|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 27, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-2000 Archives:
Archive through June 27, 2000
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 26 June 2000 - 12:26 pm |        | Sorry Peter, I got momentarily distracted there.
You were saying I was not answering any questions.
Could you remind me (since I am meant to be brain-dead) exactly which questions I was expected to be tackling, in my capacity as an amateur observer of the 'modern-hoax-by-Anne-and-Mike-for financial-gain' theory as proposed by the professionals around here?
Thanks everso. I'm so flattered you think I can answer the questions better than you or Melvin. :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 26 June 2000 - 01:15 pm | | Sorry Paul, I think that your kettle/black situation has reached boiling point. Sad? Only that a published author like yourself can find so little to say to defend himself. Outburst? Hardly. Too damn long if you ask me.
Caroline Anne:
Now you mention it there are a couple of things that I could ask you.
Have you met Anne Graham yet? The reason that I ask is that you have met Shirley Harrison a couple of times and you are in almost daily contact with Keith Skinner. If you haven't met Anne, perhaps you should.
And would you be in favour of a proper investigation of those connected with the diary in order to at least enlighten ourselves a bit more?
Regards (Really!) Peter. |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 26 June 2000 - 01:41 pm | | Karoline:- I really don't mean to sound rude, so please forgive me if I do, but do you actually read anything? My post of this morning made it perfectly clear why I think you have an interest other than in the truth. You have twisted my words to give them a meaning I did not intend. This suggests to me that you are being neither fair nor impartial and that you have a motive which you are not making clear. Having explained this to you in a language which has no ambiguity, why do you immediately respond by asking "why do you think I have any 'motive' but an interest in the truth?" I have just told you why. Please explain to me what it is about my English that you find so incomprehensible?
And yes it does occur to me that someone might disagree with me "without necessarilly being part of some conspiracy to undermine" me. But you are not disagreeing with me. 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'. What I have done is outline a standard and accepted process of historical methodology. It has been recognised as such by Joseph Triola Jr. and I can only recommend that you re-read his post of June 25, 2000 - 06:41 pm to appreciate the reasoning behind and benefits of this approach.
You have also written: "No one has tried to get the Barrets' handwriting examined, indeed Paul B. has stated that he thinks it isn't necessary." I have never stated this.
In your post of 25 June you also wrote: "No one has investigated their (the Barrett's) backgrounds to check for anomalies. No one has investigated Devereaux's handwriting or his background." Have you by any chance ever read either Shirley Harrison's book or Paul Feldman's? Or, indeed, been following the arguments advanced on the Boards very closely? Whatever the merits of the books may be, they make it abundantly clear that a lot of effort went into investigating the backgrounds of all concerned, even unto hiring private investigators to probe the time Ann spent in Australia. And as has been made clear on the Boards in recent weeks, it was Feldman's aggressive pursuit of Mike and Ann's family and friends that caused Ann to telephone him. On what evidence do you therefore base your statement that "no one has investigated their backgrounds'"? You can take issue with the way the research was done if you want to, though not with me because I wasn't responsible for it, but that's a wholly different thing from saying that it wasn't done at all!
So, Karoline, I don't think it is very helpful to anyone to suggest that you have an ulterior motive, but to be perfectly honest I know that you are too clever and intelligent to not to have understood at least in principle the methodology I have outlined. And I also have every reason to suppose that you wouldn't attribute to me such a half-baked notion as historical research being all about 'guesswork, intuition and subjective gut feelings'. But this is what you have done and for want of a better explanation I can only assume that you are behaving this way either because I have seriously misjudged you and you genuinely don't understand what I am saying, or you do understand my words but have a reason for twisting them to mean something stupid and which I don't intend.
Further, I don't find it very clever to ask me why I say something when I have just explained why. Thus, I think I am justified for supposing that far from being a seeker after truth, you are playing rather silly games. |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 26 June 2000 - 01:47 pm | | | Peter:- long, short, your post is still sad and rude and unhelpful and unprofitable and getting nowhere. Pointless, Peter, simply pointless. Bye. |
Author: Joseph Triola Jr.
Monday, 26 June 2000 - 03:29 pm | | Good afternoon everyone,
Ms. Leach your all to brief story about the Lewis Carroll investigation sounds very interesting to me; I would like to hear more of it someday when you have the time and inclination, really. Just let me know when, and I will e-mail you my E address.
My interest in this diary thing is more learning related than anything else. I long ago concluded that is was a fake. The reasons of why, and by whom hold some interest to me, but my particular world will continue to revolve at it's normal pace weather a solution is found or not. I am watching the process multiple professional writers, journalists, and investigators are using, or advocating in solving a complex problem and I'm learning a tremendous lesson.
One of the many difficulties with the whole thing is: Nobody has been hired to do a proper job of it, or else, no one seems to think that they can recover their expenses by investigating the damnable thing, and writing a book. I chuckle to myself about that from time to time. I see a battalion of accomplished, not to mention published, writers beating each other up over a fake diary. The whole thing has a humorous Pirates of Penzances quality about it.
I've also noticed that investigation by committee, and using a message board as a medium for the exchange of ideas, is not a viable means of problem solving.
Independent minded professionals, it seems, have been successful doing things their way, and they're not about to change horses mid-stream.
A message board is just that, a place where folks come to talk, and nothing more.
The casebook is not the place that will be blamed for doing something, if I may quote some infamous graffiti.
Mr. Birchwood I'm no more a Beggophile than I am a Birchwoodophobe. I simply sought to remind everyone of the scientific method, which includes the use of hypothesis in its procedures. My comments highlighted Paul's notion of hypothesis before expenditure; as a tried and true method, it has produced verifiable results in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. I have also acknowledged your contribution to the scientific method by the formulation, and presentation of your hypothesis, and I was just theorizing why you didn't continue the debate to its conclusion. You say you have good reason; you were feeding the bulldog, and didn't have the time to spare. No sweat, I'm down with that.
Today, I have a keener appreciation for the entire " Maybrick Diary " enterprise. Clearly, some author will find a solution, if it is to be had at all, outside the paragraphs of this venue, by using his or her own variations of the scientific method. When he or she publish the results,I'm sure the casebook denizens will be delighted to tear it up, chew it thoroughly, and pass it through their lower intestines.
Bon appetit |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 03:55 am | | Don't ya just love that man?
Could we write a G&S style opera round this message board farce? I could play the sad middle-aged frump who thinks all the young men are truly, madly, deeply in love with her. (Who said anything about needing acting talent?)
Then she finds out her would-be beau is really her own grandson, farmed out at birth and brought up to be The Grand Duke of Diarrhyaphobia... :-)
Sorry Peter, another momentary distraction.
Where were we?
Ah yes.
Have I met Anne Graham yet?
No, but I'm working on it. I know she has been a very busy lady lately, but if she has no objections, I hope we will eventually meet. I'd like to compare Keith's character judgements with my own. He must be good, he thinks I'm completely doolally! :-)
And would I be in favour of a proper investigation of those connected with the diary in order to at least enlighten ourselves a bit more?
Well, firstly I'd have to take a much closer look at the investigations which have already been done (pointless going over old ground).
Then I'd try to assess how 'proper' these were, were the right questions asked? were all the answers revealed? etc.
If there are reasons to believe that further investigation could prove Anne or Mike's involvement, I'd be very much in favour. Just imagine the feather in the cap for whoever achieves this!
(And if I had to search Keith very thoroughly for evidence of corruption, I'd regard that as a perk. ;-))
Love (Really!),
Caz |
Author: Steve Powell
Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 06:24 am | | Dear Diary,
not enough has been asked about Anne's stay in
Australia.
1) Which Hospital/s.
2) Who were her 'Friends'.
3) Where is her medical records?
4) Why is she a 'Security Risk'?
I'd love to know these answers.
Love Steve. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 06:34 am | | Hello everyone:
I find it very unfortunate that two very perceptive gents such as Peter Birchwood and Paul Begg should have such a falling out, when I believe they are, as are all interested parties, after the truth of the matter about the Diary. Might I call for a reconciliation and a soothing of the hurt feelings, the ruffled feathers, the bruised egos? There is more at stake here.
I find myself somewhat more in Peter and Karoline's camp in regard to the research done so far since we already know, I think, that Paul Feldman's research methodology falls short of the required rigor. I admire Keith Skinner and feel comfortable with his professionalism, though I do not feel as good about his trust in Anne Graham's trustworthiness. Sorry. I feel as Peter and Karoline do, that more can be done to research the circumstances of the Diary and the backgrounds of the people involved in this saga.
Chris George |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 06:54 am | | Steve Powell's point above is well made and timely. As Paul and Peter have both pointed out, Paul Feldman apparently had Ann Graham investigated privately. The public outcome, however, is limited to some innuendo to the effect that the British security forces consider her to be some kind of risk, that her medical records have been mysteriously tampered with, and that there is some desire on the part of the Establishment to cover up her family history. This, as Peter says, we are not supposed to ask about. Well, we are asking. And unless Mr. Feldman is prepared to be more forthcoming, I think we may be entitled to dismiss this business as another desperate smokescreen.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 08:41 am | | Chris:- Let's try to establish what's been going on here (and the 'we' in what follows refers in the main to myself, Keith and Caz): All we've asked is how Birchwood thinks his 'Mike and Ann did it' theory would be affected by the handwriting of the 'diary' not being either Mike's or Ann's. Such a possibility being indicated because both 'sides' agree that to the untrained eye it resembles neither hand. We've also explained that since it is possible/probable that a professional handwriting analysis would confirm that the 'diary' wasn't written by Mike or Ann, the analysis would not progress us beyond what we already suspect to be true and that it would be useful to therefore examine other likely
scenarios so that we can decide where the potentially expensive research would most profitably be directed.
There is nothing in what we have asked which is unreasonable, ambiguous or contentious. In response Birchwood hasn't answered the question, but has been rude and evasive, has asked a string of irrelevant questions of his own and has attempted to make out that we are not answering
his questions when in fact he isn't answering ours. Otherwise we've had waffle from Karoline Leach in which she has tried to make out that the methodology being employed is faulty, whereas her
understanding of the research already done seems pitifully shallow and her representation of the methodology is grossly twisted and perhaps
purposefully so.
(I may also add that Birchwood did not address Joseph's points, but dismissed him as being a Beggophile, which even if true had no bearing on the validity of his argument. And Karoline did not address Joseph either, but instead claimed that he'd misunderstood her, which he manifestly hadn't.)
This isn't a matter of 'hurt feelings', 'ruffled feathers' or 'bruised egos'. It is all about a very simple question which has been asked and the prevarication and evasion used to avoid answering. I wonder why? |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 08:47 am | | | Steve & Guy:- Perhaps Keith or Paul Feldman can confirm exactly what research was done into Ann's time in Australia. I think quite a lot was done, but I could be mistaken. Regarding the security services business, I know about this and it isn't an invention, though the involvement of the security services was theoretical (and suggested to Feldman by people who might have been expected to know, not suggested by him). Insofar as I am aware, however, there is nothing significant behind or in it and I don't think it has any bearing on anything other than providing an explanation about why Feldman got so fired up about Ann's background. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 09:17 am | | Hi Chris,
Wasn't Paul Feldman's research pretty much connected with his theory that the Diary is genuine?
And wasn't Melvin Harris's research pretty much connected with his theory (predicted, I believe, before he even started) that the Diary is a modern forgery, involving Anne Graham?
I agree there has to be a better, more objective way to go, for anyone truly interested in the truth.
What we have been doing here, as I see it, is not exploring the problems with Feldy's theory or research priorities.
We are asking what needs to be done, what money needs to be spent, if any of us want to further explore Melvin's theory, in the light of the apparent failure to nail the suspected forgers, either on the handwriting or any other evidence.
The main question which has been asked, but not yet answered, is how this failure is being addressed by those proposing or supporting the modern forgery theory. Are they simply going to ignore the potential major flaw in their theory?
Melvin has already said it's all irrelevant, and seems very concerned not to cause distress to the forgers. Whether this is because he knows something we don't, and feels unable to reveal all, we don't know if he won't tell us. We just have to trust him that it is not simply a convenient fall-back position from the lack of evidence he has found against either Anne or Mike.
Peter is finding it hard to give us his thoughts on where he thinks research money could be profitably directed, in the light of the failure to tie up all the loose ends of the theory he supports.
Just his opinion would be appreciated.
Instead of getting some sort of response from him in this regard, some of us have been subjected to a bizarre series of irrelevant posts, word-twisting, delaying tactics, and questions which we have tried to answer honestly, even though our own questions have continued to be avoided.
You wrote:
'I do not feel as good about his [Keith's] trust in Anne Graham's trustworthiness.'
Keith has said over and over that Anne has proved herself to be UNtrustworthy, and explained to all who will listen that he must therefore continue to test his judgement that she is telling the truth regarding the Diary origins.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 09:33 am | | Paul -
Many thanks for the reply. I didn't mean to suggest that Paul Feldman had invented the security service involvement, and indeed my reading of it was that, as you say, the information was passed on to him, rather than originating from him. Where I have a problem is at the point where Feldman appears (implicitly) to wish us to "read between the lines". It is characteristic of his writing that he rushes to attribute significance to things which he is often forced to admit later are inconclusive at best. But by then, the damage is done. (I well remember an example of this approach on the BBC news from the period when Sinn Fein members' voices were not permitted to be heard - footage of Gerry Adams speaking was preceded by a reporter paraphrasing his words, then accompanied by a written transcript of his actual speech. The unwary viewer would likely be taken in sufficiently by the initial "authoritative" precis to overlook the fact that Adams' words as they appeared on screen actually conveyed a markedly different meaning.)
It is this that I wished to portray (justifiably, I think), as unhelpful innuendo, and unless Feldman is prepared to lay the cards on the table, then I do not see any reason to follow his apparent claim that it somehow bolsters his belief in the Diary's authenticity. If as you say, it has no "bearing on anything other than providing an explanation about why Feldman got so fired up about Ann's background"[my emphasis], then should we not begin to wonder whether he had any real justification for getting so fired up?
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 10:00 am | | Caz -
Whilst I agree that the main thrust here has not been to explore the flaws in Feldman's theories and research priorities, I do feel that they are, if only tangentially, relevant. Claims had been made to the effect that Anne Graham's background had not been investigated. Both Paul and Peter refuted that claim, pointing to Feldman's employment of a private investigator. I pointed out that Feldman then presented some of the alleged results of this investigation in the paperback edition of his book in a way calculated to suggest to the reader that his belief in Anne's family lineage, and hence the authenticity of the "Diary", was thus vindicated without presenting any supporting evidence.
Now Paul suggests that the involvement of the security services in Anne's past had no "bearing on anything" - and he implies that he has some knowledge of the matter. In that case, I suggest that Feldman may have been attempting to obscure the likelihood that Anne's family background does not support the "been in the family for years" explanation. If so, both the "genuine" and "old forgery" explanations are weakened, and we should still concentrate on the "modern forgery" explanation as far and away the most likely. Whilst this does not get us any closer in itself to "nailing the forgers", it may be useful in avoiding wasteful distractions.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 10:17 am | | WARNING! PURE SPECULATION!
To return again to the alleged involvement of the British security service in Anne Graham's past. As I understand it, it is customary for not only members and prospective members of the security service to be "vetted", but also for their relatives and known associates to be checked out. Private companies with interests in defence technologies and suchlike also make such inquiries. And is it not true that the manufacture of counterfeit documents is not limited to the realms of spy fiction, but is also still a feature of intelligence and counter-intelligence operations? Might this not give us a clue where to look for the putative "third person"? Or am I losing my mind? |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 10:36 am | | Guy:- Let us take fancy by the lead and speculate a little that attempts to investigate an individuals background hit a brick wall because documents about them had apparently been destroyed. It is assumed that the only organisation with the power to do this is the security service. In fact, however, a clerk in an office used the file to prop up a short leg on their desk, with the result that it never got computerised and ended up lost when a pipe burst during the harsh winter of '72. For a while the investigators feel that they are entering the world of James Bond, but in fact they are entering the world of human frailty and ineptitude.
This is a possible scenario. It would explain Feldy's initial burst of excitment, but also explain why the material is otherwise of no significance or importance. If you follow my drift. However, don't take anything I am saying on this matter as fact, beyond Feldman receiving a report which led him to not altogether unjustifiably imagine assorted things. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 10:58 am | | Paul -
I get your drift! Thankfully, then, it seems I can stop worrying about there being any great chance of my previous flight of fancy being worth pursuing! Sanity restored - many thanks. |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 11:26 am | | PAUL wrote:
Karoline:- I really don't mean to sound rude, so please forgive me if I do, but do you actually read anything?
Paul,
You do sound very rude. But I do forgive you, since it seems you can't help it.
YOU write:
You have twisted my words to give them a meaning I did not intend...
No Paul, I don't think I have. I think I have only been trying to understand you, while your views and opinions keep turning from black to white and back again.
Please don't get any more angry or rude. Take a few deep breaths and calm down.
Then look back over your comments over the last few months, and see if you can't understand where I am coming from here.
To make it clear; archive posts are in italics. Your most recent post is quoted in bold.
On June 12 you commented 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.
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, telling me:
I really don’t have the time or inclination to
bat this worn ball around with you anymore, especially as this discussion is going absolutely nowhere...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.
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 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?'
Indeed, how is one suppose to know which you really believe?
Do you think determining when the diary was forged has to 'take priority over all the other questions'?
or do you think it is 'not relevant' to the question at all?
Then there is the remarkable exchange you had with Chris George, when on June 20, you said:
Keith has spent a considerable amount of time
in Ann's company and he believes her story about the 'diary' having been in her family for some time. But he isn't arguing an old forgery.
CG made the rather obvious point in reply the same day;
Isn't this is a contradiction???...If Keith believes Anne Graham's story, he has also to believe that the Diary dates back to 1950 or before, doesn't he? That is, the Diary IS an old forgery. He can't have it both ways.
To which you replied, again on the same day:
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.
!!??!!
YOU write:
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'.
But on the contrary Paul - you have done just that.
On June 22 you wrote:
I have been trying to get across to you that we are not talking about 'hard evidence’ but testing a theory.
And on June 24 you wrote:
no headway...can be made if the 'Mike and
Ann did it'theorists...recite "where's your hard evidence?" at any and every opportunity as if somehow it has a bearing on the creation of a workable hypothesis that can be tested.
This seems to leave little room for doubt about your position. You think that hard evidence has nothing to do with 'testing a theory', and no 'bearing on the creation of a workable hypothesis'
It is a very odd position for a sensible man to adopt. You use the word 'asinine' to describe it. I probably would not, out of simple politeness. However, I cannot but agree that it is appropriate.
By the way, I am not a 'Mike and Anne did it theorist'. I have no theory about who did it. I am just interested in finding out.
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.
Do you begin to see the point?
When you tell me I am 'twisting your words, you mean I am quoting you from yesterday, when today you want to say something different.
It seems a little hard to thus blame me for your own cast-off (and admittedly sometimes rather silly), statements.
I'm afraid you seem to spend most of your time embroiled within some unwise endeavour to make us all ponder the possibility that black is really just a greyish shade of white.
It seems a great waste of your abilities. I am sure, if you were to step out from that odd defensive niche you seem to have constructed for yourself, that you would have great things to contribute here.
Shall we eschew the ludicrous depths of personal abuse seen here before?
I'm just making a point Paul. Other people here think it might be a good one.
I wish you could stop accusng me of ulterior motives for long enough to simply consider if I might be right.
By the way - Joseph:
Thanks for your interest in my work.
Do please read my book on Carroll (I have already been plugging it to RJ Palmer). There is an extract on the Victorian Web, (http://landow.stg.brown.edu/victorian/carroll/dreamchild/dreamchild1.html) if you don't feel like shelling out the money:
Paul,
I mean to respond to your questions about Feldman's research into Ann's background, but this post is already too long, so I will make that a separate issue.
Karoline |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 12:23 pm | | Let us consider what we would need to start to start some reasonable investigative work on the diary.
Samples of handwriting would be essential: originals preferred. Now without accusing anyone, I would suggest that samples from the following would be needed:
Mike and Anne,
Billy Graham
Albert and Robert Johnson
Tony Devereux
The witnesses to his will.
Any other suggestions would be welcomed.
It's obviously necesary to clear up the Feldman comments concerning the backgrounds of Anne and Mike. "Steve Powell's" comments are particularly interesting and these matters do need to be investigated. (I'd be particularly interested to know if "Steve" has some personal knowledge of his own from Australia.) Feldman's comments may be unfair to both parties or might lead us towards some truth: Begg notwithstanding, we need to know.
It would be interesting to know something about the Police investigation (subsequently dropped.) We do not have much information from: a/ the Graham family b/ the Barrett family or c/ the Devereux family. What do those family members have to say about the whole affair?
I suppose the ideal thing would be to try to interest a TV company in the investigation. I have been trying to talk Granada into it but it's not really their sort of thing. Perhaps someone has contacts with BBC, Channell 4 or one of the cable companies.
Peter. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 12:52 pm | | Hi Karoline,
I take a peek out of the dugout, with my helmet on, and waving with a white flag: don't shoot me yet...I have been following your discussion with Paul about hard evidence. I can see where you come from, but...
you recite from Paul's post on June 22: "I have been trying to get across to you that we are not talking about 'hard evidence’ but testing a theory. "
You interprete this as Paul meaning that testing has nothing to do with 'hard evidence'. While your interpretation suggests to me that you, Karoline, think that 'testing a theory' has everything to do with 'hard evidence'. This isn't 'totally' true. Of course you are right that evidence is needed, but rather I would add to this 'eventually'. For example: the blood-poisoning issue of last year. After someone got the notion, we discussed the issue thoroughly from every angle: what would be required in research for it? is it possible JtR died of blood-poisoning? What if he did? What if he didn't? What if we turn up every record from a London hospital, but we don't find anything in relation to apossible suspect? Does that mean it didn't happen? He could well have died at home? ... All these questions belong to the act of 'testing a theory', without even searching for 'hard evidence'. And I have not interpreted Paul's comment any other way.
You also quote in the same line of thought Pauls words of post on June 24:
"...at any and every opportunity as if somehow it [evidence] has a bearing on the creation of a workable hypothesis that can be tested. "
Karoline, that's just what the word 'hypothesis' means: it is a speculation without evidence. Once you have evidence for it, it becomes fact. So building a workable hypothesis is nothing more than examining known material and theories and statements, ... and create a 'logical' theory (not an intuitive one) that can be tested later on to see if it is a fact.
I quote from your post on Tuesday, June 27, 2000 - 11:26 am: "You also claim that you [Paul] 'never said' you [Paul] thought it unnecessary to get the Barrett's handwriting tested. "
I interprete this that you try to proof the opposite when reciting him again from his post on June 24, :"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?
You conclude then, I quote: "You [Paul] think testing the handwriting is very unlikely to 'cut any ice', for several clearly stated reasons."
I refer you back to the analogy I have made with the blood-poisoning theory. What I read in Paul's comment is nothing more than the out of hand questions I wrote in the example. It is nothing more than questioning the value of such a 'hard evidence', aka 'is it hard evidence?'. A non-match with the handwriting does not mean they were not in on the forgery. And thus there must be looked already beyond such evidence as their 'handwriting' for other evidence.
Before I duck to the bottom again I'd like to mention that I agree that, before any of the suspect-forgeries are dead, people will have to try to search for evidence to turn a theory into fact. And I'm willing to help out in any way possible for me (from this location this rather suggests: financially). But I'd rather not spend it on a wild errand. In the last line of thought, I would say: "Let them speculate a bit longer on the theory and on what evidence is required".
Greetings,
Jill,
Back into the dugout. :-) |
|
|
|
|
