|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 5, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-2000 Archives:
Archive through June 5, 2000
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 31 May 2000 - 04:53 am |        | Hi Janice,
You wrote:
‘CHRIS: Since Caz posted here some time ago that she has read the Diary more than once--I thought it unnecessary to go into great detail ... I was wrong. Thank you for posting a succinct summary of the facts.’
Yes, I posted that I’d read the Diary (as in THE DIARY, you know, the handwritten thingy at the back of Shirley’s book) several times, after you posted that you were about to give it a go yourself. I thought I made it clear this is what I meant, sorry if I didn’t. I first read THE DIARY with as open a mind as possible, then again and again, assuming it to be either a modern attempt at fraud, an old fake, or Maybrick doing the talking, thereby getting as much a ‘feel’ for the thing as possible. I also read it with our modern suspects in mind as the naughty fakers, taking into account everything I’d read about them, which is obviously all anyone has to go on at that juncture. I have read Shirley’s two paperbacks and Feldy’s 1998 paperback and frequently refer back to them, although I do not possess any hardbacks or the Hyperion edition. Sorry, perhaps we should all have to state clearly exactly what we have and have not read before we dip our toes into the cooking pot. :-)
‘CAZ: You wax pedantic on yourself with "story of the day she first saw the diary"--since I merely quoted your own words back at you ... from the second paragraph of your post on Tuesday, May 30, 2000 - 05:17 am.’
Of course I was aware you were quoting my own words, I do understand your use of speech marks and I too “can and do read quite well” on occasion. :-) But you changed my reading of ‘first’ to your own, using the argument that your single quote from Anne: ‘I’ll never forget Mike’s face’, can be interpreted as ‘This was the day I first saw the diary’. No big deal, just a difference of opinion here.
‘You hint that it hasn't been proven that Shirley Harrison reported Anne's words and Anne's part in the Diary's debut on the world correctly--that we haven't heard "from Anne's own lips." (quoting you again.)’
I was trying to make the point that, since many people are already suspicious of both diary authors’ motives and objectivity, maybe we should begin to examine precisely what Anne HAS said at various times, rather than always relying on the secondary sources. But, at the risk of repeating myself, ‘I’ll never forget Mike’s face’, is hardly such a damning statement whether or not Anne made it, that she would feel the need to ‘denounce’ Shirley over it.
‘Caz, from time to time, you have asked other posters for full disclosure of any facts in their possession.’
Yes, particularly where part-‘facts’ have been introduced into a discussion to make points which are about as clear as mud to this thicko. :-) Some of these ‘facts’, on full disclosure, have turned out to be as much use to the diary investigation as a chocolate teapot. :-)
No, I have not asked Shirley (or anyone else) to set up a meeting with Anne, but it’s a jolly good idea, which I shall certainly bear in mind, since I’ve been banging on for a few weeks now about getting it from the horse’s mouth, or should I say, our living breathing primary source.
I may be gone some time... :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ashling
Wednesday, 31 May 2000 - 08:48 pm | | CAZ: Read once, thrice, or while standing on your head--Anne's quoted words are still married to the preceding paragraphs of how/when/where Anne first saw the Diary--and nary a crucifix in sight. Any attempt to isolate and amputate that one sentence from the sentences before and after it--is not "a difference of opinion."
Thanks for answering my question--you have gone beyond making yourself clear ... you are quite transparent.
Janice |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 01 June 2000 - 04:23 am | | From Keith Skinner
General Message To Anybody That Is Interested
Chris George is absolutely correct when he adduces that Anne Graham was “in essence ‘lying’ when she allowed her husband to take the Diary in spring 1992 to London..."
Anne has admitted she deceived her husband and given her reasons for so doing. You either believe the lady or you do not. However you reach your decision, it means putting their marriage and relationship under the microscope, which in turn necessitates getting to know the people involved, their friends and family, because, in Anne’s own words, what she did made perfect sense to her at the time, given her domestic situation.
When interviewed on the radio, Anne declined to talk about the reasons why she gave the Diary to Tony Devereux, to give to Mike, simply saying it was tied up with her marriage and she preferred not to talk about it. This response has, understandably, been regarded as a convenient ploy to fend off awkward questions. A perfect fall back position.
What Chris George brushes aside as "immaterial", ie., the effect the Diary had on the Barrett family, is, I think, crucially vital – allowing Anne is telling the truth. It raises the question, why did “Anne more and more [regret] the day the diary had appeared in their home.”? I hope I haven’t distorted Chris’s point here – I do appreciate that he is offering an honest, academic evaluation of what he considers to be important, based on the published sources.
The supreme irony here is, that whilst Anne has admitted she did keep quiet for 2 years and that she did deceive her husband – which brands her as a liar – yet the majority of people I have come into contact with believe she faked the Diary with Mike Barrett. So they are happy to accept her admittance of deceit – although they don’t actually believe she gave the Diary to Devereux, to give to Barrett, in the first place!
If they are charitable and do accept her story, it is still a huge leap to countenance the reality that this document could have lain dormant for over 20 years. It is a fair point. But it has to have come from somewhere and if I am to acquiesce to the weight of expert and authoritative opinion, all telling me the Diary is an obvious modern hoax, then I’m looking at an extraordinary scenario whereby the sole reason for creating the artifact would appear to be as a practical joke to play on Mike Barrett, which spiralled out of control.
Incidentally, should Chris George be reading this, a tiny message:-
Chris – thank you (and Sam Gafford) for the extremely fair and balanced review of ‘The Last Victim’ in Ripper Notes (Vol 1. Number 2). But could you just source for me please where “Graham has stated that the diary is genuine and that Maybrick was the Ripper.”? It’s a reference which has passed me by. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 01 June 2000 - 04:52 am | | Hi Janice,
I'm simply trying to make some sense of the host of seemingly contradictory and puzzling aspects of the diary story and, along with practically everyone else on this issue, I find myself questioning what has appeared in the published sources. I'm hoping that by digging beneath the rocky surface of Shirley and Feldy's books (even in my bumbling, cack-handed way, I'm not a natural at this investigatitititive stuff :-0) I might find some answers. It's great if others feel the whole puzzle is solved to their satisfaction. For me, the whole thing is still an enigma, and I'm a sucker for human puzzles. :-)
I'm sorry if I've been getting up people's noses with my persistence.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 01 June 2000 - 12:05 pm | | From Keith Skinner
Janice
Forgive me for trespassing into your discussion with Caroline but I wondered whether the following observations may be of any use.
First of all, I do understand how, looking in from the outside, Anne Graham must appear to be a scheming, manipulative liar. Enough has been said about her by others – and by her ex husband – to promote this image and I agree that Anne has unwittingly put herself into this wretched position, by not coming clean straight away. We are told by Mike and Anne, independently, there were huge rows between them when Mike told Anne he intended to go public with the Diary – and that Anne attempted to destroy the Diary to prevent this from happening – which must have appeared very strange behaviour to Mike. I don’t know whether these incidents happened of course – I wasn’t there – so it could all be manufactured tosh.
Certainly, Anne has benefited financially from the Diary and she has also become a published co-author. These facts alone, for some, are enough to prove she forged the Diary. It is a link I cannot make.
Caroline described it as a human puzzle and – for me at least – she is spot on. The value of contributors to this board, generating such a varied cross section of views and opinions, is that different ways are offered up of looking at situations. Even Peter Birchwood, with whom I seem to be constantly locking horns, gives me pause to think with some of his ideas and suggestions.
I don’t know what the answer is Janice or how the Diary will be resolved. If, ultimately, it transpires that Mike and Anne did jointly create it, then I would like to think that friends and colleagues will still want to be associated with me!
You were enquiring about the possibility of Anne Graham being interviewed. I can tell you now that she will not even consider the idea and whilst I deeply regret this and feel she has a moral obligation and responsibility to allow other people to collectively question her on one occasion, yet I do wonder what it may achieve. She would come to any such interview with a track record of deception, which would immediately discredit her – and if her story did persuade people to allow for the possibility she might just be telling the truth, then she would instantly face the combined onslaught of Ripper historians and authorities who would tell her that it was impossible for the Diary to have existed when she claimed to have first come across it. My experience with this project, over the past eight years, as I’ve said before, is that scholarship and academia will forever take precedence over trying to understand the complexities and irrationalities of human behaviour and relationships.
As far as the crucifix is concerned – I would honestly be inclined to forget it. It is Paul Feldman’s unique speculation that it is connected with JTR and only came into the picture because Feldy was urging Anne to try and recall what else was in the tin trunk.
Best wishes
Keith Skinner |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 01 June 2000 - 04:34 pm | | Dear Keith - Of course lots of us who think Anne
and Michael jointly created it will continue to
associate with you, though the heavens fall in.
After all, we do keep putting our names on book
spines with yours!
Many congrats on the new one with Stewart
Martin |
Author: Christopher T. George
Thursday, 01 June 2000 - 05:00 pm | | Hi, Keith:
Thank you for your kind words about the review of "The Last Victim" by Anne Graham and Carol Emmas that Sam Gafford and I wrote for Ripper Notes (Vol 1, No. 2) and which you judged to be an "extremely fair and balanced review." You ask, "But could you just source for me please where 'Graham has stated that the diary is genuine and that Maybrick was the Ripper.'? It’s a reference which has passed me by."
The first part of the answer to this is a bit tongue-in-cheek. As a co-author yourself on the admirable "Jack the Ripper A to Z" you will know that the great benefit of being a co-author is that you can blame any deficiencies on one's collaborators. :-) In this respect, the front end of the review, as it were, was written by Sam Gafford, and the back end was written by me. Something like the pantomime horse in Monty Python sketches! Thus, Sam mostly wrote the first part of the review and I wrote the end, referring to the Aunspaugh correspondence and questioning the view that the Maybricks were such a dysfunctional family in light of the somewhat different view given in Trevor Christie's "Etched in Arsenic" which appears to show that Michael Maybrick may have been fond of Florie and that possibly she was not as promiscuous as Graham and Emmas paint her. So I believe Sam was responsible for the statement that "Graham has stated that the diary is genuine and that Maybrick was the Ripper." I will, however, take equal responsibility for the statement because my name is on the review. As the late U.S. President Harry Truman said, "The buck stops here."
I do agree with you that apparently Anne Graham has not said in so many words in public that the Diary is genuine and that Maybrick was the Ripper. Indeed, her public stance appears to be the one that she expressed in her October 4, 1995 interview on Radio Merseyside, in which she stated in regard to what people believed about the authenticity of the Diary: "People will believe what they want to believe in the end. Some people, it's not in their best interests to believe it because they have a lot tied up in the Ripper industry if you like. I don't know because I don't have that information to say it is genuine. There's a possibility that James Maybrick wrote it. But was James Maybrick the Ripper? I don't know that."
I also agree that in her book written with Carol Emmas, Graham does not outright say that the Diary is genuine and does not say either that Maybrick was the Ripper.
Now, having said all this, the full title of the book is, as you know, "The Last Victim: The Extraordinary Life of Florence Maybrick, the Wife of Jack the Ripper." Ah I hear you saying (and Anne as well) that is just publisher's hype. Well nevertheless directly below this title is the byline "Anne E. Graham and Carol Emmas" followed by "Foreword by Keith Skinner." Yes I know you begin your foreword with the words "The alleged 'Diary of Jack the Ripper' has always been shrouded in controversy, ever since it first came into the public domain in 1992." (p. ix). However, your name combined with the authors names appears to give veracity to the statement made in the title, as if all three of you believed, even if you did not say, "The Diary is genuine and Maybrick was the Ripper." Sorry -- that is the message that goes out to the public scanning the titles in the book store.
Isn't it also titillating that the beginning words of Anne's "Introduction" read, "If it is possible to choose one's ancestors I don't think the wife of Jack the Ripper and the woman convicted for his murder would have been my first preference!" (p. xv). While you do carefully use the word "alleged" when referring to the "Diary of Jack the Ripper," Anne in her Introduction refers to it more openly as "The Ripper journal. . ." (p. xvi etc).
As in Harrison's book, there is a careful if not to say clever interleaving of material from the Diary, material from the Whitechapel murders, and known information on the Maybrick household and the dark happenings in the couple's mansion, Battlecrease House, that would lead to James Maybrick's supposed murder by Florence. Thus we have (p. 33): "Few could have anticipated the tragic events the future would hold for what seemed on the surface to be a straightforward Victorian household. But Battlecrease House was proving to be a not very happy home and this was clearly remarked upon in the Ripper journal: 'A dark shadow lays over the house it is evil.'" And (p. 45): "In the Ripper journal Florence Maybrick is constantly referred to as a whore, but after the double event she is called 'a whoring mother.'"
Now, Anne Graham, as she suggests in the radio interview I cited earlier and the Introduction to this book, may not have any interest in the Ripper. She may even have contemplated destroying the Diary and may have wished she had done so long ago (if the Diary did indeed exist prior to 1991-1992 as she today contends), considering some of the misery the document has caused her due to the "constant questioning" of Paul Feldman (vide Intro p. xvii) and there is no doubt that, as you allude to, the Diary has disrupted lives. Yet alternatively whether she has no interest in the Ripper or not, she has no compunction about making money off the Ripper does she? The book did not have to be written the way it is, in a similar style to Harrison's, taking at face value the entries in the Diary relevant to the Ripper case. It could have been a straightforward retelling of the story of Florence Maybrick, albeit hopefully with updated information in comparison to Christie's 31+ years old book. This in part is the point that Sam and I were trying to make in our review. "The Last Victim" is thus a partisan support volume for the pro-Diary books of Feldman and Harrison instead of an objective look at the Maybricks that might have helped us question the scenario painted in the Diary.
Chris George |
Author: stephen stanley
Thursday, 01 June 2000 - 06:07 pm | | Hi all,
Having now read the current edition of the diary and looked back at the message boards I am now ready to take my life in my hands and venture some opinions.
Firstly am I the only one to feel that the Feldman book has done the search for the Diary's origin more harm than good? In what seems an attempt to answer all the questions the Diary poses, more and more convoluted theories are propounded.
In my very humble opinion the Two main questions to be answered are 1)Is the Diary physically the correct age ? 2) Is it accurate in it's details to the best of our knowledge ?...It appears that it is precisely because these questions cannot be answered that the main effort as turned to the Diary's owners/forgers (pay your money and take you choice) . Possibly we've lost site of the methods that are normally used in dealing with dubious historical documents , where quite often the provenance is unknown and the concentration must then be on the document itself.
To be honest no amount of Maybrick descendants (legitimate or otherwise), Watches or Crucifixes will prove or disprove the Diary's validity...and I think thats exactly what both fascinates and irritates us all !!!!!
Steve s |
Author: David M. Radka
Friday, 02 June 2000 - 11:00 am | | If indeed we now have Keith Skinner on the boards (posting through Caroline Morris' internet connection per above), then this is the first time that all three authors of the A-Z have been present. Mr. Begg, after a long absence, has posted a comment recently, and we've had the pleasure of Mr. Fido's excellent contributions for the first time over the past two weeks. After a good deal of thought how to best express our feelings, in recognition of this great event I offer the following, and I hope it is taken by all in the good sense:
Hail Begg Caesar!
Hail Fido Pompey!
Hail Skinner Crassus!
HAIL TRIUMVIRATE!
HAIL TRIUMVIRATE!
HAIL TRIUMVIRATE!
David |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 02 June 2000 - 11:21 am | | Great event David?
Yes indeed, I should say it's a great triple event.
I shall be drinking to that tomorrow night at the Smoke and Stagger.
Cheers!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 02 June 2000 - 12:38 pm | | To Peter Birchwood From Keith Skinner
If I understand your position correctly, you will continue to monitor the Casebook and will comment or reply to any messages where you feel you can add information – irrespective, presumably, of whether that information is selective, damaging, or just plain wrong.
If I offer a challenge in public, you will only respond in private, as, all of a sudden, "Most of these matters under discussion are of the sort that are esoteric to most being related to our professional expertise and they have no place on these boards."
Very good Peter. That, I think, is what is known as having your cake and eating somebody else’s. Well, I shall not communicate with you in private as I believe the board is perfectly capable of following what is going on and perhaps only becomes confused when mysterious letters and telephone calls, "obviously altered" birth certificates, and now affidavits in Spain are slipped by you, unexplained, into the discussion.
And whilst you are busy disregarding any comments I have to make, here's another one to ignore. I would be fascinated to learn how you quantify your proof that Billy Graham was not referring to the Diary when he was describing the Diary?
The subject under discussion, at that point in my interview with Mr Graham, was the Diary and certainly he described it as having "very small print", which I took to be his perception of the Diary.
Are you resting your proof on the fact that the text is handwritten and that, in your opinion, the writing, (which over 63 pages is eratic and varies in size), is not small? |
Author: Ashling
Friday, 02 June 2000 - 08:05 pm | | Dear Keith:
Thank you for your post. Stephen Ryder is a congenial host, these boards are much like an all-you-can-eat restaurant. All are welcome, suit yourself, serve yourself, seat yourself in any empty chair, and stay as long as you like.
Since we have only communicated off-board once, I realize you have no way of knowing how informed I am on this topic. I've studied serial killers in general for 25 years, and began studying JtR in-depth when I got a computer and found this site. After reading all the old posts, I began posting here roughly 18 months ago. When I first read Melvin Harris' fact crammed posts on this topic, it felt a bit like picking up a novel and diving right into Chapter 10 ... rather bewildering trying to figure out the plot and the characters' relationship to each other. But I asked a few questions, and kept reading everyone's posts, including an occasional one from you. I've read articles on the Cloak & Dagger site, and the CP site, and I subscribe to Ripper Notes--the usual stuff many folks in the Ripper World do. All of which helped me learn the "back story" on this topic and many others.
The bookcase nearest my computer is crammed with Sugden and Evans and Begg and Fido and Harris and Skinner and several other folks. Geography and budget make studying the original records in London a long slow process, as I live "across the
big Pond" in the USA. But through the kindness of other researchers, I have made a beginning. Last year, when I saw a stack of the Hyperion hardback version of the Diary on a marked-down table, I forked over three dollars, not feeling it fair to condemn something I hadn't researched fully. So, although far from being an expert, I am reasonably informed.
(My apologies to all for this long post ... but such seems to be the tradition on this particular board.)
Keith, I don't "have a suspect"--I'm mainly interested in the victims, their lifestyle, their environment. If tomorrow, I stumbled across a photograph in someone's attic of JtR strangling Mary Kelly (were those timer devices on cameras in use then?)--my research on the victims would still continue. Well, sure I'd share the news ;-) ... but it wouldn't end my interest in this corner of history.
I place other folks' suspects into categories. For instance, Tumblety and D'Onston and Druitt I put in Possible but Not Proven (yet?). Maybrick and quite a few others go into Highly Improbable. Future research may improve the rating of suspects in the first category, but most likely will bump many in the latter category into the Totally Ludicrous pile. I think serial killers are born, not made, or possibly a combination of nature and nurture. That is merely my informed-but-totally-un-expert opinion.
Therefore, I can believe in the possibility of D'Onston being JtR, without getting into the triangles and Satan worship considerations--same as I can believe so-and-so murdered 20 people without believing his being brown-headed or Catholic motivated him. If I ever became convinced James Maybrick was JtR, I still wouldn't believe he wrote the Diary.
Your posts this week cover familiar territory. Surely I've read the phrase "deceived her husband" verbatim before ... which is a prettier softer phrase than "lied to the entire world." But the latter is the truth. How do I know this? Not from anything Mike Barrett did or didn't say, but because Anne said she lied. And frankly, I don't find discussions productive that speculate on whether she was a "manipulative, scheming" liar, or a poor-pitiful-abused-wife liar, or whatever. The fact that Anne is a liar stands on its own two feet just fine without any adjectives.
Saying, "I lied Your Honor, but my plea is Guilty with a Rationalization" doesn't undo the lie. Life isn't a tape that you rewind and erase all the embarrassing bits from. If it was, I would have worn out the rewind button in my youth. That attitude by many pro-diary and neutral-diary folks is why I stepped into this discussion. Any time anyone attempts to pole-vault over Anne's first story and speaks of Anne's second account/story of the Diary origins as if the first story never happened ... well, I'll have to post again. One doesn't hunt for the truth by sweeping facts under the rug.
I've not had the advantage of seeing first-hand the tests done on the paper, ink, etc. I have read several different informed views of that evidence. If the fairly recent two trials of O.J. Simpson taught me nothing else, it confirmed the suspicion that most folks consider the actions and words of one suspect a more accurate factor in determining guilt or innocence than the reports of a thousand experts. Especially when the reports so often directly contradict each other.
Keith, I respect your work--and although I've tried, I can't follow the route you travel to arrive at your conclusions. If you consider for one moment that the test you believe in MIGHT be flawed, or incorrect, or incomplete ... then most of the so-called mysteries of the Barrett household melt away. Especially if, “Anne more and more [regret] the day the diary had appeared in their home,” is yet another lie. For myself, applying Occam's Razor--The test being flawed is far more likely than Anne's Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast Scenario. Determining whether Mike Barrett wrote the Diary alone unbeknownst to Anne, and she only aided and abetted after the fact--or Mike and Anne co-wrote the Diary--or Mike won the thing in a poker game, etc., etc. is not high-up on my Things To Do Today. I have much more pressing research.
For instance, I, along with others here, am studying the testimony of Mrs. Maxwell, who said she saw and spoke to Mary Kelly a couple of hours before Mary's body was discovered. Sometimes a speculative remark is made along the lines of, maybe Maxwell lied to get her 15 minutes of fame. But mainly we discuss on-board and through private e-mail things like, how clearly Maxwell could see anyone's features--given the distance between the Britannia and Maxwell's lodging house? We ask for volunteers (who live in London or nearby) to go to the area and walk off the distance between the two points, to confirm Abberline's estimate of 25 yards. I presently lack the time and inclination to speculate whether or not Maxwell lied due to anger at husband Henry because he didn't help her carry the dishes and lantern home ... and maybe Henry was the quiet type that abhorred publicity ... and the Mrs. got back at him by putting their lives squarely in the limelight. Or whatever. Such thoughts won't bring me a jot closer to determining Mary Kelly's time of death. But to each their own, and this is what cranks my tractor, as the saying goes.
Keith, I wish you well in your chosen areas of research, and you are quite welcome to e-mail me directly at any time, or to communicate via snail mail if that is more convenient. You can get both of my addresses from Chris George or Stewart Evans
or Stephen Ryder.
By the way, I am well aware of Anne's avoidance of the press. My question to Caz was based on knowledge of Caz's behavior onboard which you may be under-informed on, unless you are borrowing someone's computer several hours a day to catch up on over a year's worth of old posts. Perhaps Caz's posts don't mean what they appear to--but Chris George was spot on with his remarks about appearances ... In my humble opinion, they shout a lot louder than any later disclaimers.
Best regards,
Janice |
Author: stephen stanley
Saturday, 03 June 2000 - 06:46 am | | Dear Janice,
Your posting sums up most of what I think better than I can say...(don't get big-headed). I don't have a particular suspect but feel all are worthy of consideration, incidentally I also find the Maxwell story more worthy of consideration than many have given it...I still have a hunch that Kelly wasn't the body in Miller's court...
Steve s. |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 03 June 2000 - 01:49 pm | | | I agree with you stephen , I don't think it was MJK in the room at Miller's Court either. If only we could prove it ! |
Author: Ashling
Saturday, 03 June 2000 - 07:26 pm | | STEPHEN S: Thank you for your kind remarks. There's still reams of evidence ahead for me to shift through, so no worries--I won't be running out to buy a bigger sized hat any time soon.
I've made a few comments on the Kelly case on other boards today.
Janice |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 04 June 2000 - 05:11 am | | Hi Janice
I agree that a lie is a lie, but don't you think the motive for a lie is important?
I've said before that every 24th December a very large number of people lie to the most loved, most innocent and the most vulnerable people in their home when they tell their children that a bearded fat man comes down their chimney and leaves presents. This is a lie. It is deception. But it is done with good intentions and the best motives. Should a person be condemned for such a lie as that?
Ann wanted to give her husband something to stimulate his mind and keep him out of the pub. She thought the 'diary' would do the trick, but didn't want him questioning and pestering her father. She therefore got the 'diary' to Mike via Tony D. This was an act of deception, a lie if you like, but it seems to have been done with the best of motives. Is it therefore something for which Ann should be condemned?
I think the motive for a lie is a very important consideration, has a vital bearing on how the 'liar' is assessed, and therefore I do think it is relevant to decide what kind of liar Ann is. Keith, who has known her for a long time, has questioned her and seen her questioned by others, believes her story. Maybe his judgement of her is wrong. Maybe she's lied to him and decieved him. On the other hand his judgement of her may be correct, maybe she is telling the truth and maybe the 'diary' has been in her family since pre-1950.
Knowing who forged the 'diary' may be of absolutely no interest to you. But it is of interest to Keith and his research is directed to that end. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Sunday, 04 June 2000 - 05:41 pm | | IT CUTS BOTH WAYS.
If anyone accepts the argument that Anne Graham lied to protect her family, then they have to accept the argument that Billy Graham lied to protect his daughter. Considering the fact that all the Diary material is found in 3 books of the 1980's, then the first proposition does not make sense. |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 04 June 2000 - 09:43 pm | | Please, Melvin, WHICH three books? You've said
this before, but we can never get from you which
books you are referring to.
Martin Fido |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 05 June 2000 - 03:59 am | | Hi All,
Janice, thanks for explaining your real reason for asking me that question, since you were already 'well aware of Anne's avoidance of the press.' Very honest of you to admit it so quickly, it took Anne a lot longer to spit it out. ;-)
I guess complete opennesss and honesty is all a question of degree in the end. I can't claim to be Little Miss Perfect, but life's much more fun being Little Miss Mischief.
But I don't see how your 'knowledge of Caz's behavior onboard' is relevant to how dishonest Anne Graham has been over the years, and whether this shows she forged the diary. I thought that was what we were all discussing here, not whether I told too many dirty jokes last year. :-) If you think my behaviour onboard has been in any way underhand or dishonest (apart from the one about the milkman), perhaps you'd like to let us all know. And if Keith (or anyone else) is remotely interested in the adventures of Caz in 1999, I cannot exactly prevent him from reading about them, can I? They were rather public after all.
Thanks for letting everyone know the extent of your interest in solving the diary mystery.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Guy Hatton
Monday, 05 June 2000 - 05:00 am | | Martin -
As I understand it, your book is one of Melvin's three, Peter Underwood's is the main one, and I can't immediately recall what the third one is, though I'm fairly certain it's revealed somewhere in his article "A Guide Through the Labyrinth" which appears here on the Dissertations pages.
All the Best
Guy. |
|
|
|
|
