|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 25, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-2000 Archives:
Archive through June 25, 2000
Author: David M. Radka
Thursday, 22 June 2000 - 10:14 pm |        | Oh good heavens let's kill the Diary and be done with it. Let it fall into a black hole.
David |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 23 June 2000 - 04:50 am | | Burning books David? Tut tut.
I'm absolutely amazed that I would ever hear of it from such a one as you! Go to the back of the class. And smile while I'm tutting at you. :-)
Hi Simon,
Good points IMHO, considering you describe yourself as completely lost. :-)
I also have great sympathy for Karoline, although I didn't appreciate she wanted to get nearer the truth. I thought she'd reached the stage of snuggling up with it and telling it bedtime stories.
I'm afraid your categories had me slightly puzzled. I guess I'm a z person, because I tend to be sceptical about everything! But as A, B and C are statements of fact, I can't see how they can be attached to individuals.
If Karoline could coax Peter out of his attic to answer the few really simple questions which have been put to him about his modern hoax theory, she wouldn't have to keep wandering round in bewildered circles wondering what on earth people are doing enjoying themselves. Or has she become so disorientated she can't find her way off this site and over to Wales?
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 23 June 2000 - 06:03 am | | Hi All,
In my post of June 22, 2000 - 11:59 am, I wrote:
'[Keith] has now agreed that I can send him the whole discussion from June 14th @ 04.55am up to date, so he should have this in front of him by the weekend.'
I've just received a note from Keith asking me not to send him the update yet after all.
Apologies for the delay. I'll do my best to coax Keith out of his attic as soon as poss. :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Karoline L
Friday, 23 June 2000 - 11:43 am | | Simon - thank you for your support, you're an entirely sweet man and I love you.
Caz,
As I've said - shall we try to keep the playground insult stuff out of here?
I honestly haven't the time.
Re. Peter B's 'theory'.
I suppose someone has to address this or Caz and Paul will simply keep talking about it forever.
As I understand it Peter thinks Ann and Mike may have forged the diary.
This is a reasonable theory, and one accepted as probable by many people here, including Paul.
As I further understand it Paul and others are saying that 'to the untrained eye', the diary-writing doesn't look like either Ann's or Mike's.
Yes?
And so they are effectively saying to Peter 'IF this handwriting really isn't Mike's or Ann's - then what does it do to your theory?'
But with respect - what does this question mean?
And why on earth do Paul and others continue to present Peter's non-response to it as some kind of an evasion?
Surely the answer is too obvious to need stating?
IF the writing isn't Ann's or Mike's then - they didn't forge the diary.
But IF it is - then one of them did.
But - how are we going to know whether or not the writing belongs to Ann or Mike or anyone - if the handwriting analysis isn't done?
How are we going to know anything unless someone stops speculating long enough to start looking?
Go out and get the hard data.
There is nowhere (really nowhere) else for this to go.
I hope Paul's silence indicates that he finally agrees with me.
Caz, I don't think there is any point in trying to persuade Keith back into this converstaion. I think his decision to bow out is probably a very wise one.
Until there is anything further to discuss - maybe we should all follow suit?
Unless you really are enjoying this. I suppose anything is possible. |
Author: Joseph Triola Jr.
Friday, 23 June 2000 - 02:38 pm | | Hello Ms. Leach,
I can't understand your aversion to Paul and Caz, discussing what ever they wish to discuss, after all, it is an open board, and their dialog is topical. Actually, I think Mr. Birchwood made a valuable contribution to the discussion; his theory had merit and was worthy of debate. Unfortunately for him, Paul's counter theory proved his a non-starter; Mr. Birchwood recognized his weak position and refused further debate.
Mr. Birchwood posed the theory; it was his obligation to defend it. Supporting one's position is normative to debate, if you are unable or unwilling to do so you must concede the point, and get on with your life. It's a simple concept really, and I find your inability to grasp it alarming.
Personally, I don't believe Mr. Birchwood is as embarrassed over the outcome as you make him out to be; he may have already gotten on with his life, unbeknownst to you. Perhaps you should look into it.
I for one hope Paul, Caz, and Mr. Skinner continue to "kick around" a few good ideas/theories on the subject, which is after all, the definition of debate isn't it. If you and other likeminded (acolytes?) people find the discussion above your interest, I'm sure there's something else you can do with your time. Maybe you can start your own conversation.
Until that time I remain
Respectfully
Joseph |
Author: Karoline L
Friday, 23 June 2000 - 03:56 pm | | Joseph,
Of course Paul and anyone else are welcome to kick around here and talk about anything they like.
My question is merely about their current methodology.
Both the people you mention have claimed to be trying to solve the puzzle of who forged the diary.
Paul thinks the best way to do this is to ignore the hard evidence and just keep speculating on an infinity of unverifiable possibilities.
I differ from this view.
So, I have been boring everyone to death here, trying to persuade him (unsuccesfully), that if he or anyone wants to answer these questions, then someone at some time will have to go out and find the hard, solid, in your face evidence which will enable them to do so.
Actually I have about given up.
So don't worry too much about me. It's not good for your state of mind.
Karoline |
Author: Joseph Triola Jr.
Friday, 23 June 2000 - 05:09 pm | | Hello Ms. Leach,
You may be a lot of things, but you will never be boring. I don't believe I would be patronizing you, if I said that I find your input stimulating. The role of "devil's advocate" has often been undervalued and misinterpreted, but someone has to have the thankless job of challenging, what they believe to be, weak arguments, and unsupported statements.
In so doing, they keep the dialog fresh and topical, while serving as a deterrent to any unnecessary, and confusing speculation.
Your focus on evidence isn't unreasonable, and I'm sure it will eventually lead to a financial accommodation of some sort that will enable all the participants of this forum to take part in making a substantial contribution to the resolution of the Maybrick diary mystery.
Please don't give up. Continue to suggest and cajole, you do both rather well.
:-) |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 24 June 2000 - 06:42 am | | "Mr. Birchwood posed the theory; it was his obligation to defend it."
Thanky you, Joseph, for succinctly making the point that I have shown myself so lamentably unable to express with such clarity and brevity.
"Paul thinks the best way to do this (solve the puzzle) is to ignore the hard evidence and just keep speculating on an infinity of unverifiable possibilities."
Karoline:- this comment is unworthy and untrue. Research has never been something which should be conducted half-cock. Research is time-consuming and often expensive and to get from it the very best value one must make sure that the right people are being asked the correct questions. You seem to think that the simple solution is to have the handwriting of Mike and Ann compared the 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. We'd still be asking who their most likely potential co-forgers would be and if we have examples of their handwriting to offer for comparison? 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?
The only way I know of to pose and answer the right questions is to examine the 'evidence' and create scenarios (or theories) which acccomodate most or all of the information we possess. These scenarios are then tested in the standard time-honoured fashion until the most likely is whittled out. Then and only then do we decide how best to test the theory by acquiring whatever hard evidence we can.
But no headway down this road can be made if the 'Mike and Ann did it' theorists won't even address the objections to and problems apparent in their theory and 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. |
Author: Julian Rosenthal
Saturday, 24 June 2000 - 07:57 am | | G'day Guys,
Even though my evidence might be half-cocked but still hard, the Diary is bullshit. As the author has written about the murders before he has committed them, this is similar to having already committed them, satisfying the murderers lust for killing before he has perpetrated the murders.
Jules |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 24 June 2000 - 11:56 am | | | Jules:- But who penned the bullshit? That's the question being asked. Maybe it's a question which doesn't matter to you, in which case nobody is forcing you to waste your time discussing it, but the identity of the forger is of interest to some of us. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 24 June 2000 - 01:19 pm | | Hi All,
I guess Keith is big and ugly enough to decide for himself if he wants to rejoin this stimulating conversation. As he keeps telling me to remind him, he still owes R.J.Palmer a response at least, so we will no doubt see more of him as his busy schedule allows.
Lucky for the likes of us that we can have endless hours of fun here, so long as the debate is kept ticking over, which, as Joseph has explained, demands that someone at least is challenging the views expressed.
The minute we lose the last challenger, there will be a huge rush for the exit. Don't anyone get caught up in the stampede. :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 24 June 2000 - 02:50 pm | | Hi Caz !
I looked again at my last post and I think that you are right , that categories A , B and C are statements of fact and should not be confused with beliefs. Thus the Diary is either A , B , or C. It cannot be anything else.
On the other hand , our beliefs are w , x , y and z and these should not be mistaken for facts.
Due to the textural errors in the Diary , it is probably a forgery. The forensic evidence seems unlikely to prove convincingly whether it is old or modern. Thus I think we have to look at the individuals involved in the case if we are going to find out who forged it , if anyone.
Thus we have to find out more information about Mike , Anne , Billy , Tony and Albert. With all these researchers working for him , did Feldy think that it would be propitious to investigate the backgrounds of the people involved in the appearance of the book ? If so , what did he come up with ?
I don't know if anyone could answer this question , but what books on crime are in the library at Liverpool ? Or the local library of Anne and Mike ? What books on crime does Mike have or Anne have ?
Or why doesn't somebody speak to Mike Barrett himself , and say " Mike : you keep on saying this Diary is a forgery , well can you prove it ?"
And before you ask - I'm not doing it ! |
Author: Melvin Harris
Saturday, 24 June 2000 - 04:13 pm | | A BLIND ALLEY
If all this space is being devoted to Keith Skinner's dilemma then I think it is time to call a halt. Keith Skinner is just one individual who has an emotional entanglement. This is a fact that once noted leaves little more to be said about it. But Keith himself is not adding in any way to our knowledge. Loyalty is all very touching but it has no bearing on the text of the artifact in question. And it is this text that condemns the Diary as a modern concoction, dependent on modern books.
The claim that the idea of an Anne/Mike forgery alliance justifies all this waste paper is limp and unreal. The writing on the pages is not Mike's neither is it Anne's. But any amateurs cunning enough to conceive the idea of a fake writing of any sort would be cunning enough not to fall into the obvious trap of writing the thing themselves. Having devised the text they would get the finished product hand-written by someone well-outside their obvious circle. And it need not be someone who has a long-term stake in any resulting sales.
Anne is now making a new life for herself. She is still getting money from the Diary, but more importantly she has co-authored a book and is now taking a degree course. If she now came out and admitted that she lied about the origins of the Diary, then her standing in the eyes of her tutors and fellow students would drop overnight, her book would be regarded as tainted, Keith would be a sorrowful man, and Shirley Harrison would have kittens! What would be the gain? For her it would be a retrograde step. And that is that. You will never hear her tell the truth, unless she has some sort of religious conversion, which is remote. So why not drop the whole Keith/Anne affair? As a source of new ideas it is static, it is barren. |
Author: Julian Rosenthal
Saturday, 24 June 2000 - 10:10 pm | | G'day Paul,
I know that my previous posting was half in jest but in all honesty I think the diary was written by someone who knew Mabrick ie: one of his physicians or a close family member who was devient enough to try and implicate Maybrick in the murders.
Jules -- I've got aan idea about this but it's still in 'idea' mode at the moment. I'll keep you posted. |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 25 June 2000 - 05:31 am | | I thank Melvin for another considered and respectful post. He argues an interesting alternative hypothesis that the handwriting isn't Mike's or Ann's, but is that of someone distanced from their immediate group and who did it at their request. This certainly resolves a few awkward questions - to say nothing of illustrating why a professional analysis of Mike and Ann's handwriting would have been a waste of good money! - but it leaves some questions open. For example, Mike Barrett has had enough reason to badly want to name the penperson, so why hasn't he done so? I also get a little dubious about theories in which the theorist can pick and choose their data, as in this case where we are presented with amateur forgers clever enough to get someone removed from their immediate circle to write it, but are stupid enough to copy the empty tin matchbox information almost verbatim from the official record.
Turning to the question of Keith Skinner's emotional involvement, he has spent a lot of time talking with Ann Graham and he has grown to believe her story. He is therefore a first-hand character witness, as it were. I don't know whether Melvin Harris has ever talked with Ann Graham at any length, if at all, but if he hasn't then his judgement is based purely of his assessment of the content of the 'diary'.
Both conclusions have merit - thank goodness people still believe in their instincts about other people and let's pray that they continue to do so! - and neither should be dismissed. But is Ann the accomplished liar which the latter opinion has it that she must be, or is she telling the truth and there is a flaw in the assessment of the 'diary' content? That's the question! |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 25 June 2000 - 05:44 am | | My thanks to Melvin, for finally addressing the question we have been asking Peter - if not Anne or Mike - then who?
My questions would then be focused on the poor bugger who did the writing and got nothing out of it. What happened to him/her? Did he/she 'conveniently' die or something?
What happens if they are still alive and a blockbuster Diary film were to be made? Is there going to be trouble brewing?
I love the character judgements. Melvin must know Keith and Shirley far better than I. The only thing I can imagine Keith being sorrowful about is getting a date wrong! :-)
And if Shirley has kittens, I'll ask her if I can be Godmother, and considering my attitude to religion, my family would then have another litter. :-)
Hi Jules,
Great to see you here! Hope Ripperoo is flourishing.
Hi Simon,
Good questions! Even if Anne and Mike got someone else to physically write the Diary for them, a theory involving them in the creation of the forgery should definitely have included the research you mention.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 25 June 2000 - 05:48 am | | Hi Paul,
Sorry, our paths just crossed again.
We must keep meeting like this. :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 25 June 2000 - 01:49 pm | | Melvin Harris ' theory seems close to my own ' Mr Big ' theory , but as Paul says - what would a third person gain from doing such a task ? It could be a mutual friend of Anne and Mike who , knowing the predicament Mike was in and being asked to create the document , did it out of friendship and perhaps a promised cut too. The person would then keep quiet about the whole thing. Meanwhile Anne and Billy could concoct a cover story in case the person revealed all.
One person immediately springs to mind here as a potential culprit :Tony Devereaux.
What do we know about Tony and his history then , and does anyone have a sample of his handwriting which could be scanned up to this site ?
In this scenario , Mike wouldn't be able to reveal who forged the Diary because he simply doesn't know who dunnit , Anne meanwhile can say what she likes as the only two people who could disprove her story - Tony and Billy - are dead. And it explains how Tony got hold of the Diary in the first place , while the watch is a simple case of opportunism. |
Author: Joseph Triola Jr.
Sunday, 25 June 2000 - 02:12 pm | | Hello Everyone,
Paul, your acknowledgement of Mr. Harris's introduction of a hypothesis brought to my attention a scientific method that may prove practical to the resolution of this forgery problem.
In archaeology, we use what is called a research design. Excavation, to recover artifacts, and other scientific data can become a very expensive undertaking.
We construct a very concise model that compels the archaeologist/investigator to think through the project from beginning to end, and to clearly establish the means to accomplish the objectives before a farthing is spent.
Beginning with the formulation of the research problem, which is objectified as one or several hypotheses, an area, or in this case a subject, is selected that is known to contain relevant data. Because it is neither possible nor necessary to examine all parts of the subject, a sampling strategy is drawn up to provide a rational basis for selective investigation.
A fundamental tenet to the pursuit of any solution is to accurately identify the problem.
The careful formulation of the questions stimulating research can only prevent or reduce the aimless collection of irrelevant data.
1) The solution to the research problem must contribute to knowledge.
2) The research problem, or r/p, should address a specific, clearly stated question, and not a general topic.
3) The question, or questions must be phrased objectively.
4) Construct several hypotheses that express possible solutions to the problem.
5) Design a method to collect data relevant to several of the hypotheses.
6) List possible solutions for the hypotheses for comparison with actual solutions.
Problem formulation, hypothesis construction, and investigatory design are the orderly, controlled, and economic tools of scientific research, and data accumulation.
Everyone can contribute to the solution of the diary problems.
Working together, or alone on specific problems, using a common method of investigation will bring us closer to an accurate conclusion of this issue.
Pinching each other's ass by disputing details, minor or otherwise, only leaves black and blue marks. Working with each other in a civilized, and professional manner, advances a common cause. That is why Ms. Leach, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Harris, Paul Begg, Martin Fido, and Caroline Morris et al are all vital. You each bring something to the table; why don't all of you just sit down and enjoy the meal together. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Sunday, 25 June 2000 - 03:36 pm | | CUPIDS AND CUNNING.
I am afraid that Paul Begg has misread my posting. I am not stating that either Mike or Anne, or both together, composed the Diary text. But I am stating that any cunning amateur forgers would distance themselves from the finished product by having it written by an 'outsider'.
The blunder in dealing with the inventory is simply the action of people who are not used to dealing with texts in a cautious, analytical fashion. Hence the error in the line "Frequented my club"
But people who are not great at that level can be most cunning when it comes to technical matters, like the choice of an old, or seemingly old, journal.
When it comes to the handwriting, though, the use of an outsider is an old dodge, and well known in other contexts. Paul Begg is quite wrong, no cleverness was needed. For example, when I was at school I was often called on to inscribe Valentine and Birthday cards on behalf of shy damsels who did not want their neat handwriting identified. I was not alone, others did the same.
As for the identity of the person who actually penned the text, here you will have to stay in the dark. There may be excellent reasons for his or her silence and no amount of theorising will yield up a name. But let me give you a cautionary example. One possible penman was so ill that it was deemed unwise to question him. What is the point of naming or harassing someone like that?
As for Anne I have just shown how devious she is and I have provided an example from her book which is independent of the text of the Diary. As for Begg's question about a flaw in the assessment of the Diary content, this is simply time wasting again. I have shown conclusively that all the 'research' used to back up the Diary claims is either bogus or seriously flawed. There is nothing factual or erroneous in the Diary that cannot be found in the books I have named. If there is a flaw in the assessment of the Diary content then prove it. |
|
|
|
|
