|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 04, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-Archives 2001:
Archive through May 04, 2001
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 09:41 am |        | Another point I would make is that Karoline appears at least to be agreeing with me, and Keith, that the precise date of lodgement of The Sphere book is important to establish. Only a relatively short while ago, Peter, and others, were telling us that it was entirely irrelevant, when I asked why Melvin couldn't produce a firm date. Yet it has suddenly become very relevant for Karoline, and Shirley is now the one being asked to explain, even though she has at least made some effort to help!
(For anyone seriously interested in the timing of all these events, or in convincing the readership of that interest, it really would be a good idea to check back to what was being posted on that very subject, around October/November 2000 on the Jack's Watch board, before trying to compile a list which doesn't even accord with what Melvin was telling us back then! Just an observation, which could save time, trouble and face in the long run.)
One question, regarding the suspicion surrounding the maroon diary:
A short while ago, I observed that it was a tall order to believe that the Diary itself had not even been written when Mike first called Doreen in March 1992. I can't remember exactly, but I seem to recall that someone (possibly RJ?) replied that no one was suggesting this, and that the suggestion was in fact that the Diary was already written into the scrapbook, but that Mike made a failed attempt to improve on it, in the shape of the maroon diary. But it does appear that my original 'tall order' is exactly what has been suggested since, by others.
Is it possible to clarify again just what RJ, Peter, Karoline (and anyone else), individually think about Mike's intention, when ordering the maroon diary? In other words, was it to write out the Diary for the first time, or to improve upon the prototype already in his possession?
Thanks.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 10:19 am | | Karoline,
Do not fear. I remember your promise to me that you would not discuss these issues further with me. So instead of waiting for you to spell out the logic that leads you to your bizarre conclusion that "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;" I thought I'd try and spell it out myself, to test it and see if it makes any possible sense.
You claim: If Mike was telling Gray the truth, and Mike lodged the Sphere book with his solicitor sometime in January, 1994 (your exact phrase was: "at the time of his separation from AG"), then Mike knew the quote was in the book in January of 1994 and therefore Mike must, beyond all question or doubt, have known the quote was in the book and forged the diary before spring 1992.
Now let's break down this little argument:
Premise: If Mike was telling Gray the truth, and Mike lodged the Sphere book with his solicitor sometime near the end of January 1994,
Premise: then Mike knew the quote was in the book in January of 1994
Conclusion: and therefore Mike must, beyond all question, have known this and forged the diary before spring 1992.
The "therefore" in this sentence is laughable.
The "must" and the "beyond all question" in this sentence are irresponsible.
Mike and Anne split in January, 1994.
Mike claims he lodged his Sphere book therefore in January, 1994.
Mike must have known, therefore, the quote was in the diary and in the Sphere book in 1994.
We're good so far.
Mike either wrote or received the diary sometime before Spring, 1992.
Now, your conclusion is:
 If Mike knew the quote was in the Sphere book in January 1994, then it becomes "beyond all question" that Mike must have also known the quote was in the Sphere book early in 1992 and must have used it to create this forgery?
Does this sentence seem logically valid or even necessarily true to anyone here at all? Do these two "musts" make any real sense to anyone here at all?
All this actually tells us is what Mike apparently knew in January of 1994, and he had allegedly spent the past two years researching all things diary-related and he had a copy of the Sphere book himself that allegedly opened to the page with the quote.
From these facts, can we conclude that Mike first saw the quote in the Sphere volume before spring 1992 or after spring 1992?
Neither. Only that he saw it before January, 1994. (And, of course, that he lied about the library discovery, which would be no great shock to anyone, I trust.)
From these facts (Mike knew the quote was in the Sphere volume in 1994), can we conclude, as Karoline apparently thinks, that Mike must necessarily have seen it before 1992. That this is the only possibility. That this is "beyond all question?" And that Mike must have been the forger? That this is "beyond all question" now?
Of course not. All we can tell is that he saw it there before January 1994 (again, this is all assuming he is telling Gray the truth).
That tells us nothing at all about whether he saw it the year before he took the diary to Doreen's or the month before he took the diary to Doreen's or the month after he took it to Doreen's or the month after that or the month after that or the month after that or any of the next fifteen or sixteen months.
Add to this the juicy little detail that in June of 1994, six months after Mike claims he lodged the book with his solicitors because he knew it was so important to the forgery process, he did not mention it or produce it when he was trying to describe, in a newspaper of record, with his own reputation at stake, how he forged the diary. And then, only two months after that, he is allegedly telling Gray about this same book he did not mention two months earlier when he needed it to be believed?
BUT, Karoline has somehow now decided that this proves "beyond all question" that Mike could only have seen the quote before the Spring of 1992 AND this proves "beyond all question" that Mike forged the diary.
Karoline is claiming this is now proven "beyond all doubt" if Mike lodged the Sphere book with his solicitor in January 1994, two years after the diary was finished.
Beyond all question, she says.
Nothing else remains possible, she implies.
Mike discovering the quote sometime between spring of '92 and January of '94 is not possible. Mike seeing the quote in the Sphere volume at some time between spring of '92 and January of '94, when he was looking around for all things diary-related, is not possible.
Mike seeing the quote after having received and having delivered the Diary to Doreen's and thereafter lodging the book when he was in the midst of a violent and ugly break up with Anne is not possible.
And yet, Karoline offers us not a single piece of real, reliable, material evidence that Mike Barret saw this quote before spring of 1992.
But she claims that if he knew about it in January of 1994, he must, "beyond all question" have known about it before spring of 1992.
I'm afraid this is simply, patently, and demonstrably false. And the carelessness of the logic here is frightening to say the least
The fact that Mike knew the quote was in the Sphere volume in January 1994 would not mean that he must beyond all doubt have known the quote was in the Sphere volume before the Spring of 1992 and that he "therefore" must have forged the diary.
It simply would not.
Consequently, Karoline's original assertion:
"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."
Is simply and demonstrably false.
Any questions?
--John
PS: Remember too that this entire post of mine was written assuming that Mike was telling Gray the truth and lying to others at the same time. And what are the chances that any particular story of Mike's in 1994 about this diary is in any way reliable or true? Mike's own confession to Brough in June of '94 (six months after he claims he lodged the book and knew the quote) certainly seems to suggest that he didn't have the quote available at that time, or that he witheld it for some completely unknown reason. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 10:48 am | | Hi Karoline,
You wrote:
Is it "AG"? I believe she worked as a secretary so might have had more chance of acquiring this habit of careful tidy-mindedness?
Well, I am amazed that you don’t appear to already know that the sheets of notes were claimed, by Anne, to have been tidied and typed up by her, from Mike's own handwritten ones, and that they were handed over to Shirley (in the summer of 1992), purporting to be an accurate reproduction of Mike’s own notes, and representation of Mike’s own work on the Diary.
But the above would appear to be at least reasonably consistent with some of your own subjective observations:
No loss of ‘brevity of the note-taking style’?
Anne would not be attempting to pull Mike’s stuff together and lose any brevity, if she were simply tidying up and typing the notes she had in front of her, as she herself claimed.
Do you still feel that ‘the retention of that staccato tone is a little theatrical’, when you consider Anne’s claim to have been simply tidying up and typing the notes she had in front of her?
‘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.’
Do you mean specifically the content of Mike’s notes here, or the way they appear to have been tidied up and typed by Anne, and presented to Shirley?
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 03:52 pm | | Karoline, you wrote: "And has anyone noticed how the writer seems to carefully avoid consulting any of the books that were most obviously used as
sources for the forgery?"
Yes, I more or less agree, and have made this point myself. According to the story, Mike at this point had the diary for around a year. It seems like it would be a 'no-brainer' to look for some of the information he is searching for in easy-to-obtain books on JtR and the Maybrick case. The Punch cartoon, for instance, appears in one of the most readily available Ripper books in libraries: Tom Cullen's When London Walked in Terror. Mike asks for the location of the Knowsley Buildings in his notes. This was on Tithebarne Street, the same location [Silk House Court] where Anne worked in the 1980s. Indeed, according to Feldy, it was Mike in one of his late night rambling phone calls that first pointed this out, and made Feldy look in this direction and check to see if there was a connection between Anne & the diary at the site of Maybrick's old building. [The address was coincidental, the building was razed in the 1960s]. It makes me wonder why Mike made this connection and offered it to Feldman during the same time he was claiming to have forged the diary. Like I've said, it seems to me like Mike likes to send people false leads.
Caz--Yes, quite a long time ago I speculated whether or not Mike might have made the purchase of the red diary to use in place of the existing album as something 'more authentic' looking. The purchase of the red diary could have pre-dated the creation of the Maybrick diary...I personally don't see anything in the forensic evidence that would make this impossible. I do admit that the purchase was made so close to the meeting with Doreen Montgomery that it makes it look like Mike would have been putting himself under a very tight time restraint.
You asked my opinion. Here it is: I still don't think it is particularly useful to know when Mike lodged the book with his solicitor. But perhaps I'm missing someone's point. To my way of thinking, I want to know when the Sphere book was first in the Barrett household. Was this before the diary was brought to London?
Cheers, RJP |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 04:56 pm | | Hi RJ and Karoline,
Just a short question:
RJ, you cite and more or less agree with Karoline's observation:
"And has anyone noticed how the writer seems to carefully avoid consulting any of the books that were most obviously used as sources for the forgery?"
Please tell me. What's the difference between someone not using certain books in his research and someone "carefully avoiding" certain books in his research?
How would this difference be determined?
This seems like a completely unevidenced and unwarranted assumption of intent. How can you make such an assumption? On what grounds?
"It's not that Mike simply didn't use these books in his research, you see, it's that he 'carefully avoided’ them!" Oooooh. I see. Pause. Exasperated explosion: How on earth could you possibly know this?!!
Look.
The books you think "were most obviously used as sources for the forgery" do not appear in Mike’s notes.
You and Karoline naturally assume this means that Mike was therefore "carefully avoiding" them?
Man, talk about spinning in favor of an already assumed conclusion.
The possibility that Mike simply did not use these books is too easy, too obvious and most importantly, would not imply guilt. No, no, he had to be "carefully avoiding them." He must have been. This is the only way we can use the absence of these books as evidence against him.
How could anyone possibly determine this from the absence of these books? That's not reading evidence at all, that's seeing every possible scenario and always and in every case positing the most suspicious explanation.
Karoline and RJ - Please try now and give me a very honest answer.
Honestly,
If you had read Mike's notes, and you had found that almost all the information in Mike's notes came from those same books, the very sources most likely used to forge the diary, wouldn't you now both be pointing out to us all how suspicious that looks? "Look! Mike's notes are informed by the very same sources that were used to write the diary! This is very incriminating! See, it's just as we suspected, Mike is likely to be the forger."
Now, the books most likely to be used in the forgery turn out not to be featured in Mike’s notes.
So, of course you say, "You see, the absence of these books is very suspicious! Mike must be "avoiding" these books! It's just as we suspected! Mike is likely to be the forger!"
Either way, man, Mike is done for. The books are there -- he must have used them to forge the thing. The books aren't there -- he must be avoiding them -- he must have used them to forge the thing.
Does everyone see the problem here?
The only way these two readings can be both be offered legitimately is if you already know that Mike forged the thing, which, strangely enough, is the very thing you are trying to determine!
Does everyone out there see what is beginning to happen here?
They say, "Mike must have bought the diary to use in a criminal act. He might have given his name and address, but he often does unreasonable things. Mike couldn't have bought the diary to compare to the one he acquired. Mike wouldn't do that. That would be unreasonable."
They say "The books that were used in forging the diary do not appear in Mike's notes. Mike must be carefully avoiding them. This is highly suspicious and is further evidence that he's the forger."
Had these same books been there, I really am willing to bet they would have said, "The books that were used to forge the diary are the same ones that appear in Mike’s notes! This is highly suspicious and is further evidence that he's the forger."
(What, I wonder would the notes have had to look like such that they were not highly suspicious? I don't know, maybe if they just "mentioned" the books used in the forgery but didn't actually use them, then maybe that would have been ok and we wouldn't have been suspicious, but then, see, that would have probably just been a deliberate strategy to get us not to be suspicious, so we mustn't fall for that old trick, no, but maybe if... This really is getting ridiculous.)
Does anyone out there still believe that people are not already assuming conclusions before they interpret the evidence (and now apparently the lack of evidence as well)?
I really do hope I never fall under this sort of Kafkaesque suspicion. There would be no escaping it, that's for sure.
In fact, the only thing that the absence of these two books in Mike’s notes honestly and legitimately indicates is that these two books were not used in Mike's notes. Anything beyond that is creative interpretation and unwarranted suspicion with no evidence behind it and it reveals more about the desires of the particular reader and interpreter than it does about Mike or the notes. Whatever happened to objectivity, anyway?
Please, RJ and Karoline, forget for a moment your assumptions that Mike is likely to be guilty and look at the evidence as if you didn’t already know, and you’ll see that not everything implies guilt. Some things simply do not allow us to decide in favor of or against guilt. The absence of books is one of those things. It's just not real or reliable evidence of anything and simply cannot be considered suspicious unless you really are simply determined to read every possible fact as suspicious and therefore a sign of likely guilt.
I really think that certain patterns of reading demonstrated here are becoming completely unfair.
Just thought I'd mention that,
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 02:22 am | | Hi John
The three stages of historical research: (1) gather the data, (2) an orderly and controlled assessent of it, (3) interpret what it tells us. Rather than (1) assume the most probable solution, (2) gather the data, (3) make the data fit the solution.  |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 02:39 am | | Hi RJP
A pertinent question, in my view, and one which those of us who have met Mike are probably in the best position to answer, is whether or not Mike has at any time exhibited the sort of knowldge and/or appreciation of the Ripper or Maybrick case that any significant reading would have given him.
If his personal knowledge was greater than one might expect from a reading of two books, then one might suppose that his research was more extensive than the notes indicate. If his knowledge was not greater than one might expect, then one might conclude that the notes accurately reflect his reading.
This was a point I made in that letter written back in 1994 and published in Feldy's book. Now, in the evidence as you have it, does Mike come across through the testimony he has given and as has been recorded as someone possessing the depth of knowledge of the Ripper or the Maybrick cases as would have been provided by a wide reading on the subjects? If he does then I think you would have reason to suspect that the notes are in some way bogus, but if his revealed knowledge is about consistent with the research revealed by the notes then I would suggest that you should consider the notes being genuine and ask what that means.
All the best
Paul |
Author: Karoline L
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 03:47 am | | Here are a few "pertinent questions" that should be fairly easily answered and which, if they are, will make things a lot clearer than they are now:
1. Will Shirley Harrison or someone get a date from the solicitors for when MB deposited the Sphere book.
This really shouldn't be difficult and six years down the road we probably ought to know. If Harrison doesn't want to then I'm sure someone like Peter Birchwood will do it.
2. Has Shirley Harrison or anyone on her team tried to find out if anyone in Barret's family can confirm he owned the book in 1992?
3. Has Shirley Harrison or anyone on her team asked Sphere when they released these damaged copies?
4. Lastly , as I keep asking, would it be possible for Keith or anyone else to post any notes
they have relevant to the 'discovery' of the Crashaw quote.
It seems to me particularly important to work out what MB was actually saying on October 12 - was he claiming by then to have used the Sphere book as part of the forgery process, or not?
May I say that while there is apparently general acceptance of the need for more evidence, there seems a marked lack of enthusiasm from certain quarters for actually providing any - even down to the simple business of posting up a few letters that may shed some valuable light.
Shall we maybe turn the emphasis away from the circular theorising and actually do something about getting this information which might provide real solid answers?
Karoline |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 07:09 am | | Karoline,
Do you read any posts here carefully?
1. Will Shirley Harrison or someone get a date from the solicitors for when MB deposited the Sphere book.
This really shouldn't be difficult and six years down the road we probably ought to know. If Harrison doesn't want to then I'm sure someone like Peter Birchwood will do it.
Shirley Harrison has been trying to get the date from the solicitor. She wants to get the date from the solicitor. It's nice to know you think it's so important, even though Peter strongly disagrees with you. Why do you think Peter would want to do it? Has he changed his mind? When I was trying to get Melvin to give us a firm date, Peter, RJ and others were implying I should leave the poor man alone, so Keith and I got on to Shirley and she got straight on to the solicitor herself. Now, is that clear enough for you?
2. Has Shirley Harrison or anyone on her team tried to find out if anyone in Barret's family can confirm he owned the book in 1992?
I don’t know. While you keep writing things like ‘If Harrison doesn't want to…’, showing how little notice you take of the information that has come from Shirley, perhaps there isn’t a whole lot of point in her giving you more information for you to miss.
3. Has Shirley Harrison or anyone on her team asked Sphere when they released these damaged copies?
We don’t appear to know that the volumes donated were damaged, as such, when they allegedly arrived in the Barrett home. The same binding defect, allegedly caused to vol.2 during manufacture, would not have affected the print runs of any of the other volumes in the set, yet Sphere allegedly chucked in the whole lot, as if it had more to do with poor sales or something. But I have agreed that we don’t have nearly enough information about the Sphere vol.2’s original condition, and its travels from printer to Melvin.
4. Lastly , as I keep asking, would it be possible for Keith or anyone else to post any notes
they have relevant to the 'discovery' of the Crashaw quote.
It seems to me particularly important to work out what MB was actually saying on October 12 - was he claiming by then to have used the Sphere book as part of the forgery process, or not?
Have you checked Jack’s Watch board yet, and read Keith’s notes from October 12 1994? If not, there seems little point in my asking Keith for more of his notes to post. I did ask Keith yesterday if Mike was claiming at that time to have used the Sphere book to forge, or help forge the diary. No, he wasn’t. It appears that while he was hiring Gray to help him prove he forged the diary, he had ‘retracted’ his June confession as far as Shirley was concerned, claiming to once again be totally ignorant about its origins. Hence Shirley suggested to him that he do something constructive like find the ‘O costly…’ quote, which he claimed to find in the library on September 30 1994. His revelation to Shirley, that he had owned the Sphere book since 1989, therefore did absolutely nothing to help his ‘innocent’ claim. He was telling two different stories depending on who he was talking to (surprise, surprise), so it’s all down to which story has most, if anything, going for it. Why tell Shirley he owned the Sphere book? And why risk letting the ‘other side’ hear that he’d gone to the library in September 1994 and ‘found’ the quote, when he was trying to convince them he’d put it in the diary himself, before April 1992?
I don't know how this helps determine Mike's innocence or guilt. (More green bricks, anyone?)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 07:45 am | | Hi Caz
Just for clarification, Mike telephoned Shirley and Paul on 30 September to tell them he had found the quote at the Liverpool library. And he also admitted to Shirley (Paul hadn't been available, so Mike had told Martine, who didn't understand - apparently Mike had been celebrating)that he actually owned a copy of the Sphere book. But was that admission on 30 September or afterwards?
What interests me is how Mike knew - if, indeed, he did know and it wasn't just a lucky guess - that the Sphere book was at the Liverpool Library. On October 4 2000 Melvin explained of Liverpool library that: "Their ownership of a copy of 'Sphere History of Literature' Vol 2, is not shown on their comprehensive catalogue. Anyone making an enquiry will be told (as I was) that they do not own a copy, UNLESS the librarian in question remembers the existence of a separate list known as the SHEAF catalogue. This item has not been transferred to their computer records. It took two hours and the brains of three librarians before this matter was resolved. However, the real problem still remains and has been quietly evaded by Harrison, Smith, and Feldman. How could ANY librarian direct Mike Barrett to that particular volume? The verse is not indexed in any way. And the volume itself is not a book of verse, but a series of dense essays that are without popular appeal. The four lines beginning "O costly intercourse" are just part of one such essay. The only person capable of pointing Mike to that particular essay would have to be someone who had read it and happened to recall those brief lines. So where is this ultra-rare librarian? That is the question that should have been addressed by Mrs Harrison the moment she knew that Mike owned a copy of Vol 2. Only the testimony of this person (if he or she existed) could have given credibility to Mike's far-fetched yarn. But, once again, the crucial questions were never pursued.
So assuming that Mike knew the Sphere book contained the quote and simply wanted to represent himself as the genius researcher by claiming to have found the quote at the library, how did he confirm that the library has a copy of the book if gaining confirmation was as difficult as Melvin describes.
Maybe it wasn't that difficult in 1994, though, if Shirley fairly easily confirmed that the library held the book.
But the question remains, why did Mike admit to owning the Sphere copy if his purpose was to pretend that he'd found the quote at the library? Does that admission make the whole story sound real? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 07:51 am | | From Keith Skinner To RJ
Dear RJ
With reference to one sentence in your recent post of Monday, April 30, 2000 – 11.50 pm:
“But perhaps there might be a way to solve all this privately?”
I couldn’t agree with you more, as this is precisely what is being advocated on these boards. Now, how do we get this message across to Melvin Harris – the one man who can effectively and conclusively bring to a welcome end this divisive controversy, with his embargoed information?
Do you agree that Melvin should be present?
And just to pre-empt a possible response you might make…I am more than willing to ask Paul Feldman to make publicly available all of his tapes and transcripts, once Melvin has privately disclosed his information. Theoretically, all of this source material would be redundant, so I’m not quite sure why anyone would want to be bothered with it. Unless, of course, Melvin’s various authoritative statements, which characterise so much of his work, cannot be factually substantiated, reducing down to honestly held beliefs and subjective interpretation.
All Good Wishes
Keith |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 08:04 am | | Hi all,
Now that Karoline has graciously admitted that there is practically no evidence yet available in this case and that she has been engaging in "circular reasoning" (see, Karoline, you're not the only one that can creatively misread -- hey, this is fun, and so easy too!), I heartily endorse and actively second her call for the answer to some remaining questions. Questions like:
1.) Does Melvin Harris really have proof of who forged this diary? Does he even have reliable and/or definitive evidence of who forged this diary?
2.) Does Melvin Harris have clear evidence that Gerard Kane was involved in forging this diary? Does he still believe that Kane was the penman?
3.) Does Melvin Harris have any material evidence that links Kane in any way whatsoever to Mike Barrett or suggests that Barrett and Kane even knew each other?
4.) Does Melvin Harris really have the names of others who participated in this forgery beyond any doubt? Beyond some doubt? How about just possibly?
5.) Does Melvin Harris happen to know when Mike lodged his Sphere book with the solicitor and does he believe that Mike and/or Anne knew before Mike took the diary to Doreen's that it was a forgery?
There's a few to start with. In the interest of, as Karoline says, providing "real, solid answers," I look forward to Melvin's response.
Thanks, Mr. Harris, in advance, for any help and for the clarifications,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 08:05 am | | Hi All,
When speaking to Keith yesterday, he let slip a juicy snippet, which he thought you may all enjoy - or perhaps not.
Keith says he has in his possession the contents of Mike's 1995 diary-cum-telephone numbers book, which he managed to photocopy, during one of their encounters. While Mike has a note of both Melvin and Feldy's numbers, there is - wait for it - no sign whatsoever of the elusive citizen Kane, and no sign of any of the Ks having been torn out either!! Deeply suspicious if you ask me - Mike is obviously guilty as hell because he carefully avoided writing his partner-in-crime's name and number there, so he could convince the gullible of his innocence.
Keith says: "Does this help?"
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 08:09 am | | Hey Caroline,
I guess Keith and I were thinking alike, since your posting of his note to RJ and my "questions in the spirit of Karoline" apparently crossed.
And Mr. Kane remains in a Feldmanian type fog of mysteriously implied involvement, it seems.
Now I really must go play golf. (Ah, the burdens of duty...)
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 09:25 am | | Hi RJ,
Thank you for your response to my question regarding Mike’s possible reasons for ordering the maroon diary.
If the diary transcript, typed on Mike’s wp and handed over to Doreen et al, was made from the diary, this does not mean, of course, that there weren’t other versions of the composition knocking around, which have either not come to light or may perhaps have been destroyed. It simply means that the transcript we have would be neither proof of guilt nor innocence. But having said that, would you agree that Mike was putting himself under an almost impossibly tight time restraint, if he not only had to get hold of the scrapbook after the March call to Doreen, but if he also had to get Kane to copy the whole composition into it, and if Mike also attempted to make a transcript (which Anne took over) from the finished 63 pages - all before April 13 1992?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 09:32 am | | Hi, Caz and Keith:
Perhaps you should look in Mike's address book not under "Kane" but "Cain" as the name was reported by Paul Feldman in his Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter (p. 139 h/back and p. 154 p/back)? 
Addressing the matter of Mike's research notes, I agree with John that the lack of mention of certain books in the notes is not particularly significant. What I do find to be intriguing, as a Liverpudlian, is the several references to using the Liverpool Echo as a source. I do agree that is a bit odd that the usual books on the Maybrick case, Christie and Ryan, were not used. However, don't forget that Mike already had RWE's Murder, Mystery, and Mayhem, which covers the Maybrick case.
Someone remarked that possibly Mike was referencing contemporary (i.e., 1889) newspaper articles on Florence Maybrick's trial. I may be wrong, but I don't think the Liverpool Echo was being published in 1889. More likely, I think, the news stories that Mike supposedly used were articles on the Maybrick case that were published in the twentieth century. I wonder if the Echo might have printed a series of articles at the time of the centenary of Florie's trial in August to September 1989? Do you know, Keith, or perhaps Shirley? Such a series might have been used by the forgers, be they the Barretts or someone as yet unidentified.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 09:40 am | | Hi John,
Enjoy your golf. 'Creative misreading' eh? That's a terrible accusation to make, and a terrible thing for you to indulge in yourself just to make a cheap point. (Nevertheless it appears to be the most accurate description so far, where others were struggling to decide between thoughtlessness, careless reading, no reading at all, blinkered thinking, stupidity, incompetence, intellectual dishonesty..... I hope you'll have a golf club handy to defend yourself upon your return. )
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 09:43 am | | Chris--Christie cites Liverpool Post and Echo articles, 1889-1904
The ones Mike cites are, I believe, contemporary to the Maybrick case.
Regards, RJP |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 09:44 am | | Hi Chris,
Good point about "Cain" - I wonder if Keith thought of that? 
I'll certainly pass on your comments and questions about the Echo to him. Thanks for your observations as always.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 10:06 am | | Paul--Hello. You wrote recently that Mike finding the Crashaw quote in the library had 'the ring of truth to it' and speculated that Mike might have doggedly searched the shelves, perhaps seeing the spine of the Sphere book whereupon he recognized a book that he had owned. And yesterday, you wrote the following:
"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."
I'd like to remind you at this point of a post of Shirley Harrison's from last summer:
"On March 22 1998 I wrote to Janet Graham at the Liverpool Library "in the pursuit of exact information" to double check the existence of the Sphere books in the library. * * * I was told that all the volumes were in fact there - not on the shelves but in their repository upstairs."
--Shirley Harrison, 6 July, 2000
[My italics].
When Melvin contacted the Liverpool Library, they originally couldn't find the book; is it conceivable that it was in the repository at that time as well? Is it possible that it was in the repository in 1994, when Mike allegedly did his search? If this can be confirmed, your speculation will explode. Perhaps we should find this out. 1) gather data 2) assess it 3) interpret it.
Best wishes,
RJP |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 10:17 am | | Hi, R.J. and Caz:
Thanks to both of you. To Caz, for passing on my comments to Keith, and to R.J., for clarifying that Christie cites Liverpool Post and Echo articles, 1889-1904. I don't think though that Mike's notes state that he was using those old Echo articles on the Maybrick case, do they? So couldn't they be as easily modern news stories retelling the details of the case?
Incidentally, a joke told by my uncle, Billy Matchett, the Liverpool musical hall comedian born 1889, was about the newsboy who, wearing his dad's old trousers, yelled, "Echo pooh! Echo pooh!"
Chris |
Author: Karoline L
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 10:39 am | | Thanks for the general responses.
I'm sure Shirley Harrison is doing her best - but I can't help thinking that in the six years that have gone by since the Sphere book was retrieved, it ought to have been possible to get a single date out of MB's solicitors, and I'm wondering what the problem is.
Would it be possible to have some info on the following;
1.How often have the firm been approached?
2.Are they refusing to co-operate?
3.If not, then what actually is the cause of the delay?
4.Would it be acceptable to all parties if someone else tried to get the information.
5. When, exactly did MB first tell Harrison or Skinner that he had used the book to create the forgery?
I don't really know why RJ and Peter B. don't think the date matters. I certainly think it potentially matters, and I don't think we can tell how much - until we have the date.
And I had to smile at John Omlor's invitation extended to myself and RJ to "try and give an honest answer".
What can one say?
I certainly never give an honest answer if I can avoid it - and RJ is currently up on six counts of fraud involving old ladies and their life-savings -
but thanks for caring!
Karoline |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 11:10 am | | Hi RJP
When Melvin contacted the Liverpool Library, they originally couldn't find the book; is it conceivable that it was in the repository at that time as well? Is it possible that it was in the repository in 1994, when Mike allegedly did his search? If this can be confirmed, your speculation will explode. Perhaps we should find this out. 1) gather data 2) assess it 3) interpret it.
Exactly!
And a point I tried to make a few posts up.
But the problem is, how did Mike know it was there?
Or did he not know? Did he imagine that nobody would bother to check his claim? Didn’t he care whether they did or not? In which case, why claim he found it in the library in the first place, especially as he would blow the whole shebang anyway by causing suspicion through admitting that he had a copy in his attic; why didn't he just say he found it in his own copy of the book?
Or did he know the book was in the library?
And if he knew and if the book was not on the shelves where he could have picked it up and curiously glanced through it, then he must have had some guidance to finding it - just like he claimed! And his story would be true... |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 11:14 am | | Hi again Karoline,
Since you cited my request "to try and give an honest answer," but then did not answer the actual question, repeating the question now seems like the responsible thing for me to do.
I accept that you give honest answers, and that's why I'll ask the question again:
I asked you, honestly,
"If you had read Mike's notes, and you had found that almost all the information in Mike's notes came from those same books, the very sources most likely used to forge the diary, wouldn't you now both be pointing out to us all how suspicious that looks? "Look! Mike's notes are informed by the very same sources that were used to write the diary! This is very incriminating! See, it's just as we suspected, Mike is likely to be the forger."
Because, as I mentioned:
"Now, the books most likely to be used in the forgery turn out not to be featured in Mike’s notes.
So, of course you say, "You see, the absence of these books is very suspicious! Mike must be "avoiding" these books! It's just as we suspected! Mike is likely to be the forger!"
Either way, Karoline, Mike is done for. The books are there -- he must have used them to forge the thing. The books aren't there -- he must be avoiding them -- he must have used them to forge the thing."
I am suggesting you are assuming a conclusion rather than simply and objectively examining the evidence (which does not honestly and actually indicate anything expect the absence of two books in Mike's notes and which is simply not evidence of anything yet).
Instead of just taking umbrage at the request for honesty, you might actually read and honestly answer the question that was asked.
Or maybe not.
Never mind.
-- John |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 11:16 am | | Karoline
John asked you a fair and reasonable question. Why don't you just answer it? |
Author: Stephen Powell
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 11:23 am | | I had posted this on the 'missing key'page by mistake and now shall place it in 'The Diary' section where it belongs,along with Shirley Harrisons reply.
ALL CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS PAGE.
Here is a copy of an earlier posting that some of you may not know about.
Since I posted this I now know that Anne Graham is a prime accomplice to the forgery of the diary and the male person referred to below is also involved.
Shirley harrison is making enquiries to the validity of my statements but as yet I have heard nothing back from her.
By Stephen Powell on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 09:25 am: Edit
Dear Casebook Detectives,friends & Melvin....
What follows is an e-mail sent to Shirley Harrison by myself,
as part of our on-going 'assimulation' of my past memories of meeting Anne Graham in Australia in 1968/69.
Dear Shirley,
Sorry to get you in a boil but let me set you on the right path.
Vicki,she now refers to herself as Victoria,first contacted me after my exhausting efforts to find her.
We spoke for no longer than ten minutes and I indeed had to ask her two leading question and that was;did she remember 'a diary of jack the ripper and a nurse at the sutherland hospital whom I had met,who claimed she had it'?
The rest of the conversation was 'catching-up' talk and did not refer to the diary or surrounding events.
I was very aware at the time of speaking to her of the need to be careful that I did not influence her thoughts on this subject.
I have not spoken to her since that call from her last week and shall not do so again,until you have spoken at length to her yourself.
Please do record her statements but please show me a transcript of her words before they go public on the internet.
These are the facts as I know them concerning Victoria:
a)She met and became friends with Anne Graham.
b)She was aware of the JTR diary.
c)She was asked to contribute to the written material of the diary.
d)She told me that 'They' were serious about releasing this diary to the public.
e)She told me that in the Future if I remembered the diary and told of its writing and no-one believed me,that she would then,tell her story to back me up. (We shall see on this point,wont we)
Now,I still dont know if the diary is real or not,for all I know it may be as Anne said to me that;'My father has it....'or on the other hand it maybe a complete fabrication and she set out to write a 'Diary' based on her initial idea and enlisting as co-writers,her new found friends in australia.
Now listen very carefully on this next point:
Victoria and I had a friend at the time,who was obsessed with historical and modern crime.
I had known him from the age of fifteen and traveled australia with him for many years as performers.
When I went out on my own to record my music,he became very jealous of my success and his attitude to me was that I had left him in the lurch.
I met him again a few years later and had coffee with him at his mothers house in Cronulla,a short distance from the sutherland hospital.
He still had the shits with me and his contempt for me was obvious in his manner.I was trying to be an old friend and even asked him if he would like to come and record with me.He was in a foul mood and I was feeling like I should get up and just leave this arrogant bastard to his own morbid self.
As we were talking with his mother present he stated that he had been writing a book and that it would be published and that he would be famous before me (!?)
His mother piped-up and said to him; "IF YOU DONT GO TO JAIL FIRST FOR FORGERY!" This statement was interesting but this family was into all sorts of things and I put it down to one of their idiotic quirks.
I asked him what the book was about and he said it was to the effect 'Historical'.
There followed a short discussion between his mum and himself to the effect that,He believed the 'book' to be true and his mother,laughingly
not.By this time I wanted to go and did so shortly after.
I have not seen this person since that time.
I give you his name,so that you can ask Victoria about him also.
She knew him very well.
His name is:
(available for casebook researchers by e-mail to steve powell only)
Born: Birkenheaad,Liverpool,England.
He would have been born in 1950,I'd say.
Interesting isn't it Shirley?
Another coincidence? or just another unbelievable story from steve powell....
You can believe what you must but all I have said is the TRUTH and I dont care now if anyone else believes it or not.
However,I respect your work Shirley and want you to know all of what I have heard and seen.
The Phone number of Victoria's is : (classified as you will understand)
Please keep me informed,so as we can work together on this.
bye for now Shirley.
Steve powell.
10/2/2001
ps
Why not find out what school Anne went to and see if one of her classmates, match names with this person in question?
speak soon.
steve powell
(this was the end of this message)
I shall see what you all have to say about this and if Shirley would like to comment,I would be most interested to hear her updated news.
regards.
steve powell
29-4-2001
By shirley harrison on Sunday, April 29, 2001 - 05:11 am: Edit
Steve....until we have found Mr "P" (I have his name but for obvious reasons cant put it on the boards) there isnt too much I CAN say. So far we have not managed to trace him although Victoria is trying. Nor do I want to ask Anne because her response could be swayed by the information you give.....so I hope it doesnt leak to her now that it is on the board. As soon as I can find him...I will report....of course.....Any other assistance would be welcome - but not, for fear of legal entanglements - on the boards....
(end of Shirleys reply)
And now an update for all.
As far as 'Legal Entanglements' are concerned,
I swear that what I have stated above is 'the truth and nothing but' and would be willing to make an official statement to the fact.
Is there someone 'Official' that I could make this statement to?
I told Anne that I would fight her in this all those years ago and I say to her now,
lets go kid,lets see what you've got... |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 12:17 pm | | Paul--Extremely interesting post. But I'm a little confused. Which scenerio do you now think is likely? That Mike asked a librarian who located the quote, or that Mike found it on his own, perhaps seeing a familiar looking volume on the shelves? Before anyone answeres, maybe we should review.
On pg. 282 of the Blake edition, Shirly Harrison does indeed say that Mike Barrett "badgered the staff" to find the Crashaw quote. But in a telephone message (12 October 1994) already posted by Keith Skinner on this site, the story is different: "During Mike’s serious week at library, when he found the reference, he later recalled that he had these particular books, which were the ones he had loaned to James. Mike insisted he discovered the reference for himself at the library – and nobody did it for him." [My italics].
So now I'm left wondering which way was it, and why the mix-up? If the books were indeed in the repostitory upstairs....Mike wouldn't have been able to find it on his own by haphazardly looking through every volume! (As unlikely as this is, anyway) And if it was upstairs? Then Mike's story to Shirley on 12 October 1994 was false and we are stuck with this most remarkable problem: We now need to believe that Mike handed a librarian a slip of paper with the words 'O costly intercourse of death' on it---and this remarkable Super-Librarian recognized Richard Crashaw's five obscure words and referred him to...what?...not a volume of 17th Century poetry, but to an equally obscure 20th Century essay on George Herbert found in Volume 2 of the Sphere Guide locked away in the repository upstairs that he/she just happened to know quoted Crashaw!! And we now need to also believe it was nothing but a remarkable coincidence that Mike had a copy of Sphere in his attic...because we are back to a super-Librarian finding the book, and we can't rely on Mike being drawn to it himself because he recognized something that he had owned...
So which way is it? Is either situation even slightly plausible? (Wow. Show me this remarkable librarian. Frankly, I liked the idea of Mike hunting through every book in the library much better.....though if we determine that the book was in the repostitory we know now that that wouldn't have netted results either).
Question: Did Shirley's assumption that Mike resorted to badgering the staff (which contradicts the phone message) result from discovering that the Sphere book was in the repostitory upstairs?
This Crashaw quote gets curiouser and curiouser. Perhaps we should start over. Where is it likely that Mike found the quote? I'm stuck still asking the same question I asked early last summer: Has it been confirmed that Mike own a copy of the Sphere Book prior to 1992?
Best wishes, RJP |
Author: Karoline L
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 01:10 pm | | Paul, John,
try to answer this honestly -
why should I answer a question that starts like that?
However - since you both ask specifically, and since if I don't answer you will just go on and on about how evasive I am - I will
John wrote:
"If you had read Mike's notes, and you had found that almost all the information in Mike's notes came from those same books, the very sources most likely used to forge the diary, wouldn't you now both be pointing out to us all how suspicious that looks?"
If he had used just those three books and nothing else? Yes, I would find that nearly as suspicious as his not using them at all.
But if he'd just used one or two of the books, say, or used all three and a few others, then - no, that would seem quite what one would expect any researcher to do. It's the total absence of these books, when they are such standard ref. works that seems slightly curious.
But I was only speculating in a completely subjective way, as I said at the time. Not intending any of it to be more than my own personal opinion.
Now - I give notice (again) to both of you - Like RJ I am concentrating on just trying to pull together as many hard facts as possible. So I'll be confining myself to that almost completely. I don't have time for too much of this kind of long, long, long, question/answer dissection, shred-the-wood-to pulp-thing that you do. And I am just tired of having to deal with very rude ill-mannered people.
Speaking of which ... here's what Caroline wants everyone to read about me today:
"Nevertheless it appears to be the most accurate description so far, where others were struggling to decide between thoughtlessness, careless reading, no reading at all, blinkered thinking, stupidity, incompetence, intellectual dishonesty..."
This on top of her allegations a few days ago that my behaviour is "disgusting".
What can one say?
I want to contribute here - but not if it means I have to read stuff like this every few days.
(and please, Caroline, don't tell evereyone it's still all about me thinking you wrote those letters, or that dumb 'Wuz' joke I pulled on you at the same time! It's getting embarrassing for both of us - let it go!)
Karoline |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 07:26 pm | | Hey there, Karoline,
Thanks for the answer. So the only way for Mike’s notes not to be suspicious is if he had the proper balance of using and not using the texts that were used to forge the diary. Well, nice to know the guy had a fighting chance.
By the way, I am sorry if the request for honesty offended you. I meant no offense, honestly. It just seemed like a question that would be hard to answer honestly since it demanded a certain sort of genuine self-examination about what you are really looking for, objective evidence or further signs of Mike’s guilt.
Sometimes I say things that are offensive, I'm afraid. I do apologize. This is partly because I am so difficult to offend myself. As I mentioned on another board, I read Celine, and Sade and a whole host of offensive things and delight in them and I've been harshly and insistently insulted by the best of them on literature and philosophy and music newsgroups and listservs and message boards across the internet, most of which are much cruder and rowdier and regularly offensive than these boards, which happen to be an absolute exercise in Victorian gentility by internet standards. So it's almost impossible to offend me, and I should remember that this is not the case with everyone else.
But you know, you've dished it out fairly regularly and pretty well since you've returned here, and included one liners and snide zingers in more than a few of your own posts -- so I'm not really sure you should be casting any stones, you know?
You write paragraphs like the following every so often, for instance:
"Now - I give notice (again) to both of you - Like RJ I am concentrating on just trying to pull together as many hard facts as possible. So I'll be confining myself to that almost completely. I don't have time for too much of this kind of long, long, long, question/answer dissection, shred-the-wood-to pulp-thing that you do. And I am just tired of having to deal with very rude ill-mannered people."
First off, if you go back over the hundreds of cyber pages I have written on this board over the past three months, I will venture to bet that you will find less than a handful or two of real insults or put-downs or derogatory remarks or nasty insults or ad hominems of any sort. You’ll find a few, usually offered in poor jest, but over hundreds of pages you'll overwhelmingly find mostly close, detailed, logical, objective reading and argument, and critical prose which has stayed, I think I can claim, almost free from direct personal attack or character assassination. My posts on the Primate board are different of course, because the rules and the goals are different there, and I have written a parody or two in the name of rhetorical excess, but I really do not think I have regularly been all that rude or ill-mannered (though I sometimes can be, believe me).
As to your giving notice (again): once again your notice to quit is duly noted. It remains to be seen if it will remain in effect (you, of course, always have the choice to respond or not to respond, so the giving of notice and revoking of notice remains completely up to you).
As to your not having time for any "long, long, long, question/answer dissection, shred-the-wood-to pulp-thing": I say, "Fair enough." I take it that means that you do not have time for detailed, patient, deliberate, and careful reading and examination of evidence and an analysis of what it allows us to responsibly conclude. That's fair. I do, however, so I'll continue.
In any case, thank you for the notice and I apologize again about the unintended slur on your character and I hope you will continue to read and analyze the evidence without preconceptions or assumed conclusions about Mike's complicity and see what it actually tells us as we go through this wonderland of reading.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 02:56 am | | Hi RJP
I don't know if what follows is going to make much sense or manage to clarify anything, but here goes. I don’t know which of the alternatives you suggest is more likely. Both are equally possible. What we need is either more information or we need to see if further careful analysis of the source material will guide us towards a possible answer or isolate a piece of research that will provide us with the answer to this specific problem. This, I feel, is a more profitable way of progressing than firing a scatter gun of questions in the hope that some of the answers will provide something useful or meaningful. It's why I think that each piece of data needs to be carefully analysed.
What I am saying is that people have argued about how unlikely it is that Mike could have found the quote in the Sphere book at the library. I agree, it does indeed seem highly unlikely. But Mike did know the book was there and this “fact” hasn’t been properly examined. I put “fact” in inverted commas because Mike may not have known it was there, of course. It might have been just a lucky guess, in which case we shall soon be walking down a whole new avenue of questions. Bet let's proceed for the sake of this post from the starting point that he knew it was there.
If Mike knew the book was there then we have two choices. He knew it was there because (a) his story is true and he knew the book was there because he found the quote there, or (b) he had found the quote elsewhere and then checked with the library to make sure the book was there.
Either is possible. But Melvin, a professional researcher who “checked and double checked” (my emphasis), said the library records showed “they do not hold a copy of this book and never have”. It took him a third attempt, requiring two hours and three librarians, to discover that the library actually possessed the book – and Melvin knew the book title, all the publishing details, and knew from Shirley that the book was there!
Shirley doesn’t appear to have encountered anything like so much trouble when she contacted librarian Janet Graham in 1998, though Ms. Graham did say the book wasn’t on the open shelves at that time. We don't know what problems Ms. Graham encountered when looking for the book.
Also, we should remember that we have no idea on this evidence where the book was or where the book was listed in 1994.
So a shadow of uncertainty seems to hang over the ease with which librarians might have located the book - even if Mike had walked in with its title and the name of Christopher Ricks!
Yet Mike knew the book was there! So did he indeed badger the staff over a week? Did they produce anything they could find to help his quest? If they didn’t, how did he know it was there?
On the other hand, maybe the book was catalogued or on the open shelves in 1994.
Which brings us back to Mike’s admission that he possessed a copy of the book. If his whole purpose in claiming that he’d discovered the quote through research at the library, why, other than through gushing innate honesty, would he have admitted to owning the book? I mean, it’s a bit like providing an alibi, then admitting that you were at the scene of the crime, so isn’t the admission either gross stupidity or consistent with Mike having found the quote at the library?
Now, I don't know whether any of this brings us any closer to a solution and the whole thing seemed a lot simpler before Melvin encountered his problems. But at the end of the day, Mike's knowledge that the book was at the library requires examination. All, as ever it is, is not clear!
I hope some part of this makes sense! And maybe provides a little food for thought. |
Author: Karoline L
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 05:01 am | | John,
Thank you for the apology. Though it seems a little odd of you to make heavily sarcastic remarks about me for merely answering the questions you asked.
Believe me, I would like to ignore you. But you keep bombarding me with enquiries and you and Paul both sneer at me if I decline to answer.
You are right - ignoring isn't an option. So, I'll "solve" you instead, shall I?
Will that be fun?
Here then are a few belated answers to some of the "questions" you have kept hurling at me.
1. A while ago you posted a long long post part of which devoted itself to a curious sort of sneery claim that there was "no evidence" on which to make any judgement about who forged the diary, when or how.
You further claimed that I (specifically) had failed to produce any such evidence.
I didn't reply because it is almost too absurd to bother with such a claim. But okay here is the answer you think I am trying to avoid making:
John, to put it simply there is evidence in the case - as everyone but you seems happy to accept.
What is more it was I who posted a synthesis of that evidence right here on these boards only last month.
It came to ten points of factual data, undisputed by anyone.
This, my dear Mr O. is the "evidence" in the case.
I think when you said there was no evidence you possibly intended to say there was no proof of what the evidence all means.
Which would of course have been correct.
Actually I have seen before in your posts a regrettable, nay even dangerous, tendency to confuse these two terminologies. But for future reference take note - there is plenty of evidence (though we still need more) - but no proof.
This will alleviate you from the necessity of posting any more yard long eruptions of sarcasm at my or anyone else's expense.
2.You became equally sarcastic (or comedic? it's hard to tell) about my use of the phrase "the man on the Clapham Omnibus".
Clearly you have never heard of it before. Which surprises me slightly in someone who teaches English literature for a living.
"The Man on the Clapham Omnibus" is an English literary allusion meaning "Mr. Average".
What I was asking was whether you and Paul were actually claiming that MB from Liverpool was no more likely to have been involved with this forgery than Mr. Average from Anywhere in the UK.
And that question is one of many that you didn't answer (though I was too polite to criticise you for it).
Now I've explained it for you - why don't you answer it now?
Are you and Paul genuinely of the belief that the Man on the Clapham Omnibus, or any man, or woman anywhere, is just as likely to have been involved in forging the diary as MB?
Or are you prepared to concede that the fact that he produced the thing and placed the thing and profited from the thing and told lies about where he got it from and confessed to forging it, and owned the only book in the world that contained the same truncated Crashaw quote that appears in it - all implies that he is at least probably involved in creating it to some degree?
And is my suggestion that this is true really so crazy, stupid and blinkered to warrant the storm of immaturity and rudeness I have had to endure as a result of voicing it?
Try to answer honestly.
Another thing you didn't respond to was my invitation to create any other single plausible scenario to explain all the known facts that doesn't involve MB in the forgery to some degree.
You said you'd find it easy. But you haven't done it.
Will you offer us this alternative scenario as you promised?
And can I suggest you opt for a little more brevity? Arguments are only measured by weight of words in the most pompous of circles.
Karoline |
Author: Karoline L
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 05:16 am | | Actually John,
I should in all fairness have admitted that you are not generally anything like as rude as are Paul, Caroline and Martin. Indeed you are right, most of what you contribute is textual.
But also in fairness, I have encountered few people anywhere who would adopt the tone of full frontal public abuse that at least two of these three seem to think of as normal.
You have never condemend this in them, indeed you publicly side with them on most issues (as RJ has remarked) even while claiming to be impartial.
So people will perhaps tend to tar you with the same brush.
And the moral of that is -
Choose your company wisely.
K |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 05:32 am | | Dear Karoline,
Thank you for submitting another fine selection of offensive snips and snipes of the kind you are apparently unaware of perpetrating, and which are the root cause of your occasionally receiving blasts of indignation from the victims - (or gentle suggestions that you 'answer honestly' instead of taking refuge in innuendo and insinuation) - which then reduce you to what I have characterised as 'grizzling' about other prople's rudeness!
If you bear in mind that the postings are on the boards for all to see, you may want to think about the wisdom of the following remarks, which can be compared with John's carefully reasoned and normally extremely polite disagreements with you. I like your phrase 'storm of immaturity and rudeness,' but it's not John whose postings I think it describes so well...
it seems a little odd of you to make heavily sarcastic remarks about me for merely answering the questions you asked.
you keep bombarding me with enquiries and you and Paul both sneer at me if I decline to answer.
you posted a long long post part of which devoted itself to a curious sort of sneery claim
I didn't reply because it is almost too absurd to bother with such a claim
John, to put it simply there is evidence in the case - as everyone but you seems happy to accept.
This will alleviate you from the necessity of posting any more yard long eruptions of sarcasm at my or anyone else's expense.
You became equally sarcastic (or comedic? it's hard to tell) about my use of the phrase "the man on the Clapham Omnibus".
Clearly you have never heard of it before. Which surprises me slightly in someone who teaches English literature for a living.
is my suggestion that this is true really so crazy, stupid and blinkered to warrant the storm of immaturity and rudeness I have had to endure
And that question is one of many that you didn't answer (though I was too polite to criticise you for it).
Now I've explained it for you - why don't you answer it now?
And can I suggest you opt for a little more brevity? Arguments are only measured by weight of words in the most pompous of circles.
Now, can you match those for rudeness in any of John's postings to you?
With all good wishes,
Martin |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 05:51 am | | Karoline
You have accused me of rudeness several times. So here's crunch time. Show me where I have been rude to you. But given the nasty accusations you have thrown in my direction over the years (including the accusation with which you opened your return to these Boards) and the often patronising tone you adopt when trying to rubbish my methodology, let's play fair here and find a bit of rudeness that I can't excuse by claiming that I was provoked. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 06:15 am | | Hi Karoline,
The importance of the date of lodgement of Mike’s Sphere book only really became an issue last Autumn, when Melvin stated that it was ‘LONG BEFORE’ January 1994, when Anne left Mike. I was astonished to read this, because it appeared to conflict seriously with my own understanding of events. And, if true, it would have blown Mike’s library ‘discovery’ to pieces forever, for Shirley and Keith at least, even if no one else had ever thought it possible anyway. So I pressed Melvin for a firm date and, after asking the same question about five times (which Peter and RJ told me had no relevance whatsoever), finally got him to state that Alan Gray’s information was that a book was with Mike’s solicitor when Gray checked (at some point allegedly before the end of September 1994), except that the name of the book and the date of lodgement was very unfortunately not ascertained. Nor was this ascertained when the book was handed over in December 1994. Meanwhile, I discussed it with Keith, whose information, as at October 12 1994, was only that Mike had expressed his intention to take his own Sphere book to his solicitor that very day. The significance of checking to see if he did so was not of course apparent at that time, nor did it really become an issue until Melvin’s ‘LONG BEFORE’ statement last Autumn. Naturally, had you been reading the boards last Autumn, or had you gone back to check recently, as I suggested, you would have known all this by now, although I’m quite happy to repeat it all here just for your benefit.
I don’t know that Mike ever told Shirley or Keith that he had used the book to create the forgery. I have confirmed with Keith that he didn’t know Mike was going to use it to make another confession (the sworn statement he made in January 1995) until long after the event. Even then, there would have been no reason for Keith to question the October 12 1994 date – after all, Mike said he was taking the book to his solicitor in the October, and it was handed over to Gray in the December.
We couldn’t get a firm date from Melvin or Alan Gray last Autumn, but Shirley did ask the solicitor to check his records. The solicitor said he would get back to Shirley if he found anything. If someone else wants to give it a try, I don’t see why there would be any objection. Indeed, it might stop the need for further speculation about the library ‘find’. It would become irrelevant whether Mike guessed, or knew, that the Sphere book was available, if his own copy had been lodged prior to September 30 1994.
On a personal note, I said I would never refer again to certain events from two years ago, so I’m surprised you brought them up yourself, when you wrote:
(and please, Caroline, don't tell evereyone it's still all about me thinking you wrote those letters…)
I’m very glad you now acknowledge that you were dumb to write that 'Wuz' joke, within hours of meeting me in the flesh. I’m also glad you finally admit to being embarrassed when looking back at your behaviour at that time. I, on the other hand, am not very good at being embarrassed about anything I say or do (perhaps I should be ), so please don’t concern yourself over what you consider my feelings to be - although it’s mighty refreshing to learn that you actually realise other people might have such feelings.
Love,
Caz
PS Quick quiz for the weekend: I saw my daughter playing Yussup, in her school’s production of Brecht’s The Caucasian Chalk Circle last night. Can anyone tell me what Simon says just before his line: A fart has no nose? |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 06:47 am | | John,
Possibly obscured by 'the storm of immaturity and rudeness', Karoline does pose one question that may be at the heart of your disagreements and seems to me to deserve the careful attention you always give to other people's arguments.
Are you actually differing because you make semantically different interpretations of the words 'evidence' and 'proof'? You certainly agree that there are circumstances that look suspicious for Mike and/or Anne. You have repeatedly said that the finding of the Crashaw quotation and Mike's possession of the Sphere book gives you very serious pause. You go on, however, to say or imply that there is no evidence that would stand up in a court of law. And if this means there is nothing which proves Mike and/or Anne guilty of fraud or forgery 'beyond a reasonable doubt', I would have to agree with you. But this is our assessment of the likely outcome of any indictment, isn't it? May not Karoline be right if she feels there are enough suspicious circumstances for a zealous (if in your and my view over-optimistic) prosecutor to bring charges, in which case those circumstances would in fact be presented as evidence?
All the best,
Martin |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 07:50 am | | To Keith Skinner--Hello. I'm a little surprised that you are interested in my opinion concerning l'affair Melvin; I suppose it is because I was one of his only supporters on these message boards last fall. My opinion is this: if I held information that you wanted, and I was at liberty to share it with you, I would cooperate. It seems to me that it would be desirable if at some point you, Melvin, Shirley, and Peter, could meet privately. However, you asked my opinion, so here's a couple of points. Last fall there were some assumptions flying around. The first assumption was that Melvin Harris was being impudent & uncooperative by not sharing his information. The second assumption was that Melvin's information was weak, speculative, or even non-existant. His credibility was even questioned. It is my impression that none of these assumptions are true. I don't know what constraints Melvin Harris is under --I've never spoken to him --but my impression is that he has made a commitment or a promise to someone at 'the other end', and is keeping his word. So, I don't like to ascribe to malice or to impudence what might well be explained by honesty or good intentions. I realise this is probably hard for you to accept, and believe it or not, I can see what I think is your side of the equation. Caroline Morris has voiced a certain indignation on these boards: a cloud of suspicion hangs over the heads of a few people in Liverpool, yet the allegedly 'damning' information is being kept private. But can we really set all this on Melvin's shoulders? The flip-side is that Mike Barrett under his own free-will came to London with a forgery tucked under his arm, using an assumed name, and both he & Anne Graham told changing provenance stories. Sadly, they created their own cloud of suspicion. [Yes, I agree. Anne might be relatively blamess on this score. I do believe it is quite possible that she did try to prevent Mike from publishing the Maybrick diary]. It's a bad situation, but Melvin didn't created it. I believe it was Feldy who publically released 'Cain's' name.
You also asked me whether Melvin's information is wild speculation or is iron-clad or is somewhere in between? I don't know; I can only hazard a guess by what I see in print.
Perhaps there will be a time when Harris will weigh his private constraints against the need to end a destructive debate. But that is up to him to decide based on what he knows--- he certainly doesn't need my input. It's probable that you will have to proceed without him. Perhaps Peter Birchwood can help you, or Detective Thomas. I don't know. Best wishes, RJ Palmer |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 08:32 am | | Hi RJP
The trouble is that if Melvin was given privileged information then it should have remained privileged. It didn’t. Melvin made statements based on it. For example, in his “Jolly Japes” post on October 9, 2000 he said: “For those with short memories, let me remind them that I have more than once stated that, although not the faker, Mike had inside information.”
Further to this, Melvin made the statement that the journalists who provided him with this privileged information only withheld it because they were waiting for developments with the Friedkin film. It was not unreasonable to infer from this that had there been no film in the offing that the journalists would have released their information. There was, therefore, no clear moral or legal reason why the information should not have been released or at least shared with other interested and responsible parties. This made Melvin’s refusal to share the information look odd. But understanding that Melvin was perhaps constrained by the agreement he’d made with the journalists – even though his revelations made him seem in breach of it – he was asked to put Shirley in touch with the newspaper. He refused to do this and, as far as is known, did not forward either of Shirley’s letters. Given that Melvin has been very loud in his demands that others produce evidence supporting their arguments, it was odd that Melvin seemed quiet when it came to making appeals to the newspaper to release its information of at least make it available to Shirley Harrison. For this reason it was inevitable that people might suspect that the information wasn’t as good as Melvin has indicated it is (he has, of course, since stated that it was not proof positive, but was good enough for him; and good it must indeed be if it provides a solid foundation for his often repeated claim that Mike was not the faker.) This suggestion obviously questions Melvin’s credibility – perhaps unfairly, but that is something we can’t judge without the information being known.
As far as the suspicions about Mr Kane being made public by Paul Feldman, I think it would have been fairer to say that Paul Feldman first published them, because somebody had obviously mooted those suspicions publicly for Paul Feldman to have found out about them. But the name of Mr Kane wasn’t even first published by Paul Feldman, but in RIPPERANA (No 9) July 1994, which reported: 'It has been suggested, in certain circles, that a Mr. Kane, who witnessed her father's will, has handwriting which matches that of the 'Diary'. Mr. Kane was a great personal friend of Tony Devereux's for the last 10 years of his life, living humbly with his wife, in a Council bungalow.. He, too, was interviewed in the exhaustive Scotland Yard enquiry, and duly eliminated.' |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 08:52 am | | I'm glad you have back copies of Ripperana to hand, Paul, because that 'in certain circles' will have appeared at the time when Melvin was writing directly to me that Mr Kane's handwriting, or signature on the will, possibly pointed to him as the inscriber of the diary. And that sort of dual information - open in private correspondence; from an unnamed source in Ripperana - may help to explain why I felt that Melvin ('my friend Melvin Harris,' in the Ripperana editor's words to me) - was involved in the recurrent attacks on Shirley in that journal, even if he wasn't contributing directly under his own name at the time.
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Alegria
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 08:57 am | | | Speculation, postulation and inference. |
|
|
|
|
