|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 November 04, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Maybrick/Jack's watch?:
Archive through November 04, 2000
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 30 October 2000 - 12:44 pm |        | Thank you again, Peter, for making clear what I expect everybody realised was your reason for drawing their attention to the omissions. And please may people make all the comparisons you would like them to. "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."
Regarding Clifford Irving, I understood that Irving understood the 'psychology' of forgery - i.e., knew how to con or however you might like to describe it - and if memory serves me he is quoted explaining it in Selling Hitler. As far as I am aware Mike Barrett had no such understanding. That was the distinction being made. I hope this helps, though I don't know what significance it has to anything currently being discussed. |
Author: Barry Street
Monday, 30 October 2000 - 01:31 pm | | This certainly does drag on, but what becomes increasingly obvious, and pertinent, is the fact that Mr. Begg has still failed to address or answer Mr. Harris's points satisfactorily.
The Sugden quote quoted by Mr. Harris above highlights the problem for Mr. Harris in the A to Z entry. Moreover, Mr. Begg has failed to provide examples to prove that what is stated in the 1996 A to Z entry is correct.
The statement in question in the A to Z seems to read, to a lay reader, that:
i Mr. Harris's claims as to what other writers' thought processes are can be wildly wrong and actually incompatible with written evidence. (Mr. Begg still has not produced any example of such claims by Mr. Harris together with the written word proving such 'wildly wrong' claims)
ii Mr. Harris becomes so indignant when he observes deception that he may make identifiable unfair or wrong declarations. (Again Mr. Begg has still not provided any examples of this together with proofs)
As Mr. Sugden has shown and as any reasonable reader of the words in the A to Z will see, it is a slight on Mr. Harris's judgement and his actions but with no examples of what the entry is supposed to mean. It is an unproven statement.
Rather more sinister is the fact that the entry appears to have been instigated for the following reasons:
i Mr. Harris was the most outspoken critic of the hoax diary, a project with which all three authors of the A to Z were at some time or other, to some degree or other, involved with.
ii Mr. Harris had attacked the word of Donald McCormick, an undoubted fictioneer in his allegedly factual books, and even the authors of the A to Z appear to admit that.
iii Mr. Harris had attacked, justifiably so, the rather unpleasant sounding Mr. Feldman whose own book also contains much questionable material.
iv Mr. Harris made disparaging remarks about graphology. Well, we all know that that subject is not a science and is more akin to astrology and that if its arguments are used to bolster so-called 'facts' then those 'facts' are probably very dubious to start with.
v Mr. Harris had questioned the veracity and validity of what Robert Anderson had to say about 'Jack the Ripper.' (Bearing in mind that both Mr. Fido and Mr. Begg have long been champions of Anderson)
vi That Mr Harris dared to make constructive criticism of a book co-authored by Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Harris gave his own opinion on the 'Australian Druitt connection,' which is one of Mr. Skinner's pet areas.
So these are the heinous crimes of Mr. Harris that resulted in the attack upon him. He had the temerity to question the authority of the A to Z triumverate. If the above points are not correct then perhaps Mr. Begg would like to provide written examples of Mr. Harris's behaviour together with impeccable evidence of that behaviour. No smokescreens, no quoting of subsequent exchanges that have appeared on these boards - just straight answers may clear up this mess once and for all.
For in my humble opinion all four men, Begg, Fido, Skinner, and Harris are of great stature in this field, they all have very good books to their names, and they all have much to offer us. It is indeed a sad day to see this festering wound on the body of Ripper studies. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Monday, 30 October 2000 - 05:02 pm | | TRUTH WILL OUT!
The truth is on screen. It shows that Begg and Fido (Skinner was away at the time) concocted accusations that were lying and libellous. They have never been withdrawn thus compounding their deceit. But when Begg is confronted with this truth he descends to the infantile with cries of "playground". This is a man who cannot bear to lose face. For him the excuses and the evasions come first. But the lies are on record.
To Keith Skinner I have this to say: You are not entitled to match a statement of mine with a statement of Feldman's and act as if they are on the same level. They are not. I have a proven record of dealing with evidence in a scrupulous manner. I have never been guilty of using altered documents or faked quotations, but Feldman has a long record of perverting the truth to his own ends. Just one example will serve for now. In 1993 he was claiming that Edwin Maybrick's trial testimony showed that James Maybrick was ill in bed on April 25th 1889, the date his Will was signed. He then argued that the writing on the Will was plainly not that of a dying man. Therefore it was a fake. At the time I pointed out to him that his account was untrue; that Edwin's testimony showed that he did not see his brother on the 25th. When he did see James on the next day, he found him in good health. Despite this correction Feldman went on telling the same false tale to journalists, to Reed Hayes even to Nick Warren. As late as 9th June 1995, YES 1995, he wrote to Nick "The fact is that [James] was in bed on 25th April (the testimony from Edwin confirms this) but the handwriting of the supposed Maybrick Will is clearly not that of a dying man." Point made?
Apart from that, I never once wrote, or spoke, to Feldman about Mr Kane. So where did he get his twisted account from? I'm afraid he must have garnered a garbled version of my position from Martin Fido, who, as you know, is not renowned for his good memory. I now expect you to accept the wording of my letter to Rod Green as the exact position taken up by me from the very day I saw Kane's handwriting. Thus the words you later used misrepresent me completely.
Finally, for all thinking around the Sphere book, the only date of real importance is the date that book came into the hands of the Barretts. If it arrived AFTER the Diary was seen by the Crewe Agency then it has no evidential value. But it did not. It was in their house for at least two years before the hoax was launched. No one disputes this, including Anne. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 30 October 2000 - 05:03 pm | | Peter, hello. I'm sure you'll find the following quote of interest. It is from the 2nd edition of Shirley Harrison's The Diary of Jack the Ripper(Pocket Books) , page 278. I quote Ms. Harrison:
"Then, as the alcoholism firmly took its grip on Mike, he devised a wild and desperate plan to, as
he later explained to me, "to get back at Anne." On Friday, June 24th 1994, he telephoned the Liverpool Post from his own home and told them: "I did it." A reporter went to his now run-down house, where he found him lying on the floor with three empty bottles of Scotch and a bottle of wine. In his pitiful condition, Mike took the reporters to the shop, where, he claimed, he had bought the ink and told him of the auctioneers, Outhwaite and Litherland, where, he claimed, he had bid for the diary.
He signed a confession typed-up for him, but he could supply no answers at all as to how or where he had researched the facts. I remember how, in his happier days, I had sometimes asked him to do simple research in Liverpool, so that he could feel involved. (My italics) He was always desperate to play his part, and yet I knew how confused and agitated he became when he could not understand the fairly simple tasks I set him."
So I'm still assuming that Ms. Harrison had sent Barrett to the Liverpool Library long before the break-up with Anne and the controversial confession. This is the only thing that makes sense to me, but I will stand corrected if Shirley Harrison can give us any further details. This would seem to leave me with the absurd impression that Barrett managed to somehow find a librarian that led him to the Sphere Guide, then, went and bought a copy of the same edition, put it in his attic, inexplicably made the flub of telling Harrison that he suddenly remembered owning a copy, all of which, evidently, in anticipation of breaking up with Anne several months later, so that he could then use the Sphere guide as proof in a false confession to implicate her. What? Does this make any sense? This isn't the state of Denmark, but something is rotten somewhere. |
Author: R Court
Monday, 30 October 2000 - 05:26 pm | | Hi all,
Melvin Harris, I have, unfortunantly, not had the time to check up on AFI's report, but will do as I can. That this will then change the course of history in one blinding flash may well, however, tend to prove uncertain.
I have concentrated on the ink question soley because it interests me from a physics viewpoint, not because I care if the diary absolutely must be proven a fake (BOOO!! HISSS! etc.) or not (threats on life etc.). Therefore the AFI and any other reports on tests carried out will interest me soley on that point. It will, I am glad to write, neither add to, nor detract from, the missives from all on this board, including yours, in any form.
Best regards,
Bob Court |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 31 October 2000 - 08:11 am | | Mr Palmer:- pending Shirley’s return I have looked at my files and I have two fading thermal-paper faxes dated early October 1994 relating to Mike’s ‘discovery’ of ‘O costly’ and these indicate that the discovery was made in September/October 1994. Unless Shirley or anyone else has evidence to the contrary, I think we must accept that this is when the ‘discovery’ happened.
Going through the files, I saw some other bits and bits and a few thoughts flashed across my weary brain. If Mike did indeed lodge the Sphere book with his solicitor some time before the break up of his marriage in January 1994 then it may have been in or about November 1993, because that is when he later claimed he considered confessing. It was therefore some six or eight months later, in June 1994, that Mike confessed to journalist Harold Brough. But when reporting the confession (Liverpool Daily Post 25 June 1994), Brough concluded that Barrett ‘was unable to explain how he had managed to write a book which fooled experts, or answer basic questions about how he found the old paper of the diary, or old ink.’
As a matter of interest, the next day Barrett again saw Brough, went for a drive with him and (as reported in The Liverpool Daily Post 27 June 1994) pointed out auctioneers Outhwaite and Litherland, from whom he claimed to have bought the book, and the art shop in Bluecoat Chambers where he obtained the ink. By the following year Barrett claimed that the purchases were made in January 1990 and was able to give a coherent and detailed account of how they were bought. Outhwaite and Litherland have rejected the details of the story as not fitting in with their procedures, which casts doubt on the veracity of Barrett’s story and may lend some support to the overall feeling that Barrett was adding details he was unable to give in his original confession.
If Barrett had decided to confess over six months earlier and had actually lodged proofs with his solicitor at that time, why didn’t he simply produce that material in June 1994 when he found his confession unconvincing to Harold Brough? In fact, even if he hadn’t lodged it with his solicitor, why didn’t he just produce the Sphere book?
Mr Street:- It does indeed drag on, but with respect you are responsible for the dragging.The A to Z entry has been discussed with Melvin Harris many times and at considerable length and I have made clear that I will only discuss it in collaboration with my colleagues. I would also remind you that the A to Z entry was not under discussion until you brought it up to either divert attention away from or in some belief that it could be used in mitigation of Melvin Harris’s outspoken and undiplomatic criticism of Mr. Kazalaucianus and Professor Rubinstein. This matter would itself not have been raised had not Melvin Harris misrepresented my argument when having a go at Shirley Harrison. Thus, this might not drag on if you actually stuck to the point or stuck to the subject matter of this Board, namely the ‘diary’.
Melvin, I’m afraid that I don’t share your opinion that my supposed sins are justification of yours. I think the ‘you did it first’ tit-for-tat type of argument you indulge in is infantile, which is why I say that I have no intention of joining you in the playground. If that is infantile rather than grown-up, so be it. Otherwise I can do no more than draw your attention to what I have written to Barry Street and to my explanatory post of 29th October. If you want to interpret this as avoiding the issue, please do so with my wholehearted blessing. It isn’t true, but interpret it that way if it pleases you. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 31 October 2000 - 08:48 am | | Hi Barry,
‘Never in the field of human debate
Has so much time
Been wasted over so much garbage
By so few’
Couldn’t agree more mate. If Mike’s book was lodged ‘LONG BEFORE’ June 1994, as his proof of involvement in the modern hoax, this fact alone would have killed the diary stone dead, the moment Melvin was able to confirm the date. I don’t think anyone, the remaining waverers, ‘agnostics’ or ‘pro-diarists’, or Keith Skinner, Shirley, or even Feldy, would disagree. This is what makes that date so crucial. It makes the difference between allowing the diary ‘camp’ to carry on giving reasons and/or excuses for not accepting any of Melvin’s other arguments, and forcing them to concede the hoax is a modern one involving Mike.
And so we wouldn’t now be reading page after page of time-wasting diversions from the topic, would we? You have stated your intention to leave us to it, while Melvin says that, unlike some posters, he hasn’t time on his hands for all this. Well, you both could have fooled me!
Hi Peter,
‘"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?’
Yes - in the very next post, Little ‘Mister’ Mischief.
‘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."’
I can’t believe you think that simply putting all the facts, as we have been told them, in some sort of date order is being in any way mischievous. So I’m not sure I understand why you made that out-of-context comment when you did. But I think it would probably be wise for both of us if I kept my postulations on your thought processes to myself, don’t you?
Hi Melvin,
‘Finally, for all thinking around the Sphere book, the only date of real importance is the date that book came into the hands of the Barretts. If it arrived AFTER the Diary was seen by the Crewe Agency then it has no evidential value. But it did not. It was in their house for at least two years before the hoax was launched.’
I’ve already explained to Barry Street why this hasn’t been enough to persuade the diary ‘camp’ to ‘see sense’, as you would no doubt put it. What would make them see sense is confirmation that the Sphere book was lodged by Mike with his solicitor in anticipation of a subsequent confession. And here’s the rub, because it appears you cannot provide more than a rough guess, based on something said to Alan Gray by ‘one of the people’ in the solicitor’s office. Not very impressive, is it, considering this appears to be your very best shot to date of getting shot of the diary for good?
‘No one disputes this, including Anne.’
I’d also be interested in hearing the source of this information. Did you ask Anne herself? Is it somewhere in her written testimony? Or did someone else tell you, like Mike for instance?
And I’d still like to know more about your communications with Mike – when and how they occurred. You have quoted from conversations you have had with him. Were these by letter, phone or in person?
Hi RJ,
I hope Shirley will soon be able to confirm that she asked Mike to help with her diary research early on, as well as after his June 1994 ‘confession’, which clearly, from her close previous involvement with him and the investigation, did nothing to convince her that he really did have any involvement in forging the thing. Evidently, his ‘confessions’ to Shirley, like those he made to the press, in June 1994, made no mention of the book, which, according to Melvin, was sitting safely in his solicitor’s office all the time.
Meanwhile, I'm sure Paul Begg won't mind me adding to his post, by quoting from the one he wrote on the Maybrick Diary board of Friday July 7:
‘Finally, there is amid a frighteningly large stack of fading thermal-paper faxes one from Liverpool Central Library and dated 6th October 1994 at 10.10am in which it states that Sphere’s History of English Literature Volume 2 was at that moment freely and easily available on their shelves.’
This certainly makes sense if Shirley was told that he had discovered the quote on 30th September 1994. If nothing else, it shows that she promptly sought confirmation that the quote was at least there, even if Mike was pulling yet another fast one.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 31 October 2000 - 10:57 am | | Hi All,
I have just received the following from Keith Skinner:
Dear Caroline
Thank you for keeping me up to date with Diary developments on the Board.
The following may be of interest:-
Checking thru’ my “O Costly….” file I came across the following note which is a record of a telephone message left for me on my answerphone from Shirley Harrison.
‘12.10.1994 [12th October 1994, for our American friends – CAM]
from Shirley…re O Costly Intercourse…
Shirley phoned Jenny (MB’s current girlfriend) who corroborated MB’s story that during the summer he had taken books around to Jenny’s son, James, who was studying for his O levels. MB thought books (which he had acquired for Hillsborough Disaster Auction) might help him – but, in fact, they were too advanced. Ann [sic] apparently denies all knowledge of these books and the auction.
During Mike’s serious week at library, when he found the reference, he later recalled that he had these particular books, which were the ones he had loaned to James.
Mike insisted he discovered the reference for himself at the library – and nobody did it for him.
Mike has appt this pm with solicitor (to discuss divorce) – will take book with him.’
This, prima facie, would appear to seriously conflict with Melvin Harris’s positive statement and knowledge that:-
“The Sphere volume had been left with Mike’s solicitor LONG BEFORE the break with his wife and the ‘confession’.”
So, something is wrong somewhere and Melvin is unlikely to have made such a confident assertion, knowing its implications, without being able to substantiate it.
I believe Shirley Harrison is currently making enquiries with Mike’s solicitor to try and establish this vital date of lodgement. But Alan Gray surely must have asked this key question when he took possession of the book?
But if Melvin is correct, then the case for a modern hoax becomes extremely powerful and persuasive.
Keith |
Author: Melvin Harris
Tuesday, 31 October 2000 - 06:20 pm | | O COSTLY COCK-UPS.
Typically Begg has once more evaded the issue by pretending that my last remarks were to do with the A To Z entry. They were not. They dealt with the lying, libellous claims made to 'Headline Books'. If he and Fido had hurled such lies at someone who was both rich and vindictive then both of them would have faced a libel action within days.
Now, since some muddle is intruding in the Sphere book discussion let me bring things back to basics. The break with Anne that Mike spoke of did not date back to Jan 1994. This is a false date and I have already clarified this. Until June 94 he still believed that their problem was just a spasm and that they would be reconciled. He then faced the fact that Anne was threatening a divorce. He was told (so he said) that if he spoke to the press then divorce proceedings would be automatic. I have already quoted Anne's letter to him which proves that she started the divorce action the very day he did speak to the press. "You left me no option" she wrote.
When he engaged Alan Gray he told him that he had left a number of items with his solicitor, papers, a book, a statement, all intended for future use. He said that he had hinted at that quite often, in the past, and indeed Feldman himself quotes an enigmatic statement by Barrett that dates back to "Early in 1994" It reads: "When you know the name of my solicitor then you will really know the truth.". Feldman comments "Mike Barrett's phone call suggested he was pointing me in the direction of the truth." (p137)
Alan Gray taped a large number of interviews with Barrett, unfortunately he lent them to a gentleman in Spain (known to Mrs Harrison) who is treating those tapes as his own property, thus it is not possible to quote all the statements made by Mike. But he did lay claim to ownership of the Sphere book from the very beginning of his relationship with Gray. The volume was not meant to be involved in an 'auction' this is a misunderstanding. Mike was simply organising a bookstall at a jumble sale, or indoor car-boot sale. He told Gray that he felt guilty because he did not try to sell the set of Sphere books (12 he said) but decided to keep them for himself since he had ambitions to be a writer! "I put some money in the kitty, though", said Mike.
And it is the date of his initial ownership of Volume 2 that is the vital date, not when it reached his solicitors; that is of minor importance, perhaps of no importance. Now Gray did check on his story and found that the book was indeed at the solicitors and that the volume and its companions had been seen by Mike's relatives before the Diary was ever heard of. He also told Gray about the significance of the book in the first week of September BEFORE he claimed to Harrison that he had found the quote at the library.
Keith Skinner's notes dated 12th October 1994 now raise some pertinent questions. The notes state that "Anne apparently denies all knowledge of these books and the auction" The 'auction' has already been dealt with, but her lack of knowledge of the books makes strange reading indeed. Others saw them and in her Blake paperback of 1998 Mrs Harrison makes no mention of any denial or words of dissent from Anne. She prints Mike's statement about his acquisition of the books, but does not challenge it. Surely if there was a conflict of testimony, that conflict should have formed part of her account? To omit mention of it amounts to a grave suppression of evidence, unless Anne had had second thoughts and retracted her denial. But even in that event the denial and withdrawal should have formed part of the record.
The notes point to a further suppression of evidence. In her Blake edition Mrs Harrison says that Mike badgered the staff at the Liverpool library and within days came up with the fact that the obscure quote could be located tucked away in the pages of an essay. But these newly revealed notes tell a very different story. We now read: "Mike insisted he discovered the reference for himself at the library- and nobody did it for him." Why were we not told this by Mrs Harrison? Again it should have been part of the record. Both tales, of course, are beyond belief. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 01 November 2000 - 02:41 am | | Evading nothing, Melvin, but I did not write the letter to Headline and simply trusted and accepted that the statements therein were true. You have already been told this. I further understand that others received from Rod Green the impression that your letter was unsolicited and that Rod Green has himself said that he had no recollection of asking you to write to him, perhaps because he was preoccupied with other pressing matters at the time. So, not evasion or pretence Melvin, just not getting involved in making unimportant distinctions on an irrelevant matter.
By the way, did Mike ever tell you or Mr Gray why he didn't produce the Sphere book for Harold Brough and why he did not provide basic details to Mr Brough until after he'd read Mr Brough's report and, presumably, realised that his apparent ignorance caused people to doubt his story? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 01 November 2000 - 07:08 am | | Hi Melvin,
It looks like we are almost there, doesn’t it?
But, with the greatest of respect, Melvin, it matters not one iota how insignificant you think the date is, that Mike lodged the volume with his solicitor (or first spoke to anyone about knowing the quote was in it). You can convince everyone else - me, Barry, RJ, Paul Begg, and most of Joe Public – that these dates are ‘of minor importance, perhaps of no importance.’ But if you can’t provide confirmation (your statement of fact that it was ‘LONG BEFORE’ June 1994, for example, has now become some unverified and unspecified date, but apparently by the first week of September 1994, when Gray was first engaged by Mike to expose the diary), the people who need to be convinced, if we are to get anywhere with this, ie Shirley, Feldy and co, are actually being helped by you to prolong the agony. Like it or not, no one else in the world needs to be convinced, but them. So let’s do it!
You must be referring to your own records to give us these useful details of the Gray/Barrett stuff. So, did Gray really lend everything to the ‘gentleman in Spain’, without keeping copies of tapes/transcripts/written notes etc? And if so, presumably this was all before you met him, otherwise you would have made copies for yourself, and would now be able to give a date for when Gray checked on Mike’s story, ‘and found that the book was indeed at the solicitors….’ And you would also have some written record to help confirm your statement that Mike ‘told Gray about the significance of the book in the first week of September BEFORE he claimed to Harrison that he had found the quote at the library.’
This is the stuff which needs firming up and substantiating if we are ever to convince the diary ‘camp’.
Hopefully, Shirley will be able to get a definite date from Mike’s solicitor’s records, which will prove the reliability, or otherwise, of Gray’s information.
Melvin, perhaps Shirley did not take Mike’s word for it that he found the reference for himself at the library. Perhaps, when she checked, she found that he had indeed badgered the staff there. Perhaps she should have put the whole story in her book, as evidence that she understands that everything Mike says needs to be checked and double-checked before using as part of anyone’s theory. Just a thought…..
Love,
Caz |
Author: Barry Street
Wednesday, 01 November 2000 - 12:18 pm | | Hold on a minute, aren't we suffering a certain loss of perspective here? Isn't there an anomaly here? For the whole onus is upon the diary proponents to prove it genuine. It is not Mr. Harris's place to have to be 'grilled' by CAM. She is asking the wrong person the questions.
For any sensible being both the facts and Mr. Harris have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the absurd diary is a modern forgery. The diary proponents Ms. Harrison et al, have singularly failed to prove the thing at all genuine, nor have they even come near to doing so. And that with much wangling, omissions, mistakes, 'ifs' and 'buts' and so on. They have been totally unconvincing. All they have done is to throw up a load of irrelevancies and smokescreens. They are asking questions when they should be answering them!
And what of CAM? All she is doing is sitting at her keyboard rattling off questions that she can't be bothered to go and and find the answers for herself. We haven't seen the tiniest indication of any research on her part, other than lifting wrong information from books, and being fed material by certain people she is obviously in touch with.
What is particularly odious about her posts is the tenor of her questions, the smugness if you like. Or am I the only one to perceive this? You have only to read her last post for examples of this. And they are questions put to the wrong person. As for the "So let's do it!" There's a revelation. She obviously regards herself as the grand inquisitor, or judge perhaps, wielding the iron rod, and telling others that "we" need "to convince the diary camp." Really? Personally I don't give a damn what the diary camp believes - you could take the truth to them in tablets of stone and they would still not accept it. But it is they who should be doing the proving, not anyone else. Are there not any other sensible posters reading this with an opinion?
No CAM is full of 'ifs' 'buts' 'perhaps' and 'maybes' making her sound all the more as if she is being fed her questions by someone else. The diary, its provenance and its history stinks. And don't try to kid us CAM that you are just trying to get to the truth. You are a self-admitted 'wooden spooner' and you are revelling in it. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 01 November 2000 - 01:58 pm | | Hi Barry,
Please don't be quite so pessimistic about Melvin's chances of getting the diary 'camp' to take the tablets. Let's wait and see, shall we?
You could soon be celebrating this Morris dancer's last tango with Harris. (Sorry folks)
Hi All,
Keith Skinner sent me the following post yesterday, Tuesday October 31, before seeing Melvin’s O COSTLY COCK-UPS post. Apologies to all for not having had the time until now to type and post it.
From Keith Skinner to RJ Palmer
Dear RJ
I spoke with Shirley Harrison in France this morning [Tuesday] who is still experiencing Internet connection problems – but Shirley wishes to assure all ‘posters’ that she will be back on the case when she returns to the UK this weekend.
However, I took the liberty of posing a few questions on your behalf. Briefly, the background, if my understanding is correct of what Shirley was telling me, is that prior to June 21st 1994, Shirley was receiving many distressing telephone calls from Mike Barrett, who was under a great deal of extreme pressure from Paul Feldman (insisting he was not the real Mike Barrett) and under a great deal of emotional pressure because his wife and daughter had left him at the beginning of the year. Shirley says that it was during this traumatic period she was trying to get Mike into a positive frame of mind – encouraging him to do something constructive like – for example – identify the source for “O Costly….”
Now, if Shirley has any written documentary support to show this was the case, (ie. the type of detailed, dated, notes which, presumably, Melvin Harris, as a competent, professional investigator retains, of conversations he has had with people), and these pre-date June 21st 1994, then it expands the time frame for Barrett to have legitimately discovered the Crashaw reference by September 30th 1994.
I do not say this is what happened, but I’m sure you can appreciate how vital it is for us to know the precise date Mike lodged his copy of the Sphere book with his solicitor. If "…LONG BEFORE the break with his wife and the ‘confession’” (as Melvin asserts), then, however irrational and incomprehensible Mike’s subsequent behaviour appears, the importance of this date is a hard fact which cannot, should not, and will not, (certainly by me), be undermined or diminished.
As it stands, it is just possible that Barrett did find that obscure reference for himself at Liverpool Library on September 30th 1994. The fax sent to Shirley Harrison from Liverpool Library on October 6th 1994, with the relevant page from the Sphere book, supports the notion that this was the location Mike allegedly made his discovery. But if Melvin has the conclusive evidence revealing that Mike’s copy of his Sphere book was lodged with his solicitor prior to June 1994, then why on earth does he not produce it?
It should also be remembered that we are not talking about just one isolated volume being in Mike’s house. As reported by Shirley on page 284 of her 1998 update:
‘Amongst the many volumes that arrived from Sphere [as a response to Mike’s Hillsborough appeal] were twelve volumes of their History of English Literature. Michael says that he couldn’t sell them and put it in the attic with others and forgot them, until finding the quotation in the library reminded him of their existence.’
But what exactly reminded Mike of their existence, five years after storing them in the attic? Why should he visually remember them?
If you follow Melvin’s line of reasoning, then Mike never forgot about their existence – or the incriminating volume which he lodged with his solicitor (for whatever reason) LONG BEFORE his marriage collapsed – but went through a charade of pointing everybody in the direction of Liverpool Library.
Or another scenario is that during the summer of 1994, Mike was living with a lady who had taken him under her wing, and this lady had a teenage son who was studying for impending exams – and Mike might just have happened to be clearing out his attic, come across the set of Sphere books, wondered whether they may be of any use to the teenager and taken them round to him? Hence his recollection of the books.
For which line of reasoning there is some independent support.
But Melvin can completely destroy my hypothesis by explaining how he knew Mike lodged the Sphere book LONG BEFORE the break-up or, better still, producing the date. It matters not one jot to me to be proved wrong and I honestly do not mind being exposed as an amateurish, incompetent, bungling, naïve, “emotionally entangled”, “henchman” – or an accredited member of the “lunatic fringe.”
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: Ennui
Wednesday, 01 November 2000 - 03:42 pm | | | Barry, you are wrong. The diarist don't have to prove it is genuine. People will believe it without proof at all. The onus IS on the Diary's opponents to prove it is fake. Since you brought up CAM's role as judge, here's another way of looking at it. The people who 'found' the diary have been accused of forgery, chicanery, etc. They are innocent until proven guilty. And whatever you personally may think of the brilliant 'proof' provided by Mr. Harris, so far it hasn't been sufficient to convince the jury. No matter how many times you say his argument are brilliant and fantastic and proof-positive, it won't make them so. |
Author: Joseph
Wednesday, 01 November 2000 - 05:29 pm | | Hello Mr. Street,
The loss of perspective is entirely your own, and from where I sit, Ms. Morris hasn't engaged Mr. Harris in "grilling" of any type. The diary folks made a statement with the publication of their book. The book contains the evidence they have gathered to support they're claim. The diary proponents believe the book to be an accurate reflection of the truth. Mr. Harris, in his role as fraud buster, has investigated the diary, and proclaims it a fake. He has made statements that he has the evidence that would disprove the validity of the book, and prove, conclusively that the diary itself is a modern day forgery. Ms. Morris, in a very polite and respectful manner I might add, is asking Mr. Harris to show his cards; to lay out his evidence for all to see. In doing so, he will once and for all prove the diary to be exactly what he says it is, a modern forgery.
Ms. Morris is using the same scientific method of statement, and proof that Mr. Harris is, or should be using. You seem to be afraid that Mr. Harris has been talking through his hat, and doesn't have the evidence he claims to have. Ms. Morris, on the other hand, believes he does and is asking him to share it with us. She is attempting to put this diary thing to rest; isn't that what you've been asking for. You have been boring us with your repeated requests to stop dragging this out. In that vain, the ball is in Mr. Harris's court.
He now has the opportunity to cut the "diarists" off at the knees, and put an end to this endless debate. I hope this point ends your confusion as to who is in position to do what.
I would also like to bring to your attention the circularity of your statement,
"For any sensible being both the facts and Mr. Harris have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the absurd diary is a modern forgery".
(By Barry Street on Thursday, November 02, 2000 - 03:18 pm)
This statement depends entirely on your testimony for its validity. You define what a sensible person is, and you validate Mr. Harris's facts. What is absurd here is the anxiety with which you beg the question. To your great discomfort, Mr. Harris is as equally obligated to prove his statements as Mr. Begg, or Ms. Harrison, Keith Skinner et al.
Mr. Street, the smoke screen is of your making. Your interference is prolonging this debate. If, as you have been incessantly suggesting, you wish to see an end to it, then I recommend you relax and find another outlet for your angst.
You also have this bizarre need to reverse the situation. It's call projecting Mr. Street; you project Mr. Harris's bad manners, and poor investigatory skills onto his questioners in an attempt to camouflage his sins of omission. It is unfortunate that you never truly developed the knack for it, because the readership will understand what you're trying to do immediately; you don't disguise it all to well,and I'm a little embarrassed for you. You seem to be a nice man, but in your zeal to support Mr. Harris, you have lost all sense of proportion.
I wonder, Mr. Street, how many times a day, or week do you contact Mr. Harris? I'm asking you this question pointedly; because you give the me impression that you're doing his bidding.
Another question you have avoided answering is: Have you ever posted any messages to the Casebook message boards under another name, be it anonymous or otherwise?
One thing we can agree on Mr. Street is, "The diary, its provenance and its history stinks". (Street, ibid) The sooner you step to the side and allow Mr. Harris to speak for himself, the sooner we'll be done with it.
Best Regards
Joseph
PS. What's a wooden spooner? Is that someone who makes homemade cakes? |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 02 November 2000 - 12:19 am | | Back from attending to more important family matters - what in heaven's name are the 'lies' Melvin Harris now accuses me of writing to Headline about him? I can't recollect ever having mentioned his name in any piece of correspondence with them, except when agreeing to their request that our criticisms of him be moderated or excised for the sake of peace in future editions. I can quite understand his disliking the A-Z entry warning against his propensity to present gross overstatements and misreprentation of others with self-trumpeting claims to scholarship and accuracy, but this accusation against me of mendacious correspondence is something quite new.
I hope, after 20th of this month, to have the time to present some examples of his mis-statements, as Melvin has, not unreasonably, been demanding in various fora for a number of years. The reason for delay is that in the past, Paul, Keith and I felt that anything defending our joint work had to be agreed by all three of us, and this proved inordinately time-consuming, given Melvin's habit of ignoring points he can't answer and running with a new set of goalposts to another part of the field. Now my co-authors have kindly allowed me to make my own points independently, I shall not feel so resolutely unwilling to devote time that could be better spent to 'flapping this bug with gilded wings'.
Martin Fido |
Author: Barry Street
Thursday, 02 November 2000 - 04:16 am | | No, Ennui, it is you who is sadly wrong. You say that people will believe it without proof at all, and there you may, to a degree, be correct. But what sort of people. Certainly not the people who matter to Ripper studies. After all, there are still many who believe in the Royal and Masonic rubbish, even after all these years. But no serious historian does, and every serious historian long-ago dismissed the diary for what it is.
There is no point in arguing about chicanery, for the diary chicanery is there on record for all to see. The Rendell report showed the diary for what it was, long before Mr. Harris entered the fray. As a result of this report Warner Books ditched the diary for the rubbish it is. It was taken up by another publisher, but we all know that controversy means publicity, and publicity means sales. It is a notable fact that the two of the best-selling books on the subject are the Knight book and the Harrison book. A travesty.
Mr. Triola,
You are obviously a man of more than one face. I was surprised to read your venomous post that 'Noah' directed me to. For I thought that you were an honorable and decent man. In fact, I still do. I thought about that post and decided that it sprang from honorable motives in that you were defending others, thus mitigating your venom.
However, I have not lost perspective, and I resent some of the points that you have lately made to me. CAM by her own admission is no 'Miss Goody Two Shoes' admitting that she has fun not being so. You only have to read her posts to see the delight she takes in attacking Mr. Harris (and others) and her ambigious comments to realise where she is emanating from. If you see them as 'polite and respectful' I suggest you do some re-reading.
I am not afraid that Mr. Harris is 'talking through his hat' for he has, wherever possible, backed his claims with facts, as any reasonable person will see. I define a sensible person in the present context as one who sees the diary for the obvious nonsense that it is. When an obvious hoax like this exists all attempts to follow the aimless goal of proving the culprits guilt is a thankless and pointless task. Usually without any clear resolution. A word of warning here, you have put the words 'poor investigatory skills' to Mr. Harris's name and this is a crass lie and a distortion. He is recognised the world over as a premier investigator and your words are now verging on the legally actionable. I will not comment on you saying he has 'bad manners' for many people mistake a forthright and open manner of challenging nonsense as rudeness. I will put that down to your lack of better judgement. There are no sins of omission, just some things that he is prevented from stating for one reason or another. Let us not forget, he does not have to answer anything here anyway.
Another thing you appear to be unaware of is that the only place in the world, to the best of anyone's knowledge, that a debate like this on the diary is taking place is on these boards. It is a small introverted world where only a few subscribe.
There is no need for you to feel embarrassed for me, Mr. Triola, I felt the same for you when I read the post that Noah pointed out. You, too, seem to be a nice man and at times I wonder where our conflict stems from, possibly it's your over-protective feelings for CAM, a lady who seems perfectly capable of defending herself.
Your other comments are impertinent. I do not have recourse to contact Mr. Harris, wherever he may be. Nor do I post at his bidding. He seems very capable of posting himself. I have merely stood for what I feel is right in all this.
The final pleasing note was that I see, oddly, that you agree that everything about the diary stinks, this is very good news and indicates that you are not motivated by dishonesty. Again you have given some wise advice and I will 'step to the side and allow Mr. Harris to speak for himself.'
Yours, in I hope friendship,
Barry
By the way, a wooden spoon is used for stirring. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 02 November 2000 - 05:45 am | | Hi All,
Keith Skinner has asked me to re-submit his post dated Wednesday November 1 2000 @ 01.57pm, highlighting his notes of October 12th 1994, because, as he rightly points out, people may not make the distinction of where his notes end and his observations begin. So apologies to all for cocking it up.
Hi Martin,
Welcome back to the nutcasebook.
Love,
Caz
Dear Caroline
Thank you for keeping me up to date with Diary developments on the Board.
The following may be of interest:-
Checking thru’ my “O Costly….” file I came across the following note which is a record of a telephone message left for me on my answerphone from Shirley Harrison.
‘12.10.1994 [12th October 1994, for our American friends – CAM]
from Shirley…re O Costly Intercourse…
Shirley phoned Jenny (MB’s current girlfriend) who corroborated MB’s story that during the summer he had taken books around to Jenny’s son, James, who was studying for his O levels. MB thought books (which he had acquired for Hillsborough Disaster Auction) might help him – but, in fact, they were too advanced. Ann [sic] apparently denies all knowledge of these books and the auction.
During Mike’s serious week at library, when he found the reference, he later recalled that he had these particular books, which were the ones he had loaned to James.
Mike insisted he discovered the reference for himself at the library – and nobody did it for him.
Mike has appt this pm with solicitor (to discuss divorce) – will take book with him.’
This, prima facie, would appear to seriously conflict with Melvin Harris’s positive statement and knowledge that:-
“The Sphere volume had been left with Mike’s solicitor LONG BEFORE the break with his wife and the ‘confession’.”
So, something is wrong somewhere and Melvin is unlikely to have made such a confident assertion, knowing its implications, without being able to substantiate it.
I believe Shirley Harrison is currently making enquiries with Mike’s solicitor to try and establish this vital date of lodgement. But Alan Gray surely must have asked this key question when he took possession of the book?
But if Melvin is correct, then the case for a modern hoax becomes extremely powerful and persuasive.
Keith |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 02 November 2000 - 06:07 am | | From Keith Skinner To Melvin Harris
On Monday July 3rd 2000, you wrote:-
'Keith's statement that I have made an "...unproven assertion that Mr Kane was obviously guilty of participating in a fraud." is his ugly invention. I advise him to tread carefully. Let him re-read the text of my letter to Rod Green which deals with this very matter. Then let him apologise.'
In other words you assumed I had been sent a copy of your letter to Rod Green, dated September 4th 1997, was familiar with its contents and chose to ignore it.
Why would I do this Melvin?
Is it because your perception of me is that I am simply Paul Feldman's "paid henchman"?
It's a great pity you did not write to Paul Feldman, circa 1993/94, about Mr Kane, unequivocally stating your position - but maybe you did write to somebody, prior to publication of Feldman's book? Or perhaps you have a dated record of the telephone conversation with Martin Fido and Martin, who you say is "not renowned for his good memory", (some people might disagree with you), came away from the conversation with completely the wrong impression of what you had been telling him about Mr Kane, which found its way to Paul Feldman as a "twisted account" and thus your true position was completely misrepresented?
Well, whatever the truth, it is unfortunate that your position, regarding Mr Kane, is now a matter of public record in Paul Feldman's book. You have now provided clarification of the situation and if you would like to give me the name of the reporter who undertook the original investigation, then I'll write to him, (copying the letter across to you), before my visit to Mr. Kane. |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 02 November 2000 - 06:32 am | | Reluctant though I am to dip a toe into this particular debate about Caroline Morris, but Melvin has stated that Mike lodged the Sphere book with his sollicitor 'long before' the break-up of his marriage. Is it not Melvin's responsibility to support that statement if asked to do so, especially if there are reasons for thinking that it might be an error?
Keith: Maybe he thought it because you dare associate with such a dirty rotten scoundral as me and therefore must be guilty of my heinous sins too.
Martin: Welcome, welcome, welcome. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 02 November 2000 - 07:16 am | | Hi Barry,
You wrote:
'There are no sins of omission, just some things that he [Melvin] is prevented from stating for one reason or another. Let us not forget, he does not have to answer anything here anyway.'
And here we have the crux of the problem you have with me. Of course Melvin doesn't have to utter a word. He can leave me all alone in my 'small introverted world' to talk away to myself until doomsday if he chooses, but we haven't seen that happening yet, have we? So maybe he is as desperate as I am to heal all the diary wounds and move on. You cannot seem to see that a person may have many facets to their nature. I can be mischievous one minute, where I see the funny side of some posts (including the shortcomings of my own), but I can also be deadly serious the next. You can be politeness itself one minute, showing great insight and knowledge, then in the next post you deliver the body blows. So we are not all that different really.
Melvin, thus far, has been unable or unwilling (for various reasons, and I appreciate, possibly beyond his powers, either due to ethical or legal restrictions put upon him by others, or due to the relevant documentary evidence going AWOL in Spain) to break the deadlock. I am trying to compare evidence from both 'sides', bring it all together, and see why people can't all work together on a resolution. For instance, RJ Palmer sensibly suggested a private meeting of minds, to which Shirley agreed. Melvin could then presumably share his evidence on the three forgers, without having to break any obligations to keep the names out of the public domain. As far as we know, Melvin may be making arrangements as we speak to set such wheels in motion - perhaps we should give him the benefit of the doubt. We have now identified two areas where his evidence could make the diary 'camp' drop the whole thing (and I have reasons to believe they would, even though you say nothing would work - have you ever spoken to either Shirley or Keith about this to confirm that view?), yet both areas, frustratingly, seem to have 'NO ENTRY' signs all over them.
Barry, apart from submitting Keith's posts for him because, like Melvin, he has no access to the net, my own posts are my own affair, not written at anyone's bidding. Any material 'fed' to me is based on what Keith Skinner has very kindly allowed me into his world to see. Moreover, everyone who has read the boards carefully will know that Peter Birchwood actually recommended that I contact Keith for this very purpose. Keith is more than capable of speaking for himself, as I am for myself.
'I have merely stood for what I feel is right in all this.' Exactly. Same here.
Love and best wishes,
Caz |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Thursday, 02 November 2000 - 07:56 am | | A point on perspective (or should that be onus?):
As has been pointed out, the onus of proof lies squarely on proponents of the diary to prove that it is genuine. Until the time that it can be conclusively proven then the anti-diarists hold the high ground. To prove otherwise the pro-diarists need to produce the evidence. The anti-diarists need not prove anything. But let's not lose sight of an important distinction. What Caroline and several others have done in the last few weeks does not amount to any sort of grilling. If Melvin Harris or anyone else wants to make an assertion about the diary or its origins then that assertion entitles others to test its substance - by asking questions.
Claiming that Barrett forged the diary brings with it the same onus of proof as claiming that the diary is genuine. But the issues are separate and distinct. All along Harris has claimed that he has the proof of who forged the diary. He has not been forthcoming with all of that evidence. Caroline is well within her rights to contest points that he has made. At the same time Harris is well within his rights not to answer her (or answer her as he sees fit) but from that people will draw their own conclusions and it may well muddy the waters. I don't believe that it is up to others to dictate to Caroline or anyone else on these boards what they should or shouldn't be asking. Mr Harris can make up his own mind whether he wants to reply and how he does it.
If the diary issue was an open and shut case then these discussion board wouldn't exist. However, most people here (many of whom are well respected Ripper authors) continue to write to these boards even when their views are well known. Why? Because every argument (whether big or small)raised on the diary issue should be tested to its fullest extent. When that is done we might all come to a consensus with which we are at ease.
If you've made up your mind then good - you don't really need to say any more. But, please, give those who haven't resolved any diary issues a chance to make up their own minds.
Caz, any more questions? Fire away.
Dela |
Author: Joseph
Thursday, 02 November 2000 - 09:39 am | | Hello Mr. Street,
Not having been a long-term contributor to these boards, you can be excused for having no idea of its ability to manufacture venom. If you think my last message was poisonous, then your concept of venom is milk toast by comparison.
Your apprehension of the multiplicity of my personality is a display of rapid analysis that would make Freud envious. Just when did it occur to you that there exists many sides, or faces, to human nature. What should be obvious to you Mr. Street is that if you appeal to one facet of a personality that is the side that turns to address you. In other words, if you behave in a respectful manner, you will be addressed in kind. The obvious point you seem to have missed is that you are not behaving with respect, and I am treating you accordingly. Your correspondence here is testimony to the fact that you are indeed a Melvin Harris acolyte, you have adopted his obnoxious, and ill mannered motif of speaking down to everyone who questions or opposes him, as is illustrated in your message: By Barry Street on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 04:06 pm.
You are defending an abysmal crank that is confusing himself with Zeus. He speaks to no one, instead, he proclaims from Mount Olympus. And you don't find this embarrassing? You expound, time and again, on why we should just chill out, and except His word as gospel, because he has this reputation as an impeccable investigator who, as chief of the Greek deities, cannot err. Tell me something Mr. Street, is he real or is he a creation of Agatha Christie.
In closing, I will ask you once again: Have you ever posted a message to the CaseBook message boards, using a name other then Barry Street.
Have a nice day
JMT |
Author: Barry Street
Thursday, 02 November 2000 - 10:05 am | | Mrs. Morris,
Thank you for a measured, thoughtful and enlightening response. It half convinces me to believe that really don't have an ax to grind with Mr. Harris. If only you could remove that sarcastic edge from some of your posts they would be a lot more acceptable. Still, point taken and I do agree with you that, for those who need further convincing, it would be nice to dispose of this nonsense once and for all.
I also agree that it is up to Mr. Harris to decide whether he will answer or not and I am pleased that you realise that he might be laboring under some restrictions. No I do not know the view of the diary proponents on their reaction to what evidence is produced. They have had enough produced already and that has had no effect.
It is nice to know that you are at no-one's bidding and your actions for Mr. Skinner are understood and should not be criticised.
You are probably right, we do have much in common and as I have said I will let the debate trundle on, which it will anyway, without comment if it stays 'clean.'
best wishes,
Barry
Mr. Delahunty,
I do realise what is involved in all this, but my past remarks have been tempered by what I have perceived as unfairness to Mr. Harris and a general dissatisfaction at all the time being wasted on a lost cause. We know that Mr. Harris is well able to make up his own mind as to whether to reply or not, he has shown that he will.
You are wrong when you say that if the diary was an open and shut case then this discussion board wouldn't exist. If that was true people would not discuss fairy tales, Big Foot and lake monsters, but they do. You are right that if there are those who wish to discuss these matters then they should. Happy monster hunting Mr. Delahunty. |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 02 November 2000 - 11:49 am | | "my past remarks have been tempered by what I have perceived as unfairness to Mr. Harris and a general dissatisfaction at all the time being wasted on a lost cause."
Mr Street, for several months the discussion here has concerned the question of who forged the 'diary'. It has not been about whether the 'diary' is a forgery or not. The discussion therefore isn't a 'lost cause' because there has been no 'cause' to lose.
If we could tear down the forests or drain Loch Ness then maybe we could prove that Bigfoot and the Monster don't exist. But we can't do that and the speculation continues. But maybe we can find out who forged the 'diary' and thus put a final full-stop to the 'diary' saga. That's what people here are trying to do. Maybe it doesn't interest you and I wouldn't blame you for that in the least, but I'm sure you can appreciate that it might be interesting to some people - it is a far warmer pursuit than standing on chilly rail stations collecting engine numbers. But whether it personally interests you or not, I'm sure that you can appreciate the value of the hoped-for end result and realise that the discussion isn't a waste of time.
It isn't always easy to understand a poster's motives, Mr Street, and as a relative newcomer here it is understandable if you have misunderstood the purpose behind Caroline's posts and those of other people. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 02 November 2000 - 12:21 pm | | The "Costly Intercourse" business gets more and more interesting. Now the "Sphere History of English Literature" is not a work that most people have on their shelves so it's important to be exact about how it's associated with these lines by Crashaw. The problem is that the association is such so as to make it pretty much impossible for the scenario of Mike badgering the Liverpool librarians to find the source of the quote to be true.
Although some of Crashaw's lines appear in collections of quotes such as Bartletts, "Costly intercourse" does not. If we imagine a Liverpool Librarian to be so enamoured of Crashaw that he recognised him as the author of the quote, wouldn't he refer Mike to a collection of verse containing the poem "The Mother of Sorrows" in which the line appears? There are after all, such collections.Instead, Mike gets referred to Vol. 2 p. 184 of the "Sphere History..." which is actually part of an article entitled: "George Herbert and the Religious Lyric." At the bottom of this page are some lines including this important one. Please note that very little of the entire poem is actually quoted in Sphere.
So considering that Mike actually owned this work years before the diary emerged (and although it would be interesting to know when the work was in the hands of his solicitor, it's more important to know that it was in his own hands shortly after the Hillsborough disaster, some years before this) and that it apparently falls open at the page where the Crashaw quote appears is surely, at the least, an exceptional coincidence. Although Keith Skinner suggests: "Now, if Shirley has any written documentary support to show
this was the case (ie that she was trying to get Mike to identify the source of the quote,)and these pre-date June 21st 1994, then it expands the time frame for Barrett to have legitimately
discovered the Crashaw reference by September 30th 1994." But there really is no legitimate way that Mike could have done this in the way set out in Shirley's book unless of course he already knew where to find the quote because it was that book where he had found it originally and it seemed to him a perfect little snippet to pop into the diary.
Keith Skinner:
A couple of minor points from your November 1st: Shirley(pp Mike) refers to a Hillsborough "sale" rather than an auction.(Blake edn. p 284 "During Mike’s serious week at library, when he found the reference," allows Mike only a very few days to identify the quote in a book where it would, as mentioned above, be impossible for him to find it unless he knew it was there.
I'm pretty sure that Bigfoot doesn't exist but Nessie in one form or another is there even if she's only a long-necked otter. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 02 November 2000 - 01:16 pm | | Hi Peter,
You wrote:
'So considering that Mike actually owned this work years before the diary emerged (and although it would be interesting to know when the work was in the hands of his solicitor, it's more important to know that it was in his own hands shortly after the Hillsborough disaster, some years before this)...'
I agree we still need to know that the volume was among the 'Hillsborough' books in Mike's home at some point after April 1989. At the moment, everyone, on both 'sides', is relying on Mike's word for this (and his sister's, assuming Melvin actually has her written or spoken testimony on record). Ideally, it would be good to have a bit more than this to go on. After all, as Keith pointed out to me, no one is happy to rely on Anne's word (only backed up by her father) that the diary was in her home in 1968.
I'm sorry that you still don't appreciate the full significance of the date Mike handed the book to his solicitor. But, as I've said before, it only matters that the diary 'camp' do appreciate this, and may have to concede the modern hoax if this date indeed turns out to be 'LONG BEFORE' June 1994, as Melvin has asserted but has yet to confirm.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Melvin Harris
Thursday, 02 November 2000 - 06:31 pm | | DATES?
Paul Begg assures us that he did not compose the lies and libels that were sent to Headline Books; they were the work of Fido. And Begg simply "trusted and accepted that the statements therein were true." In other words he was duped. And that is why the list of asked-for names has never appeared. But neither has an apology and withdrawal been offered. But at least we now have from Begg an oblique acknowledgement that he has no names to offer, they are all in Fido's head! Then lo and behold up pops Fido imagining that my complaint is about the A to Z entry and offering a new version of that entry which depicts it as a "warning against his propensity to present gross overstatements and misrepresentations of others with self-trumpeting claims to scholarship and accuracy" Now the entry did not say that; if it had been so worded then not even Headline Books would have tolerated it. So much for Fido's first attempt at truth.
He then pretends that he has forgotten the lying and libellous words about me that he sent to Heather Holden of Headline on 23. 7. 97. So I will run them once more:- "His objectionable habits extend beyond public denigration of other people to 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." Every claim in that sentence is a lie. I have never made any unsolicited approaches to any of the people mentioned, and I have more than once asked for names and dates. They have never been supplied, because they do not exist. Fido's statement is just another one of his trumped-up charges and brands him as an adversary without honour. It also makes strange reading to find Fido setting himself up as offended by 'objectionable habits'!
Before Fido wastes any more of our time he should check on the lying report that Feldman quotes on page 94 of his hardback. Fido's report on a phone conversation with me uses statements that were never made by me. My real position was made clear to Fido by letter. It was the very opposite of the position that Fido related to Feldman, for money of course. But that, I am sorry to say, is the man. Despite adverse reports I once gave him a fair chance to reveal his true self, but after a time I discovered that the man behind the facade was a smarmy, two-faced individual. And this was reflected in the attempt to justify the A to Z entry which was described by Dr Gauld as : "...a pretty desperate flailing around, and pompous and condescending to boot. I can see that you have put some noses out of joint somewhere!"
Now to the Sphere book. In case anyone has forgotten I was not involved with the events featuring Mike Barrett and Alan Gray that began in August 1994. All the accounts of those months are derived from Alan Gray statements about Mike and the other people he interviewed.
First, anyone who thinks that establishing ANY dates will sway those who benefit from the Diary is living in Dreamland. False claims that were exposed back in 1993 are still being used by Harrison, Feldman and their hangers-on. They cling on to every illusion because gullibility equals gold. Indeed when Mrs Harrison first heard of Barrett's Sphere volume she simply put every effort in trying to find an excuse for the Diary quote that was independent of the Sphere book. See her pages 282-3 Blake ed.
Alan Gray now tells me that Barrett spoke of a book that was EVIDENCE a few days after he was engaged by him, in August 1994, but never went into any details. Gray never bothered to press for more information since it was not relevant to his brief at that time, or of secondary interest to him, since he is not a Ripperologist, just an ex-police detective with two sons still in the force. So he took little notice when Mike later spoke about papers and statements he had, together with this book, that would vindicate him. Mike claimed they were known to his solicitor. He later said they were with his solicitor.
When he changed the terms of engagement with Gray and asked him to find a newspaper willing to buy his story, he then named the book and described its significance. This was the first week in September 1994. He said that he had held the book back when talking to the Liverpool people because they wanted everything for nothing. He was sorry he had spoken to them in the first place.
Gray tried to interest the Sunday Times in the story and sent them some tapes of his talks with Mike. They hung on to these tapes for some time, but because Maurice Chittenden was tied up with complex stories, they rang me and asked if I would report back on the matter for them. Up until that date I had had no contact with Alan Gray or Mike Barrett.
I explained to Gray that any newspaper would want to see the book in question and any other back-up material. He agreed and warned me that Mike was erratic and often made wild statements, but the book seemed to be a reality. And there were other things held by the solicitor. After a delay he finally persuaded Mike to withdraw the book from his solicitors and hand it over for safe keeping.
Now, Keith Skinner is reporting that Mrs Harrison is claiming that PRIOR to June 1994 she was suggesting some research ideas for Mike including "identify the source for 'O costly'" Keith feels that if she has some notes to prove this "then it expands the time frame for Barrett to have legitimately discovered the Crashaw reference by September 30th 1994." Sorry, Keith, but your optimism is misplaced. It is shot to pieces by the fact that Mrs Harrison has gone on record to state that "I asked Michael to look in the Liverpool library. He badgered the staff there to help and sure enough he rang me within a few days and told me 'You will find it in the Sphere History of English Literature Volume 2.'" (Blake edition p282)
Now A FEW DAYS before Sept 30th is very different from that early date before June 21st. Mrs Harrison is therefore admitting that the book research only began in late September. But Gray knew about the book itself by name in the first week of that month. And although Mrs Harrison checked to see if the book was on the library shelves she never checked to find the name of the super-librarian who had read the essay which uses the quote. Why? It was impossible to direct anyone to a few unindexed lines buried in a long, dull essay unless that essay had been previously read. Mrs Harrison knew that. So if the librarian could remember the lines for Mike then she could remember remembering them for Mrs Harrison. So where is that librarian? And was Mrs Harrison set up by Mike? Did he lead the talk around to the Diary quote and get the result he wanted? He is cunning enough to stage such a thing. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 03 November 2000 - 03:38 am | | Caz--hello. Please thank Keith Skinner for his above message, and for taking the time to question Shirley Harrison about the 'order of events'. It is good to hear that Ms. Harrison will be back to posting soon. I don't think there is any doubt that Keith Skinner is an excellent researcher, and I'm looking forward to reading the Ultimate Sourcebook.
Now please pardon me while I make a couple of tedious comments about the Crashaw quote.
The diarist writes the following:
I need more thrills, cannot live without my thrills. I will go on, I will go on, nothing will stop me nothing. Cut Sir Jim cut. Cut deep deep deep.
Sir Jim will cut them all [Crossed out]
Oh costly intercourse
of death
Banish the thoughts banish them ha ha ha,
look to the sensible brother
Chickens running around with their heads cut off
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha etc etc.
Now I realise that this is subjective, but it strikes me that the Crashaw quote is in no way an organic part of the diary's text. In other words, in no other entry is there an indication that the diarist has a literary turn of mind; indeed, it is rather shocking to me that he is able to quote the difficult metaphysical poet Crashaw but is only able to pen such dismal verse as
I had a key,
and with it I did flee.
The hat I did burn,
for light I did yearn. or
Sir Jim will cut them all
Sir Jim he does so walk tall
Sir Jim makes his call
he cuts them all,
with his knife in his bag
So, though this might be splitting hairs, it might be more technically correct to call the Crashaw lines plagerism rather than 'a quote', and an unlikely one at that, if we reflect that nowhere else (to my recollection) does the diarist make any other literary allusions (unless I include 'tin match box empty' or 'one whore in heaven' as allusions, but I'll be diplomatic and exclude these).
So, though it has been suggested that the diarist has used the Crashaw quote to 'sensitive effect', I would humbly suggest that it is in reality a superfluous 'sore thumb', or, to use a maybrickian metaphor, it sticks out like a fly on flypaper.
So what does this suggest? That the diarist is quoting Crashaw from a secondary source, ie., the Sphere History, first published in 1970, updated in 1986. I think it will be an uphill battle to find an old hoaxer that is at ease with Crashaw, writes dismal poetry, has access to police files, has seen the 22 September Punch, and has a good working knowledge of the Maybrick case.
Two last quick comments.
I think Peter Birchwood and Melvin Harris have a valid point. When Barrett lodged his copy of the Sphere is somewhat irrelevant, though I certainly think people should ask questions. Logically speaking, Barrett would have no motivation to lodge it until after he decided to make a confession. Before that --when it was in his best interest for the world to think the diary was authentic-- he certainly wouldn't have wanted it known that he owned a copy of the Sphere book. It doesn't seem to prove much one way or the other.
Finally, in regards to Mr. Skinner's record of the telephone message. Shirley Harrison evidently confirmed with "Jenny" that Mike Barrett had a copy of the Sphere books in the summer of 1994 when he wanted to help her son James with his "O" levels. So in other words, even with Melvin Harris's information aside, there is the very strong likelihood that Barrett did own a copy of the book before his 'discovery' in the Liverpool library on 30 September. So aren't we still stuck with the very odd coincidence that the very fellow that introduced the diary to the word had a copy of what is most probably the one secondary source that contains the obscure lines from Crashaw?
But perhaps I miss a subtle point to your inquiries. Is your hypothesis that Barrett didn't own a copy of the Sphere History before his discovery in the Liverpool library, or do you believe that he did own a copy and that the Liverpool discovery triggered his memory?
Sorry for the long post. I had to smile at Paul Begg's picturesque comment that all of this is sometimes a bit like standing on a railway platform taking down engine numbers, but yes, darn it, it is much warmer! Despite the unpleasantness I hope that most of us still find that this historical puzzle is still on some level interesting or even enjoyable. Better now be off to other things that (to quote Shelley) are 'afar from the sphere of our sorrow'.
RJP |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 03 November 2000 - 04:21 am | | Perhaps, Peter, you would be kind enough to let me run the following scenario past you. Please bear in mind that what we are trying to do here is establish the correct sequence of events.
Melvin says that Mike's sole contribution to the forgery was as a placer. This would certainly explain his general inability to give a coherent account of the conception and execution of the forgery (which has contributed to my suspicion that Mike initially didn't know the 'diary' was a forgery). That Mike in fact found the Crashaw quote and passed it over to the forgers is evidence that Mike was aware that the 'diary' was a forgery and that he contributed to its creation.
That Mike possessed the Sphere book before going to Doreen Montgomery is seen as proof of this. But is it? Does it fit all the facts?
Although the Sphere book was owned by Mike, that doesn’t mean he supplied the quote. Anyone who had access to the book could have supplied it, Anne among them. Is it not important to therefore establish a proper sequence of events to see whether they support Mike's story or perhaps point fingers in other directions?
I don’t have the facts at my fingertips in the way you appear to do, so please feel free to correct any misstatement of fact in the following, but in June 1994 Mike conceived the idea that the ‘diary’ was the cause of all his troubles and that if he could get rid of it he would have the chance to repair his marriage. He contacted the local newspaper and was visited by journalist Harold Brough. Mike confessed to forging the ‘diary’. Brough went away unimpressed and observed that Mike couldn’t answer even simple questions like where he’d obtained the paper and the ink. Mike read the report in the Saturday evening paper and immediately contacted Brough. The next day they met and went for a drive. Mike pointed out Outhwaite and Litherland and the Bluecoat Chambers art shop as the source of the paper and ink respectively. The former have since thrown doubt on the claim about them and Mike actually told me that he’d never been in the ink shop and knew of it only because he visited the precinct for the Saturday morning book and record sales. So it may be that both were invented suppliers. But be that as it may, the point is that Mike desperately wanted Brough to believe him. It was Mike's last desperate shot at getting his wife back. Why, then, didn’t he tell Brough about the Sphere book (and the cache of nibs, pens and ink apparently lodged with his sister)? Aaccording to Melvin/Gray, Mike “said that he had held the book back when talking to the Liverpool people because they wanted everything for nothing.” Assuming ‘the Liverpool people’ to be Brough, this claim doesn’t make sense. Mike was not selling them anything, but was voluntarily confessing. And he wanted that confession to be believed. He was desperate, as anyone who knew him at that time will confirm. So there is no clear reason why he should have held anything back.
But by the first week of September he is telling Gray about the significance of the Sphere book. Gray checks and confirms that the book is lodged with the solicitor, but we don’t know when Gray did this or if Gray ascertained how long it had been there. So far, then, we have no reference to the Sphere book pre-dating the first week of September 1994 and, until Melvin reveals it, no evidence that it was lodged with the solicitor before that time.
But we are told by Mike’s then girlfriend that during the summer Mike had taken some books to her house in the hope that they would be of use to her son. We don’t know when this was or if the Sphere book was among them, but if it was then it could have been at that time that Mike or somebody else found the Crashaw quote – hardly difficult, given the binding defect. This
would mean that the Sphere book was not lodged with Mike’s solicitor ‘long before’ Mike’s break with Anne, but would explain why Mike never mentioned the book to Brough at the time when he really needed any proof he could lay his hands on and it would also explain the improbable story of finding someone at Liverpool Library who remembered the lines from their copy of the Sphere book. What this scenario doesn’t allow, however, is that Mike knew the quote before the ‘summer’ of 1994 and doesn’t allow that he gave it to the forgers.
But what's curious is why Mike suddenly revealed the Crashaw quote at the end of September, especially if the Melvin/Gray comment has any truth. Here is someone supposed to have sat on the Sphere book (metaphorically, of course) at a time when he really wanted to be believed, who now had Gray in delicate negotiations via Melvin with The Sunday Times(and the potential of big money), yet who chooses to reveal the Sphere book! Why? Because all of a sudden he wanted to prove his gifts as a researcher to Shirley? Why, then, admit to owning the Sphere book at all?
Hard though it may be to accept, is it possible that Mike's story is in essence true: he took some books to a friend, the book fell open to reveal the Crashaw quote. Mike realised the significance as evidence to support his claim to have forged the 'diary', mentioned the book to Gray, then for unknown reasons decided to use the quote to indicate his brilliance as a dogged researcher?
Just a thought, dull as ditchwater to most no doubt, but I'm sure you'll appreciate its significance, minor though it is. |
Author: Joseph
Friday, 03 November 2000 - 06:44 am | | Hello Mr. Street,
I am impressed sir. Your last message to Ms. Morris, By Barry Street on Friday, November 03, 2000 - 01:05 pm, is an example of gentlemanly courtesy that we can all learn from. I am as much impressed with what you didn't say, as I am with what you did. The honesty of your silence has earned my respect, and admiration.
I hope the honest soul of this edition returns again someday, with a small touch of endearing good humor. That facet, anyone would find hard to dislike.
Please give my kindest regards to Mr. Tomlin.
Sincerely
Joseph |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 03 November 2000 - 08:04 am | | Melvin, ‘dupe’ means and certainly implies ‘to be deceived by underhanded means’, which is not a defintion applicable to Martin Fido in the context of the Headline letter. Martin Fido simply believed something was true and was believed by me. Nothing underhand about it. To suggest otherwise is yet a further example of your unfortunate habit of attributing the worst interpretation to a persons actions.
As far as I am concerned, I understood the reference to an unsolicited disparaging letter sent to a publisher to be the material you sent to Rod Green of Virgin Publishing. You were told this long ago, at which time you pointed out that there was a covering letter beginning ‘Here is the material I promised to send’, which as you rightly pointed makes clear that the material was solicited. However, as explained to you, we did not see and were not told about the covering letter by Rod Green and so were duped by him, to employ your curious use of that word.
However, the material was requested and was supplied so that you could list ‘some of the libels’ Feldman had made against you in the past and so that Rod Green could make sure that they did not appear in Feldman’s book. In your covering letter, which did not mention any libels, you described Feldman as a ‘coward’, as ‘lacking the capacity to accept anything which interferes with his fixed obsessions’, as ‘the most intolerant and dogmatic man that I have ever met’, and a man ‘used to getting his own way by bawling at and threatening and intimidating his critics’. You also grossly described Keith Skinner as Feldman’s ‘paid henchman’. This sounds like disparaging and unnecessary personal comment to me and I don’t suppose it was the kind of comment Rod Green would have solicited about one of his authors. Therefore, in saying that you had written a disparaging letter to a publisher, Martin was correct. Where Martin is in error is his statement that the letter was unsolicited and this is what seems to concern you - "I have never made any unsolicited approaches to any of the people mentioned" (in itself wrong, since I don't recall asking you to supply your comments about Bruce Paley - but it seems to me that people might be more concerned about what you wrote than whether it was solicited or not and some might be really hair-splittingly awkward and suggest that Rod Green solicited a list of libels, not disparaging remarks about his author (not to mention Keith Skinner). So aren’t you worrying about the inconsequential? I mean, you did write a letter disparaging Paul Feldman to his publisher. That’s what some people might find reprehensible. |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 03 November 2000 - 08:31 am | | Thank you, Melvin, for the characteristic generous supply of examples of overstatement and misrepresentation of others. 'Lies', 'libels', 'pretence' - these words are quite typical of the character-assassinating distortions littering your work. If you are not in direct dispute with an opponent your preferred tone is one of supercilious and sneering patronage rather than sheer venom. But in any case, it is instantly recognisable, and happily unique in Ripper writing.
Your typically arrogant demand that I read Feldman's book is no doubt made in the confident knowledge that I am quite unable to do so, since I am in America helping look after an infirm relative, and most of my books are in store. As are the notes of the telephone call you now dispute, which I took on the spot since, as you rightly say, I had accepted a commission from Feldy which included trying (hopelessly) to get some straight answers from you.
I gather you must have been arguing that Rod Green or A.N. Other at Virgin solicited your opinions of the forthcoming Feldybook without any prompting whatsoever from you. No doubt you will produce a similar argument about your intervention in John Wilding's affairs, and not being privy to the correspondence or telephonic communications I could not begin to argue with you, except to remark that I have always found John completely honest and trustworthy, deeply though I disagree with his anagrammatic method and conclusions. Whereas the much-vaunted self-appointed founder of the 'Committee for Integrity' who once took to signing his letters with some such phrase as 'Yours for integrity' has always reminded me of the Fox in the Disney version of Pinocchio calling himself 'Honest John'.
So let us proceed to an undeniable piece of your unsolicited slander by innuendo. When you heard that a new edition of A-Z was in preparation some years ago, you telephoned me offering verb. sap. to the effect that Bruce Paley's Joe Barnett theory was not original: it had appeared in an American novel a year before he published. And in case I dismissed that as coincidence, you put on your most knowing tone, and added that Paley is an American who used to import books and magazines from America - (which I already knew). Nobody had ever asked you to give me or anyone else information that appeared to cast Paley in the light of a plagiarist. Nobody with any decent or gentlemanly instincts would imagine that the A-Z's general invitation to readers to supply corrections and new information is a request for the denigration of other writers. It was perfectly clear that you hoped this derogatory information would be used against Paley in future editions of A-Z.
Without better evidence than your identifying a coincidence, we should not have published in any case. (It may be worth mentioning that this is all too frequently the way in which you claim to have 'proven' fraud or deception). As it happened, I had Bruce's telephone number and immediately called him. Happily he could produce from his files correspondence showing that he had been offering his idea for publication long before the appearance of the American novel - of which, if I remember aright, he had never heard. Bruce, too, is some one with whom I find it easy to differ on historical interpretation without expecting that he will ever resort to or anticipate name-calling one-upmanship. And who I have always found completely honest, without his ever needing to state the fact.
I would discuss the unsolicited telephone call/s you made to LBC twelve years ago when you learned that I had been invited to contribute a regular radio programme, were it not that this would seem to give a personal edge. I would only say that though I was shocked by your underhanded attempt to supplant me, I gathered from friends that you had recently lost your house in some way and were in a state of considerable distress, which I assumed had caused aberrant conduct. It was only after seeing your impact on other people over a number of years that I realized the extent to which machinating behind people's backs while sneering at their faces had become second nature to you.
Let it be said to all and at once that I have nothing but respect for Melvin's ability and knowledge in the field of physical forgery. He predicted to me, long before any details about the diary were known, that it would prove to be written in iron-gall ink, and that the volume would prove to be a genuinely old diary, but the first few pages would be torn out, as such things are often on the market when the original owners started to keep a journal but gave up after a few days or weeks. Regardless of the fact that the book is apparently an old photograph album and not a diary, I was and am extremely impressed by the accuracy and independence of that observation. He predicted that the ink would have been watered to give it an old appearance: it may be the lack of such skill on the part of the forger that made both Don Rumbelow and me react with surprise to the ink's appearance when, for the first time, we saw the original and not photocopies. Despite the disagreement of the labs, I have never had any real doubt that Melvin's is the correct side of the chloroacetymide debate. (The concurring labs using different techniques to come up with the same answer on the watch are another matter. While over all I agree with Melvin in believing the watch to be a fraudulent artefact created in response to the diary's publication, this is on historical grounds alone. And I do not pretend that I can juggle with figures or rest on the fact that the labs would prefer to do more tests. There is no doubt that at this point in time, science points to the watch's having been 'engraved' at very much the right time, and 'the Diary camp' - which I believe has long consisted exclusively of Mrs Harrison and Mr Feldman - is absolutely entitled to accuse me of irrational prejudice if they wish.)
Finally, I should say that the unfavourable impression Melvin Harris makes in public debate is not the final picture. The unquestioning devotion and admiration his charming wife gives him is the clear and absolute testimony of a most delightful lady that there really is a very positive and most attractive private side to Melvin Harris.
Martin Fido |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 03 November 2000 - 08:56 am | | Hi All,
Hi RJ,
I have no argument with most of your points, well made, and full to the brim, as usual, with your exemplary tact and diplomacy. (We'll get there yet! J)
You wrote:
'I think Peter Birchwood and Melvin Harris have a valid point. When Barrett lodged his copy of the Sphere is somewhat irrelevant,...'
Again, don't you see that, however irrelevant it may be to you, me, my cat, and the rest of the (reasonably) civilised world, the fact that people like Keith Skinner and Shirley Harrison find this date of the utmost relevance, for whatever reason, is all that matters in this game of soldiers. Melvin can speculate all he likes about these people building castles in Spain from their Diarygelt, and probably will to the end of his days, unless he can substantiate his very assertive statement that Mike knowingly lodged the proof of his involvement with his solicitor 'LONG BEFORE' June 1994.
You also asked:
'Is your hypothesis that Barrett didn't own a copy of the Sphere History before his discovery in the Liverpool library, or do you believe that he did own a copy and that the Liverpool discovery triggered his memory?'
I 'believe' nothing yet RJ. Every scenario I've juggled with looks equally impossible. So I'd rather wait to hear what Mike's solicitor's records can tell us first. And get Shirley to fill in any other gaps for us if possible.
But, for the moment, if we do use Jenny's testimony as confirmation that Mike did own volume 2, don't we also have to assume that it was - or at least Mike realised it could be - among those volumes he took round to Jenny's 'during the summer' of '94 (which alone makes Melvin's 'LONG BEFORE' June 1994 decidedly iffy)? I would then have to wonder why Mike had given away his only real proof, long after he began thinking about confessing and selling his story, to a teenage boy he may only have known for a very short time! When exactly did he realise his mistake, retrieve the book, and hand it over to his solicitor, presumably with a huge sigh of relief that Jenny's son hadn't binned it?
Mike may be a cunning stunt-puller, as Melvin suggests (though I'd advise utmost caution when saying it), but this scenario also makes him the stupidest cunning stunt-puller of all-time, doesn't it?
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
PS I'm off to see the musical 'Yours Truly, Jack The Ripper' tomorrow night at Wimbledon Theatre. Can't wait! |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 03 November 2000 - 11:07 am | | Hi Paul,
At the risk of being hair-splittingly awkward, the phrase, ‘Here is the material I promised to send’, does not – in itself - make it ‘clear that the material was solicited.’ I could make the first approach to you, for example, promise to give you something, then deliver it without you ever having asked me for it in the first place. I’m not doubting Melvin’s word here, I’m just pointing out that it needs confirmation, which you no doubt have, that Rod Green made the first approach.
Hi Martin,
One immediate problem with the watch being ‘created in response to the diary’s publication’, is that the scratches were made before the general public had seen the diary, or knew anything much about what it might contain. Therefore, anyone merely jumping on the bandwagon had to scratch around in the dark, then keep their fingers crossed when presenting the finished creation, in case of any glaring inconsistencies, which would prove their efforts wasted and fraudulent. So I think it’s more likely that diary and watch were faked together as a diabolical duo. I don’t know why, but I keep thinking of Batman and Robin lately. I’ll try to focus on your ‘bug with gilded wings’ instead – it’s a much better image.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 03 November 2000 - 12:16 pm | | Further thoughts:
The quote from Keith Skinner's answering machine refers to Mike taking some books around to his girlfriends house sometime in the summer of (presumably) 1994. The summer runs normally between June and August. As Paul Begg says: ". We don’t know when this was or if the Sphere book was among them" so we have a three-month "window" when the Sphere book possibly might have been out of Mike's hands, plus the possibility that the son looked at the books, realised that they didn't have any pictures and immediately gave them back to Mike.So the book could have been away from Mike for any period between one day and three months.
I appreciate Paul Begg's statement and it does give an alternative solution to the Crashaw situation, but it also has problems of its own. During his 24th June interview with Harold Brough, Mike was distinctly "under the weather" and shortly afterwards (according to his solicitor) was in hospital with alcohol problems.If he couldn't answer questions about the ink etc., at that time, isn't it perfectly possible that he didn't then remember the Crashaw quote and it's source until Shirley asked him to research it towards the end of September. So although Paul says: "there is no clear reason why he should have held anything back" the answer has to be that he didn't realise in June the significance of the Crashaw quote and probably carried on not realising it until Shirley suggested the search in September. This also, I think, answers Paul's comment: " But what's curious is why Mike suddenly revealed the Crashaw
quote at the end of September,"
When in September did the Crashaw quote come up? Well the date (according to Shirley) when Mike told her he had found the source in the Liverpool Library was Friday September 30th. Mike's "serious week at library" would take us to around 23rd September and Alan Gray's conversation with Mike when the book was apparently named was the first week in September, which could be up to about the 9th (first "full" week) We are getting very close to the time when Shirley asked Mike to do the search so was she talking about it a few days earlier and did this start to jog his memory?
Now, Caroline Anne:
You say: "After all, as Keith pointed out to me, no one is happy to rely on Anne's word (only backed up by her father) that the diary was in her home in 1968." You have made a major mistake when you say: "(only backed up by her father.)" Billy Graham never backed up Anne's story about the diary being in her home in 1968. The only words in this context published by Feldman refer to an occasion in 1943 and possibly in 1950 and in discussing a tin box he says: "But I seen this book and I just seen very small print and I just put it down - didn't want to know." The diary is of course not in print and is written in large sprawling handwriting. The only person saying that the diary was in the house in 1968 is, of course, Anne.
As far as I am concerned, whether the Sphere book was with Mike's solicitor long before June or not until October of 1994 is not important. What is, is whether he owned it before the Crew agency appearance of the diary. Mike says he got it just after the Hillsborough disaster; Keith Skinner's phone note says: "Ann [sic] apparently denies all knowledge of these books and the auction." So who's lying? Well the book actually exists and it does open at the Crashaw quote. If it could only talk, maybe all our questions would be answered. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 03 November 2000 - 01:36 pm | | Caroline:- Thank you. You are correct and as I understand it what you say is along the lines of what Rod Green thought. Melvin apparently telephoned Rod Green - unsolicited - about libels and Rod Green asked - or suggested; I don't know how firm the request was - that Melvin send in his documentation. Rod Green actually had no memory of asking Harris to do this and he may have read the opening words in the sense you outline, which would explain why he didn't tell us the material was solicited. In fact, for all I actually know Melvin may not have been asked to supply the material. I am simply accepting Melvin's word that he was, just as I accepted MArtin's word and maybe I am being "duped" again! It would certainly be wrong to give the impression that upon commissioning Feldman's book Rod Green for some bizarre reason contacted Melvin Harris for his opinions. Melvin, I gather, made the first approach.
Peter:- Thank you for your comments, which I appreciate. I agree that Mike could have been a little ‘over emotional’ when interviewed the first time by Harold Brough, but that doesn't apply to his meeting with Brough the following day when Mike was even more concerned to prove his confession true, so why didn’t he mention the Sphere book then? Maybe you’re right and he didn’t recall it until Shirley asked him to go off and look for the quote, but that means he didn’t lodge the book with his solicitor long before the break up, it makes Mike’s comment about the Liverpool people wanting everything for nothing a lie, and throws into doubt that he first mentioned the significance of the book to Gray in early September and possibly in August.
A wilderness of mirrors! |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 03 November 2000 - 02:55 pm | | Hi Peter,
Sorry, you'll have to take the 'major mistake' up with Keith, because it was he who made the point. He obviously knows more than I do, but you are right, I should not have taken his word for it!
And, at the risk of boring everyone to death, I will say just once more, that it doesn't matter that, as far as you are concerned, it's not important whether the Sphere book was with Mike's solicitor long before June or not until October of 1994. Keith Skinner has intimated that, if Melvin is correct about his 'LONG BEFORE' statement, this changes everything. Isn't that something to work towards? I do appreciate, however, that if the book was lodged in October, it changes nothing. It only means that the diary 'camp' will continue to see the possibility that they are right about Mike first finding the quote on 30th September 1994, while seeing that Melvin's powerful argument has been diminished because of the date mix-up.
But I do agree with you about talking books. That goes for the diary too (which, of course, goes without saying).
Love,
Caz |
Author: alex chisholm
Friday, 03 November 2000 - 03:34 pm | | Much as I dislike venturing into this distasteful topic, I must clarify that Melvin’s initial contact with Rod Green was made on my behalf.
After distributing several copies of my diary critique I received, on 9 Sept. 96, a phone call from a certain Mr. Feldman, informing me in the strongest terms that his publisher’s legal department were considering taking action against me. Naturally, in the days following this unusual form of historiographical disputation, I became increasingly worried by the implications of such an alleged action.
Much to my relief Melvin very generously agreed to confirm with Rod Green whether or not Mr. Feldman’s claims were true. Of course they were not, but it was as a result of Melvin’s endeavour to confirm this that requested documents, including a copy of the offending diary critique, were forwarded to Rod Green under the cover of a letter dated 10 Oct. 1996.
It therefore seems grossly unjust to consistently berate Melvin’s ‘unsolicited’ approach to Rod Green, when contact was initiated to set at rest the troubled mind of a shamefully distraught colleague. As I see it this was the entirely honourable and generous action of a true gentleman.
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 03 November 2000 - 03:49 pm | | | Hi Alex. I don't think anyone has berated Melvin over his contact with Rod Green being unsolicited. He was criticised for making disparaging remarks about other authors to their publishers. It so happens that he did this in his letter to Rod Green, which we were given to understand was unsolicited. It is Melvin who has for some reason dodged the issue of making disparaging remarks and concentrated on the 'unsolicited' aspect, calling Martin Fido a liar because of it. |
|
|
|
|
