|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Why was it forged if not for money?
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Why was it forged if not for money?
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 08:00 am |        | Hi again Ivor,
I've just had a thought. If your experience tells you that the police are 'a bunch of useless wet ninnys' who are 'either incompetent or bent', what does your experience tell you about the Forensic Science Service? What makes you put such faith in them, by complete contrast, when it comes to the job of testing the diary? Is it just because you feel coppers are a different breed from the men in white coats?
Just wondering.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 02:04 pm | | | Hi caz,I dont care if Mike Barrett forged the diary or not the fact of the matter is that he has told many proven lies over the diary. He told me he was a con man. He deserves no quarter in this matter and deserves all he gets including harrassment. In relation to your other comment police plant evidence all the time and verbal up suspects that is a known fact.We know many of them cant be trusted. Look at the case this week ( UK ) of a policeman caught on video who kicked and punched a suspect because the latter refused the former to search his home without a warrant.I have never heard of a case of a Scientific Services Expert planting evidence or trying to fit up an innocent person. I rest my case.One of the most obnoxious bent officers I have ever met (I was informed by a reliable police source that he was a mason) is now in charge of the CID in a large provincial town.So crime does pay. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 05:15 pm | | Hi Ivor,
You may think Mike deserves all he gets, but that doesn't really help us a whole lot in deciding who was involved in producing the diary and when, does it?
But I'm glad you believe the Scientific Services Experts are all above reproach. Do you also trust their competence to do a good job on the diary, and would you accept their verdict if they were to test it with the latest techniques and believed it to be 'decades' old?
Or are you just going to wait and see, and judge their competence by the results?
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 06:13 pm | | Caz's remarks about what we choose to believe when the experts finally do another report reminded me of something else.
Remember Ken Rendell? His name came up again in another context, as part of another discussion I was participating in this week. (He is allegedly buying up the very private letters of a very private author and planning to try and publish them in a book -- or so I hear).
Something about Ken always bothered me. The report that he sent to Time Warner announcing the diary was a fake was very clear, very certain, and very specific. At the end of it, he used one of his expert's ion migration test and, earlier, his own analysis of the handwriting (letter formation, etc.) in addition to a bunch of other stuff, to claim that the book was a bad forgery and was most likely written around 1921 plus or minus twelve years. It was certainly not older than the early twentieth century and the handwriting was was consistent with documents written no earlier than "the early-to-mid-twentieth century." And Robert NcNeil's ion migration test gave us a pretty good idea of the date, Ken told us. Fine.
Then Melvin and some others pointed out that 1921 was not really a very possible date, historically, since some of the info in the diary was not publicly available until after 1987.
But remember, at the time, the science of Rendell's own man, in his own study, told Rendell sometime between 1909 and 1933. (McNeil himself would later become much more flexible on the date, stretching it to about 1970, and his "technique" is idiosyncratic to say the least.)
PLEASE NOTE: I am not suggesting these findings were right or that McNeil was right or that the date is even possible. I know about the later critiques of McNeil's procedures. They seem quite devastating to me, too. That's not my point. At the time, what Rendell had were the findings of his own man using a technique that he himself endorsed in his own report. That's what is important to remember here.
So all this is fine, so far. Rendell was certain the thing was a fake and his last paragraph quoted the ion migration findings of McNeil and even spoke up for him and them.
But then Rendell hears from Melvin and others that the content proves to be a problem if we go with the findings of the ion migration test.
So, oddly enough, when Rendell publishes his own book (Forging History), in 1994, he casually declares that the diary is a modern fake, probably written "within a year of its announced 'discovery'" -- completely counter to what his own team of experts had concluded in his own study for Time Warner.
When asked for comment on what happened, by Martin Fido and by Paul Feldman I believe, Rendell refused to respond or to make any further statements.
Now this is strange. But in this case it does not seem to be all that unusual. People do studies, they get scientific conclusions and then, when the conclusions don't mix well with their own or other people's expectations, they just ignore those conclusions or say that they must somehow be wrong. But they never explain exactly how or why they were wrong. Rendell himself had written supportively of McNeil in his own report, but by 1994, in his own book, he simply and silently dismisses those very results he endorsed less than a year earlier, and does so without comment; apparently because they became inconvenient, given the details in the diary. He never once explains how or why McNeil was so wrong. And he never refers to Joe Nickell's powerful critique of McNeil's technique or the fact that no one has been able to duplicate McNeil's results either. I don't even know if Rendell knew these things at the time. He says nothing about them. He just appears to have quietly dismissed his own findings and to move on happily.
This sounds an awful lot like the fate of our watch scientists as well. Everyone says they're wrong, but no one will say exactly how they went wrong or why they went wrong in their analysis to get to the conclusion that the scratches are either tens of years old or the result of a very knowledgeable faker. People, myself included, assume they must be wrong because their findings don't fit our account of what most likely happened (the watch as a bandwagon item), but we all just say that they're wrong and move on, without commenting on how they went wrong or why. We probably shouldn't do this, if we wish to be taken seriously as responsible analysts.
And Ken Rendell even originally endorsed the findings he later decided to ignore without comment. This seems almost weasly. At least he could have taken personal responsibility for his earlier, mistaken endorsement and explained fairly and fully what had happened. But no, he just ignores his earlier report's findings without a comment about why or how they were wrong.
How come this happens? Of what use is science if, when we no longer find its conclusions convenient, we can just dismiss them with a wave of our hand and write a conclusion with a brand new rhetoric of certainty (check out Rendell's), as if the original findings never happened?
It just seems a very odd way to treat forensic evidence; and since I ran into Ken's name again today in another context, I just thought I'd mention it.
Thanks and bye,
--John |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 07:02 pm | | Hello. I'd have to say you're simply wrong on this, John. I don't see Rendell unequivably endorsing McNeil's test, [and certainly not enought for you to write ENDORSE in bold print above]. The report I have seen from Rendell's Gallery, makes it clear that very early on he had qualifications about McNeil's report. But McNeil was part of the dream team, and I assume that Rendell didn't want to completely dash his findings, even if he & Joe Nickell privately assumed the diary was a modern fake.
In writing about McNeil's ion migrations test, Rendell did voice some doubts. He wrote "We had some concern that the nature of the book, a scrapbook with relatively more absorbent paper, might make this analysis more difficult." He went on to state at the very end of his report: "Additionally, the results of McNeil's ion migration test showed the ink to have been put on the paper in the early twentieth century at the earliest. [My italics]. Heating the paper can cause a false aging. The test may indicate a date older than it actually is, but will not give a more recent date." [My italics again]. So Rendell's take on McNeil seems to be that his test excludes the possibility that the diary was written before 1920, but not later dates.
That makes it seem pretty clear to me that Rendell was implying that the diary could have been more recent. I see no reason to agree with you that he mysteriously changed his view without explanation.
This is only my assumption, but I assume by the time Rendell wrote Forging History his doubts about the ion migration test had solidified. The test hasn't been reproduced by other scientists, from what I hear there seems to be insurmountable techinical difficulties, and McNeil himself later qualified his statement to say the diary could have been written as late as 1970. None of which makes it sound particularly reassurring. Maybe Ivor's people at the FSD can come up with something more convincing. Cheers, RJP |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 07:08 pm | | HI RJ,
I wasn't suggesting McNeil's findings were in any way meaningful or reliable. I don't believe they are.
I was suggesting that Rendell could have at least explained what happened in his own memoirs. At the end of his Time Warner report he speaks highly of the test and of McNeil. Check it out.
Gotta' run.
--John |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 08:14 pm | | John--The following may shed some light on why Rendell & Joe Nickell later would disregard Rod McNeil's test:
...current evidence shows McNeil also obtained an erroneous date...for the forged Jack the Ripper diary, one potential problem having been the diary's unsized (and thus extra absorbent) paper. In contrast, a British examiner used the relatively simple ink-solubility test to determine that the ink was barely dry on the pages." Joe Nickell, "Detecting Forgery", p 194.
So I think Rendell & Nickell did have doubts. [And I'm assuming Nickell is referring to Baxendale].
This is certainly not to suggest that there weren't those that reassurred Shirley Harrison & others that the diary could well have been Victorian. {The fellows around the corner at the British Museum, for instance}. I think Martin Fido softened the curmudgeon attitude of mine about this, pointing out that many of the scientists were sending mixed & confusing messages. It's interesting to note, too, that Robert Smith was among those that admitted that McNeil's test didn't seem to be scientifically viable. So clearly, the confusions & doubts about the various scientific tests weren't entirely partisan. Maybe in the end it will be reassurring to us literary types that historians and not scientists will have the upperhand when it comes to determining the fate of the Maybrick Diary. RP |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 08:54 pm | | Dear Caz,
My reply to you about Barrett was in answer to your remark about "harrassing" the pair in the first paragraph of your post dated Wed Aug 01,2001.I know my reply does not help in finding out out who and why.It was not meant to.Whether they wrote it or not has nothing to do with why they should not be harressed. Mike deserves to be because he lied.Let us not kid ourselves here something is amiss and they both know something.If they dont like the heat in the kitchen then they should have kept out of it.You reap what you sow. I dont trust either of them. As for his ex wife she has been very lucky that is all I wish to state concerning her.As for my opinion as to the results of the tests I can see no reason at this stage why I should not go along with the results. If I cannot trust the FSS who can I trust? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 04:28 am | | Hi Ivor,
I'd love to have a bit of your insight, if it can tell you when other people 'know something'. I haven't a clue if Anne and Mike 'know something' they aren't telling anyone. I must say I rather doubt it in Mike's case, from all I've come to know about him, but with Anne it's not so easy. Perhaps there is still something she can't or won't reveal to the public, for personal reasons. If that's the case, wild horses won't drag it from her lucky lips.
And 'lucky' is not an adjective that immediately springs to mind whenever I think of Anne Graham, but I guess we'll have to differ on that one. 
I admire your faith in the FSS. Some people here are hard pressed to trust the cat. 
(Bad analogy, I know. Cats are crafty little critters. But I've never known one to forge a diary.  )
Must go and do some more packing.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 06:51 am | | To Keith Skinner--
Hello. Thanks for the additional information about Mike and for your comments.
I think I might have to call this one a draw. I realize that because of Melvin's aloofness about his private information, Chris George, Alegria, John Omlor and others have voiced their doubts about whether or not he has any information about who forged the diary. [I demur.] I can even understand why from your angle you would feel that his silence is suspicious and unfair.
But if you perceive an analogy, then you must also be keenly aware that Anne's own aloofness will cause her critics to doubt her story all the more. You don't need me to tell you that. And I certainly don't plan on hounding Ms. Graham the way Caroline hounded Melvin Harris last Spring. I don't think it would do any good, anyway.
But the problem with the Maybrick diary isn't Melvin Harris. The problem with the Maybrick diary is the Maybrick diary. The text is suspicious, the format is suspicious, and the provenance story changed. To me, Alec Voller seems about the only compelling witness that the diary has come up with. And he certainly didn't alleviate all the doubts. Unless Ms. Graham can make a very convincing public interview, I don't really forsee the diary's critics ever changing their opinions. But that's her burden, not yours.
Maybe this murky & disagreeable mess is how it will end. A depressing thought. By the way. During a very idle & wasted hour cranking the handle of a microfilm machine some time ago, I couldn't find any reference to S.E. Mibrac in the June 14, 1888 Times. The story seems backward to me anyway. Did Anne & Shirley check Feldman out on this one? Very best wishes, RJP |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 09:33 am | | Hi RJ,
But see, this is my point (and it's finally about us as much as it is about Ken).
You suggest old Ken had doubts about ion migration all along. This may be true. But in his report to Time Warner concerning the diary, Ken did not finally write "Hey, this ion migration thing seems to me a bit wacky and unreliable and this McNeil guy's conclusions about this thing being written in 1921 should probably be taken with a huge grain of salt or cocaine or something."
No.
Instead, he finally wrote: "His analysis showed a median date of 1921 plus or minus 12 years. McNeil, the pioneer in this analysis, has done similar tests for the US Secret Service, the FBI, and correctly established the dates of the printed material in the Mormon murder case."
Now see, to me that sounds like an endorsement. That sounds like a guy saying -- "This McNeil guy dated the thing at around 1921 and he's pretty good -- he works for big and important people and he was right about that Mormon murder case, after all. This is worth considering."
And I don't even have a problem with Ken writing this, if he really believed it. (If he didn't, if he already knew better at the time, but let Time Warner think the 1921 date was somehow scientifically established or believable, then he should be ashamed of himself for not clarifying and expanding on his own doubts to his employer right then and there.)
But if Ken believed this, and then later, as you suggest, after going over this thing in detail and talking with Joe and the whole bit, he realized what a mess this whole ion migration thing was, then he should have taken responsibility for the mistaken impression concerning McNeil's reliability that he left for Time Warner (and later the general public) and he should have explained, in his own memoirs, or somewhere for everyone, exactly why he didn't mention it in his original report (he didn't know then, hopefully) and exactly how McNeil got it wrong (citing Nickell perhaps) and exactly why his findings should not be considered trustworthy. But he doesn't. He just lets it slide with a casual comment about the diary being less than a year old when it was "discovered." In fact, even then, in his book, Rendell still writes "Several days later Rob McNeil's test of the ion migration of the ink, used by the FBI and Secret Service, showed the diary to have been written in the twentieth century."
Come on. The guy is just not explaining things fully or accurately. It's just a bit weasely, I think.
But anyway, that's not even really my point. I was drawing an analogy with the watch-scientist guys. We all go around all the time just saying that they too must have produced mistaken or unreliable conclusions. But none of us can explain exactly how or why they got it so wrong (and we really do hope they got it wrong or the whole 1987 business seems to become a problem for us). Logic tells us they must be wrong somehow, history tells us they must be wrong somehow, Dundas and his memory swears they got it wrong, our own readings of the diary tell us they must be wrong somehow, but no one can say how or why they are so wrong. And yet we dismiss them anyway. This is what I mean about us not being very careful or thorough scholars. And I especially include myself here. I don't know why or how they got it so wrong, but I can't believe the scratches had to be tens of years old either. And I can't for the life of me figure out who might fit their explicit profile of a learned faker of the sort they say would have had to have done this. ButI do think I am being way too hasty if, because of all this, I just dismiss them and figure I don't have to worry about it or explain how they screwed up. If I can do this, if I can just not worry about it, then the science in general becomes de-facto worthless. It can just be dismissed without careful explanation or critical examination of its specific mistakes. It no longer has any weight then, and I can theoretically do it to any scientific conclusion I don't like. "I don't like what Baxendale says about ink?" "He must be wrong." But why? "Because he doesn't fit in with my reading of the events and the text and my own expectations about what probably happened." You see? That would completely suck as a claim. Someone could and should say to me "But how is he wrong? Where exactly did he screw up and why?" Otherwise my criticism isn't worth much. Otherwise, all I've said is that I don't like his findings, given what else I know about the case -- even though the science is supposed to be objective and true, independently. This is what I think we should be careful about doing, on all sides. This is why I think the watch scientists do not just go away yet, even if I can't believe them. And this is why I think, until someone clearly demonstrates exactly how and why their procedures and conclusions are as unreliable and idiosyncratic as McNeil's, Robert Smith should probably be entitled to keep coming back here now and then and pointing out validly that none of us have responded specifically or satisfactorily to the scientific conclusions concerning the age of the scratches on the watch. And just saying "sorry, there is no way to date a scratch" doesn't do it, since they obviously thought they could and that doesn't explain exactly how or why they were wrong.
Anyway, that was my whole point and why Ken's case came to mind, after I heard his name again the other day and after I heard about what I personally feel is a pretty crummy project he is undertaking at the moment, if what I heard is true.
But onward, to better, more interesting stuff. Because I do like your conclusion, RJ, about "us literary types."
All the best.
--John
PS. Here’s an odd thought that came to me in a dream. Please ignore it. It seems at least interesting that Anne now says she first saw the content of this book in the mid-sixties, and that the Poste-House name was changed in the mid-sixties and that McNeil finally stretched his scientific dating of the book to the 70’s at the latest… And Steven Powell is somewhere remembering Anne and talk of the diary in the sixties… and … Nah, never mind. There are Crashaw and the tin box to deal with, aren’t there? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 10:34 am | | From Keith Skinner To R.J.
Dear R.J.
Thank you very much for your message today.
I’m not really interested in a draw, R.J. I am interested in finding out the truth about who wrote this Journal, when it was written and why it was written.
Melvin Harris has given the impression that he knows these answers and has privately or publicly persuaded you of his case.
Anne Graham is in a ‘no-win’ situation. Melvin Harris is not.
If Melvin Harris named the people behind the forgery, then we would have a positive development – and probably an end to the bitterness this controversy has produced.
If Anne Graham met her many critics, or gave a very convincing public interview, who would believe her anyway? I tell you now, R.J., what the reaction would be. The lady is a very accomplished liar and actress, is what you would hear.
Melvin Harris – and probably Peter Birchwood – are the two people who can end this dispute – and the only way it can possibly be ended to the satisfaction of everybody is for the supposed forgers to be identified.
The problem with the Maybrick diary is not the diary itself. The problem is how it has been handled since it first emerged nine years ago – and the conflicting attitudes of people towards it. Peoples belief systems have been challenged, personalities and egos have become entangled in the controversy and expert opinion has been put under intense scrutiny.
Finally – a quick check in my card index reveals that the S.E. Mibrac reference was in The Times, APRIL 14th 1888. I know I do have a photocopy of the original article in my files, but from the note on my card, Feldman gave me a typed transcript of the article on August 16th 1993 which was about a year prior to Anne Graham becoming involved in the research.
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 03 August 2001 - 03:03 am | | Hi All,
I've just done a bit of editing to Keith's post above. It now reads:
'If Melvin Harris named the people behind the forgery, then we would have a positive development...'
Originally, it read 'If Anne Graham named...', which John Omlor kindly pointed out looked like an error. (Thanks John. )
Re-reading the post, I too think Keith must have meant Melvin (although I assumed at the time that he meant 'if Anne was able to name...').
I would normally check if I wasn't 100% sure, so apologies all round for any confusion. 
I'll try to confirm this with Keith later, but we are both out today, so I may not have the chance.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 03 August 2001 - 12:33 pm | | | To Keith Skinner--Thanks for the reference. I knew Anne Graham wasn't working with Feldman that early on; I should have been more specific. I meant that Shirley Harrison & Anne Graham had both used the S.E. Mibrac reference in their own books. I've since located the Times advertisement. [Thank you]. RP |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 03 August 2001 - 04:50 pm | | Hi RJ,
I will just have time to pass on your reply to Keith before I disappear for two weeks.
All the best.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Stephen Powell
Saturday, 04 August 2001 - 05:13 am | | AN OPEN LETTER TO ANNE GRAHAM
As you know,I have been giving information on our meeting all those years ago to those on the casebook.
No one takes this info very seriously as you yourself said they would'nt back then.
You said it would be my word against yours,as indeed it is now.
I have named old and (to me) good friends in conjunction with you and have stood back and watched the people on the casebook,blindly bang into one wall after another in an effort to explain and quantify the 'diary',without taking into serious consideration my words.
A few people have contacted me privately and I have repeated my story to then but alas,
they take this info and I hear very little in return.It seems to be a one-way street from my end.
It's like certain people dont want to know the truth at all.
If the truth never comes out to the public,so be it,but let me say,that you and your father will have lied to the world and defiled the name of James Maybrick and his family.
I have a great belief in Karma and you shall pay the price for your deception.
Your silence is your only friend and when I read that you are angry with the people on the casebook who are trying to ascertain the truth,I can only shake my head with disgust.
Any person who has nothing to hide,would be gladly answerable at all times.
I call you a liar and a fraud along with your other two accomplices who were once my friends.
They have betrayed me with their silence as you betray history.
please feel free to take legal action against me,I would love to go to court with you...
Steve Powell.
4-8-2001 |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 04 August 2001 - 09:43 am | | Hi Steve,
I had a question for you. Was it your impression that when you talked to Anne about the diary back then, the text had already been written? Did she seem to be saying that it had already been composed by that time or that it was just an idea, perhaps for a later date?
I wasn't clear on this point.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 04 August 2001 - 09:53 am | | Steve Powell--Hello & good morning. I was one of those who contacted you privately several months ago, but you never sent me any additional information. I have found your story interesting and potentially important, but, like many others here, have absolutely no way of confirming its details. One potential problem is that your story might date the diary's conception to an earlier time, but there are still (to my mind) many elements in the diary that suggest it was actually composed after the late 1980s. Have you considered that possibility?
If you want a copy of the Mike Barrett tape send me your address and I'll mail you a copy. Cheers, RJP |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 04 August 2001 - 09:56 am | | | John--I hadn't seen your post. I guess you beat me to the punch. RP |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 05 August 2001 - 08:02 am | | Dear Ivor,
Thank you for your reply of the 31 July. You really must start reading what people write and not reading what you think they ought to be writing in order to conform to your way of thinking.
I wrote "...but since the average conviction rate for all crimes is about 3%..."
You say I wrote "You are stating that the police informers system in the whole of the UK is only responsible for 3% of crime!!"
No Ivor I am stating precisely what I wrote which is the conviction rate for all crimes is about 3%. The other 97% of crimes don't result in a conviction.
No I am not a policeman. As to where I got the figure of 3% from I really can't recall right now. It was part of a study of Crime and Crime Resolution in Great Britain, if I can remember where I got it from I will certainly let you know.
Very few crimes are actually solved by the police alone, a few more are solved with the assistance of the public. I must agree with your statement that the police force leaves a lot to be desired. I think the police would operate far more effectively if they remembered the founding principal of the police force. "The purpose of the police is the prevention of crime and the protection of life and property."
I wouldn't agree with your reason's as to why the death penalty was abolished, and I certainly don't agree with your statement about an 'endless list of innocent people released from life sentences' I believe the actual number of innocent people - that is people who have not committed the crime they are convicted of - who have been convicted is very very small, although I personally believe the recent conviction of Barry George for Jill Dando's murder might very well come into this category.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 05 August 2001 - 04:47 pm | | Dear Bob,
The Scapegoat is a useful political tool, Bob... don't dismiss it so easily!
Rosey :-)(The Great Arch Sinique!) |
Author: Stephen Powell
Tuesday, 07 August 2001 - 02:57 am | | Dear John Omlor & R.J. Palmer,
In response to your questions:
Anne Graham at the time of our meeting in 68/69 gave me the impression that her father had the 'diary' at that very time,she told me she was going to write to him and ask him to send it to her in australia.
I now believe that the 'diary' was an idea that was in the making,brought on by a conversation with a male friend of mine and anne's from England (lets call him 'S') who was living in australia.
All these details I have given to Shirley Harrison,in full.
I believe the text was started soon after my meeting with Anne,as Victoria (my fiance and friend of both S and Anne) told me this fact.
Maybrick became the subject soon after this,once again through S.
I believe that Anne had been given a treatment of the 'diary' by S and that she had kept it for possible development.
I was told by Victoria that it would not be published for a few years,why I am not certain but I think it was'nt 'ready'.
Michael Barrett,I presume,was the one to tie-up the loose ends and make the work presentable.
I believe that my english friend S,would want his 'cut' money from the publishing as I knew him very well.
I know that when he came back to australia after visiting england in the early seventies,that he was very annoyed with anne about something.
He said she was a 'bitch' and that she was going to marry someone else.(he always said he was in love with her)
if he would have come across the 'diary' on the public bookshelves years later,as I'm sure he would have,his first thought would have been fright and then Money.
I'm sure he would have contacted Anne about this and I'm sure to keep him quiet,Anne would have paid him something.
Any confirmation of these rough details can only be verified by those who wrote the 'diary',I can only tell you what went on at the time and by what I have pieced together through hard research and good memory,not fantasy recollection.
Until one of my two so-called 'friends' or Anne decide to tell the truth,you shall never know the full picture as I do.
Be sure of one thing my casebook friends,
Anne,S and Victoria are following these conversations we have here very intently.
Dont think for one minute that they are not.
To them I say: Have some guts and spirit and tell the truth for once in your life.
fame could even be yours for the trouble!
steve powell
7-8-2001 |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 07 August 2001 - 06:36 am | | Hi Stephen,
Why can't "S" be named? You named Victoria and imply that she is still monitoring the conversation. Why not the mysterious "S"?
Curiously,
Ally |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 07 August 2001 - 07:46 pm | | | Hi Bob, If you check on suspects convicted of murder and then released (in the last 30 years) because they were innocent you would get a shock. I can think of 20 such cases straight from the top of my head.If such figures exist for capital crimes then I would not even like to contemplate the figures for lesser crimes.One man convicted of a murder he never committed is one too many in my book. |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 07 August 2001 - 10:18 pm | | Hi Steve,
Thanks for the provocative response. I think what RJ and I were both getting at with our questions was that there are some things in the diary-text that many people believe must have been written after 1987 and even after 1989. If you have Anne composing or helping to compose the diary back ten or twenty years before that, this would mess a lot of things up.
Now, when you say that Mike tied-up the loose ends and made the work "presentable," I guess this could mean as late as 1991, right? I mean Mike could have added some stuff -- like the Crashaw quote and the tin match box line and a couple of other things -- to a diary that, for the most part, had already been composed for fifteen years or more, I suppose. Although I'm not sure if the text shows evidence of two such composition scenes.
But one problem that remains in all of this is who the heck actually wrote the thing out, then?
On the other hand, if you're saying that by the end of the seventies, the whole thing had been done and copied in ink onto the pages of the scrapbook, then we have a big bunch of things to reconsider.
Do you suppose the final version was finished when your friend last saw Anne, or was it only actually executed a decade and a half later. And if the latter is more likely, do you have any idea, then, who they got to hold the pen?
It is a fascinating story.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 08 August 2001 - 01:38 am | | Hi, Steve:
I want to believe your story although there continue to be contradictions in what you say.
For example, you state:
Anne Graham at the time of our meeting in 68/69 gave me the impression that her father had the 'diary' at that very time,she told me she was going to write to him and ask him to send it to her in australia.
I now believe that the 'diary' was an idea that was in the making,brought on by a conversation with a male friend of mine and anne's from England (lets call him 'S') who was living in australia.
This sounds as if you are saying two different things, i.e., 1) that the Diary was already in existence, and that Anne's father had it; 2) that the Diary was still only in the hypothetical stage. Or are you saying that Anne only told the story that the Diary was in existence, i.e., that it was not in existence, and that the document was being cooked up at that time?
Hopefully these contradictions will be resolved as we learn more of the story. One thing is that if you are right that Anne Graham was intimately involved with the creation of the Diary, and that the Diary dates back to at least 1968/1969 at least in draft form, she could claim to have had it that long ago so her revised story could perhaps be told without fear of contradiction.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Stephen Powell
Wednesday, 08 August 2001 - 04:32 am | | Hello Chris George
To clarify my last message:
I am indeed saying that Anne only
told the story that the Diary was in existence, i.e., that
it was not in existence, and that the document was being
cooked up at that time.
sorry for the mix-up.
steve powell
8-8-2001 |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 08 August 2001 - 09:48 am | | Hi, Steve:
How though can you be sure that the Maybrick Diary did not exist in 1968-1969? What makes you suspect that it did not, and that it was only in the planning stage? It seems curious, don't you think, that the story that you say Anne Graham told then, "My father had it..." is the same story that she told in 1994, that her father had the diary in the tin trunk in 1968-1969? If both stories were untrue, it would appear to me there would be a danger, for fear of contradiction, in saying in 1994 that the Diary was in the tin trunk, and saying in 1968-1969 that her father had the Diary and could send it from England to Australia if the document did not then exist.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 08 August 2001 - 03:25 pm | | Hi Steve, I have always believed that Anne Graham
and her father were involved with this scam in one way or another. You wrote "It's like certain people don't want to know the truth at all". Well, Steve if it's not in their interests then they won't want to know the truth.Also some people would not know the truth if it jumped up and bit them on the backside.But remember that there are those who are prepared to go to any lengths to get at the truth.Some people are aware that Anne Graham told lies and so did her father.It's early days yet Steve but remember that what she has sown she will also reap.You might just get your day in court but be warned be prepared to join the queue!!! I must sign off now and finish the book I am reading which is entitled "Things to Come" If I had a message for Anne Graham it would be 'You can fool some of the people all the time,and all the people some of the time.But you cant fool all the people all the time." Only an idiot would try. |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 08 August 2001 - 05:58 pm | | Hi Ivor (and Steve),
Of course, we do need some actual material evidence to support Steve's account of events in order to make any sort of reliable or verifiable case against Anne or her father. And neither of you has yet suggested who exactly held the pen and wrote the words on the page or precisely when. Whose handwriting is that, anyway? And was it composed in the late seventies or in the late eighties or early nineties? It's all a bit vague and sketchy so far, if you ask me.
And I do want to know the truth. But I want to know, not just hear it, and I want to know the details and I want them to be verified. Otherwise, it's all just chatting.
So before we start using the language of the Old Testament around here and counting the days until some sort of justified and wrathful vengeance, we might want to actually try to prove our case.
Just a thought,
--John |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 08 August 2001 - 07:29 pm | | Hi Steve,
Just a few thoughts on your post. You said, "fame"...
only some people might want their pound of flesh.
An affidavit may go some way to support your contention that Anne Graham is a crook.
Yours, Rosey :-) |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 08 August 2001 - 08:17 pm | | | John, One learns to walk before one runs and all good things come to those who wait including material evidence.I dont give a hairy rat's backside as to when the diary was forged. I could not care less. My attention is elsewhere and I dont intend to run with the herd.As my dear mother used to say,"There is more than one way to skin a cat". |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 08 August 2001 - 08:37 pm | | By the way John if I knew who held the pen this is the last place I would give out such information.Also it is not a case of wrathful vengeance. And as for proving the case that wont be achieved by those who yap about it. It will be achieved by those who get up off their backside's
and decide to act.Too much talk and not enough action is in evidence.Not unlike the ripper case. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 09 August 2001 - 07:44 am | | Hi Steve,
Another idea...have you been in contact with Melvyn? Your testimony could be the final brick in the wall for the pro-Diary camp. For myself I have yet to be convinced that anything is real!
Rosie...Last of the Independants :-) |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 09 August 2001 - 09:56 am | | Hi Ivor,
Please don't misunderstand. You and Steve were talking about Anne getting her just punishment ("reaping what one sows," and all that business) as if she had definitely done this thing. Of course, no one has presented us with any reliable evidence that corroborates Steve's story, so this seemed a bit premature to me. And in Steve's account, it really does remain completely unclear who actually held the pen and when, so I thought I'd ask if either you or Steve had any idea. The answer in your case, as you make so explicitly clear, is "no." Fair enough.
I am sorry, though, to hear that you "dont give a hairy rat's backside as to when the diary was forged." Since it seems to me that learning when this was written might tell us a bunch of interesting things. For instance, if it was written in the late sixties or in the seventies or even in the early eighties, then where the hell did Crashaw come from, or the tin match box, or a number of other similar textual problems?
But perhaps Steve is not saying anything at all about the specific time of composition, or that the writing process might have been spread out over more than twenty years. It's hard to tell, exactly.
So we don't have a penman, we don't have specific scene or time of composition and we don't have any solid, material evidence that would allow us to reliably determine an author, even after we read of Anne in Australia (unless more specific details are still forthcoming). That's why I was asking Steve about times.
Meanwhile, Ivor, since I have to go back to work soon, and back to a bunch of wonderfully demanding young faces in the classroom, I'll leave the field work to those who are in the right place and have the opportunity. But I'll continue to read all the documents I can, and to listen to people's ideas and to read their writing critically, and to analyze the documents and the writing and the accounts and the theories for their material worth and the extent to which they might or might not qualify as solid, rational evidence of events. That's what makes me happy, sitting here on my backside in front of this computer. If it doesn't solve the case or contribute to any solution or even to the evaluation of possible solutions, then that's fine with me. I'm not measuring my participation here in terms of production, only in terms of pleasure.
All the best,
--John
PS: Speaking of reading documents: thanks to Keith Skinner for the documents concerning Melvin's exchanges with Shirley and co. I have read them and I do indeed verify the contents of Melvin's PostScript regarding Mike and the alleged promise of money, which Keith mentioned earlier on these boards. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 09 August 2001 - 03:32 pm | | | Hi John, There is a lot to be said for children. I remember the Falklands War and a certain TV programme in which children were asked their opinions on the situation. One seven year old gave the best solution I have ever heard on solving the problem.Maybe we should get some children to work on the diary saga.We might get a result. |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 09 August 2001 - 08:50 pm | | Hi Ivor,
Yes. However, unfortunately, my students would (and do) bristle at being called "children," even with their young faces. They are all generally between the ages of 19 and 23 or so and especially the youngest of them seem to take offense if you mention their youth.
I remember what I was like and I understand.
But, in response to your suggestion...
This spring semester (starting in January), I hope to teach an Arts and Humanities course which will include in it the whole diary-as-textual-problem issue. We'll see what a bunch of fresh readers might come up with. And perhaps, come early next year, you'll be seeing some of their words around here as well.
All the best,
--John (who won $65 playing 27 holes today and feels like he earned every cent) |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 10 August 2001 - 02:47 pm | | John, I have just had a thought.You are in the States and I am in the UK.Certain aspects of crime
figures and other matters we have gone over will not be the same.You still have the death penalty in the USA.Here it has been abolished. I cant speak about crime in the US as I dont live there and have no experience of your legal system. I have been relating to the UK while I take it you have been relating to the US. Hence we could both be right. |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 10 August 2001 - 05:01 pm | | Hi Ivor,
Could be. I'm not sure. But in any case, the mysteries of who wrote the diary, who held the pen, who composed the lines and when, all remain tantalizingly alive, and the material evidence needed to decide these things remains missing.
So the beat goes on,
--John (who played 27 more today and is now seriously tired) |
|
|
|
|
