|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 16, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
College course tackles the Diary:
Archive through April 16, 2001
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 12 April 2001 - 10:57 am |        | Martin
Do we know whether or not the version of the diary on Mike's Amstrad reproduced the very individual mis-spellings and grammatical betises of the handwritten version?
While I try to find my transcript, how would you interpret this? If the text does reproduce them then it could be an accurate transcription, if it doesn't then the transcriber was sloppy and intentionally or unintentionally made corrections or simply types to someone else's dictation?
What I am at a bit of a loss about is that if Mike made a big secret about having a computer and so on and we infer from this that he didn't let on to anyone that he had a copy 'typed up' on his computer, where did the copy come from that we got in 1992? On the other hand, is the transcript we received a copy of Mike's text and about which he never initially made any secret? |
Author: Karoline L
Thursday, 12 April 2001 - 11:52 am | | I must say I have been slightly astonished at the level and intensity of response occasioned by the posting of my eight points a few days ago - and of my suggestion that these points seemed to make it probable that the Barretts were in some sense complicit in the forging of the diary.
I hadn't imagined the point to be in any way a controversial one. In fact at this stage of the proceedings I must admit I was a little surprised that there was anyone arguing that the Barretts' involvement in the forgery is not rendered at least slightly probable - given the state of the data at this time.
However I do not question their right to hold any such opinion if they so choose.
Neither am I suggesting that anyone should change their minds or give up their beliefs, or stop asking questions.
I am just putting across what looks to me to be a valid system of reasoning.
I apologise if various people think I am failing to respond to their points. Please try and appreciate that while there are many of you - there is only one of me. I am doing my best to respond to everything - and if I omit something please believe it is in error - or through lack of time. I do have other things to do - including a family in need of some attention from time to time!
I hope I have maintained a reasonable standard of academic rigour, and I sincerely hope I have never misrepresented anyone. Indeed it is in a bid to avoid this that I quote a person's own words verbatim, wherever possible.
I hope this will settle the disturbed waters a little.
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Karoline L
Thursday, 12 April 2001 - 12:22 pm | | I thought I'd try to help clarify the situation here a little, by drawing together most of the data that seems relevant to the current discussion(s)
I don't include hearsay, insubstantiated 'rumor', or third hand testimony ("he said she said..."), since this is not prima facie data.
I have broken the data down into two basic subheadings - as you can see.
Please anyone feel free to correct or suggest additions to any of this.
Evidence that supports the suggestion that MB and AG might not have been directly involved in the perpetration of the diary fraud:
1. MB clearly had little or no understanding of how the forgery was physically executed.
This is a valid point that should not be overlooked. His numerous confessions have never been able to account for this anomaly.
2. The document is manifestly not in the handwriting of either AG or MB.
This also seems quite final and not open to debate. I suggest it is almost beyond doubt that neither of these people physically wrote out the 'diary'.
3. No one has come forward to say they saw AG or MB forging the diary, or watching the diary being forged, or talking about how great it would be to get rich out of a forged diary.
Again, true and quite valid.
(If anyone can think of more material that should go here - please tell and I will add it in.)
Evidence that does not seem to support the above suggestion:
1. All attempts to prove a provenance for the diary earlier than 1991 and involving anyone but the Barretts have failed.
Despite the exhaustive research of Feldman and others, no one has managed to establish the 'diary' existed before 1991, or that anyone ever saw it before this time, or that anyone ever owned it before AG and MB.
The only story that has been produced to try and 'prove' the diary is any older, or was ever known to exist before MB took it to the Rupert Crew Agency is a story told by AG herself, which suddenly saw the light of day in July 1994, just after MB confessed to having forged the document.
Her story is completely uncorroborated by any factual data - however there is the tape of an interview by Feldman with AG's father, Billy Graham, that purports to lend some corroboration to the story. The tape is quoted in part by Feldman in his book - but as I understand it, no copies of the original, or transcripts of same have been made available for study.
This leads us to:
2. Both AG and MB have lied at least once about the provenance of this document..
Both individuals have volunteered reasons for their lies, which may or may not be seen to be persuasive.
Their later stories are in direct contradiction of their own earlier stories, of each other's stories, and of almost all the scientific and historical data pertaining to how and when the document was created.
This does not imply a high level of honesty over the very basic question of how they came by this artefact.
3. The Barretts purchased another unused old Victorian diary just before the "Maybrick Diary" made its first public appearance.
They are not known to have been collectors of Victoriana or of unused old diaries. So it may be viewed as highly coincident and highly suggestive that they should have purchased such a document at such a time.
They have never, to my knowledge provided any explanation for this curious action.
4.When MB took the 'diary' to the Rupert Crew Agency, he introduced himself under the pseudonym of "Mr.Williams".
This might be deemed a curious action in a man who had in all innocence been given the 'diary' by a man in a pub.
5. According to Shirley Harrison, author of The Diary of Jack the Ripper, MB told her he did not own a word processor.
When it became obvious that he did have one he claimed he had not bought it until after Tony Devereux's death in 1991.
In fact we now have proof positive that MB paid £458.58p for an Amstrad 8256 on 3 April 1986.
MB therefore is shown to have lied about his possession of this machine - and AG did nothing to correct the lie, which appeared in two separate paperback editions of Ms Harrison's book.
It may therefore be significant that:
6. The entire text of the forgery was eventually admitted to be on MB's word processor
MB claimed he transcribed the text there for 'research purposes'.
I am not aware that any investigation has been undertaken to establish that MB did indeed use his transcription for such a purpose. Or to ascertain whether he can be proved to have been open about his possession of such a transcript - prior to the police investigation.
(I suggest it is quite important to ascertain where the current transcripts originate from. Have they been typed up from the MS diary by someone other than MB - or are they copies of MB's computer text? I suggest that the Barretts, Rupert Crew Ltd. , Ms Harrison and the publishers are all approached on this question).
7. AG and MB are the only people whose complicity in the forgery is a possibility, who have also profited from the sale and notoriety of the forgery.
It seems that AG or people close to her have attempted to give the impression that she was making rather less money out of the 'diary' than she has been. And in fact the claimed lack of a profit motive has been quoted as evidence for her supposed 'innocence'.
We have now established that AG was receiving separate payments for the sales of the diary from December 1993.
(It seems a clear priority to establish the amount of money that has been made out of this fraudulent document - which will thus give a clear idea, not only of the extent of the incentive to deceive, but also of the level of deception heretofore practised during the period when it was claimed that little or no money was being earned by those most closely associated with the fraud.)
8 .MB succesfully identified the source of an obscure poetic quotation used in the diary - that no on else had managed to track down.
More than this - he has been shown to have owned a volume of poetry containing this very quotation.
It is hard to explain how he could have known about this unless he was instrumental in adding the quotation to the diary text.
I don't at this stage include the issue of the handwriting, - because until the writing is in the public arena it can't, in all fairness, be added to any list of established data.
I don't want anyone to consider this an exhaustive list or think of it as the last word on anything. Rather it's put here as a summary of the current situation - and as a good reminder of the hard data on which all useful speculation has to be based.
If anyone can correct or improve upon any of the points - or if they can suggest others then please do so.
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 12 April 2001 - 12:37 pm | | Hi, Karoline:
This seems a fair and just summary of the situation re the Diary situation. I will try to think of anything to add to these points but at the moment the summary seems comprehensive, at least to me. Thank you for posting it. Will I be able to meet you in Bournemouth? I know Christopher-Michael DiGrazia and I will be both delighted if you are able to attend.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 12 April 2001 - 12:54 pm | | ""It has never to my knowledge been suggested that there
could have been another Poste House somewhere in England in
Maybrick's time, and he could be referring to that. If this
isn't another misrepresentation by you of the argument
below, please accept my genuine apologies for suggesting
otherwise and be kind enough to support your argument by
citing the posts in which this suggestion has been
advanced."
"In short the Poste House could have been anywhere in Liverpool or London or anywhere else. There may not be any record of the establishment, just as there is not today of many restaurants within hotels." Paul Feldman 1st edn. p 95.
I should say that in my own research on this I haven't found an establishment in or outside Liverpool called or referred to as "The Post(e) House" after about 1850. This would make it unlikely that Maybrick (born 1838) would in his more mature years have frequented a place by that name. I tend to agree that the (e) is a sign of a modern forgery. "Poste Restante" being a french term is spelled correctly but "poste House" is an affectation.
"I take it the three payments to Mike add up to one-quarter
of the total advance on royalties, showing that one quarter
went elsewhere (presumably Anne) and half went to Shirley?"
The figures don't add up properly and I suspect there may be a payment for foreign rights involved.
"I have to say that overall I am still doubtful that this has
any bearing on Anne's 'in my family for years' story."
I have to disagree here. Before the meeting with Feldy there was no sign that AG could make any claim on the diary, after, the story developed into the full FAMILY provenance. AG had occasion to admit on previous occasions that the diary was from her family notably when the police came round. She never did this. It was after the Skinner letter and phone call, the Feldman phone call and the Feldman meeting that she "confessed," and on the probabilities I believe that the provenence was not a genuine one. I wonder whether this conversation between Feldman and Anne and the previous phone call were taped? Any info on that?
Is "Battlecrease" the working title of the Friedkin movie? |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 12 April 2001 - 01:39 pm | | Peter
If you re-read Karoline's post you will see that she wrote: “{b) Similarly, on these boards from about 1998 and up to the present, it has been argued that the reference in the diary to the Poste House (a Liverpool pub that didn't have that name until modern times) doesn't prove the document a modern forgery, because - (what else?) - there could have been another Poste House somewhere in England in Maybrick's time, and he could be referring to that”(my emphasis). There is no indication here that Karoline was referring to Paul Feldman or to his book and he ceased posting several years ago, which is why I asked Karoline to cite the relevant posts. The arguments advanced on these boards up to the present time most definitely have not suggested that the Poste House in question could have been anywhere else in England.
It is good that you haven’t found any post-1850 references to post houses, though it would be useful to know the extent of your research, but at least somebody has done some research to substantiate their claim that a post house didn’t exist, which is what I have been saying was needed.
The figures don't add up properly and I suspect there may be a payment for foreign rights involved.
Can you tell us what the figures are. I think the December payment was for foreign rights. What did the three prior payments total?
I have no idea whether any of the conversations were taped. I doubt it. I feel, however, that nothing prior to the 'photo album' meeting consciously influenced Anne, since her behaviour is consistent, in my view, with someone trying to shake Feldman off. I think if anything influenced Anne, it was something said at that meeting and may indeed have been something as simple as Anne not being convinced that Feldman believed her story.
From what I have read on the Web the working title is Battlecrease and the story concentrates more on the tensions within the house than on the Ripper connection. |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 12 April 2001 - 04:02 pm | | Paul -
A proper textual critical comparison of the two versions could be of extreme value, UNLESS it is claimed that the version on the Amstrad was deliberately copied from the ms version for the purpose of distributing copies to agent/s, publisher/s, writer/s, advisers, etc, AND this claim is supported by the Amstrad version's obviously making a stab at reproducing the oddities of the original. (An examination of the struck-through passages and alterations should produce a feasible pointer to the likelihood of its having been dictated).
For all those who may not know why Paul refers to '1992': when we started 'advising' we were sent transcripts of the diary first, and only subsequently photocopies of the pages as they appeared in the album. The transcripts included spelling mistakes which suggested a fair copy from the original, idiosyncratic mis-spellings and all, including the normal amount of typist's mistranscription and occasional difficulties in decyphering the writing. I assumed that this was a copy made professionally at the behest of Doreen Montgomery or Robert Smith. As I understand it, the Anne and Michael story has always been that one of them - Anne I think - made the copy on the machine for Mike's benefit some time before Mike thought of publishing/selling it and the document was shown to Doreen. I never heard that circulating print-outs to intersted parties was part of the Barretts' intention. It was supposed to play some part in Mike's research for the book Anne wanted him to write from it, or to be somehow associated with or useful in his supposed attempts to find out who the unnamed husband of Florie and master of Battlecrease were.
So I have yet to learn for certain that the transcript I have seen is definitely a print-out from the Barretts' Amstrad version.
Any radical departure from the diary's spellings could have quite significant implications (unless it appears to be the result of dictation). It might - to take just one possibility - point to an unknown archetype lying behind both documents. But we can't begin to say until we have the definite Amstrad version in front of us for careful comparison and textual analysis.
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 12 April 2001 - 06:03 pm | | Hi Martin
Your understanding is pretty much the same as mine. I likewise thought or probably more right I assumed it to be a copy made at the request of Doreen Montgomery, and only later did I understand it to have been a copy made by Mike. My question to you was intended to hopefully highlight something I could look for in the event that my own black hole yields the manuscript after nine years! |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 12 April 2001 - 10:51 pm | | Hi Martin and Paul:
After all the wrangling over the Diary these many years, it is interesting to think that something as simple as the transcript kept by Mike Barrett -- made either before or after the birth of the Diary -- might reveal some important clue! Amazing that this seemingly elementary step of comparing the two has not been thought of before now!
Chris |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 13 April 2001 - 04:58 am | | Karoline
Thank you for you attempt to provide a much-needed clarification of the current situation and for the overall fairness with which you have presented the points for discussion.
May I make a suggestion that points are not divided into what is essentially pro- and con- columns. I think this polarisation has done more harm to this investigation than anything else. What we in fact have are pieces of evidence and I think it is more helpful to consider them without prejudice.
What we know and knew back in 1992 is that the provenance is appalling and that the person who brought the document to public attention and who profited most from it is the person most likely to be the forger – i.e., Mike and Anne.
‘Most likely’ in this sense, however, is not and cannot be in the sense of evidence. It is only ‘most likely’ in the sense that a woman is most likely to have been killed by her lover/partner/husband because statistically most women are murdered by their lover/partner/husband. ‘Most likely’ is therefore a hypothesis we can advance on a balance of statistical probability without actually having to know anything about the evidence. For it to be 'more likely' in a sense of indicating guilt, it has to be based on evidence.
Also, as John Omlor has been at some considerable pains to point out, we should also be wary of attaching undue significance to post-1992 behaviour when trying to assess pre-1992 behaviour; for example, Anne’s ‘in my family for years’ story could be an opportunistic invention inspired by what was happening to her when she told that story. We should not infer from it what she did prior to telling it.
I have therefore taken the liberty of removing your two points about provenance and gain from the list. Thus:
1.All attempts to prove a provenance for the diary earlier than 1991 and involving anyone but the Barretts have failed. Despite the exhaustive research of Feldman and others, no one has managed to establish the 'diary' existed before 1991, or that anyone ever saw it before this time, or that anyone ever owned it before AG and MB. The only story that has been produced to try and 'prove' the diary is any older, or was ever known to exist before MB took it to the Rupert Crew Agency is a story told by AG herself, which suddenly saw the light of day in July 1994, just after MB confessed to having forged the document.
Her story is completely uncorroborated by any factual data - however there is the tape of an interview by Feldman with AG's father, Billy Graham, that purports to lend some corroboration to the story. The tape is quoted in part by Feldman in his book - but as I understand it, no copies of the original, or transcripts of same have been made available for study.
\9. AG and MB are the only people whose complicity in the forgery is a possibility, who have also profited from the sale and notoriety of the forgery.
It seems that AG or people close to her have attempted to give the impression that she was making rather less money out of the 'diary' than she has been. And in fact the claimed lack of a profit motive has been quoted as evidence for her supposed 'innocence'.
We have now established that AG was receiving separate payments for the sales of the diary from December 1993.
(It seems a clear priority to establish the amount of money that has been made out of this fraudulent document - which will thus give a clear idea, not only of the extent of the incentive to deceive, but also of the level of deception heretofore practised during the period when it was claimed that little or no money was being earned by those most closely associated with the fraud.)
So, to the list. I have just added some observations (sometimes lengthy - sorry) which people might like to discuss, dismiss, dispute or reduce. I have (I hope) italicised my thoughts.
1. MB clearly had little or no understanding of how the forgery was physically executed.
2. The document is manifestly not in the handwriting of either AG or MB.
3. No one has come forward to say they saw AG or MB forging the diary, or watching the diary being forged, or talking about how great it would be to get rich out of a forged diary.
4. Both AG and MB have lied at least once about the provenance of this document..
Both individuals have volunteered reasons for their lies, which may or may not be seen to be persuasive. Their later stories are in direct contradiction of their own earlier stories, of each other's stories, and of almost all the scientific and historical data pertaining to how and when the document was created. This does not imply a high level of honesty over the very basic question of how they came by this artefact.
This area deserves some more detailed analysis. Have they lied? In what sense have they lied? What were the circumstances of the lie? Everyone tells lies, but the motive for telling the lie governs how the lie is judged (we don’t condemn someone for lying that a fat man in a red suit comes down the chimney on Christmas Eve, for example).
5. The Barretts purchased another unused old Victorian diary just before the "Maybrick Diary" made its first public appearance.
They are not known to have been collectors of Victoriana or of unused old diaries. So it may be viewed as highly coincident and highly suggestive that they should have purchased such a document at such a time. They have never, to my knowledge provided any explanation for this curious action.
Can we first of all confirm that the red diary was for 1891, as has been stated on these Boards? I can’t imagine that even an inept forger would have thought that an 1891 diary was any good for faking a journal supposedly written by a man who had died in 1889. I suppose we assume, therefore, that Mike spent £25 for a Victorian diary and never thought to ask what year it was for.
Keith Skinner also made a point, valid I think, that “if the red diary is such a damning, incriminating piece of evidence, why would Anne Graham have given me so much co-operation when I investigated its purchase?” The implication here being that she would not have done, therefore the red diary was not damning or incriminating. We might also choose to think that Anne was devious enough to be co-operative so that Keith would think her co-operation was a sign of honesty – a plot item straight out of “Columbo”.
But Mike apparently bought this red diary a matter of weeks before visiting Doreen Montgomery. Why? Did he plan to re-write the ‘diary’ into the red diary? Why would he do this if he wasn’t the actual penman? Why would Mike, off his own bat (presumably without the agreement of his co-conspirators) spend money he didn’t have to purchase a diary of the wrong date that he didn’t need and couldn’t have written in anyway and do this at a time when his co-conspirators were presumably happy with their product and Mike was about to take the ‘diary’ to Rupert Crew?
As Keith Skinner observed in December last 2000: “Another explanation of why Mike bought the red diary is that perhaps he was genuinely excited at the prospect of meeting a Literary Agent and the possibility of collaborating on a book with a recognized author – so bought the red diary on impulse, just to see what a Victorian diary looked like. True, he could have found out by other, less expensive means, but he didn’t. So, is there any evidence to support the notion that Mike Barrett is a man who acts on impulse? How consistent would this be with his character? Is it likely that Mike Barrett, faced with possibly the most exciting and status building event that had ever happened to him in his life, would have splashed out £25, leaving his wife to settle the debt?”
Enough ambiguity seems to surround the purchase of this red diary that some serious questions need to be defined before any conclusion is based on it.
6. When MB took the 'diary' to the Rupert Crew Agency, he introduced himself under the pseudonym of "Mr.Williams".
This might be deemed a curious action in a man who had in all innocence been given the 'diary' by a man in a pub.
Yes, it is curious. Why would Mike have done it? He’s gone along to a Literary Agent with a ‘diary’ for which he makes no claims of certainty, but rather says that he was given it by a friend who has subsequently died and who, apart from assuring him of its genuineness, had told him nothing further. Mike therefore made no legally actionable claim for the ‘diary’, so he has no reason to use a pseudonym to protect himself in the event that Doreen Montgomery turned to him and said, “Hey, get out of here man, you done wrote this bro, don’t you start none of your jive with me.” So, Mike takes a document to a literary agent who he hopes will publish it, which means he’ll have to reveal his identity in order to get his hands on the cash. Why use a pseudonym? Why be worried about the ‘diary’ being traced back to him? Is the pseudonym really a sign of guilt or is it possible that a less problematic explanation lies elsewhere?
7. According to Shirley Harrison, author of The Diary of Jack the Ripper, MB told her he did not own a word processor.
When it became obvious that he did have one he claimed he had not bought it until after Tony Devereux's death in 1991. In fact we now have proof positive that MB paid £458.58p for an Amstrad 8256 on 3 April 1986. MB therefore is shown to have lied about his possession of this machine - and AG did nothing to correct the lie, which appeared in two separate paperback editions of Ms Harrison's book.
{This certainly does require some additional data.}
8. The entire text of the forgery was eventually admitted to be on MB's word processor
MB claimed he transcribed the text there for 'research purposes'. I am not aware that any investigation has been undertaken to establish that MB did indeed use his transcription for such a purpose. Or to ascertain whether he can be proved to have been open about his possession of such a transcript - prior to the police investigation. (I suggest it is quite important to ascertain where the current transcripts originate from. Have they been typed up from the MS diary by someone other than MB - or are they copies of MB's computer text? I suggest that the Barretts, Rupert Crew Ltd. , Ms Harrison and the publishers are all approached on this question).
Although having the text of the ‘diary’ on his word processor is can be interpreted as evidence that Mike composed the ‘diary’ on his word processor, it is equally consistent with someone preparing to research the ‘diary’ and take it to a literary agent. We don not know where the 1992 transcript came from. It is clearly something requiring investigation.
9 .MB succesfully identified the source of an obscure poetic quotation used in the diary - that no on else had managed to track down.
More than this - he has been shown to have owned a volume of poetry containing this very quotation. It is hard to explain how he could have known about this unless he was instrumental in adding the quotation to the diary text.
As said, the Crashaw quote is highly problematic. How Mike came to discover the quote is not known, his story about being given guidance by someone at Liverpool Library is possible but implausible. It is far more likely that the quote came from the Sphere book Mike possessed. However, is there any evidence that Mike knew the Sphere book contained the quote? Mike made known on or about 30th September 1994 that he'd discovered the Crashaw quote. Melvin has contended that Mike knew about the quote and had lodged the Sphere book with his solicitor long before that date. Melvin has produced no evidence to support this, though he says that at the begining of September Mike told private investigator Alan Gray that the book was lodged with his solicitor and Gray confirmed that a book was lodged there. Nothing to my knowledge has been produced to support this claim either. The evidence we do have is that the book was not lodged with the solicitor until on or after 12th October. There is therefore absolutely no evidence that Mike knew appreciably earlier than September 1994 that the Sphere book contained the quote.
In addition there is the undisputed fact that Mike seemed to genuinely hate Feldman and to even believe him responsible for having caused Anne to leave. In my opinion, the evidence we suggests that Mike would have produced any evidence he possessed to prove he’d forged the ‘diary’ and thus scupper Feldman’s plans. Had he known about the quote in the Sphere book then I think he’d have produced it. It doesn't make sense to me that Mike should have confessed to forging the 'diary' and to have wanted so desperately to be believed, yet failed to produce any material he was aware of that would support his case
How did he discover the quote? Apparently the book has a binding defect that causes it to open on the page containing the quote. We know that Mike took the book with others for the son of a lady friend. They were not suitable or of use to him, but it could have been at this time that the book fell open to reveal the quote.
Instead of using the quote to prove that he’d forged the ‘diary’, Mike told his story about Liverpool Library, thus inflating his abilities as a dedicated researcher (consistent with Mike’s character - i.e., ‘I’m the greatest forger in the world’, ‘I fooled them all’). Why? |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 13 April 2001 - 06:47 am | | Hi Karoline and Paul,
Thanks to both of you for your clear and fair-minded summaries of the evidence in regard to the diary.
The last posts by each of you have really elevated the level of discussion and debate.
All along, I think most of us are actually in agreement about most of the facts in this case. The only differences are the interpretation of these facts in ascribing probabilities to varying theories.
Again, thank you. I enjoyed reading both of your posts. They were both logical and informative.
Rich |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 13 April 2001 - 11:38 am | | Martin:
Thanks for your comments concerning the connection between the Amstrad transcript and the Diary, a point which I raised to Paul a few days ago. Can I assume that the "transcripts" were printed and not on disk? If a transcript can be found that had been sent to yourselves, wouldn't it have been more likely that it would have been made by the publishers or agents rather than just copied off Mike's wp? Do you know if anyone has actually seen the Mike Barrett wp transcript? A lot of the "evidence" in this whole mess rests more on what people have said happened rather than what can be proven.
It's been said that we should look back into what was happening in the various households before the diary was presented to Rupert Crew. A main problem in the investigation seems to me that MB and AG were regarded from the start as people who had found the diary rather than people who may have been concerned in its forgery and so essential investigations were left undone or never got into the books. For example:
Mike's dodgy past which Feldy so honourably refuses to elucidate. Do we know what trouble he had been involved in and what happened? Did he (as we South-Londoners say) get banged up? I know that traditionally scrap merchants have had dubious connections so is there anything known about him? With Robbie Johnson we're on firmer ground as Shirley says that he had been incarcerated at one point. Is there a possibility that he and Mike knew each other "inside?"Was any research done to see if there was a connection between the Barretts/Grahams/Johnsons/Devereux/Kanes?
AG's best friend was Audrey Johnson but it's a common name.
Who really was the "A. Graham" on Tony D's will?
Bearing in mind that AG, MB, G. Kane, Tony Devereux and Albert Johnson were Catholic was there any investigation to check whether they might have known each other from local Catholic or Irish clubs?
We have almost no evidence from Mike's siblings or from Devereux' children. Surely they must have some information. Mike was pretty garrulous even to strangers on trains; surely he would have told his sister what was happening?
Finally, is it a coincidence that today we will learn the TRUTH and it's also the 9th anniversary of Mike taking the diary to Rupert Crew? |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 13 April 2001 - 02:44 pm | | Hello All.
I have stolen a moment away from seminars and papers on Shakespeare that are, almost without exception, (as someone in Python once said of a life in Chartered Accountancy) "dull, dull, dull, dull..."
But instead of wanting to be a lion tamer, I suppose I must secretly want to be (wait for it) a Ripperologist! Especially today, when the truth will be revealed. So I have crept down to Kafka's Place, a wonderful used bookstore and cybercafe in South Beach and read all this fun stuff. I think Peter's questions about the whereabouts and associations of all involved earlier than 1992 are very important and essential to making any case concerning forgery.
I'm still confused, though, about one thing. If we are reading the presence of the diary text on Mike's wp as evidence that he did compose or help compose the forgery, then how are we explaining the fact that he left this text on this wp after he had the final, handwritten copy of the diary in hand and ready to go off to Doreen?
Why, when he was prepared to head off and commit fraud, would he leave the actual files wherein he carefully composed the fraud still there, sitting on his wp? Wouldn't the most natural and "common sense" thing be to simply erase them, or, if you're really paranoid about getting caught and you want to succeed in foisting this thing on the public and making a profit on its claim to authenticity, trash all of the files or the whole drive or even the machine? Why not, one way or the other, simply get rid of your original copy of the composed diary text once you are handing over the actual book with the same words in it, which you are claiming is an original and authentic text written in 1888, to a literary agent for public examination?
I'm not sure how we explain this if Mike is the forger. If I wrote a forgery and then carried it to an agent with the idea of getting rich claiming it was the original diary of Jack the Ripper, I'd sure has hell at least make some attempt to get rid of all my drafts and my original files on my word processor and any stuff I might have lying around that was material evidence of my having written the thing. But there it is, word for word (more or less, and I too will be interested in the differences) still right on the machine of the guy who has delivered it. Odd. It would have been so simple to get rid of the working text once the final text was produced and ready for "discovery."
Any ideas?
Perhaps Mike figured he could just say he typed it there after the fact. But then why bother hiding the machine from the Yard? He leaves the working draft of the forgery on the machine, but then tries to hide the machine? How does this make sense? If he's guilty, why not erase the files or trash the machine before ever taking the book in; if he's not guilty, why not show the Yard the copy and tell the truth about having transcribed it before giving up the diary to someone else?
If someone can make sense out of either of these possibilities and Mike's behavior in either of them (as composer who leaves the evidence of his illegal work sitting right on his machine even after submitting the forgery, or acquirer who lies about his innocent after the fact copy being on his machine), I will be very grateful.
If he's guilty, why even allow the draft of the text to remain? If he's innocent, and has just made a copy, why the lie?
I'm open to any suggestions. Or I will be when I return to a machine, probably on Sunday evening. By which time we will all no doubt know who the Ripper is, thanks to a radio program, and we will have gone on to better things (like yet another mind-numbing paper on the Bard).
Have a great weekend,
--John |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 01:15 am | | Hi Peter,
The transcripts we received were print-outs. It frankly never occurred to me that they were anything but the work of the agent's or publisher's typist until this discussion began here. (Same evidently goes for Paul Begg). I had always assumed, on the sort of grounds John proposes above, that the alleged Amstrad version had been deleted long ago, and I only put in my six penn'orth because if it still exists it will provide a useful comparison clue.
In answer to John's doubts about its usefulness to a forger or compiler, by the way, Mike Barrett (as he has been ever since I have known him) would probably be quite capable of thinking that having a text on a computer would somehow make it easier to research.
Mike's transgression is known. Although he is very sensitive about it and liable to deny frenziedly that it was him, it was a petty theft committed at an age when, I have learned, remarkably many men who didn't enjoy my own sheltered background commit some small but briefly imprisonable crime, and go straight thereafter. Scotland Yard when investigating the Sunday Times' fraud complaint were lightly jocular about it, and certainly rightly felt it didn't point to an especially larcenous character capable of planning a longterm forgery-fraud with associated research and attempts at aging the artefact.
I believe it is common ground that no connection between the Barretts and the Johnsons has ever been established, or even looked remotely probable to those who have met all parties. Rest assured that, however clumsily he might go about testing his suspicions, Feldy always suspected everyone of everything that might be throwing malicious spanners in the works of his ever-developing theories. If he had seen any hint of complicity he would have assumed that they were deliberately keeping from him the sure and excellent provenance of the diary and watch they must all have known to exist, probably because revealing it would show that they had come by them dishonestly. And Keith and Shirley and Sally have always fully understood the need to question comprehensively with great care not to lead, and an open but sceptical mind at the outset. One of the greatest disasters of the whole investigation was Feldy barrelling in on the Liverpool witnesses and alerting them all to the sorts of conclusions he expected to find (or he would assume they were deliberately concealing them from him) and so completely upsetting the pattern of very careful cultivation and interviewing Shirley and Sally had started.
All the best
Martin |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 05:22 am | | I have to say that as one whose active involvement in the ‘diary’ research ceased fairly early on and who can therefore comment from the perspective of an informed outsider, I think it is extremely easy to be critical of the research from the perspective of 2001 when we have two books and a pile of other research data before us. Those who had to research this document ‘cold’ were playing an entirely different ball game and before one can be or should be critical of them one should understand the circumstances and the pressures under which they were working and the prioritisations they had to make – and sadly to understand those things you very often have to have been there, as Martin Fido’s posts repeatedly make clear.
For example, one might at this juncture express surprise that the typescript wasn’t rigorously compared to the ‘diary’ itself, by why should it have been? There were those who, like Martin, immediately dismissed the ‘diary’ as genuine and for whom the ‘diary thereafter ceased to have any interest whatsoever (i.e., who cared who wrote it or when?). On the other hand, there were those like Feldy who was equally convinced that the ‘diary’ was genuine for whom a detailed textual analysis would have proven nothing of value (Feldy ‘knew’ the ‘diary’ was genuine and was after evidence that proved that Maybrick wrote it, so what would a textual analysis have proven for him?).
If the thing wasn’t genuine, then nobody was interested in any other questions. I tried to introduce the old forgery idea as a way of forcing people to ask "when"; focussing the questions more precisely may then have caused people to wonder about the transcript, for example, or the red diary. Keith Skinner did adopt the broader ‘when’ view and tried vigorously to test all sorts of arguments, but got a very bad headache from the brick wall of disinterest he hit it against. And for the most part nobody has been interested in those questions since then either. So bear in mind the dangers of polarisation, which is why I didn’t like the pro- and con- listing, and, I think, appreciate with every ‘error’ anyone highlights that it illustrates the need we have to set down that groundplan I have been knocking on about for years so that the same mistakes aren’t made in the future.
Paul |
Author: Karoline L
Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 10:33 am | | Hi Chris,
thanks for the input - it would be very nice to meet with you in September,let's hope it can be arranged.
Paul,
Thanks for your input, and your thoughtful response which I very much appreciate.
To respond to your points:
I think the fact that neither Feldman nor any other investigator has managed to find any evidence that this document existed prior to 1992, and the fact that AG came up with a new provenance story in July 1994, are immensely important factors (however we interpret them), and to exclude them from our list of relevant data would be to distort the entire issue.
I think all relevant facts must be included in the list - while a careful distinction is made between the facts themselves and any interpretation that is put upon them.
Does that seem fair?
I do accept your suggestion about leaving out the 'for' and 'against' delineation - since there is an inherent risk of prejudice.
So, I'll post separately a slightly revised list for everyone's inspection.
Again, all comments and suggestions welcome.
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Karoline L
Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 10:42 am | | A summary of data relevant to when, how and by whom the 'Maybrick Diary' fraud was perpetrated :
1. All attempts to prove a provenance for the diary earlier than 1991 and involving anyone but the Barretts have failed.
Despite the exhaustive research of Feldman and others, no one has managed to establish the 'diary' existed before 1991, or that anyone ever saw it before this time, or that anyone ever owned it before Anne Graham and Mike Barrett.
The only story that has been produced to show the diary is any older, or was ever known to exist before MB took it to the Rupert Crew Agency is a story told by AG herself, which suddenly saw the light of day in July 1994, just after MB confessed to having forged the document.
Her story is completely uncorroborated by any factual data - however there is the tape of an interview by Feldman with AG's father, Billy Graham, that purports to lend some corroboration to the story. The tape is quoted in part by Feldman in his book - but as I understand it, no copies of the original, or transcripts of same have ever been made available for study.
This leads us to:
2. Both AG and MB have lied at least once about the provenance of this document..
Both individuals have volunteered reasons for their lies, which may or may not be seen to be persuasive.
Their later stories are in direct contradiction of their own earlier stories, of each other's stories, and of almost all the scientific and historical data pertaining to how and when the document was created.
This does not imply a high level of honesty over the very basic question of how they came by this artefact.
3. The Barretts purchased another unused old Victorian diary just before the "Maybrick Diary" made its first public appearance.
They are not known to have been collectors of Victoriana or of unused old diaries. So it may be viewed as highly coincident and highly suggestive that they should have purchased such a document at such a time.
They have never, to my knowledge provided any explanation for this curious action.
4. When MB took the 'diary' to the Rupert Crew Agency, he introduced himself under the pseudonym of "Mr.Williams".
This might be deemed a curious action in a man who had in all innocence been given the 'diary' by a man in a pub.
5. MB clearly had little or no understanding of how the forgery was physically executed.
This is a valid point that should not be overlooked. His numerous confessions have never been able to account for this anomaly.
6. The document is manifestly not in the handwriting of either AG or MB.
This also seems quite final and not open to debate. I suggest it is almost beyond doubt that neither of these people physically wrote out the 'diary'.
7. No one has come forward to say they saw AG or MB forging the diary, or watching the diary being forged, or talking about how great it would be to get rich out of a forged diary.
Again, true and quite valid.
8 According to Shirley Harrison, author of The Diary of Jack the Ripper, MB told her he did not own a word processor.
When it became obvious that he did have one he claimed he had not bought it until after Tony Devereux's death in 1991.
In fact we now have proof positive that MB paid £458.58p for an Amstrad 8256 on 3 April 1986.
MB therefore is shown to have lied about his possession of this machine - and AG did nothing to correct the lie, which appeared in two separate paperback editions of Ms Harrison's book.
It may therefore be significant that:
9. The entire text of the forgery was eventually admitted to be on MB's word processor(!)
MB claimed he transcribed the text there for 'research purposes'.
I am not aware that any investigation has been undertaken to establish that MB did indeed use his transcription for such a purpose. Or to ascertain whether he can be proved to have been open about his possession of such a transcript - prior to the police investigation.
(this is an area that needs to be further looked into)
10. AG and MB are the only people whose complicity in the forgery is a possibility, who have also profited from the sale and notoriety of the forgery.
It seems that AG or people close to her have attempted to give the impression that she was making rather less money out of the 'diary' than she has been. And in fact the claimed lack of a profit motive has been quoted as evidence for her supposed 'innocence'.
We have now established that AG was receiving separate payments for the sales of the diary from December 1993.
(It seems a clear priority to establish the amount of money that has been made out of this fraudulent document - which will thus give a clear idea, not only of the extent of the incentive to deceive, but also of the level of deception heretofore practised during the period when it was claimed that little or no money was being earned by those most closely associated with the fraud.)
---------------------------- |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 12:38 pm | | Hi All,
Glad to see the tone raised in my absence (perhaps that should be telling me something  ).
While Karoline, Paul and others were all busy posting their constructive and useful posts regarding the evidence, as we know it, I was deprived of the pc (by both hubby and daughter) and making copious handwritten notes along coincidentally similar lines which, hopefully, will also prove to be constructive and useful.
I’ve been considering some of the physical ‘evidence’ we have of the diary’s creation, and what happened to it, as far as can be ascertained:
1. Proof of purchase of the scrapbook, in which the diary was written – none produced – yet.
2. Pens, ink etc – Mike claimed, in January 1995, that he gave these to his sister, and that she destroyed them to protect him.
3. Diary text on Mike’s word processor - intact when Mike took the diary to London.
I spoke to Keith earlier, and he gave me the following information:
Keith first saw a photocopy of the original transcript (ie; that which was stored in Mike’s word processor) on June 4th 1992. Photocopies of this transcript were sent by Keith to Martin Fido, on June 17th 1992, and to Paul Begg, on August 13th 1992. (Keith also tells me that he did a careful comparison of this transcript against the diary itself.) On April 14th 1994 (curiously, seven years to the day), Keith taped an interview with Mike Barrett in Liverpool and showed him a photocopy of the original transcript. Mike was at great pains to proudly insist that he had typed the transcript on his word processor. On May 31st 1995, Martin Howells and Keith had dinner with Anne Graham and Keith showed Anne a photocopy of the original transcript. Keith’s diary note from that evening is as follows:
“Anne said that the transcript was made after they were in a ‘go’ situation. It was done fast. Mike’s typing was hopeless so Anne had to redo it. Mike read it [ie from the Diary] and Anne typed it [ie the original transcript] checking back against original, every so often, as she believed that it should be same as original”
4. Mike’s research notes – tidied and typed up by Anne, then given to Shirley Harrison.
5. The RWE pamphlet with Mike’s name inside – Mike left this with Tony Devereux, sometime before August 1991 (when Tony died), then identified him as the person from whom he got the diary.
6. The Sphere Guide – Mike claimed he gave this to the teenage son of his girlfriend in mid-1994, retrieving it later and lodging it with his solicitor. It was cited as evidence in Mike’s confession statement of January 1995.
7. The little red 1891 diary plus proof of purchase – also used for Mike’s January 1995 confession. This red diary, plus evidence surrounding its purchase, was produced by Anne on request.
Now, let’s suppose that Mike was involved, either in forging the diary, or at least knowing it was a modern fake when he brought it to London. We can see at a glance from this list just how successful Mike was, if he initially planned to retain any proof (as a safeguard for unpredictable times ahead?), or dispose of items which could have implicated him or others. The really damning items, nos.1 and 2, have never materialised. Is he really holding on to item no.1, the auction ticket for the scrapbook, as he claimed at the C&D interview in April 1999, where he promised, but failed, to produce it? Or did he leave it with someone, in a place where it could be found later by others, as with item no.5? Or did he let go of it, as with items 3, 4, 6 and 7, apparently without much, if any, thought of the possible consequences? He could have destroyed the auction ticket, or left it with his solicitor, but then he could have done the same with the pens and ink etc in no.2, but he said that he gave these to his sister. In short, Mike couldn’t have spread all the ‘incriminating’ evidence around more freely if he’d tried.
It certainly appears that Mike was unaware, at least when he initially planned to bring the diary to London, that some of these items could be incriminating. But it must have dawned on him sooner or later that, one by one, they were all being seen as pretty damning by many of his interrogators. Hastily told lies often become second nature to people who have a habit of getting into trouble. If and when such people ever find themselves suspected of something they haven’t done, their options are limited. (“Matilda told such dreadful lies….” – anyone spot the tenuous Ripper connection there?) Could this fit with what we know about Mike? And might he not have lied on the spur of the moment, about owning the wp for instance, to buy himself time, if he felt that telling the truth at a particular point, and to a particular individual, was only going to put him under instant suspicion?
We don’t know if Mike was genuinely unaware of the incriminating nature of items 3 to7 in March 1992, or simply careless with them - from the RWE left with Tony in 1991, right through to giving his Sphere Guide away in mid-1994, and letting Anne have the red diary shortly before making his January 1995 statement. We do know, however, that they were all safely gathered in, metaphorically speaking, in time for his January 1995 confession, implicating Anne and Tony Devereux in the forgery. Was it a combination of time, and the events after March 1992, including the help and guidance of Alan Gray, hired by Mike to expose the hoax, that finally allowed Mike to take advantage of the ‘evidence’, when he had reason to confess?
Now, let’s turn to Anne. If she was complicit in this forgery, she has to hope and pray that Mike won’t produce the auction receipt - item no.1 - unless she knows he can’t. She has been lucky with the items in no.2, if Mike’s claims about his sister were true. If they weren’t, perhaps Anne herself managed to arrange or oversee their safe disposal. With items 3 and 4, Anne, like Mike, evidently didn’t think they would be seen as incriminating. With items 5 and 6, Mike’s RWE and Sphere Guide, even if Anne knew of their existence, and realised that they could be damning, she appeared to have no control over what Mike did with them. Anne did know about item no.7, the red diary, and did nothing to conceal or destroy the evidence. Perhaps, as with items 3 and 4, she saw nothing incriminating about it. Or perhaps she couldn’t risk lying about it in case Mike could independently prove its existence.
One last point, a small one regarding Karoline's When MB took the 'diary' to the Rupert Crew Agency, he introduced himself under the pseudonym of "Mr.Williams".
I know Mike used this name when he first phoned the agency, but did he definitely use it again when he took the diary to show them? At what point did he reveal his real name? Do we know?
Keep up the great work all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 01:23 pm | | Hi Martin,
I'm on a quick lunch break and thought I'd write. You make the point:
"In answer to John's doubts about its usefulness to a forger or compiler, by the way, Mike Barrett (as he has been ever since I have known him) would probably be quite capable of thinking that having a text on a computer would somehow make it easier to research."
Right. But if he did originally compose the forgery on the wp, then why, once the book was finally produced and ready to go to the agent's, would he possibly leave the original text still on the machine? There would be no further research to do. The text had been copied into the book in final form and the files on the wp could only be incriminating evidence of illegal activity after that (if he knows that he wrote these words himself). Why not just hit a button or two and erase them? Couldn't Mike's machine do that, by the way? (I've never seen one of those old-time thingamabobs that old folks used to write on ) And if he couldn't erase the files and thereby get rid of any evidence of the composition process, why not just trash the whole thing's memory or the machine itself (a small price to pay to stay out of suspicion and possibly out of the way of a potential prosecution)?
I can't make sense of it either way. Once the diary is finished the files of its original scene of composition can only be incriminating evidence and besides, there is no need to keep them on the machine -- they just look bad. And if he's innocent and really did transcribe them there after the fact, why bother to hide the machine and lie about it all?
Still, to me, neither scenario makes sense. And this should not be possible -- he is either innocent or guilty, he either composed the words or transcribed them -- unless he is simply acting completely without thinking ("I know, I'll research and create an elaborate forgery for profit, I'll have it carefully copied into a Victorian album, and then I'll take the book to an agent claiming it's authentic and that I got it from a mate at a pub -- but I'll leave my original files, with the original text of the thing, right where I wrote it, still on my machine so someone can find it there.") (Or, "I know, I'll just make a copy of the words of this diary I've acquired here onto my word processor for future use, before I take it to an agent, but then I'll lie to everyone including the police and the agent, about owning the word processor and about the text being there.") Uh, what?
Just me rambling after four papers on Titus Andronicus in film and on stage.
Feel free to ignore these little problems of mine and have a fine holiday weekend, all.
--John |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 02:00 pm | | Caz--Item #4. Mike's notes. I still can't sort it out...how these notes gel with all acounts. Page 9 of Shirley's latest edition tells: "In 1985, Michael had bought himself an Amstrad word processor with money lent by Anne's father, Billy Graham, and now, at last, it came into its own. He told us that he made copious notes in the Liverpool library, which Anne latterly transcribed onto the Amstrad. But at this stage Michael had not connected the Diary with James Maybrick. One day, he told me, when he was in a Liverpool bookshop, he found a copy of M, M, & M by REW..."
But we know this isn't how things happened, because Mike's notes do refer to Maybrick in much detail. Or are there other notes? Or are we analyzing events in the wrong chronological order?
The notes don't 'jive' with any of the accounts of Mike's research as far as I can tell; there seems to be something missing somewhere.
Do the references to the Liverpool Echo archives suggest Devereux's input? Some relatively sophisticated research is mixed with the omission of any use of Christie, Ryan, Morleland, A-Z, Rumbelow, etc... Suggestive of anything? Were not these books available at the Liverpool Library? Shirley wrote that Devereux did not read (same as could not read?) and owned no books. Has this been confirmed?
Best wishes |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 02:02 pm | | John -
Of course the 'scenarios' don't make sense to me, either. Caz's new information from Keith that Mike and Anne jointly put the diary on the computer 'after they were in a 'go' situation' suggests the far more plausible motive of creating a fair copy for marketing purposes. Though I was never given to understand at the time that this was what had happened: hence my assumption that what I held was a quite different transcript from that compiled by the Barretts on the Amstrad.
The new account fits, however, the impression made by my own general comparison of transcript with (when I subsequently received it) the photocopied original: that the transcript was definitely the second 'fair copy' version of the original. So given that what I received in 1992 really was the notorious version on the Amstrad, we can set aside all previous assumptions about the computer copy being made for research or creative purposes.
What, I wonder, did Anne mean by 'a 'go' situation'? To me it suggests 'ready to sell' (or in the alleged history advanced by Melvin's spectral journalist informants), 'ready to place'. Yet surely we were always informed that Anne was so strongly opposed to Mike's 'selling' or 'placing' the diary that she tried to destroy it?
I've been envying you a Shakespeare convention to attend - but not if it means three papers on goddawful Titus Andronicus! Mr Begg's delightful editorial in the latest Ripperologist (which has just reached me) asserts that Shakespeare couldn't write bad poetry if he tried. Some punitive afternoon if he really annoys me, I shall sneakily lure Mr Begg into reading Titus or Pericles or The Two Gents.
Martin |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 02:28 pm | | Martin--Good point about 'a go situation'...seems like a contradiction. As for Titus & Pericles, surely Edward de Vere wrote those ones?
RP |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 02:32 pm | | Devereux did not read?
This seems hard to reconcile with the Scotland yard fraud investigator's statement that when Mike was bustling about looking for the Richard Whittington-Egan book (or booklet) which he was sure he still had at home somewhere, and which he thought would show him innocent if he could produce it, the detectives knew they actually had the copy he was looking for in the back of their car, having been given it by the Devereux daughters.
And wasn't Devereux in some way connected with printing?
Martin F |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 02:42 pm | | I think the bard himself was responsible for Titus - probably imitating Marlowe.
The one opportunity I had to see a performance of Pericles found me fleeing for the lobby at the end of Act I, since no amount of excellent production could compensate for the appalling scripting. So I didn't actually see the brothel scenes and don't know whether I would have thought there was a trace of Shakespeare's hand in them.
(Why are we taking Mr Begg off the hook of trying to give him an afternoon reading thoroughly turgid Tudor bombast, and with any luck bardolatrously pesuading himself it is great art? Perhaps we could just try and undermine his claims for Shaxpur with one of theose speeches running 'Call in the Lords of Reading, Plymouth, Exeter St David, and all stations from Scorrier to St Erth'. Or try him with Miranda's whoppers about 'Thy tale would cure deafness' as Prospero laborously fills us and her in with a dreadful 'New Readers begin here...' section. Or the mighty lie, 'Tis very plain' somebody produces when Henry V's claims to the French throne are lengthily sketched in, including full consideration of the Salic Law, or the elaborate consequeneces flowing from 'Edward III, my lord, has seven sons...')
Martin F |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 03:11 pm | | Hi Martin
I'm very pleased you enjoyed the editorial. I'll skip the bad Shakespeare if you don't mind. I have enough trouble with his good stuff. |
Author: Karoline L
Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 05:30 pm | | Martin,
I gather Devereux was a compositor for the Liverpool Echo. This is a pretty skilled job, requiring literacy. So I think we can take it that he could read.
I think this little Devereux discussion nicely illustrates a point I was going to make - viz. how important it is that we maintain the distinction between hard data and anecdotal evidence
Hard data we can define as documentation arising directly from the case, and any facts arising therefrom.
Anecdotal evidence can be defined basically as anything that isn't hard data. "he told me...."; rumours, third person narratives.
This is the most dangerous form of evidence - through its very unreliability. A good example of how it can deceive is the recent debacle over AG's income from the diary,where anecdotal evidence, reputedly originating from Doreen Montgomery was quoted here that claimed to show AG had been making no money out of the diary until 1995.
This assumed 'fact' totally deceived us all, and misled the discussion quite seriously - until it was shown to be false by the emergence of hard, solid printed facts.
I suggest there is a lesson to be learned from this.
How about this:
1. we make an agreement here to omit all uncorroborated claims or rumors or third person narratives from the list of evidence.
(I don't suggest we completely discount them - I suggest all such material should be put to one side, until it has been investigated and either confirmed or ruled out.)
For example - given his proven total unreliability, I think it would be prudent to rule as inadmissible all statements made by MB - unless they can be corroborated by some kind of additional data.
2.I think it would also be helpful (if a little tedious) if whenever any significant facts are quoted here the poster tags his/her source - so that it can be verified by anyone who cares to do so.
A few words like ('Harrison, first ed.); or ("unpublished letter in AG's possession") or whatever, aren't too troublesome to write, and do make it much easier for the rest of us to know where a given poster's facts are actually coming from.
Does all this seem like a fair and reasonable way to proceed? I hope you all think so.
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 06:52 pm | | Karoline--sorry for the confusion. My original question --'Shirley wrote that Devereux did not read (same as could not read?) and owned no books. Has this been confirmed?' referred to a remark in Shirley's latest edition: 'A nest of forgers? Who were their accomplices? Tony Devereux, a former print worker who didn't read and had no books? Billy Graham, who could hardly write..?' (p 378) My point in trying to confirm the level of Devereux's literacy has to do with this sneaking suspicion that it is often wrongly assumed that those involved (or allegedly involved) with the diary were much more incompetent than they really might have been. A case in point is Mike Barrett who I highly suspect is not as dim as everyone claims. Of course you all have met the fellow, and I'm at a great disadvantage in living in a jungle of fir trees on the far side of the hemisphere. Still, he seems to jump from dim-wit to fairly competent researcher when convenient. Shirley writes that Mike 'had a taste for quoting Latin phrases culled from a classical dictionary and a knack of collecting unexpected snippets of knowledge from the library.' (p 281) Which makes me wonder what other unexpected snippets Mike might have come up with other than the Crashaw quote. Feldy also tells a story of Mike showing him the location of Battlecrease---and Mike ended up taking him to the house next door by mistake; which seems to me a little theatrical, as if Mike was showcasing his own innocent ignorance.
But your point about excluding all but hard data is a good one. I would like see a chronology of events with 'hard dates' compiled, as the running narratives in Feldman & Harrison's detailed books are sometimes confusing, and, in some instances, hard to reconcile with other information posted on these boards. The confusion of the actual timing between Mike compiling his notes & Mike finding REW's book mentioned in my previous post is but one example.
Bye for now. RP |
Author: Scott Nelson
Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 07:32 pm | | | Did the version on MB's word processor have line-outs, strike-throughs, repeating lines, etc. as in the hand-written text? |
Author: David M. Radka
Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 09:56 pm | | I've never been on this board before, but just got through reading the last several posts.
My "friends," they come around
Flattah! Flattah! Flattah! Flattah!
I've been shattered!
My brains been battered,
Splattered all over Manhattan.
Holy moly, how can intelligent people indulge in such abstruse pedantry? Can't you realize you're all just playing with yourselves in this subject, over and over again? I mean, even "Kinky" Kosminski didn't masturbate this much. I mean, everyone has got the right to yank their crank once in awhile, but really! What does this all do? Where does it get you?
Hope I'm not out of line,
David |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 10:50 pm | | Hi Karoline,
I don't think I'm likely to be the kind of help you hope. As Paul has intimated several times, I concluded very rapidly that the diary was phoney and its provenance such as to cast the most severe doubt on anyone associated with propounding it. I paid some further attention to Anne Graham's statement of her position, essentially because Keith wanted me to do so, and I value his friendship as highly as anything that has come my way in working on the Ripper and know him to be a man of the utmost integrity. I reached my own conclusions. Anne and Keith know them. And I only enter these horrifying boards when it seems I may have something to offer about the history of the investigation of the diary.
I have never interested myslf in the question of who was paid what for their share in it, and I skim and skip all the laborious postings where this is discussed. I cannot help you in any way there, and do not intend to start examining it. A superficial reading indicates nothng emerging that would alter my current thinking.
I will react with considerable anger toward anyone suggesting that Keith is anything less than 100% honest in all his attempts to discover when and, possibly by whom, the diary was forged. I will also react with some anger toward anyone who suggests that Shirley Harrison's defence of the diary as possibly/probably genuine is anything less than an honest scholarly investigation. I will insist that from my personal knowledge of him, Paul Feldman, though desperately wrongheaded, at times a real pain in the neck, and the worst thing that couod have happened to Shirley in her efforts to research the diary and its origins, is nonetheless a generally honest and decent human being who is definitely not inventing wildly from a corrupt wish to make money.
Beyond that, I couldn't give a tuppenny damn what anybody says about the diary, the Barretts, or the people who go on researching it. I happen to think it was created after 1987, but shan't feel any skin off my nose if it is firmly placed in 1940, 1920, 1900 or 1890. I should be absolutely astonished if it were ever proved to be Maybrick's work. But I don't think it has anything to tell us about the history of Jack the Ripper. And not being an interested party in the examination of forgeries, I am therefore really not very interested in it. I would far rather see all the money and effort wasted on Anne Graham's financial affairs devoted to an inspection of Surrey Asylum records and the records of the poor homeless Jews' shelter in Leman Street. Diary chasing is simply not a part of serious Ripper history, as far as I'm concerned.
With all good wishes,
Martin F |
Author: Scott Nelson
Sunday, 15 April 2001 - 12:24 am | | | Which Surrey Asylum Martin? |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Sunday, 15 April 2001 - 06:20 am | | Hi RJ, Karoline Martin and others:
Firstly let me say that I agree with Karoline that any "evidence" that we provide here should be referenced so that others will at least be able to check that we're not making it up as we go along and I will try to do that.
The transcript has to be considered a major problem. What does a "go situation" mean in this context? It would presumably mean that the Barretts now knew that there was a strong possibility of selling the diary through an agent and it was worthwhile to get a transcript which could be sent to Doreen or publishers. Keith's quote from his interview with Anne is:"“Anne said that the transcript was made after they were in a‘go’ situation. It was done fast. Mike’s typing was hopeless
so Anne had to redo it. Mike read it [ie from the Diary] and
Anne typed it [ie the original transcript] checking back
against original, every so often, as she believed that it
should be same as original” (quoted from Keith's message to Caz.)
So there was a certain amount of hurry involved. Is it safe therefore to place the typing of the transcript between the initial contact with Doreen which I believe was the 9th March 1992 and Mike's April 13th visit to her? Surely not: it wouldn't take five weeks to transcribe the diary even if everything was triple-checked. And what does this do to Anne's other statements to Shirley that she hated the diary and tried to destroy it? (p293 Blake edn.) I'm sure that there will be an explanation perhaps along the lines that Anne transcribed it so that Mike could edit and rearrange it so that he could use it in the novel she expected him to write but this would not explain why it had to be done so quickly. The passage just quoted doesn't help things but adds to the confusion.
How about the red diary? Is it a "smoking gun?" I must say that I cannot believe in the suggestion that Mike bought it because he wanted to see what one looked like. He could have spent a day looking in antique shops to find that out. Here we need some facts. While it is considerate to withold the name of the booksellers who supposedly sold the Barretts this diary it is not helpful. Presumably Shirley and Keith have correspondence from this shop and it would be most useful to see it here. We need confirmation that the story here is backed up by documentary evidence. Seeing the red diary and the cheque that supposedly bought it is not evidence that the cheque was payment for the diary (the stub says: "Book,") Paul Begg has said:"Anne has provided cheque stub, bank statement and a copy of the cashed cheque, all of which SHE SAYS relate to the purchase of the red diary and show that she paid £25 to a bookdealer on 18th May 1992 - which was a month after Mike had visited Doreen Montgomery with the scrapbook "Diary"." (Begg 14/6/99 emphasis in original.)
Keith Skinner has said on July 29,1999 – 03:20 am: that the payment was made late and the actual diary was mailed to the Barretts on Thursday March 26th 1992. If it arrived as was likely on Saturday 28th or Monday 30th we have the situation of Mike seeing this small diary with the wrong year, realising that it was completely unsuitable and having to look for something else. We therefore may have a point where Mike is scurrying around antique shops, auctions etc. looking for something more suitable and realising that he's got a date with an enthusiastic agent in less than two weeks and although he knows what is going to be written (because it's on his wp) he hasn't got anything to write it in. Is it this situation that gives rise to Anne's comments previosly quoted referring to a degree of urgency but reversed in that the diary is being handwritten from the transcript? |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 15 April 2001 - 07:05 am | | Hi Scott,
The one that somebody on some other board suggested that the suspected Polish Jew might have been in before his final incarceration in London. I've no idea what the source might be, nor which Polish Jew is intended. But these serious areas of research are ones where slow and diligent poring through old lists and records ultimately yields factual data of rather more value than the various stories of his own past offered by Mike Barrett to anyone who will give him a drink. Besides it may be the one, just entered on his death certificate as 'Surrey Asylum' where my paternal grandfather died, at a time some 120 years ago when my father was still an infant in Bombay. I suspect my lamented grandfather died of addiction to the bottle, and had been brought to England for treatment by a cousin who resigned from the Bombay Police at that time and rejoined later. But I don't know. I'd like to see whether it gives any leads as to what happened to my paternal grandmother, who certainly died somewhere round about the same time, but who vanished without trace from the Indian and English records after the birth of her third son. Maybe she went to Scotland. Her own grandfather, sire of 'Mr Conductor Purvis', was born in Berwick....
Hi Peter,
Thanks for including me in your address to posters. But as you see, the purchases etc of the Barretts don't really interest me. Call me if they suddenly apear to have done something which shatteringly demonstrates their pure innocence, or if anything is turned up which goes any way to confirming that Melvin Harris really did hear from some journalist/s that the Barrets were placers and not forgers.
Martin F |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 15 April 2001 - 08:01 am | | Peter
We cannot know what a person might or might not have done and people infuriatingly very often do the very thing we think all logic would dictate that they didn't do, but is it probable that (a)Mike telephoned Doreen before he'd actually bought the 'diary' to be written into and (b) bought a diary without first establishing that it was for the correct year?
I mean, diaries are year things. It's very rare indeed, isn't it, to buy a dary that isn't for a specific year? Wouldn't anyone contemplating buying a diary that has to be for 1888/9 have thought first to check the suitability of the date of a diary they were thinking of purchasing? |
Author: Karoline L
Sunday, 15 April 2001 - 08:06 am | | Peter,
I must congratulate you on your last post which was a perfect model of scholarship, with every quote referenced. I hope we can all follow your example.
I also must support your call for more evidence about this crucial red diary. What's needed is the name of the outlet that sold the item to MB, so that the dates etc. provided here can be verified.
I also think that Peter has 'reconstructed' a very plausible set of circumstances to account for a) the purchase of the red diary and b) the fact that the 'diary' eventually used was so obviously substandard. In fact I think it is perhaps the most persuasive 'reconstruction' yet offered.
Let's look at his suggestion again:
MB (and his cohorts?) purchase(s) the red diary, perhaps after only a cursory examination - or perhaps after only seeing it described in a sales catalogue where the wording did not make it clear that it was actually physically dated '1891' in any indelible way.
They order it, planning to use it for the text of their forgery. But when it arrives in late March - with only weeks to go before 'the diary of JTR' is due for its first public appearance - they are horrified to discover the thing has '1891' written all over it.
There is an understandable panic. The text of the 'diary' is waiting on MB's wp - but they have nothing to write it in.
MB, and probably all others involved begin scouring junk shops and auction rooms, desperately searching for any remotely suitable article. But time is short and unused diaries from the right period are not very plentiful - and all they can find is one turn-of-the-century- photo album, bedecked with pics from WW1. They grab it - because it's better than nothing (perhaps MB doesn't make the purchase himself, hence his inability to give correct details about doing so), rip out the pics and the first few pages (which are too incriminating in some way)... and off they go....
This seems to closely fit the facts and conforms to the requirements of Mr. Occam (joke, John!) and his razor.
I think this jives pretty well as a theoretical explanation.
What we need now most urgentlly is more data - particularly the name of the outfit that sold this all-important red diary so that the date of purchase can be finally confirmed.
And RJ - I think your suggestion of a chronological history is a very good one. Perhaps we should draft a very tentative 'timeline' and post it so that people can add their comments and knowledge and see what can be built up?
Another area of significant interest will be to look into the way in which the historical and scientific data has been presented in the various books, articles etc. on this subject produced over the years.
I think it would be good to go back to the basics - look at Rendells' report for example and Nicholas Eastaugh's original comments - and then compare these original statements with the 'interpretations' of same that have appeared in the various media, to see if we can trace the rise of any insidious mythologies - thast have distorted the picture.
I entirely accept that no unjustifiable or vindictive accusations of a personal nature are remotely acceptable in a reasonable debate. However it's also true that anyone who makes public statements must be expected to answer for the validity or otherwise of those statements - and I think we must be as careful to ask all the relevant questions of all the appropriate people - as we should be meticulous about doing so in a polite and reasonable way.
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 15 April 2001 - 11:13 am | | Hi, all:
I wish to address to Shirley Harrison's statement,
"A nest of forgers? Who were their accomplices? Tony Devereux, former print worker who didn't read and had no books? Billy Graham, who could hardly write..?" [Italics mine] (Shirley Harrison, The Diary of Jack the Ripper, Blake edition paperback, 1998, p. 378)
Possibly this is poorly worded. As Karoline stated, "I gather Devereux was a compositor for the Liverpool Echo. This is a pretty skilled job, requiring literacy. So I think we can take it that he could read."
Shirley can answer on this point, but I think possibly she meant that Devereaux did not read in the sense that my grandfather did not read, i.e., he was not a reader of books. Am I right? My grandfather much preferred reading the racing pages of the newspaper, which he most definitely could read, having been a manager for the Post Office telephones in Liverpool. But he was not a reader of books, either fiction or nonfiction, in the sense of myself, Martin Fido, Karoline Leach, John Omlor, and other literati who frequent these boards.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Karoline L
Sunday, 15 April 2001 - 04:05 pm | | Chris,
I think you are certainly right about the Harrison quote - it means not a reader rather than 'couldn't read'. Just an unfortunate ambiguity in phrasing.
Caroline,
I'm wondering if you could pass on a request to Keith Skinner, for the name of that retail outlet that sold the Barretts the red diary - and for any documentation he has to show the dates of purchase, delivery etc. since it would be immensely useful to get this question settled once and for all?
I know it's a bit of an imposition, but I don't have any direct address for KS. Would you mind acting as intermediary once again?
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 15 April 2001 - 06:13 pm | | Hi Scott, mk 2:
Yes, as far as I recall, the transcript sent to me in 1992 included reproduction of the cancellations and additions. Altogether it fitted this account of a fair copy made once the Barretts were in 'a go situation'.
Martin |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 15 April 2001 - 09:56 pm | | "Around that date (March 9th 1992) a well established secondhand book company had a call from a Mr Barrett who asked them to find him a Victorian Diary. We contacted the company who advertise in Yellow Pages (not in The Writers' and
Artists' Yearbook). They cannot recall if he asked for an unused diary but they confirm that the request was extremely unusual and that it would have taken them two or three weeks to fulfill.
They found an 1891 diary and it was sent to Mr Barrett on Thursday March 26th 1992, reaching him presumably for the weekend March 28th/29th 1992.
(We do not know if Mike specifically ordered an 1888/9 diary. Oddly, he has never commented on the useless, too late, date of the diary that arrived - only on its size)"
(from a joint post by Keith Skinner & Shirley Harrison. See 12 February 2001, 10:57 am, "The Real James Maybrick" for the full post)
The so-called red diary is described as being very small, about the size of a pack of playing cards. That, and the fact that they sent Mike and 1891 diary, makes me assume that Mike didn't specify in any great detail what he wanted--only a "Victorian diary". It might be interesting to remember that the inside front cover of the Maybrick diary had something torn off it. |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 16 April 2001 - 12:54 am | | "Oddly, he has never commented on the useless, too late, date of the diary that arrived - only on its size."
The implication of Keith and Shirley's words is that the size mattered to Mike (because it was not the same size as the book they had?), and R.J.P. quite reasonably says that the date of the diary, 1891, makes him think that "Mike didn't specify in any great detail what he wanted".
These details suggest that Mike was not concerned about the date, which surely he would have to have been if he had wanted the 'diary' to be the journal of someone writing in 1888/9? If one wanted to see what a late Victorian diary actually looked like then date wouldn't have mattered.
I also wonder how easy or inexpensively the man in the street would think it might be to purchase a pristine or partly used Victorian 'diary'. Incomplete diaries (or, indeed, complete ones) are commonly disposable commodities. Would a team of would-be forgers really have made arrangements to meet a literary agent without even possessing the 'diary' itself?
Why, I wonder, does Keith's observation that Mike impulsively bought the red diary so that he could see what a Victorian diary looked like - a hypothesis that seems to satisfy so many of the problems such as date, lateness and so on - seem more improbable than that it was bought in a mad rush at the last minute to transcribe the 'diary' into? |
|
|
|
|
