|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
The Maybrick Diary
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 28 July 2001 - 10:30 am |        | Hi Ivor,
It's in no one's interests to have a full test done on the diary, unless whoever is asked to do it can be sure they will be able to date the thing pretty conclusively. Even if it turned out to be old, it would not help show that Maybrick wrote it, and there are always those who would simply shrug and say the scientists must have screwed up again.
I think, in the circumstances, Robert has made a very generous offer, to go ahead if the FSD are confident such a document can be dated to the accuracy required, and if funds allow. I hope something comes of it.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 28 July 2001 - 02:28 pm | | I was really wondering if any of the modern participants in this affair were Freemasons Caz ! 
I have this theory that the Diary might have been faked in the 70s after the Stephen Knight book cast suspicion on the Masons being involved in a royal conspiracy ; Knight's further book ' The Brotherhood ' wasn't exactly complementary either.
Thus to throw people off the scent a fake Diary was made using policemen who were brother Masons to obtain the evidence and someone else got the blame ( Mr Maybrick ). However when Knight died and his theory was discredited the Diary was no longer needed and so eventually it found its way into the hands of Mike Barrett somehow.
This might explain the ' tin box empty ' entry but also why the information about the breasts was incorrect - the Bond report was in private hands and not accessible to the forgers.
Simon
PS whats a tape tree ? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 06:22 am | | Hi Simon,
Scroll back to John Omlor's post of Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 09:47 pm, for details of the tape tree.
I guess your theory is a bit like the one concerning the Roger Casement diaries, where some believe they were faked by the authorities.
Why would they not have destroyed the Maybrick Diary the moment it was no longer needed? Or else kept it safely locked away, in case a certain Simon Owen, or Thomas Neagle, or someone, came along one day in the future, to try to stir up fresh interest in the royal conspiracy theory?
And anyway, it would never have worked, because people have been calling it an incompetent forgery almost from day one.
And would the authorities have also been so incompetent as to leave the thing somewhere for Mike Barrett to get his paws on? But then, saying that, you often hear of top-secret documents being left on the back seat of a taxi cab, or in a skip somewhere, don't you? (And when I worked for a certain department in the Home Office - sssshhh! - the "boss" often used to get himself absolutely plastered at office piss-ups.....  )
Love,
Caz |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 10:26 am | | Maybe it was filed away somewhere Caz , for safe keeping , or taken home by one of the forgers and eventually thrown away into a skip only to be found later by someone who knew the Barretts.
I'm not saying it was forged by the authorities , or that the Freemasons have something to hide. But Stephen Knight was giving them a very bad image in the 70s and maybe the idea of the Diary was concieved to divert suspicion away from them ; when it was not needed , maybe somebody kept it as a trophy instead of destroying it , after all a lot of effort had gone into the work.
Remember Joseph Sickert denounced Knight , why should anyone believe that the Royal Conspiracy theory would return ( or that there would be an internet for us to resurrect it !!! ).
Simon
PS - too much animated clipart makes readers feel ill ! I'll be off now to do some research then :-
 |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 02:29 pm | | From Keith Skinner To R.J.
Dear R.J.
Extrapolating from your post of Friday, July 20, 2001 – 12:42 pm:
“But I think in the best possible world it would be desirable for those with the most information to meet off the record and exchange information. It seems to me that this was what Peter Birchwood was willing to do. So why doubt his motives?”
Well – one of the reasons why I doubt Peter Birchwood’s motives is his reluctance to have the meeting tape recorded.
However, it now no longer concerns me, as I will not be present at the October summit – but, hopefully, more people will join the party.
But R.J. – how do we, the “inexperienced and tiny minority who have contributed absolutely nothing of value to this investigation” get your message across to Melvin Harris who, it appears, has nothing but contempt (as has Anne Graham) for those who wish “to know who, when, how and why”?
Or perhaps, R.J., you feel Melvin Harris should be excluded from any such meeting – and that he be allowed to indulge his “simplistic and unreal position” that he has proved the Diary to be a modern fake?
I personally do not believe Melvin is deluded. I think he is just a very worried man whose credibility has been seriously damaged by the existence of these two artefacts – and whose work and reputation has been eclipsed by Paul Feldman.
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 02:29 pm | | From Keith Skinner To The Board
Scott Nelson and Chris George justifiably enquire as to what response I have elicited from Anne Graham with reference to the posts I sent to her a couple of months ago.
Anne’s reaction was terse and direct. On Wednesday evening, May 30th 2001, I received a message from her on my answerphone. Anne said that she would not be replying to anyone and expressed her contempt for those of us who contributed to the discussion, (making no discrimination between those who condemned her outright and those who did not.) As far as Anne was concerned, ignorance was bliss and she requested that I refrain from sending her anything further as she found it too upsetting to read. |
Author: Alegria
Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 02:46 pm | | | She makes money off of a book which the majority believes is a fake, uses said book as a springboard to write her own book and yet she views us with contempt because we don't accept her at her word? I'm surprised that she and Mel aren't friends. They both tend to hand out edicts and judgements as if they were beyond reproach. |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 03:04 pm | | Hi Ally,
Indeed.
In fact, it appears she views us with contempt whether we accept her at her word or not.
Well, I guess she has nothing to lose by not speaking to us and by not even bothering to be polite. What can we do to her, really? She can just sit quietly by and let the investigation and the discussion continue and as long as no one is close to proving anything or has any real evidence against her for anything especially compromising, she probably feels like it's all so much sound and fury signifying nothing and she can remain above it. It's a logical position for her to take, I suppose, whether she wrote the diary or not. And, I guess I could understand that she might just be exhausted by the whole thing and find any mention of it an unpleasant reminder of her previous marriage and her previous life. But even that wouldn't justify contempt for people she has never met and does not even know. That just seems mean.
In any case, it is clear that we will not be getting any responses from Anne Barrett about any of this. And that is a shame, especially if she did not write this book. And her contempt for those of us who are interested in the origins of this book seems to me to be unfortunately misplaced.
Everyone,
Upon sitting down and preparing to dub the tapes, I noticed that they were in fact two 90 minute tapes, not two 60 minute tapes. So the conversations are actually a bit less than three hours, not two.
Just thought I'd amend that for the record.
Happy Sunday evening to all,
--John |
Author: Alegria
Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 07:22 pm | | We love Snark! We love Snark.
Thanks John, however you want to handle it. I know that I want a copy so I'll be e-mailing you shortly! |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 31 July 2001 - 09:12 am | | From Keith Skinner To Chris George and R.J.
Peter Birchwood will, understandably, wish to check this out and confirm for himself, but if it helps, on July 11th 1994, Paul Feldman gave me a photocopied page from the 1988 Electoral Register for Goldie Street.
Shown at Number 12 is:-
Williams, Phillip L.
Williams, Carole
Chris
I look forward to meeting you at the Bournemouth Conference although I doubt very much whether I will be “hobnobbing” with any luminaries! Incidentally, I’ve suggested to the organisers that you should sit on the Diary Panel to give some balance to the discussion. I have declined to take part, on the grounds that I simply do not know whether the Diary and Watch are modern fakes, but it would be good to have people up there who can authoritatively and convincingly demonstrate that both artefacts are bogus. Someone, perhaps, who understands criminal instincts and has experiences in dealing with forgers and forgery. I believe Albert Johnson, the owner of the Watch, will be present at the Conference. Such a confrontation could be quite revealing and illuminating.
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 31 July 2001 - 10:11 am | | From Chris George to Keith Skinner
Thank you so much for the information on Phillip and Carole Williams revealed from the 1988 electoral register as being residents of Goldie Street and neighbors of the Barretts, presumably from whom Mike Barrett got the pseudonym "Williams" that he used initially when he contacted agent Doreen Montgomery about the Diary.
Keith, I certainly look forward to meeting you at the Bournemouth conference as well. I would be delighted to sit on a panel about the Diary although I do think you are probably better qualified to do so than myself and that you would offer more to the discussion than I could. Perhaps we could both take part in the panel?
Last, Keith, I wanted to bring up the matter of your rather surprising statement about Melvin Harris that you made in a message to the board posted for you by Caroline Morris this past Sunday, 29 July. The statement reads as follows:
I personally do not believe Melvin is deluded. I think he is just a very worried man whose credibility has been seriously damaged by the
existence of these two artefacts [i.e, the Diary and watch] – and whose work and reputation has been eclipsed by Paul Feldman.
I agree that Melvin went out on a limb indicating that he would unmask the forgers of the Diary when the document first surfaced. However, how has Feldman's work and reputation possibly eclipsed Harris's? As you know, Paul Feldman's findings and methods have been the subject of much debate here, usually to his detriment on both counts. I accept that Melvin Harris is a difficult man to deal with from the point of view of yourself and others who have been involved in research on the Diary, and also because of the history of friction between Harris and the A to Z authors, of which you are one of that distinguished triumvirate, in regard to Harris's entry in A to Z as discussed at length on these boards. However, the only way that I can think that Feldman has eclipsed Harris is in terms, most probably, of book sales, since I would anticipate that by this point Feldman's JtR: The Final Chapter has outsold Harris's several Ripper titles. I do find the implication in your statement that Feldman is a better researcher than Harris or even that he may be better regarded in the field than Harris, if these are indeed what you meant, to be surely mistaken and ill-founded.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 31 July 2001 - 01:16 pm | | | Any posts relating to the Tape Tree or Michael Barret Tapes can now be found at Diary of Jack the Ripper:General Discussion:Taped Conversation with Michael Barrett |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 07:40 am | | From Keith Skinner To Chris George
Dear Chris
Thank you for your recent post.
Having been characterised on these boards as “gullible”, “ignorant”, “slip-shod” and “bungling”, I think the only value I might have as a Diary panellist, would be comedic.
You reasonably ask for clarification of my reference to Melvin Harris.
I believe that Melvin is worried because he cannot, like a bad dream, make either the Diary or the Watch go away.
He has failed.
And he has failed because of Paul Feldman’s relentless pursuit for the truth which, justifiably, challenged many of Melvin’s opinions and conclusions which Melvin presented as proven fact.
I do not recall Melvin Harris’s work ever coming under such close scrutiny before – which is why, I believe, he is worried.
There is, of course, no comparison to be made between the research abilities of Paul Feldman and Melvin Harris. Melvin, quite simply, is a top researcher and gatherer of facts – probably the best around. The problems arise in the didactic manner Melvin chooses to interpret the information he has harnessed.
As far as “being regarded” is concerned, the cross section of people I have spoken with display a high regard for Feldman’s courage – and a high regard for Harris’s knowledge and industry. That same cross section of people recognise both men are – knowingly or unknowingly – capable of misleading the public.
Paul Feldman revealed his hand in The Final Chapter – and could not prove his case.
Melvin has yet to play his final hand.
Which is why I think he is a worried man.
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 11:23 am | | Chris George to Keith Skinner
Hi, Keith:
Thanks for your response about your remarks on Melvin Harris's reputation. I agree that Melvin has failed in his originally stated aim of unmasking the forgers. His recent prevarications indicate to me that he does not have the needed information to say who was responsible for the hoax. However, again, as didactic and opinionated as Melvin is, I think his research on the Whitechapel murders and also into the Diary speaks for itself while Paul Feldman's investigations of both leaves much to be desired.
Keith, on the matter of you appearing on the Diary panel at the Bournemouth convention, while it is true that Harris and Birchwood have criticized your work on the Diary, neither will be in Bournemouth, so what's the problem about you being part of the panel??? I have to agree with Paul Begg that your knowledge of the Diary research is unparalleled. Thus, you would obviously be a priceless asset to the panel. I urge you therefore to reconsider your decision not to sit on the panel.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 11:05 am | | From Keith Skinner To Chris George
Dear Chris
Thank you for your reply of Wednesday, August 01, 2001 – 11.23 am.
It’s not that “…Melvin has failed in his originally stated aim of unmasking the forgers” or that “His recent prevarications indicate to me [Chris] that he does not have the needed information to say who was responsible for the hoax.”
My argument – and that of others – is that Melvin has created the impression he does possess all the necessary factual evidence and documentation to identify the supposed forgers.
Why would he have done this Chris?
Why does he have to resort to what most fairminded people would consider to be misleading statements?
And just look how strenuously he acted in blocking peoples access to the newspaper in question which supposedly was embargoing this vital information.
Can you think of any sound, rational reason why Melvin Harris should be so reluctant to privately disclose the final and triumphant proof of his claims – or to, at the very least, let the newspaper speak for itself?
Do you believe Melvin Harris is acting out of belevolence, altruism or a charitable concern for criminals?
As to my appearing on the Diary Panel; I appreciate your generous comments, but one of the problems is that I haven’t actually been invited to participate! But putting that minor consideration to one side, I honestly think I am too close to the research and investigation for my views or opinions to carry any resonance. I explore and air them on these boards, where they are tolerated, but, ultimately, I have to acknowledge and concede that I have no real skill or training in being able to detect forgeries – or even know whether people are lying or telling the truth. I have only my instincts and impressions to rely upon which could only serve to confuse issues – and there is enough confusion surrounding this controversy.
I’d prefer to leave it to Messrs Harris and Birchwood to effectively and efficiently clear up the mess.
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 03 August 2001 - 11:00 am | | From Chris George to Keith Skinner
Keith, with due respect, you have posted this type of message to me before, a message essentially directed at Melvin Harris wondering why he is not forthcoming with the evidence he has said he possesses on the forgery scheme and why he does not identify the journalists who share the information on the scheme that he and (possibly) they have embargoed. Well, it is not for me to answer for Melvin and I am not going to do so. I will only observe that you are correct that Melvin has the power to end with one fell swoop the dance in which we are all involved if he really does have information on who did the forgery. Moreover, his claim to have proved the Diary a forgery is hollow and without basis if no forgers are identified.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 03 August 2001 - 12:18 pm | | | Chris-- One can certainly prove a forgery without identifying a forger. We don't know who forged Piltdown, but we are still left with a medieval skull and the jaw bone of an orangutan! And certainly no one would be rash enought to claim that the Piltdown skull is genuine. I hardly think the situation is any different with the Maybrick diary. To say that "[Melvin's] claim to have proved the Diary is a forgery is hollow and without basis if no forgers are identified" seems to me a bit misleading, particularly in relation to all the serious doubts Harris has raised about the Maybrick diary. When all is said and done, Harris has raised serious objections to every single argument that Paul Feldman, Shirley Harrison, Robert Smith, Keith Skinner, or Professor Rubinstein has made about the diary being old, complex, or genuine. These arguments aren't going to vanish if no forger is identified. Like it or not, those who wish us to take the diary seriously are eventually going to have to come up with some pretty convincing evidence to eleviate these doubts. With Anne Graham showing no desire to talk, and with no documentation whatsoever for the diary being old, I don't really see this ever happening. RP |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 03 August 2001 - 12:28 pm | | Hi, R.J.:
I firmly believe the final nail in the coffin of the Diary cannot be driven until it is proven WHO forged the Diary.
Until we know WHO is responsible for the hoax, we can argue from here to eternity (as we are doing) about the 1987 police list, the little red diary, the Crashaw quote, Poste Houses, and scientific findings that do not agree. If the person or persons who did the forgery is or are identified, all debate would be silenced forever.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 03 August 2001 - 12:54 pm | | Chris--Yes, of course I agree with you here. With no forger named, it will leave plenty of wriggling room for those who contend the diary is an old document. I'm just more & more doubtful that this will ever happen. But really, I honestly don't believe that suggesting that Harris or Birchwood or Rendell or whomever haven't proven their case will ever really be particularly helpful to the diary's cause. Mike & Anne have created enough doubts by their actions alone. I guess I'm just preparing myself for a gray, murky end to this affair. [But I hope this won't be the case]. Best wishes, RP.
By the way, if you're interested, here is that bit of Maybrick marginalia if you haven't seen it:
Times, April 14, 1888.
"Inkeepers Act, 41 and 42 Vic., Cap 38.-- Notice is hereby given, that UNLESS the LUGGAGE LEFT at the Charing-Cross Hotel, West Strand, London, consisting of weaving apparel and personal effects, previous to the 15th September, 1887, is CLAIMED and all charges theron paid before the 31st May next, in the names undermentioned, the same will be SOLD by public AUCTION to defray expenses: -G. Hilbert, A. Bayley, M. Lehfeldt, Miss West, S.E. Mibrac, G. Mathhew, C.T. Cantillon, F. Desbac, Lake Price, Siger, E.A.R. Verbeck, Captain White, E. Courtois, J.A. Jenkins, A. Harper, L. Young, O.E. Thomas, A. St. Clair, Dr. Young, Skrine (?), Count de Basky, J. Solomons, Captain L. Owen. By order of G.S. HAINES, Secretary, Charing-Cross-Chambers, Duke Street, Adelphi. 13th April, 1888."
How Feldman found this I haven't the faintest idea. He must have read every Times in 1888. And how he used this to make the remarkable claim that the police were looking for a man named 'Mibrac' [Final Chapter, p 106] I really don't know. It seems like a misleading and weak attempt to make 'Mibrac' into a contemporary police suspect. Considering that this baggage (or coat or clothing) was left prior to Sept 1887, I consider it a wild stretch of the imagination to suggest that this can be in anyway linked to the fellow the police were looking for in Oct 1888. Cheers, RP |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 03 August 2001 - 03:21 pm | | | Hi Chris,If someone were to come foward and admit to forging the diary what makes you think they would be believed ? Barrett has already stated he played his part in forging it and he is not believed by many people. In England some time ago two men started making crop circles just for jolly. When many people started to state that the crop circles were the work of little green men from Mars the two culprits came foward.They explained why and how they did it. But people wanted to believe in little green men from Mars as being responsible and both the real culprits were ignored.. People will believe in what they want to believe and no amount of facts will change that. Some people today still believe the earth is flat and trying to explain otherwise to them would be a waste of time. |
Author: Mark Goeder
Friday, 03 August 2001 - 03:21 pm | | To RJ Palmer,
You said "One can certainly prove a forgery without identifying a forger. We don't know who forged Piltdown, but we are still left with a medieval skull and the jaw bone of an orangutan! And certainly no one would be rash enought to claim that the Piltdown skull is genuine. I hardly think the situation is any different with the Maybrick diary."
I dont think you can compare PILTDOWN with the diary because simple scientific examination PROVED it was a fake skull.
So far, science has not managed to prove the diary being a fake.
The diary is not officaly a fake yet untill proved otherwise
regards
Mark |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 03 August 2001 - 03:30 pm | | Hi, R.J.:
Thank you so much for your response. I believe we are basically of like mind on the status of the investigation into the Diary.
Thank you particularly though for posting in full the notice from The Times of 14 April 1888 about left luggage at Charing Cross Station left by someone named S. E. Mibrac. I had not seen the text of the notice before but of course knew of the mention of the notice in Feldman. I also would be unsure how Feldman found it but agree with you that any possible tie to Maybrick is very tenuous if not nonexistent and that the date, months earlier than the Whitechapel murders, makes it even more unlikely that there could be a link to the murders or to James Maybrick. Still, interesting to see the notice nevertheless. Thanks again.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 03 August 2001 - 04:28 pm | | Hi Ivor, Chris, and RJ,
Ivor,
A small point. You write,
"If someone were to come forward and admit to forging the diary what makes you think they would be believed ? Barrett has already stated he played his part in forging it and he is not believed by many people."
There are serious reasons for that, Ivor. Among them, as you'll soon see, is that Mike once said that he didn't forge the diary but got it from Tony, then he said that he did forge it with Anne, then he took that back and said that he didn't forge it and didn't know where it came from, and then he went back again and said that he did forge it...
And within all of that, he said certain things about people and what they had said to him and things about how he had done stuff or made up stuff, many of which directly contradicted each other, such that he simply could not, logically, be telling the truth for at least some of the time. He has, Ivor, said A and not-A repeatedly. So there are very good reasons for "many people," including me and you, not believing him. It would be downright foolish to believe him without substantial, reliable, material, corroborating evidence.
I'm not sure that exactly the same caveats would apply for every other possible confession scenario.
Now then...
Strangely enough, I think both RJ and Chris are right in the discussion above. You don't literally need to identify a forger to convince people that this document is not authentic. But there will be people who will remain unconvinced without the identity of a forger finalizing the account of what happened. A strong material and logical case can be made for this document not being authentic. It is very convincing. RJ is correct that it would be so whether a forger was ever named or not. But Chris is also correct that without a forger being named, those who are determined to detail the uncertain aspects of the document and its history will have plenty to work with, because the who, where, when and why details will remain conspicuously unknown.
For me, however, the question of who forged this document and why is not necessarily tied to the debate over its authenticity (although that is also a fascinating question and discussion). For me, the questions surrounding the identity of the forger and the motive and the circumstance concerning the composition of this book and its scene of writing are fascinating all by themselves, whether the text was 100% absolutely and finally proven to be a forgery or not. Even if, buried somewhere in the middle of this diary, there had been a line which mentioned Mick Jagger, I would still be fascinated by the mystery of who did this. Who went out and bought the ink or made the ink and bought the book and found the dip pens and composed the lines and created the character and wrote the words and why and where and when? These questions are made even more powerful, of course, because the book does not have an obvious anachronism and because the ink and the pen and the paper were not simply datable to a later period and because neither the science nor the readers could quickly and easily convince everyone immediately that the thing could not possibly be real. But even if that was not the case, I still think it would be very, very interesting to know who our author was and how this whole thing happened (and I do not share RJ's seemingly growing pessimism that we will never know this -- I believe we will, and sooner rather than later -- and I can be very, very patient, in any case).
It's a mystery. And solving it and learning the true history of this text might also teach us a thing or two about ourselves (it already has, I suggest) and about reading and about what to do the next time we are faced with such documents (the authentication of which, as a process, being obviously still in a fairly elementary and developing state).
And it is also a fascinating study in logic and in the collection and analysis of evidence and in personal character and in desire and in the problematic relationship between narrative and truth and in a whole bunch of other stuff that interests me.
And it is also apparent that our dear friend Melvin is not going to be of any more help. Which is fine with me, although I completely understand Keith's frustration, thinking, as he does, that if Melvin could really end this whole thing with a whisper, he ought to go ahead and just do it. Frankly, I'd just as soon continue dealing with the situation before us without Melvin's magisterial pronouncements, laced, as they often are, with unnecessary rhetorical venom.
I intend to keep having fun with the problems and the readings and the tapes and all the other stuff.
It beats working.
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 03 August 2001 - 05:06 pm | | Hi John,
It certainly does. 
And on that note, I'm off - finally. 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 03 August 2001 - 05:58 pm | | | Hi John,A Forgery can indeed be proven to be so without the identity of the forger being known. I understand your comments concerning Barrett and I do know what he is like for I have spoken to him on several accasions.What I was getting at was that it would not surprise me ( due to human nature) to find that a certain ammount of people would still believe the diary to be genuine regardless of any evidence, or forger coming foward.The diary has certainly caused a lot of trouble and debate.My concern is that the subject has now been shown to be wide open for forgers and con men who wish to take advantage of the situation with impunity. We had the Sickett hoax, then the Maybrick affair,followed by the watch. I wonder what else awaits us in the future.As for you stating 'it sure beats working'I am sure some forgers no doubt feel the same way and would agree with you!! :-) |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 03 August 2001 - 06:25 pm | | Hi Ivor,
Well, I think if we were able to establish the identity of the forger, either through a reliable and independently verifiable confession or through the discovery of material evidence which clearly and incontrovertably linked someone to the actual production of this book, then eventually people would come to accept the inevitable and the book would be commonly and fairly said and understood to have a known author (something that is not the case at the moment, of course).
There will always be forgers and hoaxsters, for a myriad of reasons (only a day or two ago someone apparently left a tip online, and with the authorities as well, concerning the location of Chandra Levy, explaining that her body could be found, in shrink wrap, buried on the grounds of a Virginia Army base, under some recently paved parking lot -- the tip seems now to have been an anonymous hoax for no apparent reason other than that someone wanted to watch the investigators and the media dance). But in this case, the scientists and the readers and the profilers and the psychiatrists and the graphologists and the Ripperologists have, I believe, all been doing their best (with various degrees of "success" and consistency, of course) and the mysteries of authorship and scene of composition remain and the subject remains a fascinating one.
Finally, you write:
"As for you stating 'it sure beats working'I am sure some forgers no doubt feel the same way and would agree with you!! :-)"
Ah, but see, at some point, for them, this becomes their job. Then, it is working. Whereas for me, it remains only a hobby and what I do for fun.
--John
PS: And the question of the personal toll this book and the problem of its unknown origins have taken on many people's lives, both privately and professionally, also remains an important one to consider. Identifying a forger, of course, will help in some of those cases and make things potentially much worse in others. This, I think, is the inevitable nature of history and of truth.
But now it's off to dinner and a movie. Bye, all. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 03 August 2001 - 09:04 pm | | Tick...tick...tick...tick...
Rosey :-)) |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Sunday, 12 August 2001 - 07:20 am | | Crashaw Quote
Can anyone place an "adapted" quote from Richard Crashaw: "That not impossible he." Other lines in the same verse might be interesting |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 12 August 2001 - 09:51 am | | Hi Peter,
Before I go searching, are you sure it's not "That not impossible she"? Oh, wait. Perhaps that's what you meant by "adapted."
If so, then of course it's from the opening stanza of "Wishes to his (Supposed) Mistress," a long, fairly tame poem from Crashaw's The Delights of the Muses (1648).
The poem has 42 three-line stanzas. The ones that make up the first full thought are:
Who'er she be,
That not impossible she,
That shall command my heart and me;
Where'er she lie,
Locked up from mortal eye,
In shady leaves of destiny,
Till that ripe birth
Of studied fate stand forth,
And teach her steps to our earth;
Till that divine
Idea take a shrine
Of crystal flesh, through which to shine;
Meet you her, my wishes,
Bespeak to her my blisses,
And be ye called my absent kisses.
Yup. That's Crashaw in one of his milder moments, all right.
And so I send everyone my absent kisses, especially Peter.
--John
X X X X X |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 13 August 2001 - 03:20 pm | | Hi, Peter:
Would you say then that James Maybrick, when thought of as Jack the Ripper, is "That not impossible he"?
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 01:29 pm | | Hi All,
I wonder what RJ, who doesn't like coincidences any more than the rest of us, will think about the following.
Let's consider that "That not impossible he", in the form of Mike Barrett, flicks through a book he just happens to have at home, sometime around the summer or autumn of 1989, let's say, and it falls open at a page that reveals very clearly to him a couple of lines that will do very nicely for the diary he is working on. Two of the five words that stare out from that page are 'intercourse' and 'death' - highly appropriate. So he sticks them in the text at what he considers a suitable point. It's the only example among the 63 pages where someone's literary work is quoted. And it just happens to be the work of a poet called Richard Crashaw.
When "That not impossible he" previously chose to write in the diary 'I said Whitechapel it will be and Whitechapel it shall', I wonder if he realised that Crashaw's papa had a strong link to the white chapel that gave Whitechapel London its name?
Which, I wonder, would be classed as the greater of the two coincidences? Two books containing the 'O Costly...' quote having been under the Barretts' roof at the same time without either of them knowing it? Or someone quoting from this particular poet, in a diary about the Whitechapel murders, without having a clue about Crashaw's Whitechapel link?
Love,
Caz
PS For more details of this curious link, see Paul Begg's editorial in the August 2001 Ripperologist. Did Paul get his info from Mike Barrett? Hmmm... |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 11:43 am | | Hi, Caz:
Something to think about:
Did someone's family have a tradition that James Maybrick was that "not impossible he", i.e., Jack the Ripper, and decided to forge the Diary on that basis?
Best regards
Chris George
P.S. Caz, are you trying to fan the dying embers  of the Diary????  |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 12:31 pm | | Dying embers Chris? Far from it.
From where I'm sitting, the diary is very much alive, and looks like it will go on pretty much indefinitely - thanks to no one taking up my offer to finance handwriting tests on the few modern suspects we have to play with.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 01:43 pm | | Hi Caz:
Then maybe as Robert Smith has indicated, we should have a whiparound in Bournemouth? A cheap shot of euthenasia should do the trick. 
Chris |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 04:15 pm | | Hello again, everyone.
Welcome back, Caz. I'm afraid the preparations for another semester of classes and the hospitalization of a close friend have kept me absent from the boards for some time. And today I return to find very little has been written concerning the dispersed tapes. Unfortunately, I also returned to no e-mail and a slow connection because they are working on the data cables in my area all day. So I will have to be brief.
Still, we have no real evidence concerning who wrote the diary or where or why and very little evidence concerning when. With the Barrett tapes we have another curious set of statements that defy easy analysis. Yes, we have Mike swearing on everything that means anything to him that he did not write the diary and that he believes Anne's story (this in between his two sworn statements that he did write the diary and that at this meeting he was just playing along with Keith and Shirley).
Listening carefully to the tapes at least makes it clear that Mike's later account, in his second sworn statement, about exactly what happened during that interview was less than complete and correct. (A detailed analysis of what Mike said in that second confession that proves not to be true concerning this meeting will come once I am up and running at full speed again.)
But what can we believe from Mike's claims on these tapes?
Logically, of course, the answer remains "nothing." Just as that is the answer to the question "what can we believe from his original 'confessions?'" Just as that is the only logical answer to the question "what can we believe from anything Mike has ever said?" Nothing. So we have to look elsewhere for supporting evidence.
Yes, it turns out that the fake name Mike gave was indeed the name of his house's former owner. Does this mean that when he tells Shirley on the tape that he also made up the lot number in his sworn account of how he bought the book at auction, and that this is actually the number of a local bus line, we should now believe that his whole Outhwaite story was just another lie, as he claims on the tape? Perhaps. But that would only be an inference.
My own impressions are conflicted. I do believe that this is a man who would say almost anything to get back the woman he believes he has lost (or to at least have a chance to speak to her). I do believe that this is man who would say almost anything when faced with the prospect of a free drink (which makes the allegation that Alan Gray might have shown up to meetings with Mike with Scotch in hand particularly troublesome). Mike's twisted but insistent rationalizations at the end of the second tape about needing a bottle in front of him to face his demons head-on, as a way of trying to convince Keith and company to buy him a bottle, are painfully sad and, unfortunately, probably all too familiar to anyone who has had to deal personally with an alcoholic in their own lives, as I have.
Does Mike sound sincere about anything? To me, he sounds sincere about wanting to talk to Anne and about wanting information about Caroline. Beyond that, I still can't tell.
I have more thoughts, about Mike's speech patterns, about the way he seems hurt by the idea that Anne knew more about this book than she ever told him and seems hurt by the idea that she would tell Paul Feldman about it before she would tell her own husband, about Mike's apologies and his rhetoric concerning race and religion, and about how unusually pleased he is with himself about finding a list of Latin quotations in the back of a dictionary. And about other stuff as well.
But I'd like to hear some thoughts from others who have heard the tapes.
My own thoughts remain uncertain and conflicted and genuinely contradictory concerning much of what I've heard. I will try to detail them in the days ahead (assuming full speed on this machine).
But nothing on the tapes, as far as I can see, allows us finally to determine with any more or less comfort or certainty who the hell did write this book or why.
That mystery remains.
I must run. But I will try again to read the boards tomorrow, cut off as I am from my usual connection.
(Interesting, the language of the drug addict -- "cut off from my usual connection." Perhaps I should be worried. Perhaps we all should.)
Bye,
--John
Who, like Mike apparently, would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.
|
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 04:37 pm | | Hi, John:
Nice to see you here again. I wrote a lengthy post earlier on the matter of the tapes but it disappeared into the ether, as happens some times! The thrust of my post though is that I agree with you that much of the tapes is directed toward having the Diary team help in get in touch with Anne and also the need for a drink. So can he be trusted. Is he only saying things to get them to help him? I don't know. As you say, he appears to be a man who would say anything to achieve certain ends. That being the case, it is hard to trust what he says. I will have more to say when I have heard the tapes in more detail but work and other demands have been intervening.
All the best
Chris George |
Author: Melvin Harris
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 04:08 pm | | TRY READING; TRY LOGIC.
Mrs Morris prefers not to read. Sge prefers to issue a false statement then parades extra false claims when challenged. Take her words: "Why would you object to me calling Melvin a liar, when he backtracked later, admitting that his 'LONG BEFORE' June 1994 was actually August 1994 at the very earliest?" (10 Jan 2003-07:57) This is inexcusable. In my post headed ROUND UP OF ERRORS, I nailed her earlier twisting on this score. I wrote: "Caz misrepresents when she states that I claimed that Mike had placed the Sphere book in the hands of the solicitors 'LONG BEFORE Anne left him (in January 1994)' Mike dated the break-up of his marriage to the time when the Divorce papers were served NOT to the far earlier date of January. He regarded her exit at that date as just a hiccup." It was because of this irrational belief that he hired Alan to find Anne in August. He still fantasised that they would be reconciled. It was not until the first week in September that he accepted defeat.
On the Kane affair that same post pointed out that any active intervention in Mr Kane's life was not initiated by me, but by Feldman, who in 1993 wrote "we have investigated this." Before then only two people knew that, out of Devereux's widest circle, I had concluded that only one specimen of handwriting was striking enough to warrant a search for longer examples. One of these men was Nick Warren, the other Martin Fido. I leave you to guess which man broke confidence and brought Mr Kane under close scrutiny. Even so, I have never branded anyone as the 'obvious penman'. The very word 'obvious' means without doubt. But I have stated that, as a matter of simple justice, no one should have been given privileged treatment. The handwriting of every person in the picture should have been examined. And that is both fair and logical.
Finally, the Diamine ink test conducted by Nick Warren HAS been detailed on screen. It looked very much like the ink on the Diary pages. But an exact visual comparison can only be made on the exactly matching thick paper of the Diary itself. Even then the ink on those pages has had a head-start in maturing. However Voller, himself, is convinced that the ink he saw had nigrosine as a sighting colour and his firm was the only one producing such an ink in the 1990's. But don't eye the colour, read the text! It is all there in modern books I have named. And it could not have been written prior to 1988. A good year that, with the Michael Caine Ripper film dominating the TV screens and bringing the obscure Abberline into the parlours and into prominence and into the minds of the fakers. |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 05:37 pm | | I dread to think how painful it might have been to bring "the obscure Abberline into the parlours".
Whatever you're into Andy and Sue, whatever you're into.
Bowyer at West Ham? What say you? |
|
|
|
|
