|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
From My Archives
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Articles by Melvin Harris:
From My Archives
Author: Melvin Harris
Tuesday, 05 December 2000 - 11:41 am |        | FROM MY ARCHIVES: AIDS TO CLEAR THINKING.
ON RELIABILITY AND BELIEVABILITY:
June 28th 1994: from Martin Fido.
"I am the most scatter-brained of us, and until very shortly before the production of our second edition kept my notes and correspondence in a filing system my associates likened to a Black Hole. (It was actually a huge pile of papers on a chair in my son's room) I should be quite capable of having received, "filed" and lost a written comment, or heard, failed to note, and forgotten a telephone conversation."
ON THE SO-CALLED "FBI RIPPER PROFILE:"
June 28th 1994 from Martin Fido:
"They were explicit about no medical skill; explicit about the Ripper's coming from the bottom of society. Even more central, in Ressler's own terms, they were explicit that these were "disorganised crimes"...The FBI thought that the Ripper was in employment at the time of the crimes because of their weekend and night-time occurence."
My 1994 annotation to those lines reads: "IN COMPLETE CONFLICT WITH THE VALID RECORDS OF 1888. THE FBI "ORGANISED" CONCEPT IS 20TH CENTURY, BASED ON USA TERRAIN AND CAR-OWNERSHIP. SO, WERE THEY FED DUFF DATA? IF SO, WHO WAS THE CULPRIT?"
ON THE AGE OF THE DIARY INK:
In July 1992, Dr. David Baxendale examined the Diary handwriting line-by-line using a Zeiss binocular-microscope. At that time not the slightest trace of age-bronzing was found. Yet this phenomenon should have been present in an iron-based ink that was years old, certainly in one said to have been applied in 1888-9. Following that, in October 1992 Dr. Nicholas Eastaugh also saw no signs of age-bronzing.
The next examination of the Diary pages took place in August 1993, and was conducted by Warner Books' commissioned examiners. The members of this team were free to express their independent views. Neither Kenneth Rendell, Dr. Joe Nickell, Maureen Casey Owens or Robert Kuranz saw any signs of age-bronzing. And my own limited examination of the Diary pages, in October 1993, led to the same conclusion.
In December 1994 an examination by surgeon Nick Warren led him to write to Robert Smith and underscore the significance of this lack of age-bronzing. Smith replied; AGREED to the absence of bronzing but tried to minimise its value as evidence, saying: "Neither Dr. Eastaugh...nor Leeds University, nor Robert AH Smith Assistant Keeper of Manuscripts at the British Museum, found a problem with the colour of the ink."
Then very ate in the day, some three and a half years late, Alec Voller saw the Diary for the first time. His scrutiny on October 30th 1995 led him to find some traces of age-bronzing and fading in the ink. From this, he wrongly concluded that the ink was old. At no time was he told by Smith or Harrison that the observable changes HAD to be recent, since they had not existed in previous years. Neither did Alec Voller realise that tests set up in 1995 with his help, would in time, invalidate his views completely.
In brief, he made up samples of the original Diamine manuscript ink and sent these to both Smith & Co. and Nick Warren, for them to experiment with. The Smith/Harrison camp seems to have done nothing. By contrast, Nick Warren sent me a letter written in the ink using both a fountain pen and a Victorian steel nibbed pen. By 1998 the fountain pen lines were showing signs of bronzing while the thinner, steel nib section was distinctly bronzed in every word. Today, the bronzing is extensive. This proves that Diamine manuscript ink will age in under three years. Equally ANY iron-gall manuscript ink, using nigrosine, can be expected to behave in a similar fashion.
Thus his sight-viewing of the Diary, some three and a half years after its arrival in London, could not lead to any useful observations touching on age. But he did state that the ink used Nigrosine, which is in line with Dr. Baxendale's tests and Dr Eastaugh's findings, but clashes directly with the Leeds report which denied the very existance of Nigrosine in its samples!
ON THE MAYBRICK/RIPPER LINK:
( EXTRACT FROM A FORTHCOMING "OPEN LETTER 2, TO PROF. RUBINSTEIN")
"When I pointed out that a Maybrick/Ripper link had been forged by Michael Harrison as long ago as 1972, you tried to brush this aside. That action shows just how little you know about the subject. James Maybrick is ONLY remembered because of his wife's arrest, trial and imprisonment. When Harrison wrote about those events, he named her as yet another victim of the Ripper. Yes, his "James the Ripper" was not husband James, but the resonances were set up the moment Harrison's views were published. His views that the Ripper was named James, and was ultimately responsible for Florence Maybrick's downfall in Liverpool, were never buried in obscurity but were known to all students of the case. And in 1987 yet another James the Ripper, and "author of the Liverpool Ripper letters" was named in Underwood's book; a book which also makes the point that the Liverpool letters were posted in Liverpool's Whitechapel in order to make a mocking link with London's Whitechapel; the very point echoed in the Diary text. Indeed the link between the Maybricks and the Ripper case was so well known that, following publication of my book in 1994, Paul Begg wrote this to me: "I think everyone was aware of the link via Sir James Stephen between Maybrick and the Ripper. In fact I mentioned that link to Harold Brough of the Liverpool Post when he asked me if I knew of any link between Maybrick and the Ripper. Oddly enough, Maybrick and the Ripper feature together in a chapter in The Scotland Yard Files by Keith Skinner and myself. I recall no one being amazed by the link and certainly don't think anyone thought the connection had to be the work of a genius. Some of us did express surprise that nobody had advanced Maybrick as a Ripper suspect earlier."
So much for your attempted dismissal. So much for your ill-informed efforts to give the Diary slant an unique status!" |
Author: Mitch
Wednesday, 06 December 2000 - 09:33 am | | | I guess it was too much to hope that he was gone for good. I have enjoyed reading the boards these past couple of weeks because they have been relatively clear of the snotty pokes and sneers such as the one about Martin Fido above. Harris, you may have made some interesting points in your post but once again your tone is of such pompous, superior, condescending, negativity..who wants to read it? |
Author: Joseph
Wednesday, 06 December 2000 - 11:40 am | | Hi Mitch,
Below is a reprint of a Melvin Harris post that you may find interesting. I believe it is a perfect example of Mr. Harris's use of the double standard. Notice the last two lines:
"There are many other questions still unanswered, but let's start with these. Begg either has to name the people or withdraw."
I suggest that Mr. Harris live by his own standards, or roost on his own petard.
Mr. Harris, you have left these questions unanswered, please respond to the following:
1) Identify the three people involved in the
forgery, or admit you don't know.
2) Please provide a numerical time value for the term, "long before", that you used in
the sentence: "NOTE WELL:- the Sphere
volume had been left with Mike's solicitor LONG BEFORE the break with his wife and
the 'confession'"
3) Please provide the factual evidence to
support your decree:
"Their lies [Mike and Anne] simply concern provenance. Their roles were simply as placers, or handlers, of a document forged by others."
4) Give us the name of Valediktor. :-)
Until you meet your own standards Mr. Harris, you have no credibility here.
The Casebook readership is entitled to the facts, after all " IT IS FACTS THAT COUNT " isn't it; otherwise Mr. Harris, you're just another amateur housewife.
By Melvin Harris on Thursday, June 03, 1999 - 01:38 pm:
Edit
IT IS FACTS THAT COUNT
Mr Delahunty's standards are unacceptable. Firstly, he attacks Valediktor for not providing a name. Secondly, he says that Valediktor has attacked Begg without providing any evidence.
Both viewpoints are sheer nonsense.
Valediktor has a perfect right to express his, or her, views without revealing a name and address. When I consider any writings I judge them on their merits. I don't care a hoot if they come from authorities, or newcomers. It is what they say that counts, not who they are. And I do know for certain that a number of well-informed people will not use the Internet under their own names. They do not wish to receive hate-mail, or long, boring, argumentative letters, or lengthy questionnaires.
The truth is that Valediktor is following an old and honourable tradition. (Just think of the Junius letters.) And in this case he, or she, has raised some pertinent questions that have also been raised by people off screen. So he/she is not alone in asking for Begg to answer the questions I have put. And now I repeat some of them: where are the names of the publishers, the writers, the
journalists and the other interested parties, who received the unsolicited approaches from me?
There are many other questions still unanswered, but let's start with these. Begg either has to name the people or withdraw.
Melvin Harris
Please perform to your own standards Mr. Harris, "name the people or withdraw".
Best regards
Joseph |
Author: stephen stanley
Wednesday, 06 December 2000 - 05:40 pm | | Careful,chaps,...we're rising to the bait again....
Steve S. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 07 December 2000 - 05:49 am | | Hi All,
Shirley Harrison hopes to return to the boards shortly, but meanwhile has telephoned me with a brief but important message for Melvin. (Of course, we have to assume, or hope, that Melvin will read all responses to his AIDS TO CLEAR THINKING, posted on a board intended for open debate.)
Dear Melvin,
Before Shirley gets into any correspondence with you about the diary ink etc, she wants to know why you need to waste a moment more of your time, or anyone else's, on lengthy monologues, when you could simply agree to meet her, in the presence of an independent observer, and present your conclusive evidence against the modern forgers.
Shirley says she has sent copies of Mike's research notes to Stephen Ryder. So hopefully, Casebook readers will shortly be able to see them for themselves.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 07 December 2000 - 06:22 am | | Hi All,
Me again. It occurs to me, in light of the recent excellent discussions elsewhere about reliability of information, that, if we don't sort this modern hoax out while we've got the chance, ie while the people involved who may have some answers are still kicking around, we could see similar discussions long into the dim and distant future, regarding the knowledge Melvin claims to have about the diary forgers. For example, what reliance can and should be placed on his word alone, in instances where he has decided, for whatever reason, not to back it up with the solid stuff? If the details of his information never see the light of day, is there ever going to be some sort of general acknowledgement that Melvin could possibly have got it wrong, been misled or
misinformed? Or are people going to stick, quite rightly and understandably, with "We have to assume Melvin Harris knew what he claimed to know, there is simply no contest where either of the Barretts' word is concerned."
God, my brain hurts after that!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Thursday, 07 December 2000 - 09:52 am | |
Quote:Shirley says she has sent copies of Mike's research notes to Stephen Ryder. So hopefully, Casebook readers will shortly be able to see them for themselves.
Mike's notes have indeed been received and I am working on encoding them now. There is a slight hangup in that the notes are faint and difficult to read - I am playing around with different means of display, so it may be a week or so before they are on the site. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 07 December 2000 - 10:54 am | | Goodonya Stephen!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Joseph
Thursday, 07 December 2000 - 02:56 pm | | Hi Caz,
You have framed an interesting comparison, i.e. what will the people of 2100 be taking from Mr. Harris' present-day writings and proclamations; just as we are today, trying to ascertain what assistant commissioner Anderson might have been thinking one hundred and twelve years ago. I don't wish to beat a dead horse, but I believe Ripperology history will remember Mr. Harris more for what he didn't say about the Maybrick diary. I can only hope that he leaves a detailed account of his proof, so that future generations of JtR enthusiasts can understand the circumstances surrounding his reluctance to divulge his evidence. Our grandchildren can only benefit from an insight to our mindset; much the same way our age would have profited from Dr. Anderson's.
Best regards |
Author: David M. Radka
Thursday, 07 December 2000 - 03:53 pm | | I hope to blazes I can get "A.R." out there before 2100, so that we can all be done with this and not need to worry about what Anderson was thinking.
The matter of Anderson is simple, anyhow. No need to question his reliability, really. He just believed what he believed.
David |
Author: Joseph
Thursday, 07 December 2000 - 07:12 pm | | Hello Mr. Radka,
I tend to agree with your take on Commissioner Anderson.
His position exposed him to a variety of facts, hearsay, hard evidence, and speculation, both educated, and intuitive. He assimilated this symphony of information, and opinions: from the police spectrum, the Whitechapel community, the bourgeoisie, the crown, Whitehall, and Albert Hall; and from this, he synthesized a face; a face on a man in a seaside retirement home. Someone had seen that face before; it belonged to a man who was observed in the company of a woman. Our question is this: What sequence of events lead Anderson to connect this witness, with this suspect, and why?
The debate by Messrs. Mann, Evans, and Begg, to define the most basic truth of Anderson's legacy clarifies at least these points: Commissioner Anderson had a measurable amount of training as an observer, he had a reputation as a truthful man, and in his professional capacity, he supported his observations with verifiable evidence; as you have noticed Mr. Radka, he knew what he knew. Regrettably, it is our karma to remain ignorant of the logic that leads Dr. Anderson to his seaside drama.
Mr. Radka, I have every reason to believe that you will publish your ad referendum prior to the start of the next century; otherwise you will be a very old man with a very curious secret.
Best regards |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 08 December 2000 - 04:28 am | | Ah, two of my favourite men in one place - aren't I the lucky girl today?
So, what I want to know now, or at any rate, before New Year's Day 2100 (I might not be quite so well preserved by then :-)), is: Does Melvin know what he knows, believe what he believes, believe that he knows, or knows that he knows not and yet believes?
You see, I'm the kind of awkward soul who needs something solid on which to base my beliefs. If the Pope's word isn't good enough to convince me of a whole lot of stuff, I'm afraid Melvin's isn't either. I'll never believe Maybrick wrote the diary just because someone else believes he did; I'll never believe Anne had the diary in her home for years just because she says so; and I won't believe Mike was involved in forging the diary just because he says so and Melvin believes him - unless the detailed account referred to by Joseph materialises at some point before I'm too senile to understand it - any time in the next few months then please Melvin, if you wouldn't mind.
Have a good weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Joseph
Friday, 08 December 2000 - 05:07 pm | | Hello Caz,
The difference between Commissioner Anderson, and Mr. Harris is this: Dr. Anderson, as Mr. Radka has pointed out, knew what he knew; Mr. Harris, on the other hand, knows what he doesn't know.
At some point in time, if Mr. Harris has the goods, he will make this evidence known; after all, that is his line of work. Perhaps when his legal commitment and/or his personal pledge of silence expires, he will give us the opportunity to read all about it.
He may even agree to meet with Ms. Harrison, and explain the nature of his reticence to her, at which point she could assure the Casebook readers that Mr. Harris does indeed have a legitimate reason to keep silent. In this scenario, he also provides her with a brief synopsis of his proof, in return, Ms. Harrison agrees not to speak publicly on the subject or publish a rebuttal until Mr. Harris has an opportunity to publicly defend his position. I believe this is an honorable compromise that allows Mr. Harris to regain any lost credibility, and, assuming that his evidence is as overwhelming as he purports, convert Ms. Harrison to his cause; truly a win/win proposition.
In any event, I think Mr. Radka will relegate the entire exercise to the back pages, with the publication of his Nietzsche inspired solution of the Whitechapel murders.
Have a good weekend Caz, Mr. Radka et al. I'm still trying to deal with eight stitches in my right palm, but nurse Peggy has promised to make it all better by Monday. :-o
Best regards
PS. But who do you like better, me or Mr. Radka? |
Author: Joseph
Friday, 08 December 2000 - 05:12 pm | | Hello Caz,
The difference between Commissioner Anderson, and Mr. Harris is this: Dr. Anderson, as Mr. Radka has pointed out, knew what he knew; Mr. Harris, on the other hand, knows what he doesn't know.
At some point in time, if Mr. Harris has the goods, he will make this evidence known; after all, that is his line of work. Perhaps when his legal commitment and/or his personal pledge of silence expires, he will give us the opportunity to read all about it.
He may even agree to meet with Ms. Harrison, and explain the nature of his reticence to her, at which point she could assure the Casebook readers that Mr. Harris does indeed have a legitimate reason to keep silent. In this scenario, he also provides her with a brief synopsis of his proof, in return, Ms. Harrison agrees not to speak publicly on the subject or publish a rebuttal until Mr. Harris has an opportunity to publicly defend his position. I believe this is an honorable compromise that allows Mr. Harris to regain any lost credibility, and, assuming that his evidence is as overwhelming as he purports, convert Ms. Harrison to his cause; truly a win/win proposition.
In any event, I think Mr. Radka will relegate the entire exercise to the back pages, with the publication of his Nietzsche inspired solution of the Whitechapel murders.
Have a good weekend Caz, Mr. Radka et al. I'm still trying to deal with eight stitches in my right palm, but nurse Peggy has promised to make it all better by Monday. :-o
Best regards
PS. But who do you like better, me or Mr. Radka? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 10 December 2000 - 11:30 am | | Thanks Joseph, for your thoughful post, outlining for Melvin your win/win proposition - a good way forward, if he can only see the sense of it.
No doubt Shirley would be disappointed to have the diary proved a modern hoax once and for all, but I have no doubt that she sees the sense in not continuing to believe the diary genuine if it simply isn't and the proof is available.
Since you have been deploring double standards, I thought it most unkind of you to ask me to choose between you and David, knowing I daren't be caught ducking awkward questions! ;-)
Ummm, both you and David are equally committed to the right of everyone to express their own opinions on these boards (which is why you are two of my favourites to begin with). But I hereby reserve the right to keep one or two of 'em to myself when tact and diplomacy are at stake. (Phew! Think I got out of that one okay.)
Love,
Caz
PS Hope nurse Peggy doesn't keep you in stitches longer than absolutely necessary. |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 11 December 2000 - 07:31 am | | It's only just been drawn to my attention that this board is a new opening, and not a discussion of ancient history.
I am happy to confirm that both Melvin's quotations from me are accurate and I stand by them. If anybody cares to infer that creators of other and more careful filing systems never misremember a fact or forget a conversation, they are welcome to do so. So is anyone who infers that some of us can laugh at ourselves and others take themselves inordinately seriously. Perhaps I should add that having moved from a convenient chair to a filing cabinet, I find it is much easier to lose things permanently, by accidentally filing them in the wrong folder.
Melvin's opinions about duff data in the FBI profile are rather extraordinary, given that he was one of the sources of their information. I actually encountered him in person going in to be interviewed by Cosgrove-Muerer as they scrupulously collected data from every expert they knew of except Richard Whittington-Egan who was not well enough to travel, and then sent the information on to Douglas and Hazelwood. There is no connection whatsoever between cars or any other twentieth century technology and the concept of 'organized serial killers', and nothing whatsoever in the FBI profile to suggest that they used any duff data.
Martin Fido |
|
|
|
|
