|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 09, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Maybrick/Jack's watch?:
Archive through November 09, 2000
Author: Melvin Harris
Saturday, 04 November 2000 - 01:03 pm |        | CAUGHT OUT ME LAD!
I have to thank Martin Fido for placing an entry which proves my case up to the hilt. Now we have FOUR invented phone calls and ample proof that Fido is wildly reckless and fails to keep himself updated on the issues he raises. First, the absurdity involving John Wilding. At the time in question I worked away from my office at Granite TV Productions until Wednesdays. This led to an accumulation of phone numbers on my desk with requests to ring back. Some of the callers wanted updates on the Diary hoax. These were usually newspapers, local radio stations, or small TV production companies. Out of courtesy I would tell them that I was far too busy to handle enquiries and then advise them to approach my publishers for a copy of my last book. Apparently one of these numbers was that of a tiny company near Grays Inn Road. They were given my standard advice. I had no idea that Wilding was in any way trying to sell them anything until I had a phone call from Fido telling me that Wilding had complained to him that I was trying to damage his transactions. I then wrote the following to Wilding:-
"Martin Fido tells me that you have stated to him that I tried to interfere in your dealings with a film production company over the sale of your film-rights. And that I tried to get them to take my book on board instead of yours. This is incredible nonsense! I know nothing of your negotiations with any film or TV people, thus I have never discussed such matters with anyone. No company, or agency has ever had a phone call from me mentioning rights to your book or to my book. Apart from which, it is not in my nature to interfere with other people's legitimate dealings. Will you please now give me the name of the company I am supposed to have spoken to; the name and status of the person I am said to have spoken to; and the time and date of this alleged intervention."
After receiving my letter, Wilding then WITHDREW HIS CHARGES WITHOUT RESERVATION. Now if Fido had not been so anxious to find fault with me he would have checked with Wilding first. But no, he needs to justify his past libels and caution is thrown to the wind.
Next, that cosy telephone call about Bruce Paley in which I "put on [my] most knowing tone", well it never took place! The Paley/Barnett information was sent to Fido BY LETTER on 22nd March 1996 and the Barnett item was just one of ten suggested future entries for the A to Z. Page 6 of the A to Z response to me acknowledges that, in its first line, which reads:
"In a letter to the A to Z authors dated 22 March 1996 Mr Harris wrote "Under Joseph Barnett you might like to note that the essential thesis was first worked out in detail in Mark Andrews' novel 'The Return of Jack the Ripper'. This was published by Leisure Books, New York in 1977..."
It was a shabby move to try to include this item in their defence and both Philip Sugden and Dr Gauld pointed this out. Dr Gauld had this to say:- "This is quite absurd. Privately sent material is, as you point out, outside the scope of the original remarks which Begg, Skinner and Fido are now trying to defend, and anyway it would clearly have been up to them to check out anything they were going to use." To which I add this: if Bruce Paley wished to complain to me then his complaint would have been dealt with courteously. But he never made contact. He is still welcome to complain, if he wishes.
Next, why is my advice to read entries in Feldman's book a "Typically arrogant demand"? And why should it merit the sneer that it was "no doubt made in the confident knowledge that I am quite unable to do so."? It is standard procedure in any dispute to check texts. Fido may still be in the USA but I did not know that. Even so, the plea that his books are packed up does not count in this case. It is nonsensical. We are not talking about a rare volume. The pages in question could have been faxed to him WITHIN MINUTES by Begg or Skinner. But Fido is bent on making cheap points, hence the jibes.
In this case I can easily prove that the words attributed to Fido are inaccurate and dishonest. This is not an honest record of anything I said on the phone. It is contrary to my recorded views and I have my explicit letter to him on this very issue. I will put it on screen if Fido fails to repudiate the entry as printed by Feldman.
Not looking good is it? Three bogus claims involving telephone calls. But the gem of his piece is the claim at the end that I rang LBC and made an "underhanded attempt to supplant" him. I am described as being "in a state of considerable distress" at the time. Ye Gods! This is something out of Grimm's Fairy Tales. It is paranoia run riot.
As with Wilding, I now expect Fido to supply the dates of these alleged phone calls; the name of the person I am alleged to have spoken to; details of the offer I am alleged to have made; the name and style of the programme Fido was involved with and its starting date.
In advance I can say that I have never approached LBC with any offers of any kind. I was involved with Yorkshire Television until the end of 1987. I had ample contracts to meet after that, was not short of money, had rented a house near Swansea and was preparing for a long holiday in Ireland (it lasted three years). And I was far from being distressed about anything. In short I had nothing to offer LBC, which is a station that I have never thought much of. They could not have afforded my fees in any case. Since I assume that Fido was involved in a programme on crimes and criminals it is cuckoo to think that I would be after his slot. The only crimes that interest me are those involving counterfeiting, forgery and cons. That's how I became involved in the muddy waters of Ripperdom.
And out of those muddy depths came the libels to Headline. So where are these "publishers, journalists, writers and other interested parties"? Name them.
In conclusion I would advise Fido to go back and read my most recent posts on the ink and the watch, whose scratches have never been dated scientifically, since it just can't be done! More on the watch soon. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 04 November 2000 - 01:24 pm | | Caroline Anne:
If Keith Skinner in his undoubted wisdom tells you something that at least according to published evidence is completely wrong then you have three choices: a/ that he has seen or heard evidence where Billy Grahame has clearly stated that the diary (by which we mean the large photo-album that we all know and love) was in his possession in 1968 and his daughter did see it at that time and brought it to his attention. Obviously if that evidence exists it would have been in one of the books and prominently listed on this board so I think we can say good-bye to this one. Choice b/ would be that Keith is relying on Anne Grahame's word in saying that she saw the diary in 1968 in the presence of her father and not vice-versa. Choice c/ is that the words in paranthesis are yours and the rest is Keith's which on the whole seems more likely. I'm sure that Keith will tell us which is correct.
The "LONG BEFORE" statement doesn't change a thing: it's a dispute between Melvin, Keith, Paul Begg and you. I don't have a part in it and my opinion has been already published.
Paul:
Firstly, have you ever checked whether the information published in the diary (first made public early 1992) can also be found as regards ripper points in your AtoZ (published 1991?)
Secondly, if the diary was forged about three years before Shirley got interested in the source of the quote it could well be that as a one-line insert and a fairly minor point, Mike had forgotten about it. After all, 1994 was a pretty tough year for him. It's of course a difficult thing to check one way or another although I wonder if anyone went so far as to see whether anyone apart from Anne remembered the jumble sale where Mike intended to sell the books? Maybe it was sponsored by the local Catholic church or mentioned in the local paper? I gather that Mike's statements to Alan Gray around August 1994 referred to "a book"title unstated. Could it have been, for example, the Whittington Egan book? Maybe with some more discussion we can find out more. Do you have any more buried faxes? |
Author: Melvin Harris
Saturday, 04 November 2000 - 03:17 pm | | THE MISSING WORDS
In all the discussion of the Sphere Book an important point is being overlooked, it involves missing words. Now the history of the Diary promotion is notable for its record of missing words. There is the missing page of the Maybrick Will; the missing endorsements on that Will; the missing Certified Copy of the Will; the missing bits of Dr Eastaugh's report; the missing pieces from Dr Forshaw's paper; the missing section from Dr Wild's report. And I may have missed out some others! But, back to "O costly intercourse"
If you look at Mrs Harrison's Blake edition you will find on page 282 the Crashaw poem quoted at length. Instead of the four lines found in the Sphere essay we now see what looks like a full version. Indeed it is introduced by Mrs Harrison as "The poem called 'Sancta Maria Dolorum or the Mother of Sorrows' The correct wording is: 'O costly intercourse...'" Then follows nine lines and you could be forgiven for thinking that at last you have seen the complete poem. Not so. Unmentioned by Mrs Harrison is the fact that the opening she shows is NOT the real opening of the poem. The poem begins: "In shade of Death's sad tree/ stood dolefull She"
And the significance? Well I have already pointed to this in the past and so has RJ Palmer inedependently. The Diary uses an EXTRACT from the poem, not the opening lines. The only known book that uses that very extract is the Sphere History of Literature Volume two, a copy of which was owned by Mike Barrett. Six years of searches by many researchers and librarians have failed to find this extract in any other book. And I organised searches world-wide.
If you do not grasp the implications of these findings then there is little more that I can say. |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 04 November 2000 - 04:25 pm | | I will not accuse Melvin of lying; merely of forgetting that he telephoned me information about Bruce Paley before writing about it. I have no hesitation in saying that he unquestionably took pleasure in the belief that he was insinuating something detrimental to Bruce and that he expected it to be used in the A-Z. I thereupon telephoned Bruce personally. Who Dr Gould may be I do not know: I doubt whether Philip Sugden would welcome receiving unsolicited denigratory information about other authors, whatever he may have said on receiving some complaint from Melvin.
As I said, in the matter of Wilding, I was not privy to the correspondence; I only knew, as I informed Melvin, that Wilding was distressed that it appeared there was some attempt by him to derail a company's interest in his film rights. I still have not seen the correspondence, and given the wonderful hay Melvin busily makes of his communications with me at that period, I do not really feel any great confidence about his present explanation. I didn't take the matter any further because it was and is of no great interest to me. Once I had told Wilding who Melvin was and apprised Melvin of the fact that this complaint had been made against him, I had done all that needed to be done. It remains true, however, that no other writer has ever complained to me about anyone else making unsolicited attempts to influence their affairs, whereas Feldman and Wilding have both done so, at one point I got the impression from somebody at the Sunday Times that they were a bit puzzled at Melvin's persistent banging on asking them to publish more minutiae about the diary which they felt they'd fully exploded in their full-length piece on it; and I myself know that I received a direct invitation to cast a slur on Bruce Paley. It looks to me as though there is a trout in the milk: it can hardly be sheer coincidence that the one name - Harris - emerges every time one hears one writer complaining about another's activities.
The self-importance with which Melvin assumes that I would waste Paul and Keith's time requesting faxes of a page of Feldy's book illustrates an aspect of his character which must be thoroughly familiar to those who have read his repeated suggestions that all and sundry go and devote time to perusing his various masterpieces. He casually describes as 'invented' a telephone call of which I have pointed out that I took and have in store contemporaneous notes.
And similar arrogance is apparent in his demand for dates and names of whoever spoke to me about his contacting LBC. Given his appalling practice of descending on people with unwanted screeds of self-justification, I do not propose to give him the name. It was early in 1988, not late in 1977 that somebody in LBC asked me, "Who is this chap Melvin Harris who is calling us up and saying that HE ought to be doing the programme, and then says if we use you, why don't we use him as well?"
Post all the correspondence you like, Melvin.
As for the Maybrick watch, I for one shall not be reading any discussion of the scientific tests on it unless there is radical new information. My beliefs about all things Maybrickian are well known, to the extent that I never agreed with those who thought Melvin and others were open to criticism for firmly dismissing it as a hoax before they had seen it. Nothing of or pertaining to Maybrick has elicited any information of interest pertaining to the Ripper, and, like various other people, I feel that far too much of my life has been given over to the topic, essentially because of the obverse and reverse obsessions of Melvin Harris and Paul Feldman and their extraordinary similarity in thinking their beliefs on the matter are of such overriding importance that everybody else should stop and listen to them.
Martin Fido |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 05 November 2000 - 03:51 am | | Hiya Martin, I think Melvin has hung himself time and time over on the Message Boards for any continued debate about the more reprehensible of his habits to deserve discussion, but perhaps the following might jog your memory about Dr. Gauld.
When Harris complained about the entry in the “A to Z” we sent him a short list of reasons. These Harris sent (I think without our knowledge) to two referees of his own choosing, a Dr. Alan Gauld and Philip Sugden. These nominees, as Harris has frequently pointed out, supported his belief that we were in the wrong. However, as I recall it might be more accurate to say that between them they supported each of our points, but believed our stricture to be too harsh. We did not attach much significance to Dr. Gauld’s opinion as it was clear that he was partisan towards Harris, that his objectivity was in question (see below), and that his understanding and grasp of the issues involved was uncertain. That may well explain why you have forgotten about him.
Needless to add, while we did not agree with all the points Philip Sugden made, we had considerable respect for his conclusion and informed our publisher that we would change the wording in any future edition of the “A to Z”. This decision was conveyed to Melvin Harris. We later told Headline that the wording would be dropped altogether in accordance with an independent decision to excise all such commentary in an effort to claw back some space for new material.
Dr. Gauld’s reply to Harris contained several comments indicating his partisanship and calling into question his objectivity, but a clear example is in the extract relating to Bruce Paley quoted by Melvin Harris in his post above: "This is quite absurd. Privately sent material is, as you point out, outside the scope of the original remarks which Begg, Skinner and Fido are now trying to defend, and anyway it would clearly have been up to them to check out anything they were going to use." The words “as you point out” show that Harris had led or directed Dr. Gauld to the conclusion he reached and which, being partisan, he agreed to. His poor grasp of the issues involved was indicated by his statement that we should have checked the accuracy of Harris accusation, which was irrelevant to whether such a serious accusation should have been made in the first place. Harris, as you will recall, did not simply accuse Bruce Paley of plagiarism, he invited us to publish it!
The point is that (a) the accusation was given to us as a clear statement of fact, (b) we were invited to publish it, and (c) Harris's conclusion was one of several that could be drawn from his assembled evidence, but was the worst possible one Harris could have reached. This clearly put it within the ken of our warning that Harris's postulation of other writer's thought processess could be wrong - i.e., don't always believe Harris's assessment of someone. We didn't specify in the A to Z that this caution should be excercised in both public and private communications, but perhaps we should have done - I'm more than happy to personally apologise to Harris for that oversight - as it might then have made it clearer to Dr. Gauld why the accusation that Bruce Paley was a plagiarist was wrong.
The bottom line is that invited us to publish his conclusion based on the flimsiest of reasoning that Bruce Paley was guilty of plagiarism. This was a serious accusation. Dr. Gauld seemed to have missed this point completely, but then again we don't know how much time he devoted to the matter, how concerned about it he was, and how free his thinking was from Melvin's input. |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 05 November 2000 - 05:02 am | | Peter, surely the extent to which ‘long before’ does or doesn’t change anything is dependent on how much of the story one bases on Mike Barrett’s testimony and the value that can be placed on that testimony. In fact, I suppose some people could go so far as to say that if there is no evidence that Mike knew that the line was in the Sphere book until September 1994, there is no evidence that he contributed it to the forger, no evidence that the forger derived it from the Sphere book, and no evidence that the Sphere book has any greater relevance than being a remarkable coincidence. I am not saying that myself, I hasten to add.
However, the single line is a minor thing and Mike could indeed have forgotten about it very easily, though knowing Mike I think he would have been proud of making even that small contribution to the forgery and remembered it. The point, though, is that it has been claimed that he did remember it, realised its significance, lodged it with his solicitor and purposefully withheld revealing it. The truth of all this rests to a great extent on the date when he lodged the book with his solicitor. If that date comes too late – let’s say he lodged the book in October 1994 - then there would be no direct evidence that he had any knowledge about the line being in the Sphere book prior to September/October 1994. This might seem a nit-picking point were it not for the fact that Mike seems to have been so ignorant about the forgery that one can fairly ask whether Mike ever actually knew that the ‘diary’ was a forgery. If he didn’t then all sorts of problems arise regarding the testimony he has given and which has in some quarters been believed.
The book lodged with Mike' solicitor could indeed have been Richard Whittington-Egan's, though didn't the police have possession of it at that time?
Loads of faxes, Peter, most unreadable, many irrelevant. |
Author: Barry Street
Sunday, 05 November 2000 - 06:27 am | | It seems as if this one just will not go away. Perhaps some comments on the above should be made as we are getting a somewhat one-sided view of things now.
The dispute over the Bruce Paley episode is being taken totally out of context. While I do not know what was said between the parties, we only have what has been placed on the screens here, there appears to be a gross exaggeration of the true situation. Mr. Paley was working on his Barnett theory for many years. At a stage when he had not been published Mr. Paley was even advertising a short version of his manuscript at a very cheap price.
Mr. Paley published an article on his theory in True Crime magazine in 1982. Unfortunately for Mr. Paley he was beaten with a book, by Paul Harrison, with the Barnett/Ripper theory in his 1991 book Jack the Ripper The Mystery Solved. Mr. Paley's book Jack the Ripper The Simple Truth was not published until 1995.
Unfortunately for Mr. Harrison he apparently identified the wrong historical Barnett, whereas Mr. Paley got the right one. Mr. Paley was quick to point Mr. Harrison's error out (and there is nothing wrong with that).
Whoever thought of or wrote letters suggesting the Barnett theory first, both Mr. Paley and Mr. Harrison were beaten into print by Mark Andrews with his The Return of Jack the Ripper, which presented a Barnett/Ripper theory, albeit a fictional treatment.
As anyone with even a basic knowledge of the law of copyright must be aware you cannot copyright a theory. And we have Andrews, Harrison and Paley (in that order) all publishing the same basic theory. Andrews was patently the first into print with it.
It is easy to see that the published, and public, introduction to the Barnett/Ripper theory lies in the Andrews book of 1977, by far pre-dating the subsequent two. It doesn't matter who thought of it first. For all we know Andrews may have, for his book must have taken some time to develop and write.
There is a history in 'Ripperology' of people trying to claim primacy for ideas and theories, the 'I was first' syndrome we may call it. We have seen various examples of it and it would appear that such a situation possibly existed between Mr. Paley and Mr. Harrison. You have to say that the 1982 article tips the balance in favor of Mr. Paley.
In checking the 1994 edition of the A to Z it would seem that the authors were not aware of Mark Andrews's 1977 book (published in New York) with the Barnett/Ripper theory. However a mention of Mark Andrews and his novel made it into the pages of the 1996 edition of the A to Z (page 36), where an account of this theory may be read.
This leaves the big question. Why is it wrong for Melvin Harris to point out the fact that the Mark Andrews book was the first with the Barnett/Ripper theory (some five years before the article by Mr. Paley)? They had omitted mention of Andrews from their previous edition and Mr. Harris pointed out some information he thought they may not have been aware of (perhaps they weren't). The fact that they, or Mr. Paley, felt that it was important to be first with the idea of that theory is highlighted by the fact that the authors of the A to Z saw it necessary to mention that "Early in 1976" Mr. Paley had made his ideas known to Donald Rumbelow. He thus regained some form of primacy over the Andrews book.
But in all of this the glaring point highlighted by the preceding posts of Messrs Fido and Begg is how on earth can Mr. Harris communicating the information on the Andrews book to Mr. Fido amount to an accusation of plagiarism? I, and any reasonable person I should think, fail to see that this is the case. Mr. Harris merely offered information that was missing from their previous book. The information was true and eminently correct. Even if Mr. Paley had, which he denies, taken the idea from the Andrews novel this is not plagiarism and there are many examples of authors 'borrowing' suspects, ideas and theories from other books. It would be fair for anyone, I should have thought, to believe that Mr. Paley may have developed his idea from the Andrews book, given the time line shown above. Fortunately for Mr. Paley he was able to show that he had the idea before the Andrews book was published. But it was a developing idea only, clearly Andrews was the first into print with it and can solidly claim primacy for publishing the idea.
So to answer Mr. Begg's points-
(a) I can see no evidence of Mr. Harris accusing anyone of plagiarism, for it is clearly not plagiarism, and involves only the primacy of an idea or theory.
(b) It was obviously very reasonable of Mr. Harris to communicate this pertinent information that was missing from their previous edition (and they did indeed include the information, with the stated attendant remarks, in their very next edition).
(c) Even if, and I can only say if, Mr Harris made the suggestion that Mr. Paley may have got his idea from the Andrews book, whatever is wrong with that? For that is just what the facts suggested. (i.e. Paley is in New York, the novel with the Barnett/Ripper theory appears in 1977 in New York and five years later Mr. Paley first publishes his Barnett/Ripper theory in True Crime). I would say that it is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make. And, as has been pointed out, responsible writers would do some research on the suggestion to ascertain their facts before rushing into print anyway. This they seem to have done.
So here we find a prime example of a gross exaggeration and distortion by Messrs. Fido and Begg of Mr. Harris's perfectly reasonable actions. And are we to believe that the two A to Z authors are so squeaky clean that they have never made phone calls or other communications that made criticism or suggestions about the work of others? Are they whiter than white? So they would have us believe.
I suggest that Mr. Begg learns the legal definition of plagiarism before he debates any further on this sorry episode. For there is absolutely no way that what Mr. Harris allegedly said was an accusation of plagiarism.
All may have not been sweetness and light between the authors of the A to Z with each other over the diary. Mr. Fido is, by his own admission, an 'opinionated pontificator.' He and his two co-authors were hired as advisors on the diary when it appeared in 1992. Mr. Begg made some incautious statements apparently endorsing the diary which received wide publicity. By early 1993 Mr. Fido was the only one of the three giving historical grounds for the diary being a fake. In short he was not 'in-line' with his companions. |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 05 November 2000 - 07:26 am | | | Mr Street, you are absolutely correct, of course, when you say that it would not have been wrong for Melvin Harris to simply point out that Andrews’s book predated Bruce Paley’s and, were it not for your curious desire to defend Melvin Harris, you might instinctively give to all three authors of the A to Z the credit of assuming that they would not have thought ill of Harris if that was all that he did. It wasn’t. |
Author: Barry Street
Sunday, 05 November 2000 - 07:58 am | | Perhaps you would like to enlighten us as to exactly what Mr. Harris did do Mr. Begg.
Why is my desire to defend Mr. Harris 'curious'?
All I have done in the above post is point out facts. And the fact is that to accuse Mr. Harris of alleging plagiarism against Mr. Paley is totally incorrect. Plagiarism is not present in the equation. |
Author: Barry Street
Sunday, 05 November 2000 - 09:07 am | | I am still trying to work out the meaning of Mr. Begg's remark "...were it not for your curious desire to defend Melvin Harris...". Is this some sort of innuendo?
Let us take a look a Mr. Fido's original tirade against Mr. Harris:-
"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 [sic]. 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."
The above statement by Mr. Fido seems very clear and seems to be the sum total of the accusation by him against Mr. Harris with regard to Paley. The following observations should be made.
1. Mr. Fido interprets Mr. Harris's comments as "slander by innuendo." Surely a matter of interpretation, but I fail to see how it amounts to slander at all.
2. It is correct to say that Mr. Paley's Joe Barnett theory was not original. This theory had been published five years before Mr. Paley published it. Also Barnett had of course been initially treated as a suspect by the police in 1888.
3. How does Mr. Fido interpret a 'knowing tone'? Does he base it on his own 'knowing tones.' 'Knowing tones' I should think are a totally subjective thing. I presume Mr. Fido was exercising his own brand of insight into someone else's thought processes here.
4. If Mr. Harris made the point that "Paley is an American who used to import books and magazines from America" I am sure he was making a valid point. Any reasonable person would think that Paley might well have got the idea of his theory from that source.
5. I do not see how this information "cast Paley in the light of a plagiarist." As I have said, it is not plagiarism in the serious legal sense, it is merely an idea or theory. And it is a fair suggestion to make. As I have said, I believe there was a dispute at the time over 'who was first' between Mr. Paley and Mr. Harrison.
6. It is a gross exaggeration to portray these comments, if they were made, as "derogatory information." This was a private communication between Mr. Harris and Mr. Fido. I am sure that Mr. Fido would, as he indeed appears to have done, check it before using it.
Mr. Fido then goes on in his post to paint this even blacker. For he states, "(It may be worth mentioning that this is all too frequently the way in which you claim to have 'proven' fraud or deception)." Surely this is an over-the-top pronunciation by Mr. Fido, supported by no evidence at all.
It is worth noting also that these facts allegedly related by Mr. Harris to Mr. Fido about Mr. Paley's work do not claim dishonesty which is how Mr. Fido interprets it. |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 05 November 2000 - 09:58 am | | Sorry, Mr Street: you weren't in communication with Melvin, I was. The insinuation that Bruce was reprehensibly passing off some one else's idea as his own without acknowledgement was unmistakeable. Why else do you think we used precious space in the A-Z to refer to correspondence between Bruce Paley and Donald Rumbelow in 1976? Who gives a toss about the legal position? It was never suggested that Bruce had committed legal plagiarism by infringing copyright. It was suggested that he had acquired a copy of this unknown novel - (and the A-Z does not devote time to all the fictional efforts to enter the Ripper field wth imaginary possibilities) - possibly through his occupation as a dealer, and had used its idea without acknowledgement, which I certainly, and Melvin Harris too, I believe, would think conduct unbecoming to a scholar and a gentleman. Finally, I would not especially respect Mr Harris if he wished to claim that a recommendation of new information for publication was 'a private communication' entitled to some protection of privacy againsty its implications for third parties. I don't believe he does so.
Now, a further question of ungentlemanly conduct. It has been brought to my attention that Melvin Harris is apparently using some other person's or persons' computer/s to post messages about me on these boards. This would be quite unimportant were the messages purely scholarly debate. But from the outset, his references to me have been deliberately offensive. Since he and I have friends in common who own computers, this situation is intolerable: I never discuss my differences with him with them, as I have no wish to interfere with his friendships. I presume he behaves in the same way. But somebody is apparently allowing his access to the internet to be used to make public statements that I am a liar and a libeller. I have no intention of taking the matter up with him or writing endless Harrisian screeds of self-justification. But clearly I do not wish to cultivate the acquaintance of that person should I meet him. It may not be clear to him that by allowing Melvin Harris the use of his e-mail address to make defamatory statements he is associating himself with their publication, and so puts himself in the odious position of an anonymous poison-pen letter-writer. He should note Caz's openness - (I think I have remembered the name right) - in acknowledging that she is responsible for posting Keith Skinner's remarks. I would have hoped that the Webmaster might be able to use his knowledge of all our e-mail addresses to ensure that anything seriously derogatory was coming from a verified and self-acknowledged source. But in any case, I must decline to have any further correspondence with Mr Harris through these postings until he makes it perfectly clear whose computer/s he is using.
Martin Fido |
Author: Melvin Harris
Sunday, 05 November 2000 - 10:08 am | | YET ANOTHER SMEAR
Begg is wrong as usual. Dr. Gauld was NOT "directed to the conclusion he reached" as Begg smears. He was party to my replies to the A To Z compilers including the following text. So take the smear back Begg!
"In the first place you include my words on Bruch Paley, but this dispute is supposed to be over my published writings. You are warning readers to beware of texts open for them to read, but the Paley extract is not; it was never put into print by me, even though I have had the information for ten years. And it would never have been made public by me without my first approaching the author to ask for his comments. It was sent for you to check out, since I was assured that you knew the man. Since I never believed that you would be stupid enough to make it an entry without first talking with your friend, my action was quite in order. As it is, you now have the full story of the remarkable coincidence involving Andrews and Paley, which may not have emerged without my letter. As for conscious plagiarism, you forget that I have always made allowances for the role of cryptomnesia, indeed I have written on and lectured on, the importance of that phenomenon. (It was my cryptomnesia hypothesis that led me to solve the riddle of the Bloxham tapes)
In brief:- In 1987 Camille Wolff gave me a copy of Paley's magazine piece and stated that it was a "completely new theory about the murders". She said that the author would welcome comments and she gave me an address in New Cross and asked me to write to him. At that point I knew nothing about the author and his US origins, or his theory. When I next saw Camille I told her that I didn't feel that I had anything useful to say; I had found the research defective, and the 'new theory' was one that I had already met up with in a novel published in New York in 1977. Camille's response was: "That's odd, he comes from New York and imports American comics and books". And the matter was left there, until I sent my lines to you.
For the record, and to prevent future slurs, note that I have never published anything where doubts were present without first giving the people involved a chance to explain. This was so with the Lutzes (of 'Amityville Horror' fame); with 'psychic detectives' Nella Jones, Frances Dymond etc; with the Bloxham tapes stars; with Stephen Knight; with Frank Spiering; with Melvyn Fairclough and with Donald McCormick.
Which brings us to DUTTON. Your concern for the reputation of the dear old doctor is dishonest and hypocritical. You know that every reference I make to Dutton involves the text displayed by McCormick and there is no proof that a single line of that text was written by Dutton. On the contrary the evidence shows that the text was manufactured by someone who did not fully understand the subjects he was dealing with. That someone was McCormick." |
Author: Melvin Harris
Sunday, 05 November 2000 - 11:42 am | | PIOUS HYPOCRISY
The demand to know who posts my material is monstrous. There are four people who very kindly offer to post material for me and share the burden. I am gratified that there are people willing to aid in the spreading of accurate information.
Some of the accurate information fed back to me now confirms that Fido's LBC programmes were called 'Murder After Midnight' and began following publication of his first Ripper book. This, apparently, was a weekly programme, which presented a series of short scripts on famous murders. The idea that I would even want to intrude on such a series is simply out of the question. I repeat I have no interest whatsoever in famous murders, therefore it would be impossible for me to even think of participating in such a series, either as main presenter or as an occasional contributer. On the other hand, if a programme on the Ripper had been advertised in early 1988 then it would have been quite in order for the publicity department at Harrap to have rung LBC and suggested that I participate. After all this is exactly what happened when Fido gate-crashed an earlier programme publicising my book which was booked as exclusively for the promotion of a Harrap publication. I don't know whether this happened or not. But it is the only possible explanation for a misunderstanding at LBC since I have never approached them at any time with a request to invade or supplant Fido's programmes. I've never even heard one.
The words to Headline that I complained of are in fact libellous. I've asked Fido and Begg to either withdraw these words or name the people alluded to. Note that every claim in their words is in the plural, journalists; writers; publishers. Where are they? Where is the proof of these statements?
If Fido refuses to give straight answers to straight questions then people will see through his subterfuge. And let me remind Fido that he is on record as saying he believes in "calling evil men and women evil, not psychopathic!"
Likewise I believe in calling persistent twisters of the truth liars. This, of course, does not suit Fido. So what he is now suggesting is a form of censorship. So much for his pious beliefs. |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 05 November 2000 - 12:14 pm | | Perhaps it will help Mr Harris out of the dilemma that I refuse to correspond with him through four anonymous e-mailers if all those who know me personally and communicate with these boards would acknowledge on them that they are not assisting his posts. This might encourage Melvin's vehicles to stand up and be counted.
Anybody is free to say anything they like about me, but I decline to correspond with people who hide behind the skirts of anonymity, and until Melvin can find some one to post for him who will stand up and say he is doing so, I will not make any response to his remarks. This is the reverse of censorship. He is free to abuse me to his heart's content, secure in the knowledge that there will be no riposte. I shall continue to tell the world why I find his means of doing so too contemptible to deserve notice.
Martin Fido |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Sunday, 05 November 2000 - 01:17 pm | | I'm reminded by RJP and Paul Begg that the Whittington-Egan book "Murder Mayhem and Mystery" was at some point in the hands of Scotland Yard. The question is: when was it seized and was it returned to Mike? The Yard investigation started around October 1993 and DS Thomas came to Liverpool about that time when he interviewed most of the participants. The investigation didn't last long as by January 15th 1994 the Liverpool Post announced that Robert Smith (the Diary publisher) had been cleared of fraud. It's therefore quite likely that anything seized by the police would have been returned by early 1994. The book itself has its own interesting place in diary history. According to Mike, he bought it after Tony Devereaux gave him the diary which was around the summer of 1991 (Feldman's book says May 1991.) Tony Devereaux died in August 1991. According to Feldman, one of Devereaux' daughters saw the book in his house and was told that it belonged to Mike. But when was this: between May and August, when Devereaux was housebound and Mike supposedly doing diary research or was it before that period? If the latter, it might be rather significant. Perhaps someone has information concerning that date.
Regarding the Sphere book, it is true that it would be an incredible coincidence that the Crashaw line was discovered by Mike to appear in a book which was actually at the relevant time in his possession. It's much more likely that he knew it was there and had used it in or contributed it to the Diary forgery. What would help us (and I reiterate that I am not concerned as to when it was lodged with his solicitor) is some information as to when he received it from Sphere or when the supposed booksale happened.
How about the relevant faxes? Or are they the unreadable ones?
Would there be any harm in Martin Fido giving us the date and details of the LBC programme? It might help bring a resolution to this matter. |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 05 November 2000 - 05:45 pm | | Dear Peter,
I don't think it will help much. The (still running) weekly feature Murder After Midnight started with three short experimental airings on The Clive Bull Show at the end of 1987. They were successful, and it was established as a permanent feature early in 1988, at which point I was asked the question, "Who is this Melvin Harris...?' There was no mention of Harraps or any other publisher, or of any of Melvin's books.
The Pete Murray Show, to which Melvin believes he was an important and unique guest, took place before any of the experimental airings, and there was no connection between its interest in the Ripper/true crime and the Clive Bull Show's. Like all LBC programmes it is a host and chat-in with some guests and a few regular features or regular guests. All such programmes, like TV local magazine programmes, require constant filler material, and their producers and presenters may pick up review copies of books sent to the station, or publishers' publicity department handouts, and invite authors to come on for a slot to plug their new books. These 'milk-run' interviews are, perhaps, the lowest level of broadcasting - many authors simply refuse to do them. I always give my publishers all the help I can, and I've done many of them for my various books; in 1987 I was repeatedly trailing Melvin and Martin Howells, whose books on the Ripper had come out at much the same time. The arrangements are all made through publishers who pay authors' expenses, and it requires a good deal of pretentiousness to imagine oneself insulted by finding another author on the same subject present at the same time! Keith Skinner and I were delighted when we did a milk run TV slot for Anglia and found that they'd also invited Stewart Evans to be present as a local expert: he'd given us a lot of help, and it was not a matter for us to object that he differed with our conclusions and might steal our thunder.
The Clive Bull Show did not put out book review milk run programmes after its shift to the graveyard slot (whence 'Murders AFTER Midnight'). Melvin is exceedingly unfortunate in his publishers' publicity department if, without giving him an inkling of these things, they managed to give 'a small company off Gray's Inn Road' the impression that they wanted his book to replace John Wilding's as one to be optioned - (which, by the way, was news to me, and a rather surprising parallel with the question I was asked at LBC: I only heard from John that Melvin had advised some company not to take up the option they were offering; not that they should take Melvin's instead!) - and to give LBC the impression that he wanted to replace me in my new programme. Since Melvin neither wanted nor authorised the request for either of these things, he may need to keep an eye on what Harraps do if he lets them, as he said, deal with all the questions addressed to him, or, as in the LBC case, initiate unrequested communication.
Incidentally, an interesting spin-off from the original interview with Pete Murray was Keith's and my invitation to appear regularly on his show a few years later, answering listeners' questions on true crime. This came to an end, alas, when new manageent revised the schedules and dropped the daily Pete Murray Show, shifting him to weekend visits.
None of this, however, addresses the problem that as long as Melvin posts through e-mailers who do not declare their identity, I may be left wondering whether you, dear Peter, might innocently or wittingly have allowed your computer to be used for the purpose of issuing venomous attacks on me? You see why I will not support such an ungentlemanly correspondence?
With all good wishes,
Martin Fido |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 06 November 2000 - 07:06 am | | Peter, I understand that it would be useful to have confirmation that Mike obtained the books from the source and for the purpose he’s stated, but it seems agreed that Mike owned the book and the implications of owning it are understood, so am I missing a reason why those dates are important?
Sadly the faxes are in two piles and number hundreds and maybe even thousands of pieces of paper relating to all sorts of matters, not all ‘diary’ or indeed Ripper related. Once filed in date order - an accident put an end to that! – sadly it isn't easy to find anything unless it was filed separately for some reason. Keith might have the information you want.
Melvin, I regret that you consider my remark about directing Dr. Gauld a slur. I meant it as a statement of fact. It doesn’t make much difference whether you led or directed Dr. Gauld directly in a covering letter or indirectly in the other material you provided. Dr. Gauld received your opinion that the Paley letter was not within the scope of our remarks. Had he not received that impression then his conclusion could have been different.
You accused Bruce Paley of appropriating somebody else’s idea and claiming it as his own. It was not a challenge to Bruce Paley’s primacy, but to his honesty. You expose hoaxers, liars, fabricators, and so forth. Since it is within your power to destroy names and reputations, you are morally obliged to be scrupulously fair when throwing out these sorts of accusations, be they thrown out privately or in print, and in this case although the letter was private (which actually doesn’t matter a jot), your accusation was one you invited us to make public. That invitation is not in the least mitigated by your expectation that we'd check it out first.
Martin Fido’s request is not monstrous. If the people who place messages on these Boards do not otherwise contribute to them then there is no problem. But since everyone (as far as I am aware) who posts to these Boards and who also posts for someone else clearly states it, it seems only fair that yours do the same. But it isn’t a simple matter of fairness. Posting a message on someone’s behalf does not mean that one agrees with or endorses the content of the post, but by declaring that one has posted for someone means that if ever there is any concern about partisanship then it is clearly there for all to see. But that really isn’t the issue either. I’m sure Martin doesn’t say anything behind someone’s back that he won’t say to their face, but it is only natural that he be concerned that someone he sees as a smiling face isn’t someone who’ll plunge a knife in his back as soon as he turns away. This uncertainty breeds a profound sense of distrust which I am sure every long-term poster here will understand, especially all those who experienced similar anxieties when the loathsome ‘Bunker’ was up to his tricks! Needless to say, I don't post on behalf of Melvin. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 06 November 2000 - 08:33 am | | Hi Peter,
You wrote:
‘Choice c/ is that the words in paranthesis are yours and the rest is Keith's which on the whole seems more likely. I'm sure that Keith will tell us which is correct.’
I will get the latest posts to Keith as soon as I can.
But this is a case where what ‘seems more likely’ is not actually how things were. The reason I put Billy in parentheses was not because Keith didn’t include him in the point he made to me, but because I had also put Mike’s sister in parentheses earlier. The whole point was to compare willingness, or otherwise, to accept one person’s testimony – either Mike’s or Anne’s – only supported by a family member – either Mike’s sister’s or Billy’s, and the need for more than this in both situations. This was Keith’s whole point, which I obviously didn’t make clear enough. Why Keith mentioned Billy in relation to Anne’s ‘1968’ testimony to illustrate the comparison is what you need to ask him (and I shall too!). But I can assure you I have reported what he said accurately.
Perhaps Keith will also be able to tell us more about when Devereux’s daughter says she saw Mike’s ‘Murder, Mayhem and Mystery’ in her dad’s house. It may or may not be significant if it was before Mike claims to have been given the diary by Devereux. But I hardly think any such significance would have escaped Keith, particularly when he finds the date of lodging the Sphere book so crucial.
I do agree that there is a mighty coincidence to swallow with these Crashaw lines, if anyone is to accept that Mike (or someone else) did not supply them from his volume 2 for the forgery. But the fact remains that the diary team wants more than a seemingly impossible coincidence to work with. I say, if they want more dates and facts in order to convince them, why not try to supply them? Why stand in their way?
Hi Melvin,
Why is it ‘monstrous’ to want to know who posts your messages for you?
Many of us have been speculating for ages on this matter, privately, if not publicly, and we could all be wildly wrong. Now that we know four people are involved, the speculation is bound to increase. Four people, Melvin, all of whom seem either too embarrassed to admit their associations with your views and manner of presenting them, or are operating quite happily under some peculiar code of silence. I think we can now be excused for speculating thus on the motives of your helpmates as well as their identities. If anyone thinks we are wrong to do so, the solution is simple. Stop the speculation and give us the facts. What is there to hide?
One more question. Do your helpmates relay all the posts to this subject back to you, including all those made from time to time by pseudonymous posters, such as Valediktor and Dear Diary? If so, I wonder if you would be surprised to learn what some people now suspect, rightly or wrongly, has been going on. I, for one, think you would be rightly horrified if you thought one or more of your own postmen might be supporting you anonymously in this way. I am not saying this has ever happened. Nevertheless, this is what you, and your helpmates, are allowing people to suspect, by being so unnecessarily secretive.
As Martin has kindly pointed out, I have no need to hide the fact that I post for Keith Skinner (although my husband thinks he is Frank Skinner, and he keeps asking me why he can’t get his own bloody computer!), and if I get stuff wrong, I am more than happy to be corrected by him, when he finally reads my own posts, or by anyone else with the correct facts to hand.
By the way, it hasn’t escaped my notice that you and Martin have both referred to me as Caz, which is great – it’s easier to type than CAM, is much more friendly, and I do appreciate it, although as I’ve said to Keith, he can call me Ratbag if he likes, and he frequently does! But naturally I would never dream of referring to Barry Street as BS….
And lastly, I do appreciate the time you have devoted to answering at least some of my questions. I hope all the twists and turns of this board will not harm any future dialogue between us, which I am finding valuable for my personal jig-saw puzzle. Thank you.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 06 November 2000 - 12:04 pm | | "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."
Firstly, I used the term "parentheses" instead of having to retype the relevant 6 words. Your stylistic argument is interesting but nothing to do with the point.
If Keith Skinner has actually told you that the words above were confirmed by Anne's late father then I would have to ask him how he can say such a thing which manifestly is not "backed up" by any evidence that we, the public have been allowed to see. I'd also ask why you, a person who has read "the diary" several times plus presumably the accompanying books and who has regular contact with Keith and the others could possibly have accepted this statement which you must have known to be wrong. And judging from the attention you have shown in the absolute minutea of what everybody else writes concerning this subject you surely can't have forgotten that I myself have mentioned this matter at least three times previously.
You compare Melvin's words about one of Mike's sisters confirming something that he said or did (I can't find the exact reference at the moment) to the statement above. It's not of course a fair statement as Billie never confirmed the 1968 event or the earlier one as I pointed out (for the fourth time.)
Of course as you have said: "But I can assure you I have reported what he (Keith) said accurately" I shall accept your word that the blame for the original wrong statement including the form of words is entirely his.
If Mike and Tony can be shown to have had the book before Mike (and Anne) says he got the diary from Devereux then it's significance is obvious: it catches Mike in another lie and shows that Mike and Tony had a probable interest in Maybrick. The reason that Keith and you find "the date of lodging the Sphere book so crucial." is I feel not important. Surely what is crucial is that Mike owned the book before the diary appeared publically.
Paul:
It's all to do with getting independent evidence. It would also be intriguing that both Anne and Mike say that they had a book in the house that the other party insists was never there: one recycled phot album and 12 volumes of literary criticism.
A solution to your fax problem is simple: send them all to me and I'll organise them for you! |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 06 November 2000 - 07:39 pm | | Peter--in regards to the Whittington-Egan book, it might be worth remembering that the diary has the line
This May spreads Mayhem
Somewhat remarkable, considering that it was Murder, Mayhem, and Mystery that first alerted Mike to the fact that the diary was referring to James Maybrick. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 07 November 2000 - 03:00 am | | Hello RJ:
You may be right. As I mention on the Florence Maybrick board, this pamphlet, more correctly titled, "Murder Mayhem Mystery" is quite short, only 54 pages long. It sold for 4/6... four shillings and sixpence when published in 1967, the equivalent then of about 75 cents. Affordable enough for both the Barrett and Devereaux households to have one each, along with countless other Merseyside families.
The 13 stories in the pamphlet are drawn from two hardback books by Richard Whittington-Egan published some years earlier. Two of the articles, nos. 11 and 12, concern the Maybricks. They are titled, "Motif in Fly-papers" and "How Death Came to Florence Maybrick." The latter being about her death in Connecticut in 1941.
The first article is titled, "When Spring-heeled Jack Visited Everton" which happens to mention, page 12, "In 1888, when the appalling series of 'Ripper Murders' set a grip of terror about the heart of London's East End, there were many who thought that Jack-the-Ripper and Sprin-Heeled Jack were one and the same."
And getting back to those May and Mayhem mentions. . . on page 51, the first page on the Maybricks, RWE begins with, "When first I beheld [Battlecrease House] in the fast fading light of a late May evening. . ." On page 52, Maybrick is encapsulated as revealed at Florie's trial, and as he will appear in the Diary and Harrison's book: "The wealthy, charming, and eminently respectable James Maybrick. . . . a brutal, faithless drug-addict. . .!"
Of course many of the highlights mentioned in the Diary appear here, the wedding at St. James, Piccadilly (page 52), the March 28, 1889 running of the Grand National Steeplechase (page 53), Maybrick's April 13 visit to his brother Michael in London (page 54). RWE notes, "He wished to see his brother Michael Maybrick (better known to posterity as Stephen Adams, composer of many popular songs). . ." Since the author does not mention that Michael Maybrick (Stephen Adams) only wrote the music not the words for those songs, the forger could have made the blooper that appears in the Diary indicating that Michael was a wordsmith.
Page 54, Maybrick starts to feel unwell but goes anyway to the Wirral races.
Page 55, "By Mayday. . ."
Page 56, "It was on the evening of May 11th that James Maybrick died."
Page 60, on Florie's death, contrasting her end in 1941 in Connecticut with "the pretty, Victorian young woman whose life was irreparably shattered with the drawing down of a blind one long-ago May evening [in 1889] in distant Liverpool."
It would seem to me there was enough "meat" on the Maybricks and their affairs in these few pages of RWE's pamphlet in order to fabricate details about the Maybricks in the Diary without resorting to the Ryan book for it.
Chris George |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 07 November 2000 - 03:09 am | | Hi again:
That should have read that the Richard Whittington-Egan pamphlet "Murder, Mayhem, Mystery" is 64 pages long NOT 54 pages long, including title page, copyright page, contents, introduction, and so on. The text begins on page 9 with Spring-Heeled Jack.
Chris |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 07 November 2000 - 07:00 am | | Hi Peter,
The explanation of my use of parentheses was simply to show how I had misled you into a false assumption that Billy hadn’t figured in Keith’s point. I also conceded that I should not have simply accepted and repeated Keith’s point in the first place. I can only apologise for not thinking to question him further, in the light of all your previous posts on Billy’s testimony. If I have been guilty of unwittingly misrepresenting Keith, or repeating information which conflicts with the facts, as I should have remembered them, at least I can count on you to put me right. And no doubt Keith will want to slap my wrists too, when he reads the offending posts, which I have sent to him without additional comment. Whenever I make amateurish errors, of fact or judgement, I guess it explains why I am only an amateur. It’s far more important to me to get it right in the end, than to worry about looking foolish in the attempt. And that’s not me wearing a pious hat (I can’t afford one). I’m afraid it’s got less to do with integrity, and more to do with the stark reality that a public forum ain’t exactly the best place to hide from accountability, is it?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Melvin Harris
Tuesday, 07 November 2000 - 07:55 pm | | THE ANANIAS CLUB
A few posts back I said that Fido had a poor memory, and Skinner seemed to demur. Now we have perfect proof that his memory is dangerously defective. He asks who Dr Gauld is and has forgotten the role Philip Sugden played as an impartial referee, in the A to Z text dispute. Yet he has SEEN the reports by both men. He has SEEN their names in my letters and has even written to them. And this man, who can not remember such time-consuming events in May 1997, is asking us to believe in his memory of unrecorded phone calls made back in October 1994 and March 1996!
Here is the text of my letter of May 15 1997, sent to Fido's address and meant for all three. It explains who Dr Gauld is. What it does not mention is that Dr Gauld has a better knowledge of the Ripper murders than many who term themselves 'Ripperologists'
"TO THE THREE COMPILERS OF THE "A TO Z"; COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY BEING TAKEN FOR GRANTED.
In my last letter I stated that your 'Response' had been examined by a number of people. Their reactions were strong and quite uncomplimentary about your attempts to justify your new text. Your motives were questioned and your attempts to dismiss my reply as "eleven pages of rant" in which I had "...not addressed, let alone answered, the specific examples...given." were readily identified as dishonest and contemptible.
Since you seem blind to reason I have now taken the standard step used by learned societies and submitted the matter to independent referees who are used to examining complex documents and know the subject in question. I wanted to include Dr. Donald West, Head of the Institute of Criminology, Cambridge, but he could not be reached in time, so I have settled for Dr. Alan Gauld, Senior Lecturer in Psychology at Nottingham University and Philip Sugden, whose work you have applauded. Both men are fair-minded, knowledgeable, with long experience in assessing the merits of disputations.
Both men were supplied with my letter to 'Ripperana'; your 'Response' and my reply. Neither referee was shown copies of your letters of 24 April, since I had no wish to influence them in any way & the letters certainly show you in a very bad light indeed!
I now enclose their judgements. In Dr Gauld's case, note that I had forgotten to inform him that my reply was not meant for publication; as a result a few of his remarks (on Reed Hayes; on passages that seemed to be not directly relevant, etc) would only have weight if my reply were to be published.
The only points I wish to add are that, although I always edit my own books, I have to take into account the timidity of the legal advisors used by my publishers. My writings on McCormick have been circumscribed by this and made more tortuous than they should have been; and so were my words on Farson and the Australian hoax. Indeed I was amazed that Howells and Skinner were able to openly accuse Farson of fabrication. I would never have been allowed to do that.
You now have the considered verdicts of two men of honour and discrimination. They both, independently, agree that I have dealt with your case fairly. They both accept that your actions were not warranted by the arguments you now present. Since I have given you very fair treatment, I now expect you to recognise this and, without any more delays, write to your publishers along the lines of the formula already supplied to you. If I give you a week to do this, then that should make it easy for you to comply.
MELVIN HARRIS 15 May 1997"
I have now acquainted Dr Gauld with Begg's recent words about his conduct. He has branded those words as completely out of order, and reprehensible. He was not guided or influenced in any was by my stand on the Paley issue. He states that the judgement he passed was one which any responsible authors would recognise as fair and act on. His views, I should add, were independently echoed by Philip Sugden.
Unwisely Fido has been presented as someone who would not sneakily say things behind your back that he would not say to your face. The record shows otherwise. In letters to me he spoke of my work on the Diary with approval. One such letter says "I enjoyed the assault on Maybrick" Another to Nick Warren speaks of "Melvin's excellent ongoing work on the diary." (18 Nov 1994) While his US review of my book praises my Maybrick section. A further letter says "Congratulations on your prompt and effective response to that Canadian woman's page full of [Maybrick] bosh in the Standard." But Feldman's book revealed that in October 1994 Fido sent in a paid report which described my work as "biased, self inflating, inaccurate, and often logically inadequate." This creature with two faces then gave a twisted account of a telephone conversation said to have been made by him on October 15th 1994. The conversation he reports is invented. I point blank refused to cooperate with Feldman in any way. My experience showed me that he was quite capable of mangling anything said to him if it conflicted with his dreams. In February 1995 Fido made another paid attempt to get me to answer Feldman's questions. I replied on March 10th thus:-
"Dear Martin, 10 Mar 95
Your letter amazes me. I know of nothing to convince me that Paul Feldman is in anyway anxious to avoid misrepresenting me. On the contrary, when we met at Camille Wolff's he went out of his way to misrepresent both my words and actions and to that he added a string of false claims, all designed to support his fantasies. Naturally he did not have the evidence with him to back up any of these claims, (an old dodge!) but he promised to produce this evidence and hand it over to Andy Aliffe. As you might have guessed, not a single fragment of proof has been sent to Andy and none of Andy's phone messages have been responded to. And that is the measure of your man...
For your satisfaction alone let me point out that my views on the diary sources are contained in the first paragraph on page 186, (Maybrick stuff); the first para. on page 194 (Ripper stuff) and para. 3 page 197 All three paragraphs have to be taken together, otherwise I am misrepresented. As for suggestive passages, this would involve detailing all my researches including that into cryptomnesia (some published) and allied topics, and be a sheer waste of my time. But, out of amusement, let me say that what would be significant for a Liverpudlian would have no impact on an outsider!
Best wishes,"
The next invented phone call used by Fido involves my knowing words about Bruce Paley. But as I have already pointed out my only contact with Fido at that time and in his capacity as the A to Z entry collector, was BY LETTER. That letter was dated March 22 and was acknowledged by Fido on March 30th. His opening lines read:- "Thank you for your letter with the additional corrections, and the very kind enclosure of the pages of Lees' diary. I have copied everything across to Paul and Keith (the former having urged only two days ago that we all scour our files to make sure we'd got all the corrections you sent us)." And there you have it. No mention of any objection to anything in my letter. No warning that Fido had 'already spoken to Paley' and gained a denial from him. Why? The very defence constructed by the three gives the lie to Fido's telephone yarn. Page 6 of this document records the arrival of my letter of 22 March 1996; prints my words on Barnett and Paley's theory; and then says: "This piece of innuendo in effect invited us to publish the serious charge against Bruce Paley ...We felt that this was so important that we approached Mr Paley..." Exactly, there was no information from me BEFORE that letter. The three Unwise Men did not mount their asses until some time after reading my poisoned missive, which in truth, did no more than record Camille Wolff's reactions! Fido's phone smear is thus shown to be no more than the product of a mind that has lost its compass bearings.
And the LBC nonsense is further proof of a wayward mind. I have now checked my diary for early 1988. It shows that I was on the move without ANY time to spare, and visited London twice only when I went straight to the PRO at Kew, with my wife.
As for the slighting remarks about me and the Sunday Times, they too are hogwash. I have reported them to Maurice Chittenden who authorises me to say that they have no basis in truth. After the 1993 article on the Diary, my only contact with that paper was in late 1994 when the Sunday Times paid part of the laboratory costs for the AFI ink test. Any further Diary material was supplied them independently by Alan Gray. I was then asked to liaise with Gray on behalf of Maurice Chittenden. I did. End of story.
And now I have to say goodbye to this board for good. I came on screen at the invitation of Stephen Ryder. My goal was to provide fact files for the perplexed and they should still be there in store. But I am not prepared to waste my time dealing with smears and lies placed by people who have contributed absolutely nothing of value to the investigation of the Diary hoax. And I am not interested in exposing the deviousness of flawed personalities. So farewell all.
In parting, just one word of advice for Keith Skinner. If you are unwise enough to visit the very ill Mr Kane then don't come back with just a crop of stories. What you need to secure are authentic samples of his handwriting prior to 1992. All else is dust and ashes!
(PROMISED PIECES ON THE WATCH, MRS HARRISON'S BOOK AND PROF RUBINSTEIN WILL STILL APPEAR SINCE THEY ARE ALREADY WRITTEN) |
Author: Joseph
Wednesday, 08 November 2000 - 01:14 am | | Hello Mr. Harris,
You refer to Dr. Gauld as having, "a better knowledge of the Ripper murders than many who term themselves 'Ripperologists' " (By Melvin Harris on Tuesday, November 07, 2000 - 07:55 pm). Are you prepared to offer verifiable testimony to support this revelation? Apparently not.
Why should Messrs. Fido, and Begg accept the judgment of a panel that you unilaterally composed? You, not only chose the panelists, but you selected the information they reviewed, and the circumstances under which they reviewed it.
I would say that the panelists, as well as the data to be analyzed, must be agreed to beforehand by ALL the parties involved, otherwise any subsequent adjudication can be seen as being skewed and partial.
How clear-cut, and non-biased are the findings of Messrs. Gauld, and Sugden when you admit to the same absentmindedness you accuse Mr. Fido of having. Does Mr. Fido's forgetfulness cloud the issue any more then your own? Tell me something Mr. Harris: Why does Mr. Fido's amnesia lend itself to his condemnation, and yours to your aggrandizement?
Your unhesitant referral to your publisher's legal council as timid, is indicative of your willingness to denigrate others for your own benefit, and is consistent with the characterizations of you as "mean, sneering, volatile, and domineering".
I find it amusing that you have decided to permanently remove yourself from these boards just as you are confronted with a question that would focus the attention of the Casebook reader-ship, and the literary world at large, on your credibility. You leave here without answering the question put to you by Mr. Fido, regarding who posts your messages to these boards. In this matter, you are the coward that I accused you of being in June of this year, you provide the proof for my suspicion by slinking off with your tail between your legs, and your secret almost intact. I suspect that one of these acolytes of yours, has engaged in vicious anonymous attacks on posters to these boards. By not condemning these attacks, you have given them your tacit approval. What makes this intolerable, is the fact that you knew who this attacker was, and did nothing to stop his/her reprehensible behavior. There is no doubt in my mind that hypocrisy is your strong suit, because when you and your cronies where subjected to a dose of your own medicine, you whined like little girls.
You are an opportunist Mr. Harris, and you have been involved in a singular exercise of self-promotion from the first sentence you penned for the Casebook reader's perusal.
You leave this forum with the threat that you will never allow us to bask in your sunshine again, and I say, we should count our blessings.
Please take Valediktor, Dear Diary, N.T., and
B.S. with you, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
Good-bye, and good luck.
Joseph |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 08 November 2000 - 03:44 am | | Hi All,
Oh well, the final words of my last post seem to have hit home (that must be a first):
‘I’m afraid it’s got less to do with integrity, and more to do with the stark reality that a public forum ain’t exactly the best place to hide from accountability, is it?’
Reminds me of a line in the Dr Hook song, Lady Godiva: "You sure picked a funny place to hide."
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 08 November 2000 - 04:51 am | | I am happy to accept Dr. Gauld’s word that he was not guided or influenced by Harris’s ‘stand on the Paley issue’. I regret that I was not given the opportunity to likewise not influence him by giving my stand on the Paley issue. It's a pity that any 'stand' was supplied.
In the last few weeks the Casebook Message Boards have been turned into a virtual Laundromat. The sight of grubby ‘smalls’ in the wash hasn’t been inspirational and probably hasn’t even been interesting. We’ve seen a lot of accusation slung around and loads of slightly arcane arguments about scope and about whether letters were solicited or not, but what has spiked my curiosity is that in all the backing and forthing I don’t recall once seeing any justification (or defence) offered for Bruce Paley being accused of what is basically dishonesty (or any of the other highlighted misrepresentations). It’s almost as if the wrongess has been tacitly accepted, only our right to include it disputed. There's a point that seems to have been missed somewhere.
Or perhaps not. |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 08 November 2000 - 06:41 am | | Since Melvin Harris has announced his intention of posting no more, and I do not want to make the cheap shot of seizing the last word in the secure knowledge that it really will be the last, I am posting no response to his selective quotations from our correspondence and imposition of his recollections above mine which purport to show me a liar and a hypocrite. I personally regret these exchanges on boards which are better used for exchanges of serious information and opinion on questions surrounding the Ripper, and friendly contacts among fellow-enthusiasts. But if anyone is seriously disturbed by things Melvin has said about me and, without wishing to be disputatious, would like some explanation of anything from me, I shall be happy to reply to letters sent through my publishers and accompanied by US s.a.e. if sent from America, or addressed envelope with International Reply Coupon if sent from England. .
And my apologies to all who have felt the invective distasteful in any of my postings concerning Melvin and any of his concerning me. Believe me, I rejoice more than you do that we have come to the end of them!
Martin Fido |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 08 November 2000 - 08:03 am | | Hi All,
I have to confess to being very ignorant indeed. I had to look up the word ANANIAS in my Chambers, because I couldn’t fathom out what Melvin’s last post had to do with pineapples.
It’s a damn shame if we really have just come face to face with Melvin’s exit. As Dela has pointed out, it leaves the readership adrift in a sea of its own conclusions, without the anchor who had me believe that none of my questions were too awkward. The horizon now looks bleak - only a final series of lectures to look forward to, knowing that the vital question and answer sessions have been ditched – the flotsam and jetsam of a bad idea. Oh well, it may be worth trying to salvage as much as possible, and summarise the info Melvin has agreed to provide us with.
To RJ, Chris George and Peter,
I’d very much like to recap briefly on what we’ve got so far, and get your latest views if at all possible.
Melvin has stated that the person who devized the diary text would be too cunning to write the thing himself, choosing someone well outside his obvious circle to be penman. If Devereux and Kane were close friends, which has been suggested, then Melvin is ruling out the combination of Devereux as devizer, with citizen Kane as scribe. Melvin has also stated that Mike and Anne were only handlers and placers of the finished fake, although Mike did toss over the ‘O costly intercourse…’ quote to Devereux, along with flinging in his Druitt-in-drag/Mrs. Hammersmith jest (ha ha), which Devereux must then have passed on to the text devizer, A N Other, who, we must remember, was well outside the penman’s circle.
Now then, if we accept all this, we appear to have another mystery man, unknown to, or at least unidentified by, Mike, who actually devized the whole thing with his Ryan and his Fido and his Underwood etc. I can’t work out if he is one of the three names Melvin claimed, on 8th December 1994, ‘will soon be made known.’ Any ideas so far?
Peter,
You have stated your belief that Mike and Anne were involved together in a hoax for financial gain, and that Tony Devereux wasn’t. The Formby/Yapp link was presumed to be Anne’s invention, due in part to the wrong Elizabeth Formby being shoe-horned into the equation. Keith then told us that the right Granny Formby was living just under half a mile from Alice Yapp for a period of two years during the early 1880s. Quite a happy coincidence if Anne and Mike were only handlers and placers, but a coincidence none the less. You also put Devereux’s will up on the boards so we could compare Mr. Kane’s handwriting, albeit too small a sample to confirm Melvin’s suspicions, with that of the diary. I don’t know whether you share Melvin’s stated concerns for Mr. Kane’s health and privacy. But if the name of Kane is poised, as now looks inevitable, to go down in history as forever associated with the diary hoax, even if that was never Melvin’s intention, I hope you can understand Keith’s desire to get to the truth before it’s too late. This could prove to be a case of damage limitation, of which surely no decent person could possibly disapprove.
Back to Mike and Devereux and those books. Given that you don’t seem to think it’s either important or interesting to ascertain exactly when Mike lodged the Sphere book with his solicitor, what else is there in the evidence we have, that proves to you beyond all doubt that Mike knew the diary was a recent forgery, or that he had some involvement in forging it? And what conclusions do you draw from Mike’s copy of Murder, Mayhem and Mystery forming part of Devereux’s estate?
RJ and Chris,
You have both sincerely expressed a desire to see the diary mystery solved and an end to all the distrust, suspicion and ill feeling it has caused over the years. Do you think that Melvin could, and should, now agree to meet Shirley privately, with an independent observer (Don Rumbelow perhaps? Or at least someone agreed by both parties this time), to reveal his ‘privileged’ information?
Then all our current speculations might well be pointless: did Billy really ever run past Battlecrease?; was Mike lying about not knowing initially who the diary was about?; what was the significance of Mike’s Murder, Mayhem and Mystery being in Tony Devereux’s house?; was it wishful thinking, truth-twisting, or good hard evidence that made Melvin state with such confidence that the Sphere book was lodged with Mike’s solicitor ‘LONG BEFORE’ June 1994? All pointless speculation, if only Melvin could bring himself to do the gentlemanly thing and meet Shirley half way.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 08 November 2000 - 10:21 am | | Caz--I'll respond eventually.
To Mr. Trioli: I've never picked an argument on these boards, and I've attempted to steer clear of the various feuds. They seem both a pity and a waste of time. Could I make a couple of suggestions? First, may I humbly suggest that you refrain from using the terms "we" and "us" when posting your private opinions? As far as I know, you are not the elected spokesperson on this message board. If you don't know what I mean, reread your last post.
Secondly, I couldn't help but notice that, although you have voiced your outrage at anonymous posters many times, you remained curiously silent when 'Ennui' first attacked Melvin Harris several days ago. Could you perhaps do a little soul searching and examine whether it might be possible that your indignation is a bit selective? Mr. Harris has contributed a remarkable amount of expert opinion to the examination of the Maybrick diary. His contribution to this discussion has been vital. Your contribution, in my opinion, has consisted entirely of adding fuel and wind to a smoldering feud that has been regrettable to witness. Since you seem to have very little interest in the Maybrick diary other than when it gives you the opportunity to attack Melvin Harris, I assume his exit will also signal your own. His departure will leave me with a sense of regret; yours, I fear, will leave only a sense of relief.
My apologies to the rest of the board,
RJ Palmer |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 08 November 2000 - 10:53 am | | Hi, Caz et al.:
I regret Melvin Harris's departure from these boards although I at the same time deplore the way he has used these boards to pursue differences he has with other authors. Melvin knows that Karoline Leach and I made an honest, if brief attempt to intercede in regard to the A to Z entry on him, so he knows that I am not in agreement with such wording in a book that should be an impartial encyclopedia of information, but I do feel that he has abused this board. If he has differences with the authors in question, Begg, Fido, and Skinner, he should settle them in private, not here. The name of this board after all is "Maybrick/Jack's watch?" not a board for Melvin Harris to even his personal scores.
Again I am sorry that Melvin will no longer be present to discuss the Maybrick Diary situation, although I understand he will be posting his pre-written thoughts on some aspects in regard to Shirley Harrison and other matters. I do though have to question what knowledge, if any, Melvin has about how the forgery scheme worked. He has supposedly held the high ground as the keeper of this information, yet is not forthcoming with it. He hints that Mr. Kane had an integral role in the forgery but because he says Kane is gravely ill, he lofts a sprig of garlic as if to ward off vampires at the thought that legitimate researchers may wish to question Mr. Kane. There is an air of ridiculousness to this. It is up to Mr. Kane, not Melvin, to decide if he is well enough to answer questions. Equally, Melvin's withholding of the name of the London journalist who was investigating Kane's role seems also unreasonable. Again, most of us would breathe a sigh of relief to see the Maybrick trauma finally over if the forgery could be exposed for what it apparently was, a clear attempt to deceive the public. This again makes me question whether Melvin really possesses the information he hints that he has.
As for Melvin's statement that the Sphere book was lodged with his solicitor "long before" June 1994, I honestly think this might be a misstatement from which Melvin is now reluctant to back down. It seems evident from bits and pieces of information about Mike Barrett's research in the Liverpool library in the fall of 1994 that the lodging of the book with the solicitor did not occur "long before" June 1994.
Caz and everyone, I hope these thoughts have helped. Unless Melvin is forthcoming with more information, if indeed he possesses any such information, a big if, it seems as if we are at an impasse.
Chris George |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 08 November 2000 - 11:11 am | | Mr Palmer:- I think there is a small but nevertheless important distinction between Enniu and the pseudonymous posters that Joseph was talking about. Ennui offered an opinion, then went about his/her businness, whereas Joseph's pseudonymous posters, Valediktor being the best remembered, conducted sustained campaigns of villification (and, it is believed, under different guises). As said, the distinction is a small but important one.
While I couldn't agree more and have said myself (as has Martin) that the laundry washing has been time-wasting and boring, I'd like to take the opportunity to make it uttely clear that Martin, Keith and I have acknowledged that Melvin Harris's contribution about the 'diary' has been very valuable. I suspect that Joseph would agree, as would all Melvin's critics. But the 'diary' is not and never has been an issue in itself. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 08 November 2000 - 11:48 am | | Chris:- I think it is a perfectly legitimate for an impartial encyclopedia to provide guidance to when and about what readers should exercise caution, especially when it is an encyclopedia of a topic containing so many uncertainties as the Jack the Ripper mystery, so I therefore fear that we are going to have to disagree about that!
Apart from that, I deeply appreciated and thank you for a typically level-headed and fair statement of the current situation and I hope that we can all now get on with what Martin neatly described as ‘exchanges of serious information and opinion on questions surrounding the Ripper, and friendly contacts among fellow-enthusiasts.’ I'm also sure that we can break the impasse, if only by establisging or trying to establish what the facts are. To say nothing of establishing the questions! |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 08 November 2000 - 12:44 pm | | Thank you RJ for promising a response, and thank you Chris for yours.
If Melvin really doesn't possess the information that he claims to have, and which seems to be a requirement if the diary team are ever going to concede a modern hoax, sadly it tells us nothing new about the likely age of the diary or watch markings. But Melvin could have saved everyone concerned one heck of a lot of time (which equals money in most cases), trouble and bitterness, by at least being honest about it from the start. So I do hope this isn't the case.
There is of course that chance for Melvin to redeem himself, by agreeing to meet Shirley in private, explain his previous silence and produce the goods. Again, let's give him the benefit of the doubt - he may be making the arrangements to do so. But if he can't or won't take that chance, there seems little more anyone can do to help heal the wounds.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ennui
Wednesday, 08 November 2000 - 04:56 pm | | | Hi all. Have been reading the boards but not really posting because I don't have much to say. I don't know most of the people you are talking about and don't know who the heck Kane is or half the other names. That is why I am not posting, because I don't have any intelligible questions or comments to make (other than disgust that we are all supposed adults acting like children having a row and screaming cause someone called you a liar, liar pants on fire) The real world is full of unjust accusations on your integrity. Real men and women meet those accusations without running or crying. Why I am posting now: I am not Triola or anyone else posting on this board. I am simply interested in the Ripper and am trying to read as much as I can and this board seems to be the hotspot. In the future if I have a question I don't want it to be ignored or attacked as coming from a regular who is trying to be clever or anonymous. |
Author: Ennui
Wednesday, 08 November 2000 - 05:05 pm | | Actually now I have a question since I responded to the post that included my name without reading further first.
To Caz:
As I said in my other post I have been trying to slog through this board which is dificult because I don't know wnough to make connections between the key parties involved. One thing in you r last posts stood out though. Are you claiming that Mel Harris has stated that he has proof that the diary is a hoax and that he knows who hoaxed it but he won't say who? Why not? I mean he clearly is fanatical about proving the diary a fake so why is he witholding key evidence? Has he posted his reasons some where and can you direct me where or (since I don't have four lifetimes to read his posts) kindly sum up his reasons for me? Thanks. |
Author: Joseph
Wednesday, 08 November 2000 - 06:41 pm | | Hello Mr. Palma,
When I considered the burden you're laboring under, your reluctance to involve yourself in feuds or arguments became understandable.
My use of the terms, "we and us" is as rhetorical as your use of "humble", and your memory, as limited as it is regarding the history of the Casebook message boards, serves you correctly; I neither sought, nor accepted the responsibility to speak for anyone other then myself.
I must affirm that your meaning is indeed clear to me, so clear as to be transparent, and it suggests that "selective indignation" is a communicable disease that now infects you. Your displeasure with my expression of opinion has put you in such a dither, that you have fallen pray to selective perspective. Your assessment of the quantity of Mr. Harris's contributions is spot on; however, the vitality, and value of same is a matter of opinion, and is the crux of the argument between Messrs. Fido, Begg, and Skinner, or haven't you been paying attention.
Your evaluation of my contribution, personal style, and interest in the Diary, is of little consequence to anyone posting here, and I'll tell you why; in your rush to defend Mr. Harris, you are overlooking the same perpetration of abuse as he did. He deliberately chose to ignore attacks by bogus sources because they favored his position, and he knew the perpetrator. By not condemning this conduct, you tell the readership that you share his taste for vicious subterfuge, and, you support anonymous attacks on other posters who simply endeavor to ask questions. How can anyone take you serious when you assume this position?
You believe that Mr. Harris's choice of silence puts his morality in some indefinable gray area that is beyond reproach. I don't see it that way; in this case the options are either black or white, and I chose to take issue with his conduct. And please, don't purposely misinterpret my reaction to anonymous attacks as subjective, I'm sure that if you take the measure of your own advice, and "search your soul", you will conclude that the criteria on which I base my appraisal is universally embraced. The difference between us is, perhaps I just have a better understanding of right and wrong, and my fortitude is less brittle then your own.
Be that as it may, you now have the opportunity to calm your fear of relief, display your analytical prowess, and take a stand either for or against anonymous attacks.
Best regards
Joseph |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 09 November 2000 - 04:35 am | | Hi Ennui
I think the following is probably a pretty fair precis of the issues. The question seeking an answer is not if or when the 'diary' was forged, but who forged it. More specifically, it began as an examination of the obvious explanation that it was forged by Mike Barrett and his then wife Anne Graham.
According to Melvin Harris, some years ago some unnamed journalists working for an unspecified newspaper apparently established that Mike Barrett and Anne Graham were merely the placers and not the forgers of the ‘diary’. Whether the journalists actually established who the forgers were is not known, although about that time Melvin Harris was reported in The Evening Standard as saying that the three forgers would soon be named, so presumably they at least thought they had.
What seems to have happened, at least in part, is a witness to the Will of Tony Deveraux (by whom Mike said he’d been given the ‘diary’) was a Mr. Kane, whose handwriting was thought to be similar to the handwriting of the ‘diary’. He was asked for samples of his handwriting and apparently refused. What Melvin Harris actually thinks about Mr Kane is not certain, as he refused to be drawn on the matter, but it is thought by some that he suspected him of being one of the forgers along with Tony Deveraux and A.N. Other.
The journalists did nothing with their material, according to Melvin Harris because they were waiting for developments with a then much talked about (and recently revived) Maybrick movie project. However, the movie project was put on the back burner and the forgery story, presumably because it was now cold, was never told. Melvin has said that the London journalists information was given him in confidence. He was asked what pressures he’d brought to bear on the London journalists to reveal their information, but did not answer.
Melvin has also been repeatedly asked to name the three forgers whose names he was reported as saying would soon be revealed, but he says that he is prevented from doing so by legal reasons. He has not said what those legal reasons are.
That Mike Barrett was simply a placer fits with his inability to provide a coherent story of how the forgery was conceived and executed, to provide any verifiable evidence of involvement, or offer explanations for inconsistencies in his stories which make sense. The only evidence of involvement seems to be his claim to have obtained a quote from a book he been given for sale when trying to raise aid money following a terrible football stadium disaster. He says he gave this quote, ‘o costly…’, to the forgers. It is indeed very suspicious that Mike possessed a copy of the book which has a binding defect that causes it to open to the very page on which the quote appears, the implication being that he did provide the quote to the forgers and therefore knew that the ‘diary’ was a forgery from the kick-off. As suspicious as this is, the suspicions are offset by his otherwise profound ignorance, especially as the quote could have been taken by anyone with access to the book or to a copy with a similar binding defect.
According to Melvin Harris, Mike lodged the Sphere book with his solicitor ‘long before’ the break with his wife, but despite been repeatedly asked, Melvin has not specified how long. The earliest mention of it by Mike is to a private detective named Alan Gray in the first week of September 1994, again according to Melvin Harris. However, Mike never mentioned the book when he confessed to a journalist in June 1994, which suggests that he didn’t know about it at that time. So, when did Mike know about the quote? Despite owning the Sphere book, there appears to be no evidence that he knew it contained the quote before the ‘summer’ of 1994 and consequently no evidence that he knew the ‘diary’ was a forgery.
I think that just about sums up the present argument. We await a confirmation of date from Mike's solicitor. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 09 November 2000 - 05:03 am | | Dear Ennui,
I see Paul has neatly answered the questions you asked me. (And now I've had to alter my response accordingly!)
This board is probably one of the hardest to get to grips with. I totally understand your dilemma!
The problem is that everyone tends to congregate in one place when discussing the damned diary - whichever sub-section we happen to start posting on - hence we are all here talking about anything but the watch! It's an ongoing conversation without an MC to keep us unruly lot in some kind of order.
I'd like to add a bit more to Paul's comments. Melvin has made an extremely good case for the diary being a modern fake, and that's enough for most people, who see the diary in isolation from the whole modern story with all its illogical twists and turns. But if Melvin can't bind at least one of the modern suspects to the diary, beyond all doubt, we are left wondering whether this is really down to stuff beyond his control, like codes of silence and such, or another case of defective binding.
A lot of what we have been witnessing seems to be a tale, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. But we'll see.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 09 November 2000 - 05:27 am | | | Caroline, I must apologise. I read Ennui's post, went away to get breakfast and was thinking about it, then replied. Only when I had posted it did I note that the question had been addressed to you. So, again, please accept my apologies. |
|
|
|
|
