|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 April 17, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-2000 Archives:
Archive through April 17, 2000
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 14 April 2000 - 10:50 am |        | Hi Guy,
Thanks for the proper stuff about the Sutcliffes!
Glad you were listening in. :-)
Hi R.J,
Yeah, it would be good to finally prove who did write the bloody diary. I guess, unless it's done with the same thoroughness as a court of law (not meant to be a tongue-in-cheek remark about our justice system), there will still be those who believe JM was JtR. Such is life, as Peter Birchwood commented.
Hi Karoline,
No, I am not 'basically' asking the question you raise, sorry if I gave that impression.
And thanks for the subtle hints about asking people to prove negatives. If you ever catch me doing it, you have my full permission to give me a swift dig in the ribs. :-)
Have a good weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 14 April 2000 - 11:12 am | | Hi Mark:
Druitt's a mysterious character all right: we know very little about him personally and nothing at all about the three mysteries connected with him: why he was dissmissed from the school, why he (apparently) killed himself and why someone suspected him of being JtR just a very few years after the murders. But remember that I also like Tumblety who was a contemporary suspect.
As for Maybrick, let me rephrase your words according to the information available on him outside the pages of the diary: his wife was indeed found guilty of his murder, he probably did love her even though he may well have kept a mistress on the side, and we have no evidence that he was "obsessed by her." Why did she kill him? Well she in turn had at least one lover and may well have thought that her husband (who was much older than she was) could be traded in on a newer model. With no divorce available to her at that time, she may well have decided on a more permanent solution.
Concerning noise, I suspect that none of the crimes was particularly noisy as witness the Kelly killing where apart from a cry of "murder" which may have come from her, no-one nearby seems to have heard a thing. And the Stride and Eddowes killings were both near social clubs in at least one of which there was singing going on.
Peter |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Friday, 14 April 2000 - 02:08 pm | | As well, the thought was also raised that Florence may have simply overdosed James by mistake (from what I have read about her, both in the Diary and the Maybrick case, she does not seem to have been quite that stable or intelligent a woman. But no mind).
Mark - I hope you see what Peter says. The Diary is an artefact whose provenance is not proven. It is suspect as evidence, and therefore cannot be used as support for any imagining of Maybrick's mental condition. He may very well have been obsessed with Florence, and become insanely jealous after learning of her involvement with Alfred Brierly; however, we CANNOT and ARE NOT justified at pointing to certain passages in the Diary that curse "the whore" and say "there, you see? It proves he was mad."
The Diary is useful in that it might suggest alternate explanations for disputed points in the Ripper case, but suggesting is all it can do. To use the Diary as a foundation for proposing James Maybrick's candidacy is not going to work, whether you believe in it or not. IF the Diary is one day proven to be real, then of course it can limn a psychological portrait of Maybrick, but not until then. Suspect evidence cannot be used to prove that evidence's bona fides.
Other matters -
Some of us in the Colonies know what you're talking about with "Viz." Personally, I've always had a liking for Luvvie Darling, but catch me after a night on the booze and my personality is more 8 Ace!
As well, I have been giving some serious thought to coming over for the October 7 C&D meeting with Robin Odell, so perhaps I may run into a few of you there (and mine's a Hardy Country if you're buying, ta).
As ever,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Mark Goeder
Friday, 14 April 2000 - 03:19 pm | | Hi Karoline,
Why should someone try to fake a diary to get himself off the hook if he wasnt on the hook to start with.
If its true what you say then it doesnt make any sense at all.
I mean, look at it this way. The killer got away with it CLEAN.
Why write a fake diary to protect himself if he didnt need the protection? A bit risky isnt it?
Mark
Hi Peter,
Do you realy think that florie was that stupis to kill her husband to make way for Mr right?
A bit obvious i think.
maybrick was near death anyway, why not wait around untill he dies himself.
Think that even Briarly wouldnt take that kind of risk.
Florie wasnt that stupid.
Mark |
Author: Mark Goeder
Friday, 14 April 2000 - 03:24 pm | | RJ Palmer
If you looked at every diary ever written, you would always find something to contest.
Have you ever possesed a diary?
Show it to someone in twenty years and ask them how much of it they think could be true.
Of course there are holes in the story.
What would you expect?
A journalist still rarely gets his own facts right.
Mark |
Author: Mark Goeder
Friday, 14 April 2000 - 03:30 pm | | hi christopher,
If its true what you say about " suspect Evidence", then I would like to know what your definition of Evidence is.
All the evidence you find will always be rendered as suspect evidence.
Unless of couse it has been proved 100% fake.
And that hasnt happened yet.
Mark |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 14 April 2000 - 05:09 pm | | How about if it was shown to be 1% fake? How much "fake" does it have to be?
Hi.
Mark, to answer your question, yes, I've read other diaries, journals, etc. And, in all fairness, I don't think we can blame JTR for not writing like Samuel Pepys or Virginia Woolf. My point really wasn't that the Maybrick Diary is 'full of holes' but that, in some ways, it is TOO neat. It is written precisely as if the author were trying to CONVINCE A KNOWLEDGEABLE AUDIENCE that it is authentic. I can almost imagine the forger sitting at his desk with a cup of tea, a copy of "Jack the Ripper Cliff Notes", and a scrap album circa 1880. "Now I should throw in a bit about forgetting my chalk but remembering it next time" etc, etc. A bit cheesy, IMHO.
No doubt someone will eventually come up with evidence that Maybrick was in Liverpool on the night of one of the murders. But frankly, who wants to do the leg work when the Diary is so obviously a hoax?
But on to a bigger issue. Perhaps I've been a bit naive in the past (believing what I've read in school books, for instance) but my jaw still drops to think that Historians would manufacture evidence to sell books, support theories, etc. But the time has come to set the record straight! I hear proclaim universal AMNESTY to all those who have fibbed in the past. Please come forward on these boards and admit your deeds so we can eliminate a few red herrings. Thank you. |
Author: Mark Goeder
Saturday, 15 April 2000 - 06:32 am | | hi RJ
Lets say the TRUE JACK THE RIPPER did write a diary.
Lets say it is still hidden.
What happens when it is found?
Lets say you find it.
Based on the facts er all already know, what would you have to do to PROVE its no fake??
I mean, we all seem to know what happened.
how are you going to prove a document like this is not a fake?
Its just not possible.
It just cant be done.
The diary is not a hoax.
The hitler diaries were PROVED beyond doubt that is was a hoax.
The guy who wrote it was also a profesional hoaxer.
Thats all he ever did.
And he was good at it.
He had access to good material.
And the people who helped him were also profesional hoaxers too.
But he forgot to write it on the right paper.
He really did fool a lot of people.
And science proved it to be a hoax.
NOT its content!
If the diary is a hoax, then why didnt the writer
dedicate more time to the killinss alone.
Why write all that other stuff?
Why mention killing women in Manchester too?
Just because you dont personaly know the women yourself doesnt prove a thing.
Why didnt he involve Tabram or Coles or Smith?
For a long time there were Ripper victims.
Maybrick did leave his mark "M" in kellys room.
Its there for you to see.
Poor ols Stevie boy Knight didnt even see the "M".
How did Maybick Know?
The same applies to Eddowes.
He didnt write the diary to CONVINCE anyone.
He couldnt be bothered.
Its just a simple plain old diary.
Im afraid thats all it is.
unlike the hitler diary, it cant be proved a fake.
No matter how hard you try.
I know isemm to be alone on this one, but it doesnt bother me.
I not fussed if Im the only one who believes it.
But one thing makes me think.
Most of you are totaly convinced the diary is a hoax.
I mean you even laugh at people who think it is true.
Why then spend so much valuble time even discussing it?
why arent you looking for the truth elsewhere?
If you didnt take the diary seriously, you wouldnt bother discussing it.
And some of the messages I ve seen posted here really do make me wonder.
Why are you bothering?
I boil it all down to this.
Even if Im alone in this boat, then you are all in the boat too.
As much as I cant prove it is real, you still cant prove its a fake.
Thats the problem RJ.
Thats it.
If the diary IS a fake, that means there will be some evidence elsewhere, linking the real JTR.
If that came to light and was likely to be true,what would be your reaction.
Someone WAS responsable for the killings.
And there is evidence.That is a fact.
Thing is, are you willing to take it seriously?
Tell us who did it.
If you are THAT convinced then you must KNOW who the killer really is huh?
:o)
Gonna go shopping now
bye
Mark |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 15 April 2000 - 11:02 am | | Mark:
If you look through the history of murder you will see, time after time, one spouse knocking off the other to make way for someone else. For the most part, the ones we read about are the stupid ones: the people who get caught. The clever ones get away with it.
There is no reason to believe that the historical James Maybrick was "near death." If he was, there would presumably be no motive for Florrie to poison him. Only the diary implies that he was on his last legs. CMD has said clearly what I was trying to say: you can't use the diary to prove itself.
Now the rest of your posts just refer to points that have already been dealt with so I won't address them apart from one point that is interesting: how would we prove as authentic a document that would perhaps be a confession to the crimes or indeed (perish the thought) a diary of JtR?
Now of course this has already been done in at least one instance: the discovery of the Littlechild letter by Stewart Evans, details of which you will see in his masterly book "JtR - First American Serial Killer."
Should anything else turn up, (the long-awaited confession of MJ Druitt comes to mind) the document needs to be examined forensically. Is the ink, the paper, the typewriter contemporary with the time the document purports to be written? Is the provenance good in that it can be reliably traced back through past owners? And in examining the document itself are there any problems, knowledge of events provable to have happened after the date of conposition. For example in Druitt's "confession" if he referred to his grief at his mother's death, that would lead us to suspicion as she actually survived him by two years. It's plain that if a document could pass these tests, as the Littlechild letter has, it's very likely to be authentic. If it fails every one of them as the diary has, then it's very likely to be a fake.
By the way, I see by todays news that "The Diary of Florence Nightingale" has mysteriously appeared and has been pronounced authentic by a number of authorities.
RJP:
Will you restrict your amnesty to those of us dealing in true crime specialising in JtR? If you extend it to all historians who have lied, cheated and forged to push their own theories, I suspect there won't be room on the entire internet for their confessions!
Peter |
Author: Karoline L
Saturday, 15 April 2000 - 02:52 pm | | Hi all
Caz,
Some of my best friends are undisprovable negatives, so not a word of complaint from me.
Mark,
you ask 'why would the _real_ ripper forge a diary to get off the hook, if he wasn't _on_ the hook in the first place?'
That's a good question. probably Caz has better answers, because it's her theory, not mine, but here are a few thoughts:
Firstly - why SHOULDN'T he?
The killer was a madman after all - and by definition would do crazy things - like forging a diary when he didn't need to.
In fact, the sheer madness of such an act makes it even more likely that it was the real ripper who did it.
And what about Florie Maybrick being too stupid to kill anyone?
Doesn't this suggest that it was the _real_ ripper who killed her husband - to silence him so he couldn't prove he hadn't written the diary?
What if Anne Graham found a letter inside the diary when she took it out of her wardrobe, that proved it was an old forgery, but she decided to publish it anyway - but covered her tracks by giving it to Devereaux (who was going to be dead soon), so she wouldn't be implicated when Barret confessed?
maybe the watch was there too - and Anne gave it to a jeweller because the monogram showed the diary was an old forgery, not realising that the real killer had scratched the initials of the murder-victims on the back.
Karoline |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 16 April 2000 - 08:28 am | | Mark--I don't think you are quite as alone in your boat as you think. Look at the results of the poll of visitors to this site (in "Suspects: General Discussion") and you'll find that Maybrick, after getting off to a respectable start, has now climbed to #2 on the "prime suspect" list and is threatening to overtake Kosminski. I'm just baffled as to why, as I think the evidence overwhelmingly points to a hoax. As to the 'tone' of the Diary sounding contrived and gratuitous in its details, this is strictly my opinion. Such things are more a matter of art, than of science, and it doesn't constitute 'proof'. Unless, of course, the forger slips up and makes some sort of anachronism.
I want to say that I appreciate your directness and sense of humour. These boards are sometimes given to bad blood, and looking at the archives, there probably has been more bad blood on the Maybrick board than anywhere else. I'm not laughing at anyone, and am doing my best to tiptoe around these days. It's rather sad to see how many people have left the boards due to disagreements, especially when there are so many like Stewart Evans, Peter, Viper, etc. (too many to name) who have generously posted public records, maps, newsprints, etc. for the benefit of all.
As to the 'FM'--sorry, but I don't see it. I think it's a combination of a blurry photograph, the grain of the wood on the wall, a few indiscriminate splatterings, and the human eye's tendency to see patterns.
And sorry, again. I don't have the faintest idea who Jack the Ripper was! I'd sure like to haul in Druitt, Tumblety, James Kelly, and maybe even George Hutchinson for further questioning. And that would only be to satisfy my own curiousity, since there's plenty of good arguments as to why any of them are NOT JTR.
Peter--Thanks for the warning about Florence Nightingale! I'll brace myself...
Best regards,
RJP |
Author: Mark Goeder
Sunday, 16 April 2000 - 01:46 pm | | Hi RJ
I had to write this a second time because my AOL went off course and logged itself off.
To be able to ask my self is the diary is true, I had to ask myself who wrote it.
one thing for sure is that barrett didnt.
Although he admitted writing it.
someone even posted the vision of Barrett réading enough material to be able to write a hoax.
They said all the material he used could have been found in 3 previous ripper books.
I mean, There are thousends and thousends of Ripperologists around doing som serious caseork here.
how the hell did Barrett come up with a story like this?
I can just imagine it.. " Darling, Im just popping out to buy 3 ripper books, you see Im bored and I think I ll write a fake Ripper diary"
"when you ve finnished the ironing, wanna help me?"
The found something not even phonies like S. knight found.
Not even Rumbelow, Harris, Skinner, Begg, etc etc
managed to find the "M" behind kellys bed.
Can you imagine barretts luck?!!!!
What a theorie.
but wait....its gets better.
Heh presto!!
Another "M" carved into the face of Eddowes.
My god, this is too true to be true.
And only barrett saw it.
100 years and only Mr barrett saw all of this.
what about the absent heart .
All coincidence?
The farthings, contenets of the tin box?
Still more coincidence.
Be honest,doesnt it match all too well?
Thats what makes it so unbelievable.
forget about all the field work done by ripperologists.
foefet the thousends and thousends of pages read by Harris,Begg etc etc
Forget all the hard work done by these people.
Good old mr Barrett went to Smiths and got himself a "Fraud Diary making kit"
A bit like making beer.(he he) :o)
Barrett couldnt forge a sick note.
RJ. My logic says the diary is a fake.
Thats only ma logic.
10 years ago I was druitt fan.( if I may use the term).
Maybe because it was the most logical theorie.
I have been accused of justifying the diary is real using only the diaries content.
know what?
Thats true.
I ll admitt it as well.
its like watching a Rainer Werner Fassbender film back in the 80s.
Every time you watch it, you find something new.
The more I think about the diary, the more things start falling into place.
It seems that way anyway.
I am not 100% convinced that the diary is real.
But it is the nearest i think I ll ever come in my lifetime.
I dont think there are any other documents around to prove who the riper really was.
If so, they would be out by now. especially after the Maybrick story.
I asked how many people suspected Maybrick, BEFORE the diary surfaced.
Someone said they knew about him.
Knew what?
Never was Maybrick linked to the ripper
He was mentioned only once in abook by Wilson and Odell.Page 108 and page 228.
Why should barrett pick Maybrick?
Because of "M" ?
Is that it?
What about Constable Spicers arrest of a man on 30.Sept. 1888 , who fitted the description of Maybrick?
What about his Woman in London?
Behind the bed of kelly is an "M".
On Eddowes face there was an "M"
Fact or fiction?
That is fact.... its there for all to see.
do you really think its blood?
Maybe he was a Mcdonalds fan?
Although I must say it does kind of look like "M" for McDonalds.
now Im hungry again
gonna get a quaterpounder with cheese.
from burger king
bye
Mark |
Author: Karoline L
Sunday, 16 April 2000 - 03:28 pm | | RJP:
I think it's perfectly possible for one person to vote for the same suspect more than once over a period of time.
So, if one or two guys, dedicated to keeping this
question alive, just tapped the buttons enough - we'd have Maybrick surging ahead in the polls.
Who's doing it chaps? - you know you're out there, and shame on you.
(just kidding)
Speaking of shame - I caught an ad in today's Observer for a publication called 'History Today', that is running an article called 'Jack the Ripper Exposed', in its May issue.
The accompanying picture was a negative of the Maybrick photo.
So has someone managed to sell this old slapper of a 'diary' off to a presumably reputable mag?
What is the world coming to?
Peter, CMD, if they do run such a piece, you two should collaborate on a rebuttal and send it to this mag immediately. Can I help too?
Should be fun.
Karoline |
Author: alex chisholm
Sunday, 16 April 2000 - 04:21 pm | | Shame on you, Karoline!
We all know Peter is well beyond redemption, but to imperil CMD’s illustrious reputation by advocating his collaboration with Obsessive Haranguers Inc. is simply diabolical.
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 17 April 2000 - 07:18 am | | Hiya Caz ! Gosh , so many posts in just a weekend eh ? What have you stirred up here ? The Diary has returned from the dead like a foul reanimated corpse , back to plague us again. We'll need Melvyn Fairclough's crucifix to protect us ! I think I recall Billy Graham saw the Diary in 1943 at his solicitors , I must have got confused that the solicitor gave him the Diary. There are so many facts and myths about this case that its easy to get confused isn't it , especially for me trying to remember the 15 books I have read on the murders and trying to comment on multiple topics all at the same time. Still at least its Easter soon ! |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 17 April 2000 - 08:27 am | | Mark , no-one seems to have mentioned the biggest mistake in the Diary , the one thing that proves it beyond doubt to have been a forgery - so let me do it now. From the Diary of James Maybrick , and from ' The Diary of Jack the Ripper ' by Shirley Harrison , page 318 1994 edition , I GIVE YOU THIS !!!!! ( drum roll...) : " I thought it a joke when I cut her breasts off , kissed them for a while. The taste of blood was sweet , the pleasure was overwhelming , will have to do it again , it thrilled me so. Left them on the table with some of the other stuff.( italics mine - SJO ). Thought they belonged there. " Now , we know that this was not the case. That Kelly's breasts were actually positioned by the murderer - one at her head , one at her feet. So explain that Mark. Since Maybrick takes so much time over the breasts , kissing them and tasting them , and he devotes time to describing what he did with them rather than just lumping them with the other ' stuff ' ( so to speak ) you would think he would get right what he did with them , wouldn't you ? There are a couple of minor points about that quote as well. Firstly , blood does NOT taste sweet but rather brackish and horrible I recall ( I prefer lemonade myself ). Secondly , no way can Shirley Harrison tell me 'stuff' is actually a Victorian word used in that sense. No way , dudes and dudettes !!! No way !!! That is a glaring anachronism. So go on Mark , the gauntlet is down for you to pick up - defend your Diary as best you can !!! |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 17 April 2000 - 08:32 am | | I think I just put that corpse right back in it's hole Caz ! Would other readers like to post their own favourite mistake in the Diary to this board ? |
Author: Mark Goeder
Monday, 17 April 2000 - 09:10 am | | Hi Simon "hit man " Owen
I hope you havent stopped patting yourself on the back yet.
Ill try to give you an explanation.
Imagine the scene.
Its dark.
The ripper has alredy carved up this girl.
With all the blood and gore about, do you really think he knes what he was holding in his hands at any given moment?
Do you think Kellys breast really looked like a breast.Do you?
Could you have made a difference?
Try to use your imagination simon.
This person wasnt in his right frame of mind when he was doing this.
He was in a rage.
Or do you think he was writing it all down like a shopping list?
OK, here we go
Liver? got it.
Kidneys? got them.
Heart? removed
Face disfigured.
and so on and so on.
He didnt plan any of what he done.
He decided what to do as he was going along.
That makes sense.
When he used the term "breasts" he didnt really know what he had in his hand.
I dont believe he even kissed them.
But what a way to get rid of his anger.
Breasts are a symbol to him.
Same reason he cut most of the womb out.
I dont even think he ate any parts of his victim.
Someone as Mad as the ripper certainly had a extraordinary fantasy.
Wait a min Simon, you forgot the "M" on the wall.
I suppose the blood just flew through the air and landed on the wall and formed an " M "
Hmmm. very appropiate.
Tell me where it came from Simon.
Im afraid you ll have to keep that drum rolling
ithats your strongest arguement.
Dont give up yet though Simon,Im sure if you use your fantasy , you ll come up with more rubbish
Mark |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 17 April 2000 - 09:46 am | | Mark: Rumbelow and Co. didn't see an M on Eddowes' face because there isn't one. There isn't an FM on the wall in Kelly's room either. If there was, why didn't the coppers mention it? Do you remember the surface photos of Mars that came out a while back that looked like a monkey's face? Same concept. Shadows, lines, blurry photographs that the human mind recreates into a discernable pattern.
Simon: Hmmm. "Stuff"....You could be right, but what about A.E.Housman's
"Terence, this is stupid stuff"...
from Shropshire Lad (1896)?
RJP |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 17 April 2000 - 09:58 am | | Hi All,
What a lot of words about this diary have been typed over the weekend, while I was disgracefully absent, playing tennis, reading the latest adventures of Biffa Bacon, playing Cluedo and doing bugger all to stimulate my brain cells (yeah, no change there then, I hear you cry :-))
I have enjoyed the recent discussions, but quite honestly, they seem to have meandered off alarmingly from Peter's original posts here, giving us the juicy inside story of conspicuously corrupt contemporary con artists and their helpmate historians.
We need more information about these people: more than Shirley and Feldy have been prepared to tell us, in their quest to persuade us the diary is genuine; more than Melvin Harris has given us, in his quest to show it can only be a modern hoax. Are we never going to hear a single objective voice on the subject? Is that too much for me to hope for, from any of you honest researchers into the truth? Perhaps no one cares that the diary has not yet gone the way of the Hitler Diaries. But why can't we at least join forces here, try to prove who did shove a knowingly-forged diary at us all, then maybe we can stop Karoline's mystery Maybrick voter tapping away sadly and repeatedly at his button for the little bit of comfort it gives him. :-)
Hi Mark,
As Peter has pointed out, without the diary, the name of James Maybrick would not be linked to the Whitechapel murders. So, if it does turn out to be a fake from less than ten years ago, all your historical and psychological analysis would be wasted. Your best bet might be to concentrate first on removing the modern hoax element from the equation, before spending more time exploring your 'genuine' theory. You make the point that proving a JtR diary genuine would be nigh on impossible, but fakes, like the Hitler Diaries, have been exposed all too easily and quickly.
Peter writes, 'The situation on these boards is of course that most people believe that the Diary is forged. The main interest is finding out who forged it and if possible proving it.'
RJ Palmer writes, 'Really the only mystery left is to find the forgers and expose them.'
I think they both hit the nail on the head and this is a good way we could all go forward, rather than going round in circles with the published material, never agreeing on anything.
Hi Simon,
I do hope you will continue with your input on this board ('90%' of it has not been 'crap' IMHO :-)), but we do need to stick to the known facts as we understand them, and try not to misremember or distort stuff. When I said we shouldn't treat marital problems superficially (as it looks like Florie did, pussy-footing around with enough arsenic and tell-tale embroidered hankies in hatboxes and linen chests to poison all the cats in Liverpool, yet apparently couldn't manage the simple task of getting much, if any of it, inside her old man :-)), I didn't mean we shouldn't therefore pry into the lives of Anne or Mike, only that we should not put our own interpretations on their actions without knowing far more about what was making them tick. Peter and Melvin have agreed that we need to know more about the personalities/psychology of those involved in this Liverpool saga, not only the Barretts and the Grahams, but also the Johnsons and Devereux, and even the team which investigated the diary and watch from the outset.
Hi Guy (if you are still with us),
Do you agree that the scientific evidence could be said to remain inconclusive, with one expert contradicting the next? Can it be wholly satisfactory to put our complete trust in whichever boffin's findings most nearly match with our own views of the non-scientific aspects of the diary?
Hi Peter,
As I see it, if you really want us all to gain from your initial posts on this thread, it would be useful if you could share more of your valuable snippets of inside information, so we can all comment from a more informed viewpoint, instead of flailing about in the dark, drawing possibly inaccurate conclusions, and worse, misinterpreting intentions.
Why make a mystery out of Keith Skinner's letter to Anne in the first place, and his previous phonecall to her? It seems we cannot come to you for clarification, yet you express surprise that this leads to inferences being drawn and suspicions aroused. If you told us the whole story each time, it would cut down on the guesswork.
A new snippet you come up with is the bit about both Barretts signing 'an agreement involving the transfer of the Diary to another company for £1' on 21st April 1994. Can you not tell us the company involved? And give us a clue exactly what you think this information should be telling us? It's not always obvious what you are getting at, not to me anyway. Sorry for being thick. :-)
Anyway, we now have Anne and Mike signing a joint document, while recently separated and with a 'substantial amount of ill-feeling' between them, as you yourself put it recently. And according to you, Feldy didn't know Anne's whereabouts, while Keith Skinner did! So was Keith involved with this transfer document, seeing as he telephoned and wrote to Anne only about a fortnight later? Or am I again reading between your lines and misinterpreting what you are really trying to make us understand here?
Do you think Keith is well aware that the diary is a modern hoax, but is protecting Anne? I seem to remember you have already expressed the opinion that objectivity can be lost if you get too close to someone you are supposed to be investigating. And there was also a discussion last year between you and Keith regarding doctored documents, wasn't there?
Your information about the Formby family living in Everton was interesting. It made me wonder if Keith also checked this as part of his research for Feldy. Assuming the research team took the supposed link seriously in the first place, he would surely have done so, and found, as you did, the weakness of the story.
This may sound like I'm looking for underhandedness where there is none, and I sincerely hope, Peter, that you will be able to set my mind at rest. It may be that I am the only one to read such things into your posts, if that is the case I apologise.
I find it amusing when someone responds to a post in a way which seems to bear absolutely no relation to what was actually written. :-) Sometimes there is genuine misunderstanding, but sometimes the more cynical among us might be forgiven for suspecting silly diversionary tactics are being tried. So I do try to quote directly from posts as far as possible where I could use some further explanation.
Sorry for the long post everyone.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
