|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 08, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
College course tackles the Diary:
Archive through April 08, 2001
Author: Karoline L
Friday, 06 April 2001 - 02:16 am |        | RJ,
thank you for your clarification - you have represented me (and I hope the voice of common sense) very eloquently.
Paul,
if you glance at the previous post of mine that you are discussing (posted April 5), you will note that I admit there have been many arguments put forward against the simple probability that the document is a modern forgery - but I point out that these arguments have been largely based on supposition not on fact.
As I point out - your suggestion that AG might have given all her money away, and thus might not have profited from the diary after all, is rather typical of the type and quality of 'argument' that frequently appears on this board.
It's not a fact, nor is it based on fact; nor is it based even on likely probability - it is a mere baseless supposition, of the "Elvis could be living in Bhutan" type.
Hence my assertion, that while there have been many arguments to try and excuse the diary and its proponents, there have been few if any facts brought to support those arguments.
From your observations over the last few days it seems clear you hold a very low opinion both of my comprehension and my objectivity. This of course is your right, but I do feel I must correct you in one of your assumptions.
I have no a prori belief-system about this diary, nor any vested interest in taking 'sides' over it. I just happen, in common with RJP, Peter Birchwood, Melvin Harris, and, I hope, others here, to value truth, good methodology and honesty in matters of historical research.
Where I see these things being apparently undermined, then it concerns me, as it concerns those who share my value system.
with all best wishes and hopes for a friendly and reasonable debate
Karoline |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 06 April 2001 - 02:26 am | | Hi, John,
Thanks for your measured and reasoned contribution. Your open-minded approach to this issue is welcomed.
What is interesting to me is that virtually every contributor to this message board agrees about the probability of the origins of the diary.
However, if one suggests that any other explanation might be possible, it seems to cause a visceral reaction from certain quarters. This negative reaction for the mere suggestion that some contrary view might just be possible even though unlikely.
What seems evident to me is that partisans on this issue, on each side, are so attached to their particular viewpoint they are unwilling to even consider any information that conflicts with their notions. And I say this with regard to many of the dear folks whose ultimate conclusion i am in accordance.
Thanks,
Rich |
Author: Karoline L
Friday, 06 April 2001 - 03:06 am | | John wrote (about me)
She claimed at one point, without clarification, that "of course the fact that [Anne] seems to have made up this spurious story must increase the probability of her complicity in the fraud."
Why must A "increase the probability" of B here? This still needs some sort of logical explanation, especially if "fraud" here means, as she suggests in her post, original knowledge of or participation in the diary's creation
Well, John,
I will try to explain.
It seems to me simple ratonality when searching for the perpetrators of a fraud to assume that those who are profiting by it, or those who have tried to place it, or those who have told lies about it have the greatest probability of having been involved in its creation.
Cui bono? - as they say.
Well the Barretts have done all three - ergo it becomes highly probable they are involved to some degree in the perpetration of the document.
No, they are not proved to be involved, but it is fair to assume they are as a first probability.
Paul clearly understands this, since he has been arguing recently that an important clue in establishing whether or not AG was a possible fraudster was to establish whether or not she profited from the fraud.
We have now established that she did profit from the fraud - so therefore, according to Paul's own calculations presented here, her likelihood of having been involved in the original creation must be increased.
Paul, would you agree with this summary?
best wishes, and John - commiserations over the bad Shakespeare musical. Which one was it? Back in my acting days I always wanted to be in KISS ME KATE. Having played Bianca in THE TAMING OF THE SHREW for eight months at Stratford one season, I thought the musical looked much more fun.
Karoline |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 06 April 2001 - 03:33 am | | Hi RJP
You seem to be saying that the ‘diary’ was not written by James Maybrick and is therefore a document of no historical importance or significance, that debating the ‘diary’ has no purpose, and that it is not ‘even remotely interesting to the serious historian’ unless it is shown that (a) the diary is in James Maybrick's handwriting or was in his possession, or (b) that Anne's provenance story is true and the diary is therefore an old document.
But this argument misses the point that we are discussing who forged the ‘diary’ – or more precisely, which of the likely candidates forged it. That the ‘diary’ is (or may be) ‘a spurious document with a spurious provenance’ has no direct bearing on the general question of who wrote it or on specific questions such as, for example, whether the ‘diary’ was or was not composed on Mike’s word processor. I don’t think your argument therefore has any bearing on whether Karoline’s argument is or is not logically sound.
Of course, whether or not the circumstances of the forgery and the identity of the forger is of interest is another matter. Personally, I find it interesting and I am happy that there are like minded people who want to discuss it with me. |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 06 April 2001 - 04:13 am | | Dear Karoline -
Here's a simpler example of the sort of fallacy you perpetrate through enthusiastic rhetoric.
"As I point out - your suggestion that AG might have given all her money away, and thus might not have profited from the diary after all, is rather typical of the type and quality of 'argument' that frequently appears on this board.
"It's not a fact, nor is it based on fact; nor is it based even on likely probability - it is a mere baseless supposition, of the "Elvis could be living in Bhutan" type."
While I'm in complete agreement with you over the improbability of Anne's having given the money away, your final comparison with Elvis in Bhutan suddenly makes nonsense of what you are saying. There is solid well documented evidence that Elvis died in his own bathroom. There is no evidence of any kind about Anne's disposition of the money. And it is one of Councillor Begg's most exasperating habits to hold every hypothesis possible until factual disproof has emerged. (He and Keith have given me strict instructions never to say again, 'Life is too short...' about some theory that seems to me too barmy to be worth investigating. They believe it makes me look slipshod).
I do hope your admiration for Melvin Harris's and Peter Birchwood's conclusions about the diary (many of which I share) will not lead you into the tendency to carry rhetorical firmness into the blatant falsity of presenting an opinion as a fact, and that you will scrutinise their writing carefully to make sure that the methodology and respect for truth and honesty that one at least of them is forever claiming as though nobody else possessed such characteristics is practised as well as it is preached.
With all good wishes,
Martin F |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 06 April 2001 - 05:02 am | | Karoline
if you glance at the previous post of mine that you are discussing (posted April 5), you will note that I admit there have been many arguments put forward against the simple probability that the document is a modern forgery - but I point out that these arguments have been largely based on supposition not on fact.
For the umpteenth time, will you tell me who is talking about the ‘diary’ not being a simple modern forgery? I keep telling you that nobody is advocating an old forgery. I told you this a year ago. I told you when you returned to the Boards recently. What do I have to say or do to make you understand this? And if somebody here is arguing that the ‘diary’ is not a modern forgery, why don’t you direct your arguments to that person instead of me?
And what you don’t understand or won’t accept is that your arguments are not facts but are suppositions too. You are supposing that the text of the ‘diary’ is on Mike’s word processor because he composed the ‘diary’ on his word processor. That is not a fact. You have no evidence for it. It is your supposition.
And it is very telling that you think your suppositions are reasonable and that anybody else’s is the equivalent of an Elvis is alive and well and living in Bhutan. But let’s examine your example shall we?
Mike Barrett signed a publishing contract and was paid an advance on royalties. He did not have a bank account, so asked that the cheque be made out to Anne. The cheque was made out to Anne, who banked the money, then wrote a cheque out for the full amount and used it to open an account for Mike. Doreen Montgomery was not informed that Mike had got a bank account, so on publication made a cheque for the remaining advance out to Anne. Is this what happened?
According to Peter Birchwood, Mike opened a bank account a few months before December 1993. Since you need money to open a bank account and we are told that money was tight, it is not unreasonable to suppose that Mike opened the account with the first part of his royalty payment (your source might be able to confirm this). Since he does not seem to have had the bank account when he signed the publishing contract, he might have told Doreen Montgomery to pay the money to Anne (again your source might be able to confirm this). If Doreen was not informed about Mike opening a bank account, her accountant might have paid the second part of the royalties to Anne. This is a reasonable supposition since, as Peter repeatedly observed, it looked like the cheque was for the full 50%. If Doreen knew that 25% was to be paid into Mike’s bank account, why didn’t she supply a cheque for 25% to Mike? Answer, because she didn’t know Mike had a bank account. [This isn’t necessarily the right answer, of course, but it is a perfectly reasonable one].
Now, you think this piece of reasoning is comparable to an argument that Elvis is alive and well in Bhutan. I don’t think they are even remotely comparable. You think that Anne is condemned because she received the cheque from Doreen Montgomery. I think that it shows no more than that Anne received a cheque from Doreen Montgomery, but that it does raise the question of what she did with the money. You think my argument is surreal wriggling (from which remark, incidentally, it seems clear you hold a very low opinion both of my comprehension and my objectivity). I see it as highlighting where your research is incomplete and conclusions based thereon deficient.
Since I think assumption is the mother of all screw ups, I’d rather not assume Anne’s guilt but would rather that you complete your research and base your conclusion on fact rather than on what you surmise to be fact. You have now done that. You say that the money was not paid into Mike’s account. I would obviously like to know the source of this information and its reliability, but it looks excellent news. We now have some information we didn’t have before, possibilities are being eliminated, conclusions are being based on a firmer and broader base, and you are completing your research instead of making assumptions based on insufficient data. The next step is to find out if the money stayed in Anne’s account, which you may find out by asking her and thus be able to complete your research with a flourish and put a full stop to your conclusion.
And finally, I have not been arguing that financial gain is an important clue in establishing whether or not Anne Graham is a possible fraudster. I may have inadvertently said something somewhere to that effect, though I can’t recall doing so; all I have argued with regard to money is that on the evidence I had it had not been shown that she had received money or been interested in ‘diary’ related monies prior to Doreen insisting that she receive 25% (which all now seems shrouded in murk; why would Doreen have unilaterally decided to given Anne 25% if Anne was already receiving 25%?). But this said, I do agree that financial gain as ever supplies a motive for lies and illegal acts and could be the motive for Anne having told her ‘in the family for years’ story. I also agree with R.J. Palmer (sorry RJP if it wasn’t you or if this isn’t something you’ve suggested) that the pivotal time is the meeting with Feldman in Liverpool and I suspect that if Anne was motivated by money it is more likely to have been the promise of large amounts of film deal money than any incentive presented by 25% of the royalties from Shirley’s book. So, I am not sure that the payments from Doreen Montgomery are actually pertinent to what happened. I also wholeheartedly agree with John’s clear and concise statement that influences on Anne after 1992 need not necessarily have any bearing on her actions before 1992 and that it would therefore be dangerous to assume that any financial pressure that caused her to lie (if she did lie) in 1995 prove or even suggest that she was instrumental in forging the ‘diary’. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 06 April 2001 - 05:21 am | | Martin
Whilst I admit that I do not like incomplete research and share with Keith the opinion that doing the necessary additional research to produce a conclusion based on fact is better than not doing the research and basing a conclusion on an assumption, I would hope that this has never caused me to hold open as possible any and every hypothesis not actually disproven. Keith and I do have rather exacting standards, I suppose, but I think it leads to greater objectivity and I don't think we've ever argued against solid well documented evidence of the kind that Elvis died in his own bathroom. Mind you, there was a chap who looked just like him who worked in a fish and chip shop in Otherswaite High Street. However, as detailed above, I think there were acceptable reasons for suggesting that Anne might not have kept the money. How many times have we seen vast edifices of speculation crumble and fall because it's all built upon an incorrect assumption, common sense or balance of probability (Martin Kosminski/Joseph Hyam Levy springs to mind). And at the end of the day, if we want to know something, isn't it better to ask and get the answer from somebody who knows rather than not ask and just assume?
Cheers
"The Councillor" |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 06 April 2001 - 07:16 am | | Regarding The Little Red Diary:
"..Roughly round about January, February 1990
Anne Barrett and I finally decided to go ahead and write the
Diary of Jack the Ripper. In fact Anne purchased a red
leather backed Diary for £25.00, she made the purchase
through a firm in the 1986 Writters (sic) year Book, I
cannot remember their name, she paid for the Diary by cheque
in the amount of £25 which was drawn on her Lloyds Bank
account, Water Street Branch,Liverpool..."(By Shirley Harrison and Keith Skinner on Thursday, July 29,1999 - 03:20 am
"The cheque was not paid until May 18th 1992 and the
bookseller has Mr Barrett marked as a "late payer". The
cheque was signed by Anne Barrett but the rest was filled in
by Michael.
Anne's explanation of this is, that when Michael asked her
for the money, she was so "bloody mad" at such extravagence,
when they were so broke, that she signed her name and threw
the cheque across the floor for him to complete. This is
probably why the cheque stub merely has written on it "book
- £25".(op cit)
I think it would be usefull to ask Anne for her explanation about why the diary was bought in the first place. Presumably she confirms that it WAS bought at about the time suggested by the cheque but why would she or her husband need a Victorian diary? RJP said some months ago: "I can't really understand
why Mike would make such an odd purchase as the red diary
unless, perhaps, he was unsatisfied with the fact that the
Diary was written in a Victorian album intended for mounting
clippings and had several pages cut out. He then looked for
something more suitable, but finding that the red diary was
too small, he gave up and brought the Diary to London, as
is..." and I think that makes a good point.
On 7th December 2000 Keith Skinner suggested: "Another explanation of why Mike bought the red diary is that perhaps he was genuinely excited at the prospect of meeting
a Literary Agent and the possibility of collaborating on a
book with a recognized author - so bought the red diary on
impulse, just to see what a Victorian diary looked like.
True, he could have found out by other, less expensive
means, but he didn’t." Is this really a reasonable possibility? Would anyone have spent so much cash: "just to see what a Victorian diary looked like."? or is this a case of straining at gnats and swallowing a horse? |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 06 April 2001 - 07:21 am | | Paul, John, Martin, Richard---Here is my take on this increasingly strange conversation. My "hunch" is that Karoline feels that by insisting that this conversation is about "finding the forgers" (much like last month it was about Melvin "naming the forgers") we misguided ramblers are only sneakily avoiding the more compelling historical question: do Anne's/Feldman's claims have any validity? In other words, it is putting the cart before the horse to engage in an exhaustive (and exhausting) argument about who forged what before we even determine when it was forged. Certainly whether or not Anne's/Feldman's provenance claims have any validity is of the highest relevance. But we are constantly told that that is not what we are discussing. Why is this?
I imagine that Karoline fears --and certainly it is a concern of mine-- that by endlessly arguing over whether or not Anne or Mike did this or that or the other, we are keeping alive the possibility that Anne's story is true while avoiding the unpleasant task of actually examining it.
(the bottom line)
RJP |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 06 April 2001 - 07:24 am | | Dear Paul,
No, indeed you never argue against solid well proven fact. And like Keith, you don't need 'new proof' to make you baulk at the loonier flights of Feldmania (like the brief aberrational conjecture that Anne and Mike might be two quite different people substituted by HMG for the real Ripper-informed Barretts under some sort of witness protection programme...!) But when you spot a little chink of light where other people assumed there was sufficient evidence of mendacity or flimsiness to disregard a source, you may ask us to bear in mind the possibility that X might not be lying in some particular... so perhaps a little more research...
All right, like Huck Finn I'll take the risk. I'll be damned and go to hell. LIFE IS TOO SHORT to devote any time whatsoever to any story emanating from Joe 'Sickert'!
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Karoline L
Friday, 06 April 2001 - 07:46 am | | I wrote to Paul:
"if you glance at the previous post of mine that you are discussing (posted April 5), you will note that I admit there have been many arguments put forward against the simple probability that the document is a modern forgery - but I point out that these arguments have been largely based on supposition not on fact."
Paul wrote to me:
"For the umpteenth time, will you tell me who is talking about the ‘diary’ not being a simple modern forgery?"
Hi Paul,
In the original post of mine - which you questioned - I was responding to Richard Dewar's assertion (April 5) that the diary had not been finally established to be a forgery. The original observation was addressed to him not you, and I was only explaining my meaning to you -because you asked me to do so.
I know it's confusing, and I probably shouldn't have got distracted by the argument. I apologise for having aggravated you - but as you can see I'm not guilty of the sin of failing to understand you. Rather you have not followed the progress of this aspect of the discussion.
Paul wrote;
"And what you don’t understand or won’t accept is that your arguments are not facts but are suppositions too."
No that isn't so.
I have advocated no supposition.
I have argued the fact that some probabilities are currently stronger than others, based on the available data.
Paul wrote:
"You are supposing that the text of the ‘diary’ is on Mike’s word processor because he composed the ‘diary’ on his word processor."
No I am not supposing that or anything else. I have asked which of the two available explanations seems most probable - given the available data, and I conclude that, given his other clear manifestations of complicity, probability currently favors the idea that the diary was on his wp - because it was composed there, either by MB alone, or in collaboration with others.
You yourself brought the issue of probability into this when you made that very fine observation about historical methodology I have already quoted many times:
"No historian can ever say what did happen... All he can say is what probably happened".
As you say, historical enquiry is about a balance of probability. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, this balance of probability currently favors the idea that MB and AG were to some extent complicit in the preparation of this artefact.
Paul wrote:
"And it is very telling that you think your suppositions are reasonable and that anybody else’s is the equivalent of an Elvis is alive and well and living in Bhutan."
I have made no suppositions. I try to avoid them since they contribute nothing toward discovering the historical validity of anything.
What I have done is to observe the relative probability of certain things - based on available data.
You on the other hand have made several suppositions - including the one about AG possibly giving all her royalty money away.
It is your right (of course) to make such suppositions. I have merely pointed out to you that you have no data on which to base them, and that until you have they cannot be seriously entertained as valid possibilities.
This is not a matter of my opinion - but of accepted historical methodology. The very same methodology you yourself refer to in your eloquent words quoted above.
Paul wrote:
"Mike Barrett signed a publishing contract and was paid an advance on royalties. He did not have a bank account, so asked that the cheque be made out to Anne. The cheque was made out to Anne, who banked the money, then wrote a cheque out for the full amount and used it to open an account for
Mike. Doreen Montgomery was not informed that Mike had got a bank account, so on publication made a cheque for the remaining advance out to Anne. Is this what happened?"
Not according to any documentation I have seen.
I refer you to my post of April 4 wherein I quote a royalty statement from Rupert Crew Ltd to Michael Barrett vis a vis the "DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER".
This royalty statement (as well as the one for February 1994) quite clearly states that separate payments are being made to Michael Barrett and to his wife, Anne.
On Jan 7 1994 MB received £3000 while AG (his wife) received approx £1200 (for exact figures see above).
The payment for February 1994 also details separate payments to MB and to AG.
Paul writes:
"According to Peter Birchwood, Mike opened a bank account a few months before December 1993. Since you need money to open a bank account and we are told that money was tight, it is not unreasonable to suppose that Mike opened the account with the first part of his royalty payment (your source might be able to confirm this). Since he does not seem to have had the bank account when he signed the publishing contract, he might have told Doreen Montgomery to pay the money to Anne (again your source might be able to confirm this). If Doreen was not informed about Mike opening a bank account, her accountant might have paid the second part of the royalties to Anne. This is a reasonable supposition since, as Peter repeatedly observed, it looked like the cheque was for the full 50%. If Doreen knew that 25% was to be paid into Mike’s bank account, why didn’t she supply a cheque for 25% to Mike? Answer, because she didn’t know Mike had a bank account. [This isn’t necessarily the right answer, of course, but it is a perfectly reasonable one]."
The data clearly shows that separate payments were made out to MB and to AG in January and February. So even if you assume that Mike's legal wife (who was then living with him), would not automatically profit from his income - you have the clear fact that she is receiving separate payments.
If this doesn't constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt that she profited from the diary, then what on earth does?
Paul writes:
"You think that Anne is condemned because she received the cheque from Doreen Montgomery."
Well, I don't know that "condemned" is a sensible word to use here. I consider that the data I have provided makes a case beyond reasonable doubt that AG profited from the diary.
Don't you?
Paul writes:
"i consider it I think that it shows no more than that Anne received a cheque from Doreen Montgomery, but that it does raise the question of what she did with the money."
Paul, it has been proved that repeat payments were made to her. The balance of probability clearly favours the assumption that she kept the money she received.
If such probability isn't sufficient for you, then your only recourse is to go to the one person who will be able to tell you what she did with the money after she received it - and that isn't me, or Peter Birchwood, or anyone on these boards - it's AG herself.
She is the only person who can settle the doubts you appear to have.
Will you approach her and ask what she did with these payments from Rupert Crew?
Paul writes:
"You think my argument is surreal wriggling (from which remark, incidentally, it seems clear you hold a very low opinion both of my comprehension and my objectivity)."
I never described you as "wriggling" though I did describe the general contortions of reasoning over this money business as "wriggly".
Perhaps it was harsh, and I see I have inadvertently hurt your feelings, because you have taken the word personally - so let me retract that and use the words "very flexible" instead.
Martin Fido rather admires you for it, and if you are involved in local politics, I'm sure you find it comes in very useful on occasion.
Paul writes:
"Since I think assumption is the mother of all screw ups, I’d rather not assume Anne’s guilt but would rather that you complete your research and base your conclusion on fact rather than on what you surmise to be fact."
I have drawn no conclusions other than the rather obvious one that, since she was receiving payment for the diary, she can reasonably be assumed to have been profiting from it.
Paul writes:
"You say that the money was not paid into Mike’s account."
I have quoted the data in the royalty statement supplied by Rupert Crew Ltd. which clearly states that separate payments are being made to MB and to AG.
Paul wrote:
"I would obviously like to know the source of this information and its reliability..."
The source is a photocopy of a royalty statement from Rupert Crew Ltd.
Paul wrote:
"... but it looks excellent news.We now have some information we didn’t have before,
possibilities are being eliminated, conclusions are being based on a firmer and broader base, and you are completing your research instead of making assumptions based on insufficient data."
I'm glad you're pleased.
Paul writes:
"The next step is to find out if the money stayed in Anne’s account, which you may find out by asking her and thus be able to complete your research with a flourish and put a full stop to your conclusion."
Paul,
it has been shown that repeat payments of money were made to AG as royalties from the 'diary'. If you suspect she did not keep the money she was paid, then historically, legally, common-sensically, it is up to you to provide some evidence for your belief - it is not up to anyone else to try and disprove it for you.
For all historical and legal purposes, the data we have is sufficient to show that AG profited from the diary. If you wish to demur, then you must show just cause for doing so.
Paul writes:
"And finally, I have not been arguing that financial gain is an important clue in establishing whether or not Anne Graham is a possible fraudster. I may have inadvertently said something somewhere to that effect, though I can’t recall doing so; all I have argued with regard to money is that on the evidence I had it had not been shown that she had received money or been interested in ‘diary’ related monies prior to Doreen insisting that she receive 25% which now seems shrouded in murk."
Well much as you love your murk Paul, I don't really see any here.
Clearly AG was receiving money - because it is documented in Rupert Crew's records. So whatever was reported about DM is presumably inaccurate.
Perhaps someone somewhere made it up to try and give the impression AG wasn't profiting too much from the diary?
Paul wrote:
"But this said, I do agree that financial gain as ever supplies a motive for lies and illegal acts ..."
Absolutely - including of course the possible involvement in forging the diary of JTR...
Cui bono, as I mentioned earlier.
Best wishes,
Karoline |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 06 April 2001 - 07:54 am | | Hi Karoline,
Thanks for the response to my questions. It was, last night, another attempt to sing through Love's Labor's Lost and was every bit as bad if not worse that Ken's recent film attempt, which not only, I think, missed the best Hollywood decade for the play by turning to the technicolor musicals of the early fifties rather than the sophisticated and more cynical black and white ones of the forties, but, like last night's fiasco, couldn't resist an awful coda where all actually get reunited and married in the end in a celebration of cheap sentimentalism (directly contrary to the suspended, bittersweet and lingering "Jack hath not his Jill" ending that the young Shakespeare knew was so more interesting and that went against the grain of conventional comedy).
In any case, a quick note about your reasoning of probabilities above.
See, here's the thing. All you say would at first glance be logical. But in fact, there is a gap, a small fissure in your reading of probabilities.
Here are your words:
"It seems to me simple ratonality when searching for the perpetrators of a fraud to assume that those who are profiting by it, or those who have tried to place it, or those who have told lies about it have the greatest probability of having been involved in its creation."
But, actually this is not "simple rationality" at all, but rather it is an assumption which in this case, because we know little or nothing about all of these people prior to the actual publication of the diary in 1992, has no basis in actual facts.
Why, even if those involved "are profiting by it," and "have tried to place it," and "have told lies about it," is it logically any more likely that they composed and produced the volume than it is that they discovered or acquired the volume?
Would they be among the leading suspects in the production? Of course. They would have been in any case.
Would they in any way, just because of their behavior in the face of the force of the public reception of the volume be made clearer or more likely suspects. Of course not, since that behavior can also be read in light of the conditions and circumstances post-1992 and in light of the turbulent and personally challenging and even shattering events surrounding and following the publication. In fact, I think there is more experiential and physical evidence, "data," if you will, for these effects being the result of these particular circumstances from 1992-1999. My conclusion here, by the way, is based at least in part on your own discovery and presentation of evidence concerning this behavior. It indicates people for whom circumstances had zoomed out of control and people who were trying to take advantage of changing opportunities much more than it says anything about people who sat down researched, wrote and produced a volume like this.
In fact, I think your account of their behavior almost makes it seem less likely that these are the same people who, as you say, actually "constructed," the book.
But that is just a gut reaction and pure speculation. The facts -- and the only logical conclusion, at this point available to us, is that nothing you have suggested about their behavior after the fact of publication really does tell us anything about the "probability" of the their likelihood in actually forging the document. For that you would need evidence of or a link to actual events prior to the documents entering into the public discourse and the traumatic and life-altering events that followed its reception.
You then say, as clearly as possible:
"Well the Barretts have done all three - ergo it becomes highly probable they are involved to some degree in the perpetration of the document."
But it is precisely this ergo that I think is misplaced, or at least not at all established even as a clear and demonstrable increase in likelihood, even given the truth of your three previous premises.
I ask again, why, if I am lying about a book that I have shown the world, is it necessarily more likely that I also have written the text and produced the book than it is that I acquired the book? I do not understand what seems for you, apparently, an obvious and inevitable increase in likelihood. I would suggest that it is every bit as likely that I acquired the book and for various common reasons began lying about it once its public reception turned ugly and my life, reputation, and future opportunities seemed on the line as it would be that I somehow actually researched, composed, and constructed the document.
But this is not the only problem.
You also write, and I am surprised to read, this morning:
"No, they are not proved to be involved, but it is fair to assume they are as a first probability."
But on two separate occasions this past week alone, and I will present the times and dates if you or anyone needs them, you used the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" regarding the Barrett's "complicity" in the forgery. This seems to me to be a marked difference from your tempered claim above. This "beyond a reasonable doubt" regarding forgery, I think, is language which is hasty and which is no way sufficiently established, as your revised position above suggests. If this represents the beginning of reconsideration of the necessity of the link between lying about the book and actually writing rather than acquiring the book, then I think that is a good thing. I think it is the more careful thing.
Of course, the decision as to whether Mike and Anne composed the volume or acquired the volume is a more likely scenario remains -- and the evidence for either side of that set of alternatives concerning what exactly happened prior to 1992 is sorely lacking. Consequently, there can be no logical argument about the necessity or probability of one alternative over the other in this case at this point. And other possibilities remain -- including the Barrett's having various and different degrees of knowledge about the source of the volume and/or its production but not being involved in the "construction."
You continue:
"Paul clearly understands this, since he has been arguing recently that an important clue in establishing whether or not AG was a possible fraudster was to establish whether or not she profited from the fraud."
But I think Paul has argued repeatedly that whether or not Anne profited is evidence only of her committing a fraud after the fact of the diary's release and not in any way "an important clue," not even necessarily or logically a clue at all in establishing whether or not she wrote this thing. I think that is very clear. Paul can correct me if I am wrong.
By the way, you write "Paul understands this fact." But what you are asserting is not even an evidentiary case or a logically valid argument wherein the premises necessarily lead to the conclusion. It (that if Anne profited, that fact makes it more likely that she wrote or helped write the words on the page) is most certainly not a "fact."
Finally, I think you misread, I think for clearly strategic and not so subtle reasons:
"We have now established that she did profit from the fraud - so therefore, according to Paul's own calculations presented here, her likelihood of having been involved in the original creation must be increased."
A. This "therefore" is completely out of place.
B. I have been reading these exchanges carefully, patiently, and with some deliberate attention, and I have not seen any "calculations" by Paul that the "likelihood of having been involved in the original creation" is increased directly or even indirectly by her profiting from the case.
I could have missed this in Paul's work. I thought I read quite the opposite in Paul's work. I trust Paul will gently correct me if I have missed part of his reading or have not understood his own case.
In fact, while many here seem willing to suggest that Anne acted unethically and profited perhaps through lying after the document hit publication and the firestorm began, I see very few people arguing that this behavior either logically or necessarily leads to the conclusion that Anne wrote this book -- or that that behavior logically and necessarily increases the likelihood that Anne wrote this book or had knowledge of its production -- or that this behavior in any way indicates original authorship, knowledge of authorship, or the identity of the forger.
This case remains to be made, I think, before we accuse anyone of being the likely person(s) who held that pen and certainly before we use phrases like "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Now it's off to share and delight in the poetry of Lawrence Ferlinghetti for a couple of hours and, for a time, to be joyously willing, like the poet, to "constantly risk absurdity."
--John |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 06 April 2001 - 09:03 am | | John--hello. Regardless of how closely you knit your logic, I think it is an absurdity to suggest that Anne's subsequent actions (and lying) 'almost makes it seem less likely' that she constructed the diary! If in June 1994 she told the world that "He(Mike)told me he got the diary from Tony Devereux and that is all I know" and in July 1994, she tells a complete different provenance story, aren't you coming to this startling opinion based on your own assumption that it is more likely than Anne's story is motivated by Feldman & a film deal rather than it is motivated by the fact that she doesn't want to admit that she was involved in the forging of the diary? Anne's new provenance story directly followed Mike's confession. After which Anne made the following statement (and I quote) "He is now trying to get back at me because I have left him. The whole thing is an absolute nightmare." If Anne's provenance story can be shown to be false, doesn't it indeed increase the probablility that she made it up in order to respond to a relatively valid confession on Mike's part? Is seems to risk absurdity to suggest otherwise.
Meanwhile, I'm taking a very long break.
Best wishes,
RP |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Friday, 06 April 2001 - 10:42 am | | RJ & John--
RJ, you wrote: "I think it is an absurdity to suggest that Anne's subsequent actions (and lying) 'almost makes it seem less likely' that she constructed the diary!"
This still assumes that it's simpler to suppose that the profiteers are the forgers. But I think John's earlier post (and thanks for your brilliant contributions John!) points out that Okham's razor doesn't necessarily favor such conventional wisdom about who is likely to have done a crime.
You go on to point to the endless story-changing, confessing, retracting etc. from the Barrett/Graham camp. Actually, I WOULD be inclined to argue that this lessened the likelihood that they were the forgers, and increased the likelihood that they were opportunists. The diary strikes me as pretty silly, but it's fairly professional: it would have required a certain amount of research, dedication, organization, strategy, level-headedness--even a certain enjoyment in the craft. None of this seems compatible with confessions, the story-changing, etc.
madeleine |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 06 April 2001 - 11:23 am | | Thanks Roger for putting on the Sunday Times 13th November 1994 piece. Is it clear now that the new FAMILY provenance was instrumental in putting new life into the diary projects and is it now clear that without Anne's release of her information there would have been no movie deal and is it - finally - clear that she had an important motive in giving the new provenance?
Oh and bearing in mind RJP's comment on the sheer foolishness of getting the original owners of the diary involved in doing the research that was supposedly to authenticate it, could someone tell me when Feldy started paying Anne £75 per week against publishers advances for "The Last Victim" and did this £75 pw include what she was being paid to transcribe the interview tapes?
Regarding the controversy about Mike's bank account, there is no doubt that he had one before, during and after the December 1993 period so comments about: " "Mike Barrett signed a publishing contract and was paid an advance on royalties. He did not have a bank account, so
asked that the cheque be made out to Anne. The cheque was
made out to Anne, who banked the money, then wrote a cheque
out for the full amount and used it to open an account for
Mike. Doreen Montgomery was not informed that Mike had got a
bank account, so on publication made a cheque for the
remaining advance out to Anne. Is this what happened?" (Paul Begg)
can be simply answered: "NO!" Mike also had an agreed overdraft facility by October 1993 of quite a large ammount for those times: £1,500 and was already banking money from the diary( part of the advance?) by that time.
The more we find out about the financial affairs of MB and AG the more astonishing it is that some can say with a straight face that AG didn't profit from the diary until Doreen gave her 25%. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 06 April 2001 - 11:42 am | | Peter
I was simply outlining a possible scenario as it existed before you supplied the additional data in order to show that it was more solidly based than an Elvis is living and well in Brighlihsea or wherever. You have now provided data we didn't have when that scenarion was ventured. And as more is learned, I doubt that anyone will say, straight faced or otherwise, that Anne didn't profit until Doreen gave her 25%. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 06 April 2001 - 12:52 pm | | Hi All,
Hi Karoline,
You wrote:
It seems to me simple ratonality when searching for the perpetrators of a fraud to assume that those who are profiting by it, or those who have tried to place it, or those who have told lies about it have the greatest probability of having been involved in its creation.
Well the Barretts have done all three - ergo it becomes highly probable they are involved to some degree in the perpetration of the document.
…historical enquiry is about a balance of probability. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, this balance of probability currently favors the idea that MB and AG were to some extent complicit in the preparation of this artefact.
Of course, your use of simple rationality, high probability, balance of probability etc, would be rendered quite unnecessary if Melvin Harris were to produce his information that shows, as he has stated on these boards, quite unambiguously and categorically, that Anne didn’t fake the diary and that Mike didn’t fake the diary (and he also said he never believed they did); that their lies simply concern provenance; that they acted as handlers and placers of a document forged by others; and that the composer of the diary text would have used someone outside of his own immediate circle to handwrite it.
One piece of evidence that does appear at face value to point to a degree of involvement on either Mike or Anne’s part is the Crashaw quote, probably taken and mistranscribed from Ricks’s essay in the Sphere vol 2.
But certainly Melvin’s words, assuming that you don’t doubt them, leave us both with problems. My problems involve looking at those words and trying to find a scenario which fits with what I think I know about the modern players from the information I’ve been given – I’m still working on that one, and having fun doing so.
One of your problems, I guess, might be trying to work out why Mike had a transcript of the diary on his word processor in the first place – was it typed up after Melvin’s composer/penman left the diary with Anne and Mike to place, and if so, why? Or do you think the composer himself took advantage of Mike’s word processor to create the text, possibly leaving it there to incriminate his placer later on? Or have you no opinion?
I don’t particularly feel the need to ask Anne directly what she did, or does, with her diary money. We’ve always known she has made money from the diary, and it was only Peter, as I recall, who appeared to have a specific interest in finding out exactly how much and when, in pursuit of his ‘forgery for financial gain’ hypothesis. I only suggested he find out as much information as possible to make his own case as strong as possible. How he incorporates this information into his hypothesis that Anne and Mike were actually involved in the forgery (which he appears to be pursuing despite being told by Melvin that the proof is already there) will be interesting, but up to him – it’s his hypothesis, not mine. Of course, any information we get is useful because it adds to our overall knowledge. But I’m not trying to convince anyone else of anything. How could I, when I don’t yet know what I believe myself?
One more thing. You wrote:
Paul wrote:
"But this said, I do agree that financial gain as ever supplies a motive for lies and illegal acts ..."
Absolutely - including of course the possible involvement in forging the diary of JTR...
I’m glad we at least agree on one thing - the possible involvement – hoorah, we got there in the end!
Have a good weekend.
Best wishes,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 06 April 2001 - 12:56 pm | | Hi Peter,
You wrote:
The cheque was not paid until May 18th 1992 and the
bookseller has Mr Barrett marked as a "late payer". The
cheque was signed by Anne Barrett but the rest was filled in
by Michael.
I think it would be usefull to ask Anne for her explanation about why the diary was bought in the first place. Presumably she confirms that it WAS bought at about the time suggested by the cheque but why would she or her husband need a Victorian diary?
Would anyone have spent so much cash: "just to see what a Victorian diary looked like."?
Well it may well be a case of straining at gnats and swallowing a horse.
But if Mike ordered and received the red diary in March 1992, and Anne paid for it May, and you already know the other details given by Shirley and Keith, I’m not sure why you are still confused over when it was bought. Did Mike have any idea of the cost when he placed the order? If not, might this explain why the bill, when it arrived, was left unpaid by Mike, and eventually settled by Anne, perhaps because neither of them thought to return it, or it wasn’t possible to do so by then? Yes, it might be useful to ask Anne’s opinion on why Mike ordered it. But if there isn’t any evidence that Anne herself wanted or needed to get hold of a Victorian diary, she could simply say that she doesn’t know why Mike wanted one. That wouldn’t get us very far, would it, because it could be a lie, to avoid coming up with an explanation which could be used to incriminate either of them, or, of course, it could just be the simple truth.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 06 April 2001 - 01:05 pm | | Madeleine--Hello. I know what you're saying, I just don't entirely agree with you. I said "I think it is an absurdity to suggest that Anne's subsequent actions (and lying) 'almost makes it seem less likely' that she constructed the diary!"
To which you responded. 'This still assumes that it's simpler to suppose that the profiteers
are the forgers.'
But I'm not pointing out what I am assuming: I am pointing out what you & John are assuming. If you go on to state that "Actually, I WOULD
be inclined to argue that this lessened the likelihood that they were the forgers, and increased the likelihood that they were
opportunists." then I submit that this is just as much of a leap of faith (using John's system) as suggesting that Anne created the diary. If a person tells an untruth, then all we know is that that their word cannot be trusted. Granted. This is obvious enough. We don't know where the diary came from. We don't know the provenance. But by suggesting that this makes it more likely that this is an 'opportunist' hoax does not follow from this close reasoning. "Oportunist" implies that the diary was found or was already in existence. We don't know this. That's all I am saying-- which, in effect-- is what John has been saying.
By the way, I don't agree that this hoax is fairly professional. But no matter. An opinon, only. I do like your point (that you seem to be making in a kind way) that the story-changing etc., shows a certain amount of bungling that might not be consistent with a well thought-out hoax. But then --yes, I admit it-- I tend to believe that the hoax was created by others (Melvin's theory) and thus I am ultimately arguing against my own beliefs--something that seems common enough from certain posters on this board, and perhaps signals a need for some of us to retire to the sidelines.
Regardless, all roads lead to Rome. If Anne's provenance story is in doubt, it needs to be tested. To make assumptions based on what is unknown is futile...regardless of who is doing it. Hence the statement in my previous post:
"by endlessly arguing over whether or not Anne or Mike did this or that or the other, we are keeping alive the possibility that Anne's story is true while avoiding the unpleasant
task of actually examining it".
In other words, I don't ultimately really disagree with John's arguments or Paul's focus or Caz's objections, I just think we are all putting the cart before the horse.
But I think the partisans here (you & John & Rich excluded) have nearly reached a stalemate. So I believe I'll really, truly be taking a break.
Best wishes to all.
RJP |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 06 April 2001 - 01:28 pm | | Hi RJP
I would just like to point out that I am not partisan. Anything but. I think the 'diary' is a forgery, I have said this since day one and I still say it. I think Mike and/or Anne are on balance of probability the forgers, but I have serious doubts that Mike actually was. If these doubts turn out to be justified, I have no real idea at this stage whether Anne also didn't know the 'diary' was a forgery. Her 'in the family for years' story could mean that she did and was the forger or knows the forger. On the other hand, it could have been an opportunistic tale inspired by Feldman or someone else. And, of course, it the story was simply opportunistic and Anne has no more idea of where the 'diary' came from than Mike, then the forger is neither of them - as the handwriting and Melvin's journalists' evidence seems to support. It would have been profitable, perhaps, to have explored this with you. The final possibility, of course, is that Anne's story is true, in which case we're in a whole different ball game.
I don't think it is actually worth while at this stage to investigate the details of Anne's story because if, as seems likely, it is hogwash, then we will still won't know whether it is a story she invented, a story she was told (to some extent Billy Graham seems to have been a mover in all of this) and believed to be true, a story based on fact but wildly distorted, or whatever. In effect we'll be back asking pretty much the same questions as we are now.
On the whole I agree completely with the sentiments Rich has expressed. I feel that both ‘sides’, for want of a better word, are set in the beliefs, be it that Mike and Anne forged the ‘diary’ themselves or whatever. That’s why I believe that we should question and question again, even if it gets up the nose of those who have already made up their minds, because there is an interesting story here and there is a lot to learn. |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 06 April 2001 - 01:39 pm | | Hi RJ,
Serious thanks for your initial response above. It was precisely the one I was hoping for.
Of course I realize that on the face of it it would seem to be an absurdity to suggest that if Anne has been lying about the diary's provenance this might actually lessen the probability that she was also the actual forger. Thus the "almost" in the sentence you cite -- which sought to indicate that I knew the extreme and apparently silly nature of this claim (although Madeleine has since made me look smarter than I am by making a very good point about the two different sets of behaviors and the two different types of culprits they indicate). My remark about Anne's lies almost lessening the likelihood of her being a forger was merely a deliberate provocation; an attempt to steer the discussion in a specific direction.
I'm sorry about being imprecise, but here, as you will see, it was done for a reason.
And, much to my delight, you asked the perfectly appropriate question:
"aren't you coming to this startling opinion based on your own assumption that it is more likely than Anne's story is motivated by Feldman & a film deal rather than it is motivated by the fact that she doesn't want to admit that she was involved in the forging of the diary?"
Yes! Exactly! And this is my point. If I were to claim that I had concluded that Anne's behavior, in light of surrounding events concerning the publication and reception of the diary, "lessened the likelihood" of her actually being the forger, that she was more likely "motivated," as you say, by one of these situations rather than the other, this would indeed be only, as you say, based on my own assumption, since I would have no physical or material or experiential evidence concerning Anne and the actual writing of the diary with which to support my decision in favor of her having acquired it rather than her having written it. This would be a logical error on my part. I would have offered a preferred conclusion to two likely scenarios without offering any specific evidence for that preference. That would be a logically and historically rushed and invalid conclusion given the evidence available. To make matters worse, if I then based a charge of forgery on this preference or, to use your word, "assumption," and then somehow claimed it to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt," that, I am afraid would probably be somewhat irresponsible of me.
You see?
Precisely the same thing can be said if I was to make the same conclusions from precisely the same premises concerning Anne's lying in favor of the other alternative. If, that is, I was to offer as a conclusion that Anne and Mike must have been complicit in the forgery because of their behavior after it became public. I would, in this case, be advancing a preference for my "assumption" of the scenario of authorship over that of acquisition and disguising it as a conclusion. And then, if I somehow claimed that conclusion was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I would once again be making the same sort of unwarranted logical and historical leap concerning one alternative, one which is no more logically proven or evidenced, or even necessarily likely given the simple fact of the lies told, than the other.
This is precisely my concern about Karoline's recent readings and, I'm afraid, yours above when you ask:
"If Anne's provenance story can be shown to be false, doesn't it indeed increase the probablility that she made it up in order to respond to a relatively valid confession on Mike's part?"
Once again, no. I do not see specifically how the probability moves either way. Authorship and acquisition are still both similarly likely scenarios given your premise.
Let me establish this shorthand for us.
"Authorship" -- that Anne and/or Mike composed, researched, produced, or knew about the composition, research production of the diary.
"Acquisition" -- Anne and/or Mike somehow acquired the volume in a way that remains to be determined, but were not involved directly in its production or in writing the words on the page.
Authorship and acquisition are still, it seems to me, both very likely scenarios.
Mike and Anne's behavior after 1992 can be explained in equally convincing ways in terms of both scenarios, especially given the dramatic effects that the diary's troubled and conflicting receptions had on their lives. (And, by the way, I am not at all sure what you are describing as "a relatively valid confession on Mike's part." But this would have to be discussed carefully -- especially the phrase "relatively valid.")
Claiming that Anne's lying about the diary's provenance increases the likelihood of her authorship over her acquisition is no more valid, by itself, than claiming the opposite, since Anne's lying about the diary's provenance and even Anne's profiting from the books' public reception, indicate nothing at all about the truth of either the authorship or the acquisition scenario.
If Anne's story can be shown to be false, this neither increases nor lessens the probability that either the authorship scenario or the acquisition scenario is the historically accurate one -- both remain highly viable, understandable, and probable scenarios.
The fact that Anne lied tells us nothing, by itself, about why she was lying. She, by that point, has any number of possible motives to continue lying, if that is what she has been doing, and only a few of them relate in any way to the question of authorship versus acquisition. That is why investigation into the acts of all involved before the diary was published remains necessary.
But most importantly, you, in the first half of your post, responding to why any claim I might make about Anne's lies actually lessening the probability for authorship could only be based on my preference for one assumption rather than the other, have offered a very insightful and compelling critique of your own conclusion in the second half of your post, posed in its final question, and a thoroughly convincing critique of Karoline's premature conclusions concerning complicity being established.
And, given the extent to which it is at least fair to say that neither the case for authorship or acquisition is affected much by whether Anne's story is true, any claims to have "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" the charge of forgery, the claim of direct authorship, based solely on a conclusion that Anne lied about provenance, do indeed, seem to risk absurdity.
This small exercise has, I hope, proven to be at least a little useful.
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 06 April 2001 - 01:47 pm | | Hi all,
I see the debate has moved on while I was composing and RJ has clarified his position, withdrawing, I think, the assumption implied in his earlier question.
"If Anne's provenance story can be shown to be false, doesn't it indeed increase the probability that she made it up in order to respond to a relatively valid confession on Mike's part?"
I hope I have read your more recent post correctly as a qualification concerning any relative certainty about any "increase" in the "probability" or the likelihood of anything concerning the identities of the actual forgers, RJ.
Nonetheless, I will let the post above stand as a reading that attempts to be, I hope, a fairly clear demonstration of the dangers of concluding, in Anne and or Mike's case, at this point, either in favor of authorship or of acquisition.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 06 April 2001 - 02:39 pm | | Hi, Karoline,
Perhaps I did not make my position clear. I was not suggesting that the diary was actually authored by Maybrick. I was not even suggesting that it is remotely likely that the diary is genuine. In fact, if you read my post I labeled the explanation and rationalizes of the diary's defenders as "far-fetched." In fact, in one of your responses to me you quoted that remark.
The point I have been trying to make, repeatedly, and, apparently, unsuccessfully, is that many here on these message boards are attached to certain theories about the diary and appear unwilling or unable to even consider any information or surmize contrary to their opinion.
I for one, if it matters, believe that the diary is a forgery. I believe the overwhelming evidence supports that contention. However, I do not believe that the evidence is as yet conclusive beyond the mere improbability that is the real item. I believe the matter warrants further study.
I recognize this is a minority position. Yet I do not understand the vitriolic reaction to my expressing it. And I am befuddled by the stated view here that some feel the supremacy of their opinion entitles them to even suggest what is or should not be of historical interest.
The purpose of my remarks has consistently been to make one point: that some people's opinions on the diary are so entrenched that they are closed minded to any information or interpretation that crosses their path that might contradict their pre-concieved notions.
In your original reply to me you compared those who have different opinions on the diary to revisionists regarding the holocaust. I dont believe that comparison fits but, for the moment, let us consider it.
Part of the role of a historian is also to consider myths and the rumors of history - otherwise how will they be disproved?
Of course the holocaust is settled history. But would you seriously condemn any serious historian who examined any evidence contrary to the settled issues of the holocaust?
We simply may differ. I would prefer the historian who reviews and seriously considers the information of the holocaust revisionists and refutes them to the historian who refuses to partake in the discussion and dismisses all questions on settled history as a waste of time.
As John has pointed out, once in a great while, settled history is up-ended when the improbable is shown to have actually occurred.
Perhaps I am expressing too much frustration in this lengthy diatribe. In essense, what I am saying, is that I feel some here with fixed opinions feel compelled to critique others for the infraction of having an open-mind.
Sorry for the ramblings,
Rich |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 06 April 2001 - 02:48 pm | | John --One last comment on my way out the door. In general, I think one would have a difficult time in convincing a parent, a girlfriend, a police officer, a judge, or a boss that lying didn't increase one's likelihood of complicity. Still, when there's jam on the face and a hand is in the cookie-jar, one can always fall back on smooth-tongued charm, and wily logic, I suppose.
Meanwhile, it looks like I'm going to have to wait for Paul Feldman's 2nd edition before I find out the documentation behind Anne's claims. I hear Time's (or are those Melvin's?) winged chariots at my back, and am starting to wonder whether or not life is indeed a little too short for sickertian stories. It's a matter of taste, I suppose. They're rather amusing to contemplate during a fireside chat, I must admit.
Paul--Many thanks for your clarification. I'll be back before too long and we'll all wrangle some more.
Best wishes,
RJP |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 06 April 2001 - 02:58 pm | | Hi Karoline,
In a reply to Paul you stated that it is "probable" that the diary was written first on Mike's word processor before being written on the diary and rather dismissive of any other consideration.
You seem to suggest that because Mike has little credibility that any fact relating to him and this case must be seen interpreted unfavorably toward him.
Let me suggest that this is a logical error. Let us assume that your opinion of the matter is correct - that Mike had a hand in forging the diary.
Now, is it not possible that, accepting your assumption as being correct, that the text of the forgery was typed on the word processor after the diary had been forged as protection against the original fraud being lost?
I basically believe your view of the genesis of the Maybrick as the most likely scenario. Yet it is very dangerous to build a theory on a multitude of probabilities and then proclaim the results as established fact.
Rich |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 06 April 2001 - 03:25 pm | | RJ
I was re-reading the recent entries and found the following question, from you, which I had earlier missed:
"Certainly whether or not Anne's/Feldman's provenance claims have any validity is of the highest relevance. But we are constantly told that that is not what we are discussing. Why is this?"
Well, not quite. By me at least, you are only "being told" (an unfortunate phrase, I think, for a discussion of this sort) that "whether or not Anne's/Feldman's provenance claims have any validity" has no clear, compelling, or even evidentiary link to the question of who wrote this book. I suppose both of these questions have a good deal of "relevance," as you say. But they are not necessarily linked questions. We should be, no doubt, and are, I think, discussing both of them in separate conversations with an ear across the lines.
But, Karoline has, on a couple of occasions, explicitly linked these questions by asserting that "whether or not Anne's/Feldman's provenance claims have any validity" somehow "increases the probability" that Anne is the forger.
Consequently, if, as you suggest,
"Karoline feels that by insisting that this conversation is about 'finding the forgers' (much like last month it was about Melvin 'naming the forgers') we misguided ramblers are only sneakily avoiding the more compelling historical question[...]"
then I am afraid that this is at least partially because she herself suggested that determining the truth of the provenance story would allow us to come to a conclusion about Mike and Anne's complicity in the forgery, and thereby a conclusion about the identities of the forgers. So it seems that the "finding the forgers" question was introduced into the discussion, at least for me, by Karoline, when she first made the hasty leap from "Anne is lying" to "Anne is a forger," and then suggested this was proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." Up until then, I had not considered these arguments to be linked, nor had I seen anyone advance such a leap in assumptions, or I would have responded to their arguments in precisely the way I responded to Karoline's.
I can, if people are interested, head back to the archives to cite the posts where Karoline repeatedly makes this leap and thereby interweaves the discussion in just the way that you, RJ, are speculating is now proving, at least for Karoline, to be misguided (if, as you say, that is how she feels).
By the way, I do not think the two issues necessarily present a sequential imperative. It seems possible that one can examine the behavior of Anne and Mike after the forgery hit the market and there were opportunities and disasters, and one can examine the text, its forensics and its rhetoric and the actions and whereabouts of all involved prior to 1992 (such as the little red diary discussion now once again beginning) at the same time without making either examination more difficult. But this requires that one be very careful about proceeding slowly and that one resist leaping to claims of "If A then B" until such conditional relationships are clearly established.
It is not necessarily a cart/horse situation. In fact, if the binary is reversed; if we discover the identity of the forgers first, it is quite possible that our reading of Anne and Mike's behavior after publication will become at least somewhat simpler, easier, and maybe even clearer.
I, of course, would be in favor of displacing this binarism and of reading into and through and alongside of each of these two questions (provenance and authorship -- unreliable and confusing narratives of history and mysterious and still missing scenes of writing) carefully, simultaneously, as much without the prejudice of prior assumptions as possible, but with an understanding that the line between the two readings will constantly continue to be erased and re-drawn.
Some find this strategy confusing. I think, when several readers are participating, it often proves to be productive almost through sheer force and the inevitable, fortunate accidents of interpretations and reinterpretations.
At least, this is one of my hopes.
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 06 April 2001 - 03:36 pm | | Hi RJ,
As you step out the door you wave and suggest:
"I think one would have a difficult time in convincing a parent, a girlfriend, a police officer, a judge, or a boss that lying didn't increase one's likelihood of complicity."
Yes, unless we're talking about lying about one thing and complicity in another. Then neither parent, girlfriend, police officer or boss could conclude about the question of possible or likely complicity in one thing anything at all from the lie concerning the other. Not if they were being careful and respectful of the evidence, the way historians are required to be. To simply suggest that liars are likely to be forgers just because they are liars is, well, it's just a leap I am not willing to consider as evidenced or valid, even if my parents, girlfriend, a police officer and my boss are willing to leap to this conclusion.
Then you create a scene:
"Still, when there's jam on the face and a hand is in the cookie-jar, one can always fall back on smooth-tongued charm, and wily logic, I suppose."
I don't know. I have no charm and my logic, I hope, is patient, careful, deliberate, but not at all intended to be wily.
If I have been "wily" with my logic, then I do apologize. My interest in going explicitly step by step to understand the relationships between assumptions and various different knowledge claims has been a sincere and honest attempt to read carefully and with respect for the movements of this discussion.
I hope it has not seemed that I have been trying to be "wily" or to dissimulate through false logic in any way, or that I have tried to charm people in order to distract them (as if I could).
Thanks for the discussion, RJ. I hope you come back soon.
--John |
Author: Karoline L
Saturday, 07 April 2001 - 04:30 am | | John,
I appreciate your very interwoven philosophical arguments,and how painstaking you are. But I think that you on the one hand and RJ, Peter and I on the other are coming at the question from different angles.
You are engaged in a very interesting, and entertaining philosophical and epistemological exercise. This is great fun and I've sort of gone along with you to an extent. but ultimately that's not what I think this case needs.
What this case needs is some kind of general acceptance from responsible people of what the evidence actually means - in terms of the real and actual world.
If you truly believe the fact the Barretts "discovered" the diary, or that they lied about its provenance, or that they tried to place it and profited from its sale, does not in any way increase the likelihood of their being involved in its creation - then that is what you think.
But I do suggest it's a very unusual view, and one not shared by most working policemen and law officials.
The widely accepted view is that crimes generally tend to be perpetrated by those who most profit by them. This is not an absolute rule, of course, but it is a good working assumption - and to be frank I have never encountered anyone but you who has doubted it.
Yesterday RJP wrote to you:
"I think one would have a difficult time in convincing a parent, a girlfriend, a police officer, a judge, or a boss that lying didn't increase one's likelihood of complicity."
You replied:
"Yes, unless we're talking about lying about one thing and complicity in another"
Let me put a case to you -
If you found out your wife was secretly spending your retirement money on nights out at male strip joints, would this not make you more likely to suspect her of deceiving you in other ways as well?
If, subsequently, your Rolex watch vanished mysteriously and ended up on your best frend's wrist, would you maintain you had no particular reason to suspect your wife of stealing it and giving it to a possible lover - because she's only been proved to lie about money and strip clubs, not about watches and sex?
But anyhow, this is irrelevant to the question here - because in the case of the Barretts we aren't talking about "lying about one thing and complicity in another", are we?
We are talking about lying about where the diary came from implying increased probability of complicity in forging it.
"All same!" as my middle son would have announced happily when he was two and discovering matching pairs.
Finally, I just have to ask you John;
If you don't think any of the data we presently have - the profit motive, the spurious provenance, MB's confession, the fact that the text of the thing was on MB's computer, the fact that the Barretts bought another old diary just before the fake one made its first public appearance -
if none of that suggests for you an even slightly increased probability that the Barretts were involved in the forgery to some degree - then may I ask - what would?
best wishes to you
Karoline |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 07 April 2001 - 05:37 am | | Hello John
"Certainly whether or not Anne's/Feldman's provenance claims have any validity is of the highest relevance. But we are constantly told that that is not what we are discussing. Why is this?"
It is entirely possible that I may be the guilty party here. My opinion is that even if we investigate Anne’s ‘in my family for years’ story and prove it to be hogwash, this does not mean that she is the forger or even increase the probability that she is the forger. Anne could have lied for many reasons, not the least of them being the temptation of a lucrative film deal proposed by Feldman. As you have said, Anne lying would raise ethical questions, but would not make her the forger. I feel that alternative explanations for her story should be considered and be examined, but, as Rich has observed, there seems to be a rigid opposition to doing this from those who take the view that the provenance story is a lie, Anne is a liar, Anne is therefore more probably the forger. This does seem like common sense and it may even prove to be true, but it isn’t a logically progressive argument nor one that the cautious historian would be wise to follow. In fact, not only would proving Anne’s provenance story hogwash not only not make Anne the forger or bring us any nearer to knowing who the forger was, it may not even prove Anne’s ‘in my family for years’ story untrue.
Dan Farson visited the neice of Mary Cox who said that in 1888 her aunt was very young, just married, with one child. ‘She was standing at her door and waiting for her husband who was a bit of a boozer. She saw Mary coming through the iron gate with this gentleman, a real toff…a fine looking man, wore an overcoat with a cape, high hat, not a silk one, and Gladstone bag. As they went into the house, Mary called out “goodnight” to my aunt.’
On balance of probability this story is completely untrue. The description of the man is so stereotypical an image of the Ripper that it can’t possibly be real. There was no iron gate at the entrance to Miller’s court. A check of the records would show that in 1888 Mary Cox was a widow, not recently married and with a child, and therefore wouldn’t have been standing in her doorway waiting for her boozing husband to come home and any suggestion that she might have been waiting there for some other reason, like for the rain to stop, would be dismissed as a desperate attempt to avoid facing the overwhelming weight of probability that the story is hokum from start to finish. Except that Mary Anne Cox entered Dorset Street at 11.45p.m. just behind Mary Kelly and a man with a blotchy face and full carroty moustache and dressed in shabby clothes (that included a long overcoat) and as Mrs Cox passed them outside the door to Room 13 Kelly said “goodnight”.
Sometimes a story can for all sorts of reasons become bent and battered beyond all recognition, even during transmission from aunt to neice, yet retain a kernel of truth. Proving the details of Anne’s story untrue, right down to its equivalent of the iron gate in the Mrs Cox story, doesn’t mean the ‘diary’ wasn’t inherited by Billy Graham in 1950. That’s why I feel that examining the ‘in my family for years’ story may produce a lot of good and interesting material, but may not tell us very much about when the ‘diary’ was written or by whom. This is especially true if Mike and Anne got the ‘diary’ from Tony Devereux and have no more idea about where he got it from than we do.
I don't know about anyone else, but this seems to make sense to me. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 07 April 2001 - 09:19 am | | Hi All,
Hi Karoline. You wrote:
If you truly believe the fact the Barretts "discovered" the diary, or that they lied about its provenance, or that they tried to place it and profited from its sale, does not in any way increase the likelihood of their being involved in its creation - then that is what you think.
But I do suggest it's a very unusual view, and one not shared by most working policemen and law officials.
But isn't this almost exactly the view of Melvin Harris, who also claims to have information which backs up that view? I'll repeat it again here, in case it got missed last time around:
And I have never believed that Mike faked it or that Anne faked it. Their lies simply concern provenance. Their roles were simply as placers, or handlers, of a document forged by others.
Just one other thing. Karoline, you were the one who introduced a touch of healthy ridicule by suggesting that the flat earth debate was somehow comparable to this one. I saw it as an amusing and light-hearted dig on your part, not realising it was meant to be taken so seriously. I don't mind in the least providing amusement for those who think my questions are daft, or my arguments unreasonable. But I was rather hoping you would take my response equally light-heartedly, so I apologise for misreading the situation, and putting my habitual immature and unhelpful (although I wouldn't have said any more impolite than bringing up flat-earthers in the first place) foot in it.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 07 April 2001 - 09:47 am | | Hi Karoline,
Thank you for offering what you think is the difference between our readings and our desires.
I am afraid, however, that you offer a dangerous distinction; one that, over the years, has proven to lead to more mistaken conclusions and misreadings of history than almost any other.
You write the following paragraphs, which suggest a difference that I'm not sure exists in quite the particular way your are suggesting.
"You are engaged in a very interesting, and entertaining philosophical and epistemological exercise. This is great fun and I've sort of gone along with you to an extent. but ultimately that's not what I think this case needs.
What this case needs is some kind of general acceptance from responsible people of what the evidence actually means - in terms of the real and actual world."
The assumption, explicitly built into these paragraphs, is that reading with careful logic and thinking through problems philosophically with an eye towards the specific likelihoods and the constructions of people's various claims to knowledge (epistemology) is somehow removed from or different than what happens "in terms of the real and actual world" or the way meaning, what the evidence actually means" is established in "the real and actual world."
I believe this is horribly and dangerously wrong and precisely the sort of false assumption that gets innocent people regularly accused of and convicted of all sorts of things. It is also the sort of claim of separation -- "you can use all the logic and 'philosophy' you want -- but here in the real world, we know these people did it" -- can easily and, historically, has often, signalled the beginning of the end for rational discourse and careful, objective investigation.
In fact, I would suggest that it is precisely "the real and actual world" wherein "philosophical and epistemological" approaches and careful logic are most desperately needed if we are to have any hope at all for establishing reliable conclusions or maintaining at least the possibility of justice.
Those who forsake "philosophical and epistemological exercises" and awarenesses and the painstaking step by step logic of argumentation often easily and very quickly fall into assumption, unfounded suspicion, slippery inductions, herd mentalities and finally, too often, simple persecution.
It is these "philosophical and epistemological exercises" -- that is, careful and constant thinking about the status of our knowledge and the logical validity of our arguments -- which is our best and possibly only safeguard against rushes to judgment, against sloppy thinking, against the misreading of assumptions as facts, against the tendency to give into our desire for simple solutions and thereby accuse and even pronounce convicted before conclusions have been thoroughly and carefully investigated and established in, as you say, "the real and actual world."
The law, I'm afraid, which, in "the real and actual world," affects our lives every day, always needs more "philosophical and epistemological exercises," and better and more thorough and careful logic if it is to have any hope of approaching justice, not less. If I were accused, either justly or unjustly, in the "real and actual" world, I would certainly want the law to be careful and thorough in its investigation and administration of justice and I would certainly want to make sure that it used steady and reliable philosophical and epistemological consideration and care and rigorous step-by-step logic in my case.
Strange as it sounds, I actually live in the "real and actual world" and I find "philosophical and epistemological exercises" and rigorous logical analysis to be among the most relevant, most beneficial, and most important keys to behaving in that "real and actual world" in a responsible, reliable, trustworthy, and careful manner. Not only do I think life in the "real and actual world" is not different and distinct from or free from the need for "philosophical and epistemological exercises" and the rigorous maintenance of justice through logical investigation and argumentation; I believe it is precisely these things which make living in "the real and actual world" in a responsible way and in an intelligent and careful way, somewhat easier and even somewhat more possible.
These approaches are not only related through and through to living in the "real and actual world," they can be very useful tools to understanding precisely how one lives in that "real and actual world" and precisely what one's relationship to that "real and actual world" is -- and this sort of knowledge seems to me to be invaluable and relevant and practical for all concerned.
Also, by the way, for us, here now, as we examine this case, the "real and actual world" is clearly and demonstrably, completely and thoroughly, the world of reading written texts and interpreting other people's actions and past events written differently into many people's memories. Nowhere, that I can think of, in the realm of human endeavors, are philosophical and epistemological awareness and selfconsciousness and logical care and rigor more necessary and more vitally important and needed than in the act of reading written texts and other peoples actions and stories and past events written into memory. Nowhere. It is precisely here, where the reputations and the legacies of all involved are at stake in our reading and interpretations that philosophical, epistemological and logical rigor are our most valuable tools, our best allies against error and our essential safeguards as we risk the possibility of injustice against others.
That is why I fear that your original, perhaps somewhat naive distinction offered in the two paragraphs above has long been an especially troublesome and dangerous one for the history of humanity. During nearly all of its most horrible nightmares, the human race has been much too willing to separate philosophical and epistemological self-awareness and rigorous, careful, and painstaking logic from what it thought was "the real and actual world" and then have gone on to pay unspeakable prices. I would suggest that we someday learn this lesson and that we learn to carefully and constantly employ what skills and rigor and caution and self-awarenesses are necessary to make sure these particular histories do not repeat themselves.
As I say, I believe your distinction is not only a false one, but a very dangerous one.
[An aside: I will not even begin to discuss what it also implies about the nature of meaning -- another frightening and disturbing historical implication (that "real world" meaning is somehow significantly different from and strangely more "useful" than rational and logically established meaning derived sometimes through careful and responsible philosophical or epistemological investigation). This is another false and dangerous distinction which has proven to poorly serve history and humanity.]
[A second aside: Can the rhetoric of philosophy, epistemology, and logic be used deliberately to dissimulate and confuse? Of course. It has been, often. Can the rhetoric of "common sense" in the "real and actual world" and what "everbody knows" be used deliberately to dissimulate and confuse. Of course. It has been, often. All the more reason, I say, for multiple, careful, patient, and deliberate readings.]
Now, on to your hypothetical, which is somewhat more fun.
You ask:
"If you found out your wife was secretly spending your retirement money on nights out at male strip joints, would this not make you more likely to suspect her of deceiving you in other ways as well?
If, subsequently, your Rolex watch vanished mysteriously and ended up on your best frend's wrist, would you maintain you had no particular reason to suspect your wife of stealing it and giving it to a possible lover - because she's only been proved to lie about money and strip clubs, not about watches and sex?"
The temptation here is to summarily announce that I'm not married and thereby both escape the problem and enter my name into the pool of eligible Ripperologists at the same time, but this would violate the spirit and the contract of the hypothetical.
Seriously, though, you know my answer to this, which is perhaps why you dismiss the problem almost as soon as you raise it with
"But anyhow, this is irrelevant to the question here - because in the case of the Barretts we aren't talking about 'lying about one thing and complicity in another', are we?
(Of course, my answer to the hypothetical would be that there is no question I would be more likely to suspect my wife -- but I would also know that that was an expression in part of my own pain and wounded pride and my own personal reaction to being betrayed and though I might strongly feel I was justified in my suspicions, I would also know they were in no way either purely objective or logical or even rationally necessary or relevant and that I hope a more independent and reliable source, like say, a detective or, say, a historian, would be more philosophical and more epistemologically careful and think more rigorously through the problem, and the accompanying evidence and data before he suggested that her actions at the strip club alone made her a more likely suspect in the theft. I would behave irrationally. I would hope that they would not.)
In this case, of course, I feel no personal pain or betrayal from the Barrett's actions and can remain careful and consequently I can pursue the matter with logic and so would make precisely the same case there.
But you clarify:
"We are talking about lying about where the diary came from implying increased probability of complicity in forging it.
'All same!' as my middle son would have announced happily when he was two and discovering matching pairs."
And your middle son would no doubt be pleased and delighted with himself, but, if he were making the claim about your sentence above, he would also be horribly wrong and dangerously allowing for the possibility of an unjust conclusion.
I think I have explained this recently, but "lying about where the diary came from" is a different thing altogether than "complicity in forging it." So we are clearly and demonstrably talking about two different things. I can lie about a book and not have written it. People do it all the time, even about books and papers with unknown origins. And their lying simply, of itself, does not logically and necessarily increase the likelihood that they did write it. The only thing that would do that is some clear physical or material or experiential evidence in some way of their actually writing it or their preparing to write it or their researching it or their having written it or other people's witnessing their writing it or their preparing to write it or their researching it or their having written it or someone's actual knowledge of their writing it or their preparing to write it or their researching it or their having written it. Period. This seems to me simple, but it obviously is not.
Finally, you ask directly:
"If you don't think any of the data we presently have - the profit motive, the spurious provenance, MB's confession, the fact that the text of the thing was on MB's computer, the fact that the Barretts bought another old diary just before the fake one made its first public appearance -
if none of that suggests for you an even slightly increased probability that the Barretts were involved in the forgery to some degree - then may I ask - what would?"
Now I would like to be very clear and very careful here (I know, sorry).
I have never written that none of the things you mention above suggest for me "an even slightly increased probability that the Barretts were involved in the forgery to some degree."
In fact, I have said several times that the purchase of the diary and the Crashaw quote's appearance in the Sphere volume do indeed, for me, remain as evidence of before-the-fact intention and therefore they clearly do suggest an increase in the "probability that the Barretts were involved in the forgery to some degree."
Now, both of these pieces of data are surrounded here with conflicting and troublesome and muddled stories that remain to be read carefully and in meticulous detail. That is what I think we are beginning to do here. That is what needs to be done. That is what remains. But clearly, as they sit, they are precisely the sort of evidence of actions and events prior to 1992 that would be essential in examining if we are to going to responsibly discuss the possibility that either or both of the Barrett's actually wrote this document.
The other four items you mention are different.
"the profit motive, the spurious provenance, MB's confession, the fact that the text of the thing was on MB's computer"
The first two of these speak either in favor of acquisition or authorship equally, especially considering the events that followed publication, as I have tried to show at length elsewhere, and are not in any way necessarily or logically indications of complicity in actual forgery. So I do not yet consider them as "increasing the likelihood" of the Barrett's having composed the lines on these pages.
The second two are more problematic.
"MB's confession, the fact that the text of the thing was on MB's computer"
This has all been discussed elsewhere to my satisfaction at least. Mike's confessions are a mess. They could never, as they read now, stand as evidence for anything, and I think I could clearly and carefully demonstrate why, if I had not already gone on much too long here. I would be willing to do so in a later post, although a quick read of their contradictions, their histories, and their gaps should reveal this to anyone who cares to read them over on the Casebook pages.
The fact of the appearance of the diary text on the word processor, as others have shown, can be read quite simply and quite logically in two conflicting and contradictory ways. This is the case with much of history of course, and in this case, we are not bound to decide. We can allow both readings to stand until we have read further and developed better conclusions based on less problematic evidence.
As I said above, what would count for me, what does count for me as evidence that, as you say, would "suggest an even slightly increased probability that the Barretts were involved in the forgery to some degree," would be any and all data specifically concerning, and any "clear physical or material or experiential evidence in some way of, their actually writing it or their preparing to write it or their researching it or their having written it or other people's witnessing their writing it or their preparing to write it or their researching it or their having written it or someone's actual knowledge of their writing it or their preparing to write it or their researching it or their having written it." I would include here things like the location of the Crashaw quote and the purchase of the red diary, but not whatever lies after the fact about provenance they might still be telling or have told since 1992.
And one last thing. I am not at all convinced yet that Mike and Anne did not write this book. I do not know who wrote this book. I do not even yet see any clear argument in favor of suspecting any particular people of having written this book. Anywhere. Melvin Harris claims Anne and Mike did not write this book (at least I think he claims that. He takes credit for the idea that they were merely planters). I do not think Melvin (or anyone else) has even come close to proving the case that Anne and Mike did not write this book. Nor do I think that anyone has come close to proving even, as you yourself once claimed, "beyond a reasonable doubt," that Mike and Anne did write this book.
I do not think the case has even more than barely begun to be established that they did or did not write this book. And I have no ideological or personal investment in whether or not they wrote this book. It is a fascinating set of questions -- who did this and how and where and when -- but any clearly established or even simply evidenced answer would suit me just fine. I know none of the people involved personally and I have no great desire for a hurried solution. I sometimes don't even really mind not knowing, since it allows me to continue to struggle with these questions.
But, as of now, I know nothing at all about where this book was before 1992. I have seen barely any material evidence at all specifically about where this book was before 1992.
Consequently, for me, anyway, much more reading remains to be done.
I apologize for the length of this. Several important issues of concern and clarification were involved.
Thanks, everyone, for reading.
--John |
Author: Karoline L
Saturday, 07 April 2001 - 04:58 pm | | Richard P.Dewar wrote to me:
In a reply to Paul you stated that it is "probable" that the
diary was written first on Mike's word processor before
being written on the diary and rather dismissive of any other consideration.
I don't think I was dismissive, and I apologise if I seemed so.
If you read back you will see I do most definitely acknowledge that there are other possibilities. I just suggest that, with the other indications we have of MB's complicity in the creation of the document, the most probable (gosh is anyone getting as tired of reading that phrase as I am of writing it?) explanation is that the text was on his word processor because that is where it was composed.
Of course if new data is discovered then this could radically change. I try to keep an open mind and am always interested in new developments. This just seems to me to be the most reasonable conclusion - given the present state of our knowledge.
Richard wrote
You seem to suggest that because Mike has little credibility that any fact relating to him and this case must be seen interpreted unfavorably toward him.
Well, I am suggesting that with the other indications of his complicity in the creation of the document, the most probable explanation is that the text was on his word processor because that is where it was composed.
Richard wrote:
Let me suggest that this is a logical error. Let us assume
that your opinion of the matter is correct - that Mike had a hand in forging the diary
Right.
Richard wrote:
Now, is it not possible that, accepting your assumption as
being correct, that the text of the forgery was typed on the
word processor after the diary had been forged as protection
against the original fraud being lost?
Yes it is.
If you look back at my previous reply (to Paul I think) on this subject you will find I have already acknowledged that.
But I think it might be you not I who are committing the logical error, for you seem to be confusing 'possible' with 'probable'
A thing may be possible without being at all likely.
There are an almost infinite number of possible reasons why MB had the text of the diary on his word processor. But they aren't all equally probable.
As Paul has observed so well - a historian's job is to sort through those endless possible reasons and find the one which seem most probable in the given circumstances. This is what anyone who wants to find good answers here has to do.
Richard wrote:
I basically believe your view of the genesis of the Maybrick
as the most likely scenario. Yet it is very dangerous to
build a theory on a multitude of probabilities and then
proclaim the results as established fact.
I agree - and if I ever start referring to probabilities as established facts, you will have every reason to criticise me.
But I don't think I am doing that now, am I? I think I have maintained a clear distinction between those things that are proved, those things that can be strongly inferred and those things that are mere and empty guesswork.
I haven't actually been trying to build anything as structured as a 'theory'.
What I have been trying to do here is simply to draw the discussion back to a consideration of the realistic probabilities involved in this case, since my impression is that this is an aspect which has tended to be rather overlooked in all the enthusiastic hypothesising.
I'm glad you broadly agree with me, however. I think the majority of authors and 'experts' (I hate that word) in this field share a similar view of the case, though most of them prefer not to contibute here.
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Karoline L
Saturday, 07 April 2001 - 05:51 pm | | Paul wrote:
I feel that alternative explanations for [AG's]
story should be considered and be examined, but, as Rich has observed, there seems to be a rigid opposition to doing this from those who take the view that the provenance story is a
lie, Anne is a liar, Anne is therefore more probably the forger.
I hope you don't mean me as a possible source of this "rigid opposition". Do I really seem that unreasonable?
I am certainly taking the view that the current data clearly favours the likelihood of AG's complicity to some extent in the creation of the diary, but I'm certainly not rigidly opposed to talking about any of the things you mention. By all means - let's do so.
(Just to pause for a moment - Does examining this provenance story mean the old forgery theory is back on the agenda? Or is it still off limits? (my concentration is failing))
I for one am very interested in examining alternative possibilities - with only one proviso - that such possibilities are firmly based on known data, and are not simply "what-ifs" based on assumptions that have no historical or evidential validity.
For example, can I ask what you mean by "alternative explanations" for her conduct?
Do you mean we should go and ask AG for some better explanation?
Or do you mean we should look for explanations that are clearly determinable from the data?
Or do you mean we should just grab a possible 'explanation' out of thin air? - like "what if Billy Graham was a compulsive liar who knew the diary originated in his family, but couldn't help making up a load of nonsense about it?" or "what if AG was being blackmailed into keeping the truth from us all?"
I totally approve of the first two, but can't really support the third. I know that kind of thing is very popular here, and I've read quite a bit of it in going back over old posts - but I'm afraid I just don't think it's very good methodology.
I believe very strongly that theorising should be based firmly on what can be shown to be true - and not on unsubstantiated guesswork based on what can't be shown to be false.
Paul wrote:
In fact, not only would proving Anne’s
provenance story hogwash not only not make Anne the forger or bring us any nearer to knowing who the forger was, it may not even prove Anne’s ‘in my family for years’ story untrue......
I gather you are using the Cox story that you quote to illustrate the point that even though all the details of a story can be shot to hell, the story itself might still have some truth in it. And you are using this as an analogy to suggest that even if someone manages to entirely disprove the whole of AG's family provenance story - that still doesn't mean the diary didn't originate in her family?
Well, I think it might be wise to bear in mind one quite important distinction:
Neither of the Coxes (so far as I know), were trying to profit out of a forged document based on this 'family story'.
Paul wrote:
Proving the details of Anne’s story untrue, right down to its equivalent of the iron gate in the Mrs Cox story, doesn’t mean the ‘diary’ wasn’t inherited by Billy Graham in 1950.
So, if I understand you aright - you are saying that AG's story must still be considered as possible - even when/if it is finally disproved - because there just may have been some fragment of forgotten family lore at its base.
I guess you realise that a direct corollary of your above assertion must be that no claim, however spurious, however conclusively it is proved to be false, can ever be dismissed - once made - because there just might be a 'kernel' of truth beneath the lies and distortions.
For how do we ever determine if such a kernel exists or not?
How do we ever - given your reasoning expressed above - finally conclude that the kernel isn't there, or that anything is truly false, or truly unworthy of consideration?
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 07 April 2001 - 10:30 pm | | Karoline,
It is not my purpose to be contentious. But I dont know if I fully understand your meaning. In addressing Paul, you stated that you had no problem examining possibilities only if they are based upon known data and not "what-ifs" based on assumptions.
Whether the diary is a forgery or not, it seems to me that it is just as likely the text first appeared in the diary before Mike's PC as vice versa.
However, it appears that some, because they believe Mike has no credibility, and because it comports with their view of the case, assume that the most "probable" scenario is that the information first appeared on the PC.
I am not trying to be obstructionist, Karoline, and as I have pointed out I believe we have the same theory about the diary, yet I dont see how you can make the leap to say anything relating to the PC is "probable."
I see three plausible conclusions to the fact the diary was found on the PC -
1. The forger(s) wrote up the text on the PC for later copying to the diary.
2. The forger(s) copied what had been written into the diary onto the PC.
3. Mike was not one of the forger(s)and copied the material from the diary into the PC.
I dont see how one scenario is any more "probable" than the other - unless one begins with the assumption that Mike forged the diary.
I understand your reasons for believing he was involved in the forgery. And I am not saying that I disagree with your theory. What I am suggesting is that the facts we have thus far make none of the scenarios mentioned about more or less likely.
Remember, it is still possible that the diary is a forgery and that Mike did not know. Regardless of his suspicious conduct, that doesnt mean that at the time the text was entered on the PC Mike knew the the diary to be a hoax. That makes the third scenario I cited possible even if the diary is a modern fake.
Rich |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 08 April 2001 - 04:17 am | | Hello Karoline
I hope you don't mean me as a possible source of this "rigid opposition". Do I really seem that unreasonable?
Yes to both, but that's my opinion.
(Just to pause for a moment - Does examining this provenance story mean the old forgery theory is back on the agenda? Or is it still off limits? (my concentration is failing))
No and who said it's off limits?
Or do you mean we should just grab a possible 'explanation' out of thin air? - like "what if Billy Graham was a compulsive liar who knew the diary originated in his family, but couldn't help making up a load of nonsense about it?" or "what if AG was being blackmailed into keeping the truth from us all?"
No, I do not mean that.
Neither of the Coxes (so far as I know), were trying to profit out of a forged document based on this 'family story'.
No they weren't. But John Omlor has made it very clear that a financial motivation for inventing her 'in my family for years' story does not mean or in itself even increase the probability that Anne forged the 'diary'.
I guess you realise that a direct corollary of your above assertion must be that no claim, however spurious, however conclusively it is proved to be false, can ever be dismissed - once made - because there just might be a 'kernel' of truth beneath the lies and distortions.
Yes, I do realise this, but it isn't true and it isn't what I was saying. |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 08 April 2001 - 04:43 am | | Hi Rich
Just for the record, I think you are correct, in particular when you write: “I don’t see how one scenario is any more "probable" than the other - unless one begins with the assumption that Mike forged the diary.”
The balance of probability is that the forgers are the people who first brought the ‘diary’ to public attention and who have most profited by it, namely Mike and Anne, and it is possible to produce evidence, such as Karoline’s eight emboldened facts, to support that contention. But if those facts are capable of a wholly innocent explanation then they don’t necessarily support that contention at all. Karoline dismisses these innocent alternative explanations as wildly speculative or highly imaginative (as illustrated by her Elvis is alive and well in Bhutan type of analogies) or they are non-existent (“I admit there might be reasons why these facts which seem at face value to sign and seal the Barretts' involvement in the forgery, are not as conclusive as they appear - but so far no one has produced any”).
The problem is that without those facts there is nothing but the basic contention that Mike and Anne forged the ‘diary’ because the forger is often the person who benefits from the forgery. Karoline has written: “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'?”
Well, the answer to that is ‘no’. Do the experts feel that the handwriting is the author’s natural hand or is it a disguised hand? Is the handwriting on the ‘diary’ that of Mike or Anne’s? How does the 'Mike did it' argument fit with the view that the actual penman would distance himself from the placer? How do we explain Mike’s lamentable ignorance about how the ‘diary’ was conceived and executed? Why don’t his details, such as buying the ‘diary’ from Outhwaite and Litherland stand up? What was Tony Devreux’s role, if any, and if none, what explanation do we have for Caroline’s memories and TD’s possession of Mike’s copy of RW-Egan’s book? And so on and so on. And as Caz has pointed out, there’s also Melvin’s journalists’ info (which personally I think we have to discount until some substantiation is offered for it) that Mike did not pen the documents, but merely placed it. These questions, which have barely begun to be examined, cause me to seriously question whether guilt has been established, let alone ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.
The number one rule of the historian after the accumulation and orderly control of the data is a rigorous assessment of it. Conclusions are born from the assessment of that data, not from preconceived idea about probable guilt. |
Author: Karoline L
Sunday, 08 April 2001 - 08:31 am | | I wrote:
"I hope you don't mean me as a possible source of this "rigid opposition". Do I really seem that unreasonable?"
Paul wrote:
"Yes to both, but that's my opinion".
Thank you Paul, that is very honest of you.
But you know, among the ranks of Carroll-scholars I am regarded as a mad woman with a crazy theory - so being seen as conservative and rigid and respectable is kind of novel and interesting for me!
Do look back over my posts, though, and I think you'll see I am not actually ruling out a single reasonable possibility. I freely acknowledge that AG and MB might not have had anything to do with creating the document, and if any data ever arises which supports this possibility then there will be good reason to take it seriously.
But, it does seem, at the moment, that there is no data to implicate anyone but AG and MB (and as I understand it the man whose handwriting seems to match the diary's pretty closely - Paul have you seen the relevant samples?)
So, we are left with the powerful probability that MB and AG were either the sole agents of the creation or, as Melvin Harris suggests, part of a group that planned the creation, placing and marketing of the artefact.
Richard, John, Paul,
can it be you are all really saying you believe the present state of the evidence makes it equally likely that a complete stranger forged the diary, gave it to the Barretts and vanished as that the Barretts either forged it themselves or were in with the people who did?
If three intelligent people can sincerely believe this then perhaps it's time for me and my brand of reasoning to follow the great and patient RJ Palmer out of the door and into the sunny meadows beyond.
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Karoline L
Sunday, 08 April 2001 - 08:48 am | | Paul wrote:
"The balance of probability is that the forgers are the people who first brought the ‘diary’ to public attention and who have most profited by it, namely Mike and Anne, and it is possible to produce evidence, such as Karoline's eight emboldened facts, to support that contention"
Paul,
I am sincerely grateful to you for putting that so much more simply and eloquently than I ever have!
Paul writes:
"But if those facts are capable of a wholly innocent explanation then they don’t necessarily support that contention at all".
I agree.
If evidence arises which clearly shows, for example,that a mad student forged the diary all alone in Blackpool and slipped it to a trusting MB who believed it was genuine - then the Barretts will merely have to answer for placing and profiting from and lying about the provenance of a known forgery.
But so far as I am aware there isn't any such data is there? Therefore, we are left only with the probability that you express above.
Paul writes:
"Karoline dismisses these innocent alternative explanations as wildly speculative or highly imaginative (as illustrated by her Elvis is alive and well in Bhutan type of analogies) or they are non-existent."
Well, correct me if I'm wrong - but the only "innocent alternative explanations" that have been presented here are "wildly speculative", "highly imaginative" or "non-existent", aren't they? In that either you or someone else in your group has just made them up?
We've had suggestions from John Omlor that the diary was written by a student for a prank, and suggestions (from you I think) that it was written by Billy Graham or someone he knew, and a suggestion from Caz that it was written by Weedon Grossmith to frame Maybrick (presumably because they didn't like each other -a lot)
But these are just ideas grabbed out of your collective heads. There is nothing to show any of the things you posit ever happened or are even likely to have happened, or even that some of the people you talk about ever existed. Such musings aren't 'alternative explanations', since there is not one whit of evidence to support any of them.
Until any such evidence arises - what can we do, but dismiss all such postulations as evidentially meaningless exercises?
Far from being "rigid" I rather hope some of the wild speculation from you and your group proves to be true. I love mysteries and hidden secrets. I think an early-20th C. conspiracy involving Billy Graham, or a mad student forging documents as a prank is a lot more fun than the rather dull and parochial prospect of a few broke scousers out to make a buck .
I think we should live in hope that some day some evidence to support one of these romantic images does come to light - but until it does...Paul, you really say everything there is to say...
"The balance of probability is that the forgers are the people who first brought the ‘diary’ to public attention and who have most profited by it, namely Mike and Anne..."
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 08 April 2001 - 09:50 am | | Hi Karoline,
A shorter answer this time, I promise.
You ask:
"Richard, John, Paul,
can it be you are all really saying you believe the present state of the evidence makes it equally likely that a complete stranger forged the diary, gave it to the Barretts and vanished as that the Barretts either forged it themselves or were in with the people who did?"
Speaking as one of "Richard, John, Paul" (sounds like the members British rock power trio to me -- I'm the drummer, you know, the one who does too many dangerous drugs and plays his kit furiously but eventually collapses on stage one night and chokes to death in a pool of his own vomit in advanced stages of alcohol poisoning and various venereal diseases...)
Anyway, first I would say, having just re-read my post to you above, that I stand by everything there including the remarks written about which items I think do increase the likelihood of Mike and Anne's complicity and which don't. To see precisely how I make this distinction and which items fall where, for me, all are invited to please scroll up about six or seven posts to my too-long missive of Saturday, April 07, 2001 - 09:47 am. There readers will find that I consider certain pieces of data as relevant to and increasing the likelihood of the case for complicity in authorship and others not.
But let me re-cite the question at hand.
"can it be you are all really saying you believe the present state of the evidence makes it equally likely that a complete stranger forged the diary, gave it to the Barretts and vanished as that the Barretts either forged it themselves or were in with the people who did?"
I suspect that speaking in mathematical terms, such as the "equally" that you italicize in the original, is probably an unfortunate choice. This implies that exceedingly fine calculations can be made and differences can be tabulated. But we are dealing here with texts and with narratives written into other people's memories, and talk of measuring for precisely "equal" amounts of likelihood may be one of the things that is getting us into all this trouble.
But, having said that, I think that based on the material and physical evidence concerning the actual production of the diary (not its reception), we do not have anything like a case either way. We do not have anything but the merest beginnings of an investigation into the question of who held the pen or who found the scrapbook or who researched and planned out the materials or who composed the lines or where any of this was done or when (although we know a little bit more about the when than about the who or the where, thanks to careful reading). Consequently, I would, as a responsible reader who tries to practice what he preaches about rigorous logical argumentation and philosophical self-awareness and epistemological throroughness, have to conclude that it remains perhaps just as likely, at this point, that Mike or Anne acquired the volume as it does that they wrote it or were involved in writing it.
As I say, I await further material or physical evidence or even compelling witness testimony concerning the planning and writing and execution of this document prior to its public appearance in 1992. Any such evidence would be a further step forward in the case of who wrote the book where it was written, when it was written, and why it was written. (Incidentally, Karoline, you speak often of profit. Well, there are all sorts of profit other than financial gain and someone may very well be taking a certain amount of twisted personal profit emotionally from having written this book and sending it on its merry way and watching us here struggle with its origins. This is sometimes the case with hoaxes like letters that begin "Dear Boss." That would not be financial profit, but then again, I suspect also that the person who brutally murdered and disembowelled a number of women in the East End of London in 1888 didn't make much money off the deal either. Or was it really all just about the farthings? )
In any case, my suggestion that the case for or against the Barrett's actual authorship of this book seems to have barely begun and that serious evidence specifically concerning the production of the volume and events and actions of all involved prior to 1992 remains sorely lacking in any real historical sense, is as you say, what I am "really saying."
Now I'll offer a small confession of ignorance in response to two other sentences in your post above.
You write to Paul,
"But, it does seem, at the moment, that there is no data to implicate anyone but AG and MB (and as I understand it the man whose handwriting seems to match the diary's pretty closely - Paul have you seen the relevant samples?)
So, we are left with the powerful probability that MB and AG were either the sole agents of the creation or, as Melvin Harris suggests, part of a group that planned the creation, placing and marketing of the artefact."
I suppose I am still a newcomer here, so I will freely admit two things. I have not seen, before now, the case made that the diary's handwriting matches Mike Barrett's. I have read everything posted here and Melvin's dissertations and the discussion in the various books on the subject, but I may very well have missed this.
If it is true, that would of course be a significant piece of evidentiary data in support of Mike's complicity and would seriously increase the likelihood, as you say, of his having written the thing. I have read many experts and people who know all involved suggest that they do not believe Mike could have written this thing alone, of course. But that does not by itself mean he could not have been the penman. (Hey! -- good name for our band -- "The Lone Penmen" I love it.) But I have not seen anyone announce that Mike's handwriting matches that in the diary. This would seriously change things for me.
Second confession of ignorance.
I have read Melvin's writing on this topic and I must have missed where he clearly and and explicitly claimed that Mike and Anne were indeed "part of a group that planned the creation, placing and marketing of the artefact." I know he claimed that they were planters. And of course we all know that they "planned the placing and marketing of the artefact," since that is what we saw them do. This tells us nothing at all. We know they finally planned to take it to an agent, since that is what they did. We know they oversaw its marketing, since we saw them do that. But that word "creation." This is an epistemological claim (that they knew about, indeed helped plan its creation) that I have not seen Melvin make in print. He may very well have made this claim. Wading through his self-promotion and antagonistic rhetoric of accusation sometimes makes it difficult to find exactly what he is claiming about who knew what. If he does make this claim, then I will revise my statements about what he has argued accordingly. None of this about what Melvin claims is evidence of course. But I do want to keep my reading accurate.
However, there is one small problem of reading I would like to address remaining in your two sentences above.
Here they are again:
"But, it does seem, at the moment, that there is no data to implicate anyone but AG and MB (and as I understand it the man whose handwriting seems to match the diary's pretty closely - Paul have you seen the relevant samples?)
So, we are left with the powerful probability that MB and AG were either the sole agents of the creation or, as Melvin Harris suggests, part of a group that planned the creation, placing and marketing of the artefact."
Of course, the lack of data so far suggesting other suspects (such as the ones I know Melvin has claimed to possess information about) is in no way an indication that others were or were not involved. It is so far simply an indication of a lack of data. And since we do not have a clear case, even "beyond a reasonable doubt" against anyone in the specific question of having written this forgery (not of lying or profiting after the fact), since, that is, our investigation into the identities of the forgers and into how, where, or when this thing was written remains barely developed, it is clearly too soon to announce that the lack of data implicating other suspects means that there can be no other suspects. Patience is the ally of justice. And I do not see why we have to make yet another hurried leap such as the one you make from your first sentence above to your second. Especially given your own phrase "at the moment" -- since a material investigation not into provenance but into the specifics of forgery and identity seems to have barely begun.
Either we need more physical and material evidence or direct witness testimony against the Barrett's (in addition to the diary purchase and the Crashaw quote -- the only two pieces of before the fact data we so far have unless what you say about the handwriting match is true), or we must continue to investigate and keep "equally," to use your term, open to the possibility that someone else researched, penned and sent this diary on its way and that the Barrett's acquired it (with or without knowledge of its origins).
I think that I will choose, at this point, to keep my own reading "equally" open to both of these possibilities.
Thanks,
--John
PS: I seem to have broken my initial promise. Sorry. Perhaps I still take this whole "carefully and deliberately" thing too seriously. |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 08 April 2001 - 10:03 am | | Karoline,
While I was composing, you posted the following regarding my musing about the forgers being students or budding Ripperologists, etc.:
"But these are just ideas grabbed out of your collective heads. There is nothing to show any of the things you posit ever happened or are even likely to have happened, or even that some of the people you talk about ever existed. Such musings aren't 'alternative explanations', since there is not one whit of evidence to support any of them."
Yes. I agree completely. And, if you read the specific language in every one of those posts carefully, you'll see that I said something to that effect in each case. I was offering pure speculations based solely on my own reading of the text of the diary and my admittedly personal and fragmentary interpretations of style, phrases, and constructions. I was never claiming to offer any of these scenarios as likely or established through any evidence at all, and certainly not "beyond a reasonable doubt," as you once claimed concerning Mike and Anne's authorship. I believe I was very careful about this, but I don't mind repeating and clarifying that I agree that these were and are strictly speculative whims of mine, flights of fancy concerning possible scenes of the diary's writing.
But once we start talking about material evidence things change and cases must be made and, as I say, I don't see anywhere where anyone, yourself included, has made one against anyone. Certainly none has been made against the Barrett's as diary writers yet. Or at least it has just barely begun to be constructed.
So yes, I was, as I said repeatedly at the time, just advancing dramatic scenarios. I will be happy to head back and cite my specific language if anyone has doubts about this.
Just wanted to agree with you a bit and to clear that up.
--John |
|
|
|
|
