|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 15, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-2000 Archives:
Archive through June 15, 2000
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 09:37 am |        | Hi Karoline,
As I said, not enough evidence forthcoming regarding the Weed. But I wasn't 'cross' at all. I'm thoroughly enjoying it all. I promised people I wouldn't mention him again, you are doing that job quite nicely for me!
Thanks for the congrats. I guess I find it personally more satisfying to dig a bit deeper and not rely solely on anyone else’s personal judgements (even Keith’s), let alone someone’s rigid set of improbables, probables or even highly likelies. But each to his own I guess.
The problem, as Keith sees it, is not one of ‘improbability’, but ‘impossibility’, in terms of the Diary being written prior to 1987. Therefore his irresistible force (Ripper expertise) and his immovable object (Anne, in her story since 1994), are a paradox he is still battling with.
But I don’t know where 'having the guts' comes into any of this. For you, there is no puzzle, no paradox, never has been. For me, silly old fool that I am, I am prepared to give Keith’s judgement the once-over (call me a sucker for glowing character references :-)).
No Karoline, no guts are needed for the likes of us. If anyone has guts I’d say it was Anne Graham.
If she has risked sacrificing the love, trust and respect of her nearest and dearest, her writing colleagues and everyone in her immediate circle (never mind the entire world), all for the sake of royalties which, I suspect, might not even keep some of us here in foreign holidays and French knickers, then I am astonished at the woman’s guts, though I abhor them. And if she did first set eyes on the Diary in the late 1960s, quite frankly, I would be equally astonished she has had the guts to refrain from punching a few people on the nose! And I would therefore admire her guts in equal measure.
Your comments about the handwriting have been passed on to Keith, along with all the other posts to this discussion. At present he has read 'em all up to and including June 14th @ 04.04am.
I take it you’ve now read and absorbed the various posts here regarding Mike and Anne’s handwriting.
Ideally a professional analysis should be done, so I’ll have to come back to you on that one. If I hadn’t spent all my money on posts to the internet, foreign holidays and French knickers, I'd commission it myself....
You say: ‘...would it just be another point to quibble over?’
If you are really reducing what could be a serious accusation against certain individuals to a matter of quibbling, then some of us really are wasting your valuable time.
And in my dictionary, to quibble means ‘an evasive turning away from the point in question into matters irrelevant, merely verbal, or insignificant’. I sincerely hope those who claim to be interested in finding the truth are not doing this, otherwise we are all wasting our time.
Speaking for myself, I’ll be delighted if someone can finally prove Anne or Mike forged the Diary post-1987. I said to Simon a while back that I’d be able to take up cookery lessons. Now it looks like I may change my mind and do a critique instead of Keith’s upcoming thesis: Shades of Yellow in Hosiery History.
I’ve heard yellow is the perfect colour for absorbing information, so children should have yellow walls while studying. Perhaps we should all stare at Martin’s socks for 5 minutes before every post...
‘I hadn't realised that all of you diary-buffs had finally decided it WASN'T genuine (I am obviously very behind)…’
Very behind Karoline? Which part of the view of ‘not genuine’ did you ever fail to grasp?
And where exactly do you get your ‘finally decided’ about anything from what you’ve been reading?
How many times do people have to chant ‘undecided on the current evidence’ before you see the ‘un’ bit?
I’ve got three more posts to type for Keith, so I’ll post them later today, but I’ve had to apologise to him because I will not be around for the next couple of days at least. I’m off to buy some French knickers for my foreign holiday, so apologies to all if they are waiting for posts from Keith.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 10:44 am | | From Keith Skinner To Martin Fido
Dear Martin
How splendid to see you up on this board!
You and I have had many stimulating discussions about Horace and indeed I recall only too vividly when you, myself and our lesser educated, but still highly esteemed and cherished colleague, - now the Editor of Ripperologist – all spent a joyous day together in Oxford, where I was able to take you round my old college. We had a most heated, but hugely enjoyable six hours, discussing the hexameters of Horace, (as used in his epistles). I was very much impressed by the larger – and to my mind – more sonorous dactylic hexameter used by Vergil, whereas you suggested that Horace’s mastery of stanzaic meters took academic and scholastic precedence.
Sadly, our teetotalling colleague could not join in the debate, not having studied the Classics, - but his ditties were very funny!
My friend – please do not put my integrity on a pedestal. It must be constantly challenged as should my judgement. You have met and spoken with Anne Graham and do not find her persuasive. That view is as important as my finding her persuasive and puts more information into the debate.
Unlike Paul and myself, you have committed yourself to a final position in so far as you genuinely and honestly believe that Anne devized the Diary and Mike physically wrote it. I realise this position comes with the caveat that your case is not proved – or that it is an absolute certainty.
But it does question (and rightly so) my judgement of personality – which is why I have to constantly reassess my own position and I can only do this by trying to understand your reasoning and applying this to my knowledge of Mike and Anne.
All Good Wishes
Keith |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 11:16 am | | The Maybrick Board...where angels fear to tread.
[Karoline--I can assure you that 'Dreamchild' is making a meteoric rise toward the top of my 'To Read' list. Currently though, I'm still trudging away with Mr. Wallace in the evenings (a 'nighttime annoyance'), and find his book infinitely STRANGE. Yes, I'd enjoy seeing your paper]. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 11:30 am | | From Keith Skinner To Paul Begg
Dear Paul
Many thanks for your post.
I was only endeavouring to point out, Guvner, the danger of ascribing a sentiment (“absolute certainty”) to somebody, as if that person had said it or was totally entrenched in that belief. Peter Birchwood certainly gives a very strong impression of pushing towards a definite belief but, as has been noted, seems disinclined to explore his thinking.
To my untrained eye the handwriting of the Diary does not resemble the authenticated handwriting of James Maybrick. Reasons have been advanced to explain this discrepancy – to do with Maybrick’s personality. He’s not alive – so I can’t ask him. (Not much gets past me!)
To my untrained eye the handwriting of the Diary does not resemble the ‘normal’ handwriting of Anne Graham. A reason has been advanced to explain this discrepancy – to do with Anne’s personality. Anne is alive. I can look for this personality disorder, although I’m not sure what I would be looking for, which is a good reason to question my judgement.
I don’t think it’s really fair to even suggest Peter Birchwood pay for a professional handwriting analysis to prove his point. But, God knows, this analysis should have been done and I firmly believe the responsibility lies with those of us who do not accept the Diary is a modern fake, created by Mike and Anne.
Essentially, you and I share the same thinking, and just as I know I can rely on you to check me, so I hope you will accept these comments in the spirit they were intended.
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 12:00 pm | | From Keith Skinner To Karoline L
Dear Karoline
Thank you for your post to which, I promise, I will give a fuller response.
Could I just clarify one point with you please?
You query Paul as to where he gets his “touchingly logical view of human nature?”
You illustrate your point by suggesting the prisons are full of bad burglars, bad murderers and bad forgers.
In other words, logic and thinking something through clearly and rationally, does not have to play a part in motive, human nature being what it is?
People are capable of irrational behaviour which, to people who cannot identify with or relate to their emotional situation or domestic circumstances, might appear totally illogical?
Is this the way of the real world?
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 12:40 pm | | Dear Keith,
Yes, many a happy summer afternoon was
passed watching the punts on the Isis as they
floated past Cohen College and Druitt Hall. And
Paul's translation of Waltzing Matilda into 21st
dynasty hieroglyphics would surely have won the
Newdigate Prize had he only been able to find a
way of making Egyptian scan as heroic couplets.
Revenons à nos moutons. I will pronounce
favourably on your integrity or anyone else's I
have seen and tested and believe in. I will not
make statements on public internet boards about
anyone else's possible moral failings unless they
launch some sort of unprovoked attack on me. I
regret that the abstract logical position Karoline
has laid out carries certain implicit moral
judgements with it. I have said what I think
directly to the persons in question, and I am not
joining in any detailed public character shredding
over a matter so unimportant (to me) as the
Maybrick diary.
Yours ever, with what reads horribly like
priggish huffiness,
though I don't feel at all huffy,
Martin |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 12:57 pm | | Well at least a few questions were answered although not the one about Cliff Irving's history of forgery pre-Hughes. I think that you can take it that any questions asked by me that haven't been answered are ones that the questioned party is unable or unwilling to answer.
So to round things off I suggest that instead of digging up Mary Jane (it really is difficult to get and exumation order; I'm being asked by five separate parties to organise one where they can't prove that the deceased is related to them by documents and have picked the magic words "dna" as a solution to their problems.) we should set up a fund for an independent scientific test of the diary including proper forensic document examination of it together with similar examination of written evidence from all those who may have been involved with it pre-Doreen Montgomery. Of course we'd have to get agreements from those people still living and the owner/s of the diary. Anyone volunteering to be treasurer? |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 01:23 pm | | Dear Keith
How well I do recall you and Martin - well, Martin mostly - talking happily about the hexameters of Horace and the dactylic hexameters of Virgil. I have rarely seen such enthusiasm on youthful faces. Sad, though, that both Virgil and Horace should that evening have had the stuffing knocked out of them by Degeneration X at WWF Summerslam. I am not sure that it was a fair victory by Triple H, especially as there was interference by Chyna, but the audience was satisfied, having taken strange offence at the two Italian's ludicruous forenames - Quintus and Publius! I agree, though, that Quintus Horace certainly displayed complete and total mastery of stanzaic meters, but it simply wasn't a defence against a drop-kick from the top rope.
I appreciated and was grateful for your justifiable concern that I had falsely attributed an "absolute certainty" to Peter Birchwood. As you observe, though, the impression one receives from his posts is that he does believe that Mike and Ann forged the 'diary' for financial gain. In light of that I thought it quite acceptable to ask him how he mentally resolved the handwriting problem. As you say, though, he seems mightily reluctant to explore his thinking. And I don't really mean that Peter Birchwood should pay for a handwriting analysis. I was merely trying to point out that if to the untrained eyes of several people the 'diary' handwriting looked dissimilar to Mike and Ann's handwriting then it was reasonable to suppose that they possibly didn't write it. If Peter disagreed with that conclusion then some responsibility rested with him to prove the point, even unto paying for a professional analysis, rather than avoid it by claiming an inability to make a qualified judgement.
But the analysis should have been done and maybe the responsibility does rest with those who do not accept the 'diary' is a modern fake, but as Virgil wryly observed when the ring announcer stated that Horace's poetry hadn't been much protection against Triple H's body blows: non omni possumus omnes - which I recall The Rock, as he dashed across the ring to knee Roaddog in the groin, translated as 'we cannot all do everything'. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 01:36 pm | | Oh dear, Peter, the best you can do is try the diversionary tactic of picking up on a mistake of mine and trying to make something of it. Pity you can't instead answer a simple question when it is asked of you.
Clifford Irving wasn't an experienced forger in the sense that Kujau was, but he was a fluent forger and he knew and understood the psychology of what he was doing. There is not evidence that I know of to suggest that Mike and Ann were in the same category. As far as I know they knew nothing about forgery and nothing about the Ripper and nothing about Maybrick and if they forged the 'diary' and came up with the 'man in the pub' cover story, they appear to have known little or nothing about the psychology of those they were planning to con. If you have evidence to show otherwise, I'd be pleased if you presented it here. |
Author: Scott Nelson
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 03:49 pm | | Take the alleged three JtR books that the forger/faker is supposed to have read and see if there is unnecessary emphasis on Abberline's role in the investigation described therein. If there is, the Diary may be a modern forgery/fake. If there isn't significant mention of him, ie, as one who pursued JtR or headed the search, then we should look to an earlier period of time when Abberline's name wasn't so prevalent as it now is in published works. To a time of maybe a jealous contemporary or a descendent of the latter.
Why do this? Take a look at the content of the Diary. The most obvious clue is repeated almost page after page. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 07:34 pm | | PRIORITIES PLEASE!
Sadly, much of the discussion involving the motives for the Diary hoax and the identities of the fakers is misdirected. Where no prosecution is intended, the identities are of no importance. Their motives are of no importance either. In any sound investigation of fakery or forgery the matters of prime importance are the artifacts involved, all else is irrelevant. This may seem strange to those who have never been professionally involved in the examination of fakes, but it is this very lack of involvement which leads them to ask questions that may seem pertinent, but in truth are simplistic and energy-diverting.
Let me expand on this. The search for motives can be a futile exercise. The reasons behind fakery can be many, some simple, some complex. And we may never know the real motives in any given case. They may remain hidden for all time. Or our seemingly reasonable guesses can be confounded by later, quite unexpected, discoveries. There is a fine example of this which arose out of my investigation of the 'Miracle Apparitions at Knock' For over a century there were satisfying explanations for the motives behind the hoax, but they were all shown to be way off-track by the discovery of confidential police reports in the Dublin Castle Archives. (Interested viewers can find all the details in my article in the Spring 2000 issue of 'FREE INQUIRY', New York).
As for the identities of fakers. If they are known, public identification may be inhumane, or of interest only to the morbid, the vindictive, or the I-told-you-so-brigade. I have on file several cases where the identity of fakers is proven but exposure has been withheld. In one case publication would cause great distress to three families; the faker had a complex love life and was trying to run two homes! In another case the faker talked freely about his prowess and showed proofs, but everything had to be 'off the record'; no recorders, no cameras, no Xerox. Further, what can be revealed today, may gain banned status overnight.
What we CAN say about the Diary is that there is not the slightest justification for clinging to the idea that it could be an old forgery. The so-called dating test involving McNeil's methods was dismissed by both the Rendell Committee AND by Smith and Harrison, so that maverick dating can be put out of the reckoning. What we are left with is a text containing material that dates it to a post-1988 artifact. And that, of course, creates problems for people who want to accept the Anne Graham story. In Keith Skinner's case he finds it hard to believe that she is deceiving him. But Keith has bonded with her and, when that happens, it creates emotional problems that make it extraordinarily difficult for the truth to be revealed.
Anyone who watched our programme on the Cottingley Fairies will know what I mean. In that affair the two girl hoaxers took in many "outstanding gentlemen and ladies", who treated them with kindness and trust. As a result the girls could not face the anguish of confession. They shied away from hurting the people who had befriended them.
In later life they found that they had to continue the pretence and lie to their children, who, naturally, wanted to know all about the famous events. Later still they had to lie to their grand-children. Then the time came when they felt the need to confess at last and we captured the event on film. But the truth lay hidden for many years because of the strong emotional ties set up by bonding.
Added to that, is the fact that Keith lacks the long-term experience of dealing with con-men, fakers, and liars. But I have that experience. Such people can be very persuasive. For example, when I studied video-taped interviews with Clifford Irving, I saw someone who was absolutely convincing in those face-to-face interrogations. He was a master of the art of lying sincerely. He could have fooled me easily, IF I had been inexperienced. But over the years, in the course of my work, I have been lied to by the best. They include, lawyers, aristocrats, Members of Parliament, clergymen, university dons, BBC producers, mediums and assorted housewives. And that is just part of the list!
In Anne Graham's case she has an ultra-simple story to tell, free from the complexities that might lead to contradictions. But the text of the Diary shatters the myth that this document is a family heirloom owned for over fifty years before being seen by outsiders. Her father's confused, muddled and badly organised sessions with the Diary camp offer nothing of value. But would he lie to protect his daughter? Why not? He had nothing to lose and such a protective attitude is quite common in families. In the case of the forged Lincoln letters the daughter covered up for her mother. Mother and daughter conspired together in faking the Mussolini diaries. And in the 'Talking Mongoose' case both parents (middle-class, 'highly respectable' types) lied to protect their hoaxing daughter.
But before briefly commenting on the Diary text, we have to ask if Anne's up-to-date track-record still shows the devious streak observed in earlier years. I contend that it does. Back in February 1993, without due cause or prompting, she deliberately cast doubt on the Devereux connection by publicly asking "Did you nick it, Mike?" Consider the implications of such a question. It is the equivalent of her saying "Have you told me the full truth? Did you make up the Devereux tale? Or did you steal it from somewhere and lie to me?"
A year later she was still insisting that she knew nothing about the origins of the Diary other than the Devereux yarn. Her specific words reported in the Liverpool 'Daily Post' on June 27, 1994, were: "He told me he got the diary from Tony Devereux and that is all I know. He is now trying to get back at me because I have left him. The whole thing is an absolute nightmare. But I will fight like a tiger to protect myself and my family against anything he says."
Subsequent to that, on 18th July, just 13 days before the 'New Provenance' emerged, she wrote this to Mike: "As you know I started the divorce proceedings the day the Daily Post printed the story...I don't want to add to your burdens but you left me with no choice after talking to the newspapers."
So, even though the marriage was over, there was no mention of a family connection and no warning that his claim to be the forger could be easily refuted by her. Then, in a later letter she wrote: "I don't want a repeat of the last one...telling me how you are only trying to protect us (I think I realised what a load of rubbish that was after the article in the paper)." As you will see from the two passages I have quoted, nothing is sharp and clear in the Mike/Anne relationship. Nothing is open and forthright. It is enigma after enigma.
But on 22 July Feldman met Anne and testifies that "I went on to tell Anne of my suspicions that the diary had come through the family. I then showed her the page in Morland's book where he referred to Florence calling herself Mrs Graham. I then showed her a private report that I had asked a private investigator to prepare on her background." (p 150)
The result of this pressure and priming, plus the effect of that earlier FOUR HOUR phone call can be imagined. Indeed Feldman concedes that "This report and the page from Nigel Morland's book played on Anne's mind..."These things also suggested a way out for Anne, but first she"..."'created' a story about why the...strange information existed" She then admitted that this story was fabricated!
Not a good record so far. But in her book of 1999 we encounter a carefully thought out distortion of the truth that proves her quite unreliable. On pages 18-19 she writes "According to rumour, it was during one protracted stay in England towards the end of 1879 that Florence embarked on her first love affair. It was even suggested that she gave birth to an illegitimate son as a teenager. The account continues that she placed the child, named William after her father, in the hands of a Hartlepool blacksmith and his wife named Graham and continued to support him financially ...it would seem that there was a fair foundation for the rumours."
This is a deliberately misleading and dishonest section. Her words are chosen to give the impression that Anne is reporting on recorded events from the last century. Yet no dates or sources are given for this alleged rumour. Why? Because it has no historical foundation, and she must know this. What she is repeating is a modern myth created by Feldman. A myth that has been created from nothing but a coincidence in the use of the quite common name Graham. A name, which in Florence's case was simply a truncated form of one of her old family names: that is, Ingraham. A name which she also came to use in its FULL FORM; this is mentioned, but its significance is glossed over in Anne's book.
But the damning texts will not go away. I advise looking back on my earlier postings for a complete run down on the Diary's origins. But, in the meantime, a few reminders are in order. The major Ripper inspiration, Underwood's book, actually speaks of imaginary Ripper writings, including a diary. And in more serious vein it prints the words of James Tully which read: "I live in hope that as the remaining slums of Whitechapel are finally cleared, some hidden documentary evidence of the identity of Jack the Ripper will be found wedged behind a rafter. Or it may well be that, deposited with a solicitor or at a bank somewhere, there is a dusty tin box marked 'Not to be opened for one hundred years' and which contains a complete and evidential confession."
Such words are enough, in themselves, to set someone's mind on the paths of speculation and creation. And that one volume seemed to provide a complete enough account of events to be used as the basis for a flight of fancy. And sure enough, the Diary text reflects that book's facts and errors, step-by-step.
(to be continued...) |
Author: David M. Radka
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 08:01 pm | | I would like to compliment Messrs. Fido, Begg, Skinner, and Harris for their recent civility on these boards. To have them all present at one time, and turning their attentions to deal reasonably with the evidence together, surely must augur the golden age of this web site. For me, this almost a dream come true.
David |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 08:22 pm | | Thanks to Melvin Harris, not only for an
interesting, thought-provoking post, but for
information on Our Lady of Knock. Having grown up
in a devout Roman Catholic household most devoted
to that apparition, I look forward to reading
"Free Inquiry." If anyone can shave some time off
my search by pointing me in the right direction
for a copy, I should be most grateful.
But, alas, I find that I post a simple rumination
on my Diary thoughts, and Paul Begg loses no time
pushing me aside to get to the lovely Karoline
Leach. As we used to say in my school days, "O
tempora! O mores!" Of course, perhaps an "eheu
fugaces" might be more appropriate when
reminiscing about my days crossing Harvard Yard
declining "hic, haec, hoc" and being mistaken for
a drunkard coming off his afternoon tipple. . .
CMD |
Author: Melvin Harris
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 08:42 pm | | When the Diary text places Kelly's breasts on the table and indicates that the heart had been cut out, it follows exactly what Underwood's text led them to believe, since they read: "...on a table by the bed there were little piles of flesh...the breasts, the heart..." (p25).
The Diary goes on to say: "I had a key, and with it I did flee." But, as Abberline reported "I am informed by the witness Barnett that the key has been missing for some time..." This boob has been met by Feldman with claims that the key could have been found or a spare key handed over. The fakers, though, simply took the Underwood text (p26) which does not mention Barnett's testimony and told them only that the door was locked and "...the key was never found." (Many locks, then and now, need no key to make a stage-one closure from outside; spring-loading takes care of that)
"I am convinced God placed me here to kill all whores..." says the Diary, echoing Underwood's passage (p56) "the murderer is a homicidal maniac of religious views, who labours under the morbid belief that he has a destiny in the world to fulfil"
It is Underwood's text that places the Ripper in Middlesex Street and makes the specific connection between Whitechapel, Liverpool and Whitechapel, London. All this reflected in the Diary. This Liverpool element is a strong feature of Underwood's book and is found nowhere else. His book refers FIVE times to the so-called Liverpool Ripper letters and prints them, in full, on page 103. His following comments outline John Morrison's idea that the Ripper posted the letters at Liverpool's WHITECHAPEL General Post Office in order to create a link with Whitechapel London and provide an esoteric taunt at the police. This idea was taken up by the hoaxers and resulted in the Diary text which reads: "Whitechapel Liverpool, Whitechapel London, ha ha. No one could possibly place it together. And indeed for there is no reason for anyone to do so."
And it is Underwood's text which hammers home the idea that the killer came from Liverpool and was named James. On page 84 he reports Morrison speaking about "James the Ripper", and on page 78 he quotes Morrison's branding of an official 'cover-up' as: "James the Rip-off". Morrison's 'James the Ripper' was, of course, not linked with Maybrick, but involved James Kelly. But his words suggested to shrewd Liverpudlians the idea of yet another famous candidate, one linked chronologically with the Ripper murders. A candidate whose life and death were well chronicled in poular literature. 'Murder Casebook No 41' provided a good starting point, while Bernard Ryan's paperback 'The Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick' fleshed out the story in easy-to-grasp detail.
If you examine Ryan's book you will find every Maybrick item in the Diary, even down to single words. Thus when the Diary says: "Frequented my club." and uses the first word wrongly, it has simply picked up on Ryan's words that "James continued to spend frequent evenings 'at the club'..." but the hoaxers failed to understand the meaning of 'frequent'; even though the very chapter heading should have alerted them. It reads: "I frequently tell Jim I hate him"
When Feldman picked up the fact that the diarist had written "Tomorrow I will make a substantial wager" he found this evidential; Maybrick was a gambler, a private letter proved this. But the fakers needed no private letter to inspire them. Page 18 of Ryan told them that "Maybrick's...hand was so liberal with gratuity and wager..." And "James Maybrick made money and spent it...he also made plain, he enjoyed the expensive sport of wagering!"
Then we have the Diary references to the "Exchange" and the "Exchange floor" which Feldman and (unwisely) Judge Hamilton, thought "displayed knowledge" and was "...not something easily known by any modern-day forger." This led Feldman to comment "If this diary was a fake, then it had not been created by an amateur" Really? The obscurity is wholly imaginary. The 'Exchange' appears in Ryan three times on page 23; three times on page 24; and twice on page 26. (It appears also in issue 41 of 'Murder Casebook') Other allegedly 'obscure' bits, like: "it strengthens me", "my medicine", the mistress in Liverpool, the symptoms of arsenic taking, and so on, are all there in Ryan. So much for highly expensive research!
Finally, as I pointed out recently, the suicide thoughts in the Diary are inspired by Ryan, as is the mistaken belief that Michael Maybrick was the "...composer and author of many popular songs" (Ryan p20).
To sum up, there is no possible way in which all this modern material, including the City Police inventory and faulty items, could have been incorporated in a Diary written over fifty years ago. But it could easily have been built into a fake created in 1991. And so it was.
As for the risks taken and the skills needed, these were minimal. The record shows that publishers are not as alert as they should be. That is why Melvyn Fairclough was able to foist crudely faked Abberline papers on the public. When I met his publishers (at their request) a batch of authentic writings by Abberline it was accepted that the examples shown in Fairclough's book were without doubt bogus. Even so the publisher did not feel that he was obliged to do anything at all about it!
When big money is in the offing the will to believe often overrides caution and reason. Robert Harris has written about this at some length. But the promotion of the Diary is proof in itself.
(Footnote:- In his foreword to Anne's book Keith Skinner writes about Alec Voller's discovery of age-bronzing and fading in the Diary ink on 30 October 1995. But Keith is out of touch with the facts. These show that the bronzing is recent. It was not there in 1992, 1993, and 1994. Six independent examiners can vouch for that. And we can now show that the authentic Diamine ink will bronze in under three years. To clinch things we also have Robert Smith's written admission, to Nick Warren, of December 21st 1994 that there were no signs of bronzing. He wrote "Your comment about 'browning' is not, as far as I know, conclusive. I believe iron was used in all commonly-used Victorian inks apart from Indian ink. Yet, I have a large number of Victorian documents, which have not 'bronzed' some of which were examined and compared with the Diary ink by Dr Eastaugh. Neither Dr Eastaugh in his report on aging of the Diary ink (18 June 1993), nor Leeds University, nor Robert A.H. Smith, Assistant Keeper of Manuscripts at the British Library, found a problem with the colour of the ink." NB: This important information has been withheld by Mrs Harrison from her revised paperback, but Voller's words are given at length. Yet this earlier material clearly overrides anything observed years later. Does Keith approve of her actions?
And just a reminder to all who worked on the Diary 'teams': when can we have an answer to my published questions about Robert Johnson's background? The silence is uncanny! |
Author: David M. Radka
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 11:11 pm | | C-M,
Let me try purely from memory, ad hoc as it were:
N hic haec hoc
G huius huius huius
D horum harum horum
A hoc hac ha
A horum harum horum
That may be an abomination. I apologise if it is.
David |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 04:12 am | | Melvin Harris's model post is gratefully received and his explanation about why the identity of the forger(s) and their motive(s) are irrelevant is clear, concise and understandable. I would like to observe, though, that there is nevertheless considerable interest in the people and purpose behind a forgery. It isn't knowing that the Hitler diaries are crude forgeries that makes Robert Harris's book Selling Hitler such compelling reading, it is the people, the psychology and the unfolding of an extraordinary story which grips and entertains - and most importantly, from which the lessons are learned. And because people like a mystery, they will continue to speculate about the authorship of the 'diary' for years to come, just as people have speculated for two generations and more about the Cottingley Fairies. The only way we can properly end the 'diary' story - and unmuddy the waters of meaningful study and research in the process - is by identifying the forgers and telling their story. As with the Cottingley Fairies, knowing that the photographs were not genuine and that the most probable fabricators were the girls wasn't enough. It took a confession to make the headlines and finally lay the story to rest.
And that is what the current debate is about, trying in traditional fashion to create a hypothesis which incorporates most of the known 'facts' so that it can be tested. And I couldn't agree more that the search for motives is often a waste of time, for when the truth is known the speculation is often shown to be quite different from the theorising - which is what I meant in some of my previous posts when I commented that mysteries were often like magic tricks, simple and obvious when explained. But until the facts emerge, there really isn't much alternative to theorising and if we don't theorise then very often knowledge and understanding doesn't advance and the waters are not merely muddied, they are stagnant too. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 05:04 am | | Hi All,
That old slave-driver Skinner has managed to squeeze one more post out of me before my departure.
It will appear here as if by magic very shortly.
Please bear in mind, I have not yet sent him any posts since that of June 14th @ 04.04am. I’ll rectify that as soon as poss.
I’d just like to say, before I pop off for a while, how much I appreciate Peter Birchwood’s eminently sensible suggestion of setting up a fund for any future scientific tests that any contributors feel would be of benefit. I have no idea how much professional handwriting analyses cost, but I would obviously prefer not to have to cough up on my own, especially if I am the only person who thinks any of this MIGHT be productive.
Having said that, I find myself having a good deal of sympathy with Melvin’s points in his post of June 14th @ 07.34pm regarding exposure of the forgers.
BUT, and it’s a big but IMHO, what if we were to pay for the very best people in the field of handwriting analysis, and the resulting expert opinions across the board suggested that neither Mike nor Anne nor Devereux nor Billy nor Albert nor Robbie could have penned the Diary? It would not then be a case of exposing any of these people or their families to distress. On the contrary, it would remove the distress and sense of injustice caused to any possibly innocent parties whose characters and actions have been constantly under attack these last few years.
Or is the general consensus that there is not enough faith in handwriting analysis to conclusively prove anything anyway?
Which brings me back to the original question of whether the analysis would be productive.
Would we all, depending on the results we got, then become overnight experts on how expert we think the experts really are, and still remain entrenched in our individual proven/not proven views?
Anyway, I should be gone from this place by now so apologies for not keeping my trap shut!
Enjoy yourselves and remember, Omnibus - vivamus atque amemus or ‘let’s enjoy a bit of slap and tickle on public transport’….
Love,
Caz ‘Catullus’ Morris AD MM
Osculum osculum |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 05:10 am | | From Keith Skinner To Peter Birchwood
In your post of June 13th 2000, you wrote to Paul Begg the following:-
“And lastly, there is still, in this best of all possible worlds, the possibility that the diary is old. Perhaps one day we will hear from an old friend of Anne’s in Australia that she had told him in the 1970s that her father had the diary of Jack the Ripper.”
I can’t tell you how delighted I am that, 10 months after this story was brought to my notice, it should be given a public airing by you. You’ve got the detail slightly wrong of course but this is your prerogative and is to be expected.
But who is this old friend of Anne’s in Australia and why should he be believed?
Why did this old friend, 10 months ago, suddenly come forward at such a late date?
Why has Anne Graham never mentioned this old friend in Australia, in the past 10 months, (or since July 1994), who could support her story?
And what is Anne Graham’s response to this development?
Well – she’s never been asked. Why not? Because she has a track record of deception and lies. The lady is discredited.
Now go back to your source, determine the facts accurately, and you might just understand why this story is being treated with extreme caution and scepticism. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 05:42 am | | ALL!!!!!,
LETTER CARVINGS FOUND ON MARY'S FACE
I redirect you to the post of George Sitouriou 6/14 7:30 pm under Topics->Ripper Victims->Markings on Mary Jane Kelly
Can anyone confirm this finding seperately on the photograph this person meant? Can anyone confirm the finding on pre-diary photograph version? Or is this a prank?
He found the word 'FIVE' carved up in Mary's face. |
Author: Karoline L
Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 06:51 am | | Paul,
Darling i thought you'd never ask. take me away from all this madness.
Caz,
I have to apologise again. I seem to keep upsetting you, without knowing why.
You said:
"none of us contributing at present (Mark seems to be absent) appear to believe JM wrote the thing anyway. We all seem to be wondering who did"
So I gathered from this that Maybrick was out of the frame, and this is why I thanked you for telling me you'd all decided the diary wsn't genuine.
I'm truly sorry if you think I've misrepresented you somehow.
Keith,
thank you for your post.
But(as usual) we are at cross purposes.
I totally agree with you that Ann might not have been party to the forgery
You really don't have to convince me of this.
I know.
I'm just suggesting that the objective evidence suggests she probably was.
Surely you must concede that?
I think Melvin's post makes the point that in the end it is only hard evidence that counts.
Personal impressions of people's characters, and speculation about what MAY have happened or who MAY have done this or that isn't a substitute for investigation.
So, Keith, Caz, anyone, I can only repeat my plea.
Melvin has done a fine job of putting the hard evidence in favour of a modern forgery.
Keith, Caz, anyone, could you please reciprocate by doing the same for your case?
Could you give us your good hard evidential reasons for believing the thing to be an old forgery, rather than a modern scam?
And best of luck with the handwriting analysis.
karoline |
|
|
|
|
