|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 21, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Thoughts on the diary:
Archive through February 21, 2001
Author: Leanne
Monday, 14 June 1999 - 07:48 am |        | G'day Paul,
I read your last post over and over again, trying to understand it. is this right?:
Mike says he baught a Victorian Diary, (scrapbook), eleven days after he phoned the literary agent.
Anne says 'A book' was purchased, 41 days after Mike phoned Doreen Montgomery and 30 days after he saw her, with the 'Diary'.
What does Doreen Montgomery say?
They seem to be trying desperately to hide the truth about the books origins, don't they? Why? |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 14 June 1999 - 08:32 am | | Leanne
There are two diaries, the scrapbook "Diary" and a small red Victorian diary. According to the latest version of Mike Barrett's story, both were bought within eleven days between Mike 'phoning Doreen Mongomery and going to London to see her, the red diary being bought first, but it had to be discarded when it proved unsuitable. Mike then bought the 'scrapbook' from an auctioneer.
However, according to information supplied by Anne in 1995, Mike, who wanted to know what a Victorian diary would look like, ordered the red Victorian diary from a dealer. Anne had had to pay for it and was able to produce a cheque stub and her bank supplied a photocopy of the cashed cheque. This showed that the red diary (if, indeed, the cheque was for the red diary!) had been bought the month after Mike had seen Doreen.
If the cheque evidence is right then Mike's story about buying the red diary before seeing Doreen is untrue. And if it is untrue, one wonders why it is untrue. What possible reason did Mike have for lying about it? And, of course, one possible reason is that Mike's whole story about forging the "Diary" with Anne is untrue and that he did receive it from Tony Devereux in 1992 and knows no more about the origins than he did when Devereux gave it to him. If this was true then it would focus the spotlight very clearly on Anne Graham as the forger, with or without her father and/or others.
On the other hand, the cheque stub might not be for the Victorian diary at all. Or it is for a red Victorian diary but not the red Victorian diary. Or you can choose a permutation of your choice. |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Monday, 14 June 1999 - 08:50 am | | Hi Paul,
Surely we can gain some information from the photocopy of the cashed cheque. Who was it made out to (I don't think Mike has yet told us from whom he purchased the red diary)? What is the date? Does the cheque's number coincide with the stub? Dare I say it, is it in Anne's handwriting?
Dela |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 14 June 1999 - 10:40 am | | Hi Matthew
I have obtained some additional information today and I understand that research is progressing. The cheque was dated 18th May 1992 and it passed through Anne's account on 22nd May 1992. I assume that something as obvious as the number on the cheque and the stub matching was checked, but I can't say for certain because I have never seen them myself. And I understand that the cheque was signed by Anne but made out by Mike. |
Author: Karoline
Monday, 14 June 1999 - 12:03 pm | | Hi all -
Paul, thanks for the long e-mail: I'm thinking about it it for the moment.
RE. other matters, I don't think it's ever been suggested that money is the ONLY reason for losing one's objectvity, simply that it is one reason, amongst many for recognising the inevitable bias in the 'pro-diary' writers. Of course they are also subject to the emotional and psychological attachment that any theorist develops for their idea.
The important point is that they have, inevitably and for whatever reason, surrendered their objectvity. They want to believe in the 'diary', and they want others to share their belief, just as all believers in anything do.
Simple as that.
RE. the 'red diary'. I wonder why it's proving so difficult for anyone here to find out who this cheque is made out to? It must be the easiest thing in the world to ascertain. I suppose Keith knows. Surely if he knows the the name and identity of the recipient he could go to this person or company, or whatever, and ask them if they sold Anne a red diary?
So, has he done that?
love to all
Karoline |
Author: A. R. Reader
Monday, 14 June 1999 - 04:12 pm | | It is very odd, and somewhat disturbing to read Mr. Begg's post at 03:37 am above, where he states:-
"As for that letter to Nick Warren, it was the last of several in which I attempted in vain to assure him that an extremely serious allegation was untrue. It in fact had nothing to do with the "Diary" and I have no idea why Nick ever said it was, and it was wholly and completely unrepresentative of me and my actions..."
I am afraid that whenever Mr. Begg answers a question the reader ends up more confused than before he made his answer.
Now, in regard to this instance, and in view of the fact that Mr. Begg has said that "It in fact had nothing to do with the "Diary"..." readers should see the text of this letter and see if they get the impression that 'it had nothing to do with the Diary.' Frankly I'm confused, perhaps Mr. Begg didn't mean what he said in this letter, meant something else, or didn't say what he meant. Who knows?
The letter, published in Ripperana July 1993, ran:-
"8th June 1993
Dear Mr. Warren,
I do not like the rude and offensive tone of your letters. This is therefore a quick response to specific charges made in your letters and is written in light of our earlier friendship. Please do not make contact with me again in the future unless your tone is modified. Please also be aware that I will have no recourse but to consider legal action if you lay similar gross and inaccurate charges against me in future.
To begin with, Paul Feldman is a reputable businessman working on a documentary about Jack the Ripper. I would have thought, I think justifiably, that you, as editor of {Ripperana}, would have wanted to know all things connected with the Ripper and welcomed the opportunity to talk with Paul Feldman, offer advice and provide input, and when released from any nondisclosure agreement you might be required to sign, write about the project in {Ripperana}. It is therefore perfectly possible that I did suggest to Paul Feldman that he speak to you. In the circumstances I would have certainly have given him your address and telephone number (I did not know it was ex-directory). If I did, I did so in good faith. If Paul Feldman has made your life a misery, I am sorry it was not intended.
As a long time advocate of material held by the Black Museum being passed on to the Public Record Office, I am gratified to learn that this has now happened. As for all experts who have seen Feldman's photocopy suspecting a hoax, of course they do/did. Even those who have seen the actual journal have suspected a hoax. Everyone associated with the project suspected a hoax. I don't understand your point. You are neither so stupid nor so naive as to imagine that I or anyone else would have accepted such a document without question. Indeed, twenty to thirty experts of one kind or another have been brought in to prove the hoax. The point is that no one has been able to. This alone is quite remarkable. As for your point about forensic tests, obviously forensic tests have been made. I don't know that the tests include ESDA. But why are you asking me? I'm just an advisor. Why don't you direct your question to those whose project this is: to the author of the forthcoming book for example. Or the publisher. Or even Paul Feldman?
Just in case you are as ill-informed about the role of an advisor as you are about other elements of my involvement with Feldman/Waddell/and Uncle Cobbly, let me explain: an advisor gives advice. The advice is either taken or it isn't. Giving advice does not require that I believe or disbelieve the theory, hypothesis or argument being proposed. I have said - and I stand by it - that if the journal was written by the person who claims to have written it and at the time he claims to have written it, I would have to conclude that it is genuine. Beyond this I have made no comment and it remains to be seen whether authorship and date is proven.
The confidentiality agreement was drawn up by the publisher of the book and it is the publisher who has required everybody consulted to sign it. This includes Paul Feldman. It is my understanding that Paul Feldman has been required by the publisher to have those whom he (Feldman) consults also sign the agreement. I know of only one confidentiality agreement and that is the one issued by the publisher, Paul Feldman hasn't got a confidentiality agreement. That, at least, is my understanding.
As for your observation about not being able to comment on the journal whether you've seen it or not, I don't understand your problem about this. A book is being written and a documentary is being made. The content of both is confidential until the publisher and the documentary maker make their projects public, therefore consultants are required to sign a confidentiality agreement. I understand and accept this. Why should you (or I) expect to criticise a book before it's been published or a film before it's been made? As is common practice, one can comment when the information is made public and one has had a chance to assess the evidence properly. As for my comment on the press which so amused you, perhaps you have not considered shooting yourself in the foot and damaging your credibility, it is impossible to make an informed comment about a document you haven't seen and know nothing about. You offered a subjectively negative opinion and your letters show that you were not misquoted, as I thought you had been. You have reached a conclusion about something you know nothing about. That is not objective and you have seriously damaged your credibility. I am very sorry at that and don't find it a laughing matter.
Turning, finally to your most recent letter about information supplied by Harold Brough of the Liverpool Post, the rules of the confidentiality agreement prevent me from commenting. I can tell you, however, that the authors of the book, advisors or other people involved with the project are not the cretins you imagine them to be. They have been working on this document since long before you and Harold Brough ever knew there was a document and they have considered, investigated and advocated the investigation of areas that haven't even occurred to you and Harold Brough.
Now Nick, you have accused me of things I haven't done. You have not had the decency to confront me with your accusations and you have grossly failed to verify the accuracy of your information. I have found your tone rude and the professionalism I hitherto supposed you to have has been noticeably absent. Further, I am given to understand that you have also addressed offensive letters to other people. I must ask you to refrain from doing so in the future. What you have written about myself, and, as far as I can tell, Paul Feldman and Bill Waddell is in inaccurate and offensive. Expressed publicly it is also legally actionable. Our previous friendship has compelled me to respond to your absurd accusations and offensive letters, but I have far better things to do and will not do so in future. This correspondence is now terminated.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Begg." |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 14 June 1999 - 11:20 pm | | | The content of the latter was obviously about the "Diary", as was clear enough from the extract previously put on these boards made extremely clear, but the statements made about myself and the others named, one in particular, was not, was something it was important to stop and was legally actionable. For the latter reason I will NOT discuss this letter any further. Nick and I sorted out the matter a long time ago, I am happy to say, and I regard the letter having been brought into this discussion as malicious. |
Author: A. R. Reader
Monday, 14 June 1999 - 11:50 pm | | I would have thought that the introduction of this letter into this discussion was relevant rather than malicious.
It shows Mr. Begg firing on all cylinders in his true colours - aggressive, unpleasant, threatening, conceited, and self-righteous. It was obviously some time ago, and forgotten as far as he was concerned. It is just like his entry on Mr. Harrison in the A to Z, and his other slurs on Mr. Harris's character, in print and there forever for all to read. You had better cast your mind back Mr. Begg to other things you may have cause to regret having written and said.
The master of evasion, double-talk, and burying his head in the sand has again avoided the issue and failed to provide answers. At least there wasn't so much meaningless waffle this time.
This is also relevant because it shows Mr. Begg deeply involved in acrimonious exchanges long before Mr. Harris came on the scene; exchanges which quite obviously were Diary inspired or related.
You never do discuss things you have no answer to Mr. Begg. |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 15 June 1999 - 03:05 am | | Sheesh. If this keeps up Scrappy will be back!
I have an answer and I have given it. If you do not understand it then that is your problem and I have no intention of wasting any further time on it. If the Nick Warren letter was relevant then it would not be malicious, but it is malicious precisely because it is irrelevant. It is also blatantly diversionary and provocative.
As I am tired of pointing out, so please get it firmly lodged into your head, the A to Z was authored by three people and all three people have to agree to and are responsible for what it says, so I am not alone responsible for the words in the book and for all you know I may not even have agreed with them but bowed to a majority decision. So not only do you speak from a position of ignorance, but whether or not I am unpleasant, threatening, conceited, and self-righteous is irrelevant because I was not alone responsible for the entry. The private letter to Headline was not written by me or posted by me, so since my views alone are not being expressed my character is again irrelevant. And in the case of the interview with Stephen Ryder, I was answering a specific question, did not name Harris, and offered an opinion based on evidence before me. If you don't share that opinion, fine, but ask around and you'll see that it is not an opinion I alone have formed and therefore again my character is irrelevant. Furthermore, opinions can be changed and if it turns out that Melvin Harris has not written offensive letters and upset people I will change my opinion. So far, though, that does not appear to be the case.
The whole thrust of any argument I have with Melvin Harris is simply that in my opinion his approach to people is wrong. He upsets them. He has displayed that approach on these boards and it has been commented on by others, even his supporters. In my opinion this has done nothing to resolve the "Diary" problem and in some cases has hindered it. That is my opinion based on the evidence before me. Melvin Harris can agree or disagree, it is up to him, but if my opinion is right then he has done harm and could continue to do it. It is merely something for him to consider.
Now, if you want to believe that the letter to Nick Warren represents the real me, go away and believe it. You've told everybody here what you think and if any of them meet me they can bear your opinion in mind and hopefully judge me as they find me.
The impression I have received is that the majority of people here are sick and tired of this whole matter. I know I am. Only you, under your various pseudonyms, seem to want to pursue this issue further, which leads me to suspect that you have your own agenda which isn't solely the desire to support Melvin Harris, who is very capable of supporting himself anyway, but that it is based on a personal dislike of me. That's fine, nobody's perfect and I'm bound to upset a few people as I pass through this vale of tears, but the Boards are not the place to vent your spleen.
This said, if you or anyone else wants to go into the A to Z entry or the Headline letter, address yourself to the A to Z authors as a whole. |
Author: Karoline
Tuesday, 15 June 1999 - 03:29 am | | Hi Paul and everyone
DON'T mention Scrappy! I've a theory he's like Candyman. Say his name five times and he appears out of nowhere to rip someone's guts out.
Paul - I'd really appreciate some follow up to my question re. that cheque
love to all
karoline |
Author: Scriblerius
Tuesday, 15 June 1999 - 03:52 am | | | Well said, Paul Begg. You sound well and truly fed up with it and justifiably so. |
Author: A. R. Reader
Tuesday, 15 June 1999 - 04:10 am | | So, if the content of the letter was "...obviously about the "Diary"..." how come Mr. Begg previously stated "...It in fact had nothing to do with the "Diary"..." More double talk obviously.
The opening gambit by Mr. Begg is frankly deplorable, "Sheesh.If this keeps up Scrappy will be back!" He appears to be trying to raise the support, yet again, of his brainless 'groupies.'
With that sort of support he would be better off keeping his mouth shut.
Mr. Begg has given an answer, yes, but like all his answers it is evasive, selective, condescending and misleading.
He still hides behing his co-authors, now even having the audacity to to say "...all three people have to agree to and are responsible for what it says, so I am not alone responsible for the words in the book and for all you know I may not even have agreed with them but bowed to a majority decision..." Really? Well then, please let your co-authors speak up and set the record straight.
Perhaps all your 'friends' do not quite think of you as you believe, perhaps we can sort out some names and quotes for you.
You only think people "...here are sick and tired of this whole matter..." In reality they are quite interested to learn more of the true nature of the 'Mr. Squeaky clean' who has been haunting these boards for so long with his biassed and opinionated drivel.
Of course, despite the fact that you claim that the letter quoted above to Nick Warren, does not portray your true character, we don't have to look far to find more examples of your rabid vituperation.
A few quotes from your 'review' of a book, Vanishings by Michael Harrison, which appeared in Fortean Times 36/51, should suffice for now.
"...However, there are a few writers who have deliberately presented as fact information which they know or have good reason to believe to be spurious. Among these odious hacks we must now include Michael Harrison, whose recent book, Vanishings, is a monument to Olympian balderdash..."
"...I am not peeved because Harrison has ignored the results of my research. I am concerned because he has elected to ignore it."
"...He also makes gross errors and displays bumbling incompetence of considerable magnitude..."
"...Now, it is one thing to presen pseudofacts to an unsuspecting public[9], but something else entirely when you unjustifiably shed doubt upon the accuracy and reliability of a fellow writer [!!!] and worker in the field, discrediting him and damaging his reputation in the process." [!!!] [Talk about double standards!]
"[9]Books presenting fiction as fact have for some time been a matter of serious concern to many investigators and official bodies, particularly those who have dealings with people claiming contact with ghosts, poltergeists, and other scary things. Books of pseudo-fact, it seems, are responsible for causing many people considerable fear and upset. In view of this, foisting sophism like Vanishings on an unsuspecting public is not something to be lightly dismissed. Authors must take a responsible attitude towards what they write and accept the weighty obligation of ensuring that to the best of their ability what appears under their name as non-fiction is non-fiction.
Paul Begg"
Sage advice which Mr. Begg himself should heed. |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 15 June 1999 - 05:54 am | | Ah, the good old days of Fortean Times! And A.R. Reader brought himself to admit that I was capable of offering sage advice - a compliment! Wow! I'll tell you one thing, A.R. Reader, if you think that review is rabid vituperation then you haven't read Vanishings!
And I have said from the outset that the A to Z is a joint work etc, so get your facts right before spitting your bile. And if you think the letter to Nick is bad (which I don't), have you made that judgement after comparing it with his to me?
And I am fairly certain that most people here are NOT interested, though I must admit to being terribly flattered by your insistance that there are people here who want 'to learn more of the true nature of the 'Mr. Squeaky clean'', especially since all I have contributed to these boards is 'biased and opinionated drivel'. Unfortunately I can't take this flattery seriously. On the whole the great majority of people here are far too intelligent to be the least interested in anyone who offers nothing but 'biased and opinionated drivel'. So either I have offered a little more than that or they aren't interested.
Now, the sun is shining, the opera is playing, I have a life and you need one, so excuse me if I call a halt to this merry badinage. |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 15 June 1999 - 06:01 am | | | Karoline - Sorry. I didn't realise that it was proving difficult for anyone here to find out who the cheque was made out to. Yes, Keith knows, Shirley Harrison knows, and since yesterday I know. And the person concerned has been contacted and I understand is trying to locate the records, but you will appreciate that it isn't easy finding a single sale in records seven years old! |
Author: Someone New
Tuesday, 15 June 1999 - 07:44 am | | | Shut up Reader, delegate this to the relevant board if you really think you've got something to do with it. |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 15 June 1999 - 08:33 am | | Dear I R Baboon (sorry, A R Reader),
It looks like it's only your blood pressure at risk of giving you a seizure of some sort, so do take care.
Or would ya like nurse Caz to come round and cool your ardour? ;-)
Love,
Caz
Not short of the short-term memory cells either ;-) |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Tuesday, 15 June 1999 - 09:20 am | | A.R. Reader (who I'm assuming is a.k.a Valediktor) wrote:
"I would have thought that the introduction of this letter into this discussion was relevant rather than malicious.
"It shows Mr. Begg firing on all cylinders in his true colours - aggressive, unpleasant, threatening, conceited, and self-righteous. It was obviously some time ago, and forgotten as far as he was concerned. It is just like his entry on Mr. Harrison in the A to Z...."
Strange? I didn't seem to recall anything untoward re the Harrison entry.
As for the introduction of the Warren letter - if I recall correctly Karoline used it as an example where she believed Paul had overreacted. Other than that it had no relevance at all to this discussion. A.R. Reader then chose this forum, instead of the correct one, "A Question of Character" to use the Warren letter to attack Mr Begg. He chose to lay his own interpretation over the letter (which was a letter to Mr Warren and probably should never have been published) without placing the letter in context, ie, introducing all relevant information and correspondence which led to the Begg/Warren argument. A.R. Reader has sought to present a skewed version of the facts in his attempts to discredit Paul Begg's character. One can only regard his intent as malicious and defamatory, or an intent to get some answers but through a horribly ill-informed or narrowminded approach. Should Mr Reader choose to present all correspondence and information in relation to the above (and in the correct forum) then some people may even take him seriously.
Yes, people are tired of this sort of rubbish. The only biased and opinionated drivel on these boards comes from one A.R. Reader. In contrast, when Mr Begg is not forced to defend himself from same, his posts on all topics re JtR are well reasoned and informative.
Even Mr Reader knows that people are sick of it - he posts his messages in this forum because nobody will bother to read this drivel in the prescribed place/topic.
Dela |
Author: Karoline
Tuesday, 15 June 1999 - 12:59 pm | | Hi all -
Paul, thanks for the response. Do we take it that the person who received the cheque is someone who would be selling Victorian diaries, then? Since if not, there would be no records to look through?
And do you realize there are only about three people here right now posting under their own names!
love to all
Karoline |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 15 June 1999 - 01:26 pm | | Hi Karoline
How do we know those three are posting under their own names :-)
Re the red diary, I'm not involved in the research, Karoline, merely passing along what I either know or believe to be the correct info. There's no mystery about who the cheque was made out to, but I think if that person's name was given out at this stage it would be very annoying for that person to receive inquiries from all and sundry. No offence intended to Messrs All and Sundry, of course. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Tuesday, 15 June 1999 - 05:14 pm | | WHO POISONED THE WELL?
Paul Begg fails to see the relevance of his 1993 letter to Nick Warren. Very strange! Most people recognise that it proves that ugly feelings were being generated long before I came on the scene. It also proves that Paul Feldman was making at least one person's life a misery with his aggressive, rambling phone calls. Others were later to experience the same, but Begg never mentions that. I wonder why?
But let the internationally renowned journalist Philip Knightley add his testimony:-
"Some months ago, about the time that news was appearing in the Evening Standard about the authenticity or otherwise of the Ripper diaries, I had a telephone call late in the evening at my home. A man introduced himself as Feldman and said he wanted to talk to me about the diaries. I said I knew who he was and asked why he wanted to talk to me. He said it was because I was a fair-minded journalist and he wanted to convince me that the diaries were genuine.
I said what about the ink tests which were reported as showing a chemical element which had been used only recently.
Feldman said that the ink samples had come from America and had been handled by Melvin Harris and that when they reached the laboratory in Britain they had been opened.
I expressed scepticism about this but he insisted he was right. He then went on for about 45 minutes offering reasons why the diaries were genuine and why Harris was determined to show that they were not. It was a confused, excited account and I have to confess that I ceased to pay much attention to it and therefore do not remember its substance.
I made an excuse to end the conversation and I have not heard from Feldman since.
This is a true account of the conversation that evening as best as I can recall.
Philip Knightley
30/6/95" |
Author: Caz
Wednesday, 16 June 1999 - 09:49 am | | Hey Karoline!
I love the subject of names.
Paul, Matthew, Caz, Leanne, Karoline, those are five here whose names I am FAIRLY sure about, though as Paul says, who really knows?
I only know mine is real, though shortened, like Julian becomes Jules, or Robert Court becomes Bob c, and that suits me fine :-)
But your last remark led me to do a quick tally.
So, now Melvin Harris has joined in, by my reckoning we probably have six real names since 14th June, to three pseudonyms. Outnumbered two to one! Let's hope it stays that way.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Villon
Wednesday, 16 June 1999 - 06:39 pm | | Before I came here I thought it was completely accepted that this Maybrick diary was a fake. I was dumbfounded to find people still discussing it. No offence people, but does Matthew know something Philip Sugden, Evans and Gainey and the other first rank experts don't?
Am I missing something, have I been taken in by these writers, or is this board behind the times in this one particular area?
Mike |
Author: Caz
Wednesday, 16 June 1999 - 07:56 pm | | Hey Mike,
Hadn't you heard? A lot of things people thought were 'completely accepted' get debated again from time to time. Sometimes those things become unaccepted in the process, sometimes not. It's called having an open mind until proof is forthcoming. And proof should be the ONLY thing to stop debate dead. Not even the most expert opinion should interfere with the right of everyone to debate, should they wish to do so. You can of course choose whether or not to join in and discuss your own thoughts on the diary. But I can assure you that the diary is still very much discussed by Cloak and Dagger Club members in London, so they are also 'behind the times'. Not just this board then.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Edana
Thursday, 17 June 1999 - 07:45 am | | 'Zounds and gadzooks! Count me in the list of those using pseudonyms (now I'm ducking chunks of concrete), but its an honest nick, really it is. Now to sound trite...what's in a name....a poster by any other name would smell as sweet or sour or downright smelly. I did get buckled by the name coppers, I did.
Edana (It's sort of a pen name..so Sue me) |
Author: Bob_c
Thursday, 17 June 1999 - 09:10 am | | Hi all,
Taking the chance of a quick post, although I'm still up to the neck in work, and will remain for the next weeks or so.
About names: A name is noise and smoke, say the Germans. You notice it, but it doesn't mean much for very long, and even then only in a small circle.
About the diary: Hi, Villon. A lot of people (including YT) believed the diary to be a fake for a long time now, but a lot of discussion about the thing is, I believe, promted more by the desire to find out who faked it, rather than if it were real. We also shouldn't forget that some people who do, or did, believe in it were and are respectable and respected names.
There is also a little indication, I feel, that some of the less decent hooha has more to do with financial matters and less on whether the diary came from Jack or not.
Best regards
Bob
Hi Caz and Edana, Sorry I've been away for so long! I hope to get slowly back in the next weeks.
Love,
Bob |
Author: Karoline
Thursday, 17 June 1999 - 12:26 pm | | Hi all -
Caz- the 'only three real people' comment I made was kind of a joke, not really meant to worry anyone.
I do reckon we can get too wound up about 'real identity'. Like Paul says, in this virtual place, how can we know who any of us 'really' are. After all, right here, I guess only he and I can establish that we 'really' exist at all, because our names appear on book covers. But what does that mean anyway?
As I think I said, when you got worried that Red Demon had some kind of 'agenda' behind his rather sweet pseudonym, what does it matter what people call themselves provided they are being nice?
love to all
Karoline |
Author: Melvin Harris
Thursday, 17 June 1999 - 04:36 pm | | THAT FATAL FLAW
I have earlier stated that "I would never dream of introducing into a controversy letters, or documents that I could not lay hands on..." Today though, I have opened my files and I can now put the Begg/Harrison nonsense about my use of the term "fatally flawed" in true perspective. When Karoline identified my use of the term as standard academic language, Begg replied thus "I reject your argument about 'fatally flawed' because it misses the point." And in his posting of May 27 he said "...the words 'fatally flawed' I might find insulting..." Perhaps we can now have his views on the following words used by Robert Smith and fully endorsed by Mrs Harrison: "Kenneth Rendell's report on the diary of Jack the Ripper is fundamentally flawed, inaccurate and unreliable." (Rebuttal section of Harrison's US hardback)
Does he feel that this insulted the five independent members of that committee? Are we once again in the realms of double standards? Or is my choice of the word 'fatally' more vitriolic than the word 'fundamental'?
Melvin Harris |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 17 June 1999 - 07:33 pm | | Hi Bob!
Great to see ya back again. I was worried about you. :-)
Love,
'Worried' Caz (not 'upset' anymore, an improvement!) |
Author: Nikki Dormer
Saturday, 19 June 1999 - 06:59 am | | | Hamlet and King Lear had fatal flaws. |
Author: Julian
Sunday, 20 June 1999 - 10:02 pm | | So did my mums place just after she washed them.
Jules |
Author: Keith Skinner
Monday, 21 June 1999 - 04:46 am | | To Chris George From Keith Skinner
Dear Chris
Thank you for your message posted on Wednesday June 2nd 1999 - 10.55 am. I'm sorry to have kept you waiting for a reply.
Concerning "Anne's story of a connection with the Maybricks." Contrary to what other people seem to think I believe, I personally am not convinced - and never have been - there is a Chandler/Graham blood connection in Anne's family. I do, however, believe the original story,linking Anne's step-Grandmother to a servant at Battlecrease House, may have same foundation. I recognize though it has not been historically substantiated and I accept it could be pure fabrication and invention by Anne Graham and her late father, to provide a convenient provenance for the Diary - and from which contingency plans, for some reason, they chose to exclude Mike Barrett. But what I think or believe is not evidential support and your points can only really be answered by Paul Feldman and Anne Graham (or Carol Emmas). I would encourage you to write to them, for clarification, c/o their publishers.
There's a couple of observations I can make though, which I offer as correctional detail). When the Liverpool Daily Post (June 27th 1994) reported Mike Barrett's story of how he claimed to have faked the Diary, Mike made no mention of mixing sugar in the ink to give it the appearance of age. Neither did he implicate Anne in the fraud. Mike only began to involve Anne after learning that she had deceived him by giving the Diary to Tony Devereux and that it had been in her family's possession. Mike has always maintained that he does not believe Anne's story of her giving the Diary to Mr Devereux - and Mike's avowed reason for wishing to prove the Diary is a hoax,created by Anne and himself, is to remove the stigma from his daughter, Caroline, of any association with Florence Chandler and by extension James Maybrick and by further extension "Jack The Ripper". The Chandler/Graham/Maybrick speculative connection was unknown to Mike when he made his hoax confession in June 1994.)
You draw attention to the "emergence" of Anne Graham's middle name Elizabeth, comparing it with Florence Elizabeth Maybrick. If it's of any use to your analysis, I can tell you that Anne was using the name Elizabeth when I first met her in August 1994
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: Christopher George
Monday, 21 June 1999 - 10:47 am | | Hi, Keith:
I am glad to hear you say that you doubt that there exists any blood tie between Anne Graham and Florence Maybrick, and that although you put some store in the possibility that the diary may have come from Battlecrease House through a servant in the Maybrick household who knew Graham's step grandmother, you admit there is no proof of this either. Thank you for clarifying that Anne's use of the middle name Elizabeth is not new and has not arisen now she is an author of a book on Florence Elizabeth Maybrick. I have listened to the tapes of Anne Graham and Michael Barrett being interviewed on BBC Radio Merseyside in 1995. Here in her October 4, 1995, Anne seems to even more firmly than in her introduction "The Last Victim" maintain the story that there is a link between her and Florence and makes the point about the date of death of Mrs. Maybrick (October 22, 1941) being around the time of the birthdays of herself and her daughter Caroline, and that this is spooky, though she acknowledges that this does not mean much.
This clinging to a probably fallacious relationship with Florence and the fact that the story she now tells is different to the one told originally, that she had never seen the diary before Mike brought it home wrapped in brown paper, makes me question her credibility even if as you say her story has remained the same now for a number of years, that the diary has been in her family at least since 1950. Her story may not be as changeable as the different scenarios told by her former husband but why should she and her late father be believed any more than Mike is?
Chris George |
Author: Keith Skinner
Friday, 25 June 1999 - 01:41 am | | Dear Chris
Thank you for your reply of June 21st 1999 at 10.47 am.
1) Just to clarify a misconception. I didn't actually express an opinion about the speculative transmission route of the Diary from Battlecrease House to the Graham family - if indeed such an event ever occurred. What I stated was my belief in the possibility of a link between Anne Graham's step-great Grandmother and a servant at Battlecrease House, as told in Anne's original story. Should such a connection be historically substantiated then it would, I suppose at the very least, undermine the suspicion that Anne and her father invented the tradition. But I again stress - because I am interested in this original story, even if it were to be substantiated, it does not mean the diary cannot be a modern hoax. It would, however, raise some interesting questions as to why, for example, Mike, Anne and presumably Mr.Graham didn't adopt the family legend and offer it as a possible provenance for their hoax Diary and forget about the Tony Deverenk connection, which immediately put people on the alert and aroused suspicion.
I'd actually prefer if you didn't respond to all of that, Chris, as my question is rhetorical and is based on hypothetical speculation!
2) I'm interested in what gives you the impression that Anne is "clinging" to an unproven blood relationship with Florence Maybrick. I agree that Anne originally denied any knowledge of the Diary- she has admitted deceiving her husband and given her reasons for so doing. You either accept these reasons, which she says were tied up with her marriage, or you do not. Nowhere to my knowledge though has Anne ever claimed the Graham/Chandler blood tie is factually proven - neither has she outrightly expressed her disbelief. Do you feel the book she wrote with Carol Emmas on the life of Florence Maybrick, (at Paul Feldman's invitation), should never have been published because there exists a suspicion it may have been predicated on a deliberate falsehood?
3) You ask why Anne and her father should be believed any more than Mike is. I could not presume to answer that question and it would be improper for me to attempt to do so. I can only try and bring detail, (pro and contra), into the public forum - physical evidence where possible - which might help people to form their own beliefs and conclusions. If the belief or conclusion is different to my own, then I try to understand the deductive logic behind the other person's reasoning process, as well as reassessing my own. I might have been unaware of a relevant fact or particular piece of information; misremembered, misread, misinterpreted or not understood the evidentiary value of a document; unquestioningly accepted something as being important because I was told it was; made erroneous assumptions; misrepresented or pre-judged another person's position. All or any of these factors could have influenced my thinking and clouded my judgement.
This Diary has come from somewhere. You yourself noted in your post to "Valediktor" (June 2nd 1999 - 11.46 am) - 'I really think it is a bad
idea to ignore the diary and pretend it does not exist.'Paul Begg's three key questions still, in my opinion, remain unanswered:
a) Who wrote it?
b) When was it written?
c) Why was it written?
Somehow, provenance must be established and I only know of the following options open to us to try and determine how the Diary came in Mike Barrett and Anne Graham's possession:
1) Tony Devereux gave it to Mike.(source - Mike Barrett)
2) Mike Barrett and Anne Graham jointly created it.(source - Mike Barrett)
3) Anne Graham gave it to Tony Devereux to give to Mike.(source Anne Graham)
4) Anne's father took possession of it in 1950 and later gave it to Anne.(source - Anne Graham/Billy Graham)
Tony Devereux is now dead. Mr Graham is now dead. If we choose to ignore Mike and Anne on the grounds they have both lied and are therefore discredited, are we not going to grind to a halt, leaving the status of this document unresolved? Can you suggest an alternative line of enquiry which precludes having to give any weight or take any notice of what Mike Barrett or Anne Graham says, or has said, and which would be a more constructive approach to establishing the truth?
Best Wishes
Keith
June 24th 1999 |
Author: Christopher George
Tuesday, 13 July 1999 - 07:46 am | | Hi, Keith:
Thank you for your reply of June 25 and for clarifying that you did not "express an opinion about the speculative transmission route of the Diary from Battlecrease House to the Graham family -- if indeed such an event ever occurred." Since you have asked me not to comment on your rhetorical question on this topic, which, as you have stated, is based on hypothetical speculation, I will not.
No, I am not saying that Anne Graham's Florence Maybrick book should not have been published. The Maybrick Case is interesting in and of itself, so I think a new book on the case is a welcome development. What I do find less welcome is the fact that Graham may be "cashing in" on the shaky assertion that James Maybrick may have been Jack the Ripper. I also think that it does not speak well of her that she seems to be taking advantage of the unproved assertion that she may be related to Florence Maybrick. And while you have pointed out that you have known Anne to have used her middle name "Elizabeth" in the past, I think that signing her name "Anne Elizabeth Graham" in the Introduction of a book on Florence Elizabeth Maybrick is another example of relying on an unproven link to the Maybricks to help sell her book.
My earlier point was that the different versions of the Diary provenance are an unholy mess, but then you already know that. You ask for an alternative line of enquiry. I can suggest several that you may or may not already be following up. One is to find the records of the auctioneer from whom Mike Barrett said he bought the scrapbook that became the diary. Second, is there any way of knowing when the missing pages were cut out of the scrapbook? Is there any method of testing the date of a cut edge on a piece of paper? It seems to me it could be important to know if those pages were cut out in our day, say in 1989 or 1992, or 1888 or 1920. Third, is there any remaining handwriting on the remnants of the cut pages to know if they were written on? Perhaps the hoaxer (or Maybrick (doubtful) or Maybrick wannabe) wrote on those pages and later tore them out finding them inadequate or even incriminating? Fourth, if the diary really did come down through Graham's family, is there any record of it, a will or a letter that mentions it other than the oral say-so of Billy Graham and Anne Graham? Fifth, is there similarly any written link between Anne Graham's step [Great] Grandmother and the servant at Battlecrease House, as told in Anne's original story -- or is this yet another oral and therefore unprovable tradition?
Chris George |
Author: Matthew
Tuesday, 19 September 2000 - 11:51 pm | | New to the board but a favorite subject is the Ripper case. Not only the Ripper case but, subsequently with the Maybrick case. James Maybrick is an interesting character in history and a newly discovered one. What occurs to me is that there is a clash. Of course, I know that to unearth this 'Diary' far removed from the times of the killings disturbs a lot of peoples theroies but, isn't is possible. The more I read about the case and look at the photos and the like there is one thing that comes back to me: the "F M" written on the wall next to Mary Jane Kelley's body. In all the specials i've seen and such its hard for me to believe that this is just a coincidence. Anyways, its getting late for me but I like this site. Be well.
MG |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 20 September 2000 - 04:18 am | | Welcome Matthew,
Of interest to you, before believing immediately in the 'FM', read these links (huge files!) all to do with what is thought to be seen and deciphered on the crime-scene-pictures of Mary Jane Kelly:
Topic Victims->Specific Victims->Mary Jane Kelly->
The FM on Kelly's wall
Topic Victims->Specific Victims->Mary Jane Kelly->
Kelly Crime Scene Photographs
Topic Victims->General Discussion->Photo Reconstruction
Topic Victims->General Discussion->Markings on Mary Jane Kelly
Greetings,
Jill
(Don't be afraid to use your full name, it will be appreceated) |
Author: David Halstead
Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 02:46 pm | | Hi, new to JtR and Maybrick.
Have read the diary and have a couple of questions that I am unable to resolve in my mind. Apologies to all if these have already been discussed (I have searched previous entries without success).
Firstly, the hoaxer would surely have sought and purchased a book that would pass for the diary more easily. The option of purchasing a partially used book and then removing the relevant pages would cause unnecessary speculation. Whilst not an expert, I would suggest that it would not be too hard to find a suitable book that had not already been used.
Would the hoaxer put so much detail in to every other aspect of the diary, yet fail to ensure its physical appearance was accurate?
Also, I am intrigued by the Sphere aspect. Can anyone point me to the relevant section in the msg boards where this is discussed further?
Regards to all
David |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 05:18 pm | | David-- We were all discussing the Sphere Guide back in June & July on the "Maybrick Diary: The Maybrick Diary" board, and you will find some posts referring to it. But like everything else in the debate, the conversation became a little wayward and heated at times, so you'll have to wade through a fair amount of other discussions to find it all.
The basics are these. The diary contains the line 'O Costly Intercourse of Death'. For a good long time no one knew where this line came from. It seemed like a quote. Finally, at one point --exactly when it has not been quite determined-- Shirley Harrison sent Mike Barrett to the Liverpool Library to do some research. Mike came back saying that the line was from a poem by Richard Crashaw, and could be found in The Sphere Guide to English Literature, edited by Christopher Ricks. The First edition of this book came out in 1971, a later edition came out in 1986. So you can see why this is a little troubling to some. Mike evidently said that a librarian had helped him locate this quote. One trouble some of us had with this statement was that the Sphere Guide is not an anthology of poetry, it is a book of critical essays. The lines by Crashaw come in the middle of an obscure essay on George Herbert. The line O Costly itself is from the middle of an obscure poem that is not indexed anywhere --either in the Sphere Guide itself, nor in any index of poetry. (According to Melvin Harris, these particular lines from Crashaw (ie., rather than the entire poems) can be found in no other book. I've looked for it somewhat myself, and could not find them either).
Shirley Harrison has argued that Crashaw was more well known in Victorian times, and that Maybrick might have picked up an edition of his works, and several such editions appeared in the mid & late 19th Century.
One point here is that it seems difficult to understand how a librarian could have directed Mike to the quote, even if she had recognized it, or if she had, why she wouldn't have directed Mike to something like The Collected Poems of Richard Crashaw.
Be that as it may, sometime later, Mike made a strange revelation. He remembered that he himself had a copy of the Sphere Guide in his attic. At this point Shirley Harrison became 'suspicious'. And we pretty much all agree that this is an odd thing. Mike has made the statement that he bought the Sphere Guide as part of a benefit for the Hillsborough disaster, but in laying this claim, he made a muddle about the date of that disaster. It has also been said that Anne herself does not deny that they had owned a copy of the Sphere Guide, but I don't recall whether or not she has later denied this claim.
From this point on it becomes very controversial. Mike did produce a copy of the Sphere Guide, and, oddly enough, it has a 'binding defect' that makes it open at the very page on which the quote appears. At some point Mike lodged the book with his solicitor. There has been a fair amount of argument over exactly when Mike lodged the book.
I'm recalling this from memory, but I think I have it right.
Hope this helps.
RJ Palmer. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 05:32 pm | | G'day David,
See the panel on the left?
Under 'Utilities' it says 'Keyword Search', click on it!
After: 'Search For:', type: 'Missing'.
After: 'Search Topic', click on 'The Diary of Jack the Ripper'.
That's all you have to change. Then click 'Perform Search'.
A number of pages will be listed about 'missing hearts' and 'missing pages'.
Click on the ones about 'missing pages'.
LEANNE! |
Author: Alegria
Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 07:43 pm | | | Or you could just search for "Missing pages", couldn't you? |
|
|
|
|
