|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 09, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Maybrick/Jack's watch?:
Archive through May 09, 1999
Author: Peter Birchwood
Wednesday, 28 April 1999 - 03:57 pm |        | People:
Do me a favour and get out your copy of Feldy's paperback (Virgin edn.) and turn to page 185: the "transcript" Billy Graham's conversation with Feldy. Compare it with what Paul has just written. Different aren't they? Either Paul's tidied things up, made it more grammatical, taken out words, put others in or Feldy's messed things up, put in lots of fluff, etc. Who's right? It's a simple matter isn't it to listen to a tape and type exactly what you hear the people saying? But apparently Martine Rooney(Feldy's assistant/secretary) wasn't very good at it, according to Keith Skinner. I have to tell you all again that a transcript by someone independent is essential because someone is trying to push the Graham provenance and there is no evidence to support it!
I stand by my previous comments. Billy knew somehow that JM had had an illegitimate child. and you can only read Billy's statement "...-she had...the Maybrick one had a child before she married him." as referring to James. A reading of the Feldman transcript shows no indication that Billy "...was talking about Florence throughout the exchange." Paul is wrong here. The only way for us to feel the emotions of the people involved is to hear the tape Feldy says Ann was angry, Paul that she was taken by surprise.
The whole thing is a mess and we now have two transcripts of one conversation that differ markedly with each other. Please make your own comparisons.
Who do we believe?
Alice Jones? She rates 2 words in Feldy's book. Why the big discussion? Is she more important to the Graham's than we know?
Peter |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 29 April 1999 - 04:25 am | | Hi All
Bob - I fully understandthe point you are making and I agree with the question you ask. Indeed, it was precisely the distinction I drew and put to Anne Graham regarding the statement she made concerning the first time she saw the "Diary". The only area on which I disagreed or, rather, chose to suggest clarification was in that Billy's statement on tape and in transcript (whatever his actual wording may be!) was as valid as a proper legal document. In other words, I was simply saying that we don't discard Billy's verbal testimony simply because it wasn't presented in a legal form.
As for establishing provenance, even if Billy Graham never swa the content of the book itself, the fact that he states that it had been in his possession since 1950 (or whenever) would cast some question on Mike's claim that it was bought as part of a job lot in auction and that he possesses the receipt for the purchase. If it be shown that Mike did not buy the book in auction (and I think the auctioneers have themselves given reasons why they think it is unlikely that he did so, which simply adds to all the other problems arising from his confession) - then I think one may justly ask whether Mike ever had a part in forging the document. Why would he say he bought the book in auction rather than honestly say it was an old ledger that had been in Anne's family for years? And if Mike didn't play a part in the forgery, but received it from Devereux (as both Mike and Anne claim), then the spotlight is very firmly cast on Anne and her story. Which is why I observed that asking why Anne told her story in the first place may be a more profitable line of speculation. To put it another way, if Mike didn't have any part in forging the "Diary", then Anne's story essentially means that Anne forged it herself (or was with others party to forging it). Or her story is true (and no such problems as you outline re Billy exist with Anne because she does say she saw the content of the "Diary" in the 1960s).
Karoline - I will ask whether an independent transcript can be produced. Since said transcript would have to be wholly independent, any idea who'd do it? And this question is bound to be asked, any idea who'd pay to have it done?
Peter - I'm not going to check to see if I left out an odd comma here or there, but otherwise the version I gave was a direct and unaltered copy taken from a transcipt faxed to me on 6th August 1994 of a conversation which took place on 30th July 1994. It was not taken from Paul's book. Any comments I have made were based on that transcript and I, at least, think it is clear from that transcript that Billy was talking throughout about Florence being his grandmother. And the only point I was trying to make was that whatever planted the idea in Billy's mind, it was not something Fledy was leading Billy into saying. It was a speculation wholly of Billy's own and was not what Feldy had expected - as is clear from Feldy's confusion, his misunderstanding that Billy was suggesting that his father was James's son and, most particularly, his later exclamation of realisation: "Oh! We're talking about Florence."
I didn't say there was a big discussion about Alice Jones, only that she was being discussed when Billy Graham began musing about Florence being his grandmother. Billy was talking about his childhood and mentioned being looked after by his father's step-sister Alice Jones. Feldy knew that an Alice Jones worked in the Maybrick household and asked Billy how old his Alice was. Billy said 13, which, of course, made her too young to be the same Alice as the servant. Billy then launched into his statements about Florence being his grandmother.
As for anger or astonishment, it sounds and reads to me like astonishment, but Feldy was there and if he says she was angry then perhaps we should believe him. Mind you, his word doesn't seem to be accepted over anything else so maybe it shouldn't count for much here either. |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 29 April 1999 - 08:50 am | | Hi All!
It's a bit like deja vu, all this. It seems we are back to a similar place you had all already reached when I first found the Casebook late last year.
We have at least progressed somewhat, in that the previous ridicule seems to have been overtaken by objective discussions, lively debate and more participants! Goodonya guys. We now find ourselves able to go deeper into all the documentation without fear of being gratuitously carpeted for sharing unpopular opinions.
The main problem once again appears to be interpretation of the written word. I feel for Paul every time he posts here. He seems to get more than his fair share of challenges to whatever he says, and his posts get longer as he tries yet again to make his exact point clear to all comers.
I don't for one moment put it down to faulty expression on Paul's part. Quite the opposite in fact. I think the problems arise once again from people's subjective reading of a situation. One has a preconception, one uses that as a goalpost when interpreting a passage, and this explains perfectly why each one of us will read something different into one post. Only the writer KNOWS what he/she meant to convey. And even in trying to clarify or elaborate on a previous statement, some of us will still see meanings that were never intended to be there in any version, first or subsequent.
I'm also trying to say, very badly, that Paul and others here often go round in circles in vain attempts to please everyone all the time, and sometimes it just ain't possible!
Can we try to help out in future with everyone's posts by checking through carefully to see if we may have got something arse about face ourselves. Some of us know enough about each other now to do this to some degree successfully. It just might help us to keep the good discussions on an even and civil keel this time around.
Thanks for listening, all. I will do my utmost to stick to the above principles.
Keep well, everyone.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Thursday, 29 April 1999 - 12:34 pm | | Paul:
I do of course take your word that what you published is the same as what you received and a comma here or there is not important Maybe then we should ask why the transcript you received on 6th August is so different from the version published in Feldy's book.It's not a comma but whole words and parts of sentences that are missing, misplaced or added. As your transcript tends to be more certain about the relationship between Billy and Florie, I wonder why Feldy didn't use it. Is it possible that there were two transcripts: one by Martine and one by Anne? Interestingly there is even a diference in the 5 words you just quoted from your transcript: "Oh! We're talking about Florence." Feldy prints this as:" Oh, you're talking about Florence." Now if your quote is from a "direct and unaltered copy" of your transcript this rather shows that something's amiss and that somebody has got it wrong.
As I have said before, Billy's own words prove that the book he saw in 1950 could not have been the diary that we know today. There is therefore no provenance.
Peter. |
Author: Karoline
Thursday, 29 April 1999 - 01:04 pm | | Paul -
If I'm thought 'independent' enough I'd be happy to make a transcript.
Maybe for thorough authenticty this could then be passed on to another 'independent' party, who might sign an affidavit that it represents a true printed version of the interview?
At least we would have one small area of controversy cleared up.
Does anyone have any better ideas?
Take care all,
K |
Author: leonard
Thursday, 29 April 1999 - 07:02 pm | | Not much discussion needed here. After the poll on the diary with most agreeing it to be fake, if the diary is a fake, so is the watch.
Each supports the other and without one there can be no other.
leonard |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 30 April 1999 - 01:39 am | | Hi All
Karoline - I'd certainly have no objections to you undertaking the transcription. Let me see what I can do.
Peter - I checked the fax. The line should read: 'oh. you're talking about Florence.' Mistranscription is the penalty when working online and watching the phone bill mount! But I reiterate that the only points I was trying to make were that Billy wasn't (according to my transcript) badgered or coerced into saying something he didn't want to say and that the speculation about Florence being his grandmother was his own and that e wasn't manipulated or manoevered into saying it by Feldman.
I don't understand why you say that 'Billy's own words prove that the book he saw in 1950 could not have been the diary that we know today.' How do they prove it?
leonard - it has generally been accepted for many years that the "Diary" is a forgery. The questions which continue to exercise interest for some people are 1. who composed the document, when did they compose it and why did they compose it (which is essentially the question behind the current discussion) and 2. the wider issue of how trustworthy historical document analysis really is (which is the question behind interest in Anne and Billy Graham's claim that the document has been in the family for nearly fifty years, which if true flattens 'scientific' arguments, such as it being a post-1987 forgery written with an ink containing a 'modern' preservative called chloroacetamide and manufactured by a company called Diamine). The latter is probably the more important question in the long term, particularly as it may provide some new considerations and guidelines if any similar documents emerge in the future. |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Saturday, 01 May 1999 - 01:59 pm | | Paul:
Billy came home from the army in 1943 and saw a tin box upstairs. He saw a book "...and I just seen very small print (the diary has no print. Its handwriting is large.) and I put it down - didn't want to know."
So Paul, show me the "very small print" in the diary; and remember that in 1943 Billy was in the prime of life and presumably had no major eyesight problems. The book he saw in 1943 was the same book he saw in 1950. Ergo: he didn't see the diary.
Peter. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Saturday, 01 May 1999 - 08:42 pm | | Peter and Paul:
Here is a thought. Until I saw a photograph of the diary, on the Casebook, I thought the print in the diary was small too. Up to that point, I had only seen the print in the facsimile of the diary in the first edition of Shirley Harrison's book. Could it be that Billy Graham had only seen the small print in the facsimile pages in Harrison's "The Diary of Jack the Ripper" and similarly thought the diary had "very small print"? What I am saying is that he was saying something that he thought would help his daughter, by implying he had seen the diary first in 1943, but at the same time put his foot in it by showing he had not seen the diary at all.
Chris George |
Author: Leonard
Monday, 03 May 1999 - 01:54 am | | To Paul;
The diary being a fake I suppose someone would like to know who wrote it.
I for one do not. Who,what, when, where,how,and why do not apply unless its genuine. |
Author: Caz
Monday, 03 May 1999 - 04:40 am | | Hi Leonard,
Don't get the logic of your argument there mate.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 03 May 1999 - 05:13 am | | Hi all,
Back again.
Paul being misquoted, as I see it. I agree with Leonard that a non-genuine diary has nothing directly to do with Jack, but it should be remembered that it has gone down in JTR-history together with polished farthings, grapes and mad pork butchers.
I am now convinced that the diary is a hoax, the reports of Mike Barrett's speech at the C&D indicating a continued hide-and-seek modus rather than any evident attempt to clear the matter. Indeed a lost opportunity to illucidate the diary story and, I feel, it must have been very irritating for those who took the trouble to be present.
Any new evidence to the contrary would be welcome. However, I now feel that IMHO it is time to allow James Maybrick to rest in peace and the diary to sink in the same pool with Victoria-the-knife Queen, monsterous glove-puppets, trouserless ducks and dirty, ignorant, disemboweling midwife abortionists.
Hi Caz,
Forgot to say, no. 38 is mine,
Love/regards
Bob |
Author: Leonard
Tuesday, 04 May 1999 - 12:46 pm | | Dear Caz;
The logic is this, why worry about a diary that everyone says is fake.
If everyone is interested in a fake diary, then heck, I'll write one.
No interest in fakery here.
As Jack Webb used to say: "The facts, just the facts".
Have a Great Day
Leonard |
Author: Bob_c
Wednesday, 05 May 1999 - 07:12 am | | Hi Leonard,
That's just it. For a number of reasons, a number of people claim that the diary be real (i.e. not a hoax) or that certain points about the 'facts' contained in the diary could be real.
Mike Barrett claimed that he wrote the diary for Maybrick, ergo, Barrett says "Maybrick was the ripper. I shall write the diary for him". Mike Barrett hasn't proved anything at all with it, however, just added even more uncertainties to an already overflowing pool.
Facts are facts and facts are the truth. A great man once sighed that humankind can't take very much truth. He was right.
Regards
Bob |
Author: Leonard
Thursday, 06 May 1999 - 07:28 pm | | Thats because the truth hurts. As for truth, there can only be one truth {as found in the bible}. All other truths are the invention of man.
Your truth may be different from mine depending on your beliefs. Another old saying: the truth shall set you free.
As for the journal.....The dye is not cast. All the facts are not in yet. Yes there are a number of people that say that the diary is genuine....about as many as claim that it is a fake as the watch is also supposed to be fake but I think A-Z page 295 said it best: {Top of the page we read: The emergence of this artifact two months after the first newspaper reports of the Maybrick Journal has been greeted as confirmation of their opinions alike by those who believe the confession genuine and those who believe it to be forged.
So now we are faced with another glaring aspect of "WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE".
Leonard |
Author: Jon Smyth
Thursday, 06 May 1999 - 08:57 pm | | Hi Leonard.
I firmly believe that ...Man created God.
(If y'all think the 'diary' discussion gets volatile...wait till this one takes off!!!)
:-) :-)
Regards, Jon |
Author: Ashling
Friday, 07 May 1999 - 02:41 am | | Hi y'all.
There are lots of web sites set up to discuss religious or spiritual beliefs ... This Casebook: Jack the Ripper isn't one of them. I, like a lot of other posters here - am fairly new to the net. Much of what I've learned so far is due to many kind people's willingness to share their experience and knowledge. One thing I've learned is the v-a-s-t difference between CHAT Rooms and DISCUSSION Boards. These topic boards are DISCUSSION Boards set up to discuss J-A-C-K--t-h-e--R-I-P-P-E-R.
LEONARD & JON: Sorry, this isn't a commentary on you two in particular. An occasional personal remark is to be expected - we're people, not machines. But too many other posters here seem incapable of achieving any kind of balance. They perceive any off-topics remarks as an invitation to post several days worth of crap on any subject except Jack. That's my two pence.
Take care,
Ashling |
Author: Caz
Friday, 07 May 1999 - 06:06 am | | Chill out all, and skip through the 'crap'. I do whenever I walk through a field full of farm animals (grin). Bit of a silly thing to do if you don't like cowpats and angry farmers, but par for the course, I'm afraid.
Let Leonard get the wind-up religious bit out of his system and we will all get back on track. I'm finally getting the hang of this web-site, as any other most likely. It simply reflects real life, cowpats an' all.
Live with it, if you can't live without it.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Leonard
Friday, 07 May 1999 - 10:56 pm | | | Having read all these books on the ripper and not having a full understanding of the currency denominations {pounds,shillings,pence,etc.} I appear to be at a disadvantage when the books discuss money. Anyone care to give the rate of exchange between English currency and American? |
Author: Christopher T. George
Sunday, 09 May 1999 - 08:52 am | | Hello, Leonard:
Here is your short seminar on British currency of 1888. Up until the late sixties and early seventies when the British finally went in for decimalization, the currency was pounds, shillings, and pence. Or for short, £ s d. A pound was made up of twenty shillings, and each shilling of twelve pence, so a pound was made up of 240 pence.
The common coins at that time were as follows:
Bronze: farthing (quarter penny) (1/4 d); halfpenny (1/2 d); penny (1 d)
Silver: threepence (3 d); sixpence (6 d); shilling (1/-); two shillings; half crown or two shillings and sixpence (2/6); crown or five shillings (5/-)*****
Gold: half sovereign (half pound) or ten shillings (10/-); sovereign or pound (£1/-/-)
The silver denominations and gold up to the rarer two pounds and five pounds coins were issued with a special portrait of Queen Victoria in 1887 for her Silver Jubilee, the 50th year of her reign, the year before the Ripper struck.
Now this is what might interest you as an American trying to understand the sterling currency system and this is why I have marked the crown or five shillings with asterisks ***** The five shillings coin was about the same size as a silver dollar, in fact in the vernacular I can remember people in the Sixties when I lived in England referring to the crown as a "dollar." I believe it is true to say that in 1888, a dollar then would have been equivalent to five shillings, or that a pound would equal four dollars. If I am wrong about this, perhaps someone could correct me.
I hope this has helped, Leonard. If you have any further questions about the British currency, you only have to ask.
Chris George |
|
|
|
|
