|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 19, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-Archives 2001:
Archive through April 19, 2001
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 09:57 am |        | Hi, Paul:
Yes, that's why I said "photo album or scrapbook," meaning, as you say, a memento book with all manner of things stuck in it--newspaper clippings (Jack's reviews perhaps?  ), autographs, flowers, ribbons, and photographs, and so on.
I don't quite buy your notion that the lovelorn Maybrick would have written on anything available, since he would probably have wanted to keep his thoughts secret, and to write all his thoughts in a book that he could hide away at his office for this reason makes some sense. On the other hand, there seems no evidence from the few samples of Maybrick's handwriting that have turned up, that the real-life Maybrick was a prolific writer at all. The only letters that have turned up are the letter written on board the S.S. Baltic, reproduced in Feldman, and the business memos from Richmond, Virginia, Chancery Court, one of which is also reproduced in Feldy's book. This though in itself seems mysterious since a number of Florence's letters are known, including the famous letter to Brierley, published in facsimile in Alexander Macdougall's defense of Florie, that appeared within a few short years after her September 1889 conviction of murdering James. It would seem likely that Maybrick's brothers may have destroyed his correspondence, not because they thought he was Jack, I should add, but just to save family embarrassment, particularly if any of his letters discussed his drug habits.
I too am intrigued by the thought of any role that Billy Graham may have had in the Diary saga, other than being interviewed by Feldman to produce rather vague statements about Jack the Ripper and Battlecrease Mansion, Florence Maybrick, and the possible family connection to Florie, the latter of which seems to have been more Feldman's invention than actual. The statements in Feldman that she would not tell the story of the Diary "until my father is buried" (paperback, p. 168) and her statement that it was her father who encouraged her to talk to Feldy (ditto, p. 170) all seem, as you indicated, to hint at a greater role by him in the Diary story than is evident from either Shirley Harrison's book or Feldman's book.
All the best
Chris George |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 10:57 am | | Hi Chris
I don't particularly buy that notion either! It was just a suggestion, but I thought quite a plausible explanation for a memento book to have been used. Though, of course, it's entirely fictional since Maybrick didn't write it.
I think one of the moments that stuck in the minds of those who were there or heard the tape or whatever was Anne's reaction when Billy started claiming that Florence had a child before she married Maybrick and Anne angrilly said "Who told you that?" Was this a piece of spontaneous invention by Billy? Or a dredging from memory of some garbled tale? Either way it seems to have taken Anne aback a bit. But why invent all this story? Why not simply say 'I inherited it and dunno where it came from prior to that'? |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 11:26 am | | Referring to Keith Skinner's latest it seems surprising that he could still be thinking of something two years old. I never of course accused him of knowingly working with an altered birth record but said that he was the person who pointed it out. However...
On his original post (the "hypocrisy" one) he says: "Whilst on the general theme of my incompetence and devious
machinations let me refer you back to your post of Tuesday March 13th 2001:
"Keith Skinner did understand by, at the latest November 1996 that his
letter to Anne Barrett (as she then was) of May 1994 could have given her
the idea of a Graham family connection for the diary."
Would you please clarify for me how you know what my understanding was in
November 1996?"
Simplicity itself. On the 12th November 1996 Keith wrote a letter to Rod
Green, Senior Editor of Virgin Publishing which he copied to several other
authors and researchers. This was sent in response to a letter sent by
Melvin Harris to Colin Wilson on 18th October 1995 which in turn was copied
to Rod Green. (Sounds confusing? It gets worse.) According to Keith that
letter (the Harris/Wilson one) contained "two defamatory allegations about
me that cast considerable doubt on my probity." Now I've looked through this
lengthy (15-page) letter and although there are one or two places where the
name "Skinner" is mentioned I can see nothing that would call for the quoted
statement; nothing defamatory or casting doubt on his probity. Perhaps again
Keith could point out the two allegations? I wouldn't like to have to scan all 15 pages onto this board. Anyway, to carry on, Keith gives
on page two (of the 12th November letter if you're getting lost) a
chronology of his work on the Anne Graham FAMILY provenance. The second para
in this says (I quote the complete para) "On May 11th 1994 I wrote to Anne
Barrett c/o her husband. Mr. Harris will no doubt wish to cite the third
paragraph as proof that I planted the suggestion of linking the journal to
the Graham family. I never received a reply to my letter."
This Anne Barrett letter is the one that Keith referred to on 15/5/2000 when
he said: " . Well, there is no suspicious letter or telephone call to Anne
Graham, just as there is no tampered document. If Mr Birchwood can
substantiate any of his innuendo, which I suspect is calculated to raise
suspicion about me, then I invite him to submit it to the board."
Following his invitation, I posted a scan of that letter to the board.
Lastly he says: " And finally, in your same post, you draw attention to my
apparent confusion "about research concerning fairly unusual names such as
Blakiston or Conconi", suggesting that someone of your professional standing
would probably be able to help me out."
Glad to do it, although it is actually reminding him of something that
happened about two years ago and I should say that the only reason that I
brought it up was a comment by Keith's friend about differing Formby
families where I was accused of making a mistake, certainly something that
is perfectly possible: all genealogists can make mistakes especially when
they're doing the research "pro bono." However as Keith has so far not
scanned an important certificate onto this site I must say that my original
statement on this matter is "not proven." Let's get back to Conconi.
I quote from my earlier post of 25/6/1999:
Cloak and Dagger Gasbags etc.
"Lastly, remember the mystery concerning Gertrude Conconi o/w Blackiston,
Christiana's "daughter" as per the 1881 and 1891 census? As late as the
publication of Shirley's new edition neither she, Feldman or their research
teams were able to trace the girl's birth. Feldman wondered "whether we had
discovered an illegitimate James and Sarah offspring, born in 1873."
Gertrude is actually born in Portsea, Hants. in 1872 as Emily Gertrude
Blakiston. She probably has a brother Sidney Frederick, born there in 1871
who ten years later was being brought up by his Uncle Norman Blakiston and
his Aunt Emma in Gloucester Rd. St. Pancras. Typical, I think of the
slipshod research work that went into both Maybrick books"PB 25/6/1999
And now Keith's response:
. Dear Peter
Thank you for your message of June 25th 1999 @ 09.26 am. I will try and
respond, in full, to your many points over this coming weekend. From a rapid
scan of what you have written, the most interesting aspect for me is that
you appear to have successfully identified Gertrude Conconi. Allowing it is
the correct birth (and from memory, without checking my notes - I suspect it
is is, as it has the right 'feel' about it) this could now help clarify or
resolve an unexplained part of James Maybrick's life. At the very least it
helps to develop the research - so thank you for that constructive lead. I
may well pull the birth certificate next time I am at the Family Records
Centre. KS 25/6/1999
Pretty simple really: a minor point in the saga that confused the diary
research teams but it seems that they didn't look for a variation of the
name Blackiston. And it was nice of Keith to thank me for "that constructive
lead" although I would doubt that it ever clarified any part of James
Maybrick's life.
So there we are; it doesn't look as though I will be invited to drink
Sundowners on the terrace of Skinner Towers, watching the gentle Thames
carry the gaily-dressed ladies in their canoes down river from Teddington
Lock and listening to the Massed Choral Society of the Society of
Genealogists but life is tough." |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 11:27 am | | Hi, Paul:
I think Anne could have been as surprised as anyone that a family link to Florence Maybrick might have been possible, which as she says in the introduction to The Last Victim her father "appeared" to confirm. However, I think most of us here are convinced that Billy Graham was led to that way of thinking by Paul Feldman's line of questioning and the thought that Florence Maybrick used the name Graham after her release from prison. Yet, the connection of this Liverpool Graham family with Florence seems a coincidence of names rather than any real and provable connection.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 12:10 pm | | Hi Chris
I worry slightly about the word 'convinced' in relation to Paul Feldman having provoked Billy's avenue of thinking. He may have done, Keith may have done, or something else may have done. We don't know what, if anything, did. And I personally don't feel comfortable at this juncture about pre-judging either Anne or Billy Graham. Was Billy genuinely trying to dredge details from his memory or was he fabricating like mad? And if the latter, why? And if the latter, wasn't Billy dangerously over-salting the stew? |
Author: Rachel Henderson
Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 01:49 pm | | Please can someone help me with one small but puzzling aspect of this? I've been following the comments on the various Maybrick boards for a while. Again and again it crops up that Paul Feldman was 'harrassing' Anne Graham's family. Is this true, and what on earth was he actually doing?
The reason I ask is that I simply cannot understand why AG would spend 4 hours on the phone with a man she is allegedly not remotely interested in talking to, followed by various vists - even staying with his family.
If she was really worried, could she not have had an intermediary ask him to desist from pestering her, or gone to court for a restraining order or something?
Please help, I really feel like I missed something important somewhere!
Rachel |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 02:09 pm | | Hi Rachel,
All Paul Feldman ever wanted of me was that I agree with and endorse his opinions, taking in each new idea as it came to him, and preferably enthusiastically adding some supportive fact to buttress it. This was enough to have him on the telephone to me for long 40-minute plus calls several times a week, sometimes more than once a day (especially if he made them on a mobile phone which lost contact eerily as he drove up the motorways). He was deeply resentful if I had other things to do and could not spare him the time. As I was at that time caring single-handed for my elderly mother and, in the school holidays, for my 12-year-old son, his phone calls while I was cooking or laundering were often extremely unwelcome - especially as they didn't often say anything I believed. When I was preparing dinner for houseguests who had just arrived and insisted that I couldn't give him more than half an hour, he expresssed himself as outraged that I should think my duties as a host more important than listening to him chunter out his latest loony ideas. It was evident to him that I was not worthy to be taken seriously as a Ripper historian if I rated courtesy to my family and guests more important than listening to his nonsense.
Moreover, at one point he persuaded Paul Begg to add calls trying to persuade me to believe things I didnt. When Keith Skinner was staying with me in Cornwall, the answerphone would get clogged with five to seven calls a day from Feldy.
Now, none of us was possessed of information he deemed vital to his pursuit of the truth. None of us could be suspected of withholding data which would instantly resolve all his difficulties. And yet his badgering undoubtedly amounted to harrassment. I shudder to think what life would have been like if he believed that I might be privy to a family secret which would have resolved his huge provenance problem! I wouldn't have been surprised or critical if Anne adopted anything from a shotgun to a super-bloodless castrator to get the bloody man off her family's back. His belligerent persistence could undoubtedly be seen as a modern form of Chinese water torture for extracting the statements he knew he needed and wrongly believed were being dishonestly withheld from him.
Under these circumstances, the Richard Topcliffe of Ripper studies finally got the statement he wanted from Anne.
With all good wishes,
Martin F |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 03:10 pm | | Hi Martin
I think I actually telephoned you at Paul's behest only once, and that was when he wanted your opinion and Keith’s (Melvyn Fairclough having 'phoned Keith at the same time) on something to do with Mary Kelly. I effectively ceased working for Paul in 1993, as I say in the foreword to his book, and my contact with him thereafter was only marginally greater than yours. Also, Paul always targeted those who most rigidly opposed him, being firmly convinced that their agreement with his idea was the most meaningful. Thus he targeted you far more strongly than the rest of us and you suffered more than most.
Hi Rachel
Basically, Paul had made a very considerable investment of time and money in his belief in the 'diary' and he was convinced that the Barretts knew more than they were telling. He therefore telephoned and interrogated members of the family, sometimes several times. Some were upset, perhaps unsurprisingly given what Martin has described above. Anne had also disassociated herself from the 'diary' altogether at this point and had gone to ground, not even Shirley Harrison knowing Anne's whereabouts. When family members turned to her with complaints, this returned her to an arena she didn’t want to be in, thus she telephoned Paul with more vehemence than was probably deserved.
There is one curious detail in Paul Feldman's account of this event, however, that may deserve consideration. Writing of the complaints to Anne that led up to her phone call, he wrote: “Someone had telephoned her, clearly upset. I concluded that it must have been Lynne Barrett because of recent events and later discovered that I had been right. But I remember thinking at the time: why has Lynne contacted Anne if the diary belongs to Mike? I was just a few days away from finding out more than I had hoped.” (p/back pg.163)
It’s a good question. |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 05:28 pm | | Hi Paul,
Twice at least. Once with some crap about Joe Sickert's being Mary Jane Kelly's grandson, that being a useful distractive line the old liar had dreamed up when Feldy, for once, bellowed cynical disbelief at his earlier taradiddles instead of swallowing them whole and starting some wild new theory, so that Joe urgently needed some new story to keep him in the limelight he demands. And once to insist that Sarah Lewis either definitely was or definitely was not identical with Mrs Kennedy. I've forgotten which was important to Feldy at the time, but one or the other way he was very insistent, and quite furious that I continued to say it was a matter of 'probably' not 'positively'.
I agree that your involvement to the extent of carrying messages from him was only a matter of a couple of weeks or so. But, boy, they were awful weeks!
As for your point to Rachel about Lynne's contacting Anne rather than Mike, surely anybody who wanted to achieve anything would have done so at that period? I mean, that was when Mike was making everyone's life a misery with enormously long drunken telephone calls saying nothing whatever and managing to use up all the tape on any answer machines that weren't self-stopping. (I was lucky to escape most of that, as he made just one call to me when I was away and must have realized he'd been cut off in full maunder after his two and a half minutes expired. But all the rest of you were certainly suffering even worse from Mike than I was from Feldy.)
Martin |
Author: stephen stanley
Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 06:32 pm | | I Know I've asked this before....But have there been any further opinions from Feldman since his Book was Published? they seem conspicuous by their absence.
Steve S. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 18 April 2001 - 12:49 am | | Hi Martin
They may have been awful weeks for you - you only had to speak to me. Imagin what is what like for me being in the middle! And imagin how many phone calls you didn't get because I was in the middle! When I wasn't there, you got loads more.
I agree about why Anne rather than Mike was contacted, I'm just not entirely sure what Anne might have been expected to do about it. And I wonder, too, whether Anne might have told her 'in my family for years' story because of the upset Paul was causing - that far from being motivated by avarice, it was motivated by altruism. That possibility kind of paints Anne in a different light. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 18 April 2001 - 12:53 am | | Hi Stephen
Not much word at all. I received an email from him a few months back, but I guess he's single-mindedly re-building his life and his career and making his next million after a rather debilitating illness. |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 18 April 2001 - 07:01 am | | Hi Paul,
You imagine that the great man stopped putting his own oar in because he was using you to add to the volume of undesirable telephonic communication? You imagine wrongly.
Hi Stephen,
I have been told that he declares serenely that he has no further interest in the Ripper since he knows who he was and has written a book proving it.
Martin F |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 18 April 2001 - 07:27 am | | | No, Martin. I don't imagine that at all. Heaven's no.I just meant that you were bothered rather less than you would otherwise have been by me not 'phoning you as often as urged to do so. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 18 April 2001 - 09:05 am | | Hi All,
There we are, you see. It's like I've said before. Those with unshakeable beliefs don't usually care for discussions in which their beliefs are debated - or tested. It tends to bore them rigid or turn them into bad-tempered tomatoes.
Hi Peter,
You wrote:
Referring to Keith Skinner's latest it seems surprising that he could still be thinking of something two years old.
...I should say that the only reason that I
brought it up [ie the Conconi business, something that happened about two years ago] was a comment by Keith's friend about differing Formby families where I was accused of making a mistake...
Ironic, isn’t it? ‘Keith’s friend’ was challenging RJ’s recent statement of fact, that you were the only person in two years who had given the board any documentary evidence concerning the link, or absence of same, between Billy Graham’s step-granny, Elizabeth Formby, and Alice Yapp. You are quite right, Peter. Your ‘original statement on this matter is “not proven”’, is it? Are you asking Keith to disprove it for you? I’d have thought it in your own interests to prove to RJ, and the board, that you found the right Elizabeth Formby - unless, of course, you have decided to drop that part of your case. But you didn't write anything to that effect, which makes it appear that you were content to leave RJ and others with a mistaken impression about what you had or hadn't proved. This is just one clear example of how unconfirmed information given to the boards can become absorbed and trotted out in the future as definitely ascertained fact - which is precisely why Karoline has been asking for such information to be backed up by documentation where at all possible.
I’ll gladly pass on your latest message to Keith, even though you still haven’t commented on Melvin’s apparent reluctance to allow Shirley and the newspaper editor to get in touch, to try to find a way of breaking the sad deadlock. I think it’ll be a great pity if you never get to drink Sundowners on the terrace of Skinner Towers. You are more than welcome to take tea with me here in sunny Shirley, whenever you are down this way. I’d even throw in cucumber sandwiches and a Chelsea bun, if you were to smile nicely in my direction.
Love,
Keith’s Friend
(or Mama Caz – the nicest one, from two years ago, or caz, or Caroline Ann [sic], or even Mrs Morriss [sic])
Still, it could be worse. You could just have done with it and refer to me as 'that dreadful woman from Croydon'...  |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 18 April 2001 - 12:15 pm | | "I think one of the moments that stuck in the minds of those
who were there or heard the tape or whatever was Anne's
reaction when Billy started claiming that Florence had a
child before she married Maybrick and Anne angrilly said
"Who told you that?"
Paul, could you tell us, from the tape or transcript of Billy Graham's interview, where Billy incontrovertibly says or claimed that his father was a child of Florence Chandler? And if you have those tapes or transcripts, can we study them?
Concerning AG there are a couple of things that would be worth knowing: what was the story she told Feldy that he didn't believe? It had something to do with the "confidential report's strange information" but what was that original information from the private investigator, what was AG's explanation for it that was acknowledged to be a lie and is it surprising that she came up with this lie within one day of Feldy showing her the report?
The other thing is what happened in February 1993 when Feldy met AG for the first time together with Paul Begg and Martin Howells. The (summarised) story (Feldman 1st edn. p. 129/130) goes:
Martin Howells: "We believe that you got the diary from Tony but there must be more"
MB "Would you split on a mate?"
AG "What was that?"
Feldy explains that "we accepted the story of Tony...but felt that if Mike knew that Tony had perhaps bought something that was not quite kosher, he would not be able to say so.
AG "Did you nick it, Mike?"
Any idea what that means, Paul?
Regarding Mr. Kane:
Chris, you asked how he signs his name: mostly as "G. Kane," once at least as "Gerrard Kane" and on his marriage certificate and electoral registration as "Gerard Kane." My understanding about his interviews was that he was considered too ill to be questioned properly as far as the Police investigation went and the CPS decided that there wasn't a good case against the publisher anyway.
Lastly, a question: What else started in 1992 , involved a London-based owner of a small video production company and has had a somewhat controversial history? |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 18 April 2001 - 01:50 pm | | Hi, Stephen, Paul, et al.:
There should be an interview with Paul Feldman appearing in the next issue of Ripper Notes. Mr. Feldman is scheduled to be interviewed by Tom Wescott. Stephen, for more information on Ripper Notes go to http://www.casebook-productions.org/
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 18 April 2001 - 02:58 pm | | Hi Paul,
Just noticed that I never signalled complete agreement with you that the immediate trigger for Anne's 'confession' was certainly not avarice, but quite definitely the need to try and stop Feldy's nuisance calls to all her nearest and dearest. I don't know whether I'd call it altruism, for if I'd been one of her family getting badgered by Feldy I should certainly have rushed Anne the question, Macbeth Act I, sc.ii, l.1?'
Martin |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 18 April 2001 - 04:29 pm | | Martin,
Indeed. And in this whole business it does often seem as if fair is foul and foul is fair...
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 01:04 am | | Peter
Paul Feldman’s book contains the exchange in which Billy is referring to someone being fifteen. He said: “No. No. My dad – if she’d trying to… She was trying to claim… that my dad was her son.” He continued: “Right, now at the time she was in America, wasn’t she?” There was some slight confusion about who Billy was talking about, but then Paul Feldman said: “Oh, you’re talking about Florence…?” and Billy said: “Yes, yes. She was in America when she was only fifteen… Right? Well she could have – she had a child didn’t she – before?” And then asked: “Who told you that?” (Feldman p/back 186-7)
Unless you know of someone else who was fifteen and had an association with America then it seems reasonable to suppose, as did Feldman, that Billy was talking about Florence. If he wasn’t talking about Florence, who was he talking about? And it was a bit of nimble thinking to suddenly switch from whoever it was he was talking about to Florence wasn’t it? But if he was talking about Florence then “She was trying to claim… that my dad was her son” seems pretty much like a direct statement to me. How do you interpret it?
As far as I understand it, the information contained in the investigator’s report was a consequence of a very minor security issue concerning someone else. It is a private matter which those involved should be permitted to reveal if they so wish and in my view it has no apparent relevance except that it justifiably added weight to Paul Feldman’s idea that Mike and Anne were not Mike and Anne, a belief that did have significant consequences.
I have no idea what it meant – except that “Did you nick it Mike?” is a strange question for Anne to have asked Mike if (a) Anne knew the ‘diary’ was forged and (b) had in fact given the ‘diary’ to Devereux to give to Mike. On the other hand, if she knew that she had given the ‘diary’ to Devereux, the question was perfectly safe and produced a denial that eliminated theft as a possibility. It also conveyed an open-minded uncertainty about the origins of the ‘diary’. What do you think it means? |
Author: Karoline L
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 01:46 am | | I think before anyone can 'interpret' Billy Graham's meaning or any possible significance of his taped interview, it's essential that the entirety of that interview or a transcript thereof is made publicly available.
Until then it would be irresponsible of anyone to attempt intertpretations, evaluations or anything else.
Paul, if you have a copy of the tape, are you able to make it available?
Could a transcript be published here perhaps?
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 02:13 am | | Hello Karoline
As I understand it the tape is the property of Paul Feldman and I guess you should approach him for a copy - assuming it still exists; Paul has been through a lot over the last few years and I have no idea what his files are like now. Ditto the transcript. An extract of the discussion was published by Paul, as given above. Is there any reason to suppose that it isn't a fair and accurate account or that it is wrongly inferred that Billy Graham was talking about Florence?
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 03:38 am | | Hi Martin/John
I'm not familiar with "Macbeth" so tried to look it up and find the passage you indicated. The line I found was "Hey Costas, luv, where's the loo?", which not only struck me as an inappropriate response for Anne but also unlikely to have been written by Shakespeare. I'm sure it was written by Willy somebody, but I think I may have been looking at the wrong play.
I did come across the following, however. And the more I think about it, the more I think the idea is superb, though I suspect that Hank Azaria would upstage everyone, just as he managed to do brilliantly in "The Birdcage" (and given that that film starred the brilliant Nathan Lane and a subdued Robin Williams, upstaging both was no mean feat).
Billy Bob Thornton to make major studio debut
by Mercutio DiCaprio
News-Letter Staff
It is not often that I will stand up in a crowded movie theater and exclaim "brilliant!" but when I do, you should probably ask me to sit back down. Well, that is exactly what I did at my recent screening of Billy Bob Thornton's new version of William Shakespeare's "Macbeth".
I was apprehensive at first when I learned of Thornton's following up the quiet, introspective "Slingblade" with a loud in-your-face updating of the classic, but my worries proved unfounded. In fact, what I initially thought as unfortunate casting turned out be a masterstroke. Jean-Claude Van Damme brings a brooding depth to the title character that neither Orson Welles or Paul Reubens were able muster in previous versions. He is not merely a pawn in Lady Macbeth's sinister schemes, but a kinetic force all his own. When Van Damme plays himself, his parents, his uncle, and his grandfather in a hilarious round-table scene you can practically smell the farts coming off the screen.
Equally effective is Hank Azaria as the Cuban Lady Macbeth. Performing the legendary character as a drag hoot underscored the loneliness and desperation at the heart of such evil acts.
By replacing the dagger as murder weapon with a swift karate chop and Mortal Kombat-style spine-pull Thornton was able to accentuate the feral aspects of Van Damme's performance.
Jackie Chan's Macduff and William Shatner's Banquo helped round out a fantastic cast.
The film makes a lot of sense as indie darling Thornton's major studio debut. It's themes of betrayal, megalomania, and sexual dominance gel perfectly with his previous work in "A Family Thing" and "Sling Blade". Also, he one-ups Kenneth Branagh by not only presenting the entire text of Shakespeare, but by adding two extra hours of girlie-show footage, bring the running time to 6 1/2 hours. Still, the film runs at a brisk clip.
A cameo appearance by Kevin Bacon should help secure this film's place in Kevin Bacon Game history. This seems to be the best reason to hire Bacon for your film anyway; to make sure that web-nerds remember it.
The film will open at the Senator this weekend and is expected to break the box office record previously set by the potent pairing of "The Spot" and "Mardi Gras, Baltimore". And look for Van Damme and Azaria at Oscar time next year. Their standout performances should not be forgotten.
found at http://www.jhu.edu/~newslett/AprilFools97/Van_Damme._Chan_collaborate_on_Macbeth_film.html |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 05:49 am | | 'What bloody man is this?'
Macbeth, Act I, sc.ii, l.1
Martin |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 06:36 am | | What bloody man is who?
Sorry, I couldn't resist that. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 07:50 am | | Yep, just found that quote myself, Martin. And, judging by what I've heard, that's exactly what Feldy's victims might have been asking Anne.
"Lay on plum duffs", I always say, "and a sissy be him that cries, Hold on, I've had quite enough!"
Anyway, where were we? Oh yes.
Hi Karoline,
You wrote:
I think before anyone can 'interpret' Billy Graham's meaning or any possible significance of his taped interview, it's essential that the entirety of that interview or a transcript thereof is made publicly available.
Until then it would be irresponsible of anyone to attempt intertpretations, evaluations or anything else.
You are certainly coming round to my way of thinking here. I never did think it wise, for those of us who might not have the whole picture, to speculate too much in this way.
One small observation, regarding my posting of Keith's diary note, over on the College Course board, in which he observed that Anne had said the diary transcript was made after she and Mike were in a 'go' situation. An assumption was made (no doubt a reasonable one in the circumstances, but an assumption none the less) that Keith had quoted Anne's exact words in this diary note. And this assumption led to an attempt to interpret and apply a certain significance to the words.
I'd just like to set the record straight and say that the 'go' situation was how Keith chose to describe it - Anne never used those words herself.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 08:02 am | | Could Keith specify what, in general, he understood by whatever Anne's words were? A situation from which Mike could get on with writing The Great Ripper Maybrick novel? Or start creating publishable puzzles from the diary? Or send it out to experts, agents, potential buyers, potential publishers - or who, or what? Keith must have felt that the 'go situation' was going somewhere.
Martin |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 08:18 am | | Hi Martin
I spoke to Keith this morning and I think I am correct in saying that he thought Anne meant visiting Doreen Montgomery. Mike was trying to produce a transcript to take with him and making a hash of it, so Anne took over. Keith's words were merely meaning to indicate a real visit to an agent rather than a talked about hoped for visit. He took the transcript with him and Doreen photocopied it. Photocopies were supplied to publishers, which is how Robert Smith obtained a copy which was in turn photocopied and sent to us.
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 08:50 am | | Hi Martin,
Yes, Paul has interpreted Keith's position in the same way I would have done, since speaking with him yesterday.
In other words, Anne claimed that the transcript was made from the diary, at a point when the meeting between Mike and Doreen looked inevitable.
Maybe too much of a mystery has been made out of all this.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 09:26 am | | Message from Keith Skinner re “Go-Situation”
My words and not Anne Graham’s. The clear recollection I have, when discussing this period of the Diary’s history with Anne, is that when she realised that Mike had a definite appointment to see Doreen Montgomery in London with the Diary on April 13th 1992, (although there was no publishing contract in sight at this time), and that Mike was making such a mess of transcribing it onto the word processor, her sense of professional pride took over and she stepped in, rather than let Mike present a dog’s dinner to Doreen. What I remember most about Anne telling me this story is her mood of resignation at finding herself in a situation which she had never anticipated or expected to happen, as a result of an irrational act, (giving the Diary to Tony Devereux, to pass on to Mike), which, to this day, Anne simply says that, given the circumstances of her marriage, it made perfect sense to her at the time.
Admittedly, this is anecdotal evidence, originating from somebody with a track record for lying, and being brought to the discussion by someone who is suspected of being in collusion with Anne Graham and having “bonded” with her! So, make of it what you wish. |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 09:36 am | | Hello all,
Speaking to Keith about this seems to have clarified, at least somewhat, the order of events here and offered a scenario which begins to make some sense to me. It also suggests a provenance for the transcript on the word processor and the pages that were produced from that transcript and the copies that were made from those pages which still exist. And indeed, Caz, this is also beginning to seem like the "simplest" alternative. (Then again, I have always had a beard and have never actually used a razor -- just a joke everyone, just a joke  )
Anyway, we seem to be beginning to develop at least some actual, material evidence and it at least suggests that the transcription of the diary text was made after the diary forgery was already composed and completed. This would account, it seems to me, for the fact that the transcription was then allowed to remain on the word processor after the diary had been taken to Doreen's.
But this scenario, so far, remains only a narrative told to Keith by Anne (and evidenced in a supplemental but problematic way by the hard copies eventually made and distributed) and it does not, for instance, account for Mike lying (at least twice, I think) about owning the word processor or about having the transcript on it. And, of course, even if the copies were made from the transcription taken to Doreen's, the original file on the machine might nonetheless date back before the diary first "arrived" at the Barrett's. (I still have not seen anyone mention whether or not the files on Mike's machine can be examined for encrypted dates of revisions.)
And this all still leaves Chris George's questions remaining. How were the strike-outs indicated on the word processor and on the copies that everyone received from the word processor transcription? How does one text compare in detail with the other.
Those of us who get a twisted and masochistic pleasure (the only pleasure I know anymore, I'm afraid) from things like painfully close reading might want to all undertake a little project.
I'm not sure this is possible or even legal -- but I'd be willing to participate.
If Martin or Paul or someone else who received the transcriptions from the word processor file could snail mail me a hard copy and maybe mail one to a couple of other volunteers (Chris?) -- we could set up a board here called "Reading the Diary" and begin a close detailed re-reading of the structure, language, rhetoric, and figures of the diary text while at the same time comparing it in detail to the transcription file copy. All just for fun, of course. [NOTE: Even if it would not be proper to distribute the pages, I would still be interested in a "Reading the Diary" board that would at least set out to once again read the words on the page carefully and with an eye towards evidence of dramatic conventions and its scene of composition -- my own initial thoughts still lean towards, for instance, around the time of the centennial for a date, but I would like to see if I can support this using the text. Chris, would you be up for such a thing? Anyone?]
Perhaps this would lead nowhere, of course, but with my mind still fuzzy at this early morning hour, and with a summer of nothing much to do only a week and half away for me, I thought it might be an enjoyable diversion for a short time.
If there are legal problems or if no one else is interested, please feel free to ignore this suggestion.
Still enjoying the conversation as finals week approaches,
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 10:22 am | | Hi John
Mike’s machine was an Amstrad 8256 purchased in April 1986 (Karoline L on Thursday, April 12). This was machine manufactured by a UK company called Amstrad between 1985 and 1987 when it was superceded by the 9512. It was basically a word processor and was supplied with a word-processing package called Locoscript.
To speak of data being “on” this machine is misleading because it did not have a hard disk, only a 3' floppy disk drive and any material written on the machine would have been written onto the disk.
I don’t know whether Locoscript would have produced any ‘creation date’ data but I doubt it, space being at a very high premium in those days. Locoscript, if they still exist (and I don't think they do), might be able to tell anyone interested. But the chances of the disc having survived is probably remote.
Cheers
Paul |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 10:44 am | | Thanks Paul,
I did not realize the machine had no permanent memory. Repeatedly around here people have used the phrase "Mike had the text of the diary 'on his word processor.'" I guess they meant that he had it on a disk at one point. Now, I do know that the big old floppies from my old Kaypro (which also had no hard drive for storage really, just two floppy drives that ran simultaneously using CPM) did have creation and revision dates on them; but I do not know anything about the machine Mike had.
By the way, were you ever able to locate your copy of the transcription? Would it be proper for anyone to make such copies available? I really have no idea about the rules in such a case.
Just wondering,
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 11:06 am | | Hi John
I don't see any reason why a copy couldn't be made, but I haven't had a chance to sort through the pile of Maybrick papers which clutter the stairs leading up to my office. I'll try and go through it when I return from a weekend trip away.
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 11:54 am | | Hi John,
Regret that I have not got the 1992 transcript with me. As Paul says, the 'Maybrick' file threatened to become overwhelmingly large: part of the notable Feldeian generosity was sending out pictures and photographs of everything he discovered. (The downside was that he hoped one would drop everything, read it, and endorse his reading of it). I didn't bring all of it across here when I found myself stuck this side of the Atlantic with a lot of files to transport. And I very probably used the backs of the transcript for printing out other thiongs once Shirley's book put it all in accessible form.
I can't remember how the strike-throughs were done, but I don't recall seeing them as anything new or unexpected when the photocopy of the original arrived. I was more interested in checking up on mis-spellings, starting with 'rondaveau'. And I quickly established that neither Mike nor Anne could spell rendezvous.
Keith's input now settles once and for all the reason for the transcript's being created: it takes into account Anne's stated resistance to the diary being offered for sale. And it gives the absolute and final quietus to my long held suspicion that some one other than Mike 'created' the diary on the word processor for him to copy and misspell in longhand.
Martin F |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 12:30 pm | | Caz--Hello. In response to your post from yesterday: I still don't see where anyone but Peter Birchwood has posted any information about the genealogy behind Anne's "in the family for years" story. And I was merely bemoaning this fact. There doesn't seem to be any real desire for anyone to disclose any documentation that Formby (which ever one) knew Alice Yapp, or that Henry Flinn had an affair with Florie Maybrick, etc. And yes, I've said this before.
So, in my view from the outside, here's what I'm assuming. My guess is that there isn't any documentation, no proof of any kind that any of Anne's relatives or step-relatives had any connection to Battlecrease. All we are really left with is Anne's claim that she saw the diary somewhere around 1968/69, and a great deal of unproven and unprovable speculation by Paul Feldman.
And this is why (I imagine) that the focus has been on 'finding the forgers'. Since Anne's story can't be proven, the only hope for those that believe it is to prove that Mike's confession and the 'modern forgery' theories are muddled or wrong. Then, as long as no one is shown to be the forger, or as long as no one gives a credible confession, it leaves open the possibility that Anne's story is true. But somehow, this still seems backwards to me. There is a strong possibility that the forgers will never be known, and that there never will be a confession (even though we already have one!). But this doesn't really give the diary any more credibility. But one can see this being offered as a defense in statements by Anne Graham, Colin Wilson, Paul Feldman & others. Since no forgers have been apprehended, this allegedly gives the diary some status. But this is hard to take too seriously. The diary still has no provenance. There are still huge doubts about the credibility of Mike & Anne. There are still many, many indications that the diary is a modern creation. Thus, I doubt if there is much threat that Sir Jim will ever go down in history as Jack the Ripper; the fact that the only living person who claims to have seen the diary before 1991 doesn't seem to be particularly interested in cooperating with setting the record straight makes this whole confused saga seem more and more like an exercise in futility.
The critics of the diary are probably in some ways the the diary supporter's best friends. Without a counterattack to fend off, it would probably become obvious that there really is no reason for suggesting that the diary is old, other than McNeil's doubtful test.
Best wishes. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 12:38 pm | | Hi, Keith:
Thank you so much for clarifying that the term "go situation" originated with you and was not actually used by Anne Graham. I regret that several of us thought that it was Anne's actual words and that we made some conclusions on that basis.
Hi, John:
I am always up for a close reading of the Diary but have several important projects that will be consuming my attention over the next week so I had better not be the point man for any project to compare the transcript with the Diary text. I will though pitch in as and where I can in the discussion of the fine points.
John, I agree that the scenario of the existing Diary text on Mike's word processor being put on his computer after the the forgery was done makes sense given your concern that it makes little sense to have kept it on the computer if the text was done on the word processor prior to the forgery.
Hi, all:
Although we got into trouble with parsing Anne's supposed quote that she and Mike were in a "go situation" about taking the Diary to Doreen Montgomery, which turned out to be Keith's terminology and not hers, and thus we should be reluctant to spring again on another supposed quote of hers, I am intrigued that she could have asked Mike, "Did you nick it, Mike?" as reported by Paul Feldman. Unless this comment of Anne's was made in fun, it would seem to run directly counter to the "in the family for years" claim that she later made. That is, it seems to show that she did not know the origins of the Diary despite her later claim otherwise. Does anybody else get this idea?
All the best
Chris |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 12:46 pm | | Hi Martin
Keith's input... gives the absolute and final quietus to my long held suspicion that some one other than Mike 'created' the diary on the word processor for him to copy and misspell in longhand.
But as Keith has made clear, the problem is that the handwriting of the 'diary' doesn't seem to betray any likeness to Mike's. |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 01:14 pm | | Hey Chris,
Thanks for the response. Don't worry about the "Reading" board or any request for assistance. I'll probably start it up anyway, once my own semester ends and the summer arrives and you can feel free to join in whenever you get a chance.
I think you have already done some useful work in this area -- and I think we can actually learn some things about the diary's composition from re-reading it with certain strategies and rhetorics in mind. I also suspect, in the end, that who exactly wrote this thing, and how and where and when, will eventually be discovered one way or another. However, that just might be a flush of optimism brought on by the warm springtime air I took in as I had breakfast al fresco under a fan of palm trees a block off the beach.
Now the Gulf of Mexico is sending a lovely sea breeze into my island apartment and I hear the golf course calling; so it's off to greener pastures.
--John |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 01:28 pm | | Chris--I get the impression that many here have suspected that Anne had something to do with the creation of the diary and that Mike was more or less clueless about its origins. But I think it at least possible that it was the other way around: the diary was basically Mike's little project and that Anne wasn't particularly involved and might have even fought against it. Which would explain a fair amount, in my opinion. A couple of those infamous quotes that I've always thought to be of interest were the one by Anne's secretary friend (interviewed by Shirley & Keith) who said that one day at work "[Anne] was obviously upset and she did say that her husband was writing a book...but that she couldn't talk about it" (Harrison, p 302). And the one where Anne said 'I never dreamed that things would turn out the way they did. When Michael said he was going to take the Diary to London I really thought that Doreen Montgormery would send him packing.' (Harriso, p 305). These quotes seem to have the ring of truth to them. My guess has been that the diary was written by Mike & friends and that Anne had very little to do with it. It seems significant to me that everyone always remarked on Anne's indifference and reluctance during the early days of the diary, up until she made her startling statement to Feldman. This is, I think, was because she was out of the loop. The weakness of my theory is that Anne seems to have cooperated with Mike on his transcript and his research notes. But then, maybe she was merely his reluctant typist.
I think Anne's statement to Feldman, which seems so confusing, is an entirely seperate matter to the creation of the diary.
Best wishes,
RJP |
|
|
|
|
