|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 26, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-2000 Archives:
Archive through June 26, 2000
Author: Karoline L
Sunday, 25 June 2000 - 04:08 pm |        | Simon,
The answer to your very good question is that almost nothing is known about Devereaux's background - because no one has investigated it yet.
This is the bizarre world of 'the diary'.
People have been discussing this forest of 'what-ifs' for years and years. There has been a lot of fighting talk about 'nailing the forgers' and 'solving the mystery'.
But the simple truth is that, however tough the talk - there is almost NO action.
After six years of 'we have to solve this!' type clarion calling, even the most basic research remains undone.
No one has tried to get the Barrets' handwriting examined, indeed Paul B. has stated that he thinks it isn't necessary.
No one has investigated their backgrounds to check for anomalies.
No one has investigated Devereaux's handwriting or his background.
In short - this discussion is going on in a kind of evidential vacuum. Good questions are asked and asked again - but they can't be answered, because no one has the data.
What can be done about it?
I guess you have to say that it is up to those people who claim they want to 'nail the forgers', to either get the data, or stop posing questions they aren't prepared to try and answer.
AS for mere amateurs like you and I.
I guess we look on and wonder....
Paul,
we must just agree to differ.
I think historical investigation is about collecting and analysing data.
YOU think it's about guesswork, intuition and subjective gut feelings, which you describe (I nearly wrote 'dignify!) as 'testing a theory'.
I can't agree with you. I think that if you want to identify the forgers of this diary, then you will sooner or later have to stop speculating, and start looking for the evidence.
I know this makes you very cross.
I know you have a tendency to think that everyone who disagrees with you is part of some big anti-diary plot, and this makes you very defensive and impatient.
But please believe I am not part of any plot.
I am just an interested observer, urging you to consider that you might have a better chance of solving this mystery - if you got a few facts together first.
I am not on a 'side'. I don't think there should be 'sides'.
I think there should be answers.
Best of luck with the 'theory-testing'.
No offence, but there are only so many times I can go round on this particular carousel without getting nauseous.
cheers
Karoline |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 25 June 2000 - 05:54 pm | | | Were Feldy's researchers afraid of investigating the backgrounds of Billy Graham , Mike and Anne or Tony Devereaux because they were afraid of what they would find ? Or have they - perish the thought - concealed or supressed evidence which suggested the Diary was not genuine ? I hope not. But surely it would have been good practice to investigate everyone who had something to do with the thing , and to get handwriting samples - if only to eliminate certain people from the enquiries. Then there would be answers to the questions that Karoline and Caz are asking now. Shirley Harrison can't be blamed for this one ! |
Author: Joseph Triola Jr.
Sunday, 25 June 2000 - 06:41 pm | | Hello Ms. Leach,
Actually, historical investigation is about collecting and analyzing data, in their proper sequence.
The collection and analyzation aspects of historical research can only be realized after a framework has been established to determine what the goal of the exercise is, and what would be the best way to achieve it. As I've outlined in my previous post, the recovery of data can be an expensive proposition; it gets entirely out of hand when you don't have a plan to work from. It's like writing an outline, before you write an essay, or using a blue print to construct a forty-story building.
To just go off willy-nilly without a plan is a waste of time and energy. Formulating hypotheses is one practical way of planning an historical investigation. This method allows for a number of reasonable answers, including contradictory ones to be tested before time and energy are expended. There are two very valuable benefits to this procedure:
1. The hypothesis selected as the most promising is strengthened by comparison to the other hypotheses that were less promising.
2. Single solutions are rare, multiple hypotheses expose the interrelationship of numerous, and at times, seemingly unrelated factors.
I believe both Mr. Harris and yourself to be wrong in your condemnation of Mr. Begg's approach to the forgery question. You would attempt to discover background "anomalies", and analyze handwriting samples before you consider the potential of the results.
Once you have this data in hand, what do you intend to do with it? Do you figure your next move then? What if the analysis is inconclusive; how does that affect your investigation? Have you just wasted valuable time chasing down irrelevant data?
Do you know what the alternative options are in case any of the above possibilities occur? These are the questions Paul is attempting to test in advance of evidence gathering. In his question to Mr. Birchwood, "How does this affect your theory," he wasn't implying Mr. Birchwood is a dolt; he was asking a professional researcher what impact alternative results will have on his theory.
There is a large difference between "speculation" and formulating a working hypothesis, Ms. Leach. Ask yourself this question: What if YOU pay to have Mike Barret's handwriting examined and it proves inconclusive, or it matches, or it is absolutely not a match, what do you do then? Do you see where I'm gong with this tact?
If this point is crucial to you; then advocate from within your own pocket book.
Interested observers usually don't meddle in the process they're observing. The interested observers I'm familiar with limit themselves to observation, especially if they are self-proclaimed amateurs. Otherwise, they're engaged in offering amateur observations. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 26 June 2000 - 03:01 am | | Well, I'm meddling again afterall.
Here is something curious:
On p. 6 of Shirley Harrison's book (the 1993 Hyperion Hardback edition) there is a fantastical statement explaining when Mike Barrett first began to realize that the writer of the Diary was James Maybrick:
'I bought all the Jack the Ripper books I could find,' Mike recalled, 'and spent hours down at the library trying to research the Ripper story to see if the diary fitted. Then one day I read a book by Richard Whittington Egan called "Murder, Mayhem and Mystery". It was about crime in Liverpool, and there was the name 'Battlecrease House' in an account of the Maybrick affair.' (Barrett then, evidently, put two and two together and began to realize that the Diary was referring to James Maybrick).
Now hold on a minute... Am I to believe this? The Diary mentions the Exchange in Liverpool; it mentions the Poste House, the well-known Liverpudlian pub; it mentions "Whitechapel Liverpool, Whitechapel London, ha ha. No one could possibly place it together" etc. Beyond this, Mike Barrett was born and raised in Liverpool, and according to Ms. Harrison herself, "spent all his life in Liverpool, apart from a time sailing the world as a merchant seaman". He would have known very early on---immediately in fact-- that the alleged writer of the Diary was referring to Liverpool. It is self-evident. Since this is the case, it would have been a very simple matter to look into Liverpool history and find the very well known case of Florie Maybrick or to look up local information about Battlecrease House. I haven't been to Liverpool, but I think it is even possible that the Maybrick affair would be known among someone with a casual knowledge of local history. It certainly would not of taken 'hours of research' that only came to fruition when he luckily stumbled onto Whittington Egan's book, would it? Was Barrett that bad of a researcher?
So my point is: if Barrett was already making up fantastical stories about the diary when he was working with Shirley Harrison, what does this say about the provenance? This doesn't bode well for Anne's story, for at this stage Barrett himself was supposedly a dupe. If he was an innocent bystander, why would he be making up dubious stories to convince Shirley Harrison?
The above musings are, of course, IMHO.
RJP |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 26 June 2000 - 03:20 am | | PS. I personally caste a cold eye on handwriting experts. (One such expert, Derek Davis, swears that Neill Cream wrote the Lusk letters). So If we're going to start gathering funds for various causes, maybe we should start by giving our financial support to an independent inquiry into the scientific validity of handwriting analysis. :-)
PS #2: To those who consider this a 'colossal waste of time': it is better to get at the truth of the matter when the participants in the event are still alive. It will be a pity if the 500,000 copies of the Diary that are floating around out there are still causing debate 112 years from now... |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 26 June 2000 - 04:50 am | | RJP , Mike's story handily explains why he might have every book going on Jack the Ripper ! But ,as for the Liverpool connection , while he would have realised very early on that the Diary was speaking about his home town , the Maybrick connection wouldn't be immediately apparent and would need researching IMHO. While a crime student would know of the Maybrick case , the humble man in the street probably wouldn't.
As to your PS #2 : YES!YES!YES!
While I am sceptical about handwriting analysis as well , from what I know of this case Paul Feldman had money enough available to employ Melvyn Fairclough as a full time researcher ( correct me if I'm wrong ! ). While the money to obtain expensive scientific tests may not have been available , it should have been for the less costly graphology tests. Surely samples of everyone's handwriting could have been obtained and analysed by SEVERAL handwriting experts , to provide a consensus view of the matter.
But no , this wasn't done. I can imagine if Mr Harris had been employed to get at the truth , the results might have been quite different indeed !
Its not too late , examples of the participant's handwriting can probably still be obtained and analysed. But as I hinted at before , is Feldy afraid of what might be revealed ? |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 26 June 2000 - 05:14 am | | Melvn:I In saying "any cunning amateur forgers would distance themselves from the finished product by having it written by an 'outsider'" and in saying this in relation to the question of who penned the 'diary', I think it is fair that any reader of your words would assume that you were offering the former statement as a hypothetical solution to the latter. If that is not what you were doing, I'd appreciate a little clarification on what you did intend to suggest.
As for the rest, unless you are basing your comments of evidence known only to yourself, it sounds to me like it is no more than your personal speculation about what people would do. There is a big difference between saying that someone would do this and actually knowing that they did it.
As for your comments about having to remain in the dark about the identity of the penperson and how no amount of theorising will yield up a name, are we to assume from this that you know the name of that person? If so, will you simply state quite clearly either 'yes' or 'no' to that question? If you won't do that, can you elucidate what it is that you really do mean? |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 26 June 2000 - 05:29 am | | | Karoline:- I do not think historical investigation is "about guesswork, intuition and subjective gut feelings", nor have I ever said so. And I do not think that everyone who disagrees with me is part of some big anti-diary plot, but I do get tired of having my words twisted by somebody who is obviously intelligent enough to have understood what I was saying, even if I didn't say it very clearly (which I think I did, by the way). This twisting therefore does give me the very strong impression that despite your protestations to the contrary, you are not behaving in a fair and impartial way and that you have a motive which you are not making clear to everyone here. |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 26 June 2000 - 05:32 am | | | Joseph:- Thank you once again for elucidating the points about methodology that I was trying to make. I'm relieved to know that I am not going completely mad and that I am making sense somewhere along the line! |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 26 June 2000 - 06:26 am | | Simon & RJP:- Keith would be better able than I am to explain why extensive handwriting analysis wasn't done, but I don't think anyone was afraid of the results. And Feldman did investigate the people involved, even to the point of hiring private investigators to inquire into Mike and Ann's past. And it was his questioning of Mike and Ann's respective families and friends which eventually caused Ann to telephone him to tell him to back off, that conversation eventually leading to a meeting and her 'revelations'.
For what it is worth, my impression of Mike Barrett was that he knew very little and had read very little about the Ripper crimes. This opinion is perhaps supported by his research notes which indicate that he only consulted two Ripper books, Colin Wilson and Robin Odell's Jack the Ripper: Summing Up and Verdict and Paul Harrison's Jack the Ripper: The Mystery Solved. I got the feeling - and I think others did too - that Barrett was afraid the Devereax family would claim ownership of the 'diary', saying that Tony D. had never given it to Barrett but only loaned it to him. By claiming to have done a lot of work and to have identified the author, Barrett was trying to show that he still had a claim on the 'diary' and any rewards it might bring.
Of course, he could have done this irrespective of whether he was part of the forgery or just the forger's dupe, but if the former then why didn't he simply resolve the problem by saying either that Devereax had given him the 'diary' or by coming up with a completely different provenance? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 26 June 2000 - 09:51 am | | Hi All,
Glad to see this board still so lively, considering the subject is supposed to be dead in the water.
(Sounds a bit like our fish pond, the fountain still spurts water, even though hubby’s record for keeping the fish alive and swimming is pretty bloody abysmal. :-))
Back to business.
Thank you Joseph, for giving me a few very valuable lessons, as one of the amateur observers here. I'll try not to meddle too much in the process :-)
I think of the various Diary theories as mental pictures of a finished jig-saw puzzle, where we have a number of pieces but no picture on the box-lid. Some paste their own picture there to work from, others work on the pieces first. There may be several pieces missing (where the guesswork comes in), but at the end of the exercise, when all the pieces in the box have been put together to the best of our ability (without the use of force, or rejecting those which don’t fit the pre-pasted mental picture, if we’re using one), what we get must tie in exactly with the picture we have on our lid, or that picture is wrong.
The only theories worth considering are those with no rejected or ill-fitting pieces lying about. The best theory will be the one at the end of the day, which uses all the pieces, and gives the most likely description for the shape and content of the missing bits.
Is this anywhere close to a reasonable analogy?
It's how I've always looked at the problems associated with the Diary, but I may have been coming at it totally askew. My sense of direction leaves much to be desired. :-(
Keith says to tell everyone that he has only emerged very briefly from his attic to respond to Melvin’s BLIND ALLEY post of 24th June @ 04.13pm, which I faxed through to him this morning. He is still not in possession of the entire discussion from 14th June @ 04.55am.
His response follows shortly.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 26 June 2000 - 09:54 am | | From Keith Skinner To Melvin Harris
You and I have never met – neither have we ever spoken to each other. Your conclusion about my alleged “emotional entanglement” with Anne Graham is therefore presumably based on what you have read, or perhaps been told by partisan observers?
I have said, repeatedly, that my judgement of Anne Graham may well be flawed, which is why – even after six years – I continue to mentally monitor the lady whenever we talk. I may trust her but she knows that she can never trust me to remain silent about the origins of the Diary. On this inauspicious foundation our relationship has developed.
Your assessment of Anne Graham might turn out to be perfectly correct, but it is, prima facie, an academic evaluation of somebody you have never met. It ignores the realities of what her life was about. You may consider her and Mike’s (and their daughter’s) domestic situation to be trivial and unimportant, but I contend it goes right to the heart of the “dilemma”. You might genuinely and honestly believe that you can explain away these people by categorizing them as “cunning amateurs” – and you may genuinely and honestly believe that you have, irrefutably, proved the Diary is a “modern concoction, dependent on modern books.”
But there is the possibility that you are wrong.
You have judged that I would be a “sorrowful man” if it transpires that Anne Graham has lied about the origins of the Diary. Upon what do you base this judgement? Does it not occur to you that I want the truth at all costs – and intend getting it, irrespective of the consequences? Loyalty does come into it – you are right. But so does responsibility. That loyalty and responsibility goes first and foremost to people like Paul Begg, Martin Fido and Stewart Evans, who have all stood by and supported me, even though our beliefs may differ. To them I owe the truth of the matter and that supersedes any feelings of loyalty I may have towards Anne Graham. And she knows that.
I put it to you Melvin that this line of persistent enquiry, which cuts to the centre of someone you implicitly believe is part responsible for a modern hoax, is far from static and barren. I suggest it is all we have if there is ever going to be an end to the Diary. Your worthy analysis, I’m afraid, has failed because it is an untested hypothesis. I also put it to you that your chivalrous attitude towards Anne Graham has nothing to do with altruism, but is self recognition that your case against these people lacks substance.
I do not intend to be combative or confrontational. I just have a feeling that you are several paces ahead of me up this blind alley. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 26 June 2000 - 11:03 am | | My apologies for not having been in touch recently: I've been working as consultant to Granada TV's "Find a Fortune" and haven't had too much time to check the board. But all I seem to find is a bunch of Begg-and-Caz gallimaufrey. OK, so ". 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" So what the devil is he arguing? It seems his choices are: It's true that the diary is an old forgery and therefore no one can argue about it or it really is the diary of James Maybrick. Given Paul Begg's earlier statement quoted by Chris George:"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." then we have no alternative but to assume that Keith Skinner believes it to be by James Maybrick. But we also have:"Keith believes Ann's story and accordingly must accept that the 'diary' must is an old forgery, but that doesn't mean he is arguing that it is an old forgery" I could go on and on about this, picking numerous bits from the Begg/Skinner archives but it still seems to me to mean that Skinner believes in the truth of the diary and Begg believes in confusing everyone.
Let's go further down the email list (I spent a few days in London so I'm doing this by date. "When Shirley Harrison and Paul Feldman were confronted with the fact that the 'diary' handwriting bore no resemblance to James Maybrick's, they addressed the problem and paid for a professional handwriting analysis" But did they? Please correct me on this if I haven't checked the books properly but the only "professional handwriting analysis" that I know of that Feldman paid for was Hannah Korens' and that was to give some very quick impressions about the presumed author of the diary with no attempt to prove or disprove whether it was Maybrick's handwriting. Sue Iremonger who was I believe brought in by Kenneth Rendell wasn't paid by Feldman or Harrison. So who is the "professional" brought in when Shirley and Feldy were investigating whether JM had written the diary and for whose services they paid?
Once more, Paul Begg goes on about handwriting analysis. Let me say this in possibly a clearer way: the diary handwriting does not look like the normal handwriting of Anne and Mike. I've emphasised normal because I am no expert and can not say whether either could have written in a disguised hand and I am not ruling that out. As I have not seen the handwriting of either Billy Graham or Robbie Johnson I can't make any judgement about them. Paul Begg's further comments on these lines are pretty damn silly and do him no credit.
And her comes Joseph Triola Jr. . Now he has in the past proved a staunch Beggophile and good luck to him: Mr. Paul Begg (I've just seen the editorial page of this months Ripperologist) could certainly use all the friends he can get. Let us estimate those people who believe the diary is that of JM. Probably 3 including Mark. How about those who believe it to be an old forgery? Volunteers anyone? Then there's messrs Begg and Skinner. Who knows what they believe? Lastly, those who believe it to be a modern forgery? Well yes, I think the latter outnumber the rest by a large majority. So, Joseph although I appreciate your efforts to find me a new cylinder head I think that when you look at the posts of Begg, Skinner and the fair Mrs. Morris you will see that what they are really doing is pushing words around rather than theories and ideas so that no-one will realise that they are not answering any questions at all.
Nearly at the end now: only another 30 to go!
Simon: the Feldman problem was this: he really was convinced that the diary was by Maybrick who was also JtR. His "Damascus Road Event" seems to have been Hannah Koren's opinion of the diary which to Feldy seemed to point directly toward JM. Now I place no confidence in graphology; a system which seems more like palmistry than a true scientific discipline. In fact re-reading her points could just as well put you to think of completely different authors as I pointed out many months ago. The chances are that if anything came to light that showed the possibility of a forgery, it would have been ignored or "reinterpreted" by Feldman. One would hope that the researchers involved would have been told by Feldman to examine obvious things like the characters of Mike and Anne, samples of their handwriting together with those of their associates and family members including the Johnsons. If that was done, then we have not been told about it and the Begg/Skinner axis refuses to answer any questions about it. Certainly, Feldman had an investigator look into Anne's background because there is a reference to some unspecified and mysterious problem in her past which again we are not supposed to ask about. I do wonder sometimes whether there is still a blanket "confidentiality agreement" in force concerning the diary research as no-one is eager even so many years later, to talk about it.
So there's an end to it. |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 26 June 2000 - 11:12 am | | | What a sad little outburst! |
Author: Kaz
Monday, 26 June 2000 - 11:27 am | | Ooh!, I feel so important! I can keep getting my name in print and real-life Ripper authors know I exist! I'll do my damndest to keep this rubbish going so don't any of you dare to try and stop me. At last I have a chance of fame. I have really refined the nonsense I now write, just take a look at my last post.
Evver so much Luvv |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 26 June 2000 - 11:49 am | | As David Radka has promised:
It's anon-season again!Yeah, cheers, let's do the wave!:-)
Luvv you evver so much back |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 26 June 2000 - 11:50 am | | As David Radka has promised:
It's anon-season again!Yeah! Cheering crowd! Let's do the wave!
:-)
Luvv you evver so much back |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 26 June 2000 - 11:51 am | | | Sorry, I'm so enthusiastic about it, I wanted it posted twice!! |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 26 June 2000 - 12:02 pm | | Could Stephen Ryder look into the identity of this Kaz please, who appears to be using a short version of Karoline, which I know the lady in question hates. The use of such a pseudonym would seem to breach all the rules of netiquette we have come to expect since the recent 'private posting area' registration restrictions came into being. It is fair to no one, least of all Karoline Leach. (Although if Kaz is meant to be Caz, she can stay, so long as no one else objects, I find it quite funny to be thus lampooned. :-))
Like a fool, when asked for my full name, I took this at face value and gave my own full name. Silly me. It seems there is one rule for me and another for everyone else.
Lots of love evveryone,
Caz |
Author: Karoline L
Monday, 26 June 2000 - 12:21 pm | | Hi Joseph,
I appreciate your long post and the thoughtful views expressed, but I think you may have misunderstood my point - which is likely my fault rather than yours.
I do have some experience of historical research, both as dramatist and biographer, so this is not a completely uninformed point of view.
In my experience, if one wishes to answer a given question, one first discovers as much of the background information as possible.
For example, when I was looking into the mysteries surrounding Lewis Carroll's lost diaries I began by interviewing the surviving members of his family, and proceeded from there to examining the written testimonyof those involved, and from there to reconstructing the events in the missing segments from other sources to determine what might have lain behind some undiscovered person's decision to destroy these documents.
If people want to discover who forged the 'Maybrick diary', then they need to do what any competent policeman or investigator would do.
1. Since the Barretts are the prime suspects, then the first step must be to check out their testimony, their background and (dare I even suggest it) their handwriting.
2. if the investigation of the Barretts proves they are innocent or is inconclusive, then the search widens to include their family and friends.
3. a background check is also done on the Devereaux connection.
4. Background checks on the possessors of the watch — to discover whether any connection can be traced between them and the Barretts.
Without this basic info, what is going to be achieved in a hundred years of 'hypothesising?
What, in the name of sense, can you hypothesise about, if you don't have any of the facts.
Paul,
why do you think I have any 'motive' but an interest in the truth?
Do you think it's helpful to make allegations like this?
Does it occur to you that someone might be able to disagree with you, or even think you are behaving foolishly, without necessarilly being part of some conspiracy to undermine you?
Karoline |
|
|
|
|
