|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through June 29, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-2000 Archives:
Archive through June 29, 2000
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 12:58 pm |        | Just another squeek from me,
I see, that's what Peter is doing at the moment; speculating what evidence is required, that is. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 01:04 pm | | Hi Guy,
I agree with everything you say about Feldy. He seemed to think everybody would immediately see and understand the things he was seeing. The poor man probably could not begin to understand when he found that, one by one, everybody else on the planet thought he was crazy. :-)
So his nod nod wink wink approach to James Bond-type identity mix-ups and destroyed records may have simply been a symptom of his absolute certainty that we would all agree that something fishy was going on, rather than an attempt to obscure any likelihood that the Diary had not been hanging around for years.
I truly believe he was fooling himself, rather than trying to fool others, with all his wild identity crises. I wonder why he spent so much time and money and heartache on his peculiar brand of research if he really had no faith in Anne's story?
You wrote:
'...we should still concentrate on the "modern forgery" explanation as far and away the most likely.'
I understand that point of view, but how is this going to be useful in avoiding distractions?
What does "concentrate" mean? Accept it as a fait accompli? Or question it?
And what questions, if any, should be asked, and of whom? Just Keith and Paul? Or Melvin and Peter? Or both?
And wouldn't it be refreshing if everyone could pull together and be friends? :-)
But if Melvin and Peter can see no problem whatsoever with a theory that involves Anne Graham and Mike Barrett directly in the forgery, with no firm evidence against either, we will continue to get nowhere asking them the questions.
I am trying to get at some answers, if only for my own personal satisfaction, and I do appreciate the feedback I get from this board to help me decide what I should be asking. But, as Joseph pointed out, this place is for talking, when I'm away from it I'll be doing my 'doing'. Wish me luck. :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 03:44 pm | | To Paul Begg from Simon Owen
Paul , although we are testing a theory here - do you have any specific evidence that the Diary is an old document which you would be willing to share with us ?
I believe this will help clear up some of Karoline's troubles !
Finally All : ' Jaw-jaw is better than War-war ' - Winston Churchill , 1954. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 05:48 pm | | HARD FACTS PLEASE
Mr Triola is well meaning but the approach he favours is far too complex and quite unsuited to the investigation of an essentially simple artifact. Since no prosecution is intended the identity of the forgers is of no account. And note that prosecution itself is not automatic. In fact it is not a crime to forge a document unless that document is used to gain financial benefit. Even then, if the persons or organisations taken in by the forgery, decide not to take any action, then the matter is closed.
Now to the artifact. The questions needing answering are few.
1. Does the paper and binding of the journal fit the year 1889 or earlier?
2. Does the ink contain and substances that brand it as a 20th century product?
3. Is the handwriting that of James Maybrick?
4. Does the text contain vital material that is not discoverable in modern works?
5. Does the text reflect modern misunderstandings?
Subsiduary questions arise out of these, but for the moment let us deal with 1 to 5.
The paper seems to be of the right period and so does the binding. But such things are not hard to come by. Having said that, I have to point out that we do not know the age of the journal. An age later than 1889 could only be established if some whitener or other compound, not discovered until a later date, was found in the paper. And though the binding may look Victorian the very same style was used as late as 1931 by the London book binders J.C.King, of 40 Goswell Road, Clerkenwell.
The ink is of the iron-gall type similar to the simple inks that were manufactured constantly between 1888 and 1992. It is undateable now. But when first seen in 1992 it showed no signs of age bronzing. It looked like a freshly applied, weakish ink. It needs re-testing, and the cost is quite small if the right questions are asked.
The handwriting is totally unlike the distinctive handwriting of James Maybrick. Handwriting examination may have its drawbacks but these are found in cases where handwriting has been imitated or a disguised hand has been employed. But in the Diary case you have a straightforward comparison between two sets of free handwriting. No disguise is involved and no imitation either.
Apart from everyday knowledge (like the Poste House) every specific item in the Diary, whether based on fact or fallacy, is contained in the three books I have identified.
Yes, the text reflects several errors found in Underwood and Ryan.
At this point let me remind readers that I have for years urged that a dummy copy of this Diary should be created and displayed in a prominent shop window in Liverpool. An appeal for anyone who has seen or handled such a journal before 1992, to come forward, might well produce some results. An accurate facsimile could easily be made by a skilled binder and would cost less than fifty pounds. No one associated with making money out of the Diary has ever risked displaying such a copy. Why?
So if anyone is interested in making a real contribution to new research why not join me in pressing for a display of a facsimile Diary?
Finally everyone who saw the gleam of gold DID fall for the man in the pub yarn told by Mike. And, yes all the books that the forgers could need were in Liverpool's libraries, apart from that, copies of Ryan's book were easy to find second-hand. As for the all-important Underwood book, at one time there were a number of copies in the local libraries, but all copies, save one, were stolen! The odd one out is in a branch far distant from the City centre. Did someone try to cover the tracks? Just a thought. |
Author: Joseph Triola Jr.
Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 07:39 pm | | Hello Ms. Leach,
Let me see if I understand you correctly.
You contend that Paul has confused you with mixed signals by addressing Mr. Stanley's remark:
"Please don't misunderstand me, no I'm not sure the Diary is a fake,but we seemed to be getting bogged down in the Graham enigma rather than looking at the Diary proper. (just to nail my colours to the mast, I'm more of a Kosminski-ist than anything else..but I agree, we certainly can't ignore the Diary) Steve s." (Stanley, 6/12/00)
with this response:
"Stephen:- At risk of stating the obvious, determining when the'diary' was composed - that is when the ink was actually placed on the paper - has to take priority over all other questions. There is no point in discussing whether or not the
'diary' could have been written by someone close to the investigation, if the ink was in fact put on the paper in, say, 1990." (Begg, 6/12/00)
What seems to be confusing you Ms. Leach? It is clear Paul is discussing with Mr. Stanley, the value of a specific sequence, as it relates to a possible Diary author.
Mr. Stanley states his opinion regarding the validity of the Diary, and goes on to question the focus of attention on "the Graham enigma" as opposed to the Diary itself.
Paul responds by excusing himself for stating the obvious, and explains the proper sequence of investigation as: establish the date and then, identify the author.
On June 20th, he is exchanging ideas with Caz, and Mr. George regarding the level of Mr. Skinner's faith in Ms. Anne Barrett, in essence to quote Paul, "I hope this clears up any remaining queries about who is discussing what, and why." (Begg,6/20/00) This last sentence should be a dead giveaway as to the subject under discussion, but you seem to miss the bus on this one completely. You chastise Paul for gently explaining to you that:
"it simply isn't relevant to the topic being discussed." when in fact the subject of your post was "You say you are "trying to test various points in the argument that [the diary] is a modern one. Keith is doing the same." [...]At
risk of repeating myself ad nauseam - do you or Keith or anyone have any solid evidence that suggests the thing is NOT a modern fake?" (Leach, 6/20/00)
This, I think if you read it again, you will find Paul's assessment of your being off topic to be quite accurate. Paul is discussing Anne Barrett with Mr. Skinner and Caz, and you are asking about potential Diary date evidence that relates to a previous conversation; clearly, you are confusing apples with oranges.
One could hardly fault Paul for being a tad (nice word that) terse. The topic of discussion had changed, and you either weren't paying attention, or didn't understand the conversation. Your next statement is bizarre:
"You have to admit, that is something of a change of direction,and it was maybe not very fair of you to blame me for your own violent alteration of heart. How was I supposed to know that all of a sudden the age of the artefact was of no importance at all, when only days before you had been saying it was'the first 'priority?'"
(Leach, 6/27/00)
What you see as a change of direction is simply a change of topic; as I'm sure you may have noticed this is a complex issue, with multiple facets. Violent! Don't you mean vehement? Further more; did you really expect Paul to refuse to discuss any topic other then a date the Diary was forged? Really Ms. Leach, that isn't a very realistic grasp of the situation; no wonder you're confused.
The very next thing you blurt out is your confusion over the exchange between Mr. George, and Paul. As I said previously, these are complex issues, and not paying attention isn't going to make it any better for you. What is it about this statement that you don't understand?
"Keith believes Ann's story and accordingly must accept that the 'diary'is an old forgery, but that doesn't mean he is arguing that it is an old forgery." (Begg, 6/20/00)
Mr. Skinner believes Ann's story. Mr. Skinner isn't going to argue about it with anyone, instead, Paul explains, Mr. Skinner chooses to ask a pertinent question, i.e. if the handwriting doesn't match, either of the Barrett's, how does that effect the argument accusing them of forging the Diary. Now if I can pick up on the subtle nuance of that statement, and you can't, does that mean you are burdened by an intellect inferior to mine? I don't think it does, I think it points to something else, and I'll get to that in a minute.
Lastly, you quote Paul's accusing statement:
"You are grossly distorting what I have said. I have never said nor given any reason to suppose that I entertain such an asinine notion as thinking historical research is about 'guesswork, intuition and subjective gut feelings'."
(Leach, from Begg, 6/20/00)
and attempt to turn it against him by taking his words out of context, and applying them to whatever mind game your playing at the moment, in a manner reminiscent of a bad Mission Impossible episode.
Collectively, we aren't a third world country Ms. Leach, we are however, a group of people who, in the course of chasing down leads in an effort to find a solution to a 112 year old mystery, have developed a astute sense of critical thinking that we can apply to anything, including your posts. It doesn't take a PHD. in psychology. to figure out what your problem is.
Earlier, I mentioned your potential intellectual burden; I really don't think you are wisdom challenged at all. I think, that since you came back in the middle, rather than the beginning of this discussion, starting with you admitting your ignorance of Caz changing her Weedon Grossmith theory, and progressing to the point where we now stand; I would say you don't understand these issues as they relate to each other. To me,that seems to be the source of your inability to grasp Paul's meaning.
If I am correct, then a few more weeks of seasoning should bring you right up to speed.
If I'm not, you then have my very best wishes ma'am. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 28 June 2000 - 03:44 am | | Karoline:- You wrote: "You also claim that you 'never said' you thought it unnecessary to get the Barrett's handwriting tested. But once again I quote you:, from June 24, writing to me you observed: 'You seem to think that the simple solution is to have the handwriting of Mike and Ann compared to the handwriting of the 'diary'. I don't share that view. We would have 'hard evidence' if the analysis showed that one or the other wrote it. But if the analysis showed that neither of them did, we wouldn't have advanced beyond what we already think could be the case... And will a professional handwriting analysis cut
any ice anyway, given that handwriting experts of note and distinction emerged from the Hughes and Hitler forgery debacles smelling of the cesspit?"
Again - this seems to make your views pretty clear - would you not say? You think testing the handwriting is very unlikely to 'cut any ice', for several clearly stated reasons."
This is a clear example of why I complain that you are twisting my words. I was asking a question, as is indicated by the question mark, specifically about whether a handwriting analysis would be generally accepted given the poor performance of distinguished handwriting analysts in the Hughes and Hitler cases. You have taken this specific question, turned it into a statement and applied it to the handwriting analysis overall. In doing this you blatantly credit me with saying something I never said. That, Karoline, is twisting my words - and twisting them quite outrageously.
And the same applies to each of your examples. For example, On June 12 I did indeed write to Stephen Stanley "At risk of stating the obvious, determining when the 'diary' was composed - that is when the ink was actually placed on the paper - has to take priority over all other questions."
You, Karoline, then write: "Yet only a few days later, on the same board, in the same discussion, when I asked you what evidence there was for an old forgery, you responded: 'it simply isn't relevant to the topic being discussed.' In fact you became very impatient with me for even mentioning the old forgery question..." and you go on to observe that I "have to admit, that is something of a change of direction, and it was maybe not very fair of you to blame me for your own violent alteration of of heart. How was I supposed to know that all of a sudden the age of the artefact was of no importance at all, when only days before you had been saying it was'the first 'priority?'"
There was no change of heart, no contradiction, no changing from black to white and back to black again. The subject being discussed was a theory that the 'diary' was a modern forgery. You kept asking what evidence there was for the forgery being old. I kept telling you that we weren't discussing an old forgery. You kept asking what evidence there was that it was old. I did indeed grow impatient - and for the very reason you cite (as emboldened above) - and told you "as Caz has reiterated time and again, the current topic of conversation is the theory that Mike and Ann forged the 'diary' for financial gain."
No contradiction, Karoline. I said to Stephen Stanley that it was crucial to know when the ink was put on the paper and that is exactly why the discussion was testing the details of the widely held and generally accepted theory that the ink was put on the paper in or after 1987. We were not - as you were continually attempting to make us - arguing that it was written prior to that time, therefore your insistence that we provide the evidence for an old forgery was irrelevant. No contradiction, just you trying to change the subject.
As far as the exchange with Chris George is concerned, I am baffled by the problem you have in understanding the point. Keith was asking Birchwood to explain how the 'Mike and Ann forged it for money' theory is affected by the possibility that their handwriting does not match that of the 'diary'. This was asking Birchwood to expand on his theory taking into account a possible flaw. That question was valid, could be asked by anyone and had nothing directly to do with Keith's views or conclusions about anything. It may be that Keith's ultimate aim is to prove the 'diary' an old forgery and vindicate Ann, but there is a massive difference between promoting one's own point of view and asking another person to examine theirs.
So, Karoline, you ask if I understand your point. Well, I sincerely hope that you understand mine. When I make a very clear observation and ask a question about a specific point, I don't expect someone to turn my guestion into a statement and apply it as a grand generalisation. That is what you have done. That is what you demonstrate having done. And that is twisting my words, Karoline.
If you didn't intend to do it, then I sincerely ask you to accept my genuine apologies for mistaking your actions and for any rudeness or offence I may have given. You will understand, I'm sure, that I do not like my words being taken out of context, twisted to give a wholly different meaning to the one I intended, and then have them thrown back at me in a fashion which makes me look silly, especially when this is done by someone I have had every reason to suppose capable of understanding what I have said. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 28 June 2000 - 04:15 am | | Hi all:- I see that I didn't really need to write and post the above, but I still hope that Karoline will accept my apology for any rudeness and, in light of the posts, all the better understand why I became a tad (yes, it's an excellent word and one I use a tad too often) frustrated. Thank you Jill and Joseph for understanding and taking the time to explain, I once more express sincere thanks and appreciation of the time taken.
Melvin, many thanks for your post and the information you provide about the binding. Although for you the question of who forged the 'diary' is apparently 'of no account', my personal feeling is that this matter will not cease to be a source of speculation until the forgers are identified and as an example I mentioned in an earlier post that even though it was generally accepted that the Cottingly Fairies photographs were fakes, the matter was one of continuing speculation - that was why you were making a television documentary about it! - and it took the confession to lay the matter to rest. So, while the identity question may not interest you, it does interest others, myself included, albeit only casually. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Wednesday, 28 June 2000 - 04:32 am | | Caz -
By "concentrate" I meant:
That speculation as to the possibility of an "old" (i.e. 50 years+) forgery should probably be set aside until the kind of investigation you seek into the "modern" hypothesis has fully run its course. If, and only if, the "modern" theory collapses for any reason, should the "old" theory come into play. To introduce it into the debate earlier merely seems to lead to confusion, ill-feeling and unjustified accusations, as we are now seeing.
Whilst I do not discount entirely that the item in question could have existed prior to 1987 (stranger things have been known), I cannot, from the evidence so far presented, imagine how it could have been concocted in the time between 1888 and 1987. I think one of the strongest points in Feldman's argument is where he suggests that the "Diary" is either a modern forgery, or it is genuine. That he chooses to jump the opposite way to me from this starting position frankly baffles me, but then, that is his prerogative.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 28 June 2000 - 05:01 am | | Thanks Guy.
I agree with you, and that is why we have been trying to explain to Karoline that speculation about an 'old forgery' has not been the main thrust of this discussion at any time since Peter started it in January, as she would have known had she read all the posts. She first posted on 24th March, to which I responded the following day: 'The discussion here has been concerned with who physically did or did not sit down and write the diary. I don't believe anyone is disputing the fact that Maybrick didn't do it.' I then questioned the relevance of her post.
My mistake was to assume she stayed around long enough to read the responses to her original post.
(NB for me: Never assume anything. :-))
My thanks to Jill, Joseph and Paul for confirming everything I thought I understood, but was afraid, very afraid, to assume I had understood, for fear that my 7 'O'levels brain was not actually grasping what I was reading, and that I was the only one in step. It is gratifying indeed to be in such good company. I feel terribly isolated out here sometimes. :-)
And thank you Melvin for yet another good post!
I like the facsimile idea.
The vital difference, though, between Feldy's hypothesis and Melvin's is this:
Feldy's depends on proving no one forged the Diary (God knows how you show hard evidence of a negative, you can investigate your suspects as thoroughly as you like, but it's the lack of evidence against each one that has to suffice to support this hypothesis).
Whereas Melvin's depends on Anne Graham being right there in the centre. She can't be booted out of the puzzle or squeezed into the wrong gap. We have her here, alive and squirming, yet Melvin tells us the forgers' identities are of no account to his hypothesis.
So while Keith's 'emotional entanglement' is making him determined to winkle the truth out of Anne at any cost, if she has been pulling the wool over his eyes, it appears to be Melvin's detached concern for Anne's distress which is holding him back from doing the same.
Wonder which one will put the icing on the hypothesis cake first? :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Antony Palmer
Wednesday, 28 June 2000 - 08:40 am | | | Hello everyone, some exciting NEW TO ME news. Just saw on 'London today' here in the UK that William Friedkin finally seems to be making the film about the diary. It appears though that the film, provisionally titled' Battlecrease' will be a psychological thriller focusing on Francis and James. Shirley Harrison was on the couch being interviewed and she couldn't help mentioning the debate still taking place over the internet and the many ripperologists out to rubbish her. She is to be a consultant on the film and Michael Gambon appears to be in pole position for the Maybrick role after Anthony Hopkins pulled out. With his Hannibal reprisal that's probably a good idea. Perhaps we are coming to the end game regarding the diary. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Wednesday, 28 June 2000 - 11:24 am | | JUST CHUMS
Dear Keith, in my earlier posting I stated that you had bonded with Anne. Just so. You like her, you have a friendship and that in itself creates an emotional entanglement. All friendships do. They arouse sympathies, compassion, shared interests and so on. It is as simple as that. But such entanglements can often block the paths to truth. I have given examples and they should be enough.
You write of "my untested hypothesis". But we are talking about an obvious fake. That the Diary was not written by Maybrick, that it is based on modern books is a fact of life not an hypothesis. While the case for it being authentic or old is bogus.
I find it incredible that after all these years you are still reducing the issue to one of personal relationships. If in the past you had looked at the texts in the searching way that I did, then you would have recognised the fraud long ago in 1992 or 1993 at the latest. All those grotesque attempts to rubbish the Maybrick Will should have been killed off within hours. And do I have to remind you of the Fleming letter and the many other alleged rare bits of information that are all there in Ryan's book? And can I ask you now if you ever read issue 41 of 'Murder Casebook'? Look back on my posting 'NEW HOAX FINDINGS' before you answer. This was the issue owned by Feldman which he claimed to have read "over and over again."
And, since your name is being used as one of the 'team' behind Feldman's book do you approve of the way in which he has used faked history to keep the Diary illusions alive? Take the rewriting of history on pages 247-248 with its absurd claims that the Jack the Ripper name was in use PRIOR to the 'Dear Boss' letter. Or the alteration of the text of the letter to Forbes Winslow from 'Louigi'. Here the word "hotel" has been ADDED in order to make the text fit in with one of Feldman's theories. Then there is the affair of the birthday book which was supposed to relate to the Johnson family but which my search showed related to an unconnected family named Johnstone. And there is the case of the William McKay signatures which were claimed to match, but turned out to be quite different when the original documents were viewed. These are just a few of the points that I made long ago, but the wall of silence came down the moment I made them. Yet this silence does nothing for your reputation and I suggest that some straight answers are well overdue.
And while you are considering your reply can I repeat once more a later question of mine? Is the truth about Robert Johnson's background being hushed up? |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 28 June 2000 - 01:53 pm | | We have four persons who are or have been involved in either the diary or the watch: Albert Johnson, Anne Graham, Robert Johnson and Mike Barrett. Of those, two: Robbie and Mike have been accused of having a dodgy past and Anne of having a "mysterious" one. This is surely quite a high percentage.
I think it might be advantageous to put a copy of Tony Devereux' will on this site. It's of course a publically available document. Would anyone have any problems about that?
Peter. |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 28 June 2000 - 02:03 pm | | Paul,
If you look silly because of me - I apologise.
Maybe you are a very subtle and thoughtful man, who expresses himself in shades of qualified meaning I am not able to understand.
Maybe one man's infinite subtlety is another woman's incomprehensible self-contradictory sophistry.
Shall we let it go there?
But can I suggest you try to be a little less ready with the personal abuse?
Consider what it does to your reputation to be seen hurling insults around here in this unprovoked and vitriolic way.
Let's return to our moutons, grazing, shepherdless, nearby.
Since I realise now that you do think the Barretts' handwriting should be tested, and do see the need for hard evidence - I have a suggestion to make.
I sense there is a feeling in many people here that some sort of practical step is needed.
So, how about a communal letter, signed by all interested parties here, and sent, either through Keith or you, to one or both Barretts, asking if they would agree to the following:
1. for the diary-ink to be re-tested (Melvin says this is cheap and easy to arrange, so it seems sensible to make it the first priority).
2. That both Anne and Mike submit their handwriting to be tested by a professional examiner.
This would address two of the most obviously urgent questions, long overdue for some kind of attention.
Mind you, if there is any truth to this movie story, then I don't suppose Anne is going to be in the mood to co-operate right now (unless she's telling the truth, that is).
Still, maybe worth a try?
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: stephen stanley
Wednesday, 28 June 2000 - 05:12 pm | | Well....Quite a lot of common sense today...do I start to detect a feeling that until there is further forensic evidence,we are just going to keep going round in circles? It seems sometimes that instead of debating the Diary, we are now debating the debates!!!...Most of us accept it,s almost certainly a fake..but we need to put it to rest one way or another and get back to 1888,not 1987..but this can't be done with our present state of knowledge,which is why,I presume the concentration on the personalities involved...ther is not much else to consider at the moment....I'm sure that even with Ink test,Paper tests, handwriting tests,and even lie-detectors,this one is going to run for years and years (or until an equally argueable topic comes forth)..but like the rest of us I'll keep asking questions and wondering 'because I really want to know who wrote the bloody thing!!!!!!!
Steve S. |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 29 June 2000 - 01:05 am | | Karoline:- As a professional writer I hope and in fact have every reason to believe that I generally express myself very clearly. I really don't think that any extraordinary subtelty of my thought or word explains your turning a specific question into a generalised statement and otherwise misrepresenting me. And as you are a person who I had every reason to suppose capable of understanding me, including any subtle shades of meaning I may have chosen to employ, your behaviour, be it unintentional or not, understandably irritated me and I may have been justifiably short-tempered with you as a consequence. But I think you are exceeding the bounds of legitimate definition by describing this as 'personal abuse' and 'hurling insults', vitriolic or otherwise. I am very happy to return to the pastoral landscape of gentle discussion, but without any ambiguity about your misrepresentation of my methodology, opinions and statements.
However, dropping this matter and returning to a landscape where sheep may safely graze, regarding the necessary tests that you suggest, are you paying for them? I think it is important to establish where the finances are coming from before making approaches.
Secondly, since the 'diary' handwriting doesn't look like either Mike's or Ann's and a professional analysis may only confirm this, and since whoever is paying for the tests is unlikely to be able to afford to have the handwriting of all and sundry friends and family of Mike and Ann's analysed, who else's handwriting should we have tested as likely to advance our knowledge and why?
And is it generally agreed that a handwriting analysis would be conclusive given the poor performance of handwriting analysts in other cases?
And as for testing the ink, how does that decide who put the ink on the paper? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 29 June 2000 - 04:34 am | | Hi All,
Melvin’s reply to Keith will receive his careful attention in due course. He says he owes R.J, Karoline and CMD replies first.
I would just like to say, in the meantime, that there seems to be quite a bit of speculation doing the rounds here.
I understand how emotional ‘entanglements can often block the paths to truth.’ Melvin says he has ‘given examples and they should be enough.’ But ‘often’ is not ‘always’, and without ever having met Keith himself, Melvin feels able to speculate that his ‘often’ and ‘enough’ applies in this case. (Is this an example of Karoline’s wild and ultimately futile speculation?)
So this part of the hypothesis has not been tested by any evidence gathering, has it?
Melvin rejects Keith’s use of the words “untested hypothesis” by writing: ‘...the Diary...based on modern books is a fact of life not an hypothesis.’
Sure, the diary info on JtR may look very much like it came from Fido and Underwood (I’m ploughing through the latter as we speak, and I must say it’s like trying to wade through treacle, I wonder how Anne and Mike found it?).
But has Melvin found a shred of evidence that Anne or Mike knew of the existence of these books, let alone read them and chose them as the basis of their hoax? Has Melvin examined any of Mike’s research notes to see which JtR books he claims to have known about at that time?
The pair’s apparent ignorance of both books would be consistent with denying any involvement, yet Mike wanted to prove to the world, by confessing he created the diary, that he was not illiterate and was a professional writer. So why didn’t he at that point show his intimate knowledge of Fido and Underwood? Answer me that! :-)
Or is Melvin saying (or speculating again) that it was Anne who used these books without Mike's knowledge? Perhaps she read them at work or at the library and never took them home?
Oh, before I forget, Melvin mentioned a possible penman for the diary. I’d be interested to know if this person was one named in Feldy’s book and, if so, how serious a contender Melvin thinks this person is. Apart from the fact that this person’s handwriting would appear to match the diary author’s, is there any other evidence for or against?
After all, I believe Mike Barrett was absolutely convinced his own signature appeared on a marriage certificate, which turned out to have nothing to do with our Mike (could there be another? :-)). A cautionary tale about any amateurs assessing handwriting and leaping to conclusions.
Hi Paul,
Maybe you are a very subtle and thoughtful man, but you certainly manage to express yourself in ways Jill, Joseph and I (at least) are perfectly capable of understanding, whether we agree with everything or nothing that you write, or somewhere in between. Ewe are not alone.... :-)
Others have also told me that they think you possess the patience of a saint.
They are not alone either.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Karoline L
Thursday, 29 June 2000 - 04:48 am | | Paul, since you have the patience of a saint, maybe you will agree that words like 'pitifully shallow waffle', would be most people's idea of abuse.
But let's not make an issue out of it.
You are naturally rude and personally abusive under any kind of pressure.
But providing you don't direct it at me, I won't mention it again.
PAUL wrote:
regarding the necessary tests
that you suggest, are you paying for them?
I think it is important to establish where the
finances are coming from
before making approaches.
Paul,
I take it you are not prepared to put any of your own money into this?
Or Keith?
Hmmm...it does make it awkward. Because usually the principle investigators are prepared to put some hard cash into getting the answers they want.
Okay.
Well, maybe there is a way round this.
1. how much would an ink test cost? Does anyone have any figures on that?
2.How much would a professional handwriting analysis cost?
When we have some figures, it will be possible to see what can be done.
But I suggest either you or Keith immediately approach the Barretts to see if they are willing to have the diary and/or their handwriting tested.
After all, there seems little point in fixing up the analysis until we know we have something to analyse. if they won't co-operate we can't proceed.
So, will you or Keith do this?
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 29 June 2000 - 04:53 am | | Shirley Harrison is having some problems accessing this site to post the following message and she has accordingly forwarded the following to me by email and asked that I post it for her, which I am pleased to do.
From Shirley Harrison:
It may be helpful for everyone to know the facts behind Peter Birchwood's passing reference to Anne Graham and her stay in Australia in the early 1970's. It would be a shame were readers to be swept as,sadly, so often seems to happen into a maelstrom of unintended misinformation.
On the evening of Saturday August 7th 1999, during a Cloak and Dagger meeting (Sue and Andy Parlour were speaking) Andy Aliffe gave Keith
Skinner a copy of an Email he had received from Australia. This came from theatre manager, Steve Powell and read:
"Dear Andy, The reference to Anne being a nurse in Asutralia is mentioned in Feldman's book 'The Final Chapter' (page 166) 'This is me
in Australia when I was a nurse.' When I first read this it triggered off something in my memory that I had almost forgotten. The years were 1967-1971. I was playing in a rock band called 'The Mint' in Sydney. One of the band, David Dalton, waqs taking out a nurse who was working at Sutherland Hospital in Caringbah, south of Sydney. David had a thing for nurses and we were often parked at the hospital, meeting or dropping
off nurses.
One night, dropping off several of them a conversation occurred that caught my attention. The nurses were talking about another nurse at the
hospital. The nurse had told them about knowledge she had of the identity of Jack the Ripper and of a diary or letters that came from her father. She was very excited about this and was going to "write a book or something". She swore the other nurses to secrecy. I think some of the girls had actually seen or read this material. Well, I was stunned..I had read every book I could get on "Rip" and this statement
was too close for comfort or luck!
I wanted to talk to the nurse herself and proposed to do so. Before I had a chance I was told she had suddenly gone home to England. I do
know that edavid was in contact with a girl named Anne in England after this and that se was the 'love of his heart'. There may be more to
tell. I shall try to contact my lost band members and inquire of them. I would love to know if it was Anne Graham or not. The
co-incidence is remarkable I feel. Well, Andy, got to go to work now, keep cool....."
Keith copied the Email immediately to me.
We agreed the lead was very exciting and, if true, could provide the first independent backing for Anne Graham's claim to have seen the diary
circa 1968-1969.
But we were also suspicious and we later noted that Paul Feldman had given a date for Anne being in Australia on page 197 (pbk): "Anne left England in 1970 to nurse at a hospital in Australia."
He did NOT say exactly where.
We agreed that the story needed much more probing and that no-one, least of all Anne herself, should be told. If, at the end of the day we could prove independently that she had talked of the diary when in Australia, we would have stumbled on the most important confirmation of our belief that the diary is, at the very least, not a modern forgery.
We were determined that there could be no later accusation of her possible collusion with Steve Powell (or indeed, Andy Aliffe) and equally important that Keith and I could not eventually be accused of manipulating unsubstantiated rumours to support our own purposes or of feeding Anne support for her story.
So we kept stum about our investigations.
In the meantime I was in constant discussion with steve whose Emails seemed increasingly extraordinary in their detail. This worried us.
There was no clear financial motive - he had nothing to gain. He had not, after all, even approached me in the first place. The story had
emerged as an incidental,almost by chance, through Andy, during correspondence on a totally unrelated matter.
Sadly, Steve could find none of the original people from the band days - apart from David Dalton. I telephoned him and told him the barest bones of the story. Again I did not want to lead him into saying what I wanted to hear. But he was coming to London the following week and agreed to phone and arrange a meeting. That phone call did not come and now David's answer phone is permanently on.
So Keith and I were left with a tantalising but unsatisfactory lead. Professor Rubinstein knew about Steve by this time and agreed to our
request that he mention nothing in his article for History Today. He was going to visit family in Australia and offered to contact Steve
himself. His response to that 'phone conversation was that Steve was genuine, that his recollections were, indeed based on real events but possibly confused over the 30 years between.
Following Peter Birchwood's recent reference to the Australian connection on the Internet, Keith and I decided that the time had now come to approach Anne. Keith wrote to Anne on June 15th 2000, taking the precaution of sending a copy of his letter to Stewart Evans, to combat later anticipated accusations (not from Stewart) that he had written secretly to Anne outlining what her story should be and what she should say. He then recorded a very long conversation on the telephone with her on the evening of June 16th 2000.
The gist of that tape was denial. "I wish it was true" she said "it would do me a lot of good." She recalled that she arrived in Australia
in November 1970, worked for six months for a market research company in Sydney and then went to Canberra where she trained as a nurse. In
1972 she returned to Sydney where she had a full time job and worked for a few weekends only as a nurse in a hospital (before breaking her foot)
to earn some money to help pay for a car. She could not recall the name of the hospital. "I haven't got a clue - it was probably in the Matraville district, which is where I was living. She could not remember any of the names Keith relayed to her either. Later, when I
asked her if she had discussed the diary with anyone, she was clearly astonished that I would imagine any teenager would attach any importance
at all to an old book like that - whatever it con tained. "It was no big deal" she said, "I just wasn't interested and never gave it a thought."
So we were left with conflicting stories. Is Anne's memory understandably hazy after all this time? If she is lying - and Steve is not - why would she want to throw us off the Australian trail? What has Steve to gain by concocting such tale, the essence, if not the detail of
which, is accurate?
Australian readers of the board will hopefully be able to advise, but our understanding is that Matraville, where Anne said she was living, is
down in Botany Bay about 4-5 miles south east of Sydney. Caringbah, where Steve says the incident with the nurse occurred, is on the opposite side of Botany Bay, maybe about 4 miles south west of
Matraville.
We continue to investigate. But if anyone (especially from Australia)has clues that could help us, we would be very grateful for constructive information. Perhaps Leanne Perry or Julian Rosenthal of Ripperoo may feel like joining the hunt for clues? We are putting this story on the board now in the sincere hope that it will not fuel an outburst of invective but may be used usefully to further our wish to establish the truth. In particular we need to find the other principals in Steve's account. |
Author: Karoline L
Thursday, 29 June 2000 - 05:39 am | | Crumbs!
I guess this means there's no point in doing those tests now?
Great timing for the movie though.
I shall retire to the sidelines and wait for the next instalment.
How did prof. R. find out Steve is genuine?
What is wrong with David's answerphone?
How did Anne break her foot?
Is the Cigarette-smoking man really her father?
Watch this space....
K |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 29 June 2000 - 05:55 am | | Actually, Karoline, when you can write "No one has investigated their (the Barrett's) backgrounds to check for anomalies. No one has investigated Devereaux's handwriting or his background" when both were manifestly investigated at length and at considerable expense by both Shirley Harrison and Paul Feldman, and when Feldman himself can write "Our investigation into Tony's background was detailed and thorough" (p/back pg.154), I think most people here would probably agree that 'pitifully shallow' was not rudeness but an accurate description of your knowledge of the case. As I have already said, you are at liberty to question that investigation, but not say that the investigation had never taken place!
"You are naturally rude and personally abusive under any kind of pressure." Allowing that none of us may really know what others think about us, I must admit that I find this impression of yoursunusual and not too widely shared by people who know me, but then maybe they simply understand me better than you. Curiously, I haven't been under any pressure. I have been irritated, though, and understandably so, given that you seemed purposefully determined to misunderstand and misrepresent me. However, I promise not to be knowingly rude or personally offensive to you if you will promise not to try and make me look silly by twisting my words, turning my questions into statements, and otherwise misrepresenting me. Deal?
As you will know from my introduction to Paul Feldman's book, I was part of the research team - as an advisor exclusively on the Ripper - from mid-1992 until roughly April 1993 and therefore I am not and never have been a 'principle investigator' of the 'diary', so consequently nobody should expect me to sink money into researching the document. I believe I actually made this point in a post to this very Board a few days ago.
I am not in a position to contact either Mike nor Ann directly, but I'm sure they could both be asked. But aren't there already examples of their handwriting which could be compared. I seem to recall Peter Birchwood saying that he had some. He'd surely be willing to provide you with them. As for the costings, I have no idea what they would be and I suspect that it rather depends on who you go to.
The question asked about who else might have written the 'diary' if it wasn't penned by Mike and Ann remains unanswered though and is a point which really should be addressed. Ditto the ink tests. |
|
|
|
|
