|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 03, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
College course tackles the Diary:
Archive through April 03, 2001
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 03:18 pm |        | Hello Karoline
First, you were not attacked, violently or otherwise, and the messages are here for anyone to see.
Secondly, if Anne profited from the diary, prove it. And prove that the money was a royalty cheque. All we know is that a cheque was made out to Anne. We don't know that she kept the money. And whoever supplied the information about Anne receiving that cheque should have checked that.
All anyone is trying to do is establish the facts. Are you? |
Author: Ivor Q. U. Estion
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 03:19 pm | | Paul Begg, April 01, 2001, 04:39 am: "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 middleman and opens him to allegation of being obstructive." (Which Mr. Begg has already accused him of).
Paul Begg, April 01, 2001 - 11:14 am: "Let's supposes [sic] 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 [sic], it [sic] the former then she probably nothing [sic] further to add and has no need to."
Double standards or what Mr. Begg?
You are happy to make this argument for the reclusive Mrs. Graham, why not apply the argument to Mr. Harris and argue for him?
Yes, definitely double standards Mr. Begg. |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 03:25 pm | | Ivor
I agree with your assessment. It's basically what I thought myself. Sadly, I have no information about him at all, except what you can read in the books. A pity really. I'd like to know more about that side of the tale. |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 03:29 pm | | Ivor Q.U. Estion
My, my, some old names are appearing aren't they. I wonder why. But I don't see any double standards. Perhaps you'd like to be a little bit specific about where they are. |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 04:18 pm | | Dear all,
Having only tiptoed into this Diary business once
or twice or thrice, I think I know who is behind
it. It was Sir Charles Dawson, leaving instructions to his heirs to set up this fake
diary in the 1930s or after, as a follow - up to
the Piltdown Hoax!
Quite frankly, I can follow enough parts of the
Maybrick Diary to realize it is a phony, but that
it has (despite being dismissed by a large number
of Ripperologists) such a strong draw on the
immagination. Whoever (or is it "Whomever"?) came
up with this fake it can't just be Mike or people
in his immediate entourage. You need somebody
or some people with the following:
1) a knowledge of criminal history in England or
the British Isles.
2) a gift for psychological scoring of points.
I'll explain it simply. I have asked among these
board threads, "Why Maybrick?" I really did not
expect answer, but I thought it might stimulate
some discussion on this point.
A real of that period would have contained
references to more than just the Ripper Case. Yeah, it turned out to be the biggest story of
the year 1888, but that was also the year of
a Presidential election in the United States.
Howzat? What has Benjamin Harrison barely beating
Grover Cleveland got to do with old Maybrick?
Well, in discussing Jimmy, Jack, and Flo, with
a sidelook at Mike Maybrick, people have stopped
looking at Jimmy's job...his daily routine. Jimmy
was a successful cotton broker on the Liverpool
Exchange - that was why he had the nice big house
at Battlecrease (which is still standing). That
was how he got to meet Flo, on a business trip
to Alabama (part of the cotton kingdom of the
U.S.). Well, this probably seems boring, but in
the years after the American Civil War, the U.S.
government was usually run by the Republican Party, which believed in tariffs and protection to
American industries. But the tariffs led to
similar walls against American goods, such as
cotton. As the southern states, after 1876, were
back in the hands of the opposition Democrats,
their demands for lower tariffs to improve the
sale of agricultural products, like cotton, fell
on deaf ears....(ah, an ellipse - I like them too)
Then in 1884, Cleveland and the Democrats managed
to recapture the White House for the first time
since James Buchanan left it in 1861. Cleveland
was for lower tariffs. In fact, this became one
of the crucial issues for the 1888 election.
In a genuine diary by Maybrick, there would have
been tons of comments about that election, which
(like the current one between Bush and Gore) ended in a Republican victory only over the electoral votes of one state (the popular vote
went to Cleveland).
Whoever created the diary did not care about
such considerations. If he or she had, it is
just possible that (even with the issues of ink,
paper, printing, age of the book itself) would
not be enough to sink the support for the Diary
as it has sunk. People might have legitimate
excuses for these points (i.e., the real diary
is too old and fragile to expose - this is a
partial copy). Whether in the long run it would
work is another matter.
The "independent genius" (to use a Shavian phrase)concentrated on criminal history. In 1888, the
murder of the year was the Whitechapel case. In
1889, it is Maybrick...or is it? 1889, unlike
1888, actually had several interesting cases, though not in England alone. Besides Maybrick,
there was the murder of Edwin Rose by John Watson
Laurie on the Isle of Arran, in Scotland. There
was the murder of the Bailiff, M. Gouffe, by
Michel Eyraud and Gabrielle Bompard, in France
(which led to a yearlong, international search,
and a sensational trial). In the United States,
Dr. Cronin, a critic of a branch of the Fenians,
was assassinated in Chicago by members of the
Clan-Na-Gael, leading to a long investigation
and trial there. And, in Austria - Hungary,
the mysterious deaths of Crown Prince Rudolph
and Coutess Marie Vetsara at Mayerling were
officially classified as a suicide pact (which
is probably true), but left rumors of a double
murder, possibly with political overtones.
So why not pick one of these as a subject?
Well, Mayerling and the Gouffe tragedy are out
because of language problems (the diary has to
be written in 19th Century German (Austrian style) or French. But the other three can be
written in English (even American slang, with
regard to Cronin). Hell, the Cronin business
brings in the issue of Irish terrorism, and that
blends nicely into some theories of Whitechapel.
But few today remember Dr. Cronin. More recall
Watson Laurie rather than his victim Rose, who seems to have nothing really colorful in him to make him interesting to the average criminologist - nothing beyond pitying his choice for a chance
travel acquaintance.
But James Maybrick? Here the psychological
advantage of the diary mastermind(s) comes in.
Maybrick was wealthy, and had a younger bride.
He was a womanzier, enjoying dalliance with
prostitutes and such. But he was the master of
his house - to the extent that when he learned
that Florence had dallied with the family friend
Brierly, he beat her. Maybrick also had weird
habits, like arsenic eating - or arsenic patent
medicine dosing. In short, he is not strange
enough to be attractive, and his violence towards his wife (mingled with his hypocritical dual
standard about sex)makes him ideal to be turned into a devil. As he is wealthy, he can afford
long weekends away from Liverpool in London.
Actually as a choice for a prospective Ripper,
he could not have been improved on.
There is only one problem with it. If Florence had any belief in James being Jack, she would have mentioned it to family (including his).
Michael Maybrick may have disliked his Alabamian sister-in-law, but he would have looked into the matter, and seen it was quietly attended to if
true (after all, there were two children besides Florence at stake). If true, James would have
been the one spirited away to some private asylum.
In any case, if James was the Ripper, Florence
killing him would not have been any defence at
her trial, as killing James was done (supposedly) by slow poisoning, not self defense in a life-and-death situation.
One day the true author of the "diary" will be
named. I, for one, will be very interested to
know who (or whom) he or she is.
Jeff |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 04:21 pm | | Mr. Estion,
I understand your point concerning the two paragraphs you juxtaposed, but I suspect that there is a difference in kind between the two positions. It has to do with what particular statements were made in a public forum and the desires of the speakers.
Mr. Harris quite clearly wants to be believed. His rhetoric gives ample evidence of that. Specific citations could be offered at some length here, if any other readers are still interested or in doubt about this.
Ms. Graham seems to recognize she is in a no-win position and has decided that being believed doesn't really matter at this point.
If someone asks to be believed, then it seems wise that they provide ample and specific evidence or explain clearly why they cannot. It is now being debated whether Mr. Harris has done this.
If someone feels their stated position is fated for unpleasant and even unanswerable attacks and criticism in any case and decides to withdraw and therefore no longer cares if they are believed, then they certainly have the right to invoke their own personal privacy and that must be respected.
If Melvin Harris had simply said "well, I believe I know who did this, but I don't really care if anyone else believes me or if anyone else is interested, I'm keeping this to myself..." then he would have every right to go on to other projects and his request for personal recusal on this subject would have to be honored. But Mr. Harris keeps returning and his knowledge claims, as I think I cited above, seem to be shifting and he still seems to care that we know and that we care what he knows.
This marks a difference between Mr. Harris and Ms. Graham and is the reason, I think, why Paul's two positions are not directly contradictory.
Of course, now that someone has triumphantly posted the solution to this whole mess over on another board (the board apparently about "monkeys"), the debate can finally end. 
--John |
Author: Ivor Q. U. Estion
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 04:47 pm | | Paul Begg, March 30, 2001 - 01:57 am: "...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 [sic] Boards, I doubt that anyone would find grounds to dispute that. I don't."
Letter from Paul Begg to N. P. Warren, 8th June 1993:
"Dear Mr. Warren,
I do not like the rude and offensive tone of your letters. This is therefore a quick response to specific charges made in your letters and is written in light of our earlier friendship. Please do not make contact with me again in the future unless your tone is modified. Please also be aware that I will have no recourse but to consider legal action if you lay similar gross and inaccurate charges against me in the future.
To begin with, Paul Feldman is a reputable businessman working on a documentary about Jack the Ripper. I would have thought, I think justifiably, that you, as editor of Ripperana, would have wanted to know all things connected with the Ripper and welcomed the opportunity to talk with Paul Feldman, offer advice and provide input, and when released from any nondisclosure agreement you might be required to sign, write about the project in Ripperana. It is therefore perfectly possible that I did suggest to Paul Feldman that he speak to you. In the circumstances I would have certainly have given him your address and telephone number (I did not know it was ex-directory). If I did, I did so in good faith. If Paul Feldman has made your life a misery, I am sorry it was not intended.
As a long time advocate of material held by the Black Museum being passed on to the Public Record Office, I a gratified to learn that this has now happened. As for all experts who have seen Feldman's photocopy suspecting a hoax, of course they do/did. Even those who have seen the actual journal have suspected a hoax. Everyone associated with the project suspected a hoax. I don't understand your point. You are neither so stupid nor so naive as to imagine that I or anyone else would have accepted such a document without question. Indeed, twenty to thirty experts of one kind or another have been brought in to prove the hoax. The point is that no one has been able to. This alone is quite remarkable. As for your point about forensic tests, obviously forensic tests have been made. I don't know that the tests include ESDA. But why are you asking me? I'm just an advisor. Why don't you direct your question to those whose project this is: to the author of the forthcoming book for example. Or the publisher. Or even Paul Feldman?
Just in case your are as ill-informed about the role of an advisor as you are about other elements of my involvement with Feldman/Waddell/and Uncle Cobbly, let me explain: an advisor gives advice. The advice is either taken or it isn't. Giving advice does not require that I believe or disbelieve the theory, hypothesis or argument being proposed. I have said - and I stand by it - that if the journal was written by the person who claims to have written it and at the time he claims to have written it, I would have to conclude that it is genuine. Beyond this I have made no comment and it remains to be seen whether authorship and date is proven.
The confidentiality agreement was drawn up by the publisher of the book and it is the publisher who has required everybody consulted to sign it. This includes Paul Feldman. It is my understanding that Paul Feldman has been required by the publisher to have those whom he (Feldman) consults also sign the agreement. I know of only one confidentiality agreement and that is the one issued by the publisher, Paul Feldman hasn't got a confidentiality agreement. That, at least, is my understanding.
As for your observation about not being able to comment on the the journal whether you've seen it or not, I don't understand your problem about this. A book is being written and a documentary is being made. The content of both is confidential until the publisher and the documentary maker make their projects public, therefore consultants are required to sign a confidentiality agreement. I understand and accept this. Why should you (or I) expect to criticise a book before it's been published or a film before its been made? As is common practice, one can comment when the information is made public and one has had a chance to assess the evidence properly. As for my comment on the press which so amused you, perhaps you have not considered shooting yourself in the foot and damaging your credibility, it is impossible to make an informed comment about a document you haven't seen and know nothing about. You offered a subjectively negative opinion and your letters show that you were not misquoted, as I thought you had been. You have reached a conclusion about something you know nothing about. That is not objective and you have seriously damaged your credibility. I am very sorry at that and don't find it a laughing matter.
Turning, finally to your most recent letter about information supplied by Harold Brough of the Liverpool Post, the rules of the confidentiality agreement prevent me from commenting. I can tell you, however, that the authors of the book, advisors or other people involved with the project are not the cretins you imagine them to be. They have been working on this document since long before you and Harold Brough ever knew there was a document and they have considered, investigated and advocated the investigation of areas that haven't even occurred to you and Harold Brough.
Now Nick, you have accused me of things I haven't done. You have not had the decency to confront me with your accusations and you have grossly failed to verify the accuracy of your information. I have found your tone rude and the professionalism I hitherto supposed you to have had has been noticeably absent. Further, I am given to understand that you have also addressed offensive letters to other people. I must ask you to refrain from doing so in the future. What you have written about myself and, as far as I can tell, Paul Feldman and Bill Waddell is in inaccurate and offensive. Expressed publicly it is also legally actionable. Our previous friendship has compelled me to respond to your absurd accusations and offensive letters, but I have far better things to do and will not do so in future. This correspondence is now terminated.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Begg."
(Letter published in Ripperana No 5, July 1993) |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 05:02 pm | | Hi, John:
You asked me about the extent of interest in the Ripper case on Merseyside, now or in the 1980s. Although I have not lived on Merseyside since the 1960s, my impression is that there is no greater interest in the case now or then than elsewhere. In other words if members of the general public knew in the 1980s anything about the Ripper, they may think the Ripper was Prince Albert Victor or today, due to the publicity about Maybrick, they have the idea it was Maybrick. I would not think there would be any great number of people with in-depth knowledge of the case--no more than in any other random sampling of the population in the United Kingdom.
Hi, Ivor:
Could you explain your remark that you believe the Diary was written by a woman who wrote children's stories? Thanks.
Chris George |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 05:28 pm | | John & Everyone--The problem as I see it is that some are looking at this from a legal point of view, and some are looking at it from an historic point of view. If we are accusing someone of a crime, then the burden of proof is on the accuser or the 'prosecution'. But let's use some common sense; that's not what we are doing. Scotland Yard investigated and dropped the matter. No one is going to jail. We are only interested in the diary as an alleged historic document.
Naturally, the burden of proof is on the person proposing a theory or suggesting that a document is genuine. One has to defend their dissertation, after all. Now perhaps Anne, Feldy, or whomever has documentation proving the Graham provenance, but if that is the case, they need to produce it. Since they haven't, I have to agree with Karoline that this debate has been largely circular and surreal. Either there is proof (letters, birth certificates, etc) that Anne's story is true or there isn't. Legally, Anne is utterly in the clear, of course. We should all treat her as an innocent woman. But we are talking about her story from the historical viewpoint. I've read all the archives, and as far as I can remember, Peter Birchwood is the only person in nearly two years who has ever actually posted any documentation that touches on the alleged Formby/Yapp or the Florie connections. If there is no proof, that's fine, but then aren't we just wasting time? How can we even debate if its all just hearsay and conjecture?
Chris--I've puzzled over Ivor's remark too. I finally guessed that he didn't mean the forgery itself, but Shirley Harrison writing the investigative book The Diary of Jack the Ripper? This is only a guess though; maybe Ivor could elaborate.
Jeff--I say they chose Maybrick merely because the forgers were from Liverpool. If I was to write the diary I'd make Jack an American, because it would make my provenance more believable. How could I come up with a diary from London?
If your still interested in Gladstone's "night walks" look in The Oxford Book of Political Anecdotes which covers those curious episodes. He seems to have stopped by 1881.
Best wishes,
RJ Palmer |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 06:15 pm | | Hi Chris,
R J Palmer has answered your question. I did not mean the forgery itself,But Shirley Harrisons Diary of Jack the Ripper.best wishes.
Thanks RJ.
Paul.
Apart from Tony I wonder if Mike, Anne or her father have ever been involved in any criminal matters in the past. It is rather a pity that the police never got involved in the matter from the start.It would have saved rather a lot of grief one way and another. |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 06:18 pm | | Hi John
I fear that I was optimistic in 1998! And your clarification of what Ivor Q.U. Estion sees as double standards is correct. I was, in any event, only emphasising what Madeleine had already observed about Anne.
Hi Rich
I understood that you were not impugning Melvin’s integrity, but I was wanting to make clear, for obvious reasons, that I wasn’t impugning it either. As to whether or not his claim can be given credence, Melvin is a researcher with a respectable reputation and, as he has argued himself on these Boards, can expect to have his word believed. Unfortunately, what Melvin gave as a statement of fact turns out to be information derived second hand from some journalists and we don’t know what Melvin was told or how reliable the information was. So whilst his integrity isn’t in question, the quality of his information is. That’s why other people should have the opportunity to see the information and assess it for themselves, otherwise we cannot know what weight we give to the evidence when considering the roles played by Mike and Anne. The problem is that it has taken a great deal of stamina to get through all the arguments and insults to get at the truth and to see that what began as a statement of fact turned out to have been no more than theorising, as John Omlor has independently concluded after reading the relevant posts. There are serious implications in this, of course, but they are not of any immediate (or even, perhaps, long term) concern, but some readers might see that it is dangerous to accept information at face value and that one should follow a route along the road as far as one can. Thus, some need to do no more than wave the cheque paid to Anne. That’s all the evidence they need. She’s guilty. They’ll happily hang her. Others will exercise greater caution and withhold judgement until it can be shown that Anne banked the money in her own account and that it stayed there. Some will say this is being wriggly. I don’t think it is. And I am grateful to Peter Birchwood for bringing the cheque to our attention and I hope that in due course we’ll find out what happened to the money. If she did or didn’t, we’ll have one more piece of data to salt the mix. The moral, I guess, is don’t assume an answer when the answer may be there to be had if you bother to ask the questions. That’s why I appreciated your comments, but just wanted to add a little clarification. |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 06:25 pm | | Hi Ivor
I think Mike had a minor offence and that it is described in Paul Feldman's book, but I can't recall right now what it was. I don't know about either Anne or Billy Graham. I don't recall anything. I think it is a pity that a lot of things happened the way they did. My only real interest in the 'diary' is that I do believe that a lot of mistakes were made, often quite innocently, and which in retrospect it is hugely easy to criticise. The real long-term importance of the 'diary' - indeed, perhaps its only importance - is to clarify what those mistakes were and how they were made. We can then see if there is some sort of groundplan that can be laid down if something like this happens again. Of course, if we knew who did the forgery, how, when and why, then it would be easier to see where the mistakes were made. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 06:28 pm | | Hi Jeff, You ask why 'Maybrick'. The Florrie Maybrick trial was a very high profile case at the time.Also It was a liverpool based saga.I believe the forger came from Liverpool.The forgery
was Liverpool born. Also the Maybrick trial gave out a great deal of information which the forger tapped. Maybrick was an ideal choice. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 06:56 pm | | Hi Paul, I do agree with what you have stated. This problem must be solved if only to stop it happening again.Look at what happened when the Diary appeared. Jack's watch popped up.What is going to creep out of the woodwork next I wonder.The diary has shown that this subject can be an easy target for any con man who wants to earn a few pounds. The Diary is not the first hoax
involving the subject. Look how much damage the diary has caused.Mistakes were made but mistakes can be rectified.I think many people were working againest each other instead of working together.If the police had acted this would have been nipped in the bud.After all it is a forgery and someone has gained by it. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 07:08 pm | | Hi, Paul,
Thanks for the reply. I believe we are in agreement. No question that Mr. Harris is a researcher of good reputation.
Without sharing precisely the nature of his charges and the source for his information, we have no way to evaluate the quality of evidence he may have.
This makes any evaluation of his theory speculative.
I am genuinely curious about the origins of the Maybrick diary. However, no matter how credible an authority may be, one cannot responsibly invest faith in a story whose espouser merely says, in essence, "trust me, i know, i just cant tell you who did it or how i know."
Rich |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Sunday, 01 April 2001 - 11:05 pm | | Dear Ivor and Roger,
Thanks for the answers. My point of trying to
pinpoint the year of the Gladstone mission to
the East End was to try to get some kind of time
frame for that version of Ten Little "Indians".
1881 is near enough.
I am aware of the notoriety of Maybrick as a legal
cause celebre. My point is that the creator of
the diary seemed attracted to it for it's close
time proximity to the Whitechapel Murders, but
also the unpleasant personality of the victim.
The forger seems to be fairly sharp about the
choice of a Ripper suspect.
I have been trying to recall a similar fraud
(aside from such literary hoaxes as the Donation
of Constantine or the Hitler Diaries). The
only one that I could think of is that of the
gold plate of Drake in California, in the 1930s.
When Sir Francis Drake made his historic circumnavigation of the world in the late 1570s,
he landed near San Francisco. He claimed the
coast for Queen Elizabeth I. And he (reputedly)
put a gold plaque down to commemorate the
moment. In the 1930s, a man turned over a gold
plaque that he claimed he found, with Elizabethan
writing on it, which was supposed to be Drake's
plaque. So it was accepted for a number of years,
until somebody in the deep south located a number
of stones in several states, again in apparent
Elizabethan writing, which were from the lost
colonists of Roanoke. One such discovery was
possible, but two such looked very odd. Closer
examination of the plaque and the rocks showed
that the "Elizabethan" writing was a forced style
of Sixteenth Century English (a little better than
"Ye Olde Tea Shoppe"). Today the "Drake plaque"
and the "Roanoke" rocks are regarded as fakes.
Yet one must be really careful before totally
rejecting an item as a fake. Jack himself might
have been aware of this one: In 1884, Moses
Shapira, a Jewish antiquities dealer from Palestine, tried to sell some leather strips of
writing that he aquired. They were, he said, the
world's oldest copy of the Book of Deuteronomy.
He offered these to the British Museum for half
a million pounds. Several scholars dismissed these as frauds, and it did not help that Shapira
had been caught selling fakes in the past. Finally, the leading biblical scholar of the day,
Christian David Ginzburg (yes, really) came out
declaring the fragments were fake. Disgraced,
Shapiro fled to Amsterdam, and committed suicide.
The fragments were owned by an eccentric bibliophile, until destroyed in a fire in the
1940s.
Pity they were - it seems Shapiro got the fragments from some goatherd, in the same region
where, eighty years later, the Dead Sea Scrolls
were found. He probably did have the oldest
version of Deuteronomy that survived. Shows one
not to always doubt a strange story when it appears.
Jeff |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Monday, 02 April 2001 - 12:57 am | | Hi all!
Just catching up here--but might I ask, who is Ivor Q. U. Estion, and why doesn't he want to use his/her actual name?
madeleine |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 02 April 2001 - 02:19 am | | Hello Madeleine
Ivor Q.U. Estion is one of serveral posters known collectively as "pseudonymous" and who may in fact be one and the same person because the messages seem to originate from the same computer. You will recall that Martin Fido refused to respond to Melvin Harris because of pseudonymous posters.
Ivor Q.U. Estion invariably takes two unrelated posts and places them together to give an impression which, as John Omlor quickly pointed out (for which, many thanks John), is generally not justified. As is the case with that aged and ancient letter to "Ripperana". Of course, if Ivor Q.U. Estion was being really honest and fair he/she would probably use their real name, would use their data responsibly and fairly and explain their meaning.
(Not that it matters in the least, but the letter was private and not intended for publication, was written in reply to an accusation that Keith Skinner and I had abused the special privilages we have enjoyed with Scotland Yard and in particular the relationship we had with Bill Waddell, the former curator of the Black Museum. We still enjoy those privilages and have written books on the history of the Yard, Keith most recently in collaboration with Martin with "The Official Encyclopedia Of Scotland Yard", and "Ripperana's" misunderstanding was resolved years ago.) |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 02 April 2001 - 02:50 am | | Hi Jeff
The story of Shapiro is fascinating and frightening. It’s disturbing to wonder how many genuine documents have been dismissed like that and with what loss to history! I couldn't agree more wholeheartedly with your last sentence.
At the moment the Maybrick ‘diary’ seems to be being linked with the so-called ‘Black Diaries’ of Sir Roger Casement, as they are in the current issue of “History Today”, although the parallels aren’t that close. Both suggest that we may need to establish a proper procedure and requirements for the analysis of documents, especially when they appear in the commercial rather than academic domain.
Cheers
Paul
|
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 02 April 2001 - 03:09 am | | Hi, Paul,
You certainly have more patience than I - taking the time to bother with Ivor Q.U. Estion. He appears to have more interest in making ad hominem attacks than contributing to the discussion in any valuable way.
Rich |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 02 April 2001 - 04:00 am | | Hi Rich
I don't know if it's patience or plain stupidity  . All I am interested in, though, is getting at the truth, which will probably turn out to be a deathly dull story, as Madeleine has forecast, but I think we'll learn something from it. Some people are simply divisive, however, and this has caused a lot of the problems surrounding the 'diary' investigation. Perhaps it would be best to simply ignore them.
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Monday, 02 April 2001 - 10:00 am | | Hi all!
Jeff--Thanks for your very interesting post about cotton tariffs. Yes, this is exactly the kind of omission that reveals the diary as feeble melodrama! As to "Why Maybrick?" I reckon it was luck--the forger picked a character from one Victorian melodrama and cast him in another. We don't know, realistically, whether JM was a good candidate. He may have been a lovely man.
RJP--You're saying what I'm saying: speculating on Ms. Graham's innocence or guilt (effectively) is pointless and impertinent. Either investigate her, or leave it alone. But I don't agree that it's pointless to think about what one might learn. What do you think might have been done differently?
Ivor Q. U. Estion: Posting under a pseudonym is pathetic.
madeleine |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Monday, 02 April 2001 - 10:02 am | | P.s. Paul--
What's this about Casement's "diaries?" Is this new, or have I just not been paying attention to the world?
madeleine |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 02 April 2001 - 10:48 am | | Hi Madeleine
The so-called Black Diaries were allegedly penned by Roger Casement, who was executed for treason in 1916, and have been used to undermine his reputation in various ways during his life and subsequently. The diaries, held at the PRO, are believed by many to be government inspired and executed forgery.
The similarities to the Maybrick diary are superficial, both have a shaky provenance (a bit of an understatement in the case of the ‘diary’) and both were examined by Dr. David Baxendale (who has been criticised in both cases) for example, but Angus Mitchell (editor of the Amazon Journal of Roger Casement) in his article in History Today says that ‘the cases do, however, have points of contact with regard to document examination. The approach to the Maybrick Confession has done a great deal to expose the shortcomings and contradictions in the scientific methods of forensics…’
I covered the Casement material in Ripperologist in June 2000 when reporting the two day symposium organised by the Royal Irish Academy in Dublin and can send you a copy if I still have it on disk. Of particular interest is the division of expert opinion, some historians believing that the \i(Black Diaries} are forgeries, while others think the idea of forgery defies common sense.
Angus Mitchell, who believed the Black Diaries are a forgery, concluded his History Today article by observing: ‘Though ways of examining suspect documents have improved beyond measure in recent years, establishing authenticity or otherwise is not straightforward. In his report on the Maybrick diary, Dr. Easthaugh concluded: ‘Historical document analysis is a field where much work remains to be done.’ Confusion surrounds questions of approach and what methods can and cannot be considered ‘scientific’ and ‘conclusive’. What we need now is a clearer set of guidelines as to how questions of authenticity should be approached by the historian in the twenty-first century.’
Mr. Mitchell essentially echoes my own long-held concerns about and interest in the Maybrick ‘diary’, which differs in many respects from the Casement material in that the latter is of far greater historical importance but perhaps lack the financial rewards of the former. One is studied by academics, the other entered the commercial domain, so the opportunities for expert analysis were different and the demands placed upon the investigators were different. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 02 April 2001 - 01:00 pm | | Hi All,
Peter’s hypothesis is that Anne’s July 1994 provenance story was a lie, and that it was motivated by money. In support, he informed us that a royalty payment was made to Anne in December 1993.
I am not wriggling or pleading anything – Peter is.
Wriggle number one: Peter had to acknowledge Paul’s valid observation that any payment made at this time could not be in respect of actual royalties due from book sales. Wriggle number two: Peter has avoided the question of whether Anne kept any of this money.
If Peter wants to prove such a hypothesis, he still has some way to go, to show that Anne had already gained from the diary, and was therefore hoping to gain even more by telling Feldy her tale. Peter is the one who thinks the money issue is so important to his hypothesis. As far as I’m concerned, if she doesn't know the diary is a modern fake, she can take whatever’s on offer, and if she does know, she was wrong to accept anything, whether she did so in December 1993, or not until after her divorce. The best Peter can hope for is to be able to show documentary proof that Anne was indeed paid this money in December 1993, and that she kept it for herself (despite the fact that no one has said that Anne was ever entitled to 50% of anything). If he does so, it will show a potential motive, which will then have to be weighed against all the other evidence, or lack of it. Peter’s reasoning is that, because Anne benefited from the December 1993 payment, she was keen to keep the diary money rolling in. So how does this fit with the fact that Anne apparently made no approaches to Doreen for a share after that first payment? Again, if she was entitled to a share, wanted a share, and was telling a huge lie just to make sure she would get her hands on that share, what possible reason could she have for hesitating to claim what was due to her, as and when it became due? She could hardly be trying to fool anyone in July 1994 into thinking she had no interest in diary money, if she had accepted, and kept, more than three thousand pounds of it just seven months previously, could she?
To reiterate, just to make sure my message is quite clear and unambiguous: Peter is trying to prove his hypothesis; I am questioning it. He can wriggle and plead all he likes. I don’t need to because all I’m doing is asking questions.
Hi RJ,
You wrote:
Naturally, the burden of proof is on the person proposing a theory or suggesting that a document is genuine.
Yes, the burden of proof was on Shirley and Feldy from the moment they published their diary books. It still is, until they are able to prove their case (which looks to me an impossibility), or they accept that it has been disproved by others. No one is obliged to do the latter, but when someone advances a theory of their own, that the diary was faked post-1987, with the knowledge and involvement of certain individuals, and publishes it on the internet or elsewhere, it comes with its own separate burden of proof. I don’t have any problem whatsoever with which theory is being questioned or challenged at any one time. The relevance of all questions and challenges will be judged by the readership, as will any failure to get relevant and reasonable answers. (The inventiveness of those employed in providing smokescreens whenever the need arises – usually at times when ‘awkward’ questions are being asked but not answered – continues to amaze and amuse me. The sheer transparency of it all really should be bottled and marketed – it’s the stuff of stocking-manufacturers’ dreams. )
RJ, you also wrote:
I've read all the archives, and as far as I can remember, Peter Birchwood is the only person in nearly two years who has ever actually posted any documentation that touches on the alleged Formby/Yapp or the Florie connections.
But the only information Peter came up with to suggest that it was unlikely that Formby and Yapp ever met was wrong! He posted the details of an Elizabeth Formby from the 1881 census, but this wasn’t the same person as the Elizabeth Formby who was Billy Graham’s step-granny.
Peter is presumably trying to prove his own hypothesis here, and disprove Shirley and Feldy’s. Why is it so wrong of anyone to expect him to get his facts right, especially when they are connected with his own field of expertise? We should be happy for any information, whether it comes from Paul Feldman, Shirley, Melvin or Peter, to be tested and confirmed, or discarded as necessary. As I have said more times than I, or anyone else, cares to remember, I have no faith in any of the published theories in their current form, and I can’t see a likely resolution in the foreseeable future. But even if I did believe or support one of them, I hope I would also acknowledge the sincere and legitimate concerns of the non-believers or agnostics.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 02 April 2001 - 02:29 pm | | Caz--Hello. Actually, I disagree with you. Those of us pointing out that the diary has all the hallmarks of a recent hoax, do not have the burden of proof. Ultimately, the critics of the diary are only demonstrating that Shirley and Feldy haven't proven their case, and that those claiming the diary is an 'old hoax' haven't proven their case either.
But no matter. My point is that this conversation would make a great leap forward if we could settle once and for all whether there is any documentation to back up Anne's story. Isn't this reasonable? Don't we expect historians & researchers to prove their sources? I'm not trying to be confrontational, but it does seem to me that you & Paul and other defenders of Anne seem to sidestep the issue of whether or not there is any evidence for the 'in the family for years' story. What have we really been shown? Where on earth did Feldy come up with the name of Henry Flinn? Can Anne show that Billy had any contact with the Flinns or with Florie? Is there any documentation that Elizabeth Formby knew Alice Yapp? As far as I can tell, all we have is a family 'oral tradition' not mentioned until after Mike's confession and the fact that Florie's address book had all the G's torn out (Trevor Christie suggests that this might have had something to do with Florie's friend Cora Griffin, or an attorney's assistant named Julian Gregory). Is this the stuff that history is made of? Is there anything else? I only agree with Madeleine to a point. Anne, the private citizen has every right to refuse to speak. But if we are going to take Anne the biographer seriously --or Feldy or Shirley or the 'old hoax' theorists , for that matter--someone needs to produce the documentation. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to ask, do you?
Best wishes,
RJ Palmer |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 02 April 2001 - 04:06 pm | | Hi RJP
I think Caz was saying that anyone postulating a hypothesis has the responsibility to substantiate it. That’s true.
You talk about the ‘old forgery’ theorists. Apart from Keith Skinner, who are they?
I’m not side-stepping looking at the details of Anne’s ‘in the family for years’ story, I simply think that the Formby/Yapp connection is a premature question at this time. I’m still stuck wondering whether Mike forged the ‘diary’ or not. If he did, I’d have wasted my time checking out Anne’s story wouldn’t I? And even if Anne is lying through her teeth, I’d still be wasting my time studying Formby/Yapp if Anne didn’t forge the ‘diary’ wouldn’t I? |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 02 April 2001 - 06:20 pm | | I am rather curious as to who Ivor Q.U Estion is myself.
I should be more concerned than anyone else because this person is using my name. I do not know whether this is intentional or not. Be that as it may others on the casebook use pseudonym's yet they are not criticized for it. So why should
Ivor Q.E.Estion be? Bottom line is that he should not. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. I believe in fair play and I also have a sense of justice which has been offended.One person should not be singled out in this fashion for what others also do with impunity. It might be a good idea if opponents of such posts voice their opinions to Stephen Ryder with the intention of putting a stop to ANYONE using a pseudonym.Until that happens I feel everyone using a pseudonym be treated in the same manner.The contents of Ivor Q.E. Estion's posts are a seperate issue.Also any accusations levelled at him/her should be proven beyond doubt. Thinking something is not proving anything.
How many times have I read that on these boards.I am simply stating what I concider to be right. |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Monday, 02 April 2001 - 06:47 pm | | Hi Ivor!
Does someone else post pseudonymously? I haven't noticed--of course I guess I just assumed that people are using their actual names, which maybe they aren't.
Anyway, I take your point. But I don't think posting under a false name to a public board is good for goose, gander or any kind of poultry...! Just my opinion, of course, but in my book, it's a BIG violation of netiquette. The internet is one of the few forums where it's possible to be heard and not seen, and a lot of very worthwhile and interesting discussions online have been ruined by people taking advantage of this. I mean, it's just a history discussion group--why the mystery??
madeleine murphy, my real and complete name! |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Monday, 02 April 2001 - 07:07 pm | | Hi RJP,
"Anne, the private citizen has every right to refuse to speak. But if we are going to take Anne the biographer seriously --or Feldy or Shirley or the 'old hoax' theorists , for that matter--someone needs to produce the documentation."
Well, now, that IS true. I have always assumed this was a discussion about "finding the forger;" but if you're talking about academic credibility, then certainly, Graham needs to take a very different position.
madeleine |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Monday, 02 April 2001 - 08:31 pm | | Dear Paul and Madeleine,
Much thanks for your kind responses. Re:
The Black Diaries, it may be interesting to note
that one of the primary movers in the use of
those notorious writings was Sir Basil Thomson,
Assistant Head of the C.I.D. during World War I.
Thomson, who was something of a structural
reformer (he helped conceive of the "flying
squad", if he did not actually put it into effect)
is usually considered quite highly as a police
official. However, he was quite a reactionary,
turning his attention (when not dealing with
German agents, or the I.R.A.) to damaging the
Labour Party. He helped the Conservatives in the
notorious "Zinovief Letter" forgery in 1924*.
Fortunately, a personal scandal involving a
prostitute in Hyde Park ended his career.
[*For those of you who never heard of it, the
Zinovief letter was supposed to be a letter from
the Communist Russian head of the Comitern (whose
mission was to export the Russian Revolutions
around the globe), Gregori Zinovief. In it, it
basically said that the Labour Government under
Ramsay MacDonald would eventually lead to a Soviet
system of government in Great Britain. The letter
was a forgery, and was released just before a
national election. The Conservatives under
Stanley Baldwin won, and held power until 1929.
Such letters have been used in other major elections in other countries. In 1888, in the
Presidential election between the incumbent
Cleveland, and Benjamin Harrison, a letter was
sent to the British Ambassador, Lord Sackwell-
West. It was supposedly from a recently naturalized English emigrant, and requested
guidance on whom should the writer vote for, in
the best interests of Great Britain. Sackwell-West wrote back that Cleveland was friendlier to
Britain. The letter was published in Republican
newspapers.]
Jeff |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 12:57 am | | Hi Jeff
Basil Thompson was indeed a dangerous man, What, I wonder, ever happened to Thelma de Lava, with whom he was found in the park? And did the careers of the coppers who nabbed him prosper? The Zinovief letter was also in the news recently (i.e. in the last year or two), but I can't recall the detail right now. |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 02:22 am | | Hi Ivor
Whilst I agree in principle with what you say, I don’t think the issue is quite so simple. There is probably nothing wrong with posting pseudonymously per se, but the problem arises when someone uses multiple pseudonyms to give the impression that their argument has more support than it does or, more especially, when the pseudonymous poster hides behind the pseudonymn to be rude, offensive or provocative or to voice opinions they do not have the courage to voice under the name by which they are more familiarly known.
This is bad for everyone because it engenders suspicion and distrust. If I was you, Chris George, Madeleine Murphy, Caz, and so on, I wouldn’t want to be wrongly suspected of being the pseudonymous poster and treated accordingly.
But more importantly in the recipient it generates exactly the same feeling as receiving a poison pen letter. It is very nasty.
So the bottom line really isn't a question of whether it is right or wrong to post pseudonymously, but whether it is right or wrong to hide behind a pseudonymn to be purposefully offensive or provocative to other posters. In my opinion it is wrong. It is also cowardly. Overall, therefore, I agree with Madeleine, that in the case of the specific example being discussed, pseudonymous posting is pathetic. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 04:13 am | | Hi All,
Hi Ivor (Edwards),
The person who posts as Ivor Q.U. Estion has done so in the past, at times when you weren't here posting yourself, so it is an unfortunate coincidence that he/she/the cat has returned under that name now.
I actually thought his/her/the cat's post, with the eight year old letter from Paul Begg to N. P. Warren sadly backfired, if was meant to show Paul in some kind of poor light. It actually gave my imagination a field day, working out what Mr. Warren's letters to Paul must have been like, and made the man [Warren] come across as a right prat, when, for all I know, not having seen those letters, he could be the nicest, most intelligent man on the planet. But then, that's always the problem for the person who quotes from somewhere, or posts a document, or incomplete and out of context correspondence or information, without sufficient explanation or further comment - we are left to fill in the gaps for ourselves, and quite often, the opposite effect is produced from the one he/she/the cat intended.
So not only are some pseudonymous posters trying to be deliberately divisive or offensive, they are often extremely stupid too, scoring own goals all over the place - perhaps that's the real reason why they hide their faces.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 05:54 am | | Hi RJ,
But I didn’t write that those ‘pointing out that the diary has all the hallmarks of a recent hoax’ have the burden of proof, did I? Why pick up on something I never said? I’m not trying to be rude here, but what I actually wrote was:
…when someone advances a theory of their own, that the diary was faked post-1987, with the knowledge and involvement of certain individuals, and publishes it on the internet or elsewhere, it comes with its own burden of proof.
Someone posting Melvin’s messages for him placed the following on the Maybrick Diary board last June, in a message entitled: YET MORE TELLING FACTS!
…I did not declare the Diary a fake before I saw it. This is a real libel cooked up by Feldman…
And I have never believed that Mike faked it or that Anne faked it. Their lies simply concern provenance. Their roles were simply as placers, or handlers, of a document forged by others.
So, Peter Birchwood appears to have no faith in Melvin’s information, since he continues to work on a hypothesis that Anne and Mike worked together to create the diary for financial gain. Chris George has also expressed doubts that Melvin’s information can be correct. You yourself have said that you believe Melvin is correct. Well, with the greatest respect, you can’t all be right, can you? So you certainly can’t blame anyone for asking Melvin and Peter to substantiate their information, in light of this conflict over the alleged roles of those suspected of being involved.
All the while Melvin and Peter continue to support their individual cases by introducing what they see as evidence, I will continue to ask questions as I think they are warranted. Only they can decide how much of what they write can be substantiated, or how much of it they are willing to substantiate in public. Exactly the same goes for Anne with her biography, and Shirley and Feldy with their diary books.
You are absolutely right over one thing, RJ. It’s not an unreasonable thing to ask all published theorists to produce documentation if they have it, or admit it if they don’t. And it is indeed their responsibility – if they want to be taken seriously. But perhaps some of them don’t care either way, in which case it’s their loss and ours, and it leaves history with a question mark, because we have no way of knowing if they got it right or wrong. All we on the outside can do is continue to ask the questions – we can’t force the answers from anyone who cannot, or is not prepared to respond. And that applies across the board, whether we are talking about Anne, Feldy, Shirley, Peter or Melvin.
Someone wrote: It doesn’t matter what the truth is; what matters is people’s perception of the truth.
I believe we can and should strive to do better than that.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 07:00 am | | Hi, all,
The state of Ripper research is handicapped by all the worthless scuttle involving pseudonymous writings and fictitious or unverified claims.
To use pseudonyms to launch personal attacks or defenses of certain researchers indicates that the author does not have the conviction in his own opinion to attach his real name to the claims. If the author doesn't feel that way, why should any of us?
Also, to claim knowledge of who authored the Maybrick diary, while refusing to disclose specific sources, is a supreme example of egotism. It is the claimant demanding to be believed not based upon disclosed fact but based upon reputation.
It is the responsibility of all serious researchers who make charges to label their theory as speculation if they are unable to offer proof. If they insist that their view is factual, they have an obligation to share their methodology and sources.
Commonly, a researcher may state that they cannot divulge their information based upon anonymous sources, etc. It is still the obligation of the researcher to make an independent investigation to corroborate such allegations before making their charges public. Such corroboration must and can be shared.
"I know who did it but I cant tell you who or even how I know" seems to be the current claim of some with regard to the origins of the Maybrick diary.
This is rumor and speculation - pure and simple.
Rich |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 07:04 am | | RJP and Caz,
you are completely right when you say that the burden of proof for any hypothesis must lie with the proponents of said hypothesis.
This is exactly what I was saying last year when I tried to find out what, if any, data there was in support of the old forgery hypothesis.
I never succeeded in persuading any one to tell me if there was any evidence or not, or (if there was) what it might be. Every time I asked the question I was met with the response that it wasn't relevant to the discussion.
I never really understood the rationale behind that reply - but at any rate, the question of data is most certainly relevant now.
So - can I suggest we put it all on the table in a clear and concise way, without squabbling or arguing or complex special pleading.
Let's put up (without comment) _all_ the data that supports the 'old forgery' hypothesis, and _all_ the data that supports the new forgery hyothesis and see where it gets us.
Does that seem like a plan?
RJ - I suggest that you can kind of oversee this, since you are obviously one of the most patient, well-mannered and open-minded individuals here.
is this a good way forward?
Maybe Peter could marshal the 'modern forgery' evidence, and Caz or Paul could marshal the 'old forgery' evidence.
How about it guys?
And Mr Question - do us all a favor and retire, please. You aren't helping.
Karoline |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 07:52 am | | Karoline
At the risk of opening old wounds, nobody here is advocating or discussing an old forgery hypothesis nor do I know anyone except Keith Skinner who is advocating one. Since the subject of an old forgery isn’t being discussed, I hope you’ll understand this time round why the subject of an old forgery is irrelevant. We are trying to determine on the basis of the available evidence who forged the ‘diary’. As you are aware, because you have commented on it, the current topic is whether Anne did or did not make money from the ‘diary’ and, if she did, whether money provides the motive for her ‘in my family for years’ story. |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 08:14 am | | Hi Rich
There's nothing to add to your words.
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 09:34 am | | Hi All,
I think RJ's words are in danger of being interpreted literally.
RJ wrote that:
those claiming the diary is an 'old hoax' haven't proven their case either.
RJ also described me as a defender of Anne.
Both statements are very misleading, and could do with RJ offering some kind of acknowledgement (for other board/bored readers) that he has been putting his own interpretation on the position.
At the very real risk of boring everyone else rigid, who have read all the posts, and clearly understood the position many many moons ago, can I just repeat over again that I am not a defender of Anne. I just want to be as sure as I can be that any information we are given about her part in the diary affair is as accurate and fair as possible. This is the type of thing I care about defending here, not individuals who may or may not be involved in forgery.
Keith, to my certain knowledge, has already told the board at least once that he believes the diary is old, but that he has no theory to explain how it might have come into the Graham family home. Therefore he is not, never has been claiming the diary is an 'old hoax', and therefore is not looking to prove such a case.
I don't quite know what else Keith, or any of us, are expected to say if this message continues to get lost among certain readers' expectations. But it does tell me one thing - some people will believe what they read, if they want to believe it badly enough, and others will believe what they think they have read, despite being told over and over and over again that it was never written.
Perhaps this post could be printed off and pinned up by the computers of those who are still in doubt, to act as a reminder that no one, as far as I am aware, is currently developing or advancing an old hoax theory for anyone to believe in, support, discuss, question, challenge or trash. If they are, I am clearly missing something other people believe they have read on these pages.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
