|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 05, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-Archives 2001:
Archive through April 05, 2001
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 11:13 am |        | Thanks RJ and Caroline,
I sometimes get confused trying to keep the provenance stories straight and posts such as yours above help me a great deal. The cast of invoked characters is intimidating, especially as a relative newcomer reads the somewhat muddled, speculative prose of The Final Chapter. And I happen to *enjoy* Russian novels and once wrote a lengthy study of One Hundred Years of Solitude, a book with a myriad of characters, many of whom have the *same* names. 
In any case, I suspect you are right about the DNA test only addressing a small part of the problem. I just get a bit suspicious whenever someone says that we can't conduct this or that test simply because it's too expensive.
Thanks again,
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 11:49 am | | | Catharine Eddowes was found dead at 1.45 and at 2.55 PC Long found the apron a ten minute slow walk away in Goulston Street. He said the apron had not been there when he passed through the street at 2.20. It probably was there and he simply hadn't seen it, but if it wasn't there then where had the murderer been for what must have been the best part of an hour? Coincidence, perhaps, that the 'diarist' gves the murderer lodgings in Middlesex Street, between Mitre Square and Goulston Street. I wonder if the forger planned to make something of that, in which case I think he had a reasonable knowledge of the case, or is it just coincidence. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 12:51 pm | | Hi, Paul:
You wrote, in part, "Coincidence, perhaps, that the 'diarist' gives the murderer lodgings in Middlesex Street, between Mitre Square and Goulston Street. I wonder if the forger planned to make something of that [i.e., the piece of Eddowes' apron being deposited in Goulston Street]. . . ?"
Paul, I think there is a good possibility that the hoaxer planned at some point to make some use of these geographical realities but that they ultimately did not. As a writer, you will be aware that a piece of writing often evolves as one is in the actual act of writing it, so the final written work may not be what you intended to begin with or even while you were engaged in working on it.
An example of "Diarist changes his [or her] mind" might be the point I made recently here that Maybrick announces on the second page of the Diary that he will commit the murders in London but then, unannounced, commits one in Manchester apparently as a tryout. This would seem to me to indicate that whomever applied pen to paper, or the person dictating the text to the writer, changed their minds midstream and decided to add the Manchester murder.
Also, as I also noted here, Dear Diarist may have made a mess-up in that in first hinting of the mental link between Whitechapel, Liverpool and Whitechapel, London, they failed to say the murders would be carried out in Whitechapel on page 2 of the text. Instead, they only say "London it shall be. . . ." They then make up for the error ten pages later when they say, "I said Whitechapel it will be and Whitechapel it shall." BUT the ink had already been applied to paper and could not be undone. Possibly the hoaxer hoped we wouldn't notice the slip-up. What other evident goofs can we find? Could such mistakes be another reason why the little Red Diary was purchased by Mike Barrett--to write out a more perfect version of the text in a more authentic-looking book?
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 01:55 pm | | Hi Chris,
I thought you believed that the diary was composed and typed up first, on the Barrett's word processor, then dictated to, or copied into the scrapbook by, whoever penned it.
If you also believe it's significant that Mike's Murder, Mystery and Mayhem was found in Tony Devereux's house, then there were at least several months in which the diary composition was being worked on before Mike first approached Pan Books for advice (I wonder why he didn't think of Sphere Books, unless of course he thought that might look suspicious at some time in the future), and then left it to the very last minute to try getting something more suitable to write in.
All this of course goes against everything Melvin has claimed - that neither Mike nor Anne composed or penned the diary; that they were only placers/handlers, and therefore not responsible for the diary content (apart from the Crashaw lines, presumably agreed at some point with the actual forger and penman). I'm trying to imagine Mike searching through someone else's finished work for mistakes, coming across something as subtle as the 'London' one you mention (particularly when you consider the result of his stab at ordering a more authentic-looking book - a tiny diary dated two years after James's death), and even thinking of attempting a rewrite as late as March 1992. I must admit I'm having some trouble imagining any of this.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 04:04 pm | | | I can't claim to know much about this offhand, but do forgers working on something like this actually write direct to the paper? I'd have thought the forger would have constructed the whole thing on a packet of Croxley Script before transferring to the 'diary', especially if any research was necessary (such as checking whether certain words were in use in Victorian times). And handwriting analysts say that several chunks of the 'diary' were done at single sittings, which does sound to me like someone copying. So, whilst it is possible that chunks or narrative may not have been copied across (such as something expanding on the lodging in Middlesex Street), I think it's unlikely that the 'diary' reveals anything of the author's creative process. Just my immediate thought. |
Author: Tim
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 04:27 pm | | Paul - is there any evidence that the writer of the diary used the proper type pen of the time?
Tim |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 16 March 2001 - 03:29 am | | | Hi Tim, maybe Caz or Keith can answer that for you. I have it in mind that a dip pen was used and that there is no way of determining whether a dip pen was manufactured last week or a century ago. I must admit to finding the whole issue of the pen, ink, schooled-handwriting a bit on the confusing side. When Shirley first took the book to the British Museum and then the Antiquarian booksellers, neither seems to have dismissed the 'diary' as modern on the grounds of things like non-bronzing of the ink, writing looking too modern or the uniformity of the ink indicating a fountain pen, or anything like that. They didn't subject the 'diary' to any sort of in-depth examination of course, but it doesn't look as if anything leapt from the page to their practiced eye. Maybe others know more than me on this. |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 16 March 2001 - 08:53 am | | Hi, Caz:
You are absolutely correct that I earlier stated that Barrett's statements sounded plausible, that he composed the text of the Diary on the family word processor and dictated it to his then-wife Anne (now Anne Graham) to write down. I now have it on good authority, however, that Anne's writing does not match the writing in the Diary. The writing that seems closest to the handwriting in the Diary among those who appear to be involved is that of Gerard Kane, though I would like to see more samples of his handwriting besides the signature, occupation (cabinet maker), and address on Tony Devereaux's will. As I remarked recently, the writing is likely to be the writer's own writing without much if any disguise since it varies little over the 63 pages, displaying the same idiosyncracies throughout.
As for whether the Diary was written in its entirety on a word processor and then transcribed word for word into the book, I would doubt that it happened quite like that--at least not exactly word for word with all the i's dotted. It would make sense to do it that way, wouldn't it? However, how "professional" were the forgers? As I have said, there are indications within the Diary that the forgers added new elements and changed their minds about certain things as they went along. The sudden appearance of the line from the Crashaw poem might be an example of this as if someone (Barrett?) said "Oh, this might be good to include, gang. Fits right in."
Best regards
Chris |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 16 March 2001 - 09:56 am | | Hi Chris
I have it on good authority (Shirley) that a journalist who visited and questioned Mr Kane thought the idea that he'd written the 'diary' preposterous. But it is a question that seems to return us to Melvin's journalists and the information they may or may not possess and what its worth is. But if Mr Kane was one of the forgers, I wonder why Mike, when he oh so desperately wanted to stuff Feldman, didn't mention him. Did he, I wonder, ever know about him? And did Anne? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 16 March 2001 - 10:39 am | | Hi All,
I can't add any tips on the pen (!) for Tim, but Keith might when he dips into the latest posts. :-)
It would be interesting to learn what precisely Melvin has in mind for Anne and Mike's roles as handlers/placers of a document forged by others. Does he believe, for instance, that Mike's responsibilities included procuring any or all of the raw materials, then disposing of them afterwards, as Mike has suggested at various times? Or has he discounted this along with the idea of either Mike or Anne having composed and handwritten the text? (I'm thinking here of Mike's sworn statement of January 1995, and trying to work out if Melvin now believes it was all lies, or is happy to accept parts as truthful, and if so, does the evidence support the 'truthful' bits?)
My next question to Peter, if I'm allowed one, would be to ask if he has thought what his alternative explanation will be, for Anne finally deciding to contact Feldy in July 1994 and 'confessing', if it transpires that she wasn't asking or hoping for any money from the diary, or at least not until after the divorce, and as a result of arrangements by Doreen Montgomery and prompting from Feldy for Anne to accept 25%? In other words, which of RJ's suggestions will Peter plump for, or has he got one of his own up his sleeve?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Tim
Friday, 16 March 2001 - 06:15 pm | | Thank you Paul.
Tim. |
Author: David Halstead
Monday, 19 March 2001 - 02:42 pm | | A Little Experiment in Forgery?
I have often asked myself what I would do if I wanted to create a hoax diary? Would I have had the same thought processes that these hoaxers had?
Expanding on this, how interesting would it be to arrange for 3 (I'm gonna go with Mr Harris) Joe Bloggs' with no knowledge of JtR/Maybrick or of creating forged documents and ask them to produce a 'diary' within a specified time.
Obviously the guidance to the hoaxers would have to be absolutely minimal to prevent planting facts in their minds. Simply provide them with a Maybrick/JtR link and tell them to produce a journal.
How would this compare to the 'diary' we have?
I'll leave that to someone else.
David. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 06:28 am | | Hi David,
You forgot the scratches in the watch. I think that would also be a very interesting experiment, in view of Melvin's assertions that anyone could do it cheaply and in minutes, given a Victorian gold watch, the Maybrick/JtR link, and no idea how their handiwork will be received, or how thoroughly and expertly it will be tested for flaws.
Love,
Caz |
Author: shirley harrison
Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 06:09 am | | John Hello. Thanks for recognising what most others seem not to have noticed…..that I do NOT in the newest edition of the paperback, align myself wholeheartedly to the Feldman/Dutton story. I have registered Paul's theory but also taken , as I often do, a lateral look at the situation and explored other possibilities. In Harris-talk this is evasion and worse. I think it is being open minded and curious. The point being, I think that whether or not McCormick made up that particular version there do s eem to have similar rhymes around at the time of the Whitechapel murders.
Here's what I actually said - for those who havent read the book.
"The only source for some of the many interesting observations allegedly arising from "Chronicles of Crime" is the author, the late Donald McCormick who met Dr Dutton in 1932, when the doctor was living the life of an elderly recluse. Mr McCormick took notes from the Chronicles but put them away, so that they did not see the light of day until after World War 11. These notes in turn were lost.
Cynics say that the Dr Dutton material did not exist or even, as has been fiercely denied , that Mr McCormick made up the whole story. They are skating on thin ice. Attempts to discredit Dutton tend to founder. Racehorse breeder, Terry Saxby, who lives in Australia and is researching yet another Ripper book, has unearthed some material that proves at least one of Dr Dutton's theories was correct. There was a link between four of the murdered women. They had all, at one time lodged in St Stephens Workhouse, off the Walworth Road, Southwark. This being so we should all be wary of dismissing Dr Dutton's othern work too lightly.
Dr Dutton died alone in 1953 and was found to have been living in a staste of squalid neglect. The newspapers of the time spoke highly of his professional life and also commented that the police removed a quantity of papers.
Some of the content of Chronicles of Crime was published in Donald McCormick's The Identity of Jack the Ripper (1959). In particular we were concerned with a mysterious rhyme, "Eight Little Whores". There was good reason. After the Mary Kelly murder there is an entry in the Diary which reads:
One whore in heaven
Two whores side by side,
Three whores all have died
four
According to Donald McCormick's now lost record, Dr Dutton copied the rhyme from one of the 34 attested letters which had identified as all being in the same hand. Whether it was the creation of the Ripper himself or whether he had lagiarised an already well known Victorian verse was not clear.
"Eight little whores……etc……etc………."
If The Chronicles of Crime did not exist - or if, as had been imputed, they were the result of Mr McCormick's imagination, we of the Diary had a problem. For the Diary and the poem echo each other and include the images of burning and ripenessw.
In the library I found the Faber History of England in Verse, edited by Kenneth Baker M.P. There in the Victorian section I found "Eight Little Whores" attributed anonymously. I wrote to Mr Baker to check if his source was indeed Victorian or whether he had merely read Donald McCormick's book o any of the others that followed it. He was fighting an election at the time and was also moving house. As a consequence his reference notes had been irretrievably buried in a trunk. He could not remember whether he had, or had not, read any Ripper books.
I turned to look in Iona and Peter Opie's Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes (new edition 1997) There I found the old favourite "Ten Little ****** Boys". This begins
"Ten little ****** (n.b this word was somewhat hilariously removed by the board censors!) boys went out to dine
One choked his little self and then there were nine…"
I learned that this rhyme first appeared in 1869. It w a s based oan an American song by Philadelphia musician Septimus Winger (composer of Oh where, of where has my little dog gone?" It was taken up by many minstrel groups which had arrived from America in Britain. By the late 1870's it was a very popular ditty, included in the repertoire of musical societies and ballad shows and performed by artistes such as Michael Maybrick throughout Victoria's reign"
I shall write to Kenneth Baker again and see if he has unpacked the trunks.………...
On a lighter note…did anyone see Steve Powell's hotel in Australia on Neighbours last night. Funny how no one watches Neighbours they just "happen to turn it on"! The hotel looked very lush. Steve - what is your new Email number I need to contact you about Stephen Parke. |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 07:43 am | | Now, the Kenneth Baker link is interesting, Shirley. Given his prominence as a collector and authority on old caricature prints and broadsheets, I wonder whether he can actually place 'Eight Little Whores' well before the rogue McCormick was even born.
The Septimus Winger origin is the one I couldn't remember previously, when John usefully found the Green printing of the Ten Little Male Infants of African Descent Who Suffered Various Fates in Descending Numerical Order.
Martin |
Author: shirley harrison
Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 01:44 pm | | | Martin...I have written to Kenneth Baker and will let you all know if he does find anything. I have a horrid feeling he wont remember....but I wont let him go! Hope youre both well/ |
Author: R Court
Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 02:22 pm | | Hi all,
without wanting to stir up anything, does anyone know any anticedance of the 'One man went to mow, etc. ' ditty, and any history it may have?
Many such songs (we remember 'Ring-a-ring-a-roses..', at the time of the plague in England) are indeed very old and the 10 little ******-boys- song, for instance, may be just an adaption to an older song.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 02:47 pm | | Shirley - yes, we're fine. My attempts to e-mail you direct and personally, after Keith gave me your new address, have been continually frustrated by my computer's refusal to agree that I've altered the destination in my address book, and my inability to work out how to correct it.
Bob - I don't know of earlier versions. But a later one sung by juvenile Quakers is
One man went to sleep - went to sleep in Meeting;
One man and the clerk went to sleep in Meeting.
With all good wishes,
Martin F |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 04:10 am | | Bob,
There is also the musical rhyme,'ten green bottles hanging on the wall'.Origin unknown but remembered from the early thirties.
In succession one bottle is broken untill there is none left.
H.Mann. |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 01:51 pm | | Shirley, I was just rereading your note of
yesterday at 6:09, and I have a question. I have
a copy of ETCHED IN ARSENIC by Trevor L. Christie,
and in it, he writes this about Michael Maybrick.
[p.27]
"While all his brothers went into trade, Michael had departed from the norm by fashioning a musical carreer. Born in 1844, five years after
James, he learned to play the piano at eight and
was named organist at St. Peter's at fourteen.
He studied music at Leipzig and Milan conservatories for two years and developed a fine
baritone voice. He was popular int he English
Concert halls as a young man and made a successful
concert tour of the United States in 1884. As he
grew in his profession, he became a composer under
the name of "Stephen Adams" and was the author
of such pious humns as "The Holy City" and
"Star of Bethlehem" and the sea chanteys "Nancy
Lee" and "They All Love Jack""
[May I suggest we look up the last tune - it might
be turned into our theme song. Sorry. ]
An obituary notice from the New York Times of
August 27, 1913 (p.7, col.6) mentions the names
of several other tunes by "Stephen Adams"/Michael
Maybrick: "A Warrior Bold", "The Blue Alsacian
Mountains", and "The Midshipmite".
It seems that Maybrick's choice of subject matter
for his music was more serious than tunes for
minstrel shows. Did you actually find that Michael Maybrick actually sang "Ten Little Indians" (to give it it's more polite name) at
any concerts.
Michael Maybrick also appears to have spent the
years after the trial of Florence, hobnobbing
with Lord Tennyson (again on page 27 of Christie's
book), and was mayor of Hyde on the Isle of Wight
five times (from the N.Y.Times death notice).
Has anyone looked through Tennyson's correspondence about Michael Maybrick. I only
bring this up, because Tennyson enjoyed talking
about crime and murder cases (see Richard Altick's
VICTORIAN STUDIES IN SCARLET, p. 125 - by the way,
Tennyson once spent an evening at his home talking
about murders with Rev. Charles Ludwig Dogdson,
"a.k.a. Lewis Carroll".]
Jeff |
Author: R Court
Saturday, 24 March 2001 - 05:48 pm | | Hi Martin, Hi Harry,
Martin, are you making admirably disguised pointed suggestions in the direction of a certain Gentleman of the Bar known to us on the board?
Harry, you've reminded me of that one too. The old so-called children's rythms had something in them, though....
London bridge is falling down, my fair lady...
.. is just one..
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 01:01 pm | | I've been asked to show quotes concerning belief shown in Anne Graham's honesty.
"But on balance I believe she (Anne Graham) is telling the truth and her reasons for doing what she did are genuine." (Shirley Harrison, private letter to PRAB 21/8/1998)
"I did not feel that Anne had lied. She had simply evaded the truth."(SH Blake edn. p295)
"I have not enjoyed "questioning" her (Anne's) honesty" (op cit p 297)
"I do believe Anne and Mr. Graham's accounts..." (Keith Skinner, private letter to PRAB 3/9/1998)
"And I do believe her (Anne's) story - to avoid any ambiguity." (KS private letter to PRAB 30/8/98)
"But if like me you accept her (Anne's) story - and this was not immediate acceptance..." KS private letter to PRAB 28/8/98)
"Anne Barrett has not told three different stories. Her story (after she decided to tell it) has actually been quite simple and consistent." (Colin Wilson letter 1995)
"This is not a woman who is out to make money." (CW op cit.)
"Peter - Surely Paul has made it clear over and
over again that the reason he cannot commit
himself to a final position is that Keith, who
knows Ann better than any of the rest of us, and
whose integrity is beyond challenge, finds her
persuasive, and Paul is not prepared to put
abstract and theoretical arguments before Keith's
judgement of personality."(Martin Fido 13/6/200 message board.)
"Keith has got there, of course, because he has spent a
considerable amount of time with Ann and over the years he
has concluded that she is telling the truth." (Paul Begg 15/6/2000 message board)
" Keith has spent a considerable amount of time
in Ann's company and he believes her story about the 'diary'
having been in her family for some time. But he isn't
arguing an old forgery(!)" Paul Begg 20/6/2000 message boards)
Plus many other comments on the message boards.
"Let me ask you this, Peter: if the (e)vidence as we have it
shows that Anne did not pocket any money from the 'diary',
what would your interpretation of this be?"
The evidence as we have it right now shows that Anne Barrett received a cheque from Rupert Crew in December 1993. There is no evidence right now that she did not put it into her own private bank account and no evidence that she did not spend it herself. The para above therefore has no reference to the current situation and needs no interpretation from me. If anything to the contrary comes up from an examination of her bank records etc. I shall be happy to announce it here. It has also been said: "Others will exercise greater caution and withhold judgement until it can be shown that Anne banked the money in her own
account and that it stayed there. Some will say this is being wriggly. I don’t think it is." It's plain "beyond a peraventure" that a cheque was issued to Anne in her own name. It's also plain that she must have banked it in her own account. (Other possibilities such as going to the Rupert Crew bank and withdrawing the amount in cash seem ridiculously over-elaborate.) Whether the cash stayed in her account is something that she can tell her friends which is why I said: "ASK ANNE." The one and only true fact here is that whether this cheque was for an advance, an advance plus rights payments or royalties it was issued to Anne and therefore proves that she on her own got money from the diary right from the beginning. Arguments from Paul Begg trying to find a wormhole to crawl through are either Jesuitical or as has been more accurately said: "wriggly." More recently in a reply to Karoline Leach (and I would suggest that anyone interested should check the boards around June of last year to get their own opinion of this discussion) Paul Begg says: "Hello Karoline
First, you were not attacked, violently or otherwise, and
the message are here for anyone to see.
Secondly, if Anne profited from the diary, prove it. And
prove that the money was a royalty cheque. All we know is
that a cheque was made out to Anne. We don't know that she
kept the money. And whoever supplied the information about
Anne receiving that cheque should have checked that.
All anyone is trying to do is establish the facts. Are you?"
This discussion started from a statement that Anne had received nothing from the diary royalties until Doreen Montgomery unilaterally decided after her divorce to give Anne 25%. This does seem to have been a story that Anne herself has told. As I've shown before and mentioned above this is incorrect. I agree that if she knew that the diary was a modern forgery her acceptance of this plus later royalties about which there is no disagreement then she is as has been said, condemned. The amounts which the diary has generated over the years are large: royalties due in September 1994 amounted to £53,218.82 although its fair to say that all of this sum was apparently swallowed up inn legal expenses. It does seem astonishing that the authors of the book should have to pay for legal problems which seemed to have been the publisher's responsibility. As to Anne allowing herself to be interviewed, this was something that was heralded as on the Cloak & Dagger programme a few years ago. Nothing has come of it so far.
The problem as far as the Anne Graham situation is that it is difficult for some people here to understand that the truth is not discovered by assuming that what one person says is necesarily the truth. Statements have to be supported by evidence. For example: did Mike acknowledge that he and Anne fought over his plans to publish the diary? In answer to my question, the reply comes: "It has come up before on the message boards that Mike did
indeed confirm Anne’s story that she fought with him over
his plans to publish the diary. Like you, however, I can’t
find the references right now, but I seem to remember asking
at the time what Mike had to gain from confirming this part
of Anne’s story if it wasn’t actually true - especially if
he was generally intent on disproving her account of things."
Now there may well have been something on the boards confirming this but searches on my part have not found anything. The failure of this search has been confirmed by another person as above. However that person does remember an extra piece of information that adds versimilitude to the story: that she actually had a part in the discussion on the topic. Now this may really have happened; all I can say is that it seems odd that Mrs. Morris can't find her own post when she is fairly sure that she made it. Perhaps she or Keith can have another look.As my own posts prior to May 2000 vanished in a virus attack, I can't help in the search and if I commented on this, I certainly can't remember it.
I do however note in Shirley's Blake edn. p. 377 :" But during the most terrible row row they ever had, Caroline remembers all too well how the couple fought physically on the floor - because Anne did not want Michael to get the diary published." This may be the quote Mrs. Morris is looking for although it's obviously not a confirmation from Mike that this happened. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 03:17 pm | | Hi Peter,
As far as I can remember, no one has suggested that the truth is discovered by assuming that what one person says is necessarily the truth. I don't know where you got this from, but obviously I, for one, would not be here debating in the first place if I believed what anyone has said about the diary without question and adequate confirmation. Believers don't tend to be interested in debates which question their own beliefs.
Looking back at last year's posts, I managed to find the following:
June 1st, 2000, on this board, I posted a message from Keith to Janice, including the following:
We are told by Mike and Anne, independently, there were huge rows between them when Mike told Anne he intended to go public with the Diary - and that Anne attempted to destroy the Diary to prevent this from happening - which must have appeared very strange to Mike.
Keith does go on to say that it could all be manufactured tosh because he wasn't there. But if so, the tosh does appear to have been Mike’s as well as Anne’s. My point remains. If Mike did confirm the rows, why, if they didn't happen? Yes he lies rather a lot, but why on this occasion?
Judging by the number of posts I have written myself and typed up for Keith, I'm rather flattered that you should find it odd that I couldn't find one of them.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 07:34 am | | Arguments from Paul Begg trying to find a wormhole to crawl through are either Jesuitical or as has been more accurately said: "wriggly."
Fine, and when we find out that Anne paid the money into Mike's bank account and kept not a single penny for herself my arguments will be what? Accurate?
Anne has apparently said that she has earned no money from the 'diary'. You have shown that a cheque was paid to her. You have not shown why the cheque was sent to her, not shown what it was for and not shown what she did with the money. In short, you have not shown that she earned any money from the ‘diary’. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 01:28 pm | | Karoline suggested I write about why I believe that the Diary is a modern forgery. The facts here are really quite simple. The diary itself can not be traced reliably to a point earlier than March 1992 when Mike (disguised as "Mr. Williams") brought it to the Crew office. Reported descriptions by Billy Graham of the diary as seen before this date do not refer to the large Album with handwriting that we know today.
The original provenance as told by Mike Barrett was that he received it from a friend, Tony Devereux who Mike knew from the local pub. This is the "I got it from a bloke in the pub" provenance.(PUB) and Mike says that he got it in the summer of 1991. Tony conveniently died in August 1991 and as his children deny any knowledge of his involvement with the diary, the only evidence that this really happened comes from Anne and Mike. Since that time Mike Barrett has told several different stories concerning the diary. None of them can be relied on. Anne Graham has told several different stories concerning the diary. None of THEM can be relied on. There is as I have said, no evidence that the diary existed before March 1992. If it is, as I believe, a recent forgery, who was responsible? It has been said that examination of Tony Devereux' will shows similarities in handwriting between that of a witness, Gerard Kane and the diary. There are similarities but it's my belief that specimen is not long enough to make an accurate judgement as to whether Mr. Kane may have written the diary. If, as I believe, the motive behind forging the diary was financial (and Mike has said this in one of his earliest confessions) then we need to see who has profitted from the diary. The only persons who can reliably be shown to have profitted are Mike and Anne. Paul Begg has suggested a possible scenario in that Anne Barrett composed the diary which she dictated to her husband. Bearing this in mind I would have to agree that the source of the diary is more likely to be Mike and/or Anne rather than a more remote one. It is apparent to me that no real research was ever done with the objective of testing whether Anne and Mike could themselves have composed and forged the diary. Although Feldman is supposed to have used private detectives in order to find out information on Anne that seems to have been restricted to a strange story about missing medical records and her time in Australia. I believe that it would have been more usefull to interview friends and relatives of the pair, research their earlier lives specifically Mike's brushes with the law and Anne's relationship as a P/A with stockbrokers. Is it possible for example that the Barretts, Devereux and Kane together with Robbie and Albert Johnson may have belonged to the same club or church? They were all Catholic. Was this research ever done?
As there have been discussions as to the financial side of the diary, let me try to treat that.
There were two main sources of income from the diary: An advance, royalties and foreign language rights via Shirley Harrison's book which were shared between her, Mike and Anne. Both Mike and Anne can be demonstrated to have received money and presumably still do. The second source was from film and video sales and Paul Feldman was heavily involved in this. Again Anne and Mike received money from these sources.
Even before publication, the diary was in trouble. In July 1993 the Washington Post had doubts about it (Mrs. Harrison, Blake edn. p253.) This apparently caused Warner books the projected US Publisher to make an investigation and to withdraw. Their place was taken by Hyperion, a Disney publishing house who finally published with a copy of the Rendell report and a rebuttal by Robert Smith. By July 1993 the Sunday Times who had bought serialisation rights had decided the diary was faked and sued Smith Gryphon to overturn the confidentiality clause so they could publish their findings. This apparently cost the publishers at least £48,400 in legal expenses which for some reason the authors had to pay. The diary eventually published in October 1993 with a caveat sticker and dustjacket. And shortly after publication the Police started an investigation.
At the same time the provenance was looking more and more sticky. As offered, it still rested on the "PUB" story which both research camps (Shirley's and Feldy's) considered unsatisfactory. The attacks on the diary on both sides of the Atlantic looked ominous. Feldy had tried to follow up possible additional provenances and put his faith in a story that it had been found by electricians working on Battlecrease. Unfortunately for him this went nowhere. Mike denied it and Feldy was convinced that the elecricians were lying. It seems clear that for Feldy, things looked grim. The only clue in his book (p136 1st edn.) is the statement: "All went quiet until January 1994..." and this may indicate that for Feldy, the project was sliding downhill. It seems clear that Mike realised this because according to Feldy and Paul Begg it was after this time that he started trying to drag a provenance out of the air. Although Paul Begg believes that this indicates that he truly did not know where the diary came from I believe that it is more likely that he could not invent an adequate provenance perhaps due to too much drink or lack of imagination. At about this time (early 1994) Feldy's research team (keith Skinner, Melvyn Fairclough etc.) were themselves working on a provenance idea which was that somehow or another the diary had to be connected with the family of one of the persons involved. Devereux, Graham or Barrett and there would be findable a connection with Maybrick.
By December 1993 Anne and Mike were receiving money from the diary but it was a diary with feet of clay: no indication where it might have come from. If I may digress for a moment to address something that has recently come up: it has been said by Colin Wilson that Anne did not have a penny of the royalties until Feldy told her to take her 25% share for her daughter's sake. Colin puts the arrival of Anne's first royalty payment as mid-1995. There have been statements by other parties on these boards concerning whether Anne was at certain times making money from the diary and some have argued that even though Anne may have been shown to have got money in the form of cheques payable to herself there is no proof that she used the money and even the possibility that she may have paid the money into Mike's account and never used it herself. In fact the large cheque sent to Anne Barrett herself on the 7th December 1993 was not paid or transferred into Mike's account so must be presumed to have stayed in hers. In January of 1994 she received a cheque made payable to herself from Rupert Crew of £1298.75 and in March 1994 a cheque for £1000 was sent from Crew direct to her bank account. Mike received his own cheques sent directly to his account.This shows that she received money from the diary right from the very start and this continues.This is not to say that the receipt and conveyance of her share of the diary monies has anything to say about whether she did or did not forge the diary, just that she made money and had an interest in continuing to do so..
With all the problems, it may have seemed very unlikely that Shirley's book would reach a second edition or that the video/movie would ever be made. And then by February 1994 a new provenance started to build. By February 14th Feldy and Keith met to discuss Anne Barrett and her father Billy Graham. They spent the following few months tracing the Graham family history. On May 10th Keith to Anne (probably by phone) backing this up with a letter on the 11th. Important to the history of this matter is 1/ that Keith said that he believed in the essential truth of Mike's story, that he got it from Tony Devereux 2/ that the "widely-felt belief" was that the provenance of the diary was unsatisfactory 3/ that it had been suggested that the diary came from a link that a family had to either James or Florrie (although it is fair to say that Keith says that he does not believe this scenario and expects this to be disproved with documentary evidence.) Keith copied this letter to Mike.On July 24th Feldy spoke by phone to Anne for 4 hours during which time he told her that he believed that the diary had come from her family and that she was connected with it.
Now what was so crucial, so important about Paul Feldman? He represented a source of income. If the diary could be substantiated in his eyes then there would be money coming in through film deals. Without a "good" provenance (ie one that Feldy could believe in) there would be no movie money. This is confirmed by Feldman in a letter where he states that the New Line Cinema deal was concluded as a result of research which clarified the diary's provenance. And that new provenance was Anne's startling confession that the diary had been in her family for years and the interviews with her father Billy Graham that led Feldy to the conclusion that Anne was Florrie Maybricks great-grandaughter and that the diary could be shown to have been in her family's hands since at least the 1940's!
Now it has been said of Anne's meeting with Feldy on 23rd July 1994 that she could not have come to it with the idea of pushing an invented "in my family for years" (FAMILY) provenance because her purpose was to persuade him that she really was Anne Barrett-Graham. This is a misinterpretation of the event. Feldy had indeed through his rather odd research methods come to the conclusion that there was a vast conspiracy and Anne was really Susan Claire Jones! This was caused by misleading research. Anne's documents were brought to convince Feldy of her identity and not for any more complicated reason. (Feldman p.149) This and the following pages should be read by anyone who wants to know how not to conduct an interview with a subject and again Feldy pushes the idea that the diary had come through the Graham family.In return Anne tells Feldy two things: the diary has nothing to do with the Barretts and she herself gave it to Devereux. It was not till the next day that she told Feldy the FAMILY provenance and within a few days he had met Billy Graham and had convinced himself of Anne's descent from Florrie. If the FAMILY provenance was genuine and something that Anne had known for a long time (remember that she stated that she had seen the diary in the 1960's before going to Australia) then she would have to explain her behaviour on at least one occasion when the police were investigating and Mike was being cross-examined at their house. It would have saved a lot of problems if she had said plainly that there was no scam involved in the diary: it had come from her family and her father could prove that.
Two points concerning the importance of the film deal. By September 1994 Feldman's video company Duocrave were about to pay Rupert Crew £12,000, apparently the first payment regarding Feldy's film rights to the diary story and by January 1995 Smith Gryphon had received £70,000 from New Line Cinema. Portions of these monies would have trickled down to be shared by Mike and Anne. It is I believe that, considering Mike's "confessions" starting in June 1994 and the failure of the PUB provenance, the diary projects were close to collapse. What saved them was Anne's FAMILY provenance and my belief is that it was inadvertantly suggested by the Feldman/Skinner/Fairclough team. I can see no evidence that the diary existed much earlier than March 1992. I see no evidence that it was a Graham family heirloom and the idea (now apparently forgotten) that Anne was Florries greatgranddaughter is risible and genealogically senseless. I have not in this post addressed the forensic aspects of this matter. As I have previously said, I am happy to leave that to Melvin Harris to discuss as his knowledge of this area is superior to mine. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 09:58 pm | | Anne has recieved money from a spin-off from the Diary. This was in the form of a book she wrote in conjunction with another party.I take it that she was paid for this. If so it can be said that she has made a financial gain from the introduction of the diary. To play devils advocate
if it can be proven that she received money from the diary direct, then that alone is not proof that she is involved in the scam.It could however be termed as circumstancial evidence. |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 11:04 pm | | Very sound, Ivor. I don't see your advocacy in either of the two points you make as being diabolic. I would, however, add from personal knowledge that Anne's exploitation of her alleged possible descent from the Maybrick family was used in her book on the publisher's insistence and against her own preference. How rigorously anyone blames a woman in an exposed position who had the career and prestige-making opportunity of having a first book published will be a matter of individual judgement. The queasiness of the introduction in which the claim is made testifies to the awkwardness Anne felt about it, and maybe it is my own absolute conviction that she has no more Maybrick or Chandler blood than George Melly (despite his striking likeness to the Baroness von Roques) that leads me to think she is quite intelligent enough to disbelieve it herself. But many people have suppressed a mountain of doubt - maybe even knowingly written the thing that is not - to get their names on a book's spine. Stephen Knight is only the most glaring example in the Ripper field.
Martin F |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 12:13 am | | | Yes good point Martin. I often wonder how far she was pushed by Mr Feldman and company who had something to lose if the diary fell flat on its face before the investment made had paid any dividends. How much was she manipulated and exploited I wonder ? |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 12:36 am | | | Jeff, M Maybrick was indeed the mayor of Ryde on the Isle of Wight. I moved to the island just over a year ago. Two men one a film producer, the other a ripper writer ( ex actor ) came here not so long ago and made inquiries about him. It would appear that, and wait for it.Someone is trying to put him in the frame as the Ripper!!!! |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 04:06 am | | Hi Ivor,
You don't say!
Hi Martin,
I'd advise George Melly to sue.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 05:52 am | | Hi Ivor
Somebody is indeed and he published an article in Ripperologist about it not so long ago! (I never miss an opportunity to plug the Rip
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 08:53 am | | Oops - my fault, Ivor! I didn't make it clear enough that I was referring simply to Anne's publisher's pressure. I.e. while she, (with Keith Skinner's encouragement) rightly thought that there was enough interest from a feminist perspective for a book on the new information on the Maybrick family, showing how two (pretty unpleasant, in my view) people in an unhappy marriage wound up with one dead and the other accused of his murder on very shaky grounds, the publisher's commercial judgement was that the interest was not strong enough for a book by two untried and unknown authors. But the picture changed if one was a descendant - and, indeed, maybe a family connection of Jack the Ripper's.
Pressure from Feldman was earlier, different, and not commercially motivated. Though Feldy is like a bull in the china shop of delicate historical research, his vehement advocacy of his own conclusions and aggressive demands that everyone agree with him springs from his passionate convictions that those conclusions are the truth. All right - it's getting research back-to-front, and it's a royal pain in the neck for those who are badgered to agree with him. But although he may have hoped to make a profit in the long run, he poured out money of his own in the first instance to prove his case. He is, after all, a man who has twice made and lost hugely more money than any of the rest of us who have written on the Ripper could ever hope to do. And that sort of success in the commercial world demands freedom from the sort of cautious self-examination and hesitation which leads the better scholar to question his own judgement all the time. So though Feldy pushed Anne to come through with what he thought of as 'the truth' until she yielded and came up with a story that (however improbable) suited him, and (however improbable) has not yet been categorically disproved, I don't think he can be accused of 'manipulating' her. If he were that sort of operator, I don't think he would, even for short periods, have persuaded Colin Wilson and Paul Daniel of his case.
In short: there was no visible calculation on Feldy's part in helping Anne, to whatever extent he did, in the writing of her book, and there was no venality in Anne's part in accepting the help of a man who would be described by all who know him well, as habitually and characteristically generous.
Martin F |
Author: shirley harrison
Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 11:56 am | | I dont know2 where this will turn up....but I have a small correction. I have never in my life written children's fiction! I joined a local newspaper from school, went into PR in London opened my own freelance feature agency and spent the rest of my time some thirty years later, writing general features for the national magazine and press, some serious, some not. I wrote travel and womens subjects. Although I edited a colum for Girl magazine for a time there was no fiction. When my first husband died I turned to books. These include a history of The English Channel, a book on cancer, another on religious cults which entailed travelling in America and staying with several of the strangest. I wrote a number of travel guides for Collins and - and I guess this is where the guesswork went wrong - a "biography" of Father Christmas - for adults. I have recently been commissioned to write a major biography. I was invited to tackle the diary because of my wide range of experience, an insatiable curiosity and a reputation for riding rough seas. Just as well really!
I am not ignoring the debate on Anne - but waiting to be sure when I say something that it is documentarily supported and relevant. Although we all need to understand Anne - it is all too easy for this kind of discussion to become a witchhunt and very intrusive.
Martin - very well explained. |
Author: shirley harrison
Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 11:56 am | | I dont know2 where this will turn up....but I have a small correction. I have never in my life written children's fiction! I joined a local newspaper from school, went into PR in London opened my own freelance feature agency and spent the rest of my time some thirty years later, writing general features for the national magazine and press, some serious, some not. I wrote travel and womens subjects. Although I edited a colum for Girl magazine for a time there was no fiction. When my first husband died I turned to books. These include a history of The English Channel, a book on cancer, another on religious cults which entailed travelling in America and staying with several of the strangest. I wrote a number of travel guides for Collins and - and I guess this is where the guesswork went wrong - a "biography" of Father Christmas - for adults. I have recently been commissioned to write a major biography. I was invited to tackle the diary because of my wide range of experience, an insatiable curiosity and a reputation for riding rough seas. Just as well really!
I am not ignoring the debate on Anne - but waiting to be sure when I say something that it is documentarily supported and relevant. Although we all need to understand Anne - it is all too easy for this kind of discussion to become a witchhunt and very intrusive.
Martin - very well explained. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 12:42 pm | | Thanks to Karoline for returning to these boards and confirming my statements about diary royalties. She's only left me with a few bits and pieces that I should point out.
Does it mean anything that Mike had the text of the diary on his word-processor. Paul Begg says: "That Mike Barrett had the text of the ‘diary’ on his word processor tells us nothing except that Mike Barrett had the text of the ‘diary’ on his word processor." Is it more likely that the diary was composed on the wp and then written into the Album or that Mike read through the diary and carefully transcribed it onto his wp. Are both these possibilities "equally valid" or is one more likely than the other? And given that there are several other events where we might see different possibilities:a/ Mike got the red diary as part of the forgery project OR b/ he got it because he wanted to see what a Victorian diary looked like.a/ Anne got nothing from the diary until Doreen Montgomery unilaterally decided to give her 25% OR b/ she got money sent by cheque in her name from December 1993 onwards, a/ Anne kept the cheques that were made out to her from December 1993 onwards OR b/ she gave every penny to Mike a/ Anne got the idea of the family diary provenance from information inadvertantly given by Paul Feldman and Keith Skinner OR b/ by a remarkable coincidence the diary really had been in her family for many years.
Regarding the points made by Richard Dewar, I agree with Karoline. Although in this best of all possible worlds all things are possible it really is not terribly likely that Maybrick wrote the diary that's been published in his name. To paraphrase RJP, John Collier and Sam Johnson, I strike the stones of Miller's Court and say: "Thus I refute Maybrick!"
Karoline wrote: ""We have the fact that both AG and MB tried to give the
forgery a spurious provenance." to which the answer was: ""But is it a fact that Mike didn't get the diary from Devereux? Mike initially claimed he did, and Anne later claimed this was true, except that she had given it to Devereux first. So, initially Anne was not ‘trying to give
the forgery’ any provenance, spurious or otherwise. If it’s
a fact that she tried to give it a spurious provenance in
July 1994, er, why is everyone still here?"
Mike himself has given various provenances: it came from Devereaux, he forged it, Anne forged it with her father. A likely reason for Anne saying to Feldman that she had given Tony the diary was to give a provenance which would be based on her own family possession of the diary and would not leave a hole in the story. To say that: "initially Anne was not ‘trying to give
the forgery’ any provenance, spurious or otherwise." is to misunderstand the entire situation at that moment. Anne's simple statement that she had given the diary to Tony and that it was nothing to do with the Barretts is the start of her FAMILY provenance story which she added to the following day.
There is a comment by Mrs. Morris that people living outside the UK may need to have explained. She says: " "Ever heard of people making false confessions? Not as
common (in both senses of the word) as people who make false accusations, no doubt"
In British English usage the second meaning of the word "common" means "low-class, not OUR sort of people" as in the phrase: "common as muck." I'm sure that Mrs. Morris whose grasp of innuendo is well-known would like to confirm that this was not her intention.
"It's one of those niggly little questions, like why Mike came up with the same story as Anne
about the scraps they had over Mike wanting to publish the scrapbook" I understand that this comment has been traced to a message from Keith Skinner. I would be interested in learning WHO told him about the "scraps." If it was both Mike and Anne, then fair enough but could it have been just Anne reporting what her husband would have said: "Mike will tell you how we used to have big rows about the diary." A small point but worth pursuing.
Paul Begg says: ".? It has not been shown that Mike did not receive the
‘diary’ from Tony D. and it has not been shown that Anne did
not give the ‘diary’ to Tony D. to give to Mike." Well considering that there were only three persons involved and the one in the middle is conveniently no longer with us, I would suggest that Tom Slemen's medium be consulted. (Although as she has already had an indignant Maybrick on the line, maybe she would be considered biased.)
And lastly let me express the hope that Vijay Singh does as well this year as last and that some decent European golfers get to the top of the leaderboard. |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 01:19 pm | | Hi Peter,
I would like to offer just a couple of brief responses, reactions really, since I am somewhat busy watching the leaderboard here on the Web, at the moment.
You ask the following:
"Does it mean anything that Mike had the text of the diary on his word-processor. Paul Begg says: 'That Mike Barrett had the text of the ‘diary’ on his word processor tells us nothing except that Mike Barrett had the text of the ‘diary’ on his word processor.' Is it more likely that the diary was composed on the wp and then written into the Album or that Mike read through the diary and carefully transcribed it onto his wp. Are both these possibilities "equally valid" or is one more likely than the other?
From the point of view of someone who admittedly has never met these people and knows nothing really about them other than what he has read, it seems to me that both possibilities are about as likely as each other and that both scenarios -- that it was composed on the machine and that it was transcribed onto the machine by someone who had a new found document in his hands and was making plans for it -- seem believable without one standing out clearly as the more obvious and credible likelihood.
At least that would be my initial reaction.
The purchase of the red diary, to me, is on its face more troublesome than the words in the machine, because it would seem to be a clear indication of intent before the fact of the diary's appearance. Elsewhere on these boards the specifics surrounding this purchase and the paperwork and testimonies that have accompanied it have muddled things a bit for me. But this remains, I think, as a significant piece of evidence.
The receipt, use, and dispersal of monies that you discuss are different questions, concerning the behavior of Anne and Mike after the diary had been made public and was being received, and they call for an ethical discussion about that behavior, a discussion which is not necessarily linked to the composition of the diary or even to their knowledge of its origins. I will leave that ethical discussion for others, I think. I will remain an interested reader, but for me, it is a less attractive and intriguing question than the one about the diary's actual history of production and scene of writing.
As to the questions of who has since said what about the provenance, very little if anything concerning the truth of whether or not Mike got the book from Tony or whether or not Anne ever gave the book to Tony to give to Mike seems in any way clear or established. Mike had it in 1992. Before that I have no idea where it was and I haven't seen any real evidence to convince me as to where it was.
But I remain here reading, in the hope that someone will finally offer that evidence concerning where exactly this book was before 1992 and who put those words on that paper, whose hand held that pen. Indeed, I only wish that at my back I could now hear Melvin's chariot hurrying near...
But no, the rest is silence.
The leaders as of about 1:15 here on the east coast of the US:
Chris DiMarco 17 -7
2 Rocco Mediate 15 -3
2 James Driscoll 11 -3
4 Jim Furyk 15 -2
4 Sergio Garcia 14 -2
4 Bob May 14 -2
4 Chris Perry 10 -2
4 Pierre Fulke 9 -2
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 01:36 pm | | Hi Peter,
When I said that initially Anne was not 'trying to give the forgery' any provenance, spurious or otherwise, I meant at the same time when Mike initially claimed he got it from Devereux. Sorry, I should have made that crystal clear for you.
It certainly was my intention to say that I look upon people who make false accusations, whether they know they are false to begin with, or find out later and don't bother correcting them, are indeed as common as muck, in whatever sense you care to name. Why do you have a problem with that?
I checked with Keith and he confirms that his post was accurate: We are told by Mike and Anne, independently... about the rows.
Page 143 of Feldy's book also contains the following: Caroline then added a detail that her parents would later confirm: her mum had wanted to burn it [the diary] after one horrible row when her dad said he was going to get 'the diary' published.
Keith also confirmed, when I asked him specifically, that he has Mike's word on this, not simply Feldy's word that it came from Mike.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 01:42 pm | | From Keith Skinner To Peter Birchwood
I shall continue to refer to your public suspicions about my questionable role and improper conduct in the Diary investigation until such time as you have the courage to openly and personally confront me with these suspicions, rather than furtively drip-feed your potentially damaging innuendo against me into your posts. I would also prefer that you desist in paying me compliments about my “undoubted talents” because, quite frankly, I can do without your hypocrisy. Let me suggest that, on this board, you try and persuade Melvin Harris to accept my invitation to meet with him and that you also be present to examine his embargoed material which, we are led to believe, will effectively and conclusively put an end to the Diary controversy.
Whilst on the general theme of my incompetence and devious machinations let me refer you back to your post of Tuesday March 13th 2001:
“Keith Skinner did understand by, at the latest November 1996 that his letter to Anne Barrett (as she then was) of May 1994 could have given her the idea of a Graham family connection for the diary.”
Would you please clarify for me how you know what my understanding was in November 1996?
And finally, in your same post, you draw attention to my apparent confusion “about research concerning fairly unusual names such as Blakiston or Conconi”, suggesting that someone of your professional standing would probably be able to help me out. Could you identify and demonstrate where I am confused please and then I will be happy to accept your offer of assistance. I am not and never have been beyond constructive criticism or advice. Indeed, I welcome and embrace it. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 03:45 pm | | Hi, Caz:
I think the story that Caroline told of her mother, Anne, wanting to burn the Diary and Mike wanting to publish it at least has a ring of truth about it--whether the Diary was a forgery in which they had both colluded, whether Mike got the Diary from a bloke in a pub and knew nothing about it before hand, or even if, should Anne's story be true, the Diary had been in her family for years.
Chris |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 04:01 pm | | | I have referred to Shirley Harrison as a writer of children's stories. I got this information about 2 (or more) years ago from an article which indicated that her literary experience included travel and children's stories. I referred to it then on the casebook and have made one comment on it recently. I'm searching for the source but have been unable to locate it, but I will continue to look. In the meantime, I must apologise for the incorrect information I have given. I'm sure Shirley will want to know the source of this erroneous information. |
|
|
|
|
