|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 16, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-Archives 2001:
Archive through May 16, 2001
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 02:29 pm |        | I've just been in contact with Harris to get some additional information on various matters regarding the forensic data, and he has asked me to post some comments for him here, so here they are:
From Melvin Harris:
Re: the Sphere book:
Corrections are in order once more.
Caz misrepresents when she states that I claimed Mike had placed the Sphere book in the hands of his solicitors "long before Anne left him. (in January 1994)"
Mike dated the break-up of his marriage to the time when the divorce papers were served, not to the far earlier date of January, which he regarded as just a hiccup.
Re; Robert Smith's post:
He takes up some seventeen lines to dispute my statement that the Sphere book fell open at p. 184 and throws in his 30 years experience to add weight to his careful explanation of the behaviour of "perfect bound" glue-spined paperbacks. Sorry to have to tell that, on this issue, his 30 years experience counts for nothing.
The Sphere book owned by Mike Barrett is a hardback volume!
As such it is a stitched section work that suffers from an excess of adhesive on at least 27 pages. This varies in severity: pages 438-9 are so tied together that the full text cannot be read. And such a spread is found on p. 183. It is only a small spread, but is enough to bias the action of p. 184, since that page falls at the start of a new stitched-section at p. 185. As a result. p. 184 is free from a right-hand pull by 185 but is open to a left-hand pull by pp 182-3 at its rear. hence it will tend to open at p. 184.
To put the Sphere book in a correct perspective let me recapitulate.
A book and other documents that were "evidence" were mentioned to private investigator Allan Gray by Mike Barrett, at the beginning of August 1994.No title for the book was given. Mike also mentioned that he had left his "evidence" with his solicitor.
At that time Gray took just passing notice of this claim. He is not a ripperologist, and at that juncture he was simply employed to trace Mike's wife and daughter.
But in the first week of September,. Mike extended his engagement and asked Gray to help him "prove" his forgery claim so that the story could be sold to a newspaper. He said that his earlier actions could dry up the royalties and he wanted some compensation for this.
It was at this point that Mike first named the book as a"Sphere book about poems".
Let me underscore this: the partial naming of took place in the first week of September 1994. His disclosure of the Crashaw quote to Mrs Harrison did not take place until much later, on 30 September.
He had earlier said to Gray that he had kept the book "up his sleeve". He had not told the Liverpool reporter about this book, since "they wanted everything for nothing" and made no offer to pay him anything at all.
Here let me register that Alan Gray will back this up with a statement meant for publication.
And let me refute Mrs Harrison's claim that Gray was employed by me. he was not at any date. My contact with him arose out of a request from the Sunday Tiimes that I liaise with him on their behalf. That is all there was to it.
Mike's disclosure to Mrs. Harrison can now be seen as an example of his quirky nature. he was erratic and inconsistent. He was foolish enough to try and play two games at once.he wanted to boast, to be seen as fiendishly clever; better than the hired "experts", in fact. He wanted to go on clawing in money from the book sales, while at the same time he felt free to boast of his part in the grand deception and make money from his confessions.
He desperately yearned for prestige, recognition and admiration. But he failed to see that his inconsistencies robbed him of all credibility and made him look like an unattractive fantasist
Only his claim about the Sphere book and his identification of a supplier of nigrosine-coloured iron-gall ink have any validity and evidential value.
Robert Smith's other points about the wording of the Crashaw poem and its imagined reflection in the Diary is typically contrived. he says:
"In the poem the eyes 'bleed tears'; in the diary the eyes 'pop'."
but the gloating about the eyes of whores is just one of the cliches that in various forms is found in a number of places, some far removed from the poem. As early as the fourth page of the diary we read:
"...what a joke it would be if I could gorge [gouge] out an eye and leave it by the whores body for all to see, ha ha".
P. 26 says:
"...had a go at her eyes..."
On the sixth page before the end we find:
"...next time I will take the whore's eyes out"
and the next page has this:
"take the eyes/ take the head/ leave them all for dead" |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 03:26 pm | | That's it?! That's all we get here -- a few words about when Mike might have lodged the book (with a specific or even rough date still noticeably missing from the information) and a remark about how silly Robert's reading of the surrounding text as evidence that the Crashaw poem might have been known in full by the writer might be? That's something Chris George and I had already worked out and decided in careful detail -- and I had demonstrated the likelihood of these images being in any sort of fictionalized Ripper book without any needed knowledge of the Crashaw poem beyond the lines in the Sphere volume myself at some length. Of course, Robert's reading on this issue was weak and there is no evidence from these lines that any writer knew the rest of the Crashaw poem. No one here was arguing otherwise.
I notice Melvin didn't metion Robert's reading of the timing of the phone call to Doreen's and the ordering with name and address and arrival of the maroon diary and the trip to Doreen's with the scrapbook diary -- a series of events whose timing as Robert recounts them makes determining whether Mike bought the maroon diary with or without criminal intent completely impossible.
No, there is nothing new here at all except the remark about the book being hardcover, but even here it is unclear what evidentiary value this detail offer us. Oh yes, and Mike's story about why he didn't mention the book to the reporter. But Melvin himself then assures us that Mike cannot be considered credible. So I guess that piece of info is completely worthless. But wait...
Then finally, there appears this priceless pair of sentences, that are wonderfully telling in their selective inconsistency:
"But [Mike] failed to see that his inconsistencies robbed him of all credibility and made him look like an unattractive fantasist.
"Only his claim about the Sphere book and his identification of a supplier of nigrosine-coloured iron-gall ink have any validity and evidential value."
This is pure genius.
Mike is completely empty of any credibility and he looks like "an unattractive fantasist," BUT the parts of his testimony that Melvin finds useful for his own case suddenly and amazingly have "validity and evidentiary value."
How might this work? The guy simply cannot be believed, unless he says stuff I can use to advance my own argument, and then believe me, folks, you can suddenly start believing him?
Surely, this is some sort of little test to see if we were actually reading, and Melvin isn't really suggesting that he can pick and choose which statements of Mike's he can count on as valid and which he cannot, especially if Mike has been completely robbed "of all credibility."
Is it me, or is this completely twisted reasoning?
"Hi Mike. We're sorry, but you have lied so regularly and so often and so wildly that we simply cannot believe anything you say. Oh wait, except for that part about the ink, and the book, too, you know, the parts that fit in with my theory about what happened, we can believe that. In fact, we do believe those two parts. In fact those parts have real validity and evidentiary value. Everything else, of course, is crap. Thanks, Mike. Sorry we doubted you."
C'mon. This just doesn't make any logical sense. If Melvin thinks that the ink is what Mike said it was and the Sphere volume was lodged with Bark-Jones at the time Mike said it was, it is (or had better be) because he has determined the truth of those things from other evidence somewhere else and certainly cannot be because he thinks Mike's claims have any validity or evidentiary value, not if Mike has been previously "robbed" "of all credibility." Mike's statements on the matter cannot have any validity or evidentiary value at all. Even if they happened to be true! "Validity" means they are logically valid, and nothing Mike says can be considered logically valid, not even the true things, whichever ones they might be, since he has routinely and regularly lied. And they cannot have evidentiary value, since they cannot be counted as in any way reliable.
So once again, questions remain.
When precisely did Mike lodge the Sphere book and why doesn't Melvin give us a date above?
How long exactly has the ink been on the paper, and why doesn't Melvin give us a date above? Could it have been put there in 1991? 1990? 1989? (as Easthaugh concludes at least -- ask me where he says this, go ahead) 1988? 1987? 1986? 1985? When?
Where are the new Kane samples and why have only a select few people been allowed to see them and how were those people chosen?
(What was it Peter said about the believers taking over the investigation?)
Are the samples being professionally analyzed? If so, by whom? If not, why not?
And does Melvin believe, now, that Mike and Anne did know or did not know the origins of this book when they took it to Doreen's?
And we better not be citing Mike Barrett and his stories as evidence of what kind of ink this is or what happened with the Sphere book and when, or, believe me, our case is in real, serious trouble. Especially since the very person citing him is the same person who also thinks he has been robbed of all credibility.
This is an odd way to proceed. Isn't it?
--John |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 03:36 pm | | I think the point about the Sphere book and the Diamine ink is that here MB's testimony can be backed up to an extent by independent evidence - to wit, Alan Gray's personal testimony, and the fact that the Blue Coat Art shop did sell exactly the kind of ink used to write the diary.
The chance of the last occuring just by luck must be small since iron-gall MS ink containing nigrosine isn't at all common.
K |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 03:38 pm | | This needs a bit of explanation. Some time ago I got sent what purports to be the transcript of a tape. I've no reason to believe that it isn't a conversation recorded on or after the date below. This is only a part: I thought that it had been lost in the computer problems that I had early last year but it turned up on the hard drive of my old computer.
12.12pm Monday 24th October
You know the M on the wall.
Yeah. FM.
How did that come about that,
What the blood?
the M on the wall.
The FM.
Did you research that anywhere.
Yes I did. I read it in a book three years ago.
In a book three years ago. What was the book?
The A-Z of Jack the Ripper.
What, clever. Mind you, you did say.
What about Mrs Hammersmith?
That was just my imagination.
Imagination, Shirley Harrison´s looking for her now. Shock yes....
Well, you know what she´s done to me Alan. Alright, I
Yeah.
That´s a fact.
You did it? I thought it was her who done it, you know?
Yeah, I know but I done it on a word processor and she transcribed it.
Oh, she transcribed it?
Yes.
Well I thought that was a bit clever for you because the writing and everything, you know so all she had to do was write it down then.
Yeah, so I forged it, she transcribed it and now all she wants is a ...
Well, sorry Alan but nobody
I think you should have the right people with you when you negotiate with people you know
Well, that´s why I wanted you here.
I think you should be er not tell them too much....
The main thing was the paper and the ink, that was the crux of it all and proving it was authentic, you see the paper, well I suppose you can pick paper up that´s old somewhere can´t you.
Photograph albums. It was so easy it was untrue.
An old photograph album you mean?
Yeah. It was so easy it was untrue. The trouble is.
The trouble is what?
The trouble is oh sod it, I´m cutting my nose off to spite my face but sod it. Once we get back to the house, sod them, sod it. God blimey, I´ve got a movie deal, I´ve got this deal, I´ve got that deal and I´ve got no money. Well f*** them all.
You haven´t got any deal, you´ve got no money.
Yeah, but without me, without me Alan, without me there wouldn´t be f*** all.
But they´re saying they can get by without you, with Anne. And the company will only see pound note signs. They´re not f****** interested in you are they?
No.
They´re going now and the publisher´s worded it in such a way as the members of the public read everything and form their own conclusions didn´t they. Clever arses. To protect themselves that they´re not perpertrating a fraud themselves.
They never thought.
The only thing you´ve got to worry about is have you perpertrated a fraud.
Oh yeah, I have.
You know what I mean.
Oh, there´s no question about that Alan. I´ll prove that beyond all doubt. That´s why I wanted the f****** money.
Mike, can I ask you this thing?
You can ask me anything you want.
Who conceived this with you? Were you on your own totally?
No, no
Was it you or did you have the idea with somebody else?
Yeah, I had the idea with somebody else. With Anne.
So, whose handwriting is it, whose handwriting is it?
That´s the whole point.
Whose handwriting is it?
Anne´s. Now would you like me to take you, I couldn´t resist it. I can do paper, I can do fact, that´s why I was hoping
How did Anne alter her handwriting? Easy? How
Yeah, she just wrote, it seems to go very slow on some occasions. |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 04:00 pm | | "He desperately yearned for prestige, recognition and admiration. But he failed to see that his inconsistencies robbed him of all credibility and made him look like an unattractive fantasist."
Melvin Harris, on Mike Barrett. |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 04:06 pm | | Karoline,
Yes, but then Melvin cannot claim that Mike's stories themselves, even the ones he thinks are supported by evidence, have any evidentiary value. They do not. The other evidence might or might not have value, depending on what it is. But Mike's stories do not, whether they are supported by that evidence or not.
The other evidence must be closely examined by itself and Mike's stories cannot be used in support of any conclusions concerning this evidence, since his stories are by definition unreliable. So Melvin cannot use any of Mike's stories or claim that any of them, even the ones he thinks are supported by other evidence, have any real evidentiary value.
After all, one of Melvin's own explicitly stated premises is that Mike has no credibility. Consequently, Mike's stories, supported by evidence or not, can have no evidentiary value and cannot be used to reliably support anything at all, ever.
Oh yes, and when precisely did Mike lodge the Sphere book and why doesn't Melvin give us a date above?
How long exactly has the ink been on the paper, and why doesn't Melvin give us a date above? Could it have been put there in 1991? 1990? 1989? (as Easthaugh concludes at least -- ask me where he says this, go ahead) 1988? 1987? 1986? 1985? When?
Where are the new Kane samples and why have only a select few people been allowed to see them and how were those people chosen?
(What was it Peter said about the believers taking over the investigation?)
Are the samples being professionally analyzed? If so, by whom? If not, why not?
And does Melvin believe, now, that Mike and Anne did know or did not know the origins of this book when they took it to Doreen's?
I thought these questions that remained after reading Melvin's post above, might bear repeating, for those just joining us.
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 06:56 am | | Hi All,
Interesting stuff. It's a great pity Melvin didn't tell us an awful long time ago about Mike's Sphere being a hardback edition. (Or perhaps he only just realised we were labouring under this misapprehension.)
It's a great pity he didn't clarify an awful long time ago what precisely he meant by the Sphere volume being lodged with Mike's solicitor 'LONG BEFORE the break with his wife and the 'confession'.'
Melvin, you wrote:
Mike dated the break-up of his marriage to the time when the divorce papers were served, not to the far earlier date of January, which he regarded as just a hiccup.
Yes, fine. But you also wrote, at the end of October last year:
NOTE FOR CAZ
Mike’s break with Anne dates from the day he made his ‘confession’. This is confirmed by Anne’s letter of 18th July 1994…
The actual date of lodgement of the book prior to that break [my emphasis] is uncertain. The only person who can give the exact day and month is the solicitor used by Mike. But he has not been paid and is owed large sums, therefore he has no incentive to waste anymore time on inquisitive Ripperologists!
So you were still telling me then that the lodgement was before Mike’s June 1994 confession – which turned out to be utter drivel, didn’t it? If I hadn’t kept pressing you for clarification, would we still be labouring under three misapprehensions: how and when you defined the break-up; which ’confession’ you meant; and what was the earliest date you really had for the lodging of the Crashaw quote? We have finally winkled out the information that Mike told Alan Gray, in the first week of September 1994, TWO MONTHS AFTER the 'confession' you were talking about, that he had lodged a “Sphere book about poems” with his solicitor at some date yet to be ascertained.
Well I’m glad we finally got that straight! Any misrepresentation of mine was based on a rather clear example of your own.
Perhaps efforts really should now be concentrated on getting at some firm acceptable supporting evidence for what books were lodged when. And I'll be very interested to hear Robert Smith's reaction to Melvin's somewhat tardy revelation about the Sphere hardback.
I also feel it is important to keep asking Karoline, Melvin and others to put pressure on the owner of the Kane sample to do the decent thing, and get it analysed professionally. Melvin himself has stated that 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. Well, here’s the chance to prove what competent and dutiful investigators we all are. Let’s get that sample analysed immediately so that Mr Kane’s name can be publicly cleared if at all possible, while the man may still be with us.
Any objections to Melvin’s own words here?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 08:26 am | | Caroline wrote:
"I can hardly believe you would condone the suspicion against Kane being aired in public yet again by Karoline, followed not half an hour later by her opinion that the issue ‘be dropped until either the man is dead or the evidence is in the public arena.’ Excuse me while I try not to throw up again."
What?
I mean....what?
Caroline, you know perfectly well that my last post on the subject of Kane was a reply to Omlor's persistent questions about the man, nothing more. I wouldn't have even been talking about him at all if Omlor and Paul hadn't nagged on and on at me for an answer. How can you have the brass nerve to claim I was "airing suspicion" against the man.
Once before you accused me quite falsely of "fingering" Kane and managed to work yourself up into a similarly fetid heat of vomit-analogies.
Now you are doing it again, and equally falsely, while Paul seems to have left all possible reason behind and is somehow managing to convince himself that the sum total of you twice making false accusations and claiming that I make you sick,(to say nothing of the various accusations that I am 'stupid, incompetent, intellectually dishonest" and guilty of "blinkered thinking"), is that I owe you an explanation!
(for heave's sake Paul, Caroline accused me of "fingering" Kane. I imagine that means she is saying I have publicly named Kane(or was she making some bizarre sexual allegation?). I didn't publicly name Kane. Someone else did, and I told her so. How can even you turn that into me 'falsely accusing' her of 'falsely accusing me?')
Really, what is this about?
All I can say is this is not a system of ethics I generally work by.
And I think for your own sakes you ought to stop, since you risk making yourselves look both irrational and vindictive.
Really, it's pathetic and boring. Just stop it.
K |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 09:20 am | | I've long used the following criteria in examining Mike Barrett's evidence:
1. Accept nothing he ever says or has said unless it can be corroborated.
2. When some particular statement is corroborated, examine the immediate context to see if there is anything else in it that MIGHT be true. But don't put it beyond MIGHT. And be ready for his sudden switches of direction and even instant self-contradiction.
Do these help in assessing Peter's tape?
As a matter of interest, in going through a 'Barrett family' file looking for something else, I came across samples of Mike's and Anne's handwriting I was sent in the past: in Mike's case, both material he had written with no diary connection, and a sample he had written to try and show Feldy he was capable of having been the forger. The writing didn't tell me anything, really. But I was again struck by the fact that Anne's spelling and grammar are consistently much better than the diary's. Mike's are appalling.
All good wishes,
Martin F |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 09:49 am | | Dear Karoline,
Either you are deliberately trying to write like Melvin, or you've forgotten.
It's "John."
Thanks,
--John (remember?) |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 10:02 am | | And Karoline,
Just for the record. I believe Caroline's remarks concerned not who first named Mr. Kane, but rather that you saw fit, long before any nagging questions from me, to announce to us all that there was a consensus over the new handwriting samples and that "it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'." And then, after writing this for all to see, you told us we shouldn't see it and shouldn't mention it and should forget it and you refused further comment saying it wouldn't be right -- although it was you yourself who told us this about the new samples! And then,in your response -- telling us after persitent requests for you to stand behind this original statement concerning this new thing which looked "very possible," that you, RJ, Peter, Melvin and some unnamed others were in this consensus -- you repeated the claim that "most people" who had seen Kane's handwriting thought it looked "similar to the diary's." And then once again said that saying or discussing such things would be improper.
Actually, you didn't just "condone the suspicion against Kane being aired."
You aired the newest evidence in favor of it yourself! On April 22nd, at 10:08 am. Before anyone nagged you about anything. Concerning the new samples and the new consensus. When you first mentioned these samples nearly a month ago now, and wrote that "it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'."
You see? You aired this. In April. Before any nagging or persistent questions even began. And then you wrote a post saying such things shouldn't be aired.
If you believe that the Kane samples should not be considered as evidence or discussed until they are made public, then you must also believe it would be irresponsible for anyone to come here to a public forum and tell us all that "it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'."
If you believe that such things should not be discussed because it is not proper, and yet you somehow do not think it would be irresponsible therefore for someone to announce this publicly, then you are being either inconsistent (because it would mean you were the one who had been improper) or simply hypocritical.
Unfortunately the person who irresponsibly announced, without any nagging questions prompting you at all, way back in April, that "it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'" was you.
And yet it was also you who said announcng such a thing here and discussing it in a public forum like this one would be an improper thing to do.
I believe this is what made Caroline's stomach act up.
Just a hunch, anyway.
--John (remember?) |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 10:03 am | | It's been asked what the words were that were omitted from p363(Blake Edn) of Shirley Harrison's book, concerning Melvin Harris' letter to Reed Hayes.
The letter starts: "You are being deceived, and deceived mightily. You are also being fed deliberate lies." It is not until the 10th para on page 2 some 76 lines after this that the lines appear: " Since the Leeds fiasco Harrison has been promising new tests and keeps posing as someone concerned to reach the truth in this matter, but she is a practised evader and has deliberately drawn things out to the point where I, and others, no longer believe her promises to be sincere."
Regretfully I have to say that the passage mentioned in the book gives a very different meaning to the passage actually written in the letter to Reed Hayes dated June 12th 1995. The "deliberate lies" are a/ "...that I (MH) received the tested ink samples at third-hand." and b/ "...that I (MH) supplied the chloroacetamide to the AFI laboratory." Nothing to do with Mrs. Harrison but the printed version gives the plain impression that Melvin Harris is accusing Mrs. Harrison of deliberately lying. Based solely on this (and of course we must assume that Mrs. Harrison did have the full letter to Hayes otherwise she would surely have been ill-advised to quote from it,) I would suggest that any comment concerning Melvin Harris in Mrs. Harrison's book should be carefully judged. |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 10:22 am | | Hi Peter,
Since Melvin decided to post here earlier on these matters concerning Mike's Sphere Book and the Kane samples and other assorted goodies, I thought he might also be willing to tell us why certain things remained missing from his latest post.
For instance, when precisely did Mike lodge the Sphere book and why doesn't Melvin give us a date above?
How long exactly has the ink been on the paper, and why doesn't Melvin give us a date above? Could it have been put there in 1991? 1990? 1989? (as Easthaugh concludes at least -- ask me where he says this, go ahead) 1988? 1987? 1986? 1985? When?
Where are the new Kane samples and why have only a select few people been allowed to see them and how were those people chosen?
Are the samples being professionally analyzed? If so, by whom? If not, why not?
And does Melvin believe, now, that Mike and Anne did know or did not know the origins of this book when they took it to Doreen's?
These don't seem to me to be rude or impertinent questions.
And I think they would help us all understand what Melvin now thinks about the situation.
Thanks,
--John
PS: Everyone out there -- I hope someone will pass this on to Peter, who might pass it on to Melvin. What a strange way to have a conversation. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 10:23 am | | Karoline
“Paul seems to have left all possible reason behind and is somehow managing to convince himself that the sum total of you twice making false accusations…” (my emphasis)
Is there any point in me asking you to substantiate your allegation that Caroline twice made false allegations? You see, you throw out a fair few of these charges, but never substantiate them when asked to do so. Will you – can you – substantiate this one?
You see, you said that Caroline had accused you of being the first to name (recently, as you later had to qualify) Gerrard Kane. But Caroline has vehemently denied this and I have gone back through the posts and I can’t find where she did it and she certainly did NOT do it in the post you cited. If she didn’t do it then you have falsely accused her of doing something she didn’t do and you should acknowledge this and maybe even go the whole hog and apologise.
I think I am correct in saying that on May 10, 2001 you were the first person to reveal on these Boards the existence of further and larger samples of Mr. Kane’s handwriting. You also said that “ the consensus seems to be that it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'.” But you said that you could not make the writing samples available for inspection. This disgusted Caroline, who thought you should not have revealed the existence of these writing samples and aired the “consensus” opinion of Mr Kane’s guilt if you were not in a position to substantiate your statement by producing the handwriting samples.
You even asked Caroline what she meant and she repeated it (on Monday, April 30, 2001 - 11:31) “My own values would not allow me to finger anyone in public, if I knew I was not on the firmest possible ground beforehand, or if I knew I was in no position to back up my public suspicions in public.” There is nothing in what Caroline said to allow you to infer that she was accusing you of being the first person to name Mr Kane. Yet this is what you did infer. You inferred it even though Karoline had explained in plain language what she meant. Why did you infer this, Karoline? What did Caroline say that made you think this is what she was saying?
You then said that the subject should be dropped until Mr Kane was dead. Even I was a bit disturbed by that statement and wrote to you: “I appreciate your concerns for Mr Kane, but I'd be very interested in you explanation of why you think it is morally preferable to protect a man's privacy while he's alive than it is to malign him when he is dead and deprived of the opportunity to reply. (Paul Begg Sunday, May 13, 2001 - 07:13 am). Typically, you didn’t reply, but you now express bafflement and outrage that Caroline should have been disgusted by your dubious preference for airing allegations against someone when he cannot defend himself.
Throughout all of this John Omlor was asking you who the “consensus” was. He asked you several times. You didn’t reply – and how often it is that one has to write those words, ‘you didn’t reply’! – and eventually he asked me. I said what I thought. You said I was being rude. I asked you to show me where, you didn… well, you know, there was an answer lacking. But you reiterated that you were not the first person to mention Mr Kane. And so on…
And now, yet again, you write to me “I didn't publicly name Kane. Someone else did, and I told her so. How can even you turn that into me 'falsely accusing' her of 'falsely accusing me?')”
So, you see, Karoline NOBODY ACCUSED YOU OF NAMING KANE. Do you understand that? NOBODY ACCUSED YOU OF NAMING KANE! Naming Kane has nothing to do with anything.
Saying there was a consensus opinion that Kane wrote the ‘diary’ when you couldn’t or wouldn’t name who that consensus consisted of and couldn’t produce the handwriting examples, that was what you were criticised of. And whether this was something to be disgusted by is something on which I won’t comment, but in view of the kerfuffle caused by Melvin and his journalists, making a claim that you were unable to substantiate was illadvised to say the very least.
So, Karoline, please, before you start suggesting that I have “left all possible reason behind”, please try keep up with the plot, as they say, because yes, it is pathetic and boring having to explain everything to you point by point. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 10:33 am | | Hello Peter
I would draw your attention to my comments on the appropriate Professional Standards page where I show that Shirley in fact said that the debate became personal and cited personal remarks made by Melvin in a letter to Reed Hayes. Surely the question here is whether it is right and proper to make such personal comments at all. If someone makes claims that are wrong, isn't it better to simply state the correct facts and leave personal judgements out of it? The bottom line is that Melvin said those things. What Shirley edited out, why, and her intention in doing so and in putting in what she did is a wholly different matter that shouldn't be allowed to obscure the inherent wrongness in what Melvin wrote.
And Melvin still hasn't substantiated his claim that Feldman said he rigged the ink tests - which is what those intervening paragraphs were all about. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 10:45 am | | The Divorce papers were served within a few days of the letter from Anne of the 18th July 1994 part of which says: "As you know, I started the divorce proceedings the day the Daily Post printed the story...I know you will be getting the divorce papers shortly..."
Let me again urge those who have copies of the Amstrad transcripts to put them on this site or make them available for other researchers and let me also suggest that if my meeting with Shirley and Keith goes ahead, it would be most useful to also see the Billy Graham transcripts and hear the tapes.
Incidentally, I did send Mrs. Morris a copy will of a Grossmith descendent fairly recently deceased together with, I believe, a contact source for his descendents. I hope that helped. Certainly, I hope that Martin will have a lot of fun from reading the whole fiasco. |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 11:10 am | | Thanks Peter.
So now it is clear that Mike could not have lodged his book with the solicitors until around July of 1994. And we know the diary was finished by April of 1992, over two years before.
So Mike could have very well seen the Crashaw quote in the Sphere volume any time at all between April of '92 and July of '94 (that's over two years, over twenty-four months of time for this to have happened). And he did not mention it to the newspaper when he was confessing and trying to be believed and allegedly knew the quote was there then? All, he says, because they were not paying him?
Yeah, I'm believing Mike here. Sure.
It still seems to me at least possible that Mike didn't even know the quote was there until sometime after April of '92. And as long as this is at least possible, the Crahsaw quote cannot yet be considered clear or reliable evidence of Mike's active complicity in the creation of this document. And that is the only, single, strongest piece of evidence there is. Everything else, the diary purchase, the transcript, the handwriting, the science, Kane, the lies and stories, everything remains completely open to equally likely possible interpretations concerning Mike's participation, some of which suggest complicity and some of which do not.
And now Melvin reaffirms for us that he does not believe himself that either Mike or Anne wrote this document themselves. To be exact, he says this conclusion is "based on my own handwriting examinations and other material."
Well, if Melvin has decided that neither Mike nor Anne penned this thing, based, as he says, on his own handwriting examinations and other material, then we better hope that Kane's handwriting clearly matches according to an independent and objective expert. Because otherwise we are going to need a penman, and everyone we know is now accounted for and we are going to have to consider that someone else is out there and we know nothig at all about them, and then all accusations concerning the likelihood of Mike's complicity or knowledge of this book's origins become even less logically established or valid in light of the evidence than they already are (which is barely), since we would now not even have any suspicion whatsoever who might have put these words on this paper.
This should be fun.
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 11:11 am | | Hi Paul,
Actually Karoline's announcement of the new consensus and the fact that it has now become "very possible" that Kane could have written this diary, came long before May 10th, Paul.
It goes all the way back to a post to you on Sunday, April 22, 2001 - 10:08 am.
Just to be accurate...
--John |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 11:18 am | | Paul wrote:
"Is there any point in me asking you to substantiate your allegation that Caroline twice made false allegations? You see, you throw out a fair few of these charges, but never substantiate them when asked to do so. Will you – can you – substantiate this one?"
Paul,
here for the last damn time is your "substantiation".
This will make twice I've posted it today. And about five times I've mentioned the first part - directly to you. Yet still you feel free to claim I have just never said it.
This is your method with everything isn't it. I mean you are still asking questions about the damn diary ink that were answered for you in 1998!
I suggest you print this answer out and shove it somewhere it's likely to keep coming to your attention. That way you may even rememeber your question has been answered.
False allegation one:
Caroline accused me of 'fingering' Kane in public.
She claimed it made her want to throw up.
Several people pointed out that this was untrue (and therefore a "false allegation")
False allegation two:
Yesterday she claimed I had recently 'aired Kane's name' again as a possible forger (which she again claimed made her sick; I have no idea why this particular topic affects her digestion so profoundly)
I did not air Kane's name as a possible forger. I did not even raise the subject. I simply answered John Omlor's (and your) persistent questions about my previous statements on the matter.
Her allegation is untrue - and therefore "false".
You see how it works now?
And I have never made any claim I couldn't substantiate. If you think differently - quote your sources.
If you don't quote your sources then you are admitting you have none.
It's obvious that both you and Caroline start these bouts of unpleasantness by making unwarranted allegations which force those accused to demand explanations or accept the slur.
You think it's okay to do so providing you can make your sentences long and convoluted enough, and Caroline thinks everyone will think she's sweet and harmless provided she slaps enough smileys on her abuse.
What your motives are we can only guess. Maybe you just enjoy being offensive. Or maybe you are bored. or maybe you have some agenda we just know nothing about.
But I for one am sick of it. I wonder how many of the silent majority agree with me.
K |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 11:20 am | | Hi again, Peter,
Incidentally, since you are helping us out here and clarifying what Melvin was saying above, could you tell me what he might have been suggesting about any of the following:
How long exactly has the ink been on the paper, and why doesn't he give us a date above? Could it have been put there in 1991? 1990? 1989? (as Easthaugh concludes at least -- ask me where he says this, go ahead) 1988? 1987? 1986? 1985? When?
Where are the new Kane samples and why have only a select few people been allowed to see them and how were those people chosen?
Are the samples being professionally analyzed? If so, by whom? If not, why not?
And does Melvin believe, now, that Mike and Anne did know or did not know the origins of this book when they took it to Doreen's?
If you know the answers to any of these questions, Peter, I think it might help clarify things for me concerning Melvin's most recent take on all of this and what he might and might not really know.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 11:42 am | | Oh dear, Karoline,
You write:
"I did not air Kane's name as a possible forger. I did not even raise the subject. I simply answered John Omlor's (and your) persistent questions about my previous statements on the matter."
Indeed, it was your "previous statements on the matter" that became so troublesome once you wrote just recently that we should not mention or discuss Kane's handwriting in this public forum until the samples are made public.
That seemed rather hypocritical of you, seeing as how you wrote the following to Paul on Sunday, April 22nd, at 10:08 am., long before anyone nagged you about anything, and before I ever raised the subject at all, concerning the new samples and the new consensus.
You wrote this, Karoline:
"Since that time, a larger example of Kane's writing as well as various additional data has come to light. And this has changed things considerably. I can't comment on that data at this stage since it isn't in the public forum - but the consensus seems to be that it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'.
"Kane of course can be tied in with the Barretts through his friendship with Devereux that went back to at least 1979.
"Therefore it becomes a good possibility that Kane wrote the diary and was therefore involved with MB, AG and possibly others in the creation of this document." [my emphasis]
Karoline, if you "can't comment on the data," since it "isn't in the public forum," then why did you write this, in the very same post, and put it in a public forum?
But it gets worse.
The day before that on April 21 at 10:43 pm, last month, you wrote without anyone asking you at all about Mr. Kane:
"Currently, with all the data we presently possess, I suggest the simplest and best explanation that unites all the facts is this:
"The diary was forged in about 1992 by MB with assistance from Kane and possibly Devereux, and with the full knowledge of AG. It was composed on MB's wp, and afterwards an authentic old diary was sought. The first one bought was too small and had '1891' unhelpfully printed on it. So a second, larger one was obtained, possibly at short and desperate notice.
"Kane then wrote out the text into the 'diary' in one or two long sittings, using ink MB had purchased from an art shop in the town, and shortly afterwards, MB went to London to try and place the 'diary of Jack the Ripper', using a false name and a spurious story concocted to ensure that all possible blame might devolve upon a conveniently dead mate. [my emphasis]
This is not proven, and it may eventually turn out to be wrong either partially or completely. It is just a theory - but can anyone seriously deny that presently it offers the best, simplest and most rational explanation of all the known facts?"
These Karoline are your exact words. They were written without prompting or nagging from anyone, by you, nearly four weeks ago.
We should be clear about who mentioned Kane was now even more possibly the forger, and who mentioned that we should not speculate, based on the new samples, whether Kane is possibly the forger.
In both cases that person was you.
How odd.
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 12:34 pm | | | Sorry, Karoline, but I only quoted you and Caroline, pointing out that Caroline said she was disgusted that you would write that it was "very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'" - which is what she meant by 'fingering' - when you couldn't produce the new handwriting evidence. She very clearly did not say she was disgusted simply because you named Gerrard Kane. But if you think this isn't true, we'll leave it. People can and no doubt will decide for themselves and it doesn't much matter to me at all. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 12:48 pm | | Hi John
I'm afraid that I am at a complete loss to know what to do over this situation that has arisen with Karoline. But I am fast reaching the conclusion that no headway is to be made with her in the proper analysis of the 'diary'. There is an expression 'paddle her own canoe'. I think the time has probably come to give Karoline an oar and leave it at that! |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 01:01 pm | | I was just checking for the first mention of the name "Kane" and this is what came up. Has anyone found an earlier mention?
"I have always thought that the "Diary" is a forgery. The weight of probability obviously favours a modern, post-1987 forgery perpetrated by those who claim to have 'found' it (i.e., Mike Barrett, Ann Barrett, and your choice of various others involved with them, such as Billy Graham, Tony Devereaux, and even the poor old bloke, Gerard Kane, who signed Devereaux's will)." (By Paul Begg on Tuesday, December 08, 1998 - 01:07 am) |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 01:18 pm | | Thank you for that bit of old news Peter, but it was hardly a new name in 1998 now was it, having been published in Ripperana in 1994 and in Paul Feldman's book.
And could you kindly explain to me what relevance who first named Mr Kane has got to do with anything currently under discussion? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 01:24 pm | | Hi Paul, All,
I suggest if anyone really wants to check back and see what I actually wrote about Karoline continuing to 'finger' Kane in public (it was someone else here who first talked about 'fingering' suspects, and gave me the inspiration to use the same term), when she couldn't be sure that any supporting evidence could also be made public, they should do so, and not take Karoline's word for it any more, as she has shown herself to get in such a hopeless muddle by not quoting enough of the posts to do her own case any justice.
Peter, I did thank you when you sent me that Grossmith stuff, but happily I found another descendant by myself, quite by chance, so I didn't follow yours up in the end. But many thanks again anyway for your help.
Please don't anyone worry unduly about my stomach - it's normally made of cast-iron. It just tends to rebel once in a while when it thinks someone is desperately trying to strike some sort of blow for themselves, at the expense of someone who may be quite unable to defend himself. Does citizen Kane deserve any fair play in all this? Or should we be concerning ourselves instead with the finer feelings of Karoline, who has brought such trouble upon herself here?
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 01:34 pm | | But Peter,
The issue here is who mentioned the new samples and the new fact that it now looks "very possible that Kane could have written the diary?" Who first announced there was a new consensus to this effect? And the issue is why did they mention such a thing if it should not be discussed in a public forum? Especially if they were the ones insisting that it should not be discussed in a public forum.
I can answer all of these questions, Peter.
I can answer them with one simple citation.
Here you go:
On Sunday, April 22nd, at 10:08 am., long before anyone nagged her about anything, and before I ever raised the subject at all, concerning the new samples and the new consensus Karoline Leach wrote:
"Since that time, a larger example of Kane's writing as well as various additional data has come to light. And this has changed things considerably. I can't comment on that data at this stage since it isn't in the public forum - but the consensus seems to be that it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'.
"Kane of course can be tied in with the Barretts through his friendship with Devereux that went back to at least 1979.
"Therefore it becomes a good possibility that Kane wrote the diary and was therefore involved with MB, AG and possibly others in the creation of this document." [my emphasis]
 Peter, if Karoline "can't comment on the data," since it "isn't in the public forum," then why would she write this, in the very same post, and put it in a public forum?
Peter, don't you see the hypocrisy here? If it is improper, as Karoline suggested more recently, to discuss the new samples and what they indicate as evidence, then how can it be proper to come here and announce that there are new samples and "the consensus seems to be that it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'?"
It can't be proper.
Either Karoline does not really believe that mentioning the writing and indicating what it suggests or is evidence of, what is now "very possible" because of it, is improper and irresponsible since the data is not yet in a public forum; or Karoline does believe that discussing these things and claiming this is what the new samples indicate is improper here in such a public forum, and she nevertheless hypocritically told us herself exactly this ("the consensus seems to be that it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'"), right here in this public forum.
Those are the only two alternatives, Peter.
This, I believe, is what bothers people here about saying
a.) "you shouldn't mention or discuss the new samples and what they show"
and saying at the same time
b.) "there are now new samples and here is what they show."
It's just irresponsible and hypocritical and self-contradictory.
There is simply no way this can be consistent or responsible and it is certainly no way to suggest that someone participated in the creation of this document.
And yet Karoline Leach wrote, concerning these new samples:
"[T]he consensus seems to be that it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'."
That simply flies in the face of what she said about not discussing these new samples or of considering them as evidence of what is possible.
Ain't no way around that, Peter.
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 01:42 pm | | HI All,
Can't we please get back to asking Melvin to put pressure on whoever owns the new Kane samples to do what the man himself says is the duty of all competent investigators?
To reiterate:
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.
These are Melvin's own words.
So - let's get those samples analysed!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Alegria
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 01:58 pm | | | We are assuming that the person who owns the sample wants the answer to be known. Suppose the handwriting does seem so close as to cause a general consensus to be made that the handwriting matches. The owner may not want to prove conclusively that Kane wrote the diary. The owner may not want the diary to be proven to be a forgery. The owner may not want to publicly come forward with an expert opinion that Kane forged the diary out of compassion for a sick old man. The owner may be planning to write a book and has already gotten an expert opinion on the handwriting. We CAN'T get those sampled analyzed--they don't belong to us and we have no say in what happens to them |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 02:35 pm | | Hi Alegria,
If the owner of the sample doesn't want the answer to be known, do you think it was right for him/her to let copies circulate among people who had no hesitation in talking about it all in public?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 02:36 pm | | Sorry, but this is a shambles and just not worthy of a public debate on a serious issue.
In most moderated discussion lists the contributions of the style frequently offered by Caroline and Paul would just be ruled out of order as libellous and inflammatory. They'd be warned to change their ways and if that didn't work they'd be banned, or the offending portions of their posts removed.
That's what moderators are for!
Here these two (and pretty well anyone else who wantsto), just get away with pouring out the same nasty, untrue mean-spirited claims over and over again. They disrupt serious discussion, they snipe, they bully, and they turn the whole thing into a silly childish circus.
I've been repeatedly abused and insulted here, and who has raised their voice about it? Only one or two decent souls. The rest are just quiet, I expect because they are afraid of coming under the same attack.
Well, frankly, that's pitiful. An if in order to make a contribution here I have to endure the endless childish rantings of these peculiar people then it's just not worth it.
I've done some research on this matter. I've shared some of it and and I'd be happy to share more with those interested - but not at this price.
If they aren't stopped, then I'm stopping.
Maybe that's what they want, I don't know. I do know I've had enough.
K |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 03:09 pm | | OK Everyone,
How about this?
Karoline, will you admit that it was probably neither wise nor particularly responsible of you to say, back in April, that you couldn't comment on the new Kane samples and what they say and then to tell us all that there is a new consensus that has determined that "it now looks very possible that Kane could have written this diary?"
After all, if you couldn't comment on the samples in public, then you shouldn't have written this the two times that you did (weeks later, you said that everyone who has seen the samples agrees that the writing "is similar" -- you shouldn't have said this either).
As I said to Peter, this, I believe, is what bothers people here about saying
a.) "you shouldn't mention or discuss the new samples and what they show"
and saying at the same time
b.) "there are now new samples and here is what they show."
This is either irresponsible or self-contradictory.
See, either you think "the new samples and what they show should not yet be discussed."
Or you tell us all here in a public forum "hey, everyone, there are new samples and here is what they show."
But if you think the first thing, and then still say the second, that's just hypocritical and irresponsible.
Karoline, according to you, you believe the first thing.
(The new samples and what they show should not yet be discussed.)
But you said the second.
(Hey everyone, there are new samples and here is what they show.)
That's not proper. That is not responsible.
So if you will simply agree that you should not have written that "the consensus seems to be that is now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary,'" then perhaps Paul and Caroline will agree that this is all they were really saying.
And the rest of it, the anger and resentment and pointing and insults on all sides, can be forgotten and we can move on.
Unfortunately, of course, the genie is now out of the bottle and we all now know that there are new samples of Kane's writing, and that you, RJ, Peter, and Melvin and a few others have seen them, and that, according to you, there is now a consensus that suggests that it is very possible from looking at these samples that Kane wrote this diary.
Nothing can be done about us knowing this.
Now we are going to have to see what we can do about getting these samples someplace where everyone can at least see them (I note with appreciation that you have already said you are in favor of this yourself, Karoline) or at the very least having these samples analyzed objectively to see if such a consensus is indeed correct.
Otherwise, a cloud will remain over these samples and, most unfortunately, over Mr. Kane, all because we have been told here in a public forum that the new samples exist and they indicate that Kane's being the penman is, to use your words, "very possible."
You can tell us we shouldn't talk about these new samples and what they show. But it is too late. You did. First. And now a certain responsibility becomes yours, I think, to help us in getting the samples fairly available and fairly analyzed.
I hope you will agree with this and that Paul and Caroline will agree that this is all they were trying to say.
Thanks all,
--John
PS: One last thing, by the way:
Does anyone here know who decided who the "chosen people" would be, anyway?
This sort of decision seems to be at the heart of much of our troubles here. |
Author: Alegria
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 03:57 pm | | | Whether I think it is right or not is irrelevant. We can not hold someone hostage to our demands because of the actions of others. I share information with people on a daily basis that I probably wouldn't want to become public knowledge. If someone chooses to go public with that information, I am not going to be forced into full disclosure by people who feel they have a right to know. I don't think this is about proving Kane innocent or guilty. I doubt anyone here truly cares one way or the other. This is about people using an opportunity to grind their foes into the ground, with whatever means present themselves. If people want to use this as a sledgehammer against Melvin and Karoline, nothing I say will stop it. They open themselves to that by posting opposing views to the pack. We don't however, have the right to make demands for information we don't have a right to know. What if the handwriting analysis proves Kane guilty? Will you all apologize for accusing people of needless defamation of a harmless old man? |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 04:06 pm | | Hi Alegria,
You write:
"I don't think this is about proving Kane innocent or guilty. I doubt anyone here truly cares one way or the other."
You are wrong.
I do.
Not necessarily about "proving" anything, but I do care a great deal about seeing that we are careful and consistent and responsible in what we say about people we think might have participated in this act. I don't particularly care if any one person or another is finally proved innocent or guilty, but I do care that we proceed in a logical and proper and responsible fashion in our reading and analysis and that we are fair in our writing about what we do and do not yet know, and should and should not yet say, and can and cannot yet say concerning people we might suspect, at the very least in the name of some reliable conception of justice.
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 04:53 pm | | Hi Alegria
As far as I am concerned I don't particularly mind if the owner of the samples wants to hold onto them. That's their right. They own them and they can do what the hell they want with them. What I object to is people having their words twisted and misrepresented, as has happened here to Caz. It may not be important. It may not be significant. But the matter of who first named Mr Kane was never raised by anyone except Karoline and then to deny it and misrepresent what Caz actually said. And now, when I have the audacity to point out Karoline's error, Karoline represents it as so heinous that I should be thrown out! Bizarre. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 05:21 pm | | Hi Alegria,
Ditto word for word John's latest post to you. And Paul's.
And if Kane is proved to be guilty, I would still deplore the way some people have acted here, and the silence of others, if it means that they condone that action.
The kind of thing I see happening here right now to citizen Kane would have made me equally angry, had I never even heard of Melvin and Karoline - they are their own sledgehammers, I'm afraid.
You are entitled to express your doubts, Alegria, about what you think anyone truly cares about here, but I know you are wrong about me, at least.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 05:51 pm | | Paul is apparently free to make false claims about me just as he's made them about Harris, and I have two possible alternatives - 1.to spend all my time correcting his falsehoods, or 2.to let them stand as if they were true.
Well screw that.
I've spent time and energy trying to be fair and reasonable, digging up data, laying it out carefully.
I didn't do that to so that one arrogant dishonest man and his sidekicks can have fun claiming I'm a hopeless case who never answers questions.
The moderator should oblige the abusive bullying lying people to step back and shut up. They should be told that no further lies and distortions will be tolerated.
If that doesn't happen, then I am just not going to get involved, because to be honest there is no point.
My next round of stuff on the forensic evidence will have to wait until I see what happens next. Without some new ground rules and some attempt being made to enforce them, I'm not going to contribute any more of my tinme and energy here
K |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 07:38 pm | | I've meant to keep out of this sink hole but I just noticed something that has angered me.
John originally wrote this on Thursday, May 10, 2001 - 11:58 pm:
Note: I'll save space and only quote the relevant part. But please, go look for yourselves.
"Speaking of the spectral Mr. Kane,
"On April 22nd, at 10:08 am, Karoline wrote to Paul:
"I think Peter has made it pretty clear where the current investigation is placed.
"As he says, the diary handwriting does not resemble AG's or MB's. Last year it was considered possible that one of them may have altered their handwriting - and this was why it was being advocated that a professional document examiner should be consulted.
"And this was why Peter answered your questions by saying he couldn't comment finally until such a document examiner had seen the writing.
"Since that time, a larger example of Kane's writing as well as various additional data has come to light. And this has changed things considerably. I can't comment on that data at this stage since it isn't in the public forum - but the consensus seems to be that it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'.
"Kane of course can be tied in with the Barretts through his friendship with Devereux that went back to at least 1979." [this is where the citation ended -- my emphasis - Yaz]
I expressed my own scepticism as to anything objectionable in what Karoline said in the quotation John provided.
I argued and asked for further clarification of what was objectionable in what John quoted from Karoline.
I've read the bewildering posts and counter-posts that followed that told me, more in disbelief and disgust than for any information.
Now, in John's post of Wednesday, May 16, 2001 - 01:34 pm, comes this addition to what he previouly quoted and objected to from Karoline's April post:
"On Sunday, April 22nd, at 10:08 am., long before anyone nagged her about anything, and before I ever raised the subject at all, concerning the new
samples and the new consensus Karoline Leach wrote:
"Since that time, a larger example of Kane's writing as well as various additional data has come to light. And this has changed things considerably. I can't comment on that data at this stage since it isn't in the public forum - but the consensus seems to be that it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'.
""Kane of course can be tied in with the Barretts through his friendship with Devereux that went back to at least 1979.
"Therefore it becomes a good possibility that Kane wrote the diary and was therefore involved with MB, AG and possibly others in the creation of this document." [my emphasis]"
Where did this gem quoted in boldface come from? Why wasn't it cited in John's original post as the objectionable statement? I've searched the Maybrick archives from that Thursday through today, and this is the first time that statement has been mentioned.
Should I have checked John's citation from Karoline's message of April 22nd, at 10:08 am?
I suppose I should have, but -- silly dumb-ass old me -- I didn't think I needed to since I trusted that what was objectionable would be found in what John quoted.
This additional statement, I suppose does exist in the April 22 post -- should we take anyone's word on anything? -- but it is not included in what John objected to.
But that statement is not and never was:
(1) included in the allegedly objectionable quote,
(2) now it quietly finds its way into what was supposedly the previously objectionable quotation,
(3) and this statement, that was not there before, is now called-out...as if: stupid me, why hadn't I registered those words John and others provided for me in his/their previous and subsequent ad nauseum citations!!
This is a completely objectionable way to hold a discussion.
Gods knows, and anybody remotely familiar with my previous stay in the Hotel Casebook should know it as well, I've never been on very good terms with either Karoline or Peter.
I bet they're not half as shocked as I am to see me coming to their defense.
But there is nothing even remotely good that can be said about what has transpired over this "objectionable" quotation from Karoline's April 22 post -- especially when the emphasized "objectionable" sentence has now been added (perhaps not to Karoline's post, but most certainly to what John led us to believe he found objectionable) and without his acknowledgement of his addition.
I've been misled. I find what has just happened to be objectionable itself. I have no trust in anyone who deliberately "reasons" this way and expects others to be able to follow his argument, let alone agree with it or share outrage.
Before anyone gets too giddy:
There are many reasons to object to the newly cited, all-too-conveniently emphasized sentence (hopefully) from Karoline's April 22 post.
In normal circumstances, I would have agree with those who find it objectionable even if I wouldn't have stated my objections in the tone and wording I've seen displayed so far.
But since they have been brought to my attention in such a deceitful and dishonorable way, I refuse to consider the issue.
Anyone who is a party to this behavior does their own cause (or Kane's, or whatever 'higher principles' they serve) no good whatsoever.
This is an example of what can happen when passion rules over reason.
Yaz |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 10:04 pm | | Dear Yaz,
I apologize sincerely if you feel you were in any way mislead.
I assure you that it was not a case of passion ruling over reason.
The passage from Karoline that I cited in my discussion with you earlier was chosen because it contained that part of her remarks that I found particularly troublesome when we were talking.
That was when she said,
"I can't comment on that data at this stage since it isn't in the public forum - but the consensus seems to be that it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'."
What I was trying to get you to see at the time was that this was unfair.
I still believe it was, all by itself. Karoline claims here that she cannot comment on this data and then tells us that there is consensus on this data and it seems to be that "it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'."
This was a clear indication to me that she was commenting on the data she herself said she should not comment on (telling what it seemed to indicate to some then unknown and mysterious consensus) and that she was using the samples to accuse Kane, to say the it was very likely that he could have written the diary, even though she herself was not backing this evidence up with anything at all and admitted that she could not.
This was simply not fair, and that's what I was discussing with you at the time of our exchange.
The passage that followed this section of Karoline's remarks is different.
Here she goes on to say:
"Therefore it becomes a good possibility that Kane wrote the diary and was therefore involved with MB, AG and possibly others in the creation of this document."
This was indeed not quoted in my discussion with you concerning her consensus remark and her link to Kane remark, because at the time of our discussion those were the two remarks I found troubling and unfair and that's what I was talking about with you.
But I did not mean to mislead you in any way.
Later, in a discussion with Peter about who first told us of the new samples and who first told us what they showed and who named Kane in this new discussion of these samples, I quoted the passage including the subsequent paragraph, to demonstrate to Peter that Karoline's remarks were even at that time a clear accusation against Kane without any evidentiary support at all and despite the fact that she herself said she couldn't comment.
At this point, the final paragraph of the quote seemed relevant to the point I ws making to Peter and so I quoted it, too.
This was not an attempt to mislead anyone. I gave the times and dates and locations of all my citations so that anyone who wanted could check them.
In my discussion with you, I cited the paragraphs I found objectionable (and that I still do, for a number of reasons including self-contradiction and irresponsibility for mentioning that there was now a consensus and that ""it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'"). In my discussion with Peter I cited the subsequent paragraph as well and emphasized it there, because it was relevant to the point I was making to Peter concerning Karoline's first mentioning the samples and first accusing Kane based on the samples.
I simply did not realize that the subsequent paragraph, where Karoline says,
"Therefore it becomes a good possibility that Kane wrote the diary and was therefore involved with MB, AG and possibly others in the creation of this document."
was anything more for your and my purposes than the logical conclusion to her objectionable mention of what the samples showed and what the consensus had agreed upon. I am sorry I did not cite it if you thought it was especially relevant to our discussion.
But I hid nothing, and clearly named and dated the citation and had no intention of keeping anything from you. In fact, it now seems like I should have cited it to bolster my case with you.
But I did not. I apologize for that. If anyone has any doubts about the extent of Karoline's remarks, they can check the entire post. It remains in the archive or I can reprint in its entirety here and I think it will confirm that she said exactly what I have been saying and that she said she could not and should not discuss the new samples what the samples show and then she told us of the new samples and told us what the samples show.
I am sorry, Yaz.
I will try not to do this to you again.
--John |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 11:57 pm | | Hello.
This discussion has become so long-winded, extreme, tiresome, and divisive that I doubt if more than 10 or 12 people read it on a regular basis. Still, I feel obliged to comment on this time-wasting feud.
For the record, despite what has been said here, Karoline was NOT the first person to state on these boards that further examples of Mr. Kane's handwriting existed. Peter Birchwood mentioned it earlier, and Martin Fido immediately congratulated him on this and suggested the services of Sue Iremonger! (see 22 April, earlier in the morning). And one should note the context of the discussion. Peter was responding to the criticisms of Paul Begg and Caroline Morris, who were wondering why Peter seemed to be considering alternative theories to his previous speculation that AG & MB forged the Maybrick document by themselves. Peter stated that he was always willing to consider knew evidence & mentioned that he had seen further examples of Mr. Kane's handwriting. The whole thing has been blown completely out of proportion, in my humble opinion. Chris George, who is certainly one of the most reasonable and cautious posters here, has stated that he had heard from reliable sources that the diary writing had some resemblance to Kane's. Paul Begg long ago acknowledged that the fiercest anti-diarists have claimed that Kane's writing resembled the diary's. So this has always been a fairly well-known argument. Karoline seems to be receiving the brunt of the criticism.
It's interesting to note in looking back over the posts the delayed-reaction of outrage towards Karoline. One of John Omlor's initial reactions to her post (later that night on 22 April) was to state "The case against Mr. Kane and Tony Devereax like the case against Mike & Anne, seems barely to have begun to be established. Still, I will be very interested in the results of any complete & thorough handwriting analysis." Wow. What a far cry from the indignation we are now seeing!
I would also like to point out that John has several times now claimed that RJP has seen these samples of Mr. Kane's handwriting and is part of some 'consensus'. But I have never stated anthing like this on these boards. What I know (or don't know or only think I know) from private sources has remained private.
Finally, it should be noted that the quote of Karoline's that John has continually reprinted was not given in its entirety. The statement he has been repeating was immediately (in the same post) followed by this qualification: (my italics)
There is yet no proof, of course, but there is a powerful circumstantial case. It represents probably the best theory that can currently be made out of the accumulated data.
Let me assure you again that neither I nor anyone else is advocating that we forget about other possibilities. As I keep saying (and you appear to keep NOT reading), of course all options must remain open, and investigations must proceed with a completely open mind" Karoline L. 22 April, 2001.
Let's stop the nonsense now, and get on with it?
Caz--I can only comment on what I know. As far as I know, there is no evil genius spreading anti-diary propaganda and dropping names. I have written a few letters in the past year, and have received a few replies. I have some tiny snippets of information. Nothing too exciting. It was given in confidence, and I don't repeat it. Those who have replied to me have been honorable and haven't tried to influence my opinion. (One by the way was a supporter of Paul Feldman's theory). Yes, it seems a pity that Mr. Kane's name has been made public. But certainly no more so than Anne & Mike dragging in the name of Tony Devereux into the newspapers. But this state of affairs has existed for a long time. Has there really been no opportunity since the publication of Feldy's book to approach Mr. Kane and get his side of the story? (I'm asking) I honestly don't know whether Kane's handwriting has been professionally examined or not. I believe Karoline has stated that she is trying to get it released; I believe she is being sincere. Be patient and maybe you'll get what you are after. Sorry, but I can't help you.
It seems like no one that has come in contact with the diary has gotten away without somewhat of a black-eye, and this includes Mike, Anne, Kane, Devereux, Shirley Harrison, Paul Feldman, Dr.Baxendale, Albert Johnson, Kenneth Rendell, Karoline, you, Melvin Harris, the electrician's helpers, Robert Smith, Paul Begg, etc. etc. etc. etc. When will it end? Well, hopefully when someone decides enough is enough. But who should that person be?
RJP |
|
|
|
|
