|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 10, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
College course tackles the Diary:
Archive through April 10, 2001
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 08 April 2001 - 10:37 am |        | Hello Karoline
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!
Unfortunately I only said that I thought you rigidly opposed explanations alternative to your own. I did not say I thought you were
'conservative and rigid and respectable'. I don't know whether you are or not. 
Do look back over my posts, though, and I think you'll see I am not actually ruling out a single reasonable possibility.
I think you have ruled out a large number of reasonable possibilities, such as the text of the ‘diary’ being on Mike’s word processor because he transcribed it from the ‘diary’.
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.
If we have as a viable alternative that Mike and Anne were part of a group, do we assume that the group wrote the ‘diary’ on Mike’s word processor? A pertinent question given that I think Melvin also argued that the actual pen person would distance himself from the placer. Also a pertinent question given Mike’s ignorance about the conception and execution of the ‘diary’ (not a fanciful Elvis-like imagining, but a valid observation and one you haven’t addressed in any way) suggesting that he knew nothing about it.
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…
Speaking personally, no I am not saying that.
As a matter of interest, are you saying that it is impossible for the Barretts to have been given the ‘diary’ to place by someone who unexpectedly died? If so, on what factual basis do you base that judgement?
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..."
Yes, but balance of probability only provides the most likely hypothesis. And the most likely hypothesis, like any other, has to be supported by evidence. The only evidence you have presented are your eight facts, but, like the text being on Mike’s word processor, they are only supportive of your hypothesis “if one has already assumed Mike and Anne guilty”.
Finally, you are not facing a collective opposition. I don’t have a group. I don’t know John or Rich. They happen to be two people who disagree with you who are speaking up. |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 08 April 2001 - 10:40 am | | If the diary handwriting matched Mike's it would obviously change a lot for me too, but I haven't seen the evidence for this either.
Cheers
Paul |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 08 April 2001 - 10:47 am | | Hi Paul,
I know we are not a collective opposition, but can't we at least be a 70's power rock trio? (Ah, "The Lone Penmen," yes, I remember their classic early album The Costly Intercourse of Death. My mother wouldn't let me buy it when I was kid.)
Seriously, though, have you heard a case made, convincingly or otherwise, that Mike's handwriting matches that in the diary?
I am curious about this assertion put forward by Karoline a couple of posts ago.
Is there now reliable handwriting evidence that Mike's hand held the pen?
This would seem important.
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 08 April 2001 - 11:00 am | | Strange synchronicity, Paul,
You answered my question even as I was writing it.
All sorts of magical things happen on Masters Sunday.
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 08 April 2001 - 12:09 pm | | Hi John
I haven't heard that Mike's handwriting matches that of the 'diary' and the examples of his handwriting I have seen suggest that they are most unlikely to be one and the same hand. Handwriting experts seem to have given conflicting testimony, too, I recall, about whether the handwriting looked natural or not. It's one of those greyish areas which I feel haven't been properly examined.
Enjoy the Masters! I had a history of the Masters on CD Rom somewhere once. |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 08 April 2001 - 12:49 pm | | Thanks Paul,
It has occurred to me several times this weekend how, perhaps even more than any other sport, I think golf is so completely and thoroughly respectful of and linked to its own history. Golf enthusiasts talk about specific shots from specific days in the 30's or 40's and talk about events of the past century and before with a loving reverence for detail and an almost poetic longing for the moments that have receeded before us but remain seared into our memory through the passing on of communal narratives, such that I have begun to think many of them would make sensitive and promising historians. Other sports fanatics are like this too, of course. I know many people who can recite baseball line-ups and statistics and even specific moments and events from eighty years ago and we all know about your "football" supporters and their detailed fanaticism and even about the weirdness of cricket afficianados; but the tone seems to me different in golf -- this history is discussed in a slow and careful way and the nostalgia for the past is often balanced with a respect and admiration for the marvelous accomplishments of the present. It is closer, perhaps, to the way the true afficianados once spoke and wrote in several languages about the history of the bull ring. But that reverential passion for "death in the afternoon" has all but vanished today even in many places where it once flourished. In any case, today Tiger has the opportunity to take another step closer to positioning himself alongside Bobby Jones in the written history of the game, and the attitude of many who take such things seriously seems to me to be the attitude of balance and respect and anticipation and consideration held by the best historians.
Or maybe not.
But I've thought about such things before, especially when I have walked the course at Augusta National and watched the players struggle with the treacherous subtlety of this impossibly beautiful piece of land, during the three Masters that I have been lucky enough to attend. And now that I am suddenly hanging out with historians here on these boards, these thoughts seem even more relevant and powerful for me.
But they are irrelevant to our discussion and probably belong elsewhere. Sorry for the digression.
Bye for now,
--John |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Sunday, 08 April 2001 - 03:03 pm | | Hi, all,
Without a doubt this diary issue is a murky business. My hunch is that Karoline is correct about the provinence of the diary. I merely disagree with her that such view can yet be determined as "probable" and that all other theories are necessarily less likely.
I would cite as an example the original "Dear Boss" letter. Initially, investigators considered the letter a hoax. Then, among many researchers and investigators, the letter was seen as likely authored by the murderer. Today, majority opinion is that the letter was not authored by Jack the Ripper.
Yet in the 112 years since the letter first appeared, no facts have changed about its provinence. Only the interpretation of the facts have changed.
There are many today that insist the "Dear Boss" letter is a hoax. I prefer to take the view, the only one that really stands up after all these years, that we just dont know.
And I feel the same way about the authorship of the Maybrick Diary. There indeed is some information that suggests Mike forged the diary. But factually, we just dont know.
Rich |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 08 April 2001 - 04:05 pm | | Hi Rich,
Indeed, as I meant to suggest a bit earlier, the "Dear Boss" letters might very well have been a hoax perpetrated for reasons other than profit or fame. People certainly do these sorts of things, and for a variety of motives. Then again, you are also certainly right concerning your assessment that the conclusion that we just don't know the origin of these letters is the one that remains standing so far, 112 years later. Someone named Yazoo has just recently sent a couple of interesting posts on this topic to another board demonstrating how still alive the uncertainty remains. And a celebrated new book length analysis of the question and the letters is fast approaching release.
But the problem here is that in this case, some of the people involved are still alive and there remains the possibility of more legal consequences and the life-altering effects upon personal reputations and legacies all stemming from what is discovered and concluded about the identities of those actually involved in creating this forgery. So, it seems a bit hasty and dangerous to announce that Anne and Mike's complicity might now have been proven at least "beyond a reasonable doubt," as Karoline had done twice in the same post, beginning with her question to me on Wednesday, April 04, 2001 - 04:18 am, "Is it not fair to say on this basis that their complicity in the forgery is established 'beyond a reasonable doubt'?"
Later in that same post, she announced:
"All things being equal the fact of Mike and AG as complicit in this forgery - either as co-creators with a third party or on their own - is established beyond a reasonable doubt."
She has, since then, tempered this rhetoric of legal proof and, I think, implicitly withdrawn this claim of the establishment of complicity in favor of the language of probability and likelihoods. This is a good thing, I think.
But this all remains as an indication of how seriously and carefully we must regard the problems built into this text, its origins and the narratives that other people have told us either from their memory or their imagination.
This seems all the more reason for great care and patience while assessing even probabilities and likelihoods, and that is why I am choosing to remain equally open to all possibilities concerning scenarios of authorship or acquisition and concerning the extremely unstable and still evolving knowledge of the scene of this diary's original research and writing.
--John |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Sunday, 08 April 2001 - 04:40 pm | | Hi John,
I think we are in full accord. I believe more information is yet to be developed regarding the origins of the diary. It seems only prudent to withhold any final conclusions until the information we have is more definitive.
Rich |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 08 April 2001 - 06:11 pm | | John/Rich
Absolutely. |
Author: Karoline L
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 04:33 am | | Paul wrote to me:
"I think you have ruled out a large number of reasonable possibilities, such as the text of the ‘diary’ being on Mike’s word processor because he transcribed it from the ‘diary’"
(sigh!) But I have never ruled out that possibility.
If you re-read my replies to Richard Dewar, and to yourself, I think you'll see I have repeatedly said that MB could have had perfectly innocent reasons for putting the text on his word processor.
I will say it again (in fact I will shout it in bold) - he could have had perfectly innocent reasons for putting the diary text on his wp.
I just happen to think (as I gather you do) that the data we presently have favors the probability it was on his wp because he was party to the forgery.
I'm not really clear what we are supposed to be disagreeing about any more. I have said the probability is that AG and MB were involved in the creation of this document - and you, after seeming to disagree with me for a while are now saying exactly the same thing.
I wrote:
"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."
Paul wrote:
"If we have as a viable alternative that Mike and Anne were part of a group, do we assume that the group wrote the ‘diary’ on Mike’s word processor?"
Well it would be a very reasonable assumption, certainly.
Paul wrote
:" A pertinent question given that I think Melvin also argued that the actual pen person would distance himself from the placer. Also a pertinent question given Mike’s ignorance about the conception and execution of the ‘diary’."
MB is a difficult problem to solve; it is next to impossible now to know what bits of his testimony are true and what false. All we can do is compare his words to other known facts and see where it gets us.
The data suggests that MB knew a reasonable amount about the writing of the text (the Crashaw quote alone suggests that), but much less about the physical creation of the document.
So it seems logical to assume it probable he was involved in the former - but not the latter. And this is consistent both with Melvin's theory and the handwriting in the diary, which seems to resemble neither MB's nor AG's - but that of a person who was acquainted with both of them and Tony Devereaux.
Paul wrote:
"As a matter of interest, are you saying that it is impossible for the Barretts to have been given the ‘diary’ to place by someone who unexpectedly died? If so, on what factual basis do you base that judgement?"
It is perfectly and entirely possible the Barretts were given the diary by a man who subsequently died.
It is also possible they were given it by a student as a prank.
Or that MB found it on a bus
Or that Billy Graham forged it and lied to his daughter.
Or even (I suppose) that Weedon Grossmith forged it to frame Maybrick and somehow left it with AG's ancestors
Please do see I am accepting that all these things and many more are possible.-
But as you said, Paul - historical research is about assessing probabilites, and of all the infinite possibilities that you and I and anyone can imagine, the data we presently have suggests that the most probable explanation is that MB and AG were in some way directly involved in the forgery.
Paul wrote:
"Yes, but balance of probability only provides the most likely hypothesis. And the most likely hypothesis, like any other, has to be supported by evidence".
May I ask - what do you think it is that makes something "the most likely hypothesis" if it isn't the evidence?
A balance of probability is assessed on the basis of evidence. The reason that this hypothesis is the most likely is because the evidence supports it better than any other.
Paul wrote:
"If the diary handwriting matched Mike's it would obviously change a lot for me too, but I haven't seen the evidence for this either"
When I mentioned the handwriting I wasn't referring to MB's
I was referring to another man, who was a friend of Tony Devereaux, and whose writing does seem to show signs of considerable similarity to the diary.
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 06:21 am | | Hello Karoline
“(sigh!) But I have never ruled out that possibility.”
On 5 April you wrote of your eight facts (one of which was the text of the ‘diary’ being on Mike’s word processor): “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.Until they do, don't you agree that the balance of probability favours the simple and obvious answer - they look involved and guilty, because they are?”
This reads like someone being dismissive of alternative possibilities, as do your various likenings of those possibilities to Elivis being alive and well in Bhutan (which was, I believe, an observation made by Martin).
“If you re-read my replies to Richard Dewar, and to yourself, I think you'll see I have repeatedly said that MB could have had perfectly innocent reasons for putting the text on his word processor.”
And every perfectly innocent reason that’s advanced is compared by you to Elvis living in Bhutan.
“I just happen to think (as I gather you do) that the data we presently have favors the probability it was on his wp because he was party to the forgery.”
I do not think the data we presently have favours the probability it was on his word processor because he was party to the forgery nor do I think I have given any reason for you to think I think this. Rather the contrary, in fact, since I have outlined my doubts that he was.
I have simply agreed that those who benefit from a forgery are most likely the ones to have created it and that this leads to the hypothesis that Mike and Anne are the forgers. This hypothesis now needs to be tested against the facts, which is something I don’t think you have done.
“The data suggests that MB knew a reasonable amount about the writing of the text (the Crashaw quote alone suggests that)”
The Crashaw quote is hugely problematic and I know of no good evidence that Mike knew of it at any time earlier than the month he ‘discovered’ it. Apart from the Crashaw quote, what evidence is there that he knew anything about the writing of the text?
It is perfectly and entirely possible the Barretts were given the diary by a man who subsequently died. It is also possible they were given it by a student as a prank.
Or that MB found it on a bus. Or that Billy Graham forged it and lied to his daughter.
Or even (I suppose) that Weedon Grossmith forged it to frame Maybrick and somehow left it with AG's ancestors. Please do see I am accepting that all these things and many more are possible.-
Caz abandoned the Weedon Grossmith idea a very long time ago and your references to it seem a tad barbed, which I’m sure you don’t intend, and as glad as I am to see that you accept most things as possible, you seem in general to favour drawing some extreme comparisons by which to apparently diminish reasonable alternatives to your own conclusions. As in this case. Mike Barrett did not say he found the ‘diary’ on a bus. He did say he was given it by a man who did unexpectedly die shortly afterwards.
the data we presently have suggests that the most probable explanation is that MB and AG were in some way directly involved in the forgery.
What data?
I can do no better that cite John Omlor on April 8: “…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.”
May I ask - what do you think it is that makes something "the most likely hypothesis" if it isn't the evidence?
I summarised your own argument, which was that the people who benefited most from the forgery are the people most likely to be the forgers. This makes Mike and Anne the most likely forgers. That Mike and Anne forged the ‘diary’ is therefore the most likely hypothesis.
But is that hypothesis holding up? We have now gone from Mike and Anne being the forger, to Mike and Anne being part of a group of forgers. Was the ‘diary’ composed on Mike’s word-processor or did Mike transcribe it onto his word processor so that he could provide Doreen Montgomery with a copy that was easier to read and assist his job as ‘placer’ ?
“A balance of probability is assessed on the basis of evidence.”
True. What is your evidence?
“The reason that this hypothesis is the most likely is because the evidence supports it better than any other.”
What evidence?
“When I mentioned the handwriting I wasn't referring to MB's I was referring to another man, who was a friend of Tony Devereaux, and whose writing does seem to show signs of considerable similarity to the diary.”
Yes, Mr. Kane. Are there new samples of his handwriting? New analysis? |
Author: Karoline L
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 09:09 am | | I wrote
"the data we presently have suggests that the most probable explanation is that MB and AG were in some way directly involved in the forgery. "
Paul replied:
What data?
I can best reply to Paul's question by quoting his own words of yesterday -
"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"
Is it maybe time to accept these realities, however uncomfortable they are, and to move on - before this thread becomes any more regrettable?
By the way - Is it really true (I think it's quoted in the Ripperologist) that the hopeless 'diary movie' is yet again in the pipeline?
Where do you suppose they will get any qualified expert prepared to compromise his honesty sufficiently to give his name to this project as an 'advisor' or whatever? Is anyone authoritative still claiming it might be genuine?
Or do you suppose the lure of money will persuade some desperate venial soul to sell-out and make a fool of himself?
Let's all look out for the name on the credits (if the project ever drags itself that far).
Nothing to do with the discussion here - but I just thought I'd mention it.
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 10:00 am | | "Is it maybe time to accept these realities, however uncomfortable they are, and to move on - before this thread becomes any more regrettable?
It is because they aren’t realities that this thread exists.
Battlecrease has indeed received funding, but if you don't mind I think I’ll reserve opinion about whether it is 'hopeless' or not until I have seen it or read the script. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 12:18 pm | | Hi All,
Karoline,
You wrote:
Neither of the Coxes (so far as I know), were trying to profit out of a forged document based on this 'family story'.
Your implication here is plain: that it is an established fact that Anne was trying to profit out of a forged document based on this ‘family story’.
You also wrote:
…if I ever start referring to probabilities as established facts, you will have every reason to criticise me.
Well, while it became an established fact years ago that Anne has been profiting from the diary, we have yet to establish, on the evidence we have, that she was actively trying to profit from the diary, or that it was a document she knew to be forged.
The result of your original statement is that, by adding two probabilities to the one fact, you have made the whole statement appear, to me, like it is made up of three established facts: the profit itself; Anne’s attempt to profit; and her knowledge of the forgery. If this is simply my impression, due to careless reading, you will have every reason to criticise me for it.
Similarly, you wrote:
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.
Again, it’s the known forgery bit which sounds to me like a probability expressed as an established fact. (Having said that, I do continue to find it odd that a reasonably intelligent person such as Anne would come up with a totally false provenance story in July 1994, at a time when so many people were crying “Recent hoax!” What I mean by this is that, even if she didn’t know it was a modern forgery when Mike placed it and the profits started rolling in, you’d think she would have at least suspected it herself by the time she began claiming the thing was old - unless she really does know differently.)
Hi Paul, John, Everyone,
Paul wrote:
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. [my emphasis on after]
I think there is a point in all this that Karoline keeps missing, but that others appear to have appreciated. Karoline can work on her probabilities all she likes, but they are based at present on incomplete data. None of us, apart from Melvin Harris, who claims to have a more complete picture, can claim to be in a position to start rigorously assessing anything. We have been told there is more information out there. There may well be more to come from other sources still kicking around. Some of us are more than happy to wait, indefinitely if need be, until such time as sufficient data becomes available to start assessing it properly and fairly, in the real world of real people, who do sometimes make up false and bizarre accusations, as both Karoline and I know perfectly well from past experiences on these very boards. Karoline would appear to want us all to agree to rely on her own probabilities, then go away and sit in the sun. What I don’t understand is why she appears so opposed to continued questions being asked about the missing data (and why does it matter so much if our questions appear to her unreasonable or irrelevant or unnecessary?), which, following her own arguments about balance of probability, she should be absolutely confident will turn her probabilities into established facts, thereby proving her case for her, and enabling her to say she was right all along.
I am seriously beginning to wonder if it less important for some people to be proved right by the truth coming out, than it is an affront to have their own views questioned, challenged or doubted. When does striving for the truth cease and striving for ourselves begin? I've heard it's the instant we feel anger, so let's all keep nice and calm, shall we?
Regarding what Melvin has stated on the boards about the suspected forgers, it would appear that his information and views agree to some extent with my original instincts, that neither Anne nor Mike faked the diary. After telling us about Mike’s copy of the Sphere Guide indeed falling open at the Crashaw lines, and Mike’s own claim to have passed the quote on to Devereux, all Melvin really says is that these lines ‘give the game away.’ We don’t know precisely what he means by ‘the game’ or what his privileged information tells him about Anne’s knowledge that Mike was placing a document forged by others. I have yet to see any ‘telling’ evidence, apart from hearing various interpretations of Mike and Anne’s actions and testimony after the fact, that Anne was involved in the ‘game’ at all – that is, knowing that Mike was placing a post-1987 fake.
By odd coincidence, Keith and I happened to be talking on Saturday when I suggested, and he agreed, that it was only a matter of time before Weedy Wee Gee, the poor old sausage, would be dragged from his rest for his annual outing to the boards. Keith and I now know the accuracy of at least one of our joint predictions.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 01:20 pm | | Karoline,
It appears to me that you are making a false assumption about what you and I agree and disagree about.
You and I appear to have the same personal theory about the origins of the diary. Where we disagree is the amount of "probability" in relation to our theory. You appear to be much more certain than I.
You propose in your earlier post that because Paul and I have suspicions about Mike in this affair, it makes it more probable that the text of the diary was on the wp as part of a forgery. This is where you and I, and I suspect Paul, part company.
You seem to feel because Mike's conduct is suspicious therefore the facts about the wp must be interpreted in the most unfavorable light to Mike. This, I believe, is an error.
It is my view that the facts regarding the wp are suspicious - no more than that. That Mike has not told the truth about some things does not make it more "probable" that he is false about the wp - it makes it more "possible."
Rich |
Author: Karoline L
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 03:27 pm | | Caz wrote to me
Your implication here is plain: that it is an established fact that Anne was trying to profit out of a forged document based on this ‘family story’.
Well yes...
Caz wrote:
"... we have yet to establish, on the evidence we have, that she was actively
trying to profit from the diary, or that it was a document she knew to be forged"
Do you think it possible she profited by accident?
Do you think she perhaps didn't know what the royalty payments were for?
As to your second point - even if we allow the possibility she wasn't part of the forgery group - I think everyone knew it was forged by the mid-nineties didn't they?
Caz wrote:
"Karoline can work on her probabilities all she likes, butthey are based at present on incomplete data. None of us,apart from Melvin Harris, who claims to have a more complete
picture, can claim to be in a position to start rigorously assessing anything
Oh really, this is not worthy of a serious discussion.
The probabilities aren't "mine", they are simply there - inherent in the situation.
It must be quite apparent to people who read here that you and Paul and some others have been happy to postulate almost any speculative hypothesis, however devoid of data, and use this as a basis for almost limitless guesswork.
The one thing you seem least prepared to do is to look at the simple hard data that has been accumulated and ask simple questions about what it means.
I can only wonder why this is so - and, like RJP - quietly despair!
Caz wrote:
"Karoline would appear to want us all to
agree to rely on her own probabilities, then go away and sit
in the sun".
Oh please.
As Paul remarked - deduction based on probability is the only tool a historian has - so maybe, Caz, it would be a good idea to allow it a little more respect?
I won't comment on your posts again, if you don't mind, unless you mention something new. I have lost my relish for the carousel!
Karoline |
Author: Karoline L
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 03:34 pm | | I wrote:
"Is it maybe time to accept these realities, however
uncomfortable they are, and to move on - before this thread
becomes any more regrettable?"
Paul replied:
"It is because they aren’t realities that this thread exists".
But they are realities Paul - as you have said repeatedly - and admittedly also denied repeatedly with no apparent sense of disquiet.
I can only commend the flexibility thus displayed, though I am less happy to endorse the methodology!
However, I do think this aspect of the discussion has gone as far as it can go. I have a couple of questions on a few matters which I'd like to pose over the next few days- but right now I don't have the time to do it justice.
Paul wrote:
"Battlecrease has indeed received funding, but if you don'tmind I think I’ll reserve opinion about whether it is 'hopeless' or not until I have seen it or read the script"
I do apologise, I hadn't any idea you were personally involved, or I wouldn't have made the suggestions I made earlier.
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 04:45 pm | | Hi Karoline,
Your post indicates that it is "established fact" that Anne knowlingly profited from a forged diary.
Could you please share with me what evidence you have that proves Anne knew with certainty that the diary was forged at that time?
There are some, perhaps without good cause, who believed the diary genuine. How can you dismiss what Anne says she believed and claim that you know what precisely Anne "knew"?
Thanks,
Rich |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 04:50 pm | | Hi Karoline,
I believe you are in error in saying that by the mid-nineties everyone knew the diary was a forgery. Especially since a minority today believe the diary to be geniune.
I agree with your view of the diary and even believe in your theory about its origins and forgery. But thus far, I consider it only an educated opinion.
I dont think it wise to presume what others "know" however.
Rich |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 05:56 pm | | Hi Karoline,
You recently wrote concerning Caroline, Paul, "and some others,"
"The one thing you seem least prepared to do is to look at the simple hard data that has been accumulated and ask simple questions about what it means."
If, as I suspect, I am being included here, as one of the "others" (sort of like the Professor and Mary-Anne, who were relegated to "and the rest" in the original version of the Gilligan's Island theme song...)
Sorry.
If, as I suspect, I am being included here as one of the "others," then I would like to point out that on Tuesday, April 03, 2001 - 10:42 pm, I submitted a post that sought exclusively to, as you say, "look at the simple hard data that has been accumulated and ask simple questions about what it means."
Since that time, I have posted some twenty to twenty-five posts on this topic, some of considerable and perhaps even unfortunate length and care, and having just re-read each of them, I am quite prepared to say that in every one of them on this topic since that day and time, without exception, I have carefully looked at the simple hard data that has been accumulated and asked simple questions about what it means.
I have also, of course, asked some perhaps not-so-simple questions about what it means.
But I have consistently and repeatedly spent some time in each and every post looking at the data and asking questions about what it means.
I have also repeatedly tried to separate the "data" from interpretations of the data and from conclusions drawn from the data and from proofs offered, sometimes invalidly and hurriedly, in light of that data.
I have, though, in each and every post, been quite careful to deliberately "look at the simple hard data that has been accumulated and ask simple questions about what it means." In fact, because I continued to "look at the simple hard data that has been accumulated" and repeatedly asked simple (and complicated) "questions about what it means," it was at one point suggested that I was engaging in philosophical and epistemological exercises (which, by the way, I hope I was; and, as I made clear in my response to that accusation, I remain convinced that we are all engaged at the moment in philosophical, epistemological and logical readings and interpretations -- even those of us who think we are just using our "common sense," and that this continues to be a good thing as long as we maintain our patience and our rigor, since this is our only hope for arriving at anything like justice).
I am happy to stand by the examination of the data and the many questions I have asked in any post here since my first post to Karoline on Tuesday, April 03, 2001 - 10:42 pm.
However, what I so far have been quite unwilling to do is to posit any "solutions" from the data about which I have been asking both simple and complicated questions. What I have been unwilling to do, as of yet, is to draw any conclusions from the data about which I have been asking simple and complicated questions. Indeed, what I have been unwilling to do is to suggest anything is proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the data about which I will continue to ask simple and complicated questions.
In short, I have, so far, been unwilling to offer any answers. I have none.
And I have been unwilling to allow much of the data to stand as data, since it has obviously been the interpretation of data. For example, that the words to the diary appear on MB's word processor is "data." When and why were they put there is a "simple question." Anything beyond that is an assumption or a conclusion. The data is clear, the question is simple, the conclusions are contradictory. I am happy to look at the data. I am happy to ask the question. I accept the contradictory readings and answers and, unable to resolve them without making unnecessary and hurried assumptions, I am, at this point, quite willing to move on to the next piece of data and the next set of questions.
But, if I stop and suggest that one reading (he was composing the diary) is more likely or more probable than the other (he was transcribing a diary he had already acquired), then I am clearly no longer simply "look[ing] at the simple hard data that has been accumulated and ask[ing] simple questions about what it means." I am now positing likely conclusions without sufficient evidence to support them. I remain unwilling to do this. (And yes, even when I speculated, well before this conversation began, about potential student or Ripperologist scenes of diary writing I was at least clearly and self-consciously speculating without any real evidence at all and offering a flight of my imagination based on personal reading of the diary's language and was careful to say so. I was drawing no conclusions or even claiming the establishment of likely possibilities based on evidence, the way some here have.)
As I say, I remain unwilling to go beyond looking "at the simple hard data that has been accumulated" and asking simple (and complicated, but always careful) "questions about what it means."
The difference, I suggest, between you, Karoline, and myself is that although we are both quite willing to "look at the simple hard data that has been accumulated and ask simple questions about what it means," you, apparently, are willing to do more than that. You are willing, at this point in the investigation, to posit "likely" conclusions and "probable" complicity and guilt.
In fact, there is precious little "data" concerning the whereabouts of this 63 page book before 1992 or about whose hand held the pen or who did the research and planned the pages. There is almost no data, separate from interpretations, readings, drawn conclusions, and arguments, concerning precisely who wrote this book or where it was written.
I said in a post above that patience is the ally of justice. I believe the question of the identity of the forgers or Mike and Anne's knowledge concerning the identity of the forgers requires a good deal more data and the asking of a good many more simple and complicated questions. At the moment, I remain willing to look at what little data (just data) there is so far about this specifically; about the composition of this book sometime before 1992 by some person or persons, and I remain willing to ask simple and complicated questions about it. But, at this point, I am unwilling to go beyond that.
I am beginning to suspect, Karoline, that this is precisely where we differ.
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 06:47 pm | | Hi Karoline,
You recently wrote concerning me, Paul, "and some others,"
"The one thing you seem least prepared to do is to look at the simple hard data that has been accumulated and ask simple questions about what it means."
I have posted many many posts on this topic, some of considerable and perhaps even unfortunate length and care, and I am quite prepared to say that I have carefully looked at the simple hard data that has been accumulated and asked simple questions about what it means.
I have also, of course, asked some perhaps not-so-simple questions about what it means.
But I have spent an awfully long time consistently and repeatedly looking at the data and asking questions about what it means.
I have also repeatedly tried to separate the "data" from interpretations of the data and from conclusions drawn from the data and from proofs offered, sometimes invalidly and hurriedly, in light of that data.
I have, though, been quite careful to deliberately "look at the simple hard data that has been accumulated and ask simple questions about what it means." I am convinced that we should all try to maintain our patience and our rigor, since this is our only hope for arriving at anything like justice.
What I try not to do is to posit any "solutions" from the data about which I have been asking both simple and complicated questions. What I try not to do, yet, is to draw any conclusions from the data about which I have been asking simple and complicated questions. Indeed, what I have not done is to suggest anything is proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the data about which I will continue to ask simple and complicated questions.
In short, I have, so far, tried to avoid offering any answers which I don't have.
And I have been unwilling to allow much of the data to stand as data, since it has obviously been the interpretation of data.
As I say, I remain unwilling to go beyond looking "at the simple hard data that has been accumulated" and asking simple (and complicated, but always careful) "questions about what it means."
The difference, I suggest, between you, Karoline, and myself is that although we are both quite willing to "look at the simple hard data that has been accumulated and ask simple questions about what it means," you, apparently, are willing to do more than that. You are willing, at this point in the investigation, to posit "likely" conclusions and "probable" complicity and guilt.
In fact, there is precious little "data" concerning the whereabouts of this 63 page book before 1992 or about whose hand held the pen or who did the research and planned the pages. There is almost no data, separate from interpretations, readings, drawn conclusions, and arguments, concerning precisely who wrote this book or where it was written.
I agree with John when he says that patience is the ally of justice. I believe the question of the identity of the forgers or Mike and Anne's knowledge concerning the identity of the forgers requires a good deal more data and the asking of a good many more simple and complicated questions. At the moment, I remain willing to look at what little data (just data) there is so far about this specifically; about the composition of this book at some point before 1992 by some person or persons, and I remain willing to ask simple and complicated questions about it. But, at this point, I am trying not to go beyond that.
Love,
Caz
PS to John.
I hope you didn't mind me doing that - I've had one heck of a long day, and your post made me feel lazy, in that it reflected so much of what I was thinking myself, I couldn't have bettered it - certainly not right now. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 06:54 pm | | One more thing.
Karoline,
I have noticed that you have consistently avoided answering some of my simplest questions to you, and now you have said you will not comment on my posts again unless I mention something new.
Well, seeing as there's not much point in my asking you any new questions until you have answered the old ones, which were new when I first put them to you, I'll just have to assume that, like me, you don't have all the answers.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Joseph
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 07:27 pm | | Hi Caz,
Have you ever had food poisoning Caz? Didn't it feel better when it went away?
Now just imagine if food poisoning could talk, and it told you it would never infect you again. Wouldn't that just be the cool?
Count your blessings Caz.
Love
J |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 12:56 am | | Karoline--Hi! Yes, it's true. I am quietly despairing!
But I can't resist popping in from the sidelines for a moment and giving a brief re-cap, as I see it. We know that a man using the alias 'Mr. Williams' showed up in London with --get this-- the diary of Jack the Ripper. He wants to sell it! Now, as you & I both know, there is every reason to believe that this diary is a forgery. So we now have a man using a fictitious name trying to sell a forgery. And our friend 'Williams' is claiming that he got the diary from a man in a pub...but we can't confirm this because the man from the pub had recently died. We soon learn that the deceased fellow's relatives had heard nothing about any such diary, and, in fact, this man's son-in-law once claimed that "he was so mean that he would never give away anything that might be worth something." So we now have a man using a fictitious name trying to sell a forgery and not only is offering a provenance that can't be confirmed, but one that also conflicts with the testimony of the deceased man's family. But wait, there's more. Something apparently had been torn off the inside front cover of the diary. There's glue in the diary and it looks like it contained photographs. We learn that in the opinion of several of the forensic experts, the ink on the diary indicates that it had been recently applied to the paper. Textual studies also tend to confirm this. So it now seems clear that we have a man using an alias and a phoney providence story, showing up with an obvious and recent forgery. Later find that 'Mr. Williams' had sought out and bought a genuine Victorian diary a short time before he brought this dubious document to London! (Alas, eventually, the man confesses. And his name isn't even Mr. Williams. There are troubling questions about this confession, for sure, though the fact that our man has been drinking a fair amount, and that he's going through a bitter divorce might have some bearing on this). Strangely, though, our man is able to come up with a citation of an obscure quote that is used in the diary--something that no one else could do, and no one seems able to explain. He also claims that the ink can from Diamine. And though 'Mr. Williams' is no chemist, an independt scientist confirms that the ink in the diary contained chloroacetamide... an ingredient which really is in Diamine manuscript ink. Puzzling.
Now Karoline, I have to say, I am surprised at you. How silly, narrow-minded, incautious, and might I say illogical of you to suggest something so radical as it being probable that a man using a fictious name peddling a recently forged diary would be complicit in its creation...and even go as far as suggesting that it is more probable than say, the diary being written by a bored student or an 1930s journalist or someone from the 1890s wanting to free Florie Maybrick or any of the myriad of other possibilities that come from --(gosh, I hadn't really thought of this before, where do these possibilities come from?). Really, Karoline, get a grip! |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 02:31 am | | Hi RJ,
Your last post meticulously lays out the descrepencies in the tale of the diary which make Mike's conduct very suspicious. I dont believe that is in dispute by anyone who has posted.
Now this may be hair-splitting but my questioning of Karoline has to do with the reverse of what you have done.
You have taken facts to effectively build a theory (which by the way I have always stated I agree). Karoline has done the reverse by using theory to interpret facts.
She has suggested the following matters are virtual certainties: the text was first written on Mike's pc prior to transcribing into the diary, that the diary was in Mike's handwriting, that Anne knew of the forgery all along.
These items, I would submit, are not established facts. These are suppositions she has made to conform with her overall theory.
Rich |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 03:54 am | | RJP -
what you have failed to understand is that you are rigidly dismissing all other possibilities.
Your facts might sound like they make sense - but what if there were other facts that proved your facts were not actually as damning as you first thought?
What if MB had an attack of amnesia on his way down to London (a dissociative fugue state brought on by stress?) and started thinking his name was Williams?
Have you proved that didn't happen?
Have you checked out his ancestors on either side to see if any of them were called (or knew anyone called) Williams - which might help to explain his confusion?
Don't you think you should examine these alternative possibilities before jumping to hasty conclusions?
I for one intend to keep talking about MB's possible amnesia for a very long time - utterly undeterred by the fact that there is not one smallest shred of tiny possible inferential likelihood it ever existed at all.
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 04:03 am | | Hello Karoline
If there is a carousel, I have to say that I think you are most certainly its mistress! This discussion seems to go on and on and get absolutely nowhere.
But they are realities Paul - as you have said repeatedly - and admittedly also denied repeatedly with no apparent sense of disquiet. I can only commend the flexibility thus displayed, though I am less happy to endorse the methodology!
Perhaps you would be kind enough to define precisely what the realities are that you are talking about and which I apparently accept and reject.
So far you have said that the person who benefits most from a forgery is most likely to be the forger and on the basis of this you have pointed the finger of guilt at Mike and Anne. You have also listed eight facts. So far, so good. Then you say these fact seem conclusive, which I dispute, and say that no reasonable alternative interpretations of the evidence have been suggested, with which I strongly disagree. Where are the realities I at once uphold and deny?
I wrote: "Battlecrease has indeed received funding, but if you don't mind I think I’ll reserve opinion about whether it is 'hopeless' or not until I have seen it or read the script"
You reply: I do apologise, I hadn't any idea you were personally involved, or I wouldn't have made the suggestions I made earlier.
In almost every post you have attributed to me something I didn’t say. I have assumed that this wasn’t deliberate and have satisfied myself by simply correcting your misunderstanding, but I am intrigued to know what it was that I said in those thirty-one words that allowed you to infer that I had any involvement with the film. Please explain.
And in your post to Caz you wrote
It must be quite apparent to people who read here that you and Paul and some others have been happy to postulate almost any speculative hypothesis, however devoid of data, and use this as a basis for almost limitless guesswork.”
This is a claim you like to make as often as possible, using it in one form or another to dismiss any argument contrary to your own, yet when asked to substantiate it you do no more than repeat it in another way. Instead of doing this, perhaps you would care to demonstrate where in this recent lengthy exchange a speculative hypothesis devoid of data has been seriously advanced other than by way of illustration and also substantiate your conclusion that this is done to foster ‘almost limitless guesswork’?
Thank you. |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 04:14 am | | Richard Dewar wrote to RJP:
"You have taken facts to effectively build a theory (which by the way I have always stated I agree). Karoline has done the reverse by using theory to interpret facts."
Hmmmm....I see a small attempt here to make a distinction devoid of difference!
So far as I am aware (he can correct me if I'm wrong) RJ and I have been arguing from almost exactly the same premise to exactly the same conclusions since we both began posting here. I am totally in love with his common sense and incredible patience. I may not express myself as well, but I see myself as following the path he has trodden, and I hope he sees it that way too.
Richard Dewar writes:
"She has suggested the following matters are virtualcertainties: the text was first written on Mike's pc prior to transcribing into the diary, that the diary was in Mike's handwriting, that Anne knew of the forgery all along.
These items, I would submit, are not established facts. These are suppositions she has made to conform with her overall theory."
Ah!! I feel my patience evaporating.
For the last time I have never said they were established facts!
I have said that based on the data we currently have the greatest probability (but not certainty) is that AG and MB were involved to some degree in creating the forgery and that therefore it remains most likely (but not certain) the text of the diary was on MB's wp - because that is where it was composed.
But I am not going to say it again!
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 04:16 am | | Thanks Joseph, I feel better already.
Hi RJ,
Karoline and you are happy to write the diary history here and now, for your great-grandchildren to read and believe, based on the probabilities, when there are facts still waiting to be definitely ascertained.
I just wonder why you both seem to have such a problem with those who prefer to wait and see, to lessen the chances of having to re-write that history. Or don't you acknowledge all the cases where history (which in the diary's case, in your opinion, only goes back about ten years) has had to be re-written when new facts come out?
I hope Yaz won't mind me quoting the words I just read of his, over on the D'Onston board. I think they sum up how I feel about this, and how I wouldn't like to be in the shoes of someone who is happy to write history prematurely.
One warning or piece of advice, when (not if!) history looks back on cases built from circumstantial evidence and find a miscarriage of justice (either the guilty go free or the innocent punished), the person(s) who assumed responsibility for making the case will have done someone a grave personal injustice but also set back our common understanding... perhaps for a very long time.
Love,
Caz and Yaz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 04:44 am | | Hi Paul,
I too am confused about Karoline's confusion over almost everything you write. But, judging by Karoline's own writing and reasoning, the balance of probability favours her being genuinely confused. It is honest of her to admit this, when no one has yet come forward to say they are equally confused. However, I'm not sure how Karoline decides what she is disagreeing with you about, if she hasn't understood what you have written in the first place. Or is she simply disagreeing with her own unique interpretation of your words? Now, if that's the case, no wonder she is confused.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 04:48 am | | Hi RJP
Contrary to Karoline’s hilarious example of completely asinine reasoning, what we actually have is a document as yet not shown to have been written in a hand showing any similarities to that of Mike or Anne and which it has been suggested by some of the staunchest anti-diarists was in fact penned by a Mr Gerard Kane, a friend of Tony Devereux.
We have Mike Barrett claiming that he was given the ‘diary’ by Tony Devereux and we have, for whatever value it is worth, Caroline Barrett’s memory of her father returning home with the ‘diary’ and the aftermath and we know that Devereux had Mike’s copy of Richard Whittington-Egan’s book.
We have Tony Devereux unexpectedly dying and an interval of about six months separating Devereux’s death from Mike Barrett’s visit under an assumed name to Doreen Montgomery.
Now, perhaps you (or maybe even Karoline) would tell me, given that the ‘diary’ doesn’t appear to have been written by either Mike or Anne and given that Mike at least seems to be appallingly ignorant about any aspect of the conception and execution of a forgery, where they got the ‘diary’ from?
I think this question arises reasonably and sensibly from any assessment of the evidence and may point to the need for a professional handwriting analysis, but as things stand it doesn’t seem unreasonable to suggest that Mike did get it from Tony Devereux.
If so, where did Tony Devereux get it from? Gerard Kane? Let’s assume that he did – after all, it has been suggested (by fierce anti-diarists) that Mr Kane’s handwriting and the handwriting of the ‘diary’ look similar. Did they let Mike in on the fact that the ‘diary’ is a forgery? We don’t know. His ignorance might indicate that they didn’t.
So, at grave risk of suggesting that Elvis is alive and well in Bhutan, we have Tony Devereux and Gerard Kane forging the ‘diary’ which they give to an unwitting patsy to place. But Tony Devereux dies, leaving Mike with a document he knows to be valuable. He sits on it for six months. Nobody asks for it back. Maybe nobody knows he’s got it? Mike wants the money it’s worth, so he visits Doreen under an assumed name so it can’t be traced back to him.
Now, far from being Elvisy, this scenario is consistent with the data as we have it – indeed, I’m not sure but I think it actually absorbs more of the data and leaves fewer awkward and unanswered questions than the idea that Mike forged the ‘diary’ himself. So why is it any more or any less likely than the hypothesis that Mike wrote it himself?
And why do you think it is an argument that can - or should - be dismissed with a touch of ridicule and sarcasm, even when deftly handled in a humorous way?
(And a very small point, you wrote that Mike claimed ‘that the ink came from Diamine’. Mike did not claim this. He said that he bought the ink from an art shop in Bluecoat Chambers, It was journalist Harold Brough who made inquiries at the shop who was told that Diamine manuscript ink was the nearest to a Victorian ink that they sold. That this shop supplied the ink has to be weighted against Mike’s statement that he bought the ‘diary’ from Outhwaite and Litherland. O&L have denied this, I believe, and said that the purchase procedure described by Mike did not conform to their practice. You may have evidence that I don’t that this is untrue, but on the data as I have it one part of Mike’s story untrue. Why, then, do you attach credence to the second part, other than that you want to attach credence to it because it fits your preconceived ideas? I can also add that when I questioned Mike about this he said that he’d passed the auctioneers several times and knew it existed but had never been inside and that he was aware of the art shop because he visited Bluecoat Chambers every Saturday for the alternate book and record sales held there. This was a straightforward and spontaneous answer. Now, I don’t know how many art shops there are in Liverpool, but I would imagine that there are not many. I also don’t know how widely Diamine ink is distributed, but being manufactured in Liverpool I would imagine that it has a fairly wide distribution there. Therefore it is well within the bounds of reason to suppose a coincidence that the actual forger, seeking a Victorian-lookalike ink, purchased a bottle of locally manufactured Diamine ink from what I suspect was the most prominently located supplier in Liverpool City Centre.) |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 04:51 am | | Caz
Thanks. I not confused now. Er... and where does Gilligan's Island fit into this? Who is Gilligan? The Skipper? The Millionaire? His wife? or the movie star? And was F Troop on on a Tuesday?
Paul |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 05:45 am | | Hi Rich
I must rush to Karoline’s defence here and point out that as best my memory serves she has not said that it is an established fact that Mike wrote the ‘diary’ on his word processor. My sincerest apologies to you if you have examples that she did say this. What she has said is that it was an established fact that the text of the ‘diary’ was on his word processor. She has aldo said that this fact, along with seven others, is ‘damning’, ‘at face value to sign and seal the Barretts' involvement in the forgery’ and to be ‘conclusive’ pending alternative explanations which thus far, in her opinion, ‘no one has produced’.
Mind you, of course, you did not say that she had said they were established facts. You said that "She has suggested the following matters are virtual certainties: the text was first written on Mike's pc prior to transcribing into the diary, that the diary was in Mike's handwriting, that Anne knew of the forgery all along. (my emphasis) I think it is quite clear from her words above – as well as the examples John Omlor has said he could cite – that your words accurately represent Karoline’s position.
You are also perfectly correct when you added that what Karoline infers from her eight facts are suppositions ‘not established facts’, but I think it is fair to say that from Karoline’s perspective, even if she does not appreciate it herself, the distinction is barely worth making. She has stated that these facts, pending anything to the contrary, ‘seem at face value to sign and seal the Barretts' involvement in the forgery’, from which it would seem fair to infer that she sees her facts as conclusive as they ever can be without a smoking gun.
Our argument, of course, is that the facts, being capable of reasonable and rational alternative and innocent explanation, do not in themselves support Karoline’s conclusion about the guilt of Mike and Anne. Karoline, however, sees these alternatives as the equivalent of arguments that Elvis is alive and well in Bhutan. Thus we hit an impasse. The question now seems to be whether or not Karoline’s Elvis/Bhutan logic is sound or not.
All the best
Paul |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 06:44 am | | My attention has just been drawn to a recent post from Keith Skinner
which for some reason (None dare call it conspiracy!) was not
emailed to me in the usual way.
Now I have to say that his first para means absolutely nothing to me:
"I shall continue to refer to your public suspicions about my questionable
role and improper conduct in theDiary 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."
Now Keith, while I am sorry to see I have unintentionally offended you.I think you should realise the allegations you have made are very serious and require to be
substantiated or fully retracted. Please publish full details of our
correspondence - highlighting both my suposed 'innuendo' and my supposed
'hypocrisy'
If you decline to do this I will expect a public apology for your extreme and
damaging words. My reply to your other questions will follow whatever reply you choose to make. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 06:54 am | | John, Paul and Richard:
It has been interesting reading your posts regarding the diary but I have to tell you all that as far as I can see they are all of the Higher Literary Criticism sort, ie what did Thomas Love Peacock mean when he wrote "amber" instead of "ember" on page 369 of Crotchet Castle.
What we have here is a publication that has every appearance of having been forged shortly before its documented arrival on the stage in 1992. Indications of its recent forgery abound on these pages and RJP has just filed a summary of some of them. On three grounds: forensic, internal content and provenance does it fail to meet any standard of proof as the true word of James Maybrick or an early forgery. And although there are some who do not discount the idea of it being an early forgery, even Keith Skinner has said: (21/6/2000)"My whole case for the document not being a modern hoax rests, predominantly, on people who have been discredited." And of course in her 1999 "The Last Victim" book Anne Graham states: "...and in the last five years neither scientists nor historians have been able to prove that it is." (an old forgery.)
So the diary also rests on the personalities and character of those involved or thought to be involved in the forgery. Firstly, let me correct recent posts by John and Paul: the handwriting of Mike Barrett still does not look like that of the diarists. I'm glad to see Paul confirming this: in the past he has several times criticised me for saying that neither Mike not Annes handwriting look like the diary. I've now been able to see more samples of Gerrard Kane's handwriting and there is, as Melvin has said, a great similarity. In the past I've said that the small example on Tony Devereux' will wasn't enough to judge this. Now there is more evidence.
In a recent post I mentioned several alternatives one of which was the question of the diary on MB's word-processor (not PC.) It has just been said to Karoline:
"I think you have ruled out a large number of reasonable
possibilities, such as the text of the ‘diary’ being on
Mike’s word processor because he transcribed it from the
‘diary’".
It is not a "reasonable" possibility. It is much more reasonable and practical to compose the thing on the wp and then transcribe it by hand into the chosen volume. Perhaps Paul would tell us whether the copy that he has from Mike's wp is absolutely identical to the handwritten diary or if there are differences. And is the "Oh costly..." quote on the wp?
In my view the diary was written from commercial motives. Any other suggestion sounds silly. MB and AG both made a lot of money from it. We have had a lot of discussion as to whether AG made any money from her share: hopefully we are now agreed that she did, right from the start and that her statements (for example to Colin Wilson) that she had not are inaccurate. We also have proof that the provenance which she provided after having been inadvertantly prompted was instrumental in cementing the movie deal which provided AG and MB with further large chunks of cash. We also have proof that that provenance as outlined in the book by Paul Feldman had no validity other than wishful thinking.
So where do we go from here? There is no point disguising my deep sceptism as to the diary being either an old forgery or the voice of JM. What we need is not so much rhetoric or (if you will pardon the words) academic pointscoring but a consensus on the facts in the matter. To that end I have agreed to meet with Mrs. Shirley Harrison and I'm sure that we'd be happy to extend an invitation to either Paul Feldman, Paul Begg or Keith Skinner to join us. In reply to Mrs. Harrison's very recent message I think that it would be worth while to meet Anne Graham at her Liverpool home but I suggest that we defer that meeting until Shirley and I have met and found out whether we can each contribute to this matter in a proper manner. |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 07:22 am | | Well thank you people for your various comments on my intellectual abilities. I won't return the compliment a) because such commentary does not conform to my perception of how to conduct a public debate and b) because I have already made it clear I will not make any further clarifications of my position since I think it has been stated both by myself and RJ, sufficiently often to make it clear to anyone.
I would like to move the discussion on if I can and ask a question that recently occurred to me.
I have been wondering about the state of that document that was found on MB's computer - and I have a couple of questions.
1.What sort of word-processor did MB have? Has its make etc. been established?
2.Was it the kind that dated the creation of its documents?
3.Was the diary-text that was on this machine checked very carefully against the MS, and were any significant differences noted?
Paul, you were involved in this business from the beginning, and you are a computer buff. Do you know if any of these checks were made - and if so what results there were?
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 08:43 am | | Dear Peter
Several points arise from you post. One is that for over a year the discussion has been about who forged the ‘diary’, not about it being the work of James Maybrick or it being an old forgery.
Firstly, let me correct recent posts by John and Paul: the handwriting of Mike Barrett still does not look like that of the diarists. I'm glad to see Paul confirming this: in the past he has several times criticised me for saying that neither Mike not Annes handwriting look like the diary.
I would be very interested to see where I have criticised you “for saying that neither Mike nor Anne’s handwriting look like the diary”. My criticism of you has been for exactly the opposite. I have criticised you for maintaining that Mike and Anne wrote the ‘diary’ and not responding to Keith’s question about how your theory was effected by the handwriting of Mike and Anne did not looking like that of the diarist. I am sure the relevant post are available to attest to this.
It has just been said to Karoline: "I think you have ruled out a large number of reasonable
possibilities, such as the text of the ‘diary’ being on
Mike’s word processor because he transcribed it from the ‘diary’".
It is not a "reasonable" possibility. It is much more reasonable and practical to compose the thing on the wp and then transcribe it by hand into the chosen volume.
If you re-read the thread you will see that this misrepresents both the argument and the meaning of what was being said. The dispute was not about the practicalities, but over whether or not the text being on the word processor was proof that Mike composed the ‘diary’ on his word processor. I think it is as reasonable to posit that Mike was an innocent patsy who transcribed the ‘diary’ to make it easier to read and place as it is to posit that Mike was a knowing and witting forger who composed the ‘diary’ on his word processor.
What we need is not so much rhetoric or (if you will pardon the words) academic pointscoring but a consensus on the facts in the matter.
An intelligent and informed rebuttal of a faulty argument deserves better from you than dismissal as ‘academic pointscoring’, particularly when the purpose of it is to make clear that we need to establish what the facts are.
Nevertheless I hope an approach can be made to Anne Graham. |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 08:59 am | | Karoline
I know nothing about Mike's computer except that it was an Amstrad and in or before 1992 it is unlikely to have been a sophisticated machine. If I recall correctly, it probably ran version of a word processor called Locoscript, but I was never a user of an Amstrad or Locoscript so couldn't tell you whether either would have automatically dated document creation. I would doubt it though, but you never know. I don't even know that Mike's computer would have had a hard drive, so I am not sure that anything would have been stored on the machine anyway, but would have been stored on a floppy disk.
I don't know whether anyone compared the print out to the 'diary'. I did not work with Shirley Harrison other than as an initial advisor with Martin and Keith and our role was to comment exclusively and specifically on the Ripper content.
Do you know whether Mike ever made a secret of having a transcript on his machine?
(Who has commented on your intelligence, by the way? As far as I am aware people have merely disagreed with your interpretations. If we all start interpreting disagreements as slurs on our intelligence then we're not going to get anywhere are we? And since it has nothing to do with your interpretation of evidence relating to the the 'diary', would you be kind enough to tell me where on what evidence you inferred my involvement with the Friedkin film. Ta.) |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 09:54 am | | Hi Peter,
You write,
"It has been interesting reading your posts regarding the diary but I have to tell you all that as far as I can see they are all of the Higher Literary Criticism sort, ie what did Thomas Love Peacock mean when he wrote "amber" instead of "ember" on page 369 of Crotchet Castle."
Actually, I do "Higher Literary Criticism" for a living, and it isn't anything at all like what I have been doing here in this discussion. Here I have been examining various facts, offered by Karoline and others, and suggesting that although many of them tell us some significant things about Mike and Anne's behavior once this diary was published and once the messy conflagration of receptions began; these facts, including Karoline's eight emboldened ones, which Paul correctly quotes Karoline as much too hurriedly and invalidly concluding "seem at face value to sign and seal the Barretts' involvement in the forgery," tell us very little at all actually about the scene of the diary's writing or even anything at all about its whereabouts prior to 1992.
This is reading data from the history of others and hesitating to draw conclusions if the data does not yet warrant drawing conclusions even about what is "likely" or "probable," especially since legal consequences and personal reputations are at stake.
This is not, by any imaginable stretch of reading these words, anything like my chosen, full time profession of "Higher Literary Criticism." It's not, in fact, "literary criticism" at all. And, as that happens to be a field of endeavor in which I engage professionally almost every day, I should probably mention, for the sake of accuracy, that "Higher Literary Criticism" is also not at all anything like your little example about what Peacock meant "when he wrote 'amber' instead of 'ember' on page 369 of Crotchet Castle," and it hasn't really been anything like that for nearly half a century. In any case, I am doing nothing like literary criticism at this point, although closer reading of the words on the pages of this diary of course always remains to be done.
Here, though, I think we are engaged in something more like epistemological and logical detective work and a debate over the validity of "probable" and or "likely" conclusions. What did people know and when did they know it and how do we know that they knew it and what is fair to claim as likely or probable or established?
And here, we have still not actually used "data" itself to say very much about the answers to any of these questions concerning the actions of all involved prior to 1992. RJ's perhaps slightly mocking historical account above tells us something about their actions from 1992 and beyond, but Paul's careful and detailed response tells a more complete history of the same events and, I think, thoroughly problematizes RJ's conclusions about what remains "likely" or "probable" concerning what has happened before the historical moment with which RJ's account begins.
Peter, you then write, characterizing a misunderstanding:
"So the diary also rests on the personalities and character of those involved or thought to be involved in the forgery. Firstly, let me correct recent posts by John and Paul: the handwriting of Mike Barrett still does not look like that of the diarists. I'm glad to see Paul confirming this: in the past he has several times criticised me for saying that neither Mike not Annes handwriting look like the diary. I've now been able to see more samples of Gerrard Kane's handwriting and there is, as Melvin has said, a great similarity. In the past I've said that the small example on Tony Devereux' will wasn't enough to judge this. Now there is more evidence."
Actually, what originally happened was that Karoline had written a post suggesting the complicity of Anne and Mike and then, in a parenthetical comment after the initials "AG and MB" wrote, "(and as I understand it the man whose handwriting seems to match the diary's pretty closely - Paul have you seen the relevant samples?)"
I misread this second "and" and thought at first that Karoline was suggesting that it was MB's handwriting she was mentioning. I asked Paul if this was true. Karoline then quite properly corrected us that she meant Kane.
Now, if, as you say, new samples can establish that Kane's hand held the pen, I am perfectly willing to accept this and this seems to me the first serious step we've made in a while towards any evidentiary claims concerning the production of the diary prior to 1992.
It would be most helpful if someone could post new samples of Kane's handwriting here so we could all judge, as well.
But, before the talk of handwriting, you write:
"So the diary also rests on the personalities and character of those involved or thought to be involved in the forgery."
Well, first of all, there is, of course, a serious difference between the phrases "those involved" and "those thought to be involved" -- a much more important difference than announced by your, to me, seemingly casual "or." But, in addition, I'm not sure what saying that the diary "rests" on the personalities and character of anyone actually means. Surely, establishing the authors of the diary rests not on the character and personalities of anyone, but on hard data and evidence of its production and the whereabouts of all involved and skills and opportunities of all involved. If we start allowing historical conclusions concerning the likely origin of events to actually "rest" simply on people's character and personalities, then were are going to end up with some very mistaken history and a great number of invalid and careless conclusions, many of which will eventually prove to be horrible misreadings influenced by "character and personality" rather than careful readings based on texts, data, and rigorous interpretations, arguments and established conclusions.
But, Peter, you go on, speaking of the contradictory reading of the fact that MB had the text of the diary on his word processor and the possibility that it was there because Mike, after acquiring the diary, typed the text of it there as part of planning what to do with this thing. To this suggestion, you reply:
"It is not a "reasonable" possibility. It is much more reasonable and practical to compose the thing on the wp and then transcribe it by hand into the chosen volume."
OK, first of all, saying that another possibility is "more reasonable" does not in any way establish that the first possibility is "not a reasonable" one. All you have done here is written the words "It is not a 'reasonable' possibility." You have offered nothing at all, no reason, no evidence, not even an argument or personal feeling why the first premise is "not a 'reasonable' possibility." You have merely suggested that another, different one is "more reasonable." So your first sentence above offers us nothing but an opinion stated as fact. This is precisely what I mean by hurried conclusions, a lack of careful logic, and the offering of assumptions as conclusions that have in no way at all been established. I have seen Karoline do this repeatedly elsewhere and I think you are doing it here and I think it is rushing into a rhetoric of certainty. The sentence "It is not a 'reasonable' possibility." is not carefully written in the language of a sense or of an opinion or of a premise even, it is written -- "It is not..." -- as a conclusion and you have done none of the work here to establish this conclusion. This sort of argumentation, where one advances hastily drawn conclusions, without offering premises or evidence or data, as if these conclusions were simply obvious and established facts, is what I am trying to warn everyone against allowing and accepting in the name of history and its relationship to justice in this case.
The second part of this paragraph -- suggesting that your reading of the "fact" (that Mike originally composed the diary there before it was transcribed into the book) is "more reasonable" -- is valid only if you clearly establish, using data and evidence, precisely why this scenario is by itself more reasonable than the first one. You again have not yet done that here. You have simply stated that B (Mike composed these words for the diary) is more reasonable than A (Mike transcribed these words from the diary). You have not told us any reasons at all why B is more reasonable than A. I am still waiting to see the data that leads us necessarily and carefully to this conclusion that B is more reasonable than A. Perhaps you are assuming it is self-evident. I think it is not, and I think we must be very careful about what we think is self-evident and always err in the direction of more data and more evidence and less simple assumptions and opinions.
Finally, you write the following two sentences:
"In my view the diary was written from commercial motives. Any other suggestion sounds silly."
I am glad to see the qualification that begins this claim. Yes, in your view, the motives had to be commercial. But, of course, history is replete with hoaxes done anonymously (or intended anonymously until the hoaxer was discovered) and done without commercial motive. In fact, as we have already discussed, the "Dear Boss" letters themselves quite possibly remain as one of these cases. And yet you say "any other suggestion sounds silly."
Again, here there is a difference between the speed with which you and I are prepared to dismiss suggestions as "silly." I will let that difference stand. I am quite content to be seen as ridiculously cautious and overly tolerant of the "silliness" of "any other suggestion." After all, "any other suggestion" includes an awful lot of potential possibilities and I am not prepared to say, here and now, that all of them must sound or will sound "silly." I have noted this difference between us. It is completely fine with me if others have noticed it as well.
I think the handwriting analysis and conclusions begin to move us forward in the examination of data with respect to the diary's production prior to 1992. I think examining the files on MB's word processor for encrypted dates of revision, for instance, might move us forward in the examination of data with respect to the diary's production prior to 1992. I think both of these endeavors and any "data" they might produce would be hard evidence concerning the whereabouts of the diary and its scene of writing.
I think this is the direction the investigation should be taking. But, until then, I remain unwilling to leap ahead to discussion of likely or probable conclusions about the identities of the authors or the legal complicity specifically in the business of forgery of anyone involved. I still believe this is a prudent and responsible position. It is not, of course, a literary critical one.
I remain one of the "others,"
--John |
|
|
|
|
