|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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:
The Maybrick Diary-Archives 2001:
Archive through February 19, 2001
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Sunday, 10 December 2000 - 12:57 pm |        | Michael Barrett's notes are now available at:
http://www.casebook.org/suspects/james_maybrick/mbnotes1.html |
Author: shirley harrison
Monday, 11 December 2000 - 11:31 am | | | Thanks Stephen. I wonder what readers will make of all this. Remember the handwritten additions are mostly by KEITH SKINNER AND sALLY AND A FEW BY ME - AFTER WE HAD RECEIVED THE NOTES. According to Anne the handwritten notes were typed and "tidied up" by Anne.Shirley |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 12 December 2000 - 04:39 am | | | Well, the first thing that leaps out at me is that the "breast on table" error from the "Diary" also appears in Mike's notes... |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 12 December 2000 - 05:34 am | | Hi All,
Hi Guy,
Could you possibly enlarge on your point a bit? What conclusions do you draw from this? Does it look to you like Mike or Anne actually made these notes in preparation for forging the diary, or to present to the diary investigation as 'evidence' that Mike was simply doing his own research after being given the diary by Tony D? Or something else entirely?
I'd appreciate your thoughts.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 12 December 2000 - 06:31 am | | Caroline -
No conclusions, merely an observation. I'd rather leave "Hunt the Forgers" to somebody else!
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 12 December 2000 - 09:42 am | | How disappointing Guy!
I was hoping I could coax you into exploring why you found this particular error so significant.
Love,
Caz |
Author: shirley harrison
Tuesday, 12 December 2000 - 12:38 pm | | | Im puzzled by your reasoning Guy. When Mike was doing his "research" on the diary the books he used,contained the wrong information about the breasts. They were pre the Bond report which claims the breasts were elsewhere. It seems logical to me that he would have found this information and having checked that it tallied with the diary, believed, somewhat ingenuously that this helped to prove the diary genuine. That is IF he was not the forger as I am sure he was not. Do you really think that the notes read like those of a forger? Do you really think he read the early Ripper books, wrote the diary and then wrote up the notes with Anne's help and if he is just a handler,`as I think Melvin is now saying, why write the notes at all? |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 12 December 2000 - 04:28 pm | | Hi Shirley, Guy, Keith, R.J., and Caz:
I have not finished reading through Mike Barrett's notes (my system crashed after I read several pages--maybe it was telling me something????). In one sense, I am impressed at the detail displayed, in that they seem to be the notes of a person who appears to be genuinely interested in finding out more about the Diary and about the man who seemingly wrote it, James Maybrick, his family members, his circumstances, his place of residence and business, his wife's lover, and so on. On the other hand, I could well see that such a set of notes might be exactly the type of "research notes" one would expect to find belonging to someone who claims he was innocently given a mysterious document by a friend in a pub. So I cannot say they conclusively show that Barrett had no part in the creation of the document or that his research was in good faith and not a blind. It could be part of the subterfuge. I tend to agree with Melvin Harris that such notes are exactly what a forger would produce. They fit in with the original story of how the Diary is supposed to have come into Mike's possession from Tony Devereaux, the mate down at the pub.
Where things start to get more interesting and convoluted is if we accept Anne Graham's current story: that the book had been in her family's possession all along (at least since 1968, and probably since 1950), and that she gave it to Devereaux to give to Mike. In that case, one begins to wonder at her thought processes in typing and "tidying up" Mike's scribbled notes to produce a document many pages long. And then to think that this was combined with the job she had of transcribing the whole 63-page Diary onto the home computer. If she had the document all along, and did not admit this to Mike, as we are now led to believe, in performing these labors it all makes her seem more of a hypocrite and an enigma. This, combined with the fact that in her Radio Merseyside interview she professes not to be interested in the Ripper, and that she makes a similar statement in the introduction to her book with Carol Emmas, "The Last Victim" about Florence Maybrick. Very odd.
I probably will have more to say when I have had a chance to completely examine Mike Barrett's notes, but these are my reactions to what I have read of them so far.
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 13 December 2000 - 03:56 am | | Hi Chris,
Thank you so much for your observations. You wrote:
'I tend to agree with Melvin Harris that such notes are exactly what a forger would produce.'
The only problem here is that Melvin claims to have proof that neither Mike nor Anne were the forgers!
Obviously, your point about the notes fitting in with the story of Mike getting the diary from the mate down the pub works both ways - the notes were either concocted to fool the investigators into believing this story, or the story is true.
As for Anne's involvement in "tidying up" the notes, I tend to agree with you that this looks odd, if not underhand, and I can only try to imagine what was going through her mind at the time, if, as she states, she knew all about the diary already (whether because she helped create it, knows who did, or her 'in the family' story is true), and poor Mike thought she was as much in the dark as he was.
The only way I can see it making sense is if Anne was accustomed to helping Mike with his writing, but had hoped this time to give him something he could do for himself for once, that didn't appear to have come from her, to restore some of his self-esteem, and hopefully occupy him enough to curb his destructive drinking habit. I do know from personal experience that people will try all sorts of ways, not all logical or obvious to others, to stop their partners getting drunk and inflicting sometimes fatal damage on the relationship. Maybe, when Anne found him struggling again as always, her natural instincts were to change her original plan to let him get on with it, and help him. What she couldn't face, clearly, by this stage (if I'm right), was telling him what her original plan had been. She was trying to keep her marriage going. Look how upset he was in 1994, when the marriage was over, when she told everyone, through Shirley's book, what she had failed to tell him in private when he was struggling to understand what Devereux had handed him.
Feel free to rip my speculation to pieces. ;-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Guy Hatton
Wednesday, 13 December 2000 - 04:50 am | | Shirley -
Read my previous post again. No conclusions being drawn, no "reasoning" involved. Merely an observation that, for whatever reason, one of the most glaring errors (as I see it) from the "Diary" also appears in Mike's research notes. I leave it to others to draw what they will from that.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 13 December 2000 - 10:55 am | | Hi Guy,
I appreciate that you do not wish to get embroiled in the 'who did what' debate, and will therefore not be drawn into sharing the reasons for making your observation.
I'm afraid I can't see what others will be able to draw from it, or why it is even relevant to the question of whether Mike's notes were concocted as part of a modern scam, or the outcome of natural curiosity, on the part of someone who has no idea if the diary is genuine or not. In other words, seeing the same 'glaring' error in these notes - a common enough one in terms of the ripper information available at any time - is surely entirely consistent with either scenario being the true one, and therefore doesn't tell us a darn thing, one way or the other.
Love,
Caz |
Author: shirley harrison
Wednesday, 13 December 2000 - 12:26 pm | | Hear Hear Caz!
Im off to France tonight for Christmas where Ill be joined by Melvyn Fairclough (The Ripper and the Royals) among others. This does not mean I wont be in contact and am still following up various leads but people are slow to answer at this time of year. I am now, I believe, on hotmail and so my Email number is shirleyharrison1@hotmail.com - Im told this should work wherever I am.
Let's hope that next year will bring some really positive results and - who knows- the answer to all your prayers (if not mine!!) from Melvin.
Happy Christmas all. |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 13 December 2000 - 02:56 pm | | Hi, Shirley:
Shirley Harrison and Melvyn Fairclough ("The Ripper and the Royals") following up various leads? The Holy Grail perhaps, or shadowy Knights Maybrick who lent their hand to the demonic plot? Watch out in Paris, Shirley, that "M" that you see everywhere round the city stands for Métropolitain (or Metro for short) NOT "Maybrick"! 
All the best to you and yours for the holiday season.
Chris George |
Author: shirley harrison
Wednesday, 13 December 2000 - 06:41 pm | | | Deary me! How eay it would be to lay false trails. Melvyn and I share many other interests, especially the kids from both our families who will be spending Christmas with Duncan, my husband (who is NOT a Ripperologist) and a bunch of friends from a different world. But I will be back! Happy Christmas Chris. Shirley |
Author: shirley harrison
Wednesday, 13 December 2000 - 06:41 pm | | | Deary me! How eay it would be to lay false trails. Melvyn and I share many other interests, especially the kids from both our families who will be spending Christmas with Duncan, my husband (who is NOT a Ripperologist) and a bunch of friends from a different world. But I will be back! Happy Christmas Chris. Shirley |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 14 December 2000 - 04:57 am | | Hi All,
Nice to see the leg-pulling has become so much gentler of late. 
Hope the only leg-pulling Shirley gets this Christmas will be turkey or goose!
If I get the wish-bone, I don't think there's much point in wishing for Melvin, in Father Christmas outfit, to come down Shirley's chimney with a sack full of evidence - she wouldn't believe her mince pies!
And please, everyone, spare a thought before you treat your loved ones to a diary this Yuletide - make sure it's got dates in it and doesn't give anyone heartburn.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 14 December 2000 - 08:23 am | | The 'title' of the notes is interesting, August 1991 being the date of Devereux's death. Not sure what to make of this, though.
'Skepticism is just another word for mental laziness' wrote Colin Wilson, and perhaps I'm just being mentally lazy again, but Mike seems to be show-casing his own ignorance here. The notes are rather cursory, adding up to perhaps only a few days worth of work, yet, if completed sometime before the summer of 1992 amounted to many months of wondering, researching, and reflecting. They're an odd mix. Barrett evidently read old issues of the Liverpool Echo and checked probate records in the library, but at the same time seems to be ignorant of information readily available in obvious sources. He has evidently read several Ripper books ("In all the books I have read no full medical report...") but avoids mentioning any of them but Odell/Wilson's and Paul Harrison's. I have to wonder: is he trying to look more ignorant of the possible Diary sources than he really is? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 14 December 2000 - 11:07 am | | Hi RJ,
Thanks for your observations.
I thought '...notes since August 1991' might indicate that it was only when Tony D died suddenly that Mike realised he was left on his own with a strange document that no one else could tell him anything about. Hence it was then that he got stuck into his own brand of research.
It will be interesting to get Shirley and Keith's views on whether they think Mike capable of appearing more ignorant in print than he was in practice regarding possible diary sources! It's entirely possible, of course, that he was pulling the wool over people's eyes at the beginning, trying to prove his ignorance. Yet later, when he was in confession mode, trying to prove the opposite, he was incapable of doing so. Why not make the most of these notes at that point, explaining how and why they were concocted as part of the scam?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 14 December 2000 - 12:18 pm | | | For what it's worth, somewhere in Feldy's book there is a quote from a letter by me recalling my first meeting with Mike and from which I came away with the impression that he knew very little about the Ripper. I felt - and continue to feel - that Mike was desperate to claim he'd done lots of work, yet his knowledge indicated that he'd in fact done very little. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 14 December 2000 - 02:06 pm | | Thanks Paul.
The overall impression I get is that Mike was indeed genuinely struggling with the diary, and with his ripper education, which the possession of it triggered. Talk about a baptism of fire!
However, concerning the research notes, we are also struggling, but at least we only have two possible scenarios to consider:
1) Mike has always known the diary is a modern fake, therefore the 17 pages of notes were also faked by him, with Anne's help, to support the hoax in preparation for its public presentation. (Three fakes then so far - diary, watch and set of research notes.)
2) The notes reflect Mike's genuine ignorance of the diary's true origins, whether the limited work he did was related to lack of capability, enthusiasm or opportunity. (Which means Anne watched his efforts, even helped by "tidying" them up, but said nothing. I wonder why she bothered doing this, if she was involved in the forgery. Simply keeping out of it and letting Mike present his hand-written bits of paper, the genuine product of an innocent mind, would surely have looked less 'iffy'?)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Stephen Powell
Wednesday, 20 December 2000 - 09:35 pm | | Hello to all,
I have a new contact address
villagetheatr@one.net.au
Sorry i have not been able to answer any mail but am now back online.
Question;
'Who were the 'four male companions' that James Maybrick stayed with at the 'Hand Hotel' in Llangollen in the spring of 1887?'
Question:
'is Michael Maybricks house in regents park,london,still standing?
Question for Anne Graham:
Would you drop me a line?
merry xmas to you all.
Steve Powell. |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 21 December 2000 - 03:38 am | | Stephen - off the top of my head, as I've not at this point checked any map references and I'm not at present in England, as far as I recall Michael Maybrick's house must be still standing in London as nothing in his Regent's Park neighbourhood has ben redeveloped since his day.
I stand open to savage correction, but this posting may at least draw out anybody with better and more precise information for you.
Martin Fido |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 21 December 2000 - 05:10 am | | Hi Steve,
I tried sending an email to your new contact address but it bounced straight back. I don't think Anne Graham reads the boards, but I guess if she did, she'd have the same problem dropping you a line. Can you help? Thanks.
Love,
Caz |
Author: shirley harrison
Thursday, 21 December 2000 - 05:02 pm | | | Martin...I didnt send you and Karen a Christmas card because I didnt lknow where you are. So this is it!! I do hope you have a far better year. Ours has been quite eventful but not, I think so traumatic. Im not sure about Michael's house...I have batted this over to Keith and Melvin Fairclough but I THINK it isnt there now. Steve - why do you want to know? Please do follow up your last Email to me - its infuriating getting these trailers and then nothing....Happy Christmas to you too. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 22 December 2000 - 04:46 am | | Hi All,
Steve,
Thanks for the email, and for editing in the 'au' at the end of your contact address for everyone else too. (I should have guessed the .com should be .au - they don't call me dopey for nothing.)
I hope to hear from you again soon.
Merry Christmas everyone.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 22 December 2000 - 05:30 am | | Hi again all,
Steve,
I have now spoken to Keith Skinner and passed on your questions to him. In case of any more communication probs, Keith has asked me to post here the email I sent you back in October, when you had disappeared from the boards and he was trying to make contact, to which I never got a reply:
----- Original Message -----
From: Caroline Morris
To: Steve Powell
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 3:50 PM
Subject: Jack The Ripper
Hi Steve,
How are you? Haven't seen you on the JtR nutcase book lately. Hope all's well.
Keith Skinner has asked me to forward the following message to you, as he does not have email access at present.
I will be glad to act as postman for your reply, or any questions you may have for Keith.
Love,
Caz
Dear Steve,
We haven't directly exchanged correspondence before but, with your assistance, I would like to continue exploring the 'nurse' anecdote.
Would you be agreeable to helping me try to resolve the truth of this story? As it stands, essentially, it is your word against Anne Graham's.
All Good Wishes
Keith Skinner |
Author: Stephen Powell
Saturday, 23 December 2000 - 07:35 am | | Dear Martin,
Thankyou for your reply.There is a lot of basic things concerning the diary that those outside of england,never get to see;
whitechapel,liverpool,michael maybricks house,etc.
there are also small things like;
How do we know of the maybricks cricket life?
Could we see a score sheet from the matches they played in?
was James a bowler or bat or was he always the twelvth man?
Did he ever score for the team and give us an example of his handwriting.?
Who were the 'four men' on his holiday to Llangollen?
Was James a 'cupboard gay'?
Was Florie a Nympho?
What happened to Lowry?
Who told florie about James' other wife?
the whole soggy saga drives me nuts but it has me mesmerized.
I think anyone who says that the 'Ripperologists' dont want to see the end of this drama,are completely wrong.
Thought I'd throw this stuff in the ring like a bucket of old prawns at a bbq.
stay well martin.
TO KEITH SKINNER;
Thankyou for your interest in the 'Nurse' story.
I am indeed willing to help in any way to solve this puzzling enigma of the meeting with Anne graham all those years ago.
it is indeed my story against hers,as you say.
Towards the end of our volatile conversation about the diary,she said to me that if I ever came out and said it was a forgery she would claim to not know me and anyway it would be;'her word against mine'.
I told her that that would be true but I sure as hell was not going to sit back and say nothing.
There are people here in australia that know more about the diary than has been revealed at the present.
I know of one of these people but cannot get in touch with them but I am trying and shall not desist in this hunt.Not to vindicate myself on the truth of my statements but simply to find out if Maybrick is 'the Man.'
Lets get something straight....
I think the diary is real but until I can contact my lost friend,
(who stated that they were friends while Anne was here in australia)
I cannot say for sure.
Anne maybe thinks I am her enemy and that I may want to denounce her as a forger but this is not so.
Let us not waste time wondering about my sanity or my motives.
All I have said is true.
Let me have some details of Anne's stay while in Oz so that they can be verified.
Show me some pictures taken here.
Give me some names of friends.
Why does'nt she remember the name of the hospital she worked at?
etc etc bla bla bla.
Well keith,I have heard that you are very good at getting to the bottom of things.
Throw whatever you like at me.lets find out all about Anne's secret visit to Oz.
And i know Shirley would'nt like it but why does'nt Anne send me a simple e-mail and tell me to **** off or ask me why I have said the things I have?
Does she still not care about JTR?
Or does she know that I have the key to possibly unmask her?
One last thing for now...was Michael barrett ever in Australia while a seaman?
look forward to hearing from you Keith.
stay cool and well.
Steve Powell. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 23 December 2000 - 11:44 am | | Hi Steve,
Many thanks for replying - I'll pass your message on to Keith.
Cheers.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 23 December 2000 - 05:12 pm | | Hi Steve, Caz, and Keith et al.:
Who says that James Maybrick was a cricketer? I believe this is the first I have heard that he was a cricketer. According to Trevor Christie, he was a member of the Liverpool Cricket Club, whose Aigburth cricket ground happened to be opposite Battlecrease House, across Riversdale Road. But he may have joined the club for social reasons--being a "member" does not imply that he was a player. By the time he came to live in the area of the cricketing round, in 1884 when he and Florie began living at Beechville in Grassendale Park North (they moved four years later to Battlecrease House), he was already in his mid-forties. Besides, as a sickly hypochondriac he probably would have been afraid of getting a poisoned finger from being hit by the cork cricket ball, don't you think? James Maybrick's big sporting interest appears to have been horse racing not cricket.
As for whether James was gay, I think not. Christie lists his passions as "wine, women, and horses." It appears that his brother Michael Maybrick, the composer who wrote under the name Stephen Adams, was gay and took an active part in the gay scene in London, but James seems to have been very much a heterosexual.
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 23 December 2000 - 05:58 pm | | Hi Chris,
So James wasn't batting for the other side then?
I'm stumped - don't tell me he was part of the Druitt conspiracy - that's all I need in my Christmas stocking!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 27 December 2000 - 09:14 am | | From Keith Skinner to Steve Powell
Dear Steve
Many thanks for your message of Saturday December 23rd 2000 @ 07.35 am and for your co-operation in helping me to resolve the ‘Nurse’ story.
So that I – and interested readers – have the background to your involvement and contribution perfectly clear, could you just please clarify what it was that sparked off a recollection of you meeting a nurse, (who may or may not be Anne Graham), in Australia, 30(?) years ago – and who it was you initially contacted with the story?
I would like to take this slowly and in an hopefully logical progression as other readers may well have questions to ask you as we try to determine the facts and truth of this matter.
I suppose the central question is why would Anne Graham reject a story, for which there is potential corroboration, and which essentially supports her case for the existence of this Diary prior to 1987?
All Good Wishes
Keith |
Author: Tracy Steinbach
Wednesday, 27 December 2000 - 10:28 pm | | Hi, Chris!
I was wondering where you got your information that Michael Maybrick (who was married to my grandmother's aunt)"was gay and took an active part in the gay scene in London"? Everything I have ever known about him points to him being a very uptight, upstanding Victorian gentleman (as well as a very talented composer and singer). Did I miss something?!
Thanks,
Tracy |
Author: shirley harrison
Thursday, 28 December 2000 - 07:33 am | | Hello all...and a Happy New Year. Im in France right now and not able to communicate sensibly. Will do so next week..in reply to Steve in particular.....and Tracy (the Michael was gay story.......I suspect bi sexual but not gay myself as were/are so many upstanding gentlemen.)
I agree that we must try and lure Anne to the boards....it is vital to know what is behind this story of Steve's.Im not sure why he thinks I wouldn't like this...unless its the *****? |
Author: shirley harrison
Thursday, 28 December 2000 - 07:33 am | | Hello all...and a Happy New Year. Im in France right now and not able to communicate sensibly. Will do so next week..in reply to Steve in particular.....and Tracy (the Michael was gay story.......I suspect bi sexual but not gay myself as were/are so many upstanding gentlemen.)
I agree that we must try and lure Anne to the boards....it is vital to know what is behind this story of Steve's.Im not sure why he thinks I wouldn't like this...unless its the *****? |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 28 December 2000 - 09:23 am | | Hi, Tracy:
My statement that it appears that "Michael Maybrick, the composer who wrote under the name Stephen Adams, was gay" comes from the web essay by Derek Strahan on Stephen Adams where he speculates that Michael was gay, going by a family tradition that his relationship with his songwriting partner Frederick Weatherly "was always thought by the family, to have been a close personal one, in other words, gay, as well as being a professional one." See http://www.revolve.com.au/polemic/adams_profile.html My statement that Michael "took an active part in the gay scene in London" might have been too strongly worded, although Strahan in a recent e-mail to me said that he thought Michael possibly engaged in affairs with men in his regiment. In that same e-mail, Strahan cited Michael's probable homosexuality and his submersion in his career as a composer as strikes against the theory recently proposed in Ripperologist that Michael could have been the Whitechapel murderer.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 19 February 2001 - 11:11 am | | I haven't written here in quite some time but my attention has been drawn to my name, which has been mentioned a few times recently in quotes from old posts. There have been comments about people not answering questions directly or being evasive. Back in May 2000 there was a certain amount of discussion between myself and Keith Skinner concerning how and when Anne Graham got the idea for the diary provenance as having been in her family for many years. It was my contention that conversations with Paul Feldman and Keith Skinner plus a letter to her from Keith had put the idea into her head and I put this suggestion on the board. Keith's reply was, in part: " I am at a loss to understand what you mean by "Keith's letter and telephone conversation with Anne, at a time when the diary project was in jeopardy." I note this information appears to originate from Peter Birchwood which has "left question marks regarding [my] role in the diary investigation and [my] involvement with Anne Graham..." This would be completely consistent with Mr Birchwood inferring last year that I condoned the practice of working with a birth certificate, in Paul Feldman's possession, which had been altered. Well, there is no suspicious letter or telephone call to Anne Graham, just as there is no tampered document. If Mr Birchwood can substantiate any of his innuendo, which I suspect is calculated to raise suspicion about me, then I invite him to submit it to the board."(May 15th 2000)
I replied on the same day and also copied a letter from Keith to Anne Graham dated 11th May 1994 referring to a conversation (presumably telephonic) between himself and Anne the previous day (10th May 1994). The letter itself, which you can see archived on the boards, speaks about the unsatisfactory provenance of the "journal" and the belief that it may have been passed down through a family connection of James or Florrie. Keith suggests that he should take Anne's family tree back for at least four generations in order to disprove this belief in which he himself does not believe.
Let me remind you that Keith had said that there was no " suspicious letter or telephone call to Anne Graham," and invited me to substantiate my statements. This I believe I did.
Perhaps however someone can help me with the next bit. Did Keith ever reply to this? Did he explain the letter and the phone call? Did he denounce the letter as a fake? I'm sure that he must have done something but I must have missed his reply. Please someone, refer me to that reply so that I can add it to my increasing large diary file just for completion. And also can someone please answer the perplexing statement that Keith made in the same place that he was not a professional genealogist. To customers of "Causeway Resources" (aka Keith Skinner) "Historical and Genealogical Research" that must sound odd indeed. |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 19 February 2001 - 12:17 pm | | Hi, Peter:
I am glad to see you back here. I may be wrong but I am not aware that Keith answered your query. I am interested in your notion that Anne Graham's present story that the Diary was handed down in her family was suggested to her, if inadvertently, by Keith. Certainly, the Billy Graham - Florence Maybrick connection seems to have been suggested to Anne's father Billy by Paul Feldman who then in his book Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter delightedly reported the supposed connection as if it had come independently from Billy Graham. Possibly the present Diary muddle has been partly caused by overzealousness on the part of the Diary investigators? This is no criticism of Keith, merely an observation that possibly Anne Graham's present story that the Diary is decades-old may have arisen from the investigators, if innocently, "leading" her to that statement.
Peter, don't stay away from us for so long. We need you here for some honest discussion of the perplexing topic of the Diary. By the way, where do you stand on the issue of Melvin Harris refusal to name the forgers of the Diary? (See the Maybrick watch board.)
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 19 February 2001 - 12:19 pm | | Hi Peter,
Good to see you back. I will certainly pass on your message to Keith, although I presume you could look through the archives yourself to see if the answers are to be found there.
I may be wrong, but I believe it was around this time that you refused to enter into any further discussion with Keith in the open on the boards.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 19 February 2001 - 12:41 pm | | Hi again Peter,
Yes, I checked back and found that, towards the end of May 2000, you said you would continue to monitor the Casebook, but that you would be ignoring any posts by Keith, or posted in Keith's name.
Therefore, I guess you only have yourself to blame if your monitoring failed to pick up Keith's replies, or he didn't bother replying at the time because he would be ignored anyway.
Love,
Caz |
Author: alyssaharris
Monday, 19 February 2001 - 06:03 pm | | Dear Peter:
Glad to see your back on the boards. Been busy with your research and traveling, I assume. Yes, you are right about certain individuals being excessively negative in their writings...makes me want to reconsider attending some of the upcoming conventions.
Alyssa Harris |
|
|
|
|
