|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 25, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-Archives 2001:
Archive through April 25, 2001
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 06:50 pm |        | For those interested:
I have posted on the "College Course" board a new, fairly short series of questions concerning the evidence recently claimed in support of the "most probable" scenario -- that Mike and Anne were complicit in forging this diary -- as delineated by Karoline and other writers here in our discussion.
I believe these questions pose serious challenges to the logical integrity and consistency of any scenario of complicity that uses the "facts" claimed so far as evidence in this case.
All are invited to sketch out possible answers to them or to make whatever replies they might feel are called for to the problems they pose.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 09:58 pm | | Caz--I don't think it is unusual or particularly telling that the Liverpool Library did have a copy of the Sphere book. I live in a medium sized city on the westcoast USA, and my college library has two copies of Rick's Sphere guide.
I don't believe the tapes are necessarily lost in Spain...but perhaps unavailable. But Alan Gray said that relatives of the Barretts confirmed that Mike owned these volumes before the diary was written. So all is not lost, perhaps. Does Keith, Shirley, or Paul Feldman have any information about this? Would they still be able to confirm/disprove this? I think it would be just as damning as Mike having lodged it with his solicitor.
As for the red diary being blank, it was, I believe. But whether or not Mike asked for this specifically seems to be now unknown. Keith has written that the sellers of the red diary couldn't recall whether or not Mike requested a blank diary.
Best wishes,
RJP |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 10:10 pm | | John--I can't really find your suggestions about the Crashaw quote very compelling. Harris did an in depth search and found no other book in the entire world having that particular quote from Crashaw being abstracted from the text. I actually went through the trouble of looking into various essays about Crashaw (some circa 1888-91) and found no reference to it. Besides, the Maybrick diary is not Eliot's The Wasteland. It is not brim full of literary allusions. The odd Crashaw quote --the only literary quote with the possible exception of McCormick's ditty in the entire diary-- sticks out like a sore thumb. It seems inconceivable to me that the man who happened to be handed the diary would also own the one book in the world that was likely to supply a non-literary minded forger with this strange inclusion. The fact alone is enough to suggest to me that Mike knew where the quote came from. The only reasonable alternative, as far as I can tell, is that someone else in the household had suppied the quote. Don't you see that this is the case?
RP |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 10:39 pm | | Peter--Hello. One good thing about living on the west coast of North America is that I always get the last word at the end of the day...
I've wondered the same thing. Are some of the contradictions we are seeing due to Anne's influence? In the 1988 edition of Shirley Harrison's book, it claims: "The red diary was in fact purchased after the Diary had been brought to London. (Anne has the receipt)." [pg 315] So it appears as though the genesis for this mistake might have come from Anne. But, of course, we now know that Mike ordered the red diary roughly five weeks before he met with Doreen Montgomery in London. Shirley's mistake is understandable if she saw the receipt... because the diary was actually paid for several months after Mike went to London (a significant late payment?). The statement is technically true. The more interesting question is WHY the mistake was made. Did this information come from Anne, and did she ever claim that the red diary wasn't bought until after the Maybrick diary was brought to London? If so, why? And why the mix-up over the seizing of Mike's word processor? I'm still not sure what really happened.
Best wishes,
RJP |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 11:29 pm | | RJ,
Thanks for the response about the Crashaw quote.
Actually, my suggestions about the quote were only meant to make clear that there is still no direct evidence that tells us exactly when Mike first noticed it in his Sphere volume. I, like you, believe that is where he found it. And nothing I have suggested contradicts your claim that the quote does not appear in any essay other than this one. (It does, by the way, appear in several poetry anthologies and almost all collections of Crashaw's work and many collections of Sacred Hymns -- it appeared in four separate volumes in my university library alone -- but that is beside the point.)
You write:
"Besides, the Maybrick diary is not Eliot's The Wasteland. It is not brim full of literary allusions. The odd Crashaw quote --the only literary quote with the possible exception of McCormick's ditty in the entire diary-- sticks out like a sore thumb."
And I agree with this completely and have written this very point several times in my own rhetorical analyses of the diary's text. I can even show you these passages.
But that does not in any way imply that therefore Mike must have been the composer or the source for the quote, it merely implies that the Sphere volume might very well have been the source for the quote. Could any one else have seen this volume with this "defective binding" fall open to this page and therefore have seen this citation? Sure, I suppose, lots of people. Including friends and "known associates" of Mr. Mike Barrett, who owned this very volume. This does not logically or even probably imply that therefore Mike must have known about this forgery before he took it to Doreen's. I think I wrote repeatedly to you and to others that I still believe this is the single most damning piece of evidence linking Mike to the forgery. But it remains speculative and it still leaves a great many questions unanswered and a great many behaviors unaccounted for.
For instance, let's say I accept your reading of the events and agree that the appearance of the quote does suggest that Mike participated in the creation of the diary. Then, you and I are left necessarily with the questions I asked when I last looked at this assumption. I wrote then:
"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."
How would you respond to this apparent inconsistency in people's versions of the evidence, including your own, since you yourself have written several times that Mike showed no real evidence of having done any research; and since he was so unable to explain how then such a text could have been written, even though you are using the Crashaw quote to allow you to suppose that he helped write it?
This problem remains even if you are not able to find any of my suggestions about the Crashaw quote (which I specified were not supported by any evidence in any case), "very compelling." I think the value of them as suggestions is only that they demonstrate why other possible scenarios still contain difficult if not unsolvable inconsistencies if they assume Mike and Anne's complicity in the forgery.
So I'm afraid I'm left left saying exactly what I said about this issue when I last thought about it:
"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 and inconsistencies still floating around that raise serious problems for this scenario of complicity."
Which reminds me, I was wondering if you have any other specific thoughts on the several inconsistencies I have suggested lie within the evidence being claimed in support of the complicity scenario?
I feel I can now conclusively demonstrate patent and undeniable contradictions in Karoline's "most likely" scenario for Mike and Anne's complicity. It has, all along, been using pieces of evidence in support of it that are in direct contradiction with each other. I have taken great pains to demonstrate this in detail today. I'm not sure it is completely clear or will be fully understood, but I have done my best. I have concluded this work with a set of four questions posted on the College Course board (how I arrived at them can be seen written out here on this board, but I wanted a separate place for the final questions). I think these questions leave very little room for waffling about this evidence. So I thought I'd ask you if you thought any of it was unfair.
Finally, a thought occurred to me as I was just writing about the Crashaw quote.
I do seem to have reached at least one conclusion. I see one truth here so far.
That is, it is now nearly ten years since Mike Barrett first walked into Doreen Montgomery's office carrying this book and no one, not Melvin Harris or Paul Feldman or Shirley Harrison or you or I or Caroline or Karoline or Keith or Martin or Paul Begg or Peter or Chris or anyone has publicly discovered or offered in ten years a single piece of hard physical, material evidence or reliable first hand testimony directly linking any single person or group of persons to the actual research, production, and writing of this diary prior to its appearance in 1992. No one. Not a single piece. Even the Crashaw quote and the handwriting samples, which are the closest things we've gotten so far publicly available, I think, remain products of speculative interpretation of read data and events and remain open to further investigation concerning questions of dates and reliability. The Crashaw quote, for instance, is made problematic by conflicting evidence concerning first hand evaluations of Mike's abilities and his own inability to explain what precisely he did. The handwriting samples from Mr. Kane remain the stuff of rumor and "not ready for publication." We still have nothing but a set of inconsistent and conflicting and even contradictory narratives each one with its own host of unanswered and perhaps unanswerable problems.
I believe, as of now, that is the truth we have.
So I am not prepared yet to agree, RJ that any even possible scenario is strictly "inconceivable" -- such as, just for instance, one that suggests that Tony found the quote in Mike's book and gave it to Kane and that Mike only found it later thanks to the same binding defect. No evidence to support this, of course, but not "inconceivable."
By the way, you conclude by saying
"The fact alone is enough to suggest to me that Mike knew where the quote came from."
Fair enough. When? How do you know when?
And you go on,
"The only reasonable alternative, as far as I can tell, is that someone else in the household had supplied the quote."
Like who? How do you know who? Do you have any evidence at all to claim who this might have been?
The problems, the need for reliable evidence and not just speculation, will not go away.
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 01:02 am | | Hi, John and R.J.:
Possibly, R.J., despite you being on the West Coast I might still get the last word. . . unless Caz or one of the Brits creeps in??? 
I entirely agree with John that the appearance of the Crashaw quote in the Diary and Barrett's ownership of the Sphere guide that contains that quote is highly suggestive of his complicity in the forgery but alas is not in any way proof that he was involved in the scheme. As Paul Begg has remarked, both Anne and Mike could be innocent and merely be dupes or patsies. The only thing countering that idea is that both have been shown to have lied and given misleading information, although their deceptions are not proof that they did the forgery either!
The similarity of Gerrard Kane's writing to the writing in the Diary, as far as I can see, is considerably less compelling than existence of the Crashaw quote in the Diary and Mike's ownership of the Sphere book because no other facts have been produced to show Kane's involvement in the project. I agree that although it seems Kane knew Tony Devereaux, there is no proof that he knows Mike or Anne Barrett (now Anne Graham), although perhaps Peter Birchwood's research will prove that Kane was or remains an associate of Anne and Mike's. Unless proof is forthcoming to show that Kane was involved, this remains a tantalizing possibility but hardly a proven fact. As we have discussed, Anne and Mike are the only individuals who have ever been shown to have owned the Diary and to have had any involvement with it, with the possible exception of Devereaux, thus by nature the focus has to be on Anne and Mike in the absence of any other suspects.
John and R.J., I appreciate your efforts to continue to test and analyze the situation. In summary, L'Affaire Diary is as muddled as ever and we at this time lack any clear-cut evidence to show who forged the Diary or when.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 01:50 am | | Chris--I have coffee cup in hand and am determined to out last you for the last word :-). Besides, techinically it's still Tuesday where I'm at, so there.
John-- Hello. Gadzukes--you write: 'Just for instance, [a scenerio] that suggests that Tony found the quote in Mike's book and gave it to Kane and that Mike only found it later, thanks to the same binding defect.'
But what could you mean, Tony found it in Mike's book? You mean Mike lent it to him? Wasn't Tony a man who didn't read according to Shirley? But, for the sake of argument, let's say Tony had a sudden desire to read some rather difficult essays on the English metaphysical poets. Highly improbable, but let's say it's possible. If Mike let Tony have access to his copy of the Sphere, wouldn't it have dawned on Mike where 'O Costly' came from when he obsessively read the diary and later found the quote? And if Mike desperately wanted to discredit Feldman by showing the diary was a forgery, wouldn't he have pointed this out to Feldy? This scenerio doesn't work for me. I think it is extremely improbable.
If Mike can be shown to have owned the Sphere pre-diary, I think this would be very damning. Probably you agree with me. I believe Keith Skinner has even made the statement that if the Sphere book could be proved to have been lodged with Mike's solicitor before his confession, it would be enough for him to doubt Anne's story--and surely he is one of her strongest supporters. (Suggestion: maybe we can get confirmation from Mike's relatives whether or not he owned the Sphere book prior to the Diary being made public?)
But John, I'm quite willing to wave the white flag. For the record, I really don't see where you & I have much of a disagreement. I don't fault your logic. Much of it is helpful. I just come from a perspective where I find it a little bit off-base. Why? For one thing, I'm not entirely sure that the Maybrick diary wasn't a certain someone's bamboo life raft. Finding the forger(s) might not be an entirely desirable thing to do. Second of all, forgery, perjury, plagarism are all very difficult cases to prove. They are crimes of 'disguise' and it's hard to nail down any solid evidence. That's one reason why they are seldom prosecuted. Even in this case, the Crown Prosecution didn't seem to have much interest. Literary forgery cases are usually left for the historians to fight over (drats) and here we are faced with a different set of standards. I would agree wholeheartedly that there is very little concrete evidence to hang anyone here; but the bottom line is that we have a clear forgery, no providence, and the only people who claim to have any knowledge of it's origins (Mike & Anne) have clearly demonstrated a lack of credibility. This doesn't prove they forged the diary, of course. (Your point) My only really point is that I don't particularly want all the contradictory claims, lack of credibility, changing stories, etc., being used to somehow promote the idea that therefore we don't know where the diary came from...and use this to raise the diary to the status of a mysterious document. It is clearly a modern forgery. There are some extremely strong indications (in my opinion) where it came from, including some which haven't been discussed on these boards. They are largely inconclusive. But in my opinion the 'when' and the 'where' have been answered as fully as they probably ever will be. The who hasn't been proven, but then, it might well never be. What I think we can all say is that the document will never be taken even remotely seriously in its current state of chaos.
As far as I can tell, John, your bottom line is that we need more hard evidence. I fully agree. The ironic thing is that last summer no one was making this point more forecfully than Karoline, who was calling for further forensic studies, examples of Mike & Anne's handwriting, etc. Look back and see for yourself, if you like. I have noticed in the past 8 months we haven't gotten very far in answering some of the questions she and others have posted.
By the way, if you still wish to find the composers of the diary, --and maybe someone reading this can answer--you might look to see if it has ever been determined if the "A. Graham" witness on Devereux's Will (also signed by Kane) is connected in anyway to Anne. I fairly certain that it has been said that this is not Anne, it is only coincidental. Can someone (re)confirm this? Can this Graham be identified? (Other questions to which you might seek answers : Did Billy frequent the Saddle with Mike & Devereux? Was Kane a patron?)
Best wishes,
RJ Palmer. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 01:58 am | | | PS. Excuse the grammar & spelling (or lack there of). |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 07:23 am | | Hi RJ,
A couple of small points in response, although I think we do agree on the basics.
You ask, about my self-admittedly fantastic little scenario concerning Tony finding the Crashaw quote, at the very end of a long post by me concerning a number of other more deliberate matters:
"Wasn't Tony a man who didn't read according to Shirley? But, for the sake of argument, let's say Tony had a sudden desire to read some rather difficult essays on the English metaphysical poets. Highly improbable, but let's say it's possible. If Mike let Tony have access to his copy of the Sphere, wouldn't it have dawned on Mike where 'O Costly' came from when he obsessively read the diary and later found the quote? And if Mike desperately wanted to discredit Feldman by showing the diary was a forgery, wouldn't he have pointed this out to Feldy?"
Yes, to all of these (except, of course, I wasn’t actually suggesting that Tony was reading the book for pleasure or to learn about poets, but that he was involved in the forgery with, say, Kane, and Mike did not know this at the time). And of course Mike would then have suspected Tony and perhaps gone to ask him about it. Did he? I don't know. But this is not really my point. I readily admitted when I made the suggestion that it had no evidence behind it. It is not a particularly compelling one. My point was it has no less evidence behind it than any of the theories for complicity at this point and is no less inconsistent. For instance, you yourself write in response to it:
"And if Mike desperately wanted to discredit Feldman by showing the diary was a forgery, wouldn't he have pointed this out to Feldy?"
RJ, Excellent point! This is a very important point you have made here. It bears repeating.
"And if Mike desperately wanted to discredit Feldman by showing the diary was a forgery, wouldn't he have pointed this out to Feldy?"
Now, since you are claiming that it is undoubtedly more reasonable and likely that Mike discovered the Sphere quote before hand and used it while he was composing or helping to compose the diary, then the only logical conclusion we can draw from your suggestion is that Mike therefore knew how the diary was composed, who helped him write it, where and when.
RJ, "And if Mike desperately wanted to discredit Feldman by showing the diary was a forgery, wouldn't he have pointed this out to Feldy?"
You see the problem? This remains the difficulty for any scenario that suggests that Mike used the Sphere quote in the composition of the diary and therefore knew how it was produced and by whom.
As you say, if Mike desperately wanted to discredit Feldman by showing the diary was a forgery, wouldn't he have pointed this out to Feldy?
Yet, what he does is swear in an affidavit that Anne Barret hand wrote the diary wile he dictated it and his daughter watched. And when he tries to explain any of this to Feldy or anyone else, he never mentions a Mr. Kane or anyone else knowing and yet can himself offer no "compelling" account or knowledge of how the diary was written and no signs of the ability to have written it. How can you possibly integrate this problem into a scenario that suggests Mike used the Crashaw quote in the Sphere diary without one of these items of admittedly interested evidence contradicting the other one.
You do not really address this in your post, RJ. In fact you ask the very question I asked you earlier, but never offer any answer of your own that would make sense in a scenario for complicity:
"And if Mike desperately wanted to discredit Feldman by showing the diary was a forgery, wouldn't he have pointed this [now meaning his knowledge of who helped him compose it and where, or when it was composed] out to Feldy?" Or to the authorities? Or to someone?
It seems your suggestion that Mike's complicity is still the most reasonable scenario fails to account for the contradiction you yourself acknowledge in your post. If he did use the Crashaw quote because he did compose the diary, then he would have known how it was composed and, as you yourself quite properly ask, "if Mike desperately wanted to discredit Feldman by showing the diary was a forgery, wouldn't he have pointed this out to Feldy?"
Thanks RJ, for that important question.
Then you make several point I must respond to too quickly.
You write:
"For one thing, I'm not entirely sure that the Maybrick diary wasn't a certain someone's bamboo life raft. Finding the forger(s) might not be an entirely desirable thing to do."
I'm not sure I completely understand this, but I do not feel we should hesitate from trying to discover who forged this thing and how. I think the investigation should continue for a number of important reasons including accurate history and even for the sake of justice for those who might have been falsely accused and whose reputations might have been questioned.
You write:
"Second of all, forgery, perjury, plagiarism are all very difficult cases to prove. They are crimes of 'disguise' and it's hard to nail down any solid evidence."
All the more reason to work carefully, patiently, meticulously, with an eye for self-contradictions, and with an understanding that it will be a long process. This is all fine with me.
You then write:
"That's one reason why they are seldom prosecuted. Even in this case, the Crown Prosecution didn't seem to have much interest. Literary forgery cases are usually left for the historians to fight over (drats) and here we are faced with a different set of standards."
Yup, but they should be rigorous standards and we should maintain them at all costs and we should be aware whenever we have fallen short of our desire for thoroughness and logical validity and established conclusions using non-contradictory and substantiated material evidence.
You go on:
"I would agree wholeheartedly that there is very little concrete evidence to hang anyone here; but the bottom line is that we have a clear forgery, no providence, and the only people who claim to have any knowledge of it's origins (Mike & Anne) have clearly demonstrated a lack of credibility. This doesn't prove they forged the diary, of course."
Yup again.
"My only really point is that I don't particularly want all the contradictory claims, lack of credibility, changing stories, etc., being used to somehow promote the idea that therefore we don't know where the diary came from...and use this to raise the diary to the status of a mysterious document."
RJ. I am promoting the idea that we don't knew where the diary came from. I believe it remains a mysterious document. This is not to say it is not a forgery, of course, and yes, most likely a recent one, yes and most likely somehow from Liverpool, and we do know who first claimed ownership. But the simple truth is we do not know where this diary came from. We do not know who wrote it or where or when. You agree with this. This makes it at least in part still a mysterious document. There can be no denying at least this, I think.
You write:
"It is clearly a modern forgery. There are some extremely strong indications (in my opinion) where it came from, including some which haven't been discussed on these boards."
Well then, let's discuss them.
You conclude your paragraph:
"They are largely inconclusive. But in my opinion the 'when' and the 'where' have been answered as fully as they probably ever will be. The who hasn't been proven, but then, it might well never be. What I think we can all say is that the document will never be taken even remotely seriously in its current state of chaos."
It's funny, I'm actually not as pessimistic about this as you are, and I'm the one pointing out all the self-contradictory interpretations of evidence and lack of any real evidence to support any likely scenario. But I believe we will get to some eventual knowledge here. That is perhaps just blind faith, but I am willing to carry on in any case.
You then write:
"As far as I can tell, John, your bottom line is that we need more hard evidence. I fully agree. The ironic thing is that last summer no one was making this point more forcefully than Karoline, who was calling for further forensic studies, examples of Mike & Anne's handwriting, etc. Look back and see for yourself, if you like."
You remark about Karoline might very well be true, RJ. But recently here she has advanced several lists of items of evidence that she claims support the case for Mike and Anne's complicity and in each of those lists several of those items themselves have been in direct contradiction with one another. This is not a reasonable or rational way to build a case or to consider evidence. It is not only purely speculative, it is actually irrational and requires that we reconsider which items on such lists can stand and which must be removed since they cannot all remain evidence of the same scenario because they themselves offer contradictory accounts of the events. If she or anyone can address the "Four Questions" concerning this evidence that sit now on the College Diary board then we might begin to establish a more reasonable, logical, and yes, likely and probable scenario. Or at least one that is not thoroughly rife with self-contradictions and demonstrably unsound.
And yes, I too will be interested to see any possible answers to the questions you asked in your final paragraph. I too believe they are very important ones and include them among the many many questions that remain.
This is still where we are.
But I am enjoying our travels.
--John |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 07:56 am | | Hi RJP,
At the terrible risk of reintroducing the most vicious of all squabble-making topics to this board, I just want to pick up your words
"Harris did an in depth search and found no other book in the entire world having that particular quote from Crashaw being abstracted from the text."
Now, with all due respect, this is the sort of claim that no responsible scholar should ever have made. It has, it seems, misled an honest researcher like yourself into believing it is both possible and true. Take it from me - (and I certainly have more training in postgraduate research and experience of training postgraduates than anyone on these boards at present except possibly John Omlor) - it is completely impossible for anybody to state confidently that 'no other book in the world' contains anything. There are too many books in too many libraries: too many privately printed books that escape collection as well, for any one person to know. In this particular case, I believe that the thrust of the argument is fair: unless one imagines Mike grinding through Crashaw's works - (and I've never found the particular poem in any anthology) - one has to assume that the quotation derived from Ricks. (It is, of course, practically impossible for anyone who knows Mike to imagine him reading right through any one of Crashaw's longer poems).
But when the parallel claim is made that Melvin has made a search and he can assure us that the article Leonard Matters said he found in a Spanish language newspaper does not exist, and so Matters is purveying fiction in his Dr Stanley theory, we are looking at an irresponsible claim which is used to damn a man's reputation. No responsible scholar would claim his own failure to trace one article, only identified as being in a Spanish language newspaper, as proof that the article never existed. Think of the number of Spanish speaking countries; the number of papers in each; the rarity of finding unbroken runs of foreign newspapers in library collections;the facility with Spanish necessary to make the check; the ease with which even the most careful researcher can overlook the small item he is looking for across a batch of newspapers. Yet this impossible claim is used to support the blackening of Matters' name. Given his very high reputation as journalist, politician and magistrate, there is every reason to suppose that Matters really did see such an article as he described. Not that it speaks well for his judgement that he believed it!
With all good wishes,
Martin Fido |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 08:26 am | | John--I really don't want to discuss the Sphere issue anymore, to the point, as the Roman would say, of "throwing up". But this is the sentence I believe leads you astray:
"I wasn’t actually suggesting that Tony was reading the book for pleasure or to learn about poets, but that he was involved in the forgery with, say, Kane, and Mike did not know this at the time"
A non-reading Devereaux having access to Mike's copy of a rather difficult group of essays about English metaphysical poets and having nothing whatsover to do with Jack the Ripper in order to help him forge the diary? Why? How? Sorry, but to me this does not make sense and is no way even remotely possible. But if that's the way you feel, o.k. I give in.
I only want to add that I never have said that I thought Mike's confession was motivated by a need to discredit Feldman; this is Paul Begg's speculation. You seem willing to believe this and willing to believe that Mike would compromise his mates in order to discredit Feldman. I don't feel this is necessarily true. Why do you feel this way?
And finally, do you really think the diary is only "most likely" a recent forgery?
Must run, but I'll list some questions I think we need answered later in the day.
Cheers, RP |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 08:32 am | | | Martin--I should have said that Melvin did a rather thorough search and found no other book with the line. Please note that 'O Costly' is the first line Rick's quote; the one likely to jump out at a reader flipping through the book, but is buried in the fourth (fifth?) stanza in any book that gives Crashaw's poem in its entirety. Do you really think it came from anywhere but the Sphere? RP |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 08:51 am | | Dear RJP,
No, of course I don't. As I've often said, I'm not in serious dispute with Melvin over his conclusions: only his tendency to present deductions and even conjectures as facts.
All good wishes,
Martin |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 09:54 am | | But RJ,
You have missed my point almost entirely. I know this because the line from my post which you initially choose to read and respond to appears as a parenthetical comment in a paragraph that includes the sentence "But this is not really my point." I would have thought such a sentence made this clear. In fact, the whole paragraph makes this even clearer. It says (with my emphasis now highlighted), in response to your earlier questions:
"Yes, to all of these (except, of course, I wasn’t actually suggesting that Tony was reading the book for pleasure or to learn about poets, but that he was involved in the forgery with, say, Kane, and Mike did not know this at the time). And of course Mike would then have suspected Tony and perhaps gone to ask him about it. Did he? I don't know. But this is not really my point. I readily admitted when I made the suggestion that it had no evidence behind it. It is not a particularly compelling one. My point was it has no less evidence behind it than any of the theories for complicity at this point and is no less inconsistent. For instance, you yourself write in response to it:
"And if Mike desperately wanted to discredit Feldman by showing the diary was a forgery, wouldn't he have pointed this out to Feldy?"
You see, I had already explicitly admitted that this was not even a particularly compelling scenario. It was offered to demonstrate a problem. And indeed what you have not responded to is the contradiction implied in your own concluding question.
If you are seriously positing as a more likely scenario the suggestion that Mike used the Sphere volume and Crashaw quote in composing the diary, then, logically, you are also claiming that he must have known how the diary was written. And then your own question returns.
"And if Mike desperately wanted to discredit Feldman by showing the diary was a forgery, wouldn't he have pointed this out to Feldy?"
Any scenario which suggests Mike put the Crashaw quote into the diary and therefore was involved in its composition must account for his apparent lack of knowledge and for his inability to present a substantial and convincing narrative supported by evidence that he did so, even when he was trying. And no, he would not have had to, as you say, compromise his mates. A simple word or two about his own methodology or about the writing process or some evidence from him that he would have been able to do this would have been just fine. He could have left names out of his account and even left the account partial, but he could have also at least demonstrated the knowledge he would have needed to write what you are suggesting he wrote. Otherwise, the Crashaw quotes appearance and Mike's inability to give any believable account of the diary's composition remain contradictory pieces of evidence and this contradiction remains a problem for any scenario of complicity.
My last post above I hope demonstrates this problem in less hurried and clearer detail (I'm writing now between classes).
But by focusing on a parenthetical passage in a paragraph that explicitly states it is not my point, I'm afraid you left most of the important and relevant aspects of my analysis undiscussed.
Now to briefly answer your other questions:
I do not feel that Mike's confession was necessarily motivated by a need to discredit Feldman. I'm not sure. But I do believe that Mike did indeed want to be believed when he confessed and that at some point, as your own question clearly implies, he also really did "desperately" want to discredit Feldman, and that at either point, if he did use the Crashaw quote and did indeed write or help write this diary then logically he should have been able to demonstrate this and could have demonstrated this simply enough without even compromising his mates, simply by offering a believable narrative and evidence of his own knowledge and abilities.
So this contradiction remains, as do the contradictions I have tried to carefully sketch out earlier. Those "Four Questions" that I have asked over on the College Course board remain in place for anyone who is still seriously willing at this time to advance a case for Mike and Anne's complicity in the forgery. The questions detail contradictions in the evidence that any scenario would have to account for if it wishes to be logically consistent and sound and therefore "likely" or "probable."
Finally, you ask me:
"do you really think the diary is only 'most likely' a recent forgery?"
I believe the diary is a recent forgery. It remains "most likely" to be a recent forgery because we do not yet have an irrefutable or even specific date for its composition. I believe we will eventually have one and that it will be recent. But these remain beliefs and I remain very careful about what I claim has been established and very careful about my own language and the claims I feel I can responsibly assert with confidence and the claims that remain interpretations even though I firmly believe them.
I think this is the appropriate way to read and the appropriate way to evaluate data and evidence.
Hope that answers some of your questions and makes things at least somewhat clearer.
Thanks for reading. I must race away, although serious questions remain.
--John |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 10:39 am | | Posted on behalf of Melvin Harris
STANDARDS IN DOUBT
As readers can now see, Fido will post libels and muddled recollections freely. First he used the excuse that my posters were Anon in order to avoid accounting for his smears. But when faced with my post placed by Mr. Birchwood he devises yet a different excuse for not answering. Then he reluctantly concedes that his "integrity" sneer was based on ignorance but still persists in repeating the lying claim that I had tried to hijack his radio slot! I now ask him to provide a detailed sworn statement from the former LBC producer whom Fido states is responsible for this lie. If this cannot be furnished, then I expect Fido to withdraw this claim pronto and without reservation.
Since Fido is making much of my failure to contact Paley, perhaps he can explain why he failed to contact ME over this LBC fantasy? Or is he exempt from the standards he expects me to hold to? Further to that, he actually went ahead and PUBLISHED this lie. In Paley's case I published nothing, NEITHER DID I ASK FOR ANYHTING NAMING PALEY TO BE PUBLISHED. Mike David has got it right. He has correctly observed that I was suggesting an amendment to the BARNETT entry and no more than that. The remarks on Paley himself were for the consideration of the compilers only and they would have been irresponsible idiots if they had repeated my words without checking with Paley.
But Fido and Co. live by double standards. They thanked me for my letter. They made no reservations. They later made no attempt to ring or write to me and explain that Paley had developed his ideas before the Andrew novel saw print. Fido is once again being dishonest when he draws Mike David's attention to words of mine which he describes as my:"...acknowledgement that we had indeed notified him that there was positive written evidence that Bruce's theory predated the publication of Andrew's novel" The words in question were written by me on April 11th 1997. Before that date, the Three dishonourably sat on their knowledge and used a convenient misreading of my letter in order to justify their revised entry in the 1996 A-Z. I knew NOTHING of Paley's claim until I challenged that revision.
And is it not devious to talk of an anon publisher who was once upon a time approached by me with criticism of an anon author? As for the American lady who tried to seduce me, well this really is fantasy run wild. The lady entered my publisher's Ripper competition and at the same time asked if she could meet me when she came to London. I had to reject her entry since it was a straight copy from Whittington-Egan's book, and I turned down her offer to meet. Following this, on one of Fido's walks, she claimed that she dined with me and heard me confess that I did not really believe in my own candidate. Ripperology certainly does attract some odd balls, apart from Fido.
And the deadly silence on the "Ripperana" issue is significant. Did Fido suddenly realise that he had made an utter fool of himself? As for Begg's query about the ink tests, I refer him back to the material I sent him. In short, journalists were indeed told by Feldman that I TAMPERED with the tested samples.
Finally, if Fido is not willing to read the early material posted here, then he has to accept that he is not competent to judge on many issues. His remarks on Belloc-Lowndes for example would never have been made if he had read my "Guide through the Labyrinth." And not naming the three books was never an evasion but a deliberate choice on my part. I waited until I had the time and the reason to present a full analysis. Even so, and prior to that, I did give the title of the most important Ripper book to Mrs. Harrison, though I doubt if she ever followed it up! |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 10:47 am | | Hi RJP
“I only want to add that I never have said that I thought Mike's confession was motivated by a need to discredit Feldman; this is Paul Begg's speculation. You seem willing to believe this and willing to believe that Mike would compromise his mates in order to discredit Feldman. I don't feel this is necessarily true. Why do you feel this way?
What I have said is that Mike’s original confession to the Liverpool journalist Harold Brough was because he thought the ‘diary’ was the cause of all his problems with Anne and imagined that Anne would come back if he got rid of the ‘diary’ (by confessing that it was a forgery). I have also said that Mike subsequently hated Feldman and believed him responsible for Anne leaving him and that in my opinion Mike would have done anything he could and at whatever cost to scupper Feldman’s project. My sources for these pieces of information are Mike himself. I have no independent testimony in support of the first, but those who heard the messages left by Mike on Feldman’s answering machine have confirmed the latter.
As for the Sphere book, as far as I am aware there is no evidence that Mike knew the book contained the quote prior to the beginning of September 1994 and possibly not before the end of September 1994. Thus we must address the questions why, if he knew about it prior to that time, he never produced it to support one of his confessions and why, when he did produce it, he claimed to have found the quote through research at the library.
If Mike did not produce the quote because he did not know it existed, then it isn’t proof that he forged the ‘diary’, it may add to such evidence as exists that he didn’t know the ‘diary’ was a forgery, and it may point to the forger being someone else in or close to the Barrett family.
I personally think that these possibilities are worth exploring. |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 10:55 am | | Hi, R.J.:
Yes, I believe you, John Omlor, and I agree fairly well on the state of play in regard to the Diary, i.e., that things have reached a stagnation point until further data are available. On the other hand, I believe that close scrutiny of the available information has produced some progress of late, at least in terms of clarifying who did what when.
No, unless Peter has found out who "A. Graham" is who witnessed Devereaux's March 22, 1979 will, it is not likely to be Anne Graham who by that point had been married to Mike, according to Feldman in late 1975 (Virgin hardback, p. 16) and surely by then would have signed her name as "Anne Barrett." That is not to say that "A. Graham" might not be a relative of Anne's however -- or even Florence Maybrick's ho ho ho
R.J., I wonder if you could explain your statement that the Diary may have been "a certain someone's bamboo life raft." What do you mean by this? We know, by Anne's testimony, that she had thought the Diary could be a writing project for her husband Mike, who had dabbled previously in journalism but was now an unemployed scrap metal dealer. In this sense, do you mean that the Diary could have been Mike's "bamboo life raft"? Hmmmm. . . probably not, because Anne's story that she gave the Diary to Devereaux to give to Mike to give him something to do writing-wise is well known and "out there" so to speak. Furthermore, you say "Finding the forger(s) might not be an entirely desirable thing to do." This seems to imply that it could be embarrassing for the forger(s). Is that what you mean? If so, are you thinking of anyone in particular?
Lastly will you please explain or expand upon your remark, "There are some extremely strong indications (in my opinion) where it came from, including some which haven't been discussed on these boards." (Emphasis mine)
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 11:11 am | | Dear Melvin
Whilst I disagree profoundly with your claim that you did not "ask for anything naming Paley to be published" - you asked us to note (in other words publish) under the entry for Joseph Barnett that Mark Andrews novel pre-dated Paley's article, and you wrote 'note also' that Paley imported US books and was a New Yorker. At worst this was an invitation to us to publish those detailes about Bruce Paley, at best it was a bit of imprecise and even sloppy writing. And whilst we would indeed have been irresponsible idiots if we had published your claim without checking with Bruce Paley, you have also stated on these Boards that you have a solid reputation that entitles you to be believed and you were also rather impolite when I legitimately queried Chris George's erratum over neurosthenia. I hope you will therefore see how easy it would be to assume that you know what you are talking about and not bother to check - as did Chris George, who I have never found to be irresponsible or an idiot. This, in my opinion, makes it extremely important that you - indeed, all of us - try to be a little more precise with our wording.
This aside, I have obviously looked at the material you sent me very carefully, but I can't see where you were accused of rigging the ink tests. Feldman may has said this, he may have purposefully implied it, or he may not have meant it at all and you may have inferred it (or others may have inferred it and led you to believe it). I don't know which. As I have said, I know he believed that you had handled the chloroacetamide and the ink sample and that contamination could have taken place. I don't know that he ever said or ever intended anyone to think that you had contaminated the ink samples deliberately. Since you have now claimed the latter for years, I am curious to see the evidence on which your claim is based because it is something that seems to have completely escaped me.
Thank you for your time. |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 11:49 am | | Uh...
Peter,
I am afraid you might have mistakenly posted Melvin's words on the wrong board. If you could repost Melvin's missive over on what I believe is now called the Professional Standards board, it can be discussed and responded to more properly there.
Chris,
Since Melvin is now apparently reading things, I wonder if you were able to send along the simple questions about what he still believes which I asked RJ to forward a couple of days ago. I can repost them if you like. They did not ask for any priveledged information and were just queries such as whether or not Melvin still believes the handwriting does indeed match Kane's and whether he still believes that Anne and Mike participated n the composition of the diary or at least knew for sure that it was a forgery before they took it to Doreen and if he has any physical evidence in support of these beliefs (not what is his evidence, but just if he has any hard material or physical evidence). I worded these more carefully earlier and I can track them down. These are not to be confused with the Four Questions over on the College Course Tackles the Diary board, that remain still noticeably unaddressed concerning the consistency within any scenario in favor of complicity.
And yes, I too wonder what RJ was referring to when he spoke of things "which haven't been discussed on these boards." I am always very suspicious of this sort of dropped in tease. But I am willing to give RJ the chance to explain what he had in mind.
Thanks for your post. I am not sure we are completely stuck or in a state of stagnation, but I do think it will be slow and deliberate going for a while until new physical evidence is made available or turns up.
Still, I think we can continue to read and even to make some progress by analyzing our own thinking, our conclusions, and the evidence and interpretations and texts that we do have.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 12:19 pm | | Hi, John:
Your questions have been sent to someone to give to Melvin and hopefully we will get some form of reply. To explain, Melvin himself does not read the boards, as he is not on the Internet, but others send to him what is of interest, and he replies accordingly through those intermediaries. We should be aware, however, that with the ongoing heated exchange on the matter of Bruce Paley between Paul and Martin on one side and Melvin on the other, it might be difficult to get a reply. However, we tried! 
Chris |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 12:27 pm | | Message to be passed back to Melvin Harris, if someone would be so kind:
While it is a noble sentiment to suggest that others follow their own standards, I think you might agree with me that it is far more important that every individual follow his or her own standards.
Whether or not there is any merit in accusations against other people's perceived (or misperceived) "double standrards," is irrelevant to one's own sense of integrity if it has been pointed out to you that you may in fact be guilty of engaging in double standards.
I join you in wishing to relieve the world, even this small corner of it, of any traces of real, proven, unambiguous examples of the use of double standards, but I would enjoin you to accept that it is imperative that one must clean one's own house before criticizing the condition of another's.
In the end, we are only responsible for ourselves -- our own words and actions. Accusing, or even proving, that another is guilty of the same infraction does not make one innocent, nor does it allow honorable people to ignore or continually engage in this identical infraction we perceive in others.
To end, I would remind you of the fine New Testament aphorism from Matthew 7:3-4:
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?/Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?"
Yaz |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 12:49 pm | | John wrote to RJ:
You remark about Karoline might very well be true, RJ. But recently here she has advanced several lists of items of evidence that she claims support the case for Mike and Anne's complicity and in each of those lists several of those items themselves have been in direct contradiction with one another."
Oh John your sense of my iniquity only deepens it seems so I will try to put your mind at rest. But I really do think it best if you just take no notice of me, as I suggested before.
I can only think of one 'contradiction' that you have drawn to my attention - the one about Devereux, MB and GK knowing one another, and yet Devereux's family saying they knew nothing about the 'diary'. .
To be honest I think the problem you have over this might be faulty logic on your part actually. The way I see it - just because MB's proven connection with GK is through Devereux doesn't mean Devereux had to know about the 'diary' or be party to the scheme, does it? All it means is that he could have been the means of introducing MB to GK.
Perhaps I have read it a little more carefully than you.
Moving on:
I think RJ makes an excellent point about the wretched Crashaw quote.
As he says - in the complete text this occurs some way into the poem. Yet in the Sphere edition it occurs as a first line - making it very easy for a casual browser to spot.
And apparently Harris has done some research and been unable to locate any other book that carries that line at all.
So, what we presently have is the fact that the man who 'discovered' the diary and placed the diary and profited from the diary, is also a man who happened to own a copy of the only known book that has ever featured in a prominent position the words "O Costly intercourse of death", which happen to also appear prominently in the diary.
Surely this puts MB's book squarely in the frame as a reference source, right? meaning (on this evidence alone) that MB is very likely to have either been involved in the forgery or to have been intimately connected with the forgers.
And the only reason to doubt MB's direct involvement in the forgery is that he didn't identify the quote for a while after he 'confessed' to being the forger. Implying the possibility that he accidentally dicovered this quotation after making his confession, and then added it on to provide verisimilitude.
Bearing inmind MB's own erratic nature by 1995, this isn't a particulalrly strong argument is it?
But anyhow - if you could bear with me a moment - when is the first publicly recorded incident of him naming this quotation? (I'm sure you've already done all this, but I'm just trying to be clear).
exactly how long after his confession was it?
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Mark List
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 12:53 pm | | I have a few thoughts/questions on the diary. I'm hoping someone can help me.
I hear so much that the diary is fake, and a forgery.
I don't entirely agree that it's "real" either, but having said that, I've found myself coming to a crossroad with the question, "What's real?"
So, here I state a few thoughts and would appreciate any and all replies:
WHAT MAKES THE DIARY FAKE?
1. James Maybrick didn't write the diary, someone else did, Maybrick had nothing to do with the Whitechapel murders.
IS IT A FAKE?
2. James Maybrick didn't write the diary, someone else did, Maybrick WAS the Whitechapel killer.
IS IT A FAKE?
3. James Maybrick DID write the diary, He was NOT the killer, He was so doped up on arsenic and strychnine that he only THOUGHT he was.
IS IT A FAKE?
4. James Maybrick DID write a diary about being the Whitechapel murderer, the diary that was brought to the media was a COPY of the original diary of Maybrick. (i.e. someone copied the existing writing of JM)
IS IT A FAKE?
My main question is, "What is a fake?"
I've given a few scenarios that I think are possible.
I base these on the assumption that the Diary and Watch have been around for a few decades--making them not recent or modern artifacts.
I would truly appreciate anyones thoughts on my little inquiry.
Best to all,
Mark |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 12:55 pm | | Hi RJ,
You wrote:
I don't think it is unusual or particularly telling that the Liverpool Library did have a copy of the Sphere book.
Of course, you are right. The fact that the book was there may not be either unusual or particularly telling. But my question really is - could Mike (not you) have guessed, without checking, that such a book might well be on the library shelves? Was this Mike (again, not you) trusting to luck?
If this volume is relatively easy to find, as you suggest, then the unusual and telling thing about Mike’s copy was not that it was in his home in the first place, but that the diary, which was in his home, featured the Crashaw lines in the odd way it did, and that the Sphere book opened at the page where these lines stand out clearly (and although the diary has two small differences in the wording, the line break is the same). We have Melvin’s word that Mike’s copy would have fallen open at the right page at the right time, ie when whoever used it chose to add a certain je ne sais quoi to his/her diary composition.
Okay, so the tapes or whatever are unavailable, not lost in Spain – I apologise for my choice of wording here. I don’t know much about the supporting evidence for the Sphere book being owned by Mike before the diary was written. But as I mention above, I think it’s not so much the individual parts of the story that are unusual or particularly telling (to use your own words again), but the sum of those parts, if we can assume that all the facts we have been given are spot on.
I agree with others who find that the whole Crashaw incident is probably the most difficult part of the diary saga to explain, unless there was some sort of Barrett involvement in a known modern forgery.
You wrote:
I believe Keith Skinner has even made the statement that if the Sphere book could be proved to have been lodged with Mike's solicitor before his confession, it would be enough for him to doubt Anne's story.
Yes, but you then went on to write:
(Suggestion: maybe we can get confirmation from Mike's relatives whether or not he owned the Sphere book prior to the Diary being made public?)
I don’t think Keith would find his statement and your suggestion compatible. Confirmation that the Sphere book was in the Barrett home before March 1992 would not, I think, be enough by itself, for reasons which have already been gone into at some length.
Back on the subject of the maroon diary, what if Anne only knew about its existence when she had to pay for it – ie after the diary was in London? Is there any evidence that Anne knew exactly when Mike had ordered and received it, and what he wanted it for, when giving Shirley the details of when she wrote out the cheque?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 01:00 pm | | Hi Martin,
Many thanks for your thoughts on the diary handwriting etc.
You wrote:
(It is, of course, practically impossible for anyone who knows Mike to imagine him reading right through any one of Crashaw's longer poems).
Yes, this is entirely consistent with what others have told me about Mike.
But can I ask you another question regarding Mike? Do you also find it practically impossible to imagine that Mike could, at some point during a search through library books on the subject of English literature, have flicked through the pages of the Sphere Guide vol.2 - available on the shelves when he claimed to be there - and found the very lines from the diary that he was looking for, not tucked away in the middle of a long section of similar lines of verse, all equally beyond his comprehension, but staring back at him, clear as day, towards the bottom of a page that was otherwise full of prose?
This is, after all, not so very far removed from how we imagine Mike would have come across the lines in the first place, at some point before March 1992 - by flicking through all the books available to him at that time, and noticing the lines because they stood out clearly on the page. The major difference is of course the binding ‘defect’, if it can be confirmed beyond doubt that the book in question really would have fallen open at that page, if and when Mike was doing this part of the pre-diary research.
(And before everyone reminds me about the coincidence of the Sphere book and the diary being in the Barrett home at the same time, I know. I'm just after Martin's opinion on the possibility of Mike finding the lines in the library in the way I described above.  )
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 01:07 pm | | Hi, all:
This sounds like a skit from a Roddy Doyle novel, but I think Mike Barrett might actually have gone to the Central Library on William Brown Street, Liverpool, to ask about a book that he already had in his possession, knowing that he would likely be able to "find" the book with the quote in it. He was then able to show Shirley Harrison what a wonderful researcher he was, because he had, out of the blue, produced a book which had the right quote in it. But he knew all along where the quote would be, in a copy of the Sphere Guide much like the one he owned.
It has been asked why Mike mentioned this line in the Diary so long after his various confessions. I would think, if he did know about the quote because he had a hand in putting it in the Diary, it might have just slipped his mind since there was more than enough else to tell about the forgery scheme.
All the best
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 01:18 pm | | Hi Karoline,
Yet in the Sphere edition it occurs as a first line - making it very easy for a casual browser to spot.
That's the very point I am making about Mike and the library in September 1994 - except that he claims to have been anything but a casual browser then.
Mike definitely knew where he could find the Crashaw lines by October 12th 1994, according to one of Keith's records of that date, which was posted on the 'Jack's Watch' board on November 2, 2000. Mike used this knowledge in his January 1995 confession statement. No one else, as far as I know, has published written evidence of an earlier date. Mike's original confession was in late June, 1994.
If Devereux wasn't involved, but Kane and MB were, what was MB doing, taking the RWE booklet round to Devereux and leaving it with him? Or is that a daft question? (Bearing in mind that RJ thinks it's daft to imagine that Mike could have taken his Sphere Guide round to Devereux, given that the latter wasn't much of a reader.)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 01:35 pm | | Hi Chris
“…Mike Barrett might actually have gone to the Central Library on William Brown Street, Liverpool, to ask about a book that he already had in his possession, knowing that he would likely be able to "find" the book with the quote in it. He was then able to show Shirley Harrison what a wonderful researcher he was, because he had, out of the blue, produced a book which had the right quote in it. But he knew all along where the quote would be, in a copy of the Sphere Guide much like the one he owned.”
Yes, he could have done this and very probably did do exactly that, I suspect, but unfortunately it doesn’t tell us when Mike discovered the Crashaw lines in the Sphere book. Let’s suppose, just for example, that he leant the books to his girlfriend’s son and brought them back home when the son didn’t want them and on idly flicking through one discovered the Crashaw quote. Seeing the opportunity to represent himself as a great researcher, he does exactly as you have described.
It has been asked why Mike mentioned this line in the Diary so long after his various confessions. I would think, if he did know about the quote because he had a hand in putting it in the Diary, it might have just slipped his mind since there was more than enough else to tell about the forgery scheme.
But the point is that Mike never was able to tell a coherent story about the forgery scheme, even when he wanted to. And if he forgot about the Crashaw quote, when did he remember it? Late September 1994? And why, when apparently he had a private detective helping him to prove that he forged the ‘diary’, did he throw away this golden bit of evidence and claim he’d researched it down the library? Isn’t his silence about the Crashaw quote at least consistent with his inability right from the day he confessed to provide any facts, anecdotes, insights, memories, or anything else about the conception and execution of the forgery? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 01:45 pm | | Hi Chris,
Then why, if Mike wanted Shirley to believe he found the quote for the first time in the library, did he almost immediately tell her that he had owned his own copy since 1989? I can understand why he used this later when confessing, but not so soon after letting Shirley think he'd been so clever. Or is this just another mystery we can put down to Mike's totally illogical behaviour?
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 01:47 pm | | Hi Karoline,
Actually I have called your attention to three or four separate contradictions within your lists of evidence. You can find them detailed in several posts of mine from yesterday, including and most recently, one initially addressed to Caroline dated Tuesday, April 24, 2001 - 03:09 pm. But you need not scroll up. They are now spelled out patiently, clearly and in detail in the most recent post to appear on the "College Course Tackles the Diary" board. Still, I can repost them here if you would like to actually address them each in detail.
But let's read carefully the one to which you have responded above.
You write:
"To be honest I think the problem you have over this might be faulty logic on your part actually. The way I see it - just because MB's proven connection with GK is through Devereux doesn't mean Devereux had to know about the 'diary' or be party to the scheme, does it? All it means is that he could have been the means of introducing MB to GK.
Perhaps I have read it a little more carefully than you."
Ah yes, I had already speculated on precisely this possibility on two separate occasions when I first raised this contradiction (speaking of reading carefully). And I said then that this was the only way this might be accounted for, but in order to advance this scenario you would have to claim that Tony introduced Mike to Mr. Kane and then while his two friends, who knew each other only through him, conspired together to create a forgery Tony knew nothing about it. Is the the "most likely" or "most probable" scenario you are now offering us?
If not, then the contradiction remains in place. If so, then this scenario remains in direct contradiction to Mike's confession to the crime, which insists that Tony did know but that Anne and not Mr. Kane wrote the text. And you included Mike's having confessed as part of your list of evidence in support of the case for complicity in the original "most likely scenario." Are you also now agreeing that Mike's confession is thoroughly discredited since Anne did not write the text and are you therefore willing to strike that as well from your list of supporting evidence for complicity?
In any case, let me be sure I understand you. You are now seriously arguing that the most likely or probable scenario is that Tony introduced Mike to his friend Mr. Kane, his two friends, who now knew each other only through Tony, then undertook to research, compose and execute a criminal forgery and Tony did not ever know what they were doing. This is the newest "most likely scenario," Karoline?
I was completely aware that this was the only scenario that would allow for both the denials of Tony's family and for Tony being the associative link and I said so explicitly at least two separate times when I raised this problem yesterday. I can cite the relevant paragraphs where I said that the only way these pieces of evidence can both remain is if Tony was the asociative link and yet knew absolutely nothing about the diary. I just did not believe that you were actually advancing that scenario seriously. Now I find that you are.
I will leave it to readers to decide about the likelihood or relative probability of this one.
And if you are suggesting that you were reading the situation more closely than I, as I say, I will be more than happy this afternoon to go back and cite where I advanced exactly the same possibility you just did as the only one that would remain, and that I just found it difficult believe it was what you would now be suggesting. But I was apparently wrong. You are now suggesting that Tony introduced Mike to Kane and then while they created this forgery and did all the work necessary to execute it, he remained completely unaware of what his two friends were doing. Interesting scenario, this one.
Later in your post you return to offering conclusions that your own observations do not logically allow you to claim as established.
You write, regarding the Crashaw quote, which I agree most likely came from the Sphere volume,
"Surely this puts MB's book squarely in the frame as a reference source, right? meaning (on this evidence alone) that MB is very likely to have either been involved in the forgery or to have been intimately connected with the forgers."
But no, on this evidence alone, this does not allow us to conclude that "MB is very likely to have either been involved in the forgery or to have been intimately connected with the forgers."
As Chris has properly pointed out in a post above, it allows us to conclude that the volume was a likely source for the quote, but not that Mike necessarily used the source in the act of composing the diary. That is a different conclusion all together and need at least one single solitary piece of real physical or material evidence behind it to link Mike to the actual act of writing or helping to write or knowing about the writing of this book.
And, if you do believe Mike is back in the frame, as you say,then how do you account for the questions I have just posed to RJ concerning Mike's own inability to explain what he knew or to create even a believable narrative of what he knew or to show any evidence whatsoever of having the knowledge necessary to create this document or at least some knowledge of how it was created, when he really did want us to believe him? If the Crashaw quote is what you are using to put Mike in the frame then you must account for this apparent inconsistency.
To quote my paraphrase of RJ again:
"And if Mike desperately wanted to discredit Feldman by showing the diary was a forgery, wouldn't he have pointed this [now meaning his knowledge of who helped him compose it and where, or when it was composed] out to Feldy? Or to the authorities? Or to someone?"
Or to quote myself later:
"Any scenario which suggests Mike put the Crashaw quote into the diary and therefore was involved in its composition must account for his apparent lack of knowledge and for his inability to present a substantial and convincing narrative supported by evidence that he did so, even when he was trying. And no, he would not have had to, as you say, compromise his mates. A simple word or two about his own methodology or about the writing process or some evidence from him that he would have been able to do this would have been just fine. He could have left names out of his account and even left the account partial, but he could have also at least demonstrated the knowledge he would have needed to write what you are suggesting he wrote. Otherwise, the Crashaw quotes appearance and Mike's inability to give any believable account of the diary's composition remain contradictory pieces of evidence and this contradiction remains a problem for any scenario of complicity."
And this is in addition to the Four Questions I have asked that detail other even more problematic contradictions and which remain on another board and remain largely unaddressed, with the exception now of the first, which you have answered by now advancing the "likely" scenario that Tony introduced Mike to Kane and then remained in the dark while his two friends, who knew each other only through him, went about constructing, researching, writing, and executing a criminal forgery.
You see, I have read the alternatives closely and I was aware of this possibility (again I can cite my mentioning of it), but I did not think it was one which you would seriously advance.
I admit I was wrong in this expectation.
I believe Caroline has since spoken to the dates surrounding Mike's statements about the Crashaw quote.
If, Karoline, you'd like to discuss the other contradictions and issues I raised explicitly yesterday and put in question form on another board, I'd be happy to join you.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 02:58 pm | | Caz,
thanks very much for that prompt reply to my question. I feel much clearer now.
I have another question for anyone who has the relevant info (again it's probably old ground,and I'm just being lazy not searching the archives, so apologies for being retrograde for a moment):
When did MB first tell his story about finding the quote in Liverpool Library?
Who did he tell?
When was this volume lodged with his solicitors?
thanks in advance
Karoline |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 03:00 pm | | By the way, Karoline,
Just for the record, in a long post that appeared on Sunday, April 22, 2001 - 08:08 pm, I can be read suggesting at least three times the very scenario you are now advancing, although I admit I do seem to dismiss it as an unlikely possibility.
In the interest of "careful reading," as you say -- here, with the relevant passages highlighted, is exactly what I wrote:
"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 friends were doing -- this would be, I suppose, an "alternate" "alternate" explanation?
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?"
So you see, I did read the scenario closely and carefully (days ago) and did in fact recognize this option which you are now somehow claiming is "likely." Or are you? I'm still not sure. In any case, if you had read my words carefully, you would have already seen this.
Since you felt oddly compelled to write a sentence (concerning this possibility) such as, "Perhaps I have read it a little more carefully than you," I thought I might point this out and provide the relevant citations.
I was, however, left with a question I forgot to ask you in my last post.
Do you have or know of any single, solitary piece of real evidence at all, of any sort, that Tony Devereaux ever actually introduced Mike Barrett to Garard Kane, or 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? Just one piece of real evidence would, I think, help your "most likely" scenario. Of course, then you may also have to offer evidence that after such a meeting, Tony no longer knew what the other two were doing, or else you will still need to account for the earlier contradiction in the list of evidence which you claim to be using in support of your "most likely" scenario.
I look forward to your answer to these questions concerning available evidence and to your decisions about what scenario here now remains "most likely."
Thanks again,
--John |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 03:28 pm | | John (sigh!)
I'm sorry I seem contradictory to you, but really I think the problem is that you persist in thinking I'm presenting some detailed theory I have concocted when all I'm really doing is presenting facts and arguing very broad probabilites based on those facts.
You keep thinking I'm claiming to have a perfect solution and to have tied up all sorts of loose ends - and you seem to see yourself as having to demonstrate all the flaws in my "arguments".
But John, this is a scenario (if I can borrow your word) that exists only in your mind.
I have no theory about this business, other than the broad belief that the data at present indicates the probability that MB was involved in concocting the 'diary' to some degree. Exactly how he was involved, or who with I have no idea - other than that some evidence indicates the potential involvement of GK.
I'm not advocating anything beyond these general assumptions based on the evidence. I'm not claiming 'MB was involved with GK but without Devereux' or anything else. These are your interpretations not mine.
So you don't need to keep trying to knock me off my pedestal of certitude - I'm not on one, and it's just so weird to keep being asked to 'defend' a belief system I haven't got!
Karoline |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 04:25 pm | | Martin--I did a wretched job of paraphrasing Melvin Harris earlier this morning. Your reaction was appropriate, but the fault was all mine. I've managed to track down Melvin's original post:
The Diary uses an EXTRACT from the poem, not the opening lines. The only known book that uses that very extract is the Sphere History of Literature Volume two, a copy of which was owned by Mike Barrett. Six years of searches by many researchers and librarians have failed to find this extract in any other book. And I organised searches world-wide.
If you do not grasp the implications of these findings then there is little more that I can say."
As you can see, Harris no such claim that an extract of these lines appear in no other book --only in any other KNOWN book. The misunderstanding was owing to my own misguided phrasing. My apologies.
RJP |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 05:35 pm | | Hi, John, Paul, R.J., Caz, et al.:
I suppose all that Karoline and I are arguing are probabilities and possibilities based on the available limited data, which provides only indications of what might have occurred in the forgery scheme. As does Karoline, I have no idea whether the Barretts could have worked with Kane without Devereaux, or if the Barretts role was limited and Devereaux and Kane, say, were the main guys--or indeed if Gerrard Kane's handwriting is only coincidentally like the handwriting in the Diary.
I agree that Mike Barrett's "confessions" are contradictory but I think that there could still be a kernal of truth in what he has said even if he portrayed himself as the major mind behind the forgery scheme, which he may not have been. Mike has told a number of tales that have turned out to be false, e.g., he bought the word processor after Devereaux's death, when he actually had it for five years before he received the Diary. So there is a pattern of untruths with him, and this possibly pertains to when he is allegedly telling us the "truth." I still think the Sphere Guide and the purchase of the red (or maroon) Victorian diary are indications of some type of involvement of the Barretts in the forgery.
Meanwhile, I have, as per John Omlor's request, forwarded some questions of his to Melvin Harris in regard to the involvement of Kane and the Barretts, and we will see if Melvin's reply sheds any more light on these matters.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 05:41 pm | | Ah, but Karoline,
You have, as you say, certainly and repeatedly suggested that there is a scenario which is "most likely" or "most probable," and that is that Mike and/or Anne were knowingly complicit in the creation of this forgery. That is the claim you have made. I can cite your own work here if you'd like. And you certainly have, on two separate occasions, constructed lists, the first an emboldened one and the second a series of "facts" and dismissive responses, which you claimed were items of evidence in support of this claim of likely or probable complicity. I can re-cite these as well.
My readings, offered in several posts yesterday, of your lists seem to me to demonstrate quite clearly that several of the items you mention there (such as Mike having confessed to the crime and swearing in that confession that Anne wrote the diary, and Mr. Kane's handwriting matching the diary's) are directly contradictory with each other and therefore cannot both be offered in support of your likely scenario of complicity. Either Mike's confession is discredited and is therefore not evidence of his complicity or Mike's confession stands as evidence and therefore Mr. Kane's handwriting match must be a misinterpretation. Which is it?
You see, you have made claims about the evidence and what it supports, and they have been self-contradictory.
Again, please see the "Four Questions" posted on another board for more such difficulties that remain in need of specific and careful reading and response.
You have also written things that simply display less than careful reading, such as your post only earlier today claiming to have read my presentation of the possibilities surrounding the relationship between Tony and Mike and Kane, and claiming that my written analysis or "reading" did not consider the situation "carefully" enough since it left out an alternative (That Tony introduced them, but did not know anything about the diary's creation). I then went back and clearly demonstrated, by citing my exact words of four days ago, that I had in fact considered this very alternative and even explicitly mentioned it three separate times. The written proof of this remains in print and highlighted only four posts above.
Karoline, If you are going to question how carefully I read, you might want to read carefully what I have already written.
Now you write:
"I'm not advocating anything beyond these general assumptions based on the evidence. I'm not claiming 'MB was involved with GK but without Devereux' or anything else. These are your interpretations not mine."
Where might I have derived this "interpretation?"
Perhaps from the sentence you wrote only one post prior to this one, which reads:
"The way I see it - just because MB's proven connection with GK is through Devereux doesn't mean Devereux had to know about the 'diary' or be party to the scheme, does it? All it means is that he could have been the means of introducing MB to GK."
I am sorry if I read this as suggesting that Tony might not have been "party to the scheme."
But let's look at this logically. In fact, either he was or he wasn't. If he was, then your previously listed item of evidence (that his family knew nothing about this) is no longer relevant or valid in support of your claim. If he wasn't, then you are suggesting that he introduced two friends to each other but knew nothing about what they then did together, and my interpretation is correct.
Which scenario is more "likely," now? I have no idea. And that has been my point all along about much of this evidence, including the evidence for the likelihood of complicity that remains self-contradictory.
Once again, in your response to me, you have not cited or discussed most of my reading of your written words or my questions to you regarding the existence of any real evidence that Tony ever even introduced Mike to Kane or that Mike ever even knew Kane existed. I assume this is because no such evidence exists?
To everyone reading: This would seem very important for anyone claiming that Mike's complicity remains the most probable scenario, which you, Karoline, indeed have repeatedly and explicitly claimed. Since no one seems willing to suggest that Mike did this himself or could have, and since you suggest that Kane's handwriting match is also evidence of Mike's "probable" involvement, your not so subtle phrase "known associate" needs to be carefully evidenced and established. It has not been. It is not even supported by a single piece of real evidence. So why keep suggesting this as a likely or probable scenario? Why not face the fact that we really don't have any evidence at all in support of this alleged relationship or for any likely or probable complicity of anyone in particular just yet, as I have been in fact saying for a long time now?
In any case, I think it becoming clearer and clearer that we certainly do not have the right, in the best interests of personal reputations and justice, to yet claim that it is even likely or probable that Mike Barrett and Anne Graham were actively complicit in the research, writing, or creation of this criminal forgery, given the state of the evidence (and its inherent contradictions) as it now exists. I still feel this is a more responsible position, in light of the facts and conflicting interpretations we have, than claiming that it is likely or probable that they were knowingly complicit in the creation of this document (let alone that it has been "established beyond a reasonable doubt").
Again, they may very well have been complicit. I am not claiming their innocence and I have no interest in proving them innocent unless of course they actually are. My interest lies solely in the responsibility of what we claim to be established or likely or probable and what we actually have the evidence to claim logically and without contradiction to be established.
I will continue to read carefully to this end to detail inconsistencies, contradictions, and invalid or unsound conclusions, even about what is likely or probable, in the hope that even though we proceed slowly, we proceed fairly.
Thanks all,
--John |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 05:57 pm | | John--Some clarification. I've quoted Melvin Harris a couple of times recently, but these quotes have been from either his published writings or from messages he has posted on these boards. (I'll try to give citations in the future--there was no intent to tease). I don't have any contact with Harris, though he has sent a couple of extremely brief messages in my general direction on a couple of occasions to clarify comments that I've made. These were completely unassuming on his part, and were not meant to influence my opinion. I think he felt I would be interested, and I was. One had to do (for instance) with a very brief remark about McCormick's refence to the Ochrana Gazette.
I try to judge all the comments on these message boards by their content, and remain as disinterested as possible. Personally, I really don't think that Melvin Harris is even remotely the great beast that he is sometimes portrayed on this site. He was helpful to me in a completely unassuming manner, and I've always found his writings on the Maybrick diary to be very thoughtful & well documented. These rivalries that we are now seeing probably exist in every field, and I take them with a grain of sodium chloride.
Best wishes. |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 06:07 pm | | Thanks, RJ.
I understand. Fortunately, Chris is in contact with him, so Chris was able to forward a few simple and innocent questions about what Melvin believes now. Sorry I misperceived your relationship with Melvin and misread your remark about things "which haven't been discussed on these boards."
Thanks for the clarification. My apologies again.
Enjoy your days and nights,
--John |
Author: shirley harrison
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 06:13 pm | | Once again I dont know where this will turn up...I cant get the hang of the "add a message". So you have probably all gone rattling on before you read this.
Incidentally - John Ormor...you seem to be much the nearest to understanding something of the behind the scenes psychology..it was all so much much more complex than is allowed.
Other things
No Mike did NOT ask for a blank diary.
RJ - thank you for appreciating the serial nature of my book - it has been a bizarre project and many of the differences between editions have been as a result of new information, a changed view, enlightenment! The Amstrad story is one such. It was sitting on the table the first time that Sally and I went to s ee Mike in Liverpool in 1992 but not till I actually met Det Sergeant Thomas some time after his investigation did I hear that Mike had denied its existence and that he (Sergeant Thomas) had taken nothing away with him. We don't know for certain that the original notes were typed on the Amstrad - only that Mike said they were and it didn't occur to me to challenge this at the time.
I have my own photocopy of these notes - which was taken after the publishers' auction in June 1992. I believe the original is with Robert Smith. Id be happy - as Keith would - to share these with Peter and Melvin provided that they would reciprocate by allowing us a sight of the handwriting they are believed to have obtained from the elusive Mr Kane. Id be interested to know if this has been subjected to the kind of rigorous tests it is always expected I should invest in?
Martin ...your account of Feldys phone calls made my blood run cold with the memory of it all.... |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 06:44 pm | | Dear Caz and RJP
The Crashaw poem has always been a bit of a mystery to me. When I first hearad that 'O costly intercourse' had been traced to Crashaw I took it for granted that both Barretts were cleared of complicity in composing the diary, because I couldn't imagine that either of them would or could get through a Crashaw poem of any length and extract a quotation. Unfortunately the glad news of that favourable opinion, which I transmitted to Shirley, obviously couldn't survive the discovery that it was Mike who had traced the quotation, and that it was to be found in the Ricks book which was also in his house.
But I find it equally, if not more, implausible that Mike would have read Ricks's essay on Herbert (or any other 17th century poet). I cannot but agree with RJP that the fact that Ricks, apparently uniquely, opens his quoted section with the words the diary uses points very significantly to his book as the source. I cannot dispute Caz's point that it is possible that Mike spotted it, riffling through Ricks in the public library, where he was now searching the literature section in the hopes that it would - do what? Just what was Mike trying to claim about the diary's origins at that point? How would finding the quotation help him? Was he hoping to get back into Shirley's or Feldy's good graces? If he was still trying to prove that he was the master forger, why, as Paul Begg has asked, didn't he wave his own Sphere book at everyone and say, 'Look! Here it is! The quotation all you over-educated johnnies can't find! I got it out of this all along!' And was he still sober enough to be capable of focussing himself on even the simple literary task of riffling through literary histories on library shelves? This doesn't correspond with the Mike I've met or listened to on tape.
The Sphere book quote, as I think John Omlor keeps suggesting, seems deeply suspicious for the Barretts, yet it is very difficult to see exactly how Mike could have used it as a forger, and then behaved as he did, first concealing the quotation's source, then triumphantly producing it as if expecting us all to think him a fine researcher.
Not much help to you, I'm afraid. It's one that puzzles me.
All good wishes,
Martin |
|
|
|
|
