|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 19, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Maybrick/Jack's watch?:
Archive through February 19, 2001
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 15 February 2001 - 06:45 am |        | Hi Caz
I don't think Melvin Harris is fooling anyone anymore and I find no pleasure in adding to the pain of a wounded beast, but I think you miss the point that although Melvin Harris didn't say 'by me', the impression that he knows the identity of the forgers is something he has done absolutely nothing to dispell. This is what makes his current claim that he was misrepresented by the Evening Standardsurprising and, frankly, unbelievable.
In fact, Melvin Harris has positively encouraged the idea that he possessed information about the identity of the forgers. In a memorable post back in 1977 he said"Mrs Harrison's 'challenge' to me to name the forgers of the Diary is sheer hogwash and an excuse for yet more evasions. (Now there's a chance to yell 'abuse') She already knows my answer. There are good legal and logical reasons why I choose to stay silent; I have, in fact, taken legal advice on this score." Melvin Harris has maintained that position up to the present time, though he has consistently avoided giving any indication of what those legal constraints might be.
As is clear from the above quotation he has also consistently failed to understand that revealing the names of the forgers would end this controversy far more effectively than any of his lengthy and often arcane diatribes about wills and watches and McDougall. To Melvin the request that he name the forgers is "sheer hogwash and an excuse for yet more evasions". I suspect that most people recognise that on that score the only hogwash and evasion is coming from Melvin Harris.
As I have said, I respect Melvin honours privilaged information, even when the his stated reason for the information being withheld has long gone, but while Melvin can find time in his hectic schedule to write offensive open letters such as the one to Professor Rubinstein or ask loaded questions such as the one above to Keith Skinner, nowhere have we seen him make any appeals to the unnamed journalists release their infomation. Why, Melvin?
The bottom line here is that Melvin Harris claims to have crucially important information. He claims to be concerned for the purity of the waters of history, yet he seems to have done nothing to encorage those with the means to keep the waters clear to reveal what they know. And he has now chosen not to make his evidence known in private to Keith and Shirley in front of an independent assessor. Why? Because it is far less conclusive than Melvin has led us to believe. Because that information doesn't exist. Reasons like these must be paramount in everyone's mind. |
Author: R Court
Thursday, 15 February 2001 - 07:48 am | | Hi all,
Just to apologise to those who addressed me on the board in the last week and received no answer. For some reason I was not able to post, although I could call, the board. This is with some certainty the same problem as others have expierienced.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 15 February 2001 - 11:14 am | | Hi Bob,
Hi Paul,
Predicting what Melvin's response will be, I guess he will say that the information is there, but:
a) he cannot reveal it publicly because of the journalists' restrictions, be they legal or ethical (or should that read laughable?)
and b) if and when the restrictions in a) no longer apply, the 'humane factor' will kick in, and his conscience will prick him too much to reveal what he knows, even to Shirley and Keith in private, to spare the poor forgers, and their innocent families and friends, any possible humiliation. (Altogether now - "Aaahh".)
He seems to have every angle covered, doesn't he? Except for the fact that we are not quite the gullible fools he takes us for.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 15 February 2001 - 11:19 am | | After reading the great heap of nonsense that has been printed about Maybrick and the diary on this sight the past few days I feel like Coleridge's wedding guest:
A sadder and a wiser man,
He rose the morrow morn.'
We have now reached one of the lowest points in this on-going saga, perhaps only surpassed last Spring when a certain 'K' was hounded off these boards because she had the gall to ask the pro-Anne or pro-diary crowd to present their research.
We have a gentleman above who theorizes that Francis Tumblety had a svengali-like control over the cotton merchant James Maybrick, causing him to commit the Whitechapel murders. Nonsense, of course, but because in the same breath he slurs Melvin Harris, he is given a jocular welcome. Another gentleman --a sincere fellow-- politely asks for information about the diary since he is reading Paul Feldman's book. He is ignored. None of those posting here who profess to be profoundly interested in the diary bother to tell him to use extreme caution when approaching Feldman, who has written a book riddled with innaccuracy, ommission, and intellectual dishonesty. It is asked that Professor Rubinstein, who was severely chided for not doing his homework, be treated more gently. At one point someone even used the phrase 'Poor Feldman' (!) suggesting that he was handled too roughly.
Instead, the energy have been saved for the continued attack on Melvin Harris. That is because the truth is not being sought here. The truth is not important. What is important is the appearance that the truth is being sought. That, of couse, and attacking Melvin Harris, the best-informed and most visual critic of the diary.
What some of the newer contributors to this board probably do not realize, is that there is a long history of evasion on the pro-diary side of the aisle. Time and again critics of the diary have come to these boards expecting an honest and open discussion, but have left with a feeling of frustration or exhasparation. But don't take my word for it. Read the archives. Probably there are some here who do not also realize that many of the set above attacking Melvin Harris have a professional or a personal relationship with those at the middle of the diary saga, and do not argue out of conviction that the diary is an old document. They are not motivated by a severe search for the truth; they are motivated by loyalty. This is not necessarily a horrible thing--but it should be understood.
The most deplorable part of this attack on Melvin Harris is that he really is a man of integrity, and he really does have ethical reasons for not revealing his information. But some in the diary crowd realize that he is unwilling to break his own code of conduct, and are quite happy to promote the idea that he either knows nothing or is being evasive.
But the pro-Diary crowd I think as made one grave mistake in contributing to the above attacks--or, through their silence-- condoning them. For they have now come out publically on the side of full-disclosure and openness. In this new spirit, may I pose the following question? Will all those who have posted here attacking Harris be willing to answer a list of 20 questions about the diary and its provenance? (In some case this will require that certain documents or letters that Peter Birchwood and others have asked for be finally posted at this site) Or will the increasingly lame excuse once again be 'Why should we if Melvin knows the answer?'
My apologies for being blunt, but this is my honest & sincere perception of the situation.
Regards,
RJ Palmer |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 15 February 2001 - 12:08 pm | | Dear RJ Palmer,
You've been wanting to get this off your chest for sometime now. I do read previous postings, too.
Seems you are supplying the blood?
Love,
Rosemary |
Author: Triston Marc Bunker
Thursday, 15 February 2001 - 12:17 pm | | Bravo Mr. Palmer,
Bravo for saying that that part of theory I concocted was nonsense. I had came to the same conclusion. Go back to the general discussion in the "suspects" message board room and you'll see for yourself that I have consigned it into the realm of fiction (please note the time and date on the message where I decided to do this, it precedes your above comment).
As for dear Mr. Harris, it was never my intention to "slur" his good name, just to point out that he comes over rather forceful and aggresive and that he should calm down a little. But then that must go out to everyone involved in this petty argument, we are all only serving to wind each other up.
Now, I must be going, I have a date Gertie- a nice young Swedish girl now residing above a pub in Soho.
Tris
p.s
I'm taking up your advice and will be reading through the archives if only to know what it is I'm actually arguing about |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 15 February 2001 - 12:18 pm | | Dear Melvin,
You wrote that you have spoken very recently with Dr. Wild. Regardless of what information he was given along with the watch, he carried out his professional examination and stands by his original and only conclusion – clearly contradicting your own – that the offending engraving is ‘probably greater than’ or ‘at least’ several tens of years old.
Can you explain why the information, regarding how long ago the watch surface was polished by Mr. Murphy, whether it was correct or not, would have led Dr. Wild into making the huge leap from ‘certainly older than ten years’ to ‘several tens of years old’? Did you ask him for an explanation when you spoke? Or were you not remotely interested in hearing a possible defence of his professional opinions and competence?
Likewise, with Alec Voller’s dilemma, it would be refreshing, if outside your own peculiar brand of integrity, if you would address my ‘awkward’ question, and tell this board, in clear and simple terms, how Mr. Voller himself would respond today, if asked (and not when you put the basic texts on screen), to your assertion that the diary ink is incontrovertibly Diamine, and therefore of modern origin.
I will understand if Mr. Voller, unlike Dr. Wild, is not contactable these days for any reason, but I wonder if his latest bottom line conclusion, like Dr. Wild’s, would remain opposed to your own. I assume it would, otherwise I’m pretty sure you would have relieved me of my ignorance at the earliest opportunity, instead of slithering away yet again by accusing me of laziness and referring me back to old news.
Love,
Caz
PS RJ, you couldn't be more wrong about this 'loyalty' thing. I, for one, have always been passionate about finding the truth, and Melvin is the only one who has ever professed to knowing it for certain. I'm truly disappointed by your response. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 15 February 2001 - 12:24 pm | | Dear Rosemary,
Yes, I've supplied much of the blood. But I dare say it is nearly all leeched out now. I suppose I'll soon be joining K--- and P---- others who have left these boards utterly drained. When there is no one left to debate, slowly the Maybrick hoax will shrivel away like the now forgotten Pedachenko and Richard Mansfield nonsense. I imagine, also, that some day Melvin Harris will be vindicated....but will anyone remember?
Regards,
RJPalmer |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 15 February 2001 - 12:40 pm | | Hi R.J.
I suggest that if you go back through the archives you will see that “K” was not “hounded off” these boards and the argument leading to her departure was not because she asked anyone to present their research. She departed because that request was recognised by several posters as an attempt to divert attention away from a legitimate question by Keith Skinner.
I do not recall that anyone was asked to treat Professor Rubinstein more gently. It was pointed out that an admission of error from a Professor of History was not likely to be achieved by declaring his article an affront to the basic tenets of scholarship; that on the contrary such an attack would very likely force Professor to defend his corner and that the end result would not be progress but a total standstill.
You say: “The most deplorable part of this attack on Melvin Harris is that he really is a man of integrity, and he really does have ethical reasons for not revealing his information.”
Unless you have information not available to the rest of us, this is your personal conclusion and it is one that some people are questioning. You might be correct and I sincerely hope you are, but on the other hand Melvin’s pronouncements might be his own faulty interpretation of the evidence or he may not have any information at all.
Melvin Harris professes a concern for the purity of the historical record. That purity is not achieved by basing conclusions and making God-like pronouncements based on material nobody else is allowed to see. The bottom line is that Melvin Harris claims to know the identity of the forgers (or this is the impression he has done nothing to dispell) and most people here, including Shirley Harrison and Keith Skinner, recognise that this information could end the debate. Melvin has it within his power to end the debate. You tell us why he doesn't do that. What high moral reason does he have for allowing this debate to continue? The journalists sat on the information so they could screw up the Freidkin movie. Not a profoundly moral reason. Not a legal constraint either. If Harris had revealed his information then there would have been no book by Paul Feldman, no Shirley HArrison revision, no article by Professor Rubinstein... So what's the reason for letting the waters of history get muddied? |
Author: Alegria
Thursday, 15 February 2001 - 02:14 pm | | Mr. Palmer,
I hope you will not consider me to be attacking you if I disagree with you. I know that I have not asked Mr. Harris to betray the confidence of anyone involved. I have however, stated that if he is unable or unwilling to reveal his privileged information he should cease to harp on the fact that he has it. I have also said that I think most of his answers are evasive and do not directly address the question asked. Mel Harris continues to address the issue of the diary being fake which is no longer the topic being discussed. We wish to discover who faked it. Mr. Harris does not seem to want to discuss this issue and considers us to be pathetic for having an interest that he does not share. If Mr. Harris doesn't wished to be attacked, perhaps he should refrain from attacking others. As for slurs against his integrity, I am willing to defend his basic truthful nature. Do I think that this has been a deliberate deception on his part? No. Do I think that he has backed himself into a corner that circumlocutory cannot get him out of? Yes. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 15 February 2001 - 05:46 pm | | Hi all:
I hate to say it, but I predicted that Melvin Harris's "evidence" was not what he was portraying it to be. That indeed appears to be so. I agree with Paul Begg that Melvin until this moment has given us the impression that he has the answer to the forgery scheme. He now says he has been misquoted in the famous quote in which he said he would name the three forgers behind the hoax. This is the first time in all these years that he has said that he was misquoted. Previously, on these boards, he stated that he had legal reasons for not revealing what he knew.
R.J., I am not sure where you are coming from. Surely the majority of us, and here I am speaking for example of you, myself, Paul Begg, Keith Skinner, and Caroline Morris, and others, are interested in learning the truth about the so-called Diary of Jack the Ripper. You yourself have just been very critical of Paul Feldman for the shortcomings of his pro-diary research but paradoxically you are highly censorious of those of us who find fault with Melvin Harris who has claimed for years that he knew the workings of the forgery scheme but has stonewalled about revealing what he knows, if anything. Why do you criticize those of us who cry "foul" at Melvin's turnaround? Again, my intent, and those of most of the others who frequent this board, is to know the truth about the (probably fake) Diary.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 16 February 2001 - 03:35 am | | Chris-- Hello. As you well know, once upon a time Sir Melville Macnaghten suspected M.J. Druitt of being Jack the Ripper. He claimed to have 'private information' which led him to this conclusion. However, he told the Daily Mail that he would 'never reveal' this information, and indeed he destroyed his documentation. As a student of the Ripper case, this is frustrating. I wish I knew what Sir Melville knew. But I am certainly not going to proclaim from the roof-tops that Macnaghten knew nothing, that he was evasive, a know-nothing, a lair that lacked credibility, etc., etc. Indeed, what does the excellent A-Z say about Macnaghten's claims? Let me quote. "The frequently proclaimed case for believing Druitt to be innocent on the grounds that 'there is not a shred of evidence against him' confuses legal with historical evidence: ie., it accurately indicates that we do not know what grounds there might have been for bringing charges against him, but irresponsibly extends this to imply that Macnaghten shared our ignorance." Intelligent reasoning. Now, perhaps this is a weak analogy in some respects (I think Melvin knows more than Melville knew) but in some ways I think it is quite apt. You don't know what Melvin knows, but you publically imply that he doesn't know anything. Couldn't it just be possible that it is an 'irresponsible' implication that Harris shares our ignorance?
Where I am at is simply this. I think the implications being broadcast on this board over the past few days that Melvin Harris is 'evasive' and 'lacking in credibility' are unfair, inaccurate, and, in some respects, hypocritical. I am no more 'highly censorous' about those attacking Melvin Harris than I would be against anyone else who I think is attacking someone repeatedly and unjustly.
Yes, I've been critical of Feldman's research; but where is the paradox? I think the harshest criticism I made of Feldman was probably this morning when I called his book "intellectually dishonest". A bit rough, I admit. I was thinking once again where he argues that Anderson, Littlechild, & Macnaghten suspected the Lusk letter as being the work of enterprising journalists. How could Feldman have come to this conclusion? Yes, this is the same example I have used in the past---but to be honest, I always felt I used some restraint with Feldman. I made a close study of his book last summer and could site you many more examples. I doubt if you wish to argue the point. Why do you find this paradoxical? Are you implying that Harris's research is on the same level as Feldman's? Please refer to The Maybrick Hoax: A Fact File for the Perplexed where Harris includes 5 appendices that include the complete copies of the Eastaugh Report, a copy of a letter from Analysis for Industry, etc. etc. Is this a fair comparison?
Alegria--I think you are sincere. I think you perceive that Melvin Harris continually harps that he has private information. But look back and see if this perception might not be false. My perception is that you, Caroline, Paul, Chris, and many others are the ones that constantly bring this up. Melvin Harris does not even post on this board for weeks at a time; when he does he is usually responding to certain technical points about the text or the forensic evidence of the diary. His statements nearly never refer to his private information, except when he is repeating that he is unwilling to reveal it. Indeed, his most clear statement of purpose was on 14 June, 2000 on the Maybrick Diary Board, where he specifically states that the search for the 'motives' and 'identities' of the forgers are misdirected, and the only important thing is the study of the artifacts involved. Indeed he states: 'As for the identities of fakers. If they are known, public indentification may be inhumane, or of interest only to the morbid, the vindictive, or the I-told-you-so brigade." The fact as I perceive it is that those posting here have led the conversation around to where the only motive now is to find out what Melvin Harris knows and/or to discredit him if he fails to reveal it. Do you think this view has no merit? Why are you so willing to think the worse, that Harris's reluctance is based on malice or evasion and not on a genuine ethical concern, especially since you do not know what his revelation might entail?
Paul-- You are a good fellow and smarter than I am. I don't wish to argue with you. But I did in fact re-read the discussions last June concerning 'K' in their entirety. I don't mean to bring up an old wound. But the implication here is that we are all working together for the truth and that Melvin alone is being evasive. Maybe such rhetoric isn't so harmful if it is kept among you and Keith and Caz and Chris and the those who have actually read Shirley's and Paul's and Melvin's statements, and have all the information at their disposal. But the casual readers on this board are going to walk away with a false impression. Because you know as well as I do that Melvin Harris's research is impeccable and his facts can be checked, and he makes a very strong case that the diary is a recent hoax. The implication that he is being evasive must be weighed against K's plea on 15 June, 2000 and all the responses she was given over the next two weeks.
15 June, 2000. K: So Keith, Caz, anyone. I can only repeat my plea. Melvin has done a fine job in putting hard evidence in favor of a modern forgery.
Keith, Caz, anyone, could you please reciprocate by doing the same for your case? Could you give us your good hard evidendial reason for believing the thing to be an old forgery, rather than a modern scam?'
I thought it was a reasonable plea. But she was basically told she was out of order, that the conversation was really about Birchwood's claims, that no promises had been made to give information, etc. etc. I think this is very much to the point. Looking back at this, is it really fair to level the charge of 'evasion' against Melvin Harris?
I suppose I am now the bad boy of the diary board, but believe me I take no pleasure in such debates. I honestly think I am being just.
Best wishes,
RJ Palmer. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 16 February 2001 - 04:58 am | | Hi RJ,
Keith, Caz, anyone, could you please reciprocate by doing the same for your case? Could you give us your good hard evidendial reason for believing the thing to be an old forgery, rather than a modern scam?'
I know we are going over old ground again, but you still seem to be missing the basic point.
What is the point of even assembling a 'case', let alone arguing for it in a public forum, all the while there is a highly respected professional investigator claiming to have sufficient hard and fast evidence to disprove it conclusively?
The arguments Melvin has made against providing Shirley and Keith with his evidence in private, so ending the debate, the heartache, the money-making machine, you name it, may or may not ring hollow - we each of us have to judge by what Melvin says and by what he fails to say.
One question for you though. You appear to believe that Melvin has the evidence, but is right to withhold it from the Diary investigation, for the various and varied reasons he has come up with. Keith and Shirley have given their assurances that, if Melvin provides them with the goods, they will do the rest - no public disclosure, simply a formal acknowledgement that will vindicate Melvin - which is precisely what you claim to want to see happen 'some day'.
So what possible reason do you have for defending Melvin's continued refusal to vindicate himself right now - today?
Like Chris, I'm struggling a bit to understand where you are coming from, certainly regarding the invitation to Melvin, which you yourself were strongly advocating not so long ago as the only right and proper way to go.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
PS I also wish you could see that there really is no such animal as a 'pro-Diary crowd'! :-) It's an enduring myth, but a myth none the less. |
Author: Alegria
Friday, 16 February 2001 - 06:13 am | | | I may be wrong( it has happened numerous times I admit), but didn't Melvin Harris make his reputation as a debunker of fakes and scams? Where was the ethical concern for public humiliation bordering on the inhumane for the people he has exposed in the past? Where is his ethical consideration for Shirley Harrison who he basically calls a liar and the perpetrator of the fraud? It seems he condemns her for publishing it and is willing to do so publicly, but he draws the line at condemning those who wrote it! That hardly seems well...ethical. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 16 February 2001 - 06:57 am | | R.J.
I am baffled how you could come away from reading those Karoline posts with the opinion you have expressed. Keith Skinner asked Peter Birchwood to assess the evidence on which Peter based his belief that Mike and Anne had forged the ‘diary’ for financial gain. Karoline then asked Keith to present his evidence that the ‘diary’ was an old forgery.
The evidence on which Keith based his beliefs was completely irrelevant to the evidence of which Peter’s beliefs were based and Karoline was told this. Nevertheless she continued to make the request and was interpreted by many people, myself among them, as attempting to divert the discussion away from questioning Peter’s evidence. Repeatedly she was told that her question was not relevant, as you will see by looking at the posts for July 20 for example when I explained, “I am not trying to prove that the 'diary' is an old forgery, but I am trying to test various points in the argument that it is a modern one.” Or look at when Karoline asked "At risk of repeating myself ad nauseam - do you or Keith or anyone have any solid evidence that suggests the thing is NOT a modern fake?", to which I replied “I am not avoiding answering this question, but it simply isn't relevant to the topic being discussed. We are looking at the modern forgery theory…” Time and time again the point was made that the old forgery theory was not under discussion, but time and time again Karoline tried to divert this line of inquiry to that of old forgery proofs.
Not to put too fine a point on this, it looked like Peter couldn’t answer the questions being put to him and that mate Karoline was trying her damndest to get him out of hot water by diverting the discussion to another topic. Other posters recognised this and challenged her. Then Karoline went off in a huff of indignation. It’s all there for anyone to see.
If I may say so, you are also missing the point here about Melvin. Six years ago he was quoted in the Evening Standard and despite numerous references to the article over the years he has not once said that he was misquoted. Moreover, he has in fact given the impression that he does know the identity of the forgers but it legally constrained from naming them. Now he says that he was misquoted, which naturally causes people to ask why he’d never said this before, doubt that he is now telling the truth and to wonder whether he does or does not have any private information at all.
The second and distinct issue, which partly answers you query to Alegria, is that Melvin volunteered the information that unnamed journalists had uncovered evidence enabling Harris to say that Mike and Anne were merely the placers. He has stated that some sort of journalistic code prevents him from revealing more. This may or may not be true, but by Harris’s own admission the journalists only sat on their information because they were waiting for developments with the Friedken movie. This doesn’t sound like a very moral reason to me nor one deserving of Harris’s silence. Secondly and far more importantly, while Harris is ever-willing to write open letters and long diatribes about this and that, not once is he known to ever have urged the journalists to make their information available. And now, when given the opportunity to make his information available in secret and in front of an independent assessor, with a promise that a public acknowledgement of the value of his information and a frank admission that the ‘diary’ is a forgery will be made, Harris flatly refuses. Why? Nobody will be hurt, nothing will be made public; the information wasn’t sat on for moral reasons anyway… where’s the rhyme or reason? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 16 February 2001 - 07:06 am | | Hi Alegria,
My guess is that Melvin will refer you back to his post in which he suggests he only exposes the faults of those who have deliberately courted publicity.
In other words, you can gaily go about your business committing all sorts of fraud, as long as you don't boast about it and, er, expose yourself in the process.
Meanwhile, anyone who questions the debunker-at-work, is fair game to have all kinds of faults, real or imaginary, heaped on them.
It's a game that has as much to do with ethics as it has to do with progress.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Alegria
Friday, 16 February 2001 - 01:51 pm | | Hi there Caz,
Yes, I can see how the publisher of a faked book would be much more guilty of publicity seeking than the people who faked it. After all the fakers would hardly be able to stand up and say "HEY! I faked the book! I..ME...Right here
--> I faked the book!!" :-) That would be rather stupid, now wouldn't it? And since they haven't actively courted publicity for their actions, that makes it okay, now doesn't it? Mel has stated that the diary is a criminal offense. How could he claim that he won't expose the people who did it because they don't seek publicity for it? And also, if I know a criminal offense has been committed and I know who committed it, am I not ethically obligated to come forward with what I know? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 16 February 2001 - 06:11 pm | | Hi Ally,
Melvin's Evening Standard quote was pretty meaningless really, wasn't it? I mean, what it boiled down to was "Won't it be good if the three people involved in the diary forgery can soon be named and shamed in public?"
Well, yes and no. Melvin is now claiming that he operates by exposing hoaxes, not hoaxers, unless they have already more or less exposed themselves, like Mike Barrett, by courting publicity and saying "HEY! I faked the book! I..ME...Right here."
So, Mike tries his utmost to serve himself up on a plate for Melvin, and what happens? Not a lot actually.
The problem with this case, as Scotland Yard must have found, is trying to prove that the person who served up the diary for our delectation - Mike, that is - knew beyond all doubt that it was a fake. If he didn't know, how could anyone else be expected to know, such as the researchers or publisher etc etc? Anne too is in the clear, because there is no evidence that she persuaded Mike to offer a fraudulent item to the public, even if she knew the diary was bogus.
Melvin must be in the clear here as well, since he has failed to bind even a submissive Mike to the fraud.
But I think you may be right. If Melvin ever had evidence that Mike knowingly placed a fraudulent document, perhaps the police might have shown a tad more interest.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 16 February 2001 - 07:05 pm | | Dear Caroline,
Chin up girl! We must be prepared for Moriarty's next move.
(Can a hoaxer be hoaxed by their own hoax? Can a debunker be debunked from their bunk? Anything is possible on the Casebook, "Enterprise" !) :-)
Love,
Rosemary |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 17 February 2001 - 07:19 am | | Caz, Alegria, Rosemary
From reading what Melvin has written, in 1994 he apparently told the Evening Standard that it was ‘hoped’ that the three forgers would soon be named. It is not clear whether or not he personally hoped they would be named or whether he was simply reporting the hopes of those conducting the “independent newspaper enquiries” on whose information Harris was commenting. From what Harris has let slip over the years, those journalists decided to sit on whatever information they had while awaiting developments with the Friedken movie. Over the years when confronted with the Evening Standard quote Harris has indicated that he was constrained from further comment by legal reasons. Melvin has said somewhere that he took legal advice on the matter. So we may be safe in assuming that Melvin was given privileged information that he is legally prohibited from making public. Whatever Melvin’s opinion about naming the forgers might be, he is legally unable to do so even if he wanted to.
However, Melvin has previously stated that he would make his information available to a solicitor who would confirm that he was unable to make it available publicly. Maybe the time has come for Melvin to do that, though it would be necessary for a jointly agreed independent person to be present to confirm that the information he produces concerned the identity of the ‘diary’ forgers. That way, although Melvin’s information could not be assessed and the interpretation reached by Melvin agreed, at least the existence of the material could be confirmed.
Alternatively, a simpler procedure which would not, presumably break any confidentiality, would be the name the journalists and allow them to be approached. Not being bound by any legal constraints, they may be prepared to make their information available to Shirley Harrison and Keith Skinner. Maybe Melvin Harris would answer with a simple yes or no whether he is prepared to do this. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 17 February 2001 - 11:19 am | | Hi Paul,
It would certainly be better than nothing if Melvin could only see the sense in agreeing to one of your suggestions.
But Melvin only has to show Shirley and Keith in private that one of the modern suspects was definitely involved in forging the diary, and he is home and dry. Thus far, he has come up with a number of reasons why he cannot or won't do this - including journalists' codes, legal restrictions, and self-imposed restrictions on humanitarian grounds.
The ‘humane factor’ presumably doesn’t apply to Mike Barrett, since he has courted publicity by confessing, and Melvin has made no secret of trying to nail him with evidence such as the Sphere book. So the privileged information – if it exists - must concern Melvin’s claim that Mike was a handler and placer of the faked diary. Any other conclusion makes no sense to me.
Assuming Melvin had such information, and that his legal adviser told him not to make it public, would there be any reason why he could not have taken it to the police, and let them decide if it constituted conclusive proof that Mike knew the diary was a modern forgery when he took it to London? Following on from Alegria’s post, it seems such an obvious question, yet if it has been addressed before, I can’t recall the outcome.
Any ideas?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 17 February 2001 - 11:25 am | | From Keith Skinner to Chris George and RJ Palmer
Dear Chris
Caroline has just read to me, over the telephone, your post to RJ of Thursday, February 15, 2001 – 05:46 pm.
Hallelujah Chris!
Thank you.
Best Wishes
Keith
Dear RJ
I have only ever wanted the truth about this Diary – even if the truth means I am publicly humiliated. That, to me, seems a small price to pay in order to end the controversy.
But does it not strike you as totally illogical for Melvin, over the past six years or more, to devote hours and hours to writing pages and pages of argument against the Diary and the Watch, when he could probably destroy both artefacts in less than 30 seconds?
What is the point in anybody continuing to speculate about the Diary and the Watch, when Melvin is jealously guarding the truth to protect the guilty participants?
All Good Wishes
Keith |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 17 February 2001 - 12:03 pm | | On behalf of Shirley Harrison, who is having trouble with her computer
At the request of Albert Johnson and very reluctantly, I sent him a copy of the recent messages on the boards. I think it’s only fair to record his genuine distress - and anger too – and I share the blame for this. I suggest that any further debate about the role of the late Robbie Johnson in the watch be conducted off the boards.
For exactly the same reason, to protect innocent family members, the naming of names, which so many contributors would welcome, should not be tackled on the boards. This should not, I feel, preclude private discussion.
We can discuss the scratches and the scientific reports here, although I have become increasingly impatient. The engraving on the back of the watch “I am Jack” is not even readable with the naked eye… only the buffing scratches. For anyone to make judgements without ever having seen the evidence is surely a speculative and dangerous approach.
Hopefully Albert may bring the watch to London eventually – but right now his earlier enthusiasm to co-operate has been dented.
Albert said, “How dare these people who don’t know me and never knew Robbie and haven’t seen the watch either make up all this stuff about us. Robbie was not a bad man – he did some silly things – but I loved him very much. Robbie did not even know I had bought a watch – he was inside at the time. He was given 2 years and came out after 18 months for good behaviour. He was released just about the time the Maybrick story was in the press – I can’t remember exactly when but as soon as we knew about the scratches I rang him and he shot over because he was so excited. After I rang the Post and they gave me Robert Smith’s telephone number we realised the watch could be valuable so we asked a solicitor to look after us. We went back to Mr. Murphy’s shop too and then up to Lancaster to see if Mrs. Murphy’s father’s shop was there. Would we have done all that if we knew it was a forgery? Would I have invested all that money in laboratory tests, with Robbie’s full support, if we had known it was forged? It’s just ridiculous. None of it makes sense.” |
Author: Alegria
Saturday, 17 February 2001 - 04:25 pm | | Paul,
A few posts back, I asked Mr. Harris if he would be willing to name the journalists so we might approach them. So far..nothing. Guess that is privileged information also, though I would like to reiterate how strange it seems to me that journalists would continue to sit on a story of this magnitude for so many years. I can only conclude that the proof is not as conclusive as they had first assumed.
Ally |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 17 February 2001 - 06:16 pm | | Hi All,
Did anyone else see Shirley Harrison and Robert Smith being interviewed on the London Tonight regional news programme broadcast yesterday? It went out at around 6.15pm.
The proposed Friedkin film was mentioned, as well as 'From Hell', and we got a glimpse of the infamous Diary too.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Melvin Harris
Saturday, 17 February 2001 - 08:10 pm | | FOOLHARDY ONCE MORE.
As promised, I have continued to provide fact-files for those who are seriously interested in the mechanisms of the Diary hoax and its spin-off. But this involves thought and seems to be too much for those who want to reduce the whole issue to one of 'who done it?' This issue of the identities of the fakers has never been RAISED by me on screen. Indeed I came on the Internet, at the invitation of Stephen Ryder, for one purpose only; taht was to provide the facts and documents that no-one else was offering. And in some cases to provide material that nobody else was in a position to offer.
I have dealt with the 'Evening Standard' text simply in order to kill it off forever. It is tiresome to have it quoted by eager fault-finders who have never taken the trouble to read the words with understanding. It was not written by me and is not a promise from me. The text speaks for itself. And that is the end of that matter.
However, nowhere have I ever said that I possess identity-evidence that OF ITS OWN would kill off the Diary. I do have some telling evidence that is good enough for me, but it is embargoed. Any attempt to explain why would inevitably reveal the very things I am determined not to disclose. Note: this is by no means the first time that I have felt it essential to withold information in non-criminal fraud cases. Now this may not please some, but that is not important, what IS important is that, in over thirty years I have never once been found dishonest in any of my published or broadcast works. I invoke that record now. I HAVE EARNED THE RIGHT TO BE TRUSTED. And I expect that to be acknowledged without vacillations or snide burps from anyone.
Furthermore I have earned the right to be estimated on a fair and proveable basis. But this latest clamour has brought forth some unworthy, and even inane, judgments. In Alegria's case she has dreamed up a scenario which involves the "...public humiliation bordering on the inhumane for the people he [Harris] has exposed in the past." Really? This is not what Isaac Asimov or Prof Carl Sagan thought when they read my 'INVESTIGATING THE UNEXPLAINED'. And no living person mentioned in that book has ever complained of the treatment they received. (It is still in print at Prometheus Press.) As for my other book of exposures, 'JACK THE RIPPER: THE BLOODY TRUTH', perhaps Alegria, as a close friend of Stephen Ryder, should read what Stephen recently wrote me about that book: "I wanted to congratulate you (albeit a decade late) on having written one of the most unique and enjoyable Ripper books I've read in recent times. The material held therein on Pedachenko/Dutton/McCormick/Knight/Royal Conspiracy/Chicago Whitechapel Club/ etc was absolutely delicious- most of it I've caught before, but reading your deductions 'from start to finish' was a real treat. It is a shame that this book is so difficult to come by." So where lies the inhumane factor?
And there is the ring of hypocrisy about Begg's call for names. He and his chums have made lying and libellous claims about my dealings with Journalists, publishers and others but have refused to provide any names. They shield behind the knowledge that I am not a person intent on launching libel actions!
Now for some factual corrections. First of all: the idea that Mike and Anne were simply 'placers' originated with me. It was based on the knowledge that the writing in the Diary does not resemble the handwriting of either one of that pair. This does not mean that they knew nothing of the fakery when it was being devised.
Secondly, the watch-scratch dating methods have been dealt with by me in detailed past posts. But Dr Wild in his faxes does not comment in any way on any fresh developments or conversations with me. He has simply run off parts of his last sheets. As for his leap from ten years to tens of years, this has already been explained. But for the last dreary time, note that the scratches themselves were NOT dated. That they were ten or more years old was based on false information. But following that false date, came a section which attempted to date the corroded speck of brass. The guessed-at date for the corrosion was then added to the faulty ten years base-line. It is that simple. And the errors behind the calculations will be found in the posts I mention.
Thirdly, Voller and the Diary ink question is dealt with in two past postings which include the Warren-Smith exchange and the crucial letter of 21 December 1994 from Robert Smith, plus the NEW bronzing evidence resulting from the use of authentic Diamine Manuscript Ink supplied by Voller.
But is all this misguided fuss really about facts? Or is it kept alive in order to pretend that the Diary is still a matter of intense discussion? Yes, it is discussed, but only here, and only by a few. And my sole aim in posting is because I believe that there needs to be some reliable archive somewhere for genuine fact-seekers to use. But, if a publisher came along and offered to put the fact-files into print, then I would not even bother to use the Net. And he could have all the material for nothing.
POSTSCRIPT: A telephone call tells me that I might be on the right track. Mrs Harrison has just been on Carlton TV telling them about the wonders of a possible film based on the Diary. But no viewer heard from any informed critic. No-one able to point to the evidence for fakery in this matter, was ever contacted. |
Author: Alegria
Saturday, 17 February 2001 - 08:48 pm | | Mr. Harris,
I make up my own mind about who to trust and who not to trust, whose works to credit and whose not to credit. You can quote endorsements from Stephen Ryder, Carl Sagan or the Sainted Virgin Mary and that will not be enough to convince me. I have asked a simple question which you continue to evade: As you are not willing to discuss the forgers, will you tell us the name of the journalists who have the information? Do not continue to post that there is irrefutable proof that Diary is fake. WE KNOW WE KNOW WE KNOW!!! All I want to know now is whether or not you will tell us the names of the journalists. |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 18 February 2001 - 01:30 am | | I suppose it is to be expected that Melvin Harris would defend himself with the usual smokescreen of attacking the intellect and ability of his critics, as with the pompous observation that his thought-requiring fact-files are ‘too much’ for those who, quite rightly, see identifying the forgers as a more decisive end to the controversy than endless screeds about inks and wills. Or again when he claims that ‘eager fault-finders have never taken the trouble to read the words with understanding’. What, I wonder, does the arch fault-finder imagine there is difficult to interpret or understand about: “"There is now no doubt whatsoever that they are a recent fake", he claims. "The identities of the three people involved in the forgery will soon be made known."
I daresay that Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov and Stephen Ryder might find it as surprising as the rest of us that Melvin has not once in six years seized the opportunity to explain that he was misrepresented by the Evening Standard. However, whether he said the forgers would be named or that it was hoped they would be named is of no real consequence. Melvin says ‘the words speak for themselves’ and indeed they do. Or one word does. That tiny word ‘three’. That word indicates knowledge.
Melvin has claimed and allowed to be inferred that he has definite knowledge about the identity of the forgers and the roles played by Mike Barrett and Anne Graham. He has been asked to make this information available to Shirley Harrison and Keith Skinner in strict and legally binding confidence. He has flatly refused to do so.
I understand and appreciate the bounds of confidence. But Melvin has himself stated that the journalists withheld the information for no great moral reason. Why is it therefore embargoed? Why can’t the journalists themselves be named? They found the information, why can’t they decide what to do with it? Would they be willing to make what they know available to Shirley and Keith with the same stipulations applied to Melvin?
All the name-dropping in the world won’t prevent a reputation from being tarnished, especially when the only request being made here is one for the truth. Harris, of all people, should respect that and treat that request with civility. |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 18 February 2001 - 04:23 am | | Hi Alegria
In his post “Foolhardy Once More” Harris says that he does not possess “identity-evidence that OF ITS OWN would kill off the Diary”. This may be true, but since 1994 he has indicated that he knows who the forgers are and what their roles were. It does not matter whether he told the Evening Standard in 1994 that the identities of the forgers would be made known or that it was only hoped that they would be made known. What he spoke about was “the identities of the three people involved in the forgery…” He was able to say that there were ‘three’ forgers. Furthermore, in June 2000 of those same journalistic inquiries he was able to say that they showed of Mike Barrett and Anne Graham that “Their roles were simply as placers, or handlers, of a document forged by others.” This was not ventured as an opinion but as a statement of fact. Now, if he can state as fact that there were three forgers and that Mike and Anne were placers, then he must have good evidence indicating the forgers and a modern forgery. If he can make those statements of fact, how can the evidence be other than conclusive? But what he now claims to posses is “telling evidence that is good enough for me”. We would not appear to be dealing with statements of fact, but statements based on Melvin’s interpretation of such evidence as he possesses. Apart from this being completely different from the impression he has fostered for over half a decade, his interpretation could be faulty.
This whole matter smells distinctly fishy as it would seem that at best Melvin has offered as fact what was personal opinion he can't substantiate and at worst has been deliberately misleading. |
Author: Alegria
Sunday, 18 February 2001 - 08:46 am | | Morning Paul,
I agree with many of the things that you said in both your posts. I, frankly do not know Mr. Harris' reputation that well, and it would not change my posts a whit if I did. I post what I post based on what is being said in the here and now. I am currently pondering how many hoaxes have been successfully de-bunked without naming those responsible for perpetrating them. I have pretty much come to the conclusion that regardless of what we post or ask, we will never get the answers we seek. There is no sense trying to question someone with blinders on who reads and responds only to those few sentences he chooses. |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 18 February 2001 - 08:55 am | | Hi Alegria
Indeed. Indeed. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Sunday, 18 February 2001 - 04:15 pm | | CURTAIN DOWN!
Alegria has now provided the means for ending this time-wasting discussion. She says: "Do not continue to post that there is irrefutable proof that Diary is fake. WE KNOW WE KNOW WE KNOW!!!" Very well, since it is now agreed that the Diary is bogus, then let her address her questions to the one person on screen who professes to believe in the Diary; that is Shirley Harrison. Let Alegria demonstrate to this believer that she is fostering a piece of fiction disguised as truth.
Now, if you look back you will see that the 'Evening Standard' lines did NOT appear time-and-time again, as some seem to imagine. Indeed they have never been of importance and the early lengthy discussions were about the textual origins of the Diary, the forensic evidence, the documents pertinent to the Maybrick case and the bogus 'evidence' used to bolster up beliefs in the Diary. People then were happy with that standard of presentation. And, since Alegria says "WE KNOW", it must be that my work in the past, and that of others, has not been in vain. And if people are now convinced, then it is obvious that they did not need the names of the fakers in order to reach their conclusions!
But Alegria must keep her passion in check. She bruises herself when she tries to condemn my past activities without knowing what they were. I have mentioned Sagan and Asimov because they were people of great knowledge and experience who went out of their way to assess the investigations I made. The same can be said of Joe Nickell. Not one of these men found any inhumane aspects in my exposures.
As for Begg, he once more avoids the fact that he and his chums concocted lying and libellous charges and then refused to name the people they claimed were involved. Now that really was despicable, shifty and unwholesome. So perhaps Alegria will now assume an even-handed position and press him to make account? After all, this really is a case where disclosures should be quite easy to make, or apologies tendered.
Finally, two good things have come out of this. One: it is not necessary to know the forgers since "WE KNOW" already, that the text is faked. Two: Albert Johnson has confirmed my statement that Robbie was out of prison at the time of the Liverpool newspaper's disclosures.
REMINDER: The scope of the Acts covering forgery can be found on earlier postings. |
Author: Triston Marc Bunker
Sunday, 18 February 2001 - 04:33 pm | | Melvin, Melvin, Melvin.
Yes, most of us do accept that the diary is a fake. Why do you persist in shooting Paul Begg down so much ? You are begining to sound like Ahab in his quest against that famous whale. The man, himself, tells me he believes it's a fake. He even admits to you he's made mistakes in the past here on these very pages. Why won't you let it go ?
What do you want from Paul ? Freaking blood ? His head on a platter ? Spell it out boy, this man can't do right for doing wrong can he.
Why do you persist in this "downer" attitude ? If people still talk about the diary then it's because the forger who wrote it made some clever observations that put Maybrick in the picture.
For god sake man, give it a flaming rest. This is why people attack you all the time. Maybe your chest is a "cannon" and you are shooting it on that "whale". But I think it's time you gave it a day.
We are all getting very bored with you now. I think the phrase is "shut the hell up Melvin Harris". It's time to go back to your oboes.
Tris.
Ps, I make no apologies for what I have just wrote. I just said what everyone else is thinking. |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 18 February 2001 - 06:19 pm | | Melvin, let me explain something to you. I am avoiding nothing. Not a single solitary thing. Whether or not me and my chums ‘concocted lying and libellous charges’ is irrelevant and your charge is a clear and I am sorry to say a pathetic attempt to avoid answering the questions you have been asked. You are fooling absolutely no one.
However, it has already been made clear to you that Martin Fido wrote the letter to which you allude and a few months ago Martin told you in no uncertain terms what you did to justify what he wrote. I cannot comment on it, I was not there, I have no direct knowledge, so don't whitter on at me about it anymore. If you want to take issue with it, address yourself to Martin. He has infinite patience and an excellent command of English and will no doubt spell it out for you.
This said (and get it into your head that that issue is now over as far as I am concerned), try facing up fair and square to the question you have been asked: do you have solid evidence supporting your unequivocal statements that there were three forgers and that Mike and Anne were the placers. Or were those statements based on speculation which you passed off as fact? |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 18 February 2001 - 06:33 pm | | Dear Melvin,
Please tell me you never REALLY believed that Jack the Ripper kept a Diary. Silly idea. Still it kept you busy figuring this n' that...until finally you spun your qeurulous quivering string of inferential light. But forgodsake! don't venture your toe too far out on it, Melvin......
................................\ping//..........
......:-)
Love,
Rosemary |
Author: Alegria
Sunday, 18 February 2001 - 06:54 pm | | Mel,
As I said: Blinders. I have said in just about every post that we know the diary is fake. We don't NEED to know who the fakers are. We WANT to know who the fakers are. The same way we WANT to know who Jack the Ripper was. Why don't you suggest that because we KNOW the JtR crimes were committed, we don't NEED to know who committed them? I'm sure the many people who post here will be greatly impressed by that bit of wisdom.
Second, I did not try to condemn your past. What I said was I cannot seriously believe that a debunkers primary concern would be to spare the reputation of those involved in a fraud. You brought up that no one in your one book "Unexplained" has complained of the treatment received by you. Bully for you. Let's ask anyone associated with the diary or discussing it about the treatment received.
On to the next: Why should I try to convince Shirley Harrison of anything? First, it is not my business to try and change the beliefs of other people. Second, she has agreed to meet with you to see whatever proof you may or may not have to offer with an independent party. An independent party who can back you up if she is still stubborn and refuses to accept your evidence. You are the one who wants the whole world to agree with you. I don't.
And who are you to condemn someone else for avoiding anything? |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 19 February 2001 - 02:35 am | | Hello Everyone. Due to the recent hostility creeping in to this discussion (an understatement? :-)) I've decided to take a short 'breather' from these boards. Yet, since some of you have addressed me directly, I felt it would be impolite not to respond in some manner. Tone is sometimes difficult to judge, but please trust that I am not responding with any personal animosity.
To Keith Skinner--
Dear Keith, no I don't find Melvin's position the least bit illogical, and frankly, I feel many of the posters on this board are very naive indeed. But see below.
What I don't understand is exactly why I am being publically chastised by the other contributors for not joining in the general harangue against Melvin, especially when it should be utterly clear that I am only speaking my conscience and when it should also be utterly clear that Melvin in no shape or form deserves the treatment he is receiving here. Where exactly can anyone show that he has acted unethically or with 'faltering credibility'? You might not agree with his opinions, but clearly these allegations are without foundation. Nowhere did I suggest that you shouldn't be entitled to search for the truth. But this is a private matter, and it is certainly none of my business. The discussion of the authenticity of this document, however, is a public concern, and is everybody's buisness. I wish you the best,
Sincerely,
RJ Palmer
To Caz, Paul Begg, Alegria, Rosemary, et al. -- If all anyone is really after is 'cooperation' and the 'truth' from Melvin Harris, they certainly have a strange way of asking for it (!) Though I certainly hope this is not the case, it does seem that the tone of the recent posts suggests that the aim of many is more to discredit Melvin and the 'anti-diary' position than to really search for the truth. I certainly hope this is not the case, but how can that grim thought not cross my mind considering some of the recent posts?
But a couple important points. What so many people are either forgetting or avoiding mentioning, is that Melvin made his position clear about the ethical considerations of 'not naming names' back in June in his 'Cottingly Fairies' post ---long before this board turned into a monotonous and somewhat voyeuristic rant for the identities of the forgers. At that point, the discussion was about 'motive'. Clearly Melvin's statements in that post are not all that different in spirit from Shirley Harrison's plea above! When it comes to a disputed document, it is potentially disruptive and damaging to the people and the family's of the people involved (or only marginally involved) to be dragged out into the public light. This is why I --and this answers Caz's question-- did indeed suggest that a 'private denouement' of this mystery --if it had to come to that --would be much more ethical. I've mentioned several times in the past how this aspect of the debate has always bothered me. But since none of you have the faintest idea what Melvin's information is, or what ethical or professional considerations it entails --how on earth can you suggest that he is being evasive or has 'faltering' credibility? Please answer, because it certainly deserves one.
There are many tricky ethical considerations in this whole bloody diary mess, and some of them run counter to one another. A highly questionable document came to light, claimed by some to be authentic. It was in Melvin Harris's field of expertise; he had a right to make a critical examination of it. Indeed, I would almost say he had an obligation to do so, just like everyone else who claimed to be an expert. Unfortunately, one of the key elements in studying a questioned document is an examination of the provenance. So, like it or not, Mike & Anne & Albert's stories had to be examined in the public light to some extent. Melvin Harris, yes, did this. It was part of the process. But it was also done by Paul Feldman and by Shirley Harrison. In my humble opinion, the reputations of these three faired just as well under Melvin's examination as they did under Feldman's. Refer to his book and make up your own mind. And surely Mike was lambasted quite roughly by both Paul Feldman and Shirley Harrison.
I don't know why it is so difficult to grasp. The considerations involved in exposing a hoax and in exposing a hoaxer ARE different. Logically and ethically. For one thing, the burden of proof is completely opposite in the two cases. Isn't this fairly obvious? If you claim the diary is real, the burden of proof is on you. The 'pro-diarists' must present their case. When it comes to fingering someone in public, the burden falls on the accuser. There are legal as well as moral considerations. Isn't this also obvious? It is not a contradiction to expose a forgery, but refuse to expose a forger.
What is being forgotten is that the historic record has already been settled long ago. The diary was proven to be a forgery even before 'The Diary of Jack the Ripper' was ever published. This is why Time-Warner abandoned it. There is an overwhelming consensus among historians that it is a recent forgery. If a small minority still have lingering doubts that can only be laid to rest by a confession from the forgers, this is in large part a private matter. It won't effect the consensus. That said, I of couse give my blessing to anyone who wishes to find out the truth.
To Shirley Harrison-- I've read your post and I agree. Discretion is a good thing.
To Caz-- Going way way back to an old comment of yours: I don't think using a spiritual medium (happy or otherwise) is a solid research method--but whatever works. I have my doubts about ectoplasmic revelations, but didn't Tom Slemen do this and find Maybrick innocent?
Best wishes,
RJ Palmer |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 19 February 2001 - 05:44 am | | Hi R.J.
I'm really sorry that you can't understand why Melvin is perceived as being evasive or why his credibility is faltering as a consequence. Very simply, he isn't answering questions directly, which is being evasive no matter how you cut it, and his evasion is causing people to think and to articulate that Melvin either doesn't have the information he claims to have or that it isn't as solid as he has allowed people to believe. When you have a commentator of Chris George's calibre actually saying this, especially as he is someone against whom no claim of having an axe to grind can be laid, I think it is very fair to say that Melvin's credibility is faltering.
This isn't about the morality or otherwise of revealing the identity of the forgers, as you seem to think, but that issue has been addressed: the journalists sat on their information while awaiting developments with the Friedken movie, which seems a cheap tabloid attempt to get better mileage out of the story than any deep moral consideration. But if Melvin is personally uncomfortable about revealing the identity of the forgers, then the information he has isn't his information anyway and he can simply allow the journalists to make the decision. Furthermore, the journalists can, if they wish, make the same stipulations of secrecy to Shirley Harrison and Keith Skinner as they did to Melvin Harris and Shirley and Keith, back by the judgement of an independent arbitrator agreed by all parties, will simply state whether the information is conclusive or not. If it is okay for Melvin Harris to have this information then there is no reason why other decent and honourable investigators like Shirley and Keith can't have it either, especially as the only known reason why it wasn't made public was so that it could be used to cripple a film deal.
So, it seems that the so-called pro-diary camp is putting their all on the line, offering to publicly acknowledge that the 'diary' is a modern forgery if Melvin's information is as conclusive as he has led people to believe - and believe me I shall claw my way to the head of the queue to publish every syllable of that admission. At the very least it is an offer of a way foreward, but Melvin has rejected it. Surely it is an opening for negociation, the start of a way forward. But Melvin is stonewalling and nobody seems able to understand why - or, rather, they surmise that it is because Melvin's evidence is nowhere as good as has been thought and that he is guilty of making misleading statements. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 19 February 2001 - 06:32 am | | Hi RJ,
Ectoplasmic revelations? I never expected Maybrick to materialise and confess to writing a diary he never wrote! :-) Or are you still confusing me, like so many others have done, with someone who believes the diary is the genuine confession of Sir Jim?
You wrote:
If you claim the diary is real, the burden of proof is on you. The 'pro-diarists' must present their case.
Absolutely. Shirley's Diary of JtR does precisely that. We are all at liberty to read and make up our own minds.
You also wrote:
When it comes to fingering someone in public, the burden falls on the accuser. There are legal as well as moral considerations. Isn't this also obvious? It is not a contradiction to expose a forgery, but refuse to expose a forger.
Well, I find this argument rather disturbing, quite frankly. Of course there are legal and moral considerations. I understand that totally. And this is something that has always bothered me. Because, let's not beat about the bush here. Melvin, by the very act of publishing his modern hoax theory on the internet, has 'fingered' certain individuals in public, hasn't he? It's complete hypocrisy for him, or anyone else, to suggest that he is taking his moral/ethical responsibilities seriously, by putting people like Mike, Anne, Albert and Robbie in the frame; leaving them in a kind of suspended animation of guilt for all to see; yet holding back when it comes to providing the ultimate proof of their guilt, then claiming that no one should have any complaints about his treatment of people!
All the while Melvin's modern hoax theory goes unchallenged here, these people are guilty. That's why I feel it is morally indefensible, and quite extraordinarily short-sighted of Melvin to: refuse to even meet and interview those who stand accused by his publicised theory; not be prepared to explore the roles he sees for the accused, according to the known facts of their lives, circumstances, abilities, and so on; and to come down so hard on others, who find this a crucial aspect of such an investigation.
And I think it's a little unfair of you to continue to suggest that my main aim is to discredit Melvin, and to complain about the tone of my recent posts. Whenever Melvin has addressed me and my questions in a civil and sensible manner, I have been delighted, and have often tried to encourage him to help himself by giving us facts, dates and so on, to support his case. I don't understand why anyone, with a strong enough belief in his own theory, would not welcome the chance of substantiating it in whatever way he can, instead of treating all questions as though they are irrelevant or stupid, and coming from something he has just stepped in. To my mind, Melvin is in danger of becoming the only one in step. What's even more worrying is that I'm not sure he cares!
And you still haven't addressed my very simple question to you. You wanted all this to be resolved in private. Why do you now defend Melvin's refusal to meet Shirley and Keith? What changed your mind?
Hi All,
Perhaps, if Friedkin's film is going to be a reality at last, the journalists will pick their moment and put the boot in, saving Melvin the trouble of making more long posts, going over old ground, and excusing his inability to resolve the conflict.
I'm truly sorry, BTW, for having contributed to Albert's distress and anger. I will endeavour not to add any more to this in future. I just feel that, if Melvin is not asked to defend his theory, by relating it to those who stand accused, a whole avenue of challenge is cut off, which, oddly, relieves Melvin of his moral obligations in my view.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 19 February 2001 - 08:39 am | | Paul--I don't think it is demonstratable that the journalists sat on their story in order to booby-trap the film; it seems more likely to me that they would wait until it hit the box office & the queues were lined up around the block. As you know, at one point Anthony Hopkins was going to play Maybrick, so the film was going to be a big deal. But that the diary was a hoax had already been exposed by the Sunday Times, the Washington Post, the Liverpool Post, etc. by this time. It was already universally acknowledged to be a forgery. Without the film to revive the diary in the public's ever-short atttention span, it was probably just a dead issue as far as the journalists were concerned. Or so I imagine.
Dear Caz-- I guess I just plain disagree. Don't you think Mike & Anne had a hand in discrediting themselves? But I've got to run off to work now (Grrrrr) I'll respond to your question as soon as possible. 'Don't take any wooden nickels', 'mind the gap', and all that. Cheers,
RJPalmer |
|
|
|
|
