Archive through March 19, 2001

** 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 19, 2001

Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: College course tackles the Diary: Archive through March 19, 2001

Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 03:57 am
A lie by omission! Let me see if I've got this right. On being accused of writing the rhyme, McCormick honestly and correctly said that he didn't, but because he didn't say that the rhyme was written by his mate then he's a liar by omission. Right. I think I've got that clear. It's a bit like an author being confronted with McCormick's honest and truthful denial and saying 'look how he denies having heard of H.L. Adam. How can anyone trust a bare-faced liar like that' This is deceit by omission isn't it, because an honest answer would have been, 'yes, McCormick didn't write it, his mate Ian Fleming did.' What a load of twaddle your argument is, Melvin. What's clear is that it is difficult to believe what you say and that people should read everything you say with absolute care because you are demonstrably and perhaps purposefully misleading. And by the way, you didn't touch a raw nerve about Joseph Sickert because I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and I have no recollection of meeting Joseph Sickert more than once and that was over a pleasant restaurant lunch and a drink in a pub afterwards. But I see that you say I was "party to a filming session". This, I suspect, is another example of Harrisian imprecision and rather tacky attempt to to convey guilt by association. But no matter. Raising the subject of Sickert and how harsh you were or were not in your interviewing of McCormick is the hackneyed diversionary technique beloved by politicians and called 'answering the questions you weren't asked'. Nobody has said you were harsh in your questioning of McCormick, so your denial is answering a question nobody had asked and it's purpose was to introduce Joseph Sickert and something you imagine is detremental to me. You hope that I will be shamed into silence or be provoked into a defensive response that will take the focus off you. Baby games, Melvin, and I'm not interested in your little ploys. Like most people here, I'm interested in getting at the truth, but I really can't be bothered wading through the obfuscation you spew out. So in future I will treat what you say with caution and others may wish to do the same. But this is all very boring, Melvin, and I'd rather go back to discussing wrestling. After trying to make sense of you, it all seems so much more real somehow. And for the third or fourth time of asking, have you received Shirley Harrison's letter and forwarded it to the newspaper editor?
Author: Matthew Brannigan Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 04:41 am
Paul, The Ripper was often stated to be below average height, while Tazz is only 5ft 6in. Tazz claims to have grown up in Brooklyn, New York where endemic crime and violence were a part of his background. The Ripper was also said at various time to be both a foreigner and an American, Tazz's dark skin would certainly be foreign to most Whitechapel residents at the time. Furthermore I have photographic evidence showing that Tazz is in the habit of sneaking up behind people and choking them into unconsciousness. Could we have a new Ripper suspect? :-) Matt
Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 06:11 am
You are definitely on to something, Holmes. And it is all throwing an interesting and fresh light on the sudden departure of Jerry "The King" Lawler. I mean, who is likely to benefit most! Yes, yes, and Tazz looks sneaky too, doesn't he? Definitely... I must really give this a lot of thought... Much fun. I do enjoy a really good meaningful chat instead of all this incomprehensible literary stuff. And Martin hasn't got the faintest idea what we're talking about either! It isn't very often that that happens, believe me.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 06:32 am
Hi Alegria, Me too. Melvin had me doubled up with mirth a few times there. His comic genius shines through, even while he wrestles to understand one of the simplest questions he has probably ever been asked. And he bore no grudge, since he knew I was acting in my professional capacity and had no personal motive for demolishing his book. Ha ha ha ho ho ho Sad, but there it is, an odd mixture of ego and error. Tee hee hee - stop it, my sides are aching Well, Melvin, my little ray of sunshine, have you received Shirley Harrison's letter and forwarded it to the newspaper editor? Love, Cazz
Author: Matthew Brannigan Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 06:58 am
Paul, I've got this vision of Martin trawling through Victorian asylum records to see if there was a "Tazz" incarcerated at the time. Of course he won't find Tazz in an asylum. He might find Mankind though. Matt
Author: Martin Fido Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 08:10 am
Yes, I'm gnashing my toothless gums as I leaf through my encyclopedias... Tazz-maniacs? Taxx reforms? I think I'll have to back up alphabetically to reach an appropriate philosopher for my generation, and try Savile, Sir J Martin
Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 10:04 am
Yes, find Mankind, but he would only turn out to be the same age, hair colour, size, physical appearance, eye-colour and in most other ways identical to Dude Love, which would spark all sorts of problems. It's an avenue we'd perhaps be best not to wander to far down... and that's the bottom line because Stone Cold said so. (I've never had the opportunity to say that!)
Author: Christopher T George Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 10:13 am
Hi, Matt et al.: I think "Tazz" is a put-on, am I right, or is there actually a philosopher called Tazzmission???? Here I am showing my ignorance, or should I say my Sir William Gull-ibility? Anyway, to serious matters, hurrrrmph. If the Tazz-talk is all in fun, as I assume, Matt, you may not have given much thought to your statement that "Tazz's dark skin would certainly be foreign to most Whitechapel residents at the time." On the contrary, then as now, I think dark skin would have been quite common on the streets of Whitechapel. I know from my own work with maritime records (admittedly from an earlier period, 1812-1815) one out of five sailors was colored. At all times of day there likely would have been sailors wandering the streets of the East End from the ships in the nearby docks, with a fifth of such fellows being dark-skinned men. Additionally, if they are not born dark-skinned, a number of white sailors develop a nut-brown pigmentation from their outdoors work with constant exposure to the sun and wind. Besides such nonresident visitors to the East End, there would probably have been people of African, Arab, or Indian origin who may have settled in the East End by 1888. So again, I dispute your comment that "dark skin would certainly [have been] foreign to most Whitechapel residents at the time." Best regards Chris George
Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 11:30 am
Hi Chris I think what Mat meant was that Tazz's dark and swarthy appearance would have marked him out among the pasty-faced Londoners as a foreigner. As far as whether or not there is a philosopher called Tazzmission, it isn't so much a philosopher as the branch of a philosophy that Tazz made his own, in pretty much the same way as Hunter Hearst Helmsley claims the Pedigree and the more proletariat Mr Maivia has popularised two schools of thought based on body parts, The People's Elbow and the Rock Bottom. I'm sure Mat can name a few more.
Author: David Halstead Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 01:09 pm
I never knew JtR attracted fellow Jericholics. The Walls of Jericho will be everyone's downfall!
Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 01:27 pm
Indeed. Indeed. And won't that be The Big Show!
Author: Triston Marc Bunker Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 03:04 pm
Paul, Matt et al I do recount a story that rather large Sumo character lurked the streets during that era. I do believe the likes of Tazz and Helmsley had bought a brand of narcotic from him known as a "Stinky". I hear this drug had some very nasty side effects (such as a brown nose and a very nasty smell under it). Could any of you gentlemen tell me to what genus of narcotic the "stinky" belongs too ? Tris
Author: Alan Hunt Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 04:11 pm
a school of thought suggests that some of the victims were incapasitated before mutilation began.Shades of a Stone Cold Stunner there? and also on the Foreigner tack there was a large Oriental community in the docks-maybe a japanese protaganist--INDEED!
Author: Melvin Harris Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 05:10 pm
BEHIND THE LIES Since Begg has difficulty in understanding some quite simple propositions, let me see if I can simplify further. First, I do not know how the questions were put to McCormick ten years AFTER my initial parley with him. But IF my name was given to him then he would have known AT ONCE that any mention of a poem would involve the fake that he had confessed to using. An honest answer then would have provided the full picture. A lie by omission would have evaded the truth by using the device of pretending that the issue was simply one of authorship. So was he asked POINT-BLANK if the poem was a modern fake? Or was he posed a question that allowed him to fool around? And note this:- In a court of law if a witness coupled one denial with a second one and that second one could be shown INDEPENDENTLY to be false, then his statement would be shot to pieces. That is why his Adam denial is all important. As for Sickert are you saying that I HAVE BEEN LIED TO? Are you saying that there was never such a filming session? That you know nothing of the events I describe?
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 05:54 pm
I love WWF ! Mr Begg , may I recomend the Playstation game " WWF Smackdown 2 " to you ; not only does it include all our favourite wrestling heroes but it includes a program which allows you to create your own wrestlers including unique appearance , signature moves and personalised taunts at your opponent. You can create a wrestler in your own likeness quite simply and then ' mix it up ' with your favourite superstars in the squared circle - almost as good as the real thing. The Brahma Bull to kick the Rattlesnake's butt at Wrestlemania - HELL YEAH ! Simon PS Mr Begg , I will not be able to complete my article for you for ' Ripperologist ' this month as I have pressing work to complete on the Achaemenid Persian army of Xerxes son of Darius. Rest assured I will do all I can to get it to you as soon as possible.
Author: Paul Begg Friday, 16 March 2001 - 02:53 am
Simon. I don't really know where you got the idea from that we're talking about wrestling. I thought it was philosophy. I don't have a Playstation, which is probably a good thing. Creating a wrestler in my own likeness is almost too frightening a thought to contemplate. A sort of cross between Mankind and Pizza Hut. Somebody earlier gave an interesting perspective on this subject, but it was a bit short and forthright, what you might call a kurt angle. It was, I think, that the Ripper and his accomplice stripped naked to avoid their clothing becoming splashed with blood, which in November must have made them stone cold, so I guess they were hardy boyz. I think they�d have dressed rikishily because covered with gore they would have been a bit stinky. Leaving, one of them twisted his ankle and decided to leave the country before being caught , punished and needing an undertaker, so using a kane to walk he caught a slow boat to chyna. There he practiced the martial arts and being very proficient and physically attractive to women was known as the grandmaster sexay. His partner was later involved in an accident and became terribly disfigured. While being looked after in the infirmary of the Edmonton City Workhouse he heard about the elephant man and thought that he would become like him, so on leaving ECW, which he�d found justin credible, he became Rhino man. In the freak show he met Jesse James, who�d survived being shot in the back but on falling from the chair he�d been standing on had damaged his face and looked like a hound. He�d fled and taken to the streets, being known as road dog. It had been raining heavily and he borrowed some protective apparel from a raincoat salesman whom he�d falsely persuaded to lend him credit, what you might describe as convince macman (okay, okay). Pursued by the law, he thought he�d hide out in the freak show, which is where he met Rhino. In Arizona the weather was too warm for the mac, it was sort of scotty too hotty... In the end, though, they all arrived in WWF New York� I can�t go on with this, so h,h,h, sorry about the stutter, I didn't mean that triple h, just help. Well, I'm off for a beer. I don't know how many cans the box holds, so can't give a figure. We'll call it an x pack. Madeleine, it�s all your fault!
Author: Paul Begg Friday, 16 March 2001 - 02:56 am
Now <sigh> Melvin. No, I am not saying you have been lied to. I am saying that I don�t recall what you are talking about. I am also saying that whatever you are trying to lead up to is a blatant attempt to divert attention away from your own behavior and that I very much doubt that anyone here (or elsewhere for that matter) has failed to appreciate that. So go ahead and say whatever you think is going to embarrass me. Maybe it will, maybe it won�t. Either way it will be completely irrelevant and will just show you in an ever worse light. But let me explain something to you Melvin. You have indicated and allowed it to be believed that McCormick confessed to you that he had written �Eight Little Whores�. In doing this you were grossly misleading. It caused people to contact Mr. McCormick and put the accusation to him. He denied it, correctly and fairly. When his denial was put to you, you did not offer any clarification along the lines of admitting that the rhyme had been written by someone else, as would have been the right and proper thing to do, but instead implied that because McCormick�s denial of having heard of H.L. Adam was (in your opinion) a lie then his denial was a lie also. This was misleading once again. The honest and straightforward reply would have been to admit that McCormick�s denial about writing the rhyme was true and that it had been written by someone else. But, as said, the honest and straightforward thing to have done was to say this in the first place. You can try to weasel a way out with silly arguments about lying by omission, but the bottom line is that you didn�t tell the full story, people were misled, you at no point made any effort to correct them and if you�d died two weeks ago then history would have recorded on your authority that Donald McCormick had penned �Eight Little Whores�. How people want to interpret your action and how serious they will consider it to be is up to them. I know how I interpret it and how serious I think it is. And no matter how deep into the gutter you sink to find muck to sling, you won�t change that.
Author: Paul Begg Friday, 16 March 2001 - 03:02 am
Oh, and Melvin, at the grave risk of making this whole discussion even more boring than it already is, will you please state whether or no you have received Shiley's letter and forwarded it to the newspaper editor? Or is an answer to this question covered by some sort of non-disclosure agreement!
Author: Paul Begg Friday, 16 March 2001 - 03:08 am
And Simon, I'm afraid that I'll be in the Rattlesnake's corner when he debates Socratic principles with the Brahma Bull. The only thing is, I wonder why the Budweiser company hasn't objected to the Rattlesnake pouring their product all over his face (or other people)? Maybe it's an admission that that's better than drinking the stuff! (Head down, waiting for all the Bud fans to descend on me)
Author: Matthew Brannigan Friday, 16 March 2001 - 04:35 am
Wrestling? What kind of serious Ripper student would waste their time debating something so stupid. The message boards are for serious philosphical debates, such as the schism between the so-called Rattlesnake and Brahma Bull schools. Due to convincing arguments in favour of both sides, I believe that the discussion should be chaired by an independent arbiter, preferably another philosopher. This "special referee" could ensure that both sides use only fair arguments while having the intellectual rigour to enter the debate himself should either side overstep the boundaries of reasoning. As for the school known as Jerichoholics, their negative tactics in argument, such as telling people to "shut the hell up" have grabbed headlines and won public favour, but to my mind they have not resolved their differences with the French language philosophers such as Benoit, and have yet to prove him wrong. I am however confused by some of the hypothetical demonstrations used by philosophers, such as the Undertaker's utilitarian model, in which one is encouraged to see the world as one's own yard or the "3 x H" theorem which posits that existence is not a game but that one is the game oneself. However my own preference is for the hedonistic egocentric view of the Poe-influenced Ravenists, whose philosophical question "What About Me?" has yet to receive a convincing reply. Matt
Author: Paul Begg Friday, 16 March 2001 - 05:24 am
The labarynthine Cretan philosophy built around the bull cult will, I feel sure, be expounded by the Brahma Bull to great effect, but the sudden and unexpected dilectical in-your-face Texan approach of the Rattlesnake will in the end prove the overwhelming argument. Unless, of course, it is scripted differently. I think the the "3xH" theorem which posits that one is the game oneself is very similar to William Gunn's definition of 'the one'.
Author: Martin Fido Friday, 16 March 2001 - 07:24 am
Simon - A 'virtual reality' Paul Begg that also wrestles is a terrifying idea! I should be retreating from attempts to pin me to the mat every time I went online! Martin F
Author: Paul Begg Friday, 16 March 2001 - 07:51 am
A 'virtual reality' Paul Begg who doesn't wrestle is more than enough to terrify me. But in real life or 'virtual reality', there just ain't no way anyone is getting me to wear spandex tights. They're just not me!
Author: Matthew Brannigan Friday, 16 March 2001 - 08:44 am
Spandex is very few people. It's one of those things, like Thatcherism and the Krankies, whose time had expired before the clock ran to 1990. Matt
Author: Melvin Harris Friday, 16 March 2001 - 05:41 pm
CON-TRICKS, ALAS! Dear Begg, if you wish to act like a con-man then you will be found out. You are relying on short memories plus the fact that some of those reading your stuff will imagine that you are giving them an honest report. But it is far from honest and here to PROVE that is the relevant part of the posting in which I gave an account of McCormick's fakery (the full account is still available) It gives the lie to your latest post. "By 1987 the case against McCormick was overwhelming. He had faked all the seemingly new information that he had used in writing his book. When I put that to him he was truly staggered. No one had ever seen through the give-away bogus chronology before. He himself was blind to the fact that he had made a damning and fundamental blunder. Faced with the truth he could only wriggle and, first of all, try to blame Dutton. But his own false testimony about the AGE of the entries told against him. He became philosophical about his exposure, especially when I said that I was prepared to describe the fakery as the work of a man with a wicked sense of humour. I stated that I was not going to ask for the name of the faker unless he wished to divulge it. Specifically, though, I drew his attention to the poem about the 'Eight little whores'. I was struck by the way that writers had cheerfully quoted these lines without any misgivings, and used them as if they were AUTHENTIC VERSES FROM 1888. At that time they had been used by Odell, Farson, Prof Camps, Rumbelow, Cullen and Michael Harrison. I put it to McCormick that these verses had no antiquity; they were unknown before appearing in his book, IN 1959. While the reference to Henage Court showed that the writer had drawn on the PC Spicer story, which did not reach print UNTIL MARCH 1931. In short it was not a Victorian piece, but a 20th century concoction. Again, at no time did I ask him to name the faker. But I asked him to acknowledge it as a MODERN fake and stated that I would be content to describe it as being the work of a "very clever man who enjoys his quiet fun." McCormick accepted that formula AND WITHOUT ANY BLUSTER OR EQUIVOCATION ADMITTED THAT IT WAS A FAKE AND WAS INDEED INSPIRED BY THE SPICER STORY; A STORY THAT HE DISCOVERED IN A BUNDLE OF OLD PRESS CLIPPINGS AND THEN USED IN CONSTRUCTING HIS BOOK. In truth it was McCormick who FIRST made the Spicer story known to Ripperologists. Until 1959 it had stayed forgotten in newspaper archives. (As early as 1979 he had told me that the starting point for almost all of his books lay in the Kemsley Newspaper library which had masses of cuttings going back to early Victorian days. Other newspapers, he advised, held similar archives. They saved him a journey and a search at Colindale.) That, then, is how things stood in 1987 and my hope was that the Pedachenko hoax and other such hoaxes, would be laid to rest in 1988 by our planned television 'Inquest'. But plans often meet unexpected obstacles. And in the case of the 'Centenary Inquest' our plans were unexpectedly blocked by an outside body. Since I am still bound by the terms of my original contract (and I have just checked this) I am not able to disclose the full details of this blocking. The most I can say is that it was a collision caused by inter-network rivalries. ...But the 1988 withdrawal meant that McCormick gained a welcome relief at a time when he was most vulnerable and perhaps even glad to get things off his chest. It was this knowledge that allowed me to tell Feldman that the Diary was a hoax EVEN BEFORE I SAW IT. On the 13th of May, 1993, at our first and only meeting, he told me that the Diary contained important proofs in its texts. He especially delighted over what he described as the first drafts of the 'Eight little whores' poem. When I heard that, I stated that if his claim was true than that alone proved the Diary to be bogus. He agreed that IF the poem was bogus then the Diary was too, but he refused to accept that ANY Dutton quotes were faked. He believed in McCormick. He insisted that he would track down the 'Dutton Chronicles' and he later included an appeal for information about them at the end of his video. This in turn led to yet another hoax. An anonymous correspondent then wrote to him and gave a detailed and plausible account of having seen these chronicles. He even named the author who owned them, but that author would not play ball. (I will not name the hoaxer but his name is known to many in Ripperologist circles) Eventually, I met up with McCormick in the flesh. At the book signing at Camille Wolff's we talked and I put it to him that the Diary hoax had altered matters and I wanted to set the record straight in a new book. I asked him if he now wished to publicly name the faker of the poem, but he said he was not ready. He was still happy, though, for me to use the old formula, that it was faked by "A very clever man who enjoys his quiet fun", and he winked as he said it! Yes, he was a likeable rogue. But he was trapped by his very likeability. Over the years he had kept up the bluff with so many people that he found it hard to disentangle himself, as I found out when I later wrote to him. He was, by then, unwilling to commit himself in writing, instead he wrote letters full of teasing, enigmatic clues. Finally in October 1997 I wrote to him and asked him to stop the fooling and write a candid letter fit for publication. Sadly the reply that came back read "I have an ulcer on my right eye and have great difficulty in writing at present. Please let the matter drop." I did and there was never to be a further chance. Within a short while I learned that he was dead. But his legacy lives on. Fortunately for the truth one fragment of that legacy gives the lie to the false Diary provenance that tries to place it back in the 1940's. Not a chance. McCormick's poem is reflected in the Diary text. Both Feldman and Shirley Harrison agree on that. That poem did not exist until 1958, when it was composed and did not appear in print until 1959. And that is the rock on which the flimsy Ark of Provenance perishes."
Author: Paul Begg Saturday, 17 March 2001 - 04:37 am
Dear Harris! Act like a fool and you will be seen as one. I am not a con-man and my report is not a lie. It is perfectly clear, straightforward and honest, which yours are not. Your bluff and bluster isn't changing that - insanus omnis furere credit ceteros. The long piece you have extracted is the account I originally questioned when I wondered how clearly McCormick fully understood your nod and wink subterfuge (as indicated in paragraph 4 of your extract, additional detail provided on this board March 13, �Concealed Again�) when he was recovering from the shock of being �found out� and fearing a stress-related angina attack. Having tried other diversionary techniques, you are now trying to return the argument to its starting point, hoping to provoke a re-discussion of the whole thing, knowing that everyone will weary and fall to silence, the whole matter so impenetrably wreathed in your obfuscation that you will think you stand free of fault. The charge is that you let it be believed that McCormick wrote �Eight Little Whores�, you did absolutely nothing to correct this misunderstanding, when McCormick denied authorship you tried to portray him as a liar, and had you died two weeks ago then history books would on your authority have recorded a falsity. You are guilty of being grossly misleading.
Author: Melvin Harris Saturday, 17 March 2001 - 07:14 pm
TRY READING Not even the firmest proofs will allow Begg to lose face. He still whines away saying: "You have indicated and allowed to be believed that McCormick had confessed to you that he had written 'Eight Little Whores'. In doing this you were grossly misleading." The text I have just repeated gives the true picture. The part McCormick played in creating the verses is not known for certain. Whether he suggested the structure, or indicated the items to be spliced in, or wrote part of them, was never revealed. And the hints at another hand at work were made in such a way that inspired guesses could be made but certainties were out of the question. And the subject was not pressed to a rock-hard conclusion because at that juncture those verses were of little importance, and their genesis was not hard to see. That is why, in 1987, when I openly branded the verses as bogus, Begg did not dispute my verdict and actually described my book as "required reading". And until 1993, when the Diary was in trouble, no one with any acumen took the lines seriously anymore. But Begg's Diary-whine does not matter one bit when it comes to the hard facts. They are 1, that this 'Henage Court' poem does not involve the real killer. That 2, it is rooted in a newspaper story first printed in 1931. That 3, this newspaper story was brought to light by McCormick and reprinted by him in his book of 1959. That 4, the verses appeared from nowhere, and for the first time, in the same book. That 5, all the new material in that book did not exist anywhere else before being displayed by McCormick. That 6, ALL this new material can be shown to have been invented for the book. In the case of the verses they were little more than some minor colouring touches concocted for his original typescript and then published by him. But the responsibility for foisting the whole fake account on the public has to be his and no one elses. The verses, formed part of that fake account, thus the ultimate responsibility for issuing them is his. He is father to that particular fake. No amount of tricky sleight-of-tongue by McCormick in his last years, or by Begg in his years of chagrin, can get around that fact. On the Mrs Harrison front; since Begg has perhaps not read my 'LAST WORD' entry let me end his distress by directing him to it. It makes clear that the newspaper Editor does not want to be involved with any queries from anyone. All such approaches are unwelcome. Since that has been stated emphatically, there the matter ends. Now if Begg really wants to illuminate Mrs Harrison, then he can start by identifying the many false claims and misrepresentations in her latest paperback. For a start, there are some 21 pages which deal with ink tests including 6 dealing with Alex Voller's inspection of the Diary. In dealing with those tests Mrs Harrison manages to misrepresent every one of them. Perhaps Begg can begin his critical study with an explanation of an entry on page 367 which speaks of a substance called 'Anhydrous sulphate'. This is a substance quite unknown to chemistry. You can have barium sulphate, zinc sulphate, lead sulphate, copper sulphate, ferrous sulphate etc, etc, and any of these can be in the anhydrous state (without water) but every sulphate has to be a sulphate of something. But perhaps he would like to start with an easier part and look at the Dibden item on pages 321-2. There her sweeping remarks on my research are more foolish since they are easily refuted by the bare facts which I have put on screen TWICE and which she claims she has read. Now Begg must know that. So we all look forward to a reformed Begg who turns his attention to some really wretched pieces of research and gives us an honest verdict on the mess he uncovers. This will make a welcome change from his present day obsession with attacking solid findings. And after he submits his exposure of the many faults he will find, he can then turn his attention to Feldman's follies. It will all make for entertaining reading. And it will prove that he is able to be even-handed.
Author: Paul Begg Sunday, 18 March 2001 - 03:35 am
Harris is accused of implying that �Eight Little Whores� was written by McCormick, of doing absolutely nothing whatsoever to correct this misconception and of thus being grossly misleading by allowing on his authority the historical record to be contaminated with error. Harris�s acknowledgment that �The part McCormick played in creating the verses is not known for certain� does not refute that charge or diminish it in any way at all. In fact it supports it, especially when juxtaposed with statements like:- �I wrote to Martin Fido from Ireland warning him that the 'Eight Little Whores' poem was a fake created by McCormick�� (my italics). (Melvin Harris, �The Facts That Wont Go Away, July 7 2000; The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: The Maybrick Diary.) Harris�s admission that �And the hints at another hand at work were made in such a way that inspired guesses could be made but certainties were out of the question� also puts a different perspective on the confident assertion, �From the smokescreen emerged one man. His friend and fellow-delighter in crafting engaging yarns; none other than Ian Fleming.� There can be no doubt that Harris has been very far from straightforward and honest. What has also emerged from this tangled web of confusion and obfuscation is that McCormick�s supposed admission to authoring �Eight Little Whores� was indeed far from conclusive, which is exactly the position I took when I queried Harris�s claims on November 28 1998 and subsequent posts (see under �Articles by Melvin Harris: The Maybrick Hoax: Donald McCormick�s Legacy). What we have is a man facing public humiliation as a charlatan on nationwide television, concerned about an angina attack brought on by stress, having had all the H.L. Adam-derived content of his book revealed as bogus, being asked about a rhyme which Harris acknowledges was �of little importance� at a time when ��the crucial Adam material was uppermost in McCormick's mind� (Harris, March 13 2001 �Concealed Again�). So, as asked in 1998, what did McCormick actually admit? What did he think he was admitting to? Did he know he was admitting to anything? At that juncture did he care that he was admitting to anything? Did he have the remotest idea amid amid Harris�s conspiratorial nods and winks what the hell Harris was actually talking about? I have absolutely no idea (although I personally suspect that professional writers like McCormick and Ian Fleming wouldn�t have written such awful verse), but Harris�s evidence is poor and McCormick denied it, writing: �I am surprised at the reaction from Melvin Harris, as not long ago he wrote to me asking who might be the author of various Ripper poems...So it would seem that even when a friendly response is made to other Ripperologists, it only results in abuse.� Sounds an oddly familiar complaint (that also kind of puts the lie to Harris's claims of jolly broad-minded amiability with a loveable old rogue - McCormick doesn't seem to have seen it that way!). So the charge of being grossly misleading stands and the more that is told about that supposed confession, the more unreliable it sounds. If, Harris (as you insist on surnames), you mean that you have not forwarded Shirley Harrison�s letter to the newspaper editor then I consider your action purposefully obstructive. And as I do not think the tacky parading of other peoples errors makes �entertaining reading� as you do, you can expect nothing �diary�-related from me except assistance to those who, unlike you, are less interested in the follies of others than in establishing the facts so that ground-rules can be established for the future, proper procedures followed, the right questions asked and the same mistakes not be made.
Author: shirley harrison Sunday, 18 March 2001 - 06:40 am
Mr Harris. Could you please tick here "yes" or "No" to the question: have you forwarded my stamped, unaddressed letter to the appropriate editor? Thank you.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Sunday, 18 March 2001 - 07:02 am
Hi All, Happily, this appears to be the right board all round for a question I have, which comes out of this heady mix of literary critique, philosophical wrestling, actual body blows, and our eight little whores, all going down like, er, nine-pins. My concern is that a very basic point about the ELW poem is being lost � as usual - in Melvin�s copious, longwinded and deeply unpleasant opinions of the actions and thought processes of other people, such as McCormick, Feldy and Paul Begg. Why, if the physical evidence of the diary and its text, and his inside information on those involved in its forgery, is so �telling� and �good enough� for him, does he feel the need to go off on a tandem � sorry, tangent? (Nice image though � I�m humming Daisy, Daisy, and recalling that, when I was little, I wondered what an �aunt�s ado� was, as in �Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer � do�� yes, I know, I�m half crazy too and going off on my own tangent ) What I�m getting at is this: has it been established, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the diary author could not have dreamed up certain phrases and rhymes without having eight little whores on the brain? This is Feldy�s argument, picked up by a gleeful Melvin, based on their respective beliefs of when ELW was composed and its availability to the diary author. In other words, they would both say that, wouldn�t they? But, if we can bear to tear ourselves away from the clash of the Titans for a moment, how does the argument stand up to an impartial examination by authorities on poetry in general, and the history of counting rhyme, fruity imagery and original thinking in particular, when it comes to a subject as specialised as the downing of a series of whores? Would there not have been, for example, in the Ripper�s time - particularly among the newly-literate generation of newspaper and magazine readers - exactly the same type of tasteless jokes and rhymes doing the rounds of the streets, the pubs etc, as we get today, often within hours of a horrific news story breaking. We all know it goes on in private, and that the media judge when they feel it�s �safe� � ie far enough removed in time from the actual event � to publicise such material and exploit it in the name of comedy, without risking their audience being (or pretending to be) too deeply shocked and appalled. If there is already a consensus of opinion, among such authorities, that the diary author was indeed directly influenced by the ELW poem, then fine - we can all move forward to the question of when this poem was composed, and see if there is also a consensus of opinion that it was around 1959, as Melvin asserts. And so, with profuse apologies for my own longwindedness and wobbling off in irrelevant directions, my simple question is: do we have the former consensus or not? Love, Caz
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Sunday, 18 March 2001 - 07:05 am
To Mr Harris. Could you please tick here "yes" or "No" to the question: have you forwarded Shirley's stamped, unaddressed letter to the appropriate editor? Thank you. (Sorry Shirley, I can't even pretend this is original thought, but I guess I'm not the only other person to be thinking it right now. :-)) Love, Caz
Author: R.J. Palmer Sunday, 18 March 2001 - 08:25 am
Caz-- Well, as you already know, I think the diary clearly alludes to the 'Eight Little Whores' poem. It doesn't quote it outright, true, but this merely follows the pattern that can be seen elsewhere in the diary. The Dear Boss letter is alluded to---but isn't quoted directly. The same thing happens with the 'Lusk Letter'. And the Goulston Street Graffiti. (Even the police list is alluded to!) The writers of the diary seemed to realize that vagueness was on their side; the optimistic reader would fill in the details, and the skeptics would have less 'specifics' by which to nail it as a forgery. Yet, as we know, the forgers slipped up in a few notable areas. I hope we aren't seeing a pattern here, though. Poste House was readily accepted as Poste House, Liverpool until Roger Wilkes pointed out it was called the Muck Midden in Maybrick's time. Then suddenly the allusion in the diary might have been to a different Poste House. When it was widely pointed out that the 'Dear Boss' letters were most probably the work of 'enterprising journalists', Feldman attempted to show that it was the Lusk letter that was the work of journalists. Is the 'Eight Whores Poem' going to receive a similar treatment? It seems to me that those who are arguing that the diary is an old document starting with a conclusion ('it is old') and now are interpretting the facts to fit that conclusion. They should be working the other way around. RP
Author: Paul Begg Sunday, 18 March 2001 - 11:53 am
Hi RJP Who is starting from the conclusion that it is old? Cheers Paul
Author: Melvin Harris Sunday, 18 March 2001 - 03:33 pm
A CONFLICT OF STANDARDS There is an important caveat in my original McCormick posting which Begg has either ignored or chosen not to mention. So let me make it extra visible for him by placing it in capitals, thus:- "I WILL NOT ATTEMPT TO GIVE A VERBATIM ACCOUNT OF OUR CONVERSATION, THAT WILL HAVE TO WAIT FOR MY NEXT BOOK." The convoluted hints over the creation of the verses reminded me of the Amityville Horror fakery when attorney William Weber confessed "We created this story over many bottles of wine...We were playing with each other." Just so. McCormick came to treat the episode as just part of a money-spinning wangle. By faking material for both his Ripper book and his book on Kitchener, he was able to produce two books in record time and have them both published in 1959. Honest, painstaking research would never have given him such fast, lucrative results. (He even managed to sell the Kitchener dramatisation rights to BBC Radio.) Note though, the conclusion that McCormick was pointing to Fleming as an accomplice is obviously mine. It is the most fitting solution, but if it is wrong, then that is of little consequence because the poem is said to be taken from the Dutton papers and every quote from those 'papers' can be shown to be faked. What Begg forgets is that I have years of experience of interviewing and investigating characters who have employed tactics very similar to those used by McCormick. I am used to people using half-truths, and evasive side-tracking answers. And in McCormick's case (as I have stated) he first tried to blame Dr Dutton for the fakery. He dropped this line as soon as I brought him back to the dates he had given for the volumes he claimed to have seen and made notes from. He was caught out by his own audacity and Adam's unwitting blunders. That McCormick is THE FATHER of the verses is a fact. No amount of quibble over authorship, or co-authorship, or inspirer, or any other fancy permutations, can demolish that fact. Without McCormick and his discovery of the Spicer story, the verses would never have been written and published and repeated. He is the faker responsible for their existence. Begg evades the use of logic when he quotes from a denial written by McCormick years after the events of 1987. After his visit to Camille Wolff's on Jan 25th 1995 McCormick was in a completely changed state of mind. That one visit produced a state of elation in him. He found himself in the role of a 'living legend' and hailed as 'The Pioneer Ripperologist'. It was a status that he enjoyed immensely. He had no possible incentive to relinquish it from then on. So any statements he made after that visit have to be examined with that knowledge in mind. And what we can say without hesitation, is that his statement about H. L. Adam is false and can be seen to be false by anyone who picks up his book. Adam is central to his Chapman inventions. Begg also evades another telling point. I told Feldman that the poem was a fake on May 13th 1993. So why did Feldman and Mrs Harrison wait, year after year, BEFORE contacting McCormick? Why leave it until he had reached a non-cooperative state of mind? Why leave it until his health had really broken down? Begg's attempt to undermine my research will not work. The independent evidence, open to everyone, is enough to show that I was able to place McCormick in a position from which there was no escape. The only people who still yearn to believe in the verses are those who have a vested interest in either keeping the Diary alive. Begg is quick to complain that I am allowing "...the historical record to be contaminated with error." but is unwilling to seek out the wholesale contamination that is found in the books by Mrs Harrison and Feldman. But that is to be expected. The entertaining reading I was looking forward to was the sight of Begg actually providing some telling, original research. Stuff that really sets the record straight on issues of importance. But you will not see this. Cronyism is far more important to him than a forthright examination that might upset some of his friends. As for Mrs Harrison's letter. No, I have not received this. If she read the last piece I posted, then perhaps she thought better of a venture that was ill-conceived. But the final answer from the paper itself (it knows all the details) has already been given. And the Sickert reference involves a meeting during which Joseph wept, was consumed with anger and verbally attacked Melvyn Fairclough, who was also present. Are the bells now ringing? The sole point in mentioning that wretched event was to contrast the standards I adopt with those of my critics. I have never subjected any of my radio or television interviewees to any hurtful or unpleasant pressures. They have always had the choice of the topics they wish to discuss and full control of the extent of the questioning involved. Thus McCormick would never have been put before camera unless he insisted on it. And the questions would have been agreed to before hand. Personally, I would have been happier with just a written statement from him.
Author: Paul Begg Sunday, 18 March 2001 - 06:17 pm
I�m afraid Harris's squirming must be embarrassing for everyone and if I yet again restate why Harris is guilty of being misleading then I will be accused of murdering the readers of this board though terminal boredom. I therefore direct attention to the first three paragraphs of my post of Sunday, March 18, 2001 - 03:35 am and similar statements in previous posts and observe that Harris has said nothing that changes what is said there. Very simply, Harris has not been honest and straightforward about the McCormick confession. What is bizarre is that Harris could have offered simple clarification. He chose not to do so, presumably because it would have lessened the impact he hoped to achieve by having people believe that McCormick had confessed to the authorship of �Eight Little Whores�. Instead he prevaricated and obfuscated. He has resorted to insults and rudeness and even threatened to reveal some supposed past indiscretion. He had run the gamut of evasive techniques and I have had to endure be called a liar and con-man among other things. Harris�s behaviour has been a downright disgrace. But something approaching the truth has been won. For example, we have gone from a statement of fact:- From the smokescreen emerged one man. His friend and fellow-delighter in crafting engaging yarns; none other than Ian Fleming.� to an admission of guesswork:-- �And the hints at another hand at work were made in such a way that inspired guesses could be made but certainties were out of the question� to finish with something of no consequence:- �Note though, the conclusion that McCormick was pointing to Fleming as an accomplice is obviously mine. It is the most fitting solution, but if it is wrong, then that is of little consequence�� So what began as McCormick having composed �Eight Little Whores� became Ian Fleming having composed it, to Ian Fleming�s involvement being a guess, to the guess being of no consequence. All from a man who has told us that we should accept his word unquestioningly! Well, I hate to say this, but what really is of tremendous consequence in all this is wondering what other guesses Harris has passed off as fact. And now I can apparently add to my catalogue of sins the evasion of logic because McCormick�s denial that he authored �Eight Little Whores� came after his visit to Grey House Books when McCormick �was in a completely changed state of mind.� But I wonder how Harris knows what was going on inside McCormick�s head? He didn�t ask him. By Harris�s admission he had no further contact with him until very shortly before McCormick�s death. So how is Harris able to postulate McCormick�s thought processes? Is it just another guess? And I still have no recollection of the interview with Sickert that Harris mentions and I note that he still hasn�t stated I was present.
Author: Alan Hunt Sunday, 18 March 2001 - 08:13 pm
I think the important line in Mr Harris's last post was "to wait for my next book"-as mr Gecko once said "GREED IS GOOD"
Author: Paul Begg Monday, 19 March 2001 - 01:05 am
Hi Alan Melvin wrote that in 1998. I'll probably be able to ask Donald McCormick for his version before that book appears!
Author: shirley harrison Monday, 19 March 2001 - 05:44 am
Mr Harris. I spoke with your publisher last week to confirm that they had forwarded my letter to you. However when I double checked this morning, Briony in editorial was less certain but has promised to see that if I send the letter again she will forward it. This is I am doing. It is outrageous and arrogant beyond belief that you should act as a go-between and expect me to accept YOUR word that the editor will not discuss the problem with me. This from a man who is now notorious for shifting ground from "this is a fact and you must believe what I say" to "this is my interpretation of events and since I am a respected author you must still believe what I say" (witness the latest shift over Ian Fleming) I don't think you need to be quite so solicitous for the well being of a national paper editor who, I guess, does not need your protection and is well able to cope with authors asking questions he doesn't want to answer. Dear Peter We are in danger of drifting off along yet another irrelevant line of argument. Peter I suggest that you address your questions in letters to Anne, to Robert, Paul and to Doreen Montgomery in the same way that I have written to Melvin's unknown editor. I cannot answer matters relating to events of which I had no part. Incidentally, you haven't answered my query about the existence of documentation which you may have discovered and which might help throw some light on events of 1993 after publication. My Email number is shirleyharrison1@hotmail.com
Author: R.J. Palmer Monday, 19 March 2001 - 07:59 am
Hello. In regards to McCormick and the 'Eight Little Whores' doggerel, the bottom line seems to me: 1. The poem is almost assuredly a product of Spicer's story that appeared in 1931. It hasn't been found to precede this, and it repeats the same misspelling of 'Henage Court'. 2. The Spicer article was evidently forgotten until resurrected by McCormick while writing his 1959 book. 3. Thus, the man who introduced the Spicer story to Ripperology was the same man who introduced the 'Eight Little Whore's' poem. (McCormick) 4. McCormick is known to have used other dubious sources in his The Identity of Jack the Ripper. (Doesn't he refer to a document that has an anachronistic use of --I think it was 'Leningrad'-- and use other sources that have never been traced?) So, it seems indeed reasonable to suppose that the poem was composed sometime after McCormick rediscovered Spicer's article in the late 1950s. Now, considering that the two main champions of the diary (Harrison & Feldman) have both conceded that the poem is referred to in the diary's text, it seems to me that it not the least bit outrageous to suppose that we have another indication that the diary is of recent origin and that the 'Graham family connnection' story cannot be true. Paul--Hello. My previous statement was merely my perception and of course you don't have to agree with it. But it seems to me that when confronted with damning evidence, those that have a more optimistic view of the diary never seem to change their opinions, but only look for alternative explanations. Such as with 'Poste House'. Considering the flimsiness of the provenance and all the textual indications that the diary is modern, I would have genuinely thought that the leakiness of the vessel would have been acknowledged ages ago, the distress flag raised, and the passengers would have started swimming for the shore. Certainly it's nobel to go down with the ship, but isn't it high time that those arguing that this is an old document concede that it is not? Best wishes.
Author: Paul Begg Monday, 19 March 2001 - 09:45 am
Hi RJP Maybe we could knock Poste House on the head. My criticism is simply that the argument is illogical. If a Victorian document mentioned the Railway Hotel, Liverpool, and the present Railway Hotel in Liverpool was built in 1968, would you assume from this that there was no earlier Railway Hotel in Liverpool? I hope not because there was one. You see, all the research has done is establish when the present hotel was built. You can't infere from that that there was never an earlier hotel of that name. To do so is faulty reasoning. Just change Poste House for Railway Hotel. As for the �Eight Little Whores�, you wrote �it seems indeed reasonable to suppose that the poem was composed sometime after McCormick rediscovered Spicer's article in the late 1950s.� Why does that rhyme have to have been composed at the time of McCormick�s supposed rediscovery of the Spicer article c.1959? Why can�t it have been written contemporaneously with the publication of the Spicer article in 1931? McCormick claims the rhyme came from Dr. Dutton�s papers. Dutton certainly existed, he does appear to have been interested in true crime, he does appear to have kept notes, those notes appear to have mentioned Leonard Matters� 1929 Dr. Stanley theory and McCormick, who had been writing about the Ripper since the 1930s, could have seen Dutton�s papers and taken the rhyme from them as he claimed. But even if the attribution to Dutton was false, even Harris acknowledges that McCormick had access to piles of clippings, notes and other materials, so who can be certain where � or when - he found the rhyme? All we have indicating that the rhyme was composed c.1959 by or on behalf of McCormick is Harris�s say so, but that story is now so hopelessly muddled that it is impossible to know for certain what, if anything, McCormick confessed to. However, I think Adam Wood made a very good observation back in December 1998 when he wrote: �And if McCormick did write the poem, surely he'd have known there was no murder in Heneage Court. So does that mean the author misremembered Mitre Square? After all, Spicer is reported as stating Henage Street, not Court, so his report wasn't followed that closely.� Adam also makes a further valid observation: �But the fact that the poem contains a named location seems to me that it was written soon after Spicer's story appeared in 1931, and that by being topcial was loosely included. This is bad news of course for the Diary, but lets McCormick off the hook as far as having created the poem in 1959. The trouble is, it then ties in nicely with his meeting Dutton in 1932. As Paul says above, did the Doctor write details of Spicer's letter in his Chronicles of Crime, from which McCormick took notes and later used to concoct the poem?� As for whether or not �Eight Little Whores� is reflected in the �diary�, you can take that up with Caz. But on your observation that the rhyme �repeats the same misspelling of 'Henage Court'�, Adam also observed in 1998: �It's always struck me that the misspelling of Henage is not that significant. How should the word be pronounced anyway? How many times have you seen Berners Street mentioned in relation to Liz Stride? Does it mean someone has based mis-information on a previous error? No, it's an honest mistake.� It isn�t so much a matter of whether the �diary� is an old forgery or a modern one. It�s a matter of the facts and arguments on which our judgements are based being fair and accurate.