|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 19, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary:
Archive through July 19, 2001
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 06:41 pm |        | Thanks Ally,
That clears it up. According to the e-mails, Keith posted his question to Peter about the taping here.
I see.
And Peter was insulted by this.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: Alegria
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 07:06 pm | | Actually,
I didn't say that Peter was insulted by this. I said if I was in negotiations to get together with some people and one of them went to a public forum and said that I was unable to reached and had stalled the process, I would be upset. I have no idea what Peter felt.
Ally |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 11:32 pm | | Yes, Ally,
I was assuming that this was the reference Peter was making in his earlier post concerning how the taping issue originated "through the casebook" -- since this is one of the two reasons he cited for not wanting any taping. So now it is clear that what troubles Peter about being taped is that he was asked about it first here on the board and that he felt somehow insulted by the suggestion (even though both Shirley and Keith would be being taped too, and they didn't feel insulted at all).
So, finally, I would have to agree with our earlier assessment of the different sets of reasons given here for and against taping.
"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."
I will leave it to each reader to determine which he thinks is the more sensible and responsible set of reasons and the wiser position concerning making a taped record of even this initial meeting.
Thanks for clearing things up for me, Ally. We'll see if the major parties can somehow manage to work all of this out. And we'll see if Melvin ever responds to Keith or to Shirley and lets them know why he won't participate even in the discussion about discussions.
In the meantime, I guess all we can do is discuss what we know and think and speculate and believe about who might have written this book or who might have made that watch and where and when and why and continue to enjoy the mystery.
Now I must sleep.
All the best, Ally,
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 02:38 am | | Hi, John and Ally:
I have dredged through the past posts and it looks as if the suggestion to tape the proposed preliminary meeting of Skinner, Harrison, and Birchwood was made in a message posted by Caroline Anne Morris on Friday, June 22, 2001 at 11:43 am from Keith Skinner to Peter Birchwood. In this message, Keith stated in part:
"To avoid any misunderstandings or unintentional misrepresentations, do you agree that a tape recording should be made of the meeting so the board can be reliably and accurately informed as to what was discussed?"
This appears to be the first time the idea of taping was mentioned, prior to any discussion of tape recording the meeting in the March to July e-mails between Peter Birchwood and Shirley Harrison that I have posted.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 06:27 am | | Thanks Chris.
Keith's use of the word "unintentional" should have been sufficient to show there was no insult, implied or otherwise, to Peter, or any suggestion that he thought Peter would - in Peter's own words - '...go away and immediately cook up a Casebook message that would put him and Shirley in the worst possible light...'.
I wonder why Peter automatically assumed he would be the one accused of doing the misunderstanding or misrepresenting? In fact, Keith told me on the phone that one of the main reasons for taping everything would be to protect Peter from any misunderstandings or misrepresentations by Keith or Shirley after the event, given Peter's own proven record of suggesting this had happened in the past, and throughout the diary investigation, and given that it would look like two against one.
So it just shows you how Peter even misunderstood the word "unintentional", or chose to ignore it, or didn't believe Keith meant it. (And it all kind of proves the point that he does put the worst possible interpretation on Keith's words!)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 06:50 am | | Hi RJ,
You wrote:
‘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.’
Sorry, RJ, but this won’t do. It is only your opinion, based on what you think you know, that I (and others) have claimed that Mike was too ignorant to be involved in creating the diary, and that he wanted more than anything at one time to ruin Feldy’s diary project, because I see them as ‘convenient myths’ I can use to discredit Mike. Why would I want to do that, RJ? I would have absolutely no reason to make any claims if deep down I knew or suspected them to be the mere stuff of myth. Why do you distrust my motives so, RJ, and say that I am not giving my honest opinions here, based on what I know, and have read, and been told, and sincerely believe?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 07:04 am | | Hi again, RJ,
I agree that, for all I know, Mike could have confessed out of true repentence. But I don't see any evidence for that whatsoever (did he stop accepting royalties, for instance?), so it would be complete and utter unsupported speculation.
Why do you think Mike confessed, based on your own reading of the situation?
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 11:25 am | | Hi Caz,
You write:
"I wonder why Peter automatically assumed he would be the one accused of doing the misunderstanding or misrepresenting? In fact, Keith told me on the phone that one of the main reasons for taping everything would be to protect Peter from any misunderstandings or misrepresentations by Keith or Shirley after the event, given Peter's own proven record of suggesting this had happened in the past, and throughout the diary investigation, and given that it would look like two against one."
So it seems that Keith and Shirley are coming at this question from a position of thought -- out of rational consideration for what might be necessary in the future and out of the inevitable and sensible need for a clear and complete record. Whereas Peter seems to be coming at this question from a position of feeling -- out of a somewhat emotional reaction to the fact that Keith first asked him here in public on this board about taping the meeting and his feeling personally insulted by even the suggestion.
I think I now understand the difference between the two positions.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: Alegria
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 11:33 am | | | Maybe Peter assumed that he would be the one accused of misrepresenting because in the same post that asked for taping so no one could misrepresent, Peter was accused of stalling the procedures by being unresponive to Shirley's e-mails. |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 11:50 am | | Hi Ally,
If you are right, and Peter did assume that he would be the one accused of "misrepresenting" something, then surely logic would suggest that his best protection against any such accusation would be a separately owned and clearly verifiable record.
Doesn't this make sense?
--John |
Author: Alegria
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 12:16 pm | | Yes it does. Unless you wish to discuss things that you don't want tape recorded, period, for any reason. In which case, saying forget it makes a lot of sense too. Peter doesn't want the first meeting recorded for some reason. He has agreed to all the evidence portion being tape recorded. This seems like a compromise. Doesn't it?
Ally |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 12:41 pm | | But Ally,
Peter has not said that there are specific things he wishes to say that he does not want taped. I re-read the e-mails this morning and he never actually says anything about being concerned about sensitive materials being taped or wanting to discuss things that should not be on tape. He only says he refuses to have the meeting taped and then he gives two rather emotional reasons -- because he was first asked about it on the board here and because he takes it as a personal insult. Oh yes, he also says, "I'm not having Keith coming along wired up like a junior G-Man." For whatever reason, this image seems to bother him.
He has not offered any specific reason, then, other than that he didn't particularly like the way he was asked about it and the idea of taping was somehow insulting.
But the idea of taping the meeting is not insulting to Keith or Shirley (who would also have to be taped) and it is an idea born out of a logical and rational thought for the future and for the clarity and completeness of the record. To just abandon this idea because someone has an emotional reaction about how it was brought up and what it seems to imply personally, as some sort of insult, seems to me at least rash and less than completely rational.
There is clearly a difference in type between the two positions.
But I accept that you think Peter's set of reasons, based apparently on his feelings about all of this, are as valid as Shirley and Keith's, based on a rational thought about the future and the protection of all involved and the maintenance of a verifiable archive.
It seems we will have to agree to disagree about this.
-- John
"You know how, in the past, there has been so much confusion over conversations and reportings of who said what. A tape is by far the safest way to keep information accurately recorded and available if/when necessary. What's the problem? Even with an exploratory meeting it seems a safeguard for us all and a more efficient way of proceeding. You can bring you own!"
--Shirley Harrison, email to Peter Birchwood, Fri, 29 Jun 2001 09:53:46 +0100
"I've been in Ireland for a week or so. The 16th/17th July is still good and maybe we can consider it as a preliminary meeting to iron out problems and to agree on ways to proceed. I do not agree to any tapes so if that is a problem then maybe we should rethink the whole idea. I will not be going to the Bournemouth Ripper Con[vention of 28 September to 1 October] so this might be a better idea: to meet as persons interested in researching the thing but perhaps from different ends."
-- Peter Birchwood, Tuesday, July 10, 2001 12:45 AM -- immediately subsequent e-mail in response. This is the complete extent of his comments on the matter in this response. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 16 July 2001 - 01:21 am | | Caz--Hi. I'm not questioning your sincerity. But yes, I am question some of the statements that you & John have made about Mike Barrett and about the Maybrick diary. Considering that both of you have rigorously challenged others on this board I hardly think I am out of line here.
Let me explain what I meant by a "convenient myth". I meant a statement or a characterization that has been repeated over and over until it becomes nothing more than a commonplace that replaces serious thought or serious analysis. One of the phrases that set me off was by John Omlor a week ago tonight when he said that "apparently Mike wanted very badly to derail Feldman". I want some verification or some evidence for this. Where is it "apparent" that Mike "wanted very badly" to "derail" Feldman? I'm making no judgement. Maybe John's right. I just want some proof. Because it seems to me that the implication is that we can totally discredit or disregard Mike's sworn statement because Mike had ulterior motives. I question this.
Let me ask an important question: Why would Mike want to discredit Feldman? You yourself have told me that you believe Mike was ignorant of the origins of the Maybrick diary. Others have claimed that Mike was most convincing when he claimed that he believed the diary was genuine. Many have claimed that Mike was profiting from the diary. [We know that this is true] So why on earth would Mike want to discredit the one man who was spending a small fortune to prove the diary was genuine? The one man that was bound to be bringing in royalties and was working towards a film deal? You must admit that at the very least this was entirely self-destructive...
So let me ask again. Why would Mike want to discredit Feldman? One suggestion thrown about was that Mike thought Feldman was keeping his wife & child away from him. But hold on! John chimed in last night, and I quote:
"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"
Hmmm. Odd. Very odd. Mike is profitting from the Maybrick diary. Mike thinks the diary is genuine. Feldman is trying to prove it is genuine. Feldman is not threatening Mike. Mike is receiving royalties. So wait.. I am told to believe...'Apparently Mike wanted very badly to discredit Feldman' I ask again: why?
So you see, Caz, I think you & John have a very big problem. You can't come up with a credible motive for Mike wanting to do so, without admitting that Mike perceived that Feldman was threatening him. And if Mike perceived that Feldman was threatening him, then it is wrong for John Omlor to disregard Mike's confessions with some unsubstantiated claim that Mike was lying about those threats.
Bottom line.
Am I claiming that Feldman threatened Mike or had him beat up? No. I am not claiming that. Do I think it is possible that Mike perceived that he was threatened by Feldman? Yes, I think it is possible that Mike perceived that he was threatened. So do I think Mike is lying about this in his affidavit? No, I can't claim that I know that Mike is lying about this. Do I think John's doubts on this matter are therefore a legitimate reason to toss Mike's affidavit in the trash without a critical examination? No, I do not. Do I think Mike's confessions might still have some merit and deserve a closer look? Yes, I do.
RJP |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 16 July 2001 - 07:46 am | | Hi RJ,
First of all, there's this:
"So do I think Mike is lying about this in his affidavit? No, I can't claim that I know that Mike is lying about this."
You've answered a different question than you've asked yourself.
The question asks what you "think."
The answer states what you know or can "claim" that you "know."
These are two different things.
For instance:
Do you think Mike was lying when he said that he dictated and his wife wrote out the diary?
Notice: that's a different question than whether you know this was a lie or not or whether you have documented or material evidence one way or the other or not. It's just a question about what you think, based on what you've seen and heard and read.
Would you like to answer it yet?
Yes, Anne's handwriting definitely should be analyzed. I agree. But that's not an answer to this question.
Do you think the sacred Kane relics are irrelevant? Because if you think Mike’s confession is true, then you must think the sacred Kane relics are bogus or worthless. Or has Mike apparently lied under oath about the most important thing -- how the diary was actually written?
Do you think the auction house would not have recognized how it did its business? I'm not asking if you have any material evidence to that effect one way or the other, I'm just asking you what you think. But you needn't answer just yet.
RJ, I have never said that anything at all should be thrown in the trash "without a critical examination."
I'm all for critically examining everything as much as possible always.
Examine away, RJ, and then tell me what specific parts of Mike's confession "might still have some merit." His description of how Anne wrote the diary? His description of how the auction worked? His description of being beaten up and having his phone wires cut because of his involvement with the diary? His alleged word for word quotation of Paul threatening to prevent him from seeing his wife and child ever again?
I will wait and let Caz have a chance to explain to you why, given what she has heard from Keith and Shirley and given the phone calls that people have recorded and given the testimony of many of the people involved, she thinks that Mike might have wanted to derail Paul's project at one point and to prove his own wife a liar.
And perhaps Keith might be convinced to send a short post also giving you a reason or two in support of this admittedly speculative assumption.
And you can't really get away with saying that if Mike "perceived" he was being threatened by Paul, he wasn't lying. Under oath, he claims to actually "quote" Paul. He says the word "quote." So if Paul didn't say this, then Mike is lying, under oath.
"Paul Feldman in June 1994 contacted me by telephone and I quote him 'BARRETT I WILL FUCKIN GAURANTEE (sic) I WILL DESTROY YOU AND YOU WILL NOT SEE YOU (sic) WIFE AND DAUGHTER, EVER AGAIN'".
Then again, Mike does swear to things in his affidavit that he only feels or believes. That's different. Like when he says, "This is the type of pressure I have been under and there is no doubt in my mind that Paul Feldman in particular wants me dead." Sadly, I do believe this is true. I believe there was no doubt in Mike's mind that Paul Feldman wanted him dead. This might almost be a motive for Mike, in turn, wanting to derail Paul's pet project.
Still, Mike's bottom line seems to be that "the truth is I wrote the Diary of Jack the Ripper and my wife Anne Barrett transcribed it onto the old photograph Album."
 But my bottom line is that you are quite wrong in what I am recommending. I am not and would never recommend that Mike’s affidavits or anything else in this case -- including Paul Feldman's book, for instance, which is also full of stuff I do not happen to believe and I do not think is in any way supported by any real evidence, sort of like much of Mike’s confessions -- be thrown into the trash, uncritically or otherwise.
Nothing should ever be tossed aside -- including Shirley’s book and Robert Smith's arguments and even Melvin’s blustery explosions that come wearing the jeweled titles of the Upper Case.
It's all worth looking at over and over again, including Mike’s little affidavits and his newspaper confession and everything.
Definitely.
But do I believe much of any of this? Not really. Not all of Shirley’s book nor all of Robert's arguments nor Mike’s stories, offered under oath and otherwise, nor Melvin's prose tirades, nor much of anything yet. I’ll read and accept it all with a jaundiced eye, but I can't say that I have seen the necessary evidence yet to make me believe much of anything. I certainly haven't seen much reliable evidence in support of anything and neither have you.
So your bottom line about what I think should be done with Mike’s confessions is not quite accurate. I say read them and read them again and, like everything else, read them again. But my own reading of them so far has not convinced me they are true, based on what I have read and seen and heard elsewhere regarding their subject matter. Still, that should not stop anyone from reconsidering them. I think the prospect is delightful.
So when you say, as your "bottom line" conclusion:
"Do I think Mike's confessions might still have some merit and deserve a closer look? Yes, I do."
I say, go for it! Look closer and closer and let us watch as you read them. And be sure and tell us, when you do, which parts specifically, you think "have some merit" or some evidence to support them, and why.
I look forward to your reading and your conclusions.
But now the rain has stopped and the course awaits,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 16 July 2001 - 09:54 am | | Hi RJ,
I can't speak for John's opinions as to why he is not convinced by Mike's various confession statements. But I agree with you that Mike may well have perceived that Feldy was threatening him somehow. After all, many others have testified to Feldy's overbearing manner, and the insufferable pressure he put on people to tell him stuff he imagined they were holding back. But those perceived threats, exaggerated or not, were very extreme, weren't they? And Mike did choose to hurl such accusations at Feldy, and he did choose to confess to forging the diary - not exactly the actions of a man trying to keep Feldy sweet and protect his own future royalties! So, I can ask you almost exactly the same question you put to me: why on earth would Mike effectively discredit the one man who was spending a small fortune to prove the diary was genuine? And I can follow it by saying, exactly as you did: ‘You must admit that at the very least this was entirely self-destructive...' Was Mike so confused by this time that he simply didn’t realise the adverse effect his confession might have on the diary project in general, and his own financial interests in particular? But in any case, something prompted his confession, RJ, whether or not he was involved in the creation of the diary. Perhaps you are right, and I have been misled about Mike appearing to want Feldy discredited, and this – at least in part - leading him to confess. But to convince me, you’ll need to come up with a better explanation for his confession. I haven’t seen one yet.
Talking of convincing, RJ, I have a question for you. Shirley and Feldy have made a case for Maybrick having written the diary. Shirley admits she has no proof, but everyone accepts that it would be up to her to produce it, if she wants to convince us she’s right. You and I can express our opinions freely on this board, without having to present a single piece of hard evidence to support why we remain unconvinced that Maybrick wrote the diary. In fact, you’d be the first to object if Shirley continually asked you to do so. So why do you keep asking me to produce documentation to show why I’m not convinced that you, Mike Barrett, or anyone else, has yet made a watertight case for either the Barretts, Tony D, Citizen Kane (or James Maybrick, come to that) being involved in the diary’s creation? I haven’t been suspecting or accusing any of these people of writing or forging the thing. Others have, and claim to have seen evidence not available to the rest of us. Thus it has been admitted that the case against all these individuals remains incomplete as presented. How is it double standards for me to expect to see the complete case for someone’s involvement, without having to present the evidence for their non-involvement?
In this regard, perhaps it is more up to those making a case for the merits of Mike's sworn statement to arrange for Anne's handwriting analysis? Perhaps Peter Birchwood could help. No one has exactly rushed forward to accept my offer to finance it in conjunction with Kane's.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 11:02 am | | Hi All,
Has anyone else wondered about the shift in emphasis regarding the suspected diary penperson?
At one time, not so long ago, it was considered downright unreasonable in some quarters to doubt Mike and Anne’s involvement, but it was also suggested that Mike had very little to do with the actual physical creation of the diary (which would conveniently explain his inability to give a good account of himself when confessing to forging the thing). There was the known association between the Barretts and Gerard Kane, in the form of Tony Devereux. And finally, Kane's handwriting had been seen and declared to be a good match for the diary. The case was all but sewn up.
I don’t recall RJ having as much trouble as others did, with the mechanics of the diary passing between Gerard Kane and Mike, after Tony died in August 1991, assuming it was finally written in the scrapbook shortly before Mike brought it to London in April 1992; and assuming Mike ordered the little maroon diary as a possible last-minute substitute; and assuming Mike knew too little to incriminate himself as the actual forger; but assuming also that Mike and Gerard Kane had to keep the fact they knew of each other's existence a permanent secret, along with any benefits Kane might want from his part in the fraud.
I also don’t recall RJ – or Peter – ever disputing the idea before, that Kane was a plausible suspect for the penman.
Yet, over the past week or so, we have seen Peter trying to pin the penmanship back on a troubled Mike, suggesting that his handwriting could have been unrecognisable due to the effects of kidney failure and treatment, while his various confession statements could have been muddled, inaccurate, and consequently less than credible, for the same reason. (Imagine the scene: “Blimey, Anne, look at this! My writing has become unrecognisable due to my kidney trouble – what a stroke of luck! By the time they start checking on this bogus ripper diary of ours, the writing in it will look completely different from mine, and we’ll be scot-free.”  )
And now we have RJ, playing down the flaws in Mike’s sworn statement, which Peter and Karoline and Melvin have all acknowledged and/or tried to excuse in their own ways. RJ is now suggesting we all reconsider our previous concerns, and ask if Mike ought to be taken seriously when he said Anne wrote the diary!
This is all fine by me, because someone wrote it, and I don’t mind who it was, and I'm open to persuasion. But what happened to Gerard Kane? And Melvin and his scenario, that neither Mike nor Anne faked the diary? Have they both gone up in a puff of smoke? Or has no one got any faith in them any more, for some reason they'd sooner not share? Has Gerard got wind of what was being said about him, and threatened to sue? Or have his samples been scrutinised on the quiet, and eliminated, just as he was eliminated from the enquiry seven years ago, according to what Nick Warren wrote in Ripperana? Or did Peter and RJ never give much credence to the Kane-as-penman theory, or what Melvin had to say about Anne and Mike?
Bottom line for RJ – there appear to be no two people here who think alike when it comes to who wrote the diary, how and why. Is this a fair observation? And if so, what does that tell us about the state of the evidence, and how much any of us really know after all this time?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Mark List
Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 01:55 pm | | I'm of the strong opinion that the Diary was forged. But I have no idea who forged it or why. Yes, of course, everything leads back to Mike and Anne. Yes, of course, they both have wasted any and all credibility with their many tales and "truths" so now if they were to tell the "real" truth, no one would believe them.
But, would it really go like this:
"By Jove, Anne, these buggers don't know the difference between me drunken handwritin' and me sober written, we'll do it this way!"
For all the work and thought that went it to the Diary. A diary that 1) stumped everyone at one point or another, 2) is both vague enough and clear enough for grand speculation on its origin and validity 3) still holds interest a decade after being found,
I don't see the Barretts being that stupid to forge it themselves,and leave so much a risk to have it fall back on them. I have a hard time believing thy had much of anything to do with the creation of the diary.
Didn't Mike daughter say she saw him open the parcel up at home? I know that doesn't say much on him forging it or not, but if it was a family effort why would Mike put on a "show" for his daughter? if he didn't want her to know he forged it or knew it was forged he could've just came home and said "look, here deary, your daddy's get the bloody Jack the Ripper diary."
Just a thought...
Mark |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 02:26 pm | | Here's another problem to add to yours, Mark.
In his sworn affidavit, Mike said that his young daughter Caroline watched as he and Anne forged the diary.
So, if she already knew first hand what her mummy and daddy had been up to, why the need to perform the "unwrapping of the parcel" in front of her? Or was she lying when she told the unwrapping story? Did her parents get her to lie and tell an unwrapping story that never happened? Did she just make the whole unwrapping thing up by herself, to protect her mom and dad? But then her dad confessed. Has the young girl ever confirmed to anyone her father's sworn claim that she was there watching when he and Anne wrote out the diary? Has she ever denied that she saw this, either? Would one or both parents knowingly use their daughter to lie for them about this little book?
All problems that remain once you remember that the girl told others the unwrapping story, but that her father claimed she was there and watched as he and his wife wrote out the diary.
Some fun, eh?
Bye for now,
--John
"Anne and I started to write the Diary in all it took us 11 days. I worked on the story and then I dictated it to Anne who wrote it down in the Photograph Album and thus we produced the Diary of Jack the Ripper. Much to my regret there was a witness to this, my young daughter Caroline."
-- Mike Barrett, sworn confession. |
Author: Mark List
Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 03:14 pm | | a small explosion just went off inside my brain....
....TOOO...MUCH....confusion.......
Mark |
Author: shirley harrison
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 02:41 am | | Good morning all…may I slip in for a moment?……Thanks to Keith’s obsession with tape recordings there is plenty of evidence about Mike’s threats and abuses – there is even a face to face confrontation in Paul Feldman’s office. I too have kept many of my telephone tapes - there was one of his threat to kill me but I am N0T sure that I have this one and dont have time to lsten tp them all at the moment. But there should be a written record of my complaint to the police.There are dozens of letters, some apparently sensible mostly of wildly varying content . Mike is still phoning Doreen Montgomery with abusive calls - he doesn't know where I am now so I have escaped. I dont think that Mike has ever said anything, or produced anything himself that proved or disproved his claim to have written/not written the diary. Mike is far from stupid but his mental state is to say the least variable....and he appears to have no concept at all of truth, changing his stories wityh alarming rapidity and apparently no recall of what he has said before ..its like trying to hold a bit of slippery soap in the bath and its just impossible to sustain a conversation for any time ..I think this in itself is a medical condition...whether it is drink induced I am not qualified to say.
As for Anne’s handwriting, which slopes backwards, what is the point of this? Melvin Harris has told us now many times that Mike and Anne were the placers NOT the writers of the diary. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 07:04 am | | Hmmmmm... thanks Shirley. It probably would be a complete waste of time and money to get Anne's handwriting analysed then. Melvin has said she didn't write the diary. No one who has seen Anne's writing seems to think she wrote it. And eliminating Anne won't help anyone prove who did write it, and wouldn't prove Anne's non-involvement anyway. So I guess it's down to anyone who still wants to make a case here for Anne being the penperson.
'...in all it took us 11 days.'
In all? From locating and buying materials they thought could fool everyone; gathering, reading and selecting from Maybrick and Ripper source material, trying to avoid all potentially fatal pitfalls; to actually composing and writing the 63 pages, disguising their normal handwriting, but still trying to make it look natural?
RJ,
Where have you gone? Which parts of Mike's sworn statement, if any, do you still consider may have some merit? Whenever we talk about the ripper case in general, and the various theories, we are constantly advised against putting faith in anything which comes from a source regarded as unreliable. You yourself have said this about McCormick for instance. So how can you, hand on heart, justify your faith in the parts of Mike's testimony you'd like to believe? After all, he is your prime suspect, isn't he, for an act of dishonesty? If you believe he lied when first taking the diary to London, doesn't this automatically make him an unreliable witness in your book, making it unwise for you to depend on anything he says, unless or until you see actual documentation that puts it beyond doubt? Have you seen any such documentation? If so, what is it?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 09:07 am | | From Keith Skinner To Chris George
Dear Chris
I have to thank you, first of all, (and Caroline for keeping me up to speed with the e-mails), for all of the sturdy efforts you recently made in order to break the deadlock over the Oxford meeting; ie. – my insistence that a tape recording be made of the discussion.
In his message of Friday, July 13, 2001 – 01:43 pm: Peter Birchwood commented:-
“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?”
That is precisely what I anticipated occurring, if not “immediately” then at some later date.
I do not believe for one moment that Peter Birchwood is prepared to accept anything that Shirley and I told him which would conflict with his pre-conceived ideas, no matter how flexible he may claim to be in his thinking. I do believe though that he would distort or misrepresent our views and put his own damaging spin on them.
Based on what he has written and inferred about me on these boards in the past, I have no reason to think otherwise.
Happily, however, the problem is now resolved by your kind offer to act as an independent mediator – and there is now no necessity for myself – or my tape recorder – to be present. In many ways I suspect you will have a far more enjoyable lunch and constructive discussion without my presence!
The key players here are Messrs Harris and Birchwood. As has often been stated, neither Shirley or myself have any physical evidence to support our respective and separate beliefs. In Shirley’s case, that the Diary is 100% genuine and written by James Maybrick; and my own, that it is not a modern hoax, (created after 1987), but has existed certainly since the late 1960s.
But I truly do not mind if I am wrong.
The impression given out by Melvin Harris and Peter Birchwood is that they jointly possess all of the critical documents and conclusive evidence to expose the participants of this alleged modern hoax.
If the embargoed evidence is incontrovertible and could be examined privately by you and Shirley, in the presence of Melvin Harris and Peter Birchwood, then this controversy could all be over in October.
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 09:13 am | | From Keith Skinner To R.J. Palmer
Dear R.J,
In response to your justifiable and reasonable questioning of the way in which Mike Barrett has been characterised, I can only relate to you that which I have personally experienced – and personally taped – (occasionally with a concealed recorder) and that is Mike Barrett’s undisguised hatred towards Paul Feldman.
I don’t think he was faking his anger R.J.
Feldman put Barrett under quite intense pressure at a time when Anne and Caroline had left Mike – and at a time when Mike was at his most vulnerable and Feldman was at his most desperate. These were damaging and dangerous times, the legacy of which we have inherited. I firmly hold to the view that the key to understanding the mess we are now in is by closely examining the events and passions between January and August 1994.
But there is little point in me expanding on this R.J. because it is only my first hand impressions. I cannot quantify them and as such they are worthless – but they are all I have to support my beliefs.
That said, there are abusive letters from Mike to Anne threatening to expose her for having written the Diary, if she does not allow him to see their daughter.
And another letter where he tells her that he knows she wrote the Diary.
That is my clear recollection of these letters but without having them in front of me, I could, of course, be mistaken as to their content.
If my memory is correct on the matter, their very existence would seem to play against the assertion of Melvin Harris that Mike and Anne were simply placers of a document forged by others.
Would you agree with that premise?
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 09:25 am | | Now hold on there just a minute.
If Keith’s memory is correct, why would Mike put in a private letter to Anne: “I know you wrote the diary”, if they both already knew perfectly well what their respective roles had been? And if he was accusing her of doing so without his knowledge, it implies that Mike had absolutely no idea who wrote the diary when he took it to London - doesn't it?
Someone tell me I'm wrong. This could be dead important.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 10:02 am | | Fascinating.
Caroline, asks the pertinent question, I think.
Why would Mike Barrett, in a private letter, say to Anne that he knows she wrote the diary? Especially if, as he swears under oath, he dictated a text of his own composition to her while she transcribed it. Even if he just meant that he knew it was her hand that wrote it out, why would he have to tell her this in a letter when they were supposedly both sitting there during the diary's production (according to that sworn statement).
And how do we resolve Mike's statement that he knows Anne wrote it with Shirley's statement about Anne's handwriting?
Could Mike have just been making any threat he could think of, based on some suspicion he might have had, during one of his emotional outbursts?
And, by the way, it does seem that there is at least some documented evidence that Mike had developed some serious anger towards Paul Feldman. And that evidence has apparently been preserved. I'll be interested to see exactly what it shows us. Good thing people tape record stuff...
I'm off for the day.
But this is getting good again,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 12:41 pm | | Hi John,
Mike may well have been 'just making any threat he could think of', when writing to Anne "I know you wrote the diary". But it still implies that this is an accusation based on some new knowledge, or suspicion, that was not there from the outset - otherwise the threat by itself is pretty empty - Anne would have known the basic fact he is now telling her, the fact that he knew she wrote it - if you see what I mean.
It smacks to me of a bitter and confused accusation, something Mike thinks he now knows that he didn't before, rather than a simple threat along the lines of "Look, we both know you wrote the diary [and notice there is no mention of them doing anything together], and if you don't do such-and-such, I'm going to spill the beans."
What's more, if Anne did write the diary, wasn't it somewhat brave of her to keep this letter, containing a direct accusation against her, let alone show it to anyone? Unless she realised, as I did, that it might actually count against her ex-husband's involvement. It could be seen as a rather unselfish act on her part, if she knew what she was doing.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 01:35 pm | | Hi, Keith:
As discussed, I will be delighted to mediate a meeting in Oxford with Shirley Harrison and Peter Birchwood. As you know, plans are in place for us to meet in Oxford on the morning of Tuesday, October 2. I sincerely do wish you could be there. However, I completely understand your feelings 1) that you will only attend a meeting that is taped, to safeguard all parties, 2) that you believe you have nothing to offer that bears on the authenticity of the Diary, and 3) the friction between yourself and Peter Birchwood is at a point where you feel you will be criticized after such a meeting if no audio record is made. I regret the circumstances that have led you to these feelings but understand why you should want to bow out. I will, then, do what I can to help with a meeting with just Shirley and Peter in attendance.
As for your request to have Melvin either attend the October meeting or to send information, I should think that, given everything Melvin has said over the past six months or so, neither of these developments is likely to happen. But we never know. . . It does no harm to enquire if Melvin will take part either in person or by sending some new information on the forgery scheme. As you say, the whole Diary could be exposed if all the information is brought to the table.
I likewise am very interested in the wording that Mike Barrett put in a private letter to Anne: "I know you wrote the diary"--which runs exactly counter to his "confession" that he and Anne wrote the thing!!! As Caroline remarked, "it implies that Mike had absolutely no idea who wrote the diary when he took it to London - doesn't it?"
My impression of Mike is that he is a person liable to say anything which would reap an advantage for himself, which explains in part I think why his various statements about the origins of the Diary contradict each other. Paul Begg may be right that Mike was a naif in L'Affaire Diary. On the other hand, as does R.J., I am inclined not to dismiss Mike's confessions out of hand, even in light of this new nugget of information. He may know something, vide the Crashaw quote and the little maroon diary. Maybe we will know the full story behind the Diary in October? We can only hope!
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: shirley harrison
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 01:52 pm | | None of you seems have really got the message about Mike....nothing..not his personal letters`nor his calls to Doreen to me and to Paul Begg have any logical consistency at all. The fact that he tells Anne he knows she wrote it means zilch because his next letter to one of us (or her) may say the opposite. This is why we all got headaches.
As for Paul....while I credit him with some extremely valuable research,he was,like Mike,a man obsessed and to boot litigation happy.I know to my cost. He was hounding Mike and others - it was a street fighter tactic that needed another street fighter to deal with it. we weren't up to the job! You cannot apply your usual standards of reasoning to anything Mike said. |
Author: Mark List
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 02:41 pm | | Who is Gerald Kane?
Mark |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 05:28 pm | | I think I love you, Mark.
You see, you think this is a simple question.
(And it's Gerard, apparently, not Gerald, I think.)
But still, nothing is ever simple in Diary world.
Who is Mr. Kane?
See, both Mike and Anne Barrett once upon a time said that Mike's drinking friend Tony Devereaux gave Mike the diary (in a brown paper wrapper -- if I was Mike, I would have been hoping it was porn, and I sure wouldn't have unwrapped it in front of my daughter ).
Tony Devereaux then died.
But Tony had a will.
At the bottom of that will, was a place for the witnesses to write their signatures and addresses and occupations.
One of these witnesses was our friend Mr. Kane.
(Was he the only witness? You know, I'm not sure.)
Now somebody, somewhere looked at Mr. Kane's scribbled signature and address and decided it looked somewhat like the writing in the diary.
Of course, these were only three small and scribbled lines of writing at the bottom of a typed document and no one really knew at the time who this Kane guy was and there is not even a hint of evidence that has ever been made public that this Kane guy ever knew of or met or even knew that Mike Barrett ever existed, but hey, why let that stop us?
So someone, somewhere, decided that the writing on the will by our friend Mr. Kane might be somewhat similar to that in the diary. (I don't think it especially or necessarily is, myself -- the words "Liverpool" and "place" appear both in Kane's signature and in the diary and they are certainly not identical. You can see the Kane signature and these two words isolated in jpgs somewhere earlier on this board. I'll find the post later. You can compare them yourself to the same two words in the diary.)
Now since someone thought the writing might be similar, people began to suggest that Mr. Kane must have written the diary and then given it to Tony, whom he must have known since he witnessed Tony's will. Then for some reason Tony gave it to Mike.
Now since we have not even a hint of evidence that Mike knew this Kane guy even existed, let alone that they ever knew each other or met, why Kane would write out a diary and then have it given to a complete stranger and see all potential profit from it for himself apparently disappear remains a complete mystery.
But we gotta' pin this thing on somebody, dammit, and this Kane guy looks as good as anyone, especially since we know almost nothing about his involvement in this thing (whisper: perhaps because he had no involvement in it, but shhhhhhhh.)
So that was the idea for awhile. Then Peter Birchwood comes along and announces to the list that there are new, larger samples of this Kane guy's writing somewhere (no-one officially knows where -- it's a secret, like the practices of the Masons, and if you tell, they cut your tongue out apparently). But these sacred Kane relics exist somewhere. But the thing is, none of us are allowed to see them.
Only wait a minute, Karoline Leach arrives one day and announces that the sacred Kane relics make it even more likely that this Kane guy might have written this diary! She suggests that there is a consensus that the handwritings are something of a match!
Eureka! We have our man. Now it is just a question of everyone seeing the samples and an independent expert examining them and affirming that this is our penman.
But noooooooooooooo.
That would be far too simple. See, the thing is, no one knows who actually owns these samples or why they apparently don't want anyone to see them.
Well, that last part isn't really true.
Some people have been able to see them.
Once upon a time, not very long ago, someone decided to choose a handful of beautiful and privileged people, a small and elite group who could be counted on not to make any waves, and let them see the Holy and Sacred relics of Kane's writing.
These, dear Mark, were the members of the "consensus" of whom Karoline spoke. At one point, under pressure from the rabble and the non-elect, she broke down and named Melvin and Peter and Herself and ("maybe," she said) RJ, and a few others whose names were spared but who still walk among us, no doubt, carrying the angelic glow of the anointed as those who have had the vision.
Then, those who saw the samples decided or were told by the mysterious Mr. Owner guy that they were not allowed to talk about these relics (for fear that people might expect to see them or have them examined or something like that or maybe to protect poor Mr. Kane from embarrassment -- or themselves, or whatever). And we lowly unchosen ones here on this board were also told in no uncertain terms that we shouldn't talk about them either (even though, by then, someone who had seen them had already come here and announced to everyone what the consensus was about what they showed).
So we must not mention them, Mark.
But we know they're there.
But we haven't seen them (except for the members of the Holy Council who have).
And we've been told that they match the diary writing, yet no one has ever been willing to let any expert ever see them, as far as we know. (And people here have generously offered to pay to have the examination done, too -- and I've even offered $50.00 over the expenses, pure profit, if someone will post them here and let an expert see them.)
But sadly, no.
They remain hidden in the temple of the sacred diary relics of wishing, and all we can do is dream about them when we close our eyes to sleep at night.
But someday soon, if we are very good, and don't tell lies and we become real boys and girls, then the handwriting fairy might float down from the sky and tap her wand three times and they will appear on this board and we'll all know if poor Mr. Kane (who is apparently not well and may not even know that any of this is going on, by the way) we'll know whether poor Mr. Kane will ever be linked to the diary or not linked to the diary.
The truth is out there, either way.
So I guess we just have to wait and wish and hope and dream and be good.
But, Mark, I love you for asking.
All the best,
--John
PS: Mark, you can see Mr. Kane's handwriting from the will for yourself, if you look at three separate consecutive posts by me beginning on Tuesday, May 08, 2001 - 10:20 pm on this board -- Click on "Archive through May 10, 2001" from the archive list above and start with the third post.
First the word "place" appears, then the word "Liverpool" and then the whole signature and address. The posts also mention where in the diary the same words appear, for purposes of comparison. Have a look and see what you think. Perhaps you too will one day be blessed, and become a real enough young boy to have your own vision and to see the sacred Kane relics. If, that is, they are ever brought forth from the temple again. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 06:06 pm | | | Shirley Harrison--An insightful & generous post. I'm impressed. RP |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 07:17 pm | | PPS: Mark -- Needless to say, there is no mention of any Mr. Kane in either of Mike Barrett's sworn confessions, wherein he claims, under oath,that he composed the diary (with a little help from Tony) and that Anne wrote it out while Caroline watched and that they didn't approach anyone else for help.
So, to put it simply, either Mike deliberately and blatantly lied under oath or these sacred Kane relics are complete bunk.*
Of course, perhaps Shirley's first hand experience concerning Mike's veracity should be considered in this case as well. I seem to recall her reporting that Mike devoutly "swore" to her completely different stuff about the diary and its history.
Anyway, the Kane handwriting, like the truth, is still out there. (cue X-files theme music)
--John
*Or they are both worthless. But there's absolutely no way they can both be true. At least one thing is certain: either Mike's descriptions, in his sworn confession, of how he wrote the diary or the sacred Kane relics are garbage. At least one of them must be. |
Author: Joseph
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 08:46 pm | | And that, my friends, is an excellent lesson in critical thinking.
Thank you professor. |
Author: Mark List
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 09:08 pm | | | Just call me Mulder. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 05:43 am | | So RJ, you are still here - so you must have read all the questions I had for you over my last few posts. I always try to respond to questions you ask me, but I'd be happy if you'd just respond to this one for now. (You have managed to skip right over the contradictions pointed out to you between Mike's sworn statements and Melvin's scenario and the Kane samples, for instance.)
Shirley wrote:
'You cannot apply your usual standards of reasoning to anything Mike said.'
And you wrote that you were impressed by Shirley's insightful and generous post.
In other words, you thought Shirley was being generous, by admitting that Mike's words to Anne, that he knows she wrote the diary, mean zilch. I think Shirley was just being straightforward and non-selective, in making this observation. And it shows that she is not trying to score points - she could have milked Mike's words shamelessly for all they were worth (like I did, and am about to do some more ).
I still think it's a dead giveaway, if you consider Anne's private thoughts, on reading Mike's words: "I know you wrote the diary", might have been either: "I know he knows - he dictated it to me!", or: "Well, that's funny, because we both know Mike wrote it!", but there you go. It would fit, though, with an angry and confused Mike, who only knew he got the diary from Tony D, and was now being told that Anne was behind it all somehow and had therefore deceived him. And Anne did produce this letter, which doesn't immediately appear to be in her own best interests, whether Mike's accusation was likely to be taken seriously or not.
You seem to be suddenly making use of this nugget from Shirley to agree with her (for once), that Mike's words can't be taken literally or seriously - but is it only because, on this occasion, his words appear to unconsciously give the game away, that he must have known nothing about the diary's origins - and that is not something you are willing to even consider?
So which of Mike's words do you still think ought to be taken seriously? What methods are you using to distinguish between the incoherent and coherent, the nuggets of truth and the rubbish, and is there any documentation which might help? What useful stuff, or grains of truth, do you see among Mike's various statements, when he is in confession mode, that you are happy to agree with Shirley you don't see elsewhere, including that private letter to Anne?
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 09:41 am | | Caz-- Hello.
In regards to my comment to Shirley Harrison, you're wrong. I was genuinely impressed because she could have conveniently used Mike's letter to bolster her case--and didn't. She also gives Mike a little intellectual credit. The only other person I've seen do this was Melvin Harris who called Mike 'cunning'. Others here give the easy answers, that Mike was a bumbling imbecile, a naif, or that Mike merely wanted to discredit Feldman. I think the answer is more complex than that. Those who diminish Mike into a caricature run the risk of never understanding what was going on...that's what I think. To most he's a complete dupe who miraculously becomes smart for one week in the Liverpool library.
You're not giving me much credit either. But that's o.k.
And actually, the reason I haven't responded to many of the questions you & John Omlor have posed is because I think they've been too simplistic. "A doesn't equal B" and re-invention of the wheel. If Anne wrote the diary, then Mike & friends didn't. Of course. That hardly needs to be pointed out. [Except to score a point? ] Mike has told wildly inconsistent tales. Of course. [Hell, he once told Shirley that he physically disinterred Maybrick from his grave.] And yes, it's perhaps amusing to throw up quotes with four-letter words from Mike's affidavit in order to suggest that they are nothing but wild ravings, but is that helpful? I'm pretty much burned-out on this sort of rhetoric, and back & forth jostling. It doesn't lead anywhere. This might surprise you-- but I genuinely think that Keith Skinner & Shirley must have burnt out on it ages & ages ago too. What do I care if Mike's affidavits also fly in the face of my own thinking? I'm looking at them to see what they might tell me. Besides, the point isn't the general claims in the affidavits anyway. The point is what they might tell us about what was going on in MB's strange little world, and whether he had any confirmable knowledge of where the diary came from... that's all. I think they might. [Why, for instance, does Shirley still wish she could recall the Outhwaite & Litherland interview? That's not a jab. Seems to me she is genuinely searching for the answer. But is it maybe not so cut & dry as John has been suggesting?]
Was Mike crazy, or crazy like a fox? Ask yourself that.
Finally, to be frank, another reason I haven't responded is that some of Mike's accusations tread on very dangerous ground. I have some opionions on these, but they're not the sort of things that are fit for public consumption. One thing I'd suggest. I think there must have been more going between Mike & Feldman than meets the eye. At least before July 1994. Feldy claims Mike had being threatening him with confessing for months before Barrett went to Harold Brough. But why? The motive seems lacking. It couldn't have been the wife & daughter accusation, because Feldman wasn't in contact with Anne yet--doesn't that seem to be the case?
So what games were going on here? Cheers, RP |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 10:22 am | | Hi RJ,
I've read your post above and I'm still not quite sure whether you believe that Mike Barrett lied under oath or not.
Care to tell us?
--John |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 11:51 am | | MORE RETHINKS NEEDED
I am now told that Mrs. Harrison has come on screen stating: "I needed to speak to him [Voller] quite a lot but actually backed off discussing things when I realised that he was becoming irritated with Melvin's telephone manner." This is yet another ugly invention on her part. I spoke to Alec Voller TWICE in 1994. Both calls were short and dealt with purely technical matters, like the formula for his ink and what to look out for. Nothing more was discussed and at no time did I try to involve him in any type of controversy. These two were the only calls ever made by me. So much for her fairness and reliability. Perhaps she would now like to reveal just how many calls SHE made and the number of letters sent and received by her?
And before I reply to Robert Smith, perhaps he should re-read his "Introduction" and "Rebutall" sections of Mrs Harrisons' American hardback. He should also try to remember if Mike visited a lwyer actually chosen by Mike.
Melvin Harris
(Sorry that this is posted late; I have had a lot of business in the past few eeks. Peter) |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 11:53 am | | I'm sorry to say that I'm not familiar with Andy Mossacks but if both Shirley and Chris want him to cometo Oxford, that's ok with me. I really am sorry to hear of Keith's problems and perhaps his friends can prevail upon him to be more forgiving.
I don't think that anyone would be frightened or concerned with him dressed as a junior G-man, undoubtedly flashing his magic decoder ring. It is an aquired talent to wear a wire without giving oneself away and there were occasions during my enquiries into suicides concerned with a Californian Fundamentalist church that I felt very nervous that the microphone would suddely pop into view, especially when interviewing one man who was telling me to "Love the Lord!" while standing with one hand on a large and well-filled gun cabinet.
Incidentally, it's very amusing to make fun of physical and mental problems that could be traced to a life-threatening disease combined with incipient alcoholism. It's great fun to think of someone connected to a dialysis machine watching the blood flow out of his veins into the tubes, through the pump and back to an artery. I think that understanding this might bring us a little further forward to understanding Mike and what he did or didn't do. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 12:16 pm | | Hi RJ,
Okay, so you can't or won't tell us what you think about Melvin's info, pointing to Anne and Mike only being handlers/placers of a document forged by others (which you have always said you believe), and the possible penman Kane (whose handwriting samples are becoming less and less of a big issue for anyone by the day, it seems), and how this all compares with each and every detail Mike has ever said concerning how he wrote the diary by himself or with Anne (but has never, as far as I'm aware, suggested they were merely handlers/placers, so has never yet given away one single detail of his true role as mere handler/placer, even inadvertently, if you believe Melvin).
All I'm saying is, if you can't decide whose 'truth' to go for - Melvin's or Mike's (and you know you can't have both, or even a part of both, because they directly contradict each other), then you are no further forward than the rest of us, as we struggle to work out who knows what!
You keep saying, when referring to Mike's confession, that: 'The motive seems lacking.' But Mike did confess, RJ, so, unless you are suggesting he didn't have a clue what he was saying or doing by then (which kind of argues against you anyway), he did have a motive. We can only guess what that motive might have been, since only Mike knew at the time, and we can't rely on anything he tells us.
One more thing. You wrote:
'I was genuinely impressed because [Shirley] could have conveniently used Mike's letter to bolster her case--and didn't.'
Shirley did say that Mike's next letter to Anne (or anyone) could say the opposite (of "I know you wrote the diary") - which would have been what?
"I know you didn't write the diary"?
or:
"I don't know whether you wrote the diary or not"?
One of those three states of affairs must have been the truth as Mike saw it, whether he expressed all of them at one time or another, or not. We have to guess which one, since only Mike knows (or thought he knew), and we can't rely on anything he tells us.
But I would be fascinated to hear what you would have said if two of those six little words from Mike to Anne, in a private letter, had swapped places, and read instead: "You know I wrote the diary" (or "You know we both wrote the diary", or "You know Gerard wrote the diary").
Would you still have regarded Shirley's observation, that this means zilch, as insightful and generous? Or would you have seen Mike's words, expressed privately, as incriminating and far from meaningless, and Shirley's quick dismissal of them as not quite so impressive?
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
