|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
College course tackles the Diary
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
College course tackles the Diary
| | SUBTOPIC | MSGS | Last Updated |
 | Archive through April 01, 2001 | 40 | 04/01/2001 02:40pm |
| Archive through April 03, 2001 | 40 | 04/03/2001 09:34am |
| Archive through April 04, 2001 | 40 | 04/04/2001 02:28pm |
| Archive through April 05, 2001 | 40 | 04/05/2001 11:58pm |
| Archive through April 08, 2001 | 40 | 04/08/2001 10:03am |
| Archive through April 10, 2001 | 40 | 04/10/2001 09:54am |
| Archive through April 12, 2001 | 40 | 04/12/2001 10:07am |
| Archive through March 10, 2001 | 40 | 03/10/2001 09:28pm |
| Archive through April 16, 2001 | 40 | 04/16/2001 12:54am |
| Archive through March 15, 2001 | 40 | 03/15/2001 02:36am |
| Archive through March 19, 2001 | 40 | 03/19/2001 09:45am |
| Archive through March 20, 2001 | 40 | 03/20/2001 05:55pm |
| Archive through March 22, 2001 | 40 | 03/22/2001 09:28am |
| Archive through March 24, 2001 | 40 | 03/24/2001 09:43am |
| Archive through March 27, 2001 | 40 | 03/27/2001 01:00pm |
| Archive through March 30, 2001 | 40 | 03/30/2001 04:29pm |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 16 April 2001 - 07:09 am |        | | I guess I don't understand Keith & Shirley's observation. If Mike thought the Maybrick diary was genuine why would he need to see what a 'genuine' Victorian diary looked like? That sounds more like the behavior of someone who didn't believe the diary was genuine. I'm also not sure whether most diaries are dated. My experience is that they are merely blank books. What the second hand store sent Mike was more along the lines of a daily planner... |
Author: Karoline L
Monday, 16 April 2001 - 08:21 am | | RJ is quite right here - why would MB need to see what a real old Victorian diary looked like - if he believed he had a genuine Victorian diary at home, composed by James Maybrick?
This explanation only works if we make the a priori assumption the diary was fake and MB knew it was a fake.
But even so, it does not seem a particularly likely thing for our man to buy a quite expensive old diary - just to see what it looked like - when he could have gone to any museum or old MS room anywhere and got the same information without costing himself a penny.
I think on balance this is rather more implausible than the idea that a few amateur forgers might make a mess of getting themselves the right kind of diary - leave things to the last minute and generally screw up a little - which actually seems quite a predictable human muddled-up way for any one to behave, particularly when under some stress.
but I admit that's a personal view.
By the way - I'm not sure how common 'year' diaries were in the 19thC. Charles Dodgson's diaries (1855-98) were all written in ordinary unmarked, unruled, undated notebooks, and I suspect this was quite a common procedure.
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 16 April 2001 - 08:59 am | | I wonder why Mike didn't return the red diary when he found it was unsuiteable? And I wonder why Anne had to pay for it if the forgery was the work of a group? And if, perchance, Anne had to pay for it because Mike acted without the agreement of the group, why did he buy it?
And I still wonder whether the forgers would have contacted Doreen Montgomery without even having a 'diary' book to write in. How easily would the man in the street think it was to buy a Victorian diary? And since the 'diary' as written (it is being supposed that when the red diary was bought the 'diary' itself existed only on Mike's word processor)wasn't really a diary, but was more of a journal that wouldn't have fitted into a day-by-day diary anyway, I wonder why Mike was trying to buy a diary?
Maybe Keith's suggestion makes more sense to those who know Mike? Even if Mike believed the 'diary' genuine, maybe he simply wanted to make sure so that he could add a little more fuel to his selling pitch? |
Author: shirley harrison
Monday, 16 April 2001 - 10:39 am | | Martin - thank you. That was a percipient and generous summary of some of the key players dealing with the discovery of the diary. I am grateful. Not that you will shake me off course!
……………………………………………………………………………………………….
Karoline. The red diary. I have posted this information ages and ages ago, I am sure…but here it is again. A letter to me, dated 23.6.99 from Martin Earl of H.P Bookfinders in Bledlow ridge, Bucks, says:
"I can confirm that in 1992 we had an inquiry from a Mr Barrett who asked us to locate a Victorian Diary.
We did locate such a diary for 1891 and that was supplied to Mr Barrett on March 26th 1992.
I can also confirm that as far as I can recollect we were advertising in the Yellow pages at that time & it is quite possible that Mr Barrett obtained our details from that source.
I can also confirm that this type of request is unusual. As an out of print Booksearch company the majority of inquiries are for published out of print titles."
……………………………………………………………………………………………
Chris. Yes. Tony Devereux could read, but according to his sisters, didn't. My own experience years ago of those working "on the stone" in the newspaper business was that they were always technically skilled but not necessarily cerebal or literary.
……………………………………………………………………………………………….
As for that fascinating account of how the Barretts "brought the good news" from Liverpool to London….I wish I could be so sure of what happened behind the doors of Goldie street. Maybe we should run a competition for the most ingenious storyline? |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 16 April 2001 - 01:58 pm | | As Karoline has said it is important to be able to verify the name of the booksellers who supposedly supplied the diary and I thank Shirley for doing so although I can't remember the information being displayed here before. The Harrison/Skinner post previously quoted says of that bookseller "They cannot recall if he (Mike) asked for an unused diary but they confirm that the request was extremely unusual and that it would have taken them two or three weeks to fulfill." Now if they can't remember whether Mike asked for an unused diary, can we be sure that Mike didn't ask for one for the correct year/s? As Keith and Shirley say "We do not know if Mike specifically ordered an 1888/9 diary."
It was after all some time after the sale that the booksellers were located and spoken to by Shirley or Keith and it would be hard to imagine that this sale even if unusual would have stayed in the mind for so many years. Is it probable that the information given here is digested from the records of that bookseller rather than personal memories? From Shirley's recent post (Thank you) this seems probable. Presumably the bit about the late payment comes from the same letter? How about it taking two or three weeks to fulfill? And can we confirm that HP Bookfinders advertised in the Liverpool Yellow Pages?
It's of course odd that Mike mentions the size of the red diary but not the date being wrong in his "affidavit" but if we look at how this was reported in Skinner/Harrison op cit his words are: "When this Diary arrived in the post I decided it was of no use, it was very small." and it might be worth remarking that there are two parts to this sentence: "...it was of no use" perhaps meaning that it was the wrong year and "it was very small." meaning that it was too small to write in the already-composed diary.
RJP makes the point that: "My experience is that they are
merely blank books. What the second hand store sent Mike was
more along the lines of a daily planner" which is true; what we would now call a "pocket diary" which is more suitable for appointments or notes.There are of course Day-to-a-page diaries which could have been large enough to write the diary in but would have been year-dated or blank bound notebooks which would be more suitable for a gentleman keeping a journal. Maybe the fault was in not being more specific in ordering the thing. Incidentally, £25 still seems an awful lot of money to pay for the Victorian equivalent of a Letts Pocket Diary. Can we have confirmation and if possible documentary proof that the £25 cheque was actually for this rather than some other book? Also, why pick a bookfinding service so far from Liverpool? Most antique shops or bookshops can arrange this sort of service although maybe Mike didn't realise this. Paul Begg asks 1/:" . How easily would the man in the street think it was to buy a Victorian diary? " Reasonably easy considering how many have been sold over the years.
2/ "And since the 'diary' as
written (it is being supposed that when the red diary was
bought the 'diary' itself existed only on Mike's word
processor)wasn't really a diary, but was more of a journal
that wouldn't have fitted into a day-by-day diary anyway, I
wonder why Mike was trying to buy a diary?" I would suggest that the idea in the beginning was to write "The Diary of Jack the Ripper," and therefore a Victorian diary would readily come to mind.
Karoline's post regarding the solicitors letter should tell us that substantial sums were being made from the diary for both parties and that not only was AG hoping that she would get some money, she was intent on making sure that she got it. |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 16 April 2001 - 02:53 pm | | Hi, all:
"When this [the little Red] Diary arrived in the post I decided it was of no use, it was very small."
For what it's worth, note that this statement by Mike Barrett is constructed like the two-part statements written in the Diary, with run-on thoughts which I previously singled out. For example,
"Time is passing much too slowly, I still have to work up the courage to begin my campaign."
"My mind is clear I will put a whore through pain tonight."
"I cannot stop shaking, my body aches."
-- and so on.
I am not saying this proves Mike wrote the Diary, as he claims he did, but it may be an indication that he could have written it. As Martin has noted, the Mike Barrett of today may have been a very different man to the Mike Barrett when the Diary was being composed.
I also think that Keith's personal diary note of May 31, 1995, quoted by Caz in her post of Saturday, April 14, 2001 at 12:38 pm is very telling:
"Anne said that the transcript [of the Diary] was made after they were in a 'go' situation. It was done fast. Mike’s typing was hopeless so Anne had to redo it. Mike read it [i.e., from the Diary] and Anne typed it [i.e., the original transcript] checking back against original, every so often, as she believed that it should be same as original."
The use of the term "'go' situation" seems to reveal a very different Anne Graham than the Anne that Keith says he came to like and trust. Hardly the Anne who seems disinterested in the Diary that she projects in public but an active partner in an operation with a specific objective--to place the Diary with a publisher. So it would seem that the Anne of that date, as with Mike, is not the same person that Keith and others saw later.
Just some thoughts on a drizzly day in Washington, D.C.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 02:23 am | | Peter
As I pointed out, any financial benefits resulting from the 'diary' could have been revealed to Anne's solcitor in the natural course of discussing monies due to Anne from any joint possessions. Anne may neither have informed the solicitor of the money with a view to obtaining it nor specifically have asked the solicitor to secure her share. A solicitor can and does act in the best interests of his client and Anne's would naturally have advised her and taken steps to lay claim to whatever monies were rightfully hers. Isn't saying that “not only was AG hoping that she would get some money, she was intent on making sure that she got it” therefore (a) an assumption and (b) prejudicial. Which is not to say it isn’t correct.
Regarding the ease with which a red diary could be obtained, you can say that the forgers would have thought purchasing one would have been "Reasonably easy considering how many have been sold over the years.”
How many Victorian diaries have been sold over the years? Where did the information about sales come from? Do you have specialist knowledge about the sale of Victorian diaries gained through your work? Have you done research to see how easy it is to obtain a Victorian diary? Or is the frequent sale of blank and partly used Victorian diaries a piece of general knowledge gained from reading The Sun that has somehow escaped me?
I am not being facetious. I have no idea how easy it would be to buy a Victorian diary. Instinctively I would have thought it difficult. Furthermore, since my knowledge of diaries is derived from experience of modern ones, I’d have assumed that Victorian diaries were dated. I would therefore have thought that obtaining a Victorian diary would be difficult and that obtaining one for a specific year would be doubly so. This is what I think based on what I know. So am I unusual in thinking this? I’m not sure that I am. And I think that an ordinary person would probably think the same and would obtain a suitable diary before trying to sell their forgery to a publisher and not leave purchasing it to the last minute, giving rise to this franctic scouring of bookshops and auction houses that has been advanced. That’s why I ask whether a group of ordinary people with, as far as we know, no specialist knowledge, would have left purchasing the necessary diary to the last minute. |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 02:39 am | | Hi Chris
Isn't rather a lot being read into the words 'go situation'?
The story as we have it is that Mike planned to see if he could get the 'diary' published. We're told that Mike and Anne discussed this - in fact, argued about it - then Mike phoned a publisher, then an agent and the agent asked him to meet her - they were in a 'go situation', it wasn't speculative anymore, they had an appointment. Wow!
I mean, 'go situation' sounds awfully dramatic, but for someone not involved in publishing and whose knowledge of publishing might have been based on nothing more than having heard various writers tell on Parkinson how difficult it was to get published, to actually be blessed with an appointment to see a literary agent was dramatic. I can see someone getting excited about that, being dramatic. |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 06:03 am | | Chris - I like your stylistic scrutiny.
Martin |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 06:47 am | | Hi Peter,
You wrote:
We therefore may have a point where Mike is scurrying around antique shops, auctions etc. looking for something more suitable and realising that he's got a date with an enthusiastic agent in less than two weeks and although he knows what is going to be written (because it's on his wp) he hasn't got anything to write it in. Is it this situation that gives rise to Anne's comments previosly quoted referring to a degree of urgency but reversed in that the diary is being handwritten from the transcript?
So, are you saying here that you still think Mike could have been the penman? Or that Gerard Kane was brought in as a matter of urgency to write in the scrapbook from the diary text on Mike's wp, once it was a 'go situation'?
And how does this correspond with what Martin has written, that the copy (of the transcript) he received from Keith in 1992 looks like it was made from the completed diary, and not the other way around? And with what Keith has said, that this transcript was the original, the same one Anne said she made for Mike, to give very early on to Shirley and co, which was stored and left on the wp, and presumably found during the police enquiries?
We could certainly ask Anne what made her go from trying to destroy the diary, when Mike initially planned to go public with it, to helping him make a transcript of it, when his meeting with the agent was going to go ahead, whether she liked it or not. However we view the situation, I can see how Mike - and Anne, however much she might have given the impression that she didn't care about the diary - would have thought it important, or at least desirable, to make an accurate transcript of it, before handing it over to complete strangers, once the decision had been made to go public.
Incidentally, I'd like to remind everyone of the following quote from Ripperana no.9, of July 1994:
Mr. Kane was a great personal friend of Tony Devereux's for the last 10 years of his life, living humbly with his wife, in a Council bungalow.. He, too, was interviewed in the exhaustive Scotland Yard enquiry, and duly eliminated.
So, does anyone think it might be worth concentrating on finding some link between Kane and the Barretts, after Tony D's death, that the police may have missed, or not thought of looking for themselves?
Hi Karoline,
Of course, I will continue to let Keith have all the posts on the diary, including your own - it will be a pleasure.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 07:24 am | | Shirley - thanks so much for the information regarding the names of the retail outlet that sold MB the red diary. I think I'm correct is saying this hasn't been published before.
Just generally to recap - the questions that need answering currently (as I see it) are:
1. the purchase date of this red diary. (now Shirley has kindly provided the retailer's name, this can be double checked).
2. the source of the transcripts that were sent to MF, PB and KS. Can Keith provide any documentation to confirm that these were definitely taken from MB's computer?
I would be very interested in seeing a copy of one of these transcripts - would any of the three gents mentioned above feel able to let me have one?
Beyond this, I think it would be a very interesting thing study a few aspects of how this issue has been handled over the last ten years - to see if it sheds any light on the current situation.
An interesting question to ask would be - has the controversy surrounding this item arisen naturally as a result of itself - or has it been fostered by misapprehensions and mispresentations of the key facts? Is it a real controversy? or a mythic one?
A few days ago RJP suggested a kind of event 'timeline' which might help elucidate the how and the when and the why of this whole ten year debacle. I really think this is a very forward-looking suggestion which should be followed up.
Another idea might be to compare the results of the original scientific investigations with the various 'interpretations' of those results in various books, articles etc. - so that we can gauge whether those interpretations have clarified the situation or inadvertently made it seem more ambiguous or murkier than it really is.
I'm currently putting a few notes together on this subject (since I'm not actually working for a living at the moment I have the time to faff around like this!), and I'll post them here for consideration in due course.
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 07:32 am | | Hi Caz:
Re: Kane -
it's my understanding that no one was 'eliminated' or otherwise by the police enquiry. I believe the enquiry itself was simply halted - because there was effectively no 'crime' to prosecute.
Is this true, or do I have the facts wrong here?
Karoline |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 08:01 am | | Karoline
I'd be happy to let you have a copy of my tanscript - if I can find it; you will appreciate that it was upplied to me a long time ago and you have no idea how much paperwork the Maybrick business has generated! I also produced by own transcript for my computer (as was) and tended to use that, since it coule easily be (and was)annotated. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 10:09 am | | Hi, Paul:
I am curious to know how the crossed-up passages of doggerel are shown in the transcript, a point, I believe, that John Omlor also thought would be of interest. I almost think that it would be easier to write scratched-out lines longhand as they are shown in the Diary, than to conceive of struck-out lines in a word processing program. On the other hand, as I have said before, the deleted lines, to me at least, have an artificial quality as if they are not spontaneous and are meant to be read which might imply that as they appear in the Diary is not the first time they were written down or recorded (if first on a computer).
All the best
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 11:04 am | | Hello all,
Yes, Chris, I had the same question in my head. If the diary was transcribed onto the word processor after it was acquired from elsewhere but before (or around the same time) it was taken to Doreen's, how did the typist note on the screen the crossed out lines? I agree of course that when reading the diary it seems clear that we are intended to see these lines, that they are to be both erased and visible at the same time, so that we can get a glimpse at a psyche in action -- a rather cheap and easy trick to avoid the problem of character development if you ask me, a sort of cheating to avoid the problem of what someone might not say in his diary and therefore what the reader would otherwise be unable to see. Obviously, this was no Henry James or even James Joyce; this "James" wrote and scratched for our entertainment.
If, on the other hand, the diary was composed on the word processor before being written longhand (and I do think it was at least composed somewhere before being copied finally into the book), then how would the composer indicate, on his original on-screen work, the lines to be scratched through on the page, or was that decision made at the time of the scrivener's work?
And I still can't figure out why, if it was originally composed on the word processor and then copied into the book, the diary would then even be allowed to remain on the word processor once the book was finished. All that incriminating evidence that would have been no longer of any use once the book was done could have been discarded forever with a simple keystroke or two. Yet there it sits. To me, this at least suggests it's possible that perhaps the thing was typed up after the book was in hand. Perhaps not. In any case, this doesn't seem to bother anyone else.
Since I am back, I thought I'd offer another thought. It is becoming clearer that the red diary purchase, which I believe we have seen took place in March of '92, might at least possibly have been part of Mike's own amateur attempt to figure this book out once he got hold of it.
I would not base much of anything on Mike's statements, of course (after all, isn't he supposed to have died a while ago, or at least have gone undercover with the CIA?), but Shirley's pararaph describing Mike's initial attempts to deal with the diary do not seem out line or unreasonable on their face; they certainly do not sound like the flights of insistent fancy we see in the prose of The Final Chapter.
Here's the paragraph in question from the Hyperion edition of Shirley's work:
"Mike bought a word processor and launched himself into extensive research, intending to write the story of the diary himself. He spent hours sifting through microfilm newspaper reports in the library. Night after night he read and worked, while Anne more and more regretted the day the diary had appeared in their home. Mike recalls: 'I haven't had a proper night's sleep from that day to this. I've eaten and drunk the diary. It virtually destroyed my life and my marriage, though thank goodness Anne has the patience of a saint and she has seen me through it.'
*****************
But Mike was out of his depth and he knew it." (7)
Well, of course, times change. Perhaps Anne's patience finally wore away.
But here's the thing that sticks in my head. This is a purely gut reaction and not intended as evidence of anything at all. Please note: these are neither facts nor conclusions -- merely visceral reactions.
If I had gotten this book from wherever -- if I , as Mike claims, had been given this book -- and then took it home and read it, I suspect my first inclination would also be to start researching the thing like mad, even if I did not know what the hell I was doing. I would head for my computer and my library and I would start reading everything and I would get compulsive about it (as I sometimes am about almost everything I do ) and it would drive me nuts and I wouldn't sleep well for a while and I would treat my significant other badly and not pay proper attention and I would finally realize I needed professional help and seek out a publisher or a researcher or an author (and maybe a good psychiatrist) and see what I should do with the thing. I would eventually settle down and go about the process more deliberately and more methodically and with an eye towards my own profit, no doubt. But my first reaction, I think, would be an excess of energy and obsessive time devoted to seeing what I could find out and what I could discover.
Mike's not me, of course, and this all means very little, really. But it at least seems like, as they say, a "reasonalbe" response.
Now this leads to the diary purchase. I know Mike finally took the Maybrick diary to Doreen in the Spring of '92, but I can't remember the exact date (can someone help me here?) This is around the same time the red diary was purchased. I guess the story being told by Mike and Anne at one point was that as part of this compulsive explosion of inquisitive research, Mike decided he should see what a real Victorian diary looked like and, not being able to find one around, he ordered one -- only to find out it was nothing at all like the one he had in his hands. What those who are claiming Mike wrote or helped write the diary are suggesting is that it had not been copied in final form into a book yet and this purchase was a last minute attempt to buy a book to copy the words into, which , when it failed, left them scurrying to find an alternative whereupon someone located the photo album type thing and they copied into that and rushed it off (apparently rather quickly) to Doreen's.
I hate to be a pest again, but I don't see that one of these scenarios is yet any more believable or reasonable than the other and I still don't see any material evidence that would compel me to choose one over the other as an accurate reading of what happened between, say, the beginning of March and the day Mike walks into the office carrying the Maybrick book.
But I'll keep reading and enjoying everyone's labors.
Thanks,
--John
PS: Martin -- Actually most of the talks at that session were on Julie Taymor's recent film version of Titus, which I frankly enjoyed and found rather interesting in several ways, and which of course starred our very own James Maybrick-to-be (at least that's the rumor) Sir Anthony Hopkins.  |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 12:15 pm | | Ah, yes, John. Quite bad scripts can be doctored into quite good films. Unfortunately quite good scripts can also be doctored into quite bad films. (Mr Begg, I think likes them that way. One of his postings suggests that he's looking forward to Jeames Yellowplush's version for Time-Warner-AOL of The Clyster and the Health: a treatise written by Dr Anderson when he lodged with Charles Reade). I'm glad Shaxpur didn't have Cecil B. De Mille as an alternative to the Chorus in Henry V.
Martin |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 12:27 pm | | Gasp!
Martin! I told you that in confidence! |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 01:28 pm | | Hi Karoline,
That will be great if you can spare the time to put a few notes together and post them for consideration in due course. I am actually going to be rather tied up in the coming weeks with my husband's company accounts (grrr!), so any help with clarifying the diary situation will be very much appreciated by me. I cannot emphasise strongly enough, however, how important I feel it is for everyone posting to remember to draw a strict line between fact and opinion (however expert that opinion is considered to be), so that the distinction is made crystal clear for every reader.
I can't vouch for the accuracy of the quote from Ripperana, about Kane being eliminated from police enquiries into the diary. Maybe yours is the sort of question that was asked and addressed when the magazine was first published. I wasn't on the scene in those days, so perhaps someone else can help here. The article, from which my quote was taken, was written by The Editor, in cooperation with the family of the late Mr. Tony Devereux.
Have you seriously not thought that Melvin ought to be able to save you, or others, all that time and trouble of going back over 'this whole ten year debacle', by simply revealing the proof that either Anne or Mike knew the diary was a modern fake when it was first brought to London? Even if you think Melvin may have good reasons for not giving Shirley and Keith the information himself, is there any reason you can think of why he would not pass Shirley's letter on to the newspaper editor, and let the latter decide what to tell Shirley?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Karoline L
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 03:38 pm | | There's a curious discussion going on at the Lewis Carroll suspect site. It's not a discussion I want to get involved in (because to be frank the whole idea of LC as the ripper is just a little too nuts to be worth wasting time on) - but it does seem to give interesting insights into the different methodologies being employed here - and the possible mutual confusion they have generated.
On that board there is a gent claiming that LC is a very good ripper suspect - and here is how he defends his belief:
"To suggest that Dodgson is not a viable candidate because his case can not be proven, rather than disproved, is to create a logic
that would equally discredit Maybrick and his counterparts.
Until someone presents cold hard facts he deserves as much consideration as any Ripper suspect."
Note the words - "Until someone presents cold hard facts he deserves as much consideration as any Ripper suspect."
In effect he is saying that because no one has proved LC wasn't JTR he deserves to be considered as equally likely a suspect as - say - Tumblety or Druitt.
Of course this is nonsense - because it denies the significance of positive evidence, and seeks to blur the distinction between possibility and probability.
LC was a white male, alive at the time, and he wasn't in Borneo or somewhere on any of the significant dates, therefore he remains (I suppose) a remotely possible candidate for the ripper.
But he cannot be considered as anything like as probable a suspect as Druitt or Tumblety - because of the small but significant fact that there is not one piece of evidence to show he had anything to do with the crimes in any way.
Ergo, while in fairness one cannot say he has been proved not to be JTR, one must also allow that until some evidence is found to connect him with the crimes in any way, the vast probability is that he was not.
However - John Omlor would argue (indeed I suspect he is about to do so on that very board!) that this conclusion is faulty.
He would argue that data connecting LC to the ripper murders might be out there and we simply haven't found it.
He would further say that since the data connecting LC with the ripper murders might turn up tomorrow or next year, we can't presently infer anything based on its absence.
Now I suggest that both John Omlor and the gent on the LC board are both guilty of the same rather basic methodological (or even semiological) fallacy.
They base their entire philosophy of deduction on their belief that nothing can be inferred from the absence of evidence.
But this is a false belief. For of course we can infer something from the absence of evidence. We can infer that the evidence isn't there. And for as long as it continues not to be there, we can continue to infer it isn't there. And the continued non existence of this data in itself tells a story.
It's perfectly true that one day evidence might turn up to connect LC with the Whitechapel murders - just as one day evidence for almost anything might turn up.
But that doesn't mean we should proceed on the assumption that it's just as likely to as not. Nor that we should presently refrain from drawing conclusions based on the present absence of that data.
For as long as there remains no data to connect LC with the Whitechapel murders, then we can infer that he almost certainly wasn't connected with them - and this will remain the only reasonable inference unless or until some data to suggest otherwise does turn up.
John has employed the same kind of reasoning here to claim that the absence of any evidence suggesting the 'diary' was faked by an unidentified person or persons and then given to the unsuspecting Barretts can not be used to infer such persons did not exist.
But, as with the LC argument, this is counter to basic deductive reasoning.
The fact that no one has ever identified any people beside the Barretts (and possibly one of their friends) who owned the diary, or who even saw the diary, is powerful evidence for the probability that no one but the Barretts ever did see or own it before it appeared on Doreen Montgomery's desk.
This doesn't mean we stop looking at or for other possibilities - but it does mean that until any data is discovered that shows the 'diary' had ever been seen prior to 1991, or that anyone other than MB and AG can be shown to have owned it, handled it or even seen it before April 1992, then AG and MB must by default remain right in the centre of the frame as being central to the forgery.
If we deny this basic reality, then I think we are denying a central factor of all reasoned and rational thinking.
I suggest that is unwise.
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 04:33 pm | | John will no doubt reply on the question of logic and reasoning, but I would point out that if from the evidence a reasonable case can be made that neither Mike nor Anne forged the 'diary' themselves (i.e., it's not in their handwriting) then one can infer that someone else penned it on their behalf or that they were given it by someone else and may or may not have known it was a forgery.
Also, Mike claimed that he was given the 'diary by someone else, namely Tony Devereux, and we know of some slight evidence to support Devereux's involvement (i.e. his possession of Mike's W-Egan book), from which we could infer that Mike was given it by Devereux or that Deverux was involved in the forgery.
One isn't therefore speculating wildly on no 'evidence' that maybe Mike and Anne got the 'diary' from someone else. This is a hypothesis emerging from an analysis of the available data. |
Author: Karoline L
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 04:56 pm | | Paul
It's true - the handwriting doesn't resemble AG's or MB's- but it does resemble that of G Kane - a known associate of the Barretts.
And the Devereux story isn't data - it is hearsay. The distinction is quite important.
There is no documentation or hard data of any kind to show the diary ever belonged to anyone but the Barretts - even the handwriting appears to tie it in to their circle of aquaintance.
Therefore all hypotheses that begin with the supposition that anyone but the Barretts ever owned the diary or inherited the diary, or even saw it in a tin box is entirely speculative.
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 07:12 pm | | Hi Karoline,
First things first. I posted to the Dodgson board only to correct what I read as an unfortunate mischaracterization of what "semioticians" would do and what semiotics, as a method of reading, would do and would not do. I think I made that point clearly, but if you want to go there and read my post carefully, I'd be happy to accompany you. It said nothing at all about Dodgson being a suspect or about the evidence for or against Dodgson nor about this entire issue whatsoever. After Seth responded that the semiotic essays to which he was referring did not in fact claim anything at all about Dodgson's mind (which I had suggested would be out of bounds for semiotic analysis) and that he was merely offering his own speculations after reading some of those essays and not claiming that they offered such speculations, the matter was settled and clarified to my satisfaction and I sent a post to Seth saying this. That was my only interest in that discussion.
You know, there really is something to be said for careful, close, and patient reading, even here on these boards.
You then write the following, concerning Dodgson:
"But he cannot be considered as anything like as probable a suspect as Druitt or Tumblety - because of the small but significant fact that there is not one piece of evidence to show he had anything to do with the crimes in any way. "
And you know what? I agree completely and utterly and totally and 100% with this sentence.
Surprised? You shouldn't be. I have been saying precisely this concerning the case to be made against Mike or Anne in the actual forging of the diary. I have been simply asking over and over again for a single piece of material, physical evidence connecting Anne or Mike to the composition or creation of the forgery. As Martin has recently noted, so far, such evidence remains to be produced. All we seem to have is analysis of after the fact behavior and speculations that seek to interpret that behavior to establish complicity. This is not evidence. We can argue forever about mathematical degrees of likelihood concerning the interpretations of such behavior (such as Mike's lies about his owning a word processor or his transcription of the diary onto a disk for whatever purpose); but we have no physical, material, or first hand testimonial evidence of forgery yet with only one, it seems to me, possible exception -- and that is the link between the Crashaw line in the diary and the Barrett's ownership of the Sphere volume. The diary purchase now seems at least readable as part of an obsessive burst of investigation upon acquisition and the disk with the transcription now seems readable as a part of the process of preparing to take the diary to Doreen's and getting out copies of it. I would not insist on either of these readings, but they seem to me just as likely as readings that infer complicity. And so they remain as only speculative evidence at best and not at all of the sort you are talking about when you distinguish Dodgson from Druitt or Tumblety. What you say about needing evidence is quite correct. We still need it in the case against Mike and Anne. Consequently, your original analogy between what is going on over at the Dodgson board and our analysis here seems to me clearly to be a misleading one too hurriedly arrived at and offering little in the way of help or of an advancement of the progress of our investigation.
Now to your logic:
Let's take this slowly.
You write, concerning me:
"He would argue that data connecting LC to the ripper murders might be out there and we simply haven't found it."
Actually, I wouldn't argue that at all. In the case of Dodgson, I would have nothing to say about the matter, since I have neither read the book in question nor am I particularly interested in what, so far as I know, is completely idle and random speculation that has not, at least here on these boards as I read them, shown any conclusions backed up by any evidence.
But you go on pretending to know what I would argue (and how you do this remains a mystery to me since you cite not a single word from anything I have written in the past about any subject whatsoever to support your speculations and consequently I am afraid that it is hard for me to take your reading of what you think I might say next very seriously at all -- but forward...). You write:
"He would further say that since the data connecting LC with the ripper murders might turn up tomorrow or next year, we can't presently infer anything based on its absence."
Yes we can. We can infer that it is absent and that unless we are particularly interested, there doesn't seem to be much good reason to go looking for it. That satisfies me. At least until someone shows me otherwise. Is this not a responsible inference? Can we also infer that Dodgson was not the Ripper? Sure. But not only on the "absence" of data, but on the proliferation of data we have that he was not, including, I suspect, biographical data to be found in your own book, no? Why bother inferring anything on an absence when we can infer like crazy on the presence of data? Unfortunately the "data" offered so far linking Anne and Mike directly to the forgery is completely and utterly of a different nature than the biographical data we have about Dodgson and it is clearly not enough to establish an inference that they were involved (the way the data concerning Dodgson is enough hard, physical and material evidence to conclude that he was not the Ripper). So once again it seems your analogy is a slippery and misleading one and your speculations concerning what I would argue are horribly mistaken and once again without any supporting evidence or citations from my own writing. By the way, if you conclude this about what I might say elsewhere and in the future and do so without offering any supporting evidence to back up your supposition, then it's no longer a mystery to me how you can so quickly rush to claiming Mike and Anne to be complicit in the forgery, or that this complicity is established "beyond a reasonable doubt" also without a single piece of material or physical evidence to support this specific claim. I don't know if Mike and Ann are innocent or guilty of composing this diary, but I now know how they might feel reading your words on these boards if they know that the truth is different from your speculations. And, since you have not bothered to cite my writing or even read me closely in support of your speculations about what I might argue or what I might write on another board, I'm afraid I would be inclined to suspect your reading of the words of others, including Mike and Anne, to be similarly cursory and to be similarly unfortunate expressions of a desire to draw unestablished and unwarranted conclusions. This, it seems to me, places your reliability as a reader in some peril and I would think you might want to avoid such things.
But you go on:
"Now I suggest that both John Omlor and the gent on the LC board are both guilty of the same rather basic methodological (or even semiological) fallacy.
They base their entire philosophy of deduction on their belief that nothing can be inferred from the absence of evidence."
Once again, slowly, I am not offering a "philosophy of deduction." I am reading other people's deductions and claiming A.) that they are really inductions and that the difference is very important -- please rethink this choice of terms and B.) that they need more physical and material evidence than they have offered (or at least some evidence of this sort anyway) to support conclusions of complicity that they claim either to have established or to have made "more likely or probable."
I am not, as I hope you can see, basing anything at all on a "belief that nothing can be inferred from the absence of evidence." I have never claimed this as a simple or a complex premise nor do I even necessarily believe it. Again, I really wish you had bothered to cite my work when you make claims about what I believe. Reading involves actual words. Yours so far in this post have been caricatures attributed to me that I do not recognize. I do believe we can make inferences from absences, although I also do prefer to make inferences based on present data and evidence. I can infer that I should walk through the door rather than through the wall based on the absence of anyone successfully walking through the wall, but I would prefer to make the same inference based on watching people walk through the door. Again, I think this is a responsible position. It is certainly well rooted in the history of logic and epistemology (and, by the way, in semiotics as well, though this seems irrelevant).
You then announce rather triumphantly, it seems to me:
"But this is a false belief."
Yup. Too bad I never held it nor argued in favor of it. Too bad you have not cited me expressing it or explicitly suggesting it. Still, I suppose that should not deter you in your strange claims here. Why let reading get in the way?
"For of course we can infer something from the absence of evidence."
Of course we can. We do all the time. I'm almost ready to head out the door. I don't think Dogdson killed Mary Kelly. Both of these conclusions here were made from inferences drawn from both the absence of data and the presence of data. I think that is how thinking works.
But you go on, after saying "of course we can infer something from the absence of evidence.":
"We can infer that the evidence isn't there. And for as long as it continues not to be there, we can continue to infer it isn't there. And the continued non existence of this data in itself tells a story."
Absolutely. And what does this have to tell us about the "data" that isn't there concerning Mike or Anne's actually having written the diary or their first hand knowledge of its authorship? Can we infer, as your own logic here suggests, that since this data or evidence isn't there, that they must not be guilty of complicity in the forgery? Does the "non-existence" of physical and material evidence linking Mike and Anne to the act of writing the document allow us to infer that they did not write the document? Is that the "story" this absence of evidence is telling us? Are you actually arguing this logic? I cannot imagine that this is what you are suggesting. It seems unthinkable to me that you are now offering a logic that would suggest that we must refrain from making any claims concerning Mike and Anne's guilt since the absence of physical and material evidence tells us a different story and leads us towards a different inference (that is, "that the evidence isn't there," as you now put it)! And yet you have spelled it out yourself so clearly. You have made the very argument I have been making. Thank you for this. In fact, you have gone beyond me. You have gone too far, I think. Mike and Anne might still be guilty even though the physical and material evidence remains absent. I am not prepared to make the inference that this evidence "isn't there." And suddenly you seem to be, or at least this would be the logical conclusion of your summary which I cite here once again for the purposes of clarification:
"We can infer that the evidence isn't there. And for as long as it continues not to be there, we can continue to infer it isn't there. And the continued non existence of this data in itself tells a story."
Yup. I agree completely. And have been saying this about this case since the beginning. You really have been reading my posts, right?
Much to my delight, you continue:
"It's perfectly true that one day evidence might turn up to connect LC with the Whitechapel murders - just as one day evidence for almost anything might turn up.
But that doesn't mean we should proceed on the assumption that it's just as likely to as not. Nor that we should presently refrain from drawing conclusions based on the present absence of that data.
For as long as there remains no data to connect LC with the Whitechapel murders, then we can infer that he almost certainly wasn't connected with them - and this will remain the only reasonable inference unless or until some data to suggest otherwise does turn up."
Now I would like to rewrite your own words slightly. Please bear with me as I send them back to you:
"It's perfectly true that one day real physical evidence might turn up to connect Mike or Anne with the actual production of the diary, the composition of it - just as one day hard data and physical evidence for almost anything might turn up.
But that doesn't mean we should proceed on the assumption that it's just as likely to as not. Nor that we should presently refrain from drawing conclusions based on the present absence of that data.
For as long as there remains no real physical data or material evidence to connect Mike or Anne with the actual production of or the composition of the diary, then we can infer that they almost certainly weren't connected with them - and this will remain the only reasonable inference unless or until some data to suggest otherwise does turn up."
These are your own logical progressions.
Would you have ever made such a "logical" argument in this case? Of course not. And not only is your logic faulty (even without material evidence we can infer all we like about Mike and Anne, you have been doing so repeatedly -- those inferences will just not be supported or particularly reliable), but your premises seem to me to be every bit as problematic.
But perhaps someone would properly respond, "but of course there is much more circumstantial evidence and behavioral after-the-fact evidence to directly and convincingly link Mike and Anne to the forgery (after all, they were the ones who first owned it) than there is to link Dodgson to the murders."
Absolutely. But the logic remains and the lack of first hand testimony or material or physical evidence linking Mike and Anne to the specific act of forgery indicates that no inferences are yet particularly well established or convincingly likely amidst the host of possible stories and unreliable narratives I have seen here so far. The case has barely begun to be made and so your own logic must still be in place here, I'm afraid, though as I say, I wouldn't go so far as to say that "we can infer that they almost certainly weren't connected with them," as your logic would demonstrably (and invalidly) lead one to conclude given what you have written above.
Now you try, without supporting citation or evidence, to characterize my "reasoning":
"John has employed the same kind of reasoning here to claim that the absence of any evidence suggesting the 'diary' was faked by an unidentified person or persons and then given to the unsuspecting Barretts can not be used to infer such persons did not exist."
Sigh. But that has not been my claim or my reasoning at all. "That is not it at all." My claim has been (to paraphrase and thereby correct your own gross mischaracterization of it) that the absence of any physical, material, or testimonial evidence suggesting the 'diary' was faked by Mike and Anne can not be used to infer either that they did or did not write it with anything like probability or likelihood. You see the difference? It is important.
And then, with that rhetoric of conclusion of which you seem so fond, you announce:
"But, as with the LC argument, this is counter to basic deductive reasoning."
Of course, since I have not been suggesting anything at all like what functions as the referent to the "this" in this sentence in your post, I have no real interest in wondering whether what you've mistakenly said I have been arguing is "counter to basic deductive reasoning."
I would be most interested if you could demonstrate a case where actual words I have written run "counter to basic deductive reasoning." Or basic inductive reasoning either, since that is what we are actually doing here after all, isn't it?
You continue:
"The fact that no one has ever identified any people beside the Barretts (and possibly one of their friends) who owned the diary, or who even saw the diary, is powerful evidence for the probability that no one but the Barretts ever did see or own it before it appeared on Doreen Montgomery's desk."
Now we are at a problem point finally. The diary is a forgery, right? Someone forged it, right? We know the Barrett's owned it, right? From this it is probable that the Barrett's forged it? And your "powerful evidence" for this probability is simply that "no one has ever identified any people beside the Barretts (and possibly one of their friends) who owned the diary, or who even saw the diary." No one has offered any evidence about much of anything that happened before 1992. Consequently, I am simply not prepared to claim yet that a probable case of forgery has been made against the Barretts. I am not inferring here that they did write it or that they did not or indeed anything from the lack of evidence. I am simply reading and, I think, reading responsibly and being cautious about my language and my conclusions since personal reputations and legal consequences are at stake. I stand by this position.
Then you generously acknowledge:
"This doesn't mean we stop looking at or for other possibilities - but it does mean that until any data is discovered that shows the 'diary' had ever been seen prior to 1991, or that anyone other than MB and AG can be shown to have owned it, handled it or even seen it before April 1992, then AG and MB must by default remain right in the centre of the frame as being central to the forgery."
I was with you up to the strange phrase "right in the centre of the frame as being central to the forgery." I'm not sure I know what this means. Are they suspects? Sure. Has a case been made against them as forgers? No. One has barely begun to be made. Work remains. Does this mean that they are "right in the centre of the frame as being central to the forgery?" I'm not sure. That's too much centering for my taste.
Finally, you invoke "basic reality," "reason," and "rational thinking":
"If we deny this basic reality, then I think we are denying a central factor of all reasoned and rational thinking."
Well, if your reading of my own writing above and your hypothetical speculations about what I might argue elsewhere or have actually written here are any indication of the careful and patient and deliberate and objective way that you practice reason and rational thinking to interpret basic reality, I think I might go elsewhere for my logic and my epistemology. I'd like to think this is not a fair sample of your skills as a careful reader, that your "this is what he would or is about to say" approach to my work here was a hurried and careless slip in an otherwise logical and careful and patient analysis of the evidence and the physical and material data and the speculative testimonies and the conflicting narratives. I hope this is the case. I have seen your work elsewhere on these boards and it has appeared to me to be more patient and thoughtful and to have advanced the discussion and offered useful and provocative arguments and insights. The post by you that I have tried to read carefully above does not seem to me to be representative of your best reading or even of particularly careful or responsible reading. But that is only a judgment on my part, one that I have tried to support and demonstrate here in my response by carefully citing your own words.
I will leave it up to our mutual readers to interpret for themselves whether such a judgment is fair and whether I have clarified my position in any way.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 20 April 2001 - 12:47 am | | Karoline
Until you demonstrate that the 'diary' was written by Garard Kane and that Mike and Anne knew it, your hypothesis is entrely speculative too.
And hearsay, by the way, is data. Everything is data. Data is information. Information comes in many forms and encompasses everything. You and I are the kidney, we filter the raw data and separate the good from the bad. A hypothesis is something you construct from the data. You have data which suggests that the 'diary' was not penned by Mike and Anne but was penned by Gerrard Kane. Good. Not so long ago I was being told flat out that Mike forged the 'diary' himself. So we have progress. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 20 April 2001 - 08:09 am | | Hi Karoline,
You wrote:
It's true - the handwriting doesn't resemble AG's or MB's- but it does resemble that of G Kane - a known associate of the Barretts.
And the Devereux story isn't data - it is hearsay. The distinction is quite important.
You will have to do better than that, if you want to practise what you preach about backing up statements with evidence. I have seen nothing, anywhere, that shows that citizen Kane is a known associate of the Barretts. The only link we have between them is via Tony Devereux - yes, he of hearsay fame - because he was Mike's drinking companion in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and Kane happened to be a witness to his will in 1979.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 22 April 2001 - 03:10 pm | | Hi Caroline and Karoline,
This phrase "known associate" still troubles me in this case, perhaps because it is being allowed to remain rather vague.
Two simple questions:
1.) Is there any real evidence at all, of any sort, that Mike Barrett ever met Garard Kane, or even knew Mr. Kane or even knew Mr. Kane was a friend of Tony's or even knew of Mr. Kane at all? Is there any physical evidence or material or documentary or even reliable testimonial evidence of any meeting between Kane and Barrett or of any knowledge at all on Barrett's part concerning even the existence of Kane?
2.) If not, is it at all possible or even likely that, if Kane's handwriting does indeed match that in the book, that Kane (and perhaps others) forged this diary sometime after 1988, that Kane then did indeed give it to his friend Tony (the one relationship that does have documented evidence to establish it as authentic -- the will), who then did indeed place it in the hands of his unsuspecting drinking mate, Mike. And Mike, then thinking he had been given a great and rare opportunity, rushed off to research the thing, buying the red diary for comparison and perhaps even searching out the Crashaw quote, and copying the text onto a disk, until finally, finding himself completely out of his depth, he gave up and took the thing to Doreen, trying feebly to protect himself with ridiculous lies from any possible criminal involvement if the thing was a forgery? Then it hit the public forum and all hell broke loose and people's stories started to change and their motives and interests were altered and Paul Feldman started working the players and "film deals" became possible and lo and behold we end up exactly where we are now, though in this particular interpretation of events, without Mike or Anne having composed the forgery or being complicit in any way in the research or production of the document? Why is this "simple" scenario any less likely than one which includes Mike and Anne in the research and composition. It accounts for Kane's handwriting matching (if it indeed does) and for young Caroline remembering seeing her father open the parcel and for the creation of a transcript on the word processor and for many other aspects of the narrative we are so busily interpreting.
Please note: I am not suggesting that this scenario is, in fact, any more likely than one which includes Mike and Anne in the research, writing, and creation of the document. But it seems to account for all of the things we know so far for certain with similar neatness and thoroughness of consideration and it seems every bit as simple and likely considering what little actual physical evidence we have. And Tony's involvement in the criminal act through Kane would then even account for his reported cryptic response that sought to misdirect a naturally curious Mike towards Anne, as a way for Tony to keep his own distance and his friend Kane's distance from the origins of the document (see Feldman, 215-216). And, this would account at least in part for much of Mike's subsequent panic and irrational behavior, since unfortunately Mr. Devereaux and Mr. Kane both pass away and the diary is apparently a forgery and now Mike is suddenly left alone holding the incriminating document but never knowing where exactly it came from. In fact, such a scenario does apparently seem to account quite "simply" for nearly all of the evidence and the interpretations of the evidence I have seen here so far. And I think this was the challenge that Karoline offered on another board -- to offer up a single other scenario which accounts for the facts we know so far, including the ones she has often listed. And this is all assuming, of course, that the writing in the book is in fact Kane's -- although this remains a mystery. If it's not Kane's then everything opens up once again, even parts of Anne's story, and we would need to return to much earlier discussions.
So, again, is there any directly reliable account of any meeting between Mike and Mr. Kane or of the any direct knowledge on Mike's part even concerning Mr. Kane's existence as another one of Tony's friends?
Just wondering,
--John
PS: Now that I have set up this possible scenario, I would like to help challenge it as being also problematic and still unsubstantiated and perhaps even fanciful (as almost all the scenarios I have seen here so far still remain, since they rely on very little actual evidence of any substantial sort). Here's a start at criticizing the version I offered above: if Kane and Co. forged this thing and then used Tony to pass it to an unsuspecting Mike and Anne, one puzzling question would remain. Why? Did they think that through Tony's friendship with Mike they could eventually claim some of the resulting profits since it was Tony after all who gave Mike the book? That using Mike and Anne meant that they could eventually profit and still remain at least somewhat out of the frame, especially if Mike and Anne were kept ignorant of the document's origins? Did they just want to plant this forgery to see what would happen? Was someone involved particularly interested in the Ripper or in Maybrick or reacting to the centennial or had they recently started reading on the subjects and became inspired by the two cases? I have no idea. This "simple" scenario accounts in one way or another for all of the "evidence" we have been discussing as far as I can tell, but it is certainly no more likely nor believable nor complete nor thorough nor supported by any specific physical or material evidence than any of the others. Consequently, the case against Mr. Kane and Tony Devereux, like the case against Mike and Anne, seems barely to have begun to be established. Still, I will be very interested in the results of any complete and thorough handwriting analysis.
Bye for now,
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 06:43 pm | | Four Questions (for Karoline or anyone who cares to answer them):
1.) In your list of "facts" in support of Mike and Anne’s complicity you include the observation that Tony’s family never heard him mention any diary and never saw any diary. But you also now suggest that Tony was the link between Mike and the alleged penman Mr. Kane.
How can these two contradictory pieces of evidence both support your conclusion? Which is it? Did Tony know about the forgery (in which case his family’s statements are obviously no longer "facts" in support of your scenario) or did Tony not know about the forgery (in which case how could you continue to claim he was the associative link between Mike and Mr. Kane in the forgery plot)?
Which "fact"
A.) Tony’s family claiming not to have heard anything about a diary
or
B.) Tony being the link between Mike and Kane in the forgery
is no longer relevant or usable in support of your "most probable scenario?" Which one are you willing to no longer claim is supporting evidence for your scenario? They cannot both serve this purpose since they are in direct contradiction.
2.) In your list of pieces of evidence that support what you claim is the most probable scenario – that Mike and Anne were complicit in the forgery – you include the following items:
A.) Mike Barrett confessed to the crime.
B.) The handwriting seems to match Mr. Kane, one of Mike’s "known associates."
But in Mike’s confession he swears that Anne actually penned the diary and that only he Anne and Tony knew about it. Consequently, your piece of supporting evidence A. directly contradicts your piece of supporting evidence B.
Which one are you now jettisoning and no longer considering reliable evidence, Mike’s confessions or Mr Kane’s handwriting -- since they obviously cannot both be reliable evidence in support of any single conclusion, as they are, after all, clearly in direct contradiction?
3.) In your list of pieces of evidence in support of your scenario in favor of complicity, you include Mike’s purchase of a small maroon diary.
Is it still part of your most "probable" and most "reasonable" scenario that Mike ordered a Victorian diary and gave his own name and his home address and paid with a check traceable directly to his own family and got a receipt that indicated a record of this purchase all knowing that he was very shortly going to use this same book (now easily traceable to him) in a felonious criminal act for which he could then be prosecuted and convicted? Can you explain why this account of his behavior is in any way "reasonable" or "probable?"
4.) Finally, is there yet any actual material, physical, or testimonial evidence at all linking Mike Barrett to Mr. Kane or suggesting that they ever even met or that Mike even knew of his existence? Also, is there any actual material, physical, or testimonial evidence at all to allow us to decide when the transcript of the diary text was made on a disk in Mike’s word processor and do we know yet if Mike kept that disk (once again apparently oblivious to the incriminating nature of it if he was indeed a criminal forger) and if copies were made from it?
Do you still believe you have a single scenario that accounts for all the "facts" and that is supported by any real substantial evidence and that is therefore more probable or more likely than several other possible scenarios?
Just wondering,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 26 April 2001 - 12:11 pm | | Hi John,
Right then. Seeing as no one else has posted here to answer your questions on the facts in support of the Barretts’ complicity, let’s see what I can do. (I note that Peter has responded on the Maybrick Diary board, since you have been posing the questions there too.) Please bear in mind that, due to the inherently speculative nature of reasoning which is based on seemingly contradictory evidence, I will have to indulge in my own speculation in an attempt to iron out the contradictions, and produce a new scenario that might work.
1.) Tony D’s will was witnessed by Gerard Kane in 1979.
Tony D and Mike were known drinking companions by the late 1980s/early 1990s.
Mike’s RWE was found in Tony D’s house in 1991.
Anne helped Mike make a transcript of the diary, and he took both to Doreen in 1992.
Tony D’s family claimed to know nothing about the diary.
Gerard Kane’s handwriting allegedly matches that in the diary.
Speculation time, always bearing in mind Melvin Harris’s claim that the diary penman would be outside the composer’s immediate circle, and that neither Mike nor Anne composed or penned the diary. I have absolutely no reason to exclude Melvin’s claims from this scenario:
TD could have introduced GK to MB at any time before TD’s death in 1991.
GK might have been outside TD’s immediate circle by the time the diary was written.
MB (or AB) or TD or GK could have hit on the idea of forging the diary.
MB might have given TD his RWE to compose the Maybrick content, keeping the project secret from TD’s family, or swearing them to secrecy.
GK could have been chosen to pen the diary, transferring it to MB to place, while keeping their association secret, or swearing all those who knew about it to secrecy.
MB (or AB) could have made secret cash payments to GK for writing the diary, if he was in it for the money.
Part or all of the above could have been done with Anne’s knowledge and compliance.
2.) Mike made his “would you split on a mate?” remark.
Mike confessed, in June 1994, to forging the diary single-handedly.
Mike made a sworn statement, in January 1995, confessing to forging the diary with Anne, and also “split” on Tony D, his deceased companion.
Mike didn’t split on Gerard Kane.
Speculation time:
MB might have decided to split on TD, because he was dead, and Anne, because she wouldn’t go back to him.
MB might have chosen not to split on GK, out of loyalty to his secret mate, or because he feared GK’s reaction.
MB might have lied about many details of the forgery because he had very limited input, and because of his decision not to split on GK.
3.) In March 1992, Mike ‘phoned Doreen’s agency, using a pseudonym, to talk about the diary of JtR.
In March 1992, Mike ordered a Victorian diary, over the ‘phone, using his own name and address, and this was sent to him before he took THE diary to Doreen, in April 1992.
The small maroon 1891 diary could not have been used for a diary of James Maybrick, who died in 1889.
Anne paid by cheque for the maroon diary in May 1992.
Speculation time:
After talking to Doreen, MB (and/or AB) could have been in such a hurry to get a suitable diary for GK to write in, that he (or they) got careless and started acting recklessly regarding the maroon diary purchase.
MB (and/or AB) may not have thought through the consequences of such actions when presenting the finished document, or may have decided it was worth taking the risk.
4.) I don’t know. Is there – anyone?
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 26 April 2001 - 02:37 pm | | Thanks sincerely, Caz, for all of these speculations.
None of them of course seem to me yet "more likely" than many others and certainly none of them can be properly claimed to be "more likely" since none of them have any material or even direct testimonial evidence in support of them at all.
And indeed they demonstrate, by their very nature, the lack of evidence and of logically available conclusions with which we are apparently surrounded.
I do hope at some point that Karoline directly and specifically and patiently addresses what I have accurately cited her as having written here and what I have asked her in each of these cases concerning her own arguments.
I am not sure that the lack of even a possible answer to number 4 doesn't remain a serious problem for anyone claiming that Mike and Anne's complicity still remains clearly the "most likely" possibility.
We shall see.
--John |
|
|
|
|
