|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 27, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary:
Archive through July 27, 2001
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 12:50 pm |        | Hi Peter,
Yes, very amusing I'm sure. But I don't know what the relevance is of writing: 'It is an acquired talent to wear a wire without giving oneself away...', if you are comparing this with Keith's open statement about taping a meeting if he attends. Where does 'giving oneself away' come in? And you now write: 'I don't think that anyone would be frightened or concerned with [Keith] dressed as a junior G-man...', so what changed you mind? You wrote to Shirley that you weren't having Keith coming along wired up like one, so you must have been concerned about something.
I'm interested in why you think it's very amusing to make fun of someone's obvious health problems and alcoholism. I can assure you that I don't think the effects of heavy drinking are the teeny tiniest bit funny, either for the drinker or his/her family and friends. And of course, none of us escape suffering, or witnessing the suffering, of serious illness at some point in our lives, so your comments are all rather shallow and meaningless.
Finally, you wrote:
'I think that understanding this might bring us a little further forward to understanding Mike and what he did or didn't do.'
Would you tell us just how much better you understand this man than the rest of us then, including what you think his health problems actually made him do and not do, concerning the diary? Or is this yet another enigmatic statement that promises much and delivers little?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 03:19 pm | | Hi Peter:
I do not know Andy Mossacks either but if Shirley is comfortable with him attending the Oxford meeting on Tuesday, October 2, I have no objection. It could be that his attendance at the meeting could provide for a better balance of pro- and anti-Diary forces since as you are aware I veer toward your view of things that the Diary is a hoax while it seems from a recent post by Andy he does believe the Diary to be authentic, in line with Shirley's belief in the Diary.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Mark List
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 03:26 pm | | Someone's health (drunk or otherwise) does not affect than handwriting enough to make it look completely different their ones sober hand.
I haven't seen any copies of Mike's handwriting so I can't comment on HIS writing, but I know that if I'm drunk and writing something compared to if I'm sober, the only difference if I may not make that much sense (drunk) and my writing would be a bit sloppier.
That's it. That's all that would happen to my (or anyones) handwriting.
It's not a Jekell and Hyde thing.
Mark
P.s. If we are to make a case for such "changes" due to health, then that MUST put Maybrick back on the board of "Ripper possible" since he was an addict of arsenic and strychnine. |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 04:40 pm | | Hello everyone,
Today is July 19th, 2001.
Does anyone know what the most recent public statement Mike Barrett has made about the diary is or where and when he made it? Has he said anything publicly in the past three or four months, for instance?
Just wondering what version of events Mike is giving at the current time.
--John |
Author: Mark List
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 05:09 pm | | What is the Crashaw quote?
Mark |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 06:23 pm | | Darling Mark,
Another fine question.
If you look at the forty-fourth page of the diary, you'll see, in the center of the page, the following two lines:
"Oh costly intercourse
of death"
This turns out to be an actual quote from a piece of literature (the only one of its kind in the diary, I think).
But where's it from?
And how the hell did it get into the diary?
Again, we are in Diary world, so nothing will be as simple as it seems.
It turns out that these two lines are from a poem by the 17th Century British metaphysical poet Richard Crashaw (you remember these guys from school, Crashaw, Donne, Herbert, etc.).
The poem in question was one of Crashaw's reworkings of a sacred Latin Hymn (the "Stabat Mater"). It is called The Mother of Sorrows. Although Crashaw is a major metaphysical poet these days and widely anthologized, this is not particularly one of his most oft-cited works. Crashaw, you might recall from school, was different from his fellow metaphysicals in that he was a particularly Catholic poet, with a particularly Italian and Latinate style and a Catholic influence. So it seems very, very odd that he would just pop into the head of the C of E man, James Maybrick, who did not seem to have any passion for literature even in his alleged diary personality in any case. The poet's work was available in one or two collected editions in Victorian Times, but he was considered rather obscure back then, and somewhat out of favor, even among scholars, and he and his work did not return to major status until the revival of the metaphysicals led by T.S. Eliot in the 1920's. So all in all Crashaw looks like a very odd choice. (You can find a discussion of just what Crashaw editions were available in Victorian times in a post on this board from Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 12:34 and more discussion of this work's availability in a post from Tuesday, May 08, 2001. You can also find some background on Crashaw's poetry in a post from Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 01:42 above.)
But the plot thickens.
It turns out that there is an essay on Crashaw and Herbert by the scholar Christopher Ricks, in a collection of literary-critical essays called the Sphere Guide to Literature (this is a multi-volume set of scholarly essays on literature). In this essay Ricks just happens to cite The Mother of Sorrows and, yes, that's right, these two lines, in an excerpt of only three or four lines from the poem. There they are, in the middle of a page in Ricks's essay in a volume of the Sphere Guide.
And there they appear the correct way, with "O" instead of the "Oh" that's in the diary but with the same line break. The lines, by the way, come from in the middle of the poem.
And it gets more bizarre.
It turns out that Mike Barrett owns and has owned a copy of this very volume with this very essay with this very citation of these very lines. Allegedly, he acquired a set of these books, missing a couple of the volumes I think, when he was collecting items to sell for charity for something called the Hillsborough disaster in April of 1989.
So Mike had this book in April of 1989. He never did give it to the charity sale, but he claims he later gave it to the son of a friend of his who was preparing to take his school exams. He got it back and has allegedly lodged this volume with his lawyers, although they will not confirm to anyone, apparently, when this lodgment took place.
Don't you just love this case?
Now, there's a whole story about Mike being asked by Shirley to locate the source of this quote and he allegedly finding it in the Sphere Guide -- but, get this, not in his own copy but one at his local library.
Amazing coincidence, no? Perhaps just a bit too amazing? 
Especially since he allegedly went to the library with only the quote in hand and no idea where to look or even what century or anything and found it in the middle of the Ricks essay in the very same book he had "forgotten" that he had at home (or that was then with his friend's son, or something like that).
Now, there are two popular versions of the story. One is that Mike knew all along the quote was in the Sphere Guide because he put the quote from there into the diary when he wrote the diary. The other is that Mike discovered somehow that the quote was in the Sphere Guide that he owned, either before talking to Shirley or afterwards, and that he then used this piece of fortunate knowledge in his "confession" to make it sound as if he'd known this all along because he'd put it in the diary.
Of course, if we assume that the quote got into the diary through Mike's Sphere Guide, this would place the diary's time of composition as definitely after the Hillsborough soccer stadium disaster of 1989 (when Mike got the book).
I don't think anyone has ever produced any evidence to suggest that he actually had the book anytime before 1989.
The bottom line, of course, is that we don't know anything for sure since we do not know exactly when Mike Barrett first saw the Crashaw quote in the Sphere Guide, before or after the spring of 1992, when he carried the diary that Tony had allegedly given him into Doreen Montgomery's office. If he didn't see it until after that day, then who did? Who knew it was in the Sphere Guide? And who put it into the diary? And is it even possible that the quote from Crashaw's poem got there some other way? Wouldn't this be a simply unbelievable coincidence, that the diary had a quote from a 17th century poet that just happened to be the same two lines that appear in a book owned by Mike Barrett, the man who went public with the diary?
I have long said that the Crashaw quote and its appearance in the Ricks essay is the only, single, solitary piece of material evidence we have that links Mike Barrett to the production of this diary. But it is not definitive of course, since we don't have any evidence as to when Mike first saw the quote in this book.
And so we beat on... (you remember the rest from Gatsby, I'm sure).
But it is a fun little puzzle.
Check out the posts I cited above for more information and enjoy the ride,
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 20 July 2001 - 02:56 am | | Hi, John:
I don't believe Mike Barrett could had the Sphere book in April 1989. The disaster at the Hillsborough football ground in Sheffield, Yorkshire, occurred April 15, 1989, but I am fairly sure it would have been some time afterward, probably a matter of weeks or months until 1) a disaster fund could have been organized, 2) Sphere were contacted by Mike and donated copies of their books to the disaster fund, and 3) Mike received the books. I should think given this necessary chain of events, his possession of the book could not have been before at least summer 1989.
In her 1998 English Blake edition paperback of The Diary of Jack the Ripper, Shirley Harrison (p. 283) states her belief that "Crashaw's works were much better known in 1888/9 than they are today" and cites the supposed influence of Maybrick's parish clerk father as perhaps an influence in introducing his son to this religious poetry. However, as we know, Maybrick pater was an Anglican not parish clerk not a Roman Catholic, so any fervor for or even knowledge of Richard Crashaw's works seems unlikely, at least particularly for the obscure work from which the quote comes.
Shirley says the following about Mike's explanation for how he came into possession of the Sphere book (pp. 283-284):
"Then, to my dismay, Michael Barrett announced that he had a copy of the book at home. He had forgotten it was in his attic! His explanation was typically plausible and utterly baffling. 'After the Hillsborough disaster in 1987 [sic],' he said, 'I had worked hard to raise money for the fund. I wrote to a lot of publishers and asked them to contribute out-of-print books for a sale I was organizing. Amongst the many volumes that arrived from Sphere were twelve volumes of their History of English Literature.' Mike says that he couldn't sell them and put it in the attic with others and forgot them, until finding the quotation in the library reminded him of their existence."
I wonder if Shirley or Keith have verified with Sphere whether they have a record of being contacted by Barrett? Something tells me that, as I recall, this was done. Do any of Barrett's letters asking for donated books perhaps survive which would confirm when he asked for the books?
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 20 July 2001 - 08:21 am | | Hi All,
Regarding the Crashaw incident (sounds like a military or political blunder), we tend to look at it from the point of view that, if Mike had the Sphere Guide in his house from about mid-1989 to mid-1994, it seems beyond coincidence that he wasn’t involved in forging a diary he also had in his house at some point before mid-1992 – and I woudn’t dream of disagreeing. But we could try looking at it the other way around. If we first assume that Mike was indeed involved in forging the diary, the very fact that he knew the Crashaw quote could be found in his own Sphere Guide tells us pretty much that this is how the quote must have come to be in the diary. When Shirley suggests he look for a source for the quote, what does he do? If he knows darn well he got it from his own Sphere Guide, but is not yet sure if he wants to make a full confession, and has either left it at his girlfriend’s house, or with his solicitor, so he can retrieve it later if and when needed, then the library story can be put down to pure invention to impress or distract Shirley - except that surely he didn’t need to pretend to look for the quote at all, did he - particularly if he didn't check with the library, and risked them not holding a copy?
Now let’s see what happens if we assume Mike was not involved, and has no idea if the diary was forged or not - and therefore has no idea that these five little words were in another book under his roof, while he was struggling to make sense of the diary. When Shirley suggests he find a source for the quote, and he decides to have a go, where would he start? How likely is it that he would think to look in any of the books he had indoors? And how much less likely that he would just happen to find it there? I don’t know, but I should have thought the obvious first port of call would have been the local library, to ask the staff there if they had ever heard of the quote.
Therefore, if Mike invented the whole library story, at least the basis of it made sense, and suggests he was thinking things through logically, by putting himself in the position of a man with nothing to hide, and a desire to research the diary and its possible origins, co-operating with Shirley’s suggestion to look for the quote. We could take his thinking, or his luck, a step further. If Mike was already formulating his plan to reveal that he got the quote from a book he had owned since 1989 (which is logical, since he had made his first confession by then, and Shirley’s suggestion would have served to jog his memory, even if he had temporarily forgotten), but fancied a chance to redeem himself at any time in the future, he would badly need an alternative story ready to explain how he first found that quote. So, far from being a fairly pointless and risky exercise, simply to impress or distract Shirley, the library discovery was absolutely crucial for him. Why? Because, in the event, he did confess, using his own Sphere Guide, and he would have found it well nigh impossible to retract that confession, and be believed by anyone, even Feldy, without that library story to fall back on. So was it luck – yet again, for the diary project, and a guilty Mike? Or astute judgement and careful thought - on the part of a man who could risk it all, so soon after coming up with this cunning plan of the library discovery, by revealing, to the very people he was trying to deceive, that he had owned the same book since 1989?
Something doesn’t add up somewhere – again.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 20 July 2001 - 08:27 am | | Hi Chris,
Good point about Mike not getting the book quite so quickly. Yes, it must have at least been a little while after the disaster in April before Mike actually was given the books by Sphere for the charity auction. So let's say probably not until July or August of that year. That sounds good to me.
I'm afraid I would have to respectfully disagree with Shirley's literary history when she says that Crashaw's works were better known in 1888 than they are today. There was a marked falling out of favor of almost all the metaphysicals during the 19th century and they remained relatively obscure except in certain specific circles, like the devout Catholics who might have read Crashaw, until T.S. Eliot revived their popularity for students of literature in the 1920's. Nowadays they are major players in the history of literature and taught in most British Lit. survey courses and Crashaw is usually included as one of the big three (with Donne and Herbert). There are two detailed posts, which re-tell the history of Crashaw's popularity and which cite the very few editions (only two or three) of his work which were even publicly available in 1888, listed among the posts that I cited to Mark above. This does not prove that anyone, including James Maybrick, did not stumble onto Crashaw at some point in their lives and take a peculiar liking to him. But it would be an unexpected and unlikely surprise and definitely against the historical grain.
I'm not sure whether the letter Mike wrote to Sphere (and other people and publishers as well, apparently) asking for donations for the disaster relief cause has ever been found or preserved. I tend to accept this particular story about the acquisition of the volumes, if only because as a lie it doesn't seem to do anyone much good and because I can't really think of another way that Mike Barrett would just happen to acquire an incomplete set of volumes of essays of general literary criticism. It's not even something someone writing a Ripper diary would need, let alone someone living Mike's life as the 80's became the 90's.
And, like James Maybrick, Mike Barrett does not seem to ever have demonstrated a particularly intense passion for the study of 17th century literature or its critical history. In 1885 I doubt whether James Maybrick could have told you who Richard Crashaw was and in 1985, I doubt whether Mike Barrett could have told you who Christopher Ricks was. In 1990, I'm not quite as sure. By 1995, of course, we know Mike at least knows where to find Crashaw in Ricks'essay.
Thanks for the thoughts, Chris.
Now it's off to Royal Lytham & St. Anne's (what a nice looking little village), via the TV, and a morning of British Open golf.
All the best,
--John
PS: Hi Caz, our posts just crossed. I agree that the whole Sphere Guide story, in either version -- Mike discovering the quote when he wrote the diary and then faking the library discovery or Mike discovering the quote sometime after turning in the diary, before or after Shirley's request (and still, possibly, faking the library story) -- both versions sound incomplete and insufficient. And why would a guy faking a diary of Jack the Ripper be looking into a Christopher Ricks essay on poetry from an entirely different century anyway? Oh yes, the famous binding defect.
Mark, I forgot to mention a good part. There are reports that Mike's copy of this book had a "binding defect" that somehow caused the book to fall open on the very page that the Crashaw lines appear! Can you believe it? Of course it falls open onto other pages as well, I've heard. And the defect itself could have been produced from repreated use of that page, I suppose (although one wouldn't have needed to use it very much to transcribe only five words from it, and transcribe one of these words incorrectly, mind you). And no one knows anything for sure. But isn't the book supposed to be available for examination upon reqest these days and maybe even making a guest appearance at the upcoming conference? What's the latest on that? Anyone know?
Anyway, yes, I too think we have not heard the full story of the origin of the Crashaw quote's appearance in this diary, in any case.
Bye.
--J. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 20 July 2001 - 09:23 am | | Hi Peter,
Why do you feel the need to distort reality, in your attempts to ridicule Keith's perfectly reasonable suggestion to have a record made of what is said at the (now October) meeting, in case of future disputes? Why not just cut the nonsense about inferred insults over how and why the suggestion came up. Why can't you accept that this simple and painless precaution ought to be taken, if not by Keith himself, in fairness and respect to all attendees, so that any subsequent discrepancies, whatever the cause, can be settled quickly and easily? Why not let Chris George record the October meeting, and let him retain the tape, if you are worried about any sensitive stuff doing the rounds afterwards? Then he could be the one to refer back to it, in case of need.
If you still think that taping such a meeting is unwise or undesirable in some way, can you please stop all this silliness and give the board just one good reason, or else admit you don't have one?
Trying to diminish Keith, and ridicule his sensible precaution of making a record of the meeting, is wasting people's time, doesn't get us anywhere, and, in fact, only serves to show the rest of us precisely why Keith is right to believe a tape of the meeting is necessary.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 20 July 2001 - 10:02 am | | Hi Caz,
Would you happen to know if Mike has made any public statements about the diary this year, or during the past few months? Is he still telling the "Anne and I did it ourselves" story or does it change nowadays depending on who is asking or is he now saying he believes Anne's story, or what?
Just wondering, as it's July, 2001 and I'm not sure what Mike now claims.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 20 July 2001 - 10:09 am | | Hi John,
I don't think he has - at least, I haven't heard of any - but Keith or Shirley will no doubt be able to confirm that.
Have to dash off now - I've just typed up a message from Keith to the board, which I'll post before I go. Might be able to catch up with you over the weekend, otherwise see you all on Monday.
Have a good one, everyone.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 20 July 2001 - 10:12 am | | From Keith Skinner To The Board
As it was me who introduced the ‘evidence’ of Mike’s letters to Anne, it is incumbent on me, not only to quote the content accurately, but to present a full transcript of those letters to which I have already made reference.
But first, I have to locate, (not write), them and given their unpleasant nature, I am reluctant to have posted on this board, the entire, (one way), correspondence. I am, however, prepared to show them to any interested parties at the Bournemouth Conference.
Reaching this decision has not been easy and in many ways I am now betraying Anne Graham’s trust and putting my friendship with her on the line. But the letters, (which prove nothing either way of course), convey Mike’s emotions and frustrations, as evidenced by what he writes. His whole energy feeds off the Diary. He connects everything to the Diary and the ramifications of the Diary, in terms of what effect it has had on his marriage and personal circumstances. In a sense they have now become historical documents, open to interpretation, which is why I believe they have some relevance.
Five or six years ago, Anne told me that she had been receiving these letters over a period of weeks. Some she had thrown away without bothering to read – others she had kept. When I learned of their existence I asked Anne if I could hold on to the surviving letters and requested she keep whatever else Mike sent. Anne agreed to this, on condition that I did not disclose them to anybody.
There is one other aspect of Mike’s correspondence which is perhaps worth considering. Again, I write from memory, but am reasonably confident that I am accurately reflecting past events. At the time Paul Feldman was writing his book, (Jack The Ripper: The Final Chapter), developing his entrenched belief that Anne Graham was descended from Florence Chandler (Maybrick), Mike was outraged by this “revelation”. The implication for Mike’s daughter, (Caroline), was that she would be tainted by the stigma of being associated, or connected, to JTR, because of the Diary. So incensed was Mike that he let people know “Anne’s story”, (for such was his belief that the Chandler/Maybrick supposed link was invented by her, having been induced by Feldman), was pure fabrication and that he, (Mike), would disprove it by DNA testing. Scrawled on the envelope of one of the letters he sent to Anne is the claim that he had secured DNA samples – presumably of Florence? (I will, of course, check to determine precisely what Mike did write on the envelope.)
I suppose though many people may wonder why – given Mike’s concerns about his daughter’s inferred association with JTR – Mike did not, at that point, contact either Alan Gray or Melvin Harris, to help him prove that he and Anne jointly forged the Diary – thereby effectively removing any possible stigma concerning Caroline.
But as Shirley Harrison has recently pointed out, none of us “…have really got the message about Mike…”, the message being there is no “logical consistency” to what he does, says or writes. This may be the case, as evidenced by the past nine years, but does that mean there are no reasons for his actions and behaviour?
It is, I believe, those reasons – if reasons there are – which need to be explored and understood.
Mike’s illogicality and irrationality, I think, needs to be set in historical context against the background of what was happening to him (and Anne) both publicly and privately.
Which is why I believe the correspondence may help to give us an insight.
Melvin Harris could, of course, give us all a greater insight… |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 20 July 2001 - 10:48 am | | A typical retort from the Queen of shallowness.
It's obviously difficult to explain irony to Caroline Morris although her relentless use of the word "Love" at the end of every message probably shows that she has a basic grasp of this. As Keith with his "obsession with tape recordings" (Shirley Harrison - also ironically) has probably himself worn a disguised wire, then I'm sure that he is more capable than Mrs Morris of understanding my comments. Anyone who has read the ineffable Morris' previous posts poking fun at Mike will understand my points about his illness and alcoholism and yes, I understand Mike more than she does because (apart from the alcoholism) I have suffered in the same way and truly resent anyone using this particular disease as a peg to hang various nasty little sneers.
Mark:
It IS true that the accumulation of poisons in the body that occur from chronic renal disease can alter such things as a person's speech or indeed handwriting. Alcoholism can have the same effect. The two, coupled together can increase this effect. This is not to say that this actually happened with Mike. I have only seen samples of his writing post-diary so can't judge what it may have been like before. This is why it has been suggested that if any handwriting tests by a proper Forensic Document Examiner be done, they should include for both MB and AG samples of writing from several years before and after diary.
I think that some time ago there was some discussion about whether Maybrick was "addicted" to arsenic and strychnine. I think that it's probable that he used homeopathic doses of both substances. You can still buy today so-called "health" medicines containing arsenicum and nux vomita. Addiction to Strychnine in particular would not change your writing style, it would make you dead.
Chris:
Let's leave it up to Shirley to see whether she wants Andy Mossacks to come along. It's fine with me if he can get the time from work.
It's interesting about Mike that he almost invariably gets dates wrong from two years in regard to the Sphere book to eleven concerning Tony's age. I wonder (seriously) whether this might be a sign of problems due to ill health or alcoholism? Maybe one of our doctors could address this. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 20 July 2001 - 12:42 pm | | Well, I sincerely hope that JtR's indentity is discovered in some musty file folder in St. Louis or Baltimore. It's damned unfair how all the interesting stuff is happening on the other side of the Atlantic... 
Caz--if you'd lower your guard for a moment you might perceive that we are all stumbling towards the truth here and nobody is sporting a set of talons or horns.
Let me make one small point, and with a little luck it will be the last time I ever allude to this. This is made in the spirit of fairness.
Once upon a time Poster A made the comment that MB & AG were 'up to their arses' in the diary forgery. This caused a great deal of commotion & indignation in certain quarters. Proof was demanded, etc. etc. sometimes in a ridiculously extreme & repetitive manner. This, of course, is perfectly fine. It's o.k. to demand proof.
But Posters B & C were also making claims [or in one case, implications]. They were claiming that Mike is ignorant of the diary's origins. That's fine, too. But, indeed, weren't they saying more than this? Weren't they saying [or implying in one case] that Mike was maliciously lying in order to discredit an author's work? Weren't they saying that he was maliciously accusing his wife of forgery? That he was lying under oath?
All things considered, I think I would rather be accused by Poster A then by Posters B & C, but that's just me.
Do you see my point? Love him or hate him, Mike Barrett deserves the benefit of the doubt as well. Does anyone here really know with any amount of moral certainty that Mike's sworn affidavit doesn't genuinely reflect what he believes to be the truth? I certainly don't. And if this is a contradiction & flies in the face of my own thinking, so be it. But if Posters B & C are wrong, then they end up being the false accusers, not Poster A -- and their indignation turns out to be hypocritical.
This is not meant to stir things up.
But don't you see, everyone here --including me-- is mucking about in a very messy business, and everyone needs to be willing to back up their statements. The conversation has now reached the point to where it is directly mucking around in personal affairs of those connected to the diary[although it always has been to a point].
Now, this is just the opinion of a more or less anonymous poster from far far away, and everyone can choose to ignore it. But I think in the best possible world it would be desirable for those with the most information to meet off the record and exchange information. It seems to me that this was what Peter Birchwood was willing to do. So why doubt his motives?
By the way, do I doubt Keith's recollections of Mike's letters to Anne? Not in the least. I take his infrequent posts very seriously. But the wording & the content & the dates of those letters would be all-important, I would think. And what would happen if you assumed for a moment that AG was unaware of where the diary came from, but that Mike knew? Could those letters still have an odd psychology to them?
As for the Crashaw quote. Two points. First the book was hardback. The pages flipping open at certain point was due to a bias in the manufacturing, not from repeated use. [This according to Melvin Harris]. Second point--much more important. Unless you are willing to assume that Alan Gray is wrong or being misleading[he's not a Ripperologist I don't know why he would care one way or the other], Mr. Gray was willing to confirm that Mike told him about the Sphere book in August of 1994. If this is true --then there is no way else around it: Mike's trip to the Liverpool Library was a sham. Sure, it's interesting that the library had a copy of Rick's book [though it might well have been locked away upstairs] but this seems a trivial coincidence compare to Mike having actually owned the book himself. And if Mike's trip was a sham --and it seems to me I have to currently believe this is the case-- then mustn't you be willing to entertain the notion that all of Mike's other statments & actions might well be more complex then they seem to be on the surface? I still think it is dangerous to turn Mike into a simplistic caricature...
Finally, let me throw a wrench into my own theory, and show why I am re-thinking Mike's confession. [This doesn't mean that I am abandoning my thinking]. I can understand how AG's statement at the Moat house might have been an expedient way to humor Paul Feldman. It's infinitely harder to believe she would be willing to repeat this story in print in the introduction to The Last Victim if she wasn't positive that someone else wouldn't suddenly pop up & confess. She had to have known she was somehow safe, didn't she? This is why John's "college kids prank" suggestion doesn't work. [I think you made this point yourself]. Now I admit: How this would work in connection to with my own thinking, is, presently, unknowable. At least by me. I refuse, however, to believe this is anything but a very recent production and still believe that MB & AG know the truth.
But when does enough become enough? I think off the record would be a desirable feature of the conversation. I politely suggest that those to whom it may concern would lower their gaurd and have a nice long talk in Oxford.
I think I've said enough --or too much, and am now taking a good long break. RP |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 20 July 2001 - 04:54 pm | | On the record.
I have never made the assertion that Mike was ignorant of the diary's origins.
I have no idea whether he was or not.
I have said the following repeatedly: I do not believe that anyone has offered the necessary proof (or any proof or even very much reliable or material evidence at all) either way.
I do not believe anyone around here knows either way.
I have also never made the simple assertion that Mike Barrett was lying under oath.
I, personally, happen to believe there might very well be lies in his sworn statement.
I have repeatedly said that this is only my belief and my speculation and that I have no material or reliable evidence to support this. It is not an accusation.
I have asked others whether they too believe that Mike has lied under oath.
That is not an implication; it is a question.
I have said that, obviously, if Anne did not hand-write the diary, then Mike was deliberately lying under oath.
This is simply true.
I have also said that either Mike is lying under oath or, if he is not, the Kane samples are garbage.
This is also simply true.
I am not implying that Mike is or is not lying when he says Anne wrote the diary.
I do not know.
I have no idea.
Nor, I believe, does anyone else around here.
I am, however, stating some things that are simply true.
But, to be very clear, I am not accusing anyone of anything in particular and I readily and repeatedly admit that I have no evidence to support any accusations and I have no knowledge of who did or did not write this diary.
I hope that is a clear statement of my own position.
Finally, RJ, writes, concerning Mike’s library adventure:
"And if Mike's trip was a sham --and it seems to me I have to currently believe this is the case-- then mustn't you be willing to entertain the notion that all of Mike's other statements & actions might well be more complex then they seem to be on the surface?"
Yes, they might very well ALL be a sham. Every one of them. And the result of this would be that we would have absolutely no idea which ones were true and which ones were not and we would have no way whatsoever of knowing what Mike did and did not know and when he did or did not know it because we would have no reliable way of reading anything he said and no reliable way to discern when he was telling the truth and when he was lying.
Wait a minute...
That's exactly where we are!
Son of a gun.
Question: Does "Lot 126" exist? Has it ever existed? Is it even a real lot number? Is it even anything like the lot numbers used by Outhwaite and Litherland?
Premise: At some point, I admit to you I lie.
Is that a lie?
What's true and what's not?
--John
"The idea of the Diary came from discussion between Tony Devereux, Anne Barrett my wife and myself, there came I time when I believed such a hoax was a distinct possibility. We looked closely at the background of James Maybrick and I read everything to do with the Jack the Ripper matter. I felt Maybrick was an ideal candidate for Jack the Ripper. Most important of all, he could not defend himself. He was not 'Jack the Ripper' of that I am certain, but, times, places, visits to London and all that fitted. It was to (sic) easey (sic)."
--Mike Barrett under oath |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 20 July 2001 - 06:44 pm | | Hi All,
A couple of casual thoughts, since I have a moment.
One thing we all agree on is that Mike Barrett lies. He has lied. We know that.
How do we know?
Well, he's stated publicly that he did not write the diary, that he got it from Tony, and he's stated publicly that he did write the diary.
So he must have been lying about the diary's origins at some point.
Consequently, his "confessions," under oath or not, cannot properly be considered reliable, material evidence of anything by themselves.
They can be read carefully (and I have urged RJ to "go for it" and do just that and tell us what he finds) and they can be re-read carefully for details and they can be checked out to the best of our ability. But they are the words of a known liar, crafty or otherwise, and they should not be considered reliable evidence of anything at all. What we find out about them from separate and independent sources can properly be considered reliable evidence. That's why I think they should be read and re-read carefully and why RJ should go for it. But the confessions themselves cannot count as evidence for or against anything just yet.
And another thing. What's all this sudden talk of sensitivity and going "off the record," anyway? What are we afraid of around here? Why is RJ dancing around stuff that he thinks he probably shouldn't go into? If anyone has evidence that is confirmable or reliable of anything at all why not just bring it forward on the record? Why the hell not let the meeting be on the record and make sure that a careful, accurate, verifiable taped record be made of it for the protection of all involved? When did we all get a sudden dose of extra-sensitivity and about what? Mike and Anne's finances? I don't think so. Their marriage troubles? Already been discussed to death. Mike's drinking problem -- please. That's the worst kept secret this side of Christendom. Poor Mr. Kane? -- RJ is right, enough is enough -- if we're going to continue to even consider the mysterious rumors about his handwriting then someone ought to go on the record about something -- otherwise why even bring the issue to the table if it must remain the stuff of hearsay, secrets, and leaked rumors? Does someone have some material or reliable evidence that Paul Feldman really did have Mike beaten up? Good. Let's see it. On the record. Let's get a record of what everyone knows. Lord knows there's already enough stuff "off the record." Adding to it isn't going to help anyone and may just make all of this a bigger mess when the rumors start about who said what at the meeting. If it's going to happen, it should be recorded independently and a verifiable archive should be made and kept and everyone should be held responsible for exactly what they say. If they are not willing to be held responsible for what they say, then I personally don't think they should say it.
But that's just me and this is just my rather grumpy opinion at the moment. Let's get this thing done and done carefully and done responsibly and done with an accurate and verifiable independent record that will withstand scrutiny. Otherwise, why bother to do it at all?
Feeling a bit crotchety, I still wish you all the best,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 23 July 2001 - 01:37 pm | | Peter,
Please accept my most sincere and humble apologies. If I had realised that you were bringing up Mike’s health problems in your post of Sunday, July 8 – 12.15pm, purely out of sympathy and concern for the man, and for no other reason, I should have been one happy woman and would not have reacted as I did. I can only put it down to being knocked sideways by this rare display of the caring, sharing side of Peter R.A. Birchwood. My first impression was that you were using Mike’s kidney failure to accuse Shirley of deliberate misrepresentation in her book. My second impression, from reading the rest of your post, was that you were actually using the man’s ill health in your case against him, to suggest it has left him incapable, ever since he first tried to confess, in June 1994, of proving he committed fraud in 1992. I’ll be both surprised and delighted to hear you confirm that my impressions were either mistaken or unjustified. I too ‘would truly resent anyone using this particular disease [or any other, regardless of whether I had personal experience or not] as a peg to hang various nasty little sneers.’
What I was actually concerned with, regarding the state of Mike’s physical and mental health, was determining just how much this man could have achieved by the late 1980s/early 1990s, when you believe the diary was conceived and created. You told us that ‘by the mid-1980s Mike had suffered serious kidney failure…’ It could be important to establish if this was related to previous heavy drinking. Some people, including Martin Fido, have suggested that, while Mike looked an unlikely forger by the time they met him, it was impossible to say what he might have been capable of before the alcoholism and personal problems, whether caused by the diary or not, took their toll. But if Mike had serious drink and marital problems well before the diary emerged, was he ever in a fit state to plan and execute this forgery, or help to any significant degree? For example, was he, by the time the diary was supposedly being created, already suffering the memory and concentration lapses you mentioned? And would this have affected his ability to carry out whatever role you believe he took in its production and handling?
I am perfectly amenable to the suggestion that Mike’s various health problems led him to get many of the details muddled or incorrect in his sworn statements. But you and others seem reluctant to even consider the alternative possibility - that Mike’s continued inability to prove anything may have nothing to do with lapses in memory and concentration, and difficulties with dates and what have you – might it not simply be because he doesn’t know anything?
Incidentally, try as I might, I can’t get RJ to suggest a reason why Mike confessed in the first place, if not to get back at those he blamed for making his life a misery on account of the diary. What do you believe made Mike confess?
And you haven’t responded to my suggestion that you let Chris George record the October meeting and retain the tape, out of courtesy to all parties present. Perhaps you have done this privately, by email to Chris and Shirley – I do hope so. You see, I’ve been trying to imagine what could happen, and I actually foresee more potential problems for you and Chris than I do for Shirley, if the meeting goes ahead untaped. If you decide to report back to this board, from a discussion about the diary, which goes unrecorded on your say-so, Chris will be obliged to act like a human tape recorder, recalling all the details, when the inevitable requests come for him to confirm everything. This really isn’t fair on Chris – or anyone – when the very existence of a tape would likely be taken as confirmation in itself. You ought to consider the responsibility you are putting on him, not just his time and trouble. And have you considered what you will do if you feel that Shirley – or Andy Mossack, if he attends – have misreported events, in any post they might wish to make afterwards? You can hardly expect to come back and defend your position, and get a sympathetic reception, while you continue to publicly reject the protection a tape would offer. It seems such an odd thing for you to dig your heels in over, considering how useful a permanent record of this meeting could prove, and if one of your aims is to stop the book-buying public being deceived, now and in the future.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 23 July 2001 - 01:42 pm | | Hi RJ,
You say that you’d prefer to be accused of being up to your arse in forgery, than maliciously lying to discredit an author’s work, or maliciously accusing your wife of forgery. I wouldn’t personally be able to choose between the two, I’m afraid. Being accused of something you didn’t do, if you’ve never experienced it, is not a feeling words can ever describe adequately. It’s gut-wrenching stuff, and some suspect Anne had a hand in this forgery, although she has always denied it. Not quite the same with Mike though, is it? Where he is concerned, things are far more complicated, because he swore he was up to his arse in forgery, then proceeded to volunteer the information that he had lied about Anne forging the diary with his help, in order to get back at Feldy for making his life a misery, and that in reality, he still knew nothing. And we now have that private letter to Anne, accusing or threatening her with his supposed knowledge that she wrote the diary, which tends to point, for me at least, to his complete ignorance of whoever did write it.
You then ask if anyone here really knows, with any amount of moral certainty, that Mike's sworn affidavit doesn't genuinely reflect what he believes to be the truth. Well, whichever way we look at it, RJ, Mike has admitted – or confessed, if you prefer - to telling blatant lies under oath – not believing he was telling the truth as he saw it, not getting muddled or confused over the details – but to lying deliberately, giving his reasons for doing so. So, yes, I think I can say, hand on heart, that, as Mike himself has said his sworn affidavit doesn’t reflect the truth - and he has been modifying or denying the details of his involvement ever since, apparently according to what he perceives are his own best interests at the time, rather than randomly determined by his various health problems – then I’m as certain as I can be that it very probably doesn’t. And Mike has still failed to produce an account which even remotely resembles Melvin’s own scenario (which you have repeatedly said you believe in) – one which involves a separate composer and penman, neither Anne nor Mike having faked this document. But I’m always open to alternative suggestions. 
But, wherever the truth lies, and it’s out there somewhere, I can see little point in an argument over who is doing the better job of demonising Mike for his supposed actions. It matters much more that we all try to move forward together and find where Mike has said things that aren’t true, and where, if anywhere, he really has told the truth, as he sees it.
I think the point about Mike’s discovery of the Crashaw quote is that, while we know he did discover where it could be found at some point, we still have no way of proving how and when he first knew it was in his copy of the Sphere Guide, or even whether it definitely got into the diary by that route. The evidence, whatever it suggests to you, is still circumstantial in nature, and open to different interpretations. Are Mike’s actions more consistent with him discovering the quote at some point after June 1994, and using it to bolster his initial and entirely unsupported confession, or with having known where to put his hands on the proof all along, whenever he needed it?
And as far as the question of Mike’s intelligence goes, I’d say that, if anything, it is you, RJ, who may be underestimating this man in one important respect. Imagine that Mike is planning to launch the diary of Jack the Ripper on the public, knowing full well that it’s a recent forgery. He hopes it will bring him considerable fame and fortune (or at least earn him enough dosh to get back up to date with the mortgage payments and pay for a greenhouse). Is it at all reasonable that an intelligent and street-wise forger would expect the whole world to simply roll over and proclaim: “Mike Barrett has found Jack the Ripper!”? In the wake of the Hitler Diaries fiasco, wouldn’t he be worried that the Maybrick Diary might be quickly condemned and exposed as fraudulent (being in no position to know how Doreen and co would react), and that he could face criminal charges and be left without a penny for all his time and effort? At the other extreme (and which has proved to be the case), the better job he thought was made of it, the longer he could expect to have the diary, and his private life, investigated by any number of interested parties, from scientists and expert hoax busters, to writers, historical researchers and rabid journalist types – believers and sceptics alike (and even an eccentric and interfering housewife with nothing better to do ).
I feel that Mike would have had ample sense to anticipate the negative outcome of such a blatant attempt at fraud. And, if he had the diary in his possession before Tony Devereux died, in August 1991 (as his daughter Caroline apparently confirmed), there must be a reason why he waited until March 1992 to go public with it. If Tony did give Mike the diary, with no explanation of where it came from, it seems reasonable that he would have spent the next few months trying to find answers, and wondering long and hard what to do with it. Anyone in such a position could be forgiven for hoping this document would turn out to be important and valuable, and it’s easy to imagine Mike finally convincing himself of this, and taking the gamble, and the diary, to London. If it happened this way, it is also easier to imagine how an intelligent Mike thought he would be hailed as the man who solved the world’s greatest mystery, and never even considered that he might instead be hauled off to the nearest police station, accused of fraud - or have his life turned upside-down by the curious and furious.
So was Mike’s behaviour more consistent with a canny fellow who finds himself with an unknown quantity, appreciates its potential value, and tries to make the best of it? Or did he act more like a silly faker, thinking he could get away with something like this and live happy and rich ever after?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 26 July 2001 - 10:52 am | | Chris George to Keith Skinner, July 26, 2001
Hello, Keith:
Please accept this as my request to be allowed to see the letters in your possession from Mike Barrett to Anne Barrett (now Graham) sometime during the upcoming Bournemouth conference, September 28 to October 1, 2001. Hopefully in between hobnobbing with Tom Clancy and Johnny Depp and various other luminaries you will allow me the privilege of being able to view this material!  Keith, thank you so much for considering my request!
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 26 July 2001 - 11:15 am | | 'Is it at all reasonable that an intelligent and street-wise forger would expect the whole world to simply roll over and proclaim: “Mike Barrett has found Jack the Ripper!”?
Caz--the problem with your 'street wise forger' objection above is that the diary wasn't written to fool the experts. It's far too incompetent for that. It is, rather, what Mike called a "best seller". A somewhat clever concept that just needed a willing publisher. The experts immediately came out in droves to discredit it. But it was an amusing story and it sold. Think of it as a novella with a marketing gimmick: it is written in an old album. A funny little game to blur the edges between fiction & forgery. It certainly was not meant to be a serious forgery, it doesn't even attempt to imitate Maybrick's handwriting, and makes bungling errors. But it succeeded in what it was meant to be: a best seller. That's why Scotland Yard investigated the publishers, because it was obvious that this was meant as a money-maker and they wanted to know if the publishing company themselves were behind it. [They weren't]. Who does that leave? P. Williams? RP |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 26 July 2001 - 12:19 pm | | Hi, all:
R.J. alludes at the end of his post to the alias of "P. Williams" used by Mike Barrett when he took the Diary to London literary agent Doreen Montgomery in Spring 1992.
In a 1999 post, Peter Birchwood made mentioned that the alias "Williams" used by Barrett may have been partly inspired by another of the Liverpool mysteries covered by Richard Whittington-Egan in his pamphlet Murder, Madness, and Mayhem, known to have been in Barrett's possession, and which I contend was a major source of information for the Diary hoax.
Specifically, the story in RWE's pamphlet is that of the mysterious death of Thomas Cregeen Williams, a Victorian man whose body was found in an iron tube in Liverpool in 1945. Significantly, as Peter noted in his earlier post, RWE's account relates that "several diaries covering June 1884 to July 1885 were also found in the corpse's coat."
I thought it might be instructive to give the facts about this other Liverpool mystery:
THE MAN IN THE IRON TUBE
On the morning of Friday, 13th July, 1945, a group of children playing on a blitzed site on the corner of Fulford Street and Great Homer Street discovered a sheet-iron tube that was partly opened at one end. Through this opening, one of the children saw there was a skeleton inside the cylinder. A nearby policeman was informed and the tube and its gruesome contents were taken to the City Morgue were a record was made of the tube's dimensions: 6 feet 9 inches long and 18 inches in diameter. When the tube was cut open with an oxyacetylene torch, it was found to contain the 6-foot skeleton of a man in tattered Victorian clothing. The skull rested on a brick wrapped in sacking. The cadaver wore a morning coat, narrow striped trousers, and a pair of elastic-sided boots. On one finger bone there was a gold signet-ring set with a bloodstone and bearing a London hallmark for the year 1859. In the tail pocket of the morning coat were several documents relating, to a T.C. Williams & Co, of Leeds Street, Liverpool. Several diaries covering June 1884 to July 1885 were also found in the corpse's coat, but none of these clues threw any light on the dead man's identity, and detectives were at a loss to fathom out how or why the body was in the cylinder.
In the year 1883, a firm of Oil Merchants, Paint & Varnish Manufacters traded under the name of T.C. Wiliams & Co, at 18 - 20 Leeds Street, and the principal of the firm was Thomas Cregeen Williams of 29 Clifton Road, Anfield. In 1884 the business accounts of this paint firm were being probed by accountants, and Mr T.C. Williams was apparently worried about the investigations. It has been suggested that he took refuge in the cylinder to hide from his creditors and probably died from accidental asphyxiation. But why hide in a cylinder? Most debtors in those days simply boarded a ship when bankruptcy loomed. The baffling case remains an enigma.
******************
The following is information on Williams and his household from the 1881 census:
Dwelling: 29 Clifton Road
Census Place: West Derby, Lancashire, England
Source: FHL Film 1341889, PRO Ref RG11, Piece 3712, Folio 85, Page 13
Thomas C. WILLIAMS M 45 M Liverpool, Lancashire, England
Rel: Head
Occ: Paint & Oil Merchant
Elizabeth G. WILLIAMS M 32 F Castletown, Isle of Man, England
Rel: Wife
Thomas C. WILLIAMS U 23 M Liverpool, Lancashire, England
Rel: Son
Occ: Commercial Traveller Paint
Fanny J. WOOD U 24 F Castletown, Isle of Man, England
Rel: Visitor
*************
I must credit Barbara Humphreys (nee Williams) an ex-pat Liverpudlian in New South Wales, Australia jambutty@idx.com.au for the above information on the T.C. Williams mystery posted on the LANCSGEN-L Archives site http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/LANCSGEN/2000-08/0966342463
*************
Some of you may recall that a few months ago we had word that a tabloid had breaking news of the corpse of Jack the Ripper being found walled-up supposedly with a signed confession. That story might or might not have related to the circa 1945 story of the late Mr. T. C. Williams. If so, it would be ironic if the bizarre story of the paint & oil merchant who died mysteriously presumably some three years prior to the Whitechapel murders was echoed both in Barrett's choice of pseudonym and the recent supposed tabloid revelation of the true story of Saucy Jack!
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 26 July 2001 - 02:06 pm | | Hi Chris,
As Keith stated in his post, he is prepared to show the letters he has from Mike to Anne to anyone at the Bournemouth Conference who is interested - so that includes you, naturally. He will be delighted.
I think Mike said the name 'Williams' came from the man who lived in his house before he did. I seem to recall that this checked out. And I don't know that Mike was still using that name when he arrived in London. I think it likely he only used it to make the initial phone call, to sound out the interest in his little 'find', then, when a meeting was on the cards, he would have had to give his real name in order to make money out of any deal struck.
Hi RJ,
That's all well and good, but Shirley, Doreen, and Robert Smith did not think, and do not think, that the diary was 'far too incompetent' to be more than some kind of best seller, and it wasn't published as such, was it?
I know enough of these people, RJ, to know they are neither stupid nor dishonest, and your remark about just needing a 'willing publisher' shows me how little you seem prepared to learn more about these people yourself, and learn whether your strongly-held opinions even come close to the truth.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 26 July 2001 - 02:26 pm | | MORE SKULLDUGGERY? ANOTHER PATHETIC HOAX?
No this isn't Melvin Harris. I thought for reference some of you might be interested in an alleged portrait of Shakespeare from 1603 now on show in Toronto.
See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45723-2001Jul24.html and
http://www.geocities.com/tranquileye/shakespeare/
As stated in the Washington Post article, it is unlikely that the caption on the back of the portrait could have been written in the Bard's time. It reads: "Shakspere, Born April 23-1564, Died April 23-1616, Aged 52, This Likeness taken 1603, Age at that time 39 yrs" As one of the experts says, the term "this likeness taken" appears to date back no further than the eighteenth century. It rings a duff note like the Diary does. A controversy something like the Maybrick to-do. . .
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 26 July 2001 - 02:29 pm | | Hi, Caz:
Thanks for your reply written on behalf of Keith Skinner in regard to my request to see at the upcoming UK convention the copies in Keith's possession of Mike Barrett's letters to his former wife Anne. I look forward to getting together with Keith at Bournemouth about this matter. Thanks also for giving me your "take" on the facts about Mike Barrett's use of the alias "P. Williams." I appreciate it.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 26 July 2001 - 06:01 pm | | | Caz--I think you read a little too much into my phrase "willing publisher". My point is that the diary's format & content makes me think it was meant to be a 'best seller'. This is even what Mike Barrett claimed, and it seems to me that the 'feel' of the book with its elements of horror fiction fits his claims. This is hardly a new idea. It doesn't seem to me that there is much evidence that the diary's writers really hoped to fool the Ripperologists with this text, or it would have been useful to let Florie off the hook at trial. In other words, I think profit was the motive. That's all I meant, really. RP |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 27 July 2001 - 11:08 am | | Hi Ivor:
Obviously the opportunity was there for the diary to have as reputable a forensic going-over as is possible in this world but the choice was apparently deliberately made not to submit it. You mention Paul Feldman but I think that the actual diary was then owned by Robert Smith.
As Mr. Smith is apparently willing to submit the diary pages for an ink test, maybe he could go a little further and send the whole thing off to FSD. I will await to hear why this cannot be done.
Chris:
The Thomas Cregeen Williams story can also be found in Tom Slemen's book of "mysteries" and actually seems to have some semblance in fact. I believe that it was also covered in a book by the radio personality Valentine Dyall published around the 1950's. The census (1881 not 1888) does confirm that the family existed but it would be interesting to have some information from local papers concerning the discovery of the tube.
I did do a little research for Tom Slemen concerning a project on the Wallace murder and in return he promised to take a look at the Liverpool electoral register to see if MB had actually bought his house from a Mr. P. Williams as he said in one of his confessions. Sadly I haven't heard anything from Tom for some time and I shall probably end up having to check this myself. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 27 July 2001 - 11:49 am | | | I also think Ivor has made one of the most sensible suggestions in a good long while. It seems like a reasonable course that everyone would agree with. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 27 July 2001 - 01:59 pm | | Hi All,
Robert Smith has posted a response to Ivor on the Forensic Evidence diary board, regarding tests on the diary, and what he would be willing to do in the future.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 27 July 2001 - 05:00 pm | | A question : Does anyone know if any of the main protagonists in the Maybrick Diary affair was or is a Freemason ?
I was thinking about the crucifix , as it has a skull and crossbones on it. Apparently the skull and crossbones is a symbol appropriate to a Master Mason - it has appeared on gravestones and aprons. Earlier on , it was connected to the Knights Templar.
Via brother members in the police it would be easy for a Freemason to view or to get his hands on evidence to forge the Diary. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 27 July 2001 - 05:58 pm | | Hi Simon,
I believe Michael Maybrick, James' brother, was very high up in the Masons - 34th degree or something? - it's all Greek to me, so I could have it all arse about face as usual.
Can I interest you in a little tape tree?
Go on, branch out a bit - you don't want to end up out on a limb - it might even help you to twig a thing or two.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 27 July 2001 - 09:43 pm | | Hi Peter & RJ,
I will contact the FSD on Monday and also contact Mr Smith to see if he is willing for the former to do a full test on the diary. I agree that it is in everyone's interest for this to be done.Thanks for that information Caz I will read the post. |
|
|
|
|
