|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 February 15, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Maybrick/Jack's watch?:
Archive through February 15, 2001
Author: Melvin Harris
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 07:44 pm |        | Keith,
How long? It would only take a few days. The exact route will follow when I have time but I do expect some answers from you too. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 08:31 pm | | THE WATCH: DISHONESTY AND EVASION
As promised I placed on screen NEW findings on the status of the watch scratches. In doing so, I drew attention to the different type-faces of the two copies; this is a standard procedure used daily where photocopies are not on view. I then drew attention to two differing passages which negated the idea that the scratches THEMSELVES were old. Both passages are missing from the accounts given by Feldman and Harrison, yet they are essential to an understanding of the real message of the reports. I also put Mr Murphy in perspective and corrected his slur on horologist Dundas. I have been criticised for these actions. But not one of these critics has ever brought forward a single new fact on this case. Neither has any critic been able to show that the points I make are false. Instead we have had a vacuous piece from Mrs Harrison and a grossly dishonest bleat from Caz which ignores the texts at issue and pretends that Mrs Harrison's actions have "set the record straight" and we are now seeing "the genuine article".
By contrast the faxes from Dr Wild to Mrs Harrison PROVE that I have correctly quoted from two versions that originated in Dr Wild's office and were sent out by that office. Anyone interested in the truth and not intent on thinking up cheap jibes, can see for themselves that the two quotes I put on screen are word-for-word, comma-for-comma, period-for-period, IDENTICAL with the passages transmitted by Dr Wild.
And anyone seriously interested in 'genuine articles' should note that my original presentation is in fact more accurate than Dr Wild's. I located my quotes as comprising the FIFTH PARAGRAPHS from the end of Wild's reports. By contrast, and in both cases, Dr Wild quotes the same fifth paragraphs, but then leap-frogs to the 'Conclusion' without indicating that he has skipped over the intervening paragraphs which deal with the 'dating' of the brass particles. I have given cogent reasons why the brass particles can never be used as a dating standard and if Dr Wild wishes to dispute this then let him say so, though when I spoke to him he readily agreed that corrosion itself was not a dependable factor.
For those who still do not grasp the import of the points I make let me reiterate that Dr Wild was not told that the polishing by Murphy was only a gentle rouge job that took place just 18 months earlier. He was also not aware that Dundas had stated that the 'Maybrick scratches' were not present in 1992. So Dr Wild started from the false premises that the watch surface had been heavily polished some six to ten years earlier and that the 'Maybrick scratches' had been present at that time. This led him to write "...the engraving was certainly older than ten years." Having been given false information, Dr Wild was simply accepting that he was looking at changes that OF NECESSITY had to have a minimum age of ten years. In other words prior to Albert's purchase. He was wrong, but no-one in the Diary camp corrected him when he issued his reports. Why?
Equally wrong is Dr Turgoose. He first concluded, correctly, that the scratches "...could have been produced recently and deliberately artificially aged by polishing". He then went on to state "...but this would have been a complex multi-stage process using a variety of different tools, with intermediate polishing of artificial wearing stages." This is an unrealistic conclusion. The polishing out of burrs and scratches on gold, silver or brasses, can be done by hand, without using a single tool. And the techniques are very simple ones, involving different grades of polishing grits or polishing papers. As a professional restorer and instrument maker I used those techniques thousands of times in years gone by. (See my earlier postings for more details)
To conclude, I ask everyone who values hard evidence to study the facts I have brought to light. Ignore anything I have said that might upset some people; go for the facts that can be checked independently. And remember we are dealing with fakery and a resultant attempt to vend bogus history. The rules of the kindergarten do not apply here. |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 09:04 pm | | Hi, Paul:
I accept your point that even unquestionably genuine documents can contain inconsistencies which can cause arguments among historians. You state validly that, "if the document is questionable, such inconsistencies are waved around as evidence of forgery. But inconsistencies can exist in both."
I would say that here we have a questionable document that unlike a genuine document that even with some dud notes generally strikes notes that ring clear as a bell, the Diary strikes a considerable number of wrong notes, e.g., Mrs. Hammersmith, the Poste House (sorry!), implying that Michael Maybrick was a lyricist instead of only a composer of music who needed a lyricist to write the words, the list of possessions (one tin box empty et al.), the fact that the writing does not match known samples of Maybrick's writing, written in a scrapbook not a diary, pages missing, and a document with no provenance, etc. It boggles my mind with the number of deficits against it that people like Professors William Rubinstein and David Canter can give it credence.
Hi, John:
Thanks for clarifying the points about the Christmas passages. The first Christmas passage though says, "This coming Christmas I will make amends." This could conceivably have been written anytime before Christmas, so a reference to November events intervening before the next mention that Christmas has passed is not necessarily out of sequence. Or am I miscontruing what you are saying, or picking the wrong passages?
Hi R.J.:
I am glad you drew my attention to the passage which shows that the narrator is evidently saying he had the Diary with him in London, which Mark Angus pointed out in an article in The Criminologist (Spring 1995). I was not aware of Angus's article, so thank you for pointing it out to me. I agree entirely that Maybrick was unlikely to have lugged such a large book around with him which could have been found by his landlady in Middlesex Street ("that in itself is a joke"  -- did you note that the writer repeats that line again when he/she later on mentions Middlesex St.? There is a lot of repetition in this document).
Of course, this argument could be turned around by those who might maintain that the present Diary is a copy of a previous document written by Maybrick, possibly in a small notebook, scribbled in microscopic shorthand???? I don't think that is the case but I feel bound to mention that the argument can be used to propose Maybrick's authorship rather than against it.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 05:44 am | | Hi Chris
What are you trying to demonstrate, that the 'diary' is not genuine or that the 'diary' is a post-1987 forgery? Some of the bum notes you catalogue support the former, but not the latter; i.e., the handwriting isn't James Maybrick's shows he didn't write it, but doesn't indicate when it was written. I thought the argument concerned when the ‘diary’ was composed.
Whether or not Poste House rings a bum note is surely open to question? My point is that there would have been one or more establishments in Liverpool that were post houses, that such a place would have been referred to as 'the post house' even though it had another name such as Blue Anchor or George and the Dragon or Kings Arms, and that anyone writing in 1888/89 could therefore have referred to a local bar or hotel or coffee shop as 'the Poste House'. Has anyone demonstrated that this argument is faulty? Has anyone shown that Liverpool, unlike almost everywhere else, didn’t have any post houses?
Poste House is a popular name today and recalls the presence of an old post house, as, indeed, does the Poste House pub in Liverpool. Even in the small village where I live there is a cottage almost opposite me called Poste Cottage. It is called that because it or one of the neighbouring buildings, probably the pub opposite, was once a post house. Proving that the cottage near me was named Poste Cottage in 1926 would not mean that there was never a post house in my village. Demonstrating that the Poste House pub was not named Poste House until 19—doesn’t prove there wasn’t a post house in Liverpool in 1888/9 and it doesn’t prove that the ‘diarist’, whenever he wrote, couldn’t have meant that establishment. So do we have a duff note?
What the argument about Poste House has consistently obscured is that the spelling in the 'diary' - poste with an 'e' - is relatively modern and intended to convey a spurious antiquity. It could indicate a date before which the ‘diary’ was not composed. |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 07:42 am | | Hi, Paul:
The list of items that I cited, with or without the Poste House (which is a bone of contention between us), relate to the internal properties of the document. You are quite correct that none of these points prove that the Diary is a post-1987 forgery. What I did not mention in that recapitulation of the Diary's many "duff notes" was external evidence such as the purchase of the Red Diary by the Barretts and the ownership of the Sphere book by Mike Barrett containing the quote "O costly intercourse of death" which appears in the Diary. I should think both points indicate that the Diary is a post-1987 forgery and that the Barretts were involved in its manufacture. This strong suggestion pertains despite questions about Mike's "confessions" or Anne's current story that the Diary is decades old and was in the possession of her father when she first saw it circa 1968-9. The purchase of the Red Diary and Mike's possession of the Sphere book to my mind show that Anne's claim is baseless.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 12:14 pm | | Hi Chris. That's fine by me.
All the best
Paul |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 05:36 pm | | Dear Melvin,
Is it your claim that the watch is a minor act of fakery , or, that it constitutes an essential act of a much larger conspiracy?
Love,
Rosemary. |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 09:07 pm | | Hi, Rosemary:
I should not intercede here perhaps but as I read what Melvin has said, he appears to believe the engravings in the watch constitute an act of opportunity by someone wanting to jump onto the Maybrick bandwagon and was done independent of the Diary forgery.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 09:11 pm | | Dear Melvin,
Further to the above. Without a confession by the person who used the scribe on the watch...impasse!
Experts for and experts against...deja vu ?
(I think it may all turn out to be even stranger than you thought.)
Love,
Rosemary. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 11 February 2001 - 07:45 am | | Dear Chris,
In summary, so far we have one drug addict 'in the
frame', and now, a 'lush'? I know that some think that 'great' ideas can appear in the most addled brains...mine included...but do I detect a whiff of the "lower orders", here?
Self-deception mingled with artful duplicity - what a minefield!
(But nobody suspects an HOROLOGIST ?)
Love,
Rosemary. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 11 February 2001 - 08:30 am | | Dear Melvin,
If I have been misled, or if I have got the wrong end of the stick, or if I’m not being honest with myself, as a result of reading the recent messages to this board, I can certainly be accused of being a fool. But your accusation of gross dishonesty, for interpreting the available material in my own way and for everyone to see, only serves to confirm that you can be as illogical as the rest of the human race at times.
For a definition of dishonesty which would work for me, try this one for size: to make statements which are misunderstood; to be aware that those statements have been misinterpreted; to fail to make the position clear, choosing instead to allow certain misapprehensions to thrive over the years, adding confusion to an ongoing investigation, already replete with ill-feeling, suspicion and petty professional rivalries.
However, I would be a fool to make any such accusations, trusting that none of the above would apply to a serious and honest quest for the truth regarding the Maybrick diary and watch.
Talking of the latter, I’m hugely looking forward to being taken step-by-step through the thought processes and actions of the brothers Johnson, from when Robbie first learned about the Maybrick diary, walked to freedom, already planning his next job, to when Albert started pestering the Murphys and paying to put Robbie’s forging prowess under the forensic spotlight. Will your account include details of the time spent in Albert and Robbie’s company, how thoroughly you were able to question them both, and how you were able to confirm your judgement of their capabilities and thought processes? Or will it be based largely on your experience of other forgers, how they tend to think and operate?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 12 February 2001 - 07:53 am | | Hi All,
I see that Melvin hasn't yet returned with the promised expansion of his hypotheses regarding the watch hoax. At least he has acknowledged that the offensive tone of his posts can have the effect of obscuring the useful information they contain, advising his readers: 'Ignore anything I have said that might upset some people...'
I'm trying to imagine how much time and trouble Melvin could have saved himself and his various postmen over the years, had he chosen not to include anything gratuitously offensive in the first place.
If Melvin now has the self-discipline to stick to the hard evidence that everyone values so much, and can bear to do without the undignified and rather vulgar personal remarks, such as 'vacuous', his future messages may benefit from being briefer, more palatable, and certainly quicker to type up and post for all those eagerly awaiting new information.
Love,
Caz |
Author: shirley harrison
Monday, 12 February 2001 - 01:23 pm | | OPEN LETTER TO MELVIN HARRIS from KEITH SKINNER AND SHIRLEY HARRISON
QUOTES FROM MELVIN HARRIS:
Evening Standard Dec 8th 1994.
"There is now no doubt whatsoever that they are a recent fake", he claims. "The identities of the three people involved the forgery will soon be made known."
Message Boards. Friday June 30th 2000
.
"And I never believed that Mike faked it or that Anne faked it. Their lies simply concern provenance. Their roles were simply as placers, or handlers, of a document forged by others.
That is all I am prepared to say, except to record that an investigation was carried out in Liverpool in 1993-4 by a daily paper (not in the Murdoch Group). That paper, as an act of courtesy made their discoveries known to m But they had decided to sit on their material until there were fresh developments. They had the talked-about the film in mind. I had supplied their reporters with some documents but I was not paid by them.
Even so I stay silent because I endorse the professional code we both operate under." .
……………………………………………………………………………………………..
Recently there have been a number of suggestions on the board that there should be a meeting at which you can privately show us the proof which you claim to have that the diary is a modern forgery and that you can, conclusively, identify the forgers.
Keith Skinner,and I have been discussing a palatable way in which we can break the deadlock and are now issuing a formal invitation to you to meet both of us - with an independent arbitrator.
Keith is not a believer in the authorship of James Maybrick nor does he believe the diary to be a modern hoax .
I do believe the diary is genuine.
If your documentary proof is unequivocally conclusive in its exposure of the Diary as a modern creation and its incontrovertible identification of the forgers and their accomplices we will publically acknowledge the fact that we were wrong..
We are seeking the truth - and we hope that the board will recognise the importance of the proposed meeting. |
Author: shirley harrison
Monday, 12 February 2001 - 01:23 pm | | OPEN LETTER TO MELVIN HARRIS from KEITH SKINNER AND SHIRLEY HARRISON
QUOTES FROM MELVIN HARRIS:
Evening Standard Dec 8th 1994.
"There is now no doubt whatsoever that they are a recent fake", he claims. "The identities of the three people involved the forgery will soon be made known."
Message Boards. Friday June 30th 2000
.
"And I never believed that Mike faked it or that Anne faked it. Their lies simply concern provenance. Their roles were simply as placers, or handlers, of a document forged by others.
That is all I am prepared to say, except to record that an investigation was carried out in Liverpool in 1993-4 by a daily paper (not in the Murdoch Group). That paper, as an act of courtesy made their discoveries known to m But they had decided to sit on their material until there were fresh developments. They had the talked-about the film in mind. I had supplied their reporters with some documents but I was not paid by them.
Even so I stay silent because I endorse the professional code we both operate under." .
……………………………………………………………………………………………..
Recently there have been a number of suggestions on the board that there should be a meeting at which you can privately show us the proof which you claim to have that the diary is a modern forgery and that you can, conclusively, identify the forgers.
Keith Skinner,and I have been discussing a palatable way in which we can break the deadlock and are now issuing a formal invitation to you to meet both of us - with an independent arbitrator.
Keith is not a believer in the authorship of James Maybrick nor does he believe the diary to be a modern hoax .
I do believe the diary is genuine.
If your documentary proof is unequivocally conclusive in its exposure of the Diary as a modern creation and its incontrovertible identification of the forgers and their accomplices we will publically acknowledge the fact that we were wrong..
We are seeking the truth - and we hope that the board will recognise the importance of the proposed meeting. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Monday, 12 February 2001 - 06:08 pm | | PATHWAYS AND WAYWARD WAYS
Keith, you have asked for the route to reach the Maybrick marriage records that show his signature. Right:- Robbie learns the date and place of the wedding from the books on the case, Christie's book, for one, is in the Liverpool Reference Library. Next he simply asks the Reference section for the phone number of the London Reference Library that would hold the marriage records of a Central London church for the 1880's. This could have been done over the phone if he wished to stay out of sight. Depending on the experience of the librarian on duty, he would have been given anything from one to three numbers. These are the PRO at Kew; the GLC records; the City of Westminster Archives. Enquiries at any of those numbers would have led him to the holders of the records of St James Church, Piccadilly. They are lodged at the Westminster Archive. If the year, correct date and names of the groom and bride are furnished to staff at that Archive then they will supply a printout of the original marriage entry. This can all be done by phone and if first class post is requested the entry can be with one by the next day. There is no need even to send money in advance, the archive will supply and invoice.
Understand, though, this is the possible way in which a forger could obtain a signature IF he wished to copy it. But is the watch scratch an unmistakeable copy? Well, Harrison, Smith and Feldman firmly believe that they recognise Maybrick's signature on the watch. Some say "Maybe". Others dismiss this as horse feathers! But this is a fake whichever view you take.
Now, since one good turn deserves another, can I have a straight answer to this? Your headed notepaper says "GENEALOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESEARCH" so why is it that you failed to recognise that the so-called transcript of the Maybrick Will in McDougall's book had of necessity to be bogus. An experienced genealogical researcher should have spotted within minutes that two different wills could not have been activated on the same day. The back page of the holograph Will carries details added on 29th July 1889 in the names of Layton, Steel and Springman, Solicitors. Yet McDougall includes the same tailpiece (even if garbled) from the same solicitors, with the very same date. Since only ONE document could carry those details, it should have been glaringly obvious that you were faced with a worthless transcript. And yet you allowed it to be used and re-used by Smith, Feldman and Harrison for years, and even after it was discovered that McDougall's trash was simply a faulty copy of a newspaper report!
Yet the Will, by itself, and from the very start exploded the whole notion that the Diary was authentic. That is why it had to be rubbished, pushed to one side, even ignored. That is why the 'Sunday Times' took action. That paper was never shown the Will. They were told that no examples of Maybrick's handwriting existed, apart from the marriage entry. And the same went for Warner Books. Their examiners were staggered when they eventually saw the Will. This was an incredible seven months AFTER they had bought the book rights and made over 200,000 advance sales to booksellers.
By the way, please do not bother to issue any invitations to me to meet anyone at anytime. Museums and collectors the world over own proven fakes without knowing for certain who faked them. But fakes they are. And the same goes for the Diary. You will have to accept that all I am prepared to do is show that the volume is a modern fake. That is good enough for me and if the people who view the evidence do not agree, then I just have to accept that gullibility is often more potent than reason. But my experience with believers in the 'paranormal' has already shown me that.
The famous 'Evening Standard' quote of December 8, 1994, which the Diary people like waving around was not written by me. It is a truncated and incomplete version of a lengthy telephone conversation I had with the columnist of the 'Evening Standard' when I was working out of London and I did not see the 'Evening Standard' until some three days after publication. And note that every quote from me in the 'Evening Standard' contains inaccuracies, but getting corrections from a major newspaper is not an easy thing, especially when the columnists think that your corrections are nitpicking. Journalists fail to recognise that, when you are in dispute, people will latch onto imperfect and inadequate expressions and use them for their own ends. The actual statement by me involving the hoped for naming of people involved in the forgery was a reference to independent newspaper enquiries being made at the time. They key words missing from this quote are "It is hoped that the identities of the three people involved in the forgery will soon be made known."
I see this continual harping on naming the culprits as a pathetic attempt to avoid facing the overwhelming case that the Diary itself has been shown to be a fake. |
Author: Alegria
Monday, 12 February 2001 - 06:46 pm | | Mr. Harris,
The majority of the people here do not believe the Diary to be genuine. We KNOW it is fake. We want to know who faked it. THAT IS THE ENTIRE PURPOSE of the majority of the posters here. We see your continued evasions as equally pathetic. You could end this whole debate once and for all and have been issued an invitation to do so. So who is more guilty of avoiding the issue, the majority of the people who are here to learn the truth, or you who claim to know it but refuse to lay it on the table? |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 12 February 2001 - 08:34 pm | | Dear Melvin,
With all respect, are you not a wee bit curious as to its author?
Love,
Rosemary. |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 12 February 2001 - 11:48 pm | | Hi, all:
Seems like Melvin is slithering away from giving us an answer, doesn't it, folks?
But then if Stephen Powell is right, maybe the forgery originated with a rock musician in Australia circa 1969? So maybe Melvin does not have the poop? Or maybe Stephen's story should be questioned since said minstrel played no part in his first reminiscences in regard to Ms. Anne Graham's role as the British nurse with the Diary, did he? Or could this be why Anne Graham would not admit to being the nurse in Powell's story? Stay tuned, folks! The Maybrick mire gets ever deeper. It will suck us all in soon. . .
Meanwhile, here is a website from one of Melvin's Gloucestershire neighbours. Nothing that Melvin would approve of, naturally -- right up there with the blessed Diary, James Robert Lees, and other hokum. Click on the fish and you will be probably as confused as with the Maybrick muddle.
http://freespace.virgin.net/donald.gordon/index.htm
All the best
Chris |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 01:43 am | | I've swore-off 'arguing the argument', but this discussion has become so lop-sided that I feel I should offer a dissenting opinion.
In the past few days Melvin Harris has been called evasive, misleading, over-zealous, illogical, offensive, a liar (implied), self-deluding, 'the Wizard of Oz', and one lacking in credibility. At the same time, an entire ensemble is clammerig to know what he thinks (!) What's wrong with this picture? If Melvin is so utterly self-deluding and lacking in credibility, why does anyone care what he thinks? Is something else going on here?
I've read Harris's essays on the Maybrick Diary, and I find them persuasive. But it's not merely Harris. There are also strong arguments by Rendell, Nickell, Angus, Sugden, Maureen Owens, etc. etc.
For the most part, I find many in the (for lack of better phrase) 'pro-diary' camp sincere, but since they have not found Melvin Harris's arguments persuasive in the past, I am utterly skeptical that they would be satisfied with whatever name he would happen to produce. Some will persist in their beliefs until the forgers give a full confession. So clearly this is what should be demanded; not for Melvin Harris to compromise his personal ethics (whatever they may be).
For those who believe the diary is a recent forgery --and want an answer--wouldn't it be much more appropriate to make a public appeal for the forgers to reveal themselves than to harangue Harris?
But for my part, I now have my doubts that revealing the forgers is the best thing to do. If one doesn't accept the strong forensic evidence, and wants to keep on believing that the Diary is this, that, or the other....that's entirely a personal decision. A year ago I was rather naive to think it would be best to 'find the forgers.' I now suspect that this might well be a mistake. I can sympathize with Keith Skinner and Shirley Harrison who have spent a great deal of time & toil researching the diary wanting to know certain details. Yet, in genereal, I think maybe it would be better for everyone to seek their own private conclusions and skip the debate, other than a limited discussion of the validity of the text.
Regards,
RJ Palmer |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 03:38 am | | Melvin Harris could have told us years ago that he had been misquoted, yet he chose to let everyone believe the misquote right up until yesterday. ‘Corners’ and ‘backed into’ are words that spring to mind.
And still people are willing to accept Melvin’s word as coming from an objective expert, and reject the two independent metallurgy specialists who examined the watch, as well as Diamine’s chief chemist, who didn’t recognise his own ink when examining the diary.
If Keith Skinner is right to think the diary and watch are old hoaxes, I’m not sure how we go about demanding a full confession from the culprits – via a medium maybe? It won’t be a happy one...
Love,
Caz
(PS Happy birthday to me, happy birthday to me) |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 03:52 am | | I may be wrong and if I am then no doubt Melvin Harris will quickly correct me, but he has been confronted with the Evening Standard quote a great many times over the last six years and not once has he said he was misquoted. Why? My understanding was that unspecified legal reasons prevented him from making his information public.
It is also probably unnecessary to point out that although it is true that ‘Museums and collectors the world over own proven fakes without knowing for certain who faked them’, as Melvin says, this is wholly irrelevant. The issue here is not about fakes. It is about backing up a statement with the necessary evidence –colloquially expressed as putting up or shutting up. Melvin has claimed that ‘London journalists’ uncovered information showing that Mike and Anne simply placed the ‘diary’. Everyone, except apparently Melvin, can see that this information would prove the ‘diary’ a modern forgery and effectively end the controversy. Melvin has been asked to place his evidence before an independent assessor for scrutiny (or to ask the journalists to do so), but has refused to do so. People will inevitably draw their conclusions and it is unlikely to reflect well on Melvin Harris’s faltering credibility. |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 04:23 am | | Hi R.J.
If I may make one small observation on your post, your suggestion that it would be “more appropriate to make a public appeal for the forgers to reveal themselves than to harangue Harris” might be correct, though I doubt that an honest appeal would provoke the forgers into stepping forward hands outstretched. But for the sake of balance you should also observe that Melvin Harris has mercilessly harangued practically everyone at considerable length, has demeaned and diminished them (as above in referring to Caz’s sincere questions as ‘blatantly dishonest bleatings’) and demanded that they admit their alleged errors. All the while he has assumed a moral high-ground,delivering his judgements like some guardian Olympian god. But Harris has made some statements he seems unable to support and he can’t or won’t admit his own errors. If Harris is being harangued, please weight your condemnation of this with the fact that so far it has been a far gentler haranguing then Harris has meted out to others such as Professor Rubinstein. |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 06:17 am | | I have one more question that I wish to pose: why are the journalist who supposedly uncovered the truth about the forgers sitting on the story? It would seem to me that if such information were known it would be worthy of a news scoop equal to that of the diary being 'discovered'. Perhaps this has been addressed elsewhere and if you could point me to the board I'd be obliged.
Ally
P.S Happy Birthday Caz and many happy returns! |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 07:06 am | | Hi Alegria
I can't locate the exact message, but if memory serves me correctly Melvin stated that the journalist sat on the story because he was awaiting developments with the then projected William Friedken movie built around the 'diary'.
I assume the intention was to spoil the movie, which if true sounds like to worst kind of tabloid journalism and hardly reflective of a high moral and professional code that I think Melvin said at the time that he supported.
Privilaged information is privilaged information and I suppose Melvin is to be congratulated for not making the information known. On the other hand, whilst he is prepared to write vitriolic open letters and other posts such as the one to Professor Rubinstein, one wonders why he hasn't been equally voiciferous in his appeals to the journalist(s) to reveal the information, particulrly if their only reason for sitting on it was to throw a spanner in the works of a movie project. |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 07:27 am | | Hi Alegria
Seek and ye will not find. Do something else and ye will fall over what you were looking for. Thus:- Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: The Maybrick Diary in a post dated Friday June 30 2000 and titled 'Yet More Telling Facts', Melvin Harris wrote:
"And I have never believed that Mike faked it or that Anne faked it. Their lies simply concern provenance. Their roles were simply as placers, or handlers, of a document forged by others.
That is all I am prepared to say, except to record that an investigation was carried out in Liverpool in 1993-4 by a daily paper (Not in the Murdoch Group). That paper, as an act of courtesy, made their discoveries known to me. But they decided to sit on their material until there were fresh developments. They had the talked-about film in mind. I had supplied their reporters with some documents, but I was not paid by them. Even so, I stay silent because I endorse the professional code that we both operate under."
So, yes, they sat on the material while awaiting developments with the then talked about William Friedkin movie (and for all I know may still be doing so) and they made their discoveries known to Melvin, who remains silent because of some sort of professional code. As said, all power to him for that, though if the journalists sat on their info to ruin a movie project then I think it was pretty sleazy. Nevertheless, one would be interested to know what huge efforts Melvin Harris has made to get them to reveal their information when that movie project moved ever further into development hell. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 07:56 am | | Paul/Alegria:
You'll also find the same passage quoted in Shirley Harrison and Keith Skinner's open letter to Melvin Harris posted yesterday, and appearing on this very page. Mind you, I can talk - I'm hopeless at finding things that are right under my nose!
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 08:08 am | | Thanks Paul. I appreciate it.
So for roughly eight years, the journalists have sat on this information waiting for (what I assume) is a long dead effort to blast a movie that may or may not ever be made. I suppose these journalists must already have all the fame and journalistic prestige they desire, otherwise why bury the story. With all the hoopla that came out about the Diary, exploding it would be quite a feather. I suppose I must admire the journalists' lack of ambition, although it does seem strange that a journalist would go to all the trouble of ferreting out the fakers and then never attempt to benefit/profit from their hard work.
As I totally agree that privileged information should remain privileged and posted that above, may I ask if Mr. Harris is at least willing to tell us the names of the journalists so we can petition them to come forward with their information? I don't believe a journalist would be publicity shy. They after all stand only to gain by doing so...if the information they have is genuine.
Ally |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 08:19 am | | | Thanks Guy. I knew I'd read it recently too! |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 08:39 am | | | No worries, Paul. Now where did I leave that "return" key?... |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 09:33 am | | Hi Ally,
Thanks for the greetings.
Hi All,
Caz, the go-between, or Melvin's 'grossly dishonest bleater', will be pleased to pass on his questions to Keith. Straight answers are likely to follow post haste, if I'm any judge of character at all. The wayward way Melvin has now revealed as his preferred mode of travel, when all anyone asked for was directness, comes as absolutely no surprise to me at all.
But then, what do I know? Just don't anyone mention mint sauce or mutton dressed as lamb and I'll be as happy as Larry. 
Melvin, you wrote to Keith:
You will have to accept that all I am prepared to do is show that the volume is a modern fake. That is good enough for me and if the people who view the evidence do not agree, then I just have to accept that gullibility is often more potent than reason.
But this wasn't all you were prepared to do, was it? It doesn't take a genius to work out which of the modern suspects you have personally tried and found guilty, in the absence of revealing the final proof against them. Your forte lies in working with inanimate objects, so I quite understand why you are unwilling or unable to work with the real live people you have accused. I just happen to think you risk losing 'best half' of the affair by treating humans as chess pieces and playing the game by yourself.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 12:55 pm | | From Keith Skinner To Melvin Harris
Ever since I saw the original Will of James Maybrick, back in 1992, I have been personally satisfied that it was wholly written and signed by James Maybrick. In other words, as far as I was concerned, the writing was the authenticated handwriting of James Maybrick.
This is not synonymous with saying that the Diary, therefore, must be a modern hoax.
Paul Feldman, Shirley Harrison and Robert Smith all chose to interpret and explore the evidence of the Will differently. I disagreed with their observations, reasoning and conclusions in the same way as I disagree with some of your observations, reasoning and conclusions about MacDougall.
My position on the Will remains exactly the same as it was in February 1997 when the following article, which Caroline has very kindly agreed to post for me, appeared in Ripperologist.
I suggest you reconsider your decision not to meet with Shirley Harrison and myself. We are prepared to risk being totally discredited and publicly humiliated by acknowledging, (without disclosing), the potency of your documentary evidence. It is inconceivable, of course, that a man of your reputation, stature and integrity would rest his conclusive proof on hearsay and unsupported assumptions. Our withdrawal from the discussion will signal to the board that you are indeed, privately, able to substantiate your claims.
A NEST OF FORGERS
By Keith Skinner – 19th January 1997
One of the early indications that the alleged Maybrick Diary (Journal) might well be an old document was when Melvin Harris proclaimed it was a modern fake. This was an honestly expressed belief which Mr Harris has resolutely adhered to since July 1993. Its value lies in providing us with the opportunity to examine and test the informed opinion and undeniable knowledge upon which Mr Harris rests his case.
Melvin Harris has recently described me as Paul Feldman’s “paid henchman”. It therefore follows that, bristling with menace, I should respond on behalf of Paul to Mr Harris’s article in the December 1996 issue of The Ripperologist – THE MAYBRICK WILL: The Crucial Key to a Shabby Hoax.
I do not, however, intend to debate Melvin Harris’s observations on Alexander MacDougall’s representation of James Maybrick’s Will. Paul Feldman will defend his interpretation of the existing Will in his forthcoming book Jack the Ripper – the Final Chapter. My own position is that, evidentially, there are unresolved historical peculiarities surrounding the circumstances under which the Will was signed – and this, curiously, is reflected in the text of the Journal. The easy explanation, of course, is that, as this information was in the public domain, so it has just been creatively woven into the Journal. I can accept that, but this implies a certain degree of required and acquired knowledge of the Maybrick Case. A certain amount of thought and preparation in order to slip in an arcane, esoteric detail. And yet I keep on being told that this Journal is an “amateurish fake”; a “crude forgery”; something which was “knocked together” as a practical joke to play on Michael Barrett!
What puzzles me, then, is Melvin Harris’s need to devote so much time and discussion to James Maybrick’s Will, when, apparently, he is cognizant of the identities of the people who are meant to have created the Journal. In December 1994, the Evening Standard quoted Melvin Harris as claiming: “The identities of the three people involved in the forgery will soon be made known.”
According to Mr Harris, “this Diary falls within the scope of the Forgery and Counterfeit Acts…” Scotland Yard are meant to be quietly monitoring the situation ready to swoop when one of the forgers slips up and gives the game away. I suppose the conspirators might have reasonably wondered whether Michael Barrett’s headline confession, admitting he forged the diary, could have been something of a give-away. Fortunately for them, Mr Barrett was unable to explain how he forged the sixty-three handwritten pages – and has since stated that, in fact, he was given the Journal by Tony Devereux, and that is all he ever knew about its provenance. I understand that Mr Barrett has now retracted his original retraction (also independently made on his behalf by his solicitor), and is currently working closely with a private investigator, in Liverpool, to search out conclusive proof that he, Michael Barrett, did forge the Journal. All of this activity must be totally bewildering and confusing for his fellow conspirators – as it is for the rest of us.
But who are these co-conspirators? Who are these three people? At the last count I was up to ten, including Michael Barrett. The theory has also been seriously advanced that Paul Feldman is behind the whole enterprise, in a brilliantly masterminded operation, to invest a fortune in investigating a hoax and attempting to authenticate a Journal, for which he was responsible for creating in the first place!
An immediately worrying problem here is that Paul Begg and myself were instrumental in actually introducing Paul Feldman to the Journal. This could account for the reason Paul (Begg) and I are deeply suspicious of each other’s role in the conspiratorial chain whenever we meet.
Melvin Harris has written that “every hoax contaminates the fields of honest research.” I support that view, although not wholly, as it makes no allowance for the valuable historical data which may be discovered in the process of investigating the hoax. Also, the idea for the hoax might have been inspired by an old tradition which, in itself, merits further research – as with the genesis of Joseph Sickert’s original story. If Mr Harris, therefore, could just identify for us who actually is involved in this collusion, and provide the supporting proof, then it will probably banish James Maybrick’s canditature as “Jack the Ripper” to the realms of fiction.
It surely cannot be that difficult? Indeed, does not Melvin Harris have a duty and moral obligation to go to the authorities and present them with his evidence? Or is he waiting for Michael Barrett (who presumably knows who his fellow conspirators are) to confirm that he has the correct names? |
Author: Alan Hunt
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 07:27 pm | | Mr Harris
Why the secrecy? just tell us what you suspect and let the populus decide for themselves
Caz
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU
HAPPY BIRTHDAY MR PRESID.....CAROLINE (sorry!)
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 08:32 pm | | Dear Alan,
That's very sweet of you to serenade Caroline. Happy Birthday, Caroline... from me too!
Love,
Rosemary |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 14 February 2001 - 07:34 am | | Hi All,
Thanks Marilyn....sorry, Alan. Thanks Rosy.
Keith Skinner wrote, in a post to Melvin Harris on The Maybrick Diary board, on July 5th 2000:
'“The Maybrick Will”
Suffice to say that never, for one second, did I have any reason to think the Will was anything but genuine and written by James Maybrick.'
So, in Melvin’s rush to expose what he sees as other people’s shortcomings, is he becoming a wee bit careless and forgetful? And why is he trying to blame Keith because he ‘allowed’ Feldy and Shirley to put whatever they chose into their books? I wonder just how much notice Melvin would take of friendly advice on how to write his own books, especially if it conflicted with his own reasoning and conclusions!
Is Melvin’s first priority really the truth, or is he more concerned with pushing his
own superiority by trying to find fault with everyone else?
And is there anyone left who would seriously defend a continued refusal by Melvin to meet Keith and Shirley in private to lay his cards on the table? RJ perhaps? You were one of the first to suggest a resolution behind the scenes. Do you see problems with the proposal that you didn’t when you made the suggestion?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Melvin Harris
Wednesday, 14 February 2001 - 06:07 pm | | CAST OFF FOOLING
I have asked for my hard evidence to be respected and thought around. But this is clearly too much for those who wish to jibe and sneer and rush in with faulty and facile arguments. Caz, for one, having already made a fool of herself, lacks the integrity to get down to the basic texts involved, and opts for fresh sneers. She knows nothing of Voller's dilemma, since she is too lazy to check the documents on screen. But a sneer is concocted all the same. My verdicts on the Wild and Turgoose reports are likewise given the 'sneer by inference' treatment. But if the texts I have displayed and my comments on them, are examined with intelligence, then nobody, anywhere, will find anything questionable in my presentation.
I have presented proof that Dr Wild was given false data and made his initial deductions from that position of error. I have shown that Dr Turgoose is wrong in his views on the artificial ageing of the scratches. Any professional goldsmith, silversmith, or craftsman in non-ferrous metals, will confirm that my facts are beyond challenge. And I have shown that the crucial words in the Wild texts were never revealed to any of the readers of the books by Mrs Harrison or Feldman. Yet they were known to both those believers, since the text in question was the very one sent them by Albert Johnson! Now without my postings you would all have remained ignorant of these important facts. So please evaluate them with the care they deserve.
Then we have Begg rushing in with a complete misunderstanding of the points I made about the 'Evening Standard' quotes. The key missing words I alluded to, were "It is hoped". In other words I was not talking about A CERTAINTY, but a hoped for possibility. But, despite this defect, the printed quote speaks for itself. It does NOT promise that I will make any revelations, nor does it promise that my partner in crime on the ink-tests, Nick Warren, will make any revelations. Is that clear? Just in case: IT IS NOT A PROMISE FROM ME TO NAME ANY NAMES.
As for the clamour for these names. This is the cry of a very few. They have no commitments, no responsibilities in this matter, and no understanding of the unexpected complexities that can arise when delving. I do not blame people for being curious, but those who have never conducted a real-life investigation tend to see things far too simplisticly. As I have already pointed out (look back) the course of an investigation can alter overnight. The action that was possible one day will be postponed when new facts emerge. And then there is a humane factor to consider, since people who are innocent of deception can be hurt badly by some public releases; this I have made clear in the past. So in my case I have concentrated on the fakes themselves, just as I have for years in the very many investigations made prior to the hoax Diary. (Any individuals whose names were noted by me, were always those who had deliberately courted publicity.) |
Author: Alegria
Wednesday, 14 February 2001 - 06:57 pm | | Mr. Harris,
Re: people who have "no understanding of the unexpected complexities that can arise when delving". What complexities are you speaking of? We are delving for the names of forgers, which is what the journalists did and you aided them in doing so. Why are you concerned with the information now being made public? Is it because "the course of an investigation can alter overnight. The action that was possible one day will be postponed when new facts emerge." Are these new facts that may have emerged the ones that demonstrate that contrary to what has been claimed for years, neither you nor the journalists have any hard proof as to the identity of the forgers?? And forgive me if I fail to believe that journalists would withold information on a guilty party out of concern for the feelings of some innocent bystanders. You have elevated talking in circles to an art form. So I ask again, would you consider releasing the names of the journalists who supposedly have the information so that we can question them directly in the hopes of receiving a straight answer? |
Author: Triston Marc Bunker
Wednesday, 14 February 2001 - 06:57 pm | | Melvin, Melvin,
Every time I read something you write it sounds like your about to burst a blood vessel. Not only do you seem to incite people to argue with you,whether your right or wrong, you seem to find it hard to take what you dish out.
I suggest a nice relaxing holiday somewhere, maybe the South of France if only for a week or two. Personally, a finding visiting a Swedish massage parlour gets those tricky knots from underneath suddenly raised heckles.
Yes, we know you are sure the diary is fake, you have said it many a time. But please, lay off the crusade, not only are you winding other people up it sounds like your doing the same to yourself. If people come over as hostile or foolish to you, can you imagine how you come over to them ?
'Nuff said. |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 15 February 2001 - 12:12 am | | | Excuse me, Melvin, but I didn't say that the Evening Standard article was a promise by you to name names. I said that you have had plenty of opportunity over six years or so to say that the Evening Standard had misquoted you and that you have never done so. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 15 February 2001 - 04:52 am | | Hi All,
I knew, when I first read Melvin's Evening Standard quote, that it was worded in such a way that he would be able to wriggle away from it whenever he chose.
[It is hoped that] "the identities of the three people involved in the forgery will soon be made known"
Notice he doesn't add "by me".
Paul, you are absolutely right. Melvin could and should have told us long ago that it was only a hope, not a promise, since he is the self-appointed Captain Integrity, sailing his ship of fools to Truth Island.
But Melvin still spectacularly misses the point. Is he now admitting that it was all a forlorn hope, and that the hoped-for proof never materialised? If so, any lack of integrity on my part pales into insignificance beside his own, because he has grossly and deliberately misled the Casebook, letting us all believe in this utter hogwash about privileged information and not breaking the journalists' code of silence.
So Melvin has not been straight with us, whether he has the conclusive proof or not. That much must be crystal clear to everyone by now.
Dear Triston,
What on earth have you got against Swedish masseuses?
On second thoughts, don't answer that... 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 15 February 2001 - 06:10 am | | I'm now half expecting Melvin to explain the Evening Standard quote fully as follows:
"It is hoped - but not by me, Melvin Harris, because I don't personally hold with hurting innocent people, and I never expose anyone who is not deliberately courting publicity - that the identities of the three people involved in the forgery will soon be made known - again, by someone else."
Perhaps Melvin can at least start being honest with us here and now. Assuming he knows which three people he was referring to, were all three deliberately courting publicity at the time, or had they ever done so? And if not, whose hope was Melvin actually representing when he was misquoted in the press?
And does Melvin really think we were all born yesterday?
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
