|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 31, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Maybrick/Jack's watch?:
Archive through October 31, 2000
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 25 October 2000 - 06:08 am |        | I'n not sure what difference the context of the AFI tests makes. The point is that chloroacetamide was extensively used in and after the 1880s and could have found its way into the ink by a means other than as an ingredient in its manufacture. If there is a possibility of contamination then the AFI test is inconclusive. What relevance does the context of the testhave to this? Either the possibility of contamination was ruled out or it wasn't.
The circularity of Harris's other bit of reasoning doesn't need comment: the diary is a modern forgery and nobody involved in the forgery would have handled chloroacetamide, therefore they couldn't have contaminated the ink, the ink therefore wasn't contaminated and the diary is therefore a modern forgery.
The hole punch stuff is becoming increasingly odd. I did not forget to mention that the sample tested by AFI was taken by Robert Kuranz (and I am getting weary of Harris attributing such unfounded actions to me). I didn't forget, I was simply unaware that it was relevant. Barry Street simply stated that Dr. Simpson's tests were conducted in sterile conditions. I stated that I wasn't qualified to comment, but that since she attempted to punch a sample with a hole punch bought that morning from a newsagent, maybe the conditions weren't all that sterile. I'm sure everyone here understands what I meant, but if Harris thinks 'sterile' even embraces taking a sample with a rusty hole punch, I am happy to stand corrected. But I still don't understand why anyone being surprised by this should be described in the way Harris chose to describe Shirley Harrison.
I understand and have every sympathy with Harris's feelings about being accused - or thinking he was being accused - of tampering with the ink sample, but I did not make that accusation and, in fact, along with my colleagues on the A to Z, I unreservedly rejected such a possibility. However, whilst I sympathise, I find Harris's continual beating of this favourite drum to be extremely boring. It does not justify his continuing behaviour, but Harris can't or won't understand this and he will just carry on doing the damage he does. It really shoudn't need to be pointed out why he was wrong to address Professor Rubinstein in the way that he did and why it would have been better to have made a calm public statement of the facts and give Professor Rubinstein a dignified route of exit by inviting him to bring his abilities to an assessment of evidence and arguments of which he might hitherto have been unaware. I think most people will understand this.
Finally, Harris stated as a matter of fact that Paul Feldman made no attempt to contact Donald McCormick after Harris had told him that "Eight Little Whores" was composed by McCormick c.1959. This statement was clearly intended to diminish Feldman. But is it true? On what evidence is it based? All Harris can say is 'that if Feldman HAD approached McCormick in 1993 and had from him a denial of my charges then Feldman would have gleefully trumpeted the fact to the whole Ripper world.' Really? What if Feldman had contacted McCormick in 1993 and McCormick had declined on the grounds of ill-health to talk to him? So, do we have facts or a false assumption leading to faulty reasoning and an incorrect conclusion passed off as fact?
But let's set this all aside. All Caroline Morris is trying to do is establish some facts. So far it would appear that "Eight Little Whores", thought by some to be a pointer to the diary being a modern forgery, is a complete irrelevancy. The rhymes could just as easily have been based on Three Little Maids, as she said. And it looks like that decisive chloroacetamide test isn't as decisive as it's been portrayed. It doesn't make the 'diary' any less of a forgery, but it does provide some ground rules for how a document of this kind should be examined in the future. |
Author: R Court
Wednesday, 25 October 2000 - 06:55 am | | Hi Melvin,
Tests by Dr Simpson are not the first to be carried out in all history, and the methods that were, or may have been, or can be- used, are well known in the trade.
Dr. Simpson will have done a professional job irrespective of the opinions of others. I have no opinion one way or the other on the results of these tests, because I was not present and do not know what was demanded, agreed upon, why and so on. I have not even read the report because I haven't had access to a copy but it will play no part in the general question of investigation of material, interesting though it may be. (Where can I get a copy, someone?)
The fact is that a serious analysis procedure should result in a clear set of results. That includes the question of what is required, for what reason, and how it may be achieved. I submit that to push a piece of material into an analyst's hand and demand 'Tell me who wrote that' may be to not expect all too accurate an answer.
On this discussion I deal soley with the methods that can, not must, be used and how they may be applied if a reasonable result is to be attained. You, Melvin, deal mainly with your interpretations of such findings as have been made, I do not.
If the results of such tests (any tests made)are not conclusive then either the test has not been properly applied, is incorrectly selected, no test is available under the conditions given or the results have been falsely interpreted.
What has happend here?
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Barry Street
Wednesday, 25 October 2000 - 07:42 am | | Much against the wise advice of Mr Triola I feel I must address a couple of points here, as my name has been mentioned by Mr. Begg.
He mentions the hole punching "stuff as becoming increasingly odd," and then goes on to say that he "did not forget to mention that the sample tested by AFI was taken by Robert Kuranz (and I am getting weary of Harris attributing such unfounded actions to me). I didn't forget, I was simply unaware that it was relevant. Barry Street simply stated that Dr. Simpson's tests were conducted in sterile conditions. I stated that I wasn't qualified to comment, but that since she attempted to punch a sample with a hole punch bought that morning from a newsagent, maybe the conditions weren't all that sterile..."
Excuse me if I sound perplexed, but surely my 'sterile conditions' post was made in relation to the tests conducted by Dr. Simpson on the ink samples. The 'hole punch episode' related by Mr. Begg in answer to that post of mine appeared to be used in an effort to discredit the standards of Dr. Simpson and suggest that she was not really that bothered about 'sterility' or, perhaps, contamination is a better word. Now Mr. Begg's 'hole punch episode' post relates to the testing of the diary paper, not to the testing of the ink sample. Surely by using that example Mr. Begg is suggesting, by implication, that if there was doubt cast as to Dr. Simpson's standards on one test, it could be assumed that this doubt would extend to another test she conducted. Personally, from what I have been advised by chemists, the procedure regarding the hole punch would in no way have resulted in the contamination of the sample obtained being contaminated with the synthetic and little found chemical, chloroacetamide.
So, surely Mr. Harris was reminding Mr. Begg that Robert Kuranz obtained the ink sample subject of the 'sterile testing' I was talking about, and that said sample was nothing at all to do with the 'hole punch episode' curiously used by Mr. Begg in regard to my point about the 'sterile' testing of the ink sample.
Surely, here, if anyone is obtuse, or misleading, it is Mr. Begg. The point Mr. Harris makes is very relevant indeed.
As to the making of accusations, surely Mr. Begg is not the one to make comment. If we refer to the 'A to Z', 1996 edition, there is on page 156 an entry about Mr. Harris. That entry says:
"Readers are warned that while many of the unsourced statements in Harris's earlier books rest on well-researched documentation, his occasional postulation of other writers' thought processes can be wildly wrong and actually conflict with impeccable written evidence, and his indignation when he believes he has perceived chicanery may lead him to make demonstrably unjustified assertions."
Mr. Begg is very fond of making accusations against Mr. Harris, and has been, it would seem, since at least 1996. This entry in the 'A to Z' leaves the reader to wonder what on earth the authors of that book are talking about. No examples are given, no "impeccable written evidence" nor any "demonstrably unjustified assertions" are shown, and nothing at all is produced to vindicate this odd attack on Mr. Harris. Surely now is the time for Mr. Begg to provide a few answers and examples. Otherwise this accusation hangs in the air unsubstantiated and unproven - yet still in print in a widely read book. |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 26 October 2000 - 05:44 am | | Mr Street, as I understand it and contrary to what you have stated, chloroacetamide was extensively used in and after the 1880s and the ink tested by AFI could have been contaminated at that time or at any time thereafter. You assumed that when I spoke of contamination I was darkly hinting at a deliberate contamination of the sample. You asserted that the tests were performed in sterile conditions where accidental contamination was impossible. While openly admitting that I was completely unqualified to comment on Dr. Simpson’s tests, I made a quick throw-away observation about the hole punch, it seeming to me that when about to test a paper sample one would take the sample with something that was sterile, not a hole punch bought that morning from a newsagent, which could have come into contact with goodness knows what and contaminated the sample. My comment was not intended as a criticism of Dr. Simpson’s methods or methodology, on which I made it clear and will now reiterate for the umpteenth time that I was not and am not qualified to comment, but a throw-away reply to your observation that tests were performed in sterile conditions. But to be perfectly honest, I really don't give a damn about the hole punch, which was only a quick passing observation, and I am more than happy to withdraw the remark with the most grovelling and humblest of apologies.
Now, perhaps we could concentrate on the infinitly more important matter of whether the AFI test is inconclusive.
The entry in the A to Z is old hat, deadly boring and has been dealt with at length several times already. Furthermore, in bringing up the subject you not only seem to miss the whole point of what I have said, but you seem to want to drag this matter into a playground-like dispute over who did what first. Now, as you felt compelled to write your post because your name had been mentioned, I felt compelled to comment because Harris had mentioned mine. On October 5th Harris had a go at Shirley Harrison, who had had the unthinkable temerity to suggest tongue-in-cheek that he was you and responsible for your rudeness. Harris asked for examples of his ‘indiscriminate invective, insult hurling and ill-informed aggression and rudeness’ and he observed ‘Begg had a stab at this once and came up with the earth-shaking revelation that I had once described a test as "fatally flawed"!’
Although Harris was diminishing what I considered - and consider - to be a very important point, I let this pass. But when Harris referred to “fatally flawed” a second time I thought I had better reply before the misrepresentation went beyond correction. I therefore pointed out that Mr. K. of Leeds University was demonstrably offended by Harris and that Harris therefore did give offence. But I explained that my concern was not with Harris’s outspokenness and lack of diplomacy per se, though I do object to both, but with the way this has hindered the research into the ‘diary’ by effectively kyboshing any hope of encouraging Leeds to find out what the error was and how it was made. You will appreciate why that was important, I'm sure. I also tried to demonstrate that this was not a one-off incident. So, you see, I was not having a go at Harris. I was simply asking that he employ temperate language and diplomacy. But he did - and doesn't -seem to understand this, so I guess he won't and I have given up trying.
Now, Mr Street, several people here, among them Caroline Morris, are trying to properly understand and sort out the 'evidence' and arguments surrounding the 'diary' and already a few long-accepted and cherished beliefs seem to be crumbling. As I have said, this doesn't necessarilly make the 'diary' any less of a forgery, but it does take us ever closer to understanding what the evidence is. I hope that you understand and support this quest for the truth. |
Author: Barry Street
Thursday, 26 October 2000 - 08:14 am | | Mr. Begg,
With respect, I realise that there is a long history of dispute between yourself and Mr. Harris. It is unfortunate that this has spilt into the public arena, which it appears to have done many years ago. I sincerely hope that this does not affect your objectivity, nor your understanding of the facts.
Regarding chloroacetamide, yes it was formulated prior to 1888, but in those days it was prohibitively expensive to use in commercial applications and was not at all common as you seem to believe. It was not until the 1940's that it became commercially viable. However, it did and does remain a relatively rare compound as it does not appear naturally and has to be created synthetically for specific uses. The way you talk you make it sound as if you are likely to come across this compound all the time, and that it would be easy to contaminate an ink sample with the chemical at a nanogram level. It would not. Therefore a suitable analogy would be to say that it is possible for you to be struck by a falling meteorite or other piece of stray space debris, but the likelihood of this actually happening is remote.
In view of your comments about the 'hole punch episode,' it is totally irrelevant to the ink testing and is best not discussed any further. I presume your 'grovelling and humblest' comment is said 'tongue in cheek' as I don't think anyone requires you to do that.
I do not wish to become involved in your historical dispute with Mr. Harris, you had been browbeating him over his alleged attacks and I felt it pertinent to mention that this aspect is not as one-sided as you appear to think it is. Indeed, the allegations in the A to Z may be 'old hat' and 'dealt with at length several times already' and I have looked back and read up on this. However, nowhere do I see you:
(a) Justifying your comments with examples.
(b) Apologising to Mr. Harris if these serious allegations are untrue and cannot be backed up factually.
(c) Withdrawing the comments.
It is a matter for you and Mr. Harris, but as a reading member of the public I take in the things I see written in books, and if they leave me puzzled I seek answers. If it is not a public matter then it should not have appeared in your book. In my opinion the comment borders on libel as it could seriously affect Mr. Harris's reputation if a prospective employer (such as an investigative TV team) read it.
Your past arguments with Mr. Harris are very involved and convoluted. There are also many examples of awkward questions simply being ignored and smokescreens thrown up on other or parallel matters. It truly is a game of semantics and bluff. Judging by some of Mrs. Harrison's past comments she is perfectly able to defend herself and throw back her own barbed comments and invective.
Many people do not like criticism, the truth and being corrected. They assume this is personal abuse or attack. Mr. Harris seems to me to be a very intelligent and well-read author with a fine record of exposing frauds. I guess that sort of person may make a lot of enemies and draw a lot of flak. It is perfectly understandable if he becomes defensive and abrupt in his responses. But I can find no example of dishonesty on his part. Can you? If so please supply clear examples.
I see no reason for Mr. Harris being diplomatic. This is not a prissy world of genteel men and delicate ladies patting each other on the back and swapping compliments. It is the hard-nosed world of money making, business, fraudulent material and downright chicanery. I would not expect Mr. Harris to be diplomatic, nor to be anything but outspoken. It is the world he lives and works in. Are you so naive that you believe otherwise? It would appear that in your world authors should never criticise each other, experts should never disagree, and all should be happiness and light. It is a fine ideal, but too far removed from reality to be possible. I well understand why he doesn't understand what you are proposing, for what sort of investigative researcher would he be then? His fangs would be drawn, his voice (often lonely though it is) stilled. He fights for the truth and the exposure of frauds committed against a gullible reading public. I say thank goodness for men of strength like Melvin Harris. Heaven knows what nonsense the public would believe in if it wasn't for him and people like him.
As regards CAM, here I give up, like you say in relation to Mr. Harris "I have given up trying."
I fully support any seeker of the truth. But as regards CAM I have seen no examples of original research on her part, nor any example of her producing anything but repetative questions, most of which have been answered in the past. She has also produced flawed arguments by using secondary sources and not ascertaining her facts correctly. Her questions display much pique in relation to Mr. Harris and at times it sounds as if she has been 'fed' the questions as she doesn't really grasp the full context of her own questioning.
We would all love the forgers of the diary to admit their guilt, but that may be an impossible goal to hope for. For every sane and sensible person involved in this area of research the diary has been satisfactorily exposed as a modern hoax. Even you yourself have admitted this. Some may wish to spend the remainder of their days in the possibly futile quest for the truth behind the forgers, others deem such an activity to be a total waste of time, or they have better ways to spend their time on more productive pursuits. After all, one of the key players is already dead.
So if CAM's raison d'etre is to pursue the nefarious hoaxers to the the bitter end I wish her the best of luck. If it is an honest quest for the truth I applaud her. However, she will damage her own cause if she makes mischievous and barbed comments to Mr. Harris, a man who has won great respect in his field. He has no obligation to answer any of her questions and has already stated that some points are in the nature of privileged information that he is unable to disclose in a public forum. It is worth repeating here that all Mr. Harris's detractors come from the ranks of those who have been in some way involved in the diary nonsense. Does that not tell you something? The only others who have spoken against him are readers of these boards who have openly championed yourself or CAM, and patently do not understand the whole truth of the matter.
This defending of you by readers of these boards speaks volumes for the respect in which you are held. I too respect and admire you. As I have stated it is sad to witness this antagonism, but it is a hard fact of life when such contentious and disputable matters as the diary are involved. So yes I understand any quest for the truth, what I don't understand is the manner in which this quest is being pursued.
Good wishes
Barry |
Author: Ennui
Thursday, 26 October 2000 - 09:25 am | | | Jesus Christ. Mel Harris or The Caped Crusader fighting for his lonely, valiant cause? Break out the flippin' violins! Do you have a smashing pair of tights, Mighty Melly? |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 26 October 2000 - 09:33 am | | I apologise if I am giving anyone the wrong impression about the availability of chloroacetamide in the 1880s. My source for it being extensively used in and after that time was Professor Roberts of UMIST. If he's wrong then he's wrong, but clearly it is something that needs to be established.
Only slightly tongue in cheek, Barry. It really was just a throw-away comment from a lay person about sterile conditions. I don’t want it blown out of proportion, nor do I think it should be, and it certainly wasn’t intended to reflect on Dr. Simpson, though I can see why it may have done. However, since that wasn't my intent, I am happy to apologise.
It is because Melvin Harris is a respected writer and researcher whose reputation is based on exposing frauds and fakes, inherent in doing so exposing people as liars and charlatans and in so doing ruining reputations and goodness knows what else, that he is more morally obliged to be completely fair and totally accurate in what he says. No matter how challenging or vexing he may find ‘attacks’ on him to be, he should never permit himself to be anything less than absolutely and completely accurate in what he says. Therefore, when he says something to the effect that I ‘chose to ignore’ something then he should be absolutely certain that I did consciously elect not to include something. When he says that Feldman didn’t contact McCormick in 1993, he must know beyond shadow of a doubt that Feldman did not do so. If Harris is guessing on anything like this then he is attributing to us thoughts and motives of his own invention. And, if you choose to go through his posts you will see lots of examples, most attributing to people
the worst possible interpretation of someone's actions. Now, whatever else I might be, I am not a liar, a fabricator or a charlatan and I resent (and also don't see the point of) suggestions that I am from a man of Harris's stature and intelligence.
As for saying that all Harris's detractors come from the 'diary' camp, you can have my word for it that that simply isn't true. But witness Ennui above. But even if it was true, consider that the 'diary' people are the only ones over the last few years to have come in for outspoken and forceful Harrisian criticism, into you consideration of which you should take into account the above paragraph.
Its a pity that you don't understand my point about rudeness and a lack of diplomacy. It's all very well to be outspoken and 'in-your-face', but not when it impedes an investigation or othewise muddies the waters.
As for Caroline, I suppose much depends on your perspective of what she is trying to achieve. I can think of a lot of worse things to do than read, think and question, can't you? And I am happy to support anyone who does those things? However, we have a list of reasons why the ‘diary’ is the modern fake everyone seems convinced that it is. But does that list stand up to investigation? Well, one such list contained “Eight Little Whores” because it was allegedly written by McCormick c.1959. There has been much argument about whther or not this was the case, but through one bit of judicious questioning Caroline seems to have established that “Eight Little Whores” only features at all because of Paul Feldman. If Feldman's wrong then the ‘diary’ rhymes could have been based on something else and “Eight Little Whores” shouldn’t be on the list. I think that’s great. Don't you? We want the facts, don’t we?
So, there's no mystery about how the quest is being pursued. People say the ‘diary’ is a demonstrable modern fake and, indeed, that is what is most logically and most reasonably is and always has been. But on what evidence do you base your conclusion that that is what it is? The ink test? The Poste House? “Eight Little Whores”? None of those things appear to be conclusive of anything. Yet people accept them, believe them and list them. If they are untruthes, do you want people believing in them? |
Author: Barry Street
Thursday, 26 October 2000 - 10:53 am | | Mr. Begg,
As regards chloroacetamide enough has already been said. For any reasonable human being the test was positive and proves the ink of modern origin. You can cast doubt on virtually anything of this nature, but that doubt is reduced to the virtual level of impossibility. For those who wish to contest it they do. Isn't it strange how just about everything with this diary involves this sort of convoluted counter-argument just to get it merely possible.
There is so much indicating it to be a modern forgery, more than ably shown by Mr. Harris and others in the past that it would be pointless going over it all again. May I just ask you a question that I have not yet seen you answer:
Are you able to name one recognised, published, knowledgeable and respected authority on this case who believes the diary to be anything but a modern forgery?
It has been stated by many, and yourself I believe, that you believed it to be a forgery from the outset. Despite this you refrained from condemning the obvious flaws in the diary and would only state that you were 'sitting on the fence.' Why did you not state your belief that it was a forgery, to the public, at an early stage?
When I say that all Mr. Harris's detractors come from the diary supporters, I mean those who are authors, recognised authorities, and crime historians. I did exclude those who pop up on these boards to support you or others arguing for the diary, and who do not have established credentials in the field.
With all due respect I think it is patently obvious to everyone reading these exchanges just who is muddying the waters, and it's not Mr. Harris. It is a pity that some of the more informed contributors to these boards (and we all know who they are) do not contribute here and say what they think of these arguments. I expect they are fed up with hearing about the nonsensical diary rubbish.
The arguments over odd points that can be argued over regarding the dating of the diary, such as the contentious 'Eight Little Whores' poem, are a diversion and really are specious. For it was one of Mr. Feldman's props for the validity of the diary and that prop was knocked away, like so many others, when he used the argument. Whether or not Mr. Feldman is correct is academic, for some will always believe the point is valid, whilst others will disagree. There is not one solid piece of evidence at all in favor of the diary. It is argued over so hotly because it is a fake in which the fakers have yet to be proven.
So if people are interested in following the road with no end in sight they will continue to argue all these irrelevant points till the cows come home. Such argument will not advance the knowledge and understanding of the Whitechapel murders one inch. Surely after all these years and the exchanges of abuse you must realise that it is a debate that is going nowhere. And are you now saying that doubt has been cast on the fact that the diary is a modern invention? That it may be an old forgery? That it may be genuine? That you are making a complete volte-face? Are you just keeping the debate alive?
I am sure that many of the readers of these boards fail to understand the deep interest you appear to take in the duff diary, to the almost total exclusion of anything sensible on the subject. You never seem to discuss facts, sensible theories or much else for that matter. Only the diary seems to hold the power to drag you back onto the boards. Or is it the age-old feud with Mr. Harris that brings you here?
The ink test is a valid indicator of the modernity of the diary ink, counter arguments to this are flawed and rely on odds of million to one to cast doubt. And if the diary camp is so happy to show that their ware is genuine and that the ink does not contain the chemical - why don't they merely give up the diary for independent testing straight away and stop these arguments for good? It is a relatively cheap test and, in view of the money already generated, shouldn't hurt them financially. Indeed, it should have the opposite effect if they are proved right. Or are they frightened to have independent testing done?
The obvious answer to the 'Poste House' and 'Eight Little Whores' arguments are that they are probably indicators of the modernity of the diary. But they are two contentious points that the opposing camps can argue over forever. These and the many other points, as I have said, have been debated to death already. Every sensible Ripper author I have been able to read the opinion of has stated that the diary is a hoax and a crass invention. Possibly the most influential of these is Mr. Sugden who wasted no time in dismissing it unequivocally. It is one of the reasons why I wonder why an author of your obvious stature is embroiled in this argument, whilst no-one else is! You will come back with the high sounding reasons of wanting to know the truth, exposing the forgers, etc. etc. But surely in the real Ripper world the diary is dead? I am unable to find anyone with a good word to say for it.
You speak of wanting facts, Mr. Begg, but quite honestly I know what I think of the diary and I wouldn't care if I didn't hear another word about it. Whenever it is spoken of amongst people I know it is in mocking and dismissive tones.
So I feel your questions to me as to what I want people to believe to be rather off the target. What I want people to accept is rather a personal thing to me, because other people probably (and quite rightly) don't give a damn what I want them to believe. Who the hell am I anyway to make a difference to what people believe? I believe only proven facts myself, and my beliefs are my own. I vented my feelings as to the hoax diary and the nonsense raised by certain posters, defended Mr. Harris and now find myself the target for your good self and the rather childish poster who responded to my last post. I suppose that comes with entering the kitchen.
Well for me enough is enough. I much preferred the Paul Begg of old who was tackling the real facts of the case, writing a very respectable book on the case, and not interested in the lunatic fringe. |
Author: Noah
Thursday, 26 October 2000 - 12:56 pm | | | I wonder if Anne Graham is aware of these conversations. Is it possible that it is within her power to put an end to these ill feelings? |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 26 October 2000 - 01:04 pm | | "I am not qualified to comment on the scientific analysis of the ink and I cannot say whether the AFI test was meticulously conducted in sterile conditions or not.
By Paul Begg on Saturday, October 21, 2000 - 12:45 pm:"
Paul: I was struck by the references to your comment above and have tried to think where I saw something similar. Finally I got it: a reply to me.
. "You have also acknowledged that to your untrained eye their handwriting does not look like the 'diarist's'. But when asked to say who therefore wrote the 'diary', you back away at high speed saying that you are not a forensic document examiner
By Paul Begg on Monday, June 12, 2000 - 03:42 pm"
You are not an analytical chemist and I am not a forensic document examiner. It would, I think, be invidious of me to say anything other than repeat your words of the same date:
"So what's fair for the goose has also to be fair for the gander" |
Author: Melvin Harris
Thursday, 26 October 2000 - 06:16 pm | | HALF-CLOSED EYES
I hope that Robert Court has now located the AFI report. I did give its location, so did others. For his information AFI were only asked to discover if chloroacetamide was present in the ink-on-paper samples sent to them. They were not told where it came from or about the controversy surrounding the ink, until after the tests were completed. They knew only that it came from a disputed document.
Begg now offers typically evasive comments. He skates over the fact that the ill-will came from the Diary hangers-on as early as the start of 1993. He even has the gall to use the words "thinking he was being accused". Begg knows for certain that there were no doubts about the accusations. I have sent him material on that score. And there are confirming statements from journalists on file with my Union's solicitors. If he finds my reminders boring, well he should be forcibly reminded that I find the need to repeat the truth much more than boring, since I have to waste valuable time in exposing dishonourable and devious people.
Yes, it is extremely boring to have to tell Begg that his attempt to take blame for the "wrong figures" used by Caz is weird. He cites the A to Z as the source of her error. He should try reading that book. The figure Caz quotes does not appear there, unless there is some secret edition that I have never seen! The wrong figure used by the A to Z is the wrong figure bandied about by Feldman and the wrong figure used by Mr Kazlauciunas.
And it is further boring to have to advise him to re-read my reply about McCormick. I have plainly stated that Feldman did not believe me and went on the hunt for the Dutton chronicles. He never tried making contact with McCormick, the hunt was enough and this was made plain to me by Melvyn Fairclough when we met at Somerset House. At that time Fairclough even said that they had found the chronicles. Later he watered this down to a claim that "We know where the chronicles are." Then came the bitter truth; they had been hoaxed.
Anyone not aiming to find fault will recognise that I have simply accounted for my statement made before I read the text. After reading the text I saw what Feldman was getting at. The verse attempts in the Diary do echo McCormick's fake.
As for circular reasoning, Begg simply doesn't understand the nature of logic. I twice stated that the Diary had been shown to be a modern hoax. That was the premise I started from. The reasoning that followed is the logical consequence of that premise. He may not agree with the premise but the logic is impeccable.
That premise relies on the following proofs that I and others have drawn attention to. (This is not a complete list) But first remember that the Diary text was claimed to display "...intimate knowledge well beyond the accessible published sources of two famous Victorian cases." Really?
1. No rare specific information is found in the Diary. Every fact that is specific to Maybrick and no-one else was in the public domain in the form of popular books. One of those, by Ryan, contains all the specific information found in the Diary.
2. All the Ripper information, bar two items, are found in one book published in 1987. (Underwood) The other two items come from another 1987 book. (Fido)
3. The Diary quotes from a City Police inventory that could not have been known to the killer, but was in popular print in 1987.
4. The Diary uses the artificial listing sequence devised by the City Officer who drew up the inventory.
5. The Diary uses an obscure quotation later located buried in a hardly popular essay. That essay is in a book owned by Mike Barrett, who also performed the amazing feat of claiming to have discovered the source of the quote before remembering that he actually owned the book!
6. The Diary uses the link between Whitechapel Liverpool and Whitechapel London. This very link, in connection with a JAMES the Ripper from Liverpool, had been suggested by John Morrison in 1986 and was recorded in the Underwood book of 1987.
7. The Diary adopts the fallacy that Michael wrote the verses for his songs; this error is taken from Ryan's book.
8. The Diary adopts the fallacy that the Ripper wrote verses and made them public. This is, of course, the impression created by Underwood's book.
9. The placing of 'Maybrick' in Middlesex Street, follows the Underwood text which speaks of the Ripper being seen in that street.
10. The Diary speaks of farthings at the Hanbury St site. This is what Underwood states (and others) but there is no support for this in police records. Despite what Fido and Begg might think. The myth was created by newspaper accounts which significantly spoke of farthings OR brass medallions. (At the time there was a problem involving brass imitation sovereigns and half sovereigns known as Cumberland or Hanover Jacks) In 1888 no police officer or document gave support to this myth. But it grew with time.
11. The Diarist lays claim to the original Ripper missives but the Diary handwriting does not match these missives.
12. The Diarist claims to be James Maybrick, but the handwriting bears no possible resemblance to Maybrick's distinctive handwriting of 1889.
13. On the technical side, we have Dr Baxendale's solubility test which gave results commensurate with that of a recently-applied ink. We have the visual examinations (see my post on this) which showed no signs of age-bronzing in 1992, 1993 & 1994. This fact was agreed to by Robert Smith (his letter is on screen) For extra technical material please read the posts already placed by me.
On to the next complaint. Begg thinks it is wrong of me to imagine that he "chooses to ignore" items. Sorry chum, but I have long experience of this tactic. We are all still waiting for the names of those publishers, journalists etc. Perhaps their names are being redesignated as 'privileged information'? And since he assures us that he is "not a fabricator" perhaps he will no longer ignore my request for an explanation of his invented or fabricated bit on D'Onston in the 'Murder Casebook' special?
And since he is so certain that my 'fatally flawed' verdict upset Mr Kazlauciunas, why did he and Mrs Harrison conceal from me Mr K's reply? Mr K agreed that I should have seen that letter. Concealing it simply brought public embarrassment for the chap. Feldman quoted it on air, then used it without permission, in his book. I then had to reply publicly and Mr K's error became known to a large audience. It could have been dealt with quietly but I was never given the chance. And that is what I term ill-mannered conduct. Equally, in Prof Rubinstein's case I tried to head him off from making a fool of himself. It was done very tactfully and gently (even the Prof will accept that) but a flaw in his character kept him from taking advice and he went ahead with a piece that left me with no choice but to brand it for what it was: a bloody disgrace.
Finally, since Mrs Harrison saw fit to send my 'harsh' letter to Mr K why did she not send him the hard-hitting letter from Voller? It was many times more abrasive than anything I wrote. And it was well to the point.
To Caz: please read the two detailed postings on Voller and the ink question before posing anymore questions. |
Author: Joseph
Thursday, 26 October 2000 - 11:22 pm | | Hello Mr. Street,
I hope you didn't misunderstand the purpose of my last message; it wasn't meant to inhibit you. You are entitled to post your thoughts on these boards, like everyone else.
I addressed a few of my opinions to you, and nothing more.
Having said that, I hope you don't mind if I share a few other observations with you.
Quite a number of published authors, Begg, Evans, Harris et al, come to these boards to discuss various points of view, books, beliefs etc. There are also a fair amount of Solons, keepers of the lore if you will, e.g. DiGrazia, George, et al, who can recite chapter and verse of all things Jack. There is a gaggle of extremely well read crime enthusiasts who, having made a number of keen observations, contributed to the knowledge base of all readers herein, i.e. Danger, Wescott, and company. There is an enthusiasm on all levels of knowledge regarding the Whitechaple murders, and it binds the lot of us together. If you think about it, all of us had to start somewhere; even Melvin Harris had to read a first book, or hear a first story about Jack the Ripper to pique his interest, and like most devotees, he focused on that initial stimulant and went on from there, Ms Morris is no different.
You argue that Ms. Morris's analysis of the "Eight little whores" poem, is diversionary and questionable, but, that is simply your point of view. Ms. Morris is going through the tedious process of investigating, and either proving or disproving, all the possibilities, no matter how "specious" they may seem to you. Your unnecessary criticism has made it a thankless job. She is asking Mr. Harris for clarification, not a pint of blood. Mr. Harris has, begrudgingly, continued to answer her questions because: 1) He also wants the truth to be known, 2) He likes the attention, 3) She is eliminating all the possible refutation to HIS theory, and she's doing it for free.
Can I ask you a favor Mr. Street? Can you just leave her alone, and let her follow her instincts, and dig into this mystery as she sees fit? If Mr. Harris doesn't want to help her anymore, he's a big boy, allow him to say so on his own.
Lets address the issue of returning bovines. The Whitechaple murders are noteworthy for a number of reasons, one of which is its endless number of sub-topics, e.g. the word
"Five" carved into Mary Kelley's face, or the Goulston St. graffito, or the lighting scheme of the crime scenes, or Kate Eddoes going off in the opposite direction of "home" after her release from the drunk tank, or the number of canonical victims, etc, etc.
You complain,
"So if people are interested in
following the road with no end in
sight they will continue to argue
all these irrelevant points till the
cows come home. Such argument will
not advance the knowledge and
understanding of the Whitechapel
murders one inch".(By Barry Street
on Friday, October 27, 2000 12:53pm)
You made this statement in regard to the Maybrick Diary but isn't it applicable to all Ripperology. For that matter, you can paint any number of famous crimes with the same wide brush: The JFK assassination, the disappearance (until recently) of the Russian Imperial Family, Jimmy Hoffa, Judge Crater, they all have a concert of side-bars that are stories unto themselves. My point is this: Who should be the arbiter of relevance? Should we check our brains at the door, and allow Barry Street to make that call for us?
"The obvious answer to the 'Poste
House' and 'Eight Little Whores'
arguments are that they are probably
indicators of the modernity of the
diary. But they are two contentious
points that the opposing camps can
argue over forever. (Street,ibid)
Mr. Street, if they want to argue forever, let 'em. It's their time, it's their energy, leave 'em be; you're going to give yourself an ulcer over an issue that you can't control. I have a proposal for you that may be more to your liking. During this past summer, before the Casebook crashed, I started a thread, a sub-topic to be sure, regarding the possible implement used to cut the victims throats, and perpetrate the mutilations. I focused on the blade edge necessary to accomplish the varying degrees of cutting Jack did. My goal was to establish: 1) what type of blade may have been used. 2) If, as suggested, a surgical knife was used, would it be necessary to sharpen it after each kill, 3) if so, was an extraordinary ability needed to sharpen such a blade, and 4) If a greater skill was necessary, who could have sharpened it; was it Jack, a professional, or a hospital employee?
This is my proposition: You and I investigate these possibilities, and jointly publish the results at the Casebook dissertation page. If you are amenable to my proposal, you know how to find me.
Best Regards
Joseph |
Author: Barry Street
Friday, 27 October 2000 - 01:50 am | | Mr. Triola,
What can I say? Another thoughtful post. Yes you have addressed a few of your opinions to me, and very valid they are too. It is always nice to hear your observations, as an impartial observer, on this topic.
What you say about the posters on these boards is true and I do not claim to have the level of knowledge of some of these people.
I do think that some of CAM's questioning is a bit circular, and I was surprised to see her asking questions that have already been answered. If you regard my posts as badgering her then I can but take your advice and leave her alone. I would not want to upset her and that was not my intention, I was merely commenting on aspects of her questioning that I felt were a little out of order. You are right, if Mr. Harris did not wish to answer her then I am sure that he wouldn't. It was not my intention to put him off doing so (I am sure he would take little notice of what I said about that anyway).
Again you are right about the things that people debate and my comment may be applied to other aspects. However, in relation to the diary, which is a fraud to start with, I felt that it is an argument going nowhere as well as adding nothing to our knowledge of valid areas of the subject. It is not my intention to be the arbiter of anything, I was just giving my opinion as do most people who post here. I am sure most people would take little or no notice of what I say anyway. I am a great admirer of Mr. Begg's past work and I was very sorry to see that he had apparently forsaken the good work he has done for the diary nonsense.
You are right though, "if they want to argue forever, let 'em..." Your proposition about the type of blade used by the killer is very thoughtful, and a sensible thread. I thought that the point had been argued to its limit. The the blade used was straight, 6 to 8 inches long, very sharp, narrow and thin but strong, something like a small amputating knife or a well-ground butcher's knife and used with great force. Most people carried or used knives in those days and knew how to sharpen them. Apart from that I didn't think there was much to add about it.
It is most kind of you to invite me to write a dissertation about it but I really could not contribute much to that essay. I will heed your thoughtful advice and abstain, once more, from participating in this discussion.
Good wishes to you,
Barry |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 27 October 2000 - 02:03 am | | Hello Everyone.
Well, I'm certainly glad that I've been able to get back on line, if only briefly, and now have the opportunity to respond to a few comments that have been made lately.
Caz, you wrote: '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 the Three Little Maid From School'. (October 11th)
Paul Begg wrote: 'through one bit of judicious questioning Caroline seems to have established that "Eight Little Whores" only features at all because of Paul Feldman" (Oct 27th)
and Joseph adds (in his comment to Barry Street) "You argue that Ms. Morris's analysis of the "Eight Little Whores" poem, is diversionary & questionable, but, that is simply your point of view" (Oct 28th).
Now hold on. I stick to my original statement. Let's look at this one last time.
The opening lines of McCormick's poem are:
Eight little whores, with no hope of heaven,
Gladstone may save one, then there'll be seven.
the diary contains the following lines (p 42 proper):
"One whore in heaven
two whores side by side,
three whores all have died
four"
Look similar? Now let me make an important point that some seem to have forgotten. Where can the "Eight Little Whores" poem be found? I'll remind you. In the very first chapter of Martin Fido's "The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper" ie., the very same book that first published the police inventory list that is mirrored in the diary's 'tin match box empty', and the very same book that had a dustcover of the Punch cartoon that was also mentioned in the diary! Quite a remarkable triple coincidence!
It sure looks like the poem mirrors the McCormick poem to me. I can certainly see why Paul Feldman connected the two and wrote (among other things):
The diarist wrote, after describing the murder of Kelly, that she 'ripped like a ripe peach.' The last line that the poet wrote was 'the last one's the ripest for Jack's idea of fun'. (p 300. Jack the Ripper: the Final Chapter)
Now please. Let's be honest. Am I really supposed to believe that it is equally likely that the hoaxers who wrote this illiterate and doggerel diary were aficionados of Gilbert & Sullivan, or, is it infintely more likely that they alluded to a poem that can be found in the first chapter of Martin Fido's book--a Ripper book, (and YES, being that this IS alleged to be a Ripper diary...wouldn't hoaxers refer to such things?)-- a book that the hoaxers also used elsewhere?
Isn't this a bit ridiculous?
I would just as readily believe that they had a working knowledge of, oh, I don't know, say, the 17th Century poet Richard Crashaw!
Cheers,
RJP
PS. The last time I posted I stepped on the toes of Scott Nelson. I misunderstood his tone. Sorry. My sincere apology.
Oh, and for the record:
Three little maids from school are we,
Pert as a school-girl well can be,
Filled to the brim with girlish glee,
Three little maids from school! |
Author: Noah
Friday, 27 October 2000 - 03:56 am | | | Barry--before you are convinced from abstaining from participating in this discussion by the 'impartial' Mr. Triola, you might wish to refer to his post found under Maybrick Diary: General Discussion: subheading "The Maybrick Diary", Saturday July 1, 2000, 4:17 a.m. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 27 October 2000 - 07:22 am | | I don’t know whether there is any real point in continuing this as it seems likely that Mr Harris will continue to propel it into a ‘you started it first’ bit of juvenilia.
I won't re-address the points he raises. They've already been discussed and I really can't be bothered to explain it all again. It isn’t worth the time or effort. But I will remark on Harris's reference to Murder Casebook, which many may find rather telling. Several years ago I wrote an issue of a part-work Murder Casebook wherein I stated that Donston abandoned magic for Christianity, spent his remaining years writing many religious tracts and faded from the pages of history. This was not true. He wrote a tract, The Patristic Gospels. My unholy sin is to have said tracts instead of tract. As far as I am aware it made no difference to anything whatsoever. The only important point was that Donston turned from magic to Christianity and wrote. But Harris sees and describes this minor and inconsequential slip as something ‘invented’ or ‘fabricated’ and he has harboured some sort of grudge about it for years. Draw from this whatever conclusion you like. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 27 October 2000 - 07:30 am | | Peter. My comment to you was made when it was being claimed that the ‘diary’ was forged for money and that Mike and Anne were the pen people because they were the only ones who stood to gain. It was pointed out that the handwriting of neither Mike nor Anne looked like the handwriting of the diarist, to which you agreed, but when you were asked how this affected your theory you said that you weren’t a handwriting expert. With genuine and sincere respect, it does seem to me that if you have a theory that Mike/Anne penned the ‘diary’ but are prepared to acknowledge that neither had handwriting that looked like the diarist’s then you might reasonably be expected to explain how your theory would be effected if they in fact didn’t write it. Despite not being able to provide a qualified judgement, I would have thought it would have been possible for you to acknowledge that if the handwriting wasn’t theirs then they didn’t write it and the ‘Mike and Anne did it alone’ theory was sunk. To fairly compare my expression of ignorance with yours I would have had to have said that something akin to Dr. Simpson’s results being wrong, then, when told that her procedures were spot on and the chances of error were probably nil, for me to have said that I lacked the knowledge to comment.
As it turned out we have Melvin’s statement that Mike and Anne were merely placers, which, if true, entirely vindicates Keith Skinner’s questioning about the handwriting. If the statement is true, the handwriting wasn’t either Mike’s or Anne’s and the ‘they did it alone for profit’ theory is dead in the water. |
Author: LeatherApron
Friday, 27 October 2000 - 12:23 pm | | Melvin,
Thanks for taking the time to post the proof points (1-13) contained in your last message. It is appreciated.
Barry,
You said "I am sure most people would take little or no notice of what I say anyway." Why would you think that? I for one read everyone's posts always anticipating that they will have something valuable to add. Even when I know they might have previously done something (eg displayed ignorance, made insulting remarks, etc.) I don't hold that against them. Perhaps these flame wars could be dampened to a flicker if we all met for pints in a pub? The first round's on me.
Best Regards to all,
Jack |
Author: Joseph
Friday, 27 October 2000 - 12:49 pm | | Noah,
What's your point? I had a bone to pick with Mr. Harris; it has been picked, and discarded. The fact that we clashed doesn't mean that I'll hate him forever; it means what it means, we clashed, period. I took from that dialog an understanding of how he operates, and I reflected that understanding with my comment comparing him to the great Walter Winchell. I don't think it is a stretch of the imagination to assume that he now has an understanding of how I operate. He has the wisdom of age that allows him to recall the individual whose style I'm mimicking.
The problem here is posters like you Noah, not Mr. Harris, or Barry Street or me. We have names, we have beliefs, and we put our names, real names, under everything we write.
I am not ashamed of anything I have ever put on paper. I write from conviction, and a sense of right and wrong. Mr. Street is an intelligent man who writes from an identical premise. Although we approach from different angles, we seek the same end. I respect his ability to draw his own conclusions regarding my impartiality. If an anonymous poster attacked Mr. Harris in the same manner that Mr. Begg was put upon, I would join the crowd of respondents coming to his defense, not because I am partial to Mr. Harris, but because anonymous attacks are wrong. Do you get the picture? It isn't the person being maligned; it's the cowardice of anonymous attack that I respond to.
Mr. Street,
I'm sorry you rejected my offer of a joint investigation; I feel there are still issues to be resolved on that topic.
Please don't refrain from speaking your mind on these boards. An articulate man, who signs his name to his beliefs, is a welcome relief from the childish Noahs, Dear Diarys, and Valediktors, of the world.
Have a great weekend everyone; I'll be away until Tuesday.
See you then.
Joseph |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 27 October 2000 - 01:48 pm | | Hi Melvin,
'To Caz: please read the two detailed postings on Voller and the ink question before posing anymore questions.'
I don't know if that means no more ink test questions or no more questions on any topic.
I was rather hoping you could just give us all the actual date Mike lodged the Sphere book with his solicitor, instead of merely stating it was 'LONG BEFORE' Mike's break with Anne and the 'confession'. I assumed from this that you hadn't already put the date up somewhere. If you have, then I apologise. But 'LONG BEFORE' is rather vague, as you will appreciate, being a stickler (as I am too) for accurate dates and so forth. The date might help others too, who are not quite so familiar with the full story of that crazy time.
All I'm asking for is this one date, in among all these lengthy posts being written - one date, which you could be using as your number one argument, more powerful even than your 13 proof points, to tie Mike to the forgery.
I just don't understand why I've had to ask about six times for it, since it could very well be my last ever question to you in this place.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Melvin Harris
Friday, 27 October 2000 - 05:31 pm | | THE COMMITTEE FOR INTEGRITY
I don't blame Begg for ducking out of answering, since he has been caught on all his wangles. But his 'Murder Casebook' excuse needs some background. When the 1996 A To Z printed that stupid attack on my standards I was amazed that the authors could be so openly petty. Their views were inaccurate, pompous, self-righteous, hypocritical and quite uncalled for. I wrote to them reminding them that their own works were hardly based on the "impeccable written evidence" that they spoke about.
In Fido's case I reminded him that his first piece on D'Onston was unworthy and ignored all the impeccable written evidence; that I had told him so in 1987 but his promised revision never materialised. In Begg's case I reminded him that his words "D'Onston..after writing many religious tracts, vanished from the pages of history." was also in conflict with impeccable written evidence, and was pure invention. Indeed I first knew of this invention when a writer rang me and asked why I had not listed those "many tracts" in my D'Onston bibliography! Further, both men were responsible for the A to Z distortions of D'Onston's statement to the Yard. More impeccable written evidence monkeyed around with! Thus both Fido's words and Begg's words automatically implied that my work was not as thorough as it should have been, and was sub-standard. People who knew no better could easily be misled by these fake-authoritative assertions.
However, since the question of long-time personal abuse by me has been raised, viewers might like to read the actual words of one such 'abusive' letter to Mrs Harrison, then they can judge for themselves:-
"I gather from Nick Warren that Robert Smith feels that the title of our committee implies that others lack integrity. But the title was chosen only because the press was being misinformed on a grand scale. Following the emergence of the 'new provenance' came the article in the 'Sunday Telegraph' which repeated the old nonsense about MacDougall and the will. I spoke to the journalist involved and sent a very short letter to the editor on the question of the will - but it was never printed.
Next we learned of the amazingly inaccurate article that the 'Standard' planned to run. Despite being warned by knowledgeable journalists that the article was bosh, the 'Standard' went ahead and ran it. It was only after intervention by other journalists (including Philip Knightley) that I was allowed to make a small statement in their columns. This, in turn, led to attempts to blacken the reputations of myself, Nick Warren and Robert Kuranz.
Feldman's first move was to state to the 'Standard' : "Where the hell did he get the ink from? The diaries have been locked in a safe for the last two years." (ES 15 Nov 94) This, as you well know, was a lie and a very stupid one at that. The taking of the diary to Chicago on August 20th, 1993 is a matter of public record. That ink-core samples were then taken by Bob Kuranz was known to everyone interested in this case. It is all there, in the Rendell report. But the very fact that Feldman could react in this fashion shows that there was no attempt to use reason and no concern for fair play.
When the truth was made known to the 'Standard' Feldman did not have the courage to apologise but resorted to the bluster: "How do we know that what was analysed was from the diaries?" By that time I had talked to Robert Smith about the tests and sent him a copy of the report. So the provenance of the samples was known to be impeccable, thus any doubts about their origins were quite unjustified and can only be viewed as a form of a smear. After that things worsened with suggestions that the samples could have been tampered with. The logic of this is that either Kuranz rigged the samples, or Nick Warren (the only one holding the chloroacetamide sample) colluded with me in polluting the ink-cores. It was at that stage, and because the 'Standard' was treating it as a battle between two people, that we all decided to act as a body and make it clear that there was no Lone Ranger involved.
And this leads inevitably to your idea that you are being subject to 'personal abuse' This is unjustified. Your work has been faulted certainly, but the faults are there and can't be wished away. And I do expect you to set matters right and not vacillate. But the personal element, and the abusive tone has been brought in by what can loosely be described as the 'ever-dwindling diary camp'. In your particular case you have gone along with the ugly idea that the samples I sent to Dr Simpson could have been tampered with. This is more than abuse, as the legal department of my Union has confirmed. But I have not used threats of legal action to try to intimidate; I have not even complained to you about this. I have simply noted that Dr Simpson's restrained reply to you has warned you that your question was wrong-headed. And I recognised that your very entertainment of such a notion was based on a complete lack of understanding of the awesome technical problems involved.
However, so that the thought will never again even enter your head, or Robert's, let me spell out the absurdity of the idea that those samples could have been doctored. To do this would involve 'the culprit' in the following amazingly adroit acts:
1. He would have to obtain a quantity of chloroacetamide, which, since you can't buy it over a chemist's counter, would leave a trail that doubters could follow. (unless you name Nick as the source.)
2. He would need to have access to the same type of expensive, specialised equipment as used by Dr Simpson. Without this he would have no means of knowing just how small a quantity of the chemical could be detected, and he would overdose. (Only Bob Kuranz has such access)
3. Next he would have to weigh the ink-cores, which we now know are only a mere 0.000583 g and calculate just how much of this weight was accounted for by A: the ink; and B: the ink preservative- the smallest in weight of the compounds present.
4. Using the results of these hyper-sensitive tests, he would then have to make up a solution containing the preservative at THE NANOGRAM LEVEL, then use this solution to impregnate the six tiny ink-cores in such a fashion that they did not cohere or disintegrate.
5. In so doing he would destroy his reputation for a few tawdry hours of glory, since, if the substance was alien to the original ink, then the faking could be easily demonstrated by exactly duplicating the Simpson tests using fresh samples taken from the diary pages.
So let us drop all huffiness about 'personal slights'. This investigation is about matters far too serious to be hampered by pique or wounded pride. A new test of the ink is way overdue and I learn from Dr Simpson that she has heard nothing from you since she replied to you in December last year. You now have samples of the original manuscript ink as sold in 1991. It is simplicity itself to run a sensitive, pollution-free, test which will confirm, or otherwise, the presence of Diamine MS ink on the diary pages. Can we now have a date for that test?" |
Author: Melvin Harris
Friday, 27 October 2000 - 05:49 pm | | NOTE FOR CAZ
Mike's break with Anne dates from the day he made his 'confession'. This is confirmed by Anne's letter of 18th July 1994 when she wrote:-"As you know I started the divorce proceedings the day the Daily Post printed the story...I don't want to add to your burden but I am afraid that you left me with no choice after speaking to the newspapers."
The actual date of lodgement of the book prior to that break is uncertain. The only person who can give the exact day and month is the solicitor used by Mike. But he has not been paid and is owed large sums, therefore he has no incentive to waste anymore time on inquisitive Ripperologists! But the volume was in the Barrett house soon after the Hillsborough event. The 1987 date, by the way, comes from Mrs Harrison's book and is uncorrected by her. Now off you go and read my evidential stuff on Voller and the ink. It's better than Edgar Wallace! But do first tell us what the Liverpool Central Library had to say. |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 28 October 2000 - 03:22 am | | Not 'caught', Melvin. It's just that your arguments are stuck like an old record in 1992. They have been discussed time and again and although I am very sympathetic towards your feelings, I, along with most people I suspect, find the whole matter tedious, boring and lacking relevance to anything currently under discussion. Had you not brought up the matter of "fatally flawed" twice and misrepresented my argument, then I would not have mentioned it. As it was, I simply explained, accurately I believe, that your outspokenness impeded the investigation. However, since you are still in the playground spluttering ‘you started it first!’ there doesn’t seem much point in putting people in an early grave through terminal boredom.
But, Melvin, I’m sorry you feel hard done by and if it was within my power to heal the breach I would do so, but please don’t use apples and pears arguments with me. The A to Z did not accuse your work of containing factual errors and your comparison with Murder Casebook is invalid. The A to Z praised you to the hilt, describing you as 'a noted and respected investigator’, ‘a distinguished debunker’ and someone who had ‘exposed a great many false mysteries and claims to paranormal experience.’ We also said that even the unsourced statements in your work ‘rest on well-researched documentation’. Our criticism was of your treatment of people and of your willingness to paint them in the worst possible light, hence the words that your ‘occasional postulation of other writers’ thought processes ‘ could be wrong and conflict with written evidence. Examples litter your posts, such as my having ‘chosen’ not to do something, implying a knowing and witting selectivity with source material. I have a body of work stretching back over twenty years which I believe clearly demonstrates that I am not willingly and wittingly selective with my sources. You have also suggested that someone used what they suspected to be faulty information because it bolstered their case when in fact they had explained at length why they thought it accurate, you called a respected researcher a ‘henchman’ and thus threw doubt on his objectivity, and you have, as we have seen, twisted a simple and inconsequential error into an ‘invention’ or ‘fabrication’.
From anyone else this sort of thing might not matter. But you are the hoax buster extraordinaire, today’s ‘top debunker…of myth’, the ‘supersleuth’ and ‘remorless (exposer) of fakes and false theories’ who is ‘unrivalled today at detecting contradictory theories and misleading ‘evidence’. For all the people who treat your words as gospel and rest upon you with the assurance that you are the staff of reliability, you, more than anyone else, have the moral responsibility to be scrupulously fair in all that you say. As you stand amid the corpses and scattered remains of the ruined reputations of those you have exposed, you have the moral responsibility, no matter what real or imagined slights you may have suffered, to never unfairly and darkly hint at nefarious practices when the written evidence indicates that, whatever their failings, that person is honest. It is therefore outrageous to twist an error into a fabrication or an invention. It is outrageous to declare that Shirley Harrison is mean minded simply because she has (not unreasonably) expressed surprised at something.
So, Melvin, I am not ‘caught’. I am just weary of trying to discuss anything with you. I am just interested in trying to understand the ‘diary’, in listening to the arguments of both sides. But I appreciate your excellent work, I appreciate the time you have taken, I appreciate the helpful list you provided above. But you won't leave the playground. So I am leaving it. Not 'caught', just with better things to do. |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 28 October 2000 - 03:23 am | | Not 'caught', Melvin. It's just that your arguments are stuck like an old record in 1992. They have been discussed time and again and although I am very sympathetic towards your feelings, I, along with most people I suspect, find the whole matter tedious, boring and lacking relevance to anything currently under discussion. Had you not brought up the matter of "fatally flawed" twice and misrepresented my argument, then I would not have mentioned it. As it was, I simply explained, accurately I believe, that your outspokenness impeded the investigation. However, since you are still in the playground spluttering ‘you started it first!’ there doesn’t seem much point in putting people in an early grave through terminal boredom.
But, Melvin, I’m sorry you feel hard done by and if it was within my power to heal the breach I would do so, but please don’t use apples and pears arguments with me. The A to Z did not accuse your work of containing factual errors and your comparison with Murder Casebook is invalid. The A to Z praised you to the hilt, describing you as 'a noted and respected investigator’, ‘a distinguished debunker’ and someone who had ‘exposed a great many false mysteries and claims to paranormal experience.’ We also said that even the unsourced statements in your work ‘rest on well-researched documentation’. Our criticism was of your treatment of people and of your willingness to paint them in the worst possible light, hence the words that your ‘occasional postulation of other writers’ thought processes ‘ could be wrong and conflict with written evidence. Examples litter your posts, such as my having ‘chosen’ not to do something, implying a knowing and witting selectivity with source material. I have a body of work stretching back over twenty years which I believe clearly demonstrates that I am not willingly and wittingly selective with my sources. You have also suggested that someone used what they suspected to be faulty information because it bolstered their case when in fact they had explained at length why they thought it accurate, you called a respected researcher a ‘henchman’ and thus threw doubt on his objectivity, and you have, as we have seen, twisted a simple and inconsequential error into an ‘invention’ or ‘fabrication’.
From anyone else this sort of thing might not matter. But you are the hoax buster extraordinaire, today’s ‘top debunker…of myth’, the ‘supersleuth’ and ‘remorless (exposer) of fakes and false theories’ who is ‘unrivalled today at detecting contradictory theories and misleading ‘evidence’. For all the people who treat your words as gospel and rest upon you with the assurance that you are the staff of reliability, you, more than anyone else, have the moral responsibility to be scrupulously fair in all that you say. As you stand amid the corpses and scattered remains of the ruined reputations of those you have exposed, you have the moral responsibility, no matter what real or imagined slights you may have suffered, to never unfairly and darkly hint at nefarious practices when the written evidence indicates that, whatever their failings, that person is honest. It is therefore outrageous to twist an error into a fabrication or an invention. It is outrageous to declare that Shirley Harrison is mean minded simply because she has (not unreasonably) expressed surprised at something.
So, Melvin, I am not ‘caught’. I am just weary of trying to discuss anything with you. I am just interested in trying to understand the ‘diary’, in listening to the arguments of both sides. But I appreciate your excellent work, I appreciate the time you have taken, I appreciate the helpful list you provided above. But you won't leave the playground. So I am leaving it. Not 'caught', just with better things to do. |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 28 October 2000 - 04:45 am | | | Sorry about the double post! I know it was boring, but I didn't mean it to be that boring! |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 28 October 2000 - 05:48 am | | Hi Melvin,
'The actual date of lodgement of the book prior to that break is uncertain.'
So you'll forgive me for asking how you know it was prior to that break.
And I'm most disappointed in you for quoting an incorrect date from Shirley's book without checking! We rely on you so much for correcting errors, not repeating them. But somehow it's comforting to know I'm not the only one who slips up in this way.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 28 October 2000 - 05:56 am | | Hi again Melvin,
One more thing. I take it you are going to make me check back through all your good work up here, just to find out if Voller has ever admitted to you that the diary ink is Diamine, because of AFI's test result.
Wouldn't it have been kinder of you just to say "Yes" or "No", to save me the trouble?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 28 October 2000 - 01:49 pm | | Just afore ye go:
I thought that I should remind people that the actual words used about Melvin Harris in the AtoZ were: "Readers are warned that while many of the unsourced statements in Harris's earlier books rest on well-researched documentation, his occasional postulation of other writers' thought processes can be WILDLY wrong and ACTUALLY conflict with IMPECCABLE written evidence..." Words omitted in Paul Begg's post are capitalised here. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 29 October 2000 - 03:21 am | | Hello everyone.
A little confused.
Just as a matter of clarity, maybe Shirley Harrison could post exactly when she had Mike Barrett go to the Liverpool Library in search of the obscure Crashaw quote. On page 281 of the revised edition of her book, she writes "I was therefore shocked but not altogether surprised when on September 30th, Michael apparently discovered the answer...." Is this September 30th, 1993? It must be; Barrett made his initial confession to the Liverpool Daily Post on June 24th, 1994...certainly Barrett & Harrison wouldn't have been working together on researching the diary after that point?
So am I right in assuming that Barrett revealed the location of the Crashaw quote in the Sphere Guide--and subsequently remembered his 'suspicious' ownership of a copy of same--nine months before his initial confession? Is this the correct order of events?
Thanks. |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 29 October 2000 - 03:34 am | | | I am indebted to you for so kindly drawing this to the attention of everyone, Peter, but the fact remains that the entry very clearly related to the representation or portrayal of people(their thought processes), not to the accuracy or otherwise of factual or historical data. A rough and ready example is a body of written work stretching back over 20 years showing that whatever my faults may be - and they are probably many and varied - I am honest and strive, perhaps not always with success, to be accurate. This body of work constitutes impeccable evidence that conflicts with any suggestion that I will sink to fabrication and invention. |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 29 October 2000 - 03:58 am | | Mr Palmer:- Shirley is in France and having trouble with her internet connection, so can't read these boards or send emails, but, if it helps, the context in her book suggests 1994 and the very few unfaded thermal-paper faxes I still possess relating to the matter (I had long ceased working on the 'diary' by then) indicate 1994 too.
Cheers
Paul |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 29 October 2000 - 11:23 am | | Mr. Begg--Thanks for your response. I agree that the context in Ms. Harrison's book appears to be 1994, but certainly you can appreciate my confusion on this point. Why would Shirley send Barrett to the Liverpool library researching the quote 3 months after his confession, when he was trying to prove to the world that he wrote the diary? And why then would Barrett only off-handly 'remember' having the Sphere book in his attic instead of emphatically announcing it? Mrs. Harrison's actions, reactions and suspicions don't make any sense to me if this took place in September of 1994. There seems to be some muddle about the dates, but perhaps Shirley can clear up this important point when she is able to get back on the internet.
Cheers, RJP. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Sunday, 29 October 2000 - 07:08 pm | | AMNESIA?
Paul Begg states that the A to Z praised me to the hilt and goes on to quote a complimentary entry. What he forgets to mention is the first eleven lines were written in 1991. The mischief-making extra words were only added in 1996. So what had happened in the meantime? Well, I had written one new Ripper book in which I criticised the A to Z for mangling some impeccable written evidence that I had used. I wrote "It is hard to see how these extremely clear statements could be misunderstood, yet they have been. Faulty research by the three authors...has led them into error. In their book they offer misreadings of the original, unambiguous text,. They alter D'Onston's meaning...Then having done that, they are able to draw false conclusions..."
And at the end of that book I added three appendices which branded the Diary as a fake. Now all three authors had been involved as paid advisors to the Diary camp, they also knew that I thought that their Diary research had reached a pretty low standard. So had I touched on some very raw spots? It turned out that I had, for when I challenged the three to explain away their language, I was sent an incredible 'defence' that involved my words on McCormick; my words on Feldman and graphology; some remarks on Fido's theory; my observations on Anderson, my criticism of Skinner's book, and my hypothesis on the Australian Druitt connection. It was such an obviously trumped-up set of charges that one reader of their piece called it "The worst piece of transparent malice that I've met with in years."
As well as this abomination, the three further left the paths of civilised discussion when they jeered at my detailed rebuttal as "eleven pages of rant" and accused me of "linguistic ignorance" But it was all too easy to show that the "linguistic ignorance" lay elsewhere. Those very words were the result of their failure to read an Oxford English Dictionary entry with care and understanding!
As for the "rant", this together with the A to Z 'response,' was then sent to two well-experienced independent referees, namely Philip Sugden and Dr Alan Gauld. Both referees found my answer comprehensive and to the point. Both referees concluded that the A to Z text was unjustified. Of their words Philip Sugden had this to say "...they will inevitably be taken by some readers as an indictment of the general standard of his work. In order to justify such comments it would be necessary to demonstrate that Mr Harris is repeatedly guilty of serious misrepresentation. Nothing I have read in this 'response' or in Mr Harris' published work leads me to believe that he is this type of writer...it would be a pity, as well as an injustice, if the A-Z reflections upon Melvin Harris deterred anyone from reading one of the very few authors who have made a genuine and worthwhile contribution to this subject...In conclusion, I think the A to Z comments were unjust to Mr Harris."
That, plus Dr Gauld's verdict, should have put an end to this wretched affair, but when I wrote to 'Headline' books asking for the words to be withdrawn, the three added even more fabricated charges. They said that among my other "obnoxious habits" was my record of "...making unsolicited private approaches to publishers, writers, journalists and other interested parties with the apparent aim of getting other people's work disparaged or suppressed" This was a foul piece of dishonesty. Yet Begg protests that he is not a fabricator! He has been asked to name the people alluded to in that piece of foulness but he has failed to name one. He did try to drag in Rod Green but that Editor had actually ASKED ME to write to him. And far from trying to get Feldman's book suppressed I actually ended my letter to Green (11 Dec 96) with these words: -
"I am aware that Virgin will go ahead and publish no matter what absurdities this involves. I am quite cynical about the motives of most publishers. I remember well the Lobsang Rampa and the Amityville Horror affairs. Despite complete exposure of both hoaxes, publishers went ahead and continued to turn out sequels for years afterwards. But now you have a full, detailed list of the material I want excluded from this book and I expect you to behave honourably in that respect, even if you do have to print the rest of Feldman's fantasy."
Begg a fabricator? Yes sir!
As for Caz. Voller's position can not be understood by you UNTIL you read those posts. And positively the last word on the Sphere book: The crucial point is that Mike and Anne had the book in their house at least two years before the Diary reached London. The knowledge that Mike had left the book, plus some other things, with the solicitor, came to Alan Gray from one of the people in that solicitor's office. This was before I had ever heard of Mr Gray. Mike told him that he had held some things back from the local press because they paid nothing. He felt he was in danger of losing future book royalties. Therefore he wanted Gray to find him a newspaper willing to pay for the 'complete' story, and thus enable him to claw back some compensation for any loss of income. To this end he handed over the volume to Gray. |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 30 October 2000 - 12:08 am | | | You just can't leave playground, can you Melvin. Well, run off and believe what you want to believe. I am very happy to let people read your posts and reach their own conclusions. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 30 October 2000 - 06:35 am | | Morning Campers!
Hi Melvin,
I have read all your posts and articles which have appeared on the casebook, though admittedly not all of them recently. As I think there are more pressing matters to address right now (quite apart from the six washloads piling up on my kitchen floor), I do hope you will forgive me if I remain puzzled as to why Voller's position cannot be summed up by a simple "Yes, he believes the diary ink is Diamine", or "In his opinion, AFI's test was inconclusive", together with the source (letter or telephone call from Voller) of your information. A straight answer to a straight question appears to be a luxury, which I’m not entitled to expect, so I’ll move on for now.
Hi RJ,
Confused? You and me both - which is why I've been working on the order of 'Crashaw' events, to get it straight in my mind why on earth the diary wasn't successfully exposed as a modern hoax the moment Melvin says he knew (after 6th December 1994?) that the Sphere book had been lodged with Mike's solicitor 'LONG BEFORE' June 1994. I shall be posting more about this as time permits.
In the meantime, having rather recklessly shown Keith Skinner some of the recent posts, I have now had to abandon my washing machine again in favour of typing up a post for him, which should follow shortly.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 30 October 2000 - 06:38 am | | From Keith Skinner To Melvin Harris
Your letter to Rod Green, dated September 4th 1997, (on screen – Friday October 20th 2000), has now been brought to my attention.
For the historical record, this is the first time I have ever seen this correspondence, which contains your version of the events surrounding the investigation into Mr Kane. I note this letter is in response to publication of Paul Feldman’s book, ‘Jack The Ripper: The Final Chapter’.
Essentially, as it stands, it is your word against Paul Feldman’s and there, unhappily, the matter uncomfortably remains, pending further investigation. As Peter Birchwood pointed out in his post of Wednesday September 6th 2000, “…it is completely fair and reasonable to treat statements which have no accompanying evidence with great care.” * This, of course, has been the problem – and continues to be the problem – with the provenance of the Diary for the past eight and a half years. Yet apparently it is in your power to put an end to this bitter and damaging controversy by answering the crucially important question put to you by Caroline Morris, concerning the date Mike Barrett lodged his copy of the Sphere book with his solicitor. Or could you let us know the name of the London journalist who, in 1993-4, uncovered the information in Liverpool, (made known to you as an act of courtesy), which identified Mike and Anne “as placers, or handlers, of a document forged by others.”
* RIPPERANA (No 9) July 1994 reported the following…
‘It has been suggested, in certain circles, that a Mr. Kane, who witnessed her father’s will, has handwriting which matches that of the ‘Diary’. Mr. Kane was a great personal friend of Tony Devereux’s for the last 10 years of his life, living humbly with his wife, in a Council bungalow.. He, too, was interviewed in the exhaustive Scotland Yard enquiry, and duly eliminated.’ |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 30 October 2000 - 10:05 am | | Hi All, and particularly for RJ,
Right, I’ve now got a few dates and facts together regarding that obscure Crashaw quote, and Mike’s
claim to have discovered and provided it for use in the creation of the diary:
According to Melvin Harris, ‘The Sphere volume had been left with Mike’s solicitor LONG BEFORE the break with his wife and the ‘confession’.’
(Melvin has since clarified that he means long before June 1994, although he now writes, ‘The actual date of lodgement of the book prior to that break is uncertain. The only person who can give the exact day and month is the solicitor used by Mike.’)
November 1993
From Mike Barrett’s affidavit – January 5th 1995:
“I finally decided in November 1993 that enough was enough and I made it clear from that time on that the Diary of Jack the Ripper was a forgery, this brought a storm down on me… I became so frightened that I sort [sic] the help of a Private Detective Alan Gray and complaints were made to the Police which I understand are still being pursued.”
January 2nd 1994 Mike and Anne separate. (p281 of Shirley’s Blake edition, 1998)
June 21st 1994 ‘..Sally and I [Shirley] went to see Michael in a new home, where he was living with a lady who had taken him under her wing. He…poured out the story of how he had forged the Diary.’ (p285 of Blake)
June 24th 1994 Mike ‘confesses’ to the press. (p285 of Blake)
June 30th 1994 Mike’s solicitor issues statement saying Mike’s confession ‘was totally incorrect and without foundation.’ (p178 of Feldman’s paperback - my italics)
August 14th 1994 According to Melvin, Mike engages Alan Gray to search for his wife.
September 1994 Again according to Melvin, Mike further engages Gray to ‘expose the Diary’.
September 27th 1994 Mike’s solicitors are told that £12,000 was due from Paul Feldman for the film rights. (Melvin’s post of June 30 @ 6.30pm on the Maybrick Diary board refers.)
September 30th 1994 Mike ‘discovers’ the quote in the Liverpool library, after Shirley had asked him to look there. (p281-2 of Blake)
(RJ, I checked in Shirley’s 1994 Smith Gryphon paperback where, on page 231, she makes a brief reference to the ‘oh costly intercourse of death’ quote, but gives no indication of knowing the source for the quote, at least by the time that edition went into print. The chronology outlined on pages 281-5 of Blake certainly points to 1994 – and not 1993 - when Shirley was asking Mike to help find the quote. I agree it is confusing, if Mike had lodged his proof with his solicitor way before this time, but went along with his library charade, then suddenly ‘remembered’ he had the book at home. I agree we really need to ask Shirley for some more details here.)
December 6th 1994 The Sphere volume is handed over to Gray at Mike’s solicitors. (Melvin’s JOLLY JAPES post of 10th October 2000 refers.)
(I am assuming that Melvin had no contact with Gray before this time, otherwise I am sure he would have seen how absolutely crucial it was - and how perfectly possible it should have been - to make early enquiries to ascertain exactly when the volume came into Mike’s solicitor’s hands.)
(Melvin hasn’t yet made it clear about his communications with Mike. For instance, when and how did Mike tell Melvin about the book falling open at the page where the quote can be found? Perhaps Chris George can help here, as he interviewed Melvin on the subject for Ripper Notes, March 2000.)
December 8th 1994 Melvin is reported thus in the Evening Standard:
‘“There is now no doubt whatsoever that they are a recent fake,” he claims. “The identities of the three people involved in the forgery will soon be made known.”’
‘About 1st week in December 1994’ From Mike’s affidavit – January 5th 1995:
‘…my wife Anne Barrett visited me, she asked me to keep my mouth shut and that if I did so I could receive a payment of £20,000 before the end of the month.”
January 5th 1995 From Mike’s affidavit:
‘Page 250 book, Page 44 Diary, centre page, quote: ‘OH COSTLY INTERCOURSE OF DEATH’. This quotation I took from SPHERE HISTORY OF LITERATURE, Volume 2 English Poetry and Prose 1540-1674, Edited by Christopher Ricks, however, Anne Barrett made a mistake when she wrote it down, she should have written down ‘O’ not ‘OH’. Page 184 in Volume 2 refers.’
January 19th 1995 ‘Mrs Harrison tried to get possession of this book from Mr Gray but he refused to play ball.’ (Melvin’s JOLLY JAPES post of 10th October 2000 refers.)
October 15th 1996 Gray writes letter to Mike:
‘Be assured that if we can possbley [sic] prove without doubt where you brought the Diary from I can almost guarantee you will make ‘money’. I have a National Newspaper ready to do business BUT we must get the evidence that will support you.
Then watch them jump because your credibility will then be 100%. Feldman is about to release a new book. The time is right to pay these terrible people back. So let’s do it.
Phone me…’ (p317 of Blake)
And lastly, from Melvin’s post on the Maybrick Diary board on June 30th 2000 @ 06.30pm:
‘The quote from Alan Gray’s letter to Barrett now has to be put in its true context. Mike was angry because he believed he was being denied all the money due to him. He produced letters showing that on 27th September 1994 his solicitors were told that £12,000 was due from Feldman for film rights. A further letter (from Robert Smith) showed that New Line Cinema had paid £70,000 in December 1994. He next stated that he had been warned that his loud mouth would kill off the goose that laid the traditional nuggets. He said that he wanted to say more, but wanted the money much more. It was then that Alan Gray made enquiries and found a newspaper that would pay for a good story. This, he told Mike, would partly compensate him for any money he might lose. But the sum on offer was not big enough for Mike, who opted to keep on receiving Royalties, and there the matter ended.’
Love,
Caz |
Author: Barry Street
Monday, 30 October 2000 - 10:55 am | | Never in the field of human debate
Has so much time
Been wasted over so much garbage
By so few |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 30 October 2000 - 12:10 pm | | | "the fact remains that the entry very clearly related to the representation or portrayal of people(their thought processes), not to the accuracy or otherwise of factual or historical data. " The purpose in my quoting the words left out by Paul Begg was to show an attempt to lessen the offence that this quote must have given to Melvin Harris when he first read it. And bearing on that, it is interesting to compare the different versions of the Harris and Stephenson entries in the 1991 and 1996 AtoZ. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 30 October 2000 - 12:20 pm | | The "Crashaw Quote" is most interesting and RJP makes a valid point in suggesting that Mike's identification of it should be in September of 1993. The evidence however is pretty strong that it must have been in 1994, unless the timing in the Harrison book is way off. I think that the answer may be that almost immediately after the June 27th publication of the "confession" it was withdrawn by Mike's then-solicitor.It's therefore possible that he and Shirley were still in touch as late as September 30th 1994. When you think that this was happening in that fairly short period charectorised by confessions, new provenances, separations, apparent endless phone calls by Mike to Feldman, letters and phone calls to and from Anne it says wonders for Shirley's persistance and belief in her project that she didn't see the shakiness of the whole mess.
And again on Crashaw, what are the chances of someone going to Liverpool Library with a short quote which doesn't appear in Bartlett's or any other dictionary of quotations that I've been able to check, bothering the staff and coming up with the source of the quotation, not in an anthology of Crashaw's verse or any other collection but in a history of English literature.
Having been unable to get anywhere today due to the floods I went back through some old posts and found some unanswered questions. Maybe someone can answer them now:
"Now, Mr Birchwood is a professional genealogist (I am not)" Keith Skinner , May 15, 2000 - 05:11 But as Keith is quite plainly a professional genealogist, and has been for many years, I am still at a loss to understand why he said that.
"Caz, from time to time, you have asked other posters for full disclosure of any facts in their possession. I'm now asking you a question...Have you asked Shirley (or anyone else) to set up a meeting with Anne so you can interview her? If so, how long ago did you ask--and what was Anne's answer? " Ashling , May 31, 2000 - 03:39 am Was this ever answered?)
And how about Clifford Irving who according to Paul Begg was: "was an accomplished forger" PB June 11, 2000 - 06:01 am and then after I queried that:"My comment about Irving is not wrong. I said he was already an accomplished forger before embarking on the Hughes book and he was. " PB , June 12, 2000 - 03:42 pm and finally:"Clifford Irving wasn't an experienced forger in the sense that Kujau was, but he was a fluent forger and he knew and understood the psychology of what he was doing." PB June 14, 2000 - 01:37 pm. So what was Cliff after all? And lastly, not a question but a comment: "I can't claim to be Little Miss Perfect, but life's much more fun being Little Miss Mischief."
Caroline Anne Morris, June 5, 2000 - 03:59 am |
|
|
|
|
