|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 24, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-Archives 2001:
Archive through February 24, 2001
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 04:04 am |        | Hi Alyssa,
Sorry for butting in, but you're right there. I can't think of anything much more negative than cutting off all open communication with someone when the going gets tough.
Do come to the conventions - a decision not to do so might also be seen as not the most positive of reactions.
All the best,
Caz
You got to acc-ent-uate the positive, e-lim-inate the negative, latch on to the affirmative, don't mess with Mister Inbetween. :-) |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 10:49 am | | ".Hi Alyssa,
Sorry for butting in, but you're right there. I can't think
of anything much more negative than cutting off all open
communication with someone when the going gets tough."
By Caroline Anne Morris on Tuesday, February 20, 2001 -
04:04 am
"Even if this is not the case, we feel that
Peter's dictatorial demands and expectations make it
extremely difficult to sustain a spirit of friendly
co-operation. Our contributions to the board are, therefore,
now terminated."
from Shirley Harrison and Keith Skinner July 28th 1999
reposted by:Caroline Anne Morris on Thursday, November 30, 2000 -
06:11 am: |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 12:24 pm | | Hello Peter, my dear,
And your point is? Apart from the fact that my opinion does not always slavishly follow that of Keith or Shirley?
I have always been willing to talk to you, no matter how bloody-minded and negative you can be sometimes.
What's up? Some friend of yours need prising out of a corner or something?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Joseph
Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 12:34 pm | | Buona Sera,
Good question Caz.
What exactly is your point Mr. Birchwood? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 03:21 pm | | Probably a rather blunt one, if I know Peter.
Buenas Noches, Hermano.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 12:00 pm | | Hi Chris:
Thanks for the kind words. I too have been searching through the archives but have failed to find Keith's answer, which is not of course to say that it isn't there or that he doesn't have a perfectly reasonable explanation for denying that this letter existed or indeed that he isn't a professional genealogist, a statement which I for one still find incredible. Your point concerning the Billy Graham/Paul Feldman tapes is very apt: Feldman's questions were leading ones.
I'm sure that at the time that this letter was written and the phone calls made, Feldy and Keith were unaware that they might be providing information that would lead to a new provenance for the diary. I am however still surprised that when the story that the diary had been in the Graham family for many years started developing just over two months after the letter and the phone calls, neither of our "investigators" thought back and realised: "Maybe we suggested this story ourselves."
You ask me my opinion on l'affair Melvin. To start with, I believe that he has every right to keep information confidential in the same way as Keith Skinner has the right to keep confidential the complete original tapes and transcripts of the Billy Graham interviews. The mistake was to announce that he had this information and then refuse to disseminate it thus giving people here an excuse to concentrate on Melvin rather than the persons more directly involved in the diary. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 01:08 pm | | | Surely people are concentrating on the persons more directly involved with the diary in that Melvin has stated that those persons were three in number and that Mike and Anne were merely the placers. After years of claiming that he was prevented by legal reasons from making the information public, he has been asked to reveal it privately and has refused to do so. He is perfectly within his rights to do so. He is now being asked to identify the journalists, whose information he is guarding, so that they can be approached and decide what they want to do with their information. According to Melvin, apparently they would have published their material but for the Friedken movie, so it is difficult to understand why they or Melvin should object. |
Author: shirley harrison
Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 05:03 pm | | This is all so sad, and I would have thought unecessary. Melvin has a
belief, which he claims is proof. I have a belief which I do not claim
as proof. I agree with the theological connection – God has never been
proved to exist yet an awful lot of people take that “leap in the dark”
and are converted. Melvin has leapt in one direction so far as the diary is
concerned. I have leapt in
the other.
I acknowledge and respect his academic standing. Mine is somewhat less
elevated – a book on religious cults, a history of The English Channel,
a book on cancer and a number of travel guides, some forty years
freelance feature work for the national press and magazines and four
years or so running a small PR company. I did a bit of broadcasting on
the way. ….Jack the Ripper fell into my lap by accident.
Answering some questions.
Keith Skinner believes (I think) that the diary could be an old forgery.
He does not believe it is modern. I believe it is genuine but am open
minded about the idea of an old document.
There is no diary "camp" I have said this so many times. Paul Feldman
and I inhabited different planets and as far as I know apart from him I
alone wave the diary flag. My original publisher is convinced but I have almost
no contact with him. My agent does too but would be the first to admit
that her belief is "gut feeling" and that the diary has given her far
more heart ache and worry than any other book. And didnt I write a book
which tried to convey my reasons for thinking the diary genuine? Or is
my memory slipping? And as far as possible - given a few computer blips
- I have tried to do so here too.
When I met William Friedkin before Christmas I told him about Melvin’s
certainty that the diary is a forgery and suggested he look at these
boards. Whether he did or not I have no idea and have no heard for some
time. I do, with respect, wonder what would have happened had a
Hollywood Mogul approached Melvin to do a film on D’Onston Stephenson.
But I suppose that would have been OK since Mr Stephenson is “The True
Face of Jack the Ripper”.
I think it is understandable that Melvin is reluctant to name the
journalists. But how about the newspapers? Surely there is no problem
here. Besides has no one thought that Melvin may have forgotten the
journalists’ names. It’s a long time ago. I think I will have to make a
strenuous effort to find them myself now. Any offers of help? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 22 February 2001 - 11:08 am | | Hi Shirley,
If Melvin ever had the slightest inclination to help ease this conflict by giving you the names of the journalists, he would surely have contacted you by now. I can't believe a man of his standing would have forgotten who these people are, considering they hold the equivalent of the bloody fingerprints or DNA of Melvin's own very detailed case for the prosecution. This he has nevertheless tirelessly worked on since, like a veritable Holmes, using many thousands of words to shower us all with clever deductions. I used to think Melvin’s task must have been a very thankless and frustrating one for him, knowing, as he did, that his ultimate proof lay just beyond the public’s reach all the time - in a filing cabinet labelled 'The Committee For Integrity - legally/ethically/morally restricted material – not for human consumption'. I now wonder if Melvin actually preferred it that way. Convincing the readership, and inspiring absolute belief and trust in his case, by sheer hard graft, his undoubted eloquence and powers of reasoning and deduction, may have proved far more satisfying, to a man of Melvin's stature and professional zeal, than taking a cattle prod to a journo, who could have coughed up the goods in four seconds flat at any time over the last six years.
Am I becoming too cynical?
Incidentally, I don't believe in God, haven't since I was a teenager (I was teaching a small group of Sunday School kids, when I suddenly realised what a load of old balls it sounded – to pinch Martin's vernacular for a moment. :-)) Yet some people here think I’d like to believe that the diary is something that it isn’t. I care about what it is, and why it remains a disputed, and therefore unresolved, document. Like Melvin, I’ve played chess with the modern suspects. But I’m still nowhere near giving them all the right moves.
Love,
Caz |
Author: shirley harrison
Thursday, 22 February 2001 - 11:34 am | | | Hallelujah Caz (is that how you spell it?)I thought my Sunday school teacher WAS God. No of course Melvin wont/cant. Thats why I think its down to me to try.......unless he is in a conciliatory mood and will give me a hand. Like you I want to know the truth - belief, in this situation is not enough.....we will get there but not i think through science. It will be history that gives us the answers...will you come to my celebration party? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 22 February 2001 - 12:29 pm | | I'm there celebrating with you now in spirit, even if the ink was still drying on the paper when you first heard about the dratted diary's existence.
But you know me - any old excuse for a celebration will do. 
I think it's a pity, though, if Melvin thinks you have saved his bacon, and he can now sit back and leave you to it, when he can still tell you who the journalists are with one quick phone call and prove he isn't being evasive and awkward.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 22 February 2001 - 04:31 pm | | Actually, Shirley, and in fairness to Melvin, you haven't asked him to name the journalists yet, so it is a bit premature to say that he's refused to do it. And the whole point is that there appears to be no earthly reason why he should refuse to do it. They are journalists, not some inside source whose identity needs to be protected; by Melvin's own admission they would have published their findings but for the Friedkin movie, so there wouldn't appear to be any profound moral reason for not making the information pubic; and the information isn't Melvin's to decide what should be done with it, so he can let you know who the journalists are and leave them decide what to do with their own information.
I don't see any reason why you should have to undertake a potentially difficult piece of research when Melvin can supply you with the information you need. Furthermore, given that the information is potentially fatal to the Maybrick theory in that it shows the number of forgers and the role Mike and Anne played, I think Melvin - and everyone else for that matter - should appreciate and respond to your open request for the data when the Friedkin movie appears to have been revived.
The ball is very firmly in Melvin's court. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Thursday, 22 February 2001 - 05:32 pm | | THOSE NAMES - THE LAST WORD
The idea that I am being evasive and thus my reputation will suffer is simply ludicrous. People are free to ask as many questions as they like, but they will have to live with the fact that they are not, as of right, entitled to answers. I have always kept my promises, but in this case no promises on my part were ever involved.
However, in order to make quite certain that the 1994 position still held good, I spoke today to the Editor of the newspaper concerned. This is an accurate summary of his stand:
Since this issue does not involve matters of National Security these principles prevail. Any, and all, unpublished material gathered in an investigation by his paper is the property of that paper and is not open for any type of questioning, discussion, or inspection by outside parties, in any circumstances. All decisions whether to publish, or not, are the sole responsibility of his paper. The timing of any story published will always depend on its newsworthiness, which can be diminished or enhanced by new developments. This is standard newspaper practice and cannot be faulted on imagined ethical grounds. The limited material made known to me was revealed only because I had provided help and was known to be a professional investigative journalist. My known reputation guaranteed my acceptance of his newspaper's code of conduct.
Since that position is clear enough, THAT IS THE END OF THIS MATTER. One point, though, arises. I have given an accurate account of a newspaperman's views, but it was very different when newspapermen were printing MY alleged views. The cuttings from the 'Evening Standard' show that there were so many obvious errors in their columns that anyone who knew the subject would spot at once that the words could not have come from me. Take this gem from Nov 16 1994: "Melvin Harris...has had ink samples analysed in Wisconsin and declared to contain Diamine (first developed in 1974)" !!
I now see that mention has been made of Mrs Harrison's weird idea that in 1998 I had "...changed tack and was considering the possibility that the Diary was the work of journalists in the 1930's." Two informants, she said had told her this. But this was pure invention; pure nonsense. Perhaps, since she is hot on names, she would like to name the two? It would be instructive to know just who could be so out of touch with everything I had ever written and said. And why did she even bother to muse over such transparently wild statements? |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 23 February 2001 - 12:26 am | | Omigod!
Is THAT Melvin Harris's idea of an answer to the question posed to him repeatedly to put people in touch with the journalists who have the final proof he claims they gave him about the diary's genesis? Omigod!
Actually, I only got onto this board because something Caz said earlier might suggest to people that I think their idea of 'God' is 'a load of old balls'. I can't quite fathom where this idea came from. I think we in the Germanic languages are lucky that our word 'God' is a derivative of the abstract 'Good', and not like Dieu or Dios a variant of whitebearded old Zeus sitting on Mount Olympus. I would never willingly want to put down other people's belief-structures as 'a load of balls' unless such beliefs obviously so proved themselves, even though for myself I prefer a theology without dogma, a faith witout superstition, and a morality without taboos.
Martin Fido |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 23 February 2001 - 02:21 am | | Unfortunately, Martin, I very much fear that Melvin does indeed think we are all so stupid that we’ll believe he’s answered the simple and straightforward question put to him by offering up nothing more dimly illuminating than the standard policy of newspaper ownership of its material and its views on what makes a story newsworthy and publishable.
All Shirley and Keith want to know is the name of a newspaper and preferably the name of the journalists so that it/they can be approached and asked if they would make their information available publicly or under the same terms of confidentiality as applied to Melvin.
Of all people, Melvin Harris, who claims such primary status for the purity of the historical record, should appreciate why it is so important for other investigators to make sure that his assessment of the material is correct. He seems not to understand this. He seems either genuinely confused by what is being asked of him or he IS being evasive. People will - well, let's not be coy, people have - inevitably drawn their own conclusions.
Melvin is behaving as if naming a newspaper is like compromising the life and security of some 'Deep Throat' informant. I don't understand why a big, tough newspaper can’t be approached, asked if it will discuss its information and be allowed to decide what it wants to do. Why is Melvin evading (sorry, there isn't another word for it) naming the newspaper?
Or, to put it so succinctly. Omigod! Is that what Melvin thinks is an answer! Or as Caz might have expressed it even more succinctly 'a load of old balls!' |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 23 February 2001 - 05:16 am | | Hi Martin,
Sorry, I never meant to imply that you thought people's idea of God was a load of balls - I was simply pinching the expression 'load of balls', which you had recently used about certain ripper theories over on another board, to express my own very humble opinion on religion.
I have to agree about Melvin's pitiful little outing to the board yesterday. Even I, the one wearing the dunce's cap, can see how one of Melvin's shortest posts has somehow managed to contain the biggest load of balls yet, served up on a silver salver. I wonder what on earth possessed him.
Have a great weekend all. I plan to have a great Godless one.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 23 February 2001 - 05:21 am | | Incidentally, Martin, I always liked the idea of being 'Good', without having the 'God', and the promise of eternal life, to act as the cattle prod. I kind of like the thought of adding the extra '0!' to my own God.
Love,
O! Caz |
Author: Matthew Brannigan
Friday, 23 February 2001 - 05:28 am | | Melvin's answer does strike me as funny - it stands to reason that the newspaper with the information would wish to choose when and how to reveal it, and it stands to reason too that Melvin cannot breach the confidence, not only for ethical reasons but legal ones; if Melvin had revealed the names of the forgers, one can imagine the figures claimed if the paper were to sue him for breach of confidence.
However it strikes me that the answer is palpably unsatisfying; the equivalent of the US government turning round and saying "It's OK, we know who killed JFK and how. Don't worry about it too much."
Providing the names of the journalists should not pose so much of a problem for Melvin; he has admitted that the "information" concerning the creation of the diary exists, and he has admitted that he knows who has it. If neither of those admissions breaches his code of confidentiality, I fail to see how naming the journalists would do so. After all, if nothing else it would get everyone off Melvin's back and cause interested parties to pester the people who have the true "right" to decide how the information is revealed.
Another aspect raised in earlier posts, was journalistic motive and interest in choosing not to reveal their information. Surely definitively debunking one of the great publishing mysteries of the last decade would be a better motive for publishing than "spoiling" a movie, which will by no means definitely come to pass?
And what of public interest? If the press had a state secret which they thought should be revealed, they would claim public interest demanded that the story be published. Yet the thousands of people who have either bought the Harrison or Feldman books or otherwise come to hear the Diary story have to have their interest in the truth subordinated to the self-interest of Fleet Street's "finest?"
One final thought. If in 20 years, the Friedkin film has still never gone into production, will we still all be patiently twiddling our thumbs hoping that the journalists might choose to reveal who wrote the Diary of Jack the Ripper?
Will Ripperologists club together to provide the director with the funds to make the film solely to flush out the information the journalists will only provide to spoil the movie?
Matt |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 23 February 2001 - 07:05 am | | Hi Matthew,
You have put the whole absurdity in a far better nutshell than I ever could - thanks!
Can you just imagine what a wonderful publishing coup it would be for the journalists to debunk, in a few Sunday headlines, what the Great Debunker Almighty has taken years of painstaking work to do, yet not effectively enough to purify the polluted waters of history?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 23 February 2001 - 08:07 am | | | All that is being asked is for the name of a big, bold and powerful newspaper and, hopefully, the names of a couple of journalists who investigated a story they've done nothing with for over five years and which Melvin himself says is now a tale of such non-interest that it is discussed only here (though I'm not sure I think this is significant because there isn't anywhere else to discuss it). So, yes, the position seems as absurd as it is extraordinary. |
Author: Alegria
Friday, 23 February 2001 - 10:35 am | | | In the time since I originally posed the question asking for the journalists to be named, I have come to the conclusion that it's not going to happen. For whatever reason, Mel isn't going to tell us or even tell us why he won't tell us. He continues to post as if we were still asking him to reveal who the forgers are. As I don't relish beating my head against a brick wall on a daily basis and there comes a point where even I get tired of mocking someone who is hovering on the fringes of reality, I will no longer post asking the evasive Mr. Harris about anything he knows. It is a shame. I am sure that he is a fine researcher with an enormous amount of knowledge regarding all aspects of the case, however, it is pointless to persist in petitioning someone who is incapable of providing a straight answer. |
Author: Joseph
Friday, 23 February 2001 - 01:13 pm | | HI Alegria,
I understand your frustration with this man; I had tried proding the Great and Powerful Oz into revealing the name of his protégé Valediktor, and I had no luck either, Mr. Harris just wouldn't address the question being asked. He would obfuscate using the same method he used with your attempts to gather the truth; you ask about oranges, and he answers about apples.
It is easy to see why some former regular contributors here are attracted to him; evasiveness, verbal slight of hand, and just plain bovine feces (That's feaces in the U.K.) apparently are an acceptable substitute for the truth to some people. Using the martyr gambit as he exists the chamber is a nice touch; it was used previously by two of Mr. Harris's acolytes under similar conditions, but not with the practiced dramatic flair of the master.
His refusal to act as a gentleman, and address in a forthright manner questions put to him likewise, is also a reflection of the low esteem in with he holds this forum, and it's participants.
By denying us the name of this repository of journalistic respectability, he is sparing his fellow scribes the annoyance of having to answer the many inquiries from the less then professional Casebook Jacks.
I also believe he may be ashamed of his actions here, and he feels that our inquires with the newspaper in question would expose his conduct to scrutiny by his peers, and he will do anything to avoid that; he doesn't give a damn about what we think of him.
Personally, I don't know why we continue to seek fruit from a vendor who is obviously out of stock.
I say, exit for all time great wind, and be wary of the door interacting with your buttocks. |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 23 February 2001 - 01:58 pm | | I don't usually comment on this board , but I cannot see why Mr Harris is being so evasive over this matter.
He has information , which we want to know about i.e. the identities of the journalists involved and the identity of the newspaper. If given this information , posters on this board would want to make their own enquiries and we might learn the nature of the material being withheld. I cannot see a reason why this would affect Mr Harris or his reputation , thus why is he not forthcoming with his information ?
He should put the information he has into the public domain in the interests of scholarship and Ripperology in general. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 23 February 2001 - 04:01 pm | | Hi Simon
As several people have commented, there seems to be no reason why Melvin cannot reveal the name of the journalists or at least the name of the newspaper. Neither journalist nor newspaper are likely to be compromised by being identified, as would a confidential source, and it is highly doubtful that any confidentiality agreement made with Harris embraced the identity of either. It is diffiuclt to conceive of any reason, apart from the obvious one that Melvin does not want the information known for personal reasons, to explain he evasiveness - especially given Melvin's hitherto overwhelming concern for the historical record. |
Author: Triston Marc Bunker
Friday, 23 February 2001 - 04:49 pm | | Paul,
I don't believe I'm about to do this, but I will try in around about way defend Melvin on his right to keep information private for the time being. Here goes :-
As you know, Melvin Harris likes to think of himself as a stickler for facts. He also claims to have information that will prove his case once and for all. Now, he may think that his undeniable proof is 100% water tight but, I think, he wants to make it 120%.
Some of you professional experts have come along before with what you thought was cast iron evidence only to be proved wrong. Mr. Harris probably thinks that if he withheld information then his colleagues could make his forthcoming claims bullet proof without being harrassed.
That leads to the obvious question; Why tell us if he isn't that confident ? Maybe he's being too cocky and over-confident that his claims will come good. Either way let's give him a couple of months and then apply some pressure.
Tris |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 23 February 2001 - 04:49 pm | | Hi, Paul:
As you know, I have desisted from posting on the board in the past few days in case it was thought that I was contributing to the general "Melvin bashing." However, I would like to observe that Melvin can continue to post, as he has done, details of why he thinks the Diary is a hoax and he can continue to bemoan the lack of professional standards in others, as he does do, indeed he can shout "FRAUD!" from the rooftops, but if he has it in his power to kill the Diary dead in its tracks by naming the forgers why doesn't he do so? The posts on ink tests and so on are rather peripheral if the hoax can be exposed in all its tawdriness.
Asking who the journalists and the newspaper are seems pointless because Melvin has already made that a dead end by quoting the standard nondisclosure disclaimer from the newspaper. However, I don't know what "professional code" is stopping Melvin revealing what he knows about the fraud. Maybe the journalists in question cannot reveal their information, but why can't Melvin? Surely it is shared information, and if it gives the answer to the forgery scheme, it should be disclosed. Or can Melvin now admit that the "information" is not as substantial as we were all led to believe?
Chris George |
Author: Richard McNeil
Friday, 23 February 2001 - 05:03 pm | | Apologies if this has all been said on here before. I know in fact that some of it has. But.
Isn't it likely that the journalists' evidence was/is just knowhere near clear cut; knowhere near as 'good' as we've all been lead to believe? Would that not account for both their -or their editor's -decision not to publish either immediately following the investigation or at any time since and for Mr Harris's reluctance to reveal what he was told or to put others in touch with his contacts.
I find it hard to believe that any journalist or editor -having funded/carried out a fruitful investigation -would sit on such a dynamite story, knowing that others might well crack the case and publish at any time.
Am I not right in thinking that at the time the alleged [journalists'] investigation took place, the diary had already attracted the attention of both Scotland Yard and the legal representatives of several interested parties? That'd explain why no newspaper would publish a half baked theory naming alleged forgers.
I'm sure these journalists and their 'findings' exist but the reasons for their silence? To sabotage a movie? Nah. Even IF the movie were made, it'd be the umpteenth movie of the genre. I very much doubt it'd be a box office monster. It would barely be worth sabotaging either at the production or promotional stage. |
Author: Alegria
Friday, 23 February 2001 - 05:06 pm | | | As further speculation as to why Mel won't cough up the names of the journalists or newspaper will prove as fruitless as the asking for them, I have turned my attention to another line of thought on how to get the information. There cannot be that many London (or English) newspapers who are large enough to sit on a story that would give them a minor buzz. Most minor rags would want the ratings it would generate immediately. Only the larger, more prestigious newspapers could afford to hold it for the most 'sensation-causing' time. ( I still don't buy this argument ...however.) Perhaps there is a way through process of elimination to figure it out. While I realise the argument will be why should we have to do any research if Mel already knows the answer, the fact is he isn't going to give it to us so I think it is time to look in a different direction if we actually want the information. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 23 February 2001 - 05:22 pm | | Tris
Melvin made his observations in 1994 and again in June 2000. I think he’s had ample time to firm anything up by now, don't you? Besides which, he was quoting the work of others. He didn't conduct the research himself.
Chris
Melvin said that he can’t reveal the information supplied by the journalists because he was given that information in confidence - that’s the professional code of which he speaks - and that's perfectly acceptable, though one might observe that he has seemingly breached that confidence twice. However, while the confidentiality agreement embraced the information, it is very unlikely to have embraced the name of the journalists or the newspaper - why should it? - so there is no apparent reason why he should not identify them.
And don’t be misled. Melvin has most definitely not quoted a non-disclosure statement by the newspaper. He has done no more than give a simple definition of ‘intellectual property’: namely that the information unearthed by a newspaper is the property of that newspaper, the newspaper can do with it whatever it wishes and the newspaper is under no obligation to make it available to anyone. All that is perfectly true and understood. But nobody has said that the newspaper is obligated to publish the information or make it available to anyone and in responding to something nobody has asked, Melvin is just throwing up a smokescreen. All that has been asked is that Melvin name the journalists or the newspaper so that they can be asked if they will make it public or, if not, will make it available to Shirley and Keith under the same terms of confidentiality as it was made available to Melvin. If the newspaper doesn’t want to then that’s fine and acceptable, but it is up to the newspaper to make that decision, not Melvin, and it’s a decision that should be uninfluenced by Melvin. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 23 February 2001 - 05:35 pm | | Richard
If the information doesn't crack up to anything then Melvin has been misleading us for a very long time. He certainly wouldn't want to admit that.
I think we are in danger of being slightly naive here. The information unearthed by the journalists could be excellent - as one assumes it must be for Melvin to have repeated it as fact - but not proven (as with a policeman knowing whodunnit but being unable to prove it). But if the newspaper was prepared to make the information available to Melvin, I don't see why it shouldn't be prepared to make it available to Shirley, who is also a journalist and someone who would respect a confidentiality agreement.
But who knows what the newspaper will do if it isn't asked?
And it isn't being asked because Melvin, for no clear reason, is blocking access. |
Author: Triston Marc Bunker
Friday, 23 February 2001 - 06:11 pm | | Paul,
Thanks for the pointer, I was getting quite sweaty and clammy from trying to defend Melvin. All I can do now is pray for my immortal soul. If ever your in my area then let me buy you a thank you pint or two.
Tris
Ps
Alegria, I can't apologize enough for spelling your name wrong, twice. For this you can spit mud in my eye and spray Deep Heat in my underwear drawer. Serves me right for not reading the name right. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 23 February 2001 - 08:27 pm | | Dear Alegria,
The Sunday Times. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 23 February 2001 - 09:03 pm | | Chris & Paul-- I've been wishing to steer clear of this lately, but considering the mean-spiritedness of many of the above posts, I felt obliged to throw in the dissenting view once again.
You both have gone on record here saying you believe the Diary to be a modern forgery. So why don't you petition Anne Graham with the same zeal that you petition Melvin?
Yes, Melvin Harris has "bemoaned the lack of professional standards" in others. Knowing that he is reluctant to reveal his source, how can I know that the bottom line isn't a little old-fashioned pay-back, a way of discrediting him & challenging his professional standards? It seems wildly absurd to me that one of the men --there were others-- who warned against the diary being a forgery before the video and the books were published, is now being asked to "debunk" them! Throwing the ball in his court, as the saying goes. By casting doubt on this, are you casting doubt that the diary is a modern forgery? Come, now. How much effort has really been made to check out what you already know of the story? I've seen enough information posted here to have made a start months ago.
There are other, tougher questions to be asked; but no one seems to want to think them, let alone ask them.
To Everyone Else: There's two sides to every story. There's another side to all of this, rested assured.
RJ Palmer. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 23 February 2001 - 09:23 pm | | Dear Alegria,
They published my s--t in the past ...until that fateful morn (Godfrey Smith Column, Dec. 1999).A very naughty...
Rosemary! |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 24 February 2001 - 02:41 am | | Tris.
Thanks for the offer. Don't catch a chill from defending Melvin! I have no particular axe to grind. I just want to make sure that if the historical record is to state on the authority of Melvin Harris that Mike and Anne were placers that we have done what we can to establish that Melvin's information and the conclusions he has based thereon is correct.
R.J.P.
I respect your sincere intentions, but it seems to me that you are not helping to keep this matter focused. If Melvin has done something wrong and gets it in the neck in consequence then tough - people in glass houses and all that. But that's not the point. Shirley and Keith have very reasonably asked that the name of a newspaper be given to them. There seems no reason why Melvin Harris should not immediately comply with that request. If people read something nasty into his actions, that's hardly surprising and is something which, if the tables were turned, Melvin would without the faintest shadow of doubt crow about loud and long.
But we don't know that Melvin's done anything wrong, so why don't we just stick to the facts: what's the name of the newspaper or what reason is there for not naming it? |
Author: John Dixon
Saturday, 24 February 2001 - 06:34 am | | Chris ,
sorry for the delay... on page 252 of the diary Maybrick says he will be in Manchester in a few days... 253 again Thomas & Xmas are mentioned close together the logical inference is that the visit occurred at or close to Xmas. So if 253 has November references as I believe then there is no particular objection to 252 & 253 being written at the same time. ( i.e. if he feels free to jump backwards in time with an entry then equally he could "backdate" an entry.) That would remove the necessity of arguing about handwriting.
Incidentally I've always been concerned that Maybrick would spend Xmas with his Brothers children. Any thoughts.
To move on I am interested in your handwritting agrument ... so rattle off the specifics. Rendells agrument seems to be "it looked uniform" ... hardly objective proof. I can show you handwriting of my wifes which has not changed in 20 years. My concern has always been that the handwritting varied too much.
I haven't read the board in a while I'll try & catch up.
Cheers John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 24 February 2001 - 07:28 am | | From Keith Skinner to Chris George
Dear Chris
In response to your post to Peter Birchwood of Monday, February 19th, 2001…
The essence of my bitter dispute with Mr Birchwood was because, by selective references to documents in his possession and the usage of ugly innuendo, he sought to create a damaging impression that I silently endorsed working with tampered certificates and that I was, unknown to Paul Feldman, in collusion with Anne Graham. Critical accusations of professional incompetence and bungled research, (as witness Melvin Harris), I can accommodate and if the charge is justified, I will always acknowledge. Calculated inferences of dishonesty and improper practice, as witness Peter Birchwood, I will – and have – openly challenged.
Turning to my position concerning the historical status of the Diary. I have, since 1994, repeatedly expressed my sincere belief that I regard this document to be an old fake. I may be wrong and it is not important for me to be right. I reach this position because I believe Anne Graham’s story and that of her late father. I may be wrong about them and it is not important for me to be right. I accept the results of Rod McNeil’s ion migration test. He may be wrong and it is not important to me that he be right. But I have no theory to account for the Diary’s existence, if indeed it did exist, in the early part of the twentieth century. I’m baffled and even more so when my good friend and professional colleague, Martin Fido, states that “Science dates the document to a historically impossible period.”
So, something is wrong somewhere, but I am heartily encouraged that you seem to appreciate that all I seek is the truth – even if that truth damages me.
All Good Wishes
Keith
Friday February 23rd 2001 |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 24 February 2001 - 07:29 am | | From Keith Skinner to RJ
Dear RJ,
Am I correct in now thinking your perception of my desire to force the issue with Melvin Harris is predicated on your belief that I am more interested in attacking Melvin than wishing to learn the truth?
Best Wishes
Keith
Friday February 23rd 2001 |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 24 February 2001 - 07:30 am | | From Keith Skinner to Melvin Harris
Shirley Harrison has agreed to be taken out of the confrontational loop, so I am again asking you to meet with me and an independent witness, to privately reveal your embargoed “telling evidence” which, you say, is good enough for you. You go on to state that “in over thirty years I have never once been found dishonest in any of my published or broadcast works” – and that you now invoke that record in support of your veracity and credibility.
You don’t need to get out all of your medals Melvin and constantly draw attention to glowing testimonials. I have a hunch that most people, wishing to put an end to this divisive controversy, would be more persuaded by a quiet, dignified strength and a confident acceptance of my invitation to meet.
Friday February 23rd 2001 |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 24 February 2001 - 07:39 am | | Hi All,
Could I ask you all to please bear in mind that I received the preceding three messages from Keith in the mail this morning, and that he has not yet seen all the latest posts to the Diary boards.
Owing to a very long week, ending with a long Friday night spent sampling the delights of two or three watering holes near London Bridge - hic! - it has taken me some time to get my typing finger out today.
With apologies and lots of love to all,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
