|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 19, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-Archives 2001:
Archive through May 19, 2001
Author: Scott Nelson
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 01:13 am |        | Hi RJ,
I think I can reasonably assure you that there are probably more than 10-12 people reading this board on a regular basis. Probably more like hundreds of silent folks who follow the diary boards on a day to day basis. I've been following this fascinating saga since 1994 when Harrison's hardback was released here in the states. I read ALL of the posts here as do many unidentified people who are too afraid to post their opinions (I personally know several of them!). So maybe folks shouldn't become too entrenched in personal squabbles that diminish progress towards a diary solution, if one is ever to be found [smiley face here]. - sorry to interrupt, remember conservation of bandwidth. |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 03:39 am | | HI RJP
I think it would be a good idea to set the record straight with the correct facts so that we have an accurate presentation of what has happened and why. I tried to make this clear in my post of Wednesday, May 16, 2001 - 10:23 am on this Message Board, but it seems to have been missed.
On Sunday Sunday, April 22, 2001 - 10:08 am. Karoline Leach placed a message on these Boards saying that new samples of Kane's handwriting had come to light and that "the consensus seems to be that it now looks very possible that Kane could have written the 'diary'." Karoline went on to say that she could not make the samples publicly available.
Fair enough.
Caz, however, felt that it was wrong for Karoline to have revealed the existence of these new handwriting samples and the consensus opinion if she could not make the samples available for inspection. Caz said she was disgusted by this. Caz's words were: " what you are quite definitely saying is that you will go on fingering Kane in public as a likely forger, and that it's not your fault that your hands are tied when it comes to producing a shred of evidence to back up your suspicions. (Sounds all too boringly familiar somehow.)....And I don't know how anyone else feels about the values displayed here, but quite frankly I went away from the
boards yesterday feeling fairly disgusted by what I was reading."
Fair enough. Whether this was something Caz should have felt disgusted about is neither here nor there. If that was how she felt, that was how she felt.
On Sunday, April 29, 2001 - 08:11 am Karoline quoted the above part of Caz's post and wrote "Caroline, would you mind telling me what this means? On Monday, April 30, 2001 - 11:31 Caz did so, writing: "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."
In context Caz's meaning is clear - she would not have given the consensus opinion if she had been unable to back up the claim with the evidence of the new handwriting samples.
Fair enough.
Except - and this is the crux post - Karoline seems to have misunderstood Caz. Karoline interpreted this post as an accusation that Karoline was the first person to name Mr Kane. I'm not sure why Karoline should have thought this, as it can't really be inferred from what Caz had written, especially when seen in the context of the exchange.
Also I think a bit of common sense might have made it clear that Caz of all people would have known that Kane's name was mentioned in Feldman's book, if for no other reason than that she is familiar with Feldman's writings, but also because last year Caz retyped and posted the messages to the Board from Keith Skinner that concerned Feldman's attribution of his information about Kane to Melvin Harris. Karoline should never reasonably have thought that Caz meant that Karoline had introduced Kane's name to the public arena. However, she did think this and there is nothing to be gained by apportioning blame, but it does highlight the huge importance of John Omlor's argument that messages should be read with care and awareness.
Karoline then angrily denied that she had been the first person to name Gerrard Kane and saying that I had first named him.
In case I had missed something somewhere, I asked Karoline who it was who had introduced the subject of who first named Kane. Karoline said it was Caz. Caz immediately denied this and repeated the relevant parts of her post by way of illustration.
We are now where we are.
Now, Caz might have expressed herself a little more clearly in both the cited posts, though I understood her meaning and so, too, did John Omlor. Maybe others did too. Equally, with a little forethought Karoline should not have interpreted Caz in the way she did. I suspect that anyone else would have sorted it out with Caz very quickly.
So, for the record, Caz did not accuse Karoline of having first named Mr Kane. Nobody has accused Karoline of naming Mr Kane. Karoline misunderstood Caz, perhaps justifiably, perhaps through lack of care and attention. And I think that if one backtracks through the debates here you will find that pretty much the same explanation exists for each of the problems. |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 03:49 am | | RJP
Hi. I forgot to add on an entirely different matter that John Omlor (a) repeatedly asked Karoline to identify the consesnsus, but received no reply, that he (b) then asked if I knew and I speculated that it was Peter Birchwood, Melvin Harris and Karoline herself, Karoline then blew up again and (c) added your name as probably a recipient of the Kane handwriting sample and one of the concensus.
Therefore, John Omlor hasn't accused you or even so much as suggested that you in any way breached the bond of privilaged information. |
Author: Karoline L
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 04:37 am | | Thank you RJ, for posting a more complete version of my original post of April 22 which seems to have begun this inexplicable rush to condemn.
It must now be obvious that I have never claimed Kane forged the diary, or made any unreasonable claim about him in any way. Even the "consensus" I mentioned wasn't mine, but a rough assimiliation of the views I'd heard from other people.
I never intended that should be taken as proof of his guilt. Indeed I have made it clear- repeatedly - that the handwriting sample can't be used as evidence until it's in the public arena.
All I have said about Kane is that there is a "good possibility" he wrote the diary. And this is absolutely no more than other people have been saying in various ways at various times since 1994!
With regard to the owner of the larger handwriting sample: I've never met this person and scarcely know them. I was simply sent a copy of the sample, not by the owner, but by another contributor here. And I didn't even publicly mention I had seen it, until Peter Birchwood commented on it here.
I have asked the owner of the sample to make it public. I can't do more than that. It's not my responsibility to get it published, and not my job to make sure it happens. And I can't be blamed for the fact that some person I hardly know doesn't want to publish it at the moment.
So, clearly I've done nothing wrong or even untoward in this whole Kane business, which as, as RJ says, been blown out of all proportion.
Whatever this is about, I think it has more to do with (as Alegria put it) sledgehammering perceived 'opponents' than any real moral indignation or anything else.
As such it's pretty pointless isn't it?
Scott, I totally agree with you about the uselessness of personal squabbles - and I hope it's clear I had no part in starting any of this.
On the contrary, I was deliberately made the target of some kind of strange campaign. My mention of the name "Kane" was made the excuse for an attack on me, in which I was accused of misrepresenting facts, of making false claims, and in which Caroline claimed I was "fingering" the man and twice claimed I made her "want to throw up".
It's very easy for someone to come along and pick fake quarrels like this. What does the accused person do about it?
Ignore it?
I tried that - it just went on, getting more strident and unpleasant.
Refute it?
Well, once you do that you are descending to their level aren't you? Yet sometimes there seems to be no other way.
The only person who can fairly deal with this is the list moderator.
This is why I think there should be properly enforced rules here.
A short while ago a new code of conduct was posted here which made it clear that abusive of offensive behaviour would "not be tolerated".
May I ask, what is the point of making such rules if they are not going to be applied?
Caroline's (and to a lesser extent both John and Paul's) behaviour towards me was intermittently abusive and very offensive. Moreover it was obviously taking up unjustifiable space and disrupting the proper flow of the discussion.
In such circumstances it's the duty of the moderator to step in. Not to censor anyone, but to keep order.
Caroline should have been told that her remarks about me were offensive and should be stopped.
John should have been reminded of the full text of my actual post (as RJ has now done) and informed that after several lengthy posts on the subject, that particular avenue was to be discouraged, out of respect for other posters.
This is what a moderator would normally see as his/her job. When it's done properly a healthy, open discussion ensues. When it isn't done, we get the regrettable chaosthat seems to be operating here.
I appeal to the moderator to begin 'moderating'. I know it isn't easy. My partner runs another very lively and sometimes heated list, and it needs skill and diplomacy to keep everything smooth, allow everyone to have their say and avoid the descent into chaos and abuse.
But it can be done, and I think the last few days have shown it desperately needs to be done.
Personally, if I have to endure any more of this bludgeoning and abuse, I just won't contribute here. I'm sure there are others (as Scott says) who already feel that way.
Karoline |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 04:52 am | | Finally, since I have been accused of behaving offensively towards Karoline and, more specifically, of asking the same question over and over even though it has been answered, I would just like to make the following observations:
4. To the best of my knowledge no one has been able to find any other modern firm, except Diamine, producing iron gall ink with nigrosine as a sighting agent. (Karoline L Friday, May 11, 2001 - 08:46 am)
Nigrosine was used in old inks of the 19thC. But I am told that no other company but Diamine has been traced as users of nigrosine in the 1990s (I am always open to correction here). Karoline L on Friday, May 11, 2001 - 03:33 pm
Well, as I reported quite extensively yesterday - the diary ink is very probably Diamine ink (since Diamine is the only modern manufacturer that has been identified as using nigrosine, a substance found in the diary-ink). Karoline L on Saturday, May 12, 2001 - 11:58 am
Nigrosine is commonly used in printing inks and, I believe, in stamp ink. But, according to Harris's own research, (which is quoted here on the Casebook), he has not managed to find any other modern manufacturer except Diamine who used nigrosine in a manuscript ink. Karoline L on Sunday, May 13, 2001 - 06:12 am
As I told you in a previous post, nigrosine is quite commonly used in printing ink and stamp ink. But Harris has not been able to find any other manufacturer beside Diamine that used it in manuscript ink. [please see the Dissertations board for Harris's very full statement on this issue]. Karoline L on Sunday, May 13, 2001 - 02:01 pm
From myself:
Karoline
You wrote that Melvin “has not managed to find any other modern manufacturer except Diamine who used nigrosine in a manuscript ink.” And in the post above you wrote that Melvin “has not been able to find any other manufacturer beside Diamine that used it in manuscript ink. There is a significant difference between these statements which I have highlighted. Melvin either found no modern manufacturer except Diamine or he found no manufacturer at any time except Diamine. Apart from the former leaving open the admittedly remote possibility someone might just have had a bottle of non- Diamine nigrosine-containing ink, I am wondering how ill-informed Dr. Baxendale and Mr Voller were, for the former appears to have thought there were nigrosine-containing manuscript inks in the 1940s and the latter said, “Diamine manuscript ink is the only one of its kind [to use nigrosine] for many a long year…” which suggests that there were nigrosine-containing manuscript inks available until… when? But I’m not directing that question at you. I’m just drawing your attention to it and hoping that perhaps it might be resolved.” Paul Begg on Sunday, May 13, 2001 - 04:33 pm
I took a look at Melvin's “Fact File For the Perplexed” where he discusses the ink in depth, but he seems only to have said: “Nigrosine itself, though little used in writing inks, was used in inks in the Victorian era, so its presence presented no problems.” As you can see, he says it was used in inks in the Victorian times but was otherwise “little used in writing inks”. And a little later he wrote of Diamin’es use of nigrosine: “This was unusual and seemed to be the only known writing ink around using Nigrosine (it was normally used in stamp-pad inks, embossing inks and copying inks)”.
I can only find Melvin saying that “seemed to be the only known writing ink around”, which doesn’t seem to suggest extensive research and seems also to restrict his research to inks available in the mid-1990s. His words here don’t allow anything approaching the emphatic interpretations you have stated, namely that Melvin “has not managed to find any other modern manufacturer except Diamine who used nigrosine in a manuscript ink” or that Melvin “has not been able to find any other manufacturer beside Diamine that used it in manuscript ink”, so I assume that you made these comments based on another document of Melvins. I thank you for checking with Melvin on what he meant and I hope it doesn’t prevail upon his time too greatly, but while we await his reply I wonder if you would be kind enough to direct me to the actual post you consulted for the above detail. Thanks. Paul Begg on Monday, May 14, 2001 - 04:08 am
I had also explained why I was interested in Melvin’s statement: I am just trying to establish precisely what experts have said, where they were wrong and why. As I have said, isolating the mistakes made and where imprecise statements have been made or inferences drawn is probably the only legitimate ground for continuing to research the ‘diary’. Paul Begg on Sunday, May 13, 2001 - 08:40 am
Now, I apologise for the length of this post and I appreciate it that you have reached this far – assuming anyone had – but I want to make it extremely clear that Karoline’s repeated interpretation of what Melvin said is that there was variously no manufacturer or nor modern (once identified as meaning a 1990s manufacturer) of an ink containing nigrosine. However, we are told by Baxendale that nigrosine was used in (presumably writing) inks in the 1940s onwards and we have Voller in the mid-1990s saying that nobody had used nigrosine in writing ink for many a long year and we have Melvin in fact saying that Diamine “seemed to be the only known writing ink around using Nigrosine” – that is to say the only known writing ink currently available, i.e., the 1990s.
But between the 1940s and ? there were nigrosine-containing inks. When did they cease to be? Especially as we have a document that could have been penned as early as 1989/1990 – or possibly (disregarding internal evidence to the contrary) earlier. Could the forger have possessed a bottle of this old nigrosine-containing ink? Would this – could this – explain why Voller said the ink wasn’t Diamine?
Melvin’s research might have thrown some light on these questions. In particular, what was meant by “modern” – did he meant currently manufacturing (i.e., making ink in the 1990s) or did he mean manufacturing within the last five. ten, twenty, or what number of years. He research could confirm that no nigrosine-containing ink had been manufactured since 1950, for example, and thus it would have been even more likely that the ‘diary’ ink was Diamine. Thus I asked (and asked) Karoline to site the post she used for her statements such as : “But, according to Harris's own research, (which is quoted here on the Casebook), he has not managed to find any other modern manufacturer except Diamine who used nigrosine in a manuscript ink.”
Karoline has not cited the research posted on the Casebook. I have looked. The only comment I have been able to find that bears any rememblance to what Karoline has said is “This was unusual and seemed to be the only known writing ink around using Nigrosine” . Was this the post used by Karoline? She won’t say. Why?
And now for the sake of bandwith I shall remain silent for a while. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 07:40 am | | Hi All,
In my post of Tuesday, May 01, 2001 – 08:22 am, I wrote:
‘Finally, I do remember that Melvin wasn’t the first to put Kane’s name up on the boards. But this issue isn’t about who started what. I just find it unpalatable, now Kane’s name is here, to read statements like Karoline’s, about him being ‘a known associate of the Barretts’, when she has failed to even suggest that she has seen any evidence to support such a statement.
I am quite prepared to apologise for my feelings of disgust, if Karoline tells me that she has seen evidence that showed Mike knew of Kane’s existence in March 1992, when she made the statement, on the College Course board, on April 19, 2001. I’m still not sure she would have been justified in making such a statement, and claiming it as a piece of hard evidence, even if she knew it was true, but also knew she couldn’t say how she knew.’
Well, this post of mine came 12 days after Karoline had made her ‘known associate’ statement – 12 days in which John and I had been discussing it and asking Karoline about it – yet she only finally addressed it later on May 1st, in her post of 09:40 am, when she wrote:
‘Well, I have just checked, and yes it’s true I did say that Kane was a known associate of the Barretts – when what I should have said was he was a known associate of Devereux’s.
I apologise for that mistake.’
Then, on Saturday, May 05, 2001 – 12:51 pm, I posted a message from Keith Skinner to the board, in which his opening words were:
‘I think I’m correct in saying that the introduction of Mr Kane’s name into the discussion was first made by me and not Paul Begg.’
(Keith was referring to a post Paul put up for him on July 3rd, 2000, and presumably knew nothing about Paul’s 1998 post, cited by Peter yesterday.)
Believe it or not, I do actually read the posts I type up for Keith. So I think, if it was not obvious at the start of all the shenanigans here, it should have been so by Keith’s post of May 5th, that I certainly didn’t think Karoline was the first person to point the finger at Kane. In fact, I always knew very well that she wasn’t. And I honestly and sincerely didn’t intend to leave anyone with the impression that I was making any such accusation, when I wrote about Karoline being content to ‘go on fingering Kane in public as a likely forger’. What I meant by that was to ‘go on pointing the finger’, which is defined in my Chambers thus: ‘to call attention to in reproof’. It suggests nothing to me about the pointer being the first to do the pointing. But I do apologise for not having anticipated Karoline’s interpretation, and I will try to be more careful in future over my choice of words. I wish I could undo all the problems I seem to have caused in this way.
Karoline,
I'm truly sorry if you think I was wrong to feel disgusted by the way I saw Mr Kane being treated on these boards, but I really can't help the way I feel. I realise I was probably wrong to express such feelings and I apologise for that. If the Casebook regulators ask me to moderate my language, as a result of your distress, I will of course do my best, or face the consequencies. I wish I could turn the clock back and start over with you.
Hi RJ,
I do appreciate your comments. You wrote:
When will it end? Well, hopefully when someone decides enough is enough. But who should that person be?
I just don’t know. Of course, as Alegria has said, no one has any automatic right to information that can’t, or won’t be put into the public arena. I would simply find it most odd if the ones who have been shouting the loudest, about the diary bringing out greed and dishonesty in people and polluting the waters of history, were also among those who have been exercising their right to keep certain information to themselves.
Anyway, the good news is that I shall probably be away from the boards after today, until at least Monday. I’ve got the ma-in-law coming to stay, and she would need her smelling salts if she saw how we speak to each other in this place! 
Don’t forget the Maybrick documentary on BBC2 tonight at 8pm, all you brits!
Two messages from Keith Skinner will follow shortly, or as soon as I can type them up (and I will read them!)
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 08:49 am | | Final two, I promise.
RJ, you write:
"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."
No, but Karoline was the first person to announce to us all that the samples had produced a new consensus which seemed to be that it now looks very possible that Kane could have written this diary.
And she did this immediately after saying she couldn't comment on these samples.
This is simply hypocritical. If you can't comment, you can't comment. If you say you can't comment on what the samples show and then do comment explicitly on what the samples show and what the new consensus is, then you are not being fair and you are being hypocritical. Or else you don't really believe you can't comment (since you did). That was my only point.
RJ, you also write:
"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 anything like this on these boards. What I know (or don't know or only think I know) from private sources has remained private."
I have indeed named you as one of the people. There is a good reason for that. When Karoline finally answered my posts asking who was in this new consensus she claimed existed, she named you and Peter and Melvin and a few unnamed others.
But RJ, in the interest of fairness and accuracy, I will tell you that in her post of last Sunday where she listed your name among those who had seen the samples, she did write, in parentheses, next to your name "(I think)." So if she was wrong and you have not seen these samples, then I accept that she thought wrong and you haven't. I certainly have never written that you yourself breached any confidence or said either way. My including your name was based simply on what Karoline said she thought.
By the way, RJ, do you know how the people who were chosen to see these new samples were chosen?
I don't.
Finally RJ, you cite two paragraphs of Karoline's post which announced the new samples and the new consensus, wherein she qualifies for us that what she is telling us is not proof of anything and that all options should be kept open.
RJ, Of course, these two paragraphs in no way change what she has just told us all about the new samples and what the consensus is that they show. And that is what I objected to in her post. I had no argument at all with her saying these things prove nothing finally and we should keep our options open. That was fine and I had no reason to criticize her for it. But it had nothing at all to do with what troubled me and still troubles me, and that is that she said she couldn't comment on the data and then went right ahead and told us all in a public forum that the consensus seems to be "that it now looks very possible that Kane wrote the 'diary.'"
Whether she thinks this proves anything or not is completely beside the point.
 If she can't comment on the data and what it shows, then she should not have said this to us. But she did. Now it is too late. Now we know there is a new consensus and what it seems to be. That has been announced in public. Now these samples must be analyzed in the interest of fairness and in response to this announcement in public.
But RJ, you left out the paragraph that follows the two you cite, which goes on to repeat her original accusations. That's odd.
Look below.
-- John |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 08:51 am | | Karoline,
Now you write:
"All I have said about Kane is that there is a 'good possibility' he wrote the diary. And this is absolutely no more than other people have been saying in various ways at various times since 1994! "
This is a complete rewriting of history, as Melvin is fond of saying.
Do the phrases "Since that time..." and "And this has changed things considerably," and "Therefore it becomes a good possibility..." mean anything to you? Let's see. And let's be honest about everything you wrote in that post, not just the two subsequent paragraphs that RJ cites, but the ones he leaves out that follow them, as well.
You not only announced that the new samples now existed, as Peter had said, but you also announced that it NOW looks very possible that Kane could have written this diary.
That "NOW" suggests to me that this is in light of the new samples you just mentioned. That means things have changed since 1994. In fact, that was the point of your entire post. And now you claim that you were not saying anything new?!
This is a total rewrite of your original post.
All Right Everyone:
In the name of complete and final and total and honest historical accuracy, here is the ENTIRE text of Karoline's post of Sunday, April 22nd 2001 -- 10:08 a.m.
Everyone: Read this and decide for yourselves whether Karoline was telling us that things had changed since the new Kane samples and whether it now looked more likely that Kane wrote the diary and whether Karoline was telling us she could not comment on the data and what it showed and then simply proceeded to tell us anyway about what the data showed and what the new consensus was.
NOTE: It should be made very clear that the two paragraphs that RJ Palmer cites above declaring that nothing is proven and we should keep options open are not the end of this post and Karoline comes right back with another paragraph clearly restating her accusations which RJ Palmer does not cite!
Karoline, RJ did not remind us "of the full text of your actual post." He left part of it out himself. So there is no need to tell me I should have been reminded of this. I know what the entire post said.
Here is the entire post, including the final paragraph. Please everyone read it and see if Karoline is not saying things have changed since 1994 and if she is not saying (despite claiming that she can't comment on what the new data shows) that the new data shows that the consensus now seems to be that it looks very possible that Kane wrote this diary. Here are Karoline's exact words in their entirety.
-----------------------------
"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.
"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.
"There is as 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.
"However, it is also true that in the opinion of many here the current state of the data does imply a considerable probability that the diary was created within the confines of the Barrett menage, possibly written by Kane. I In fact I am not aware of any of the current evidence that is not consistent with this view.
"Can anyone think of another single unified interpretation that fits the data as well or better?
"best wishes
"Karoline"
-------------------------------
That's it.
"Since that time..."
"And this has changed things considerably."
"Therefore it becomes a good possibility that Kane wrote the diary."
All here.
As well as her telling us explicitly what, among those who have seen these samples, the new consensus seems to be.
And Karoline writes: "the current state of the data does imply a considerable probability that the diary was created within the confines of the Barrett menage, possibly written by Kane."
But I thought she couldn't comment on the "current" data, especially regarding Kane and possibilities?
What is going on here?
And yet she says above, "So, clearly I've done nothing wrong or even untoward in this whole Kane business."
If we are going to write history, even the history of the past few weeks, then let's write it accurately and completely. I apologized to Yaz last night for stopping my citation when I did in my discussion with him. In that discussion the offending paragraphs for me were the ones I cited to him, the inconsistent ones, where Karoline says she can't comment and then tells us what the new consensus seems to be anyway.
But now I have cited the full text.
That should put an end to things, whatever people think about what is in it and whether Karoline has in fact commented on data that she herself claims she could not comment on.
Onwards.
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 09:57 am | | Hi John,
I sensed immediately on reading RJ's post that he had not quoted the final part of Karoline's post, even after having written:
Finally, it should be noted that the quote of Karoline's that John has continually reprinted was not given in its entirety.
I went straight back to the original post to check it out, because I was sure I recalled there was more after the two paragraphs RJ selected. I too wondered why RJ criticised you for not quoting the whole post, then went ahead and quoted just the two paragraphs which made his point for him! After all, doesn't everyone do that around here, all the time? They just quote parts of people's posts to make points. As long as the date and time of the post is cited, we can all go back and check the whole thing and make up our own minds, can't we? If we aren't at least prepared to do that much, we risk taking people's word for what others have said, and the fault would lie with us, wouldn't it, especially now we all know that such mistakes have been made here, and on a fairly day-to-day basis?
If we start having to quote every post in its entirety to make what is often a simple point, we will all be in trouble again with the admin for wasting space!
Here follows Keith's posts.
Have a great weekend everyone. I'm off - I think.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 09:59 am | | From Keith Skinner To Martin Fido
Dear Martin
Vide your message on Saturday, May 12, 2001 @ 06:50 am, I beg to report that a note in my diary for March 17th 1995 reads as follows:-
“Martin, Paul and I renewed our long term association with J.Reid and S.Corbett. Fascinating discussion on proletarian literature, Crashaw – and East End pubs which Paul had not visited. This last topic of conversation was noteworthy for its brevity.”
All Good Wishes
Keith |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 10:01 am | | From Keith Skinner To Melvin Harris
I understand that you have returned to the board to contribute to the discussions about the ink tests. I have not yet had the opportunity to read what you have written, but I’m safely assuming you will be arguing for the ink’s modernity. And if not arguing – emphatically stating – that ink met paper within the last 10 to 15 years. This you will be able to do with great authority, for your embargoed information will doubtless endorse your expertise and claims.
I believe, though, that I now know precisely the nature of this undisclosed information. If I am correct, then it rests on a subjective interpretation of the wording of Mr Devereux’s Will, the signature of Mr Kane – and hearsay.
Little wonder then, Melvin, that you have been seen to erect a monumental barrier to prevent others from knowing what, in essence, appears to reduce down to nudge-nudge, wink-wink, deductions.
But meet with me and prove me wrong Melvin. |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 10:11 am | | (In case anyone is unfamiliar with Keith's poker faced sense of humour, I should warn that the meeting is entirely invented! It might not be beyond Keith's scholarly skill to track down the names behind those initials S. and J. But I'm almost certain he has never met either.)
Martin F |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 10:17 am | | The Maybrick 'diary' is not a historical inquiry unless someone wants to argue that Maybrick actually wrote the 'diary.' It is a current affair and probably best categorized or approached as journalism.
Apologies would be unnecessary if everyone would acknowledge that this is a current affair; that everyone needs to know who did what and their reasons why they said or did whatever they did (or continue doing and saying).
All parties involved in this inquiry will have to name names eventually, and probably long before you have proof of any criminal act. Why? How will you know where to focus your resources or your inquiry unless you gather data, determine the quality of that data, make hypotheses and test them. One hypothesis is "Kane wrote the 'diary.'" Another hypothesis is "Maybrick wrote the diary." However, no one in entitled to conclude that either person is a criminal based solely on establishing authorship.
There is, as yet, no evidence that a crime has even been committed, but there is legitimate suspicion that one may have been/is being committed.
Determining criminality requires expertise in the fields of jurisprudence.
Not even the police (criminal investigators in the same sense you are historical investigators) are allowed to make a final determination that a crime has been committed. The police act upon what courts have mandated is reasonable suspicion and they are constantly under scrutiny that they behave according to laws that protect all citizens, even those who are either suspected of committing a crime or have been proven to have done so.
But you, Academics and Legalists -- whether you choose to admit it or not -- are assuming the responsibilities of both the police and the legal authorities when you agree to discuss this matter, period. The results of your investigation may seemingly prove that no crime has been committed; or that a crime has been committed but we'll all politely refrain from saying so or accusing anybody; or you'll charge ahead and accuse away.
But any result you achieve -- in this lifetime or some future generation's, if you maintain your current rate of progress -- may be legally, morally, and ethically wrong. Who among us is qualified to judge on any one or all of these conclusions/approaches?
Protestations of "being cautious" or "being careful" or "being fair" mean nothing to any living soul who objects to your intruding into their affairs. But, again, to obtain the answers that both Academics and Legalists want, you must eventually intrude into other people's affairs because this is not history, it is a current affair...you have to stick your grubby hands into other people's pockets if you want answers before all of those involved die of old age (and all of us along with them!!).
There is a legitimate reason for urgency in concluding this inquiry if you all agree that you are justified in making this inquiry in the first place.
First-hand testimony alone is reason enough to proceed expeditiously: testimony cannot be given by the dead.
Lingering suspicion of criminality hurts everyone if you drag out the process of determining if a crime has been committed and, if you determine it is possible a crime may have been committed, further dragging your feet in not pursuing the most direct course to identify those responsible.
Again, Academics and Legalists: Are you qualified to undertake all these burdens of responsibility, and many others besides, in determining who said or did what, when, and for what reason/intent -- all of which has the appearance of 'legality' or a criminal investigation?
Academics cannot excuse themselves by saying that they have no intention of accusing anyone of a crime. Determining who did something and why they did it are the foundations of a criminal case.
If the 'diary' story turns out to look more and more like a criminal activity, it is truly naive to describe people and events that continue to throw suspicion on these named people simply because you stop at the point of actually, "officially" accusing them of wrong-doing.
Is that an example of being fair if you prove everything that leads another person (your Reader) to conclude that someone committed a crime, but you leave it up to your Reader to make the accusation in his or her own mind?
Is anything about this investigation fair to Kane and others among the living?
Is this investigation fair to Maybrick and others who are now dead?
Is it unfair to Maybrick to leave allegations that he was JtR floating in the public unconscious?
Where does "fairness" play a part if you suspect a crime has been committed -- and if you can prove both the commission of a crime and those responsible? How has the Law defined and limited the concept of "fairness" in pursuit of criminal activity?
A jury must presume the accused innocent until proven guilty, correct? Are the police or prosecutors under the same obligation as the jury? Or do they have another, completely different scale of "fairness" to protect the rights of citizens?
Does it matter whether the person is alive or dead when you are considering "fairness" as opposed to a more legal accusation?
The dead have little or no legal rights; but aren't they just as entitled to "fairness" as the living?
Are we all supposed to wait until everyone involved in the Maybrick 'diary' is dead before it can be investigated?
On scientific "evidence:" If you have multiple and contradictory conclusions from scientists who examined the 'diary,' is the best approach to argue amongst yourselves to try to fill in the gaps in the scientists' knowledge and smooth over their contradictions?
Or is the best approach to ask that the tests be done again, by different labs, using different questions?
Can all sides find common cause, write a new set of instructions and questions that satisfy the Academics and the Legalists, choose one or two new labs/scientists, submit a fresh sample of the 'diary' along with your questions and then wait to see if any more conclusive opinions can be reached by the scientists; not by any non-scientists?
Who wants to fund this research?
Questions can go on and on regarding why you all are doing this at all, and why in this forum, and why using whatever approaches you claim or seem to be using.
You need to ask yourselves and each other these questions and find where your objectives are similar or the same. You all share the potential risks.
Yaz |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 10:21 am | | Oh, C'mon Martin,
Just pay the man. 
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 11:12 am | | Yaz,
Interesting questions concerning why we are here.
I am an academic. I am proud of that. I am here, however, not necessarily as an academic but as a reader, a reader of the diary and of the books surrounding the diary including Paul Feldman's and Shirley Harrison's and of the work done by Melvin and others on the Casebook site and of the work done right here on this board.
We are all amateurs. There is no investigating officer here and no attorneys for either side. This is a computer message board on a topic of interest to many people. Some people are here to accuse certain players in this diary-scene of having likely participated in the creation of this document.
I myself, have not yet seen any evidence at all that would allow me to accuse anyone of anything either fairly or responsibly, even if I wanted to. And I don't. Indeed, I have not accused anyone of having participated in any act relating to the production and composition of this diary, potentially criminal or otherwise. I have never once said anyone actually knew or did anything at all concerning the diary's scene of composition or that anyone knew or knows now of its origins. I've never even said anyone was or is likely to have known or done anything concerning the production of this volume.
What have I done? I have read what people have written here and in books, including their accusations, and I have criticized people's writing here for being self-contradictory, inconsistent, illogical, hypocritical, irresponsible, unsound in its conclusions, lacking supporting evidence, and ultimately rushing to conclusions that are as yet unestablished and unwarranted.
But I have never accused or even suggested that anyone participated in the creation of this forgery or knew about the creation of this document whatsoever. Never. That is simply not my purpose for reading here or for responding to what other people write.
The project as a whole, on the other hand, seems to be an investigation by some people into what they think happened and an investigation by others into who they think likely created this document and an investigation by still others into how we should deal with such documents, especially if other similar ones arrive in the future, and an investigation by still others (including me) into what we do not know and what is still missing from our work here and what remains problematic or inconsistent and what we cannot say about this situation and the scene of this diary's composition.
Yaz, you write the following:
"Academics cannot excuse themselves by saying that they have no intention of accusing anyone of a crime. Determining who did something and why they did it are the foundations of a criminal case.
"If the 'diary' story turns out to look more and more like a criminal activity, it is truly naive to describe people and events that continue to throw suspicion on these named people simply because you stop at the point of actually, 'officially' accusing them of wrong-doing.
"Is that an example of being fair if you prove everything that leads another person (your Reader) to conclude that someone committed a crime, but you leave it up to your Reader to make the accusation in his or her own mind?"
But I have no suspect. I do not wish my reader to conclude that someone committed a crime. I have never suggested that anyone actually did anything concerning the production of this book or knew anything at all about the production of this book. I have insisted that we do not yet have any evidence that anyone in particular knew anything at all specifically about the production of this book.
You say I cannot excuse myself, because "Determining who did something and why they did it are the foundations of a criminal case."
But I have not been and am still not "determining who did something and why they did it." I am arguing that we don't know who did something and why they did it and we don't have nearly enough evidence to say who did something and why they did it. So I am not setting up anyone as participating in any sort of act of complicity or composition, whatsoever. I have never suggested that we have near enough data or evidence to even do such a thing.
And as to why we are here... I am here to be sure that no one does try and do such a thing without the proper evidence and a logical and sound reading of it and a careful and fully analyzed conclusion being drawn from it. That's why I am here. Not to accuse anyone of having written this book nor even to determine who did write this book and certainly not to, as you say, "throw suspicion on these named people" or indeed any named people. In fact, I have been arguing all along and to the point of blistering tedium that such suspicion remains unwarranted and unevidenced.
Of course, the conflicting science on the document suggests that tests should be done again and the scientists, not us, any of us, should try and conclude something about when this book was written based on the science. But the scientists haven't been able to tell us this yet. And we are here on a computer message board discussing it, so it does not seem improper to discuss what the scientists have said and where they agree and where they continue to disagree.
And no-one should be accused here, either dead or alive, of anything unless such accusations can be backed up with specific, explicit, sound, reliable, logical evidence to support them. That has not yet happened. So we do not know what the next step would be.
If I felt that someone had accused someone with compelling evidence, I would then probably agree with you that we would then be out of our depth and our responsibilities had been exceeded and that somehow the discussion should then turn to what to do next.
But so far, no one has been accused here of anything except in ways that are unsound, unevidenced, and completely inconsistent, self-contradictory and fragmentary or else simply without comment and with some mysterious appeal to secrecy.
I feel this is improper. Therefore, I will remain here and continue to point this out whenever it happens.
That is why I am "doing this at all."
As long as people are going to accuse people in this way, someone ought to be here to respond. When I first came here I was shocked at how little we actually know about the scene of this book's composition or about anyone's involvement whatsoever, even after nearly ten years. And yet there were accusations flying like mad. I think I am here as a reader. I think I am here to read this all critically and to respond whenever I think such accusations are troublesome and unwarranted and unevidenced and unsound and unsupported and inconsistent and self-contradictory and finally irresponsible. I do my best, as lame as that is or as it might be in the future, to do this.
But that's just me Yaz. And I am not pretending to answer for anyone else.
Thanks for the meta-thoughts.
--John |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 12:14 pm | | Paul:
It might be worth while if you tell us whether you have a copy of the letter of June 12th 1995 to Reed Hayes in your files as your post of 16/05/01 implies that you do not: ("It will probably cause a furnace-like blast from Harris if I
say this, but I am not sure what Shirley Harrison is
supposed to have omitted that makes the slightest difference
to the intent of Harris's letter to Reed Hayes.")
Now there is one point wherein Melvin Harris quotes a "statement" from Shirley "claiming that the Diamine ink "...contains a modern synthetic dye that any of our analysts would have spotted in the ink of the diary." Her claim is utterly false; the ink contains no modern dye, as the manufacturers can confirm, thus her words are pure evasion."
I agree that this passage contains what I would call an accusation of a lie: "Her claim is utterly false." Can we ask whether Shirley made that claim about diamine ink? If she did, is it contradicted by the makers of the ink? Obviously, if the statement was made and was then proved false then Melvin had the right to make his own judgement.
As I see it, the problem here is that on page 363 of Shirley's Blake edn. she quotes 33 words from this letter: 14 from the first para and, linked by those three dots, 19 from the tenth para on page 2 of a 7-page letter. Not only that, she misses out some important words in that last 19. I'll put those ellisions in brackets "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.")
What Shirley has done is to quote the first para, miss out the next seven paras where, apart from the "utterly false" section previously dealt with, there is only one reference to the name "Harrison" and that in a non-critical manner. The lies mentioned are nothing to do with Shirley.
I therefore reiterate,Paul that her quote from this letter on p363 was misleading both in the way it was printed and more so in what it did not print and my opinion that she altered the meaning of the Reed Hayes letter stands. It is your privilege to disagree with me and of course I expect that you will.
You asked questions. Yes, Melvin states in relation to the Diamine ink: "Her claim is utterly false;" The point here is: was it false? If her statement is accurately quoted and if the diamine had no modern synthetic dye then her statement is false and evasive and must be considered untrustworthy. If her statement is not accurately quoted and she did not say such a thing or if the ink makers are wrong about the composition then I would agree that in this instance she had been treated unfairly. This would not change my opinion about her p363 quote which shows me that something can be printed in a book and read by millions and yet be unfair.She may have tried to make the point that the debate had become personal by misquoting this letter but that I feel was incorrect. If more of the letter had been quoted then a far truer version of the situation would have become apparent.
And lastly, I have never heard of any discussion as to whether personal commentary has a place in a letter to a comparative stranger? This letter which is in reply to an earlier letter from Reed Hayes which inckudes the statement "I have also been told that you received third-hand the ink samples you had analysed and that you yourself supplied the chloroacetamide to the laboratory for the test procedure." is mainly concerned with matters of Melvin's professional reputation. There are only 11 lines from a 7-page letter concerning Mrs. Harrison, most of which have already been quoted. |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 12:22 pm | | Hi Yaz
I’m not sure what you are driving at in your post, though it clearly raises a number of interesting ethical questions. But I think you are overcomplicating the issue. What we have here is a tangible document. You can see it, touch it, smell it, and, er, taste it if you like. It is real. And as I have said elsewhere, analysing this document and the story surrounding it is no different to analysing a 15th century land grant and the information that surrounds that. The only difference is that if both are forgeries, the chances are that the former was forged recently and that the forger(s) may still be alive and that our inquiries could lead to a legal prosecution.
One the other hand, many of the people involved in the story, be they participants or investigators, are still alive and can be questioned (assuming that they agree), enabling us to obtain clarification and additional information and, perhaps most importantly, enabling them to defend themselves against charges and speculation; something they can't do if this is investigated after they are dead.
Otherwise there is no great difference between either document and both are historical inquiries.
The point of this Board is or should be for the more knowledgeable of us to answer questions put by interested people and to discuss the
‘evidence’ as we have it to see what it can tell us about the tangible document before us. In the course of doing this we will inevitably discuss the likelihood of it being a modern forgery and the possibility of who forged it (and Mike Barrett will obviously head the list), but this is inevitable; we have to assess whether what we are looking at is what it purports to be and, if not, what its purpose was. That's how it goes when you look at an historical or purportedly historical document.
Those interested in investigating the 'diary' may have different reasons for doing so. The ultimate objective may be to prove who forged the ‘diary’, establish the age of the ‘diary' and its historical worth, simply sort fact from fiction, or gain and understanding and insight into what investigators did wrong so that they don’t do it again. But whatever the individual's motive, the techniques for investigation remain the same - namely an orderly and controlled assessment of the data followed by interpreting what it tells us.
But it is here that we have struck a problem because people are using techniques which others think are faulty, the resulting conclusions being seen by some as ‘self-contradictory, inconsistent, illogical, hypocritical, irresponsible, unsound… lacking supporting evidence, and…unestablished and unwarranted’ (to quote John Omlor). Obviously there can be no headway unless this can be resolved. |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 01:41 pm | | Hey John:
Okay.
But your approach would, for example, prevent the police from investigating literally any circumstances to determine if there is a possible crime.
The police could not suspect a crime has been committed until or unless it has already been proven there is a crime.
Unfortunately, Life -- especially police work -- doesn't work that way. Police work is a group or collective effort. Guesses, hunches, intuition -- all things not presumed to be facts let alone evidence -- are permissable and often encouraged.
This thread is operating in a simulated environment very much like the private offices of a police investigation -- or even a jouranlistic environment.
Attempts to control what can or cannot be said in such an environement that are too restrictive defeat the purpose of either the police or a journalistic investigation. It sounds very much like "putting the cart before the horse." It is too restrictive on the powers of the police/journalists.
For the police, I believe the appropriate term in America is that the police need to show "probable cause" in many instances to justify their behavior, rather than proof or evidence of guilt or that a crime has been committed.
Who knows the criteria that needs to be met to satisfy the intent of "probable cause?" Who knows if this rule even applies in England (or wherever else each poster resides) and what is the criteria that needs to be met to satisfy the intent of their applicable laws?
What laws restrict a journalist from investigating whether a crime has been committed?
Suppose the police found a dead body with 19 bullet holes in him. According to your standards, they could not suspect a crime because, theoretically, the dead man may have tried to kill himself, been such a poor shot it took him 19 times to achieve his, um, aim, and someone walking by might have said "Nice guns. I think I'll take them."
It's possible! Therefore it isn't obviously a crime, so the police have no reason to suspect or even investigate if a homicide occurred.
No one can offer their thoughts on possible alternatives (such as, "Maybe somebody else shot him!") because such statements would be unsound, unevidenced, and completely inconsistent, self-contradictory and fragmentary.
If that reads like obstructionism, sounds like obstructionism, maybe that's one reason why people object to your approach because, to them, it is obstructionism.
I would agree with an approach that allows enquiry, allows any person to voice their thoughts, name names as possibly being involved in the Maybrick 'diary.'
I would also agree with a watchdog approach that warns people if and when they phrase something that any reasonable person interprets as a judge or jury-type verdict of guilt without the necessary evidence (does anyone here yet know what kind of evidence is necessary to "prove" guilt? has anyone even decided which law, English or American, should be applied in this case? But even a "real" prosecutor is arguing to the jury from the prosecutor's own presumption of the accused's guilt, using evidence the prosecutor finds persuausive...the judge or jury decides guilt or non-guilt. Again, if I read you right, the prosecutor should not even try the accused, or accuse anyone, until the judge or jury already decides that the evidence proves guilt. This can be seen as another example of the cart before the horse.)
I have said that anyone who is interested in any of the following are acting like the police:
(1) determining who wrote the 'diary,'
(2) determining to whom did they give the 'diary,'
(3) determining what did they know and tell the person to whom they gave the 'diary'
They could also be acting like investigative journalists.
But both police and journalists cannot operate or function under a too restrictive guideline where proof and evidence comes first before you can know where to look for such proof/evidence or who to question for such proof/evidence.
There are legal limits to the powers of both the police and investigative journalists. I suggest that anyone who wants to play the watchdog role over these proceedings learns what those actual limitations are...and not replace them with their own set of restrictions.
The role of watchdog is valid and valuable so long as it does not obstruct the legal and legitimate processes that both police and journalists need to perform their work.
Normally, both police and journalists would not operate in conditions like a public Internet message board. They would operate in a closed environment where people can say literally anything because it means nothing until it's proven; and such seemingly reckless and "unfair" statements are often said in order to stimulate thought, move the investigation's resources to search for facts and evidence that either proves or disproves the statement.
You cannot prove or disprove any statement if people are not allowed to make the statement unless they can already prove or disprove it.
But people on this public Internet message board have taken on those roles.
It's probably crazy, it may be legally perilous, but they're doing it. So the normally private environment of the police/journalists is being simulated here. Different rules apply in that private environment that is being simulated in this public space.
It's also unclear in the relatively unchartered legal waters involving the Internet that they are acting irresponsibly or recklessly by conducting this simulation. It is a chance each individual takes when they participate in this discussion.
So advise them, John, and give your consent when appropriate.
Just understand what "private" role each person is playing in "public" at every instance you provide advice and consent; understand the criteria of "probable cause" and "proof" and "evidence" that is legal and functional and different at every point in the process. Understand the laws and rules that apply to journalistic investigation, as well.
Otherwise, your activities take on the appearance of -- and may in fact be -- illegal and unethical obstruction of Justice or obstruction of the lawful work of a journalistic investigation's free speech.
Yaz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 01:43 pm | | "I believe, though, that I now know precisely the nature of
this undisclosed information. If I am correct, then it rests
on a subjective interpretation of the wording of Mr
Devereux’s Will, the signature of Mr Kane – and hearsay."
From Keith Skinner.
No, Keith, I don't think you've got it. As anyone can see, the wording of the will makes it plain that there was acrimony between Tony Devereux and his ex-wife. The diary has a similar feeling in describing relations between "Maybrick" and his wife. The signature etc. on the will plus other samples may be significant and hearsay is just hearsay. It's not appropriate to assume that you know the full truth - as you have done in your second para - and then write your third para on the basis that you're right.
By the way, where was William Ernest Graham born and who was his mother? |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 02:03 pm | | Here's the condensed version of my post addressed to John:
(1) Everyone needs to know what the aim or purpose of this thread is.
(2) Everyone needs to agree on what the approach to this topic is:
a) Are you publically simulating a semi-confidential police inquiry?
b) Are you publically simulating a semi-confidential journalistic inquiry?
c) Are you operating under the rules and guidelines of an ordinary, open academic inquiry -- which implies none of the licences or restrictions applicable to either the police or journalists?
(3) Everyone needs to understand what their own role is and understand how others perceive their role.
(4) Everyone needs to understand if and when people suddenly speak and act in a different role since the aim, the approach, and the simulated environment is not defined nor has it been explicitly agreed to by all participating parties.
(5) Everyone should understand what risks -- legal, ethical, and otherwise -- they run by simulating any environment or discussing what is very much a current affair in a public, Internet-based setting.
Yaz |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 02:07 pm | | Peter
I have replied to your question on the appropriate Professional Standards Board. |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 02:12 pm | | Hi Yaz,
You write:
"But your approach would, for example, prevent the police from investigating literally any circumstances to determine if there is a possible crime."
Absolutely. And I would never want the police to take my approach. And I am not acting as detective or as policeman on this list. I am acting as a critical reader. That is a different role and a different task entirely.
People here are perfectly free, Yaz, to "offer their thoughts on possible alternatives," as you say. But if those thoughts are in fact "unsound, unevidenced, and completely inconsistent, self-contradictory and fragmentary," then somebody damned-well better point that out, too.
And I will continue to do so, whether the people who are offering such "thoughts" feel that it is obstructionist or not.
[Oh, and by the way, the only reason I ever suggested that Karoline should not have written to us about what the new Kane samples show and what the new consensus seems to be, was because she herself said in that very same post that she could not yet comment on these things. And then she did. And then she told us that we should not discuss these things.]
You say, "I would agree with an approach that allows enquiry, allows any person to voice their thoughts, name names as possibly being involved in the Maybrick 'diary.'"
Any person can voice their thoughts and name names all they want. But once they do, if they have done so without any reliable evidence whatsoever to support their thoughts and assertions and names, then it becomes quite appropriate for others to demonstrate that problem. That is what I have been trying to do here. And if they have done so and then not offered any reliable evidence whatsoever, or done so under some shrouded claim of secrecy, then someone ought to point out the problems with that, too. And I have.
You then write:
"Again, if I read you right, the prosecutor should not even try the accused, or accuse anyone, until the judge or jury already decides that the evidence proves guilt. This can be seen as another example of the cart before the horse."
You most certainly do not read me right. I am not a prosecutor, nor is anyone here. This is a computer message board, a public forum, not a court of law, and I would not stop anyone at all from accusing anyone of anything here. But once they have accused someone of something, I most certainly will respond if I feel that accusation is unevidenced and unwarranted or illogical or irrational or unsound or inconsistent or fragmentary or self-contradictory or shrouded in secrecy.
Once they have accused someone, all of this becomes worth examining and that is what I am doing here.
This is not a cart-before-the-horse situation at all, Yaz. First comes people's writings and their accusations, and then comes my examination of those accusations and the soundness of them and the evidence that does or does not support them and the consistency of them and the logic behind them and the validity of them. This is precisely the order in which things are supposed to occur, and that is why I have been reading these words here the way I have. Do you see?
I am not obstructing justice, Yaz, I am begging for it. I am not stopping anyone here from writing anything. And I never would. And I am aware of precisely what I am doing and why and I would never presume to stop anyone from writing anything. But I sure as hell can tell them after they have written it that it was hypocritical and self-contradictory and therefore they probably shouldn't have written it. And I sure as hell can tell them that what they have written is illogical and unsound as an argument and has no evidence whatsoever to support it and remains open to multiple interpretations without one being more likely than another. And I sure as hell can tell them when they are making accusations based on secret evidence that only a few are allowed to see and that has not been examined by experts and that even they say they shouldn't be commenting on in public. And I sure as hell can tell them when their conclusions are logically fallacious and unevidenced and unsupported and unwarranted. And I sure as hell can tell them what is missing from their reading and their argument and what they do not know yet and what the evidence does not yet tell us. I sure as hell can tell them all of these things.
And I will.
Thanks, Yaz,
--John |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 03:07 pm | | Hi Peter,
I think I can clarify Shirley's use of the words "...contains a modern synthetic dye that any of our analysts would have spotted in the ink of the diary." This was the phrase Mr Voller used over the telephone when it was first suggested that the diary ink was Diamine. It was reported to me immediately with great enthusiasm. "Our analysts" refers to Messrs Baxendale and Eastaugh who had both conducted tests (and in fact Baxendale had already said that he thought the ink was nigrosine based). Neither Dr Baxendale, Mr Voller nor anyone else at that time was aware that nigrosine had been patented as early as the mid nineteenth century. And there was a long period during which non-scientists like Keith and myself had the hardet time trying to remember the new words 'nigrosine' and then 'chloroacetymide' (however it may be spelled).
Now, at this time Baxendale's report had been very tactfully shelved on the reported grounds that it had made a major and embarrassing error which Nick Eastaugh had exposed, and Baxendale had waived his fee on the understanding that his work would not be used. Actually his fee-waiving was the result of a quite separate wish to end the constant badgering he was under to change his conclusion, which he has never done, and the 'major error' was only his omission of the words 'oxydisation of' from his comment 'no suggestion of iron'. Dr Baxendale is not a communicator, and 'no suggestion' would easily convey to him 'no sign of bronzing, therefore no further tests needed to look for 100-year-old iron'. But when Dr Eastaugh established the definite presence of iron, non-scientists naturally assumed Baxendale had perpetrated a massive howler as, for example, any non-specialist might completely reverse Karoline's identification of an unknown engraving as a Tenniel if she carelessly wrote, 'there is a barely legible signature in one corner, but no sign of Tenniel's familiar initials', not mentioning what seemed obviously implied to her, that the barely legible signature was Tenniel's. (Not that Karoline, who is a communicator and not a scientist would make that sort of slip).
Alex Voller is not a science historian, and had no idea that nigrosine had been patented as early as it was. Nor is he a spectographic analyst, and he did not realize that looking for every possible 'modern' constituent would have been impossibly expensive for Robert Smith and Shirley to commission. Nick Eastaugh ahd conducted standard tests for the most obviously likely modern constituents: not one to be found in few if any other manuscript inks. The constituent Mr Voller directed 'your analysts' to look for was chloroacetymide - a wholly new idea. And Shirley's comment was an absolutely honest report of what she understood to be the case. That this should be twisted into a claim that she was deliberately lying is exactly the sort of damaging distortion which several of us find far more objectionable than Feldy's noisy and persistent insistence on absurd conclusions.
With all good wishes,
Martin F |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 03:45 pm | | John:
I do see.
I'm asking you to consider that, using one example, your definition of accusation may not be identical or even similar to how anyone else defines it. (And, no, the dictionary will not help.)
Your reasons and arguments for your approach are strong and valid...and may totally misconstrue the intent of the point of why anyone at anytime made any given statement.
All of the following could be considered accusations...but the speaker may, in fact, not be making any accusation.
"I think Yaz is guilty but I can't be sure right now."
"It looks like Yaz is guilty."
"Several people who know Yaz well think he might be guilty."
"I don't know if Yaz is guilty but I can't think of anybody else who seems a better candidate."
You've demonstrated admirably that there are many equally valid ways to look at the available information regarding the 'diary.'
I've tried to demonstrate that whether you choose one of the views or keep all of them in mind will not affect what must be done next, nor will it necessarily affect/skew the eventual conclusion.
But choosing your approach or mine will affect how statements are made and how they are intended to be perceived. Failure to understand the differences or accept the alternative approach at least leads to a perception of imprecision in expression, to put it mildly.
Is the lack of precision the fault of a person's intention, their chosen approach to the issue, or a result of their individual, idiosyncratic method of expressing themselves? Is it fair to assume any one is their intent or is it worth examining, in a none hostile or confrontational manner, whether the "fault" lies in their intent, a misperception on two equally valid but radically different approaches, or in their method of expression?
Consider that there are many different ways to present any point of view.
Consider that everyone is trying to understand the information being provided to the best of their individual capabilities.
Consider that ideas can be expressed in many different ways, some of which look contradictory, but still mean the same thing.
Consider that if your audience is distressed by or cannot understand your expression, you have at least three choices:
(1) Continue to express yourself in the same manner over and over until your audience rises to your level of expression...or your audience gives up.
(2) Alter the way you express your idea, and the arguments you use, so that your intent hopefully becomes clearer to your audience.
(3) Try to understand the other person's perspective to see if your expression, though correct in view of your personal interpretation of the issue, is not really addressing the same issue as the other person expresses it.
OR
You can all continue to periodically fight like cats and dogs, each side sympathizing amongst themselves on the obvious lack of integrity and folly shown by the other side.
In which case, the rest of us quietly sidle into the shadows and either watch the fireworks or go see what the Space Monkies are doing.
These are just ideas I wish everyone on this thread would consider and I suppose I've wasted enough electrons offering them.
I go now.
Yaz |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 03:51 pm | | Thanks Yaz,
I must go now too. As I mentioned on the announcements board, I am off to the hospital for a family matter and will be gone for at least a day or two.
Bye all,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 18 May 2001 - 04:59 am | | Hi All,
Just a quickie before I too dash off until Monday.
Here is how this thread began, some 16 months ago, at a time when the Diary boards had gone deathly quiet:
By Peter R.A. Birchwood on Wednesday, January 05, 2000 - 09:38 am:
Over the past few days I've been thinking (again!) about the Maybrick diary problem. My skills are not in the forensic details of paper and ink investigation: I leave those to others. I am interested however in the research conducted in the main by Shirley Harrison, Paul H. Feldman and those who worked for them. One important point is the provenance of the diary. Anne Graham has said that it has been in her family for years. She says that she first saw it in 1968/9 and that she knows that her father got it in 1950 from his stepmother.
We will never know now what may or may not have happened had I not responded, on January 10, to Peter's initial post. (I have only quoted the first few lines here, for the sake of brevity.)
The reason I responded was basically because someone’s word, ie that of Anne Graham, was being questioned. I wanted to question the questioner, to go deeper into the reasons why Anne’s word was being questioned in a public place. Not for Anne’s sake, nor mine, nor Peter’s, but for everyone’s sake, who may have read Peter’s initial post and wondered, as I did, on what precise grounds he was questioning (I don’t go as far as to say ‘doubting’) the word of a fellow human being he may not have known very much about.
Now, in one way, Peter did a very brave thing. He didn’t write a book, which would have gone on the shelves for the public to buy and read and make of it what they will, with no onus on the author to enter into any sort of debate on the rights and wrongs of publishing it in the first place. He wrote his piece on an internet discussion board, where he knew he might be expected to be drawn into a debate. I engaged him in that debate, he responded to that engagement, and the rest is here for all to see.
Hope that helps.
I’m off now.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Karoline L
Friday, 18 May 2001 - 05:44 am | | Surely when Peter B. made that post last year no one really thought "hmm...why is he questioning Anne Graham's word?".
Her word, and Mike's and everyone else's involved has been questioned, and rightly so, since 1992.
AG has made a large amount of money out of a fraudulent artefact, told lies about its provenance, and published her own book on the back of that fraud.
Very obviously she is publicly accountable for that and has many questions to answer. Don't we all accept that as a given?
K |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 18 May 2001 - 05:52 am | | Hi Karoline,
I really did wonder precisely why Peter was questioning Anne Graham's word. Others may have too - I don't know - perhaps I was in a minority of one at that time. But the board took off from there, didn't it? And look at it now!
But why did Peter post what he did, if, as you say, 'we all accept that as a given'?
See ya Monday.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 18 May 2001 - 09:56 am | | Hi Yaz,
Just popped back between frantic dusting and hoovering so that my lovely mother-in-law won't realise what an utter pig-sty we normally live in...
Karoline wrote, in her latest post:
AG has made a large amount of money out of a fraudulent artefact, told lies about its provenance, and published her own book on the back of that fraud.
Now, I'm not at all sure how you would have the readers follow that clear statement of fact. Do we accept or ignore it without further comment? Or do we question or challenge it, to ask if it really is factual, or simply an opinion, or deduction? And if we do the latter, how do we go about it? You've got me totally confused now, but I really want to do the right thing.
Thanks Yaz.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 18 May 2001 - 11:02 am | | Hello, Caz:
I was most surprised to read your message of today, Friday, May 18, 2001 at 4:59 am, expressing skepticism about the basis for Peter Birchwood's message of Wednesday, January 5, 2000 at 9:38 am in which Peter questions Anne Graham's "been in the family for years" Diary story.
You may be correct that this board had been languishing for a while before Peter wrote his message, and also that your reply to him kicked off the present activity on the board. However, even if John Omlor is correct to say no concrete proof has been produced to prove the Barretts or anyone else did the forgery, hasn't the conversation swirled around the different statements and actions of Mike Barrett and his then-wife Anne Barrett (now Anne Graham)?
A number of us quite rightly continue to question Anne's story, for which she has produced no objective proof other than her word and the probably biased word of her father. Peter is one of those skeptics who doubts the truth of her story. Personally, I believe Peter was justified in writing his post of January 5, 2000 questioning its veracity. Indeed, haven't we all been debating the various points about Anne and Mike ever since Peter composed that message? The doubts about the couple remain and have not in the least been dispelled in the last 16 months, have they? I would hazard to say that few of us here are comfortable with Anne's "in the family for years" tale. Caroline, are you saying that you believe her?
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 18 May 2001 - 12:29 pm | | As once again the system here has stopped automatically sending me copies of posts, I checked over the boards to see whether I had got any sort of answer from Paul Begg (and thank you Martin for your Diamine contribution: that may well answer the problem but of course we do have to rely on peoples thoughts and feelings as of 1995 rather than 6 years later. I'll reply to that later.)
Mrs. Morris has put a post just above which frankly bewilders me.
Now I do know what I wrote over a year ago to start off this board and it was the result of some thinking and re-reading over the Christmas. The problem is that I can't see what is the point of Mrs. Morris' post today.
She says: "We will never know now what may or may not have happened had I not responded, on January 10, to Peter's initial post." Is this some sort of claim that she had saved a reputation or the world or something like that?
My post of January 5th 2000 was a lengthy one and started off by my giving my professional opinion on the exotic genealogy used in Feldman's book to trace Maybrick "descendents." I then covered what I believe to be the false connection of Anne Graham to Florence Maybrick. Although it's clear from reading the whole thing that I had no belief in the provenance of the diary then being claimed I believe that my only reference to questioning Anne Graham's word was my final sentence: " . Similarly, the story Anne Graham tells about seeing it and recognising it around 1968/9 when it was in the box with a crucifix must be treated with great care."
I must now reprint part of Mrs. Morris' recent post:" The reason I responded was basically because someone’s word, ie that of Anne Graham, was being questioned. I wanted to question the questioner, to go deeper into the reasons why Anne’s word was being questioned in a public place. Not for Anne’s sake, nor mine, nor Peter’s, but for everyone’s sake, who may have read Peter’s initial post and wondered, as I did, on what precise grounds he was questioning (I don’t go as far as to say ‘doubting’) the word of a fellow human being he may not have known very much about."
If anyone other than me has the patience to check back to her original answer to me dated 10th January 2000, then they will find some sensible discussion on her part concerning the more recent and alternative provenance suggested by Shirley Harrison and AG of a family connection through Alice Yapp and Mrs. Formby. No heartwarming concern about AG's name being blackened or questioned at all. And indeed the board ran for some time with sensible discussion and very lengthy posts from me giving my full opinion of the whole mess and the state of the provenances.
Let us examine some points from the Morris archives. After our discussion about the Formby-Yapp connection she says in her Monday, January 10, 2000 post: " The idea that these two characters were friendly and went together to watch Florie's trial has much more of a ring of truth about it than the silly idea of William Graham being Florie's love child." whish is a fair and reasonable point and one that I might agree with. However in another post from the same day she says:
". I don't believe Maybrick wrote the diary, or that it was written in the 1880s, so I too cannot see that the diary ever came into Anne's possession from Battlecrease via Yapp or the laundry. Oh well." Again a reasonable point. If the diary came into Graham hands through Alice Yapp then the likelihood is that it would have been genuine, which both of us agree is highly unlikely.
Incidentally, on looking through these posts of over a year ago, it's saddening how little we have advanced. We just have further information concerning the profits accruing from the early diary days and how they were shared which have made us query some of the actions and statements of some of those concerned.
In her recent reply to Karoline, Mrs Morris says: "I really did wonder precisely why Peter was questioning Anne Graham's word" but if she did, she kept it quiet and as Karoline says, from the publication of the diary onwards quite a lot of people questioned the words of both AG and MB.
Lastly, Mrs. Morris has said:". Karoline wrote, in her latest post:
AG has made a large amount of money out of a fraudulent artefact, told lies about its provenance, and published her own book on the back of that fraud.
Now, I'm not at all sure how you would have the readers follow that clear statement of fact . Do we accept or ignore it without further comment? Or do we question or challenge it, to ask if it really is factual, or simply an opinion, or deduction? And if we do the latter, how do we go about it?"
Let's see if we can help. "AG has made a large amount of money " Does anyone really disagree with this? "out of a fraudulent artefact" As far as I can tell, the only people who believe that the diary is that of Maybrick aka JtR are Shirley Harrison, Paul Feldman and Colin Wilson."told lies about its provenance, " She has said re: the diary "Did you nick it, Mike" and also that she saw it in her father's possessions about 1968 yet did not say this to the Police investigating the matter, agreed with MB's original story that it came from Devereux and couldn't be traced any further back. And there's also the still-mysterious affair of the red diary."and published her own book on the back of that fraud. " Clearly "The Last Victim" is connected to the Maybrick as JtR theory, uses the same genealogical "proof" and is connected solidly to the Diary. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 18 May 2001 - 01:14 pm | | | Some of this moral outrage we're seeing looks a little wooden to me. If someone makes outlandish claims in print, they certainly ought to expect those claims to be questioned. Especially if they have changed their story. Peter was questioning Anne's story, and he was certainly within his rights. As for critics of the diary being Kafkaesque inquisitors, and other such strange flights of rhetoric, these seem wildly overblown to me. Literary forgery is sort of a grey affair, it doesn't even seem like a real 'crime' to me, but more of an intellectual nuisance. No one here is hunting to throw anyone is jail, we are simply trying to get to the bottom of a questioned document that is being heartily defended. Is indignation going to be the last refuge of a weak provenance, or is there going to be some evidence? |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 18 May 2001 - 01:54 pm | | Dear Peter,
Paul Begg calls my attention to a mistake in my posting to you. I assumed the Baxendale 'error' was the glaring omission of the word 'oxidisation', which sprang to my notice when I found I have copies of his reports from which I was able to answer Karoline's request. Paul points out that it was actually his erroneous belief that nigrosine was not in use until the 1940s - something which I noticed for the very first time on the same reading of his report, and regarding which I really didn't know whether his opinion or Melvin's as to its subsequent use in manuscript inks was correct.
As I've often said, I was not 'up close' to the diary research: my role was simply to advise Shirley on the general accuracy and questionability of its treatment of Ripper history. And, inevitably, to do the best I could with bombardment from Feldy. And as I also said recently, the shelving of Baxendale was being done with great discretion. I first heard of his existence at the Tower Thistle Hotel conference, and then only in the statement that there had been a scientific examination prior to Nick Eastaugh's, and it had been shelved and the fee waived after an embarrassing error was discovered. No names. No pack drill. Later still I learned Baxendale's name, and that the fee waiver was nothing to do with the error, whatever it may have been, but a result of his annoyance at being badgered for repeated revisions of his opinion. Baxendale, in fact, was quite sure that his error made no difference to his conclusions.
Again, as I've often said, I was not and am not especially interested in the diary per se. I am only concerned about the recurrent innuendoes and assertions that the people working on it were slack, dishonest or incompetent. In this case, I know that Shirley's words, now alleged to be a deliberate deception, were nothing of the kind, but an accurate citation of what she had been told by Alec Voller.
Paul adds, by the way, that he only mentioned Shirley's comments on unsolicited letters from Melvin to various people to show that Rod Green was not unique in complaining.
I wanted to get this correction off to you ASAP, so I haven't as yet paused to read your latest posting, which i am now about to do.
With all good wishes,
Martin |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 18 May 2001 - 02:00 pm | | Hi Chris, Peter, RJ,
Er, isn't this a bit of an over-reaction? I didn't say anything about moral outrage at Peter's initial post here, or being concerned with Anne having her name 'blackened', or questioning people's right to question our little band of suspects' words and actions. I was reminding everyone how the thread started, and was trying to get straight in my mind what Yaz had been saying about what we were all really doing here. Of course I wasn't trying to say that Peter should never have started this thread. I don't know if he should or not. I did wonder why he did so, if everyone had already accepted the diary as a modern forgery with Mike and Anne's involvement. But was I so wrong not to leave him to it, and to engage him in debate? Already the word 'fraud' has been used again here, as if a fraud has been established, and I thought that was just one of the fundamental questions we were all still battling with. No one should be made to feel guilty for questioning people's statements that are made here in a public place - any more than they should be made to feel guilty for questioning the roles of people like Anne and Mike. That's all.
I never expected the Spanish Inquisition!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 18 May 2001 - 02:23 pm | | Hi RJP,
I for one, and I'm pretty certain John Omlor for another, feel no moral outrage whatsoever about people's inconsistencies and changed stories being pointed out. Indeed, as I've mentioned from time to time, I am and always have been in agreement with the broad anti-Diarist conclusions, and I think the Barretts have signally failed to lift the cloud of suspicion that hangs over them. But I do feel and voice moral outrage when reasonable disagreement is confronted with instant vituperation, and people of impeccable moral character are accused of dishonesty because they happen to believe the Barretts. Your own postings are now impeccable in this respect. There will be no reason for any outrage in the future if all who believe that the case for the diary to be a forgery is overwhelming, and the likelihood is that one or both of the Barretts knows more about it than has ever been properly acknowledged, always adopt your own tone and refrain from casting aspersions on innocent people's moral characters.
With all good wishes,
Martin F |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 18 May 2001 - 03:11 pm | | Hi All,
A very quick note on a very small point, while I wait for word from the hospital (I am taking my mind off things by being here).
Hi RJ,
A keyword search shows that I have only ever used the word "Kafkaesque" twice on these boards.
Once, when you and Karoline were suggesting that the absence of certain books in Mikes's notes seemed suspicious and I claimed that if those books (the ones that had allegedly been used to write the diary) were in the notes, if they had been in the notes, you would have said that was suspicious, too. So there was no way Mike could win here. Unless he managed some precarious and approved but unknown mixture of the presence of these books and the absence of these books somehow in his notes. That situation, RJ, is Kafkaesque (see the paradoxical logic of the Law or of the painter or the priest in The Trial or the logic of the gatekeeper in "Before the Law," for instance) and therefore this was an appropriate use of that adjective.
The second time was in describing Peter's defense of his claim that Mike's diary purchase suggested malicious intent (that is, he was going to use it in which to write the diary), even though Mike gave his real name and address when ordering it and had already set up an appointment to see Doreen before he ever got it.
Peter said that this did not suggest Mike might have been buying the diary for comparison, but rather that Mike was still probably buying it for writing the diary, and his giving his own name and address might seem illogical and unreasonable, but that's OK, because Mike is often illogical and unreasonable ("unlike characters in fiction," Peter wrote). OK.
Then, when I suggested that it might be just as possible that Mike had given his real name and address because he was actually buying the diary for comparison purposes, Peter said that was not likely since that would be illogical and unreasonable.
So Mike was probably intending to use the diary in a forgery, even though that was unreasonable and illogical but he could not have been buying it for comparison, because that would be unreasonable and illogical. So Peter was using precisely the same reason for supporting one alternative and for rejecting the other alternative, apparently completely blind to the blatant self-contradiction such reasoning demonstrated.
Peter was in fact saying:
Mike probably did that, he is often illogical and unreasonable.
and Peter was saying, at the same time:
Mike wouldn't have done that, that would be illogical and unreasonable.
about the same question.
This, RJ, is in fact Kafkaesque.
That's all from me. But I am reading here now and again and am enjoying the reading of other's thoughts.
Please feel free, everyone, not to comment on my small defense here of my idiosyncratic adjective and its proper use.
Bye,
--John
PS: RJ, just to be clear -- The word "Kafkaesque" does not necessarily have to deal with or have anything to do with inquisitors or inquisitions or even crimes, even in a book like The Trial where it is in fact the insidious and paradoxical logic that is at work and on display, not the simple act of inquisition. It often doesn't have to do with crime or interrogation or questioning at all -- see Metamorphosis or any of the Burrow stories or especially, in our case here, "The Hunger Artist." The word (and my use of it) often has to do with facing paradoxical, unsolvable, or irrational problems and criteria and not knowing, not being able, nor being allowed to know what to do in the face of these sorts of difficult and unknowable or unwinable situations. And when I mentioned the two warders in The Trial, for instance, I was remembering that they do not interrogate Joseph K. at all. In fact they are quite polite. They simply tell him one thing and its opposite and incomplete and contradictory information. Hope that helps clarify what I meant when I used the word. Thanks for reading this beside-the-point post in defense of a word I no doubt use too often. All the best, RJ, and everyone. |
Author: Yazoo
Friday, 18 May 2001 - 04:16 pm | | Hey Caz:
I'll give as complicated an answer as I can to a simple question. (Grins)
My answer attempts to demonstrate how animosity and misunderstanding can arise from the simplest causes and escalate into Maybrickian warfare.
You asked me to look at one statement Karoline wrote in a post:
"AG has made a large amount of money out of a fraudulent artefact, told lies about its provenance, and published her own book on the back of that fraud."
Peter and Martin have already given a sample of how they would approach her statement, if not every aspect of that statement (in Martin's case), at least the spirit of it.
How I would handle this statement.
If I didn't understand any part of it, I would ask Karoline to clarify:
Large Amount of Money
Right now, $10.00 US looks like a large amount of money to me. Large is a relative term, but the point should be taken that AG or MG/MB(?) did not lose money on the 'diary.'
And if it's ever proven that the Barretts made one penny from a criminal enterprise (legal terms: Forgery or Fraud), or at least from knowingly offering a document that knew was not what it seemed, it's one penny too much.
It's not the money at issue now, is it? It's whether someone knowingly did and said something criminally or morally/ethically wrong.
Fraudulent and Fraud
The words 'fraudulent' and 'fraud' will probably send some people through the roof but I would initially assume she meant no legal implications or charges.
Does fraud/fraudulent only refer to a criminal charge or to a more common meaning of something/someone seeming to be what he/she/it actually is not?
Anyone who reads the statement is making their own interpretation of Karoline's meaning and her intentions. An unavoidable phenomenon when we read. If you object to what Karoline wrote:
(1) Are you objecting to what is self-evident and obvious to all readers as to what she actually wrote and intended?
OR
(2) Are you objecting to what, in your interpretation, you think she meant or intended?
How can you phrase a question so that you clearly state your own confusion as to what she means without prejudging both Karoline and her intentions?
Here are some sample questions you might ask her:
Q: But what does Karoline mean when she says...?
My analysis: Seems a simple enough question, right? Except I'm not personally addressing Karoline, I'm speaking to the crowd -- so to speak -- and that has a whole other set of implications/interpretations. I seem to be asking everyone to offer their comments and interpretations of what Karoline means, none of which may be applicable to Karoline. 80 people offer their interpretations, argument ensues, Karoline tries to clarify, Karoline is accused by one or more of her interpreters of changing her "original statement." Typical Maybrickian chaos results.
Q: What are you implying when you say...?
My analysis: Use of the word "implying" implies that Karoline is engaging is something not quite honest or forthcoming, she seems to have a devious purpose, a hidden agenda. No matter what has already said, let alone any response she gives, can and -- in the Maybrickian Universe -- will be interpreted as further "evidence" of Karoline's cunning and duplicity. 80 people offer their interpretations....etc. etc.
Q: What are you insinuating when you say...?
My analysis: Point me towards the gallows cuz obviously Karoline deserves to be hanged. My humorous way of saying I've made the previous mistake, but only worse. 80 people offer their interpretations...etc. etc.
Q: Karoline, what is your intent when you say...?
My analysis: Better. I coul do without "intent" due to the heightened sensitivity surrounding "intent" as it may apply to the whole 'diary' issue, especially if a criminal case is being pursued or suggested in some quarters.
Q: Karoline, when you say 'fraud' and 'fraudulent' do you mean that in the criminal sense or in the sense of something or someone not being what they seem?
My analysis: I think, IMHO, this is the best way I can express myself in this environment. I'm offering to discuss the wording without implying anything about or against Karoline or her statement. I am assuming my responsibility in trying to understand what is perhaps perfectly clear to Karoline (and maybe 80 others). Hopefully, Karoline will see that I am honest, that I may or may not have a concern over her use of those words, but that I am not pre-judging her or the words. Most important, I am ready and willing to enter into a discussion, not a fight, if I need or want to say more about what she said originally and her clarification.
Lies about provenance
Follow the same guidelines as before, but in this instance, something is already commonly established:
Mike and Anne Barrett (or Graham) have either told or allowed others to make multiple conflicting statements about the provenance of the 'diary.'
No matter how I sugarcoat it, or whatever mitigating circumstances may explain it, those multiple conflicting statements are generally called "lies."
It would be hard for me to challenge multiple conflicting statements being called "lies." I may want to offer why the Barretts seem to be "lying." I could do or try to do a thousand different things to explain the Barretts' behavior so that the "lies" are seen in what I think is the most appropriate perspective.
However, I have to realize it is my perspective (even if those 80 skulking people agree with me), and that simply calling multiple conflicting statements "lies" is neither dishonest, reprehensible, irresponsible, etc.
To short-circuit the inevitable Maybrickian escalation process, I would just acknowledge that the Barrets have "lied." Lying about where the 'diary' originated is not proof that
(1) Either Mike or Anne know where the 'diary' came from.
(2) One or the other isn't actually telling the truth but, unfortunately, allowed another statement to go unchallenged that indicated the 'diary' originated elsewhere.
As Martin seems to have indicated, lying as it may be perceived in the Barretts' personal life traumas could have many causes, some or none of which have any bearing on the 'diary.' Entering into this area is distasteful at the moment.
It may eventually become necessary to deal with this issue, but lying itself is not an indication or evidence of a crime or other wrong-doing (like perpetrating an intentional fraud on the publishers and public).
I wouldn't argue with Karoline's statement but I would ask, if I truly felt that other avenues can and will lead us to "the truth," that we all explore those first...come back to the Barrets later, if necessary.
I hope that helps. And sorry for the wasted electrons.
Yaz
P.S., I agree on the Sue Iremonger (spelling?) issue. You seem to have the attitude: If something can be proven, one way or the other, what is the best direct approach to settling the issue? It certainly isn't necessarily endless debate, is it? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 19 May 2001 - 10:43 am | | Hi Yaz,
Thanks very much for that explanation. I feel I am much clearer in my mind now about the way we should all proceed. I readily admit that I should not object to anything a person writes without first making sure I understand exactly what the writer means to convey. This basic problem of communication, and our rush to put certain interpretations on the written word of whoever’s name appears atop a post is what I fear lies at the heart of most of our joint troubles here.
I absolutely agree with you about the money – in fact I have posted on a number of occasions that one penny made from the diary is one penny too much, if Anne and Mike knew beyond all reasonable doubt that it was created in recent times. (I’m not sure I know how I’d feel about it if Anne or Mike had reason to believe from the outset that it wasn’t genuine, but had no involvement in its creation and no idea when it was faked.)
So let’s look at yesterday’s statement by Karoline again – no objections yet, just a few basic observations and questions, giving her a chance to come back and clarify if necessary:
"AG has made a large amount of money out of a fraudulent artefact, told lies about its provenance, and published her own book on the back of that fraud."
I would first suggest to Karoline again (as I have done more than once before), that the word ‘large’ is not relevant in my opinion. I’d go further than that – I’d suggest that the repeated use of such an adjective could be inferred by the reader as an attempt to paint a blacker than strictly necessary picture. I’d suggest that, if Karoline agrees with my reasoning here, she might see the merit in dropping the word ‘large’ from such a statement, if she makes a similar one in future. But that of course would be her decision.
May I leave it there for now? My family have just returned from a trip to the garden centre, so I’ll address the rest of Karoline’s statement at a later date.
Thanks all for listening. And thanks, Yaz, for a timely reminder of your insight and wisdom.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 19 May 2001 - 11:01 am | | Just another quick one, on the subject of choosing the nearest way to wrap this thing up, or at least clear up the Kane angle.
Melvin was quite clear in his opinion that any dutiful and competent investigator would seek to clear citizen Kane of suspicion if at all possible. His opinion was given at a time when attempts to get larger samples of Kane's handwriting, made in that very spirit had failed. I don't know if Melvin still holds that opinion, but it is one that I share and support, wholeheartedly. I can only hope that he, as a dutiful and competent investigator, is putting pressure on whoever acquired (for whatever reason) the new samples (if he knows that person), to show him or herself to be an equally dutiful citizen by releasing them for proper analysis. It would be nice if everyone here could agree that anyone in a position to do so should be asking the owner of the samples to do the decent thing.
Any objections?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 19 May 2001 - 12:47 pm | | Hi Yaz/Caz
"AG has made a large amount of money out of a fraudulent artefact, told lies about its provenance, and published her own book on the back of that fraud."
What concerns me about the above statement is that it is pejorative, especially with the unqualified inclusion of the word “lies”.
The word fraudulent has an inherent implication of an intent to profit through deception. One can therefore read the above statement as meaning that AG knowingly profited by deceiving others into believing an untruth. One can also read it as Karoline Leach saying that AG profited from something she knew to be untrue.
If we interpret Karoline’s meaning on the indications in the sentence and the sentiments she has expressed elsewhere, we could fairly conclude that Karoline Leach is stating above as a matter of fact that AG has profited from fraud (knowing and witting deception). Not only might that accusation be legally actionable, but it also indicates that Karoline has mentally reached a conclusion about AG. This could provoke argument from those who feel that no conclusion has in fact been reached about what Anne knew or did not know.
But all Karoline Leach may really mean is that that AG has unwittingly profited from something that turned out not to be genuine. |
|
|
|
|
