|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 August 01, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Why was it forged if not for money?:
Archive through August 01, 2001
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 27 July 2001 - 10:38 pm |        | | Hi John, If the diary was not forged for the purpose of placing on the open market to make money, then why would a forger go to all that time and trouble to forge a diary which was not intended as a "nice little earner" Did he get cold feet at the last minute and give it to someone who he knew had the "front" to place it on the open market? I cannot see any other intended reason for writing it unless of course it was a work of commission for someone else.Forgers dont write things like that for nothing. |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 28 July 2001 - 07:28 am | | Dear Ivor,
First of all, you have never once heard from me anything at all about Mike being "reliable, honest,upstanding,trustworthy, and much more." Quite the opposite, in fact, and quite insistently. I do hope you've read what I have written and do not include me in the quaint term "diary camp." I have never said nor believed anything of the sort about Mike.
And your suggestion above, that anyone who "takes the watch seriously" is "ignorant and gullible," is both unfortunate and imprecise.
Imprecise because "taking something seriously" and consequently examining it and trying to discover its history and trying to find out who forged it and where and when is not at all the act of a gullible or ignorant person. It is the act of a curious one. I do hope you can tell the difference.
Unfortunate because your rhetoric collapses into smugly bemused name calling for no reason and your tone of assumed personal superiority here, I must admit, makes me cringe a bit, more for you than for those you would laugh at.
But that's just my own hyper-sensitivity, no doubt. It must feel good to know better and not have to question such things.
And the fact that someone "turned around" and stated that the diary is a forgery turns out not to tell us anything very reliable at all about who wrote it or why, since that someone is, as you yourself imply, less than reliable.
Finally, as to that "why?" you write:
"If the diary was not forged for the purpose of placing on the open market to make money, then why would a forger go to all that time and trouble to forge a diary which was not intended as a "'nice little earner'"
Exactly!
And yet we have no evidence at all of anyone receiving any money whatsoever from it, except Mike and Anne, and we have no reliable evidence that they actually, physically wrote it. And since we don't know who wrote it, we can't say they did it for the money, now can we? Especially since they don't seem to have gotten any.
You ask:
"Did he get cold feet at the last minute and give it to someone who he knew had the 'front' to place it on the open market?"
Who, he? I don't know. Did "he?" If "he" did, then how did he get the money that was his alleged reason for writing it? Where is the record or indeed any evidence at all that "he" received any money? Or that "he" exists?
Finally you conclude:
"I cannot see any other intended reason for writing it unless of course it was a work of commission for someone else.Forgers don't write things like that for nothing."
These are two separate sentences. They mean two different things. The first one seems to be true, apparently. You cannot see any other reason. The second one is simply not, either necessarily or historically, true (unless "for nothing" means "for no reason at all." Then I guess it's true too, but it doesn't tell us anything about what the other possible reasons there might have been -- only, as we have already learned, that you can't see them).
Now I must indeed run.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 28 July 2001 - 10:06 am | | Hi Ivor,
I don't know how you regard the word of Melvin Harris, but here goes nothing. Melvin believes there are many reasons, other than financial, why someone might forge a document like the diary. Of course, this may have something to do with the fact that he believes, like many of us, apparently, that neither Mike nor Anne actually sat down and wrote the thing, and that he has been able to find no evidence that someone else is lurking out there, creaming off diary money from the couple. That doesn't mean that such a person never existed - they must have, if the writing in the diary is neither Mike nor Anne's. But Melvin appears to be of the opinion that, whoever had the original idea for the diary, composed the text, and finally penned it, need never have wanted to make a penny.
The problem with a debate of this kind is that none of us can be expected to know all the ins and outs of the diary investigation. Some of us know, or have read, more than others, some less. I wish I was as sure as you appear to be, Ivor, that your opinions are based on all the facts. My own opinions cannot be, because I don't know all the facts - but who does? So I am quite content to continue asking questions about the stuff I don't know, and speculate a bit using the stuff I have read, or heard. We are all ignorant - until we know all there is to know. And how can anyone be called gullible, while they admit that they don't know everything, and therefore need to withhold judgement?
I think some people are so scared of being looked upon as ignorant or gullible in this type of case, that they feel a compulsion to tell people how much smarter they are, and how they'd never allow anyone to make such a fool out of them. Unfortunately, they can come unstuck if they haven't made sure they know at least as much as others, who have been at the heart of it all. Not their fault, of course, if there are gaps in their knowledge and information. But knowing this is inevitably going to be the case, it's got to be asking for trouble to express such strong views, and be so contemptuous of people who, by virtue of their situation, know more than you do - you could end up making a fool of yourself, without anyone else's help, if you have missed something, perhaps through no fault of your own, that makes your own opinions or beliefs simply wrong. Why not wait and see what else there is to learn, before insisting again that others have been ignorant and gullible, while you have not.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 28 July 2001 - 06:42 pm | | | John, Your getting as touchy as someone else on this board.When I stated, "Another point to remember" etc, I was not referring to you as you may have thought. I have read your posts and I do not include you in my "quaint term".In view of you last paragraph perhaps you would like to enlighten me as to the reasons why a forger would consider to undertake such a work without financial gain.Have you had any experience in dealing with forgers or any experience in forgery? In short are your comments made from experience or from the top of your head. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 28 July 2001 - 08:56 pm | | | Hi Caz how are you, I do not agree with you when you voice your opinion about a test on the diary being in nobody's interest. You ask how I regard the word of Melvin Harris.I have know him for several years and am more than aware of how he works.As far as his work is concerned he is one of the best investigaters in the world. I certainly would not wish him to be on my back checking out certain activitys of an unlawful nature. He may suffer fools badly but in saying that I suffer them even less.If Melvin had chosen a criminal career then he would have became a master at his craft of that I have no doubt what-so-ever.My opinions are not all based on the facts Caz. It is more than a question of knowing all the facts.I cant stress this point enough. My opinions are also based on instinct and on my own experiences in dealing with forgers and with forgery and criminals and the criminal mind.In forgery ( as with other crimes) a set of procedures must be followed. This was not the case in relation to the diary. This gives an insight into the ability of the forger.What does annoy me are the stupid unfounded comments made about certain crimes and criminals by certain people who have no experience in such matters. What they do know they obtain from books which may or may not be correct in content.Armchair experts who can only nit pick. Akin to the subject of Jack the Ripper if you like. Unless you have been involved in crime for many years you will not know about criminal instincts. For example I spent over 30 years involved in crime and after that period of time one's instincts are very finely tuned.Very good instincts as far as I am concerned are a very important element.If I wanted to know about a certain aspect of crime I would go to a specific criminal with a great deal of experience in the matter. I would rarely read a book on the subject by someone who has never had any experience. One can find exceptions like Melvin Harris for example who is gifted and not a criminal.What I mean by gullible people are those that can be taken in by the most outragious of tricks and who fail to use the brain that God gave them.It is not a case of telling everyone how clever you are it is a case of telling stupid people how stupid they are. Once I was caught over a stupid mistake ( we all make various mistakes but some people persist in making them )I stated to the arresting officer, "Dont be under the false impression that you caught me because you were clever you caught me becaught I was stupid".As for me making a fool of myself for expressing such strong views and being contemptuous of certain people I can argue with that. I have been known to be ignorant and gullible in one or two instances but I do not make a habit of it that is the difference. I tell the truth and if the truth hurts then that it no fault of mine.There are many people on this casebook much smarter than myself in many areas of knowledge and furthermore I have no high opinion of myself for I am down to earth and I certainly do not get carried away by self importance.I stand by what I wrote. Others have been gullible and ignorant by their lack of knowledge about crime and the criminal mind while believing that they knew far more on the subject than they really did. The latter was their greatest mistake. I do not profess to know about things I do not know about. I suffer such people badly I am sorry to say. Crime and criminals are my forte and I learnt about them the hard way. I would not dare to teach others how to suck eggs and I certainly do not expect others to teach me either.While there are those on these boards whom I greatly admire there are also those (who you mention) whom I shall refer to as nit picking smart a**es and I will persist in dealing with them accordingly whenever they try and prove to me how much they know about crime while it remains apparent they know very little. Best wishes. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 07:02 am | | Hi Ivor,
You just asked John 'why a forger would consider to undertake such a work [the diary] without financial gain.'
I put it to you in my post that 'Melvin believes there are many reasons, other than financial, why someone might forge a document like the diary.'
So why not ask Melvin the same question as you are asking John, if you respect the former's opinion so much more? I'm confused.
You wrote:
'My opinions are not all based on the facts Caz. It is more than a question of knowing all the facts.I cant stress this point enough. My opinions are also based on instinct and on my own experiences in dealing with forgers and with forgery and criminals and the criminal mind.'
Fair enough. I'm glad you talk about your opinions, which of course everyone is perfectly entitled to express. My own opinions are often also based on instinct, and my own experience in dealing with all sorts of people in all sorts of situations. Where facts remain unavailable, unclear or contradictory, we both have to rely on our individual opinions, and that's fine.
You say you are experienced in dealing with forgers. That's fine too, once you have your forger(s) in front of you to deal with. But no one knows who the forger of the diary actually is, do they? Do you believe Anne or Mike Barrett to be classic forger material, according to your experience in dealing with such people? If you are also saying they were totally incompetent as forgers, because you were able to see through their funny little game from the start, couldn't this mean that neither of them actually has it in them to be a forger? Do you see the paradox here? If they were so inept and hopeless at it, how can you argue that they are typical forger material, according to your experience? What is it about either of them that makes them the kind of forger you are used to dealing with, in your opinion?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 07:52 am | | Hi again Ivor,
I have several reasons for saying that the test you suggest the FSD should be asked to do may not turn out to be in anyone's interests.
Firstly, I don't know if you wrote anything about the diary itself in your correspondence with the Forensic Science Service, or about the investigation. But we would have to ensure that they have not already been told anything, or will not be told anything, that could be thought by anyone afterwards to have had a possible influence on those conducting the test (as has been the case with the watch scratches).
Secondly, there is no point in anyone contributing financially to yet another test, only to find it proves inconclusive. As you said yourself, all the previous testing was a waste of time. So we need a pretty confident assurance from the FDS of their ability to date the diary reliably.
Thirdly, if we get that assurance, and Robert is happy to go ahead and submit the diary for testing, we need to be sure that those calling for this test will accept the results, whatever they show. I imagine, if the result shows the diary was written in recent years, this will be accepted without question or hesitation. But what if the result shows otherwise? Will you, for instance, Ivor, be once again calling people ignorant and gullible, if they believe the FDS got it right, as you have done concerning the watch, and the opinions of Drs. Wild and Turgoose? Will it be another Wild Turgoose chase?
You see, just call me a cynical old Caz, but I have this funny feeling that Melvin, Peter, Karoline, RJ, and that sweety-pie Barry Street, not to mention Ivor Q. Estion, Dear Diary and Vile Dictator, would all be coming back out of the woodwork to declare that the FDS obviously doesn’t know its months from its decades, or its 1990s from its 1880s, and would be clamouring for a second opinion. Nothing would get resolved - and more of other people’s money would have just been wasted, because of your insistence that this test be carried out.
So, will all those who want Robert to hand the diary over for further testing be prepared to compensate whoever pays for the commission, if the results go against their beliefs and they want to come back and argue the toss afterwards?
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 10:54 am | | Hi Ivor,
Short, easy answer to your question to me...
You ask me why a forger would consider to undertake such a work without financial gain.
I have absolutely no idea.
However, the fact that, at the moment, I don't know of any possible reason other than profit for why a forger might produce this hoax does not, under any circumstances, mean that there are no other reasons.
I am certainly not egotistical enough to believe that because I can't come up with or imagine a reason to perpetrate such a hoax other than profit, no other reason exists.
That would be very foolish of me, wouldn't it?
Especially if I do not know who wrote this book and whether or not they ever received any money because of it.
Only Mike and Anne, as far as anyone has been able to determine, ever received any money.
So if you believe the motive was profit, then you must believe that Mike and Anne alone must have written this book.
Or are you suggesting that there have been some secret payments somewhere that we know nothing about and that we have no evidence of, but that must exist, simply because this is the only way things would make sense to you?
Sorry, but the creation out of thin air of imaginary payments without any evidence is not a way to posit or enforce a limitation upon possible motives.
Either you have to offer me evidence that only Mike and Anne had anything to do with writing out this book (contradicting Melvin's claims about their handwriting, for instance), or you have to offer me evidence that someone else received money. Otherwise the possibility that someone helped write this book and did not receive any money remains with us.
Otherwise, that is, it looks as if someone held the pen here and never saw any money.
So then, why did they do it?
--John
PS: I have had absolutely no first hand experience with forgers, Ivor. I readily admit that. But I can think "off the top of my head," as you put it. And I can admit that just because I can't see any other possible motives does not mean there are no other possible motives. Yes, I can admit that. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 06:49 pm | | Hi John,
I do agree with your reasoning in the first part of your letter. In my post to you of Friday July 27th I listed one reason why the diary may have been written other than to obtain profit.Of course I agree that other reasons may also exist. I just wondered if you may have had any other ideas on the matter so hence the reason why I asked you.
I have not stated or suggested that there has been some secret payments made.I also agree with your PS: In your Sat, July 28th 07:28am post about anyone who "takes the watch seriously" I will simply say this, The watch appeared on the coat tails of the Diary.The watch had been in circulation for over 100 years yet no one noticed any writing in it until the diary appeared. A witness stated that the writing was not on the watch when he checked it while it was in his possession. Also I dont believe that JTR would place such evidence in his own watch, evidence I might add that could be his undoing. I do not believe that the watch and diary are connected in any way. As far as I am concerned the watch was the work of opportunists who knew about the diary.I agree with Melvin Harris on this.However you appear slighted that I have referred to those who believe in the authenticity of the watch as gullible and ignorant. People also believe that little green men from Mars or wherever make crop circles in wheat fields. I call them gullible and ignorant also. Please do not ask me to believe that pigs fly when I know they dont if you get my point.Some people are a bit too long in the tooth for fairy stories. |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 07:09 pm | | Hi Ivor,
We've had a small misunderstanding. I read your phrase "when it was taken seriously by the gullible and ignorant" to mean that people who "took the watch seriously" were gullible and ignorant. And I read the notion of "taking the watch seriously" to include those who wanted to know where it came from and wanted to investigate its history and likely origins. This, to me, is "taking the watch seriously." Those people, of course are not ignorant or gullible at all. In fact, many of them no doubt believe the watch is a fake. But they still wish the matter to be studied further and they would like to know who, exactly, produced this fake and when. They are curious. They are, to me, admirable in their curiosity.
Now it becomes clear that what you actually meant was that anyone who really believes the watch was actually inscribed by James Maybrick who also happened to really be Jack the Ripper is probably gullible and ignorant ("those who believe in the authenticity of the watch" is how you now phrase it).
First, let me just say that I think there is an important difference between gullibility and ignorance. And second, I will refrain from offering any judgment of other people's character or intelligence, especially based solely on whether they buy into some story about a watch and Jack the Ripper.
But at least I know where you stand.
Thanks,
--John
PS: You add, Ivor, that "As far as I am concerned the watch was the work of opportunists who knew about the diary." This implies that the watch must have been made after the diary went public in 1992 as a bandwagon item (since you say the two "are not connected in any way"). Many of us would like to believe this, myself included, since it makes perfect sense. But then there is the science... the Drs. and what they claim about the scratches and how difficult it would have been for someone to have faked them in such a way that they would appear at least tens of years old to an electron microscope. At least tens of years old would date them before the 1987 date of the police list publication and before the 1989 date of the Sphere Guide acquisition and before the date most people think the diary was composed. What do we do about these conclusions? |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 09:47 pm | | Hi John,
Yes I did mean anyone who believes that Maybrick inscribed the watch and that he was JTR.I believe that the watch was indeed inscribed after the diary became public knowledge as a bandwagon item.I understand what you are saying prior to your statement" What do we do about these conclusions?"
Let Melvin Harris deal with it. The watch and the Diary should have been dealt with by him fom the start as far as I am concerned.It is getting to the point where everytime I hear the word "expert"
in this case I feel a headache coming on.I dread to think what other "con tricks" now await this subject.It has now been proven that the time is ripe for any Tom, Dick,or Harry to perform a hoax with impunity on the subject.The reason being is that the experts involved to date have proven that they are incapable of dealing with such action.Surely the public deserve far better than this.It really is not good enough.We now have his watch, and his knife so what is going to pop up next I wonder his underpants ? A DNA test on those would no doubt confuse the issue even further. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 30 July 2001 - 06:37 am | | The KEY?
:-)) |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 30 July 2001 - 09:18 am | | Jeez, Ivor,
First Robert Smith is accused of "peddling" a hoax onto the general public and not doing the appropriate work to verify the authenticity of his document that would satisfy you, then anyone who believed in the watch's authenticity was "gullible and ignorant," and now you tell me that "everytime I hear the word 'expert' in this case I feel a headache coming on." Is there anyone out there (besides you and Melvin) who knows what the hell they're doing?
In any case, you inexplicably write the following; they are five of my all-time favorite words:
"Let Melvin Harris deal with it."
and then, just to add to the fun:
"The watch and the Diary should have been dealt with by him fom the start as far as I am concerned."
I'm sorry, Ivor. Your admiration for Melvin is commendable, but your faith will have to remain somewhat incomplete (faith is like that, I suppose).
Melvin has already admitted to us, in no uncertain terms, that he does not know and has no interest in knowing who forged this dairy or why.
I know it didn't seem that way, what with all of his talk about three unidentified flying forgers and his talk of Mike and Anne as merely placers and his examining their handwriting himself and his being a member of the Order of the Sacred Kane Relics and everything. But appearances can apparently be deceiving. Melvin swears to us that he has no interest at all in who wrote this diary or why.
In fact, he claims that to ask him who wrote this diary and why is somehow to take a "simplistic" and "unreal" position. (You figure that one out, Ivor, it still makes no sense to me.)
So I'm afraid Melvin is going to be rather useless to us if we want to investigate the origins of this diary, considering he has admitted that he does not know and does not want to know who wrote this book or why.
And my suspicion is that Melvin would probably take a similar position concerning the watch -- he does not particularly care who faked it or why. At least that would be the consistent position. Because, remember, he has already taken the position that he does not want to know who wrote the diary and why (hey, imagine spending all that time investigating the authenticity of the diary and then, after announcing that it is a fake, also announcing that you have absolutely no interest in knowing who faked it or why -- that does seem like a slightly strange position to take -- it almost seems like a position that is... dare I?... well, sort of "simplistic" and even a little "unreal"). 
Anyway, is seems pretty clear that someone who has publicly announced that he has no interest in discovering who wrote the diary or why and that asking him who might have written the diary and why is somehow being "simplistic" and "unreal" -- someone like that is not going to be of very much use in discovering who wrote the diary and why or in discovering who faked the watch and why, now are they? So I'm afraid you can only ride so far on the Melvin Express. At a fairly early point in the journey, it seems, that train stops and you have to walk the rest of the way.
But we'll walk with you and we'll try not to be gullible or ignorant or to peddle anything or to give you a headache. In fact, we'll even share what little we have (a letter here, a tape there) to try and make the journey easier, and we'll laugh and smile along the way and we might argue with you and read you carefully and criticize your ideas; but we won't yell at you in all caps or call you "a mean-minded and empty character" or publicly predict that you will "slither down into the mire of The Last Ditch,"* and , in the end, perhaps we'll all actually get somewhere together. And if not, hey, the journey is most of the fun anyway.
Glad to have you with us. Wave good-bye to Melvin at the station, he's not on board anymore.
--John
(*Quotes are from MH -- on SH and MF, respectively) |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 30 July 2001 - 03:25 pm | | | Hi John, I will state to you what I have stated to Robert Smith. As far as I am aware I did not say Robert Smith peddled a hoax onto the general public.Mike and Anne Barrett were responsible for that. And please dont argue the weak point with me about they were not the publishers.I can argue about what Melvin has admitted to you and others. The point is that he has never had the watch or the diary in his possession to investigate.That is the point I am making here.Not the comments he has made without having had the oppotunity to do a proper investigation.He has not interviewed the people involved in the diary or watch face to face.You do not take notice of my words as they should be taken you read your own meaning into them which is invariably wrong as you have already addmitted.Let me make it quite plain to you and others that if Melvin Harris had been commissioned to investigate the diary and watch then the matter would I am sure have been concluded satisfactory.Is that plain enough for you? My admiration for Melvin Harris is got sod all to do with anything. You take it for granted that I admire him. I know how he works, I know how good he is at what he does. I have known him for several years and know his methods to be meticulous and efficient. I have the greatest respect for his work. Dont go mixing my thoughts about his work with him as a person.The latter matter is my own private affair. And dont go reading the wrong message into that comment either.Again you assume what Melvin thinks about the watch because of what you assume he thinks about the diary. You or no one else on these boards are in a position to tell me what he really does or does not believe concerning certain matters.Many comments I hear about Melvin Harris are made by people who do not know him or understand him or his work. You made the comment "we'll walk with you and we'll try not to be gullible or ignoroant". Who are the "we" you speak of? Speak for yourself and let others speak for themselves.Also you deride me for my comments in relation to how I term certain people but I dont see you deride others for their comments about Melvin Harris for one example.At least I come straight out with what I have to say and do not make smug, snide, or underhanded remarks. Then you make comments like, "I can only ride so far on the Melvin Express" I am not Melvin Harris you wont see me getting off the train until the purpose of my getting on it has been fulfilled.Then you write "wave good-bye to Melvin at the station, he's not on board anymore. The reason he is not on the train anymore is because some of the company and their comments leave a lot to be desired.That is why many more good people wont get onto the train to make the journey.I dont get onto a train to make friends because when it comes to the train crashing you find out who your friends really are.As for the journey being fun I have my own ideas of what a fun journey consists of.At least Melvin Harris knows what he is about which is more than can be said for many other people.I will say this much though if you want to crack this diary saga get up off your backside and get onto Anne Barretts case and stay on it until she cracks under the pressure which is best brought to bear from all different directions.Have a nice train journey. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 30 July 2001 - 04:05 pm | | Hi Caz, Sorry in the delay to your post.
Yes I did ask John 'Why would a forger consider to undertake such work [ the diary] without financial gain?'. Then you write why dont I ask Melvin. Why should I ask Melvin such a question when I want to know the answer from John to see if he had any ideas of his own.I certainly dont intend to ask Melvin what John thinks. Also just because someone may be an incompetent forger that does not mean to say that they dont have it in them to do a forgery. I would expect an incompetent forger to make an incompetent forgery. We are dealing with such a forgery and it has been seen to be so by many people.If the forgery had been committed by a master forger then we would not be faced such a situation as we are faced with. I can tell you this much if Melvin Harris had decided to forge that diary no one on these boards would have concidered it to be a hoax. That comment is not made from admiration either it is made simply because I know the knowledge he has on the subject matter and the ability he has in other areas. He would indeed make a master criminal in his own right if he so desired. I do not refer to you when I say this but only a fool would treat his work and abilitys with ridicule, humour, or contempt. He has an uncanny insight into the workings of the criminal mind and criminals in general. |
Author: Bob Hinton
Monday, 30 July 2001 - 05:18 pm | | Dear Everyone,
I don't believe I have contributed to this conversation before as the Diary doesn't interest me very much as I am sure in my own mind it is a forgery.
However, I note that some of the previous posters seem to be getting into a bit of a tangle over why anyone should forge this item if not for money. The first thing I would say is that people very rarely do that which we expect them to do.
Most people couldn't possibly see any reason for forging something if not for money because they would not do such a thing. We say I wouldn't do it - I don't know anyone who would do it therefore this would not be done. This is wrong.
One of your posters said that if he wnated to find out anything about a crime he would ask a criminal who was experienced in that type of offence ( or words to that effect) But this is faulty thinking. To discuss the matter with a criminal it implies that this person has been discovered committing this offence. In other words a failed, because he has been discovered, criminal. I made this point some time ago in relation to serial killers. Someone pointed out that all serial killers do such and such. My counter point was that information has been gleaned from serial killers who have been caught - in other words the failures. What do the successful serial killers - the uncaught ones do? We simply don't know.
Why should anyone forge anything? Quite simply there are as many reasons as there are people in the world. But if you are looking for a classic example of a forgery committed for a non financial motive I suggest you study the Piltdown Man, possibly the most famous forgery of all time.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 30 July 2001 - 05:18 pm | | Ivor writes, concerning Melvin:
"You or no one else on these boards are in a position to tell me what he really does or does not believe concerning certain matters."
Well, I am certainly in a position to tell you what Melvin has stated on these boards, and that is that the matter of the specific origins of this diary and of the "who, when, how and why" of it is of "very little interest" to him and he thinks the call for answers to these questions is a "simplistic and unreal" position.
He wrote this explicitly.
I assume he "believes" it.
Of course, this does seem to contradict his earlier behavior, his comments concerning the three unidentified flying forgers, his examination of Mike and Anne's handwriting, his membership in the Order of the Sacred Kane Relics, his "placer" theory, etc.
But I am in the position to tell you, Ivor, that Melvin has written here, for everyone to read, that he is not interested in the identity of who wrote this book or the question of why they wrote it. And he has in fact climbed off that train.
Now you tell me that the reason he's not interested in helping to solve the mystery of who wrote this book and why, and the reason he has left us all, is not because he simply does not know who wrote this book, but "because some of the company and their comments leave a lot to be desired."
Let me get this straight.
I want to be sure I understand this.
Melvin has left us because we've insulted him.
Are you serious?
The man who called Shirley Harrison a "mean minded and empty character" and who predicted Martin Fido would no doubt "slither down into the mire of the Last Ditch" and who just recently described our discussion here concerning the origins of the diary as "the noise from an inexperienced and tiny minority who have contributed absolutely nothing of value to this investigation." -- this is the guy who has now left us because some of our "comments leave a lot to be desired."
This is simply priceless.
The truth is, Ivor, that Melvin has indeed left the discussion, left the investigation, stated that he has no interest in who wrote this book or why or when or how, and has not only gotten off the train, he's left the station entirely. Is this because he simply does not know who wrote the book or why, or is this because he feels somehow insulted by the company here (that would be an irony for the ages)? I don't know. But I must say that I do believe that, if Melvin really could prove who wrote this book or even had compelling and/or convincing reliable, material evidence concerning who wrote this book at his disposal, the trumpets would be blaring and the word would come to us from on high and all in UPPER CASE. But no, from Melvin, as from a dying Hamlet, "the rest is silence."
Finally, Ivor, nothing you have written to me so far in this discussion, including your thoughts about the efficacy of the Home Office and about the experts who examined the watch, has told me anything about any material or reliable evidence whatsoever concerning who specifically wrote this book or why or who specifically forged this watch. And the only evidence you have offered me that the watch was forged after 1989 (aside from RJ's invocation of the Dundas' testimony), is that it just seems likely and logical that the watch came after the diary. Funny thing is, I tend to agree with this. But I'd still like to see someone explain to me exactly how both the scientists got it wrong and why both the scientists got it wrong or else who exactly was skilled enough in metallurgy to meet the scientists' stated requirements for a faker.
I see no clear explanations for how and why, exactly, the scientists got it wrong or who might have fit their description of a faker. Not from you. Not from anyone. Not yet, anyway. But I remain hopeful.
Finally, Ivor, you reassure me:
"At least Melvin Harris knows what he is about which is more than can be said for many other people."
You know, Ivor, I now have to admit something.
I have absolutely no idea what this sentence means.
I think I "know what I'm about."
I think people around here "know what they're about" (whatever that means).
I'm glad that Melvin "knows what he's about."
I hope that you too "know what you're about."
But I have no idea what this tells us or what we are to learn from it or what you were suggesting by telling us that you think many people here "do not know what they are about."
So I will ask the readers...
Dear Readers,
Tell me and tell Ivor:
Do you know what you're about?
Thanks, Ivor, for the response,
--John
PS: Me? I'm about 5'4". |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 30 July 2001 - 05:45 pm | | | Bob you wrote,One of your posters said that if he wanted to find out anything about a crime then he would ask a criminal who was experienced in that type of offence. I wrote words to that effect and you went on to say that this was faultly thinking on my behalf for to discuss the matter with a criminal it implies that this criminal has been discovered. You assume too much I was involved with dozens of professional criminals for over 30 years some of whom were never caught and I obtained information from them on many matters relating to various types of crime so it is your thinking that is at fault not mine.I talk from experience you do not. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 30 July 2001 - 06:45 pm | | | I investigated the Whitechapel murders not because I was interested in who JTR was but rather why he committed the crimes.Donald Rumbelow was taken aback by that fact.Melvin may have stated that he was not interested in certain factors but he made that statement years after he started his research. I dont find that so odd as you do for when he made that statement his research or findings may have been concluded hence no more interest in the matter. Other projects he was working may have contributed to those comments.An accumulation of reasons exist not just one. Yet you only see the worse side of the coin and again you assume too much.Just because you cant see the reasons it does not mean there arent any. Isn't that precisely what you tried to preach to me? It is a pity that you do not practice what you preach.Also why should Melvin Harris feel obliged to account to you or anyone else on these boards for that matter.He has spent more time and effort on the diary than most people and he was not paid to do so.Therefore he is in a better position to know more than many others.I have seen some ungrateful attitudes shown to him in this respect.If many had worked as hard as him on the matter then we may have got a lot further to the truth. It has been stated that he was given information which he could not place in the public domain. Who the hell am I, you, or anyone else to argue with that.Also if you do not know what the sentence means ( the one which you have tried to make such a big deal over)then what can you understand. If you spent as much time in the field investigating the diary or the ripper as you do sitting on you backside (at your computor playing the armchair expert)then you may be in a position to knock those who have done so.It is generally the ones who make the most noise who have the least experience.But I doubt that you understand that comment either.So why not go running to the readers again to obtain the support you feel you need for your cause. |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 30 July 2001 - 07:28 pm | | "Running to the readers..."
Yes, that's just what I was doing. I apologize. 
I'll be brief, dear Ivor.
You claim that I've thought the worst concerning why Melvin left us.
You write:
"An accumulation of reasons exist not just one. Yet you only see the worse side of the coin and again you assume too much.Just because you cant see the reasons it does not mean there arent any."
But Ivor, I was simply citing "the reason" you yourself gave me for why Melvin has left us.
You wrote, about Melvin, very clearly:
"The reason he is not on the train anymore is because some of the company and their comments leave a lot to be desired."
"The reason..." Ivor. You were very clear.
You gave it to me. I was just responding to the reason you gave me. And I found it a stunning and priceless irony that Melvin has left us because our "comments leave a lot to be desired," given what he has written about many of us.
But I am not focusing on the worst reason, Ivor.
I am focusing on the only reason you have given me. Your sentence, after all, began with "The reason..."
Now you tell me there might have been others (and I suppose you were a bit hasty when you wrote "The reason..."). That's good. I'd hate to think our "comments" were the sole cause of Melvin's withdrawl.
Melvin certainly does not have to account to me or to anyone. But he said what he said. He is not interested in the "who, why, how or when" concerning the origins of this dairy, and he thinks the call to answer those questions is somehow a "simplistic and unreal position." And it was you, Ivor, after all, who told me "the reason" he has left us.
And finally, although you seem to be chastizing me for not understanding what the following sentence means, I notice that you don't explain it.
You wrote:
"At least Melvin Harris knows what he is about which is more than can be said for many other people."
I still don't understand the point of this sentence. Is it an argument? Is it a claim? Am I supposed to somehow "not know what I'm about?" It just seems bizarre to me. I'm sure you think it means something significant, but I can't for the life of me figure out what that meaning is.
What do you mean when you say that many people here do not know what they're about?
I really am honestly confused. That's why I asked the readership if they knew what they were about. The sentence still stumps me.
I guess that means I don't know what I'm about (whatever that means). Hey, this is fun.
Finally, you claim, as if it were some sort of indictment:
"It is generally the ones who make the most noise who have the least experience.But I doubt that you understand that comment either."
And, whaddya' know, you're right again. Why is it generally the ones who make the most noise who have the least experience? Is this a claim you can back up or verify in any way? Is it significant? Is it just some sort of insult?
You, for instance, seem to be making a lot of "noise" right along with me here. Does that mean that like me you too have "the least experience?" I'm confused again. Is this just some sort of weird truism that is supposed to teach me a lesson or put me in my place or is it somehow significant and actually evidence of something, perhaps about who wrote the diary or why or who forged the watch, or is it just a platitude that sounds wise and quaint but that really doesn't mean anything? Why wouldn't the ones with the most experience also make noise? I have lots of experience in things that I also make a lot of noise about. I also have very little experience in things that I still also make a lot of noise about. Does this somehow disprove your theory? This is all very confusing. If the ones who had the most experience made the least noise then the ones who had a whole lot of experience would, I guess, just be silent, and that would serve no purpose at all (see, for instance, Melvin Harris).
Anyway, I am enjoying this discussion and I think I am getting a clearer and clearer picture of just what "you are about" with each exchange.
Thanks, seriously, from someone who is still not sure what he's about.
--John
Still no clear explanation of exactly how or exactly why the scientists got it wrong with the watch or who fits their profile of a faker and still no reliable, material evidence concerning who wrote this book or why. But hope is the thing with feathers. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 30 July 2001 - 08:39 pm | | | Bob,I forgot to add that it may surprise you to know that the police make an awful lot of prison visits to meet convicted criminals to seek their help in certain criminal cases.So think again.ALSO I KNOW THAT IN FORGERY MANY CASES EXIST WHERE THE FORGERY WAS NOT COMMITTED FOR FINANCIAL GAIN.But we are talking about one particular and specific forgery which one would think in general terms was done for financial gain simply because of it's nature. Exactly like the Hitler Diary's if you understand me. Such 'cons'are in general made to make money. I have posted one possible reason why the forger may not have recieved any money. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 30 July 2001 - 09:08 pm | | Dear Bob,
Ivor means that the cops visit those they put away
to point them in the right direction...otherwise they ain't got a clue.
Criminals catch criminals, is the maxim! As for the crime rate... it soars! Where is Melvin Moriarty?
Ivor,
The oppressed speak!
Rosey :-) |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 30 July 2001 - 09:40 pm | | Hello again John, You are correct in stating that I should not have written 'The reason' It should read, 'one reason'Other work came up which calls for all of his time.That was the main reason he left.What I meant by 'he knows what he is about' simply means he is very good at investigating (that is his job) which is more than can be said for some people. By some people I mean others that investigate the same things as Melvin.He is better at his job than most. That is what I meant.
Now let me explain what I meant by 'those who make the most noise'. It is no insult to you so you can put your mind at rest on that point. In my experience of debating crime and criminals with people it is very often the people with no experience or knowledge of the subject what so ever who are the ones that believe their knowledge is greater than those who have the experience. I know nothing about many things. For example what I know about football isn't worth knowing but I certainly would not get involved in a debate on the subject and profess to know a lot about it, but there are those who would.Getting on to the diary and your last paragraph.It is still early days yet John. I was going to say something about Anne Graham but I think I will let that one go for now. Suffice to say everyone should be on her case.Do you watch that programme the weakest link? |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 30 July 2001 - 09:54 pm | | | Hi Rose,what took you so long? Still on the ball I see.I have missed you where have you been this time, Holloway ? Your favourite slueth is busy elsewhere but I'm glad your not.:-) |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 30 July 2001 - 10:00 pm | | Thanks Ivor,
Well, at least that clarifies things a bit. And I do think I can now say that "I know what I'm about," after all. That makes me feel better.
I'm sure there are always people who talk about things that they know very little about. Their remarks usually demonstrate that lack of knowledge, though. And I do think that it is often the people who do know what they are talking about that make much of the noise, useful and otherwise -- for some reason, the image of a once-frantic Muhammad Ali comes to mind, or the image of Albert Einstein writing away on the blackboard (he loved to talk), or Dizzy Gillespie, who used to talk non-stop, or even a joyously ranting Allen Ginsberg. So I think your theory that "it is generally the ones who make the most noise who have the least experience" is probably just wrong, or at least a vague and unprovable and inconsistent assertion.
And yes, Ivor, "it is still early days," as you put it. But some reliable, material evidence concerning who wrote this book and why would nonetheless be nice. "The thing with feathers" eventually flies away.
In any case, Ivor, it's been a pleasure reading and writing with you,
--John |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 30 July 2001 - 11:00 pm | | John--Hello. Do you think Ivor has a point? Should pressure be put on Anne Graham?
You have said several times that you believe the diary is a modern fake. You have also said that you don't believe Anne Graham's story and "never have".
But you have also been the champion of what I call the "park bench" theory. That it is possible that Anne and/or Mike could have found the diary on a park bench, and, because of this, the fact that they have been the ones making money off a modern forgery, and the fact that they have told various and contradicting stories about its provenance means "nothing".
But let me pose a puzzle that I brought up a few days ago that neither you nor anyone else chose to touch.
Anne Graham told Paul Feldman that the diary had been in her family for years. This could have been mere expedience to get Feldman off her back. [Agreed?] But what do you make of the fact that Ms. Graham was willing to repeat the story at some length in the intoduction of her 1999 book on Florence Maybrick? If Anne didn't know where the diary came from would this not have been a completely reckless risk? Do you remember the story of the Florida gentleman who made the giant penguin footprints? How could Anne have been completely confident that some bloke didn't suddenly show up with undeniable proof that he had forged the Maybrick diary? Old, new, or genuine, isn't it logical to assume that Anne Graham knows where the diary came from?
[--Just wondering.]
So where do we go from here, John? It seems that we are reaching the end of the line. It seems to me that Ms. Graham has filled up the moat and drawn up the bridge. From my perspective, it appears that she has even left her own supporters to fend for themselves, for without her testimony few will be convinced.
How bad do you want to know the truth? How ruthless do you want to get? Or does maybe Melvin have a point? Is it satisfactory to have a forgery without a forger, as in Piltdown? Or do you want to keep on driving until you get to the bitter end? Some questions to ponder on a muggy July evening... |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 31 July 2001 - 12:51 am | | Hi RJ,
First of all, for the record, I have not been the champion of any theory. Never. None whatsoever. I have speculated, advanced possibilities, and I have argued that there is almost no material or reliable evidence to support any particular possibility at the moment. It is of course possible that Mike and Anne did not write the diary and did not know it was a forgery when Mike took it to Doreen. It is also possible that they did not write it but knew it was a forgery. It is possible that they helped write it. It is also possible, I suppose, that they wrote it all by themselves. But their contradictory stories, which have at one time or another said one thing and its opposite, can tell us nothing reliably about what really happened, since they are obviously willing to lie about what really happened and therefore we would need reliable material evidence about what really happened before we can start believing one or another of their stories. And the fact that they having been making money off of it does not, by itself, serve as direct evidence that they wrote this book. It gives them a motive to have written this book all by themselves (since they are the only ones apparently who have seen any money), but it is not evidence of their actually having done so. And this is especially the case since they would have also made money off of it if they did indeed acquire it rather than write it.
Now to your "puzzle."
Basically, you are asking me if it is possible that Anne Graham would have told her family-provenance story in her book even if she wasn't sure that someone wouldn't come forward to disprove it.
Sure.
The diary had been around for several years. It had been published in a book. The book was a best-seller. Paul Feldman's book was out. It had Anne telling the family story already. And in all that time, with all that provocation, no one had stepped forward to say anything at all about the real origins of the diary. I would not be surprised if Anne figured she had very little to lose, was running a very small risk, by that time.
Still, would it have been a "logical" thing to do? No way. But I seem to recall Peter Birchwood and RJ Palmer once pointing out to me that Mike often acted in illogical ways and therefore one could not discount the possibility that he would do so again. I suspect the same can be said for Anne. And I have never been one of her supporters or one of her detractors, or rather, perhaps, I have been both.
So when you ask me "If Anne didn't know where the diary came from would this not have been a completely reckless risk?" my answer would be yes. It would. But this certainly does not mean she didn't do such a thing. So no, it is not logical to simply assume, based on this act, that Anne knew where the diary came from. It is not even logical to assume that Anne would behave in a way that is logical. Has she so far? Has Mike? That's why, when Peter once told me that Mike would not have bought a little red diary just to see what one looked like because it was not a logical thing to do, I had to point out to him that he himself had already told me that Mike might have ordered the book he wanted to use in a forgery giving his own real name and home address because, as he insisted, Mike often does illogical things.
No, it is not logical to assume anything about what Mike and/or Anne knew or now know without first having some reliable, material evidence to support that assumption, I think.
As to where we go from here... we have been proceeding all along on the assumption that Anne wasn't going to just talk or change her story and that Mike was going to lie over and over again, haven't we? So nothing has actually changed. We are still right where we have always been. No one has any real, material evidence that would allow us determine who wrote this book or why. There is precious little real, material evidence that would allow us even to suggest who actually wrote this book and why. The Sacred Kane relics remain entombed, Melvin has told us that he does not believe that Mike or Anne's handwriting matches the diary's. We have no record of anyone else receiving any money and therefore have no clear motive for anyone else yet. The science remains completely contradictory. Neither Mike nor Anne have said anything reliable or trustworthy, but neither of them have said anything definitively incriminating either, and both have, at one time or another, shown utter contempt for everyone involved with the whole process. Anne's recent statements (or lack of statements) haven't changed the scene one little bit. Did anyone expect her to say anything different?
But I can answer your last questions easily. No, Melvin does not have a point. Not as I see it. No, it is not satisfactory to have this forgery, this book, without continuing to try and identify an author. Not for me. And yes, I want to keep on driving until I reach whatever end there is, bitter or otherwise. And I have no idea how "ruthless" things may or may not get. But I see no reason for simply walking away just because I don't know the truth yet. And just walking away because I don't know the truth yet would be counter to everything I believe about rational investigation and reading and learning and the acquisition of knowledge. I am in no hurry. I enjoy not knowing as much as I enjoy the prospect of knowing. I enjoy the mystery every bit as much as I would enjoy the solution. I even enjoy the temporary irony that the best selling book about the most famous killer never to be identified is written by someone who has not yet been identified. But I see no reason to throw up my hands and retire just because I don't know where to go next or how to get there. And I cannot imagine myself ever simply taking such a position.
There is always more reading and always more thinking and there will be new developments over time and things will change and things will happen. The movement of events is at least in one way inevitable, history drives knowledge.
So I'm sticking around, RJ.
I hope you do, too.
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 31 July 2001 - 06:28 am | | Hi John,
Just catching up as I wasn't around yesterday.
I'm sorry, but nothing - nothing - you have ever written here has impressed me quite as much as that one precious little gem from dear Ivor, when he wrote:
'He [Melvin Harris] would indeed make a master criminal in his own right...' 
I do hope Melvin appreciates that, in Ivor, he has found a true buddy – one who knows what they are both about.
Ivor also wrote:
'I can tell you this much if Melvin Harris had decided to forge that diary no one on these boards would have concidered it to be a hoax.'
So now we know that there is someone in our midst who could potentially 'solve' the JtR mystery, by producing a fake that would indeed confound all the experts, and which the whole world would declare to be genuine. (Scary thought really.)
I still think it would be a good exercise for those who think they could have made a better job of the diary and watch to try just that, and prove it to the rest of us miserable poor fools.
Isn’t it rather important, then, to try to find out as much as possible about who produced the diary and watch, when and how, and under what circumstances, so we can learn from the past mistakes of whichever experts we believe were wrong, before the next Tom, Dick, Harry - or Melvin - decides to try his luck, knowing it'll probably be another fiasco, with experts who contradict one another and appear to know bugger all about dating such artefacts – or, in Melvin’s case (according to Ivor), going one better and fooling everyone.
And as for Anne Graham, who is going to make her say anything she doesn't want to? She could rightly argue that she has no more credibility to lose, whatever she does now. Why would she even bother trying to defend her credibility, regarding the introduction to her Florie biog, if she feels those she would be appealing to already believe she has no credibility, and nothing she ever says can alter that? If anyone can think of an inducement to make her talk, I'd like to know what it is.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 31 July 2001 - 08:26 am | | | John--You didn't really answer the question. Does Ivor have a point, should pressure be put on Anne Graham? This seems at least a practical suggestion. As for your post above, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to tell whether or not you have any point whatsoever. We don't know who forged Piltdown, but no scientist takes the artifact seriously. I think we have the same situation here. Some seem to think that because Anne Graham refuses to speak, or because we haven't publically named a forger, that this somehow justifies taking the diary seriously as a historic document. I think this is misguided, and I think that is what Melvin Harris meant when he suggested that the 'who & why' questions were naive. I don't think we need a forger, but if you personally need one, John, maybe Ivor is giving you some good advice. Pointing out endles 'possibilities" isn't going to take you very far. RP |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 31 July 2001 - 09:51 am | | Hi RJ,
Oh right, I was so distracted by your claim that I was any theory's "champion" that I forgot that opening part of your post.
Sure, I think people should put any pressure on Anne Graham that they think might be effective as a way to discover what she does and does not know about the origins of this book (short of threats of violence or criminal intimidation, of course). Why not? But frankly, I'm not at all as sure as you are that this is indeed a "practical" suggestion.
I also think Caz has a point. I'm not sure what exactly can be said or what pressure can be applied, if Anne feels she has nothing to lose and no reason, in her own interest, to say anything. What "practical" inducements or intimidation or pressure can actually be put on her, without any compelling material evidence or without leverage, that would convince her to speak? But yes, I'd say consider everything, every possible approach, and see what works.
Then you say to me:
"Some seem to think that because Anne Graham refuses to speak, or because we haven't publicly named a forger, that this somehow justifies taking the diary seriously as a historic document."
If, by "taking the diary seriously as a historic document," you mean that some feel that because we haven't named a forger this alone somehow justifies believing the diary is authentic or even old, then clearly those people are wrong. Whether or not Anne Barrett has spoken and whether or not we have identified any forger should not and does not allow us to claim anything at all about the origins of this document, either in the distant past or in recent times. Nothing. The only things that would justify any claim that the diary is an authentic historic document would be reliable, material evidence of its authenticity and historical origins. The only things that would justify any claim that this diary is a modern forgery and that one or another specific person wrote it would be reliable, material evidence of its authorship and its origins.
The thing is, we do not have reliable evidence of its authenticity or its historical origins nor do we have reliable, material evidence of its modern author's identity or its specific modern origins.
Consequently, we cannot yet claim anything at all about the identity of its author(s).
But that certainly does not make the questions of "who, why, when and how" naive or simplistic or unreal. It just doesn't. Melvin is wrong. Those are not naive or simplistic or unreal questions at all and asking them, clamoring for them to be answered, is not, in any way, a naive, "simplistic" or "unreal position." It simply is not. (And the what the hell is an "unreal position" anyway?)
In fact, it is a perfectly responsible, reasonable and intellectually curious position, if anything (and I'm not sure in fact that it is a "position" at all) and one which I would expect rational and clear-thinking people faced with a document and an unknown creator to take. The fact that Melvin now chooses to find these questions "of very little interest" and refuses to meet or to share information as part of the investigation into these questions saddens me and makes me wonder about his own intellectual curiosity. It also makes me wonder why and when he had his change of heart, since he was obviously interested in these questions at one time -- interested enough to make a self-analysis of Mike and Anne's handwriting and to tell us of the three unidentified flying forgers and to join the Sacred Order of the Kane Relics and to formulate the "placer" theory of origins, etc.
Finally, RJ, I am sorry that you do not share my desire to learn the identity of the author(s) of this document or to learn how and why the document was written. These are, to me, fascinating questions (much more fascinating than the initial one concerning whether or not James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper). They are also questions whose answers might very well teach us valuable lessons for the next time we are faced with such a document or artifact or situation. And they are questions which surround a simple, intriguing, human mystery. I want to know, because I don't know. I am intrigued by not knowing. I am even fascinated and delighted by not knowing. But I still want to know. And I think that among all those people out there who bought the book and read the book and became interested in the book and its origins, there are probably more than a few who also want to know who actually wrote it and why.
And RJ, I am of course not only "pointing out endless possibilities," I am pointing out that the evidence (and lack of evidence) that we currently have at our disposal does not allow us to responsibly or reliably choose one particular possibility over the other, despite what people might claim or want to claim or need to claim to feel satisfied. I am evaluating, logically and rationally, what people consider evidence and what they consider it to be evidence of, and I am trying my best to determine what that evidence does and does not fairly and responsibly allow us to claim. And yes, this is indeed one of the ways that we move towards understanding. This does indeed contribute to the business of "taking us very far." Even if we still don't know where we are going or what conclusions we are eventually going to reach.
So I will continue to read. And I still hope you will too, even if you now feel that you personally do not need to know who wrote this book or why.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 31 July 2001 - 10:43 am | | Hi RJ,
When you say it's a practical suggestion, what do you mean? What sort of pressure do you think should or could be put on Anne, and who by?
Whether you think anyone is really suggesting we should be 'taking the diary seriously as a historic document', solely or even partly because Anne refuses to speak, and the forger hasn't been named (and Melvin has neither Anne nor Mike down as the forger), is neither here nor there. But I'm not suggesting that, and I don't think either situation even begins to sum up, or do any justice to, the whole complex picture which has left Shirley and Keith still searching for proof which would satisfy them that either of their own beliefs is wrong.
You are entitled to your own opinion that we don't 'need a forger'. But Shirley and Keith are equally entitled to theirs, if this is what they do need, before they can drop their own beliefs - it's that simple. Pointing out endlessly what you believe, and what you think others should concentrate on, hasn't taken you very far either.
And if you and Melvin don't need a forger, and he has said Anne placed the diary anyway, and didn't fake it, why are you remotely interested in the suggestion that pressure be put on Anne? What do you see it achieving?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Mark List
Tuesday, 31 July 2001 - 02:38 pm | | Is it possible (or a possiblity) that Whoever forged the Diary actually believed that Maybrick was the Ripper?
Mark |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 31 July 2001 - 02:50 pm | | Dear Mr Smith,
I contacted the FSS today and I was informed that they would contact me as soon as possible with news of what can be done in relation to the diary.Cheryl Coelho is no longer working in the section who will deal with the diary but I was informed by her replacement that scientific advances have been made since I last contacted them. I will post their comments on this board as soon as I recieve them. Thank you for your patience in this matter. |
Author: Bob Hinton
Tuesday, 31 July 2001 - 02:57 pm | | Dear Ivor,
I wasn't sure who it was who wrote the post but since you say it was you I've no reason to doubt it since your post of July 30 demonstrates faulty thinking to a far greater degree than I ever could.
You end your piece by saying " I talk from experience you do not" Ivor you know absolutely nothing about me, my life, my work, my experiences, my depth of knowledge or my qualifications, so how on earth you can say I do not speak from experience I've no idea.
Far from assuming too much I assume correctly. You speak of criminals not being caught, by which you mean I presume tried and convicted. I never mentioned anything of the sort. I spoke of criminals being discovered, in other words identified as criminals, if you spoke to them as criminals then obviously they have been identified as such if only by you!
A truly successful criminal is one who has never been identiifed as such by anyone.
It doesn't surprise me that the police visit a lot of failed criminals in prison, I've done so myself, but since the average conviction rate for all crimes is about 3%, it doesn't say much for this method of clearing up unsolved crimes does it? I've no need to think again - I'm quite happy with my first thoughts.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 31 July 2001 - 02:59 pm | | | John, Thank you for your departing kind words and I also have gleaned pleasure from our debate.Thank you very much for being so civil in your approach it does you credit.It would appear that I can learn something from you. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 31 July 2001 - 05:56 pm | | Hi Bob, Where do you get your 3% from.I hope it is not from an offical source because if it is then I dont believe it.You are stating that the police informers system in the whole of the UK is only responsible for 3% of crime!!That leaves 97% of crime so who is responsible for solving that 97% the general public? It sure isn't the police.Please dont tell me the police otherwise I will think you are one yourself, are you a policeman ?
Can you give a break down on what percentage of crime is solved by the police.For example the police call upon the public all the time to aid them because they cant solve crime on their own.So what is the percentage of crime solved by the public.Why cant the police do the job they are paid for? Why should members of the public be asked to do their job for them? I know that the police force leaves a lot to be desired. They even have the cheek these days to put in outragous claims for compensation due to baby related stress in dealing with criminals. What we need in the force are real honest men not a bunch of useless wet ninnys who only decided to become policeman because they could not hack it as criminals. The main reason hanging was abolished in the UK was because too many innocent people were being murdered in the name of justice by the efforts of either incompetent or bent police officers. Since they abolished hanging one needs only to look at the endless list of innocent people released from life sentences because of the same reasons.If the police force spent as much time catching criminals as they did harrassing innocent people then they might do better.You note I state 'might' |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 05:18 am | | Hi Ivor,
And what if Mike and Anne turn out to be innocent of forging the diary (as Melvin has claimed), or innocent of any involvement in its creation, yet have had many people 'harrassing' them here on the boards - people who believe in their guilt without ever having met them?
At least the police go through the basic motions of meeting and interviewing their suspects (on tape!) while gathering the evidence against them.
That's got to be preferable to condemning a person from afar, while the 'evidence' still remains either contradictory or totally absent. If people tried a bit harder instead, to learn more about the diary and watch suspects, they might do better, and they might just avoid the prosepct of having to eat their words later on.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 06:14 am | | | Or even the prospect... |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 07:42 am | | From Keith Skinner To R.J.
Dear R.J.
If pressure should be put on Anne Graham, presumably to disclose the identity of the person – or people – who told her and Mike to place the Diary, should that same pressure be brought to bear on Melvin Harris to reveal the same information?
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 07:43 am | | Hi RJ,
Keith has a point, you know.
How would it help if Anne just said yes, she and Mike simply placed the diary? (We know that much already, don’t we, even if Anne was initially reluctant to do so.) She would have to give verifiable details of the circumstances under which the couple were asked to handle and place a document she knew to be recently forged. And that would have to include the very thing you and Melvin say you don’t need – the actual forger - otherwise how could her new story be verified? Or would we all just take Anne’s word for it this time?
And what if Anne were unable to provide such details, even if she wanted to, any more than she can prove she first saw the diary in the late 1960s? What if the Barretts really did get the diary from Devereux, for instance, and he died before telling them where it came from, or what, if anything, he wanted them to do with it?
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
