|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 24, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
College course tackles the Diary:
Archive through March 24, 2001
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 09:38 am |        | Hi All,
I really should be cleaning and putting harpic down the bog right now, but I got carried away with my thoughts again (banish them banish them).
Thinking about the Bermuda Triangle, and the supernatural angle, got me thinking again about Mike’s ‘miraculous discovery’ in a faraway library in Liverpool. If he had indeed seen the light and the Crashaw lines there, for the very first time, around September 1994, would it have been a miracle, however preposterous the notion? Would the supernatural have lent a hand, or could it be explained scientifically, as a natural, if rare, phenomenon?
Let’s assume, for the sake of my little experiment, that Mike went to the library when he claims he did, and looked for the quote, never having seen it before, apart from in the Maybrick Diary. Was the quote available? Yes it was, according to a fax Shirley received from the library. Could Mike ever have found it? Yes he could. If he had stayed there long enough, and looked through every single book in the place, there is absolutely no shadow of a doubt that he would have eventually come across the quote. (Not to put too fine a point on it, but there is nothing supernatural about this perfectly sensible and scientific conclusion – it’s been done before with infinite numbers of typewriters and infinite numbers of…. Well, I’m sure you get my drift.) Added to this, we can consider that Mike would have at least narrowed his areas of search down, by himself, or helped by the staff, to eliminate certain sections, offering him the delights of say, trashy romantic fiction and books on ghosts or the Loch Ness Monster (or is that a tautology?). On top of that, he had an unexpected piece of luck – stone me! The quote, when he finally found himself flicking through the Sphere Guide, stuck out on the page like a sore thumb, so that even Mike, whether relatively sober and composed in the morning, or fuzzy round the edges after a liquid pub lunch, could hardly have failed to notice it.
Preposterous? Yes, probably. Not in a month of Sundays? Quite possibly not. Unscientific or unnatural, given all the circumstances? Not necessarily. Miraculous or supernatural? Definitely not.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 09:43 am | | Hi, Paul:
Why else would Mike take the Sphere book with him to his solicitor's on October 12, 1994, if it did not have to do with the Crashaw quote that was in the volume? If Mike's solicitor cannot answer the question of when the Sphere book was lodged with him, this transcript of the message on Keith's answerphone appears to settle the matter, or at least let us know that on that date Mike knew the significance of the Crashaw lines in Sphere.
Glad the PDF file is okay for you. I will be sending it to you tonight. Did my material on "Saucy Jack" and "Musical Jack" reach you in time to be included in the April issue of Ripperologist? 
All the best
Chris |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 10:02 am | | Hi Chris,
My guess is that the moment Mike realised he had something he could use as 'evidence' of his involvement in the diary creation, he lodged it with his solicitor to use in the future as it suited his purpose. Less than two months later, the book was handed over to Alan Gray, whom Mike had hired, first to find Anne, then to expose the diary as a modern hoax. Almost immediately after that came Melvin's Evening Standard quote about the three forgers. Shortly after that, in January 1995, the Sphere book was used to back up Mike's sworn statement, which put himself, Anne and Tony Devereux in the frame, and which Melvin later acknowledged was mostly a pack of lies.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 10:04 am | | I'm sorry, Chris, but I'm getting a little lost here. Are you arguing with me or confirming what I have said?
Mike made known on or about 30th September 1994 that he'd discovered the Crashaw quote. Melvin has contended that Mike knew about the quote and had lodged the Sphere book with his solicitor long before that date. Melvin has produced no evidence to support this, though he says that at the begining of September Mike told private investigator Alan Gray that the book was lodged with his solicitor and Gray confirmed that a book was lodged there. Nothing to my knowledge has been produced to support this claim either. The Keith quote cited by Shirley suggests that the book was not lodged with the solicitor on 12th October.
My opinion is that Mike did not realise appreciably earlier than September 1994 that the Sphere book contained the quote. In my view Mike hated Feldman so much that he would have produced the Sphere book and used it to prove that he'd forged the 'diary' or supplied the quote to the forgers. It doesn't make sense to me that Mike should have confessed to forging the 'diary' and to have wanted so desperately to be believed, yet failed to produce any material he was aware of that would support his case.
I'm going to have to hold it back until the June Ripperologist I'm afraid, but you'll probably then be in the good company of Richard Whittington-Egan! |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 10:12 am | | Hi, Paul:
What I am saying is that the Sphere book could not have been lodged with Mike's solicitor before September 1994, as Melvin says, if Mike was only taking it to the solicitor on October 12, 1994. Why take the book to the solicitor if he already had it? I think therefore that I am agreeing with your assessment of the chain of events, am I not?
Glad to know that my article will be appearing in the June issue of Ripperologist alongside something from Richard Whittington-Egan. I could not expect to be with more esteemed company.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 10:16 am | | Hi Paul,
I think you mean that the Keith quote, cited by Caz, suggests that the book was not lodged with the solicitor before 12th October.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 10:28 am | | Suppose - scenario lovers - that Mike did not compose the diary, but wrote it out pretty incompetently from Anne's composition on the word processor? This could explain the final document's mis-spellings and grammatical errors as well as an imaginative and more or less adequately researched content seemingly beyond Mike's powers, at least as he was when I first met him. (When I put this suggestion to Mike, who had been freely claiming or denying anything that suited him in previous conversation, he stopped talking, winked at me with a broad grin, and changed the subject. But I wouldn't want to rest strong claims of historical probability on anything Mike says or intimates, especially when he's had such an intoxicating evening as that heady night of glory at the Cloak and Dagger).
Continuing the supposition. Suppose the Crashaw quotation meant nothing to Mike as he copied it out. But when for some reason he picked up the Sphere book and it fell open at the appropriate page, he recognized it and realized it was now important. Rather typically, no very consistent use of the new information followed, and the inconsistency was made the more puzzling by Mike's including some use of his solicitors - which I believe I heard was something he had been known to do from very early stages in the Diary's appearance? Didn't Feldy once place great store in Mike's having gone to his solicitors after Tony Devereux's funeral, or some such occasion?)
I know Paul Feldman attempted to get Mike to reproduce the diary hand, and he couldn't. But alcohol and Mike had already worked their deleterious effect on each other, Mike turning quantities of good liquor to urine, and it taking its revenge on him.
Now, these are all just suppositions. But I am always more interested in broad patterns of probability than supposed definite conclusions resting on minutiae of dating.
Martin F |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 10:32 am | | So, Caz--Hello. You've reasoned backwards to come up with an explanation of how Mike discovered the Crashaw quote (achieving something that other researchers couldn't)--by the old hunt and peck, needle-in-the-haystack method. How about reasoning forwards, as well? How did the Crashaw quote get in the diary to begin with? Do you think our dismal diarist had an organic knowledge of Crashaw's obscure poetry, or do you think he/she/they 'nicked' the quote from another source? And what source would that be? I tend to agree with Chris, and I am somewhat unsure of the relevance of the date of when Mike lodged the book. Apparently at one time he told Shirley he found the quote in the library. Later, he told her he owned a copy of the book. So evidently, he was capable of 'sitting' on his little discovery. Finally, would Mr O's razor suggest that if this strange quote found its way into the diary via Mr. Rick's book and it found its way out of the diary via Mr. Rick's book, that the 'conduit' for these travels was one and the same?
(PS. I'm busy today as well, and have a ton of work to do. Feel free to answer tomorrow!)
Paul--You've stated that it is your understanding that the police inventory list was available for public viewing. My understand is that it was not. In Shirley's 1995 edition her information is as follows:
1. The 'tin match box' appeared in no newspaper reports.
2. The official police list was not available to the public until 1984, and has been moved to the City of London Archives.
3. The first published account wasn't until Rumbelow's and Fido's respective (and respected) books in 1987.
As far as I know, this information is correct. Is there other information of which I am not aware? Doesn't this show that the diary was written after the mid-1980s?
Best wishes until tomorrow,
RJ Palmer. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 11:51 am | | Problems:
1/ "One should perhaps also observe that Shirley Harrison has
stated that Anne was not receiving royalties" (Paul Begg 22/03/01 09.52)
2/ "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" (Caroline Anne Morris 22/03/01 12.02)
3/ "'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." (quoted by RJP 22/03/01 12.09)
4/ '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" (RJP op. cit.).
5/ "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" (Paul Begg 22/03/01 14.16)
I'm requoting the above so that I can be fair to the writers on a particular point where there is some confusion. The two pieces from Paul Begg's posts show that there is without doubt ambivalence on the part of Shirley Harrison which perhaps can be put down to her understandably not having referred to her book when she wrote the piece on 13th March and I join his request for Shirley to clarify her information. In passing I must repeat that I find it difficult to believe that Doreen Montgomery could unilaterally decide to spilt Mike's share in two so that Anne would have 25% and it's even harder to believe that Shirley who herself was a party to the contract would (as she has implied) know nothing about this. Perhaps the authors here could clarify whether a literary agent would have the power to do this without consulting the other parties, as implied by the use of the word "unilateral."
Taking quote 2/ by the fun-loving Ms. Morris, Shirley states that on the 2nd January 1994 Anne Barrett left her husband. If we assume that Shirley's original quote from her book cited above 3/referring to the April 30th, 1992 contract signed by both Barretts is more likely to be correct than her later ammendment, then it's clear that Anne SHOULD have received her 25% from that time on. Did she? Well there was certainly a royalty payment from Smith Gryphon via Rupert Crew Ltd. (Business Management for Authors) on 4th December 1993 for £8,309.88 of which 50% (less 10% and VAT) ie £3666.74 was sent by cheque to Mrs. Anne Barrett. The odd thing which perhaps Shirley can explain is why Anne got 50% that time rather than 25%? Let me emphasise that this payment direct to Anne does establish that she was receiving royalties before Mike's first confession and I anticipate that Ms. Morriss will withdraw her "caution advice" which I'm sure she meant only in the nicest possible way and not in the way it has been used in the sense of: "Don't believe a word this man says," particularly when it's read in conjunction with the piece from Shirley's book concerning the contract.
One point does concern me which is that Shirley says that the 1992 contract "was drawn up
to be signed..." but doesn't actually say that it WAS signed. Is this significant?
What is significant is that Anne was earning money from the diary before the separation and bearing in mind that she very soon became a single mother with a soon to be ex-spouse who perhaps could not be relied upon to look after his family, it is no wonder if she had every incentive to keep the lucrative diary mine working. I would also like to ask Shirley if the provisions in the Publishers contract (p 13, Blake edition) regarding the return of the £15,000 advance if the diary was proved a forgery is still in existance, also applies to royalties and was taken over by Blake when they republishe Mrs. Harrison's book. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 05:31 pm | | Hi All,
Hi Martin,
Ah yes, but does anyone think the diary handwriting matches Mike's?
Hi RJ,
I was talking possibilities rather than explanations. I have never dismissed the possibility that someone, other than Mike, could have used Ricks's Crashaw lines for the diary in modern times, because they stuck out like a sore thumb, in the same way as Mike could have found them later in the library. It all depends on whether Anne was that someone. If it wasn't Anne - and I don't believe it was - then who?
It now appears, if Peter Birchwood has got his facts right, that a royalty cheque was made out to Anne in December 1993. Well done, Peter! I assume you discovered this as a direct result of my recent nagging, otherwise you would have certainly told the board about it before, in the interests of getting this thing sorted once and for all. But, as I promised, I won't take any of the credit.
We now have an apparent financial motive for Anne's 'in the family' story.
As I say, well done Peter.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 05:54 pm | | Hi All,
Another thought just struck me. After Mike ordered the little red diary, Anne had to pay for it. So if Anne was the one with the bank account, did Mike's royalty cheques have to be paid into his wife's account? If so, I wonder - where were the royalty cheques sent after January 1994, when Anne left the marital home - and how were they cashed?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 03:56 am | | I wonder if the following analysis might shed any light on this matter of Anne receiving money.
I wonder if the confusion may be a result of imprecise writing. As said, I understood that a contract was signed between Ann, Mike and the Word Team that was basically designed as a safeguard against Mike or Anne offering the ‘diary’ to anyone else while it was under investigation by Shirley and likewise entitling them all to a share of any monies should the ‘diary’ be commissioned as a book. Presumably this is the document dated 30th April 1992 and described as a ‘collaboration agreement’ by Shirley. It was not an agreement entitling anyone to tangible cash-in-hand payment because no book had at that time been sold, but a promise of how any monies that might be earned would be split. The book was eventually bought by Robert Smith, at which time a publishing contract was drawn up by the publisher in which royalties were divided between Mike and the Word Team (not Anne). That the cheque paid to Anne was a full 50% would suggest that Mike’s money was paid to Anne, presumably with Mike’s agreement and I assume at his request, probably because Anne had the bank account, as Caz suggests.
Now, if the book contract was indeed between Mike and the Word Team then Anne was not contractually entitled to any money but no doubt shared from it as might be expected given that Mike and Anne were married. Doreen Montgomery took the decision to pay 25% to Anne on the basis of the original collaboration agreement where all parties had agreed to share the royalties.
So, according to the collaboration agreement Anne was entitled to a share of the royalties. According to the book contract she wasn’t. Whether any of the parties involved understood the details of the contracts remains to be seen, though I’d be inclined to doubt that they did because publishers’ contracts are notorious for being impenetrable and all concerned would probably have trusted the advice of Doreen Montgomery whose job it was to read all the fine print.
If this assessment is correct then Shirley has been understandably imprecise in her wording, but nevertheless honest in her reporting. Shirley can hopefully explain why that cheque for 50% was sent to Anne. Anne and Mike are presumably the only people who can say what happened to that money and how much of it was actually saved or spent by Anne. But the big question is whether Anne at the time of the separation or afterwards realised that the collaboration agreement entitled her to money. Anne is the only person who can answer that.
What we do know, assuming the information is correct, is that Paul Feldman had no influence over the contracts; Anne’s reported behaviour is consistent with her trying to discourage Feldman from pursuing his research; we’re told that Anne was not receiving money at that time and there seems to be no evidence to contradict that; we’re told that she didn’t want the money and had to be persuaded by Doreen. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 04:55 am | | Hi Paul,
That all sounds pretty reasonable to me, based on my own understanding of things. It would be interesting to discover what happened to any royalty cheques between January 1994, when Anne left the marital home, and their divorce. No one appeared to know Anne's whereabouts for some time, so were cheques for 50% still arriving at Mike's address, and still made out to Anne? It appears that Doreen Montgomery only arranged the separate payments of 25% after the divorce, because she felt it was the right and proper course of action. Doreen and Shirley were far from happy with Anne when they first heard her July 1994 statement. They felt they had been right royally mucked about. So if Anne's plan was to get her hands on a share of the dosh, she was upsetting the very people who had the means to provide it.
So yes, Paul, it all comes down to whether Anne realised she had a legal entitlement she could have pushed for, had Doreen not taken the matter into her own hands and obliged.
Have a good weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 06:50 am | | Hi Caroline,
I don't think anybody has ever set any of Mike's pre-1990 handwriing against the diary for comparison. (Forget it once the Demon Drink was pinning him to the mat! I take no stock whatever in the Feldy 'experiment' of trying to get Mike to reproduce a few lines of the hand).
Highly prestigious document examiners appear to be at odds over this, too. Maureen Casey Owens for Rendell did not think the forger had made any attempt to disguise his hand. Audrey Giles for the Sunday Times thought the forger had added hooks and loops in afterthoughts to make the whole thing look more consistently Victorian.
A general point. I don't think proposing 'a scenario' is a valid way of establishing history. Like Dr Forshaw's psychological analysis of the diarist, it is going to testify to the scenarist's ingenuity far more than to the likely facts. But there was for a long time an assumption in the diarist camp that demanding a scenario (in which little moth-holes could then be gnawed) was a valid way of undercutting opposition. (It was comparable with their mad passion for 'prove it' practical experiemnts, from trying to get Mike to write a page of diary hand, to challenging Melvin Harris to produce some of the convincing forgeries he said he could easily do).
It is, however, perfectly valid to consider broad outline hypotheses that might explain historical cruces, and see which best fit the facts as far as possible and seem generally probable. I believe that the unwillingness of 'old diarists' to give serious weight to the general outline I have suggested above rests less on historical considerations than on their humane and commendable perception of Anne Graham as a pleasant women who has done a fine job in single-parenting her daughter and redeveloping her own career, while plagued by a horrendous marital breakdown and an enormous amount of unwanted public attention anent the diary. Since I think that how living people bring up their families and get on with one another is far more important than who was Jack the Ripper, let alone when was the Maybrick Diary written, I don't want to get into public dispute over this point. But it seemed worth indicating where I stand.
With all good wishes,
Martin F |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 07:41 am | | Thanks Martin. I do appreciate your feelings on the matter.
I just find it a bit rich for Anne - if she was involved, in any way, in the creation of this diary, that has been the cause of so much misery, past, present and most probably as far into the future as the eye can see (aside from her own and Mike's misery) - to resent the enormous amount of unwanted public attention that her actions have caused.
On the other hand, if she had nothing to do with the forgery, and really can't shed any more light on the matter than she has already, and someone doesn't try to come up with a workable scenario, according to all the facts we do have, she will go down on the established historical record as a forger, and that historical record would then be wrong.
I am not comfortable with this, and I don't think Keith Skinner is either.
One other point. I wonder if it has been established when Mike's heavy drinking began. I can understand how his handwriting would most likely deteriorate in appearance as his drinking increased, and expressing coherent thoughts might prove difficult, but could alcohol alone change someone's general literacy skills to any marked degree? Naturally, I don't know if Mike would ever have been capable of writing out the 63 pages of entries as they appear in the diary, from a typed script, and Melvin has stated categorically that he didn't. It's one of the few areas where I find myself agreeing in part with Melvin's conclusions - or information - concerning the modern suspects. He has said that Anne and Mike's lies concern provenance - he never believed either of them actually forged the diary.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 08:33 am | | Just a small comment on the above in case it leads to a serious misunderstanding in the way these things seem to do. Unless Martin is thinking of a different event then the attempt to get Mike to reproduce a sheet of paper in the handwriting of the 'diary' was the gold nibs episode recited (I think) by Feldman in his book.
It was in fact Mike who claimed that he had penned the 'diary' and could reproduce the handwriting. Feldman called his bluff and challenged him to do it. Mike blustered about needing a pen with a gold nib. Feldman said he'd go out and buy one. Mike backed down and started to claim that Anne had penned the 'diary'. So it wasn't Feldman asking Mike to reproduce the handwriting, by Mike actually claiming that he could do it.
Whether or not there was a mad passion for asking people to substantiate the claims they made is something I don't know, not having been involved at that time, nor am I sure that such a passion, if it existed, is mad, but the incident I recall was, in my view, very telling. It isn't that Mike couldn't reproduce the handwriting, but that he changed his story. That's a bit of a habit of Mike's, of course, but we're also possibly seeing a man desperately trying to claim that he made a contribution to the creation of the 'diary'which in fact he didn't make. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 10:10 am | | I used to enjoy watching the 'Dail' (Irish Parliment) on C-SPAN. The Irish know how to debate--voices raised, fists clenched, chairs being thrown. And yet, I don't believe I have ever seen in a more frustrating discussion than this one about the Maybrick diary. It's really quite 'beyond the beyonds'.
It has been claimed for some time on these boards that Anne had no financial motive for fabricating the 'in the family for years' story. Now that it has been shown that she was, indeed, receiving 'diary money', the argument is being shifted toward whether she (and/or Feldman) perceived that she would be receiving more money in the future--thus effectively putting the issue inside someone's cerebral cortex, where it is quite safely inaccessible (!) Well, I imagine that Peter or whoever could post further payments to show that Anne was receiving money after the 'split' as well---up until the time of her revelation to Paul Feldman. But I hardly think that matters. I've never pressed to 'motive' issue --I think there could be a myriad of reasons why Anne might have found the 'in the family' story convenient and expedient. Yes, there was a financial motive. But the real question is, and always has been: is the story true? Does it fit with what we know about the diary? Is it credible? Does the Yapp/Florie connection 'work' with this thing being an old forgery? The answer is clearly: 'no'.
I'm also still assuming that the police inventory list was not available until after 1984, and so the diary is effectively dated to a time after that.
So now, what are with left with? The jury has been sequestered for quite some time. Can we reach a verdict now, and call it a day? Madam Foreman (Caz) could you hand the ballots around? I'll vote openly: Anne is indeed a sympathetic person who has rebuilt her life, etc., as Martin noted above. But her story can't be true. The diary is a recent forgery. Let's call it a day. |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 10:54 am | | RJ,
I know what you mean. Most people seem satisfied that it's a modern forgery: those who aren't, as Martin has put it so perfectly, seem not least deterred by the fact that this involves denouncing Anne Graham as a hustler. Like I said before, that's not the kind of consideration that stops the cops.
But that's a reasonable reservation, isn't it? I mean, whether she's a nice person or not. Um, I'm not quite clear on the legal point, but wouldn't that be an accusation of, at least, intent to defraud? I'd be rather shy about declaring this proven--in public, anyway!--unless there is evidence actually tying her to composing the diary.
And I don't know of any smoking gun here. Yes, there is the Sphere book and a potential motive etc. And it's true that sufficient circumstancial evidence does become conclusive. But there's a world of difference between satisfying a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that forgery has been committed, and satisfying them that *Anne / Mike* did it.
To prove that, wouldn't you need--I don't know--library tickets that showed the Barretts taking relevant books out? Phone records indicating a lot of phone traffic between the various people who would have to have been involved? Connections to metallurgists who could have helped fake the watch? etc. etc. Even one tapped phone call between involved parties ("Listen, I just had this man on the phone for hours, you know they're really interested, and I know it's a mad idea but...") would put all the other speculation to rest. In the absence of such, if I were on the jury (to use your metaphor) I'd have to acquit. Even if I accepted this was a forgery, I wouldn't be clear that I'd been shown the forgers.
madeleine |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 11:09 am | | Hi RJP
You recently observed that you hoped I was on a jury if you were ever charged with diamond smuggling. Well, I hope you're not on a jury if that happens to me! I'd hate to be invested with a motive there is no evidence to show I knew I had. All Peter has done is show that a cheque was made out to Anne, Caz has offered an explanation why. We still don't know whether Anne knew she was entitled to money and you haven't addressed Caz's valid point that confessing to Feldman didn't assist in gaining her money.
With regard to Eddowes inquest papers, my understaning is that public access to coroners’ records is governed by the Public Records Act (1958) as amended by the Public Records Act 1967. I am given to understand that prior to 1958 a 50-year closure period operated. If so, the inquest papers relating to Eddowes would have been available to public inspection after 1938 until closed to public inspection by the 1958 Act. They would then have remained closed until officially opened by the Lord Chancellor’s Instrument in July 1984.
How easy it would have been to access the documents between 1938-1958 or between 1984-87 remains to be seen. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 11:30 am | | Hi All,
Can I just go back briefly to Paul's previous post about Mike's offer to recreate the diary writing?
Looking at Mike's various actions and statements, I think we have to weigh up what was uppermost in his mind at any one time - getting back at Feldy or trying to come across as a skilled and talented forger. If Mike was indeed absolutely desperate to foil Feldy's plans, you'd think he would have produced any evidence he had that the diary was a forgery. We know that his first attempt took the form of announcing that he was the world's greatest forger, who single-handedly created the diary. Not long after that, Mike learned of Anne's statement. More angry and humiliated than ever, and even more determined to prove Feldy wrong, and discredit Anne in Feldy's eyes, he elaborated on his forgery story, roping in Anne and Tony Devereux, and this time he also used his trusty Sphere Guide, of defective binding fame. Mike's primary purpose still appeared to be to get back at Feldy, even though it now meant diminishing his status as master forger to achieve it. When Mike realised that his detailed January 1995 confession had also failed in its purpose to ruin Feldy and the diary for good, I would have expected him at some point to hold up his hands and say, "Okay, so I didn't sit down and write the bloody thing, but I do know it's a modern forgery, and this is how I know", and then he could have given a final, truthful, account, which might have given him a sporting chance of achieving his original aim.
Either his wish to defeat Feldy was not as strong as it appeared to be, or he knew he couldn't use the diary to do so.
Hi RJ,
You are free to call it a day whenever you like, although I'd miss you, your civility and sincerity, and the balance you provide. But, as I'm sure I have said before, there seems little point in anyone punishing themselves by debating a subject, on which they are 100% sure they've got it all figured out, with people who are still unsure about hundreds of little questions that remain to be answered. I'd like confirmation and more details of all those pre-divorce royalty payments for a start. Peter needed the financial motive to support his hypothesis (which incidentally appears to conflict with Melvin’s information), and I haven't – may never have – a decent hypothesis of my own worked out, which includes the basic means, motive and opportunity.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 11:54 am | | Hi Madeleiene
I don’t know whether we should call in the full weight of the F.B.I. - though wouldn't it be fun if we could! - and I hate court-room analogies, because as Martin has pointed out, the court of law is not the court of history and they don't demand the same things. But I think we can do a little better than basing judgements on personal conceptions of whether someone is nice or not.
There is a tendency for some people to think that having a motive is the same as commiting the crime. Thus, if Anne is shown to have received money from the ‘diary’ then obtaining more money was her motive for telling the 'in the family for years' story. But never mind the fact that Paul Feldman had absolutely nothing whatever to do with the royalty payments and forget the fact that Anne’s behaviour as we understand it to have been was consistent with the stated intention of deterring him from pursuing his inquiries. So on the one hand it might be possible to show a motive, but on the other than motive is not consistent with Anne’s behaviour. Furthermore, if Anne knew that the collaboration agreement entitled her to 25% of the royalties, why didn’t she go straight to Doreen Montgomery and ask that her share be sent to her. And on top of all that, one might like to consider that a share of an annual or bi-annual royalty payment is a long-term vision for a women with rather more immediate financial and other worries and the idea that she thought revitalising the ‘diary’ would generate a better income on the book is surely so long a long-term view as to be disregarded as reasonable.
All we've got thus far is a single 50% payment made out to Anne, for which exists the explanation that Mike did not have a bank account. It has not been demonstrated that she benefited it any way from that money, though it would hardly be surprising if she did, and has not been shown that she knew that 25% of that money was hers; it has not be shown that she knew she was entitled to any monies; it has not been shown that she wanted any monies; nothing she did incates that she wanted money - in fact we have a statement that she did not.
Not only do I submit that a case against Anne Graham has not be shown, Maam, I submit that a case hasn't even been made and that she be allowed to walk from this court a free woman!
And with these words Perry Mason hauled the Italian-wool jacket from the chair back and shrugged an arm into the sleeve with an air of finality. Turning to Della Street he said, "Case closed! I'll meet you in the bar across the street." |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 12:25 pm | | Hello Madeleine, Caroline, Paul & everyone-- Hello.
My goodness.
Madeleine--First of all there is absolutely no doubt that this is a forgery. It is not in James Maybrick's handwriting. Ergo, it is a forgery. The album once contained photographs from the post 1920s--ergo it is not a 'contemporary' Maybrick forgery. Big problems. So naturally, we must now look at the provenance of the man who introduced to diary to the world. This fellow (Mike) says that it was given to him by a man in a pub (!) Hmm. Can we speak to the man? Well no, the man died a few months ago, and all he told me is that 'no bugger alive' knows where it came from.
Well now, we have a problem. But let's look a little closer anyway. We see find that Mike had the diary's text on his word processor at home. We find that Mike had went out and bought a genuine blank Victorian diary (for no apparent reason) beforehe introduced the Maybrick diary to London. (Shirley's book says after, by the way, but it has been shown to have been before). The diary is shown to have references (such as the polic inventory list) that were not in the public domain until--o.k. lets say the late 1930's, I'll even accept that. Tests show the ink is readily soluable, thus it hasn't been on the paper for very long. It's looking very bad indeed.
Inexplicably, the much maligned Mike is able to come up with a citation in the diary ('O Costly Intercourse of Death') that has stumped the experts. It's baffling to know how he could have come up with the citation.
It looks very bad. Mike even confesses. And while he is confessing he is going through a bitter divorce with his wife. His wife seems to think his confession is meant to 'get back at her', and, it is shown, she is living-off royalties from the diary. During this bitter time --despite the fact that for two years she said nothing-- she suddenly comes up with a 'new provenance'--it's been in the family for years. But, unfortunately, this doesn't help much because we already know about the modern references in the diary, the soluable ink, and so on. We already know that the diary isn't in James Maybrick's handwriting. We already know that the album once contained photographs. And the new provenance still points towards Battlecrease, so it comes off as rather transparent, since the police list wasn't available until the late 1930s. And, sadly, since Anee's story has changed, we can't really afford to give her any credibility.
Still, I would be have been willing to listen to the 'defense' give their side of the story, but the defense is singularly unwilling to put their star witness on the stand. No proof of the Formby/Yapp connection or the Florie connection are ever offered. The tapes of the Billy Graham interview are not offered. But heck, as for the 'new provenance': Florie lived until 1941. She maybe she could have told us. Trying hard not to be sarcastic here, but, since Billy was sentimental enough about his 'true' grandfather Henry Flinn, frequently taking Anne to visit his grave as a child, it's reasonable to assume that as a young man he would have contacted his 'true' grandmother Florie Maybrick. Perhaps some evidence can be presented to show this, but I have a hunch we're in for a long wait.
As for the 'verdict' I was referring not so much to who actually wrote it, but whether or not it was indeed a recent forgery. Caroline & Paul seem to still hold on to some hope that Anne's story is true and this thing has historical importance. But clearly this cannot be the case.
The facts might not show who wrote the diary, but I feel that they show the diary is a recent forgery and that Mike & Anne know that it is a recent forgery.
Two points: The 'motive' (I agree that it is somewhat irrelevant) was never that Anne would get more money, but that she would continue to get diary proceeds if the diary was exposed and sales dropped off, there were no futher editions, etc. I tend to think people's motives are generally very muddled & contradictory anyway. It could have been anything; her sister-in-law wanted Feldman to stop bothering the Barretts. That's motive too. What is important is the veracity of the story.
Caz--how on earth does Peter showing that Anne received a diary royalty check 'conflict' with Melvin's scenerio???
Best wishes. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 01:08 pm | | Caroline & Paul seem to still hold on to some hope that Anne's story is true and this thing has historical importance.
Just a small correction. I don't hold out hope one way or the other. I am simply concerned that the arguments on both sides are strictly fair and accurate. Hence, I quickly acknowledge that there is a contradiction in what Shirley has said, but equally quickly try to establish what it means. If Anne knew she was enitled to royalty money, that's fine by me and gives her a motive. But that hasn't been shown.
The facts might not show who wrote the diary, but I feel that they show the diary is a recent forgery and that Mike & Anne know that it is a recent forgery.
Do they? How about this as a possibility. The 'diary' is a forgery. Mike is the unwiting chump selected to 'place' the diary. He is given it by Devereux in the pub and he doesn't ever know its a forgery. Neither does Anne. However, by the time Anne tells her ‘in my family for years’ story, she knows that the Devereux family has rejected any claim on the document. She also knows that nobody else has come forward to claim the ‘diary’ as theirs, from which she can reasonably assume that no will do so in the future. She’s therefore at liberty to claim the ‘diary’ as her own, which she does (for whatever reason you like). Neither of them know it's modern. Neither of them know its forged.
But the evidence is that Mike didn't know the 'Diary' was forged - he can't give a coherent account of how the 'diary' was conceived or executed, his handwriting doesn't match, his story is all over the place... etc., etc. All that points to a different conclusion is 'O costly', but he could have stumbled across that quite by accident when flicking through the book before, during or after he’d offered it to his girlfriend’s son. So Mike's still the patsy and all he knows is that he was given it by Tony Devereux. Let's suppose Anne gave it to Devereux to give to Mike, just as she says, but forged it herself. She had access to the Sphere book and could have taken the quote herself. Anne’s the forger. What about that?
These fits the facts don't they? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 01:11 pm | | Hi again RJ,
It has not been established that Anne received a penny of diary money after she left Mike, in January 1994, until Doreen Montgomery arranged for her to get 25% after the divorce. It has not been established that this arrangement was a definite legal requirement, or that Anne was aware of any such entitlement. Of course, we don’t know that Anne would not have tried to claim a share in the future, had Doreen not thought fit to make provision for her when she did, but this speculation has no place in Peter’s original hypothesis – namely, that Anne told her tale to Feldy, in July 1994, with an immediate purpose in mind - to maintain or increase her income from the diary, at a time when she was struggling to make ends meet. You, RJ, feel that motive doesn’t matter, because for you the case against Anne is already proven. That’s fine. I won’t try to change your opinion because I don’t know that it’s wrong. But at least Peter has thought to test his own hypothesis against the facts, as far as he is able to establish them. So presumably it matters to him, and his hypothesis will be strengthened or weakened accordingly. I’d still like to know who Peter has down as the diary composer and penman, and how he is testing that hypothesis. Again, none of this will matter to you if you are satisfied that Melvin’s information is correct, without needing to know what it is. It's Peter's whole hypothesis, that Anne and Mike forged the diary for financial gain, that conflicts with just about everything in Melvin's bag of tricks, not just the financial motive, if it exists. Sorry for the confusion.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 02:09 pm | | Excuse me everyone, but I just am curious
regarding this diary business. I happen to feel
the diary is a fake. But in all this I am curious
about one point: Why on earth link the Ripper
murders with the Maybrick case? It is (in time)
the next famous murder case in England, but why
not (for the sake of argument) the Isle of Arran
murder, which happened in the summer of 1889?
Is it possible that whoever concocted this diary
was attracted to the Maybricks because the "mad"
judge at the trial of Florence was Sir James
Fitzjames Stephen, father of one-time Ripper
suspect James Kenneth Stephen?
Jeff |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 02:39 pm | | Hi Jeff:
While the connection of erstwhile Ripper suspect J. K. Stephen with the Maybrick case through his father Sir James Fitzjames Stephen who presided at the judge in the trial of Florence Maybrick, is a real link between the Ripper case and the Maybrick case, I for one doubt that this gave anyone the idea to write the Diary, although it may have been. The fact is that the Diary makes no mention of Stephen so I think it was more the case that Maybrick was a person who conveniently died a few months after the murders and about whom a reasonable enough facts were known to concoct what is, after all, a little botboiler of a story.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 03:56 pm | | Hello Paul!
The full involvement of the feds! I'm trying to imagine that many dark suits wandering about Liverpool.... But I bet it wouldn't be fun; I bet it would be quick. They could do all the things historians can't and wouldn't want to do: tap phones, conduct DNA tests, scare the pants off people with their hard-core interrogation techniques. Cops are a lot more intimidating than historians--even Melvin Harris! 
You're right, of course: "the court of law is not
the court of history and they don't demand the same things." In some ways they're the opposite. The point of a lawyer's narrative to a jury is to establish a fact: someone did or did not commit a crime, and here's a story to prove it. The point of a historian's narrative is to establish a point of view: this is what I think happened, and here are the facts to prove it. Both involve evaluating facts and sources, of course, but the overall perspective is different.
I guess the real question is, then, what makes something fit for historical inquiry? Do the participants have to be dead, so we don't hurt them if we're wrong by falsely accusing them of dreadful crimes?
madeleine |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 05:42 pm | | Hi Madeleine
I know what you are saying, but we wouldn't be evaluating any events within the last ninety years if the we had to wait until everyone involved was dead. What we are trying to do - and perhaps have a moral duty to do - is to ensure that the evidence on which future judgements are based is accurate. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 06:41 pm | | THE REAL McCORMICK
When faced with my McCormick exposure the carpers and the grudgers have conveniently ignored the major, step-by-step evidence that I have put on screen. In front of their eyes is the proof positive that his book rests on faked material. This they never mention, yet it is the most important factor in understanding his giant hoax. And they should take note that, after my exchanges with him, HE WITHDREW HIS DECLARED PLANS TO ISSUE A NEW EDITION OF HIS BOOK FOR THE CENTENARY IN 1988. The game was up and he knew that the book was dead and its resurrection was out of the question.
It is also significant that these carpers and grudgers never knew McCormick, never had experience of the dark side of his character, never encountered his devious ways of trying to blame others, and never realised that he had lied and bluffed his way through book after book, for the whole of his career. He was a consummate liar without a conscience. And this is not just my conclusion. It is shared by others who knew him well, but some are reluctant to speak ill of the dead, which is unfortunate, since a great deal of perceptive history depends on knowing about the hidden actions and motives of departed figures. Fortunately for the truth, I have just received permission from Ted Bishop to issue some brief comments on the man, drawn from Mr Bishop's long experience of working with him and socialising with him.
And who is Ted Bishop? Well, he is a journalist and author who worked with both Ian Fleming and McCormick after the end of World War 2. He spent hours at McCormick's bedside the day before he died. He gave a funeral oration at McCormick's burial, and he wrote the long obituary that appeared in the 'Telegraph'. Initially he was very reluctant to say anything detrimental about his old friend, but in the end he valued the truth more than any sentimental traditions and he gave me an exclusive interview. This is part of what he has to say about the man.
"In 1987 Donald was easily able to understand anything said to him. He was as alert and hard-headed as ever. Though I know little of the specific book in question, I can say that Donald would think nothing of faking anything that suited his purpose. Though we class him as a likeable rogue, he was really a very dodgy person, very deceitful. He was a real Walter Mitty type with his deceptions and bluffs. His ability to bluff was incredible. He even bluffed his way into a naval commission that was way beyond his abilities. That is how he came to meet Ian Fleming.
They met in a New York hotel during the war. McCormick had been sent there to pick up a landing craft. Though he knew nothing about ocean navigation he had accepted responsibility for bringing this unwieldy vessel across the Atlantic. But he was cunning as well as dishonest and so he threw all the grave responsibility on the shoulders of an ex-Merchant Navy officer who did know about navigation, while he skived away in his cabin. There are some rather nasty question marks over this man's later record."
Let those who wish to quibble over the one tiny item, namely the poem, re-examine their position. I have shown that the so-called Dutton extracts describe events that never could have taken place. And there is evidence to show that other pieces are faked, the Ochrana Gazette for example. And you now have the testimony from one of his very close friends which backs up my findings that McCormick was a fraud and a ready liar. What is the point of holding to the fatuous belief that he was a dear old puckish, Pickwickian type, who was wrongly indicted? He took in too many trusting Ripperologists for too many years. It is high time to lay his mischief to rest. All of it. |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 06:54 pm | | Paul, yes, indeed, history would be perfectly impossible if propriety forced us to keep silent until everyone's dead (and their children, and their children's children.... Outraged great-great-great-grandchildren demanding fair play for Joe Barnett! etc.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't be investigating the diary's provenance. I'm really saying a couple of things.
First, that if one had the tools for a Fed-style inquiry, I bet this would turn out to be quite a simple story after all--all this argument & counter-argument reflects your collective sophistication, not the forgery's. (I know people said that umpteen times--sorry to repeat!)
Second, it's interesting to me to see how historical inquiry differs from detective inquiry; it's interesting to Ripperologists, too, I guess, because the study of the Ripper appeals to the Sherlock Holmes in us, as well as the historian.
hope the rain and howling gales have let up in England--
madeleine |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 24 March 2001 - 03:14 am | | | Melvin: Thank your for the additional information, but we were not concerned with Donald McCormick’s overall character but with the specific of whether or not he confessed to authoring "ELW". We have the answer to that question, he didn’t. We’ve moved on. As a matter of curiosity, have you now received Shirley Harrison’s second letter? Have you forwarded it to the newspaper editor? What response do you have to the general points made in her post of 19h March? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 24 March 2001 - 04:38 am | | Hi Madeleine,
I think I'd just say, "Why settle for a point of view when it should (in theory ) be possible to ascertain the facts?"
Are we going to be stuck with Melvin's point of view, instead of solid, indisputable facts, and is everyone happy with that? I'm sorry, but I'm not.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 24 March 2001 - 05:56 am | | Hi Madeleine
I’m sure you are right and the background to the forgery will turn out to be a simple story and the argument and counter-argument certainly doesn’t reflect the sophistication of the forgery. However, the argument and counter-argument is really an effort to establish the facts. After all, if the ‘diary’ does reflect “ELW” and if McCormick wrote “ELW” in or about 1959, then that’s very important information upon which a conclusion can be firmly based, but the conclusion is absolutely worthless if either of those claims is untrue, as both in fact may be. Ditto “Empty Tin Matchbox”. It probably was derived from one of the books published in 1987, but it need not have been. The problem is perhaps best exampled by Anne Graham being shown to have received that cheque, from which it is argued that she had received money, knew she was entitled to money and that money provided a motive for her ‘in my family for years’ story. All of which may be true, but it is equally possible that Anne was paid the money because Mike did not have a bank account, that she used this cheque to open a bank account for Mike, deposited the cheque into that account and thereafter never received a penny or realised that she was entitled to. The proper action here, having defined a question, is to try and answer it. I spoke to Shirley yesterday and asked her find out from Doreen Montgomery why that cheque was paid to Anne. Unfortunately Doreen is busy with the London Book Fair and won’t be able to attend to that question until it is over. But at least we've got the people with us to ask! One advantage of 'living' history :-)
Meanwhile, onward and upward. The weather is warm but the sky is grey with heavy cloud. We've had some snow and very heavy rain and some flood warnings yesterday. And I don't have any chardonnay, but do have a Guinness in the fridge to taunt and tempt me. I am bravely resisting but may weaken later in the day when I plan to read one of Israel Zangwill's excellent ghetto stories. |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 24 March 2001 - 06:31 am | | After all my rude remarks in posted conversation with Alegria, I think I should say what a pleasure it is to see Melvin Harris's erudition offered without any personal attacks on other people.
The warning that McCormick is never to be trusted without some sort of corroboration is certainly valid, whether or not one adds the rider that he may be suspected of inventing any of his so-called 'facts' if there is no previous evidence for them.
Martin Fido |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 24 March 2001 - 06:33 am | | Hi All,
Whether or not Anne had a potential financial incentive to tell her story in July 1994, this doesn't, by itself, prove this was her reason for telling it, nor that the story was a lie. (In fact, if her story were true, there would be no moral reason why she should not share the royalties with Mike.) But, having shown a potential motive for lying, we could then test Anne's means and opportunity to tell a completely tall story and hope to get away with it. One thing that comes back to haunt me about all this is how confident could she have been, when she first told it to Feldy, that no one involved in the forgery would ever have reason, or be able (as Mike has not been) to come forward and prove her story to be rubbish.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 24 March 2001 - 07:12 am | | Hi Martin
Erm, unless I am reading you a'wrong Martin, don't you count throw-out lines like "carpers and the grudgers" a personal attack on other people? Or feel that Harris's completely wrong assertion that some of his material was "conveniently ignored" to be a slur on his critics? |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 24 March 2001 - 07:15 am | | Hi Caz
What you say is perfectly true, but kind of puts the horse before the cart a little because we haven'y as yet established that Anne was aware that she had a financial interest in the 'diary'. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 24 March 2001 - 08:33 am | | Good Morning. Rather than to try to peep inside Anne's head and ascertain her 'motives' wouldn't it be more to the point to evaluate the veracity of her story? To enthusiastic amateurs like me Anne might well be sympathetic, but I assure you she comes across as little more than another Joseph Sickert, weaving a fantastic and unlikely tale but offering no proof of its truthfulness. I think she's destined to be taken as seriously as Mr. Sickert is knowadays unless she offers up some hard evidence.
That might sound harsh, but everyone is subjected to similar doubts when they claim ownership of an utterly suspect document. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 24 March 2001 - 08:36 am | | | Meanwhile, why does Robert Smith own the diary? Isn't it rightfully Anne's? Did she sell it to him? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 24 March 2001 - 09:43 am | | Hi RJ,
The point is that Joseph Sickert presumably wanted his story to be believed.
As for Anne, I think she just wanted Feldy off the backs of her friends and relatives. I really don't think she actually gives a damn whether her story is believed by us or not. Perhaps it wasn't so much a claim to ownership of the suspect document, as an admission of ownership.
Anne said she gave the diary to Mike, via Tony Devereux, so I guess technically it was Mike's. Robert Smith owns it now, but I wonder if this was to protect Mike's interests, in case the temptation for instant cash became too great, and he decided to sell it off to someone else at a knock-down price. No doubt I will be corrected if this is way off the mark. But it seems like a sensible explanation.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
