|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 April 01, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
College course tackles the Diary:
Archive through April 01, 2001
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 30 March 2001 - 06:47 pm |        | Dear Ivor,
From an old lag to an ex-cop...take a bung and go to Spain for your holiday. This business is not for the likes of us...honestly! Literaturely Mafia stuff (hic),Ivor. Cut yer bleedin' throat as look at yet, mate. :-) Rosemary |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 30 March 2001 - 07:05 pm | | Dear Richard P. Dewar,
Whoiever u are. Pissed tho i may b i can tel u this...John ormaolr, no, Ormalor, no (deep breath)
...John Omlor, is his name (gord bless amerixica!)
An as fer me mate, Harris, he knows notting... notting a tall. Ain't tha right Melvyn?
Here's loooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooo
oooking at yer kid,
Yremaros |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 30 March 2001 - 08:41 pm | | Rosemary and John,
My apologies for misspelling Mr. Omlor's name.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 31 March 2001 - 02:57 am | | John/Richard
Melvin Harris has not claimed to know who the forgers are but has indicated that there were three forgers and has said that Mike and Anne acted as placers. It is not known whether this means that the forgers consisted of Mike and Anne plus one other or whether there were three forgers plus Mike and Anne as placers. Apparently Harris’s information is privileged, derived from some journalists working for a national newspaper, and he cannot share it. Various arrangements whereby he could say what he knows have been put to him, but he has rejected them. Shirley Harrison has twice enclosed to him a letter to be forwarded to the newspaper editor. It is not known whether Harris has done this. There has been no reply thus far.
Ivor
Your assessment may be correct and I hope it proves to be that simple, but objections to it have been discussed on these Boards. |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 31 March 2001 - 09:06 am | | Hi Rich,
No problem at all about spelling. Thanks, seriously, for echoing my rather simple question to Mr. Harris. My name, by the way, has certainly seen more variations than I can count, all, it seems, originally from the late medieval German -- apparently meaning "one who works at war." We must have made weapons and shields and various other nasty things including, no doubt, knives. And "John" has long been the most popular male name in the family history and yes, my father has, all his life, gone by "Jack." 
Hi there, Paul,
I'm not sure I follow the logic here. Melvin has not claimed to know who the forgers are, but he knows there were three of them? How, exactly, would this work? Has he gotten three confessions or seen three sets of prints or been given three names by an informant? But in each of those cases he would know the names. This is a very strange sort of knowledge claim. It poses what, at the moment, seems to me to be a genuine epistemological problem. I am having trouble thinking of a circumstance in this case where he would know there were precisely three forgers but not know who the three were. I'm sure there is a simple scenario here that I am missing. But it's the weekend and the morning and I haven't yet begun to think clearly.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 31 March 2001 - 10:04 am | | I can't help with an explanation, John. I'm just repeating what Melvin has said. Maybe he was simply told that there were three forgers but wasn't told who they were. I simply don't know. That's why Shirley has tried to gain access to the information Melvin Harris , even under the same terms of confidentiality. But so far no luck.
We don't even know if Shirley's letters have been passed on to the newspaper editor. |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 31 March 2001 - 10:27 am | | Thanks, Paul,
It seems an odd claim to make. And it also seems odd that someone would be told only "yes, there were three people who wrote it..." but then not be able to say anything about who the three people might have been -- as if it's some deliberately partial and provocative piece of information offered only to keep people interested.
I have read about the alleged newspaper policy concerns and the letters to Mr. Harris -- who I think has already sent a post or two saying that he feels no such letters would be in any way appropriate since he is completely certain about the paper's policy and the letters would be, in his opinion, useless, and that this is, for him, the end of the matter -- at least I believe that was his response. I'm honestly not quite up to re-reading those discussions again, and I really should for the sake of care here.
Well, in any case, the knowledge of numbers but not of names seems to imply an odd set of circumstances and a tenuous sort of information at best.
Meanwhile, I notice on another board that there is an upcoming radio program announcing a "new" suspect on Friday the 13th. It is apparently originating out of Liverpool and this got me wondering. Perhaps Chris George or others might be able to tell me...
Is there a good size contingent of Ripper students, scholars, and enthusiasts in the Liverpool area and was there before the diary came out? Has the Liverpool area always had a share of these people and do we know who some of them were back in the mid to late 80's?
Just curious,
--John
PS: Anyone wish to offer thoughts about married life and the the question I asked earlier concerning the possibility of one spouse researching and creating the diary without the other spouse knowing? |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 31 March 2001 - 10:51 am | | Hi John
Well, without wishing to provoke an outburst from certain quarters, your reading of the situation is accurate in all important respects and you must draw your own conclusions. As far as a spouse creating the forgery without the other knowing, if it's possible for a spouse to be a serial killer without the other knowing, I guess it's possible to create the 'diary'. And the least said about marital revelations paraded by Mr. Jerry Springer the better! |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 31 March 2001 - 10:58 am | | Paul,
True. Upon seeing a young woman finally discover, after two years of marriage, that her husband was really a woman... (Think about that for a moment.) Well, I suppose any secret remains possible to maintain.
[Yes, this was really on an old episode and yes it does give new meaning to the phrase "sleight-of-hand" (or of plastic).]
Sorry,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 31 March 2001 - 12:18 pm | | Hi Peter,
It has come up before on the message boards that Mike did indeed confirm Anne’s story that she fought with him over his plans to publish the diary. Like you, however, I can’t find the references right now, but I seem to remember asking at the time what Mike had to gain from confirming this part of Anne’s story if it wasn’t actually true – especially if he was generally intent on disproving her account of things. Anyway, since Keith read all those posts, I imagine he would have put me right at once if confirmation had not come directly from Mike. When he sees the latest posts it will act as a double check.
You say that:
All we get here is that she…..was…..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.
How many times do we have to state that we are trying to ascertain what Anne was or was not capable of, before it finally sinks in that we mean just that, and not that we think she can do no wrong?
And, as I’ve said before, what would it prove if Anne showed us all her financial records? We know she has received royalty payments, which in itself condemns her if she knows the diary is a modern fake, whoever helped with creating it, and however much or little money she has made. And if she doesn’t know it’s a modern fake, she’s perfectly within her rights to take any amount of money she is offered and to hell with the lot of us for prying.
You say:
Let her allow herself to be interviewed about these events…
As you will have noted from my previous post, it’s not a case of letting Anne ‘allow herself’ to do anything. Keith wishes she would agree to be interviewed, but he did say he wondered what it would achieve. If there is no way Anne can prove her story, what has she got to gain from putting herself through the ordeal? If she’s innocent, no one is going to take her word for it – why should they? And if she’s guilty, she will be wanting to keep her mouth shut and continue to enjoy the diary proceeds – at least until such time as Melvin decides to stop protecting her interests, as well as those of the journalists. Let’s not beat about the bush here. If Melvin’s information is enough to prove Anne’s story false, she may as well sit tight and not utter another word in her own defence unless or until he bursts her bubble for her.
A touch ironic, when you think about it. Perhaps Melvin is the only one who truly deserves to be referred to as an ‘Anne sympathiser and supporter’ in all this mess.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 31 March 2001 - 12:19 pm | | Hi Ivor,
I’m afraid I don’t follow your argument of why you would look for a person with certain knowledge in the printing trade in connection with a hoax involving a handwritten diary in an old scrapbook. Can you explain what you mean?
I would like to see Anne and her father take a lie detector test. My money goes on them…
Since Anne’s father sadly died some years ago (I think he was already terminally ill when Anne asked him if he would allow himself to be interviewed about the diary), I guess that would be a bit tricky.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 31 March 2001 - 12:33 pm | | Hi John,
I'll have to think a bit more about this keeping secrets from spouse business. At first I thought "No way", but then I have to literally shove some of these posts into my own hubby's face if I want him to know what I've been writing (can you tell he's not really into JtR and diaries?  ), so if Mike was happy to let Anne get on with it, assuming she was occupying herself with something else, like work she had brought home from her office, for example, and she wanted badly enough to keep it from him....who knows?
I guess you'd have to look at the couple's individual circumstances at the time because, although anything's possible, what you are really left leaning on is that trusty old cane of what's likely - not with other married couples, but with Anne, Mike and young daughter Caroline.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 31 March 2001 - 12:51 pm | | John-Hello. I don't know if you have waded through all of Paul Feldman's book or have read Mike's strange confessions and sworn affidavits, but this whole diary saga isn't so much like an intricate mystery by Dorothy Sayers as it is like a spectacular farce by P.G. Wodehouse. At every turning it seems to be on the verge of tumbling into the ridiculous.
Now, don't take my word for it; question everything. But, for the record, I tend to think Melvin's scenerio is probably correct. I think the diary is some tawdry thing that Mike dragged home. Peter & Chris seem to have come to the very sensible and logical conclusion that Anne and/or Mike were behind the forgery, and, I admit, those two are the ones that profitted. And yes, Mike was evidently calling the shots and wasn't answering to a 'Mr. Big'. But I don't think that Anne receiving money from the diary is particularly suggestive of anything. As Mike's wife, she would have been entitled to part of his income regardless of the source. If you read Mike's confessions, he seems to be genuinely shocked that Anne had suddenly come up with an alternative provenance, and also seems to be genuinely under the impression that Feldman 'spirited away' his wife. My feeling is that Anne's story is an independent creation, much like the watch. Her strange tale is precisely like the strange tales that Feldman was weaving in The Final Chapter and she & Feldman were the ones that announced the new provenance.
As you might recall, Caz (Hello, Caz) has objected that Anne might have been running an incredible risk by making up this story. Mike might have been able to disprove it. I, however, don't think this is the case. First off, I don't know that Mike hasn't been able to disprove it. Secondly, Harold Brough in the Liverpool Post had already publically implied that Mike couldn't prove he created the forgery. And (of course!) Anne was in the position to know whether Mike created the diary or not. But I offer this question: could Anne's story have been just an afterthought, a throwaway story that she genuinely thought might make Feldman leave her in-laws alone? In retrospect, it looks like an elaborate provenance, but this is only because Feldman 'ran with it' and made it an important part of his book. Could Anne have forseen this at the time? I doubt it. I doubt if she had the slightest clue that it would resurrect the diary and cause a storm of controversy.
If I was a betting man, I would submit that the diary was the product of Mr. X, Mr. Y, and Ms. Z, and somehow obtained by Mike, probably through Mr. Y. The watch was an independent creation. When the whole thing unravelled, and Mike confessed, Anne developed her story. She wasn't connected to the diary, and certain Billy Graham wasn't either. I tend to be of the same opinion as Peter: that nothing in Billy's interview even suggests that he had ever seen the diary...or that he even stated that he had.
The rest, to quote Mr. Tom Cullen, is a great 'farrago of nonsense.'
But, as I say, don't take my word for it. Keep plugging away, but I, for one, am growing a little weary of the chase. As that most well know of all the Victorian poets wrote
'Man comes and tills the field and lies beneath
And after many a summer dies the swan.'
I think I'll soon be moving on to other things. It would be nice to have a resolution, of course, but I'm not sure that this will happen anytime soon. I'll be totally diplomatic and say that --in reference to Anne's provenance story-- we have reached a stalemate. On either side, no one is talking. But, in reference to accepting the diary as a historic document, the burden of proof is on its supporters, and I think it is completely fair to say that they have utterly failed to prove their case. There are huge doubts, and as such, the diary cannot be accepted as a valid document. If we can't bury the diary, perhaps we can at least bury the hatchet. (Burying the diary would be better though!) It certainly doesn't seem to be worth all the bad blood.
Best wishes,
RJ Palmer. |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 31 March 2001 - 01:50 pm | | Hi RJ,
Thanks for the very thoughtful response. I have, in fact, managed to wend my way through The Final Chapter a couple of times, as well as Shirley's work, and have read Mike's affidavits and attempts at confession and, as the reading continues (it always continues), I have heard the voices in my own head mutter "curiouser and curiouser..."
And I too am slightly inclined these days to favor a scenario similar to your own, with the diary being written elsewhere and with Mike and Anne and their As-the-World-Turns dramas and difficult personal struggles happening after the fact in a set of various attempts to keep up with the media curve, which was being steadily sharpened by the forces of marketing and publication and the lingering, heavenly, and reverential whispers of "film deal."
But, what remains interesting here is not the question of the diary's "validity," as you say, but its story, the narrative of the scene of its writing, which may eventually turn out to be far more fascinating and provocative than the diary itself or than the history of its reception.
Besides, in the meantime it poses a delightful reading challenge and, for me in my own weirdness, that's what so many of the issues surrounding these murders and their remaining written histories so often become -- adventures in patient, and careful, and deliberate reading with an ear open for the many things we cannot know and with a respect for the challenge of creating interpretations within a world of contradictory, ambiguous, and perhaps even genuinely problematic utterances. But then, that's how I get my weekend kicks. (Except for next weekend, of course, when The Masters will be taking place and my life will be temporarily and dramatically redirected.)
In any case, it is not a "resolution" I am after, but a few more stories, stories about writing forgeries and stories about the echoes of them being read, dramatic tales about how this thing was actually written, some of which might turn out to be both true and fascinating in the end, but none of which, probably, will fulfill our expectations or satisfy us when we finally hear them.
It still sounds like fun to me.
--John
PS: I would like to know, by the way, just how large and active a Ripper community of scholars, writers, students and enthusiasts were centered around Liverpool in the mid to late 80's, around the time of the composition and "discovery" of this document. Anyone on this list also happen to drink at the Saddle, the "friendly Victorian pub" where Mike and Tony enjoyed a pint or two? |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 31 March 2001 - 02:16 pm | | Paul and John,
Thank you for your replies. Its unfortunate when researchers claim to have information that substantiates their point of view - but the researcher claims to be unable or unwilling to share the source or even the specific information.
It is reminiscent, I think, of Sir Melville Macnaghten's claim that he had "private information" implicating Montague Druitt in the slayings. The consensus opinion in Ripper research today is that, despite Macnaghten's claims of secret information, Druitt was not Jack the Ripper.
Unless Mr Harris or someone else can provide further information regarding his charges and claims, they remain questionable at best.
Rich |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Saturday, 31 March 2001 - 03:09 pm | | Hi RJ and John,
RJ, I think you are 100% right. Your guess about the evolution of the story is probably right; and your point that there was no "confession" from the Grahams is bang-on. It appears fairly clear to me that Feldman created the whole story himself, imagination untrammeled by logic and fuelled by a mountain of factoids....
This interests me, though, since I think it says something profound about the nature of inquiry: is it narrative or science? Are historians story-tellers or detectives? I've burbled on about this I know, but I do feel in this discussion that a Deep Insight is emerging--it will be a shame not to have your chisel whittle away at it--
madeleine |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 31 March 2001 - 04:08 pm | | Hi Madeleine,
You ask two fascinating questions.
"I think it says something profound about the nature of inquiry: is it narrative or science?"
I'm not sure I am always convinced of the difference, but I do know that there can be no science without narrative. I suspect they are actually supplements of each other. Certainly the history of science is a set of narratives and the history of narrative is tied to our historical conception of "science."
And, you ask:
"Are historians story-tellers or detectives?"
Here again, surely the contamination between these titles is constant and thorough. Historians are story-tellers, story-tellers are historians of memory, historians are detectives, story-tellers are detectives of the psyche, detectives are story-tellers of narratives as histories and all of them share certain assumptions about inquiry and the nature of our relationship to events (often derived from science) and many of them at one time or another end up questioning these assumptions.
In fact, I think that is partly just what we are doing here. Faced with a text of absent origins and a mysterious narrative history, we are becoming story-tellers in the hope of eventually detecting a bit of history.
At least these are the acts of reading and writing in which I find myself engaged here on these boards with this "diary" on my desk and with these many different other voices sharing some space that is not space on this screen.
At least that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
--John |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 31 March 2001 - 05:10 pm | | Dear Caroline,
I was not aware that Anne's father had died thank you for informing me. The reason I would look for a connection for someone in the printing trade is as follows: With a forgery of this type certain procedures have to be followed.One of which would be to use the correct ink which was available to the killer.This ink would have to be compatable to ink used in the Victorian period. Therefore the forger would have to do research in this area unless of course he was in the printing trade and already knew about the subject of inks. Many forgers who have printed false documents, banknotes,and such like have been found to have experience in the printing trade.One old boy I knew who forged banknotes worked for a printers until he decided to go it alone.He used his experience of the printing trade to commit forgery. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 31 March 2001 - 05:33 pm | | | Jack the Rippers watch. Suffice to say that when I first learnt of it I could not stop myself from laughing out loud. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 31 March 2001 - 06:08 pm | | Dear Ivor,
A literary forgery? A pseudo-literary forgery? Or,
perhaps, a ludibricum...a little light relief that
became, in turn, it's 'own creation'? But most certainly not a simple case of OUTRIGHT forgery-
can we at least agree on that? Mr Birchwood thinks
rightly or wrongly...veniality is the key.
Rosemary |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 31 March 2001 - 06:29 pm | | Hi Ivor,
I think there were a few others who groaned out loud when they first heard about the watch.
Thank you for your thoughts on forging and the printing trade. I'm still not clear why someone in the printing trade would necessarily know about the subject of inks used for writing by hand.
Hi All,
The supreme irony of all this, for me, is that we have two people - Mike and Melvin - who would appear, more than anyone else in the world, to want to prove Anne's July 1994 story false, and therefore, through the diary, put the boot into Feldman once and for all, and from everything we have been led to believe, these same two people - Mike and Melvin - would also appear to be in the best possible position to do so.
Yet both, when it comes to the crunch, have, for diverse but equally unfathomable reasons, failed to put the final nail in the coffin. If I were a betting person, I'd bet that should be telling us something.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 31 March 2001 - 08:19 pm | | Caz,
I agree completely with you. If one cannot or will not substantiate charges, its best not to make them in the first place.
Rich |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Saturday, 31 March 2001 - 10:30 pm | | Dear Caz and Rich,
Is it possible that under existing libel/slander
laws, Melvin can't currently produce the name of
the guilty forger(s). Sometimes one has enough
evidence to know who did something, but not
enough to convict. In a slander suit, that can
be damaging.
Jeff |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 31 March 2001 - 10:52 pm | | Dear Caroline,
Some people in the printing trade would not know much about inks. A type setter for example would not specilise in inks.It would depend on the job they were doing in the trade.But someone worth their salt who specialised in the make up and compounds of ink would also know about the history of the subject.They may even be able to tell you all about the ink used by Caxton for example.An older person who worked in the printing trade some years ago would know far more about ink than a worker in the trade today.Type setters for example have been made redundant.The trade has really changed.
An older person would also know about ink compounds used for writing as well as printing.In short they would know about ink regardless of whether it was used to print or write.If Barrett for example had forged the diary he would have had to do his own research in this direction, or find someone in the printing trade who knew about inks.He did not have the background to which I refer. But I would have to ask, was he connected to anyone in the printing trade and if so can they be connected to the diary ? If yes then how long had they worked in the printing trade? And what jobs did they undertake while in it? When we turn to the Diary the forger dropped a clanger.Because they could not find a period blank Diary they went 2nd best and obtained a period photogragh album and ripped some pages out which had photos on. Only a rank amateur would do such a thing. No self respecting experienced forger with pride in his work would dream of such a thing. Do it right or not at all. Such a mistake would be seen for what it was.In fact the forger thought that such a mistake would be ok and that such action would not be seen for what it was.Well this tells me that his mentality was not up to scratch for using such reasoning.In fact only a fool of a forger would use such logic.
Dear Rosemary, Forgery can be undertaken for any number of reasons.The forger can gain in many ways.In this case only those involved know what the intentions were to begin with. However we do know that this forgery ended up as being a source of financial gain.It ended up as nothing more than a con. Barrett bragged to me that he was indeed a 'con man. But he was not working alone. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 31 March 2001 - 11:07 pm | | | Think what you may of Melvin Harris. But be assured of this, He is not a liar, and he does not Bull***t.He has no need to do either.If he knows who the forgers are then he has a good reason for not placing their names on the internet.Jeff could well have given the reason why this is so. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 31 March 2001 - 11:15 pm | | Jeff,
You have pointed to a potential reason for not disclosing the specific information or source for information - potential libel or slander.
If this were the reason for Mr Harris's failure to disclose, it indicates some question he has about the ability to defend his claims in court.
That aside, without sharing the specific charges or sources, we have no standard by which to evaluate the quality or veracity of his information.
As long as the details of his charges remain hidden and anonymous, they have no more credibility than any other speculations about the diary.
How can we take idle charges seriously?
Rich |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 31 March 2001 - 11:25 pm | | Ivor,
I am not suggesting Mr. Harris is lying. I have long admired much of his work.
Yet the respect one has for another is not evidence.
One day, there may be information that vindicates Mr. Harris's claims. Until that time, his claims are just that - merely claims.
Rich |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 01:56 am | | | Hi Richard, I understand that you have not suggested Melvin is lying. I am glad you have made the point that he has just made a claim and nothing more.Human nature being what it is though others may have jumped to the wrong conclusion. My post was intended for those who may have possibly drawn such conclusions. |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 04:14 am | | I must confess to being very dubious about Ivor’s contention that someone in the printing trade – an end user – would necessarily have much if any significant knowledge about the historical manufacture of inks. But it shows that Ivor sees the ‘diary’ ink as important, that the creation of a Victorian ink requires a degree of specialist knowledge. Would the forger have shared that view? Either way, looking for someone in the printing trade – in which Tony Devereux did work – might have wound one up the garden path.
According to Melvin Harris, “I forecast it would be written in a simple iron-gall ink. This type of ink is indistinguishable from those used in the 1880s, but is easily made and not difficult to buy. Indeed some thousands of packets of ink-powder, once used in schools, are still around, and often turn up in street markets and minor antique shops. When mixed, it is a Victorian-style ink..” (Melvin Harris, The True Face of Jack the Ripper, 1994)
According to Mike Barrett, in the nearest he ever managed to get to a coherent account of the creation of the ‘diary’, he simply went into a shop and bought some ink: “This all happened late January 1990 and on the same day that Anne and I bought the nibs we then decided to purchase the ink elsewhere and we decided to make our way to the Bluecoat Chambers, in fact we had a drink in the Empire Pub in Hanover Street on the way. Anne Barrett and I visited the Bluecoat Chambers Art shop and we purchased a small bottle of Diamine Manuscript ink. I cannot remember the exact price of the Ink. I think it was less than a pound.” (Mike Barrett , January 5 1995. http://www.casebook.org/suspects/james_maybrick/mb-con.bjan5.html) |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 04:39 am | | Richard/Jeff/Ivor
Melvin has claimed that legal reasons prevented him from revealing the identity of the forgers and he has most recently stated that he was given the information in confidence by some journalists working for a newspaper in return for some help he had given them. He feels bound by that confidentiality agreement and we should respect that.
Shirley Harrison asked Melvin Harris to reveal his information in confidence. He refused. She asked that he name the newspaper or the journalists involved so that they could be contacted direct. He refused. He did contact the newspaper editor and reported back that the editor has no wish to discuss the matter. This unfortunately puts Melvin in the position of middle-man and opens him to allegation of being obstructive.
Shirley has written two letters to Melvin via his publisher to be forwarded to the newspaper editor. It is not known if Melvin has forwarded these letters. He has intimated that he will not send them because the editor has expressed a wish not to be involved.
One understands confidentiality and Melvin's position completely, but in the first place he has leaked bits of the information already, secondly he has stated that he hoped the names of the forgers would be revealed, from which there would seem nothing morally wrong in his eyes about them being named and thirdly he has stated that the journalists would have published their information but were waiting for developments with the Friedken movie. From this it would seem that there was nothing libellous about the information.
Melvin cannot be blamed for respecting the confidentiality of his sources, but it is difficult to understand why a newspaper would want to withhold information from Shirley Harrison. It is also difficult to understand why Melvin hasn't been as outspoken in his urging that this crucial information be made public and presumably solve this mystery as he has been in his condemnation of other commentators.
You'll have to reach your own conclusions. |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 05:08 am | | Madelein/John/RJP
What's your collective opinion about Mike being the forger? Isn't the evidence as follows? And what would you add to it?
Harold Brough observed of Mike’s original confession that he could not answer simple questions such as where he bought the ink or the book. Mike later identified the Bluecoat Chambers Art Shop as the source of the ink and Outhwaite and Litherland as the source of the book. The latter have denied selling the book and denied that their sales procedures were as described by Mike. At no point when Mike really needed to have his confession believed - as RJP acknowledges, Mike believed Feldman had spirited away his wife - was he able to produce a coherent story. He did not do so until 1995. In fact his story was invariably contradictory, such as when he was going to reproduce the ‘diary’ handwriting, then said Anne had done the handwriting. His daughter Caroline remembered Mike coming home with the ‘diary’ and opening the brown-paper wrapping, ‘phonng Tony Devereux and visiting him the next day (okay, this was an elaborate charade or Caroline had been briefed – or she’s telling the truth), and Devereux did have Mike’s copy of the Whittington-Egan book, which suggests that the events described did happen during Tony Devereux’s lifetime and might be as Mike has described. We also have Melvin Harris’s opinion that (a) Mike was a placer and (b) that the actual forgers would distance themselves from the placer, on which piece of expertise we may surmise that Mike wasn’t the forger. On top of that, the handwriting of the ‘diary’ doesn’t look like Mike’s (or, apparently, Anne’s). As far as I can recall (and I want my breakfast, so my mind may not be all that focused), the only evidence that Mike had a hand in the creation of the ‘diary’ is the Sphere book, but there is no evidence that he even realised that it contained the Crashaw lines until September 1994.
This, I think, is a fairly good case that Mike wasn't the forger and probably didn't know the 'diary' was a forgery. What's the factual argument for the reverse, such as an early account of the conception and execution of the forgery? |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 09:31 am | | Dear Rich & Caz--Hello. Though I agree with you in spirit about unsubstantiated claims, I'd like to point out that Melvin Harris did not name names on this site. I thought this had been gone over before. The name that has sometimes been bandied about was first mentioned here by someone on the pro-diary side. And I think it can hardly be argued that Mike & Anne didn't handle the diary; they signed a publishing contract and accepted royalties. I don't think there are many arguing here that it isn't a forgery, either. So I think the indignation might be a little misplaced.
As for Anne's story. As a matter of history rather than as a matter of law --or, as a budding biographer if nothing else-- isn't Anne required to substantiate her story? It seems to me that Keith, Paul (Feldman), Shirley, Colin Wilson, and others have stuck their necks out over the years about the diary, largely on the strength of the honesty of the simple working people connected with it. Considering that the 'old hoax' idea is kept largely alive on the strength of Anne's story, I think it would be desirable if Anne would allow herself to be interviewed, or at least make some sort of comprehensive statement that answers some of the objections raised, with (if possible) documentation that substantiates her theories/claims. Of course, she is entitled not to do this. But then that, in turn, would tend to make people speculate.
Paul--I don't think Mike forged it, but I do think he knew it was a forgery. (Just an opinion) Doesn't it appear to you that Mike's rambling phone calls might have been one of the elements that pointed Feldman towards Anne as being 'connected' to the diary? Mike was the one that pointed Feldman toward the alleged 'Silk House Court' theory, wasn't he?
Best wishes,
RJ Palmer |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 11:14 am | | Hi RJP
Let's supposes Anne doesn't care whether you or anyone else believes her or not. Why should she feel obliged to do anything to persuade anyone, especially if she believes she is telling the truth. It's back to the old question: if she believes she is telling the truth then she doesn't have to prove anything. If she is lying then she is callously indifferent to the feelings of those who have trusted her. If the latter then she won't subject herself to interogation, it the former then she probably nothing further to add and has no need to.
As far as Mike is concerned, my feeling is that the evidence indicates that Mike did not know the document was a forgery. I'd be interested in hearing what sort of scenario you or other people would create from the available data if this was the case. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 11:35 am | | | Paul, I believe the forger would have held that view. The culprit must have done research into the type of ink he needed, however basic or complex that research. Even a fool would have known that he would need ink compatible to victorian ink and a document(Diary)also compatible to the period. Which they both were.This was due to research not sheer luck. He would know that the ink and document would be the first items to undergo scrutiny. So they would have to stand up under such conditions. I maintain that whoever bought the ink knew exactly what to buy. Also any inquiry can lead one up the garden path but at the same time any inquiry can get a result. I would not investigate Tony Devereux just on the basis that he was involved in the printing trade. I would have investigated him because he is a suspect in the case and is also a print worker. His name is in the frame. The diary was at some time in his possession, or so we have been led to believe.If the police had been involved in this case then they would have had no alternative but to include Devereux in their inquiries.Whether this would have solved the case is another matter.It would not lead up the garden path because Devereux would either say. "I don't know anything about any Diary, who ever told you I did are lying" or "Yes, it was in my possession" either way we have a lead. The problem however was that Devereux died in 1991.In 1992 Barrett took the document to Doreen Montgomery of Rupert Crew Literary Agency.However, Devereux's daughter was questioned on the matter and she said,"No one in the family knows anything about any such Diary." If Devereux had thought for one moment that he had the genuine diary of Jack the Ripper he would have told his family.So that leaves two alternatives. He either knew that he had a forgery in his lap and did not wish to inform his family or he knew nothing about the diary to begin with. I would like to know if Devereux had a criminal record and if not how honest and upright was he.Do you have any information on the man Paul ? |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 11:45 am | | Hello all,
Paul,
My assumption that Mike probably could not have single-handedly forged the diary is based, for the most part, on reports of others about him and on his own unfortunate attempts at confession, which seem conflicting and muddled at best.
However, to quote Paul Simon about a much more illustrious character:
"I've never met the man, so I don't really know."
And there is always this one nagging fear at the back of my mind. It is at least possible that we are all being masterfully played. Any good political operative knows that the best way to keep an issue or controversy alive and being discussed is not to offer a plausible or true explanation or to offer a simple and convincing lie -- the most effective trick is regularly and continually to offer a number of conflicting explanations and make the public have to deal with the inconsistencies and the conflicts. This usually keeps them busy and distracted for a very long time. I'm not sure those involved are up to this sort of complicated strategy of misdirection and misinformation, but it remains a possibility.
More likely, though, those who have dealt with these people and have offered their assessments are probably correct about Mike and we must look for the writer or writers elsewhere. This does not absolve him from either complicity or possible dissimulation after the fact, of course. But all of that remains to be settled once we learn the path this document has taken.
I think your summary of Mike's positions through the years is a helpful one, but Caroline's question fascinates me. If there was a time that Melvin and/or Mike both would have liked to have done in Paul and his plans, and they had at least some of the information that could do that, wouldn't they have done everything they could to make that information at least available to those involved? The fact that Anne's account is still being considered at least signifies that no one has stepped forward and, even in private quarters, finally shut the door.
--John
PS: I guess I'm going to have to go back and read the words again (sigh, that means wading once more through some unfortunately self-congratulatory and, at the same time, venomously accusatory rhetoric).
[I now feel free to offer that small, parenthetical review of Mr. Harris' inflammatory prose of antagonistic self-promotion, since I am beginning to get a nagging suspicion that my rather simple question, not about who was involved but only about what precisely he is claiming he knows -- the type of knowledge he is claiming he must keep confidential, is unlikely even to receive a politely dismissive response.]
I must head back there to the archives, though, because I'm still not sure whether Melvin Harris has claimed specifically that he knows the forger's names or only that he knows people that know the forger's names or only that he knows people who have convincing evidence concerning the probable forgers. Just what sort of knowledge claim has Melvin made anyway? Now it's back to the archives for me. |
Author: Karoline L
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 12:21 pm | | Hello all,
I write anything here with some trepidation, since the last time I dared an opinion I was so violently attacked by Paul and others it almost scared me to death.
I have been reading the posts here and it strikes me that the discussion is every bit as circular as it ever was. It's become positively metaphysical really with speculation spiralling into the inner recesses of Anne Graham's mind, revolving ever tighter around various assumptions about her possible motives.
It's almost frighteningly surreal isn't it?
Paul (and Caz) say (and I paraphrase) "ah! no one has proved Anne profited from the diary - until we can prove she profited from the diary we can't show any motive for her lying about its provenance"
Peter Birchwood then shows that a large royalty payment from the diary was paid into Anne's bank account.
Paul (and Caz) then say (and I paraphrase) "ah but maybe she was just keeping it for Mike because he didn't have a separate bank account at the time"
Peter Birchwood then shows that Mike DID have a separate bank account at the time
Paul (and Caz) then say - "ah but just because she got the money doesn't prove she kept it - anyway there's too much fuss being made about this money, let's talk about something else!"
Does anyone agree with me that this is too wriggly even to be called special pleading! And is it actually helping anything much?
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 12:23 pm | | RJ
You ask, near the end of your post,
"Doesn't it appear to you that Mike's rambling phone calls might have been one of the elements that pointed Feldman towards Anne as being 'connected' to the diary? Mike was the one that pointed Feldman toward the alleged 'Silk House Court' theory, wasn't he?"
Indeed, and let's look at the pair of cryptic mumblings that started Paul on his search for a family provenance and that led to several of the most dramatic chapters in his pot-boiler account of discovery.
It all begins with Paul wondering why Mike might confess if he did not write the diary.
Chapter 13.
Paul's Barbara-Cartlandesque title:
"I did it for love..."
(I love that ellipse at the end.)
There is, first of all, talk about Mike's decline into drink. And then the following two paragraphs, each ending with a melodramatic citation that would seem at first to be a revelation and that will each, no doubt, in the cheesy film version, be accompanied by a dramatic musical sting.
I now cite Paul's two paragraphs of names, dates, places and cryptic hints that start all the fun. Word to the critical reader: Please be aware that italicizing something does not make it true. The italics here are Paul Feldman's.
"Tony Devereaux had given Mike the diary. When Anne left Mike in January 1994, and he started to make those telephone calls to me, I guessed that Tony had also told Mike where he had obtained the diary. In the interview with Keith Skinner and Martin Howells, Mike said that after Tony had given him the diary he had pestered him day and night to tell him where he had got it from. Eventually, Tony told him, 'Look to your own family...'"
There's that wonderful ellipse again. It implies so much without actually saying anything at all. By the way, the prominent role played in this argument, conclusion, and the consequent deductions by the word "guessed" above should be noted at this point.
Here's paragraph number 2, in which the search is narrowed by last words that get even more dramatic and the echo of many over the top short stories of intrigue can be heard in the literary distance.
"Mike then told us that he first asked his father whether he had given Tony a diary. That made sense, and for once we felt that Mike was being honest. (This version was the first to independent corroboration. Caroline, on the day that she met Paul Begg and Martin Howells, told them of 'the phone calls to Tony Devereux after he got the diary.') Mike's approach to his dad was logical. After all, he had also drunk with Mike and Tony at the Saddle. Mr. Barrett, Sr. knew nothing about it, and neither did Mike's sisters or his mother. Mike went back to Tony. He queried Tony's information.
"Tony responded, 'Look on your own doorstep...'"
Dum dum duuuuum.
And the ellipse again.
Putting aside for the moment whether the testimony of one's eleven year old daughter constitutes "independent corroboration," what fascinates me about this "Rosebud" moment, described here, because of unfortunate circumstances soon to occur, as if it is the last revelatory clue of identification left by a dying man, is how little it took to start this entire discussion and to keep this whole debate running for another few years.
The whole diary issue seems to have taken place this way -- both in the text and in the words of the major players -- it has been what is not said, the partial and fragmentary nature of what was said and all that it might be read to imply -- that has kept us all on the treadmill of unending interpretation. Either this is simply an accident of consistently omitted information and unavailable data or it's the very clever work of a bunch of people with genuine savvy concerning public manipulation.
Anyway, Paul tells us rather quickly then that "It finally clicked that Tony meant Anne."
And we all know where we go from there.
--John, dropping his snow globe to the floor as the lights in his bedroom dim... |
Author: Triston Marc Bunker
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 12:49 pm | | Dear all,
Now I feel educated I feel I should break up the story so far in bitechunk pieces (all those reading my stuf will know I've tried it before, but here goes again).
FACT STUFF
1. Mike, the regular drunk, brings forward a scrap book diary. He reckons that his mate down the pub (Tony) gives it too him
2. On first glance it appears to be a good clue to who dear old Jack is.
3. Mike gets even more drunk and tells people it's a hoax.
4. The diary puts forward Maybrick as a very good suspect, no matter whever the diary is a hoax or not.
5. Melvin Harris calls everyone a liar.
Okay, next session is the confussion bit.
1. Mike says he forged it.
2. Mike says his wife forged it.
3. Tony could have foreged it.
4. Billy Graham could have forged it.
5. They all could have forged it.
6. Someone, around the 1930's mark, could have foreged it.
7. Mike had no bank account, so his wife took all the money from the book.
8. How about not one of them forged it and they all found it by chance ?
Given all the facts and questions, what can we make from it all ? It's not for me to say. Now I've spelt it all out I do hope to here some intelligent vibes on it all.
Best of luck, you amature sleuths. Hope to hear from you soon.
Tris. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 02:20 pm | | Paul,
I do not intend to impugn Mr. Harris's integrity. Nor do I suggest he ought to violate any confidentiality agreements he has with his sources.
I do suggest, at this point, his claim to know the identity of the alleged forger or forgers has little credence since we have no way to determine the authoritative nature of his information.
Indeed, anyone could make the same claims that Mr. Harris does. Without hard evidence, his claim is merely rumor.
Mr. Harris decided to make his allegations without supporting evidence. I am not clear why he even bothered to make these charges if he is unwilling or unable to defend them.
Rich |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 02:40 pm | | Paul,
Do you remember writing the following:
"Hi Yazoo,
I think Mr Harris's final paragraph is the cessation to this squabble which both you and I would welcome.
Paul"
Just a friendly reminder. You wrote that little dream wish on Tuesday, November 24, 1998.
And yes, the debate that was taking place was much the same one that is still with us in various forms, concerning what Mr. Harris knows and concerning his estimations of what is appropriate to discuss and his estimations of other people's character.
I guess it was not over in 1998.
I have spent a couple of blinding hours re-reading the posts and at first I thought I had it figured out. Melvin Harris did seem to claim to know that there were three forgers. And for completely understandable professional reasons he eventually explained, he chose not to identify them in this forum.
Indeed, he was even more careful when he reminded readers that:
"The idea that Mike and Anne were simply 'placers' originated with me. It was based on the knowledge that the writing in the Diary does not resemble the handwriting of either one of that pair. This does not mean that they knew nothing of the fakery when it was being devised."
There were three forgers and then there was also the possibility of Mike and Anne being aware of the forgery "when it was being devised."
Fair enough.
But then, from a much more recent post, I came across across the following disconcerting little sentence:
"However, nowhere have I ever said that I possess identity-evidence that OF ITS OWN would kill off the Diary. I do have some telling evidence that is good enough for me, but it is embargoed."
Mr. Harris announced this on Saturday, February 17, 2001 - 08:10 pm.
He may very well be right. He may never have explicitly claimed an ability to "kill off" the diary. But he certainly had been arguing for several years, by this point, with Paul about why he chose not to give the names of those involved. I know. My eyes feel the pain. (He had, of course, already established the document as a forgery and at least implied having confidential information about [the identities of?] the forgers which, one logically assumes, would "kill off the diary," and had even written at one point responding to a claim that "We know! We know!" the diary is faked, once again saying he could not divulge what he knew about the forgers and reminding us, perhaps naively: "it is not necessary to know the forgers since 'WE KNOW' already, that the text is faked.")
But now the status of his knowledge claim seems somewhat less final. Now there is no "identity-evidence," only "telling evidence." And this is what is being dangled provocatively, like the tassles on a pair of pasties covering the nipples of a sagging and well-worn stripper, before the curious and titillated Casebook crowd.
Perhaps we are looking at a disappointing anti-climax.
Such is the frustrating life of a reader. I'm going to bed and take a nap. Alone.
--John |
|
|
|
|
