|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 04, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
College course tackles the Diary:
Archive through April 04, 2001
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 10:15 am |        | Hi Paul,
you wrote "As you are aware....the current topic is whether Anne did or did not make money from the ‘diary’..."
But Paul, just a little while ago you said you thought too much was being made of the question of Anne's bank account and the discussion should move on, so i'm not sure where you are coming from on this...
Anyhow I am not suggesting that anyone on these boards IS actually advocating the old forgery' hypothesis. I'm just suggesting that in the interests of clarity (and just out of interest really), we put all the evidence there is in favor of that hypothesis, together with all the evidence in favor of a new forgery and see where it gets us.
It could be a sort of data base to be referred back to and might help clarify these desperately muddy waters. It would certainly help me out.
John and Madeleine - as academics, I guess you get where I am coming from?
I'm definitely not suggesting a shouting match.
Just a simple statement of the evidence pro both possibilities.
Maybe following that, if the conclusion seems to be that an old forgery is virtually ruled out, it would be beneficial to use the same procedure to narrow down the possible 'suspects' of a modern fraud.
Though I tend to agree with Madeleine we have to tread very carefully here, to make sure it doesn't become ' a 'web-trial'.
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 10:27 am | | Hi, Karoline:
Nice to see you here again.
The only piece of scientific evidence that would appear to support any claim that the document is old is the ink test reported in Shirley's original hardback The Diary of Jack the Ripper and that dated the diary to the 1920's, as I recall, give or take twenty years or so.
The only other possible support for the thing being old is Anne's story that the Diary had been in her family for decades, but as we have discussed, she has produced no evidence to back up this claim. We only have her word for it.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 10:40 am | | Just another thought -
RJP and Madeleine recently made the shrewd point that while Anne Graham, as a private citizen, is not answerable to anyone but the law - Anne Graham, published author is as fully accountable as any of us are who venture into print.
I haven't read AG's book about her claimed ancestor, Florence Maybrick, "The Last Victim", so I can't comment too extensively - but that title certainly seems to imply a bid to trade off the notoriety surrounding the diary, doesn't it?
Presumably, FM is being portrayed in these words as the 'last victim' of Jack the Ripper?
Given the poor provenance of the diary and the totally unproven nature of her supposed descent from FM, is it responsible authorship to allow one's work out under such a banner?
I expect everyone here agrees that the mere existence of this book, with or without its emotive title, puts the matter of AG's involvement with the diary on a different footing and is indeed a legitimate area of enquiry here.
Does anyone know to what extent AG has used or referred to the image of Maybrick as JTR in her book and (perhaps more importantly), in any surrounding publicity?
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 10:58 am | | Karoline
I don't intend to enter into a protracted discussion with you over this, but nobody is advocating an old forgery and we are trying to narrow down the suspects of a modern forgery. Your suggestion would therefore be retrograde.
IF it should by chance transpire that Anne's 'in the family for years' story is true, then - and only then - will it become necessary to consider 'old forgery'.
But Paul, just a little while ago you said you thought too much was being made of the question of Anne's bank account and the discussion should move on, so i'm not sure where you are coming from on this...
I did not say the discussion should move on, so please don't start putting words in my mouth again. I said that showing that a cheque had been made out to Anne did not show that she had kept the money.
Anne Graham has said that she has not profited from the ‘diary’. To contradict this statement it has been shown that she received a cheque two months after the publication of Shirley’s book. But it is not known why the cheque was paid to Anne, it is not known that she kept the money and no questions have been put to those who might be able to provide the answers to those questions. Nevertheless people, apparently you among them since you think my objections surreal wriggling, are prepared to brand Anne a liar. Being more cautious, I consider the evidence incomplete and I am not prepared to pass verdict. This is not saying that we should move on. It is saying that the issue has not been resolved. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 11:00 am | | Hi, again, Karoline:
Photographs of James Maybrick are used in Anne Graham's book, and the Diary is quoted in the book. However, in her October 1995 interview with BBC Merseyside, and even in The Last Victim, Anne makes no claim of descent from Florence Maybrick, as Paul Feldman has hypothesized is the case. Rather, in both places, she seems bemused about the supposed connection and infers that it is Feldman who is making the connection, not her. As for the "claim" made in the book title which implies that Florence Maybrick was the Ripper's last victim, it might be argued that the publisher (Headline) more than the authors (Graham and Emmas) are claiming this connection. Understand, Karoline, I am not trying to let Anne off the hook. Rather, I am just trying to clarify her position as she has publicly expressed it.
Best regards
Chris |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 11:09 am | | Hi Chris,
your post arrived as i was writing the above one.
Thanks for that and for the welcome back.
I am a bit out of the running - and gosh, is that _really_ all there is in favor of an old forgery?
I'd got some sort of a confused idea there was more.
So, in fact, if the document is modern then Anne is proved to be telling falsehoods, and her credibility is finally blown out of the water.
And the only evidence that it _isn't_modern is one botched and inconclusive ink test - and her own word that she had the thing back in the middle years of the last century. plus the apparent word of her father.
So in fact we have only her word for the fact that we can take her word for anything.
And this same lady - the only one who claims the diary is old - has gone public with a book called "The Last Victim", which portrays Florence Maybrick as the wife of Jack the Ripper (am I right here?), and would be worthless if the diary was shown to be a modern forgery.
Mmhmmm....
belatedly (far behind everyone else) I come to the conclusion that unless she can offer some kind of independent confirmation for her story that it must be viewed as a likely fabrication - for reasons that are obvious.
Peter's evidence is telling but maybe unnecessary. As the author of a book written to tie in with this spurious 'old document' AG has shown an obvious motive for making up the story of its provenance in her family.
It is up to her to establish some evidence for her claim if she wants to be taken seriously.
Until she does this, there is no justification for taking her story seriously.
Whether or not she forged the thing, our principal 'pro-diary' witness is at the moment seriously lacking credibility and will remain so until she decides to face the responsibilities of authorship and either back up her claims with hard evidence, or retract them.
Chris, RJ, Peter, et al, do you broadly agree?
best wishes,
Karoline |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 11:29 am | | Hi Chris again -
(we keep crossing each other)
Yes I take your point about anne not publicly stating that she is descended from FM - though I don't think we can actually give Headline sole responsibility for the book title. As author she would probably have the right of veto, and could have raised objections what looks like quite a cynical and exploitative move.
The fact that she actively sought to attach herself publicly to the whole diary-drama by writing this book does fundamentally change a lot of things. (I'm sure you realised this ages ago, but it's only just ocurred to me)
The very fact that she has writen the book, takes her out of the private-person arena and into the public one. The fact that the book clearly ties in with the 'diary'and builds a large part of its commercial and historical value on the assumption that the diary is genuine, clearly makes her status different from the passive bystander she is so frequently presented as being.
She is a person who has sought in some measure to profit at least by association, from this artefact. This may not necessarily be a crime, but it is something we have to take into consideration when evaluating her reliability.
And really it makes it necessary for her to substantiate the claims which, presumably, are the basis of her book.
Chris - is the diary quoted in the book as if it were a reliable source? How is its history presented? Would you describe it as an honest piece of work? (I'm obviously going to have to get myself a copy)
And I'm also going to have to go away and do something else for a while
Chris - it's been really interesting exchanging these thoughts.
Karoline |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 11:40 am | | Hi, Karoline:
This may not catch you before you go but I think The Last Victim could be construed as dishonest to the extent that it takes the story of the Maybrick case, the very public trial of Florence Maybrick for murdering her husband James by arsenic poisoning, the facts of which are in the public domain, are largely verifiable, and have been discussed by a number of previous authors, and grafts onto that case a whole new story based on the unverified, almost undoubtedly bogus claim made in the Diary that James Maybrick was Jack.
Chris |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 12:05 pm | | Paul,
you wrote:
"nobody is advocating an old forgery and we are trying to narrow down the suspects of a modern forgery. Your suggestion would therefore be retrograde".
This is very much what you said to me last year when I raised the subject. I admit I really don't understand what you mean.
How can the subject of whether or not the diary is an old forgery be either "irrelevant" or "retrograde"?
Unless I'm missing something here (and sincere apologies if I am), then IF the diary _isn't_ an old forgery then Anne's whole story of its provenance is untrue and her credibility is all but destroyed.
So the first thing must be to determine whether her provenance story can possiby be true -
and the only way to do that is to determine if the diary is (or is likely to be), an old forgery.
Ergo to test Anne you must first and foremost test the 'old forgery' hypothesis. If it falls then so does she, at the first fence.
If the evidence in favor of an old forgery is really as weak as Chris suggests(andI would trust his word here before almost anyone's), then AG is already in serious trouble isn't she - because her story seems to fly in the face of all the testable historical and physical facts.
It seems to me a matter of urgency to pin this down once and for all.
Can the old forgery theory be realistically sustained?
if it can't then neither can the case for Anne as a credible witness - of anything.
Isn't this a pretty crucial question, and not retrograde at all?
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 12:34 pm | | Hi Chris
If we question the title of Anne's book then we’ll be questioning the titles of half the books written about Jack the Ripper, from The True Face of Jack the Ripper through Jack the Ripper: The Mystery Solved to Jack the Ripper: The Simple Truth, each of which may reflect the author’s personal belief about the book’s content but which others might feel requires a question mark.
As for the content, you acknowledge yourself that Anne does not stress the family connection: “Anne makes no claim of descent from Florence Maybrick”… “she seems bemused about the supposed connection”… “infers that it is Feldman who is making the connection, not her”. But even if she had claimed descent from Florence or James, surely there is nothing dishonest about Anne writing or selling a book that includes a story Anne believes to be true. It is only dishonest if she knows the story is bogus – and it is that knowledge which we’re trying to establish.
The only point where money enters into this arguement, I think, is the idea that money was the motive for Anne telling her ‘in the family for years’ story. She told this story long before the publication of her book in 1999, by which time, of course, she had been receiving her 25% for some time. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 12:53 pm | | I haven't for some time taken any notice of Caroline Anne Morris and her post of April 2nd is a good reason why.
Firstly I did not accuse her of wriggling and it's typical of the woman that she seems unable to accept any criticism of Anne Graham even when backed up with evidence.
She says: "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" I quote from my earlier post:
"Paul Begg makes the interesting and valid point that this payment
would have to refer to the Advance against royalties
mentioned in Shirley's book p. 11: "...to be divided equally
between Michael and me and to be returned should the Diary
prove to be a forgery." This is what I initially thought
when I saw the statement...(I'm not listing my calculations based on the Rupert Crew account for the month of December 1993 which would be tedious to repeat. See my post 27/03/01 for details.) When my calculations showed that the amount concerned was more than the amount referred to as an advance by Shirley, I said: "So where does the other money come from and why was half of it sent directly to Anne Barrett?" In short, there is more money here than would be evidenced by an advance. No wriggle here, but an honest point acknowledging Paul Begg's suggestion but stating that there is still something here that we don't understand.
She next says: ". Wriggle number two: Peter has avoided the question of whether Anne
kept any of this money." I do not accuse Caroline Anne Morris of completely misunderstanding the situation here but I do accuse her of pretending to misunderstand in order to make a snide comment which she and everybody here must know is impossible to answer without the cooperation of Anne Graham. Are any of us here the masters of her bank account? Can we say that after receiving this cheque for £3666.74 and paying it into her bank account she didn't withdraw the cash and give it all to her husband? She might equally have kept it there to pay for her living expenses - a sensible move as she was shortly to leave her husband. I have shown that Anne received money from the diary; it is sheer stupidity to expect me to show what she did with it when she got it. This is why I have said twice: ASK ANNE. The only wriggling here is Mrs. Morris trying to find some reason to keep some life in the "Anne never got any money from the diary and had to be forced to take it" hypothesis. As to whether Anne: "apparently
made no approaches to Doreen for a share after that first payment?" we will have to wait for a reply from Doreen for that. We don't know it for certain because we haven't bothered to treat Anne as anything other than a battered wife trying to do her best for her child. Real research has to be done by asking questions and backing up those answers with documentation where available.
Mrs. Morris says: "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...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" Here she is of course talking about herself. Her method of research is to make jokes on someones name (for those in the US, "Birk..." is someone exceptionally stupid and "Bich..." is self explanatory.
And again: "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." But details of a Formby family from the census have no relationship with the current diary provenance that it came via a Yapp/Formby friendship. Whether my census entry was of the right family or whether Keith's was (he has never posted details of that census entry or the documents supporting it) all it would show would be whether a Formby lived close or distant to a Yapp. Sheer nonsense from Mrs. Morris. And: "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" Even a professional genealogist like Keith Skinner can miss or misconstrue details concerning for example the Gertrude Conconi matter.
And in common with all those people who spend their lives asking questions and never listening to the answers, Mrs. Morris wriggles off into the sunset, and her normal salutation: "Love" at the end has the aroma of a very sour snake venom. |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 12:54 pm | | Karoline,
If you don’t understand me, you don’t understand me, but I can’t make it any clearer to you and I’m not going to get involved in trying to explain it to you all over again and then be accused of attacking you.
Everyone is agreed that the ‘diary’ is a modern forgery and we are trying to ascertain who forged it. Anne’s ‘in the family for years’ story is an invention, but is it her invention or is it a story she believes because it was told to her by someone she trusts (her father for example)? If the process of elimination doesn’t focus on someone and also isolate the most pertinent questions that that person should be asked, we may eventually have to consider the possibility of an old forgery. We are a long way off that, in my opinion. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 12:56 pm | | Hi All,
The first thing, I would say, since everyone appears to be agreed about Anne's lack of credibility here (she appears to have no way of proving her story true, either if she wants to prove it to us, or be taken seriously as an author), is to persuade Melvin Harris to co-operate with Shirley's perfectly reasonable request - to pass on her letters (she has sent at least two, because the first apparently went astray) to the newspaper editor, to see if he would be willing to share the information in private, that Melvin claims would prove Anne's story false.
If everyone is also agreed that proving Anne's story false would be a very good way of pinning this down once and for all, and that proving the diary old appears to be a non-starter, it would be great to hear a few more voices calling for Melvin to pass on Shirley's letter.
This may be a lazy way to proceed, to fall back on Melvin for help, but it may prove to be the quickest, for those who really want to see this thing resolved. If the newspaper editor won't help Shirley, then we'll have to think again. In the meantime, the wheels of the diary industry will continue to turn, putting money into Anne's bank account among others, however bitter and twisted and stressed up this may be making some of us.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 01:23 pm | | Hi Peter,
Real research has to be done by asking questions and backing up those answers with documentation where available.
I am not a researcher, but you, I believe, are researching into the diary, which you believe is a modern forgery, presented to the public for financial gain.
I do wish you well in that research, even though I don't expect you to believe that, and look forward to seeing the results, as and when you get some answers from Doreen Montgomery. Perhaps we should both wait before either of us jump to any more conclusions about Anne's finances. As Shirley has advised, it is a constant danger that a straightforward story can become distorted when we only know, or are told, half of it.
I am, however, at a total loss to understand why my words on Formby/Yapp are nonsense. You have shown that one Elizabeth Formby (but not the one who was Billy Graham's step-granny) lived too far from Yapp to be a likely friend. I simply wondered why on earth RJ appeared to be impressed with this piece of useless evidence.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 01:45 pm | | Caz--Hello. Let me apologise if I misunderstood your position about the diary being an 'old hoax' or an old document. I know, of course, that you don't believe the diary is genuine. It just seems to me that you (and Paul) have stated several times that you feel that Mike never had the faintest idea where the diary came from, which implies, of course, that Anne's story might be true. Is this fair? (I don't wish to speak for you, so please correct me if I'm wrong). You've also suggested several times --and with some justification-- that Keith Skinner is in the best position to know whether Anne is being truthful or not; he has, in fact, arrived at the conclusion that she is telling the truth. It would be ludicrous to argue that Keith doesn't have a profound knowledge of the Maybrick material and a profound knowledge of the various people involved with the diary. He obviously does.
All I have wished to do is to determine whether or not there is any documentation that might back-up Anne's claim. Being strictly logical, this doesn't resolve whether or not Anne's story is true; it does, however, answer whether or not Anne's claims --if they even are her claims-- are valid as history.
It seems absurd to me to suggest that the genealogy behind Anne's "in the family for years" story isn't highly relevant to any discussion of the diary. Afterall, it is the provenance that we are currently stuck with(!) Being the perversely curious devil that I am, whenever somebody suggests that a topic is taboo or off-limits, I am more inclined than ever to want to examine it.
It would certainly be of interest if someone would post some documentation that connects Edith Formby to Alice Yapp, or Florie to Henry Flinn, or so on. Anne Graham and Carol Emmas write in the Last Victim that:
'According to rumour, it was during one protracted stay in England towards the end of 1879 that Florence embarked on her first love affair. It was even suggested that she gave birth to an illegitimate son as a teenager. The account continues that she placed the child, William after her father, in the hands of a Hartlepool blacksmith and his wife named Graham and continued to support him financially' (p 27.)
Now this alleged illegitimate child --of course-- is Billy Graham's father. And Billy Graham is supposed to have heard of the diary as far back as 1943. Obviously, this story is of prime importance to the provenance of the diary. All I want to know is this: what is the nature of this 'rumor'? What is the 'account' that is referred to? Is it a letter, a newspaper report, a documents of some sort? It's a remarkable claim. What exactly is the evidence that William Graham received continued financial support from Florie or from Henry Flinn? Certainly, if this can be proved, then a huge step forward has been made toward proving the diary might be genuine.
But if no documentation is ever produced, then I can only assume that Melvin Harris was correct when he suggested that this 'rumor' only amounts to Paul Feldman's modern, unsubstantiated theory. It seems exceedingly strange to me that Anne seems to imply that she isn't even sure whether these stories are true or not--they are Feldman's theories. Yet, Feldman seems to imply that Anne 'confessed' to him, and that Billy Graham confirmed his suspicions! The whole thing seems oddly circular, as if Anne & Feldy were just playing off one another. And --unfortunately--I suppose this scenerio will have to be my final opinion unless something is produced to show me otherwise. I reckon that's fair enough.
But, as I ready to post this, I see that now everyone seems to be willing to admit that there is no documentation to suggest that Anne is really related to Florie or that Yapp knew Formby. (Is this fair?) So what, may I ask, are we left arguing about?
As Paul suggests above, Anne could conceivably still be 'off-the-hook' because the genealogy is someone else's theory, and all she knows is that she saw the diary in 1968/69. Unfortunately, however, Anne evidently told Shirley Harrison at some point that her father would take her to visit the grave of someone that he claimed was 'family'. Later, returning, Anne found out this was the grave of Henry Flinn....the same fellow that Feldman suggested was Florie's lover(!) In telling this story, and in using the 'rumors' in her book on Florie, it seems that Anne is attempting to corroborate the 'in the family for years story'. But if there is no documentation of any kind, am I wrong in coming to the conclusion that these are no more than tall tales, or as you might say 'useless information'? What I'm left with is that there is no reason whatsoever to believe the diary is old, nor that Anne's story is true.
Best wishes,
RJ Palmer |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 03:34 pm | | Hi RJ,
No, of course you are not 'wrong' in coming to your own conclusions. You do so by reading all the stuff that everyone else has read, and you make up your own mind. I don't think I'm trying to convince you otherwise.
My own position on the diary is that I don't really have anything much that I can put my faith in. I have said before that I don't believe it was written by James Maybrick, nor that he was Jack, but that I can't see either how an old hoax could have found its way into the Graham household. But I am stuck with the dilemma that the people closest to Anne and Mike, and who have been at the heart of the investigation since the start, can't accept that either of them were involved in forging the diary. And the evidence does not appear to leap out at me to show that either of them even knew it was definitely a modern fake when Mike took the thing to London.
Perhaps I just need a bit more convincing, and that is why I will continue to ask questions.
As you said, and I totally agree with you:
Being the perversely curious devil that I am, whenever somebody suggests that a topic is taboo or off-limits, I am more inclined than ever to want to examine it.
This goes for Melvin's information too, and his apparent refusal to pass on Shirley's letter. And if I feel my questions are being ignored, or thought unnecessary, or worse, actively discouraged, this also makes me even more curious.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 03:46 pm | | Hi, RJ, Karoline, Paul, et al.:
Would it be fair to say then that as RJ is saying, Anne Graham in The Last Victim builds on the shaky hypotheses based on rumor and family tradition begun by Paul Feldman in Jack the Ripper: The Last Victim? Although, as I stated, Anne does not overtly state that she is Florence Maybrick's descendent, the text of her book builds the case that she is possibly descended from the illegitimate union of Florence with a Liverpool businessman named Henry Flinn. The child of the union, as RJ says, was named William after Florence's father, William Chandler, and placed in the hands of a Hartlepool blacksmith and his wife named Graham. Now why Hartlepool? We are told that Billy Graham's father came from Hartlepool, some 150 miles from Liverpool. The attempt is made to link with Hartlepool the Baron Von Roques, Florence's stepfather, with whom Emmas and Graham theorize she may also have had an affair, because he would supposedly sail from there to eastern Europe. This is all, just as in Feldman, so much pie in the sky unprovable supposition. It almost seems as if Graham learned the technique from Feldman of building one unproven theory on another unproven theory, a kind of slight of hand that is all too common in Ripperology and is certainly a hallmark of both their books.
Chris George |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 06:02 pm | | Caz,
I don't want to become involved in this particular type of spiteful wrangling - but I have to say that it strikes me as disgracefully poor manners to disparage Peter's hard work and professionalism in the way that you have.
I think he would be more inclined to believe your claim to "wish him well", if you were not so ready to attack him at almost every opportunity.
Is it true you have been making fun of his name?
What kind of way to behave is that?
Forgive me for suggesting that there seems a certain bias evident here. It's wrong for Melvin Harris to employ ad hominems - but okay if we or our chums do it?
I suggest everyone stops being rude to or about anyone - including you Caz.
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 06:54 pm | | RJP,
I am as bemused as you. I had no idea that Anne Graham's story had been written off as false.
That does change things.
Okay, let's recap:
The story of AG's descent from Florence Maybrick is admited by everyone here to be false, and the whole diary-provenance based on it is also bogus.
But Paul suggests AG might still be innocent - because she could just be repeating a story told her by other members of her family - who were (presumably) the real forgers.
At the same time, I've been told today that no one believes the diary is old - everyone here accepts it is a modern forgery.
So - in order for AG's story to be true, the diary would have to have been forged by members of her family, before 1969, and yet not so long ago as to qualify as an 'old forgery'?
Is this about right?
What kind of window does this leave us with?
What actually is the definition of 'old' and 'new'as applied here?
Most importantly -
Is there any good evidence to show the diary is likely to be a modern forgery written before 1969?
It all hinges on that vital physical and historical data. Does it support AG's story?
And,as RJ says, if the family genealogy is acknowledged as a fake - what do we make of her claim to have been taken to Henry Flinn's grave?
Maybe she was taken there as part of a cunning bid on the real forger's part to fool her into believing she was the man's relative?
I daresay someone will suggest this or some variation on this. But in the real non-diary world, that is surely a non-starter.
If the genealogy is false - and apparently everyone now accepts it is - then AG's story of visiting the graveside must be false too.The intent to deceive is brought right home to her ,as is the motive for deception (the money she was getting).
By the way - what difference does it make if the money AG was getting from the diary was an advance or royalties?
As an author I am well aware of the fact (as Paul must be too) that an advance is and 'advance against royalties' - a pre-payment of royalties before publication. In other words the advance IS royalties - but just paid 'in advance' hence the name.
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 07:00 pm | | Hi, all,
I enjoy this room and feel grateful that frequently esteemed authors, researchers, and journalists visit and share information with us.
I fear that the current level of personal attacks and insults will result in those with intelligent contributions being discouraged from taking these message boards seriously. That would be a loss for all of us.
Perhaps a message board topic should be created entitled "Petty Rivalries" for those who prefer insults to information rather than polluting other topics with their bile. This would also allow those of us who want a serious discussion to avoid wasting our time with such trivial nonsense.
Rich |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 09:57 pm | | Dear Caroline & Paul,
I do see what you both mean about this 'specific example' of posting pseudonynously. It is the motive which is behind such a post,and its intended impact.But as Coroline implied it could backfire.Forgive my ignorence but if the letter in question was sent by you to another party 8 years ago, then why would that person wish to post it pseudonymously when people know who you sent it to ? Could this letter have somehow got into someone elses hands.Surely once this letter appeared suspicion would point in the direcion of the person who received from you, and they would know this.So what was the point in a pseudonymous post.Do you see my point ? |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 10:42 pm | | Hi Karoline,
I become, by nature, uneasy whenever I see claims about what "everybody knows" or about what "everyone here admits." Especially in cases of this sort, where we are dealing with a text of unknown origins and the various, interested interpretations of other people's stories, it seems to me very difficult to assert universal claims to knowledge. So, in the interest of care and patience, I thought I'd offer a partial sketch of what I think I know and of some of the things I am fairly confident I can conclude.
I know, for instance, that at some point in time someone sat down, and putting pen to paper, composed sixty-three pages of prose and failed poetry designed to make the reader believe that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper.
I am fairly confident that this person was not James Maybrick. I say this not primarily because of the handwriting difficulties or the scientific tests, but because of the text itself; because of its meta-dramatic structure, its well-made narrative of beginning, middle, and end; because of the way it appears to have been written fairly quickly with several entries composed in a strikingly similar hand that suggests single sittings; because of internal textual evidence concerning the Ripper case; and because it is simply and honestly the sense I get while reading this. None of these things are conclusive, of course.
I know that in March 1992 Mike Barrett took this alleged journal to Doreen Montgomery. I do not know where or how it came into Mike's possession. I know the story he has told about receiving it from Tony Devereux and I know the way in which his daughter has seemingly confirmed certain aspects of this story and I know the alternative, supplemental tale his wife has at one time told about giving it to the man Mike said gave it to him. I know nothing at all about the truth of any of these stories, really. But do I know that Mike had the diary in 1992.
I also know, by the way, that the diary claims to have been written from April 1888 to May 1889 (the time of the murders and shortly thereafter) and that the arrival of the diary at Doreen Montgomery's office consequently occurred four years after the centennial anniversary of the case and the increase in publicity and the publication of several books about the Ripper that accompanied it.
I know that Mike Barret and his family lived in Liverpool, the diary was "found" in Liverpool and the Maybrick case was a celebrated piece of Liverpool history.
But once the diary is in the hands of Doreen Montgomery and from there ventures into the hands of publishers and agents and film producers and analysts, everything changes and people's motives and desires and interests and opportunities all begin to develop and to transform.
This last point is key.
In all the rethinking and investigation that has been going on here over the past few days, I have not seen a single piece of evidence or even a suggestion of evidence that Anne or Mike actually wrote this diary. In fact, the discussion here has been entirely about their actions after the diary was in the pipeline of evaluation, publication, and production. By that time, it was, of course, a part of their lives and the events of its reception would necessarily help determine their actions for good or ill, in the name of honesty or in the name of deceit.
But none of this in any way addresses the questions of who wrote the diary, how they wrote it, why they wrote it, or when they wrote it.
All this talk of financial motives is only relevant once the diary is made public and we all already know who made it public and we assume their behavior is in part determined after the fact by their decision to do so. This tells us nothing about whether or not they wrote the text or created the volume or were, in any way, forgers.
And this is where we return, I think to reading. Anything Anne might say here and now, including the publication of her own book about Florence, at least in part, because of the "revelations" that were born within the diary's pages, speaks only to her choices made as things were happening to her after 1992.
What do we know about what happened before 1992?
Not what has Anne claimed happened or what has Paul claimed happened or what has Mike claimed happened or what has Melvin promised to someday help reveal happened, but what do we actually know about what happened before 1992?
I'm afraid the answer there, so far, is nothing.
That is why I think Caroline still has so many questions and why Paul is calling for care and why Madeleine is worried about the rhetorics of trial and conviction and questions of probity and why, finally, I am afraid that questions of "burdens of proof" are probably misplaced. Burdens of proof are only genuinely burdens if they are accepted. If the one making the claim for knowledge or truth refuses to accept to call for proof, lets the call go unanswered, then any talk of a "burden" becomes futile. It is always up to everyone who writes whether they wish to accept the calls that are sent their way in response once their writing has been disseminated. By not answering, by letting the call go unheeded, of course, they run the risk of being accused of lying or of deceit, of at least of being labelled unreliable and being disbelieved. But that in no way constitutes clear or decisive evidence of anything specifically except a choice to allow these determinations to stand unchallenged, for whatever reason.
So, I am afraid that many of the pieces of information that appear in your list above are evidence only of Anne Graham's choices after the diary appeared and was entered into the public discourse. Consequently, those choices must be seen in light of quickly occurring events of that time and tell us nothing about what actually happened to Anne or to her family or to this text before 1992.
I know nothing, by the way, from what Mike has told everyone, since his narratives have been repeatedly inconsistent, contradictory, and thoroughly muddled, apparently by his own personal difficulties. Therefore, I do not know that the diary was in Mike's possession beginning in May of 1991. I do not know where it was in May of 1991. Nor, I think, does anyone now with us on these boards.
I am sorry if this has all only served to further confuse matters.
I think the state of what we do not know is still overwhelming in scope and I would hesitate to draw conclusions about this text or its history based on the sort of arguments being made either in Paul Feldman's leaping prose or in Melvin Harris' teasing promises.
That is why I and I think several other people in this discussion are hesitant about where we are going and about what exactly we are trying to determine.
Again, I am now afraid that this has been of no help whatsoever.
I will no doubt have the opportunity to try all of this again at a later date.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 11:14 pm | | Hi, John:
Thanks, John. Rather than your synopsis of the situation in regard to the Diary being "of no help whatsoever" I think you have provided a very fair and clear view of what is certain and what is unknown about the Diary and about Mike and Anne's part in the story. I thank you for taking the time to write it.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 01:44 am | | John--Though I like your calm reasoning, I really don't think that the situation is quite as bleak as you suggest. We do have the ability to use reason & logic to reach intelligent conclusions. (How do we know the earth is round? Well, we can stand on a peak by the ocean, and watch ships sail away, and notice that their flags are the last thing visible as they sink below the horizon. When there's a lunar eclipse, we can notice that the earth's shadow on the moon is round).
If Dr. Baxendal placed a bit of diary ink in some distilled water & Pyridine and noticed that it disolved while he watched, we can rightly come to the conclusion that the ink was newish. If Rendell studied the diary with ultraviolet light and noticed no ink 'off-set' on the opposing pages, we might reason that this supports this conclusion. If a square shape existed on the page opposite the diary's first page, and the diary itself starts in mid-sentence, and a corner of what appears to be a photograph is in the binding, certainly we can figure something out. And if Nickell, Kurantz, Owens, and others noticed no age-bronzing of the ink in 1993, but it showed up later, we can come again make logical deductions.
Certainly we can compare people's statements with what we know about the forensic & textual evidence, and come to logical conclusions, can't we?
Best wishes. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 01:49 am | | | Did Mike Barrett make more than the two sworn affidavits that are posted on this site? From the context, there seems to have been at least one other. If possible, could someone post this? Thanks. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 04:12 am | | Hi John
I really wish I had written that. An excellent presentation of the position. |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 04:18 am | | Hi John,
you wrote:
"I become, by nature, uneasy whenever I see claims about what "everybody knows" or about what "everyone here admits"
I agree with you completely, I hate generalities, but if you read back over yesterday's posts - particularly those from Paul and Caz - you'll see I was referring to what I had been told yesterday on this board.
According to what emerged yesterday, the current state of things is:
1.No one is currently arguing or believing in the possibility of an old forgery, the evidence for which is negligible.
and
2. no one any longer believes that Anne's provenance story is true.
With this in mind I tend to agree with RJP that you are being perhaps too bleak in your analysis.
After all, if we become metaphysical for a moment - how can anything ever be termed finally proved? All we have as tools of observation are our own flawed senses, and the purist (or determined obfuscator) will always be ultimately able to invoke these flaws as means of overturning almost anything.
In place of the impossible goal of perfect proof, what we usually practise in the realm of historical (and indeed legal) investigation is a measure of probability.
When I wrote a biog of Lewis Carroll a couple of years ago, I discovered several anomalies in his life thst were suggestive. The volumes of his diary (he actually DID write this one), were missing for the years 1858-62 and pages had been cut out of other volumes covering the adjoining years. In the volume after the missing two he suddenly for the first time in his life began expressing bouts of tormented but unidentified guilt. At the same time he was also writing the only love poetry he ever published - tormented stuff about guilty sexual pleasure.
Well, it occurred to me (it had never apparently occurred to anyone else) that all this stuff mught be related in some way and point to a quite probable and rather secret love affair in his life during this all-important time, an affair which had been subsequently hushed up by his family - hence the missing volumes of his diary.
Of course I have no proof - but the data as presented suggests this, or something very like this, as the most probable exlanation.
In life, legally, historically, this is often all we can do - opt for the most rational probability, even if it can't be proved.
No, we can't prove aliens don't abduct us into space ships - but I think it's more probable that they dont.
No we can't prove the dark side of the moon isn't made of spaghetti - but I assume the huge probability that it isn't.
With the Maybrick diary, again we have no proof but we do have hugely telling and significant facts that incline any reasonable person to recognise what is a first probability.
1.We have hard evidence that the thing is a modern forgery (as Paul tells me everyone now accepts).
2.It first appeared in Liverpool, and can only be provably traced to AG and her husband.
3.Both AG and her husband have told repeated lies about its provenance.
4.AG and her husband have profited considerably by the artefact, taking a share of its royalties and AG writing a book based on it.
5.AG's husband had confessed to being involved in the forgery
Is it not fair to say on this basis that their complicity in the forgery is established 'beyond a reasonable doubt'?
Of course 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is not beyond ANY doubt. But very little in human affairs is ever that.
The alternative possibilities to the simple assumption of ASG's complicity seem to involve a large degree of basic improbability, which in a reaonable discussion might be seen to negate them from the outset.
But let's be rigorous - let's look at one alternative suggested by Paul here yesterday:
Paul suggests that AG might still be innocent. He suggests she did not make up the bogus provenance story she told Feldman - but simply repeated in all innocence a story told her by another member of her family.
For this to be true, the diary would have to have been forged presumably by a member of Anne's family, before 1969 (when Anne claims she first saw it), yet not long enough ago to be considered an old forgery (since this is ruled out as a possibility).
The forgers would then have had to simply sit on their creation and do nothing about.
They would also have had to tell AG the falsd story deliberately to mislead her - so that when the diary eventually became public property, she would be able to unwittingly give it spurious support.
I can't prove this didn't happen - but, friends - is it likley?
The question must be - as I said last night - is this a more reasonable inference than that Mike and AG were simply involved in constructing and placing the forgery themselves?
To take the most basic question - is there anything to suggest the diary was most likely written before 1969 but not earlier than, say, 1950?
John, remember Mr Occam and his razor?
All things being equal the simplest explanation is probably the correct one.
That's a good axiom, which is why it is so often used.
All things being equal the fact of Mike and AG as complicit in this forgery - either as co-creators with a third party or on their own - is established beyond a resasonable doubt.
If other commentators here believe all things are not equal - then it's rather up to them to show just cause why a less likely more complex explanation should be preferred over a more likely simple one
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 04:49 am | | RJP
I agree that we can make reasoned judgements, as, indeed, John has done in his conclusion that the ‘diary’ was not written by James Maybrick, and the scientific evidence, insofar as we are capable of understanding and trusting it, also supports certain conclusions. That conclusion is that the ‘diary’ is a recent forgery. Thus we are trying to assemble the evidence, such as it is, in an effort to isolate the most probable forgers and hopefully whittling them down to one or two to whom we may, if we’re lucky, be able to put some pertinent and telling questions. We can at least say what on the basis of the evidence as we have it the balance of probabilities suggests is the most likely solution. This is what historians do. No historian can ever say what did happen (except in the broad sense that we know a battle was fought at Hastings between Harold and William in 1066). All he can say is what probably happened. That, surely, is what we are trying to do here. But we have ‘evidence’ – basic source material – of variable quality. It is essential that we understand what that evidence is. So it is important to establish what that cheque payment to Anne was for and what she did with the money before we use it to brand her a liar.
You wrote to Caz: It just seems to me that you (and Paul) have stated several times that you feel that Mike never had the faintest idea where the diary came from, which implies, of course, that Anne's story might be true. Is this fair? (I don't wish to speak for you, so please correct me if I'm wrong).
All I have done is present an assessment of Mike’s actions and statements and postulated that he did not know the ‘diary’ was forged. This is not a belief. It is simply a hypothesis to be tested against the evidence. And if it should be generally agreed that it looks like Mike didn’t know the ‘diary’ was forged, then we look for the forger elsewhere and repeat the procedure with that person. The only alternative to doing this is to not properly evaluate the evidence, assume that Mike forged the ‘diary’ because he’s the most likely person to have done it and to condemn him. Thus far this is approximately what has been happening. But in presenting my assessment of Mike’s actions, I am not saying ‘hey folks, this is what I believe’, I’m simply suggesting that the assessment should be evaluated. Of course, the gut reaction could be right. Indeed, it probably is right, as gut reactions so often are, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t evaluate alternative arguments.
Should it be agreed that Mike might not have known that the ‘diary’ was a forgery, then we move on to the next people on the list, looking perhaps at Tony Devereux (as Ivor Edwards has, I think, suggested because of his printing knowledge) or to Anne because of her ‘in the family for years’ story. As far as Anne is concerned, her ‘in the family for years’ story is either true or it is a lie. Simple. But if it is a lie, why is it a lie? Maybe she told her ‘in the family for years’ story because she genuinely wanted to get Feldy of the back of her in-laws. Maybe she told it because she maliciously wanted to strip Mike of his remaining claim to fame. Maybe she told it because she wanted money promised by Feldman? Maybe she told it because she wanted her 25%. Maybe she told it to protect her father, who in fact forged the ‘diary’. Maybe she told it because she believes it to be true, having been lied to herself by someone she’s trusted? Maybe she told it because it is true? Maybe. Maybe. Maybe. We don’t know. That’s what we have to find out. And the answer determines our next step, because if Anne invented the whole story just to get Feldman of the back of her in-laws, then Anne might in fact have no more of an idea where the ‘diary’ came from than Noddy. So we look at Tony Devereux, as Ivor has suggested. But people seem happy to condemn Anne even in their ignorance. I don’t agree with that. As with Mike, by analysing the evidence we can see which ‘maybe’ is the most likely to be correct and formulate a few relevant questions and ask them. Keith Skinner has already done this and he has reached the conclusion that Anne is telling the truth. We don’t have to agree with him, but his opinions are salt to add to the mix.
And by all means evaluate the genealogy (I have nothing to contribute to that discussion, by the way, so it might be a good one to discuss and getting rid of my comments!). It isn’t off-limits or taboo. For me, though, it is running instead of walking. Even if the genealogy is complete and utter rubbish, does that tell us when the ‘diary’ was written? No. Does it tell us who wrote it? No. All it does is tell us that the story given by Anne and Billy is wrong. They may have invented it. They may believe it because it’s what they were told. It may have some factual foundation, but be way off mark, as a lot of family remembrances are. If we analyse Anne’s story and conclude that she is telling what she believes to be the truth, then is the time when we can analyse the genealogy and when our analysis might tell us something useful. Of course, you can analyse the genealogy now and conclude that it’s rubbish. The problem with this is that it doesn’t tell us if Anne if reciting what she believes to be the truth or is telling a lie. Maybe trying to answer this is just insufferably boring pedantry. I’m not sure that it isn’t. But I think it relevant nonetheless.
Now, some people may be moved to irritation by all these maybes, they may even argue that the nit-picking maybes are doing the forgers job for them, they may even feel that it is just so much time-wasting obfuscation that obscures a blindingly obvious truth. Maybe they are right. But as far as I am concerned the way forward is to produce a checklist of possible alternatives like this and don’t jump to conclusions. (And as a quiet aside, the information Melvin is sitting on may be that Anne’s dad fed her the story she’s telling; maybe Melvin just doesn’t want Anne hurt by the knowledge she was deceived and lied to by someone she loved, irrespective of what his reasons for lying may have been. We don’t know.)
Lacking John’s careful clarity, I hope this makes sense. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 04:55 am | | Chris
building one unproven theory on another unproven theory...
How would you describe anyone trying to make sense of all the snippets of any verbal tradition handed down through a family? |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 05:26 am | | Karoline
We would seem to have Anne profiting considerably by the artefact… Really? We have her reluctantly accepting 25% of the royalties when persuaded to do so and we have her developing a not unreasonable interest in Florence Maybrick and being fortunate enough to have her researches published as a book (at least, these claims have not thus far been proven a lie). I wouldn’t have thought this was a lot to hang her on.
no one any longer believes that Anne's provenance story is true – I don’t know on what evidence this statement is based. We don’t know whether it is true or not. It doesn’t look likely, but that’s not the same as saying it isn’t true. And Keith Skinner, who has had far more opportunity to evaluate Anne than any of us, believes her and believes Billy Graham, whom he met. Maybe he’s wrong, but we shouldn’t be hasty in dismissing him should we?
And anyway, even if Anne's provenance story is a farrago of fiction inspired by and spun to a gullible Feldman for no purpose other than to stop him harassing her in-laws, that may make her a liar and guilty of profiting from royalties and a book, but it does not make her the forger. Maybe Ivor Edwards’s thoughts about someone with a printer's background are correct. |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 05:26 am | | Hi John,
you wrote:
"I become, by nature, uneasy whenever I see claims about what "everybody knows" or about what "everyone here admits"
I agree with you completely, I hate generalities, but if you read back over yesterday's posts - particularly those from Paul and Caz - you'll see I was referring to what I had been told yesterday on this board.
According to what emerged yesterday, the current state of things is:
1.No one is currently arguing or believing in the possibility of an old forgery, the evidence for which is negligible.
and
2. no one any longer believes that Anne's provenance story is true.
With this in mind I tend to agree with RJP that you are being perhaps too bleak in your analysis.
After all, if we become metaphysical for a moment - how can anything ever be termed finally proved? All we have as tools of observation are our own flawed senses, and the purist (or determined obfuscator) will always be ultimately able to invoke these flaws as means of overturning almost anything.
In place of the impossible goal of perfect proof, what we usually practise in the realm of historical (and indeed legal) investigation is a measure of probability.
When I wrote a biog of Lewis Carroll a couple of years ago, I discovered several anomalies in his life thst were suggestive. The volumes of his diary (he actually DID write this one), were missing for the years 1858-62 and pages had been cut out of other volumes covering the adjoining years. In the volume after the missing two he suddenly for the first time in his life began expressing bouts of tormented but unidentified guilt. At the same time he was also writing the only love poetry he ever published - tormented stuff about guilty sexual pleasure.
Well, it occurred to me (it had never apparently occurred to anyone else) that all this stuff mught be related in some way and point to a quite probable and rather secret love affair in his life during this all-important time, an affair which had been subsequently hushed up by his family - hence the missing volumes of his diary.
Of course I have no proof - but the data as presented suggests this, or something very like this, as the most probable exlanation.
In life, legally, historically, this is often all we can do - opt for the most rational probability, even if it can't be proved.
No, we can't prove aliens don't abduct us into space ships - but I think it's more probable that they dont.
No we can't prove the dark side of the moon isn't made of spaghetti - but I assume the huge probability that it isn't.
With the Maybrick diary, again we have no proof but we do have hugely telling and significant facts that incline any reasonable person to recognise what is a first probability.
1.We have hard evidence that the thing is a modern forgery (as Paul tells me everyone now accepts).
2.It first appeared in Liverpool, and can only be provably traced to AG and her husband.
3.Both AG and her husband have told repeated lies about its provenance.
4.AG and her husband have profited considerably by the artefact, taking a share of its royalties and AG writing a book based on it.
5.AG's husband had confessed to being involved in the forgery
Is it not fair to say on this basis that their complicity in the forgery is established 'beyond a reasonable doubt'?
Of course 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is not beyond ANY doubt. But very little in human affairs is ever that.
The alternative possibilities to the simple assumption of ASG's complicity seem to involve a large degree of basic improbability, which in a reaonable discussion might be seen to negate them from the outset.
But let's be rigorous - let's look at one alternative suggested by Paul here yesterday:
Paul suggests that AG might still be innocent. He suggests she did not make up the bogus provenance story she told Feldman - but simply repeated in all innocence a story told her by another member of her family.
For this to be true, the diary would have to have been forged presumably by a member of Anne's family, before 1969 (when Anne claims she first saw it), yet not long enough ago to be considered an old forgery (since this is ruled out as a possibility).
The forgers would then have had to simply sit on their creation and do nothing about.
They would also have had to tell AG the falsd story deliberately to mislead her - so that when the diary eventually became public property, she would be able to unwittingly give it spurious support.
I can't prove this didn't happen - but, friends - is it likley?
The question must be - as I said last night - is this a more reasonable inference than that Mike and AG were simply involved in constructing and placing the forgery themselves?
To take the most basic question - is there anything to suggest the diary was most likely written before 1969 but not earlier than, say, 1950?
John, remember Mr Occam and his razor?
All things being equal the simplest explanation is probably the correct one.
That's a good axiom, which is why it is so often used.
All things being equal the fact of Mike and AG as complicit in this forgery - either as co-creators with a third party or on their own - is established beyond a resasonable doubt.
If other commentators here believe all things are not equal - then it's rather up to them to show just cause why a less likely more complex explanation should be preferred over a more likely simple one
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 06:00 am | | Karoline
We have hard evidence that the thing is a modern forgery (as Paul tells me everyone now accepts).
What I actually said was: "Everyone is agreed that the ‘diary’ is a modern forgery and we are trying to ascertain who forged it…If the process of elimination doesn’t focus on someone...we may eventually have to consider the possibility of an old forgery..."
I did not mention anything about 'hard evidence' that it is a modern forgery and, indeed, I wouldn't have mentioned the possibility of having to consider an old forgery if it was ruled out by hard evidence. |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 07:19 am | | HI Paul,
I wrote:
"We would seem to have Anne profiting considerably by the artefact..."
You wrote:
"Really? We have her reluctantly accepting 25% of the royalties when persuaded to do so and we have her developing a not unreasonable interest in Florence Maybrick and being fortunate enough to have her researches published as a book"
With respect Paul, we in fact have AG profiting considerably from the artefact.
There is no proof that AG was ever reluctant to accept payment for the diary - this is all supposition based on unsupported testimony.
The only hard evidence provided so far is that a four figure sum of money was paid to her as an advance against royalties.
I think most people would describe this as 'profiting considerably' from the diary even if this was all she ever received. But since she received an advance against royalties, she has presumably been continuing to receive royalties ever since - at least this must be the assumed truth until someone shows evidence to think otherwise. This must amount to a pretty considerable sum by now. perhaps someone has more details on this?
I wrote:
"no one any longer believes that Anne's provenance story is true"
You wrote:
"I don’t know on what evidence this statement is based. We don’t know whether it is true or not"
Paul, the statement is based on the evidence of your own words of yesterday, which were:
"Anne’s ‘in the family for years’ story is an invention"
Maybe you could clarify for us all here - do you think her story is "an invention" as you said yesterday or do you think it "doesn’t look likely, but that’s not the same as saying it isn’t true.", as you say today?
You wrote;
"And Keith Skinner, who has had far more opportunity to evaluate Anne than any of us, believes her and believes Billy Graham, whom he met. Maybe he’s wrong, but weshouldn’t be hasty in dismissing him should we?"
No we shouldn't be hasty - but since this argument has been going on in just this fashion for at least three years I don't think 'haste' is anyone's problem.
But we seem to be in some considerable semantic difficulty here.
Yesterday you told me, and I quote:
"Everyone is agreed that the ‘diary’ is a modern forgery and we are trying to ascertain who forged it"
You gave this as the reason why, in your view, there was no point in collating the data in favor of an old forgery.
Today you say we shouldn't be too hasty in dismissing Keith's testimony.
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these two mutually contradictory positions?
If, as you say, everyone believes the diary is a modern forgery, then doesn't it follow automatically that Keith's testimony has been rejected, hastily or not?
And if Keith's testimony hasn't been rejected then doesn't it follow automatically that "everyone" is not, after all agreed, that the thing is a modern forgery?
Either the possibility of an old forgery is still open - in which case my suggestion of yesterday about collating the data in its favor is NOT a waste of time (as you claimed), but essential.
Or it isn't still open - in which case Keith and his testimony have already been rejected.
Perhaps we need to clarify. Is everyone agreed that Keith's testimony is wrong and the thing is a modern forgery - or not?
You wrote:
"And anyway, even if Anne's provenance story is a farrago of fiction inspired by and spun to a gullible Feldman for no purpose other than to stop him harassing her in-laws, that
may make her a liar and guilty of profiting from royalties and a book, but it does not make her the forger".
I think what you mean is it doesn't _prove_ she was the person who actually wrote out the diary. But, if I can quote your own very shrewd words of a few hours ago right here:
"No historian can ever say what did happen...All he can say is what probably happened"
As you so well remark, we aren't talking about absolute proof, we are talking about a balance of probabilities - because, as you say, this is how history works.
let's for the nnnnth time look at the basic indisputable facts;
We have a bogus diary written with ink that was clearly put on the paper only a few months or years before the thing became public property.
We have the Barretts purchasing another old Victorian diary at around the time the forgery was being composed.
We have the fact that the entire text of the forgery was on MB's word processor(!)
We have the fact that only AG and MB can be proved to have ever owned the forgery.
We have the fact that both AG and MB tried to give the forgery a spurious provenance
We have the fact that it was MB who tried to place the forgery with a publisher.
We have the fact that AG and MB have profited from the sale and notoriety of the forgery.
We have the fact that MB has confessed to being complicit in the forgery.
Okay, none of this is proof - but as you said yourself Paul, this isn't about proof, it's about a balance of probability.
Using that balance of probability - what do you think the most reasonable conclusion is at this point?
best wishes to you
Karoline |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 07:48 am | | Hi Karoline,
I am rushing off to work and so will try and make this brief.
You ask:
"After all, if we become metaphysical for a moment - how can anything ever be termed finally proved? All we have as tools of observation are our own flawed senses, and the purist (or determined obfuscator) will always be ultimately able to invoke these flaws as means of overturning almost anything."
Well, I think, in the first place, that this is probably an epistemological question and not a metaphysical one. And it's a very old question concerning the reliability of knowledge, tackled rather well, for instance, by David Hume. But let us say, like Hume, that we by habit or custom are willing to accept a preponderance of the evidence offered to us by our senses and allow it to stand as knowledge even though we know there is always the possibility we could be mistaken or in some way being confused or deceived by appearances (this seems to me at the least a healthy scepticism). Of course we walk through the door rather than trying to walk through the wall because the evidence has become clear enough to allow us to "know" that one will be possible and the other will not. Otherwise, life would be impossible. Still, let us respect Hume's conclusions and remember his warnings concerning our own reliance of what is by definition sometimes unreliable sense data.
That being said, I must too quickly respond to your induction here -- looking at your list of premises and suggesting why I am not sure precisely about the depth of your conclusion.
You write:
"1.We have hard evidence that the thing is a modern forgery (as Paul tells me everyone now accepts).
2.It first appeared in Liverpool, and can only be provably traced to AG and her husband.
3.Both AG and her husband have told repeated lies about its provenance.
4.AG and her husband have profited considerably by the artefact, taking a share of its royalties and AG writing a book based on it.
5.AG's husband had confessed to being involved in the forgery
Is it not fair to say on this basis that their complicity in the forgery is established 'beyond a reasonable doubt'?"
And reading the above items carefully, and even granting that I accept them all as simply true, it seems to me the answer is a qualified "no." I agree that the items on your list strongly suggest that Anne and Mike chose to tell stories and chose to take advantage of a set of situations that they found themselves a part of and that they even, perhaps, helped manipulate. But because Mike's confession seems so clearly muddled and partial and even, in its inconsistencies, shows evidence of being delusional (for whatever reason), none of the five premises listed above seems to me to tell us anything about the diaries composition or its whereabouts prior to 1992 or suggest that Anne or Mike knew anything about the diary at all prior to 1992.
Did they? Perhaps. My own suspicion is that this book might very well have been written around the time of the centennial. It seems to make a certain historical sense and there is language and structure to the text that seems to me associated with modern horror genres. But these assumptions are vague at best. And most importantly, they in no way suggest Mike and Anne as the writers.
And here I think your invocation of William of Ockham's logical argument is something of a problem. (I also think his well-known razor quite often proves to cut in dangerous and ill-directed ways and has throughout the entire history of Western philosophy. It led Luther to some very unsavory conclusions about Jews, for example. I could demonstrate case after case of it proving problematic both in history and in the history of thinking -- Kant's brilliant response to Hume, for instance -- but this would be another argument for another time.) In any case, let us look at the choices:
a.)Anne and Mike having got hold of the diary after it was created, did everything you are claiming they have done in order to take advantage of the position in which they found themselves.
b.) Anne and Mike, or one of them separately, cooked up a scheme to fake the diary of Jack the Ripper, did whatever research was necesary, found the book and ink, sat down and composed the lines, put together the project, sat on it for awhile, and then took it to the wrong place, had to be sent to an agent, and then started telling various inconsistent and improbable provenance stories, all the while fighting and eventually divorcing, all while Mike was sinking into alchoholism.
Now which of these two scenarios would William of Ockham spot as the simplest?
(I don't think he'd recognize himself being called "Mr. Ockham," by the way -- perhaps, though, it would make him smile.) 
I am not at all sure which one of the narative possibilities offered above he would have us prefer.
And yet you feel comfortable enough with the certainty of your inferred conclusion to ask:
"Is it not fair to say on this basis that their complicity in the forgery is established 'beyond a reasonable doubt'?"
Here I think I can answer with some confidence.
Not for me. Not because I seek to obfuscate or to find cracks where there are none (I have no vested interest professionally or ideologically in the outcome of this little investigation), but simply because it is not clear at all that your premises even apparently lead to your conclusion concerning "complicity in the forgery" if by that you mean that they were actually involved, before 1992, in the compostion and production of the book.
Evidence of those actions still remains to be found, I think. At least as far a I have read, no one has offered any.
But perhaps I am misreading your argument. The problems with reading people's accounts and their narratives are difficult ones and that is why I try and move slowly and with some deliberate care.
I do know, however, that I am late for work. But thank you for the response and I hope this has helped at least a bit to clarify what I was trying to say last night.
I would like to respond to others who posted, but now I must hit the highways of St. Pete and Tampa.
Thanks again,
-John |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 08:17 am | | Karoline
With the greatest respect, if you take the time and trouble to trawl back through the posts on this Board you will find alternatives to most if not all of the emboldened arguments you have made. I don’t think they need be repeated over again.
It has been shown that Ann Graham received a cheque. For all you know it was deposited in Mike’s account and Anne never received a penny. Therefore you cannot say that Anne has profited.
We are not suffering any semantic difficulties, as you will see if you re-read my post in which I showed that I had qualified my statement and how I had qualified it.
You asked Caz and myself to set out the arguments favouring an old forgery. I explained that nobody here was advocating an old forgery hypothesis. You said you did not understand what I meant. I explained in simpler terms: "Everyone is agreed that the ‘diary’ is a modern forgery and we are trying to ascertain who forged it" You have now changed the context of those words, turned ‘agreed’ into ‘believes’ and then misrepresented me.
Forgive me, Karoline, but this is what you did before and you ultimately interpreted the efforts that I and others made to correct your confusion as an attack on you. Since you seem to be heading this discussion in the same direction, perhaps it would therefore be better if we don’t bother to discuss this further. |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 09:18 am | | Hi All,
One more thought, since I have a moment or two before class.
Karoline's post to Paul mentioned something that I failed to discuss in my two previous posts. The only items of discussion I have seen so far speculating on what might have happened prior to 1992 concerning the production of the diary, are the purchase of the little red diary and the location of the Crashaw citation in the Sphere guide owned earlier by the Barretts.
These two specific problems have proven to be somewhat complicated by the inconsistency of stories all around, but they remain as at least the beginning of an investigation into the scene and moment of the diary's composition.
They are not, of course, in and of themselves, proof of anything even "beyond a reasonable doubt," nor are they premises that by themselves would allow for any inductions other than, at this time, the obvious conclusion that there is the need for more careful examination of who was where and read what and researched what and wrote what and finally did what as the eighties turned into the nineties.
I just wanted to offer that small note to my earlier discussion of what we know.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 09:41 am | | Hi RJ,
You offer the following narrative of scientific evidence:
"If Dr. Baxendal placed a bit of diary ink in some distilled water & Pyridine and noticed that it disolved while he watched, we can rightly come to the conclusion that the ink was newish. If Rendell studied the diary with ultraviolet light and noticed no ink 'off-set' on the opposing pages, we might reason that this supports this conclusion. If a square shape existed on the page opposite the diary's first page, and the diary itself starts in mid-sentence, and a corner of what appears to be a photograph is in the binding, certainly we can figure something out. And if Nickell, Kurantz, Owens, and others noticed no age-bronzing of the ink in 1993, but it showed up later, we can come again make logical deductions."
Indeed we can. But I'm not sure any of this cited evidence can lead us in any way to any logical deductions concerning the identity of the composers of the diary.
(I use your term "deductions" above, but, we should say, more precisely here, "inductions" -- the difference marks a difference in the status of our knowledge. But I think you already agree with this caveat.)
Are Mike and Anne obviously suspects because of their possession of the diary? Of course. But linking the evidence you offer here to any conclusions about who held the pen or did the research or composed the lines before 1992 seems a tenuous leap of logical progression at best at this point.
But the discussions and the interpretations continue and I am always in favor of reading what remains.
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 09:53 am | | Hi All,
Firstly, please will you all accept my apologies if any of you think I have been spiteful, or disgracefully bad-mannered in any of my posts. If I see errors in a person’s information, or possible weaknesses in their reasoning, I’m afraid I will continue to point them out. And if others choose to see this as an unwarranted attack on that person’s hard work and professionalism, so be it. Whenever I make errors I fully expect them to be pointed out, and I will always acknowledge and correct them if at all possible. I expect no less of everyone else. Sadly, my expectations often let me down.
The only hard evidence provided so far is that a four figure sum of money was paid to her [Anne] as an advance against royalties.
I haven’t seen any such evidence yet, so I can’t comment. But I didn’t realise that Doreen had confirmed the assumption that the payment was indeed an advance against royalties, and explained why the full 50% went to Anne. I think I’ll just wait and see if that’s okay with everyone. Sorry to sound so suspicious.
Yes, let's for the nnnnth time look at the basic indisputable facts:
We have a bogus diary written with ink that was clearly put on the paper only a few months or years before the thing became public property.
Clearly? I thought this was still disputed, otherwise why is everyone still here?
We have the Barretts purchasing another old Victorian diary at around the time the forgery was being composed.
If it’s indisputable that the forgery was composed around March 1992, ditto – why is everyone still here?
We have the fact that the entire text of the forgery was on MB's word processor(!)
Couldn’t this have been typed up from the diary, after it came into Mike’s possession?
We have the fact that both AG and MB tried to give the forgery a spurious provenance.
But is it a fact that Mike didn’t get the diary from Devereux? Mike initially claimed he did, and Anne later claimed this was true, except that she had given it to Devereux first. So, initially Anne was not ‘trying to give the forgery’ any provenance, spurious or otherwise. If it’s a fact that she tried to give it a spurious provenance in July 1994, er, why is everyone still here?
We have the fact that it was MB who tried to place the forgery with a publisher.
We have the fact that MB did place the forgery with a publisher. What we don’t have is the fact that MB knew it was a forgery when he did so.
We have the fact that MB has confessed to being complicit in the forgery.
Ever heard of people making false confessions? Not as common (in both senses of the word) as people who make false accusations, no doubt, but the reasons are often as complex and difficult to get one’s head around. I, for one, cannot imagine why anyone would want to do the latter, but they do say there’s nowt so queer as folk.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 12:58 pm | | Actually Caz
We have a bogus diary written with ink that was clearly put on the paper only a few months or years before the thing became public property. Even allowing that the scientific evidence is correct, it doesn’t help us identify who put the ink on the paper.
We have the Barretts purchasing another old Victorian diary at around the time the forgery was being composed. This has been discussed in depth elsewhere and is subject to much confusion.
We have the fact that the entire text of the forgery was on MB's word processor(!) But there is no evidence of when the material was put on the word processor and Mike said he transcribed the ‘diary’ (and a copy of his transcription was sent to me when I first saw the 'diary' in 1992).
We have the fact that only AG and MB can be proved to have ever owned the forgery. True. Provenance is and was appalling.
We have the fact that both AG and MB tried to give the forgery a spurious provenance. As you say, do we have this ‘fact’? It has not been shown that Mike did not receive the ‘diary’ from Tony D. and it has not been shown that Anne did not give the ‘diary’ to Tony D. to give to Mike.
We have the fact that it was MB who tried to place the forgery with a publisher. Mike did place it with a publisher.
We have the fact that AG and MB have profited from the sale and notoriety of the forgery. So what? They benefited so they must be the forger?
We have the fact that MB has confessed to being complicit in the forgery. We also have the fact that his confession was withdrawn by his solicitor, that Mike confessed again, withdrew the confession, confessed, claimed to work for the CIA, withdrew the confession, confessed… And not until much later, when I think he was under the wing of Alan Gray, did he at any time give a coherent account of the conception and execution of the forgery. And when he did, he said Anne handwrote the ‘diary’, but the ‘diary’ apparently isn’t in Anne’s handwriting.
Gee, I wish we could bury this thing once and for all. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 02:28 pm | | Hi Paul,
Indeed.
Another point to make about the little red herring - sorry - 1891 diary, is that it appears, although I'm not certain, that Mike's first formal mention of it was at a time when he had nothing to actually prove its existence. If Anne knew this, she could presumably have denied his story, along with all the other details, such as the purchase of the actual scrapbook, pens and ink (and what have you). Yet Anne was the one who appeared to be in possession of all the physical evidence of this 'incriminating' purchase, and was willing and able to produce it when asked by Keith Skinner. All the details of her story about this 'suspicious' purchase were confirmed by the documentary evidence. I just wonder why she confirmed the existence of the red diary if she could have destroyed all the evidence and put the whole thing down to another of Mike's lies. It's one of those niggly little questions, like why Mike came up with the same story as Anne about the scraps they had over Mike wanting to publish the scrapbook.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
