|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 30, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
College course tackles the Diary:
Archive through March 30, 2001
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Tuesday, 27 March 2001 - 02:34 pm |        | Hi Peter!
"It's my opinion that it's essential to follow the money: who got paid and how."
Yes, that's certainly true. Come to think of it, that's just the kind of tactic I'd follow to identify the suspect if I were an investigating officer: Bottom line--who's benefitting?
However, I don't think the money question will change anyone's mind. If all the payments are explained away innocently, which they may indeed be, I will still think the diary a forgery, and the story of its provenance an exercise in--at best--wishful thinking. Conversely, if Ms. Graham had profited ten times more than she may have done, those who are open-minded about her story will point out--correctly--that this doesn't disprove her story. That's why I wonder if it's the *smoking gun.*
But I take your point....
madeleine |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 27 March 2001 - 03:16 pm | | Hello again, everyone.
Although I am back from vacation, I am also back at work and so must lurk, for the most part. One thought, though, concerning the logical strategy of listening to Hal Holbrook as Deep Throat, and following the money.
Say, for instance, it turns out that this thing was actually written by a third party or parties, who happened to have, say, an interest in Victorian culture and history, an interest in the Ripper or the Maybrick case, a Liverpool connection, a fondness for wordplay, a mischievous mind and too much time on their hands,and perhaps a desire for a little attention and notoriety (almost sounds like a student or students, by the way, maybe at the grad. level  ), and it was then planted with someone like Tony, to see what would happen, and Mike and Anne became the "beneficiaries." At that point, the person or persons involved in the writing might have well have been frightened off by the results of the Diary's publication and the messy reactions and, consequently, disappeared forever. In such a case, the money trail would be an indication of lies and intent to defraud after the fact, when Mike and Anne realized what might be possible, but not of who composed and created the actual document.
Of course, this scenario does not completely account for the quotation in the Sphere guide and the purchase of the little red diary and other troublesome details.
Just a random speculation on a warm, lazy, Florida afternoon. It's nice to be back reading everyone's words.
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 27 March 2001 - 04:02 pm | | Hi, all:
In addition to "the Sphere guide and the purchase of the little red diary" mentioned by John, another wrinkle that has occurred to me is the crucifix that was supposedly with the Diary and that was consistent with the type of crucifix from the Nuns of Providence Row where Mary Jane Kelly reputedly lived for a while. This crucifix could be taken by those who believe in the Diary as evidence that the document is real. On the other hand, a cynic could say that somebody planted it with the Diary to give the document some credence. If the Diary is a recent forgery, who could have located such a crucifix and produced it as extra evidence that Maybrick was Jack?
Chris George |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Tuesday, 27 March 2001 - 05:32 pm | | Hi Chris & John!
John, your scenario sounds pretty plausible. I've said before that when the truth emerges, I bet it will be a lot simpler and more haphazard that one might imagine...
madeleine |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 28 March 2001 - 03:06 am | | Isn't more being made out of this money business than is justified?
Whether or not Anne knew she was entitled to any money, information derived from Doreen Montgomery seems to be that Anne did not receive any royalties until after the divorce and it would seem that Anne made no attempt during the interval to get hold of any share that was hers. Furthermore, the evidence we have, should we choose to believe it, is that Anne wasn’t interested in the money until persuaded to take it by Doreen Montgomery and Paul Feldman. And insofar as we can deduce them, Anne’s actions seem consistent with this – Paul Feldman had nothing to do with the any monies concerning Shirley’s book and Anne’s behaviour seems to have been to warn Feldman off.
The only evidence that puts a lie to this is the cheque paid to Anne in December 1993. But Shirley Harrison’s statement of 13 March 2001 is not – or at least has not been shown to be – inaccurate, as Peter claims it has. There simply isn’t any normal way that substantial royalties or, indeed, any royalties at all, could be paid in early December 1993 on a book published only two months earlier. Furthermore, the final instalment of an advance is normally paid on publication and allowing time for the cheques to be issued by both publisher and agent, one would expect that final payment to have been made in or about early December. A payment was indeed made at that time and notwithstanding Peter’s math, the weight of probability argues that the cheque was the expected advance. Unless shown to be otherwise, Shirley’s statement therefore seems correct.
Why the cheque was sent to Anne is not known and hopefully Doreen Montgomery will explain this, but my guess is that Caz’s idea is correct and that Mike did not have a bank account when the contract was drawn up and that the original payment was made to Anne and subsequent payments were also made to her. This may be supported by Peter’s statement that Mike had had a bank account for some months prior to December 1993. I imagine the account was opened by Mike and Anne with the first instalment of the advance from Doreen Montgomery but that Doreen was not informed.
What is important, though, is whether Anne kept any of that money for herself. Since this is crucial to Peter’s ‘for gain’ hypothesis it is surprising that the fate of the monies wasn’t confirmed, especially if the source was Mike or Alan Gray. If the whole lot was deposited in Mike’s account, then Anne didn’t make a bean from the ‘diary’. Which brings us full circle back to the opening paragraph.
A quick and final point is that Peter writes: ”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?
Well, Anne’s statement may ‘appear’ to be contradicted by the cheque, but there isn’t any evidence that she kept the money. The sequence of events seems quite clear and straightforward: Doreen told Anne that she was entitled to 25%, Anne (as has been stated several times) didn’t want anything to do with the ‘diary’ money but was persuaded to accept it by Paul Feldman, who had pointed out that she should accept it for Caroline’s sake. |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Wednesday, 28 March 2001 - 10:31 am | | Hi Paul!
Notwithstanding Peter's point (that one ought to follow the money) I agree with you. It sounds like Ms. Graham's behavior is perfectly consistent with her explanation, viz, that she wasn't interested in the diary, took the money for her daughter's sake etc. Indeed, even if she *had* profited, so what? It's still not necessarily much of a motive for forgery or deception. I sure wouldn't accept a few thousand in return for my probity being discussed on a public message board.
However, Ms. Graham's behavior is also perfectly consistent with someone trying to deceive investigators into thinking that she profited only belatedly and reluctantly.
It's the Mandy Rice Davies Fallacy: Confession is proof. But denial is proof too. So really, neither of them amount to anything.
Enjoy the ouzo!
madeleine |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 28 March 2001 - 11:01 am | | Hi All,
I agree with Paul that more appears to be being made out of this money business than can be justified.
If Anne knew the diary was a recent fake when Mike took it to London, she was clearly in the wrong the moment she first accepted a single penny of diary money, whether this was before or after the story she told Feldy in July 1994. And if she is indignant because people think she has made a small fortune when she claims she hasn’t, that indignation is out of place.
Basically, the money business has entered this public forum because the details are relevant to the hypothesis introduced here, that Anne and Mike created the diary between them for financial gain. Peter Birchwood appears to be working with this hypothesis and therefore has the job of testing it against all the available information. Whenever he chooses to share a piece of the evidence with us, naturally it becomes the subject of public discussion and debate.
Peter argues, very reasonably, that Anne could have anticipated making a reasonable profit out of the diary – at least providing her with a motive for becoming involved in forging it, or telling her later provenance story to Feldy. But of course motive on its own is not evidence. It only helps suggest likely suspects. You only have to watch Eastenders these days to see this in action. Phil Mitchell, about as popular with the inhabitants of Albert Square as an outbreak of smallpox, has been shot, and just about everyone has a motive for doing it. The person with the strongest, most obvious motive is not necessarily any more likely to have pulled the trigger than anyone else. The police have to find the person who has it in them, physically and mentally, to do the crime.
In other words, even if Anne was well aware that there was good money to be made from the diary story, she’d first have to be the kind of person who would be willing, or able, to act and capitalise on that awareness in the way that has been suggested.
(In a similar way, just because W. T. Stead showed it was possible to ‘purchase’ a 13 year-old virgin for his expose of Victorian hypocrisy, it didn’t show what he had suspected, that mothers in general, who were desperate for money, were willing participants in such a sale.)
Let’s hope the money business can be sorted out between Peter and Shirley behind the scenes where perhaps it rightly belongs. If there turns out to be little evidence pointing to Anne actively seeking to profit from the diary, and more to suggest that she wasn’t, I guess Peter will start to look at the other possible motives, and will continue to work on who actually composed the text and whose handwriting appears in the diary itself. I do wonder how Peter thinks Melvin’s information would compare with his own suspicions.
I do like John’s idea of a student or students playing funny little games, then sitting back to watch in growing amazement at all the mayhem caused. I did wonder if the diary could have been left accidentally or deliberately in the pub, where Tony D. just happened to pick it up. Of course, sod’s law determined that someone like Mike would take it to ‘that’ London, and end up providing the perfect gift for Feldy and Melvin to fight over for the rest of eternity. But I agree that there appear to be too many problems with this idea when one tries to fit it in with the rest of the story. Pity really. Those students could be making a fortune now.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 28 March 2001 - 11:10 am | | Hi Madeleine
A bit of an effort isn't it, to ring up the wrong person so that one can grab hold of royalties justly one's own, to put out of joint the noses of those who are responsible for those royalties, to tell Paul Feldman during a four hour telephone conversation to go to hell, to turn up at a meeting armed with photos and so forth to put him off pursuing his inquiries... Why do all this? Why not just go to Doreen and say "I want my 25%"?
And why on earth would Anne want to persuade investigators into thinking that she profited only belatedly anyway?
Furthermore, as far as the facts (as we have them) go, she did profit only belatedly! At the risk of sounding facetious, this would have been a deception that worked too well wouldn't it? In fact, not so much a deception but the truth. 
And on Crete the tipple is raki, a fairly lethal and very cheap clear skullcrusher which doesn't taste the same when drunk without a strong coffee, the sun, the sea, the harbourside at Kolymbari or Chania, and either the comfortable satisfaction of having eaten or the prospect of being about to eat a small a feta salad, lamb baked with pasta with hard bread soaked with Cretan olive oil (one of the finest in the world), followed by a thick Greek yoghurt drenched in the highly distinctive Cretan honey. Then raki is good... After a plate of egg and chips followed by rice pudding in a dreary caf looking out on rain soak pavements of London, it lacks a certain something. |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Wednesday, 28 March 2001 - 01:58 pm | | Hi Paul!
Your email is making me hungry. Grrrr. I have only some carrots in the office. This will not do.
Re the money: Well, I expect people will point out that going to Doreen and asking for your 25% will net you a lot less than perpetuating a mystery that might prove profitable in terms of movie rights, etc. in the future. But you're essentially right: this does suggest a ludicrously elaborate scenario.
Always supposing, of course, that it wasn't a spur-of-the-moment plan that just sort of evolved. That's quite possible too.
Speaking hypothetically, the motive for claiming a forgery--or producing one--is not likely to be entirely rational anyway. The amount of energy and time that goes into a good forgery, plus the risk of discovery, is rarely matched by the reward. It's like burglary: what with the difficult hours, uncertain rewards and potential imprisonment, most burglars would make a lot more money just working. They don't burgle because the gains are so much better. THey burgle because they *like* it. Ditto forgers: They must have some appetite not merely for money, but for mockery.
...and now I really must get some food!
madeleine |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 28 March 2001 - 04:16 pm | | Hi Madeleine,
Hope you found something good to eat on campus (it's a difficult thing to do on mine).
You make a good point about the reasons someone would spend so much time and energy researching and creating a forgery.
There is one other possible reason that springs to my conspiratorial mind (in addition to the mockery and the potential for notoriety, etc.) and that would be to dramatically raise interest in the subject or issue at hand. If someone who had an interest in reviving public attention, or raising commercial interest after the centennial, in the Ripper case and the hunt for a new and dramatic suspect, was to set about anonymously planting a forgery, the motive would be easy to understand. And they would need to maintain their anonymity, especially if they were already a known figure or even a budding young scholar in the field.
Thus, another scenario to add to our list: not a student but a somewhat known scholar and/or amateur "expert" on either the Ripper case or the Maybrick history (most likely the former) creates the diary from known sources readily available and plants it with Tony in a pub in Liverpool to watch the fun and the birth of books and movies and public interest in their chosen field of interest and investigation. Things don't quite pan out as they expected, however. The diary is quickly designated a forgery by their fellow perhaps more established and better read colleagues and interest wanes and now, of course, they want nothing whatsoever to do with the thing (since identification would destroy whatever reputation they still have), leaving Anne and Mike (who might even, in this case, know via Tony that there is no chance of the forger stepping forward) to play out their several dramas and to struggle with what all of this does to their lives.
Perhaps merely a fantasy, but at least one that would include an understandable initial motive that would only be indirectly financial.
Anyway, the work day is done here and the Florida sun is renewing my energy and the papers whispering for grades can just sit patiently and wait until the weekend's predicted rains.
--John |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Wednesday, 28 March 2001 - 07:43 pm | | Hi John!
Yes, an appetite maybe not just (or even) for mockery as for the fun of creating such an artefact is likely here. That'd be my fave theory actually: it was created by a big Ripper fan who either planted it or passed it off on some friends, half for fun, or sold it at a stall, or some such; not exactly with a view to make money, but not exactly innocently either.
A sustained and continuing lie is very stressful to maintain. The con-artists I've come across, from the creepy freeloader I met in Scotland to the tarot reader who asked me some questions then artfully gave me back the info I'd just given her, all shared the same elastic sense of truth. They sort of believed, and sort of didn't. I'm sure the same is true of healers and the like.
I too have a stack of essays, not so much whispering as coughing pointedly and raising their eyebrows. Sigh. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 29 March 2001 - 09:10 am | | Hi All,
Hi Madeleine,
You made a good point that The amount of energy and time that goes into a good forgery, plus the risk of discovery, is rarely matched by the reward. It's like burglary: what with the difficult hours, uncertain rewards and potential imprisonment, most burglars would make a lot more money just working.
While many people would certainly not describe the diary as a 'good forgery', the 'risk of discovery' issue might be worth a closer look, in considering Mike and Anne's involvement.
The prime suspect was originally obviously Mike, because he was the one who presented the diary as a document of unknown origin. You can see Mike's logic at work, if he was involved in forging it, to say he was given it by someone who had died without telling him a thing about it. But his story looked distinctly dodgy from the start, and long before the summer of 1994, the cries of modern fake were being heard loud and clear, and have been growing steadily louder ever since. Yet, Anne's ownership claim in July 1994, shortly after Mike 'confessed' to forging the diary all by himself, immediately put her in the frame as equal prime suspect, didn't it? All the attention was now on her, and the risk of discovery, if she was indeed involved, either with or without her now estranged husband, was never greater than at this point.
If money did motivate Anne's story to Feldy - and frankly the evidence is not very convincing so far - she was taking the very real risk of it all going pear-shaped. While she might reasonably have hoped that Feldy would fall for her yarn, could she seriously have expected that anyone else would, including those who were in a position to provide the royalty shares? For all she knew, while she was trying to convince Feldy of one thing, Mike could have been succeeding in convincing everyone else of the exact opposite. Any dreams of future profits would be in tatters, and to cap it all, she would have as good as admitted to helping forge the diary even before being implicated by Mike himself.
But then, if money wasn't the motivating factor, it just seems even more crazy for Anne to have tied herself to the suspect document at that time, if she knew very well it was a modern fake. What on earth was she thinking?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 29 March 2001 - 10:35 am | | Hi, John:
I have long thought that the Diary might be a prank gone out of control, a document prepared by someone who knew both the Ripper and the Maybrick cases and wanted, as much for their own amusement as anything, to produce such a Diary. Somehow, as you say, the document got into the hands of Devereaux and thence to the Barretts, and the rest is history. What was in the beginning just a bit of fun by one individual has turned into a major money-making enterprise for others.
The big things in my mind against this scenario are the Little Red Diary and the Sphere book associated, the first with both Barretts and the second with Mike alone.
Other factors that might argue against the possibility of a scholar having "dun it" are as follows. Would such a scholar would write the Diary in a scrapbook or photograph album? Could he or she bear to write such dreadful doggerel as they have Maybrick doing? Would they make the strange insertion of the Crashaw quote?
More food for thought on a damp Thursday here in Washington, D.C. 
Best regards
Chris |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 29 March 2001 - 11:12 am | | Hi All,
When Anne told her own story, she included the bit about Devereux giving Mike the diary without ever telling him where he got it from. So I feel she would have been better off sticking with this being all she knew. Coming up with her 'better provenance' story, if it was a lie, only succeeded in loading suspicion on herself, where there had previously been none. So she must have been:
a) convinced that the diary was doomed on account of the Devereux provenance and Mike's confession, but....
b) confident that the Devereux part of the story couldn't be disproved, and....
c) desperate to keep the diary going for some reason yet to be ascertained.
But does this fit with Mike's confirmation of the fights he had with Anne when he planned to go public with it in 1992? What could have changed her attitude?
As far as I can gather, the little red diary was ordered by Mike and sent to Mike, but not paid for by Mike. Anne eventually had to fork out when it was discovered that the bill hadn't been paid. I'm not sure it has been established that Anne even knew about it until that point. So it could be argued that its purchase is only definitely associated with Mike.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 29 March 2001 - 11:36 am | | Caz--Hello. It seems to me that you are only looking at half of the equation. There were two people present when Anne 'confessed'. Perhaps you should ask yourself the question 'Who was likely to profit the most by Anne's claims?' It seems to me the answer is fairly obvious: Paul Feldman. The Diary had received many death blows over the months, from which it survived and limped along. Rendell's group panned it. Time-Warner dumped it. The High Court let the Sunday Times out of the confidentiality agreement. They in turn gave it a thumbs down. The critics roughed-it up. And finally, to make matters terminal as far as the media was concerned, Mike confessed to the Liverpool Post. That, it would seem, ended the matter. So at this point Feldy must have been feeling very lowly, considering the amount of time & money he had sunk into the diary. It seems obvious to me from reading Feldy's book that he was desperate for a new provenance, and was engaging in all sorts of crypto-genealogical speculations. (And I've always wondered about the remark where Feldman said something along the lines that he would 'protect' Anne if she told 'the truth'). So we know that Anne showed up with the idea of getting Feldy off her in-laws backs, and from this enigmatic meeting left us with an incredible new provenance.
Now, whatever you personally think about the worth of Anne's claims, I think it is fair to say that we are stuck with the entirely unsatisfactory problem that Anne's confession was given to the man who had sunk the most money into the diary, the man who had the film rights, and quite probably a man who already had in his mind the idea that he was going to write a book about the diary. This, at a time when the diary had just received another staggering death-blow. Beyond this, we know that Feldy was already speculating about the possibilty that Anne was 'connected' to the diary's provenance. And then, too, it was Feldy alone that conducted the initial interview with Billy Graham. (Shirley's book tells us that Feldman asked if Keith Skinner--who no doubt would have been a much more impartial observor--could come along for that first interview. Anne's response was "not this time".) It's also interesting to me that Shirley uses the unusual phrase that Anne had 'defected' by revealing her new provenance to Feldman and not to her and Doreen Montgomery. But isn't it likely that it was because Feldy was ripe to hear such a story, and that, in all likehood, he might have even unconsciously suggested it?
Now think for a moment, of a story that Anne might have made-up if she merely wanted to get Feldman off her friend's backs, and to let self-destructive Mike off the hook. She could have said something along the lines that she found the diary in a box of magazines in a book stall, and then gave it to Devereux. She could have said a number of things. But it seems important to me that Anne's strange story left the possibility that the diary is genuine. In other words, it was precisely what Feldman wanted to hear. The diary was not merely seen in 1968/69, it was inherited through Edith Formby, and her mom was (alegedly) a friend of Alice Yapp(!) It left alive for Feldman what must have been a very comforting chance that his speculations were correct, and that the diary was authentic.
Now Peter Birchwood had the nerve the other day -- when everyone was speculating over tedious money matters-- to say bluntly GO ASK ANNE. Something in this common-sensical statement struck a rather grateful chord in me, because it's a note we don't hear sounded very often. I'm not sure exactly why, but I have this mental image that Anne has been kept in a cloister somewhere, insulated and oblivious to the diary debate. She always comes across as vaguely detached from the whole debacle. Even her supporters, as Martin Fido observed a couple of weeks ago, note that she doesn't seem to be telling the complete story. Shirley writes that 'Anne has told us with considerable reticence about the events that led to her confession that night in Paul Feldman's garden' (p 298). Anne, of course, has never made a penny off the diary, despite the payment to her bank account. She doesn't have an opinion on whether the diary is genuine or not, though she uses it as a source in her biography of Florie. She only knows that she has read it in the late 1960s, though she remembers visiting the grave of Henry Flinn as a child. Now, yes, there is no doubt that Anne is a sympathetic character, I see in her picture in Shirley's book a charming 'giaconda' smile. But I sometimes idly wonder if the pro-diarists aren't a little bit too polite for their own good. I'm thinking of a charming lady who tells the world she is Anastasia and her supporters don't wish to press the issue too much. Does she have any Romanov blood in her? Are there any documents? How does her story fit with the forensic evidence that we have compiled? No, no, let's not go there, she tells such a charming tale, and there doesn't seem to be the slightest reason for her making it up.
Best wishes,
RJ Palmer |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 29 March 2001 - 11:46 am | | Hi Chris,
Indeed, just as in the case of the mischievous student(s), the Little Red Book and the Sphere Guide remain difficulties for this third-party scenario, unless they did just happen to be incredible coincidences or we are somehow misinformed about some of the particular dates.
As to your other questions (listed a couple posts above), the scholar might have written this thing in the album because they figured it was the simplest and quickest way to get paper that would stand up to dating. They came across it somewhere and it no doubt struck them as an easy way around the paper problem.
Then you ask:
"Could he or she bear to write such dreadful doggerel as they have Maybrick doing?"
No problem at all. Many scholars I know would have taken great delight in being deliberately awful. I might have even found it fun, and an interesting little experiment in psychology besides. What's a little more troubling is the obviously artificial dramatic structure of the whole thing. The random and piecemeal product that a diary should be is transformed into a well-made play for our enjoyment. This lack of subtlety is evidence against a careful builder, but our budding Ripperologist might have been more a historian and than a literary author, and while fascinated by history and by psychology, might not have had quite the ear for the illusion of authenticity in dramatic constructions.
The Crashaw quote is another problem all together. There are plenty of more historically appropriate (for Maybrick) and less random lines that juxtapose intercourse (sexual desire) and death than one from the middle of a sacred poem from a Catholic 17th Century poet transcribing a Latin hymn. Unless, just by wonderful accident, our would-be Ripper scholar turned forger also had a penchant for the period (or happened to have a Sphere book with the same binding defect handy).
I don't know. But if Mike and/or Anne wrote this thing, as Caroline properly points out, a whole bunch of their behavior after the fact seems rather strange and unaccountable. And the people who know the people being suspected around here do not seem to believe that either of them are likely researchers and authors or could have put together the sixty-three pages of scrawl and error and wordplay and suggestion and rant, and I am inclined to believe my fellow boardsters, to take their word for this, since they have first-hand knowledge of both of the people involved.
In my own uninitiated reading, I must confess, I have never actually seen that much evidence in the Diary of sophisticated research or psychology or Ripper or Maybrick history, per se. And the handwriting on the scribbled pages has never seemed to me that sophisticated or careful of a forgery (the way the upper case "I"'s are produced simply by writing large "g"'s, for instance -- indeed, most of the upper case letters seem deliberately stylized -- the "T"'s and the "F"'s especially, as if attempting to make the document look "historic," and to match writing we all know from elsewhere).
In any case, I'm not at all sure which of our many scenarios about the scene of writing here is most plausible. The student(s) scenario rings true of attitude, and the Ripperologist one rings with accountable desire and motives, and the Barrett's are the most obvious and immediate, and what do we really know about Tony and any other friends or acquaintances he might have had (I take it someone has already checked to see if he, at some point, happened to know anyone enrolled at any local universities or any already published or soon to be published Ripper scholars or, rather, if they happened to know him), and how much of what we read and interpret as the careful result of historical knowledge about both cases in these pages is really just us filling in details using our own expectations as enthusiasts and giving credit where in fact the text remains incomplete or sketchy but the implication that seems possible and that would suggest authentic knowledge remains just begging to be re-placed into the pages when all along it was only quietly supplied by our own desire-filled reading?
I don't know.
But the rain is now pouring down with great flashes of lightning and bursts of angry thunder and I am having fun wondering.
--John |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Thursday, 29 March 2001 - 01:37 pm | | Hi RJ,
"isn't it likely that it was because Feldy was ripe to hear such a story, and that, in all likehood, he might have even unconsciously suggested it?"
I'll say!! From my reading of the book, the Grahams told Feldman absolutely nothing. He told *them*. Even their identifying the diary as having been in the family could have been fudged as a mistake or misremembrance ("Well, it was a red book just like that, I don't know" etc.) The rest of the "confessions" read a bit like:
F: I'm looking for some connection, some sort of...
BG: Um, yes, well, now, if she was, 15? maybe, and then perhaps she... If my dad... um...
PF: You mean, you believe that your father is in fact the illegitimate son of Florence, born when she was 15 and living in England with her family, and subsequently abandoned but still given mysterious access to Florence's things, and this is why her husband's diary is in your family?
BG: Er, yeah. You're probably right.
Unless there's much else in those interviews that don't appear in Feldman's book, they read like the kind of fervent testimonial you get from people who've been wowed by a good pscyhic reader.
madeleine |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Thursday, 29 March 2001 - 01:44 pm | | Hi Caz!
It's true that associating herself with the diary would expose Ms. Graham to mucho hassle; it isn't a very rational move, if money is one's object. But then, people frequently don't act in their best interests.
I remember Robbie the Conman, a weird character who attached himself to my friends in grad school in Edinburgh, charming them out of pints and floor space and living money with considerably elaborate tales of business ventures, CIA background, etc. Why didn't he find people with more cash? with more assets? Well--who knows? He probably couldn't be bothered. He ended up in the Big House, so he also can't have been very competent either!
Not to say that Ms. Graham is this kind of person, I hasten to add! Just to say that people don't always do what makes sense.
madeleine |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 29 March 2001 - 02:38 pm | | It really all boils down to what you choose to believe. We don’t know that Anne earned any money from the ‘diary’ until given her 25% share of the royalties. The information received from Doreen Montgomey, who is a very responsible and respectable literary agent, appears to confirm this. It also appears that Anne was initially very reluctant to accept any money and only did so after Paul Feldman had persuaded her to do so. Her initial approaches to Paul Feldman appear to have been to put an end to his inquiries. And if Anne was interested in the royalties, Paul was not the person to turn to.
The overall impression received from all this is that Anne was not interested in money.
If anything happened to change her mind, it happened when she met Feldman in Liverpool. Although she attended that meeting armed with photograph albums and documentation to prove her identity, at the close of the meeting Anne let slip that she had given the ‘diary’ to Tony Devereax.
Was this a genuine slip? Or had something happened during that meeting that changed Anne’s mind about discouraging Feldy?
As far as getting the ‘diary’ from Devereax is concerned, for what it is worth we have the testimony of Mike’s daughter Caroline, who remembered Mike bringing the ‘diary’ home wrapped in a brown paper parcel. She remembered Mike opening it, reading it, phoning Devereaux and going to see him the next day.
Maybe Caroline had been briefed and coached, but Devereax did have the copy of Mike’s book by Richard Whittington-Egan. Whilst it would be foolish to read too much into this, it does indicate that Mike may have been discussing Maybrick with Devereax prior to August 1991 (when Devereax died).
If Mike really did get the ‘diary’ from Devereax, where did Devereax get it? From Anne?
If so, how much of Anne’s story might actually be true? Did she give the ‘diary’ to Devereax? If so, why? For money? Or was it really in the hope that it would fire Mike’s creativity, occupy his mind and keep him out of the pub?
And, of course, Anne would have had access to the Sphere book, so that ceases to be a problem. |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 29 March 2001 - 03:43 pm | | A specific and carefully limited question for Paul, and anyone else who might have met those involved and might be willing to offer an opinion:
In assessing the relative skills, talents, and abilities of Mike and Anne and Tony, as best you can, do you believe that any one or all of them either separately or as a group would have been able to sit down and compose and write out these particular pages?
I don't know any of these people and have no way of getting a sense of the likelihood of their being able to put this thing together. So I am asking for a general, "gut" reaction, not about guilt or innocence or the likelihood of their involvement in any way, but only about their skills and talents and what seems, to those who have met them, to be within the realm of possibility and within the scope of their various abilities.
I hope this is not prying or asking for improper suppositions and evaluations. But I would like first-hand reactions, since in this case, unlike those discussed on other boards at this site, the people now engaged in the discussion have met and spoken with the people in question.
I would certainly understand if people here would rather not offer such judgments.
I also hope that this is not an impolite question. I apologize in advance if it is.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: Melvin Harris
Thursday, 29 March 2001 - 05:10 pm | | FATALLY FLAWED
When I exposed Fido's 'black blood' nonsense, I mentioned the 'lack of integrity' smear reported to me by Feldman. Well, he later (19th June 93) confirmed this by letter. A year later I sent a copy of this letter to Begg, who replied (July 4 94):- "I am surprised by Paul Feldman's letter to you and even more surprised that you thought I was among those who questioned your integrity...I have not at any time questioned or cast doubt on your integrity, nor have I ever had any reason to do so. I have spoken with Paul Feldman and he has stated that I was not the person or persons he was referring to in his letter or at any other time. It would seem that one or more people (he did not give names and I did not ask for them) questioned the advisability of the Journal being given to you for comment. I was not party to any such discussion...I have only made two comments about you. One that you approach mysteries with a view to debunking them...The second comment was when I was asked whether a Ripper writer could have penned the Journal I said I thought Melvin Harris was the only one with the required knowledge and skills who could have done so."
And there in that one paragraph you have ample reason to see why I deplore Begg's standards. He acknowledges that the "lack of integrity" charge is a baseless slur, he is quick to call for names when it suits him, yet he allows Feldman to fob him off without a single name. In so doing he casts doubts on the actions of at least TWO of his mates, since Feldman used the plural form. As for the idea that I could have faked the Diary, this is plain stupid. The Diary is a crude and glaring fake. If I were unscrupulous enough to attempt such a thing then it would have been a near foolproof production. Not one shot through with recognisable errors and sources.
On another page Begg says this of Robert Smith "As one of those he threatened with a libel action..." Now put these two incidents together: the integrity slur and threatened libel actions. Together they show that Fido's scenario of an idyllic world of Ripperologists is as fake as the Diary. There were liars slurring my name; there were people threatened with court actions; Mrs Harrison was being vilified, and all these things were happening in 1992-3 without any input on my part, without my knowledge even.
But Begg knows this and more. Even so, rather than lose face he calls the rebuttal I made to Fido "loony" and parades a string of empty words devoid of facts but designed to give the impression that something significant is being said. Yet he cannot fault the record I have put on screen since it rests on authentic letters and other documents. Fido's 'Judas Report', for example, is quoted from on Feldman's page 94. Fido's letters that refute this report have appeared on screen and copies have been sent to a number of people. And his book-review words are there, in cold print, for anyone to read.
Begg may bluster and evade as much as he likes. He may concoct his snide remarks to please his grudging mind. And he may deceive a few under-informed viewers on the Internet. But the truth of my 'bad blood' posting is known to many informed and mature thinkers including Phil Sugden, Stewart Evans, and Alex Chisholm. With those as allies who needs Begg as a friend? |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 29 March 2001 - 05:59 pm | | Uh...
Hello?
I think I missed something.
Sorry.
--John |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 29 March 2001 - 06:29 pm | | Dear John,
War is hell!
Rosemary |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 29 March 2001 - 06:38 pm | | Dear Mr. Harris,
Hello.
Since you are here, I hoped I might ask you about something in particular.
I have heard talk, in the short time that I have been reading these boards, that you actually know, for sure, who forged the Maybrick Diary.
Is this true?
Thanks very much,
--John |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Thursday, 29 March 2001 - 08:33 pm | | Hi John!
I applaud the way you asked your question about who might or might not be able to forge the diary. I too feel the need for some delicacy in discussing the probity of real people, people that others on this board have actually met and perhaps worked with. I mean, I can't resist joining in! but I hope I can do so with comparable courtesy.
Speaking of courtesy, I don't think that Mr. Harris actually addresses us "under-informed viewers on the Internet," but I'll be interested to see if he answers. !!
madeleine |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Thursday, 29 March 2001 - 08:42 pm | | Hi Paul!
Speaking purely speculatively... it seems to me that Ms. Graham's story could indeed be largely true. It does sound very much as though Feldman convinced her, and maybe her father, that he had discovered something amazing. The power of suggestion is immensely strong; and nothing disables the critical intellect more completely than a volume of truly impressive research. God knows, I've never been blanker than when I was in grad school...
madeleine |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 29 March 2001 - 11:01 pm | | | It never amazes me how gullible people can be when dealing with a con man/woman.This Diary is a rank fake and the sooner people wake up to this fact the better. When one attempts forgery a set of procedures must be followed.If these procedures are not followed then this gives an insight into the ability of the forger/forgers. In this case forgery procedures were not strictly followed.In fact they were not followed from the start.The subject matter was not even researched as it should have been. Forgery is an art. A good master forger is an artist in his own right. This piece of garbage referred to as a diary has shown how gullible people can be.Many of those people associated with promoting it have no knowledge of forgers or forgery.It is little wonder to me that the person chosen to write the book was a lady with no experience in crime or criminals. She however had the one asset needed, She had the experience of writing fictional stories for children.Also it never fails to amaze that some people cannot work out the truth for themselves, they have to rely on others to do it for them. Some may concider my words harsh. I see them as the truth and the truth often hurts. |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Thursday, 29 March 2001 - 11:48 pm | | Coo er Ivor.
mm |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 30 March 2001 - 01:57 am | | Although Melvin has tried hard to interpret Martin’s words as portraying a fantasy world of elves and goblins, the tooth fairy, easter bunny and happy Ripperologists merrily exchanging data, Martin Fido, in speaking of his own experiences, actually observed little more than that where there is upset one usually finds it linked to the name of Melvin Harris. Given the robust way in which Melvin chooses to express himself on this Boards, I doubt that anyone would find grounds to dispute that. I don’t.
I did not cast doubt on Melvin’s integrity (indeed, quite the opposite as Feldman makes clear in his book) and I simply remarked that he was the Ripper author best qualified to produce a forgery (I did not say he would do so or that he would fail to produce a good one if he did!). From these words Melvin seeks to find and extract fault. It speaks volumes about his objectivity I guess, but he’s obviously a last word freak and I really do have far better things to do than swap further merry badinage like kiddies in the playground swapping Pokemon cards. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 30 March 2001 - 02:15 am | | Ivor
If you read the posts here you will see that nobody is arguing that the ‘diary’ isn’t a fake. And apart from Shirley Harrison and Paul Feldman, you’d have to go a long way to find anyone who has ever argued that it’s genuine. There is a theory that it might be an old forgery, but even that isn’t an idea with very many supporters. What is being discussed here is what components went into the creation of the ‘diary’ and how the facts as we have them might enable us to determine the motive and/or the identity of the forger. For example, Peter Birchwood has sensibly followed the money route and produced some very interesting data about payments to Anne Graham. If he is right, it will advance our knowledge a little, if he’s wrong then we’ll have to look elsewhere. But he’s helping to define questions. R.J.P. has an excellent grasp of the subject, has his own views and has thankfully stayed the course to provide some excellent observations that have challenged some accepted thoughts. Madeleine and John have contributed some absolutely brilliant and informative insights into the ‘literary’ content of the ‘diary’. Chris George is generally very precise in his challenging observations. Despite our sometimes tetchy and sometimes stupidly heated debates, I hope that collectively we’ll clear away the dead wood to see the truth a little more clearly and put a stake through the heart of the ‘diary’ so that it won’t emerge vampire-like from its tomb to walk abroad sometime in the future when sadly some people may no longer be around to answer the questions we have. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 30 March 2001 - 04:21 am | | John/Madeleine
I wish I could answer your question with more than a gut feeling. People do the most unexpected things, so it’s dangerous to say that someone could or couldn’t do something. Overall, though, I don’t think Mike could have done it. I don’t know much about Tony Devereux, but others have said it’s unlikely. Anne is intelligent and capable and probably has the skill. Whether or not she would have done it, of course, is a different matter. That Mike and Anne could have done it together is a possibility, but I keep running into the brick wall of why Mike hasn’t been able to give a coherent account of the conception and execution of the forgery – and I was one of the people he used to ‘phone for an hour or more every night after Anne left him. When he really wanted to believed that he’d forged it, he could have explained it. He didn’t. Yet ask him why he’d named the ink shop, for example, and he’d immediately tell you how he visited the precinct for the alternating book and record sales held there, how he’d have a walk, have a pint or two in the pub, how it made something out of the Saturday, and how he’d seen the shop there all the time. All the anecdotes made the story believable. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 30 March 2001 - 07:14 am | | Hi All,
Hi RJ,
I do appreciate all the points you made in your response to me yesterday. But you are quite wrong if you think I haven't looked - very long, hard, carefully, and cynically - at the equation, from Feldy's, and everyone else's, point of view since I first heard about this great diary mystery. All the points you make are ones I have chewed over endlessly in my mind already, if not on the boards.
In one respect, though, I think you have picked up a slightly false picture from somewhere. It concerns your observations about 'pro-diarists' and their attitude towards Anne. First of all, I am assuming that your own definition of a 'pro-diarist' must extend beyond Shirley and Feldy, to include those who remain undecided about it having been created post-1987, with Anne/Mike's involvement/knowledge. Would that be fair, since otherwise you could only be relying on Shirley's occasional posts for your observations?
Keith Skinner said on the boards last June that Anne would 'not even consider the idea' of being interviewed. Keith deeply regrets this and feels she has a moral obligation and responsibility to allow other people to collectively question her. So, far from wanting Anne kept in a cloister somewhere, insulated and oblivious to the diary debate, he has actually urged her to talk openly about her and Mike's roles in the affair because he feels she owes us all that much.
Obviously, Keith has constantly to weigh up the details of Anne's July 1994 story, if he believes they could be true, against all the forensic and textual evidence that other extremely reputable and knowledgeable people have cited as showing the diary to be a recent fake. I do appreciate that for you there is no other 'half of the equation' in this respect and therefore Anne's story cannot be true. For me, this only points to the conclusion that Keith, as an equally extremely reputable and knowledgeable person, in or out of the field of ripperology, must have extremely powerful reasons for believing Anne's story, which go far far deeper than an assessment of Anne as a 'sympathetic character', telling 'such a charming tale' that 'there doesn't seem to be the slightest reason for her making it up.'
Either Anne is the kind of person who would be capable of producing the faked diary, with all the associated darker abilities to lie, cheat and deceive, and keep up the pretence indefinitely, or she isn't. For example, has she ever shown believable signs of guilt, remorse or having a conscience? Something to ponder perhaps.
This is not to be confused with a belief on my part that Anne must be telling the truth, or that she is a sympathetic character. I've never met Anne and she would certainly not get any sympathy from me if she has been fooling everyone all this time, either for the money, or because she feels she is in too deep to get herself out.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 30 March 2001 - 07:30 am | | Hi Caz
If I may add to what you have written, that I, too, have tried to encourage people to focus on Anne and I know that Keith shares my opinion that this might be a profitable road to follow. |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Friday, 30 March 2001 - 10:21 am | | Hi Caz/Paul,
I don't blame Ms. Graham for not wanting to be interviewed. If her story is true, the fact that it's widely rejected is not her problem: she has no need to justify herself. If her story is not true, she clearly has nothing to gain by submitting to interview!
madeleine |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 30 March 2001 - 11:06 am | | Can someone refer me to where Mike Barrett is quoted directly rather than via Anne as confirming that he had fights with her when he planned to publish the diary in 1992? I can't at the moment find that reference.
John Omlor's points about a third party lurking somewhere in the background are interesting and possible. The question has been asked in the past whether there was a "Mr. Big" concerned and rumours have flown around as to who it might have been. Names have been mentioned of a fair proportion of persons regularly posting on these boards. However I suspect that this is a most unlikely scenario. It's more likely that in common with forgeries from the Donation of Constantine to the Hitler Diaries the motive was either money or power and in this case I'd go for money. Like I said before, follow the money trail. Who profited? Tony Devereux? Well we can't ask him but there doesn't seem to be any evidence against him and his children haven't asked for any royalties. Gerard Kane? We can ask him but if he got anything from this he's keeping very quiet about it. Billy Graham? Do we assume that because someone worked at a tyre factory he's necesarily illiterate? After all, the main source about his life is his daughter Anne. But the only persons who we know actually got hard cash from the diary are Mike and Anne.
The diary has always seemed to me to owe more to 20thC horror fiction than to typical late-Victorian diarists. There is no great amount of research involved in the diary. Where it tells us something that is not in the standard books on Maybrick or Jack (the "Manchester Murders") it's unproveable and where it tells us something that can be proved, that event is in a recent popular book.
As RJP mentioned, a lot of our problems in trying to understand the early diary events is that no-one seems brave enough to go to Anne and ask her the sort of questions that have been asked on these boards. All we get here is that she didn't ask for money, had no interest in the diary, was a hard-working single mother (but when did she give up her job with the stockbrokers and what did she live on afterwards that enabled her to go to college?) and was an abused and beaten wife, so was automatically a victim and incapable of being a prime mover in the diary affair. Time after time we are told that she is truthful honest and incapable of lying when it comes to the story about the diary provenance. So let me suggest this: if she is all of these things and has nothing to hide let her agree to disclose her bank statements for the period, details of royalty cheques and business records from publishers/agents/Feldman/Duocrave etc., plus any family records. Let her allow herself to be interviewed about these events (perhaps in front of an outside, independent observer.) And let all the interested parties agree to be bound by whatever result comes from this: confirming the diary as a historical document or finally putting paid to a recent fraud.
Incidentally Madeline, although you have said: "I sure wouldn't accept a few thousand in return for my probity being discussed on a public message board." it was quite a lot of thousands and back in 1992 there weren't any such thing as the Casebook message board or any idea that there would ever be one. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 30 March 2001 - 12:13 pm | | Peter
I very much doubt that Anne would agree to do as you suggest and, frankly, neither would I if I was in her shoes. It would be an intolerable invasion of privacy, especially as she isn't trying to prove anything. As Madeleine said "If her story is true, the fact that it's widely rejected is not her problem: she has no need to justify herself. If her story is not true, she clearly has nothing to gain by submitting to interview!
Anne has been interviewed several times, so why should she go through it again, especially as memory dims over time and she knows that people are waiting to pounce on any slip? And I'd be interested in knowing who has said "Time after time we are told that she is truthful honest and incapable of lying when it comes to the story about the diary provenance." Keith has continually probed her story over many years, well aware that close colleagues like Martin Fido don't believe her.
So if one accepts that Anne Graham would not subject herself to interogation or open her private affairs to hostile inspection, I think we're probably left with what we've got. Let me ask you this, Peter: if the vidence as we have it shows that Anne did not pocket any money from the 'diary', what would your interpretation of this be? |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Friday, 30 March 2001 - 02:22 pm | | Hi Peter,
Well... what you're describing, effectively, is a kind of trial. And neither the innocent nor the guilty have any interest in volunteering to put themselves on trial, really. That's why the cops have to make them come to the courtroom!
madeleine |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 30 March 2001 - 02:42 pm | | Hi Peter,
I just want to clear up a small point about some of my speculations and scenarios concerning third-party student or scholar or simply mischievous writers. I was not, at any time, trying to suggest a conspiracy with a "Mr. Big" lurking in the background. My suggestion, without specific evidence behind it, was that someone or several people may have actually composed the diary, sat down and written the words and transcribed them into the book, for various possible motives including provocation, to raise interest in the Ripper issue among the press and public, just to prove they could, or even eventually to claim authorship and sell their notorious story for profit. But that, when the thing came out and was quickly diagnosed as a forgery by so many well-read scholars in various disciplines, connection with it became a personal and professional liability in the long term and the writers, who had initially planted it with Tony or in the pub (or even somehow with the Barrett's perhaps, who then told the Tony story for protection), fled the scene and wisely decided that discretion was the best course and so remained and, no doubt, will remain anonymous. This does not imply any master plan or conspiracy to defraud through using Tony or the Barretts even, but simply an idea that was executed, for whatever motive, and went horribly awry and a set of events then proceeded from there, mostly, at first by happenstance and then through the developing desires of certain readers and publishers.
The idea of a "Mr. Big" seems too sinister to describe this set of circumstances.
These were only speculations, of course. I agree that the level of research and the construction of the prose in the book are not particularly sophisticated and that many of the dating problems might just be built into the act of interpreting data (science being, as always, just another form of creative reading in many ways).
My little dramatic possibilities were offered in consideration of likely situations wherein someone other than one of the three principle players actually composed the document.
If Anne did write the diary, is it assumed that Mike knew what she was doing as she composed it? Do most of the married people here think that they could spend at least a year or so researching and composing and creating this sort of thing without their husband or wife knowing about it?
I can offer no opinion here myself, as married life remains an utter mystery to me.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 30 March 2001 - 04:05 pm | | Paul,
I know that no one is arguing about the 'Diary'here. I just made a general comment about it. Mike came forward with the diary which makes him the front man for it. Also that does not mean to say that he did not play a bigger role in the hoax.He is connected up to his neck in it. Because of the nature of a hoax like this I would look to see if a person with certain knowledge in the printing trade is connected in any way to the book.Such a man was indeed connected to the book but dead men tell no tales. Next, who connected ( in any way ) to Mike has put themselves on offer by getting themselves involved in trying to prove the validity of the scam. And have they made any money from it? Two people come into the frame straight away.Anne and her father. When certain problems arose for Anne over the diary she changed her story to counter act these problems. At one stage she brought in her father to shore up the defences. This is behavour which is compatable to that of criminals when they have been placed on the spot. I would like to see Anne and her father take a lie detector test. My money goes on them, and Mike.If Mike took a lie detector test the machine would overheat and explode. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 30 March 2001 - 04:29 pm | | Sometimes the message boards here provide plenty of amusement - the jealous back-biting and bickering is quite hilarious coming from so-called "serious researchers."
I have been reading and researching this case for more than 20 years. I was disappointed to find many of the authors whose work I have long admired and relied upon engaging in the lowest form of personal negative attack.
I have a question I am very curious about (similiarly offered earlier by John Omlar) - does Melvyn Harris really claim to know those responsible for forging the Maybrick Diary?
Mr. Harris, would you please confirm or deny this and, if so, advise as to when and where you plan to reveal the identity of said forgers?
Mr. Harris's claim, without substantiation or verification, seems to be reminiscent of Sir Robert Anderson's claim he know who penned the "Dear Boss letter." Such claims are worthless without identification.
Your response would be most welcome, Mr. Harris.
Rich Dewar |
|
|
|
|
