|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 July 3, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-2000 Archives:
Archive through July 3, 2000
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 01 July 2000 - 05:53 am |        | | Oh, dear, and for a while there I really believed that 'Dear Diary' was trying to make a point instead of simply being ignorant and stupid. Silly me. |
Author: Roger O'Donnell
Saturday, 01 July 2000 - 06:13 am | | I don't often post here, but I generally read the new stuff. So, to risk placing myself in the firing line...
Just an observation about the problems with this board, then I return, to my personal hunt thru whitechapel, unlike certain anonymous posters :)
The level of personal acrimony, vituperation and just plain personal dislike exhibited on this board make the signal to noise ratio so low it almost renders the area a waste of server space. However, I could be reading so of this wrong, and missing the irony of some posters.
I have been involved with on-line communication longer than most, remembering the early 80's forums with great affection. So a few words of advice, possibly where its not wanted.
Use of Emoticons in postings - if one is trying to be nasty don't use them. If how ever you're doing it to gently pop a pompous posting, or just to share a joke then use em. Good basic ones :) - Smile ;) - wink.
Personal remarks, fine between friends (with use of emoticons) best not done with acquaintances.
Use of all capitalised words means you are shouting. Don't use unless you *are* shouting, or have a damaged caps lock key :)
The last statment uses and example of emphasis asterisks (*) or underscores (_) round a word indicate _emphasis_ :) Underscore is used in lieu of underlining.
Ok, why use these rules, or similar? The on-line communities evolved these 'rules' to survive. Since there is no facial expression, eyecontact body language etc, then something had to evolve to take its place and avoid miscommunication. They may seem twee, but it works. Long personal experience, talking there.
Sorry if I have been teaching an elderly female relative to suck eggs, but looking at the hole that is being dug here, I felt it was needed.
And my apologies for a longish post which is not about the main topic here, but it saddened me to see so many good people tearing at each other
Roger |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 01 July 2000 - 06:48 am | | Some time ago I made some criticisms of Begg on these boards as did Karoline. These prompted an incredible campaign of viterpation from someone signing himself "Joseph." So extreme was this that one of Joseph's latter posts became one of the few which was actually removed from the boards, not unfortunately before many people had seen it. If "Joseph" is not "Joseph Triola Jr." then I apologise. All I can say is that the style is extraordinarily similar.
I have no intention of adding to what I've already written concerning Messrs. Begg and Skinner. I would certainly agree with CMD (a fine gentleman and a worthy voice of reason on these matters) that Karoline is a valued writer and researcher and we would all be worse off without her. Her scholarship in ripper matters and many other subjects is breathtaking.
Concerning Steve Powell (call me Peter, Steve) I must admit to being puzzled by the whole affair. I don't see any reason why he would lie and even if he's misremembered and it wasn't Anne he met, it would surely be an extraordinary coincidence for someone to be discussing JtR diaries, letters etc. at that time. If Steve would be happy to post his old e-mails on this site together with his friend's phone number, I'm sure that we would be grateful. Alternatively, he can send them privately to me. I'm afraid that I probably will try to find any holes in the story; I happen to believe that only by examining things closely can you reach some kind of truth.
And lastly, I really do find it incredible that anyone who has read these boards over a lengthy period could think that "Dear Diary" or any of the past anonyms was Melvin Harris. Melvin has never needed to disguise his distaste for fraud and faulty research: his writings show this clearly. And to forestall any future nonsense, I am most certainly not "Dear Diary." |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 01 July 2000 - 12:17 pm | | What a truly remarkable post by Melvin Harris, with insight into both the Poste House confusion and the obscure O Costly Intercourse of Death. Excuse my speculations here, but if what Mr. Harris says is true--and I have no doubt that it is--then it would go along way to explain the oddness of Barrett's 'Confessions'. Barrett clearly knew something about the forging of the Diary, but made statements that he couldn't prove. I now strongly suspect that Barrett falsely accepted all of the blame for the forgery in order to both spare his late friend Devereaux and to heap guilt onto his estranged wife Anne. Quite possibly (as one poster predicted a few days ago), with the impending film and the possibility of an article by a Liverpool newspaper (mentioned by Harris) we are indeed at last approaching endgame.
Thanks to Mr. Birchwood for his kind (but exaggerated) comments and his habit of going over things with a fine-toothed comb.
I'd like to say that all of my indignation is saved for the people at Smith Gryphon. After close study of the various writings of Melvin Harris, I can only come to the conclusion that Smith & Co knew that the Diary was on very shaky ground and chose to publish anyway. They had the gall to market Ms. Harrison's book with 'Arguments for and Against its Authenticity' while clearly avoiding vital information that would suggest to the readers that the Diary was of modern origin. IMHO. |
Author: Dear Diary
Saturday, 01 July 2000 - 03:56 pm | | Before again departing, it is good to see that Mr Begg's views are now clear, and unequivocal. To sum up:-
1. He has never believed that the 'diary' is genuine.
2. He has never believed that the 'diary' is an old forgery.
He must be congratulated on this clear statement, and his courage in stating it, bearing in mind that '2' above obviously carries the implication that Anne Graham is a liar.
He has given reasons for his seemingly contrary previous statements and the reader is left to decide whether they agree or not. Mr Begg himself should also remember that these boards are for the broader discussion as to the diary's authenticity, not merely to satisfy one person's quandry over whether someone is lying or not.
His support of his colleague can only be commended and should not be criticised. It should be noted that the 'Anne and Mike forged the diary' argument is not Mr Birchwood's 'theory,' it is in fact the scenario suggested a long time ago by Mr Barrett himself. As such there should be no reason for Mr Birchwood to have to prove anything at all.
A disinterested observer would probably have the opinion that if someone needs to decide whether they are being lied to or not, then it is up to them to investigate for their own peace of mind. If anyone wishes to join in that quest then it would be a personal decision. The 'Dear Diary' posts may well be perceived by Mr Begg as 'ill-conceived, stupid and designed specifically to provoke the responses it did,' but others may feel that they did, indeed, achieve something and have perhaps cleared the air somewhat. They certainly did not descend to the gutter level of Mr Triola.
As for Mr Begg saying that 'Dear Diary' is 'ignorant and stupid,' this is perfectly understandable, it is a reasonable response as he felt affronted, and no offence is taken at it (even if he still thinks it). 'Dear Diary' must say, for their part, that Mr Begg's stature is most certainly looking better with his last response. And he never descends to the low level of certain other posters here. |
Author: Joseph Triola Jr.
Saturday, 01 July 2000 - 05:49 pm | | | Have a nice day :-) |
Author: Melvin Harris
Sunday, 02 July 2000 - 07:28 am | | SOME WET, WET, LIES AGAIN
Mr Triola's gleeful fixation with incontinence brands him as just a little potty. This state of water on the brain is now well confirmed by his lying attempt to identify me as the writer of pieces posted under the names 'Dear Diary' and 'Validictor'. I am supposed to be doing this because I lack the courage to use my own name! Anyone who knows me and anyone who has watched these boards from the beginning, will know that if I disagree with Paul Begg, or anyone else, then I say so without hesitation and without ambiguity. In Begg's case it is common knowledge that I dislike his standards and I find his failure to withdraw his unwarranted smears reprehensible. And it is well understood that I have rightly charged him with having introduced the personal element to these boards. Despite that, I still judge his statements on their individual merits.
When a little shaft of sanity penetrates Mr Triola's disturbed mind perhaps he will then apologise to both 'Dear Diary' and 'Validictor' for having falsely charged them with being identical with such an outrageous rotter, reprobate and cad, as myself. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Sunday, 02 July 2000 - 12:43 pm | | Message to Mr Palmer:
The investigation in Liverpool was not organised by a local paper, but by a leading national daily in London. |
Author: Julian Rosenthal
Sunday, 02 July 2000 - 07:55 pm | | G'day everyone,
I believe someone is looking for an Australian contact.
Please contact me at ripperoo2000@yahoo.com and I'll do what I can to help.
Jules |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 03 July 2000 - 04:29 am | | Dear Melvin, because there is a degree of ambiguity about your 'message not the messenger post' which Joseph Triola Jnr. (and others I think) misinterpreted as, if not an admission of authorship, then a knowledge of and agreement with the intent of the pseudonymous author, would you clearly state that the poster's identity is indeed unknown to you? Please do not ignore this question because I do not want anyone to take your silence as an admission of complicity. Many thanks.
Paul |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 03 July 2000 - 07:18 am | | In the absence of Caz, I am posting this message on behalf of Keith Skinner and regret that a minor computer glitch prevented me from positing it yesterday.
Saturday July 1st 2000
From Keith Skinner to Peter Birchwood
I understand that you have asked about placing on the Board the late Mr. Devereux's Will. I assume this has something to do with Melvin Harris's conclusion, as reported by Paul Feldman in The Final Chapter (pg., 139 h/back and pg., 154 p/back) that:
"Mr Cain (sic) one of the witnesses, was the forger. According to Mr Harris, Mr Cain's (sic) handwriting matched that in the diary and he had mysteriously 'disappeared around the time that the diary became public.'"
No doubt you and Mr Harris will be contacting the Devereux family (and, indeed, Mr Kane) as shall I.
And if a relationship is now being looked for between Mr Kane, Mike Barrett and Anne Graham, then if you alert Mike Barrett to this line of investigation, I'm quite sure he will suddenly remember that he knows Mr Kane. He may not be aware that the Diary is in Mr Kane's handwriting, but given time, he will recall that he knew that all along.
For my part, I will exticate myself from this emotional entanglement with Anne Graham, that Melvin Harris has decided is a part of my life, and ask Anne for an introduction to Mr Kane.
So, as far as I am concerned, put up the Will by all means. I sent a copy of it to Sue Iremonger (a noted handwriting analyst) years ago, in the early days of our investigation, when Sue was comparing various samples of handwriting with the Diary. Mr Kane's handwriting may have escaped her notice though. |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 03 July 2000 - 07:29 am | | Steve Powell
Again a message from Keith that I was unable to post yesterday:
Saturday July 1st 2000
From Keith Skinner To Steve Powell
Dear Steve
I've just caught up with your post of Saturday July 1st 2000 @ 02:40 am.
You should know that I'm afraid you face a Herculean task to try and convince people of your veracity and credibility. You are disadvantaged on several major counts:-
1) Melvin Harris has pronunced the Diary to be a modern hoax.
2) It is impossible for the Diary to have existed prior to 1987. For it to have done so means that it is genuine.
3) Anne Graham has a track record for lying and deceiving. The lady is discredited and her testimony is worthless.
4)Should you have the good fortune to locate anybody who can support your story, it is extremely unlikely that that person will be believed and certain contributors to this board will doubtless suggest collusion.
Against this bleak and negative background, I have one point I would be very grateful if you could clarify. My understanding from Andy Aliffe is that initially he made contact with you. You did not make contact with him because you wanted to contact Paul Feldman, as has been suggested.
Is that the correct sequence of events?
Best wishes
Keith Skinner |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 03 July 2000 - 07:36 am | | Hi All,
I'm back from a weekend of non-stop gluttony.
Dear Diary, on Saturday, July 1, 2000 - 04:07 am, wrote:
‘…there always remain a few gullible ones, such as Mr T and Mrs M, who seem happy to be dragged into this perverse scheme. …. And why this sudden revival of diary nonsense. Well, really, we are all able to see that it amazingly coincides with news of a revival in the movie interest.’
‘So all you sad acolytes, pour out your venom and filth, it will cut no ice with us.’
For Dear Diary’s info, ‘this sudden revival of diary nonsense’ began with Peter Birchwood’s first post to this board back in January 2000. Certainly a tad before I knew about the ‘revival in the movie interest.’
(Just wanted to clear that up first, I appreciate that I’m probably the only sad poster here who has bothered to read and absorb every single word from the outset.)
Melvin, on Sunday, July 2, 2000 - 07:28 am wrote:
’Mr Triola's gleeful fixation with incontinence brands him as just a little potty.’
’When a little shaft of sanity penetrates Mr Triola's disturbed mind….’
Can I just say a few words about messages and messengers?
If anyone should have taken great offence at Joseph’s recent message, it should have been me.
I watched and suffered as a brilliant maths teacher and bridge-player slowly succumbed to senile dimentia, double incontinence and death, unable to recognise her own granddaughter. This person, with an all too common ‘potty’ problem, was my own mother.
Last year, on these boards, anyone who dared challenge the words of certain posters, regularly and predictably had their sanity questioned, or were subjected to ‘venom and filth’ like you would not believe. The level of abuse is merely relative, as are people’s individual perceptions as to what constitutes intolerable offence.
I dared to be the kid at the back of the class, putting her hand up to question the teacher, who claimed his ‘theory’ was as watertight as 1 + 1 =2. The chaos which has ensued, involving the combined forces of Messrs. Harris, Birchwood and Leach raising themselves up and producing a million words in defence of this theory, is all very flattering to this St.Trinian’s schoolgirl. But it also worries me that there might turn out to be just as much wrong with the theory as others believe there is with my sanity.
Instead of getting an explanation of why 1 + 1 does not equal 3, from a good, patient teacher, I got Peter, with his ‘Find the Wrong Formby’ and ‘Cock up the Aussie Connection’ shows; I got Melvin, amazed that his own written predictions about the Diary would give anyone the impression he’d made up his mind before setting eyes on it, calling such a terrible suggestion a ‘real libel cooked up by Feldman.’ I don’t take anything anyone says without question, least of all Feldy, I am not gullible, I do not get dragged into perverse schemes, and I don’t class myself as a Diary ‘supporter’ either.
And last year, an exposed anonymous poster, who has most often questioned several posters’ mental states (every bit as offensively as Joseph questioned that of Dear Diary, for anyone with personal experience of sufferers of mental problems), referred to me last year as ‘a sad case’, in ‘a mid life crisis, with no career and no hopes and a husband who ignores me.’ I took this as a direct reaction to a conversation I had with this ‘anon’ the day before at the April 1999 C&D meeting. The person asked me “What exactly do you do?”, to which I replied, “I’m a housewife.” From this bit of information came the following day’s anonymous bit of charm, from someone who knew nothing about me or my life.
Later came the accusations (libellous, for Melvin’s info, seeing as he is familiar with the term) that I was sending offensive emails. Things became too farcical for words. The accusations were never retracted and life had to go on. But I learned a valuable lesson – how it feels to be publicly accused of something I didn’t, would never, dream of doing. Perhaps this spurs me on to find out if Anne Graham is a fellow victim of injustice. But it works both ways. If I find that she did help forge the Diary, I will have even less sympathy for her than most people. But again, life will go on, and I have far greater priorities in my life than worrying about the true status of the Diary.
The essence of this post is that named posters are just as anonymous as unnamed ones, unless we know each other and our circumstances personally. There is never an excuse to deliberately set out to wound, abuse or cause offence. Never. No matter whose name is attached to the message, no matter to whom the message is aimed.
I can only assume that the person who abused ‘Caz’ is accepted, the abuse condoned and allowed to go unchallenged, because of the name at the top of the posts. This person is a worthwhile contributor, highly sensitive to criticism maybe, but nevertheless highly intelligent, while Caz deserves all she gets because she is thick-skinned and spouts nonsense.
This suggests that the message and the messenger will always be inseparable to some otherwise very clever people.
One more thing about those smiley faces. I came to this topsy-turvy cyber world as a person who sees everyone I meet as a potential friend, not a potential foe. As an amateur, by definition I am here for the enjoyment I get from it. I put smiley faces in my posts to compensate for the lack of body language and eye contact. It’s because I am smiling as I write. I have come to realise that my smile is sometimes analysed and felt to have a sinister meaning, by people who either don’t know me, see me as a potential enemy, or simply disagree with what I write. So, in future, you will see no smiles in my posts. Those who know me will continue to see them there anyway. For everyone else, I hope it will cut down on the guesswork.
Peter, I personally would have no objections either to you posting Tony Devereux’s will here. But I would be happier if you could just show the bits relevant to whatever you think it will help us with, so as not to invade the family’s privacy. I’m not sure how useful this will be though. If I’m guessing correctly why you think it might show evidence of who penned the Diary, I predict that the public verdict may be a disappointment for you or Melvin. But please do go ahead, don’t mind me. Whoops, I nearly smiled then.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Melvin Harris
Monday, 03 July 2000 - 10:18 am | | LAY OFF
Mr Kane has a very serious heart problem, AND I MEAN SERIOUS. So lay off please and let him live in peace.
As for Begg's query, the 'Dear Diary' entries were written without any complicity on my part and the unknown poster seems to have been doing little more than registering words that have appeared on this site. Since I don't see the Internet I have to leave it to others to judge whether the quotes are accurate or not. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 03 July 2000 - 11:56 am | | That's funny, I thought Paul Begg had a serious heart problem last year when everyone was laying into him. And Beggy wasn't even being accused of forgery! Must have been my imagination.
I'm glad to take it from Melvin that he would never ever try to expose the alleged faults of a person in fragile health.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 03 July 2000 - 12:49 pm | | | Melvin: Thank you very much for your reply, but I'm afraid you haven't answered the question I asked. Would you please state clearly - 'yes' or 'no' will be sufficient - whether the identity of 'Dear Diary' is known to you? Many thanks. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 03 July 2000 - 01:02 pm | | Way back in the dim, distant past I put a message up on this board because there had been no movement on it for some time and I thought that a basic guide to the faulty genealogy associated with the diary needed to be put down so that those new to the thing would not have to wade through oceans of material to get an idea of the quality of the original resaerch. Let me emphasise that: the post was almost entirely about genealogical research. Caroline Anne came in with some good ideas about the Formby connection and things mushroomed from that. I think that the reference to the revival of interest is specific to the relatively recent dust kicked up by the Begg-Skinner combo and is appropriate.
Caroline Anne: I have every sympathy with you concerning your late mother. I have lost both parents to extremely unpleasant diseases one of which came close to claiming me until I was saved by a kidney transplant. I would have of course no thought of associating those events with Joseph Triola's message: I thought of it as misinformed, thoroughly nasty and the sort of behavior best associated with Count Dracula's friend Mr. Renfield.
Now I am sure that your expertice on these boards can be questioned by none: your pursuit of Weedon Grossmith (now sadly retired from Ripper history) certainly brought to mind the words of Patrick Moore when writing of what he called "independent thinkers." You have worked well on Formby and I belatedly congratulate you on piecing together new material on the Druitt-MacNaughton connection.
I would however remind you that there has been as much abuse tossed around by those who believe, in some respects in the diary as by others. To your triumvirate I would have to add the names of Skinner, Begg, Yazoo, Triola various anonymes and indeed, Caroline Anne Morris.
You refer to: "I got Peter, with his 'Find the Wrong Formby' and 'Cock up the Aussie Connection' shows;" where perhaps you should be more specific. When I was still patient enough to discuss things with Skinner he mentioned that I might have picked up a wrong census entry for the Formby family. Maybe so: I just picked up my census disc and chcked things out. If there's another Formby family that agrees with the certificates that he picked up, maybe you can tell us about it. On the other matter if you are referring to Steve Powell, I'm interested enough to investigate matters but haven't come to any conclusion yet. I'm sure that Melvin can reply to you himself.. I would have to disagree with your last words in this para::"I am not gullible, I do not get dragged into perverse schemes, and I don't class myself as a Diary'supporter' either." I would suggest: 1/ Weedon Grossmith, 2/ see 1/ above and 3/ If you're not a diary supporter would you call yourself an "Anne Graham Supporter?" A lot of your comments have been pro-her rather than pro-diary.
Regarding the last part of your post I would suggest that to understand all of the problems of that particular time any interested reader should consult the "Cloak and Dagger Gasbags" discussion which was started by Mrs. Caroline Anne Morris. It has villains, heroes, pathos, drama and moments of high comedy. But which is which? You have to read it to understand it.
You are right about named and unnamed posters: they are, like "the Colonels Lady and Judy O'Grady, sisters under the skin." You don't know them till you've met them.There are times when I feel that I'm being targetted for beliefs that I have concerning the diary so I do have sympathy for you. Maybe it's not worth taking things too seriously.As Hamlet says: "...they do but jest, poison in jest; no offence i' the world."
As to Tony Devereux' will, I haven't decided whether to put it here or not. If I do, it will be the whole thing not editted highlights: if you think about it a little, if I only placed here bits that I thought important, I would be open to accusations of editting it just to show my viewpoint and not allowing others with different ideas to come to different opinions.I'm sure that you wouldn't want me to do that! As to invading peoples privacy, a proved will is by definition publically available. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 03 July 2000 - 01:29 pm | | Okay Peter, points very well taken. I do now know something of the correct Formby family and I believe Keith has already posted to the effect that Yapp and Granny Formby lived very close to each other at one time in the 1880s, a handy coincidence if Anne Graham didn't already know this from her own research when the 'link' was introduced.
I am only an Anne Graham supporter in as much as I feel it's important to find out if she is guilty as charged, or the victim of a huge injustice because of her past foolishness and rash behaviour.
I agree entirely about not taking anything here too seriously. That is why I continue to enjoy myself and get on with my hobby, acknowledging that it's probably others who have worse problems than I could ever have.
It's your choice (and maybe Melvin's too?) whether or not you give everyone here the whole of Tony's will, a part, or decide better not.
I can only say what I would do in the circumstances, that is, if I chose to put it up.
Here follows a post from Keith.
All the best Peter.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 03 July 2000 - 01:32 pm | | From Keith Skinner To Melvin Harris
No Mr Harris, I will not lay off Mr Kane!
The man should be made aware of your suspicions, whilst he is still alive, and given the opportunity of responding. No doubt he will have friends and family who can advise as to the best approach of handling this delicate situation – depending on the seriousness of his heart problem.
But why has it taken you eight years – eight years Mr Harris – before having the moral courage to act? Or have you been silently conducting enquiries into Mr Kane for this length of time?
Why have you allowed this controversy to fester for so long and generate so much pain and ill feeling on these boards?
Might it have something to do with not being so confident now that Mr Kane was responsible for penning the Diary?
I have a clear conscience Mr Harris and would rather force the issue now, than spend the next twenty years challenging your unproven assertion that Mr Kane was obviously guilty of participating in a fraud. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Monday, 03 July 2000 - 04:31 pm | | A RIGHT MUDDLE!
I must have touched on a very raw nerve! I put some pointed questions to Keith Skinner regarding his bungled research and further asked if he approved of the distortions found in Feldman's book. He ignores every point put to him and then drags in the name of Mr Kane, a name that I had never mentioned on these boards. Others dragged it in. I intervened to record that Mr Kane is far too ill to be questioned; this point was first made to me years ago. Since then the man's condition has worsened.
Keith's statement that I have made an "...unproven assertion that Mr Kane was obviously guilty of participating in a fraud." is his ugly invention. I advise him to tread carefully. Let him re-read the text of my letter to Rod Green which deals with this very matter. Then let him apologise.
What the nonsense about my taking "eight years before having the moral courage to act" means, escapes me. Others who have read this line are just as baffled. As a sentence it is incomplete; it does not lead anywhere; it does not qualify the issues involved.
Instead of mounting the high horse and riding out to "force the issue", it would be better if Keith came down to earth and faced the questions I have put to him. His name is associated with some pretty mean tactics and some pretty nasty manglings of the truth. Does he endorse those things or does he wish to distance himself from them?
And will he tell us about Robert Johnson's background?
As for Paul Begg's question. My remarks about anon postings was a repetition of the position I put on screen a year or more ago. And viewers will spot that I have never questioned the identities of the Anon. posters who attacked me or even lied about me. Who they were did not matter to me. I knew where the lies came from, and that was enough. Remember the lying Anon solicitor? And recently we had the entertaining 'Merry Christmas' But did I ask for their real names? Never; even when it was suggested that 'Merry C' was Begg in disguise. In my case I need no disguise. And I do not know the creator of the 'Dear Diary' epistles.
To finish. I invite Caz to give the date when I first saw the Diary then quote my writings prior to that date where she claims I dismissed the Diary as a fake. |
|
|
|
|
