHOSE (wisely or not) to make the comments he did about the man's character', I think I might have grounds for supposing that you are saying that I made comments about the man's character. I, of course, maintain that I made no comments about his character whatsoever, the whole thing being entirely hypothetical and the reality, as I stated, being that no such idea could be seriously entertained. But I guess this is the happiest medium we'll achieve and the natives very probably are getting restless - and who could blame them.
I saw a tuna and anchovy pizza in Tesco the other day.
I do, of course, wholly and totally condemn offensive posts of all kinds, especially if they be made under the guise of an anonymous name. I'd be surprised if Caz would do such a thing though. She's always struck me as someone who wouldn't be afraid to be 'in your face' as it were. And as I was in hospital when whatever blew up between you both blew up I don't know what's going on. At the moment, if you don't mind, I'd kinda like to keep it that way.
Yep, vitamins are taken regularly, along with the seven pills a day that I now have to take on doctor's orders!
All the best |
Author: Karoline
Thursday, 06 May 1999 - 09:52 am | | Paul - Glad to hear about the pills. I should think you need them at the moment.
Just to try and set your mind at rest about the thing that worries you most - you made comments about Melvin's behaviour, which had obvious implications about his character, if read in a certain way. But I've always assumed you didn't mean them. Does that give an idea of where I've been coming from? I should have been clearer from the beginning.
Re. the strange abusive poster above: I can't comment on anyone's character here. But - yes, from my own experience, I think I'd advise anyone to stay right out of that particular person's way. I think you're wise.
And I just don't believe you about that pizza.
take care
K. |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Thursday, 06 May 1999 - 11:28 am | | Hello everyone,
I would like to put this to rest - I never suggested Melvin was a forger. I have no problems with Melvin contributing to this board. I did have a problem with Melvin initiating this board in the way that he did. People can make up their own minds about whether it was personal. I chose to state that I, as a regular contributor, won't tolerate personal attacks.
Peter, I reject your submission that I was ignorant re the postings. When I said irrelevanrt I never said irrelevant to Ripper facts and information. They were irrelevant to the discussions which have recently taken place on these boards (I don't need to remind everyone!). I can accept a lot of the facts which Melvin presents in his posts. I never had a problem with that. I did have a problem with Melvin recycling those facts (eg, the McCormick issue appears on both the Message Boards section and on the Casebook Articles page) in a personal attack on Paul Begg. If you didn't perceive it as an attack then I'm no longer prepared to argue the point.
As for the little whores poem, etc. It seems to have been accepted that everything Feldman and Harrison say about the diary should be taken as the correct interpretation. I stated some months ago (re the FM theory) that the diary is open to interpretation. I didn't come up with my interpretation after Feldy's one was rebutted. I never accepted his argument in the first place. The diary itself needs to be looked at line by line. There are many interpretations to each. The only true interpretation which can be taken as gospel should be the forger's (assuming it is forged). Unfortunately, Feldman sought to cram every idea he had into his book. So as a result, some are very meritorious while others are untenable and not supported by evidence. I don't pay much attention to Feldman's and Harrison's interpretation. I read the diary text and came up with my own.
Dela |
Author: Melvin Harris
Thursday, 06 May 1999 - 03:49 pm | | Raised Standards Please
Chris George remarks that I "...lay down a lot of ink here, but to what purpose?" Well, if one posting in six months is a lot perhaps he can tell us just how much Begg has taken up in the same period? As for the purpose, perhaps he will re-read my material and then tell us all, for a start, if he approves of Begg's attempt to use Colin Wilson's FALSE material in order to throw doubts on my standards? I have provided evidence. It cannot be evaded by talk of "Paul's alleged prevarications". Facts are facts, if they upset illusions then that is simply part of the awakening process.
If he, and others, look back they will see that my sole aim has always been to provide fact-files for those who lack the time and opportunity to dig things out for themselves. But this has inevitably led to a clash with those who have a vested interest in keeping illusions alive. In the publishing world gullability equals gold. So it is galling to find people who should know better keeping gullibility throbbing and stirring away on a life-support system.
When I published my McCormick file Begg brought in time-wasting material touching on points which had already been covered by my report. But he used that material in order to raise doubts about my testimony. THE STUFF HE USED DID NOT INVOLVE THE 1987 EXCHANGE BETWEEN McCORMICK AND MYSELF IN ANY WAY. It was self-evident rubbish. But Begg described it first as casting "...just a tiny bit of doubt on whether or not [McCormick]...really did understand Melvin's point about the 'Eight Little Whores' poem specifically." Later on, this was enlarged to the claim that "This must inevitably cast doubt (perhaps considerable doubt) on the certainty of Melvin's contention that McCormick confessed to its authorship."
What it did cast doubt on was, in reality, Begg's motives and reasoning powers. And I have enlarged on that in my last posting. And in reply Begg shows that he is still confused and illogical since he still continues to mix up two quite distinct events. He ignores the facts MADE CLEAR TWICE BY ME, that the confession that the poem was a fake WAS MADE IN 1987, NOT 1985. While at the very same time, IN 1987, McCormick accepted that the 'Dutton material of 1888' was based on Adam's faulty text of 1931 and was a fake also.
Adam was not just an easily-forgotten source, of long-ago, as Begg tries to argue, but the key to the 'Dutton' hoax; a fact that shook McCormick to the core and made him realise that the game was up.
(Begg's original posting made it obvious that McCormick was being quizzed over my 1985 meeting with him. Since neither Skinner nor Feldman knew what was said at that meeting, they must have been dealing in some pretty tatty garbage!) |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Thursday, 06 May 1999 - 06:08 pm | | OK, what did people really say? Paul said on the 1st May: "As for Dela's inclusion of Melvin Harris among the potential forgers, he isthe only one known to possess the requisite
knowledge to produce a competent forgery; publicity from
denouncing a forgery wouldn't have harmed the sales of his
book(s); and Mevin Harris does have a track record in that
he received quite a lot of press coverage in 1987, when his
The Bloody Truth was published, by denouncing the claim by
the makers of the Michael Caine Ripper drama that it was
based on hitherto undiscovered Home Office files."
He also in the next para said:"Of course, in reality the idea that Melvin forged the
"Diary" is absurd and no one can seriously entertain it."
Fair enough. He also said on the same day about Matthew's earlier post: "His argument was that the "Diary" was probably forged by someone who profited from it and Melvin Harris was and is someone who profited from it, albeit from denouncing it." As far as I can see, this is Paul suggesting that Melvin profitted from the diary and therefore (as far as Matthew was concerned,) could be considered a forgery suspect. Now this looks a whole lot to me as though Paul believes Matthew has actually said this. There is also more than a hint that Paul agrees with this sentiment but knows that factually it's ridiculous.
If we go back to Matthew's original post of 27th April we can see that he's actually only trying, in perhaps a rather heavy-handed way to satirise my earlier comment that the motive for the diary forgery was commercial. If you have the patience, let me just print out that message:" Several people have stated that they believe the diary was
forged for commercial gain. If so then who is the forger?Presumably if the forger created it for commercial gain then that forger is involved in the diay's commercial exploitation. Now let's see, that means that either Shirley Harrison, Paul Feldman and his research team, Melvyn Harris,
Anne Graham (and the publishers for each of these authors) are our prime suspects. They are the people who have gained a commercial value from the diary. The other is Mike Barrett, who from all accounts has squandered every last cent on the amber stuff." And Matthew proves the point of his little joke by ending: "Now if anyone is serious in proving the diary to be a forgery made for commercial value let's start seeing the proof that one of the above forged it. "
Now if we'd stuck to that, I don't think we would have had all this trouble. That trouble came, I regret to say, when Paul expanded Matthews' joke, treated it seriously and added to it. Now if we come to Paul's 6th May post, he says: "Matthew did notintroduce Melvin as a possible forger "( which is not true: Matthew did, but obviously not seriously )"...and I did not support any such contention." which I think is a debateable point. He then repeats Matthews post which I've copied above. Again, I think the problem was not with Matthews' post but with Paul's original (and unfortunate) treatment of it. Here is not the place to go into the original point of the diary forgers motive. I've made my views known and am willing to repeat them ad nauseam if needed. The whole point of who has profitted from the diary can also be gone into at a later date. My view is that Melvin has profitted less from this than others, including those who may be jockying for work on the apparently-revived film deal.
Let me close by giving my opinion that Paul's May first post (above) poured more petrol than necesary on Matthews' original piece. Without it, after a few grumps etc. things would have died down. There is however a person who I will not name who has posted a couple of rather nasty messages and who considers themself to be the right hand person of Paul Begg. His defense does him credit but I do feel that Matthews' closing words on his 4th May post are more appropriate in that case than in Melvin's.
Peter. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Thursday, 06 May 1999 - 07:14 pm | | The 'diary' niggles aside, the comments that I felt were also out of order, and I quote them again, for the benefit of those who appear to have not noticed them before, were (Paul Begg on Friday, April 30, 1999 - 01:53 pm)-
"Christopher-Michael - surely Melvin Harris's supposed sufferings are irrelevant to the argument that he enhanced his reputation and his bank balance through the "Diary" and therefore profited from it as much and arguably more than its proponants?" [sic]
"...As for having been slandered, I'm not sure if that is true or not (what do you have in mind?). I think Melvin Harris has brought upon his own head whatever has fallen there, even the most placid of people having been driven to anger by Melvin - just read what Colin Wilson has to say in The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper.
I only mention this because I think it is terribly misleading to think of gool [sic] ol' Melvin Harris suffering at the hands of the bad ol' pro-Diarists. Melvin Harris dished out as good as he got and often dished it first. It is as well to put these things into perspective lest they colour one's interpretations."
Now if that is not "making comments about the man's character" then I don't know what is!
The ill-feeling between these two authors, both of whom I have known for a few years now, dates back further than the exchanges on these boards. Some of the posters here, if they are not already aware of it, may be interested to read what Paul Begg and his co-authors have written, under Melvin Harris's entry, in the 1996 edition of the JTR A-Z:-
"...Readers are warned that while many of the unsourced statements in Harris's earlier books rest on well-researched documentation, his occasional postulation of other writers' thought processes can be wildly wrong and actually conflict with impeccable written evidence, and his indignation when he believes he has perceived chicanery may lead him to make demonstrably unjustified assertions."
Needless to say this disharmony again sprouted from exchanges over the bogus 'diary.' Readers may well wish to ponder on what they would think of their own name carrying such a permanent record of their supposed character in a standard reference work, for all future generations to read. Maybe some of Melvin's descendants or friends will consult it in order to learn a bit about Melvin. |
Author: Caz
Friday, 07 May 1999 - 05:37 am | | Hi All,
I'm off for a weekend of Pirates of Penzance and much fun with friends and family. The weather here is dull as ditchwater, but last night's chicken balti was wonderful. The radio is playing Kool and the Gang's 'Fresh', one of my favourites, and all is right with my world, so my thoughts go out to anyone for whom this is not the case.
Paul, can I swap the tuna for black olives? The anchovies can stay. Oh, and capers would be good too, wouldn't they? (grin)
Thank you ALL for some very long but entertaining reading as usual on these boards. I, for one, would not like to see ANYONE disappear for long. As in the world of literature generally, I'd hate to see ANY 'burning of books' going on, no matter how good, bad, tedious, offensive or wrong the content appears to one or more readers. Having it all there 'in your face' is the only way of sifting through and deciding for oneself which bits or which authors or 'pseudonyms' merit further reading. Great way to go IMHO. (Pity Jules is otherwise occupied, see Absentees Board in a mo.)
Some vicar somewhere wants to see a teenage mag banned. This is one of my daughter's 'must-haves' and I resent his unsolicited interference quite frankly. If he can't cope with the 'supposed' porn it contains I suggest he has the problem and should get his wrist strapped up accordingly. My daughter's reading matter is not his concern.
Similarly, as many people have said before on these boards, if a post offends, we are free to ignore or respond accordingly. The only way not to offend ANYONE is to post NOTHING.
By the way, Dela, I'd love to hear your interpretation of the diary lines which patently (to you and I, at least) have nothing whatsoever to do with 'eight little whores'. If you email me yours, I'll email you mine (grin).
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caz
Friday, 07 May 1999 - 05:54 am | | Before I forget, could I just remind everyone of the first post by the erudite Wuz, at 08:34 on April 11th, on Peter Birckwood's Unusual JtR Theories board.
I think anyone but an amoeba can see that Wuz was attacking me in an extremely personal and unwarranted manner, backed up by Peter himself for some obscure reason (which somewhat took away the cloak of anonymity for most of us with half a brain.)
While Peter judged Wuz to be male on the first occasion, he is now saying it is female. Perhaps he could make up his mind and explain why he thought one was amusing while the other was offensive. I found them equally offensive actually, in the perpetration, but did not actually TAKE offense at either message. There is a subtle difference, and the content of EVERY post here, using a pseudonym to hide behind or not, renders us all very transparent. I love transparent things personally. I went to Knickerbox the other day and bought me some wonderful....oh, sorry, y'all don't wanna know any more personal stuff, I'm gone.....
Love,
Caz (and ONLY Caz) |
Author: Melvin Harris
Friday, 07 May 1999 - 09:33 am | | Further to my above post may I correct a couple of typographical errors in that the date '1985' in the last and third from last paragraphs should read '1995', of course, and I apologise for any slight confusion this may have caused.
I would also like to point out that in regard to the entry in the 'A-Z' under my name, mentioned by Stewart Evans above, I did write to the publishers, Headline, who agreed to remove it from any further reprints. However, once something has been written, and thousands of copies circulated, it is impossible to fully redress the damage done. |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Friday, 07 May 1999 - 10:48 am | | I don't know about you lot but I'm exhausted! May I wish everyone a good weekend and a bit of a rest from the discussions of the past week.
Unfortunately the weather in my part of the world is about to take a turn for the worse after a week of late Autumn 20+ degree weather. And Jules, I hope it's a good weekend - I've got a feeling those Magpies might be ready for their first win of the season.
Dela |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Friday, 07 May 1999 - 01:22 pm | | OK Folks, here we go again. If you can, go back to the original "Wuz" post of 11th April and read it. Funny isn't it? Satirical and reflecting posts submitted on that board over the prior few weeks. Next thing is Caroline's (Caz') post where she starts: "Give you three guesses who that 'Wuz'! I know, because I had a couple of female 'best' friends who turned out to fit Wuz's profile, and I ain't kidding." I then said:on the 13th April: " It's a bit sexist isn't it, to assume that wuz is female? It's like identifying particular anonymes as people who you'd like them to be." Fair comment I think because that wuz might well have been me. As to the second one, the rather vitriolic person who posted on May 5th is certainly not me. Whoever it is, and I'm not going to make any suggestions as to sex or identity, has got every right to put that sort of message on the board: unlike some I don't see too much need to censor this. They just have to accept that they are likely to be derided, held up to ridicule or otherwise made fun of. (grammar?) To save time, I would just refer you all to the scene with the french soldier in"...the Holy Grail" for sample derision. Am I a side-kick? I'd rather be a hanger-on.
Peter. |
Author: Caz
Sunday, 09 May 1999 - 03:01 pm | | Hi Peter,
If you move your mouse over to General Discussion: The Ripper, Zodiac, and Friends, Karoline's post of 9th May at 08:45am will tell you who Wuz is. Seems to be confession time over there. Maybe you were the only one who just didn't get it, huh? Like being the only one in step, I guess. Must be awesome, do you line-dance perchance?
Unfortunately, if people insist on using pseudonyms instead of their real names, how does anyone know for sure where Wuz1 leaves orff and Wuz2 or 3 takes over?
Oh, and Peter, a pseudonym cannot be derided or held up to ridicule or made fun of. That is surely why they are used with such gay abandon here. As I don't care who takes the mick out of me, I have no fear of using my own name to announce I am part of the human race. Hope you feel the same way, mate.
Love,
Caroline Anne Morris |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 10 May 1999 - 06:36 am | | Referring to Melvin Harris's post 'Raised Standards Please', (1) I think Chris George was referring to the length of Melvin's post, not to the frequency. (2) Colin Wilson stands by what he wrote, states that what he says happened is true and denies that he has received from Melvin a demand for a withdrawal. (3) I did not use Colin Wilson to throw doubt on Melvin's standards, as Melvin claims. I was merely using Colin to demonstrate that Melvin upsets people, Colin being a placid individual who in my view is almost unfailingly encouraging (probably to his own detriment, as my co-authors and I observe in the A to Z) and whose critical comments regarding Melvin in The Mammoth Book therefore warrant comment.
Mr Harris's further acerbic comments on the McCormick business, liberally peppered with personal insults and comments, do not directly address the point I made. Mr Harris tells us that in 1987 Donald McCormick confessed to, among other things, the authorship of the Eight Little Whores poem. Harris offers no supportive evidence for this whatsoever. While no doubt is thrown by me on Harris's claim that McCormick confessed to wholesale fabrication, I have simply asked, where the Eight Little Whores poem is concerned, whether Mr Harris had interpreted Mr McCormick correctly and more importantly whether Mr McCormick actually realised what he was confessing to. I think both are perfectly legitimate question, especially since we now know that at the time of the confession he was suffering the trauma of threatened exposure as a fraud and fabricator on nationwide peak time television and Harris himself admits that McCormick was shaken 'to the core'(though later apparently more philosophic - but which was he when he confessed to authoring the poem?). It is therefore reasonable to wonder how clearly McCormick was thinking under those conditions, how well he remembered the extent of the fabrications he employed and how certain he was of the details. It would be legitimate to ask these questions even if McCormick hadn't denied authorship of the poem, but McCormick did deny it and that denial is now a dead man's only defence. And on top of all that, the possibility does exist that McCormick did see and could have taken information from Dr Dutton's papers.
Peter, your considered and measured post is very welcome. You acknowledge that Matthew's premise was not intended seriously and also that Melvin Harris has profited from the "Diary" (albeit not as greatly as others). However, you pinpoint the cause of the trouble as being 'when Paul expanded Matthews' joke, treated it seriously and added to it.' The thing is, I didn't respond to Matthew's joke. I responded to two posts which argued that Melvin had not profited from the "Diary", one of them being highly prejudicial to Shirley Harrison and Paul Feldman. I did slightly expand on the case against Melvin and that may have been a mistake (although in mitigation I was only trying to demonstrate that a case against Melvin was as ridiculous as a case against Shirley Harrison and Paul Feldman), but at all times my comments were entirely within the realms of fantasy, as should, I think, have been clear from my concluding words "Of course, in reality…" and the flat statement that "the idea that Melvin forged the "Diary" is absurd and no one can seriously entertain it."
Stewart, regarding the comments you thought to be so 'out of order' and to be about Melvin's character, they must be viewed in context. On 29th April Christopher-Michael wrote: "As far as Melvin Harris and his "gained commercial value" - to the best of my knowledge, Mr Harris has been publicly and privately slandered, has had lawsuits pressed at him and has had private investigators shadowing him, all by proponents of the Diary. Is this fair play? Not in my book, it isn't. Yes, Mr Harris can be a bit brusque and sharp - but perhaps, were you in his shoes, you might feel a little differently, no matter your stance on the Diary."
I happen to think that it is 'out of order' to portray unnamed pro-"Diarists" in such a one-sided, partially incorrect and prejudicial way. To do so was misleading, I said, and I made it clear that Harris' sufferings should be put 'into perspective lest they colour one's interpretations'.
I believe that Melvin Harris has upset a lot of people, forced them to adopt entrenched positions, considerably worsened disputes and in some cases arguably hindered the resolution of issues which should have been resolved. In short, much of what was cited was brought upon his own head by being combative and intemperate. For example, I understand that the threat of legal action happened because Feldman said something which he believed to be true, Harris responded by calling Feldman a liar and Feldman threatened libel action. Harris then produced evidence that Feldman's original belief was wrong and Feldman dropped the legal action. Now, I don't want anyone to walk away with the idea that Paul Feldman was in the right. His original assertion was wrong, but a more temperate response from Harris might have avoided the whole nasty business. Hence my claim that Harris has brought much upon his own head.
My point is and all along has been that it isn't always so much what Harris says that's wrong, but the way he says it. And many contributors to these boards have acknowledged that Harris' style does him no favours: in her post of 6th May above Karoline succinctly makes the point: "I don't necessarily think Melvin H.'s choice of style and language is entirely helpful. And I think he tends to diminish his own good case with needlesly perjorative comments." Precisely my point. And how do I make that point without commenting on Harris's character? And is what I said unfair or - in the context of Christopher-Michael's post - unjust?
Regarding the quoted reference to Melvin in the A to Z, I have discussed it elsewhere on these boards and I don't intend to go into it again, especially as it has no direct bearing on what is being discussed here. The sentiments expressed there are not mine alone, but are shared by all three authors, all of whom felt that a warning was not only justified but necessary. As an example or two seems required, very quick ones to simply illustrate what we said: in The Ripper File in 1989 (long before any "Diary" controversy erupted) Melvin Harris, having stated that the Dutton papers are 'sheer fiction', wrote: "Yet Howells and Skinner, even though they suspect as much, drop their standards when they find a Dutton passage that helps their case." (pg. 150) Here Melvin Harris effectively accuses Martin Howells and Keith Skinner of being sufficiently dishonest as to bolster their theory with information which they suspected was bogus. This is a very serious accusation which should have been left unvoiced unless there was good reason to voice it and strong evidence to support it, especially when Harris could (or believed he could) discredit their material without supposing their motives (their thought processes) for using it. And since you know Keith as well as I do, Stewart, you might also dispute, as I dispute, that Keith would have supported his theory or allowed his theory to be supported with material he suspected was untrue.
Or take Melvin's account of Peter Birchwood having to 'prise' information out of me, when that information had been freely volunteered? The impression - and it is difficult to imagine in a writer of Harris's calibre that he didn't intend to give the impression - was that I had withheld information and only revealed it under pressure. It is a demonstrably unjustified assertion. As was Harris's earlier description of Keith Skinner as Paul Feldman's 'henchman', a word with misleadingly unsavoury connotations of which Harris was surely aware. Such was (and is) Harris's reputation - a 'respected investigator', 'distinguished debunker' and exposer of 'a great many false mysteries', as we note - we felt that it was essential that readers treat such received impressions with caution.
Of course, the entry in the A to Z was not written because of anything Harris has said about ourselves and I give the two examples above because little ambiguity surrounds them, because they are easily verifiable, because they avoid others being dragged into the quarrel, and because they illustrate what we meant and why we thought the warning was needed. Anyway, as Harris has been informed, the remarks will be removed from further editions of the A toZ in accordance with our decision to remove all such commentary from the book in order to free space for new material.
Now, I have stated my case, given my reasons and, I hope, demonstrated that whatever my failings may be, I have acted throughout in good faith. May that be the end of it. |
Author: Karoline
Monday, 10 May 1999 - 08:58 am | | I feel slightly reluctant to say anything , in case this civilised discussion is suddenly inundated by people calling themselves 'Scrappy' and 'Crappy' , making strange 'jokes' and hurling abuse at me. But assuming they're back on their medication, or safely tucked up in their strait jackets, I'll take the risk.
Re. the 'diary'. McCormick and all the rest:
It does seem to me that a lot of rude things have been said BY a lot of people ABOUT a lot of people over the years. But I don't think it's fair or reasonable of Paul to suggest that this all came from one side, or that he has not been as guilty as anyone.
I think everyone here would have to agree that the last para. of the A-Z entry on Melvin H. is a direct personal attack, entirely out of place in a purportedly unbiased work of reference. It really is a majorlapse in literary professionalism and scholastic detachment.
It was wrong, Paul, and every bit ad bad as anything that has been said or done against you. Rather worse thsan most.
Frankly, it ill-behoves anyone who has committed such prejudicial opnions to print, to then complain of any personal attack inflicted on them.
So, Paul maybe you should cut the 'injured innocent' stance. It isn't true and only provokes more unfortunate aggression. Accept that you have dished it out as much as taken it, that you HAVE insulted Mr. H. as profoundly as anyone has ever insulted you. Accept that you did recently make remarks to the detriment of his character, and that you will probably do so again.
Accept that you have both equally given the insults and received them.-
Then we might really be able to move on away from the long self-justificatory posts that fly in from all sides.
Don't waste any more time trying to show that you aren't personally involved and personally motivated and personally culpable, Paul. Of course you are. Just as Mr. H is and everyone else who 'profits' - as you put it - from this noisome diary.
I hope this is taken as siding with no one - as simply trying to see a way out of an otherwise hermetically sealed situation.
No offence to anyone (especially Scrappy and co.)
K. |
Author: Karoline
Monday, 10 May 1999 - 09:02 am | | I feel slightly reluctant to say anything , in case this civilised discussion is suddenly inundated by people calling themselves 'Scrappy' and 'Crappy' , making strange 'jokes' and hurling abuse at me. But assuming they're back on their medication, or safely tucked up in their strait jackets, I'll take the risk.
Re. the 'diary'. McCormick and all the rest:
It does seem to me that a lot of rude things have been said BY a lot of people ABOUT a lot of people over the years. But I don't think it's fair or reasonable of Paul to suggest that this all came from one side, or that he has not been as guilty as anyone.
I think everyone here would have to agree that the last para. of the A-Z entry on Melvin H. is a direct personal attack, entirely out of place in a purportedly unbiased work of reference. It really is a major lapse in literary professionalism and scholastic detachment.
It was simply wrong, Paul, and every bit ad bad as anything that has been said or done against you. Rather worse than most.
Frankly, it ill-behoves anyone who has committed such prejudicial opinions to print, to then complain of any personal attack inflicted on them.
So, Paul maybe you should accept with good grace that you have dished it out as much as taken it, that you HAVE insulted Mr. H. as profoundly as anyone has ever insulted you. Accept that you did recently make remarks to the detriment of his character, and that you will probably do so again.
Accept that you have both equally given the insults and received them.-
Then we might really be able to move on away from the long self-justificatory posts that fly in from all sides.
Don't waste any more time trying to show that you aren't personally involved and personally motivated and personally culpable, Paul. Of course you are. Just as Mr. H is and everyone else who 'profits' - as you put it - from this noisome diary.
I hope this is taken as siding with no one - as simply trying to see a way out of an otherwise hermetically sealed situation.
No offence to anyone (especially Scrappy and co.)
K. |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 10 May 1999 - 11:53 am | | | To be bad, Karoline, the reference in the A to Z has to be wrong. It wasn't wrong. And, not that it makes any difference because the A to Z entry was not motivated by things which were said about the i{A to Z} authors, but what Harris said about Keith Skinner was said in 1989. We didn't publish our comment until 1996 after other comments made the joint authors feel that the warning was justified. And the entry was not mine alone but was agreed to by three distinctly different authors, one of them a former Oxford don of considerable scholarly ability who actually authored the entry in question. You are entitled to your opinion, I don't accept it. Furthermore, I don't intend to go into it any further. |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 10 May 1999 - 12:00 pm | | | Oh, and by the way, Karoline, this isn't over whether I have dished it out as much as taken it. It is about whether Harris has dished it out as much as he has taken it - that was the point I made in reply to C-M and to which Stewart has objected. |
Author: Karoline
Monday, 10 May 1999 - 03:03 pm | | Paul - Over the past year I have formed a high regard for your work here, You know that's true, because I've said so, several times. So I have to say that I am all the more astonished that you can't see how completely inappropriate it is for ANY author to use a work of reference to express the subjective personal opinions that you did about Mr. H. in the A-Z.
This isn't simply my view, it's standard academic practise. I'm afraid your behaviour in that matter would be condemned in any scholarship anywhere.
Come on Paul - the comments amounted to a serious, if not libellous, attack on the man's reputation. Surely you can see that this is out of bounds.
What if Stewart or some other respected authority decided that your stance on the diary undermined your credibility as a serious author. Would you think that gave them the right to air that opnion - as if it were a fact - in a work of reference that would be read all over the world?
Of course not. And if they did so, you would be justified in suing them for an obvious libel.
Of course, neither Stewart nor any other author would do such a thing.
But you did it to Mr. Harris.
It was simply and unequivocally wrong.
I'm sure you see that now and regret it. So, why not say so. Then maybe Melvin could admit his errors too and you could begin some kind of reconciliation.
Paul, you know I've no vested interest in either side. I'm not a ripper author. I've no favourite suspect. I'm just an interested observer. You expressed your own appreciation of my neutral stance, when you said you would take my views seriously. I appreciate that comment and hope you continue to do so.
I'm absolutely NOT trying to diminish anyone. But it's pretty obvious to any impartial observer that you HAVE (based on the A-Z entry alone) dished out as much personal unpleasantness as you have received, and I just think we should tell it like it is. It isn't the case that Mr. Harris has done the insulting, while you have stood politely by. You have delivered your share, along with all the others involved in this embarrassing controversy. All sides equally guilty.
if we accept that, maybe the personal abuse from all sides can truly be put to rest.
Don't get cross Paul. Don't start another long blustery defence of your reputation, it's not necessary. Just consider that there might really be fault on all sides, not just one.
best wishes to all
K. |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Monday, 10 May 1999 - 04:25 pm | | As my comments have been bandied about a bit here, I thought I might - for the sake of clarity - explain why I wrote what I did concerning Melvin Harris.
The discussion (as we all realise ad nauseam by now) concerned "profiting" from the Diary. Whether that profit be in the form of sterling, honourable mentions or praise is irrelevant. I no more believe that Mr Harris faked the Diary than I believe Stewart Evans did. I did think, however, the suggestion that Harris profited from the Diary controversy because it increased sales of his books to be specious. I was given to understand (from a private source) that Harris had the aforementioned lawsuits and shadows, and felt this would hardly be fair trade - why have your life turned upside down just to sell extra copies of your work, especially in such a restricted and incestuous field as ours?
My source might be wrong - in this particular branch of Ripperology I am the veriest tyro - but I posted what I did because I thought no author would willingly go through such a Faustian bargain of aggravation for the sake of money which might not ever surface. That was my point. Why would Melvin Harris go through WHAT I WAS TOLD he went through (please note) for the sake of a few niggardly pounds?
Paul Begg drew the opposite conclusion. I don't agree with him, but I respect his opinion, and fully admit he certainly knows more concerning the events surrounding this controversy than I. My comments seem to have been taken as intimating that all those in favour of the Diary were acting as a cabal drying to destroy Melvin Harris. I did not mean them that way, and apologise for that inference.
Additionally, as I had no first-hand knowledge of the events I was referencing (my post of 29 April did say "to the best of my knowledge"), it was probably remiss of me to have thrown in that final comment about Melvin Harris at all.
I have the greatest respect for Messrs Harris, Begg, Evans, &c (where, after all, outside of a C&D meeting can you find the cream of Ripper authors more readily available than here?), and am very sorry if I contributed in any small way to the present contremps.
Christopher-Michael |
|
|
|
|
