|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 May 31, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-2000 Archives:
Archive through May 31, 2000
Author: stephen stanley
Wednesday, 24 May 2000 - 05:51 pm |        | Dear Anyone,
I have just discovered this site (newly online) , and things have obviously moved on since Paul Feldman's book (which ,as far as I knew was the latest public work to deal with the Diary),Would it be possible for someone to post an idiot's guide to development's since then?
thanks a lot
Steve Stanley |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 26 May 2000 - 07:30 am | | Dear Keith:
Over the past few months of reading Caroline Anne's posts, I have reached the conclusion that she has been trying to get me to publish what I considered privileged information and to stoke up some sort of confrontation between me and thee. It certainly seems to have worked with you: as far as I'm concerned I have nothing but good thoughts about you and your professional work. I even have that little booklet "Tracing your Family Tree" that you wrote with Paul Begg. As to "Caroline's reasonable and pertinent queries, choosing rather to employ diversionary tactics, shift the focus of the issue and slide away from confrontation." I must admit that my motive was of course not to print in full your letter. No comments on that, Keith? The rest of that statement is unadulterated foolishness and I am surprised at you.
Regarding the Formby's I am quite happy to accept that you have found the correct Elizabeth Formby and I haven't. Of course your many years as a professional Genealogist and historical researcher give you credibility. (No comment about that either, Keith?) However I am puzzled that you don't tell me: "Your record is wrong because Elizabeth's husband wasn't named Daniel." If I'm wrong, I'm wrong: don't mither Keith. You have already explained to me that Paul Feldman's "hands-on researcher" was Melvyn Fairclough and you had very little control of the project. You've also explained that Paul's method of working was the "complete antithesis" of the way you work. I can only applaud your patience for sticking with this unpleasant task month after month with only the comfort of a regular pay packet. I only hope that you eventually got everything that you were owed. So I don't blame you personally for the genealogical research in the diary project even though you have in the past admitted responsibility for it. And if Caroline Anne wants me to copy on these boards every letter you have ever wrote to me, she can whistle for them.
That birth certificate: do you at last remember the occasion of its presentation? Maybe your memory is clearer than the affidavit I saw in Spain.I'd certainly be interested in your comments on a matter that has certainly caused some interest in the Registrar General's office. I really don't see what you are trying to make out of this. If my information is correct (and as a Victorian Judge once said, "Truth can out, even in an affidavit,") then you acted honourably in bringing this to the attention of the meeting.
And lastly, we have a birth certificate here which is used by Paul Feldman as part of a proof that Albert Johnson was related in a rather unlikely fashion to a Maybrick connection. The registration date on the certificate is six years after the actual date of birth, a somewhat unusual occurence. The local Registrar and the Registrar Generals' office at Southport have confirmed to me that the birth date is 26/01/1870 and the true registration date is 8/03/1870, not 1876. If you ever were offered an explanation for this, I and the Registrar Generals' Office would be fascinated to hear it. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 26 May 2000 - 09:19 am | | Hi Peter,
You wrote:
'Over the past few months of reading Caroline Anne's posts, I have reached the conclusion that she has been trying to get me to publish what I considered privileged information and to stoke up some sort of confrontation between me and thee.'
I hate to suggest you are wrong but...oh well, you are wrong. But no matter, it's not the first time I've been misjudged and I don't suppose it will be the last.
If you considered at any time over the 'past few months' that the information I was asking for was 'privileged', why didn't you just come out and say so, and tell me that you were not prepared to discuss the matter further? I was perfectly happy with Stewart Evans's explanation as to why he was reluctant to share his 'inside' info with the board, he even apologised most gallantly for having mentioned it. You were quite entitled to dangle bits and pieces of information of your choice back in January, and I was equally entitled to ask if you had anything more conclusive up your sleeve. Everyone has also been entitled to form their own conclusions from your various responses to my questions. So please don't try shifting the blame onto me if you are having trouble extricating yourself from posts of your own making at the start of the year.
I shall of course be passing your comments on to Keith.
Have a good weekend all.
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 26 May 2000 - 10:30 am | | Caroline Anne:
You are right! What with all the interruptions in my year so far (more to come!) and losing all my e-mails through a virus I didn't have time to actually check the Archives (how prolific we all are!) and just had the impression that you had endlessly nagged about Keith's letter. Sorry! You only nagged twice which is quite low on the Kraft-Hitching Nag Quotient Scale. Anyway, Keith is one of the few people who can let some light into the crucial days of April to July 1994. When you see him, bully him into telling you everything. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 27 May 2000 - 06:42 am | | Hi Peter,
Yeah, I'm such a bully. ;-) I'll probably be leaving you alone for now, turning my truly terrible bullying tactics on Keith in the comfy chair, torturing him with the soft cushion from Monty Python's Spanish Inquisitors. :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 27 May 2000 - 06:47 am | | To Peter Birchwood From Keith Skinner
Thank you for your reply.
You bet your sweet census I've got comments to make, but before I do so, could you please identify for me which statement and which part of it is "unadulterated foolishness" and causes you surprise?
I note that an affidavit in Spain has now been introduced into the picture. I suspect quite a few affidavits have probably found their way from Liverpool to Spain - is this one meant to directly relate to the "obviously altered" birth certificate? |
Author: Diana
Saturday, 27 May 2000 - 10:14 am | | | Haven't all of us at one time or another thought about writing JtR fiction? Taking the known events of the story and plumping for one of the suspects and writing as though we knew the whole truth? Perhaps some Edwardian Ripperologist (wouldn't he have loved the Casebook!) decided to do just that as a hobby. He finds an old scrapbook and recycles it by cutting out the used pages. He knows about the Maybrick poisoning story and says to himself, "Wouldn't it be a crock if old Maybrick was JtR?" So for the fun of it he writes this "Diary". If the author had been born 50 years later he would probably been one of us nattering away on this wonderful website! |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 27 May 2000 - 11:59 am | | Hi Diana,
I have wondered about this possibility myself. Among a multitude of other questions, we would have to ask exactly what information given in the diary would have been available to how many Edwardian Ripperologists. But before we even start to explore the 'old forgery' possibilities, we are stuck with the problem of how and why it found its way into Mike Barrett's hands.
BTW, to Steve Stanley, if you are still out there patiently waiting for someone to respond to your post from last Wednesday, I'm really sorry for appearing to ignore you.
In 1998, after Paul Feldman's book came out, Shirley Harrison's considerably updated edition of her 'Diary of Jack the Ripper' was published.
I don't know if you've read this. Also, you can get a lot of information from the casebook itself if you are prepared, like I was over a year ago, to read everything that has been written here on the diary, including all Melvin Harris's stuff. I think it's important to read as much as possible for and agin, but it does get very complicated and controversial at times!
Good luck.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Sunday, 28 May 2000 - 05:13 am | | Keith; what I'm referring to is:
"I do question your motive though, especially as you consistently fail to directly answer Caroline's reasonable and pertinent queries, choosing rather to employ diversionary tactics, shift the focus of the issue and slide away from confrontation."
For me to take you seriously and if necesary appologise for any of my actions please identify: 1/ "Caroline's reasonable and pertinent queries" bearing in mind my comments regarding printing of your letter in its entirety which I have already addressed, together with my lack of direct answers; 2/ my "diversionary tactics" 3/ my shifting focus and 4/ my sliding "away from confrontation."
The last is particularly annoying as I believe (subject to my lack of back casebook postings which I mentioned in my previous posting to Caroline Anne) that I had been accused of being too confrontational in the matter of the little red diary and its presentation. I believe that these comments are foolish although I am sure that others might look at this in a different light.
As to the affidavit, I confirm that it was seen by me in Spain but was made in England by a person present at the meeting. If you don't have a copy contact me directly: I will not post it on this site.
And please take notice Keith that although I will keep monitoring the Casebook and will comment or reply to any messages where I feel that I can add information I will not reply publically to any messages signed by you or placed in your name.Therefore any comments that you have to make concerning the above will be ignored unless they are sent privately to me. This is not in any sense derogatory to you (and indeed you and Shirley have done the same thing in the past,) it is that although I believe that you and I can iron out some of the genealogical bits and pieces concerning the diary and all its affairs I prefer that it be done in private rather than before those who read this board. I said this right at the start of the confrontation concerning the C/D meeting and you insisted that everything be said in public. I now know that I was correct then and should not have let you have your own way. 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.
Caroline Anne knows my e-mail address and you have my business address. |
Author: stephen stanley
Sunday, 28 May 2000 - 05:53 pm | | Dear Caroline,
Thank's for hints ,No, I did'nt know there was a post-Feldman edition of the Diary - must get updated copy. Am slowly working through relevant Casebook entries in dark room with wet towel round head... Am I right in thinking there is now a Crucifix meant to be MJK's and/or Maybrick's?
Thanks
Steve s. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Sunday, 28 May 2000 - 08:36 pm | | Hello Steve:
The crucifix is said to have come from Mary Jane Kelly and to have come from the Sisters of Mercy of Providence Row who ran the hostel in Crispin Street where MJK is alleged to have worked. The emergence of the crucifix appears to be an attempt to give a very doubtful document a provenance it lacks. I think the words of Martin Fido, borrowed from another board, are apt here: "in all cases, practically anything from the senior police who saw all the documentation, or their close associates, outweighs the speculations of journalists and armchair detectives, the alleged inside knowledge of contemporaries as reported secondhand, the attempts of self-aggrandising nutters to make themselves look spookily important with claims of firsthand knowledge, or the sudden emergence of alleged diaries kept by policemen or perpetrators which are produced 100 years later by people with a track record for lying."
Chris George |
Author: stephen stanley
Monday, 29 May 2000 - 05:14 pm | | Dear Chris,
Thanks, I must admit the appearance of yet another artifact did seem reminiscent of the endless production of Holy relics in the middle ages...No doubt the next will be MJK's appointment book.
Steve s. |
Author: Ashling
Tuesday, 30 May 2000 - 01:28 am | | STEPHEN S: LOL! "MJK's appointment book" ... That's about the best comment I've ever read on this particular topic. Thanks for the smile.
Janice |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 30 May 2000 - 05:17 am | | Hi All,
'...there is now a crucifix...' and '...the appearance of yet another artefact...' might be slightly misleading here.
Page 170 of Feldy's book has Anne Graham telling him for the first time (in the summer of 1994) her story of the day she first saw the diary, '...in a black trunk with white writing on it. In the trunk was some tropical gear and a crucifix. All I have ever really known is that Dad was given it on Christmas Day 1950, by his stepmother Edith. She told him that his granny had left it to him.'
So the crucifix was right there from day one of Anne's account, although there seems to be nothing to suggest she herself was claiming it to be connected with Maybrick or MJK, any more than the tropical gear.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ashling
Tuesday, 30 May 2000 - 07:47 am | | I'm certainly no expert on this topic, but I can and do read quite well. Quoting below from a book published before 1994.
The Diary of Jack the Ripper
"When Tony fractured his hip around Christmas 1990, Mike became his Good Samaritan, shopping for him and occasionally doing other chores. One day, a few months later, when he arrived at Tony's house there was a parcel wrapped in brown paper on the table.
'Take it. I want you to have it. Do something with it,' was all Tony said.
Mike took the parcel home, and opened it with Anne.
... And then, on the last page, they read the words:
... Yours truly, Jack the Ripper Dated this third day of May 1889.
'I'll never forget Mike's face,' Anne recalled."
Irregardless of any later "accounts," the above is, was, and always will be, Anne Graham's first "story of the day she first saw the diary."
So, speaking just for myself, I don't feel "slightly mislead" by the wording of Stephen Stanley's post at all.
Janice |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 30 May 2000 - 09:43 am | | Thanks Janice.
Leaving aside the fact that a Catholic family might be expected to have the odd crucifix around the house, I have already pointed out that Billy Graham's description of the Diary: "...I just seen very small print and I just put it down..." proves that whatever he saw whenever he saw it, it wasn't the Diary.
Now when was the first time that the crusifix, as pictured in the newspaper story appeared on the scene?
Peter |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 30 May 2000 - 11:12 am | | Hi Janice,
You wrote:
'Irregardless of any later "accounts," the above is, was, and always will be, Anne Graham's first "story of the day she first saw the diary."
Well I'm going to be pedantic again now. Sorry!
Firstly, your quotes do not show that Anne was telling anyone this was the first moment she set eyes on the diary, only the first time Mike did.
Secondly, do we know from Anne's own lips that Mike opened the parcel 'with' her?
Unfortunately I don't have a copy of Shirley's hardback book from 1993, but I do recognise your quotes, I have them on pages 4 and 5 of the 1994 paperback edition, the inside cover of which states 'Copyright narrative and commentary, Shirley Harrison and Michael Barrett 1993 and 1994.'
Naturally assuming Shirley actually heard and faithfully recorded Anne saying the words 'I'll never forget Mike's face', and that she was indeed referring to Mike's first peek at the signature at the end (not clear from the context, a quote from Mike immediately follows Anne's quoted recollection), I still don't see how this conflicts with her statement in July 1994, when she finally decided to relate how she gave the diary to Tony Devereux to give to Mike, because she did not want her husband knowing it had come from her.
If she did deceive Mike by giving him the diary in this way, it was she who confessed voluntarily to the deception, and I can understand why his facial expression could have been unforgettable to Anne back in 1991.
Love,
Caz |
Author: stephen stanley
Tuesday, 30 May 2000 - 05:48 pm | | Oh Dear, What have I started.....
I don't want this crucifix business to get caught up in thr general provenance of the diary..just to tie down when the association with MJK was made ...I know I'm slowly getting up to date with developments , but to paraphrase Ian Fleming, 'A diary is an accident, a watch a coincidence, but a crucifix is enemy action'
Steve s. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Tuesday, 30 May 2000 - 10:52 pm | | Hi Caroline:
Whether the nuances reported in Harrison's book are absolutely correct--i.e., that Anne stated, "I'll never forget Mike's face" when they examined the document that had been allegedly given to her then husband Mike Barrett by Tony Devereaux and realized it was supposedly by Jack the Ripper, that she and Mike were sickened by the details in the Diary, and that "Anne more and more regretted the day the diary had appeared in their home" ("The Diary of Jack the Ripper" Hyperion first edition, 1993, pp. 5-7)--is really immaterial. The point is that she did not at that point or at any time over the next two plus years confess that the Diary had been in her family all along--if that really was the case. She was in essence "lying" when she allowed her husband to take the Diary in spring 1992 to London literary agent Doreen Montgomery under the pretence that it had come from Tony Devereaux. Because she stood by the story that the Diary had come from Devereaux this constitutes her first version of the origin of the Diary. Therefore, Anne's summer 1994 statement that she had seen the Diary years earlier in a tin box "I think . . . in 1968-9" cannot be Anne Graham's "first story."
Chris George |
Author: Ashling
Wednesday, 31 May 2000 - 03:39 am | | PETER: You're "preaching to the choir" here. ;-)
STEPHEN S: Not to worry, this tap dance began long before you started posting.
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.
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.
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.)
Yet the recently written The Last Victim is from Anne's own lips. If Anne denounces Shirley in a foreword to that book ... well, I don't recall any posts to that effect here--and such an oversight would greatly surprise me.
Caz, from time to time, you have asked other posters for full disclosure of any facts in their possession. I'm now asking you a question. I know you met Shirley Harrison at the Smoke and Stagger during the Mike Barrett Interview, because you posted that you ate dinner with her ---
Have you asked Shirley (or anyone else) to set up a meeting with Anne so you can interview her? If so, how long ago did you ask--and what was Anne's answer?
Thanks,
Janice |
|
|
|
|
