|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Begg, 'preserved like a fly in amber'
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Begg, 'preserved like a fly in amber'
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 07:54 am |        | Phillip Sugden's quote (pg. 11 of the harback of his book) about a quote of mine being 'preserved like a fly in amber' has been quoted three or four times recently and it struck me that many of you
won't have seen the promotional literature in which the quotes appeared and therefore won't know what it is all about.
The promo literature was for Paul Feldman's video released in 1993 (please recall the date!). I was quoted as saying: "As of writing, and I neither know of nor suspect that anything will emerge during the research period to change my opinion, I incline to the belief that the diary is genuine. On the basis of the extensive scientific analysis, I cannot honestly see any reasonable alternative."
Ouch! Pretty damning stuff!
But not quite as damning when you know the context in which those words were written. At one point the advisors were told categorically - and I reiterate categorically - that the handwriting was positively Maybrick's; that it was 'as positive as a fingeprint'! In addition we were provided with reports by Dr. Eastaugh and Dr Foreshaw which appeared to be highly positive. Thus, we were told the the "Diary" was unquestionably written by James Maybrick, that the ink used was Victorian, that the diary book itself was Victorian and that the psychopathology revealed in the "Diary" was accurate. Given this information, as I wrote, I couldn't see any real alternative to the "Diary" being genuine.
Of course I entertained doubts. We all did. And they were fairly serious doubts, hence the cautious words 'I incline to the belief' - far, far different for saying that I believed. And that inclination only existed if the 'scientific' evidence remained as positive as it appeared. Of course, the moment we had the opportunity to talk with the experts, it became clear that what we'd been told was not true.
And let me say here and now that the person who gave us this information was NOT either Shirley Harrison nor Paul Feldman and was, I believe, the consequence of a misunderstanding rather than an intent to deceive. Once the mistake was understood, my words ceased to have any validity whatsoever and had ceased to have any validity when they appeared in the promotional literature.
And I asked that the date be remembered because those words were written in or about June 1992, within two months or so of the "Diary" being taken to the offices of Doreen Montgomery and at the very outset of the research period. I regret that Phil Sugden did not establish these details because I think that they shed a very different light on what we said and why we said it. And that doesn't just apply to me, but to Dr Forshaw and Dr Eastaugh as well.
But, there you go. These things happen. But now at least you have the facts. |
Author: Lisby
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 11:41 am | | | Thanks, Paul, for setting the record straight. That was a very rude post and I'm sorry to have seen it here. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 02:05 pm | | Have I got this right? Paul Begg's flies are preserved in amber??? :-) Yet another first in Ripperology!
Chris George |
Author: History of JTR
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 02:41 pm | | The full passage from Sugden is -
"By now it should be obvious that we are dealing with a transparent hoax. The unacceptable provenance of the diary, the missing front pages, the factual inaccuracies and the implausibility of Maybrick as a Ripper suspect - even without forensic tests we have learned enough to set a whole belfry of warning bells ringing. A reading of the diary still leaves me baffled as to how any intelligent and reasonably informed student of the Ripper case could possibly have taken it seriously. There were those well versed in the subject, men like Nick Warren, Tom Cullen and Melvin Harris, who saw through the hoax from the beginning. Tet it is astonishing how many experts were fooled and allowed their names to be used in the promotional literature. They remain there, preserved like flies in amber, warnings to the complacent and credulous. - Philip Sugden, 1994. |
Author: YAZOO
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 03:58 pm | | Just in case we couldn't count to page 11 in our own copies of Sugden? Thanks. Very helpful little creature you are. I see the date of Sugden is 1994 -- a year after Begg made his statement for the promo...again, much thanks for verifying Begg's account. I also note the absence of Paul Begg's name IN PARTICULAR! Could be Sugden didn't even know Begg said a word about it, huh? Or HE had the courtesy not to name names? Either way, sport, disqualifies as a direct pot-shot at Paul Begg, as was previously alleged. Thank you for pointing THAT out too. You are so very, very bright, ya know!
But ((((yaaaaaaaaawwwwwnnnnn))))))))) thanks heaps for the whole thing, whoever.
That this stupid stuff is important to anyone AMAZES!!! I wish you hadn't set this board up, Mr. Begg. You credit too much of your own decency to your enemies.
YAZOO |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 04:40 pm | | No enemies, Yaz, just the same person who hides behind false names and non-existant e-mail addresses and has a decided problem with his facts. The telling phrase in Phil Sugden's accunt, I suppose, is "A reading of the diary still leaves me baffled as to how any intelligent and
reasonably informed student of the Ripper case could possibly have taken it seriously." Quite right, too, and that alone should have set bells ringing in Phil Sugden's head that maybe intelligent and reasonably informed students of the Ripper case didn't take it seriously. Perhaps he should have written to them and asked what their reasons were, then he'd either have found out why it wasn't 'obvious' that they were dealing with a transparent hoax or he'd have learned why they wrote what they did. But Phil Sugden didn't bother to ask. And without meaning any offence whatever to either Melvin or Nick, both pronounced the "Diary" a probable forgery without ever having seen it or knowing anything about it, and the much admired Tom Cullen wrote his book on the Ripper in 1965 and commented on the "Diary" when briefly presented with the evidence by The Sunday Times in 1993. And Phil himself didn't give sufficient thought to his arguments, as he asked why Florence didn't produce the "Diary" in her defence at her trial (because she pleaded innocent and offering mitigation would have done her defence no good whatsoever, as Phil very quickly recognised and admitted).
If I make mistakes (not that what I wrote was a mistake), I am happy to admit to them. We all make 'em, and most of us are big enough to admit to them. |
Author: Sean Miller
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 05:13 pm | | Isn't the whole "Ripper Investigation" as we pursue it very much something which will grow through false leads, which will "prove" negatives through those negatives being voiced.
Why should ANY Ripper author denounce another simply because their research can be contradicted? I think personally there would be a lot of upset people if tomorrow we all knew for sure the ripper's identity! Suddenly a whole avenue of investigation would be cut short in its prime.
Let's drink to "deviant thinking", let's drink to debate, and let's not denounce Paul because he has had the decency to accept that another author's investigations are, at least, worthy of discussion.. and isn't that what we are doing here???!
..to Jack staying elusive long enough to encourage relationships to be built, to encourage teamwork, to encourage positive thought - research into a period of London history which may otherwise be forgotten...
Sean |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 06:01 pm | | It is a sad by-product of these sudden vicious postings that two respected names in the field of JtR research are set against each other, even one degree removed. That's simply one danger to these kinds of posts.
Let me play Dr. Science for a moment. The sense of anonymity and invisibility here is an illusion. No matter what you type in the name and email fields or whether you select Anonymous, it is a matter of minutes (not hours, not days) to find where the post came from and who sent it. You also leave an audit trail on every machine in every state, province, and country you "hit" as the message comes here. You are running a terrible risk!
What are the reprocussions of this? At this point, I would request the special attention of our vicious little friends. I'm telling you this...for your benefit...you have one foot over the abyss. If the offended parties so choose, this is a short list of what you could expect:
1) Your IS provider can be notified by having a complaint lodged against you. Enough of these complaints (maybe just one!) would get you thrown off that service. It is quite possible no service would risk litigation by granting you IS in any way, shape or form.
2) Mommies, daddies, school principals, CS department chiefs, university/college administrators can also be notified of misuse of their (note: not YOUR'S. their's!) IS. Consequences range from a whompin' to being thrown out of school.
Whoever you people are, realize that you are welcome here, you probably belong here...it is your behavior and the type of posts you make that are objectionable. Pull back from this abyss, please. For your own sake. Join this community with mutual respect and courtesy. But if I still haven't reached you, the list of repercussions can continue.
3) A litigious soul (that means, YOU get sued!) could start proceedings for harassment, AT MINIMUM. If this behavior continues or escalates, you would face possible charges of slander, defamation of character, even criminal charges (I'll let you guess why).
4) Local, state, or whatever law enforcement agencies exist where you're posting could be notified. Possible criminal indictments include breaches of law effective in your area (state or provinicial bust), crossing state/provincial jursidiction (a federal or national-government bust...that's a possible holiday in the Big House, bud!), malicious use of electronic equipment and services...the list goes on.
Stop now before you go too far...or rather any farther since you've already stepped over the bounds.
Now bright people who can read will realize the EXACT meaning when I say: This is not Paul Begg's problem. It is our problem. We all must act, not for Paul, not for your grandmother, but for yourselves as well! I proposed a simple solution of ignoring the post...the minute ANYONE sees such a post, they could brand it politely, the target says nothing, we all ignore the post and understand why the target makes no "defense." Open a board and discuss and decide on another policy. Or the owners and operators of this web site, whose guests we all are, can take any or all of the more serious actions only briefly outlined above.
To the post-ers of this kind of message, please stop now. Join us in respectful and courteous conversation...or leave; no hard feelings, no gloating; we would understand. To those of us who remain and live under the trust we give to our fellow post-ers, we must decide on a simple procedure to handle this type of post and follow it.
The potential damage here is greater than just shattering your illusion of anonymity and invisibility. And I'm speaking directly to whoever makes these kinds of vicious, nasty posts more than I am to the majority of non-offenders.
Thanks,
Yaz |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 24 November 1998 - 07:00 am | | Hi Paul, Yaz, et.al
I have not had much expirience with the ripper board, but I have been on international chat-rooms for years. There are unfortunantly pseudo-freaks, like some hackers, who honestly believe that they are so clever, they can make a science out of 'bombing' chats like ours.
I have had the pleasure of stringing such bums along in the past, and although I don't want to waste time with such idiots, I'll do it again in the future if I must.
The typical MO, pretending to be 'one of the boys', trying to lead discussion into a particular backwater to set honest participants against each other when and as chance allows, depends on the readieness of others, even when well-meaning, to join in the fight.
Paul, Yaz, other good men and true. Anyone who writes such cheap crap, even when in disguise, deserves the worst of all insults, that of being ignored. I don't care how much each of us is attacked by this or these individuals, a simple answer alone from the person attacked is sureley the answer.
Just because I don't do more than indicate my support for the so abused doesn't mean I don't care, I just refuse to be drawn into a fight with my fellow discussers just because some farting little ape thinks he is big enough to play with the men and clever enough to talk at their level.
Bob Court
e-mail rcourt5731@AOL.COM |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 24 November 1998 - 10:07 am | | Hi All
'History of JTR' (or whatever he/she likes to call him/herself) seems to think that I am profiting or have been hoping to profit from the "Diary" and that I am therefore profiting from a fraud. Believing this he/she is angry - and rightly so if his vision of things was correct! But he is wrong. I don't profit from the "Diary" (except indirectly)and frankly, I don't think anyone has profited.
Neither Shirley Harrison nor Paul Feldman have made a fortune from their books (the latter probably having spent more than he made and during his investigation has seen his marriage and business collapse). Both genuinely believe in the authenticity of the "Diary", so if anyone has been duped by the hoax, nobody has been duped worse than they have!
Mike Barrett wife left him, taking his daughter who refused to see him anymore. His life shattered, he sank at speed into the grip of alcoholism, blamed the "Diary" and thought he could put his life together again if he got rid of it, so confessed to having forged it. I speak from personal experience and knowledge. I was there throughout that terrible time, on the end of a 'phone at all hours, just listening as Mike tried to make sense of what had gone wrong with his life. I have not a shred of doubt that if Mike could have proven the "Diary a forgery at that time he would have done so. I don't think Mike benefited from the "Diary" in any way. And Ann has had a rough few years, her marriage breaking up and the struggle to make ends meet. She hasn't profited either, but she did grasp the opportunity to 'reinvent' herself, go back to college, write a book. She's done okay, but through hands-dirtying hard work, not from the profits of a hoax.
Profit! I don't see much profit. And it makes 'History of JTR's little digs and jibes seem small and petty and terribly mistaken. |
Author: Lisby
Tuesday, 24 November 1998 - 01:34 pm | | Let me just toss in my two cents--I work in the publishing industry. Very, very few authors make any real money off of a book. Your best sellers and ghost-written tomes by the current scandal victim/perp can drag in a tidy sum, but for most of us, there is very little reward other than the satisfaction of seeing our own byline. And those of us who write in a niche area see almost nothing the the way of advances, and as Paul said, most often end up losing money through the costs of our research. We write for very different reasons than those rotating pound signs. Our psychological reasons could form the basis for a forum of its own, but I promise you that greed is not among them.
Now, let me just state that I am also very interested in who is responsible for this forgery and why it was made. I delight in hearing what you in the know have to say.
And thank you, Paul, Yaz, etc., for being such grown-ups!
Lisby |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Wednesday, 25 November 1998 - 10:28 am | | Evening all:
Thanks, Paul for the birthday greeting and if we're quoting Sugden p. 256 says of Paul Begg: "one of the most dependable modern students of the case..." Which is, of course not to say that he is always correct.
Shirley Harrison has perhaps not made a fortune from her book but it did, as she told me, help her to buy her house. Her first edition is still selling and the second revised one is just out although we have yet to see it in Aberystwyth where the latest book review is of the King James Bible with the suggestion that a Mr. Shakespeare will be feautured in the next Cambrian News as an author to watch. As to Feldy's ups and downs it is debatable whether he is on the profit or loss side at the moment. The whole diary debate however is not about who made what by the diary. Professional authors expect to earn their living by their pen: if they don't then they do something else and we should not criticise them when they are successfull.
Also debatable is whether Mike's wife left him as a result of the diary or that the diary was the cause of Mike's boozing. Although Paul is in a better position to know than we are it seems, from various accounts that there were problems pre-1991.Has Mike proved the diary a forgery? Obviously not. He has said that he gave these "proofs" to his sister but that's all we know. If she had them she's not telling. As to Mike benefitting "in any way" although he has had great problems he was and remains "co-author" with Shirley on her book and presumably he and Anne have some interest in royalties.
Divorces cause problems and they interfere with finances. Whether or not Anne received her weekly £75 from Feldy (authority K. Skinner) she did and presumably does share royalties with Mike(authority P. Feldman.) I have no information as to financial arrangements made with her ex-husband during the divorce although these may well be public record.
I mention these things not to show how the diary made fortunes for some people but to show that although there has been suffering there has also been profit. Only those involved could say if the one outweighs the other.
Let me address some other points while I am here eating my birthday chocs. (Thorntons Rum Truffles.)
Chris: When you mention a reference in Christie's book to JtR I wonder if you mean Nigel Morland's "This Friendless Lady" where he mentions country-wide terrors at Christmas 1888 with fears of another Ripper crime. Your mention of Altick's book of course tells us that the only association between Jack and Florie was chronological which of course is perfectly sensible, although what Henry James had to do with it is mysterious!
Sean: I hardly recognised your style until I saw the two question-marks. If I'm trying to tell anybody anything it's: don't rely too much on what people tell you. Sometimes they're mistaken and sometimes they lie. There's an old legal tag: "Don't believe personal testimony unless it helps prove your case!" There has been too much of that in the diary affair. The cat phrase seems familiar. Puss in Boots?
Yazoo: There have always been clashes of personality coupled with odd pieces of sheer lunacy on these boards. I suspect Paul is Begg enough to handle any detractors himself. Unless I missed it I hadn't thought there was anything so terrible on the board as to provoke your warning. Certainly if there's any extreme nastiness filed here similar to some of the private e-mails that I'm sure many of us will have had from deranged individuals, then I'm sure that we can deal with it in the fashion you describe. Is there some way to ban submissions to this board from anonymous posters or fake e-mail addresses? If there is I'd be all for it.
Lisby: The watch isn't genuine. It's possible to fake the inscriptions without the use of the expensive equipment Feldy suggests. He also brings into his argument the possibility of there being two watches, not one which is typical of his approach: if something looks obviously faked, obscure things to make it more complex. The watch is a ladies watch and is English dating probably from the 1840's and therefore unlikely to belong to either Maybrick. And like the diary there are alternative provenances.
And to all of you, best wishes.
Peter. |
Author: Magpie
Tuesday, 23 March 1999 - 07:37 am | | Hi Paul.
What is this? I leave you guys alone for a few days (okay, six months or so) and I come back to this!
Just so everyone knows, Paul's been wading through this mire for as long as I've been coming here (about two years) and I've never seen any of the mud stick yet. I don't think any of us are willing to believe anything bad about him--accusations of deliberately perpetuating a hoax are laughable.
Magpie |
|
|
|
|
