|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 14, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary:
Archive through July 14, 2001
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 12 July 2001 - 12:13 pm |        | Hi John,
The thing I find most difficult to understand in all this is why Peter didn't anticipate, when he first agreed to meet with Shirley and Keith, that a tape recording would be regarded pretty much as standard procedure - particularly as the whole thing, from conception onwards, has been discussed in this public forum, and therefore questions were always bound to be asked here after the event. It is just plain daft and totally unnecessary to rely on the memories of those present for the answers. I can only think that it was assumed that Peter, as a fellow researcher, would have understood this and not needed telling. So I am very curious to see how and when (very recently, I would imagine) the subject of recording the meeting first comes up in the email correspondence, which takes Peter so completely by surprise that he declares to the board that plans have 'foundered' as a result.
Isn't it a pity that Peter didn't have the forethought to specify 'no taping' right from the start of those 40+ emails making arrangements to meet, instead of which it comes across as a hastily-imposed last-minute condition, with little to recommend it.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Mark List
Thursday, 12 July 2001 - 04:00 pm | | John,
About the Watch:
(Now I could be wrong)
Now the Watch, when tested for the bits of brass, was reported to be as old or older then ten (10) year because of the corroded pieces of the instrument used to inscribe the message.
If this is True, then it's obvious that the Watch came first, if it must be that the Diary came AFTER 1987.
Scientific evidence is alot harder to fake then the written words in an old scrapbook in Victorian ink.
I'm not giving it credit for being "real" (Maybrick's true Ripper Watch) but I think that because it came AFTER the Diary showed up, people throw it out the window as "proof"
But, It's not like the information written on the watch was obvious.
According to Albert Johnson, he was showing people the watch and as light hit the inside of it, there were faint scratches in it.
they were in the back of the watch; somewhat "hidden" from plain sight.
A Fake?
Sure, why not...but, according to the tests, a hoax older then ten years.
So if ten years old, it would have been scratched up in, at the lastest, 1983.
If we are to understand that information in the Diary was not possible to be known to anyone in the public until after 1987, that leave 4 years to wonder over.
I'm simple suggesting that the Watch could have been made by someone who did the same as our forger:
Read a little, and got an idea. So Scratchy, Scratchy...
OR
Maybe, as we've been speculating on other boards with other suspects, someone thought maybe Jimmy DID do the deed, or wanted to justify something or someone (Florie) or incrimate him.
I don't know. But it seems to me that if we "prove" the Diary Fake; The Watch, with it's test evidence, still holds SOME water.
Now, just remember that my first "introduction" to the Ripper came when I was around 7 or 8, and thought that Duritt was the Ripper.
Then there was "Jack the Ripper" with Micheal Caine. (Gull being the Ripper.)
But the REAL start for me, was "The Diary of Jack the Ripper" and until I'm sure that all the Evidence is false, (Watch and Diary) it will haunt me and keep calling me back to want to know the Truth about THESE items.
I want my Ripperology to be unbiased and until I put these thing to rest, that may not happen.
Mark |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 12 July 2001 - 04:58 pm | | Hi Mark,
I want to be sure I understand what you are saying.
If the diary is post-'87, and the watch is, as you claim, pre-'87, then the watch was obviously made before the diary.
If the watch is a fake, and the diary is a fake, then the watch was made as a fake before the diary was.
Now do you think the diary writer, who wrote his work (according to this scenario) after the watch was made, knew about the existence of the watch?
Or were the the watch's production (first) and the diary's production (second) completely separate and coincidental?
Now, if the watch was not made until after the diary was (and some of the science turns out to be wrong in its analysis), then a similar question remains: was the watch produced without its engraver knowing anything about the diary or was it made by someone who already knew about the diary?
Third option: the diary is post '87 but the watch is much, much older and the watch was an old forgery and the diary was made by someone who didn't know the watch existed but had a similar idea later. Or the diary was made by someone who somehow knew about the old watch, even though the watch was not made public until after the diary was.
Confused yet?
If the watch scratches are really older than 1987, and the watch sat in the jewelry shop for at least five years before Johnson bought it, then how could a 1987 diarist have known there would be a Maybrick watch?
It seems to me you are stuck positing an amazing coincidence - two people, at two entirely separate times, decided completely separately to forge an item that would suggest to the world that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper.
Or, the watch was made post-diary, after the diary goes public in '92, and somehow the science that says it is older is simply wrong.
Or, the diarist already knew about the watch when they sat down to write the diary (but then how would they know Johnson would find it at such an opportune time)?
Or, we are all wrong and the diary and the watch are actually much older than we think they are and we have been played for fools.
My best guess at the moment would be that the watch was somehow produced after the diary was composed, post-'87, and that the science is mistaken when it says the scratches are older.
But if I am wrong, and the scratches are older than, say, 1983, then either the diary is also older or someone had the exact same idea as the diarist in exactly the same part of the world, without the two people knowing about each other. That would be pretty amazing.
Or, the watch marks were made a long, long time ago and (again) amazingly weren't discovered until after the diary as a fake was already disseminated.
In any case, unless the watch was somehow produced after 1987 or the diary is older than we think, there is an amazing coincidence somewhere.
Weird wacky stuff indeed.
But I must go shopping for a birthday present.
Thanks go to Ally for moving the diary reading to its new home.
Bye for now,
--John
PS: Caz, I agree completely. It seems like a sudden tempest arose to blow things off course.
By the way, has anyone ever seen any reason offered anywhere concerning why Melvin Harris refuses to be a part of any meeting with Shirley and/or Keith? Keith and Shirley ask several times in the e-mail and never seem to get a response about this. What's Melvin's problem? |
Author: Mark List
Thursday, 12 July 2001 - 05:37 pm | | John,
I've been confused for quite some time now, just ask anyone who knows me 
But, Yes, there is a lot a wonderment about the where, when, why, what.
I was just posting my thoughts and concerns (confusion) about both items.
I, by no means, think that there is a straight and narrow line to the truth to the issue, but I'm still intrigued by it.
A quick reference:
There's an episode of the X-Files titled "Jose Chung's From Outer Space."
In it, there's a man, Rocky, who, after "meeting" an Alien,
runs home and writes down his whole ordeal so not to forget a moment of it.
After Mulder and Scully read it, they find it interesting that it's written completely in screenplay form.
Hmmm....
Of course, Scully says it a load of "you-know-what," and Mulder gives it some credit.
NOT because he thinks it's real, but because the text and story are SO bizarre, that it's possible that maybe SOMETHING happened that had such an intense impact on Rocky's mind, that this twist work of fiction was the result.
I think that's where I'm coming from about the Watch and Diary.
I don't know if either is fake or real. I don't when anything was made, or if the forgers knew or didn't know each other or the existence of each item.
I'm not professing to know. I just wonder about it, and find it quite interesting, and maybe SOMETHING's there...
Just call me "Mulder"
Mark |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 13 July 2001 - 04:09 am | | From Keith Skinner To Peter Birchwood
I have not seen any of the recent posts but I understand, from a telephone conversation with Shirley Harrison this evening, that you now apparently find it “insulting” for a tape recording to be made of our projected meeting in Oxford next week.
Why?
Shirley and I are approaching this meeting in the spirit of wishing to learn what evidence you have to conclusively prove the Diary is a modern hoax and identify the participants.
We have nothing – I repeat, nothing, - to prove our joint belief that the document is not modern.
The weight of public opinion is with you. It therefore makes no sense that you should object to – or cower away from – having a tape recorder running.
We have nothing to conceal.
Why do you not wish to share with the Board an accurate account of what was discussed?
In the interests of enlightenment and of developing (even terminating) this investigation – and of truth – I would have thought you would have positively embraced the suggestion that a tape recording ought to be made.
I repeat my questions to you:-
What do you have to fear – or lose? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 13 July 2001 - 04:11 am | | Hi All,
Please note, regarding the previous message from Keith Skinner, that he faxed me last night, hence the reference to Shirley phoning him ‘this evening’.
Also, when Keith says he has ‘not seen any of the recent posts’, please would you bear in mind that he is always at least a day or two behind the rest of us. As of writing last night, he should have received, courtesy of Royal Mail, everything up to and including the first couple of posts from Tuesday morning.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 13 July 2001 - 04:54 am | | Hi All,
Now that some of Peter and Shirley's emails have been put up on the boards, I would just like to make a couple of observations.
Firstly, I note that, at one point, when Keith was asked about one of his messages to the board, he replied that he wasn't sure if it was me or John Omlor who had posted it for him. Now, John knows nothing about any of this, so I'd better explain. On one occasion recently, Keith dictated a message over the phone for me to put up, and I was having trouble accessing the casebook at the time. So it was agreed that if I couldn't get it up (unusual for me, I must admit  ), I'd email John and ask him if he would do it for me. In the event, I managed to do it myself, so didn't get John involved, and he's never been asked before or since to post anything for Keith, as far as I know, or can recall.
Secondly, I got that old familiar knot in the stomach that I felt two years ago in this wacky place, on being accused of something I haven't done, have never done, and would never dream of doing in a million years - this time, by Peter Birchwood, suggesting that I could have been forging messages from Keith Skinner, or not passing messages on when asked, or otherwise buggering up the communication channels between the parties involved, in this pathetic game of trying to get three grown-ups round a table in Oxford ("I'll come, but only if we can have ice-cream and jelly and a silly hat").
I resent Peter's implication that I am dishonest, considering what I do in the spirit of keeping Keith and the board informed about what's going on. And if Peter can be so deeply suspicious of me, with no grounds whatsoever - someone he hardly knows - then it tells me a lot about his judgement and objectivity, when it comes to the suspected forgers.
Hi John,
You wrote:
'Or, we are all wrong and the diary and the watch are actually much older than we think they are and we have been played for fools.'
But, in that case, who would have been playing you for a fool? Only Mike Barrett, surely? He's the only one involved who has told us the diary is recent - that is, when he's not driving himself mad wondering where the thing really came from...
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 13 July 2001 - 06:24 am | | Oh, and John, I don't know how old the diary and watch are, so please don't include me in your 'Or, we are all wrong and the diary and the watch are actually much older than we think they are and we have been played for fools.' 
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 13 July 2001 - 08:21 am | | Caz--you've continually portrayed Mike Barrett on these boards as someone who is nothing but a dupe that hasn't the faintest idea of where the diary comes from; a man who would have done anything to discredit Feldman (a bit of catch-phrase speculation that John Omlor likes to repeat); and, finally, an ignoramus that would have been utterly incapable of taking part in an allegedly well-researched forgery. Perhaps now is the time you [& John, for that matter] could start giving some documentation for these speculations. Is there, for instance, [as John suggested back in April] phone messages where Mike claimed that he would do anything to destroy Feldman? These are serious allegations considering anything would include Mike lying on sworn affidavits. Frankly, I am starting to think that Mike might not be the wretch that everyone says he is. A significant amount of Mike's confessions have been independently verified, and I personally think they might represent some version of the truth. I don't think Mike would have done anything to discredit Feldman, and the gaps in his confession might well demonstrate this fact.
The bottom line is this: Why should I continue to accept your version of events, and, instead accept (presumably) that Anne Graham is a sincere woman who is telling the truth--when at least some of Mike's confessions have been independently verifed as true and none of Anne's have been, except through a taped interview that Feldman evidently won't release to the public? RJP |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 13 July 2001 - 08:53 am | | Hi RJ,
If documentation could be pulled out of the hat, just like that, they wouldn't be speculations, would they?
As Shirley has indicated to Peter in one of her emails, there are acres of documents concerning the diary investigation. But Keith will see your latest request, and I'm sure he will help if he can, and if it's at all practical. I am only too ready to admit that many of my own speculations are based more on instinct, personal experience of human nature, and interpreting the written word and people's reactions.
Incidentally, what is your interpretation of the word 'significant', as in your statement: 'A significant amount of Mike's confessions have been independently verified...'?
Surely, nothing that Mike has said in his confessions has been verified - even the maroon diary details were wildly wrong, and no one has proved that Mike himself found and chose the Crashaw quote for the diary pre-April 1992. So what has been verified, and how can you describe it as a 'significant amount'?
The bottom line is that you don't have to accept my 'version of events' (which is what, exactly? I wish you'd tell me, because I don't even know myself!), and I have never said that 'Anne Graham is a sincere woman who is telling the truth', and, as far as I am aware, no one here has talked about any 'confessions' by Anne, on a taped interview owned by Feldy, being independently verified. Where do you get all this stuff from??
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 13 July 2001 - 09:13 am | | Oh, I see now, RJ. You mean Anne's story of the diary being in her family for years, as verified verbally by Billy Graham. I found it hard to work out what you meant at first, and, of course, if by 'verify' you mean 'prove', Billy was unable to do so.
Sorry - I should have read more carefully and thought before I rushed to respond. 
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 13 July 2001 - 10:18 am | | Caz--I used the word 'confession' because that's the word Shirley Harrrison (among others) have used to describe Anne's 'in the family' claim. I wasn't being coy.
I think it is fair to say that both you & John have been exceedingly insistant that people [or at least Melvin & Karoline & Peter] present some evidence for their claims & speculations on these boards. I hope you're not telling me it is little more than 'instinct' that Mike was a dupe, lying in his sworn affidavit, and that there is no documentation readily at hand for the suggestion that Mike would have done anything to discredit Feldy?
As for the 'maroon diary', let's look back and see how it went down. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Here's my take:
No one outside of Mike & Anne knew of the maroon diary's existance. It was never mentioned as part of Mike's "research", for instance, during the time the diary was being investigated.
Then, in the summer of 1994 things went sour. Mike confessed in the Liverpool Post. At the beginning of 1995, [Jan 5th] Mike tries to prove his claims by making a sworn affidavit that he faked the diary. 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. In fact Anne purchased a Diary, a red leather backed Diary for L25.00p, she made the purchase through a firm in the 1986 Writters Year Book, I cannot remember their name, she paid for the Diary by cheque in the amount of L25 which was drawn on her Lloyds Bank Account, Water Street Branch, Liverpool. When this Diary arrived in the post I decided it was of no use, it was very small. My wife is now in possession of this Diary in fact she asked for it specifically recently when I saw her at her home address XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX "
Now, tell me, hasn't the existance of this maroon diary been, in fact, verified? Wasn't it very small and would have been of no use? [For one thing it was stamped 1891] Didn't Anne later present a cancelled check for L25 that went for the purchase of a "book", and that she, herself, admits that Mike ordered the maroon diary? Yet, because Mike makes this revelation in the midst of a statement about the diary being written in 1990 [though Mike doesn't actually say this is when the Maroon Diary was purchased] I am supposed to gloss over the fact that the maroon diary really did exist and only concentrate on errors that could be merely due to a faulty memory?
I'd have to say that it is fair for me to claim that this statement of Mike's has been largely verified. Mind you, we disagree on its significance.
As for other interesting statements of Mike's, yes, I still believe the genesis of the Crashaw quote has been proven by Mike's statement to Alan Gray. In my opinion, no one has come up with a believeable alternative.
I also believe at least two or three of Mike's other claims have been partially verified though documentation-- but I'll have to make some inquiries before I can post these on the boards. In the meantime, I have yet to see any actual documentation [letters, etc] presented here (or anywhere else) that would dispute Mike's affidavit, so I really can't quite yet understand how it is acceptable that they are so utterly dismissed by the same people posting here who demand proof on all other points. The hearsay evidence seems to be accepted from certain quarters, dismissed in others.
Best wishes, RJP |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 13 July 2001 - 01:22 pm | | Hello all,
"I'm not having Keith coming along wired up like a junior G-Man."
--Peter Birchwood
Well, now we know.
Hi RJ,
I'm a bit rushed, but I did want to ask a question. Are you suggesting here that Mike Barrett has not lied under oath?
Are you suggesting that the handwriting in this diary is Anne Graham's?
Are you suggesting that the specific dates of several events that Mike gives in his affidavits are true?
Are you suggesting that Mike seriously planned to forge the diary in a book he ordered giving his own name and home address for the record and then disseminate it publicly?
Are you saying that the auction house Mike mentioned, when asked, did not recognize their own way of doing business and simply forgot about selling anyone such a book?
Are you suggesting that Paul Feldman called Mike Barrett and said to him: "BARRETT I WILL F*CKIN GAURANTEE (sic) I WILL DESTROY YOU AND YOU WILL NOT SEE YOU (sic) WIFE AND DAUGHTER, EVER AGAIN".
Mike has not lied in a sworn affidavit?
Interesting.
By the way, I would certainly never suggest to you or to anyone that you "accept (presumably) that Anne Graham is a sincere woman who is telling the truth."
I don't believe Anne's story and never have. I don't think she is telling the truth any more than I believe Mike has been telling the truth.
As to the late night, rambling phone calls which I believe Paul Feldman, Martin Fido, and Paul Begg have all given first hand reports of -- I'll let them tell the stories again if they'd like. But I do want to quote specifically from Mike Barrett on the subject of Paul Feldman.
First, let us recall that one of Mike Barrett's sworn affidavit's includes this:
"I have already had threats, my home attacked, and all this is ledged with the Police, also my phone wires were cut and now I have been beaten up, perhaps when they find me dead one day they might take me seriously."
and this, from Mike, to Paul:
"FELDMAN YOU BASTARD GO AND GET F*CKED, BECAUSE YOU ARE A BLOODY BIG MAN WITH A HELL OF A LOT OF MONEY AND AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, I WILL NEVER GIVE INTO YOU. I REFUSE TO BE BLACKMAILED".
How many times has Mike changed his story, RJ? Didn't he call Shirley Harrison and tell her to drive up to see him only to completely change the story he said he was going to tell her once she go there? I'll let Shirley give the first-hand report of that maneuver.
Do I think Mike was capable of lying in a sworn affidavit?
Well, I don't think everything you see written by Mike in this post is true, let's put it that way.
And I think there are plenty of people, including Shirley and Paul Feldman, that would be willing to testify, to give sworn evidence, I'd bet, that some of what Mike says about them in his affidavits is simply false.
Perhaps, if she reads this, Shirley herself can swear to this for you.
But I can't keep writing because I must head out the door for a busy evening.
Honestly, RJ, I don't think there is any evidence to support Anne’s version of events. I don't think there is any material or reliable evidence to support Mikes version of events -- and there is evidence which contradicts Mike's version of events -- real dates he's wrong about, the response of the auction house, the personal testimony of those he mentions, etc.
I have always said two things: I don't know who wrote this diary. The evidence concerning who wrote this diary is slim indeed.
Both of those things are still true, it seems to me.
That's why those who do have any evidence concerning who wrote this book ought to meet and exchange that material and see if we can't start to get a grip on what happened here -- since all we have so far on everyone's part, including yours and mine, is pure speculation.
That's why there should be a meeting and a verifiable record of such a meeting and why everyone who has information should attend.
Meanwhile, we play harrumphing games about "Not having so and so come wired up" and feeling somehow personally insulted by simple requests, and of course, as always, we play that ever ongoing game "Where's Melvin?"
But if you believe the details of Mike's affidavits, then you have your answer and for you, this whole question goes away.
Me? I'll keep reading and keep doubting everyone.
Bye for now,
--John |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 13 July 2001 - 01:43 pm | | I'm still willing to make the meeting at Oxford next week although if anyone else is interested, they had better confirm this weekend by email because it is getting a bit tight and of course Shirley has a deadline in France.
Chris has asked me privately about why I would not want to be taped at the initial meeting whereas I'm happy for it to be done at any subsequent meetings. Well firstly it was the way that this came out through the casebook rather than through a private discussion. An initial meeting of this kind is not going to come up with any breakthroughs one way or another so I don't see any interest in what should be a discussion on what we feel, and how we might reach a consensus. The real interest would surely be in subsequent meetings where evidence is discussed. I promised that advances in research would be shared here and so, I believe did Shirley. I also felt insulted that it was deemed necesary to tape that initial meeting. Did Keith think that after the meeting I would go away and immediately cook up a Casebook message that would put him and Shirley in the worst possible light?
Anyway, the ball is now in the others court. If they want to drop their objection to an untaped first meeting, then we can go ahead. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 13 July 2001 - 01:51 pm | | John--What I'm saying is that I think you are guilty of a double-standard. I am talking about DOCUMENTATION. Proof that Mike is a dupe or has lied in his affidavit or was willing to lie to destroy Feldman. All you have given me is a statement that Mike wouldn't be a party to blackmail.
Am I being unfair? I think not. All I am asking is the exact sort of documentation that you & Caz have demanded from Harris & others. Sometimes repeatedly on a daily basis. All you have done in your post above is to repeat a lot of hearsay evidence again. But hearsay wasn't good enough from Harris and it shouldn't be good enough from you, Caz, or anyone else. I suspect that you haven't had or seen any real evidence that Mike's affidavits are false, and as such, I think the claims made by you & Caz about Mike Barrett are totally unsubstantiated and unjustified. Please please post again with some evidence when you have any. RP |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 13 July 2001 - 02:20 pm | | But RJ,
First, what I have posted above, in part at least, are specific, verbatim claims made in Mike's sworn affidavits. If you think that they are all true, including the dates, the quotes from people, the auction house scenario, the scene of composition, and everything, then you think Mike has not lied under oath.
First, let me tell you what I think. Only what I think.
I do not think the dates are correct, I think the auction house has said they do not recognize Mike's version of their sales procedures, I happen to think Mike is lying about Anne writing out what he dictated as the scene of the book's composition. I do not believe that Paul Feldman threatened Mike's wife and child or was in any way responsible for having Mike's phone wires cut or having him beaten up.
But here's the point RJ. I admit, completely, readily and utterly that everything I have said here about what I believe and what I don't is pure and total speculation -- even if it is reinforced by the first hand testimony of some of those very people Mike names in his sworn affidavits. I even said that in my post above. I wrote:
"all we have so far on everyone's part, including yours and mine, is pure speculation."
Honestly, how much clearer could I have been?
I readily agree that all of this is almost completely unevidenced speculation.
I am not, under any circumstances, claiming to know anything.
If you think all of this stuff in Mike's affidavit is true, including the dates and the abusive and threatening quotations allegedly from Paul Feldman which Mike swears to under oath and Anne's handwriting being that of the diary's and everything, then that's fine.
I do know, by the way, that some of the dates in Mike's statements are provably false. But I'm willing to let that slide.
As I said in my last post: If you believe Mike's story, then that should answer the question for you.
I don't.
I don't believe Anne, either. I don't think there is anything like the necessary evidence to support Mike's statements or to support Anne's statements or to support anyone's statements at all including my own. That is precisely what I have been saying all along. You are now merely saying the same thing I have always been saying.
There is no evidence for any of this. And therefore, those who might have some real evidence ought to get together and share it and make a permanent record of everything that happens.
There is no double standard here, RJ. I don't know anything at all for sure about who wrote this book and have no evidence concerning who wrote this book or how or why and neither do you nor Melvin nor anyone. I admit it completely and readily. There is no double standard at all.
But you didn't answer my questions above.
Are you saying that you believe Anne handwrote the diary, that the dates in Mike's sworn statements are all true, that the auction house couldn't recognize their own way of doing business, that Mike planned to forge the diary in a book he bought giving his own name and home address for the record, and that Paul Feldman told Mike ""BARRETT I WILL F*CKIN GAURANTEE (sic) I WILL DESTROY YOU AND YOU WILL NOT SEE YOU (sic) WIFE AND DAUGHTER, EVER AGAIN"?
Because Mike Barrett claims every one of these things in his affidavits.
Are you saying it's all true?
Me? I don't know, as I continue to say. But I personally don't believe it.
But I have almost no evidence because there is almost no evidence either way. And I have said that from the very beginning. So there is no double standard here at all.
I have always only said two things. I will say them once again since you missed them the last time.
I don't know who wrote this book. The reliable, material evidence concerning who wrote this book is slim indeed, all around.
Both of those statement remain true, I believe. They are my only asserted claims.
It seems to me, RJ, that you actually agree with me about this.
That's good.
--John
PS: RJ, In Mike's sworn statement he says this about Tony: "he died late May early June 1990."
Is this true? |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 13 July 2001 - 02:37 pm | | For Peter Birchwood:
Dear Peter,
Above, you give two reasons for not being willing to attend a meeting that is taped for an objective verifiable record:
1. "Well firstly it was the way that this came out through the casebook rather than through a private discussion."
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand this one. How exactly did the taping idea come from "the casebook"? And why do you assume that there won't be casebook interest in what happens at that first meeting? I think there will be plenty of casebook interest in exactly what happens and what gets said, whether there should be or not. Wouldn't it be simply prudent and wise therefore to have a complete and accurate record of that? Isn't that what a tape would provide? This seems only reasonable and rational and sensible.
and 2.) "I also felt insulted that it was deemed necessary to tape that initial meeting."
This one also confounds me. But why, Peter? Shirley and Keith would also have to consent to be taped, and apparently they would not have felt insulted. So why would you? Why would anyone be insulted by the prospect of having a clear, complete and accurate record of what happened at any meeting, if only in the name of care and future verifiability for all sides, including your own. There is nothing insulting about this whatsoever. And to claim that it is somehow so insulting that it would prevent you from even attending the first meeting seems to take the whole thing to unaccountable extremes.
There are sound and good reasons to have a clear and verifiable record made.
There are no real reasons not to, are there, other than your sense that you were somehow insulted?
Shouldn't rational planning and reasonable thought win out here over emotions and affrontery, whether it was intended or not?
Shouldn't logic and protection and clarity and an accurate archive win out over a vague sense that someone is somehow insulting someone?
Isn't this a case where personal readings and misreadings of emotions should be put aside in favor of clarity and care and prudence and the maintenance of an accurate record?
Why not?
All the best,
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 13 July 2001 - 02:44 pm | | Hi, John:
I believe Tony Devereaux died in August 1991 not in "late May early June 1990" but we already know that Mike is wildly off about a number of key dates. However, does that make him a liar? No. I don't think he is purposely lying about the dates. I think he is simply erratic in remembering dates, possibly because of his alcoholism. As Paul has said, Mike was desperately trying to prove his case that he forged the Diary, so why would he purposely give false dates? I think the dates were as he remembered them but they are one of the defects of his confessions and have helped the Diary advocates to question his credibility.
Hi, Peter:
I am very glad to read that you are still willing to meet with Shirley and Keith next week in Oxford. Bravo! I hope both parties can now agree on ground rules for the get together and that it does indeed take place.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 13 July 2001 - 03:01 pm | | HI Chris,
I agree completely. That's why I wrote, in my post to RJ, above:
"I do know, by the way, that some of the dates in Mike's statements are provably false. But I'm willing to let that slide."
But I did want there to be at least some record that I wasn't just making this up about the dates being wrong.
(By the way, if it was me, and I was giving a sworn statement under oath, I would be pretty careful to check things like the dates and the quotes written in what I was signing my name to. But that's just me.)
No, there are plenty of other parts of Mike's stories told under oath that I do not believe -- I have cited them above. But I readily admit that these are my beliefs only (I do not believe for instance that Paul Feldman called and explicitly threatened Mike's ability to ever see his wife and child again -- nor do I believe that the handwriting in this book is clearly Anne's -- nor do I believe that the auction house Mike mentioned wouldn't have recognized their own way of doing business or the items that Mike says he bought from them -- but that's all just my beliefs at this point since, as RJ and I are now jointly pointing out in blissful communion, there is no real, reliable, material evidence for anything here).
I also believe that Mike was indeed desperately trying to prove his case that he wrote the diary.
This is only speculation, of course.
But if it's true, then Mike's inability to simply, directly, accurately, and finally prove that he wrote the thing in decisive terms remains troublesome at least.
Thanks for the dates, Chris. You are, as always, a fine repository for needed information.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Alegria
Friday, 13 July 2001 - 04:01 pm | | If I am understanding Peter correctly (probably not), he believes that this initial meeting will be about "what we feel, and how we might reach a consensus". I do not know the players involved, I do not know their personal histories with one another and I do not know what feelings of suspicions may be felt on either side. If this is to be a meeting about personal conflicts or personal uncertainties and how to resolve them, then that is a private matter between the people who have these conflicts and I wouldn't want it taped either. Bottom line is that no one has to go through with this meeting if they feel reservations about it. If Peter or Shirley decides to back out for whatever reason, that is their right. Peter clearly doesn't want to have the meetings taped. He doesn't have to justify it or give us answers. I wouldn't if I were in his position. I would say (even to my previous query) "None of your damn business why!: But that is just me of course.  If this is a sticking point for him, then it is a sticking point. Life goes on. |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 13 July 2001 - 04:13 pm | | Hi, Alegria:
You stated: "Peter clearly doesn't want to have the meetings taped."
As Peter himself has said, it is only this preliminary meeting that he has objected to being taped. He has indicated that he has no objection to taping the subsequent work sessions where information will be exchanged.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Alegria
Friday, 13 July 2001 - 04:19 pm | | Strike the 's' from meetings. I was clearly referencing the first meeting at the beginning of my post, by the end..not so clear. Was discussing the first meeting throughout though.
'kay?
Ally |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 13 July 2001 - 04:25 pm | | | Fine, Ally, I just thought that we should be crystal clear. Thanks for the clarification! |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 13 July 2001 - 05:41 pm | | John--I realize I am being a bit confrontational, but I remember some of your own posts in the past and I don't think you ought to be given special treatment, nor do I suspect that you would demand it. Sorry but I still think a double standard exists on these boards, and always has. You held Karoline, Melvin, Peter and others to rigorous standards. You demanded documentation. But frankly, I don't see you doing the same thing when Caz or someone else makes an unsubstantiated claim---indeed I often see you echoing it, although in a more qualified manner. For instance, you have implied several times --though admittedly using qualifiers such as "seems" or "apparently" --that Mike would have done anything to discredit Feldman. And this is meant to be some sort of argument that Mike's confession is bunk. But where on earth does this statement come from? Could you or Caz or anyone else produce at tape of Mike making this wild statement? [Something along the lines of "I will destroy Feldman. I will lie in sworn affidavits if necessary"] Or is this just some phrase that has come from god-knows-where and has been repeated so often that it has crystalized into fact? Yet, as if in argument, you offer up Mike telling that he won't give in to blackmail! You also seem to imply that because Mike changed his story several times and made rambling phone calls that this somehow has some bearing on the legitimacy of his January 5, 1995 sworn affidavit-- very similar to a logical fallacy that you have pointed out in others.
Caz can --and of course will-- believe what she wants about Mike and Mike's confession. But why don't you hold her to the same standards that you hold everyone else? If she wants to claim that Mike's sworn affidavit is bullocks, she needs to present some documentation to prove it. This isn't asking her anymore than she has asked Melvin or Peter on numerous occasions. I haven't seen any evidence so far that proves Mike's confession is bullocks, but will keep looking. How about start with a sample of Anne's handwriting?
By the way, I went hiking in the Grand Canyon a few years ago. It was one of the most memorable trips of my life. But honestly, I couldn't begin to tell you if this was in 1994 or 1997 or somewhere in between. But that certainly doesn't suggest that I didn't go there.
RJP |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 09:18 am | | Hi RJ,
I don't think you're being confrontational at all. In fact, I think this is very important and should be made clear and I am glad you brought it up.
I'll put this as simply as I can.
There is a serious and crucial difference between what I having been claiming on these boards to know or have evidence of and what Karoline, Peter, and Melvin have been claiming on these boards to know or have evidence of. This is why there is no double standard on my part.
I have not, ever, in any post, been claiming to have any evidence that suggests that it is either more likely or less likely that any specific person wrote this book, or to have any reliable evidence at all that makes anything, including the truth of Mike's statements, more or less likely.
I have none.
I have never said I did have any.
I have speculated at length about various people's writing here on these boards and what they have claimed and about possible scenarios and have always been willing to admit that what I have written has been just that -- close, detailed reading of others and total and complete and utter speculation.
I have never said that it was likely that Mike or anyone wrote this book.
I have never said there was any evidence that made it likely that Mike or anyone wrote this book or that made it likley that Mike has or has not lied repeatedly about who wrote this book or that there was any evidence whatsoever that Mike even knew or did not know precisely who wrote this book.
In fact, I have written at great length, over and over, that I do not think such evidence exists -- that it exists perhaps barely at all -- that there is almost no such evidence.
I have always tried to qualify any statements I have made about Mike apparently wanting to discredit Feldman or to tell how he wrote this book and I have always insisted that these are purely speculation on my part, based solely on what I have read elsewhere and my readings of Mike's various actions and words. Completely speculation and hearsay. There is no question. But I readily admit this for all to see and I am even quite proud to admit that I don't know.
But I have claimed, even insisted over and over again that there is very little, almost no real reliable material evidence about any of this either way.
This is has been one of only two actual assertions I have made here -- the other being that I do not know who wrote this book.
Therefore, you can't really ask me to produce evidence which I have been claiming quite loudly, all along, does not exist.
The fact that it does not exist has been my point all along.
And I have seen Caroline argue over and over that what is offered here as evidence can in fact be read in conflicting ways (her green bricks theory) and therefore cannot be counted on as clear evidence one way or another. And I have seen her too say that she does not know what happened here and has no theory of her own about who did this and that her own ideas about all of this are merely speculation.
And I have not seen her claim that Mike did not do this or that she knows that or has evidence to support that. And I have not said any such thing here either.
She has said that she thinks Mike's confessions are less than convincing and apparently contradicted by what the auction house has said and what people have said about the handwriting and that his dates are all wrong and that the details of the book purchase seem to be wrong and that if Mike really did write this book why couldn't he simply, once and for all, give a clear and definitive account of the process that could be proven finally and put a simple end to this entire matter? I have seen her say those things. I have not seen her claim to have material or reliable evidence that would make these statements anything more than speculation.
But if it makes you happy to hear me say that I think they too are speculation just as I think everything Peter and Melvin and Karoline have said are only speculation, then I am more than happy to say so. Here you go:
I think everything that everyone is saying around these parts has been mostly simple speculation with no real evidence behind it whatsoever.
Me, included.
Now, RJ, you wrote that you did not see any evidence that Mike Barrett would lie under oath.
All I did in response was to ask you some questions which you still have not answered?
I asked them for a reason.
RJ -- Do you believe the handwriting in this book is Anne Graham's and no one else’s?
If not, then you too believe that Mike Barrett lied under oath.
And, yes, I too think her handwriting should be analyzed. But I recall that in a post earlier this year, Melvin Harris repeated his conclusion that upon his examination of the handwriting, it was neither Mike's nor Anne's. You once said that you favored Melvin's scenario.
Here's my problem.
If you favor Melvin's scenario, wherein he says that someone other than Mike or Anne penned the diary, then you must also favor the idea that Mike Barrett lied under oath.
And, RJ, how do you reconcile the thrust of Mike's sworn statements -- that Anne penned this diary while he dictated -- with the rumors swirling around about what the sacred Kane relics are evidence of?
RJ:
 Do you believe the Kane relics are bunk, or do you believe that Mike lied under oath.
Logically, one of these two things MUST be true.
Either Kane did not pen this diary at all or Mike lied under oath.
RJ,
Do you believe that Paul Feldman called Mike and threatened to prevent him from ever seeing his wife and child again?
If not, then you too believe that Mike Barrett lied under oath.
There are more, of course, but I've written the list twice already. I'll let you and others interested go back and read it.
I am not saying and have never said that I have convincing evidence that Mike did not lie or that he did.
I have said that I personally don't believe him. But I have also said that this is pure speculation on my part.
In my last post I wrote this:
"I don't think there is anything like the necessary evidence to support Mike's statements or to support Anne's statements or to support anyone's statements at all including my own."
(My emphasis, in case people missed it the first time.)
The reason there is no double standard is because I have never claimed that I had any reliable material evidence whatsoever that Mike does or does not lie all the time and did under oath or that it was likely that anyone in particular wrote this book or that there was any evidence that would make it likely that anyone wrote this book. Peter and Karoline both have claimed those last two things explicitly and therefore I called for that evidence and examined it and found out that it was not reliable, material evidence at all, but preferred interpretations of conflicting reports, self-contradictory assertions, and simple speculation.
I have always been willing to admit that I have no idea who wrote this book and that there is almost no real, material evidence one way or another. Therefore, it seems bizarre to expect me to produce evidence, since I have been the one claiming it doesn't exist.
And my response to your claim that Mike Barrett would not lie under oath was simply to ask you a series of questions to see if you yourself really believed that. I am still not convinced that you do. But I have never said anything more than that, except that I happen not to believe Mike myself, and that this is purely speculation on my part and should not convince anyone else of anything.
I hope that is clear.
If you still feel there is some sort of double standard after this explanation, then I'll be happy to try again to make it clear why what I have claimed about Mike and what I have claimed about the existence of evidence that makes anything likely and what I have said I have (simple speculation and hearsay and I am always admitting this fact) is different than what has been written in a similar vein by Peter and Karoline and others (who are definitely not always admitting this last fact in print). If you like, we can go back and read the language of Peter and Karoline's posts on the subject and compare it to my own. I would be delighted to do that.
But for now, I hope this has made my position clearer.
Bye,
--John
PS: Thanks to Chris George for offering to be the missing fourth. His countenance will, now, forever, in my mind, mark the strange and noticeable absence of Melvin Harris. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 11:22 am | | Hi RJ,
Perhaps you would like to demonstrate that you yourself are not into double standards, by asking Melvin Harris why he does not believe Mike told the truth under oath? Yes, even the man who can do no wrong said he never believed Mike or Anne faked this diary, and that they only handled and placed a document forged by others.
Alan Gray, to whom Mike confessed, with his sworn statement, knew there must be more, if Mike was involved. In 1996, he suggested Mike really tell all this time, to pay those 'terrible people' back - I wonder where he got that idea from, that there were 'terrible people' that Mike wanted to pay back - if not from Mike himself? But, of course, how do we know when to rely on Mike's word for anything?
So why the partial confession, RJ? Why confess at all? And why, if Melvin is right, have we never got an account from Mike, in which he says that someone other than himself or Anne (Devereux for instance? Mike didn't mind splitting on a dead mate, did he?) composed the diary, a fourth person (unidentified if need be) penned it, and that Mike and his wife handled and placed it? I can just imagine what would have happened if Mike had given such an account. It would have been believed instantly in some quarters, because it would have matched up so neatly with Melvin's scenario. But no matter - what Mike did come out with is good enough for you - even though it completely contradicts Melvin's beliefs (and info, if he has any) and didn't even satisfy Alan Gray.
Never mind the documentation, RJ, to verify my own speculations, based on the first-hand experiences of people whose judgement and reporting skills I trust absolutely 100%, like Keith and Paul Begg, of having talked and listened extensively to Mike and Anne. Never mind all that. The documentation may be there to back it all up (if sensible written and taped - hint hint nudge nudge wink wink - records were kept scrupulously), or it may not be. I am not in a position where I can produce a single piece of documentation for you - that's up to Keith and Shirley and Feldy - if they want to argue the toss on these boards. I am not their spokesperson when I debate with you 'orrible lot here under my own name.
I am going by everything I have read and heard, and forming conclusions, slowly and painstakingly, and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I don't expect you to agree with my interpretation of any of Melvin's pronouncements, but you have to admit you can't have it both ways here. If you seriously believe Mike was basically telling the truth, and as far as he was able, in his sworn confessions, then you are completely out on a limb, because both Melvin and Alan Gray think otherwise, as does practically everyone else, I shouldn't wonder, who was ever involved in the investigation and who knew Mike.
Have you got any documentation to support your own theory, that Mike's word should have been taken as gospel by Melvin, Alan Gray, Shirley, Keith, Paul Begg et al?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 12:38 pm | | Hi Ally,
Well now. Is it still none of our business what conditions are laid down for the meeting between Peter, Shirley and Keith? Or does it only become our business if we happen to agree with Peter's point of view? I thought you suggested it be left to them to get on with it without our interference, but you have now made two posts supporting Peter's wish not to have any of the conversation on record.
I spoke to Keith yesterday and asked him if it was so necessary to have a tape running. He told me that the only fair alternative for all concerned would be to have an independent person present who could confirm what took place if any dispute arose afterwards (and even Peter can surely not say, hand on heart, that the idea of a dispute is not feasible, considering what's gone before, and is still going on right now!). The problem with this, though, is that Peter said in one of his emails to Shirley that he thinks independent arbitrators are too complex for this sort of situation. So it's back to square one.
A tape recorder seems such an inoffensive, natural and easy option, that Keith just doesn't understand what the real problem is - it surely can't just be the imagined insult, or the mere fact that Keith mentioned it in a casebook post.
Anyway, I'll let Keith know the latest, and perhaps something can be arranged along the lines Chris George - Diary Diplomat Supreme - has suggested.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 01:44 pm | | Caz--Thanks for the quotation of the Alan Gray letter. I figured someone would bring that up. But sadly, if you're offering this as some sort proof for your many generalizations about Mike Barrett, then you're off-base. Gray's letter is dated October 15, 1996 in other words, nearly two years after Mike's sworn affidavit on 5 January 1995. Unless you want us to condemn Mike ipso facto, this is worthless and misleading as 'evidence' that Mike would have done anything to discredit Feldman. For all you know, Mike's confessions were made in the spirit of true repentence. The letter is also worthless as proof that Mike's confessions are without merit. By bringing up this up, are you still suggesting that the idea that Mike was driven by the urge to destroy Feldy has merit? John seems to think that you're totally impartial on this point. If you're not, you need to come up with some documentation, that's all I'm saying.
You see, this has nothing whatever to do with what I personally think about Mike's sworn statements. At least three people in recent memory have stated that they feel that Mike's affidavits might have some merit. But, regardless of what John has stated, it has been your assertion that these documents are worthless. Why shouldn't you come up with some documentation to back up this claim? Or is it only Melvin or Peter that are required to produce documentation when they make assertions?
When I've asked for certain documents to be released to this board I've been told that they belonged to Paul Feldman, or that there were so many tons of documents that it would be impractical to dig through them. But imagine your reaction, Caz, if Melvin had used that excuse...
All I am doing is challenging the generalization made by many people many times on this board that Mike was too ignorant to be involved in the creation of the Maybrick diary. I also question the claim that Mike was driven by some demonic urge to destroy Feldman. These are convenient myths used to discredit Mike's sworn affidavits --which, as far as I know, might well have some merit. RP |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 01:52 pm | | | John--you totally miss my point. I didn't answer your questions because --and this is my point---- you're asking the wrong person! You need to ask Caroline Morris what proof she has for her claims. And a claim is a claim whether it is couched in an ironic question or whether it is prefixed by those magical words "seemingly" or "apparently" or whether it is tossed out as a joke. RP |
Author: Alegria
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 03:16 pm | | Hi Caz,
It's none of our business regardless of whose 'side' we are on or support. I understand Peter's desire not to tape record a meeting about personal problems, but I am not accusing Shirley Harrison of trying to weasel out of the meeting or acting suspiciously because she wants to have it taped. Several people are saying that it reflects negatively on Peter because he doesn't want it taped. It doesn't any more than it does for Shirley who wants it taped. I can understand her point of view also and would understand if she stated that without it taped, she won't come. Peter is getting the blame because he says he doesn't want it taped. If Shirley says she won't come without it taped aren't they both delivering ultimatums on conditions that they want met? Whose fault is it?
Ally |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 04:08 pm | | RJ,
Please do not assume that I include words like "apparently and "seemingly" lightly or casually. I am a very careful writer. I use the words I do for a reason. Some things I know and some I do not and am merely speculating on. I wish this to be clear at all times. You have never seen me make any claims to have any reliable material evidence for anything concerning Mike Barrett's veracity or the likelihood of his having written the diary or not written the diary. I have no such evidence. There is almost no evidence. I have said this all along. I say it about what you have written and I say it about what Peter and Melvin and Karoline have written and I say it about what the Pauls and Caroline have written and I say this most especially about what I have written. I say this about what everyone has written so far concerning this diary, including what Mike Barrett has written and sworn to.
But why not answer my question, RJ?
It is not ironic. It is not a claim. It is not meant to imply anything at all. It is a simple and honest and straightforward question and it's purely for my own information.
RJ: Do you believe what Mike has said under oath is true?
I do have a claim to make, though.
Would you like a claim? OK. here's one:
I am still struck by the simple logical fact that either Mike Barrett has blatantly lied under oath or the sacred Kane relics are bunk.
One of those things MUST be true.
Which one do you personally believe is true, RJ?
I have already admitted millions of times today (well, it seems like that anyway) that neither I nor you nor Caroline nor anyone has any reliable material evidence concerning much of anything about this case and must speculate based on what they have read, observed, what others have written and what those who have spoken first hand to the immediate players have said. That's all there is for all of us, including Melvin and Peter and Karoline and you and Caroline and me.
I think the only difference here is that I have rarely if ever seen Melvin or Peter or Karoline admit in print that all they have is pure and utter speculation and derived conclusions based on preferred interpretations of conflicting data and inconsistent testimony and reports.
I, on the other hand, am happy to admit that this is all that exists.
I have seen Caroline also admit that she has no material or documentary evidence either way, either.
But there are plenty of reasons why one, if so inclined, could doubt Mike's testimony.
And, RJ, in case you haven't noticed, I am inclined to doubt everyone and everything said or asserted about this case and this document because I think people around here, much of the time, don't really know what they are talking about concerning what really happened and I am willing to admit this about myself and Caroline has repeatedly admitted this about herself.
I can't ever remember Melvin Harris admitting anything like this ever in any words he has ever written on these boards. But then again, I do not expect him to, given the nature of his rhetoric and his prose style.
If you think Mike's statements under oath are true or "have some merit," RJ, then I accept that and do not doubt your honesty or integrity. But to be consistent, that must also mean that you think Melvin's scenario is probably wrong, since it directly and completely contradicts Mike's sworn statements.
Fair enough.
And I do not have to ask Caroline what proof she has for any claims that Mike’s sworn affidavits are false or that Mike was at one point trying to discredit Feldy. I know that this is only her best speculation based on the first-hand reports of Shirley and Keith and others who talked to Mike at this time (hearsay) and her best reading of the affidavit's truth based on what the auction house has said and what Melvin has said about the handwriting and about what others have told her about the dates and the details of the book purchase and a bunch of other stuff she has heard first hand and read. None, I repeat, none of this is documented evidence or material evidence and it is all merely the grounds for certain speculations and beliefs. You can decide for yourself how sturdy these grounds are.
I, for one, for instance, find it difficult to believe that Paul Feldman called Mike Barrett and threatened to prevent him from ever seeing his wife and child again or that, directly because of his involvement with this diary Mike was ever "beaten up."
But I might be wrong. Paul Feldman may indeed by a nefarious and evil figure with paid henchman who go out and beat up people Paul doesn't like and who can prevent people from ever seeing their wives and children again and he may indeed make abusive and criminally threatening phone calls to people, all over the issue of this diary.
Or Mike Barrett may have lied under oath.
Like everything else in this case, it's a question of speculation and what you believe.
Bye for now,
--John |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 04:40 pm | | Hi Ally,
I appreciate your attempt to make Shirley and Peter's position about taping a meeting between them seem identical.
They are not.
Shirley has clearly stated that she would like a taped record of this and all meetings because of the numerous times in the past that she has been explicitly accused of withholding evidence or misstating facts or giving misleading accounts of what happened at certain interviews and meetings. She would like to be protected from such things in the future and she would like Keith and Peter to be protected from such things as well. Also, and most importantly, she would like a clear, complete, verifiable record of what takes place, in the name of honesty and soundness and accuracy.
Peter, on the other hand, does not feel it is necessary to have the meeting taped. But this cannot be what prevents him from attending a meeting that is taped -- since simply stating that a tape does not seem necessary is not the same as offering a definitive reason that the meeting should not be taped. No, Peter, according to his own posts here, feels this meeting should not be taped for two definitive reasons: because he thinks the idea arose on the casebook and because he somehow finds it personally insulting. (I can cite the relevant passages from Peter's posts if you'd like.)
Now, one of these positions seems to be both rational and constructed with a good deal of thought given to the future and to the completeness of the archive and the verifiability of the record. It seems to be also based on the simple objectivity of the record and logical common sense.
The other position, as it has been expressed here on this board, is based on hurt feelings, personal emotions, the mysterious origins of the proposal (for some reason), and an apparently insistent pique.
The positions are not identical.
We are all free to choose which one we think is the more responsible.
And the theory you have constructed, that Peter doesn't want a tape because he wants to say private things about "personal problems" that he does not want on any record, is not ever offered explicitly in his own writings either to Shirley or here. He has given us only the two reasons I have outlined above -- the origin of the idea and the insult.
But you are certainly correct when you say that both Shirley and Peter should feel free to attend or not attend any meeting based on their own reactions and feelings and concerns and analysis.
That of course should not stop us from discussing what is posted on these boards and what we are being asked to read. And what is posted on these boards and what we are being asked to read by the authors of those posts is, by definition, our business.
Or at least, I choose to read these posts and to accept them as my business. If you do not, that seems perfectly valid and appropriate and you certainly do not have to comment on the issues or the positions of all involved.
Like all of us, you have that choice.
Bye for now, and thanks again for the new home for the diary reading,
--John |
Author: Alegria
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 05:18 pm | | John,
Peter also said that this initial meeting "should be a discussion on what we feel, and how we might reach a consensus". That indicate personal things not evidence..evidence meetings he is willing to share.
As I said, you may have whatever opinion you want about who is more in the right in their opinion, but that fact remains that we are dealing with opinions. Peter's desire not to have it taped is equal to Shirley's desire to have it taped. You may support Shirley's point of view and think her reasons are more valid. That doesn't mean Peter's feelings are not.
Ally |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 05:33 pm | | Ally,
Exactly. The "desires" are equal. The reasons are not.
One set is based on a desire for an accurate record and a complete and careful archive. The other set is based on where the idea of a taped record might have originated and a personal feeling of being somehow insulted.
As I said, earlier, we are all free to decide which set of reasons is the more responsible.
So I guess I agree with you, Ally.
-- John
PS: Peter has not said, even in the passage you cite, that his objection to the taping is specifically because of his desire to say private and personal things. He has, in fact, given two direct and explicit reasons for his objection -- the origin of the idea and the personal insult.
From Peter Birchwood, yesterday, at 1:43 pm. I know of no subsequent statements made by Peter concerning this issue:
"Chris has asked me privately about why I would not want to be taped at the initial meeting whereas I'm happy for it to be done at any subsequent meetings. Well firstly it was the way that this came out through the casebook rather than through a private discussion."
That's his first reason for not wanting to be taped.
Then Peter speculates on whether there would be any "interest" in the record of such a meeting:
"An initial meeting of this kind is not going to come up with any breakthroughs one way or another so I don't see any interest in what should be a discussion on what we feel, and how we might reach a consensus. The real interest would surely be in subsequent meetings where evidence is discussed. I promised that advances in research would be shared here and so, I believe did Shirley."
And then he offers his second reason:
"I also felt insulted that it was deemed necessary to tape that initial meeting." |
Author: Alegria
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 05:49 pm | | John,
I guess I agree with you too when you say "The other set is based on where the idea of a taped record might have originated and a personal feeling of being somehow insulted.". I would be personally insulted too if I was in negotiations for a meeting with two people and one of them posted in a public forum that negotiations had stalled due to my unwillingness to have them taped when prior to that posting, no mention of taping the messages was ever mentioned. I would probably feel personally insulted and decide well fine..then there won't be any tapes made. But then I have momentary attacks of pettiness and Peter probably does not. As I have said before, I can sympathize with both sides of this. I understand Shirley's desire for a record and a careful archive, but I can't help but wonder who would be responsible for keeping the archive? Although I guess they could all record it separately and each keep one copy to deal with any perfidy and misuse that the other might do. What a lovely trusting spirit of working together everyone is entering into this with. It is bound to be a great success.
Ally |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 06:04 pm | | Thanks Ally,
I agree that one set of reasons seems to be based at least in part on the logical desire for a clear and complete and verifiable record and the other seems possibly to have sprung from "a momentary attack of pettiness" or a piqued sense of personal insult, from which it is now difficult, no doubt, to retreat, even if such a reconsideration is desired.
Yes, I think the plan was that everyone could record the session and keep their own clear and complete record of what happened and what was said. And it has been suggested, quite reasonably I think, that everyone could possibly benefit from this someday.
I appreciate your sarcasm, Ally, but given the accusatory prose of the past -- especially concerning Shirley -- should we be surprised that there are suspicions all around?
All the best,
--John
PS: When you write: "prior to that posting, no mention of taping the messages was ever mentioned," are you saying that someone posted news here of the stalled meeting and of a taping issue being the cause before any of these three people ever discussed or even mentioned to each other, in separate, private e-mails, the question of taping the meeting and before Peter ever objected to Shirley concerning this issue? I do not believe that is true given the dates of the e-mails Chris has posted. But perhaps I have misunderstood. Perhaps you are saying that the taping issue wasn't mentioned on these boards until after the plans had apparently stalled over the taping issue and then someone posted the news tha the plans had stalled over the taping issue. Is this what is supposed to be insulting? But Peter claims the idea of taping somehow came from the casebook, that it originated here. I confess that I still am not sure what that means. |
Author: Alegria
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 06:07 pm | | | I just want to add one more thing to my last sentence. I think that everyone on this board would like to see this situation resolved. In my experience, arguing a point with someone about why they should do what we want them to do will never result in them doing it. Rather the opposite actually as they become indignant and dig in their heels and go "NO! NO! NO!" Maybe instead of picking sides and saying "well if you don't do this that must mean.." or "you are wrong!! " or whatever, we should all just encourage them to try to resolve the issue as best they can. Publically accusing/blaming anyone is not the way to get it done. I understand Shirley's point of view. I understand Peter's point of view. I support them both and hope that a compromise can be reached. |
Author: Alegria
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 06:18 pm | | Sorry John,
Once again I was unclear with what I meant. I was referring to the post that said that negotiations had stalled because of Peter and then asking him if he objected to them being taped. Prior to that post, no mention was made of the meetings being taped.
Ally |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 06:24 pm | | Thanks Ally,
You mean no mention was made on these boards of the meetings being taped prior to that post. Peter and Shirley had already discussed it privately and Peter had already objected and refused to come if they were, right?
I think I understand.
I just want to add that while I agree completely with you and certainly want to see these people meet and share information and while I am very happy to join you in encouraging them to "try and resolve the issue as best they can," I also think we should carefully evaluate what we read here and continue to make responsible, critical determinations about the validity of people's positions once they post them, as best we can.
There are clear differences in the sources and rationales for people's positions.
They should be noted.
Bye for now,
--John |
Author: Alegria
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 06:35 pm | | John,
No. I mean in the e-mails between Shirley and Peter that have been posted, no mention was made of taping the meeting prior to that posting.
Regards,
Ally |
|
|
|
|
