Archive through April 21, 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 21, 2001

Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: The Maybrick Diary-Archives 2001: Archive through April 21, 2001

Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 01:30 pm
Hi RJP Who is maintaining that the 'diary' is old? We began with a theory that Mike forged the diary. 'Evidence' for that belief was presented. Under analysis the evidence began not to look quite so strong - for example, maybe the 'diary' transcript on Mike's word processor isn't damning after all and so on and so on. I'm not saying that the word processor question has been resolved and is innocent, you understand, just that maybe it's begining to look that way, but the point is that the case against Mike is apparently looking less persuasive. And bad evidence is bad evidence whether it supports a favoured theory or not. Surely what we all want is the truth, not an easy theory based on bad evidence?
Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 01:41 pm
Hi Chris I made that very observation about "Did you nick it Mike?" several posts back and observed there that an alternative interpretation was that Anne wanted Mike to deny theft, so broached it directly instead of letting Paul and Martin H. pussyfoot around it. I was present at that meeting and my memory is that Anne and I were chatting whilst Paul and Martin H. at the end of the table were in serious discussion with Mike. Both Anne and I were half listening to the other conversation and my memory is that Anne simply picked something up and asked that question> I don't recall it being accusatory, rather more questioning in the way of 'what did you say?'
Author: Karoline L Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 03:25 pm
Paul wrote: "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." Thanks for that Paul - but I have to admit I get very unhappy about the amount of "he thought she said and that meant..." type of thing we have surrounding this whole messy business. It's impossible to quantify or to verify, and too often it leads things badly astray (as per the AG's income from the diary, which was wildly misrepresented by such anecdotal reporting). What's needed is some kind of documentation - preferably from Rupert Crew to confirm that copies were indeed made from a typescript supplied by MB and not from any other source. Does such a thing exist? If not, then would there be any objection to an independent party emailing or otherwise contacting Rupert Crew Ltd. to try and obtain any relevant information? Paul - by the way a belated thank you for volunteering your typescript. If you should not be able to find it - are there are others still extant that might be made available? best wishes Karoline
Author: Paul Begg Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 04:15 pm
Hello Karoline Please excuse the rushed reply. I used the words ' I think' and so on purposefully because I was reporting what I understood to be Keith's meaning. Keith will himself explain it in his own words, but as he is not on the internet it takes time for posts to reach him and for him to retun them. If you want to contact Rupert Crew then please do so. But we will end up with Doreen's word for it, since I doubt that there is any documentation to prove what she photocopied Mike's transcript. Both Martin and Keith had their own transcripts and may still have them.
Author: Karoline L Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 04:21 pm
Paul wrote: "We began with a theory that Mike forged the diary. 'Evidence' for that belief was presented. Under analysis the evidence began not to look quite so strong - for example, maybe the 'diary' transcript on Mike's word processor isn't damning after all and so on and so on." Paul: I don't think I have seen any evidence that weakens the case that MB was a party to forging the diary. And I had no idea that the document being on his word processor has been shown to be 'probably' innocent. If we look back at the posted list of relevant data - then we can see that the majority of that data quite clearly does support the contention that MB was a party to the forgery. I don't think anything has come up since to change this, has it? Indeed Peter's recent suggestion regarding the purchase of the red diary and RJP's suggestion that MB and a couple of his mates were the instigators (with AG as a relatively passively involved observer) fit all the known facts probably better than any other hypothesis ever presented. I think it has to remain more likely that MB was one of the forgers who bought the red diary by mistake and composed the text on his wp - than that an entirely speculative 'unknown other' wrote the thing, gave it to MB, then vanished and that MB bought a £25.00 Victorian diary just to see what it looked like! best wishes Karoline
Author: Martin Fido Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 05:04 pm
Karoline - You make it sound as though you think there's something suspicious about Paul and Keith saying 'they think' and 'as far as they remember'. How else are they expected to describe random excerpts from conversations ten years ago at a pretty busy time of their lives: conversations about something which didn't seem to any of us of major importance at the time. (You must bear in mind the howling pursuit of the electricians at Battlecrease who have extraordinarily popped up again briefly on the boards, after being, one thought, definitively cleared by their company's threatening to sue anyone who suggested they had misappropriated property from the house: the people who had overheard things Mike or Tony might have said in The Saddle or at the Legion or on the train from London; Mike's supposed suspicious actions at or immediately after Tony Devereux's funeral; the difficult question of Caroline's confirming that Mike had brought home the diary in a parcel and opened it not knowing what it was. All these things seemed far more important than when or why or how the Barretts made a working copy of the text). It would be much dodgier if those of us to greater or lesser extents involved were always certain about who said what to whom and what they meant. We're each likely to remember things that semeed to matter to us, and to be fairly hazy about things that mattered more to other people. Since Shirley has made one unsuccessful attempt to get information about Anne's finances from Doreen, it surely now falls to those who want to question every Barrett or Graham statement to make the next approach to Rupert Crew. There's nothing to stop you seeing whether they will tell you about any evidence they have, but you will almost certainly, as Paul says, be referred back to the associated agent in question, Doreen Montgomery. And finally, why does poor Mr Begg have to keep being accused (explicitly or implicitly) of 'evasion' and the like when he is merely reiterating a manifest truth: there is a mass of suspicious circumstance surrounding Mike Barrett. There is, however, nothing that can properly be called 'evidence' for or against the proposition that he had a hand in forging the diary. Indeed, according to Melvin Harris, there is definite information, possibly including or amounting to evidence, that Mike definitely did not: he was only a 'placer'. Those who are doubtful about this story would be only too happy to approach the newspaper said to be the source in question, but unlike the people you are challenging who have never disguised that the transcript came to us via the agents (Rupert Crew/Doreen Montgomery) or publishers (Robert Smith), Melvin resolutely refuses to disclose either his source or the detailed content of his information, so none of it can be checked. But that is certainly the next line of enquiry that most needs to be followed up if you really want to stop up the earths down which Mike can escape from the hounds of suspicion. Likelihood and hypothesis - nobody can quarrel with you in favouring these interpretations of Mike's known actions and self-contradictory statements. I have always stressed the former myself. If only we did have some real evidence to point us to the definite nature of his involvement! Paul - I said in an earlier posting that I definitely don't have my transcript with me, and think it likely that I simply re-used the backs of the paper as scrap once Shirley's book came out and put a printed transcript in easy shelvable form. But I certainly don't recall any surprise on seeing strike-throughs and alterations when the photocopy of the original came to back up the transcript. All the best Martin
Author: Mark List Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 05:05 pm
I hate to jump into a conversation right in the middle, but hasn't it been proven that the diary is NOT a recent document? I'll admit that when I first read it, I was more than just convinced, but found myself not wanting to base EVERYTHING on the diary and say "Yes. James Maybrick was the Ripper." I agree whole-heartedly with Paul Beggs that the document has some importance to it, for example; someone around the Victorian Era wanted to frame Maybrick for the killings, or maybe link him to them because he had something to do with them. I find MB to be parnoid, but I doubt that he has the capablity to forge such a "convincing" story. If the dating of the Maybrick Diary is around 1920 or so, it can't modern, but that doesn't it's not a forgery. So, is it not a reasonable thing to say that maybe whoever wrote/forged it isn't around for us to point the finger at? And what ever happened with the Tony ?Debureaux? part of Mike's Story. Has it been established that his connection was a farce or what? Mark
Author: Martin Fido Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 05:15 pm
Mark - The '1920' date was originally propounded by a curious and individualistic sceintist who claims to have found a way of dating when ink was placed on paper. There are two problems. Nobody else has ever been able to duplicate his work, and the only explanation he offers is that his self-invented (I believe) equipment is more sophisticated than anyone else's. And he has not stuck to the 1920 date, but become rather more flexible subsequently. Books on the 'Mormon murders' give an interesting account of him and his relative eccentricity by the normal standards of the scientific community. (They also cast an interesting light on Kenneth Rendell, whose report damning the diary is not one I would strongly dispute, but whose record is not quite as unblemished as his memoirs would suggest). Tony Devereux remains as problematic as ever, since he lies at the heart of the provenance proposed in Anne Graham's 'confessional' account of the diary's past. This makes Mike's account absolutely accurate from Mike's point of view, since Tony allegedly accepted the diary from Anne and followed her instruction to give it to Mike with absolutely no hint of what it was: just the firm instruction to 'do something with it'. Martin Fido
Author: Mark List Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 06:11 pm
Martin- Well, then I sad to hear that the Diary can't (or won't) be dated properly to help either condemn or support some theory of it's origin. I don't believe Maybrick was the Ripper anymore than, perhaps Tumblety (Now don't get mad that I'm comparing a modern suspect with one who Littlechild named as a suspect in ?1909?) They both are likely to one degree or another- It seems to me, according to the research on both men, that they both had strong reasons (or possible reasons) for being the Ripper: Maybrick: Drugs and Florence's infidelity. Tumblety: His strong Dislike/Hatred of women, and the supposed uteri collection he had. However the Main reason I find it hard to believe Maybrick was the Ripper is the Watch...Just TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE. The Diary and Watch together really make me feel that somewhere down the line after Maybrick died, someone wanted to link him to the Ripper--But I don't know if it was because he WAS the Ripper, or someone wanted to MAKE him out to be. Yet, I think that attacking the Diary and MB isn't going to help find the truth either way (True or False) Mark
Author: John Omlor Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 08:52 pm
By the way, everyone, Now that it is apparently clear that Mike's word processor copy of the diary text existed only on a disk and not on the machine itself, it seems to me, as they say, even "less likely" that Mike would have kept the disk after the diary was produced if he had indeed composed it there. Once the book was finished and in hand all Mike would have had to do was throw away or simply destroy the disk. Why would he keep such an incriminating piece of evidence if he knew it was all that remained of his original composition of the lines, one of the only pieces of hard physical evidence perhaps remaining of his complicity in an act with clearly criminal intent? This, to me, makes it seems at least just as likely that he did indeed transcribe a copy of the diary onto a disk after reading the book but before taking it to an agent's, in order to be able to produce copies and conduct research. Keith's account (supported by the printed copies of the wp file that remain as evidence) seems every bit as possible as the speculation (without any physical evidence) that he composed it there first and then hung on to the disk even after he no longer needed it, when it would have taken an instant to destroy the potential evidence of his guilt forever. Neither scenario is proved of course or even established "beyond a reasonable doubt." Mike's bizarre lies remain, of course. But the making of a transcription in preparation for a trip to London would at least account for why Mike didn't try to destroy the disk after he had the book in hand and why neither Anne nor Mike thought it necessary to destroy the disk once Doreen had the book. Thanks everyone for continuing to advance our knowledge about this case. --John
Author: Paul Begg Friday, 20 April 2001 - 01:15 am
Karoline It was stated that Mike wrote the 'diary'. But it isn't in his handwriting. Therefore it is said that the 'diary' was penned by someone else, but that Mike composed the words on his word processor. Keith Skinner posted some information that caused two contributors to these Boards to make the following comments: "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." (John Omlor) "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." (Martin Fido) Both of these people are seeing grounds for at least questioning that the text of the 'diary' being on Mike's word processor is evidence that Mike personally composed it on his word processor. This is what I was referring to. So I think it is very fair to observe that the original idea that Mike conceived and personally executed the forgery, forcibly argued on these very Boards not so long ago, is being questioned and is being weakened (in the sense that some evidence isn�t as rock solid as it was presented as being).
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood Friday, 20 April 2001 - 04:36 am
A few things to get through so I'll take them in the order I received them. "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?� [Feldy then says: "Before she married James?" and Billy replies:"No. You know-she had...the Maybrick one had a child before she married him"] And then asked: �Who told you that?� (Feldman p/back 186-7)By Paul Begg on Thursday, April 19, 2001 - 01:04 am:" pieces in [] are additions by me. Unfortunately although Paul is scrupulous in putting in the large number of ellipses in this piece (and how are we to know what is left out unless we hear the full tape) he misses out the important piece that follows on from this. I quote from the Feldman h/back p168: AEG Who told you that? BG Someone told me that, didn't they? AEG I don't think anybody's ever told you that, Dad. BG I'm sure they have. So if we assume that the statement that caused this was: ":"No. You know-she had...the Maybrick one had a child before she married him" the indication is obvious: that someone had told Billy this information. Who? When? Maybe if we have access to the tape we might be able to work this out. That's how I interpret it and I think that including the lines omitted by Paul are important in judging the quality of this interview. The information which was supposedly the subject of the investigator's report is rumoured to have been concerning involvement of an AG relative in either the SAS or a security service (reports differ.) But how on earth could this have effects on files (medical?) concerning AG? I would be interested to learn how it could have: "justifiably added weight to Paul Feldman�s idea that Mike and Anne were not Mike and Anne..." Whatever the:�Did you nick it Mike?� comment means, it must have serious repercussions for those who a/ believe that AG was involved in the forgery/placement, b/ believe that the Diary was an old forgery or c/ believe that whatever it was it had been in AG's family for a long time. If it was an honest rejoinder by AG (and Paul does assume that it may not have been) then the possibility might be that AG at that time had no knowledge of the history of the diary other than what MB had originally told her, that there was no link between AG and Tony Devereux because the path of the diary was strictly through MB. That however would make her a liar either when she said those 5 words or when she started claiming the diary as her own family property. Gets confusing don't it? "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" The extract was published by a man who afterwards became completely convinced that AG was the great-granddaughter of Florence Chandler and that the diary had been passed through her family. Given the number of ellipses in the various quotes together with the recent evidence given by Martin Fido and Paul Begg concerning Paul Feldman's interviewing methods, I would suggest that we leave answering this question until we have access to the original interview tapes. Go situation: "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�(Caroline Anne Morris on Saturday, April 14, 2001) We have been told in the past that Keith Skinner makes copious notes and diaries everything that happens. But now we are told that these were actually Keith's words, presumably meaning that AG had given him the impression that something was happening that was urgent and: "It was done fast" OK, I can accept that: AG said something was urgent and it had to be done fast but she didn't use the words:"go situation." There has never been a report that Doreen Montgomery was presented with both diary and transcript but we shall have to ask her. We need that transcript to see how (if at all) it differs from the diary, It also would be worth comparing the various transcripts to see if they are all identical and obviously from a common source. Having myself been transcribing Court documents about that time with a very early pc I would suggest that the "crossings-out" may have been indicated by the use of brackets ( ). Reportedly Keith says: "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."Caroline Anne Morris on Thursday, April 19, 2001 Which I can't really relate to the other stories telling us how AG's anger at MB trying to get the diary published resulted in physical fights. Surely a refusal to transcribe the diary would have been a good way out of the problem. The last paragraph of the above message reads: "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: Paul Begg Friday, 20 April 2001 - 05:46 am
Peter I was asked to indicate if there was anywhere that Billy Graham himself said that his father was the child of Florence and I cited the relevant words: �No. No. My dad - if she�d trying to� She was trying to claim� that my dad was her son.� I also put this in context by providing some of the preceding and following words. Now, forgive me if I seem unduly tetchy, but I was asked a specific question and I fairly answered that specific question. It seems unfair to me that it should then be said that I unfortunately left out important information that related to something I was not asked about, namely the quality of the interview. However, would I be right in assuming that unless the tapes indicate that the transcript is inaccurate, that you accept that Billy did offer this information spontaneously and apparently to the surprise of the interviewers and Anne? The security report is private information. As for �Did you nick it Mike?�, it is certainly confusing, but perversely it could also make things quite clear: if we take those words as showing that Anne did not know where the 'diary' came from, she is shown to be a liar and her 'in my family for years' story a lie, which raises ethical questions but also means that Anne did not know where the 'diary' came from. I emphasise this because if Anne didn�t know for sure where Mike got the �diary� either Mike forged it without Anne's knowledge or he obtained it from another source, presumably Tony Devereux. We can therefore take Anne out of the equation, refocus on Mike and ask again why, if he was the forger, he seems so lamentably ignorant about the conception and execution of the forgery.
Author: Martin Fido Friday, 20 April 2001 - 07:13 am
Peter - Keith keeps and files far more correspondence than most of us, noting the date of its reception. He makes dated notes of important information he has elicited in conversations and telephone calls. I doubt whether anyone has ever claimed that 'he makes copious notes and diaries everything that happens'. But as I noted previously, the timing and reason of the creation of the computer transcript was not something that seemed especially important to anyone at the time. It's a bloody miracle that Keith asked any questions or kept any note at all about it. I have responded abruptly to a small point, because as I mentioned earlier, I shall always react angrily to anything that seems like an innuendo questioning Keith's integrity. Martin
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Friday, 20 April 2001 - 08:22 am
Hi All, We can see that it wasn�t in Mike�s long-term interests to deny owning the wp, because he made no subsequent attempt to get rid of it, nor, apparently, the �incriminating� transcript, which he handed over to Doreen, along with the diary. So why did Mike lie about it? It appears to make no sense at all, like so many other lies he has told - great big illogical ones - tales told for immediate effect - which had zero chance of being believed, and which were not even in his interests to be true. Has anyone wondered how Mike reacts when confronted with some of his tall stories, after he has been found out? Does he deny telling them? Does he forget he told them? Perhaps he puts them down to the drink? Could Mike be the sort of person who lies whenever he feels he is about to be suspected, or accused, of doing something dodgy, whether he has, or not? Is Mike the kid who gets caught so often with his hand in the cookie jar, that he has learned to be ready with a lie, which he trots out automatically, however absurd it might sound, even when he hasn�t actually been stealing cookies? If he knows he won�t be believed, even if he is telling the truth, might he not just come up with the first thing he figures will get him out of immediate bother? I have to say that I do think Mike would have got rid of the wp, or anything connected with it, if he truly knew any of it to be damning. The fact that he and Anne made no secret of making the transcript, and handed it over with the diary, together with the fact that the wp was there, as bold as brass, when the police came to investigate, subsequently clearing Robert Smith of fraud, without even considering charges against Mike, gives me cause to doubt that Anne and Mike really thought they had something to hide, even though Mike told such pointless lies early on. But naturally this is only speculation. Of course, when it comes to all the documentary evidence from the diary investigation, we could play �I�ll show you mine if you show me yours� forever and a day (that kind of game�s right up my alley. ) But I�m surprised it doesn�t seem to have dawned on anyone to ask why Keith should be remotely keen to see Melvin�s own enormous smoking gun, if he has already found one of equal magnificence, lurking amongst Feldy�s tapes, transcripts and what have you. Another of the great mysteries of life, I guess� Have a great weekend all. Love, Caz
Author: R.J. Palmer Friday, 20 April 2001 - 10:00 am
Caz--Hello to you in sunny London. You wrote above: "I have to say that I do think Mike would have got rid of the wp, or anything connected with it, if he truly knew any of it to be damning. The fact that he and Anne made no secret of making the transcript, and handed it over with the diary, together with the fact that the wp was there, as bold as brass, when the police came to investigate, subsequently clearing Robert Smith of fraud, without even considering charges against Mike,..." But how much of the above do we really know is true? Was the word processor there 'as bold as brass'? There seems to be some confusion over this point. In the second (paperback) edition of Shirley's book she writes: "The facts are this. The police did not have a warrant. Mike Barrett invited them to his house and co-operated in every way. The WPC was hardly "found." It was on the table in the dining room where he had transcribed the diary with the help of his wife, in order to make it easy to read." (page 272) In the third edition (Blake), we read this: "The facts are these. Michael Barrett invited the police into his house. There was no word processor in sight. No notes. Detective Thomas left empty handed. The explanation about Mike Barrett's original research and his use of a word processor was, in any case, in the first edition of my book for all to see." (p260). So I'm confused. Which way was it? Was the word processor in plain sight & did Scotland Yard seize it, or was it hidden & found later? Can the confusion have been caused by Mike & Anne telling Shirley two different accounts as to what happened when Scotland Yard came calling? This seems possible. Also, I originally thought the story Mike told was that the diary was transcribed so Mike could read it easier while he did his research. But maybe this was just my mistaken impression. Best wishes.
Author: R.J. Palmer Friday, 20 April 2001 - 10:16 am
P.S. to the above. I hope it's clear that my intention in the above was not to put Shirley Harrison 'on the spot'. It's fair to say that her books represent an 'on-going investigation' into the diary, so the details of some of the events might have changed over time. It's just not clear to me that Mike willingly handed over the word processor to Scotland Yard, though he might have claimed that at one time....
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood Friday, 20 April 2001 - 11:10 am
John: "Keith's account (supported by the printed copies of the wp file that remain as evidence) seems every bit as possible as the speculation (without any physical evidence) that he composed it there first and then hung on to the disk even after he no longer needed it, when it would have taken an instant to destroy the potential evidence of his guilt forever." We don't have any evidence so far that the printed copy by which I assume you mean the transcript as printed in the Harrison books, is the one off MB's Amstrad. Until we've seen the various authors copies of what is assumed to be the transcript off the wp, it's unsafe to say that Keith's account is supported by the printed version. "I have to say that I do think Mike would have got rid of the wp, or anything connected with it, if he truly knew any of it to be damning". Could I point out that in one of MB's confessions (summarised on page 314 of the Blake edn.) he says that DISKS photographs, compass pens and inks were taken to a member of his family who destroyed them. And to add to RJ's quote from Shirley's book could I draw attention to the preceeding page (Blake edn. p 259) where she reports: "Anne has since described that day as the worst in her life. She prepared refreshments while Detective Sergeant Thomas grilled Michael who kept asking for beer. In the middle of it all Anne's father Billy Graham turned up and Michael asked DS Thomas to pretend he was the insurance man rather than admit his true identity. Among other things Michael denied that he had a word processor. He was terrified that Scotland Yard would know of a confrontation with the police over 20 years before and that he would be condemned before they arrived. He was right. When asked to sign a statement Michael refused unless a solicitor was present." So, the contradictions in Shirley's books between editions: first the WP was on the table, second it wasn't in sight, and third Mike denied having it. If Mike's confrontation with the Police was indeed a "petty theft" 20 years previously as Martin Fido says, why would he be so terrified? Was it this "raid" that led Mike to give the wp disks to his sister for destruction? Martin: " Keith keeps and files far more correspondence than most of us, noting the date of its reception. He makes dated notes of important information he has elicited in conversations and telephone calls. I doubt whether anyone has ever claimed that 'he makes copious notes and diaries everything that happens'. Blake edn. p286: "I (Mrs. Harrison) have now seen some of Keith's records - every verbatim conversation, every phone call minuted and literally hundreds of pages of debate with Paul Begg and Martin Fido."
Author: Paul Begg Friday, 20 April 2001 - 11:19 am
Further to Martin�s post above, the sentiments of which I endorse completely and absolutely, I think far more meaning is being read into �go situation� than is warranted or justified. Keith simply jotted down an expression intended to convey nothing more and nothing less than that the transcript was made after a meeting with the literary agent had been confirmed. Also, why is there any difficulty reconciling Anne helping her husband with something with which she had previously disagreed? Why can't Anne have disagreed with Mike doing something, but nevertheless assisted him make the best job of it when it was done? Why did you bother to repeat Keith�s last paragraph?
Author: Paul Begg Friday, 20 April 2001 - 12:00 pm
Blake edn. p286: "I (Mrs. Harrison) have now seen some of Keith's records - every verbatim conversation, every phone call minuted and literally hundreds of pages of debate with Paul Begg and Martin Fido." This isn't 'copious notes and diaries everything that happened.' It is a very impressive collection of notes of the content of conversations and phone calls.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Friday, 20 April 2001 - 12:02 pm
Hi RJ, Well, as I said at the end of that paragraph of mine that you quoted, this was only speculation on my part. There have been quite a few of us, apart from me, making assumptions about what the police did or didn't find and take away from the Barrett home, and perhaps Shirley or Melvin can throw some more light on this for us all. Certainly, anything based on the unsupported word of Mike Barrett has always to be looked at in a wider context. But basically, either the police found nothing and left empty-handed, or found something that didn't in itself warrant further investigation, so we are left not knowing if Mike got rid of any damning evidence before the police arrived, or even if there was any to get rid of in the first place. And my opinion, that he or Anne would have done, had they something to hide, stands. You wrote in an earlier post: 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. If no one, apart from Peter, has posted any such information - right, wrong, or indifferent - it may be because no one else is trying to make a case here, or particularly interested in defending a particular theory. Feldy and Shirley have both written books with their theories, and may or may not wish to defend them all over again on these boards. That�s for them to decide, and for us to make of it what we will. You also wrote: 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. Apart from Feldy and Shirley, whose views on the diary are well-known and not shared by anyone here, Keith is the only person, as far as I can gather, who has stated that he believes Anne�s story. And he has very clearly stated, more than once on these boards, and I believe directly to you on occasion, that the only way for him to go is to try to disprove Anne�s story for himself. So, unless you doubt his word, your statement beginning, the only hope for those that believe it [Anne�s story] is to prove�etc is to my mind both unfair and misleading. And again, no one involved in any of these current discussions, apart from perhaps Shirley, is trying to give the diary any more credibility. What people are doing is examining all the speculation going on here about Anne and Mike�s complicity in the forgery, and making observations based on the information they have at their disposal. I can�t see anything backwards about doing that. What you see as backwards is something that�s not even happening. No one, as far as I can make out, is actually putting up a case here that none of the modern suspects have been proved guilty, therefore the diary is most probably old. The reverse is true � Peter and Karoline have been putting up a case that the diary is modern, therefore Anne and Mike were most probably involved in forging it. You also wrote: �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. Again, no one here, apart from Shirley, appears to be disagreeing with you about Sir Jim. But I can see nothing remotely futile in questioning public statements, concerning an individual�s suspected part in this whole confused saga, if there is any reason to believe those statements may be biased, misleading, ill-judged or plain wrong. I�m sure we are destined to disagree about this one though. Finally, you wrote: The critics of the diary are probably in some ways 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. Is it really so difficult for you to grasp this very simple point? There is no one here putting up a theory in support of the diary being either genuine or old. So there are no diary supporters fending off counterattacks by diary critics. If we must use such terms, the critics of the diary are arguing that Anne and Mike�s complicity in its creation can be assumed, on the evidence we have now, unless or until someone produces new evidence to disprove it. They are currently fending off counterattacks by other critics of the diary, who think this is not so far removed from arguing that a JtR suspect can be presumed guilty in the same way. Love, Caz
Author: Mark List Friday, 20 April 2001 - 01:04 pm
Alright, Then could someone PLEASE tell me, "Is the diary fake?" Has it been proven? Is it still unknown? Whatever happened with the testing of inks and paper? Please forgive me, I must admit that I base a huge amount of knowledge about the diary on both the book by Shirley Harrison and the video tape "Diary of Jack the Ripper," which both Martin and Paul added themselves to the investigation. I'm utterly confused now. No, I don't believe Maybrick was the person who wrote the Diary that Mike Barrett handed over to the press, but could it have been a copy of something he once wrote? Could Maybrick have been so doped up on drugs that he thought he was the Ripper and acted it out through writing? Could someone have hated Maybrick so much that they framed him with the Diary? If not, Fine. However I don't know where the history of the diary is anymore. I was under the assumption that is was an old document - that it would be insanely difficult to forge both ink and paper and make it look convincing. I know the Hitler diaries real hurt this issue, but I'd really like to know, "how old is that Diary?" Mark
Author: Paul Begg Friday, 20 April 2001 - 01:04 pm
Hi Caz Your post to RJP reiterates the point we've been making over and over and over again for several years, which has almost consistently been ignored and misrepresented but which was brought to the fore last year when Keith suggested that we should examine the then flatly stated claim that Mike and Anne wrote the �diary� for financial gain. Keith asked how that claim was effected by the diarist�s handwriting not resembling Mike or Anne�s. This question led to a bit of a kerfuffle because it was not reasonably or responsibly addressed. This �Mike and Anne dun it� argument has recently been strenuously argued again. But what is now apparently being acknowledged is that the diarist�s handwriting does not look like Mike and Anne�s and the number of forgers has been expanded to include Gerrard Kane as the penman. And RJPs own suggestion that Anne might have been a peripheral figure seems to have been given some house room, so it may soon be argued that the forgers consisted of Mike and Gerrard Kane, with Anne as some vegue background figure akin to a gangster's moll. So, we have gone from Mike and Anne forged it for money to Mike and Anne and Gerrard Kane forged it for� well, unless Karoline has some of Gerrard Kane�s bank statements showing receipt of money from Mike or Anne, we�re not sure what his motive was. And we may even be moving to Mike and Gerrard Kane forged it. Who knows where this expanding and contracting band of forgers will finish up! You, of course, have been batting on for nearly two years about whether or not �Eight Little Whores� is really reflected in the �diary�. Eventually others listened and questioned and came to share your doubts. This is great. Finally people are looking beyond the first and most immediate solutions. They are questioning and adapting their hypothesis to fit new information as and when necessary. This is all you, me, Keith, Shirley and one or two others have been asking for all this time. It�s a pity it has taken so many years and so much bitter animosity before people listened. So, yes, I do so agree with your accounting and I hope RJP and others listen, understand and acknowledge your words.
Author: R.J. Palmer Friday, 20 April 2001 - 01:12 pm
Caz--Hello. I don't really quite understand how you came to the conclusion that I "doubt" Keith Skinner's word from my previous post, though perhaps I stated things a little clumsily. It just seems obvious enough that if Keith believes Anne's testimony & believes that the diary is an old hoax (due to McNeil's ion migration test & certain oddities in the diary that suggest an intimate knowledge of the Maybrick case) then he couldn't believe either Mike's confession nor Melvin's scenerio. They all can't co-exist. But I was also thinking of Paul's post a couple months back, where he stated: "As far as I am concerned, if Mike and Anne did not forge the diary themselves, and there are reasons for considering the possibility that they didn't, and in the absence of Mr Big the Forger (unless Melvin can tell us who it was), do we consider the possibility, absurd and utterly ridiculous though it may be, that the 'diary' is an old forgery?" (New Hoax Findings, 22 February). Now read this next part slowly, please: I am willing to admit that maybe this has just been a false impression on my part, but it just seems to me that you, Paul, & Keith (and to a lesser extent John Omlor) have consistently argued against any indication that the diary was recently forged with Anne & Mike's knowledge. I don't remember you ever suggesting that any of the forensic or textual evidence was damning, or that any inconsitancies in Anne or Billy's statements were telling. It's always been to give alternative explanations, or to put Anne's statements in the best possible light, or Melvin's or Mike's in the worste possible light. Thus, I have assumed, that you have been arguing from the point of view that Anne's story might be true. But perhaps some of the suspicions about 'agendas' might be just a carry-over from the days when the diary debate used to be (judging from Feldy's book & some of the old posts) much more mean-spirited. Perhaps the time has come when everyone still interested might lower the threshold a bit. That said, I still think that if Anne's "in the family for years" story is part of the equation (& Billy's testimony is to be taken seriously), the genealogy behind it...if there indeed there is any..is relevant. For the record, I don't doubt the honesty of Keith, nor Shirley Harrison for that matter. Unfortunately, much of the anecdotal claims floating around came originally from Mike or Anne, so we have to look at it critically, and measure it against what documentation is available. Keith did exactly this when he deconstructed Mike's statements against the known facts surrounding the purchase of the red diary. We need more of this type of analysis. It think that is what Karoline has been saying as well. Best wishes, RJP
Author: R.J. Palmer Friday, 20 April 2001 - 01:40 pm
Mark--Hello. I would recommend that you go back to the Casebook main menu, and click on "Dissertations" on the left-hand bar on the screen. If you scroll down to the bottom of the list of dissertations, you will come to the heading "Articles on the Maybrick Diary". Click on this. There are many excellent discussions of the Maybrick diary. I would especially recommend Melvin Harris's article "The Maybrick Hoax: A Fact-File for the Perplexed", which argues that the diary is a recently created forgery and explains why Harris has come to this conclusion. Obviously, not everyone agrees. But form your own opinion. Best wishes, RJP
Author: Paul Begg Friday, 20 April 2001 - 01:53 pm
Hi RJP You quote me asking a question, not making a statement. The question is justified, I think, in that if it should prove that Mike and Anne did not forge the 'diary', then somebody else did. Who? If no Mr Big is identifiable, do we not then consider the possibility that Anne's story is true? Is it not then that we begin to look at the genealogy to see if Anne's story is supportable? And if Anne's story does seem true, we then face serious problems with the forensic evidence. Now, all that we have been advocating here is that the 'Mike and Anne dunnit' hypothesis firmly advanced on these Boards for many years be examined. Just because we have advocated doing this we've been labelled pro-diarists. Last year I repeatedly stated that we were not talking about an old forgery. This led to one hell of a row with Karoline. But what do we have to do to get this message across?
Author: John Omlor Friday, 20 April 2001 - 03:14 pm
Hi Peter and RJ, RJ, Thanks for that "lesser extent" parenthetical comment, since I still have no idea who wrote this thing and have said so repeatedly. I do think the Crashaw quote in the Sphere volume poses potential problems for Mike and I do think there are readings of several other sets of behaviors (the diary purchase and the lies told, for instance) that can be read in ways that imply complicity and in ways that imply a lack of knowledge, both with equal force. I am not yet convinced either way. And since legal consequences and personal reputations are at stake, I will continue to be cautious. I think Paul and Caroline have stated their own positions, concerning their uncertainties and the need for a careful examination of the evidence, quite clearly. Peter, In an earlier post, you write: "We don't have any evidence so far that the printed copy by which I assume you mean the transcript as printed in the Harrison books, is the one off MB's Amstrad. Until we've seen the various authors copies of what is assumed to be the transcript off the wp, it's unsafe to say that Keith's account is supported by the printed version." Actually, I was referring to the copies that Paul and Martin and others have said they received. But you are quite right. As far as I know, we do not, as of yet, have any direct, material evidence that these copies were or were not produced from Mike's transcription/composition file. That's one of the things that interests me about these copies and about their relationship to the transcription in Shirley's book and the text of the diary itself. That's one reason I thought of reading the copies (if we can get one set somewhere) and the diary text side by side on a "Reading the Diary" board. But here's a bit of probably simple confusion for me. A number of people have written posts today discussing the fate of Mike's word processor. But, if Paul's description of the machine is accurate (and I think he was citing information he received from a post by Karoline concerning the make and model of the thing), then the machine had nothing on it. It had no hard drive and any material relating to the diary must have been on a floppy disk (perhaps one Mike sent to a family member for destruction -- do we know this for sure? Do we know the disk containing the transcript of the diary was among these items sent to the family member? Or has it, in fact, been seen and or used since?). Since the text remained on a disk, which Mike may have held on to and from which copies were made for various people or which he may have sent to a family member to be destroyed, of what evidentiary use was the word processor? It had no files on it, no diary text, and -- having asked the chief computer security officer for New York University on the phone last night, I can now say with some confidence -- no dates of composition or revision of files. The disk would most likely have not had these dates either, I am told, given the year and the model of machine and the program Mike was using. (I can provide this gentleman's name and his qualifications to people privately, if anyone is interested; he is one of the leading computer encryption and security experts in the academic community.) So not only do I remain unsure about to just what degree Mike tried to hide the word processor (the stories conflict and the events remain unresolved so far); I also remain unsure of what use the blank word processor, without the right disk, would have been to anyone. And either Mike had the disk and had used it to make copies of the text after he had transcribed it or he sent the disk off to a family member for destruction and the copies that Paul and Martin and others received were made from some other as yet unidentified source. I'm still not sure which. Anyone have any answers to all of these unresolved narratives? One thing seems to me more and more evident, there is no compelling case either way yet to charge any specific person or persons with forgery. I look forward to seeing some speculation concerning these events. Thanks, --John
Author: Martin Fido Friday, 20 April 2001 - 04:06 pm
Mark, To simplify your plaintive and basic question a little: the consensus is that the diary is a fake. The counter opinion is cogently argued by Shirley Harrison, and will probably be given a vigorous outing in Paul Feldman's interview in the next number of 'Ripper Notes' - Don't miss it! The album in which the diary is written is definitely 'old' (late 19th or early 20th century). Such chemical tests as have been done are not inconsistent with its being as old as 1889. Marks or indentations showing that the missing early pages once contained pictures also reveal that those pictures were a 'standard' size for photographs in the 1920s. Long before the pages were generally known to be missing, Melvin Harris had predicted that the diary would be in a genuinely old book with the first pages missing, as it is easy for forgers to acquire copies of genuine old diaries, but very hard to find ones that haven't been started. Chemical tests on the ink have produced contradictory and so inconclusive results, two laboratories having produced reports which give different conclusions. Sadly for the reputation of science, each gave the conclusion that its particular client 'wanted'! By contrast, the two laboratories testing the watch and using different techniques both came up with the identical conclusion that the scratches in the case were decades old, and could very suitably date to 1889. Melvin posted a technical argument against one of these tests on an earlier board. Historically, the diary contains just one item of information that was not in the public domain until 1987: the details of the entry 'tin matchbox, empty' on the list of Katherine Eddowes' possessions. Those arguing for an earlier forgery suggest that the list might have been available to a researcher visiting the Corporation of London Archives at some earlier date. I do not think anyone has checked to establish whether the list was accessible to the public as early as 1920. I doubt it very much, as most of the Ripper material was catalogued by Don Rumbelow who kept unearthing police archive material in the 1960s and '70s. You will have to exercise your own judgement in deciding whether you think the diary suggests the sort of primary-source research compatible with a forger who made use of archive material. In my opinion, Shirley is absolutely justified in saying that the matchbox detail shows that the diary must be a post 1987 forgery, OR the work of somebody who incmprehensibly made casual use of just one of the many pieces of archived information available to him OR (as she prefers) it is genuine. The suspicion surrounding Mike and Anne stems from: (i) The incredibly weak Tony Devereux provenance which Mike produced and Anne did not contradict. (ii) The constant silly and self-contradictory lies Mike tells habitually. Including both confessions that he forged the diary single-handed; claims that Anne was involved; and, of course, flat denials of both positions.(Caz - weren't you at the Smoke and Stagger to see how Mike reacts when his transparent lying is disbelieved or exposed? First he just goes on blandly repeating his lies and disregarding the contradictory evidence. And when it became a bit too embarrassing for him in the City Darts, he threw a tantrum, claiming that anybody referring to his daughter Caroline was offensively invading private territory. This is, of course, a completely illicit position for the Barretts to take up, since they used little Caroline as an early witness that Mike had brought home the diary in a parcel and hadn't known what it was when he opened it). (iii) Anne's sudden production of the 'confession' statement placing the diary in her family since c.1968 to her certain knowledge: c.1940 if her father's back-up story is accepted. Since this meant she had been lying to Mike and effectively lying to everybody else, if only by her silence, it didn't really help to establish her credibility. (iv) The presence in the diary of the phrase 'o costly intercourse of death': a slight misquotation from a very obscure poem by a little-known and not very popular 17th century poet. Nobody was able to trace this until Mike - not the most literate of chaps - announced that he had done so; he had found it in a critical history by Christopher Ricks. It appeared at first that he had traced this through the public library. But subsequently it emerged that Mike had copies of this book in his attic, given him, he said, for a jumble sale in aid of the Hillsborough disaster fund. And Mike's copy just happens to fall open naturally at the page with the quotation.... All in all, I call that quite a mountain of suspicious circumstance around the Barretts. But it has to be set against the conviction of those who know her best that Anne is telling the truth in the confession statement, and the conviction of those who have been interviewing Mike longest that there have been times when he desperately wanted to prove that he had wholly or confederately forged the diary, and at such times he has been quite unable to produce any convincing evidence at all to support his claim. In the end, there's no actual evidence to prove that either one of them forged it alone, or that they forged it jointly, or with or without the assistance or connivance of Billy Graham, Tony Devereux, Gerrard Kane, Uncle Tom Cobleigh and All. Nor is there any evidence that clears them. There's nothing to prove that Anne's story of giving it to Tony Devereux to give to Mike either is or isn't true. It all comes down to a matter of judgement, and the furious debating going on is mainly dispute between people whose judgement leads them to different opinions, and who then try to call in supportive facts as though they were exposing factual errors perpetrated by their opponents. It is occasionally irresistable to get involved, though most of the time many of us just want to leave the pro- and anti-Maybrickians to fight it out until they're all dead of exhaustion while the spectators are expiring from boredom. Martin F
Author: Alegria Friday, 20 April 2001 - 04:17 pm
Martin, Thank you for that clear, succinct summary of the arguments surrounding the diary. For anyone who is late coming to the kaleidoscope diary boards, that is a sane and very nice introduction, hitting on the key points in an easy to read manner.
Author: John Omlor Friday, 20 April 2001 - 05:25 pm
Well done, Martin. I only hope that some of us around here remain neither "pro-" nor "anti-Maybrickians," and are more specifically seen as in fact witholding the "judgment" you speak of, rather than "try[ing] to call in supportive facts as though they were exposing factual errors perpetrated by their opponents." There is reading that remains to be done here that I still believe might be useful concerning this diary and its history. Thanks for the fine and patient work. --John
Author: Mark List Friday, 20 April 2001 - 05:48 pm
Martin, Thanks a bunch for your helpful insight. And yes, I still remain neither "pro" nor "anti-Maybrickian" concerning the Diary. I was just hoping that no one had tried to place blame on the wrong people. I believe strongly that the diary has importance to it, but whether that's to the Ripper or Maybrick or someone who was disturbed, I do not know and may never know... I just have a strong feeling that a lot of people do not want to give the diary a fair shake, and that's not what should happen here. Thanks again Martin, I owe you a Beer, Mark
Author: Paul Begg Saturday, 21 April 2001 - 02:09 am
Sheesh, if I known there was a beer in this I�d have tried to answer quicker, if not as clearly and comprehensively as Martin. I�d just like to correct one of Martin�s statements. Mike and Anne did not �use(d) little Caroline as an early witness that Mike had brought home the diary in a parcel and hadn't known what it was when he opened it�. Paul Feldman, Martin Howells and myself went to Mike and Anne�s home in Liverpool in Paul�s Porsche and then drove on to a restaurant. Caroline asked her parents if she could ride in Paul�s car. They said yes. During the journey Martin H. asked Caroline what she knew about the �diary� and I added a few supplemental questions. This questioning was natural, it being the reason we were there, the reason we were going out and the only common ground between us. Paul exaggerates what was a general chat, not an interrogation, in his book. Thus, the information was obtained from Caroline in general conversation whilst she enjoyed a short ride in a posh car. Mike and Anne did not thrust her forward as a witness to anything. In fact, Anne has been exceptionally protective of Caroline throughout all of the �diary� affair and sheltered her to the best of her ability from the debacle. There will be those who will no doubt read a significance into this action by Anne. There is also a small but relevant point to add to Martin�s observation that those who have interviewed Mike the longest feel that there were times when he desperately wanted to be believed and find it significant that at those times he could produce no evidence to support his claims. It is, in fact, rather more than a simple gut feeling. The journalist to whom Mike first confessed wrote in his newspaper article that Mike could not answer even basic questions such as where he�d obtained the book and the ink. When Mike eventually identified the auctioneers and ink shop, subsequent inquiries apparently failed to confirm his story, the former saying that they hadn�t sold the items and that the sales procedure Mike described did not conform to their own. These details, along with the fact that Mike could never produce any evidence to support any of his various versions of the �diary� creation story � including, perhaps most significantly, the Crashaw quotation � when it is known (rather than felt) that he wanted to be believed, tend to add weight to the general overall sense that Mike doesn�t actually know much if anything about the conception and execution of the forgery. In addition, except when under the wing of a private detective, Mike never gave a normal, straightforward and coherent account of how the forgery was conceived and executed. I also share John Omlor�s position regarding pro- and anti-Maybrickian. In fact I know of only one pro-Maybrickian and that is Paul Feldman. Shirley Harrison believes the �diary� to be genuine, but is open-minded about it. Keith Skinner has had the most opportunity to assess Anne Graham and he believes her, thus he believes that the �diary� has to be pre-1950. The rest of us believe that it wasn�t written by James Maybrick, but are open minded about when and who did write it. And there�s a group of people who are probably fairly described as anti-Maybricks who are or seem convinced that Mike and Anne wrote it. I actually believe that the idea of pro- and anti-Maybrickians and the use of such terminology has done more to cause the problems associated with the �diary� and to prolong its debate than anything else. Apart from causing people to think that arguments counter to their own represent a belief system different to theirs, which they don�t, it caused a polarisation early in the investigations that is probably best represented by Paul Feldman and Melvin Harris at either extreme and whose desire to prove each other wrong became personal (as it has done for a lot of people - review the posts on these Boards and you�ll see some extraordinary outburst of anger!). The polarisation into imagined 'belief camps' proved extremely divisive and above all produced bad and insufficient data. My personal opinion is that the �diary� is important in the long term as an example of how an investigation should not be conducted and that there are as many and very probably more lessons to be learned from it than the Hitler diaries debacle (another example of a 'historical' documents entering the commercial domain). At the very least I think it will demonstrate the need for investigators to adopt a language that isn�t provocative, to formulate questions designed to extract the most information from experts consulted, and to re-evaluate the value and reliability of forensic test results (it is remarkable that two respected organisations could produce contradictory results when testing the �diary� ink, for example, or that neither the British Museum nor the antiquarian bookseller to whom Shirley took the �diary� thought the lack of bronzing significant enough to question whether the book was authentic, or that an early examination of the ink didn�t compare it to Diamine even though the examiner knew about Diamine and knew it was manufactured in Liverpool where he knew the �diary� had been found). I appreciate, of course, that this sort of technical side of things is boring to most people, especially those who feel that the �diary� is of no value if it wasn�t written by Maybrick and that energies could be better spent elsewhere, but the technical side does interest and matter to me. I am therefore interested in the arguments people put forward, the logic and reasoning employed and the evidence presented. As said, not long ago it was being flatly stated as a consensus opinion that Mike forged the �diary� with the probable help of Anne and for the purpose of financial gain. That consensus opinion is at last being modified to (rightly or wrongly) include Gerrard Kane as the penman, which is at least an acknowledgement of the fact that the diarist�s handwriting doesn�t resemble either Mike or Anne�s. But why, I wonder, has it taken a year or more for this to gain acknowledgement. I suspect that it probably has quite a bit to do with the 'camps' notion and a general unwillingness to give ground to even consider alternative points of view. Do I get a half?
Author: R.J. Palmer Saturday, 21 April 2001 - 04:53 am
Paul-- Hello. I'm not sure where you're going with your last comment above, but I, for one, remember feeling extremely lonely here for several months while I argued that Melvin's view of things was probably correct. (Peter & Karoline were absent at the time). As I recall, no one else in the somewhat unruly mob was particularly --shall I say--- 'eager' to give Harris's view of things much credit, and some even questioned his credibility. But I'm glad to see that perhaps the consensus is shifting a little closer to the view that Melvin's scenerio might not be so far off-base. One comment. Using Omlor's Razor, isn't it fair to suggest that Mike's inability to give a credible confession has to do with the dynamics of what was going on at the time of his various statements & therefore we can not logically infer from this that it has any bearing on his real knowledge or his complicity in the actual forgery? Or doesn't it work in reverse? Though I think it has some value, I still feel John's epistemology leaves a little too much to chance. People generally have control over their actions and the events in their lives. A man takes a recent forgery to market. Is the probability that he is complicit in the forgery truly only roughly equal to the probability that he, say, found it or it was given to him? I can't recall a single instance where someone who brought a recent forgery to market wasn't complicit in its creation. (Some might say Dawson, but I doubt if anybody who has read much about Piltdown would argue that he wasn't involved). This, along with the fact that Mike used an alias, attempted to buy a genuine diary, his then-wife bemoaned to a secretary friend that her husband was writing a book that she 'couldn't talk about it', and the Crashaw discovery (whenever it took place) suggests to me that Mr. Barrett had some sort of involvement. Finally, I always thought it possibly significant that one scientist (Baxendale) told his client (Smith) what they didn't want to here. Namely, that the ink was soluble. But alas, I think my rambling might be risking another erruption from Mt. Radka on the futility of self-abuse... So good morning to all.
Author: Paul Begg Saturday, 21 April 2001 - 06:08 am
RJP Not so long ago it was being flatly argued that Mike and Anne wrote the �diary� themselves for financial gain. Keith pointed out that the diarist�s handwriting did not look like either Mike�s or Anne�s. This point was no properly addressed and an argument ensued. Almost a year later the people who did not address that question now acknowledge that the handwriting doesn�t look like Mike or Anne�s and they�ve grasped Gerrard Kane, a name pushed forward a long while ago by Melvin Harris. Now, the curious thing is that both Keith and Melvin were saying in their own ways that the handwriting did not look like Mike and Anne�s. That this now appears to be agreed by everyone is a step forward, but it isn�t an agreement with Melvin�s scenario specifically. It�s what we�ve been arguing since we had examples of Mike and Anne�s handwriting. It�s just taken near on a decade to get a consensus agreement and an examination of the implications. Whether Gerrard Kane will ultimately prove to be the penman remains to be seen. And Melvin�s credibility was called into question over his refusal to identify the journalists or the newspaper for which they worked. And we still don�t know whether he has received and forwarded either of the stamped letters Shirley sent to him. There are those � myself not among them � who question whether the journalists even exist. That Melvin should thus be questioned is questioning his credibility. We�ve all been lonely �out there� and I have had to face far more and far more hostile voices arraigned against me than you have, believe me, some of them without even the guts to attach their names to their bile, and it is very easy in such circumstances to feel that there is a united and organised opposition. There isn�t. There�s just people who disagree with what you are saying. There is also a proneness for misunderstanding and misrepresentation which provokes irritation and I think your following observation falls into the category. One comment. Using Omlor's Razor, isn't it fair to suggest that Mike's inability to give a credible confession has to do with the dynamics of what was going on at the time of his various statements & therefore we can not logically infer from this that it has any bearing on his real knowledge or his complicity in the actual forgery? Or doesn't it work in reverse? I could do with having this explained in a little more detail, but I think John was referring to a specific story told at a specific time and was arguing that the motive for the story may have been dictated by specific events at that specific time � in other words, that Anne could have opportunistically lied to secure a lucrative film deal at the time she lied, for example, and her lie therefore does not necessarily allow us to infer that she was party to or had knowledge of the forgery. He was not suggesting that all actions are dictated by their immediate circumstances and that nothing can therefore be interpreted from them, which would be a very silly argument in my view. In Mike�s case we have numerous instances of him wanting to be believed and at no time telling a clear and straightforward supporting story and whose claims, where they could be tested, appear to have been untrue (as with Outhwaite and Litherland). Your question therefore strikes me as an apples and pears comparison. John can defend his epistemology, however all you list is the data on which a case against Mike can be and is based but examination of each piece of that data may make the collective whole look less supportive of the hypothesis based on it. In other words, all that you list does look highly suspicious and may indeed be leading you to the correct conclusion, but in some (maybe all) cases there are viable alternative explanations, as with the purchase of the red diary or Mike�s adoption of an alias, which may make them look less suspicious or not suspicious at all. Those alternative explanations do need to be properly examined. This hasn�t been happening. Even the suggestion that Mike and Anne�s handwriting doesn�t match the diarist�s has taken a year of two to even be acknowledged. Ditto Caz�s questions about �Eight Little Whores�. A more careful reading of the evidence is what John Omlor seems to be arguing for. There�s nothing wrong with that surely? All the best Paul
Author: Martin Fido Saturday, 21 April 2001 - 07:10 am
Hi RJP, As one who has certainly contributed to attacking Melvin Harris since I joined the boards, let me offer some explanation. I have consistently thought Melvin was spot on in his central contention that the diary is obviously fake. I did not see his contributions to the boards over the months when you were feeling lonely, but I riposted instantly with flame when he interjected an unsolicited and deliberately offensive posting into a dialogue I was having with somebody else. The reason for his public hostility to me is the last paragraph of the A-Z entry on him, which warns readers that "his occasional postulation of other writers' thought processes can be wildly wrong and actually conflict with impeccable written evidence, and his indignation when he believes he has perceived chicanery may lead him to make demonstrably unjustified assertions". (I had no idea until he posted the fact that he also felt some private animus when we first met, because he regarded it as 'an insult' that I was invited to discuss the Ripper case with him on a radio programme which he felt ought to have been dedicated exclusively to his book). We added this sentence to the previous entry because such activities of his as claiming to set up a 'Committee of Integrity' to investigate the Maybrick Diary - (the first usage of the word integrity in the diary context, as far as I know) - tended to suggest that Paul Feldman and Shirley Harrison were venal: something we knew to be untrue. It also seemed necessary to draw attention to the inherent dangers in Melvin's practice of larding his writing with patronising put-downs of other writers which often distorted their thinking. There is no longer any need for us to document these things: they can be seen in postings where (for example) he makes wildly erroneous assertion about my own religious beliefs, and presents as if it were fact his suspicion that Ian Fleming composed the 'Eight Little Whores' rhyme. As John Omlor's delightful parodies demonstrated, these presentational flaws can draw more attention than the serious kernel of research in his work. You were quite right to think that much of what he says is useful and important. But it is often difficult for the victims of his attacks to concentrate on these things rather than on the things he says about them personally. And when his knowledge extends beyond ours, we can't be certain whether he really has proved a point or is overstating his own opinion. I don't think any of the rest of us would have the ability to discuss the scientific tests on the watch as he does. But I certainly don't have the competence to know whether his critique is justified or not. I would take it for granted he was right if I hadn't seen examples of his overstatement in areas where I am a competent judge. Paul Begg insisted for a long time that we should take him very seriously as a highly gifted researcher. It is deeply regrettable that his contrversial approach generates a heat which can obscure the light he is offering to bring. I hope you aren't feeling lonely any longer. With all good wishes, Martin F
Author: John Omlor Saturday, 21 April 2001 - 10:22 am
Hi RJ, Paul is correct in his short summary of my claim concerning what I think it is possible to infer from Anne's lies, if they were lies, at that time. (Thanks, Paul.) And I don't want to get back into a detailed review of what still seem to me obvious and sound epistemological assumptions concerning the need for physical and material evidence of the act of forgery before even a likely or probable case can claim to be established. In the case of Mike's confessions, though, as I have said a few times already, my conclusion from them was not that he could not have written the diary, but that they clearly did not seem in any way to help establish that he did. So yes, my argument about reading and inference and valid inductions still remains in place here, as well. What I have said, verbatim, is: "Mike's confessions are a mess." Therefore, for me, their proper place on any list of pieces of "data" or "evidence" linking Mike to the forgery seems unclear at best and I am not sure we can draw inferences from them concerning even the probability or likelihood of complicity. I feel we have to turn elsewhere -- perhaps to what we might learn from witnesses and documentation about Mike's actual movements and associations from say 1985 to 1991. Notice here, that my "razor" as you delightfully call it, remains in place and operating "in reverse." This seems to me the only completely responsible way to proceed so far. Now, Paul has suggested, I think, that the fact that Mike was unable to produce a convincing account of the diary's creation at precisely the time he most wanted to be believed suggests that he may not in fact have forged this thing. It seems to me that once again two readings remain here as well. It is still possible that Mike's "confusion" might have been the result of his own personal problems and his own inability to recall or construct a believable narrative. In this case, we would not know for sure whether this indicates that Mike did or did not write the diary. The other reading, which seems to me just as valid at this point, is that there is a significant difference in desires between Mike and Anne (when she begins possibly lying about the provenance story). Mike wants to convince us that he wrote the diary. Mike tries to tell us how he did it. For whatever reason, he cannot. This does not necessarily lead us to the conclusion, logically, that Mike did not write the dairy, but it certainly at least casts doubts on the validity of this particular confession and places it outside the field of reliable physical or compelling evidence of his complicity. This is all that I would suggest about Anne's provenance story as well, although I will admit, in support of Paul's position, that there is clear physical and material and testimonial data (from the merchants involved, for instance) that does go a good way towards establishing Mike's confession as invalid. I'm not sure yet that the same sort of clear physical and testimonial data has been offered into evidence in the case against Anne's story. Perhaps it has. Perhaps both of these stories are, as I have said, "a mess." That leaves us where we started, and where I find myself ending most of my posts on this board. With still another set of unresolvable narratives and a lot more stuff that we don't know than stuff that we do. But you also suggest a related difficulty concerning my "epistemology": "Though I think it has some value, I still feel John's epistemology leaves a little too much to chance. People generally have control over their actions and the events in their lives." I will agree that my reading (which is what this actually is -- it is not carefully and thoroughly enough constructed to be anything like an epistemology) leaves a good deal to chance. We are interpreting the words and actions of people who had and still have various desires and conflicting motives and we have precious little real evidence and we have the problems of meaning inscribed into any acts of reading and interpretation, all conspiring to make judgments difficult and conclusions dangerous, especially since there are personal reputations and legal consequences at stake. So yes, I prefer to leave possibilities open and to leave the chance of multiple misreadings alive in the name of eventual fairness and ultimate accuracy. As to the "degree of control" people have over their own lives and actions -- this is a very complicated question it seems to me and it gets even more complicated apparently when you start talking about Mike and Anne. The degree of control over their own lives that these two specific people have had and seem still to have remains unclear and problematic at best, doesn't it? We must also be careful about citing historical precedent in the case of fakes, I think, since although I agree that valuable patterns can be read and that histories here tell us useful things, these cannot finally be the basis for any conclusions concerning these two people and this book. There we must head back to the specific evidence that is present and that remains absent in our case. Especially since neither Mike nor Anne seem to me to especially fit any particular historically established profile of the large-market forger. Finally, as to the "facts" which suggest to you "that Mr. Barrett had some sort of involvement," they are themselves a set of problems, I think. Here is what you cite: "the fact that Mike used an alias, attempted to buy a genuine diary, his then-wife bemoaned to a secretary friend that her husband was writing a book that she 'couldn't talk about it', and the Crashaw discovery (whenever it took place) suggests to me that Mr. Barrett had some sort of involvement." As I think several people have successfully demonstrated elsewhere, there are conflicting possible readings here that make simple sense and that also allow for the possibility that Mike acquired this forgery and then researched it, perhaps tried to write about it himself, and finally took it to an agent. But I agree, by the way, that these facts do "suggest" Mike had some sort of involvement in the forgery. Unfortunately, they also suggest that he might not in fact have had knowledge that this thing was a forgery as well. They suggest conflicting possibilities. They are not, of course, by themselves physical, material, or testimonial evidence of forgery. The Crashaw quote is at least a physical piece of evidence, since it is a line that does appear in the diary and it is a book (an actual physical object) that was apparently in the Barrett's possession. It also offers up a narrative of discovery that must be read and considered in detail. The rest of the "facts" (the alias, Anne's mention of her husband writing a book, etc.) remain, for me at least, less than sufficient premises on which to establish any even likely or probable conclusion. So I will continue, I guess, to "leave too much to chance" (though I'm not quite sure what this means, exactly) and to try and distinguish reliable and material evidence from conflicting interpretations of reported events. Because of this, I will remain behind the complicity curve, I suppose -- but, and this is important -- this should not be seen or mistaken or misread as any movement at all towards any conclusion or towards the establishment of any scenario of innocence. I hope that makes things a little clearer. --John PS: I know almost no one claims this diary is authentic anymore, and very few people seem to claim that it is a particularly old forgery. Would anyone here claim the case for Mike and/or Anne's complicity in this forgery has nearly enough evidence behind it to allow even for either of them to be held on suspicion, let alone for an actual arrest? Does anyone still claim that their complicity in the actual forgery has now been "established beyond a reasonable doubt?" Just wondering about how established the case against them has become in people's minds.
Author: Alegria Saturday, 21 April 2001 - 12:41 pm
Martin and Paul, Since Martin did bring it up I have question. In the A-Z, no other author except Melvin Harris has his personal integrity questioned. Stephen Knight is given fair treatment despite some of his claims. Donald McKormick's blatant manufacturings are excused as a product of the time he was writing in and although you say that his book should be treated with caution, there are no personal judgements against the man himself. Your judgements on Melvin Harris stand out in stark contrast and are on Melvin Harris himself and not his work. For many here who are not privy to all the behind-the-scene info, it would be helpful to have an idea of why he was singled out in such a manner. So the question is, why were the comments made against the man and not the book as was the practice with other authors? And before anyone thinks I have joined the Melvin Harris Fan Club, nothing is further from the truth. There is a lot of acrimony on this subject and Mel Harris tends to be among the most abusive. However, if someone had posted, much less printed in a book, such speculations on my thought processes (his indignation when he believes he has perceived chicanery may lead him to make demonstrably unjustified assertions) and just left the sentences hanging there without posting examples or details I'd be rather ticked off too. So anyway just a question in the interests of fairness and deeper understanding of all the players.
Author: Karoline L Saturday, 21 April 2001 - 02:51 pm
I have to support Alegria's enquiry here. To be frank Martin if your book had made such a commentary on me then I'd be pretty damn mad too. Probably a lot madder than Melvin seems to be. And I should think most people would feel the same. if it were me I'd ask you to demonstrate the truth of these allegation against my character or unconditionally withdraw them. May I ask - can you offer any evidence to support these claims? Has Harris really made "demonstrably false accusations"? Can you quote them? If you can, I think you should. if you can't - then what on earth are such statements doing in your book? You justify your inclusion of such remarks with these words: "We added this sentence to the previous entry because such activities of his as claiming to set up a 'Committee of Integrity' to investigate the Maybrick Diary - (the first usage of the word integrity in the diary context, as far as I know) - tended to suggest that Paul Feldman and Shirley Harrison were venal: something we knew to be untrue." Did he in fact make any false allegations against these people? Or did you condemn him in your book just in anticipation of what his committee might be 'tending' to do? And isn't it true (I could be wrong), that one reason Harris formed this committee was to counter the not always honourable tactics being employed by certain people (not I think anyone who posts here), who believed the 'diary' genuine? Isn't it true that Harris was falsely and publicly accused of tampering with evidence? And weren't he and Alex Chisholm both threatened with law suits for merely publishing some facts about the 'diary' that certain people apparently didn't want to see in print? This seems pretty bad - but the A-Z doesn't mention any of this background information. I can't help but wonder why this valuable reference book, that is sold all over the world and is highly influential in forming opinions on the case, currently contains this condemnation of Harris, yet offers not one word of condemnation or even explanation, of the documented false allegations perpetrated by certain people against him. The effect of this is to leave the impression with the readers that Harris has behaved badly and no one else has. Whereas it seems that if anything Harris has received the nastiest treatment, and much of his behaviour can be seen as a response to this. If I have this wrong, please do correct me and accept my apologies. Karoline
Author: Martin Fido Saturday, 21 April 2001 - 03:58 pm
Dear Alegria and Karoline, It would be deeply unfair to issue a general warning against any of Melvin's books as we do against McCormick's, or anything like the far more blanketing general warning against accepting anything emanating from or associated with Joseph Sickert. For, as we say before issuing our caveat, 'many of the unsourced statements in Harris's earlier books rest on well-researched documentation'. Since, however, many of his statements are not only untrue, but at times derogatory about the work of other writers, some warning became essential. I have suggested that you read his posts where examples abound. I have given one example of a complete misrepresntation of a writer's thinking, and another of a speculative conclusion presented as though it were a fact. Do you wish to suggest that I believe things as irrational as any theophist? Or that there is any evidence to suggest that Ian Fleming composed Eight Little Whores? Are you under the impression that the farthings alleged to have been found with Annie Chapman's body have been proved to be absolute balderdash? Don't you think people who are (rightly) told that Harris is a researcher on a higher plane than (say) Jean Overton Fuller, and definitely not a fabricater of evidence like Donald McCormick or a downright liar like Joseph Sickert, also need to be warned that his work contains statements that are not to be relied upon, and which are presented in terms of such vociferous certainty that they are far more likely to be misleading than the errors to be found in my own and virtually all other books I have read? You were evidently not regular readers of 'Ripperana' in the early 1990s. The claim that the 'Committee of Integrity' was set up 'to counter the not always honourable tactics' of certain pro-diarists cannot be sustained by anything it produced. In fact the name, like Mr Harris's habit at that time of signing his letters, 'Yours for Integrity' was an obvious attempt to smear those who believed that the diary was genuine. The implication was that they could not genuinely believe it. (Harris's work is always strong on innuendo). As Paul Begg has rightly said, Feldy and Harris lost all sense of proportion at that time. Shirley Harrison was very unfortunate to be placed in the crossfire. The only person I am aware of who has made false accusations against Melvin is Feldy. And Feldy's theories did not come into the public domain until two years after the last edition of A-Z. I remarked in an earlier posting that Feldy's manifest betises are not malicious. They are a consequence of anger and being out of his depth in the sort of research he plunged himself into. The statement I first made when attacked on these boards by Melvin - that he is unique in my experience as a Ripper writer who abuses his talents by sneering and jeering at other writers -remains true to my experience. His attempt to deflect this criticism by citing Howells' and Skinner's very fair and accurate account of an encounter with Dan Farson when drunk - (remember, it was a completely objective Italian journalist who called Farson 'malignant as Henry VIII' after such an encounter!) - is deeply misleading. As is his subsequent attempt to portray Farson as just a little bit difficult. He was, in fact, a complete charmer in the morning who became an appallingly rude bully when the drink took over by late afternoon. The apparently unscrupulous manipulation of Farson into the argument is especially unbecoming from a writer who included Farson's work in 'The Bloody Truth' as matter to be shot down (with a good deal of sophistry and iunnuendo). I would guess the Oxford Times reviewer would see MH's belated (tu quoque?) characterisation of my book as 'jeering at other writers', as curious misrepresntation, too, since the reviewer accused me of being 'incorrigibly nice' to writers whose research was exposed as inadequate or incompetent by comparison. Finally, since you both appear to enjoy long arguments in which tempers are being barely restrained - (forgive me if I am misreading some of your past contributions to the boards) - I have to say that I don't. Since I use the boards for pleasure and relaxation, and reflection on Melvin is neither pleasant nor relaxing, I do not propose to enter into a lengthy discussion of him or the entry on him in A-Z. With all good wishes, Martin F
Author: Alegria Saturday, 21 April 2001 - 04:24 pm
I am afraid that that doesn't fully satisfy me so I shall simply say the rest of what comes to mind and you are of course free not to comment as you choose. As the only other work of Mel Harris that is included in the later edition of A-Z was The True Face which A-Z describes as an informative and interesting account of d'Onston, I do not see how his work in Ripperana could be the basis for the claims made against him in a book that would have a much larger and broader circulation than the Ripperana. People who have nothing to do with JTR at all, upon reading the comments made against Harris would be led to believe that his books were what were in question, not work in an obscure magazine. And I think that generalizing a person as dishonest and misleading is worse than characterizing their work that way. People's work can be misleading because they genuinely believe what they are saying and therefore can be people of integrity. Saying a person is misleading questions their integrity.