|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 31, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-Archives 2001:
Archive through May 31, 2001
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 27 May 2001 - 07:17 am |        | Hi All,
RJ wrote:
‘But doesn't it occur to you that it is odd that all the Maybrick information in the diary can be readily gleaned...’
and:
‘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.’
Well, I’m not sure that this is strictly true. How would we recognise 'new' information, if we have nothing to confirm it - yet? What about all the little snippets in the diary that remain mysteries, like Mrs Ham(m)ersmith, or ‘Christmas save the whores mole bonnett’, for example? Just because there are no obviously forthcoming explanations, they get forgotten about, or dismissed as inventions by our modern faker, included just for jolly. But can we state with absolute certainty that they couldn’t represent ‘new’, ie as yet undiscovered, information about the Maybrick household, which never reached the accessible writings on the family? (Perhaps ‘Ham(m)ersmith’ will turn out to be a Maybrickian or locally-used nickname for a woman who came from that place, or who may have had a similar surname, or even an unpronouncable one. Maybe a diary will surface one day with references to Christmas 1888 and a mole bonnet that Florie possessed. Maybe...  )
If RJ is convinced the diary is a modern forgery, for all sorts of other reasons, that’s fair enough. But if he uses the ‘nothing new’ argument to support his belief, if there are any unexplained, and therefore potentially ‘new’ bits of info in the diary, he risks his argument becoming circular again.
RJ also wrote:
‘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. ‘
and:
‘...it seems to me that, if one believes Mr. Gray's statement, it amounts to the same thing as the book having been lodged.’
In actual fact, Mr. Gray has ‘apparently confirmed’ only that Mike talked to him in early September 1994 in vague terms about some ‘evidence’, in the form of a Sphere book of poems, which may or may not have been lodged with the solicitor at some earlier point – no ‘confirmed’ mention of the name Crashaw; no ‘confirmed’ mention of finding the ‘O costly…’ quote prior to 1992, because the book fell open at the page in the volume 2 he got as a result of the Hillsborough disaster – all this information came much later.
Doesn’t it strike anyone as odd that Mike gave such a vague account to Gray in early September 1994, even though the man was engaged by Mike (although initially to find Anne and Caroline) to prove that he forged, or helped forge, the diary? And yet, when Mike was trying to impress Shirley with his alleged library discovery at the end of that month (and claiming NO involvement in creating the diary), he was able to excitedly give her all the details of the source of the quote.
RJ also stated that "Mr. Williams" appeared in London with ‘a very recent forgery...’
It’s a pity if RJ is not going to be here to respond, because I wanted to ask him how he knew that Mike was still using the name Williams when he appeared in London. At what point did he inform Doreen and others of his real name? Does RJ know this?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 27 May 2001 - 07:49 am | | I've amended one sentence above slightly - the one which now reads:
And yet, when Mike was trying to impress Shirley with his alleged library discovery at the end of that month (and claiming NO involvement in creating the diary), he was able to excitedly give her all the details of the source of the quote
because I'm not sure if Mike actually mentioned the name Crashaw when he first told of his library 'discovery'. The fact remains that Mike was claiming to have found the 'O costly...' quote in the library on 30th September 1994, yet we have no real confirmation that the actual quote ever came up in his conversations with Gray at the beginning of the month, which I would find odd. Perhaps Gray could be asked about this.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 27 May 2001 - 08:00 am | | Melvin's last (and happily insult-free) posting on the Forensics board elicited a fact which flabbergasted me: to wit that none of the people defending the diary as either possibly genuine or possibly an early forgery had ever actually seen the Sphere book. I had always assumed from the character of the discussion that Shirley had been shown it when Mike first acknowledged its existence. That she and Robert Smith had failed to do so, and like everybody else who is familiar with Sphere Books took it for granted it was a paperback, seemed at first like a serious failure in research methods. (Not being a publisher, though, I had no idea Sphere ever produced hard-backed library editions. I doubt whether Shirley did either, and I can't think what Melvin means by saying that as far as he knew everyone was aware this was a hardbacked book. If it's simple, literal truth, then one can only say that for once he didn't try to extend the boundaries of his knowledge very far, and that he was remarkably ignorant of the way in which the reading public is familiar with Sphere).
And then, checking back over other boards I discovered that Shirley had tried to see the Sphere book, but had been positively refused: an action by Mr Gray or Mike's solicitors that Melvin explicitly approved as foiling some unstated but implicit devious intent of Shirley's. (Her response to that innuendo was heroically restrained). Given that another huge piece of pressure on Melvin to let other people get to journalists with the 'proof' he had that Mike and Ann were 'placers' has finally resulted in the admission that this was only a deduction on his part, I wonder whether this ring-fenced Sphere book will ultimately prove to be another letdown of some sort: whether, for example, handling it would show that it doesn't fall open to the quotation quite so readily as has been implied. I cannot imagine that Melvin seriously believed Shirley might deliberately try to mutilate the physical evidence to support her case, so I really do wonder why it is such a good thing that she has never been allowed to handle the Sphere book.
Not that any amount of stiffer binding than we imagined would change my view that Mike's possession of it coupled with his identifying the quotation is extremely suspicious (and that, perhaps, is classic British understatement!) In any court case trying Mike for complicity in forgery on the present evidence, I should earnestly want the Scottish verdict 'Not proven' to be available, and would lean to 'Guilty' if compelled to make an English juror's oversimple decision.
Martin Fido |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 27 May 2001 - 08:38 am | | Hi Martin,
I could never understand why the Sphere book was not made available to Shirley when it became, at the end of 1994, more or less the only item of evidence tying a modern suspect to a modern forgery. Melvin finally wrote something (last year, I believe) to the effect that anyone who wished to inspect the book for themselves could do so. When I asked Melvin if he had contacted Sphere for their opinion on the alleged binding defect, or indeed to ask anything about the book's possible route to Mike, he responded most oddly by asking me if I had contaced Liverpool Library!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 27 May 2001 - 06:16 pm | | Hi, all:
First of all, I have it on good authority (from Adam Wood) that the Maybrick Diary and Watch will be on display at the UK convention at 20.00 in the lounge of the Suncliff Hotel on the opening night of the convention on Friday, September 28. This is after the 19.30 opening of the convention by a celebrity--possibly Johnny Depp????--and before the concert performance of the Ripper musical I have written with Erik Sitbon, slated to begin at 21.00.
Second, I regret that R.J. Palmer feels a need to withdraw from this forum, because I have always found his posts to be most perceptive and informative. Perhaps you might reconsider your decision, R.J.???
Third, I wonder if there is any significance in the fact that "Maybrick" in the Diary makes no mention of Florence Aunspaugh? The eight-year-old was a daughter of John Aunspaugh, "a close friend and business colleague of James" and books on the Maybrick Case tell us that the girl is known to have been "entertained" by the Maybricks in their home at Battlecrease House, Aigburth, Liverpool, during the summer of 1888. [Quotes from Graham and Emmas, The Last Victim: The Extraordinary Life of Florence Maybrick, the Wife of Jack the Ripper, Headline, 1999, p. 31.] Note, however, that Richard Whittington-Egan's brief account of the Maybrick Case in Murder, Mystery, and Mayhem does not appear to mention Florence Aunspaugh. Does this mean that the Maybrick details were drawn from this pamphlet rather from any of the books? We do know that Mike Barrett {owned} a copy of Murder, Mystery, and Mayhem, and that he loaned it to Tony Devereaux, but there is no evidence that he had any of the Maybrick texts prior to the emergence of the Diary.
R.J. states, "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'."
R.J. validly states, "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)"
True, but look at the wording in RWE's pamphlet (1967, p. 54):
"On April 13th, Maybrick departed for London. . . to see his brother Michael Maybrick. . . and. . . to consult his brother's physician, Dr. Fuller, concerning the state of his health. . . . His pet phobia was creeping paralysis, and a certain numbness in his head and extremities. . . . Dr. Fuller was unable to discover any symptoms of serious organic disorder. . . . [Maybrick] returned to Liverpool on April 22nd, much relieved mentally."
While RWE's text does not contain the (perhaps) telling words that Fuller found "very little the matter" with Maybrick, aren't the words, "Fuller believes there is very little the matter with me" precisely what we would expect "Maybrick" would write based on RWE's description of Fuller's diagnosis? Perhaps R.J. can point out other passages from Ryan's book or any of the other Maybrick Case books that might prove that the Maybrick details are drawn from them rather than RWE's narrative on the case but I rather think the RWE pamphlet gave sufficient detail. The only thing that I can think of that might bear out R.J.'s contention that the books were used, perhaps, is the appearance of Thomas Lowry, Maybrick's 19-year-old clerk, in the Diary. RWE's pamphlet seemingly makes no mention of him.
More grist for the mill? 
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 28 May 2001 - 05:27 am | | May I add my regrets to Chris's at RJP's threatened withdrawal? I do hope he doesn't take to heart the recent mild strictures on his words 'fair game', which were really no more tactless than utterances several of us (myself prominently included) have perpetrated. I think Caz was quite right to admit that her sensitivity to the improper killing of Timothy John Evans is a little OTT as a comparison.
Martin F |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 28 May 2001 - 01:44 pm | | Hopefully even if RJP withdraws from this Board , he will not withdraw from the Casebook altogether and will continue to contribute regularly.
Roger , don't go - you will be sorely missed !
Simon |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 28 May 2001 - 04:09 pm | | Chris,
It's always a bit tricky and difficult to work backwards from a text to what books might have been used in writing the text, since there are always other possibilities of which we might not be aware.
I used to have a colleague who liked to try this, examining a text like "The Waste Land," painstakingly researching what books were on Eliot's shelves at the time he wrote it, and then trying to figure out which volumes specifically Eliot might have used for which passages. He was quite good at this. Of course, there was always the danger that Eliot had seen something one day or come across something somewhere that the critical reader of the the text and the research could not have known about, and since you are going backwards from finished product to source ingredients, there's no way to check if you're right, since what remains unknown might very well have contributed to the final version. It's good that we know that RWE's pamphlet was floating around the Barrett's and the Devereaux house at some point (do we know, by the way, when Mike first got hold of it and when he lent it to Tony? Before or after April of '92?), but if someone else wrote this thing or it was written in the late 60's or early 70's or if Mike wrote it, but before he had gotten hold of the RWE, then all of our speculation would become problematic.
I do still think that whoever wrote it might very well have at least looked somewhere in the contemporary records (19th century newspapers, etc.) at some point to see if Maybrick at least could have been in London on the necessary dates. But I don't know this, certainly, and the diary writers could, I suppose, have just been willing to take the huge risk that nothing would turn up -- even though they hadn't checked any records -- that would simply and quickly disqualify their subject and reveal their forgery with a simple document or a quick word from a historian. I suppose that's possible. Me? I would have at least checked it out, if I was going to all this trouble and risking my reputation and even, possibly, my future.
In any case, your citations from RWE are interesting and RJ's citation from the Ryan is very provocative.
Thanks all,
--John
PS: I too hope RJ returns and that no one feels the need to withdraw, no matter what might be said around here. The more the merrier, I believe, and barring someone just spamming us or repeatedly being completely off topic, everyone should write out their thoughts and ideas and receive the resulting reactions, critical and otherwise, in the spirit of debate. And it never hurts to let the waters of argument simply roll off your back now and again, I guess. Come back, one and all. |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 28 May 2001 - 05:37 pm | | Hi John:
Thanks for your observation that it is perilous to take a finished text and project back to say which books were used by the author in its composition. This is the very reason why I question why Melvin Harris can be so adamant about which texts were used to compose the Diary, and why I also queried R.J.'s conclusion that the Bernard Ryan book was used. I suppose the bottom line is that we just won't know what books were used unless the forger, if still alive, 'fesses up or a written confession is found, if the forger is dead. I do think RWE's pamphlet gives sufficient detail on Maybrick's movements and activities to use as a starting-off point for composing the Diary.
As for how early the RWE pamphlet came into Mike Barrett's possession, Shirley Harrison in her Blake edition writes that Barrett bought it in a Liverpool bookstore after he had received the Diary from Tony Devereaux and that it was through seeing the "Battlecrease House" in the pamphlet that he realized that the "author" of the Diary was James Maybrick (Harrison, The Diary of Jack the Ripper, Blake edition, p. 9). Since Mike is supposed to have got the Diary from
Tony in summer 1991 while visiting the recuperating Devereaux following Tony's hip replacement in March, we are lead to believe the RWE pamphlet was obtained sometime in the summer when Barrett started to research the Diary. Barrett subsequently lent the book to Devereaux, who died in August. Of course, if the sequence of events did not occur as Shirley writes and Mike obtained the book in order to write the Diary, this timeframe may not be correct.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 28 May 2001 - 05:43 pm | | Thanks Chris,
The timeline on all these things sometimes gets a bit foggy in my brain.
That helps. And yes, of course, since this narrative apparently comes originally from Mike, it is always subject to revision.
All the best,
--John |
Author: adam wood
Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 04:41 am | | Hi Chris and all
Sorry to put a slight damper on the above, but we haven't actually confirmed that the diary and watch will be on display. At this stage we are only hopeful.
I can confirm though that we are delighted to stage Jack the Musical, and hope curious readers of these boards will attend the conference to see the performance!
Adam
www.ripperconference.co.uk |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 06:35 am | | Regarding isolating the texts used in a composition, such literary forensics has been developed by an English professor named Don Foster whose book Author Unknown: On The Trail of Anonymous (London: Macmillan, 2001
www.panmacmillan.com; originally published New York: Henry Holt, 2000) has recently been published and gained some press coverage in the UK. Whether you think Don Foster has hit on something or not, the book is well worth a read. |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 07:00 am | | Hi John/Chris
If Mike obtained the RWE book in order to write the ‘diary’ then presumably the forgery was conceived prior to Tony Devereux’s death in August 1991 because Tony Devereux's daughter confirmed that the RWE book was in her father's possession and that it belonged to Mike Barrett. I think I am also correct in saying that PS. Thomas obtained the RWE book from Tony Devereux's daughter, in whose possession it must have remained following her father's death. Ownership of the RWE book pre-August 1991 does not in itself demonstrate that the ‘diary’ was composed pre-August 1991 nor does Tony Devereux’s possession of the RWE book necessarily implicate him in the conception or execution of the forgery. But is Tony Devereux’s known pre-August 1991 possession of the RWE book consistent with Mike Barrett’s claim to have obtained the ‘diary’ from Tony Devereux? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 08:40 am | | Hi Yaz,
Keith says he posted off your message for Anne Graham on May 26th.
Hi All,
I too hope that RJ will return to the fold, if and when his natural diary curiosity gets the better of him.
Martin wrote:
‘I think Caz was quite right to admit that her sensitivity to the improper killing of Timothy John Evans is a little OTT as a comparison’ (regarding RJ’s opinion that Mike is ‘fair game’ for all publicly-voiced suspicions, because of his own past words and actions in connection with the diary story.)
I’d just like to add that, of course, Mike made himself prime suspect – and became ‘fair game’, if you like - the moment he ‘confessed’ to forging the diary back in June 1994, and that hasn’t changed over the last seven years – except for the fact that some of us are still waiting for someone, if not Mike himself, to be able to prove to us beyond all doubt that any of his confession statements stand up to close scrutiny, or can be confirmed with supporting evidence. Recalling the fate of Timothy Evans was simply the most effective way I could think of to illustrate the very worst case of what can happen if we rely on a person’s confession to be true, because it supplies the simple, straightforward, convenient and satisfying explanation we are seeking - especially enticing, but dangerous, if it also ties in nicely with beliefs we may hold dear. Could Mike possibly be the type of person who might have resorted to making false confessions in the circumstances in which he found himself, in that dreadfully traumatic year? If the answer is yes, it’s possible - and he still hasn’t come up with a satisfactory account of his involvement in the diary’s creation - will the time soon be upon us when we have to start looking beyond Mike’s continued ‘fair game’ status to investigate alternative possibilities?
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 09:57 am | | Hi Paul,
Yes, the Foster book is on my summer reading list. I'm curious to see the extent of his claims and the degree to which he thinks one can be sure of one's findings in such a project.
As to the RWE timing question. It seems as if two (actually four) possibilities leap forward. Either Mike and/or Tony used the RWE before or during the summer of '91 to compose the diary; or Mike and/or Tony acquired and read the RWE before or during the summer of '91 because one or both of them had just seen and read a Maybrick/Ripper diary already composed.
Of course, it could also be the case that Mike is simply not telling the truth about when he first acquired the RWE and he had had it for a longer time period.
And then again, if, for instance, it turns out that Anne did help write a fake diary back in the late '60's or early 70's and then, decades later gave it to Tony at some point, who passed it on to Mike (who remained unaware of its origins) then Mike could have used the RWE for the very reasons he explained to Shirley, I suppose. But there are some serious questions that would arise from this strange scenario, including, why would Anne choose Tony and why the long, long gap between composition and dissemination?
I have no answers, of course, and I'm not sure how we'd decide what probably happened, especially in the case of the first two/four possibilities.
Caz is of course correct when she speaks of the problems surrounding Mike's confessions. In even his most "reliable," later confessions, doesn't Mike still have Anne writing out the diary from Mike's handwritten notes and as he sometimes dictates the text, all in front of little Caroline? And he has the red diary being purchased early, in January or February of 1990, I believe, and he himself includes a motive for a false confession in his own confession, when he complains about being conned by the publishing industry and having to pay Shirley's expenses and not seeing any money off the deal when everyone else is. The whole confession, both parts, in fact, read to me like an angry and vengeful act by someone who is saying whatever he thinks will work. But that's just my interpretation of several passages especially, and of the rants in the second added statement.
One probably simple question for Chris or Paul, that I'm sure is just my faulty memory. You guys have Tony D. dying in August of '91. I thought that was correct. But I notice that Mike, in his confession, has Tony dying in "late May early June 1990." I'm sure this has since been corrected or reconciled somewhere, right?
Anyway, it looks like a lovely afternoon for golf, and so I shall be links-bound.
Bye for now,
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 10:38 am | | Hi, John:
I believe it is correct that Tony Devereaux died in August 1991. Possibly Peter Birchwood could confirm the exact date. As did you, I did notice that Barrett's January 5, 1995 affidavit, on this site, does state that Devereaux "died late May early June 1990." We have discussed that Barrett constantly seems fuzzy on dates. In this same affidavit, he states, "Roughly round about January, February 1990 Anne Barrett and I finally decided to go ahead and write the Diary of Jack the Ripper." He dates the purchase of the "red leather backed Diary" to this time which we know actually took place in Spring 1992, if it is the same red or marroon diary for which the paperwork of the purchase still exists.
In the January 5, 1995 affidavit, Barrett testifies, "I feel sure it was the end of January 1990 when I went to the Auctioneer, Outhwaite & Litherland. . . . I found a photograph Album which contained approximately, approximately 125 pages of phootgraphs [sic]." This is the photo or scrapbook that we know and love and which contains the Diary text.
Clearly, the dates that Mike Barrett cites are wildly wrong but I continue to wonder if there is truth in some of the details of his confession. I also wonder how the information in this January 1995 affidavit differs from Barrett's initial confessions six months earlier, i.e., his June 1994 confessions to Liverpool Daily Post writer, Harold Brough, which are not on this site. Does anyone have those confessions so they could also be posted here? I believe the summer 1994 confessions are contained in two articles by Brough.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 10:59 am | | Thanks, Chris,
I thought that Mike had his dates all wrong, and yet he even speaks of how sure he feels about them. Something odd there, especially when it involves something like Tony's death, which could easily be checked and could not be a question of interpretation. And there, he apparently has not only the year wrong, but the months of the year as well. So it isn't just a case of "Sorry, I meant 1991."
It just seems to me that very often he does not know what he's talking about, for whatever reason. Add that to the obvious anger and resentment and personal grudges that are woven throughout the language of the two statements we have here, and you have a very questionable set of affidavits to say the least.
Then we get stuck in the old Cretan Liar paradox. "I lie all the time. Tell me, am I lying about the fact that I lie all the time?" If we know Mike is lying in his confessions, does that mean he is lying about having written the diary or was he lying when he said he got the diary from Tony and that he did not write it. If he is known to tell lies for convenience or out of anger, then how do we decide which of his stories are the true ones?
Of course, objectively, we can look at his confessions and see if they reveal the sort of knowledge that we might expect someone who did actually write this document might have or would need. And if he is unable to come up with a convincing, consistent, and reliable account of how he researched and wrote the document, when he wants to and is under oath, should we then start to suspect that perhaps he did not write it after all?
And if Anne's handwriting does not match the diary's, then his account of the actual process of writing becomes problematic. And we are left still in need of a penman. And we all know where that leads (shhhhhh...) 
I love this case.
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 11:45 am | | I don't know what to make of Don Foster's book. He uses Unabomber to demonstrate in a strikingly clear way how his analysis could have directed the police to the libraries and sources used by Ted Kaczynski and his identification of the anonymous author of Primary Colours is impressive. I thoroughly enjoyed the book, particularly the opening chapter in which he attributed a forgotten funeral elegy to William Shakespeare. But I'd be interested in reading other informed opinion.
On the matter of the RWE book: if Tony Devereux possessed Mike’s copy of the RWE book pre-August 1991 then the book:
1 had nothing whatever to do with the composition of the ‘diary’.
2 It provided Mike with the inspiration for the ‘diary’ and it was by complete chance that he loaned it to Tony Devereux.
3 Mike loaned it to Tony Devereux when describing his plan to forge the ‘diary’.
4 Mike and Tony Devereux used it when composing the ‘diary’ between them or with A.N.Other(s).
5 It furnished Mike with the name of the ‘diarist’ just as he claimed.
One point I think worth recalling is that when questioned by D.S. Thomas, Mike searched for the RWE book and could not find it. D.S. Thomas actually had it in his car outside, having been given it by Tony Devereux’s daughter. Now, if Mike had forged the ‘diary’, is it not reasonable to suppose that he would probably have had all his supporting evidence to hand – especially if he had gone to the trouble of preparing bogus research notes. On the other hand, if Tony Devereux’s possession of the RWE book suggests that Mike took it to show him during his efforts to discover the identity of the diarist, this might, especially when taken with other information, indicate that Mike’s simple story of being given the ‘diary’ by Devereux is true.
Either way, if we are looking at a pre-1991 or earlier date for composition then we have to explain the six month gap between Tony Devereux’s death and Mike doing anything with the ‘diary’, which returns me to the question I posed sometime ago, namely whether this gap could be explained by Mike waiting to see if Devereux’s family asked him to return the ‘diary’ and whether Mike not rightfully (as he perceived it) keeping hold of the ‘diary’ would explain the arguments he had with Anne, Anne’s ‘did you nick it, Mike’ question, Mike’s use of a false name when he visited Doreen Montgomery and Mike’s claims to have undertaken exhaustive research which isn’t otherwise revealed in his overall knowledge and understanding of either the Ripper or the Maybrick case. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 12:16 pm | | Hi Chris:
Gerard Kane was born in Mid-1938 and registered at Liverpool North. His mother's maiden name was Sheppard. Anthony Brian otherwise Anthony Bernard Devereux died August 1991 and was born 14th February 1931 at West Derby (a Liverpool sub-district) His mother's name was Porter. Curiously, there is a minor problem with William Ernest Graham who died November 1994 at Liverpool and is I believe our Billy. He's supposedly born 22nd September 1913 but I can't find a good birth certificate in Liverpool. He must be there somewhere.
I wonder if some of the problems in checking out MB's stories might be this tendency to be unreliable with dates. Did the researchers perhaps check the auctioneers for the January 1990 date when maybe it should be a year or so later? And did anyone check the local papers to see whether the auctioneers advertised their sales? It should have been done but was it? |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 01:06 pm | | | I believe that Outhwaite and Litherland stated that the sale procedure described by Mike did not conform to their practice, from which the researchers may reasonably have assumed that any possible error of date was irrelevant and more detailed inquiry unnecessary. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 01:14 pm | | Hi, Peter:
Thank you so much for those details on the family background of some of the principals in our little drama. I am curious as to why Tony Devereaux would be listed as "Anthony Brian otherwise Anthony Bernard Devereux" presumably in separate records. Can you clarify this point?
As you do, I also wonder whether Shirley Harrison or Keith Skinner checked out only the "end of January 1990" date when Mike said he bought the photograph album at the auctioneers, Outhwaite & Litherland, when it seems likelier that the purchase (if it took place) was at least a year later. As you may know, I have brought up the point that possibly Outhwaite & Litherland may have photographed whatever items they were auctioning and that an image of the book might exist. Shirley has said she would check out that possibility with the auctioneer. Perhaps she or Keith could also address here what date the auctioneers were questioned about regarding the possible sale to Barrett.
On another point, Devereaux's possession of the RWE pamphlet does seem to tie the two men together in an interest in things Maybrick, so that perhaps Tony Devereaux was not as disinterested in either the Ripper and the Maybrick Case or in reading as Shirley portrays him.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 02:06 pm | | Hi Chris
TD wasn't completely disinterested in reading - when housebound he'd read boxing and war books because he was bored, but he'd flick through them and didn't have the patience to read a novel. The RWE book might be the sort of thing he'd have read, although it is all text and no pictures, and Mike might have leant it to him for that reason. Otherwise, Mike must have leant the book for a reason. So, unless TD was involved in the forgery, which his daughters thought unlikely (perhaps not unsurprisingly), then for what other reason could Mike have taken the book? |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 02:56 pm | | Hi, Paul:
Yes, you are quite correct that RWE's pamphlet is without illustrations and is all text. It is nevertheless written in a chatty, informal style and might be the kind of thing one might give to a friend who was convalescing. I wonder if Mike's story that he found the name "Battlecrease" in the pamphlet when he was in a bookstore is a little too convenient, and if in fact that story parallels the one of finding lines from Crashaw in the library when he already knew the lines were in the Sphere book which he possessed, i.e., the tale is that he found the name Battlecrease in a copy of the pamphlet in the bookstore, but he already had the pamphlet all along? Is there any proof of when Mike bought the pamphlet, a bill of sale or even a price on it which might indicate when it was purchased? The copy I have dating to 1967 has a price in shillings but a newer edition would have a price in decimal currency. As John Omlor observed, we only have Mike's word for it that he obtained the pamphlet after he received the Diary from Devereaux. What if he had the RWE pamphlet before the Diary was composed?
All the best
Chris |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 03:05 pm | | Hi again Paul:
Another reason why I question whether Mike bought the RWE pamphlet when he said he did is that Shirley's Blake edition p. 9 only says he saw the name "Battlecrease" in the pamphlet in a Liverpool bookshop while researching the Diary he had received from Devereaux. Shirley's text does not actually say he bought the pamphlet at that time, which was my assumption when I wrote my post of Sunday, May 27, 2001 - 06:16 pm. But what if Mike's story of seeing the name Battlecrease in the pamphlet but not actually buying the publication betrays the fact that the pamphlet was not bought then, that is, as I said in my last post, he already owned the pamphlet?
All the best
Chris |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 07:38 pm | | Hi all,
So what do we know? We're not sure when Mike first got the RWE pamphlet. We're not sure if he had already held, opened, and read the diary before he read the RWE pamphlet. We're not sure if Tony gave Mike the diary. We're not sure if Tony read the RWE pamphlet before he gave Mike the diary or before he himself saw the diary or even if he ever saw the diary until after Mike did. We're not sure if Anne gave Tony the diary and if Tony saw the RWE pamphlet before passing on the diary to Mike or afterwards. I could go on, of course.
Meanwhile, just for the sake of argument, let's pretend that Mike really did get the diary in a brown paper wrapper from his drinking friend Tony, and that Mike had no idea what it was until he brought it home and opened it (as was, I believe, originally claimed way back in the beginning of time). Now Mike opens this book and starts reading. If he has the RWE pamphlet lying around coincidentally -- he heads there and sees "Battlecrease." But if he does not have the RWE pamphlet when he first opens the diary, and then goes out and finds a copy, how might that have happened? How did he know to look for one? Of course, once he's read the book that Tony gave him and the RWE, he heads back to Tony to tell him what he's read and Tony (who may or may not have already read the diary before wrapping it up and passing it to Mike) reads the RWE with a new and understandable interest. But then, where did Tony get the diary? From Anne? (Was Feldman's account of Tony's hints to Mike about his own doorstep actually true? -- I have my doubts about this one). Was Tony a likely diary author? Why? Do we know anything about him at all that would lead us to suspect he would come up with such an idea and be able to execute it this way? And why pass the thing to your "Bongo" mate Mike once you've composed it, anyway?
And I'm not even mentioning the other gentleman Peter insists on including in his little bios (even starting with him), because I don't think it's fair yet, seeing as how we've seen nothing here at all to link him in any way to any of this other than that he once knew Tony -- so did a lot of people probably.
And what if Mike neither wrote this thing nor got it from Tony. What if he got it under completely different circumstances and told the lie about Tony to protect someone else? It wouldn't be the first time Mike made something up, right? And what would Tony's reaction be then? Do we believe, by the way, that Tony ever told Mike to look to his own house if he wants to know about the book's origins, or do we assume this is Feldmaniacal melodrama?
Does the presence of the RWE book actually render Tony clearly involved in the diary mess -- beyond Mike's word? Is there anything other than the RWE book that links the diary in any way to Tony other than Mike and Anne's stories?
I'm asking honestly, because I'm not sure.
Any thoughts?
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 09:00 pm | | Hi, John:
I agree that the data continue to be contradictory with no light at the end of the tunnel. In fact, as I am trying to point out, and as you have stated, much of the information is not hard data at all. That is, we don't know for sure when Barrett got the RWE pamphlet, only his say-so to Shirley Harrison on when he got it. So that is not hard data. We do know from the paper trail when he got the red (or maroon) 1891 diary, in March 1992, so that is hard data, but that date does not agree with his statement in his January 5, 1995 affidavit that he bought the 1891 "red leather backed Diary" at "about January, February 1990" a date that we now know was erroneous. And as you have pointed out, even if we know the red (maroon) diary was purchased in March 1992, what does that mean, why did the Barretts purchase it, and was the Maybrick Diary that we know written then or not? The notion that the Diary was not yet written seems implausible since "Mr. Williams" (aka Mike Barrett undercover Diary pundit) was about to take it to London and fame. But who knows???
So, yes, John, the information is contradictory and fragmentary. Certainly the changing statements of both Anne and particularly Mike have not helped the investigation and have only made the situation more confusing. No wonder those of us who have been closely following this drama are frustrated, if fascinated, with the puzzle!
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 09:19 pm | | Hi Chris,
I was wondering, though, if there is anything else we have that might tie Tony D. to the diary other than Mike and Anne's words and the RWE pamphlet? Is there another link or piece of evidence?
I can't think of anything off-hand, but I might very well be forgetting something.
And is the presence of the pamphlet enough to link Tony somehow to the diary?
Thanks,
--John
PS: Do we believe that Tony, when questioned about the origins of the book, actually told Mike to "Look to your own family." and then, clarifying, later told him to "Look on your own doorstep."? (This is re-cited rather melodramatically in Feldman, p.215) |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 30 May 2001 - 07:16 am | | Hi, John:
I understood your question the first time but since I had no further information to offer I neglected to answer it. Sorry. I agree that there are no other pieces of information that might tie Tony Devereaux to the Diary other than Mike and Anne's words and the RWE pamphlet. Except of course the possibility that Devereaux's friend Gerard Kane, the possible penman, was involved. Sorry to add the last bit but I thought it ought to be mentioned whether you like it or not.
You ask my opinion of whether Devereaux ever said, "Look to your own family" (Feldman, Virgin hardback, p. 194) and, later, "Look on your own doorstep" (ibid.). While I have been critical of the non-scientific methods used by Feldman, I am not ready to accuse him of making up quotes. In fact, if you look at Feldman's text, the first quote and possibly the second quote as well were recited by Mike in an interview with Keith Skinner and Martin Howells and thus are presumably verbatim quotes from Mike. Hopefully Keith can confirm this. Since Mike evidently did not at first understand the meaning of these statements by Devereaux, i.e., (presumably) indicating that Anne was the origin of the Diary, I believe there is no reason to doubt that Devereaux actually made these remarks.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 30 May 2001 - 08:29 am | | Hi again John:
On reconsideration, I note that the interview with Mike Barrett that Keith Skinner and Martin Howells conducted that I mentioned in my last post apparently took place on July 20, 1995 (Feldman, Virgin hardback, p. 193). Since this interview took place almost a full year to the day after Anne confessed that the Diary had been in her family all along, I think the quotes that Mike attributes to Tony Devereaux, "Look to your own family" (Feldman, Virgin hardback, p. 194) and, later, "Look on your own doorstep" (ibid.) may be suspect because they were related by Mike after Anne made her new claim. Thus this could have been another case of Mike saying what he thought the researchers wanted to hear.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 30 May 2001 - 08:36 am | | Hi Chris,
[Crossed post warning: the following was written before your last post appeared, as you'll see from the message that follows it.]
Thanks for the responses and the thoughts. I guess the only reason we would have for doubting whether Tony said these two specific things to Mike would be that it was Mike who told us that Tony said them. And reading Mike always seems to require keeping a version of the first step in Descartes' Meditations in mind -- I doubt, therefore I read Mike (or at least -- I read Mike, therefore I doubt).
But let's say we believe Mike on this one. That would mean then that we believe that Mike did indeed get the diary from Tony, wouldn't it? Otherwise why would Mike even go and ask Tony about the origins of the book? So even if we understand that Tony might very well have been misdirecting Mike when he sent him off in Anne's direction, if we believe Tony at least said it (twice), then we believe that the diary passed from Tony to Mike and that Mike was at least enough in doubt about its origins to ask Tony and to get the responses he did.
I'm not sure I'm willing to believe that much. That seems to be giving away an awful lot, considering the only evidence we have that Tony was even involved in any of this is the RWE pamphlet (since Mike and Anne's testimony is somewhat suspect at best).
So I guess I'm suggesting that there are two reasons to doubt that Tony ever made the remarks -- first because we only have Mike's word, in his own narrative, that Tony was ever asked and ever answered in such a way. Second, because to believe it would require us to believe then that Mike did in fact get the book from Tony and did in fact not know its origins and had to ask Tony (and I don't think we have any clear indications that either of these things are true yet).
Does this make sense to anyone? I'm sure Paul F. was probably quoting Mike correctly, I'm not sure any of this actually happened though. But if we believe this exchange happened, it only makes any sense if Tony gave the book to Mike and Mike did not know its origins -- and I thought that was what we did not know.
So I guess I'd have to remain doubtful concerning this little exchange, until I see at least some support for it actually having happened somewhere other than in the words of Mike.
Thanks, Chris, for getting me to think about all of this,
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 30 May 2001 - 08:45 am | | Hi Chris,
Our two posts just crossed. But now I see that we are more in agreement.
So this is still another part of this case that we cannot be sure even happened, apparently.
If we could determine that it did happen, though, it would lead us to a bunch of other conclusions. Too bad no one overheard this little exchange.
--John
PS: Chris, It's not that I "don't like" the fact that people insist on mentioning a certain friend of Tony's. It's just that there hasn't been any evidence offered here yet that actually links him in any way at all to Mike or to Anne, or even to the diary in any way except through interpretive speculation concerning a signature and address scrawled almost illegibly on the bottom of a Will, so I think including him in all this still seems a bit premature. But I am willing to agree to disagree about this for now (at least until I see more [or even some] evidence, if there is any). |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 30 May 2001 - 10:46 am | | Hi John, Chris, All,
Could we just assume for a moment, and for argument’s sake, that Mike did get the diary from Tony, who did get it from Anne, who did swear him to secrecy? Firstly, does it ring true that Mike would have pestered Tony relentlessly to tell him where he got the diary from? Imagine any one of us being in the same position - again, assuming that this is what did actually happen to Mike. And then let’s put ourselves in Tony’s position (not in the best of health, and possibly housebound when all this is supposedly going on), not particularly enjoying the effects of being dragged in, by a woman he hardly knows, to keep a secret from her husband, the drinking companion he called ‘Bongo’. Imagine this man getting pretty sick and tired of having Bongo keep on at him for answers about something that has very little to do with him – almost as bad as having a Feldy to fend off! So, what would we do in those circumstances, to get Bongo out of our face and out of our home? It may have made more sense if Tony had washed his hands of it completely, told Mike that his wife had given him the bloody thing, then let this odd couple sort it out between themselves. But maybe Tony couldn’t bring himself to go back on his word to Anne, in case it led to trouble between husband and wife – so he compromised and finally blurted out “Look to your own family.” This would fit if Mike then asked his dad, as he claimed, and which, as Feldy pointed out, would have been the logical next step, because he had also drunk at The Saddle with Mike and Tony. Then he claimed he asked his sisters and his mum, and only finally thought of Anne, after going back to Tony and being told to “Look on your own doorstep….”
Of course, Mike may well have been elaborating on one of his customary tales of pure fiction, where he could simply have had Tony telling him straight “Ask your wife – it came from her”. And whether the whole thing was fact or fiction, Anne chose, in July 1994, to supply the first chapter, so supporting Mike’s account, presumably confident (or fingers crossed and hoping) that no one, including Mike, or Tony’s family, friends or associates, would ever come forward with proof that it could not have happened that way.
But why would Mike want to claim, at any time, and to anyone, that Tony led him to suspect that the diary had come from Anne, if it wasn’t true? After all, this was, apparently, the very last thing he wanted others to believe, when Anne finally came out with her July 1994 story, wasn’t it?
Basically, Mike has two main stories in his repertoire – the one where he got the diary from Tony and knew nothing else about it, and the one where he himself forged, or helped forge it. He has always appeared to rebel like mad against any suggestion, from whatever source, that Anne knows something – anything - about the diary that he doesn’t. Yet Mike was going along with the idea, by claiming Tony had led him down that path in the first place! Another way in which Mike appeared to support Anne’s version of events was when he talked about the rows they had because she was so against him getting the diary published. Again, if this was all rubbish, why did he lie about it, and so lend support to the only account he apparently didn’t want anyone believing – Anne’s?
Would it all at least make some logical sense if Mike really didn’t know anything about the diary, but saw it as his baby, something to research and write about and do whatever he liked with, and really did get the hump, and badly, when he saw Feldy, and worst of all Anne, systematically taking that baby away from him? I’m sure that certain truths could be found, if we only search long and hard enough between the lines of all the fairy stories.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 30 May 2001 - 10:58 am | | Let me see if I understand this. The auctioneers say:"that the
sale procedure described by Mike did not conform to their
practice, from which the researchers may reasonably have
assumed that any possible error of date was irrelevant and
more detailed inquiry unnecessary." And based on this statement, no-one bothered to check the most basic of information, ie whether there were auctions which could conceivably have included such items as a part-used scrapbook? Am I to understand that someone went to the auctioneers, read them part of MB's confession (:"At this stage I was given a ticket on which was marked the item number and the price I had bid. I then had to hand this ticket over to the Office and I paid L50. This ticked was stamped. I woman, slim build, aged about 35/40 years dealt with me and she asked me my name, which I gave as P Williams, XXXXXXXXXXXXX I think I gave the number as 47. When I was asked for details about me the name Williams arose because I purchased my house from a Mr P Williams, the road name I used is in fact the next street to my mums address, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.
I then returned to the Auction Room with my stamped ticket and handed it over to an assistant, a young man, who gave me the Lot I had purchased") The auctioneers said:"That doesn't conform to our practice" and that was that. No further investigation? A reasonable person might have asked:"Well granted that you don't do things that way now, is that how you did things about 1990/1991?" Did anyone think to go along on an auction day to check how things were done?
Chris:
Regarding the auctioneers, I have the idea that it may have been more of a house-clearance operation than antiques and fine art. The scrapbook might not be worth photographing although the compass MB mentions sounds interesting and may have been recorded. There are hundreds of auctions all over the country every week and most of them have very limited catalogues but I feel from what Paul said that the investigation may have been done on the principle of trying to disprove MB's confession rather than trying to find the truth. Another problem might be that the investigators needed to bring in the RWE booklet to prove MB's story re his discovery of Maybrick as the diary author but didn't really want to have too much correspondence between him and Devereux especially after the confession which put Devereux in the frame as involved in the diary. It was therefore embarrassing that Nancy Steele had seen the book in her father's possession and later gave it to the police.
Re: Bernard/Brian, there seem to be two death records which obviously refer to the same man (they have the same reference numbers.) At some point there must have been a doubt on the part of whoever informed on the certificate as to the correct second name. I believe that it's Brian on the will but it's possible that he was born as Bernard and that got changed later.
Incidentally, Devereux really wasn't that old-70- and a hip replacement was not, even in the 1990's a very serious operation. Can someone remind me what was his cause of death? |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 30 May 2001 - 11:27 am | | Hi, Peter:
Shirley's Hyperion edition gives Tony Devereaux's cause of death as "heart failure" (p. 7).
Best regards
Chris |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 30 May 2001 - 11:57 am | | | According to the account provided by Shirley Harrison on pg. 315 of the Blake edition, a statement was received by Doreen Montgomery on January 30th 1997 from Kevin Whay, Managing Director of Outhwaite and Litherland. He had been provided with Mike’s statement or with that part relevant to him. He said: ‘having searched through our files and archives on either side of the alleged sale dates I can confirm that no such description or lot number corresponding with his statement exists. Furthermore, we do not and have never conducted our sales in the manner which he describes…’ (my emphasis) |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 30 May 2001 - 12:24 pm | | Hi Caz,
If we assume that Mike did get the diary from Tony and that Tony got it from Anne, then I agree completely that Mike's account of bugging Tony for the origins of this book he had been given so mysteriously, and Tony's final exasperated comments (as reported by Mike) concerning looking to his own doorstep, all make perfect sense.
But that's only if we accept Mike's story that this is how he came by the diary and Anne's that she gave it to Tony. Unfortunately, there is no real evidence that Tony ever even had the diary, is there? And Mike and Anne's tales are always suspect.
But, you raise a very interesting and I think extremely provocative question. Why would Mike tell a story that would support Anne's claim to have given Tony the diary, when what Mike seemingly most wanted was for Anne not to be believed?
This is indeed a troublesome point. If Mike was wanting to maintain some claim on the diary and keep his hand in the pie, so to speak, then there might be some reason for supporting Anne's tale with his own little story about Tony's cryptic remarks. But otherwise, since Mike was so fully committed by 1994 to saying not only that he wrote the thing but especially that Anne didn't know anything about it that he didn't know and that her stories had no more claim to the truth than his own, why on earth would he want to repeat to Feldman and to Keith a story saying that Tony had gotten the thing from Anne and that Tony had personally admitted as much to him in a roundabout way? Unless Mike and Anne had some secret pact and Mike was somehow dramatically and in a very clever way working both stories against each other in a sort of counter-intelligence maneuver -- on the one hand sending the critics on their merry way with his own false confession while on the other hand and at the same time keeping the provenance story alive for Feldman by telling his tale of Tony's hints. But is this the sort of complex manipulation and strategizing we would expect from Mike?
Or is it possible that Mike's story about receiving the diary from Tony and then pestering him for the book's origins until Tony broke down and suggested "his own doorstep" is simply true and we can't recognize its truth because after all it comes from Mike?
Or is it possible that none of this ever happened at all and Mike was simply telling his confessors what they wanted to hear when he confessed and telling Paul F. and Keith later what they wanted to hear when he talked to them and wasn't really thinking about the consequences or the contradictions in either case -- just wanting after all to seem important to whomever he was speaking with at the time?
If this last scenario remains a possibility, then unfortunately we really can have no idea what happened between Mike and Tony or if Tony ever had anything at all to do with this diary ever. But then, why would Mike name an alleged friend and put him in the middle of all of this mess?
Just more questions for a weekday afternoon.
Bye for now,
--John |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 30 May 2001 - 12:34 pm | | Alegria:
Would you believe that there are two Witherspoons in Kankakee IL Maybe your friend knows them well enough to be able to use their name!
Paul:
So what we have is that the auctioneers were asked only to check around the "alleged sale dates" (presumably around the end of January 1990) This search was done apparently around the end of January 1997 at which time it must have been known by our researchers that MB's dates in his confession and elsewhere were completely unreliable. So why on earth would the researcher assume that on this one occasion MB had got the date right? Isn't it basic common sense to ask the auctioneers to check their records back from the first date that the diary itself was seen in Doreen Montgomery's office? Or might it have been too embarrassing if the result was that the scrapbook was actually sold in 1992?
Wouldn't it be interesting to learn how Outhwaite and Litherland actually do conduct their sales? I think I'll write to them. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 30 May 2001 - 01:40 pm | | Why would it have been embarrassing to anyone? It looks like this and one or two other remarks you have made are questioning the integrity of the researchers by suggesting that they either pursued lines of inquiry or failed to pursue lines of inquiry according to the outcome they wanted.
Hindsight provides a position from which it is ever so easy to be critical. As far as I know, the researcher simply sought to validate Mike's statement. I don't know whether it would have been common sense to have asked other questions, the auctioneer having clearly stated that Mike's account did not conform to their practices. At that time I would have thought not. And unless the Managing Director of Outhwaite and Litherland lied about the way his company conducts their sales, I'm not sure that the way they do conduct their sales would be in the least bit interesting. |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 30 May 2001 - 02:04 pm | | Peter,
Paul has reminded us that the Managing Director of the auction firm, Kevin Whay, has said, concerning Mike's story:
"Furthermore, we do not and have never conducted our sales in the manner which he describes…’
"Have never" seems pretty clear to me.
But I'm all in favor of learning more about anything. Write away...
In the meantime, do you have any reason to suppose that Mike was telling the truth in this particular story rather than in his many other ones (like the one where he says that Tony told him to look to his own doorstep for the origins of the diary, say)?
Or is this simply a purely personal preference for one of Mike's tales over another, without any support or evidence to back up such a preference? There's nothing wrong with this per se, of course, but you might admit it up front as a preconceived bias.
I'm not sure why we'd be inclined to believe a confession that is clearly false, even about something as simple as what month of what year his friend died, rather than any other of his alternative and directly conflicting stories, including the one about the brown paper wrapper and Tony hinting about Anne.
But that's just me, I'd like just a little proof that someone has at least once or twice been reliable about something before I start choosing which of their stories I want to believe.
But please let us know what response your inquiries might produce.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 31 May 2001 - 08:53 am | | Good Morning, everyone,
I had a question racing through my head last night as I fell asleep and I thought I'd sketch it out this morning, as it is still troubling me.
In many recent accounts of the diary's probable composition by Melvin and Karoline and Peter and several others, it is suggested that people other than Anne and Mike were actively involved in the research and/or the writing of the diary.
Melvin has again written here recently that, after handwriting analysis he had conducted, it did not appear to him that Mike or Anne physically penned the diary. Indeed, Melvin has previously told us of his legendary three other forgers (who by now have the same sort of ontological status as a Sasquatch, a Yeti, and Nessie -- I wait only for Leonard Nimoy to host an In Search Of about them).
Karoline and Peter have at various times had the unfortunate and completely unlinked Mr. K. serving as scrivener after allegedly being set up with Mike and Anne on some sort of conspiratorial blind-date by Tony D.
Of course, no evidence exists to support any of these scenarios, but they remain in the record nonetheless. And in each case, people other than Mike and Anne are assumed to have played a major role in the production of this book.
Here's my question.
Why?
Why would they do it?
Why did the mysterious others produce or help produce this volume?
Why would Melvin's three shadows or Peter and Karoline's secret Bartleby participate in this thing?
Neither Peter, nor Melvin, nor Karoline, nor any other researcher I have ever seen write about this case has ever even suggested or found any evidence at all that anyone other than Mike and Anne has ever seen a penny from this little project (other than those who have since published books about it).
The co-conspirators' names were all kept secret or else their involvement was denied, so fame and notoriety and celebrity status remained unavailable.
They didn't even really get to be somewhat publicly notorious the way Mike and Anne have.
No money, no fame, no attention, not even bragging rights for pulling off an impressive hoax.
So why did they bother?
I don't see anyone around here who thinks it is very likely that Mike and Anne Barrett pulled this entire thing off all by themselves, without any help from anyone. Neither do I. Hell, even Mike in his own false confession admits that Tony helped them, and that doesn't even acount for the need for another penman if Melvin is correct about their handwriting not matching. And it is not even clear if Melvin thinks Mike and Anne knew the thing was fake themselves when Mike took it to London. In any case, there still isn't any compelling or reliable evidence that they even helped produce the volume, let alone produced it by themselves.
But no one has ever, as far as I can tell, offered any motives for any of the mysterious others.
Would anyone now like to speculate on what evidence we have that someone else actually had a reason to want to create this book?
Or am I seeing a problem where, for some reason I have missed, there really is none?
--John
PS: The fact that Mike would actually tell Paul F. and Keith, in support of Anne's story, that he had heard Tony suggest that Anne had given him the diary, especially when Mike desperately wanted Anne not to be believed, still troubles me and still suggests only those three possibilities I listed a few posts above. Either he was playing some too clever sort of counter-intelligence game in a secret pact with Anne, or he was telling the truth about getting it from Tony and not knowing its origins and we've missed it, or he was telling contradictory lies to his confessors and then to Paul and Keith and didn't care about the blatant contradictions because he just wanted to impress whomever he was speaking to at the time -- in which case we can't even claim with any confidence yet that Tony ever had anything at all to do with this diary. |
|
|
|
|
