|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Poll on the diary of jack the ripper
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Poll on the diary of jack the ripper
Author: Stewart P Evans
Saturday, 01 May 1999 - 11:36 am |        | From the last posting it is obvious that a couple of further points need to be made. I am not wanting to get into arguments, and I accept the right of those with untested opinions to air them here. The trouble is that there are not enough people around with a detailed and objective enough interest to correctly interpret and comment on said opinions.
This may sound rather sanctimonious but it's not intended to be. In some ways I have a unique insight into the whole controversy, and probably know a lot more about it than most contributing to these boards. Back in 1993/4 I was in regular touch with many of the proponents on both sides, and I was, on several occasions, attending Paul Feldman's office in Baker Street, when the 'provenance' of the 'diary' was still evolving.
I have seen and heard much that most on here will be totally unaware of. It is not a baseless assumption when I say that I believe the 'diary' to be a modern forgery made for commercial gain. Obviously others feel they know better, perhaps they could detail their reasons as to why I shouldn't make this 'baseless assumption.'
No-one that I know of has ever seriously accused anyone other than the Barretts (perhaps with a.n. other(s)) of forging the 'diary.' Certainly it is not an accusation that could be seriously levelled at Doreen Montgomery, Shirley Harrison, Sally Evemy, Robert Smith, Paul Feldman, Melvyn Fairclough, Keith Skinner, Paul Begg or any other known 'Ripper' author. Such an accusation would be unfounded, and would lack any credible evidence.
However, once the 'diary' bandwagon got rolling, it cannot be denied that many jumped on board. Much profit has been made from it, and some heartache.
No one is reading anything sinister into the suggestion that Melvin Harris may have indirectly benefited from writing about the 'diary,' although in my informed opinion he did not. Still the point may be arguable, and pointless to pursue. His book would have been published with or without any 'diary' content. There is no siege mentality (unless it be subjective) over Melvin, although he has, in the past, been rather short of defenders, whereas others haven't.
This is not a 'mindless squabble,' it is something that needed saying and, I might add, was not raised by me in the first place. Melvin's status as an author was established before he ever wrote on this subject, and he was a first class researcher for Arthur C. Clarke in his TV series.
No you don't have to agree with everything he (or I, or anyone for that matter) says, and if the comment is directed at me, no I don't have a problem with him or anyone making a buck. What I have a problem with (and a serious one) is dishonesty, and the 'diary' is simply dishonest.
Obviously not everyone agrees with me, and that is up to them, they may have their opinion, (I would venture to suggest that I have a lot more 'inside' information than they do) and I have mine. However, I am not going to engage in character assassination, and I don't expect others to.
I hope this may have cleared the air a bit. I have never tried to be anything but helpful to others, either with contributions to these boards, or with sending them material. My archives are vast, and I have always been willing to share, despite sometimes meeting with ingratitude. I think these points really matter.
I would like to end by saying that I think that Dela has a healthy approach, but he really should reconsider a few of the things he has said. Many say that there is a Loch Ness monster. I say that there isn't. However, it isn't up to me to prove there isn't, it's up to those who claim it exists to prove it. I don't have to prove the 'diary' is a fake, I am one hundred per cent happy myself, both from the document itself, and from my own knowledge that it is. Disagree with me if you like, but don't ask me to prove that it is - I've got much better things to spend my time on. |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Saturday, 01 May 1999 - 01:48 pm | | Let me just add my own support to Melvin who certainly has no connection to the forging of the noisome diary and who's reputation as a researcher predates his involvement in JtR. I've never known him to be anything other than honest and I suggest that we leave it at that lest we become involved in more bloodletting.
Matthew:
I stated that the word "forged" is more appropriate that "hoaxed" re the diary because forgery shows a commercial motive. I stand by that. People have made money from the diary innocently. Shirley made her money by writing the book. Feldy made money (and possibly lost more) by his research and by his book. IF Mike or Ann were responsible for writing the diary then they have made money, therefore a commercial motive. Mike's confessed to this although whether we believe all/part or none of his confession is a moot point.
Peter. |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 02 May 1999 - 03:17 am | | Dela was discussing the idea that the "Diary" was forged by someone who profited by it and among those he named were Shirley Harrison, Paul Feldman and Melvin Harris. Others singled-out Melvin and denied that he'd profited from the "Diary". As Dela has neatly expressed it: "Nobody had a go at me in Shirley's or Paul's or Anne's or Mike's defence. Why the siege mentality over Mr Harris' name."
Well, I think Melvin Harris has profited from the "Diary". I didn't single out financial rewards - Melvin's the sort of bloke who'd probably give any monies made from the "Diary" to a charity - but I think it is beyond question that he enjoys a much higher public profile on Ripper-related matters in consequence of his stance on the "Diary" than he would have otherwise enjoyed. If you want to deny this statement just take a look at the Casebook as an example and see what percentage of references by and about Melvin concern the "Diary" and what percentage concern Melvin's case for Donston.
Dela observed that nobody had a go at him in defence of Paul Feldman and Shirley Harrison. Well, I defended them. Melvin could indeed be considered as much a potential forger as they - he possessed the knowledge and could be ascribed a motive and a track-record. But I made it abundantly clear that any serious consideration of Melvin Harris as the forger is absurb; as absurd as it is to think the same of Shirley Harrison or Paul Feldman when there is no evidence that either knew of the existence of the "Diary" before Mike Barrett took it into Doreen Montgomery's office.
I did not attack Melvin Harris. I did not engage in any character-assassination of Melvin Harris. I merely sought to provide a proper perspective, which on a simple level is that Shirley Harrison is no more likely to be the forger than is Melvin Harris. It saddens me that this simple and to my mind clear and obvious intent can be so grossly misinterpreted.
Caz observed a little while ago that anything I say on these boards is likely to be misinterpreted. The foregoing proves her words, so I think the best solution overall is not to make any further contribution to these boards. |
Author: Karoline
Sunday, 02 May 1999 - 05:41 am | | OH come on now - please. This just has to stop. Otherwise come tomorrow morning there's going to be half a dozen of Paul's favourite people lining up on one side and half a dozen of Stewart's and Chris's and Peter's lining up on the other. Plus a few others who only appear when there's a chance of chucking insults around. And this whole thing will just descend into name-calling.
Come on guys - do we really want Yazoo to have to come back and tell us all how to behave?
Paul - NO ONE here has insulted you or questioned your integrity, and I'm sure no one's going to. There's no need to take any offence, and it can't be good for you when you've been so ill. If you meant no offence to Melvin then that's great isn't it. End of story everyone. Paul is not suggesting that Melvin forged the diary.
And maybe - in the interests of harmony - you can see how some people might have thought that WAS what you were saying.
A lttle while ago Dave Yost said to the self same Caz that you mention that IF she was being persistently misunderstood as she claimed, it might be partly due to the way she chose to express herself. I think it was a good point. And maybe it does apply a little to you? Stewart, Chris, Peter and Alex were NOT deliberately misunderstanding you. You just didn't make your meaning as clear as you might have done.
But now you have. So shall we leave it there?
Don't exit in a huff. You're much to sensible, whatever your tastes in pizza.
And thanks again for getting the tape sorted out.
Come on everyone - smile.
And in a tragic and hopeless attempt to get the discussion here back on track. - I think the position of any disinterested observer, probably should be to consider the 'diary' a forgery until it has been proven otherwise.
And to finish - a song. Or maybe not. How about a couple of questions.
Am I right in thinking that if the 'diary' is genuine then so must all the 'ripper' letters be?
And, am I right in thinking that whoever wrote the 'diary', whether it's genuine or forged, must have seen the police list of Eddowes' possessions?
That's all
(And can I make a special plea to anyone who might have e-mailed me less than nicely in the past, NOT to do so again, however much they might not like anything I might have said).
K. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 02 May 1999 - 08:52 am | | It is a sad fact that nonsense begets more nonsense. And such is the case here I am afraid. The 'diary' is nonsense. Now I, and others, stand accused of "grossly misinterpreting" previous posts. Really? Sorry but I read plain English.
On 27 April at 08.49 a.m. Matthew Delahunty posted, inter alia, "...that forger is involved in the diary's commercial exploitation. Now let's see, that means that either Shirley Harrison, Paul Feldman and his research team, Melvyn Harris, Anne Graham (and the publishers of each of these authors) are our prime suspects. They are the people who have gained a commercial value from the diary."
In this passage the writer displays a lack of in-depth knowledge and understanding of the situation. The first point is that what he says is patently incorrect, the only ones ever seriously suggested to have forged the diary being the Barretts. Secondly the writer lists Melvyn [sic] Harris, with "Paul Feldman and his research team," when, surely, he means Melvyn Fairclough, who was part of Feldman's research team, not Melvin Harris.
At this stage I did not leap into the discussion to defend anybody at all because, as I have stated, I do not usually wish to become involved in these discussions. I abhor the 'diary' and try to steer clear of any argument or discussion on it, as they usually prove unproductive and contentious.
It is, perhaps, not surprising that anyone would leap in to defend those who are pro-diary or, indeed, part of the 'diary' commercial ventures. However, the grotesque inclusion of Melvin Harris's name in the list, not unexpectedly, raised some surprised comment.
The discussion rumbled on until Matthew Delahunty re-asserted his claims about Melvyn [sic] Harris, and he requested proof as to who had forged it. As I have stated, more than once, it is not up to the 'anti-diarists' to prove who forged it, it is up to the 'pro-diarists' to prove it to be genuine. This they have monumentally failed to do.
Also the following factors serve to show that the claim that the 'diary' is a forgery is not a baseless one:-
1. The Sunday Times won a high court judgment against the publisher to be released from confidentiality that was effectively 'gagging' them over the 'diary' and the growing belief it was forged. They were paid £6,000, and released from the confidentiality agreement on the grounds of fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, or negligent misrepresentation. The £5,000 deposit for serialisation was returned to the paper and the publisher contributed towards court costs. [See The Sunday Times of 19 September, 1993 'Jack the Ripper Diary Is a Fake,' front page, and 'FAKE: the Ripper's diary exposed,' section 4, pp 6-7.]
2. The Rendell Report in the U.S.A. clearly declared the 'diary' a forgery, and Warner Books ditched it.
3. Mike Barrett has repeatedly, and under oath, admitted being involved in forging it. His retractions were not under oath and there were reasons for them.
4. A mere reading of the 'diary' by anyone knowledgeable on the subject should tell them that it is a modern forgery (I know all the counter arguments and do not accept them).
5. Many of the arguments supporting the 'diary' are specious and misleading.
6. No known and acknowledged expert in the field believes it to be genuine.
So, Mr. Delahunty, when you stated on April 28, 08.49 posting, "My point was that some of those arguing that it's a forgery are using the same sort of baseless assumptions as those arguing that it's genuine," you were totally wrong.
Therefore I was surprised when Paul Begg weighed in with his acknowledged informed opinion on April 30, 1.53 p.m. posting, and said such things as:-
"Melvin Harris's supposed sufferings are irrelevant to the argument that he enhanced his reputation an his bank balance through the "Diary" and therefore profited from it and arguably more than its proponants," [sic] followed by, "I think Melvin Harris has brought upon his own head whatever has fallen there, even the most placid of people having been driven to anger by Melvin - just read what Colin Wilson has to say in The Mammoth Book Of Jack the Ripper." And, "I think it is terribly misleading to think of gool [sic] ol' Melvin Harris suffering at the hands of the bad ol' pro-Diarists. Melvin Harris has dished out as good as he got and often dished it first."
All these comments are raking up old contentions and, it is interesting to note, that those "driven to anger" by Melvin have all belonged to the 'diary' contingent. The comments are tendentious and clear statements from a person who is rightly respected and whose word, even when it may only be opinion, is taken as Gospel by many on these boards.
In his posting of May 1, 3.06 a.m. he continues in a similar vein, listing many ways, he feels, that Melvin Harris has gained from his anti-diary stance, even listing reasons to justify Dela's inclusion of Melvin Harris among the potential forgers!
This is misleading and simply cannot be justified simply by dismissing it in the following paragraph with the words, "Of course, in reality the idea that Melvin forged the "Diary" is absurd and no one can seriously entertain it."
Yes, it is absurd. So why list reasons for Melvin Harris being considered a potential forger in the first place??? I think Karoline ably explained the reason why that shouldn't have been done. He should merely have dismissed Melvin Harris's inclusion as absurd, without qualification, and left it at that.
So, it is with some surprise that I read today that we are all wrong, there was no attack on Melvin Harris, and the poster was merely seeking to "provide a proper perspective." Not only that, we are guilty of "grossly misinterpreting" the poster's messages.
Well, this is a dispute that I didn't want to enter, but I suggest that Paul Begg should comprehend the status he has been accorded by others contributing to these boards, and the importance they attach to all he says. After all, he says that he has always believed the 'diary' to be a forgery. You wouldn't know that from some of his posts. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Sunday, 02 May 1999 - 09:12 am | | Dear all:
I have desisted from entering into this squabble in the last couple of days, but I am alarmed to think that Paul Begg might be forced to quit the message boards over this dispute in a teacup. His contributions to the message boards have been sterling, as have those of Stewart Evans, so I would be very sorry to see either of them leave. Let's view this altercation as "dead" and go "Hunt the Ripper," eh, chaps? By the way, hopefully not to pour more oil on troubled waters, yes, Melvin Harris could have forged the diary, but I would hazard to guess that he would have made a better job of it -- as I have remarked before, the diary is a pastiche of the Ripper letters and all types of Ripper ephemera and misconceptions. I know Harris would not have fallen into those pitfalls.
Chris George |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Sunday, 02 May 1999 - 10:58 am | | To Stewart Evans,
Please don't take this the wrong way. It is merely a clarification of what I have previously said and how you interpreted it. I have no desire to continue the debate on this point further but I would like to make myself clear.
This was part of my original post:
"Several people have stated that they believe the diary was forged for commercial gain. If so then who is the forger? Presumably if the forger created it for commercial gain then that forger is involved in the diay's commercial exploitation. Now let's see, that means that either Shirley Harrison, Paul Feldman and his research team, Melvyn Harris, Anne Graham (and the publishers for each of these authors) are our prime suspects."
PLEASE NOTE THE SECOND WORD THE THE THIRD SENTENCE, "IF". I never stated the listed people forged it. I introduced an assertion that the forger forged it for commercial motive. I wanted to show that this was baseless and unsupported and stated that IF this assertion was true then one of the above people must've forged it - which is ridiculous logic!
As for Melvin being part of Feldy's team, perhaps this will satisy you:
"...that means either Shirley Harrison, [Paul Feldman and his research term which included Paul Begg, Keith Skinner and others], Melvin Harris, Anne Graham....." If that's not clear enough then I state this " Melvin Harris is not part of Feldman's research team". Sorry that you didn't see the comma.
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT"S UP TO THE PRO-DIARISTS TO PROVE THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE DIARY. That's the simple burden of proof. That won't stop people arguing for it. As someone who could be described as a pro-diarist I recognise that further research needs to be done to prove that the diary is authentic. I, though, won't slash my wrists if I can't do that - or if someone proves conclusively that it's not. I realise that there's good arguments to suggest it's a forgery.
My original point, however, was not about the authenticity of the diary. It was about claims made by others that the diary is a modern forgery whose motive was commercial, which, presumably, on the above onus they should have to prove. There is no evidence that the motive was commercial. If the motive was commercial then the forger commercially benefited. The argument is absurd because those who have benefited - ie the people that I listed - didn't forge the diary. (I'll accept that Mike Barrett is a candidate but if you want to assert that then show me some evidence which proves it - it's open to debate).
I'm happy to debate whether the diary is authentic or not and I accept the eventual onus on proving the diary to be authentic lies upon those who assert that. (Indeed, as a reasonably objective person then I won't be satisfied that it's not a forgery until it can be proven otherwise - but I'd like to test my opinion) Equally, if people want to make an assertion about the nature of a forgery (this being an entirely different question - it follows from an assumpton/fact that the diary is a forgery) then the onus lies on them.
If you can't accept my clarification then I'm sorry but I can't be any clearer. I hope you take no objection to what I have said because this was never intended to degenerate to the point that it has.
Best wishes
Dela |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Sunday, 02 May 1999 - 11:09 am | | Enough is enough.
People can continue to post on this subject and I'll read them but I'm not going to respond any further.
I made no attack on Melvin Harris. If people think I did, then I apologise.
If any of my other posts are interpreted as attack on any person then I can say it was not intended and I apologise for that too.
I've always seen these boards as a way to throw up opinions and have them debated. If people take something I say as other than a debate of the issue then I sincerely apologise.
I'm sorry Paul Begg felt compelled to leave. I value his opinion and don't like to see him personally attacked. I hope he returns soon.
Let's bury the hatchet.
Dela
(Jules, where are you when we need you and your humour) |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 02 May 1999 - 11:47 am | | Matthew,
Thank you for the message to clarify what you meant, or intended to say. However, my argument isn't with you, and what you said did not directly cause me to enter this discussion.
Indeed, what you did say immediately drew responses from others. It was ambiguous and I thought that you may have meant Melvyn Fairclough, as he did profit from the 'diary' connection, he was part of Feldman's research team, and you spelt the name Melvyn, with a 'y', which is how he spells it and not with an 'i' as Melvin Harris spells it. Also, Melvyn Fairclough was very much part of the research team and a Ripper author, but you hadn't mentioned him at all. I accept that you did, indeed, mean Melvin Harris, as you say, and it does not alter in any way the argument I am making.
Now many people were involved in the progression of the 'diary,' but very few in its provenance or alleged provenance. And central to the provenance is the Barretts. All the others named came into the picture much later, and unless some convoluted conspiracy is alleged they could have nothing to do with forging it.
I do appreciate that you were accusing no-one specifically, hence I did not become involved at that stage, even though I thought to mention Melvin in that connection was a nonsense. As you say, the logic is ridiculous.
However, in spite of what I have said, you are now asking what I consider to be a silly question. That is - "I'll accept that Mike Barrett is a candidate but if you want to assert that then show me some evidence which proves it - it's open to debate."
The evidence is posted on the Casebook, it is in the form of a sworn affidavit [a legal document under oath] by Barrett, stating he forged it. Now that is obviously not good enough for you, and certain others, who come out with the old chestnut, "Well he's retracted the confession." Yes, he has, but not under oath. And his current stand has now been, for some time, that the story is true and that he and his wife forged it. The tit-for-tat allegation and counter-allegation is an easy game to play, and has reduced this topic to what it is.
I do not intend to waste any more time on the trite nonsense of proving this or that about something that has blighted this subject for too long now. Believe me when I say I know much more about the 'inside' story of the 'diary' wranglings than will ever be made public. I do not make my comments lightly or without thought.
The people with whom you wish to test your theory are those who hold the 'diary.' Proving or disproving this or that about the 'diary,' in my opinion, is a waste of time if you wish to add something constructive to the story of the Whitechapel murders.
Again, it has nothing to do with 'accepting your clarification' which I hope is clear from what has been said above. I'll say it again - it is not because of you that I entered the discussion, it is because of what someone who should know better said. So you owe me no apologies. I would just like to add that all this should not be regarded as a 'degeneration' of the discussion, but, hopefully, will help stop some of the barbed and uncalled for remarks and innuendos that are made.
Best Wishes to you, too,
Stewart |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Sunday, 02 May 1999 - 01:20 pm | | Hi all:
Just in case anyone might believe that the Barretts did not and are not profitting from the diary, let me draw your attentions to:
a/ the inside cover of Shirley H's 1998 edition: "Text copyright Shirley Harrison and Michael Barrett 1998"
b/ p. 13 same book: "I was offered an advance against royalties of £15,000 to be divided equally between Michael and me and to be returned should the Diary prove to be a forgery."
c/ the original book was on the best-seller list, went into several editions world-wide plus paperbacks and a new revised edition. It has been and still is very successfull commercially.
Let me draw your attention to the last 12 words in b/: "...:and to be returned should the Diary prove to be a forgery."
Perhaps someone could give me their opinion as to whether this might mean that even today, should the diary be proven certainly to be a forgery, Shirley, Michael and Ann might have to return the advance plus royalties?
And according to Feldy, after the divorce, Ann started picking up 25% of the royalties. |
Author: Julian
Sunday, 02 May 1999 - 10:32 pm | | G'day everyone, Too many of you to mention individually.
Anyway, time to apologise again. Sorry Edana, I didn't know my wriggling had that effect (IMHO, jiggle, jiggle).
Mr Begg, Thanks for the corrrections mate. Actually that's the information I was looking for so I posted that misleading piece of information hoping that someone like youself would come back with the info you did. Thanks mate, fair dinkum (wink).
Dela, I'm here mate, but occasionally I like to sit back and have a big laugh to, that's when I come onto boards like this. Fair dinkum mate, my cat had better manners than some of the posters I've met here, That was before she died. I was trying to get her in the Guinnes book of Records for the worlds fattest cat but she decided cark it instead. She weighed about 30lb when she passed on. You should try weighing a 30lb bundle of fur and flying claws in a set of kitchen scales. It makes for a great party trick.
And before all you animal lovers start calling for my head, Picasso my cat (She looked like one of his paintings) was a feral who I had saved from the bush, so she was about half the size again of normal cats anyway, and she did like the tucker I cooked up for her: scrambled eggs for brekky, nibbly things for her to chew on during the day and whatever I had for dinner, steak, roast, roadkill, whatever, yep, even a saucer of beer although that used to make her fart unashamedly.
Anyway, Picasso was great company for quite a few years and even now I still miss her.
Sorry about rambling everyone, I'll bugger off now.
Jules |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Monday, 03 May 1999 - 12:26 am | | Hi Stewart,
Re Mike Barrett. I myself have never made a point of saying Mike made a retraction therefore he didn't forge it. At all times I'd prefer to look at what Mike has said and argue against it. Personally, I doubt the credibility of what he has said. Upon my reading of the affidavits posted on the Casebook (the second of which I recall didn't deal with the forgery issue but with alleged harassment from other parties) I don't consider them to be particular strong evidence. I am quite prepared to bring into question facts which Mike raised - but please give me time to reread the affidavit, I haven't looked at it for a long time.
Just because someone swears an affidavit it shouldn't be taken as gospel. I've seen many a sworn affidavit or statement which had not a word of truth in it. If all you had to do was swear an affidavit to prove your case then we wouldn't need courts, trial and cross-examination.
I don't think the fact that an affidavit has been sworn necessarily gets us anywhere. We're not about to fight a court case. (I would love to see something go to court on the very issue and have both sides examined and cross-examined.) But for Mike's forgery claims, there is a claim by Anne Graham that effectively he didn't forge it (this follows from her claim that the diary came from her family). There is also an issue as to Mike's credibility - he has given a number of different accounts - and as to whether he is capable of the forgery.
Dela |
Author: Wolf
Monday, 03 May 1999 - 02:41 am | | So much for a simple pole on the belief (or lack there of) in the authenticity of the "Diary". Wasn't there something mentioned about "brief" comments?
Wolf. |
Author: Caz
Monday, 03 May 1999 - 05:00 am | | Oh God, you 'orrible lot.
For some of you who think the diary a waste of time, you sure jabber on like us females about it, don't you?
Poor Paul hasn't a cat (Picasso?) in hell's chance of getting his points across, has he? Because some of you think you can see inside his head whenever he speaks! It's the same old story of closed minds thinking open ones MUST have an agenda or ulterior motive.
Don't bother with 'em, Paul or Dela. They're just not worth the sodding effort. And that doesn't mean I'm taking 'sides' here. I just prefer people who can argue their way out of the paper bag, not into it!
And, Jules baby, keep the fur flying with the pussy anecdotes. It keeps us all from climbing the walls, and keeps my own claws nicely sheathed. I prefer velvet paws myself.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Karoline
Monday, 03 May 1999 - 05:13 am | | Jules - If you read the previous posts more carefully, you'll see that (so far), no one's been rude at all. Everyone has been exceptionally well-mannered. So for heaven's sake don't accuse anyone of hurling insults or they will most probably start doing so.
Re; this damn diary:
Dela. I think I'm reasonably objective here. I'm not a ripper-author. I have no suspect of my own to 'sell'. So, would you mind if I suggest that this is not just a straight debate, or exchange of opinions (like whether or not Stride was a victim, or whether or not Florie killed her husband). This is a question of public honesty. Of proper conduct. Of telling the truth or telling lies.
Believe me - people like Stewart and Alex know the history of thuggery and corruption, and plain public deceit that has been the brief life of that 'diary'. Alex himself was nearly sued by good ol' Feldy just for trying to tell the truth in public. They know the enormous amount of investment there has been from certain quarters in trying to make a Great Big Lie look respectable to the public. We're not talking shades of opinion, we're talking deliberate wholesale propaganda, misinformation.
This is why they are so angry.
Particularly when they have to deal with those experts who may have seen fit to sell their objectivity for a cut of future profits.
The truth is that outside the hermetically sealed environment of these boards, the 'diary' is virtually a dead subject. A joke. Its pedigree is abysmal. It has a ludicrous provenance. It has failed virtually every scientific test it has ever been subjected to (a hard fact that Feldy and his friends have tried their best to obscure). And its authors were so unbelievably stupid that they even copied down parts of the police list of Eddowes possessions virtually verbatim.
Is it maybe no wonder that no proper ripper-historian anywhere thinks the thing is even worth discussing any more? They all concluded long ago that the thing was a pointless forgery and have moved on to other things.
Doesn't that tell us something? if it doesn't maybe it should.
Of course it continues to make its advocates money. But that only goes to show that in our particular world, cheap sensationalism has a wider audience-appeal than good research. If you want to get rich then sell your soul. But what's new about that?
K. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 03 May 1999 - 09:06 am | | Thank you Karoline, very eloquently put.
Matthew, with nearly 28 years service as a police officer believe me I DO know what constitutes evidence, I DO know what a sworn statement is, and I DO know what a trial means. In fact I have made hundreds of arrests and also made hundreds of court appearances, in every type of court. Obviously I have been involved in many cross-examinations, so I know what they are too.
The point is that you asked for evidence of Barrett forging the 'diary.' I told you that I do not intend wasting time on producing such evidence, but suggested you look at his affidavit. Now, although someone can lie under oath, it is far less likely and carries far more serious consequences if they do. My belief that Barrett forged, or was part of forging, the 'diary,' is based on a lot more than just that. Again, I am not going to waste time discussing my reasons, some of which are confidential anyway. With all due respect - I was there at the time, involved with the people, and I suggest I know a lot more about it than you and many others do. Also I have listened to Mike Barrett several times and draw my conclusions from more than just the affidavits he has made. We know Mike Barrett has lied, the thing is he has told two stories, and one of them is true. I think I know which one it is.
As Karoline has pointed out, this is mainly about honesty, which is why tempers run high. It is also about a recognised 'Ripper' author taking an opportunity to snipe at another recognised 'Ripper' author who is not on these boards to defend himself. That is why I joined the discussion, something I normally would not do where the 'diary' is involved, it isn't worth the waste of time.
However, if you wish to investigate, pursue, and dicuss the 'diary' and its origins, that is fine and your decision. You will not find me doing so and every fellow 'Ripper' author I know (apart from a couple involved with the 'diary' project) believes it to be a fake. And, oddly enough, that includes Paul Begg.
I wish you all the best with your researches, and if you are enjoying what you do that's all that matters I guess. I repeat, I have no argument with you whatsoever, and just hope that you may now continue to pursue this interest and draw pleasure from it.
With every good wish,
Stewart |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Monday, 03 May 1999 - 11:07 am | | Hi Stewart & Karoline,
I don't really think the "dishonesty" of the diary has anything to do with the debate. In my opinion the matter's still not resolved. I realise that for many people the issue is concluded. But given I think there's still a cloud over it (and from the amount of traffic on the Maybrick boards the issue isn't dead), and merely by the fact that the diary fascinates me, even if it turns out to be a forgery - then I feel entitled to investigate. I may, in the end, satisfy myself that it's a forgery. That doesn't diminish the interest. I would still like to know who did it and why (and how, for instance, there are apparent inconsistencies with accepted "Ripper facts" while the "Maybrick facts" are impeccably reproduced).
I don't in any way think that discussing the merits of the diary is being dishonest. If the diary is a forgery then the forger is dishonest but not those who choose to discuss its merits (I'm sure now we'll get the same old response, "The diary has no merits"). If you think the diary is a dead subject then don't even bother posting to these boards- you're only contributing to it remaining alive.
I'm not convinced that certain suspects are the Ripper. In fact I'm not convinced that any of the suspects are the Ripper (including Maybrick). The fact is there's not enough evidence to say that conclusively that anyone is. Just because I don't accept Tumblety or Barnett or Stephenson to be the Ripper on the current pros and cons I don't go telling everyone to stop wasting their time. I do like to argue points for and against but never do I tell people that it's a waste of time to argue the pros or any particular suspect. Stewart, I'm sure you hold the belief that Tumblety was the Ripper as much as people hold a belief that the diary is genuine. And I'm sure you're always looking for more evidence to support your view. What's different here?
I personally would like to see some more scientific tests. Those which have been conducted so far aren't conclusive. And they've all been commissioned by people with vested interests, one way or the other. I don't pay any credence to the pro-diary camp's tests nor the anti-diary camp's tests until someone's prepared to do it right.
As for affidavits, I never said Barrett lied. Affidavits don't have to contain lies to be inaccurate. I have problems with some of the statements contained therein - I'll outline those in the next day or so. Meanwhile, how are you going to convince me that Mike Barrett forged the diary if you don't reveal the information you claim to have? Dare I say it, but Mr Harris did the same thing (it's in one of the articles on the Casebook). It's like the recognised authors are saying "well we're the repositories of wisdom and therefore you have to just trust us when we say the diary is a fake." Perhaps if everyone knew all of these "inside facts" then the diary would not be an issue. All I can say is that I don't find the current pro-forgery arguments to be convincing enough for me to accept the diary is an undoubted forgery. (Perhaps I just see the glass as half full, not half empty). I could say that if a good deal more arguments/facts were raised to suugest the diary is forged then I might be convinced.
Historically, the legal profession adopted the use of Latin terminology and legal jargon to alienate their clientele and maintain their intellectual superiority. Fortunately that is changing as people demand plain English contracts and the profession sinks deeper into disrepute. Currently I'm preceiving some parallels in the Ripper world - I hope I'm wrong.
Lastly, I am an advocate for further investigation into the diary issue. I know of others. People haven't persisted with this stance as an avenue for making money. I'm not writing a book. If I could prove or disprove the diary conclusively then I might. I don't believe anyone who has written about the diary has "sold their soul", unless they believed the diary to be forged and argued against it. I just want the issue resolved. I'm entitled to a viewpoint and entitled as much as anyone to research, gather and disseminate the facts.
Dela |
Author: Melvin Harris
Monday, 03 May 1999 - 08:17 pm | | Those who feel that my claim that Begg is a biased apologist is incorrect should remember that whenever he writes it is noticeable that he is never even-handed. He always leaves out bits of data that are essential to an understanding of the rotten tactics that have been used in promoting the commercialisation of the fake Diary. For example, he states that: "As for the Will, whether it is genuine or not is an argument that only really exists between Paul Feldman and Melvin Harris." This is quite DISHONEST and evades the fact that Feldman, Harrison & Smith, have always used an incomplete version of the Maybrick Will in their efforts to dismiss it. Yet I have more than once drawn attention to the fact that the crucial third page of this Will has been left out of the books written by Feldman and Harrison. You will find the text they suppress only in my last book (page 206). And that short text (a mere nine lines) proves that the Feldman/Harrison position on the Will is not just dubious or improbable, but impossible to sustain.
Thus the argument is not between me and Feldman, but between Feldman and Co and the worlds of logic, accuracy and scholarship. Begg should read the missing page then come back and apologise.
At this point let me register my disbelief that anyone could equate the Diary handwriting examinations with the fiasco that attended the Hitler diaries affair. THEY HAVE NOTHING IN COMMON. With the Hitler diaries you had a case of faking involving the deliberate IMITATION of Hitler's genuine handwriting. And every other case of a forged handwriting involves such imitation. The writing convinces only when the imitator is skilled. Text, ink, paper, provenance, might betray, but if they don't, then it takes great expertise to decide that the writing is by another hand.
No such problem ever existed with the Ripper Diary since there was no attempt made to imitate James Maybrick's distinctive handwriting. The fakers never even knew it existed. Not a scrap of his writing appears in any of the books on the case. But there WAS one sample of Victorian writing easily available to them. It is a two page letter written by Mrs Maybrick and reproduced in the modern popular books. This could well have served as some guidance to the fakers. It is somewhat of a scrawl along the lines of the Diary hand. Even so, it is not imitated by the fakers, thus there are no grounds whatsoever for dragging in the Hitler case, or the Hughes case, or any similar cases that involved faked handwriting.
As for the handwriting on the Will, here Chris George is mistaken in believing that MacDougall questioned its authenticity. No one ever questioned the authenticity before Feldman and Co came on the scene. And then every effort was made to rubbish that damned troublesome document. It stood in the way of fame and fortune and had to be smeared. As Reed Hayes admitted to me (Jan 4, 1995): "...Feldman pushed me strongly to come up with any clue, however minor, to connect the diary writing with the 'Dear Boss' letter. He also attempted, with my assistance, to discredit Maybrick's will."
The truth is that MacDougall did no more than question the provisions of the Will. He was trying to argue that the brothers had induced James to make it hostile to Florence. But the writing itself was never a matter of dispute.
Another of Begg's biased statements is worth examining. This is his claim that Alec Voller, the former chemist at Diamine Inks, had examined the Diary and concluded that the ink was not Diamine's, and shows signs of bronzing and was thus old. A fair, even-handed approach, should have included the reminder that Voller also claimed to identify the sighting-colour contained in that ink; he said "This is definitely nigrosine."
Now Feldman and Mrs Harrison were delighted by Voller's view that the ink was not from Diamine, but they never faced the fact that his identification of nigrosine was in direct conflict with the findings of the tests at Leeds! Voller was in fact agreeing with the results obtained by Baxendale and Eastaugh. So at this one session Voller provided an opinion that seemed to favour the Diary on the one hand, while negating Harrison's ink tests on the other. A contradictory position by any standards. But is Voller reliable? At this point note that Voller only saw the Diary pages on October 30, 1995. Three years earlier none of those who examined the Diary saw any signs of bronzing. Even Robert Smith conceded its absence. Dr Baxendale, the first to examine this ink, is adamant that his thorough optical inspection failed to show any signs of iron ageing. My question, then, is pertinent. Mrs Harrison, though, has no doubts about Voller. She takes up five pages of her 1998 revised paperback to exhibit his words. BUT I HAVE BAD NEWS FOR HER. Voller's own actions have provided us with proof that his views are totally unsound.
To begin with, Voller may understand the basic chemistry of ink bronzing, but he is not a dedicated document examiner and does not own a reference collection of dated samples of aged ink on paper. Such a collection is essential, since the process of age bronzing is erratic and wholly unpredictable. My own reference collection proves this up to the hilt. One example dated 8 July 1968 is more bronzed than a sample from 1901. A random riffle through the sheets discloses samples dating from 1953, 1949, 1947, 1930, 1931, 1934, 1926, and 1925 which show more bronzing than letters dated Sept 1882 and April 1859. And on a number of pages we find selective bronzing; some letters affected while others remaining dark.
But it was Voller's very helpfulness that now provides us with final proof that his views must be discounted. In January 1995 Mr Voller kindly made up a special batch of the original iron-gall based Diamine Manuscript ink and sent it to surgeon Nick Warren. On January 26, 1995, Nick wrote me a letter using Voller's ink: it reads, in part, "Dear Melvin, I am writing these words in 'Diary' ink, i.e. the original Diamine black MS recreated for us by Alec Voller. As you can see the effect is very watery, astonishingly so at first...looking forward to receiving the colour photocopy, Yours Truly Jack the Ripper. Best Wishes Nick" TODAY THE INK ON THAT LETTER LOOKS AGED AND IS BRONZED IN PARTS. WHILE THE "JACK THE RIPPER" SIGNATURE AND THE FLOURISHES UNDER IT ARE EXTRA BRONZED, SINCE THEY WERE WRITTEN WITH A THIN STEEL NIB OF VICTORIAN PATTERN. IT MAY LOOK OLD BUT THAT INK WENT BRONZE AFTER BEING ON PAPER JUST A MERE THREE YEARS. WHICH MEANS THAT VOLLER'S DATING STANDARDS ARE INVALID.
In the end, though, I have to repeat that there is no known testing method that will date ink-on-paper. You can date the RELATIVE ages of ink samples applied to one sheet, and this is of use in detecting additions, but after a very short period (this can be as low as months in fact) you can not give a year for any samples.
Still this is no problem, since the Diary text alone brands it as a modern fake. And in saying that I am simply applying the same standards that I applied to fakes prior to the Diary. But this seems to be lost on Begg who has lost all sense of proportion and chosen to come forward with a foolish posting which is designed to disparage my motives and principles.
He fails to recognise that I have never been a publicity seeker, though this is well known to fair-minded observers. My last Ripper book was commissioned long before the Diary came on the scene. And among the many reviews of it there is only one which even mentions the Diary! It was very much the same with the many broadcasts I made. Only one interviewer ever raised the question, so the idea that my book sales were boosted by its Diary exposure is nonsense. And that is what Begg should have pointed out. He should also have said to that misguided individual Delahunty, "Sorry chum but Harris' book does not fit your description."
But, alas, I am obviously picturing a reformed Begg dedicated to fair-play and that person has not yet taken over. Instead the real carping and grudging Begg allowed Mr Delahunty to get away with the grotesque claim that Harris: "dedicated a not insignificant portion of his book to the topic- there was probably a greater portion devoted to exploding the diary myth than there was in arguing that Stephenson was the Ripper."
Now Begg knows that's a lie, so why didn't he say so? The facts are that the Diary is not dealt with in the body of my book, it is relegated to a 17 page appendix at the end of the book, which is a mere trifle. It is in fact accorded just as little space as the appendix that precedes it; that one deals with the Clarence hoax and is 17 pages long.
And the idea that my reputation has been enhanced by the Diary is a violation of logic. My reputation can only be enhanced by sticking to my established principles, by hard work and by digging out facts that may escape others. It is this that counts and if Begg thinks that this should be overlooked, then there is something radically wrong with his little grey cells.
Come to think of it there must be something wrong up there, for Begg has thrown intellect into the cess-pool by attempting to use Colin Wilson against me. Begg tells us: "...even the most placid of people having been driven to anger by Melvin- just read what Colin Wilson has to say in 'The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper.'"
In the first place he misrepresents Colin, who says nothing about anger. In the second place he made no attempt to check if the statements made by Wilson were true. Had he done so he would have discovered that, apart from the fact that I once spoke to his wife, every statement made by Wilson is FALSE. So false that I have written to the publisher and to Colin to make sure that this nonsense is withdrawn.
Now Begg had a duty to me and to the truth to be on guard. By now he should have known that amiable Wilson is extremely gullible, easily duped, and often inaccurate. But no, Begg saw a chance to enlist a well-known writer in his camp and by doing so has now made a complete ass of himself. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Monday, 03 May 1999 - 08:53 pm | | Let me give you a taste of the crazy statements that Begg has been sucked in by. Wilson writes:- "She (Anne Barrett) was so obviously honest that I begged Melvin Harris to meet her, certain that five minutes with her would leave him in no doubt that she was telling the truth. But Melvin explained that to meet her would be a violation of the 'investigator's protocol', which demanded rigid detachment. He failed to explain how asessing an important witness might somehow damage his detachment, since by the same principle, no witness would ever get examined."
Now these words are the product of a very muddled mind. I have never used the expression "investigators protocol" in my life, and I certainly did not refuse to meet Anne Barrett at any time. The position I explained to Wilson was EXACTLY the same position that I had earlier made clear to Martin Howells, both by phone then later by letter. Here is the text of that letter of 19th June 1995:-
"Dear Martin, 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 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 disclosure 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."
That then was my true position: a position known to Howells, Skinner and Feldman. Does Begg want us to believe that he did not know this as well? Does he seriously expect us to believe that he was taken in by Wilson's fabrication? Or was he blinded by his need to disparage? And did he seriously believe Wilson's further claims?: "I wrote Melvin a long letter about my Liverpool visit and about my conclusions. He did not reply and has not been in touch with me since. But...he has continued to write to Paul Feldman.."
To set the record straight, once more, I wrote a six page letter IN REPLY to Wilson's Liverpool visit letter. This was then followed by an even longer letter from me and a copy of that letter WAS LATER SENT TO BEGG. So are Begg's little grey cells in complete hibernation? If there is some stirring somewhere perhaps it is enough to remind Begg of this letter and to remind him as well that I broke off all contact with Feldman in 1993.
Since Begg has chosen to drag in a famous author to denigrate my working methods, this entitles me to introduce the words of an even better-known author who really knew how to use logic and knew how to appraise my standards. I refer to the late Isaac Asimov who wrote this to me, 22 Dec 1986: "Dear Melvin, INVESTIGATING THE UNEXPLAINED arrived safely and the first thing I did upon receiving it was to read it. I enjoyed it thoroughly even though I ground my teeth (as usual) over the infernal way in which people love to be duped, want to be duped, insist on being duped, and beat up anyone who tells them they're being duped. Isaac
P.S. You do marvellous work. I admire you greatly. |
Author: VT newbie
Tuesday, 04 May 1999 - 12:45 am | | Hello, all. If it isn't inappropriate to raise this here, may I enquire on a few points?
A. Have the Barnetts' and any other "suspects" handwritings ever been compared to that in the Diary?
B. Has the handwriting in the Diary ever been compared to that in Maybrick's Will?
C. Is it possible to distinguish a forgery when someone is deliberately altering their handwriting?
D. If such analyses have been done, by whom, and what level of authority would be required to lay to rest the issue of the validity of the Diary?
I guess at present I am inclined to believe the Diary is a fake, primarily because it's too good to be true and I'm too much of an Eeyore to ever think anything too good to be true actually is. And wrapping up the mystery of JtR so neatly would fit in that department.
Thanks. |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 04 May 1999 - 08:37 am | | Hi Paul,
I don't think you're the type to allow long-winded attacks from anyone to cause you to withdraw. I have tried to understand Melvin's complaints, but- sorry Melvin- I can't really see what his complaints are.
There does seem to be a complete mix-up over Anne, Mike and all the other bits that went to make the diary. While, however, the diary is concluded to be almost certainly a fake by most, and I am one, I ask if who did what, when, why and how is really material to the ripper board. Even if the diary were not a hoax, such questions do not, I submit, belong here.
Melvin, I for one have accepted much of your work as being very valuable, indeed it is almost alone due to your demission of the faking of the will that I have always refuted the Maybrick diary story. I must say, however, that I have not won the impression from Paul Begg that he champions the opposite view hostile to you. He and I have discussed this matter on the board last year and he merely made plain to me that he also now tended to feel the book a hoax but had interest in it's origin.
Hi VT,
While Barnett and other suspects were never suspected of writing the diary, the existance of the diary, fake or not, being only known for the last ca. ten years, it is clear that no comparison would have been made.
The diary against the will is another matter. The writing is shown to be not the same, and is the basis of not only (see above) my opinion of the diary, as the will exists today in good condition and it is almost impossible that it be a fake.
A handwriting expert can mostly relatively easily spot disguised handwriting, when he also has a usual sample, although certain mental disorders, I am assured by a colleague, can lead to a change in writing that may not be so detected.
Forensic experts on these matters are reliable sources that are accepted in Court as giving evidence of repute
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Tuesday, 04 May 1999 - 10:19 am | | Mr Harris' two recent postings have reinforced the view I expressed in my posting of 3 May - that some people believe they own the debate about who was Jack the Ripper by virtue of belonging to that little club of authors. Having not posted to these boards for some time Mr Harris took the opportunity to make a personal attack on Paul Begg behind a thin veil of arguments, most of which had no relevance to the debate of the last few days. They're merely recycled every time Mr Harris wants to go on the offensive. He also chose to try to belittle me but I notice he did it through criticising Paul for what he "should" have said. C'mon Melvin - Paul doesn't have to correct me. If you want to set the facts straight (and I admit I sometimes get it wrong - but I'm still waiting for you to tell me why I'm misguided) then do it yourself. I'm not adverse to being told I'm wrong.
I don't mind constructive criticism and I'm sure Paul doesn't either. But every time Paul states an opinion he's howled down by people who seem to have such a closed mind that they can't even form a reasonable interpretation of what he writes.
Paul Begg is the most even-handed poster to these boards. He always presents both sides of an argument. He acknowledges valid points even though he might not agree with those points. And he goes on to state his opinion based on the pros and cons. His posts are always well reasoned. If everyone else displayed the same approach then we might actually solve the mystery of who was Jack the Ripper.
People are entitled to an opinion. Paul Begg has one - he believes the diary is a forgery. He is balanced enough to acknowledge that, just as there are arguments against it, there are some arguments for it. For many people the arguments against satisfies them that the diary is a forgery. Others are not satisfied. Paul recognises that you can't make people's minds up for them. They have to decide for themselves. At least he puts up the pros and cons and let's them make up their mind. I suggest it's a much better approach than pretending you are the high-being of wisdom and trying to ram your points down people's throats.
I have said it before but I'll say it again. The pro-forgery arguments are, on the whole, valid. But I don't agree with all of them. In the same way I acknowledge some of the pro-diary arguments to be valid and but there are others which I don't agree with.
Paul Begg doesn't have to repeat everything which every other pro-forgery person says. At least he is a regular contributor to the debate.
As for the people who pop their heads up once every six months to have a go at Paul for presenting a balanced approach then I suggest you don't bother coming back. You're behaviour will not be tolerated.
Dela |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Tuesday, 04 May 1999 - 10:34 am | | Hi Karoline,
Even from my isolated home in Melbourne where very little other than books on the Ripper come our way, I would disagree with you that the diary is a dead issue. If it was then why was Mike Barrett the guest speaker at the last C&D meeting? And isn't Anne Graham due to speak later in the year?
I'm also of the opinion that even if I was to accept the diary as a forgery (you'll note that currently I accept that's a strong probability but I don't discount the fact that it's possibile that it's genuine) I'd still be fascinated in it. I'd like to know who forged it and why. And I believe that it has also forced us to go back and look at Ripper research and to do a bit more. For example, the whole issue as to whether there is something written on Kelly's wall and the two farthings story has forced everyone to go back and question these issues and to closely look at the sources from which they originate.
As much as Paul Feldman's book has been condemned, he has uncovered some valuable information which is relevant to Ripper investigations beyond the issue of the diary. Some of the letters which he highlighted put a new spin on things. I, for one, am of the opinion that there could be letters which the Ripper wrote. Each and every one should be examined closely before it can be discounted. Until such a process is undertaken I don't think you can discount the possibility that the Ripper did write one of them. One or two of the letters which Feldy published (previously unpublished)I found very interesting and have led me to believe they may have been written by the Ripper. At the same time, if this is true then I believe that same letter(s) could be a strong indication that Maybrick could not have written the diary.
To conclude, I don't believe the diary is a waste of time and a dead issue, even if it is a forgery.
Dela |
Author: VT newbie
Tuesday, 04 May 1999 - 03:49 pm | | Correction: I meant "Barretts", not "Barnetts". Freudian slip, perhaps? My apologies.
Properly rephrased, then, have their handwriting samples ever been compared to the Diary?
Thanks for your answers, Bob. I appreciate it.
Carole |
Author: sean Miller
Tuesday, 04 May 1999 - 04:18 pm | | It is great to be able to access a forum such as this, with the authors of many of my essential reference works re. JTR online and answering questions...
What I would like to know is why we're still bickering over the diary when it would seem that 99% of the people researching the ripper and/or the people accessing this forum believe it to be a fake!!
Personally I may be alone, but I think that certain areas of this board seem to be becoming filled with complete irrelevance - loads of messages of the type "I am 5 years old, and want to know about the ripper - so be kind to me", "I am 99 years old, and have a heart condition, so don't be too hard on me!"
Call me a fascist, call me a killjoy but isn't the whole discussion worth more than that! This particular thread seems reasonable free from that sort of thing... BUT FOR HOW LONG??
One question: the evidence that Stephen Knight established re. the "hushing up" of the judiciaries... was that real? ..or a fabrication? As nobody else seems to site such evidence! Perhaps it wasn't a masonic plot but was there a cover up?
Sean |
Author: D. Radka
Tuesday, 04 May 1999 - 06:02 pm | | Mr. Harris,
Welcome back to these Boards, and may you deem them worth your contributions again in the future.
I have a lulu of theory concerning the case and a suspect. Someday if I publish, I would hope you deem it worthy of your de-bunking. Nothing would please me more than to submit it to your criticism, because it is the squarest and sharpest.
David Radka |
Author: Joseph
Tuesday, 04 May 1999 - 07:36 pm | | Mr. Radka,
Are there any ropes, or leather clothing
involved with the above post. :-0
Have Fun
Joseph |
Author: Bob_c
Wednesday, 05 May 1999 - 05:26 am | | Hi VT,
You're welcome, little enough as it was. Of course the Barrett question is a different one. If, as Mike claims, his now ex-wife, Anne, wrote it, then her handwriting changed for the duration of the diary (?).
Sean, I am a brutal great snarling 52 year old who also likes to write on the board, but I don't need a boy scout to help, if that is what you mean. Some things really don't belong here, I know, but does it matter when no one else gets hurt? Some posts, including some of mine, were absurd and crazy humbug but it didn't stop Stephen Ryder from admitting he would hate to lose some of them.
Without wanting to insult Steven Knight, I believe it proper to sugest that 'covers up' would lie in the same realm of seriousnes as diaries, lady's watches, murdering Queens, Jills the Rippers, Jack the Duck, 'F's and 'M's, Montague Mouse, Sooty, Goofy etc. etc. etc.
I do agree with Dela, however, that the diary is still part of the ripper discussion. Not, however, that part of the diary story that seems to be the basis of the above posts from Melvin.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Caz
Wednesday, 05 May 1999 - 02:19 pm | | Oh I AM enjoying this again!
Thanks everyone for contributing, even unintentionally, to the fun.
Bob, my dear, no-one in their right mind (or their wildest fantasies) could accuse you of being brutal or snarling (grin).
Dela, thank you for oozing common sense and decency when others cannot use the same basic ingredients to whip up their storms in a teacup. I can see them stamping their little feet as we speak (big grin).
Paul will still be Paul when the 'orrible lot all go for a long walk off a short pier (bigger grin).
Carole, keep the logical questions coming. We WILL get some answers one day, despite the 'lack of interest' on this particular 'defunct' board (bigger than ever grin).
David, what can I say you old rogue, you? Keep us all guessing, at least it keeps Joseph out of mischief! (LOL)
Lastly, where are you this time, Jules? Give us one of your anecdotes and I will happily leave all you children to it for another, say, five minutes (widest ever smile).
Lots of love and keep the faith all,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
