|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 January 08, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Maybrick/Jack's watch?:
Archive through January 08, 2001
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 01 December 2000 - 02:24 pm |        | Hi RJ,
Well, if Mike only knew he got the diary from Devereux, and Anne had kept him in the dark, for whatever personal reasons, right up until July 1994, he would perceive, just like you, that Anne's revelations constituted the introduction of just such a 'new & complete story of the original facts of the diary and how it came to light' as far as he was concerned. So his statement makes sense, whether he knows Anne is making it all up or he still knows absolutely zilch. I agree he must have felt totally betrayed by Anne and Feldy.
Again, if the Formby/Yapp link is a total fabrication, we have to look at how and when it might have dawned on Anne to concoct and use it. As you say, it would be a different sort of connection from Feldy's genealogical meanderings, and to my mind, a far more logical and convincing one. Also, IMHO, this non-blood link doesn't work if you try to take it in conjunction with the alleged family connection between Florie and Billy's dad. I think, had Feldy not got the blood relationship bit so much between his teeth by this stage, he would have seen the Formby/Yapp link as a more likely provenance. Perhaps he was just so convinced he would be able to prove the former, that he didn't bother so much with the latter.
Love,
Caz
PS What did you think of my red diary scenario? |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 04 December 2000 - 07:50 am | | Caz--Hello. I guess I can't really see it, and I imagine that you are pretty darned convinced that Mike knows nothing about the Diary's origins. It just seems unlikely to me that Mike would spend L25 on a genuine 1891 diary just to prove it could be done... and then, once proving it, go and immediately try and market the 'album' version anyway.
If writing the Diary was a floggable offense, and I was prosecuting Mr. Bongo, I would submit the red diary as 'People's Exhibit A' and ask: 'Mr. Bongo, did or did you not buy a genuine Victorian diary, circa 1891, two weeks before introducing the Maybrick diary to the world? Why, Mr. Bongo, would you do such a thing?' And I would ask the question, not necessarily because I knew what any of it meant, but because it looks so incredibly bad. (That would make me a bad lawyer, I think; a good lawyer knows what the witness is going to answer).
I admit Mike isn't able to keep his story straight, which is odd. It also seems a little late in the game, since Mike evidently bought the red diary between the time he contacted Pan books and the time he met with Doreen Montgomery. I tend to think that, for whatever reason, Mike was unhappy with the Diary and wanted to transcribe it into something else. So he bought the red diary, but found it too small.
Best wishes,
RJP |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 04 December 2000 - 11:42 am | | Hi RJ,
Sorry, but I see the ordering and purchase of a Victorian diary, of the wrong year and size, pretty much as Mike's own proof that whatever he had in mind couldn't be done (leastways, not by him! :-)).
I'm really trying to imagine the scene if Mike knew in March 1992 that he, or Tony D, or Anne, or someone connected with any of them, or all of them together, had got hold of the album, then composed and carefully written out the text of their Maybrick Diary, crossing and dotting the last t and i of 'third day of May 1889' at some point after April 1989. Do you think he decided in his wisdom that he would be able to go one better, order a more convincing book, then reproduce the penman's work by himself, taking this, instead of the ill-fated scrapbook (aptly named, considering the scraps it has caused in the past :-)) to wow Ms Montgomery? It makes me wonder why Mike only realised at the last minute that the scrapbook idea might look phoney, and why neither he nor anyone else involved had noticed this before?
I'd love to know how the conversation went when he placed his telephone order for the little red diary. Did he, for instance, specify anything, apart from the fact that he wanted to find 'a Victorian diary'? If the book company didn't bother to ask for any further particulars, such as what size, year, condition (whether written in or not), etc, he was looking for, and Mike didn't think to specify any such requirements, he possibly hadn't a clue (or a care?) what they were going to charge for it when they found one and posted it off to him. When he got it, along with the bill for £25, and realised how useless it was for the purpose of transferring the created work (or else how useless he would be if he set out to forge one himself), he should of course have sent it straight back, and saved Anne forking out later, when the money was found to be still owing.
I can't explain why Anne agreed to pay for the little red diary, instead of suggesting Mike return the useless article whence it came. But it didn't seem to occur to her that the whole incident might look 'incredibly bad' in the future. Could it be that she, like us, didn't really understand why he ordered it in the first place?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 06 December 2000 - 06:34 am | | From Keith Skinner To Chris George and RJ Palmer
Dear Chris and RJ
Very many thanks to you both for your considered responses to my questions.
“The identities of the three people involved in the forgery will soon be made known.”
“NOTE WELL:- the Sphere volume had been left with Mike’s solicitor LONG BEFORE the break with his wife and the ‘confession’”
“Their lies [Mike and Anne] simply concern provenance. Their roles were simply as placers, or handlers, of a document forged by others.”
All of the above statements emanate from Melvin Harris. They are authoritative, straightforward and leave no room for Melvin being wrong or misinformed. Is it not reasonable to ask for the evidential support to be produced, privately or publicly, which is hard, indisputable, conclusive proof and not Melvin’s opinion or conjecture based on what he perceives as the truth and presented as fact? If Melvin Harris cannot or will not do this, would this leave him open to accusations of inadvertently misleading the public? And if this is the case, is it not then reasonable to begin to question and examine the evidence and basis of other conclusions advanced by Melvin?
All Good Wishes
Keith |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 06 December 2000 - 12:10 pm | | From Keith Skinner to RJ Palmer
Dear RJ
Just to pick up on a couple of your observations from your post of Friday December 1 2000 – 11.05am.
“He [Mike Barrett] finds himself shunned by everyone, and Anne is now researching the new provenance theory with the man who owns the film rights.”
But presumably not shunned by Alan Gray who, one month previously, in December 1994, had, with Mike’s assistance, secured the evidence that his client had forged the Diary?
“His [Mike Barrett’s] statement makes sense if he knows that Anne is making up her story.”
Fair enough. But how does Mike know Anne is making up the story? Presumably because he knows that he forged the Diary, or that “their roles were simply as placers, or handlers, of a document forged by others.”
Or can you offer another suggestion as to how Mike, innocent and unsuspecting of any sort of fraud or duplicity, may have known, and which takes into account his relationship with Alan Gray and the positive assertion of Melvin Harris?
All Good Wishes
Keith |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 06 December 2000 - 12:13 pm | | Hi All,
I was asked recently by John Dixon, who has contributed occasionally to the message boards, if a report about ‘a cotton merchant from The Midlands’ [sic] being suggested as a JtR suspect rings any bells. John is pretty sure he recalls such an article appearing in his local paper, during the late 1970s or early 1980s, when he was in Rockhampton, Brisbane, Australia. I pointed out that Liverpool was not in The Midlands, but he is sticking with his recollection of the actual wording.
So, if this does ring a bell with anyone, any further info would be much appreciated.
Thanks.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 07 December 2000 - 07:15 am | | From Keith Skinner to RJ Palmer
Dear RJ
Just poking my nose in again, this time on your speculation that,
“I tend to think that, for whatever reason, Mike was unhappy with the Diary and wanted to transcribe it into something else.”
Caroline has already made the point, but it is worth underscoring… If the red diary had been suitable then, setting to one side the inherent, potential risk of the purchase being traced back to Mike at a future date, are you satisfied that Mike Barrett would have simply put pen to paper, transferred the text of the Diary, (in his own handwriting presumably?), and then with the ink hardly dry on the pages, gone down to London with the Diary?
Another explanation of why Mike bought the red diary is that perhaps he was genuinely excited at the prospect of meeting a Literary Agent and the possibility of collaborating on a book with a recognized author – so bought the red diary on impulse, just to see what a Victorian diary looked like. True, he could have found out by other, less expensive means, but he didn’t. So, is there any evidence to support the notion that Mike Barrett is a man who acts on impulse? How consistent would this be with his character? Is it likely that Mike Barrett, faced with possibly the most exciting and status building event that had ever happened to him in his life, would have splashed out £25, leaving his wife to settle the debt?
Best Wishes
Keith
And if the red diary is such a damning, incriminating piece of evidence, why would Anne Graham have given me so much co-operation when I investigated its purchase? |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 07 December 2000 - 02:48 pm | | Dear Keith Skinner and Caz and everyone:
Hello. First off, I'd like to say to Keith that I have finally rustled up a copy of the staggeringly detailed Ultimate Companion and am entirely impressed. Congratulations to you and to Stewart Evans.
Now, in answer to the above: it seems unclear (to me, at least) whether or not Mike ordered the red diary before or after Doreen Montgomery wrote to him on 10 March 1992. The timing is very close; if the diary reached Mike on the 28/29th of March, and it presumably took the book dealers 2-3 weeks to obtain the diary, this could swing either way. I admit that it would be ridiculous to suggest that Mike would have hastily transcribed the Maybrick material into the red diary as the clock was striking midnight (so to speak); but, on the otherhand, if Mike had already ordered the diary before he received word back from Ms. Montgomery, I would argue that, in my scenerio, Mike suddenly found that things were speeding up and decided it that he would have to bring the Diary foward 'as is', ie., written in the album with the missing pages... a condition, by the way, that immediately caused the suspicion of Kenneth Rendell, Joe Nickell, etc. I am not arguing that the Diary as we see it today was not in existence prior to March 1992. I think that it was. Indeed, I even tend to think that this album is what Billy Graham had seen back around 1950; but, since Mr. Graham did not read it, we don't really know (except from Anne's testimony) whether the Maybrick material was in it then, or was added later. In trying to understand the enigma of the red diary, I was speculating that Mike was unhappy with how the Diary would appear to a potential publisher, and was still seeking out a more likely Victorian diary when London came calling. Of course this is mere speculation on my part. Feel free to dismiss it.
More complicated to answer, perhaps, are the posts of Wednesday December 6th. I believe there's an old saying along the lines of 'turnabout is fair play'. I had suggested that perhaps Anne's statement had been unduly influenced by the presence of Paul Feldman and his enthusiastic speculations. (Obviously I'm not the first to say this). In Wednesday's post (if I am reading it correctly) there is the reversed proposal: that Mike Barrett's confession in January 1995, may have been unduly influenced by the presence of Alan Gray & friends. I do have a couple of comments in regards to this, and, to the broader questioned posed of whether it is "reasonable to begin to question and examine the evidence and basis of other conclusions advanced by Melvin". Unfortunately it might take a longish post to explain my thinking here, and I have to beg off for a day or two (wicked chest cold). I'd like to respond in the spirit of explaining why I still give Melvin's statements a fair amount of weight (evidently unlike most the contributors here).
I'll write soon.
Cheers,
RJ Palmer |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 08 December 2000 - 04:28 pm | | As I see it, this is the fundamental difference: the theory of the diary being an old document is largely dependent on Anne's testimony, whereas, the theory that the diary is a recent hoax owes nothing whatsoever to Mike's various statements. In other words, I don't think that there is anyone who bases their belief in the Diary being a post-1986 hoax on the strength of Mike's confession; they base it on textual and forensic examination. Indeed, one would be a fool not to caste a cold eye on Mike's various rambling statements and subsequent retractions.
On the other hand, it seems to me (trying to look at this objectively) that the belief that the Diary is an old document is based largely--perhaps in some cases even entirely-- on the strength of the testimony of Anne Graham, Billy Graham, Steve Powell, Albert Johnson, Johnson's co-workers, etc., etc. Would there really be much argument at all about the Diary's age if it wasn't for their seeming honesty? Bill Waddell speaks about Anne's consistent veracity. Colin Wilson finds Albert Johnson an honest gentleman. Feldman writes how Billy Graham's testimony struck him as unrehearsed and trustworthy, etc. etc. I'm not trying to be smug here. If I had met Anne or Albert and had heard their stories, I may well have come to an entirely different conclusion about the Diary's origins. But I haven't, and I have to base my opinion on the various textual and forenisic studies that are in print.
For good or for bad, far and away the two most extensive arguments for the Diary being an old document are Paul Feldman's The Final Chapter and Shirley Harrison's Blake edition of the The Diary of Jack the Ripper. Now several days back I mentioned that Feldman was the man who holds the film rights to the Diary, which is true. And it struck me later that this might have sounded a little mean-spirited. I did not mean that this would make Mr. Feldman therefore dishonest; but, considering the amount of time, money, and energy that Mr. Feldman has invested in the Diary, not to mention his financial interest, can we really expect him to be objective about the Diary and its origins? Feldman is an intelligent man. But, as Andre Maurois once pointed out, "when one is intelligent, one knows how to put intelligence at the serivice of one's desires." One only has to look closely at Feldman's arguments in The Final Chapter to see this. To just name one example among many, Feldman extensively argues on p. 281-286 that there was some 'confusion', and that Robert Anderson was really referring to the Lusk letter and not the Dear Boss letter when claiming that it was the work of 'an enterprising journalist.' There can be no doubt why Feldman wants to believe this. But can anyone really believe that Feldman would have come to such a strange conclusion that Anderson was referring to the Lusk letter if it did not bolster the cause of the Diary? Feldman knows about Macnaghten's Days of My Years; it's in his bibliography. He knows about the Littlechild letter: he refers to it (p 377). So presumably he knows that all 3 men were referring to the Dear Boss letter as the work of journalists. But he mentions neither one of these statements in his argument about the alleged Lusk\Dear Boss confusion. So with this, and in other instances, Feldman can be seen to be guilty of a 'sin of omission', so to speak, and after a while, the careful reader begins to doubt whether or not Mr. Feldman is really being intellectually honest with himself. Perhaps unfairly (but, I think, quite naturally) this doubt carries over to Feldman's statements about his interviews with Anne Graham.
Shirley Harrison strikes me as a funadmentally amiable person, and she has been kind enough to cooperate with the posters on this board. I think she is sincere in her belief that the Diary is genuine. More over, she has done what Feldman did not do, she has included some arguments in her latest book that run counter the Diary's cause, most notably, in stating that Mike owned a copy of the Sphere book prior to his discovery of the Crashaw quote in the Liverpool library. But I'm afraid I have to agree to disagree with her conclusions about the Diary and the Diary's complex knowledge of Maybrick's life. One example. The Diary refers to Maybrick finding 'a new source of medicine'. On pg 167, she writes that 'If the Diary is a modern forgery, its forger would have had to locate and read [The Necessity for Criminal Appeal by J.H. Levy]'s learned text to find the only printed reference to a new source of medicine.' But, having read Bernard Ryan's popular {The Poisoned Life of Mrs. Maybrick} (1977) I know that Ryan mentions the Valentine Blake story about supplying Maybrick with arsenic in three different places (p 31, 114, and 237). And so, after some study, I can't agree with Ms. Harrison's belief that the Diary is a particularly complex document, and, indeed agree with Melvin Harris assertion that all the information about Maybrick and JtR can be found in a few popular books.
So the bottom line is this: in trying to look objectively at the forensic and textual evidence of the Diary's age, I don't find the 'old document' arguments convincing, in fact, I find them misleading, and feel that the argument falls back on the seeming veracity of Anne, Albert, etc. On the otherhand, in studying the various dissertations by Melvin Harris about the textual and forensic evidence for the Diary's recent origins, I don't see him committing 'sins of omission'; when he quotes Baxendale, one can go back and see that he did not quote it out of context to the extent of being misleading. When Harris writes about the Sphere history, Underwood's book, etc.etc., one can retrace his steps and see that he has been accurate. I'm not speaking about the old A-Z debate which I do not understand nor follow. Various personalities, attitudes, grudges and accusations aside, when it comes to the textual and forensic examinations, Melvin's playing field seems to be level. This is not always case with those who have argued that the diary is an old document.
As for the Diary being lodged with Mike's solicitor, the various claims and counter-claims, etc., etc. I simply do not know the truth behind any of this, one way or the other. I do think it is a gross simplification to think that those who might suspect that Mike Barret was somewhow involved with the forgery do so because "Melvin said so". If one comes to the conclusion that the Diary is post-1986, then, naturally, one must assume that Anne and/or Mike know something about it's true origin. Mike bought a 1891 red diary prior to bringing the Maybrick journal to London; that he had a copy of REW's {Murder, Mayhem, Mystery} and this ended up with Devereux (some would argue that this was used in making the Diary); that Mike seemed to answer to no one about the Diary's financial arrangements; that Mike owned a copy of the Sphere prior to his discovery in Liverpool Library (not just according to Melvin Harris, but according to Shirley Harrison as well); that the Diary was found on his word processor by Scotland Yard, etc. There is good reason why an honest observor might well suspect Mike Barrett's involvement. Similarly, though it gives me no pleasure in saying so, if one comes to the conclusion that the Diary is post-1986, then Anne's statement is untrue, not because Anne is a despicable person and a liar, or that Melvin Harris is right and Feldman is wrong, or because the anti-diarist are more polite than the pro-diarists, or for any other reason, but simply, because it cannot be so. Discrediting Harris will not make the 'recent hoax' assertions go away.
But I've become somewhat pessimistic about seeing a resolution to the Maybrick mystery anytime soon. People are too polarized, and I think I have misjudged the enmity on both sides. Sadly, this seems to be not so much a search for the truth, but an attempt to prove one another wrong. I can't see it ending happily. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 10 December 2000 - 11:03 am | | Hi RJ,
You make some good points as usual, but I think you may be missing another important one. Melvin suggested that Mike Barrett was got at by the ‘diary people’ to stop him killing the goose that laid the golden eggs. But isn’t such a suggestion entirely at odds with what we are seeing here with our own eyes? Shirley, Keith and Paul Begg have been pleading with Melvin to reveal the very evidence which threatens to kill the goose and stuff it in time for Christmas! You must admit this is odd behaviour if it comes from a bunch of gold-digging diarymongers, all with flawed personalities. You’d think they would be rejoicing in Melvin’s continued silence, not trying their utmost to persuade him to talk.
Along with Melvin’s thorough investigation into the diary itself, he has spent years wringing every last drop of potential usefulness out of Mike’s various confession statements and suspicious actions, and an awful lot of energy finding errors in the work of writers, researchers, scientists and scholars, who come up with conclusions and opinions at variance with his own. How frustrating it must be for him to have to tread such an undignified path when there is a handful of journalists watching him all the while with the key dangling just beyond his grasp. Why on earth doesn’t Melvin direct his energies against these journalists, who are effectively queering his pitch, instead of against people like Professor Rubinstein and Feldy?
I must say I am very disappointed, RJ, if you seriously think that anyone posting here believes the status of the diary would change if only Melvin’s credibility could be destroyed. I really thought we’d seen the end of such thinking, but I’d be interested to know who you have in mind, and which posts indicate to you that this is so. I have often said that, even if all Melvin’s arguments could be shown wanting, it wouldn’t necessarily prove a thing about the diary’s real age. In the same way, I always thought it pretty pointless for Melvin to keep breaking off his laudable assault on the diary itself to give Feldy a bashing. It’s an unproductive and unpleasant diversion from his efforts to catch out the suspected modern forgers.
I do appreciate that attacking the credibility or character of those involved with the diary, on all ‘sides’, will get no one any nearer to the truth. So, could the ‘attack’ not be a joint one, focussed on the barricade Melvin’s journalists have erected?
Love,
Caz
PS Hope the cold's better. :-) |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 11 December 2000 - 03:26 am | | Morning RJ,
Please bear in mind, when reading the following message from Keith, that it was written before he knew about your latest post, of Friday December 8th @ 04.28pm, which I will pass on to him shortly.
(And I guess you won’t need me to rub Vick on your chest now, if you are feeling better. J)
Love,
Caz
From Keith Skinner to RJ Palmer
Dear RJ
Thank you very much for your post of Thursday, December 7th 2000 @ 02.48pm. Sorry to learn you are/were suffering from a chest cold – temporary leave of absence from the board is, of course, granted – subject to Nurse Caz’s approval that you aren’t malingering!
Ahead of your return and “spirit of explaining” response, concerning Melvin’s statements, I would just like to clarify the position from my own perspective.
I have frequently repeated in private, public and on these boards that I do value Melvin Harris’s contributions to Ripper studies and – when he is in constructive mode – to the Diary debate. It would be stupid and arrogant of me to ignore his input. I do not agree with all of his conclusions but that does not – and should not – diminish the importance of any factual material he provides. There have been several occasions in the past when Melvin has found my own research to be deficient – and he has been correct. I accept this failing on my part and move on, happy and secure in the knowledge that we now have more facts on the table. But what Melvin has failed to grasp, as regards my position over the Diary, is that believing, as I do, the document to be old, (I do not say genuine and I have no theory to explain provenance, or its existence within the Graham family), then the only way for me to try and prove it is not a modern hoax, is for me to do everything I can to test and prove the modern hoax theory. Which means identifying and exposing the forgers. Yet, inexplicably, the only person capable of doing this – even privately – but is reluctant to do so, is Melvin Harris.
It makes no sense to me.
All Good Wishes
Keith |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 28 December 2000 - 12:08 pm | | Caz--hello. I think your post of December 10th deserves an answer, but I found it somewhat confusing, and so have tarried a bit longer in responding than politeness would normally allow. Apologies.
My feeling is that the two 'sides' of the diary debate --if there are such things-- are utterly unable to see the opposing view, and perhaps can't even agree to who's 'court the ball is in'. For instance, it is rather obvious that you genuinely feel that the most important thing now is for Melvin Harris to somehow pressure the London reporters to reveal their information.
But you see, from my view, I am pessimistic that this would really solve anything. (Even if Mr. Harris was willing or able.) Already a very substantial body of evidence has been compiled by Harris and others to suggest that the Diary is of recent origin. And yet, as far as I can tell, none of this has had much effect in changing the opinion of those who believe the Diary is an old document. The ink evidence, the Sphere revelation, the claims about Mr. Kane, etc. etc., haven't shaken any foundations. Is it really likely that any additional information will deliver the death blow to the Diary?
I know this sounds rather cynical. But do you remember the German fellow from last spring who argued for the Diary's authenticity? A few people --some of them experts-- (and yes, even lowly me) set about to convert this gentleman into anti-diary orthodoxy. But, in the end, it was to no avail. He was 'lost'. He eventually departed, I believe, utterly unconverted. So, you see, I've come to believe that arguments, evidence, and the like, have a remarkable propensity for not convincing anyone!
I tend to think that the 'anti-diarists' have basically launched most of their ammo. Harris, Sugden, Rendell, and others have voiced most of the best arguments in print, and those interested can examine their arguments and come to their own conclusions. Those that believe will continue to believe. As far as I am concerned, the only thing that would really resolve anything now is if the forger(s) would come clean with a confession. Until then, there isn't likely to be anything but denials and counter-arguments... a sort of clumsy stalemate.
On the otherhand, I don't agree with you that it is a 'waste of time' for Melvin Harris to respond to Paul Feldman, Prof. Rubinstein, and the like. These gentlemen attempted to give some legitimacy to what I feel is a very suspect document, and Harris is quite right in giving a rebuttle to their claims. This is certainly a legitimate and proper way to handle the dispute; it is probably much more valuable than the lesser task of trying to change someone's 'opinion' on these boards. After all, most of us who have been arguing about the Diary here during this past year have agreed on most of the various 'facts', we've just come to different interpretations....and conclusions.
It is my opinion that when Anne Graham and Carol Emmas published The Last Victim last year, they crossed a subtle but important line. They treated the Diary throughout the book as a legitimate historical document in a biography of Florence Maybrick. This sets a precedent of sorts. I don't feel there is anywhere near enough evidence to suggest that the Diary deserves that sort of legitimacy. If the ball is in anyone's court, it is in theirs, and in Prof. Rubinstein's.
Finally, I didn't mean to sound at all bellicose in my previous posts. I just think it is best to display one's 'colors' in a discussion such as this (to use a nautical phrase) and take it for granted that nothing personal is meant by taking the opposing side. If I launch a cannonball in the general direction of your bulwarks, I hope you understand it is all in good fun.
RJP |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 28 December 2000 - 12:57 pm | | R.J.
The Diary nonsense has taken on a religeous fervour, and we all know how obstinate people like that can be. Believing in facts is no longer the issue, it is enough to simply 'believe'.
You wont shift them, either resign yourself to banging your head against a wall for eternity, or ignore the whole business.
Afterall, there is still a flat earth society. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 28 December 2000 - 02:58 pm | | Hi RJ,
No problem at all - I often read through my posts and become hopelessly confused. :-) And if I didn't find the whole diary saga, and those involved in discussing it, not only good fun but able to hold my interest for so long (yes, very sad I know) you can be sure my bulwarks wouldn't still be here to have cannonballs launched in their general direction, so please feel free!
In answer to your point about Melvin's additional information being unlikely to deliver the death blow to the diary, seeing as the 'very substantial body of evidence compiled by Harris and others' has failed thus far, I would say this: I don't believe that people like Shirley and Keith have failed to be convinced thus far because of anything so trivial as personal feelings towards any of the 'anti-diarists', wishful thinking, stubborn refusal to accept what others might see as clear evidence of a modern hoax staring them in the face, or their own personal belief systems, whatever that means. If I have a belief in all this, it's that there must be a whole lot more in their eight years of diary/watch involvement than meets the eye, otherwise cool logic asks me why they wouldn't think more as you do. Logic also tells me that Melvin needs to produce this proof he keeps banging on about if he really does want to see, like all other interested parties, a change to this 'clumsy stalemate' position. It seems a little unfair to be speculating about whether people, particularly Shirley and those most closely involved, would remain as 'utterly unconverted' as the poster from Germany you mentioned - Mark Goeder - even if Melvin were to produce his proof against the modern suspects in private. Much fairer for Melvin to hand Shirley the whole deck of cards and let her make the choice to convert or not to convert - then at least if the jokers in the pack still fail to do the trick, your argument would have merit, not just in relation to the Mark Goeders of the world, but to those who are in a position to know an awful lot better.
As for The Last Victim, treating the diary as 'a legitimate historical document', this is just another example of the extraordinary lengths Anne Graham seems prepared to go to, if she knows full well that the diary is a post-1987 hoax, continuing to deceive her friends and associates, and the reading public, in pursuit of some shadowy ambition, to achieve - what? Even greater notoriety it would seem. Of course, the evidence which you don't feel is 'anywhere near enough' either exists in Anne's head or it doesn't. If Anne knows the diary has existed for all those years, but has no way of proving it, does that mean she was not entitled to mention it in her book on Florie?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 29 December 2000 - 08:05 am | | Hi All,
RJ's post had me thinking back to the one by Chris George on December 1 - 01.31am, in which he quoted from Anne Graham's Radio Merseyside interview in 1995, together with his impressions of her personality and character from that testimony.
I meant to make a couple of observations at the time, but must have got distracted in the run up to all the festive fun and frolics.
Chris remarked that Anne '...sounds almost smug about the Diary being decades old while expressing weariness about what the Diary has put her through,...'
'Smug' actually sums up pretty much how I'd feel if I was telling the truth and knew I had something right, despite all the experts of the day telling me different. On the other hand, I'd replace 'smug' with 'absolutely petrified and shaking like a leaf' if I was attempting to defend myself against those same experts, by telling huge porkies on radio! So while I can relate perfectly well to Anne's apparent attitude if she was telling the truth, I can't begin to identify with the sort of person she must be if she was lying through her teeth, and smugly too - yes, I know - the kind with the bare-faced cheek to forge a serial killer's diary in the first place, obviously. :-)
Anne said, "...some people will say anything--people will in the end believe what they want to believe", shortly after the interviewer had started on the "...some people may say..." tack. This gave Chris the impression that Anne meant those people gullible enough to 'buy the new story' (no wonder he thought she sounded 'almost smug'!), whereas I assumed she was referring to those who would believe she must be lying. If she had no means of proving the truth of her story, it would be a pointless exercise worrying or speculating about what others would choose to say or believe - in other words, que sera sera.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 29 December 2000 - 08:14 am | | Sorry, even I couldn't manage to be petrified and shaking like a leaf at the same time - please excuse the mixed metaphors! Must be the mixed drinks I had last night talking. :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 29 December 2000 - 09:05 am | | Hi, Caz:
Thanks for responding (in between the holiday frolics!) about my post on Anne Graham's Radio Merseyside interview. I would agree with you that when Anne stated, "some. . . people will in the end believe what they want to believe", shortly after the interviewer had remarked, "...some people may say..." she was implying that some people will think that she is lying. But as I noted to R. J. Palmer, I felt there was also this underlying train of thought that people are gullible (there's that Dr. Gull again!) and that "some [other] people" would buy her story.
I will admit that Anne Graham is an enigma. She is either a practiced liar or is telling the truth. Yet we know that the story she is telling now is not the same that she and Mike originally told, so as such can it be the truth? It also disturbs me that she professes no interest in the Ripper while at the same time she continues to reap the profits from the Diary (although denying she has made much if any money!), and that she has written a book, as R.J. has noted, which by its very existence supports the authenticity of the Diary and therefore the case that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper.
In The Last Victim: The Extraordinary Life of Florence Maybrick, the Wife of Jack the Ripper, written with Carol Emmas, the writers state, "This book has not been written to prove the contents of the Ripper Journal. . ." (p. xviii). Yet the book cites elements from the Diary, including the "M" on the piece of envelope found with Annie Chapman's body, the inverted "V's" carved on Catherine Eddowes face that supposedly make up an "M"--and the alleged "FM" on Mary Jane Kelly's wall which Shirley Harrison in her book said stood for "Florence Maybrick."
The writers muse (p. 47) about the latter alleged daubing of "FM" for "Florence Maybrick" on MJK's wall, "Had the Ripper revenged himself on the woman in Miller's Court because he identified her with his young and beautiful wife--the woman who had betrayed him with his own brother? Was this why he carefully covered the victim's face with part of the sheet and leaned across the bloodied corpse to daub his wife's initials on the wall in the dead woman's blood?"
Obviously, The Last Victim: The Extraordinary Life of Florence Maybrick, the Wife of Jack the Ripper supports the Diary cause even if the writers claim it doesn't make a case for the authenticity of the document.
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 29 December 2000 - 01:35 pm | | Hi Chris,
Thanks for clarifying that your feelings were related to a general perception of Anne's underlying train of thought, rather than to the individual response she gave when confronted with the question of other people's scepticism.
It would be interesting to get Anne's reaction to your remark about her continuing 'to reap the profits from the Diary' while professing no interest in the Ripper.
While it may be almost impossible for any of us ripper enthusiasts - including me - to imagine having such a document among our old family possessions and reacting as Anne has, professing no interest, then bringing out a related book, I'm not sure how much this actually helps us towards a conclusion that she has been lying her socks off about it.
And if she has been telling the truth (however unlikely or even impossible many people find that to believe because of the diary itself), she is of course fully entitled to wonder, in print in her biography on Florie, about the diary author, and how the entries relate to her own subject, without pausing to think what you or I may make of her apparent contrariness.
Of course, had Melvin been able to produce his proof that Anne was a handler or placer of the recently forged diary before publication of The Last Victim, Anne would not have been able to support 'the Diary cause' and increase her ill-gotten gains in this manner. But then, neither would we be having this delightful conversation right now, so I guess it's not all gloom and doom after all. :-)
Happy New Year everyone, in case I don't get another chance to say so before 2001 - unlikely, but you never know your luck.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 30 December 2000 - 12:20 pm | | Caz--Well, I must say. My lower jaw is somewhat bruised (clunk!). You write: Had Melvin been able to produce his proof....Anne would not have been able to support 'the Diary cause'... Isn't that a wee bit like reversing the 'burden of proof'? But, though a little audacious (I think), I do admit that this does at least mirror Anne's own sentiments in the introduction to her book: "(The Last Victim) does, however, assume that the journal is not a old forgery, and in the last five years neither scientists nor historians have been able to prove that it is." (xxii) In other words, since Melvin & others have (allegedly) not proven the diary to be a fake, it is evidently o.k. to treat it as an authentic document? Really, I don't think this is the proper way to go about writing history. There are grave doubts about the diary's authenticity and the provenance is non-existant. As such, I would suggest that it is not a legitimate source for a serious biography of Florence Maybrick. But maybe I'm just being grumpy again. :-)
But Chris George makes a more subtle point in his post above. Anne once claimed to be indifferent, even hostile to the diary. She went as far as saying that she had no intention of it ever being published. But now, in fact, she has written a book that supports the diary's authenticity. Isn't this being rather coy? Anne has kept herself aloof from the 'diary debate', but, none-the-less, uses it as a source in her biography of Florie. I think she wants to have her cake and eat it too. All humble opinions &etc.
Using the story about Florie having an illegitimate child in Hartlepool (William Graham) is particularly astonishing. How on earth is the fact that Hartlepool is a sea port and Florie had a step-father that was in the Prussian army create any sort of link whatsoever? It strikes me as the wildest sort of leap imaginable. Though Anne hedges her bet about the doubtful nature of this story in the introduction, she does re-use it twice in the main text. I must be missing something.
Cheers, and Happy New Year,
RJP |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 30 December 2000 - 02:55 pm | | Hi, RJ and Caz:
I agree with you entirely in terms of Anne Graham using the information in the Diary for The Last Victim while expressing disinterest in the Ripper that this is disingenuous to say the least. Additionally, using a doubtful document (the Diary) and the unconfirmed story that her father Billy Graham was the illegitimate grandson of Florence Maybrick aka Graham does not advance the cause of history or the search for the truth.
In terms of whatever money has been made by Anne from the Diary, this is what she said in her October 4, 1995 interview with Radio Merseyside. I think her answer on whatever money she stands to make from the upcoming Maybrick-as-Ripper film is particularly telling:
Interviewer: And what about the money side of things, Anne, have you made a lot of money out of it?
Anne Graham: No, no--
Interviewer: Have you made any money out of it?
Anne Graham: Well, not a great deal. The research, the expenses from the publisher, there has been an incredible lot. And really there hasn't been much money made out of it at all.
Interviewer: But if there's a film made, you might?
Anne Graham: Well I think most of even the advance from the film has been ate up in expenses. There has been a little bit of money but not a great deal.
**************************************************
It would be interesting to know if Ms. Graham is telling the truth about the financial situation just as much as whether she is now telling the truth about the origins of the Diary, that it was given to her father at Christmas 1950 by his step mother among other items left to him by his grandmother.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 08:54 am | | Hi RJP and Chris
Caroline wrote that if had Melvin proved that Anne was the handler or placer of the 'diary' before publication of The Last Victim then Anne wouldn't have been able to increase her ill-gotten gains. This strikes me as fair comment because the London journalists allegedly had acquired their information showing that Mike and Anne were merely placers before Anne's book was published or probably ever conceived. Caroline therefore wasn't suggesting that the 'diary' could be considered genuine because it hadn't been proven a fake, only that if Melvin had proven Anne the placer of a forgery then Anne probably wouldn't have been able to publish a book that in any way relied on that forged document.
Anne's position is rather different and is a matter of perspective. If in her opinion the 'diary' was given to her father c.1950 and is believed by her to be a ganuine document, she is at liberty to use it in a book she has authored and to say that her story has not been proven a lie. I personally dislike the court of law burden of proof metaphore when discussing historical data (so much of it is beyond proof in any legal sense), but generally the burden of proof is upon those who claim that a person is lying. If Anne believes that she has not been proven a liar, she rightly can say so - as, indeed, in so many words she did. As said, it's a matter of perspective.
As for her aloofness v authorship of a Florrie biog, I think this should be considered according to the timeframes. She was certainly disintered in the 'diary' and particularly in Jack the Ripper, but became interested in Florence Maybrick after her father indicated a family connection which she began to research. One might also consider the possibility of pressure having been placed on Anne by her publishers Headline to emphasise the 'diary' (I don't mean to diminish Anne's book but in any way, but to capitalise on her links with the 'diary' may have been a reason why Headline decided to publish the book).
And what difference does money make to anything? Financial gain is a motive for forgery, but the making of money from the 'diary' doesn't prove anything except that if money was the motive then the forgery succeeded in meeting the forgers intentions. But was financial gain the motive? If Anne was merely the wife of the placer...?
And after a break caused by a computer crash, may I take this opportunity to wish everyone the very best possible New Year! |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 11:44 am | | Hi, Paul:
Happy New Year to you and yours as well. I was sorry to hear about your computer crash! I hope it has not caused too much havoc for you. It is always a distressing event when it occurs.
I have no firm theory about whether Anne is telling the truth about the Diary being old or whether she is covering up the fact that she is the wife of a placer of a forged document. I do though think that her answers on what money she has made from the Diary is relevant since those replies reflect on her overall truthfulness. I think that the Radio Merseyside interviewer was rightly skeptical when he pressed her to know what money has been made from the Diary. It seems even more absurd that the money she might get from a Maybrick movie is already "ate up" by expenses, as she put it.
As for whether Melvin is going to be forthcoming with any more information on how the alleged forgery scheme and who the forgers were, that seems a vain hope at this point. I continue to think that Melvin's information is not as major or as solid as he keeps hinting.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 01 January 2001 - 12:08 am | | Hello Chris, Paul, Caz, and everyone.
Sometimes a little contrariety sneaks up on me. I think perhaps I did slightly skew 'the spirit' of Caz's statement in my interpretation; but, with Peter Birchwood evidently taking a break from the boards, I figured someone ought to keep Caz on her toes... (a joke) Still, I can't help think that my point was somehow fair. Literally, what Caz had said is indisputably true. But isn't something amiss somehow? Surely the people who bring forward a suspect document (Anne Graham & Mike Barrett) and then go on and use it as a legitimate primary source in a historical study (Anne Graham) are the ones responsible for proving its authenticity?
That said, I think it is true that perhaps "in the real world" it is only to be expected that Anne Graham would have referred to the diary in her biography of Florie Maybrick. No doubt most of the readers of The Last Victim came to the book having first read The Diary of Jack the Ripper, and a fair amount would quite possibly have been disappointed if the book hadn't at least touched on the diary. I think it is true that the publishers would have wanted Anne Graham to mention it. Heck, for that matter, my own reason for reading the book was entirely due to my interest in the Maybrick diary.
Still, in my idealized world of 'History' with a capital 'H', it troubles me to think that someone could muddy the waters about the provenance of a suspect document, and then make use of it under the justification that it 'hasn't been proven a forgery.' For this isn't true. The diary is supposed to be the writing of James Maybrick, but it is not in his handwriting. It mimicks the 'Dear Boss' letter, but it is not in that handwriting either. Certainly this is the very definition of a forgery, isn't it? If not, what on earth constitutes a forgery?
But in the spirit of the new year, I guess I'll give it a rest now.
I'm rather ambivalant about the money issue. Ethics come down to a case-by-case basis, ultimately. For the greatest part, I think it is perfectly fine to agree to do research, write articles, books, etc. about the diary and similar items. People are interested in such things. Just as long as one isn't directly involved in a hoax, of course. Perhaps too much has made of this.
Anyway, thanks to everyone for what has been an interesting discussion over the past year.
Happy New Year,
RJP |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 02 January 2001 - 01:27 pm | | Happy New Year to you all!
Hi RJ,
I do enjoy making men's jaws drop. ;-)
Even better, I like to be kept on my toes (I'm only 5ft 2), and I'm missing Birchy already - bring back the birch! - (another joke).
Chris, Paul and RJ,
Actually, Paul said much of what I was planning to say, and obviously much better too. I thought it highly likely that the publishers of The Last Victim would want Anne to include her links to the unresolved diary. I was a bit worried about saying so, for fear of sounding like I was trying to make even more excuses for Anne. There aren’t any excuses, if she knowingly used a modern fake to help get her Florie biog on the shelves.
Ever the realist, I'm looking at the situation as an ongoing investigation concerning real live forgery suspects and real live fraud-busters - if we are going to crack this nut, we need practical solutions. Every time I suggest that Melvin Harris ought to be getting out his nutcrackers, along comes one of his Three Amigos (I must have seen that film 6,000 times but it still warms my little heart) - or should that be Three Excuses?
1) The onus is not on Melvin to prove anything.
We have Anne Graham, claiming the diary is decades old, truthfully or otherwise. Then we have Melvin Harris, who claims to have proof that Anne was a handler or placer of a much more recent forgery. Anne is the immovable object here - either she is telling the truth and nothing can budge her, or she's hopelessly hooked on hoodwinking, and will go on doing so until somebody can find the means to stop her. Melvin's irresistible force - his proof - looks more and more like leftover sherry trifle every time someone says the onus isn't on him to produce it. Maintaining that the burden of proof is on Anne to prove Maybrick’s guilt is all very well in theory, but it won’t be cracking the diary nut in practice, will it? And does any such immorality on Anne’s part somehow lessen or cancel out Melvin’s moral obligation to prove the guilt of all those persons he has directly or indirectly been publicly accusing over the years of being involved in a deliberate fraud?
2) Melvin has legitimate reasons for not producing that proof.
If so, don’t Melvin’s moral obligations now extend to providing Shirley Harrison with an explanation of those reasons, including why they still apply, supported if necessary with a solicitor’s letter?
3) Even if Melvin were to reveal conclusive proof against the modern suspects in private, Shirley would not accept it anyway, so what’s the point?
As I’ve said, this seems an unfair assumption to make, and one that can’t be tested unless Shirley is given the chance to accept or reject Melvin’s conclusive proof. I could make the assumption that Melvin’s nutcrackers aren’t what they’re cracked up to be, and his sherry trifle has all been eaten (as mine has – hic.). But at least he is in a position to dispute that assumption or tell us why it’s unfair.
As I see it, the moral issues are quite clear. If Anne is guilty of lying, and knowing the diary is a modern fake, then the amount of money she has made out of that lie, or stands to make in the future, is only a measure of her success as a con-woman. (It reminds me of the old un-PC joke about the man who offers a high-class tart a fiver, and the girl says, “What kind of a girl do you think I am?” The man replies, “I know exactly what kind of a girl you are, I’m just trying to establish your price.”) Why Anne would lie by down-playing her diary profits is not immediately clear to me, unless she has a perception that people’s moral indignation fluctuates, depending on the size of the suspected ill-gotten gains. (I can’t believe that. :-)) But perhaps Shirley is able to tell us if Anne has been truthful over the diary money, before we speculate further. Unfortunately, even if Anne is telling the truth and is not laughing all the way to the bank, I guess this won’t make her diary story any more likely to be true – will it?
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 03 January 2001 - 05:23 pm | | Caz-- Hello. Good Morning. Surely you are much too clever not to understand why a person might down-play profits! The implication being (of course) with little profit, there is little motive.
As for your 'three amigos', I assume these are mainly my coherts, since, other than perhaps your old combatant Barry Street, I am the only person posting here in recent memory that has acknowledged having much faith in Melvin Harris's claims. Call me credulous. But all of this is fine with me, and I actually plead guilty to all of your points:
1. No, I don't think the onus is on Melvin Harris for proving anything. Besides, even if his information is ultimately proven wrong or inconclusive, the diary supporters still need to prove their case. And, since the diary is a forgery (we agree on this point, don't we?) I do think that a person using it as a source in a biography should be challenged. I find it rather strange that even people who believe the diary is a forgery would argue that it is legitimate to use it as a historical document. Maybe my perception is wrong, but it does seem to me that 'excuses' are sometimes made. The whole thing is rather paradoxical, because, in order to believe Anne, and believe that she had read the diary in 1968, one also has to be willing to believe that she is capable of carrying on a rather complex charade for upwards of three years. I'm not sure I'm that mentally flexible.
2. Yes, I've stated that it is my guess that Melvin Harris might well have legitimate reasons for withholding his information. But, of course, this is really none of my business. Melvin Harris can do what he wants and he has made his position clear on these boards several times. Evidently you (among others) doubt him. But, since he offered long ago to give his information to a neutral solicitor for evalution, and no one bothered to take him up on this offer, I tend to view this criticism with a grain of salt. As an outsider, I think there is a fair amount of enmity on both sides, and unlikely to be much cooperation and exchange of information. Just a guess.
3. "Even if Melvin was to reveal conclusive proof"...etc. Yes, I admit it. I am very pessimistic on this point. Not about Shirley Harrison, per se, but just in general. Frankly I doubt that Melvin Harris has a video tape of Devereux, Kane, and A. N. Other forging the diary. Considering the history of the boards, I do think it highly improbable that his information will be met without a challenge and counter-claim. For every Sphere guide, Poste House, red diary, 'tin match box empty', reference note, etc. there has always been an immediate if sometimes weirdly improbable counter explanation from somewhere. My position is that without a full confession from the forgers this thing is unlikely to end anytime soon...if ever.
That said, it would be nice to know Melvin Harris's information! I'm always curious, of course. Besides, the debate doesn't have quite the same quintessence without Melvin. Yet, what I'd really like is to be present at an extended interview with Anne Graham or even Paul Feldman. That, to me, would be fascinating. But I'll be patient and take what I can get. I suspect we will hear more, ere long.
Best wishes,
RJ Palmer |
Author: John Dixon
Wednesday, 03 January 2001 - 07:51 pm | | Well said RJP glad to see it so civil here.
Again I ask why are talking about the diary on the watch board? So to start the ball rolling ...
Take a look at the H 9/3 & consider that it could be FC 9/3 ( i.e. Florence Chandler & her birth date 3rd of Sept. ) I have no clue on the 1275 but doubt its a date or a repairmans mark. As FM's watch the other marks would then constitute a specific confession to her & not something more general.
I am not arguing the authenticity of the watch but the intent of whoever made it.
This would make the 1275 interesting. If it turned out to be something easierly linked to Maybrick then the whole thing would be nicely dove-tailed together wouldn't it.
Personally I suspect it could be an address.
Lets talk about something new ... even if we can't agree
cheers John |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 04 January 2001 - 05:52 am | | Hi RJP
If I may take a small issue with you, one of the problems about where the burden of proof rests is that in a court of law the accused is innocent until proven guilty, the onus of providing proof resting entirely with the accuser. The onus depends on who is cast in the respective roles of accuser and accused. If Melvin calls Anne a liar then Melvin is clearly the accuser and he is responsibile for proving his accusation. However, we are not in a court of law and both sides can be expected (and are morally obligated) to make available whatever material they have that supports their arguments or otherwise provides enlightenment. Onus arguments should therefore take the back seat. The burden rests with both sides to substantiate what they say - if they can.
On the question of Anne using the 'diary' in her book; if she believes it genuine then why shouldn't she use it? She's doing nothing different to anyone else who employs material they believe to be true. I don't think use is the issue here. It is whether the 'diary' was used as if it was verifiably genuine. I don't think it was. The introductions should have made it abundantly clear to all but the most careless reader that the 'diary' is surrounded by controversy. Another issue would be whether Anne used the 'diary' to differently interpret the known story about the Maybricks and in a way that changed the accepted history. If she simply observed that such and such is reflected in the 'diary' or could be confirmed by the 'diary' then criticism seems ill-founded. But the bottom line is that a person is at liberty to use information they genuinely believe to be true. It is for others to decide whether the material is used justifiably or not. Those who come to write about the Maybrick case in future may decide that Anne's book is an unreliable source and not use it. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 05 January 2001 - 08:45 am | | Hi All,
Hi John,
Good to see you back on the ‘watch’ board. Let’s hope someone can help with the 1275. I’m sorry about returning to the diary discussion here, but it’s difficult to change to a more appropriate board mid-flow!
Hi RJ,
Little anticipated profit would imply little motive. Little actual profit doesn’t. Hasn’t there been a fairly natural and general assumption that there is a potential goldmine in forging a diary (and watch) belonging to Jack The Ripper? This assumption, if not the potential itself, seems to have eluded Anne, if she was in effect saying, “Look how little money I’ve actually made out of the diary. Why would anyone want to forge something so unprofitable?” Do you see how very naïve this argument is, if it came from a cunning, manipulative fraudster? It doesn’t work, but neither does it tell us if she was lying about the profits, and/or the diary origins, or being naively honest. If she was lying about the profits, she was taking a real risk of exposure. Maybe I’m looking too deep, but I do try to keep the whole story in mind – at least, as far as I really understand it. I’m thinking of how Anne fought with Mike to try to stop him setting in motion this potential profit-making scheme. Where does that leave the suggestion that she was down-playing the profits in order to hide a financial motive?
Melvin’s information can’t be proven wrong or inconclusive all the while he keeps it to
himself. But I agree that if it is wrong, inconclusive, or – heaven forbid – non-existent, it doesn’t let those off the hook who continue to put Maybrick forward as a legitimate ripper suspect. Of course they should be challenged. And if Anne uses the diary as a historical document, knowing it to be a modern fake, and she is exposed, of course she will immediately lose any shred of sympathy or support she ever enjoyed. But if she knows the diary is at least decades old, and has possibly been given the impression by one or more ripper ‘experts’ that, if it’s not a modern creation - and can’t easily be explained as an old fake, finding its way into the Graham household - then it must be genuine, I don’t suppose she can really be blamed for expressing her beliefs in writing. If she hasn’t actually stated that Maybrick was the ripper, she would be no better or worse than other ripper authors who state as fact that their suspect was JtR, when we all appreciate they cannot know for certain.
You wrote that ‘…in order to believe Anne…..one has also to be willing to believe that she is capable of carrying on a rather complex charade for upwards of three years.’ I find this quite extraordinary. What about the eleven years that Anne has been capable of carrying on a hugely complex charade, if one believes she has been involved in a modern hoax since at least 1989!
If Melvin still has legitimate reasons for withholding his information, I think it became very much your business, and everyone else’s, from the day those reasons took effect, when he continued to publicly accuse the suspects, directly or indirectly, and remark on their dishonesty and characters. If he had restricted himself, from then on, to the analyses of diary and watch, and kept his thoughts about the suspects to himself, the moral obligation to support those thoughts with any facts in his possession would not apply. You say that ‘no one bothered’ to take Melvin up on his offer to give his information to a neutral solicitor for evaluation. You may be right, and better attempts on both ‘sides’, to communicate and get things sorted out could have been made. I don’t know. But surely Melvin didn’t need to be asked nicely first, if he had any real urge to stop the diary rot at that time? It seems a wee bit out of character, if I may say so, for Melvin to sit back, coyly waiting for permission to put the boot in! But all that is water under the bridge, because you have seen for yourself just how bothered Shirley and others are, here and now, about getting Melvin back round the table. And if not to slap his information down on it, to explain why it’s still sitting in his drawers somewhere, gathering dust.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Dixon
Friday, 05 January 2001 - 03:37 pm | | Thanks Caz, Merry Christmas to all by the way ... Had my first white Christmas newly setup In Newcastle upon Tyne.
I have really only started to think about money since this latter discussion & have realised that if the watch offer is genuine then the diary is worth much more aside from publication. Who does own it? We really need to know what happened in Australia in the 1969 or whenever.
Is it possible that the incident sheds an compromising light on Anne's motives & thats why she cannot recall it?
We are suffering here from the vested interests of both camps. We should all be asking that both sides put what they believe to be true plus their evidence in the public arena. We are the people who can make Melvin & Shirley kiss & make-up & we should!
Cheers John! |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 06 January 2001 - 01:45 pm | | John--Hello. Yes, you're quite right: this is the watch board, you'll have to forgive us if we sometimes go off on tangents. Speaking of which...
My opinion is that the scratch marks on the watch indicate that it is a creation independent of the diary. The watch was presented after Maybrick's identity was revealed in the press, but before the actual text of the diary was made public. As far as I can see, only the 5 canonical victims are scratched on the back of the watch. But the diary has two (or one, depending on how you interpret it) extra victims. Their identities are unknown and don't appear on the back of the watch. One could make a bit of a stretch and include the 'H 9/3' (or is it 913?) and '1275' as additional victims, but this doesn't seem likely to me. Besides being inconsistant with the 'logic' of the other initials, these marks seem to be made by a smaller, more confident hand than the other jittery scratches. If you look at the photo in the latest edition of Harrison's book they look somewhat uniform; but, if you look at the photo in the 2nd edition, the '1275' is very clear & evident, whearas the 'victim' initials are barely visible, perhaps suggesting that they are darker & deeper scratches. Maybe repair marks. This is only a guess, though. One should see the watch. (Doesn't 9/3 indicate March 9th in the UK, and not September 3rd?)
One thing that bothers me about the proposed provenance of the watch is that it is oddly like a mirror image of the diary's provenance. The suggestion is that the watch was somehow stolen from Battlecrease by a maid (Mrs. John Over-- the 'JO' on the back of the watch). The diary was stolen from Battlecrease also by a maid --Nurse Yapp. There is the proposal that Johnson's ancestors were linked to the maid (a certain witness at Over's daugher's wedding was also evidently present at a wedding of Johnson's grandmother). There is also, of course, the proposal that Anne Graham's ancestors (stepmother's actually) are linked to the other maid, through the 'family tradition' of the Formby/Yapp friendship. But beyond this, Paul Feldman further states that Johnson is really related to Maybrick (!) (since Johnson sticks to his story of buying the watch in the mid 1980s this involves a remarkable coincidence) and Anne Graham is really related to Florie Chandler (!) (which involves yet another remarkable coincidence since William Graham --the one supposedly related to Florie--would have had to have had the luck to marry a woman whose mother was the friend of Alice Yapp, who had snuck the diary out of Battlecrease). (Wow! I can't believe I even know all this!) Which, in short, makes me rather suspect that this has more has to do with the wildly complex theorizing of Paul Feldman than with anything that can ever be proved. All very odd. Very odd. Very odd.
Caz--O.k. I'll give in. Your (and Paul Begg's) objections are duly noted. I think it is fair to say that 'my raised eyebrow' at Anne including the diary material in her book is dependent on my suspicions. If Anne truly believes the diary is genuine, I might argue with her scholarship, but I should not fault her intentions. I just happen to think that the diary was written in the past 15 years.
Regards,
RP |
Author: John Dixon
Saturday, 06 January 2001 - 03:42 pm | | When reading my remarks all should be aware that I'm basing my comments on the possibility that Maybrick is the Ripper or is the victim of a contempory hoax. The discussion still has value even if it is a modern hoax if we can show the intent of each clue.
RP
Feldmans meanderings left me lost in a paddock somewhere too.!
My follow-up remark ( without having seen the watch !!!! ) is to wonder if the JO is not also FC. This suggestion could be quickly discounted by someone who has seen the watch.
I agree about dates written in the English fashion but the whole point is that SHE is American ( & he spends a great deal of time there & the Dear Boss letter infers the Rippers relationship to that country.)
Considering the maker of the watch I think it likely the watch is a gift from James to Florence.
As to the different style of the TC I have theorized that this & the 1275 could have been professionally engraved close to the time of Maybricks wedding & the "mad carvings of the ripper" put there by James close to James death.
After long hours reading & re-reading Feldman I have reached the conclusion that he counts 7 sets of initials by counting the conical 5 + TC + the Initials immediately preceeding "Maybrick" in the signiture! As pointed out by Harris Feldman is desperate to link 2 independant (& contradictory) pieces of evidence
There is a question about the order the marks were placed on the watch caused by comments in Harrisons original book. They are not commented upon in the latter books.
There is actually a lot of separate issues here. Lets deal with them 1 at a time.
The first & most important is - " Was the watch a copy-cat forgers creation?"
Briefly I thought the watch came forward before the naming of Maybrick.
People? |
Author: Stephen Powell
Sunday, 07 January 2001 - 07:03 am | | TO:
Christopher T George
Thanks Christopher for the rap on the maybricks.
I would be interested to know where Trevor Christie got his info on maybricks cricket membership.
was it from the trial of florences or some other source?
As for James being gay,I remarked this statement because of the diarys referance to james wondering what it would be like to join Florie and her lover in their sessions.
(not correct wording as I dont have my referance material at hand))
He was turned on by these thoughts and I cannot imagine that anyone would want to see their partners indulge in sex with someone else unless they themself were at the least a bi-sexual and indeed,if james was inclined this way,it gives a differant complexion surrounding their lives and may explain Lowrys involvement in james' mood swings.
(Curse that lowry for making me rip).
We shall probably never know the answer to these questions but it gives us another scenario to ponder.
TO:
Keith Skinner
In part answer to your questions asked.
It was in September 1993.
I was in London on holiday with my wife and daughter and there was one place I was compelled to see and feel in this ancient city,Whitechapel.
I bought a newspaper and found what i hoped would be there,The Ripper Tour.Whoa! I cant believe it!Thankyou thankyou! All these years and I was on my way to Ripperville!
My wife was doing other things but my daughter said she would accompany me,so we set off for the night tour.
The cab dropped us off near the tower and we preceded to the gathering area,where we could see a group of people huddled together waiting,as the tour guide standing on a seat,gave his welcome intro to all.
I caught a look from the guide that reminded me of how the teachers would look at me when I was late for school.
Being a bit of a Monty Python fan I quipped a flippant 'Sorry' and his eyes said no more and his hands took my money.
I could not keep with the group a lot as I would stop at certain ares and stare transfixed as if stepping back into those times.My duaghter kept slapping me to attention with a 'Come on Dad' and we carried on.
Some people like to go to Lourdes or Nepal or some other exotic land but none of these places can grab my spirit by the back of the neck and hold my attention like whitechapel.I am a jtr junkie,I knew it as I stood outside mary kellys room and I could not keep quiet about it.
'Hang on' I said to the guide.'before you say anything,let me guess...her bed was over here...' pointing to the corner of the room.
'Wrong' said the guide with a you-dont-know-jack sound and then he made me stand there and pose for the crowd.
I had on a long black coat and a baseball-cap and stand 6'2" when not depressed.
'Bend down a bit..thats it' he said with a mischevious slant to his voice.
As I stood frozen at marys door for the crowd to imagine I was jtr,he described the suspects and then suddenly said.
'This way' and the group followed him off to the Ten Bells Pub.As they walked away I glanced back at the empty court with the silent room.I was lost in time.
'Come on Dad' said my ever faithfull daughter.
At the pub,a young cello player sat in the corner playing a slow and ominous tune.I clapped when he finished and a few followed suit.I am a musician myself and have played many a gig.I was pleased he wasn't playing 'You've got a friend'.
I bought Donald Rumbleows book and was pleasantly surprised to find our guide was the same man.
I engaged him in friendly chat and found him a nice guy but felt he was pretty bored with the jtr thing.
I stood by the small window that looked out at the street corner and said hitchcock like to my daughter;
'This is where he stood and chose his victims...'
I grabbed her throat quickly as if to choke her and give her the feel of those times.we had a nervous laugh and Donald came over and we talked a little more on the subject.
Donald then showed us with the help of my daughter,how jtr performed his macabre act.
Off we went again to another murder scene and as we entered a street,Donald told us all,not to speak to the locals as he had been having some trouble with some of them.I,of course,intended to comply with his request and off we went into the troubled area.
Well...I did'nt get too far,when two 'locals',one a tallish man of around 35 and what I can only describe as the perfect hag of a woman of around 60,stepped out in front of myself and my daughter and the conversation was as follows;
HAG.
'Ears a gal wif big tits...wot dya fink ov these eh?'
(she held-up her huge ageing bosums to my daughter)
I was not supposed to say anything and my words of protest were but a mishmash of garbled blah.
I then thought that these two must be actors hired and paid by donald to happily harass the tourists and give them a real feel of ye olde london.
Now,I am from the theatre and often hire actors myself for this very type of job.It had to be the answer,surely people like this dont still live in whitechapel,do they?
I burst out laughing and said that they were very good and thanked them for their efforts and we left them as the hag said; 'Wots e torkin abowt...'
As we got to the end of the street,Donald came up to me and was very angry.
He said in a low tone so as not to let anyone else hear.
'I heard what you said to those people and I wasn't impressed at all...'
'I thought they worked for you' I said.
he just turned and walked away.
An american in the group said;
'Dont feel bad buddy,I thought they were actors too.'
I think the final straw for Donald was the torch I pulled out to see the murder scene better.
At the end of the tour as people were leaving the group,
I asked Donald the age old question of who he thought was jtr.He didn't know but tossed a few names in the air.
I then asked him,how do we get back to Marble Arch where we were staying,he said we could catch a train and offered to walk us to the station which was on his way.
it was then that a man asked something else about jtr and I heard Donald remark,that there is a woman claiming to have the diary of jtr and that it looks pretty interesting.
I involuntarily laughed aloud at hearing this news and Donald
asked me what I was laughing at.
I said that a young woman had told me of a diary or letters of jtr back in australia,years ago.
He demanded to know what I knew or had heard.
I was confused and could not remenber the details.
Donald said it could be important and to think.
I could not and by now I figured Donald was thinking I was on the loose or something similar.
As we walked to the station,I was very confused and troubled at the thoughts that were fleeting through my mind.What was it? What are those memories?What is it I am trying to remember?It's somehow important but I cant stop the thoughts long enough to have a good look.
We said goodnight to Donald,forgot the train and hailed a cab.I could'nt enjoy the ride home in this classic cab,I was miles away,looking through dusty memory halls for an answer to my troubled state.
Back in australia sometime after,I came upon Feldmans book and reading it added to my confusion.
As I was reading the book,I would stop and put it down so my memories could show me something from my past.
Nurse...Australia...Billy Graham...Diary...Letters....1969....
I know about this....it's not possible....I met her...we argued...
This went on continuously within myself and bit by bit the memories came creeping back.
As I sit and write to you of these things,the theatre is empty and dark,as I am at the moment.
I shall write again soon and we can discuss further this incredible soggy saga.
Steve Powell
Sunday 9:50pm jan 7 2001 |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 07 January 2001 - 09:35 am | | Hi, Steve:
I found the passage in the Diary that you are talking about. Harrison discusses it on p. 114 of the Hyperion edition of The Diary of Jack the Ripper. The complete passage reads as follows in the facsimile p. 219 and transcript given on p. 276:
The whore seen her master today it did not bother me. I imagined I was with them, the very thought thrills me. I wonder if the whore has ever had such thoughts? I believe she has, has she not cried out when I demand she takes another.
The question I have about this is that are these the authentic thoughts of a middle class Victorian man, or are they the thoughts of a modern-day late twentieth century forger, to evoke the idea of such a threesome? I think more the latter.
Now, let's turn to your account of your tour of the East End murder sites which you said you took with "Ripper Walks" tour leader Donald Rumbelow. It would be very interesting to know if Donald has any memory of meeting you and you telling him that you had known a woman in Australia who had a diary of or letters of Jack the Ripper. You state:
I said that a young woman had told me of a diary or letters of jtr back in australia,years ago.
He demanded to know what I knew or had heard.
I was confused and could not remenber the details.
Donald said it could be important and to think.
I could not and by now I figured Donald was thinking I was on the loose or something similar.
Of course, Don meets thousands of tourists each year, so he may not remember this particular incident, but it would be worth asking him. Possibly this is something Keith Skinner could follow up.
The other thing that I found curious about your recollection of your tour of the murder sites is that you tell about seeing the murder room in Miller's Court where Mary Jane Kelly was killed. Since Miller's Court was demolished long ago, how could you?
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 07 January 2001 - 11:30 am | | | I'm with Don at the weekend, I'll ask him. |
Author: John Dixon
Sunday, 07 January 2001 - 05:18 pm | | Chris can I refer you to "the Victorian Underground" by D.Thomas ... "The majority of Victorian pornography showed the middle class writing for the middle class." Whilst off-hand I can't find a specific reference, Victorian Pornography certainly appears as varied & healthy? as our own.
Cheers John |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 07 January 2001 - 07:45 pm | | Hi, John:
Point taken about the flourishing nature of Victorian pornography, although I still think the thought expressed in the Diary is more reminiscent of a person of our day than of James Maybrick's day. I would suggest that Maybrick might have fantasized about being in bed with two women but not a man and a woman.
Chris |
Author: Stephen Powell
Monday, 08 January 2001 - 02:43 am | | ow...george...that hurt.
right at the end of your letter you state that how could I have seen kellys room when it wasn't there any longer....
george,if the room was gone at that time,then all of you can forget about my stories full stop and I must be completely bonkers.
Stewart,please do ask Donald and lets see if his memory is as good after 7 years.
everyone has been saying that it is strange that I remember all the things I have said after 30 years,I remembered it because it was damn important to me and should be to all the rest of you,otherwise what the hell are we doing here?
George,have a bit of faith man....
Carry on my friends.
steve powell. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 08 January 2001 - 07:36 am | | Hi All,
Hi RJ,
Just a small observation from your post of January 6 @ 01.45pm. You wrote: 'Since Johnson sticks to his story of buying the watch in the mid 1980s...'
But on pages 240-241 of Shirley's book, she quotes Albert as saying: 'The shop receipt dates the purchase as July 14th 1992. I paid £225. I took it home and put it in a drawer and thought no more about it.' Coincidentally, this was just three months after Mike had taken the diary to London. This remarkable timing, and the scratches coming to light when they did, is what naturally looks so suspicious, if we are asked to believe they are not both modern hoaxes.
However, and to address a couple of John's questions, the theory that the scratches were made by an independent fraudster, shortly after the diary story first broke in the media, but before any details were known - apart from Maybrick being named as the supposed author - seems beset with its own problems. Yet, if it was a joint modern hoax, Albert would surely have done better to show his friends the scratches before news of the diary hit the papers, so avoiding accusations of bandwagon-jumping.
I do think that Feldy's attempts to find family connections between Albert and James, and Anne and Florie, have made things seem far more complicated and wildly improbable than they need have been. If Albert really did buy the watch from a jeweller's shop, and Billy Graham really was given the diary by his father's mother-in-law (who was said to have accompanied the Battlecrease nurse to Florie's trial), then neither Maybrick family connection works, as you, RJ, have pointed out.
Hi Steve,
I will pass your message on to Keith, but would echo Chris George's question about your recollections of Mary Kelly's murder site from your tour in September 1993. Faith doesn't come into it - you must appreciate the problem when any of your recollections don't fit the known facts.
Also you wrote: 'I heard Donald remark, that there is a woman claiming to have the diary of jtr...' Are you sure about the date of your tour? At that time, Anne was not claiming anything - it was her husband, Mike Barrett, who was claiming that he had been given the diary by his friend, Tony Devereux.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 08 January 2001 - 09:10 am | | Hi Chris,
That diary quote of yours, including 'The whore seen her master today it did not bother me' got me wondering.
In Anne Graham's interview with Radio Merseyside, you quoted her saying 'My father seen it [the diary] in 1950.'
Can you shed any light on this use of 'she/he seen', instead of 'she/he saw'? I gather it must be a common enough example of Liverpudlian slang, past and present, and one which Maybrick himself, as a middle-class cotton merchant, may have used in writing, otherwise the significance would have been remarked on before. But I would be interested to know just how well-known and widespread this usage is.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 08 January 2001 - 10:26 am | | Hi, Caz:
How perspicacious of you. Indeed, there is a similarity in the ungrammatical nature of the line in the Diary, "The whore seen her master today it did not bother me." and Anne Graham's statement during her Radio Merseyside interview where she said, "My father seen it [the diary] in 1950." I would assume James Maybrick, as a middle class businessman, would speak better than this, and say, "The whore saw her master today it did not bother me." or "The whore has seen her master today it did not bother me." On the other hand, it could be argued that the "has" was left out when the person who wrote the Diary scribbled that line.
The line as written in the Diary might all the same be an indication of the working class origins of the Diary forgers as compared to better educated, better spoken cotton merchant Maybrick who supposedly wrote the Diary, although I think you will agree that bad grammar such as "The whore seen. . ." is not by any means prevalent in the Diary document. So here yet again we have another indicator that something is rotten in Denmark but no absolute proof that the document is not what it is claimed to be. Frustrating isn't it?
Best regards
Chris George |
|
|
|
|
