|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 24, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-Archives 2001:
Archive through April 24, 2001
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 22 April 2001 - 08:08 pm |        | Everyone:
This is a warning.
In an unusual attempt to return this discussion back to questions concerning the diary and the various interpreted scenes of its research and composition and to the question of just who might have forged this thing, I am going to repost here my responses to Karoline's most recent "list" of the "facts" and their "alternate explanations" in this case, and my questions concerning the role played by Tony Devereaux in this case and finally attach to this earlier post my questions concerning the evidence for a relationship between Mike Barrett and Garard Kane and my alternate possible scenario for the diary's production and distribution. The post that follows this one will be, then, something of a combination of two recent posts from two different boards that speak directly to the diary and its possible histories. It will be long and it will be mostly a repeat of what you may have already read or can still read elsewhere. Feel free to return to the original posts or to skip it if this is all still fresh in your minds. But I am afraid we have become distracted, and this is my little attempt at returning us to relevant issues.
Thanks in advance,
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 22 April 2001 - 08:09 pm | | Hello everyone,
I would like to try and write about one or two very small and simple things today, in the hope that they might clearly illustrate my concerns about some of the work being done here and the manner in which it is being presented.
I find, for instance, another list from Karoline here on the boards, and I would like to address, by way of illustration, one or two items on the list and specifically the way in which she has chosen to compose these items. I am afraid that her presentation might be at best simply incomplete and at worst unfair and misleading and I do not think that leaving such characterizations stand would serve the best interests of any investigation. Remember: I am not calling attention to these lines because I think the Barrett's are innocent. I really do not know either way. But I do think our readings should be careful, and I do not think these lines indicate the sort of care and patience necessary for analysis.
In beginning her list, Karoline writes to Paul:
"Paul, of course, anyone can take a circumstantial case like this one and 'discover' alternate explanation for each of the available facts."
And so, I think we are to suppose that what follows will be the "alternate explanations" that have been offered "for each of the available facts." But are they? Do they even approach the beginning of a presentation of these "alternate explanations?" If not, and if they are noticeably incomplete or simply caricatures of those explanations, then I think serious questions concerning the fairness and reliability and completeness of Karoline's discussion here begin to arise.
I would like to examine just a few of these "available facts" and the way Karoline presents the "alternate explanations."
These are Karoline's constructions:
"MB confessed?
Well, he was probably lying."
Stop. Now this is what concerns me. And I am afraid this is a particularly egregious example. To the "available fact" that Mike Barrett has repeatedly attempted to confess, people on these boards have offered a number of responses, including, yes, reservations about the validity of these confessions and concerns that he may be lying, but also hard evidence and close detailed reading that seem to substantially support the view that Mike, in his confession proves to be unable to describe how exactly he forged this document, and when he does offer specific information and it is checked out with the relevant merchants and parties the information turns out to be false or at least to be rife with conflict. There is hard testimonial and documentary evidence of this. It has been recorded and disseminated. The reason Mike is unable to produce a full confession that explains just how he did what he says he did remains open for interpretation, of course; but it is clear that his confessions are contradictory and partial and conflict with available evidence from much more independent sources, including the merchants in question. Consequently, Mike's "confessions" have become suspect.
We already know all of this. Now here is my point. By reducing all of these concerns, in her own composition, down to a simple and apparently too easy and convenient response, "Well, he was probably lying" is to oversimplify the issue, to offer a noticeably incomplete representation of the actual response and to even, perhaps, mislead readers by unfairly presenting the "alternate explanations" in a barely recognizable and fragmentary and incomplete manner. This speaks directly either to the question of Karoline's thoroughness and responsibility in her presentation of the issues here or it speaks to a deliberate desire for hastily rushing towards a solution, a desire that I find troublesome to say the least. In either case, I do not think that reducing the problems surrounding Mike's confessions and their relationship to known facts and hard testimonial and physical evidence to the phrase "Well, he was probably lying." does any sort of justice at all to the issues at stake or to the seriousness and complexity of these questions. I would certainly never want to use such a callous and flippant reading (of what exist elsewhere as a set of careful interpretations and responses) as anything like evidence or support for any conclusions whatsoever and hope that she wouldn't either.
There are, I'm afraid several other items in this list wherein the "alternate explanations" are either severely mischaracterized or dramatically cut short and thereby rendered incomplete and in some cases almost unrecognizable. This is not, I think, the way a reasoned or rational discussion should proceed. And Karoline herself has been repeatedly calling for reason and rational thinking.
Let us look at just one or two others, so as not to try the reader's patience (now there's a desire on my part on which I have obviously long since given up ).
Karoline lists:
"MB bought an empty Victorian diary just before he first took the fake 'diary' to the Crew agency?
Well, maybe he just wanted to see what (another) old Victorian diary looked like."
Again, by beginning these single line responses with the casual "Well, maybe..." the "alternate" possibilities are quickly made to appear not nearly as well thought out or likely as the original statements and consequently seem easy to dismiss. But, in fact, there is no argument actually taking place here. Merely a dramatic reconstruction and reduction of complex possible narratives to casual replies. This is unfair, I think. In fact, there is a possible scenario, suggesting that Mike Barrett, upon receiving this book and being curious about it, began researching everything he could about the book and, not being a skilled researcher, or even a very logical or responsible one, may indeed have tried to get hold of a proper Victorian diary to compare to the one in his hands. My suggestion here is not that this scenario is accurate but that it, exactly like Karoline's -- which suggests that Mike bothered to completely compose this diary then realized he didn't have a book in which to copy it, just went out and tried to buy one publicly, leaving the inevitable paper trail behind him, even knowing that he was about to use the book whose purchase could be easily traced to his own family, to create this forgery and to take it to an agent and to foist it on the public -- remains a possible and even similarly likely interpretation. In Karoline's scenario, Mike just went out and publicly purchased the very book, complete with traceable payment and receipt, with which he was going to commit a felony. My suggestion here is not that this is an inaccurate scenario. My, I think completely reasonable, suggestion is that either one of these two interpreted scenarios still seems utterly possible and each about as likely as the other actually, and, in any case, Karoline's too quick reduction of the "alternate" possible scenario to an incomplete and misleading single line is both hasty and careless and does not respect the details of the discussion.
[An aside: It also seems at least possible that her attachment of the word "alternate" to the explanations with which she does not agree is now becoming a simple, quick and effective way to render one set of explanations (hers) the "obvious" ones and another set of explanations (Paul's, in this case) the "other" ones. This is a rhetorical maneuver that has long served the cause of sophism, but that is invalid unless one set of scenarios is clearly and completely demonstrated to be more obvious than the others. I am not convinced that is yet the case here.]
Karoline's list, continues, of course, and I would like to demonstrate my concerns about the fairness of her presentation with a look at one more item on it:
"MB had the text of the diary on his wp?
Well, maybe he copied it there as a study-aid."
Here it is again. First, it now seems apparent that the text of the diary was actually on a disk, not "on" the word processor. This difference is important because although we know what happened to the word processor (which was apparently blank), we have no idea exactly what happened to the disk. Either Mike, as he suggests in one of his confessions, sent it to a family member to be destroyed (making the word processor itself irrelevant, I suppose) or he hung on to it (suggesting that he did not feel it would be incriminating, and that perhaps he or Anne did in fact transcribe it only after receiving the diary) and it was used to produce copies of the transcript for various experts -- not at all simply "as a study aid." In either case, there is a considerable lack of information about this issue and a number of scenarios seem to remain equally probable concerning the use or the fate of the disk. However, none of this shows up in Karoline's "Well, maybe he copied it there as a study aid.." which remains a harshly unfair and noticeably partial and incomplete reproduction of any "alternate explanation."
I think the not so hidden rhetorical assumptions and desires of Karoline's newest list of "facts" and "alternate explanations" is beginning to become more and more apparent.
Someone recently asked me why I seem to respond more critically to some people's writing than to others. Well, this too convenient and carelessly constructed list of question and answers, that would apparently seek to dismiss serious reading and serious and detailed possible scenarios that have been carefully discussed, all in the name of scoring rhetorical points and without a single citation to clarify any of the so-called "alternate explanations," is a demonstration of one reason I respond so critically to certain posts. It has nothing at all to do with who wrote them or even with whether they are arguing for or against complicity. It has only to do with what seems to me dangerously unfair rhetorical strategies and either conveniently quick or simply careless reading.
I could continue this reading of Karoline's list and offer detailed responses that would seek to more accurately present the various "alternate explanations" I have seen discussed here by many people, but I think the point should by now be clear even to those who would support Karoline's conclusions concerning complicity. This is not the way these conclusions should be arrived at, if only in the interest of full disclosure and of justice.
One final thought, on an unrelated matter, but one which also now has me concerned. At the end of her list, Karoline offers this "fact."
"Devereaux's family say they never saw the diary or heard him talk about it?
Well, maybe they aren't telling the truth. or maybe he kept it quiet from them. "
But only about half a dozen posts later Karoline wishes to re-establish the link between Devereaux and the diary, claiming:
"Kane of course can be tied in with the Barretts through his friendship with Devereux that went back to at least 1979.
Therefore it becomes a good possibility that Kane wrote the diary and was therefore involved with MB, AG and possibly others in the creation of this document."
Now unless Karoline is claiming that Devereux knew nothing about the diary but knew Kane and somehow introduced him to the Barretts and then his friends all composed the forgery without him ever knowing about it, her earlier mentioning of the "fact" that
"Devereaux's family say they never saw the diary or heard him talk about it?"
does not seem to fit in with her more recent suggestion that it was Kane who wrote the diary and it was Devereaux who provided the link to the Barretts. In fact, it now appears, after all of this, that Karoline herself, faced with the denials from Tony's family but still needing Tony as the Barrett's link to Kane, might now be forced to respond using the very line she earlier cited dismissively as an "alternate" explanation! "Well, maybe they aren't telling the truth. Or maybe he kept it quiet from them."
Suddenly, this explanation does not seem so "alternate" at all if we want Tony to be complicit and to have served as a link between the Barrett's and Kane. Unless, of course he had no clue what his frends were doing -- this would be, I suppose, an "alternate" "alternate" explanation?
Which is it? Which one is the "fact?" Tony knew about the diary and passed it from Kane to Mike because he was in on it with Kane and the Barrett's, or Tony did not know about the diary and did not pass it to Mike since his "family say they never saw the diary or heard him talk about it?" Karoline seems to be offering both conflicting interpretations of these "facts" at the same time. Or is she suggesting that Tony was the link of association but knew nothing about the diary? See, that's the thing about "facts." Sometimes they are not "facts" at all. That Tony's family "say they never saw the diary or heard him talk about it" might be a fact. But that therefore Tony could not have passed it to Mike (which is Karoline's first implication -- that the "alternate" scenario that says Mike got it without knowing it was a forgery from Tony must be less likely than that Mike composed it himself) is not a "fact" at all but an interpretation. So is almost everything Karoline has offered as evidence of complicity, of course, but this interpretation seems particularly confused since she seems to be claiming both that there is no evidence that Tony ever knew about any diary and that there is evidence that Tony was the link between the penman of the diary and the Barretts. Are we to suppose he was the associative link but he remained unaware of the diary throughout the entire research, composition, and creation process as undertaken by two of his friends who knew each other only through him? Is this the "simple" scenario we are now being asked to prefer over all the others? Or is Karoline now being forced to agree with what she once dismissed as an "alternate explanation": that members of Tony's family "aren't telling the truth. Or maybe he kept it quiet from them." Sometimes these "alternate explanations" can come in handy later, I suppose.
In any case, I am certainly not prepared to say which of all of these scenarios concerning Devereaux's role is even close to being simpler than the others, several of which I have seen more carefully advanced here; and I am certainly not willing to believe that Karoline, in either of these two posts, demonstrates that any questions have been actually answered with any detail, care, or any physical or material or testimonial evidence of any kind yet, or that her own methodologies and her own readings have been particularly careful, detailed, thorough, or fair.
In another post, Karoline has asked:
"Can anyone think of another single unified interpretation that fits the data as well or better?"
This brings me to another, related troublesome issue and, as a way of begining to posit "another single unified interpretation that fits the data as well or better," leads me to ask two fairly simple questions:
1.) Is there any real evidence at all, of any sort, that Mike Barrett ever met Garard Kane, or even knew Mr. Kane or even knew Mr. Kane was a friend of Tony's or even knew of Mr. Kane at all? Is there any physical evidence or material or documentary or even reliable testimonial evidence of any meeting between Kane and Barrett or of any knowledge at all on Barrett's part concerning even the existence of Kane?
2.) If not, is it at all possible or even likely that, if Kane's handwriting does indeed match that in the book, that Kane (and perhaps others) forged this diary sometime after 1988, that Kane then did indeed give it to his friend Tony (the one relationship that does have documented evidence to establish it as authentic -- the will), who then did indeed place it in the hands of his unsuspecting drinking mate, Mike. And Mike, then thinking he had been given a great and rare opportunity, rushed off to research the thing, buying the red diary for comparison and perhaps even searching out the Crashaw quote, and copying the text onto a disk, until finally, finding himself completely out of his depth, he gave up and took the thing to Doreen, trying feebly to protect himself with ridiculous lies from any possible criminal involvement if the thing was a forgery? Then it hit the public forum and all hell broke loose and people's stories started to change and their motives and interests were altered and Paul Feldman started working the players and "film deals" became possible and lo and behold we end up exactly where we are now, though in this particular interpretation of events, without Mike or Anne having composed the forgery or being complicit in any way in the research or production of the document? Why is this "simple" scenario any less likely than one which includes Mike and Anne in the research and composition. It accounts for Kane's handwriting matching (if it indeed does) and for young Caroline remembering seeing her father open the parcel and for the creation of a transcript on the word processor and for many other aspects of the narrative we are so busily interpreting.
Please note: I am not suggesting that this scenario is, in fact, any more likely than one which includes Mike and Anne in the research, writing, and creation of the document. But it seems to account for all of the things we know so far for certain with similar neatness and thoroughness of consideration and it seems every bit as simple and likely considering what little actual physical evidence we have. And Tony's involvement in the criminal act through Kane would then even account for his reported cryptic response that sought to misdirect a naturally curious Mike towards Anne, as a way for Tony to keep his own distance and his friend Kane's distance from the origins of the document (see Feldman, 215-216). And, this would account at least in part for much of Mike's subsequent panic and irrational behavior, since unfortunately Mr. Devereaux and Mr. Kane both pass away and the diary is apparently a forgery and now Mike is suddenly left alone holding the incriminating document but never knowing where exactly it came from. In fact, such a scenario does apparently seem to account quite "simply" for nearly all of the evidence and the interpretations of the evidence I have seen here so far. And I think this was the challenge that Karoline offered earlier on this board -- to offer up a single other scenario which accounts for the facts we know so far, including the ones she has often listed. And this is all assuming, of course, that the writing in the book is in fact Kane's -- although this remains a mystery. If it's not Kane's then everything opens up once again, even parts of Anne's story, and we would need to return to much earlier discussions.
So, again, is there any directly reliable account of any meeting between Mike and Mr. Kane or of the any direct knowledge on Mike's part even concerning Mr. Kane's existence as another one of Tony's friends?
Just wondering,
--John
PS: Now that I have set up this possible scenario, I would like to help challenge it as being also problematic and still unsubstantiated and perhaps even fanciful (as almost all the scenarios I have seen here so far still remain, since they rely on very little actual evidence of any substantial sort). Here's a start at criticizing the version I offered above: if Kane and Co. forged this thing and then used Tony to pass it to an unsuspecting Mike and Anne, one puzzling question would remain. Why? Did they think that through Tony's friendship with Mike they could eventually claim some of the resulting profits since it was Tony after all who gave Mike the book? That using Mike and Anne meant that they could eventually profit and still remain at least somewhat out of the frame, especially if Mike and Anne were kept ignorant of the document's origins? Did they just want to plant this forgery to see what would happen? Was someone involved particularly interested in the Ripper or in Maybrick or reacting to the centennial or had they recently started reading on the subjects and became inspired by the two cases? I have no idea. This "simple" scenario accounts in one way or another for all of the "evidence" we have been discussing as far as I can tell, but it is certainly no more likely nor believable nor complete nor thorough nor supported by any specific physical or material evidence than any of the others. Consequently, the case against Mr. Kane and Tony Devereux, like the case against Mike and Anne, seems barely to have begun to be established. Still, I will be very interested in the results of any complete and thorough handwriting analysis.
I apologize again for moving too slowly and for holding back our progress towards a solution. I would like our history, when we write it here, to be thorough, well-reasoned, and carefully supported with real evidence and ultimately to be as complete as possible. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 02:14 am | | John--- Hello. Your wrote:
'Mike, then thinking he had been given a great and rare opportunity, rushed off to research the thing, buying the red diary for comparison
and perhaps even searching out the Crashaw quote, and copying the text onto a disk, until finally, finding himself completely out of his depth, he gave up and took the thing to Doreen,
"[Mike] rushed off to research the thing, buying the red diary for comparison"???. Rushed off? Devereux died in August 1991. Mike bought the red diary in March 1992, and didn't take it to London until April. 8 months at the very least. Was the red diary really likely to be a spontaneous purchase? Remember: Mike wanted to own a genuine blank diary...he could have seen what one looked like in any old antique shop, bookstall, or museum. But why would this stange suggestion even have occurred to him? Remember that this is the bloke that Paul & Caz have claimed thought the diary was genuine. Why would it even cross his mind to find out what a genuine diary looked like if he thought the Maybrick diary was genuine? "Researching the thing?" Paul Begg has posted here that Mike appeared to have done minimal research at the best. Mike allegedly had the diary for A YEAR before taking it to London (we know Tony had Mike's REW book) but hadn't even read the most basic Ripper books. I still don't see where this 'spontaneous' 'research' purchase even remotely works. (There's some other slightly technical questions surrounding the red diary that are rather tedious but perhaps I'll post them later)
You also casually suggest that Mike might have "researched" the Crashaw quote. Please explain how Mike managed to do this. We on these boards have wracked our brains over this for a long time, or --to use your phrase-- "have carefully discussed" this very point. If your casual suggestion is to be taken seriously as an alternative you need to explain how Mike would have managed this (or even why he would have managed this). When doing this, you might keep in mind:
Mike's mental & physical conditon during the fall of 1994 when he allegedly spent a week searching out this quote. (See Feldman's descriptions of Mike during this time).
The fact that the line is in mid-poem and is not indexed anywhere. (And was discovered in the middle of an obscure essay about George Herbert)
The fact that Mike's 'reseach' stories are conflicting. In Shirley Harrison's Blake edition Mike 'badgered the staff for help' (p 282) and in a private phonemessage (12 October 1994) posted by Keith Skinner, Mike was said to have found it on his own without any librarians help.
and, finally, according to Melvin Harris:
"the[Sphere] volume and its companions had been seen by Mike's relatives BEFORE the Diary was even heard of. He also told Gray about the significance of the book in the first week of September (1994) BEFORE he claimed to Harrison that he had found the quote in the library" (This evidently confirmed by Alan Grey).
Sorry, but unless you think Melvin Harris is fibbing, I can't even begin to buy your alternatives, here.
Finally, could you please explain your statement:
"we know what happened to the word processor (which was apparently blank), we have no idea exactly what happened to the disk."
Whether the diary was "on" the word processor or whether it was on a disk in or next-to the word processor is an irrelevant technicality. If you know "what happpened to the word processor" please clue me in...because I haven't the faintest idea. In one edition of Shirley's book it is seized by Scotland Yard, in the next it isn't. Some say Mike hid the evidence. Kenneth Rendell said the text was found on the processor by Scotland Yard...I believe (dont' quote me yet--I'll look into this) so did Melvin Harris. The question is far from settled.
RJP |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 02:53 am | | Karoline
I would appreciate it if you would show where I have indulge in "routine personal attacks" as a 'substitute for rational argument'.
Thank you
Paul |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 07:04 am | | John - You may have missed my earlier response to one of your lists of questions, since it came after an opening posting some diatribing with Karoline: so you might have skipped it. I am reposting it here, therefore, adding the note that I think RJP's comments on your latest are well-founded, except that, unlike him, I now really think most things proposed by Melvin Harris need to be corroborated to check for exaggeration or over-hasty jumping to conclusions or presentation of conjectures and suspicions as facts. (I don't know whether these habits would come under RJP's heading of 'fibbing', which I was brought up to despise as a euphemistic word for 'lying'; and I am quite cautious about simply accusing others of lying.)
John,
Wow! 31 questions and supplementaries, by my rough count, to almost all of which my answer woud have to be 'I don't know'. And where I can give an answer it contributes to the darkness rather than the enlightenment, thus:
Has Mike told other lies for no apparent reason? - I'm not sure that reasons aren't often apparent for the lies Mike does tell. Though they vary from time to time. At one moment he may be trying to give himself importance; at another trying to injure Anne; at yet another trying to curry favour or get a bottle of whisky out of whoever is with him. At his wildest, it simply appears to be 'the drink speaking'.
Do Anne's changing set of narratives tell us anything at all about who wrote it? - No
Is there any genuine testimonial evidence linking this diary to anyone anywhere before 1992 - Only Anne's account of seeing it in a cupboard in her father's house and subsequently keeping it hidden from Mike and Caroline in hers, and her father's story that it came into his possession via 'Granny Formby'. Those who know Anne best think her testimony is genuine. Many people who hardly know her at all think it dubious. Probably most people's opinion of Billy's story depends on what they think of Anne.
Are Mike's and Anne's stories and behaviour reliable evidence at all? - Mike's, definitely not. Anne's - well, opinions vary as above.
Does science help link the book to any possible authors? - No
Does it narrow down the time of composition? - I don't think so
Does the rhetoric of the book link it to any specific time or place? - Not obviously, and you would seem to be as well qualified as those of us with literary and linguistic training who concluded that there were points where the language seemed later than 1890s. The general difficulty is that, assuming it to be a mid- to late twentieth century forgery, its efforts to imitate a 'Victorian' sound will match our general rhetorical expectations, and not stick out as an obviously dateable anachronistic impression of Victorianism.
Are there things in the book that might link it to the centennial - Not things IN the book, but the appearance of the book itself obviously provoked the suspicion that the centennial publicity inspired it. Of course, there is the variously interpretable knowledge of 'tin matchbox, empty' which came into the public domain as a result of one new book and one revised standard book which came out as warm-ups to the centennial.
Do we know (from handwriting, e.g.) that Mike and Anne couldn't have written it? - I don't know which, if any, document examiners have given opinions on this. Since document examination is more an art or a 'skill' than a science, the choice of practitioner is exceptionally important. Two whom I wouldn't trust at all were called in by Feldman. One whom I thought excellent was originally called in by Shirley, and two others whom I thought excellent were called in by the Sunday Times and Rendell respectively. I don't know whether any of them ever gave an opinion on the diary writing and the Barretts, and in any case, their relative merits as herein described are only my opinion (though I could give supporting reasons if it ever seemed necessary). But I don't remember ever having heard from any of the people who say 'it's not Anne's or Mike's handwriting', or point to Mike's evasion and inability to sit down and write a sample passage, that they in fact had a professional document examiner's opinion on the matter.
I think somebody remarked earlier that Scotland Yard, on the Sunday Times' complaint, took a look to see if anybody could be charged with fraud. They certainly looked hard at the Barretts and I don't believe they were convinced that they heard the truth from them. But they didn't attempt to bring any charges against them.
It seems that 22 unanswered and I suspect unanswerable questions rather firmly underpin your doubts about asserting anything positive in re the Barretts' culpability.
Here endeth my earlier response to your earlier posting.
And I'll separate this one itself from responses to anyone else.
All the best,
Martin |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 07:12 am | | Hi RJ,
Serious thanks for reading and for your fine response.
As I mentioned in my post, I do not think this particular scenario is any more sound and complete than any other of those floating around here, including the published ones in Paul's Feldman's book and in Shirley's book, and the speculative interpretations offered by all concerned on these boards. I think this lack of soundness and completeness is at the moment probably inevitable, since we have so little hard evidence. But I'll be happy to offer you my own reactions to the problems you pose and also be more than happy to discuss possibilities with you.
You write to me, concerning Mike rushing off to do research:
"Rushed off? Devereux died in August 1991. Mike bought the red diary in March 1992, and didn't take it to London until April. 8 months at the very least."
Right. By "rushing off" here I meant that once he got the diary he started researching it and, as he tells Shirley and, as she cites in the Hyperion edition of her book, he claims to have worked on it for all of this time. He could indeed have "rushed" off to start researching the thing when he received it and still be struggling with it 8 months later and still be unsure what to do with it 8 months later. This does not seem to me, at first glance, to be a contradiction. But perhaps it is.
But you make a couple of good points:
"Was the red diary really likely to be a spontaneous purchase?"
Well, I'm not sure here what this means. Is it possible that Mike, as he was researching this thing and perhaps trying to write about it himself decided he should have what he could be certain was an authentic Victorian diary for comparison? Sure. Does this make his purchase "spontaneous?" I don't know. Is such a decision on his part as likely as a decision on his part to publicly purchase, leaving a receipt and a paper trail that can be easily traced back to his him and his family the very book he was going to use to commit a felony? Absolutely. Both of these alternatives seem to imply a rather irrational and perhaps even naive or silly or stupid act of Mike's part. Either he bought one for comparison when he did not have to or he knowingly bought one to use in a criminal forgery without taking any precautions whatsoever against the purchase being traced to him or his wife. Neither alternative seems particularly logical or explainable, but both seem equally likely or unlikely, no?
You go on:
"Remember: Mike wanted to own a genuine blank diary...he could have seen what one looked like in any old antique shop, bookstall, or museum. But why would this stange suggestion even have occurred to him? Remember that this is the bloke that Paul & Caz have claimed thought the diary was genuine. Why would it even cross his mind to find out what a genuine diary looked like if he thought the Maybrick diary was genuine?"
Exactly. Please see my comment above for why this decision on his part, if it was made during research of a book he thought was genuine, makes little or no more specific sense that his decision if it was made as part of a criminal act. But I do, however, think that people are at least likely to be more careful if there is a chance they might, say, go to jail. This would suggest that it might even be more likely that such a strange decision -- buying this book publicly leaving a check and receipt behind -- was part of an inept attempt at research rather than an inept attempt at criminal subterfuge. But maybe not. I don't really know, of course, nor do any of us.
You write further:
"'Researching the thing?' Paul Begg has posted here that Mike appeared to have done minimal research at the best. Mike allegedly had the diary for A YEAR before taking it to London (we know Tony had Mike's REW book) but hadn't even read the most basic Ripper books. I still don't see where this 'spontaneous' 'research' purchase even remotely works. (There's some other slightly technical questions surrounding the red diary that are rather tedious but perhaps I'll post them later)"
Thanks, I'd like to see them. I still don't completely understand everything there is to know about this purchase, I am sure, and look forward to a clear explanation of all the details. As to your question concerning Mike's research; there is of course a difference between saying Mike rushed off to research the thing and saying that Mike was particularly successful or even very good at researching the thing. He himself tells us two things, in Shirley's book. But of course, this is Mike speaking, and as we have seen elsewhere, some of his lies don't even seem to make any sense, so we must read this once again being self-conscious that we really don't know what happened here and just ask ourselves if it makes any reasonable sense or, as we say here these days, seems at all likely.
Anyway, Mike tells Shirley,
"'I bought all the Jack the Ripper books I could find,' MIke recalled, 'and spent hours down at the library trying to research the Ripper story to see if the diary fitted. The one day I read a book by Richard Whittington Egan called Murder, Mayhem and Mystery. It was about crime in Liverpool, and there was the name 'Battlecrease House' in an account of the Maybrick affair.' (6)
Of course, one could quite properly ask: If Mike bought all the Ripper books he could find, and we don't know how many this might have been, why did he need to head to the library to see if the diary fit the case? This seems contradictory and, no surprise, seems not to make any sense, unless he is saying that he used the Ripper books for one part of his little "test" and needed the library for others. But I have no idea.
Shirley's narrative continues later:
"Mike bought a word processor and launched himself into extensive research, intending to write the story of the diary himself." (7)
As I said before, I can least understand this initial inclination. I might very well have had the same one.
"He spent hours sifting through microfilm newspaper in the library." (7)
Although, as you properly mention Paul as suggesting, he might not have learned very much from this or remembered anything at all. Someone can do hours and hours of research and show no signs of having done it. I know this for sure. My students demonstrate this to me almost weekly.  It just means they are not very good at what they are doing. Heck, I had one student swear to me just this term that she looked for two hours in the library and couldn't find any books about writers writing. And the funny part is, I actually believed she looked, that she was there and moved around and typed things into search engines and catalogues and still didn't know where to go or what to do and, if she had, she may very well not have learned anything from reading whatever she found. Was this the case, with Mike? Again, I don't really know. But I do believe it's possible as an "alternate" explanation. Certainly as possible as the fact that Mike was able to do the research and learn what was necessary to actually compose this diary from scratch, even with the help of Anne and/or Mr. Kane. In either case, Mike would have had to know something about this stuff, wouldn't he? Or did he not compose the diary, but only lend his word processor to a mysterious someone for its composition and then strangely took the word processor and the disk and the finished book back once the thing was done? This is a more likely alternative? I'm confused now about what is being claimed. If Mike is supposed to have written the thing, then how do you account for him showing no signs of having done any research? If he isn't now supposed to have written it, who is?
But your response continues, and, in a related way, eventually gets to my biggest problem with my own scenario and with everyone else's so far as well:
"You also casually suggest that Mike might have "researched" the Crashaw quote. Please explain how Mike managed to do this. We on these boards have wracked our brains over this for a long time, or --to use your phrase-- "have carefully discussed" this very point. If your casual suggestion is to be taken seriously as an alternative you need to explain how Mike would have managed this (or even why he would have managed this). When doing this, you might keep in mind:
Mike's mental & physical conditon during the fall of 1994 when he allegedly spent a week searching out this quote. (See Feldman's descriptions of Mike during this time).
The fact that the line is in mid-poem and is not indexed anywhere. (And was discovered in the middle of an obscure essay about George Herbert)
The fact that Mike's 'reseach' stories are conflicting. In Shirley Harrison's Blake edition Mike 'badgered the staff for help' (p 282) and in a private phonemessage (12 October 1994) posted by Keith Skinner, Mike was said to have found it on his own without any librarians help.
and, finally, according to Melvin Harris:
'the[Sphere] volume and its companions had been seen by Mike's relatives BEFORE the Diary was even heard of. He also told Gray about the significance of the book in the first week of September (1994) BEFORE he claimed to Harrison that he had found the quote in the library" (This evidently confirmed by Alan Grey).'"
These are excellent points and ones I was hoping someone would eventually raise. As I have said repeatedly, it is this Crashaw quote that sticks in my own head as the single piece of real, substantial, physical evidence linking the Barrett's to the diary's composition. It's not much, but it seems to be all we have, I think. As you point out, there are indeed conflicting narratives about how Mike may or may not have stumbled on this quote and when, precisely. This is very troublesome and suspicious and I have always felt so. I asked in another post if there was any another possible source for the Crashaw quote than the Sphere volume and no one else has yet offered one. I see this all two ways: If Mike did write the diary (even somehow without showing any signs of having done the necessary research, as you yourself point out), then he must have seen the line in the Sphere book and thought somehow that it would be good to include in the diary. If he did not write the diary, then he must have found his copy of the Sphere book at some point and came across the line (perhaps with the help of that old "binding defect") and, wanting to make himself sound more important and like and impressive researcher, then concocted the stupid and contradictory stories about his successful research. Has Mike ever told lies to make himself sound more talented and important than he is? Has Mike ever told lies elsewhere or in other instances in order to exaggerate his own abilities and his accomplishments? If the answer to either of these questions is yes, then the second scenario is as likely as the first, even though it in no way begins to account for specifically how the line got into the diary through the hand of whoever did actually write this thing. On the other hand, if we are assuming the Crashaw line and its appearance in the diary is evidence that Mike composed the diary, then we must respond to those who would counter that Mike seems incapable of having written it for some the very reasons you have yourself mentioned here concerning his apparent knowledge and abilities. I don't know exactly how we respond to this. I will look forward to what you think might be the case. Perhaps we could say that Mike was only helping someone else write it. Who? Kane? But, as I asked in my last post, so we have any physical, material, or testimonial evidence that these two men even knew each other? Anne? Any real physical evidence for this, yet? I don't think so? So I remain reading.
[Incidentally, it was the appearance of the Crashaw quote that first got me involved here on these boards (check the archive) and it is this line that, in many ways, still most troubles me.]
Finally, you quote me (seriously, thank you again for that) and ask me about the word procesor:
"'we know what happened to the word processor (which was apparently blank), we have no idea exactly what happened to the disk.'"
Whether the diary was "on" the word processor or whether it was on a disk in or next-to the word processor is an irrelevant technicality. If you know "what happened to the word processor" please clue me in...because I haven't the faintest idea. In one edition of Shirley's book it is seized by Scotland Yard, in the next it isn't. Some say Mike hid the evidence. Kenneth Rendell said the text was found on the processor by Scotland Yard...I believe (dont' quote me yet--I'll look into this) so did Melvin Harris. The question is far from settled."
I absolutely agree here and I was completely mistaken in writing: "we know what happened to the word processor." This understandably left the impression that I now knew where it was, and I do not. This was careless of me. Thank you for pointing that out.
I only meant to suggest that we know the word processor was in Mike's house when the investigation began, after the diary was finished and was released. We do not know what happened to the disk or where it was when the investigation began after the diary was released. But you are quite right, we do not know, apparently, for sure, what has happened to it since.
Now I would like to suggest to you a small correction of one of your conclusions.
Whether the diary was "on" the word processor or whether it was on a disk in or next-to the word processor is most certainly not "an irrelevant technicality."
You yourself demonstrate why. You cite two highly reputable sources as perhaps saying the text of the diary was on the word processor. But if Paul's earlier description of the machine based on technical data he read posted by Karoline, I believe, is correct, then the text could not have been on the word processor, as it had no hard drive or memory to such a file. This is very important, since if the text was on a disk, it might have been one of the things Mike claims to have sent to a family member to be destroyed or it might have been the disk used to make the very copies of the text now in the hands (or at one time in the hands) of Martin and Paul and other experts. If the latter is the case, that would suggest that Mike held onto the disk and that he did not feel it was incriminating perhaps because he and Anne did indeed type it onto the disk after receiving the diary. If the former is the case and he sent the disk off for destruction, how do we know this? Is there any evidence at all for this? We do have the typed copies, I think, somewhere as possible evidence for the latter account. But in either case a number of serious and important questions remain which prevent us from deciding at this point whether it is more likely that Mike originally composed the lines onto the disk or in fact transcribed them there from the diary's finished pages. This is precisely what I have been saying all along. Also, if in fact, the diary text was only on a disk and not on the machine itself, then it becomes the fate of the word processor that becomes irrelevant. So this is clearly not simply a "technicality." It seems to me vitally important that we determine whether the diary text was indeed "on the word processor" when it was discovered, or whether it was only on a disk, which was then either destroyed (signifying perhaps one possible scenario) or kept and used for copies (signifying perhaps another). I hope you are able to find out for sure whether Melvin claims the text was on the machine itself or merely on a disk, leaving the machine without the disk, empty. I do not know the quote from Rendell that you are almost citing here, but I would be interested in its specific language and if Rendell was making this clear distinction. I believe it is very important for helping us interpret Mike's behavior with the disk and the the source of the copies later made available and for helping us determining whether the text transcribed onto the disk or the word processor is in any way evidence of complicity at all. This hardly seems "an irrelevant technicality." Besides, I would like to get it right, for the sake of fairness and accuracy and thoroughness.
Until we know this for sure, the matter is indeed far from settled.
Until we know any of this with at least a little more confidence and with the support of a little more physical and material evidence in hand, all of these matters are indeed far from settled.
Thanks again, RJ, for your very useful response,
--John |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 07:17 am | | Hi Ally,
I'm happy to see from your smiley that you're teasing me. And you win the Rosemary Prize for 23 April 2001: I'm too slow-witted to understand the point. But keep up the good work. The silly old man is happy to smile with vaguely senile pleasure at the bright young things dancing around him.
A pedantry point. I am distressed by the common usage of 'chastise' as though it merely means 'chasten' or 'discipline' or 'reprove'. This is not restrictive Britticism: Funk and Wagnell confirm that 'chastise' and 'castigate' both imply corporal punishment. Apart from the fact that there are few things holding less attractions for me than the idea of applying a whip or a cane to a fellow writer, I should be very sorry to lose the damning exposure of ghastly C.S.Lewis's real nature when, in 'A Preface to Paradise Lost', he suggests that the fall of man could have been avoided by a little wife-beating!
A last gloss on Melvin's letter as posted by Karoline, which can generally speak for itself. As Paul Begg has pointed out privately, placing the words 'his theory' in quotation marks removes any possibility that Melvin was innocently asking whether Paley was being misrepresented, and denotes a deliberately cynical attitude to Paley's scholarly integrity. I may add that Bruce was absolutely Livid about the letter! And I didn't blame him.
Perhaps anything further on this topic should be transferred to another board?
With all good wishes,
Martin |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 07:17 am | | Hi Martin,
Thanks for the thoughtful and I think very useful reply to some of my questions. I remember reading it and then it got lost in the unfortunate tussle about methodologies. I have said a thing or two about Mike's lies and about why I think it is very important to know for certain if the diary text was on a disk rather than on the word processor in my last response to RJ, but now I am again late for class and must head out the door. I thank you, though, for offering an even clearer demonstration than my own of precisely why any case against anyone in the forgery has barely even begun to be in any way established.
Drat, I'm late again.
Bye for now,
--John |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 07:34 am | | John,
A tiny gloss on your very full response to RJP. At one point you query a conclusion on the grounds that Mike would have been exceptionally silly or stupid to follow a certain course of action. Having met him a couple of times, and listened to tapes of his being interviewed, I have to say that there is virtually no silliness or stupidity I would put beyond him.
This can cut both ways. The one really persuasive point in the diary's original provenance was the marketeers' total ignorance of the true value of a genuine confession of Jack the Ripper. Mike was asking for a couple of hundred pounds with which he hoped to buy a new garden shed. This absence of any calculated gouging certainly played a considerable part in persuading Robert Smith that it might not be a money-making hoax.
With all good wishes,
Martin |
Author: Karoline L
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 07:59 am | | Martin,
I think we have to set Harris's comment to you in the proper historical context and I will try to do this if I can.
Isn't it true that Paley himself had been complaining that Paul Harrison had 'plagiarised' his ideas? And wasn't Melvin merely pointing out to you the silliness of Paley's complaint?
In effect isn't he saying - "how can Paley complain about having 'his ideas' stolen, when this novel, based on exactly the same idea, had come out several years before his own book?"
isn't this the context of Harris's comments?
If I'm wrong in this understanding please tell me how. But if I'm not then I don't see the basis of your accusation at all.
And if you would like to move the discussion somewhere else, then that's fine with me. You lead and I'll follow like you slave.
Karoline |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 08:25 am | | Martin/John--Have it your way. Do you think Melvin Harris was lying when he claimed:
"the[Sphere] volume and its companions had been seen by Mike's relatives BEFORE the Diary was even heard of. He also told Gray about the significance of the book in the first week of September
(1994) BEFORE he claimed to Harrison that he had found the quote in the library" ?
Could Shirley Harrison or Keith Skinner please comment on whether or not Anne denies that the Barrett's owned these volumes prior to 1992? Or whether the statement above made by Harris can be confirmed?
John--You've played a bit of a conjuring trick on me & switched Mike "researching" & finding the Crashaw quote to him discovering it in the defective Sphere copy. Please demonstrate how Mike could have "researched" and found the quote.
Thanks,
RJP |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 08:45 am | | Hi Karoline,
As mooted between us, I've opened a new board for this topic and placed it under general Discussions, Miscellaneous, Harris, Melvin.
All good wishes,
Martin F |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 08:51 am | | Hi RJP,
As I remarked earlier, I don't propose to chuck around accusations that MH has been lying. But given his track record, I have no idea how firm the information he received from Gray or the Barrett relatives or whoever was, and whether he reported as fact something which was actually his own honest conclusion from a more nebulous statement.
I can't offer anything really helpful about the little red diary, as by the time it became an issue I was unspeakably bored by the whole Maybrick business, and not very interested in what Mike might have bought or when or where.
With all good wishes,
Martin F |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 09:19 am | | Hi Martin:
Mike Barrett might not have known the full value of the Diary. He probably did not know how the publishing industry worked and that he might receive royalties for any book about the Diary and not just a flat payment. He might have thought he would be paid a "lump sum" which might have paid for the garden shed that you mentioned. However, he certainly would have known that the name "Jack the Ripper" was famous and that if the document was accepted as being by Jack the Ripper (I leave aside for the moment the notion of whether he knew the Diary was a forgery), he would be entitled to payment of some kind. His use of the alias "Mr. Williams" could be taken to denote that he was involved in a forgery scheme (even if just as a "placer") or merely indicate that this being a valuable property, it might be best to use another name. As with a lot of these actions by the Barretts, they can be read a number of different ways, depending whether you view them as innocent or guilty in L'Affaire Diary.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 09:30 am | | Hi, all:
One other thing. John Omlor quoted from Shirley Harrison's book as follows:
"Mike bought a word processor and launched himself into extensive research, intending to write the story of the diary himself." (7)
This sequence of events is not so, based on other information here. Barrett supposedly was given the Diary by Tony Devereaux in 1991, however, as has been stated here, the Barretts had owned the word processor since 1988, as I recall someone posted. However, the time of purchase around the time of the Centennial might itself be significant, might it not? Could the word processor have been purchased with a mind to using it to create the Diary? Has Mike Barrett or Anne Graham (formerly Barrett) given any reason for the purchase of the word processor?
All the best
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 10:53 am | | Hi again, RJ.
I'm between classes, so this will be too quick. Please forgive me.
You ask:
"Do you think Melvin Harris was lying when he claimed:
'the[Sphere] volume and its companions had been seen by Mike's relatives BEFORE the Diary was even heard of. He also told Gray about the significance of the book in the first week of September (1994) BEFORE he claimed to Harrison that he had found the quote in the library' ?"
Not at all. I don't have any reason yet to doubt Melvin on this. But I'm also not sure I understand precisely why this would contradict the idea of Mike stumbling across the Crahsaw quote after he had received the diary, even though he had owned the books well before then. He could have had the books for years before 1992 and still have found the Crashaw quote there when Volume 2 fell open the way it apparently does and then told Gray about this in 1994 (two years after he brought the diary to Doreen. Nothing in what Melvin says here suggests that Mike knew about this line before 1992, or even before 1994, as far as I can see here. None of this constitutes any real evidence that Mike knew about this line prior to 1992. As to the lies Mike might very well have later told to Shirley concerning his prowess as a library researcher -- we already have first hand testimonial evidence that he has repeatedly created narratives in order to exaggerate his own abilities and importance and this could certainly have been another one of these cases, no? And this also wouldn't contradict anything Melvin has written in the quote you cite, it seems to me. But perhaps I haven't fully understood the implications of the passage by Melvin that you cite. I will have more time after school to look at this again and promise to do so more carefully.
Finally, you worry I'm practicing a sort of sleight of hand:
"You've played a bit of a conjuring trick on me & switched Mike 'researching' & finding the Crashaw quote to him discovering it in the defective Sphere copy. Please demonstrate how Mike could have "researched" and found the quote."
Ah, sorry, no magic here. Just some language that obviously needs further clarification. I do think Mike might very well have tried his hand at research. Perhaps he even tried researching the Crashaw quote early on. I don't know. But it seems possible that he did undertake some research in general and with questionable success once he had the book. I personally do not yet believe he actually found the Crashaw quote during this research. This remains simply speculation on my part, but I have not seen a credible account of how he might accomplished this. It seems more believable to me that he stumbled across this quote in his copy of the Sphere guide and thrilled with this new opportunity to prove himself a skilled researcher and an all around smart guy, he went and told Shirley his little library tale. I have no evidence for this of course, it is merely speculation on my part. Of course, no one apparently has any real hard material evidence in support of any specific scenario for the appearance of this quote, so I am not alone. If Mike knew of the quote because he used it when he composed the words of this diary, then how is it he knew so little else about the cases and showed so little evidence of having conducted any successful research? Is it not at least possible that Kane and Co. forged the diary, slipped it to his friend Tony to give to an unsuspecting Mike, who then failed in his own scattered and odd attempts at "research," and eventually took the thing to Doreen, naively trying to protect himself with ridiculous lies in case the thing was a forgery (which he did not know at the time) and, once it hit the agents and the serious research began, stumbled across the line from Crashaw and took advantage of the opportunity to puff himself up in the eyes of all these so-called experts?
I don't know. I am certainly not saying this is how things happened or even that this scenario is close to complete or likely. But it raises interesting questions, is a useful working tool, and gets us talking about interesting and important issues and contains no more "interpretation of events" and speculations than anyone else's theories here at the moment, including the theories of complicity that have been offered so far, also largely without the support of any specific material and physical evidence, as demonstrated by my little game of thirty questions earlier and Martin's note concerning how many of them remain unanswerable.
This is where we are and this is why I'll use this and other models to keep reading without deciding yet in favor of any particular one.
Thanks, RJ, for continuing to read,
--John |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 11:28 am | | Chris - I hope I'm not repeating myself or getting something onto two boards at once, as I thought I'd already posted my agreement that your point is of course valid, but I thought it interesting that Mike's lamentable ignorance had for once worked greatly to his advantage.
Martin |
Author: Karoline L
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 04:56 pm | | John Omlor wrote to me:
"The fact that in your own goofy little sentence you suggest there is a "deconstructionist" "paradigm" is powerful and convincing evidence that you are now speaking about things with which you are not completely or thoroughly or perhaps even vaguely familiar. I do know what I am talking about here. Trust me on this one. I can cite pages and pages in support of this simple point"
John -
I confess I didn't really think you'd take my silly post seriously and I'm so sorry you didn't see the joke and took all that time and trouble replying to me and trying to show me the error of my ways. I really do apologise - But please promise you won't ever even think of posting pages and pages of refs about deconstructionism. Because I personally find that a very scary prospect.
I think we should probably just agree to differ about our views of the case, don't you? My standards of analysis obviously don't measure up to yours. When we talk, I only misunderstand and annoy you and you have to tell me over and over again how hopeless I am which must be tiring for you.
Just to give you an example of what I mean, you recently wrote this:
"It seems more believable to me that [MB] stumbled across [the Crashaw] quote in his copy of the Sphere guide and thrilled with this new opportunity to prove himself a skilled researcher and an all around smart guy, he went and told Shirley his little library tale".
You see in my muddled confused way I would ask you if this really seems the most probable "reading" of the data.
I would ask you, what are the odds that the man who stands as principal suspect for the forgery should by pure coincidence own a book that had that quotation in it? I would ask you how common is this Crashaw quotation in anthologies? For example how many other households in MB's street could be expected to own a book with that quotation in it?
I would ask what is more probable - that the whole thing is a coincidence or that the quotation is in the diary because MB had it in his book?....
No doubt you think this makes me no end of a silly tart and you'll only get cross and have sore fingers from all that typing.
So why not just ignore me, stick to sharing your views with minds who can better appreciate them, and let me just bumble about on my own.
I can after all read and admire - and maybe even learn!
Karoline |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 04:57 pm | | Excellent call, Chris.
I had missed this inconsistency. Shirley's prose in these two paragraphs on page 7 on the Hyperion Edition is not clear at all as to whether she is still recounting what Mike had told her (and therefore that Mike claimed he bought the word processor after he received the diary from Tony) or whether this is something she was simply assuming herself and then stating as fact. There are no "quotes or "Mike told me" type indicators until the end of that paragraph, so I cannot tell from reading it whether this is Mike's actual claim or Shirley's interpretation of the events. The second half of this same paragraph does in fact have a "Mike recalls:" and the a quote from MIke and the paragraph that occurs immediately prior to the one beginning "Mike bought a word processor..." is a description of Mike being "a man obsessed" and the Barrett's front room being "haunted by names from the diary." It's a descriptive paragraph but offers no citations or sources and so once again I am left uncertain how much of this Shirley is claiming to actually know for sure and how much of this is just her reporting the version of events that Mike told her but that she did not establish otherwise with material evidence. Consequently, I'm not sure if the false claim that Mike bought the word processor at this point, when he "launched himself into research," as the bok says, originates within Mike's narrative or is a casual and unchecked assumption on Shirley's part. But the paper trail I seem to recall having been submitted at some point earlier here did indeed suggest that the machine was bought before this (someone will please correct us if we are mistaken about this date of purchase).
Of course, I too am likely to be suspicious about the 1988 date and its link to the centennial, given my reading of the rhetoric of the diary, but, of course, all I could fairly offer concerning this purchase date is a vague and unsupported and probably unwarranted suspicion, since we still have no material or physical or even testimonial evidence of any immediate sort whatsoever concerning what was going on in Mike and Anne's lives in 1988. This, by the way, is information I would very much like to have! What were Mike and Anne doing, reading, buying, and talking about to others back in 1988? The word processor purchase date is definitely a tasty clue in this regard, but one that I would be careful to jump at as bait for a conclusion until I know more about what they were doing and whether there were any "innocent" reasons why they might have bought such a machine. I would certainly never want people reaching conclusions or even suspicions about me based on the history and timing of my own purchases of various items, that's for sure. I could quickly imagine how they might come to some very distasteful and, I assure you, unwarranted conclusions. But it is indeed a very interesting date for me, if we have it right, and an interesting and possibly significant inconsistency or at the very least a misleading sentence in Shirley's book, whether it came from Shirley simply restating, second hand, Mike's narrative of events or whether it represents an assumption on Shirley's part about when the machine was actually purchased, a detail which she ultimately did not check for substantiated accuracy. In any case, the inconsistency remains.
Thanks.
RJ,
Since Melvin chooses not to visit us here on a regular basis, and since you seem to be at least sometimes in contact with him (or is this a misperception on my part?), I was wondering if you could perhaps find out the answers to a couple very simple questions having nothing at all to do with his legal obligations or secret information of any sort. I am sure he has already answered these previously, bit I was wondering if his beliefs were still in place and if there was any real evidence to support them. Here are the simple questions, offered honestly, and with the best of intentions for a fair discussion.
Does Melvin still believe that Mr. Kane was the penman?
Does Melvin believe that Mike and/or Anne knew the diary was a forgery before they took it to Doreen?
Does Melvin recall whether Mike's "transcript" of the diary was on a disk or was somehow actually on the machine's memory? Does he know if this was the source for the copies that were distributed?
Does he have any specific material evidence in support of his answers to the second and third questions above? (Not "what evidence does he have," but just does he have any?)
I'd be interested to see in simple and clear terms where he stands now on these few issues.
Thanks, and if this is out of your purview, I certainly understand and apologize for assuming too much.
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 05:22 pm | | Hi again Karoline,
Very quick response. I did recognize the joke in your post, as I explained explicitly in the PS to my response; but I also read your words carefully and noticed they staked out certain positions which I found problematic and advancing rather common mischaracterizations and I thought since you wrote them to me I ought to respect them and read them closely and respond to them, joke or not.
I am happy to agree to disagree, but I am not at all cross, and was not cross when I responded, only sorry that you responded to me several times without once reading my own words closely, addressing specific readings that I offered of your words or citing my own language in support of your reading of it. I thought my reading of the incompleteness of your presentation of other people's scenarios (as "alternate explanations") was a fair one and sought balance and I hoped that your response to it would discuss it's readings in detail. But I am happy to as you say agree that we differ about certain things in this case and about certain assumptions concerning reading and responding.
Then you ask me:
"I would ask you, what are the odds that the man who stands as principal suspect for the forgery should by pure coincidence own a book that had that quotation in it? I would ask you how common is this Crashaw quotation in anthologies? For example how many other households in MB's street could be expected to own a book with that quotation in it?"
I don't know about the odds, but what are the odds that a man planning to commit a criminal forgery carefully researches and composes a fake diary of James Maybrick and Jack the Ripper and then, when he needs a book to write it in that he can give to the world to complete his criminal act, just walks into a bookshop and buys it with a check and a receipt directly traceable to his own family? I don't know.
I have explained in a post to RJ above what still troubles me about the Crashaw quote. I too think it a damning piece of evidence and have repeatedly said so. But I also think it raises the problem, if we are claiming that it is evidence that Mike did write the diary, of why he seems to so many so unknowledgable about everything else in it and so unable otherwise to have written it according to those who have spoken with him at length. And why is he unable to give an account of exactly how he did, even when he wants to confess? So again, I don't know. Could Mike have discovered the quote in a book that opened to that page that he owned after he had the diary in his hand? Sure, why not? In that case, the problems that I just raised about his abilities to write this thing go away. This does not in any way account for how the quote arrived in the diary and who put it there (since we still don't know who wrote it in any case), but it is certainly possible. Could Tony or Kane have also found the quote at a time when they were allegedly composing this thing to foist onto their man Mike? Sure, I suppose, but, of course, I have no real evidence whatsoever that they did, so I would not advance this a serious scenario in any case. I'm not, in fact, prepared to say more than what I have already, which is that this quote and its appearances in the book and in Mike's possession remains the only piece of hard physical, material evidence we have so far linking Mike to the production of the diary. I still believe that. I do not think it leads me to conclude fairly that Mike wrote this book or even that it now seems probable that he did, since there still at least thirty-some unanswered questions still floating around that raise serious problems for this scenario of complicity.
Now I must rush off, although I fear this remains only a partial response. I will try and return to all of this when I get a chance tomorrow.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 08:51 pm | | Hi John:
Okay, I have been bringing myself up to speed in the matter of Mike Barrett's word processor.
Karoline Leach reported here on April 12 that:
". . . we now have proof positive that MB paid £458.58p for an Amstrad 8256 on 3 April 1986."
I don't know where Karoline obtained this information. Perhaps she might clarify this for us.
In any case, in both Shirley Harrison's 1993 U.S. Hyperion hardback and in her U.S. Pocket Books paperback edition (1995) of The Diary of Jack the Ripper, it is stated identically that after Tony Devereaux's death (in August 1991), as you reported, "Mike bought a word processor and launched himself into extensive research, intending to write the story himself." (Hyperion, p. 7, Pocket Books, pp. 8-9)
Now, as you have stated, there is no indication that the information came from Barrett that the word processor was bought subsequent to Devereaux's death, although I imagine it did. The story of the purchase of the word processor at the beginning of the research phase seems to ring true as coming form Mike--possibly he thought saying that he purchased the computer at that stage might make him seem more professional as "a researcher." We might note here also that the copyright page on the Hyperion edition states that under British copyright law Shirley Harrison and Michael Barrett are "identified as authors of this narrative and commentary. . . ."--so presumably much information in the book not shown in quotes possibly came from Mike, including the idea that he purchased the word processor in 1991.
Now, in the 1998 British Blake edition of Shirley's The Diary of Jack the Ripper, we are told a different version of the acquisition of the word processor, i.e., "In 1985, Michael had bought himself an Amistrad word processor with money lent by Anne's father, Billy Graham, and now, at last, it came into its own [presumably, again, following Devereaux's death]. He told us that he made copious notes in the Liverpool library, which Anne latterly transcribed onto the Amistrad."
Note that the year stated here is 1985 not 1986 as given by Karoline, presumably based on the actual bill of sale for the word processor bought by Barrett. Barrett seems hazy about dates, as we have seen with the incorrect year he gave for the Hillsborough soccer disaster in connection with receiving the Sphere book for the disaster fund.
It would seem that this revised story of the much earlier acquisition of the Amistrad word processor, as reported by Shirley Harrison, albeit with a (presumably) slightly incorrect year of purchase, originates from Mike as well, perhaps as a result of persistent research by Shirley and the Word Team, or possibly Keith Skinner and Paul Feldman. Perhaps one of those researchers could explain how the knowledge was gleaned that Mike had owned a word processor for at least five years before he supposedly obtained the diary from Devereaux?
Lastly, in Paul Feldman's 1995 Virgin hardback of Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter, although as far as I can see he doesn't discuss when Barrett purchased the word processor, it is though noticeable that he takes the transcription of the Diary using the word processor as proof of the Barrett's innocence of any accusation that they forged the Diary. Feldman states that after Mike had made a hash of trying to transcribe the Diary, and that Anne, as a trained secretary took over:
"When Mike Barrett decided to take the diary to Doreen Montgomery, he decided to transcribe it on to the word processor, so that a printed version of the text was available. . . . Anne told him it would be easier to do it from scrach--and she typed while Mike dictated. . . . That transcript is proof in itself that Mike and Anne Barrett had nothing to do with forging the diary because the typed version was transcribed incorrectly." [Emphasis mine.]
Feldman thus comes to a similar conclusion to you, John, although on somewhat different grounds, that the transcript in itself offers no proof of the Barretts' non-complicity in any forgery and in fact may indicate they were not so involved. Of course, as you know, there have been recent calls, and interest, on these boards to carry out a close examination of the differences between the transcript made using Mike's processor and the Diary text.
Lastly, John, although I cannot claim to have a close relationship with Melvin Harris, we have been in contact on a number of matters. On this basis, I will send your questions on to him in case he is willing to answer. Stay tuned.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 03:55 am | | Chris,
Yes, as you surmise, the date of purchase and other details about the wp comes from a photocopy of the bill of sale.
I must say I very much appreciate your analysis of the various 'interpretations' of how and when MB got this machine.
I am also slightly confused by Feldman's claim that the presence of the text on the wp proves the 'innocence' of the Barretts, nor do I feel clear about how any differences between the MS and the typescript would go to prove this claim.
If there are differences, then I think this is quite interesting. I can't remember - does Feldman state what they are?
I think it becomes so important for someone who was not in any way involved with this 'diary' either as an author or an advisor or whatever, to be able to actually compare the transcript with the MS.
Paul, have you managed to find your copy yet?
Does Shirley Harrison have one she wouldn't mind passing on?
Or Keith?
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 05:17 am | | Hi, Karoline:
Feldman does not appear to specify what the differences are between the typescript and the actual Diary text. I imagine they are the type of variations previously noticed by Peter Birchwood. I should think a close comparison should reveal all of the differences, and I agree that such a study of the text and transcript should be done by an independent party. I do think that if the transcript was made as Barrett described, with him dictating and Anne typing, variations are by nature almost inevitable since whomever was typing should preferably, I would think, be able to see the actual text as well, to get it right. This is, of course, presuming that the transcript was done post-forgery and not pre-forgery!
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 08:44 am | | Hello all,
Karoline,
I responded to your last post addressed to me yesterday afternoon in a bit of a rush. I was troubled by this and so, when I returned home this morning, I re-read it closely and found something that disturbed me a bit. I wanted to give you a chance to correct what I think was a misleading impression, perhaps innocently left by your choice of citations and the way in which you reproduced my own words.
If this was not done innocently, but deliberately to mistate my position or to in some way suggest that I was making a specific claim that I was not actually making, all for some rhetorical advantage, then it seems to me more than a bit unfair.
In your last post to me, you chose to cite the following passage. When I first saw it, I was pleased to find that you had actually cited my words in a response, but I was somewhat troubled by the implication of my own writing, which I saw in your post. Now I know why.
This is the passage you cite:
"It seems more believable to me that [MB] stumbled across [the Crashaw] quote in his copy of the Sphere guide and thrilled with this new opportunity to prove himself a skilled researcher and an all around smart guy, he went and told Shirley his little library tale".
and you then asked me:
"You see in my muddled confused way I would ask you if this really seems the most probable "reading" of the data."
Now, I am afraid that your choice of where to begin this citation of my writing leaves the reader with the mistaken idea that I was claiming that Mike's stumbling on the Crashaw passage was a "more believable" scenario than that, as you later say, "the quotation is in the diary because MB had it in his book?..."
But this is a false and misleading impression left by the fact that you chose to begin your citation of my work with the phrase: ""It seems more believable to me that [MB] stumbled across [the Crashaw] quote in his copy of the Sphere guide..." and therefore not to include the earlier sentence which was the referent to the "more" here. More believable than what? What I was I actually claiming this was more believable than?
This seems very important if my writing is to be read fairly and used fairly in your response. And this choice of where to begin the citation (with a "more," but without making it clear what this scenario is being compared to), I think leaves a mistaken and unfairly drawn picture of my argument and allows you to ask the question you do afterward, which suggests I was claiming something I was not.
So, in the interest of fairness and accuracy, let me cite the entire passage as I originally wrote it and we can see what this "more" refers to and what I was claiming was the less likely scenario.
First, as an opening premise, I suggested that it might be possible that Mike did indeed try his hand at some research:
"I do think Mike might very well have tried his hand at research. Perhaps he even tried researching the Crashaw quote early on. I don't know. But it seems possible that he did undertake some research in general and with questionable success once he had the book."
Next comes the passage in question. Please read it carefully.
Here are my words, in a more complete citation. I will italicize the part you chose to reproduce:
"I personally do not yet believe he actually found the Crashaw quote during this research. This remains simply speculation on my part, but I have not seen a credible account of how he might have accomplished this. It seems more believable to me that he stumbled across this quote in his copy of the Sphere guide and thrilled with this new opportunity to prove himself a skilled researcher and an all around smart guy, he went and told Shirley his little library tale. I have no evidence for this of course, it is merely speculation on my part."
Do you see what has happened here? Do you see what your choice of starting points has done? In fact, in my original post, I was quite clearly claiming only that Mike's stumbling across the quote in his book after the fact seemed to me more believable than that he went to the library and discovered it through research.
Do you even disagree with this?
Please note that the passage begins with the sentence:
"I personally do not yet believe he actually found the Crashaw quote during this research."
I was not claiming that the scenario I advanced was any more believable than that the words appear in the diary because they appeared in his book, as you suggested. I was not even claiming that any of these scenarios might be, as you wrote, the "most probable 'reading' of the data." I went on to say that all of this is speculation, including both of these latter possibilities, and then to ask some simple questions to indicate why I remain troubled by your scenario that suggests, without specific supporting material evidence, that the quote indicates that Mike wrote or helped write the diary.
I wrote:
"I have no evidence for this of course, it is merely speculation on my part. Of course, no one apparently has any real hard material evidence in support of any specific scenario for the appearance of this quote, so I am not alone. If Mike knew of the quote because he used it when he composed the words of this diary, then how is it he knew so little else about the cases and showed so little evidence of having conducted any successful research? Is it not at least possible that Kane and Co. forged the diary, slipped it to his friend Tony to give to an unsuspecting Mike, who then failed in his own scattered and odd attempts at "research," and eventually took the thing to Doreen, naively trying to protect himself with ridiculous lies in case the thing was a forgery (which he did not know at the time) and, once it hit the agents and the serious research began, stumbled across the line from Crashaw and took advantage of the opportunity to puff himself up in the eyes of all these so-called experts?" (italics added)
Now my point here is that by only choosing to quote the passage beginning with "It seems more believable to me that he stumbled across this quote in his copy of the Sphere guide...," you have left a partial, false, and completely misleading impression of my conclusion and of what I was specifically suggesting it was more probable than. My only claim was that it was more probable than Mike finding the quote in the library after research, and that another scenario that still has Mike discovering the quote in the Sphere volume was "at least possible."
I hope that clarifies my own position for the record and corrects the misleading impression left by your citation.
Finally, in an earlier post to RJ, I said this concerning the Crashaw citation:
"As I have said repeatedly, it is this Crashaw quote that sticks in my own head as the single piece of real, substantial, physical evidence linking the Barrett's to the diary's composition. It's not much, but it seems to be all we have, I think. As you point out, there are indeed conflicting narratives about how Mike may or may not have stumbled on this quote and when, precisely. This is very troublesome and suspicious and I have always felt so. I asked in another post if there was any another possible source for the Crashaw quote than the Sphere volume and no one else has yet offered one."
That seems clear enough, I think. And not necessarily even something with which you, Karoline, would disagree.
Then I wrote this:
"I see this all two ways: If Mike did write the diary (even somehow without showing any signs of having done the necessary research, as you yourself point out), then he must have seen the line in the Sphere book and thought somehow that it would be good to include in the diary. If he did not write the diary, then he must have found his copy of the Sphere book at some point and came across the line (perhaps with the help of that old "binding defect") and, wanting to make himself sound more important and like and impressive researcher, then concocted the stupid and contradictory stories about his successful research. Has Mike ever told lies to make himself sound more talented and important than he is? Has Mike ever told lies elsewhere or in other instances in order to exaggerate his own abilities and his accomplishments? If the answer to either of these questions is yes, then the second scenario is as likely as the first, even though it in no way begins to account for specifically how the line got into the diary through the hand of whoever did actually write this thing. On the other hand, if we are assuming the Crashaw line and its appearance in the diary is evidence that Mike composed the diary, then we must respond to those who would counter that Mike seems incapable of having written it for some of the very reasons you have yourself mentioned here concerning his apparent lack of knowledge and abilities and his own specific inability to explain, when he wanted to, just how he did it. I don't know exactly how we respond to this." [passage slightly edited and corrected for this discussion]
Is there anything here which seems unbelievable or impossible, Karoline?
This seems to me to be a fairly considered reflection of the difficulties surrounding this issue.
Thanks again,
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 09:17 am | | Hello all,
Here's a happy moment.
I agree with Karoline when she writes:
"I think it becomes so important for someone who was not in any way involved with this 'diary' either as an author or an advisor or whatever, to be able to actually compare the transcript with the MS."
This seems important to me as well, even if perhaps it might not reveal any significant or telling results. We should at least have a look.
Also, since people, including perhaps Paul Feldman, are still tossing around phrases like "the presence of the text on the wp," I also think for reasons I explicitly stated earlier, that we should find out for sure whether the text was on the machine or on a disk and, if it could not have actually been on the machine but only on a disk, what the fate of that disk might have been.
Chris,
Very nice work.
You write, concerning the account in the Hyperion edition:
"The story of the purchase of the word processor at the beginning of the research phase seems to ring true as coming form Mike--possibly he thought saying that he purchased the computer at that stage might make him seem more professional as 'a researcher.' We might note here also that the copyright page on the Hyperion edition states that under British copyright law Shirley Harrison and Michael Barrett are 'identified as authors of this narrative and commentary. . . .'--so presumably much information in the book not shown in quotes possibly came from Mike, including the idea that he purchased the word processor in 1991."
And I am inclined to agree completely with this reading.
I am pleased to see that Shirley's Blake edition seems at least somewhat to be more careful and accurate about this. Though here, too, a discrepancy in dating apparently remains.
You then cite Paul Feldman's disastrously illogical conclusion concerning all of this which is not at all similar to my own, by the way.
"That transcript is proof in itself that Mike and Anne Barrett had nothing to do with forging the diary because the typed version was transcribed incorrectly."
Even given Paul F's premise, that the typed version was transcribed incorrectly, this in no way entitles him to conclude that "Mike and Anne Barrett had nothing to do with forging the diary." This isn't even a sound inductive conclusion. There are plenty of possible and even just as likely scenarios which could account for a mistyped transcript and still allow for Mike and Anne's guilt and complicity. Paul has rushed to an unwarranted and unestablished conclusion (as I find he does quite often in his prose -- sacrificing care for the sake of dramatic speed and announcements that ring with the certainty and finality of established facts when they are indeed mere advantageous and self-interested speculations) and he hasn't even offered the steps by which his reasoning would allegedly proceed.
You then correctly summarize the conclusion I believe would be fair if Paul's premise is correct: "that the transcript in itself offers no proof of the Barretts' non-complicity in any forgery..." [Chris: I think you meant to type "complicity" here, not "non-complicity." This seems clearly indicated by the context. As you will see in my response, it matters not in the end.]
Of course, this is entirely different than Paul's conclusion as you cite it above. I am satisfied with this one and have suggested it myself. The transcript itself is not proof of either the Barett's complicity or non-complicity in anything so far. It cannot be. We do not know when it was produced, where it was stored, or what it's fate was yet, so it cannot be proof of anything. This seems to me still the only fair conclusion.
Unfortunately, it is clearly not Paul's conclusion, which, as I say, is not at all similar to my own.
You then add a piece of speculation onto your summary of my own conclusion:
"the transcript in itself offers no proof of the Barretts' non-complicity in any forgery and in fact may indicate they were not so involved."
As long as we pay particular attention to the "may" in this sentence, I am satisfied with this one too. It may indicate that they were not so involved if we are eventually able to conclude from the evidence it contains that it was written after the acquisition as they have repeatedly claimed. Even then it would only be support for their story and not proof of anything on its own, since they may still have composed the diary and then produced the transcript after the fact for whatever purpose.
So far, no specific possibility seems even likely, probable or suggested by the existence of the transcript. I believe your own reading of the situation demonstrates that this is where we still are and where we still must be if we wish to be meticulous and truly fair in our conclusions and in our use of the evidence.
Thanks Chris. And thank you very much also for passing on my few small questions to Melvin.
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 10:01 am | | Hi, John:
I am glad you concur that my examination of the references to Barrett's word processor in the different editions of Shirley Harrison's The Diary of Jack the Ripper is useful.
As for my discussion of Paul Feldman's reference to Mike's word processor and my point that you and Feldman have reached the same conclusion that it is likely that the transcript was produced from the existing Diary narrative and not the other way round, I entirely agree with you that the logic behind your conclusion and Feldman's is quite different. You have argued that it is unlikely that if the Barretts were involved in the forgery of the Diary they would leave any transcript that had been used to write the Diary on disk or in the computer (as the case may be). Feldman, by contrast, insists that since there are some discrepancies between the transcript and the Diary this proves the Barretts were innocent.
I agree that Feldman's assertion is unfounded and illogical, and that indeed there is insufficient evidence to know if Mike and Anne are innocent based solely on the transcript.
My wording may have been convoluted but I think I actually did mean "that the transcript in itself offers no proof of the Barretts' non-complicity in any forgery..." This is reminiscent, isn't it, or another famous double negative in the case? Permit me to say then, "The Barretts are not the people to be blamed for nothing." 
I am pleased that a number of us (you, Karoline, and myself) are agreed that an independent party should examine the Diary text and the transcript, presuming that Paul Begg, say, can unearth the original transcript that he received, which presumably was generated from the transcript typed by Anne either directly into Mike's computer or onto a disk.
I would be glad to make such a comparison of the Diary text (using the facsimile in the Hyperion edition) and the transcript. If Paul can forward a copy of the transcript to me, I would hope to have a report that I could make public by the time of the UK convention which begins in Bournemouth, England, on September 28, 2001.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 10:20 am | | Hi RJ,
You wrote to me:
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.
No, I don’t think I have been arguing ‘against any indication that the diary was recently forged with Anne & Mike’s knowledge.’ What I have been doing is asking what evidence there is that Anne and/or Mike did know the diary was a recent forgery when it was brought to London in April 1992. I don’t care personally if they knew or didn’t know, or whether the diary is or isn’t a modern forgery. These are things which cannot be altered, however much others rely on speculation, probability, assumption and opinion to reach their conclusions, and whether or not they have an interest in individual innocence or guilt. I’d still rather wait and see what turns up, even if it means people are still making money from a fraudulently produced document in the meanwhile. Keith has consistently said that he has tried to disprove Anne’s story (ie that she first saw the diary in the late 1960s) for himself, and I attach great weight to the fact that he says he has been unable to do so. I also believe Keith when he says he has no personal wish or need to be right. And I must repeat that your interpretation, that some people here are holding out ‘hope’ that their belief in Anne’s story would be supported, if only they could somehow undermine the case against the modern suspects, one by one, was unfair and misleading. Keith is not doing this, but neither am I, because I don’t even know if he is justified in believing Anne’s story. If she lied, she lied. How on earth would ‘hope’ alter that?
You wrote:
Remember that this is the bloke [Mike] that Paul & Caz have claimed thought the diary was genuine.
I apologise if I ever did make such a claim. It’s obviously rubbish because how could anyone possibly claim to know what Mike really thought? All I could have claimed is that Mike has said at various times that he thought the diary was genuine. At other times he has said that he doesn’t know, and at others that he forged it, either by himself, or with the help of others. I don’t know if he has ever told the truth regarding the blessed thing, and judging by his track record, I remain deeply sceptical about all unsupported statements made by this man. But at no time, as far as I recall, has he ever claimed to have acted, with Anne, as handler and placer of the finished product, after the penman had handwritten the original composition into the scrapbook, which appears to me to be closest to Melvin’s favoured scenario. Nor has Mike, again as far as I know, ever claimed, or admitted, that Gerard Kane was involved, or even that he knew of this man’s existence, prior to his signature being found on Tony D’s will.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 10:23 am | | Hi All,
Regarding Alan Gray, we appear to be stuck with his word alone that Mike first told him about the source for the Crashaw lines in early September, 1994, ie before the alleged find in the Liverpool Library. Any supporting documentary evidence Gray may have had for this date got lost in Spain, according to Melvin. I don’t know if Melvin was relying on Gray’s word, or if he actually saw some written evidence at one time, but didn’t think to take or retain a copy. But Melvin did revise his position - after I had to prod him a number of times - from stating very clearly, in October last year, that the Sphere Guide was lodged with Mike’s solicitor LONG BEFORE Anne left him (in Jan 1994) and his confession (in June 1994), to admitting that Alan Gray was the source for Mike’s first mention of it (in Sept 1994). Information had also come from Keith, suggesting that Mike’s Sphere was in fact with his girlfriend’s teenage son at a time when, according to Melvin’s October post, it was already safely lodged with Mike’s solicitor. Presumably Melvin went back to Gray to check the dates again, at which point the latter no longer had any written confirmation, but told Melvin the early September date. I don’t think anyone was accusing Melvin of telling whoppers. But we were nevertheless expected to take Gray’s word, without knowing how sure Melvin could really be about the date in question.
I did note, however, that in 1996, Alan Gray was still suggesting to Mike that it would be in his interests to make a full confession, in order to get back at the ‘diary’ people and to make money from his story. Melvin’s explanation for Mike not doing so was that by then he saw there was more money to be made from keeping the diary going. But it does at least suggest that the Jan 1995 confession statement may have been prompted by similar motives, rather than by a deep desire for a guilty man to get things off his chest and set the record straight. It also suggests that both Alan Gray and Melvin Harris knew that the Jan 1995 confession was not truly damning, which implies anything from suspecting it was incomplete, to knowing it was untruthful. Why would Gray be asking for Mike to confess all in 1996, and Melvin be explaining why he chose not to do so, if either believed he had already spilled all the necessary beans over a year previously?
A couple of points about Mike’s alleged visit to the Liverpool Library in late September 1994. Shirley writes that Mike badgered the staff there for help to find the Crashaw lines. I don’t know if this was Mike’s account, or if Shirley asked the library staff for theirs. But later Mike insisted that he had found the source of the lines by himself. We have a small gap here, where we are not told how the staff reacted to Mike’s badgering, if the badgering happened. People have speculated that it’s nonsense that the staff would have been able to help, but I’m not certain that we can assume, from the information we have, that they even tried. We do know, however, that the library sent Shirley a fax to confirm that the Sphere Guide was indeed available. Therefore, if Mike lied to Shirley about his library visit and the discovery, did he trust to luck that this obscure quote, from the same source as the one he had acquired after the Hillsborough disaster, would be there on the shelves of the library where he claimed to have found it?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 10:29 am | | Hi John,
I’m putting my response to your latest post on the ‘College Course’ board here, because that way, we can keep all the current diary shenanigans in one place! I hope that’s acceptable to everyone. I’m sorry it has taken so long to reply, but I was away from the computer at the weekend, and there has been an awful lot of catching up to do.
I was hoping that Karoline had something to back up her statement that Gerard Kane was a known associate of the Barretts. Peter was only asking recently if any research had been done to find links between these people, other than via Tony D’s will. Karoline has stated that there is more information not yet in the public domain, so perhaps this relates to her ‘known associate’ statement. Until this information, together with the results of a professional handwriting comparison between Kane and the diary, become available to all of us, I guess it would be unfair and pointless to speculate further.
One thing I’ve been trying to get my head round, though, is how Mike Barrett and Gerard Kane could both have been knowingly involved with the diary hoax, without Tony D being an accomplice. Mike took his RWE booklet round to Tony’s house for a reason. If Tony hadn’t died, and Mike had gone ahead and placed the diary, I have to wonder:
a) where would Mike have said he got it from?
b) and, depending on Mike’s answer to a), what might Tony have thought or said about the RWE business?
You made a very good point recently about the little maroon diary (not red in fact, according to Keith, with whom I spoke this morning). If it had arrived at the Barrett’s home when it did, and had proved suitable (ie large enough and of the right date) for the penman to use for the composed diary entries, the game would have been up as soon as its purchase had been traced back. In fact, the book search firm Mike ordered it from could even have recognised and remembered selling the thing to him, as soon as it was all made public, especially as they said it was an unusual request!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 10:30 am | | Hi Martin,
Could you explain a bit more about how you quickly established that neither Mike nor Anne could spell ‘rendezvous’? Was it because they made no attempt to correct the error in the diary when transcribing it? If so, what did you conclude? Wouldn’t this at least be consistent with an attempt to make a faithful copy of the original, regardless of their spelling abilities?
And do you see any similarity between Mike’s handwriting and that of the diary? At least, is it any more like Mike’s than James Maybrick’s, for instance? Or do you think that Mike’s drinking after 1992 could really account for the dissimilarity noted by others? I’d appreciate your thoughts.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 10:33 am | | Hi Peter,
I have spoken with Keith today and he is more than happy for you to see his copy of the diary transcript that Mike brought with the diary to Doreen in April 1992. As he has said, you are invited to be present at the meeting he has been asking for with Melvin, to discuss the information that can end the bitter diary controversy. Keith will gladly bring along the transcript to that meeting. I see you are currently posting again for Melvin on another board. Perhaps Keith could therefore leave you to liaise with Melvin, regarding a convenient time and place to meet up?
Keith also says that, if Melvin’s information conclusively proves his claim, that the diary is indeed a recent forgery, he will ask Feldy, on your behalf, if he will release the tapes and transcripts you have been asking for.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 10:44 am | | Paul:
I'm sure that Melvin will make his own reply in due course but I wonder if the "rigging" of the ink samples was published in the Evening Standard articles from about 14th November onwards?
RJP
If all Mike wanted was to see what a Victorian diary looked like, why would he specify a blank one? I'd also suggest that copyright notwithstanding, some of the differences in Shirley's later editions might be put down to a much greater input from AG.
And I should again mention that I am conducting research that MIGHT prove a link between the various parties involved and I shall of course post the results whether positive or negative on these boards as soon as research is complete. |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 10:45 am | | Hi Chris,
Thanks for the response. We are in agreement. By the way, I'm afraid you've now lost me on your grammar. Though I liked the graffito joke. This is not crucial unless I am misunderstanding something you wish to claim.
You just wrote:
"My wording may have been convoluted but I think I actually did mean 'that the transcript in itself offers no proof of the Barretts' non-complicity in any forgery...' This is reminiscent, isn't it, or another famous double negative in the case? Permit me to say then, 'The Barretts are not the people to be blamed for nothing.'"
And I smiled too.
But here's your whole sentence in the original:
"Feldman thus comes to a similar conclusion to you, John, although on somewhat different grounds, that the transcript in itself offers no proof of the Barretts' non-complicity in any forgery and in fact may indicate they were not so involved."
You see the problem? The "in fact may indicate they were not so involved" really does suggest, contextually, that you meant "the transcript in itself offers no proof of the Barretts' complicity in any forgery..." If it was "non-complicity," both parts of the sentence would be saying much the same thing (since "non-complicity" and "they were not so involved" actually mean the same thing) and besides, why would Paul be concluding that the transcript offers no proof of their "non-complicity?" He would be suggesting that the transcript offers no proof of their complicity and may even indicate their non-complicity.
If you change your wording in that case, the whole passage would then read:
"the transcript in itself offers no proof of the Barretts' complicity in any forgery and in fact may indicate they were not so involved."
Now it makes sense. The first part of the sentence is now properly opposed by the "in fact may indicate" and the second different suggestion which follows it in the sentence. Perhaps this is what you "actually did mean." But your grammar in the original actually suggested something close to the opposite, which I do not think you meant.
Is this any clearer of a reading on my part?
I might be being dim here, but I think this is the only way this works.
Sorry for the question. Just want to be sure I'm reading you correctly.
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 11:13 am | | Hi Peter,
How do you know that Mike specified a blank Victorian diary? I thought that the book company told Shirley that they could not remember if Mike had asked them to find him an unused one, only that it was a very unusual enquiry for them.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 11:25 am | | Hi Caroline,
Thanks very much for the response to my post on the College Course board, which I did in fact repost here later, attached to a longer piece.
I too remain curious about the clear establishment, supported with any physical, material, or substantial evidence, of any relationship between Mike and Mr. Kane. And also to seeing any account of how Mike and Kane might have conspired to forge the diary without Tony ever knowing, as Karoline seems to have suggested at one point, when she cites in her list of "facts" that "Devereaux's family say they never saw the diary or heard him talk about it?"
Of course, now that she might need Tony's complicity, since he is the only known link between Kane and Mike, she might also need one of the "alternate explanations" she rather dismissively reduced to single sentences earlier. That is, the one that goes "Well, maybe they aren't telling the truth. Or maybe he kept it quiet from them."
Otherwise her reading that suggests that Tony was the link and therefore participated in the forgery and, at the same time, that Tony probably did not know of the forgery since his "family say they never saw the diary or heard him talk about it," seems explicitly contradictory.
Of course, if Tony and Kane forged the diary and then passed it on to an at first unsuspecting Mike, who did not know it was a forgery and questioned Tony about where it came from only to receive a deliberately misleading response from Tony (who wanted to keep his distance from the book) suggesting that Mike look "on his own doorstep," all of these specific problems go away. Others arise, though, and that makes this scenario no more probable or believable or supported by any hard evidence at this point than any of the other ones.
And yes, the easily traceable order and purchase of the maroon diary does seem to at least possibly suggest that this was not an act designed to acquire a book to be used for explicitly felonious criminal purposes by someone who had just finished carefully researching and composing a criminal forgery and now needed a book to write it into so that he could deliver it to the public for review, response, and no doubt careful scrutiny. Unless, for some unknown and unimaginable reason, he did not care whether he was associated with the recent purchase of the blank book or he simply wanted to be quickly caught and probably prosecuted, as indeed would have happened, since the merchant had a clear memory of the order (made not very long before the diary is taken to Doreen after all) and since the paper work was allowed to remain intact and on record. But, if he really intended to use this very book to commit this criminal act successfully, why would he acquire this book for the forgery in such a carelessly blatant and obvious manner? I still don't know. There does not seem to be much evidence that this purchase was a part of an attempt at a criminal and therefore highly disguised or secret act. But I suppose it is still possible that Mike could research and compose the forgery, write in onto a disk in his machine, be prepared to risk criminal conviction, and then just order and walk into a bookshop and pick up a book and pay with a check and get a receipt that will remain on record. Is this the "most probable" scenario? I really don't know.
But I'll keep reading.
-John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 11:41 am | | Hi John,
In fact, I believe I'm right in saying that Mike ordered the maroon diary over the telephone, for delivery to his home address, and - wait for it - he gave his real name this time! It's not even as if he went along to a bookshop as 'Mr. Williams', collar turned up, and put on false whiskers and a phoney Irish accent (sorry, 'Mr. Murphy' in that case) to ask for the thing and pay in cash for it. 
Incidentally, judging by your recent posts, especially the latest to Chris, you are sounding more an more like my baby brother, who is a patents lawyer. He is the only person I know who could probably beat you regarding meticulous attention to detail. I always call him a clever sh*t. They must have thrown the wrong bit away when mother had me. 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 12:15 pm | | Peter
Thank you. I have no idea. Can you refresh my memory about the Evening Standard articles from about 14th November [what year?]? And please let me make it very clear to both yourself and Melvin that I amnot being critical here. If the accusation was made, then it was grossly wrong. |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 12:38 pm | | Hi Caroline,
I am never sure if being compared to lawyer is a compliment or an insult.
Since you're here and we have been discussing the Crashaw quote, do you suppose that it is possible that Mike might have stumbled onto it in his own defective copy of the Sphere volume only after receiving and even after delivering the diary and then lied about the library research to make himself look like a more skilled researcher?
Here is the way I described these questions earlier and after that, how I refined my own position:
I do think Mike might very well have tried his hand at research when he received the diary. I would have. Perhaps he even tried researching the Crashaw quote early on. I don't know. But it seems possible that he did undertake some research in general and with questionable success once he had the book. I personally do not yet believe he actually found the Crashaw quote during this research. This remains simply speculation on my part, but I have not seen a credible account of how he might have accomplished this. It seems more believable to me that he stumbled across this quote in his copy of the Sphere guide and thrilled with this new opportunity to prove himself a skilled researcher and an all around smart guy, he went and told Shirley his little library tale. I have no evidence for this of course, it is merely speculation on my part.
I also said this, by way of carefully refining my position on this question:
"As I have said repeatedly, it is this Crashaw quote that sticks in my own head as the single piece of real, substantial, physical evidence linking the Barrett's to the diary's composition. It's not much, but it seems to be all we have, I think. As has been pointed out, there are indeed conflicting narratives about how Mike may or may not have stumbled on this quote and when, precisely. This is very troublesome and suspicious and I have always felt so. I asked in another post if there was any another possible source for the Crashaw quote than the Sphere volume and no one else has yet offered one."
Then I wrote this:
"I see this all two ways: If Mike did write the diary (even somehow without showing any signs of having done the necessary research, as you [RJ], yourself point out), then he must have seen the line in the Sphere book and thought somehow that it would be good to include in the diary. If he did not write the diary, then he must have found his copy of the Sphere book at some point and came across the line (perhaps with the help of that old "binding defect") and, wanting to make himself sound more important and like and impressive researcher, then concocted the stupid and contradictory stories about his successful research. Has Mike ever told lies to make himself sound more talented and important than he is? Has Mike ever told lies elsewhere or in other instances in order to exaggerate his own abilities and his accomplishments? If the answer to either of these questions is yes, then the second scenario is as likely as the first, even though it in no way begins to account for specifically how the line got into the diary through the hand of whoever did actually write this thing. On the other hand, if we are assuming the Crashaw line and its appearance in the diary is evidence that Mike composed the diary, then we must respond to those who would counter that Mike seems incapable of having written it for some of the very reasons you have yourself mentioned here concerning his apparent lack of knowledge and abilities and his own specific inability to explain, when he wanted to, just how he did it. I don't know exactly how we respond to this."
Does this seem like a fair restatement of the possibilities and the questions still surrounding this most troublesome issue and this most apparently damning piece of evidence?
Just wondering.
And thanks for that amazing bit of info -- that Mike ordered the maroon diary using his own name and giving his home address. I wonder if the scenario that suggests that this was an act designed with future criminal intent in mind, that he ordered the very book in which he was going to write and produce a criminal forgery and gave his own name and his own home address and paid with a check and got a receipt, all the while knowing he was going to commit a serious crime with this book, is still the "most probable" scenario?
--John |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 01:09 pm | | Caz
Mike can't spell anything. That's clear from any samples of his writing I've seen - (though I suppose it's possible I've only seen things he wrote when he was drunk).
I asked Anne to spell it the first time I spoke to her on the telephone. She didn't offer 'rondaveau', but she was well off the mark. She did, on the other hand, recognise the word, realize why i was asking, and volunteer that she couldn't spell it before she made the attempt. Make of it what you will!
I don't remember ever making any comparison of Mike's or Anne's handwriting with the diary. Unless there was very obvius similarity I shouldn't expect to detect a disguised hand. have you ever seen the various disguises Madeleine Smith used on envelopes to D'Angelier? I would never for one moment have imagined they were all by the same person. Conversely, the hand of the Maybrick will and Maybrick letters is obviously either the same, or an extremely clever forgery. And history, not to mention that good old Occamite cutthroat, both suggest the former.
With all good wishes,
Martin F |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 03:09 pm | | Hi again Caroline.
A long, long time ago, on another board, you asked the following question concerning Mike's attempt to describe how the forgery was organized and how it took place, something he should have at least been able to do if he wanted to prove to us all that he was at least complicit.
Here was your question on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 05:40 am on another board:
"Where is his detailed account of how he first came to be involved in the forgery, his friendship with Devereux, Kane, the Johnsons et al?"
It's a full year and half later, and I think this question still remains pertinent. If Mike really was complicit with Kane via Tony, and he wants (or at least wanted) to prove this to everyone, why hasn't he ever mentioned anywhere, even vaguely, how all of this worked?
In his own confessions, of course, Mike never mentions any Mr. Kane and swears that Anne wrote out the diary and that Tony gave him occasional advice but that "When writing the Diary Devereux was a tremendous help to Anne and I but we did not go to anyone else for advice in the matter."
(By the way, Mike's own confession concerning the purchase of the little diary reads, "Roughly round about January, February 1990 Anne Barrett and I finally decided to go ahead and write the Diary of Jack the Ripper. In fact Anne purchased a Diary, a red leather backed Diary for L25.00p, she made the purchase through a firm in the 1986 Writters Year Book, I cannot remember their name, she paid for the Diary by cheque in the amount of L25 which was drawn on her Lloyds Bank Account, Water Street Branch, Liverpool."
There is no mention of Mike ever ordering the book or of Mike actually speaking to anyone. Mike doesn't even stop to explain how he was possibly going to use the book anonymously, given that a check was used and the purchase would have been easily traceable.)
Anyway, here's an interesting and, I think, important point.
Mike does, in his first confession, claim that his daughter Caroline actually saw her parents composing the diary and that the handwriting in the books is Anne's. He says this in his sworn affidavit.
"I sat in the living room by the rear lounge window in the corner with my word processor, Anne Barrett sat with her back on to me as she wrote the manuscript."
and later:
"Anne and I started to write the Diary in all it took us 11 days. I worked on the story and then I dictated it to Anne who wrote it down in the Photograph Album and thus we produced the Diary of Jack the Ripper. Much to my regret there was a witness to this, my young daughter Caroline."
So Mike's sworn testimony, when he really wants to be believed and is allegedly interested in telling the truth, is that the handwriting in the diary is Anne's and that there is no involvement of anyone except himself, Anne, and Tony, certainly no Mr. Kane.
So, do we believe Mike's confession is reliable evidence of complicity or do we believe that Mr. Kane's handwriting matches that in the diary and therefore Mike's confession is thoroughly discredited?
Here's something odd. Several people who have been suggesting that Mike and Anne's complicity in the actual production this diary is our "most probable scenario," have also been using the "fact" that Mike confessed to the forgery and the "fact" that Mr. Kane's handwriting seems to match the diary's to support their so-called "most probable scenario" of complicity. And yet these two pieces of evidence seem to directly contradict one another.
Question: How are we to maintain our faith in a "most probable scenario" that is based on evidence which clearly contradicts even itself?
What sort of rational thinking and responsible interpretation of the evidence is this? How can a scenario that takes among items for its support two directly contradictory pieces of evidence at the same time be "the most likely or probable scenario" or even a rational one at all?
No, the case against these two people for forgery remains completely unsupported and without serious evidence so far. And they might very well have been complicit. But there is no logical or thorough case made here yet by those claiming that they have established a likely or probable scenario (which not only uses contradictory pieces of evidence in support of a single conclusion, but which inevitably also concludes somehow that Mike's purchase of the maroon diary using his own name, address, and a traceable check and receipt is indication of intent to commit a felonius criminal act). There is much more work to be done here, certainly.
What scenario for all this really is "most probable?"
I become less and less sure.
--John |
|
|
|
|
