|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 HOAX: MYOPIA AGAIN.
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Articles by Melvin Harris:
THE MAYBRICK HOAX: MYOPIA AGAIN.
Author: Melvin Harris
Friday, 20 November 1998 - 07:40 am |        | In 1994 I drew Shirley Harrison's attention to her misuse of the P.C. Spicer story of March 1931. (This appeared in the 'Daily Express' under the heading "I CAUGHT JACK THE RIPPER") She had taken on board a garbled version of the story wangled to fit in with the Maybrick fantasy. It was a version I first heard from Feldman! This year, Mrs Harrison has in practice acknowledged that the text she once used was distorted and in conflict with Spicer's original claims. But back in 1994 she was not willing to concede anything that weakened her case. Instead she enlisted the support of Paul Begg to provide her with excuses - and he did. In that way he gave her a means of avoiding her responsibilities.
With my original letter I sent Mrs Harrison a photocopy of the complete column from the 'Express'; so no misunderstandings should have been possible. Incredibly enough, though, Begg then wrote her this grotesque piece:
'Harris makes mistakes as I have already demonstrated, but let me highlight another, a small but possibly important one. On pg 4 Harris writes "the man arrested 'turned out to be a highly respected doctor and gave a Brixton address' Note well the wording. Spicer does not say that the POSED as a doctor; that he gave a false identity. He is stating that the man WAS a highly respected doctor". Harris supplied a copy of a newspaper article. Show me where Spicer said the man turned out to be a highly respected doctor. All I can find is Spicer saying that the station inspector "asked me what I meant by arresting a man who proved to be a respectable doctor" Spicer then went on to question the inspector "What is a respectable doctor doing with a notorious woman" It's a small point ...Nevertheless Spicer did *not* say what Harris ascribes to him'
On reading that bilge, and that's what it was, I sent a second photocopy of the 'Express' article to Mrs Harrison and MARKED the passage that, according to Begg, did not exist. The words I quoted were drawn from the section immediately following a sub-heading "THE BROWN BAG". They read: "He turned out to be a highly respected doctor and gave a Brixton address." They are Spicer's own written words, forming part of the letter he wrote to the 'Express'. So my quote was faultless; BUT BEGG WAS SO ANXIOUS TO FIND FAULT THAT HE BLINDED HIMSELF. It is not the only such example of his malady which I have now labelled Seething Myopia, (an overactive state that prevents him from seeing what's there in front of him).
One would have thought that the Spicer fiasco would have taught him a lesson, but NO; he is at it again with his other statements. But I want to concentrate on his remarks on the AFI report. Someone less polite than I am would have reacted with some ripe and robust language, but I prefer the gentler, diplomatic approach and choose to think that, at times, Begg is 'logically and perceptually disadvantaged'.
Harsh? Consider the evidence. I stated that Begg's 'A to Z' entry was written without consulting the essential primary source, the AFI report. Begg retorted thus: "We had a copy of the report and consulted it." I then said: "I reject that claim. If he HAD done so he would have spotted at once that the figure he used related to a TEST SAMPLE. And he would have instantly recognised that Mr Kazlauciunus had erred"
Begg now makes this damning statement: "Neither figure of 1.45 nanograms or 0.00000000145 of a gram is included in the AFI report, so I'm not sure how by reading the AFI report I 'would have spotted at once that the figure he used related to a TEST SAMPLE' and 'instantly recognised that Mr Kazluacinus had erred'. The figure was in fact taken from a letter written by Melvin Harris, not the AFI report..."
Let me emphasise those opening words of Begg: "NEITHER FIGURE OF 1.45 NANOGRAMS OR 0.00000000145 OF A GRAM IS INCLUDED IN THE AFI REPORT..." This is from a man who claims to have READ that report and is putting his reputation on the line. In light of his clear claim readers will no doubt be astonished and bewildered and perhaps disgusted to discover that the figure of 1.45 nanograms IS SHOWN THREE TIMES IN THE AFI REPORT.
That report is neither lengthy nor complex. Page One, line 21, reads: "Further dilutions also were made and it was found possible to identify a peak on the chromatograms produced as low as 1.45 nanograms injected into the chromatograph." Then, four lines up from the bottom of the page, we have this text: "*Chromatogram B* This shows the peak produced when 1.45 nanograms of chloroacetamide in acetone was injected." Page Three of the reports shows the graph created by the TEST SAMPLE B and above the identified chloroacetamide peak is written: "1.45 ng."
His statements are beyond belief especially since an extra and plainly MARKED copy of the report was sent to him following publication of his disputed entry! But the markings meant nothing. He only sees what he wants to see. In fact the very letter of mine that he mentions was itself accompanied by a copy of the report and my own comments on that report referred to one weight only: the weight of TEST-SAMPLE B.
Now this question of weight was only one segment of the faults identified in Begg's text, BUT IT IS IMPORTANT. The 'A to Z' does not exist in a vacuum; it circulates in a field which picks up the spoken and written smears that have originated from within the Diary camp. These range from the outright lies that I had a quantity of chloroacetamide in my hands, that I broke the seals on the samples to get at them, and that the tests were rigged with contaminated samples; to the fall-back lie that AFI used CONTAMINATED EQUIPMENT to get their results.
This fall-back position depends on the weight of the detected chloroacetamide in the INK-SAMPLE being IDENTICAL with the weight of that used in test-sample B that preceded it, since that would automatically make the AFI test invalid. (And this is the error made by Mr Kazlauciunas when he suggested that the test-sample weight could have remained attached to the column of AFI's apparatus and thus be picked up at the next and crucial test).
This is why the figure of 1.45 nanograms was bandied around by Feldman and his cronies. If that figure WAS TRUE then the test was dud. Then, strange to relate, that self-same erroneous figure was written in to the 'A to Z'; and written in by Begg, the man who looks, but doesn't see. BUT NO WEIGHT WAS EVER GIVEN FOR THE CHLOROACETAMIDE FOUND IN THE INK-SAMPLES. NO WEIGHT WAS NEEDED. THE TEST WAS SIMPLY MADE TO DETECT THE PRESENCE OF THAT COMPOUND, AND NO MORE. THE WEIGHT WAS IRRELEVANT. The AFI report makes that plain. Its opening states: "Required to investigate the possibility of the ink spots containing chloroacetamide." Its conclusion states: "...chloroacetamide was indicated to be present in the ink used." Apart from that, their apparatus tested super-clean BEFORE the ink-test was made.
It is this continual misrepresentation that I find repulsive. And it is always to the benefit of Feldman & Co. But then it is typical of the sort of lax and wet standards that were tolerated and indeed encouraged by the commercial exploitation of the Diary. All the money spent on research was aimed at justification not verification. And there is plenty of evidence to prove this. It is not the original Diary fakery that I find objectionable but the questionable justification and marketing of that fake.
Once again I have to remind believers that if the Diary text had been in typed form no one would have taken it seriously. As it is, we now have two books pushing the nonsense at the public and a third mutation is promised. This is the 'Maybrick book' being part written by Anne Barrett and described by the publishers as a Ripper book!! When I first heard of this venture I held back from writing my promised piece on McCormick, since this has direct bearing on Anne Barrett's claims. I wanted her to disclose any fresh nonsense she has dreamed up before I went into print. I now gather that she has committed herself and the book is in type, so the time is now ripe for the final act.
By the way, Feldman's paperback IS a revised version. It includes Feldman's triumphant account of his visit to the Cloak and Dagger Club on Feb 7th 1998. It even includes a rewritten section on the Woodhall postcard fiasco; an account that is still absurd and still talks about the non-existent postcard sent: "soon after Sept 9, [1888]". But there has been no attempt to revise, or retract any of those sections that have been identified as bogus: the altered text of the Winslow 'Ripper' letter, for example. No more excuses please.
Melvin Harris |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 20 November 1998 - 11:35 am | | Congratulations to Mr Harris! Yet again he's switched to something wholly irrelevant. Yet again he attempts to make a mountain out of a molehill. Yet again there's no apology for the things he wrote when I said he'd given two different reasons for not naming the forgers. Yet again… But why go on? His tactics (if not his motive) must surely be clear to everyone by now.
Instead, he twists Shirley Harrison's request for advice on a Ripper-related matter into her enlisting me 'to provide her with excuses' - a very warped vision of events, peculiarly so for someone who headed their tiresome piece 'Myopia Again'. Let me simply respond to Mr Harris' nasty word-playing trickery with the direct statement that Shirley Harrison has not ever asked me 'to provide her with excuses' and from what I know of this nice lady, she would not ever ask me 'to provide her with excuses', and, had she done so, I would not have provided her with excuses.
Turning to the Spicer material, Mr Harris is perfectly correct that Spicer is quoted under the sub-head "The Brown Bag" as saying: "He turned out to be a highly respected doctor and gave a Brixton address." As for my comments, however, Mr Harris quotes from a long and hurried personal letter to Shirley Harrison and armed with only half the facts he jumps to the wrong conclusions - a bit of a habit, as we've seen. As I later explained to Shirley, my criticism was of Melvin Harris's statement that the man arrested by Spicer was a Brixton doctor. There is no evidence that this was the case. Nowhere in the article does Spicer say that the man's claim to be a Brixton doctor was verified.
Indeed, it was an identification which Spicer himself arguably disputed when, as the article says, Spicer asked the station Inspector: "What is a respectable doctor doing with a notorious woman at a quarter to two in the morning?" Now, as Martin Fido once observed, it hardly required much imagination to work out what a man was doing down a dark alley with a 'notorious' prostitute in the early hours of the morning! So one can't seriously suppose that that was the point of Spicer's question. Nor is it really probable that Spicer was arguing the fine point of whether such a man who consorted with common prostitutes could be fairly described as respectable. No, Spicer was quite clearly questioning whether or not the man really was a Brixton doctor. And if Spicer was questioning that identification then he clearly did not know and did not say that the man was 'a highly respected doctor'. Spicer was merely repeating what the man claimed to be and what the station Inspector accepted him as being.
This is clear even from the quote cited by Melvin Harris. The man and the woman, Rosy, were sitting on a brick-built dustbin. "She has 2s in her hand, and she followed me when I took Jack on suspicion. He turned out to be a respected doctor and gave a Brixton address. His shirt cuffs still had blood on them. Jack had the proverbial bag with him (a brown one). The was not opened, and he was allowed to go.' A little later in the article Spicer refers back to the incident saying that prior to being taken to the Station, the man "evaded my questions when I challenged him. 'That's no business of yours.' He replied when I asked him what he was doing. 'Oh, isn't it?' I replied. 'Then you come along with me,' and I marched him off to the police station, with the woman following... "
Clearly what happened is that Spicer arrested the man and took him to Commercial Street Police Station. There the man said he was a doctor and gave a Brixton address (and in those words 'gave a' we can see that this was not verified information; Spicer was simply saying that at the Station the man identified himself as a doctor and gave a Brixton address). This information seems to have been accepted and the man was released, the police not even bothering to look inside his bag. And THAT is why Spicer disputed that a respectable doctor would have been down a dark alley with a notorious prostitute. And THAT is why I queried Mr Harris's positive assertion that the man was a doctor.
Overall, I have to say that this is not a case of myopia, unless the myopia be Mr Harris's, but a point arising out of a careful and critical reading of the source document.
As for the AFI report, I regret that while I did check the AFI report before saying that it did not contain either figure, my photocopy has now become badly faded, particularly down a damaged section in the middle of the page where Mr Harris says the figures are given. I will supply a copy to Stephen Ryder, who will no doubt verify the truth of my words. Not that this really matters in the least. As has been stated more times than I now care to recall, the figure was taken from a letter by Mr A. Kazalaucinus of the Wolfson Laboratory at Leeds University, who in turn took it from a letter to Shirley Harrison by Melvin Harris. Mr Kazalaucinus interpreted the figure correctly - hence he did not 'err', as Mr Harris has repeatedly asserted - but we did not. We erroneously thought the figure related to the quantity of chloroacetamide found in the ink sample. We gave this information for interests sake only, drew no conclusions from it and made no comment whatsoever.
Overall the A to Z gives a fair and balanced account of the "Diary" story and I defie anyone to come away from reading it with the impression that the "Diary" is genuine, especially given the very clear statement that according to the handwriting evidence 'Maybrick did not write the journal'. Mr Harris is simply indulging in pettyfogging nastiness over tiny points that honestly don't matter.
Mr Harris writes that the A to Z 'circulates in a field which picks up the spoken and written smears that have originated from within the Diary camp'. I'd like to say that this is utter tripe, but frankly I don't know what he's prattling on about. He does seem desperately keen to link the A to Z with the "Diary" in some way, but he is flogging a dead horse. Neither the book nor its authors have at any time EVER suggested or leant any weight to the suggestion that Mr Harris in any way, at any time tampered with the ink samples. Indeed, I personally refuted that suggestion and have continued to do so, even on the Casebook. To my certain knowledge so did Keith Skinner and Martin Fido and to the very best of my knowledge with Shirley Harrison. It was a suggestion - or rather more a question - made by one person and one person only, namely Paul Feldman, and I think it has been withdrawn by him on the site.
Whatever Mr Kazlauciunas wrote and why he wrote it is for him to answer, not the authors' of the A to Zwho did no more than quote (accurately) a figure which they (inaccurately) supposed was the quantity of chloroacetamide found in the ink.
Mr Harris now says that he's 'held back from writing my promised piece on McCormick, since this has direct bearing on Anne Barrett's' book about Florence Maybrick because, he writes, 'I wanted her to disclose any fresh nonsense she has dreamed up before I went into print. I now gather that she has committed herself and the book is in type, so the time is now ripe for the final act.'
I question Mr Harris's motive. He claims that the "Diary" books pollute knowledge, yet he sits back withholding the very information which could end that pollution. This sounds to me the action of someone less concerned with stopping the pollution and more interested in 'having a go' at an individual. Not at all nice, especially when one considers that if Mr Harris had revealed the identity of the forgers back in 1994 we'd not have had Paul Feldman's book, Shirley Harrison's revised edition, or, who knows, Ann Graham's. We also wouldn't have this Casebook or the "Diary" discussion thereon and millions of people might have saved their money and time. Yes, indeed, I question the motives, the withheld information and Mr Harris's whole purpose in continuing this constant goalpost-moving load of tripe. Give it a rest, Melvin. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Tuesday, 24 November 1998 - 04:39 am | | THE MAYBRICK HOAX: MYOPIA RULES!
True to form Begg obscures the real issues in dispute by once more waffling on about my fakers postings. I said there were TWO of mine. Begg chose to ignore that by failing to quote any of my own words. He opted instead for a second-hand statement that turned out to be in error. But it suited him to quote that, just as it suited him to ignore the TWO postings I referred to. Any sensible person would have recognised that if I had wanted to invoke the words quoted by Begg then I would have spoken of THREE postings. But Begg sees only what he wants to see, as his Spicer waffle proves.
The Spicer fiasco has nothing at all to do with any words of mine, or any ideas of mine. IT INVOLVED SPICER'S OWN WORDS as accurately quoted by me and as confirmed by the 'Daily Express' photocopy sent to Mrs Harrison and seen by Begg. Begg asserted that the words I quoted did not exist. He said that twice. He was wrong twice. And I had to send a second, marked copy of the photocopy to open his eyes. He looks, but does not see- when it suits him. His past conduct is relevant; it throws light on his present day muddle.
For now we have the whingeing excuse that he looked at the AFI report but could not read what was on it; his copy grew faded, so he says. What a pathetic admission. He claimed that the report did not mention the figure of 1.45 nanograms. As I have shown it appears THREE TIMES. But note, his dogmatic statement was not qualified by any claim that he found it hard to read his copy! Apart from that, no competent researcher would dream of drawing conclusions from a document he could not read. We are not dealing with a unique piece of the Dead Sea scrolls, but a photocopy that could have been replaced within a day or two. I could have supplied him with a copy; so could Nick Warren. So you see just how dismal his standards are. Having said that, I have to remind readers that I sent AN EXTRA MARKED COPY together with a covering letter after the 'A to Z' appeared. That letter drew attention to the fact that the figure used related to a TEST SAMPLE. Then Nick Warren independently faxed a copy of the report. So are we to believe that the dreaded fade-monster has been at work on all those further documents? We are talking now about FOUR DOCUMENTS!
Still unwilling to read things straight, Begg gets the simple point about the 'A to Z', completely muddled up. That book, together with my books and everybody else's books, circulates in a narrow field that is also permeated by the gossip and lies that I have identified. Those lies were not "a suggestion -or rather more a question- made by one person..." as Begg the Apologist tries to make out. They were POSITIVE ASSERTIONS made by Feldman and others who believed him. By using a false weight for the discovered chloroacetamide the 'A to Z' seemed to confirm the idea that the test sample had polluted the ink test. This was not the intention of the compilers of that book, just the result of lax standards. But it takes YEARS to get correction to any 'A to Z' texts. So why should I have to correct people who imagine that they are reading the truth? It is that simple, but myopia rules.
As for motives. I gave Shirley Harrison some sound advice: it was ignored. When Colin Wilson was in touch with both Anne Barrett and Feldman I gave him some further sound advice: once more it was ignored. So now I am not prepared to waste any more time on the stubborn. I am now quite happy to let people go their own wayward ways and commit themselves to print. If they are honest they have nothing to fear. If not, Nemesis awaits: and rightly so.
Melvin Harris |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 24 November 1998 - 08:00 am | | How can we ask the little ones to observe the rules of courtesy and respect when their elders set such a bad example?
Maybe it would best if you simply submitted your terms of complete capitulation, Mr. Harris, since raking over this esoterica is boring, unenlightening, and self-serving. Personal accusations and attacks are not welcome here.
"I gave Shirley Harrison some sound advice: it was ignored. When Colin Wilson was in touch with both Anne Barrett and Feldman I gave him some further sound advice: once more it was ignored." How many more people 'owe' you for your valuable advice? What's the price you set for them? "He claimed that the report did not mention the figure of 1.45 nanograms. As I have shown it appears THREE TIMES." Nanograms? Upon such small units of measure this 'debate' is protracted? Enough. Please.
People make mistakes. People admit them and move on. If something further is required, such as someone demanding that they be recognized/thanked/looked-up to/whatever for repeatedly 'exposing' other people, attempting to make them look like a characterization of Infamy/Avarice/Ignorance/Deceit...I think that goes too far, don't you? If you want recognition and respect, this is not the way to go about it.
Please. Enough. Please.
Yazoo |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 24 November 1998 - 08:21 am | | Hi Melvin,
As I quoted your works recently to Paul Begg as one of the grounds for my assumption for the diary most likely being a hoax, Paul answered that he too accepted the diary as being forged and was himself interested (which I am not) in who the forger(s) might be.
Paul Begg does not appear to me to be someone who still hangs desperately on the story of the diary being real, i.e. written my Maybrick/JTR even if he did believe it once.
Have I misunderstood your point?
Bob |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 24 November 1998 - 09:54 am | | Hi Gang! Tedium time again, but I'll be as brief as brief can be. I wasn't trying to obscure anything - the so-called 'fakers posting' is and for a very long time has been the real issue in dispute. However, Melvin has tried to obscure things by gross evasion and loads of dirty tricks like accusing me of ignoring this, not quoting that, and twisting words and motives out of recognition, which is why this debate has gone on for longer than Gunsmoke, but not been half as entertaining.
So, I did NOT choose to ignore anything Melvin Harris said. I did NOT fail to quote Mr Harris's own words. I was NOT selective in what I chose to quote. I did NOT ignore the two postings referred to (I actually quoted them). And I have now demonstrated the inaccuracy of these statements time and time over.
Mr Harris practices the most gross evasion, wriggles and squirms and changes his arguments with the wind. Here I am supposed to have ignored his words and 'opted instead for a second-hand statement'. Not long ago he accused me of ignoring his words 'in favour of two second-hand statements, only one of which even involved the Casebook." (see "The Maybrick Hoax: A Round Up"). It is truly baffling. Mr Harris claims that he stands for accuracy and fairness and decency (and I honestly believe that these things are important to him) yet at every turn he engages in thoroughly tacky tactics - like perverting Shirley Harrison's perfectly honest request for advice into enlisting my help to 'provide her with excuses' - and is gleefully rude and offensive at every opportunity.
As everyone must by now know very clearly, I quoted two excuses given on the Casebook by Mr Harris for not naming the forgers. One of those quotes was taken from a post placed on the Casebook by Stephen Ryder at the express wish of Mr Harris and which had remained uncorrected on site for about a year, from which it seemed reasonable to assume that it was accurate. In fact Mr Harris had not checked or asked anyone to check the accuracy of the posting on his behalf and Mr Harris says he was misquoted by Stephen. That's fine by me. But Mr Harris had by this time accused me of misrepresentation, taking words out of context, and talking 'crass nonsense'. None of which was true. No big deal, but it would have been nice if Mr Harris had done the decent thing and apologised.
But that doesn't really matter, because the whole stupid argument only served to obscure what IS the REALissue, namely Mr Harris's refusal to name the three forgers. It is understood that that he has twice claimed to be prevented from doing so by legal reasons. Keith Skinner understood those legal reasons to be that the "Diary" is under investigation by the police. Keith understands - and after recent inquires so do I - that the "Diary" is not under investigation by the police. The question, now asked numerous times, is whether or not this is true and, if it is true, whether Mr Harris can now name the three forgers and, if not, whether he can explain what legal reasons prevent him from doing so.
As for the so-called 'Spicer fiasco', it has everything to do with Melvin Harris's words because it was Melvin Harris's words I was disputing, namely his claim that Spicer said the man 'WAS a doctor'. A claim Mr Harris capitalised for emphasis. Now, I had read the relevant paragraph under 'The Brown Bag', as I think any sensible person familiar with my work would have realised - I don't think my work reveals me to be someone particularly lacking in an eye for such detail. I don't expect Mr Harris to agree because the alternative would be having to admit he'd made a mistake. But far from not seeing what was before my eyes, as Mr Harris imagines, I was saying that a careful reading of the report suggests (and I'd go so far as to say shows) that Spicer did NOT say the man was a doctor and indeed disputed that identification with his Inspector. It seems quite clear that the man refused to answer Spicer's questions and was taken to the police station where he identified himself as a doctor and gave a Brixton address (this being the bit under 'The Brown Bag' sub-heading). He was allowed to go without even his bag being checked. Spicer then disputed the identification/decision, asking "What is a respectable doctor doing with a notorious woman?" This was explained to Shirley Harrison in a letter at the time.
Turning to the business of the AFI report - oh my God! Harris has got me! Life is over! Where's the gun. Chums, I must do the decent thing…!
You know, feeling a little narked by Melvin Harris effectively calling me a liar,I took a quick shufty at my most accessible copy of the AFI report - a faxed copy and now badly faded. I did not immediately see any figures and I wrote accordingly. I WAS WRONG. OOOPS! SORRY.
And I suppose that's the difference between Mr Harris and me. I don't call Melvin a liar. I don't intimate that he's incompetent because he doesn't check to make sure that messages posted on his behalf are correct. I don't squirm and wriggle instead of admitting that I've made a mistake. I don't try to diminish those with whom I dispute points with rudeness and insults. I don't (knowingly) twist people's words around. I don't interpret what they say or do in the very worst possible light. I dotry to get my facts right. I am honest and I try to be accurate. The A to Z contains errors - no book of that size and that complexity could hope to be free of them and that is why from the very first edition we actively solicited corrections, so that the book can be improved from one edition to the next. But I don't think correcting mistakes and establishing facts is what really matters to Melvin Harris. The error about the nanograms figure published in the A to Z was acknowledged ages and ages ago. How the mistake was made was stated ages and ages ago. For anyone interested in correcting mistakes and establishing the facts, that job has been done. Melvin's obsession with that figure doesn't strike me as the pursuit of truth and accuracy. It is part of a campaign waged by Melvin Harris against me personally. He wants to demonstrate that I don't measure up to his high standards. But, of course, nobody does. That's why he stands head and shoulders above everyone else, why his views, his opinions and his interpretations are correct and everyone else's is wrong.
It must be tough being God. |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 24 November 1998 - 11:15 am | | It seems clear that whatever issues separate you two, they run deep, create wounds and scars, and won't be easily healed. Harris tries to prove fraud, deceit, avarice, whatever against Begg -- dragging his name to the ground and through the mud. Understandably, Begg objects and counters.
I'll address myself to Harris. Surely you must realize that any points you have to make against Begg, you've already done so. If the mud sticks to Begg nothing further he can say can wash it away. If the mud fails to stick nothing further you can say will make it stick.
This sounds very much like a private dispute. But this isn't the private mail, Mr. Harris. Opening electronic billboards and posting every single minute peripheral collatoral subjective scrap of misunderstandings and myopia invites public scrutiny and response. This a publis, shared space. My personal response is "Please stop." Take this outside if you have to continue.
I never thought Harris was the one who posted the nasty messages against Begg. He strikes me as a man who would not hide either his opinions or disguise his name -- in fact, he seems radically the opposite!
I'm asking you, Mr. Harris, if not for anyone else, think of the people who agree with you, support you, and -- probably against your wishes -- put themselves at risk with vicious postings. You don't have anything to lose by continuing this argument. In fact, it seems you want to gain Paul Begg's complete and total capitulation and humiliation. Can't stop you from trying. But think of those little ones. It's their small fortunes, their futures, maybe some of their freedoms that they are in jeopardy of losing -- and I think it just that part of that burden rests on your shoulders by the example you set. If for no one else, for no ther reason, think of your supporters and call a halt. Please.
Yazoo |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 24 November 1998 - 11:26 am | | Hi Yazoo
I think Mr Harris's final paragraph is the cessation to this squabble which both you and I would welcome.
Paul |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 24 November 1998 - 11:40 am | | I hope so. But this has been a painful thing to witness. No matter how many "final" words are uttered, there's always seems just one more point that maybe will tip the scales....
For those kids' sakes, I hope it is over.
Yaz |
Author: avala
Tuesday, 24 November 1998 - 11:54 am | | ad infinitum...............
Yazoo, you do deserve get the last word regarding this little in-family squabble.Now if you only fess up to being a team of prolific savants we shall all go away satisfied...
....and now for something completely different ( nudge nudge wink wink) ;-) |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 24 November 1998 - 03:22 pm | | In just 31 days it will be christmas and good will toward men..
I wish all on the board a very good evening and a very good night. My evening is already (hic!) half through.
Bob at home |
Author: Derek Wood
Thursday, 17 December 1998 - 09:38 am | | Having got the diary video a few years ago, what
is the current state of 'Maybrick as Ripper' theory.It seem to me that we'll never know who the
Ripper was! |
Author: Mick Lyden
Wednesday, 13 January 1999 - 04:33 pm | | I believe the diary to be a fake for the following reasons
1) I think the reason that a number of pages were missing is because the diary was obtained from a junk shop (probably about ten year ago), Of course the diary belonged to any old Joe Bloggs.
The forger then removed the unwanted pages and began from there.
2) After reading through the transcript of the diary in Shirley Harrisons book ,I had the overwelming impreasion that the forger was trying to cram in as many facts which he had obliously taken from the books ,dress them up and ad silly little rhymes. the latter touch giving the impression of someone who is slightly insane.The wrighting in the diary contains no new information or anything that could not be obtained from any of the books.
3) Apart from the fact that the hand writing did not match Maybricks, another huge inconsistancy is the fact that the hoaxer talked about removing Mary Kellys breasts and living them on the table when recent evidence proves that it was in fact the flesh from the thighs that had been removed and pilled on the bedside table.
4) Finally, if the information from the police files is made available to researchers wishing to authenticate the diary then it must surely be available to hoaxers posing as reseachers. |
Author: Bob_c
Thursday, 14 January 1999 - 04:15 am | | Hi Mick,
The diary is not quite as easy to disprove as you'd think, despite most of your points being valid. Let me say first of all that I, like many others, also believe it to be a fake.
The flyleaf to the original diary showed square stain marks consistent with those in a photo album. The first 48 pages were removed. Now, that is in such circles already enough to make the diary suspect, but not to prove it a hoax. Maybrick himself could have taken an old photo album from the attic, cut out used pages and written his meanderings on the rest. My points to the diary protagonists are however:
If Maybrick wrote his diary just for himself, and not for the eyes of others, why chop out the pages? If he wrote that it be read at some time, that was a direct admission of his being Jack. Why go to the bother of writing such a load of mostly inconsistent and unlikely drivel, risking from the beginning that the (genuine) diary would be therefore held as a hoax? If he wanted to confess before his death, why didn't he just confess? If he wanted it to be known after his death, in whom did he confide to ensure its being known? Why didn't the confidant publish and cash in?
Maybrick may have been sometimes under the influence of poisons (arsenic) but he wasn't continuously insane. He proved that at the writing of his will. Let us forget that Maybrick, if he wanted to chop up prostitutes, could much more easily have done in the Liverpool ladies, being, so to speak, outside his door. But he also couldn't leap into his Ferrari and screech down the motorway to London in 1888. There is not even proof that Maybrick was in Whitechapel, or even London, at the period or at all. If he was, he would have to take a long and wearisome journey by horse, coach or rail, arrive tired, sweaty and dishevelled, trot through the streets of London all night, seeking his victim, kill, reverse his tracks back home, the while hiding bloodstains etc. and arrive home in broad daylight with servants all around without raising suspicion etc. etc.
Your second point follows my feelings.
Kelly's breasts were, according to Dr. Thomas Bond, who examined her at the scene, laid one under her head with uterus and kidneys, the other by the right foot. That is just one of many points that can be held against the diary, but again IF Maybrick had dunnit, he could have forgotten where he laid the breasts in the excitement and later written it false in the diary.
Your last point just highlights the above described doubts on the diary. Nothing really substantive. Many statements in the diary seem to be conclusive and not to question, but when you start seriously researching they tend to vanish in the haze. All in all not satisfactory.
The works of Melvin Harris on this subject are fairly conclusive, if a little vitriolic (my opinion, Melvin, don't get sour) or Sugden's if you like it a little gentler.
Regards
Bob |
Author: Mick Lyden
Thursday, 04 February 1999 - 03:44 pm | | Hi Bob C,
First of all thanks for your reply to my comments last month about the Maybrick diary, although I made it clear that I believed the diary to be a fake, I do agree that it is an impressive one and not so easy to disprove. I have read Paul Feldmans’ weighty book and found it fascinating and difficult to put down. Talking of diaries, what about the ones, which provide the basis for Melvyn Faircloughs’ book ‘The Ripper and The Royals’. In his collaboration with Joseph Sickert, Fairclough regurgitates the old William Gull, John Netley and Robert Anderson story, adding details that he held back in the Stephen Knight book. Mr Sickert (Joseph) claims that amongst others he has the diary supposedly written by inspector Abberline. In his diary Abberline gives the initials of the people involved in the ‘ripper gang’ murders. They are WWG, JN and RC – William Withey Gull, John Netley and Randolph Churchill respectively. I have to admit this book ‘gave me real fits’ and I can only suppose that Mr Sickert was a bit hard up and needed the cash! But seriously though Bob, I would appreciate your comments on these matters. Of course I am assuming that you have read Melvyn Faircloughs’ book.
I am at the moment concentrating on Joseph Barnett and reading all I can about the man and shall report my findings and theories at a later date. And finally, are you of the same opinion as I, that it was not in fact the body of Mary Kelly that was found in room thirteen but that of Winifred May Collis. |
Author: Caroline
Friday, 05 February 1999 - 05:00 am | | Dear Mick,
Do we know conclusively the names behind Abberline's supposed 'initials'? Or are they subsequent guesses? Because one of those sets of initials (and I'm not saying which!) matches one of my own suspects for JtR1, but the name does not. I did a complete double-take when I saw them appear in black and white.
Even if Abberline's diary never existed, seeing those initials there gave me a shot of adrenaline like it's hard to describe!
Best wishes,
Caroline |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 05 February 1999 - 06:01 am | | Hi Caroline
We do know the names conclusively and the Abberline diary is unquestionably a fake. I only met Joseph once, for lunch with Paul Feldman, and I was sadly able to prove beyond question that the diary was a fake. Joseph seemed genuinely horrified. My opinion - and it is only an opinion - is that Joseph possibly is the illegitimate son of Walter Sickert and that a good friend of Joseph's sought to get him - and Joseph's own artistic abilities - recognition by linking it with the Ripper (or just possibly by building upon a story already circulating in Joseph's family. I think this friend provided Joe with the Abberline diary and other material.
Joseph, I think, believed this story and tried to make sense of it, elaborating much detail in the process, and used both Stephen and Melvyn to research his background and establish his link with Walter Sickert.
That there may be some sort of factual foundation for Joseph's beliefs is suggested by Ellen May Lackner and the third-hand version of Florence Pash's story as told by Jean Overton Fuller ({Sickert and the Ripper Crimes}). The latter, if true in substance, perhaps shows something of the foundation of the Crook family story upon which Joseph's story was based.
Does this make any sort of sense?
All the best
Paul |
Author: Caroline
Friday, 05 February 1999 - 07:20 am | | Absolutely Paul.
I think what I was trying to get at in essence was the faint hope that, fake Abberline diary or no, the initials which got my heart pounding may have been used at some time, by someone, to denote a suspect other than the three names mentioned, even if the actual evidence was screwed up and binned and later dissolved into the realms of JtR myth and folklore.
Does this make any sort of sense?
Best wishes,
Caroline |
|
|
|
|
