|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 May 02, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-Archives 2001:
Archive through May 02, 2001
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 30 April 2001 - 11:50 pm |        | Caz--I'm just now catching up with all the posts over the past few days. Can I gently suggest that you might have over-reacted to Karoline's post that Kane's handwriting be posted? Aren't these the same samples that Shirley Harrison has requested recently? And perhaps it might be worth remembering who first publically brought Kane's name onto these boards (I hadn't heard of him until then, and I doubt if many others had either) and also remind you who the gentleman was that became quite upset by his name being brought out publically? Hint: the man who was upset was none other than your old friend Melvin Harris.
But perhaps there might be a way to solve all this privately? Some sort of unilateral disarmament?
Best wishes, RJP
P.S. Considering the general cry on these boards has been for 'more information', more 'hard evidence' and 'more documentation' my spirits weren't overly lifted by your long 'P.S.' It looks like it's going to be business as usual all the way around. As I asked earlier, could all of those involved start considering strategies of bringing the investigation together & towards a final resolution? Just a suggestion.
RJP |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 12:45 am | | Hi, Paul and RJ:
I have an idea about the auctioneers Outhwaite and Litherland. I understand enquiries have been made with them. You stated here, Paul, "'My point is that on that same day Mike also identified Outhwaite and Litherland as the auctioneers who supplied the book. They denied this and have also stated that the sales procedure described by Mike is not theirs."
This of course might be so, and Outhwaite and Litherland might be correct that there was no such sale. However, might it be standard procedure at such an auctioneers to {photograph} all objects that come through their hands for insurance and anti-theft purposes? Certainly ordinary homeowners are advised to take such photographs of valuables so would it not make even more sense as a precaution for an auction house that deals on a regular basis with antiques to photograph the items they are putting on the auction block? Could Keith or Shirley or Peter find out if Outhwaite and Litherland might routinely keep photographs of items that they have auctioned say in the last ten years, which would encompass the time period (early 1992) when we think the Diary forgery could have been carried out? The question might be asked if they keep such photographs back to 1990 which is the year Mike said in one of his affidavits that the purchase occurred.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 05:03 am | | RJ,
than you for your support. Yes, as you point out, I was not even the person who first named Kane in public.
In fact if Caz would like to go back to the archives she would see that when I first introduced the topic of the handwriting I deliberately refrained from using the man's name - and only began doing so when someone else (I think it was Paul Begg), did so first.
I won't suggest that Caz is allowing any personal resentment of me to sway her judgment, since I hope she would never do that, but it wouild be nice to have a small apology, since I don't think I deserve to be described as "disgusting" for merely using a name that someone else introduced here and that everyone is quite openly throwing around it seems.
best wishes
Karoline
o |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 05:41 am | | I haven't seen any response from Paul to my request for a look at those faxes etc dealng with the discovery of the Crashaw quote. Apologies if I have missed the latest - but can I just repeat here -
Paul, would it be possible for me to see some of that material?
Since we are currently all agreed on the necessity for more data to be made public, could you possibly take the trouble to photocopy some of this stuff for me, or to post anything relevant here?
What I am looking for is contemporary letters, notes, faxes, or similar that will set exact dates which can be compared with Alan Gray's account.
Thanks
Karoline |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 07:58 am | | Hi RJP
I have either misunderstood you or you may have misunderstood the argument I was advancing about Anne (the same argument as I think John Omlor was making). I do not believe or disbelieve any part of Anne’s story. It is just data. Hopefully its truth or falsehood will emerge from a proper analysis of it. What I was questioning was whether Anne’s story, if a lie, was evidence that she forged or was complicit in the forgery of the ‘diary’. I argued that it possibly does, but that equally it could have been a lie told in response to circumstances existing at the time she told it (for example, she may not in fact have any idea where the ‘diary’ cam from, but wanted movie money for herself rather than leave it to Mike to drink and fabricated a story which gave her a claim to the tale. This is just an example of how conditions could have caused the lie without being proof of complicity of forgery; it isn’t meant to be a theory of what actually happened).
This isn’t quite the same thing as the auctioneer/ink argument. The evidence here is that Mike initially couldn’t provide such basic details to Harold Brough, he was later able to do so, but one of the suppliers denies it. Can we therefore put faith in Mike’s identification of the other? There doesn’t really seem to be any reason why we should.
With the exception of the Crashaw quote, the items you mention don't indicate that Mike forged the 'diary', only that he researched it. The Crashaw quote is the only link between Mike and the content of the 'diary', but the quote could have been found by anyone with access to the Sphere book. I'm not trying to make data fit a preconceived hypothesis here, but looking at the evidence which, in my view, indicates Mike's ignorance about the 'diary' being a forgery, and trying to see what evidence directly contradicts that.
On the unrelated subject of Mr Kane, I think the first person to name Mr Kane was probably Melvin Harris, who was told about him by a journalist. An alternative but unlikely source would be D.C. Thomas, who interviewed him. But Mr Kane was mentioned in Paul Feldman's book (albeit misspelled Cane), Paul citing Melvin as his source. Most recently the name was mentioned following Peter Birchwood's posting of Tony Devereux's will, the only apparent purpose for doing so was to show Mr Kane's signature. Keith Skinner wanted to interview Mr Kane, but Melvin warned him not to because of his ill-health. I - and I think Chris George - felt that Mr Kane should be interviewed as he might welcome the opportunity to refute Melvin's/Melvin's journalist's allegations. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 08:22 am | | Hi All,
I've just spoken with Keith Skinner, who would like me to post the following information.
Since 1994, Keith has collected every scrap, which has come his way, of Anne's handwriting: Xmas and birthday cards; handwritten envelopes; notes Anne left for Keith at the PRO (when research was being done for her Florence Maybrick biog); letters etc. Keith has been looking for any changes he could detect in her writing over a long period of time.
Back briefly to the maroon diary, Keith confirms what Peter has written about it not being completely blank, but having a few notes written inside. (So if Mike had specified a blank one, and a used one had arrived, he would presumably have been able to return it with no questions asked.) Keith confirms that the items he brought to the April 1999 C&D meeting, which Peter also attended, included the photocopied cheque, Anne's cheque book containing the matching stub, and Anne's original bank statement, showing the payment. Only with Anne's help, by obtaining the copy of the cheque, was it possible to trace and contact the book search firm and ask about the order which related to that cheque. So I'm not sure why Peter has so recently been asking for further confirmation, that the stub matches the cheque, and that this was sent to the book search firm in payment for the maroon 1891 diary. What further proof could there be? Was RJ suggesting that Anne was hoping that the book search firm would not still have any records that could have contradicted the documentation she herself had provided? Is this reasonable? Why go to all that trouble, if there was any risk involved at all?
Keith also says he will be happy to bring all the maroon diary evidence along again to the meeting with Melvin, for anyone attending to examine, if they missed it in April 1999.
Finally, I do remember that Melvin wasn't the first to put Kane's name up on the boards. But this issue isn't about who started what. I just find it unpalatable, now Kane's name is here, to read statements like Karoline's, about him being 'a known associate of the Barretts', when she has failed to even suggest that she has seen any evidence to support such a statement.
I'm quite prepared to apologise for my feelings of disgust, if Karoline tells me that she had seen evidence that showed Mike knew of Kane's existence in March 1992, when she made the statement, on the College Course board, on April 19, 2001. I'm still not sure she would have been justified in making such a statement, and claiming it as a piece of hard evidence, even if she knew it was true, but also knew she couldn't say how she knew.
Love,
Caz
PS I'm still left wondering how objectively any of the diary documentation would be treated by some, if not most, of those now repeatedly asking to examine some of it. (Shorter PS this time.) |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 09:21 am | | Paul,
I see you have been visiting here since I last posted a request for info, so I'll just draw your attention to it again, since you might not have noticed it in the huge influx of stuff here.
I am wonderng of it would be possible for you to either let me have photocopies of or for you to post here any evidence you have relating to the chronology of the Crashaw discovery in late 1994?
You say you have a collection of faxes and other material - could you possible share some of it?
Keith, many thanks for the information relayed through C. Morris. I would like to ask the same question of you if I might. Would it be possible for you to make public some of this incredibly useful info you have collected over the years - particularly (at the moment) anything relevant to the Crashaw discovery?
best wishes
Karoline |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 09:40 am | | Well, I have just checked, and yes it's true I did say that Kane was a known associate of the Barretts - when what I should have said was he was a known associate of Devereux's.
I apologise for that mistake
But let me get this straight Caroline,
You think I am over sensitive because I ask Martin to justify his claim that I am dishonest stupid, incompetent , insinuatory and incapable of writing a decent book. You think it's okay for your friend Joseph to compare me to a case of food poisoning (at least I don't remember you objecting) - yet you find it "disgusting" that I said Kane was a known associate of the Barretts when he is only a known associate of the Barretts' friend?
Presumably if instead I'd said Kane was a stupid incompetent liar and the human equivalent of ptomaine poisoning - you would think that was just fine?
Karoline |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 10:13 am | | Hello all,
Some interesting stuff this morning. Just a simple question from me, as I'm a bit under the weather, as they say, and have a head swirling with various cold medications.
Chris,
Thanks for that information. I had either missed or forgotten the revised number of missing pages. By the way, could you remind me again at how it was possible to determine the number of pages missing from the original? Did we know how many total pages there once must have been and then subtract, or was there an indication in the book of how many pages it once held, or something like that? This is not significant, I'm just curious. I checked my edition of the Hyperion and Shirley just announces the number in the paragraph you cite but never actually mentions how this number was available. I don't see any page numbers on the facsimile. Perhaps it said somewhere on the spine or inside what the total page number was?
 Oh, wait, I think I see it now. Shirley says the first pages were removed with a knife, so that indicates that there must have been strips of the removed paper left in the binding that were countable. Geez. What a dunce I am here. I am shaking my head at myself as I write this. Well, perhaps I will leave these two paragraphs in my post nonetheless to dramatically demonstrate my own stupidity.
Never mind.
Thanks again for the information, Chris. As you and I share the assumption that this thing is a fake, we are both likely to agree on the significance of whatever the data about postcards and card size tells us. I don't think Shirley will feel forced to stand by the word "postcard," however, since she is also claiming that the book might have once held "photographs, reminisces, autographs, and other mementoes, and these of course could be any size at all, including "postcard size." She could just say, "OK, maybe not postcards, but it did hold these other things and some of them were the shapes and sizes of our modern postcards and that's why I mistakenly wrote that; but this in no way suggests or is evidence of a forgery, since in any case we still don't know precisely what did leave those outlines." And this would in fact be a reasonable response. We don't yet know that. You can't simply conclude that square outline A. was once specifically a "postcard" because it is the same size a postcard might have been, of course. It could just as easily have been a sent and received engraved invitation kept as a memento of an event, or a section of newspaper with relevant personal information, or a drawing or artwork on a small card, for instance. I have no idea, of course. Thus all the available evidence would finally allow us to claim, I guess, is that there were outline sizes similar to postcards and postcards would not have been historically available. So unless these outlines were made by items (invitations, cuttings, drawings, etc,) that were postcard sized, this thing must be fake. We could write something like that, I suppose. I too would be interested to know if there was any ink on what remained of the torn out pages.
By the way, Chris, you also write:
"I have recently come to specialize in postcards of the period 1901-1910."
This wouldn't be because, fifteen or twenty years ago when you were working on a novel about James Maybrick and studying and researching the Ripper case, and spending time in Liverpool, you also came into personal possession of a number of these cards when you acquired an old album and had to remove the first 64 pages, would it? The screws keep tightening, Chris. 
RJ,
Two interesting phrases appear in your post.
You write:
"Mike was evidently making all the money off the Diary."
and you write:
"As I've said, several times, I don't think Mike forged the diary, but I do think he must know where it came from."
RJ,
How do these two phrases work together? If Mike didn't actually forge the diary, someone else did. And someone had to pen the thing. Is the penman seeing any money? Do we have any evidence of money going anywhere else? People have been looking at the finances of this for a long time now, almost ten years. What have we got so far?
Just wondering.
Finally you write, repeating an argument you suggest failed to impress me earlier,
"If I am correct, and Anne isn't telling the truth about one half of her story, why believe the rest of it?"
But I agree with this. I don't think Anne's stories should simply be believed and I have never said so. I don't know. I think the evidence necessary to simply prove or disprove Anne's story needs to be discovered, of course. It still has not been to any completely thorough degree either way, although my own personal and subjective reading of it leads me to lean against her story at this time and yet wishing the evidence was more reliable and consistent and powerful.
But, even if we do choose not to believe Anne's story, as I have said, we cannot conclude from this that she participated actually in the research or the composition of this document or did in fact know specifically of its origins. It would not be evidence of this either way. Especially considering the extraordinary circumstance surrounding her at the time of Paul Feldman's crusade and the diary's reception, the time she told the story you are claiming must be now discounted. So we clearly need more evidence to even begin to suggest anything about Anne's actual knowledge of or participation in the act of creating the forgery.
You once asked me , RJ, who was more likely to be a forger, a liar or an honest person. My "honest" answer to that, the best answer I have, without any attempt to weasel or complicate matters unduly, is that I have never met a completely honest person. I have never met someone who would not under the right circumstances tell a lie. I believe we all would. That, according to the logic implied in your question, would make us all potential forgers. But, of course, we are not all potential forgers. Because that is something quite different than lying. The two are related, of course. But many of us sometimes lie and deceive, even and especially strategically for profit (any businessmen out there might confirm this, I hope), but most of us do not create elaborate and detailed public forgeries. This is a different thing all together, and it is in fact neither fair nor logical to assume that a liar is more likely to commit such an act simply because they have lied, even about the history of the questionable document, especially if there is money at stake.
Anyway, my head is filling with various natural and unnatural substances of various consistencies, so I will sign off now and read everyone's thoughts as the day passes.
Bye all,
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 11:01 am | | Karoline,
Thank you for your correction. I had written several times, too many times I think, about why the phrase "known associate" used specifically to link Mike to Kane was completely unfounded and dangerous, since it implied guilt without even any evidence of association (which is actually, strangely, even worse that implying guilt by association, which is itself pretty bad and legally shaky and logically flawed).
And, so, quite properly, you have now corrected this small mistake and let us know that Kane was a known associate of Tony's, but not a known associate of Mike's. And yet you and others have suggested, without any real, reliable physical or material evidence with the possible exception of a one-line quote, that it has been established as likely that Mike participated in the creation, research, execution of this forgery, or knew exactly how it took place before he ever took the book to Doreen's. And you have suggested that Kane's writing matches the diary's. Thus you have suggested that Kane and Mike must have conspired. But, you have not linked Mike to Kane in any way whatsoever, and so your conclusion about Mike's involvement remains completely built on sand, not bricks at all, and offered only at the level of purely unevidenced speculation.
Warning: Logic ahead. If you do not trust logic or prefer not to think and choose simply to label what follows "a syllogistic maze" because you either cannot understand it or refuse to believe in the necessity for and the relevance of careful, detailed consideration of evidence and the necessity for and the relevance of making logical conclusions and valid arguments for arriving at responsible, accurate and fair conclusions, please stop reading now. You have been warned.
Complicity becomes, therefore, I believe, an irresponsible charge, until you find some real, reliable physical evidence linking your alleged penman Kane to your alleged conspirator Mike. And this evidence cannot include the observation that Kane's handwriting matches and Mike had the diary, and therefore the two are linked; since that would be conducting the investigation completely, as my father says, ass backwards -- you'd be assuming that Mike knew about the forgery and then using that assumption to conclude that since Mike had the diary he must have therefore have known about the forgery, and therefore known Mr. Kane. This is a completely circular argument that is utterly invalid. It begins with a completely unestablished assumption -- that Mike knew about the forgery. You'd have to first establish that Mike knew about the forgery before you can claim that he conspired with Kane, whom you are claiming actually wrote the forgery. Otherwise it remains equally possible that Kane wrote it and that Mike acquired it without knowing that Kane wrote it, since you have offered no real evidence that Mike knew it was a forgery to begin with. All the other items used in the case against him, the words written we know not when on a disk for his machine, the unused diary ordered with his own real name and home address, even the date he first discovered any Crashaw quote in the Sphere volume, remain in doubt, inconsistent, and demonstrably incomplete accounts of behavior that clearly suggest explicitly contradictory and (because they are not supported by any real, reliable evidence either way) equally likely alternative and contradictory possibilities. So no "big picture" or "cumulative effect" can emerge, of course, since there is so little reliable or material evidence to contribute to any such accumulation. Therefore, no conclusion concerning Mike's knowledge can yet be established. Therefore, you cannot link him to Mr. Kane unless you have reliable evidence that the two men actually knew each other.
So the original question remains:
Once again, for the tenth time, I think:
We all agree that Tony Devereaux knew both Mike Barrett and Gerard Kane.
Can you, Karoline, or anyone at all give me one single, solitary piece of real and reliable material evidence that Mike Barrett ever met Gerard Kane or knew Gerard Kane or even knew of Gerard Kane?
Otherwise, and pending the arrival here of any as of yet only rumored handwriting match, Mr. Kane, as a character, still belongs more properly to the shadowy and vaguely implied and mysterious world of all those "associates" and "friends" and "servants" and "workmen" that we find in the pages of The Final Chapter, and that does not make his role in this whole drama very credibly established or convincing yet at all.
My head remains in a similar fog,
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 11:25 am | | Karoline
I believe that I may already have referenced the faxes on the Message Boards, but I will, when time allows, try to go through them again and extract any data that gives more precise dating. The date is certainly the end of September/early October 1994 however.
As grateful as one is for your acknowledgement of your error, it was an error several people have commented on and to which you have not replied. And John Omlor above is perfectly correct when he says that you used "known associate" specifically to link Mike to Kane. Would you care to review the argument you laid out in light of this admission of error? Is there any evidence of any kind to show that the Barretts and Kane ever so much as said hello to one another?
And by the way, you rather grossly exagerate when you say that Martin accused you of being dishonest stupid, incompetent. He did not say that at all. He said he could not work out which of these alternatives explained your inability to find an important post responding to criticism of the A to Z authors. You may not like what he said, but please don't accuse him of saying far worse than what he did say. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 11:46 am | | Hi, John:
I hope you feel better soon. Rest up and return whenever you feel up to it. I know how miserable it is when one feels under the weather.
I accept your rationale that the evidence of oblong shapes that Shirley describes as having been seen on the flyleaf at the front of the Diary book could have been something other than postcards, although I think she may want to amend the text of upcoming editions to eliminate the word "postcards" which probably would have been historically incorrect and certainly unlikely in 1888-1889 seeing as her thesis is the book was penned then. On the other hand, since most of us here, barring Shirley and occasional Diary supporters who visit here, appear to agree that it is quite probable that the forgery was done comparatively recently, in the last decade of the twentieth century, it could well be that the book did contain post-1900 postcards and is not the 1888-1889 document that Shirley maintains.
As for my knowledge of postcard history and my possible (joke) complicity in the Diary creation, let me make it clear that I have not lived in the United Kingdom since August 1968 and have only visited for a few weeks total since then, and did not visit at all, as I recall, during the salient years between 1984 and 1995. I have certainly never met Mike Barrett, Anne Graham, the late Tony Devereaux, or the enigmatic Mr. Gerard Kane. I will admit to knowing the Anfield and Walton areas of Liverpool, being an avid fan of Liverpool Football Club, whose football stadium, Anfield, is located in that part of northern Liverpool, and as a toddler I lived on Anfield Road behind the stadium. I hereby certify, however, that I have never frequented the Saddle pub or trafficked in or received any doubtful documents wrapped in brown paper and string. 
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: shirley harrison
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 01:24 pm | | Dear Peter…..I don't manage to keep up with everything on the boards but the proposed meeting with Keith and me, which I believe you have mentioned again seems to be a very good idea. But surely you must agree that all this is a waste of our all our time if Melvin does indeed have the final solution and proof of forgery that he has claimed. It is surely vital that he joins us at such a meeting because if he has this evidence, then anything else is irrelevant.
If he does not - and the aggressive postings of recent years have been based on belief as opposed to proof - then do you not agree he should have the grace to concede this and join us in trying to move forward.
Keith and I are both happy to our material on the table - Mike's original notes, the tapes (if Keith can get permission from Paul Feldman) in exchange for us being able to see the examples of Kane's handwriting and any other useful or enlightening background which you and Alan Gray have accumulated.
This seems fair and I hope other Board surfers will agree..
Incidentally Kaz, I have already posted my copy of Mike's notes and they are apparently somewhere....I sent them to Stephen Ryder who found a place for them. |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 01:45 pm | | The reason I am asking for more documentation on the chronology of the Crashaw quote is because of this obvious anomaly we have at the moment.
As fas as I understand it this is the way things happened:
1. Early 1994:, MB hires a private detective named Alan Gray to look for his estranged wife and child, Gray works for Barrett on and off for several months.
2. August 1994, according to Gray, MB tells him he has "a book" that has been lodged with his solicitor since AG left him and that would prove he forged the diary.
3. September 1994 according to Gray MB enlarges on this claim and tells him the "book" has a poem in it that was used in forging the diary.
Also according to one version, Harrison at this time asked MB to research the provenance of the as yet unidentified "O Costly intercourse of death" line.
4 September 30 1994: according to Harrison's book, MB informs her he has 'found' the Crashaw quote in Liverpool library, with the help of a librarian, and he identifes it as coming from the Sphere book.
5.October 1994 Melvin Harris is employed by the Sunday Times to investigate the forgery and talks to Gray. Gray tells him MB has been talking about this "book" for some time, claiming it is lodged with his solicitor, with some other stuff used in forging the diary - including blotting paper used to blot the pages.
Harris urges Gray to try and obtain the "book" and the other evidence as it might be important . Gray agrees to do this and begins putting pressure on MB to produce the stuff.
MB prevaricates, telling Gray he wants to sell his story to a newspaper.
12 October 1994 Keith Skinner noted on this day that Barrett claimed to own the Sphere book (and to have used it in the forgery?)and said he intended to lodge it with his solicitor.
6 December 1994 MB eventually agrees to give Gray the "book". They go to MB's solicitor and MB hands over the Sphere book.
Gray writes the time of this handover in the back of the book.
If I have this chronology right then we seem to have some obvious anomalies.
If Gray is telling the truth (and there seems no reason at the moment to think he isn't), then MB already knew about this "book" in August, a whole month before claiming to have found it in the library. Indeed he claimed to have lodged it with his solicitor at the time of his separation from AG.
So what do we make of his claim on October 12 that he was going to lodge the Sphere book with his solicitor?
Is Keith absolutely sure MB said he was "going to" and not that he already had?
It would be so good to see anything that was written down at the time.
It also seems odd that shortly after MB begins talking to Gray about this "book" he claims to Harrison to have "discovered" the Sphere volume in the library (September 30), and only 12 days later is claiming (to Harrison and Skinner?) he used the Sphere book to forge the diary (is this right?).
It seems impossibly coincident that both Gray and Harrison claim to have been talking to MB at ther same time about the same book. And if Gray's story is true, then the stuff MB was selling Harrison was pure lies.
Do we have a situation in which the conversations with Gray are bringing the existence of the Sphere book to the front of MB's mind - prompting him to 'prime' Harrison into asking him to go look for that quote?
I realise we are dealing with Mike Barrett here, who makes a fulltime occupation of contradicting himself - but in this matter the sequence in which he made his claims, even the very wording, could be so crucial I think we need to be absolutely clear what happened when.
Exactly what did he say to Gray in August, to Harrison in September, to Skinner in October?
I know Gray's interview tapes with MB are of course 'unavailable right now, but I have asked if Gray can at least verbally confirm that August date..
And any other letters faxes etc that show exactly what was being said when, by whom might help piece this story together more completely - and cvouild even help find some real answers - hence my request to Paul and Keith.
After all, Gray's testimony about the August date, if true, would put it beyond all question that MB had indeed used the Sphere book in the process of forging the diary.
And one question - has anyone approached MB's solicitors to find out whwen the Sphere book was lodged with them? I've seen it mentioned a few times, but don't seem to recall any definite statement.
Apologies for stating old points again, but I think sometimes that facts can get a little blurred with all the theorising.
Karoline |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 01:50 pm | | Karoline,
You wrote:
But let me get this straight Caroline...
I wish you would at least try to get things straight.
And while you're doing that, perhaps you could also try responding to what people are actually writing and asking you, instead of misinterpreting the reasons why they are doing it, and what they are thinking, putting yourself at serious risk of getting it badly wrong. (See the Professional Standards board for a fuller reply.) |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 02:17 pm | | Hi Karoline,
I posted before seeing your latest list. I also posted a similar list on Jack's Watch board on October 30th, 2000.
1. Early 1994:, MB hires a private detective named Alan Gray to look for his estranged wife and child, Gray works for Barrett on and off for several months.
According to Melvin, Gray was hired to look for Anne on August 14 1994.
12 October 1994 Keith Skinner noted on this day that Barrett claimed to own the Sphere book (and to have used it in the forgery?) and said he intended to lodge it with his solicitor.
I don't know that Mike was claiming to Shirley or Keith at that time that he used it in the forgery. It seems a bit daft if he'd just told Shirley how clever he was to find the quote in the library.
Indeed he [Mike] claimed to have lodged it with his solicitor at the time of his separation from AG.
And if Gray's story is true, then the stuff MB was selling Harrison was pure lies.
Equally, Mike could have been telling Gray lies and telling Shirley the truth, or lying to both of them.
After all, Gray's testimony about the August date, if true, would put it beyond all question that MB had indeed used the Sphere book in the process of forging the diary.
And one question - has anyone approached MB's solicitors to find out whwen the Sphere book was lodged with them?
Yes, Shirley has, but I assume the solicitor has not been able to confirm a date - at least not yet. But Gray's testimony surely will also need to be backed up by a firm date from the solicitor himself - or something to confirm that Mike definitely knew about the source for the Crashaw lines before September 30th 1994, when he claimed to have discovered them at the library.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 04:12 pm | | Hi again Karoline,
You do realize, don't you, that your chronology begins in "Early 1994" and that Mike first took the finished and complete diary to Doreen's in the spring of 1992.
So, is there a way that any of the answers to these questions you ask above can provide us with any reliable, physical or material evidence whatsoever that would indicate whether Mike did or did not know the Crashaw quote was in the Sphere volume prior to Spring of 1992, which was when the line would have had to have been placed in the diary?
I don't see how, but perhaps I am missing something here. Even if Mike was lying to everyone here about everything at every turn, we still could not deduce from this, with any soundness whatsoever, that therefore he knew the Crashaw line before 1992 and had seen it in the Sphere volume before 1992, could we?
How, then, does this lead us to any reliable conclusion concerning specifically Mike's own likely use or non-use of the volume in the actual creation of the diary, at the very least more than two years earlier?
The only thing Mike told Gray, according to your own chronology, is that "he claimed to have lodged it with his solicitor at the time of his separation from AG."
And when was Mike's separation with Anne? Not before the spring of 1992, I can tell you that. No, it was January, 1994. So, even by his own account, he had not lodged the book with the solicitor before the diary was already finished and or received and taken to Doreen's. He had lodged it (assuming he is even telling Gray the truth) almost two years later. So his lodging it with his solicitor in 1994, because he at some point saw the Crashaw quote there no doubt, even if it did take place as early as January, would in no way clearly indicate that Mike saw the quote there well before 1992, only that he saw it there sometime before his split with Anne in 1994, right? And wasn't this when all those horrible phone calls from Mike to many parties concerned began?
And yet you actually have the temerity to write, in such an impossibly inappropriate rhetoric of finality and absoluteness:
"After all, Gray's testimony about the August date, if true, would put it beyond all question that MB had indeed used the Sphere book in the process of forging the diary."
What!? I must really be sick or just completely stupid today. Or maybe it's the drugs. How would Mike having told Gray in August of 1994 that he had lodged the book with his solicitors possibly "put it beyond all question that MB had indeed used the Sphere book in the process of forging the diary" at least two years earlier? By what possible alternative-logic on what alternative planet does Mike's having admitted in 1994 that he lodged a book with his solicitor at the time of his break-up with Anne indicate "beyond all doubt" that he must have also known there was a useful and incriminating line in the book before 1992? How does this even begin to exclude a whole host of possibilities concerning things which might very well have happened between the time Mike first saw the diary (whenever that was, at least before spring of '92) and at least almost two years later in '94, any one of which would have, at the time of his break-up with Anne and his growing concern about the fate of the diary, convinced him that since the book held the line from the diary, it was therefore important and should be lodged with his solicitors now that this less than amicable split was occurring? And if this indeed was reliable and irrefutable evidence that Mike knew the quote was there because he forged the diary (which it logically and patently is not), why then would he not have produced the book and the quote on the weekend of June 25th, 1994 -- six months after his split with Anne and the alleged lodging of the book, when he desperately sought to convince everyone, in the newspapers, that he had in fact written this forgery and now had to confess because, after all, he "only had days to live?"
This was two months before meeting Gray, Mike allegedly had the book safely tucked away for six months now, Mike wanted the newspapers to believe that he faked the diary, his reputation was on the line, he had (according to you) already lodged the book with a solicitor, so he knew the quote was there by then, why doesn't he just produce it for the paper or for anyone or even mention it at any time during any confession until after August of 1994? No, I'm afraid that all this actually and logically tells us, even if it is true, is that Mike was lying when he claimed to find the quote in the Liverpool library. And hey, didn't I already suggest that very possibility myself in a post to RJ? Let's see.
Oh yes, I once wrote this:
"Without at least knowing the author, the library search would have been all but impossible, it seems to me, since all you would have to go on would be the "O" figure, which commonly appears in the poetry of the time and which was a particular favorite of Crashaw’s, and the phrase "intercourse of death" which suggests a metaphysical conceit but is not strictly one; but Mike could not have known either of these things in advance and even if he did, there is too much poetry and too many poets from the period to make finding the quote this way very believable."
You see, I was perfectly happy to assume the library-research story was probably another of Mike’s lies told to impress the experts by demonstrating his formidable research skills. I do believe it is still probable (though only mathematically so, the available number of volumes being less) that Mike found the quote in the Sphere volume he owned. But we still cannot, of course, say when this might have happened. (No real evidence of this "when," you know...) So even if your own suspicious reading of the above "anomalies" were proven to be true (and it hasn't been yet, of course, not by any stretch) even it were true, all we can claim is that Mike was lying about the library research. That Mike was lying. That would be all we could rightly claim. That Mike was lying. This would indeed be earth shattering news!
And now you are seriously suggesting that one of Mike's lies would also be proof "beyond all doubt" that he personally knew of this quote before 1992 and that he personally put it in the diary that he personally forged? This conclusion is what you actually believe follows from the offered (though still unestablished, but I'm willing to assume it to be true for now) premise that Mike was lying about his library discovery? This lie proves "beyond all doubt" Mike's complicity in the actual research and writing of the diary? This is simply bizarre. And still we have no real, reliable material evidence of "when" Mike might have first seen this quote.
I'm sorry, but nothing you suggest above about the anomalies and Mike's stories even helps us determine this "when" or in any way that I can see might lead us to any real, reliable, physical and material evidence that would allow us to properly and logically determine precisely when Mike first saw this quote, before 1992 or after 1992 but before 1994 (during which time, by the way, he was allegedly looking everywhere for stuff diary-related).
And yet you actually claim that his telling Gray in August of 1994 that he lodged the book with a solicitor "would put it beyond all question that MB had indeed used the Sphere book in the process of forging the diary."
No wonder you think I have been constructing "syllogistic mazes," if this is how you think logic works, if this is what you really believe or think establishes a sound and valid conclusion "beyond all question."
You are right about one thing. We clearly do see the world differently and we clearly do think differently about the value of careful conclusions and about the unsoundness and illegitimacy and simply doubtful wisdom of making criminal accusations of the "beyond all question" sort without the proper reliable physical or material or testimonial evidence, and about the responsibility of readers, and about the careful use of evidence, and about what legitimately can be said to follow precisely from what.
But perhaps I am again missing the point. Please explain to me clearly and precisely how Mike's having told Gray in August of 1994 that he lodged a book with his solicitors at the time of his break-up with Anne proves "beyond all question" that Mike forged the diary. Especially considering he has been unable to give any other reliable or verifiable details concerning how he might have actually done this, even at a time when he most wanted to convince us all that he did. (Or do you also believe that, as he tells it, he dictated it from the wp screen as Anne wrote it out and little Caroline watched?)
How does Mike's tale to Gray, even assuming the highly doubtful conclusion that it was true, prove "beyond all doubt" that Mike forged this book?
Take pity on me and spell this out for me in a patient and deliberate and elementary fashion, and I promise not to be insulted if you don't skip over any of the logical and valid steps in this argument that you think allow you to arrive at this conclusion.
Oh yes, real, reliable physical and material evidence in support of these steps would be nice, too. But perhaps this is asking too much. No, I take it back. Forget the actual evidence. Just give me the argument itself so I can see this curious logic at work. I'm sure it will prove both interesting and entertaining.
Thanks, as ever,
--John
"Yes, I am a forger. The greatest in history."
--Mike Barret
"But he was unable to explain how he managed to write a book which fooled experts or answer basic questions about how he found the old paper of the diary or the old ink."
-- Harold Brough
And, when he was trying to convince me that he forged this diary, that he was "the greatest forger of all time," he did not bother to show me a book which he owned and which he knew he had taken a line out of and written into this diary, a book which would have gone a long way towards convincing me and everyone that he was telling the truth about being the great forger. No, he left this book sitting safely away, he kept his knowledge of this line to himself, even though it could have made his case for him and he knew exactly where the book was.
--Me |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 06:30 pm | | As an admirer of some of Crashaw's work (esp the St Teresa) and, unusually for an Anglo-Saxon, one who enjoys baroque art (including Milton's) I must take the very STRONGEST UMBRAGE at Professor Olmor's outageous concealed implication that Crashaw was a nut!
And not even a real not at that: a curly bit of nutrition poised at the end of a fruit!
Withdraw, sir, withdraw, or it's pistols at dawn!
Martin 'reactionary tastes' Fido |
Author: Mark List
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 06:50 pm | | John,
If Mike Barret is the "Greatest Forger" then he is the "worst fibber."
I won't pretend to know or understand the seedy back alley truths or untruths that surround the Diary.
(Though I must admit I thought for a while that it was real.)
But, now that MB has so loving dug himself a grave of deceitful statements, how can we honestly come close to the truth of it origins?
It is impossible, and quite sad, and I wish I had better knowledge about what has been happening with the diary.
That way I could actually add something meaningful to the conversation.
Mark |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 07:09 pm | | Thanks Martin,
D'Oh!
Damn MS Word spell-check "replace" button got me again. I guess "Cashew" was the closest alternative and I hit the mouse too quickly.
Glad to see you were reading closely. I'll go back and change it now.
By the way, he probably was a nut.
--John
PS: I'm still waiting for that one single, solitary piece of real and reliable material evidence that Mike Barrett ever met Gerard Kane or knew Gerard Kane or even knew of Gerard Kane?
Anyone at all. Step right up. Don't be shy. Everyone's a winner. C'mon gents, impress the ladies. Ladies, show up your man. C'mon now. It only takes one to win. Just one. You can do it. Step right up and win the big prize...
Anyone?
Anyone at all?
Please?
<Sigh>, it's lonely here on the midway. |
Author: Scott Nelson
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 08:20 pm | | Chris,
You're now suggesting the possibility that there may have been an earlier version of the diary copied into the current one? That's what I suggested a month or so ago. It would have been advantageous to compare the text of the diary to the version on MB's WP, which apparently no longer exists. Maybe the story of it being in AG's family is true (earlier diary) as well as the case for a post 1987 forgery (the one in R. Smith's possession). Pardon the intrusion folks |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 08:40 pm | | Perfectly sensible, Scott. I've been saying ever since Maybrick's handwriting seemed to be convincingly shown to differ completely from the diary's, that the best - indeed, perhaps the only - hope for those who still think it genuine must be to postulate that somebody copied the Maybrick original into the album/scrapbook.
But nobody listens!
Martin F |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 08:45 pm | | Shirley - I was sure I remembered your posting Mike's notes, and recalled taking a quick look at them and hurrying away rather than face the work of going through them.
But now that there's so much serious and interesting investigation of the possible genesis of the diary and the possible proof/disproof/unprovability of Mike's or Anne's involvement, I tried to have another look at them.
And couldn't find them anywhere. I started fearing that I was imagining things again, or suffering the appalling realistic dreams about research which can seriously distort my thinking about what I've seen or read.
Where has Spryder put them? I couldn't detect a clue in the new format guides around the web.
All the best
Martin |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 08:46 pm | | Paul - How can you downgrade the mighty 'Bonesy'? Det Sgt Thomas, not DC!
Martin |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 09:34 pm | | Hi Martin,
I couldn't find them either. If anyone knows where they might be located on the Casebook, I'd be grateful for directions.
Hi Scott,
One problem with the "copied from one book into another" theory, aside from the textual and structural indications that seem, to me at least, to indicate the narrative movements of an artificially well-made and more recent document, is the layout of certain entries in the album which seems to indicate that the composition of these entries was done perhaps with the specific page size of the album in mind (the last page, for instance, there are several others). Now of course, there could have been an original and then the text might have even been rewritten or otherwise altered to suit the size of the new book, but there would be no way to tell this and there is, of course, no evidence whatsoever yet that such a rewriting took place. For a more detailed look at the places where the layout of this album's text seems to recognize its own page size, see two posts that Chris and I sent to each other yesterday, the first one archived above, a page by page reading of the diary layout, sent by me and dated Monday, April 30, 2001 - 11:45 am and the one from Chris that follows it a few posts later.
I think Martin is probably right though, that this perhaps remains the last best hope (slim as it is) for those who would like the diary to have been around for more than a relatively brief time.
All the best,
--John |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 11:06 pm | | Caz--Hello. Keith wrote:
'Was RJ suggesting that Anne was hoping that
the book search firm would not still have any records that could have contradicted the documentation she herself had provided? Is this reasonable? Why go to all that trouble, if there was any risk involved at all?'
First, I'm confused. Did Anne only provide this information after Mike claimed he had documentation? Also, I wonder when the information was checked against that of the booksellers. Was it after Mike's Cloak & Dagger meeting in April 1999, or was it when Keith first looked into the red diary claims in 1995? If it wasn't until after Mike's appearance, might it not be reasonable to assume that the booksellers might not have records of a purchase made in March 1992, seven years previously? It seems like a long time. Certainly Anne's cooperation has convinced some that this was an innocent purchase on Mike's part.
My problem is that the 'research' scenerio just doesn't seem even slightly probable to me. John has spilled considerable cyber-ink on this, but really he hasn't budged me one centimeter. Mike may or may not have been compulsive, but I certainly don't see where his compulsion extended to research. Mike's research notes do not mention the red diary. And evidently Mike never mentioned the red diary prior to his confessions, even when he tried to impress people with the extent he researched the Maybrick diary. He never bragged about this expensive purchase. Mike evidently didn't even bother (in over a year of alleged research) to read major Ripper books or the Maybrick books. So, it just doesn't ring true to me that Mike would buy this diary for that purpose. Besides, diaries are not generic items. There are dozens and dozens of different types and models. Buying a random Victorian diary would in no way help you decide whether your diary (which was obviously a A SCRAP BOOK, no?) was "genuine" or not, would it?
P>S> Could Keith Skinner or Shirley Harrison confirm whether or not Mike Barrett had a copy of the Sphere History before 1992? Were the Sphere publishers ever contacted to see whether or not they gave away damaged books after the Hillsborough disaster?
I would like to say that I hope some amiable & constructive exchanges happen with Keith & Shirley's meeting with Peter Birchwood.
By the way, MIKE'S NOTES:
http://www.casebook.org/suspects/james_maybrick/mbnotes1.html
Cheers,
RJP |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 12:04 am | | RJP
Can't thank you enough for that link.
It's almost midnight, and I shouldn't at this hour and a couple of large whiskies down risk making any comments at all, but in the present state of argument on the boards, it was absolutely fascinating to read through them.
If these are really Mike's research notes, then both his spelling and his intelligence are FAR higher than anything I have ever seen in him. (This is not meant to cast weighty doubt on their being his, as obviously drink had a very deleterious effect on him by the time I met him. It should stand as it is: the Mike we all may know and meet could not possibly have written these. Only those who knew him at their apparent time of composition can say what he was like then, and whether he could have composed a document this length with 'effects' for 'affects' and 'were' for 'where' as his only spelling mstakes. I think the diary's writer wouold have produced a much higher rate of error).
The constant citation of Paul Harrison dates the notes to post 1991. Which also allows for their containing a good deal of information which first or most obviously appeared in my own book (that several people have proposed as a source for the diary).
General info for anyone looking at the notes who may not know what follows: Causeway Resources, whose label appears on every page, is Keith's company, and indicates that he supplied the copy which has been used. The notes in the margins of the first page are in Keith's handwriting. The note on page 15 is not. I don't know whose hand it is.
I am drawing no conclusions at present - (they wouldn't be worth anything if I tried to). But undoubtedly my first impression would have to be, if these notes are accepted as Mike's genuine original research pieces, created in or after 1991, I can see why Shirley would never have been swayed by constant suggestions that the obviously suspicious circumstances surrounding his story/stories could ever persuade her that he wrote the diary. The notes are by some one with a mind that could have forged a diary if that, rather than identifying a document, happened to be their bent. But also some one with a rather remarkably sophisticated mind if they are then supposed to be able to draft these as a brilliant camouflage. Candidly, I'd be surprised - (I put it no more strongly) - to learn that such skilful deception was within the range of either Mike or Anne. And equally candidly, it seems to me far beyond the range of the diary creator's ability. And I don't think there's anything in the notes to suggest that they are obviously a cunning camouflage. I do think they indicate a range of Ripper-related reading which is remarkably wide and careful, and which I should have expected must in itself rest on another series of hand-written notes from which the confidently stated facts are drawn. Somebody did a great deal of work before, not while, recording these notes.
Well, there were some possibly misguided musings of the after-midnight scholar. I don't recommend any of the disputants on the possible genesis of th diary to proceed further without looking at these notes, however.
And thank you again, RJP
Martin Fido |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 12:37 am | | | Martin-You're welcome. I've troubled over these notes since I've first read them. The reference to old (contemporary?) articles in the Echo and probate records, etc., and the details about Maybrick's family members seems (to one like me far outside the investigation, and relying so much on hearsay) a little too sophisticated for what I've been hearing about Mike Barrett's research. [Will the real Mike Barrett please stand up?] At the same time, these notes certainly don't appear to be a year's worth of research, and Mike claims to have had the diary as far back as March 1991. How do you reconcile this with Mike's claims to have read all those Ripper books, but was, evidently, unnaware of the key ones? It's a mystery. RJP |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 12:49 am | | | Martin--PS. Shirley wrote that Anne 'tidied up' these notes. By the way, thanks to Shirley Harrison & Stephen Ryder for originally posting these. RJP |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 05:08 am | | Caroline wrote:
I don't know that Mike was claiming to Shirley or Keith at that time that he used it in the forgery. It seems a bit daft if he'd just told Shirley how clever he was to find the quote in the library.
Exactly. It seems very bizarre. That's the point. Which is why we need to be so clear about what precisely has been recorded about these dates.
Can Keith post anything relevant he has to shed light on what was actually said on October 12?
Can he make it clear whether MB was at that stage claiming to have forged the diary and used the Sphere book therein or not?
What we have here is is Gray reporting that in August 1994 MB was talking about "a book" with "a poem" in it that he used in forging the diary, and which was (so MB claimed) lodged with his solicitors at the time of his separation from his wife.
Now, whether or not the details of MB's story are true - the mere fact that he is telling Gray in August about this "book" means he can't have found it for the first time in the library in September.
So either Gray is lying - or MB was simply pretending to go searching in September.
So now we have two separate pieces of data -
1.Gray's testimony that MB knew about the book in August
and
2. the fact that the Sphere quotation would have been virtually impossible to locate - unless you already knew it was there.
Both implying strongly that MB was well aware of the Sphere volume and its content before he claimed to have found it in the library.
Gray's story also offers an explanation for why MB didn't go public with the Sphere book too quickly - he was hoping to keep it back and sell an exclusive story to some newspaper.
This seems quite plausible doesn't it? And it begins to make the whole story of the Crashaw 'discovery' make a little more potential sense.
It seems surprising that we don't have any answer yet from the solicitors themselves about the precise date the book was lodged with them. What is causing the delay? Do they refuse to give the information? if not, then surely a single letter could sort the matter out - and could have done so back in 1994.
What is the problem here? maybe Shirley could explain?
Karoline |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 06:00 am | | Karoline
Your scenario regarding the Sphere book has been discussed quite a lot on these Boards. Basically, the idea that Mike knew the significance of the Sphere book does not sit easy with his initial confession to Harold Brough and his subsequent admissions of guilt. First of all, I know of no evidence suggesting that any of these confessions were governed by money. Mike confessed because he wanted to be believed. He thought that if he could get rid of the ‘diary’ that Anne would come back to him. Why, then, would he have held back what he recognised as being important evidence?
Despite claims that Mike lodged the Sphere book with his solicitor ‘long before’ the break with Anne and despite uncertainty about what ‘long before’ actually means, no evidence of the book being lodged with the solicitor has been provided by Alan Grey or anyone else. Alan Grey did say he was told about the book in early September and at that time confirmed with the solicitor that a book was lodged there. We don't know what that book was. I’d be grateful if you could point me to where Alan Grey spoke about this being in August.
We know that Mike took books thought to have included the Sphere book to his girlfriend’s son during the summer of 1994. It has been suggested that Mike could have found the Sphere quote at that time. If so, his prior knowledge of the quote would not extend beyond the summer of 1994.
An important question you need to address is why, if Mike had held back the Sphere book because he hoped to “sell an exclusive story to some newspaper”, particularly if he had held it back any appreciable time, did he then threw away this valuable piece of evidence by claiming he’d just found it at the library?
Here we have a man who appears by almost every action to have wanted desperately to be believed that he'd forged the 'diary', sitting on a piece of evidence that could prove or at least support his argument, who in the end throws it away because he wants to show off that he was a good researcher. It doesn't sound very plausible to me. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 06:09 am | | Hi Martin
That's a fascinating first reaction to reading Mike's research notes and I am grateful for it.
Although the notes say ‘my’ they are an ordered compilation of Mike’s notes but not necessarily typed up by him. Anne is said to have tidied them up – which I just note that RJP has said above. Anne, a professional copy typist and secretary, would presumably have better organisational and spelling skills than what is evidenced by Mike’s later writing.
But I met Mike a long time before the severe drinking set in following the publication of Shirley’s book, and I talked with him at length after the break with Anne, when he was often drunk, but by no means stupid. I think your only meeting was very briefly at the book launch. I don’t by any stretch of the imagination think that Mike was or is an unintelligent man or a man lacking perception. I don't think this was ever Shirley's view of him either, which is why she gave him the job of searching for the Cashew quote; in her view, Mike would have the sustained determination to look through book after book when searching for something.
The notes confirmed my early judgement that Mike’s actual knowledge about the Ripper crimes was minimal. I particularly noted the reference to George Cross. This is consistent with the Wilson and Odell book. Paul Harrison doesn’t index him. You call him Charles Cross.
Altpogether an interesting foirst impression that the notes look genuine, not dummied up. (Mind you, you had seen them before, I assume, because doesn't Keith carefully note at the top right on page one the date on which you were sent them?)
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 07:41 am | | Hi, Paul,
Given my state of mental fatigue, irritation and boredom with the whole accursed diary business, I don't imagine I read them when Keith sent them! It is only the calibre of argument showing up on this board and the 'Professional Course' one that is persuading me to look again at what's going on.
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 07:53 am | | Hi Martin
I do appreciate that. I intended no criticism! Your impression was valuable, I thought, and I am genuinely grateful for it.
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 07:56 am | | Dear All,
I have received a statemenet from Keith to post. I should stress that it is NOT a response to Karoline's request above. I received it yesterday and deferred posting until I had got Keith to confirm that he really did want it to go up, even though it includes Anne's stated preference for non-publicity. And I should say further that the 'you' holding the misapprehension referred to is me and me alone. It was a posting in which I ascribed the discovery of the cache of American Maybrick letters to Keith's Feldy-financed research which prompted the following:
From Keith Skinner
Permit me to correct a misapprehension I think you have concerning the discovery of the Maybrick correspondence in America. I would be most grateful if you could bring to the board's attention the historical fact that it was Anne Graham - and not myself - who spotted this useful source. By close and careful study of the Trevor Christie material which Feldy had generously phtocopied for Anne and Carol Emmas to catalogue, Anne identified an archive in Virginia which yielded these letters. I remember Anne bringing this to my attention and telling me that she did not wish to be credited with tracing this material, as people would merely say it demonstrated further proof of her culpability. Given how Peter Birchwood is plainly trying to undermine or destroy any redibility she may still retain, I think Anne's reservations were justified.
Keith Skinner |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 08:02 am | | Hi RJP
At the same time, these notes certainly don't appear to be a year's worth of research, and Mike claims to have had the diary as far back as March 1991. How do you reconcile this with Mike's claims to have read all those Ripper books, but was, evidently, unnaware of the key ones? It's a mystery. RJP
This has been my point for years and I am quoted in Paul Feldman’s book (h/back pg.130) saying it in July 1994, observing then that I thought Mike’s claims were an effort to acquire a claim to the ‘diary’ that was more than simple ownership. So back then, I reconciled the time gap with what I felt was Mike's paucity of research and knowledge by suggesting that Mike had done sufficient research to identify the supposed author as James Maybrick and exagerated this so that he could justify the claim that he was the person who had identified Jack the Ripper. I thought back in 1994 that he feared that others would claim the fame and most of the money for themselves. I am more inclined now to think that Mike feared that ownership would be denied him (perhaps by Devereux's family) and that he therefore claimed a lot of research so that he could argue that his investment of time gave him a claim to the profits.
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 08:17 am | | RJP,
Hi, thanks for the comment. Looking at it in the sober light of day I am impressed with the excellence of my textual critical training that enabled me to spot that the notes were not originals, but some sort of recension of earlier work. In the words of Swift, 'What a genius I had then!'
All the best,
Martin |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 08:28 am | | Hi RJ,
Please remember that all my cyber-ink on the diary purchase problem was not and is not designed to make you think that Mike bought it because he was doing research or because he wanted to compare a real diary to the suspicious one he was already holding or to think that he bought it to use in a criminal forgery even while ordering it with his own real name and home address.
All my cyber-ink on this topic was and is designed to carefully demonstrate that we do not have yet a single piece of real, reliable, evidence of any sort that would allow us to decide. Therefore, our only available responsible conclusion concerning Mike's motives here remains "We don't know." Anything else is just fantasy and personal preference designed to fit our already assumed conclusion concerning complicity, a conclusion which has no evidence behind it and therefore is largely worthless.
Here are both alternative behaviors:
A.) 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 B.) 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.
Again, since both alternative behaviors are somewhat unreasonable and illogical, we would need some material or physical or at the very least reliable evidence before we could possibly decide which one is more likely.
We do not have that evidence.
(Anyone want to offer such evidence yet?)
Consequently, our decision in this matter remains the product of our own whims and desires.
Your arguments above state only that it would seem unreasonable and illogical for Mike to buy the diary for the purpose of comparison.
Exactly! (I knew someone would eventually advance this argument, it was inevitable.) It's actually funny. Peter argued that his evidence in favor of choice A. is that people often do unreasonable and illogical things. Now you're arguing that the evidence against choice B. is that it is illogical and unreasonable. I swear, Mike is clearly doomed with this sort of logic. Mike most likely gave his real name and address while buying the diary because people, especially Mike, often do unreasonable and illogical things. Mike couldn't have bought the diary for comparison purposes because it would be illogical and unreasonable. But wait a minute! Didn't Peter just use the fact that Mike often does unreasonable and illogical things as his reason for choosing the criminal alternative. And now your using the fact that it seems unreasonable and illogical as the reason against choosing the non-criminal alternative!?
This is exactly what I mean by starting with a conclusion (Mike must have done it) and then fitting the evidence only and solely to that conclusion regardless of what it tells us logically, rather than examining it honestly and objectively to see what evidence is really available and what it allows us to decide.
Honestly, RJ, you and Peter now have Mike completely trapped, whether he is guilty or not. The fact that he does illogical things is used against him in one argument to prove complicity and yet the possibility that he was behaving innocently is dismissed because this behavior would be illogical and unreasonable! Christ, what chance has the man got? What chance would anyone have under such reading?
They accuse you of A. and you say, "But A. is not logical or reasonable behavior." and they tell you, "Yes, but you often behave illogically and unreasonably." You say, "But I did B." They say, "You couldn't have done B. It is illogical and unreasonable."
Welcome, my friends to the delightful world of Franz Kafka.
And Peter and RJ have become the arresting warders in The Trial who answer all questions with impossible but circular and inevitably dooming answers.
RJ, You claim that Mike's buying the diary for the purposes of comparison does not seem reasonable or logical. As I demonstrated when Peter made this argument originally, this is no doubt true and can be considered evidence of nothing whatsoever, since it would also be unreasonable and illogical for Mike to plan to use a diary in a felonious criminal act and then go out and order that diary giving his own name and real home address. Since both of these acts are unreasonable and illogical, telling me that one of them is unreasonable and illogical does no good whatsoever and is in no way evidence of which illogical and unreasonable act is more likely. Consequently, your own expressed concerns over why Mike would buy such a diary in no way allow you to decide why Mike bought a diary. They are not even relevant evidence, since they tell us only something that happens to be true abut both possibilities under consideration. Do you see?
That's all I've been trying to get you to recognize. Not that Mike doing research or wanting a book for comparison is necessarily any more likely than Mike giving his own name and address when knowingly buying a book for criminal purposes. Just that there is no reliable evidence whatsoever that is available that would allow us to fairly and responsibly decide which is more likely.
Unless we have already decided, before honestly and fairly examining the evidence and what it tells us, that Mike is likely to be guilty. Then we can conveniently read the evidence to support our conclusion no matter what it actually tells us or legitimately allows us to decide. Things get a lot easier this way. They also have no relationship whatsoever to an honest investigation or a fair and responsible reading of the evidence.
Hope that helps clarify my own intention and desire,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 08:50 am | | Hi RJ,
I apologise for having misled you slightly in my post containing information from Keith. I added a couple of my own observations and questions to the second paragraph, regarding the maroon diary. The observation in parentheses was mine, as were all those from So I'm not sure… onwards. So the questions to which you refer were mine, not Keith’s. Again, I’m sorry for not making this clearer. So let’s look at the questions again:
Was RJ suggesting that Anne was hoping that
the book search firm would not still have any records that could have contradicted the documentation she herself had provided? Is this reasonable? Why go to all that trouble, if there was any risk involved at all?
I am trying to check this all through again with Keith (I’ve left a message on his machine). But in the meantime, when Anne was first asked about the maroon diary, in 1995, she did admit to having it in her possession, and offered to help trace its purchase. In the same year, she handed over the maroon diary itself for inspection, and supplied Keith with the relevant cheque book and bank statement. She also said – again, in 1995 - that she was going to see if her bank could identify the payee of the cheque in question. We know this is precisely what she did do, but I’m trying to find out from Keith if he knows when she did it, when she obtained the photocopy of the cheque, with the name of the payee, and when she handed this over, allowing the book company to be traced and questioned. If this was all in 1995, Anne would have known that her information could be checked then, even if no one did so until much later, when the records had a greater chance of no longer existing. So it’s not when the book company was finally approached that is important here, it’s when Anne handed over the information allowing them to be approached. But, surely it also needs to be shown that Anne was deliberately delaying the moment when she finally produced the name of the payee on that cheque. We know that Keith had this information by April 1999, because he brought the photocopy of the cheque along to the C&D meeting. And I, for one, have never said that I am convinced…that this was an innocent purchase on Mike's part. I just don’t know enough yet to be convinced of anything. It’s still a green brick. (Though I must say it’s looking less and less ‘probable’ to me, judging from all the circumstances, that Mike’s order was connected with a remotely serious attempt to find a suitable vehicle in which a fraudulent diary of James Maybrick as JtR was going to be written. Sorry, it’s only my opinion, but not an entirely uninformed one, along the lines of believing that Elvis is alive and sitting in my bathroom when I’m getting a wee bit desperate to use it myself. )
Perhaps it was seeing this very SCRAP BOOK, which didn’t look anything like Mike’s idea of a diary, containing what were evidently diary entries, although undated, that confused Mike, and made him wonder what a ‘real’ Victorian diary should look like? I don’t know - it’s just more speculation fuel to add to the pot. I don’t know precisely when Mike first mentioned the maroon diary, so I can’t even begin to wonder what stopped him from mentioning it any earlier, or what prompted him to mention it in the first place.
I second your questions regarding confirmation that Mike did indeed possess his own copy of the Sphere vol.2 before April 1992. We do have Mike’s girlfriend in 1994 confirming that he did bring some books round during the summer, in case her son might find them useful. But it’s a bit like Gray’s testimony that Mike told him, at some point in September 1994, that a book was lodged with his solicitor at some unconfirmed point. We really do need to know which books were with Mike’s girlfriend on September 30th 1994, and which book was with Mike’s solicitor on that date, and when the Sphere vol.2 was first put into the latter’s hands. Only then can we speculate on which of Mike’s stories comes closest to the truth, even though none of it will help us decide whether Mike knew about the Crashaw quote before April 1992, when he brought the diary to London. I have just noticed that Karoline has made the following observation:
It seems surprising that we don't have any answer yet from the solicitors themselves about the precise date the book was lodged with them. What is causing the delay? Do they refuse to give the information? if not, then surely a single letter could sort the matter out - and could have done so back in 1994.
Karoline is right to be confused by all this. But I think I read (was it in one of Paul’s posts?) that the solicitor said he would come back to Shirley if his records revealed the information she was looking for. In 1994, when all this was happening, I don’t know if it occurred to Shirley how important it might be to ask the question. But, if Mike told Gray about the quote and/or source, as early as the beginning of September 1994, surely Gray himself would have checked the name of the book and date of lodgement, when ascertaining for himself that a book was indeed with the solicitor. Or else he could have asked the question when the Sphere book was handed over in the December. Unfortunately for us now, there is nothing to confirm that Gray, or Melvin, when he became involved, thought it any more important than Shirley did, to establish which books were lodged, and when. So perhaps we should be asking Gray and Melvin to explain, as well as Shirley, why this was not done back in 1994.
Like you, RJ, I do hope that some amiable and constructive exchanges happen when the guys all meet up. But aren’t you even just the teeniest bit curious to know Peter’s and Karoline’s thoughts about Melvin’s part in all this, given that neither have made any comment or public contribution to the attempts to get Melvin to help put us all out of our combined misery? I am incredibly curious, not only about Peter’s and Karoline’s silence, but now yours as well. Just curious, that's all.
Keith has just called me on his mobile, and has confirmed that he is 98% certain that the photocopy of the cheque, with the name of the payee, was obtained by Anne and given to him in 1995, at which point the book company could have been traced and approached. Keith kept all the documentation in case anyone decided to do so later, which of course they eventually did. He also made a very relevant point, which I had missed. The actual cheque was most likely destroyed long before 1999. So it was fortunate that Anne was able to obtain a copy before this happened, and may now indicate, even to the most cynical, that her co-operation was genuine. Though I guess the argument may now be that Anne didn’t know that, if only she waited a while longer, the cheque, and the trail leading to the book company, might be lost forever.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 09:32 am | | Re. Mike Barretts' notes.
I am looking at these notes as I'm writing this - and I agree with RJ and with Martin Fido - there is something a little odd here.
They are so tidy. So neat. They are typed and yet they are disparate jottings. One makes jottings with the pen - as one is reading an MS, say - because it's easier that way, if one then later types them up one would consciously pull the stuff together and lose the brevity of the note-taking style.
I feel as if the retention of that staccato tone is a little theatrical - artficially maintained in order to give an air of immediacy. A self conscious display of 'note-taking' for public consumption. They look as if they have been produced by someone so they could say - "look we've even got our research notes!"
The stuff isn't particularly incisive or clever. Just terribly tidy and neat, well spelled, orthodox. Middle class. Not the occasionally inspired but unstable and gaff-ridden mix you would expect to get from MB, self-educated Liverpool/rishman.
It looks kind of phoney - but it doesn't quite look "MB phoney" and it isn't quite "diary-phoney" if you see what I mean.
Is it "AG"? I believe she worked as a secretary so might have had more chance of acquiring this habit of careful tidy-mindedness?
I emphasise this is a purely subjective personal view.
And has anyone notice how the writer seems to carefully avoid consulting any of the books that were most obviously used as sources for the forgery?
We have relatively obscure stuff by Paul Harrison - and very obscure stuff about Elizabeth Stride's grave number - but no mention of the basic reference books on the ripper and Maybrick you would expect to have been consulted.
The writer gets details of Maybrick's life from "The Liverpool Echo" - but not from Ryan?
Surely the first thing any researcher does is go to the basic biographies? So why are they so conspicuously not mentioned?
It's almost like a deliberately constructed trail leading away from the diary's real sources.
"Where was Cotton exchange"? it says and notes the address of the new one built in 1917.
I'm wondering how obscure was the location of the old exchange? I was born in Liverpool but I don't know where it was - yet I only lived there until I was seven years old. Would a man like MB who had lived here all his life be expected to know the old exchange or not? Chris, is it any kind of landmark - like the Royal Exchange in Manchester that is now a theater?
"Check for copy of 'Punch' around Sept 1888" it says. Is this a reference to that cartoon that was reproduced on the cover of a modern book about the Maybrick case? (was it Ryan again?)
Again it feels like a deliberate blind leading us away from the modern books that were the diary's real source - towards the old Punch mag
There's more but I'll save it.
I'm wondering how much exact knowledge we have about when these notes were made? Do we have dates, contemporary refs anywhere - that sort of thing?
Karoline |
|
|
|
|
