|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 05, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-Archives 2001:
Archive through May 05, 2001
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 09:12 am |        | | Or maybe trying to remember the circumstances of things that happened nearly a decade ago, Alegria. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 09:16 am | | Caz--Hello. I can't remember saying that the date Mike lodged the Sphere book had 'no relevance whatsoever'--but I do remember saying that I think the important thing is whether or not Mike owned the Sphere book prior to 1992. [By the way, why has this been so hard to confirm or to deny? Certainly someone out there must know the answer. Could you run it by Keith?].
As far as I can tell, the earliest confirmable date we currently have of Mike claiming to have found the Crashaw quote in the Liverpool Library is 12 October 1994 (ie., that is, shortly before this). In that message Mike claims he found it without anyone's help. Later Shirley claims Mike badgered the librarians. Any theory on the change? Was it because the book was in the repository upstairs and Mike would have needed assistance? I know you can appreciate the importance of confirming this, and confirming whether or not Mike already had the Sphere in his attic.
You asked me about Mike's 'time constraint'. This is speculation, since we have no credible testimony before Doreen Montgomery first saw the diary in April 1992. [I find it a little amusing that you & Paul both ask me to speculate, and then Mr. Omlor condemns me for speculating! 'Setting him up, just to knock him down', as my grandmother used to say.  ] Anyway, Mike contacted the booksellers in early March; this would have given him six weeks before his meeting in London. Time enough, I reckon, even for someone else to pen the book, though I'm not very pleased with this. Considering the purchase of the ruddy diary, the fact that Devereux had Bongo's REW a full seven to eight months earlier is a head-scratcher--one small trophy for Mike's "dupiness." [Just imagine-- you can understand that sentence] But it might be a small trophy for Peter's hypothesis that the deceased make convenient provenances. Frankly, I just can't imagine any truth to Mr. Bongo's claim (confirmed by Anne?) of getting the diary clear back in Spring 1991 & obsessively studying the diary & reading all those Ripper books--there's no evidence for it, neither Paul's anecdotal view nor documention. Mike's notes, in my humble opinion, represent about two weeks worth of obsession; certainly not a year's worth.
That's all for now. Please work on those confirmations --we're counting on you-- let's wrap this up by Halloween.
RJPalmer |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 09:30 am | | Hi Martin
I wouldn’t presume to answer for John Omlor, but in his post of Saturday April 28, when he referred to “The Man on the Clapham Omnibus” (wherein, incidentally I am not sure I can see any indication that he didn’t know what the phrase meant), he prefaced his comments by saying: “Remember everyone: what we are looking for is real, reliable, established, material evidence.”
I think what John is asking Karoline to provide is evidence in the sense of a fact which allows one interpretation or even allows a most probable interpretation arrived at from an objective assessment, rather than evidence that is capable of several interpretations and is only seen as suspicious because it is interpreted in the way that favours Karoline’s preconceived hypothesis.
In other words, Karoline has listed nine facts which she sees as evidence of Mike and Anne’s guilt. But they are evidence only because Karoline interprets them in the way she does and denies the validity of alternative interpretations (such denial having provoked this argument).
It is rather typical of Karoline's argument to suggest: 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?
I don't recall John ever having suggested this as flatly or as seriously as that. I certainly haven't. Nor have I ever suggested that the "evidence" doesn't make Mike a suspect. All I have said, and I suspect all that John has ever actually said, is that it is capable of alternative explanations that, if true, exonerate him (if that's the right word). Karoline has been vehemently unwilling to accept this; or has been until recently.
John will no doubt explain far, far better than I can. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 09:37 am | | Hi RJP
"[I find it a little amusing that you & Paul both ask me to speculate, and then Mr. Omlor condemns me for speculating! 'Setting him up, just to knock him down', as my grandmother used to say.]
Ohhhooo, a bit below the belt, that, even with the smiley! But I'm not really asking you to speculate. I'm asking you to look at the evidence and see what it might tell you in relation to certain problems. |
Author: Alegria
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 09:47 am | | | Whenever anyone behaves the same way Harris is accused of behaving or worse, excuses are made: age, time, misconstrued words, "I infer more correctly than he does", etc. etc. The fact is Harris is constantly getting shafted while others who have done the same or worse are defended. Maybe the topic of HArris should just be dropped completely, and totally. No more snide digs. If Harris comes on here with BS like claiming pertinent information then claiming confidentiality, then I will be the first one to cry foul. But until then why not leave it alone? This is not the "We hate Harris" forum and in light of the fact that Harris is not responding to Martin's digs, the digs ought to stop. |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 10:29 am | | Hello all,
Excellent. A chance to discuss what I believe should actually count as evidence in this case and what remains only other people's interested interpretations of facts and observations, facts that can actually be legitimately read in contradictory ways and therefore cannot be considered evidence of anything just yet.
Cool.
But first, a few words about Karoline's somewhat accusatory prose in her latest post to me. As Ian Holm once said, coldly and with calm resignation, in an old Woody Allen film:
Karoline, "I accept your condemnation."
or something like that.
Or as my young students are fond of saying.
"Whatever."
Now on to the important stuff.
Let's see what Karoline has claimed about the so-called "evidence" and see if it holds up under scrutiny.
Here's her post.
"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."
Karoline, If you'd like to ignore me, please feel free. If my remarks compel you to respond, either because of the questions I include or because of what you perceive as a sneer, feel free to respond. I promise not to be offended if you ignore me. I promise to be a careful reader if you respond. Beyond that, I can do no more.
You make a suggestion:
"You are right - ignoring isn't an option. So, I'll "solve" you instead, shall I?"
Well, of course, ignoring is always an option. But I confess I don't choose it very often, so I don't have reason to expect you to. Fair enough. Sure, you can try and "solve" me if you like. I'd probably enjoy it. Hopefully, it will be more than a seven percent solution. (No sneer, here, just a little literary joke, I promise.)
You ask:
"Will that be fun?"
I hope so. Let's see.
"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."
Excellent, Now we are going to see actual reliable, material or physical evidence that clearly suggests complicity. I have been waiting a long time for this and I look forward to it eagerly.
By the way, Karoline, you may be right that I am the only person here who does not think there is very much reliable, physical and material evidence in this case that clearly indicates or even suggests Mike's and or Anne's complicity in the actual creation and production of this forgery. You might be right that I am the only person who thinks this. That is perfectly fine with me. Because I also believe that I can repeatedly and clearly and logically demonstrate that I am right. I can repeatedly and clearly and logically demonstrate that much of what you think is evidence that suggests complicity is actually data that can be read in contradictory ways with equal likelihood (because much of it is not actually physical material evidence of anything in particular at all, in fact). I have done so time and time again with every item that appeared on both of your lists and I happy to do so again and again. The truth is every piece of evidence I have seen you cite turns out to be in fact only your preferred interpretation of incomplete and conflicting data with very little physical or material evidence behind it and tells us only about your own assumed conclusions and almost nothing at all about what actually happened when this book was first written. So let's look again and see again the many problems with what you think is evidence (I am assuming you are going to offer some of that evidence here. I hope so.)
Let's see. You write:
"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."
Ah yes, the infamous lists. Let's just look at a few of the items on this list. Karoline, please feel free to reproduce the ten item list in its entirety once again if you still think it is a list of "evidence" that even suggests likely complicity (though I confess I cannot see how you can still believe this), and I will be delighted to address each and every one of the ten points and to demonstrate in detail why they are not and cannot be considered evidence that suggests likely complicity but are in fact incomplete, contradictory, fragmented, inconsistent or problematic items which are not actually physical or material evidence of anything at all. I truly look forward to seeing the list again and having this invaluable opportunity.
Meanwhile, here are a few of the previously listed items:
Mike confessed.
I've read Mike’s confessions. They are false and contradictory. What are they evidence of? Are they necessarily evidence of complicity? Do you have any real evidence whatsoever to support the necessity of this decision?
Mike bought the little red diary.
I've examined the details of this purchase at length. Two possible scenarios seem equally illogical and unreasonable and therefore equally likley. What is this purchase evidence of? Is it necessarily evidence of complicity? Do you have any real evidence whatsoever to support the necessity of this decision?
The transcript of the text on the disk for the wp.
When was this transcript typed? Do you have evidence to support your assumption concerning when it was typed. If not, then what is it's existence evidence of? Is it necessarily evidence of complicity? Do you have any real evidence whatsoever to support the necessity of this decision?
Kane's handwriting.
I haven't seen it. Almost no one has seen it. No one can offer any evidence that Mike even knew Kane existed. What is his handwriting evidence of concerning Mike’s complicity? Is it necessarily evidence of Mike's complicity? Do you have any real evidence whatsoever to support the necessity of this decision?
Anne's stories after the diary has gone public and deals are being offered.
What are they evidence of? They are told in response to various confusing and conflicting circumstances and at a time when there was profit to be made. What are they evidence of? Are they necessarily evidence of complicity in the specific act of forgery? Do you have any real evidence whatsoever to support the necessity of this decision?
Mike's giving a false name to Doreen.
What is this evidence of? Is it necessarily evidence of complicity in the creation of the document? Do you have any real evidence whatsoever to support the necessity of this decision?
Mike giving his real name and address to the book order firm.
What is this evidence of? Can it possibly be necessarily evidence of complicity? Do you have any real evidence whatsoever to support the necessity of this decision?
The Crahsaw quote.
Yes. Perhaps. But when did Mike first see it? If we don't know, then what is this evidence of? Is it necessarily evidence of complicity? Do you have any real evidence whatsoever to support the necessity of this decision?
Mike’s drunken and conflicting tales and his inability to account for how he forged the document.
What are they evidence of? They are completely contradictory and incomplete. Are they necessarily evidence of complicity? Do you have any real evidence whatsoever to support the necessity of this decision?
Tony's family having never heard of or seen a diary.
What is this evidence of? (Careful on this Karoline, it might get you into trouble.)
And recently, the absence of diary sources in Mike's notes.
What is this evidence of? Can such an absence be necessarily evidence of complicity? Do you have any real evidence whatsoever to support the necessity of this decision?
I am sure there are more. If you offer them to me again in detail I will be happy to examine them closely and see what they are actually evidence of or whether we can in fact decide yet what they are evidence of.
But the funny thing is, each and every one of the items of "evidence" listed above, upon closer examination, proves to be incomplete, fragmentary, problematic and contradictory (most often because there is precious little material and physical evidence in the case of any of them). The case for complicity is finally almost all just you reading and interpreting in favor of complicity and then calling it evidence in favor of complicity. That's not the way it works, Karoline. And that's not what evidence of complicity really is or would be.
So OK, I am happy to refine my claim. There is lots and lots of evidence in this case. But nearly all of it is not evidence of anything in particular. nearly all of it is evidence of contradictory possible scenarios and we do not have the real, physical or material evidence that would allow us to determine which should be more likely. There is lots and lots of evidence, but not definitely not of complicity, unless one is determined to read everything simply as evidence of complicity. And in that case, you have assumed your conclusion before beginning and in that case your investigation and your argument and your conclusion is rendered, from the start, invalid, irresponsible, meaningless and worthless as serious historical work.
Fine. I accept that.
Onwards.
You write:
"I think when you said there was no evidence you possibly intended to say there was no proof of what the evidence all means."
No, I intended to say there is no evidence of anything in particular or evidence that would allow us to choose one possibility over another or very much actually reliable, determinate, physical or material evidence at all.
By the way, I might point out here that in this last post you have once again shown me none whatsoever. I take this absence as evidence that there is none. Please correct me if this is not so. (I am sure you will.)
But you go on:
"Which would of course have been correct."
Yes, but I have said more than that, and what I have said is also correct.
Now you offer a warning of danger, danger....
"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."
No Karoline, there is not only no proof, there is very little evidence of anything. There are lots of facts which allow for contradictory interpretations and there is almost no physical and material evidence at all (stories, conflicting narratives, unknown information, vague dates, false confessions, suspicious behaviors, yes, but almost no reliable physical or material evidence at all and this is always what I have written, to the point of blinding tedium and tantric repetition). So I stand by my distinction and courageously cast off your warnings of danger and fly into the face of this danger laughing as only the brave do when their very lives are in peril.
"This will alleviate you from the necessity of posting any more yard long eruptions of sarcasm at my or anyone else's expense."
Sorry, this is a burden I carry that can never be alleviated, and I should note that mixed in with the wounding sarcasm I have apparently been offering you there is also sound reasoning, clear logic, close reading and a fair and responsible and objective evaluation just what the so called evidence fairly and logically allows us to conclude; and that, I am still afraid, is precious, precious little. If you can show me where I am wrong about this, I will happily revise this analysis and this summary of what is available to us.
By the way, I might mention here that you Still have not offered me a single piece of real, reliable physical or material evidence in this post yet.
Consequently, I feel strangely compelled to ask you four simple questions and ask you to offer me just one piece of evidence that would answer each or all of these questions.
Karoline, you say there is evidence in this case. Here's your chance to demonstrate this.
Once again:
"1.) Can anyone at all give me one single, solitary piece of real, reliable and established evidence that would "indicate" or logically allow me to choose which of the two scenarios concerning Mike's diary purchase is really more likely?
2.) Can anyone at all give me one single, solitary piece of real and reliable evidence that indicates that Mike Barrett ever met Gerard Kane or even knew of Gerard Kane?
3.) Can anyone at all give me one single solitary piece of real and reliable evidence that would allow me to decide whether Mike knew the Crashaw quote was there before 1992 or that he did not know it was there until after he found it there after 1992 and this is why he could not use it to support his claim that he knew how the diary was written?
4.) Can anyone at all give me one single solitary piece of real and reliable evidence that would fairly and logically allow me to decide whether the transcript on Mike's wp (or on a disk) was put there before the diary was made as an act of original composition or after the diary was already in Mike's hands in order to facilitate copying, research, and distribution?"
I am including you, Karoline, in my "anyone" above. Can you? One piece for each would be fine.
If not, I stand by my assessment of how little real, reliable physical or material evidence we actually have.
You then write:
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."
Oh dear. Of course I know what the phrase meant, Karoline. I turned sarcastic and comedic because it was a ridiculous question because no one had suggested anything at all like what the question was suggesting. It was a question that implied that someone had made the argument that Mike was no more likely to have forged the diary than a perfect stranger, and no one had ever actually made any argument that even resembled this.
 BUT NOW THINGS GET VERY INTERESTING.
You write:
"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?"
Karoline! Really! You must learn to read carefully. This is not an attack on your character. This is a distinct and pointed and serious attack by me on your reading skills as they are demonstrated here. This is what has troubled me most in reading your work and it what I think troubles many people about your writing here. You do not read. You simply do not read carefully. This is bad. This makes analysis and discussion and fair and responsible conclusions impossible.
Read.
Please.
You have just said you asked me a question I did not answer.
I am now going to quote for you, from my response to the very post in which you asked the question, my words written at that time and addressed to you.
Read them.
You must promise to read my words before you say that I have not answered your questions or discussion will be impossible.
Here is what I wrote.
Apparently it is the first time you will be reading it, although it was posted when you first asked the question.
Here is what I wrote. I even began it, at the time in bold print and separated it as its own paragraph. And still you apparently did not read it.
Please read it this time.
Here is what I wrote on Saturday, April 28, 2001 -at 02:35 pm:
"Now am I forced finally to admit, as I never thought I would have to, that yes it is indeed "more likely" that Mike Barrett participated in or had knowledge of the actual creation of the dairy than that Man on the Clapham Omnibus did. I submit. I completely agree. If this is Karoline's only point, then we can indeed end this discussion right here. Happily."
I wrote those words.
And now you say twice that I did not answer your question.
The only way you can possibly make this claim is if you did not read my response.
This might be part of our problem Karoline.
I am not attacking you personally. I am saying clearly and deliberately that you are not reading carefully and that this exchange above is clear and definitive textual evidence that you are not reading carefully.
You ask me again:
"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?"
And again I will tell you, in the hopes that you are reading my words this time:
"Now am I forced finally to admit, as I never thought I would have to, that yes it is indeed "more likely" that Mike Barrett participated in or had knowledge of the actual creation of the dairy than that Man on the Clapham Omnibus did. I submit. I completely agree. If this is Karoline's only point, then we can indeed end this discussion right here. Happily."
But then you mysteriously and incomprehensibly ask:
"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?"
Karoline. This must be joke. You have got to be kidding here.
You are seriously suggesting to me that the only two available alternatives are
1.) That Mike was no more likely than the Man on the Bus to have forged the diary
or
2.) "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?"
You are seriously claiming that these are the only two logical and available alternatives. That it is not possible to say that Mike might be more likely than a perfect stranger to have been complicit in this forgery but that there is clearly insufficient reliable evidence to responsibly claim that he "probably" was complicit in this forgery.
You are claiming that this is not possible or even an alternative here. You are seriously saying that our only two choices are -- No more likely to have participated than any perfect stranger or else "probably complicit"?!
Is this a joke?
This is of course utter nonsense and I categorically reject this false limiting of choices.
It is patently absurd.
There are plenty of other possible decisions concerning what the evidence allows us to conclude, and several of these other conclusions are in fact much more responsible and more careful in considering the actual evidence than either of the two you offered as a false choice, including the possible decision that Mike might be more likely than a perfect stranger to have been complicit in this forgery but that there is clearly insufficient reliable evidence to responsibly claim that he "probably" was complicity in this forgery. Your suggesting that this is not even an alternative is incomprehensible.
Your logic here, Karoline, is embarrassing.
You then ask:
"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?"
I refuse to respond to the "immaturity and rudeness" line. It is silly.
Your suggestion that Mike is probably complicit remains unsupported by clear and reliable evidence. And once again I might point out that you have offered no physical or material evidence in support of this suggestion here. Your mini-list above:
"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."
offers only the Crashaw quote as real, reliable physical or material evidence, and I have already accepted that. Beyond that, none of this is clear evidence of anything regarding Mike’s complicity and by now I believe you know that and everyone knows that and I really should stop pointing it out.
But I can't. Because still I do not believe you are reading or at least reading patiently and carefully and logically, and your suggestion about my response above reinforces this suspicion of mine. So I will continue to repeat myself.
Now you turn the tables and ask me:
"Try to answer honestly."
Happy to.
"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?"
Once again, you have not read. And so I remain unable to fathom how we can discuss things. I mentioned to you when this came up that I was going to suggest possible alternative scenarios, but as I was about to, Martin offered you a long list of them and it no longer seemed necessary. I am happy to reproduce Martin's list if you like. Shall I? Will that sufficiently answer your question? Let me know and I'll repost all of these scenarios, each of which fits your description, in a follow-up post. Of course, Martin's point was that creating these scenarios was testament only to the ingenuity of the interpreter, since the evidence is so overwhelmingly absent, and therefore this tells us nothing at all about what likely happened when the diary was being composed.
Finally, Karoline, you offer one last zinger:
"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."
I have never moved in the most pompous of circles, so I wouldn't know. But please, Karoline, do not measure my arguments by their length -- measure them by their logic and their reasoning and their care and their responsibility and their analysis and their detail and their completeness and their soundness and their validity and their truth.
Measure them that way, Karoline.
But remember, before you can measure them that way...
You actually have to read them.
You know. You must read them closely and carefully and with attention to detail and all of that. This should not be an alien concept.
Then we can discuss the evidence and the lack of evidence and the preferred interpretations that remain not as evidence at all.
Thanks for reading,
--John
PS: I wrote this before. I am writing it again:
We are still waiting for Karoline to actually offer any solid, reliable material evidence in favor of her own "likely" scenario that Mike Barrett actually wrote or helped write this book.
We are still waiting for a single piece of reliable, material evidence, in addition to the appearance of the Crashaw quote since no evidence has been offered to allow to fairly or validly to decide when Mike first knew of it, concerning any other aspect of this case that in any way establishes or allows us to claim that Mike Barrett is likely to be a forger and to have specifically created or helped create this document.
This is still true. |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 10:41 am | | Hi Martin,
You ask:
"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?"
Yes, except I do not even feel there are enough clearly suspicious circumstances for even the most fanatical of prosecutors to legitimately get an arrest warrant from any judge; or that there is nearly enough evidence that might be offered under any rules of evidence as material, relevant, or reliable, for any charges even to be brought. But I am happy to re-examine the circumstances within this framework and using this test and see what we find.
No, to be precise, my responses have been pointedly directed at Karoline's repeated claim that it is "probable" and "likely" that Mike was complicit in this forgery. She eventually revised it to this from her earlier claim that his complicity was "established beyond a reasonable doubt" (I still have that citation).
It is the troublesome claim that the "evidence" which Karoline has listed (and which is in many cases provably and demonstrably not evidence of anything specific or in particular at all) -- it is the claim that this "evidence" makes it "likely" or "probable" that Mike was complicit in this forgery that I find utterly unestablished and completely invalid, so far.
So I am afraid I will have to stand by this conclusion and my analysis here.
Thanks for asking,
--John |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 10:55 am | | Dear Alegria,
I had hoped (sigh!) it would not prove necessary to chase back along the boards and fish out the offensive and completely unprovoked remarks Melvin posted about me in the middle of a perfectly peaceful and good-natured discussion going on between myself, Chris George, and others who either disagreed with or were interested in the Polish Jew theory. But here is how he opened his intervention:
"SOME MISSING DATA
"I am not in the least interested in debating Martin Fido's claims for his candidate Cohen for the very good reason that the Kosminsky/Cohen conflict is simply one between himself and Paul Begg. They have both considered the same material for over ten years but still fail to agree. Thus it is a sheer waste of time to intervene in what is really a private dispute.
"But for those still determined to spend time on the affair let me acquaint them with some of the data that is missing from Fido's exposition.
"His theory is at base an unpleasant one. It involves conspiracies by three people to deceive their respective police forces; the Home Secretary; the Press and the public."
Now, this is not only a distortion of my thinking, allowing him to place an unsavoury characterisation on it, it carries the unmistakeable implication that I am trying to mislead people by withholding information. A little later he calls my work 'malarkey'. He has offered as an implied justification that Stewart Evans and Nick Connell agree with him that neither Kosminski nor Cohen deserve to be rated as high priority suspects, and that both think Paul Begg and I overrate the importance or reliability of Anderson's opinion. I don't think this misrepresents them for one moment. But I very much doubt whether either of them would wish to be associated with calling my work 'malarkey'! Wrongheaded, perhaps. Maybe annoying in my persistence with it. But not malarkey!
Knowing that a soft answer doesn't turn away wrath in Melvin's case, I responded vehemently and immediately, and quite deliberately rudely. And, fairly enough, he has consistently answered in kind thereafter. But I do not feel myself responsible for the sadly lowered tone of the discussion.
The question of his entry in the A-Z was brought up by myself, not as a means of reopening debate on his way of dealing with other writers, but to explain in all fairness to him that there was a longstanding dispute with Paul Begg and myself which lay behind his otherwise (to other people) possibly incomprehensible unmannerly intervention.
And without characterising it as BS, surely it has been proved in spades that Melvin HAS made a claim to hold information showing that Mike and Anne were the 'placers' of the diary which was composed by three other people, and has claimed confidentiality ever since when challenged by those who have come to other conclusions to spell out this information?
He could, of course, settle this once and for all by giving straight answers to the straight questions John Omlor posted to him.
With all good wishes,
Martin F |
Author: Alegria
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 11:11 am | | | He doesn't like your work, you don't like his opinion of your work. You don't like his work, he doesn't like your opinion of his work. You feel you have legitimate grievances, he feels he has legitimate grievances. He thinks you started it, you think he started it. That about sums it up. It has been proven that nothing will be solved by hashing over the past. As we are now in the present, why don't we just drop it? |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 12:01 pm | | Mike Barrett's confession.
As far as I can see the very first reference to the red diary is in MB's January 5th 1995 confession. He says:"Roughly round about January, February 1990 Anne Barrett and I finally decided to go ahead and write the Diary of Jack the Ripper. In fact Anne purchased a Diary, a red leather backed Diary for L25.00p, she made the purchase through a firm in the 1986 Writters Year Book, I cannot remember their name, she paid for the Diary by cheque in the amount of L25 which was drawn on her Lloyds Bank Account, Water Street Branch, Liverpool. When this Diary arrived in teh post I decided it was of no use, it was very small. My wife is now in possession of this Diary in fact she asked for it specifically recently when I saw her at her home address."
Right away, we have a problem with the date because according to the information given us by Shirley and Keith, the actual purchase of the red diary was around March 1992 when: "a well established secondhand book company had a call from a Mr Barrett who asked them to find him a Victorian Diary." But what if, as Chris George has suggested, there actually was another diary that was supplied via: " a firm in the 1986 Writters Year Book," and not one that was found in the Liverpool area Yellow Pages?
Obviously there are problems with MB's confessions: he says that Tony Devereux died "late May early June 1990 (not "May 1990" as written in Shirley's book) when Tony actually died in August 1991. There are also mistakes mentioned by Shirley such as a word under a blot being "regards" instead of (as MB says) "James." However it might be worth while if the diary itself was independently examined to verify that all the things MB mentions are wrong.
The Punch comment: "Page 226 of the Book, page 20, centre page inverted commas, quote "TURN ROUND THREE TIMES, AND CATCH WHOM YOU MAY". This was from Punch Magazine, 3rd week in September 1888. The journalist was P.W. WENN" seems incorrect and certainly I can't trace a journalist of that name although PC Wrenn does come to mind. MB says that he gave the photo's from the album to Billy Graham. Do we know if Billy Graham collected photos or post cards? Interestingly MB does tell us the facts about when and where he bought his Amstrad; something that Shirley got wrong in her first editions.
" It was about 1st week in December 1994 that my wife Anne Barrett visited me, she asked me to keep my mouth shut and that if I did so I could receive a payment of L20,000 before the end of the month" This is accurate. In the solicitors letter of the 27th September 1994, previously cited here, there is a reference to a sum of £12,000 to be shared between the Barrett's. In a letter dated 13th January 1995 from Smith Gryphon the sum of £70,000 from New Line Cinema is mentioned with the provizo that S-G would get 20% (£14,000) leaving £56,000. This was to be further divided equally with Shirley leaving £28,000 for the Barretts. This plus the £12,000 previously mentioned gives us £40,000 of which half would be for MB. |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 12:15 pm | | Hi Alegria,
An excellent summary and very sensible advice which I am happy to follow,
With thanks,
Martin |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 12:25 pm | | Hi John,
I can't speak for the granting of warrants by American courts. But all too often in England charges have been brought following unprompted (or even carefully extracted)confessions, even if they are varying and self-contradictory and subsequently withdrawn, and not all the facts seem to fit, and there is a complete absence of corroborative tangible physical evidence. The most notorious case is that of Timothy John Evans - and I'd have convicted him myself on the grounds of his unsolicited (though completely impossible) first two confessions. Of course, five years after Evans had been hanged it proved that the 'innocent' neighbour against whom he had levelled 'incomprehensible and unwarranted' accusations was one of our most repulsive serial killers, with two victims already buried in the garden at the time when Evans accused him of being the actual murderer of Mrs Evans.
So I'd lean to accepting your initial, 'Yes...' rather than bowing to the subsequent 'but...'
Not that I disagree that where I've read your arguments, they have all tend to show that what evidence we have in re the Barretts and the diary produces the result 'Nothing neither way', with the Crashaw quotation as the most stickling suspicious circumstance needing better explanation than we seem to have been given.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 12:45 pm | | Hi there, Martin,
Fair enough. And yes, the courts and prosecutors continually surprise me as well with their zeal for convictions. But, as you suggest, in the end that does not make Mike's and/or Anne's complicity either "likely" or "probable" of course, based on the evidence available and all of its problems. And that was the original claim, and the one that I would continue to challenge.
And so we remain reading,
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 12:53 pm | | Hi Peter,
One other little problem (among the great many) in Mike's confessions, which I thought might be important and worth mentioning...
Mike describes the scene of composition this way:
"I sat in the living room by the rear lounge window in the corner with my word processor, Anne Barrett sat with her back on to me as she wrote the manuscript. This pose was later filmed by Paul Feldman of MIA Productions Limited.
"Several days prior to our purchase of materials I had started to roughly outline the Diary on my word processor.
"Anne and I started to write the Diary in all it took us 11 days. I worked on the story and then I dictated it to Anne who wrote it down in the Photograph Album and thus we produced the Diary of Jack the Ripper. Much to my regret there was a witness to this, my young daughter Caroline."
Does anyone believe this is actually how the diary was produced? Does anyone believe the writing is Anne's, even?
If not, this may be a problem, too.
Is this "likely" to be an accurate account of how this book was created?
Just wondering,
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 02:39 pm | | Hi, John:
I am not sure the scenario that Mike portrays of him dictating the Diary from his word processor to Anne to write down is especially "likely." Rather, it just seems to be a reversal of the scenario whereby he read from the existing Diary while Anne typed the transcript.
John, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and your close analysis of the situation in regard to the Diary. On the other hand, your long long posts are getting excessive. I realize you have a problem with Karoline and that you believe that you have to keep reiterating points, but is there any way you could keep your posts more concise? This has not only to do with the fact that I (as I am sure others do) turn off at a certain point when the posts get too long but it is eating up the bandwidth that Stephen has available. Stephen has remarked to me that the message boards are in a precarious state in terms of the space available, and we should all bear this in mind. Karoline also might want to heed this point since both of you have been repeating the same points, at length. Thanks to both of you for your cooperation in this matter.
Best regards
Chris |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 02:49 pm | | Hi Chris,
Sure, I'll do my best. But if you check out my recent response to Karoline, which was extraordinarily long, I agree, I think you'll find it was offered as a deliberate and detailed attempt to summarize and hopefully finalize a series of disagreements and misreadings that I fear have been in play.
If it is read in its entirety and read closely, there should be no more need for such long posts in the future. That's one of the reasons I tried to make this morning's post as comprehensive as possible.
I am aware of the excessive nature of my readings and responses above and, of course, I will try and control my own tendency to be both comprehensive and responsible at the same time. Periodically, let me know how I am doing, OK?
Finally, Chris, and this is not intended to be a slur on anyone at all, believe me, it would be easier to reply briefly if others read more carefully.
That's it from me, in the compelling interests of bandwidth,
--John |
Author: Karoline L
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 02:51 pm | | John,
evidence is almost never "for" or "against" anything in an absolute sense. And each individual piece of that evidence will always be capable of contradictory interpretations. That is simply an inevitability of human experience.
So I do not understand what logical or other rationality you find in alleging that because this evidence isn't conclusively 100% "for" anything it somehow has no meaning and isn't "evidence".
It's a collection of facts relevant to the case. The only facts we currently have. If it isn't "evidence" then what is it? And what would you call "evidence" if not that?
This I think is the ultimate weakness of your position, (as I understand it) since it assumes the possibility of certitude and then uses the absence of that certitude from a given scenario to argue that all possibilities remain equally likely, that the landscape is featureless, and that assertions of probability are therefore invalid.
This is simply a fallacy.
There is no possibility of certitude in human affairs. All we have are sliding scales of likelihood, which will always include ambiguities and alternative possibilities. It's quite false to suggest that the presence of this ambiguity means all structure, all conclusions are impossible.
In the present case, the data is incomplete, it is circumstantial, it is in places contradictory - but it is still possible to see by examining it that certain possibilities might be more likely than others - because (in my view at least) more of the data supports them.And this allows us to make a tentative set of assumptions.
This isn't some mad system of my own devising, you know. It's the way historical research works the world over. You could open any book of history, biography or even science, and find deductions there based on the same process I am describing.
It's common practise. It's the only practicable system I can think of - and I've never understood why the mere suggestion of employing it here has caused such outrage and such fulminating abuse to descend on me.
I don't think I am being blinkered. I have not "pre-judged" anything, and sincerely hope I never fall into that trap. I don't think I am being stupid, thoughtless or creatively inaccurate
I am not suggesting the case is proved or solved beyond further question. I am not suggesting everyone accepts my word for it. I am not suggesting that more evidence isn't needed (on the contrary, I'm trying (though without too much success!) to get some more data right now).
I am just using the historical methodology I learned while doing my own research to observe that the case currently implies certain things as being more likely than others.
That's all. That really is all.
But I expect you would like me to reply to the individual and singular points in your very long post? Well,it might take a while, but I will |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 02:58 pm | | Chris,
See what I mean?
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 03:26 pm | | Karoline,
I would like to read and respond to your post carefully, word for word, and comment, but in the interests of bandwidth I will abbreviate.
I am not saying any of this evidence has to be 100% for or against anything.
Once again you have not read me carefully.
I am saying the "evidence" has to at least allow us to decide which alternative scenarios are more likely than which, or it is not really evidence of anything in particular at all. Yours, the material you listed and that I reviewed carefully above, does not even do this. Clearly and demonstrably it does not.
I am not looking for certitude. I am looking for a single, solitary piece of material or physical evidence that would allow us to choose which scenario of the diary purchase is more likely or whether Mike knew Kane at all or when Mike first saw the Crashaw quote or when he transcribed the text onto the wp. And you have not yet offered me one piece of reliable evidence regarding these questions. Nothing at all.
Once again, a whole post from you without any evidence that would allow us to choose fairly between alternative scenarios or answer any of these questions, which consequently makes it impossible for you to claim that Mike's complicity is therefore either likely or probable.
You are making my case for me.
You are wrong about how history is done because you are wrong about the assumptions that the startling lack of evidence in this case allows you to make. And until you offer me one single piece of reliable physical or material evidence that would fairly allow you to make those assumptions, you will remain wrong and you will remain, as you say, "blinkered."
No, that is not all, Karoline, that you are claiming. You are claiming that it is probable and it is likely that Mike helped write this document, that he participated in this forgery. And you have offered no real evidence of a physical or material nature to support this claim. That is not history, that is not reason, that is not rational argument. That is simply announcing your assumed conclusion as if it were supported by real evidence and not offering the evidence, and therefore your conclusion about what is likely or probable remains worthless.
That is all I have time for, in the name of the above request for brevity.
If you are going to reply point by point, please do so in a way that conserves bandwidth, in light of Chris' recent expression of concern.
If you want a few points to start with, how about these three: what "evidence" do you have that Mike knew Kane? or what "evidence" do you have that Mike intended to use the diary for his forgery? or what "evidence" do you have that tells you when the transcript was typed into the wp?
Let's see it.
Bye,
--John
PS: Chris, how'd I do?  |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 03:31 pm | | Hi, John and Karoline:
In an honest attempt to intervene here between the two of you, I think we should agree that what is being discussed is not particularly evidence, but as Paul Begg has characterized it "data." I happen to agree with you, Karoline, as well as with R.J. that the purchase of the maroon diary by the Barretts and Mike's ownership of the Sphere book containing the lines from the Crashaw poem are highly suspicious. But they are not proof of anything. Both are capable of innocent explanations. In addition such things as Mike's confessions could be seen only as him wanting to be seen as a bigger man than he is and as a defensive mechanism against Feldman. In fact, the changing stories of both Barretts can be seen as being partly prompted by Feldman's intense probing and hounding of people. In the end, I have to agree with John that the data provide no proof whatsoever of the involvement of the Barretts in the forgery. In fact, short of the proof which Melvin Harris supposedly has, we are no further along in knowing who forged the Diary.
One other thing, John, you appear to say that you have not seen the sample of Gerard Kane's writing that was placed on these boards last summer by Peter Birchwood. Is that so? If you have not, I will send it to you. It is Kane's signature, occupation, and address as given on Devereaux's will, which does, in my view, look similar to the writing in the Diary but yet again is not proof that he, either, was involved in forging the Diary.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 03:57 pm | | Thanks very much Chris, for that interesting summary and that well-reasoned paragraph.
I would only add that not only do I think there is no "proof," I believe I can clearly and logically and irrefutably demonstrate that the "data" we do have so far does not in any way allow us responsibly to decide whether one set of scenarios and explanations is more "likely" or "probable" than another. Too much of it remains missing. Period. This goes for each and every listed issue. I hope you will agree with this as well. Any supposition about what is more likely or probable consequently remains made directly in the face of a complete absence of the very pieces of real material evidence we would need to allow us to make such a conclusion, and therefore any such supposition remains only the personal whim and premature assumption of the person making the "conclusion" and can have no serious historical or evidentiary worth.
That is what I have been trying to say, Chris. Thank you for allowing me to be more explicit about it. I think it is clear, it is logical, and it is self-evident.
Yes, I would be delighted to see the Kane sample. Why not re-post it, so that we all might have a look again. Sorry I missed it the first time.
Thanks again, Chris,
--John |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 04:08 pm | | John-- You asked about Anne Graham's handwriting. Could you do me a small favor and answer your own question? Have you seen it? Do you know if it has been professionally analysed? Are you assuming the Maybrick diary is not in her handwriting? (you've seemed to have implied this before) --Just wondering.
Also, the following exchange might be of interest to you:
THE MAYBRICK DIARY BOARD
Karoline L. Friday, 23 June, 2000 9:43 a.m.
"How are we going to know whether or not the writing belongs to Ann or Mike or anyone - if the handwriting analysis isn't done?
How are we going to know anything unless someone stops speculating long enough to start looking?
Go out and get the hard data. There is nowhere (really nowhere) else for this to go.
I hope Paul's silence indicates that he finally agrees with me."
* * * *
Paul Begg's reply, Saturday, 24 June, 2000, 4:42 a.m.:
"Karoline:- Research has never been something which should be conducted half-cocked. Research is time-consuming and often expensive and to get from it the very best value one must make sure that the right people are being asked the correct questions. You seem to think that the simple solution is to have the handwriting of Mike and Ann compared the the handwriting of the 'diary'. I don't share that view. We would have 'hard evidence' if the analysis showed that one or the other wrote it.
But if the analysis showed that neither of them did, we wouldn't have advanced beyond what we already think could be the case. We'd still be asking who their most likely potential co-forgers would be and if we have examples of their handwriting to offer for comparison? And will a professional handwriting analysis cut any
ice anyway, given that handwriting experts of note and distinction emerged from the Hughes and Hitler forgery debacles smelling of the cesspit?
The only way I know of to pose and answer the right questions is to examine the 'evidence' and create scenarios (or theories) which acccomodate most or all of the information we possess. These scenarios are then tested in the standard time-honoured fashion until the most likely is whittled out. Then and only then do we decide how best to test the theory by acquiring whatever hard evidence we can.
But no headway down this road can be made if the 'Mike and Ann did it' theorists won't even address the objections to and problems apparent in their theory and recite "where's your hard evidence?" at any and every opportunity as if somehow it has a bearing on the creation of a workable hypothesis that can be tested."
Now, John---could it be that Karoline was demanding the "hard evidence" & someone convinced her of a different methodology? --Just wondering.
How about if you & Paul get together and decide which methodology you wish to currently pursue --hard data first & theory later, or theory first & hard data later, and then let the rest of us know? Then I'll help you compile it? Does this sound o.k.? And how about Anne's handwriting? What do you really know about it? Just wondering.
RJP |
Author: Karoline L
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 04:23 pm | | Chris,
thank you for your intervention. I must say I 'm not too clear what the distinction is between data and evidence, but if everyone wants to call it "data" from now on - then fine with me..
Either way I've never claimed it as proof of anything (and to be honest I am slightly tired of having to say that!).
John,
thank you for calling me "blinkered" again, and thank you also for warning me not to make my reply to you too long! (what a beguiling lack of irony you seem to have).
Don't worry. I won't. Here it is:
You are rude. You are wrong. And if my method of "doing history" isn't yours, it still managed to produce a fairly important revisionist biography of a fairly important literary figure.
You might like to read it some time - it's available through Amazon, where you can also read the reviews. You'll probably hate it on all counts
But I'll still be too polite to call you blinkered.
Now, I am stopping this pointless correspondence with you - for poor Stephen Ryder's dear sake. So please - don't ask me any more questions.
K |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 04:56 pm | | Chris,
Allow me a brief reply and a correction or two. Thanks.
K.,
(how wonderfully Kafka like, and appropriate too)
By my count, this is the third time you have given notice to quit the discussion. Once again it is duly noted.
Please know that my call for your brevity was not a lack of irony on my part but a sensitivity to recently expressed concerns about bandwidth (again, it would help things if you read carefully).
I am no doubt rude. My calling you "blinkered" was in reference to your insistence that it remains "likely" or "probable" that Mike forged the diary when all of your very own listed evidence, upon closer examination, will not logically allow you to make such a claim. The only reason you can continue to assert it is that you have already and prematurely assumed the likelihood of Mike's complicity despite what the evidence clearly and demonstrably does not simply suggest.
I stand by this reading of your work.
I have never suggested that you claimed anything was "proved" (except perhaps once when you wrote, concerning Mike's complicity, the unfortunate phrase "established beyond a reasonable doubt"). I have claimed that you said things were "likely" or "probable" and that you simply did not and do not have the evidence necessary to make such claims either fairly or responsibly. You do not. Once again you have not offered it in your most recent post. I see nothing at all that would answer questions such as: what "evidence" do you have that Mike knew Kane? or what "evidence" do you have that Mike intended to use the diary for his forgery? or what "evidence" do you have that tells you when the transcript was typed into the wp?
Your book may very well be a thorough and impressive piece of scholarship. I am confident it is. You work here, that I have read closely, has included careless reading and misstatement of my words, claims about my intentions that I know to be wrong, apparently not reading at all (for instance, my earlier reply of days ago to your question about the Man on the Bus, which you simply missed), and a simple lack of logic (such as the two scenarios you offered to me and Paul concerning likelihood and the Man on the Bus above, which simply and demonstrably ignored other even more careful logical alternatives).
This is not an insult. This is simply a critical and textual comment on what I have read.
I will now wait to see if this third notice takes effect.
Sorry for the curtness. I am trying to conserve space.
Bye for now,
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 05:14 pm | | Hi RJ,
I'm happy to respond and tell you that I have no idea whatsoever whether Anne's handwriting matches the diary. Absolutely none. I've never even seen it and never seen any analysis done on it. I am certainly not claiming that it does or does not match. I would not claim this at this point.
I have however read post after post on these boards by certain people, each naming a mysterious Mr. Kane and suggesting his handwriting matched the diary's. I assumed this meant that these people had agreed that Anne's did not seem to match or that Mike's confessed scenario of composition was highly unlikely.
If I was wrong about what people have agreed to, I stand corrected and will happily assume that someone out there still thinks it is possible or even likely that Anne wrote this diary in her own hand and that they have evidence of this.
I'm happy to see any physical evidence whatsoever to support this. If the evidence was clear and convincing, I would think we could all go home right now, because we would clearly have Anne dead to rights. If the evidence even clearly and visibly suggested that Anne wrote this thing, I would want to know that and I would consider it a serious blow to her claims to innocence and I would consider it real and physical evidence of her complicity. Is this what you are telling me her handwriting reveals?
I really want to know this.
But perhaps this evidence, like so much evidence around here, just does not exist, and therefore we can fairly conclude, once again, nothing either way.
In the interest of bandwidth, I will not comment on the exchange you re-cite between Paul and Karoline except to say I am all for the producing of any real, reliable, physical or material evidence whatsoever that would allow us to decide between possible scenarios of complicity and non-complicity in the act of forgery. I have seen none so far, so I am anxious to see any.
I think theory and practice are inseparable and cannot be distinguished and separated from one another without dealing a serious blow to both. So I would advise that we continue to be self-reflexive about our theoretical methodologies and that we steadfastly resist any and all preconceived assumptions, even as we examine the evidence carefully and see what it will and will not allow us to fairly and responsibly decide.
So it's neither one first then the other or the reverse, RJ. It's constant and rigourous self-awareness and care and the maintenance of sound methodologies even as we examine details and search for evidence and interpret it fairly and objectively and without desired or preconceived conclusions. That is all I ask.
Were you wondering anything else?
--John
(Am I doing all right, Chris? If not, I'm sorry.) |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 05:30 pm | | RJP
Just a very quick comment before I pack up for the day. It is a little unfair to take a quote out of context and shows a misunderstanding of what was being said then and perhaps a misunderstanding of what is being said now. I was ‘then’ simply saying that to the untrained eye the handwriting of the ‘diary’ looked like neither Mike’s nor Anne’s and that if an professional handwriting analysis confirmed this, as seemed likely that it would, then it would not have advanced us anywhere. But I’m too tired and worried about bandwidth to rehash an old argument that has no relevance to what is under discussion.
I don’t think John and I need to discuss proper historical methodology as the basic rules are essentially what I have already stated: (1) collection of the data, (2) an orderly and controlled assessment of it, and (3) interpreting what the data is telling us (what it means).
You do not start with a hypothesis and assess the data in light of that hypothesis, which is what Karoline has been doing.
A hypothesis is derived from an assessment of the data and should not be coloured by a pre-conceived hypothesis. Thus, the paucity of information in the research notes is not interpreted as their author having carefully avoided reference to other books. What it means, if anything at all can be deduced from the basic data, is, as you concluded, that they were inconsistent with their author possessing anything approaching extensive knowledge. You now have a theory and you can test that theory by asking more questions, such as whether or not Mike seems to possess an extensive knowledge. If he does, you might question whether the notes are kosher or not. If he doesn’t, you could conclude that the notes are consistent with his knowledge. Unfortunately you have to rely on others for that information. But I don’t and I can draw your attention to a letter written a long time ago in which I formed the conclusion that Mike didn’t have any extensive knowledge. For me, at least, from talking with Mike, Mike’s knowledge is consistent with the paucity of information in the notes. I have now learned something from my analysis of the notes, confirmed that from talking with Mike and I am now building a conclusion based on available data. I can now begin to test that conclusion – hypothesis, if you like - by looking for data that supports or, more importantly, conflicts with it. If I can’t find any, I can gradually advance the hypothesis with a degree of growing confidence or, better still, isolate specific questions that will, hopefully, advance my knowledge.
Thus, you create a hypothesis from the data. The procedure is the same and the questions are the same whether I am looking at Mike’s notes or a 12th century land grant – what am I looking at, what is its context, what does it tell me?
Basically, what Karoline has done is to completely miss out the controlled and orderly assessment of the data and, in some cases, to reach a conclusion reachable only if Mike is accepted as the forger (such as the text of the 'diary' being on his wp being evidence that he forged the 'diary' for example). This failure to properly assess and allow alternative interpretations into her reasoning is what John has been arguing with her about.
I hope I've explained this. If not, I'll be happy to answer any questions when not so tired.
Cheers
Paul |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 06:24 pm | | Hi Paul,
Your response to RJ above, which seemed to me rather reasonable, reminded me of a question I have been meaning to ask on this board.
Everyone:
We all agree that we have no idea when the transcript was typed onto Mike's wp, right? And we also don't know at all how or why, right?
So how, then, can the existence of that transcript be considered reliable evidence, or necessarily even evidence at all, of Mike's complicity in the actual forgery?
I'm not sure I understand this.
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 06:34 pm | | Hi, all:
Thanks all for the shorter replies. I appreciate it, Stephen appreciates it, and the longterm health of the message boards appreciates it! Here is the copy of Tony Devereaux's will that John Omlor says he has not seen and that at lower left contains a sample of Gerard Kane's writing which, to my eyes at least, bears a resemblence to the handwriting in the Diary.
Best regards
Chris
 |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 06:40 pm | | Hi Everyone,
Oh yes, one other thing I wanted to ask on this board today.
Has anyone yet found any evidence at all, of any kind, that Mike knew Mr. Kane or even ever met him?
Is there any evidence of this at all?
Oh, and finally,
We all agree that Mike did give his real name and his home address when ordering the little red diary, right?
Is there any real evidence at all, of any kind, that he therefore intended to use it shortly thereafter in a criminal act? Is there any evidence that he did not intend to use it for criminal purposes (aside from the fact of his giving his own real name and address when ordering it, which might perhaps imply non-criminal intent, although I'm , quite frankly, not really even sure of this either, seeing as how it's Mike)?
So, what I guess I'm finally asking is, is there any real evidence for or against the likelihood of criminal intent here?
Two sets of simple questions, I hope, briefly asked.
Thanks. I admit that I am still a little confused about where these issues stand as evidence here in our discussion.
Now I have to go watch a "chick flick" that apparently has a host of Jane Austen references hidden in it. I'll have fun searching.
Bye for the night, and thanks everyone for your patience throughout this ultimately unfortunate exchange between Karoline and myself today. I do apologize for its tedium.
--John
Still trying to keep things short, Chris, but I'm afraid I have gotten a bit confused about these issues and thought I'd ask the gang. |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 06:47 pm | | Chris,
Our posts crossed. Thanks very much for putting up the sample. I'll look at it and my facsimile of the diary in the Hyperion closely in the morning light.
Bye for now,
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 02:58 am | | Chris/Karoline
I don’t want to prolong this matter, but I saw your posts after posting to RJP and it was too late for me to briefly reply. First of all, thank you indeed for you intervention Chris.
Karoline, it isn’t a simple matter of changing the word we use. What matters is what you mean when you use the word. “Data” is raw, meaningless ‘information’. “Evidence” is the data once it has been given a form, structure or meaning and is being used for or against something else.
That the text of the ‘diary’ is on Mike’s word processor is “data”. It becomes “evidence” when it has been given a meaning. Now, it is a highly suspicious piece of data, yet it is also capable of being interpreted in a way that is wholly innocent and not suspicious at all.
The problem we seem to be hitting right down the line is that you have denied the validity of the alternative interpretations (as you said, they either don’t exist or they are baseless speculation of the Elvis is alive in Bhutan type) and (b) you assert that your interpretation is most probably the correct one – and you really have come as near as dammit to saying ‘proof’ without actually using the word. This is what John has tried to explain to you. He honestly isn’t wrong. Really he isn’t. We've all tried to explain this to you, this time and the last time round. It isn't an attack on you personally. And if he has been rude, it has probably been through frustration. |
Author: Karoline L
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 04:11 am | | Paul,
You "all" have not been trying to explain anything to me, since at least half the people who post here tend towards my view of the case and not yours. The idea that you represent a consensus and I am a lone dissident is simply a rhetorical construction.
Please try to understand that my view is based neither on "stupidity" or "pre-judgement", that I have never claimed anything to be proved and then stop accusing me of these things, and that will be fine with me.
Now shall we drop the subject?
I have advocated from the beginning that we try to get more data, and in further pursuance of that can I ask - again - if you could look out for me the faxes and other data you have relevant to the Crashaw quotation?
I understand that Shirely H. talked to the solicitors (in 1998?) and they promised her they would call her back if they found any relevant information about the date the Sphere book was lodged with them.
I understand that up until today they haven't called back, and Shirley is still waiting for them to do so (is this right?)
But could I suggest that after this length of time it's quite likely they have simply forgotten and it might be a good idea if SH calls them again. Surely if she spoke directly to MB's own lawyer she could get the question answered almost immediately?
If Shirley doesn't want to do this, would she accept someone else doing it on her behalf? I'd be happy to call if she was happy for me to do so.
And Keith, if you are right and MB wasn't claiming to have used the Sphere book to forge the diary on October 12 1994 - then why was he going to lodge it with his solicitors?
It all seems so odd and ambiguous, we really need more information
Karoline |
Author: Mike David
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 04:30 am | | John Omlor wrote here recently:
"I turned sarcastic and comedic because it was a ridiculous question because no one had suggested anything at all like what the question was suggesting. It was a question that implied that someone had made the argument that Mike was no more likely to have forged the diary than a perfect stranger, and no one had ever actually made any argument that even resembled this."
So, if Mike Barrett is more likely to have forged the diary than a total stranger - doesn't this mean the forger is probably Mike Barrett or someone he knew?
Mike |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 05:41 am | | Hello Mike
As you seem to acknowledge, what you have quoted from John Omlor is a denial that he had ever suggested that the ‘diary’ was as likely to have been written by Mike as by anyone else in the whole world. This was something he never said. I never said it either. Karoline made it up.
However,it is the little bit tacked onto the end of your question that makes all the difference -“or somebody he knew”. There is a big difference between Mike forging the ‘diary’ himself and it being forged by somebody else. And if anyone is going to favour one or the other argument then they need to support it. |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 05:45 am | | Er, Mike... absolute probability cannot be inferred from comparative probability. Given that the Ripper needed hands to hold a knife, it is more likely that he was a monkey than a bird. This doesn't mean he was probably a monkey, as those aren't the only two choices open to us.
If for the sake of argument either John or Karoline chooses to make the obvious point that Mike's part in bringing the diary forward brings him under heavier suspicion of forgery than a complete stranger, that doesn't make him the probable forger, as there are non-Mikes with an almost equally close diary involvement in the original story or stories (Anne, Tony Devereux); one non-Mike whose connection with Devereux is definite and whose handwriting is thought by some people to resemble that of the diary (Gerard Kane), and it is easy to postulate other people whose involvement we simply don't know (as all suspicion of Mr Kane rests cheerfully on our total ignorance as to whether he had ever even heard of Mike Barrett and his missus).
Incidentally, a part of the equation which nobody seems to be paying much attention is the hitherto undisputed statement that Tony called Mike 'Bozo the Clown'. Suggesting that, however grateful he was to him for bringing his sherry, Tony found Mike a bit ridiculous. Might he have found him the fitting butt for a hoax or practical joke? (I'm not placing this anywhere in the priority list of possibilitie: just adding the datum about the nickname to the pile which is being interpreted as evidence).
With all good wishes,
Martin F |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 06:08 am | | Continuing my points about MB's confession, it should be noted that although there doesn't seem to have been a PW Wenn who was a journalist there was a William P. Wenn living in Kensington in 1881 who was 33 and a "collector" although I am not sure what that would be unless he collected Ambroses. Maybe someone has some thoughts about whether he later started writing for "Punch?" Melvin Harris has suggested (in a message that I will place here later) that the name PW Wenn could be a misreading of John Tenniel's characteristic initials plus the name of the block-maker Swain. Perhaps someone could scan this cartoon here so that we can see if such a mistake could have been made? (Possibly Karoline has thoughts on this as Tenniel illustrated much of Lewis Carroll?)
If I might expand on the red diary, if, as Chris suggested, there might have been a diary before the album (perhaps the red one that MB says was bought in 1990) and that diary was found too small, what would be the point of purchasing another in March 1992? Let's examine what we actually know about the situation. I have no independent confirmation from HP Bookfinders (found not from the Writers and Artists Yearbook but from the Yellow Pages.)of this transaction but let me assume that what Shirley and Keith tell us is indeed accurate. It is of course true that a cheque headed presumably HP Bookfinders does not prove that the £25 was payment for the red diary. The only proof that it was would be an invoice from the company specifying the object bought and the payment plus a later acknowledgement of payment. Also, we have presumed that "Mr. Barrett" ordered the diary by phone but I wonder if someone writing to Shirley in 1999 could really have remembered a phone transaction 7 years previously? Is it more likely that HPB have a record saying that the diary was ordered by "Mr. Barrett" at such a time? And if so, do we have proof that it was MB who actually ordered the thing?
We have a request from a Mr. Barrett about March for a Victorian diary the size/year of which is apparently unspecified. A small red 1891 diary is sent on March 26th 1992 between the date of MB's phone call to Doreen and his visit. Now if as some believe MB actually had the diary as we now know it, with him at that time, why would he ask for another one? Surely not to see what one looked like; there are much cheaper ways to do that. The diary must have been needed for some purpose or other. Could it have been to rewrite the Album diary into something that had a date on it? If so, surely an 1888/89 date would have been specified.
I still feel it more likely (or if some prefer, less unlikely) that the Diary was composed on the WP, calls were then made to see whether the result might be saleable and when it looked as if a buyer could be found, an attempt was made to locate a medium to write the diary into. The red diary was found unsuitable and so a hasty search was done which subsequently found the album.
Is it important at what date MB gave the Sphere book to his solicitor? In my view no. A great fuss was made at the time that Melvin said that it had been done long before the Barrett separation. I suspect that this may have been a mistake perhaps due to miscommunications from Alan Gray. The result was that it gave others an excuse to concentrate on this one point rather than answering questions that were more important. A similar event occurred when Melvin talked about the journalists. This led to a stampede rather like the Panacea Society saying that Crime and Banditry would increase until the Bishop's opened Joanna Southcott's Box.
Both these events were gifts to Paul Begg, Keith Skinner and others.
In my view the important thing is to discover when MB first owned the Sphere book. He says that he was given it after Hillsborough (April 15th 1989) so that it could be sold. If it can be shown to be in his possession before the diary made it's public appearance on April 13th 1992 then there is good reason for suspecting that MB has complicity in the diary forgery. If he got it after that date then his undoubted possession of the Sphere book is just happenstance. |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 06:33 am | | Karoline, one of the things you do which I find annoying is to misrepresent what is said to you. It may be true that half the people here agree with you, but they haven't spoken up and they most certainly haven't tried to explain anything to you. It was therefore self-evident that the “all” I am talking about are the “all” who have been trying to explain something to you. Why, then, do you take my clear meaning, twist it, make it appear as if I am maintaining that there is a consensus arraigned against you, and then deny the argument of what I am not saying?
In an attempt to be conciliatory I also pointed out that despite your denials “you really have come as near as dammit to saying ‘proof’ without actually using the word”. All you do is deny having said what I have said you haven't actually said. Are you in fact denying that you have come anywhere near saying "Proof" or "conclusive" or even that with the impossibility of absolute proof that the balance of probability favours Mike and Anne's guilt?
On April 4 you listed nine emboldened “basic indisputable facts”. You then concluded by attributing a statement to me, though attributing a sense that I did not mean, “Okay, none of this is proof - but as you said yourself Paul, this isn't about proof, it's about a balance of probability.Using that balance of probability - what do you think the most reasonable conclusion is at this point?”
The most reasonable conclusion at that point, as seen by you, was outlined in a subsequent post: Paul, What I posted in my emboldened list (see above anyone interested) were not arguments but facts - and what I will find if I trawl through the back posts are various arguments put forward to suggest why these facts might not be quite as damning as they first seem. I admit there might be reasons why these facts which seem at face value to sign and seal the Barretts' involvement in the forgery, are not as conclusive as they appear - but so far no one has produced any. Until they do, don't you agree that the balance of probability favours the simple and obvious answer - they look involved and guilty, because they are?”
How would you suggest that this statement should be interpreted if not “as near as dammit to saying ‘proof’”? “They look involved and guilty, because they are”
But what of the alternative interpretations to your nine emboldened facts? What of the idea that the text was on Mike’s word processor because he transcribed the ‘diary’ rather than your opinion that it was there because he composed the ‘diary’ on it?
On April 8 you wrote (misrepresenting my argument about Anne Graham and the money: “Paul, if you glance at the previous post of mine that you are discussing (posted April 5), you will note that I admit there have been many arguments put forward against the simple probability that the document is a modern forgery [and please note, by the way, that this is not what we were arguing about; we were arguing about the Barretts having forged the ‘diary’, not about it being a modern forgery] - but I point out that these arguments have been largely based on supposition not on fact. As I point out - your suggestion that AG might have given all her money away, and thus might not have profited from the diary after all, is rather typical of the type and quality of 'argument' that frequently appears on this board. It's not a fact, nor is it based on fact; nor is it based even on likely probability - it is a mere baseless supposition, of the "Elvis could be living in Bhutan" type. Hence my assertion, that while there have been many arguments to try and excuse the diary and its proponents, there have been few if any facts brought to support those arguments.
Now, please, Karoline, it must be patently obvious to all concerned that you were arguing that your nine emboldened facts were damning, that they signed and sealed the Barretts’ involvement in the forgery, were conclusive and that on balance of probability showed the Barretts to be guilty. And you have dismissed alternative interpretations of the evidence as baseless supposition of the Elvis is alive variety.
All John Omlor has done is try to point out that those nine facts are open to interpretations as fully equal to you own and that their existance means that your 'damning' 'conclusive' on balance of probability conclusion is not in fact 'damning', conclusive, or on balance of probability probable.
If you think he is wrong, provide the evidence, as he has asked. If on reflection you think he is right and feel inclined to modify your arguments of a month ago, then we can progress.
Or, as you say, we can drop the matter. You put forward your views and others will advance theirs and we won't discuss them. |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 06:44 am | | | Peter, if Mike gave the Sphere book to his solicitor long before he broke with Anne then it meant that he realised the significance of the quote at an early date. How can that not be important? It is, in fact, fairly crucial. And I object to your statement that it and the journalists were a “gift”. However, it would indeed be useful to establish when Mike took possession of the Sphere book. But if Mike took possession of it in 1989, would that make Mike the forger or otherwise actually provide us with greater knowledge about the origins of the ‘diary’ that we currently possess? |
Author: Karoline L
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 07:39 am | | Paul,
I am not going to argue with you any more.
Give it up.
And maybe go see if you can find that data you promised me? I would be very grateful, and it might help us find some answers.
Peter,
The illustrations I've seen done by Tenniel have a little bit of Chinese-looking writing in the corner which is actually his monogram "JT". It would be easy to compare this with the cartoon if someone wanted to post it on the board.
Will anyone do this?
you wrote:
"I still feel it more likely (or if some prefer, less unlikely) that the Diary was composed on the WP, calls were then made to see whether the result might be saleable and when it looked as if a buyer could be found, an attempt was made to locate a medium to write the diary into. The red diary was found unsuitable and so a hasty search was done which subsequently found the album"
I think this makes sense. The forgers would be feeling their way - one step at a time, and why bother to go to the trouble and expense of finding a real old book until they were sure they would be able to get an agent or publisher interested?
It's the kind of thinking you might expect from a bunch of ambitious but nervous and inexperienced amateur forgers, not too well educated,knowing nothing of the world of publishing.
Did Barrett ever claim to have bought the red diary "in order to see what an old Victorian diary really looks like"? or has it just been posited by someone else? (one grows confused).
Karoline |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 10:06 am | | | Fine by me, Karoline. I wasn't arguing anyway, just quoting you. And why don't you just ask Shirley for when Mike told her about his discovery? I'll only be repeating what she told me anyway and I can tell you now that the discovery was made on 30 September according to Keith's notes, faxed to me in early October, in a letter I am not prepared to make available because it contains private business discussions unrelated to anything Diary related. Maybe Keith would tell you himself what he knows. |
|
|
|
|
