|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 22, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-Archives 2001:
Archive through May 22, 2001
Author: Joseph
Saturday, 19 May 2001 - 03:54 pm |        | Hi Paul,
The statement, "Surely when Peter B. made that post last year no one really thought "hmm...why is he questioning Anne Graham's word?"." (Leach, Friday, May 18) misses the point entirely.
Sixteen months of debate contradict Mrs. Leach's notion of a universal mind set. There is nothing self-evident about that paragraph, to support its certainty. In fact, it's most obvious characteristic, is that the surety of the statement exists solely in the mind of its author.
Further evidence of curved logic is found in the main paragraph, which states:
"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. " (Ibid)
There are many people who continue to believe "the diary" to have factual foundation, and authenticity; Mrs. Leach's misplaced conclusion assumes her opinion is the last word on the subject.
I believe the Maybrick diary is fictional, but that's just my opinion; I'm sure there are others that share my thoughts, just as there are others who don't, and since I have yet to prove my opinion, it firmly remains, along with Mrs. Leach's, with-in the realm of speculation. When evidence is synthesized and published proving beyond a reasonable doubt that "the diary" is fictional, and/or fraudulent, then the conclusion of that paragraph, "and published her own book on the back of that fraud."(Ibid) will have validity.
Therefore, the only sentence of consequence from the entire post is Mrs. Leach's conclusion that: Very obviously she is publicly accountable for that and has many questions to answer. Don't we all accept that as a given?" This isn't an unreasonable assumption on the part of Mrs. Leach; every author should expect their work to be critically scrutinized, and commented upon by its readers.
A practical reconstruction of Mrs. Leach's post might look like this:
Anne and Mike Graham are involved with the content of Ms. Shirley Harrison's book. The Graham's, as well as Ms. Harrison, have been asked numerous questions regarding the accuracy of the book's story.
While the merits of Ms. Harrison's book continue to be debated, Anne Graham has published a book of her own on the subject. In my opinion, this has not only added to my personal confusion, but more importantly, to the over-all "diary" controversy.
I believe the Casebook readership should discuss what might have motivated Ms. Graham to publish this book.
K
The above reconstruction softens the Hyacinth Bucket effect of the original message, and eliminates any unsubstantiated financial claims, and generalities.
Best Regards |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 19 May 2001 - 05:04 pm | | Hey Caz and Paul:
Yes, I might also be upset if I was certain that my interpetation of Karoline's statement accuses Anne Barrett/Graham of being part of a forgery (in its criminal/legal sense) and intended to defraud publishers and public of "large" sums of money via the 'dairy' and her book.
But: Is Karoline stating unequivocally that AB/G is a criminal forger, profiting from her own act of forgery/fraud?
That one line only tells me that Karoline seems upset/angry/concerned...you choose your own descriptive...over three things that AG has done.
All three statements Karoline makes are about AG's actions: "made a large amount of money..." and "told lies..." and "published her own book..."
Are any of the statements obviously False?
Is Karoline's statement accusing AG of perpetrating fraud or forgery or any crime?
Maybe, just maybe, Karoline could compromise on the point about the money and just say "AG has made a profit..." or "AG has made money..." or even "AG has made x British Pounds..." (if she knows exactly or approximately how much money G has made).
But, if by anybody's standards, AG could be described as having made a "large" amount of money (several thousand or tens of thousands of British Pounds), the statement is accurate, offensive or not, and accuracy is the standard applied here..."Is 'large' an accurate description of the amount of money AG made?"
I don't see any way around avoiding the use of the word "lies" if AB/G ever made two contradictory statements about the 'diary's' provenance or allowed another to make a statement about its provenance that she knew to be false.
----------------
I've (unfortunately) been thinking about the following issue:
Assume that I am convinced beyond any further proof or evidence that...
(1) a crime has been committed, and
(2) I know who committed it.
Suppose I write that I think or believe such a criminal activity occurred and named who I thought was involved.
Would I be wrong (and I'm not sure what anyone might mean by "wrong" at any given moment)?
Would that statement be unfair?
Would it be illegal?
I think that it may be unpleasant, it may be distasteful, it may anger those who think otherwise, but:
It would not be factually wrong because I am stating a belief based on reasonable and probable cause -- not legal objects like "evidence"!! -- as to the existence of a crime and AG's innocence/guilt regarding this suspicion of a crime.
Look in any legal dictionary and see what the definitions are for the following legal terms:
reasonable act
reasonable and probable cause
reasonable belief
probable cause
The definition for "Reasonable and probable cause" in Black's Law Dictionary -- Fifth Edition is especially interesting:
"Such grounds as justify any one in suspecting another of a crime, and placing him in custody thereon. It is a suspicion founded upon circumstances sufficiently strong to warrant reasonable man in belief that charge is true."
Since no proof currently exists that demonstrates any crime has actually been committed, by whom, and against whom, I would be "wrong" if I refused to listen to any facts or evidence to that are contrary to my current belief. Until such proof or evidence is offered, my belief is right, fair, and legal.
For the sake of Casebook harmony, I would be better off stating that incontrovertable proof/evidence of a crime and the criminals has yet to be determined. My statement, my opinion, would tell everyone where I think we should be looking for such evidence, but I might ease up on my belief is I see it offends or distresses another. But I would not be obliged, by law/morality/ethics, to do so!.
Is it unfair? Possibly, if I am proven wrong and refuses to change my current opinion. Fairness is often in the eye of the beholder.
Is it fair to accuse dead men of a crime without proof that they committed it -- of being JtR (James Maybrick) -- even if it is not illegal or considered unethical by historians, researchers, and writers?
In American (and I suppose British) jurisprudence, an attempt is made to seem fair; but how "fair" is it for the accused if they are represented by an inexperienced, over-worked legal aide with no money to spend for expert testimony or research while the prosecution has people with high credentials (who probably want this experience of their resumes either to run for higher public offices or get hired by prestigious law firms), experience (either on their own or around the office), and the resources of the State at their command? That's just one example of something in the legal system I consider "unfair" -- there may be other examples; some may even refute this "unfairness!"
Just some thoughts.
Yaz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Sunday, 20 May 2001 - 05:21 am | | Let me reprint something that I wrote a few days ago in response to Mrs. Morris' peculiar post the first part is quoted from that 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: Paul Begg
Sunday, 20 May 2001 - 07:20 am | | Hi Yaz/Joseph (good to see you back, by the way)
Yaz asks two questions:
"Is Karoline stating unequivocally that AB/G is a criminal forger, profiting from her own act of forgery/fraud?"
All three statements Karoline makes are about AG's actions: "made a large amount of money..." and "told lies..." and "published her own book..." Are any of the statements obviously False?
Regarding the second of these questions, those statements as you have edited them, are not false and personally I don't find anything to argue with in those words, though I acknowledge Caz's concern about the word "large" and I think the emotive word "lies" would benefit from qualification. For me, the words that cause trouble are "fraudulent artefact" and "fraud".
It might have been better to have prefaced "fraudulent artefact" with the words "what appears to be a…", but let's set that aside. The words "fraudulent" and "fraud" unquestionably convey illegality and saying that Anne Graham has made money from a "fraudulent artefact" implies wrongdoing. The question is, did Karoline intend to suggest that Anne Graham is guilty of legal wrongdoing?
Did Karoline mean her readers to infer that Anne Graham is a fraudster, profiting from an artefact she knew to be a fake.
Or did she mean her readers to infer that Anne Graham profited from something she did not know to be a fake?
Therein rests the ambiguity in Karoline's statement. But the reader is not left without the means of forming an opinion about Karoline's intent because elsewhere on the Message Boards she has made it clear that she thinks Anne Graham was involved - albeit perhaps inactively - in the creation of the "fraudulent artefact". I don't know whether Anne Graham could bring and win a libel action on the basis of what Karoline has written, but I think the reader would certainly be justified in interpreting Karoline's words as accusing Anne Graham of knowingly profiting from the crime of fraud and thus of being a fraudster.
Of course, this would be inference and though fair and perhaps based on good evidence evidence, the fact might still be that Karoline did not intend her sentence to mean more than that Anne Graham had profited from a document which she did not know to be but which is now widely accepted as being a fake. So, "Is Karoline stating unequivocally that AB/G is a criminal forger, profiting from her own act of forgery/fraud?" No she isn't, not directly and unequivocally, but that is certainly a meaning that could be fairly infered.
As said, though, this might not have been the meaning Karoline intended to convey, but from time to time we can all be guilty of being less than precise in our choice of words. It all goes to reinforce John Omlor's insistance that we read and write with care and awareness.
As for the question about fair vs.legal, I think it's a bit apples and pears, but the bottom line is that it is neither legal nor fair to accuse someone of a crime unless you can support it with evidence. Personal beliefs don't really come into it. So, if you can't prove it, don't say it. If you can or think you can prove it, say it. Ultimately a court may have to put your belief to the test. But that, in effect, is what is happening on the Message Boards isn't it? That's what this debate is all about. Karoline has stated that she thinks Mike Barrett, Anne Graham and others are guilty of forging the 'diary'. Other's have asked for her "proof". She has given it in various ways, such as the original nine eboldend "facts", and in turn her evidence has been questioned and disputed and her logic and reasoning questioned. She may or may not accept the arguments ranged against her, but those reading the Message Boards and quietly deciding for themselves will draw their own conclusions. As they will also do about my arguments, yours and John Omlor's and everyone else. But isn't that what debate is all about? |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 20 May 2001 - 09:23 am | | Hey All:
Sorry I missed your post, Joseph, it didn't show up on my Casebook radar screen.
I don't dispute that anyone could take any given sentence and interpret it any way they wish. The more "plausible" interpretations would try to demonstrate how the interpretation is at least valid in their own minds.
But my concern is to try to initiate a fair, unbiased, balanced, etc. etc. discussion on a topic where the aims are clear to all, the terms of debate are clear to all, the approach is clear to all, etc. etc.
Only the most zealous of Maybrickians would want to go back through past posts and sort through the zings and arrows hurled by all sides to find the small nuggets of gold called information (as opposed to "facts" or "evidence," let's say). And that zealot would also be, IMHO, a bit of a masochist as well.
I also have my suspicions that the "historical" record on this thread is skewed by numberless attempts on all sides to annoy, incite, provoke, etc. etc. the other sides.
My proposal asks that the record be stricken and that posters start again with a new discipline.
My common sense tells me that too many wounds have been struck, each against another, for any one or two parties to forsake retaliating in kind and number. But I'm idealistic enough to support this proposal as long as all parties seem willing to think about its usefulness. (If i meet too strenuous resistance, I reserve the right to quote the only real and factual King Arthur when he says in his film biography Monty Python and The Holy Grail, "Run away! Run away!" after being repulsed by the French.)
Inferences -- "fair" or otherwise -- are the very heart and soul of the acrimony generated in this discussion. They have proven themselves to be more divisive than incisive. Why not avoid inferences, period...everybody?
Comparing fair vs. Legal is comparing apples and pears, and it was not my intent to make that comparison but, rather, to try to demonstrate that Legal is a superior approach rather than using varying standards of fairness/unfairness.
Consider the definition again of Reasonable and probable cause:
"Such grounds as justify any one in suspecting another of a crime, and placing him in custody thereon. It is a suspicion founded upon circumstances sufficiently strong to warrant reasonable man in belief that charge is true."
Since it is a legalistic term, I would wonder where the definition clearly states or implies that "any one" needs evidence or proof to "suspect another of a crime" up to "placing him in custody thereon"!!!
If you can arrest someone on the basis of suspicion (reasonable and probable cause), you can certainly do far less, such as accuse another of a crime.
The point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't appear illegal to publically accuse another of a crime if you can demonstrate reasonable and probable cause...not evidence -- as we commonly refer to "evidence" -- of the crime that would lead to conviction in a court.
But such public accusations, if made, make other people angry and wary.
A compromise is needed where, if someone believes (based solely on suspicion defined in reasonable and probable cause) another has committed a crime, a fight doesn't break out whether that statement can be made at all, or only in part, or only if qualified, etc. etc.
So, what is a satisfactory compromise as to what can/can't be said, what are your aims, and what approach will you use to achieve those aims considering these circumstances regarding the 'diary' and its cast of players?
Yaz |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 20 May 2001 - 01:17 pm | | Hi Yaz
Can we discuss King Arthur? I am now treating myslef by going out to dinner :-)
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 20 May 2001 - 01:19 pm | | | I am treating myslef and myself, of course. So it'll be the two of us and others. |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 20 May 2001 - 04:42 pm | | Hey Paul:
"I have met the enemy and he is my slef!" Or words to that effect.
As to K.A., all true, even down to the bit about the coconuts.
Yaz
P.S., I find it very weird that the Casebook's spell-check software underlines every third word of my posts...yet "slef" passes with nary (double underlines now for using 'nary,' I bet!!!) a nod.
It passeth strange... |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 20 May 2001 - 05:43 pm | | Coconuts ? In Britain ? How ?!!  |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 20 May 2001 - 11:33 pm | | Hi Simon.
They came with the Dark Age shies for country fetes and fairs!
"The siege and the assault being ceased at Troy,
The coconuts smashed and mouldering where the shies once stood..."
Does not so begin "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight", or dost I misremember that noble alliterative verse!
|
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 01:41 am | | And here I thought it was because the horse wasn't introduced into England until at least the 15th century. Why else would Richard III trade his entire kingdom for one lousy horse if there were just dozens and dozens of them lazing about somewhere, chewing the grass, doing nothing, eh? And besides, it's a well-known fact that, as is hinted in Middle English poetry and common Britannic myth, that the English, like so many European peoples, were descendents of refugees from Troy...and we all know what a nasty little trick with a horse those sneaky Greeks played on the Trojans, hmmm? So the English -- as well as the Romans before 'em...who also eventually conquered their aversion (excluding perhaps Caligula, who turned aversion into perversion) -- had a grudge against the great big snivelling beasties to begin with!
Herein endeth the history lesson.
Yaz |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 02:01 am | | Besides...from an ex-Trojan point of view, how many warriors can you hide inside a coconut? One or two at the most, they reckoned, and that's not counting all their weaponry. (Go on! It's a fact! Try it at home!!) Besides, coconuts are much more trainable and are far and away better-natured than nasty spitting biting old horses!
Yaz, the Herodotus of the new millennium |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 02:21 am | | Richard III wasn't serious. He was just horsing around...
But no one can talk to a horse, of course
that is, of course, unless the horse
the the famous Mr... um Bucephalous... Scout... |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 07:46 am | | Halloooo,
I thought this question of the coconuts had already been solved, both historically and scientifically.
It was swallows.
(Don't ask. African.)
-- John
(Stopping by for the quickest of moments. Things are stabilizing after some complications and everything now looks much better. I will return by week's end with good health news, I promise.)
And remember, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Supreme executive power is wielded by a mandate from the masses, not by some farcical aquatic ceremony.
I mean, if I went around claiming to be emperor because some watery tart lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away. |
Author: Alegria
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 08:02 am | | Accuracy in quoting please! Isn't it "lobbed a scimitar" ? If not, my whole belief system has just crumbled...
Ally |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 08:05 am | | Good Catch, Ally,
No doubt it is. That was from a foggy and early morning memory.
"Come and see the violence inherent in the system!"
--John
PS: In the interest of accuracy, I've just gone back and changed it. Now no one will know what we were talking about. (I had originally written "threw a scimitar," everyone.) |
Author: Alegria
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 08:22 am | | "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!"
What a nice way to start the morning.  I know what I am watching this evening.
Glad to hear your father is "feeling much better", John.
Ally |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 10:33 am | | Hi All,
Sorry to get away from the far more attractive subject of a watery tart or aquatic bint trying to put the world to rights - but I guess I'm responding to John's cry of "Come and see the violence inherent in the system!", when I should be accepting someone's offer of their kingdom for a shrubbery.
Hi All,
Here again is Karoline’s original statement, made after weeks of sometimes heated debate over the ins and outs of what we can or can’t reasonably conclude, from the ‘evidence’ in this strangest of cases:
"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 have been putting out feelers to establish what would constitute a diplomatic and universally acceptable response to this statement (assuming that no one objects to my desire to respond in the first place). Instead of wading in with my usual gut reactions/questions/challenges/objections to what looked to me initially like a statement loaded with controversial elements, if not unestablished facts, I wanted to take heed of Yaz’s recent concerns about how I, and others, have been far too quick to assume, then misinterpret, someone else’s position. Even my post, showing this desire to curb my own impulsive reactions has been described by Peter Birchwood as ‘peculiar’, so I’m not sure that anything I could ever say or do would be ‘the right thing’ by this particular gentleman! But that will not stop me making the attempt to learn, then modify and improve upon my performance in future. 
Paul Begg has suggested that Karoline may have meant:
“AG has unwittingly profited from something that turned out not to be genuine.”
Well, I’d better wait and see if Karoline has an opinion on this interpretation, before I even begin to consider, let alone comment on it. And I promise, if Karoline doesn’t offer an opinion, I will not assume her agreement, or disagreement, or even that she has read the latest posts!
In the meantime, I think Yaz made a very good point recently, when he wrote:
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?
I continue to see posters (including myself, I’m ashamed to say) responding to old news and old controversies that don’t advance our knowledge one iota about the circumstances surrounding the creation of the diary. Keith Skinner has suggested that one direct approach to settling the issue would appear to be for Melvin to agree to meet him and/or Shirley and discuss what he knows. I suggest that another direct approach could be made to the owner of the new Kane handwriting samples, if only to make him/her aware of what Melvin considers his/her duty to be:
Every competent investigator has the duty to clear people of suspicion.
There has been precious little positive response to either Keith’s or my own suggestions for catching the nearest way – apart from a few (and pretty feeble in my opinion – sorry) arguments about Melvin’s right not to respond to calls to divulge his information, even in private, while he publicly deplores other people’s conduct loud and long, and the right of the sample owner not to get a professional analysis, while at the same time allowing the sample to circulate among certain individuals who have the freedom and right to voice an opinion, without giving them the freedom and right to support it.
Now, that’s what I call ‘peculiar’. But doesn’t this illustrate just how differently our individual minds work, and just how difficult it will ever be to achieve a meeting of minds over the diary?
Thanks for listening, whoever got this far.
Love,
Caz
And now for something completely different - I hope. |
Author: Alegria
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 10:48 am | | I agree wholeheartedly that every effort should be made to clear someone of suspicion. Just to throw the cat in among the pigeons, what if a handwriting analysis has been done and it proves(as much as such a thing can be) that Kane did write the diary. Perhaps the person who owns the sample has spoken with Kane and Kane has made a statement of guilt and asks only that the information be published after his death so that this already looming prospect not be hastened in any manner. Suppose the person who owns the sample has out of compassion agreed. We are all demanding the sample with the assumption of him being exonerated. That may not be the case. I am not big on compassion for people who commit crimes, however even I would have to say that this is not what I would consider a crime worthy of the death penalty. Would I necessarily sit on this information? Probably not. Are there other people who would respond more compassionately than I? Definitely so.
Just something to ponder if you like.
Ally |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 10:50 am | | But not quite yet. I forgot to add that I would have preferred to see Karoline's original statement:
"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"
preceded by the magic words:
"I remain convinced that/I firmly believe that/Most people I have asked agree with my opinion that",
or even:
"In my opinion it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that"
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 11:38 am | | Hi Alegria
Wouldn't circuating these samples among like-minded souls contravene any such agreement with Mr Kane and ditto making the existance of the samples known and stating that there exists a consensus opinion among those who have seen them that Kane probably wrote the 'diary'? Isn't the answer to all this simply that the existance of the samples and conclusions based thereon should have been remained confidential until such time as the evidence could be produced? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 11:48 am | | Hi Ally,
I only just saw your latest post, which crossed with mine.
You wrote:
We are all demanding the sample with the assumption of him [Kane] being exonerated.
You may be - I am assuming absolutely nothing about what an analysis would show. But, as John has said, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Whoever owns the sample allowed its existence - and opinions on how it compares with the diary - wittingly or unwittingly to become public knowledge.
Perhaps, if your speculations have any basis in truth, the owner could now approach Mr. Kane again, out of the same compassion, to ask if he would let Keith Skinner and/or Shirley Harrison into his guilty secret, on the understanding that they too will keep quiet until the man is no longer with us.
All Keith and Shirley and Melvin and Peter would need to do is advise the board, via a joint statement, that satisfactory negotiations are under way to get this thing sorted behind the scenes, and that therefore all further speculation or discussion about the suspected forgers can be shelved until further notice. No one need know whether this means any one individual has yet been conclusively agreed to be innocent or guilty. And any such publicly-expressed assumptions could then be seen in the light of the joint request to leave things be.
Any thoughts?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Alegria
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 11:52 am | | Paul,
Probably should have. But it didn't. But also as you said, Mr. Kane is probably unaware that he is being debated here. What is said here doesn't have the scope of readers as a published book. And my statement was only that there might have been an agreement not to publish anything.
Regardless of how many people have seen or will see the material, we now know that the material exists. The owner is not the one who shared it with us. Could it be said that s/he showed lack of judgement in showing it to someone who would use it to support their claims? Sure. But in the end, it is still their material and they are the only ones who can decide what to do with it. Our opinions of fair, right and don't really come into it. I have said it before: the owner cannot be pressured into full disclosure because someone else was indiscreet. |
Author: Alegria
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 12:00 pm | | Caz,
Crossing posts again.
Sounds reasonable to me. Although I am only speculating on the reasons that might exist and their may be more reasosn why that would not work. Who knows?
The only thing is that if Shirley and Mel and all came out with such a statement, I think it would cause everyone to assume that he was guilty..else why not say so? But it would still be a better solution than we have now. |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 12:11 pm | | Hi Alegria
I fully agree that it is their material and their choice to do with it as they wish, but forgive me but I'm not sure anyone has disputed this. In different ways John Omlor and Caz have simply questioned whether it was right to (a) reveal the existance of the samples and, more particularly, (b) claim a consensus of opinion (b1)favouring Kane as the probable or possible penman and (b2) identifying the consensus.
It doesn't actually matter to me in the least and I am simply grateful that samples have been obtained and might be tested. But given the confusion, allegations and counter-allegations revolving around various "scientific" tests done in the past, I just hope that any tests done of the Kane samples are free from taint and ambiguity. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 12:12 pm | | Hi Alegria,
Well, perhaps 'pressure' is the wrong word for it. But perhaps those who squeezed out the toothpaste may wish to at least make the owner of the material aware of what has taken place on these boards as a result of their actions, regardless of regret, previous lack of judgement, thoughtlessness, etc etc, on the part of any or all of those involved in acquiring, circulating or talking about Kane's sample.
I don't think it's relevant whether or not Kane is aware he is being debated here, or how many readers have been made aware of the suspicions about his role in the diary affair. Who among us would feel comfortable about a friend or relative's innocence or guilt being discussed, either with their knowledge or behind their back, on an internet site, however limited its readership may be? Why would it be any different when it concerns someone we don't know?
I'm sorry, I just don't get it.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Alegria
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 12:25 pm | | Caz,
My comments about it being discussed here as opposed to being published were related specifically to whatever hypothetical agreement might have been made and being likely to cause illness to Mr. Kane. I.e: for his health it was agreed that it not be published in a book; it being discussed on a message board of which he was not aware would probably not induce a heart attack. It was not a statement about the ethics of doing so. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 01:10 pm | | Okay Ally. Thanks for the clarification.
I must admit, though, that I would have a huge problem with anyone who based a decision to discuss Mr. Kane's possible guilt here, on their own opinion that he would probably never be made aware that there was an internet message board littered with references to his association with a fraudulent document, and therefore would probably not suffer a heart attack as a result of the discussion taking place.
But, as you say, you were not making a statement about the ethics involved.
I am.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Alegria
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 03:42 pm | | I long for the day when, being morally beyond reproach, I can repeatedly chastise another for something they have done and feel confident in my cause. As that day is no where in sight, I will limit myself to giving my opinion on this whole mess once and considering my point made, will move on.
I was dealing with hypothetical possibilities relating to the owner of the handwriting analysis who never has (as far as I know) discussed Kane here. So this cannot be the person who chose to discuss Kane here and with whom Caroline has an ethical problem. I will (gasp) infer that she means Karoline. I fully acknowlege that my inference may be faulty and withdraw it if is.
Karoline should not have posted the information about the handwriting analysis if she was unable to provide the data that proves it. I have stated my opinion of the folly of doing so several times and in several threads before this. That being said, Karoline has since appealed to the owner to publish it, revised her statements to clarify errors that she has made and attempted to rectify her mistake. Karoline made, what in my opinion was, an error in judgement; not a deliberate attempt to blacken someone's name. She said there were samples of Kane's handwriting available, she had seen them and she and those who she has spoken to think there is a close match. All of which are true statements of her OPINION. Which she is entitled to. Which she is even entitled to express whether she can back them up or not. If the rest of the world doesn't get to view the samples, too bad. We are entitled to form whatever opinion we like on the subject of her claim. Everyone has shared their opinion on the subject over and over and over.
Everyone here has talked about the bad blood that exists on the boards. Everyone says the other person started it. Everyone lists what they have done to ameliorate the situation. And everyone starts the same old arguments and the same old grievances at the first opportunity.
I think that 99% of the people here are genuinely good hearted people, with whom I would love to get drunk and go dancing til dawn. As some wise person said, things printed here fester because they are not erased. We can call them up and view them again and again and the wounds don't close. We should stop dwelling on what was said in 1999 or even in May 19, 2001. I have very few virtues but my greatest(only) is this: I can forgive and forget anything anyone ever says about me. If the apology is there, if the desire to move on is sincere, there is no reason to dwell on it. (Warning: this forgiveness possibility does not extend towards people who insult/hurt people I care about...then I'll torment you into your grave and return bi-monthly to dance on it). Send an e-mail to everyone with whom you have insulted in the last week, apologize, promise never to do it again, MEAN IT, and start over. That means nothing from the past except for facts relating to the case are repeated again. I'll buy everyone who does a Krispy Kreme (with a tequilla chaser). I draw the line at clasped hands and Kumbayah around the campfire.
Peace,
Ally |
Author: Karoline L
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 03:48 pm | | Re: the Anne Graham 'question'
Everything I stated above was a simple fact as everyone who reads here regularly well knows.
The diary is clearly a fraud in that it purports to be the diary of James Maybrick - and it's not.
Anne Graham had made atleast £3000 out of the sales of this fraudulent artefact by March 1995.
She has presumablty continued to receive royalties on a similar scale plus her share of the sale of film rights etc. for the last six years.
I think most people would call that a lot of money.
She has told two different stories about where this fraudulent artefact has come from. Therefore atleast one of them must be a lie.
Ipso facto.....
It's just fact. That's all.
Re: the Kane business.
Has it not ocurred to anyone here yet that the only people who are keeping the name of Kane in the public forum - are the people who keep complaining about Kane's name being kept in the public forum?
I don't think the name ever should have been raised and who ever did so was gulty of unwise conduct.
So, why not simply let the subject go?
Yes?
Let it go, until a more appropriate time?
There are issues here that no one knows about and which shouldn't be made public at this time.
Harris did the right thing in refusing to discuss Kane at all. Probably we should all have done the same from the beginning.
Let's do it now.
Karoline |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 04:14 pm | | Quickie:
Karoline writes:
"I don't think the name ever should have been raised and who ever did so was gulty of unwise conduct.
"So, why not simply let the subject go?"
Perhaps, Karoline, people are disturbed and still discussing it because you have never written:
"I don't think the new samples and what they show ever should have been raised and who ever did so was guilty of unwise conduct."
And also perhaps because on a board full of people who all have one thing in common -- they all wonder who wrote the diary -- it has now been written that new samples of someone's handwriting look similar to the writing in the diary, and that it now seems "very possible" that someone in particular wrote the diary.
Surely, it is reasonable to think that this particular group of people might have a hard time forgetting they were told this or not talking about it.
Maybe not, though. I could be wrong.
Let's watch.
--John |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 06:34 pm | | | Coconuts ? Brought by swallows ? A swallow couldn't carry a coconut , not even an African one ; unless ... if we take the wind speed velocity of your average African swallow multiplied by the body mass...mumble...mumble... |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 03:18 am | | | What difference is there between an African coconut and a coconut from somewhere else? |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 04:32 am | | I was not the person who introduced Kane's new handwriting sample here - that was Peter Birchwood.
But what difference does it make anyway? Kane has been known as a possible suspect in forging the diary since 1994! All I did was make a single comment - making it clear that comment was one of subjective opinion and nothing else.
This is unethical? I mean - what?
Oay, it's ethical to make false allegations in public. it's ethical to abuse and insult people and make silly jokes out of their names. It's ethical to write posts that are no better than obscene phone calls.
But it's unethical to say that a man who has been a suspect for seven years might possibly have done the thing he's been suspected of all this time?
Excuse me, but this is nuts. The whole thing is just a non-issue being blown out of all proportion for reasons we can only guess at.
I won't be saying any more for a while - as I mentioned on another board. And stuff like this being allowed to go on and on and on without moderation is just one of the reasons.
K |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 05:58 am | | Hi Karoline, Ally,
Karoline wrote:
Okay, it's ethical to make false allegations in public. it's ethical to abuse and insult people and make silly jokes out of their names. It's ethical to write posts that are no better than obscene phone calls.
Well, I know Karoline actually meant that she doesn't think these things are ethical. But you see how easy it is to distort someone's original meaning, just by quoting the same words back, but completely out of context?
My approach to the Kane business has been seen as some kind of moral crusade, all about chastising people for airing their suspicions here. But if you would care to re-read my posts on the subject, I think I have also made it pretty clear that I dearly want to see if anything positive can come out of what has happened and what we now know, with regard to ending the diary controversy once and for all. For me, this is more important than blaming anyone for past mistakes - whichever side of the fence they appear, or even on top of it!
So, can anything be done? Do we just hope for the best, and wait to see if the sample owner takes it upon him/herself to get an analysis done? Don't we even try putting such a suggestion to him/her? And do we just sit and wait for Melvin to respond to Keith's suggestion to meet and move forward?
If everyone else is happy to leave things be, then fine. But if anyone so much as comes back with the tiniest little whinge about Anne or Mike or anyone continuing to line their pockets with Diarygelt, I will be here reminding them, in no uncertain terms, of why their whingeing has a peculiarly hollow tone to it.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Eduardo Zinna
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 06:38 am | | Caz,
What is a nice girl like you doing in a place like this?
Love,
Eduardo |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 07:59 am | | Karoline (who I suspect is still here) wrote, with a sense of incredulity:
"But it's unethical to say that a man who has been a suspect for seven years might possibly have done the thing he's been suspected of all this time?"
Actually, what she wrote was that because of the new samples -- on which no one is allowed to comment -- because of these new samples, it now looks very possible that Kane could have written this diary. And a few lines later she wrote: "Therefore it becomes a good possibility that Kane wrote the diary."
So she clearly was telling us something more than what we knew or thought in 1994. She was telling us that things had changed, now that new samples had "come to light," as she also said.
And she told us at the time that she couldn't comment on what the data showed, even as she commented on what the data showed.
Just wanted to set that record straight.
By the way, I now count over five times in the last week alone, on various boards, that Karoline has threatened to leave. These threats have now become, in my opinion, both routine and less than effective, rhetorically.
I have seen this before.
--John
PS: Caz, perhaps, if we can answer these questions three for the owner of the samples...
Right.
What is your name? What is your quest? What is your favorite color? |
Author: Eduardo Zinna
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 09:02 am | | | What... is the capital of Assyria? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 10:14 am | | Mi Querido Eduardo,
Question the first:
Who said I was a nice girl? I'm calling my lawyer at once!
Question the second:
A is the capital of Assyria, of course. You can't fool me.
Hi John,
I'm off to listen to the men who like to say "Ni!" (I may get more sense out of them. )
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 10:17 am | | From Keith Skinner To Peter Birchwood
“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.”
Peter Birchwood
I may be wrong, (and can confidently rely on you to very swiftly correct me if I am), but I didn’t think Melvin had been quite that specific in public. Or is this your own observation? Is this the reason you posted Mr Devereux’s will in the first place?
Thank you for advising me on what you consider to be “not appropriate” for this board. I’ve certainly taken note of your words, which censure me for assuming I know the full truth of a matter and then proceeding on the basis that I am right. Just so that I perfectly clearly understand what you are saying; it would, for example, be wrong and misleading of me to assert that Mike and Anne were merely placers of a document which other people had forged, all predicated on the assumption that I knew the full truth of the matter? Or it would be quite reprehensible of me to slyly infer that you were the sort of person to condone working with tampered birth certificates, based on the assumption that I knew the full truth of a private meeting at which I was not present?
And talking about birth certificates; I will check out where William Ernest Graham was born and the name of his mother, next time I am in the PRO. |
|
|
|
|
