|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Thoughts on the diary
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Thoughts on the diary
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 22 February 2001 - 06:19 am |        | G'day Algeria,
That works too mate, but if you just search 'missing', then that brings up posts like: 'pages missing', 'missing first pages', missing early pages', missing a few pages' and 'missing segments'.
LEANNE! |
Author: Alegria
Thursday, 22 February 2001 - 07:18 am | | | Thanks Leanne. My computer is so slow that I can never wait around for a search result. By the time it comes up, I have long forgotten why I wanted the info in the first place! |
Author: Stephen Powell
Thursday, 22 February 2001 - 07:49 am | | yo gang,
A question for Paul Begg....
Would you please clarify your remarks of last year concerning Anne Grahams medical record disappearance.
Why are they missing?
Was there an actual 'Private Investigator' bought into the scenario by Feldman or someone else?
Have the 'Authorities' stated that Anne Graham was and is a security risk?
A question for all:
Did Michael Barrett ever visit Australia?
What school did Anne Graham attend in Liverpool?
Has anyone asked Anne Graham to reply to the Casebook? if so,what was her reply?
The same for Michael Barrett.
To Keith Skinner
Why dont you call me on the phone and ask me any questions ypu like,I feel I've answered most questions here at the casebook and dont feel like typing all that again.Hope you dont mind.
I would be most eager to help.
I have a picture of the still existing Sutherland hospital,where I met Anne Graham,coming soon and will post it for you all to have a look.
Someone...was it you Leanne...said that the hospital was no longer there but sorry...wrong.
(cripes,I might win a round here...)
stay well my lovely typeface friends.
steve powell. |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 22 February 2001 - 08:02 am | | Hi Steve
This is probably not a topic suitable for discussion on these open boards, but basically Paul Feldman did hire an inquiry agent and Anne’s medical records were missing. The inquiry agent believed that the only power capable of removing such records would be a government agency. This caused Paul Feldman to speculate that Mike and Anne were not who they said they were – that they were something like people of a police protection programme or something. If I recall correctly, this or something like it was very much at the back of Feldy’s mind when he had his marathon conversation with Anne and when he visited her a day or two later. I think he expected such extraordinary admissions to be made and was partially disappointed when they weren’t.
Anne is not a security risk. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 22 February 2001 - 11:00 am | | Hi All,
Hi RJ,
Couple of small points here regarding your post to David Halstead.
Firstly, you say that ‘Mike evidently said that a librarian had helped him locate this quote.’
This may be correct. I was under the impression that Mike badgered the staff for help, but has it ever been confirmed that they did in fact help him, by directing him to the Sphere volume, which he apparently recognised as being the same as one of a set he had been given after the Hillsborough disaster of April 1989? It’s an obvious assumption to make, because no one can imagine how Mike could possibly have found the quote by himself. But it may be worth clarifying.
Secondly, you say that ‘Mike has made the statement that he bought the Sphere Guide as part of a benefit for the Hillsborough disaster, but in laying this claim, he made a muddle about the date of that disaster.’
I don’t think Mike said he bought his copy – he said it was donated by Sphere, for him to sell towards the disaster appeal. What interpretation do you put on Mike’s mistake over the date, saying it was 1987, rather than 1989? I guess it might depend on when you think the ‘O costly…’ quote was first seen and chosen to be included in the diary text.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Richard Buchko
Thursday, 22 February 2001 - 01:13 pm | | When was the "O costly...." line actually written?
Regardless of whether it supports the diary or detracts from it, I find it very hard to accept most anything said to come from Mike Barrett. EVERYTHING becomes muddled. Too many changes of mind, too many confessions. Geez, even Al Capone was at least consistent!
Rich |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 22 February 2001 - 01:58 pm | | Caz--Hello. It is my belief that the librarians could not have helped Mike discover the source of the 'O Costly' quote, for the reasons already mentioned above. As the Irish might say, it's simply 'beyond the beyonds', and so I've always assumed that this must be a fabrication. But didn't you & Melvin go around and around on this one? If my memory serves me right, Melvin had contacted the Liverpool Library and found this a non-starter.
I don't really know why I said Mike 'bought' the Sphere Guide. I don't believe this is the case. My understanding is that these books were a donation. (Thanks for the clarification). According to an old post of Melvin's, Mike's copy is the 1986 edition (you're a Londoner, you can go visit Melvin and view it :-)). I'm not sure I see anything sinister in Mike's flubbing of the date of the disaster; I suppose the argument could be launched that Mike fabricated the story as part of a scheme to back up his claim that he forged the diary. But that doesn't make sense to me, really. For it doesn't explain how Mike could have tracked down the quote in the first place, and I am still under the impression that Anne doesn't deny that they owned the book. Maybe she does, but I haven't heard differently.
For me, the bottom line is that the only rational explanation I have yet heard offered is that the 'O Costly' quote has its genesis in Rick's Sphere Guide. There is nothing in the diary that suggests to me that Maybrick delved too deeply into English Literature, and it seems like an odd inclusion even for 30's Journalists. The 'coincidence' that this one-and-only obscure literary reference is the same quote that is abstracted from the text of an essay published in 1971\1986, coupled with the other indications, makes me think that this is a very recent forgery. It doesn't prove who forged the diary, but it does seem to indicate that either Mike had inside information or that he had 'discovered things'. Even the earlier 1971 date makes it too late for Anne's account to be true.
I tried to be objective yesterday, but I should probably have mentioned that the controversy over when the book was lodged with Mike's solicitor has made some suspect that the 'Sphere' story was merely used by Mike to give credence to his confession. I have been unable to come to this conclusion for the reasons stated above.
Best wishes,
RJ Palmer |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 23 February 2001 - 05:54 am | | Hi RJ,
But Shirley also contacted the library, didn't she, and found that the Sphere volume was indeed available?
I could understand a harrassed librarian not being able to find it and telling Melvin so, but would they confirm to Shirley that it was available if it wasn't? I don't know which version is the correct one, but you seem to have made your choice already.
I don't know for sure, but I think it's likely that Mike did get his own copy from Sphere Books, sometime shortly after April 1989, and that his memory for dates just isn't all that good. I do agree that it appears beyond coincidence that the quote was under Mike's roof at the same time as the diary, without either Mike or Anne realising it. Yet, around the time that Mike was trying desperately to make the newspapers believe he forged the diary by himself, in June 1994, I believe I'm right in saying that, according to his then current girlfriend, his Sphere book - and therefore his (only?) proof - wasn't with his solicitor at all - Mike had given it to her teenage son, hadn't he?
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 23 February 2001 - 08:46 am | | Caz--Ah yes, I remember now. The girlfriend's son's research paper. This thing does seem to spread (moss? cancer?). There was some speculation of whether or not the son would be doing a research paper in the summer (Mike's initial confession to Brough was on 24 June) was there not? So it's difficult to tell if this was a point for the 'pro' or the 'con' side. (Yes, I know, 'sides' is a myth :-)) I suppose when the authoratative history of the Maybrick Diary saga is finally written, that research paper will have to be tracked down and offered into evidence as Appendix 44b in Volume 3.
But in looking at Maureen Owen's ('the Chicago Police Lady's') fine display in Joe Nickell's book, I can't help but think that is was truly an awful forgery. It's a shocking display, honestly. The writing is nothing like Maybrick's will, nor the Dear Boss letter. Certainly someone early on could have whispered to Feldy that he was wasting his money? At one point, Feldman researched all the 21 American cities named Manchester (Did you know that there is a Manchester, Iowa?) looking for the missing Manchester victim (!). Honestly, Caz, don't you think this is a case of a huge sprawling edifice being built on a soap-bubble? If Feldman had approached the 'I got it from a bloke in a pub' forgery with a little more skepticism, and spent some of that money in a different direction, maybe he would have known what Melvin already knew all those years ago?
(waiting for the hailstorm of abuse)
Best wishes,
RJ Palmer |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 23 February 2001 - 01:23 pm | | A small point about 'costly intercourse'. The actual phrase in Crashaw is 'Oh, costly intercourse of deaths', the plural signifying the co-mingled physical death of Christ and heartstruck deathlike grief of Mary. It is, if you like, a poetic equivalent of a sculpted Pieta. The poem is indeed extremely obscure. I have no idea whether Christopher Ricks's essay simplifies the phrase down to the singular for any reason. If not, we are looking at a forger who transcribed inaccurately.
Martin Fido |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 24 February 2001 - 09:00 am | | Hi Martin,
I believe Christopher Ricks starts the quote from
'O costly intercourse
Of deaths,...'
whereas the diary gives us
'Sir Jim will cut them all
Oh costly intercourse
of death'
So, if the forger took the quote from Ricks in the Sphere volume, he/she made two transcription errors, 'Oh', instead of 'O' in the first line, and 'death' singular in the second (and, inadvertently, it would seem, corrected Ricks's 'O' back to Crashaw's 'Oh'!).
Yet there were no such errors made between Diary handwriting and typed transcript - interesting. But, since Melvin Harris doesn't believe the diary is in either Mike or Anne's handwriting, and has evidence that they were only placers/handlers of a document forged by others, I'm not sure what interpretation we can put on any of this.
Hi RJ,
Didn't Mike's girlfriend say that the books Mike gave her teenage son, which allegedly included the incriminating Sphere volume, were actually too advanced, and therefore of no use to him? It is surely only relevant to know if Mike thought the books might come in handy, and gave them away, at around the time one of them would have come in extremely handy to add credence to his confession.
It does indeed seem extraordinary to me that there are some very level-headed individuals, who have worked with the diary and the modern suspects for many years, and are still struggling with this 'truly awful forgery'. That's one of the reasons why I find the whole thing such a fascinating enigma.
I think I can just about imagine the futility of whispering any advice to Feldy - on a par with asking Melvin for a straight answer or Peter Birchwood not to twist words and take them out of context, until they bear no resemblance to what was originally written - always to the detriment of those with whom he disagrees.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 26 February 2001 - 07:45 am | | Hi RJ,
I just looked back at your post to me, and read again your last words: (waiting for the hailstorm of abuse)
I do hope other readers will not infer that you are accustomed to receiving abusive responses from me, or indeed that we have ever been the slightest bit abusive towards each other, however strongly we might disagree or debate certain issues.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 01 March 2001 - 11:55 am | | Caz- Well no, I'm certainly not accustom to receiving abusive responses from you. The 'hailstorm' was half-joke/half magical incantation to the elements (a la King Lear) in hopes that no one would leap on me. (You know the drill--we often receive comments from other posters--not just the one we addressed in any particular message). Besides, as Lisa Muir's question might have illustrated yesterday (and no, it certainly wasn't abusive either(!)) I haven't exactly won too many devotees in throwing in a kind word for Melvin Harris. I can't remember exactly why I thought this particular post would create a problem; perhaps the suggestion that Feldy should have been warned he was throwing away his money. No doubt you are correct about the futility of 'whispering'.
In short, we all fight like dogs & cats on the Maybrick board, but are civil elsewhere. I wonder why that is?
Best wishes,
R J Palmer
PS. I think you have a longish 'row to hoe' if you're going to come up with an alternative scenerio for the Sphere Guide. We're all still stuck with the uncomfortable fact that it was M.B. who discovered the correct citation. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 01 March 2001 - 08:35 pm | | Hi, RJ:
I am not sure that you and I are fighting like cats and dogs on the Maybrick Diary board.
I can tell you, away from the maelstrom of that board, that of course I agree with most of what you have said and argued about the Diary, apart maybe for our seemingly opposing attitudes toward Melvin's present stance.
I do not think the Diary is an old hoax. I agree with you that Mike Barrett's ownership of the Sphere Guide containing the Crashaw quote is highly suspicious and is an indication, along with the Barretts' purchase of the little Red Diary of 1891 and other factors internal to the document (e.g., the wording "tin match box empty" echoing the police list first made public in 1987 and the suspicious "brightness" of the ink and lack of fading one would expect in a genuine Victorian document, which Martin Fido notes today on another board he immediately thought looked fishy), that the Maybrick Diary was concocted comparatively recently (circa 1992-1993).
Thus I entirely agree with your statement on the Diary board that, "... the only important thing from the historical standpoint is that we all know that the diary is a recent forgery and has no value in the Ripper investigation. James Maybrick is not a theory; he is an unwanted crasher at the party--and is only here because of the diary."
I also think that if Barrett was one of the forgers, the modifications to the original Crashaw quote, "O Costly Intercourse of Deaths" to read "Oh costly intercourse of death" is consistent with what I might expect from someone like Barrett who is not a scholar, or because, as you theorized to Caz, "the diarist used 'Oh' rather than 'O' in quoting Crashaw because someone [Barrett???] was reading it to him from a book."
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 09:16 am | | Hi RJ,
I know the drill – I was just concerned that others might not. I’m not at all sure the Diary boards are quite as full of hailstorms of abuse, and fighting like dogs and cats, when one really looks carefully at each post, as is sometimes suggested. In fact, there are very few individual posters, since those awful anonymous days, who resort to anything resembling what I would call abuse.
Of course, I don’t know that Feldy wasn’t warned that he was wasting time, effort and money (and not just his own). My point was really to question how useful any such advice could have been, whether whispered or shouted!
I’m not so much trying to ‘come up with an alternative scenario for the Sphere Guide’, as wondering why all the facts don’t appear to fit the one we’re stuck with.
Hi Chris,
Do you seriously believe that our forger would have let Mike Barrett loose on his/her creation, by allowing him to read over such an obscure quote for inclusion, unchecked? It’s quite a thought.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 12:52 pm | | Chris--Hello. Thanks for the message. Of course I don't think it is a bad thing that people disagree --even strongly disagree-- on the message boards. It's a discussion after all, and it would be mightly dull if everyone were in agreement. :-) Such a large percentage of the world is so completely apathetic about anything to do with 'history' that it is even rather refreshing to see people get a bit 'worked up' about ideas.
It's true that we have disagreed about the value of Melvin's information, but I would like to add that I never had the least bit of doubt about your intentions on this. Your one of the most helpful contributors to these boards, and clearly it would be desirable to come to a final 'solution' about the diary's origins. I'm just a little skeptical that this is going to happen. I think the two 'sides' are too entrenched. This is merely my perception, but I suspect that both sides are quite suspicious of one another, and so are not likely to share information. Melvin Harris has stated that his information is confidential--but perhaps he might also suspect that it would not be given a fair hearing by the 'diary' side. Is this really so different from the dispute between Keith Skinner & Peter Birchwood? Peter has stated on these message boards that he hasn't been give access to the tapes of the Billy Graham interviews. Keith has evidently stated that these are confidential; but maybe he, too, suspects that they wouldn't be given a fair hearing. Who knows? It seems to me the situation is much like the North-Going Zax and the South-Going Zax from Dr. Seuss. Unless someone makes a leap of faith and steps aside, nothing is going to happen. I haven't the faintest idea how this will ever be resolved, and tend to think that it won't be. Maybe it would be best to focus on the textual & forensic evidence and whether or not the provenance is believable or not. Who knows. This is just my view of things.
Best wishes,
R J Palmer.
Caz-- Hi. Isn't this a little like the argument that springs up from time to time that the diary is so badly executed that it 'must be real'? (ie., if Mike was lying, wouldn't he have come up with a better provenance than 'the man in the pub'? 'If this is a forgery, why wouldn't they have used a real diary?' All those argument offered up by Mark G., etc. etc.) I don't think we can even agree on how elaborate a hoax this is. Some tend to feel it shows an intimate knowledge of the Maybrick household, others that it is a shoddy, piecemeal fake.
Best wishes. |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 01:18 pm | | Hi, R.J. and Caz:
Paul Begg has made the point that even with an undoubtedly real document not everything rings true, and that there are dangling, unanswered questions even there. My point here would be that there is such a host of items that are wrong about the Diary, that the document, to fatally mix my metaphors (!), hardly gets out of the starting blocks at all. I tend to think that you may be right, R.J., that the different camps will never find a common meeting ground and the controversies will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. More's the pity.
Chris George |
Author: Stephen Powell
Saturday, 03 March 2001 - 09:21 am | | Howdy rips,
A simple question that someone may know..
Q: Was Mike Barrett or Tony Deveroux ever in australia?
stay well.
steve powell
4/3/2001 |
Author: Stephen Powell
Monday, 05 March 2001 - 03:57 am | | Howdy rips,
A simple question that someone may know..
Q: Was Mike Barrett or Tony Devereax ever in australia?
stay well.
steve powell
4/3/2001 |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 06:03 am | | Hi All,
Hi Steve,
Sorry, I don’t know.
Hi RJ,
I’ve never suggested that the diary ‘must be real’ simply because of my failure to comprehend why a forger would do this and not that, write this and not that. Melvin Harris has gone into great detail about the most likely thought processes of the modern forgers, and I don’t see why I can’t at least look at his arguments, make my own observations, and try to make sense of them, without people constantly seeing this as an argument for the diary’s authenticity. I’m a little surprised you still put the word sides in quotes, when you wrote: I think the two 'sides' are too entrenched. You are the one who seems to be entrenched in the view that if someone is questioning the modern hoax theory, they must be ‘pro-diary’, and couldn’t possibly be neutral, or ‘anti-diary’, or a waverer. 
You also wrote:
Melvin Harris has stated that his information is confidential--but perhaps he might also suspect that it would not be given a fair hearing by the 'diary' side.
And:
Unless someone makes a leap of faith and steps aside, nothing is going to happen.
Have you quite forgotten Shirley and Keith’s leap, in the shape of their formal invitation to Melvin, to meet in the presence of an independent arbitrator? Whether or not Melvin’s information is telling and good enough for the ‘diary’ side, they would have little choice but to give it a fair hearing. Moreover, if you yourself believe in the power of Melvin’s info, and you also believe that Shirley and Keith are among a tiny handful of people on the planet who might not be swayed by it, why would the independent arbitrator, assessing the material objectively, fail to be impressed and so put pressure on the ‘diary’ side to keep to their agreement and admit they were wrong?
I’m not addressing your point about Melvin’s info being confidential here. I’m just wondering why you think he would fear an unfair hearing.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 08 March 2001 - 11:28 am | | From Keith Skinner to RJ Palmer
Dear RJ
Yes, I have denied Peter Birchwood access to my copies of Paul Feldman’s tapes, which is hardly surprising given Peter Birchwood’s suspicions about my role in the investigation. But I’d be grateful if you could direct me to the post where I stated that Paul Feldman’s tapes were confidential. Working from memory, what I believe I told Peter Birchwood was that the tapes were the property of Feldman and that, if Peter wanted to listen to them or to ask Feldman to make copies for him, then he should write to Feldman care of his publisher. If I’ve misled you or anybody else into thinking these tapes were confidential, I apologise.
Best Wishes,
Keith |
Author: Stephen Powell
Friday, 09 March 2001 - 12:43 am | | howdy rips,
have'nt you noticed the initials on the bedhead of mary kellys bed?
take a good look and you will see them.
steve powell. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 09 March 2001 - 04:08 am | | G'day Stephen P. Ryder,
Remember the word 'HART' that I found on Mary Kelly's wall, then went to alot of trouble to post a photo on Casebook to show everyone?
Now I can't find it to show Mr. Powell how easy it is to find words and initials in random blood splashes.
S.Powell: are you talking about the FM on Mary's wall, not bedhead? We have discussed this heaps! Have you noticed the word: "HART" on her wall yet? Someone else found:
"-ELLY"! Check the posts on the the main Casebook menu: 'Victims/Specific Victims/Mary Jane Kelly/FM on Kelly's wall!
LEANNE! |
Author: Stephen Powell
Friday, 09 March 2001 - 04:33 am | | Dear rips & leanne,
On the BEDHEAD there are initials.
They look more prominent than FM.
have a good look.
steve powell. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 09 March 2001 - 06:12 am | | G'day Stephen,
I found that photo mate! It's not in the main 'casebook' at all, it's here in the 'message boards'. Please have a look at it and I'd be interested to know what initials you see.
Go to: message board/Ripper Victims/Specific Victims/Mary Jane Kelly/The Kelly Crime Scene Photographs/Archive through December 05, 2000.
I emailed it to Roger O'Donnell, who posted it for me on: Thursday June 15, 2000 11:56a.m.
Now what initials am I looking for on the bedhead?
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 09 March 2001 - 06:28 am | | G'day,
Considering the word: '_ELLY' that Jill spotted: if the original photograph was ever stored in an envelope labelled 'MARY JANE KELLY', even an old fashioned nib pen would be enough to leave an indent on the photo underneath?
The word 'HART' is half concealed by the body, that's why I don't think it could be an indentation.
LEANNE! |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 09 March 2001 - 10:01 am | | To Keith Skinner. Dear Keith--hello. Perhaps I should be giving the apologies. I used the word 'confidential', because that was the word Peter Birchwood used in one of his posts. I see now that he has responded to this himself. But I was trying --however akwardly--to be diplomatic, not to place any blame. It just seems to me that there is a fair amount of suspicion & lack of cooperation all around, and that, in light of this, it was rather unfair that Melvin Harris was singled out three weeks ago to receive a drubbing. I can see that things must look a great deal different from your angle.
Best wishes,
R J Palmer |
Author: Tim
Monday, 12 March 2001 - 01:46 pm | | Hello all
I found this bit of news and thought how appropriate 
"What might be the best way to pass off a counterfeit note without raising any suspicion?
In Texas, it seems, the trick is to make your illegal tender as blindingly, obviously fake as possible, says the Lexington Herald-Leader.
A woman made off with $137 in change after paying for snacks at a local Dairy Queen with a bogus $200 note. On one side, George "Dubya" Bush. On the reverse, the White House with signs on the lawn reading "Rooms not for rent".
Police said the fake was too obvious even to be considered a counterfeit."
Hmmmmm
Tim |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 12 March 2001 - 06:43 pm | | Hi Tim:
I'm sorry, I haven't got my glasses on (*blink* *blink*). What's this about a "Diary Queen"?
Chris |
Author: Tim
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 05:45 pm | | Well don't look at me sweety, I'll scratch your eyes out
Tim |
|
|
|
|
