|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 15, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-Archives 2001:
Archive through March 15, 2001
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 03:09 pm |        | Hi, John:
Actually I had noticed that the way the Crashaw lines are laid out in the Diary is identical to the way they appear on the page Peter Birchwood posted from the Sphere book showing the Crashaw poem. Although whomever transcribed the words from the poem into the book has not got the words exactly correct ("Oh" instead of "O" and "death" instead of "deaths"), as you note, they have got the line break exactly right:
Oh costly intercourse
of death.
One would expect someone unfamiliar with the Crashaw poem to have these words all on one line. Or if it was being written down to someone's dictation, as R.J. suggested, we might not expect to see the line break unless the person who was dictating the poem for it to be written down said, "Break after intercourse." This whole thing gets wierder all the time, doesn't it?
Chris George |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 03 March 2001 - 08:41 am | | John:
The Maybricks were not Catholic as witness their marriage in a London Church-of-England. However the following are Catholic: Mike Barrett, Anne Graham, Billy Graham, Tony Devereux and Gerard Kane.
Peter |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 03 March 2001 - 10:04 am | | Peter--hello. As usual, you made some interesting observations about Anne's proposed provenance of the diary last week. One small comment, for what it is worth. A little past the passage in Feldman's book that you had cited, there was an episode that I had completely forgotten about. In March 1994, before the 'Graham' alias was discovered in Morland's book, Feldman had already began looking toward Anne. His research had uncovered that she once worked for some stockbrokers in the 1980s in Silk House Court, and that Maybrick once had some dealings here, and perhaps she had found the diary in the building. Unfortunately for this theory, the original building had been demolished in the 1960s, so it was merely the same building site and not the same building at all. So the theory was ditched. But clearly this shows to what great depth Feldman was digging, and that he was rather desperately searching for a new provenance, and that Anne had already crossed his mind in March. Roughly two months later the quote in Morland's book would be discovered.
One thing that greatly bothers me about Anne's story is that is a requires a series of bizarre coincidences. Florie evidently used the alias 'Graham' when leaving her half-way house after prison because of some family connection by the name of Ingraham. But Paul Feldman comes up with the strange suggestion that she used the name to give the world a 'clue' that she had left an illegitimate child with a family named Graham in Hartlepool (Coincidence #1.) Furthermore, one would also have to believe that by an entirely different set of circumstance, William Graham 'just happened' to marry Edith Formby (his second wife) who 'just happened' to know Alice Yapp from whom she presumably got the diary, which then later came into Anne's possession. (Coincidence #2). So Anne is said to have received the diary through her father's step-mother, but is, as the same time, also said to be related to Florie Maybrick. Shirley Harrison evidently only accepts the Formby link, but Anne is still implying the Florie connection in her book. It's like a two-headed dragon, and makes no sense whatsover to me.
R J Palmer |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 03 March 2001 - 02:06 pm | | Hi, R.J.:
How do you spell "desperation"? That is, Paul Feldman was desperate to find any kind of provenance for the document and through his interviewing methods, Anne Graham conveniently provided one.
Chris |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 05 March 2001 - 07:50 pm | | Hi All,
Gosh, what a lot has happened over the weekend! I’ve had to learn to accelerate my speed-reading to have a chance of catching up!
Tris thinks I’m nearly old enough to be his mother – I must be old enough to be everyone’s mother, judging by the unruly lot I see before me now! 
And to think that once upon a time I was just about the only dopey soul who thought there was still a mystery about the diary worth looking into and debating in this place. Now I can’t get a word in edgeways – I love it!
Melvin Harris knows all about forgers – the way their minds work, the way they operate. I respect that, as I respect his opinion, presumably based on the journalists’ info and the diary handwriting, if not his personal knowledge and understanding of Anne and Mike, that neither of these people actually forged the Maybrick Diary. I understand, or I think I do, why they must therefore be placers/handlers of a document forged by others - I guess any other scenario for the modern hoax is just not workable.
RJ continues to give the impression that he believes my confusion over how Melvin’s scenario works any better than Peter’s or Chris’s in practice, betrays some sort of primal desire to authenticate the diary or prove it to be an old fake. Because I don’t understand the minds of the suspected modern forgers the way Melvin does, and can’t fathom the whys and wherefores (silly phrase – don’t both words mean the same?) relating to the diary’s creation, RJ and others conclude that this is the same as arguing for the diary being genuine. “Why would a modern forger do this?” “Why would a modern forger write that?” is not arguing that the diary must therefore be old or the ripper’s work – it is simply asking Melvin, or others qualified to know, to give us some much-needed insight, so we can understand this extremely unusual breed of person, who sits down one day and decides, “I know what I’ll do – I’ll write a Victorian serial killer’s diary and see how far I get before the game’s up.”
Peter Birchwood comes up with the brilliant piece of deduction (or is it yet more telling evidence?) that, not only does the suspected forger see the Crashaw lines in a donated paperback between 1989 and 1992, deciding that the references to intercourse (sexual – the only kind Mike has apparently heard of) and death would make it a cracking good quote to use, but furthermore – and this one’s the clincher – the suspected forger himself/herself is a Liverpudlian Catholic! – what more do we need to explain why he/she decided to insert Crashaw into James Maybrick’s thoughts? No wonder he wanted to banish them – I sympathise entirely, being a fellow non church-goer, ex C of E. Good one, Peter.
Glad to see the little grey cells all beavering away as hard as ever. I think I’ll take a rest from posting for a while and sit back and enjoy the fun. You can all cheer now.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 09 March 2001 - 06:00 am | | If Keith Skinner continues to refer to my suspicions concerning his role in the diary investigation then people will start to think that he had a part in the whole mess which was other than that of being a paid researcher. As far as I understand things, he put his undoubted talents at the service of Paul Feldman and did a reasonable job of what he was asked to do. He's not responsible for the use to which Feldman put his research. Of course we do not know how hard Keith tried to steer Feldman away from the obvious false trails such as the "Maybrick descendents" or Feldman's claim that Anne Graham was descended from Florrie Maybrick, and it would be interesting to know what bits of the research were undertaken by Melvyn Fairclough who is not by profession a genealogist. (Keith of course has said that he himself is not a genealogist either: an astonishing comment which I fail to understand and which like his letter and phone call to Anne Graham is probably fated never to be explained.) Keith has of course accepted responsibility for faults, mistakes and problems with Feldman's research and has recently said: ". I am only a researcher, have frequently‘bungled’ research and shall no doubt continue to do so."
Regarding the tapes and transcripts of the Feldman/Skinner interviews I have had no reply to my request to view or listen to them. Listening would be quite important as a number of the transcripts were actually typed by Anne Graham who, considering that the interviewee was her father would not perhaps have been the first choice to have been the person transcribing the interview. If they clearly support Feldman's claims, I see no reason why they should not be scrutinised by a completely independent person much in the same way as was suggested by Shirley Harrison when she was talking about Melvin Harris' information. I will wait with interest for Shirley, Keith or another to tell me that it's not the same thing at all.
David Halstead did suggest: "There also appears to be a significant link with Spain." The only link really is Robbie Johnson's death there in a road accident. Although there are some odd aspects to it, the report by the Spanish Police shows no obvious links to the watch or diary. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 09 March 2001 - 12:11 pm | | Peter,
You posted the letter from Keith to Anne for all to see. I understood why Keith sent it and what he wrote. What would you like explained?
Could you explain to me what one has to do to qualify as a 'genealogist'? Thanks.
I don't know how Shirley or Keith are meant to deal with the fact that Feldy hasn't replied to your request. I don't suppose it's easy to get Feldy to do anything he might not want to, but never mind, at least you tried. I wonder if Shirley managed to get Melvin to respond to her request to pass on that letter of hers to the newspaper editor? At least she is also trying to get at the truth, which, if it is as good as you believe it to be (or is that not the case?) it will knock spots off any tapes or transcripts Feldy might be being possessive about.
I don't suppose you're about to expand on your 'odd aspects', preferring for us to make of it what we will as usual.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 10 March 2001 - 04:30 am | | Peter
Keith Skinner undertakes genealogical research but that doesn't make him a professional genealogist. To make the distinction clearer for you, he also undertakes historical research but that doesn't make him a professional historian.
Keith has stated that the tape is the property of Paul Feldman and it is up to Paul whether he releases it to you or not. So you know who to ask. Shirley and Keith don't know who to ask for Melvin's information because Melvin won't tell them, so there really isn't any comparision is there.
Your questions about Keith’s role regarding any aspect of Paul Feldman’s research seem to have no purpose beyond trying to undermine Keith’s ability and integrity. They do not appear to advance our knowledge about the origins of the ‘diary’. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 10 March 2001 - 07:34 am | | "Keith Skinner undertakes genealogical research but that
doesn't make him a professional genealogist." Paul Begg March10th 04:30
If someone trades under the name: "Causeway Resources - Genealogical and Historical Research" any reasonable person would expect to find that the business employed a professional genealogist, ie someone who did genealogical research in a professional and responsible way and in order to make a living as opposed to the very many amateur genealogists who do their own family trees or help out friends. As Keith is a sole trader it is ridiculous for him or his friends to say that he is not a professional genealogist. My letterhead reads: "Missing Heirs - Genealogical Research." This says exactly what I do and I've been doing it for 30 years now. The only solution to this problem as far as Keith is concerned is to alter his letterhead to read : "Research Done." If he uses the term: "Genealogical and Historical Research" then he is a professional genealogist and I see no reason why he seems to deny this.
I have been asked what one has to do to qualify as a genealogist. Unlike law, medicine or other professions there is no need for a degree or course of study (although there are many courses available in all sorts of establishments.) Putting it at its most basic, a genealogist is someone who researches into family history. A professional genealogist is someone who does this for a living and hopefully is successfull at it. Those of us working in the legal field also have professional indemnity insurance.
I have sent a request for the tapes to Feldman's publishers with no result and I shall now send a similar request to his home address as taken from the current Electoral Register.There is of course a very fair comparison between the two situations: both he and Melvin have (or say they have) information which might materially assist in clearing up the diary problem and so far, neither have agreed to release it.
"Your questions about Keith’s role regarding any aspect of
Paul Feldman’s research seem to have no purpose beyond
trying to undermine Keith’s ability and integrity. They do
not appear to advance our knowledge about the origins of the
‘diary’." Paul Begg op cit.
Anyone interested in the facts should reread my previous message wherein I mentioned Keith's "undoubted talents" asked for clarification on who did the research that I have most problems with and quoted his own words: ". I am only a researcher, have frequently‘bungled’ research and shall no doubt continue to do so." If this is humble deprecation for effect then so be it (and he has used similar terms about his own research in other places) but if it is an accurate description of his work then I am surprised that his customers speak so well of him.
Concerning Keith's letter and phone call with Anne Graham (and I should say that I only assume that it was by phone, the letter is not specific) he must have known fairly soon after the letter was sent that it could be said later that he had inadvertantly suggested the "Graham" provenance.I would appreciate his views on this as well as the other points which RJP has made concerning the apparent "push" towards a linking of the diary with the Graham family that was going on from Paul Feldman's team in early 1994. I'd also like to know what he said to her. Was it a long conversation? Who called whom or did they meet?
There are odd things about many unnatural deaths. Shirley herself has referred to a couple of them in a post some time ago. |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 10 March 2001 - 10:44 am | | Peter
Keith is a professional researcher in the areas of genealogy and history. Being a professional researcher doesn’t make him a professional anything else. If you can’t understand that undertaking genealogical research no more makes Keith a professional genealogist than undertaking historical research makes him a professional historian then I’m sorry but I can’t make the distinction any clearer. However, I may be wrong in this opinion, so if you could explain why he is a professional historian because he undertakes historical research that might clarify things for me.
Keith has told you that the tapes are the property of Paul Feldman and recommended that you apply to Paul for access. Melvin Harris has not told Keith who to apply for access to the material he has. There is therefore no comparison.
I doubt that anyone who reads your messages will be left in any doubt about your purpose and intention, however if you reread your message you will note that Keith’s communications with Anne Graham were only parenthetically mentioned in passing as something fated not to be answered. Otherwise your post concerned Keith’s work for Paul Feldman, what efforts he made to deter Feldman from certain avenues of research and what research he undertook and what was done by others. As I stated, none of this has any value in assessing the ‘diary’ and is apparently intended to do no more than question and throw doubt on Keith’s ability and integrity |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 10 March 2001 - 10:44 am | | | Just checking a reference in the diary today when I came across: "I have lost my battle and shall go on untill I am caught." Referring from the transcript to the photocopy of the diary page (p. 246 Hyperion edn.) the first part looks much more as though it should read: "I have lost my BOTTLE..." which in context would seem more appropriate. Would anyone care to check this for me? If it is the latter, would it be anachronistic? Are there any other places where the transcript might differ from the copied pages? |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 10 March 2001 - 02:32 pm | | Dear Peter,
Your full title includes the term "Celticresearch"
but why ? Is it a mystery ?
Rosemary |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 10 March 2001 - 03:18 pm | | Peter - It would be a very convincing anachronism if the reading really were 'lost my bottle'. But doesn't the broader context of the diary, not to mention the sentence itself, make 'battle' the more probable reading? If you 'lose your bottle' you give up, or 'bottle out'.
The fictional Maybrick, on the other hand, says of himself that he will go on until caught - the reverse of losing his bottle. And he appears to know what he is describing in general terms when he says 'I am fighting a battle within me. My disire [sic] for revenge is overwhelming.'(Blake edn p.454).
Martin Fido |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Sunday, 11 March 2001 - 06:34 am | | Let me refer you to the New Oxford Dictionary: "Professional: (of a person) engaged in a specific activity as ones main paid occupation other than as a pastime."
If someone is:"a professional researcher in the areas of genealogy and history." then he is a professional genealogist. The word:"researcher" in that sentence is, as somebody once remarked "a meaningless noise." Whether he is also a professional historian in the sense that Bill Rubinstein is, is something that I leave to those with experience in that field. If asked my opinion I would say that Keith Skinner is, in a small and limited way, a professional historian given that he offers a service, uses his skills to undertake it and takes a fee for his work. Given that there seems to be so much effort on behalf of Keith Skinner by his friends to deny what he so patently is, I can only imagine that the reason is to give him an excuse: "I'm sorry that I bungled your research but really I'm not a professional genealogist." Having read several of the books with which Keith has been associated, I find no fault in his research and really see no reason why he should have so little self-confidence. I hope that clarifies things and like you, I really cannot make things any clearer.
The content of the tapes would help sorting out what Billy Graham did or did not say and would assist in other things that perhaps were then considered not important enough to be published. Melvin's information (which he presumably shares with the newspaper people) would give us a perspective on contemporary investigations of the diary. Keith has said that he owns copies of the tapes etc. but will not release them because ownership is vested in Paul Feldman. I find both matters comparable.
Keith is the only person who has thrown doubts on his own ability. His comments ("bungling" etc.) are attached to several posts and letters. His integrity is undoubted as witness the many compliments from such as Shirley Harrison Paul Begg and Paul Feldman.
Martin:
I take your point and the earlier mention of this word is clearly "bAttle," and is appropriate for its context. However, as far as I can see (and the Hyperion edition has slightly better reproduction tham the paperback Blake,) the second mention appears clearly to be "bOttle." Maybe someone with access to a better repro can sort this out. |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 11 March 2001 - 06:47 am | | Agreed, Peter.(About its now falling to some one with a better repro). I can't take it any further, as my hardback is in store.
Martin |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 11 March 2001 - 07:26 am | | Hi, Peter:
I have to agree with you that the line in the Diary looks like "bottle" but I go along with Martin that "battle" makes more sense in the context, since he says he is going to continue with his campaign. That is, he is losing his battle in terms of maintaining his health but that is not going to stop him continuing with his grand scheme to rid the world of whores and thus get his own back on naughty Florie. I think it is another case of sloppy handwriting, just like the "My disire [sic] for revenge is overwhelming" line that Martin cited. Who knows at what speed these entries were scrawled and how tired the writer was feeling? As we have discussed, entries purportedly made days apart were probably written all at one go.
Peter, I have a question for you. I have stated before that I think it is unlikely that the story Billy Graham told of running as a boy with his mates past Battlecrease House because Jack the Ripper lived there could be true. The tale as related in Feldman's first edition (pp. 170-171) is that "We used to go down there [Riversdale Road] and nick apples. We would run past his [Maybrick's] house towards the river. . . . and shout 'Look out, look out, Jack the Ripper's about.'" I think the story is unlikely because Billy Graham as a boy was probably living in Anfield or somewhere, miles away from Battlecrease House, and it would have taken several tram journeys to get to Riversdale Road. Do you know precisely where Billy Graham was living at the time the alleged story might have taken place?
My belief is that this tale was told to bolster his daughter Anne's revised (July 1994) story that the Diary was old. As I have mentioned before, I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s on Aigburth Hall Avenue, up the road from Riversdale Road, but although I knew the Maybricks lived in the area I did not know precisely where. I only remember that my grandmother pointed out a chemist's shop where Florie purchased the flypapers that the Crown prosecution alleged that she used to poison her husband. It was only years later, in the 1970s, on reading about the Maybrick Case and before the Diary broke on the scene, that I found out which house was Battlecrease House. My feeling is that a bunch of lads coming on the tram from Anfield, or wherever Billy and his pals came from, would not know which house was Maybrick's let alone make any connection with Jack the Ripper. There was and is no historical sign on the property, so they would have had to know somebody in the area who was aware that Maybrick had lived there.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 11 March 2001 - 08:37 am | | Peter
You know perfectly well that money earning is not the sole criteria by which one would be judged or may choose to judge oneself a professional. You also know perfectly well that undertaking historical research – namely going to a record repository and looking for raw data – does not make one a professional historian.
Your attempt to draw a comparison between the tape and the journalists is equally fatuous. Keith has told you who to ask for the tape. Melvin has not told Keith who to ask for the journalists’ material. You can go and get it, Keith can't. There's no comparison.
And since the C&D interview with Mike Barrett you have consistently questioned and none too cleverly tried to throw doubt on Keith’s ability and integrity, as is clear from most of the questions you pose.
On pg.264 of the Hyprion edition there is the phrase ‘I will pay her dues and I shall take mine’ where the "a" in both shall and take looks like an o. Indeed, there are several such examples. I can’t say whether or not there would be any marked difference between these examples and the "a" in battlewould show up under magnification, but to the naked eye they look the same, which lends some weight, I think, to the contextual argument. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 12 March 2001 - 12:12 pm | | Hi All,
For what it’s worth, I took Maybrick’s supposed ‘battle’ to be with his self-control, more than with his health. His desire for revenge (or Hyde side), is overwhelming his family man and ‘gentleman born’ (Jeckyll side). This would then make even more sense of the whole sentence I have lost my battle and shall go on until I am caught. It partly reflects modern thinking, in that serial killers can't control themselves and go on until some outside influence stops them, but also suggests the age-old battle between good and evil, featuring conscience and remorse, which we don't tend to see now as a part of a serial killer’s make-up.
Hi Peter,
What does it matter whether Keith related any of his, or Feldy’s, actions to Anne’s July 1994 statement when concluding that she was telling the truth, or whether he didn’t even give them a thought until I started sending him the Casebook posts, in which you yourself suggested a connection? Isn’t it more important and relevant, from your own point of view, to establish that, whatever or whoever gave Anne the idea, she had a clear motive and purpose for using it to come up with a new provenance for the diary? Your suggested motive is a financial one, isn’t it? I forget whether you established that Anne was already receiving a share of the royalties when she first told her ‘in the family’ tale in July 1994, or that she was expecting to receive a share in the future. (Your line of reasoning appeared to be that, since Mike’s confession, Anne was worried that her own share would be under threat.) Could you refresh my memory and inform other readers what you managed to establish? Of course, if you haven’t already done so, perhaps you should be thinking seriously along these lines, rather than appearing quite so interested in establishing what Keith does to earn his crust, and whether he does as thorough a job as others in his field, among them your good self, of “In case a certain little [Formby] lady comes by [and turns out to be the wrong one]” fame.
Perhaps people feel moved to blow Keith’s trumpet for him because he is annoyingly modest about his own abilities. I could think of worse faults to bring up repeatedly – in fact I think I just did.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 10:56 am | | Paul Begg has obviously not read the dictionary definition properly: "...of ones MAIN PAID OCCUPATION rather than as a pastime." That is a plain and accurate definition of a professional; doubly accurate in a field like genealogy where many people make no money from their labours but do it for love of the subject and therefore are properly cast as amateurs. Paul Begg who I believe has something to do with computers (as a profession?) may have his own ideas about this: I, as a professional genealogist of many years standing can certainly tell if someone who advertises his services in the way that Keith Skinner does is a professional genealogist or not.
Begg's second paragraph is nonsense. He has simply got it wrong and as ever refuses to admit it.
Equally, my questions to Keith Skinner are reasonable ones to which I have rarely had a reasonable reply.
Obviously this whole "discussion" has now reached a natural end.
"What does it matter whether Keith related any of his, or
Feldy’s, actions to Anne’s July 1994 statement when
concluding that she was telling the truth, or whether he
didn’t even give them a thought until I started sending him
the Casebook posts, in which you yourself suggested a
connection?"
Keith Skinner did understand by, at the latest November 1996 that his letter to Anne Barrett (as she then was) of May 1994 could have given her the idea of a Graham family connection for the diary. This I believe predates the Casebook. The importance of this is that providing they realised this early enough, it should have warned Feldman and his researchers to tread very carefully when faced with a potential Graham provenance. Of course if they didn't realise that they themselves had suggested a provenance until long afterwards, that would tell us something about their research methods.
The story about royalties is interesting. Depending upon an early interview with Anne, it goes that the original contract specified that she should get 25%, Mike get 25% and Shirley 50%. After the separation, Mike didn't pass this share on to her. Supposedly by early 1995 the total share due the Barretts was £40,000 of which Anne's share was £20,000. Shortly after this, Anne succeeded in having her share passed directly on to her and the first payment came in around August 1995.
I think that it's a safe assumption that if the diary had been definitely declared a fake by mid-1994 sales would have collapsed, there would be no discussion of a film deal, Feldman's book (pub. 1997) would not have appeared and neither would Shirley Harrison's subsequent editions.
Please don't think that because Keith Skinner and I are both professional genealogists that we work in the same field. Locating missing heirs requires a different sort of expertise, although when someone as modest as Keith gets confused about research concerning fairly unusual names such as Blakiston or Conconi even a forensic genealogist can manage to help them out. |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 12:29 pm | | | Why don't you stop being evasive and simply address my point that Keith is not a professional historian just because he undertakes historical research? Keith is a professional researcher. Undertaking research is what he gets paid for. Being a professional researcher satisfied your dictionary definition. I think if anyone "as ever" refuses to admit getting something wrong, it is you. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 12:30 am | | To Caz--I'm reasonably certain that I left one or two of your recent posts unanswered. My apologies. I know it can be frustrating when posts are unanswered, but my thoughts have been drifting away towards the Lusk kidney, Ostrog, and similar oddities. I'll take a look back and respond shortly.
Meanwhile, in regards to the above conversation, it is my opinon that Anne Graham's story is more-or-less 'ground zero' in the diary debate. I think Peter Birchwood has made some strong arguments, and it is worthy of discussion and examination.
On the otherhand, I don't think anyone needs to be discredited. Could anyone have guessed that Anne --who all agree was very reticent during the early days of the diary-- would have suddenly claim 'ownership'? Keith's letter looks pretty restrained and sensible to me.
It's just that since the new provenance came shortly after Mike's confession and during what seem to be some very odd and emotional events, some of us 'anti-diarists' naturally wonder if there could be an 'all-too-human' reason for Anne's sudden revelation. The ironic thing is that it seems that Anne's initial contact with Paul Feldman was to disprove his theories, not to confirm them. Feldman apparently had a theory that Mike & Anne were not who they claimed they were --some sort of government cover-up or witness protection program (?)-- and was even calling friends & family to confirm this. Anne then agreed to meet Feldy and came "armed with photo albums and other family memorabilia which would prove his theory wrong" (Shirley Harrison, Blake edition, p 288). Now it seems to me --this might be disputed-- but somewhere during that interview Anne went from showing Feldman that his theories were wrong to tentatively agreeing that they were correct. What exactly went on during that discussion is unknown, but perhaps someone could convince Paul Feldman to discuss it at more length.
Best wishes,
R J Palmer |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 09:51 am | | Hi RJP
To suspect that Anne had mercenary reasons for claiming ownership of the 'diary' is perfectly reasonable and good, but from what Shirley has said it would seem that Anne was receiving none of the royalties and initially refused them when offered them by Doreen Montgomery. But even if money was her motive, since the contract for the book was with Shirley Harrison (which Anne knew), not Paul Feldman, confessing to Paul wouldn't have got her anywhere anway would it?
As far as that conversation goes, a little light is thrown on it by Feldy recounts (h/back pg.146-7) the four hour marathon conversation with Anne and remarks that the chat almost began with him telling her that he believed the ‘diary’ to have come from her family. Be that as it may, Anne had called Feldman to tell him to stop questioning the Barretts. Feldman then says that he concluded that the Barrett in question was Lynne, which he was later able to confirm. “But I remember thinking at the time: why has Lynne contacted Anne if the diary belongs to Mike?” He then recounts the subsequent meeting at which Anne produced all the photos and stuff, then he questioned/interrogated her and among the questions he asked was if the Devereux story was rubbish. Anne said it wasn’t and admitted that she had given the ‘diary’ to him, but wouldn't say anything further. Later, Anne came to London. She told Feldy that “her father had encouraged her to come down to talk” and in due course she recited the confession story.
If all this is to be believed, Anne intention was to prove Feldy's theory wrong. If in fact Anne stood to gain nothing financially from Feldman, this sounds legitimate to me. And it was only later, apparently after discussion with her father, did she decide to tell Feldman her story.
There are a few wrinkles here and there, but the whole story seems to hang together. Feldy wasn't the right person to contact if she wanted money from the 'diary', Anne's behaviour throughout does looks like someone wanting to get rid of Feldy, first by telling him to back of (Barretts?) family then by trying to disprove his theory. Only when she feels he hasn't believed her and will keep up the pressure does she spill the beans - after discussing it with her father. I don't know about you, but I'd rather like to know detail of that conversation. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 11:50 am | | Hi Peter,
I don't know about you or anyone else, and I may of course be entirely wrong here, but my own judgement of Keith Skinner and his work leads me to believe that he would never have done anything other than 'tread very carefully' when it came to the diary investigation - he and Feldy being like chalk and cheese in that respect, I would imagine.
Of course if they didn't realise that they themselves had suggested a provenance until long afterwards, that would tell us something about their research methods.
I still don't see the point of bringing up anyone's research methods unless it tells us something new that helps with proving your theory that Anne's July 1994 confession to Feldy was false because of a clear financial interest she had in the diary staying afloat.
The story about royalties is interesting. Depending upon an early interview with Anne, it goes that the original contract specified that she should get 25%, Mike get 25% and Shirley 50%. After the separation, Mike didn't pass this share on to her. Supposedly by early 1995 the total share due the Barretts was £40,000 of which Anne's share was £20,000. Shortly after this, Anne succeeded in having her share passed directly on to her and the first payment came in around August 1995.
The story about royalties is, I'd say, more than interesting - it is essential to get it spot on if you want to prove your case, isn't it?
Shirley, I hope, will be able to help us out in this regard. She has posted some details on the 'College course' board, which don't, as far as I can see, altogether tie up with your own account. Shirley tells us that the 25% share only came to Anne after the divorce, and then only because of a decision made by Doreen Montgomery that Mike's 50% should now be shared with his ex-wife.
You tell us that: After the separation [ie in January 1994], Mike didn't pass this share [ie Anne's 25%] on to her.
So, did Anne finally succeed in getting her share re-instated, after asking for, or at least expecting it to be, when she confessed in July 1994, as you seem to be suggesting?
Or, when the first payment arrived around August 1995, was it unsolicited and unanticipated, at least until after the divorce?
This is surely what needs sorting out here, not whether Keith's research methods leave something to be desired. Isn't it time to stop all the playground rivalry stuff? It's not even remotely subtle these days, although I can imagine the smile on Keith's face when he gets to read the posts.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 12:19 pm | | Shirley:
Thank you for your message. Was Billy Graham really involved in the Graham Provenance Claim? If we read the sections of his interviews published in Feldman's book, I would submit that at no point does he say anything that could be firmly construed as suggesting that a/ he was Florrie's grandson or b/ that the diary had ever been in his possession. Of course access to the complete tapes would tell us much but that seems unlikely.
Thank you for correcting me about the contract. My information came from a certain well-known author who said that he got it directly from Anne. That same author also states that it was only by the intervention of Paul Feldman that Anne was prompted to demand her 25%.
Please forgive me if my knowledge of author's agents is faulty but would it be possible for Doreen Montgomery to unilaterally decide to overturn a contract which split the profits 50-50 between you and Mike to decide that Anne should have half of Mike's share? Could this not be done only by agreement between all the parties? Does the agreement dated 21/4/1994 between both Barrett's and Robert Smith to transfer ownership to "Keychoice Ltd.," for £1 have anything to do with this? And what is the agreement dated 23rd March 1993?
I agree with you that discussion of certain subjects should be done off board. Would you care to email me directly? |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 04:02 pm | | Paul, Caz-- When I said that Anne might have had 'all-too-human' reasons for telling her provenance story to Feldman, I wasn't specifically stating that these reasons were financial. There are a number of other possibilities. My position is that her motive is somewhat unimportant, and that clearly the most important facts are:
1. The Florie Maybrick link is highly unlikely and totally unproveable.
2. The Formby/Yapp link is also unlikely and unproveable.
3. The two stories together make for a muddled mess of coincidences, and are, frankly, fantastic.
4. Feldman & his team were looking into an 'Anne connection' before she revealed her story. Until then, she never even suggested the possibility.
5. Either of the two "in the family for years" provenance stories offered up would not suggest an old hoax-- they would put the diary back to Battlecrease, a historically impossible time.
6. The forensic & textual indications suggest that Anne's story cannot possibly be true.
7. Since the provenance story has changed, it has no credibility, and one must rely on the objective evidence. But there has been no objective evidence presented that suggests that the either of Anne's family connections are true.
So really, what possible reason would I have for believing it?
As I said, Anne's motivations for telling the story could involve a number of scenerios. It was an irrational time, couldn't she have merely painted herself into a corner from which she now feels hesitant to leave? I don't know, if I were her I might well have felt Mike was destroying himself, and wished to take the 'heat' off of him. Or she might have thought it was an expedient way of getting rid of Feldman. Or she might even have felt isolated and had been flattered by the attention. Or she might have merely wished to tell Feldman what he wanted to hear. And then, again, she might have feared that there would be legal/financial complications if they diary was proven a forgery. Who knows? It seems to me impossible to say, but there's nothing about this diary that makes me feel inclined to believe her story.
Best wishes,
R J Palmer |
Author: alyssaharris
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 04:54 pm | | Caz,
As you once told me---
accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative.
Leave Peter alone.
Love,
Alyssa |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 06:04 pm | | Hello everyone,
In the interest of us beginning another serious attempt to answer one of Paul Begg's three important questions, "who wrote the diary," and reacting to something Madeleine said about the necessary investigative technologies, I have an honest question:
Would a DNA test or a series of DNA tests on either some of the people involved or the diary itself help advance our state of knowledge about this text and this case?
If so, who all would have to agree to to these tests?
I truly do not know the answer to this, but I would like some expert opinion.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 12:54 am | | Hi, John:
I cannot conceive how a DNA test could prove anything in the case of the dreaded Diary. Are you suggesting such a test might be done to prove Anne Graham's possible descent from Florence Maybrick? While I think such a relationship is highly implausible at least such a test might rule out the present hazy claim that such a relationship could exist. Other than that I cannot see how a DNA test might prove the Diary to be a forgery. How could it? Unless one of the people involved with the Diary mixed their blood with the ink used to write the Diary what else is there to test?
All the best
Chris George |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 05:52 am | | Hi John
I'm not sure what help a DNA test would be at this stage. As said below, a relationship between Anne/Mike and the Maybricks is speculative and proving it wrong would prove Feldy wrong, but not much add to our overall knowledge. Proving the relationship would be interesting, but not prove the 'diary' genuine.
RJP
Looking at your seven points, 1,2,3,5&7 all relate to supposed family connections between Anne and the Maybricks, but that is all pure speculation by Anne and her father isn't it? The only statements of "fact" they've made are that he inherited the 'diary' c.1950 and that Anne saw it and its contents in the 1960s. 4. Is true, but before then she probably had no reason to mention it. And 5 is disputable, but let's not get into that.
So what we are looking at is a story that puts the 'diary' back to c.1950 as an item inherited by Billy Graham. Is this story true? Okay, forensic evidence suggests that it isn't, but since some of that evidence is questionable and, as we have seen, isn't always reliable anyway, there is surely an argument in favour of testing Anne's story as best we can. The starting place is, I suppose, does she have a plausible motive for her concocting the confession and do the circumstances of her confession fit that motive?
What interests me is what happens if we accept that Mike knew nothing more about the 'diary' than that he got it from Tony Devereux and didn't know whether it was faked or genuine and thus take Mike Barrett out of the mix. If we conclude that Anne didn't know any more than Mike, then we have to work out a scenario for the confession story set against a background of complete ignorance by both people and a provenance for the 'diary' that goes no further than and died with Tony Devereux. On the other hand, if she knew more than Mike (and Feldman's comment about Barrett's sister phoning Anne might indicate that she did), then is she (a) the forger, (b) covering for the forger, (c) telling a fabricated story to cover a truth that doesn't involce a forger or (d) is telling a story she believes to be the truth. |
Author: Matthew Brannigan
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 07:17 am | | Are there any surviving, undisputed, Maybricks whose DNA can be tested against Anne Graham or would this kind of DNA test require Florie's exhumation?
Paul, the DNA test would surely confirm whether the Diary is a forgery or not. Mike Barrett has already said it is while Anne is on her second back-story to explain it. If the DNA test showed she was not related to Florie, then destruction of the second story would surely mean that Anne has as little credibility as Mike, and that these two could be identified with (if not as) the forgers.
Matt |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 08:03 am | | G'day,
I've never heard of anyone inheriting a diary! It wasn't really a diary anyway, but a scrapbook - with no dates and pages torn out!
It wouldn't have been written by 'Florrie' or anyone wanting to prove her innocence, because it proves that she was an unfaithful 'whore' and why would she want all her descendants knowing that!
Leanne! |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 08:16 am | | In fairness to all, and speaking as one whose total scepticism about the diary dates back to the very start of its investigation, I should be absolutely FLABBERGASTED if DNA proved that Anne is related to James Maybrick OR Florence OR EVEN Alice Yapp. It wouldn't, as Paul says, prove in and of itself that the diary is genuine. But, my goodness, it would start me revising and rechecking all my thinking about it!
All the best
Martin F |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 08:25 am | | Paul--You made the statement that the family connection is "all pure speculation by Anne & her father, isn't it?". But this isn't how I see it. Anne has made the claim that as a child her father Billy would take her to Croxteth to see the grave of Henry Flinn. For those here who don't know, Flinn(1858-1927) was the wealthy owner of the Dominion Line and boss of John Maybrick. He's the man who Feldman has suggested had a brief affair with Florie which resulted in the illegitimate child (alleged to be William Graham, Sr.) So as far as I see it, Anne's claim to have seen the diary in the 1960s is intimately tied to the 'in the family for years story'. How can it be otherwise? It is being claimed that the tin box & the diary were left by Granny Formby, friend of Nurse Yapp. The two stories have always gone together. And, siince this is the story that we are being told, I think it is side-stepping the issue to say that we only really need to concentrate on the fact that Anne saw the diary in the late 1960s. If the family connection is in doubt, then I think there is no reason whatsoever to believe the diary was seen in the late 1960s.
Spicer's 'Henage Court' story might well place the diary later than the 1930s, and I hope we can all agree that the presence of the glue, the square shapes of photographs, and the corner of an actual photograph in the binding definitely put the diary into the 1920s. So I ask again to those who taut the possibility that this is an 'old hoax'... How can the 'Formby/Yapp' scenerio or the 'Florie's illegitimate child' story have any possible hope for being true if the diary is later than the 1920s? The 'old hoax' argument seems to me full of very large holes.
John--The DNA idea was actually battered around quite a bit after Feldman's book came out. If you don't mind trawling through the archives, look under RIPPER MEDIA: NON-FICTION: JACK THE RIPPER: THE FINAL CHAPTER(FELDMAN). Anne evidently had agreed to being tested if Florie was exhumed. But the bottom line seemed to be that no one wanted to pay for it, nor go through the difficult task of arranging for Florie's body to be exhumed.
Best wishes,
R J Palmer |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 09:56 am | | Hi RJP
Well, yes they do say all those things, but their actual knowledge of where the 'diary' came from is that Billy inherited in 1950 (and Leanne, many people thankfully inherit books, papers, documents and much else from relatives; if they didn't then we wouldn't have the Monro or Abberline memoirs for example). But I am less concerned with the old forgery/modern forgery question that I am with trying to find a theory for Anne's confession that's consistent with her behaviour as we understand it to have been. |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 10:01 am | | Hi RJ,
I went ahead and read the exchanges in the archives where Mr. Feldman offers up the option of testing Anne's DNA against that of Florence's exhumed body, provided that Mr. Harris pay for it and then, if it checks out, be willing to admit certain things, etc... The whole discussion was couched in so much antagonistic schoolyard rhetoric that it was hard to determine what was being suggested seriously and what was just yet another act of false bravado. I wasn't there at the time, but a couple of years later, it all doesn't appear to be a very pretty sight.
In any case, I guess I am wondering, along with someone else who asked earlier, whether an exhumation would be necessary, or whether there is still Maybrick DNA available from direct descendants.
Also, I'm wondering who all would have to agree if an exhumation was necessary. It seems to me from reading just the last days' set of posts about this, that some people would at least think that knowing for sure whether Anne is indeed related to Florence or to Alice Yapp would change the state of affairs around here and the way in which the Diary is considered and received.
Maybe not.
I can't finally believe though, if the community of scholars that are experts in this field were to agree that a DNA test or two would at least help establish or disprove the Diary's authenticity (and thereby potentially help solve the hundred year old murders that have so captivated them), that the only obstacle would be financial. Hell, I'd be willing to throw in $75 or $100; and if just a small percentage of those interested in the case and this problem were willing to do the same to know at least this much for sure, we could have an answer in no time. Passing the hat would seem easy enough. (Or, I suppose, we could easily get a tabloid TV show here in America to spring for one if they were granted exclusive first rights to the results. They love reading the results of DNA tests on TV in this country. It now seems to be an almost daily event on one or more of the afternoon talk shows.)
But as I say, I'm still not sure yet if such a test would be helpful or even possible.
As to testing the Diary itself, that hadn't really occurred to me until I saw it mentioned on this board. But I suppose it might be able to tell us something at least about where this thing has been. No, probably not.
Anyway, thanks for the information, everyone. I, like all of you, am still waiting for the *final* "final chapter."
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 10:27 am | | Hi, John, Matt, RJ, Martin, Caz, and all:
Even if Anne Graham is proven without a shadow of a doubt to be descended from Florie Maybrick's love child, that still would not make the Diary genuine or improve its appalling lack of provenance. Anyway, if Anne were descended from Florence, the Diary could still be (for whatever reason) someone's not too clever hoax.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 10:45 am | | John--Hello. I agree with much of what you say above. However, the reason I don't think that DNA tests would be conclusive is that Anne is not claiming to be related to Yapp or Formby. This is all rather confusing, but here is my take on it: Edith Formby was Billy Graham's stepmother, there is no blood relationship. The claim is that Edith's mother --Elizabeth Formby-- was a friend of Alice Yapp, the maid at Battlecrease. So one of the two claims is that Anne inherited the diary through her step-grandmother. (I believe this is the story that Shirley Harrison accepts). Since Elizabeth Formby really did exist, DNA would prove nothing on this account. What we need is proof whether or not Formby knew Yapp; but as far as I know, no proof has ever been shown. Peter Birchwood has made some interesting contributions on this issue. For instance, Shirley states in her book that Elizabeth Formby worked at the Hillside Laundry in Peele Street, Liverpool, which was 'just around the corner from Battlecrease' (p 298). I believe it was Paul Feldman who suggested that this laundry was used for fencing stolen items, and the diary might have been smuggled out of Battlecrease to the laundry. But as Peter pointed out long ago, Peele Street is actually several miles from Battlecrease, so the story seems unlikely indeed.
DNA could prove whether or not Anne is related to Florrie, which might cast some light on whether it was likely or not that she would have visited the grave of Henry Flinn during her childhood. It would tell us whether the speculations in The Last Victim have any basis in fact. But since the provenance is a two-headed dragon, this would only lop off one of the heads, and leave the other in tact. I don't mean to sound smug or mean-spirited here, but the fact that there are two conflicting 'in the family' provenances suggests to me that they are only based on wild claims and speculations.
Best wishes,
R J Palmer |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 10:49 am | | Hi All,
If DNA testing showed that Anne was related to Florie, I would be every bit as FLABBERGASTED as Martin. But what if it showed that Anne had no family ties with any of the Maybricks? (not sure where Yapp comes into family ties - this Battlecrease nurse is alleged to have been a friend of Elizabeth Formby, Billy Graham's step-granny, and at least Keith found that the two women lived within half a mile of each other during the early 1880s, a fact that Anne may or may not have known when she first mentioned this family tradition.) I was under the impression that Anne was interested in Feldy's wilder theories regarding her ancestors, but had never claimed that they were indisputably true, or even that she totally believed them. As RJ has pointed out, and I said back in January last year to Peter, Anne's relationship to Florie and the Formby/Yapp link don't work together in terms of provenance for the diary, but I don't know if Anne has ever been asked whether she had thought this one through, or what she concluded. It might be a good question to put to her.
Hi Alyssa,
I thought I had been trying to focus on the positive, and encourage Peter to do the same. He was being negative about Keith's research and I was trying to eliminate this and get him to concentrate on Anne's financial motive - the results speak for themselves - we now have Peter and Shirley engaged in a positive discussion to sort out what Anne was paid and when, and whether she ever demanded or even expected her 25%.
If Peter is right, I promise I won't take any of the credit for nagging him into asking the right questions. So don't worry too much about him.
And I'll certainly leave Peter alone - he's all yours.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 10:51 am | | Hi RJ,
Our posts crossed.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 11:07 am | | Caz--Yes. But I agree, the two provenances don't work together. Meanwhile, a minor point. I think it can be shown that the author of the diary didn't have a strong working knowledge of Ripperology, because they put Maybrick's bolt-hole in Middlesex Street. The the two fairly well-known Ripper letters from Liverpool (they're mention in Stephen Knight, for instance) mention that the Ripper is living in the Minories. So it seems to me that a truly well-informed hoaxer would have made use of that connection.
Best wishes,
R J Palmer |
|
|
|
|
