Archive through March 22, 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 22, 2001

Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: College course tackles the Diary: Archive through March 22, 2001

Author: Madeleine Murphy Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 08:18 pm
RJ, THANK YOU for the succinct description of the points at issue--not "butting in" in the least! Paul, you asked what details I felt were unimportant--well, everyone has pretty much outlined what I was getting at already! So this is probably superfluous. But who cares. The sun is shining and I have chardonnay.... I could see the general idea about establishing a date for a diary source and how that would, er, complicate Ann Graham's account of its provenance. But I wondered if there was something I was missing, because it seemed clear to me that this line of inquiry couldn't yield conclusive evidence one way or another; and the argument was being conducted with such heat in some quarters (note tactful use of passive voice!!) that I wondered if this point weren't more conclusive than I had realized. But it isn't. Yes, if the diary unequivocally quotes a poem known to have been composed in 1959, then it can't have been in the family since 1940. (Like the Monty Python "Stake Your Claim" sketch in which Arthur Ponsonby from Leamington-on-Spa claims to have written all Shakespeare's plays.!) Clearly, though, it doesn't. It barely echoes the ELW rhyme. Even if it did, since both poems echo ancient and well-known rhyming schemes, one couldn't draw the inference that one quoted the other--surely both could be siblings rather than parent-child. So I figured--why is it so important? It's important as Ripperology, as accurate history. It's not important as part of an investigation to establish the diary's author. It's a dead end. I'm reading the posts about the proprieties of anonymous posting with enormous interest.... madeleine
Author: R.J. Palmer Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 01:14 am
Hello Chris & everyone. In regards to one of those two particular Ripper books that was suggested by Melvin Harris as a source for the diary.... Page 6 & 8 of the book reprints the 'Dear Boss' Letter & postcard (alluded to throughout the diary) and Page 10 reprints the Lusk letter (also alluded to throughout the diary). What does one find in between, on page 9? Something that one might assume would have captured the forger's attention if they used the book? Nothing less than the 'Eight Little Whores' poem, in bold print. O.k., so perhaps that could be written off as is a coincidence, and in another book it may well have been. But this book is also: one of the two books that first reprinted the police inventory list's 'tin match box empty' (a phrase the diary obviously uses-- and which to mind conclusively dates it to post-1987, since that's when it was first made public); the same book that had the Punch cartoon on its dust cover (also alluded to in the diary); a book that introduces the idea of the Ripper 'putting his personal mark on the victim's face' in regards to the mutilation of Eddowes (p 75)-- which the diary probably also uses when Maybrick says I 'left my mark'; in describing the Eddowes' murder. I don't wish to rant, and it is an entirely personal choice whether one wishes to accept or reject Melvin's suggestion; but it is clear to me that Melvin isn't merely blowing smoke--it's a well-considered, plausible, reasonable, and solid suggestion, and, to my mind, a good piece of detective work. In short, it sure looks a lot more likely to me than any suggestion that the diary was written by someone with an intimate knowledge of the Maybrick household & the Ripper killings--a scenerio that I honestly did look into, but for which I have yet to find any evidence. But here's a question I would ask of anyone: what exactly constitutes 'conclusive' evidence in regards to the dairy being a modern hoax? This is a literary forgery, so it's prime element is disguise. It proports to be something it is not, and one would assume that it would naturally try to avoid pitfalls, anachronisms, obvious uses of modern sources, etc. If it merely copied its sources word-for-word it would be nothing more than a bad school term paper (and it sometimes approaches that!) That the diary fails in 'disguise' is surely a very telling sign, for when it comes to a forgery, a 'sore thumb' is damned near as damning as being caught 'red handed' IMHO. Sorry to be tiresome, but shouldn't one use a little common sense here? It shouldn't be forgotten that this is a document that for two years used the provenance 'it was given to me by a man in a pub' (!) Now, knowing that in the real world people aren't handed diaries of Jack the Ripper by their drinking buddies, we can only assume that this is not a sophisticated forgery. The diary demonstrates no great literary skill. I'm convinced that the diary's references have been somewhat sloppily culled from a few modern sources --probably the ones Melvin has suggested-- and the rest of the story can be explained by the fact that it is such a vague "tea leaf" that people are reading things into it. I see no other explanation. Being familiar with a few other well-known literary hoaxes, I would say that the 'evidence' by which they were condemned was very circumspect compared to the mass of evidence that has been compiled against the Maybrick diary. In short, considering that the diary's provenance is completely unacceptable, I'm having a harder & harder time understanding why this thing be taken seriously... Best wishes, RJ Palmer
Author: Paul Begg Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 02:11 am
Hi Madeleine Sunny and you have a chardonnay... As I watched snow and now bucketing rain and know, too, that 'out there' there blows an icy wind, I feel inclined to be very rude... The argument wasn�t important at all. I simply questioned (rather more rightly as it turned out than I had expected)in light of his denials that Donald McCormick had confessed to penning �Eight Little Whores� and this brought forth a defensive wind that typically blew the whole issue out of all proportion. But at least it has thrown some necessary light on the supposed confession and produced an excellent assessment of whether or not �ELW� is reflected in the �diary�, for which, as Caz has remarked, she�s been pushing for two years. And, though we all are agreed that the �diary� is a fake, the discussion is, I think, valuable and, above all, informative.
Author: Paul Begg Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 04:17 am
Hi RJP I understand your frustration and I guess it is similar to the way Caz has felt when she�s asked whether �ELW� really is reflected in the �diary�. This is a rough and ready reply, so please don't jump on me over details, but very broadly I think it is accepted that the 'diary is a forgery, but pre-1987 or post-1987 remains uncertain because the man in the street (of whom I am one) finds it difficult to sort out the evidence, mainly, I think, because so much seems inconclusive and little is clear cut. Melvin�s argument most certainly is �a well-considered, plausible, reasonable, and solid suggestion� and also undeniably �a good piece of detective work�, especially if the book turns out to have been the source used by the forger. But was it? If it wasn�t then It doesn�t really matter whether �ELW� appears in a book in neon lights. The trouble is that all too often �if� often becomes �is� and problems are ignored. What�s lacking here is the evidence that Mike Barrett ever read the book you are talking about. And what happens if he didn't? Maybe nothing, but if we don�t ask that question and follow to where it takes us, then we may miss something important and valuable. So, off the top of my head, we have Mike Barrett�s research notes, do they mention the book you cite? Assuming those notes to be genuine, if the book you cite wasn�t one of them then arguably he never saw that book and didn�t use it. If the notes are faked, what (if anything) do we deduce about his competence as a forger and the view that the forgery is not �sophisticated�? Okay, so the notes aren�t genuine � possibility. Mike found �ELW� somewhere else � possibility. Mike didn�t forge the �diary� � possibility. Anne forged the �diary� and used the source you cite � possibility? What knowledge does Anne possess�? Does Anne being the forger fit other information�? Now, if the �diary� turns out to have been written post-1987, that will be wonderful and everyone who has said so will be bathed in glory. If it is shown to predate 1987 then many conclusions reached will be wrong. What will be important and possibly very valuable is knowing why those conclusions were reached, what we did wrong to reach them and what we can do to avoid making that mistake in the future when the document under discussion might be considerably more important historically than the �diary�. If the mistake is found to have been an assumption or a failure to follow the research far enough or not asking the right questions then... well, you can answer that for yourself. But that's why I remain interested. And, hell, I want to know where it came from too.
Author: John Omlor Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 07:21 am
Please allow a brief question from an outsider. Is there a reason we are not mentioning the title of the book to which RJ is referring, even though I'm sure many of us know which book it is? Incidentally, my own copy of the 1987 edition from Barnes and Noble does not have the Punch cartoon on the dust jacket, but a rather hazy picture of Big Ben. But the pages RJ cites remain the same. If there is a reason that the name and author are not being mentioned, some polite company observance or something, I guess I'm not in on it yet. Or is this one of those "YWH" -- don't say the name of God and don't even use the vowels when you write His name -- things? In any case, what you say makes a good deal of sense, RJ, including the proximity of the ELW poem to the other items in the potential source. But to demonstrate influence or an attempt to use that particular poem in the diary, the language of the diary would have to in some way reveal the influence of the language or ideas in that poem, and I'm not sure that the lines in question actually do that. I do think the diary is, as you say, "such a vague 'tea leaf' that people are reading things into it." But I think that might include reading into it Ripper history and the history of Ripper scholarship as well as reading into it elaborate provenance possibilities and Liverpool Station encounters with PC Spicer. But clearly the reading should at least continue, if only, as Paul says, because we'd someday like to know where the hell the thing came from and how it was done. At least I would, just for the story. --John
Author: Paul Begg Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 07:53 am
I wrote with sleep still in my eyes and didn't really pay any attention to whose book it is that we're talking about. My Barnes and Noble edition also has Big Ben on the back, but the original Weidenfeld edition is as described. Curiously, as I think I am quoted as saying in Feldy's book, my first impression on meeting Mike Barrett is that he'd done hardly any research and was profoundly ignorant about the Ripper. I'm not sure how easy it is for someone to hide their knowledge (especially when drunk), and I don't think any mention of Ripper books apart from Wilson/Odell was ever made. Certainly I don't recall Martin ever having been mentioned, even though both Keith and I have worked with him on the A-Z and other books. I may be reading the Barrett all wrong, but I'd have said that he hadn't come within a stone's throw of Martin's book (or mine for that matter), but that's just my perception. If Martin's book was used as a source, I think it's further evidence that Mike wasn't the forger.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 07:55 am
Hi John, I can't recall offhand which ripper book RJ is referring to, but I don't think there's any mystery. I believe Underwood and Fido come into Melvin's theory somewhere along the line if that's any use. Hi All, Hi RJ, I can only echo what Paul has said. Your assumption is that a modern forger used the very book Melvin has identified as a probable source, and, because the eight little whores stick out like sore thumbs in Melvin's given source, it stands to reason, as far as you and he are concerned, that the diary author would have taken advantage of this for composing funny little rhymes. Do you see what has happened here? ELW has become a rather necessary accessory for our modern-day forger - if he/she did use that particular source (and it looks very much like the modern hoax theory could well depend on him/her having done just that) - it would be difficult not to make the comparison between the eight little whores going down, and the three dirty ones going up. But is this the right way of looking at it? This is why, in a case where so little is really conclusive, when you start digging below the surface, it all has to be applied to what we know about the players at the centre of the alleged modern hoax. Without the names in the frame, or being able to link Melvin's (essential?) source books to them somehow, it is a seemingly impossible task - certainly for me, and Keith, who has been at the cutting edge since the start - to see it all in the simple and straightforward way you obviously do. I can't fault your sincerity, or your belief that certain books were no doubt used if the diary was created by one of the modern suspects, but there is always that if - the 'assumption' that may yet come back to haunt those who thought they were already bathing themselves in glory. Love, Caz
Author: Martin Fido Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 08:04 am
John - I too hd a little difficulty at first in recognizing the unnamed author. But eventually I recognized myself, as I have never done in the Diary. (I believe it was Adam Wood in 'Criminologist' who first put a carefully worked-out argument that teh Diary drew on 'The Crimes, Detection and Death' into the public domain.)I have long believed that the forger's principal source for Ripperian information was Don Rumbelow's 1987 revision of 'The Complete jack the Ripper'. All the best MRTNFD
Author: R.J. Palmer Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 08:27 am
Caz--The book, of course, is Martin Fido's. A fine book, by the way. But John's YWH idea is pretty funny. Well, I do hope that if I'm ever brought before the court as an international diamond thief that you & Paul will be on my jury--y'all certainly have a very liberal idea of what constitutes reasonable doubt. Since common sense tells us that this 'pub' diary must post-date the 1987 police list, why on earth would you keep arguing that it might be an old document? The provenance is ridiculous! Do you really believe Anne visited Flinn's grave in Croxteth as a child? That sounds like something out of Great Expectations... RJ Palmer
Author: Paul Begg Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 09:10 am
Unfortunately sometimes common sense simply isn't enough. It also seems a very unreliable guide to what people will do, the papers daily being filled with stories about people whose actions defy common sense. But I am struggling here to make what for me seems a clear point. Showing that Martin's book could have been used is not showing that it was used. And there is evidence of sorts that it wasn't, at least not by Mike Barrett. Now, it seems to me that you have to address that issue or at least allow it into your considerations. There is, of course, the additional point that the 'diary itself might not in fact reflect "ELW" at all, in which case Martin's book and surrounding argument is irrelevant. The police list is, of course, a different thing altogether. The danger is putting these different things together so that the combine to present a conclusion. But Charles Berlitz took a lot of disparate evidence, each with its own problems, and produced a "collective theory" too. Examined together the evidence looked worrying, examined individually the mystery vanished. The thing is, I understand that the police list was available to public inspection before 1987.
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 09:29 am
Hi, all: Yes indeed it is Martin Fido's book that Melvin was talking about, and I take it as plausible but not definite that the forger could have used that book. I note that in his "The Maybrick Hoax: A Guide through the Labyrinth" which also talks about Martin's book, the point is not made that the Eight Little Whores poem was "in bold print" and that it appears with discussion of the JtR letters. RJ, you must have pulled the quote from Melvin about ELW off these boards, am I right? I do note though that in "Labyrinth" Melvin states: Apart from the Hitler and Mussolini fake diaries, we had a specifically Liverpudlian scam in the form of "THE MEMOIRS OF BRIDGET HITLER". These claimed that Adolf Hitler had actually lived in Liverpool for some months in 1912-13. They were first dealt with in 1973 in a series of lengthy articles in the 'Liverpool Daily Post'. Book publication followed in 1979. I wonder if "THE MEMOIRS OF BRIDGET HITLER" could have been fabricated by the same presumably Liverpool-based forger responsible for the Maybrick Diary? Has anyone looked into this possibility? Are the two sets of handwriting alike? I have ordered a copy of "The Memoirs of Bridget Hitler," edited by Michael Unger (Duckworth, 1979). There are several copies now available on the Advanced Book Exchange at http://whipper.abebooks.com/abep/il.dll if anyone else is curious about this book. Best regards Chris George
Author: Paul Begg Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 09:29 am
I've just recalled a couple of other points too, though what if any value will be found in them remains to be seen. The 'diary' refers to the farthings. Martin's book dismissed them as fiction (as did mine and Melvin Harris's). The 'diary' does not directly refer to the Polish Jew theory and notably Schwartz's testimony, a reference to which might be expected had Martin's book been used. Just some thoughts.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 09:47 am
Hi RJ, Don't forget - no jury can even begin to consider a verdict until all the evidence is heard. And please don't worry too much about Paul and me, and what you see as flogging a dead horse. As a woman, I can argue until hell freezes over, or as long as I continue to see problems with all the other arguments put forward. (I don't know what Paul's excuse is. ) Love, Caz
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 09:49 am
Hi Paul: I don't think the forger had to have Maybrick go on length about the Polish Jew theory since all he had to do was make some reference to the Jews, which indeed he does, for example, in the following passage: Encountered an old friend on the Exchange floor. I felt regret for was he not Jewish. I had forgotten how many Jewish friends I have. My revenge is on whores not Jews. I do believe I am truly sorry for the scare I have thrown amongst them. I believe that is the reason I am unable to write my funny little rhymes. This passage serves several purposes: It helps to lend verisimilitude to the story by again putting Maybrick in the context of the business world in Liverpool. It gives the character a touch of humanity by having him seem sorry that suspicion has fallen on the Jews. It makes indirect reference to the Goulston Street graffito. It again lays claim to Maybrick having written the Dear Boss letters as well as the Ripper rhymes, e.g., as Melvin infers, the Eight Little Whores poem. I have to wonder if the real life Protestant Maybrick, with all the anti-semitic feeling of the day and antagonism toward Jews, had "many Jewish friends" as the hoaxer implies. Paul, did you receive the two lots of material I sent you by e-mail? Can you take the big PDF file I mentioned? Best regards Chris George
Author: Martin Fido Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 10:19 am
May I introduce precision into citations of my remarks on the farthings? I actually said in 'The Crimes, Detection & Death' There were also two farthings, though these were not mentioned at the inquest. Possibly the police believed they were worth keeping secret as a clue, since Inspector Reid referred to them at the later inquest on Alice McKenzie, and Major Smith of the City of London Police decided that they suggested the handiwork of a young medical student, known to pass off polished farthings on prostitutes as sovereigns. Major Smith may have had inflated ideas of the price of a tumble with a Spitalfield whore! Now. This, I believe, was the first attempt to gloss the existence of the farthings in the light of Richard Whittington-Egan's magisterial dismissal of the legendary and growing 'pile of coins and rings'. (Don's regular revisions of 'The Complete Jack the Ripper' had overlooked Richard's observations, so, as he acknowledged with humorous self-deprecation at the Police Historical Society conference in 1988, he still included the 'something' coins and rings - I can't remember the degree of imprecation Don used in front of an audience, and hesitate to import my own infamous and blasphemous language into the presence of the chaste readers of these boards. But remark that BOTH books offering the 'tin matchbox empty' also offered the farthings as genuine). My piece was also, I believe, the first time that Reid's reference to the farthings was cited as arguing against Richard's dismissal of them as a journalist's fiction. You will see that in fact I think the coins did exist. I still do, even though, in the light of the weighty opinions lining up against them (notably Philip Sugden's) I happily move them into a 'grey' rather than a black or white area. I do not think, however, that the counter-argument that Reid was on leave when Annie Chapman's body was found holds water at all. Connell and Evans, I feel, have made it crystal clear that Reid was not the sort of fool to waste his own time and the ratepayers' money by trogging off to an irrelevant inquest on the say-so of newspaper gossip, if his own Division's files or a swift word with a competent colleague would have shown him it was a wild goose chase. I believe this was the first time that police withholding evidence was conjectured, and I stress that it is only conjecture, and any follow-up suggestions that other pieces of evidence were withheld are further conjectures, and if people use the argument that police 'must have' withheld something as evidence to claim the existence of something otherwise completely unrecorded anywhere, then they are building a new conjecture on an old one, and this is a pretty sure route to writing fiction instead of history. All the best to all and sundry, Martin F
Author: Paul Begg Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 10:20 am
Hi Chris I appreciate your points in both senses of the word; but the Jewish references could have been suggested by the Goulston Street Graffio rather than anything else. I was more mindfull of Schwartz's testimony, largely unrecorded until Stephen Knight's book was published and not given much attention until it (along with Lawende)featured prominantly in two books published 1987 and 1988, namely Martin's and mine. Arguably anyone writing in 1987/8 would have refered to the books most current and available (having been newly published)and made fuller use of them, but there is no evidence that the forger did this, therefore the 'diary' must have been written before those books were published. Which isn't true, of course, but it is the same "sort" of argument as that advanced for Martin's book having supplied "ELW", in that on the one hand we're arguing that Martin's book was the source because it contains material and on the other we're arguing that it wasn't because it doesn't. Not a strict parallel I know.
Author: Paul Begg Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 10:32 am
Martin The witholding of evidence wasn't mentioned. The argument is that the forger of the 'diary' derived information like "Eight Little Whores" from your book. I was pointing out, incorrectly as you now say, that your book dismissed the farthings as a fiction and that anyone relying on your book would have dismissed them too. However, you do comment on the ever-developing 'legend' about the rings and the farthing being piled symbolically at Chapman's feet. Of course, if your words are read as advocating the reality of the farthings, this might be taken as evidence that your book was the forger's source and we should check your book for further parallels that might support the contention that "ELW" was taken from your book too.
Author: Madeleine Murphy Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 10:56 am
Hello all! RJ--of course you're right. If this isn't a modern forgery, I'll eat not only my hat, but my entire wardrobe, plus my azaleas. But while the case for the modern forgery is established beyond a reasonable doubt, it's not by any one piece of evidence but by a preponderance of evidence. That was why I wondered why Harris was writing as though he had identified a conspiracy against the light of Terewth. ELW isn't a smoking gun, just one of hundreds of bits of evidence pointing to post-1987. Isn't the real interest here to establish who forged it, and when? That, I think, is a question which only a police-style investigation can begin to answer. I see that the case against the Barretts always founders on things like "Mike seems too drunk" or "Anne seems so honest" or "Albert Johnson couldn't possibly be lying." We all form judgments of people which we're perfectly convinced of, and we're often right, so I don't dismiss that. But it's not the kind of impression that would stop a cop. I think a number of people on the board are experienced in forgery detection; do we know much about the kind of people who forge documents? Do the Barretts fit the bill? ps -- Paul, I apologize for gloating over the weather. But if it makes you feel any better, we had a power cut and my roof is leaking, so it's not all rosy out here in Nor Cal. madeleine
Author: Paul Begg Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 12:14 pm
Hi Madeleine I rather fear that that Melvin sees any of his pronouncements as the ray of rays, the sun of suns, the moon of moons, and the star of stars, and objects to any challenge as if it was a challenge that peace is against us. We�re not really likening all this to a police investigation though are we. Surely we�re just talking about using the historians tried-and-trusted techniques to produce a workable hypothesis of something that has happened and, in the course of so doing, we do what any biographer does and to assess the character and personally of our subjects from first-hand accounts and other such materials available. Isn�t this what historians do all the time? But you have the chardonnay to sip whilst watching the roof leak... :-)
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 12:52 pm
Hi Madeleine, I'll pass on your comments - "Mike seems too drunk" or "Anne seems so honest" or "Albert Johnson couldn't possibly be lying" - to Keith Skinner, shall I? I can imagine him saying "Oh great - nice to know all those years spent researching the diary story, and the people at the heart of it, weren't wasted after all." Love, Caz
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 01:04 pm
Hi Paul: We are having a Nor'Easter here in Baltimore with torrential rain and wind. I promise you the weather will be better when you come for the April 2002 convention here in Baltimore. The month of April can be lovely here with the spring flowers, azaleas, magnolias, and dogwoods in bloom. You wrote: Arguably anyone writing in 1987/8 would have referred to the books most current and available (having been newly published) and made fuller use of them, but there is no evidence that the forger did this, therefore the 'diary' must have been written before those books were published. I don't go along with your argument on this and in fact strongly disagree that there is any indication that the Diary was written before 1987/8. Surely it depends on how "professional" the forgers were. If we go along with the idea that whomever forged the diary was responsible for the "I got the Diary from my pal at the pub" story, then their expertise in the art of forgery and forged document placement leaves a lot to be desired. I would think that if the forger was a working class man, such as Barrett, they would get whatever books were available, not necessarily the most recent, but whatever they could get from bookstores and the library. You or I might know that a more recent book might have better information, but someone of the ilk of Barrett might assume that any Ripper book would have good information. After all, the reasoning could have been, "The Ripper murders took place in 1888 so all that can be known, is known. Right?" Only researchers such as we are, or someone who has delved more deeply into the topic, might know that new discoveries are being made even now. Melvin might be right that the forgers simply used what they saw on the pages of whichever books they used. To my mind, the forger would have used elements of the Ripper story that would jazz up the text. Rhymes certainly do that, thinking of the victims and Florence Maybrick as "whores" does that ("the whores". . . the "whore and her whoremaster" (in terms of Florie's lover Alfred Brierley), the wording of Dear Boss about "ripping" and "funny little games" (from which the forger derives "funny little rhymes") and even the ha ha's of Dear Boss all add additional spice to the mixture. The Lawende and Schwartz stories don't fit Maybrick, so I for one do not see any reason to think that if the forger used your book or Martin's, we would necessarily see evidence that the hoaxer had registered those elements from your books. Neither of those witness testimonies mesh with Maybrick being the Ripper, so why use them? Madeleine: You are absolutely correct that we have so far developed no information strong enough to take into court, and are not likely to in the type of investigation and debate in which we are engaged. However, I still think that we are making significant progress in examining the elements of the Diary in detail, and also examining Melvin's arguments about the document, in terms of deciding the type of person who might have created the hoax diary. Best regards Chris George
Author: John Omlor Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 01:31 pm
Paul, Now what's all this about Melvin thinking his ideas are magically delicious? I'm at work and don't have my Ripper books and can't really write carefully at the moment, but I've been enjoying the latest bursts whenever I manage to pop in between classes. Hi Madeleine, I guess I'm not completely convinced yet that patient, close reading of an investigative rather than critical sort, looking for circumstantial evidence of the scene of the diary's writing, won't at least help establish the potential case against specific forgers. The Crashaw line and its position in the Sphere Guide seem to me to be an instance where this sort of thing has proven to be at least provocative and possibly even helpful. Of course, you are quite right, I think, that at some point police procedures will be necessary and a serious investigation would demand all sorts of activity other than reading. But I think that this sort of reading can possibly, at the very least, also help answer several of Paul's interesting questions for the future. And besides, it never hurts to practice. Martin, Oddly enough, I had just re-read your pages on the farthings last night before bed (yes, I took Fido to bed with me... I know... I know...). I do think that you are clear about the possibility of farthings and that RJ is probably correct when he mentions that several items Shirley and Paul see evidenced in the language of the diary all happen to be also available in fairly close proximity in your book. But then, of course, I suspect Shirley and Paul and Melvin have all read your book as well, and so we are stuck with Caroline's reader-expectation chicken and egg problem of interpretation versus influence -- a thorny critical issue in the best of cases and a downright morass in this one, where we know nothing about the history of the text or its scene or circumstances of composition. Of course, we could begin to construct a plausible if not downright powerful case that if the diary repeatedly uses evidence from your book and the diary shows evidence of an author who was familiar with Victorian language and literature and was also interested in history and true crime and had access to records and loves wordplay and has been known to pull a leg or two and... Well, you get the idea. The only problem would be how on earth you managed to find Tony.... Ok, sorry for the goofiness, but the point is that after-the-fact profiling of an author/forger from the text outwards might prove to be a bit more problematic than we might hope. But there always remains the language... I'm not at all sure if even that will be any help, but I do think it'll be fun to follow. --John
Author: Madeleine Murphy Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 01:51 pm
Hi Paul, Caz! No no! No need to insult Keith Skinner on my behalf! Sorry for the apparently snooty remark--actually I miswrote: when I said that I see the case against the Barretts comes down to personality judgments of those who have met them, I meant to write it seems instead of I see. I'm a newcomer to this interest: I haven't done nearly enough reading to be fully acquainted with all the research that's been published, let alone what's in preparation, so I am aware that I'm very likely wrong in anything I post. !! I was only referring to what I've read so far, and what I've managed to read on the boards, which does often culminate in that kind of comment. Paul, you're right of course that historians do evaluate sources and make such determinations regularly. If the diary had been found in a packing case somewhere by someone who didn't give a hoot about it, there wouldn't be a problem. But this situation is complicated, I think, because (a) the sources are alive; (b) by "assessing" them, we really mean, finding out whether they're liars or not. Because if this is a post-1987 forgery, as it certainly appears to be, then Ann Graham must be lying... Unless, of course, I'm overlooking a wholly different possibility: in which case, I have to beg an excuse for my ignorance again! Anyway, I feel very tentative about holding an opinion which implies something slanderous about someone else. So I suppose that is why I keep thinking of the model of criminal investigation, with its much tougher standard of proof. And that is why I tend to side with you when you wonder how conclusive particular bits of evidence really are. False accusation really bothers me--even when it's against a long-dead Joe Barnett or Lewis Carroll. After all, history is full of people who've readily died rather than endure disgrace. I expect if I read this through I'll realize what a prig I sound. But luckily, I haven't time. Students await. madeleine
Author: Paul Begg Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 02:04 pm
Hi Chris A very hasty post, so please excuse it's rough an readyness. Right after the extract you quote you�ll see that I wrote Which isn't true, of course. All I was trying to say was that in a sense leaving things out of the �diary� that were in Martin�s book can be used as an argument that Martin�s book wasn�t used by the forger, just in the same way as having things in the �diary� which are in Martin�s book can be used in an argument that Martin�s book was used by the forger. Given that I was only making a throw-away point, I don�t really want to get into a detailed discussion about your other observations, but just permit me to quickly observe that we don�t have a generally agreed scenario (otherwise workable hypothesis) for who the forgers were, so I find it hell�s own job to construct any kind of argument based on what we suppose their professionalism to have been and part of the argument I keep making over and over is that we need to construct a hypothesis that we can test by whatever means we have available. For example, we don�t know Mike Barrett�s role, if any, in the forgery. If he forged with �diary� with Anne and simply made up the story that he got it from Devereux (in which case why did Devereux have Barrett�s copy of Whittington-Egan�s book?), then we would be looking at a dumb forger who imagined his dumb provenance would be believed. But if we think that Mike�s profound ignorance about the conception and execution of the forgery indicates that he didn�t know the �diary� was a forgery and was just an innocent patsy for the forger, then it is likely that as bizarre as it sounds he did get it from Devereux down the pub just as he�s claimed. Now, if that�s true then nobody could have known that Tony Devereux was going to die, so we don�t know how his unexpected death caused the forger�s plans to go pear shaped. We can�t therefore suppose that the �I got it from a pal down the pub� story marks out the forger as inexperienced, just unlucky that the unforeseen left Mike �out there� with the �diary and a stupid provenance. What we need to do is try to find a hypothesis for Mike that fits the known information without stretching its interpretation too much, then see if we can fit to it other speculations. That�s something we haven�t done. Until we do we don�t know whether the forgers just thought up a stupid provenance or not. As for the forger getting whatever books were available, if he went to the library then he may not have got the most up-to-date. If he went to a bookshop then he probably would have had the opportunity to choose from the most recent. And in 1987/88 the most recent, among others, was Martin�s. And Martin�s theory isn�t important. What�s important is that both Schwartz and Lawende saw someone they identified as a victim with a man who was probably their murderer. If the murderer was supposed to be Maybrick then he would have been aware of at least Schwartz and we�d expect to find reference in the �diary�. That there isn�t a reference is capable of numerous explanations, but one of them is that the forger didn�t use Martin�s book and may not have used a book that post-dates 1987 (in which case the �ELW� reference doesn�t come from Martin).
Author: Martin Fido Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 02:27 pm
Ahem. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Don Rumbelow's 'The Complete Jack the Ripper' was revised and reissued in 1987. It was far more widely distributed than my own book, and should the forger choose to BUY for working at home, rather than borrowing and renewing a library book, much cheaper, as it was a Penguin paperback. At a time when I was surveying a lot of material for diary researchers I wrote critical reports on a number of publications, one of which, that I have unfortunately no longer got a copy of, reviewed data in the diary that could be found in Don's book. I thought then and I think now that it is most likely that ALL the Ripper material in the diary was drawn from Don (and subjected to creative imagination mixed with incompetent garbling). Of course, his book is longer and fuller than mine and takes more time to go through looking for parallels. But it also leaves a lot more theoretical ends open, allowing the forger a freer hand. Incidentally, I suppose all those who were looking into the Barrett family's activities between 1987 and 1990 did in fact check up on their membership of any public library/ies? And the holdings? Borrowings, alas, would by now be quite uncheckable, and at that date were still probably a matter of racks of date-stamped tickets that would leave no record. John - I agree that careful and critical study of the available evidence may produce a conclusion fit to stand before the bar of history. Madeleine - The popular 'fit to take to a court of law' measure is, I think, always misleading when applied to historical questions. Consider, for example, that once all participants are dead, ALL the evidence is hearsay... I'm afraid that as far as I know, the only one of us with real experience in tracing and exposing forgers is Melvin Harris. As for the characte and personality of forgers - these seem to be utterly unpredictable. Cliffor Irving of the Howard Hughes diary: a creative but possibly malcontent writer in a coterie of expatriates who have been - (I don't know how fairly) - described as rather rootless and self-congratulatory. The Mussolini diaries - a barely literate charlady and her daughter. The Hitler diaries - a pretty careless journalistic stringer. Halliwell-Phillips - a distinguished scholar with absolutely no need to boost his importance by faking supposed 'finds'. All the best, Martin F
Author: Paul Begg Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 02:41 pm
Hi Madeleine I don�t want to push this police investigation thing, but such a good and intelligent discussion is going on about the �diary� that I find it important for me to make clear a view I have. In drawing a distinction between the historian and the policeman, I am trying to look at the evidence we have and construct it in such a way as to create a picture that we can test theories against. For example, Mike has never been able to provide a coherent account of how the forgery idea came about or of how he prepared for it and carried it out. Even the journalist to whom Mike confessed forging the �diary� was singularly unimpressed and said that Mike couldn�t answer even basic questions such as where he bought the ink and the book. When he really wanted to be believed � and believe me, there were times when he badly wanted to be believed � he couldn�t produce any evidence (such as the Sphere book, allegedly lodged with his solicitor in case such a need arose; so when the need was there, why didn�t he produce it?) and his story changed with the tides, variously claiming that he penned the diary himself, then claiming that Anne penned it as his dictation (as the handwriting of the �diary� appears not to match the handwriting of either Mike or Anne). Now, I think it is a plausible argument that Mike did not know the �diary� was a forgery, that he did get it from Tony Devereux and that Mike can be taken from the frame. If so, where does that leave us? That question is, for me, the one I am asking. Now, that is a scenario that works for me far better than having to concoct theories to explain why Mike couldn�t say where the ink was bought, couldn�t produce the Sphere book, couldn�t explain how he got the idea for the forgery, and why he keeps changing his story. The conclusion above is basically the one the evidence leads me to. It isn�t police work. It�s simply constructing a picture based on the evidence we�ve got and testing it. It also focuses me on where I should next be shining the anglepoise. I think it�s something we can and should be doing because it�s the way we fit all other stuff in.
Author: Madeleine Murphy Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 02:57 pm
Paul, You put it nicely, and I guess have said aloud what I'm trying to say, except that I'm stumbling about: where IS the line between the historian and the policeman? For I think both must do what you describe--articulation propositions that can be tested in some way. All hail the scientific method. You're right: Occam's razor is the weapon of choice for both kinds of enquiry. Maybe there's less distinction between them than I'm making out.... I like your image of shining the anglepoise. What should it be shone on? madeleine
Author: Madeleine Murphy Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 02:59 pm
Martin, I'm embarrassed to admit this but since cultivating an interest in the diary, I've become a bit of a true crime buff... particularly the aspect of profiling. Considerable effort has gone into making generalisations about the various kinds of serial killer, as you all know of course, so that very "different" types do have certain things in common which one might look for; not always obvious things, either. I wonder if there has been any such study of forgery. Certainly at a glance, the various forgers don't seem to have much in common. But maybe their pre- and post-behavior, to quote the Feds, does show some kind of pattern. madeleine
Author: R.J. Palmer Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 04:48 pm
Paul-- Hello. You wrote 'The danger is putting different things together so that they combine to present a conclusion.' But isn't that precisely what Law, Philosophy, and Science do all the time? In the case of the diary, the combined effect of these desparate elements so overwhelmingly swamp the diary and its provenance that Richard Whittington-Egan told Feldman that 'a time comes when circumstantial evidence is no longer circumstantial.' And I certainly agree with him. When it comes to Mike Barrettt's confession, my feeling is that he was mainly attempting to cast blame on his soon-to-be ex-wife and his father-in-law. There was a self-destructive element to Mike's confession, and since Anne left him, he might well have been attempting to punish her financially. (She was receiving part of the royalties). Indeed, in the Liverpool Poste Anne made the comment that 'This is bull**. He is just trying to get back at me because I have left him.' So the fact that Mike doesn't give a fully believable account of the forgery certainly does not indicate that he wasn't involved. If the diary was indeed 'forged by others' he may simply have been sparing his coherts while throwing blame on Anne. People give 'partial' confessions all the time. As to the Sphere Guide, this has been gone over many times. But the plain undisputed fact is that Mike was the man that came up with the source of the Crashaw quote. I still think that Shirley implies that Mike made this discovery long before his confession. At any rate, it has never been explained how on earth that Mike knew that Crashaw's ultra-obscure line was in the equally obscure essay in Rick's book of critical essays! (And no one here has explained this) Surely no librarian would have pointed him to it. I've said this before, but Mike must have known where came from. It's the only explanation. Then, of course, we still have the red diary.... Meanwhile, I think the bottom line is that Anne Graham's statement is what is keeping the 'old document' theory alive. Is her story plausible? Unfortunately, I have to say no. Indeed, I'm still waiting for an explanation of how her Florie and/or Yapp connections 'work' in conjunction with the diary being a post-1930s forgery. Best wishes, RJ Palmer.
Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 04:37 am
Hi RJP You wrote 'The danger is putting different things together so that they combine to present a conclusion.' But isn't that precisely what Law, Philosophy, and Science do all the time? Yes, of course it is. But I was talking about the quality of the material on which a theory is based. You can heap circumstantial evidence upon heap and posit what seems an irresistible conclusion, but if the individual pieces of evidence are rubbish, the conclusion is likely to be too - GIGO, garbage in, garbage out. Numerous writers presented an accumulation of disappearances in the so-called Bermuda Triangle, posited that something paranormal was happening and proceeded to speculate and argue what it might be. The accumulated evidence � for which read raw data � looked convincing, or to paraphrase a description of your own, the combined effect so overwhelmingly swamped any suggestion of natural causes being responsible that many people believed the mystery existed. But when the disappearances were examined individually it became clear that each was capable of a natural explanation. And the point I was trying to make is that accumulated circumstantial evidence may seem to indicate a conclusion, but it only does so if the evidence itself is good. The sheer weight of evidence isn�t convincing. It�s the quality of the evidence that matters. When it comes to Mike Barrettt's confession, my feeling is that he was mainly attempting to cast blame on his soon-to-be ex-wife and his father-in-law. Well, whatever Mike�s motive was (and I don�t think your suggestion about getting back at Anne actually fits the facts as I understand them to be), his purpose has been to represent himself as the forger of the diary, so why didn�t he just tell a straightforward story and produce whatever supportive evidence he possessed? But there were times when Mike was absolutely desperate to prove he�d forged the �diary� (as I know only too well, being the person he �phoned every night for weeks), yet he failed dismally to provide anything approaching a coherent account. One should perhaps also observe that Shirley Harrison has stated that Anne was not receiving royalties. My understanding is that a sort of confidentiality contract existed between Mike, Ann, and the Word Team (i.e., a contract preventing Mike and Anne from offering the �diary� to anyone else while the �diary� was under investigation), but that the only contract involving money was between Mike alone and the Word Team. At the time of the separation Anne was not receiving any monies (other than anything Mike gave her), appears to have made no application for monies, and at first rejected money when offered by Doreen Montgomery. As to the Sphere Guide, this has been gone over many times. But the plain undisputed fact is that Mike was the man that came up with the source of the Crashaw quote. I still think that Shirley implies that Mike made this discovery long before his confession. Caz will no doubt provide the dates but the quote was found long after Mike and Anne had separated. And although Mike did indeed find the quote, what is disputed is where he found it and I agree wholeheartedly that it is unlikely that he found it at Liverpool library. But the Sphere Guide had a binding defect that caused it to open on the page bearing the Crashaw quotation, so nobody had to read the book to find the quote or even merely flick through the pages. Just let the book fall open. So it is possible that Mike found the quote in the Sphere book when he took it from his attic to give to his girlfriend�s son and when it fell open at the page bearing the quote. It would be typical of Mike to embellish this bit of luck into a story involving research at the library (consistent with the circumstances of the �discovery� too). That Mike found the quote doesn�t mean he was responsible for contributing to the forger. The quote could have been found by anybody to whom Mike sold or gave a copy of the book or who saw a copy laying around in Mike�s house, Anne among them. And I�m not sure that it has been established how many copies of the book with the binding defect Mike was sent by Sphere. I think it was more than one (but a single copy with such a defect would have been binned by the printer, so we must assume that a batch were supplied to Sphere). Furthermore, at the very time we�re told Mike was getting Alan Gray to make him money by supporting his forgery claims, we�re supposed to accept that Mike suddenly gave away gratis the one piece of evidence he�s supposedly sat on through hail and storm, and far from using it to prove his genius as a forger, tells a story about finding the quote in the library. With the best will in the world, his behaviour with that book simply isn�t consistent with someone who�d sat on it for a couple of years. It is consistent with someone who�d just found the quote, was pretty chuffed at his good fortune and embroidered the facts because he wanted � as ever with Mike � to be seen as a good researcher. And, yes, Anne Graham�s story probably is keeping the old forgery idea alive, but whether her story is plausible or not surely depends on how you weigh it. Her intention seems to have been to get Feldy off the back of herself and her family and her behaviour as we understand it to have been is consistent with that intention. There is no evidence that she was after or was even entitled to book royalties and Feldman was the wrong person to be talking to if she was. And she did all she could to persuade Feldman that his theories were wrong. Only when she thought that Feldy didn�t believe her did she tell the inheritance story � and I have to say that I think the discussion in his garden as described by Feldman rings true to anyone who knows them. So I think one has to construct a plausible theory to account for Anne lying, bearing in mind that the lie focused attention on herself and her terminally-ill father at a time when Anne was trying to put her life together and provide security for her daughter, and when confessing to Feldy offered no immediate (or perhaps even long-term) financial gain.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 06:42 am
Hi All, Phew! I'm glad Paul got here first - I don't have a lot of time today. Hi RJ, Just a few points for now, some simply underlining what Paul has already written. When Mike first confessed, in June 1994, he wasn't trying to throw any blame on anyone else for forging the diary - he claimed he did it single-handed. There was no attempt to involve Anne, as far as I'm aware, until after his discovery that she, and her father, were claiming to have had the blessed thing in their home for decades. You state as a fact that Anne was receiving part of the royalties at the time of Mike's first confession. If you are taking this 'fact' from Peter Birchwood, I would advise caution. He hasn't yet established this, or that Anne had a clear financial motive for approaching Feldy (remember, it was this way round) and telling 'all'. The indications are that Anne was not telling her story for money, and that she really was feeling guilty that her previous actions and silence had caused trouble for her friends and in-laws etc. As to the Sphere Guide, Mike apparently discovered the quote after hours and days spent in the library at the end of September 1994. He apparently badgered the staff for help, but insisted that he finally found it by himself. I find it slightly more plausible, when I look at all the circumstances in the bigger picture, that a sheer dogged determination, to prove to Shirley that he had some research skill, might have struck gold, than that the library staff were able to locate the quote by conventional methods. At the time of the discovery, it appears that Mike's own copy of the Sphere Guide (and his 'proof') was sitting at his current girlfriend's house, not yet, as Melvin has asserted, with Mike's solicitors. Mike's Sphere volume two was, I gather, one of a set of volumes allegedly sent to Mike for the charity appeal (ie they weren't all number twos from the same print run). I don't know why Sphere donated this particular set of books. Perhaps it was because volume two had a binding defect, caused during manufacture, which made it fall open and stay open at certain pages when the first person peeked inside. Or perhaps the books proved to be poor sellers. Incidentally, I've never come across a new paperback with such a defect - is this a first, does anyone know? It would have been excellent news if Mike had lodged his Sphere vol 2 with his solicitor well before his first confession - even better if he had also thought to lodge the very source books Melvin has down on the modern diary forger's required reading list, complete with marginalised notes! One question I'd ask is: has Mike ever been told which books Melvin has suggested, and, if so, how did he react? I would imagine, if asked by Shirley, his answer might have been, "Never 'eard of 'em", but, if asked by Melvin at the right time, would he have claimed that those were indeed the very books he used? Or would such a bold claim be beyond even Mike's capacity to please his audience? Love, Caz
Author: R.J. Palmer Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 06:46 am
Hello Everyone. Paul--I'm rather astonished that you're comparing a conviction that the diary is a recent forgery with believing in the Bermuda Triangle(!), particularly since you evidently believe it is a recent forgery yourself... Be that as it may, I disagree with your suggestions about the Sphere Guide, as they don't agree with the story told in Shirley's book. It's clear that Mike told Shirley he had found the quote in the Liverpool Library sometime (when is unclear) before he announced that he also just 'happened' to have a copy of the book in his attic. So the possibility that he just stumbled across the quote and latched on to it as part of a false confession just doesn't make sense. As for Anne's royalty checks, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that Shirley has denied that Anne was receiving them. My understanding is that she was receivng them. Normally this would not be of interest, and not particulary any of our buisness, except in that it might shine some light on the motives of the new provenance. Here's what it says in Shirley's latest edition: 'On April 30th, 1992 a collaboration agreement was drawn up to be signed by Michael Barret, his wife Anne, and myself. It bound us to share the responsibilities, expenses, and royalties from any future book.' --Harrison, p 11. 'Michael Barrett and Anne Barrett between them have earned exactly the same from the book "The Diary of Jack the Ripper" as I have, although since their separation, by virtue of the collaboration agreement, Anne Graham has received 25% of the gross sums payable to us.' --p 316. Normally this would not be of much interest, but since the "new" provenance was revealed an entire two years after the first agreement was signed --and a mere month after Mike's confession-- the money issue has to be considered as a probable motive. I agree that it appears that Anne came armed with family photos, etc. to disprove Feldman's theory. But what exactly took place? I think there's only three posibilities: 1. Feldman convinced Anne 2. Anne convinced Feldman 3. They convinced each other It's unclear at this point. But it sure seems to me that the provenance story doesn't make any logical sense, nor does it agree with the textual/forensic evidence. Best wishes, RJ Palmer
Author: R.J. Palmer Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 06:55 am
Caz--Our posts crossed. I don't think it has been established that Mike found the quote in September 1994. I asked Shirely about this sometime back, and it seems fair to say to assume that -- considering all the various events that took place all that time ago-- she isn't exactly sure of the date. But maybe she can correct me on this. I believe Anne was receiving royalty checks. Cheers, RJP
Author: R.J. Palmer Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 07:04 am
Once last point, Caz. You say Mike was single-handedly taking credit for the hoax. O.k., fine. But I already posted Anne's response. ('He is now trying to get back at me because I have left him') How exactly do you interpret that remark? I think it quite consistant with the possibility that she felt that he was financially harming her.
Author: Martin Fido Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 07:31 am
Is there any good reason for the assumption that the Sphere book reached Mike with a damaged spine, rather than the damage being caused in the more normal way for a gum-bound paperback, by its being opened too firmly or held open too long at that particular place? Caz - Have you ever MET Mike? By the time he emerged with the quotation he was a rambling and incoherent figure. His long drunken telephone calls, choking up answering machines for enormous lengths of time, if they would carry them for as long as he wanted to burble on, were widely dreaded. The idea of his carrying out sustained and successful library research is, frankly, preposterous, and would be if he were looking for some relatively easy quotation to trace like, 'Arms and the man I sing', or 'The gilded fly doth lecher in my sight', or 'beaded bubbles winking at the brim'. When it was first stated that the quoptation came from Crashaw I thought that this got the Barretts off the hook, as he was too obscure a poet (in every sense) for them to have found a quotation from one of his less-known works. And then Mike starts a series of 'explanations' of how he found it by determined searching in the library, and how he just happens to have a copy of a book of critical essays in his house that just happens to fall open at the right page...! Is this really comparable with 'and then a yachtsman went down at the same latitude, and then three training flight planes disappeared after last signalling that they were heading went across th Atlantic, and then a couple of lifebelts were seen bobbing in the sea from a boat that had vanished without reporting its position as being anywhere near the Bermudas...' Martin F
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 07:31 am
Hi RJ, I wrote that Mike apparently found the quote in September 1994, not that this has been established. But I�ll re-post here for you (from my post on Maybrick/Jack�s Watch board: Thursday, November 2, 2000 � 05:45 am) Keith�s record of the telephone message left for him on his answerphone from Shirley on October 12, 1994: �12.10.1994 from Shirley�re O Costly Intercourse� Shirley phoned Jenny (MB�s current girlfriend) who corroborated MB�s story that during the summer he had taken books around to Jenny�s son, James, who was studying for his O levels. MB thought books (which he had acquired for Hillsborough Disaster Auction) might help him � but, in fact, they were too advanced. Ann [sic] apparently denies all knowledge of these books and the auction. During Mike�s serious week at library, when he found the reference, he later recalled that he had these particular books, which were the ones he had loaned to James. Mike insisted he discovered the reference for himself at the library � and nobody did it for him. Mike has appt this pm with solicitor (to discuss divorce) � will take book with him.� You believe Anne was receiving royalty checks. I believe there is no harm in checking to confirm that your belief is correct. Certainly, it depends on whether Shirley was right to write since their separation, by virtue of the collaboration agreement, Anne Graham has received 25% of the gross sums payable to us or whether she should have written since their divorce. Like you, I think it's important to get it straight once and for all. 'He is now trying to get back at me because I have left him' This is precisely why we have to establish the financial facts. Otherwise you are in danger of interpreting a statement as consistent with your belief, which may not be a correct one. If a statement has more than one possible interpretation, you need all the facts to help you decide. Love, Caz
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 07:41 am
Hi Martin, Is there any good reason for the assumption that the Sphere book reached Mike with a damaged spine, rather than the damage being caused in the more normal way for a gum-bound paperback, by its being opened too firmly or held open too long at that particular place? It's Melvin's assumption. Whether it's a good one is not, apparently, open to debate, according to O Great One. I asked him if he'd consulted Sphere, or anyone involved in paperback manufacture, and he treated me as if I were some poor dumb animal as usual. I met Mike at the C&D meeting in April 1999 and take anything he has ever said or claimed to have done with an enormous amount of salt. I just don't know how he knew where he could put his hands on the Crashaw quote. It just appears that neither did he, at least not until the fall of '94. Love, Caz
Author: Christopher T George Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 09:03 am
Hi, all: Hasn't it been asked when Mike lodged the Sphere book with his solicitor? Doesn't Keith�s record of the October 12, 1994, message left on his answerphone from Shirley Harrison just reposted by Caz indicate that must have been on the date on which the book was lodged with the solicitor? That is, the message ends, 'Mike has appt this pm with solicitor (to discuss divorce) � will take book with him.' I wonder if Mike's solicitor could confirm that October 12, 1994, was the date on which he received the book from Mike? What is the importance of this date, if anything? Chris George
Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 09:06 am
Hi RJP I�m not comparing anything with the Bermuda Triangle, I am simply pointing out that a conclusion based on circumstantial evidence is only going to be any good if the evidence itself is good � and that remains true no matter how much circumstantial evidence you�ve got; a pile of crud remains a pile of crud and it stays crud no matter how high you pile it. To illustrate this point I cited the Bermuda Triangle, showing that the accumulated evidence may have appeared impressive but on analysis it was crud. My point is that people shouldn�t be persuaded by quantity without knowing the quality. Regarding the Sphere book, whilst I agree that his finding the quote at Liverpool library is too unlikely to be believed (though I thing it pays to be a tad wary about what is or is not likely; sll too often the unlikely is what happens!), I also don�t believe for one second that Mike had lodged the book with his solicitor sometime significantly before the end of September 1994. I simply don�t believe he would � or, indeed, could � have sat on what he knew would prove his story true throughout the time when he so desperately wanted to be believed that he�d forged the �diary�. Not withstanding the caveat about the unlikely, that just sounds impossible to me � mind you, I was the person he �phoned every night to vent his spleen about Feldman, so I am basing my judgement on personal knowledge in that respect. In any event, you are reciting the sequence of what Mike said, not necessarily the sequence of what happened. It is perfectly plausible that Mike took the Sphere book from the attic for his girlfriend�s son, discovered the quote when the book fell open to the appropriate page and to impress Shirley with his research skills then declared that the discovery was made at the library after days of diligent work. Knowing Mike, this makes absolute sense to me. Reject it and you have to explain why Mike sat on the Sphere book through hail and storm, then threw it away on a whim. I find the idea that he found it at the library more believable than that! As regards Anne receiving money, Shirley wrote on this Board: �At that stage she was not owed any royalties at all because the contract only provided for Michael to a 50% share. It was Doreen Montgomery's unilateral decision after the divorce that Anne should have a half share of Mike's 50%� (Shirley Harrison, 13 March 2001 this board). Perhaps Shirley could clarify this situation as there would appear to be a serious contradiction. With respect, the story we have is that Anne did telephone Feldman to tell him to back off and she did turn up at the subsequent meeting with family photos, etc. to disprove his theory. Anne�s actions are consistent therefore with someone trying to get Feldy off her back. I agree that the subsequent events are a bit hazy but essentially seems to be that Anne feared she hadn�t convinced Feldy and that he�d continue his questioning and at her father�s bidding decided to meet him and tell him the �true� story.
Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 09:28 am
Hi Chris Mike's solicitor was asked and he has not replied, but I think he indicated that he would only reply if he could discover the date. From his silence I assume he couldn't. The date he lodged the book with his solicitor would indicate when he discovered or realised the significance of the quote. Melvin argued that it was lodged a long time before the break with Anne, but to the best of my knowledge was never able to produce any evidence to support this. If true, it would indicate that Mike had knowledge of the quote long before admitting to it. If untrue, there would be no evidence that Mike knew of the quote earlier than the time when he claimed he�d discovered it. A PDF will be fine by the way.