Archive through December 08, 2000

** 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 08, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: The Maybrick Diary-2000 Archives: Archive through December 08, 2000

Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood Monday, 10 July 2000 - 01:07 pm
Hi Chris: I hope you had an interesting weekend! I don't know whether "A. Graham" is Anne but I suspect not. Apart from the address, I think that she may have been married to Mike by this time. It would be easy enough to check who it was and I might be able to do that soon. I agree with you about Kane. There are resemblances but there's not enough information here to make a judgement; we need a bigger sample to be any more definite. Of course, as anyone can see, I put the will here for just the sort of feedback that you have given: whether there is or is not any resemblance in the writing to the diarists. I doubt though that even if the diary is proved completely bogus that it will make any difference to a film deal. It's the story, fair or false that's important and if it's fiction it still looks good on the screen. After all, I suspect that we're all going to see "From Hell..." A last word for Keith Skinner: John: 11. 35
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Monday, 10 July 2000 - 01:47 pm
From Keith Skinner To R.J.Palmer Dear RJ Caroline is away [ahem - not quite � C.A.M. J] on her well deserved hols for a couple of weeks, but in her absence, if you want to slip a message up on the board, to let me know when you have secured a copy of Shirley Harrison�s 1998 updated paperback, then I�m sure either Shirley or Paul (Begg) will alert me, and I can respond accordingly. I�m sorry you are having to wait for so long but thank you for your patience. Best Wishes Keith
Author: R.J. Palmer Monday, 10 July 2000 - 04:07 pm
Dear Keith, I must have looked a little like M.J. Druitt the other night furtively creeping around the late night bookshops downtown in search of the revised edition of Harrison's book. I had a brief but nice conversation with one of the clerks, a young, pale woman in a Victorian dress who said "this Diary book is just FANTASTIC!", so clearly people are still reading the Diary, and are interested in the on-going debate. Regardless of any revelations, I think a film would do quite well. Alas, here in the States, all the major bookstores still carry the 1995 Pocketbook edition of Ms. Harrison's book by Simon & Schuster, and I've had to special order the 1998 edition. So indeed, it is I who must apologise for the delay, but am quite content to wait, and thank you very much in advance for your response. Currently I am doing a much more careful re-read of Feldman's book, laboriously making my way through the complexities, cross-referencing his statements with the relevant documents whenever it is possible for me to do so. Thus, I'm staying busy until this October when the Ultimate Sourcebook bursts forth on the scene and I can get down to real business :-) Best wishes, RJP. PS. To Shirley Harrison, or to whomever would like to tackle it. Has it ever been conclusively proven (or disproven) that Mike Barrett actually worked at the Poste House? (My apologies if this is already in the 1998 edition). Also, in reference to Barrett's alleged confession, I've looked with a magnifying glass at the relevant ink smear in the facsimile of the Diary, and it doesn't look too much like 'James'--(for those who aren't aware, it is Barrett's claim that Anne made a mistake here)--but then, nor does it particularly look like what is in the plain text of the Diary "Edwin asked regards Thomas and business,...." which is clumsy syntax. The last letter is certainly an S. The first doesn't look like an R. Any comments from those who have seen the Diary first hand? Thanks.
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 11 July 2000 - 02:42 am
Hello all: RJ: I have looked at the ink blot in the facsimile version in Shirley's hardback (p. 211, Hyperion edition) and have no firm idea what the word under the blot may be. As you say, the last letter appears to be an "s" but the first letter does not seem to be an "r" so possibly the transcription is incorrect in interpreting it as "regards". If we were not so sure it was an "s" at the end I might guess that it read "about" as in "Edwin asked about Thomas and business..." This particular page of the Diary is interesting though because the writing is messier than usual. Two lines below that ink blot, the writer has fitted in a very tiny "that" in the phrase, "I have it in my mind I should write to Michael. . ." so that it reads "I have it in my mind that I should write to Michael. . ." The tiny word "that", to give those who have not seen the complete facsimile an idea, is as short as "ha" in "I have. . ." I also wanted to note that also on this same page there are examples of the idiosyncrasies of this penmanship which I rather think is probably close to or exactly like the normal penmanship of the writer. I rather think the forger did not use a disguised hand throughout this document of 63 manuscript pages. So for example, each "I" as in "I need to. . ." on the next to last handwritten line on the page, looks like a script lower case "g" set high. In some letters such as the "b" in "but" and "business" there is actually a break in the loop of the letter, so that the "b" appears to be made using two separate pen strokes rather than one flowing stroke. There is here also the peculiar squashed "p" that I also identified in Mr. Kane's writing in the Devereaux will that Peter posted. The "r" in "suffer" is also written remarkably similarly to the way Kane forms the "r" in "Cabinet Maker" in noting his occupation as witness to Devereaux's will. RJ: I may be mistaken about this, but I don't believe it has been claimed that Mike Barrett worked at the Poste House. Peter: Yes, thanks for asking, the weekend was most interesting! I am glad you thought my feedback on the handwriting in the will was useful. I would be interested in seeing a clearer copy. Could you mail it to me? I would say that we need more samples of Kane's writing plus some idea of his educational background, his interest in the Ripper case, his reading tastes, etc. I believe he may be our elusive forger. Chris George
Author: Paul Begg Tuesday, 11 July 2000 - 02:48 am
Stick a document on the Board, don't say why, but let people assume the intent and react accordingly. If somebody raises legitimate criticism about one's behaviour, respond with a Bible reference. A grown up is doing this!? If the 'diary' was shown to be a post-87 forgery then the proposed movie might still go ahead. On the other hand, it might not. Who knows! But would you take the risk if it was your book or your bank balance or whatever concerned you most? I think taking that gamble, pushing for the truth, takes courage - integrity - and it's what Shirley Harrison is doing. I think that deserves respect.
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 11 July 2000 - 02:55 am
Hi, Paul: I would like to think all of us are "pushing for the truth" despite our differences in approach and temperament, and in this I include myself, Melvin, Feldy, Peter, Shirley, Alex, and all other interested parties equally. Chris George
Author: Paul Begg Tuesday, 11 July 2000 - 03:10 am
"I believe he may be our elusive forger." But who else does, Chris? and what else do they believe? And why has the information been withheld (at least insofar as it could have eliminated the Barrett's from being the actual penpeople, as until a couple of weeks ago was Peter's favoured theory)? They're not saying what they think, what they know. They're not really saying very much at all. So do we assume that Tony D and Mr Kane conceived and executed the forgery? Or Mr Kane and Mr ?, who then used Tony D. as a patsy to pass on the 'diary' to Mike? Who knew what? What is being claimed here? Is everything to be revealed through the use of Bible references?
Author: Paul Begg Tuesday, 11 July 2000 - 03:26 am
Chris:- "Why are they making such a fuss about a modern fake? People are going to make money out of it no matter what I say." (Melvin Harris, 7th July). Maybe they will, maybe they won't. But is making money what motivates them? Well, if it is, as Melvin Harris seems to imply - and there has been some nasty innuendo on the point - then I think it is worth stating that Shirley Harrison does not know whether the film deal will go ahead or not if the 'diary' is now shown to be a modern forgery. She is therefore putting the deal at risk by being in the front of the queue of those requesting Melvin Harris and Peter Birchwood to 'come clean' with what they know. It is an important point, in my opinion, and one which I hope will eliminate such unnecessary comments as the one above.
Author: Shirley Harrison Tuesday, 11 July 2000 - 08:45 am
First to Paul. Thanks my friend for that! You and Keith, whilst not sharing my belief in the authenticity of the diary have always understood the problems (and pleasures) it has generated for me and been generous in that understanding. To R.J Palmer you sound as though you could be one of us - trying to find a sensible and reasoned answer to the enigma. I do hope, when/if you get to read the new edition of my paper back you will appreciate that I have indeed, tried to address most of the questions that arise on the board and been honest when I did not know the answers�.such as with The Poste House and that tantalising quotation. Research into the diary has been an organic affair�new material and contradictions arising all the time. Some of the problem areas were not dealt with in the hardback which was produced in extremely difficult condition. But none of us - my agent, my publisher or I would have dared - or wanted - to publish something we thought was dodgy. We knew there was a question mark, but Robert Smith felt the diary was worth the financial gamble and well worth further investigation. As it turned out - and we certainly had no idea that this is what would happen at the time - the process of investigation was unending, time consuming, expensive and very often bruising. We were all very excited - not by the lure of cash, which was always questionable, but as I have said so many, many times - by the thrill of the chase. And who, I wonder would not be? How could we have forseen what a monster it was to become or how it would affect everyone - involved and not involved. Very few people on the boards realise, I suspect, how many people and sources Sally Evemy and I did check, braving the pubs and clubs and British Legion meetings of Liverpool in our efforts to find out about the people "in the frame". We never found Mr Kane - I believe Paul Feldman may have done but because of the unfortunate situation that existed at the time I was not able to infringe on his areas of research. My understanding was that here was`another working class Liverpudlian and hardly the type to mastermind a forgery. Incidentally Mike and Anne appeared totally ignorant of Mr Kane and, according to the landlord of The Saddle, Mike was not even particularly friendly with` Tony Devereux. It doesn't sound like the makings of cosy clique - an alcoholic, a man who was too ill to get up stairs and a sick pensioner. But let Melvin show us that we are wrong. Now to your questions. Yes, I did check with the Poste House at the beginning and they said that to the best of their knowledge Mike had never worked there though I have no doubt Melvin will produce his pay slips! The word beneath the blot is dealt with `on page 316 of the new edition. We had the blot examined and it does appear to be "regards". The use of the word in this way was quite usual. I hope you enjoy the book. Do let me know. But I am sure you agree that, despite Melvin's acknowledged heavyweight skills in argument and his undoubted knowledge, it is time to tell us all. He once called me a "practised evader." I guess it takes one to know one!
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood Tuesday, 11 July 2000 - 01:35 pm
I think that when we examine the problem of who may have physically written the diary we have to bear in mind "Cui Bono" - who profits. Naturally enough, to avoid contributing any more to the rising of the Skinner blood pressure, I am ignoring those, like Mrs. Harrison and the various researchers, who were involved in the project from a professional viewpoint. In essence the persons who materially profitted are Mike Barrett and Anne Graham. The problem that I have with Kane as writer is that no one has shown that he has got anything out of the deal. Of course his state of health makes it difficult to ask him about this.
Author: Paul Begg Wednesday, 12 July 2000 - 02:49 am
In the absence of Caz, who will by now be sunning herself on some foreign shore, I am acting in the capacity of Keith's postman! Tuesday, July 11, 2000 From Keith Skinner to Chris George Dear Chris The reference to Mike Barrett working at the Poste House casts back to Barrett�s own statement of Thursday January 26th 1995:- �I should inform you that I actually worked as a Barman in the Poste House Public House about 7 years ago and I gained a full know-ledge of the history of the old pub, and I decided when writing the Diary that I would put the name Post House in knowing full well that it had been called the �Muck Midden� in 1800s. This fact could actually be established and in particularly by me should I later need to prove what I had done.� In this same statement Barrett claimed:- �When writing the Diary Deveeux was a tremendous help to Anne and me and we did not go to anyone else for advice in the matter.� We clearly need more information and like Shirley Harrison, Paul Begg and yourself, I await an explanation from Melvin Harris or Peter Birchwood of who is meant to have done what. Best Wishes Keith
Author: Shirley Harrison Wednesday, 12 July 2000 - 03:48 am
I suspect I am not not alone in my puzzlement. If Mr Kane was too ill to be approached in 1993/4/5 etc and is now still too ill why did Melvin Harris tell the Evening Standard the forgers were about to be named? There seems to be a touch of the Pinochets here? Has Mr Kane emigrated on his crock on gold? Does Melvin know where he is? Please let us pull together.
Author: Paul Begg Wednesday, 12 July 2000 - 08:36 am
Shirley:- Apparently Mr. Kane was approached in 1993/4. Harris said that Mr. Kane was asked to provide samples of his handwriting and he refused. Nothing sinister need be read into his refusal, of course, which could have been because of ill-health, an unwillingness to become involved in anything, or an objection to the manner of the approach. I assume Mr. Kane was contacted late in 1994. This would explain Harris�s (presumably premature) announcement on 8th December 1994 in the Evening Standard that ��There is now no doubt whatsoever that they are a recent fake,� he claims. �The identities of the three people involved in the forgery will soon be made known.� I further assume that the newspaper then passed its information over to the police, which is why in December 1994/January 1995 Harris was claiming that �there are papers dealing with this (the identity of the forgers) in the hands of the police.� We don�t know who received the papers, but we have been assured by New Scotland Yard that no investigations into the �diary� were or are taking place. Harris then appears to have sat on the information known to him and taken swipes at Feldman, yourself, and anyone else, including most recently Prof. Rubinstein, about whom Harris recently assured us there would soon be a second 'open letter'. All of which seems unnecessary, of course, if the three forgers can be identified as Messrs. Devereux, Kane, and Another and we can be done with it! I�m not sure how concern for the health of Mr. Kane or how the journalists sitting on their information while awaiting developments in the film deal fits into this scenario � which could be a completely wrong scenario, of course, which is why Harris must explain the details or put us in touch with those who can.
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 12 July 2000 - 03:59 pm
Hi, Keith: Thank you for letting me know that Mike Barrett claims to have worked as a barman at the Poste House pub in Liverpool. I must have missed that claim among the many varying stories that Mr. Barrett has told. Knowing of Barrett's enigmatic, frustrating, and less than informative April 1999 performance at the Cloak and Dagger Club, it is not surprising perhaps that he makes the illogical statement, ". . . I decided when writing the Diary that I would put the name Post House in knowing full well that it had been called the �Muck Midden� in 1800s. This fact could actually be established and in particularly by me should I later need to prove what I had done." Of course, no one wanting to forge a document would, one would think, knowingly put in information which could be misproven. The statement though is consistent with a pattern observable in Barrett in which he seems to maneuver to make various statements in light of findings about the Diary, in this case the finding that the pub had not been known as the Poste House in 1888. His statement also betrays another trait that he shows, an attempt at a "smarter than you" demeanor whereby he pretends to show that he has inside knowledge. It would be interesting wouldn't it to catch Mike Barrett with his defenses down like a bug on a kitchen floor at midnight and know what the real story is about Mike, Anne, and the Diary? Chris George
Author: Glen Butchers Wednesday, 12 July 2000 - 07:44 pm
Don't you think after all this time the doubters would have proven the 'Diary' to be a fake. I'm new to this 'Ripperology' business and have read only a handfull of books on the subject, with many suspects put forward. I have, after reading Shirley Harrisons' books, concluded that James Maybrick can be the only feesible suspect. The writer of the 'Diary' must have been present at the murders, as some of the details written in the 'Diary' could only have been known by the Ripper. It seems a pretty clear cut case to me. And as the man wrote himself,"It was there for all to see but the fools will never find it". The fools being the doubters I wonder.??
Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 06:50 am
Wednesday 12th July 2000 From Keith Skinner to Peter Birchwood Peter In response to your post of Thursday, July 6th 12.33 pm. I appreciate you are only asking questions and in many ways you and I probably share the same amount of knowledge about the origins of the watch. Is your hypothetical starting point therefore:- (a) The Johnsons knew the Barretts and were part of an overall scam which included both Watch and Diary? Or (b) The Johnsons never knew the Barretts and were merely opportunists. Either way, I am happy to work on the assumption that the watch is a hoax and that that hoax begins its public life the second an innocent party is approached or involved. From that moment the hoax is out of the Johnsons control and they have to react accordingly to each new situation and development. This is what I am interested in assessing, set in the context of all that we know has happened to date. I�m asking these questions, taking my lead from chris George, whose hope it is that all parties are united in a common objective to determine the truth about both the Watch and the Diary. Furthermore, if Chris is agreeable, I am prepared to accept his ruling as a mediator in these discussions between us, should he discern any signs of evasive tactics in responding to questions, obfuscation or unpleasantness. Finally, I realise both of us are busy with professional commitments and discussion of the watch probably entails entering the nightmare world of Paul Feldman�s beliefs and research. I will respond as honestly as I can but please bear in mind that I was not really involved with this aspect of the investigation � and certainly did not agree with Feldy�s theories or ideas about Albert Johnson�s ancestry. If it confused you, then at least we have something in common.
Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 06:55 am
Glen:- Welcome to the discussion. The doubters don't have to prove anything, it being up to the prosecutuion - in this case those who argue that the 'diary' is genuine - to prove their case). Thus far they have been unable to do so. But this isn't a court of law, of course, and we shouldn't have pro- and anti-sides, just people trying to uncover the truth.
Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 07:09 am
Thursday July 13th 2000 From Keith Skinner to Chris George Dear Chris I had a swift word with Shirley Harrison this morning and she tells me you have posted a response to my message (for which many thanks), the gist of which, as I understand it, is advising caution for any statement emanating from Mike Barrett. Forgive me for replying blind, without having read your post for myself, but I just wanted to link your comments with the very pertinent observation Paul Begg made a few weeks ago, namely that in six years Mike Barrett has been unable to provide a coherent account of how he, or Anne, or Tony Devereux, or Mr. Kane, faked the Diary. For me - and it is a personal reaction - Barrett has always been at his most convincing and credible on day one, when he insisted that he obtained the Diary from Devereux - and that's all he knew about it. I believe RJ is pushing towards a collation and close examination of all of Barrett's various statements and actions. But if, ultimately, it is accepted that Barrett's initial story is the only one that makes any degree of sense, would it be reasonable to raise and explore the question of why Devereux would have given the Diary to Barrett in the first place! Best wishes Keith
Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 07:20 am
Chris:- Just to add my own take on your post. I think you are right that Mike Barrett changes and adapts his story as his intent and as the information changes. But when you write 'It would be interesting wouldn't it to catch Mike Barrett with his defenses down like a bug on a kitchen floor at midnight and know what the real story is about Mike, Anne, and the Diary?' I wonder whether in fact that has already happened. What would - what could - Mike say if he really knew no more than that he'd been given the 'diary' by Tony Devereux? When Anne left him, Mike used to telephone me every night, often drunk, always confused, and focussing on Feldman as the cause of all his troubles. It is my total belief that if Mike could have hurt Feldman - and he knew he'd have hurt Feldman most by proving the 'diary' a modern forgery - then I believe that he would have done it and nothing, not even imprisonment, would have stopped him. But he couldn't provide the evidence. He couldn't even provide a coherent account. He couldn't even do that when he first confessed to the Liverpool Post. So, what if we have got Barrett exposed like a bug and he genuinely knows no more than that Tony D. gave him the 'diary'? What then?
Author: Christopher T George Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 12:10 pm
Hi Paul and Keith: In early 1999, prior to Mike Barrett's appearance at the Cloak & Dagger Club meeting of April 1999, I would have said it seemed obvious that Anne and Mike conspired to forge the diary even if his stories did not jive. The performance at the C&D meeting, which I have heard on tape, made me realize that he was not credible. He was the star turn but was unable to produce the goods. The more I think about it, the more I believe you are right that all that Mike knows about the Diary is that he was given it by Tony Devereaux, and all his statements since then have been attempts to make himself seem an authority on the Diary, either in terms of being a principal in its manufacture or knowing other inside information about the document. Basically, he appears to me to be a little man caught up in a huge maelstrom, trying to hang on to a spar of wood. He is making the most of the fact that people are looking to him for answers, which he is unable to provide. In response to Keith's remark, yes, I am "advising caution for any statement emanating from Mike Barrett." I agree with your further statement that "Barrett has always been at his most convincing and credible on day one, when he insisted that he obtained the Diary from Devereux --and that's all he knew about it." Now, let me add a codicil here. I agree with Paul that we are dealing with a confused and incoherent man. It may be that he and Anne were involved in a forgery scheme but he is not able to express himself in a way that would convince us. Allied to this, he may not be organized enough to produce the evidence that would prove his case. My hunch at this point is that this is not so, however, and that his "Anne and Mike did it" scenario is not the way it happened. As I stated in a previous post, I am inclining toward thinking that if there was a forgery scheme it involved Kane and Devereaux, with Kane as the penman and Devereaux as the placer of the document. But then Keith you are right that "it [would] be reasonable to raise and explore the question of why Devereaux would have given the Diary to Barrett in the first place." From everything we now know about Mike Barrett, he seems a most inappropriate person to be given the Diary. On the other hand, I have to say that no one could have predicted the brouhaha that has blown up over this infuriatingly mysterious document that just will not go away. Devereaux and Kane might not have known Barrett well. They would not have been able to predict how Barrett may have acted--he just seemed a reasonable, ordinary sort of bloke to receive the Diary and who could facilitate its debut before the eagerly waiting (or should I say unsuspecting?) world. Keith, thanks for invitation for me to act as an intermediary between yourself and Peter Birchwood. I would be pleased to do so. I believe we are all interested in finding out the truth and solving this mystery. Let me therefore state to you both, "Play nicely, gentlemen. . ." :-) Chris George
Author: Paul Begg Friday, 14 July 2000 - 04:01 am
Chris:- It�s good to see someone else grappling with the infernal �diary�! Let�s assume that Mike wasn�t involved in the forgery. When did he learn that the 'diary' was a forgery? How do his research notes fit into the scenario - are they entirely bogus or do they genuinely represent both his ignorance and his efforts to discover the identity of the 'diary' author? Let�s assume the latter. Peter Birchwood's use of Cicero's cui bono is valid, but were Mike and Anne the only people gaining? Is it possible that the apple cart was truly upset by the death of Tony Devereux? Three people (according to Melvin Harris), Devereux, Kane and A.N. Other, conceive the forgery. Kane pens it, Devereux�s job is to find somebody gullible enough to place it. He picks Barrett, telling him no more than that the �diary� is genuine and urging him to do something with it � presumably agreeing that Barrett will get a percentage share of whatever monies it makes. Mike is left to discover the identity of the author, which Mike eventually does (which makes Mike look thoroughly convincing because he is telling the truth as he knows it). Now, Mike will obviously tell whoever he places the �diary� with that he got it from Devereux, Devereux will certainly have had a story accounting for the provenance prepared. But Devereux unexpectedly dies. This has two consequences, it severs the link between Barrett and the forgers, cutting them off from whatever monies they�d hoped to gain (or in order to gain any monies, forcing them to reveal themselves and the scam to Barrett; Kane is probably too ill by this time to care anyway) and it leaves Barrett in sole possession of the �diary�. Barrett decides to place the �diary� and keep all the monies for himself. His major concern now is that Devereux�s family will claim ownership of the �diary� and ace him out. To ensure a moral share of the money, Barrett claims to have undertaken a lot of research (he hasn�t, as his knowledge and research notes indicate). What happens next is history. Thus, others could have stood to gain, but Devereux�s unexpected death effectively kyboshed those hopes. So, where does Anne fit into this scenario? Was she A.N. Other? Or was Billy Graham the third forger? This would make sense insofar as they could keep an eye on Mike, perhaps guide his researches if necessary, and retain for the forgers a degree of control over the forgery. What�s wrong with this scenario?
Author: R.J. Palmer Friday, 14 July 2000 - 01:02 pm
Chris--It's probably a good thing that you don't believe Mike Barrett forged the Diary, otherwise, as Paul Feldman threatens on pg. 179 of Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter, you would "have to answer" to the firm of solicitors Morecroft, Dawson, & Garnett. I, on the other hand, can't help but think Barrett did have something to do with the forgery or at least knows about those who did. I realise it is somewhat of a technical and tedious argument, but I keep falling back on the phrase 'O Costly Intercourse of Death. Somehow, Barrett knew where the phrase came from. I am not denying Shirley Harrison's claim that she asked Barrett to look it up in the Liverpool libray, and that the library has a copy of Christopher Rick's book. It just seems obvious to me that her story and the story of Melvin Harris can both be true. Indeed, it is the only scenerio that makes sense. Barrett had a copy of Rick's book that opened at the phrase; this is the genesis of its inclusion in the Diary. Later, when Ms. Harrison sent Barrett to the Liverpool Library, he was able to come up with the citation. Indeed, it is the only way in which he could come up with the citation. But don't take my word for it, give the phrase O Costly Intercourse of Death to a research librarian and have them trace the quote. I've tried to do it myself. It's not possible. It is not in any of the poetry indexes (i've checked all major ones including Chicorel Index to Poetry and Granger's Index to Poetry). This is because it is not the first, nor the last, line of Crashaw's poem, but is, in fact, in the third stanza of an eleven stanza poem. It is not indexed anywhere. Even under the extremely unlikely chance that the librarian would recognized the obscure line by Crashaw, he/she would certainly not have pointed Barrett in the direction of the obscure essay George Herbert and the Religious Lyric by Robert Ellrodt in the middle of Christopher Rick's book of essays! Whomever found the reference had to know it was there. It is an obscure point, but it is troubling in it is implications. (By the by, I came up with these musings independently of Mr. Harris, before I realized he had already written on this issue, and wasn't unduly influenced by his statements). I don't know what it means, or who it implicates, but I do know that Barrett knows something. I am also bothered by the fact that Nancy Steele, Tony Devereux's daughter, claims that she borrowed a copy of Whittington-Egan's Murder, Mayhem & Mystery from Devereaux, which contains information about Maybrick. It was Mike Barrett's personal copy, and was later taken by New Scotland Yard, at least according to Paul Feldman. As for Mr. Feldman's discussion of the provenance, I find it frustrating and confusing, to say the least. Feldman's main fault is that he makes long digressions, full of strange implications, and then admits that they were false leads that ended nowhere. I realize this is because Felman is writing about the slow research into the Diary's origins, but the reader is left with the impression that Feldman is throwing as much mud against the fence as possible and hoping some of it will stick...or at least muddy up the waters. I'll give one example. Feldman tells the story of how an anonymous contact told him that two electricans were overheard discussing 'something to do with Battlecrease' and that these same two electricans had been seen throwing a parcel out of the window of the the old Battlecrease mansion when tearing up the floorboards to Maybricks old room. Supposedly, the contact tells Feldman, these men then made a mysterious visit to Liverpool University in an attempt to 'authenticate' whatever was in that parcel. Feldman the writes: We contacted Liverpool University. They recalled the visit of these two gentlemen(!) But then, a page later, Feldman discribes how Barrett confronted one of the electricians and called him a liar, but, (follow this logic) since Barrett wasn't willing to give them 5% royalties, it proved that Barrett knew them to be liars, and that this showed that Barrett knew something about the provenance (!) It also showed that Barrett was sincere, since he didn't leap at the chance of gaining a sure-fire provenance for only 5%. But alas, later on, Feldman argues that Barrett indeed knew nothing about the true provenance, that indeed the Diary was snuck to Devereaux through Anne Graham. Which left me confused as hell, and wondering if I was supposed to forget about the fact that the Liverpool University confirmed the visit of the two electricians or not! I can readily see where Feldman's research can be called a 'nightmare world' and his conversation 'stream of consciousness'. Frankly, I don't know what to think! Best regards, RJP
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood Friday, 14 July 2000 - 01:20 pm
Keith: Regarding the watch I feel strongly that it's a hoax. I believe that the late Mr. Holmes said:"It is a capital mistake to theorise without sufficient data," so until we know much more about the persons involved in watch and diary I can't accept either of your theories as correct. The Barrett's and the Johnsons don't H AVE to know each other but they may. My immediate feeling is that the watch was probably opportunistic. I would be most interested to learn the name of Robbie Johnson's "friend," referred to in Mrs. Harrison's pi ece. Was it his girlfriend? Perhaps she could confirm whether the friend's initials were H.R. P eter.
Author: Christopher T George Friday, 14 July 2000 - 04:11 pm
Hello RJ: I agree wholeheartedly about the quality of Paul Feldman's research. Indeed, it would appear that he used a scattergun approach to the problem of the Diary instead of a careful methodological approach as exemplified by the stellar research of Phil Sugden, say, or of Stewart Evans. Thus as you say there are tantalizing leads in his narrative that ultimately lead nowhere, along with irritating inconsistencies and contradictions. You mention the tale of the Battlecrease electricians. Another prime example is the tale that the Diary possibly was smuggled out of Battlecrease in some laundry and was given by the Maybricks' disgruntled servant Alice Yapp to Grannie Formby, thus explaining how it got to Anne Graham. It is as if Feldman was thrashing around in the dark hoping that one of these scenarios would be true but unable ultimately to prove any of them. As for Barrett, I think he has pretty much discredited himself with his contradictory statements and outrageous claims. On the other hand, you may be right that he does know something and may have had a hand in the forgery, at least on the basis of his conversance with the line "O costly intercourse of death" from the obscure poem by Richard Crashaw. However, it seems that we may never get the true story from him, unless this story can be independently corroborated. Chris George
Author: Joseph Triola Jr. Friday, 14 July 2000 - 05:41 pm
Hi Paul, You have put together a good working hypothesis, one of many possibilities. I hope you don't mind if I do a bit of close reading, and ask you a few questions. In the third paragraph, you state: Three people (according to Melvin Harris), Devereux, Kane, and A.N. Other, conceive the forgery. Kane pens it, Devereux's job is to find somebody gullible enough to place it. (Begg, 7/14) What evidence, or synthesized episteme, did you draw on to apportion these responsibilities to these individuals? Is this quote from Mr. Harris? Has any prepared provenance been uncovered amongst Mr. Devereux's possessions after his death? If so, who found/presented them? Has any of the provenance so far offered, been attributed to Mr. Devereux, and is the connection plausible? Is there any evidence of Mr. Kane, or a third party acting on his behalf, having contacted Mike Barrett, and explained that Mr. Kane has an involvement, in some benign and un-incriminating fashion, with the Diary and is entitled to a share of any profit?
Author: Shirley Harrison Friday, 14 July 2000 - 06:58 pm
A quick,tired and late response. Forgive me for not replying in more detail No Robbie's friend was not a woman.` I dont know who his girl friend was nor where she is now. As far as I know there is no hard evidence to support the Kane theory - it nis guesswork. Reasonable maybe. But I thinki that no one has ,met Mr Kane. Do we know anything about him at all - what he reads, is he a family man,member of The Legion, Ripper buff etc etc I tried hard to find him a lkong time ago and failed. Has anyone else more knowledge. Let's share it. No A Graham is a man. But I will try to find out more. As fore the watch. I asked Albert if Robbiecoulod have rifled his drawedr and not surprisingly he said "absolutely not". But he added an interesting rthought. "How could Robbie have copied Maybrick's signature? At taht time the will was not poublished and none of us knewn what Maybrick's writing was like." He is correct and the J.Maybrick in the watch IS creepily similar to Maybrick's own.
Author: Shirley Harrison Saturday, 15 July 2000 - 06:57 am
Oh dear - my spell check was tired too! "See ed" I guess.
Author: R.J. Palmer Tuesday, 18 July 2000 - 03:30 pm
Hello. One of Feldman's more reasonable arguments, I think, is the unlikeliness of Mike Barrett being the front man for the forgers. It does seem as though Barrett wasn't answering to anyone but himself in regards to the financial considerations of the diary. Due to the quirks in Barrett's personality, he certainly doesn't come across as anyone's wise choice as the introducer of the diary to the world. I suppose I'm in disagreement with Peter Birchwood here, and am perhaps unwisely disregarding Melvin Harris's earlier warnings about the dangers of looking for a motive, but I can't help but feel that money was not the aim behind the diary...though Barrett turned it into one. It seems to me that it's more of a literary production than a forgery per se, being reasonably sophisticated in the content, but making no attempt at imitating Maybrick's will or the Dear Boss letters. I have some suspicions, but I'd rather not air them publically, and I admit I could be well be missing the target. To Shirley Harrison: I finally have the Blake edition of the Diary of Jack the Ripper, and I would agree that this is the edition that those who are following the debate will want to have (regardless of their opinions on the Diary) as it addresses most of the points made in the recent discussions on this board. I was left a bit exhausted by studying Paul Feldman's book on the last three or four consecutive nights, but I found the new material in this edition so absorbing that I had to launch right into it. (The Blake edition is also much more chic and elegant than the earlier paperback). To Keith Skinner: Hello. If you still have the energy/inclination to send some comments my way, feel free. I would readily understand if you (and everyone else) would rather take a much deserved break from the debate, or would like to let it go until your trusty typist Caz returns from her holiday. I'll leave it up to you...I already have enough Maybrick data jammed in my head to keep it swimming for some time. Best wishes, RJP. PS> To anyone. Is there a current expert consensus on the 17th Sept 1888 Dear Boss letter found by Peter McClelland? I hesitate to ask....is this thought to be a modern forgery, an old forgery, or genuine (ie., contemporary)?
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 19 July 2000 - 12:34 am
Hi, R.J.: First, regarding the so-called September 17, 1888 "Dear Boss" letter, Keith Skinner can speak to this point since I understand he has handled the thing. It is my understanding that Keith believes that it is written in ballpoint pen! Can you confirm this suspicion, Keith? In any case, the letter is obviously a pale somewhat modernized derivative of the wording of both Dear Boss ("I watch them looking for me an it gives me fits ha ha. I shant stop until I get buckled...") and the Lusk letter ("Catch me if you can") which were received later so that, to my mind, disqualifies it as a genuine artifact--they got the wording wrong (the original Lusk wording is of course the classic "Catch me WHEN you can" and Dear Boss reads "till I do get buckled"). The writer also substitutes "they say I am a Yid" instead of the reference to Leather Apron in the September 25 Dear Boss letter, most likely copying the rhyme attributed to the Ripper, "I'm not a butcher, I'm not a Yid..." It is thought that a modern day hoaxer slipped this "Ripper letter" into the files at the Public Record Office at the time that the general public were allowed access to them. (Today the general public are prohibited from handling the actual letters because of security reasons and this type of malarkey--I understand they have to look at the letters on microfilm.) This just proves there are hoaxers now just as there were in 1888. R.J., I advanced the theory several years ago that someone well versed in both the Maybrick and Ripper murders, and thus not a neophyte who would have to look up the material, might have thought it a lark to produce a document to fool his (or her) peers, and that money was not the first and foremost motive for producing the Diary. I still think this might be the case, that someone was out to prove how clever they could be, not how much money they could be rake in. You could be correct that Mike Barrett was the one who introduced the profit motive. Having flung that gauntlet out, I would like to fling out another. I have not by the way got yet a copy of Shirley Harrison's latest paperback, published by Blake, and must do so. I was asked recently in the chat room what I thought of Mrs. Harrison. Shirley and I have not met but we have spoken on the phone, although some years ago, as well as corresponded with each other. I am reliably told by those who have met her that she is a very personable lady and that she came to the Diary project as a professional writer, knowing nothing about the Ripper before she began her researches into Maybrick and the Ripper. No one appears to believe that that she had any part in the fraud, which, to my mind, the Diary evidently is. My question is, given all the strikes against the Diary being genuine--the handwriting not matching Maybrick's, the inability to date the ink to 1888, the lack of provenance, the non-existence of the Poste House pub in Liverpool in 1888, etc., not to mention her and Paul Feldman's inability to prove conclusively that Maybrick was the author--does she still think James Maybrick wrote the Diary? Doesn't she harbor some doubts about it by now? Or does she still stand by the rather tired refrain of James Maybrick's family motto, "Time Will Reveal All"? Chris George
Author: Shirley Harrison Wednesday, 19 July 2000 - 10:01 am
Chris - thank you for the kind (rare) observation. This has to be short as I have friends to dinner and I will respond more fully a.s.a.p. I will however give you a quick, unequivocal "Yes " I do still believe in the diary. I have for many years had an ongoing argument with my Christian husband (I'm not) who says that belief is a matter of faith - a leap in the dark. And that is all I can claim - faith. I do not think - despite what you say that there is enough hard proof that the diary is a forgery to change my mind. Most of what is said - even Melvin's well written and forthright observations - are not based on any documentary proof. I am sure that the answer will come through history not science...and we have new material arising all the time. Also - don't dismiss the watch. The signature of Maybrick though difficult to see with the naked eye IS uncannily like that on the will...and at the time the watch appeared neither of the Johnsons knew about the will. The focus on the Liverpool Three - two sick men and an alcoholic - is to my mind unlikely but I will try to expand again of why i think so later. I can only keep repeating....let those who think they KNOW tell us and not prevaricate by saying thast proof of evidence does not lie with them, however true in law that may be! Please try again for the book - would you like me to get Blake to send one?
Author: R.J. Palmer Wednesday, 19 July 2000 - 03:39 am
Chris--Hi. A ballpoint pen?!? yikes. I think Paul Feldman inadvertantly left that part out. I'm undecided on the expertise of diary's author; I tend to think he/she/they were better acquainted with the Maybrick end than with the Ripper murders. But maybe this comes from my own ignorance. I want to go over the diary again carefully with Etched in Arsenic and a couple of other Maybrick books in hand to test Feldman's thesis that the diary mirrors closely the events in JM's life. But check this out: For Stride's murder the diary says: "I would have dearly loved to have cut the head of the damned horse off and stuff it as far as it would go down the whores throat", referring to Diemschutz's cart. Nearly all the Ripper authors refer to Diemschutz as having a 'pony and trap' or a 'pony and cart' (an exception is James Tully) but if you look in the Star for 1 October, it quotes "Diemshitz" himself: "I was coming home from market at one o'clock on Sunday morning...After I had passed through the gate...on driving into the yard my donkey shied a little in consequence of my cart coming in contact with something on the ground". So it appears it was a donkey's head, and not a horse's head, that JM would have wanted to stuff. This makes me think the author was relying on secondary sources and not looking into newspapers, documents, etc. (Maybe Caz was wrong...we aren't flogging a dead horse here, but a dead Jackass!) Cheers, RJP
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 19 July 2000 - 09:49 am
Hi, R.J.: Excellent catch about Diemschutz's work animal possibly having been a donkey not a horse! Yes, that could be yet another strike against the diary. Hee haw. Hello, Shirley: I am amazed that you can say that the writing in the watch matches Maybrick's signature on his will (the same will which you were at pains in your 1993 hardback "The Diary of Jack the Ripper" to proclaim a forgery!) but that you fail to address the larger question of the signature and other known examples of Maybrick's handwriting (of which Paul Feldman publishes several) not matching the handwriting in the Diary! Yes, Shirley, it would be very nice to receive a copy of the Blake edition of your book. I promise to give it a review in an upcoming issue of Ripper Notes. I will e-mail you with my address. While I do not believe Maybrick was the Ripper and still maintain that you and Paul Feldman have failed to prove that James Maybrick either was the Whitechapel murderer or wrote the Diary, I am still intensely interested in the controversy surrounding the document. Chris
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden Wednesday, 19 July 2000 - 12:00 pm
Apparently I am missing something here but faith or no faith, the scratched name on the watch looks nothing like James Maybrick's signature on the will even if Ms. Harrison would like us to think that it does. Wolf.
Author: Shirley Harrison Wednesday, 19 July 2000 - 02:59 pm
Chris and Wolf. I thought that I had recently agreed that I have failed to PROVE the diary genuine. Just as the doubters have failed to PROVE it a forgery. We all have our own respective beliefs. The will? Yes I did suggest, in the hardback, a that it could have been a forgery it was a reasonable possibility.....but one of the big problems (and pleasures) working on this story has been the constantly emerging material and shifting perceptions which you will see in the paperback I have dealt with quite openly. The possibility of the will being a forgery had a question mark in the hardback - by the time of the paperback publication I had gathered enough material to change my mind. It has been and still is a voyage of discovery which I prefer to share with others (whilst declaring my colours on the way) Perhaps this is what Mevin meant by saying I was a practised evader? I have now seen the watch many times and the signature IS like that of Maybrick's - this is not what I would like you to believe - it is whatI have seen. The donkey is interesting. As you know I am not a Ripper buff and would like to hear from people like Paul Begg about this......over to you Paul and Keith (if he is still in the attic)
Author: Michael Lyden Thursday, 20 July 2000 - 05:31 am
Hello everyone, I have been reading the posts on this discussion with interest.Firstly I must say that I think that the diary is a hoax.The main problem that I have with it is that every detail that the author has decided to include can be verified using a number of the JtR and other true crime books.It's as if the hoaxer has stupidly said to himself/herself "if people are going to believe all this,then they must be able to compare each detail with something"! If we where dealing with the genuine article I would have expected to see a whole host of references to unfamiliar people, places and objects.These new facts would either mean nothing,or they would quickly make sense of some of the many mysteries surrounding the case. The hoaxer also repeats some of the classic mistakes found in a few of the books.The one that springs to mind is is the placing on the bedside table, of Kelly's breasts. As always your comments would be most welcome. Regards, Mick Lyden.
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 05 December 2000 - 01:59 am
Hi Shirley: I received the copy of the Blake edition of "The Diary of Jack the Ripper: The Chilling Confessions of James Maybrick" containing your updated narrative. Thank you very much. As promised, a review of the book will be upcoming in "Ripper Notes." Tell me though, is there a plan to bring out this or a similar edition in the United States, or is this strictly for the British market? Thanks for the clarification. I note that the British Blake edition (1998) racks up at 474 pages, and contains a full facsimile of the Diary while the U.S. Pocket Books edition of 1995 that I have is only 333 pages long and contains just a sample few facsimile pages from the Diary, although both editions contain the full transcript of the document. Best regards Chris George
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 06 December 2000 - 12:10 am
Hi Shirley: Just popping in to keep this thread going before it times out on the "Last Day" recall to see if you could answer my questio about the latest British and American editions of you book. Thanks! Chris George
Author: shirley harrison Thursday, 07 December 2000 - 10:23 am
Chris--I keep losing the internet and then my mouse....but its ok right now. Ive been very fed up over the slowness of the new publisher to promote....not, as Melvin would suggest for the money although this would come in handy. But because I get a lot of interest and queries from The States and it is impossible trying to keep up with questions which are often answered in the latest edition. Perhaps if the film takes off they will get on the case!
Author: Christopher T George Thursday, 07 December 2000 - 08:22 pm
Hi, Shirley: Thanks for your answer. So I take it that I am correct that the U.S. Pocket Books edition of 1995 is the last edition of your book to see the light of day in the US of A? Good luck in getting the update into print here. Hopefully it will be published when the movie is released, perhaps with Madonna as Florie and Jonathan Pryce as James Maybrick, reprising their roles of Evita and Juan Perón??? "Don't Cry for Me, Jack the Ripper"!!!! Chris George
Author: shirley harrison Friday, 08 December 2000 - 07:24 am
Bless you Chris. A spot of humour.....Ill keep you posted of course, when I am able, about the film etc. Yes I imagine the pocket book is the last - a shame because I really do think the Blake update` is so much better. Ill be really interested to know what you make of Mikes notes, as typed and "tidied up" by anne.