|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 26, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-Archives 2001:
Archive through May 26, 2001
Author: Alan Hunt
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 03:25 pm |        | Caz
what we want is a Shrubbery!
Alan |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 05:21 pm | | | Was it Ninevah ? |
Author: Joseph
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 06:21 pm | | Hello Mrs. Leach,
I am not thin skinned, and a few pathetic barbs from you won't cause any damage, but I will not allow you to slander me without protest.
As you are well aware, there is nothing remotely sexual about either of my posts of 21, May on the Professional Standards thread, or my post of 19, May on the Maybrick Diary thread. As a matter of fact, the only sexual references that I can see, are contained with-in the quotes of your malicious parody of Caz, e.g.:
"I'm covered in chocolate right now with half a dozen famous people licking it off." (Wuz, [Leach] April 99)
"Jules you charming old rogue you. Do make some more jokes about excrement soon,"
(Ibid)
It is plain to see Mrs. Leach, you are again confusing your delusions; your combination of a chocolate oral fantasy, and excrement is an indictment of your obscene perversions, not mine.
I invite the readership to please read through the three posts I am referring to, there are no sexual references to be found; there is nothing "over the top" or inappropriate in my responses to Mrs. Leach. My posts address her embellishments, rancor, poor logic, and sophomoric literary style, in both a serious, and humorous tongue-in-cheek fashion; it seems Mrs. Leach's exaggerated perception of her self-esteem, prevents her from recognizing what everyone else finds obvious. Why is that my problem? She acknowledges returning to the Casebook to do battle on behalf of Mr. Harris; in other words, she returned in a belligerent frame of mind, intent on confrontation, and when she is challenged on her deceptive methods of debate, she resorts to crying to the moderators to protect her fragile ego while she gathers her thoughts. The pièce de rèsistance has to be her public chastisment of a respected voice of reason and balanced judgment, while lamenting her lack of support.
Isn't she the perfect spokesperson for the affable Mr. Harris?
Mrs. Leach I call upon you to retract the baseless charges of "insanity", "instability", "obscene sexist slime", and " vile sexist personal attacks" that you have publicly leveled against me, or suffer the consequences. |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 06:45 pm | | OK, I'm going to have to object here concerning chocolate oral fixations and excrement fantasies being labelled "perversions."
This is an unfortunate, prejudicial, and archaic term that is no longer used by serious people in the study of sexuality, nor by people who have any awareness of or genuine appreciation for the wonderful imagination and the playful and varied performances of the human being as a creative sexual dramatist.
And I won't sit idly by and watch as perfectly innocent and fun diversions (if practiced with some medical care and an open eye for health and safety) are slandered with such a loaded and normalizing term.
Creative psycho-sexual role playing in both the S&M community and the food lovers community has been a staple of human sexual creativity for thousands of years. There are no perversions between consenting adults. There are only perverted interpretations that cast unnecessary judgments on the private joys of others.
Yours in bondage,
--John
PS: Joseph, just what "consequences" would Karoline suffer, anyway? Would they involve chocolate? Feel free to send me e-mail privately detailing any special "consequences" you might have in mind... 
Seriously, Joseph, that last flourish of a rhetorical threat might indeed have been over the top a bit if you were being serious. I heard in my mind the stinger music at the cliff-hanging end of a cheesy tv show -- "...or suffer the consequences!" dum dum duuuuuuuuum |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 07:17 pm | | | ...and you could hear a pin drop. |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 07:25 pm | | ROFL....
Rosie, you took the words right out of my mouth. |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 07:47 pm | | Hi Rosie and Ally,
Yeah, nothing stops a discussion cold like a little kink.
Now then, I have begun wondering just where we are with the evidence and our knowledge concerning the scene of the diary's composition. After reading Robert Smith's useful and detailed post over on the Forensics board and remembering that the new Kane samples do not officially "exist" and that there is no evidence at all, in any case, that Kane ever knew either of the Barretts, I am beginning to think we know very little, almost nothing about the actual production of this volume. And Melvin's work in this area, while it does go a long way towards establishing the diary as a modern forgery, does almost nothing to help us specifically concerning the details of this book's production and whatever plan might have existed for its dissemination and just what happened to that plan.
Melvin has not yet addressed the recent questions concerning the scene of composition. I think perhaps he will be able to at some future time (I hope). But the questions, including the following, remain hanging.
1.) Does Melvin really have proof of who forged this diary? Does he even have reliable and/or definitive evidence of who forged this diary?
2.) Does Melvin have any material evidence that links Kane in any way whatsoever to Mike Barrett or suggests that Barrett and Kane even knew each
other?
3.) Does Melvin really have the names of others who participated in this forgery beyond any doubt? Beyond some doubt? How about just possibly?
4.) Does Melvin happen to know when Mike lodged his Sphere book with the solicitor and does he believe that Mike and/or Anne knew before Mike took the diary to Doreen's that it was a forgery?
And there seems to be no further evidence that would allow us to claim that the maroon diary purchase or the transcript on the wp or anything else particularly implicates Mike or Anne in the creation of the document at least not until we find out when the ink was put on paper and when the Sphere guide was at the Barrett's and/or until we have at least some evidence concerning when Mike (or someone else) might have seen the quote.
So, as we've now passed the nine-year anniversary of Mike walking into Doreen's office with the book, where are we?
And do we have any hope of being anywhere other than where we are now any time soon?
Is there any more evidence out there?
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 08:24 pm | | Hi, John:
Jeez, the chocolate the specter of chocolate- covered board habitués was too luscious for words! We joked before the Park Ridge convention about having Harris and Begg wrestle in a tub of jello, but a vat of chocolate sounds equally appealing. Aw, c'mon! D'you mean we really have to go back to the thorny issue of discussing the Diary?
Well, Johnny Depp who starred in the recent hit film "Chocolat" plays Inspector Abberline in the new Ripper film "From Hell" so there is a connection. . . . 
Chris "Chocolat lips" George |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 08:41 pm | | Dear John,
I never read the Diary. The very idea of a drug-addict masquerading as Jack was too appalling to contemplate.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Joseph
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 09:16 pm | | Hello Mr. Omlor,
My use of the term "perversion" in reference to the combination of chocolate, and ca cah, is based on an article in halux valgus magazine; England's leading journal of food, fruit, and flavor fetishes.
The article tells the story of an elderly couple on holiday at a quaint B&B in Southend Margate. It seems they became a bit disoriented during the course of some serious fetish interplay and confused a bowl of Perugina, with a bowl of poo, or as it's called in Louisiana "um daddies", and flushed £150.00 of Italian delicacies down the loo, and coated their feet with um daddies. The editor of Halux Valgus, a señor Tomaso Caputselle, became very upset, and subsequently labeled the entire affair a perversion, hence my use of the term.
Again, my apologies if I have caused you any anxiety, or gas pains.
Best regards
PS. The consequences for Mrs. Leach are Gandian in, she would be compelled by court order to mentor a Charles Mansonlike adult, and teach him to be a stand-up comedian.
PPS. Actually, I think Mrs. Leach would make a damn fine Klingon wife. |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 09:47 pm | | Hi Joseph,
I suppose I'll let you slide on the "perverse" word choice then, but I'm afraid you completely lost me at the end, since I'm not sure I got the Manson line (I live not far from the alleged hometown of Marilyn, though, I think) and I was never a trekkie and so remain unsure what the PPS might imply.
To All:
In any case, I was wondering, does anyone know what the most recent version of Anne's account of the diary and its provenance is, free of Feldmanian interpretation? Perhaps Caz can ask Keith or perhaps someone here knows if Anne has said anything recently that came not filtered through Paul F. (or in her Flo Maybrick book) and that represented any change since Paul's book or that represented the latest narrative of the diary's history. Also, when was the last time Mike actually said anything on the record on this case?
I would add those to my list of hanging questions.
Thanks all,
--John |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 22 May 2001 - 10:43 pm | | If you want to continue this thread, over which the suspicion of criminality hangs, you need a practical method of obtaining reliable, first-hand information. Ratiocination will only get you so far in these circumstances, correct?
Since you all don't have police powers -- and probably wouldn't want them if they were offered -- I suggest someone taking the role of journalist/writer. This person need not be one of the Casebook's already published authors.
Someone here can and should write a proposal for a book about the diary as we approach its "10th birthday" so to speak:
(1) The diary's 10 year public history.
(2) Current trends in thinking (pro vs. anti-dairy, etc).
(3) But especially an investigation of whether the diary is genuine; and, if the diary is not genuine, how did it come into being, get apssed along until it reached the Barrets.
(4) etc. etc.
Submit the proposal to various publishers. If you get any signs of interest, all well and good, but you've at least established a foundation for being a freelance journalist/writer.
On that foundation, you have whatever protection the UK offers for journalists and writers pursuing a story. You can ask whatever questions you like of whomever you have the need and nerve to approach -- Kane is one example; the Barrets/Grahams would be another; and the owners of Kane's handwriting sample would certainly be fair game.
I see nothing wrong or unethical in such a journalist/writer using the expertise available on the Casebook to help her in establishing what needs to be asked, who needs to be asked, and how the information should be evaluated.
This approach could be the start of a writing career for at least one of you talented Casebookers.
Using the Casebook as a resource would allow all perspectives to be heard; even if the author exercises the final decision on what she writes.
And the sooner the truth, or the closest we can ever get to it, is known...the better it will be for everyone.
It's a lot of work. It's a challenge. And it probably won't always be pleasant. But it's a great opportunity for someone with extra time on her hands.
Who do you think would make a good candidate for this freelance author, Caz?
Yaz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 23 May 2001 - 03:05 am | | Hi All,
Dear Yaz,
It's a lot of work. It's a challenge. And it probably won't always be pleasant. But it's a great opportunity for someone with extra time on her hands.
There was I, silly grin on my face, thinking you were talking about all the casebookers tying me up, covering me in chocolate and licking it all off very slowly...then I read:
Who do you think would make a good candidate for this freelance author, Caz?
...and I nearly died of the disappointment.
One day, maybe, one day....
Love,
Caz
PS I'm out for the rest of the day, so I'll leave you all to your favourite fantasies and fetishes. |
Author: Alegria
Wednesday, 23 May 2001 - 11:24 am | | My head was whirling with the chocolate and bondage scenario and then Chris had to throw Johnny Depp into the picture... I'll be off for a while to recover...
*swoon*
Ally |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 23 May 2001 - 11:48 am | | Hi Ally,
Do recover quickly - I've already had one prospective chocolate-wrestling opponent go down and out on me. I was hoping you and I could find something to REALLY fall out over......
Love,
Caz
PS STOP PRESS STOP PRESS Message from Keith Skinner coming up shortly STOP PRESS STOP PRESS |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 23 May 2001 - 11:52 am | | From Keith Skinner To The Board
I don’t think Anne Graham reads these boards, so because of the discussion provoked by Karoline L’s 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.”
I have sent to her a couple of pages from the “Maybrick Diary” message board which seems to succinctly reflect the ongoing attitude towards her story and character. I decided not to telephone Anne, considering it only proper and fair to allow her the freedom to read the material, without any intrusive comments or observations. I suggested to Anne, in my covering letter, that if she wished to respond, then I would be happy to arrange, (via Caroline), that any statement she cared to make would be put up on the board. I further suggested that Anne send to Peter Birchwood a copy of any written reply to me, to avoid accusations of tampering with source material. To this end, I gave Anne, Peter’s business address.
The posts I have sent to Anne, as received by me, from Caroline, in today’s mail, are as follows:-
Caroline Anne Morris on Friday, May 18, 2001 – 09:56 am
Christopher T George on Friday, May 18, 2001 – 11:02 am
Peter R.A. Birchwood on Friday, May 18, 2001 – 12:29 pm
R.J. Palmer on Friday, May 18, 2001 – 01:14 pm |
Author: Joseph
Wednesday, 23 May 2001 - 02:44 pm | | Hello Mr. Omlor,
Sorry for my lack of clarity.
To clarify my PS. and PPS.
Charles Manson=Not a very humorous person.
Mrs. Leach=Not a very humorous person.
Irony=One not very humorous person teaching another to be funny.
How does this relate to Gandhi? After one particularly fierce battle between Muslims, and Hindus left a number of children orphaned, Gandhi declared that one of the Hindu combatants who had lost all his children in the fight, should raise one of the Muslim orphans in the Muslim faith.
I'm not a Trekki either, but I did watch quite a few episodes of New Generation; one in particular focused on Lt. Worf's marital status, (Lt. Worf is a Klingon). Worf made the comment that a good Klingon wife must be persistent, forceful, and devious enough to maintain the romance in the relationship. Worf believed romance maintenance was women's work; I used the imagery as a reference to Mrs. Leach's accusing me of sexual bias. Perhaps it was a far reach.
Best regards |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 23 May 2001 - 03:24 pm | | Ah, thanks, Joseph.
------------------------------
Re: Keith's post above...
Well, I, for one, will be interested to see if Anne has any reaction to the things she has been sent.
Thanks go out to Keith.
--John |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 23 May 2001 - 06:51 pm | | Could someone send this to Keith Skinner to pass on to Anne Graham, please? (This is nuts, ain't it?) Thanks.
-----------------
I believe Anne Graham has every right to know what is being said both about her and in her behalf, and that she has every right to respond if she so wishes.
I only hope that she has someone who can give her legal counsel before she decides whether to answer in this public forum and what she would say.
There is no guarantee that anything she does or says right now in this public forum will do her the least bit of good...for at least the following two reasons:
(1) Her words can (and probably will) be used against her; whether in anti-diary articles and books or, more ominously, if someone (this board is available for anyone to view, remember!) gets it into their heads to start some legal action. She should consider if any response she gives might jeopardize her legal rights.
(2) If she declines to publicly answer, for whatever reasons, her silence will be interpreted, most likely for the worst; and these unfavorable interpretations will only cause her more anger, frustration, and hurt without allowing her the means to defend herself.
I hope that Ms. Graham has been made aware of all of these potentialities...whether they become realities or not.
If she does decide to answer, I hope she considers making her response conditional on whatever terms she deems necessary to protect herself.
Any way you look at it, this situation has put her in a difficult -- perhaps unfair -- position.
Just my opinion.
Yaz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 24 May 2001 - 05:00 am | | Hi Yaz,
As I said on the Professional Standards board, I regularly pass on to Keith all messages posted on the main Diary boards, so he will get your latest in a day or so.
A lot of people might say that Anne put herself in a difficult position by her own actions - whether that means she gave the diary to Mike via Tony D. in 1991, then kept quiet about it until July 1994; or whether it means she doesn't know where it came from but invented a provenance in July 1994; or whether it means she was involved in its creation, or at least knows something about it.
I agree though, that whatever we suspect concerning her past words and actions, she has put herself fairly and squarely in a no-win situation.
The moral of the tale is - if you have no means of proving something is true, and you care what the world and his wife think of you and your credibility, your best bet is not to draw attention to it in the first place. But I suspect very few of us ever get through life without having some experience of this. And it's always easier to say with hindsight.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 24 May 2001 - 10:10 am | | Hi Yaz,
I have just spoken with Keith and read over your latest post to him. He will pass it on to Anne as soon as he gets it in the post from me.
Hi All,
Keith says he would be happy to pass on anything the readers here may wish to put to Anne. But, of course, if this all sounds too silly and Chinese whisperish (or there are any fears of me doing an Alice Yapp number on billets-doux meant for Anne), she can always be reached in the normal way, ie via the publisher of her book, ‘The Last Victim’.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 24 May 2001 - 10:13 am | | From Keith Skinner to John Omlor
Dear John
We meet at last!
In response to your question of Tuesday, May 22nd, 2001 @ 09:47 pm – all I am able to relate is that, over a seven year period, Anne’s story about the origins and her personal involvement with the Diary has remained consistent – without deviation or embellishment. Neither does it sound like it is a rehearsed speech. She has recounted the story to me and other people, on many occasions; written down her thoughts, recollections and feelings in great detail, explaining the reasons why she remained quietly isolated until July 1994 and – importantly – of her relationship with Paul Feldman.
I believe her, but I pay extremely close attention to Steve Powell’s Australian input which is not easy to explain away – even given Anne’s denial of the circumstances. If Steve Powell is a publicity seeking fantasist, then he has been extraordinarily lucky, or remarkably diligent, for he has revealed detail which, quite simply, is not in the public domain. Peter Birchwood, I understand, is currently pursuing this line of enquiry and the results of Peter’s research could be extremely important in determining the historical status of the Diary.
If I have misjudged Anne, then that will say more about my incompetence and inadequacies, than Anne’s deception. There was a time when I spent over a three month period with her, transcribing the Feldman tapes of the interviews with her father. That, more than any other occasion, provided me with a God given opportunity to discuss the Diary with her and watch her reactions. It also put me in direct contact with her daughter, Caroline. Anne invited me to stay with her, whenever I went to Liverpool, but I always declined her kind offer, as I considered it absolutely imperative to retain a professional detachment and give myself space to think. I still have Feldman’s memo worrying about my hotel bills! And each time I came away from Liverpool convinced that Anne was telling the truth and that neither she nor Mike created the Diary, or knew it to be a modern hoax.
None of this proves anything John – but my meeting with Melvin could.
All Good Wishes
Keith |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 24 May 2001 - 11:31 am | | Thanks, Caz (and thank Keith too, please)!
As much information as this thread might want to know from Anne, I was concerned for her rights and felt this situation is close to a "no-way-to-win" situation for her.
Yaz |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 24 May 2001 - 11:33 am | | Dear Keith,
Thank you very much for the response and for the interesting information. It is certainly at least worth noting that Anne's story has now remained consistent over these past seven years and that she has not seen fit nor deemed it necessary to make any changes or additions as the reaction to it changed in various forums and among various researchers.
I have read only what Stephen Powell has written here on these boards concerning his alleged earlier meeting with Anne in 1969 in a hospital in Australia and discussion of a JtR diary and his visit to Whitechapel and brief encounter with Donald Rumbelow, and later about a friend of his whose mother thinks he was somehow involved in a forgery, etc. I do not know enough to judge what I have read from Stephen in the archives.
Perhaps Peter's work will shed light on this topic. Perhaps Melvin will agree to meet with you and share information. The timing involved with Stephen's recounted story and with Melvin's account of when the book was likely to have been researched and written do not seem, at first glance, to match very well. But perhaps there are reasons for this or perhaps it is my misreading.
At present, the science seems unable to pinpoint a time for the penning of the text, the stories concerning the provenance conflict between Mike and Anne, the handwriting analysis remains unavailable and officially "non-existent," the evidence of behavior is problematic and open to a multiplicity of possible interpretations, there are secrets floating around and hostilities in the air between the researchers and writers, and there is still nothing directly linking Mike or Anne to the writing of the document except the existence of the Crashaw quote, and we have no evidence yet precisely when either of them might have first seen that quote, and the date of the Sphere book's delivery to the solicitors remains a mystery (my own letter in support of Shirley's request has gone unanswered). Melvin has not only not named the forgers, it is not clear whether he even still claims to know their identity or whether he only has some general evidence which makes him strongly suspect certain unnamed people but which would not be conclusive nor definitive.
What we have is a mess.
And yet, a film deal remains in the works, no?
And we are now past the ninth anniversary of the book's appearance and still have no real, reliable scenario for who wrote it or where or when or why.
I can only imagine what a strange and frustrating and fascinating project this has been for you, Keith. And I must say that I admire your resolve and your determination and your relentless thoroughness.
It seems at this point that all we can continue to say is "watch this space" for any word of forthcoming books or results of research or new evidence or new comments by Mike or Anne or new consequences of Stepehen's memories or, finally, the word that someone independent and objective and qualified is going to be allowed to have a look at the new samples of Kane's handwriting -- because if they do not match, we need to introduce a whole new and possibly unknown player into our game.
I look forward to learning more about where we are and what is happening and to watching the year unfold as we move towards the diary's tenth anniversary of publication. If there is anything I can do to help or to advance the state of our knowledge, please send me word at omlor@tampabay.rr.com. And that goes not only for Keith, but for anyone who is researching and working on this thing.
Finally, one last word about a possible meeting. I realize the difficulties between Melvin and Keith and Shirley and others go a long way back and reading the past few years worth of archived posts between them on such topics, I can certainly see why suspicions are rampant and hostilities remain.
But I have now seen here Shirley and Keith repeatedly offer to meet Melvin and anyone else who might be working with him, and I have seen Peter offer to meet and to share information. But I have not seen Melvin Harris personally agree to meet with anyone or to share any information or to even discuss meeting with Keith or Shirley at all. Perhaps this is going on behind the scenes. Perhaps Melvin has just not been able to find the time to send word that he would be pleased to meet and to share what he knows and to see what Keith has learned. Perhaps. I hope so.
If so, I do hope, as a complete outsider and amateur and simply an interested reader, that this meeting soon takes place, that it is a fair and professional exchange and discussion, and that it gets us at least a little closer to the truth concerning the origins of this document. I do not see what anyone stands to lose from such an event. I do not see why all those with an interest in researching the case cannot work together in some meaningful way to learn the truth, finally. And we certainly have plenty to gain from such sharing and such a meeting, since the state of our accurate and reliable knowledge concerning this document's history before 1992 remains shockingly shallow.
Thanks again, Keith. And best wishes,
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 24 May 2001 - 03:04 pm | | Hi, Keith:
You state in your post of 10:13 am today in reply to John Omlor's query about whether Anne Graham's story of the diary having been in her family for years has changed in the past seven years, "In response to your question. . . all I am able to relate is that, over a seven year period, Anne’s story about the origins and her personal involvement with the Diary has remained consistent – without deviation or embellishment."
Keith, you seem to think that the fact that her story has not changed lends credence to it. I think the opposite -- in my opinion, I feel that it is odd that her story has not changed or been added to in all these years. I cannot, of course, prove Anne's story is not true, but isn't it strange to observe such a state of stasis in a true story by a living person?
I will say that I am also monitoring the "revelations" by Steve Powell and will look forward to whatever Peter Birchwood has to say about Steve's story of the Diary perhaps having been fabricated in Australia in the 1960's.
Finally, I second John Omlor's hope that a meeting between interested parties could take place so that we might learn the origins of the Diary once and for all.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 25 May 2001 - 05:45 am | | Hi Chris,
In what way do you find it 'odd' that Anne's story, if it were true, has not changed or been added to in all these years?
If it were true, and she had told everything she knew, how exactly would you be expecting her to change or add to it?
Have a great weekend all, and let's hope that all these posts are being read, and at least considered, by Melvin. He should have nothing to lose and everything to gain by showing that he is prepared to do all he can to spike the Diary and all its works, before we enter a second decade of pussyfooting around. Will some people eventually start to think, "Well, maybe there's more to this diary than meets the eye after all. Surely someone somewhere would have come forward by now with what they know, if it was dreamed up and organised in recent times by upwards of three or four people"? I don't know.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 25 May 2001 - 05:54 am | | And by someone somewhere, I exclude Mike Barrett while his word remains almost totally unsupported, apart from the fact that by the autumn of 1994, he knew more about Crashaw than I did!  |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 25 May 2001 - 06:38 am | | Hi Caz
Not wishing to speak for Chris, but one might expect a story to undego subtle changes, with minor embellishments here and there as the teller recalls a detail or corrects a mistake. It may well be that Anne's story has undergone such changes and that Keith didn't mention them because he was thinking of 'changed her story' on a bigger scale. Of course, it may well be that Anne has told her story so many times, over and over, that she now recites it like rote and neither Keith nor Chris should attach any significance to the absence of change. That the story hasn't changed, though, does suggest that isn't making things up to please her listeners! |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 25 May 2001 - 07:17 am | | Hi Paul,
Yes, I rather took it as a given that Anne would have made the subtle kind of corrections or additions to which you are alluding, and that Keith meant more significant changes and embellishments to the basic story, not unlike those we have seen from Mike's and Steve Powell's various accounts.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Joseph
Friday, 25 May 2001 - 07:25 am | | Hello Caz, Paul, and Mr. George,
I'm off to the Big Apple for the day.
Hope you folks have a great week-end.
Best regards |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 25 May 2001 - 07:37 am | | In fact, it will be interesting to see what Keith himself says about this, because if Anne has corrected or added very minor details in this way over the years, in the process of talking freely to Keith and other interested parties, it might explain even more why he believes her. How tricky would it be for Anne to keep a lie like this going, if she didn't stick rigidly to the letter of her July 1994 statement, and didn't keep a very low profile with anyone who could possibly be trying to trip her up over one tiny detail too many or too few?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 25 May 2001 - 07:39 am | | Hi Joseph,
Have a cool time. And not too much chocolate now..
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 25 May 2001 - 09:05 am | | Hi, Caz and Paul:
I am assuming, but may be wrong, that Keith is saying Anne Graham has not made even minor changes in her story or minor embellishments. Keith did after all say that since she told the new story about how she first encountered the Diary, "Anne’s story about the origins and her personal involvement with the Diary has remained consistent – without deviation or embellishment." This wording, to me, indicates that there has been no change whatsoever. Which is the very thing that strikes me as odd. Paul, I am glad to read that you agree with me that, as you say, "one might expect a story to undergo subtle changes, with minor embellishments here and there as the teller recalls a detail or corrects a mistake."
Another thing that occurs to me, and maybe I missed it in Shirley's Blake edition or postings on this board, or other sources: What has Mike Barrett said about Anne's revised story about how she first encountered the Diary? Can anyone quote here whatever statements Mike has made about Anne's new story?
Have a great weekend everyone. Holiday weekend here in the USA -- Memorial Day, so a three-day weekend for those of who have to slog away for a living.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 26 May 2001 - 11:13 am | | Yaz--hello. I think your heart is in the right place, but I really have to doubt whether Anne Graham or anyone else would be in risk of legal entanglements regarding any revelations of the true origins of the Maybrick diary. I would be interested in hearing from somebody that has a good working knowledge of British law on this matter. Is it possible that, since no charges were ever filed, that it would not now be prosecutable due to a statute of limitations, or, to be rather blunt, due to a lack of interest from the Prosecution? I notice that no charges were filed when Mike made his sworn affidavits, for instance, or gave his confession in the papers. I could be wrong, but this appears to me that the law leaves these questions for the historians to haggle over, and has very little interest in them themselves. Besides, who was bilked? Robert Smith? What damages did he suffer? The single one pound coin that he paid for the document? I'm assuming the Maybrick Diary book itself was a commericial success and that there were no damages. The only 'victims' of the diary would be the thousands who willingly bought the book, but considering it was written as an investigation into a questioned document, there was no fraud here either, and Scotland Yard cleared the publishers. I tend to think that there is no real threat of anyone being prosecuted at this late date.
Best wishes, RJP |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 26 May 2001 - 12:35 pm | | Hey RJ:
You may be right in dismissing fears of legal complications, but Anne Graham can't afford to get that situation wrong or assume anything.
And just because something never materialized from the police investigation, it should not be construed that:
(1) the matter has been dropped by the police; even if they failed to act on Mike or anyone else supposedly changing their story which contradicts a previously given a sworn statement (if such a statement was ever given or sworn to);
(2) another agency such as a zealous prosecutor could not revive the matter
Statute of limitations is another interesting legal ambiguity because of the questions on when the "clock set" is for statute of limitations issues:
(1) Is it when the alleged or supposed "crime" first occurred or...
(2) Is the fraud on-going because the 'diary' is still being sold and marketed...now into a possible movie?
If anti-diarists kick up enough dust to threaten the financial success of the movie (or the book), would the investors seek restitution in a descending change that would lead back the Barretts?
Don't know...but Anne and Mike sure better have those answers at the fingertips!
Yaz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 26 May 2001 - 01:00 pm | | To Keith Skinner: The most unpleasant aspect of the diary debate is that, in arguing that the diary is a recent hoax, one is compelled to caste doubt on the truthfulness of your friend Anne. Your own posts are so cautious & introspective that they cannot fail to earn the respect of those who have read them. But doesn't it occur to you that it is odd that all the Maybrick information in the diary can be readily gleaned from the books by Nigel Moreland (1957) and Bernard Ryan (1977, 1982)? You have written that the diary seems to indicate an intricate knowledge of the Maybrick case, but I'm afraid that I don't see this. For instance, we know that the little Aunspaugh girl stayed with the Maybricks in the summer of 1888. There is no mention of this, nor any other information that would be difficult to know. When one reads a biography of a famous person, one expects to see the same information that is available in that person's letters & journals; it is the same life after all, and the biographers had access to those letters & journals. But this is not the case with the Maybrick diary. Here is a journal to which the writers on the Maybrick case did not have access. And yet, remarkably, we find nothing new about the Maybrick household. [Except, of course, that Maybrick was Jack the Ripper!] Isn't this suggestive of something? All the information is merely a rehash of the events that are already known and stated by the Maybrick writers of the 60s & 70s. In some cases, the wording of the diary even mimicks the writing in those Maybrick books. I'll give one example. Near the end, the diary mentions Maybrick visiting Michael's doctor, Charles Fuller. This seems like obscure information. The diary states: 'Fuller believes there is very little the matter with me'. Now look at the passage in Bernard Ryan's book:
The Doctor [Fuller] learned that Maybrick was apprehensive of being paralysed, and spent over an hour on a thorough examination. At last he told his patient that he could find VERY LITTLE THE MATTER WITH HIM, but all the symptoms might be attributed to indigestion. (pg 42)
As you can see, the passage uses the very same phrase as that in the diary. Ryan's book (the Penguin edition, 1982) was readily available to anyone living in Central Liverpool. The university's library has a copy of the book.
As Mr. Gray has now apparently confirmed that Mike knew the origins of the Crashaw quote prior to Shirley sending him to the Liverpool library, it appears to me that Mike clearly had knowledge of the origins of the diary.
For your sake, and not to point any accusing finger, I'd like to state what it appears from the 'outside'. You can certainly rebutt this if you like. It appears to me that in the summer of 1994 Ms. Graham was going through a confusing & painful time. Mike was confessing in the papers & Feldman was bothering her inlaws. I think Paul Feldman's zeal caught her off guard and she made some incautious statements to appease him. The intention might well have been good at the time, as Mike was destroying his reputation. I don't think Anne should be held morally accountable for those statements, and I gather by the generous support that is given to her by you & Shirley Harrison that she must be a woman with many excellent qualitites. Isn't it possible that since she now has genuine respect for those around her & (at the same time) faces the perhaps over-zealous howls of the anti-diary critics, that she finds it impossible to retract those claims?
As the debate has become rather intemperate and I suspect that the exposure of the origins of the diary might involve damage to professional and personal relationships, I'm now following Karoline's lead & also withdrawing from the 'debate.' I don't believe that there is any way that the Maybrick diary is an old document, but I hope Ms. Graham will be granted some latitude. I apologise if it appears that I have been unduly harsh with your friend. My only intention has been to question the validity of the document. Please feel free to respond if you wish. Best wishes, RJP |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 26 May 2001 - 01:22 pm | | Hi RJ,
You write:
"As Mr. Gray has now apparently confirmed that Mike knew the origins of the Crashaw quote prior to Shirley sending him to the Liverpool library, it appears to me that Mike clearly had knowledge of the origins of the diary."
But Mr. Gray has not confirmed that Mike knew the origins of the Crashaw quote prior to April of 1992, when he walked into Doreen's office with the diary. In fact, Mr. Gray has said that Mike never even mentioned the Crashaw quote or the Sphere volume to anyone until over two years later in late 1994. Even when he wanted people to believe he had known about and participated in this forgery. And Mr. Gray has never said anything at all to anyone as far as I know concerning whether Mike knew the origins of the quote prior to 1992. Therefore his statement can have no relevance to the likelihood or unlikelihood of Mike having known the origins of the quote before the diary was written. In fact, Mr. Gray's statements can have no logical relevance whatsoever to the question of what Mike did or did not know about the diary before 1992 and whether he did or did not know the origins of this book.
So how you can conclude, from Mr. Gray's statements about what Mike knew in 1994, that Mike knew the origins of the quote before 1992 is completely beyond me. It is clearly not a logical conclusion from Gray's account. Mr. Gray says nothing at all about Mike knowing the origins of the quote even before January of 1994, let alone April of 1992.
And, of course, you have not a single piece of reliable or material evidence to support your claim that "Mike had knowledge of the origins of the diary." It may "appear" this way to you; but there is nothing to support this "appears to me" except personal whim, and there is nothing behind it except the personal comfort of a prematurely assumed but completely unsubstantiated, unsupported, unevidenced, and subjective conclusion.
I thought I should probably point that out.
All the best,
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 26 May 2001 - 01:39 pm | | Hi everyone,
I was wondering if anyone knew whether Melvin Harris has in fact agreed to meet with Keith Skinner and/or Shirley Harrison and exchange information and discuss what is known so far and what evidence actually exists? I see now on another board that Peter is going to do so to share what he has collected.
Has Melvin said to anyone yet that he would also be willing to do this?
Thanks,
--John |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 26 May 2001 - 02:00 pm | | | John- Hello. I'm out of the debate, so this is my final word on the matter. Mike's discovery of the Crashaw quote may seem to have no relevance to you, but Keith himself --who no doubt appreciates the obscurity of the phrase and the extreme unlikeliness of Mike haphazardly making the Crashaw discovery for himself prior to an alleged week in the Liverpool library--has stated that if it could be shown that Mike lodged the Sphere with his solicitor before Shirley sent him to the library, it would more or less "settle the diary" question for him. So I'd like to hear Keith's remarks on this question, as it seems to me that, if one believes Mr. Gray's statement, it amounts to the same thing as the book having been lodged. Perhaps Keith would appreciate the implications, even if you do not. As always, I still disagree with your claim that "Mr. Williams" appearing in London with a very recent forgery and the ability to point out at least where one phrase of that forgery was likely to have come from and having bought a genuine victorian diary, etc. etc., doesn't amount to anything but "WHIM"ful speculations on my part and that it is still just as likely that Mike found the forgery under a cabbage leaf! But happy hunting and best wishes, RP |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 26 May 2001 - 02:58 pm | | Hi RJ,
I will let Keith respond to what Mr. Gray's narrative means to him, but I would also insist that what Mr. Gray actually said was that, as far as he knew, Mike first mentioned the quote in the second half of 1994.
And neither Mr. Gray nor Melvin nor anyone as far as I have read has yet learned the date that Mike lodged anything.
And RJ, if you assume that Mike used the quote in composing the diary, how did he know the quote was there when he was writing? He must have stumbled on it at some point, right? That's the only way he'd have ever known it was in the Sphere guide and the only way he could have used it in the composition.
So you are assuming that Mike "haphazardly" made the discovery of the quote.
You are just assuming that this happened before April of 1992 rather than afterwards.
But you have no real evidence that fairly allows you to assume this.
And Melvin has reminded us that the book in question opened to that page often when it fell open. Consequently, Mike might very well have stumbled on the quote sometime between April of 1992 and the fall of 1994 or Mike might very well have stumbled on the quote sometime between 1989 and April of 1992 when he was composing this diary.
But we have no evidence yet that would allow us to decide in favor of either of these alternatives.
We both agree he probably stumbled on it at some point. Neither of us have any evidence that would allow us to claim when.
So neither of us can claim that Mike knew the quote was there before April of 1992.
Right?
Therefore, nothing Mr. Gray has told us is relevant to the question of when Mike first saw the quote, before 1992 or after 1992 and before fall of 1994. Therefore, none of this is clear evidence of Mike's complicity in the actual act of creating this document.
As to your "Mr. Williams" scenario -- I'm afraid that it does not fully or accurately describe our situation.
You write:
"I still disagree with your claim that 'Mr. Williams' appearing in London with a very recent forgery and the ability to point out at least where one phrase of that forgery was likely to have come from and having bought a genuine victorian diary, etc. etc., doesn't amount to anything but 'WHIM'ful speculations on my part and that it is still just as likely that Mike found the forgery under a cabbage leaf!"
This, of course, is not my claim at all.
But let's go one step at a time.
First:
"'Mr. Williams' appearing in London with a very recent forgery and the ability to point out at least where one phrase of that forgery was likely to have come from.."
But this never happened. Mike did not demonstrate any knowledge of or ability to point out where anything came from when he showed up in London with the diary in 1992. He did not demonstrate the "the ability to point out at least where one phrase of that forgery was likely to have come from" until over two years later. So it clearly remains considerably possible that he did not acquire that ability until after April of 1992. In any case, there is no evidence at all that suggests or allows us to claim that he had that ability when he arrived at Doreen's with the diary and therefore your description of the situation is false and misleading.
Next part:
"and having bought a genuine victorian diary, etc. etc.,"
Ah yes, the "bought a genuine Victorian diary line.." But of course he bought that diary after he had already called and made an appointment to take the scrapbook diary to Doreen's and he gave his real name and home address when he bought that diary and you do not have a single, solitary piece of evidence to suggest that he bought that diary with the intent to re-copy the diary he was holding into the new one or that he bought it with the intent to use it in a forgery (an alleged and supposed intent which is actually belied by the fact that he gave his name and address and had already set up a meeting to take another book to Doreen). You have no evidence whatsoever that Mike did not buy that diary to compare the one he was holding to a "real" and authentic diary in order to see if it might be real, for instance. And to suggest this is unlikely because such an act would be illogical or unreasonable would be completely unfair, since you yourself rightly insist that Mike regularly does such illogical and unreasonable things. Consequently, you cannot claim that Mike's purchase of that diary at the time using his own name and home address is evidence that he was planning to use it as a forgery. Not at all. In fact, if anything, his actions when he placed the order and when he called Doreen, and the timing of the purchase of the maroon diary, begin to suggest quite the opposite.
Consequently, what you have offered us here are speculations, subjectively preferred readings, prematurely assumed conclusions and unsupported and unsubstantiated claims about what the evidence actually shows or allows us to conclude.
This is all I have been saying.
Finally, of course, my claim has never been "that it is still just as likely that Mike found the forgery under a cabbage leaf!"
And you know this.
Not even close.
I have always said that Mike and Anne would necessarily be listed among the suspects we have so far.
But my claim has always been that there is almost no reliable, material evidence against them yet or against anyone yet, and that unless we are really wanting for some strange reason to play hunter and seek out "game," we have to admit that we do not know who wrote this book and that we have precious little consistent, reliable, or even simple material evidence concerning the identities of the books' authors.
You can assume that Mike knew anything you want. But unless you can offer some reliable evidence to support that assumption, it remains speculation and it remains unsupported speculation and it remains a prematurely assumed conclusion and it remains logically unsound and unestablished and it remains of very little actual worth.
A few weeks back I listed some thirty five or forty questions to which we did not know the answers or for which we even had any evidence at all to confidently speculate on any answers. I just went back and re-read them. Nothing has changed since then.
There is still far, far, more that we do not know about the scene of this book's composition and the identities of those who were involved with this book's composition than there is that we do know.
And although this apparently seems very frustrating to some people and difficult for some of them to admit, the evidence has not been brought forward here. The evidence remains missing or contradictory or fragmented or inconsistent.
 I am certainly not saying that Mike's complicity is no more likely than his finding it under a cabbage leaf. I would never say that and never have. I would simply say that Mike's active complicity in the creation of this book has not even nearly begun to be established in any way at all that is in any way convincing or logically sound or supported and evidenced or meaningful.
And until at least some reliable evidence turns up that logically allows us to say the we have begun to establish Mike's knowledge or active participation in the creation of this document, all we are being offered here are personal speculations and preferred interpretations of conflicting possibilities and subjective conclusions.
Consequently, responsibility and thoroughness demands that serious and careful and objective reading remains on the agenda and that we admit what we do not know.
Thanks for the good wishes, RJ, but it is not I who is "hunting."
--John |
|
|
|
|
