Archive through March 01, 2001

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Archive through March 01, 2001

Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: NEW HOAX FINDINGS: Archive through March 01, 2001

Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 04:15 pm
Hi, Martin: I appreciate this detailed "inside track" account of the investigation into the Diary and the opinions of the different experts who examined it prior to the publication of Shirley Harrison's book. As Guy Hatton remarked, your commentary on the situation is most enlightening. Best regards Chris George
Author: Paul Begg Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 04:34 pm
Hi Martin. Since meanings and intentions can get twisted in this parish, I just wanted to make sure that nobody came away with the unintended impression that I advocated a forgery contemporary with Maybrick. That was suggested, of course, as we considered possibilities of every shade and hue. As for a date in the 1920s. I think this either came about or certainly solidified as a result of (a) Rod McNeill�s ion migration test which gave a date of 1921 give or take 12 years, and (b) Kenneth Rendell�s statement that the type of handwriting was indicative of early to mid 20th century, which gave a middle date of around 1930. I seem to recall that Rendell�s statement about the handwriting was particularly interesting because it ruled out both Mike and Anne as the author and with the absence of a �Mr Big the Forger�, as we dubbed the mastermind who for a while we speculated was in the shadows and used Mike and Anne as patsies, this leant a some weight to the old forgery idea. Maybe it still does.
Author: R.J. Palmer Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 06:42 pm
Paul--Hello. (First off I have to agree with Chris & Guy --Martin Fido's piece above is fascinating stuff. The investigation of the diary is an interesting story in itself). There is something that has always bothered me about the 'old hoax' theory --putting aside for the moment any textual or forensic indications that the diary is recent. It seems to me that the 'impetus' for believing the diary is an old hoax has always been Anne Graham's story that she saw it in 1968/69 and that her father had it as far back as the late 1940's. I guess the reason that I feel this way is that there has never been any real cohesive arguments brought forth that this might have been the work of journalist in the 1930's, etc. When 'old hoax' has been brought up, at least on these boards, it has been my impression that it has nearly always been an argument for Anne's story involving Elizabeth Formby, Nurse Yapp, the alleged illegitimate child of Florie, etc., etc., --which still flings the diary back into the Maybrick household and the Victorian era. So the old hoax theory strikes me as a little paradoxical, and most all of the good arguments that the diary is not genuine also suggest that it is not an old hoax. Do you see what I mean? By the way, I hope I don't give the impression that I hold even the slightest doubts about other people's ethics, intelligence, etc. I once told Shirley Harrison that she wrote a most fascinating book. This has always been just a 'historic mystery' and an intellectual debate for me. I tend to think that the arguments that this diary is an old document are 'overly subtle' rather than 'gullible' or 'stupid'. Best wishes, RJ Palmer.
Author: Martin Fido Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 06:57 pm
Paul - I quite agree that you never suggested a forgery contemporary with Maybrick. I'd forgotten that anybody ever proposed anything so extraordinary. And, of course, my main concern is to point out firmly that your suggestion was put forward NOT as an 'explanation' of the diary, but as a line of investigation that might start to clear up some of the apparently conflicting conclusions being put forward. It would be my recollection that the Rendell Report with Rod McNeill addendum had not been produced by the time of the Tower Thistle conference. My own instant (and unchanged) response to McNeill was that, science or no science, his dating was historically completely impossible. Subsequently I learned that 'no science' was the best riposte, as nobody has ever been able to duplicate McNeill's results. The best and most convincing part of the Rendell Report, I felt, was the Chicago Police's lady document examiner's input. When I read Rendell's own book, I was more than unimpressed by his covering up the fact that he was one of the bamboozled experts in the Mormon forgeries (and murders) case, and claimed instead that he cracked it! I though it was Melvin Harris who had proposed handwriting education dates as a way of dating the Ripper diary, and assessed the work as havingbeen written by some one who learned writing between 1920 and 1940. It is a question (or approach) on which I have no expertise and no opinion. My expertise is historical, and like yours led me to the immediate conclusion that the diary was bogus. I then had the extreme good fortune that pressure of work kept me away from the completely misleading distortions of scientific evidence which led some people, like yourself, to have the admirable humility to set aside their personal deductions in the face of what appeared to be cast-iron proof that the diary was written at the right time and by someone in the Maybrick household, almost certainly Maybrick himself. And I am happy to have this opportunity to point out that you were only misled for a very short time, never committed yourself irrevocably to endorsing fiction, and returned to balanced agnosticism as soon as it became clear that the scientific evidence had been seriously misrepresented. All the best, Martin Martin
Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 22 February 2001 - 05:00 am
Thanks Martin, it's nice to establish the facts like this. By the way, you didn�t say that the 1920s was being considered at the time of the Tower Thistle conference. You simply said that sometime in the 1920s was considered as a possible date and you couldn't recall why. I have no idea now whether I had proposed the journalist/WWII idea by the time of the Tower Thistle, which I think was in June 1993, but I have a vague suspicion that I had. I was certainly voicing it by the time of the subsequent round table meeting at the film studios attended by David Canter. Rendell�s report dated September 1993 contained the McNeill results and Rendell also said that the type of writing �was early to mid-20th century at the earliest�. I know the idea that the handwriting was that of someone schooled in the 20s is something always attributed to Melvin, but I don�t seem to have a record of him having actually said it. Maybe Keith does. Shirley states that she�d heard from at least two sources that Melvin at some point considered a 30s forgery. She wrote to him, she says, but didn�t receive a reply. Hi RJP As you can see above, we were certainly exploring the old forgery idea a very long time before Anne Graham told her story about the �diary� being in the possession of her family since before 1950 � though I hasten to add that it was not being explored with Mike or Anne. Unfortunately the old forgery idea was not given much attention because the idea didn�t appeal to those who thought the �diary� genuine and wasn�t in the least relevant to those who were only interested in it not being genuine. Even Kenneth Rendell has stated that he did not give much if any thought to when the �diary� was written, his brief being only to decide whether it was genuine or not. It was this narrowness of vision that worried me because, as I have said, I thought potentially important questions were being overlooked. As it has turned out I was right to be concerned because if we�d addressed the question of �when� while the experts were assembled we�d now have a bit more evidence on which to base any assessments of Anne�s story.
Author: Richard Buchko Thursday, 22 February 2001 - 12:55 pm
Just a quick question to anyone who cares to offer it: How conclusive is the dating of the diary? That is, is it proven with a statistical likelihood that the diary came from one time or another (I see the 20's, the 40's, contemporary with Maybrick, and other dates mentioned). Whether it be through testing the age of the paper, the age of the inks, the language or materials used, or whatever method, what do you think is the bottom line decade, and why? This question is my lazy way of cutting to the chase. My online time is limited, so as much as I enjoy the posts, I never get to all of them. Rich
Author: Richard Buchko Thursday, 22 February 2001 - 01:05 pm
Ooops - One more important quickie. Was Maybrick ever considered a suspect, whether it be by police or by ripperologists, before the diary appeared? An extension of that ---- If you believe the diary to be a forgery, then why do you think Maybrick, a non-suspect to most people, was chosed as the diarist? Why not someone with fewer public and documented points in life, or someone people already thought might be JTR? My belief in the diary has suffered recently from these posts. Thanks - Rich
Author: Alegria Thursday, 22 February 2001 - 01:55 pm
I think that the diary was the genesis of Maybrick as suspect. I am pretty sure that he wasn't even considered before. I think he was proabbly chosen as supect because he was already well known and there was a wealth of material available about his life to draw from. Say you picked Joe Hammerman, an unknown as your suspect and then said he called his wife by the pet name 'schnookums'. You run the risk of his family turning up with his real diary that says he was gay and called his wife 'you old hag'. All the information about Maybrick was already likely to have been found and therefore was not a signifigant risk. The fact that there has been no new information dug up on Maybrick proving conclusively that he couldn't have been the Ripper validates the forgers decision to go with someone already well-documented. All of the above is, of course, pure speculation. :-)
Author: Alegria Thursday, 22 February 2001 - 01:59 pm
Also, considering that they couldn't exactly write "hey! I am Joe Hammersmith of 303 Peachtree Lane" and have the diary taken seriously, they had to pick someone that it would be possible to find given a minimum amount of information. The average Joe on the street would not have left the amount of clues behind like the ones that 'validated' the author of the diary as Maybrick. Wouldn't it have been funny if they had gone through all the trouble of forging the diary and then no one could figure out who there suspect was!
Author: Stephen P. Ryder Thursday, 22 February 2001 - 02:04 pm
Although Maybrick was never mentioned as a Ripper suspect before the diary, it is worth mentioning that the Maybrick poisoning case was mentioned alongside of the Ripper case in numerous publications of "Great British Crimes", etc. I don't have specifics available as I'm currently in California, but Melvin has enumerated many such cases in his postings/articles.
Author: Christopher T George Thursday, 22 February 2001 - 02:22 pm
Hi, Richard and Alegria: Richard, Alegria is exactly right when she told you there was no suspicion that James Maybrick might have been the Ripper prior to the emergence of the Diary in 1993. The only thing for which he was known was of being the famous victim in a supposed crime of being poisoned in May 1889, for which his wife Florence was convicted, initially sentenced to death, had her sentence commuted to life imprisonment, and then was eventually released but not pardoned in 1904, having spent, as she put it in the title of her autobiography "My Lost Fifteen Years" in jail. Alegria is also correct when she told you that much was known about Maybrick's family life. Indeed, the domestic life of the Maybricks was discussed at length at Florence's trial, as were his habits while in the city of Liverpool, taking aperitifs laced with arsenic at a local chemists, etc. There was a good amount of information about their personal lives, the people in their household, and so on. Therefore, although the police in 1888-1889 apparently had no suspicion that Maybrick was the Ripper, and there is no evidence to hint that he was suspected, he in some ways makes an ideal candidate for a hoaxer, especially given the dramatic circumstances in which he died, that he was an arsenic addict, and the evidence that he had a temper and may have suspected his wifes extramarital affair, which might give rise to a "revenge" motive as essayed in the Diary. Maybrick though not the Ripper and never a police suspect was a man of the right time period on whom the mantle of Ripper suspect could be with some confidence if illegitimately placed. A forger might know that there was little chance that evidence might surface that would say he was not the Ripper. Richard, I hope this has helped. Keep entertaining those doubts about the Diary! None of the top researchers in the field, i.e., Begg, Fido, Skinner, Evans, Harris, Rumbelow, or Sugden, believe it to be genuine. That roll call should tell you a lot. Possibly before long you will come round to the point of view that most of us have, of dismissing it entirely as having no place in the real investigation of the Whitechapel murders. Best regards Chris George
Author: R.J. Palmer Thursday, 22 February 2001 - 02:48 pm
In reference to the discussion above, as to the nature of the handwriting, there was another view, offered up by the Sunday Times in their well-known article back in September 1993. It states that 'the handwriting lapses into a style which was not taught until after the second world war.' It is unclear from the article who's statement this is, but it might be that of Dr. Audrey Giles, the forensic document examinor that the Times used for the article. Interestingly, the Sunday Times also throws out the possibility that the diary is an old hoax, 'possibly invented in an attempt to secure the release of Florence Maybrick but never used.' But they literally throw it out. It is "quickly discounted" by the Times because the Ripper information in the diary doesn't seem to contain the information that was in common currency at the time of the Ripper murders. It also alludes to the 1987 police list. Donald Rumbelow makes a brief appearance and offers his observation that there was ample opportunity for Florie to make the existance of such a diary known. My position is that the whole concept of the diary is an anachronism that a contemporary would have readily noticed. Florie's affair with Brierley didn't even begin until after the Whitechapel murders had ended, so the diary is based on misconception. It would have been unimpressive as a defense. My original point though, is still left hanging. Most of those that are exploring the possibility that Anne's story is true, seem to be centering on the idea that this can be an 'old hoax'. But Anne's story and the Formby/Yapp suggestion still throws the diary back to Battlecrease. Isn't this an impossibility? Even Rod McNeil's test (or I should say his original conclusions, that have since been modified) date the diary to a time long after Florie had been released. Best wishes, RJ Palmer
Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 22 February 2001 - 04:57 pm
Hi RJP It's late and I'm tired and I'm suffering Andersonian memory loss, but I don't think Audrey Giles was actually given very much time with the document, so it is debateable how considered an opinion she gave. The idea that the 'diary' was created for Florences' defence was considered by us and was discounted for the simple reason that Florence pleaded innocent and a document providing her with a motive for murder would not have assisted her in the least. I can't recall the precise details or their worth but I think Feldy actually showed that the affair with Brierley began before the date commonly accepted. I stand to be corrected and no doubt will be, so please recall the Andersonian Defence before ripping me to shreds, but I think that Anne has said nothing more than that her father inherited the 'diary' and took possession of it c.1950 and that Anne herself saw the 'diary' and its contents in the 1960s. Everything else is pure speculation about the transmission of the document and should be treated as such, including the Formby/Yapp connection. As far as I am concerned, if Mike and Anne did not forge the diary themselves, and there are reasons for considering the possibility that they didn't, and in the absence of Mr Big the Forger (unless Melvin can tell us who it was), do we consider the possibility, absurd and utterly ridiculous though it may be, that the 'diary' is an old forgery?
Author: Jade Bakys Thursday, 22 February 2001 - 05:52 pm
Yes the Ripper and Maybrick case are in chronological order in Gordon Honeycome's Murders of the Black Museum, with the Ripper case first followed by the Maybrick case.
Author: Leanne Perry Thursday, 22 February 2001 - 11:53 pm
G'day Stephen, The Maybrick case is well covered in Marshall Cavendish's issue 41 of 'Murder Casebook', which has already been mentioned here. In have the whole series and 'Issue 41' is on loan to Jules, right now. I think it became available two years before the Diary turned up! LEANNE!
Author: Guy Hatton Friday, 23 February 2001 - 06:05 am
Quote: I can't recall the precise details or their worth but I think Feldy actually showed that the affair with Brierley began before the date commonly accepted. Perhaps I'm also suffering memory loss, Paul, but the most that I can recall having been said publicly that supports this (most recently here by Shirley Harrison) is that Florie and Brierley's acquaintance can be shown to predate the Whitechapel murders. I cannot bring to mind any evidence having been presented to support an affair until much later. Perhaps we are dealing with another example of what appears to be referred to (very tactfully) as Paul Feldman's "enthusiasm"? All the Best Guy
Author: Paul Begg Friday, 23 February 2001 - 07:01 am
Probably we're more likely talking about me trying to recall something when tired.
Author: R.J. Palmer Friday, 23 February 2001 - 08:22 am
Guy--Hello. In her biography The Last Victim, Anne Graham has Florie meeting Brierley in November 1888 (p. 70). I believe Trevor Christie & others didn't have Anne having an actual affair until March 1889. To me, this makes the entire concept of the diary an anarchronism. Anne, however, argues that Florie had previous affairs, including one with Maybrick's brother Edwin. (The diary has the lilting, poetic line: 'The bitch, the whore is not satisfied with one whore master, she now has eyes on another.' after the episode at Aintree). So the argument might go that the diary shows detailed inside knowledge of Florie's affairs. To me, however, it merely shows that the forger's had to strain to make the concept work, and the 'whoremaster' of the first passage, is implied to be the same 'whoremaster' in the rest of the diary. And so it goes. And so it goes. Best wishes, RJ Palmer.
Author: Tim Friday, 23 February 2001 - 01:19 pm
Hello everybody Martin - Thank you very much for this detailed and extensive reply to the 'panel of experts' I mentioned. This answers everything and I can't thank you enough. I didn't like to mention names but I know you were on this panel (please don't wear that purple shirt on TV again ). They didn't explain this too well on the program (Ch5 a few weeks back) did they. I'm gradually wading my through some of the messages on here and a few more books. Thank's to Paul too. Was it you who said on the panel that you have been sitting on the fence for so long you had developed piles? Caz - If you can use a photo of a supermodel then so can I Tim And with that I shall bid you good day.
Author: Martin Fido Friday, 23 February 2001 - 04:06 pm
Tim - My wife shared your horror on seeing that shirt. When I bought it in Guyana I had no idea that lilac had significance in the homosexual world. My wife has since (to my regret) taken the opportunity of the one of our moves to throw it away, together with the colourful lace-up shirt one of my students made for me in Barbados, which I wore when appearing on 'Sixty minutes' and whose pattern of art nouveau posters led one of my wife's colleagues to say, 'Looks like some one throwed up on him!' The occasion when Paul said he'd been on the fence so long he'd got piles was, if I remember aright, the launch of Shirley's book, cuts from which are also interspersed without identification in the video. Colin Wilson's warm and avuncular, 'Ah,yes, the bottle of Quink!' was from the Tower Thistle conference. I think the lilac shirt was acually being worn at yet another gathering which was filmed when, for the first time, Don and Paul and I saw the original diary, and Bill Waddell and David Canter were among those attending. That meeting took place at a small studio somewhere, and I think Feldy was himself present then. Martin F
Author: Paul Begg Friday, 23 February 2001 - 04:44 pm
I actually clapped sight on the actual 'diary' for the first time with Keith at the offices of Doreen Montgomery, was distintly unimpressed and bored Keith on the walk to the tube by demonstrating how the handwriting differed from that of the Will. Otherwise, it was indeed I who made the merry quip about piles and received a most satisfactory laugh in return. I recall Martin's shirts with a shiver and am, along with everyone who had the misfortune to be in his company when he was wearing them, deeply grateful to his wife.
Author: Tim Friday, 23 February 2001 - 05:05 pm
Martin - I'm glad you took that in good humour, as it was meant to be. But I now have a permanent squint which isn't so funny. Thank your wife for me would you An yet more information about this program I didn't know about. Thank you very much. I thought it was funny when Colin Wilson said 'yes, it all fits with me now' when they tried to make the writing on the wall to read James and not Jews. I'm sure that was heavily edited. I couldn't see how they could make James out Jews. I think I'm right in saying the writing on the wall was never photographed and only copied by a police officer before being washed off. Paul - I thought that was your voice. It cracked me up Nice to see you people in here. Tim And with that I shall bid you good day.
Author: Paul Begg Saturday, 24 February 2001 - 03:21 am
The JUWES/JAMES thing - that if you turn the "U" and "W" of JUWES upside down you get a tolerable JAMES - was noted by someone - not me - in a idle moment and thought rather amusing. It was with some dismay that he saw it seized and inorporated in "the theory", as did someone else's observation that the first and last letters of JAmes maybriCK spelled JACK. I was somewhat unimpressed by both these word games, to put it mildly. What did impress me very greatly though was in Liverpool when Paul Feldman very enthusiastically and for the first time pointed this and its significance out to Mike and Anne. The earnestness with which they received it struck me at the time as evidence that they did not forge the document. Had they forged it I think they'd have been unable to stop themselves from slapping their thighs with merriment and laughing till the tears ran down their cheeks.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Saturday, 24 February 2001 - 07:55 am
Hi All, Now this is becoming a very light-hearted and entertaining thread at least. Hi Martin, Please tell me you weren't wearing daffodil yellow socks at the same time as the lilac shirt! Hi Tim, Sitting on the same fence as Paul, I'm very glad you don't get a rear view, in case I have developed my very own Farmers (for the Americans, Cockney rhyming slang - Farmer Giles - piles). Love, Caz
Author: Martin Fido Saturday, 24 February 2001 - 08:31 am
Caz - I was most likely wearing egg-yolk socks, as I've been short of daffodil for some time. Egg-yolk is obviously defensible excellent taste in all circumstances, being James McNeill Whistler's favourite colour, and one frequently chosen for his socks. Apropos yellow socks, someone on some board somewhere within the past day or so - (was it Paul Begg?) - threw out the specimen pointless question 'How many bus conductors in Barbados wear yellow socks.' I think the answer is simply none: in ten years on the island I don't remember seeing bus conductors in socks at all. And another correction to another of my errors on another board. I remarked light-heartedly that I'm now the same age as Anderson when he wrote his memoirs! Ouch! Not quite! I should have said as when he first wrote an article giving his belief that the Ripper was safely caged in a lunatic asylum while the panic still raged. Martin
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Saturday, 24 February 2001 - 08:56 am
Hi Martin, Talking of bus conductors, my daughter came home from school one day and said that her friend's father was a conductor. I was very frustrated that my joke reply "Which route?" was not appreciated. Love, Caz PS Egg-yolk? Poor Whistler's mother, having to wash those and peg 'em out on the line.
Author: Jade Bakys Saturday, 24 February 2001 - 10:07 am
Well I quite liked the shirt, it wasn't as much a fashion tragedy as that of Martin Howell's orrible jackets and Colin Wilsons bad hair day J
Author: Martin Fido Saturday, 24 February 2001 - 11:04 am
God bless you, Jade! Someone with sartorial good taste at last! Martin F
Author: Tim Saturday, 24 February 2001 - 11:37 am
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Perhaps there should be another discussion group here titled 'Fido's shirt' Tim And with that I shall bid you good day.
Author: Paul Begg Saturday, 24 February 2001 - 11:40 am
Martin:- glad to see you read the editorial in the Ripperologist, for it was there that I asked the question about how many postmen in Barbados wear yellow socks - yellow socks actually having sprung to mind because of your liking for them, especially when snorkling. If you recall, I thought resolving that question was one for which funding might be available, research, presumably funded by someone, having discovered that if present trends continue one third of the world's population in 2019 will be Elvis impersonators. Jade:- On television much is passable. In the flesh those shirts were... I have a photograph of Martin wearing that purple shirt, trousers, wellington boots and a blue knitted wooly hat. He loked like the pig farmer on the Fast Show who comes out of his hut and announces "This week I shall be wearing beige." But Martin still has more hair than me and is slimmer, for which I shall never forgive him.
Author: Tim Saturday, 24 February 2001 - 11:47 am
Paul - oh stop will you my sides are splitting! I'm very sorry about this Martin. Tim And with that I shall bid you good day.
Author: Jade Bakys Saturday, 24 February 2001 - 12:04 pm
LOL J
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Saturday, 24 February 2001 - 12:58 pm
"Suit you sir - oooh!".
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 27 February 2001 - 01:27 pm
From Keith Skinner to Martin Fido Dear Martin From whence sprung this most curious notion, (I may almost say, Feldian idea), of yours that, �Keith, persuaded by the exaggerated claims of scientific �proof� that the diary must be Maybrick�s work��? I hope I never gave you the impression that I accepted, unreservedly, Feldy�s representation of scientific and historical data! I noted with wry amusement your observation about people who get pushed into �making more extreme declarations of belief� than they necessarily like. I have a feeling this may well become a useful and much used phrase in the future! Keith
Author: Martin Fido Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 02:19 am
Hi, Keith, I was recollecting that perfectly frightful meeting in MRA offices when Martin Howells returned from New Zealand, and Shirley was being put under horrendous pressure from Feldy and to some extent Robert Smith to write outright claims that went way beyond what she knew she was establishing - (a pressure which on Feldy's part appeared to embrace his preference for taking over the book himself and the misconception that he would find Paul B a willing co-author, and which in the end resulted in Robert Smith's writing his introduction to her book to say things Shirley would not commit herself to)- , and I was shocked to find that serious consideration was being given to the idea of Michael Maybrick as the calligrapher of his brother's will, and some incomprehensible nonsense about the best-known portrait of James Maybrick being printed in reverse was supposed to have some bearing on something, and we were all required to give points out of ten on the probabilities of the diary being (a) a genuine Maybrick document, and (b)a true narrative. I was alone and virtually pariah for thinking the chances of its being genuine negligible and the chances of its being true infinitesimal. Sally Evemy declined to give any opinion at all. (I have always believed that she privately agreed with me). Everyone else (Paul S, Paul B, Robert Smith, Shirley, Martin H, Doreen Montgomery and yourself) thought the odds well above evens that it was genuine. Paul B appeared to be illogical when not having expressed 100% certainty that it was genuine, he expressed 100% certainty that it was true. Challenged on this, he explained he meant that IF it was genuine he thought it must be true. You at the time came in with a firm vote for its being probably genuine, but I think you actually offered it a zilch chance of being historically true. Paul B later explained to me that it was the weight of scientific evidence being cited that made everyone think it was likely to be a genuine document, and I assumed this applied to you too. This took place in the January after diary negotiations began. (You'd known about it since the late summer previously; I came in in about September, I think, and Paul B in about October, if I remember aright. Feldy intervened round November. And I don't think Paul B started to think it possibly genuine until December. You'll probably have dated correspondence going back to that period which would put all this into a much more precise sequence). By March Paul B was telling me that he and Martin H had gloomily agreed that they were working on a forgery. I don't think I ever discussed with you in detail exactly what you thought and why, but I'd be fairly certain that by the March your position was a definite wish simply to collect more facts for the benefit of Shirley and Sally, without committing yourself to any position at all on the diary's validity. But we all had to make a commitment on that horrible January day - it was the 9th or the 13th, I think, and I had already much resented the insistence of everyone that I drop my work in Cornwall and come to London for the meeting. Which proved far worse than I'd anticipated. And although you came the nearest to my position (except for possibly Sally) you gave the diary a probability of being genuine at that time. By all means correct me if I'm wrong. Martin
Author: Paul Begg Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 12:01 pm
At the meeting at MIA's offices in Baker Street refered to the information we received was that the scientific evidence showed that the document was written in 1889 (or roughly thereabouts or something like that). What we then said was that if the scientific evidence was correct then we could not conceive of an explanation other than that Maybrick had written it. You did not agree because, as an expert on Victorian literature, you were able to bring that expertise to bear and maintain that the document contained too many errors of various sorts to have been written by James Maybrick. There was, I recall, some debate about this and I, not having your specialist knowledge, had to reserve opinion until clarification was obtained and thus did not allow it into my consideration at that time. Ditto, I believe, Keith. Keith and I differed only in that Keith was following through a suggestion that maybe James Maybrick had deluded himself into thinking he was the Ripper. He, along with everyone else, soon rejected that notion. So, to sum up, with the exception of that meeting - and at no other time before or afterwards - did any of the advisors say that the 'diary' was genuine. And it was only said at that meeting with the very definite caveat that it only applied if the scientific evidence was confirmed. It wasn't confirmed. Thus, return to the conclusion that the thing was a forgery.
Author: Martin Fido Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 11:14 pm
Hi Paul, There may have been discussion of the scientific evidence as a necessary proviso before I got there, but I didn't hear about it until I wondered how you could give 10 out of 10 to the diary's being a true account of events when you'd only given 8 out of 10 to the probability of its being genuine. And I didn't get a full and comprehensible explanation until we were in the pub after the meeting. As far as I was concerned (arriving later than most people off a train from Cornwall) the first item of business was Martin H's proposal on his arrival (even later than mine) that we all give points out of 10 to the two questions, and while I was debating in my mind whether answers of 3 or 4 would be a reasonable compromise with my obvious disagreement with everybody else, I felt compelled to go much lower when I found to my horror that everyone else was going 8 or above, Martin H kicking off with a vote of 9 or so, and meeting a general air of enthusiasm that the question of the object's genuineness was basically solved, and all that really had to be answered were side issues like why the writing didn't match Maybrick's will...! Doreen even told me kindly that the vote round the table showed that the question was now settled, though she knew how disappointing this must be for me. And nobody contradicted her to suggest that it was still open. It isn't just literary training that makes the language of the diary look suspect. I have always also felt that the spelling mistakes and grammatical solecisims were an obvious giveaway: I remember vividly Robert Smith searching his memory to assert that he had heard the usage, 'Unlike I' in Gloucestershire or somewhere! And Feldy got quite fed up with hearing the word 'solecism' from me. When, months later, Keith unearthed the cache of Maybrick letters that proved the will genuine, Feldy folowed up with a depserate attempt to make me agree that Maybrick's single misspelling 'ocasional' made him a plausible diary author. Anybody who looks at the slips and typos in my entries on the boards will, I hope, see at once why I found this unconvincing. I really don't want to attack you over this, as you very kindly changed your seat to sit by me when I arrived, and I felt sure this was because you perceived that I was going to be an unhappy loner on this occasion which I'd never wanted to attend. My memory concurs with yours in thinking that Keith believed for a short time that Maybrick could have written the diary under the aberrational conviction that he was the Ripper. None of this, of course, answers the question Keith throws back at me: why did he think the diary could be genuinely Maybrick's work in the first place? You seem to feel, as I do, that it had to be the scientific evidence. But obvously I don't know for sure. I was busy writing something else in Cornwall, and generally getting more and more annoyed at being badgered with endless telephone calls demanding that I believe things I couldn't! Martin
Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 01 March 2001 - 12:34 am
Hi Martin I don't know about Keith's question and I only wanted to flesh out a bit of the background to that meeting. One of the problems, in my opinion, was that expert opinion was given to people who didn't really understand it and conveyed by them to others. There was no deliberate attempt to deceive anyone, but enthusiasm sometimes got in the way. That meeting was, for me, the most outstanding example of this happening. We - I, Keith, Martin H. - were basically told that the 'scientific' evidence was conclusive. Martin H. asked (in light of this) how we rated the 'diary'. I was felt very dubious about the evidence and would have preferred to reserve judgement until I'd had a chance to assess it properly, but I willingly acknowledged that if the evidence was as I had been told then I didn't see an alternative to it being genuine. That was a mistake because I was to learn to my cost that caveats are very quickly forgotten. All of this is of no importance, however, except in that I believe the most important thing about the 'diary' - and it is the reason why I remain interested and concerned about it - is that an understanding of the investigative process is essential so that this doesn't happen again, perhaps the next time over a document of real historical importance.
Author: Martin Fido Thursday, 01 March 2001 - 08:46 am
Paul - The second and third sentences of your posting beginning 'I don't know about Keith's question' constitute probably the best summary available of how it ever came to be claimed that 'the experts couldn't disprove the diary'. Putting all the different expert views together with hindsight it is now clear that the preponderance of expert opinion was either strongly against or neutral, (or in Anna Koren's case, first confused and then evasive). But nobody who grasped accurately how all these opinions were working was responsible for linking one expert with another. And so Feldian enthusiasm resulted in a general misapprehension: the scientists were encouraged to believe that the historians were in favour of the diary and vice versa. And, as you say, there was no deliberate dishonesty, and since dishonesty was frequently alleged by those who were not in the circle of consultants sworn to secrecy, those of us who knew what was going on became increasingly annoyed by attacks from outside alleging commercial corruption. (Not that I don't think commercial wishful thinking distorted the reasoning of Feldy and Robert Smith, the latter of whom was certainly experienced enough in scholarly matters that he should have seen the diary's limitations far more clearly than he did). The Baxendale Report is perhaps one of the clearest examples of how we got wrongfooted. Essentially on a basis of the ink absorption in the paper, Baxendale concluded that the diary could not possibly be 100 years old. He was also struck by the ink colour (as Don Rumbelow and I were when we later saw the original for the first time). To Don and me it seemed oddly brighter than any we had seen on Victorian documents. I wondered whether this resulted frrom a possibility Melvin had suggested, to the effect that the forger might well have diluted his ink to give it an old and faded appearance. For while it didn't look new and full strength, the diary ink didn't really look faded with the grey or black or brownish tones familiar in agedd ink. . Baxendale, more scientifically, was struck by the lack of 'bronzing' which would result from oxydisation of any iron in the ink, and concluded that there was no iron in the ink. When Nick Eastaugh tested the ink chemically he found lots of iron, and Baxendale had to concede he was wrong in that part of his report. It didn't alter his opinion that the document was a 20th century forgery, and he became absolute fed up with the pressure put on him to revise his opinion, ultimately returning his fee, and insisting that he have no more to do with the project and his report be not used. Now we non-scientists knew (via Melvin Harris's accurate predictions) that an iron-based ink was both the most probable Victorian ink, and the most likely modern imitation for a competent forger to use. It therefore seemed to us very significant that Baxendale had missed the presence of iron, and we quite wrongly assumed that the suppression of his report was to cover this apparent incompetence. In fact, of course, not only would Baxendale cheerfully have stood by his insistence that 100-year-old iron should be showing up in some visually apparent bronzing, but the start of such bronzing is already beginning to appear on the diary writing! (The honest diarists, by the way, attribute its delayed appearance to the book's having been closed for 100 years, and only starting to be examined and exposed to oxygen over the last ten or so). But down to the time of the Tower Thistle meeting and beyond, I think everyone assumed that Baxendale had presented a botched job and withdrawn it, and so we didn't begin to take his account seriously until some months later we actually saw his report and further correspondence returning his fee. Thus have we all been living and learning. Martin
Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 01 March 2001 - 09:56 am
Living and learning - indeed, and, in my opinion, its what we learned that's so valuable.