|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 27, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-Archives 2001:
Archive through February 27, 2001
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 24 February 2001 - 10:01 am |        | Caz-- Please send this off to Keith Skinner-- many thanks.
Dear Keith--Hello. First off, I must say that I am continually bewildered that I have allowed myself to become embroiled in this strange controversy, and I kick myself in the shins for allowing this to have happened. My original intention of posting here was merely to study the alleged Maybrick Diary and the Maybrick case, which I found to be interesting. I've enjoyed mucking through it all with Chris, Caz, and the others. But when it became increasingly clear to me last summer that the 'answer' to this diary involved some very tricky personal & professional issues, I was the first to make the suggestion that it would be best if the 'denouenment' was made privately. Believe it or not, this was primarily in deference to you & Shirley Harrison. I still make the same suggestion.
It is not my perception that your primary goal is to attack Melvin Harris. I believe that you sincerely wish to know his information. Though, perhaps, to disprove it. Yes, I do get the impression that there are those posting here who do indeed relish the opportunity to discredit Melvin, and that that is their primary motive. This seems clear by their tone and by the fact that many of them only show an interest in the Diary when Melvin makes his infrequent posts. One doesn't usually petition for information by making insults. And it seems odd that those who believe the diary is a recent forgery would be so willing to send you to the gallows, as it were; something that I personally do not wish. But perhaps they honestly feel Melvin's information has no worth and that he is evading them. I don't share that opinion.
But honestly, I am a little more insightful than you must think. I can see how you must perceive the situation. You sincerely believe that Anne's story is true, and the diary is an old document. So, obviously, you have serious doubts about Melvin's information. Pehaps you believe you can show that it is wrong, since you evidently haven't accepted Melvin's other arguments. But where I think you & the others are mistaken, is that you believe Melvin is acting out of malice and not out of a genuine inability to reveal the information for professional & private reasons. This must seem wildly unfair to you, as though he is withholding the chance for you to vindicate Anne Graham. I, on the other hand, believe Melvin is being honest. By bringing this into the public forum, the effect has been to discredit Melvin Harris, whether this has been your intention or not. I've objected to this as being unfair, since the posters here haven't the faintest idea what Melvin's information entails and their slurs have been ridiculous and malformed. And presumably you can (or have) interviewed Mr. Kane. You are approaching this from the angle that Anne is telling the truth. No doubt Kane & A. N. Other will give you resistance. Will the posters here --who have vilified Melvin-- have access to the complete details of how they were approached & interviewed if you & Shirley return here to say that you don't believe that they were involved? That is an issue that has not been touched upon. In the past you have 'gone against the grain' by believing the testimony of Anne & Billy. I swear to you that I am not trying to be rude here; but you must realize that the consensus among the historians is in, and that you are the 'rebel' theorist. (Sorry) Maybe you can prove them all wrong, but it seems to me that ball is really in your court.
To some extent I tend to agree with Peter Birchwood's comment that Melvin might have made a mistake in letting it known that he had the information. But he has not --and this is plain from the archives--dangled this out, nor flaunted it. His focus has been clearly and overwhelmingly a study of the textual and forensic evidence of the Diary. And this is what is appropriate in a public forum.
It's an ugly situation, and I've lost my enthusiasm for studying the Maybrick case. Its my impression that the investigation went awry years ago, and now there will be bitter pills to swallow. But I've never posted here out of animosity. I wish you the best of luck, and hope this will be settled peacefully.
RJ Palmer. |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 24 February 2001 - 11:26 am | | What's ugly, R.J.P.? Melvin's been asked a question. Melvin won't answer it. There is no apparent reason why he won't. People have drawn their own conclusions and if those conclusions are unfavourable to Melvin then it isn't really surprising in the circumstances is it? And if people are going after Melvin's jugular (which I don't think they are), it is wholly beyond question that in similar circumstances Melvin would be doing the same and worse.
But none of this would be happening if Melvin would just name the newspaper or explain simply, honestly and without being rude, why he can't do that.
This is an excrutiatingly simple matter. All that's wanted is the name of a newspaper. The only person who is turning that request into the Spanish Inquisition is Melvin. |
Author: Alegria
Saturday, 24 February 2001 - 12:19 pm | | I am sorry Paul but I have to disagree with you on two points. First of all I do not believe that Shirley Harrison or Keith Skinner have as yet asked for the names of the newspaper or journalists. If I am mistaken please direct me to the post. They continue to ask to meet with Melvin and ask for him to reveal the forgers which he has said confidentiality precludes him from doing.
Second, Mel Harris has continually refused to answer the question. Any person paying attention to these boards knows that he will not answer the question. We are all free to draw our own conclusions from his continued silence and I am sure that most here have drawn negative ones. However, continuing to ask him for imformation that we know he will not provide IS badgering him. We know he isn't going to do it. It is time to stop belaboring the point and turn ourselves to more constructive things. |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 24 February 2001 - 01:23 pm | | Hi Alegria
First, you are correct.
Second, okay. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 24 February 2001 - 01:34 pm | | Hi RJ,
Melvin brought his theory into the public forum, and chose to drop in, "oh by the way, there is proof that I am correct, but I can't reveal it." I don't see the relevance of saying there was no flaunting, and if ever there was a mere 'dangle', to tantalise his readers and get them worked up, this was it - hardly any need to flaunt it.
But surely there is nothing wrong with asking all manner of questions, based on every bit of information Melvin has provided, whether dangled once, repeated a few times, or flaunted unashamedly. Even Melvin gives us permission to do so (good of him, I must say - gee thanks, Mel), but relieves himself of any obligation to come back with answers unless he has promised them. I never realised this was how debates worked - Melvin produces a theory, which he claims is already proven, then sits back, lets all the questions wave over him, choosing which ones he wants to address, and a very pleasant, polite and sincere gentleman, as you most certainly are, comes to his aid and actually criticises the questioners for their attitude.
I'm sorry, I just can't see the problem with Melvin agreeing to act in a normal, civilised fashion, and either agree to meet Keith and at least talk things through, or help Shirley to track down the wretched journalists who hold the missing key - or is it Monty Python's Holy Grail?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Sunday, 25 February 2001 - 07:09 am | | Bitter? Maybe only from Keith Skinner's point of view. I certainly have no ill-feelings towards him and have said several times in the past that I do not hold him responsible for the birth certificate problem and any suggestion that he was colluding with Anne Graham in the mid 1990's is risible.
I do not see any answer to my legitimate suggestion that the diary provenance as altered in mid-1994 (ie the Graham family provenance) was indirectly suggested by Messrs. Feldman and Skinner and I think that there is evidence to show that in Feldman's book and in the letter from Keith to Anne dated May 1994 which I published (with Keith's permission) earlier on these boards. Whether Feldman or Skinner should have thought back to their earlier communications with Anne Graham when she "confessed" in July 1994 that she had seen the diary about 1968 in her father's possession is a matter for them to consider. |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 25 February 2001 - 09:05 pm | | Hi Peter:
I have just spent several hours trawling in vain through old posts on the boards to try to find the letter from Keith to Anne dated May 1994 which you said you published (with Keith's permission) earlier on these boards and that you say indicates that Messrs. Skinner and Feldman may have inadvertently suggested to Anne her current line that the Diary had been in her family for years. Could I ask you either to post it here again, or else send it to me privately? Thank you so much.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 25 February 2001 - 10:05 pm | | Chris--
The Maybrick Diary Board: 'The Maybrick Diary', May 15, 2000, 12:55 PM.
RJP |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 26 February 2001 - 06:00 am | | Hi All,
Yes, it's a great pity that Peter did not think to spare Chris, and perhaps others, valuable time, when referring back to old posts, by giving full details of where to find them, or else re-posting them, particularly since he finds Keith's letter to Anne suspicious and relevant.
If Anne only found sufficient inspiration to invent her new provenance in July 1994, as a result of the research methods of Feldy, with Keith's trusty assistance, it beats me how anyone could think she had the inspiration, intelligence or imagination to help create the diary in the first place, then come up with, or go along with, the lame-brained 'man in pub handed it to Mike' story initially.
But then, I'm not the one arguing that Anne and Mike did it all for financial gain, without bothering to think up a better provenance until handed one on a plate, by a researcher who Peter is implying is rather dim. Perhaps he shouldn't judge people by his own standards.
Love,
Caz |
Author: E Carter
Monday, 26 February 2001 - 07:04 am | | I hope you don't mind this interuption. I have a quick question for Shirley Harris. If you know how to read the graffiti, I believe it makes sense. First put the letter 'B'at the begining of Blamed up in line one next to the 's' of wes, I will explain why later. Now take the last 't' in the word 'that' in line two, then read back up to the second 'h',in the word 'the', in line one. Now read down to the 'e' in the word 'the' below in line two. This spells the word 'the! If you carry on in a similar fashion, (you will find it takes a little time to understand how to change, the pattern, however, you will get the hang of it!), You will now read;'hate the jew the rat!' The possibilities of this being by chance are great indeed! Now, if you make a line down between the 'w' of 'juwes' to the letter 'f' in 'for'. Then make a second line from outside the second 's'in 'juwes' down to the 'm' in 'lamed'; make them at exactly the same angle as the capital letters 'J'and 'B' just to the left. Now cover over outside, and either side, of the four letters I have mentioned, the letter 'in' 'nothing' should be covered) up, to the outside, of the second 's' in wess, and read up.
You will read'for I am Will h wess'. The last letter of these words read downwards should also join up to spell shlm, this denotes 'complete' in hebrew! It is also tetragrammeron for 'shalom' the actual word written on the stone held above by Jochin and Boaz which is denoted by the J and B. Will Wess was his correct name; (not 'Will West' as written in some books) He was in Dutfields yard the night of the Stride murder, he went to the police station with Goldstein the next day. However, I do not think he is 'Jack The Ripper'. But the chance of a random graffiti making these two patterns alone is very high! Each letter combining to spell someone's entire name, is very high indeed! And particularly the way the B-l-a are seperate to make I am! That this person was at a murder site on the night of a murder is even higher! Why did James Maybrick not mention this in his diary, did he do it as a joke or were the patterns just by chance?
P>SJade I am sorting a few things out I will get back soon! Love ED>
P>S Shirley, the name wess obtains a second 's' by following instructions! I will explain in full if you wish! Here is a short explaination. B-lamed, for nothing, denotes move 'B' up in line with the arrows to the space in the top line. To obtain shabbat is then accomplished by reading forward, down across,up (the 'Capital' 'B' denotes 'two' 'B's, from the first 's'. Now, reading backwards down-up-down from the the letter 'a' in the word 'are'you will spell atbash. The arrow points at the letter'B',it's atbash counterpart is 's'. To understand the text of the prior message, remember to move onto the next word when the prior one has been used once! |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 26 February 2001 - 10:01 am | | Hi Caz and RJ:
Thank you so much for your help. I did read the Keith's letter after you directed me to Peter's post of May 15, 2000, after much frustrated looking through the posts for the whole of the second half of last year! While not a definitive indication that Anne Graham got her current story from this letter of Keith's of May 1994 there is, to my mind, at least the possibility that the seed might have been planted in Anne's mind that such a story might provide a more plausible provenance for the Diary.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 26 February 2001 - 12:00 pm | | Hi Chris:
I'm sorry that you had trouble finding the letter that I copied onto the boards last year and I thank RJP for pointing it out. I believe that I may not have mentioned which specific board it was on for which I apologise. In my post of 19/02/01 (16:11) I did say that Keith's post denying the existance of such a letter or telephone call to Anne Graham was on the 15th May 2000 and my reply which included the letter was on the same day. I should point out that the letter refers to a conversation between Keith and Anne on the day before the writing of the letter but doesn't tell us what was discussed. The conversation (telephonic) between Anne and Feldy was on the 20th July 1994 (...the Final Chapter, 1st edn. p146) where Feldy says: "I told her I'd bought the film rights to The Diary of Jack the Ripper. I'd paid for that and spent almost two years of my life employing people to ascertain the truth behind the diary. I was not going to let go now.
"I believe that you are connected to this diary," I told her. "I believe this has come from your family and I want to know the truth."
On the 23rd July 1994 Feldy met Anne and told her (p150 op. cit.) "I went on to tell Anne my suspicions that the diary had come through the family. I then showed her the page in Morland's book where he referred to Florence calling herself Mrs. Graham."
At some point during the week following that meeting, Anne visited Feldy and told him the story that began with her seeing the diary in her father's possession about 1968.
So there is I think firm evidence that both Keith and Feldy, possibly independently, both innocently introduced the idea of a Graham provenance for the diary on several occasions before the time when it became part of Anne Graham's diary story. It is of course perfectly possible that the diary really HAD been a Graham heirloom and the comments by Keith and Feldy were completely coincidental. Perhaps if we are allowed to inspect the tapes of Billy Graham's interviews that might assist us. |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 26 February 2001 - 12:03 pm | | Chris
I am not sure what difference Keith’s letter makes to anything. If Anne is lying then she got the idea for the lie from somewhere. It could have come from anyone, anywhere at any time. It may even have been an adaptation of the story the forgers originally planned to tell. But even if Keith had realised that his letter might have inadvertently sown the seed of the idea, what could he have done about it? I don’t really see what significant advances that thought could have made. What new avenues of research would it have opened up? Surely where Anne got it from is relevant only when she is shown to be lying, which as far as Keith is concerned has yet to be shown?
I mean, if Keith had unquestioningly accepted Anne’s story and claimed it had to be true because it was absolutely original, then one would perhaps have grounds for criticising Keith for not realising that he had in fact supplied the idea. But to my knowledge Keith never did and never has claimed this. He did not accept Anne’s story. He questioned her. He watched others question her. He studied her reactions to questions under all sorts of different circumstances. He debated the details with other people. In the end he believed her. And he still believes her. So what difference does that letter actually make? What difference would Keith not realising its significance have made. And unless I have missed Keith admitting it somewhere, who says he didn’t realise that possibility? |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 26 February 2001 - 12:04 pm | | | {image} |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 26 February 2001 - 12:08 pm | |  |
Author: Jade Bakys
Monday, 26 February 2001 - 12:37 pm | | Hi Ed
here you are, I posted this once but I can't for the life of me find where it has gone.
Would you give me an example of the sentence structure how many lines and where they are etc, on your copy, Ive been cut and pasting the syntax all over the place.
Thanks Ed when you have time I know you are busy
Love Jade
P.S. maybe we should take this back to the Anti-Semitism board, if you post a sample, post it there please thanks. |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 26 February 2001 - 12:57 pm | | Hi, Peter:
Thank you for posting what I assume is an image of the page from from the Sphere book containing the infamous Crashaw quote that somehow crept its way into the Diary. I also appreciate you pointing me to the passages in Feldman's book which appear to indicate that he may have inadvertently led Anne to her current story that the Diary had been in her family for decades. These passages in his book do appear to me to be more telling than Keith's letter, although in my opinion Feldy's line of enquiry and the letter could have reinforced each other in leading Anne down that path.
Hi, Paul:
I agree that it does not make a great deal of difference whether or not, if, as I assume, Anne is not telling the truth, she got the idea for the story from Keith's letter or elsewhere (e.g., from Feldy). I am not trying to apportion blame here nor to find fault with Keith, whose reputation for quality research and integrity speaks for itself. I am just trying to see a possible chain of events that may have led to the current story that Anne is telling. Just as all along since its first emergence a plausible provenance has been sought for the Diary, I think we can see that if Anne's story is false, this scenario with the two researchers telling her they were looking for a family link might account for why she suddenly came out with the "It's been in my family for years" story. Particularly so, given the pressure cooker atmosphere in which Feldy's research was putting her along with her family and friends. In other words, she may have sought the least line of resistance and given the researchers what she thought they were looking for--possession of the document with a family linked to the Maybricks, that is her Graham family was somehow (as Feldman began to think) connected to Florence Maybrick aka Graham. I am not saying this is the way it happened, and again I am not seeking to find wrong in Keith's actions, but I am trying to look closely at what may have occurred to bring us to where we are now in the Diary story.
Hi, Paul and Keith:
Let's talk about this and hopefully laugh over some pints at the upcoming Bournemouth conference on September 28-October 1. Maybe by then with any luck Melvin will have "named names" and we can watch the Diary sink into the sunset in the English Channel. 
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 26 February 2001 - 02:03 pm | | Hi Chris
There will be so much to do at the Conference that I doubt we'll give thought to the 'diary'. though I'd like to get both it and the watch there for people to see in the flesh, so to speak, but with such a lot else happening (if the plans come together), I think we'll just about get a moment for a swift half...
I’m sure you are not trying to find fault, but the subject may have been raised for that purpose. Nevertheless, wherever Anne could have got the idea from, assuming she got it from anywhere, I’m still not clear why Anne would have wanted to claim the ‘diary’ as an heirloom. Apart from getting Feldy off her family, how did that story advantage her? We’ve gone round those scenarios already though. But, as you say, maybe one day Melvin will name names. Not that I am asking him, you understand. I shouldn't want anyone to think that. Harassment and everything... |
Author: Stephen Powell
Monday, 26 February 2001 - 11:41 pm | | Dear Rips,
feldman or Skinner could not have given Anne Graham the 'idea' that she could be a family member of those concerned in the diary.
She told me that she WAS,in 1969.
I take it that most of you dont believe my true tale....that's just a shame,but never mind,the truth will come out.
and hey gang,dont send me any talk-down biff-bang about this,I'm just keeping you on the track.
keep well.
steve powell.
27/2/2001 |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 27 February 2001 - 01:55 am | | Hi Steve
Not disbelief, just keeping options open and kicking around ideas. There are some who will and do disbelieve you, of course, but the majority of folk, despite leanings one way or the other, are not determinedly committed to a conclusion, despite appearances to the contrary. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 27 February 2001 - 06:21 am | | Hi All,
Just a couple of points here.
Peter wrote:
Keith's post denying the existance [sic] of such a letter or telephone call to Anne Graham was on the 15th May 2000
I'm sure Peter would not seriously want to leave the impression that Keith told a deliberate lie. For other readers, who might easily take Peter's word for it, and not care to go trawling through the old posts (and to see exactly the same sort of suggestions being made by Peter, around a year ago, as he has made again on his return), perhaps I ought to quote Keith's actual words, adding my own emphasis to the one word Peter missed, evidently by pure coincidence:
Well, there is no suspicious letter or telephone call to Anne Graham, just as there is no tampered document.
Thanks, Peter, for giving us all the 'O costly...' quote, as it appears in Christopher Ricks's essay. It is indeed odd, is it not, that our penman/woman managed to make two rather obvious transcription errors, one in each of the two lines, even though the words stand out so clearly on the page? Martin Fido, on the 'Thoughts on the Diary' board, tells us that the actual phrase in Crashaw is 'Oh, costly intercourse of deaths,...', which perhaps needs clarifying, since the diary author also gives us 'Oh', yet both Ricks and Shirley, quoting from Crashaw on page 282 of her update, give us 'O'.
Hi Chris,
I'll pass on your message to Keith. But don't I get to laugh with you over some pints (or a Harvey Wallbanger) in Bournemouth? 
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 27 February 2001 - 08:12 am | | Another indication that Paul Feldman's theory that the diary had come from Anne had already started to crystalize before his first interviews with her is his reaction to Mike Barrett's confession in the Daily Post on 27 June 1994. In that article, Anne is quoted as saying 'He told me he got the diary from Tony Devereaux and that is all I know. He is now trying to get back at me because I have left him. The whole thing is an absolute nightmare. But I will fight like a tiger to protect myself and my family against anything he says.' I think any reasonable person would see that this was simply Anne wanting to avoid 'guilt by association' and was simply denying that she new anything about the diary, ie., 'AND THAT IS ALL I KNOW.' Mike had been threatening to make such a statement for sometime, remember.
But what was Paul Feldman's reaction when reading that statement by Anne? 'It was at that moment that I knew my instinct about Anne was right. Was it not Mike Barrett who confessed to a forgery? Why had Anne assumed Mike was getting back at her? If the damned thing was forged, then Mike had taken the rap. Inadvertently, Anne had deflected the attention from Mike on herself.'(p 177)
Or was it --more likely--that Paul Feldman had inadvertently deflected the attention from Mike onto Anne? Up until this point Feldman's genealogical theories all centered around James Maybrick. Now suddenly they shifted to Florie. And he knew of the 'Graham' alias from Morland's book in mid-May.
Steve --Since they diary contains information from a police list not published until 1987, and since there is no indication whatsoever that Florie had an illegitimate child with some bloke named Henry Flinn (that she dumped off to be raised by a blacksmith in Hartlepool) is there really any reason to believe Anne's story? |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 27 February 2001 - 09:25 am | | Hi, Caz:
O costly intercourse of diaries! Erm, of course, we can see directly from the Crashaw poem that it should be "O" and not "Oh" which the Diary writer wrote. And, yes, certainly I will have that Harvey Wallbanger with you at Bournemouth.
Hi, RJ:
I see in my trawl through the year 2000 messages looking for the old Birchwood post that I have made a change in my thinking, in that in the summer of last year I was all for rejecting everything Mike Barrett confessed to, and for thinking that he was an innocent dupe in l'affaire diary. However, the existence of the Sphere book in his possession, containing the very lines from Crashaw that appear in the Diary, which you all those months ago cited as evidence of his probable involvement in the forgery scheme, plus the Barretts' purchase of the little Red Diary of 1891 convince me that he must have had some involvement in the hoax even if he was not one of the main forgers. These items, plus the police list, which, as you rightly note, was not published until 1987 but is suspiciously echoed in the wording in the Diary, make it seem improbable that Anne's story that the Diary had been in her family since at least 1950 could be true.
Hi, Paul:
You asked, "Apart from getting Feldy off her family, how did that [new] story advantage her?" For one thing, the new story convinced Feldman and, as you know, Paul Daniel, the then editor of Ripperologist. So, the fresh story gave the Diary a new lease of life when it risked dying on its feet from a total lack of provenance. Here at least she was giving it a lineage of over forty years and, care of Feldman, a possible if very hazy "link" to Maybrick in the Florence Maybrick - Family Graham supposed connection that Feldman posited. The new scenario gave the document an aura of pseudo-legitimacy even if she would continue to say in her Radio Merseyside interview, which I have quoted here, that she knew nothing further about the Diary or where it came from, and that it was up to the experts to decide on its authenticity. I believe I pointed out months ago that Billy Graham's remark that the Diary writing was "tiny" would appear to pertain to the size of the writing as shown in the facsimile in Shirley Harrison's The Diary of Jack the Ripper and not to the size of the writing in the scrapbook that actually contained the Diary. This shows that Billy Graham may never have seen the actual Diary and never owned it. In saying he had years earlier seen the Diary after getting it from a relation, he was, in my opinion, simply backing up his daughter's untruth.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 27 February 2001 - 01:13 pm | | Hi Chris,
Erm, of course, we can see directly from the Crashaw poem that it should be "O" and not "Oh" which the Diary writer wrote.
This assumes Ricks was accurately quoting Crashaw. Martin Fido quoted Crashaw differently, so one of them must be in error. Which one? Erm, that was my point.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 27 February 2001 - 01:17 pm | | From Keith Skinner to RJ Palmer
Dear RJ
Yes, I do believe Anne Graham’s story and I do believe this document is old. But I am not fighting for that belief, just as I am not trying to defend a theory. I have no explanation for why this Diary was created. I do not know why it was, allegedly, in the possession of Elizabeth Formby or if there is any truth in the ‘Formby/Nurse at Battlecrease House’ connection. I am not fighting to vindicate Anne Graham. I just want the truth, even if that truth exposes me as being totally gullible and naïve, as well as professionally incompetent. It just doesn’t matter to me, although I would be concerned if my “bungling” were a consistent feature of my work and I was short changing clients. But if Melvin has cast iron proof, then it would be absurd of me to try and disprove it. Why would I want to do this RJ? I cannot emphasise enough that it is simply not important for me to be right.
I salute, as do others, Melvin’s study of the textual and forensic evidence of the Diary, but don’t lose sight that Melvin’s driving force is an attack on the way the Diary has been interpreted by Shirley Harrison and Paul Feldman. I am impressed but not overwhelmed by Melvin’s analysis. I certainly do not accept that, because Melvin has shown how the Diary could have been faked using modern sources, then this is what has to have occurred. It is only his opinion. It is only his hypothesis. In support of his hypothesis, Melvin has led people to believe that he has the vital evidence to prove his case. He may not have dangled or flaunted this knowledge in front of our collective noses, but he has drawn attention to it by what he has categorically stated. It therefore exists and people, rightly so, want to know its substance.
All Good Wishes
Keith |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 27 February 2001 - 01:19 pm | | From Keith Skinner to Chris George
Dear Chris
If I may just modify your understanding of my position regarding the historical status of the Diary…
Because I do not believe the Diary to be genuine, ie., written by James Maybrick circa 1888/1889, I would not wish you to think that I entirely dismiss it “as having no place in the real investigation of the Whitechapel murders.” Until we know for certain when this document was composed, it would, in my opinion, be historically irresponsible to disregard its Ripper content, especially in the light of Martin’s informed evaluation that…“This undoubted fact [Eddowes’ matchbox] was not in the public domain until 1987 so the journal is either genuine or a very modern forgery.”
This clearly conflicts with my own belief (not entrenched) that the Diary was created in the early part of the twentieth century. But I would refer you to the beginning of Feldman, Chapter 6, (page 82 hbk; page 91 pbk), for the whole of Martin’s quote, so you can assess it in context.
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 27 February 2001 - 01:21 pm | | Hi Chris,
After giving me that last message to post for you, Keith remembered a similar one he wrote, back in June last year, which may as well go up again now
By Caroline Anne Morris on Sunday, June 11, 2000 - 10:28 am
From Keith Skinner To Chris George & Stephen Stanley
Dear Chris and Stephen
Thank you for your observations and comments.
There is a point being overlooked here, which I believe is highly significant – and I’m curious as to why it never seems to be addressed.
If the Diary was produced yesterday, (ie. at any date after 1987), I would suggest there would be absolutely no “maddeningly intriguing historical puzzle” to try and resolve. The forgers would be known – and even if we were presented with an entirely new set of names as the culprits, I would personally find it more interesting and stimulating to debate Paul Begg’s forthcoming thesis, discussing Martin Fido’s socks, than waste one second fathoming out the practicalities of how the hoax was engineered.
But if the Diary was around pre-1987, then I think it is vitally important and imperative to account for it, because a proper historical reading of the document and – as I understand it – some of the scientific evidence and analysis, precludes the possibility it could have existed 50 years ago, or earlier. For it to have done so means it was written by the killer of several women in Whitechapel in 1888 – or somebody close to the killer – or somebody close to the investigation. And for some reason, the person being implicated is James Maybrick.
This concept, as I’ve previously written, is an extremely powerful one to embrace. The Diary, therefore, far from having very little to do with the Ripper, appears to draw us into the killer’s shadow.
So, unless expert opinion is wrong, then a majority consensus, designating the Diary a fake, must surely be absolutely certain it is a post 1987 creation and produce the irrefutable proof?
The experts stand their ground, apparently have no need to conclusively prove their case – and maintain that any further discussion is a time wasting exercise. Which leaves me no alternative but to constantly reassess and test my own belief that the Diary is not an amateurish modern fake and that Anne Graham’s story of provenance – consistent since July 1994 – is true.
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 27 February 2001 - 01:23 pm | | From Keith Skinner to Peter Birchwood
I’m encouraged to read that you now consider that suggestions of my working with “obviously altered” birth certificates and collusion with Anne Graham should be treated as risible. As far as I am aware, for reasons and motives only known to you, you are the only person to have ever inferred this is what I was doing. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 27 February 2001 - 01:24 pm | | Hi, Caz:
Martin Fido's erudition proves a constant marvel to me. However, in due deference to Martin, I think I am right in saying that 16th and 17th century versifiers such as Crashaw, possibly following on Classical usage, if Horace and Ovid indeed used "O" (?), would I believe have used "O!" rather than "Oh!" To quote Francis Scott Key, a well-known versifier on this side of the pond who wrote the words to a famous song, "O say can you see. . ." So I believe Christopher Ricks has the quote from Crashaw right. Besides, Christophers are always correct, as I am sure Christopher-Michael DiGrazia would be first to attest.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 27 February 2001 - 01:36 pm | | Hi, Keith:
It appears that Caz was busy posting the messages from you to me at the same time that I was writing my post to her about the Crashaw poem. Thanks for your response and your reitation that you do believe Anne Graham's story but that you are open to a reinterpretation if other facts are revealed to you. At this time I would just like to observe that the fact that Anne's story has remained the same since 1994 cannot, as I am sure you must agree, be used as an argument for its veracity. All it simply means is that she has stuck by that version of events and has not changed it. In fact due to the duplicity that occurred prior to her coming out with that story and her provable falsehoods about where the Diary came from, she would be rather foolish to deny the story now that she has told it, wouldn't she?
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Jade Bakys
Tuesday, 27 February 2001 - 02:28 pm | | | Eddowes matchbox is listed before 1987. It is listed in Gordon Honeycombes Black Museum (1982) summary of the case, as is the Cigarette case.(I have an original edition from 1982), although I know it has recently been re- released. However Honeycombes matchbox had cotton in it. However if Mr. Skinner would clarify that a tin match box had not been mentioned before 1987, then that is fine. But a matchbox is mentioned in 1982. However were cardboard matchboxes available in 1888, like swan or vesta? |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 27 February 2001 - 02:37 pm | | Hi All,
This question concerning Crashaw is something I at least know something about. I have to second Chris on this one. The line from the Crashaw's Mother of Sorrows poem undoubtedly begins with "O." This was standard practice indeed, as in the horrible lines,
"O dart of love! arrow of light!
O happy you, if it hit right"
from his To the Countesse of Denbigh (lines I am especially grateful did not appear in the diary).
Or, for the more fetishistic among you:
"O thou that on this foot hast laid
Many a kiss and many a tear."
from On the Wounds of Our Crucified Lord.
Finally, my job proves to be at least a little useful.
I am enjoying reading this discussion.
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 27 February 2001 - 05:26 pm | | Hi John,
You could be of use here, with a little query of mine. 
A question just occurred to me regarding the 'O costly...' quote, described by most people as very obscure.
(By the way, thanks to Chris and your good self for confirming the 'O' and the diarist's mistranscription.)
As obscure as it may be, could Christopher Ricks have chosen to single out the ‘O costly...’ lines because they are perhaps more familiar and memorable, to Crashaw scholars and fans, such as they are, or ever were, than other examples in the latter’s work? What I’m getting at is, if Ricks’s choice of Crashaw quote was an obvious one for him to put in the Sphere History of English Literature, might this lessen the coincidence of the diarist making exactly the same choice, but perhaps misremembering it, and writing it as ‘Oh...death’ instead of ‘O...deaths’?
RJ may see this as an example of being overly subtle - and most people will no doubt prefer the simple and obvious explanation - that a modern hoaxer saw the lines when the Sphere volume fell open at that page and, for the reasons given by Mike Barrett, lifted the first five words and copied them into the diary, managing to mistranscribe two of them. But it may just be something worth looking at in greater detail, since we have you with us, fingers crossed, as an objective observer.
Love,
Caz
|
Author: E Carter
Tuesday, 27 February 2001 - 05:39 pm | | For Shirley Harrison.
Shirley, if Maybrick was the Whitechapel killer he obviously deserves to be branded so! But it is a heavy burden for an innocent man;even a dead man! I will make my question simple!
If you read the graffiti from the 'h'in 'that' in a constant triangular pattern through to the'w'in 'juwes', it reads 'hate the jew'. This pattern occuring by chance would be rare . Is there anything in the diary that mentions the pattern. 'The juwes are the men that,hate the jew!
Best wishes ED. Jade I am sent ing you an 'e' mail now. Love ED. |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 27 February 2001 - 06:42 pm | | Caz,
I'm not sure I have a complete appreciation of what all is at stake here. So I'll give you a quickly formed answer about the literary aspect of your question and let you draw your own conclusions. First of all, the poem quoted by Ricks, as others have already mentioned, is one almost never included in anthologies that include Crashaw. I checked all of my British Literature anthologies and several anthologies of just the Metaphysicals and none of them included that particular piece. Even the several large Crashaw collections now available on the web do not include it. That does not mean, of course, it was ever in any way unavailable. Crahaw's collected works were all published by 1652 (three years after his death) and repeatedly reprinted. As far as I can tell from the page of the Sphere book posted in the discussion here (I have not seen the essay), Ricks is discussing Crashaw as a disciple of Herbert's. Crashaw's second collection of works, entitled Steps to the Temple clearly establishes him as a follower of Herbert's in many ways, although his work is consistently much more in the Italian tradition, much more violent and grotesque in its images that Herbert's, which has, as the Norton says of it, "a little streak of quaint and homely imagery." Crashaw, on the contrary is normally more excessive and sometimes grotesque and more heavily influenced by the Jesuit writers of sacred latin epigrams and by the Italian conceitist Marino, etc.. He is a more latinate and more extreme poet. Anyway, here's the point: In part because of his difficulty and because of his extreme nature, and in part because of political and historical decisions about the canon in the 18th Century, because, for instance, of the rise of Neo-Classicism and the dry, satiric with that often accompanies it -- Crashaw largely falls out of favor in England among literary scholars and readers by the beginning of the 18th Century. His revival does not actually take place until Eliot's rediscovery of the Metaphysicals and their "unification of sensibilites" in his "The Metaphysical Poets" in 1921 (his review of Herbert Grierson's 1921 anthology Metaphysical Lyrics and Poems of the Seventeenth Century). As far as I can tell, it's only after the 1920's that these poets fully re-enter the canon of Major English Poetry. With one notable exception: throughout the 18th and 19th Centuries, Crashaw did remain a somewhat popular poet among readers with a strong interest in Catholicism and the Catholic literary tradition and the more extreme versions of Catholic iconography. Catholic verse books often included Crashaw's work, though I do not know if the poem in question would have been included. The standard fare in anthologies under Crashaw these days, by the way, represents choices mostly descended from the post-Eliot re-constructions of the literary history of the 17th Century and therefore are made more often with regard to poetic conceits and structures than an explicitly religious manipulation of extreme language and images.
Consequently, by the times Ricks is discussing Crashaw in the context of Herbert and, perhaps, the Metaphysical Poets (a term that most current scholars of 17th Century poetry prefer to no longer use, since much of what we now know about their differences makes it both unweildy and too convenient at the same time) Crashaw's work has been rediscovered after more than a century and a half of relative obscurity except in specific cultural circles. I do not know why Ricks picks the "Costly Intercourse" lines. As I say, I have not read his essay and do not want to comment with any certainty on any possible reason for their appearance there. On the other hand, there is certainly plenty of reason why a Ripper (or a wannabe Ripper diary writer, of course) might find Crashaw more than interesting.
Consider this little epigram of his, based on his reading of a line in Luke 11:
Luke 11
(Blessed be the paps which Thou has sucked.)
Suppose He had been tabled at thy teats,
Thy hunger feels not what He eats;
He'll have his teat ere long (a bloody one).
The Mother then must suck the Son."
That, friends, is Richard Crashaw. Why do I not have a hard time imagining cruder versions of such lines scribbled in red ink on a smudged postcard?
Caz, as to whether the lines Ricks chooses would have been
"more familiar and memorable, to Crashaw scholars and fans, such as they are, or ever were, than other examples in the latter’s work?"
As far as I can tell, and my significant other agrees and she has published on Crashaw, I have not, the short answer is no. I cannot find any evidence that Ricks would have chosen these lines for any reason other than that he felt they illustrated his specific point about Crashaw and Herbert's work particularly well. There are several poems widely read and taught to students by Crashaw, (Flaming Heart -- On Our Crucified Lord, Naked and Bloody -- On the Wounds of Our Crucified Lord) but I have no evidence that the Mother of Sorrows piece is often among them.
Hope this helps in some way.
"Thee with Thyself they have too richly clad,
Opening the purple wardrobe of Thy side.
O never could be found garments too good
For thee to wear, but these of Thine own blood."
On Our Crucified Lord, Naked and Bloody
Richard Crashaw
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 27 February 2001 - 06:53 pm | | PS to Caz and anyone interested:
Just for fun, I checked my old 4th Edition Norton Anthology of British Literature, Volume 1 (circa 1979). I found the following assessment:
"Some new material has since been added from manuscript collections; and Crashaw has enjoyed, of late years, a genuine revival of popular favor, after long years of hostility, neglect, and, at best, condescension."
Make of that what you will.
--John |
Author: E Carter
Tuesday, 27 February 2001 - 07:19 pm | | The Juwes are
The men that
Will not
be B lamed
for nothing
Jade, I forgot to put it on your board, this is as near as I can get in type, hope to hear from you soon, love ED> P.S If the graffiti looks as if it has come out wrong, look at Jons,copy, the one he sent on the last message board. The text is the same. Love ED> |
Author: Joseph
Tuesday, 27 February 2001 - 07:32 pm | | Hello Mr. Carter,
I have been giving your hypothesis a lot of thought lately, more then I should really, I'm in the middle of studying for mid-term exams; I was wondering if you've ever tried contrasting intra-Judaic antagonist sects as potential authors of the Goulston St. message, i.e.Hasidim, reformed Judaism, or conservative Judaism et al, with your choice of author, Freemasonry. It seems a reasonable course of logic would include Jews themselves among those with a familiarity of Hebrew/Jewish mysticism. The fact that Hasidim has had periodic violent clashes with other branches of Judaism is not a secret. They hold as much potential as anyone else; wouldn't you agree?
Best Regards |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 01:59 am | | Hi Chris
I agree with what you say. However, it is an argument which presupposes that Anne wanted to keep the ‘diary’ alive. What evidence is there that she wanted to do that?
She had separated from Mike, the separation was messy and public, nobody knew where she was, she had to make a new career for herself and provide stability for Caroline, her daughter, at a crucial period in her education. She knew that almost everyone, including the police, believed the ‘diary’ to be a forgery, so what point was there in flogging this particular dead horse at a time when she was in a position to walk away from the whole debacle – which is effectively what she had already done - and concern herself with other far more weighty matters of immediate concern?
Surely the whole 'thing' Anne was going through at that time must weigh in the balance of our interpretations and at least suggest that the 'diary' would have been exceptionally low down on Anne's list of priorities. Without some sort of solid 'evidence' to suggest otherwise, I think the idea of Anne wanting to keep the 'diary' alive flies in the face of what is likely in the circumstances and what can be deduced from the facts of the story as we have them.
There is also a small half-formed secondary question about how Anne, if she forged the ‘diary’ with Mike, knew that Mike wouldn’t blow her ‘in the family for years’ story out of the water by coming clean with a coherent story about how the forgery was conceived and executed.
How did Anne know that her inheritance story wouldn't be refuted? |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 02:47 am | | To anyone concerned about my attributing 'Oh' rather than 'O' to Crashaw: I was quoting from memory. My complete Crashaw was among my books destroyed in a warehouse fire in 1980, and I have never replaced it. The 'Sancta Maria' is not in any of the anthologies I now own: I had to go to a library to look it up when the 'costly intercourse' quotation was finally identified. Ricks will without question be right and I wrong in this: he has always been a far more accurate scholar (as well as a more perceptive critic) than I, even though I succeeded him in the Andrew Bradley Fellowship at Balliol, and my first published article (on Thackeray's use of imagery drawn from the theatre) was written on his urging after I had discussed my ideas at a seminar he gave with W.W.Robson.
John - the epigram on the BVM's paps is in extraordinarily bad taste, even for Crashaw, don't you agree? ('The lamb' dipping his feet in the Magdalen's tears is pretty frightful, but not as bad). I'm sure nobody reads it without remembering it with a shudder. But I find it a little fine-drawn to think that this might have encouraged the Ripper or James Maybrick or an ungrammatical forger of the diary to find an alternative quotation from an obscure and by no means tasteless work of the same author an apt phrase to include.
Jade - there were also silver matchboxes: my father owned one, obtained in India. They could hold matches removed from the more plebeian card, just as silver cigarette cases were de rigeur in my young days.
Keith - doesn't your citation answer your question about why I reached my conclusion?
Martin Fido |
|
|
|
|
