|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 22, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-2000 Archives:
Archive through June 22, 2000
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 03:29 pm |        | Hi Paul, Caz,
Paul:
you say:
"I am not avoiding answering this question, but it simply isn't relevant to the topic being discussed"
Okay let me get this right: Keith thinks the diary is an old forgery. You have said here many times that you respect his view and concede he might be right.
Obviously if it IS an old forgery then Ann and Mike didn't do it.
Yet you think the question of its age is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not 'Anne and Mike forged the diary for commercial gain'!?
Is this crazy, or am I?
Don't get me wrong Paul. I have great respect for you. I'm sure you wouldn't really attach your name to an argument as specious as this sounds.
yet you must be able to understand my confusion.
I'm no partisan trying to snipe away for the fun of it. I'm just trying to follow what is going on.
And I am totally failing.
If the age of the artefact is 'not relevant' in determining who forged it - then what is?
What are the salient facts as you presently see them?
Would it be possible for you and/or Keith to follow Melvin's example and post a clear unambiguous statement of the simple hard data that lie behind your doubts and your certainties?
As a respected investigator, don't you think this should be done with all speed?
Caz,
Of course, all theories are equally open to question, and all theories must be seen to base themselves on good firm evidence if they are to be taken seriously.
But look, I sense a rather hostile 'undertaste' to your questioning and want to say now that I am not interested in beginning any kind of personal blame-fest.
Almost everyone here has over-indulged on theory and few if any have bothered much about quoting factual sources.
No point in singling out individuals for postmortem accusation. Let's just return to the solid evidence and see where we end up.
K |
Author: stephen stanley
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 05:51 pm | | To: Karoline
You're not the only one whose getting confused!!
I think (and I'm sure I'll be corrected) that there are three options;
A)..It's genuine (which I've found no support for on these pages)
B)..Modern (i.e.post-1987) forgery..this obviously involves investigating the whole Barrat/Graham set-up.
C)..Pre-1987 forgery..this is where it starts getting complex as a forgery could still be presented in complete good faith if those presenting it are unaware of it's origins....therefore the provenance as explained by Anne Graham must still be investigated.
I'm sure that compared to the normal level of these pages (how many Maybrick's can dance on the head of a pin?) this is a very simplistic view...but it's the easiest way for my poor,simple mind to try and keep the various arguments in order.
Steve S. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 21 June 2000 - 05:11 am | | Thanks Stephen for explaining the options to Karoline for me.
Currently, the discussion on this board is still focused on your B), due to Peter's first post, giving the strong impression that he was kicking off an open debate proposing the modern forgery theory (which automatically implicates two Grahams, with a Barrett thrown in for good measure).
If someone wants to begin another thread, proposing either A) or C),.... on second thoughts, it might not be a wise move.
If we all had the benefit of being in face-to-face debate, we would immediately see how absurd it is to try attributing emotions to anyone who disagrees strongly with a point in the discussion from the written word. My "cross" would be seen as "mildly amused", my "upset" would be "slight exasperation" at most, and if you could all see what Karoline describes as my "rather hostile 'undertaste'" (sounds a bit too biological for my liking) you'd see a huge grin and hear a few giggles while I was talking instead of typing.
But then, if you knew Caz like I know Caz, you'd know that already. (Sounds like a song :-))
And talking about 'kicking off', did you hear that the England football team have been banned from keeping dogs? - they just can't hang on to the lead.... :-)
And one for David if he's reading, did you hear Lonnie Donnegan just got an O.B.E? That one's absolutely true!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 21 June 2000 - 07:15 am | | Thanks Stephen and Caz; yes, the discussion is focused on option B, namely examining the Mike/Ann set-up.
Karoline:- Assume that the ‘diary’ is a modern forgery and that everyone accepts that it was forged post-1987. Assume, too, that there is an interest in who forged it and why they forged it. Okay?
One proposition is that it was forged for financial gain by Mike Barrett and Ann Graham. Is this argument plausible? Does this argument fit the information as we have it? How does this argument account for the fact that to the untrained eye the 'diary' handwriting is neither Mike's nor Ann’s? How does this argument account for Mike having thus far been unable to provide a coherent account of the conception and execution of the forgery?
Who I think composed the ‘diary’ or when I think it was composed isn’t relevant to and has no bearing on these questions and I can’t think of another way of explaining myself. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 21 June 2000 - 08:25 am | | From Keith Skinner To Karoline L
Karoline
Could you please specify for me when and where I made a promise to you to give you “a comprehensive list of the research done so far” and my “own hard data that argues for an early forgery”?
We have, to my knowledge, only ever met once, fleetingly, at the C&D, when Mike Barrett was the guest – and I have only written to you on two occasions, both times publically on this board.
The time is now surely right for you to substantiate your claim of what I am meant to have promised you I would provide.
Prima facie, to the underinformed reader, I agree with you that Melvin Harris has presented an argument for the ‘modern forgery’ which is “coherent, powerful and persuasive.” You might also have added scholarly and academic. I do not disparage it, but Melvin’s whole thrust is primarily an overt analytical demolition of Paul Feldman’s book, The Final Chapter. It is also an attack on Paul Feldman’s character which Melvin felt justified in so doing because of the calumny which he perceived had been directed against him and others whose “findings stood in the way of the Diary believers.”
Essentially, Melvin, in his own words, draws up an hypothesis (I wonder whether you would regard this as “wild and ultimately futile speculation”?) which proposes the Diary to be…
“…the work of a group that was cunning and bright, but without real scholastic insights or research techniques.”
Melvin then worked through this proposition and satisfied himself that his findings fitted all of the criteria. But that’s as far as it went and for some people it was enough. There was no necessity to test the reality of this proposition against the people implicated because, as Melvin pointed out in his summing up…
“And few of the characters involved come out of this maelstrom looking good. Mike is a drunken liar; Robbie and Albert Johnson are both shown as liars; two of the Battlecrease electricians are liars as well; while Anne Graham is depicted as an inventor of tall stories!…”
Even eleven year old Caroline Barrett, it is suggested by Melvin Harris, might have been “going along with a pre-rehearsed family tale?” as a counter argument to Feldman’s claim that she was telling the truth.
However much you admire and are persuaded by Melvin’s argument. However much you may earnestly desire that he be proved correct in what he writes, there are, I’m afraid, other options and possibilities to consider. Other people with equally honourable views and beliefs.
My whole case for the document not being a modern hoax rests, predominantly, on people who have been discredited. What you have failed to grasp – and I apologise for not making it clear – is that the only way open to me of disproving the modern hoax theory, is by trying to prove it is a modern hoax. Which means nailing the forgers with irrefutable proof of their guilt. How can you possibly hope to have any meaningful discussion of the relative merits of my case when all it reduces down to is my interpretation of events and situations – and personal judgement of people?
The weight of logic is all on your side. Barrett said he forged the Diary. Anne Graham is a liar. These are facts which I’ve never abandoned. How can I?
Keith |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 21 June 2000 - 09:13 am | | Hiya Caz !
Q : Whats the difference between a beautiful white pillowcase and the beautiful white football shirt of England ?
A : You wouldn't fill a pillowcase full of sh...excrement.
Well , it had to be said.
Q : How many passengers can fit in the England football team car ?
A : Two in front then one behind ! |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 21 June 2000 - 10:53 am | | Caz, Paul, Keith
Keith, in answer to your first question:
about a week ago I asked you here if you could maybe post up a summary of the state of your investigation so far.
On June 14 you replied:
"Thank you for your post to which, I promise, I will give a fuller response."
This gave me the impression that you were promising at some time in the future to give me a fulller response.
If this was a mistaken impression then I apologise.
In your latest post you write:
"How can you possibly hope to have any meaningful discussion of the relative merits of my case when all it reduces down to is my interpretation of events and situations – and personal judgement of people"
Keith, if your entire case is really based on nothing more substantial than your own gut feeling - then it isn't a case at all is it?
Of course, I respect your right as a private citizen to think just as you choose, but I'm not addressing you as a private citizen.
I am addressing you as a serious investigator who (as I understand it) has claimed to possess good evidence that this diary has been around since at least 1950.
Keith, not to be rude - but do you have this evidence or not?
PAUL, you write:
"Assume that the ‘diary’ is a modern forgery and that everyone accepts that it was forged post-1987."
Yes, until someone can provide evidence to the contrary, i totally agree with you there.
You further write:
"One proposition is that it was forged for financial gain by Mike Barrett and Ann Graham...How does this argument account for the fact that to the untrained eye the 'diary' handwriting is neither Mike's nor Ann’s?"
Paul,as I have said many times before, these question mean nothing until we have some basic research behind us.
Untrained eyes and uninformed subjective opinions from me or anyone else is just not a sensible, responsible, professional way to go here, and you know that.
Get M's and A's handwriting professionally analysed.
Do the same with anyone else who might conceivanbly have written the thing.
Investigate the backgrounds of the principle beneficiaries of the fraud.
When this is done, we will have some hard evidence to build on, and your very good question can be answered in some meaningful way.
I think probably every serious investigator here would agree that this is the only way to go.
So - do it.
Yes?
Karoline |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 21 June 2000 - 11:35 am | | Hiya Simon!
Talking about the need for good firm solid evidence (pillowcasefulls?) to support theory B), I’ll go through the motions of looking at what we’ve got. :-)
Melvin and Peter have put a very good case for a modern forgery, which might appear to x readers to stand alone, without the need to even look at the small group of people in the frame.
Fine. Q.E.D for the x group.
The fact that both the Diary and the watch emanated from two people who can be shown to be dishonest, along with other implicated family members, is a bonus which clinches it for a further y members of the audience.
Wonderful. Q.E.D with knobs on for the ys.
Lastly there is an unknown z element, possibly a very small group of reprobates, and as such not worth worrying about, who will not stamp their own Q.E.D on this theory while the following awkward questions remain unanswered:
What evidence is there that any of the suspects’ handwriting appears in the Diary?
What evidence is there that the Johnsons and Grahams/Barretts knew of each other’s existence pre-Diary?
What evidence is there (apart from his own testimony) that Mike had some input in the Diary creation, or even knew a Diary had been/was being forged?
And does anyone know or care to speculate on the values of x, y and z?
If Melvin and Peter think that z = 3, they have a good argument for leaving the B) theory as it stands.
I guess they feel it’s a risk worth taking.
Love,
Caz
PS to Karoline, I’ll pass your post on to Keith.
Why do you think it is not up to those proposing the modern hoax theory to gather the evidence for their case, that you yourself are saying is needed if the theorist is to be taken seriously?
Now I’m confused. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 21 June 2000 - 02:29 pm | | Karoline:- A theory has been advanced in which it is claimed that Mike and Ann forged the 'diary' for financial gain. It is not up to me to prove this allegation wrong. It is up to the person who made it to prove it right.
Allow me to make the point even clearer: show me the difference between Paul Feldman saying that James Maybrick wrote the 'diary' and Peter Birchwood saying that Mike and Ann wrote it? Both are making an accusation and both are therefore responsible for providing the substantive evidence. You have consistently argued that it is up to the theorist to prove his case, now you are saying that the critic must prove the theorist wrong. Why? The only difference between these examples is that you don't accept one and do accept the other and it looks like you always want others to prove you wrong.
As far as I am concerned, a theory has been advanced in which Ann Graham is presented as a scheming and manipulative liar who has used and abused the friendship of many people. The person who made that accusation is responsible for proving it. If that person thinks Ann wrote the 'diary' then that person should pay for what I assume will be a quite expensive professional handwriting analysis. However, I don't seriously expect anyone to fork out hard-earned cash just to support a theory advanced on the Message Boards. What I do think is reasonable, though, is for that person (or those people) to respond seriously to serious criticisms and questions abut their theory. |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 21 June 2000 - 05:16 pm | | Caz,
In brief answer to your question -
I DO think it's up to people on all sides to put forward the hard facts in support of their theories.
This is exactly why I think Melvin's good solid case for the modern forgery should be matched by the counter arguments for the old fake.
Check the back posts if you need to catch up.
Paul,
you write as if Peter B. invented the idea that Ann and Mike forged the diary, and as if he were claiming the case against them conclusively proved.
None of this is true.
If the diary is a modern forgery (and I agree with you that it probably is), then clearly Ann and Mike must be the prime suspects in the case.
Many people have said this - including you.
I don't think Peter B's speculation on this matter is any worse or better than Caz's, Keith's or yours.
It's all ultimately futile, without hard data to back it up.
But Paul, if Peter is a pot then you are a kettle.
Shall we leave it there and return to the question of the hard evidence?
I think we are agreed that the only way to answer the question of who forged this thing and why is if someone goes out to get that hard data about handwriting, provenance, background etc.
I have asked if anyone of the original 'diary-team' (you and Keith), intend to try and get this data.
I gather your answer to that is no.
Keith is content to rely on his own feelings, and you don't think it is up to you to do any primary investigation at all.
So where do we go from here?
You and Keith know the people concerned and have the best access to the information of any people anywhere.
If you won't do the investigation, then who will?
Anyone?
Frankly, this whole thing is beginning to look like a well-oiled exercise in futility.
I hope I'm wrong.
I hope this thing can amount to something more than a pair of respected investigators going around and around asking questions of one another and the world in general that you have no intention of ever trying to answer.
Karoline |
Author: stephen stanley
Wednesday, 21 June 2000 - 05:24 pm | | Dear Caz,
Please leave the algebra out!!. I have a horrible feeling that my A,B,&C theories are now going to become accepted shorthand.....just the sort of thing which first confused me on this board. Must admit I have a hunch (no,not that sort!),that the 'C' theory might have something in it....but before I'm torn apart,it's only a hunch.
Steve S. |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 22 June 2000 - 02:44 am | | “Shall we leave it there and return to the question of the hard evidence?”
Karoline:- 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. I have been trying to get across to you that we are not talking about ‘hard evidence’ but testing a theory. I am not saying that the ‘diary’ is an old forgery, I don’t believe it is an old forgery and I have never believed that it is an old forgery. Researching the ‘diary’ is not very high on my list of priorities and I am not any more likely to spend my hard-earned cash on a handwriting analysis than you are. But, like you, Caz, Stephen Stanley, and others, I am at liberty to comment on and ask questions about the suggestions and theories advanced on these Boards and that is exactly what I am doing.
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. I agree that this theory is no different from the theories advanced by anyone else. I agree that it is a plausible theory. Keith has agreed that it is a plausible theory. Caz has said it is a plausible theory. Probably the man in the moon agrees that it is a plausible theory. But Keith has asked how that theory is effected by the fact that to his eye and to Peter’s the ‘diary’ handwriting did not look like either Mike’s or Ann’s. This strikes me as a perfectly reasonable question and one which Peter should address as it is potentially a fatal flaw in his argument. He has not addressed it beyond saying that he is unable to make a qualified comment on the handwriting. It’s fine by me if he wants to leave it at that, but it would be jolly nice if he would at least acknowledge that a potentially huge and fatal obstacle hangs over his theory. 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. I don’t expect Peter Birchwood to do that, but I don’t think it is unreasonable that he at least discuss the problem with Keith and acknowledge that his theory if floating down the Swanny if the ‘diary’ handwriting isn’t Ann’s.
What you seem not to understand here, if I may say so, is that we are not advocating ‘old forgery’ but accepting that it is a modern forgery and trying to test the various claims and theories about who forged the ‘diary’ and why. That is what Keith, Caz and I were talking about. The only one talking about ‘hard evidence’ is you. Since we are not advocating anything, but simply testing someone else’s theory, and since you have always argued that the theorist needs to prove his theory, then currently providing the hard evidence is Peter’s job. If you want to discuss that with him, go ahead. But please, Karoline, don’t go on about it with me anymore. |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 22 June 2000 - 02:51 am | | Stephen:- I’m sorry if the current debate has become confusing, but if it is any satisfaction, I am confused too. I don’t want to speak for Keith, but I think what he’s been trying to make clear here is that whilst his long contact with Ann has persuaded him that she is telling the truth, it isn’t possible – or perhaps within his means - to prove it. So what he is doing is looking at and testing the claim that the ‘diary’ is a post-1987 forgery. If all the information indicates that Mike and Ann forged it, then fine. But if there are indications that Mike and Ann did not forge it, what alternatives are there? If somebody else forged it post-1987, why has Ann said that she saw it in the 1960s? Is she protecting the forger? If so, who’s most likely to be the forger, Billy Graham? If not Billy, then who? Okay, these are theoretical questions and bore the pants off some people, but they actually serve to isolate problems and prioritise research or at least indicate where the research should be focused. For example, the most obvious candidates are Mike and Ann, but if a professional handwriting analysis shows that they didn’t write it, whose handwriting should we have tested as well. Obviously we can’t analyse the handwriting of every member of the Barratt and Graham family and all their friends, so we have to decide through examining the probabilities which ones to go for. And, of course, we have to decide whether a professional handwriting analysis is worthwhile anyway, since it hasn’t emerged as a fragrant nosegay from other forgery scandals and is likely to be dismissed by critics.
So, while I am not quite sure where the discussion will take us, I think it is good to think about and question the conclusions we have reached. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 22 June 2000 - 05:29 am | | Hi Steve,
Point taken. :-)
Hi Karoline,
The odds are very much against me faring any better than Paul at trying to explain what's going on, so I’ll give this just one more try.
I do agree with you though, that it seems to be a 'well-oiled exercise in futility', expecting our serious questions about the gaps in this theory to be addressed by those who propose or support it.
Look at it like the readers of this particular discussion are jury members (volunteers in this example), having been given the case for the prosecution. The good men and true have now retired to consider their verdict:
Some of them are twitchy already – they are losing good money farting about here, a crime has been committed, the case seems pretty solid –"Guilty! Now can we all get back to work?"
Others are not quite so sure. They like the novelty of the experience, their salaries are being matched, so it’s a bit of a skive for them. But the evidence of the crime has been well presented. And if you look more closely at the shifty-looking assortment of people wheeled in by the prosecution – a scrap metal dealer (well, as Peter says, we all know they can’t be trusted with anything not nailed down), his scheming ex-wife, their 11 year old daughter (sadly corrupted into confirmimg the lies) and even some fibbing electricians from Battlecrease (what IS the world coming to?), and – "my God, is that the time already? Guilty! Anyone fancy a pint?"
But then you always get the little group of trouble-makers, stringing the whole thing out, fancying the idea of a free night in a hotel, coming up with unwelcome arguments such as "Yeah, they’re probably guilty as hell, but does the evidence as presented constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt? And does anyone know if the hotel across the road is a five-star with hot and cold running butlers?"
Now, I’ll freely admit to being among this last group of ne’er-do-wells. But if any impatient jury member (or, heaven forbid, someone acting for the prosecution) tries to rush me into changing my verdict to "Guilty as charged" or, laughably, suggests I have to produce hard facts for the defence if I won’t budge, I can understand why they will see this as an exercise in futility.
This jury is still out, but don’t forget that all participation is entirely voluntary.
(What a long-winded way to get myself excused from jury service in future! J)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Karoline L
Thursday, 22 June 2000 - 05:30 am | | Paul, you have just written:
"I have been trying to get across to you that we are not talking about ‘hard evidence’ but testing a theory"
I'm sorry - but what on earth does this mean?
How do you 'test a theory' - if not through hard evidence?
What do you use to test it against?
Guesswork?
Intuition?
Statistical probability?
Can you be serious?
You are a seasoned investigator and author.
You say you want to know who forged the diary and when.
Yet six years down the line, you have, by your own admission, done almost no research into the basic facts of the case - and you tell me you have no intention of doing any more.
You further tell me the hard evidence is irrelevant - that you are trying to solve the case by 'testing a theory'. By which you seem to mean - asking questions ad infinitum which no one will be able to answer until they have got the hard evidence that you don't want to find.
What can possess any one of your calibre and experience to engage in something so manifestly pointless?
I think almost everone else here can see that there is only one way to 'test' this or any theory - and that is to collate the basic evidence needed to do meaningful analysis.
Caz has offered hard cash to help fund this necessary investigation. I think others might consider doing the same, if and when such a project could get underway.
Paul, what profit is there for you in contining to pretend against the barest of common sense that this is not the only way to go?
karoline |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 22 June 2000 - 11:59 am | | Hi Karoline,
Can you quote for me where I offered 'hard cash'? I made a reference to commissioning a handwriting analysis if I hadn't spent all my money, and I also said I'd prefer not to cough up on my own if it wasn't generally thought productive. I had no real response to my question of whether the analysis would prove anything, and you yourself thought earlier that it would just be another point to quibble over. But if a fund is set up, and the hat passed round, I will certainly contribute, even though there is no obligation on my part to fund research that I feel should be carried out by the theorists accusing Anne and Mike.
I was talking with Keith earlier, after he had sent me a response to type up for you, because there has been some confusion over posts which have crossed or not yet been read.
As it gets quite complicated for other readers, they may prefer to fast forward at this point.
For your information, Keith’s latest post to you will follow this one, exactly as he worded it before we discussed the sources of the confusion.
I have agreed with Keith that, in future, we will both try to include the exact time and date of any posts to which we are responding or referring.
If you check the back posts you will see that the ‘fuller response’ Keith promised in his post of June 14th @ 12.00pm, was in direct response to your post of June 13th @ 03.23pm. When he wrote this, he had not yet seen your post of June 14th @ 06.26am.
In fact, in my post of June 15th @ 05.04am, I explained:
‘Please bear in mind, I have not yet sent [Keith] any posts since that of June 14th @ 04.04am’,
then I got tied up with other stuff, and Keith was happy for the chance to catch up with his own work commitments.
So, on June 19th @ 12.52pm, I wrote:
‘…I now have to…bring the latest posts to Keith’s attention.’
I found that Keith was still very busy this week, but since your post of June 19th @ 08.53am mentioned a promise Keith had made ‘some time ago’, I brought this particular post to his attention, to which he responded on June 21st @ 08.25am, both of us unaware that the ‘fuller response’ you were expecting was not the one Keith had actually promised.
He 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 sincerely apologise if I have added to any of this confusion.
One other thing Keith and I were discussing was what fun it might be to take you up on your excellent suggestion that we ‘investigate the backgrounds of the principle beneficiaries of the fraud.’
Keith asked if he would have to investigate himself, to which I replied that I would be delighted to take on the job myself, assuring him of my absolute thoroughness and attention to detail. It was suggested you might like to do the same with Paul.... see you in six months? ;-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 22 June 2000 - 12:02 pm | | From Keith Skinner To Karoline L
Karoline
On Wednesday June 14th 2000 I wrote to you:-
“Thank you for your post to which, I promise, I will give a fuller response.”
This was in part response to your post on Tuesday June 13th 2000 – 03.23pm which gave you the correct impression that I was “promising at some time in the future” to give you a fuller response.
So far – we are in agreement and there is no need to apologise, on your part, for a mistaken impression
On Monday June 19th 2000 – 08.53am you wrote:-
“Keith, some time ago now you promised to give me a comprehensive list of the research done so far and your own hard data that argues for an early forgery.”
On Wednesday June 21st 2000 – 10.53am you wrote:-
“about a week ago I asked you here if you could maybe post up a summary of the state of your investigation so far.”
Could you therefore please confirm that your very specific request to me to “maybe post up a summary of the state of [my] investigation so far” was made in your post of Tuesday June 13th 2000 – 03.23pm?
And I am still very unclear as to where I specifically promised that I would give you a comprehensive list of the research done so far and my own hard data that argues for an early forgery?
What I did promise, on Wednesday June 14th 2000, was to give you a fuller response to your post of Tuesday June 13th 2000 – 03.23pm
In that post you asked me two direct questions about handwriting and one very good question about what I would regard as proof of who forged the diary.
There was then an attempt by you to identify the reasoning why some people had difficulty in coming to terms with the notion of Mike Barrett and Anne Graham as the forgers. You list three reasons, (presenting them as if they were entrenched beliefs), and ask whether there were any better arguments which had escaped your notice. (I would suggest, Karoline, these are not ‘reasons’ but rather points for consideration.)
But nowhere do I see clearly specified that which you claim I have promised to provide you with – so perhaps I am missing a post?
Keith |
Author: Karoline L
Thursday, 22 June 2000 - 01:04 pm | | Keith,
As I've said already - if I misunderstood your words then I apologise.
But since you told me a few days ago that you actually have NO hard evidence in favour of your old forgery theory, I don't think there's much point in going on with this particular aspect of the discussion.
I sympathise with your right to believe as you choose - but this forum isn't about discussing one another's unsubstantiated gut feelings.
Caz, I'm sorry i thought you were making a serious offer.
But surely you agree that you are only going to get the answers you want by collating the hard data?
If you aren't in a position to do this, and Paul thinks he doesn't need evidence to solve the case - then is there anyone else out there who might want to pick up this investigation?
If not, then I guess the whole subject is dead in the water.
Unless endless futile and repetitive speculation is something you happen to enjoy.
K |
Author: stephen stanley
Thursday, 22 June 2000 - 05:53 pm | | Paul-I get your point completely-If the handwriting does not apparently match Ann's or Mike's the whole modern forgery theory gets more difficult to explain..maybe there isn't a Mr.Big organising it ,but a Mr.Little doing the actual writing.........It just seems strange that if the whole thing was planned for profit it then seems to have played a major part in the marriage break-up..as I've said before,yes, all logic tells me It's a forgery, but logic (based on what I've read) does not support the Barrets carrying it out.
(burble,burble...go to darkened room and lie down!)
Steve S. |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 22 June 2000 - 06:16 pm | | I'm completely lost on this one !
And I thought my own conspiracy theories were complicated , but this takes the biscuit ! :-)
Firstly , we need to simplify the argument a bit : lets go back to A , B and C again.
A = the diary is genuine AND therefore old
B = the diary is a forgery AND modern
C = the diary is a forgery AND old
Now we have groups w , x , y , z.
w = I BELIEVE the Diary is genuine
x = I BELIEVE the Diary is a forgery , because of the textual errors pointed out by Melvin and Peter all those moons ago.
y = I BELIEVE the Diary is a forgery , because Anne Graham and Albert Johnson are proven to be liars and dishonest. Thus we cannot believe anything they say.
z = I am sceptical about the Diary but I think we need to ask more questions about the motivations of the forgers before we can make up our minds on this issue.
For instance I am a Bx person. I believe the Diary is a modern forgery and I believe that because of the reasons Melvin Harris and Peter Birchwood have put forward on this page. Whereas Caz would probably be classified as a Bz person or a Cz person.
All this is based on Caz's post of June 21st , 11.35am.
To answer Caz's questions from that post :
Evidence of the handwriting in the Diary suggests that neither Anne nor Mike wrote the thing.
As far as I know , the Johnsons and the Grahams did not know each other pre-discovery of the watch.
We have no evidence that Mike had a hand in forging the Diary at this date , indeed if Shirley Harrison is to be believed it seems Mike undertook a great deal of research on the Diary to try and discover whether it was genuine or not. This suggests Mike was not involved in forging the work , however we must also look at the buying of the 1891 diary ( the little red book ) and determine what part Mike played in that.
I have a lot of sympathy for Karoline as , unless we want to keep things completely hypothetical , if we want to get nearer the truth in the matter then we must start investigating these theories and looking for hard evidence to back them up. Going around in circles is pointless. |
|
|
|
|
