|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 March 02, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-Archives 2001:
Archive through March 02, 2001
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 06:39 am |        | Dear Diary,
O Ante Christ! (Yet, Lord of Scouse.) |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 06:43 am | | Dear Ed,
The writing is clearly on the wall. :-)
Love,
(Cryptic)
Rosemary |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 07:27 am | | Martin,
Yes, indeed, the little citations I posted from Crashaw are not in the best of taste (nor are they, I think, very good poetry -- which often is in bad taste, of course). No, I wasn't seriously suggesting that either Ripper or hoaxer considered other Crashaw lines and decided, as you say,
"to find an alternative quotation from an obscure and by no means tasteless work of the same author an apt phrase to include."
In fact, I must admit that the choice of Crashaw, by either Ripper or hoaxer continues to surprise me a bit (putting aside, for a moment, the Sphere book issue). For the Ripper it would be an odd choice, what with Crashaw being such a clearly marginal figure in the tradition at the end of the 19th Century (before his revival in the early 20th). For the hoaxer, it's an odd choice since it would suggest so much about the figure alleged to be the Ripper in the hoax. Why not a less extreme and character specific poet?
Anyway, this is just early morning speculation on my part and not to be taken too seriously.
--John |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 07:41 am | | Dear Paul--Hello. I'm not sure I follow your last question. What do you mean by 'How did Anne know her inheritance story wouldn't be refuted?' My feeling is that there was no inheritance story bouncing around in Anne's mind until the Graham 'alias' used by Florie came to light in May 1994. But one can't ultimately disprove a 'family oral tradition', only show that it is highly unlikely, as I think Peter Birchwood did many months ago. But maybe I misunderstand your point?
Caz--I think the the diarist used 'Oh' rather than 'O' in quoting Crashaw because someone was reading it to him from a book.
Best wishes,
R J Palmer |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 08:16 am | | John--I think your quite right in saying that Crashaw is a 'surprising' choice. I tried to ferret out Victorian interest in Crashaw, and all I could come up with was that Francis Thompson was nearly alone in his obsession with R.C., and wrote at least four essays/reviews about him. Thompson himself has been a Ripper suggestion (alas), but I think a very poor one; thank goodness no one has suggested that he has written the diary.
As Richard Whittington-Egan told Paul Feldman, "There comes a time when circumstantial evidence is no longer circumstantial". I think those that suggest 'old hoax' will be hard-set to find an old hoaxer with a knowledge of the Maybrick household, settled for the canonical five, read Crashaw, saw the Punch cartoon, read the police files, mused about Dr. Dutton/Mikado/McCormick (take your pick) and who mixed their ink with chloroacetamide.
R J Palmer |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 08:24 am | | Hi R.J.P.
It was a half-formed line of reasoning that simply advanced the idea that if the inheritance story was an invented claim, Anne was presumably gambling that nobody like Mike or the forger or someone else would step forward with evidence proving her a liar. I mean, how could she know that Mike wouldn’t react to her story by spilling chapter and verse about the conception and execution of the forgery? But I still walk into the difficulty of accepting that at this horrendous time Anne would have given a tinker’s about the ‘diary’. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 08:58 am | | "O Ante Christ, yet, Lord of Scouse" The line then continues...
"Give us this day our 'Diary Faust'".
It then meanders in this vein for another thousand years!
Anyway, I've set Ed his new four-yearly task...so I will sneak away from you scholarly types.:-))
Love,
(Christ College!)
Rosemary |
Author: Joseph
Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 09:58 am | | Alas, poor Ozzie! I knew him, Roger: a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: he hath
borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how abhorred in my imagination it is! my gorge rims at it. Here hung those lips that quiet have not touched I know not how oft. Where be your gibes now? your gambols? your songs? your flashes of merriment, that were wont to set the table on a roar? Not one now, to mock your own grinning? quite chap-fallen? Go ye now, but mind the door. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 10:27 am | | Dear Joseph,
Er...I was making scholarly observations regarding a possible anagram...things being clearly what they are not!
Jesus, mother of Joseph! you scare me when you go in a rage like that. The screen goes blank and I am confronted with two (digitally) smoking-barrels.
Mine is but a humble prayer of Intercession, Joseph.
Love,
(A meek & penitent)
Rosemary |
Author: shirley harrison
Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 10:56 am | | To all readers of the Board.
In order not to compromise Mr Harris's integrity or to undermine his professional standards - which I do appreciate - I think I have found a solution to the current deadlock. I am sending the following letter to "the Editor" unaddressed, via Mr Harris's publishers. He can then readdress the envelope and send it on. I think this is fair, giving the editor concerned the option of responding in whichever way he feels appropriate
The Editor
Dear Sir,
I apologise for this somewhat appropriately cloak and dagger method of writing to you but I think if you read the enclosed extract from the Jack the Ripper Message Boards on the Internet, of February 22nd 2001 you will understand.
I appreciate Melvin Harris's wish not to break confidences or to reveal sources and so I am sending this blind, to his publisher, with the request that my letter be forwarded to the editor in question. .
I am the author of the controversial book, "The Diary of Jack the Ripper", published first in 1993 and which is still bitterly debated some eight years later. I believe the diary, which hailed from Liverpool and is apparently by cotton merchant James Maybrick , to be genuine - although I still cannot prove its authenticity. It is a mystery…..unless you know different.
Mr Harris is vehement in his claim that the diary IS a modern forgery. He maintains that
"an investigation was carried out in Liverpool in 1993-4 by a daily paper
(Not in the Murdoch Group). That paper, as an act of courtesy, made their
discoveries known to me. But they decided to sit on their material until there were fresh developments. They had the talked-about film in mind. I had supplied their reporters with some documents but I was not paid by them. Even so I stay silent because I endorse the professional code that we both operate under."
Mr Harris is also on record, in December 1994, as stating that there were three people involved in the forgery. Last year he publicly part-identified two whose roles in the forgery were "simply as placers, or handlers of a document forged by others."
Mr Harris was, he says, given privileged information at the time of the journalists' original investigation, which he insists remains embargoed material. Six years later he is now being urged by many Message Board correspondents to try and find a way of disclosing this crucial evidence.
Although I believe in the diary, I have always tried to establish the truth about its origins. Out of respect for Mr Harris's professional code of practice I am now writing to ask whether you would be prepared to discuss the embargoed material, in confidence, with myself, a research colleague and an independent witness as I feel it is important to break the deadlock and set the record straight.
Yours sincerely,
Shirley Harrison |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 11:02 am | | Hi Shirley
An excellent compromise! Though I still wonder why Melvin can't simply tell us the name of the newspaper and be done with it. Nevertheless, I do hope that Melvin will be so kind as to signal to us that he will indeed send your letter to the editor. |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 12:34 pm | | RJ,
In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention the following concerning Victorian interest in Crashaw. According to Lorraine and John Roberts in their New Perspectives on the Life and Art of Richard Crashaw,
"Five important editions of Crashaw's poetry also appeared in the second half of the nineteenth century. In 1857, The Reverend George Gilfillan published The Poetical Work of Richard Crashaw and Quarles' Emblems.
also
"In 1857, William B. Turnbull, barrister and convert to Catholicism, published The Complete Works, an edition neither scholarly nor critical, merely appreciative. It was superseded in 1872 by the Reverend Alexander P. Grosart's edition, done for The Fuller Worthies Library and dedicated to John Henry Cardinal Newman because, as the editor noted, Crashaw was a poet Newman loved 'as an Englishman and a Catholic.'" (12)
However: A quick look at the notes reveals that Grosart's edition of Complete Works was only "Printed for private circulation by Robson and Sons" as was J.R.Tutin's collection of Crahsaw also printed for private circulation. Tutin did later publish a collection of the Sacred Poems (including, one suspects, The Mother of Sorrows)for general readers, but not until 1895.
The Victorian critics Edmund Gosse and Canon H. C. Beeching each wrote studies of Crashaw , though Beeching's full length work also does not come out until 1895.
The lesson here, I think, is that Crashaw's work was at least a bit difficult to find in general during the second half of the 19th Century, even among Catholic enthusiasts as many of these critics and editors clearly are, such that several people felt the need to put together collections strictly for private circulation. I guess this is perhaps one of the troubling things about the appearance of the lines in the diary. However, I did find a work from 1939 by Austin Warren that does call The Mother of Sorrows one of Crashaw's few masterpieces and it is clear that the poem is a much discussed one among Crashaw scholars of the 1940's, 50's, and 60's.
Finally, one little thought...
The poem in question was one of Crashaw's reworkings of a sacred Latin Hymn (the "Stabat Mater"). It was published with the rest of Crashaw's sacred poems in 1649 and reprinted in 1652 and has been available ever since. It is a part of Crashaw's work that was most closely read by Catholic scholars. The stanza from which the "O costly intercourse..." lines are drawn is interesting when completed. It is a stanza that might resonate for some who have spent time thinking about the Ripper and his mind and I wish the diarist (whoever they might have been) would have continued the citation.
"O costly intercourse
Of deaths, and worse,
Divided loves. While son and mother
Discourse alternate wounds to one another;
Quick deaths that grow
And gather, as they come and goe:
His Nailes write swords in her, which soon her heart
Payes back, with more than their own smart;
Her Swords, still growing with his pain,
Turn Speares, and straight come home again."
Anyway, that's a few words about the Victorian reading of Crashaw.
I draw no conclusions.
--John |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 01:10 pm | | In 1993 there started to be problems with the diary. Feldy had been trying to contact the electricians who he was convinced had stolen the diary from Battlecrease house but their provenance fell down From the account culminating on p 136 of "...the Final Chapter" his disapointment is clear. The start of a Scotland Yard investigation into the diary in October 1993 probably didn't help and Feldy's comment: "All went quiet until January 1994..." is possibly a hint that his interest in the diary was waining.
In January 1994 the Barretts separated and there began a series of phone calls from Mike to Feldy and other members of the research team. The content of many of these calls seemed, at least to Feldy, to offer possibilities of other, more believable provenances. At some point in the first half of 1994 Feldy had decided (p. 141 op cit) "By now I was sure that the diary had come from Anne. If I was right then she was hiding its origin even from her husband."
From May onward as I have previously written, there were communications between Feldy, Keith Skinner and Anne which suggested that the diary could have come from her family. Now what would the motive be for Anne to claim that the diary had been in her family for many years? The Barrett's were not a wealthy family; indeed Mike claims in one of his "confessions" that the motive behind the forgery was financial. Their daughter was having music lessons in early 1994 and had switched studies from piano to organ. Anne wanted to buy a second-hand organ the price of which she estimated to be around £600.
The crisis came when Mike "confessed" to the Liverpool Daily Post on June 24th 1994 that he had forged the diary. He had been warned by Anne that if he did that, she would issue divorce papers and she kept to her word. Within a month of the interview, She had started developing the new provenance which maid it clear that the diary had been in her families hands apart from a short period when she had arranged via Tony Devereaux for it to be handed to Mike.
Although this is speculation, I would suggest the following: the lowest point of Feldy's association with the diary project must have been late 1993 when it looked as though there was no decent diary provenance and the best that could be done was rely on the "got it from a bloke in the pub" idea. His electricans theory couldn't be proved and without a background the diary could never be looked at as more than a modern forgery or, at the least, a curiousity. During the Barrett separation there must, judging from what Feldy and Shirley report, have been a lot of animosity between Anne and Mike and for some reason, Mike made his confession. Faced with the probability that this would be the end of the diary as a royalty-producing artefact it would not be impossible for us to consider Anne, now a single mother with a soon-to-be ex-husband whose potential for paying maintenance had apparently been knocked on the head by his public denial of the diary's genuiness, to try to find some way to give new plausibility to the thing. Thinking back to her conversations with Feldy and Keith and her realisation that the name "Graham" had been used by Florrie Maybrick for a short time it would not take too long for the new story to be prepared and which would make the diary, at least as far as her supporters were considered, her own and leave her husband apart from his continuing share in the royalties, pretty much side-lined.
It has been argued that at such a terrible time for her and her family, how could Anne think about diaries or provenance. Surely it is just at that sort of time when it looked as though part of her income was slipping away that someone who wanted desperately to pay her bills would think of this. Equally it has been asked how Anne could have done such a thing knowing that Mike or another could have come forward and proved that she was lying? Is it not possible that the real story is much as he told it in his first confession, that he destroyed material evidence (apart from the word-processer) in fear of the police investigation and has been trying to invent a way to make people believe him ever since? |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 02:18 pm | | Yes it is possible that Anne might have turned her thoughts to the ‘diary’ as a source of income, but that isn’t – or doesn’t appear to be –suggested by the story as we have it. According to that story, Anne was not in contact with Feldman or Shirley or anyone and she got in touch with Feldy only because she wanted Feldy leave her family alone. She was angry. This could be a bit of clever dramatic manipulation, of course, but on the face of it doesn’t sound much like a woman seeking to enlist Feldman in a campaign to rehabilitate the ‘diary’.
It isn’t that Mike couldn’t produce proof that he wrote the ‘diary’, but that he was unable to produce a straightforward and coherent account of how the forgery was conceived and executed. And he was unable to do this even when he wanted to destroy Feldman so badly he could taste it. It seems that Anne was therefore gambling that Mike wouldn’t or couldn’t tell a rational story about the creation of what almost everyone believed to be a forgery and at worst with Mike actually producing some bit of information or some piece of tangible evidence to support his claim. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 02:35 pm | | THE LAST WORD
The cry to name the journalists is simply misguided and flies in the face of real-life practices. Journalists employed by any newspaper are not autonomous creatures able to discuss their unpublished investigations with outsiders. Any material they uncover is automatically the property of their employers. If they want to keep their jobs, then they keep their silence.
I have already given the verdict of the Editor of the newspaper, and met with predictable sneers from those who want to ignore the factual material I have posted and push for answers that common sense should tell them will not be provided. However, following my talk with the Editor, and as an extra safeguard, I faxed a statement covering this whole affair to the Legal Department of the newspaper. Today, I have been given their verdict. This confirms that the paper does not welcome or want approaches from any outside parties. Further, since no legal actions are involved, none of their reporters can be asked to discuss any aspects of any unpublished story. In my case, what little I was told, was necessitated by the need to gain useful material from my files. But my limited cooperation does not give me any rights in any finalised story at this point, or at any time in the future.
AND THAT IS THE END OF THE MATTER. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 03:46 pm | | | Melvin Harris is the sole source for some information that he has given out as and which the historical record may show as a statement of fact. You would think that of all people Melvin Harris would want that information made available to and be verified by Shirley Harrison and that he would be actively supporting and assisting her attempts to obtain it. Instead he appears at best unhelpful and at worst deliberately obstructive. It's a mystery in itself. |
Author: Alegria
Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 03:54 pm | | | How many LAST WORDS can one person have? And frankly, how convenient that the newspaper will not even entertain a question from anyone other than Mr. Harris. |
Author: Walter Timothy Mosley
Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 06:09 pm | | If I turn off CapsKick for the event, does anyone think that Melvin Harris would condescend to join us in The JTR Chatroom for further discussion? I should imagine that we could also attract Stewart Evans there to balance out the amateurs.
WTM |
Author: Jade Bakys
Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 06:26 pm | | | Melvin Harris is a highly respected professional in his own right. It is only here among those that do seek answers to some rather important questions that Melvin has become an itch and no amount of scratching will reveal what he knows. What has poor Stewart Evans done to be relegated to amateur, he's a bit frosty granted, but he knows his stuff |
Author: Alegria
Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 06:36 pm | | Jade,
I think you misunderstood Tim. I think he means that the normal chatters would be the amateurs and we would need Stewart Evans to elevate the level of discussion.
Ally |
Author: shirley harrison
Thursday, 01 March 2001 - 12:05 am | | I am so disappointed by Melvin's post. I can only hope that it crossed with and is not a reply to mine. Why such defensive action? What is the problem. I have understood that you will not publicly name your journalists but there is no reason not to name the newspaper concerned. You of all people, with your pedigree must surely understand that it is just not good enough to tell us we must accept your reported version of what the newspaper editor has said. I need to be told first hand that he will not discuss the fact that he is holding the information which would conclusively condemn the diary as a modern forgery but will not reveal what it is. So please Melvin, I do hope you will pass my letter on.
I have spoken with the Liverpool journalists (you may have their names off the board) who were "in the thick" of the story at the time the diary was hot news, 1993/4. They do not recall any journalists investigating personally up there. One of these reporters WAS invited to send a "long memo" to a London national (non Murdoch) writer with his background information and on the basis of this a very large and dismissive article appeared which was well written, full of impressive circumstanial evidence. But as far as I can see - no proof. Maybe if I or maybe Keith do not get to speak to the newspaper or the journalists I should, out of interest, post that article.
Message board readers will have to make up their own minds what all this is about. |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 01 March 2001 - 01:01 am | | | I rather hope, Alegria, that Melvin has at least one more last word, that it is a word betraying at least a morsel of comprehension about this matter and that it is a word of support for Shirley Harrison’s attempts to gain access to the information she seeks. |
Author: Lisa Muir
Thursday, 01 March 2001 - 01:57 am | | I have been reading these message boards for over a year. And, 'though, I rarely post here myself, I enjoy learning about the various theories put forth by amateurs, and take absolute delight in reading the opinions & notes of the assorted published researchers who do post here.
Once in awhile, however, I feel a need to express myself. This is one of those times. I have just read Mr. Harris' response to Ms. Harrison's post (the one in which she declares her intent to send a blind-letter-to-the-editor of the unnamed newspaper that Mr. Harris has referred to). And, if I may borrow a recently used phrase - OMIGOD!
I have vague recollections of similar scenarios being played-out by classmates in elementary school.
I understand Mr. Harris' not wanting to say anything; not wanting to breach any confidences. I don't, however, understand his objection to Ms. Harrison's request. Why not allow the editor him/herself to tell Ms. Harrison to bugger-off? It's at this point I'm lost.
I wonder how Mr. R.J. Palmer feels about this. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 01 March 2001 - 05:21 am | | Lisa--Hello. I believe some people here are genuinely 'lost' by the statements made by Melvin Harris, but I personally think his position has been very consistent throughout. Though Melvin clearly has a rigorous amount of that Swiftean 'saeva indignatio' when it comes to the hoax and the publishing of the hoax, it is also clear that he has never had any desire to drag the creators of the diary out into public. Indeed, though he has been accused of 'slinging around' that he knows their identities, this is not the case. He made a brief statement in a newspaper years ago from what then appeared to be the impending revelation, and this has been brought back time and time again by others. And, in fact, it was actually someone in what can be loosely called the 'pro diary' camp that first brought the name of one of the alleged forgers onto these message boards last summer. (I could cite the posting, but would prefer not to). To which Harris quickly responded by suggesting that they 'back off please'. Is this confusing? Perhaps to some. But one has to read between the lines a little. "I have on file several cases where the identity of fakers is proven but exposure has been withheld. In one case publication would cause great distress to three families." (Harris 14/6/00) Clearly there is some professional/ethical reason why the forger(s) names aren't being revealed. But evidently some in good faith don't accept this, and make statements (such as Alegria's on 4 February) along the lines that "Until you are willing to fully disclose what you know, your credibility is also to be questioned." Well, that's a personal choice, and maybe it is the harsh reality. Obviously some people do doubt that Melvin Harris knows the answer. I personally don't.
You have to also remember that those who are so eager to get at Melvin's information most probably don't really believe that he has the answer. They are convinced that the diary is an old document. Keeping this in mind, I doubt if Melvin Harris would feel too comfortable about them approaching the evidently reluctant forgers and reporting back with their findings. (I've brought this up before, but it seems to be an issue that no one seems to want to address). It seems unclear to me whether this is strictly a private appeal for the benefit of two or whether this is part of a public debate. Some here are under the impression that the information is to be made public for the sake of 'truth & ripperology'. Clearly this isn't going to happen.
Well, it is a strange situation, I admit (!) For those who don't believe Melvin want him to reveal what he knows, whereas I --who do believe him-- don't particularly care to know. I wouldn't recognize the name(s) anyway, and I trust him when he implies that there might be some professional/ethical reason for not wishing to reveal this. (I realize my position must be frustrating as heck to some). But really I think the only important thing from the historical standpoint is that we all know that the diary is a recent forgery and has no value in the Ripper investigation. James Maybrick is not a theory; he is an unwanted crasher at the party--and is only here because of the diary. There are some other issues concerning the hows & whys of the actual publishing of the diary that do interest & concern me, but these are so explosive that I doubt that it would be wise to 'go there'. I guess you'll just have to trust me on this--but I am genuinely amazed that anyone could still believe that this is not a recent forgery. All the facts seem to indicate otherwise.
I doubt if this makes you happy, (and yes I know that this must be frustrating to Keith & Shirley) but does it answer your question?
Best wishes,
R J Palmer.
(Maybe we should concentrate on something easier, like bringing peace to the Middle East?) |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 01 March 2001 - 07:20 am | | RJP
Whether or not the forgers should be publicly identified is a debateable point and I think the moral/ethical issues should include concerns such as the possibility that the names will be made known at a time when the accused aren’t around to defend themselves, especially if the accused is someone already named, such as Mr Kane (whose candidacy as author of the ‘diary’, by the way, has been dismissed as ‘ridiculous’ by someone who has met and questioned him). But this isn’t about naming names publicly. Shirley and Keith asked only that the information be made available to them in private and in front of a mutually agreed independent assessor. If the information was as convincing as Melvin has indicated, then they agreed that they would admit that the ‘diary’ is a modern forgery. Okay, Melvin won’t do that and I accept hat he may be in breach of a confidence if he did. But I don’t think it would do any harm for Melvin to say that the journalist is Philip Knightley - to name one journalist with whom Melvin has had dealings. But even that isn’t what Shirley Harrison is now asking. All she wants is the name of the newspaper so that she can ask the Editor for the information and, if she is turned down, be turned down to her face.
But overriding all this is the fact that history could end up stating as fact and on the sole authority of Melvin that there were three forgers and that Mike and Anne acted as placers. But Melvin Harris is a human being and is as susceptible to error as the rest of us, so it is important for the historical record that if possible information for which he is the sole source be verified. That’s all Shirley and Keith are wanting to do. And as I have said, given that the purity of the historical record is Melvin’s justification for all that he’s done, you would think that he would be actively encouraging and supporting Shirley. He isn’t. Indeed, he seems to be actively obstructing her. You can’t blame people for drawing their own conclusions from this. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 01 March 2001 - 07:37 am | | Hi All,
Hi John,
Thanks very much for your insights and info on Crashaw. It's a pity that Melvin Harris couldn't simply have proved his strong assertion that Mike Barrett lodged his Sphere volume - as evidence that he chose the Crashaw lines for inclusion in the diary - with his solicitor, 'LONG BEFORE' June 1994, when Mike first 'confessed', and was so desperate to be believed. But then I would never have had the pleasure of discussing metaphysical poets here with anyone! 
Keith Skinner's copy of The Complete Works of Richard Crashaw, edited by William B Turnbull Esq, and dated 1858, gives me another slightly different version of the lines in question:
O, costly intercourse
Of death's, and worse
Divided loves: while Son and Mother
Discourse alternate wounds to one another!
Would you be able to confirm that death's is a mistranscription, and should be deaths in the plural, and not 'death's costly intercourse', as in 'oh costly gloves of my mother's - or mother'? (apologies for my poor analogy!) Thanks.
Hi Peter and Paul, my two little dickie birds, sitting on the wall - or fence... :-)
I think Anne would have to have been totally dim-witted to come up with her 'inherited' tale, after ripper experts and the police had been crying modern fake, and Mike had just confessed, if she thought for one moment that he could have substantiated his claim in any conceivable shape or form. Even if Anne was almost certain all the physical evidence of the forgery had been successfully destroyed, she was evidently ignorant of the fact, or unconcerned, that the incriminating Sphere volume might be sitting in Mike's solicitor's office at the time of her statement, marked 'QED'. And, as Paul says, how was Anne to know that Mike would not come up with anything more damning, unless he could not?
Hi RJ,
I do appreciate that, from your own point of view, Melvin has done all that is required to show the diary is a modern hoax. If we were debating the likelihood of Elvis being alive and well and living above a chip shop, you would think it equally ridiculous for any of the inmates to be calling for someone to produce the forensic evidence that the King is indeed dead and cold in's grave, and has been since 1977. And you would certainly get no argument from me.
The difference is that what Shirley is now asking Melvin to do is plainly neither ridiculous nor pointless, to her, Keith, and most of those following the various arguments here. Neither is Melvin being asked to do anything time-consuming, difficult, or which could compromise him professionally, as far as I can see. The point is, Shirley is not asking for the moon and the stars here. So what, if Melvin (and you), think what is being asked for is pointless or ridiculous, or both? It seems such a simple and straightforward request, so why on earth wouldn't he comply, if only to make the inmates happy? It wouldn't hurt him - or might it?
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 01 March 2001 - 09:08 am | | Caz,
My copy of George Walton Williams' The Complete Poetry of Richard Crashaw, Anchor Books, Doubleday, 1970 has "deaths" -- without the apostrophe (p.165). The book itself claims it is part of a series that "presents the major -- and significant minor -- texts in English of the seventeenth century in authoritative and inexpensive editions. (...) Each volume incorporates the latest textual and critical discoveries, and the series as a whole is designed to provide a reliable access to the literature of the seventeenth century."
Interestingly, as is so often the case in poetry, a case can be made for both meanings. But I think I would side with the latest edition if the issue is fidelity to Crashaw's manuscripts or a standard edition, espcially since the Turnbull is described in a couple of places as being "neither scholarly nor critical." Still, the one Keith has (which my bibliography lists as 1858 from John Russell Smith publishers, yes?) would have at least been available in 1888, if that makes any difference.
Of course, the diary just has "death."
The Ricks' citation has "deaths" (without apost.) as well.
Now my eyes hurt after posting a too-long response to your thoughts on another Caroline (Maxwell) on another board.
Hope this helps.
--John |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 01 March 2001 - 09:14 am | | Caz,
I think 'death's' would amost certainly be a mistranscription, or possibly a silent emendation by an editor who found the line difficult to understand. If Crashaw had intended to make 'deaths' possessive, I think he would also have recognized that he was using a personification, and he would have capitalized 'Death's'. I also note that in general those admirable Victorian amateurs were not always the best of scholars. There should be a good modern OUP edition of Crashaw's works with critical apparatus giving early variant readings - (Pope's actual 'flies in amber': fine as he is as a poet, Pope was actually biting off more than he could chew in attacking Bentley for questioning some of his readings in Homer. Editorial footnotes may not be in themselves 'rich and rare', but when we're doing detailed analysis, we don't actually 'wonder how the devil they got there': we're grateful for them, even if it can look odd to find threequarters of a page of footnotes underneath a few lines of text).
Another board is earnestly debating the rights and wrongs of Ripper studies getting into primary and secondary education. My own experience suggests that they provide a really marvellous way in to essential scholarly questions for 16-18-year-olds.
Martin |
Author: Lisa Muir
Thursday, 01 March 2001 - 06:41 pm | | Mr. Palmer - Thank-you for your response. I understand your stance, and would like to clarify that I, too, held the same stance up until Mr. Harris' most recent posting on the matter. I didn't doubt that Mr. Harris had some sort of privileged information that he was unable/unwilling to share. Why would I question his sincerity and discretion?
Nothing to do with the Diary affects me one way or another. Or, so, I thought. After reading Mr. Harris' post to Ms. Harrison I couldn't help but feel that it was all so much bluff. That did affect me. It saddened me. |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 04:23 am | | Perhaps if Shirley Harrison contacted all the editors of the papers she feels contains the one in question,that might solve the impass.
Maybe the one concerned might reply in the affirmative,but if all fail to divulge details,then the question remains as is.
Should not be a great undertaking,especially if aided by those clamouring for an answer.
Regards H.M. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 04:50 am | | | Hi Harry, nice to see you back again. I guess Shirley has a number of options available to her and will no doubt make full use of them. It's just a shame that the name of the newspaper is being withheld. |
Author: Matthew Brannigan
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 06:17 am | | A note which may have bearing on the journalists and their intentions in witholding the information; I read on a Hollywood news website dealing with production of the forthcoming "From Hell" movie, that Fox studios, makers of "From Hell" are being sued by William Friedkin over their failure to produce his Diary-related film, having apparently "dumped" it in favour of the "From Hell" project.
If Friedkin is moved to sue the studio because his movie isn't getting made, I am drawn to the conclusion that his movie isn't getting made.
It has in the past been suggested (and not contradicted by Melvin Harris) that the motive for not exposing the Diary forgers was the greater potential impact of the story at the time the Friedkin movie was released.
If the production of "From Hell" indeed precludes the production of Friedkin's project, then the accepted motive of witholding the information has disappeared; revealing the Diary as a hoax will not have any impact on "From Hell" as it does not even mention Maybrick or his "Diary."
However publication of the information held by the journalists could still shift a few papers, and help destroy the diary theory.
Oddly, though, I have yet to see any paper name the forgers, and Melvin has apparently recently been in touch with the newspaper editor concerned, who has no interest in publishing the story.
If the editor has no interest in the story, I'm afraid there is probably no story. I am sure any editor who was confident that he or she had the information Melvin claims exists it would surely want to publish, if for no other reason than the forgers' names have never been revealed in any public forum anywhere in the world.
But Melvin's editor chooses to sit on a world exclusive story which he can prove?
Sorry, Melvin, but no. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 07:41 am | | Hi Matthew
Unless something has erupted in the last few days then the story about William Friedken suing over "From Hell" is a very old news story. "From Hell" has completed production and is due to be released later this year (one of three Ripper films being released that we know about!). William Friedken's project, which is based on the 'diary', having been in development hell for some time, but as Shirley Harrison recently revealed on television in the UK, it has recently obtained the necessary funding and we are awaiting further developments (which I shall report in "Ripperologist" as soon as I hear them!
I'm afraid Melvin's stance on this matter is beyond understanding. There may be a reason which will become clear if Shirley Harrison's attempts to unearth the newspaper and/or the journalists succeeds. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 11:26 am | | Hi All,
Hi John,
Thanks again for the Crashaw info. Yes, Keith’s is the one from John Russell Smith, Soho Square, 1858.
Hi Martin,
Thanks for your info too. Yes, I take your point about the personification of Death.
To RJ,
According to Melvin Harris, if my memory serves, Mike Barrett admitted to finding the Crashaw lines and passing them on to Tony Devereux for inclusion in the diary. I assume that Melvin believes this to be the case. Sadly, wherever the truth lies, it’s extremely unlikely that we will ever discover what coherent or logical thought, if any, lay behind the main diary creator’s final decision to include the lines, and to place them at that particular point in the diary text.
One thing to bear in mind, when thinking back over Melvin’s various statements, is that only three people were said, back in December 1994, to have been involved in the forgery. Later – I don’t know how much later – Melvin believed (or knew, or believed he knew), that Anne and Mike were placers/handlers of a document forged by others (note the plural). Melvin has also told us that the original forger would have chosen someone outside his immediate circle to copy the desired text into the diary.
Given that you believe all that Melvin has asserted, it is hard for me to put it all together and understand precisely what you think lay behind Mike’s purchase of the red 1891 diary, in the Spring of 1992, several months after Tony D’s sad death. Tony was involved somehow in the creation, then died in the summer of 1991; the diary itself wasn’t actually acquired, and written in by the designated penman/woman, until after Mike bought and rejected the little red one; it follows that at least four people were originally involved, all known to Mike - five, if Tony D was not the creator. Is this a fair assessment of what you believe, from Melvin’s information?
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 01:24 pm | | Caz--Hi. I never said that I thought the diary that we now see was written after the purchase of the red diary. I suspected that Mike was either: A) unhappy with the condition of the diary (ie., it being written in an old album with the pages torn out) and thus tried to acquire a more 'legitimate' looking item, but then found it too small; B) the diary didn't exist except in manuscript until after Devereux's death--and then was completed, either before or after the red diary was acquired; or C) Mike somehow felt he would acquire 'sole ownership' of the forgery (which apparently he subsequently had) if he was to re-copy the diary. Regardless, Mike certainly doesn't appear to be answering to a 'Mr. Big', as you say. My hunch is that Mike was the only one really pressing for this to be a commercial venture.
By the way, I never stated that I believe everything anybody says. Indeed, at one point a few months back, I stated that I was confident that Melvin Harris had 'inside' information; but it seemed to me from the information that I have access to that Mike would have had to have been more intimately involved than as a mere handler. I tended to steer closer to the ideas of Chris George & Peter Birchwood. After further thinking, though, I now believe that Melvin's information is correct.
Best wishes |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 01:25 pm | | Hi All,
I should know this. But I don't. And it's a hot Friday afternoon and I'm too lazy to look it up.
Were the Maybricks Catholic?
Sorry if it is a stupid question from a relative newcomer but all this talk about a line from Crashaw just showing up in the middle of a murderer's diary started me wondering. I remember Shirley Harrison's book saying that none of the brothers were churchgoers, but I also seem to recall that some family members worked for the church.
Thanks and sorry for the interruption,
--John |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 01:34 pm | | John-- C of E, I believe.
So the Catholic poet would be a bit strange. I also don't believe there is much indication that Maybrick was a literary man, though he did refer once to DeQuincey's Confessions of an English Opium Eater' according to Ryan's book. Shirley could no doubt give you more information.
Thanks for the Crashaw thoughts, by the way
--RP |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 01:45 pm | | Hi, John:
The Maybricks were definitely not Catholic but rather were a Protestant family although not particularly known for churchgoing. Gambling and sports seems to have been more James Maybrick's religion, along with taking a drug store full of nasty substances. I am speaking from memory but I seem to recall that James Maybrick's father was a vestryman for St. Peter's Church in Liverpool. St. Peter's was one of the major churches of the Church of England in downtown Liverpool, now demolished (it was badly damaged in the Blitz of the Second World War that took out large city blocks when the German Luftwaffe tried to hit the city's strategic docks). So, it is yet another possible strike against the authenticity of the Diary to think that the unreligious James Maybrick would quote from a highly Catholic author such as Richard Crashaw. Considering the primitive quality and lack of literary worth of the rest of Maybrick's supposed versifying, it is also surprising, if not to say highly unlikely, that he would quote from or try to emulate the esoteric verse of an obscure writer such as Crashaw.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 02:24 pm | | Thanks Chris and R.J.
While continuing to keep an open mind as I learn more about all of this, I must say that, initially, I'm afraid I would expect someone who, in 1888 or 89, in a private journal and apparently from memory, (mis)quotes one of Richard Crashaw's later sacred poems, one of his reworkings of a sacred Latin hymn, to have had some Catholic education or experience with the faith or at least to appear to have some interest in these matters. But that, too, is just random speculation. After all, he could have just had a fetish for mother poems. Didn't Maybrick live with his mom when he was in his early thirties? I know, I know, it's not *that* mother.
I don't suppose the diary mentions Cardinal Newman? 
Seriously, thanks again for the info. I will continue to read.
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 02:51 pm | | Hi All,
Here's a bit of Pop-Freud fun for a Friday...
In the diary, right after the "Oh costly intercourse of death" line, the writer writes,
"Banish the thoughts banish them banish them ha ha ha,
look towards the sensible brother
Now, (big smile here) one could argue that Maybrick is caught up in memories of his hideous acts when, in the midst of his horrific reverie, he thinks of the lines from Crashaw. The lines, of course, come from The Mother of All Sorrows and Maybrick begins to think about his own mother, who is, of course, at the center of the unconscious reason for his murderous reaction to Florrie's infidelity. This act of maternal memory threatens to bring Maybrick's unconscious motives too close to the surface of his conscious mind and, feeling the pressure, he cries out to himself to "Banish the thoughts banish them banish them." As a way of escaping these unpleasant associations he deliberately thinks of another member of his family, thereby displacing his thoughts of his mother into safe thoughts of his brother ("look towards the sensible brother"), thinking this will give him some relief.
Now it all makes such sense!
All right, and now back to more serious matters...
I'm sure Caroline or someone has already pointed this out, but it seems odd that someone writing in their journal, if they were recalling a line of poetry from memory, would happen to get the unpunctuated line break right.
In the diary it says
Oh costly intercourse
of death.
Just the way Crashaw sets the lines. I think I might have written the line without the break in my journal if I was recalling it from memory. But maybe that's just me.
--John |
|
|
|
|
