|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 July 12, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary:
Archive through July 12, 2001
Author: Mark List
Tuesday, 10 July 2001 - 03:36 pm |        | Graham,
To reply to your question about serial killers planning their attacks:
It's not unheard of. There is a pattern to their attacks (thus the name--"serial") whether women, blonde, black, younger, old, large small, rich, poor; it depends on the killer motives and psychology.
Manson killed rich people, because he hated the rich. He planned to leave messages at the scene of the crimes. However; he didn't commit the crimes himself, he sent his family members to do it for him.
Andre Chikatilo, the Russian Ripper, committed his crimes "for peace of mind" as he put it himself.
The Son of Sam -David Berkowitz- said he "didn't want to hurt anyone, I just wanted to kill them."
Serial Killers come in all shapes and sizes but they have common links.
Anyone who would "plan" a series of murders, in my opinion, isn't a serial killer. A Serial Killer has mental or emotional problems, usually from a bad or "odd" childhood, and killing is how they act-out their issue with it.
A Planner is more of a spree killer (Columbine) or mass murderer (McViegh) and they usually have a reason or statement to make; usually political or social.
I'm of the opinion the JtR was a Serial Killer, not a mass murderer or spree killer, although I do admit that these murders DO fit those categories.
Mark |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 10 July 2001 - 04:13 pm | | Regretfully plans for a meeting between Shirley Harrison, Keith Skinner and myself have foundered on one point: that of tape-recording that meeting. I see no reason to tape what was designed to be a preliminary meeting to talk over mutual problems and perhaps to agree on what needed to be done. Shirley has said in her last message: "Is there a hidden
agenda? Perhaps you should just publish and be damned?
For this reason I would like the board to know the thrust of these Emails -
so that, as with the case of Melvin - they know that it is not me who
Is prevaricating."
I am perfectly agreeable to publishing all the past email messages between us on these boards but as there are over 40 of them it might take up a lot of space. And of course it would be totally unfair for me on any other person to select some messages and ignore others. If however Chris George would act as a "go-between" I would be happy to send the whole lot to him and allow him to comment or reprint whatever he feels relevant. Incidentally, I have said several times that I am not now planning a "Diary" book and I have definitely told Shirley that. |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 10 July 2001 - 06:30 pm | | Hi Peter,
Sad news about the meeting not taking place. You write:
"Regretfully plans for a meeting between Shirley Harrison, Keith Skinner and myself have foundered on one point: that of tape-recording that meeting. I see no reason to tape what was designed to be a preliminary meeting to talk over mutual problems and perhaps to agree on what needed to be done."
I understand that you see no reason to tape this sort of meeting.
But surely the relevant question would be, do you see any particularly compelling reason not to tape this sort of meeting?
If not, then why not go ahead anyway? If so, could you tell us why you think the meeting should definitely not be taped?
Thanks,
--John |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 12:16 am | | | Peter--thank you. Hope Ireland treated you well. RP |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 01:24 am | | Hi Peter:
I would be glad to act as go-between to see which e-mails between you, Keith Skinner, and Shirley Harrison should be published here in full or excerpted. I agree that the full 40 e-mails may be too many to put on these boards, but I should think the essential ones should be here. I regret that a meeting cannot be effected between yourself, Keith, and Shirley.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 03:47 am | | From Keith Skinner To Peter Birchwood
The meeting in Oxford, scheduled for next Tuesday (July 17th), is meant to be open and truthful. Why are you, therefore, so opposed to a tape recording being made of the event?
What do you fear? You will have a copy of the cassette for your reference – as will Shirley and myself. Better still, bring your own tape recorder.
If you, along with Melvin Harris, are so sure the Diary is a modern hoax and that we are just whistling in the dark, then you have nothing to be worried about – surely?
If this meeting is aborted, because of what I can only perceive as your anxieties about being confronted on tape with a few realities, which might dent your pre-conceptions and prejudices, then I sincerely believe it will significantly demonstrate how much real importance and genuine value you put on wishing to learn about the background to this investigation. |
Author: shirley harrison
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 04:48 am | | Board (bored?) surfers may realise that I have, with Keith been trying to set up a meeting with Peter for some time – it seemed a good idea and in fact still does.
But of course meeting Peter – however informally – isnt quite the same as me and any of my friends sitting round the fire and arguing all night about the diary (mind you I don’t do that!) Peter, like Melvin, claims to have material which he believes is key to the provenance of the diary ie the Kane handwriting and possibly more. I am prepared to allow my reaction to this to be taped so that should the material really prove to be the nugget you are al;l waiting for…there is no escape for me.
I am absolutely fed up with the constant swiping allegations that the “diary camp” is milking the situation. I have sd time and time again – who is this Diary team? Keith Skinner is not part of it. Neither is Paul Begg or any of those willing to look at the diary as a fascinating puzzle – thank goodness for John Omlor.
I contribute rarely to the Board and my royalties now are considerably less than most of you will all be earning…..yet writing is my profession. I accepted the brief as a writer in the first place – of course I hoped it would make money. And it did. But it was a very expensive book to write – the tests which I was obliged to take cost a great deal, to say nothing of lawyers fees. That was 10 years ago..
So that you areare how hard I am trying to keep everything on the table….I attach ,my response to Peter’s refusal for a taped meeting and his suggestion that he and I meet alone, untaped. I dare not do that.
Copy of my Email to Peter Birchwood
Dear Peter.….I am truly sorry about your response and the problem over the tapes…..;.;especially now in view of your posting on the Boards when once again you are inferring that I have supressed information that is useful. I too have Mike Barrett’s medical reports and of course I know that the kidney failure was real. But that had nothing at all to do with the breakdown in his mental state which was due to alcohol. Fortunately I did record many of the rambling and contradictory telephone messages he made to me, often through the night.
I cannot see how there should be a problem over recording any meeting however informal. My reputation has been on the line time and time again and I do not intend to let that continue. What is the point of meeting? You believe you have material which substantially supports the case for a modern forgery. Keith has tapes which provide useful background. I have very little to bring to the table – yet it is me who is prepared to record our chat. It is you who are suspicious and apparently protecting your material. If that’s the case how on earth can we work together . Is there a hidden agenda? Perhaps you should just publish and be damned?
For this reason I would like the board to know the thrust of these Emails – so that, as with the case of Melvin – they know that it is not me who
Is prevaricating.
For the record` - Keith Skinner is NOT my “colleague” he is a friend,and we have at no time been financially linked…as is Martin Fido, Paul Begg, and many of the other non-believers who have been involved in various ways on the diary. |
Author: shirley harrison
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 04:53 am | | | sorry I got my commas in the wrong place....of course Martin and Paul are friends and, like Keith, have no financial interest in the diary, |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 05:44 am | | Hi Chris,
We could have a very serious conflict of interests here. If you don't buy me enough Freddie Fudpuckers before the show, I might not be kind with my review. On the other hand, if you buy me too many, you would be accused of bribery, and I would be accused of being drunk and disorderly, and carted off to Bournemouth nick by Abberline (in the shape of Johnny Depp would be nice) for a very long night in the cells. 
Hi All,
Please note that I composed the following before I read Shirley's posts.
Now, seriously, I think we ought perhaps to congratulate Peter Birchwood for putting up the best argument yet for Mike Barrett not being involved in the creation of the diary. Let me explain.
Peter’s point, in his post of Sunday, July 8th @ 12.15pm, about Mike's poor health in the mid-1980s, and accusing Shirley of deliberately playing up Mike’s capacity to tell whoppers, is presumably to suggest that, if Mike was telling the truth about being at death’s door with his kidneys, perhaps he was also telling the truth that he forged the diary.
Peter even wrote the following:
‘If we are concerned that MB's stories of the diary and how he forged it are often inconsistent and his character changeable then we must consider that this disease and its treatment means that fatigue poisons accumulate in the body, the mind is affected in various ways, it is difficult to concentrate and memory lapses are common. Incredibally enough, even such mundane things as handwriting can change!’
To say nothing of all the alcohol, of course.
As another aside, if Peter is now seriously trying to imply that Mike could have penned the diary, because his writing may have altered due to kidney trouble and treatment - or will he now say it was only meant as a joke? - that surely tells us something about his opinion regarding Kane’s handwriting, doesn’t it? And what about the howls of derision that usually greet anyone asking if Maybrick’s health, arsenic poisoning, and various medications could have affected his handwriting?
But does it make sense to anyone here, that a man, shortly after suffering ‘serious kidney failure’ and undergoing the miserable and painful process of dialysis, would be up for researching and writing a hoax diary of Jack the Ripper, a subject he appeared to know next to nothing about, and even including merry quips about eating cold kidney for supper?? I must say, I do admire a man with a sense of humour in the face of his own serious ill health, but really - isn’t this a wee bit beyond the call of duty, not to say probability?
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 06:08 am | | Caroline,
Kidney failure and dialysis would be no means preclude someone working on the diary. People undergoing the process may be uncomfortable, but they're hardly incapacited to the point of precluding research/note taking.
Indeed someone undergoing dialysis might be an ideal cantidate in that they are likely to have a lot of "free" time to indulge their reasearch. Patients often read, or do needlepoint or other similar things. A "big" project like the diary might be just the thing to keep someone busy and interested. It's much easier, IMO to see someone with time on their hands coming up with the idea than someone working full time.
It is possible there are varieties of the machines that might preclude the use of the hands to read, but I have never heard of one.
People go throuight this for YEARS and live there lives as normally as possible. Reading and writing isn't that big of a deal.
John Hacker
(Snark) |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 07:35 am | | Hello all,
This whole situation concerning the meeting between Peter and Shirley and Keith seems very odd to me. All Peter has said in his post to us above is that he "sees no reason to tape" this sort of meeting. He does not say that he has any particular reason that the meeting should not be taped.
Now it becomes apparent that Shirley and Keith have both already asked him why he is actively opposed to the taping of such a meeting.
This suggests to me that Peter's position is more insistent than his initial post indicates. Clearly, this is a sticking point not simply because Peter sees "no reason" to tape such a meeting (as he tells us above), but because he is actively opposed to taping such a meeting. In fact, he is so opposed to it being taped that it is a deal-breaker for him -- he will not attend if it is taped. But it is the reason for this position that he curiously does not explain to us (or even mention, in fact) in his original post.
I can understand someone thinking there is no need to tape the meeting.
I can't understand someone thinking that the meeting must not be taped, and that if it is he will not attend.
This is a different position entirely from the first one.
But I can't figure out what possible reason there could be to be so actively opposed to any taped record of the meeting. I'm trying to imagine what would prompt me to refuse to attend a meeting about the diary with Shirley and Keith if it was taped. What would I be worried about?
In fact, it is easier for me to imagine myself wanting a taped record of such a meeting with Keith and Shirley, just for my own protection if an argument ever came up over what was said.
But why would I possibly take the position that I not only don't feel I need my own record of the meeting, I insist there not be any taped record of the meeting for anyone?
Frankly, this is very confusing, and Peter's posted announcement sheds no light at all on this question.
Perhaps there will be some further explanation in the e-mails that Chris has agreed to edit. Or perhaps, as Shirley's post suggests, Peter has not even given Shirley or Keith a reason that he refuses to attend a taped meeting, that he is this adamant that the meeting not be taped (because it is surely more than just that he "sees no reason" to tape it -- he must see a vital reason not to tape it -- what could that reason be?).
Perhaps Peter might care to offer his explanation here on the board, so that everything can be clear and explicit and out in the open and so that interested readers can judge for themselves.
Or perhaps not.
I suppose we will see.
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 08:41 am | | Hi Snark,
Thanks for the information. What you say about not being 'incapacited to the point of precluding research/note taking' etc, kind of contradicts Peter's view, that 'this disease and its treatment means that fatigue poisons accumulate in the body, the mind is affected in various ways, it is difficult to concentrate and memory lapses are common.'
And, in assessing all of these variables, we need to apply them to what we know about Mike Barrett himself, his natural abilities and his life before and after he brought the diary to London. You are saying, on the one hand, that kidney trouble and treatment would not have been a problem to a potential forger, and in fact would have helped, by giving ample time and opportunity to think things through carefully and get their act together - yet Peter appears to be arguing, on the other, that, by the time Mike penned the thing in the late 80s/early 90s, his handwriting may have been affected by his illness, and his brain may have been correspondingly subject to the memory and concentration lapses by then too.
Or are we supposed to imagine that Mike was clear-headed enough to see him through the original conception and composition, including the gathering together of all the materials - scrapbook, ink and pen and what have-you - but only started to become muddled and forgetful later, when he was trying to recall enough of the details of the fraud to prove he did it, and that this muddle-headedness was all down to his kidney failure in the mid-1980s?
Whichever way you look at it, it appears to me like this kidney business is being stretched to fit with a guilty Mike - he was fit enough to do it, but not fit enough to tell the tale.
And I repeat - what does it tell us about Kane's handwriting samples, if Peter is now trying to pin the penmanship back onto Mike?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 09:07 am | | Hi John,
As you have observed, Peter has so far only said he sees no reason to tape the meeting. I'm sure, once he is aware of the many good reasons why Shirley and Keith want it to be open and on record, he will agree that there can be no harm in it (after all, he doesn't have to say anything at the meeting that he doesn't want others to hear, does he?). Even if he doesn't understand the reasons for wanting it taped, he will surely indulge this one small request, if only for the sake of co-operation, and the mutual desire to get everything on the table and sorted out. After all Peter's previous public remarks, questions and suspicions, about what research was probably not done, and which vital questions not asked of certain individuals, his curiosity to learn more will surely overcome any possible objection he could have to going ahead with this meeting on the basis of it being recorded.
Benefit of the doubt time? Come on Peter. Don't let this become an excuse for people to air even more unfounded suspicions - this time concerning how serious you really are about ending this controversy.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 09:28 am | | Caz,
Yes, fatigue poisons accumulate in the body over time and are removed via dialysis. While there may be some fatigue and confusion at times, it's not a constantly debilitating thing. In any case, one can be tired and forgetful and still function. I would assume that if someone was researching they'd be taking notes to keep it all straight in any case.
I can't really say too much in regards to the rest of your post, I don't really have an opinon as to whether Mike wrote the diary or not. My only point was that kidney failure would not rule him out in my (non medical) opinion.
John Hacker |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 10:01 am | | Hi Snark,
Thanks for that. I guess Peter's argument is that Mike's kidney problems, dating as far back as the mid-1980s, can not only explain the handwriting discrepancy, but also why he was unable, from June 1994 onwards, to give a coherent and believable account of how he forged the diary. Yet Peter's argument is also that Mike was coherent and capable enough to actually set about forging the thing between 1989 and 1992 - this still looks entirely contradictory to me.
Thanks for your input - most enlightening.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 10:04 am | | Hi Caz,
The phrase that struck me in your post to me above was this one, concerning Peter's position:
"[H]is curiosity to learn more will surely overcome any possible objection he could have to going ahead with this meeting on the basis of it being recorded."
It's this "objection" that I don't understand. Not seeing any particular reason to tape a friendly meeting is one thing. Someone might just feel it's not necessary. This is what Peter said in his post.
But that's not at all the same as actually "objecting" to the meeting being recorded. "Objecting" implies that one has a specific and vital reason why the meeting should not be taped. I cannot imagine such a reason. And I have been trying.
It is apparently so important to Peter that there be no taped record of this meeting that he is willing to cancel the meeting rather than let it be recorded.
But for what possible reason would the existence of a taped record of such a meeting make that meeting impossible to attend?
I wish someone would offer a possible scenario wherein it would become vitally important to them that their potential meeting with Shirley and Keith about the diary not under any circumstances be taped.
It seems very strange.
Melvin has announced that he will no longer discuss on these boards the identity of the forgers or any likely scene of composition for this diary and he apparently ignores all attempts by Keith or Shirley to get him to agree to meet with them and share material and discuss evidence.
New handwriting samples that allegedly implicate someone in the production of this diary are shown only to a selected, mysteriously chosen, few people and are withheld from both public scrutiny and independent expert examination.
Now Peter refuses to meet with Shirley and Keith, although he had already offered to do so, and to share information or "evidence," because Shirley and Keith would like a taped record of the meeting for all parties? And Peter does not offer any reason whatsoever why taping this meeting would make it impossible for him to attend? He might not think such taping happens to be necessary, but he apparently cannot or will not explain why such taping would actually prohibit his involvement, why he is specifically opposed to there being such a record.
I am not going to speculate just yet on what is going on here, but I find this all very interesting, on the one hand, and very confusing on the other.
Bye for now,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 10:24 am | | Hi John,
Let's wait and see what Peter has to say, shall we? There must be a rational explanation.
I have to admit, though, that it will seem beyond coincidence (when we consider Melvin's position), if we don't get one from Peter, and, after more than 40 emails between the parties involved, the meeting doesn't finally get off the ground - and all because of this 'to tape or not to tape' argument. And, as usual in this sorry saga, we will be left to draw our own conclusions, and for as long as we care to keep drawing them, no doubt.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 10:42 am | | Caz,
Yes, agreed. Perhaps a vital and valid reason for insisting that no taped record of this meeting be allowed will eventually be offered. Perhaps. Since I can't come up with a likely or even potential one myself, I will be interested to see what possibility I have been unable to imagine.
Until then,
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 11:34 am | | Hi, John and everyone:
John, I don't know whether you are quite as old as me. I suspect not! But this flap is reminiscent of the controversy that took place in the early Seventies over the peace negotiations to end the undeclared Vietnam war. In that dispute, the sides were arguing about the shape of the table, whether to go with a round table or square or rectangular table, wrangling which, as I recall, went on for weeks.
I should have thought if both parties in the present controversy are coming to the table in good faith, the issue of tape recording should be immaterial to the object of the meeting, to share information, should it not?
If a tape recorder is to be used, the two parties could mutually agree that if there is anything sensitive to discuss, they will turn off the tape recorder during those moments. Possibly part of Peter's problem is over the source of the Kane writing samples, and, if so, perhaps that information could be discussed "in camera" as it were without the audio recording. However, I am not sure tape recording is really that essential, is it?
In regard to Peter's request that I act as intermediary to the posting here of the 40 e-mails or parts thereof charting this controversy, I should think that rather than me having to do that either Keith and Shirley could drop their insistence that the meeting be tape recorded or Peter could drop his insistence that the meeting not be tape recorded. The solution is as simple as that. The issue of the tape recorder seems a small point over which to stumble and prevent an important if not vital meeting to take place. Come on guys! As the late great John Lennon said, "Come Together."
Best regards
Chris George
"Mediator Extraordinaire" |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 12:07 pm | | John Omlor:
Chris George has agreed to look at the complete series of emails between Shirley and myself and I'll leave it in his hands to decide what to publish or comment on. I agree that putting several thousand somewhat repetetive words on this site would not be appropriate.
Any meetings of this sort which at least on my part would be designed to find the truth about this matter when there are at least two divergent opinions must be handled delicately. I felt that a preliminary meeting would be best so that we could see whether we could agree enough to be able to swap research and to work together to a common goal. Early in the discussion I agreed that if I came to the conclusion that the diary was not a recent forgery then I would have no problem in announcing that on these pages. At the beginning, there was no question about taping this meeting. I believe that this suggestion came from a source other than Mrs. Harrison although of course I may be wrong.
I firmly believe that it's inappropriate and in a degree insulting to insist on taping this first meeting.
I was and am prepared to travel to Oxford to attend this meeting but am not prepared to have it taped and I see no reason at all for this. After all, I would be the minority opinion here. I would certainly agree to the issuance of a joint statement signed by all three after the meeting which would digest that meeting and state what we would do next. Any subsequent meetings involving reading of material, listening to tapes etc., could certainly be taped for the convenience of us all. |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 12:41 pm | | Hi Peter,
Your post above is interesting, but, sadly, it still does not offer any specific reason why you feel the initial meeting you describe should not be taped. You do not say what it is precisely that worries you about having a taped record of the meeting you describe.
Instead, you write this sentence:
"I firmly believe that it's inappropriate and in a degree insulting to insist on taping this first meeting."
But why?
What is inappropriate about it? What does taping a meeting have to do with "propriety" anyway? This does not make much sense, really. How is making a record of even an introductory meeting in any way "inappropriate?" According to what sort of code of appropriate and inappropriate behavior? I don't understand.
And how could it possibly be insulting if both Keith and Shirley have agreed to be taped and to let everyone at the meeting have their own copy of the record of the meeting? If they don't find the prospect of having such a meeting recorded personally insulting, why would you? Again, I don't understand.
Then you say this:
"I was and am prepared to travel to Oxford to attend this meeting but am not prepared to have it taped and I see no reason at all for this. After all, I would be the minority opinion here."
I understand that you "see no reason" to have the meeting taped. But that is not your position. Your position is that you refuse to have the meeting taped. Because it is somehow "inappropriate" and "insulting" to have the meeting taped. That you cannot and will not attend if the meeting is taped. And this has something to do with you being in "the minority opinion?"
Again, this makes no sense at all. If anything, as a member of the minority, one would think you'd want an accurate record of what was said on tape -- to protect you from majority reports after the fact. But as a minority member what would possibly concern you about having the meeting taped? Do you, for some reason, think the tape will be mishandled or altered in some way after the fact? Will you feel like you cannot speak your mind honestly if there is a record of what you say at this first meeting? Again, I do not understand.
Peter,
Honestly, I have read your post above many times, over and over, and nowhere in it can I find anywhere where you offer a single specific, vital, or compelling reason why you feel this meeting must not be taped.
You do not explain what is "inappropriate" about taping such a meeting, nor why the suggestion is in any way "insulting" (I wouldn't be insulted by such a suggestion if it came from you and we were to meet, for instance).
To simply claim that taping the meeting would be "inappropriate" and "insulting" is to say nothing specific at all - and I must confess, it does seem awfully vague and filled with mystery. (ADDED NOTE: As I mention to Chris, below, it's almost as if you just thought the suggestion to make a taped record of the meeting for verifiability was somehow rude or impolite and so now you're not coming if it's taped, just because of that. But surely this all can't simply be a question of offended sensibilities or of proper "gentlemanly" behavior.)
But perhaps it's me. Can anyone reading Peter's post above see any place where it offers a clear, specific reason or explanation for insisting that the meeting he describes above not be taped and for refusing to attend one that is, or even a specific or detailed concern about possible future problems with such a taped record which would make Peter's absolute refusal to attend a taped meeting make any real sense?
All I need is a single clear and specific reason why such a meeting as Peter describes above should under no circumstances be recorded or why recording it would be "inappropriate." I cannot find one in the post that has just appeared.
Perhaps someone else can.
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 12:57 pm | | Hi Chris,
I appreciate your attempt to moderate this discussion. And yes, I agree with you about possible solutions. But the whole thing still sounds strange to me and Peter's most recent post has not cleared up anything at all.
If he was worried about something specific being put on tape -- as you suggest, mentioning possible discussion of the Kane samples -- he could have just said such a thing and we could then see if an arrangement could be made to make sure nothing that could put anyone in any personal jeopardy would be recorded.
But no, Peter writes and tells me only that the idea of taping the first meeting is somehow "inappropriate" and "insulting." This, I must admit, Chris, strikes me as downright quaint and curious.
It's as if his delicate sensibilities have somehow been offended by this talk of "tape recording" and so he's just not going to allow it.
Is the idea of taping such a meeting somehow supposed to be impolite?! Is this really just an argument about gentility and some old-fashioned code of "gentlemanly behavior" and honor?
That would truly be bizarre.
And what troubles me most is the insistence that there be no taped record of the meeting.
What is there to be afraid of? I just don't understand.
Shirley has explained to us specifically why she would like there to be an accurate record of what takes place (for verifiability and to protect her own oft-challenged reputation). Given her experience with this whole project, I can certainly understand her reasons.
But Peter has not really explained to us why he does not want there to be a taped record of what takes place.
This is what seems odd to me. I cannot see the potential harm, and Peter has said nothing about sensitive materials that cannot be discussed on the record. If he had, I too would have just suggested that at a certain point, both sides agree to go off the record.
But I do see a compelling reason for one side's request in this negotiation (Shirley wishes there to be a verifiable record) and I have not seen one yet for the other's (Peter's umbrage and request that no taped record be made).
Perhaps your efforts to moderate will succeed. But that will not change the strange logic and posturing that is at work here.
But I'll keep reading and see what happens.
Thanks, Chris,
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 01:17 pm | | Hi, John:
I received the file from Peter with the e-mail exchanges between himself and Shirley Harrison, all 41 e-mails, and possibly the answer about Peter's reticence to meet under the conditions the other side wants is among those e-mails. At this moment, I do not have the time to look the e-mails over. I am still working toward my big work deadline and will not be able to sort through the material until late tonight. If no accomodation can be reached and I must post the e-mails here, I will begin doing so then. As Shirley is fond of reminding us, quoting Sir Jimay's motto, hopefully Time Reveals All.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Alegria
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 01:35 pm | | Perhaps I have missed something. Actually I am sure that I have as I have been otherwise occupied for a few weeks now. I am confused--what is the purpose of the meeting(s)? I was under the impression that the meeting would show the evidence against Kane to Shirley. I totally understand the desire not to have this taped. If this is not the meeting where the 'sensitive materials' will be put forth, and later meetings where there will be discussion of the evidence is acceptable to be taped...well I am just confused. Before ANYONE goes off condemning ANYONE for their desire to tape or not to tape, could someone please explain what the initial meeting is for? What will the rest of the meetings be for? I was under the impression that nothing of the evidence would be presented in a public forum because of it's supposedly sensitive nature, so what is the purpose of taping the meetings anyway? If the meetings are taped the risk for exposure is increased. Who would keep the tape? I assume there will be a neutral party there with no interest in it at all?
Hope you are all doing well and see you around.
Ally |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 01:39 pm | | Hi Ally,
Actually, I believe the agenda for the initial meeting between Shirley, Keith, and Peter was never that specific and involved plans for a general sharing of information and research.
However, according to Peter's latest post, the meeting he explicitly objects to having taped is this one:
"I felt that a preliminary meeting would be best so that we could see whether we could agree enough to be able to swap research and to work together to a common goal."
That's the meeting Peter doesn't want taped, apparently because he finds the suggestion somehow "inappropriate" and "insulting." Nothing about Kane or other secret stuff is even mentioned.
In fact, in neither of his posts here about not wanting this meeting to be taped, does Peter ever mention any worries about secret samples or concerns about sensitive information.
But he also never does explain what concerns him about having a taped record of this initial meeting, other than he finds the idea somehow insulting. Shirley does explain above specifically why she would like such a record.
Hope that clears things up for you.
--John |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 04:38 pm | | Caz--In that same spirit of openness and cooperation and taping and all that, could you use your influence to have the tape of the Billy Graham interview released to the serious researchers at this site? (I'd love a copy)
Meanwhile, can I suggest that maybe it would be best if everyone let Peter, Keith, and Shirley work out the negotiations, and not interfere? RJP |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 04:49 pm | | RJ,
Excuse the interruption, but I believe it was Peter who decided to post the announcement here on this board that the negotiations had faltered over the question of taping the initial meeting. His post appeared, out of the blue and unprovoked, on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 04:13 pm -- and it included the sentences:
"I see no reason to tape what was designed to be a preliminary meeting to talk over mutual problems and perhaps to agree on what needed to be done."
(Nothing about secret samples or sensitive information, notice.)
and
"For this reason I would like the board to know the thrust of these Emails - so that, as with the case of Melvin - they know that it is not me who
is prevaricating."
And it was also Peter who then, in a second post, said that he found the idea of taping this initial, introductory meeting "inappropriate" and somehow "insulting."
Now, I appreciate your suggestion that this is something else that we shouldn't talk about, even though someone (Peter) has come here onto this board, in this public forum, and posted a first-hand account of the problem.
I seem to recall that such a maneuver (posting information here and then asking people not to talk about it) was tried once before.
Maybe it would be best and maybe it wouldn't, but personally, I see no reason to ignore Peter's posts here or the responses from Shirley and Keith.
But I respect your choice if you do.
Bye for now,
--John |
Author: Mark List
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 05:04 pm | | well,
I don't see a reason to press for any of them (Shirley, Keith, or Peter) to tape or not tape a conversation about "whatever"
It is THEIR conversation/meeting so I agree with RJ, maybe we all should let them work it out themselves.
Mark |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 05:14 pm | | Fair enough, Mark.
But they brought "their conversation" here. And I think the reason they did, perhaps, is that it became clear they were not about to work it out for themselves. Peter's initial post makes it clear that he wanted us to know his version of events. And Keith's and Shirley's responses sought to tell us their accounts as well. For some reason, they have decided to involve us directly. Peter has even sent over forty e-mails to Chris for possible posting right here on this board. This suggests to me that no resolution was forthcoming or even envisioned. Thus, they showed up here and it no longer became, as you say "THEIR conversation/meeting," but ours as well.
But of course, no one who prefers not to, need post anything at all about what they have written or the positions they have each taken.
But people should read what they have each written here, yesterday and today, carefully and see exactly what each of them has said.
At least I think they deserve that.
--John
PS: Something I still don't understand: how does not having a tape of a meeting prevent the people who were there from telling anyone and everyone exactly what went on? At least, if there was a tape, no one could lie about what was said. But how, exactly, does not taping what was said protect the security of what was said? This still makes no sense to me, unless Peter (who has never expressed any security concerns here himself) was just offended at the recording suggestion for some reason, and is now backing out because he feels taping a friendly, introductory, general meeting is some wierd sort of personal insult. |
Author: Mark List
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 06:18 pm | | John,
I'm not sure if there is a reason
"to Tape, or not to Tape...that is the question..."
In fact, I'm not even sure what it is that they're discussing in the meeting.
But you're right, they did bring it to us. However I wonder if we've taken a stronger view of the situation than we should have.
If their meeting has something to do with the Diary (which seems obvious if messages are posted here, and Shirley--DoJtR, author--is involved) and who might have penned it, then yes, we as Ripperologist (amatuer, or not) have a certain interest in the outcome of that meeting.
I simply noticed a bit of over-reaction at the mention of "not taping" the meeting, and I didn't understand way.
But, it all depends on who you are and how feel toward the situation.
--To each his/her own.
But, I would like to get back to the Diary if we could...
I still have a nagging thought in the back of my mind toward the Watch.
I really think that the Watch came first (for whatever reason) and THEN the Diary.
The reason I say this, is because the watch MAY actually be old (pre-1987) with the scrathes there.
I've stated this before, but it appears that someone wanted to incriminate Maybrick as the Ripper.
Way would they do that?
Is it possible (yes, I know still unlikely) that someone actually thought "JiMay" was the Ripper, and went out of they way to suggest it to the world?
Or is simple, someone being bored and finding an odd "connection" with the Ripper Case and Flories Trial?
It's been so "easy" for us to disect the Diary (syntax, wording, language, etc.) but the Watch doesn't.
I feel that the Watch is old. The bits of brass have been tested to be old (unless THOSE have been proven contradictory as well) and I DON'T believe the "find a watch, test for old bit of brass, and "cleverly" write over them, ha,ha."
Mark |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 06:43 pm | | Hey there, Mark,
I'm just heading out for the evening, but I did want to leave you with a question or two based on what you wrote about the watch.
If you think the watch came first -- that it is pre-1987 and that the diary is post-1987 -- then do you also think that whoever wrote the diary must have already known about the watch before it was made public by Albert Johnson in June of 1993?
Or is the production of the diary, sometime between 1987 and 1992, (well after the watch had, you say, already been made into "Maybrick's") just a separate coincidence?
And if it was the latter, then why did the watch not appear in public until after the diary did, even though Albert had bought it in July of 1992 and it had sat in the Stewart's jewelry shop for at least five years before that?
Now you have me curious,
--John |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 08:08 pm | | John, simply put, you're in the wrong. You wrote:
"I believe it was Peter who decided to post the announcement here on this board that the negotiations had faltered over the question of taping the initial meeting. His post appeared, out of the blue and unprovoked[my italics]on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 04:13 pm -- and it included the sentences:
"I see no reason to tape what was designed to be a preliminary meeting to talk over mutual problems and perhaps to agree on what needed to be done."
But this isn't true, John. Peter was merely responding to Keith Skinner's post from back on Friday, June 29th, 5:59 a.m. which referred to the question of the meeting being taped. Keith wrote:
Why not share with the board your opinions concerning taping of the discussion – which will be as much for your reference as it will be for us?
[Go back & see for yourself]
John, you've butted heads with Peter on these boards on a couple of occasions. But why not accept that Keith, Shirley, and Peter are all intelligent adults, and leave this meeting up to them? Best wishes, RJP |
Author: David Cohen Radka
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 08:40 pm | | Are you people for real, after all? Do you have minds? If you do, how justify this bizarre lifetime occupation? The Diary is BO-LAG-NA, nothing, nyet, bizzits! Why not realize and get on to something useful, something good for yourselves and those all around you? This and that, here and there, all about a piece of nothing! Why, why, why?
Respectfully and with real concern,
David |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 09:10 pm | | Hi RJ,
Just a very quick response. I appreciate the reference to Keith's old post. I had indeed not realized that Peter was directly responding to this. Thanks.
It should still be noted that Peter chose to announce here directly to us, without explicit reference to any earlier post of Keith's, that:
"Regretfully plans for a meeting between Shirley Harrison, Keith Skinner and myself have foundered on one point: that of tape-recording that meeting. I see no reason to tape what was designed to be a preliminary meeting to talk over mutual problems and perhaps to agree on what needed to be done."
Once that was posted, it seemed to me fair to begin discussing what Peter had written and what Keith and Shirley then wrote in response and what Peter later wrote about the idea of taping a friendly, introductory, general meeting being somehow "inappropriate" and "insulting." Once these posts by those involved appeared here, and Keith and Shirley and Peter had all begun to air their grievances in public on these boards, then it became, quite naturally and appropriately (to borrow a term), I think, part of our own discussion.
Again, I see no reason why their posts here should be ignored or their expressed positions should not be discussed by those of us who are reading here. And if you read my posts today concerning what they have written, you'll see that reading their posts closely and evaluating their reasons or lack of expressed reasons for their respective positions is precisely what I have tried to do.
As I say, I'll certainly understand if you choose not to participate in any discussion of the subject here on the boards because you think it is interfering in some way with a process which, to me, looks very much like it has completely stalled in any case.
Hi David,
I'm not sure why it bothers you if others choose to discuss items they find interesting -- even if you do not.
But thanks for the "real concern."
Good night, all,
--John
PS: In the earlier post from Keith that RJ cites we find this:
"Why not share with the board your opinions concerning taping of the discussion – which will be as much for your reference as it will be for us? I would have thought recording our meeting to be an obvious and sensible precaution, given your distrust and suspicion about us – certainly about me anyway."
Having read both of Peter's responses very carefully, I still don't see anywhere where he actually does spell out his specific reasons for objecting to the initial meeting being taped or explains why it would not be a sensible thing to do. He just seems to be vaguely offended for some reason by the suggestion (labelling it somehow "inappropriate" and "insulting"). He says nothing about security nor any other specific concern. So Peter, it seems to me, still has yet to respond in any detail to Keith's original inquiry. |
Author: Alegria
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 09:57 pm | | Hi all,
One more post before I go. My earlier post was to stop what I saw as yet another trend of "Well on June 15, so-and-so said this and when you analyze that, their motivations are suspect and their actions more so" with everything so-and-so said re-posted 25 times and dissected into teeny-tiny little shreds. After reading the posts by RJ and Mark, I have decided they have a much better solution than I. The meeting between Keith, Shirley and Peter ISN'T any of our business and maybe everyone ought to leave us out of it.
Ciao for now!! |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 10:23 pm | | Hi again Ally,
Once again stuff has been posted here and then people begin telling us we probably shouldn't talk about it, that it "isn't any of our business." But only after it's appeared here on the boards. I know the drill.
Well, fair enough. If everyone thinks that the versions of what happened between Peter and Shirley and Keith are clear and completely reasonable, then no one need say any more about this affair. But having read the posts by all involved carefully and with some attention, it certainly seems to me that some of those involved have offered specific and historically understandable reasons for their requests to have a record of the meeting made and that others have not explicitly offered any specific reasons why such a record would not be sensible or why the making of such a record would necessarily prohibit them from attending such a meeting.
We'll see if anyone has anything else to say about this matter here on these boards in the future.
Bye for now,
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 11:58 pm | | Hi, all:
I am getting ready to post the transcripts of the e-mail correspondence over the past few months between Shirley Harrison and Peter Birchwood. I am though going to start another board because I think this thread is so overloaded it is going to take forever to load the e-mails on here. I did want to note one thing, however, that some of the e-mails, which appear to begin at the end of March 2001, are headed "olive branch." Considering that the negotiations have broken down, I thought that sentiment was a nice and appropriate one.
I plan to post the e-mails in full with little or no commentary from me. Any necessary deletions, which I hope not to make, will be indicated and will hopefully not affect the sense of the posts and only be made to eliminate inessential information. The e-mails may be slightly out of date order but I will try to sort them--Peter admitted that in compiling the file they were not all in chronological order.
Best regards
Chris |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 12 July 2001 - 06:32 am | | Hi John,
One small correction from one of your posts to RJ yesterday – I believe you had Peter down as saying:
"For this reason I would like the board to know the thrust of these Emails - so that, as with the case of Melvin - they know that it is not me who
is prevaricating."
In fact, Peter was still quoting at this point from one of Shirley’s emails (which she later posted herself). I must admit, the spacing in Peter’s post didn’t make this very clear.
Hi All,
I know that Keith, for one, wants us all to know about the ins and outs of this proposed meeting – that is precisely why he gave me his messages to Peter to post in a public forum. He could have done it all privately, but wants as much information as possible to be available for us to discuss. Likewise, Peter need not have responded publicly to Keith’s messages, but he chose to, because he wanted us to read what he had to say about it. And Shirley need not have posted her messages for us to read either. It strikes me as a bit silly for others to suggest people should back off because it’s none of anyone’s business, when all three are quite clearly and deliberately making it everyone’s business! Just don’t get involved if you feel uncomfortable with the current discussion.
Considering the multitude of problems that have been experienced in the past over vastly differing interpretations of all information regarding the diary story, and the consequent hostility and suspicion, I think it is perfectly justifiable, even essential, for Shirley and Keith to ask for all such meetings to be recorded. And of course it would also be in Peter’s best interests, if only he could see it. He has often accused both Shirley and Keith of being incomplete, selective, or inaccurate in their reporting of events. If the meeting is taped, there is no danger of this happening afterwards on the boards – by anyone present at the meeting. One wonders what possible advantage Peter sees in having no record to fall back on, to spike anyone’s temptation to put a certain slant on what was said or what took place? Hmmmm…..
Just for the record, Keith did say he hoped Karoline Leach would be at the meeting. And since Peter is worried abour being one against two, there’s his answer. Considering how hard Karoline was pushing to have sight of documentation, transcripts and so on, it surely won't be beyond Peter’s persuasive powers to get her salivating at the very thought of being in on all that lovely information-sharing - it's precisely what she was begging for, and chastising people very soundly for not providing. Talk about killing two birds with one stone, Peter...
Hi RJ,
Believe me, I have already used what little influence I have, to ask Keith about releasing the Billy Graham tape. But it really does belong to Paul Feldman, who wouldn’t know me from Adam. And Keith went into all this on the board a while back. He said he would try to get Feldy to make all his tapes and transcripts publicly available once Melvin had privately disclosed his information. Isn’t this reasonable, given that you believe Melvin’s info would prove conclusive, whereas the Billy Graham tape clearly won’t (otherwise Keith wouldn’t be asking for Melvin’s info)? Obviously, my influence will extend to passing on your latest request, and this response of mine, to Keith, along with all the other posts to this board. But I don’t think there is much more I can do.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 12 July 2001 - 07:30 am | | Another quick point in favour of taping all diary meetings.
The fact that the Peter/Shirleygate emails are now being put on the public record, and RJ is asking again for the Billy Graham tape to be treated likewise, only serves to illustrate just why it is so desirable to have a proper written or taped record whenever practical, for future reference, in light of all this ongoing controversy.
We can surely imagine what this board will be like, in the event that the meeting goes ahead untaped, if one of our three musketeers were to post a version of events which differed in any way, or was challenged by one of the others. 
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 12 July 2001 - 09:48 am | | Hi Caz,
Sorry about the quotation and spacing problem in my earlier post. Peter's post broke up at that point and it wasn't at all clear that he was citing Shirley. It makes no real difference of course, since neither Peter nor Shirley think they are "prevaricating."
Yes, I think there are clear and compelling historical reasons for both Shirley and Keith (and even, I would think, Peter) to want a material record of any meetings that might take place concerning the diary. Keith and Shirley have both been accused repeatedly in the past of withholding and/or altering information or misreading data. A material record would be their best and deserved protection against any such future difficulties. If anyone disagrees with their future interpretations of anything that was said or implied or took place, the tape could simply be produced. It is wise and it makes perfect sense.
Peter's strong objections to the record being made seem, on the other hand, much less specific. He has said he will not attend if even the general introductory meeting is taped. And this is not because of specific security concerns (the security problems are not lessened if there is no tape, anyway, they are in some ways actually increased), but because he finds the suggestion of taping the meeting somehow "inappropriate" or "insulting." He seems to me to think the idea of taping the meeting is rude in some way, as if his honor has been offended. At least, this is what he has written on this board in the past two days. And so, he is backing out of the meeting if Shirley and Keith insist on a taped record of it being made.
And of course, a number of people around here have taken the "let's not talk about this" approach that is familiar to us from recent history. It is apparently, "none of our business" -- even though that is not what Keith and Shirley and perhaps even Peter feel, since they brought the discussion to us and since their e-mails are even now being posted on these boards for everyone to read. That certainly makes it our business. And, as you say, those who think it is not, or who would rather not interfere or participate in the discussion are always free not to post any of their thoughts or readings or comments.
Indeed, it is the emphatic desire not to have any taped record of what is said at such a meeting that I still don't understand, unless Peter is just offended and therefore walking. But perhaps the e-mails will shed more light on how Peter came to this position -- since he has not explained it in any detail here to us.
And while I will continue to pretend that I respect and understand the passion out there for keeping the sacred Kane relics hidden and protected from the harsh and damaging light of day, and so will keep my promise not to keep calling for their examination by experts or their being made available in the name of learning more, perhaps, about who actually wrote this book; I do think I will continue to read and write about these meetings and plans for them and who is willing to attend them and who is not and what takes place as it is reported to us hopefully from a clear and verifiable material record that cannot be doubted (like a recording, for instance).
I look forward to reading the complete set of e-mails and to seeing where all this leads.
And to playing golf after three straight days of rain.
All the best,
--John
PS: Thanks, Ally. In case you need it -- the reading begins in a post dated Thursday, June 14, 2001 - 09:50 am. |
|
|
|
|
