|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 December 01, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Maybrick/Jack's watch?:
Archive through December 01, 2000
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 22 November 2000 - 09:57 am |        | Hi All,
Welcome Graham! Welcome Jennifer!
Great to see some new faces, friendly discussion and fresh opinions.
I must admit I was quite surprised to see that there is still ‘apparently intense interest’ being shown, and ‘energy’ being expended on this topic, despite Melvin’s claim that there is evidence (not theory – hard evidence) that both Anne and Mike were placers/handlers of a document forged by others.
RJ,
Thanks for the reference for Bongo's name being in the RWE book.
You wrote:
'Mike had just implicated her [Anne] in the Liverpool Post...'
I didn't think Mike actually implicated Anne in his initial confession to the press in June 1994. I thought it was later, after her revelations appeared in Shirley's 1994 paperback. Didn't Anne's story upset Mike so much that he started including her in his tales of 'how we did it together', none of which ever rang true, even to Melvin? Whether Mike was upset because Anne had kept him in the dark for so long, or because he thought - or knew - that she was lying, and trying to steal his thunder, is something which can perhaps only be guessed at by anyone who experienced his reaction first hand. But then, if Mike was involved, and without Anne’s approval or co-operation, I’m amazed he couldn’t prove it somehow, and I’m equally amazed that Anne would react to any pressure, however distressing, in the way she did, when she did, either to protect a questionable financial interest, or a husband she was determined to divorce.
I do know what you mean, RJ, about your conclusions if Mike knew nothing. And I do appreciate that you haven't taken up your position on that post-1987 ledge as lightly as many others - people who, like you and I, have never met the suspects, Mike, Anne, Albert etc, to judge if they are capable of spinning such a web of lies and deceit, or whether any of their domestic circumstances, at the time you suspect the forgery was being conceived, lent themselves to such a strange occupation, or obsession, if you like.
The problem with this burden of proof thing, as both Jennifer and Leather Apron have touched on, is that the modern hoax theory comes with one too. You have recognised and acknowledged this – you are clearly not 100% comfortable with the fact that this theory comes with a clear accusation of certain people who are alive and know only too well whether or not they are guilty as charged. This has been a problem for me from the beginning. Far from being an ‘Anne supporter’, my initial instincts (call it feminine intuition, sheer nonsensical gullibility, call it what you will) simply screamed at me, and continue to this day, that Mike knew zilch about the diary’s origins, and is still guessing to this day, much like the rest of us apparently. If I’m right, and we also accept that the Sphere book was used, let’s not beat about the bush – Anne has to be guilty of so much more than letting her imagination run riot on an idea ‘kicked around for years’.
Let’s look at everything we have to accept unreservedly about Anne, without even having met the woman, if the diary is a modern hoax and Mike knew nothing. Sometime after April 1989, at a time when she was coping with a busy, fraught domestic regime – a young daughter at school, a heavy-drinking/alcoholic husband, not enough money coming in - she decides, with A N Other, (someone had to pen the thing), to go ahead with the diary idea. Naturally enough, she doesn’t dare breathe a word to Mike, not so much an act of betrayal at this stage, probably more in case he can’t keep his mouth shut when he’s had a few down the pub. She and her co-author gather the materials together, including the books – Underwood, Fido, Ryan, RWE perhaps, the Sphere Vol 2. And all her involvement takes place in her ‘spare time’ (ha ha), or perhaps - if she is working away from home and has a cushy number - at work. Then, when the ink is dry, she plays the real nasty card – also her daftest one, whichever way you look at it - she drops the diary on Mike from a great height, selecting him to complete the dirty work, and apparently in his own time, evidently oblivious that her forgery, if and when discovered, has the power to destroy him even more totally than the alcohol, and his failure as a writer, might already be doing. Then, at the last minute, she has a touch of – what? Remorse? Cold feet? - when she fights to stop Mike going public with it. Anyway, fate takes over and, two years down the line, in June 1994, Mike makes a false confession. Anne knows he can’t possibly make it stick. Yet she doesn’t leave him wallowing in this particular mire, as she could have done, making good her own escape. From Mike’s point of view, her July 1994 statement comes as a final kick in the you-know-whats, taking away the very last vestiges of his self-worth. But from Anne’s point of view, she has just chosen to bring down the whole house of cards around herself, with a story she cannot possibly hope will be universally accepted, even if Feldy swallows it whole. Why? Just to put the final boot into a man she now knows she destroyed back in 1991? Add to all this Paul Begg’s post, outlining ‘what Anne did next’ – her continued involvement in the diary research etc – and Anne’s statement becomes a total farce, the exact opposite of an attempt to wipe the slate clean and make amends. All those people she is openly and cynically apologising to for her past actions and silence are about to be swept up in a renewed tide of deceitful activity - so no chance that her statement is made in a spirit of remorse, or damage limitation, for a lie that had gone too far to ever take back, but far enough not to take forward. Unbelievable – to me at least - unless or until someone who knows this woman comes forward to say this would not be inconsistent with her nature. Or until Melvin produces his conclusive evidence for Anne and Mike being handlers/placers.
Graham,
I do understand your wish to see the diary dropped into a deep hole. But, like it or not, it does exist, it doesn’t look like Melvin is going to be able to ‘magick’ it away yet, and so we have to make the best of it. Whether we choose to ignore it as an irrelevance to all things ripper, or allow our curiosity full rein, is down to individual preference. But I can’t get to grips with the animosity the latter used to cause, as if the curious are somehow to blame for prolonging the diary’s mischief. If nothing else, the whole saga has given us, and is still giving us, some pretty incredible views of human nature and personality, from the individuals directly involved, to those commenting on these boards, making friends and, hopefully, not too many enemies along the way. It has certainly opened my eyes! If you can look at it like it’s a huge slice of life with a capital L, instead of a subject made in ‘Ell, it can actually be quite palatable. I’m glad you’re helping yourself to a slice and I hope you will keep coming back for more. J
Love,
Caz |
Author: Graham Sheehan
Wednesday, 22 November 2000 - 10:39 am | | Hi, Caz
Well, upon discovering the casebook and delving into its many areas of interest, I had the notion uppermost in my mind that I would ignore all references to the accursed diary. No way would I ever take the slightest interest in what was unfolding with regards who may or may not have forged/handled/stood to profit by it. Unfortunately, being the naturally curious soul that I am, I couldn't resist having a look at some of the earlier discussions on this matter. With the result that I now find myself wanting to know the whys and wherefores too! A friend of mine who has taken a keen interest in the whole diary saga assured me that it's all but impossible not to get caught up in the intrigue, and despite my initial resolution not to take any interest, I'm hooked. I admit it, the whole business is compelling, but I'm really sure why.
I'm still a little confused by the fact that Mr Harris apparently refuses to divulge any information he may have on the subject, and also as to why Mike, Anne, Albert and others have made so many contradictory statements. What the hell is going on? Is there some kind of fiendish conspiracy afoot? Do you think the masons may be behind it? OMG, just one more thing to drive me up the walls!
Best regs,
Graham |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 22 November 2000 - 12:08 pm | | Hi Graham,
Well, Michael Maybrick was pretty high up in the masons, I believe, just to put the cat among the pigeons. :-) But just call me doubting Thomas, but I don't believe in a fiendish masonic conspiracy which involves Mike, Anne, Albert, Melvin and Feldy getting together to drive otherwise sane people doolally and up the walls. :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 22 November 2000 - 03:40 pm | | Graham--Hello. There's no conspiracy theory that I'm aware of on the anti-diary end. As for his silence, Melvin Harris once wrote: 'There are good legal and logical reasons why I choose to remain silent; I have, in fact, taken legal advice on this score. But I am quite willing to present my papers to any neutral solicitor and he, or she, will confirm that there are sound logical reasons for my silence." (Shirley Harrison Diary of Jack the Ripper p. 319)
I don't know Melvin Harris, but I doubt if he has any real desire to name the forger(s), as it might lead to a headache of legal suits and countersuits. But I don't know. His focus has been mainly on an examination of the ink, the handwriting, and the text, which, in his opinion, prove the diary to be recently composed. Unless I'm mistaken, the original statement that 'the identities of three people involved in the forgery will soon be made known', referred to an investigation by a reporter from a London daily. Six years have past, and that investigation has yet to make it into print. So the diary debate continues.
Caz--thanks. I believe you are right about Mike's initial confession taking all the 'credit'.
By the way, my feeling is that Alec Voller's Oct 1995 statement is the strongest argument that the diary might be old. He evidently knows what he's talking about, so it gives me reason to pause and reflect. If he's right, than I and many others have been utterly wrong.
If Shirley ever returns to the boards, I'd like to ask a question. Mike Barrett's notes refer to works by Paul Harris, Colin Wilson, & Robin Odell. Were there any others? No refences to Maybrick books?
Thanks,
RP |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 23 November 2000 - 04:13 am | | Hi R.P.
'There are good legal and logical reasons why I choose to remain silent; I have, in fact, taken legal advice on this score. But I am quite willing to present my papers to any neutral solicitor and he, or she, will confirm that there are sound logical reasons for my silence." (Shirley Harrison Diary of Jack the Ripper p. 319)
In the days when dinosaurs roamed the Earth and I was allowed to eat steamed suet pudding with golden syrup, well March 1997 actually, Melvin contributed to the Casebook an article called ‘Where Was The Caution’. There he wrote the words you have quoted from Shirley’s book, but he prefaced them with the observation that ‘Mrs Harrison's 'challenge' to me to name the forgers of the Diary is sheer hogwash and an excuse for yet more evasions.’ He also later described the ‘challenge’ as ‘a petty diversion’.
I don’t know what anyone else thought about these comments and the status of the forgers in Melvin’s scheme of things, but I was frankly astonished and on the same day observed in a little note called ‘The Caution Was Given’ that if he could name the forgers then ‘he could put an end to the controversy right now, once and for all, and without having to bother with all this endless diatribe about handwriting, texts, inks and so forth.’ And I added that I didn’t appreciate how ‘asking Mr. Harris to end the debate so effectively can be dismissed as "hogwash" and a "petty diversion.’
Anyway, the point is that on the matter of legal reasons I wrote ‘I stand to be corrected, but I understand that the only legal reason Mr. Harris has given to Ms. Harrison is that the "Diary" is still under investigation by Scotland Yard. To the very best of my knowledge, it isn't. If this is the case, is Mr. Harris's tongue now freed?’ I don't recall Melvin ever answering, so the exact nature of the legal constraints can only be guessed at.
That Melvin may wish to avoid the ‘headache of legal suits and countersuits’ is perfectly reasonable and wholly understandable, but who would be bringing the legal action. In the above mentioned post Melvin wrote, ‘As for the forgers, let me emphasise that they are in a cosy position. Even if they came forward and confessed, nothing would happen, unless someone complained. And that complainant would have to show loss or damage caused by this forgery. So who is willing to complain? Certainly not Smith, Harrison or Feldman; they've each done well out of marketing the Diary. So the rogues are in the clear!’
Okay, so Melvin here perceives ‘the rogues’ being free if they confessed, which is quite a different thing from bringing a legal action against him for defamation, libel or whatever a response to a false accusation would be, but if Melvin’s evidence is solid (as his dogmatic statement makes it appear to be), he need has no fears if such an action was brought. Furthermore, Melvin has said that the journalists withheld their story while awaiting developments with the projected Friedken movie, presumably because this would give their revelations a bigger impact. So they could have told what they knew but chose not to. Are we entitled to deduce from this that the lagal constraint has nothing to do with the information itself? If so, it would appear that the legal constraint concerns the confidentiality of the information and has been imposed by the journalists.
Given that Melvin‘s whole reason for being is to clear from the waters of history the pollution of hoaxes, fabrications and lies, it cannot have been easy for him to watch the outpouring of pollution in the shape of Feldy’s book, Shirley’s revision, and articles such as Prof. Rubinstein’s, and to know that that it lay within the power of a few journalists to reveal the truth. His files presumably bulge with letters to the journalists, their editors and anyone else within reach demanding with all the determined vigour that he’s been seen to direct at Shirley and Feldy that their information be made public. I have no doubt whatever that we can be absolutely certain of this, so I can only assume that the journalist have exceptional reasons for staying silent.
Unless Melvin really does think identifying the forgers is meaningless and worthless – ‘hogwash’, as he put it - and hasn’t petitioned the journalists at all. I have had my troubles with Melvin, but I can't believe this to be true. It is nevertheless frustrating to think that the journalists haven't been asked to tell what they know. It all just adds to this horrendous confusion.
Caz & R.P.: My understanding is that Mike's confession to Harold Brough in June 1994 was because Mike thought the 'diary' was the cause of all his problems and that if he could get rid of it then he'd have a chance to put things right with Anne. He therefore confessed to having forged it. Since it was hugely important to Mike at that time that he be believed, it is reasonable to suppose that he would have produced any and every scrap of information available to him. He didn't produce anything. Folk can draw whatever conclusion they like from this. But that original confession wasn't for the purpose of kudos.
From the lands of fog and mist (literally as well as figuratively this greay morning)
Paul |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 23 November 2000 - 05:21 am | | Thanks Paul. Yes, I do think that Mike's 'confession' was motivated by sheer misery and desperation, whether or not he donned a mask of bravado to deliver it.
Hi RJ,
I don't know quite how to put this without sounding awfully sceptical. But it does seem to me that we are always reliant on Melvin's word for what other people - be they journalists, private investigators, scientists, or solicitors - either know, have said, or 'will confirm', if asked. For example, it would have been so much more convincing, for all those who don't think such matters are 'petty diversions', had Melvin gone to the trouble of getting a confirmatory letter from a 'neutral solicitor' and published it.
I know many others are happy with Melvin's case for a modern forgery, based on the diary text and handwriting alone. Melvin certainly is. But these are not the people who need convincing. Another example is Alec Voller. I repeatedly asked Melvin about Voller's final conclusions regarding the diary ink, and his evasive responses suggested to me that he had nothing in writing from Voller to indicate any support for the ink being Diamine. Melvin's case is all too often strengthened by his own opinion of which experts can be trusted! He also never answered my question regarding what Sphere Books had to say about the 'natural' binding defect in Mike's Vol 2. I don't even know if he consulted them for an opinion.
RJ, if we ever find out that the diary is old, I would not see it in terms of anyone being 'utterly wrong', unless they have stated, in a professional capacity, that there is 'no doubt' that the diary is modern, bringing with it the inevitable accusations against innocent people alive today. We amateurs, being open to all the possibilities the various professionals hand to us, should be immune from the condition (well, I comfort myself with that thought! :-))
I'll see what I can do about getting an answer to your question about Mike's notes.
BTW, I found Wilson/Odell a far better read than Underwood. I tried to get hubby's interest aroused in JtR on holiday (!), so he plunged into Underwood. His comment was that it was like trying to knit fog!
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 23 November 2000 - 12:42 pm | | Caz--hello. Below is a rambling mess. Apologies.
But I'm curious about Mike's notes. Any help/comments would be appreciated.
How useful it would be to know when Mike bought his copy of Murder, Mayhem & Mystery. Tony gives Mike the diary in May 1991. Sometime after this, Anne transcribes the diary onto the word processor. Mike spends hours in the Liverpool library. He buries himself in Ripper books. He also 'made copious notes in the Liverpool Library, which Anne latterly transcribed onto the Amstrad.' (Harrison, p 9). But according to these notes, Mike still didn't know Maybrick's identity. In late summer, Tony goes into hospital, dying in August. But before, this--sometime--Mike found the copy of REW's book, and it ended up with Tony. It seems like a clumsy fit to me. Does all this gel? Depending when in May Mike was handed the diary, and when in August Tony died, the events had to have all taken place within 2-3 months. If Mike had the copy of REW's book prior to the Amstadt notes, then obviously Mike's story implodes, and we know that he was involved in the creation of the diary.
By the way, this is the 'Maybrick's watch' board, isn't it? Two quick points. Maybrick's father was an engraver. Now wouldn't he be embarrassed by such faint jittery scratches as those left by his son?
Second point. I always thought Robbie Johnson's remark about the diary being a fake was the strangest statement in this whole odd mess. I can see the possibility of the diary being genuine and the watch being fake, but I can't see the reverse being true. Certainly the watch is dependent on the diary. A skeptic would suggest that that statement was a little transparent.
Finally one last item, and then I'll leave everyone alone for a few days. Prof. Canter makes some interesting deductions about the type of person who would forge such a diary. At one point he even suggests that it might have taken a particularly knowledgeable and sensitive Ripperologist.(Ouch?) But his point that I find interesting is that Maybrick was not an obvious choice for a suspect. Most the latter-day suspects are either known for other crimes (Chapman, Bury, Cream, Kelly etc.,) or are eccentric historical or literary figures (Prince Eddy, Carroll, Thompson, etc) or people with some small connection to case (Hutchinson, Barnett, etc.). But Maybrick is none of these. His claim to fame was as a victim. It's a clever choice. I'm still mulling over the possibility that the hoaxer had a pre-existing knowledge of Maybrick. I think it is possible that the author's knowledge of the Maybrick affair might be more sophisticated than what most of us anti-diarists have claimed. I'm undecided though.
Canter is also right: the diarist usurps London's claim to the Ripper. So Maybe it was forged by the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce? :-) Some of us probably wonder about Anne showing such little initial interest in the diary, but then going on to write a book about Florie. But we're a tough crowd, aren't we?
Cheers,
RJP |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 24 November 2000 - 09:14 am | | Hi RJ,
I tried hard, but couldn't find your 'rambling mess' - sorry. :-)
Now you've made me equally curious about Mike's notes!
I had somehow got it into my head that Mike would have done the bulk of his research after Tony D's death in August 1991. Until then, Mike was presumably hoping that Tony could tell him all about it.
But you are right of course. If any of Mike's original research notes suggest they were written prior to making the Maybrick connection, these must pre-date the first sighting of his RWE in Tony's house, if we are to believe his version of how he made the connection in the first place. I don't think there is necessarily a problem if Anne simply typed up the notes for Mike, as written, but later, ie after he'd made the connection. But I wonder if Mike's hand-written notes were ever dated. If not, does it all boil down to a case of whether Mike was able, or could even be bothered, to give a particularly accurate account, when quizzed after going public months later, of the true order of events? Would he, for example, have:
a)realised the significance to his interrogators of certain dates, either to confirm, or keep his story straight? Such as when Tony gave him the diary; when he made his first attempts at research, and his first written notes; when he found and read the RWE, and when he took it round to Tony's?
b)remembered, or bothered to keep a note of such dates?
c)neither of the above, possibly owing to his tendency to drink too much and tell untruths, depending on where he perceives his immediate interests lie, and who he happens to be talking to at the time?
They say a liar needs a damn good memory. But how do we begin to distinguish lies from faulty memory in this case? His notes were either a total fabrication, or they were made by a total innocent. If the former is true, I would have hoped that such an elementary slip-up over the alleged timing, as you suggest, would not have escaped the diary team's notice!
I will try to find out more though, and let you know.
I am as lost as you are over Robbie's remark about the diary being a fake. And I also have to wonder at Anne's apparent change of heart, from wanting nothing to do with the diary, to writing her book on Florie. It does seem particularly ironic and sad, when you think that it was originally Mike who had the burning ambition to write.
Have a good weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 24 November 2000 - 04:53 pm | | As an aside :
1989 was the centenary of the death of James Maybrick. I wonder if some local newspaper or magazine in Liverpool carried an article about Maybrick or Florrie at this time , and whether this might have been an inspiration for the forgers to implicate Maybrick as Jack the Ripper. |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 24 November 2000 - 04:55 pm | | | Or maybe even one of the True Detective style of magazines , availible from British newsagents. |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 24 November 2000 - 05:13 pm | | Hi, Simon:
Astute observation that 1889 would have marked the centenary of the death of James Maybrick and of the opening of the trial against Florence Maybrick. I have no direct knowledge that the Liverpool newspapers (Liverpool Daily Post [morning] and Liverpool Echo [evening]) covered the centenary. On the other hand, as a former newspaper reporter (for a short time), I know that newspapers are always on the look-out for stories to fill their columns, and a look back at events in history is one way of doing it -- much as cable TV people these days will look back at the anniversary of Diana's death or John Lennon's death, and so on. Simon, this sounds like a possibly promising area of enquiry.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 26 November 2000 - 02:19 pm | | Hi Simon, Chris, All,
That’s a very interesting observation about 1989 being the centenary of Maybrick’s death. The point has been made before that 1988 was also the centenary of the ripper crimes, and it was around this time that a number of new ripper books emerged - a great opportunity for would-be hoaxers to cash in on the renewed interest in the subject.
So, let’s put this in context for 1989 Liverpool and the people who had to be involved.
May 11th 1989 – the centenary of James Maybrick’s death. The whole of Liverpool, if not the rest of the UK, was still reeling painfully from the appalling Hillsborough Football Stadium disaster of Saturday, April 15th. The Sun newspaper, with its supremely insensitive headlines about soccer hooligans, managed to lose a host of its readers, some of them possibly for good. And while I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there were some articles about the Maybrick story doing the rounds that spring and summer, we have to look at the Barrett household and imagine what was happening there. Even Mike was caught up in the tragedy, doing his bit, organising the sale of books etc for the disaster appeal. So, what was Anne doing the while? Letting her imagination run riot with a forgery scheme, which would come to fruition some three years later, because an article on the Maybrick trial had triggered her childhood memories of hearing about the fly-paper case perhaps? It’s possible, of course, but for those who want to believe, or do believe, the diary is a modern fake, doesn’t it have to be much more than possible?
So, come on Simon and Chris – give me some more ideas of how such speculations might work in practice, in the great scheme of things, with the people who, like it or not, are in the frame.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 26 November 2000 - 04:20 pm | | Caz , thank u for your statement about Hillsborough but , by the time of the centenary of Maybrick's death this had occurred almost a month in the past. I do not wish to lessen the sense of tragedy about the occasion but surely the Barratts would not be so preoccupied with the tragedy that they might have thought of nothing else ; they had after all suffered no personal loss themselves. The atmosphere in Liverpool would have been gloomy , but might this not even lead to escapism or planning other projects on the behalf of Anne ? The romantic story of a young woman falsely convicted and imprisoned might have been one which resonated with her.
This is merely a speculation I admit , but might explain why the Ripper became a citizen of Liverpool instead of London , and why James Maybrick was chosen as the killer. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 27 November 2000 - 12:47 am | | | More fog knitting. In the diary, Maybrick says "[I]left my mark" on Eddowes. Barrett claims that this refers to the two inverted 'V's on Eddowes' cheeks, which, if put together, form the letter 'M'. But if one looks at the mortuary photographs of Eddowes, the nature of these marks are not very evident, and the written descriptions of the mutilations are probably too vague to suggest anything to the composer of the diary (assuming that it is not Maybrick). So if Barrett is correct, and this 'mark' is a reference to the two 'V's, then this must refer to the police surgeon sketch of Eddowes, where the two 'V's are prominent. But wasn't this sketch unknown until 1966, when it was found in a pipe or a tube of some sort in London Hospital? When did the sketch first appear in a Ripper book? I'm thinking possibly in the A-Z in late 1991, which might throw Devereux out of the loop on this one; though I'm not sure, not having all the books. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 27 November 2000 - 01:07 am | | | Ah, heck. That's rather a specious argument! Forget it. I am starting to have doubts that such tedious examinations as my above post will ever lead anywhere. Maybe we should start discussing something along the lines of 'The Maybrick Diary: How do We Resolve the Debate?' Any takers? |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 27 November 2000 - 04:37 am | | I don't think it's specious at all. If there is no description on inverted V's in a book prior to 1991 then it's a good point.
As for resolving the debate, I think we're a long ways away from that - unfortunately. I do feel that a route through to a solution (or at least to asking the right questions) is to be found in seriously examining Mike and Anne's story, maybe isolating some key questions we could put to them, and hopefully determining their involvement in the forgery. In particular, I think the focus should be shifted to Anne, whose motive for telling the 'in the family for years' story seems crucial to me. Why did she tell it? Is it true (horror upon horrors!)? if not, what motives did she have? |
Author: Rachel Henderson
Monday, 27 November 2000 - 08:01 am | | Just thinking about the centenary. In or around 1989 (possibly a year later, I can't remember) St George's Hall, Liverpool, opened its doors to the public to display a very fine mosaic floor, unseen for many years previously. I went with my father (a native of Wallasey) and we came across he part of the hall used as a courtroom. The room was mocked-up with waxworks representing the trial of Florence Maybrick, with a description of what had happened and the outcome. My father immediately turned to me and said that he had heard this story many times when growing up (he was born in 1936) and it had remained of interest because it was such a huge scandal, even then, in Liverpool.
This of course means nothing, but I thought it may be of interest to point out that the courtroom was representing this famous trial at the time. |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 27 November 2000 - 08:04 am | | A-r-r-r-h-e-m-m-m-m! The two Vs were pointed out in 'The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper,' 1st edn, Weidenfeld, 1987, p.75.
I think it is true to say that this was the first time anyone had drawn attentionm to them since the original medical report.
I also think it is now important to bear in mind the finding of experienced criminal identification analysts - (or psychological profilers to the masses) - that precise attacks on the face are usually evidence that an assailant knows the victim. Obviously it doesn't fit in with any of my previous thinking. But it remains a point that I shall bear in mind in future,
Yours, with pompous self-important claims to priority,
Martin "The Would-be Scholar" Fido |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 27 November 2000 - 08:19 am | | | Hello again. As Caz pointed out last week, Mike took all the blame in that first dubious confession to Harold Brough in June 1994. But there can be little doubt, I think, that Anne would feel at least partially implicated by this story; she was, afterall, Mike's wife at the time. (In a post by Melvin Harris last summer there was an excerpt from a letter from Anne to Mike, expressing anger over the Liverpool article. It also claiming that Anne filed for divorce the very day the story appeared). Since Anne's new story followed soon after, I think one has to at least look at the possibility that it was motivated by a need to defend herself. Maybe genealogy can prove/disprove this? |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 27 November 2000 - 08:32 am | | Mr. Fido. Hello. I have that book! And a darn good one. I see now (p 75) a very damning sentence. "The neat Vs pointing up to the eyes, and the delicate nicks through the eyelids point to a murderer who was precisely and quasi-artistically putting his personal mark...." Eek. This looks bad. And the punch cartoon is mentioned six pages later. So much for the need of London Hospital sketch.
Thanks,
RP |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 27 November 2000 - 09:20 am | | I think Martin's book is one of those named as being among the vital titles needed to concoct the 'diary'. It wasn't among those named in Mike's research notes, however.
Since Anne's new story followed soon after, I think one has to at least look at the possibility that it was motivated by a need to defend herself.
But defend herself against what? And how was her story in her defence? She was out of it and scott free. All she had to do was deny everything and keep her head down until it all went away. She didn't. She focused all the attention on herself. Which brings us back to the old question: why? |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 27 November 2000 - 12:05 pm | | Let me say at once i was only swanking about my observation. I plead neutral to all discussion as to whether my work was used or not in creating the diary.
Martin Fido |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 28 November 2000 - 03:27 am | | One reason why Anne focused all the attention on herself had something to do with her sister-in-law Lynne Barrett. Feldman contacted Lynne in early July 1994, looking for information, and the conversation ended with Lynne hanging up on him in tears. When Anne contacts Feldman on July 20, 1994, the prelude to her 'revelation', she tells him: "If I agree to meet with you will you back off from the Barretts?" Feldman writes: "Anne's upbringing made her guilty about that. Someone had telephoned her clearly upset. I concluded that it must have been Lynne Barrett because of recent events, and later discovered that I had been right." (Final Chapter p 163).
So we have: Mike's in a downward spiral; Anne filing for divorce; Mike confessing to the Liverpool Post; this being an 'absolute nightmare' to Anne; the irrate sister-in-law calling up Anne wanting it all to stop. It is at this point that Anne contacts Feldman. He comes with flowers, a disney video, and a strange theory about genealogy, showing her the passage in Morland's book where Florrie calls herself Mrs. Graham.
What happens next is a little cloudy, but on the next meeting the 'new provenance' emerges. I guess we're stuck with two parallel lines of thinking at this point. One that Anne is telling the truth, and the involvement of Lynne & friends made her cop-up out of guilt. The other is that Anne felt guilty for a more obscure reason, and used the opportunity of Feldman's theory to focus the attention on herself... |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 28 November 2000 - 06:26 am | | Hi All,
RJ,
When Mike 'confessed' in June 1994, it is of course possible that Anne's first worry was being thought guilty by association. If she was the kind of woman to get involved in forging the diary, leaving her unsuspecting husband to place it, her first, and possibly her only concern, would be self-preservation. I wonder what she thought when the first cries of 'hoax' went up. Any guilt she might profess to have felt about the Barretts and her own friends and associates (particularly, as I mentioned recently, in light of her actions after her July 1994 statement) has to be non-existent, surely?
Don't we have to accept either that Anne felt enormously guilty because her story was true, or that guilt just isn't part of this woman's vocabulary?
Regarding Mike's research notes:
I have spoken with Keith Skinner this morning, and he has given me some snippets to pass on. He says that Shirley took possession of Mike's notes, together with the transcript of same, in Liverpool, sometime between June 28 and July 1 1992. There are 17 pages in all, beginning 'Transferring all my notes since August 1991.' The Maybrick connection most definitely has been made, although no Maybrick source books are mentioned, only references to probate records, The Liverpool Echo and one to 'Tales of Liverpool'.
The only Ripper books referred to are Wilson/Odell and Paul Harrison.
Keith believes he recalls Melvin saying that research notes are the oldest trick in the game. But, as I've said before, why would Mike have made such notes if his job was simply to place a document forged by others? And equally, how does the account of the little red 1891 diary fit in with Mike's role as placer?
Oh, and BTW, the sketch of Eddowes's facial cuts can also be found in Daniel Farson's JtR.
Simon, Rachel, Chris,
Keith knows about the 1989 re-creation of Florie's trial in St. George's Hall, and the possibility of some connection had occurred to him too. He thinks that he actually asked Anne about it, and that she showed no knowledge.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 28 November 2000 - 10:22 am | | Hi, Caz:
Just to clarify: "Tales of Liverpool" is the series of pamphlets by Richard Whittington-Egan in which appears the one pamphelt, "Murder, Mystery, and Mayhem" owned by Mike Barrett and which he lent to Tony Devereaux, and which covers the Maybrick Case in two chapters and makes some mention of Jack the Ripper in the opening chapter about Spring-heeled Jack's connection to Liverpool.
I am glad that Keith questioned Anne about the 1989 re-creation of Florie's trial in display in St. George's Hall. We do now know that there was a very public display of the Maybrick case that a forger could have seen. As an expatriate Liverpudlian this is a revelation to me and seems significant even if Anne told Keith that she did not know of the exhibit.
In regard to Paul Feldman and Anne Graham's "confession" that the Diary had been in her family's possession all along, it is my belief that Anne and her father Billy Graham were led into this line of thinking by Feldman's badgering and his (and their) faulty connection that Florence Maybrick's use of the name "Graham" mentioned by Feldy could mean there was a family connection with Florence. As we are aware, Feldy's first aim was to make a connection with James Maybrick, but the Graham name hung like a carrot and everyone took the carrot at the same time, Billy and Anne probably thinking that confessing to the family connection got them out of an awkward situation caused by Feldman's interrogations and Feldy finding a link with the Maybricks even if it was not the one he expected. More food for thought?
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 28 November 2000 - 02:43 pm | | Hi Chris,
Thanks for the clarification re the 'Tales of Liverpool' pamphlets, and Mike's RWE being one of them. Apologies to all for not making Keith's message clear, that no Maybrick source books (such as Ryan for example) are mentioned in Mike's notes apart from the reference to 'Tales of Liverpool'.
Chris, forgive me, but it almost sounds like you are trying to find excuses for Anne's 'confession'. Anne, and a short while later her father, being 'led' into a 'line of thinking' by Feldy's badgering sounds like one thing. But Anne telling a deliberate lie that the diary had been in her family all along, for whatever reason, then dragging her elderly and terminally ill father into the web with her, and keeping up the pretence for years afterwards, when she could have faded out of the lives of all those she initially deceived, sounds like quite another to me.
And I don't recall anything about Anne 'confessing' to a family connection to the Maybricks, unless you mean the Formby/Yapp link. And, of course, if this wasn't a complete spur-of-the-moment fabrication, but a genuine family tradition (as Keith's own research suggests is at least possible), we have to look again at why this gem was not seized upon back in 1992 for a much better provenance than Devereux, whether he was 'just a man down the pub with a diary' or very much involved in the plot. And we also have to look again at Melvin's role for Anne as simply a handler/placer of the forgery, if the Formby/Yapp link played a role in inspiring it in the first place.
And then of course, we mustn't forget Albert and his timely timepiece. J
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 28 November 2000 - 10:00 pm | | Hi, Caz:
As for why Anne Graham's "it was in my family all along" story only arose in 1994 and not in 1992 when it would provide a better provenance than Tony Devereux, who was "just a man down the pub with a diary," I would suggest to you that the "it was in my family all along" story had not been conceived in 1992. I wonder if Tony Devereaux's premature death made the scheme go awry somehow? Anne and Mike are left with a "Ripper Diary" and no real explanation of where it came from, and Anne dislikes the confession of forgery Mike has made. So to put a better gloss on things, when pressured by Feldman she conceives of the idea that the Diary has been in her family all along after her father agrees that there appears to be a link between Florence Maybrick aka "Graham" and himself, Billy Graham. Messy isn't it? Like knitting fog, but I would suggest that is how the sequence of events went with her sudden revelation that the Diary had been in her family for years. The story that it had been in her family since at least 1950 is not, in my view, true.
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 29 November 2000 - 09:04 am | | Hi Chris,
Hmmm, I'll have to think this one through.
One small point first, though, regarding the sequence of events according to Feldman, page 172. Anne told Feldy that the diary had been in her family all along before asking her father if he would meet him. The timing and content of Anne and Billy's conversations prior to that interview are, of course, anyone's guess.
Have you anything in mind for the scheme that went awry with Tony D's death? And is it possible that Tony gave Mike the diary without ever telling him, or Anne, anything about its true origins, or the identity of the author(s)? Then, as you suggest, Anne decided to 'put a better gloss on things' after Mike's false confession, with her own false tale that she had owned the diary all along and given it to Tony D herself. But would Anne risk telling such a tale unless she knew she was perfectly safe to do so? I certainly wouldn't feel at all happy claiming ownership of such a diary, if I thought for one moment an unknown quantity, with unknown motives, could be lurking somewhere, and possibly very much unamused by my claims. Melvin has argued against a financial motive, and the suggestion has been that the forger(s) would be a danger to no one. But what if the creator was expecting to make a lot of money, before Tony D died, breaking the chain? Or worse, was really sick in the head?
Therefore, IMHO, for Anne to tell her story in safety, she had to:
a) know the forger(s) well, have their agreement, and is perhaps passing on a share of the royalties to them,
b) know for certain that they are dead, too old or infirm to care, or otherwise pose no threat,
c) forge the diary herself,
d) or else... be telling the truth?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 29 November 2000 - 11:14 am | | Hi Chris
What I have a problem with is finding a reasonable and rational explanation for Anne telling her 'in the family for years' story. Why should she have given a tinker's about anything that Mike said? Even if he implicated her in the forgery, all she had to do was keep her head down and deny everything. And didn't Anne have really big things on her plate: her marriage had ended amid serious acrimony, she had a teenage daughter embarking on crucial exams and a much loved terminally-ill father to care for. She had to make a home, get her life into order and create some stability. She must have had a powerful reason for wanting to focus attention on herself at such a time.
As for Tony Devereux's death leaving them with a 'diary' but no provenance (it being assumed that Tony was to have provided this and his death left the Barrett's in the lurch), why did they use such a weak story as 'I got it from a bloke in the pub who's now dead' and gample on Tony Devereux's family not claiming the 'diary' back, saying that Tony had only leant it to Mike? Maybe they thought it was a gamble worth taking, but even they knew that Tony's family knew nothing about the forgery, why take the risk? Why not simply say they found it in their attic or something like that? |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 29 November 2000 - 04:50 pm | | Hello.
I was arguing that some of Anne's motive to come forward had something to do with pressure from her sister-in-law Lynne. I don't know how much truth there is to Mike's 2nd confession (January 1995), but in that statement Mike implicated his own sister--claiming that she got rid of the ink, nibs, & etc. Feldman tells us that it was the angry in-laws, Lynne in particular, that became tired of his hounding, and drove Anne into coming forward. If Lynne knew that Anne had inside knowledge of the forgery, she might have pleaded or insisted that Anne deal with Feldman. But then, all the in-laws have vehemently denied knowledge of the hoax. Either way, she wanted Anne to make Feldy to go away.
More importantly, what I think we might be missing here is a financial motive. This might be worth looking into. Shirley Harrison was candid enough in the Blake edition of her book to discuss some of the details of the publishing contract. Before the diary was published, Mike and Anne received something like L7,500 in advances against royalties. This money was to be returned if the Diary was proved to be a forgery. I don't know what the actual threat was in June/July 1994 when Mike confessed to hoaxing the Diary (it seems to me this would have put Robert Smith into a bit of a predicament) but the perceived threat might have been that Anne & Mike would have to return the L7,500 since Mike had confessed. So Anne's change in provenance --perhaps most importantly --takes the air out of Mike's claims, and leaves open the possibility that the Diary is still authentic. The book continues to sell and Anne receives, I believe, 25% of the royalties. Feldman showing up and pointing out the 'Mrs. Graham' story in Morland's book might have seemed like a godsend.
I also think it should be noted that Feldman & his fellow researches were just 'strangers from London' at this point. Anne even referred to Feldman as 'the enemy' (kind of strange considering he was trying to prove the Diary was authentic). Anne's story, after all, merely agreed with what Feldman was already formulating; it is possible that it just seemed expedient at the time. Once she began a working relationship and developed genuine friendship with Feldman & co., it surely would have been hard to backtrack. Isn't it always hardest to confess to the people one likes and admires?
I have to agree that Anne's statement can't be true, considering there is so much evidence that the Diary is of very recent origin. This is my view, at least. I'm still willing to listen to any arguments that the Diary is an old forgery, but I think it is fair to insist that there needs to be more than just someone's taking Anne's word for it. Especially considering how her story changed.
Caz--you mentioned the red 1891 diary. I've always wondered, why did Anne buy it? Money was tight. Any thoughts?
RJP |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 29 November 2000 - 04:58 pm | | | P.S. My statement of 'someone's taking Anne's word for it' was just a matter of bad grammar. Apologies. I didn't mean to suggest that anyone contributing here would think that this was ample enough proof. I do realize that there has been serious and sincere research into the authentic/old hoax theories. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 30 November 2000 - 06:11 am | | Hi All,
RJ,
It's a very reasonable thought that Anne may have needed to keep the Barrett family sweet, if they knew the diary was a recent forgery. I guess there could always be trouble ahead, if that's the case!
I take your point about the perceived threat of having to pay back money (that Mike may have spent the moment he got it). But how long does it take for Feldman the 'enemy' (I agree this is most odd, if Anne's sole aim in life was to push a forgery as genuine), to become Feldy the good friend? And why start cultivating a long-term friendship and working relationship with anyone she is lying to? Once Anne had made her July 1994 statement, if it was made in the spirit of an insurance policy, you'd have thought she would cut herself off from everyone who could perhaps catch her out in the future. As I've said, a liar needs a damn good memory, and a lot of guts too, to make a point of staying in touch with those they have deceived in such an awful way.
Regarding the red diary, it was Mike who ordered it, and Anne who reluctantly had to pay up. I'll paste below for you Shirley and Keith’s joint post from July 1999, which tells the story. (Yes, I’ve just managed to find it in the archives!)
Before I do so, though, I understood what you meant about taking Anne's word for it. If only she had something to back up her story, it would help - Aussie Steve's story, for instance, if it had any substance, except that Anne did not exactly leap on it as her saving grace.
Love,
Caz
Right, here's the Red Diary Story:
By Shirley Harrison and Keith Skinner on Thursday, July 29, 1999 – 03:20 am:
RED DIARY
"Regarding the investigation that we are assured is now going on concerning the cheque and the red diary, I would like it to be understood that I expect to see the results of that investigation, whether they prove that the cheque was for the red diary, or that the cheque had nothing to do with the diary. If the information is not posted on this site or if a truly excellent excuse for its non-appearence is not made, then I believe that we will all know who to blame."
Peter Birchwood June 15th 1999.
The story of the little red diary which Michael Barrett bought in 1992 was first related formally in his affidavit of January 5th 1995, in which he cites his occupation as "writer".
He said then: "..Roughly round about January, February 1990 Anne Barrett and I finally decided to go ahead and write the Diary of Jack the Ripper. In fact Anne purchased a red leather backed Diary for £25.00, she made the purchase through a firm in the 1986 Writters (sic) year Book, I cannot remember their name, she paid for the Diary by cheque in the amount of £25 which was drawn on her Lloyds Bank account, Water Street Branch,Liverpool. When this Diary arrived in the post I decided it was of no use, it was very small. My wife is now in possession of this Diary in fact she asked for it specifically recently when I saw her at her home address ...."
(The various other claims in this affidavit were investigated and proved inaccurate. The results appear in the recent 1998 edition of Shirley Harrison's "The Diary of Jack the Ripper."}
Keith Skinner started to investigate the red diary story in August 1995 and, with the full co-operation of Anne, traced the relevant cheque from Lloyds. She also happily gave him the diary itself, which is an 1891 "Indelible Diary and Memorandum Book" about two and a half by three and a half inches, covered with a silky maroon coloured fabric.
This appeared at the time, to be one of Mike's many red herrings, since the date on the cheque proved to be later than the period during which Mike was then claiming to have written the Maybrick diary.
By November 1995, Keith had taken research to a point where, should the red diary ever become an issue, his investigation could be reactivated. His account of this investigation is in Ripperologist Issue 23, June 1999.
At that stage, the documentation which Anne had provided, convinced Keith that she was telling the truth.
If Anne had a guilty secret is it likely that she would have gone to such lengths to help Keith accumulate evidence
which could have blown her story apart?
In April 1999, Mike himself re-focused our minds on the little red diary issue, at his Cloak and Dagger appearance. He claimed this time to have bought it in order to write the Maybrick diary, apparently between his telephone call to Doreen Montgomery on March 9th 1992 and his visit to her office on April 13th 1992..
(This statement has now been negated by two further contradictory claims.)
He said that in March 1992 he was broke and trying to think of ways to make money. So he decided that the diary of Jack the Ripper would make a good story. He had always thought James Maybrick was the Ripper (he has not explained why)..
He claimed that when he telephoned Doreen Montgomery he had NOT even written a word of the diary. It was no more than a twinkle in his eye. But he "sold" her the idea that he actually possessed the Diary of Jack the Ripper.
He then contacted an address in the Writers and Artists' Year Book, asking them to find him a Victorian Diary. This arrived, and as it was too small for his purpose he had to find another album or scrap book. He then dictated the diary to Anne from the WPC and she hand-wrote the material he read her into the scrap book which he purchased at an auction run by Outhwaite and Litherland..(in his affidavit he gives the date of the auction as the end of January 1990)
In view of this new claim we have now picked up the research which was "filed" by Keith in 1995. These are the facts.
1 On March 10th 1992 Doreen Montgomery wrote to "Mike Williams" (Mike, with his customary taste for drama used a pseudonym) confirming his telephone call the day before. She referred to the way in which "the import of this diary has affected your lives". Mike had told her of the strains and stresses the (allegedly, so far, non-existent) diary was having on his family. At the Cloak and Dagger meeting Mike repeatedly ignored Keith's invitation to elaborate on exactly how the Diary had impacted on their lives, despite the fact that his "distress" over the telephone had obviously made a deep impression on Doreen.
2 To give him the benefit of the doubt, we have to assume that March 9th 1992, is therefore when Michael began to research and create the diary on the WPC- although he has not stated as much himself. He has claimed that it took him about 12 days to complete.
3 Around that date (March 9th 1992) a well established secondhand book company had a call from a Mr Barrett who asked them to find him a Victorian Diary. We contacted the company who advertise in Yellow Pages (not in The Writers' and Artists' Yearbook). They cannot recall if he asked for an unused diary but they confirm that the request was extremely unusual and that it would have taken them two or three weeks to fulfill. They found an 1891 diary and it was sent to Mr Barrett on Thursday March 26th 1992, reaching him presumably for the weekend March 28th/29th 1992.
(We do not know if Mike specifically ordered an 1888/9 diary. Oddly, he has never commented on the useless, too late, date of the diary that arrived - only on its size)
The bill was for £25.
4 The cheque was not paid until May 18th 1992 and the bookseller has Mr Barrett marked as a "late payer". The cheque was signed by Anne Barrett but the rest was filled in by Michael.
Anne's explanation of this is, that when Michael asked her for the money, she was so "bloody mad" at such extravagence, when they were so broke, that she signed her name and threw the cheque across the floor for him to complete. This is probably why the cheque stub merely has written on it "book - £25".
5 Presumably, Monday, March 30th 1992, was the day on which Michael began a new hunt for a more appropriate book
6 We have not been able to establish the dates of Outhwaite and Litherland auctions over this time, since they are so fed up with "constant harrassment" (by other researchers, not by me), that they will not provide any further information. It would have been extremely useful had Mike ever produced, as promised,the receipt from Outhwaite and Litherland, since this would presumably have shown the date of the auction to have been between March 30th and April 13th 1992.
7 On Wednesday, April 8th 1992, Doreen Montgomery wrote again to Michael, confirming their meeting for Monday April 13th. He arrived at 11.30a.m. with the completed diary.
8 Michael Barrett called Shirley Harrison on June 21st 1999 saying that he did NOT write the diary and accusing Anne of schizophrenia. He alleged that she and Billy Graham, her father (who was dying of cancer), were the forgers and that he had been prepared to go to prison to protect her. He did not explain how the diary came into his possession or at what stage he knew that Anne and her father had written it.
According to our original intention research has now been completed, in the light of Mike's Cloak and Dagger disclosure. The results show that, as we believed, Anne Graham has at no time deviated from the truth so far as the red diary is concerned.
Peter Birchwood, pointedly states, in his posting to Paul Begg
on June 12 1999 that:
"investigating these nit-picking little questions (which is what Keith should have done by now) would tell us whether in 1995 Anne Graham lied or told the truth. Surely rather important?"
We wonder whether, now that Anne has been shown to be telling the truth, the little red diary will become significantly less important in Peter Birchwood's estimation?
Finally, we understand that Peter Birchwood has joined the ranks of those hoping to gain commercially from the Maybrick Diary, since we gather he is, himself, in the process of researching material for a book. This, allegedly, aims to debunk the diary and presumably discredit those involved with the project. Even if this is not the case, we feel that Peter's dictatorial demands and expectations make it extremely difficult to sustain a spirit of friendly co-operation. Our contributions to the board are, therefore, now terminated.
from Shirley Harrison and Keith Skinner July 28th 1999 |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 30 November 2000 - 07:26 am | | Hi again all,
Chris, I have a message for you from Keith.
Dear Chris,
Melvin Harris has stated that there is evidence that identifies Mike and Anne "...as placers, or handlers, of a document forged by others", and this information has apparently been known to him for the last six years. Shirley Harrison continues to offer to meet Melvin Harris in private, with an independent observer, to see his evidence.
Can you offer any reason why Melvin Harris should not reveal his information/proof to Shirley Harrison, thereby putting an end to the Diary?
Best Wishes,
Keith Skinner
PS Why do you think Melvin Harris didn't mention this information when you interviewed him?
------------------------
Me again Chris.
I notice you didn't make any observations regarding the Formby/Yapp family tradition, if it has any substance at all, and Anne's alleged role as placer/handler of the diary.
Anne's recollection of the story was that Elizabeth Formby (Billy's step granny) was said to have accompanied 'the nurse who worked at Battlecrease', when she went to give evidence at Florie's trial. Keith remembers very early on Anne saying that she thought of including Alice Yapp's name when making her July 1994 statement, but she couldn't be sure whether she first heard the name from her father or from Feldy, so she decided against it.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 30 November 2000 - 07:35 am | | Hi RJ,
I have a message from Keith for you too - aren't I the busy postman today? J
He asks:
Do you think that Anne and Mike were "...placers, or handlers, of a document forged by others"?
If not, what makes you doubt Melvin Harris?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 30 November 2000 - 11:16 am | | Hi All,
Me again - this time with another message from Keith Skinner.
I’ve told him that if he wants me to post it for him he could at least offer to finish off last night’s washing-up for me. (We had curry – tee hee)
Keith has managed to find the reference he remembered Melvin Harris making to research notes being an old trick. It appeared in one of Melvin’s Maybrick articles: THE MAYBRICK HOAX: SOME EXTRA GUIDANCE, dated 04/03/98, and he has asked me to post the following paragraph:
‘Mrs Harrison's references to Barrett's 1'research notes" written before he made sense of the Diary text, made me smile. This is one of the oldest dodges in the hoaxing business. While her claim that Barrett relied on two books, one by Paul Harrison, the other the Wilson/Odell work, does not match up with her book which states: " 'I bought all the Jack the Ripper books J could find, Mike recalled...". Now at that time there were many cheap paperbacks on the Ripper to be bought, both new and second-hand; books by Farson, Cullen, McCormick, Knight, Rumbelow, Underwood, Douglas, Fido. So the idea that he could only find two books does not make sense. And there were libraries, of course.’ |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 30 November 2000 - 04:33 pm | | Hi, Keith:
First, thanks to Caroline for posting your message to me.
I can offer no thoughts whatsoever on why Melvin Harris has not revealed what he knows about how the hoax worked. Melvin might be right that Anne and Mike Barrett were only "placers" in the scheme but we have only his word, or should I say conjecture (if such it is) that this was so. I am assuming, as Melvin has hinted, that a London journalist (would that be "an enterprising London journalist?"  ) was writing a story about how the scheme worked, six years ago, but it is quite obvious that by now the journalist has gone onto other things and the story is cold. Why didn't the journalist publish his story? Could it be that Melvin's "evidence" was not as persuasive as Melvin thought? Or could it be that there were simply other pressing newsworthy stories to cover so that the writer's attention was directed elsewhere, never (seemingly) to return?
As for why Melvin did not answer more fully in the interview I did with him for "Ripper Notes" and "reveal his information/proof. . . thereby putting an end to the Diary," that again must rest with Mr. Harris in terms of what he was (and is) willing to reveal about the information he has. I will say though that I did not specifically ask him about how the mechanics of the fraud worked. I didn't want the interview to be about the Diary -- it was meant to be a broad-range question and answer session on all aspects of Ripperology. So, I merely asked Melvin whether he thought that Mike Barrett had forged the Diary, as Barrett had "confessed." Melvin spoke about the use of the Sphere book quotation from the poem by Richard Crashaw ("O costly intercourse of death") in the Diary, and the fact that Mike owned a copy of the book with a binding defect that made it open right at the page containing the quotation. I thought then, and still think, that this was a contradiction on Melvin's part, i.e., if Mike was only a "placer" how did the quotation get into the Diary? It would seem instead that on the basis of the appearance of that specific line of poetry in the Diary that Mike's role was more integral to the Diary's creation even if he was not the prime forger.
Hi, Caz:
As for the possible Formby/Yapp connection, I think you may have answered that in your post by saying that "Anne's recollection of the story was that Elizabeth Formby (Billy's step granny) was said to have accompanied 'the nurse who worked at Battlecrease', when she went to give evidence at Florie's trial. Keith remembers very early on Anne saying that she thought of including Alice Yapp's name when making her July 1994 statement, but she couldn't be sure whether she first heard the name from her father or from Feldy, so she decided against it." This sounds very much like a made-up link, that Elizabeth Formby knew Alice Yapp. The fact that Anne was unsure about where she heard the name appears to me to be an indicator that it is probably a concocted and very convenient "connection," very much akin to the Billie Graham-Florence Maybrick Graham "connection." Again, as I indicated in my earlier post of Tuesday, November 28, 2000 at 10:00 pm, I really believe Anne Graham told a "whopper" when she said the Diary had been in her family for decades and ranks with Mike Barrett's story that he forged the thing as yet another untruth.
There is a truth to be known about the origins of the Diary but will we ever know what it is?
Hi, Shirley:
I have tried to e-mail you with my address but keep getting an undeliverable message. Could you perhaps e-mail me at chrisdonna@erols.com? Thanks!
Chris George |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 30 November 2000 - 10:47 pm | | Chris--Hello. Not to jump in here, but I believe Melvin Harris's explanation of why the journalist never published the article was that the paper decided to 'sit' on the story until the Maybrick film came out, so it would have greater impact. I'm somewhat ignorant of the facts of all of this, but at one time the film to star Anthony Hopkins seemed imminent (it is even mentioned on the cover of the 2nd edition of Shirley's book) though, as we all know, this fell through. So, in my thinking, the reporter's article not appearing might not have much to do with the strength/weakness of the evidence.
Caz--(Thanks for the posts!) The question still lingers, why did Mike/Anne make the 'extravagant' purchase of the red diary? Can we agree on the following as being 'facts'?
1) Mike owned a copy of REW's book prior to the Diary being brought to London, this book somehow ending up in the hands of Tony Devereux.
2) Mike/Anne owned a copy of the Sphere history (with defective spine) prior to bringing the Diary to London.
3) Mike/Anne bought a red 1891 Diary roughly two weeks before Doreen Montgomery & Shirley Harrison first saw the Diary?
Note: I can see how the first item could be dismissed as research, but not the second two. I can't really understand why Mike would make such an odd purchase as the red diary unless, perhaps, he was unsatisfied with the fact that the Diary was written in a Victorian album intended for mounting clippings and had several pages cut out. He then looked for something more suitable, but finding that the red diary was too small, he gave up and brought the Diary to London, as is...
(Whenever I read 'Oathwaite & Litherland' I have this stoopid mental association to Michael Palin, who had a character named 'Eric Olthwaite' in Ripping Yarns, a fellow so boring even his own parents ran away from home).
To Keith Skinner: You ask a fair question, and I'll try to answer it. I'm still studying all the options, including looking into the Maybrick end of things. I'm trying to ascertain whether or not the Diary might have a more complex knowledge of the Maybrick affair than the critics generally state. This might be just a bit of crossing the 'T's and dotting the 'I's, however, since, for the most part, I tend to think that the Diary was written post-1987, and that Mike and/or Anne was somehow involved. Exactly how, I don't know.
I think it is reasonable to say that Melvin Harris has made some compelling arguments in favor of the Diary being a recent hoax and has done some excellent research. So, in the back of my mind, I do think it is possible that he has some important information. From my own angle, I tend to think that if Anne or Mike were involved, it would be more likely that they were also involved in the composing of the diary and not as mere 'placers' of the Diary. But I don't know. Like everyone else that's interested, I'm still waiting and wondering.
Mike & Anne are puzzles to me. I'm not entirely sure that Mike is as clueless as everyone seems to imply. And, to us outsiders, it is difficult or even impossible to assess Anne or Mike's character. In the media and even on these message boards they have become something resembling caricatures. I don't think I have the slightest 'feel' for what either one of them is really like. So all I go by is the textual evidence and the strange, often contradictory, facts that surround the Diary's provenance. Hope this makes some sense.
Best regards,
RJ Palmer. |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 01 December 2000 - 01:31 am | | Hi, RJ:
I possibly have an advantage over you in that I have listened to tapes of the principals in the Diary story.... Shirley Harrison, Mike Barrett, Paul Feldman, and Anne Graham, so I perhaps a better "feel" of the characters of Mike and Anne than you do. I would say Anne sounds as if she wants us to believe that the Diary has been in her family for years, but at the same time gives few facts other than that are in Feldman's book. It is the hazy "yes it's all true" type of story that prevails in Feldman's book despite the lack of hard facts to back up such a line of reasoning.
In Anne Graham's October 4, 1995, Radio Merseyside interview she sounds almost smug about the Diary being decades old while expressing weariness about what the Diary has put her through, particularly the badgering everyone underwent from Paul Feldman and the press attention that made the whole thing a nightmarish experience. She also makes the point that "very little money" has been made from the Diary, believe it or not. I think the following excerpts from the interview throw some light on her personality and the pressure she felt to change the story from the "man down the pub" story to the "Diary has been in my family" story. It fits in with your point about "the angry in-laws, Lynne [Mike Barrett's sister] in particular, that became tired of [Feldman's] hounding, and drove Anne into coming forward":
Interviewer: It is a continuing fascinating story and you tell it with great conviction, but I have to ask, there are allegations that you personally wrote it or commissioned it to be written.
Anne Graham: Yes I know there are, erm, the latest one I heard was that I wrote it because I am an ardent feminist and I wanted to spotlight the feminist movement. This is as ridiculous as any of the other ones actually. [Laughs] Things do come up occasionally.
Interviewer: You didn't write it.
Anne Graham [laughs]: No, I didn't write it! [Coughs.]
Interviewer: Would you suspect that it was a hoax or a forgery, not necessarily by your own hand but earlier on?
Anne Graham: Well there is a possibility that it is a contemporary forgery--we just don't know. All I can say is that I seen the Diary in 1968--
Interviewer: That was the first time, in '68?
Anne Graham: Mmm. My father seen it in 1950. But before that, it's anybody's guess. I don't know. It's up to the historians to tell us, to look at the information, and be guided by that and decide where did it come from.
Interviewer: So you are saying it might be a hoax, it might be a forgery--
Anne Graham: Absolutely.
Interviewer: --but not certainly subsequent to 1950?
Anne Graham: That's correct.
......
Interviewer: So why ultimately did you come out and say, "Look, yes I did, I had it all the time?"
Anne Graham [animatedly]: Well, mainly because of the continual research by Paul Feldman which was interrupting people's lives which was extremely annoying plus I felt very guilty that these people became annoyed because of something I'd done.
Interviewer: Despite the fact that already a book had been written and everything was going on--
Anne Graham: It was the only way I could think of stopping it.
Interviewer: --because some people may say you thought it was a way of stopping it--
Anne Graham: Yes! Fair enough! Some people will say that.
Interviewer: --but it may not necessarily have been accurate.
Anne Graham: Yes! Well, some people will say anything--people will in the end believe what they want to believe.
****************
I hope this helps. I think her ending statement is telling and may show that she is selling us a bill of goods -- she believes people are gullible, I think, and that they would buy the new story. You will also note that she gets animated when she is put on the spot, which should also say something about whether she is telling the truth or not.
On the other hand, my impression of Mike Barrett from the tape of him at the Cloak and Dagger Club in April 1999 is that he is a man out to impress. A man who promises much but delivers little. He says that he has the inside information but does not produce it. This seems pretty consistent with him, right from his "confession" to Harold Brough of the Liverpool Daily Post in June 1994 to his spring 1999 appearance at the Cloak and Dagger Club. Again, I don't think that either of these people is telling the total truth.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 01 December 2000 - 08:44 am | | Hi Chris, RJ,
Thanks for your responses. I'll pass them on to Keith.
Chris,
Regarding Formby/Yapp:
If Anne had any hand in forging the diary, apart from simply being a placer/handler, she would presumably have been entirely familiar with the name Alice Yapp years before Feldy came on the scene suggesting it to her. In which case, she was telling Keith another glib lie, by suggesting she had only recently heard the actual name of the Battlecrease nurse, either from her father, or Feldy. Is there no possibility she could have been genuinely trying to avoid putting anything in her statement which she could have heard from Feldy, muddling what she had actually heard from Billy?
And how much research could she have possibly done, during that fraught time, to ensure that a concocted link of this nature would not backfire badly if it turned out, for instance, that Formby and Yapp could never have met? Either she already knew a reasonable possibility was there, from her own Maybrick knowledge or research, while planning the forgery, in which case she also knew it would provide the best possible provenance (so why use Devereux?) - or, she was only a placer/handler for the forger, and they both got lucky, the former with her choice of concoction, the latter with his choice of using Anne, someone with at least a chance of having some family connection with a person directly involved in the Maybrick case.
RJ,
Right, let's look at your 'facts'.
1)Fine.
2)Fine too, so long as we are all satisfied with Melvin's word and expertise, that the book would definitely have fallen open at the 'right' page when it left Sphere bound for the Barretts, and could not possibly have been a result of subsequent accidental or deliberate manipulation.
3)Fine.
I too have wondered why Mike should have wanted to get his hands on a real Victorian diary at such a late date. Assuming he knew nothing more about the Maybrick diary's origins than that it came from Devereux, perhaps it had only just occurred to him (maybe from something Doreen Montgomery said during their first telephone conversation?) that he might be accused of forging the thing as soon as he took it to London. Is it possible that he then decided to see for himself just how easy or hard it would be to do just that? As we can see, if I'm anywhere near the mark, he fell at the first hurdle, by ordering a diary dated 1891 and far too small for the purpose! But as it turned out, his story was initially taken seriously enough for him not to think about it again - until he saw the opportunity of using his purchase when he wanted to implicate himself and Anne in the forgery.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 01 December 2000 - 11:05 am | | Chris--Thank you for the long excerpts from the Radio Merseyside interview. Very interesting stuff.
Caz--Doesn't Paul Feldman own the film rights to The Diary of Jack the Ripper? Mike Barrett wrote, in his sworn affidavit of 5 January 1995,
'No one will believe me and in fact some
very influential people in the Publishing and
Film world have been doing everything to discredit me and in fact they have gone so far
as to introduce a new & complete story of the
original facts of the diary and how it came to
light.'
I would submit that this isn't an example of Mike Barrett lying, but, rather, that this is probably the way Mike perceived things in January 1995. He finds himself shunned by everyone, and Anne is now researching the new provenance theory with the man who owns the film rights. His statement makes sense if he knows that Anne is making up her story. Feldman would have a financial interest in proving Anne's story.
I have doubts that Anne would have known anything about a Formby/Yapp link in the family. She isn't really even related to Elizabeth Formby. As far as I know, Anne's only connection to the Maybricks is that Florie used the alias Graham when she left prison.
Best wishes
RJP |
|
|
|
|
