|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 29, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-Archives 2001:
Archive through April 29, 2001
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 07:56 am |        | Hello all,
Taking to heart Karoline's sighs and probably entirely fair remarks concerning the length and breadth of my previous contributions, I have become concerned that my own points are in danger of becoming lost because of my desire to offer as sound and as complete a response to other people's writing as possible.
But I fear I have been unduly testing the patience of my readers.
Consequently, I am going to try, for a while, to keep things short, remembering that this is an electronic medium and people like their information and analysis in chunks and bullets and without patient and lengthy explanations or too much detail.
I am not at all sure I will be able to achieve what those masters of this new style of thinking about thinking have done over at USA Today, but I'll do my best.
--John
PS: Besides, Celine wrote telegraphically and he is one of my favorites. Of course, he wrote 400 page novels of telegraphic prose, so maybe that's not my best model here.  |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 08:06 am | | Hello all,
Regarding the big picture and the cumulative effect of the evidence:
As I mentioned yesterday, there can be no cumulative effect of the evidence in favor of anything if there is hardly any real evidence.
What I have seen here is an accumulation of interpretations and speculation and inferences, much of them demonstrably inconsistent, partial, fragmentary and even contradictory.
What I have not seen here yet is very much real, reliable, physical, or material or testimonial evidence either in favor of or against Mike and Anne's complicity. Evidence that would come from dated documents or reliable first hand testimony or even just reliable and non-contradictory evidence discovered through research and produced in public so we all might examine it. Where is this evidence?
 If the details that make up the big picture are unsound, inconsistent, contradictory, speculative and without reliable and serious support, the big picture is very likely going to be inaccurate.
Time's up for me. Thanks for reading.
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 08:13 am | | Hello all,
Yesterday, I asked some questions about available evidence that I'm afraid might have gotten lost in all of my unfortunate attempts to be clear about the validity of other people's logic and the degree to which their conclusions concerning what they believe to be most likely has yet been fairly established using such evidence.
So here come a few simple, serious, and honest questions for anyone arguing in favor of the likelihood of participation in the actually forgery by one or both Barrett's. I have asked them before, but have seen no replies.
Please note: The questions are not meant to imply that the Barrett's are innocent. I do not know whether they are, nor do I have any particular interest whatsoever in proving that they are. I want to know what evidence, independent of speculation and people's preferred interpretations of problematic events, actually exists either way.
Must go,
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 08:19 am | | Hello all,
Here, for everyone, once again are two possible diary purchase scenarios:
1.) That Mike bought this diary, providing his real name and home address to the bookseller and possibly paying by check and producing a receipt, specifically in order to commit a felonious criminal act with it. Therefore, Mike was complicit.
or 2.) That Mike bought this diary because he was holding a document that was alleged to be an authentic Victorian diary and he had his doubts about its authenticity and he was trying to research the possibilities before taking the diary to an agent's. Consequently, he decided that he needed to get his hands on a genuine Victorian diary that he knew to be authentic for the purposes of comparison. Therefore, Mike was not complicit.
We all agree that both of these scenarios describe somewhat illogical and unreasonable behavior.
Now, can anyone offer me one single, solitary piece of real, reliable and established evidence that would "indicate" or logically allow me to choose which of these two scenarios is more likely?
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 08:25 am | | Hello all,
I have seen it claimed here, with some assuredness, that Mike Barrett was a "known associate" of Gerard Kane's.
We all agree that Tony Devereaux knew both Mike Barrett and Gerard Kane.
Can anyone at all give me one single, solitary piece of real and reliable evidence that indicates that Mike Barrett ever met Gerard Kane or even knew of Gerard Kane?
-- John |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 08:34 am | | Hello all,
It has often been claimed around here that the Crashaw quote's presence in the Sphere volume and in the diary strongly indicates that Mike Barret had something personally to do with the composition of the diary. I have agreed that this is at least an apparently damning piece of material evidence. For our conclusion concerning the necessity of complicity in authorship to be honestly and validly established, however, we must decide first whether it is likely that Mike Barrett knew the Crashaw quote before 1992 and therefore could have used it to help compose the book.
We all agree it was in the Sphere volume that Mike owned and yet we also agree that Mike did not produce this volume or the quote when he was trying desperately to convince us that he knew how this forgery took place.
Can anyone at all, give me one single solitary piece of real and reliable evidence that would allow me to decide whether Mike knew the quote was there before 1992 or that he did not know it was there until after he found it there after 1992 and this is why he could not use it to support his claim that he knew how the diary was written?
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 08:46 am | | Hi, Martin:
Sorry to have pipped you to the post on Karoline's quote. I am wrestling with the quote you have given us--
How should my child frequent your house where lust is sport,
Violence - trade?
Yes, it does sound as if it may be something to do with the case, or at least Cleveland Street, doesn't it? My hunch though is that it is not from something contemporaneous with the crimes but from an older writer, say Dryden, Pope, even Crashaw. Am I right?
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 08:47 am | | Hello all,
How much real, reliable and usable evidence really exists in favor of any scenario either for or against complicity anyway?
And, if the answer to this is "precious little" in both cases, can we really, fairly claim that any "big picture" or "cumulative effect" has been established?
Can we really, fairly claim that the evidence, and not people's preferences for one likely interpretation of events over another equally likely interpretation of events (both unsupported by any real and reliable evidence whatsoever), can we claim that the actual, reliable evidence allows us to decide yet whether any particular people are likely to have written this document and committed this crime?
And why would we want to make such a claim if it is not supported by genuine, material, and reliable and established evidence?
Why would we want to insist that it is more likely that certain people are criminals if we don't have this evidence yet or if it remains thoroughly contradictory and inconsistent?
What do we gain by concluding that certain people "probably" committed this crime before we have made a responsible case against them using real and reliable evidence?
Is this how justice is supposed to work?
Why would we want to do this?
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 08:48 am | | Martin:
Another thought. . . If the quote is contemporary with the crimes, is it from Oscar Wilde?
Chris |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 08:55 am | | Hi, John:
I don't mean to ignore you. You have no contest from me that there is no real evidence about who forged the diary, and that all we have is people's personal hunches.
Paul has very validly pointed out that Anne and Mike may be totally innocent in regard to the forgery, as you have, at length, pointed out as well. I have no disagreement with this scenario.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 08:57 am | | Hello all,
Karoline recently wrote to Paul regarding the transcript on Mike's word processor:
"It is not a fact that it is there because Mike composed the ‘diary’ on his word processor. And I have never claimed it was a fact. It's my personal deduction based on the facts."
Karoline,
It is your personal deduction based on what facts?
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 08:59 am | | Thank you, Chris.
RJ,
By the way, I love Pale Fire too. (Please see my most recent response to you above, posted early this morning at 07:44 am but already archived, for my thoughts on Mike's behavior when he purchased the diary and how now I'm afraid it's beginning to look like he can't win either way. My thoughts on Feldy are there as well.)
Thanks, and have a fine weekend,
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 09:30 am | | Hello all,
I still believe that the problem here is not that I am shredding the interpretations and opinions of others concerning small details and the expense of conclusions afforded us by the cumulative evidence.
The problem here is that there is not yet any serious accumulation of evidence.
There is barely any real evidence at all. No one, including Melvin Harris and Paul Feldman, in nearly ten years time, has offered, in public, one single piece of real physical material or testimonial evidence that directly or even indirectly links any single person or persons to the actual process of research, composition and production of this diary. No one.
Am I wrong about this?
There can't be a cumulative effect of the evidence when no one has yet offered any actual, real and reliable physical or material or testimonial evidence. All I see here are items being claimed as evidence in support of the case for complicity which, upon closer inspection and analysis, clearly turn out to be demonstrably self-contradictory assumptions, demonstrably invalid conclusions, logically unreasonable arguments, preferred but unsupported interpretations of narratives, and incomplete or irrelevant premises.
I would like to say this one last time:
We are, after all, suggesting that it is likely that someone (Mike and Anne) participated in a criminal act of forgery. It would be nice if someone bothered to offer reliable, material evidence that actually supported such an accusation.
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 09:38 am | | Hello all,
One more old thought on the suggestion that we should make the connections and examine the big picture.
And I believe that this is where I began.
If the details are in conflict or not legitimately established then the larger picture will very likely be contaminated and corrupt.
Injustice and inaccuracy will be the inevitable result of such faulty and careless reasoning, reasoning that seeks to cover over discrepancies in the details all in the name of arriving at a satisfying overall scenario before the work of discovering and establishing reliable and material evidence has actually been done. This, by the way, is one of the most common forms of rushed investigation and unreasonable argument.
--John |
Author: Karoline L
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 09:46 am | | Chris -
you are correct in your identification. And so fast!
You win the star prize - 35 vellum-bound volumes of the debates on the Diary-board 1998-2001 printed in blood.
Martin - as runner up you get a lifetime's subscription to Flat Earth Magazine, and a free intro to their online discussion board "The Syllogistic Maze". I understand that non-believers who enter rarely emerge with their sanity intact, and some are simply never heard of again - so beware!
Paul,
I really do think I've said all I can say on the subject of cumulative evidence and why I currently prefer the explanation I do. I appreciate you are not of the same mind - but how often can I keep repeating the same answers to the same questions, and what good will it do anyway?
So with your permission I'll just refer the honourable member to the answer I made earlier.
Thanks though for telling me that the date of Harrison's account is provided by various dated papers and noted phone conversations.
What I'm asking for really is some indication of what those papers etc. actually are.
Would it be possible for someone to provide the data that shows when Harrison first announced publicly that MB had 'found' the Crashaw quote in the library - so we can get a fix on how it relates to MB giving the Sphere volume to Gray?
I would really appreciate anyone providing this info.
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 10:33 am | | Hello all,
Let's review.
I began with two simple assertions:
There is not yet any accumulation of real and reliable evidence.
If the details that make up the big picture are unsound, inconsistent, contradictory, speculative and without reliable and serious support, the big picture is very likely going to be inaccurate.
I asked three simple questions.
1.) Can anyone offer me one single, solitary piece of real, reliable and established evidence that would "indicate" or logically allow me to choose which of the two scenarios concerning Mike's diary purchase is more likely?
2.) Can anyone at all give me one single, solitary piece of real and reliable evidence that indicates that Mike Barrett ever met Gerard Kane or even knew of Gerard Kane?
3.) Can anyone at all give me one single solitary piece of real and reliable evidence that would allow me to decide whether Mike knew the Crashaw quote was there before 1992 or that he did not know it was there until after he found it there after 1992 and this is why he could not use it to support his claim that he knew how the diary was written?
And I'll add a fourth.
4.) Can anyone at all give me one single solitary piece of real and reliable evidence that would fairly and logically allow me to decide whether the transcript on Mike's wp (or on a disk) was put there before the diary was made as an act of original composition or after the diary was already in Mike's hands in order to facilitate copying, research, and distribution?
I then asked, why, if such evidence is not yet available and therefore our conclusions about the likelihood of complicity must necessarily be based not on reliable evidence, but on personal preferences for one interpretation over another when both interpretations seem equally likely or unlikely, or based on inconsistent evidence or contradictory data, why, then, would we want to accuse anyone yet or even claim that anyone "probably" committed this crime?
And so I asked this simple question:
What do we gain by concluding that certain people "probably" committed this crime before we have made a responsible case against them using real and reliable evidence?
Is there such evidence? If not, can it therefore, in any way fairly and confidently, without the required supporting evidence, still be asserted that Mike and/or Anne probably participated in the actual research and writing of this book and therefore probably committed this crime? Is this still a fair and just assertion under these conditions?
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 10:43 am | | Hello Karoline
Whether I am of the same mind or not is neither here nor there. You returned to these Boards essentially arguing that your methodology was the correct methodology and everyone else's was so much Elvis in Bhutan. All you have been asked is to give the evidence on which your conclusion is based. You haven't done that, despite repeatedly claiming the contrary, and my previous post, followed by John Omlor's, makes that point very clear. If you don't want to discuss methodology anymore and support your conclusions, that's fine by me and I am happy - indeed, relieved - to let it drop. All I ask is that you refrain from claiming that any particular piece of evidence is "more likely" unless you are prepared to explain why.
Thanks. |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 10:46 am | | | Oh, and Karoline, I have lots of faxes dated around the end of September and early October 1994 discussing the Sphere discovery. Apart from just wanting to know for the sake of personally wanting to confirm it, is there any specific reason why the precise date of discovery is of interest to you? |
Author: Karoline L
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 11:18 am | | Paul - I have explained why. I've argued the case over and over again. If you think that amounts to nothing then so be it. I can live with that. It's time to let it go.
And the reason I'm asking for dates is that I want to establish the chronology of how Harrison's account fits in with the Gray account. Could you possibly post here or send me copies of those faxes or any other relevant papers? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 12:31 pm | | Hi All,
Hi RJ,
Let me reassure you that you can be 100% confident that Shirley would never have deliberately left an impression that the maroon diary was not in the Barrett home until after the Maybrick Diary was in Doreen’s hands, at a time when she already had evidence to the contrary, because it suited her argument. The first indication was that the maroon diary had been purchased in May 1992, because that was when it appeared to have been paid for. Only later, when it was thought important to investigate further, was it discovered that Mike had ordered it over the phone in March 1992, before the fateful trip to London. And this discovery was made with Anne’s help, so it makes little sense to suggest that it was also Anne who deliberately left Shirley with a misleading impression to begin with.
I am sure that you will, in the interests of objectivity, already have compared this with the impression Melvin left about the Sphere book being in Mike’s solicitor’s hands LONG BEFORE Anne left him (in January 1994) and he confessed (in June 1994). I trust you will not be questioning whether this impression was left deliberately by Melvin, at a time when he had NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for making such a statement, because it suited his argument.
Now, I have been considering your latest speculation, that Mike might not have been acting quite so illogically and unreasonably when he ordered the maroon diary. So let’s suppose Mike figured that if he used it for THE Diary, he could then simply leave the bill unpaid and no paper trail. Fine so far, except for the risk that someone from the book firm would hear that a man named Michael Barrett had taken the Diary of Jack The Ripper to London in April 1992, and would remember a very unusual telephone request, from a man named Michael Barrett, for a Victorian diary, in March 1992, and would recognise the diary itself as the one sent to Michael Barrett, for which payment had never been made!
Now let’s look what happened when the maroon diary arrived in the Barrett’s home. Mike cleverly noticed it was far too small. If Anne saw it at that point, and knew it was there for the purpose of forging the Maybrick Diary, I think we can safely guess that she would also have noticed that it was dated two years after James’s death. The most obvious thing to do would be to return the maroon diary, unused and unpaid for, leaving no paper trail, and hope that the book firm wouldn’t connect some of the details of the original order with THE Diary, when it hit the headlines.You now appear to be speculating that once THE diary was safely with Doreen, Anne could have made a cheque payment for what only ‘appeared’ to be the now ‘innocent’ maroon diary, when in fact the payment could actually have been for another potential, or actual, Maybrick Diary vehicle? Is this what you mean? Anne herself obtained a photocopy of the £25 cheque (matching the stub with ‘book’ written on it) paid to the book firm, who were then able to be contacted and questioned about the order relating to that payment. I’m left wondering how a scheme would work, whereby the paper trail left for anyone investigating it was not actually in respect of the maroon diary, or the maroon diary alone. And we are still left with people finding it deeply suspicious that any Victorian diary at all was ordered by one of the Barretts, yet Anne is now supposed to have used the little maroon one as part of a cunning plan to make it appear like an innocent purchase! It appears to me that Mike and Anne aren’t the only ones being illogical and unreasonable here. Either the existence of the maroon diary is in itself incriminating, or it isn’t. To explain why Anne didn’t simply get shot of all the evidence and deny the purchase, and to explain why she didn’t appear to think it was incriminating, it is now being reasoned that she had a deliberate and underhand purpose in mind, when she handed it all over to Keith.
There appears to be nothing to indicate whether or not Anne knew about the maroon diary before May 1992, and we can only guess why Mike might have ordered it without telling her. But that’s the problem - we are all left guessing and forming opinions from our personal preference unless or until new evidence emerges. I would prefer to leave such guesswork to those who know Mike and Anne best. If and when new evidence comes along to challenge or endorse it, I’ll review the situation then.
Hi Karoline,
I’m pretty sure I do understand. I know what you wrote. You wrote that Kane’s larger handwriting sample should be put up on the boards in support of your suspicions. But you also wrote that you are not in a position to put it up yourself, and that others may be worried about possible legal consequences if they do. So what you are quite definitely saying is that you will go on fingering Kane in public as a likely forger, and that it’s not your fault that your hands are tied when it comes to producing a shred of evidence to back up your suspicions. (Sounds all too boringly familiar somehow.)
The bottom line is that the name of Kane stays safely in the frame (that sounds familiar too!), with no legal consequences to man, woman or beast. That’s what I meant when I said I understood perfectly.
And I don’t know how anyone else feels about the values displayed here, but quite frankly I went away from the boards yesterday feeling fairly disgusted by what I was reading. |
Author: Karoline L
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 12:43 pm | | John wrote:
"As I mentioned yesterday, there can be no cumulative effect
of the evidence in favor of anything if there is hardly any
real evidence.
But there is evidence, accepted by everyone as being entirely true and entirely relevant to the case. It isn't complete but neither is it negligible. It certainly conveys meaningful information, which must influence our understanding of the case.
"What I have seen here is an accumulation of interpretations
and speculation and inferences, much of them demonstrably
inconsistent, partial, fragmentary and even contradictory.
Not from me you haven't. What you have seen from me is a single consistent suggestion that the data is most consistent with a scenario in which the diary was forged by a small group of people, including MB, in Liverpool circa 1991.
Look at the Crashaw quote alone.
There have been only two identified sources that have ever quoted that poem in a truncated version, beginning with the line 'O Costly intercourse of death'.
Only two sources have been found anywhere in the world.
Just two.
One is the Sphere book - and the other is the fake 'diary'
And MB - the man who placed the diary and profited from the diary and confessed to forging the diary - also owned a copy of the Sphere book.
He actually owned a copy of the only book beside the 'diary' that has ever quoted that poem beginning with the line 'O costly intercourse of Death'.
In all logic and reason, how can this fact not imply a considerable likelihood that as well as placing and profiting from the forgery MB and his book were somehow involved in creating it?
Of course it's possible he wasn't. It's quite possible he lent his book to Devereux who then forged the diary all alone. Though why he should then give it to MB possibly get rich with seems hard to explain.
It's slightly possible the diary was created by some friend of Devereux's who got the Sphere quote from Liverpool library and who gave the 'diary' to D. who gave it to MB. Though exactly why anyone would act in such a way I have no idea, and in my view the 'coincidence' of MB owning the Sphere book is just too great to be explained away in this or any other way.
It's even possible that if MB was a completely innocent man, and the real forgers were still alive and completley unknown to him, they, whoever they were, would just sit back and let MB do a deal with the publisher that cut them right out of the little fortune that was being made.
However it is in my view bordering on the preposterous to suggest that the diary was created by Billy Graham, or by an Unknown Quantity from the early years of the last century, or by anyone writing before the Sphere book or the police list were published.
Does this really seem very unreasonable to you?
Do I really understand that you don't even concede the data narrows down the likely field of enquiry - to Liverpool? To MB's known associates? To the early 1990s?
Are you and Paul actually claiming the thing could just as easily have been produced in Southampton as Liverpool? In 1891 as 1991? That it could just as likely have been forged by the Man on the Clapham Omnibus as by or with the co-operation of the man who placed and profited from it; who had the text of it on the wp he told the cops he didn't own, and who had the damn Sphere book in his loft?
Anyhow John - that's my last time through this question. I doubt it will make much difference, since all my previous efforts failed miserably. I have some articles to write and a family who need attention (as I've mentioned before), and I am interested in following up as much of the data here as possible - I just don't have time for this as well! So if I don't respond to any more of your questions, don't blame me - you've been served notice of my intention to quit.
Karoline |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 01:08 pm | | Chris,
No, I was being quite honest when I said the 'house of lust' quote might still have been seen as modern in 1888. It is not 17th century. Nor is it Wilde, though I can see how you might think it was from something similar to his "Harlots' House". It isn't. (And it wouldn't have been quite so avant garde as Wilde at that date).
As an aid in a very difficult search, I will add surrounding lines, and the huge collection of quotation marks at the beginning is from the original and not my addition. All punctuation following is in the original.
" ' "Woman!" (a fiery tear he put in every tone),
"How should my child frequent your house where lust is sport,
Violence - trade? Too true! I trust no vague report.
Karoline,
I will accept your second prize eagerly. If you commit me to some region whence the sane are liable to return insane, perhaps I may come through it and enjoy a reverse procedure to retore me to sanity!
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 01:33 pm | | | Although propinquity is not evidence it might be worth mentioning that Tony Devereux, Mike Barrett and Gerard Kane lived in the Liverpool 5 area about 1/2 mile away from each other. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 02:26 pm | | Paul--Hello. You asked me why I think Mike Barrett knew the diary was a forgery and/or was complicit in the forgery. Here's why. (I'll save John the hassle of a long response by stating that my 'reasons' might well be comprised of nothing more than unjust accusations, wild speculations and specious arguments; they are, however, my opinions. Mike confessed --whether accurately or not-- so I think he is fair game).
1. It is my belief that the ink on the Maybrick diary had been very recently applied. I can't see how Dr. Baxendale's relatively simple test could have been flawed. It seems to be backed-up by Rendell's tests. Later tests did seem to indicate that the diary's ink wasn't soluble, but the diary's paper was unsized (making it unusually absorbent) and probably only gave a false negative after a couple of years, when these other tests were taken. [The 'tin matchbox empty' also suggests to me that this was a recent forgery, as well as the lack of bronzing] Thus, I am left with Mike bringing a very recently forged diary to London. It seems improbable to me that Mike would have found such an item on, say, a park bench, and can't think of any other forgery case where something like this had happened.
2. The diary has no confirmable provenance, and Mike & Anne have changed their stories about the diary's origins. If Mike & Anne had come by the diary innocently, I can see no reason why they would tell conflicting stories, so I don't really accept John's objections to this one. No one but Mike, Anne, & their daughter claims to have seen the diary before Doreen Montgomery. (Billy's testimony isn't taken seriously by me; he is recalling after several decades seeing a book that he admits he hadn't even read. As Peter pointed out, his description doesn't match the book).
3. Mike, the records show, seems to be the only one profitting from the diary. As Paul Feldman tells us, Mike also seems to have been the only one 'calling the shots' in respect to the diary's financial arrangements. [I admit that this is odd--where do the 'others' fit in? There is still a mystery at the center of this] At any rate, I now have Mr. Barrett bringing a recently forged diary to London, and he is the only one profitting from it. (Anne does as well, but any wife would have). Whether Mike wrote the thing is another question, but clearly he is the one attempting to profit off a forgery. In my opinion it takes a certain suspension of disbelief to assume the diary is genuine.
4. A friend of Anne's from work confirmed that Anne came to work one day visibly upset, telling how her husband Mike was 'writing a book', but that she 'couldn't talk about it'. We know that Mike never wrote a book, though he did bring the Maybrick diary to London. Anne later claimed that she gave Mike the diary in hopes that he would write a fictional account--so why would it make Anne visibly upset if he was doing just that?
5. The Barrett's daughter confirmed (to a highly respected author :-)) that Anne & Mike had fought bitterly over the publication of the diary. I believe this to be true, and I take it as possible confirmation of item #4 above. Was Mike somehow connected to the writing of a book that made his wife visibly upset? Was this book the recently forged Maybrick diary that Mike soon after brought to London?
6. We learn that Mike Barrett bought a genuine Victorian diary, and that he didn't pay for it until a couple months after the Maybrick diary was brought to London. It seems like an odd purchase, and, in my opion, is suspicious as hell. I don't believe Mike would have spent 25 pounds for research purposes, being broke at the time, and his research seems to have been minimal. Anne aided in the investigators in coming up with the check stub, but she probably would have known that this would have shown that the red diary was bought after Mike had taken the Maybrick journal to London. Could she have guessed that the booksellers would have recalled Mike's call after several years? Speculation, of course.
7. Mike owned a copy of REW's Murder, Mystery, & Mayhem. I think there is some slight (although specious) textual reasons for believing this book was used as source material for the Maybrick diary. This book was in the possession of Mike's friend Tony Devereux.
8. In my humble opinion, Melvin Harris has argued persuasively which books were used to compose the Maybrick diary. [I won't bother to repeat his arguments here]. These books were readily available, and a couple of them would been the obvious choice for anyone researching the diary. Mike Barrett claims to have done a great deal of research, but oddly (to me, at least) his research notes seem to studiously avoid the books that might well have been used as the source material of the Maybrick journal. It seems particularly strange that the books by Christie & Ryan are neglected whereas Mike used the less obvious probate records & archives of the Liverpool Echo. (Tony D. worked at the Liverpool Echo, and I have wondered about this). The Wilson/Harrison Ripper books seem a little obscure; neither had the Punch cartoon nor the police list.
9. No one knows how Tony D. is connected to the Maybrick diary, if at all, but it has been confirmed, that he had Mike's REW book in his possession. So it seems obvious that TD must have at least known about he existance of the Maybrick diary. A reticent friend of Tony's has handwriting that looks quite similar to the Maybrick writing. But what this means, I haven't the foggiest idea.
10. During the investigation of the diary by Paul Feldman, an electrician's assistant came forward with the claimt that the diary was found during a renovation of Battlecrease. According to Feldy, Mike Barrett within 24 hours of hearing this, stormed over to the man's house and confronted him, claiming he was a liar. This is extremely specious, but it convinced Feldy that Mike knew the true origins of the diary. If Mike thought that the diary came from Tony D., and that it might be genuine, he couldn't have known that it indeed didn't come from Battlecrease. Seems like a fair assumption on Feldy's part.
11. The diary's oddest inclusion by far is a remarkably brief 5 word quote by the obscure 17th Century poet Richard Crashaw. To eveyone's astonishment, Mike Barrett was able to point out that this quote is used as the first lines in an excerpt from a rather obscure essay on George Herbert. These lines don't seem to be indexed anywhere, and it is a mystery how Mike could have know this, and particulary how it led him to that particular essay. Strangely, Mike's relatives allegedly confirmed that Mike owned a copy of the book that has this essay before the Maybrick diary was brought to London. (Though I'd like to see the confirmation confirmed).
12. Anne's provenance story isn't proveable & disagrees with the textual/forensic evidence. She doesn't seem to have even hardly known Tony D.--if at all. Thus, I don't think she gave it to Tony D. to give to Mike. Mike must have got it from somewhere else.
13. Mike's inability to give a confirmable confession has never been particularly troubling to me. He seems to like giving people false leads, and changes his stories at will. What is interesting though, is that Mike pointed Harold Brough to a shop were he claimed to have bought the ink. Did Mike know the ink came from this shop? True, Mike didn't identify the ink as such, only the shope, but according to Shirley Harrison (p 366, Blake) Diamide is the ink that would have been sold to Barrett had he forged the diary. Coincidentally (?), the Diamide ink contained chloroacetamide --- which two independent tests showed the diary's ink to contain. One later re-test showed the ink did not contain this agent, but in my lay opinion it seems to me that a false negative is much more likely than a false positive. I rule out contamination.
In short, Mike brings a recently forged diary to London, has no provenance, profits from it, and seems to know something about the ink & the texts used to create it. Thus, I strongly suspect that Mike was complicit in the forgery of the Maybrick diary.
Best wishes,
RJ Palmer |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 02:35 pm | | Hi Karoline,
Of course you can choose to respond or not to respond. Your intention to quit has been duly noted.
Now, to your post.
This reply will be long. There is misdirection and a lack of evidence here that needs to be carefully and patiently made explicit.
Remember everyone: what we are looking for is real, reliable, established, material evidence.
And we would like evidence that would allow us to choose between possible and equally likely scenarios.
Let's see what Karoline has now offered us.
Her first paragraph:
"But there is evidence, accepted by everyone as being entirely true and entirely relevant to the case. It isn't complete but neither is it negligible. It certainly conveys meaningful information, which must influence our understanding of the case. "
Nope. No evidence there. She says there is evidence, but she still doesn't actually offer one single solitary piece of real, reliable evidence at all. She says the evidence "certainly conveys meaningful information, which must influence our understanding of the case." But she doesn't happen to mention what that evidence actually is. She even says that some of this evidence is "accepted by everyone as being entirely true and entirely relevant to the case." But still I have no idea to what she is referring and she has not stated even once what a single piece of this reliable and material evidence might be.
Perhaps later. Let's see.
She now turns to the Crashaw quote. I have already agreed that this is the most damning piece of physical evidence we have. That is does indeed suggest complicity, but that before we can fairly claim that it makes complicity "likely" we need specific and reliable evidence that would allow us to decide whether Mike knew the quote was there before 1992 or after 1992 and why Mike was unable to produce the quote when he wanted to demonstrate to us that he in fact wrote this diary. I have already said all of this. Let's examine Karoline's evidence for likely complicity specifically on Mike's part specifically in the production of the forgery.
She begins:
"What you have seen from me is a single consistent suggestion that the data is most consistent with a scenario in which the diary was forged by a small group of people, including MB, in Liverpool circa 1991.
Look at the Crashaw quote alone.
There have been only two identified sources that have ever quoted that poem in a truncated version, beginning with the line 'O Costly intercourse of death'."
This is true. It is not evidence of Mike's complicity of course. But it is true.
She continues:
"One is the Sphere book - and the other is the fake 'diary'"
Still true. And definitely evidence, though not yet completely reliable evidence, since, to be thorough about it, the Crashaw quote was of course available in other sources as part of a sacred poem by Crashaw and other people might in fact have known it in any case; but I am perfectly willing to admit that this seems definitely to be evidence that the Sphere volume might very well have been the source for the quote in the diary. Still not actually evidence in favor of Mike's complicity, though. I'm still waiting.
"And MB - the man who placed the diary and profited from the diary and confessed to forging the diary - also owned a copy of the Sphere book."
Still true. And it certainly suggests certain damning things. And these suggested things would remain possible interpretations of these facts. I still agree. But I remain waiting for Karoline to offer at least one piece of real and reliable evidence which actually even indirectly links Mike to the actual physical creation of the diary and the placing of the quote in the diary. Perhaps it is coming.
"He actually owned a copy of the only book beside the 'diary' that has ever quoted that poem beginning with the line 'O costly intercourse of Death'."
Rats! And we were so close! This is simply a restatement of an earlier observation, and not yet real and reliable material evidence of complicity at all. Bothersome? Yes. Suspicious? Yes. Enough to base a charge of forgery on? No way. Enough to make a responsible and fair and valid claim that Mike Barrett probably committed this crime, that he definitely helped write this book? Absolutely no way.
But maybe the evidence is still here:
"In all logic and reason, how can this fact not imply a considerable likelihood that as well as placing and profiting from the forgery MB and his book were somehow involved in creating it?"
Damn! We've reached the conclusion! Here it is. The conclusion. It's all over already. And we still haven't seen the supporting physical or material or reliable evidence that allows to decide whether Mike saw the quote in this book prior to 1992 and therefore could have used it in composing the diary or whether Mike saw the book after 1992 and therefore could not have. This evidence remains missing. I feel cheated and strangely used and, frankly, even a little cheap and soiled. Karoline's assumption that Mike Barrett was involved in actually writing this book turns out only to remain an interpretation not of any real direct or material evidence linking Mike to the process of diary's research writing or execution, but merely an interpretation of the fact that Mike owned the book and the quote was in the book and the quote was in the diary therefore it somehow becomes "considerably likely" that Mike put the quote in the diary. She simply claims this. It even looks like a logical claim or assumption. But this is not evidence. And this conclusion is not supported by evidence.
And, let's add to this problem the fact, which Karoline conveniently does not mention (because it gets directly in the way of her already assumed conclusion) that Mike, when he wanted us all to believe that he put the quote in the diary, that he wrote the diary, that he had complete knowledge of how the diary was created, failed to produce the quote or the volume or even to demonstrate any real knowledge concerning how the diary was written (he composed it alone and Anne copied into the album?!) or any abilities that would suggest he could have been the author. No Crashaw quote. If Mike was the one who put it there, what stopped him from simply mentioning that he was the one who put it there in support of his claim to authorship, when he was trying to make the best case possible? Not loyalty, he owned the volume and would not have had to indict others. Perhaps simply ignorance, because although he owned the volume he really did have no idea then how the quote got into the diary, because he did not write it.
In any case, the evidence (circumstantial as it is) remains inconsistent and even contradictory. And there is still no reliable, physical or material evidence that would allow us to determine when Mike first knew about the quote, before or after 1992. These are not the sorts of bricks I would choose to build my house. This is not the sort of consistent, non-contradictory, reliable evidence with which accusations of criminal conduct should be made. And this is only a single issue. The preponderance of the evidence is significantly less clear and less material and less established and less supported and less consistent and less relevant than this one. This is the best shot. And still, the necessary evidence is dramatically missing.
What are our standards here, after all? What are we willing to allow count as evidence? How little evidence do we need before we can accuse someone of probably committing a criminal act? Why are we in such an awful hurry to make such an accusation?
Doesn't this all-powerful desire to claim Mike's involvement despite barely any real evidence and based almost solely on assumptions and speculations and preferred interpretations of conflicting and inconsistent data and narratives disturb people around here? Don't we have more respect for the process and careful investigation and the establishment of evidence than this? Don't we have more respect for sound judgments based on real and reliable evidence than this? Don't we have more respect for eventual accuracy and fairness than this? I think we do.
In any case, then Karoline offers some other scenarios which she claims, once again without any evidence whatsoever, are at least less likely.
"It's quite possible he lent his book to Devereux who then forged the diary all alone. Though why he should then give it to MB possibly get rich with seems hard to explain. "
I don't know. Perhaps to distance himself from the criminal act, figuring that since he gave his friend the book, if there were profits to eventually be made he might share some of them and if the book was quickly determined to be a forgery, he'd be a step removed from the frame and still in the shadows? Seems like a reasonable and likely scenario to me. But I have no real evidence to support and neither does Karoline to support her version and this is exactly the point! We are both only speculating because we have run out of evidence that quickly.
But Karoline offers another scenario:
"It's slightly possible the diary was created by some friend of Devereux's who got the Sphere quote from Liverpool library and who gave the 'diary' to D. who gave it to MB. Though exactly why anyone would act in such a way I have no idea, and in my view the 'coincidence' of MB owning the Sphere book is just too great to be explained away in this or any other way."
Someone should point out here that even though the only link between this diary and Tony comes to us from the Barrett's, Karoline seems quite content to assume that Tony is somehow linked to this diary. Even though she has repeatedly and fairly pointed out that the Barrett's lie and cannot be trusted (look at Mike's confessions). How come people around here feel it's ok to use Mike’s stories when they fit their present preferred explanations they claim that no one should believe Mike when his stories don't fit? Strange way to read, if you ask me, and not very consistent.
Anyway, let's allow Karoline to assume that Tony specifically was somehow involved. After all, he might very well have been even if |B{we do not have any material or physical or reliable evidence at all} that he was or was not.
Damn! Still more assumptions without a single solitary piece of evidence in favor of them. And yet Karoline plows right on...
Anyway, back to her alternate scenario:
"It's slightly possible the diary was created by some friend of Devereux's who got the Sphere quote from Liverpool library and who gave the 'diary' to D. who gave it to MB. Though exactly why anyone would act in such a way I have no idea, and in my view the 'coincidence' of MB owning the Sphere book is just too great to be explained away in this or any other way."
Now you see, this is simple misdirection. No one of course has suggested this. This was not even under consideration. And pointing out that this is an unlikely possibility does not in any way make Karoline's possibility more likely. Suggesting there is no real evidence to support this scenario does not in any way suggest there is any real or reliable or material evidence to support Karoline's scenario either.
Do not be fooled by this. Anyone could go on constructing less likely scenarios all day. The Pope wrote the diary. See? I just did it. It means nothing. it is an irrelevant procedure which teaches us nothing.
Saying that A. probably did not happen does not by itself logically or necessarily increase the likelihood that B. did happen, especially when B. remains, like A., completely unsupported by any real material or reliable evidence, or even any non-contradictory and consistent evidence.
We are still waiting for Karoline to actually offer any solid, reliable material evidence in favor of her own "likely" scenario that Mike Barrett actually wrote or helped write this book.
We are still waiting for a single piece of material evidence, in addition to the appearance of the Crashaw quote since no evidence has been offered to allow to fairly or validly to decide when Mike first knew of it, concerning any other aspect of this case that in any way establishes or allows us to claim that Mike Barrett is likely to be a forger and to have specifically created or helped create this document.
We cannot lose our focus on what Karoline is still claiming, and claiming without yet having offered any real, reliable, non-contradictory evidence.
Losing our focus here becomes a danger because Karoline goes to even more irrelevant lengths to distract us from the fact that she still has not offered any evidence at all regarding when the transcript was put on the word processor, why the diary purchase was made, or whether Mike Barrett ever even met or knew of Gerard Kane! Not a single piece to support her reading of any of these situations. The earlier questions remain stunningly unanswered.
Instead, she actually writes this:
"However it is in my view bordering on the preposterous to suggest that the diary was created by Billy Graham, or by an Unknown Quantity from the early years of the last century, or by anyone writing before the Sphere book or the police list were published."
My God! I have been reading and writing here now for almost two months I think and in that short time at least I have never seen, not once, anyone, anywhere advance these possibilities with any seriousness whatsoever.
So why is she saying this? Why is she now simply showing us what no doubt did not happen, what I have certainly written repeatedly I do not believe happened?
Could it be because we are still waiting for Karoline to actually offer solid, reliable material evidence in favor of her own "likely" scenario that Mike Barrett actually wrote or helped write this book?
I hope not.
But let's see. her final paragraphs are approaching and I am hoping against hope that I might still see one single piece of real, physical material evidence that allows us to decide which diary purchase scenario is more likely or whether Mike ever met or even knew Gerard Kane or whether Mike knew about the Crashaw quote before 1992 or after or whether the transcript was put onto Mike's disk on his wp before the diary as produced or whether it was transcribed there afterwards for whatever reason.
I am still hoping for at least one piece of evidence that will allow us to confidently, fairly and logically decide in favor of any of these specific scenarios, that would make any of them more likely that any other, that would allow us to begin to answer any of these four questions. I'm still hoping we'll eventually see one piece of direct, reliable, material evidence that would allow us to fairly decide in favor of the complicity of Mike or against the complicity of Mike in each of these four cases.
One piece of real evidence to support Karoline's opening claim that "there is evidence, accepted by everyone as being entirely true and entirely relevant to the case." So she isn't just saying this, but actually finally demonstrating this.
Let's all look and hope together.
Here come the final arguments:
"Does this really seem very unreasonable to you?
Do I really understand that you don't even concede the data narrows down the likely field of enquiry - to Liverpool? To MB's known associates? To the early 1990s?
Are you and Paul actually claiming the thing could just as easily have been produced in Southampton as Liverpool? In 1891 as 1991? That it could just as likely have been forged by the Man on the Clapham Omnibus as by or with the co-operation of the man who placed and profited from it; who had the text of it on the wp he told the cops he didn't own, and who had the damn Sphere book in his loft?"
Aaaugh! Nothing. Not a single piece of real, reliable material evidence offered in the whole post, except the presence of the Crashaw quote, which was already agreed to. Not single piece of evidence with respect to any of the other issues she claims help establish complicity. Nothing! Just questions about things I never claimed nor ever wrote. I've even said I think the diary was produced around the time of the centennial and quite possibly in Liverpool.
Not only that, Karoline has shot my carefully constructed and repeatedly offered scenario suggesting the complicity of the Man on the Clapham Omnibus right out of the water! I am mortified. I had put so much time into carefully making the case against him using specific and sound arguments and reliable and material evidence. What a devastating critique. I am indeed humbled and am forced to admit that I was probably wrong when I wrote that it was "more likely" that the Man on the Clapham Omnibus participated or at least knew the details of the forgery. I promise not to ever assert this again.
Now am I forced finally to admit, as I never thought I would have to, that yes it is indeed "more likely" that Mike Barrett participated in or had knowledge of the actual creation of the dairy than that Man on the Clapham Omnibus did. I submit. I completely agree. If this is Karoline's only point, then we can indeed end this discussion right here. Happily.
But, of course, this is not the point. The point is what remains missing. That evidence she mentioned in her first paragraph. Where is it? I keep asking people and no one offers any. Consequently, I can only repeat an earlier question.
If such evidence is not yet available and therefore our conclusions about the likelihood of complicity must necessarily be based not on reliable evidence, but on personal preferences for one interpretation over another when both interpretations seem equally likely or unlikely, or based on inconsistent evidence or contradictory data, why, then, would we want to accuse anyone yet or even claim that anyone "probably" committed this crime?
And so I ask again this simple question:
What do we gain by concluding that certain people "probably" committed this crime before we have made a responsible case against them using real and reliable evidence?
And repeat an earlier reminder:
There is not yet any accumulation of real and reliable evidence.
If the details that make up the big picture are unsound, inconsistent, contradictory, speculative and without reliable and serious support, the big picture is very likely going to be inaccurate.
Remember the four simple questions in the post of mine that preceeded this one and watch to see if anyone ever actually offers any answers or real evidence. If not, then my conclusion about how little evidence actually exists remains sound. And, my conclusion about what it is fair and responsible to say about who committed this crime remains sound.
--John |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 03:04 pm | | John--I can't help but notice that your comments about "who committed this crime" always only refer to the actual creation of the diary. As I said long ago, a man might sell a bed pan claiming it is Agamemnon's shield. Just because he didn't make the bed pan doesn't mean he isn't committing fraud. From my ethical point of view, lying about the provenance of the diary makes someone complicit in promoting a fraud even if it doesn't make them complicit to the actual forgery. Qustion: Is a liar more likely to commit fraud than an honest person?
Best wishes, RJP |
Author: Karoline L
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 03:11 pm | | Martin -
I'm fishing slightly, but if it's modernish in 1888, but not as avant garde as Wilde - how about Swinburne?
K |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 04:02 pm | | RJ,
This is the first post I have seen since I have been here that has carefully and patiently presented what some think is evidence against Mike Barrett.
Nicely done.
Of course, you are correct that much of this remains your preferred interpretation of events which also have alternate interpretations that are equally as likely and which logic which not really allow us to decide between without real and substantial material evidence, we I think we agree is missing. But I think this is the first serious case I have seen made here that approaches a reasonably well-established claim of at least likely complicity.
However, I should, in the interest of fairness and through responsibility address at least a few of the issues.
I am afraid I have broken my vow of brevity. But I'll try here again to do better.
1.) I agree that this is evidence that we are probably dealing with a recent forgery, but I do not agree that this allows us to conclude that Mike helped write it. It is certainly not evidence that Mike wrote it. It does not even imply that Mike wrote it. Only that you do not yet know where it came from. I'm wiling to admit this, myself. Otherwise my conclusions are likely to be tainted in favor of my a priori assumptions concerning the book's origins. This is how objective investigation proceeds, I think.
2.) This point is actually describing a lack of information, not real evidence. It is telling us what we don't know. I agree that we don't know this. And yes, Mike and Anne have told conflicting stories after the diary came out and went public and was received with a whirlwind of publicity and while their marriage disintegrated and while chaos reigned. Shirley's remark about the psychology of this time being very complicated should be kept in mind here. In any case, their lies at this point cannot be considered evidence, logically or necessarily, of their likelihood to have actually written the document, since there are contradictory possibilities that are equally as likely (I can think of several possibilities for each of Mike's lies and for his disastrous confessions, and I have no way to determine which would be the most likely or the accurate explanation or motivation, you see the problem?)
3). You have already made my case here. Thank you for admitting that this remains a mystery, since claiming that Mike is the only one to profit seems to fly directly in the face of your own suggestion that others must have been involved. Again, inconsistent and self-contradictory evidence can not properly or responsibly be considered evidence of anything at all. If we count it as such we are doomed to error. As you wisely write:
"Whether Mike wrote the thing is another question, but clearly he is the one attempting to profit off a forgery. In my opinion it takes a certain suspension of disbelief to assume the diary is genuine."
Agreed. Completely. Of course, it is that "other question" we are now discussing. And this tells us nothing at all reliable or consistent or evidentiary about that one, as you admit yourself.
4.) Again, you are in the realm of speculation and I think it is without the evidence necessary to determine what actually happened. I think you'll agree here, too. You write: "Anne later claimed that she gave Mike the diary in hopes that he would write a fictional account--so why would it make Anne visibly upset if he was doing just that?"
Because he may have been driving her absolutely crazy trying to do just that. And he may have been suggesting any one of a number of things to her or simply making her life hell as he went about it. He certainly seems able to do that when he gets obsessed with something. At least this is what I hear from Martin and Paul and co. I don't really know or have any evidence which would allow me to validly decide and neither do you. So this too remains way too open to interpretation to be actual evidence of anything at all. Your original prefatory warning is proving to be correct.
5.)These are very good questions. Do you have any reliable evidence at all that would allow us to answer them with any confidence? Little Caroline’s observation is interesting and perhaps even useful, but I'm sure you'll agree it is not evidence of even the likelihood of forgery.
6.) I have already discussed the problems with the evidence surrounding this purchase at length here today. I'm glad you remind us that your scenario is only speculation since no one has yet offered the necessary evidence to allow us to claim which scenario, yours or the after-the-fact one is more likely.
7.) This is of course not evidence at all unless the relevant case can be made using the diary text (and I agree with you that it seems specious).
8.) This is a rather important and complex one, but it rests on Mike's "research" and what we can infer from it. You and I agree I think that Mike seems unlikely to be very good at this research thing or to have proceeded through it in a careful and thorough manner. And you once mentioned to me that he did not show very much evidence that he had actually done any successful research at all.
I don't think it's really fair to hold what Mike has not claimed to read against him.
This is what I mean by assuming the conclusion and then examining the facts. If Mike had mentioned the books you are talking about, you would have said this was highly suspicious because those are the very books someone likely used to compose the diary. Since Mike doesn't mention these books, you say this is very suspicious because this means he was deliberately not mentioning them because he probably really used them. You see the problem? Mike is damned either way because you are considering the evidence looking especially for signs of guilt rather than for what it actually does and does not tell us. This seems, if you'll forgive me, almost Feldian.
9.) You write: "it has been confirmed, that Tony had Mike's REW book in his possession." When? Not when was it confirmed. When did Tony first get this book from Mike? Do we know? Is there any evidence of when? I honestly don't know the answer.
This item in your list is very interesting because it demonstrates the lack of any evidence at all concerning any link between Barrett and Kane and you properly point out yourself that you can conclude nothing at all about Kane’s involvement, which also, so far as I can see, based on the utter lack of real evidence surrounding it, frankly appears to be a rather fanciful and Feldian suggestion.
If the case against Mike Barret is so weak and unestablished and unsupported by real and reliable evidence that we have to invoke the mysterious Mr. Kane, without any evidence at all to connect him yet to the case or to Mike Barret, then we are indeed entering the world of Feldian imagination and created scenarios all because of our simple desire to pin this thing on somebody. How different really is this from rush to unestablished conclusions and unsubstantiated stories we find in The Final Chapter? This is almost embarrassing.
10.) This one is indeed specious, and based entirely on an irrational outburst by Mike when he was considered to be the owner of the diary. I m content to let it stand and to let Feldy's question remain unanswered. This in no way can stand as evidence of Mike's guilt or that he actually wrote this book or that he knew before 1992 where this book came from (by the way, I believe and will admit that it is certainly at least possible that Mikedoes now know where this book came from and maybe even who wrote it, even if he didn't when he walked into Doreen's). This outburst however certainly cannot even fairly be said to contribute to any accumulation of evidence towards any big picture of before-the-fact guilt or complicity.
11.) Already much discussed. Of course it's a question of when Mike first saw the quote in the Sphere volume and whether there is any real, reliable or valid evidence that would allow us to say when. If not, then there still is no evidence that Mike personally placed this quote in the diary. Not yet, anyway. Though I still think this is the best evidence we even have. That tells you how much we do not have, I suppose.
12.) This is evidence of nothing concerning who actually wrote this book, of course. And I don't know whether Anne knew Tony or not. Do we have any evidence either way? Anywhere? I haven't seen any. If not, we can't really or fairly judge whether she knew him or how well. So her story about giving the book to Tony remains neither particularly likely or unlikely and finally completely useless either in the case for or against complicity. I'm happy to admit this.
13.) This is finally a statement about what you are not troubled by (Mike’s inability to give a confession when he wanted to). Thus, it's not evidence of his complicity in forgery. If anything, of course, it may be evidence of his inability to have executed this forgery, but perhaps not. It tells us nothing of an evidentiary nature.
In all, RJ, a mostly fair and well-presented and well reasoned list of items that surround this case. I found it very useful because it reminded me once again of how little of what we discuss in this case is actually solid, reliable material evidence or reliable testimony.
The case is a mess.
There is almost no evidence of a material and trustworthy and reliable and non-contradictory and consistent sort to in any way establish even the likelihood of complicity or non-complicity, as your own list above dramatically demonstrates. This was well done and a fine service to all involved.
Thank you.
Finally, though, I want to ask you a question.
Early in your post you mention that since Mike confessed he has become "fair game."
RJ,
Why is it necessary to think of Mike this way?
Why is it not enough to simply and logically and objectively examine the evidence and the lack of evidence and to admit what we can and cannot fairly or responsibly yet conclude.
Why do we have to treat Mike as "fair game?" Why do we desire to treat anyone as likely to be guilty before a case is carefully established?
What do we gain from this?
I don't believe this is necessary. I don't think it helps us arrive at the truth. It may very well hinder us from the truth because it clouds our reading of events and leads us to offer conclusions we haven't actually established just to prove our accusation.
This is not the most objective and scholarly way to approach such a collection of narratives and interpretations and such precious little real evidence.
Why is targeting anyone as "fair game" even necessary yet, until we can at least say with some validity and some confidence that we have the necessary real and reliable evidence?
Why do we want to do it at all?
I still don't understand this desire.
But thank you very much for a very fine post.
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 04:10 pm | | Hi again, RJ,
PS: I completely agree with your most recent post to me suggesting that Mike and Anne may very well have committed fraud even if they did not write or knew who wrote the diary. Absolutely. And yes, if they have deliberately and knowingly sought to mislead the public (and I suspect they probably have), then yes they have in my book turned to fraud. But I am discussing the original proposition that it is more likely than not that they actually helped write or participated in the research or the creation of this diary. Way back when, several people made such a claim concerning their likely involvement not in fraud but in forgery. I felt that claim was unestablished, as far as I could see unevidenced, and possibly unjust. This troubled me. It still troubles me. Now, if people are willing to withdraw that particular claim...
That it is clearly "likely" or "probable" (one person even said it had "been established beyond a reasonable doubt") that Mike and Anne actually participated in or had certain knowledge of the actual composition and production of this volume.
Here's a deal: If people are willing to withdraw that claim and to admit that such a likelihood or probability remains completely unestablished by what little real evidence we actually have and that therefore any conclusions about complicity remain merely speculations and preferred interpretations in the face of contradictory and problematic narratives and almost no real and reliable and material evidence yet whatsoever, then I will happily stop pointing out why I think this claim is invalid and not properly supported and therefore unjust.
Thanks, RJ,
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 04:18 pm | | Hi, John:
I have already conceded.
Chris |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 04:20 pm | | Chris.
Indeed. I recall.
Cheers 
Thanks,
--John |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 04:30 pm | | Hi Karoline,
Does it really sound to you sufficiently mellifluous to be Swinburne?
More clues. It's somebody who was writing before Swinburne was born, but really only achieved fame and popularity at about the same time as Swinburne.
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 29 April 2001 - 04:29 am | | Hi RJP/John
I very much appreciate your long and detailed response. I began responding to each of your points, but the reply got too long and the thrust of my argument got lost and then I noticed that John had answered anyway. So maybe I could just ask you to review your list and remove from it each point that does not actually indicate that Mike specifically was the forger. Point 1, for example. And when you review the list, could you also try to think in terms of the evidence pointing to (a) Mike as the forger, or (b) Mike as an innocent patsy/dupe.
Let me briefly explain what I am driving at. Let’s begin with provenance. What evidence is there that Tony Devereux did not give the ‘diary’ to Mike?
Conversely, what evidence is there that Tony Devereux did give (or could have given) the ‘diary’ to Mike?
And does Tony Devereux's possible involvement or non-involement give us any kind of date fix?
For example, does any evidence lead us to suppose that the ‘diary’ was composed after Tony Devereux was dead, Mike using his dead friend as a provenance that couldn’t be checked? Or do we have reason to think that the ‘diary’ was composed during Tony Devereux’s lifetime?
In the case of the latter, for example, we have daughter Caroline’s testimony that she recalled her father bringing the book home in a brown-paper parcel tied with string, but this is a verbal testimony and one can do with it as one wishes. But we know that Tony Devereux had Mike’s copy of the RWE book and you acknowledge that “it seems obvious that TD must have at least known about he existence of the Maybrick diary.” I’m not sure that this is necessarily true, because Tony Devereux could have quite innocently borrowed the book to read (though he wasn’t much of a reader, according to his daughters), but his possession of Mike’s book is indeed suspicious and others may agree with your conclusion. Either way, does Mike's ownership of that book suggest that the forgery was conceived during Tony Devereux's lifetime?
So, without wishing to prejudice the questions two paragraphs back, we have some evidence which you and I think could indicate that Tony Devereux was in some way involved. If he was, then we have a time fix. And even if we don’t accept Mike’s statement about when he was given the ‘diary’, we do know that if he received it from Tony Devereux then he didn’t do anything with it for six months after the death of his friend. And we should ask why?
(I wonder, for example, whether Mike’s real lie is claiming to have been given (in the sense of conferring ownership) the ‘diary’. Was it really only loaned to him? Would this possibility explain all sorts of other problems such as why Mike adopted a pseudonym when he first took the book to London; explain the arguments Mike and Anne had; explain why Anne was upset, as described by her colleague; explain why Mike claimed to have done mountains of research (ie, so that he could acquire a lien on any rewards in the event that the owner’s family claimed the ‘diary’ back) which isn’t elsewhere evidenced by anything he has said; explain why he dummied up research notes, assuming he dummied them up. It might even explain why Anne said, “Did you nick it, Mike?” It might suggest that Mike waited six months to see if any member of TD’s family would visit him and ask for the return of the ‘diary’ and, of course, it might explain why Mike is noticeably ignorant about the conception and execution of the forgery. About the only think it doesn’t explain is the Sphere quote, but maybe Tony Davereux saw the quote when the Sphere book was in Mike’s possession and thought it suiteable, just as Mike is said to have done?)
You see, I am trying to focus specifically on Mike as the forger, or rather the evidence which allowes us to infer that he was, and whether an alternative scenario might fit more of the facts or answer more of the problems. But I have probably managed to prejudice your thinking now.
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 29 April 2001 - 04:43 am | | Hi RJP/John
Regarding Point 13 in RJ's list, I'm not actually sure that Mike's inability to provided any detail - not even an anecdotal one - about the conception and execution of the forgery is not evidential. However, Mike's identification of the ink shop is something I commented on somewhere quite recently. Initially Mike could not name where he obtained the ink or the book and journalist Harold Brough commented on this in his report. Mike then was able to remember both and identified the auctioneers and the ink shop. Subsequent inquiries indicate that the auctioneers did not sell the book and that their procedure was not as Mike described. On the face of it, therefore, one place identified by Mike is not supported by independent evidence. The identification of the ink shop could be a lie also. Indeed, when I questioned him about how he knew about the ink shop, Mike told me that he knew it existed because he visited Bluecoat Chambers on Saturdays for the alternating book and record sales. I mentioned this to Keith Skinner who confirmed the sales and took a photograph of them in progress.
As I have said, I don't know how many art shops there are in Liverpool, but I wouldn't have thought there are very many. I also don't know if there are any more central than the one indicated by Mike. Furthermore, Diamine ink is manufactured in Liverpool and I would suspect that it would therefore have a fairly wide distribution there.
That Mike could have named a shop which coincidentally supplied the actual forger with the ink used to forge the 'diary' therefore doesn't strike me as a huge improbability. Of course, what I have just outlined is an assessment based on no evidence at all. Liverpool may in fact be awash with ink shops and Diamine ink may be produced for a foreign market and receive little UK distribution. |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 29 April 2001 - 06:37 am | | Hi, Paul:
I believe your assumption is correct that there are not that many art supply shops in Liverpool, nor stores that sell Diamine ink. Knowing Liverpool as I do, one of the things that struck me as authentic-sounding about Mike Barrett's "confession" is that he named the "Bluecoat Chambers art shop" as the place where he and Anne obtained the ink. Detracting from this though is that in his initial confession to Liverpool Daily Post writer Harold Brough he was initially unable to name where he had bought the ink and the photograph book and only later named the art supply store and the auctioneers Outhwaite & Litherland, respectively, as the places where he purchased them.
I have cited Mike before for the haziness of his dating of all these events. I note that the purchase of the maroon diary is dated to 1990 in his 1995 affidavit on this site, not to the spring of 1992 as we now know from the receipt and check. The scenario of Mike wanting to just see how a Victorian diary looked does not seem too credible to me. However, as I have stated before, in wanting to "place" the Diary it could have been thought by Mike that the text needed to be written in a Victorian diary not a photograph book or scrapbook and that could have been the reason for the purchase. This does not mean Mike or Anne forged the Diary, just that one or both of them thought the text would look better in a "real" diary. I agree with you, Paul, that the one staple of the whole Diary mess is the story of Mike getting the Diary in a brown paper parcel from Tony Devereaux, which is common to Mike's original story and Anne's new story.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 29 April 2001 - 07:22 am | | Hello all,
Chris fairly observes,
"The scenario of Mike wanting to just see how a Victorian diary looked does not seem too credible to me."
I agree. Of course, the scenario of Mike buying a diary to use to "place" a forgery and thereby commit a criminal act, and then simply giving the bookshop his own real name and home address and paying by check does not seem all that credible to me either. (And I can at least imagine Mike, having acquired the diary already in the album and wondering like mad if it was real, going out to get a real Victorian diary to compare it to -- I can imagine him thinking of this as some sort of logical research step, something that somehow made sense.) But I completely and totally agree that neither behavior seems very credible or reasonable.
But I've noticed something recently, and I suspect this might be related to Paul's point.
I think we have to be careful that we don't start fitting the facts to any assumed conclusion rather than drawing legitimately available conclusions from the facts (even if the only conclusion legitimately and honestly available about a fact turns out to be "We don't know. We can't decide yet what this means.)
For instance, I've seen the following different facts interpreted to fit the following same conclusion (not by you, Chris):
* Fact: Mike gave a false name and false information to Doreen.
* Conc: This is highly suspicious. Mike probably wrote the diary.
* Fact: Mike gave his own real name and real home address when he ordered the red diary.
* Conc: He was just being stupid. He didn't know any better. Mike probably wrote the diary.
And yesterday,
Fact: Mike did not mention in his research the two books "most likely used to create the diary."
Conc: Mike was deliberately ignoring them to be misleading. Mike probably wrote the diary.
Why do I think that if Mike had explicitly mentioned the two books "most likely used to create the diary," I have would have seen someone write, "You see, he read the very books used to create the diary. This is highly suspicious. Mike probably wrote the diary?" I don't know.
Please note, in the interest of a kinder and gentler discussion: I'm not accusing anyone of anything here. I'm simply offering a small warning. The lesson of Paul Feldman's book should stay with us. Our case will not be very convincing if we assume our conclusion and then interpret all of the facts in a way that helps to establish this already assumed conclusion, even if those facts happen to be directly contradictory. This is unfair. This is faulty analysis.
Without any assumed conclusions, and faced with facts whose implications contradict each other (Mike gave a false name to Doreen but a real one buying the diary), sometimes the only thoroughly intellectually honest response is "Well, we don't know yet exactly what this means."
And then we keep looking.
Thanks and a happy weekend to all,
--John |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Sunday, 29 April 2001 - 07:22 am | | Regarding the suggestion that MB was "broke at the time" that the diary started it's journey, there are a couple of points apart from the supposed purchase of the red diary (I say "supposed" because I am not completely clear about the purchase from HP Bookfinders who are not, despite what John Omlor says, a bookshop. I will be mentioning this in a later post,) that seem to show this not necesarily to be the case.
When MB bought his Amstrad 8256 on the 3rd April 1986 he paid £458.85 - a substantial chunk of cash then even though the story is that AG's father helped out with this amount. And at this time Billy G was retired from the Dunlop Tyre factory, on a pension and presumably not in good health. When MB appeared at Doreen's office he was wearing a smart new suit. Presuming that AG was the breadwinner throughout this time why is it that we haven't heard of her anger at his buying the new suit (and possibly the briefcase) for something with which she is said to have completely disagreed? And how much of the received story depends on what either MB or AG said when they were talking to the various other people involved in this affair?
RJP mentions the curious matter of the electrician in the nightime. If Mike: "stormed over to the man's house and confronted him, claiming he was a liar" after hearing about this from Feldy, how did Mike know here to go? Did Feldy give him the man's name and address? Or did MB just say that he had been there and Feldy didn't think to check on this?
Regarding the MB relative who confirmed that he'd had the Sphere book pre-diary, do we know who that was? Was it the one who MB later said had destroyed the disks etc. on his behalf?
Regarding the AG provenance, it is as RJ said, unlikely and unprovable.
Based on this and other matters I concur with RJP in his suspicions concerning MB.
Paul:
Do you know the results of Keith's investigations into Tony Devereux' family history? |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 29 April 2001 - 07:29 am | | PS: Paul, Interesting suggestion. That's a very provocative scenario that would seem to account for many of the facts. I don't know. I had not considered it before.
Peter,
My account of Mike's ordering the book in his real name comes from a post here by Caz. I think she got the data from Keith. We can ask her. I'm happy to retract the term "bookshop" for a more accurate one in any case.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 29 April 2001 - 07:34 am | | Hi Peter,
If Mike had help with composing and writing out the diary from someone else (the as yet completely unlinked Mr. Kane, for instance), did his conspirators also profit? How? Do you have any real, reliable, material evidence of such profit-sharing?
Just wondering,
--John
PS: And now I'm off to the golf course. Won't be back for hours and hours. Ah, the peace of the links... |
Author: Karoline L
Sunday, 29 April 2001 - 08:11 am | | Caroline Morris wrote, to and about me:
" what you are quite definitely
saying is that you will go on fingering Kane in public as a likely forger, and that it’s not your fault that your hands are tied when it comes to producing a shred of evidence to
back up your suspicions. (Sounds all too boringly familiar somehow.)....And I don’t know how anyone else feels about the values displayed here, but quite frankly I went away from the
boards yesterday feeling fairly disgusted by what I was reading."
Caroline, would you mind telling me what this means?
May I ask - does anyone here share her view that I am acting in some dishonest and disgusting way?
Karoline |
|
|
|
|
