Archive through April 17, 2001

** 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 17, 2001

Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: The Maybrick Diary-Archives 2001: Archive through April 17, 2001

Author: Ivor Edwards Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 05:34 pm
Paul,I should really subscribe to the rip. Did the article in question give the evidence againest M Maybrick ? I viewed the recent Programme 'Victorians Discovered ' which dealt with W.T. Stead and child prostitution. It would appear that Mr Stead spent some time in and around The Ratcliffe Highway in the company of prostitutes.This was on the lines of research and information seeking foray's. I suppose it is only a matter of time now before someone states that Stead was the Ripper!
Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 05:50 pm
Hi Ivor It was more in the way of a speculative piece laying out some rough ideas about Michael that might, in the author's opinion, suggest that he was the Ripper. W.T. Stead as the Ripper - Jack the Ripper drowned on the Titanic; now that would make a great title! I'm biased, of course, but I think the Rip is essential reading for anyone interested in the Ripper.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Friday, 06 April 2001 - 08:17 am
Hi Chris, Thanks for your constructive comments. It is hard for me to imagine how a parent might be able to coax their child into inventing a row that never happened. Such rows are hard enough for children to bear, when they do witness them, let alone being asked to make up ones they haven't! As you rightly point out, this does not tell us very much in itself about the diary's origins. Even if Caroline really does recall seeing her dad arrive home with the diary, going through the motions of unwrapping it, looking inside and reacting, then apparently going straight to Devereux for answers, we just don't know how much, if any of it, could have been just an act. Even if none of it was done for effect, we still don't know what Mike may or may not have discovered before taking it to London in 1992, and it tells us zero about Anne's involvement. What can it tell us, though, if we allow for the possibility that the rows did indeed take place, and were a direct result of Anne being desperate to stop Mike going public? Might it indicate that Anne did know about the diary's origins, and did get it to Mike via Devereux, in an attempt to keep him occupied, sober and thus out of her hair, but was naive enough to think Mike would never try to publish it? Might she have been too scared of Mike, once the diary was in the publisher's hands, to tell him, or anyone else, the truth? And might she have come out with her July 1994 story, once she had got away from Mike, because she felt as intimidated by Feldy as she had been scared of her husband? All this of course, by itself, would not tell us whether Anne knew the diary was a recent fake or that it really had been in the family home much longer. Anne may have had other reasons in 1992 for not wanting herself or her family put under the public spotlight, in which case the diary may still have been totally unconnected to her, and come into the Barrett home some other way. But then we come back to why she told her July 1994 story, associating herself, and her dying father, directly with something that, only a couple of years previously, she had appeared so determined to keep a secret from the world. Love, Caz
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood Friday, 06 April 2001 - 11:30 am
Chris: A brief point: were you confusing two generations of Grahams in your earlier post? Easy to do at the moment. It might be worth while putting on file Anne Graham's latest word on the diary and where it came from. This is from the intro. to "The Last Victim" (pb publication 1999.) "The Ripper journal first came to my father's notice during the Christmas of 1950 (although he claimed he had heard of it as far back as 1943. He came across it in a suitcase which he had left for safe-keeping with his stepmother while he had been serving abroad in the British Army." Anne also says that she discovered it in 1968 and passed it on to her father to pack away. She says: "It was also during this time that I was forced to admit that our once content sixteen year marriage had entered a most unhappy and destructive period." It was at this time (1992) that she gave Mike the diary "through a third person." During her explanation of what happened there are times when she uses interesting words or phrases. During his meeting with Feldman her father "appeared to suggest" that the reason for the diary's appearance was that his father had been the illegitimate son of Florrie. In talking about her grandfather's birth in Hartlepool she says: "However his background was an odd one. " The oddness being that he was reticent about his childhood, his children had not met their grandparents he was better educated than his contemporaries and he "had been forced to leave home as a young teenager and told to make his way in the world." " It would later be discovered that in the year of his birth, Florence was living in England contrary to what had been previously known." There are rhetorical questions: "Did Florence have an illegitimate child in Hartlepool...was that child my grandfather...? And lastly: "This book has not been written to prove the contents of the Ripper Journal; that task has been left in the capable hands of others.It does however assume that the journal is not an old forgery, and in the last five years neither scientists nor historians have been able to prove that it is." A few words: there is nothing odd about the background of Anne's grandfather. All the documentation: civil records, census material, show that he was born as the legitimate child of a Blacksmith and had siblings. There is no record that indicates Florence Chandler as having any connection with Hartlepool or the Graham family. There is a newspaper report quoted by Feldman saying that Florence and her family lived near Worcester about 1880 but I'm not aware of any research backing this up. There seems no basis for suggestions that Florence could have had an illegitimate child at this time who was brought up by the Grahams, a family of whom she would be most unlikely to have any knowledge of whatsoever. Lastly there is that use of an ambivalent word "assume." The book (rather than Anne herself) assumes that the diary is not an old forgery. It's therefore real or a modern forgery. Anne doesn't specify but we must "assume" that as far as "The Last Victim" is concerned, the diary is real.
Author: darren bytheway Monday, 09 April 2001 - 05:49 am
As a mater of interest to some of you, a colleague of mine knows the workmen who found the diary. It was found in the loft at Battlecrease House under some rubbish, not under the floorboards as has been suggested.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Monday, 09 April 2001 - 07:45 am
Hi Darren, Welcome to the boards. Do you mean "It was allegedly found...", since you appear only to be giving us the word of a colleague of yours, who knows the workmen who thought at one time that they may have found the diary at Battlecrease? Love, Caz
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Monday, 09 April 2001 - 07:46 am
From Keith Skinner To Ivor Edwards To add to my colleague Martin Fido�s welcome rebuttal of the understandable curiosity expressed in your post of Thursday April 5th 2001� ��I wonder how far she [Anne Graham] was pushed by Mr Feldman and company who had something to lose if the diary fell flat on its face before the investment had paid any dividends. How much was she manipulated and exploited I wonder?� If you are inferring, quite reasonably, given your perception of the situation, that Anne Graham�s story may have been financially induced, then I would encourage you to explore that possibility. As part of Paul Feldman�s team I was closely involved with the developments during that period, which, given Peter Birchwood�s suspicions about my role in the investigation, is probably a very good reason for you to pursue this line of enquiry! Incidentally, it�s a pity I wasn�t aware that you lived on the Isle of Wight when I visited, last November, with Bruce Robinson, researching out material on Michael Maybrick for Bruce�s screenplay about the Maybrick case, currently being developed for Columbia Pictures. But we�ll probably be back. If so, would you like your Ripper manuscript returned, which was sent to Bruce for his consideration?
Author: darren bytheway Monday, 09 April 2001 - 03:56 pm
hi caz, this colleague of mine did know these workers very well as at the time he was in the same profession as they are , he comes from liverpool and the guys who found it were two electrician who were re-wiring battlecrease and the company was called rigbys (as far as i can remember). this all started a couple of months ago when my mate lent me the video on the maybrick diary,(i am a jack the ripper nut).anyway me and my mate was talking about this the next day ,and my other mate who as only just joined our company,came out with this lot and he as no reason to tell lies,i cant tell names as i work for a very big company in the UK . cheers daz.
Author: Simon Owen Monday, 09 April 2001 - 09:26 pm
Hear that clicking noise ... its a can of worms just being opened !
Author: shirley harrison Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 03:20 am
I have a problem. I have had a response from Doreen Montgomery to my request for help with answering your questions about Anne's finances. It is much as I expected and certainly revived in me memories of the traumas we all experienced in those early years beyond anything any of us had known in publishing previously. Doreen wrote that she had lain awake one night last week going over and over this period - which almost wrecked her health emotionally and psychologically - and that she has no intention of getting emeshed again in what she sees as an intrusion into her client/agent relationship, 10 years on. She has a business to run and the time spent on the diary has for her been financially quite unjustified. For me it is different - not because of the usually alleged glint of gold -but because I have a passionate interest in history and because, as a journalist, I don't give up. I suggest that all the questions you are asking can be answered by Anne. I am prepared to try this myself but since there is so little trust among you in my approach, I wonder if Chris George, as a Liverpudlian could try? I am not confident of the result but think it is worth a try. All I can tell you now is - as I think I said before - the first "25% share of expenses" account was sent to Anne from The Word Team` (That is me and my researcher, Sally Evemy) on July 28th 1995.
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 07:18 am
Karoline: You have failed entirely to give due credence to the theory - much more likely than the canard of the diary being forged by a Liverpool group - that it was actually forged by a conglomeration of 32nd degree Masons plus aliens from the constellation Draco as part of their insidious plan for World Domination. I suggest that we insist that every poster to these boards confirms whether they are a/ members of the Masonic Conspiracy b/ Serpentoid Bipeds or c/ David Icke.
Author: Karoline L Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 07:49 am
Shirley, you and I haven't corresponded before, but, as one of the people who recently posted some rather important documentation to the board (see the "College Course" thread of this discussion), I feel I ought to bring it to your attention. It seems Ms Montgomery's recollections may have been less than accurate or possibly that she has been seriously misquoted by someone. In fact there are royalty statements from Rupert Crew Ltd dated in late 1993 and early 1994 that show quite clearly that Anne Graham was receiving separate royalty payments at this time. Therefore it would seem it can no longer be maintained that she did not profit from the diary until 1995. I would be interested to know what you think of this development. best wishes Karoline
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 09:31 am
Hi, Shirley: While I appreciate the trust you put in me as a Liverpudlian in suggesting that I might be able to intercede in the matter of asking questions of Anne Graham, I am probably not in a good position to ask them, being based as I am in the United States. Additionally, although I will be in the UK for the upcoming Bournemouth convention, it will be a lightning visit since I can't spare the time off work for a more extended stay. Thus unfortunately there will not be time for me to go up to Liverpool to have a meeting with Anne. I thank you though for thinking of me. Best regards Chris George
Author: shirley harrison Wednesday, 11 April 2001 - 02:08 am
Hi Chris....so we will meet at the Conference.Good. I didnt mean you to go up to Liverpool, of course...merely perhaps to phrase your own questions which, if you like I will send to Anne. Karoline. There is a non sequitur in your last message I think. I CANT answer because I dont know the facts......but if Anne was indeed receiveing money as you all seem to have proof....it was I believe at Mike's request. But I dont - and I think you dont - know what she did with those cheques. The fact she received them doesnt mean she spent them. Nor do I know WHY Mike asked for the money to go to her because he was not in the habit of gratuitous generosity. I have no ideas either if he gave her any share of the original payments. I have a 1996 letter from Doreen to Anne in my possesion which, sadly, I cant quote without Doreen's` permission which states quite clearly that Anne had never sought from her, or wanted, any financial involvement with the diary and that the royalty payments after the divorce were Doreen's decision in accordance with the Collaboration agreement....partly to safeguard Caroline.
Author: Paul Begg Wednesday, 11 April 2001 - 04:28 am
Hi Shirley Two things (well, three really). One is that according to the information supplied by Karoline and Peter Birchwood from an unstated source - and i would be appreciated if they stated their source - money was not paid by Anne into Mike's account, the natural and logical inference being that she kept it. Whether or not this money was a sharee of the royalty payment is uncertain, I think, since the December 1993 payment cannot have been a royalty payment (it being only two months after publication) and doesn't appear to have been the concluding payment of the advance. It was therefore presumably for other rights. Karoline will perhaps be kind enough to repost here for you the details of payments made to Anne after December 1993. Since you presumably received your share of those payments, you may be able to recall what they were for. The problem, which I suspect is a minor one, seems to be that it has been said that Anne did not receive royalties until Doreen decided to give her 25%. It has thus been assumed that she received no money from the 'diary' until that time. This is either untrue and she was receiving royalties (in which case Doreen's 'unilateral decision' seems unneeded)or the monies paid to Anne were not strictly royalties (though they would be earnings from the book - though I thought all earnings were made in one or two royalty payments annually). The confusion may be down to the definition of royalty and how it was perceived. But it would appear that Anne did receive money from the 'diary'. Of course, she would have been entitled to her share of any money from the venture and one should beware of attaching undue significance to this. The second question: I personally doubt than Anne will now submit to any questioning and I can't say I blame her. However, if she does, I think it is likely to be a one-off opportunity and I cannot stress more strongly that very precise questions be formulated and that as far as is possible there be questions ready to ask in response to wherever her answers may lead. Cheers Paul
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 11 April 2001 - 04:35 am
Hi Shirley, Thanks for the info. Karoline kindly put the following details up on the 'College course' diary board: Statement from Rupert Crew Ltd, tax point 7 January 1994 DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER As schedule of payments dated 4/12/93 Amount due 5/1/94: £9742.19 Your 50% share: £4871.10 (less 10% commission) net £4383.99 VAT on our commission: £ 85.24 Cheque to Lloyds bank a/c M. Barrett: £3000.00 Cheque to Mrs Anne Barrett: £1298.75 I assume Karoline got this information from Mike, perhaps via Alan Gray and Peter Birchwood? She hasn't said. Karoline also stated that this was a royalty payment. The 50% share has been divided up between Mike and Anne, but obviously not 25%/25%. I did wonder why this had not been queried before. If Anne was due to receive 25% at that time, I wondered why she got considerably less, and whether she herself queried the amount. Wouldn't she have received the same statement from Rupert Crew Ltd? Now, seeing your post, I wonder if it was in fact Mike who suggested Anne got a share, but not as much as half, of his own 50%? If nothing else, Doreen's letter to Anne, together with the uneven split shown in Karoline's payment details, appear to show that there have been some premature assumptions made about Anne actively seeking to profit from the diary. When I suggested this had yet to be established, I was asked by Karoline, sarcastically, if I thought Anne could have profited by accident! Well, if Mike did decide to be uncharacteristically generous, and Anne hadn't been asking for anything from him, it would appear that might be precisely how she did profit to begin with! The question is, why would Anne have told Doreen - the very person holding the immediate purse strings - that she wanted no financial involvement with the diary, if that were not true? Love, Caz
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 11 April 2001 - 11:53 am
Hi, Shirley: Naturally, I have no problem submitting questions to be posed to Anne Graham and will be glad to submit a set of questions. I recall that prior to the time that Mike Barrett was to be interviewed by Keith at the famed Cloak and Dagger Club meeting of April 1999, Keith had asked that people submit questions to him to pose to Mike. It would seem to me that a similar call for questions to be asked of Anne could be made in this forum, possibly on a new message board, and perhaps we could issue similar calls for questions in Ripper Notes and Ripperologist. As you are aware, we have developed here quite a "Brain's Trust" of people who are curious about the origins of the Diary which includes not only myself but R. J. Palmer, John Omlor, Richard Dewar, Karoline Leach, Peter Birchwood, Caroline Morris, and Madeleine Murphy, not forgetting Keith Skinner and Paul Begg and the redoubtable Melvin Harris. No doubt we could come up with a series of questions that would cover our concerns about the Diary. Paul is absolutely correct that it is vital that, as he put it, "very precise questions be formulated." I would advise that a neutral interviewer be used, and that it not be Keith but someone who is absolutely independent of the Diary project, with no axes to grind one way or the other, and probably someone who has not met Anne but knows the history of the Diary controversy subsequent to 1992. This person would ask Anne the questions and, depending on Anne's replies, as Paul indicates, be prepared to ask follow-up questions that could go wherever her responses lead them. I wonder if there is any possibility of Anne attending the Bournemouth convention to take part in such a question and answer session? If Anne is in Bournemouth, I would be prepared to be that interviewer but, if her presence at the Bournemouth conference cannot be arranged, another mutually agreeable interviewer better be found. Best regards Chris George
Author: darren bytheway Friday, 13 April 2001 - 05:52 pm
hi everyone,did anybody hear the latest news, that there is another jtr suspect it was on radio Mersey at 21:05 tonight ,and the author states that jtr was a retired soldier called Claude raynor condor who was a very close friend of sir Charles warren, the author is a scouser called tom slemen, very interesting just wonder what you all think about it. thanks daz
Author: Ivor Edwards Friday, 13 April 2001 - 08:25 pm
Hello Chris, Ask her if she would be prepared to take a lie detector test.The answer would be interesting in itself. When you pick someone to ask the questions it would help if they had a great deal of experience in such matters.It would defeat the object to get someone with little or no experience. Best Wishes
Author: Martin Fido Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 01:29 am
Ask her which of Mike's many statements in Keith's possession represents the truth. (If none, ask for an explanation of where the nearest one to the truth departs from it). Don't let her formulate her own answer. Silently comparing the Mike statement with her original confession, take her, point by point through each sentence in the Mike statement asking for comments. Don't give her any idea which points particularly interest you. Draw her out and let her expand both on any area of contradiction and some areas which seem perfectly innocent. Don't give a hint of what has interested you until you've gone through the whole Mike statement with her. Then go back to the beginning ticking and crossing her answers from her confession. See whether she spots any contradiction looming up and creates an improvisation to explain it or an emotional diversion to distract from it. Martin F
Author: Ivor Edwards Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 05:08 am
Hi Martin, I hope Anne doesn't see the above post. Fore-warned is to be prepared.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 05:37 am
Good points all. I just hope that Anne will feel she has something to gain from allowing herself to be questioned. I've been racking my brain, and this may sound negative, but I can't think of anything that would induce me, in such a situation - innocent or guilty - to answer anyone's questions. At best, if she is innocent, she can only hope to come across as a very skilled liar with a damned good memory, to those who 'know' she must have lied in July 1994. At worst, if she is indeed guilty of knowing the diary was a modern fake when Mike took it to London, she could trip herself up badly and the game would be over. In short, she'd be condemned even more thoroughly than she is already. What proportion of her questioners could she really hope to win over, however well she performs? And if she does less than a perfect job of it, she stands to lose all those who have believed her up to now, and others, like me, who have chosen to reserve judgement. Love, Caz
Author: Paul Begg Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 06:38 am
Given that only now do people seem prepared to question their hitherto firm convictions about Anne's guilt or innocence, I feel that we have some distance to go before any questions be put to Anne. I would love Anne to be present at Bournemouth and had considered asking her, but a public interogation would not be suitable or advisable nor would a largely social event make a suitable venue. The 'diary' has generated a lot of hostility and I certainly wouldn't wish to risk any hostility being directed at a lady whose full cooperation is ultimately requried. If Anne did attend the conference in Bournemouth, it would be as a guest of the Cloak and Dagger Club and any active participation would be entirely up to her. Any serious questioning with an independent person - I'd nominate Donald Rumbelow personally - should, I think, be reserved for a later time.
Author: Ivor Edwards Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 06:59 am
Donald is a good choice for obvious reasons. Of course the interview could always be done on a one to one basis in private and not in public.That is more than a fair compromise.Also under the circumstances I do feel it only fair that she should be asked to take a LDT at some stage.In the public interest I think it only fair that she should accept the offer.
Author: Martin Fido Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 07:28 am
I agree about the polygraph, Ivor. She has been through the type of questioning I outline above once (not in relation to Mike's statements). It led to a good deal of complicated revision of her account of the ways rooms had been used in the Barrett house from time to time and during redecorating to explain why the piece of furniture in which she hid the diary had switched from Caroline's room to the spare room in her own statements. I feel that Paul and the Cloak and Dagger committee have a virtually impossible task on their hands if they want to play the gracious and protective host to a lady who will certainly evoke a certain amount of cynical disbelief as her story unfolds. This has happened whenever Anne has been exposed to the public, and it may not be easy for the committee to keep her protected against wounding scepticism. When Feldy - who meant her no harm whatsoever, and was being very generous to her - confronted her with me in the flesh - (we had spoken on the telephone and exchanged letters previously) - she had a virtual screaming fit and shut herself in the bathroom for some time, she was so strongly in favour of NOT meeting me at all. The meeting did not produce a meeting of minds. Martin F
Author: Ivor Edwards Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 01:19 pm
Say no more Martin, I was only saying to someone yesterday that if Anne was a liar and any person met her and she concidered them a threat to her story her first reaction would be to lose her cool and leave the room pronto. I have seen this happen before in similar circumstrances with women who have something to lose when placed on the spot.By this remark I do not intend to offend the fair sex so ladys please do not take my words in the wrong context. I simply state facts relating to my observations.I am not a male chauvinist pig, God forbid.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 01:23 pm
From Keith Skinner To Peter Birchwood There is no secret that I was deeply offended when you posted a message on the board, (Thursday, June 3rd, 1999 03:03 pm), which contained the following statement: �Keith will know what I mean when I mention the birth certificate that had been obviously altered.� This created the clear impression that I condoned working with a doctored document. Why you should have chosen to do this Peter I simply do not know. However, I do note your conciliatory gesture in extending an invitation, (on behalf of yourself and Shirley Harrison), ��to either Paul Feldman, Paul Begg or Keith Skinner�� to join you in a meeting. If the place is still vacant and the invitation still holds, then I accept, in the hope that our personal conflict might be resolved. But why not include Melvin Harris � the one person who can bring this overall divisive controversy to an immediate end? In the meantime, I have sent to Anne Graham a copy of your post of Tuesday, April 10, 2001 @ 6:54 am, where you suggest it would be worthwhile for you to meet Anne at her Liverpool home. I personally think you should interview her in a public forum, (perhaps the Cloak & Dagger), where other people could have the opportunity of asking Anne questions direct. So, until we confront each other, I will withdraw from making any further contribution to this board.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 01:35 pm
Hi Ivor, You wrote: ...her first reaction would be to lose her cool and leave the room pronto. I have seen this happen before in similar circumstrances with women who have something to lose when placed on the spot. I think it's slightly unfair to limit this sort of behaviour to females who are lying or have something to hide. We see enough people of both sexes who lose their cool and leave these boards from time to time. It doesn't necessarily mean they have all been dishonest about something, does it? There could be many explanations for such behaviour, although I have to admit, it does sometimes strike me that people who have the courage of their convictions and nothing to hide are more likely to stay the course and not fly off in a huff - unless, of course, like Anne, they may fear they are on a hiding to nothing, whatever they say or do. Love, Caz
Author: Ivor Edwards Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 01:38 pm
How about Anne Graham to meet with Melvin Harris!!!!!! Boy I'd sell tickets for that one. Mind you she would have to be tied up in the chair and pumped full of valium.
Author: Martin Fido Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 02:20 pm
It would be cruelty to both parties, I fear, Ivor. Anne has declared that she has nothing but contempt for people who are interested in the identity of Jack the Ripper. Melvin doesn't come across at his best in exchanges where he is sure before he starts that he knows all the answers. Martin
Author: Ivor Edwards Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 05:50 pm
Hi Caroline,I do take note of your opinions and would go so far as to state that you appear to be a very fair minded person.When people act in the manner as described by Martin in such a situation I tend to get rather suspicious. Hi Martin,Anne saying she has nothing but contemp for people who are interested in finding out the identity of Jack the Ripper.Taking her situation into account I find that comment most odd to say the least. She must hold 99% of people on the casebook in contempt if that is the case.
Author: Martin Fido Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 10:59 pm
I have always born that in mind when approaching her, Ivor. And I'm not at all happy about what it implies with relation to one or two people who have been very kind and supportive to her. Martin
Author: Karoline L Monday, 16 April 2001 - 09:27 am
I note from one or two recent posts that doubts still seem to be being raised over AG's intent to profit from the forged diary. It is now being suggested that she might have received her royalty payments as a result of MB's intervention - and against her will. With this in mind perhaps it would be helpful to state that on September 27 1994, solicitors acting for AG made a direct application to MB's solicitors. The letter states that it has recently come to the attention of AG's solicitors that MB is to be paid £12,000 by Paul Feldman of "Duo Crave Productions", The letter goes on: "If this is the case and your client is due to receive monies, we would be obliged if you would advise us immediately that any monies due to your client will come via yourselves as you are acting as Power of Attorney for him. We would also be obliged if you would advise us as to the exact amount your client is due to receive. If indeed it turns out that you do receive monies on behalf of your client in respect of the above, we require your immediate undertaking that you will hold it to your order in a joint deposit account in the name of ourselves for Mrs Barrett and yourselves for Mr.Barrett until Ancillary Relief matters are resolved." Does everyone agree that this letter is hard to reconcile with any suggestion that AG was reluctant to take money from the diary? Does it not rather show that she was actively seeking to ensure she got her 'fair' share? best wishes Karoline
Author: Paul Begg Monday, 16 April 2001 - 11:04 am
Hello Karoline Frankly, I don't know what it reveals about Anne Graham. I do know that solicitors acting in divorce proceedings can and do seek to act in what they perceive as the long-term best interests of the clients, which very often involves them in securing a claim to monies and other material items in which, quite often, their clients claim no interest, being anxious to do no more than end a traumatic - and in Anne's case, an acrimonious - experience; the solicitor is aware, however, that in the long term material things often do matter and act to secure what they can for their client. However, as I understand it the money is relevant only in that it provides a motive for Anne to have invented her �in the family for years� story. As John Omlor has said, there could have been other motives and R.J.P. and I both, I think, tend to think that the pivotal time was Anne�s �photo album� meeting with Paul Feldman. You quote from a letter written to Mike�s solicitor that was subsequent to that meeting and it may therefore support this contention. If so, Anne�s actions may have had nothing to do with the �royalty� payments derived from Shirley�s book, but, as suggested, have been motivated by talk of a lucrative movie deal. I would suggest, however, that an interest in filthy lucre isn�t in itself a sin of avarice, but is human nature, and the more so if you have been recently divorced, have a child to care for and know from what you have witnessed that the money will otherwise help furnish variously landlords with the readies for two weeks in Jamaica. It does, I think, bring into sharper focus the question of whether Anne�s story was an opportunistic invention motivated by Feldy�s promised money than an concealed admission of Diamine ink-stained fingers.
Author: Christopher T George Monday, 16 April 2001 - 12:27 pm
Hi, Paul: I have heard a number of mentions of Anne Graham's "photo album meeting" with Paul Feldman. It is a while since I have read Paul Feldman's book and I don't have it with me at the moment (of course I have my handy A to Z though! ). I don't recall what that meeting was about. Could you kindly give me a brief synopsis of the gist of that meeting? Thanks in advance! Best regards Chris George
Author: Paul Begg Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 01:02 am
Hi Chris Yes, basically Feldy had been pestering Anne's in-laws and she telephoned him, furiously telling him to lay off. The conversation lasted four hours. Shortly afterwards Feldy drove to Liverpool to talk with Anne and she urned up armed with photo albums and documents to prove that she was who she said she was. According to Feldy's book, towards the end of that meeting he commented that the whole Tony Devereux story was an invention, to which Anne said it wasn't and that she had given the book to Devereux. After that meeting Anne again telephoned Feldy and asked if he was coming up to Liverpool. He suggested that instead she come to London and stay with his family. She did. It was during this visit that Anne asked Paul if he believed her story and Paul said 'not a word'. She then said that she'd feared he hadn't and at her father's urging had decided to tell him the truth. This was the 'in my family for years' story. As said, Anne�s behaviour up to the conclusion of that meeting seems consistent with someone wanting to dissuade Feldy from pursuing his investigations. If anything happened to change Anne�s mind then it happened at or after that meeting (assuming that anything happened at all). Anne may have genuinely feared that Feldy didn't believe her, or Anne may have realised that Feldy would not halt his investigations and would continue to annoy her family, she may have been tempted by any lucrative film deal Feldy discussed, or she may simply have become fed up with the charade and wanted to tell the truth. None of these reasons in themselves mean that the story she told is untrue and none of them mean that she forged the 'diary' � they could do, but aren�t necessarily evidence that she did. At worst she seized an opportunity to make money, at best she told what she thought to be the truth, somewhere in the middle she altruistically lied to take the pressure from her in-laws and family. It is the involvement of her father that niggles at my mind. Also the admission that she had given the �diary� to Devereux. Reading Feldy�s book it would seem like his question came out of the blue and that Anne�s question was spontaneous, even perhaps to the point of being a revelation Anne didn�t intend. If the latter then the implication would be that Anne having given the �diary� to Devereux was either a spontaneous invention or a story already in existence at the time of the �photo album� meeting. If this is a thought with any merit, what we have to try to work out is whether the story existed because Anne for some reason had the �in my family for years� provenance story invented and ready for use or whether she let slip that she�d given the �diary� to Devereux because that is what she did do.
Author: R.J. Palmer Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 08:04 am
Paul--Hello. I haven't seen Anne claim anywhere that her 'revelation' was at her father's insistance. Maybe it's something I've missed, but I've re-looked in several places and haven't found this. She originally told Feldy (at the Moat house) that she wouldn't tell the truth 'until my father is buried' (Feldman, 168).
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 08:30 am
Hi, Paul: Thanks for your summary of Anne Graham's "photo album meeting" with Paul Feldman. I had thought that perhaps when the term "photo album" was used you meant the book in which the Diary is written, which appears originally to have been a photo album or scrapbook. Instead you meant that Anne had brought photo albums to the meeting to prove that she was whom she said she was. Thank you for clarifying the situation and dispelling my confusion. All the best Chris
Author: Paul Begg Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 08:55 am
Hi RJP "We walked the thirty yards to the end of the top lawn, where steps led down to the lower lawn. We sat on those steps. She said her father had encouraged her to come down to talk to me. She had also been concerned by the report that I had shown her at the Moat House, although, at the time, she had expressed nonchalance..." ( - my emphasis; Feldman, h/back pg.152-3; pg.170 p/back) At the Moat House, when Paul decided to play detective and accused Anne of lying to protect her daughter, Anne denied it and denied also that she was protecting Mike. , Anne remained silent said that she wouldn't tell the story "'until my father is buried'" Feldman, p/back 168). The implication here is that her story had something to do with her father. She also awkwardly admitted that she had given the 'diary' to Tony Devereux. The implication is that Anne was 'protecting' Billy Graham (presumably to avoid him stress in his ill-health), but, anxious that Feldman hadn't believed her, discussed Feldman with Billy and with his encouragement had sought another meeting. As said, was the 'in my family for years/I gave it to Tony Devereux' story already invented by the time of the Moat House meeting? Was it a spontaneous invention at that meeting? Was the 'I gave it to Tony Devereux' story a truth to which the 'in my family for years' story was later grafted on? Did the 'diary' really come from Billy who got it from...?
Author: Paul Begg Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 09:10 am
Hi Chris Sorry, I didn't mean to confuse. I'm not sure, by the way, that the book is a photo album. I think it is a memento book into which all manner of treasures could be placed, photographs among them. The only evidence that it was a photo album is the imprint of a photo � I don�t recall whether there was evidence of it actually having been stuck in, rather than just inserted (which could have been done at any time), and a piece of photograph (ditto). One thought we had all those years ago was that supposing the diarist was Maybrick, it was unlikely that he would have bought a diary or anything else to write in. Writing would initially have been a way of exorcising the overwhelming jumble of emotions he would have been feeling on discovering Florence�s infidelities. He would probably have written on the spur of the moment and on anything that came to hand. A book of memento�s seemed likely (even an album of photos of Florrie) and one could imagine him sorrowfully looking through the book at the tangible remains of the many happy times they�d had together, torturing himself with her deceit, then expelling his hurt and anger on the first available blank page. Straight out of Mills and Boon!