|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 October 20, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Maybrick/Jack's watch?:
Archive through October 20, 2000
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 10 October 2000 - 10:25 am |        | Feeling a little blunt today, myself.
'Dating the Diary':
1) Allusion to McCormick's poem (post 1959)
2) 'Poste House' reference (post early 1960s)
3) chloracetamide in ink (post 1974)
4) 'O Costly Intercourse' (post Sphere Guide,1986)
5) 'Tin matchbox, empty' (post Fido, 1987)
6) certain phrasing mirroring Underwood [Stride's death; Whitechapel London/Whitechapel Liverpool, etc.] (post 1988)
7) no bronzing of ink [Nickell, etc.] post 1990(?)
8) changing stories as to origins of diary; denial of Feldman's geneology by Graham/Johnson. No providence, suggesting recent origins (1990s?)
Is there really any doubt? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 10 October 2000 - 12:52 pm | | Hi RJ,
Off the top of my head (as far from the other end as poss :-)):
1)I don't see (never did see) any allusion in the diary itself to McCormick's poem. The words in question can equally be said to have been inspired by Three Little Maids From School.
2)Poste House could refer to one such in London, not Liverpool.
3)Chloracetamide in ink found in such a minuscule quantity that it's been suggested the test which found it (not all did) could have been contaminated. Any idea whether the amount detected was in expected proportion to the other ingredients in a post 1974 ink?
4)If Mike's tiny input into the forgery included providing this quote, from the copy he had at home, why did he spend time at the library later (he did) trying to find the quote again? Was it all part of the act, down to recognising the book it came from as one of a set he'd had at home, and later seeking out and finding yet another set of the same volumes in a second-hand book shop in Liverpool?
5)'tin matchbox empty' (to get the diary quote absolutely accurate) was a try-out line, written in exactly the same way as 'first whore no good', and appearing in the finished effort as: 'One whore no good....damn it, the tin box was empty'.
Perhaps others can comment on points 6) to 7).
8)Not sure how the denial of Feldman's faulty genealogy claims by Graham/Johnson show they must be involved in forgery.
Agree about the clearly unsatisfactory provenance as it stands.
I guess it's one person's 'no doubt' versus another's 'bit of reasonable nagging doubt' that all is not as it would seem.
But if everything is now so clear cut and obvious to everyone, why don't Mike and Anne and Albert finally hold their hands up and admit defeat?
Melvin,
You wrote:
'It has been asked why Barrett made no mention of the use of his Crashaw lines...when he was intent on claiming to be the faker. Well, he did. He made the claim first to private detective Allan Gray. He later made the same claim to me. To Gray he stated that his wife had wrongly transcribed the words.'
Could you please give us some actual dates for these claims? My point was that he made no mention of Crashaw to the press (or anyone else apparently) in June 1994, when he first 'confessed' to writing the diary single-handedly. I stick by that, and the fact that he could hardly have forgotten this limited input of his, which would have surely guaranteed that the public would sit up and take notice of this wannabe master forger. You are saying Mike first made the claim to Gray, but this was surely some time later, when he decided to include Anne in the scam. If we can establish exactly when Mike thought fit to mention this crucial piece of evidence to Gray and yourself in private to show his involvement, we could begin to examine his reasoning and try to understand it. You seem to be better than the rest of us at working out when you are being told the truth by your 'source' and when it's all a load of rubbish.
Thanks.
Caz |
Author: Barry Street
Tuesday, 10 October 2000 - 02:26 pm | | Mr Harris's explanation of 'Hamersmith' undoubtedly appealed to Caroline Anne Morris's (CAM) lavatorial sense of humor. She also indicates, in a derisive way, her opinion of Mr Harris's D'Onston theory. As D'Onston was a contemporary suspect actually seen by the police and a thousand times more viable than the Maybrick nonsense, this reveals the sorry state of CAM's reasoning. If there is an obsession with bottoms dare I suggest that it is on the part of CAM?
CAM has certainly emerged as the new champion of the 'diary camp's debate' and has effortlessly taken on the task of making whatever excuses she can think of to keep the mad ideas going. It almost makes you wonder who is pulling the strings. She's got an answer for everything.
With the great popularity of the McCormick penned rhyme 'Eight little whores,' she would have us believe that the rhyme attempted in the Diary was inspired by something else altogether. I guess from this that she accepts that the McCormick rhyme is a modern invention.
She rakes up the old chloroacetamide debate when she clearly does not understand what she is talking about. The whole point of that is that the AFI test, a scrupulously conducted and controlled test revealed a trace of chloroacetamide in the sample tested. No doubt about it, it was there. Of course chloroacetamide has been used in inks only in modern times. There was no question of any contamination at this test. The question of contamination arose at the diary camp's Leeds test, which was not properly conducted.
Try out line or not, 'tin match box empty' is still 'tin match box empty,' it's a dead give-away.
Of course, where CAM is unable to make an excuse, such as in points 6 to 7, she tries to lure someone else into the debate. She obviously can't be bothered to tackle those points (or has insufficient knowledge to do so).
In most frauds 'all is not as it would seem' and it would well behove CAM to keep to things she understands (such as lavatorial jokes).
When frauds are recognised the perpetrators rarely stand up and admit it. Money is still being made here, the story is still being plugged for all it's worth. Does CAM really expect anyone involved to 'finally hold their hands up and admit defeat'?
Yes, Mr Harris certainly does know rubbish when he sees it, perhaps that's why he doesn't respond to too many of CAM's posts. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 10 October 2000 - 08:03 pm | | | Caz-- In reference to #4. Yes, that's what I'm saying: it was an act on Mike Barrett's part. In the early stages, Ms. Harrison allowed Barrett to work with her in researching the diary. This certainly would have polluted things. When Harrison began wondering about the quote, Barrett certainly wouldn't have been stupid enough to immediately supply the source. He allegedly went to the Liverpool library...and lo! he found its genesis in The Sphere Guide. But as has been shown, even the mythical Super Librarian could not have led him thither. When, a short time later, Barrett reveals that he already had the Sphere Guide in his attic, Harrison is extremely suspicious (p. 284, Blake edition). So am I. Why aren't the 'old hoax'ers? This one is the keystone in the 'old hoax' sarcophagus, IMHO. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 03:35 am | | Thanks Barry,
Actually, I don't believe for one moment that old arsenic-head James Maybrick went prowling round the East End of London in his late 40s looking for Florie substitutes to stick pins in, but if you say I do, it must be so I guess. Though you and Mr Harris evidently do believe that Mike Barrett knows all about the subliminal angle of Mrs H and Bobo's behind, and that his O Costly intercourse was seized upon by the barmy army of fakers for the reason Mike gave that any quote mentioning intercourse and death would suit a sexual serial killer down to the ground.
Does no one else find the whole Hamersmith explanation laughable? I'm really sorry that I couldn't help but compare it with D'Onston since I'm currently looking again at this particular sod....
I don't much care when Eight Little Whores was penned since I don't know if the forger was thinking of this poem when the diary was written. Poems based on numbers have always come to mind when groups of people are concerned, whether it be Three Little Maids, Eight Little Whores, or Ten Little....well, you get the idea. Independent thought will always produce such rhymes.
Of course I'll ask others to comment when I don't know the answers or can't suggest what are, after all, only possibilities. Can't think why this gets some people so cross.
But if you are right about the chloroacetamide, then surely that point alone is enough proof to condemn the document as modern. Why on earth then does Mr Harris bother entering into any other discussion about the finer points of the diary? You are absolutely right that I just don't understand some things. This one is probably the most baffling to me. Either the science has proved the thing modern or it hasn't. Why bring bottoms into it at all? (I didn't.)
Morning RJ,
This is why it's crucial to get some dates sorted out here. If the library visit was all an act on Mike's part, at a time when he wanted Shirley to believe he'd never seen the quote before, when exactly did he reveal he already had the book at home? Was it exactly at the same time as he changed his mind and claimed full responsibility for the hoax? This is what we need to know, otherwise nothing makes sense.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Dixon
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 08:52 am | | I find the strongest proof of the diary in the inherit contradictions of the evidence that disproves it. Look at the dates. If you want post Bond Report - why the kelly breast error? If you want less modern but not that modern ( 1960's -1987 ?) than I think the tin box is out. Assuming whoever wrote it was seriously trying to get it right.
Originally I favoured the Rendell position of somewhere in the 1920-1930's & so was particularly interested in the links Harris makes to Spicer.
I find it hard to accept a group of modern enthusiasts knocked this up 1 weekend
:-)
Cheers John |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 09:40 am | | | Sorry to be nit-picky, but I don't believe it was Kenneth Rendell's position that the diary was penned 1920-1930. This was only the original opinion of one member of his team (Rod McNeil) using the controversial ion migration test. Mr. McNeil later revised his estimate to 'prior to 1970' (Blake edition of Diary of Jack the Ripper pg.366. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 10:23 am | | Caz-- Hello. In commenting on #2, you said 'Poste House could refer to one such in London, not Liverpool'. This idea has been thrown around a fair amount. But where, exactly is the proof? The context, as I read it, is referring to Liverpool. It is in the very beginning of the diary where the author is setting the scene, and (in my opinion) dropping hints as to Maybrick's identity. In the first two editions of The Diary of Jack the Ripper it is openly assumed that it refers to Poste House in Cumberland Street, Liverpool...in fact, it is even listed on a map of "James Maybrick's Liverpool"! Only after Roger Wilkes pointed out that Poste House was the Muck Midden, did these other possibilities suddenly start to emerge, including Feldman's obscure suggestion of 'Poste Restante' from a letter by Forbes Winslow. In my opinion, there is a tendency by the pro-Anne or pro-diary crowd to sweep obvious discrepencies such as this under the rug, and come up with creative and/or convoluted explanations in order to cling to a particular theory. (A further example would be that "tin match box empty" is not a direct quote from the report in Fido's book).
But I guess we agree to disagree.
Cheers,
RJP |
Author: Guy Hatton
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 11:12 am | | ...and "Manchester" isn't really Manchester, it's some obscure little place out in the sticks called "Godmanchester", and so on ad nauseam. The desperate twists and turns of the pro-Diarists do not in themselves disprove the document's authenticity, of course, but the more they occur, the more obvious it becomes that Mr. Feldman and Mrs. Harrison cannot sustain a convincing argument in its favour either. And wasn't it Feldman who used to complain that the "Ripperologists" were moving the goalposts?
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 11:21 am | | Hi RJ,
First of all, please don't ever think you are being 'nit-picky' by correcting anyone on facts such as names and dates.
Certainly, every date, whether based on fact or scientific opinion, is absolutely crucial in working out which bits of info fit a post-1987 fake and which don't.
Dating the document's creation 'prior to 1970' puts McNeil's 'strong opinion' in direct conflict with any ripper experts' view that some of the material in the diary could only have been available to the forger some 18 years later.
I agree that if the diary author does mean the Poste House in Cumberland Street Liverpool, anyone trying to claim the diary is genuine or an old fake has a problem. Obviously, when the researchers found one in Liverpool they assumed this to be the one in the diary. I can only say honestly what crossed my mind as I first read the passage in the diary. I took no one else's word for anything when I read the sentence: 'I took refreshment at the Poste House it was there I finally decided London it shall be' and decided for myself that London was where the author was placing James when he was making that decision. The passage also comes immediately after the one in which he writes: 'Received a letter from Michael perhaps I will visit him.'
If you've noticed, the author often states his intentions to go somewhere or do something, then in the next passage describes the event or his thoughts about it - another thing which makes me feel the thing has been composed rather than being the author's spontaneous thought processes.
If the author was quoting from the list of Eddowes's possessions, it was either very stupid or smacks of a deliberate mistake. But I remain to be convinced on that one.
John,
I have also wondered about the diary forger's thought processes in deciding which facts from which ripper books - the most recent or otherwise - would be most acceptable to the experts, who would inevitably want to examinine the content in minute detail for errors. If a modern group of hoaxers did plan this thing, they took great pains in some areas (for example, casting poor old Druitt into the muddy waters - again - this time as Mrs H, a grotesque pantomime Dame figure and another deliberate mistake) and were hopelessly slapdash in others, where even a complete ripper novice in the late 1980s would not have been if they were, in your words, 'seriously trying to get it right.'
Is the whole thing beginning to look rather like a modern-day student prank....?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Barry Street
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 11:26 am | | I am unable to see anywhere in my post where I have stated that CAM believes the premise of the diary. Nor do I see anywhere in my post where I have stated that Barrett 'knows all about the subliminal angle of Mrs H and Bobo's behind...' etc. Nor have I anywhere stated that I agree with the explanations given by Mr Harris, for all I know he may well have his tongue firmly lodged in his cheek. What I have clearly stated is that, despite the patent nonsense she seems to believe it to be, CAM continues to make pro-diary excuses. Whenever valid points are made, such as those by the eminently sensible R.J. Palmer, CAM has to respond with specious argument against those points. She is, in fact, typical of all the defenders of the diary debate.
She now says she is "currently looking again at this particular sod...[D'Onston]" and I am sure Mr Harris will be quaking in his shoes at the mere thought of this. (I expect he is really thinking 'Who the hell is CAM?')
I guess most Ripper readers have heard of 'Eight Little Whores' but I for one have never heard of 'Three Little Maids.' (I appreciate that I am here admitting that I'm obviously not so well-read as CAM).
The chloroacetamide test was conducted as I have stated. The AFI test was faultless and did reveal the chemical. This obviously set the diary camp scampering for a response to such damning evidence and we were all bombarded with the 'contra-tests' at Leeds, the fact that the very paper might contain the chemical (it didn't) and various other specious arguments, smokescreens and nonsense. For anybody with an ounce of common sense the AFI test was 'enough proof to condemn the document as modern.' It didn't however stop the diary money makers and they performed their usual frenzy of counter claims and nonsense which left the average reader rather punch drunk and believing there was a possibility that the AFI test wasn't valid. It was. Science has 'proved the thing modern' but the diarists won't accept that. Or there are the obtuse ones such as CAM who accept that it is a forgery and yet still dole out the false arguments and 'what ifs.'
Mr Harris 'bothered to enter into other discussion about finer points of the diary' for this very reason. Proof against the diary hadn't stopped the diarists. Mr Harris believes in honesty and, as most must be aware, he wasn't prepared to stand by and witness this flood of nonsense.
If CAM has the rest of her life to pontificate over the forgers (for they may never be fully revealed) then I guess it is up to her and her ilk to waste their time doing so. What is unfortunate about this, though, is the fact that there are those who have no knowledge of the subject at all, or who may be new to it, who may be dragged in and swayed by her irrelevant arguments. Some of us just can't stand by and watch that happen without comment.
In the final analysis CAM is right about one thing - as far as the dodgy diary goes 'nothing makes sense.' And so say all of us. |
Author: shirley harrison
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 12:55 pm | | Peter - this is getting ridiculous.
Thank you for your suggestion that we should not rely on the typed microfiche for
our information. We didn't. We have a copy of the handwritten original in which the
name Ham(m)ersmith appears twice quite clearly.
You talk (somewhat patronisingly) of "sense". Of course it is perfectly reasonable for
the Hamiltons/Ham(mersmiths to have moved anywhere in the area and in that time
for them to have gone up in the world. In seven years young Benjamin could have
become a well known local builder……….and there is absolutely no reason why
Maybrick if walking in the park on meeting Mrs H he would not pass the time of day.
The entry is not exactly friendly.
But all this is irrelevant and proves nothing either way. We do not KNOW that the
name is a mistranscription. That is a sensible guess. But perhaps the new young
bride (or her Dad) gave a different name for reasons we do not know. Perhaps she
did what many people did (and do) assumed a different, if not legal name.
All I have said is, that until I find a contemporary reference to a Mrs H in 1888 which
seems unlikely, the diary entry remains enigmatic. It most certainly does not prove it
a modern forgery.
I am intruiged by Melvin's faith in Mike B and not a little irritated at the innuendo in
his implied concern over my wish to get hold of the Crashaw book. Of course I did - I
was researching AND under hostile and difficult circumstances trying to get at the
truth and contractually Mike was bound to show me the book. It was his chance to
prove his claim to be the forger (dont forget too that THAT claim was followed by
the current statement that Anne wrote the diary with his help - no Kane, no
Devereux.)
Now on a lighter note, here is your homework readers. Robert Louis Stevenson wrote
a little known short story called The Suicide Club. I believe it concerns a member of
the Royal family mixing with the hoi poloi in low places. He and his bodyguard join a
club in which there is agreement to commit suicide if certain rules are not adhered to
(I am a little hazy about the plot ) The bodyguard's name is - Major Hammersmith.
This isn't going to get us anywhere but I am curious.
Any further theories here? And since this is Email and not tele - I am smiling.
This is a PS. Tracy - I was thrilled to see your letter. Are you related to Gay
Steinbach with whom I have been in touch and who was visited on my behalf by
Gerald Brierley some years back. Id love to hear from you off the boards too - Gay
had some documentary material and I felt might have a useful contribution to make.
Michael Maybrick has quite a lot to explain I feel. Where can I contact you? Or could
you drop me a line at 54 Borough High St,London SE11XL |
Author: Tracy Steinbach
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 07:50 pm | | Hi, Shirley!
I am Gay's daughter. Sorry my mother was a bit of a party pooper about discussing Michael. I think she was a bit put off about the whole thing. In any case, she still hasn't read your book, yet! I keep bugging her about it, but she keeps herself pretty busy these days. I have noted your address and will write you rather than post my personal information on the boards. Certainly the true story of the Maybricks is utterly fascinating and we do have some interesting material. My grandmother had a whole room full of memorabilia from her Auntie Laura that she went through with my mother and I during a Summer visit in 1973. Although she threw out a lot, we did manage to keep things we thought important. Some things were also given to one of my mother's first cousins, though I don't think much. My grandmother particularly treasured the original five-volume bound edition of Michael's songs, and gave them to me. In each volume, Michael has handwritten a table of contents. Stephen Adams seems to have been the Elton John of Victorian England! Then to have engineered the whole trial against Florie...yikes! Obviously, he was quite a complex and charismatic man. More soon... |
Author: John Dixon
Thursday, 12 October 2000 - 07:45 am | | Barry relax!!!
The first order of business on the Maybrick board is not to take it toooo seriously. If you have read any of Caz's other posts over numerous boards you should realise that she is 1 of the best contributors here. ( & not in fact a diary supporter at all. It is quite simply that any rational mention of the diary sends people rabid around here. ) I think the post you refer to was more than a little out of character.
I am sure all of us would totally agree that the diary is not for those inexperienced in this area. ( But I might add it seems to stir more interest then any other book on the subject - like it or not. )
I still just want to discuss the diary.
Cheers John |
Author: John Dixon
Thursday, 12 October 2000 - 08:11 am | | Caz, a student prank? That might also explain why no hoaxers have come forward. Students would probably have more to lose than gain by coming forward. I can imagine a student thinking how funny it was in first year Arts to create the diary but being far less amused in his/her/their last year of medicine at the prospect of worldwide headlines.
However the topic here is the watch.
You all remember the watch.
"It stands alone. It doesn't need the diary to link Maybrick to JTR." said John donning a flak jacket & loading typewriter!
John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 12 October 2000 - 01:18 pm | | Hi Barry,
'Nor have I anywhere stated that I agree with the explanations given by Mr Harris, for all I know he may well have his tongue firmly lodged in his cheek.'
You really are master of the unfortunate phrase, aren't you? :-)
But I must say I admire you for distancing yourself from this little gem of Melvin's. You'd be surprised how many people hang onto his every word, and wouldn't dare to suggest he can't be taken seriously. Well done!
'I guess most Ripper readers have heard of 'Eight Little Whores' but I for one have never heard of 'Three Little Maids.'
I also admire you for admitting this lack of knowledge of one of the most popular songs around in the ripper's time. It comes from The Mikado by Gilbert & Sullivan, which was enjoying a re-run to packed houses at The Savoy in The Strand between June and September 1888.
"One little maid is a bride, Yum-Yum - " (One whore in heaven)
"Two little maids in attendance come - " (Two whores side by side)
"Three little maids is the total sum." (Three whores all have died)
(four)
The words in brackets are the lines from the diary (all struck through in apparent frustration at the author's lack of talent at writing verse), which are said to be inspired by 'Eight Little Whores.' My point is that unless we can ask the author what, if anything, inspired his efforts, one explanation seems to me no better or worse than the other. Everyone else may well disagree, but at least my example is contemporary.
This of course doesn't help with dating the diary, but may just illustrate that until the scientists can all agree, or unless the forgers decide to tell us which of our interpretations are correct, we are all entitled to our individual speculations, but should also be equally prepared to have them questioned, disagreed with or laughed at, as the case may be.
So yes, Barry, it is entirely up to me, thank God (and Stephen Ryder :-)), if I want to continue doing so. And it is entirely up to you if you feel you have to help those less fortunate and knowledgeable than yourself, who are being 'dragged in and swayed' by my arguments.
But I agree with John about not taking the Maybrick board 'toooo seriously.' It is perhaps not for sensitive souls, or those lacking a healthy sense of the ridiculous. I have often explained that my interest in the diary (and watch - sorry John!) is connected with my love of seemingly insoluble puzzles. You say the forgers may never be fully revealed. Melvin says he knows who they are. For you, and countless others no doubt, this is enough to satisfy your curiosity. For me, this only makes my curiosity keener. When those who claim to know all the answers put up unexplained obstacles to sharing that knowledge with those who are still searching, and instead spend many years patronising and storming at them for their supposed ignorance, I'm afraid I tend to smell a rat.
But as Scott Nelson pointed out elsewhere, there are other debates going on which you may find more up your alley - if only to give you a break from the irritations of this one.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 13 October 2000 - 12:06 pm | | RJ:
Reference the Crashaw poem. As far as I've been able to find, although there are lines of his verse mentioned in such works as Bartlett's Familiar Quotations and others there so far seems to be no reference to this particular line. If you check it through the Search Engines, no reference to this line comes up although there are other bits and pieces from Crashaw's oevre cited. So to explain Mikes actions (p282 Blake edn.) there are several alternatives: 1/ Mike found a librarian who was a Crashaw authority and immediately recognised the line, 2/ Mike knew all along that the line was cited in the Sphere volume. The immediate problem with 1/ is: if a librarian knew the line, why didn't he refer Mike to one of the collected editions of Crashaw's verse rather than the Sphere volume which mentions it only in passing?
We know that Mike's book "falls open" at the page where the line is quoted. Isn't the more reasonable explanation (vide William of wherever) that the modern forger looking cursorily through the book found the line and thought it would look good in the diary? And despite Shirley's words about Mike not being able to use the line "to such sensitive effect" considering that it comes after a para about boiling heads, I don't see it as particularly sensitive or that it fits in any way there. By the way, I like your idea of a "pro-Anne" crowd. The current diary apologists seem to be tumbling readily into this group.
Caroline Anne:
It's always fun to see how you denigrate the forgers ("barmy army") so that we can say: "If they're that incompetent, the diary must be real." But obviously thousand of people world-wide actually believe in the thing still, so they must have done something right. The trouble is that your comments about it are for the most part pretty facile: if you don't understand something you make fun about it and although you deny it, you are more and more becoming one of the few apologists for the diary. Do you still have hopes of proving your Grossmith/Maybrick theory?
John:
Both CD and fiche show Hamersmith. Could I suggest that it wasn't a group of "modern enthusiasts" who constructed this but someone with an eye to commercial possibilities.
Barry:
"Three Little Maids..." is from "The Mikado" by Gilbert and Sullivan. Mrs. Morris has a genuine liking and knowledge of Savoy Opera and is an authority on modern interpolations in the works. (see her recent book on the Banquet scene in "The Sorcerer" as reworked by Lloyd Grossman.)
Shirley:
We agree: it is ridiculous that for every word printed that tends to show the diary as a modern forgery, you are able to find an explanation that brings the whole argument even further into the area of conspiracy and the sort of research that litters the pages of the Colin Wilson school of archaelogists. Perhaps you would scan the particular census page onto the board here. (Alternatively, perhaps Viper, who lives a lot closer to the Family Record Centre than I could just verify that for us.)
If you think my sensible comments about the meeting between Maybrick and Mrs H. are "patronising" then you are, as I've mentioned before, unduly sensitive. It's certainly possible that Benjamin could have increased in station in seven years but is it likely? I suggest that you prove that he has by finding his childrens births, checking him in local directories and therefore showing us that what you say has merit. After all, if you can prove that Ben and his wife could have been close enough to the Maybricks to know them that well, you've proved your case. And if you already have and found that Ben continues to be a labourer living a long way away from the Maybricks and using the name "Hamilton," then your case has failed. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 13 October 2000 - 02:12 pm | | Hi Peter,
Firstly, you put the following in quotes, so presumably you've seen it written somewhere:
"If they're that incompetent, the diary must be real." Could you please tell us where this quote comes from and who made it? Thanks. Otherwise we might be forgiven for thinking you are reading things which aren't actually there, in which case you can also tell us what was on the missing pages from the diary.
You seem to find it hard to accept that I may have drawn a line under my old theories and moved on. I appreciate this isn't the way for you more scholarly types who, once committed to a theory, cannot be seen to budge from it, modify it or admit some bits might just be wrong. But then I'm afraid I don't see adaptation as a weakness or losing face.
You write that my comments are 'for the most part pretty facile: if you don't understand something you make fun about it...' in almost the same sweep of the typing finger that you use for your Lloyd Grossman remark. I guess it takes one to know one.
Do you still have hopes of proving your Anne/Mike for financial gain theory, now that Melvin has sat on it and squashed it flat?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 14 October 2000 - 11:54 am | | Dear Heart:
If the first part of the clause reads (as it does) "so that we can say..." then it's perfectly proper to put the rest in quotes. Please refer back to your English Language and Literature class. The rest of your sentence (and indeed the balance of the message) backs up the balance of mine.
Please also remind us of a message wherin you have said that you have given up your Grossmith theory. I may have missed it.
You obviously have a lack of a sense of humour except when it's you making fun of someone else. That was actually a form of compliment in that whatever I may think about your other ideas and theories, I do have some respect for your knowledge Savoyard. The Grossman bit was an in-joke that I hoped you might see but apparentl not. And typing fingers do not "sweep."
For my ideas I suggest that you look back over the posts I've made these past few years. For Melvin's I suggest you do the same. You really don't need to confuse us: Melvin is much thinner than me. |
Author: Scott Nelson
Sunday, 15 October 2000 - 01:50 am | | No questions are answered, no accountability ascribed. But you know the answers, why not oblige? Do you know who forged it and why? Honestly, I think not and here's why: you don't answer questions. If it was Kane and Company why don't you speak out, what's to hide? This smoke-screen B.S. goes only so far, is it the anti-diary camp that is meaning to scam? The real money to be made on the diary seems to be there, not the pro-diary camp.
Meanwhile, denigrating remarks play themselves out in full, fulfilling absoluting nothing, except in the minds of the creators. There's nothing of lasting value to the diary debate in bickering, it won't solve a thing. Let posters treat one another with respect (of course this flys in the face of human nature in general, but Oh well...) |
Author: Demi Kranikoglou
Sunday, 15 October 2000 - 04:19 am | | Hello,
Reading the posts here, I see everyone is very well informed and educated in Ripper 101. I also noticed something that I found to be amusing. When someone responds to a post that inflames the passions of their little soul, they refer to the offending party by their initials. Strangely intriguing - of course I hope I have not caused any offence by my jest as I would hate to be referred to as DK.
The topic of the missing pages in the diary has reminded me when chatting with a tour guide of the Ripper Walk meeting at Tower Hill at a nearby watering hole, I brought up this subject whilst conversing of the whole Maybrick ordeal. He smiled at me and replied, " A clever fake can always tart up it's wares for the promise of deceit. "
If anything I think that is a brilliant thing to say - no matter what side of the fence you chew the grass on.
Cheers,
Demi x |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 15 October 2000 - 04:22 am | | Scott--after throwing out loaded words such as "scam", "smoke-screen", and "b.s.", you then go on to make a general plea against denigrating remarks? what??
The suggestion that the anti-diary camp is making the "real money" is so ludicrous that it is hardly worth rebutting. One look at the Casebook itself will show Melvin Harris's excellent and thorough articles on the Maybrick Diary have been given here freely for public use. Can the same be said of Feldman's book or the three editions of Shirley Harrison's book?
If you have been reading all the posts here, you will know that Mr. Harris has stated that he has not revealed the names of all the forgers due to the advice of legal council. Ponder that point. You can choose to believe it or not. I, who have looked at the evidence of both sides closely, readily believe he has the answer.
To Caz: I can see why Peter Birchwood was a bit razzled by your last few posts. I confess I, too, was disappointed by your statement that "You'd be surprised how many people hang onto [Melvin Harris's] every word, and wouldn't dare to suggest that he can't be taken seriously." First of all, Melvin Harris is a fine researcher. Earlier this summer he was given an endorsement by Stuart Evans on these boards. Certainly a great deal of weight must be given to his opinions. Secondly, isn't this a rather poor attempt to lump all diary critic's as mindless groupies of Mr. Harris? I've think I've looked pretty darn carefully at the evidence. (Heck, I bought all three editions of Shirley Harrison's book, for starters!) I admit I am impressed by his findings, but this came after carefully checking up on the details.
Despite my reservations about his book, I would have to applaud Feldman for stating his reasons for believing the diary is genuine. The same can be certainly said for Shirley Harrison. And, of course, of Melvin Harris, who has written extensively on why he believes the diary is a recent hoax. Can the same be said of the 'old-hoax' theorists? I think not. If they are to be taken seriously, they need to at least publish some sort of detailed argument. Karoline L. made a similar point this summer, and was more or less hooted off the boards.
Apologies for the tone. Things are getting a bit heated again. People should cut down on the ad hominem attacts and stick to the facts.
Tomorrow my computer is lent out for a month, but I'll see y'all in December.
RJP |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 15 October 2000 - 04:29 am | | | Drats. I'm dyslexic. Apologies to Mr. Evans for misspelling his name in the previous post. Have been enjoying a re-read of Jack the Ripper: First American Serial Killer. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 15 October 2000 - 04:30 am | | Hi All,
Hi RJ,
I’ve been thinking about your recent post, which made a number of succinct observations (which makes a refreshing change from diatribes about lack of integrity and unwillingness to listen to reason), any one of which, if correct, would be proof that the diary (and therefore the watch too) is a modern fake. It’s a pity that you are off now until December. You know how to talk to people in a calm and rational manner and get the best out of them.
It’s a crying shame that anyone who dares question anything or tries to bring fresh ideas to this debate is treated to the same old cliche; we are diary apologists. I know from emails I have received that there is a general air of intimidation here, which halts the free flow of ideas and makes people wary of even asking simple questions, and this makes me very angry (doesn’t happen often so make the most of it :-). It will be denied of course – people are just too ‘sensitive’, no one is setting out to be offensive. But those are subjective views and out of touch with people’s real feelings. I know. I get almost daily bashings, which bloody well hurt sometimes. But if I go, what does that tell others, who may one day have something a whole lot more useful, sensible and valuable to contribute? I thought Stephen Ryder was aiming for a site where the professionals would teach and advise the amateurs, not browbeat and ridicule them in order to prove their superiority.
I’d like to look again at three of RJ’s points in greater detail. Before Barry Street sneers, there is absolutely no reason why, as an amateur here, I should feel obliged to address all of them or none at all. And before anyone reminds me, I know that, even if every single one can be argued against, it will prove nothing about the diary’s true age. But it might just show that some things are not so ‘obvious’ about the diary and watch.
Chloroacetamide
Analysis For Industry found that chloroacetamide was present at a level of 6.5 parts per million.
This test, and therefore the quantity of modern preservative found, proves the diary to be a modern fake, according to Melvin.
Chloroacetamide actually makes up 0.26% of the ingredients in Diamine, the ink which, again according to Melvin, was used by the faker.
My maths tells me that the trace actually found by AFI makes up only 0.00065% of their sample. So Barry Street is dead right when he says I don’t understand the scientific implications. What happened to the other 0.25935%, which one might expect (as a layperson) to have been present, if the ink was indeed Diamine (which was refuted by Diamine’s own chief research chemist in 1995)? Was this ever explained? We really should be told.
(Perhaps Mike had added sugar to the ink as he claimed, and hey presto – most of the chloroacetamide disappeared. :-))
All this just indicates to me that none of the scientific tests, conducted by various independent bodies, have been able to give either ‘side’ conclusive and undisputed evidence of age. Presumably it was this tiny presence of chloroacetamide in the AFI test, which led to Melvin concluding that the Leeds tests must therefore be ‘fatally flawed’ - which diplomatic remark was not exactly conducive to Leeds saying “Of course, Mr. Harris, you are probably right. Let’s go back and re-examine our results to find out why they differ from AFI’s.” Even the most easy-going professional with a reputation to defend might be understandably reluctant to play ball after being told by Melvin in such blunt terms that they’ve screwed up.
And so an element of doubt remains, keeping the whole saga ticking over, which could have been removed long ago, had Melvin used his interpersonal skills to better effect with those most qualified to put their heads together and come up with some definitive answers.
Poste House
The diary author does not commit himself to which one he visited. All inns with facilities for mail collection were known as ‘post houses’ (and there were an awful lot of them), and were often referred to colloquially as such. The one ‘Poste House’, which was found in modern-day Liverpool, was seized upon and assumed to be the one referred to in the diary. When it was found that this particular pub was called something else in 1888, the diary ‘camp’ decided they’d made a false assumption. Naturally, they were immediately accused of doing a convenient about-turn, but the assumption should never have been made in the first place by anyone, on either ‘side’. The modern hoax theorists are simply not in a position to say that the original assumption was correct. (And I’m sorry, but the fact that Mike Barrett says he put it in as a deliberate mistake so he could later prove he forged the diary is not a reasonable counter-argument!)
A much sounder argument, which Paul Begg has used many times, is that the ‘e’ on the end of Poste would not have been used in 1888 because it is a modern affectation, as in ‘Olde Worlde’. But as the diarist makes the same error with ‘post haste’, spelling it ‘poste haste’, it could just be argued that this was a habitual misspelling, and not an elementary mistake by a modern hoaxer who didn’t do the basic homework.
What research has been done, if any, on inns which were called or known colloquially as the post house in 1888 - either in Liverpool, or in other locations which are known to have been visited by Maybrick?
Eight Little Whores
Melvin says that the late Donald McCormick admitted to writing this poem. But in letters to Feldy and Shirley, McCormick denied making the admission. Admitting to something does not make it true, as Melvin would be the first to remind us, and as Mike Barrett has proved over and over. Denying the admission doesn’t make it false either. But we are generally advised to treat all McCormick’s assertions with caution and, more importantly, he was in a fragile state of health at the time. So was Melvin really in a position to take such an admission for granted? I don’t know enough about the circumstances to be able to form an opinion either way. But I’m a bit surprised that others take things like this as gospel. One has to accept unconditionally that McCormick did write the poem, and that the diary author could not have thought up his own numbers rhyme without it, otherwise there is no basis for using it in the argument for a modern hoax.
Now I’m off to the air-raid shelter for a cuppa…..
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 15 October 2000 - 05:15 am | | Caz--We evidently crossed in posting. Thanks for the above. Interesting point about McCormick. He is a puzzler, and I haven't the foggiest how to approach him. McCormick is generally derided in print, yet is still cited by respected authors from time to time. A rather schizophrenic situation.
You've certainly had more than your fair share of lumps. But then, you're rooting for the underdog. I do sympathize.
This is complete blasphemy, of course, but I think the Maybrick Diary mystery is more interesting to me than the identity of Jack the Ripper. For one thing, some of those involved still have blood coursing through their veins.  I don't think it would so compelling if their weren't intelligent and interesting people arguing from all three points of the triangle.
Three cheers for the amateurs.
I'll try to keep current with the posts.
RJP |
Author: Scott Nelson
Sunday, 15 October 2000 - 05:21 pm | | R.J.,
Relax. Didn't you say great minds think alike? My message was self-mocking as a point of the hypocrisy I see on both sides. |
Author: John Dixon
Monday, 16 October 2000 - 09:25 am | | Although again, I don't particularly support the view the Rendell report suggests that the handwriting , the ink test , & the use of "one off" would indicate early to mid 20th century. Hence my opinion that Rendell believed this.
All 3 of these points are disputed of course.
This has great bearing on Spicer & the 8 Little Whores. I have noted the associations above & would add that counting songs are apparently numerous & popular in the 1880's ( can anyone confirm?) But if I may offer another possibility as to its origin. I believe that the poem may be from the period of the Ripper because of the reference to Gladstone & because of what might be a Jewish reference. There is a Jewish Maccabean song "8 festive nights" ( associated with Hanukkah ). There are not textual parallels. But Hanukkah would have been around the time of the Ripper murders & Maybrick was certainly aware of a the Jewish context of the investigation. I need some help to understand the Jewish references if they are there.
Cheers John |
Author: Guy Hatton
Monday, 16 October 2000 - 10:07 am | |
Quote:But Hanukkah would have been around the time of the Ripper murders & Maybrick was certainly aware of a the (sic.) Jewish context of the investigation.
Caution John - we don't know what (if anything) Maybrick was aware of relating to the investigation!
All the Best
Guy |
Author: John Dixon
Monday, 16 October 2000 - 10:08 am | | Thanks Peter.
Actual research is usually a thankless job.
For many people who are interested, your efforts & those of other primary source researchers are the only opporunity for them to get first hand information ( or is that second-hand? )
So again thanks for your help!
John. |
Author: John Dixon
Monday, 16 October 2000 - 10:19 am | | Guy,
Yes. You are right.
I always use James Maybrick & the diary writer interchangably because the diary has little value if it is not written by Maybrick who is the Ripper.
I didn't mean to mislead anyone.
John |
Author: Guy Hatton
Monday, 16 October 2000 - 10:53 am | | | You said it, mate :-) |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 16 October 2000 - 11:46 am | | Hi All,
Hi RJ,
We did cross in posting, but a swift and crafty bit of editing to my first paragraph sorted things out reasonably well I thought. 
I agree with you - it's the flesh and blood aspect which gives the mystery an added bit of oomph.
Hi Peter, Dearest Heart,
I guess we'll never understand each other's sense of humour, will we? But I apologise unreservedly for not immediately appreciating the compliment you say you tucked in there for me. Do you think it's just possible that I wasn't expecting to see one?
You wrote:
'For my ideas I suggest that you look back over the posts I've made these past few years. For Melvin's I suggest you do the same.'
Well now, this really isn't one of your more helpful suggestions is it? Are you telling me that your ideas, regarding this ongoing flesh and blood puzzle, are exactly the same now as they always have been? Or should I be referring back only as far as your latest stated opinions, which were - when exactly?
Not so long ago, when Melvin was giving us all some hints about the original forger, your response was to put Tony Devereux's will up on the boards, presumably because you had assumed, like the rest of us, that Melvin was talking about Mr Kane, who witnessed the will back in 1979. Melvin worked himself up into a right old lather with others who'd jumped to the Kane conclusion (and might understandably have wanted to ask further questions brought up by the will's appearance). Yet, oddly, I don't recall him giving you an ear-bashing for jumping to the same conclusion. But I do remember clearly that back in April you were expressing the opinion that Devereux had no knowledge of the diary.
So you can hardly blame me for being somewhat confused about what your current ideas are, and how they compare with Melvin's. After all, he puts Devereux right there among Mike's pals, as partners-in-forgery. The thing is, if you now agree with Melvin that Devereux was involved, your ideas have changed, so it would be pointless sending me back over years of your posts (entertaining though I'm sure they'd be to see again).
Love,
Caz |
Author: Melvin Harris
Tuesday, 17 October 2000 - 06:23 pm | | MCCORMICK REMINDERS
Misguided references to McCormick and the "8 Little Whores" poem are now cropping up. Why? I have already posted all the essential details. Is it too much to ask people to read them with care? There is no possible chance of those verses being anything but a modern fake. They were not even known until 1959. When McCormick was cornered he admitted the fact that they were concocted for his book. The inspiration was provided by his discovery of the PC Spicer story of the encounter in Henage (sic) Court. (Daily Express 16th March 1931). The Spicer story itself was also used in his book.
Whatever McCormick wrote to Feldman and Harrison in 1995 is simply proof of duplicity. In the same letters he denied ever having heard of the crucial H.L. Adam, yet he devoted four pages of his Ripper book to a discussion of H.L. Adam's ideas!
By 1995 he was basking in an Indian Summer of recognition. As he made plain to me at Camille Wolff's. He was delighted to suddenly find himself saluted and admired as 'The Pioneer'. He had no intention of losing that position if he could help it. But the admissions he made to me were made years earlier, in 1987. And he was not a frail and fragile creature at that time. He was far fitter than I had imagined him to be. His real illness had hit him in 1974. By 1987 he was well recovered. His thinking was pin sharp.
I openly warned people that the poem was bogus in 1987. And as I have shown on screen, I even wrote to Martin Fido in 1990 to warn him against using it. Thus my position has been consistent and was on record long before the Diary hoax emerged. In May 1993 I informed Feldman that if the Diary text used this poem or alluded to it in any way, then this was certain proof of a modern hoax. But did Feldman contact McCormick then? No sir!
In short, I have demonstrated beyond doubt that all the telling texts used by McCormick were faked. The only people who need to cling on to the poem are those with either a vested interest in the survival of the Diary, or with a state of mind not open to reason. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 18 October 2000 - 01:32 pm | | I’ll leave aside the fleeting thought that anyone might almost be forgiven for wilting at the very thought of being ‘cornered’ by Melvin.
Melvin, it must have been very comforting for you that you had warned Feldy about ‘8 Little Whores’, even before you were aware that, lo and behold, there it was, an unmistakable allusion to it in the diary, for all eyes to see. I do agree it seems a puzzle why this argument alone has not been considered sufficient proof of a modern hoax, by everyone else involved. Perhaps I could try asking one or two of them to explain, if you’d be so good as to pick up some of the other sticky questions which are beginning to pile up around here, making the place look untidy. Peter Birchwood’s suggestion that I go back over his and your previous posts actually proved more helpful in this regard than I had anticipated.
I managed to find one bit of unfinished business from the time you were moving home, back in early July, and shortly before the casebook crashed.
On July 3rd, you wrote on another diary board:
‘Keith [Skinner] ’s statement that I have made an “…unproven assertion that Mr Kane was obviously guilty of participating in a fraud.” is his ugly invention. I advise him to tread carefully. Let him re-read the text of my letter to Rod Green which deals with this very matter. Then let him apologise.’
Keith replied on 5th July, asking you to clarify which letter to Rod Green you were asking him to re-read, since he could find no reference to ‘this very matter’ in the one dated October 14th 1996.
You wrote back the following day, saying you were unable to locate the letter to which you were referring due to your house move.
Did you ever manage to find it?
Also, as far as I am aware, you haven’t yet provided the dates for the claims made, first to Allan Gray, then to you, by Mike Barrett, of how he came to choose the five Crashaw words for the diary forgery. As I understand it, you believe from what Mike told you, and from your own examination of his copy of the book, that he originally found the words, prior to the diary’s creation, because of a binding defect, which causes the book to fall open at the page where the quote can be found. Mike claimed he ran the quote past Devereux. (Presumably the penman agreed it would make a useful addition, or he had other reasons for letting Mike have some very limited input). You have stated that Mike also claimed that the book ‘just fell open at that poem’. When exactly did he first make this particular claim? You also state that the book was ‘handed over to Allan Gray on December 6th 1994…’, after which, presumably, you made your own examination, which revealed that ‘the book DOES FALL OPEN at the right page.’ (Your emphasis)
We know that Mike was intent on claiming to be the faker, as early as June 1994. As I’ve said before, the Crashaw quote should have been his best bet, if he was thinking remotely clearly, for making such a claim stick from the outset. (I think we’d better forget the unfortunate Mrs H for the time being, don’t you?) But more to the point, the binding defect in his own book was Mike’s trump card to prove his claim. So we need to know precisely how long it took for the potential of Mike’s trump card to dawn on him and be turned into action. But another rather alarming possibility has occurred to me, which you will no doubt be able to nip in the bud, by giving a more detailed account of what questions you put to Mike, what his answers were and the precise order of events. I want to be absolutely certain that Mike did not have the means, motive and opportunity to tamper (“Oh no, not tamper”) – yes tamper - with his copy of the book, or otherwise create the binding defect, at any point after the diary emerged, up to the point when you examined the book yourself. I presume you are entirely satisfied with the details of Mike’s story, that his trump card was sitting in the pack all the time, and could not have been added and produced at a time when he was determined to get one over on Feldy. (Not that I’m implying it would be easy for Mike to get one over on you and Allan Gray in the process, of course.)
If you could just tell us how you know that the binding defect that you examined already existed when the diary was being created, and could not possibly have been caused at a later date, by artificial manipulation, propping open, or repeatedly opening the book to refer to the verses, it would certainly help set the record straight, and I think most people with a state of mind open to reason would see this as one of the most powerful arguments for a modern hoax.
So, what’s the verdict Melvin? Genuine old natural binding defect, not so old defect caused by excessive but innocent handling, or more recently faked defect? (This all sounds disquietingly familiar…..)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 18 October 2000 - 01:44 pm | | Melvin, just another quickie if I may.
I'm not suggesting that Feldy did contact McCormick in May 1993 - as usual I know very little about it and have probably not been paying proper attention. (I'll go to the back of the class after this post.) But how can you say with such conviction that he didn't? Surely it's hard for even you to prove a negative like this, and particularly when it involves two people whose word you never trusted anyway. Just wondering.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ennui
Wednesday, 18 October 2000 - 03:46 pm | | HERE'S A THOUGHT
Maybe if Mel's posts weren't so pompous, self-congratulatory and overblown, people might actually read them and absorb what he says. However, his arrogance make them impossible to choke down, much less retain.
His real peeve is, no matter how ludicrous one might find the Diary to be, people find it worthy of comments and posts. There are actually people willing to defend it. His suspect, though equally ludicrous, doesn't even gather a tenth of the interest or debate that the Diary does. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Wednesday, 18 October 2000 - 06:19 pm | | TRY LOOKING BACK
Feldman told me that the 8 Little Whores poem was reflected in the Diary text the day I visited him on 13 May 1993. I THEN made my statement to him.
The Sphere book has FOUR GENUINE binding defects, OK? But these facts have already been recorded on screen by me ages ago!
Unlike some posters I don't have time on my hands. If they are curious then they will have to exercise patience. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 19 October 2000 - 10:45 am | | Hi Melvin,
Thanks for sparing the time to address at least a couple of my points. I told you I had probably not been paying proper attention - sorry!
You wrote:
'Feldman told me that the...poem was reflected in the Diary text...' [my italics]
What does this mean exactly? You have neglected to say whether you think he is right or wrong to connect the poem with the diary author in the first place, just that if that's what he is doing he has condemned the diary, because, according to some sort of admission made to you by McCormick, but later denied, you can safely state that the poem did not exist in any similar form before 1959.
But if Feldy's assumption is just another one he wasn't entitled to make, you are again addressing his errors, rather than those in the diary itself.
Of course, you could go on sitting there forever gloating over the errors you have found with Feldy's arguments and research, which few of us here would dispute.
But if you have the proof, in the form of this 1986 Sphere book, that it was indeed in Mike's possession before the diary emerged, and that it had this inherent defect, causing it to open at the obscure diary quote, isn't it a bit of an understatement to describe it as, 'This important piece of evidence [which] is in safe keeping'? Why on earth haven't you produced it? Can't you see that, unless you do, the diary 'camp' will be seen to have yet another excuse for not accepting your word for anything? And much worse from your own point of view, and anyone who has committed themselves to a modern hoax theory, others must be starting to wonder (even if they are unwilling to admit it openly) what the problem is with being open and providing the answers to the important questions being raised.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Barry Street
Thursday, 19 October 2000 - 02:06 pm | | Who does CAM think she is anyway? Does she hold some elite position that entitles her to demand answers from busy authors? Is she some great authority on the case who has to be satisfied? Is she a diligent researcher, working on some important project, who needs to be kept informed? Is she working for some esoteric higher authority? Or is she just a bored housewife? Whatever she is, she is certainly very demanding. She demands much of people who may simply ignore her petulant questions if they choose to do so. In short, it doesn't matter at all if her questions are answered or not.
She even makes false statements. For example, she states that the AFI analysis revealed that 'chloroacetamide was present at a level of 6.5 parts per million,' which is incorrect as their test did not quote any weight for the test, it merely revealed the presence of the chemical. So her clever subsequent maths means nothing as she is not using a correct figure for her calculations in the first place. Those who read her posts and do not understand what she is talking about may well be swayed by her authoritative sounding and pompous posts. She then follows the post (when she thinks she has been particularly clever) with a stupid 'smiley.'
Of course the undisputed and unanswerable point about the AFI test is that the sample did prove positive for chloroacetamide.
What would prove interesting would be to see CAM meet Mr. Harris in a face to face situation where she had to make all her own arguments without the benefit of advice or resource to a book (many of which contain inaccuracies anyway.) I know who would win that argument. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Thursday, 19 October 2000 - 03:01 pm | | SOME DATES FOR THE CURIOUS
A message in from Alan Gray confirms that the Sphere book Vol 2 (plus other vols) was owned by Mike Barrett BEFORE the Diary emerged. (Confirmed by his sister)
Mike first engaged him at 11 AM Sunday 14th August 1994 (to search for his wife). Further engaged him to expose the Diary. Then (Sept) told the story behind the lines "O costly..." NOTE WELL:- the Sphere volume had been left with Mike's solicitor LONG BEFORE the break with his wife and the 'confession.'
Note also that, as R.J. Palmer independently spotted, the quoted lines are not opening lines but are taken from a later verse. Thus the Diary uses AN EXTRACT that, to date, has only been found in the essay on George Herbert in Vol 2.
Mike's volume has already been seen by others and can be inspected whenever I am in London. |
|
|
|
|
