|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 27, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
College course tackles the Diary:
Archive through March 27, 2001
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 24 March 2001 - 10:28 am |        | As for Anne, I think she just wanted Feldy off the backs of her friends and relatives. I really don't think she gives a damn whether her story is believed by us or not.
Caz--isn't that what I have said many times, and what you and Paul found so hard to believe? But that it didn't make sense because it focused attention on her? But yes, I agree with you, and am glad that you're coming around to my way of thinking. Perhaps her story was initially just an expedient way to get rid of Feldman. And whether it was believed (true?) or not, was secondary.
But certainly at a later point Anne did want it to believed. She brought Feldman over to interview her father. She repeated the story again so that Shirley could give her side of it the latest edition of The Diary of Jack the Ripper. And, of course, it is used again throughout Anne's own book. But without some hard evidence, I do fear that Anne's fate will be similar to Joe Sickert's.
It would be interesting to how exactly Robert Smith came into the possession of the actual Diary itself. At one point (or so I've heard) the owner of Battlecrease claimed ownership, since it was suggested that electricians found it in his house.
By the way, don't those research notes indicate that Anne was working with Mike? My impression was that Anne only wanted Mike to write a story based on the diary, that she didn't want it published, and that she had become so estranged from her husband that they couldn't work together on anything. How do those notes fit in with Anne's provenance story?
Well, I think everyone is being generally civil. This is a good thing, even though we evidently strongly disagree about the Diary. Have a nice week-end.
Best wishes. |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 24 March 2001 - 11:45 am | | Hi RJP
Disagreement does not mean that one loses respect for the person with whom one disagrees. After all, none of us have the answer. We are simply trying to make sense out of the material before us. We come at it fom different angles, which is a good thing as long as all we are interested in is getting at the truth, not boosting our egos or wanting to prove some preconceived theory correct at all costs. A scholarly exchange of how the raw data is interpreted can't be anything but progress.
My understanding of Anne story is that Mike was spending too much time in the pub. She knew he nurtured an ambition to write and believed that if she could grab his curiosity with something he'd focus on it instead of the pub. Thus she gave him the 'diary'. There were rows, it's thought because Mike wanted to publish he 'diary', and Anne told me that if they'd had a real fire instead of a gas one then the 'diary' would have gone on it more than once.
I don't recall them not being able to work together. Their relationship didn't collapse until after the publication of Shirley's book, when Mike seems to have become a bit arrogant with the publicity and started heavy drinking again. Eventually there was an incident and Anne left him. So Anne could have collaborated and assisted with Mike's research. The material on the word processor appears to have been a transcript of the 'diary' produced after Mike had received the 'diary' from Devereux. I have a copy.
(I hate to say this, but don't put Joe Sickert down too heavily either. I'm not sure that there isn't some basis for Joe's beliefs and I think a closer look at his friend Harry Jonas might pay a dividend or two, as well as suggesting that the origin of Joe's stories does NOT rest with Joe). |
Author: Melvin Harris
Saturday, 24 March 2001 - 04:16 pm | | THE BLOODY TRUTH
Fido, that paragon of virtues and seemly conduct, has told you that I am not a gentleman and has used the term "ill-bred". Well, this must be true since my great-grandfather Clarke was a rough, militant miner, much influenced by William Morris' Socialist League. Ill-bred and tough spoken to the bone I am sure, but, like me, he detested hypocrisy. And hypocrisy and worse, is now in evidence in Gent Fido's latest outpourings.
He has now gone quite over the top, and slithered down into the mire of The Last Ditch. From this refuge he tells us that "...the world of Ripper enthusiasts was a happy one of benevolent mutual encouragement before Melvin Harris crashed into it." Once more a doomed attempt to rewrite history. Here are the facts.
Far from crashing in, I was involved in writing about the Ripper YEARS BEFORE Fido, Begg and Skinner had their books published. My initial research into Ripper hoaxes began in 1980 and was shown to Stephen Knight as early as 1981. Sections were then published in the part-magazine 'The Unexplained'. Even though Knight knew my work would demolish his fantasy, his relationship with me was an amicable one at all times.
At that time the other Ripper authors in Britain were Odell, Gaute, McCormick, Rumbelow, Cullen, Wilson, Farson and Whittington-Egan. I did not know all of them, but those I did know were always on friendly terms with me. Even Dan Farson, who could be an awkward cuss at times, was amiable towards me, even though he knew that I had strong doubts about his methods and his conclusions. And it was Richard Whittington-Egan who insisted that I put all my findings into book form, even though they contradicted his faulty section on D'Onston.
Came 1987, with Fido and Skinner and Howells emerging for the first time with Ripper books. When you consider the way in which I am now accused of creating bad blood try looking at the Howells/Skinner portrait of Farson on pp 129-130. It is a personal and unpleasant account that has no place in a serious work. And on page 123 Dan is accused of lying, since part of his evidence is branded as a "mere fabrication". As for Fido's book, this has some cheap jibes which are historically absurd but which inevitably reflect on solid work carried out by others. But nowhere will you find any attack by me on these authors. Neither will you find any attacks in the three TV programmes that used some footage recorded by me.
In 1988 I left the country for three years. On my return I learned that Paul Harrison's work was being dismissed scathingly by the A to Z three. I also found that my own work was being misrepresented by the same three. But there was no kind of attack from me. I simply asked for their errors to be corrected and I supplied them with some good extra material for their book. If there was any bad blood or in-fighting at that point it certainly did not involve me.
Then the fake Diary surfaced, and after some time I gathered that there were advisors to the project who were being fed, flattered and fooled. But I said and wrote nothing about this. And since no one rang or or wrote to ask any sort of advice or opinion from me, I was not involved in any Diary squabbles. It was not until May 13th, 1993, that I learned from Feldman that some advisors had warned that I should not be allowed to see the Diary since I "lacked integrity". Begg can confirm this, but he denies that he was one of the people who made this completely unjustified slur. So at that date all the unpleasant actions were coming from one source only.
Following that I learned from the Sunday Times and direct from Kenneth Rendell, that Smith Gryphon were selling rights without disclosing crucial evidence which all buyers had the right to know of. Smith Gryphon were concealing the fact that the Diary writing was not that of James Maybrick. Warner Books were actually driven to issue a virtual ultimatum to Smith, since for over five months he had prevented an inspection by them, by stating that Mrs Harrison needed to hang on to the Diary until her historical sections were completed. This was a devious claim since the bulk of the book had been finished in March 1993 and the Diary text was both transcribed and photocopied before then. When I spoke to Robert Smith about this he used the bogus MacDougal text to justify his actions, and made claims that were historically and legally absurd. So any ill feelings up to then, had been created by some doubtful marketing practices, which were nothing to do with me.
Fido has stated that prior to her book launch he was "appalled by the unprincipled vilification of Shirley Harrison.." But he has never named those vilifiers. Well, I was certainly not among them, so his charge that I am the one responsible for all the bad blood is beginning to look distinctly contrived and dishonest. Even at Mrs Harrison's launch I directed my questions at Robert Smith alone, since I found his conduct devious. The odd truth is that the only attack I knew of on Mrs Harrison, took place on the day I visited Feldman. He yelled on about her having leaked the Maybrick name as a result of her too-open research in Liverpool. And he ended his diatribe by throwing a copy of Mrs Harrison's book on Santa Claus from one side of the room to the other!
Following Mrs Harrison's book came mine in 1994. Among the appendices were some dealing with the Diary hoax. But no one ever complained that they were offensive, or personal, or creating bad blood. Indeed Fido himself wrote to say "I enjoyed the assault on Maybrick", and in his printed review declared that section to be "...a fine debunking job." Later on, in November 1994, he wrote about my "...excellent ongoing work on the diary." Not a peep about any Harris-induced antagonism. No identification of even a single spot of black blood anywhere in my prose.
At this point stop and think hard. We are now some 14 years after I entered the Ripper scene. We are told of the existence of "unprincipled vilification" but since this does not involve me it is plain that Fido's 'bad blood' must have been introduced by unidentified others. Leaving me in the clear and as white robed as a baroque angel. And leaving Fido distinctly green-looking from the fact that his charges have been shoved down his throat by remorseless history.
So to the end of 1994. The Diary ink tests organised by Nick Warren and myself (and wrongly reported by Fido) led to a whispering campaign initiated by Feldman and played around with by Harrison, to the effect that the test material had been deliberately contaminated. Matching tests never take place because Mrs Harrison balks at taking sound advice. My letters to her were firm but fair, yet the lady preferred indignation to contemplation and contact was broken off. Yet nothing in my letters to Harrison can be identified as causing bad blood. And I am happy to display them at any time.
1995 sees the climax of Feldman's ink-smear campaign. When I denounce it as lies he threatens a costly time-consuming libel action. His raucous, drunken voice, bawling down the phone leads my wife to write to his solicitors. No attempt is made to deny her charges. Feldman's solicitors simply state that this is Feldman's style and has to be accepted!!
Was someone foolish enough to mention bad blood? And did that crafter of inept, false charges ever chide Feldman for his uncouth behaviour towards me and, later, towards Alex Chisholm and others? I doubt it very much.
It was not until 1996 that more black blood contaminated the scene. It spilled out from the pages of the revised A to Z. It was the outpourings of people who falsely claimed their book to be "an impartial encyclopedia".
This brand of bad blood was smeared onto the Internet by none other than Paul Begg. And this was before I placed anything on screen. Then Feldman did his bad blood part by salting his book with false information on my actions and ideas. He even had a follower who brought the ink-contamination lie on to the screen. And his text disclosed that Fido had embraced the standards of Judas. For a handful of cash Fido had presented Feldman with a false account of a phone call to me and a "detailed analysis of [my] appendices" that contradicted everything he had said about them previously. And he dated the phone call as 15 October 1994 four weeks BEFORE he wrote to Nick Warren praising my "excellent ongoing work on the diary." and congratulated me on my "prompt and effective response to that unfortunate Canadian woman's page full of bosh in the 'Standard'" (a Feldman-inspired piece)
So where was this Ripper Eden that "was a happy one of benevolent mutual encouragement"? Like Eden itself, it was a myth. As was my Satanic intervention.
By contrast the smiling-faced, "glad to see you", Fido that I met in the past, turned out to be a man nursing a grudge. At no time did he have the guts to tell me that he believed I had tried to steal his titchy radio programme. A forthright and honourable person would have asked for an explanation as soon as the matter surfaced. But not Fido. He nursed the bitterness for years. And yet the whole idea was mad beyond belief and easily refuted.
This self-confessed opinionated pontificator has now overreached himself with his portrait of a happy world made ugly by me. This post sets the record straight. |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 24 March 2001 - 06:22 pm | | Apologies, Paul. I spoke too soon!
If the person responsible for posting that diatribe would like to stand up and be counted, I might make some response to it on my return from holiday in two weeks. Otherwise, Sorry, Melvin. The playing field of insult and distortion is all yours.
Martin Fido |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 25 March 2001 - 02:11 am | | Hi Martin
I wonder how much of Harris's long and loony piece of anal rhetoric we should perceptively read and recognise as Harris’s guesswork! Melvin evidently doesn’t like his conclusions fairly, honestly and sincerely challenged and seems to like it even less when the challenge is correctly made. Harris has a peculiarly distorted perception of things, but has shown himself immune to different opinons, so there is no hope of correcting his misconceptions and people have seen enough of Harris’s ego-driven temper tantrums in the past to attach any significance to the above display of over-excitable foot-stamping. Any reply will just be boring and embarassing and pointless.
Have an excellent and much needed holiday, Martin, and do not once allow the Great Victorian Mystery to cloud the sunny horizons! |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 25 March 2001 - 06:21 am | | Essentially, I think such postings are best left to speak for themselves, Paul. I'm sure MH's biographers will find it a treasure trove, and mine will regretfully put it on one side as an unreliable source.
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 25 March 2001 - 06:35 am | | | Indeed. |
Author: shirley harrison
Sunday, 25 March 2001 - 07:16 am | | Friends....I am appalled (again). I will try and
]respond to a few of the details above next week but there are so many bits of guesswork which are based on lack of inside knowledge thats its hard to know where to begin.
I have suggested that Peter write to Doreen and to Robert to give the correct account of what happened viz a viz money and Anne and the purchase of the diary. Mike was drinking heavily BEFORE the diary. He did have a bank account but it was closed. i dont know when. There is much i would like to know about what happened at that time - but Anne was not "living off the diary". I did ask Peter several posts back if he had any information which we dont and which could throw light on this (bank statements). But once again answer came there none. I personally dont remember
that cheque to Anne...I never have anything to do with the money. But I do know Anne has never (unlike me) hounded Doreen or the publishers for payments since - and they are pretty small now.
You are mostly caught in the understandable trap of guessing what it is the minds of people you have never met. Its hard enough for me!
And beware of letting possibilities becvome facts too. For instance, RJ we dont KNOW that there were photographs in the book - this is guesswork on all our parts. |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Sunday, 25 March 2001 - 09:05 pm | | Gosh, I spend ONE day fixing up my apartment and find I have missed a torpedo from the Melvinator...
madeleine |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 12:02 am | | | I dunno, Madeleine. Not so much a tornado and a bad case of flatulence that fortunately lacks substance. (I really must learn how to do those smiley face things) |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 06:15 am | | Shirley--Hello. Technically true. It is only a 'guess' that the album once contained photographs. But considering the glue stains, the thick corner of a paper (photograph paper?) found in the binding, and the square impressions found on the first page, I would have to say it is a good guess. Now--correct me if I'm wrong--but I've read that these square impressions match the size of photographs that were in use during the years between WWI & WW2. (The Victorians used larger photographic plates). If this is the case, does this not put Alice Yapp & Florie Maybrick, out of the equation? But perhaps I'll attempt to look into this a little further.
Paul--I wrote: 'By the way, don't those research notes indicate that Anne WAS working with Mike? My impression was that Anne only wanted Mike to write a story based on the diary, that she didn't want it published, and that she had become so estranged from her husband that they couldn't work together on anything. How do those notes 'fit' with Anne's provenance story?'
To which you responded: 'I don't recall them not working together. Their relationship didn't collapse until after the publication of Shirley's book when Mike seems to have become arrogant with the publicity and started heavy drinking again'.
WHen I wrote my question, the passage I had in mind from Shirley's book is as follows (p 311):
Anne has described their already crumbling relationship in those years before the Diary came to London and has said, sadly, that the idea that she and Michael could, by then, have collaborated over anything was absolute rubbish" (Harrison, p 311.)
But what I'm getting at is this: Anne has stated that she had never shown Mike the diary during their years of marriage because their 'just weren't sharing things'. This 'estrangement' is the entire 'bread and butter' of Anne's odd provenance story. The only way her story 'works' is if she wasn't communicating with Mike in the normal way that couples do. In the real world one wouldn't see a wife using a third party --and a nearly complete stranger at that(!)--in order to give her husband a helpful suggestion for a writing a novel. But Anne has explained this in part by saying how distant she & Mike had become, and that she 'couldn't collaborate with Mike on anything', and that, anyway, she wanted Mike to do it on his own so he could build confidence in himself.(Harrison, p 304). (Further more, Anne has noted with horror the idea that Mike would have published the Diary. She wanted him to write a novel). Now, considering that Anne is shown elsewhere to sit down with Mike reading the diary, that she has 'organzied' and typed his notes, and that she has transcribed the entire diary onto their word processor for Mike's use, does this not suggest that 1) they were able to collaborate together 2) She was helping Mike and not having him do it on his own ; 3) Mike was researching the 'authenticity' of the diary, not writing anyting resembling a novel; and 4) that since Mike was researching the diary's authenticity, the hope that he wouldn't run with the diary to London is a rather wild hope on her part? But haggling over who said what or did what becomes a little tiresome. Let's paint with a broader brush. More bluntly, don't you --in general-- find Anne's story a little bizarre and hard to swallow? Do things really happen like that in the real world, anyway?
Best wishes,
RJ Palmer
PS. The fact that Mike denied having research notes and a word processor when Scotland Yard came calling doesn't look particularly good either.
But, alas, I'm beginning to fear that I'm knocking my head against a wall. I suppose its true what Anne has said, that people will believe what they want to believe. 'You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink,' & etc. etc. |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 08:43 am | | Hi RJP
To answer your last question first; yes, Anne’s story sounds distinctly bizarre to me. It’s bizarre enough to make one wonder whether Anne forged the ‘diary’ herself.
To answer your numbered points: (1) They did collaborate, whether it was on the research or on the forgery, and this puts the lie to the claim that they couldn’t. But in saying that they couldn’t collaborate, was Anne explaining how she felt before they had collaborated? (2) Given that Anne’s stated purpose in giving the ‘diary’ to Mike was to encourage him to research and keep out of the pub, is there anything surprising about Anne helping Mike? (3) Research is a necessary element in writing a novel. (4) Who can say what Anne thought Mike would do with the ‘diary’ or be persuaded not to do with it.
May I suggest that you seriously consider Mike’s involvement in the ‘diary’ forgery, see what if any evidence there is that he knew it was a forgery and then see how whatever your conclusion may be fits with Anne’s confession, because if you should happen to share my doubt that Mike ever knew the ‘diary’ was a forgery, but allow that ‘O costly’ was derived from the Sphere book in Mike’s house, at whom do you think the finger would point towards as being the forger? And how does that possibility effect your questions concerning Anne’s story? |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 09:21 am | | Presumably this is the only form of apology that I will get from Mrs Morris whose propensity for finding her mouth with her foot should make her the subject of a MAFF restriction order. The only credit due to her is that of implying that I have been lying about my own research.
I'm sorry to throw cold water on her brilliant suggestion but the fact is that Mike Barrett had his own bank account some months before the December 1993 cheque sent to Anne Barrett. |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 09:37 am | | | Was that bank account functioning when the cheque was sent to Anne? Was the money sent to Anne deposited in her account? Did it stay there? Did Anne dole money out to Mike as and when he needed it? Just for necessary clarification. |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 10:02 am | | RJ--
I don't think you're knocking your head against a wall. I'm not quite sure anyone disagrees--I know speaking purely as an outsider, someone to whom all of this discussion is mediated through print, I have drawn PRECISELY the same conclusion as you, for the same reasons and more.
But I can't give myself license to call someone a hoaxer in public! *unless*, of course, there's a "smoking gun." I don't see one here, not yet. And I do believe attempts to find that gun by--for instance--chasing down Anne Graham's finances, are not useful. Whatever is ascertained about her payments will be interpreted by all participants to confirm what they already believe, and all interpretations will rest on speculation about Ms. Graham's inner head, as Shirley points out. A test that confirms everyone's hypothesis is no test at all....
madeleine |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 10:28 am | | Hi Madeleine
As far as money is concerned, isn't it possible to test the "for gain" hypothesis against the facts as we have them?
Peter Birchwood expressed the 'for gain' theory thus: "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."
And very plausible it sounds, but if Anne knew she was entitled to 25% and wanted to secure it then why didn't she ask the literary agent Doreen Montgomery for the money? If she wanted to keep to 'diary mine' working, why didn't she confess her story to Shirley Harrison instead of Paul Feldman (who had nothing whatever to do with the contract with Shirley? Even if Paul was promising her the moon and the stars, wasn't it a rather long-term project for one who probably had a more immediate need for money? And aren't Anne's initial actions consistent with her trying to get rid of Feldman?
All this indicates that Anne's motive was not financial - and I am not trying to take the focus off Anne (not at all), but trying to find a theory that actually fits the facts.
The important bit for me is the meeting she had with Feldman in Liverpool. Did something happen at that meeting or because of that meeting that prompted Anne to make the later confession?
I don't know - and RJP has already asked the question - but if so it shows that up until that time Anne had no intention of confessing anything and that financial gain therefore looks less like the motive and the cheque for 50% is therefore irrelevant. This is just one way of assessing the evidence we have. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 10:42 am | | Hi All,
Hi RJ,
I’m really sorry I wasn’t communicating very clearly in my last post to you concerning Anne’s story. Far from ‘coming round’ to your way of thinking, I don’t think we could get much further apart than we are right now! Let me try to explain this as plainly as possible. I still have the two possibilities in my cerebral pending tray:
1) Anne lied to Feldy in July 1994. If so, she claimed that the diary had been in her family for years, knowing that it hadn’t, for reasons which have yet to be established.
2) Anne’s story is true. If so, she admitted it reluctantly, and only after Feldy had put intolerable pressure on her friends and relatives.
Whether or not Anne’s revelations were true, they did focus all Feldy’s attention on her, they did upset Mike, and they did initially anger those involved with Shirley’s book. So did she have good reason to invent her tale, and rope in her terminally ill and elderly father, and was she oblivious to the whole new set of problems she was creating for herself and those around her? Or did her sense of guilt finally overcome her desire to keep the truth to herself, and to hell with any of the consequences, such as being branded a liar by ripper experts and armchair detectives alike?
In the absence of hard evidence to prove Anne’s version of events, there is little she can do about whether we choose to accept or reject it. It would be understandable, whether her story be true or false, for her to adopt the attitude, “People will think what they like, so why should I care?” We are all left to make up our own minds, according to what we have read, or know, or think we know about the diary saga, the people involved and the various investigations. Keith Skinner believes Anne’s story, but will continue to test that belief for himself unless or until Melvin, or anyone else, produces new evidence or information. You, on the other hand, have utterly rejected the possibility that Anne’s story could be true, which is of course your prerogative. But this means that, from your own point of view, any attempt to examine such a possibility is a fruitless exercise, and one in which you cannot participate. This is what makes any discussion between us extremely difficult. I know that I am nowhere near qualified to make that final leap from the fence to accepting Anne’s account, or rejecting it out of hand. And with all due respect, that is because I have not walked all those miles in Keith Skinner’s shoes.
Hi Peter,
You've lost me. I'm trying to make sure everyone here gets the facts, and all the facts, absolutely straight. I don't think I implied anything about you lying about your own research. If I appeared to do so, I apologise unreservedly. But we are all capable of making mistakes, as you are only too well aware, and I did wonder if any had been made regarding Anne and Mike's finances. There do seem to be certain discrepancies. If the mistakes are Shirley's, I trust she won't think that I'm implying that she lied about her research.
BTW, I wonder if Melvin has received Shirley’s second letter, and found the time to forward it as requested? He appears to have had more pressing engagements over the weekend, such as digging up dirt and muck-spreading, when he could have been digging the final hole for the diary.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 10:54 am | | Was that bank account functioning when the cheque was sent to Anne? YES
Was the money sent to Anne deposited in her account? Did it stay there?
Did Anne dole money out to Mike as and when he needed it? ASK ANNE |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 11:03 am | | Hello Paul!
"As far as money is concerned, isn't it possible to test the "for gain" hypothesis against the facts as we have them?"
Sure. But what you describe isn't testing, though; and the results is yields are mostly questions, as in:
"...If she wanted to keep to 'diary mine' working, why didn't she confess her story to Shirley Harrison instead of Paul Feldman (who had nothing whatever to do with the contract with Shirley? Even if Paul was promising her the moon and the stars, wasn't it a rather long-term project for one who probably had a more immediate need for money? And aren't Anne's initial actions consistent with her trying to get rid of Feldman?"
Sure!... depending on what kind of person Anne Graham is.
If she is one kind of person, this suggests that she is telling the truth.
If she's another kind of person, it doesn't mean a thing: she could have decided more or less during Feldman's four-hour call that since these people weren't going to leave her alone, she'd ride the wave as long as she could--and the good psychic reader, conman or other person who makes a few bucks by deception doesn't choose the most lucrative nor strategic target, just the easiest mark.
It still leaves the solution open. But then, perhaps it will lead there....
By the way, the smiley face will appear automatically if you type a colon and a right parenthesis next to each other! 
madeleine |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 11:07 am | | Why 'ASK ANNE', Peter? Either you know or you don't. If you know, why don't you tell us? If you don't know, what's your point? And shouldn't you be busy finding out, since you are the one who thinks the financial gain motive is important for your hypothesis?
Even if she spent the whole lot on lipstick and new undies, how does that confirm for you that Anne's July 1994 story was false, and what do you believe was the extent of her involvement in the diary forgery?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 11:31 am | | Hi Madeleine
We don't know what a dead person may have done, yet we have thousands of history books speculating about what dead people did do, what their motives were and so on. In a broad sense isn't history all about probabilities? Isn't most of history in fact based on what is felt to be the most likely of the available alternatives?
Okay, Anne isn't dead, but being alive or dead for five hundred years makes no real difference to the way we assess and try to interpret the evidence as we have it.
In posing the question I wasn't attempting to test the evidence. I was simply posing questions that arise from the premise that Anne confessed to gain money. Personally, I think the questions are pertinent. Indeed, the whole idea of Anne confessing to Feldy for any reason associated with Shirley's book just doesn't make much sense. Of course she could have confessed for any reason the human mind can conceive, not matter how absurd, but what is probable? When we have what's probable, that's when we can test. |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 11:39 am | | | Peter: I can ask Anne, but on March 22 you wrote “Anne was earning money from the diary before the separation”. Since the only evidence presented thus far to support this claim appears to be receipt of the cheque, you have presumably established that Anne took the 25% we assume she was entitled to. Is there some reason why you don't feel able to reveal what you know? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 01:00 pm | | There are discrepancies here that could do with being cleared up. If the December 1993 cheque was in respect of a 50% share of royalties due to Mike, why was it made out to Anne, if Mike had a fully functioning bank account in his own name at the time? Was this some sort of admin error? Equally, if 25% was due to Mike, and 25% to Anne, and if they both had their own separate accounts, what was the reason for making out one cheque to Anne for the whole amount? Since no one has yet suggested that 50% was due to Anne, and none to Mike, this all seems a long way from establishing that Anne was earning money from the diary before the separation, or that she knew what share of that cheque she was or wasn't entitled to take for herself, or how much she actually took, if any. If Peter doesn't already know the answers, perhaps he should find out before making any more unsupported statements. If he does know the answers, and they are favourable to his hypothesis, why on earth wouldn't he use them to support the statements he has made?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 01:15 pm | | Hi Caz
I have asked Shirley Harrison to ask Doreen Montgomery why the cheque was made out to Anne, but Doreen is currently preoccupied with the London Book Fair and won't be able to attend to it immediately. Whether she responds or not will depend on whether she feels this information to be a private matter between her and her clients.
In the meantime, Peter's information obviously has a source (perhaps Mike Barrett or Alan Gray?) and that source was presumably able to tell Peter what happened to the money after Anne received it, especially if it was that money which enabled Peter to state that Anne had earned money from the 'diary'. Peter may have perfectly legitimate reasons for not divulging this information. Maybe he could tell us if this is the case. |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 01:58 pm | | Hi Paul!
Historians certainly do guess about people's motives, but from such a wealth of detail, and from so many varied sources. I'm thinking of the hundreds of angles from which I've inspected poor Dickens' life, including much he never intended for public consumption. I'd be pretty confident about guessing what he did or didn't mean by an action.
But what about someone of whom we know little? How much can we infer from his actions? Suppose, as I walk down the night street, a man calls out to ask me the time. This is consistent with:
--a man who wants to know the time
--a rapist who wants to size you up as "victim" fodder
--a preacher who wants you to accept Jesus
--a mugger who wants to make you stop so he can jump you
etc. But nothing in the request itself tells me which.
Anne Graham's actions, even accepting money, are consistent with her being honest, and they're consistent with her being a hoaxer. It all depends on whether she's telling the truth or not. !!
Of course, after a point all those bits and pieces accumulate to give one a wider picture of a person... Maybe the *real* question is, at what point do we cross over from circumstancial to conclusive? A question already raised.
more sunshine here in california, chortle--
madeleine |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 02:22 pm | | Hi Madeleine
I sort of cut my historical teeth on 5th century history, which unfortunately lacks the same wealth of material as the Victorian era, yet the journals are crammed to the gills with historians speculating about this possible influence and that possible action. It all seems to boil down in the end to making the best possible use of whatever material you have available. We'll never know for certain, but we can make educated guesses. Of course, to do that we need a bit more information than in your example, hence asking the questions I did.
You are chortling in sunny California, Martin has gone off to Turkey with "Decline and Fall..." as a little light reading... All I have are my photos of Crete where I enjoyed the warmth last year. Brrrrr. |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 02:36 pm | | Hi, Madeleine, R.J., Caz, Paul, et al.:
I would remind you that in the transcript of her October 4, 1995 interview with Radio Merseyside, which I previously posted here, Anne Graham was asked specifically about what money she had made from the Diary:
Interviewer: And what about the money side of things, Anne, have you made a lot of money out of it?
Anne Graham: No, no--
Interviewer: Have you made any money out of it?
Anne Graham: Well, not a great deal. The research, the expenses from the publisher, there has been an incredible lot. And really there hasn't been much money made out of it at all.
Let me ask what "research" costs and what "expenses from the publisher" would Anne Graham have had to have paid by this point--early October 1995? Note that she was asked, twice by the interviewer what money she personally had made from the Diary and not about the expenses for research by Shirley Harrison and the Word Team or for Paul Feldman's investigation, or any costs that she might have had to pay out to a publisher. In any case, what such expenses could she have possibly incurred? Does anybody else get the sense that here is a woman who is constantly evasive and lacking in truthfulness? I do.
Chris George |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 03:19 pm | | Hi Paul!
The 5th century--sheesh, yes, much guesswork required there, and no one to ask.
The most speculative of all such reconstructive efforts, it seems to me, is archeology. Someone finds a piece of shinbone and a bird feather, and the next thing you know, they've inferred from this a whole tribe of bird-worshipping, human-sacrificing people who wore short leopard-skin tunics, honored their dead with chanting and feared the color pink.
I think I'm building up a spectrum of rigor, with archeology at one end, and police work at the other... and historians, I think, plumb in the middle.
Enjoy the Greek photos. Their effect is much enhanced by ouzo.
madeleine |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 04:59 pm | | Hi Chris
The publisher’s agreement (and for that matter the earlier “collaboration agreement”) specified that all parties were responsible for sharing the research and other costs. Research costs would have been those incurred by Shirley Harrison and the other costs would have included the fairly stiff legal fees incurred through the problems with the Sunday Times. Anne is presumably talking about those expenses.
Turning to that cheque paid to Anne on 4th December 1993. Shirley’s book was published in October 1993, so that cheque is far too early to be a royalty cheque and must be the remainder of the advance of £7,500. The final payment of the advance is usually paid on publication. This would thus accord with a statement by Shirley Harrison back in 1999:
“I have permission from Mrs Doreen Montgomery of Rupert Crew, our mutual agent, to set the record straight over Michael's claim that "he has not had a penny" from the book which I wrote in 1993. Michael Barrett's 50% share of the royalties which in the first year, incidentally, would have more than paid off his mortgage - was sent strictly according to professional requirements, with accompanying publisher's statements. The money was either addressed, initially to him personally (Anne had already left him), to his bank manager and eventually - at his suggestion - for a time to his solicitor, to whom he gave Power of Attorney. After their divorce, the 50% royalty share was divided equally by Doreen Montgomery, between Michael and Anne.” (SHIRLEY HARRISON, MAY 30 1999 Message Boards: General Discussion: Miscellaneous: Cloak & Dagger Gasbags 10th April Meeting)
So, Mike and Anne received an advance, the second part of which was paid in December 1993. Mike and Anne separated in January 1994. Royalties were thereafter paid direct to Mike, to his bank manager and finally to his solicitor. At some point after the divorce Anne began to receive 25% at the insistence of Doreen Montgomery. Therefore at no point prior to the divorce did Anne receive royalties. What happened to the second half of the advance is not known.
I don't know whether Anne would have received 25% royalty cheque by 4th October 1995, but she may have done. Maybe her radio statement should be seen in light of such a possibility. |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 05:30 pm | | Hi, Paul:
Thank you so much for clarifying that you believe that according to the publisher's agreement, Anne would have had to pay for research and other expenses out of the money that she received.
Best regards
Chris |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 05:52 pm | | Hi Chris
I'll try to confirm this with Shirley in the morning, but unless my memory is playing tricks on me I'm sure that Robert Smith deducted monies from the royalties and I'm sure Shirley and Mike were lost equally. |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 08:08 pm | | Dear Chris and Paul and the rest,
I hope you don't mind me changing the topic a
little, but I was thinking of the Eight Little
Whores rhyme. I have only read it in Michael
Harrison's book about Clarence, and I recall
there was a reference in it to an incident
involving Prime Minister William Gladstone.
In the first pair of lines, "Eight little whores,
with no hope of heaven, Gladstone may save one,
then they'll be seven."
The Grand Old Man had taken it into his head to
try to retrieve some fallen ladies, literally, by
going out and taking them off the streets. It
was a silly (and politically ridiculous) thing
to have tried, even though Gladstone seems to have
had his heart in the right place. I just wonder
what the date of this crazy incident was (as it's
date would help set a time frame for when the
rhyme was created).
I might add that Harrison does occasionally
copy a source too slavishly. In one of his
Sherlockian studies, IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF SHERLOCK
HOLMES, he discusses the various mysterious
disappearances in West Ham from 1882 to 1890, and
seems to be copying Elliot O'Donnell's account
to the word in STRANGE DISAPPEARANCES (1927). But others did that too. Guy B. H. Logan, in his book, GUILTY, OR NOT GUILTY? (1929) has a chapter on the disappearances and is also quite close to the account by O'Donnell.
Jeff |
Author: Joseph
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 10:43 pm | | Hello Ms. Murphy,
Actually, the aim of archaeology is to gain a deeper understanding of mankind through the study of, as Lord Colin Renfrew has written, "objects that were used, modified or made by humans". Lord Renfrew goes on to say, "archaeology is a historic discipline that studies the human past", and it very often uses written history as a source of data.
Archaeologists, as well as historians, make statements, offer findings, and pass judgments that frequently require interpretations; these are obtained by using the scientific method as a means of proof on two levels: hypothetic and theoretic.
As Paul has ably demonstrated, hypotheses are tested against other data for proof; those that survive the continual gradient process are used to devise a model, and those that are disproved, are voted off the island.
By using a logical and sequential, scientific technique to gather data or, in this instance, evidence, archaeologists are like detectives; they discover artifacts/clues, and analyze them to see where or if they fit. Good detectives don't throw anything out unless it is completely useless, and even then, they don't empty the waste basket, and the only means they have of making that, "save it or s--tcan it" decision is: scientific analysis, the scientific method.
Perhaps your spectrum would reflect a greater degree of veracity if you replaced archaeologists with biographers, and moved the science of archaeology to the Police end of the scale (My apologies to Mr. George for the misguided humor).
You may find this web site informative. http://www.britarch.ac.uk/
Best Regards |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Tuesday, 27 March 2001 - 01:52 am | | oh dear--I knew someone here would be an archaeologist and I'd get told off!
Archaeology is clearly a highly respectable science that tests its propositions against facts. It's just that the facts are quite hard to find. One might make a wrong inference about a tribe, that it feared the color pink for instance, without ever finding anything concrete that corrected the inference.
It's not that detectives are better at finding the truth than historians or archaeologists. It's just that they must present their findings (in theory, anyway) to a skeptical audience in a combative arena. That must make a difference.
madeleine |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 27 March 2001 - 03:00 am | | Hi Madeleine
Are you suggesting that the academic fraternity isn't as skeptical and as combative as a court of law?
I think we're actually dealing with different disciplines which have a cross-over but don't really bear too exact a comparison. That's why I don't like court of law analogies. The court of history isn't a court of law and its expectations are different. At the end of the day, though, its all about establishing facts, weighing probabilities, proposing theories based on and accounting for the evidence, and then testing that theory against other information, building each piece into a picture, just like you do with a jigsaw. Fun for a wet Sunday afternoon. |
Author: Joseph
Tuesday, 27 March 2001 - 08:19 am | | Hello Ms. Murphy,
I'm not an archaeologist ma'am; I'm a simple countryboy come to the big city to wash windows. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 27 March 2001 - 09:57 am | | Hi All,
Peter Birchwood wrote on March 22nd, 2001, on this board:
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.
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"...
What is significant is that Anne was earning money from the diary before the separation and...it is no wonder if she had every incentive to keep the lucrative diary mine working.
On March 13, 2001, on the Maybrick Diary board, Mr. Birchwood wrote:
Supposedly by early 1995 the total share due the Barretts was £40,000 of which Anne's share was £20,000. Shortly after this, Anne succeeded in having her share [25%] passed directly on to her and the first payment came in around August 1995
(and therefore before her October 4, 1995 interview with Radio Merseyside.)
Peter has kindly shared with us some information, which doesn't, by itself, give us very much to work with. Perhaps he would confirm and clarify a few of the details for us.
Firstly, would he please confirm that the cheque sent to Anne for £3666.74 was in respect of a royalty payment made to her on 4th December 1993.
Secondly, would he please tell the board the date of the communication he has seen, which gives the payment details he has outlined, together with the name of the addressee, and the person who signed the letter.
I am not doubting Peter’s word, before he suggests again that I am. But there is obviously a problem here somewhere. Why was a royalty payment made so soon after the publication of Shirley’s book? And why did the whole 50% go to Anne, and none to Mike? I am sure Peter will appreciate just how important it is to establish all the facts surrounding his documentary evidence, so he can pinpoint where the problem lies, before he uses this evidence to support Anne’s potential financial incentive to lie to Feldy about the diary in July 1994.
And BTW, does Peter really believe that suggesting possibilities in the absence of hard evidence constitutes putting my foot in my mouth? That’s all I was doing by wondering if Mike was able to provide bank details when they were asked for. Whenever one of my suggestions turns out to be wrong, it fully deserves cold water to be thrown on it. I trust he feels exactly the same way about all his own suggestions. I’ll have the bucket ready just in case, shall I?
Hi Joseph,
Nice to see you back on the boards. You wrote:
Good detectives don't throw anything out unless it is completely useless, and even then, they don't empty the waste basket….
I couldn’t agree more.
I have a nice little Confucius saying for everyone:
A person who has committed a mistake and doesn’t correct it is committing another mistake.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 27 March 2001 - 11:33 am | | "A person who has committed a mistake and doesn’t correct it is committing another mistake"
A good description of the attitude of Mrs Morris who adds to her silliness by misspelling my last name twice to give the typically nasty little touch for which she strives and so often succeeds.
Madeline:
"But I can't give myself license to call someone a hoaxer in
public! *unless*, of course, there's a "smoking gun." I
don't see one here, not yet. And I do believe attempts to
find that gun by--for instance--chasing down Anne Graham's
finances, are not useful"
We are looking here at a book which has made for its participants a very large amount of money. Very, very few of us here would deny that it was a forgery; hoax if you prefer but in my experience hoaxes are a not-for-profit affair.To investigate it, it's my opinion that it's essential to follow the money: who got paid and how. Leaving aside the professional author - Shirley Harrison - 50% of the profits went to Mr and Mrs Barrett. There is no obvious money trail leading to anyone else. It has been said about Anne that “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). This statement was innaccurate: in December 1993 well before the divorce and before their separation Anne received a cheque payable to herself and presumably conveyed through her bank account for £3666.74. This obviously needs to be examined not least because it refers to a 50% share instead of 25%, and I look forward to the information from Doreen Montgomery which has been promised which may elucidate this. Paul Begg makes the interesting and valid point that this payment would have to refer to the Advance against royalties mentioned in Shirley's book p. 11: "...to be divided equally between Michael and me and to be returned should the Diary prove to be a forgery." This is what I initially thought when I saw the statement. However there are problems. The amount that I quoted was £3,666.74 sent by cheque to Mrs. Anne Barrett at a time when presumably the Barrett's were living together. However the TOTAL amount due by this Statement from Rupert Crew Ltd., (Tax Point 7th December 1993) was £8309.88 of which Anne's 50% share was 4154.94 less 10% (commission) £3739.45 and less VAT of £72.71 which gives the amount previously cited. If we multiply £8309.88 by 2 we get £16,619.76 which self-evidently is not £15,000. So where does the other money come from and why was half of it sent directly to Anne Barrett? Maybe Doreen Montgomery can assist. (I should say that I have now had a reply to the email that I sent to Shirley Harrison but as that reply is just a copy of the message I sent with no additions from herself, I will have to wait to see whether we can help each other.)
Let me suggest one important point: a lot of information given by Paul Begg, Caroline Morris and Shirley Harrison concerning Anne Barrett has no corroboration other than Anne's word. That is not to say that what Mike says is reliable: that would be far from the truth. In my judgement it would be unsafe to rely on what these people have said (no matter how honest or trustworthy they appear to be,) unles there is documentation available to back up their stories. Where I don't have that documentation or where it is contradictory I will not comment. Obviously, as the three persons previously mentioned are on good terms with Anne or have access to business or financial records concerning her, I feel it appropriate and proper to suggest that they ask her as I have suggested.
Let me give one example which has been commented upon here in the past. According to Colin Wilson who has the story direct from Anne, she never received a penny from the diary (something that would appear to be contradicted by the Rupert Crew statement op.cit.) until Paul (Feldman?) told her that she ought to take her share for Caroline's sake. And yet Shirley says that it was Doreen Montgomery who "unilaterally" decided to send Anne's 25% directly to her. Paul had nothing to do with it and Anne never asked for any money. Who is right? It has been said that: "It has not been established that this arrangement (Anne's 25%)
was a definite legal requirement, or that Anne was aware of
any such entitlement" But Anne was a literate woman, secretary to stockbrokers who had not only co-signed the collaboration agreement but also the agreement transferring the diary to Keychoice Ltd. How could she NOT know that she had a share in the royalties? Why would she talk about the new provenance to Feldman rather than Shirley? We know that Feldman was already talking to her about his purchase of the film rights: "I told her I'd bought the film rights to the Diary of Jack the Ripper." (conversation dated July 20th 1994 between Anne and Feldman quoted on p. 146 of his book.) Could that have been an attraction? By the end of that September Feldman was about to pay £12,000 regarding the film rights. Within a few months, Smith Gryphon would receive £70,000 from New Line Cinema from which Anne might expect about £14,000. |
Author: shirley harrison
Tuesday, 27 March 2001 - 12:52 pm | | | Peter....I have emailed a longish response and suggestion to your email. I dont know why it hasnt gone through - my usual computer gremlins. I will try again later tonight. Bu you are in danger of distorting a perfecly straightforward situation simply through knowing only half the story. Incidentally - no one has made a vast amount of money....I have always said I did very welll indeed by Ripper writer standards at the beginning although HUGE amounts went in legal bills which Mike and I had to share. But it was not by best seller standards a fortune....and it has now to be spread over eight years. Robert did not deduct expenses at source unless he had already footed the bill (ie lawyers and the occasional forensic test I think...). But I will E mail you and I will talk to Doreen on Thursday.. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 27 March 2001 - 01:00 pm | | Hi Peter,
I've just corrected my latest little mistakes - thanks for pointing them out.
Could I just point out that I don't give a lot of information...concerning Anne Barrett, nor am I on good terms with Anne or have access to business or financial records concerning her.
I don't take the information I have read for granted, which is why I ask so many questions. I want to be sure I have all the facts I need before reaching any conclusions, and I want those facts to be correct.
In my judgement, it is unsafe for me to rely on what anyone has said (no matter how honest or trustworthy they claim to be) unless they are willing to back up their stories with the relevant documentation.
I am still not clear what information you have regarding that December 1993 payment to Anne. You wrote: Paul Begg makes the interesting and valid point that this payment would have to refer to the Advance against royalties. Yet you previously stated that it was a royalty payment, pure and simple. And it is still not clear if you have managed to establish - and remember, this is for you to support your own hypothesis - that some or all of this money stayed in Anne's hands. If you have established this, it would help your case to tell us so. But if you choose not to do so, or choose to withhold the details I asked for in my previous post, some might draw their own conclusions, which could easily lead to even more mistakes being made. Of course, if you haven't established any such thing (and therefore you don't know if Mike got any of the benefit of the payment mysteriously sent to Anne) are you quite sure you have a case?
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
