|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 May 8, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-2000 Archives:
Archive through May 8, 2000
Author: Stewart P Evans
Friday, 05 May 2000 - 09:57 am |        | Mark,
By all the tenets of free speech you are perfectly entitled to say just whatever you like, unless it is a slur on another person and legally actionable. However, have you ever considered that some of the things you say may be totally wrong or ill-conceived?
An honest answer to your question, "Does this mean I am not qualified to make statements?", is - "Yes, you are not qualified to make statements." (on this subject of course). This does not mean that you can not or should not make statements. It just means that you are not qualified to as you do not know enough about it.
It also means that you should be a little bit more careful about what you say and how you say it. You have recently steamed onto these boards and passed judgement upon judgement on this point or that point without really knowing the implications of what you are saying.
By the same token I myself would certainly not suddenly appear on similar boards about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, UFO's, or Sherlock Holmes, for instance, saying such things. Although I have read books on them, I am certainly no expert on those subjects and I am therefore not qualified to make sweeping or judicial statements about them. I also would not want to make myself look silly.
I have not said that you have to accept what Mr. Harris's book says. By all means disagree with his opinion if you wish. However, his books are factually accurate, well-researched and free of any bogus material. This is not true of certain other books.
Colin Wilson is a very old friend of mine and I have been the recipient of his, and his wife's, very gracious hospitality at his home. I have known Paul Feldman for many years and although I disagree with his 'diary' views I do not consider him to be anything but a friend when we meet. Likewise I have known Shirley Harrison for many years, and, again, although I disagree with her 'diary' writings, I am very friendly with her and have never had a cross word with her.
I have researched this subject over 35 years, I photographed the murder sites in 1967, I have written many essays on it, two books on it, have been interviewed on TV and radio many times about it, and I have probably the largest collection of 'Ripper' material and books in the world. This includes hundreds of photographs, copies of all the official reports and much more besides. That may sound immodest to you, but it's a fact and I feel that it does qualify me to at least air my opinion on it. By all means disagree with me if you wish. Add to this the fact that, like Don Rumbelow, I am a retired police officer, I feel that I have the added benefit of working in a crime oriented job for most of my life, thus gaining a better insight.
Yes, I am afraid that there are many thousands, like you, not "grasping" the facts. But, hey, what's new, thousands of them still believe in the Royal/Masonic nonsense of the 1970's. They've got the books, seen the movies so it must be true. Yes, you are ALL wrong I'm afraid.
Sorry if this sounds pompous or condescending to you, it's not meant to. I welcome your obviously genuine interest in the subject, and your undoubted enthusiasm. But, please, read Sugden or some other more objective book before you say too much more. |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 05 May 2000 - 06:13 pm | | Whether we agree with Mark or not , sadly he has made an important point. The Diary is now out in the public domain. If they wanted to , the pro-Diary camp could simply ignore all our views and publish books on the Diary based on the assumption that it IS true. Look for instance at Anne Graham's book ' The Last Victim ' , a book that is using the Diary's notoriety to sell copies. The market probably isn't that bothered and the masses will just accept Maybrick is the Ripper because they have watched the video or seen Professor Rubenstein on the news. So in one way it does fall on us , the sceptics , to conclusively DISPROVE that the Diary is true , so that the public will forget about it , and then we can go back to finding whodunnit. But how likely is it we are going to get a cast-iron case against the damn thing ; I mean we all have spent ages trying to convince Mark that the Diary is a fake but we all have failed , haven't we ? Stewart , I have the greatest respect for you but I must query you on two points. Firstly , I think Mark should be allowed to comment on the case as exactly where would we draw the line on how much knowledge someone has to have to make their opinion heard , and who would draw the line ? Lets have free speech on the boards , even if it is ill-informed. Secondly , the Royal Conspiracy IS true , IMHO. Its like Einstein's theory of relativity : Einstein knew and believed he was right long before he could prove it. Same here. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Friday, 05 May 2000 - 07:05 pm | | HURT PRIDE AND PREJUDICE
Mark Goeder's attempted reply is most revealing. I had called his bluff and shown that he had not even read my writings on the Diary. His response is to field assertions that rely on prejudice and lies. He claims that my technical reports and analyses are "...not based on neutral opinion...you bend the facts to fit your obsession..." Now, since he hasn't READ that material his view is openly based on prejudice. Need I remind him where prejudiced thinking leads?
Apart from that, those words are lying. I give the full unedited facts in all my reports. And Stephen Ryder will confirm that in every case where disputed texts or scientific reports were involved I supplied him with complete copies of every document cited by me. I know exactly how to conduct a fair and thorough investigation. I have many years of hard experience in such matters. And I lower my standards for no one. This has given me a long-standing, flawless reputation. Mr Goeder, by contrast, has only his muddled ego to fall back on, and he does that with a vengeance by repeating the LIE that I "..refused to meet Anne [Barrett]". I have already nailed this lie on the Internet and published my letter to Martin Howells on this very issue. In short, if Mr Goeder had read my piece he would have long ago identified the cowardly lie he is now using. He would have discovered that I was quite willing to meet with Anne on exactly the same terms that I had extended to every one of the individuals I had interviewed in the past. And here we are talking of hundreds.
But this is a cheap way of avoiding the fact that Goeder has never faced up to the truth of the Diary hoax. His belief that it contains special information is pathetic. I have shown him where to find ALL the information in the Diary and he backs away from the challenge. Instead he comes up with the daft statement that "Maybrick KNEW about the missing heart..." In other words he is using the Diary to prove itself! And he avoids mentioning his false claim about "Lord Jim"
As for "tin matchbox empty" maybe he has a genuine problem in understanding the finer points of the English language, so, without being patronising, I'll try once more. Without dragging in grammatical rules let me assure him that we do not use that form of construction in writing a letter, or a story, or a diary. Every writer of a diary RECALLS events and sets them down, but never in the specific form used in the hoax Diary. That form is used in a written inventory only, and it was so used in the City Police inventory of 1888. The real killer never had sight of that list. Neither would he have seen the sequence used when writing up the other items of her belongings. But the Diary hoaxers used both the arbitrary sequence devised by the police and the inventory entry "tin matchbox empty". They took their material from the inventory shown in Fido's book of 1987, and betrayed themselves.
Since there seems to be some confusion over this matter of sequence let me reiterate the point that I made ages ago. The City Police list is of unnumbered items and the entries shown are not dependent on each other, thus the list can be read from the start downwards, or from the end upwards. And the hoaxers read upwards, when selecting their items, but stayed with the artificial sequence devised by the compiler. Thus:-
DIARY (up)
Matchbox
Cigarette case
Knife
Sugar
Tea
CITY POLICE (down)
Tea
Sugar
Knife
Cigarette case
Matchbox
But all this is simply additional to the damning fact that all the Diary material is taken from the three books I have identified. Yet Mr Goeder doesn't want to read these books. That indicates a closed mind. But he seems quite happy to read the nonsense penned by Colin Wilson, who is a grossly inaccurate writer on many subjects. (See my reply to Merry C for proof)
And for all his talk about bending facts he is happy to rely on pro-Diary texts which use bogus materials! This is hypocricy incarnate. It brands Mr Goeder as a veritable time-waster. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Friday, 05 May 2000 - 07:26 pm | | A TIMELY REMINDER
For those still musing over the choice of Maybrick as a Ripper candidate, may I direct them to the following section of my OPEN LETTER TO PROF RUBINSTEIN?
"Now the chronological links between Mrs Maybrick and the Ripper are obvious. Her case was the next great headline-grabber and came at a time when the Ripper was still believed to be active. But if you had looked hard you would have found that the first definitely asserted links between the Mrs Maybrick case and the Ripper did not emerge until 1972, when Michael Harrison claimed that Florence's fate had been directly influenced by Jack the Ripper! He argued that the Ripper was James, son of Mr Justice Stephen, the very Judge who conducted Mrs Maybrick's trial. He further argued that James had murdered Alice McKenzie exactly a fortnight before the trial opened. He then stated that Justice Stephen came to know of his son's crimes and this pushed him over the edge "...his mind lost in the horror of contemplating what his own son had done." He continued "The shock of J.K.'s murderous actions, and perhaps even more, the shock of having to conceal them, to act as accessories before, during and after the murder; had broken up the Stephens." Thus Florence Maybrick's life sentence was "...yet another crime which must be fairly charged to the mental instability of the Stephens in general and of J.K. [Ripper] Stephen in particular."
In short, a clear connection had been made between Florence and the Ripper some twenty years before the Diary reached the London agency. This too was a bogus proposition, but it did weld the two cases together. So the later Diary union was publicly foreshadowed ages earlier, then taken just that one step further in Liverpool itself. Thus the Ripper/Maybrick dimension was not original; only the husband and wife tangle had novelty." |
Author: David M. Radka
Friday, 05 May 2000 - 09:42 pm | | Gosh, when my paper comes out, Melvin is gonna squish me like a bug.
David |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 06 May 2000 - 06:41 am | | Caroline Anne:
Taking things in order:
"And moreover, the 'SEQUENCE' the diarist uses does NOT correspond with that of the police inventory." Wrong. The inventory sequence is as you have shown:
a/"1 White Handle Table Knife & 1 metal Tea Spoon.
b/"1 Red Leather Cigarette Case, white metal fittings
c/"1 Tin Match Box. empty.
The diarist mentions the same items but in reverse order: c, b, a.
You've ignored the little rhyme between "first whore no good" and "tea and sugar." This says:
"One whore no good,
decided Sir Jim strike another,
I showed no fright and indeed no light,
damn it, the tin box was empty."
which shows indignation that the box was empty and therefore also shows that the box was not Maybricks'. You say much the same thing: "IMHO, the diarist implies in subsequent passages annoyance at finding the tin match box empty and writes 'I could not possibly redeem it here' (meaning either the box or the 'case', ie the cigarette case, and 'here', possibly meaning in Liverpool, so far from the crime scene)." but you don't say that the first mention of "redeem it here" comes 39 written lines after the tin box sequence and certainly does not refer either to the match box or the cigarette case. Your use of the word "case" as referring to the cigarette case is especially misleading as the word is clearly part of the lines:
" He believes that I will trip over
but I have no fear
I cannot redeem it here (crossed out)
For I could not possibly redeem it here,
of this certain fact I could send him poste haste
if he requests that be the case."
Now as Stewart has said (and I think most of us would agree that Stewart Evans is as near to an unbiased authority in this case as we are ever likely to get) all of these items were in the possession of the deceased and were in her various pockets. "Maybrick" must therefore have rifled through the pockets (some of which were in underskirts etc.,) to find the matchbox in order to discover it was empty. All this in very little light and with an imminent risk of discovery.
So, in short, your latest post is misleading. I understand that you have your own theories about the diary and who wrote it but you are not helping those readers who believe Maybrick was Jack because he says so in his diary.
Peter |
Author: Mark Goeder
Saturday, 06 May 2000 - 09:12 am | | | hi |
Author: Mark Goeder
Saturday, 06 May 2000 - 10:08 am | | Hi Stewart,
Thanx for being so polite in your response.
I do not agree with you about being qualified enough enough to write a message on the the diary.
If I feel I have something to say (regardless of how well I informed) I will always be qualified to do so.
EVERYONE is qualified to say what they want.
Its not up to you to judge how much I know and how much I dont.
This page belongs to be everyone who wants to know more about the diary.
You cant keep telling people what to think and what not to think, whats right and what wrong.
Lets say I was a newcomer to the scene and didnt have any background information on JTR.
I would hope to learn from you "Ripperologists".
You are obviously more qualified to teach newcomers the facts.
But what would they learn?
I read many messages by many people before posting my first message.
It would be safe to say that 99% of the messages here are written by diary detractors.
Thats their good right.
Newcomers to the scene will never be able to form a good objective opinion regarding the diary because no one will let them.
Thats probably the reason there are no "pro diarists" around here at the moment.
I seem to be the only person here who still believes that the diary was written by James Maybrick.
I have posted many messages over the past 3 or 4 weeks and I have tried to explain why I believe the diary is no hoax.
Some people have taken the time to answer me.
Some people (sorry Mr Harris) have taken my messages personally.
I have the distinct feeling that it is not allowed post Pro diary messages on this page.
You say that Colin Wilson is (or was) a close friend of yours.
Colin Wilson was one of the first " Ripperologists around and must also have access to a vast amount of Ripperature.
He too is a respected author.
He believes in the diary.
I also believe in the diary ( although I am not qualifies to say so)
Is Colin Wilson qualified?
What about Paul Feldman?
Do you take Mr Wilson seriously and if so I would like to know why?
I mean you both have access to a whole plethora of information, yet you are both on opposite sides.
If these pages are reserved for Pro diary postings only then I feel it would be fair to state so.
I just want to recap on your last comments where you state that there are many people like me who just cant "grasp" the facts and still believe in the royal/ masonic nonsense of the 70 s.
I have read a few messages from people who have denounced the diary but are still willing to believe the "royal/masonic" connection.
If you read Simon Owens message above you will see that there must be a lot of truth in what he says.Leave at least some room for fair debate. |
Author: Mark Goeder
Saturday, 06 May 2000 - 10:11 am | | Hi Stewart,
Thanx for being so polite in your response.
I do not agree with you about being qualified enough enough to write a message on the the diary.
If I feel I have something to say (regardless of how well I informed) I will always be qualified to do so.
EVERYONE is qualified to say what they want.
Its not up to you to judge how much I know and how much I dont.
This page belongs to be everyone who wants to know more about the diary.
You cant keep telling people what to think and what not to think, whats right and what wrong.
Lets say I was a newcomer to the scene and didnt have any background information on JTR.
I would hope to learn from you "Ripperologists".
You are obviously more qualified to teach newcomers the facts.
But what would they learn?
I read many messages by many people before posting my first message.
It would be safe to say that 99% of the messages here are written by diary detractors.
Thats their good right.
Newcomers to the scene will never be able to form a good objective opinion regarding the diary because no one will let them.
Thats probably the reason there are no "pro diarists" around here at the moment.
I seem to be the only person here who still believes that the diary was written by James Maybrick.
I have posted many messages over the past 3 or 4 weeks and I have tried to explain why I believe the diary is no hoax.
Some people have taken the time to answer me.
Some people (sorry Mr Harris) have taken my messages personally.
I have the distinct feeling that it is not allowed post Pro diary messages on this page.
You say that Colin Wilson is (or was) a close friend of yours.
Colin Wilson was one of the first " Ripperologists around and must also have access to a vast amount of Ripperature.
He too is a respected author.
He believes in the diary.
I also believe in the diary ( although I am not qualifies to say so)
Is Colin Wilson qualified?
What about Paul Feldman?
Do you take Mr Wilson seriously and if so I would like to know why?
I mean you both have access to a whole plethora of information, yet you are both on opposite sides.
If these pages are reserved for Pro diary postings only then I feel it would be fair to state so.
I just want to recap on your last comments where you state that there are many people like me who just cant "grasp" the facts and still believe in the royal/ masonic nonsense of the 70 s.
I have read a few messages from people who have denounced the diary but are still willing to believe the "royal/masonic" connection.
If you read Simon Owens message above you will see that there must be a lot of truth in what he says.Leave at least some room for fair debate. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Saturday, 06 May 2000 - 10:22 am | | I don't really want to drag these arguments out any longer than necessary, so I am not going to indulge in an exchange with Simon Owen about his strange ideas. However, as he has directly put a point or two to me I will, at least, be courteous enough to respond to them.
First, Mark does not really have to make the point that the 'diary' is out in the public domain, I think we all know that already. Sales of the 'diary' book, in its various editions, have passed the 500,000 mark now, and have generated a healthy cash flow for those involved. This by far exceeds the sale of any other 'Ripper' book, and I may add that I can only dream of sales of any of my books even approaching that total. I wish they would!
Likewise sales of the Knight book reached a high level, and it was (and still is) a money spinner. Any sort of 'lost diary' or 'conspiracy theory' is guaranteed to grab the public imagination, and to generate much publicity - the life-blood of book sales. To introduce these factors in a 'factual' book on the Whitechapel murders case involves, of necessity, invention and prevarication. Not all authors wish to stray from the paths of sensible speculation, fact and reality in their books, so theirs will never become best-sellers of the magnitude of the 'diary.'
Publishers, quite rightly, are out to make money, the public enjoys a 'good read' and so the field is ripe for such material. The amazing thing is that this has been the case since the very years of the murders, 1888-1891.
As regards the proving of a hoax, well that is another matter. Because you can prove something to be a hoax, yet it still continues to be lapped up by a certain type of willing audience who prefer the fiction, and the fantasy. The rather appealing naivety of Mr. Owen's pronouncement, "...it falls on us, the sceptics, to conclusively DISPROVE that the Diary is true, so that the public will forget about it, and then we can go back to finding whodunnit..." is something he may believe , but very few would agree with him. Of course the fact is that it is up to the 'diary' proponents to prove its validity, with no onus whatsoever attaching to anyone else. For Mr. Owen himself is a shining example of how things just don't work that way. He, apparently, still believes in much of the Stephen Knight nonsense, which was clearly disproved by Simon Wood in his essay in the Bloodhound of March 1987, and which has been publicly demolished several times since.
Quite honestly I couldn't care less what Mark Goeder and Simon Owen believe (I don't even know who they are), that's up to them. What I do dislike is when such strange ideas are foisted unashamedly onto others in an arrogant manner, when the writers clearly do not understand the subject matter of which they speak; and upon which they pontificate.
Mark can comment on the case however he wishes, but when he does it in the arrogant way he has exhibited then he must expect severe criticism in reply. He could have put his views in a much less dogmatic fashion, and with less aggression, and he may have then had responses of a less severe nature. That was all that I suggested to him, I was not telling him that he should not make comment on the case, merely that he is not really qualified to comment on the case in the way he has done.
I think there is free speech on the boards (quite rightly so), and, of course, if you use free speech then you will get free speech in return - in like measure. So if you, Simon, and Mark are happy in your own little worlds of theorising, great, enjoy yourselves, but don't expect the rest of us to join you there.
Hi Mark. |
Author: Mark Goeder
Saturday, 06 May 2000 - 11:43 am | | ONE MORE FOR HARRIS.
I wonder if anyone used the same amount of agression Harris after he anounced that ROBERT DONSTON STEPHENSON was the Ripper.
If anyone hasnt read it, you should give it a hit, its quite amusing.
Also read what Melvyn Fairclough had to say in the " Mammoth book of Jack the Ripper", pages 157 - 158.
I am very amused at Harris aggression towards people who agree and believe that Maybrick was the author of the diary.
This is the same guy who wanted us to believe that Donston was running about the east end of London with Eddowes flesh tucked into his clothes (he he).
I still respect Harris as an author, I will still buy his books.I am not THAT arrogant.
I wish Harris would come down off his throne and start showing a little respect for other peoples views.
His obsession with the diary and his aggressivness towards his opponenets will one day start scratching at the surface of his credibility
Stewart!
The only reason you think I am arrogant is
because I stll believe in what I write and say.
I have no famous authors to back me up and I certainly dont need any help finding new literature to read.
I will read Sugden though.
You wrote :
"So if you, Simon and Mark are happy in your own little worlds of theorising, great, enjoy yourselves, but dont expect the rest of us to join you there".
If that isnt arrogance, I dont know what it is.
Yet you keep answering.
Make up your mind Stewart or you ll end up like old Harris.
It seems that alot of people are fuming because the diary is raking in the money and getting more publicity than ever.
You are running out of time Im afraid.
Jill,
I hope you havent given up yet.
How far have you got on your story?
I wish I knew how to get myself out of this silly arguement.
Mark |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 06 May 2000 - 12:13 pm | | Sorry to have repeated Melvin's argument about the order of items in the inventory. I'd written my piece before seeing his. I have given up on responding to Mark Goeder's points which are beginning to be repetetive. I would suggest that criticising people like Melvin Harris and Stewart Evans who have both been involved in the Diary imbroglio from its beginning is pretty silly. Both of them use evidence to back their opinions rather than faith. All those who believe in the reality of James Maybrick as Jack the Ripper do so from the position of faith: Maybrick wrote the diary; he said that he was the Ripper and therefore he was. When faults are pointed out which are incontrovertible, they change the ground: Maybrick was drugged out on arsenic and couldn't remember exactly what he had done and besides it was dark or maybe the Police made the mistake rather than Maybrick because after all, he was there at the time and they weren't. Maybe the reason that they want to believe in the diary is that it ties up all the loose ends; brings a 112-year-old mystery to a solution "Jack the Ripper?" they say, "we know all about that now: it was that fellow in Liverpool whose wife killed him!" And that's a quote from a TV producer I met last year.
Peter. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Saturday, 06 May 2000 - 02:20 pm | | ANNE BARRETT - THE FACTS
Martin Howells,
London SE18
Dear Martin, 19 June 1995
For the record, and to head off any more of the false tales that are being circulated, let me make it clear that I have never refused to talk to Anne Barrett. Having said that I have to record that no one has sent me, or even offered to send, the necessary documents that are essential if I am to talk to her. These are:- 1, a full transcript, or better a tape, of Billy Graham's alleged statements about his ancestry and previous ownership of the diary. 2, a complete transcript, or tape, of Anne Barrett's initial 'confession' of July 31 1994.
Full disclosures of claims is what I always insist on when people are interviewed for any of our programmes, otherwise the event would be flawed and futile. This is not only reasonable but is a standard, professional practice and I can see no reason why an exception should be made for Anne Barrett. She will be treated courteously, like all the people I interview, if we meet, but she has to let me know in advance exactly what we are to talk about.
Yours, for integrity above all things,
MELVIN HARRIS |
Author: Melvin Harris
Saturday, 06 May 2000 - 02:35 pm | | AND HERE IS A PART RECORD OF HER DUPLICITY:-
Anne Barrett has told at least three different stories about the history of this Diary. First she claimed that all she knew was that Mike had been given it by Devereux. Then she claimed that the Diary had been in her hands since 1988 but had been hidden by her behind a cupboard at their house in Goldie Street. (P 235 Harrison pbk)
This second version was quickly ridiculed by Mike Barrett who took private detective Alan Gray to his house and showed him just how tiny the place was. He also explained that he had looked after his daughter during the day, while his wife went out to work, and the cleaning and decorating of the place had been his responsibility. They had bought the house at a low price, since it was in a bad state and needed renovating, so he was for ever moving the furniture around in order to restore the place. Therefore, it was impossible, he said, that a diary of that size could have stayed hidden for even a few weeks, let alone years!
Faced with this (and other objections) Anne has now revised her account and states that the Diary was only concealed by her for a mere few weeks in 1991. |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 06 May 2000 - 05:42 pm | | | Stewart , I don't follow Stephen Knight or Melvyn Fairclough's theories at all , but Joseph Sickert's theory and my own theories. And I would never foist my opinions on anyone. I only stated what I did because you were rubbishing the Conspiracy theory and I felt I should provide a counter to that. Your truth is different to mine , thats okay. But at the end of the day we all want to find the truth at the heart of the matter , thats why we devote so much time to trying to solve the mystery. And we do it in our own ways. Please respect that. |
Author: Mark Goeder
Saturday, 06 May 2000 - 07:07 pm | | Mr Harris,
About meeting Anne
Colin Wilson said in his short chapter in the Mammoth book of Jack the Ripper(page 440):
" Melvin explained that to meet her would be a violation of the "investigators protocol" , which demanded rigid detachment"
Why do you need "documents" first if you are going to speak with her?
Why do you try to ignore the fact that you were trying to go out of her way.
Its sounds as if you are willing to believe Mike Barretts stories before listening to Anne.
Just how credible is Mike anyway?
Judging by the stories he has been telling I am suprised you even waste time on him. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 08 May 2000 - 07:15 am | | Right then, you ‘orrible lot. Out of respect for my vegetarian friend, I did without my rinones al Jerez on Friday night and made do with Spanish omelette and stuffed mushrooms instead, so I’m in no mood for games this morning. :-)
Melvin Harris, in his post of May 5th @ 07.26pm wrote:
‘But if you had looked hard you would have found that the first definitely asserted links between the Mrs Maybrick case and the Ripper did not emerge until 1972...' and:
’In short, a clear connection had been made between Florence and the Ripper some twenty years before the Diary reached the London agency’.
How much clearer a connection does one need than Florie and the Ripper appearing together in a cartoon dated 1889, some 100 years before the Diary emerged?
Peter,
In your post of May 6th @ 06.41am, you wrote:
‘You've ignored the little rhyme between "first whore no good" and "tea and sugar." This says:
"One whore no good,
decided Sir Jim strike another,
I showed no fright and indeed no light,
damn it, the tin box was empty."
which shows indignation that the box was empty and therefore also shows that the box was not Maybricks'.’
If you had read all my posts carefully, you would have seen that very verse quoted in an earlier post to show how the diarist turned his try-out words into the finished product. I ‘ignored’ it in the later post as irrelevant to the point of showing the order in which the inventory items first appeared in the diary: ie box, case, knife, tea, sugar, as opposed to tea, sugar, knife, case, box (whatever that proves).
With regard to whether the diarist is implying ownership of the match box, it’s a case of our own interpretation of all the relevant passages put together, and can only be cleared up satisfactorily by asking the forger.
You also wrote:
‘Your use of the word "case" as referring to the cigarette case is especially misleading as the word is clearly part of the lines:
" He believes that I will trip over
but I have no fear
I cannot redeem it here (crossed out)
For I could not possibly redeem it here,
of this certain fact I could send him poste haste
if he requests that be the case."’
You left out (I won’t say ignored) the previous lines:
Sir Jim trip over
fear
have it near
redeem it near
case
poste haste
We just don’t know without asking the forger which item he was referring to here, but he calls himself a ‘clever fellow’ after weaving the try-out word ‘case’ cryptically into his verse.
Again, it’s a question of individual interpretation, and we could go on far too long debating every line and still disagree at the end of it.
Melvin Harris, in his post of May 6th @ 02.35pm wrote:
‘…so he [Mike] was for ever moving the furniture around in order to restore the place.
Faced with this (and other objections) Anne has now revised her account and states that the Diary was only concealed by her for a mere few weeks in 1991.’
Has Melvin got a source for Anne’s revised account, since he has not actually interviewed her himself?
I can’t remember reading this anywhere.
And, of course, Mark does make the very reasonable observation that people are willing to believe Mike’s stories when it suits.
Has anyone investigating Anne and Mike’s stories bothered to check if the furniture Mike was ‘for ever’ moving around definitely included the cupboard at a time when the diary was supposed to be behind it according to Anne? Or were all the diary investigators really all sitting round picking their noses and dreaming of the killing they were going to make, at the expense of a gullible public and the band of reputable ripperologists, who would evermore be forced onto the internet message boards to prove that they don’t need to prove anything? :-)
Before I go, I’d just like to summarise what I have come to expect from this particular board, apart from some great entertainment and a good deal of supressed mirth on my part at all the paroxysms of indignation on both sides. :-)
Melvin Harris, Peter Birchwood and others have spent a good few years trying to prove the diary a modern fake. They have worked long and hard and done a valuable job of work IMHO. Anything like this needs testing to the max before any of us should accept one view or another. I say thank God we do have good people on both sides, beavering away to find the truth. I shan’t make up my own mind totally until all the hidden facts are brought to light and I won’t be persuaded by rhetoric from either ‘side’. CMD, Michael Bruneio and others have suggested the effort has been unnecessary (the onus was never on Melvin or Peter to prove a thing) and a ‘colossal waste of time’. Anyone with their own mind and a speck of intelligence presumably did not require all the tireless efforts of these good people to begin with. One look inside the diary was all it took to show all but the half-witted that Mike or Anne had a hand in creating it for criminal purposes.
So the reason Peter and Melvin both brought up the subject again at the beginning of the year was not to bash the last vestiges of life out of Mr D’ed, the ex-horse, still whinnying piteously.
I’d like to think they were altruistically trying to round up a few stray silly sheep into the fold. But what did the poor fools get when they sought some more enlightenment? Solid information to put an end to all the nonsense? Or sarcastic and patronising comments about their lack of knowledge, when that knowledge was deliberately being withheld from them?
Peter donated snippets of inside info to suggest that Anne was persuaded to tell lies to help the diary provenance, because ‘the whole project’ (not Anne or Mike’s project, THE project) was in jeopardy. This directly implies the persuasion was by design rather than by accident. But later he distances himself from actually accusing individual members of the diary team of manipulation of, or collusion with, the supposed forgers.
Peter gave us part of a letter to Anne to prove his point (for all we know edited to buggery like his appearance on Harlech TV, perhaps he now knows what it feels like). He tells us the Barretts signed a document on 21st April 1994 transferring the Diary to ‘Beststart Ltd’ (no source given for this definitely ascertained fact though), which is presumably supposed to be evidence that the diary was forged by either or both Barretts, otherwise how is it relevant?
Stewart Evans tells us that he also has inside information, which he is ‘unable to quote in a public forum’. Again, why is this relevant if it is not direct evidence against the supposed modern forgers themselves? And if it is, and between them, Peter, Melvin and Stewart really are only a hair’s breadth away from proving who actually committed this fraud, isn’t it faintly disrespectful to their fellow scholars, who are gallantly coming in with their ‘weary explanations’ whenever yet another Maybrickite writes an article or appears elsewhere in the media, to have revived a discussion in a public forum which can’t be resolved in a public forum?
I am so confused by all this. Stewart also writes that ‘no real authority on the subject of the Whitechapel murders’ believes the diary to be genuine. So where does that leave Keith Skinner, assuming he is in this group, and his involvement with Anne?
Why don’t we all retire until such time as Peter or Melvin or Stewart feel they can nail the forgers once and for all? As Simon says, Mark is not going to be convinced until this happens, so I am defeated by the logic of responding to him instead of finding the final nail in the old nag’s coffin.
This old nag is now off for a cuppa and a quick rub down with The Sporting Life, in lieu of some much-needed toning up to cram myself into the regulation summer shorts the moment we English folk catch a glimpse of the sun. :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 08 May 2000 - 03:28 pm | | Caroline,
As you have made one or two errors in your above post I thought that I had better correct you. It is fine for people to run off at a tangent with their theorising, but when they do so using false information or contrived thought processes then they are not only themselves in error, they are also leading others, who may read and believe, into error also.
I can say, regarding the cartoon, 'Whitechapel at Whitehall,' that if you check the caption in Paul Feldman's book you will see that I provided him with this illustration. I have an original print of this from St. Stephen's Review, dated August 17th, 1889. I have had this print for many years, and Melvin Harris also has an original in his collection. I therefore don't think that he needs you to point out to him that it exists.
There are, in fact, many associations of the 'Ripper' case with the Maybrick case, from 1889 until the appearance of the 'diary.' As Mr. Harris explained, this occurs, naturally, because they were the two great causes celebres in 1889. Both the McKenzie murder of 17 July, 1889, and the 'Pinchin Street Torso' of 10 September, 1889, were sensationalised in the press as new 'Ripper' murders. And, of course, they are both included in the official Whitechapel murders files. A prime example of this association, in a book, is provided in Nigel Morland's This Friendless Lady, Muller 1957, page 23: -
"The casual conversation between grown-ups, while the children played, went no deeper than to touch in passing on the terrors afflicting London and much of the country with the terrifying panic of the Whitechapel murders (as 'Jack the Ripper's' crimes were known). The police were arresting suspects on the slightest provocation and while the 'last' victim, Mary Kelly, had died horribly the month before, it was generally believed that this sadistic sexual maniac would choose Christmas Day for some particularly revolting slaughter-doors and windows in many Liverpool houses were furtively locked and bolted."
And this is from, as I have said, a 1957 book on the Maybrick case, 35 years before the emergence of the 'diary.' However, what Mr. Harris means in his post is not an association of the two cases by chronological or contemporary linking, but rather, as he underlined, an asserted linking of the two cases, the first of which, as he shows, was in the Michael Harrison book. This is a contrived story involving Mr. Justice Stephen, and the 'Ripper suspect' J.K. Stephen.
As for myself, well try putting yourself in my place Caroline. It is very difficult for authors in this field of study to become involved in these debates, as witness some of the arguments that Paul Begg, Melvin Harris, Keith Skinner, and I have become embroiled in. I am only too pleased to be able to assist others with an interest. But, on more than one occasion, the feeding hand has been bitten.
Yes, I do have 'inside' information on many aspects of the case. Information which may be of a confidential nature for one reason or another, may be seen as 'sour grapes' on my part if repeated, may cast an unfair bad light on the person involved if repeated, and so on. It is a rather frustrating position to be in at times.
I am not not actively researching the 'diary,' any more than I am trying to prove it is a fraud. I just don't like to hear unfair or incorrect comments being made, by those who do not know enough to make such disparaging comments, about respected authors. Unfortunately the 'Maybrickites' appear to be a breed who need to aggressively attack anyone who claims that the 'diary' is a hoax.
I still stick with my statement that "...no real authority on the subject of the Whitechapel murders...believes the 'diary' to be genuine." On this point I am adamant. Keith Skinner is a real authority on the subject, and still my statement holds good.
So, to recap, I am not out to "nail the forgers once and for all," in fact I have too much on my plate as it is without straying off on such a pointless quest. There may be others wishing to follow that route. All I try to say is, if you are going to criticise and make accusations, please get your basic facts right first. This Messrs. Goeder and Owen patently failed to do. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 08 May 2000 - 05:21 pm | | Caroline,
I have been speaking with Keith tonight and I read him your post above in which you mention him. He says that his belief, and it has been for the past 6 years or so, is that the 'diary' is not a modern hoax, which is not the same as saying that it is really genuine as Maybrick's work. He says he can't get it back to being older than the 1920's. He wondered if you could please explain the meaning of your comment about "...his involvement with Anne?" What exactly does this mean? |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 08 May 2000 - 06:09 pm | | Stewart , quote :"All I say is , if you are going to criticise and make allegations , please get your basic facts right first. This Messrs. Goeder and Owen patently failed to do" Well this may apply to Mark but it damn well doesn't apply to me ! Precisely who have I criticised ? And what accusations have I made ? Against whom ? And why is that a problem for you Mr Evans , because I certainly haven't criticised you. In fact if you actually read what I wrote you will see I said ' Stewart , I have the greatest respect for you ' in my last-but-one post. Because you have been involved in this case far longer than I have. I have tried to be polite to you , and all I get is rudeness back ; if you don't agree with what I believe then fine , but that is no reason to be funny about it. If the Conspiracy theory was so well demolished in 1987 then how come two books were able to be written about it in 1990 ( Fuller's ) and 1991 ( Fairclough's )respectively ? I've said before that I don't believe in everything about it , but I want to find the truth within it. And I don't believe in the Diary at all , I think its a modern forgery which is far more likely than an old forgery. Please show some respect for a fellow researcher Mr Evans , and get your facts right before you make criticisms of other people. |
|
|
|
|
