|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 06, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-Archives 2001:
Archive through May 06, 2001
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 10:45 am |        | Hi Mike,
You asked: "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?"
I think Martin's primate-demonstration of why the second half of your question here does not logically follow from the first half is clear enough and is also irrefutable.
But I wanted to add a tangential word. Imagine, for a minute, that Mike really did get the diary from Tony without knowing its origins. I am not, definitely not, saying this even likely happened. I have no idea. I just want to conduct a little thought experiment.
Imagine you had gotten the diary from a drinking mate and didn't know anything about its origins and you wondered right away what the hell it was and whether it was real and you and your wife typed up the text of it into your word processor and set out to see what you could find out about the thing and eventually after fighting with your wife over what to do with it and failing to really learn much at all decisive either way about its authenticity you decided to take it to an agent and see what happened when it was examined...
Now, in such circumstances, an outsider investigating the case could fairly claim, once it was determined to be a forgery, that you were more likely to be the forger than a complete and total and random stranger off the street. You did have the book, after all. But that same investigating outsider could not logically conclude that you were therefore likely to be the forger, that your were "probably" the forger. Not unless they had real, physical or material evidence that linked you in at least some way to the act of forgery or that at least allowed them to choose between possible interpretations of your behavior and to choose fairly and with supporting evidence in favor of the interpretations that would imply your guilt.
So, these are two entirely different claims. Of course Mike is more of a suspect than I am. But that clearly does not indicate in any way that Mike is likely to be a forger -- and we cannot actually claim that Mike is likely to be the forger or even to have participated in the forgery, unless we have evidence, real physical or material evidence of Mike's participation in the forgery. Or at the very least evidence that would allow us to decide whether Mike's behavior clearly implies criminal intent and therefore probable guilt or whether it implies fairly and equally possible scenarios of non-complicity. And, if we can't yet decide between them, because we don't have the necessary physical evidence, or indeed any evidence at all, that would allow us to decide or even to claim any particular likelihood concerning whether Mike bought the diary with his real name and address for forgery or for comparison, or whether Mike ever met Kane, or when Mike first saw the Crashaw quote, or when he typed the transcript onto his wp, then we simply can't claim that Mike is probably or likely the forger at all. Valid logic won't allow it.
So yes, there are many possible scenarios in between "no more likely than a total stranger" and Mike's guilt actually being "likely" or "probable" or in any way established.
Thanks for the question, Mike,
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 11:25 am | | Peter,
You do realize that you are well off into the land of pure mystery and unevidenced and unwarranted conjecture when you write about your suspicions concerning the diary purchase and the transcript, right? Just a small point or two,
You write:
"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."
"Surely?"
All you have done here Peter is tell me that Mike's buying the diary for the purposes of comparison would seem to be unreasonable and illogical. "There are much cheaper ways to do that."
(Hey, Peter, wasn't it YOU who told me just last week that people, unlike characters in fiction, and especially people like Mike, "often do unreasonable and illogical things?" I can cite your exact words and the time and date that you said this. Indeed those were your very words, when describing why Mike might have given his name and address when ordering the diary. You said this to me Peter. You reassured me, by way of explaining Mike's order and his criminal intent, that Mike often "does illogical and unreasonable things." You told me this, Peter. Now YOU are telling me that Mike couldn't have bought the diary for comparison because that would be illogical and unreasonable!? You yourself explained his ordering the diary with his own name for a future criminal purpose by assuring me that he often does illogical and unreasonable things. Now you claim he could not have bought the diary for comparison because that would be illogical and unreasonable! But Peter, Mike often does illogical and unreasonable things. You said so yourself. And you were right. Peter, tell me you are not reading every piece of evidence in a way that indicts Mike even if that means you have to directly contradict yourself to do it. This is a bit embarrassing, I think.)
Anyway, you tell me that Mike's buying the diary for the purposes of comparison would seem to be unreasonable and illogical. "[T]here are much cheaper ways to do that."
I agree.
Mike's buying a Victorian diary and just giving his real name and his home address to the book firm knowing that he was intending to use this same book in a very short time to perpetrate a criminal fraud would also seem to be unreasonable and illogical. Wouldn't it?
So, which of these two unreasonable and illogical intentions is therefore clearly and logically more likely? The criminal one or the non-criminal one?
Why? Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your decision? Any evidence at all that would actually indicate that Mike's admittedly unreasonable decision to buy a Victorian diary to compare to one he was holding is any more or less likely than Mike's admittedly unreasonable decision to clearly identify himself and directly link himself to the very book he was, according to you, planning to use very soon in a criminal fraud? I do not believe that you have such evidence and therefore you cannot make such a choice in favor of the likelihood of one behavior or the other. You do realize this, right? Your suggestion that you can make such a determination is actually a reflection only of your unwarranted personal preference and whim and is clearly based on no logic or real evidence at all. Why have you, Peter, chosen to prefer this choice? What evidence allows you to?
Or is it just because Mike, in your mind, is already likely to be a criminal forger? So he must have chosen the illogical behavior that implies criminal intent rather than the illogical behavior that does not? See? This is what Paul and I mean by your obviously having assumed your conclusion before you have fairly and objectively examined the data to see what it actually allows you to claim.
This does not seem fair.
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 11:38 am | | Hi again Peter,
One other small thing.
You boldly write:
"I still feel it more likely (or if some prefer, less unlikely) that the Diary was composed on the WP"
I am glad to know that you feel this way, Peter. It is only too bad that you have no evidence whatsoever to support this feeling since you have no idea at all when the transcript was typed onto the wp or why or how. You have no idea, Peter. You can have no idea, since there is no evidence either way concerning which date is more likely and which scenario of production is more likely. No evidence at all either way. None. And therefore your feeling that it is "more likely (or if some prefer, less unlikely) that the Diary was composed on the WP" is a very interesting and telling "feeling," since it blindly and randomly chooses the possibility that implies criminality over the possibility that implies innocence. The only reason you would do such a thing is if you already assume Mike is likely to be guilty. Consequently you have indeed already assumed your conclusions before evaluating the evidence and consequently, your "feeling" or your reading of the evidence is biased, tainted, and logically invalid and finally historically worthless.
Why do you choose to choose each and every time in favor of the criminal alternative when you admittedly and demonstrably do not have the evidence to decide either way. Do you have any evidence that would allow you to determine (even in terms of likelihood) when the text was put on the wp, or if Mike knew Kane, or when Mike first saw the Crashaw quote, or why specifically Mike gave his own name and address and bought the diary? Any evidence that would allow you to decide any of this at all fairly or responsibly? Do you? Or is the criminal scenario just always more likely since, after all, we already know that Mike is likely to be the forger? But this is the conclusion whose validity you are allegedly attempting to determine. So you cannot assume it. To do so would mean that your argument would make no logical sense at all and would be, and in fact is, wonderfully backwards.
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 11:57 am | | Hi Chris,
A thought or two about Kane's handwriting.
Here is the relevant sample again, isolated. (I hope this works.)
[It didn't work. But it did below. Please see the following posts.]
I have no expertise in these matters whatsoever. I admit that readily. But I am looking at the copy of the diary reproduced in the Hyperion edition and there are a number of letter shapes and lines and a roundness to the formations of the letters in the diary handwriting that seem on first glance to me to be completely absent from the small sample of Kane's writing below.
To be more precise.
Below is the word "Place" from the address, in Kane's hand, on the will.
Now, if you look closely at the last page of the diary, you'll see the sentence "I place this now in a place where it shall be found."
Check out the formation of the letters in the two appearances of "place" in the diary and then look below.
 Also, look closely at the way Kane writes "Liverpool" in his address below. Now look at page 216 of the Hyperion, where the forger writes "Whitechapel, Liverpool." Look at the rounding out of the "pool" and especially the final "l" and then look below.
What do you think?
--John
PS: Of course this is not a fair sample of Kane's writing, I know, and we now apparently have more, which I hope we all will be able to see soon. Until then, I'm afraid am not convinced that we have anything like a likely or probable match, though. |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 11:59 am | |
Hi Chris.
Sorry. OK.
Here is the sample, isolated.
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 12:01 pm | | And here is the word "place," I believe.
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 12:04 pm | | And here is the word "Liverpool."
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 12:51 pm | | From Keith Skinner to the Board
I think I am correct in stating that the introduction of Mr Kane’s name into the discussion was first made by me and not Paul Begg. On Monday, July 3rd 2000 @ 05:18 am, on this board, Paul very kindly posted a message to Peter Birchwood on my behalf, part of which I reproduce here:-
Saturday July 1st 2000
From Keith Skinner to Peter Birchwood
I understand that you have asked about placing on the Board the late Mr. Devereux's Will. I assume this has something to do with Melvin Harris's conclusion, as reported by Paul Feldman in The Final Chapter (pg., 139 h/back and pg., 154 p/back) that:
"Mr Cain (sic) one of the witnesses, was the forger. According to Mr Harris, Mr Cain's (sic) handwriting matched that in the diary and he had mysteriously 'disappeared around the time that the diary became public.'"
I deduced from these two sentences that Melvin Harris was asserting that Mr Kane was obviously guilty of participating in a fraud.
Melvin Harris took me to task over this reading of what Paul Feldman had written, accusing me of “ugly invention”, and suggested I re-read the text of a letter which Melvin had sent to Rod Green, Feldman’s commissioning editor. The only letter I had been sent by Rod Green was dated October 14th 1996, where no reference was made by Melvin to Mr Kane.
On October 20th 2000 @ 06:18 pm, Melvin had posted on the Maybrick/Jack's watch board, a letter which he had written to Rod Green on September 4th 1997, following publication of Feldman’s book. This was the first time I had seen this letter, the relevant part of which now follows:-
On page 139 Feldman claims that I had examined Devereux's Will and "..concluded that Mr Cain, one of the witnesses, was the forger.." and he had mysteriously 'disappeared around the time that the diary became public'" This misrepresents my views in two ways. The idea that Mr Kane (the real spelling) had disappeared was not mine, but was the conclusion of a newspaper reporter who tried to trace him. And I have never identified Mr Kane as the forger. What I did say, and stand by, is that his handwriting on the Will bore an uncanny resemblance to the writing in the Diary. But it was only a small sample; too small to indict anyone.
Every competent investigator has a duty to clear people of suspicion, and it was in that spirit that an attempt was made to secure lengthy samples of Mr Kane's handwriting. This was not undertaken by me, but by a reporter known to me. Unfortunately and, rather foolishly, Kane drew suspicion upon himself by first denying that the writing on the Will was his; then by refusing to show a single sample of his handwriting. Later on, when interviewed by DS Thomas, he finally admitted that the Will writing was his. But this man's health is so poor that no further enquiries were made by me, or by the police, and he was never pressured into supplying samples of his writing.
Information which I have recently received, giving an insight into these events, essentially corroborates Melvin’s account, but provides us with a little additional human detail. It apears the newspaper reporter, (the paper has now been identified and Shirley Harrison is following up), did succeed in interviewing Mr Kane, but apparently Mr Kane was exceedingly nervous during the interview, threatening to sue for libel if he was identified in print as the forger. Melvin, as he has stated, considered Mr Kane’s behaviour to be suspicious, but apparently Melvin became alarmed by potential litigation proceedings, and the story was spiked.
Now that larger samples of Mr Kane’s handwriting have been secured, it would be interesting to learn of Melvin’s analysis. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 12:56 pm | | From Shirley Harrison to the Board
Karoline: How I wish I COULD explain! I have written to Richard Bark Jones
twice and had no response. I do not think this is significant in itself. I
have always had a very good relationship with him and can only assume his
silence is due to the phenomenon I have noted in other professionals on the
fringe of the story. Diary fatigue! When I spoke with Mr B-J on the
telephone at the time this problem emerged on the Boards, he was very
reluctant to spend time hunting through old diaries and letters. Like so
many, he was subjected to ordeal by my "literary partner" at the time -
usually drunk and has no taste to resurrect the memory. Even so I did write
and telephone several times but had no response. However he might reply to
an outside appeal. I suggest that someone - how about John Omlor - write him
an objective letter stressing the historic importance of getting to the
bottom of the mystery. Rather than put the firms name on the Internet
perhaps John would send the letter to me at shirleyharrison1@hotmail.com and
I promise I will, unlike Melvin Harris, forward it!
Incidentally I had no idea, until much later that Alan Gray had obtained the
book.
Perhaps we could see that too when Peter, Keith and I meet up with Melvin.
I may have to be less active than I would like to be for a while as I have
been commissioned to write a new book - not about The Ripper or crime you
will all be relieved to know. It's a biography - with the usual horrendous
deadline.
But I will try to respond while I am here to Chris George.
First, there is no significance in the different page numbering of the
missing diary pages. I can't count! The remaining flanges where the pages
were cut are quite stiff and I simply got it wrong. The amended number was
after Robert Smith did a re-count. Mike was not involved.
The removed "with a knife" did not come from Mike but was my understanding
after a conversation with a bookseller. Mike much later added the "Stanley"
knife himself. Don Rumbelow's friend, a professional bookbinder with many
years experience told us in March 1998 that the missing pages had been
"hacked out by a barbarian" - but could not name with certainty, the
instrument.
The postcards. This seems a bit "nit picky". I did not mean picture post
cards but rather the kind of note-cards that Victorians liked so much
perhaps with a rose or a bird in the corner. The fact is that we don't KNOW
what those pages contained, although it does appear fairly safe to assume
that photographs are a possibility, although if you see the diary itself, it
does not LOOK like a photograph album.
No - the glue has not been tested. I just didn't have the money to do this.
But it is certainly something that could be done. But I am not sure where it
would lead us. If the glue turns out to be recent - it could have been Mike
who put it there - but that doesn't preclude the book being old. If it
turns out to be old, that proves nothing - we know the book is old.
Yes - Alec Voller did say some of the ink dots are underneath the glue. This
is on tape. Alec Voller was worth listening to.
Alan Gray, the private detective, wrote the letter to Mike in 1996, indicating
the crock of gold at the end of the rainbow. I wish I knew what he meant.
But I suspect he too was a victim of Mike's fairy-tales. When I called to
see Mr Gray in Liverpool, I was informed (by a note pinned to his door) that
he would not talk to me, as there was "a conflict of interests". I would
love to know whose advice he was taking. WHAT conflict of interests? I
thought, in my innocence, we were all trying to get at the truth.
Chris - I could try Outhwaite and Litherland for photographs..but last time I
wrote to them for enlightenment I received a very shirty brush off. They too
were fed up with my "partner".
Yes, I did contact Sphere who confirmed that they were sending out books for
charity events but could not give me any details - not surprising really.
John (Omlor) - can I set you a poser? You are so excellent on the logic. What
do YOU make of my finding a Mrs Hammersmith in the Census of 1881 - the only
one in the UK. Then I discover by looking up marriage and birth certificates
that the name should have read "Hamilton" (there is no mistaking the
writing in the Census). Do YOU think it is feasible that our oh-so skilful
forger found that name - thought hard - "gosh I can put this in the diary",
and inserted the little Hammersmith vignette? If he didn't - what IS that
reference doing in the diary? Why is it so hostile? What is going on? Any
of your step-by-step deductions? I am genuinely bemused by this.
RJ - I have been pleading for ages (as has Keith) for unilateral disarmament
and a summit meeting with Peter and Melvin - but there is absolutely no
response.
What AM I to do? |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 01:02 pm | | John:
Sorry you're embarrassed. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 01:05 pm | | Karoline:
I wonder if anyone ever checked the name of the person who sold Mike the Goldie Street house to see if it was a P. Williams? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 01:09 pm | | Hi Peter,
Don't you think you are rather beginning to clutch at straws now, regarding the little maroon diary purchase? We've gone over backwards to get as much info as we possibly can for you and the board, yet still you claim there is something fishy about the documentation Keith has that the 1891 diary corresponds with the order and the payment. You are beginning to sound desperate. Is this because the maroon diary has to be a sign of guilt for you? In other words, why would a guilty Mike or Anne have made this purchase innocently? Because you have no explanation for this, they could not have made the purchase innocently. You really are stuck in a groove, aren't you? If the purchase was an innocent one, I guess you would have to allow for the possibility that Mike is innocent too - and you just can't do that, can you? The little maroon diary, I now realise, is anything but a little red herring - it's pivotal.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 01:39 pm | | Hi Peter,
No problem. Blatant self-contradiction that has no hope of making any real, logical sense and that therefore simply invalidates all of someone's conclusions always makes me that way. I'll get over it.
But you are clearly assuming that Mike is likely to have participated in the forgery before you even look at what the evidence (contradictory as it might be) fairly or logically allows us to claim. And this does seem unfair and unjust. You are even quite happy to blatantly and directly contradict yourself, if it will somehow allow you to continue to claim the criminal scenario as in each and every case the more likely, regardless of what the evidence actually suggests or logically allows for.
This seems an awful lot like a simple foregone conclusion to me. It's as if you were saying, "Whatever Mike did, whatever he chose to do, and for whatever indeterminable reason, it must somehow indicate criminal complicity, since we all know already that he is obviously likely to be a criminal." It really is circular and Kafkaesque and not at all logical or fair or valid or even particularly meaningful.
I'll get over my embarrassment. I will, however, remain troubled by the single-mindedness, and the deliberate, demonstrably illogical, and tellingly selective blindness of your crusade to prove guilt before even fairly analyzing what decisions the fragmentary and inconsistent evidence even makes available to us.
Bye for now,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 01:55 pm | | Hi RJ,
The date Mike lodged the Sphere book is of course relevant, if before September 30 1994, because then you would no longer need to be troubled by what you see as a change/contradiction/conflict between Mike telling Shirley he’d badgered the library staff for help, and insisting he’d found the quote by himself. I’ve pointed out more than once that Mike badgering the staff does not automatically mean, or even necessarily imply, that the staff did help him find the quote. What if they told him that they could not help him, if the two lines were all he had? He might have been frustrated by such an answer and kept on at them, but it wouldn’t make them any more able to help, would it? So, in short, Mike could have been lying about the ‘badgering’ and about finding it by himself; he could have been lying about one or other event; or he could have been telling the truth about both. (I’ll take a green brick here as well please.) Shirley asked the library to confirm the book was available, and they faxed back the page containing the quote in early October 1994. Yes, it would be interesting to know if the book was on the shelves or in the repository, when Mike says he was there looking. But surely you agree that it becomes irrelevant if he had already lodged his own copy with his solicitor by then?
RJ, you do appear to be rather quick to criticise when you feel certain people are not pulling their weight here. I have been bending over backwards trying to get answers to some of your very relevant questions. But when this happens, and I post with more info, for example regarding the maroon diary purchase, you don’t seem to appreciate (even just an acknowledgement would be nice!) that this is done in the spirit of getting at the true facts, as far as I can, and letting everyone know. I don’t ever see you saying, “Thanks - now I know more, I concede that it tells us even less about individual guilt or innocence. I just get words like: Please work on those confirmations --we're counting on you. It’s as if you think people are holding back information that would make the Barretts look even more guilty than you think they do already. Do you truly think Keith would knowingly do this?
Do you really still see everyone on your so-called ‘pro-diary’ side as evasive, unco-operative, or biased in favour of a conclusion that the Barretts are innocent, while those favouring a modern hoax with the Barretts’ involvement are being 100% objective?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 01:58 pm | | Dear Shirley:
On Sunday, April 29, 2001 - 02:00 pm: I put a message on the Maybrick Diary board the last paragraph of which read:
"There is however a tremendous archive of material in the
possession of some of the earlier writers and researchers on
this matter that demands to be placed in the public archive
or at the least examined privately by people like myself. I
have already agreed with Shirley Harrison that if I am given
access to this material and find that I am convinced by the
evidence that the diary is old or indeed the work of James
Maybrick I will announce that fact here. She in turn has
agreed that if she can be convinced that it is a modern
forgery, she will also announce that. It's been suggested
that part of the material she would wish to inspect would be
the "new" handwriting examples. In turn I would have access
to the supposed Amstrad transcripts. I am willing to
consider this but would only do so on the condition that
that offer is made by Shirley by mail to my business
address. Obviously in a matter of this importance we cannot
risk any misunderstandings."
However in your message today you say: RJ - I have been pleading for ages (as has Keith) for
unilateral disarmament and a summit meeting with Peter and Melvin - but there is absolutely no
response. What AM I to do?"
It seems that you never read or were never shown the above message. Obviously when you rely on a third person to conduct message exchanges there is a capability for things to get lost, stolen or strayed. That is why I have asked for this offer to be confirmed by mail. To make quite certain that you get this message I will also send it directly to your email. Thank you.
And regarding the messages that Steve Powell has put on these boards (twice, is it?) I sent him a private email taking up his offer and saying: "OK Steve, I'll take up your offer and ask you for the details of the mysterious person behind the diary. Give me whatever info you have concerning him and I'll find him." I've not yet heard a thing. |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 02:06 pm | | Forgive my intrusion, but here are my thoughts on what I see happening in this thread that is perhaps the cause of much unpleasantness. Accept or reject any or all of this, as you wish.
There is disagreement almost everywhere, but I want to look at a few areas where some common understanding might be reached. You may still not agree on the appropriateness or validity of any of these areas, but you may Þnd that you can tolerate diversity (that you may, in fact, be required to accept diversity) if you define these areas in common.
The areas are:
Aim of this Thread
Terminology/Basic Concepts
Methodologies
Fears and Risks
I’ll write four posts (including this one), that are hopefully brief, and that explain each area.
————————
Aim of this Thread
What exactly are you all trying to prove or disprove? Why don’t representatives of all points of view create a statement of your aims that you can all accept?
Here are the two main aims or goals that I see, though there may be more:
You are trying to prove a crime has been committed, identify the guilty, and possibly see them prosecuted? I see nothing wrong with this approach. I can also see why anyone may not wish to become involved in this type of inquiry.
You are making an academic inquiry as to who created this purported “diary of Jack the Ripper” (a forgery, in plain terms, but it need never be stated in those terms for personal or legal reasons), when was it done, and how did they do it; all of this with no intent to prove or imply that anyone, at any time, committed a criminal act? This is also a valid approach. I can also see how it may not, would most definitely not, satisfy advocates of the previous hypothesis.
A compromise is required.
My suggestion: Use the second hypothesis as it is neutral in its statement and in its intent. People interested in the possible criminal aspect of this inquiry can still make use of any or all of the material generated in this academic approach; and people who are not interested in making any statements about criminality can detach themselves at the point where you all agree you have what you believe is “the truth” and accusations of criminality can then be offered.
Note: You both may also have to distinguish whether anyone intended or committed a forgery, let alone a crime. For example, the idea of JtR writing a diary about his crimes makes for a fascinating (or not, your tastes decide) piece of fiction. That it was handwritten in an old book may be meaningless; simply the author’s choice. (Possibly he or she had the old book and its age and characteristics helped focus his or her mind on the time and place of the story. Isaac B. Singer wrote Nobel-prize-winning novels and stories in cheap, dimestore children’s school notebooks. Was he attempting to pass off Nobel-quality fiction as the work of a school child? Or did he just like to write using that type of paper and binding?) The “diary” could be described by its author as a historical book. You could wish the author had been more precise and described it as Historical Fiction, but he or she is not required to do so, nor is it suspicious that he or she does not. You can imagine, I’m sure, the consequences of second/third/fourth-hand/etc. parties hearing this, seeing the text and its presentation in an old photo album (is it?) and concluding this fiction is perhaps or indeed “fact”...no forgery; no crime; plenty of unfortunate consequences once the original intent has been lost. |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 02:07 pm | | Terminology/Basic Concepts
In this area you have the following terms to which you should agree and constantly refer; and here I offer suggestions for definitions:
data: simple information that could be True or False; at this phase of information-gathering you are not concerned with “truth” yet.
fact: any one or any number of combinations of data that must be True or False. It cannot be “more true than false” (or any variant on that phrase). A fact is a fact only when it is True or False. Until proven True the statement can be either assumed False until proven otherwise or perceived in an in-between state, a limbo -- in other words, a question rather than a proven statement.
evidence: any one or any number of combinations of facts that demonstrate that, in terms of your hypothesis, a monumental mistake has been made, a forgery has been perpetrated, or a crime has been committed. Unless any of you are qualified lawyers or judges, criminality should be left to qualified persons in the appropriate venue (a trial) to determine if, when, how, by whom, and against whom a crime has been committed. As academics, researchers, non-fiction writers you may indeed be qualified to judge whether a mistake or a willful act of forgery has been committed; but until the “evidence” has been assessed by legal authorities, you may be limited as to any judgement other than a mistake has been been. Those disinclined to make accusations of any crime could easily disassociate themselves from the inquiry at this point, being satisfied that they have proved either a mistake has been made or an act of forgery has been done, leaving moral and legal judgements to others.
As a brief note, another definition of evidence may also be used to point your inquiry in one direction rather than another -- in other words, evidence of suspicion. Suspicion is not evidence of guilt. In the inquiry phase of your investigation, the subjective interpretation of facts as suspicion is merely useful in allocating your time and resources. Nothing more substantial can be made of this use of facts.
verdict: a simple statement of Guilty or Not Guilty (note that innocence is not implied, either morally or legally -- this is a criminal standard) based on the assessment of all the evidence. Only a judge or jury can make this determination, by which time people have either long since departed from the inquiry or are more or less satisfied that their accusations have had a fair hearing. |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 02:10 pm | | Methodologies
Here are the two major choices I see being offered so far:
A hypothesis is stated so that data, facts, and evidence (of suspicion, guilt, or non-guilt) can be used to test any one or all of the hypothosis’ statements and its conclusion.
All possible hypotheses are stated so that data, facts, and evidence (of suspicion, guilt, or non-guilt) can be used to test any one or all of the hypothoses’ statements and their conclusions.
Both approaches are valid if, and only if, everyone adheres to the rules stated in the definitions of terms/basic concepts.
Those opposed to stating one hypothesis over any other, with whatever implications of guilt or criminality the terms in the hypothesis entail, have legitimate worries over the fairness/morality/legality of naming names and declaring intent. As long as adherents to this approach do not skip steps outlines in terms/basic concepts -- they do not “jump to conclusions,” in other words -- it should be perfectly clear that the hypothesis is not a conclusion, evidence, or verdict. It can and must be challenged by every new piece of data and fact. Terms must be altered, added, or eliminated based on facts as previously defined.
Those opposed to basing an inquiry on using all possible hypotheses until they are proven False, but must keep all of them in mind until they are so proven, have legitimate worries that this approach may lead to an unmanagable amount of hypotheses, let alone reaching a state where any conclusions can be fairly made. It simply takes longer to test every new piece of data and evidence against multiple theories; and in fact, where the one-hypothesis supporters may have to add, eliminate, or change any or all terms in their hypothesis, the multiple-hypothesis supporters may have to add, eliminate, or change entire hypotheses -- not just specific terms -- leading potentially to more chaos and indecision. Again, this approach can work, it just requires a great deal more rigor and resources just to keep all these hypotheses in mind. This ability to treat/handle potentially voluminous amounts of information, hypotheses, and testing is difficult for many if not most of us. It may be impossible for many of us to check the work of the multiple-hypothoses supporters, leading to doubt, suspicion, or discomfort if (or even when, the one-hypothesis supports might suggest) this method produces any conclusions.
Suggestion: Use the one-hypothesis approach, stating up-front and frequently that the hypothesis is no more than a question, stated as if if were true, against which data and facts and evidence can be used to test any words/terms/or the entire hypothesis. Make changes as the facts are proposed and substantiated. Propose conclusions when all terms have been sufficiently tested so that one, and only one, statement can be made.
Note: Ockham’s Razor is not dead as I think I read here, and it would be useful in this endeavor as long as it is correctly understood. The principle has often been stated as “Simple is Better” or “The simplest explanation is most likely to be true.” This is not the premise of Ockham’s Razor; it is one of the many bastardizations of the principle -- which dear William never actually formulated, by the way. This definition may suffice for 99.999% of us to survive through the day, but be inappropriate for other inquiries. The definition that best suits your needs is probably this: “Do not add any more terms/statements/propositions/entities/etc. than are absolutely necessary to prove your conclusion.” Opponents of this approach have their own principle, taken from the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosphy: “Where fewer entities [terms/statements/propositions/entities/etc.] do not suffice [to prove your conclusion], add more!” You can see that these principles are not necessarily contradictory. An example of using the Razor would be, in a debate where someone is trying to refute the existence of God using Reason, a person says, “God spelled backwards gives us the word ‘dog!’” Well, it’s true, isn’t it? But what does that fact have to do with proof of the existence/non-existence of God using Reason? Nothing, so “Thank you so much for playing. Johnny, can I have the next contestant, please?” -- in other words, eliminate the statement from your hypothesis. |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 02:11 pm | | Fears and Risks
Several fears and risks have bee previously outlined but I’ll some here that embrace this entire topic:
You are discussing what has already been investigated by the police. It may still be investigated by the police if and when new facts or evidence has been presented. By discussing this topic to determine what some would easily see as “Guilt,” you are involving everyone here in what is still or may be resurrected as a legal issue.
This discussion can be seen and argued in court as a legitimate academic debate involving matters of historiography, criminology, and other academic areas. But can you be absolutely sure it could be just as easily argued that your are engaging in slander, libel, defamation of character, or other legalities? Without the requisite legal expertise, I think it is safer to say you cannot be sure and so should be careful in what you say and how you say it.
The Internet is still mostly untested territory in law. If this exchange were being conducted in academic journals, with notoriously limited circulation, the issues of making public accusations of crimes or intent to commit crimes may not apply; but doing so on a public forum on the Internet may make slander/libel/defamation issues all too relevant.
Some people may just not be interested in accusing anyone of any wrong-doing, whether out of principles or fear...it doesn’t matter. Those of you unconcerned about making accusations should at least be aware and respect this reluctance on the part of others to discuss this issue using terms appropriate for testing/proving criminalty. |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 02:31 pm | | Hi Shirley,
Thank you very much for your detailed response to so many issues and for your consistent and diligent work in this whole diary mess.
I have no problem at all writing to anyone and asking for more information concerning when the Sphere book was first lodged and the circumstances surrounding its arrival at the law offices. Please send me e-mail at omlor@tampabay.rr.com letting me know any specifics or anything you think the letter ought to pointedly include and I'll be happy to send you back a draft for your approval.
Your questions to me about the Mrs. H reference are good ones, but they leave me a bit confused initially concerning what precisely you are asking me. If we assume that the diary is a forgery, then I think we can see a certain strategic reason for placing one or two items of an apparently random nature in the diary to keep people hunting and to keep the text clouded in uncertainty and to thereby prolong the life of the book and of the question of its authenticity. Drop a name like "Mrs. Hammersmith," have an encounter without too many specifics, and at the same time create even more hatred of women in general for your main character -- "Mrs. Hammersmith is a bitch." I could see myself thinking to do this sort of small, detailed misdirection in such a case. It's a good and favorable risk/reward situation for the forger. Send the experts looking for the name in the records (the odds are they may find one but if not it'll keep them speculating either way). And then let the whole thing quietly die in the book, so that you do not have to offer too many details and kill your desired rhetorical and textual effect. But that is only an explanation if we assume, for other reasons both textual and forensic, that the book is not authentic.
If, on the other hand, we assume the book is authentic, for the purposes of discussion at least, then we clearly need to try and account for the Mrs. Hammersmith incident within the historical context of the book's alleged dates and places. I think you are perfectly correct in the way you go about this. You find in the census of 1881, a Mrs. Hammersmith. This could have been more or less likely of course. But the fact is you find one. You then discover, properly, through further research that the name should have been "Hamilton" but that someone seemingly deliberately entered it or gave it as "Hammersmith" in the census, for some reason. What, specifically can you conclude from this?
Here is where I get confused about your question. What are you asking me, exactly? Why possibly the names are different or why the name Hammersmith appears in the diary and in the census of 1881 but as Hamilton in the marriage and birth records? Or are you saying that this Mrs. Hammersmith who was also provably Mrs. Hamilton is additionally directly and provably linked to the Maybrick family or social circle, and therefore this clearly indicates that either the forger had extraordinarily inside historical knowledge from research of birth, marriage and census records; or the forger was extraordinarily lucky; or this is clear evidence that this text was written by someone who knew these players and knew the Hammersmith/Hamilton situation because they were around at the time? Would Maybrick have called Mrs. Hamilton Mrs. Hammersmith? Or visa versa? Or am I just hopelessly confused (I think so). Is Mrs. Hammersmith/Hamilton clearly and provably linked to the Maybrick neighborhood or the Maybrick family, I forget. It all gets to be too much for me, too, after a while, and I can't remember what I read where.
In your Hyperion edition, Shirley, you once wrote:
"Finally, why does Mrs. Hammersmith appear at the beginning of the diary? We do not know who she is, despite the wealth of information on the Maybrick's social circle. Nor was she listed in the Liverpool street directory of 1889. So why invent her? IN addition to the expertise of a psychologist and a doctor of medicine, a forger would need the imagination of a novelist."
You may have answered your own question here. It is a novelist's trick, perhaps, one that adds an element of unsolvability to the prose and proves to be a false lead for the authenticators and an effective ploy for the forger. But I really don't know. I suspect the more likely and demonstrable scenario is that I remain hopelessly muddled and confused because I am not up to date on what precisely you have established about Mrs. Hammersmith/Hamilton and her relationship to the Maybricks. If you would remind me, I'd be glad to give you any further speculations and thoughts I might have.
Sorry this is such a mess. I do not have the relevant information in my head apparently. Not the first or last time for that, that's for sure. If someone can spell out the question more clearly and in detail, I'll take another shot after grocery shopping.
Thanks again Shirley for all your work,
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 02:49 pm | | Thanks Yaz,
Interesting thoughts and suggestions. I agree with and would second a great many of them. I will try and keep them in mind as I proceed in my own reading of other's writing and of what the offered data allows us to fairly or responsibly or logically decide.
The philosophical razor you speak of is, I also agree, not dead. It is however dangerous to use, even in the way you describe it, and has proven so since the time of Luther (who explicitly and admittedly used it himself to eventually conclude some very unsavory things about the Jews in Europe and what they were responsible for -- their "character" and "beliefs" were for him all that was required for him to arrive at the necessary answer and proof of his disastrous conclusion and he cited this principle explicitly in his reasoning -- we can argue that he used it mistakenly or invalidly, but that's the problem, as a tool it is practically and necessarily of very little use in the end since the specific validity of each item continues to remain in question). The same little razor has been similarly used to unfortunate results elsewhere, historically, as well. But this is not a conversation for this place or time. Suffice to say that I would offer a warning against using it without carefully and self-consciously and rigorously reflecting on each and every item and its soundness and validity in your argument. It has not, in the history of philosophy, proven itself to be the most efficient of logical tools or to lead to the most fortunate of historical conclusions, I am afraid.
Besides, the debate over specifically which terms are or are not actually necessary to prove the conclusion will doubtless remain, and quite possibly continue endlessly, so the razor finally does little practical good at all.
But I did enjoy reading your thoughts about methodology and will keep them in mind as I try and read the work of others here closely and carefully.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 08:04 pm | | Hey John:
A few quick points:
I know what I've suggested looks easy on paper, but we all know it's not that easy. If everyone truly follows this approach there is still a lot of difficult and frustrating work ahead.
You need more data, you need more facts, you need to clarify the reason (the aim, goals) for which you need these sets of data and facts. And since the threat of prosecution hangs over the debate -- not the debaters, unless Chris or Martin truly did write the diary (grins) -- the sources for more data and facts are more likely than not going to be the people most threatened by this investigation. How are you going to get their cooperation, for instance, to gather the data?
People will have different thresholds for the patience necessary to follow this suggested approach, or any other approach since it is the material and the nature of what you're studying that produces its own difficulties and frustrations. Maybe you could all agree to temporarily halt the debate in order for one or more participants to recuperate instead of trying to "muscle" or "tough" it out through one more post, and one more, and so on?
As long as you are in the debate, John, I feel fine about what you say about Ockham's Razor. You are absolutely correct in its potential misuse. You're aware of the dangers and can guide people in its proper usage.
But it could be used. I'll use a recent example on this thread where the Razor could have been used...and also misused. I'll try to be brief.
Note: I'm naming names in order to help the debate and ease some of the frustration spilling out into the discussion, not to pick on John and Karoline.
Karoline set out a statement of data and facts which led her to a particular conclusion.
John responded with (I'll exaggerate the number but it sure felt like this many -- grins) about 19 different conclusions that used the same sets of data and facts.
John should have used the Razor by citing one example and stating that he could produce more. The volume of conclusions is not his point; his point is that Karoline's statement does not yet exclude or weaken any alternative conclusions.
Only one conclusion can be the truth, or at least come closest to the truth in this imperfect world.
Karoline could have focused on the good news in John's response: while her statement is not yet exclusively true, it is also not demonstrably false or John would have made that point. She is still on the right path. All -- as if that is a minor task, I know; sorry to make it sound so easy -- Karoline has to do is find enough data and facts where her statement, in the best case, is the only one that is true; or, in the worst case, any other statements would be either demonstrably false or comparatively weak...the weaker, the better.
But if Karoline uses the Razor to cut away John's 19 examples, saying they are too many conclusions, and since only one of them can be true, therefore why not her conclusion because it makes the most sense...that is also a misuse of the Razor. She also cuts away John's reason for citing 19 examples.
John's reason is, again, that the current sets of data and facts are insufficient to demonstrate that any one statement or conclusion is the truth or is the closest we can get to the truth.
But enough already, eh?
Except remember:
If any statement cannot be strengthened so that it alone is true or comes closest to the truth, sooner or later it must be abandoned in favor of a statement that does satisfy this criteria.
Good luck to all in this most difficult task.
Yaz |
Author: Stephen Powell
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 11:38 pm | | Dear Peter Birchwood,
You wrote on Saturday, May 05, 2001
And regarding the messages that Steve Powell has put on
these boards (twice, is it?) I sent him a private email
taking up his offer and saying: "OK Steve, I'll take up your
offer and ask you for the details of the mysterious person
behind the diary. Give me whatever info you have concerning
him and I'll find him." I've not yet heard a thing.
(end of Peters message)
Peter,I think you may have sent your e-mail to my old address,please find the updated address listed now on the casebook profile.
I would never ignore you or anyone else on this board.
If you would,please send your mail to me again,as I would love for some help on this matter.
Regards,
steve powell
6-5-2001 |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 01:33 am | | Hi Yaz
Many thanks indeed for your excellent posts which along with John’s reply were interesting and informative (would the world have been a better place if Occam had grown a beard?). I think it would be worth emphasising your concluding words: “If any statement cannot be strengthened so that it alone is true or comes closest to the truth, sooner or later it must be abandoned in favor of a statement that does satisfy this criteria.” The same applies to theories.
There are two points, though, that it might be worthwhile making. The police investigation concerned claims made by the publisher, Robert Smith, and wasn’t an investigation into the ‘diary’ itself. The 'diary' is not under police investigation (or so I believe) and whether or not anyone would be liable for prosecution or repayment of monies (the original publisher not now existing) remains to be seen.
You wrote: “You need more data, you need more facts, you need to clarify the reason (the aim, goals) for which you need these sets of data and facts.
This is true, but especially the last part of your sentence, which is so important and yet so easily overlooked. We do indeed need more data and more facts. But we need data and facts that help to answer specific questions that will actually lead to greater understanding. But the point Keith Skinner and I have made for several years now (and suffered much abuse and been tarred as diary apologists or whatever in the process) is that people have not properly evaluated the existing data, either because (a) the ‘diary’ is a fake so why bother with it, or (b) Mike and Anne obviously forged it. Unfortunately, what "a proper evaluation" actually means is what has caused the current difficulty.
The additional problem as Shirley has said, is that a lot of those directly involved are cheesed off with the whole business. They simply don't have the time or the interest to subject themselves to endless interogation or to search through files five, six, seven or more years old, especially when asked for what they consider to be a petifogging minor detail (and, of course, the knock on effect of this is that the likes of Shirley gets hammered for not doing this or that, when she is trying hard to be cautious). If these people will graciously surrender their time, it is likely to be once only. We therefore need to know what we need to ask that person and what we need to ask them when they have answered. This ability will come from a proper and thorough assessment of the data we already have. And if there are problems understanding the rules of basic methodology, maybe these Boards simply aren't the right place to try and make that assessment |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 06:59 am | | Hi Peter, All,
Peter,
You wrote to Shirley:
It seems that you never read or were never shown the above message. Obviously when you rely on a third person to conduct message exchanges there is a capability for things to get lost, stolen or strayed.
I just want to make it crystal clear that Shirley has never relied on me to conduct message 'exchanges' as such. The only reason I posted a message from Shirley to the board yesterday was that she was having computer problems and asked me to oblige. As Shirley has her own internet access, I take absolutely no responsibility if she misses any post addressed to her. Shirley has never asked me to relay any posts to her from the boards, nor even bring any to her attention.
I hope that is now clear, so that there can be no such misunderstandings in the future.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 08:11 am | | Hi, Shirley:
Thank you so much for your answers to a number of my questions about the physical Diary.
Here are your answers (shown in italics) and some comments of mine:
First, there is no significance in the different page numbering of the missing diary pages. I can't count! The remaining flanges where the pages were cut are quite stiff and I simply got it wrong. The amended number was after Robert Smith did a re-count. Mike was not involved.
Fair enough. I was not suggesting anything suspicious in the different figures given for the number of missing pages shown in your original 1993 hardback and the 1998 Blake paperback. I just thought the revised count was interesting, and wondered if Mike had anything to do with giving you the original count. The clarification that he did not is useful to know.
The removed "with a knife" did not come from Mike but was my understanding after a conversation with a bookseller. Mike much later added the "Stanley" knife himself. Don Rumbelow's friend, a professional bookbinder with many
years experience told us in March 1998 that the missing pages had been "hacked out by a barbarian" - but could not name with certainty, the instrument.
Thanks again for these additional details. Again, it is useful to know that Mike did not contribute the idea that the pages had been cut out with a knife but was suggested to you by a bookseller. It is also useful information to know that Don Rumbelow's bookbinder friend in March 1998 remarked that he thought that the way the missing pages had been hacked out looks barbaric.
The postcards. This seems a bit "nit picky". I did not mean picture post cards but rather the kind of note-cards that Victorians liked so much perhaps with a rose or a bird in the corner. The fact is that we don't KNOW what those pages contained, although it does appear fairly safe to assume that photographs are a possibility, although if you see the diary itself, it does not LOOK like a photograph album."
Hmmmmm. Nitpicky??? Sorry about that, Shirley. However, most people will think you mean postcards that we know today. Again, in future editions of the book you might want to modify this. Yes, I accept that the book "does not LOOK like a photograph album."
I will add though that I think it useful to consider every detail of the Diary. Such detailed study might reveal some facts that have not been so far noticed. For example, the issue of the glue is one area that might yield results. I think the topic of the glue was brought up not by me but by R.J. I would, though, like to address the points that you make in your answer.
No - the glue has not been tested. I just didn't have the money to do this. But it is certainly something that could be done. But I am not sure where it would lead us. If the glue turns out to be recent - it could have been Mike who put it there - but that doesn't preclude the book being old. If it turns out to be old, that proves nothing - we know the book is old.
I agree that the testing of the glue could be important, particularly if we agree that the likeliest scenario would be that the glue was used to stick things in the book before whomever wrote the Diary text. If the glue was put in there in 1933, I would suggest that there is a good possibility that the book was being used as a scrapbook at least until 1933 and that the pages were removed and the Diary writing put in the book subsequent to 1933. Now, I ask you, though, why would Mike Barrett have put any glue in the Diary???? I find that to be an odd statement on your part.
Yes - Alec Voller did say some of the ink dots are underneath the glue. This is on tape. Alec Voller was worth listening to.
This is a most interesting statement. It could though be ink that was in the book before the glue was applied and before the Diary was written in the book. Again, I should think this too might make for an area of future investigation.
Chris - I could try Outhwaite and Litherland for photographs .. but last time I wrote to them for enlightenment I received a very shirty brush off. They too were fed up with my "partner".
I think this could also be a most useful line of enquiry. If Outhwaite and Litherland happen to have a photograph or photographs of the book prior to its sale I think this would be highly significant.
Last, you stated to RJ: I have been pleading for ages (as has Keith) for unilateral disarmament and a summit meeting with Peter and Melvin - but there is absolutely no response.
What AM I to do?
I can't speak for Melvin, but I believe that Peter is ready to come to the table with what he has.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 09:06 am | | Hi Yaz,
Yes, but...
You write:
"John should have used the Razor by citing one example and stating that he could produce more. The volume of conclusions is not his point; his point is that Karoline's statement does not yet exclude or weaken any alternative conclusions."
But the "volume" of conclusions was one of my points. In such an argument it became necessary to dramatically demonstrate that there was not only one other possible conclusion available to us and that we did not have the necessary evidence to decide which was more likely (I've made that argument and that demonstration repeatedly and it does little or no good apparently -- see, for instance, the two alternative diary scenarios) -- it became necessary to demonstrate that there were many possible arguments and conclusions in some of these cases because so much of the physical or material evidence necessary for a decision about even which scenario might be more likely was utterly absent. So it was not enough simply to demonstrate that one offered conclusion did not weaken the others. Not for this audience and for these readers. And so I offered several possible conclusions that were not in any way weakened, as a way of clearly demonstrating this difficulty. The difference though, of course was that my aim here was not to advance one as the likely conclusion (in which case the razor would have been useful and appropriate); my aim was to demonstrate that no conclusion was even more likely so far, since the required evidence that would allow us even to prefer one conclusion as probable was still missing. It is a slightly different sort of argument than the one you were describing, I think.
See, Yaz, you write:
"Only one conclusion can be the truth, or at least come closest to the truth in this imperfect world."
But my point in the situation you cite was that no conclusion could fairly or responsibly be called the truth or even the likely truth. The evidence offered and available in the discussion did not allow for it. Consequently, it became necessary to show that many conclusions could just as easily be true, as a way of demonstrating that no one conclusion could yet be fairly or justly claimed to be true or even probably true. This is what I did and our razor would not have helped as much or as definitively here, since I was not positing a likely or probable conclusion except the one that announced that that we had not yet done the work necessary to arrive at any probable or likely conclusion. That is, I am afraid that we would not have any way of knowing, giving the lists of "data" or evidence that have so far appeared, whether K. is on the right path or not. And since she seems to be assuming the truth of her conclusion (that Mike is likely or probably complicit in this forgery) before she begins to even examine the evidence, a genuine and logical debate about the truth of that conclusion becomes much more difficult, if not impossible, razor or no razor.
Your scenario implies that both of us are still searching to see whether or not we have the necessary evidence to claim that Mike is likely or probably complicit in this forgery.
We are not.
Certain people here have already decided that it is likely or probable that Mike is involved in this forgery. They do not have the evidence that would allow them to decide this. But they have decided it just the same. They have simply assumed it, in fact, despite the fact that it is a conclusion and therefore cannot be assumed.
So the logic of our argument becomes not only one of establishing the likely guilt or innocence of certain people (it cannot only be about that since several of the participants have already assumed that fact about likely guilt as one of their working premises and therefore that conclusion is for them already established) -- it is also about clearly and logically and patiently and repeatedly demonstrating to them why one of their premises is in fact an unwarranted and assumed conclusion, and therefore is really just an, as of yet, unjust, unreasonable, unevidenced, invalid, unestablished personal whim and not a genuine or logical conclusion at all.
So there are two reading tasks underway simultaneously, and while your methodological scenarios are appropriate for one of them (the investigation into who really is more likely to be complicit in this crime) it is not, unfortunately, appropriate for the other (the demonstration of precisely why it remains invalid and unfair to already assume and to continue to claim this prematurely assumed conclusion, that Mike or Anne are likely or probable forgers). The debate concerning the latter is not an investigation into what likely happened, it is the exposure of a false and premature logical step taken in the reading of the evidence and the absence of evidence, by people in this discussion.
Our approach to explaining why it is an improper and invalid and premature step and why assuming the conclusion in advance inevitably and logically taints any argument and renders it worthless must be slightly different than our approach to an honest and careful and patient and deliberate reading of the evidence and what it allows us fairly and justly to claim and not to claim.
Both of these are occurring right now.
Thanks Yaz, for the interesting and provocative thoughts,
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 10:11 am | | Hello Everyone,
It is Sunday morning here, and I want to offer a brief thought. It might be just a little longer than I want (I will try, Chris), but I think it is important.
After reading Yaz's remarks about methods and reading over the past few days worth of posts, something has occurred to me. People have been asking why I have responded so critically to some writers' posts and not to others and whether that means I have decided in favor of one side or the other in this case concerning the identity of the forgers. I want to say two things.
First, I have no idea whether Anne and/or Mike participated in this forgery. I personally would not feel any better or more justified if they had not or if they had. I would not advance the likelihood that they had not or that they had. I am interested in carefully examining what little physical and material and yes, even circumstantial evidence we have and what it allows us to fairly and logically claim without already assuming anything one way or another and without contradicting ourselves or being careless in our logic or our reading. I am also interested in reading what has been written about the case and what the principle players have said about the case and what those who have met Mike and Anne say about the case and about them directly. But I have no particular preference or desired conclusion in this case. I would be fine if I learned that Mike and Anne did this all by themselves or with others or that they were unaware of the book's origins until after they took it to Doreen’s or that they remain to this day unaware of the book's real origins. Any of these possible truths would be just fine with me.
But.
As I read the posts here, one thing becomes very clear.
This board is not divided between people who think Mike and/or Anne are likely to have participated in this forgery and are therefore complicit and people who think that Mike and/or Anne are likely not to have participated in this forgery and are therefore not complicit.
No.
This board is divided into people who already think that Mike and/or Anne are likely to have participated in this forgery and are therefore complicit; and people who do not feel there is yet enough reliable or definitive evidence to tell whether it is likely that Mike and/or Anne did nor did not participate in this forgery and are or are not therefore likely to be complicit.
This is a very important difference.
When Karoline and Peter (to name two) discuss the appearance of the diary text on the wp, they claim that this is evidence that Mike composed it there and therefore Mike is more likely to be a forger.
When Paul and Caroline (to name two) point out that we have no idea when the text was typed there or why or how and no evidence at all that would even suggest any date or place or circumstance and that it is just as likely to have been typed there after acquiring the diary as in an act of composition, they are not concluding therefore that Mike is less likely to be the forger. They are concluding that the lack of knowledge and evidence does not allow for a conclusion either way.
They are simply and logically correct. Not about who the likely forger is (they are not saying), but about what we can fairly and honestly know about when the text was put there and why, and what therefore we can fairly and honestly decide or not decide about the consequent likelihood of Mike’s complicity.
This is why I appear to be more critical with one set of approaches than with another.
When Peter or Karoline discuss the purchase of the red diary, they assume that it was probably purchased with a deliberate criminal intent (Mike was going to use it in the production of the forgery).
When Paul and Caroline point out that Mike gave his real name and address when ordering the diary and that he may have been being stupid and still planned to use it in a criminal act or he may have been being stupid and bought it to compare to a suspect diary he had been given and was already holding, they are not claiming that therefore Mike is likely not to be complicit. They are claiming that, therefore, since we demonstrably have no real or reliable evidence at all to help us determine or decide on his intent, we cannot yet say whether his intent was likely to be criminal or not.
They are simply and logically correct. (Unless, of course you already assume that Mike is likely to be a criminal, and then you can determine intent based on this assumption. However since this assumption is actually the conclusion you are trying to prove, it cannot serve also as one of your premises, unless you want your argument to be completely worthless and invalid and you want your conclusion to be reduced to a random and unevidenced and unestablished preference for one reading and suspected date of the wp text's appearance or the intent behind the diary purchase over another and therefore really just a mere personal whim.)
When Karoline and Peter mention that Kane's handwriting might match the diary's and that Kane signed Tony's will and that Mike knew Tony, they conclude that this is further evidence of Mike's likely complicity.
When Paul and Caroline point out that we have no evidence whatsoever that Mike even knew or knew of or ever even met Kane, they are not claiming that Mike is therefore not likely to be complicit or therefore that Mike is likely to be non-complicit, but more accurately and properly, that therefore Mike remains completely, as of yet, completely unlinked to Kane; and therefore Kane's handwriting match, if it is ever established, does not alter the likelihood of Mike's complicity either way.
They are simply and logically correct.
I could go on down Karoline's list. She cites "Mike confessed." as evidence of his complicity. When Paul and Caroline point out that his confessions are contradictory, unreliable, simply false in some places and thoroughly discredited by both sides, and therefore cannot logically tell us that Mike is less likely or more likely to be complicit, they are simply and logically correct. They are not claiming anything about the probable or likely truth, they are fairly analyzing what the evidence allows us to claim about that truth, and that is nothing either way. And when Karoline suggests there is a bigger picture or a cumulative effect of the evidence, she is assuming that the evidence she has listed helps build that picture and effect. It does not. It cannot, since as Paul and Caroline have demonstrated it is not evidence that can be clearly or reliably read to imply complicity.
They are not claiming that the bigger picture or the cumulative effect of the evidence leads us to conclude that Mike is probably not complicit. They are simply claiming that the bigger picture and cumulative effect remains completely unclear since the pieces that make it up remain completely inconsistent and contradictory. They are simply and logically correct.
This is how this discussion is actually taking place and this is why I have been more critical of the side that has prematurely assumed the very conclusion it is allegedly trying to determine and why I have been less critical of the side that is not assuming the opposite conclusion at all, but merely reading what the evidence fairly allows us logically and honestly to know.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 10:11 am | | Hey All:
My suggestions, examples, and explanations were offered in the hope of defusing or short-circuiting (whatever phrase you'd prefer) most of the kind of self-defensive and their concomitant "J'Accuse" type posts that stall progress in any discussion.
I will now make like Sherlock Holmes and take my last bow on this thread, as I am heading out for the fall of Reichenbach -- located, I hear, on the outskirts of Frostbite Falls, Minnesota -- where a certain Mr. Moriarity has promised, in a three-color supplement found in this Sunday's newspaper, to provide answers to what he mysteriously calls 'The Final Problem.' But do not fear, gentle Readers, since I had long ago convinced my tailor -- who is originally from Panama but now resides in nearby Gotham City -- to make a life preserver vest part of my everyday wardrobe, despite his confounded churlishness on this matter of gentlemen's fashion. And I never go anywhere without a bungie cord tied firmly round one ankle, and a means to anchor it upon the other end, though I've never confessed to my tailor I have this fashion accessory lest the poor man collapse into an apoplectic fit.
Farewell and adieu...
Yaz |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 10:26 am | | Thanks, Yaz.
And thanks for the interesting and helpful thoughts.
Before you head out, please have a look at the post immediately above your farewell -- my second post this morning. I believe it is a fair and careful account of where we are and what the discussion has now become about and I think it explains my position reasonably and it was prompted by some of your thoughts here.
It crossed with your good-bye post.
The dynamics of any discussion are always of course determined by a complicated mixture of its logic, its rhetoric, its participants' personal desires and the problems inevitably attached to language and to meaning. Consequently, we read and we write hoping for the best but always and inevitably taking what comes.
Have a safe fall, and enjoy the ride back up.
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 10:38 am | | Hey Yaz
Don't go over the Falls just yet. We need you!
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 11:31 am | | What follows is copied from the 1881 census CD (copyright LDS)
Dwelling: 21 Peter Street
Census Place: Eccleston In Prescot, Lancashire, England
Source: FHL Film 1341894 PRO Ref RG11 Piece 3736 Folio 6 Page 6
Marr Age Sex Birthplace
John MOUSDELL M 38 M St Helens, Lancashire, England
Rel: Head
Occ: Coal Miner
Catherine MOUSDELL M 38 F St Helens, Lancashire, England
Rel: Wife
Mary MOUSDELL U 10 F St Helens, Lancashire, England
Rel: Daur
Occ: Scholar
Catherine MOUSDELL U 8 F Patricroft, Lancashire, England
Rel: Daur
Occ: Scholar
Emma MOUSDELL U 4 F St Helens, Lancashire, England
Rel: Daur
Clara PENNINGTON U 1 F St Helens, Lancashire, England
Rel: Niece
Benjamin HAMERSMITH M 21 M St Helens, Lancashire, England
Rel: Son In Law
Occ: Labourer
M. A. HAMERSMITH M 17 F St Helens, Lancashire, England
Rel: Daur
Occ: Wife
If Shirley found out from reading the original census records which were of course handwritten by the Enumerator, that the name "Hamersmith" was actually there but later, as she says in her 6/10/2000 post: "I returned with my colleague Sally Evemy and we began
again……and on the second visit, almost by chance we found
the marriage of Margaret Mousdell - to Benjamin HAMILTON in
1880. I was bitterly disappointed as I hoped we were on
the right trail. So we checked back, to be quite sure, for
Benjamin Hamilton's birth certificate. We found it…..the
name was Hamilton. WHY the census made such a curious
mistake……why that particular name appeared in the diary
seven years later still seems extraordinary. Many mistakes
are made in official documents but this particular error -
after all Hamilton does not look remotely like Hamersmith -
was bizarre."
then there must have been an error in the way the original enumerator spelled the name. In such a major work as a census, mistakes happen. This is the only mention of the name: Ham(m)ersmith in the 1881 census. Shirley does say in the same message :"I realise that there will be those who say "Mike Barrett or Mr Kane must have found it in the census." I'm not one of those people and I can't imagine who would be. It's far more likely that the name was picked out of the air, possibly as MB has said, because of Druitt drowning around there. There were clearly no persons named Hammersmith in Liverpool or anywhere else at the right time.
Incidentally, I sent a letter to Mr. Richard Bark-Jones at his home address yesterday. Perhaps if he's kind enough to reply, this might help the investigations along. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 11:32 am | | What follows is copied from the 1881 census CD (copyright LDS)
Dwelling: 21 Peter Street
Census Place: Eccleston In Prescot, Lancashire, England
Source: FHL Film 1341894 PRO Ref RG11 Piece 3736 Folio 6 Page 6
Marr Age Sex Birthplace
John MOUSDELL M 38 M St Helens, Lancashire, England
Rel: Head
Occ: Coal Miner
Catherine MOUSDELL M 38 F St Helens, Lancashire, England
Rel: Wife
Mary MOUSDELL U 10 F St Helens, Lancashire, England
Rel: Daur
Occ: Scholar
Catherine MOUSDELL U 8 F Patricroft, Lancashire, England
Rel: Daur
Occ: Scholar
Emma MOUSDELL U 4 F St Helens, Lancashire, England
Rel: Daur
Clara PENNINGTON U 1 F St Helens, Lancashire, England
Rel: Niece
Benjamin HAMERSMITH M 21 M St Helens, Lancashire, England
Rel: Son In Law
Occ: Labourer
M. A. HAMERSMITH M 17 F St Helens, Lancashire, England
Rel: Daur
Occ: Wife
If Shirley found out from reading the original census records which were of course handwritten by the Enumerator, that the name "Hamersmith" was actually there but later, as she says in her 6/10/2000 post: "I returned with my colleague Sally Evemy and we began
again……and on the second visit, almost by chance we found
the marriage of Margaret Mousdell - to Benjamin HAMILTON in
1880. I was bitterly disappointed as I hoped we were on
the right trail. So we checked back, to be quite sure, for
Benjamin Hamilton's birth certificate. We found it…..the
name was Hamilton. WHY the census made such a curious
mistake……why that particular name appeared in the diary
seven years later still seems extraordinary. Many mistakes
are made in official documents but this particular error -
after all Hamilton does not look remotely like Hamersmith -
was bizarre."
then there must have been an error in the way the original enumerator spelled the name. In such a major work as a census, mistakes happen. This is the only mention of the name: Ham(m)ersmith in the 1881 census. Shirley does say in the same message :"I realise that there will be those who say "Mike Barrett or Mr Kane must have found it in the census." I'm not one of those people and I can't imagine who would be. It's far more likely that the name was picked out of the air, possibly as MB has said, because of Druitt drowning around there. There were clearly no persons named Hammersmith in Liverpool or anywhere else at the right time.
Incidentally, I sent a letter to Mr. Richard Bark-Jones at his home address yesterday. Perhaps if he's kind enough to reply, this might help the investigations along. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 11:32 am | | What follows is copied from the 1881 census CD (copyright LDS)
Dwelling: 21 Peter Street
Census Place: Eccleston In Prescot, Lancashire, England
Source: FHL Film 1341894 PRO Ref RG11 Piece 3736 Folio 6 Page 6
Marr Age Sex Birthplace
John MOUSDELL M 38 M St Helens, Lancashire, England
Rel: Head
Occ: Coal Miner
Catherine MOUSDELL M 38 F St Helens, Lancashire, England
Rel: Wife
Mary MOUSDELL U 10 F St Helens, Lancashire, England
Rel: Daur
Occ: Scholar
Catherine MOUSDELL U 8 F Patricroft, Lancashire, England
Rel: Daur
Occ: Scholar
Emma MOUSDELL U 4 F St Helens, Lancashire, England
Rel: Daur
Clara PENNINGTON U 1 F St Helens, Lancashire, England
Rel: Niece
Benjamin HAMERSMITH M 21 M St Helens, Lancashire, England
Rel: Son In Law
Occ: Labourer
M. A. HAMERSMITH M 17 F St Helens, Lancashire, England
Rel: Daur
Occ: Wife
If Shirley found out from reading the original census records which were of course handwritten by the Enumerator, that the name "Hamersmith" was actually there but later, as she says in her 6/10/2000 post: "I returned with my colleague Sally Evemy and we began
again……and on the second visit, almost by chance we found
the marriage of Margaret Mousdell - to Benjamin HAMILTON in
1880. I was bitterly disappointed as I hoped we were on
the right trail. So we checked back, to be quite sure, for
Benjamin Hamilton's birth certificate. We found it…..the
name was Hamilton. WHY the census made such a curious
mistake……why that particular name appeared in the diary
seven years later still seems extraordinary. Many mistakes
are made in official documents but this particular error -
after all Hamilton does not look remotely like Hamersmith -
was bizarre."
then there must have been an error in the way the original enumerator spelled the name. In such a major work as a census, mistakes happen. This is the only mention of the name: Ham(m)ersmith in the 1881 census. Shirley does say in the same message :"I realise that there will be those who say "Mike Barrett or Mr Kane must have found it in the census." I'm not one of those people and I can't imagine who would be. It's far more likely that the name was picked out of the air, possibly as MB has said, because of Druitt drowning around there. There were clearly no persons named Hammersmith in Liverpool or anywhere else at the right time.
Incidentally, I sent a letter to Mr. Richard Bark-Jones at his home address yesterday. Perhaps if he's kind enough to reply, this might help the investigations along. |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 11:34 am | | Hey John and Paul (It sounds like I'm either writing to a pope or I'm missing a couple of Bee-atles):
John, I knew perfectly well what you were doing and why. It was unfair of me to characterize yours or Karoline's or anybody else's position/arguments in service to what is only my own misguided notion of a "Higher Cause" -- and how much harm has been done over the course of human history all in the name of supposedly "higher causes?"
Paul, I will watch out for the first step as I hear it is a doozy. (Alas, poor Doozy, I knew her well, Hor...er, Mr. Gatsby? You gave me a fright! Whatever are you doing here? And what have you done with our mutual friend Horatio? However, Mr. Gatsby has been kind enough to remind me that while we're often warned about the first step, it is actually the last step that frequently does all the damage.)
Grins,
Yaz |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 12:07 pm | | Hey Yaz,
Fair enough.
And don't worry about not being able to swim. "Hell, the fall'll probably kill ya'."
--John (fondly remembering both the awful Gatsby film and the pure joy of Butch and Sundance on the cliff, this fine Redford morning...) |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 01:51 pm | | Hi, Martin:
On Saturday, May 05, 2001 at 05:45 am you wrote:
"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 possibilities: just adding the datum about the nickname to the pile which is being interpreted as evidence)."
Actually, Tony Devereaux's nickname for Mike Barrett was "Bongo" (Feldman, 1997 Virgin hardback, p. 139). But the exact nickname aside, is it possible that, yes, as you say, the Diary might be a practical joke gone very wrong? That is, Devereaux did view Bongo or Mike Barrett as a figure of fun and because Mike viewed himself as a writer he and his mates decided to pull a joke on him and present him with a diary allegedly written by Jack the Ripper just to see how far he would take it. Then Devereaux inconveniently dies, Barrett takes the Diary to a literary agent in London. By this time, things have got out of control and Devereaux's pals do not speak up for fear of being accused of trying to market a hoax. Moreover, Devereaux's family disclaim any idea that he may have owned the Diary or that he could have given it to Barrett because he likely would not have included them in the joke. In the vacuum caused by no one else stepping forward to claim the Diary, Anne Graham steps in with her "in the family for years" story to ensure that she would get a slice of the profits, and this is where we are at this point. Does anyone else besides myself and Martin believe this scenario has some credibility? I have no proof that any of this happened but this sequence of events does appear fit the known facts.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Karoline L
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 02:33 pm | | Hi Chris,
it's possible of course. But would his mates go to such lengths just to play a practical joke?
I'm thinking of all the time and trouble (and money!) involved in buying an old diary, getting iron gall ink - which of course can't be age-tested - looking up the telling details in the biography of Maybrick etc. and then writing more than sixty pages of text.
It seems a lot of effort just to get one over on Bongo, doesn't it?
And how about the coincidence of MB owning the book the Crashaw quote seems to have come from? Would we assume Devereux had borrowed this book and found the quotation by chance?
Yes, like I said it's possible - but nothing like as probable as the concept that it was created as an act of deliberate forgery.
Karoline |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 02:48 pm | | Hi, Karoline:
Yes you could be correct that the Diary is too detailed and would have required too much work for it to be a practical joke. Not 63 pages worth. . . However, just as the Diary appears to have missing pages, I get the feeling that all of us may have come into this story at the wrong moment and that we are missing the critical pieces of the story to piece it together properly.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 02:49 pm | | Hey Chris:
One (hopefully last) bungie spring into this topic.
I think that the scenario you and Martin mention is actually the first possibility I'd try to rule out.
Cereal Box Psychology 101 or How To Wildly Speculate Without Even Trying Too Hard
I wouldn't be limited to friends/associates of Mike's, I'd widen it to past "friends" who may have grown tired of Mike's nodding, not even cordial, acquaintence with Reality.
(I don't mean Mike is crazy; he just seems to be a daydreamer, stuck in his own head, who collapses when confronted by any fact/reality...diary-based or otherwise...whose answers to any specific questions/confrontational statements -- on any matter -- are based entirely on what his imagination is brewing at any particular moment.)
In addition, I'd speculate that the (hypothetically) unimaginative Anne and her family may have always had their own little story of a connection to the Maybrick story...which need not be based on fact, which Anne and family would not know how to verify even if they wanted to do so.
So add Anne maybe telling her Maybrick story once too often to the wrong people (whether a practical joker or intentionally malicious/spiteful person or persons unknown) to get the Maybrick connection and further "bait" for the Barretts to want to believe the whole business...add the farce of the story of "research" done by two completely clueless people (one who dreams that simply owning a computer will supply both a purpose for having it and automatic knowledge on how to use it -- both of which fail him and the computer virtually becomes an expensive paperweight; and that typing the 'diary' contents into the computer constitutes 1) a form of research in and of itself, and 2) dreaming that something magical will happen within the computer -- cuz people do some wonderful things with computers...somehow...don't they? -- which will produce some results all on its own, 3) Anne knows, or at least suspects, this is nonsense but is helpless/hopeless to offer any better suggestion, so she types away)...and the rest may well be history.
So look at Mike and Anne's former friends, who may now be openly hostile toward them, in matching the 'diary's' handwriting.
From the bungie,
Yaz |
|
|
|
|
